Blog Post

Hamilton’s supporters question Treasury Department's $10 decision

June 22, 2015 | by NCC Staff

The U.S. Treasury Department’s decision to feature a woman on the $10 bill has led to a vibrant debate about Alexander Hamilton’s role in the currency word, and why Andrew Jackson remains on the $20 bill.

 

ahamilton1792Secretary Jack Lew’s announcement last Wednesday night of a five-year process to find the right woman, or women, to go on the new version of the $10 bill in the year 2020 surely got a lot of attention. The move's timing coincides with events in 2020 that mark the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution. (The 19th Amendment, as we all know, was ratified on August 18, 1920, and gave all women in the United States the right to vote.)

 

"Our democracy is a work in progress. We've always been committed to a more perfect union," Treasury Secretary Jack Lew told reporters on Wednesday. "This decision to put a woman on the $10 [bill] reflects our aspirations for the future, as much as it is a reflection of the past."

 

To be sure, there seemed to be widespread support for a woman being added to a major currency note for the first time since Martha Washington's appearance on the $1 Silver Certificate in the late 19th century.

 

But the current occupant of the $10 bill, Hamilton, happens to be the father of the Treasury Department and is one of the seminal Founding Fathers.

 

Lew later told The Wall Street Journal that Hamilton would play some role as an icon on Americans currency, but he wasn’t specific. “We made it clear that Alexander Hamilton will remain part of our currency,” Lew said. “He played such a formative role in establishing our economic system. We are proud to continue to plan on honoring Alexander Hamilton.”

 

That said, there quickly spawned a debate in the media about the roles of Hamilton and his ideological opposite, Andrew Jackson, the current occupant of the $20 bill.

 

In March, U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen championed a move to dump Jackson from the $20 bill and replace him with a woman. But on Wednesday, she issued a statement supporting Lew’s move. "While it may not be the twenty dollar bill, make no mistake, this is a historic announcement," Shaheen said. "Young girls across this country will soon be able to see an inspiring woman on the ten dollar bill."

 

Hamilton biographer Ron Chernow wasn’t as understanding. Also speaking with The Wall Street Journal, Chernow questioned the choice to diminish Hamilton.

 

“This is a bureaucratic decision. This is not a decree from Mount Sinai,” Chernow said. “There is a legitimate case for having a woman on the $20 and we should have that debate. But to demote Hamilton because of an invented schedule — at this particular time — is wrong.”

 

“I can’t imagine what the Treasury secretary is thinking in this order of priority,” Chernow added. “It’s a mistake to correct one historic injustice by doing another.”

 

The Washington Post's Alexandra Petri also called for Jackson's removal from the $20 bill. "This had better be a stealth campaign by the U.S. Treasury to gain support for removing Andrew Jackson from the $20 and replacing him with a woman. Otherwise, it’s unforgivable," said Petri. "If someone has to go, far better Old Hickory than Alex. To take Hamilton off the currency while leaving Jackson is to actively make America a worse place."

 

Steve Inskeep of NPR, writing for Time magazine, made the case for Jackson staying on the $20 bill, citing the argument that some people don't understand why Jackson opposed paper currency and national banks as President. "Jackson entered the Presidency paranoid about the Second Bank of the United States — believing it wasn’t constitutional and was too entangled with powerful elites," he said. "But Jackson wasn’t exactly wrong. The Bank was making loans to the same lawmakers who supported it."

 

In his March 1837 farewell address, Jackson made clear that his objections to paper currency were constitutional. "The Constitution of the United States unquestionably intended to secure to the people a circulating medium of gold and silver," he said. "The establishment of a national bank by Congress, with the privilege of issuing paper money receivable in the payment of the public dues, and the unfortunate course of legislation in the several States upon the same subject, drove from general circulation the constitutional currency and substituted one of paper in its place."

 

Historian Richard Brookhiser, also writing in the Journal, summarized this conflict between the Madison-Jefferson-Jackson view on currency, and Hamilton's vision.

 

"Hamilton’s Federalist collaborator, James Madison, thought the bank was illegal—the Constitution mentioned no such thing. Hamilton argued that a bank was necessary to fulfill a function the Constitution did mention—borrowing money on the credit of the United States—therefore it was an implied power. President Washington and Congress agreed," Brookhiser said.

 

With the Treasury Department still planning the $10 currency transition's details,  there is plenty of time for public debate. And if that debate causes the general public to look at the constitutional origins of the Hamilton-Jackson argument, maybe the decision has a few dividends that Hamilton and Jackson themselves would appreciate.


 
More from the National Constitution Center
Constitution 101

Explore our new 15-unit core curriculum with educational videos, primary texts, and more.

Media Library

Search and browse videos, podcasts, and blog posts on constitutional topics.

Founders’ Library

Discover primary texts and historical documents that span American history and have shaped the American constitutional tradition.

Constitution Daily Blog