How did the Wade-Davis Bill's plan for reconstruction differ from Lincoln's Ten Percent Plan?

Abraham
Lincoln's Ten Percent Plan, also known as the Proclamation of Amnesty and , and the Wade-Davis
Bill were both proposals for reconstruction of the South after the American Civil War. However,
they differed radically in the severity of their terms.

Lincoln devised his Ten Percent Plan in the spirit of reconciliation, with a view to
making it easy for Southerners to accept. It stipulated that a new state government could be
formed and the state could be reintegrated into the Union when at least 10 percent of eligible
white male voters took an oath of allegiance to the United States. Property would be restored to
all rebels except the highest ranking military and political leaders. The states could devise
their own plans on how to handle former slaves as long as the slaves remained fully
emancipated.

Many congressmen were opposed to Lincoln's
plan because they felt it was too lenient, so Benjamin Wade of Ohio and Henry Winter Davis of
Maryland sponsored an alternative Bill that was much harsher. The Wade-Davis Bill insisted that
a majority of white male voters had to pledge allegiance to the United States before a state
could be readmitted to the Union. The bill also gave African-American men the right to vote and
prohibited officers and veterans of the Confederacy from voting.

Lincoln objected to the Wade-Davis Bill not only because it was too harsh, but also
because the bill implied that the Southern States had committed treason in leaving the Union and
had to rejoin, whereas the official government stance was that it was unconstitutional for them
to have seceded in the first place. He also felt that slavery should be a federal rather than a
state issue, which would soon prove true with the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. Although
the Wade-Davis Bill passed Congress, Lincoln pocket-vetoed it, and it was not
resurrected.

href="https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/lincoln-issues-proclamation-of-amnesty-and-reconstruction">https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/lincoln-issue...

Please explain a quote from The Color of Water, by James McBride, which shows the writing style of the author.

There are
two voices who speak in , by ; the chapters alternate between the
storytelling voices of McBride and his mother, Ruth. Given not only the difference in their ages
and experiences but also in their personalities, it is not surprising that the two voices sound
distinctly different. 

Ruth is a practical, no-nonsense woman who is also
rather eccentric and scatterbrained. She does not waste a lot of words talking about things that
do not matter to to her, and this sparseness is demonstrated in her dialogue. She does not seek
pity for what is and is finally free to speak of what
was without the emotions she felt while living it. Note the consistency of
her voice in the following two lines, spoken by Ruth at different times in the book:

See, a marriage needs love. And God. And a little money. That's
all. 

I was ashamed of my mother, but see, love didn't come natural to me
until I became a Christian."

Though she was not a
black woman, Ruth lived as if she were one for so long that her speech has the cadence andof the
women she lived near for so many years.

This naturally carries over into
McBride's chapters when he quotes his mother:

I asked her
if I was black or white. She replied, "You are a human being. Educate yourself or you'll be
a nobody! 

McBride's chapters are full of his own musings
as well as the factual happenings in his life, and his writing is a blend of specific details
and effective . The following is an example of McBride's use of imagery:

It was always so hot, and everyone was so polite, and everything was
all surface but underneath it was like a bomb waiting to go off. I always felt that way about
the South, that beneath the smiles and southern hospitality and politeness were a lot of guns
and liquor and secrets.

It is effective because it is not
overdone.

When he is simply recounting the events of his life, he is less
poetic but still manages to pack a lot of details into a sentence, as in the
following:

[S]ince I was a little boy, she had always
wanted me to go. She was always sending me off on a bus someplace, to elementary school, to
camp, to relatives in Kentucky, to college. She pushed me away from her just as she'd pushed my
elder siblings away when we lived in New York, literally shoving them out the front door when
they left for college. 

Aside from his use of dialogue,
which is essential to this retelling, the above quote is a good example of McBride's writing
style. He tells what happened--all of it--but he does not want sympathy or pity. He simply
writes his life and allows his readers to feel--or not feel--what they wish about
it. 

If you didn't get a teaching position, which would be the next best option substitute teacher or teacher's assistant?

After subbing
my way through college - it is the one job I will never do again.  As a sub - you have no
consistency.  Depending on the size of the district you work in - or how many schools you go
between, the kids never really get to know you and you never have an opportunity to develop real
relationships with them - which is (in my opinion) a teacher's best chance of being respected. 
I only worked in two high schools, worked almost every day, and even saw many of the same
students over and over, but something about the fact that I was just "babysitting" the
class for someone else made it impossible to ever feel affirmed and relevant in the
job.

