Harriet Tubman

4 Ways Harriet Tubman Totally Kicked Ass From a Libertarian POV

The "Moses" of the Underground Railroad exemplified belief in self-ownership, liberty, equality before the law, and more.

|

So Harriet Tubman (1822-1913) is going to be the new face of the $20 bill. Great choice, yes. The only downside, really, is that the bills won't be released until 2026 or later, by which point they'll be worth, what, about $10 in today's fiat currency? And Andrew Jackson, who in many ways incarnates everything that is awful about America (racist, jingoistic, power-mad, genocidal, and more), will still be on the back of the bill.

Here are four ways that Tubman isn't just a great choice in general but a great choice from a specifically libertarian perspective.

  1. She chose to live free or die and articulated that message for all to understand. "I had reasoned this out in my mind," she said, recalling the death of her master and the necessity of escape. "There was one of two things I had a right to, liberty, or death; if I could not have one, I would have the other; for no man should take me alive; I should fight for my liberty as long as my strength lasted, and when the time came for me to go, the Lord would let them take me."
  2. She exemplified higher-law theory, which holds that laws violating basic human rights are null and void regardless of the repressive superstructures created to legitimate and maintain them, and risked her life freeing about 70 other slaves as the "Moses" of the Underground Railroad. Her actions thus stemmed from a reading of rights that synchs with libertarian legal scholar Randy Barnett's discussion of limits on government power in his latest book. At the same time, she didn't advocate violence in the mode of John Brown, whose goal of ending slavery she shared.
  3. She believed in armed self-defense, a radical-enough concept for poor whites, let alone renegade blacks. During her Underground Railroad missions, she carried a pistol both for protection against slave-catchers and, reportedly, to keep ambivalent "passengers" in line. To this day, blacks have a strong and yet routinely overlooked belief in the Second Amendment, leading one historian to argue that "guns made the Civil Rights movement possible." The desire of relatively powerless minorities to arm themselves can still be heard in pro-Second Amendment remarks made by rappers such as Ice-T.
  4. She was a suffragette who, after helping slaves escape and working as a spy and scout for the Union in the Civil War, committed herself to women being allowed to vote and have equality under the law. According to Wikipedia, when Tubman was asked whether she believed women deserved the vote, she replied, "I suffered enough to believe it."

A year ago, when Tubman's name was first floated as a possible figure for a new $20 bill, a number of anti-capitalist commenters observed that Tubman of all people shouldn't be on money because, by their reckoning, slavery is the essence of capitalism. As Damon Root noted at the time, this is not just ahistorical in the extreme, it flies in the face of the explicit thought of leading former slaves. I haven't been able to locate specific quotes from Tubman on the question of wage labor, but there's no doubt she believed in self-ownership, which is the actual basis for capitalism. Where today's leftists want to celebrate Tubman for "subverting" capitalism by effectively stealing her own self, Root argues that's just dumb. Root again:

As the abolitionists saw it, they weren't stealing anybody's property because nobody had a right to own human property in the first place. Tubman was thus fully justified in liberating herself and others from the tyrannical regime that violated their natural right to self-ownership, a right which John Locke famously called man's "property in his own person."

Indeed, the abolitionists were extremely clear that slavery violated fundamental rights in a liberal order, one that shouldn't countenance slavery for exactly the same reason it should promote free labor. As Frederick Douglass, who corresponded with and thought extremely highly of Tubman, wrote in a scathing letter to his former owner, "In leaving you, I took nothing but what belonged to me, and in no way lessened your means for obtaining an honest living." In the public letter, which designed to increase outrage at "the horror of trafficking in the souls and bodies of men," Douglass also wrote,

Since I left you, I have had a rich experience. I have occupied stations which I never dreamed of when a slave. Three out of the ten years since I left you, I spent as a common laborer on the wharves of New Bedford, Massachusetts. It was there I earned my first free dollar. It was mine. I could spend it as I pleased. I could buy hams or herring with it, without asking any odds of anybody. That was a precious dollar to me. You remember when I used to make seven, or eight, or even nine dollars a week in Baltimore, you would take every cent of it from me every Saturday night, saying that I belonged to you, and my earnings also.

Read the full thing.

