The United States in my opinion made the right decision to join the world war when they did.
<h3>How did the United States make the best decision by joining ww1?</h3>
Although the United States had tried to continue with their neutrality stance on the war, it became important that they joined because they were becoming a target of the axis powers.
German was carrying out submarine attacks on the nations vessels. Also the Zimmerman telegram showed that the Germans saw the United States as an enemy.
Read more on WW1 here:
brainly.com/question/446364
#SPJ1
A large portion of Americans thought that this was not right to be sending over our own people to a place halfway across the globe, to a issue that would not affect us in the the near future. And that this was no ordinary war fought in large open plains. No it was fought in the woods and more. And then american people were dying for a cause that didn't concern them?
The American open made the CCC the most well known of all the New Deal programs. Sources composed at the time asserted a person's enlistment in the CCC prompted improved physical condition, elevated confidence, and expanded employability.
<u>Explanation:</u>
Among the various New Deal projects of Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration, the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) is recognized as one of the most famous and viable. Built up on March 31, 1933, the corps' goal was to enlist jobless youngsters (and later, out-of-work veterans) for ranger service, disintegration control, flood counteraction, and park improvement. It worked for the unmarried men and jobless individuals.
The significant individual whose work was to give physical work occupations with regular assets generally ashore which were claimed by the nearby government, states, and bureaucratic. The program's objective was to moderate the nation's normal assets while giving occupations to youngsters. African American men assumed a significant job in the CCC in North Carolina.
After examining Jackson’s accomplishments compared to his shortcomings and controversies, it can be difficult to be unbiased when deciding if he should or should not be replaced on the bill. Many historians and scholars are in disagreement with each other on the topic. Some believe he should be featured on the back of the bill and not the front George Washington, the first president of the United States, appears on the $1 bill and was also a slaveholder like Jackson. Around 300 slaves lived at Mount Vernon when George Washington died. He also supported legislation upholding slavery and also opposed other legislation on slavery. He signed the fugitive slave act guaranteed a right for a slaveholder to recover an escaped slave. He also signed the Northwest Ordinance that recognized the Northwest territory and outlawed slavery within the territory. He never publicly denounced slavery as an institution, and there is no discussion of removing him from the $1 bill.
When taking a closer look at the behaviors of both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, we can see that they share similarities with Jackson. If removing Andrew Jackson from the $20 bill is considered then so should removing Washington and Jefferson. However, Jackson is far too controversial, especially in recent years. He would be in the right spot if he was moved to the back of the bill, and someone like Harriet Tubman replaced him in the front. His accomplishments earn him his place on the bill, but his controversial actions lessen what he has earned which is why he should appear on the back. Especially compared to President Abraham Lincoln, who is featured on the $5 bill, Jackson should be featured on the back of the bill. Lincoln who had some of the greatest presidential accomplishments, like the passing of the 13th Amendment and the Emancipation Proclamation
