R: Change the Twenty Dollar Bill

Officially, we gather to debate the merits of keeping President Andrew Jackson—a daunting historical figure for a number of reasons—on the twenty-dollar bill. Yet, the superficial title of our resolution uses the example of Jackson as a means of gaining access to a fundamentally deeper question, one that asks us all to reconcile the present with the past. Jackson’s inclusion on the popular bank note represents just one of the countless examples of monuments, both physical and metaphorical, to historical figures who lived morally complicated lives. Let Jackson stand in for Lee, Columbus, Jefferson, or even William Penn—any figure whose previous celebration has recently been called into question. While it may be true that certain legacy scrutinies are unnecessary—we agree that Washington and Lincoln need no reexamination—it is always worth considering whether the influence we grant to prominent individuals is deserved or not.

The affirmative will recognize that those whom we celebrate ought to reflect the values that we desire to uphold. Maintaining the pedestals of figures who committed actions that clearly violate the universal moral code represents a rottenness in society that can only be fixed by the appraisal of those with exemplary moral character. Alternatives to Jackson, such as Harriet Tubman, ought to be seriously considered as ways of elevating the stories of those who resisted the evils of their times. And while forgiveness is a virtue, there is a difference between grace and praise; while we can recognize Jackson’s humanity, we cannot, in good conscience, continue to perpetrate his likeness as a symbol of national pride.

The negative will take a more temperamentally conservative approach to the question and point out that perhaps doing away with our monuments does not serve to fulfill the purpose of our initial endeavor. Jackson’s presence in popular society forces the common man to grapple with his history and recognize the inherent complexities of our past. Seeing his face on a twenty-dollar bill ought to invoke intrigue into Jackson’s legacy, leading to greater education on both the good and bad aspects of his character. If we remove our statues or placards or bills, we begin to forget why certain individuals were celebrated in the first place. And if there is one thing to remember, it is that virtue and worth ought always to be uplifted in whatever form they take.

What is the proper role of remembrance in society? If man is a fallen creature, can anyone truly be celebrated? And can there be any benefit in obtaining knowledge of both good and evil?