Why in the hell is Elizabeth Stanton allowed anywhere near a place of honor? Susan B Anthony deserves to be honored, she fought the good fight for human dignity and rights. Stanton turned into a flaming militant racist when she got older who fought against civil rights for freed slaves; if we are challenging Woodrow Wilson's place in history (as we should) the Stanton decision is a step backwards IMO. Want to put someone on the currency who did good by the country, deserves recognition and we can all be proud of? My vote is for Sarah Josepha Hale. She earned a living as a writer in a time when it was rare if not unheard of for women to earn a living. She fought for women's access to education and helped found Vasser. She was also working for women's rights a generation before Anthony and Stanton which would be a nod to the people who paved the way for the Suffrage Movement after the Civil War. Hale is also a very pro-American writer, which will help shut up the bigots and MRA's who are inevitably going to whine about the change. Of all the women to honor, they could not come up with someone better? Abigail Adams, Dolly Madison? Hell, for that matter, you want a firebrand that will stand as a lightening rod, why not Molly Pitcher? Why not Margaret Corbin, the first woman to receive a military pension in the US? And if you want a symbol of how a 'girl' can be a bad-ass, Deborah Sampson was one of very few combat veterans with confirmed kills in the Revolutionary war.Eventually, Stanton's oppositional rhetoric took on racial overtones. Arguing on behalf of female suffrage, Stanton posited that women voters of "wealth, education, and refinement" were needed to offset the effect of former slaves and immigrants whose "pauperism, ignorance, and degradation" might negatively affect the American political system. She declared it to be "a serious question whether we had better stand aside and see 'Sambo' walk into the kingdom [of civil rights] first." Some scholars have argued that Stanton's emphasis on property ownership and education, opposition to black male suffrage, and desire to hold out for universal suffrage fragmented the civil rights movement by pitting African-American men against women and, together with Stanton's emphasis on "educated suffrage," in part established a basis for the literacy requirements that followed in the wake of the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment.
You mention a lot of examples, but you are looking at them from the position of "value as being a cool person". That's not what the dollar is about, the dollar is about your impact on the world. Killing some people in a war or fighting in the military isn't making an impact. Lots of people did exceptionally for their time, lots of people did amazing things for their position, but ultimately the change they inspired was gradual and uninspiring for the most part, unless mentioned on threads like these. Being one of the most recognized icons of fighting slavery in the pre-civil war US is far more recognizable than any of the things you mention. Really, I think MLK deserves that position more, but he isn't a woman.
Rights and liberties are not given; they are taken by people willing to fight for them. That means we honor soldiers, generals, the union protesters who had the army called out to stop them, all so we can have an eight hour work day. Excellent way of putting it. I like to think of America as an Ideal we are lumbering towards in fits and steps. MLK did not end racism, segregation and bigotry with a speech. but those speeches inspired people to protest and fight, many at great personal costs. I've seen the argument that Truman desegregating the military was the first real step towards the Civil Rights movement as thousands of white Americans saw how people they fought alongside were treated by the law and were appalled. The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step and all that, right? And he's not been dead long enough, honestly. This is why Reagan won't be on currency any time soon; hopefully his fan boys will all grow old and die so that won't happen ever but that is me the liberal talking. The point is that as long as people fight to make the place better, we can win. You don't have to be the strongest person, or the smartest, you just have to get off your ass and fight. It may take a while, but the fight is worth it in the end.but ultimately the change they inspired was gradual and uninspiring for the most part, unless mentioned on threads like these.
Really, I think MLK deserves that position more, but he isn't a woman.
That's not something I considered. It's easy to forget that MLK and the whole civil rights era was a bit more than a generation or two ago. Makes me think of my grandma talking about him along the lines of: "I just felt so sorry for those black people, I didn't like MLK for riling them up", or an old teacher talking about living in an era of segregated drinking fountains. I agree that the small steps are important, but it is also true that a position on the dollar is as much about public approval and recognition as it is about the work you did and how good a person you are. As for the idea of the an ideal we lumber towards, I disagree. I think we are always at our "ideal" and as time passes that ideal shifts, and we look at the old ideals as incorrect. The cycle, so far as I am aware, will never end. We are always "one step behind the ideal world" before we realize things changed again and there is another step to take. Not necessarily towards our modern ideal of progress either, there will come a day that we move to a less ideal world from our modern viewpoint, and I suspect that shift will be based on the infringement of privacy.And he's not been dead long enough, honestly
I was alive when MLK was alive. For a few months at least. I agree with this. Privacy is dying faster than anyone really understands.Not necessarily towards our modern ideal of progress either, there will come a day that we move to a less ideal world from our modern viewpoint, and I suspect that shift will be based on the infringement of privacy.