Treasury announces woman to replace Hamilton on $10 bill

[Scott5114]

The Treasury has announced that an as-yet-undetermined woman will be replacing Alexander Hamilton on the $10 bill in 2020. This is the first time since 1928 that the Treasury has changed the subject of the portraits on the front of any US paper money.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/alexander-hamilton-to-share-image-on-10-bill-with-a-woman-1434591472

Personally, I would have preferred Andrew Jackson to be bumped, but the $10 is next up for a redesign, apparently.

[1995hoo]

I would have bumped Washington, Jefferson, or Lincoln because they're also on coins. Of course, I also favor getting rid of both the penny and the $1 bill, so that wouldn't leave a lot of room for someone to replace Washington or Lincoln, and the $2 bill is so rarely seen it perhaps shouldn't count*, but if one assumes all the current denominations of both bills and coins are to remain in circulation, it seems to me it'd be more logical to replace someone whose face is also on another piece of money (Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln) than someone whose face isn't (Hamilton, Jackson, Grant, Franklin on bills; FDR, Kennedy, Sacagawea/presidents on coins).


*If you put the woman on the $2 bill, in practice it'd be sort of like putting Susan B. Anthony and Sacagawea on the $1 coin–a bit of an empty gesture because the money in question is so seldom used. I used a $1 coin a few weeks ago at the butcher shop (I'd gotten it in change from the candy machine at the office) and the guy wasn't expecting it and promptly dropped it on the floor.

[intelati49]

it seems to me it'd be more logical to replace someone whose face is also on another piece of money (Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln) than someone whose face isn't (Hamilton, Jackson, Grant, Franklin on bills; FDR, Kennedy, Sacagawea/presidents on coins).

The only problem with that is Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln are kind of the big three in American history. I see what you're saying, but even I have trouble with that proposal. Especially with the penny going out.

[jeffandnicole]

Of the commonly used bills, the $10 is the 2nd least commonly used; even less common than the $100 bill.  Only the $50 bill is printed less.  So in a way it's still a slight, although not a empty gesture like the $2 bill. 

http://www.moneyfactory.gov/resources/productionannual.html

[froggie]

May be the 2nd least commonly used, but it's still used a fair bit.

Hoo's comment gave me an idea...and something along the lines of what the UK, EU, and Canada have done:  ditch the $1 and $2 bills and mint $1 and $2 coins for general circulation.  Put Washington on one of the two, and use the other for a "rotating women in history" series, similar to recent $1 coins as well as the post-1999 quarter.  I would do this in addition to putting a woman on the $10 and/or the $20.

[intelati49]

May be the 2nd least commonly used, but it's still used a fair bit.

Hoo's comment gave me an idea...and something along the lines of what the UK, EU, and Canada have done:  ditch the $1 and $2 bills and mint $1 and $2 coins for general circulation.  Put Washington on one of the two, and use the other for a "rotating women in history" series, similar to recent $1 coins as well as the post-1999 quarter.  I would do this in addition to putting a woman on the $10 and/or the $20.

I've been saying to ditch the $1 bill since the Sacagawea coin came out. As for the $2 coin? Sure, but I see it as a $2 bill type situation. Kind of a novelty item

[oscar]

I don't like this, for several reasons:

-- Hamilton deserves to be on a bill, as an especially prominent Founding Father, who also laid the early foundations of our monetary and financial system, and also is one of the non-dead Presidents in the current lineup (Franklin on the $100 being the other). This point was made (including by conservative talking heads) when some people wanted to put Reagan on the $10 bill, and I agreed -- put Reagan on a bill at some point, but leave Hamilton alone on the $10.

-- It is thoroughly sexist to reserve a slot on the bills for women, rather than the next major historical figure in line, just for the sake of having a woman in the lineup. For whatever reasons (some of them unjust), women haven't had the same opportunities to make history than men, and I don't see any of the candidates in play (such as Harriet Tubman) as "next in line".

-- Why not Martin Luther King, Jr.? To my mind, he's clearly "next in line". FDR and Reagan would also be up there, as well as Teddy Roosevelt, all of them ahead of the proposed women's candidates.

