Answer:
How did the USA react to the Treaty? In the USA reactions to the Treaty were generally negative. Many Americans felt that the Treaty was unfair on Germany. More importantly, they felt that Britain and France were making themselves rich at Germany's expense and that the USA should not be helping them to do this.
Explanation:
It is not true regarding Napoleon's invasion of Russia that "<span>c. Napoleon was defeated by the Russians at the battle of Waterloo," since this battle took place primarily between France and Great Britain. </span>
Depending on the time period, America had a difficult time remaining neutral for several reasons.
World War I
America had a difficult time remaining neutral during World War I because of Germany's actions. For example, the German submarine sank the Lusitania, a boat that contained over 100 American citizens. Along with this, the Germans were also caught trying to make a secret alliance with Mexico. This was exposed when the Allied powers intercepted the Zimmerman Telegram. Considering these factors, the government felt the US had no choice but to break their neutrality and enter World War I.
World War II
The US had a difficult time maintaining neutral in World War II due to the violence and rise of dictators like Hitler. Along with this, the US was also attacked by the Japanese military. The Japanese military bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. This attack on a military base prompted the US to break their policy of neutrality in order to enter World War II.
Slaves could win their freedom in three different ways during colonial days.
First, they could just run away but this was quite dangerous.
Second, they could buy their own freedom with extra money the saved.
Third they could be emancipated by their master after working a certain amount of years or simply for an extraordinary feat done in favor of their master.
So the answer is Slaves, slaves could win their freedom after working a certain number of years.
If by "difference" you mean the difference with other Enlightenment thinkers who argued on behalf of the social contract, the main difference was Rousseau's emphasis on the GENERAL WILL of the people.
Along with other Enlightenment thinkers, Rousseau agreed with the idea of the social contract. (Indeed, that's the title of one of his most famous books.) The idea of a "social contract" is that the people agree to give authority to a government in order to make their lives in society better.
In his social contract theory, Rousseau insisted that that the PEOPLE of a nation are SOVEREIGN -- meaning that the people are always the ones who are to be deciding matters for their own society. Rousseau famously asserted that the "GENERAL WILL" of the people is always right, because the people on the whole have the best sense of what is needed for them as a society.
Some have criticized Rousseau's approach as promoting an unworkable view of government run completely by democratic referendum. But if you read his famous book, <em>The Social Contract, </em>you'll see his view of the "general will" is more nuanced than that. It isn't just a majority ballot sort of thing. For instance, in the 2016 presidential election in America, the "general will" that was most expressing itself was that the country wasn't greatly happy about either candidate running for the office of chief executive of the country. If Rousseau's "general will" principle had been put into action, the nation might have called for a new round of nominations to produce a candidate that could have pulled the nation together rather than divisive candidates and parties pulling the country in opposite directions.
