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
Answer:
In late 19th century/early 20th century, the United States had become a global power with interests - and investments - around the globe. It was a new status and it had was symbolized by the victory in the Spanish-American War. The US was strong, modern and industrialized and it could support a powerful army and the powerful navy advocated by naval strategist Alfred Thayer Mahan. The "big stick diplomacy" meant that the US could impose its preferred outcomes abroad by military force if it wanted to. It translated into military interventions in the Caribbean to bring order in troubled nations and prevent European intervention, anathema to the Monroe Doctrine.
Explanation:
Answer:
C
Explanation:
Because Its a personal essay?
Our reaction should be just to stay calm and think about more ways and just keep trying to find a way.
