Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Hands Off Hamilton
They’re coming for our money. Ok, that’s nothing new, but this time, the Obama Administration is coming for our $10 bills – the notes graced by the image of Alexander Hamilton. True to the identity politics of the Democratic Party, the Obama Treasury Department has announced that some worthy female will replace Hamilton on the currency.
The sheer arrogance, ignorance, and stupidity of this move are difficult to capture in one column.
Let’s start with stupidity. If there’s one figure whose face arguably does not deserve to adorn the currency, it’s the man on the $20 dollar bill, not the $10. That is Andrew Jackson, seventh president of the United States, adamant opponent of paper currency (!), friend of slave power, and scourge of Native Americans. Who can forget that when the Cherokee appealed their treatment by the state of Georgia to the Supreme Court, and won, that President Jackson refused to enforce the law? Jackson pushed for and signed the Indian Removal Act, which led directly to the forced deportation of nearly 17,000 Choctaw, Creek, Cherokee, and others – known as the Trail of Tears. He was fiercely opposed in this by his predecessor, John Quincy Adams, who took the view (in case you’re tempted to argue that Jackson was only doing what was possible at the time) that Indians should be paid for their land if they wished to sell, and that they should be given the protections of the U.S. Constitution.
There was actually a little boomlet to replace Jackson on the $20 bill. Alas, like so much in our era, it wasn’t so much about consigning the flawed Jackson to much-deserved obscurity as about putting a woman’s face on the bill. The “Women on 20s” campaign ginned up some signatures and apparently attracted the approval of the president. But according to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, the $10 is up for a security redesign, so, what the heck. Hamilton who?
Here’s the arrogance: The Treasury Department is downgrading Hamilton, without whom there might not be a United States currency, just because they yearn to check a “diversity” box, and without consulting the American people. Hamilton was a poor kid from the West Indies who immigrated to New York, joined the patriot army at age 17 or 18 and organized an artillery company, became an aide to General George Washington, authored more than half of the Federalist Papers, and served as first Treasury Secretary of the United States where he structured the finances of our infant republic so that we didn’t drown in debt. He was also a fierce opponent of slavery.
Hamilton belongs in the pantheon of American heroes. Though we’re currently in a fad for the founders – countless successful biographies of Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Madison, and Jefferson have been published and relished over the past couple of decades – our debt to those extraordinary men is bottomless. Besides, only a tiny fraction of the public buys books. Meanwhile, the AP American history exam is being hijacked by progressives to downgrade the greatness of the founders. Hamilton deserves far more than a place on the $10 bill – and he certainly deserves no less.
Finally, ignorance. Senator Jeanne Shaheen gushes that putting a female on the $10 will tell “young girls across this country . . . that they too can grow up and do something great for their country.” This is tiresome. Girls and women are doing great in America. Girls graduate from high school at higher rates than boys. They attend and graduate from college at significantly higher rates. U.S. Census Bureau data show that in 2012, 71 percent of female high school graduates went on to college, compared to 61 percent of young men. While men’s wages have stagnated for three decades, women’s have been rising. Women outnumber men in the workforce, even in professional, managerial, and technical occupations. [Source: “Wayward Sons,” a Third Way report] So, please, spare us the patronizing “female role model” nonsense.
Here’s the solution: Upgrade the security features on the $10, but keep Hamilton in his spot. Dump Jackson from the $20 and hold an essay competition among American high school seniors for his replacement. It would be a great exercise in the appreciation of excellence. Both sexes may be nominated. There are many American women who could be chosen – Emily Dickinson, Harriett Tubman, Laura Ingalls Wilder, Susan B. Anthony? But by announcing in advance that you’re choosing a woman, you’ve guaranteed that the honor will be downgraded to the “best woman” rather than the best candidate. In short, you’d be echoing the Hillary Clinton campaign.
Published in Culture
A look at my picture tells you how I feel about this. Apart from Washington, Franklin and Lincoln, I don’t know who would be more deserving of being featured on our currency.
In a way, this illustates the liberals inability to acccept the fortuitous nature of history. The opportunity to found a great nation may arise once in a millenium. The role of women at the time precluded their full participation. Recognizing the unique and momentous accomplishment of the founders does nothing to diminish women. Asserting that girls cannot be inspired by Hamilton is the very definition of sexism. His sex shouldn’t preclude his being a role model for us all.