[SP Cook]

History #1 - Of those currently on the "major" US money (coins except $, bills except $2), the least significant is clearly Grant.  A corrupt and failed president, and a general who won using human wave tactics against out numbered and out supplied opponents.  His inclusion on money is a vestage of northern Civil War triumptualism.

History #2 - Sacagawea on a coin is silly for multiple reasons.  For one thing, no painting or even description of her exists.  But mainly, she was not a citizen.  Applying modern concepts, she was a Shoshone, a people not yet a part of any European or Euro-American concept.  Her baby (also on the coin) would theoretically be a British subject.  The whole idea that  Europeans and Euro-Americans could "sell" and "purchase" Louisiana from one another and that this somehow made this place part of the USA is historically and politically simplistic.  The region, like all parts of the USA became as such by acts of settlers and such, and not purchases of land by people who had no idea what the place even looked like.

History #3 - There is no woman whose political/military/financial contributions are even close to be worthy.

Practical - The continued use of $1 bills is wasteful and overly complex.  The USA should have the same money mix as Canada with $1 and $2 coins. 

Politics #1 - That the current administration would take down Hamilton, generally of a line of thought that would be Republican, rather than Jackson, founder of the democrat party, is not surprising.

Politics #2 - Nor is the PC pandering of replacing the founder of the US monetary system with someone who is little more than a footnote in history.

Politics #3 - There is nothing that says political or military figures have to be on money.  The US used alagorical figures until the 20th centruy.  Most European republics pre-Euro used acomplished people in other fields or alagorical figures.  The English do as well, and mix them up every few years, as do the Australians and New Zealanders.  The Euro doesn't have people at all.  The Northern Irish have generic regular people.  South Africa has animals. 

Personally, why not change up the bills every 10 years or so?  Maybe with broad catagories, such as "social reformer" on the 5; scientist/inventor/explorer on the 10, military figure on the 20, artist/author/poet on the 50 and political figure on the 100. 

[1995hoo]

May be the 2nd least commonly used, but it's still used a fair bit.

Hoo's comment gave me an idea...and something along the lines of what the UK, EU, and Canada have done:  ditch the $1 and $2 bills and mint $1 and $2 coins for general circulation.  Put Washington on one of the two, and use the other for a "rotating women in history" series, similar to recent $1 coins as well as the post-1999 quarter.  I would do this in addition to putting a woman on the $10 and/or the $20.

I somewhat agree on the coins, although I think from a practical short-term standpoint dropping the $1 bill and ramping up production of the $2 bill instead would be less of an adjustment for people (given that many vending machines currently accept dollar coins as it is). The biggest adjustment, I think, when you go to Canada or Europe is remembering that your pocket change is actually a substantial bit of money and you shouldn't just throw it in a jar on the kitchen counter or whatever. I find it's routine to have €15 worth of coins in my pocket when I'm in Europe, for example. Not a fortune, but not chump change. Of course you adjust, but it can take a while if you're not used to it.

Use of the $1 bill is a huge waste of taxpayer money, though.


Edited to add: Forgot to mention....while it is unlikely ever to happen, I also like the idea of there being a denomination of banknote larger than $100. I found the €200 to be quite convenient due in part to it keeping my wallet slimmer. A $200 or $250 bill would acknowledge that $100 doesn't go nearly as far as it used to and would allow for moving someone from an existing note to make room for whomever they want to add (e.g., move Hamilton to the $200 so you can put Virgilia Hazard or whomever on the $10). I know it won't happen due to widespread use of credit/debit, easily-accessible ATMs, and a concern that large-denomination bills are used for money-laundering (the €500 is sometimes called the "gangster's note").

[kkt]

History #1 - Of those currently on the "major" US money (coins except $, bills except $2), the least significant is clearly Grant.  A corrupt and failed president, and a general who won using human wave tactics against out numbered and out supplied opponents.  His inclusion on money is a vestage of northern Civil War triumptualism.

Grant used the tactics that would win a war in the industrial era.  Civil War rifles were good enough to hold off the Napoleonic-era tactics of charge and cavalry.  Grant adjusted to that and used numbers and seige, and he won.

