Answer:
Women in the 1830s wore full or ankle length one-piece dresses of wool, silk or cotton.
Explanation:
Women in the 1830s wore full or ankle length one-piece dresses of wool, silk or cotton.
Simple day dresses for house and farm work opened down the front to the waist, (the better to serve the needs of the nursing infant.) They were pinned closed, or fastened with hooks and eyes closely set.
The sleeves were usually long; the fashion of the 1830s had most of the fullness very high early in the decade, lower in the arm as the '30s progressed. Skirts were very full, either pleated or gathered onto the bodice. The waist was slightly higher than natural waistline. Necklines were generally modest, although lower cut was considered appropriate for festive evening or party wear. A fichu, modesty ruffle, or lace was usually worn on lower-cut necklines.
Day dresses had several removable collars and capelets which were worn in layers over the shoulders. These "pelerines" often matched the fabric of the dresses, or were of sheer white linen or cotton. Sometimes they were elaborately embroidered. Day dresses were apt to be made of serviceable dark color – especially winter garments.
They did not like his association with the administration’s Vietnam policy. is why <span>did some Democrats oppose Hubert Humphrey in his 1968 race for the presidency.</span>
Answer:
noo i dont think its a fair comparison, no one should be compared to others especially to those who have failed. well at least thats my opinion
The correct answer would be alternative A) "most of those increases in agriculture are cash crops reserved for export."
The increase of production of crops doesn't benefit the hungry, as the crops are not meant for them. They're destined to exportation. For this reason, the hungry don't get anything from the increase in production.
One of the ways to prevent hunger in developing countries would be to have this crops used for social programs, and distribute food to the hungry. However, that's not the way it's done.