Even if being an assistant teacher pays less - it is consistent.  You
will be in the same room, working with the same kids and teacher - you will feel relevant and
useful, you will probably get better at what you are doing in ways that will affect your future
in teaching.  While subbing seems like it is perfect for networking - I
think teacher's assistant would be better.  It is better to have two great references from your
lead teacher and possibly the principal - than to have 100 "Oh, yes, I think she subbed for
me once" recommendations.  That's just me.  They would have to substantially increase the
sub-pay nationally to get me to do it again.

Can you tell me about religion,racism and colonialism in Robinson Crusoe? If you have a lot of information about my question please write these...

During his
many years stranded on a deserted island,develops a faith in a Christian God who spared his life
and watched over him as he sought to survive. However, even before his faith develops, Crusoe
shows his Protestant work ethic in how industriously he exploits the resources he finds on the
island. Early readers would have understood this as living out the Biblicalof the talents, where
God expects us to multiply whatever gifts he gives us. Crusoe also naturally assumes
"dominion" over the island as his rightwhich is part of a theology that God
specifically gave the earth to humans, which Crusoe would have derived, if unconsciously, from
the Biblical book of Genesis.

Crusoe also naturally assumes he is superior,
as a white European, to the dark-skinned natives he encounters. This is a racist theory, which
he compounds by naturally assuming Friday should serve him and learn from him as the superior
person. He never once thinks that he should serve Friday or that he has anything significant to
learn from him.

As for colonialism, the book is virtually a textbook study in
how Europeans exploited "new" lands and native people for their own benefit, assuming
they had a right to the land as their own, especially if it was not cultivated in the European
manner, and assuming they were doing the native people a great benefit by enslaving them and
teaching them European ways. Crusoe simply assumes Friday is a "savage" who must learn
his ways and wait on him as lord and master. He never thinks of the relationship as one between
equals, because he simply can't conceive of native people as equals. He thinks of the island as
"his" as well, and he enjoys imagining himself as its lord.

what is the significance of the rabbit appearing at the end of the book ?

At the end
of the book,returns to the pool where the story began and takes a long drink. Then his aunt
appears to him in his mind and lectures him for being a problem to . Finally a giant imaginary
rabbit that, significantly, talks in Lennie's voice appears to him. It symbolizes his conscience
or super-ego, and berates him ruthlessly for the trouble he has caused George. Through this
rabbit, Lennie condemns himself harshly and imagines punishing himself by separating from George
and going to live all alone in a cave. The rabbit torments Lennie, saying:

He's gonna beat hell outa you an' then go away an' leave
you.

The imaginary rabbit repeats over and over that
George is going to leave him, until Lennie puts his hands over his ears and cries out for
George.

When George arrives, and Lennie realizes he is not angry at him, the
giant scolding nightmare rabbit goes away. It is replaced by its opposite as George brings
comfort, conjuring for Lennie the dreamscape of the farm full of rabbits. Now, the image of the
rabbit represents the paradise of a better life on his own farm with George, living off the fat
of the land.

Rabbits accompany Lennie, either in reality or his dreams,
throughout the novella, and represent both his self loathing at the way he destroys dreams (just
as he destroys rabbits), and the dream itself.

Why is Freak's birthday two "for the price of one" in Freak the Mighty?

Freak and
The Fair Gwen probably know just how lucky he is to have reached his 13th birthday. Kevin
doesn't get his wish to take a "ride on the space shuttle,"...

How Does Thoreau Defend His Approach In The Second Paragraph Of economy In Walden?

Thoreau was
an adherent to , an idealist philosophy which explored a spiritual connection between the inner
consciousness and the external spirit that is nature. Ralph Waldo Emerson was also considered to
be a Transcendentalist. He befriended and in some ways was a mentor to Thoreau. One of Emerson's
most famous essays is "Self-Reliance." When Thoreau decided to live alone, some of
these elements of transcendentalism and self-reliance were motivations. 

Since he lived alone, if he were to write about that experience, he would necessarily
have to write about himself. He writes: 

Moreover, I, on
my side, require of every writer, first or last, a simple and sincere account of his own life,
and not merely what he has heard of other men's lives; some such account as he would send to his
kindred from a distant land; for if he has lived sincerely, it must have been in a distant land
to me. 

In other words, Thoreau requires of every writer
(including himself) to write sincerely. If a writer does write sincerely about his own life, it
will be as if the reader is reading something new, something from a distant land. To live and
write sincerely, as an individual, is to do things uniquely. 

Thoreau also
supposes that he writes for poor students. For any other readers, he hopes they will get what
they can from his writing. Above all, Thoreau writes to explain his purpose for living as he did
atin the hopes to live up the expectation that he has set for all writers: to "give a
simple and sincere account of his own life," something unique and individualistic, not
concerned with what he has heard from other lives.