History #2 - Sacagawea on a coin is silly for multiple reasons.  For one thing, no painting or even description of her exists.  But mainly, she was not a citizen.  Applying modern concepts, she was a Shoshone, a people not yet a part of any European or Euro-American concept.  Her baby (also on the coin) would theoretically be a British subject.  The whole idea that  Europeans and Euro-Americans could "sell" and "purchase" Louisiana from one another and that this somehow made this place part of the USA is historically and politically simplistic.  The region, like all parts of the USA became as such by acts of settlers and such, and not purchases of land by people who had no idea what the place even looked like.

She gave invaluable help to explorers who she knew to be exploring on behalf of the USA.

History #3 - There is no woman whose political/military/financial contributions are even close to be worthy.

But, see your point Politics #3.

Practical - The continued use of $1 bills is wasteful and overly complex.  The USA should have the same money mix as Canada with $1 and $2 coins. 

Agreed.

Politics #1 - That the current administration would take down Hamilton, generally of a line of thought that would be Republican, rather than Jackson, founder of the democrat party, is not surprising.

Politics #2 - Nor is the PC pandering of replacing the founder of the US monetary system with someone who is little more than a footnote in history.

Politics #3 - There is nothing that says political or military figures have to be on money.  The US used alagorical figures until the 20th centruy.  Most European republics pre-Euro used acomplished people in other fields or alagorical figures.  The English do as well, and mix them up every few years, as do the Australians and New Zealanders.  The Euro doesn't have people at all.  The Northern Irish have generic regular people.  South Africa has animals. 

Personally, why not change up the bills every 10 years or so?  Maybe with broad catagories, such as "social reformer" on the 5; scientist/inventor/explorer on the 10, military figure on the 20, artist/author/poet on the 50 and political figure on the 100. 

Yes, I'd like to see artists, musicians, playwrights, scientists.  Instead we have the presidential dollar coins!  Imagine... you, too, can get your face on a coin, even if you're a completely rotten president!

[bugo]

*If you put the woman on the $2 bill, in practice it'd be sort of like putting Susan B. Anthony and Sacagawea on the $1 coin–a bit of an empty gesture because the money in question is so seldom used. I used a $1 coin a few weeks ago at the butcher shop (I'd gotten it in change from the candy machine at the office) and the guy wasn't expecting it and promptly dropped it on the floor.

Putting SBA on the "Carter Quarter" small $1 coin wasn't an empty gesture when it was introduced in 1979. The government pushed it hard and wanted to replace the $1 bill with it, but the public wanted nothing to do with it and it was deemed a failure and the SBA dollar was cancelled after 1981. At the tail end of the 20th Century, the mint decided to give the small dollar coin another try so they came up with the Sac dollar coin They didn't have the dies ready in time so in 1999 they minted SBA dollars again for that one year, switching to the Sac dollar in 2000. One reason the "golden" small dollars like the Sac, the Native American dollars, and the presidential series have been failures is because the coins don't age well at all. If you have a brand new one (I have a 2007-S Sac PF69 Ultra Cameo graded by NGC that is stunning) they are attractive coins but when they have been in circulation, even for a short time, the mint luster disappears and the coins just look ugly. The other problem that has existed since 1979 is the similarity of the size of the quarter dollar and the small dollar. It's odd that the order of the currently minted US coins in size is dime, penny, nickel, quarter, dollar, and half dollar (yes, they still mint Kennedy halves for collectors only). The 10 cent piece being smaller than the one cent piece is unusual and I imagine foreigners being confused by the denominations and their sizes. I've heard rumblings about putting numerals on the reverse of coins instead of phrases in English like "quarter dollar" and "one dime" which is something I strongly disapprove of. It's just another meaningless PC gesture and would have no benefits for Americans but would coddle foreigners.

It is interesting that the reverse of the Eisenhower dollar and the SBA dollar are almost identical other than size.

[spooky]

Misleading thread title. The article states that Hamilton will share the bill with a woman.

[Brandon]

Misleading thread title. The article states that Hamilton will share the bill with a woman.

Which I have no problem with what-so-ever.  Now, the question is, who?  I like that debate better.

[roadman65]

So now I know why somebody posted on FB that Chuck Norris should be on our currency. 

[english si]

I thought this was a funny article about the leader of a similar campaign in Britain getting an pretty high honour (OBE).

