If you haven’t been living under a rock for the past few months, you know then that the United States of America is replacing the front side of the $20 bill from the portrait of our 7th president, Andrew Jackson, to the famous female abolitionist, Harriet Tubman.

Let me start off by stating that I think Harriet Tubman is a legend, she’s a courageous woman who helped the lives of African American slaves and she showed us all that in a time of utter chaos and immorality, how moral a person could be. Harriet Tubman seeks to remind the world that there does exist good despite all the evil that we encounter, someone still has the courage and the fortitude to stand up for goodness However, I do not believe that her visage belongs on the $20. And I DEFINITELY do not think that she should be re-positioning Andrew Jackson.

First, we have to ask ourselves what it means to have your visage on our country’s currency. The best way to do that is examine the people who are already on our money besides Jackson. Washington, Lincoln, Hamilton, Franklin, (notice which one is missing) all of these men were pivotal to the foundation of this country, and all of them have in some way affect the Federal Government, which is what money is, the debt of the Federal Government. Harriet Tubman on the other hand, again who was a Saint, did not.

Money is not some Historical Tapestry where we put the faces of all the saints and saviors of the USA money is inherently rooted in the government and the people on the money should be as well.

Now, where Andrew Jackson is concerned, it is true, the crimes he committed against the Native Americans are inexcusable, there is no moral person who would ever attempt to justify the atrocities that he enacted. But, little do most know, Andrew Jackson was against the wealthy controlling the banks, (I wish I knew of a current political candidate who was against the wealthy controlling the banks). He insisted on hiring officials based on merit and not on birth status, and he told congress to reform embezzlement laws in an effort to stop fraud. Additionally, he increased the benefits that veterans received greatly. Oh, and Andrew Jackson was the ONLY president ever in our 200+ years of being a country to pay off the ENTIRE national debt.

All of these things that Andrew Jackson did, helped us as a COUNTRY and assisted in establishing us as a modern nation. While Harriet Tubman is the epitome of moral decency, I do not believe that she had a foundational impact that President Andrew Jackson had. Not that she couldn’t have had said impact, if she was in a position of authority like the presidency she probably could have propelled this country even further than Jackson did, but the facts are that she simply wasn’t.

Call me crazy, but if a president positively and powerfully impacts the foundation of our country then I believe he deserves a portrait on the anterior of our money. People like Theodore Roosevelt, F.D.R, J.F.K, and debatably Reagan deserve a spot on our legal tender bills (who has half dollars anymore?) And I do stress the word ‘our’ since it is the money we all use every day.

Ulysses Simpson Grant on the other hand whose shining countenance appears starkly on the $50 note will remain there, unmoved. This man was the 18th president of the United States, the president who ordered the expulsion of “Jews as a Class” from areas of Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee (seriously, look it up, he actually did that) The 18th president of the United States who oversaw the economic turmoil known as the ‘Long depression’ where 89 US Railroads went bankrupt. This man is going to remain on the US currency, he’s not going to be put on the back, or stricken, or molested in any way. I think that if we wanted to send a clear message against Hatred, and against bad Governments, he’s the goat we should be scaping, not Andrew Jackson.

Although Harriet Tubman's visage stands as a moral beacon, it does not belong on the US currency since her station, while noble, wasn't related to the foundation of the United States. Additionally, if we are going to put her on our money it is not the face of Andrew Jackson that should be given the long goodbye, or in this case the flip-around. But it is the face of the antisemitic, alcoholic, and economically inept Ulysses S. Grant that should be up for reconsideration.