Today marks the anniversary of the first full day of the Birmingham Bus Boycott in 1955. On December 1 of that year, Rosa Parks refused to give up her bus seat to a white man, prompting her arrest and sparking the boycott that helped to fuel the growing Civil Rights movement. Arrests and violent confrontations with police and white supremacist groups were common during the 381 days of the boycott. Even the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was arrested and spent time in jail as a result of this struggle. Many others endured harassment and violence while walking to their destinations instead of riding the bus. This is the ugly common reality of progressive change in our society.

Power, fear, and a sense of superiority give rise to violence and intimidation, and it seems that not much has changed in that regard throughout our history. Those elements helped keep slavery legal in the United States into the mid 19^th century. Those elements caused much of the violence that erupted during the years of the Civil Rights movement. Now it seems that it is happening again as people camp out all over the nation demanding change. While every day is a step closer, it appears there is still a long road ahead.

Rosa Parks sparked change through her sacrifice. How about you? What are you willing to sacrifice in the name of freedom? Will you consider this your first full day of creating positive change? Remember Rosa Parks. Remember Dr. King. Remember those whose names we don’t know, but who made a difference. And remember, your next action could change the world; so make it a good one.

There is a spark within each of us, Fan the Flame

Gulnare Freewill Baptist Church, in Pike County, Kentucky has voted to not accept interracial couples into membership or allow them to “take part” in worship activities. The vote took place on Monday.

While the church says everyone is welcome to come worship, they do not condone interracial marriage.

The proposal said “parties of such marriages will not be received as members, nor will they be used in worship services” or other church functions, with the exception of funerals.  The recommendation “is not intended to judge the salvation of anyone, but is intended to promote greater unity among the church body and the community we serve,” the copy supplied to the Herald-Leader read. To read more, click here.

This story struck a chord with me (my step-dad is Puerto Rican) and immediately I thought of Loving Day. Have you heard of it?

Mildred & Richard Loving

Loving Day is an annual celebration held on June 12, the anniversary of the 1967 United States Supreme Court decision Loving vs. Virginia which struck down all anti-miscegenation laws.

What were the anti-miscegenation laws? They were laws that enforced racial segregation at the level of marriage and intimate relationships by criminalizing interracial marriage.

Mildred and Richard Loving were arrested in Richmond, Virginia for “cohabiting as man and wife, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth.” Mildred was African American; Richard was white. The Lovings avoided jail time by agreeing to leave Virginia; they moved to Washington DC where Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy referred their case to the American Civil Liberties Union. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of the young couple and they were able to move back to their home state of Virginia. To read more about the Loving’s legal battle click here.

Fast forward to today…

The number of interracial marriages in the U.S. has risen 20 percent since 2000 to about 4.5 million, according to the latest census figures. While still growing, that number is a marked drop-off from the 65 percent increase between 1990 and 2000. About 8 percent of U.S. marriages are mixed-race, up from 7 percent in 2000 [figures are from a June 2010 article]

Stories like this remind us that prejudice still exists, in our churches, schools and communities. Together we can fan the flame for equality.

I want to leave you with the following statement issued by Mildred Loving on the 40th anniversary of Loving Day (2007):

My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God’s plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation’s fears and prejudices have given way, and today’s young people realize that if someone loves someone, they have a right to marry.

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the ‘wrong kind of person’ for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.

There is a spark within each of us, Fan the Flame.

I’m having another of those YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME moments. Earlier today, a friend shared a link  to a news story – a story about a group of six girls at Southern Mississippi University who decided to attend a 1980s-themed party as the Huxtable family from The Cosby Show. Problem, you ask? These young white girls went in blackface.

Pauses to glance at calendar.  Yep, it’s really 2011.

Just how, exactly, does a citizen of the 21st century, even an adolescent citizen, fail to realize that, as my teenage children would say, “Seriously – that’s so not cool!”

Lots of unflattering terms come to mind in considering what these girls have done. But I’ve decided to give them the benefit of the doubt and refer to their actions as “culturally insensitive” or “unconsciously incompetent.” Since the goal of diversity and inclusion, however, is for all of us to become “unconsciously competent,” I’d say the university and the sorority involved both have considerable work to do with this little group.