That's the logic of the abolitionist movement of which Tubman was an essential part. Those aren't her words of course, and, by all accounts, she struggled with money for all of her free life (and she complained about blacks making less than whites for army service during the Civil War). But the idea that the country does Tubman or any escaped slave a disservice on today's currency is rooted only in contemporary fantasy, not historical reality.

NEXT: Why Do We Let Saudis Dictate American Transparency, and What's the Matter With the Northeast? Anthony Fisher Joins The Fifth Column Podcast

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. You’re right, Harriet Tubman deserves much better than this.

    1. Agreed. One of the best ways to insult Jackson was keeping him on our fiat currency. Maybe we can have his face on the $10,000 bill?

      1. What better replacement for Jackson than a gun-toting harridan who gave opium to babies to shut them up, and threatened to shoot black people who didn’t follow orders?

        1. So she liked guns and drugs… How long would she be jailed for, today?

          1. She wouldn’t be jailed, she’d be shot for being black with a gun….

  2. All the peeps here should take that pic and set it as their background on the Facegram. That way everyone will know how pro-WOC you are.

    1. I don’t speak jive

      1. +1 leg ‘er down and smack ’em yak ’em.

        1. So “grab its fucking leg” was jive for something else?

    2. I don’t know, that might be KULTURAL APPROPRIASHUNS!!11!!!

      1. “The Latest on White Flight – Now, Currency”

  3. I don’t understand why we don’t put Al Gore on it. He freed us all by inventing the internet. I no longer have to deal with encyclopedia salesmen.

    1. He also saved us from ManBearPig.

      1. And liberated some poor fellow from his nine million dollar palatial estate on the Montecito coast.

      2. EXCELSIOR!

      3. Don’t forget he also took care of that moon worm.

      4. And he helped nuke Imaginationland!

    2. He never said that he “invented the Internet”, you Bush-loving ratfucker you.

      He said that he “took the initiative in creating the Internet”. Everyone knows that “create” and “invent” are almost completely the opposite in meaning.

      1. Well, he at least invented the button you just got pushed with.

      2. Holy shit, get a grip.

      3. He also took credit for the Love Canal investigation. Which he was badly a part of. Face it, Gore is a glory thief. And he should be an attendant at a glory hole.

  4. So, Congress is replacing the slaveholding founder of the modern Democratic party with a god-fearing, gun-toting Republican. I’m all for it.

    1. That’s pretty much how I see it.

  5. It would be so goddamn awesome if that picture was the one actually used for the $20.

    And why the need to keep Jackson on?

    1. As a straight white man, Andrew Jackson threw a butthurt internet tantrum about the idea of a black woman being recognized in any way, so the Mint just rolled their eyes and said “fine Andy you can stay on the bill.”

      1. So I guess you could say it’s

        *dons sunglasses*

        Andy’s mint.

      2. Pretty sure Jackson’s dead. So that would be quite a feat.

    2. Jackson ended the first central bank in the US. It is only fitting that his face be plastered on central bank notes.

      1. Second central bank. The first’s charter expired in 1811.

    3. It would be so goddamn awesome if that picture was the one actually used for the $20.

      Take her hand, America. She wants to free you from slavery.

      /inorite!

  6. I’m glad Gillespie is now writing listicles because he is such a cool cat and it’s what the kids are into

    1. His totes awesome articles keep you from spending all day on the twitters looking for an ESB replacement, don’t they? Admit it, his plan to capture the millennial readership is working.

  7. by their reckoning slavery is the essence of capitalism

    Those people are idiots.

    1. And that’s not even peak derp.

      Keep Harriet Tubman ? and all women ? off the $20 bill

      Short version: “Capitalism exploits women!” Some people just can’t be satisfied.

    2. Believe it or not, this appears to be a very common trope among leftist historians and legal scholars.

      Unfortunately for them, the thing that makes capitalism “capitalism” is, in fact, the presence of industrial and financial capital ? ? after all, that is what gives capitalism its name. And one critical, distinctive aspect of the economy of the slave south, as demonstrated conclusively by historians like Foner, Genovese, and Freehling, was its chronic shortage of industrial and financial capital. Indeed, Genovese, who was a Marxist at the time he wrote “The Political Economy of Slavery,” described the slave south as premodern, antibourgeois, and fundamentally at odds with the capitalist north, and argued that slavery prevented the south from becoming capitalist. in fact, he described the slave south as a feudalistic society.

