There's no question?

I understand on "the Native American problem" he was faced with an untenable status quo and even worse ideas from the states in question. However, solving it by negotiating with largely unrecognized leaders, then forcibly relocating ethnic populations across the country in exchange for dubious reimbursement for their native and sovereign land doesn't exactly seem a moral solution.

It certainly could have gone worse had the states had their ways, but his solution wasn't exactly a paragon of ethical behavior.

Then how about Marie Therese Metoyer? She started life as a slave, but ended up owning her own plantation. She was eventually able to buy all of her children out of slavery. According to church records, she owned 12 slaves at the time of her death, but local tradition has it that she was freeing them as well. It's also established that she ran her plantation with no slaves and only help from her sons for many years.

So she's a former slave, a liberator of slaves, and a plantation owner and owner of slaves all in one. Would having her on a bill be in poor taste? (Granted, there are probably more prominent persons who should be on a bill before her.)

(I once dated one of her descendants.)

I didn't say we should keep Jackson....

He's flipping your "bad taste" question back on you. Jefferson and Jackson have been on currency for decades and in their time treated people as currency and no one blinked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_slavery

Try asking a Cherokee if Jackson was a good president.