Several weeks ago, an online campaign titled “Women on 20s” generated a lot of buzz in the realm of social media. The movement championed one goal: to persuade the U.S. Treasury to replace Andrew Jackson with a historically influential American woman on the $20 bill. “Women on 20s” circulated surveys asking Americans which woman they would like to see receive this high honor. Some possible candidates included Eleanor Roosevelt, former First Lady and diplomat, and Harriet Tubman, prominent abolitionist and leader of the Underground Railroad.
Last week, the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury announced that in 2020, one century after the 19th Amendment granted women the right to vote, a woman would replace Alexander Hamilton on the $10 bill. Mission accomplished, right? Not exactly. A victory to some but a head-scratcher to others, the Treasury’s decision is agreeable in theory, but remains a bit off the mark.
While a woman’s face appearing on American money is a privilege long overdue, such a privilege should not be bestowed hastily. Although the $10 bill is next in line for redesign (which is why the Treasury chose to replace Hamilton before Jackson), “Women on 20s” specifically chose to replace Jackson, not Hamilton, for several reasons. Although Jackson was a fiercely memorable figure in American history, it is impossible to speak of his legacy without recalling his harsh treatment of Native Americans through the Trail of Tears. This forced relocation of Natives from the fertile southeastern U.S. to arid Oklahoma resulted in their suffering, starving, and dying by the thousands.
In addition, Jackson notoriously opposed the implementation of a central bank in the United States, as he was a longtime skeptic of financial institutions. He favored the use of “hard money,” AKA gold and silver coins, over paper banknotes. Thus, it is fundamentally unusual to feature Jackson’s face on American money, especially on a paper bill.
Hamilton, unlike Jackson, held a nearly pristine track record as civil servant. Appointed first Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, Hamilton created new fiscal policies that would help the U.S. government repay the debts of the American Revolution and establish future credit with other nations. Today, Hamilton is considered the father of American banking. Beyond the Treasury, Hamilton strongly advocated for the ratification of the Constitution through his writings in The Federalist Papers. Essentially, he was an all-American hero, and a crucial Founding Father.
So how do women fit into this situation? It goes without saying that putting a woman on U.S. currency would be a significant step forward in the quest for gender equality, not to mention that it would allude strongly to a reparation of the wage gap between American men and women. Nevertheless, it is important that when (not if) we put a woman on American paper currency, we do it properly. We shouldn’t jump to replace one well-deserving individual with another, regardless of gender. If we can wait a few years, it will be much more logical (and daresay patriotic) when the face of a revolutionary American female replaces that of Andrew Jackson: consider what a high honor it will be for her to share cash registers, wallets, and piggy banks everywhere with men as noble as Hamilton, Lincoln, and Washington.That she has the chance to share her role with such revered figures will say much more about her repute in the long run of American history.
Sources:
http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/17/news/economy/woman-on-ten-dollar-bill/
http://americanhistory.si.edu/presidency/5d5.html
http://www.ushistory.org/us/24d.asp
http://www.womenon20s.org/about
http://www.biography.com/people/alexander-hamilton-9326481#deadly-duel