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
Working on behalf of white settlers who wanted to grow cotton on the Indians' land, the federal authorities compelled them to go away from their homelands and stroll masses of miles to a particular targeted “Indian territory” throughout the Mississippi River.
<h3>Why did white American settlers need their hometown in the South?</h3>
These native American international locations had been a limitation to progress within the eyes of settlers and plenty of different White Americans. Settlers yearning for land to develop cotton pressured the federal government to gather native American territory. Andrew Jackson, Tennessee, changed into a sturdy supporter of India's resettlement.
<h3>Whilst had been the Indians expelled from their land?</h3>
In 1830, President Andrew Jackson signed the Indian Migration Act. The law authorizes the federal government to seize indigenous land east of Mississippi and pressure indigenous people to relocate from their houses in Georgia, Alabama, North Carolina, Florida, and Tennessee. The "Indian Territory" of contemporary Oklahoma.
Click here for details on white settlers brainly.com/question/374405
# SPJ10
The best and the most correct answer among the choices provided by the question is the first choice. The statement "<span>When interests rates are low, spending decreases" is True. </span>I hope my answer has come to your help. God bless and have a nice day ahead!
Answer:
fertile soil for farming and irrigation canals
Explanation:
