Every person who has ever been pictured on currency anywhere is there because their image perpetuates a myth about the ideal person that they were, what they stood for, or what they accomplished.

I'm not about to withdraw my support for this proposal because she didn't actually succeed in destroying capitalism.

Good Afternoon Charles,
I just read about this movement to replace Jackson on the $20 note last week. It was a little surprising. I haven't read Jones' article and pretty much just have what you wrote to go on. As a result, I don't have an opinion yet.

Your argument against is indeed, Marxist and intriguing. However, the only thing I'd comment on is that Ms. Tubman and her Underground Railroad (I learned about her in HS) were to me, human rights' heroes first. They were extremely brave. I believe they believed they were "fighting" the slavery system which was definitely embedded in the Capitalistic system.

But, I think it was the Civil War and the law that ultimately removed human beings as commodities for purchase, trade or exploit in the USA. Capitalism adapted. Granted, it was Ms. Tubman's efforts among others that contributed to abolishing that horrible "peculiar institution" in this country. But, the law made it unequivocal that humans were never to be "property".

Other societies used slavery without or within the Capitalistic system. I part with you that Capitalism is necessarily synonymous with slavery. Human bondage has been around an awfully long time. Alas, human beings have been exploiting each other for millennia.

If she does make it to the $20 bill, I think it will because of her extraordinary human rights work in this country. Not as a symbol of Capitalism.

I cannot believe that such drivel is put up on Slog. I really should know better than to read anything by Mudede. Ever.

Who would you rather have remembered, Jackson or Tubman?

"wack myth? Charles trying to be hip.

Well, that made zero sense. Nice work, Charles!

"This wack myth"

Brought to you by the "I made it up therefore it's true" study of history. Marxism, in other words.

Why do we need pictures of people on money in the first place? Just put a bunch of hard-to-copy abstract designs and shit on there and be done with it.

#7
My thoughts exactly......
I am trying to figure out what his point actually is, and frankly just don't get it. The irony of her essentially "fighting capitalism" and then being placed on the most used piece of currency????? If so, who cares? Be ironic and have that be the statement.

@#9 I like Neil DeGrasse Tyson's view on our currency....

^ as is the assertion that Abraham Lincoln "was not really opposed to slavery."

What a convoluted way to to throw cold water on a progressive idea - a woman on the currency, who was black, and a freedom fighter.

"Tubman rebelled against this system (she was a thief, she stole property, she was wanted by the law), and therefore it's not right for her to be honored by a major symbol of this exploitative system."

George Washington Ben Franklin Alexander Hamilton and even the ol' Injun Killer hisself Andrew Jackson were not well regarded by the system currently operated by David Cameron that they rebelled against. This is a strong argument to put HT on the $20 even though I think a native would be a far better substitute for AJ on the 20.

@11 wait, so you don't think that slavery was directly tied to capitalism? And you don't think money represents capitalism despite it being one of the sole representations of wealth?

@12 Abraham Lincoln wasn't really opposed to slavery. Seeing how he didn't free slaves in the Union and gladly would have kept such an institution running if it meant he could have won the Civil War

@14,
Call me dense but yes it is difficult to grasp.
So you are saying because she was a former slave ("her very existence was commodified as personal property to generate wealth for others"), her actions, thoughts, experiences and accomplishments have no value? "we remember her today is because she fought against that system", that is something that should be commemorated IMHO.
Feel free to disagree if money should be used to commemorate anybody, but that is what we have.
Like I said before I rather like NDT's thoughts on our currency.

But capitalism DOES improve and get less awful over time, not of its own accord but from societal pressure as times change and people stick up for themselves. Loads of Americans (i.e. the ones pushing "right to work" and other union-busting schemes) have forgotten how it used to be before unions made their great gains in the early 20th century, and sadly Mr. Mudede seems to have joined in their selective memory.

@16: He couldn't actually free slaves with a stroke of a pen in the Union the way he could in the Confederacy. And he did consider ending slavery to be important, but he put preserving the Union ahead of that cause. Luckily those two causes weren't at cross purposes.

