The correct answer is D. You could sue for defamation if the allegations were true, but your reputation suffered.
Explanation
Defamation is the name by which the action of spreading an accusation towards another person is known that can cause damage to the honor, dignity or reputation of the accused who is accused. Therefore, if Senator Jones has evidence, he could sue for defamation of the media. However, the fragment also refers to Anne Tracy having witnesses to support her accusation, so it would be unlikely that Senator Jones had evidence to declare him innocent. On the other hand, if he were innocent, his reputation in society had already been affected. So the correct answer is D. He could sue for defamation if the accusations were true but his reputation was damaged.
Hey there! I'm happy to help!
The Articles of Confederation gave tons of power to the states, even more than the federal government. This idea of states' rights is reflected in the Articles, but it was a bit too much, which is why the Articles were repealed.
Have a wonderful day! :D
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
You forgot to include the text or the third paragraph. Without that information, we do not know what you are referring to.
However, doing some deep research, we can comment on the following.
One instance in which the Spanish resorted to the type of actions threatened in the third paragraph was to punish the Native peoples who refused to obey the conquerors and refused to convert to Catholicism.
The Spanish have threatened the Indians expressing threats such as <em>"...But, if you do not obey, we shall powerfully enter into your country, and shall make war against you and shall subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church and the king and queen of Spain."</em>
Spanish conquerors committed many atrocities when they tried to colonize many territories in the Americas. all in the name of God and the Catholic church.
This was part of a medieval document titled "The Demand." This document was issued by the council of Castile in 1510. When conquerors arrived in the Americas, they had to read the document to warn Native Indian peol¿ple, before taking their territories.
Answer:
B. The argument with the most reliable cited sources
Explanation:
This gives you the ability to clear through biased or untrue information almost 100% of the time. whenever needing to look into historical events always try to get information with a stable footing, i.e; First-hand experience or multiple well-cited sources. Hope this helps :)
possible answers
A. The argument that was written most recently B. The argument with the most reliable cited sources C. The argument that does not use any electronic sources D. The argument that has the most sources
The colonization period in Haiti was difficult, one of the hardest ones in all the Americas, the slavery was cataloged as the cruelest ever known, and the general live conditions for middle and lower classes were not good at all.
At the bottom of the social pyramid were the slaves, however the french soldiers had really hard duties on those times, they can be cataloged like <em>¨White slaves¨</em>, obviously they haven´t to perform the slave´s work, however duties turning around the slavery, extended shifts and dreadful life conditions made their work a difficult one.
So Haitian Slaves and French soldiers were technically in a similar spot, however, the slaves had survival and another kind of advantages over the French soldiers, a key point was the resistance or partial immunity to different diseases, unfortunately, that wasn´t the French´s case.
Yellow fever was a major issue to the French forces in Haiti, debilitated the army, and was one of the key points of the posterior events (the slavery and Haiti revolutions).
So definitely the two kinds of newcomers to Haiti, haven´t the same fate, the majority of slaves adapted quickly to new territory. the opposite happened to the French soldiers.
