Don't demote Alexander Hamilton on $10 bill: Our view

When it comes to placement on U.S. currency, women have been shortchanged. Martha Washington and Pocahontas made brief appearances on bills during the 19th century. And, more recently, Susan B. Anthony and Sacagawea have been put on dollar coins that failed to gain common usage. But beyond these, and a few allegorical women, the faces staring out from money have been male.

For the simple reason that women have made enormous contributions to American society, this needs to change. And the Treasury Department recently announced that a yet-to-be-determined woman would appear on the $10 bill beginning in 2020, displacing Alexander Hamilton.

This is the right idea but the wrong bill. If someone is to be demoted from an honored spot, the appropriate person is Andrew Jackson on the $20, not Alexander Hamilton on the $10.

Jackson was an interesting and important president. But he was known for his fierce opposition to the abolitionist movement and for his removal of Native Americans from their ancestral lands.

Hamilton, on the other hand, has virtually no blemishes. A plausible case can be made that he is the most important Founding Father, based on the incredible range of his accomplishments.

He is certainly the most representative of the American experience. While other Founding Fathers were born to prosperous (often slave-holding) families, Hamilton was born illegitimate and impoverished — and later was orphaned — on the Caribbean island of Nevis.

Notwithstanding his humble beginnings, Hamilton made it to King's College (now Columbia University), where he began writing influential pro-independence tracts at the age of 17. He served as George Washington's most trusted aide during the war. When peace came, he wrote the majority of The Federalist Papers —– the interpretive essays on the Constitution that helped persuade states to ratify it. And, perhaps most important, as the nation's first Treasury secretary, he solved the practical problems of financing a fledgling democracy burdened by its war debts.

Senior Treasury officials say they are not choosing to demote Hamilton over Jackson. Rather, they argue, they are choosing the $10 bill simply because it is in the most dire need of a redesign.

There is some validity to this point. The most important issue for currency is that it not be counterfeited. The $20 bill has been updated more recently and includes more safety features. It is the $10 bill's turn to get its periodic face-lift. And Treasury officials have held out the possibility that a smaller image of Hamilton might stay on it.

But surely there are more imaginative ways to deal with the whole issue without denying Hamilton the everyday exposure he deserves.

One would be simply to wait until the $20 bill's turn for an update. No woman has been on paper currency since the 1890s, when Martha Washington was on the $1 silver certificate. A few more years wouldn't make a huge difference.

Another would be to put people on both sides of bills, beginning with the ten. By demoting the buildings and seals that grace the back side of currency, the Treasury could free up space for numerous worthy women and men, while keeping Hamilton.

Alternatively, Hamilton could be moved to the $20 bill, displacing Jackson there.

In any event, the nation should not inflict further harm on the man on the $10 bill, who died in a duel with a rival. Because without Hamilton, we might still be buying things in pounds sterling.

USA TODAY's editorial opinions are decided by its Editorial Board, separate from the news staff. Most editorials are coupled with an opposing view — a unique USA TODAY feature.

To read more editorials, go to the Opinion front page or sign up for the daily Opinion e-mail newsletter.