My response...

I don't know.

Look, if you agree that Jackson and Grant aren't in the same class as Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, or Franklin... and that there are other Presidents that are (at least) closer to those listed (Reagan, for example... or Adams, or John Hancock), then why voice the hesitation and/or fury at the suggestion that there might be better suited faces for our currency?

Hell, if you want a list, I'd put Ike higher than Jackson... not a spectacular President, but a good one with no major scandals or mistakes and a kick-ass resume leading to his Inaguration. Truman, perhaps? Honest to a fault, a staunch defender of American ideals and President through two American wars, showing he was willing to do what it takes to get the job done. What about Polk? He forced Britain to back down and compromise in the northwest, took the USA coast-to-coast, beat the snot out of Mexico, and set the standard for running the office of President that allowed Lincoln to do what needed to be done to win the Civil War. I'd say he was every bit the CIC that Jackson was... without the "stain" of Indian Removal.

Do you not see my point? I'm not saying yank Jackson off the twenty because the Muscogee Tribe wants nothing to do with bills sporting his image... I'm saying there are better choice to be had for a representation of what "great leadership" in American history means. Why stick with controversy? Because its "always been this way"? That's a bit lame, isn't it?