Why did Andrew Jackson oppose the national bank

2 answers:

8 0

He opposed it because he felt that it made the rich get richer and since he favored the common people and felt that it wasn't fair toward the common people .

disa [49]3 years ago

4 0

Back then, the first American national bank was run by wealthy businessmen and elite politicians that only favored the industrial northern states, merchants and wealthy people over farmers, artisans, laborers, and planters. President Jackson, being a self-made man, a supporter of the common people, opposed the national bank because it <u>did not provide equal opportunity to all, it violated state sovereignty (each state should have their bank and not be dominated by one large bank) and because he deemed it as a corrupted centralized entity that violated people's liberties.</u>

You might be interested in

Why was President Johnson elated after the Senate's vote on the eleventh article of

yulyashka [42]

The correct answer to this open question is the following.

On May 16, 1868, US President Andrew Jhonson was elated after the US Senate had acquitted him during his impeachment trial. After the vote, 35 senators voted guilty and 19, not guilty on the 11th article on impeachment.

This made President Jhonson to me more confident that 10 days later, on May 26, 1868, the Senate would again favor him And so it was. The votes were identical. 35 senators voted guilty and 19, not guilty on the 2nd article of impeachment.

The reaction of the radical Republicans was one of anger for the decision made in Congress. Let's remember that Radical Republicans always had major differences with President Johnson in different areas, such as the way to order Reconstruction in the southern states.

4 0

2 years ago

Arguments for the legality of secession

BARSIC [14]

Answer:

- The U.S. colonists seceded from Great Britain simply because they did not like the taxes King George had imposed, and the taxes were reasonable. They were simply to make up for the money that was lost while defending the colonists, but they decided to revolt and secede in order to create a government they thought just.

- The natural god given rights is life, liberty, and property. To deny someone the ability to secede would be to deny one his/her right to all three of these rights.

- Entering the union was a voluntary act; therefore it should be legal to leave the union whenever any one state pleases.

<em>(Sorry for such a late and short answer!)</em>

5 0

2 years ago

Which writer of the Federalist Papers later became a Democratic-Republican?

blondinia [14]

The answer is most definitly c john jay

6 0

2 years ago

Read 2 more answers

how were the colonial governments similar and different, and how influential was england in colonial governance?

Nady [450]

England was only influential in theory because they practiced salutary neglect which means that they didn't bother the colonists as long as the colonies belonged to them and paid taxes. The types of governments depended on who the colony belonged to. Royal colonies listened to the parliament but Charter colonies often did what they wanted. England was influential only up until the point that people were willing to accept.

3 0

3 years ago

The Declaration of Independence refers to “unalienable rights.”

yKpoI14uk [10]

Answer:

The right to own property

The right to be happy

Inalienable rights are those that are natural and that should not be taken away by the government. According to the constitution, people have unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Explanation:

Any or all of these answers are correct, because these answers are the examples of this sort of right.

4 0

3 years ago