I am also carefully reminding myself here that it was not an entire university who did this. Nor was it an entire sorority. It was six woefully unenlightened members of a sorority, whose sorority has more than taken them to task.  But I digress.

The goal of my blog is to remind young people, and perhaps also a few parents who may have missed the memo, that blackface really hasn’t been “in” for a while now. Of course, it reflects very poorly on our society that it ever was. Perhaps you’ll join me in sharing this message.

Let’s review just a bit. Having begun with the white man’s portrayal of plantation slaves and free African Americans during the era of minstrel shows (1830-1890), the blackfaced minstrels played an historically significant role in perpetuating – on a global level - some pretty heinous images, attidues and stereotypes of African Americans. While virtually every group of immigrants fell prey to the insensitivity of America’s 19th century music halls, none felt the impact of these portrayals with quite the same intensity of ignorance, prejudice and hostility as did the African Americans.

"Come listen all you galls and boys, I'm going to sing a little song, Weel about and turn about and do jis so, Eb'ry time I weel about I jump Jim Crow."

White America’s perceptions of African American entertainers were heavily influenced by these hyperbolized minstrels. For more than one hundred years,  these caricatures perpetuatead the myth that African Americans were racially and socially inferior. Ultimately, the American imagination began to assume that any person with dark skin, no matter what their background, should rightfully conform to one of a number of stereotypical caricatures such as “Jim Crow” and “Zip Coon;” or, “Mammy” and little “Pickaninnies.” Offended by these names? Well, I should think so.

So you see, while these girls may have acted in ignorance – or unconscious incompetence – their actions were no less offensive. Those around them, that world at large that they have seemingly tuned out, are insulted by their insensitivity and lack of awareness. It is to the credit of their sorority sisters who decided to make the girls painfully aware of their mistakes. I whole-heartedly applaud them and the  university for insisting that the girls embark upon a journey of      
                                                                                                                understanding so that they can truly know better in future.

I have to assume these aren’t bad kids, but rather thoughtless and unlightened, as adolescents often are. Am I excusing their behavior? Of course not. But I refuse to beat them up on this blog too harshly. After all, but for the grace of God, there go mine. I merely hope, on the off-chance that someone may actually be listening, that we can spread the word that blackface is officially out of favor.

Funk’s Origins in Black Activism

In a passage from the introduction of James Brown’s 2003 autobiography, I Feel Good: A Memoir of a Life of Soul, writer Marc Eliot observed that Brown’s insistence of accenting the upbeat “changed everything” about black music as it did away with traditional, 4/4 chord progressions of R&B and Soul. Eliot quoted Brown talking about “Papa’s Got a Brand New Bag” being the turning point of popular culture, because striking on the one was like “walking on the good foot,” a confident strut of a proud black man who was not “timid and apologetic,” like the downbeat he observed in Blues. In the 60s, Funk music became a counter reaction to the social upheaval in America, with songs like, “Say it Loud, (I’m Black and I’m Proud) that inspired the Black Power Movement.

James Brown's CD art for In the Jungle Groove, which contains the widely sampled, "Funky Drummer."

Brown said that his usage of the upbeat was a definitive turning point in music, a departure from the down beat of most blues compositions written in the two and four. Because he was born in a deprived rural community in Augusta, Brown’s view was that the downbeat symbolized being poor and downcast. He felt his emphasis on the one “was the equivalent of standing tall and saying, ‘Here I am,’” and also thought it was a drumming prerequisite for playing Funk.

Hip Hop’s Roots

Stylistically, the funk recorded at Cincinnati’s King Records that made Brown an integral figure in the Black Power Movement trickled down heavy into Hip Hop’s cultural DNA. You can first look at Brown’s stage bravado and vernacular and how it influenced followers of the Black Power Movement and later, MCs emerging out of the South Bronx in the 1970s, who recycled his famous catchphrases. One example of this is heard on Kurtis Blow’s 1980 record, “Hard Times,” where Blow calls out like a bandleader signaling a crossover riff, “To the bridge.”

Secondly, Brown’s insistence that drummers, Jabo Starks and Clyde Stubblefield, strike hard on “the one” became the Hip Hop DJ’s metronome for time-keeping and a signal of where to start and stop a phrase on a record. In his article, “Hip Hop Drumming,” Jeff Greenwald writes that “repetition is a crucial element in black music” and that the “cut” in scratching insists on the turn-around in order to fulfill a resolve that keeps rhythm in tact.  Brown’s “Cold Sweat” and “Funky Drummer” spotlighted long-playing spells of drum solos, or “breaks,” which were of special interest to New York DJs, Coke La Rock, Kool Herc, Grandmaster Flash, Grand Wizard Theodore, and later Afrika Bambattaa, who all talk about this in the coffee-table book, Yes, Yes, Yall. Hip Hop producers also took a rhythm cue from Funk. An example of a heavy drop on the one is heard on Chubb Rock’s 1990 record, “Treat ‘Em Right,” which sampled drums from Cincinnati group, Dee Felice Trio. The JB’s recordings from 1966 to 1970 defined Funk and became part of Hip Hop’s library of drum samples, such as the case with 1969’s “Funky Drummer,” which is considered the most sampled record to date.

Madison, Wisconsin drummer, Clyde Stubblefield’s signature style has been compared with that of second line, New Orleans’ drumming. In the footnotes of “Hip Hop Drumming,” Greenwald employs “Funky Drummer” as being the ground-breaking event for Hip Hop to make an entrance. Modern Drummer observed that Stubblefield’s pattern was “accented snare backbeats placed squarely on the 2 and 4, and the hi-hat pattern shifted from 8^th notes to 16^th notes while incorporating oddly placed openings and closings.” A similar 16^th note drumming pattern was reinforced on Brown’s 1964 hit, “I Feel Good,” and again on “Papa’s Got a Brand New Bag” in 1965. Hip Hop drums parallel with what Greenwald considers, Stubblefield’s “heterogeneous sound ideal” of invoking layered patterns, where the bass drums establish a down beat on the one and three, similar to the kick drum effect in Hip Hop, and the DJ’s “cut scratch” plays straight sixteenth notes on the hi-hat in between, and the snare plays the two and four.

Third, Brown’s music was a backdrop for improvisational dancing called freestyle, later known as b-boy. Because records like “Cold Sweat” and “Funky Drummer” were among the first Soul songs with extended drum solos, they introduced breaks in rhythm patterns that became the impetus of the freestyle dance expression, “b-boying,” later renamed “break dancing” by observers outside of the culture.

As Hip Hop continues to evolve, Brown’s music continues to inspire.

There is a spark in each of us. Fan the flame.

In every war, there are men who commit horrendous acts of violence and cruelty. Both the Union and Confederacy kept prisoners under deplorable conditions. However, Henry Wirz is especially worthy of mention here. A Swiss immigrant, Wirz lived in Louisiana before the Civil War broke out. He joined the Fourth Louisiana Battalion, and, after guarding prisoners captured at the First Battle of Bull Run, came to the attention of Inspector General John Winder, who had Wirz transferred to work under him. Wirz spent the rest of the war working with prisoners.

For several years, he ran Andersonville Prison, which was, by all accounts, atrociously foul, dirty, diseased, and violent. The stream mean to provide water was full of waste and quickly became a swamp. Violence, disease, and misery abounded. Thirty thousand inmates occupied a space meant for ten thousand. There were no barracks for the prisoners. Thousand of inmates died. Wirz showed no remorse at his post-war trial.

On November 10, 1865, he was hanged as a war criminal.

There is much debate concerning his trial. Some 160 witnesses testified. Much evidence was produced. Some of it was simply fabricated. Was his trial a miscarriage of justice? Did he deserve capital punishment for his crimes against the Union prisoners? What should have been done instead? Was Hirz a war criminal or a scapegoat? All of these are questions that, though moot now, still affect the justice system today. Many are wrongly convicted and sentenced. More and more cases are revealed to have incarcerated innocent people. How can the justice system be more just?

I leave it up to you, dear readers, to decide for me.

There is a spark in each of us, so Fan the Flame!

When I learned of 19th century photographer, James Presley Ball, I was intrigued to read that he was an African-American who owned elegant photography salons located at 28 and 30 W. 4th Street in Cincinnati—exactly where Tower Place Mall sits today.  According to much of what’s written about him, his camerawork was unprecedented.  As I clicked through Cincinnati Historical Society’s impressive online collection of his daguerreotypes, I noted the diversity of subjects in Ball’s portraiture— black and white Cincinnatians, local founders such as William Lytle, royalty figure Queen Victoria and literary statesman, Frederick Douglass. At one point in his 25 years in Cincinnati, Friends’ Intelligencer listed Ball as “one of Cincinnati’s wealthiest Negroes,” with net assets of at least $30,000.

Obviously, Ball faced obstacles unique to his experience as a free mulatto man in 19^th century America. I wondered– did having insular connections to white access play a role in his success? Knowing that artists are vessels for social and political discourse, how did Ball use his work to make an impact on society?

Prior to settling in Cincinnati in 1849, Ball traveled as an itinerant photographer through Pittsburgh and later Virginia, where he learned daguerreotypy, the earliest form of photography, from Boston-bred, African-American photographer, John B. Bailey. Ball probably wanted to start his first business in Cincinnati because it was America’s number one industrial city and had a large population of wealthy citizens, but his first attempt at opening a salon failed.

Eventually, the “best families of the city” patronized Ball & Thomas, his photography firm he co-owned with his brother-in-law, Alex S. Thomas, and apparently, his customers invested more than loyalty. When a tornado ravaged their firm in 1860, their “white friends came to their rescue” financially and helped them rebuild. Publications referred to the brothers’ studio as ‘the finest photographic gallery west of the Alleghany Mountains.”

In the 19th century, lynchings were as casually regarded as community get-togethers, but were private spaces for white men. Not only did Ball have entry into this space, but he used his access as a form of protest against oppression. His work reminds me that there is still work to do to help others identify and challenge oppression.

There’s a spark within each of us. Fan the flame.

It is an issue that seems to permeate many a discussion about the operation of the Federal government and its impact on the lives of the individual citizens of this nation. Some citizens, such as those affiliated with the Tea Party, shout it from the roof tops. Others imply their disaffection through their anger at the bureaucratic process that impedes the progress of seemingly every initiative that is put into motion. Regardless of political allegiance, there is typically a common thread among most citizens that speaks to the heavy burdens associated with big government. For those of you longing for the good old days when government was not so big and bulky, consider this: the era of big government was ushered in during the years of the Civil War at the hands of the Lincoln administration.

Civil War historians rarely go beyond the maps, weapons, generals, and dead guys. Recently, greater attention has been given to the common soldier and his story, the narratives of those who were formerly enslaved, and the critical roles of women during the war years. My point is that the Civil War Era is much more complex than we usually see it. There are so many layers to uncover and explore, and that is what makes this period of history so exciting. Lincoln’s socio-economic platform is little discussed and is typically dismissed when it comes to the performance of his duties while in office. Perhaps it was overlooked by many during his presidency as well, which would explain the sweeping changes that took place. Perhaps no one cared so long as the war was brought to a conclusion. Perhaps the timing was right: that same timing that brought a stronger Union, that same timing that abolished legalized enslavement of African Americans. That same timing might have been the component that brought about the era of big government to the United States.

In the ongoing effort to fund the war, the Union and the Lincoln administration introduced several concepts that still affect us today. Congress enacted the Internal Revenue Act. That’s right… the tax plan that has evolved into this sprawling monster that laughs at the idle threats of simplification. For the first time during the war, paper currency was introduced as the primary means of exchange. In other words, a standard federal paper currency would be printed by the federal government to be issued instead of something known as specie or coinage. The Lincoln administration was instrumental in utilizing federal real estate that would become  home to thousands of miles of track for the many new rail lines that would soon run across the entire continent. And, to give all of this the big government flavor, the war years saw the number of civilian patronage jobs in the government from 40,000 to 195,000!!! The United States never looked back to the days of Jeffersonian democracy after that, and the snowball has continued to expand.

So, what does it all mean? Does it mean Republicans should stop carping about big government? After all, it was the first Republican president who created it. Does it mean we should hold Lincoln in contempt for his actions? He was after all, acting as a wartime president and the actions listed above were all intended to help process the war effort for the Union. Does it mean Democrats should embrace early Republican ideals? They are somewhat similar in their philosophical bent. Does it mean we should be less concerned about the slippery slope effect in our own lives and society? After all, this has been ongoing now for 150 years. Or does it simply mean that someone has chosen to share some interesting facts with you? Perhaps there is no agenda here; just someone pointing out the relevance of history in our lives today. So, what does it mean?

There is a spark within each of us, Fan the Flame

Join us at the NURFC this Saturday, October 29 at 1:00 pm for a screening of Bad Blood: The Border War that Triggered the Civil War.

In the years leading up to the Civil War, a bloody conflict between slaveholders and abolitionists focused the nation’s eyes on the state of Missouri and the territory of Kansas. Told through the actual words of slave owners, free-staters, border ruffians, and politicians, Bad Blood presents the complex morality, differing values, and life-and-death decisions faced by those who lived on the Missouri-Kansas border in the turbulent years from 1854 through 1860.

For more information about Bad Blood, click here.

For more information about programs, contact Jackie Wallace at jwallace@nurfc.org or 513.333.7586.

There is a spark within each of us, Fan the Flame.

Union General Philip Sheridan

The Battle of Cedar Creek on the 19^th of October, 1864 was the final battle of the Shenandoah Valley Campaign. Forces under General Sheridan had been carrying out one of the first scorched-earth campaigns in history, possibly the first since the Russian Army used a scorched-earth policy against Napoleon. They had been looting and burning farms in the Shenandoah Valley in an effort to prevent the Confederates from restocking their supplies, as Confederate General Jubal Early had to choose between resupplying and running an offensive campaign.

General Early knew this, and he decided that he would resupply his troops. He would merely do so from the Union camp at Cedar Creek. This attack, just when the encamped Union troops under Major Generals Wright and Emory believed the Confederates to be cornered, took them by surprise.

Jubal Early deployed his forces in three columns in a night march, departing at 8 PM. Major General Gordon’s division followed a rough game trail around the base of Massanutten Mountain to the Union camp. A little before dawn, Gordon attacked the Union camp, completely surprising the Union, capturing many soldiers who had not even gotten out of bed. The next to be hit was the XIX Corps under Major General Emory, which broke due to lack of preparation. Thinking that they would roll up the Union line, the Confederates continued straight into the VI Corps of Major General Wright, which was more prepared. In an untenable position, the VI Corps retreated slowly under heavy pressure from the Confederates. The Rebels captured 18 artillery pieces along with many Union prisoners. General Early, pleased with his victory, decided not to pursue Wright, allowing him to retire from the field. Or so he thought.

Confederate General Jubal Early

General Sheridan was in Winchester at the time of the start of the battle. He had heard the sounds of artillery around 9 o’clock and realized what was happening. He arrived at about 10:30 that morning. By 3, Early had resumed his offensive, realizing that the Union forces had not retreated. The problem with his undeniably weak offensive was that he had left his flanks open to attack. This meant that the reinforcements of Brigadier General George Armstrong Custer’s cavalry division were able to open up the confederate line with an attack on the left. Other cavalry had cut off the retreat for the Confederates by destroying the bridge that they needed to cross. The Union took hundreds of prisoners, especially when the Confederate veterans surrendered because they knew that there was no way out. The Union also captured 43 field pieces. The Confederates never again threatened Washington, D.C. through the Shenandoah Valley.

I think that the most obvious lesson that we can learn from this battle is this: NEVER give up. When the Rebels had, to all appearances, taken the field, the Union attacked their flank in return, rolled up the line, and cut off all retreat. When you think that you’re done, you’re not. You’re just getting started.

