Jackson--his presidency was marked by the Indian Removal Act and forced migration of the Cherokee people.
Jackson supported the right of white men to land access in the Southeast. Though the Cherokee had assimilated, owned land, and had created a democratic government they were still not white and therefore not fully accepted by the American people or society. Jackson supported Georgia's efforts to relocate the Cherokee which led to the Trail of Tears and relocation to Indian Territory now the state of Oklahoma.
Think about the idea here and you'll see how the idea of "cost" is inevitable in every decision. (It's true not just of governments, but of our own decisions too -- but we'll focus on governments here.)
Let's say the government decides it wants all citizens to have access to health care. Well, that's going to cost dollars to pay for that health care. Where will those dollars come from?
Let's say the government decides, in response to school shootings or other acts of gun violence, to ban certain types of guns or ammunition. That costs something to the gun dealers who were making money off those sales (and they'll object). Or let's say the government decides to do further and deeper background checks on all gun buyers. Well, that will cost something in terms of personnel and processes to accomplish all the background checks. Or let's say the government decides to increase mental health screenings and treatment because persons with mental illness issues may become violent and dangerous to society. That will cost much in order to organize and carry out better mental health intervention across the country.
I focused on just a couple issues there (health care, gun control). But the same principle holds on anything government does. You can think about your own examples that you'd want to use. Anything the government decides to do comes with some sort of costs attached. That doesn't mean it's bad to make such decisions -- it just means we need to count the cost and invest our efforts where they will have the best benefit.
Answer:
A. Reactionary
Explanation:
Loyalists (also called <em>Tories, Royalists</em>, and <em>King's Men</em>) were American colonists who remained loyal to the British Empire during the American Revolutionary War. They opposed all radical change. Their opponents were the Patriots, who supported the American fight for independence.
Loyalist can be described as reactionaries. Reactionaries are people who want to return to a previous political state of society that they believe possessed positive characteristics that are absent in the current society. Loyalists refused to accept the possibility of America becoming independent, thinking that its position under the British rule was better than its independence. That's what made them reactionaries.
