All for the money

Should Andrew Jackson be Removed from the $20 Bill? -By Carrie McLachlan, advanced doctoral student in the Ph.D. Program in American Indian History at UCR focusing on Cherokee cultural history.
Should the image of the Author/Executor of Indian Removal continue to appear on the $20 bill?
Should we continue to honor a man who was insubordinate on several occasions, refusing to honor laws, international treaties, Supreme Court decisions, and the orders of superior officers?
Andrew Jackson threatened to use the power of the United States army against Indian nations who refused to sign removal treaties. Andrew Jackson biographer Robert V. Remini admits that Jackson deliberately used tactics to inspire fear and terror:
"…fear! On more than one occasion Jackson resorted to that tactic to achieve his purposes. And because of his demeanor, shrill voice and "hawk-like" eyes he was a master at terrorizing his victims" (Remini, Andrew Jackson and the Course of American Empire, 1767-1821, 311).
Contemporaries of Jackson denounced him for his tyrannical practices. After Andrew Jackson vetoed the Bank Bill in 1832, killing the National Bank, an unknown artist depicted Jackson as "King Andrew the First" (http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/treasures_of_congress/Images/page_9/30a.html).
Earlier, 1814-1815, the citizens of New Orleans experienced his tyrannical nature as he held the city under martial law for months after the Battle of New Orleans. Jackson was tried, convicted, and fined $1,000 for contempt of court for refusing to obey a writ of habeas corpus in regard to Jackson’s arrest of Louis Louailler. Robert Remini states:
"… the more the people cried out for a relaxation of the tyranny, the more Jackson turned the screw. Efforts … to organize meetings to protest his violation of their constitutional rights … only invited further repression. … Jackson behaved in a highhanded, bizarre and dangerous manner. Defending a city in the face of clear and imminent danger can justify a multitude of improprieties; Jackson’s present disregard of civil and judicial authority-to say nothing of individual legal and constitutional rights -when he had all but absolute certification that the war was over cannot be justified by any stretch of the imagination (Remini, Course of American Empire, 311-313).
Some people have compared Andrew Jackson’s removal policy with some of Adolph Hitler’s acts of genocide. Hitler’s image has not appeared on German currency. Ward Churchill insists that
"in heroicizing people like … Andrew Jackson … society strongly reinforces the notion that their genocidal conduct was/is an appropriate and acceptable manner in which to attain fame and "immortality." Conversely, placing them where they belong in the historical lexicon-alongside the likes of Attila the Hun and Heinrich Himmler-would tend to convey the opposite message" (A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas 1492 to the Present, 1997, 251n).

No comments: