No the good of Westward Expansion cannot be said to outweigh its bad.
<h3>What was the westward expansion?</h3>
In the 19th century, the westward expansion was the term used to describe the movement of settlers, farmers and other persons down west of America. These areas were already occupied by the original owners. They were pushed out of their lands and it was taken over by the settlers.
This is the major reason why the expansion can be said to be bad. The fact that they took over areas that belonged to others forcefully.
The settlers took the places where the natives lived and farmed. Thy did this and set up their own ranches and economy in the areas that others once owned. Then the homestead act also gave them the rights to own the properties. All of these are the reasons why i do not consider this expansion as good. I see it as unfair and cruel.
Read more on the westward expansion here: brainly.com/question/245803
#SPJ1
Answer: Hiram Rhodes Revels, the first African-American to serve the US senate
<span>The plain Indians sign the treaty of fort Laramie, which ceded some of their land to allow the passage of wagon trains because they were promised by the government that the remaining Indian land would remain untouched in the hopes that their culture may be preserved. But the effect was that they suffered extreme poverty, their culture and land was violated and was mainly ruled by outside bureaucrats.</span>
Both C and D make sense, I would have to go with C though.
C. The Third Agricultural revolution is also referred to as the Green revolution