      But why let facts get in the way of ideology?

      1. Actually, “capitalism” as a socio-economic definition was invented by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in the mid-19th century; for them, “capital” was a social relationship as well as a term for money or machinery (i.e “capital vs. labor”). Thus, “capitalism” is a system where the capitalist controls the means of production and makes his income via profit, at least according to the Marxist definition.

        And the American version of slavery, while a feudalistic (or pre-feudalistic) tradition found in many non-industrial and semi-industrial societies, was indeed incorporated into the capitalist economy of the broader United States. Slaveowners utilized modern financial instruments such as credit and mortgages to expand their acreage and purchase capital equipment such as cotton gins; plus chattel slavery itself facilitated a great deal of industrial growth in the North via the exportation of cheap textiles for manufacture. Slavery itself isn’t a capitalistic system, but the way it was incorporated into the capitalist economy (via credit, mortgages, and its integration into the international textile industry) suggests that it was a crucial part of the capitalist economy in the antebellum period.

  8. Stop. Wasting. My. Fucking. Tax. Dollars. By. Redesigning. The. Goddam. Currency.

    1. Disagree, channel all tax dollars into pointless vanity projects and away from hobbling the economy.

    2. I think that way about pretty postage stamps, but I’m actually ok with the change in the $20 [though I would like it even more sans Jackson at the rear entrance].

    3. Once you hand those dollars over to the government they cease to be yours.

      1. “Tax dollars” are a myth. They are either your dollars, or the government’s dollars. They cease being yours, and become the government’s, when they move from your possession to the government’s. At no instance in time are they in any other state, such as being “tax” dollars rather than “your” dollars or the “government’s” dollars.

        /pet peeve OFF

        1. The house is on fire, and we’re wondering if the furniture is still up-to-date.

        2. “Money ain’t got owners, it only got spenders” — Omar Little.

      2. Some prog argued that because the government prints the money and puts their insignia on it, that means all money belongs to the government and we peons just borrow it from them.

        1. Makes perfect sense, to a prog…especially if it was someone else’s earnings behind the “government” dollars.

        2. I’m all for that as long as they quit sending armed goons to throw people who want to coin and use money the government doesn’t own in cages.

        3. I get it: the government is like the company store, paying us all in scrip.

          How hip and dreamy.

        4. I was required to read The Myth of Ownership for a Tax Policy class in law school. The authors argue basically that.

  9. Tubman also defied the law by escaping – legally speaking, stealing the property of another – with the argument that she was not rightfully property at all and that therefore she was not stealing but merely reclaiming what was rightfully hers to begin with. And by the time the new Tubman Twenty appears I fully expect that carrying cash is going to be fully illegal as carrying a runaway slave was back in her day and for much the same argument. Everything you possess technically (and rightfully) belongs to the State and your possession of it is merely a privilege, attempting to surreptitiously trade something the State has not given you leave to trade for something else the State has not given you leave to possess by means of an unmonitored transaction is a crime against the State.

  10. To this day, blacks have a strong and yet routinely overlooked belief in the Second Amendment,

    When I lived in Richmond, VA back in the late 80s/early 90s, I ran across a black talk radio station. It was fascinating, and they had fairly regular interviews with veterans of the Jim Crow and Civil Rights eras.

    The centrality of guns to the survival and eventual success of the civil rights movement and black communities was openly acknowledge. Stories of armed defense of churches, meetings, etc., and even shootouts with “night riders”, were not uncommon.

    And yet today, this community votes 90% for the politicians who would happily disarm them.

    1. Politicians who have happily disarmed them, and left them largely helpless to defend themselves legally.

      And then employed brazenly abusive police and given them all the protections a public sector union can provide.

      1. But they need to vote for Democrats, because the Republicans want to put ya’ll back in chains!!

        1. Srlsy, brah. I mean, look at how bad Chicago is. Now imagine how much worse it would be if Democrats hadn’t been the ruling party for the past century. Harrowing, right?

