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
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
One of the “don’ts” in analyzing or evaluating a primary source is to avoid recreating the author’s experience of his society.
No, I don't agree with this statement because I consider that in order to truly understand the primary source, a good researcher has to understand the circumstance and the time in which the primary source was created.
This means, if it was during a war or a revolutionary period, the researcher has to understand and think as the author of the source did.
ANd I am clear using my words: understand. Not biasing the records, the facts, or misinterpret the situation, the context, or the facts.
Answer:
Under Spanish rule, the provinces of East Florida and West Florida initially remained divided by the Apalachicola River, the boundary established by the British.
Explanation:
Answer:
Answer is carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.
Explanation:
I hope it's helpful!
