Nationalism and Imperialism are two terms that should be understood in different senses. Nationalism is based on aggressiveness in its concept. On the other hand imperialism is constructive in its concept.
Imperialism is a kind of rule that aims at bringing equality of values, beliefs, and expertise among empires and kingdoms through domination and is autocratic in nature and also sometimes monolithic in its concept. Imperialism is a kind of western undertaking that employs expansionistic views and ideas in its ideals. Nationalism on the other hand paves the way for enmity among nations. A nationalist feels that his own country is better than any other country.
According to the great thinker George Orwell, nationalism is deeply rooted in emotions and rivalry. It makes one contemptuous of the virtues possessed by other nations. Nationalism makes one intolerant towards the progress made by other nations.
Nationalism makes one think that the people belonging to one’s own country should be considered one’s equal. Such thoughts are not present the ideals of imperialism. A nationalist does not mind about the deficiencies of his country but on the contrary takes into account only its virtues.
A nationalist strives for the domination of a nation and expresses his love for the country in an aggressive way. An imperialist though creates unequal economic relationship between states yet he maintains the unequal relationships based on domination. This is a subtle difference between the two terms.
Nationalism gives importance to unity of by way of cultural background and linguistic environment. The factors of cultural background and linguistic environment are not taken into account by the imperialist to a great extent.
I think the answer is true :)
B. field workers. the majority of slaves worked on filed plantations
Andrew Jackson started the "Bank War" over the rechartering of the Second Bank of the United States. Proponents of the bank said that it encouraged westward expansion, expanded international commerce using credit, and helped reduce the government's debt. Jackson, on the other hand, was heavily against the BUS, calling it a danger to the liberties of the people. A champion for the rights of the common man, he advocated to protect the farmers and laborers. He claimed that the bank was owned by a small group of upperclass men, who only became richer by pocketing the money paid by the poorer common man for loans.
Jackson argued against the constitutionality of the BUS that was upheld about fourteen years before, during the 1819 McCulloch v. Maryland case. One of the points of the unanimous decision in that case stated that Congress had the power to establish the bank. Jackson, however, said that McCulloch v. Maryland could not prevent him from declaring a presidential veto on the bank if he believed it unconstitutional. He said that the decision in that 1819 case “ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution," meaning that the 1819 decision could not control his interpretation of the Constitution or prevent him from doing what he thought was right. This point of view earned him the nickname "King Andrew I" from his critics, who saw his use of the veto and his attempted intrusion on congressional power as power-hungry behavior. In the end, Jackson was successful in challenging the bank, as its charter expired in 1836. He had successfully killed the "monster" that was the Bank of the United States.
