I think it's the third option. Not entirely sure though.
Answer:
Explanation:
What did Hamilton argue against?
Hamilton warned against political intolerance
Although he fought the British during the Revolution, after the war he defended the rights of Tories against loyalty tests and property confiscations. He warned that the modern trend toward liberty could be reversed if the United States became politically intolerant.
The North realized that if it did not act swiftly, the Southern states might take the precedent of the Scott case as a justification for expanding slavery into new territories and free states alike. The South recognized the threat of the Republican party and knew that the party had gained a considerable amount of support as a result of the Northern paranoia in the aftermath of the decision.
Answer: Unreliable Narrator is the one who has his credibility compromised, either by lying or by presenting a questionable sanity. By telling lies, hiding information the narrator does not act in accordance with the narrative norms of the work. However, it is difficult to measure whether the reader really understands all the norms; after all, the narrator's contradiction can only be in opposition to the reader's understanding of that fictional world.
Thus, considering a narrative as unreliable can be configured as a kind of reader strategy that directs the narrator any and all interpretive discrepancies. Therefore, to question the credibility of the narrator it is also necessary to question the individual understanding of each reader.
The unreliable narrator's procedure contributes to the works maintaining the suspense character by narrating the actions inaccurately or incorrectly. The reader is waiting for when the narrator will be unmasked by any character or at what point in the plot will be evident that the sources used by the narrator are false or false.
