Just because Andrew Jackson is dressed as the King of England does not mean there is any evidence to suggest he was born in Britain, supported the British war effort, or was friends with the British King. Nor does it directly suggest that Andrew Jackson did not enjoy much popular support; however, in his hand Jackson is holding a piece of paper that says “veto,” which suggests he was not afraid to use the Presidential veto when given the opportunity.

In the cartoon Jackson is dressed as a King, an authoritarian ruler, and standing on a ripped-up copy of the United States’ Constitution. The author of this cartoon is clearly suggesting that Jackson should not be considered a truly democratic leader, but as something approaching a totalitarian ruler.

President Theodore Roosevelt’s domestic policies were in part defined by his opposition to large corporations, called “trusts.” His presidency was also defined by his imperialist and environmentalist (at least by the standards of the day) policies; but, in this cartoon Roosevelt is pictured as a hunter going after the standard oil trust, the beef trust, and the hard-coal trust. So, it seems logical to answer that the cartoon centers around his reputation as a “trustbuster.”

In this cartoon Andrew Jackson, one-time President of the United States, is shown dressed as a King and standing atop ripped-up copies of the United States’ Constitution and the Internal Improvements Bill. The headline reads “Born to command.” The tone is therefore meant to be mocking and ironic. The author is suggesting that Jackson believes he is born to command and thinks of himself as a ruler closer to a King than a President.

The primary meaning behind this cartoon is that the use of child labor represents an affront to American society and to American values. The cartoon depicts a map of the United States with a big "blot" or "stain" on the map represented by child labor. The man is most likely meant to be Uncle Sam, looking disdainfully at the use of child labor.

The traditional political spectrum (from left to right) goes like this: Radical; Liberal; Moderate; Conservative; Reactionary. So the furthest to the left would be a radical. A radical would support complete, dramatic, and immediate overhaul of existing social or political norms. Radicals might resort to violence in order to achieve their goals.

For many Americans, party loyalty is the least pronounced it has ever been. Recent elections have seen a greater and greater number of voters who would declare themselves independent. This mirrors another contemporary trend in the American political landscape: more and more Americans are voting based on the candidate and his orher policies rather than simply voting along party lines; however, it is worth nothing that the majority of voters still vote very consistently for the same party.

Of these answer choices, only the Liberal-Democrats (a British political party) have never existed in United States political history.

The Alien and Sedition Acts were passed by the Federalists in 1798 during the presidency of John Adams. The stated reason for passing the Alien and Sedition Acts was to provide greater security for the young nation in the wake of rising tensions with the French. The Alien Act made immigration more difficult for people from certain nations, and the Sedition Act made it illegal to speak out against the government or to incite rebellion against the government. The Acts were heavily criticized by Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans.

The traditional political spectrum (from left to right) goes like this:

Radical - Liberal - Moderate - Conservative - Reactionary

So, the furthest to the right would be a reactionary. Someone who holds reactionary ideas passionately (and sometimes violently) opposes some kind of political or social change. Reactionaries may even want to return to a previous social or political order.