The author's issue is, on top of the watering down of the honours system, was that the aim of her campaign was to get a woman on there not out of merit*, but because she's a woman as they are under represented on our money.

*which for Jane Austen, just like Elizabeth Fry who is on the current £5 notes (to be replaced by Churchill), has a strong case.

[bugo]

I disagree with changing the $10 bill. For one thing, Alex Hamilton deserves to be on the $10 and bumping him off would be a huge sign of disrespect towards him. The fact that they want to put "a woman" on the $10 reeks of PC bullshit. It is a form of discrimination because they said that they won't even consider putting a male on the $10. That, my friends, is sexist. Let's face it: most leaders and historical figures in the history of the USA were white men. It  may be an inconvenient truth but it's reality.  I can't think of a single woman that meets the criteria for bumping Hamilton from the bill.

I absolutely think Andrew Jackson should be taken off the $20 bill. He was a genocidal dictator who disobeyed a Supreme Court order and continuing the removal of Indians to Indian Territory. I live in Oklahoma and know a ton of Native Americans and I care very deeply about their plight. I used to work at a C-store and sometimes when the store wasn't busy and a customer paid with a $20, I would point at the portrait of Jackson and ask them if they knew who he was. Most of them didn't know (and many of these folks I talked to were Indians) so I told them he was the architect of the Trail of Tears and they were kind of surprised. My top two candidates to replace Jackson on the $20 are Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower. Yes, they were both Republicans, but the only thing they have in common with today's GOP is the name. Jackson should have never been put on the bill in the first place.

Why do we have to put politicians on our money? Why not put entertainers, humanitarians, or other types on them? How about Elvis Presley on the $10? Jimi Hendrix? Jim Morrison? Patsy Cline? Johnny Cash? They deserve to be honored but the government has to pat itself on the back every chance they get.

I absolutely think Ronald Reagan has as much business on our money as Andrew Jackson does. He was senile during much of his presidency, he ramped up the failed drug war, he sold arms to our arch enemy, Iran, to fund an uprising in Nicaragua to overthrow a democratically elected leader with a totalitarian dictator. He ruined the economy and we're still reeling from his policies. His "failed "trickle down economics" policy only made the rich richer and the poor and middle class poorer. He totally ignored AIDS when it was reaching plague-like proportions. He was a horrible president. It's funny that conservatives worship him when the reality is that he wouldn't be welcome in today's GOP He was too far to the left. Eisenhower and Barry Goldwater wouldn't be welcome in today's Republic Party either.

This is a moot point because besides the $1 and $2 bills, our paper money looks awful. The designs are simply terrible. The older pre-1995 (or whenever the first of the redesigned bills were introduced, I'm too lazy to look it up) were classy and handsome. When I see an old $20 bill I almost cry because they were so attractive compared to what we have now. They looked like true pieces of art while the new ones look like Monopoly money but less attractive.

As far as the coins go, I wish we would quit putting dead presidents on them and return to putting Liberty on them. The Liberty coins were sensual and beautiful and Liberty was always hot. Now we have atrocities like the current nickel with the engraving of Jefferson with a creepy look on his face that makes him look like a child molester. The shield penny isn't a bad design but they need to release a copper version for collectors. The FDR dime is venerable and shouldn't be changed. It is the oldest design currently in circulation. The whole state/national park/America the Beautiful quarter series are just boring and the presidential coin series bores me too. The Kennedy half, while not intended for circulation (NIFC) is a lovely coin but rarely seen. My favorite era in American coin design is 1921 to 1928. You had the venerable wheat penny, which has one of my favorite reverses of all time; the funky buffalo nickel, the lovely Mercury dime, the intricate standing Liberty quarter (which unfortunately, didn't age well and wore out very quickly), the sexy walking Liberty half, and the peace dollar with a beautiful rendition of Liberty on the obverse.

[Brandon]

I can't think of a single woman that meets the criteria for bumping Hamilton from the bill.

The article said share the bill with a woman, not replace.

[hotdogPi]

If they wanted to put someone new on a coin, here would be my top choices, in order:

Option 1: 2 or 2.50 dollar coin. (My idea for 2.50 is because gold $2.50 coins were historically used, while $2 coins never existed, although $2 as a new coin could also work.)