    2. the pen, they say, is mightier than the sword.

      1. Especially a blowgun pen.

      2. the pen, they say, is mightier than the sword.

        I’d like to challenge anyone who says that to a fencing duel.

  11. The problem is that they aren’t putting her on the money for any libertarian reasons.

    It’s just a wedge issue. They want to bait Republicans into saying something about putting Tubman on the money they can denounce as racist.

    The most libertarian thing that could happen might be to see people have racist reactions to Tub[person]–and no one care.

    I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. If the left is going to leverage my choice to use sensitive language as a means to violate the free speech rights of racists (homophobes, climate change deniers, and other idiots), then using offensive speech might become the moral equivalent of protesters sitting at a segregated lunch counter during the civil rights movement. As MLK said, we may have a moral duty to break unjust laws–but do we have to wait for laws against stupid speech to materialize before we protest them? I don’t think so.

    If political correctness is becoming a serious threat to free speech, then objecting to wedge issue ploys like this on the basis that they’re just empty, politically correct wedges might be a very libertarian thing to do.

    1. They want to bait Republicans

      And Repubs are probably stupid enough to fall for it, rather than saying “We applaud putting a black woman who was a staunch Republican, a believer in the right to go armed for self-defense, and a genuine hero on our currency.”

      1. “We applaud putting a black woman who was a staunch Republican, a believer in the right to go armed for self-defense, and a genuine hero on our currency.”

        If they were smart enough, this would be a glorious trollish response.

        1. Like I said, they replaced the founder of the modern Democratic party with a God-fearing, gun-toting Republican.

        2. Slip in something about displacing the racist, slaveholding founder of the Democratic party, and the wailing and gnashing of teeth on the left will be epic.

          1. “We applaud putting a black woman who was a staunch Republican, a believer in the right to go armed for self-defense, and a genuine hero on our currency. It could not be more appropriate to replace a racist slaveholder who founded the Democrat Party with an abolitionist Republican. We fully support this non-partisan proposal by the administration.”

          2. Nah, you’ll just get a lot of sputtering about how the Democratic Party then is basically the Republican Party now and vice versa. Because Nixon or something.

            1. Yeah, they do like to reinvent history.

        3. This is pretty much what Rush Limbaugh did today. And he roasted The Donald for his knee jerk response to the news.

      2. I don’t know, the “Republican woman with a gun” thing seems to be all over righty twitter already.

      3. “And Repubs are probably stupid enough to fall for it, rather than saying “We applaud putting a black woman who was a staunch Republican, a believer in the right to go armed for self-defense, and a genuine hero on our currency.”

        Either way, I’m hoping it doesn’t work.

        They accused Bush Sr. of being racist for the Willie Horton ad. Bush Sr. won anyway.

        That tactic didn’t work.

        Accusing anyone and everyone of being racist has been extremely effective since Obama was elected.

        Whether the Republicans are successfully baited into saying stupid shit or whether they resist the temptation is one thing–either way, if the Republicans do well despite being called out as racists or whether they resist, the Democrats will stop calling anyone and everyone racist once that tactic doesn’t work anymore.

        But they won’t stop using that tactic until it fails. It’s like in football. You keep running the same play as long as it works. Once the defense figures it out, and the play stops working, you don’t run those plays anymore.

        I’m looking forward to race baiting going the way of the “run and shoot” and the “wildcat” formation. It’s the mother of all wedge issues. When we’re talking about Harriet Tubman, the Confederate flag, the Washington Redskins, etc., etc., we’re not talking about taxes, spending, ObamaCare imploding before our eyes, etc.

    2. “It’s just a wedge issue. They want to bait Republicans into saying something about putting Tubman on the money they can denounce as racist.”

      Well, that’s probably not going to work given that I’ve seen 0 Republicans who oppose this. The Republican Party line seems to be “she was a gun toting Republican Christian anti-government rebel.”

      I guess maybe leftists wanted to use it as a wedge issue on the assumption Republicans were so racist they’d be against this, but all that proves is that leftists think their opponents are way more racist than they actually are.

      1. Has there been any reaction from conservative circles yet?

        1. First one I’ve seen making the wedge argument

          http://hotair.com/archives/201…..e-20-bill/

          1. The media is still behind the cycle. They can only cover stuff after it happens.

            Tomorrow’s opinion pieces were probably written a few days ago. They only started thinking about Tubman yesterday.

            Gillespie is always ahead of the pack. He came up through this medium. Hell, he helped build this medium.

            1. You might say he took the initiative in creating this medium?

    3. The $20 should really have the Star of David given that Jews have been almost fully in charge of the money supply for about 100 years. How’s that for politically incorrect? But it’s true. I should get a gig at the Poconos. And I don’t think they’re doing such a bad job either, FWIW. Western currencies are not suffering from rampant inflation as they are elsewhere.

      1. See, you’re testing my convictions with that, right there, but I’m still saying the First Amendment protects stupid speech, too.

        Guess I must be a committed libertarian.

      2. …in charge of the money supply for about 100 years…And I don’t think they’re doing such a bad job either…

        That’s the racist proggie bit right there, blaming the Fed and income tax on the Jews and calling it good.

        1. The Jews are doing a good job with our money?
          Is that a joke?
          It’s lost nearly all its value in a hundred years. They got bailed out by taxpayers in 2008. We waste more loot protecting their shitty little country.

    4. It is only a wedge issue if Republicans take the bait. What do Republicans stand for?

      If Republicans stand for universal principles like individual liberty, they will applaud Tubman on the $20 note.

      If they stand for white victimhood, nostalgia for the Confederacy and anti-political correctness, they will whine about it.

      But nominating Trump, Republicans would make their choice clear.

  12. When you think about it, all money should have a Jew on it.

    My nominations:

    1. Milton Berle. We’ll need extra long bills for that.
    2. Rod Carew. A two-fer.
    3. Milton Friedman. Because awesome.
    4. Richard Feynman. Because he would have hated the idea of being on money.

    1. I humbly submit Sammy Davis Jr. who also was a DifferentlyAbled-American

    2. I think Bernie Madoff best represents you people.

      1. Disagree. The stupid mamzer got caught. Not nearly crafty enough to be a real Jew. They’re sewing his foreskin back on.

        1. Good point. Meyer Lansky? Louis B. Mayer?

          1. George Soros.

            1. Ah, a Jewish Nazi.

    3. Do Canadian Jews qualify?

      1. Qualify as what? Butts of jokes? Sure.

        Isn’t Rufus a crypto-Jew name?

          1. They don’t call him Rufus Biggus Dickus for nothing.

            1. In keeping with the character, it would be Wufus.

          2. That’s what the Jews behind Wikipedia would like you to believe.

            1. DO THESE CONSPIRACIES EVER END?!

      2. Those flapping headed, beady eyed……….NO!

        Canadians don’t qualify for anything! Jewish or not.

    4. Scarlett Johansson

      1. She’s on the 36C note.

      2. Makes sense. My twenties are usually stuck together anyway.

  13. Less politicians on money is fine with me. Reasons for doing it maybe stupid, but good thing for dumb reasons is still good thing.

        1. Please use complete sentences.

      1. Tubman weighed fewer pounds than Jackson, you are right for the wrong reason.

  14. Most of us want to have good income but don’t know how to do that on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn money at home, so I thought to share with you a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn huge sum of money at home anyone of you interested should visit the site. More than sure that you will get best result.I3

    ——– http://www.E-cash10.COM

  15. I think we should put Giovanni Agnelli on the currency as a constant reminder of where we came from and what we can become.

  16. And why is it taking 10 years?

    1. Because the government is an inefficient lumbering beast.

      1. Well, as that guy at Salon would tell you, government is slow and inefficient because that damned private sector keeps interfering. If they would just get out of the state’s way, everything would be smooth as silk.

    2. Because they need inflation to make $20 worth $15.60.

  17. To this day, blacks have a strong and yet routinely overlooked belief in the Second Amendment

    Racists.

  18. “She believed in armed self-defense”

    Big deal. So did most of 19th century America.

    I do agree with the article mostly, she was an admirable woman who adhered to a higher principle but at the same time does it really matter who is on the $20 bill?
    Personally, I think Nathan Hale would be a great pick but again it is all funny money anyways.