@17 no, the fundamental problem with slavery was the state-sanctioned kidnapping and owning of a person by another person and the denial of their personal freedom. you refer to wage theft, which is a problem, but i'd say it was small compared to their lack of autonomy over their own bodies, their hopes, dreams, families, and ultimately their literal life and death.

That's some twisted Marxist bullshit right there.

C'mon. You can be against capitalism without being against money. D'ya think that if we overthrew capitalism we wouldn't need money?

now it's called the 'human resource department' and the 'criminal justice system'

doublespeak

Anyone who has read much about Abraham Lincoln and his views on slavery, as I have, knows that he was, in fact, adamantly opposed to it as "a social, political, and moral wrong". The raison d'etre of the Republican Party was opposition to the extension of slavery, which was believed to ensure the eventual (though not immediate) end to slavery. To use his "If I could save the Union by freeing no slaves, etc." comment to paint him as indifferent to slavery is inaccurate and unfair. He was answering certain critics of his war policies, and he was reminding them (as well as the nation) that his primary duty as President was preserving the Union. Slavery was implicitly sanctioned by the U. S. Constitution, and no one sworn to uphold the Constitution could abolish it willy-nilly. Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on the grounds of military necessity, and did in fact (true to the cited quote) free some slaves and leave others in slavery. However, in issuing the Proclamation, Lincoln and everyone else knew that it was the death-knell of slavery.

As for Lincoln being a "railroad lawyer", what of it? He was a working attorney, and was regarded as a very good one. His biggest single fee in his law career was the $5,000 he collected from the Illinois Central Railroad, but he had to sue the railroad to get it. He had originally billed them $2,000 after winning a very important case. When the railroad balked at the $2,000 fee, Lincoln sued them for $5,000 and won.

Lincoln took on civil, corporate, and criminal cases, and occasionally acted as prosecutor. In one case, Lincoln was representing a woman on trial for killing her husband, who was reputed to have been abusive to her. During a recess, he went to a private room to confer with her. She said she was thirsty, to which Lincoln replied, "I hear there's some mighty fine water in Tennessee". He then left to get her a glass of water, ostensibly. Returning after a period of time, he found that she had left through a window. The woman was never seen again in Illinois.

This is a truer picture of Lincoln than the one portrayed by the dismissive "didn't really care that much about slavery".

As for putting Harriet Tubman on the $20, it works for me!

As others have noted, the contention that Lincoln "didn't really care that much about slavery" is a load of Zinnian bullshit. Just like almost all other white northern elites by the mid-1900s, he recognized that slavery was a bad institution for a number of reasons. However, he was also a politician, focused on accomplishing what was possible within the political framework of the time. He also had his priorities, and yes, preserving the Union was a higher priority for him than ending slavery. But none of that means he didn't give a toss about it.

Sure, he could have barreled into office railing against slavery on day one, but that would have been an incredibly stupid move. The border slave states including Kentucky, Missouri, and maybe even Maryland would have joined the Confederacy, and the Civil War would have been unwinnable. Instead, Lincoln waited until the time was right and the opportunity presented itself.

To put it another way, Lincoln's views on slavery "evolved" in much the same way as Obama's views on gay marriage.

@27's

Lincoln's views on slavery "evolved" in much the same way as Obama's views on gay marriage.

Perfectly stated!

Lincoln was anti-slavery. But he was a politician, in an infant political party. He had to toe the popular line of "blacks are inferior" in order to win.

Most of SLOG's commenters would never--NEVER--stand a chance getting elected to public office. Being a politician requires disgusting compromise. But it's done in order to get shit passed. Politicians... ALL politicians... are backstabbing opportunists, but they know how to play the game.

"Lincoln signed the proclamation that made slavery illegal."

Sigh. This is why we can't have nice things.

