have changed a lot since then. And I don't see why the founder of a party, in and of itself, warrants being put on money of all the people.

He had a big part of the economy in some way but I embarrassingly don't remember exactly what it was. The Mint thought it was appropriate to keep him on the back of the twenty for that reason.

while Woodrow Wilson was President. To commemorate this, Wilson was featured on the $100,000 federal reserve note, which was only used internally at the fed. Jackson opposed national banks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Federal_Reserve_System

Jefferson knew enough to feel guilty about it. Jackson was a complete SOB as a human being. Violent, stupid, genocidal and racist. He's one of ours, but we really ought to not honor him in any way.

The man on the back certifies that the tender is good! The whole thing is bizarre. Why bother if she has to share. I can just see people only accepting the money if he is face up.

I agree with you.

The fucking law began the process to remove Native Americans from their Native lands.

He wasn't a perfect man? Holy shit!

I can't debate a defender of the most racist President ever.

Before you run from this debate read up and learn something!

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/03/andrew_jackson_should_be_kicked_off_the_20_bill_he_ordered_a_genocide.html

I think that was the case here.

of native americans have to be on it with Harriet Tubman?

Can you see how this seems just a tad bit oppositional?

And why when we are going to put the first female on paper currency does she have to share it? Especially with Andrew Jackson???

some really awful people saved our asses in both the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812.

I wish they would take him off completely.

and it turns out she was just some other male president's wife!

I'll get over it.

He hated central banks with a passion and he was the one who killed the charter for the second Bank of the United States.
I think he would tell us to remove his portrait from the note completely, if he were here today.

he would shoot us in a duel

He was a vile human being, and this is something he would have considered an insult.

Washingtons.
Jackson's
Franklins
Harrisons

They can call it the Tubman or Harriet. Either or.

Honestly I couldn't tell you who was on what other than George Washington and that's only because of the ONE and FIRST relationship.

Why do we need people on money anyway?

Oh, stop it. You thought of this too.

The soul of the Democratic Party is still torn between these two philosophies.

Jefferson felt that the party should represent the common man, but that the country should be run by the educated elites for the benefit of the common man.

Jackson felt that the party should represent the common man, but that the common man should run the country for his own benefit.

Keep it the way it is, or make a $30 or $200 bill and add the others to those.

Personally I feel that he shouldn't be on the bill at all.

Only to find that Andrew Jackson is going to remain on the back? What kind of nonsense is this? I agree. It is ridiculous. It almost feels antithetical to its intention which is honoring this brave lady. What? She is not worthy of a whole bill?

Washington — IS it really possible that Alexander Hamilton, of all people, is about to relegate a woman to the back of the $10 bill, just 10 months after the Treasury Department promised to feature a woman on the new version of the note?

With Hamilton, a philandering liar who was the first secretary of the Treasury, having a star turn on Broadway, his successor Jacob J. Lew has apparently decided to keep him on the front of the bill. According to reports, Secretary Lew will place a woman (or perhaps several women) on the back.

It’s yet another “wait your turn” moment for American women. When formerly enslaved men got the right to vote in 1870, women demanding their own suffrage were told to wait; their turn would come. It took a half-century, and a heroic struggle, before they achieved the vote in 1920.

The updated $10 bill, scheduled to enter circulation in 2020, was supposed to celebrate the centennial of that achievement. Now it will be more like a footnote. That is more than a broken promise; it’s a blatant and insulting statement of women’s second-class status.

Only because I wanna see what people draw on his face...

That would be fun.

We say we represent freedom, then overthrow governments around the world and steal elections from ourselves.

We say we stand for peace, then lie to start wars.

We said we freed the slaves, then continued to deny African-Americans their civil rights for 150 years.

So yeah, why wouldn't we put a slave and a slave-holder on the same bill? One side represents what we pretend to be, the other side reminds us of what we really are.

I think they're going to place multiple faces of historical figures on several of the bills, including the $10. The more detail, the harder it is to counterfeit; at least that's what an old dorm-mate from Wharton who works for the BEP told me several years ago.

Andrew Jackson is better known for Jacksonian democracy than the other items, which is why he was on the currency to begin with. The concept of "greater democracy for the common man" and the freeing of slaves goes hand-in-hand in my POV.

From wiki: