A few points ...

First, it wasn't Jambo that pointed to the "Jacksonian Era" and what it meant. That was my post.

Second, George Washington stands alone, with no equal. On that we agree. And I wouldn't rank any president or historical figure ahead of or on par with the Founders, save Lincoln. That is why I seized upon Jambo's description of a "giant" on the American historical landscape. I think that apt for Jackson while stopping short of ranking him with the Founders & Lincoln. So there we have no quarrel.

I also have heard of this push for Reagan. I don't think it has as much to do with Indians as your post seemed to let on. From the day he left office Reagan fans have been pushing for his face on the currency, and it has had an organized lobby for at least a decade and a half. Grant's tenure was racked with scandal (Tea Pot Dome, etc), and history has widely considered him an ineffectual leader as CIC, unlike the battlefield. I think they picked an easy target in Grant. Were it anything to do with "Indians" or any other singular "stain", Jackson would have been the obvious choice. Within many a tribal community they won't even use the $20 bill. I've not seen nor heard of such a phenomena with the $50. My point here is this is much more about Reagan then it is about who his face replaces.

I don't know what you would define as "addressing" Jackson's stain. In every history book I have, including a very detailed biography of the President's, the Indian Removal Act is included. I'm not sure how we, as a nation, should further "address" this issue. So what exactly would the devil's advocate like to see? How would this be addressed in a satisfactory way? I ask earnestly ...