"<span>D. The laws assert the importance of individual rights and freedoms" is the correct answer. The Enlightenment brought about an infatuation with reason, and free speech is part of this. </span>
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:the answer is b factories closed and jobs were lost
Explanation:
The simple answer to your complex question is NO. This is assuming that you live in a country where there are good laws (remember that history is full of bad governments that implemented bad laws) and that law enforcement is effective. Simplisticly, you should only ask yourself this question when your or your families life is being threatened and law enforcement is not around. Your response must still be within the constraints of your laws or you will find yourself in hot water. I'm not even going to try to discuss the ethics and morals that can apply as the situation can vary immensely. Keep it simple - don't operate outside the law, rather fight against unjust laws.
