The Decision to Replace Hamilton on the New $10 Bill Is Outrageous and Ignorant

by Quin Hillyer

Rather than try to clean this up to make it read more professional, let me share my immediate response last night upon learning that Alexander Hamilton is to be replaced on the $10 bill with an unnamed woman. I sent this to a small group of blogger friends, without even time to reflect:

Historically speaking, this is an absolute outrage.

And I say that as a Madison (and somewhat Jefferson) man in the Madison vs. Hamilton debate.
 
But quite literally, apart from Washington on the most used bill of all, the $1, which of course is sacrosanct and symbolically perfect, the single most appropriate face on an oft-used bill is Hamilton’s.
 
Our financial system is Hamilton’s system, fergoshsakes. How can we NOT put him on our money?!?

I am serious when I say this: This is symbolically so important that if even a single one of you fails to do at least SOMEthing — a Tweet, a Facebook post, a blog entry, whatever, but SOMEthing — to express and spread opposition to this asinine idea, then you are not worth calling conservative. Period. I’m serious.

I’m all for putting a woman on a bill. I don’t mind replacing Jackson: I am grateful to him because he saved my hometown of New Orleans, but he was basically a nasty, mean SOB.

But to take Hamilton off of our money is to stick one more stake in the heart of our historical knowledge and understanding; to further divorce us from appreciation for the difficulties and triumphs of our founding; and to aid the Left in its ceaseless efforts to trash our history and our culture.

Please protest!

Sacagawea or Harriet Tubman or Abigail Adams or Susan B. Anthony or Rosa Parks on a $20 or a $50? Yea! Go for it!
 
But take Hamilton off the $10? No way. Not now. Not ever.
Okay, this is me this morning again, rather than last night’s instant-react note. I just want to add that the subsequent reports that Hamilton will in some secondary way still remain on the bill does absolutely nothing to assuage my protests. Alexander Hamilton pretty much created out monetary system out of thin air. He also did yeoman’s work during the Revolution as a soldier and as a co-instigator of the Constitutional Convention and as organizer of the Federalist Papers. The idea of putting him in a secondary role on a bill, rather than having a whole bill to himself, is, well, idiotic. It matters not that the $10 bill is “next” for a redesign, and that therefore it is the first chance to honor a woman on a bill. So what? If the next bill up for a redesign were the $5 one, would Lincoln be removed or made secondary? Of course not. If it is not PC to say women can wait, I don’t care. In this case, if the choice is between bowing to the understandable but over-hyped desire to honor a woman and, on the other hand, honoring our history in an appropriate way . . . well, yes, women can wait. Announce now that a woman will be placed on the $20; the announcement itself will show that we’re now more cognizant of women’s contributions. But don’t replace history. When it comes to American money, Hamilton is our history. C’mon, readers and fellow writers: Protest!

The Corner

The one and only.