Main Page - Latest News

Submit a news story.

Cuckservatives Celebrate Harriet Tubman Replacing Andrew Jackson On $20 Bill

Harriet-Tubman-bill2 (1)

By Hunter Wallace

Here is a small sample of the effeminate virtue-signaling from #TruConservative pundits that unfolded this afternoon on Twitter when the news was announced that Harriet Tubman was replacing Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill:

The pundits who tweeted above write for National Review, RedState, The Federalist, The Week, The Blaze, The Weekly Standard and Commentary.


National Review has published a think-piece:

“Jackson was a major influence in turning the federal government into an engine of partisan patronage, setting the model for client-based governing that the Democratic party in particular has followed ever since. And his demagogy and politics of grievance remain dangers to this day. The Jacksonians are gone from the Democratic party now — Jim Webb was the last man to turn out the lights on his way out — but the Donald Trump phenomenon has underlined the extent to which they are no friend to principled conservatism, any more than Jackson himself was. …”

The Jacksonians “are no friend to principled conservatism” and “his demagogy and politics of grievance remain dangers to this day.” In other words, all those Scots-Irish voters in the South in places like Jacksonville, FL or Jackson County, AL or Jackson, MS are a threat to #TruConservatism. So let’s thumb them in the eye.


From Leon Wolf of RedState:

“There are so many figures who were central to our great Civil War, both in the military sense (like Grant) and the political sense (like Lincoln). But the Civil War was, at bottom, a spiritual fight. It was won on the battlefields of Shiloh and Gettysburg, but these battles would never have been fought if not for the inspirational figures like Frederick Douglass, John Brown, and Harriet Tubman. Tubman’s character, honor, bravery and ferocity symbolized the plight of the American slave, and her example helped paved the way for the end of the institution.

Even as a resident of Nashville, home of Andrew Jackson, I do not feel angered by his removal from United States currency. I feel Jackson has perhaps been judged unduly harshly by history, as he is often judged by the standards of decency that are prevalent today, rather than by comparison to the standards of decency that prevailed in his day. If Abraham Lincoln were treated this way by history, he would be known today as a virulent racist. But Jackson, unlike some of his other contemporaries, has never been able to shed the stain of the Trail of Tears from his legacy, even though he by all accounts is largely responsible for the shape of the modern Presidency. Certainly, he is less instrumental to the foundation of this nation than was the great Alexander Hamilton. And according to early speculation, he will not be removed altogether from the bill in any case, but merely demoted to the back. …”

Did you know that John Brown is an “inspirational” conservative figure?


The Federalist is signaling even harder against the Jacksonian populist threat:

“In the name of national unity, it seems obvious that Andrew Jackson should go. The liberal reasons to throw him over are obvious enough. But there is also a raft of reasons why conservative people should sacrifice Old Hickory.

Already, enterprising minds are realizing how fun it would be to cut loose altogether from the hidebound traditionalism of dead presidents and solemn monuments. In the interest of breaking up “the whiteness and straightness of the history most of us grew up with,” New York’s Christopher Bonanos proposes that each bill be made “thematic,” pairing stubbornly persistent presidents with interesting, important, and inclusive figures from throughout American life. As precedent he cites the delightful diversity of bills of yore. …

But even conservatives have justifiable self-interests and right now the best case for booting Jackson is two words long: Donald Trump. Now that many on the Right believe a crass and misguided populism is in real danger of destroying the Republican Party, stripping the populists of Jackson is more than a retaliatory stick in the eye. It is a reminder that if Jackson was bad, at least he was a proper leader in the primal sense, as a military man.

Key to “Jacksonianism”—a point often lost in the present-day melee—is the idea that warriors ought to have a greater say. There’s a principled case for that viewpoint, but it is light years away from today’s pseudo-Jacksonianism. Here conservatives’ self-interest dovetails with the national interest.

Most conservatives will immediately understand there are virtues to a more military society that are not to be found in a merely more militaristic one. Militant populism that comes from people with no military experience is all but guaranteed to be dumb and dangerous in a way warriors are not.

You can see this in our police departments, where veterans in law enforcement are often apt to view their jobs in less theatrical or performative ways than macho civilians playing army on the force. Above all you can see it in the way we turn everything, rhetorically, into an “all-out war”—an absurdity for anyone who has actually seen even minor combat. Imagine how bad Jackson would have been without the discipline of having served.

Conservative, liberal, or neither, ridding the $20 of Jackson ought to pierce the fog of Trumpism—not only by rebuking a populist icon, but by reminding the populists that their militant vitriol is too lacking in martial virtue. In that sense, the proper presidential symbol of a politics more military isn’t hard to find. He’s graced our currency before—from 1971 to 1978, on the silver dollar.

For the good of the country, let’s replace Andrew Jackson with Dwight Eisenhower.”

It is spelled out more clearly here: rebuke the Jacksonian populists who voted for Trump by trashing their hero Andrew Jackson. They’re not #TruConservatives anyway.