Answer:
:The Haitian Revolution and the subsequent emancipation of Haiti as an independent state provoked mixed reactions in the United States. This led to uneasiness in the US, instilling fears of racial instability on its own soil and possible problems with foreign relations and trade between the two countries.
US president Thomas Jefferson realized the revolution had the potential to cause an upheaval against slavery in the US not only by slaves, but by white abolitionists as well. Southern slaveholders feared the revolt might spread from the island of Hispaniola to their own plantations. Against this background and with the declared primary goal of maintaining social order in Haiti, the US attempted to suppress the revolution, refusing acknowledgement of Haitian independence until 1862.
The US also embargoed trade with the nascent state. American merchants had conducted a substantial trade with the plantations on Hispaniola throughout the 18th century, the French-ruled territory providing nearly all of its sugar and coffee. However, once the Haitian slave population emancipated itself, the US was reluctant to continue trade for fear of upsetting the evicted French on one hand and its Southern slaveholders on the other.
Against this, there were anti-slavery advocates in northern cities who believed that consistency with the principles of the American Revolution — life, liberty and equality for all — demanded that the US support the Haitian people.
Explanation:
Answer: It might be the 1st choice but I'm not sure
The diction of Steinbeck here in apparently describing the dustbowl conditions of the Dirty Thirties is speaking of "tenant men" or presumably men who were tenant farmers perhaps who were allowed to live on the land in return for working it and that they "scuffed" their way home indicates that the dust was so thick they had to scuff but also perhaps that since they could barely make a living under the poor agricultural conditions they did not walk confidently but scuffed.
A foil is the near complete opposite of the main character (whichever character they want you to find a foil for).
Rainsford and Whitney were good hunting friends with numerous similar interests. They could not be foils because of how close in similarity they were. Even when they disagreed on how animals felt about being hunted, Whitney seemed open to and intrigued by Rainsford's points and way of thinking.
Ivan is a near irrelevant character, being a mere Cossack who follows whatever General Zaroff says. He is mindless and has almost zero traits to even compare to Rainsford, let alone any traits aside from a mindless follower to begin with.
The answer would be General Zaroff. This is almost like the cliche protagonist vs antagonist foil. Both of them are hunters, but different kinds. Zaroff got bored with animals and wanted to hunt human people instead, whereas Rainsford had enjoyed the thrill of an animal hunt and thinks that the hunting of people is murder. Zaroff is more heartless and cold, a killer, if you will. Rainsford seems to think highly of actual people, and had no interest in playing Zaroff's game.
Answer:
Compare Juan’s view of censorship before he takes his new job with his view right before Mariana’s letter appears on his desk
Explanation:
we need juan's view of censorship