What a silly and self-contradictory argument against putting Tubman on a US currency note. If there's any irony involving a person on the $20, it's the irony of Andrew Jackson, who dismantled the Second Bank of the United States, being on a federal currency note.

Now I don't know if Tubman ever expressed any views regarding capitalism in general, but she did live her later years in poverty, dependent on the kindness and donations of others. Whether that's ironic enough to keep her from supplanting Jackson on the $20 is up to the reader to decide for themselves.

The argument that Charles provides is self-contradictory, since if you believe that the capitalism of today is fundamentally the same as that of the antebellum South (which actually was more like an aristocracy), why would the government which oversees this capitalist society feel any qualms about appropriating Tubman's image in their bank notes?

In fact, the same argument is a good one for why the government should put Tubman's face on the bill- because while symbolically championing her history of slave liberations, it allows us to gloss over the alleged discrepancies between the historical person and the economic model for which their image is being used. Nobody think about how many Indians Jackson marched to death when they're paying for some consumer good with their $20 bills.

Wow, Mudede really has no grasp of history.

Detective: Have you seen Rocco around?

Bartender: If I knew, I wouldn't tell you.

Detective: Well, what would you say to Miss Tubman?

Article distilled to salient point: Keep the oppressors on our currency so that everyone has fair notice of the evils of capitalism.

@31 herrbrahms,
Excellent point. I wholeheartedly agree.

Charles is just pissed because Ms. Tubman was a Republican and a gun owner.

@29 That's not how that expression is used. Also, who are you quoting?

All these proposals do not take into account the advantages and flexibility of modern printing. Ot is now possible to change the picture on the $20 every week. Remember how the obverse of quarters were changed several times a year? Why not have a lottery? Every week we could buy tickets to have our ugly faces on the $20?

all currency should have President Camacho on it.

This is kind of dumb even for you, Charles.

@38, actually that's not a bad idea. Each printing can have someone new and historical on it.

We can't actually assume Lincoln was an unquestioning defender of capitalism. As president, Lincoln carried on an extended correspondence with...Karl Marx.

If you want to explode the head of a typical member of today's "Party of Lincoln", tell him(and yes, it will probably be a "him") about that.

I think Charles Mudede and Feminista Jones have set a good discussion rolling (obviously, their rejecting this initiative makes for catchy headlines). And I agree that replacing (slave-owning, Indian-killing) Jackson with Harriet Tubman won't magically undo this country's gaping economic disparities or the scandalous and persistent lack of opportunity for black women. But as a white guy - just like all nine guys now on dollar bills - I still think the initiative is a great idea.

We all agree that where progress has happened (ending slavery, ending child labor, instituting a minimum wage and a progressive income tax) it has been because brave people have fought for it. To enact reform, it takes continued effort from those who benefit from change - and usually some who don't directly benefit. The key question is whether this initiative will distract from change (literally papering over economic problems) or support it. In any case, I fail to see how leaving Jackson on the $20 bill, or replacing him with a woman who had an easier relationship with American capitalism (Eleanor Roosevelt?) would make change any more likely. But I do find it plausible that adding Harriet Tubman could at least symbolize the drive toward a more inclusive system, where opportunity extends beyond the minority of rich white men. And maybe, if Harriet Tubman watches over millions of transactions every day, it could remind us to work toward that.

The defeat of slavery was a victory for Northern capitalism, the kind we practice today. Saying that Harriet Tubman doesn't belong on the 20 dollar bill is basically a religious argument, that Harriet Tubman is a saint whose image shouldn't be tarnished by money.

Andrew Jackson was among the worst presidents when it comes to the issue of racism. He basically institutionalized it in the United States, not only as a brutal slave holder, but a stealer of land from Mexico and his brutal ethnic cleansing of Indigenous Peoples. I'd support Harriet Taubman taking his place but whatever is done we should remove the brutal racist Andrew Jackson. He is not someone Americans should have much pride in as his career is based on the worse abuses of the nation enslavement, ethnic cleansing, militarism and imperialism. Erase him!