Treasury Sec. to announce Harriet Tubman will replace Jackson on the $20 bill (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 31, 2024, 04:26:46 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Treasury Sec. to announce Harriet Tubman will replace Jackson on the $20 bill (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Treasury Sec. to announce Harriet Tubman will replace Jackson on the $20 bill  (Read 5930 times)
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,118
United States


« on: April 22, 2016, 05:55:16 AM »

Hamilton was indefinitely horrible and worse than Jackson, and he wasn't even president, Jackson had much a larger impact then Hamilton, with Jacksonian Democracy and all that.

Really, a guy who wanted a strong central government is worse than a war criminal and slave-owner that brought about the Trail of Tears?

He wanted a strong central government to protect the elite of society. He opposed the french revolution, and opposed ideas given from it, such as liberty and equality. He opposed expanding suffrage, opposed Catholics having place in America, and essential wanted another dictatorial regime in America, controlled by the elite. Alexander Hamilton was no abolitionist either, and was fine with slavery under the system. I'm sure he opposed democracy, and thought that normal people participating in politics, would be disastrous. The trail of tears is horrible, but it does not negate what Jackson did.

A point that is often forgotten by lefties who embrace him, but I won't complain since it kept him on the $10.

Any sane person should have opposed the French Revolution at least by 1792/1793. Its end result was a dictator and then a return a very powerful Monarchy, then another dictator.

I much prefer the Glorious Revolution, primarily because it was neither Glorious nor a Revolution. Its impact was meaningful in that it established representative gov't on a solid footing and forever ended any chance of Britain back peddling to absolutism. It was also quick and rather bloodless. Of course the Monarchy was preserved and very little was changed so it wouldn't please a radical who prefers to bath the streets in blood for years until people are fed up and latch onto the strong man on a horse who rides in promising stability at expense of any hope of liberty. Some Revolution!

Popular Democracy can be very tyrannical if taken to excess. Jackson did preside over an era where democracy was expanded to include more voters, but he violated the constitution and ignored the Supreme Court to facilitate a death march. He also crippled bank mostly out of stubborness, leaving the country woefully weakened economically once cotton prices collapsed.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.021 seconds with 12 queries.