What is the main difference that can be drawn from jean jacques rousseau’s book the social contract

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, The Social Contract, 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.

codfish influenced the yankee trade because they traded it with the americans and the americans traded livestock, molasses and stuff that they can make clothes out of (like wool, and leather). they also could make weapons to.

the articles of confederation only set up the continental congress at the federal level. there were no executive or judicial branches except within the states. the states were allowed to keep every right that was not specifically given to congress. the bonding of the states was through a 'firm league of friendship' that best served as a defense agreement against invasion. states were not allowed to use taxes as a way to discourage treaties, and states were extremely limited in their dealings with foreign nations.

not many historians today talk about the strengths of the articles of confederation, likely because of how unpopular the document quickly became. the articles did set the legislative body, congress, as the highest power in the nation because of the fear of monarchy. congress had the sole power to declare war, assign treaties, entertain foreign relations, and operate post offices. disputes between states and territorial issues were to be brought to congress. the document also stipulated that canada was allowed to enter the union if they desired.

there were more weaknesses than strengths under the articles of confederation. the lack of power given to the continental congress strangled the federal government. the articles gave congress the power to pass laws but no power to enforce those laws. if a state did not support a federal law, that state could simply ignore it. congress had no power to levy taxes or regulate trade. without a federal court system or executive leader, there would be no way to enforce these laws, either. amending the articles of confederation would also require a unanimous decision, which would be extremely difficult.