[The Urban Sombrero]

⬆
Harriet Tubman did not walk on water or desire mythological status. What she did was walk in courage against evil, against inequality, and work for dignity and freedom for all. If that isn't fundamentally American in spirit, then shut the whole thing down. There isn't much left.

But let's be clear: none of this is personal to me: it's political rancor, a time-honored American tradition. Bob, TRT, Granny, anybody: if a big ol' BGR Political Forum get together was thrown, I'd buy dinner for any of you, eat with you, bicker around, and consider us all Americans doing the kinds of things the Founding Fathers and our Constitution envisioned: free and vigorous discussion and debate and disagreement. We none know each other. It's screennames. It can't be personal. Bob worked hard and sent kids through school. TRT is eloquent and committed. It just isn't personal. It's political rabble rousing, Oxford-style debate, good old American political hash.

[TheRealThing]

A matter of record? :thatsfunn Who's record?

Founding fathers are men who organized against tyranny, fought the revolution, and wrote the founding documents of our country. Find me a "record" that calls Andrew Jackson a Founding Father since it's so easy to determine. Historians have always referred to the founding fathers as actual "founders" of the country. Not 9 year olds that had nothing to do with it.

Seriously, find me one credible source that refers to Andrew Jackson as a founding father, or any source that says founding fathers were guys who were Presidents in the 1830's. Go.

[I]"Andrew Jackson was born near the end of the colonial era, somewhere near the then-unmarked border between North and South Carolina, into a recently immigrated Scots-Irish farming family of relatively modest means. During the American Revolutionary War, Jackson, whose family supported the revolutionary cause, acted as a courier. At age 13, he was captured and mistreated by the British army" [/I]
http://historipediaofficial.wikia.com/wi...ew_Jackson

Andrew Jackson is considered to be a Founding Father because he fought in the Revolutionary War as a child.

Laugh that off bozo.

[catdoggy]

[I]"Andrew Jackson was born near the end of the colonial era, somewhere near the then-unmarked border between North and South Carolina, into a recently immigrated Scots-Irish farming family of relatively modest means. During the American Revolutionary War, Jackson, whose family supported the revolutionary cause, acted as a courier. At age 13, he was captured and mistreated by the British army" [/I]
http://historipediaofficial.wikia.com/wi...ew_Jackson

Andrew Jackson is considered to be a Founding Father because he fought in the Revolutionary War as a child.

Laugh that off bozo.

Was Betsy Devos your history teacher?

[Motley]

[I]"Andrew Jackson was born near the end of the colonial era, somewhere near the then-unmarked border between North and South Carolina, into a recently immigrated Scots-Irish farming family of relatively modest means. During the American Revolutionary War, Jackson, whose family supported the revolutionary cause, acted as a courier. At age 13, he was captured and mistreated by the British army" [/I]
http://historipediaofficial.wikia.com/wi...ew_Jackson

Andrew Jackson is considered to be a Founding Father because he fought in the Revolutionary War as a child.

Laugh that off bozo.

You have absurdly low standards for what it means to be a founding father. Because he was captured and mistreated as a courier doesn't mean he "fought". Don't you remember? Trump doesn't respect or like those that got captured.

According to you, every man, woman, & child that disliked the British or supported the cause of revolution is a founding father? Silly me. I thought founding fathers were more significant than that. Thanks for the very poor history lesson.

[Bob Seger]

Yet again, Harriet Tubman believed that human beings should not be enslaved, held as chattel, bought and sold as cattle.

Why is that controversial? Threatening? Once again, perhaps only an alt white-right southerner would analogize Elvis and Harriet Tubman. To further remain on topic, placing Harriet Tubman's face on a $20 bill will have little impact on America, and will buy the same amount of gas.

