Many, many Black History Months ago, when my son Tex was in third grade, Harriet Tubman was the subject of a “module,” (or whatever they
call them) in his history class. It was
a lengthy module. He was required to
study the adventures of Ms. Tubman and construct a time-line of her life. Tex is not
a complainer, but wife and self could not help but notice he was not enjoying
the module. I can’t say exactly what it
was that annoyed him about the project because he is not the sort to discuss
these occasional disturbances to his fundamental sang-froid, but suffice it to
say that Sandy and I were careful not to use the words “Harriet” or “Tubman” or
“Harriet Tubman” around him for quite a while.
A few days ago, when I mentioned the Tubman-for-Jackson currency swap in
a phone conversation, icicles began forming on the telephone I was
holding. I had tried to make a little
joke about Harriet Tubman. But apparently,
it’s still too soon.
So we have strong feelings about Harriet Tubman in our
family. Personally, I like her. She’s mostly known for helping slaves to
escape the South via the Underground Railroad, and God bless her for it, but
there were many people who did that perilous work and she was far from the most
prominent. Much more impressive, I
think, was her work as a spy for the Union during the Civil War.
The job was not less
dangerous than helping slaves to freedom, and she was apparently
extraordinarily good at it. Her sources,
of course, were blacks living in the Confederacy who knew, through their work
for their masters, what the plans were, where troops and supplies were being
moved, and so on. Though they would be
reluctant to risk their lives sharing that information with a white spy who had
snuck across enemy lines from the North, they trusted Harriet Tubman. Not only was she black, but they knew who she
was and what she had done. To most white
southerners, she was just some anonymous colored woman, so she was usually able
to pass unnoticed by the authorities.
Some have argued she was the most valuable intelligence asset the North
had during the war.
In addition, she was a devout Christian woman her whole life
and she always carried a gun. I mean,
what’s not to like?
And Andrew Jackson?
Well, he won the Battle of New Orleans in the War of 1812, so he was a
genuine war hero, and he was a popular legislator in the House and the Senate,
and he became the seventh president, and he owned hundreds of slaves and he
founded the Democratic Party (the party of slavery). So he’s a mixed bag at best. I hate it when people in the past are judged
by modern standards, so let’s not do that, but does he really deserve to be on
the twenty? I mean, forget about Harriet
Tubman for a minute. I can think of half
a dozen old dead white guys I’d rather see on that bill. Why not John Adams? Why not Thomas Paine?
Let’s be clear. The
decision to replace Andrew Jackson with Harriet Tubman is solely based in
political correctness. For the Obama
Administration, this is about getting rid of an ODWG and putting a righteous sister
on some money. In fact, however, they chose
the correct ODWG and the correct sister.
I assume it was an accident, actually.
I assume it was done because Obama’s crew doesn’t know much about
history. If they did, they would never
have picked an armed, Republican, devout Christian to replace the founder of
the Democratic Party. But in spite of
themselves, they got it right.
The problem, however, is not this Tubman-for-Jackson
switcheroo. It’s that Obama wants to get
all the ODWGs off the money and replace them with representatives of modern
victim groups. Jackson, however, is the
low-hanging fruit of the ODWGs; there will be some serious bitching (at least
from me), if they try to remove any of the others.
Washington and Lincoln?
No way. Jefferson? Well, Jefferson certainly has his detractors,
but his founding father cred is untouchable.
He did write the Declaration of Independence, after all, and more than
doubled the size of the country with the Louisiana Purchase. Then there’s Alexander Hamilton, who started
the mint and the national bank and wrote most of the Federalist Papers and now
stars in his own hip-hop musical on Broadway.
And Ben Franklin? Nobody will
take old Ben off the hundred. I mean, it
wouldn’t be a Benjamin any more. Even
the lefties like him because they think he was an atheist.
All of which brings us to Ulysses S. Grant. And let’s face it. He was not a founding father, he was born way
too late to fight the Revolutionary War, and he had no role in building the
fledgling republic. Nevertheless, the
$50 bill is the coolest-looking currency we have. Grant looks like a general, a winner, and a
tough SOB. Grant, with his steely eyes
and a half-smile pushing through that bushy beard, is just about the manliest
man we have on our money. He looks like
he just kicked Robert E. Lee’s butt halfway to Appomattox Courthouse. I always use fifties when I’m buying my
flame-throwers, Tennessee whiskey, chain saws and other manly stuff.
I’d hate to see him replaced by Margaret Sanger.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment