Question: What group did Emmanuel Nahshon speak out against?

The Israeli government, which has become increasingly concerned by the Boycott, Divest and Sanction movement, reacted swiftly, describing the church’s positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as distorted and historically biased against Israel. “The U.C.C. resolutions on the Middle East conflict have reflected the most radical politics for more than a decade, and in no way reflect a moral stance or reality-based position,” said Emmanuel Nahshon, spokesman for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. “People of faith ought to be acting to help Israel and the Palestinians to renew efforts to achieve peace, rather than endlessly demonizing one party in the conflict — in our view, the aggrieved party.” StandWithUs, a pro-Israeli advocacy group based in Los Angeles, condemned what it called “anti-Israel extremists within the U.C.C.” for promoting both resolutions debated on Tuesday. “In doing so, they severely damaged the U.C.C.’s relationship with the vast majority of the Jewish community, promoted hatred and discrimination against Israelis, and undermined efforts to achieve a just peace between Israelis and Palestinians,” the group said in a statement on its website.

Answer: U.C.C.

The Israeli government, which has become increasingly concerned by the Boycott, Divest and Sanction movement, reacted swiftly, describing the church’s positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as distorted and historically biased against Israel. <hl> “The U.C.C. resolutions on the Middle East conflict have reflected the most radical politics for more than a decade, and in no way reflect a moral stance or reality-based position,” said Emmanuel Nahshon, spokesman for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. <hl> “People of faith ought to be acting to help Israel and the Palestinians to renew efforts to achieve peace, rather than endlessly demonizing one party in the conflict — in our view, the aggrieved party.” StandWithUs, a pro-Israeli advocacy group based in Los Angeles, condemned what it called “anti-Israel extremists within the U.C.C.” for promoting both resolutions debated on Tuesday. “In doing so, they severely damaged the U.C.C.’s relationship with the vast majority of the Jewish community, promoted hatred and discrimination against Israelis, and undermined efforts to achieve a just peace between Israelis and Palestinians,” the group said in a statement on its website.

The Israeli government, which has become increasingly concerned by the Boycott, Divest and Sanction movement, reacted swiftly, describing the church’s positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as distorted and historically biased against Israel. “The <hl> U.C.C. <hl> resolutions on the Middle East conflict have reflected the most radical politics for more than a decade, and in no way reflect a moral stance or reality-based position,” said Emmanuel Nahshon, spokesman for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. “People of faith ought to be acting to help Israel and the Palestinians to renew efforts to achieve peace, rather than endlessly demonizing one party in the conflict — in our view, the aggrieved party.” StandWithUs, a pro-Israeli advocacy group based in Los Angeles, condemned what it called “anti-Israel extremists within the U.C.C.” for promoting both resolutions debated on Tuesday. “In doing so, they severely damaged the U.C.C.’s relationship with the vast majority of the Jewish community, promoted hatred and discrimination against Israelis, and undermined efforts to achieve a just peace between Israelis and Palestinians,” the group said in a statement on its website.


Question: What group condemned anti-Israel extremists?

Answer: StandWithUs

The Israeli government, which has become increasingly concerned by the Boycott, Divest and Sanction movement, reacted swiftly, describing the church’s positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as distorted and historically biased against Israel. “The U.C.C. resolutions on the Middle East conflict have reflected the most radical politics for more than a decade, and in no way reflect a moral stance or reality-based position,” said Emmanuel Nahshon, spokesman for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. <hl> “People of faith ought to be acting to help Israel and the Palestinians to renew efforts to achieve peace, rather than endlessly demonizing one party in the conflict — in our view, the aggrieved party.” StandWithUs , a pro-Israeli advocacy group based in Los Angeles, condemned what it called “anti-Israel extremists within the U.C.C.” for promoting both resolutions debated on Tuesday. <hl> “In doing so, they severely damaged the U.C.C.’s relationship with the vast majority of the Jewish community, promoted hatred and discrimination against Israelis, and undermined efforts to achieve a just peace between Israelis and Palestinians,” the group said in a statement on its website.

The Israeli government, which has become increasingly concerned by the Boycott, Divest and Sanction movement, reacted swiftly, describing the church’s positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as distorted and historically biased against Israel. “The U.C.C. resolutions on the Middle East conflict have reflected the most radical politics for more than a decade, and in no way reflect a moral stance or reality-based position,” said Emmanuel Nahshon, spokesman for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. “People of faith ought to be acting to help Israel and the Palestinians to renew efforts to achieve peace, rather than endlessly demonizing one party in the conflict — in our view, the aggrieved party.” <hl> StandWithUs <hl>, a pro-Israeli advocacy group based in Los Angeles, condemned what it called “anti-Israel extremists within the U.C.C.” for promoting both resolutions debated on Tuesday. “In doing so, they severely damaged the U.C.C.’s relationship with the vast majority of the Jewish community, promoted hatred and discrimination against Israelis, and undermined efforts to achieve a just peace between Israelis and Palestinians,” the group said in a statement on its website.

“People of faith ought to be acting to help Israel and the Palestinians to renew efforts to achieve peace, rather than endlessly demonizing one party in the conflict — in our view, the aggrieved party.” <hl> StandWithUs <hl> , a pro-Israeli advocacy group based in Los Angeles, condemned what it called “anti-Israel extremists within the U.C.C.” for promoting both resolutions debated on Tuesday.


Question: What is the name of the person that said people of faith should help Israel and the Palestinians?

Answer: Emmanuel Nahshon

The Israeli government, which has become increasingly concerned by the Boycott, Divest and Sanction movement, reacted swiftly, describing the church’s positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as distorted and historically biased against Israel. <hl> “The U.C.C. resolutions on the Middle East conflict have reflected the most radical politics for more than a decade, and in no way reflect a moral stance or reality-based position,” said Emmanuel Nahshon , spokesman for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. <hl> “People of faith ought to be acting to help Israel and the Palestinians to renew efforts to achieve peace, rather than endlessly demonizing one party in the conflict — in our view, the aggrieved party.” StandWithUs, a pro-Israeli advocacy group based in Los Angeles, condemned what it called “anti-Israel extremists within the U.C.C.” for promoting both resolutions debated on Tuesday. “In doing so, they severely damaged the U.C.C.’s relationship with the vast majority of the Jewish community, promoted hatred and discrimination against Israelis, and undermined efforts to achieve a just peace between Israelis and Palestinians,” the group said in a statement on its website.

The Israeli government, which has become increasingly concerned by the Boycott, Divest and Sanction movement, reacted swiftly, describing the church’s positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as distorted and historically biased against Israel. “The U.C.C. resolutions on the Middle East conflict have reflected the most radical politics for more than a decade, and in no way reflect a moral stance or reality-based position,” said <hl> Emmanuel Nahshon <hl>, spokesman for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. “People of faith ought to be acting to help Israel and the Palestinians to renew efforts to achieve peace, rather than endlessly demonizing one party in the conflict — in our view, the aggrieved party.” StandWithUs, a pro-Israeli advocacy group based in Los Angeles, condemned what it called “anti-Israel extremists within the U.C.C.” for promoting both resolutions debated on Tuesday. “In doing so, they severely damaged the U.C.C.’s relationship with the vast majority of the Jewish community, promoted hatred and discrimination against Israelis, and undermined efforts to achieve a just peace between Israelis and Palestinians,” the group said in a statement on its website.

“The U.C.C. resolutions on the Middle East conflict have reflected the most radical politics for more than a decade, and in no way reflect a moral stance or reality-based position,” said <hl> Emmanuel Nahshon <hl> , spokesman for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.


Question: What government does Emmanuel Nahshon represent?

Answer: Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs

The Israeli government, which has become increasingly concerned by the Boycott, Divest and Sanction movement, reacted swiftly, describing the church’s positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as distorted and historically biased against Israel. <hl> “The U.C.C. resolutions on the Middle East conflict have reflected the most radical politics for more than a decade, and in no way reflect a moral stance or reality-based position,” said Emmanuel Nahshon, spokesman for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs . <hl> “People of faith ought to be acting to help Israel and the Palestinians to renew efforts to achieve peace, rather than endlessly demonizing one party in the conflict — in our view, the aggrieved party.” StandWithUs, a pro-Israeli advocacy group based in Los Angeles, condemned what it called “anti-Israel extremists within the U.C.C.” for promoting both resolutions debated on Tuesday. “In doing so, they severely damaged the U.C.C.’s relationship with the vast majority of the Jewish community, promoted hatred and discrimination against Israelis, and undermined efforts to achieve a just peace between Israelis and Palestinians,” the group said in a statement on its website.

The Israeli government, which has become increasingly concerned by the Boycott, Divest and Sanction movement, reacted swiftly, describing the church’s positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as distorted and historically biased against Israel. “The U.C.C. resolutions on the Middle East conflict have reflected the most radical politics for more than a decade, and in no way reflect a moral stance or reality-based position,” said Emmanuel Nahshon, spokesman for the <hl> Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs <hl>. “People of faith ought to be acting to help Israel and the Palestinians to renew efforts to achieve peace, rather than endlessly demonizing one party in the conflict — in our view, the aggrieved party.” StandWithUs, a pro-Israeli advocacy group based in Los Angeles, condemned what it called “anti-Israel extremists within the U.C.C.” for promoting both resolutions debated on Tuesday. “In doing so, they severely damaged the U.C.C.’s relationship with the vast majority of the Jewish community, promoted hatred and discrimination against Israelis, and undermined efforts to achieve a just peace between Israelis and Palestinians,” the group said in a statement on its website.

“The U.C.C. resolutions on the Middle East conflict have reflected the most radical politics for more than a decade, and in no way reflect a moral stance or reality-based position,” said Emmanuel Nahshon, spokesman for the <hl> Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs <hl> .


Question: What church has 1.8 million members?

Two other American churches — the Episcopal Church and the Mennonite Church USA — were also debating Israeli divestment measures this week at their conventions. Last year, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) approved a resolution to divest from three companies that it said supplied Israel with equipment used in the occupation of Palestinian territory. With about 1.8 million members, the church remains the largest to endorse divestment at a churchwide convention. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and his subordinates have called the B.D.S. movement a new form of terrorism to delegitimize Israel. Supporters of the movement, including a growing number of American Jews, have called such criticism a scaremongering and divisive tactic meant to thwart legitimate debate about the Israeli occupation of lands seized in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Representatives of Jewish Voice for Peace, an advocacy group based in Oakland, Calif. that has endorsed the B.D.S. movement, attended the United Church of Christ meeting as observers. They said they welcomed the boycott resolution and described it as a reflection of growing impatience with what they called Israel’s intransigence.

Answer: Presbyterian Church

Two other American churches — the Episcopal Church and the Mennonite Church USA — were also debating Israeli divestment measures this week at their conventions. <hl> Last year, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) approved a resolution to divest from three companies that it said supplied Israel with equipment used in the occupation of Palestinian territory. <hl> With about 1.8 million members, the church remains the largest to endorse divestment at a churchwide convention. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and his subordinates have called the B.D.S. movement a new form of terrorism to delegitimize Israel. Supporters of the movement, including a growing number of American Jews, have called such criticism a scaremongering and divisive tactic meant to thwart legitimate debate about the Israeli occupation of lands seized in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Representatives of Jewish Voice for Peace, an advocacy group based in Oakland, Calif. that has endorsed the B.D.S. movement, attended the United Church of Christ meeting as observers. They said they welcomed the boycott resolution and described it as a reflection of growing impatience with what they called Israel’s intransigence.

Two other American churches — the Episcopal Church and the Mennonite Church USA — were also debating Israeli divestment measures this week at their conventions. Last year, the <hl> Presbyterian Church <hl> (U.S.A.) approved a resolution to divest from three companies that it said supplied Israel with equipment used in the occupation of Palestinian territory. With about 1.8 million members, the church remains the largest to endorse divestment at a churchwide convention. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and his subordinates have called the B.D.S. movement a new form of terrorism to delegitimize Israel. Supporters of the movement, including a growing number of American Jews, have called such criticism a scaremongering and divisive tactic meant to thwart legitimate debate about the Israeli occupation of lands seized in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Representatives of Jewish Voice for Peace, an advocacy group based in Oakland, Calif. that has endorsed the B.D.S. movement, attended the United Church of Christ meeting as observers. They said they welcomed the boycott resolution and described it as a reflection of growing impatience with what they called Israel’s intransigence.


Question: What nation seized land in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war?

Answer: Israeli

<hl> Two other American churches — the Episcopal Church and the Mennonite Church USA — were also debating Israeli divestment measures this week at their conventions. <hl> Last year, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) approved a resolution to divest from three companies that it said supplied Israel with equipment used in the occupation of Palestinian territory. With about 1.8 million members, the church remains the largest to endorse divestment at a churchwide convention. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and his subordinates have called the B.D.S. movement a new form of terrorism to delegitimize Israel. Supporters of the movement, including a growing number of American Jews, have called such criticism a scaremongering and divisive tactic meant to thwart legitimate debate about the Israeli occupation of lands seized in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Representatives of Jewish Voice for Peace, an advocacy group based in Oakland, Calif. that has endorsed the B.D.S. movement, attended the United Church of Christ meeting as observers. They said they welcomed the boycott resolution and described it as a reflection of growing impatience with what they called Israel’s intransigence.

Two other American churches — the Episcopal Church and the Mennonite Church USA — were also debating <hl> Israeli <hl> divestment measures this week at their conventions. Last year, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) approved a resolution to divest from three companies that it said supplied Israel with equipment used in the occupation of Palestinian territory. With about 1.8 million members, the church remains the largest to endorse divestment at a churchwide convention. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and his subordinates have called the B.D.S. movement a new form of terrorism to delegitimize Israel. Supporters of the movement, including a growing number of American Jews, have called such criticism a scaremongering and divisive tactic meant to thwart legitimate debate about the Israeli occupation of lands seized in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Representatives of Jewish Voice for Peace, an advocacy group based in Oakland, Calif. that has endorsed the B.D.S. movement, attended the United Church of Christ meeting as observers. They said they welcomed the boycott resolution and described it as a reflection of growing impatience with what they called Israel’s intransigence.


Question: What nation was occupying the Palestinian territory?

Answer: Israel

<hl> Two other American churches — the Episcopal Church and the Mennonite Church USA — were also debating Israel i divestment measures this week at their conventions. <hl> Last year, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) approved a resolution to divest from three companies that it said supplied Israel with equipment used in the occupation of Palestinian territory. With about 1.8 million members, the church remains the largest to endorse divestment at a churchwide convention. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and his subordinates have called the B.D.S. movement a new form of terrorism to delegitimize Israel. Supporters of the movement, including a growing number of American Jews, have called such criticism a scaremongering and divisive tactic meant to thwart legitimate debate about the Israeli occupation of lands seized in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Representatives of Jewish Voice for Peace, an advocacy group based in Oakland, Calif. that has endorsed the B.D.S. movement, attended the United Church of Christ meeting as observers. They said they welcomed the boycott resolution and described it as a reflection of growing impatience with what they called Israel’s intransigence.

Two other American churches — the Episcopal Church and the Mennonite Church USA — were also debating <hl> Israel <hl>i divestment measures this week at their conventions. Last year, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) approved a resolution to divest from three companies that it said supplied Israel with equipment used in the occupation of Palestinian territory. With about 1.8 million members, the church remains the largest to endorse divestment at a churchwide convention. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and his subordinates have called the B.D.S. movement a new form of terrorism to delegitimize Israel. Supporters of the movement, including a growing number of American Jews, have called such criticism a scaremongering and divisive tactic meant to thwart legitimate debate about the Israeli occupation of lands seized in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Representatives of Jewish Voice for Peace, an advocacy group based in Oakland, Calif. that has endorsed the B.D.S. movement, attended the United Church of Christ meeting as observers. They said they welcomed the boycott resolution and described it as a reflection of growing impatience with what they called Israel’s intransigence.

Two other American churches — the Episcopal Church and the Mennonite Church USA — were also debating <hl> Israel <hl> i divestment measures this week at their conventions.


Question: What group attended the United Church of Christ's meetings as observers?

Answer: Jewish Voice for Peace

Two other American churches — the Episcopal Church and the Mennonite Church USA — were also debating Israeli divestment measures this week at their conventions. Last year, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) approved a resolution to divest from three companies that it said supplied Israel with equipment used in the occupation of Palestinian territory. With about 1.8 million members, the church remains the largest to endorse divestment at a churchwide convention. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and his subordinates have called the B.D.S. movement a new form of terrorism to delegitimize Israel. Supporters of the movement, including a growing number of American Jews, have called such criticism a scaremongering and divisive tactic meant to thwart legitimate debate about the Israeli occupation of lands seized in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. <hl> Representatives of Jewish Voice for Peace , an advocacy group based in Oakland, Calif. that has endorsed the B.D.S. movement, attended the United Church of Christ meeting as observers. <hl> They said they welcomed the boycott resolution and described it as a reflection of growing impatience with what they called Israel’s intransigence.

Two other American churches — the Episcopal Church and the Mennonite Church USA — were also debating Israeli divestment measures this week at their conventions. Last year, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) approved a resolution to divest from three companies that it said supplied Israel with equipment used in the occupation of Palestinian territory. With about 1.8 million members, the church remains the largest to endorse divestment at a churchwide convention. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and his subordinates have called the B.D.S. movement a new form of terrorism to delegitimize Israel. Supporters of the movement, including a growing number of American Jews, have called such criticism a scaremongering and divisive tactic meant to thwart legitimate debate about the Israeli occupation of lands seized in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Representatives of <hl> Jewish Voice for Peace <hl>, an advocacy group based in Oakland, Calif. that has endorsed the B.D.S. movement, attended the United Church of Christ meeting as observers. They said they welcomed the boycott resolution and described it as a reflection of growing impatience with what they called Israel’s intransigence.

Representatives of <hl> Jewish Voice for Peace <hl> , an advocacy group based in Oakland, Calif. that has endorsed the B.D.S. movement, attended the United Church of Christ meeting as observers.


Question: In what city is the Jewish Voice for Peace based in?

Answer: Oakland

Two other American churches — the Episcopal Church and the Mennonite Church USA — were also debating Israeli divestment measures this week at their conventions. Last year, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) approved a resolution to divest from three companies that it said supplied Israel with equipment used in the occupation of Palestinian territory. With about 1.8 million members, the church remains the largest to endorse divestment at a churchwide convention. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and his subordinates have called the B.D.S. movement a new form of terrorism to delegitimize Israel. Supporters of the movement, including a growing number of American Jews, have called such criticism a scaremongering and divisive tactic meant to thwart legitimate debate about the Israeli occupation of lands seized in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. <hl> Representatives of Jewish Voice for Peace, an advocacy group based in Oakland , Calif. that has endorsed the B.D.S. movement, attended the United Church of Christ meeting as observers. <hl> They said they welcomed the boycott resolution and described it as a reflection of growing impatience with what they called Israel’s intransigence.

Two other American churches — the Episcopal Church and the Mennonite Church USA — were also debating Israeli divestment measures this week at their conventions. Last year, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) approved a resolution to divest from three companies that it said supplied Israel with equipment used in the occupation of Palestinian territory. With about 1.8 million members, the church remains the largest to endorse divestment at a churchwide convention. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and his subordinates have called the B.D.S. movement a new form of terrorism to delegitimize Israel. Supporters of the movement, including a growing number of American Jews, have called such criticism a scaremongering and divisive tactic meant to thwart legitimate debate about the Israeli occupation of lands seized in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Representatives of Jewish Voice for Peace, an advocacy group based in <hl> Oakland <hl>, Calif. that has endorsed the B.D.S. movement, attended the United Church of Christ meeting as observers. They said they welcomed the boycott resolution and described it as a reflection of growing impatience with what they called Israel’s intransigence.

Representatives of Jewish Voice for Peace, an advocacy group based in <hl> Oakland <hl> , Calif. that has endorsed the B.D.S. movement, attended the United Church of Christ meeting as observers.


Question: Who wrote "A Cure for Suicide"?

In Jesse Ball’s elegant, spellbinding fifth novel, “A Cure for Suicide,” a man known only as the “claimant” sits on a chair, which he has recently learned is called “chair.” He listens as a woman he knows as the “examiner” tells him how a story works. The examiner has not yet given the claimant a name. The claimant must first learn how to listen to a story and tell a story in turn. “It isn’t important that you understand what I say,” the examiner tells him. “It is not very important that you are understood as long as you give the person the happiness of being told a story.”

Answer: Jesse Ball

<hl> In Jesse Ball ’s elegant, spellbinding fifth novel, “A Cure for Suicide,” a man known only as the “claimant” sits on a chair, which he has recently learned is called “chair.” <hl> He listens as a woman he knows as the “examiner” tells him how a story works. The examiner has not yet given the claimant a name. The claimant must first learn how to listen to a story and tell a story in turn. “It isn’t important that you understand what I say,” the examiner tells him. “It is not very important that you are understood as long as you give the person the happiness of being told a story.”

In <hl> Jesse Ball <hl>’s elegant, spellbinding fifth novel, “A Cure for Suicide,” a man known only as the “claimant” sits on a chair, which he has recently learned is called “chair.” He listens as a woman he knows as the “examiner” tells him how a story works. The examiner has not yet given the claimant a name. The claimant must first learn how to listen to a story and tell a story in turn. “It isn’t important that you understand what I say,” the examiner tells him. “It is not very important that you are understood as long as you give the person the happiness of being told a story.”

In <hl> Jesse Ball <hl> ’s elegant, spellbinding fifth novel, “A Cure for Suicide,” a man known only as the “claimant” sits on a chair, which he has recently learned is called “chair.”


Question: Does the claimant have a name?

Answer: not yet

In Jesse Ball’s elegant, spellbinding fifth novel, “A Cure for Suicide,” a man known only as the “claimant” sits on a chair, which he has recently learned is called “chair.” He listens as a woman he knows as the “examiner” tells him how a story works. <hl> The examiner has not yet given the claimant a name. <hl> The claimant must first learn how to listen to a story and tell a story in turn. “It isn’t important that you understand what I say,” the examiner tells him. “It is not very important that you are understood as long as you give the person the happiness of being told a story.”

In Jesse Ball’s elegant, spellbinding fifth novel, “A Cure for Suicide,” a man known only as the “claimant” sits on a chair, which he has recently learned is called “chair.” He listens as a woman he knows as the “examiner” tells him how a story works. The examiner has <hl> not yet <hl> given the claimant a name. The claimant must first learn how to listen to a story and tell a story in turn. “It isn’t important that you understand what I say,” the examiner tells him. “It is not very important that you are understood as long as you give the person the happiness of being told a story.”


Question: Who explains how a story works?

Answer: the “examiner”

In Jesse Ball’s elegant, spellbinding fifth novel, “A Cure for Suicide,” a man known only as the “claimant” sits on a chair, which he has recently learned is called “chair.” <hl> He listens as a woman he knows as the “examiner” tells him how a story works. <hl> The examiner has not yet given the claimant a name. The claimant must first learn how to listen to a story and tell a story in turn. “It isn’t important that you understand what I say,” the examiner tells him. “It is not very important that you are understood as long as you give the person the happiness of being told a story.”

In Jesse Ball’s elegant, spellbinding fifth novel, “A Cure for Suicide,” a man known only as the “claimant” sits on a chair, which he has recently learned is called “chair.” He listens as a woman he knows as <hl> the “examiner” <hl> tells him how a story works. The examiner has not yet given the claimant a name. The claimant must first learn how to listen to a story and tell a story in turn. “It isn’t important that you understand what I say,” the examiner tells him. “It is not very important that you are understood as long as you give the person the happiness of being told a story.”


Question: What character sits on a chair?

Answer: the “claimant”

<hl> In Jesse Ball’s elegant, spellbinding fifth novel, “A Cure for Suicide,” a man known only as the “claimant” sits on a chair, which he has recently learned is called “chair.” <hl> He listens as a woman he knows as the “examiner” tells him how a story works. The examiner has not yet given the claimant a name. The claimant must first learn how to listen to a story and tell a story in turn. “It isn’t important that you understand what I say,” the examiner tells him. “It is not very important that you are understood as long as you give the person the happiness of being told a story.”

In Jesse Ball’s elegant, spellbinding fifth novel, “A Cure for Suicide,” a man known only as <hl> the “claimant” <hl> sits on a chair, which he has recently learned is called “chair.” He listens as a woman he knows as the “examiner” tells him how a story works. The examiner has not yet given the claimant a name. The claimant must first learn how to listen to a story and tell a story in turn. “It isn’t important that you understand what I say,” the examiner tells him. “It is not very important that you are understood as long as you give the person the happiness of being told a story.”


Question: What is Ball's story about?

With the simplicity of a fable and the drama of a psychological thriller, Ball tells a story about starting over from nothing, reconstructing life from its most basic elements. These acts of narrative deconstruction highlight his strength as a deeply questioning writer at home in fact as much as abstraction. In the village’s cemetery, Ball deconstructs death. Noting that gravestones are “irrational” because they prolong suffering while failing to bring back the dead, the claimant wonders: “But, if life is just that, just being reasonable, then there is nothing in it — nothing worthwhile. So, the yearning that we have to keep dead things living — or to make unreasonable things reasonable. That is why a person should live.”

Answer: starting over from nothing

<hl> With the simplicity of a fable and the drama of a psychological thriller, Ball tells a story about starting over from nothing , reconstructing life from its most basic elements. <hl> These acts of narrative deconstruction highlight his strength as a deeply questioning writer at home in fact as much as abstraction. In the village’s cemetery, Ball deconstructs death. Noting that gravestones are “irrational” because they prolong suffering while failing to bring back the dead, the claimant wonders: “But, if life is just that, just being reasonable, then there is nothing in it — nothing worthwhile. So, the yearning that we have to keep dead things living — or to make unreasonable things reasonable. That is why a person should live.”

With the simplicity of a fable and the drama of a psychological thriller, Ball tells a story about <hl> starting over from nothing <hl>, reconstructing life from its most basic elements. These acts of narrative deconstruction highlight his strength as a deeply questioning writer at home in fact as much as abstraction. In the village’s cemetery, Ball deconstructs death. Noting that gravestones are “irrational” because they prolong suffering while failing to bring back the dead, the claimant wonders: “But, if life is just that, just being reasonable, then there is nothing in it — nothing worthwhile. So, the yearning that we have to keep dead things living — or to make unreasonable things reasonable. That is why a person should live.”

With the simplicity of a fable and the drama of a psychological thriller, Ball tells a story about <hl> starting over from nothing <hl> , reconstructing life from its most basic elements.


Question: What type of story has the same simplicity as this one?

Answer: fable

<hl> With the simplicity of a fable and the drama of a psychological thriller, Ball tells a story about starting over from nothing, reconstructing life from its most basic elements. <hl> These acts of narrative deconstruction highlight his strength as a deeply questioning writer at home in fact as much as abstraction. In the village’s cemetery, Ball deconstructs death. Noting that gravestones are “irrational” because they prolong suffering while failing to bring back the dead, the claimant wonders: “But, if life is just that, just being reasonable, then there is nothing in it — nothing worthwhile. So, the yearning that we have to keep dead things living — or to make unreasonable things reasonable. That is why a person should live.”

With the simplicity of a <hl> fable <hl> and the drama of a psychological thriller, Ball tells a story about starting over from nothing, reconstructing life from its most basic elements. These acts of narrative deconstruction highlight his strength as a deeply questioning writer at home in fact as much as abstraction. In the village’s cemetery, Ball deconstructs death. Noting that gravestones are “irrational” because they prolong suffering while failing to bring back the dead, the claimant wonders: “But, if life is just that, just being reasonable, then there is nothing in it — nothing worthwhile. So, the yearning that we have to keep dead things living — or to make unreasonable things reasonable. That is why a person should live.”


Question: What type of story has the same drama as this one?

Answer: psychological thriller

<hl> With the simplicity of a fable and the drama of a psychological thriller , Ball tells a story about starting over from nothing, reconstructing life from its most basic elements. <hl> These acts of narrative deconstruction highlight his strength as a deeply questioning writer at home in fact as much as abstraction. In the village’s cemetery, Ball deconstructs death. Noting that gravestones are “irrational” because they prolong suffering while failing to bring back the dead, the claimant wonders: “But, if life is just that, just being reasonable, then there is nothing in it — nothing worthwhile. So, the yearning that we have to keep dead things living — or to make unreasonable things reasonable. That is why a person should live.”

With the simplicity of a fable and the drama of a <hl> psychological thriller <hl>, Ball tells a story about starting over from nothing, reconstructing life from its most basic elements. These acts of narrative deconstruction highlight his strength as a deeply questioning writer at home in fact as much as abstraction. In the village’s cemetery, Ball deconstructs death. Noting that gravestones are “irrational” because they prolong suffering while failing to bring back the dead, the claimant wonders: “But, if life is just that, just being reasonable, then there is nothing in it — nothing worthwhile. So, the yearning that we have to keep dead things living — or to make unreasonable things reasonable. That is why a person should live.”

With the simplicity of a fable and the drama of a <hl> psychological thriller <hl> , Ball tells a story about starting over from nothing, reconstructing life from its most basic elements.


Question: What narrative tool does Ball use?

Answer: narrative deconstruction

With the simplicity of a fable and the drama of a psychological thriller, Ball tells a story about starting over from nothing, reconstructing life from its most basic elements. <hl> These acts of narrative deconstruction highlight his strength as a deeply questioning writer at home in fact as much as abstraction. <hl> In the village’s cemetery, Ball deconstructs death. Noting that gravestones are “irrational” because they prolong suffering while failing to bring back the dead, the claimant wonders: “But, if life is just that, just being reasonable, then there is nothing in it — nothing worthwhile. So, the yearning that we have to keep dead things living — or to make unreasonable things reasonable. That is why a person should live.”

With the simplicity of a fable and the drama of a psychological thriller, Ball tells a story about starting over from nothing, reconstructing life from its most basic elements. These acts of <hl> narrative deconstruction <hl> highlight his strength as a deeply questioning writer at home in fact as much as abstraction. In the village’s cemetery, Ball deconstructs death. Noting that gravestones are “irrational” because they prolong suffering while failing to bring back the dead, the claimant wonders: “But, if life is just that, just being reasonable, then there is nothing in it — nothing worthwhile. So, the yearning that we have to keep dead things living — or to make unreasonable things reasonable. That is why a person should live.”


Question: What does the claimant accuse gravestones of being?

Answer: irrational

With the simplicity of a fable and the drama of a psychological thriller, Ball tells a story about starting over from nothing, reconstructing life from its most basic elements. These acts of narrative deconstruction highlight his strength as a deeply questioning writer at home in fact as much as abstraction. In the village’s cemetery, Ball deconstructs death. <hl> Noting that gravestones are “ irrational ” because they prolong suffering while failing to bring back the dead, the claimant wonders: “But, if life is just that, just being reasonable, then there is nothing in it — nothing worthwhile. <hl> So, the yearning that we have to keep dead things living — or to make unreasonable things reasonable. That is why a person should live.”

With the simplicity of a fable and the drama of a psychological thriller, Ball tells a story about starting over from nothing, reconstructing life from its most basic elements. These acts of narrative deconstruction highlight his strength as a deeply questioning writer at home in fact as much as abstraction. In the village’s cemetery, Ball deconstructs death. Noting that gravestones are “<hl> irrational <hl>” because they prolong suffering while failing to bring back the dead, the claimant wonders: “But, if life is just that, just being reasonable, then there is nothing in it — nothing worthwhile. So, the yearning that we have to keep dead things living — or to make unreasonable things reasonable. That is why a person should live.”

Noting that gravestones are “ <hl> irrational <hl> ” because they prolong suffering while failing to bring back the dead, the claimant wonders: “But, if life is just that, just being reasonable, then there is nothing in it — nothing worthwhile.


Question: What is at the heart of "A Cure for Suicide"?

There is yearning at the core of “A Cure for Suicide,” and in that yearning is the reason for carrying on when doing so feels impossible. Ball asks whether, given the chance to shed our pain and start over with the mind of a child, we would want to do so — to what extent pain informs identity, and what parts of us would remain were we to shed that pain. In the hands of a less skilled writer, these questions could be mistaken for science fiction cliché, a riff on “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind,” but Ball deftly explores questions with the eye of a poet and the logic of a philosopher, revealing new facets with perfect timing and acuity. At each unforeseeable turn, “A Cure for Suicide” is a story Ball ensures we understand and, because it is subtle and breathtaking, we are happy to be told.

Answer: yearning

<hl> There is yearning at the core of “A Cure for Suicide,” and in that yearning is the reason for carrying on when doing so feels impossible. <hl> Ball asks whether, given the chance to shed our pain and start over with the mind of a child, we would want to do so — to what extent pain informs identity, and what parts of us would remain were we to shed that pain. In the hands of a less skilled writer, these questions could be mistaken for science fiction cliché, a riff on “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind,” but Ball deftly explores questions with the eye of a poet and the logic of a philosopher, revealing new facets with perfect timing and acuity. At each unforeseeable turn, “A Cure for Suicide” is a story Ball ensures we understand and, because it is subtle and breathtaking, we are happy to be told.

There is <hl> yearning <hl> at the core of “A Cure for Suicide,” and in that yearning is the reason for carrying on when doing so feels impossible. Ball asks whether, given the chance to shed our pain and start over with the mind of a child, we would want to do so — to what extent pain informs identity, and what parts of us would remain were we to shed that pain. In the hands of a less skilled writer, these questions could be mistaken for science fiction cliché, a riff on “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind,” but Ball deftly explores questions with the eye of a poet and the logic of a philosopher, revealing new facets with perfect timing and acuity. At each unforeseeable turn, “A Cure for Suicide” is a story Ball ensures we understand and, because it is subtle and breathtaking, we are happy to be told.


Question: What emotional experience is intertwined with identity?

Answer: pain

There is yearning at the core of “A Cure for Suicide,” and in that yearning is the reason for carrying on when doing so feels impossible. <hl> Ball asks whether, given the chance to shed our pain and start over with the mind of a child, we would want to do so — to what extent pain informs identity, and what parts of us would remain were we to shed that pain. <hl> In the hands of a less skilled writer, these questions could be mistaken for science fiction cliché, a riff on “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind,” but Ball deftly explores questions with the eye of a poet and the logic of a philosopher, revealing new facets with perfect timing and acuity. At each unforeseeable turn, “A Cure for Suicide” is a story Ball ensures we understand and, because it is subtle and breathtaking, we are happy to be told.

There is yearning at the core of “A Cure for Suicide,” and in that yearning is the reason for carrying on when doing so feels impossible. Ball asks whether, given the chance to shed our <hl> pain <hl> and start over with the mind of a child, we would want to do so — to what extent pain informs identity, and what parts of us would remain were we to shed that pain. In the hands of a less skilled writer, these questions could be mistaken for science fiction cliché, a riff on “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind,” but Ball deftly explores questions with the eye of a poet and the logic of a philosopher, revealing new facets with perfect timing and acuity. At each unforeseeable turn, “A Cure for Suicide” is a story Ball ensures we understand and, because it is subtle and breathtaking, we are happy to be told.


Question: What does yearning provide the rationale for?

Answer: carrying on

<hl> There is yearning at the core of “A Cure for Suicide,” and in that yearning is the reason for carrying on when doing so feels impossible. <hl> Ball asks whether, given the chance to shed our pain and start over with the mind of a child, we would want to do so — to what extent pain informs identity, and what parts of us would remain were we to shed that pain. In the hands of a less skilled writer, these questions could be mistaken for science fiction cliché, a riff on “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind,” but Ball deftly explores questions with the eye of a poet and the logic of a philosopher, revealing new facets with perfect timing and acuity. At each unforeseeable turn, “A Cure for Suicide” is a story Ball ensures we understand and, because it is subtle and breathtaking, we are happy to be told.

There is yearning at the core of “A Cure for Suicide,” and in that yearning is the reason for <hl> carrying on <hl> when doing so feels impossible. Ball asks whether, given the chance to shed our pain and start over with the mind of a child, we would want to do so — to what extent pain informs identity, and what parts of us would remain were we to shed that pain. In the hands of a less skilled writer, these questions could be mistaken for science fiction cliché, a riff on “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind,” but Ball deftly explores questions with the eye of a poet and the logic of a philosopher, revealing new facets with perfect timing and acuity. At each unforeseeable turn, “A Cure for Suicide” is a story Ball ensures we understand and, because it is subtle and breathtaking, we are happy to be told.


Question: Who does Ball have the eye of?

Answer: a poet

There is yearning at the core of “A Cure for Suicide,” and in that yearning is the reason for carrying on when doing so feels impossible. Ball asks whether, given the chance to shed our pain and start over with the mind of a child, we would want to do so — to what extent pain informs identity, and what parts of us would remain were we to shed that pain. <hl> In the hands of a less skilled writer, these questions could be mistaken for science fiction cliché, a riff on “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind,” but Ball deftly explores questions with the eye of a poet and the logic of a philosopher, revealing new facets with perfect timing and acuity. <hl> At each unforeseeable turn, “A Cure for Suicide” is a story Ball ensures we understand and, because it is subtle and breathtaking, we are happy to be told.

There is yearning at the core of “A Cure for Suicide,” and in that yearning is the reason for carrying on when doing so feels impossible. Ball asks whether, given the chance to shed our pain and start over with the mind of a child, we would want to do so — to what extent pain informs identity, and what parts of us would remain were we to shed that pain. In the hands of a less skilled writer, these questions could be mistaken for science fiction cliché, a riff on “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind,” but Ball deftly explores questions with the eye of <hl> a poet <hl> and the logic of a philosopher, revealing new facets with perfect timing and acuity. At each unforeseeable turn, “A Cure for Suicide” is a story Ball ensures we understand and, because it is subtle and breathtaking, we are happy to be told.


Question: Who does Ball have the logic of?

Answer: a philosopher

There is yearning at the core of “A Cure for Suicide,” and in that yearning is the reason for carrying on when doing so feels impossible. Ball asks whether, given the chance to shed our pain and start over with the mind of a child, we would want to do so — to what extent pain informs identity, and what parts of us would remain were we to shed that pain. <hl> In the hands of a less skilled writer, these questions could be mistaken for science fiction cliché, a riff on “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind,” but Ball deftly explores questions with the eye of a poet and the logic of a philosopher , revealing new facets with perfect timing and acuity. <hl> At each unforeseeable turn, “A Cure for Suicide” is a story Ball ensures we understand and, because it is subtle and breathtaking, we are happy to be told.

There is yearning at the core of “A Cure for Suicide,” and in that yearning is the reason for carrying on when doing so feels impossible. Ball asks whether, given the chance to shed our pain and start over with the mind of a child, we would want to do so — to what extent pain informs identity, and what parts of us would remain were we to shed that pain. In the hands of a less skilled writer, these questions could be mistaken for science fiction cliché, a riff on “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind,” but Ball deftly explores questions with the eye of a poet and the logic of <hl> a philosopher <hl>, revealing new facets with perfect timing and acuity. At each unforeseeable turn, “A Cure for Suicide” is a story Ball ensures we understand and, because it is subtle and breathtaking, we are happy to be told.

In the hands of a less skilled writer, these questions could be mistaken for science fiction cliché, a riff on “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind,” but Ball deftly explores questions with the eye of a poet and the logic of <hl> a philosopher <hl> , revealing new facets with perfect timing and acuity.


Question: What is the title of the thriller that details the events that ended Dan Rather's career?

The title of “Truth,” a gripping, beautifully executed journalistic thriller about the events that ended Dan Rather’s career as a CBS anchorman, should probably be appended with a question mark. More than most docudramas about fairly recent events, it is so well written and acted that it conveys a convincing illusion of veracity. Just as there are conspiracy theorists who will never be satisfied with the Warren Commission report on the Kennedy assassination, there are some who passionately believe that Mr. Rather and his producer Mary Mapes (Cate Blanchett) conspired to tarnish George W. Bush’s reputation.

Answer: Truth

<hl> The title of “ Truth ,” a gripping, beautifully executed journalistic thriller about the events that ended Dan Rather’s career as a CBS anchorman, should probably be appended with a question mark. <hl> More than most docudramas about fairly recent events, it is so well written and acted that it conveys a convincing illusion of veracity. Just as there are conspiracy theorists who will never be satisfied with the Warren Commission report on the Kennedy assassination, there are some who passionately believe that Mr. Rather and his producer Mary Mapes (Cate Blanchett) conspired to tarnish George W. Bush’s reputation.

The title of “<hl> Truth <hl>,” a gripping, beautifully executed journalistic thriller about the events that ended Dan Rather’s career as a CBS anchorman, should probably be appended with a question mark. More than most docudramas about fairly recent events, it is so well written and acted that it conveys a convincing illusion of veracity. Just as there are conspiracy theorists who will never be satisfied with the Warren Commission report on the Kennedy assassination, there are some who passionately believe that Mr. Rather and his producer Mary Mapes (Cate Blanchett) conspired to tarnish George W. Bush’s reputation.

The title of “ <hl> Truth <hl> ,” a gripping, beautifully executed journalistic thriller about the events that ended Dan Rather’s career as a CBS anchorman, should probably be appended with a question mark.


Question: Whose reputation is it alleged that Dan Rather set out to tarnish?

Answer: George W. Bush

The title of “Truth,” a gripping, beautifully executed journalistic thriller about the events that ended Dan Rather’s career as a CBS anchorman, should probably be appended with a question mark. More than most docudramas about fairly recent events, it is so well written and acted that it conveys a convincing illusion of veracity. <hl> Just as there are conspiracy theorists who will never be satisfied with the Warren Commission report on the Kennedy assassination, there are some who passionately believe that Mr. Rather and his producer Mary Mapes (Cate Blanchett) conspired to tarnish George W. Bush ’s reputation. <hl>

The title of “Truth,” a gripping, beautifully executed journalistic thriller about the events that ended Dan Rather’s career as a CBS anchorman, should probably be appended with a question mark. More than most docudramas about fairly recent events, it is so well written and acted that it conveys a convincing illusion of veracity. Just as there are conspiracy theorists who will never be satisfied with the Warren Commission report on the Kennedy assassination, there are some who passionately believe that Mr. Rather and his producer Mary Mapes (Cate Blanchett) conspired to tarnish <hl> George W. Bush <hl>’s reputation.

Just as there are conspiracy theorists who will never be satisfied with the Warren Commission report on the Kennedy assassination, there are some who passionately believe that Mr. Rather and his producer Mary Mapes (Cate Blanchett) conspired to tarnish <hl> George W. Bush <hl> ’s reputation.


Question: What is the name of Dan Rather's co-conspirator?

Answer: Mary Mapes

The title of “Truth,” a gripping, beautifully executed journalistic thriller about the events that ended Dan Rather’s career as a CBS anchorman, should probably be appended with a question mark. More than most docudramas about fairly recent events, it is so well written and acted that it conveys a convincing illusion of veracity. <hl> Just as there are conspiracy theorists who will never be satisfied with the Warren Commission report on the Kennedy assassination, there are some who passionately believe that Mr. Rather and his producer Mary Mapes (Cate Blanchett) conspired to tarnish George W. Bush’s reputation. <hl>

The title of “Truth,” a gripping, beautifully executed journalistic thriller about the events that ended Dan Rather’s career as a CBS anchorman, should probably be appended with a question mark. More than most docudramas about fairly recent events, it is so well written and acted that it conveys a convincing illusion of veracity. Just as there are conspiracy theorists who will never be satisfied with the Warren Commission report on the Kennedy assassination, there are some who passionately believe that Mr. Rather and his producer <hl> Mary Mapes <hl> (Cate Blanchett) conspired to tarnish George W. Bush’s reputation.


Question: Which actress plays the role of Mary Mapes?

Answer: Cate Blanchett

The title of “Truth,” a gripping, beautifully executed journalistic thriller about the events that ended Dan Rather’s career as a CBS anchorman, should probably be appended with a question mark. More than most docudramas about fairly recent events, it is so well written and acted that it conveys a convincing illusion of veracity. <hl> Just as there are conspiracy theorists who will never be satisfied with the Warren Commission report on the Kennedy assassination, there are some who passionately believe that Mr. Rather and his producer Mary Mapes ( Cate Blanchett ) conspired to tarnish George W. Bush’s reputation. <hl>

The title of “Truth,” a gripping, beautifully executed journalistic thriller about the events that ended Dan Rather’s career as a CBS anchorman, should probably be appended with a question mark. More than most docudramas about fairly recent events, it is so well written and acted that it conveys a convincing illusion of veracity. Just as there are conspiracy theorists who will never be satisfied with the Warren Commission report on the Kennedy assassination, there are some who passionately believe that Mr. Rather and his producer Mary Mapes (<hl> Cate Blanchett <hl>) conspired to tarnish George W. Bush’s reputation.

Just as there are conspiracy theorists who will never be satisfied with the Warren Commission report on the Kennedy assassination, there are some who passionately believe that Mr. Rather and his producer Mary Mapes ( <hl> Cate Blanchett <hl> ) conspired to tarnish George W. Bush’s reputation.


Question: What network did Dan Rather work on?

Answer: CBS

<hl> The title of “Truth,” a gripping, beautifully executed journalistic thriller about the events that ended Dan Rather’s career as a CBS anchorman, should probably be appended with a question mark. <hl> More than most docudramas about fairly recent events, it is so well written and acted that it conveys a convincing illusion of veracity. Just as there are conspiracy theorists who will never be satisfied with the Warren Commission report on the Kennedy assassination, there are some who passionately believe that Mr. Rather and his producer Mary Mapes (Cate Blanchett) conspired to tarnish George W. Bush’s reputation.

The title of “Truth,” a gripping, beautifully executed journalistic thriller about the events that ended Dan Rather’s career as a <hl> CBS <hl> anchorman, should probably be appended with a question mark. More than most docudramas about fairly recent events, it is so well written and acted that it conveys a convincing illusion of veracity. Just as there are conspiracy theorists who will never be satisfied with the Warren Commission report on the Kennedy assassination, there are some who passionately believe that Mr. Rather and his producer Mary Mapes (Cate Blanchett) conspired to tarnish George W. Bush’s reputation.


Question: Who was willing to pay for Davis's dress?

“No one will attempt to make a hero of such material,” one account said. “He will appear in petticoats in history.” Few capitalized on these events as quickly as P. T. Barnum. The era’s undisputed master showman announced that he would pay $500 for Davis’s dress. The possibility that it would soon appear at the Manhattan headquarters of Barnum’s entertainment empire set the country abuzz. Barnum’s American Museum was then the nation’s most popular tourist destination. Located on lower Broadway, it was said to be either the greatest collection of diversions in the greatest city on earth, or an “ill-looking, ungainly, rambling structure,” containing a “paltry collection of preposterous things.”

Answer: P. T. Barnum

“No one will attempt to make a hero of such material,” one account said. “He will appear in petticoats in history.” <hl> Few capitalized on these events as quickly as P. T. Barnum . <hl> The era’s undisputed master showman announced that he would pay $500 for Davis’s dress. The possibility that it would soon appear at the Manhattan headquarters of Barnum’s entertainment empire set the country abuzz. Barnum’s American Museum was then the nation’s most popular tourist destination. Located on lower Broadway, it was said to be either the greatest collection of diversions in the greatest city on earth, or an “ill-looking, ungainly, rambling structure,” containing a “paltry collection of preposterous things.”

“No one will attempt to make a hero of such material,” one account said. “He will appear in petticoats in history.” Few capitalized on these events as quickly as <hl> P. T. Barnum <hl>. The era’s undisputed master showman announced that he would pay $500 for Davis’s dress. The possibility that it would soon appear at the Manhattan headquarters of Barnum’s entertainment empire set the country abuzz. Barnum’s American Museum was then the nation’s most popular tourist destination. Located on lower Broadway, it was said to be either the greatest collection of diversions in the greatest city on earth, or an “ill-looking, ungainly, rambling structure,” containing a “paltry collection of preposterous things.”

Few capitalized on these events as quickly as <hl> P. T. Barnum <hl> .


Question: How much did P.T. Barnum offer for Davis's dress?

Answer: master showman announced that he would pay $500 for Davis’s dress

“No one will attempt to make a hero of such material,” one account said. “He will appear in petticoats in history.” Few capitalized on these events as quickly as P. T. Barnum. <hl> The era’s undisputed master showman announced that he would pay $500 for Davis’s dress . <hl> The possibility that it would soon appear at the Manhattan headquarters of Barnum’s entertainment empire set the country abuzz. Barnum’s American Museum was then the nation’s most popular tourist destination. Located on lower Broadway, it was said to be either the greatest collection of diversions in the greatest city on earth, or an “ill-looking, ungainly, rambling structure,” containing a “paltry collection of preposterous things.”

“No one will attempt to make a hero of such material,” one account said. “He will appear in petticoats in history.” Few capitalized on these events as quickly as P. T. Barnum. The era’s undisputed <hl> master showman announced that he would pay $500 for Davis’s dress <hl>. The possibility that it would soon appear at the Manhattan headquarters of Barnum’s entertainment empire set the country abuzz. Barnum’s American Museum was then the nation’s most popular tourist destination. Located on lower Broadway, it was said to be either the greatest collection of diversions in the greatest city on earth, or an “ill-looking, ungainly, rambling structure,” containing a “paltry collection of preposterous things.”

The era’s undisputed <hl> master showman announced that he would pay $500 for Davis’s dress <hl> .


Question: Where was Davis's dress to appear if Barnum bought it?

Answer: the Manhattan headquarters of Barnum’s entertainment empire

“No one will attempt to make a hero of such material,” one account said. “He will appear in petticoats in history.” Few capitalized on these events as quickly as P. T. Barnum. The era’s undisputed master showman announced that he would pay $500 for Davis’s dress. <hl> The possibility that it would soon appear at the Manhattan headquarters of Barnum’s entertainment empire set the country abuzz. <hl> Barnum’s American Museum was then the nation’s most popular tourist destination. Located on lower Broadway, it was said to be either the greatest collection of diversions in the greatest city on earth, or an “ill-looking, ungainly, rambling structure,” containing a “paltry collection of preposterous things.”

“No one will attempt to make a hero of such material,” one account said. “He will appear in petticoats in history.” Few capitalized on these events as quickly as P. T. Barnum. The era’s undisputed master showman announced that he would pay $500 for Davis’s dress. The possibility that it would soon appear at <hl> the Manhattan headquarters of Barnum’s entertainment empire <hl> set the country abuzz. Barnum’s American Museum was then the nation’s most popular tourist destination. Located on lower Broadway, it was said to be either the greatest collection of diversions in the greatest city on earth, or an “ill-looking, ungainly, rambling structure,” containing a “paltry collection of preposterous things.”


Question: Where was Barnum's Museum located?

Answer: lower Broadway

“No one will attempt to make a hero of such material,” one account said. “He will appear in petticoats in history.” Few capitalized on these events as quickly as P. T. Barnum. The era’s undisputed master showman announced that he would pay $500 for Davis’s dress. The possibility that it would soon appear at the Manhattan headquarters of Barnum’s entertainment empire set the country abuzz. Barnum’s American Museum was then the nation’s most popular tourist destination. <hl> Located on lower Broadway , it was said to be either the greatest collection of diversions in the greatest city on earth, or an “ill-looking, ungainly, rambling structure,” containing a “paltry collection of preposterous things.” <hl>

“No one will attempt to make a hero of such material,” one account said. “He will appear in petticoats in history.” Few capitalized on these events as quickly as P. T. Barnum. The era’s undisputed master showman announced that he would pay $500 for Davis’s dress. The possibility that it would soon appear at the Manhattan headquarters of Barnum’s entertainment empire set the country abuzz. Barnum’s American Museum was then the nation’s most popular tourist destination. Located on <hl> lower Broadway <hl>, it was said to be either the greatest collection of diversions in the greatest city on earth, or an “ill-looking, ungainly, rambling structure,” containing a “paltry collection of preposterous things.”

Located on <hl> lower Broadway <hl> , it was said to be either the greatest collection of diversions in the greatest city on earth, or an “ill-looking, ungainly, rambling structure,” containing a “paltry collection of preposterous things.”


Question: What was the nation's most popular tourist destination at the time?

Answer: Barnum’s American Museum

“No one will attempt to make a hero of such material,” one account said. “He will appear in petticoats in history.” Few capitalized on these events as quickly as P. T. Barnum. The era’s undisputed master showman announced that he would pay $500 for Davis’s dress. The possibility that it would soon appear at the Manhattan headquarters of Barnum’s entertainment empire set the country abuzz. <hl> Barnum’s American Museum was then the nation’s most popular tourist destination. <hl> Located on lower Broadway, it was said to be either the greatest collection of diversions in the greatest city on earth, or an “ill-looking, ungainly, rambling structure,” containing a “paltry collection of preposterous things.”

“No one will attempt to make a hero of such material,” one account said. “He will appear in petticoats in history.” Few capitalized on these events as quickly as P. T. Barnum. The era’s undisputed master showman announced that he would pay $500 for Davis’s dress. The possibility that it would soon appear at the Manhattan headquarters of Barnum’s entertainment empire set the country abuzz. <hl> Barnum’s American Museum <hl> was then the nation’s most popular tourist destination. Located on lower Broadway, it was said to be either the greatest collection of diversions in the greatest city on earth, or an “ill-looking, ungainly, rambling structure,” containing a “paltry collection of preposterous things.”


Question: What did Barnum call the Davis display?

Barnum called his Davis display “The Belle of Richmond.” A wax figure of a man wearing a dress similar to those seen in the sketches that had already made the story notorious, it might have enjoyed an epic run. But the fervor that made it a hit also doomed it from the start. The fire that broke out at the American Museum on July 13, 1865, was a destructive marvel. Thirty thousand people turned out to watch the conflagration, while Barnum’s menagerie spilled onto Broadway. When firemen smashed the whale tank to help extinguish the flames, Barnum’s belugas burned alive. In the midst of this mayhem, the Davis statue came tumbling down. While the crowd jeered, a bearded mannequin dressed in women’s attire was hurled into the street, its skirt acting briefly as a parachute. “As Jeff made his perilous descent,” The New York Times reported, “his petticoats again played him false, and as the wind blew them about, the imposture of the figure was exposed.” Landing to “cheers and uncontrollable laughter,” the statue was then promptly hanged, just as the song suggested. The cause of the fire remained a mystery, but many assumed arson. “It is suspected,” The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported, “the guilty parties were rebel sympathizers offended by the prominence Barnum has given to the manner of Jeff Davis’ capture.” A Confederate partisan who witnessed the blaze wrote that the banners painted with Davis’s image “gave the flames such an impetus, that they could not be controlled.” This was only the beginning of Davis’s fraught place in the American imagination. Among Southerners, the abuse he endured — at the hands of both wags like Barnum and his jailers at Virginia’s Fort Monroe — took on a life of its own. His suffering became a passion play of the Lost Cause, the nearly religious cult of grievance that convinced subsequent generations of the Union’s intent not only to defeat the Confederacy but to emasculate it. “The North’s treatment of Jefferson Davis,” the historian Andrew F. Rolle wrote in 1965, “symbolized the humiliation being inflicted upon the South.”

Answer: The Belle of Richmond

<hl> Barnum called his Davis display “ The Belle of Richmond .” <hl> A wax figure of a man wearing a dress similar to those seen in the sketches that had already made the story notorious, it might have enjoyed an epic run. But the fervor that made it a hit also doomed it from the start. The fire that broke out at the American Museum on July 13, 1865, was a destructive marvel. Thirty thousand people turned out to watch the conflagration, while Barnum’s menagerie spilled onto Broadway. When firemen smashed the whale tank to help extinguish the flames, Barnum’s belugas burned alive. In the midst of this mayhem, the Davis statue came tumbling down. While the crowd jeered, a bearded mannequin dressed in women’s attire was hurled into the street, its skirt acting briefly as a parachute. “As Jeff made his perilous descent,” The New York Times reported, “his petticoats again played him false, and as the wind blew them about, the imposture of the figure was exposed.” Landing to “cheers and uncontrollable laughter,” the statue was then promptly hanged, just as the song suggested. The cause of the fire remained a mystery, but many assumed arson. “It is suspected,” The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported, “the guilty parties were rebel sympathizers offended by the prominence Barnum has given to the manner of Jeff Davis’ capture.” A Confederate partisan who witnessed the blaze wrote that the banners painted with Davis’s image “gave the flames such an impetus, that they could not be controlled.” This was only the beginning of Davis’s fraught place in the American imagination. Among Southerners, the abuse he endured — at the hands of both wags like Barnum and his jailers at Virginia’s Fort Monroe — took on a life of its own. His suffering became a passion play of the Lost Cause, the nearly religious cult of grievance that convinced subsequent generations of the Union’s intent not only to defeat the Confederacy but to emasculate it. “The North’s treatment of Jefferson Davis,” the historian Andrew F. Rolle wrote in 1965, “symbolized the humiliation being inflicted upon the South.”

Barnum called his Davis display “<hl> The Belle of Richmond <hl>.” A wax figure of a man wearing a dress similar to those seen in the sketches that had already made the story notorious, it might have enjoyed an epic run. But the fervor that made it a hit also doomed it from the start. The fire that broke out at the American Museum on July 13, 1865, was a destructive marvel. Thirty thousand people turned out to watch the conflagration, while Barnum’s menagerie spilled onto Broadway. When firemen smashed the whale tank to help extinguish the flames, Barnum’s belugas burned alive. In the midst of this mayhem, the Davis statue came tumbling down. While the crowd jeered, a bearded mannequin dressed in women’s attire was hurled into the street, its skirt acting briefly as a parachute. “As Jeff made his perilous descent,” The New York Times reported, “his petticoats again played him false, and as the wind blew them about, the imposture of the figure was exposed.” Landing to “cheers and uncontrollable laughter,” the statue was then promptly hanged, just as the song suggested. The cause of the fire remained a mystery, but many assumed arson. “It is suspected,” The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported, “the guilty parties were rebel sympathizers offended by the prominence Barnum has given to the manner of Jeff Davis’ capture.” A Confederate partisan who witnessed the blaze wrote that the banners painted with Davis’s image “gave the flames such an impetus, that they could not be controlled.” This was only the beginning of Davis’s fraught place in the American imagination. Among Southerners, the abuse he endured — at the hands of both wags like Barnum and his jailers at Virginia’s Fort Monroe — took on a life of its own. His suffering became a passion play of the Lost Cause, the nearly religious cult of grievance that convinced subsequent generations of the Union’s intent not only to defeat the Confederacy but to emasculate it. “The North’s treatment of Jefferson Davis,” the historian Andrew F. Rolle wrote in 1965, “symbolized the humiliation being inflicted upon the South.”

Barnum called his Davis display “ <hl> The Belle of Richmond <hl> .”


Question: What happened in the museum on July 13, 1865?

Answer: cheers and uncontrollable laughter

Barnum called his Davis display “The Belle of Richmond.” A wax figure of a man wearing a dress similar to those seen in the sketches that had already made the story notorious, it might have enjoyed an epic run. But the fervor that made it a hit also doomed it from the start. The fire that broke out at the American Museum on July 13, 1865, was a destructive marvel. Thirty thousand people turned out to watch the conflagration, while Barnum’s menagerie spilled onto Broadway. When firemen smashed the whale tank to help extinguish the flames, Barnum’s belugas burned alive. In the midst of this mayhem, the Davis statue came tumbling down. While the crowd jeered, a bearded mannequin dressed in women’s attire was hurled into the street, its skirt acting briefly as a parachute. “As Jeff made his perilous descent,” The New York Times reported, “his petticoats again played him false, and as the wind blew them about, the imposture of the figure was exposed.” <hl> Landing to “ cheers and uncontrollable laughter ,” the statue was then promptly hanged, just as the song suggested. <hl> The cause of the fire remained a mystery, but many assumed arson. “It is suspected,” The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported, “the guilty parties were rebel sympathizers offended by the prominence Barnum has given to the manner of Jeff Davis’ capture.” A Confederate partisan who witnessed the blaze wrote that the banners painted with Davis’s image “gave the flames such an impetus, that they could not be controlled.” This was only the beginning of Davis’s fraught place in the American imagination. Among Southerners, the abuse he endured — at the hands of both wags like Barnum and his jailers at Virginia’s Fort Monroe — took on a life of its own. His suffering became a passion play of the Lost Cause, the nearly religious cult of grievance that convinced subsequent generations of the Union’s intent not only to defeat the Confederacy but to emasculate it. “The North’s treatment of Jefferson Davis,” the historian Andrew F. Rolle wrote in 1965, “symbolized the humiliation being inflicted upon the South.”

Barnum called his Davis display “The Belle of Richmond.” A wax figure of a man wearing a dress similar to those seen in the sketches that had already made the story notorious, it might have enjoyed an epic run. But the fervor that made it a hit also doomed it from the start. The fire that broke out at the American Museum on July 13, 1865, was a destructive marvel. Thirty thousand people turned out to watch the conflagration, while Barnum’s menagerie spilled onto Broadway. When firemen smashed the whale tank to help extinguish the flames, Barnum’s belugas burned alive. In the midst of this mayhem, the Davis statue came tumbling down. While the crowd jeered, a bearded mannequin dressed in women’s attire was hurled into the street, its skirt acting briefly as a parachute. “As Jeff made his perilous descent,” The New York Times reported, “his petticoats again played him false, and as the wind blew them about, the imposture of the figure was exposed.” Landing to “<hl> cheers and uncontrollable laughter <hl>,” the statue was then promptly hanged, just as the song suggested. The cause of the fire remained a mystery, but many assumed arson. “It is suspected,” The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported, “the guilty parties were rebel sympathizers offended by the prominence Barnum has given to the manner of Jeff Davis’ capture.” A Confederate partisan who witnessed the blaze wrote that the banners painted with Davis’s image “gave the flames such an impetus, that they could not be controlled.” This was only the beginning of Davis’s fraught place in the American imagination. Among Southerners, the abuse he endured — at the hands of both wags like Barnum and his jailers at Virginia’s Fort Monroe — took on a life of its own. His suffering became a passion play of the Lost Cause, the nearly religious cult of grievance that convinced subsequent generations of the Union’s intent not only to defeat the Confederacy but to emasculate it. “The North’s treatment of Jefferson Davis,” the historian Andrew F. Rolle wrote in 1965, “symbolized the humiliation being inflicted upon the South.”

Landing to “ <hl> cheers and uncontrollable laughter <hl> ,” the statue was then promptly hanged, just as the song suggested.


Question: What was the suspected cause of the fire?

Answer: arson

Barnum called his Davis display “The Belle of Richmond.” A wax figure of a man wearing a dress similar to those seen in the sketches that had already made the story notorious, it might have enjoyed an epic run. But the fervor that made it a hit also doomed it from the start. The fire that broke out at the American Museum on July 13, 1865, was a destructive marvel. Thirty thousand people turned out to watch the conflagration, while Barnum’s menagerie spilled onto Broadway. When firemen smashed the whale tank to help extinguish the flames, Barnum’s belugas burned alive. In the midst of this mayhem, the Davis statue came tumbling down. While the crowd jeered, a bearded mannequin dressed in women’s attire was hurled into the street, its skirt acting briefly as a parachute. “As Jeff made his perilous descent,” The New York Times reported, “his petticoats again played him false, and as the wind blew them about, the imposture of the figure was exposed.” Landing to “cheers and uncontrollable laughter,” the statue was then promptly hanged, just as the song suggested. <hl> The cause of the fire remained a mystery, but many assumed arson . <hl> “It is suspected,” The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported, “the guilty parties were rebel sympathizers offended by the prominence Barnum has given to the manner of Jeff Davis’ capture.” A Confederate partisan who witnessed the blaze wrote that the banners painted with Davis’s image “gave the flames such an impetus, that they could not be controlled.” This was only the beginning of Davis’s fraught place in the American imagination. Among Southerners, the abuse he endured — at the hands of both wags like Barnum and his jailers at Virginia’s Fort Monroe — took on a life of its own. His suffering became a passion play of the Lost Cause, the nearly religious cult of grievance that convinced subsequent generations of the Union’s intent not only to defeat the Confederacy but to emasculate it. “The North’s treatment of Jefferson Davis,” the historian Andrew F. Rolle wrote in 1965, “symbolized the humiliation being inflicted upon the South.”

Barnum called his Davis display “The Belle of Richmond.” A wax figure of a man wearing a dress similar to those seen in the sketches that had already made the story notorious, it might have enjoyed an epic run. But the fervor that made it a hit also doomed it from the start. The fire that broke out at the American Museum on July 13, 1865, was a destructive marvel. Thirty thousand people turned out to watch the conflagration, while Barnum’s menagerie spilled onto Broadway. When firemen smashed the whale tank to help extinguish the flames, Barnum’s belugas burned alive. In the midst of this mayhem, the Davis statue came tumbling down. While the crowd jeered, a bearded mannequin dressed in women’s attire was hurled into the street, its skirt acting briefly as a parachute. “As Jeff made his perilous descent,” The New York Times reported, “his petticoats again played him false, and as the wind blew them about, the imposture of the figure was exposed.” Landing to “cheers and uncontrollable laughter,” the statue was then promptly hanged, just as the song suggested. The cause of the fire remained a mystery, but many assumed <hl> arson <hl>. “It is suspected,” The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported, “the guilty parties were rebel sympathizers offended by the prominence Barnum has given to the manner of Jeff Davis’ capture.” A Confederate partisan who witnessed the blaze wrote that the banners painted with Davis’s image “gave the flames such an impetus, that they could not be controlled.” This was only the beginning of Davis’s fraught place in the American imagination. Among Southerners, the abuse he endured — at the hands of both wags like Barnum and his jailers at Virginia’s Fort Monroe — took on a life of its own. His suffering became a passion play of the Lost Cause, the nearly religious cult of grievance that convinced subsequent generations of the Union’s intent not only to defeat the Confederacy but to emasculate it. “The North’s treatment of Jefferson Davis,” the historian Andrew F. Rolle wrote in 1965, “symbolized the humiliation being inflicted upon the South.”

The cause of the fire remained a mystery, but many assumed <hl> arson <hl> .


Question: What was the concept that Jeff Davis's suffering furthered?

Answer: the Lost Cause

Barnum called his Davis display “The Belle of Richmond.” A wax figure of a man wearing a dress similar to those seen in the sketches that had already made the story notorious, it might have enjoyed an epic run. But the fervor that made it a hit also doomed it from the start. The fire that broke out at the American Museum on July 13, 1865, was a destructive marvel. Thirty thousand people turned out to watch the conflagration, while Barnum’s menagerie spilled onto Broadway. When firemen smashed the whale tank to help extinguish the flames, Barnum’s belugas burned alive. In the midst of this mayhem, the Davis statue came tumbling down. While the crowd jeered, a bearded mannequin dressed in women’s attire was hurled into the street, its skirt acting briefly as a parachute. “As Jeff made his perilous descent,” The New York Times reported, “his petticoats again played him false, and as the wind blew them about, the imposture of the figure was exposed.” Landing to “cheers and uncontrollable laughter,” the statue was then promptly hanged, just as the song suggested. The cause of the fire remained a mystery, but many assumed arson. “It is suspected,” The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported, “the guilty parties were rebel sympathizers offended by the prominence Barnum has given to the manner of Jeff Davis’ capture.” A Confederate partisan who witnessed the blaze wrote that the banners painted with Davis’s image “gave the flames such an impetus, that they could not be controlled.” This was only the beginning of Davis’s fraught place in the American imagination. Among Southerners, the abuse he endured — at the hands of both wags like Barnum and his jailers at Virginia’s Fort Monroe — took on a life of its own. <hl> His suffering became a passion play of the Lost Cause , the nearly religious cult of grievance that convinced subsequent generations of the Union’s intent not only to defeat the Confederacy but to emasculate it. <hl> “The North’s treatment of Jefferson Davis,” the historian Andrew F. Rolle wrote in 1965, “symbolized the humiliation being inflicted upon the South.”

Barnum called his Davis display “The Belle of Richmond.” A wax figure of a man wearing a dress similar to those seen in the sketches that had already made the story notorious, it might have enjoyed an epic run. But the fervor that made it a hit also doomed it from the start. The fire that broke out at the American Museum on July 13, 1865, was a destructive marvel. Thirty thousand people turned out to watch the conflagration, while Barnum’s menagerie spilled onto Broadway. When firemen smashed the whale tank to help extinguish the flames, Barnum’s belugas burned alive. In the midst of this mayhem, the Davis statue came tumbling down. While the crowd jeered, a bearded mannequin dressed in women’s attire was hurled into the street, its skirt acting briefly as a parachute. “As Jeff made his perilous descent,” The New York Times reported, “his petticoats again played him false, and as the wind blew them about, the imposture of the figure was exposed.” Landing to “cheers and uncontrollable laughter,” the statue was then promptly hanged, just as the song suggested. The cause of the fire remained a mystery, but many assumed arson. “It is suspected,” The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported, “the guilty parties were rebel sympathizers offended by the prominence Barnum has given to the manner of Jeff Davis’ capture.” A Confederate partisan who witnessed the blaze wrote that the banners painted with Davis’s image “gave the flames such an impetus, that they could not be controlled.” This was only the beginning of Davis’s fraught place in the American imagination. Among Southerners, the abuse he endured — at the hands of both wags like Barnum and his jailers at Virginia’s Fort Monroe — took on a life of its own. His suffering became a passion play of <hl> the Lost Cause <hl>, the nearly religious cult of grievance that convinced subsequent generations of the Union’s intent not only to defeat the Confederacy but to emasculate it. “The North’s treatment of Jefferson Davis,” the historian Andrew F. Rolle wrote in 1965, “symbolized the humiliation being inflicted upon the South.”

His suffering became a passion play of <hl> the Lost Cause <hl> , the nearly religious cult of grievance that convinced subsequent generations of the Union’s intent not only to defeat the Confederacy but to emasculate it.


Question: How did the crowd react to the Davis statue falling?

Answer: the crowd jeered

Barnum called his Davis display “The Belle of Richmond.” A wax figure of a man wearing a dress similar to those seen in the sketches that had already made the story notorious, it might have enjoyed an epic run. But the fervor that made it a hit also doomed it from the start. The fire that broke out at the American Museum on July 13, 1865, was a destructive marvel. Thirty thousand people turned out to watch the conflagration, while Barnum’s menagerie spilled onto Broadway. When firemen smashed the whale tank to help extinguish the flames, Barnum’s belugas burned alive. In the midst of this mayhem, the Davis statue came tumbling down. <hl> While the crowd jeered , a bearded mannequin dressed in women’s attire was hurled into the street, its skirt acting briefly as a parachute. <hl> “As Jeff made his perilous descent,” The New York Times reported, “his petticoats again played him false, and as the wind blew them about, the imposture of the figure was exposed.” Landing to “cheers and uncontrollable laughter,” the statue was then promptly hanged, just as the song suggested. The cause of the fire remained a mystery, but many assumed arson. “It is suspected,” The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported, “the guilty parties were rebel sympathizers offended by the prominence Barnum has given to the manner of Jeff Davis’ capture.” A Confederate partisan who witnessed the blaze wrote that the banners painted with Davis’s image “gave the flames such an impetus, that they could not be controlled.” This was only the beginning of Davis’s fraught place in the American imagination. Among Southerners, the abuse he endured — at the hands of both wags like Barnum and his jailers at Virginia’s Fort Monroe — took on a life of its own. His suffering became a passion play of the Lost Cause, the nearly religious cult of grievance that convinced subsequent generations of the Union’s intent not only to defeat the Confederacy but to emasculate it. “The North’s treatment of Jefferson Davis,” the historian Andrew F. Rolle wrote in 1965, “symbolized the humiliation being inflicted upon the South.”

Barnum called his Davis display “The Belle of Richmond.” A wax figure of a man wearing a dress similar to those seen in the sketches that had already made the story notorious, it might have enjoyed an epic run. But the fervor that made it a hit also doomed it from the start. The fire that broke out at the American Museum on July 13, 1865, was a destructive marvel. Thirty thousand people turned out to watch the conflagration, while Barnum’s menagerie spilled onto Broadway. When firemen smashed the whale tank to help extinguish the flames, Barnum’s belugas burned alive. In the midst of this mayhem, the Davis statue came tumbling down. While <hl> the crowd jeered <hl>, a bearded mannequin dressed in women’s attire was hurled into the street, its skirt acting briefly as a parachute. “As Jeff made his perilous descent,” The New York Times reported, “his petticoats again played him false, and as the wind blew them about, the imposture of the figure was exposed.” Landing to “cheers and uncontrollable laughter,” the statue was then promptly hanged, just as the song suggested. The cause of the fire remained a mystery, but many assumed arson. “It is suspected,” The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported, “the guilty parties were rebel sympathizers offended by the prominence Barnum has given to the manner of Jeff Davis’ capture.” A Confederate partisan who witnessed the blaze wrote that the banners painted with Davis’s image “gave the flames such an impetus, that they could not be controlled.” This was only the beginning of Davis’s fraught place in the American imagination. Among Southerners, the abuse he endured — at the hands of both wags like Barnum and his jailers at Virginia’s Fort Monroe — took on a life of its own. His suffering became a passion play of the Lost Cause, the nearly religious cult of grievance that convinced subsequent generations of the Union’s intent not only to defeat the Confederacy but to emasculate it. “The North’s treatment of Jefferson Davis,” the historian Andrew F. Rolle wrote in 1965, “symbolized the humiliation being inflicted upon the South.”

While <hl> the crowd jeered <hl> , a bearded mannequin dressed in women’s attire was hurled into the street, its skirt acting briefly as a parachute.


Question: What has happened to Davis's legacy?

Barnum surely would have admired the puffing necessary to transform an archtraitor into an American hero. The commanding poses struck by Davis in statues across the country are anxious correctives to depictions that troubled his followers long after the war’s end. Recent debates over relics of the Confederacy — in South Carolina, the United States Capitol, and elsewhere — only underscore how successful 150 years of revisionism can be. If Jefferson Davis manages to survive current efforts to remove him from several of his pedestals, his old antagonist would likely know why. “The American people,” Barnum famously said, “like to be fooled.”

Answer: transform an archtraitor into an American hero

<hl> Barnum surely would have admired the puffing necessary to transform an archtraitor into an American hero . <hl> The commanding poses struck by Davis in statues across the country are anxious correctives to depictions that troubled his followers long after the war’s end. Recent debates over relics of the Confederacy — in South Carolina, the United States Capitol, and elsewhere — only underscore how successful 150 years of revisionism can be. If Jefferson Davis manages to survive current efforts to remove him from several of his pedestals, his old antagonist would likely know why. “The American people,” Barnum famously said, “like to be fooled.”

Barnum surely would have admired the puffing necessary to <hl> transform an archtraitor into an American hero <hl>. The commanding poses struck by Davis in statues across the country are anxious correctives to depictions that troubled his followers long after the war’s end. Recent debates over relics of the Confederacy — in South Carolina, the United States Capitol, and elsewhere — only underscore how successful 150 years of revisionism can be. If Jefferson Davis manages to survive current efforts to remove him from several of his pedestals, his old antagonist would likely know why. “The American people,” Barnum famously said, “like to be fooled.”

Barnum surely would have admired the puffing necessary to <hl> transform an archtraitor into an American hero <hl> .


Question: Where are debates over the Confederacy taking place?

Answer: South Carolina, the United States Capitol, and elsewhere

Barnum surely would have admired the puffing necessary to transform an archtraitor into an American hero. The commanding poses struck by Davis in statues across the country are anxious correctives to depictions that troubled his followers long after the war’s end. <hl> Recent debates over relics of the Confederacy — in South Carolina, the United States Capitol, and elsewhere — only underscore how successful 150 years of revisionism can be. <hl> If Jefferson Davis manages to survive current efforts to remove him from several of his pedestals, his old antagonist would likely know why. “The American people,” Barnum famously said, “like to be fooled.”

Barnum surely would have admired the puffing necessary to transform an archtraitor into an American hero. The commanding poses struck by Davis in statues across the country are anxious correctives to depictions that troubled his followers long after the war’s end. Recent debates over relics of the Confederacy — in <hl> South Carolina, the United States Capitol, and elsewhere <hl> — only underscore how successful 150 years of revisionism can be. If Jefferson Davis manages to survive current efforts to remove him from several of his pedestals, his old antagonist would likely know why. “The American people,” Barnum famously said, “like to be fooled.”


Question: What is the stature of modern Davis statues?

Answer: commanding poses

Barnum surely would have admired the puffing necessary to transform an archtraitor into an American hero. <hl> The commanding poses struck by Davis in statues across the country are anxious correctives to depictions that troubled his followers long after the war’s end. <hl> Recent debates over relics of the Confederacy — in South Carolina, the United States Capitol, and elsewhere — only underscore how successful 150 years of revisionism can be. If Jefferson Davis manages to survive current efforts to remove him from several of his pedestals, his old antagonist would likely know why. “The American people,” Barnum famously said, “like to be fooled.”

Barnum surely would have admired the puffing necessary to transform an archtraitor into an American hero. The <hl> commanding poses <hl> struck by Davis in statues across the country are anxious correctives to depictions that troubled his followers long after the war’s end. Recent debates over relics of the Confederacy — in South Carolina, the United States Capitol, and elsewhere — only underscore how successful 150 years of revisionism can be. If Jefferson Davis manages to survive current efforts to remove him from several of his pedestals, his old antagonist would likely know why. “The American people,” Barnum famously said, “like to be fooled.”


Question: What did Barnum say about the American people?

Answer: “The American people,” Barnum famously said, “like to be fooled.”

Barnum surely would have admired the puffing necessary to transform an archtraitor into an American hero. The commanding poses struck by Davis in statues across the country are anxious correctives to depictions that troubled his followers long after the war’s end. Recent debates over relics of the Confederacy — in South Carolina, the United States Capitol, and elsewhere — only underscore how successful 150 years of revisionism can be. If Jefferson Davis manages to survive current efforts to remove him from several of his pedestals, his old antagonist would likely know why. <hl> “The American people,” Barnum famously said, “like to be fooled.” <hl>


Question: What are modern efforts to reform Davis's legacy?

Answer: current efforts to remove him from several of his pedestals

Barnum surely would have admired the puffing necessary to transform an archtraitor into an American hero. The commanding poses struck by Davis in statues across the country are anxious correctives to depictions that troubled his followers long after the war’s end. Recent debates over relics of the Confederacy — in South Carolina, the United States Capitol, and elsewhere — only underscore how successful 150 years of revisionism can be. <hl> If Jefferson Davis manages to survive current efforts to remove him from several of his pedestals , his old antagonist would likely know why. <hl> “The American people,” Barnum famously said, “like to be fooled.”

Barnum surely would have admired the puffing necessary to transform an archtraitor into an American hero. The commanding poses struck by Davis in statues across the country are anxious correctives to depictions that troubled his followers long after the war’s end. Recent debates over relics of the Confederacy — in South Carolina, the United States Capitol, and elsewhere — only underscore how successful 150 years of revisionism can be. If Jefferson Davis manages to survive <hl> current efforts to remove him from several of his pedestals <hl>, his old antagonist would likely know why. “The American people,” Barnum famously said, “like to be fooled.”

If Jefferson Davis manages to survive <hl> current efforts to remove him from several of his pedestals <hl> , his old antagonist would likely know why.