When was the Freedmen's Bureau Bill passed, and why was it significant?

The Freedmen's Bureau Bill was passed on March 3, 1865. The bill provided for the creation of a Freedman's Bureau, which was tasked with assisting former slaves and destitute whites after the Civil War.
The bill was significant because of what it accomplished. First, it represented a concrete implementation of the 13th Amendment (passed by the Senate in April 1864 and the House in January 1865). The 13th amendment was eventually ratified by the states on December 6, 1865. It abolished slavery in the United States, and the Freedman's Bureau Bill provided for the welfare of former slaves and poor whites in accordance with the sentiment of the 13th amendment. The provisions of the 1865 bill were valid for one year.
The bill was also significant because it was the first time the United States government held a significant stake in the areas of social issues and labor relations.
For its part, the Freedman's Bureau provided food, shelter, legal assistance, employment assistance, and education to millions of marginalized citizens in the South. Please refer to the links below to read more about this.
The Freedman's Bureau had its detractors, of course, but none so surprising as President Andrew Johnson, a Democrat.
President Johnson pardoned many former Confederate officials and removed Freedman's Bureau employees he felt were too sympathetic to the black cause. Despite conflicts between President Johnson and the Radical Republicans, the Freedman's Bureau Act of 1866 became law (after the 1865 bill expired), and the provisions for former slaves and poor whites extended for another two years.
http://www.freedmen.umd.edu/fbact.htm

https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/freedmens-bureau

What are Karl Marx's thoughts on political ethics?

Karl Marx believed that morality is nothing more than a another form of individual ideology. Morality is a condition based thought on the terms of materialism and subject to the historical and social condition of that individual. He later states in his outlining of Marxist ethics that morality in general does not exist, it is based on class content and the center of them is intertwined in social conflict and social relations. These relations are formed, at least in a strict interpretation of the Marxist-Leninist conceptualization ethics are all in relation to the control and disbursement of the means of production. With is being based on social and historical contexts, marxist ethics are always changing and adapting to the society itself, there will be time of strict adaptation with finite rules and time of a looser look and adaptation of actions.

Karl Marx thought that political ethics were incomprehensible except through understanding the economic base underlying a political system. He wrote in his Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy that "the economic structure of society...[is] the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness." What this means is that what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior for politicians, that is to say, what is ethical, is basically what is necessary to keep the ruling classes in power. These systems of ethics were part of the "legal and political superstructure."
This has led some commentators to argue that Marx really did not believe in ethics, because they were meaningless in and of themselves. In terms of what Marx believed about proper political behavior, he strongly suggests that ethical behavior for its own sake was impossible in a capitalist system. The only truly ethical behavior, then, would be actions aimed at overthrowing this system. The only way to do that was to increase class-consciousness through one's political actions, making oppressed workers aware of the ways they were oppressed, and offering them the alternative of revolutionary change.

Where is Mount Katahdin located in Trouble?

Mount Katahdin is a real mountainl located in Baxter State Park, Piscataquis County, Maine. It is the tallest mountain in the state.
The main character in Trouble, Henry, once had a climbing accident that he was lucky to escape from uninjured and his older brother, Franklin, promised him that he would teach him how to climb properly. One day, if he was good enough, they could climb Mount Katahdin, together.
Franklin finally agrees to take Henry to Katahdin for Henry's fourteenth birthday. Unfortunately, on the day before they leave, Franklin is run over by a car while he is out jogging. Moments before dies he mutters the word Katahdin. Henry takes that as a sign that he must climb the mountain on his own.

The characters in Gem of the Ocean are all living in freedom, but are they truly free? How do you define freedom? Is it as much a state of mind as anything? Consider the characters one by one, and discuss how free you think each is. How does each person deal with his or her freedom? How does each character's freedom change throughout the play?

The central question of freedom is contrasted to enslavement in August Wilson's play. The author presents the idea of one character who embodies all enslaved persons: Aunt Ester Tyler. The paradox that Wilson offers is that—because she was enslaved for so long—once Emancipation arrives, Aunt Ester cannot be truly free. She is at liberty to live her life according to her own decisions, but she cannot completely escape the burden of suffering she bears from those centuries of bondage. A further paradox is contained in her calling as a "soul cleanser." for she has the gift of lifting the burdens that others bear.
Solly Two Kings and Eli seem to be the characters who most embody freedom. This is because they devoted their lives to helping others achieve freedom through their work on the Underground Railroad. Their resistance to the unjust system that was slavery showed that in their minds they could not be enslaved.
Caesar Wilkes, in contrast, seems to remain in bondage. He serves the figurative masters of legality and materialism. The relationship between law and justice escapes him. Because he is often incapable of making his own ethical decisions, he cannot be considered free.

How does Jakes unreliability as a narrator work in his favor to create a sense of empathy for his character? Are there any examples of this in the novel?

The empathy we feel for Jake is probably due not so much to his narrative unreliability as to the style in which Hemingway presents the narrative. Jake is burned out. Different elements of the story illustrate this, but perhaps what's most significant is his outward indifference, while inwardly seething (though not expressing it) over the situations in which he finds himself. He obviously hates and resents Robert Cohn, though there is no objective reason for his doing so. Thus, his depiction of Cohn is one aspect of his unreliability as a narrator, and it does serve to show Jake in a kind of self-victimized mode. At the same time all of the story, in spite of the tensions and the atmosphere of catastrophe looming at any moment, is narrated in a matter-of-fact way that suggests how deeply alienated Jake is. And this, in turn, causes the reader to bond with him, to empathize with him as a pathetic man, a victim.
Jake's dysfunctional personality is shown partly in the scene where he prays in church. All evidence is that he's an agnostic, but it appears that his indifference and emotional exhaustion are such that he feels he may as well pray as do anything else.
The figure of Lady Brett Ashley looms behind Jake's distorted view of the action he narrates. She's clearly his ideal, but he paradoxically demeans her by setting up her liaison with the young bullfighter. At the close of the story we're left with the unbearable sadness of the whole situation, and (hopefully) a universal sympathy for all the characters as Brett regrettfully tells Jake that they could have had a hell of a time.

1. The Constitution of the United States of America is a brief document outlining the boundaries of the American federal government. Discuss in depth the expansion of power obtained by Congress, the presidency and the judiciary paying close attention to the original outlines within the Constitution: Articles I-III. Remember that each branch of government has seen its powers expand beyond what was originally written; what is the genesis of these additional powers? Each branch is different in this regard so be specific: examples should be included to bolster your essay. And most importantly, is this expansion of power (outside of the framework of the formal amendment process) just? Why? 2. What is Federalism? Describe in detail the continuous discussion/argument over state power verses federal power. Include specific relevant court cases/current issues to support your essay. Furthermore, is there a point of apparent contradiction written within the Constitution itself? Can you please identify parts in the Constitution that seemingly direct us in competing directions? Who should have more power? What should the relationship look like in your eyes?

