|
Discussion Poll
|
|
Should Andrew Jackson's image be REMOVED from the United States $20 Bill?
|
|
|
|
| |
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).
|