    1. There are a lot of people who value symbolism and ceremony. And I understand why. I don’t think I value those things quite as much as some, but I do value them. They have an ability to inspire and educate people in ways that facts and formal rhetoric don’t. That’s why these types of things can matter, and why we shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss them.

      1. You are right, it is a great way to educate and inform.

  19. And Andrew Jackson, who in many ways incarnates everything that is awful about America

    But also a strong distrust of central banking and fiat currency. Which is another, better, reason to remove him from the currency. If jingoist, racist slave owning forefathers should be purged from history and relegated to a list of long dead villains, then purge basically all the founding fathers from the nationalist pantheon and set the Declaration of Independence on fire while we’re at it.

    1. ^This

      I’m so sick and tired of hearing how horrible the founding fathers were, seriously! They did give us the best system with a solid bill of rights that was/is very revolutionary. These “racists” created a constitution that is the envy of many an oppressed people in this world.

      1. I’ve always been careful to separate the people from the ideas. Were they awful people? I don’t know. Did they support some awful things? Sure. Does either of those lesson their great ideas? Not in the least bit.

        Personally, I wouldn’t mind for an instant if we stopped honoring people on our currency and started honoring ideas. But whatever.

        From what I know of Jackson, though, he had fewer redeeming qualities and more bad ones than, say, Washington or Jefferson.

        1. If Jesse Jackson had been born a white man into a slave-holding family in Georgia in 1845, he would have vigorously defended the institution and his rights to continue it.

          1. If Jesse Jackson had been born a white man into a slave-holding family in Georgia in 1845, he wouldn’t be Jesse Jackson. So it’s a moot point.

            1. The point is that it’s no surprise that a person born into a certain political/economic/religious status perpetuates that system if it’s working for him.

              In other words, why is anyone surprised or shocked that some influential early Americans were slaveholders?

              1. I don’t think it’s all that surprising, I just think it was immoral.

              2. Because progtards gotta be progtards.

        2. At the same time, I understand that most people seem to have real trouble separating people from the ideas the espoused. And I believe some people try demonize historical figures precisely so that they can dismiss *all* of their ideas. So we should be vigilant against that.

          If Jackson was the same font of great ideas as Jefferson or Washington, I may grit my teeth and stick up for him a bit more. As far as I know, he wasn’t. But I do understand the concern over granting the premise of people who want to attack liberal/libertarian ideas based on who championed them.

          1. most people seem to have real trouble separating people from the ideas the espoused.

            “Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.”

            There’s a lot of small minds out there.

          2. I understand that most people seem to have real trouble separating people from the ideas the espoused

            I’m pretty sure shreek, tulpa, and joe p boyle are the total morons their posts show them to be.

        3. I’ve always been careful to separate the people from the ideas. Were they awful people? I don’t know. Did they support some awful things? Sure. Does either of those lesson their great ideas? Not in the least bit.

          Personally, I wouldn’t mind for an instant if we stopped honoring people on our currency and started honoring ideas. But whatever.

          From what I know of Jackson, though, he had fewer redeeming qualities and more bad ones than, say, Washington or Jefferson.

          I think this is an important distinction that too few people (especially among proggies) make. Jefferson is perhaps the best example for that. He was a petty, vindictive, and power-hungry person, especially once he rose to the presidency. But the ideals he espoused in the Declaration of Independence are no less true and just and virtuous simply because he himself was unable to adhere to them.

          I personally believe we should go back to having images of Liberty and other allegorical figures on our currency (but I think too many in our country no longer view liberty as a virtue, so that might be difficult to achieve). I’m also fine with keeping George Washington on things. Washington kicked ass.

          1. Tubman is an allegorical figure to 99% of the population.

        4. Personally, I wouldn’t mind for an instant if we stopped honoring people on our currency and started honoring ideas.

          Push-up bra on the $1.

        5. “Were they awful people? I don’t know. Did they support some awful things? Sure. Does either of those lesson their great ideas? Not in the least bit.”

          The “progressive” line of thought is that if some historical figure was “problematic” in some way, all of their ideas can be disregarded. I guess they think that the works of Einstein, Aristotle, Newton, Galileo, and Pasteur should be tossed in the dustbin because those people probably believed some things that are now known to be incorrect. Also because they were white.