Option 2: Replace Jackson on the $20 bill. Jackson's actions were controversial.

Option 3: $200 bill, new denomination.

Option 4: New design on the $1 coin.

[jeffandnicole]

I disagree with changing the $10 bill. For one thing, Alex Hamilton deserves to be on the $10 and bumping him off would be a huge sign of disrespect towards him. The fact that they want to put "a woman" on the $10 reeks of PC bullshit. It is a form of discrimination because they said that they won't even consider putting a male on the $10. That, my friends, is sexist. Let's face it: most leaders and historical figures in the history of the USA were white men. It  may be an inconvenient truth but it's reality.  I can't think of a single woman that meets the criteria for bumping Hamilton from the bill.

I absolutely think Andrew Jackson should be taken off the $20 bill. He was a genocidal dictator who disobeyed a Supreme Court order and continuing the removal of Indians to Indian Territory. I live in Oklahoma and know a ton of Native Americans and I care very deeply about their plight. I used to work at a C-store and sometimes when the store wasn't busy and a customer paid with a $20, I would point at the portrait of Jackson and ask them if they knew who he was. Most of them didn't know (and many of these folks I talked to were Indians) so I told them he was the architect of the Trail of Tears and they were kind of surprised. My top two candidates to replace Jackson on the $20 are Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower. Yes, they were both Republicans, but the only thing they have in common with today's GOP is the name. Jackson should have never been put on the bill in the first place.

Why do we have to put politicians on our money? Why not put entertainers, humanitarians, or other types on them? How about Elvis Presley on the $10? Jimi Hendrix? Jim Morrison? Patsy Cline? Johnny Cash? They deserve to be honored but the government has to pat itself on the back every chance they get.

I absolutely think Ronald Reagan has as much business on our money as Andrew Jackson does. He was senile during much of his presidency, he ramped up the failed drug war, he sold arms to our arch enemy, Iran, to fund an uprising in Nicaragua to overthrow a democratically elected leader with a totalitarian dictator. He ruined the economy and we're still reeling from his policies. His "failed "trickle down economics" policy only made the rich richer and the poor and middle class poorer. He totally ignored AIDS when it was reaching plague-like proportions. He was a horrible president. It's funny that conservatives worship him when the reality is that he wouldn't be welcome in today's GOP He was too far to the left. Eisenhower and Barry Goldwater wouldn't be welcome in today's Republic Party either.

This is a moot point because besides the $1 and $2 bills, our paper money looks awful. The designs are simply terrible. The older pre-1995 (or whenever the first of the redesigned bills were introduced, I'm too lazy to look it up) were classy and handsome. When I see an old $20 bill I almost cry because they were so attractive compared to what we have now. They looked like true pieces of art while the new ones look like Monopoly money but less attractive.

As far as the coins go, I wish we would quit putting dead presidents on them and return to putting Liberty on them. The Liberty coins were sensual and beautiful and Liberty was always hot. Now we have atrocities like the current nickel with the engraving of Jefferson with a creepy look on his face that makes him look like a child molester. The shield penny isn't a bad design but they need to release a copper version for collectors. The FDR dime is venerable and shouldn't be changed. It is the oldest design currently in circulation. The whole state/national park/America the Beautiful quarter series are just boring and the presidential coin series bores me too. The Kennedy half, while not intended for circulation (NIFC) is a lovely coin but rarely seen. My favorite era in American coin design is 1921 to 1928. You had the venerable wheat penny, which has one of my favorite reverses of all time; the funky buffalo nickel, the lovely Mercury dime, the intricate standing Liberty quarter (which unfortunately, didn't age well and wore out very quickly), the sexy walking Liberty half, and the peace dollar with a beautiful rendition of Liberty on the obverse.

You wrote a whole lot here, but yet you never backed up your opening statement.  Going back to line #1:

I disagree with changing the $10 bill. For one thing, Alex Hamilton deserves to be on the $10

Why?

