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 is <span>D. joined organizations dedicated to fighting segregation.
This is how the early civil rights movement began before everything that happened in the 60s. They didn't like the fact that African-Americans were fighting in the war and protecting western civilization while still not getting fundamental rights by those same people that they were protecting.</span>
Answer:
False
Explanation:
The Boston Tea party was an American protest initiated by the Sons of Liberty in Boston Harbor, 1773.
The Stamp act of 1765 was a taxation law enacted by congress with the intention to profit off of colonial taxation.
The Stamp act of 1765 was not a repercussion of the Boston Tea party but rather a benefactor of the Boston Tea party. The Stamp Act and many other taxations imposed by the British parliament seemed unfair to the American colonists; they felt they had no voice or opinion due to there being no colonist representatives in parliament. Naturally, they revolted (The Boston tea party) in defiance against taxations. The Boston tea party had an enormous impact spreading feelings of patriotism and independence nationwide, ultimately sparking the American Revolution.
I hope this clears things up.
Answer:
Aegeans because the others settled there
Answer:
I hope this helps, but make sure you add your own words please.
Explanation:
Her warm-hearted actions towards Douglass cease after she is scolded by her husband for teaching Douglass the ABC's. She loses the view of slaves being human beings because she is stricken with the fear that the slaves will revolt and enslave the White's if they ever became literate because they would be discontent with their slave lifestyle.