      2. Jackson was a founding father?

        I know he was a courier in the war, but unless he was transporting the Declaration, I don’t think he counts.

        1. Jackson was a founding father?

          I know he was a courier in the war, but unless he was transporting the Declaration, I don’t think he counts.

          He was responding to my comment, where I suggested that the founding fathers, many of whom could be described the same way as Jackson, should be thrown under the bus too.

        2. Jackson was a founding father?

          I believe he was a stow-away in one of General Washington’s boats. Washington was furious at first, but he liked the kid’s spirit and ambition, and they quickly developed a father-son like relationship. Young Jackson was especially handy with sabotage, given his diminutive stature and his knack for all things mechanical, and he was also practiced in the art of deception. He was able to infiltrate the British camps at the Battle of Yorktown by pretending to be a scared, abandoned child, and single-handedly killed King George the Third, thereby ending the Revolution.

            1. Sorry, sorry, I won’t give away what he did after stealing Napoleon’s gold.

      3. The system bequeathed by these men, men better than any of the miscreants currently wielding power, has allowed for more prosperity and freedom for these historically disadvantaged groups than anywhere else in the world, especially and including the homelands of these groups where white racism could not reasonably be blamed for their many problems.

  20. Apparently she also carried a sword, which just makes this better and better.

    1. I heard it was a samurai sword, and she’d make slavers impale themselves on it.

      1. Seems legit

      2. she’d make slavers impale themselves on it.

        So something like this then.

      3. I read somewhere that it was a sword made out of flame and she used it to incinerate her oppressors. And she could fly.

      4. I heard it was a samurai sword, and she’d make slavers impale themselves on it.

        When she wasn’t busy decapitating zombies in the post-apocalyptic woods of Georgia.

      5. And feast on their still beating hearts. To gain their quickenings.

  21. They really should put John Brown on the back for extra lulz.

  22. She was a great REPUBLICAN!!!

  23. I’m surprised the social democrats are in love with the Tubman $20.

    Self-ownership is so icky and old-fashioned. Social ownership is the way to go.

    Everyone else owning you equally isn’t slavery, because social.

    1. Social Contract.

      *drops microphone*

      1. Everyone agrees to it as soon as they’re born.

      2. Social Contract – not a contract.

        Social Justice – not justice.

        Social Worker – not a worker.

        I’m sure we could do this all day.

    2. Look, it’s fine to be a slave if you choose to be a slave. Tubman didn’t choose to be one.

      Now all the cool kids want to be slaves. And you should want to be a slave, too.

  24. A year ago, when Tubman’s name was first floated as a possible figure for a new $20 bill, a number of anti-capitalist commenters observed that Tubman of all people shouldn’t be on money because, by their reckoning, slavery is the essence of capitalism.

    The fuck?! What kind of mental defective would even think of something like that? Oh, right… “anti-capitalist commenters.” People like commie kid. Nevermind.

    1. As best as I can tell, Harriet Tubman is being placed on a symbol of capitalism, which is slavery. So a slave-system is using Tubman’s visage to promote itself.

    2. All of the world’s ills are attributable to capitalism, Loki.

    3. Fiat currency is a lot closer to slavery than it is to capitalism.

      1. Fiat currency is a lot closer to slavery than it is to capitalism.

        I thought capitalism was about trading things freely and the currency was merely a convenient means of storing value.

        Your comment needs explanation.

        1. Capitalism *is* about trading things freely, and currency *is* the convenient means of storing value.

          The problem with fiat currency is that it’s a currency controlled by government, so our monetary supply is controlled by the whims of bureaucrats. They can cause inflation at will, and while they are afraid of deflation ever since they botched things up during the Great Depression, they can do that too.

          We would be better off if we decided or ourselves what our currency was, and I would suspect that it would probably settle on gold, silver, and copper, with the values of each with respect to each other fluctuating depending on how much every person wants of each.

  25. I still think we need the Clue game pieces.

    If you insisted on getting fancier and/or picturesque, add in some geography and sorta recreate a US-history version of the game on the currency. An SA-7 Grail on the front and a picture of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border on the back or a Douglas C-54 on the front and a Picture of an Australian Sugar Mill on the back.

