Baltimore removes 4 statues over night

[Belsnickel]

(08-22-2017, 07:43 PM)Vlad Wrote: They're supposedly removing slave owner Andrew Jackson from the $20 and replacing him with Harriet Tubman.
Why don't these stupid leftists just burn their $20 's instead of waiting for Harriet.

Well, the whole $20 thing is less about Jackson being a slave owner and more about him being a very controversial figure in our history for other reasons.

[Millhouse]

(08-22-2017, 07:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, the whole $20 thing is less about Jackson being a slave owner and more about him being a very controversial figure in our history for other reasons.

How did he make it on money over John Adams? Adams was a much more influential person in our history, first vice-president, and second President. Jackson was a punk.

[SunsetBengal]

(08-22-2017, 07:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, the whole $20 thing is less about Jackson being a slave owner and more about him being a very controversial figure in our history for other reasons.

The Native American tribes, here in NC, are appalled at the notion that US 74 is also commemorated as Andrew Jackson Highway..

[Belsnickel]

(08-22-2017, 08:01 PM)Millhouse Wrote: How did he make it on money over John Adams? Adams was a much more influential person in our history, first vice-president, and second President. Jackson was a punk.

So I checked this out. After the Fed came into being, Cleveland was on the $20 up until 1928. 1928 was the centennial of Jackson being elected president, but there is no record of why he, or any person, ended up on the bills they did.

The only figure I know of the reason why they are on their particular coin or bill is FDR on the dime. That is because of his work with the March of Dimes.

(08-22-2017, 08:02 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: The Native American tribes, here in NC, are appalled at the notion that US 74 is also commemorated as Andrew Jackson Highway..

I have no doubt.

[Vlad]

(08-22-2017, 07:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, the whole $20 thing is less about Jackson being a slave owner and more about him being a very controversial figure in our history for other reasons.

He was the epitome of a white supremacist of the time.

[BmorePat87]

(08-22-2017, 06:33 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Right, we fought our deadliest war ever, as a Nation over it.  We decided it was wrong, we outlawed it, and moved forward.  I would just like to see the removal, putting into a museum, or what ever, come from the course of logical decision making through public process, rather than succumbing to an "angry" mob and a bought and paid for media.  That's all.

You'll get no argument from me, that the time has long passed since when those Confederate statues should have been removed from non-historical sites.  But doing it from the demands of a mob (one that I don't even think is homogenous) is not the way to do things.  In my mind, that is the equivalent of municipalities caving in to the demands of domestic terrorists.

I used the MLK analogy, because it was so absurd, after all the great work he did in his lifetime.  And to point out that even the best humans are likely to have "undesirable" traits or characteristics about them.  So, if the gay community were to start rioting and demanding removal of MLK statues and thoroughfares, should we cave into their demands as well?

Those Nazis gathered in Charlottesville because they were discussing removing the statues via the public process. The "angry mob" was mostly locals opposing them. In Baltimore, the commission that approved removing them was established years ago. The mayor decided to not wait for state approval and did the right thing. If there was an "angry mob" they were worried about, it was the Nazis opposing the removal of these statues.