After going a few weeks without blogging during the busy spring semester, I determined that the frequency of my blog posts should increase during the summer. However, since I am immersed in research, these next two posts may not be as polished - or have as many links - as I would like.
Over the past few months, Americans have been weighing in on whether Jackson should still be on the twenty-dollar bill. For early-nineteenth century scholars and those who are familiar with some of the key watershed moments in American history, this has always been a source of amusement and befuddlement. Daniel Walker Howe called it "richly ironic" in his magisterial and Pulitzer-Prize-winning tome, What Hath God Wrought (2007). I've always wondered why Hamilton, a financial wizard, was on the ten and why Jackson, who destroyed Hamilton's beloved creation, the national Bank, was on a denomination of higher value! Lately there has been a push to put a woman on the bill, perhaps Eleanor Roosevelt, Ida B. Wells, or Hariet Tubman. I think this would be great and generally support the idea.
Over the past few months, Americans have been weighing in on whether Jackson should still be on the twenty-dollar bill. For early-nineteenth century scholars and those who are familiar with some of the key watershed moments in American history, this has always been a source of amusement and befuddlement. Daniel Walker Howe called it "richly ironic" in his magisterial and Pulitzer-Prize-winning tome, What Hath God Wrought (2007). I've always wondered why Hamilton, a financial wizard, was on the ten and why Jackson, who destroyed Hamilton's beloved creation, the national Bank, was on a denomination of higher value! Lately there has been a push to put a woman on the bill, perhaps Eleanor Roosevelt, Ida B. Wells, or Hariet Tubman. I think this would be great and generally support the idea.
Since I wrote my dissertation on the Bank war, have published articles and presented at academic conferences on the topic, and hope to have a book some day that is based on my dissertation, I guess I should offer my own thoughts. The truth is 1) I don't think there's a lot at stake; and 2) some have probably misjudged Jackson's attitudes toward banking. With Americans confronting the pressing issues of climate change, economic inequality, mass incarceration, excessive money in politics, racial animosity, poverty, etc, I find it hard to get too wrapped up in who exactly is on our currency, even for someone like myself who is generally interested in these questions! Dan Feller, chief editor of The Papers of Jackson Papers, and Mark Cheathem, author of two books on the period, are both agnostic on the subject and I definitely see their point. And from the little I've read about the topic, it seems that a lot of people, on social media and other venues, are giving Jackson, as a historical figure, a bit of an unfair reputation. I dare say that many who have lampooned Jackson lately have not actually read his papers, as I have been doing lately.
In my own writing, I am not pro-Jackson by any means. And anyone who has studied the primary sources closely can tell that Bank proponents, by and large, possessed a more sophisticated and forward-thinking view of finance and economics than their anti-BUS adversaries. What I don't like are the characterizations of Old Hickory as a rube, an idiot, or a person who knew absolutely nothing about banking. Yes, like Senator Thomas Hart "Old Bullion" Benton, Jackson believed in a metal currency and distrusted all banks. There was no future of rapid economic growth and industrialization if one stayed beholden to this mindset. But if you look at his writings, he was generally okay with state banks. He liked Nicholas Biddle on a personal level and Biddle had even voted for Andrew Jackson. He used the various branch offices and credit instruments of the Second Bank in his day-to-day commercial transactions. The chief executive, moreover, left open the possibility of compromise with Biddle, so long as a national bank was a) restricted to the District of Columbia; b) could be taxed by the states; c) functioned as a government-run institution that was not a private corporation; and d) did not endanger the liberties of the people, however one defines this rather broad concept. Jackson's letters bore the imprint of Amos Kendall, Andrew Jackson Donelson, and James A. Hamilton, who understood finance well. All of these considerations seem to be lost in the discussion, and if we end up putting Eleanor Roosevelt or Ida B. Wells on the twenty (which I would support by the way), we should at least keep in mind that Jackson was not a simpleton. He could write letters that were quite eloquent and formal at times, even if his handwriting was difficult to read. I don't believe any historian can be objective, but I do believe we should be fair to historical actors when we evaluate them on a scholarly - rather than conversational - level.
In my own writing, I am not pro-Jackson by any means. And anyone who has studied the primary sources closely can tell that Bank proponents, by and large, possessed a more sophisticated and forward-thinking view of finance and economics than their anti-BUS adversaries. What I don't like are the characterizations of Old Hickory as a rube, an idiot, or a person who knew absolutely nothing about banking. Yes, like Senator Thomas Hart "Old Bullion" Benton, Jackson believed in a metal currency and distrusted all banks. There was no future of rapid economic growth and industrialization if one stayed beholden to this mindset. But if you look at his writings, he was generally okay with state banks. He liked Nicholas Biddle on a personal level and Biddle had even voted for Andrew Jackson. He used the various branch offices and credit instruments of the Second Bank in his day-to-day commercial transactions. The chief executive, moreover, left open the possibility of compromise with Biddle, so long as a national bank was a) restricted to the District of Columbia; b) could be taxed by the states; c) functioned as a government-run institution that was not a private corporation; and d) did not endanger the liberties of the people, however one defines this rather broad concept. Jackson's letters bore the imprint of Amos Kendall, Andrew Jackson Donelson, and James A. Hamilton, who understood finance well. All of these considerations seem to be lost in the discussion, and if we end up putting Eleanor Roosevelt or Ida B. Wells on the twenty (which I would support by the way), we should at least keep in mind that Jackson was not a simpleton. He could write letters that were quite eloquent and formal at times, even if his handwriting was difficult to read. I don't believe any historian can be objective, but I do believe we should be fair to historical actors when we evaluate them on a scholarly - rather than conversational - level.