    That or wrongly convicted felons.

  26. A fine new arrangement of those deck chairs Captain.
    Carry on.

  27. An option for other bills – some really high denomination ones – is a pile of fucking rocks.
    http://bit.ly/1BD7U65

    1. Is that a golden phallus on the right or someone flipping the bird?

  28. “You remember when I used to make seven, or eight, or even nine dollars a week in Baltimore, you would take every cent of it from me every Saturday night, saying that I belonged to you, and my earnings also.”

    I’m glad to live in a time where Massa Sam lets us keep as much as half of those dollars.

    1. He just wants to wet his beak, just a little.

  29. The American Founders risked their “lives, fortunes and sacred honor” to resist *metaphorical* slavery.

    Tubman risked everything to resist *actual* slavery – the unfinished business of the Revolution.

    Less talk, more action, was the principle she seems to have observed. That’s fairly American, isn’t it?

    Never mind the currency, is there room on Mount Rushmore for heroes like her?

    1. Just file that environmental impact statement, first, bub.

  30. Superficial.

  31. It’s easy to say “Fuck off, slaver”. Harriet Tubman actually made them.

    1. Perfect. Add that (in Latin, because classy) to the design.

      1. “Vade Retro, Dominus”

  32. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,

    ============== http://www.worknow88.com

  33. Nathan . if you think Gloria `s posting is astonishing… yesterday I bought a brand new Land Rover Defender after bringing in $8648 this-past/5 weeks and even more than 10-k this past munth . with-out any question its the most-rewarding I have ever done . I actually started five months/ago and right away started making a cool more than $85… per/hr .
    try here ??? http://www.ny-reports.com

  34. I don’t disagree, but in (modest) defense of Andrew Jackson, I will note that calling him genocidal is a bit exaggerated (tough he certainly left a sizable body count behind, it wasn’t out of an intention to exterminate any tribe). And he was the only president ever to eliminate the National Debt.

    1. Well, keep in mind that we’re dealing with a group of people who think teaching immigrants in English in American schools (something entirely in the immigrants’ own interests, lest they want to be confined to ghettos their whole lives) is a form of genocide. Because it’s killing their cultural souls, or some bullshit like that.

  35. I doubt any of those reasons were the reason she was picked. I’m sure there were more politically correct reasons.

  36. Ya know, I bet putting her on that bill is a sign of the coming libertarian moment!

  37. Tubman/Douglas 2016

  38. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    ? ? ? ? http://www.MaxPost30.com

  39. William . I can see what your saying… Raymond `s article is surprising, last week I bought a top of the range Acura from making $4608 this-past/month and-a little over, $10,000 this past month . with-out any question its the easiest work I’ve ever had . I began this five months/ago and almost straight away startad bringin in minimum $82 per-hr
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.fox-88.com

  40. uptil I saw the bank draft four $8760 , I be certain …that…my sister woz actually bringing in money part time from there labtop. . there neighbour had bean doing this 4 only about eighteen months and resently cleard the depts on there home and bourt a top of the range Chrysler ….

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Reportmax20.com

  41. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8012 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…

    —————- http://www.online.factoryofincome.com

  42. I’m surprised they’re not pushing to put Obama on the $20…

    1. I wish I had thought about this shortly after he was first elected, when it might have been tentatively possible politically, but after a couple of years of Obama, it occurred to me that we should have renamed Washington, DC to Obama, DC. We could have proposed it in terms of “Oh, look at the monumental historic moment of racial togetherness! Let’s celebrate by renaming the Capitol!”

      The ulterior motive, of course, rests on the fact that Washington was an amazing, decent human being. He could have been king! But he chose instead to be a peanut farmer. When he became President, he chose to limit his time to two years, setting a fantastic precedent that seeking power should be frowned upon. It’s rather sad that, nowadays, we talk about power-hungry Washington bureaucrats, and complain about Washington this, Washington that, and wanting to spit on that name. I would much rather do all this grumbling and spitting with Obama, DC in mind, instead…

  43. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8012 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…

    —————- http://www.online.factoryofincome.com

  44. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.selfcash10.com

  45. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ? http://www.SelfCash10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.