Araminta "Harriet" Tubman Davis (née Ross), First of Her Name, the Aethiops, Queen of the Second Amendment and the New United States, Khaleesi of the Underground Railroad, Breaker of Chains, Mother of Republicans.
This is how many Republicans view Harriet Tubman, commonly referring to her as a "gun-toting, democrat-shooting 2nd Amendment-supporting Republican," but that version of Tubman is about as real as Daenerys Targaryen, which the Republicans should be able to surmise considering that Democrats peddle the same myth of a gun-toting guerrilla fighter freeing "hundreds of slaves" as they demand that she replace President Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill. Instead, you have the likes of Ben Shapiro declaring that "putting Tubman on the $20 is an awesome idea and should definitely be pursued." To this, multiple people responded that they want the version seen below, which depicts Tubman in an action pose, right hand outstretched seemingly offering freedom to a slave while her left hand clutches a Colt Peacemaker, ready to shoot any of those dirty white Southerners who may get in her way.
Aside from the fact that the Colt Peacemaker was not patented until long after her alleged exploits, little else is true about the myth as presented. Rather than freeing hundreds of slaves, Tubman actually helped only 57-67 people, and some of them, such as her parents, were not even slaves at the time. And, while Tubman did carry a single-shot pistol, she never fought off any bounty hunters or slave-catchers as is depicted in WGN America's Underground. Furthermore, she received no education, formal or otherwise, and remained illiterate her entire life, so she not only was not an advocate for the Second Amendment but she likely did not even know what it was. She certainly was not a Republican in any substantive way since women could not vote until years after her death, and the Republicans of the time were the liberal progressives of their day, so much so that Lincoln was praised by Karl Marx.
Now, some may wish to simply dismiss the differences between the myth and reality and claim that the thrust of the story is true as she did help some slaves head north, but these are not trivial differences. For example, the myth presents Tubman as a selfless hero risking her own life to save hundreds of slaves, but her motives were almost entirely self-interested. As she said of reaching Pennsylvania herself, "I was free; but there was no one to welcome me to the land of freedom. I was a stranger in a strange land," while her family and friends—freedmen and slaves—"was down in Maryland." And it was they she almost exclusively focused on helping, as much as by working as a maid in Philadelphia to raise funds as by any covert operations. Tubman also was barely "gun-toting" and certainly was not "democrat-shooting." As already mentioned, she did own a single-shot pistol that she perhaps carried at times, but she also traveled by train, walked in public, and the like when she could not have possibly concealed a percussion pistol that was more than a foot long... let alone double-barrel shotguns, rifles, tomahawks, or other weapons she is depicted with in portrayals.
The myth of the Khaleesi of the Underground Railroad served a political purpose then just as it does now. The truth is that the Democrats wish to remove Andrew Jackson—veteran of the Revolution and War of 1812, Representative in the Fourth US Congress, US Senator, Governor of Florida, President of these United States, and all around fascinating American—because he owned slaves and was not tolerant of American Indians, and they want his removal in shame to be contrasted with the elevation of Harriet Tubman, black woman and anti-slavery guerrilla. This would represent a fundamental change in the United States and be a symbol of what the Democrats have been pushing for decades: namely, the demographic replacement of white Americans with non-whites. Andrew Jackson, representing the roots of the nation, must be torn up and thrown away with Tubman representing the New America, Black America, which began in 1865, not 1775. That Tubman's story is a liberal fantasy is also fitting since almost everything liberals believe about race is just as fraudulent.
But none of this seems to matter to those virtue signaling Republicans who think it will be so cool to have her on the $20. It does not seem to occur to them that George Washington also owned slaves and killed Indians, or that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves and favored removal of Indian tribes, or that Benjamin Franklin opposed blacks being in the Americas and favored removing Indians, and so on. In other words, if you accept the Democrats' reasoning for removing Andrew Jackson from our currency, the exact same arguments apply to everyone else from the Founding. This, of course, suits the Democrats just fine as they can quickly move to remove all of the above and replace them with Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, Frederick Douglass, and any number of Marxists. Democrats are globalists and are practically foreign agents, so their desires make a certain amount of sense, but what does not make any sense is how anyone claiming to be "right-wing" or "conservative" can support the destruction of their nation from within by such parasites.
Again, the United States was born in 1775 with roots going much deeper and tracing back to, and only to, Europe, and the Democrats wish to sever white Americans from that heritage to weaken their social cohesion and make them more susceptible to manipulation. Ask yourselves: What is conservative about believing that the ideals of 1790 were not good enough and that they needed to be replaced by progressive ideals in 1865 and then even more progressive ideals in 1965? If your idea of conserving the nation is picking an arbitrary date of ongoing progressive subversion, are you not a "conservative progressive" rather than a conservative? Why should people who did not found or build this nation—indeed, people who hated this nation—be plastered all over our currency? And why are Republicans so desperate to help this subversion?
Imagine that the United States had continued unabated as it had existed in 1859, or even 1959. Would things be better or worse today? Do conservatives actually believe that the country needed the contributions of abolitionists, feminists, sodomites, and the rest of the progressive coalition? Because that is precisely what is being said when we even consider putting such people on our currency. Rather than seeing the United States as a founded nation with established ideals, it instead becomes some sort of progressive abstraction... a nation just as much founded by progressive ideals in 2019, or 1965, or 1865, as by the ideals of 1790 or 1775.