Just showing the absurdity of what you are trying to say with another example....There have been thousands of people in US history that have high accomplishments in aiding humanity...There have been hundreds of millions of people that have lived and died since this country was formed that shared those exact same sentiments...Doesn't mean they should be on US currency.....Lets just tell it like it is, you are no different than anyone in the liberal media, all you want to do is stir the pot and divide....She was a black woman, deserving or not, and that is all it takes for you to cook up and promote this absurdity to fit your narrative.

[Stardust]

Just showing the absurdity of what you are trying to say with another example....There have been thousands of people in US history that have high accomplishments in aiding humanity...There have been hundreds of millions of people that have lived and died since this country was formed that shared those exact same sentiments...Doesn't mean they should be on US currency.....Lets just tell it like it is, you are no different than anyone in the liberal media, all you want to do is stir the pot and divide....She was a black woman, deserving or not, and that is all it takes for you to cook up and promote this absurdity to fit your narrative.

Bob, keep the "You" comments out of the discussions please.

Banter about topics, but the personal comments need to tone down. You guy's want to call each other names, text each other and have at it. ;-)

[The Urban Sombrero]

Just showing the absurdity of what you are trying to say with another example....There have been thousands of people in US history that have high accomplishments in aiding humanity...There have been hundreds of millions of people that have lived and died since this country was formed that shared those exact same sentiments...Doesn't mean they should be on US currency.....Lets just tell it like it is, you are no different than anyone in the liberal media, all you want to do is stir the pot and divide....She was a black woman, deserving or not, and that is all it takes for you to cook up and promote this absurdity to fit your narrative.

That others have shared the sentiments doesn't make them Harriet Tubman, who was timed and placed at precise moments in history when those beliefs and commitments were sorely tested. Harriet Tubman is not unworthy to have her image on a $20 bill. Of course, I was not consulted about changing the $20 bill, so my singular point here is only that Harriet Tubman certainly does no dishonor to that particular currency.

[TheRealThing]

You have absurdly low standards for what it means to be a founding father. Because he was captured and mistreated as a courier doesn't mean he "fought". Don't you remember? Trump doesn't respect or like those that got captured.

According to you, every man, woman, & child that disliked the British or supported the cause of revolution is a founding father? Silly me. I thought founding fathers were more significant than that. Thanks for the very poor history lesson.

Tell us all about it there Motley. POW, ever heard that term? Tell the 13 year old courier named Andrew Jackson the ills he suffered IN WAR, would one day be dismissed by a guy who very likely did not serve.

Historians made that determination, and I concur with their assessment. Your ridiculous rationalizations notwithstanding.

[Motley]

Tell us all about it there Motley. POW, ever heard that term? Tell the 13 year old courier named Andrew Jackson the ills he suffered IN WAR, would one day be dismissed by a guy who very likely did not serve.

Historians made that determination, and I concur with their assessment. Your ridiculous rationalizations notwithstanding.

What historians? Because literally everything I can find is pretty definite about him not being one.

Historian Richard B. Morris in 1973 identified the following seven figures as the key Founding Fathers: John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington.[3][4]

[URL="http://www.dictionary.com/browse/founding-fathers"]Plural noun
1.the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787[/URL]

Those who made significant intellectual contributions to the Constitution are called the "Founding Fathers" of our country.

You keep telling yourself that your racist hero was a founding father to help you sleep better at night, and I'll stick to the real truth. You want to act like there were thousands of "founding fathers", be my guest. I'll respect those that actually contributed to the actual "founding" of the country.

[Bob Seger]

That others have shared the sentiments doesn't make them Harriet Tubman, who was timed and placed at precise moments in history when those beliefs and commitments were sorely tested. Harriet Tubman is not unworthy to have her image on a $20 bill. Of course, I was not consulted about changing the $20 bill, so my singular point here is only that Harriet Tubman certainly does no dishonor to that particular currency.

How about the hundreds of thousands of soldiers who gave the ultimate sacrifice who shared her same vision, commitment, and convictions?..She in no way even comes close to being more qualified than they are. So, in essence we have hundreds of thousands of brave people just during the Civil War alone who in reality are more deserving to be on a dollar bill over Miss Tubman, because of that one single fact....And those are just the ones who gave their lives...Hundreds of thousands more survived and were wounded permanently. And then those who served and came back home unscathed...It's not even debatable...I still think that it's race and gender motivated to single her out.

[vector]

How about the hundreds of thousands of soldiers who gave the ultimate sacrifice who shared her same vision, commitment, and convictions?..She in no way even comes close to being more qualified than they are. So, in essence we have hundreds of thousands of brave people just during the Civil War alone who in reality are more deserving to be on a dollar bill over Miss Tubman, because of that one single fact....And those are just the ones who gave their lives...Hundreds of thousands more survived and were wounded permanently. And then those who served and came back home unscathed...It's not even debatable...I still think that it's race and gender motivated to single her out.

Well then we will have to exclude Donald in that category

[The Urban Sombrero]

How about the hundreds of thousands of soldiers who gave the ultimate sacrifice who shared her same vision, commitment, and convictions?..She in no way even comes close to being more qualified than they are. So, in essence we have hundreds of thousands of brave people just during the Civil War alone who in reality are more deserving to be on a dollar bill over Miss Tubman, because of that one single fact....And those are just the ones who gave their lives...Hundreds of thousands more survived and were wounded permanently. And then those who served and came back home unscathed...It's not even debatable...I still think that it's race and gender motivated to single her out.

I don't disagree with choosing, for instance, the Iwo Jima photo or anything symbolic of the greatest good in America. I never once commented on or called for or even thought about changing the $20 bill. I'm simply saying Harriet Tubman does no dishonor to the currency.

[TheRealThing]

What historians? Because literally everything I can find is pretty definite about him not being one.

Historian Richard B. Morris in 1973 identified the following seven figures as the key Founding Fathers: John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington.[3][4]

[URL="http://www.dictionary.com/browse/founding-fathers"]Plural noun
1.the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787[/URL]

Those who made significant intellectual contributions to the Constitution are called the "Founding Fathers" of our country.

You keep telling yourself that your racist hero was a founding father to help you sleep better at night, and I'll stick to the real truth. You want to act like there were thousands of "founding fathers", be my guest. I'll respect those that actually contributed to the actual "founding" of the country.

Well now I can sleep better knowing I have your permission to think on my own. Many historians do consider Andrew Jackson to be a founding father.

The fact of the matter was established by the source you asked for, and which I provided. But as is always the case with flaming libs, all you really want to do is argue. First you wrongly stated Jackson's age at the time, which you said was 9 when it was actually 13. Second, and again according to historians and your own qualifying stated criteria, he " fought the revolution."

Of course, you had to blow that off because he wasn't carrying a bazooka when he got captured, but IF you had the first clue what you were talking about, (which why would you? You didn't serve, and history is certainly not your forte.); You'd know that especially in the case of a courier taken prisoner of His Majesty's Army, being physically tortured would have been expected as couriers normally had information valuable to the Brits, who had carte blanche on coming up with interrogation horrors limited only by their imagination. For example should a courier be captured, as was Andrew Jackson, he may have known the location of certain Colonial Officers, or did the camp seem to have enough food, was ammunition scarce? And what had the courier overheard about a myriad of conditions which, if he was unfortunate enough to be "CAPTURED" and "mistreated," would certainly be gotten out of him by force. In any event, you can bet it was a bit more serious a matter than being mocked for having a bad haircut.

But you can be assured on one point, your fake knowledge is even more thinly veiled than your liberal ideology. I went class regularly, and I remember the discussions on American History and in particular one 13 year old hero named Andrew Jackson who was brave enough to pursue his quest to serve in the Colonial Army until he was granted a position as courier. Any way you slice it, he had more courage and conviction than a bunch of nobody's who never served their country, but nonetheless think they have something meaningful to say about American Heritage. Thanks, and though I have a credential which states I have my ducks in a row on the matter, please do continue your lecture on matters of which you are just grinding a liberal ax.

[Granny Bear]

What historians? Because literally everything I can find is pretty definite about him not being one.

Historian Richard B. Morris in 1973 identified the following seven figures as the key Founding Fathers: John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington.[3][4]

[URL="http://www.dictionary.com/browse/founding-fathers"]Plural noun
1.the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787[/URL]

Those who made significant intellectual contributions to the Constitution are called the "Founding Fathers" of our country.

You keep telling yourself that your racist hero was a founding father to help you sleep better at night, and I'll stick to the real truth. You want to act like there were thousands of "founding fathers", be my guest. I'll respect those that actually contributed to the actual "founding" of the country.

Bob, keep the "You" comments out of the discussions please.

Banter about topics, but the personal comments need to tone down. You guy's want to call each other names, text each other and have at it. ;-)

Stardust's warning was not to just one poster but to everyone.

[TheRealThing]

I don't disagree with choosing, for instance, the Iwo Jima photo or anything symbolic of the greatest good in America. I never once commented on or called for or even thought about changing the $20 bill. I'm simply saying Harriet Tubman does no dishonor to the currency.

If that's truly your position, then you'll have to admit that a powerful case could be made for any one of many hundreds, if not thousands of great American gone by to replace all of those depicted on US currency.

It follows then, given the politically correct ridiculousness with which America finds herself presently beset, that IF Jackson is replaced with Tubman, we may well be opening the floodgates of controversy all over again. I mean, the Founders though great men of tremendous insight, were nonetheless imperfect. And you know as well as I do that if success is achieved in this case it will be open season on the rest. And BTW, the whole argument was made by an Administration which was unabashedly and proactively biased against white people, not to mention the huge cost attached to it for the taxpayer at a time when it can in no way be justified.

No, this has nothing much to do with Harriet's wealth of, or lack of merit. This is just another spoke in the wheel of 'the transformation' as envisioned by and initiated by one Barack Obama. It's a completely uncalled for foot-in-the-door, in order to rewrite and redefine history. Just as in the case of the repeal of DADT, a PC argument that resulted in the immediate deterioration of our military state of readiness and a huge outlay of tax dollars.

MLK's dream was for black people to be judged by the content of their character. Well, the bus had just pulled into that station for a precious few seconds when the opportunists put the goalposts on wheels. Like I said, it will never stop.

[The Urban Sombrero]

⬆
If the proposition is that President Obama sought to unbalance the cultural scales in favor of people of color, I dissent. All of us are somewhat captive to our times. President Obama was called upon to respond to several police shooting events. I do not view establishing a Commission to look into the rates of police violence against people of color as an attempt to unbalance the scales. I do not view an inclusion of courses examining the role and contribution of people of color to the history of the United States as unbalancing the scales. I do not view a forthright examination of America's troubled relationship with race and ethnicity as a necessary condemnation of "white" people. Conversely, I do not view transparency within "black" culture, examining joblessness and sperm donoring without true fathering, and other issues as racist. King's dream was of a time, a place where dignity, where value, where opportunity, where essential and basic respect were not tied to skin color. I will leave it to others to assess for themselves where this nation stands circa 2017 in this matter. My only interjection is this: we are not where we were in 1787, or 1887, but not sure in terms of 1987.

[TheRealThing]

⬆
If the proposition is that President Obama sought to unbalance the cultural scales in favor of people of color, I dissent. All of us are somewhat captive to our times. President Obama was called upon to respond to several police shooting events. I do not view establishing a Commission to look into the rates of police violence against people of color as an attempt to unbalance the scales. I do not view an inclusion of courses examining the role and contribution of people of color to the history of the United States as unbalancing the scales. I do not view a forthright examination of America's troubled relationship with race and ethnicity as a necessary condemnation of "white" people. Conversely, I do not view transparency within "black" culture, examining joblessness and sperm donoring without true fathering, and other issues as racist. King's dream was of a time, a place where dignity, where value, where opportunity, where essential and basic respect were not tied to skin color. I will leave it to others to assess for themselves where this nation stands circa 2017 in this matter. My only interjection is this: we are not where we were in 1787, or 1887, but not sure in terms of 1987.

Well you could try rereading the news headlines since "Beer Summit" and see if that helps clear your head.

[The Urban Sombrero]

⬆
Here's the Trumpian via Bannon "key to victory" premise: America was founded by hard working Protestants, and created for hard working Protestants. Liberals and people like Barack Obama are trying to take America away from hard working Protestants. If when you hear "hard working Protestant" you picture a midwestern white person, that's ok. To this premise, and the mindset that embraces it, Harriet Tubman on the $20 is part of a greater design, a larger plan.

[TheRealThing]

⬆
Here's the Trumpian via Bannon "key to victory" premise: America was founded by hard working Protestants, and created for hard working Protestants. Liberals and people like Barack Obama are trying to take America away from hard working Protestants. If when you hear "hard working Protestant" you picture a midwestern white person, that's ok. To this premise, and the mindset that embraces it, Harriet Tubman on the $20 is part of a greater design, a larger plan.

Friend, those are the words of a secular humanist, not a Christian. There is a greater design alright, but it is one that man will never implement. When Christ comes and rules this earth with a rod of iron, it is then that the era of universal brotherhood, peace and harmony will finally visit this earth. Frankly, it is beyond strange that you do not see that. Men will never see the day they get a handle on things. The only universality men will experience at his own hand is his groaning in travail. In fact by way of sad reality, which will fall far short of your dreams of seeing mankind united in global bliss, what we are looking at as we annually butcher our 1.5 million unborn babies and legislate the Godly tenets out of our culture, is the soon coming of a ruthless world dictator. Along with his rise to power will come the devastation of global war, global pestilence, and global famine.

Ironic isn't it? Men dream of having the very thing they could well attain if they would just accept the sovereignty and Lordship of Jesus Christ. But we as a society are in the business of wholesale rejection of God. I had hoped that America saw the deterioration of our land and thought better of it by rejecting the political establishment's same ol-same ol, last time around. It would appear I may have been aiming high, or possibly those who did reject the status quo simply cannot out gun the forces that have come upon this earth.

2 Timothy 3:1-5 (KJV)
1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

[The Urban Sombrero]

⬆
The above response is a genuflect. Let us return to Harriet Tubman: how does Harriet Tubman apoearing on the $20 bill impact Protestant America? How is it even of any concern to the Church? Once again, the Church in America enjoys tremendous freedom, financial privilege, open invitation to compete in the marketplace of ideas and images without governmental reprisal. Once again, Harriet Tubman is not a discredit to the $20 bill, and the idea of putting her image on it is not part of some grand design to reduce America to the ash heap of history UNLESS the Trumpian/ Bannon mindset is the philosophical underpinning. It is neither secular nor humanist to believe in freedom of conscience. It is neither secular nor humanist to recognize the wisdom in a government, a court system which honors it.

[Motley]

Well now I can sleep better knowing I have your permission to think on my own. Many historians do consider Andrew Jackson to be a founding father.

The fact of the matter was established by the source you asked for, and which I provided. But as is always the case with flaming libs, all you really want to do is argue. First you wrongly stated Jackson's age at the time, which you said was 9 when it was actually 13. Second, and again according to historians and your own qualifying stated criteria, he " fought the revolution."

Feel free to name said historians that consider it. I'm still looking. I said he was 9 years old when independence was declared. Was I wrong? Might want to look at my criteria again. He did not "lead" the revolution, nor did he contribute anything intellectually to the founding documents of our country. Like I said, you want to call him a "FOUNDER" of the country because he was captured and mistreated is up to you. Other than yourself however, please find me one historian that calls him a founding father. I've provided multiple examples that say otherwise. Where is yours?

But you can be assured on one point, your fake knowledge is even more thinly veiled than your liberal ideology. I went class regularly, and I remember the discussions on American History and in particular one 13 year old hero named Andrew Jackson who was brave enough to pursue his quest to serve in the Colonial Army until he was granted a position as courier. Any way you slice it, he had more courage and conviction than a bunch of nobody's who never served their country, but nonetheless think they have something meaningful to say about American Heritage. Thanks, and though I have a credential which states I have my ducks in a row on the matter, please do continue your lecture on matters of which you are just grinding a liberal ax.

I too remember my American history classes well.

I remember the part where Andrew Jackson didn't help found the country.

I also remember the part where he signed the Indian Removal Act forcing thousands off their land to expand slavery in the South.

I remember his disobedience in going into Florida to capture runaway slaves only to take this opportunity to assist in wiping out the Seminole people.

I remember not only his owning of slaves, but his extreme mistreatment of slaves, including not only offering reward for their capture but “ten dollars extra, for every hundred lashes any person will give him, to the amount of three hundred.”

I vaguely remember him stopping freedom of speech by intercepting and stopping any mail that included abolitionists' literature that he disagreed with.

I remember his economic policies being a strong cause of the Panic of 1837.

By the way, not serving your country does not mean you do not have the right to freedom of speech, nor does it mean that my commentary is meaningless on the issue, despite your little rant about that.

But please feel free to continue to grind your conservative ax on the issue if you please. Just a matter of perspective anyways. My perspective is that the above things doesn't make him worth of being on currency. It's also my perspective that he wasn't instrumental in us not only declaring our independence, but in helping "found" anything in our new country.

[Granny Bear]

Please return to the topic of the thread, or I will be forced to close this one.

[RunItUpTheGut]

I find it very easy to fix.
Put the American flag on every single piece of money and leave the value on the sides like it is.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Harriet Tubman would not dishonor the $20 bill. Again, for asmuch as folks on here tout some liberal plot to take over and destroy America, see the Trumpian/Bannon strategy mentioned earlier. Bannon's 60 Minutes interview firmly plants him as a revisionist afoul of the historical facts.

[TheRealThing]

Harriet Tubman would not dishonor the $20 bill. Again, for asmuch as folks on here tout some liberal plot to take over and destroy America, see the Trumpian/Bannon strategy mentioned earlier. Bannon's 60 Minutes interview firmly plants him as a revisionist afoul of the historical facts.

Oh I don't know, seems to me like the Dem's plan to reconfigure the demographics in this land is rather well documented and obvious. Ship in, fly in, boat in, train in, from every nation (except Israel obviously) immigrants on the taxpayer dime. Create an Border Agent free 'buffer zone,' extending out several miles from the actual border so that those who cannot manage transport as suggested above, can just walk across the border. At that point if or when they are apprehended, (more likely they turn themselves in so that they can hit the immigration lotto) it is inside US territory where they are automatically extended protection under the law and cannot be sent out or deported devoid of due process. Again, every last cent in all of this is laid on the taxpayer. And that doesn't even consider the billions of dollars it costs to secretly seed them in communities across this land and support them on welfare for any body's guess how long.

The list goes on--- turn over our sovereignty to the UN of all things, and whimper (but that's all) like a little girl when China steals our technological advantage via internet raids into treasure troves of US intellectual property of every field imaginable to include to what should be everybody's horror, the US military. Thusly weakened, let petty dictators like Kim Jong Un run over us. Follow this up by eviscerating the US military, emboldening enemies like Putin for example, and then run a state sponsored smear campaign against the new President accusing him of collusion with Russia. It's a new day.

[The Urban Sombrero]

⬆ Nowhere has this poster advocated for the repeal of immigration laws, though a transparent honesty about immigration, and corresponding dialogue about formulating a 21st century immigration policy is way past needed. As to Harriet Tubman, her face on a $20 bill will not lead to nor contribute to the weakening of America.

[Granny Bear]

Weak attempt with the last sentence.


Continues to be off topic.