> ... What about the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which was successfully challenged in court by the Cherokee Nation, but which Jackson continued to enforce over the objections of the Supreme Court, leading to the Trail of Tears and the death of 25% of the Cherokee population? Is that, too, something we really want to enshrine?

Not exactly, but his total refusal to listen to the Supreme Court is indicitave of the man's character. Jackson's total contempt for the rest of the federal government is just fantastic. I'm not saying he was a great person, but he kicked so much ass and just embodied the idea that in America a crazy backwater dude could be elected president that he's definitely part of our culture. Furthermore, despite his apparent belief that the presidency was an elected emperorship, he was a huge champion for democracy in its general forms -- hence his contempt for the unelected Supreme Court.

And it's not even like he was out to purposely kill the American Indians, but he honestly seems to have thought that just up and moving them all was the best solution for all involved. It seems completely crazy today, and I'm not going to claim it's morally justifiable, but sometimes we have to consider historical figures within the context of their time.

He also beat the holy hell out of the Brits, something we should never stop being proud of.

> Besides, Jackson's fervent efforts to destroy the national bank makes his appearance on our currency more than a little odd to my mind.

That's half the fun! The man demolished the first national bank, so who better to have on our money?

> Sure, beating the hell out of your would-be assassin is cool, but that's not enough to make up for all the crap surrounding Jackson's presidency. If you can't tell, this is a bit of a sore spot with me. :P

You're totally forgetting that he humiliated the Brits at New Orleans! He's an American hero!

Also, how can the presidency of a man dead more than a century be a "sore spot" with you? It's not like people are always going around talking about how great Jackson is. If they are, though, that's pretty cool.

> Why is it so imperative that we put Reagan on money? There are lots of dead people -- they can't *all* be on currency.

Yeah, I'm not in a rush to get Reagan on anything either. But a lot of people seem to be into it, and I wouldn't really care. So long as we got Grant on the $50, we can't do much worse. Myself, I want Polk on currency, though we should probably figure out a way to get FDR on something first. I'll give either Kennedy's fifty-center, easy. I'd also support putting Earl Warren on something, too, seeing as how he was way more influential than most presidents.

Ste "James Garfield got shot too, but nobody dotes over him the way we do JFK" phen