Answer:
I hope it helps you this .
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:
There was a huge increase in population and a pressing need for civil government. In 1849, Californians sought statehood and, after heated debate in the U.S.
Hope that helped?
Kids probably needed to work the farm and tend to the livestock, etc. War has a nasty way of disrupting normal life.
Answer:
The British East India Company came to India as traders in spices,
Explanation:
The British East India Company came to India as traders in spices, a very important commodity in Europe back then as it was used to preserve meat. Apart from that, they primarily traded in silk, cotton, indigo dye, tea and opium. They landed in the Indian subcontinent on August 24, 1608, at the port of Surat.
