[March 15th
marks the 250th anniversary of Andrew
Jackson’s birth. So this week I’ll AmericanStudy five sides to this controversial,
influential figure and president,
leading up to a special weekend post on Jackson and Trump!]
On three
historical ironies surrounding Jackson’s presence (for
now!) on the twenty.
1)
The Federal Reserve/Paper Money: When Jackson
finally managed to kill the Second Bank of the United States, it stayed dead,
and so did any idea of a national bank—right up until 1913, when the latest in
a long line of financial panics convinced Congress to pass the Federal
Reserve Act to create a new such national monetary system. Jackson was also
an impassioned opponent of paper money (he cautioned against its use in his March 1837 farewell address),
and one of the new Federal Reserve’s first steps was to create a series of new
bills, including a $20 bill in 1914. Grover
Cleveland was the first choice for the president on that currency, but in
1928, on the 100th anniversary of his first election to the presidency,
Andrew
Jackson became the twenty’s portrait (Cleveland was shifted to the $1000).
I can’t say that I much mind the thought of Jackson cursing from beyond the
grave his inability to challenge the architects of each and every one of these
policies and steps to one last duel.
2)
Grover Cleveland’s Marriage: Speaking of Jackson’s
duels, it’s also ironic that he replaced Cleveland on the $20, since Cleveland’s
presidential marriage was likely the other most unusual in our history. A
bachelor at the time of his inauguration, the 48 year old Cleveland soon
developed a relationship with Frances
Folsom, a Wells College undergraduate who was both 21 years old and
something of a ward of Cleveland’s (he had helped supervise her upbringing
after the death of her father, Cleveland’s friend Oscar Folsom). Cleveland and
Folsom were married
in the White House’s Blue Room on June 2nd, 1886. While it would
seem that some of those details might have been cause for scandal, apparently Frances
and the marriage were generally well received; whereas while Andrew Jackson
married a woman whom he had helped escape from an abusive marriage and who was
still married only because of a technicality, she and the marriage would become
the source of constant rumors and accusations throughout Jackson’s life and
political career. I do feel worse about this Old Hickory irony, to be clear.
3)
Harriet Tubman: Whereas this historical irony?
This one I don’t feel the slightest bit badly about. I’m with those who felt
and feel that Jackson
should have been replaced by almost any historical figure on the twenty—not
because he’s some sort of monster (although as I discussed in Tuesday’s post,
he unquestionably did some monstrous things as president), but because we have
precious few such currency slots, and they should go to truly impressive and
inspiring figures. While I would have been fine with any of the
four women who became finalists for the twenty—and certainly Cherokee
Principal Chief Wilma Mankiller would have represented a particularly delicious
irony in her own right—I think Harriet Tubman is most definitely an inspired
choice. Not just because Jackson was a slaveowner, although yes, that. But also
and even more pitch-perfectly because while much of Jackson’s life featured some
of the worst forms of social and political violence—dueling, “Indian fighting,”
warmaking, and forced removal—Tubman
embodies the Underground Railroad, a form of social resistance and activism
that was both nonviolent and hugely effective. We can’t and shouldn’t eliminate
Jackson from our collective memories—but replacing him with Tubman on the $20?
Easiest call ever.
Special post
this weekend,
Ben
PS. What do you
think? Other Jackson histories or contexts you’d highlight?
No comments:
Post a Comment