A Politically Correct Twenty-Dollar Bill and the Two-Front War Against Andrew Jackson


– 4 August 2015 –


Clusivius-sqFrom March 1 to May 10 of this year, a feminist group called Women on the 20s held several votes to see which feminist heroine should replace the reviled Andrew Jackson on the 20-dollar bill for the 100th anniversary of female suffrage in 2020.  Out of fifteen original candidates, Harriet Tubman was selected in the final vote, beating out Eleanor Roosevelt, Rosa Parks, and Wilma Mankiller.  (I have to assume that the bull dyke contingent of feminist voters pushed the relatively undeserving Mankiller into the final round.)

Perhaps coincidentally, the US Treasury announced last June that they intend to put a woman on a redesigned 10-dollar bill to commemorate the 2020 centennial; they welcomed suggestions as to whom.  But now Leftists are throwing a hissy fit over the removal of Alexander Hamilton from the ten, a man who founded the Treasury, promoted central banking, and wanted slavery abolished, instead of that horrible slave owner and Indian-remover Andrew Jackson, a president who vehemently opposed central banking.

Oddly, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has remained somewhat firm on the decision to change the ten-dollar bill instead of the twenty.

Lew said in June that the $10 was the next bill due for a redesign, and that proceeding with a plan to feature a woman on that bill would be the quickest way to accomplish the goal of putting a deserving woman from history on paper money.

If the Treasury decides to keep Jackson instead of Hamilton or some other figure, it will prove just how much the Federal Reserve wants to stick it to the corpse of Andrew Jackson.


In his war against the National Bank, Andrew Jackson was a hero to the common man and a villain to the financial elites.

Jackson several times urged against the renewal of the charter of the Second Bank of the United States, but when the issue came up for a vote in 1832, Bank president Nicholas Biddle personally campaigned, pressured, and threatened Congressmen and Senators to renew the bank, which they finally did.  But Jackson vetoed the bill, an abuse of his power by the standards of the day.  He justified his actions:

It is maintained by some that the bank is a means of executing the constitutional power “to coin money and regulate the value thereof.” Congress have established a mint to coin money and passed laws to regulate the value thereof. The money so coined, with its value so regulated, and such foreign coins as Congress may adopt are the only currency known to the Constitution. But if they have other power to regulate the currency, it was conferred to be exercised by themselves, and not to be transferred to a corporation. If the bank be established for that purpose, with a charter unalterable without its consent, Congress have parted with their power for a term of years, during which the Constitution is a dead letter. It is neither necessary nor proper to transfer its legislative power to such a bank, and therefore unconstitutional.

Biddle attempted to destroy the US economy to force Congress to overturn Jackson’s veto, and the country did fall into a terrible depression for a number of years.  The central bankers loathed Jackson, and I suspect that they were behind the attempt in 1835 to assassinate him.

When Jackson was leaving through the East Portico after the funeral of South Carolina Representative Warren R. Davis, Richard Lawrence, an unemployed house painter from England, aimed a pistol at Jackson, which misfired. Lawrence pulled out a second pistol, which also misfired. Historians believe the humid weather contributed to the double misfiring.[103] Lawrence was restrained, and legend says that Jackson attacked Lawrence with his cane.

Sounds like holy providence to me.


Might the bankers have hated Jackson enough to assassinate him? Two failed pistols by holy providence, Jackson lived to beat the assassin with his cane.

Ultimately Jackson refused to budge and the common people continued to overwhelmingly support him.  The US Treasury withdrew its bank deposits to several state banks, and the National Bank eventually withered away like a dried-up dead witch.

Under Andrew Jackson, the United States paid off all of its debts for the first time—and last time—in history.  The country remained free from the centralizing power of a national bank until the Federal Reserve was created in 1913 (the same year that the income tax was established).  For his fierce resistance against the tyranny of the Bank, Jackson is a hero in my book, perhaps my favorite president of all.

Jackson would have despised the Federal Reserve, correctly seeing the bank as the promoter of the wealthy elite at the expense of the working poor.  Including him on the 20-dollar bill would have certainly infuriated him.

I suspect that the resurrected national bank added Jackson to the 20-dollar bill in 1928 not to simply commemorate the one-hundredth anniversary of his election, but to celebrate his ultimate defeat in the war against centralized banking by continually twisting the knife in Jackson’s dead guts with every cash transaction.  However, we don’t know for certain why Jackson was added to the bill, as the Treasury refuses to divulge why they choose certain people to appear on the currency:

Treasury Department records do not reveal the reason that portraits of these particular statesmen were chosen in preference to those of other persons of equal importance and prominence. By law, only the portrait of a deceased individual may appear on U.S. currency and securities. Specifics concerning this law may be found under United States Code, Title 31, Section 5114(b).

Now it seems the memory of Andrew Jackson is being attacked from two sides: those banking elites who aren’t yet tired of kicking at Jackson’s corpse, and the Leftist egalitarians who despise his actions against the Indian nations and his ownership of slaves.


Hated by the far-Left and the faux-Right, Jackson should be a hero to the common American white man.

If the Treasury keeps Jackson on the twenty against the juggernaut forces of political correctness, it will demonstrate how long the shadowy banking elites can hold a grudge.

Interestingly, all of this argument among the Leftists might be a moot point by 2020, with a growing movement against physical cash itself.  Maybe they will stick Tubman’s frowning face on the Mark of the Beast.

Leave a comment


  1. I nominate: Jackie “Moms” Mabellie.


    • I confess that didn’t know who Moms Mabellie was and had to look her up. Having read about her and watched some of her performances, I’d say that she’s not any worse than most of the rest of the feminist candidates.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Reblogged this on Brittius.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: