Currency change
Excitement is now building over Treasury Secretary Jack Lew’s visit to the University of Maryland sometime in the future to discuss his plan to replace Alexander Hamilton’s portrait on the $10 bill with that of a historical American woman. Assuredly, students will have ideas more appropriate for this honor than recent suggestions such as Margaret Thatcher or Janet Huckabee. Nevertheless, I hope that the university community will take a critical look at the secretary’s plans and ask tough questions with a view toward improving the scheme. It strikes me that Secretary Lew’s current proposal is unsatisfactory, and I wish to propose an alternative that is simultaneously more radical and more traditionalist.
The plan to place an American woman on paper currency for the first time since the 19th century is long overdue. But it is also insufficient. Women constitute a slight majority of the national population and should be represented on half of our nation’s currency. Once the novelty wears off, we may come to recognize the inadequacy of the symbolism in placing a single woman on a single bill. Women’s contributions to the United States, like those of men, have been diverse and have occurred in every era of American history; it seems absurd and belittling to summarize all of them in one character plucked from our national narrative by Twitter users.
On the other hand, there is something to be said for caution and temperance — especially when it involves public history and national memory. There is grave danger of de-memorializing key historical figures by discarding their likenesses. This is particularly problematic in the case of Hamilton — the first treasury secretary and probably the least-recognized figure on paper currency. While Hamilton was a vitriolic elitist with monarchical pretensions and a perilously short temper, he was also a pragmatic innovator who helped transform the early United States from an economic basket case into a stable and respectable nation-state. He served as George Washington’s aide-de-camp during the Revolution; was a leading advocate of the Constitution, most notably through his contributions to the Federalist Papers; and was an energetic administrator with a modernizing vision for the early Republic during his tenure at the Treasury. Americans ought to continue recognizing his singular contributions to our national development — and while Secretary Lew has dismissed such concerns (articulated by former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, amongst others) by declaring he’s “got Hamilton’s back,” something a bit more concrete is in order.
There is a solution to these twin problems: Do not take Hamilton, or anyone else, off of the currency; instead, have two notes for each denomination. The “sharing” plan discussed over the summer, which would feature Hamilton and a woman, is insulting. Instead, each denomination should have equal numbers in circulation featuring a historically important man and a historically important woman. This will allow for more diversity and will not relegate Hamilton to the ash-heap of history.
There are potential objections to this plan. One is that it might be confusing to have two sets of notes for each denomination. This is silly, since most people can read numbers. Just in case, the Treasury could consider color-coding the notes by denomination, something they already do with the blue hundreds and something the makers of Monopoly figured out decades ago. Another is that preserving the older generation of portraits retains Andrew Jackson — a character of great controversy in his own time and ours — on the $20 bill. This is a topic worthy of debate, though I will say anecdotally that when I polled students in my Antebellum U.S. course last spring on the prospect of removing Jackson from the $20 bill, I was surprised that the overwhelming majority were hesitant, irrespective of race, gender or political ideology. Another objection is that all of the men currently appearing on currency are white. This is a legitimate concern that should be addressed.
According to the Treasury Department, the $10 bill redesign is the opening shot of a looming numismatic revolution. All of our notes, it proclaims, are due to be updated, and the images to be employed will reflect a theme of “Democracy.” If this is so, then a strong case can be made for Hamilton, whose advocacy helped secure the creation and ratification of the Constitution on which our democracy is constructed and whose visionary administration of America’s finances helped rescue the democratic project from the clutches of anarchy and national humiliation. At the same time, in a democracy, numbers are supposed to matter; and at its best, a democracy should reflect with precision the diverse contributions and views of its many constituents. Both of these fundamental concerns point plainly to the need for much more than one woman on one bill.
UPDATE: Treasury Secretary Jack Lew’s Thursday visit has been cancelled due to scheduling concerns and will be rescheduled. The column has been updated to reflect this change.
