Andrew Jackson should be removed from the 20 Dollar Bill

I will address my opponent's contentions and then move on to my opponent's rebuttals of my own points. My opponent's first contention deals with Andrew Jackson's status of being a pioneer; Jackson rose from the slums to become president, personifying the American Dream. While this is an inspiring story, that does not necessarily mean that his face should be placed on the twenty-dollar bill. J. K. Rowling had a very similar story; she went from someone living on welfare to one of the most richest and well-known women in the entire world, as well as writing one of the most popular children's book series of all time. Does that mean she should be placed on the pound in the United Kingdom? No, it doesn't. An inspiring story does not necessarily mean something like that. My opponent's second contention talks about Andrew Jackson and his brand of democracy, Jacksonian democracy. This sounds good at first, until one truly examines what Jacksonian democracy is; democracy for the common, white man. While it is true that previously in history, democracy was for mainly rich, white men, Jacksonian democracy only truly applied to white men, but this time of all incomes [1]. Women, African-Americans and Native Americans were all still excluded. Jacksonian democracy only applied to the white man. It should also be noted that quite a few of his supporters were wealthy landowners, bankers and businessmen [2]. My opponent's third contention talks about Andrew Jackson supporting the common man. As I have said previously, Jacksonian democracy only applied to the white man; African-Americans, Native Americans and women were still ignored by Jackson. It should also be noted that Jacksonian democracy actually expanded the powers of the executive branch [1], instead of Jackson fighting against big government as my opponent states. My opponent's fourth contention deals with Jackson's reduction of the national debt. While it is true that Jackson was the first--and so far, only--President to pay off the national debt, it should be noted that Jackson's requirement that all government land sales be done with gold and silver in order to prevent a land bubble from collapsing was one of the main reasons why the country entered the longest depression in history [3]. Ironically, it is also a main reason as to why we started having a national debt. Jackson paid off the debt--only to plunge the country into a depression and cause us to start spending again. My opponent's fifth contention is that Andrew Jackson empowered the executive branch. This is contradictory to a previous statement my opponent made in his third contention, where he stated that Jackson fought against big government. Despite this, it is important to note that by expanding the executive branch, Jackson led into the Bank War, where he destroyed the Second Federal Bank of the United States. However, by doing this, he led into the Crash of 1837, the longest depression in the nation's history [4]. My opponent's sixth contention is that Andrew Jackson was a war hero, fighting against the British in the War of 1812. This is true; Jackson fought against the British and was considered a hero following his fighting. But being a war hero, again, does not deserve fame. Placing the other items into consideration--that Jackson supported removal of Native Americans and slavery, as well as causing one of the greatest economic crashes in US history--the fact that he fought against the British is rather insignificant. Now I will address my opponent's rebuttals to my contentions, centering around Jackson's support of slavery and Indian removal. The center of my opponent's rebuttals are that "Jackson was a product of his times". This does not excuse his actions whatsoever. It does not excuse the fact that he owned dozens of slaves and condemned those who went against slavery. If I, for instance, beat someone who was gay with my fists, in our divided climate dealing with gay rights, does the excuse that I was a product of my times excuse my action? It doesn't. Jackson's actions leading to the deaths of thousands of Native Americans cannot be excused with, "Jackson was a product of his times". My opponent's rebuttals to my first contention center around, "Jackson was not wholely responsible for the trail of tears". Looking at history, the Indian Removal Act, passed in 1830, allowed Jackson to make treaties which forcefully removed the Indians from their land. This led directly to the Trail of Tears, resulting in thousands of Native Americans dying. Is it true that the Trail of Tears occurred after Jackson's tenure in office? Yes. But that doesn't excuse the fact that Jackson's actions led directly to that. My opponent's rebuttal to my second contention is that other Presidents had slaves, even more than Jackson, so therefore it does not mean he was bad. This is fallacious thinking. My opponent stating that because people had more slaves than Jackson so Jackson isn't bad does not change that Jackson still owned over one hundred enslaved people. This rebuttal does not touch upon the fact that Jackson denounced abolitionists, nor does it touch upon the fact that Jackson asked Congress to restrict circulation of abolitionist texts. My opponent ends his second round post with a comment remarking on the fact that all people are imperfect, and that JFK and Abraham Lincoln were not perfect people. No, they were not perfect people--no one is. But this does not excuse Jackson's actions. Keep in mind what Jackson did; he forcefully removed the Native Americans from the land they have lived on for centuries, supported the barbaric act of slavery and crashed the United States economy. Should we have this man on our currency? For these reasons, I strongly urge a ballot in affirmation of the resolution. Sources: [1] . http://en.citizendium.org... [2] . http://www.sheppardsoftware.com... [3] . http://www.npr.org... [4] . http://www.neh.gov...