On April 20, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew announced that abolitionist Harriet Tubman would replace former President Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill, and that leaders of the women’s suffrage movement — including Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretcia Mott, Alice Paul and Sojourner Truth — would be displayed on the back of the $10 bill, leaving Alexander Hamilton in place.
The $5 bill will also feature Eleanor Roosevelt (along with Martin Luther King and Marian Anderson) on its back.
To quote “Family Guy’s” Peter Griffin: “Oh my God, who the hell cares?”
Cash is used less and less in our increasingly technological society, and it’s clear this decision is purely political. When I do use cash, which isn’t often, I only pay attention to the corner numbers and not the faces. For all I care, our money might as well have nothing but numbers on it.
Still, I guess if anyone’s going to be replaced, it should be Jackson, and there are any number of great women in history who deserve the honor, Tubman and the suffragettes among them.
Apparently, many Americans don’t know who Tubman was — “Who is Harriet Tubman?” was Google’s top trend after the announcement was made. As Washington Examiner readers no doubt know, Tubman was an African-American abolitionist who escaped slavery and helped establish the Underground Railroad, a network of abolitionists who helped Southern slaves escape to freedom in the North. She’s also often depicted as a gun-toting badass.
Months ago, when the Treasury first announced that it would put a woman on a bill, it said that Hamilton would be the man replaced. This created a backlash, as fans of Hamilton and history explained how stupid it would be to remove the first Treasury secretary from our money. The Broadway play “Hamilton” also became a blockbuster in the ensuing months, helping elevate Hamilton’s popularity with younger Americans.
Jackson was seen as a more replaceable visage (though he will likely still appear on the back of the $20 bill) due to his involvement in treaties that displaced Native Americans and led to the “Trail of Tears.”
One of complaints about adding women to our currency is that none of them have been instrumental in establishing capitalism or monetary policy in the U.S. That take might be ridiculed, but I think it’s a valid complaint. Then again, we’re not talking about logic here, we’re talking about politics and being able to say we put a woman on our money, consarnit.
As my colleague Joseph Lawler points out, the $10 bill is next up for a revamp, meaning we will have to wait a little longer for a bill to feature a single woman on the front without also having a man on it.
Tubman will also not be the first woman featured on U.S. paper currency, though she will most likely last longer than the last female representative. Between 1886 and the turn of the century, Martha Washington, wife of first President George Washington, appeared on the $1 silver certificate.
Native American Pocahontas (who did more than just appear in a Disney movie) was also featured on the back of the $20 bill in the 1860s. Women have also been featured on U.S. coins — Susan B. Anthony and Sacagawea each appeared on dollar coins, and Hellen Keller appears on the Alabama special-issue quarter.
I still wonder whether any of this really matters at all. Will Harriet Tubman’s presence on currency end even a single injustice toward women or blacks in this country? No. That’s not to say she doesn’t deserve to be honored (she obviously does). I just think she deserves to be honored in a way that isn’t overtly political. The same goes with the suffragettes.
To be clear: I’m not opposed to any of these women appearing on our money. Again, I likely won’t notice the change since I rarely use cash. I just don’t like the idea of political stunts like this.
Ashe Schow is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.