Article I of the Constitution grants Congress a broad range of powers for legislative activity. Congress is provided with the ability to regulate interstate commerce and commerce with foreign nations, the ability to raise and regulate an army and navy, the ability to declare war, the ability to raise revenue, the ability to borrow money, and the ability to impeach the President. Congress has done little to expand its power over the executive and judicial branches over the years, largely because it was granted significant powers initially. Congress has engaged in some minor expansions of its authority. For instance, neither house of Congress is permitted to adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other house. Today, Congress can get around that by having extended recesses or by using gimmicks where one Congressperson opens business for the day and then immediately places the chamber in recess, thereby allowing members to attend to their home districts without adjourning. The one area where Congressional power has expanded is in the oversight process. Congress's oversight power is implicit, largely because the executive branch did not exist in its current incarnation when the Constitution was drafted. However, Congress has engaged in substantial oversight in ways that the Founders might not have anticipated.
The president was granted relatively limited power by the Constitution. The president is the commander in chief of the army and navy, may sign treaties (which must be ratified by Congress), and may nominate individuals to fill ambassadorships and Supreme Court seats, as well as other positions created later. The executive branch has expanded its power significantly. An exploration of the use of armed forces for combat without a declaration of war could show a significant encroachment on the powers of Congress. A similar examination of the growth of administrative agencies tasked with regulatory authority and the use of executive orders would also show a significant usurpation of power. However, in most instances, the executive branch has not usurped Congressional powers. Instead, Congress has often shifted authority onto the Executive Branch.
The judicial branch is granted very little authority in the Constitution. Section 2 of Article III list the types of cases which may be heard in the Supreme Court by original jurisdiction. The Court has not had much opportunity to expand its power, though in Marbury v. Madison the Court asserted its authority (not mentioned in the Constitution) to interpret the Constitution and, where necessary, to strike down laws passed by Congress and signed by the President.
Whether the expansion of power by any branch is just must ultimately depend on the perspective of the assessor. The expansion of power of one branch necessarily removes power from the other branches, which could destabilize the Constitutional order. However, conditions today are significantly different than in 1787, and it is possible that the Constitutional order, as written, would be inadequate today.
Federalism consists of a duel sovereignty construction, in which the federal government is supreme but limited, while the States are inferior in shared areas but supreme in exclusive areas. When the federal government passes a law, all states must follow it, though the federal government's lawmaking authority is limited. The states have a much greater range of action and, as long as they do not directly contradict valid federal laws, may exercise their authority to any Constitutional extent.
There has always been a significant debate over the role of federal and state authority in the United States. More federal authority is necessary in areas where the actions of one state can significantly impact other states, but a plausible argument can be made to justify almost any federal action on this ground. Respecting a greater authority for states allows different states to seek different solutions to problems, which could ensure the most effective solution is found somewhere. The Supreme Court has weighed in on the issue of federalism several times, as the authority of the states is protected by the Tenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has issued five major anti-commandeering cases: Prigg v. Pennsylvania, New York v. United States, Printz v. United States, Independent Business v. Sebelius, and Murphy v. NCAA. The Supreme Court also determined in US v. Lopez and US v. Morrison that Congress had exceeded its authority under the Interstate Commerce Clause in seeking to criminalize intrastate transactions that should have been left to the states.
The Constitution is designed to set the three branches against one another. It is also designed to set the federal government and the states against each other. By creating defined yet partially overlapping areas of authority, the Founders hoped to use the ambition of politicians to prevent the usurpation of power by any single entity. This can be seen in the issue of armed force, where Congress has the sole discretion to declare war; the president commands the armed forces and can engage in hostilities without a declaration of war. Commerce is a significant area of overlap between the states and the federal government, as the line separating inter- and intrastate commerce is murky at best. There is substantial debate over whether any individual entity is currently too strong and where power should truly rest.

What makes Columbus interested in discovering gold?

Columbus sought gold on behalf of the Spanish monarchs, who financed his voyage in the hopes that he might discover great riches. We have to remember that Columbus was seeking a quicker water route to Asia, one that his sponsors hoped would give Spain control over trade with that region. As Zinn points out in the first chapter, finding gold would give Columbus great wealth and prestige, as he had been promised "10 percent of the profits, governorship over new-found lands, and the fame that would go with a new title: Admiral of the Open Seas." So by adding to the power of the monarchs of the newly-formed nation-state of Spain, Columbus could make himself a very rich man.
Zinn emphasizes these pecuniary motives above the religious zeal that many scholars also attribute to Columbus. His commitment to spreading Christianity dovetailed nicely with a quest for wealth and power. In the first chapter of A People's History, Zinn juxtaposes this craving for wealth with the "hospitality" and "belief in sharing" that characterized the Arawak people that inhabited the Bahamas, where Columbus first made landfall. Zinn shows how this clash of cultures proved deadly for the Native peoples, who lacked both resistance to disease Spaniards brought and the military technology that they possessed.