What is up with Jackson?

There's a movement afoot to place Ronald Reagan on our currency. I have no problems with it, however, what has me perturbed is the fact that the talk is over replacing Alexander Hamilton on the $10 bill.

There's a time and place for debating the appropriateness of putting Reagan on our currency, and it's not here or now. The bigger issue is who he (or anyone) would be replacing. Alexander Hamilton was a financial genius without whose help the fledgling United States might easily have collapsed.

There is, however, a man on our currency who accomplished all of the following dubious achievements:
* Shut down the Bank of the United States.
* Broke various and sundry treaties with the Indian tribes.
* Put forth a concept of states' rights that was so reactionary that it emboldened the South to revolt years later.
* Was the first and, thankfully, only President to openly and brazenly defy an order of the Supreme Court.
* Refused to enforce federal law when it suited him.
* As a general, achieved his most notable victory in a war a mere 6 weeks AFTER a peace treaty had been signed, thus ending said war.

Will someone please explain to me why it is that Andrew Jackson remains on our currency?

According to noted hole-digger Alex Miller, archaeologists frequently learn a great deal about civilizations based upon the currency they produce. 10,000 years from now (or whatever), I'm not entirely sure I want Andrew Jackson held up as a model representative of our country. Jackson consistently gets credit for being one of the great early leaders of our country. Why? I've yet to hear this question answered in a satisfactory manner.

Lest you believe this is some pro-Reagan crusade, I'm willing to be bipartisan about this. Ulysses S. Grant was a great general, but more or less a disaster as President. Put Reagan on the $50, and put Franklin D. Roosevelt on the $20. Sure, his ideas about governmental spending helped get us the dependency system we have today, but he did accomplish a lot of very valuable things and all but the most rock-ribbed conservative would acknowledge him as one of our greatest presidents. If not Roosevelt, then Cleveland or Truman. Whatever it takes to get some bipartisanship on this issue.