The ironic thing is that Hamilton called a well-managed national debt a blessing and established one (Great Britain’s made it top dog and dependable long-term paper still makes a lot of things in finance possible–like running an insurance company). Jackson paid the debt off completely in 1835, for the first and, hopefully last, time. Because the Panic of 1837, a deep 4-year depression, and the default on debt by several US states in 1841* were (arguably) the consequence. So who do you bump from the currency? Maybe the criterion was success in dueling.
*Apparently a state can’t declare bankruptcy–not covered in the Federal Bankruptcy code, possibly because it’s unconstitutional. They can, however, default on their debt. Which means the Governor just runs down an alley whenever he sees a bondholder walking towards him on the street. Hard to stop him from doing that. 1841 was the last time a state defaulted. But stay tuned.
SP, I would respectfuly disagree on both points. The Panic of 1837 may have been a necessary adjustment to govt interference in the economy, exasperated by happenings in the UK and Mexico. And free market economists, who have gone into their research with a more sceptical eye than mainstream economists, find convincing evidence that the average guy didn’t suffer nearly as long or as much as standard histories claim. Jackson and Van Buren after him, by getting the government out of the banking business, set up the nation for decades of growth.
And default the consequence of the downturn? Nah, the default of all those states was due to their pie in the sky dreams of borrowing money for state-built canals. Keynesins, 19th c version, misinterpreted the ambiguous success of the Erie Canal as indicating that borrowing money to recreate a veritable Eden was possible. When their dreams all came tumbling down, almost every state passed constitutional amendments against “internal improvements” in order to stop the deficit spending and orgy of government canal building.
The spending and the canals, though, were all very Hamiltonian. Just like our modern debt spending on grand government projects. So I say leave him on the bill. He deserves on place on a fiat money bank note.
We could always follow Belgium’s lead and just mint an $11 bill…..
Hamilton had absolutely nothing to do with creating the dollar, and was only marginally involved in creating our modern financial system. America did not have a monetary union until after the Civil War, and even then we didn’t have a true single currency until just before World War I.
It is true that Hamilton advocated for exactly the sort of financial system we have today, and is rightly considered to have been correct (and Jefferson and Jackson wrong), even prescient, where financial matters were concerned.
That said, I hate Andrew Jackson as much as the next guy and would love to see him replaced on the $20 bill.
We should use Mona’s essay contest to promote disharmony in the unholy alliance that is the left.
Rig the contest so that the semi-finalists are:
Susan B. Anthony
Cesar Chavez
Muhammad Ali
Harvey Milk
That will give incentive to performance artists/counterfeitters to produce bills with other people on them. Soon, we’ll find Howard Stern twenties circulating.
I actually don’t mind changing the portraits on our currency every few years. As a coin and currency collector, I’ve seen that we used to do that much more often, but the portraits on the different denominations have been fixed since the current small-sized paper money was introduced in the 1920s. zin the late 1800s, there was a wonderful series of bills called the “Education Series,” which featured beautiful engravings of scientific and historical motifs:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_Series
My disagreement with the proposed change is its obvious bow to identity politics. I hate the politicization of these choices, especially the thinking that it has to be someone of a particular race or sex or ethnicity. That’s un-American.
But I also strongly disagree with the response that Andrew Jackson should be dumped. Aside from the Trail of Tears, all of the other critiques presented of him are things that I admire in him. I’m strenuously opposed to Grant being honored—an honorable soldier, to be sure, but a man who invaded my state and conquered my ancestors’ country, and the president of a thoroughly corrupt administration. But I’m not pushing to dump him from the $50. I grumble about Lincoln, who ordered the invasion in the first place, but therre’s no chance of toppling him. And being a Jeffersonian, I’m often on the other side of issues from Alexander Hamilton, despite sharing his surname. (The reasons Mona gives for keeping Hamilton on the $10 are, to me, justifications for keeping him off. ;) But he doesn’t bother me, really.
If we could put a lid on the quota-pushers and those who want to politicize the issue (I know, like that will ever happen), I’d be perfectly happy to rotate our artwork every decade. My most important criterion, though, is that it be elegant and beautiful, two things we have entirely lost (except for the $1 and $2) since the mid-90’s redesign.
P.S: My second criterion is that Washington and Jefferson are kept in the rotation permanently. The modern activist Left has few bigger demons, I fear, than our two greatest Presidents, and they’d love to have them removed.
Grant has the honor of destroying the Confederacy, an action that makes up for several faults. Such is the price of national union.
Since the only qualification is that it be a woman, just make it a generic woman. If she happened to look exactly like Margaret Thatcher, that would be okay with me too.