In 2014, the Treasury Department announced that it would remove Andrew Jackson’s portrait from the $20 bill and replace it with the portrait of a great woman from U.S. history, in time for the 100th anniversary of women’s suffrage throughout the United States with the passage of the 19th amendment.
Earlier this year, it was announced that, in fact, the $10 bill is the one scheduled for a redo, and Alexander Hamilton’s portrait would be replaced (although he would somehow, somewhere, remain on the bill.) This has
caused a bit of controversy.
Not many people would disagree that it’s time for a woman’s portrait on U. S. paper money, but there is a lot of disagreement about which man’s portrait should be replaced. There are also those who think the new portrait should appear on the more prominent bill (there are between 4 and 5 times as many 20s in circulation as 10s.)
Of the two men, who deserves to be on money more and who should be removed? Alexander Hamilton was an officer, a war hero, a founding father and great advocate for the Constitution, the first Secretary of the Treasury, creator of the Bank of the United States (and he figured out a way to pay the Revolutionary War debt,) and an occasional duelist. It certainly seems that he would be proud to have his portrait on money.
Andrew Jackson was an officer, a war hero, seventh President of the United States, a great advocate of democracy, an occasional duelist, a hater of paper money, a hater of the rechartered Bank of the United States, and a believer in gold and silver being the only currency. It seems that he might be baffled as to why his portrait is on paper money. His detractors also point out that his economic policies led to the worst depression in the country up to that time, that he was a slave-owner (and had been a slave trader,) and that he was brutal towards Native Americans.