[1995hoo]

Putting SBA on the "Carter Quarter" small $1 coin wasn't an empty gesture when it was introduced in 1979. The government pushed it hard and wanted to replace the $1 bill with it, but the public wanted nothing to do with it and it was deemed a failure and the SBA dollar was cancelled after 1981. At the tail end of the 20th Century, the mint decided to give the small dollar coin another try so they came up with the Sac dollar coin They didn't have the dies ready in time so in 1999 they minted SBA dollars again for that one year, switching to the Sac dollar in 2000.

Of course. I remember what a big deal that coin was at first even though I was a little kid. What I meant is that it turned into an empty gesture due to the coin being a flop.

I have a few 1999 SBAs somewhere. I remember in 1999 one of my colleagues was a know-it-all asshole who said I didn't know what I was talking about when I referred to a 1999 SBA. So the next day, in front of six other colleagues, I placed one in front of him. He didn't even act embarrassed or apologetic.

[DTComposer]

I can't think of a single woman that meets the criteria for bumping Hamilton from the bill.

I'm not saying this is my viewpoint, because honestly I haven't done the research, but how about this as a conversation starting point: Susan B. Anthony, Harriet Tubman and Rosa Parks did more as individuals for the history of this country. I'm not discrediting Hamilton or his accomplishments, but he was one in a sea of Founding Fathers, doing what needed to be done to establish an independent country. If Hamilton didn't exist, someone in that group would have done his work. Could the same be said of those three women - if they didn't exist, would someone have done what they did? Perhaps, but didn't they act more as pioneers in their actions, lone warriors in the face of oppression and discrimination? Aren't their stories more in line with a traditional reading of the American Spirit?

Or look at it this way: in the condensed, Schoolhouse Rock type version of American history, who gets more play: Alexander Hamilton, or Tubman/Anthony/Parks? Or Eleanor Roosevelt?

All of that said, I'm all for starting from scratch. Figure out the denominations that we actually need/use, have multiple versions of each, use people from the arts, sciences, politics, military, etc.

How about Elvis Presley on the $10? Jimi Hendrix? Jim Morrison? Patsy Cline? Johnny Cash? They deserve to be honored but the government has to pat itself on the back every chance they get.

If we're trying to pick a handful of "iconic" American musical figures, then for all their brilliance, Hendrix, Morrison and Cline's careers were all too short (and Hendrix and Morrison probably too tainted by drug use to pass muster. So was Elvis, but his icon and career transcends that while Hendrix and Morrison's careers are - fairly or not - defined by it.). Before you get there, you'd need Duke Ellington or Louis Armstrong; Gershwin; Irving Berlin; Stephen Foster; Aaron Copland; Miles Davis; etc.

From a listening standpoint I'd rather have Hendrix or the Doors, but from a iconography standpoint the Beach Boys or Bruce Springsteen probably rank higher.

[kkt]

Misleading thread title. The article states that Hamilton will share the bill with a woman.

I don't think sharing paper money is appropriate, unless we use Mrs. Hamilton.

[Brandon]

Misleading thread title. The article states that Hamilton will share the bill with a woman.

I don't think sharing paper money is appropriate, unless we use Mrs. Hamilton.

You mean Elizabeth Schuyler?

Could be a good choice.

[SteveG1988]

I think that we should bump someone down to the 2 dollar bill, and have jefferson be on the 10. He deserves better than he has been given. Give hamilton the 50, grant the 2.

[bugo]

If we're trying to pick a handful of "iconic" American musical figures, then for all their brilliance, Hendrix, Morrison and Cline's careers were all too short (and Hendrix and Morrison probably too tainted by drug use to pass muster. So was Elvis, but his icon and career transcends that while Hendrix and Morrison's careers are - fairly or not - defined by it.). Before you get there, you'd need Duke Ellington or Louis Armstrong; Gershwin; Irving Berlin; Stephen Foster; Aaron Copland; Miles Davis; etc.
From a listening standpoint I'd rather have Hendrix or the Doors, but from a iconography standpoint the Beach Boys or Bruce Springsteen probably rank higher.

I forgot to mention the father of the blues, Robert Johnson. He wasn't the first bluesman but he was the most important.

As far as being iconic, I think Hendrix and Morrison are more iconic than the Beach Boys and Springsteen. If you're going to put Springsteen on it you might as well put Billy Joel on it.