There is a spark within each of us, Fan the Flame!!!

One of the goals of Occupy is to try and bring an end to the 1% influencing politics through their exorbitant wealth. The fear is that this tier of people has created an elite government of special interests geared toward the too big to fail business interests while ignoring the real needs of the country. It is indeed a valid and admirable cause for which they encamp themselves in parks across the United States. But, what can Occupy teach us about history? What can this unstructured, grass roots movement reveal in its collective hope for change? What is really at stake here? The answer is that the stakes are extremely high. Success at the hands of this group of people would topple a status quo that has existed almost since the founding of the nation. The power of wealth certainly played a role in antebellum politics, and it was a primary reason that legal enslavement continued to exist. The power of wealth held its ground, only to see the nation break out into civil war as a result of the desire to regulate political power through that wealthy tier of individuals known as slaveholders.

When we think of the antebellum South, most of us have been conditioned to think of the sprawling plantation with the large mansion complete with a group of soft spoken gentle Southern Belles fanning themselves on the veranda. We imagine the chivalrous Southern gentleman defending the honor of his family and his good name. This image might even evoke a sense of idyllic calm in our minds as we dreamily lose ourselves in the Gone with the Wind stereotypes that have corrupted our understanding of the reality of those days. The fact is there has been no greater economic discrepancy in our nation’s history than the one that existed in the South in the period leading up to the Civil War. Most white Southerners were dirt poor farmers who owned no slaves and barely survived on their subsistence agriculture way of life. Most white Southerners owned very little land. In fact, about a third of Southern white men owned neither slaves nor land. However, often the land they did own was prone to legal challenges by the elite plantation owners, claiming that the survey lines were drawn incorrectly. Thomas Lincoln, the father of the future sixteenth president, was forced to leave Kentucky due to this very issue. These large land owners made up a very small percentage of the population. But they wielded the greatest influence in controlling the mindset of the Southern population.

In 1860, on the eve of the Civil War, two-thirds of all men in the United States worth at least $100,000 lived in the South. By today’s money that is approximately $2,000,000 according to historian and author J. William Harris. Harris also shares some other fascinating statistics to consider. While only 2% – 3% of white men owned fifty or more slaves, those enslaved people were responsible for more than a third of all cotton production in the South. He refers to the research of William Scarborough in writing that those owning 250 or more enslaved individuals were investing in banks, factories, railroads, northern real estate, and more. In other words, this small minority was holding great influence on the nation, and this was evident in no greater place than in Washington D.C. and the halls of the federal government.

Wealthy white Southern power and influence in government is quite evident when looking at legislative history. It was that power and influence that gave us the 3/5 clause in the Constitution. It was that power and influence that gave us a draconian fugitive slave law. It was that power and influence that forced continual compromises on territorial expansion from 1820 to the outbreak of the Civil War. It was that power and influence that placed a Chief Justice on the Supreme Court who actually believed that “the black man has no rights the white man is bound to respect.” That same Justice, Roger Taney, presided during the early days of the Civil War, along with four other Southern men. Thus, five of the nine Supreme Court Justices in 1861 were Southerners. And, forget what you know from Gone with the Wind. Once war began, a wealthy Southern plantation owner was typically exempted from military service to the Confederacy. This was the far reaching power and influence of the wealthy 1% of the early to mid 19^th century, and it appears that not much has changed.

If Occupy can influence sweeping change through their peaceful protest, it could possibly be one of the greatest accomplishments in our society in more than a generation. Their most difficult challenge may lie in the reinforced entrenchment of the status quo. The same wealthy influence that exists now was in existence when Fort Sumter fell in 1861. Unfortunately, one hundred fifty years ago it cost the United States over 400,000 lives to bring about any sort of sweeping change. And I suspect very few of those dead, North or South, were from the wealthy 1% of society.

There is a spark within each of us, Fan the Flame

Join the Civil War Community Book Club at the NURFC this Thursday, October 20 at 7:00 pm, as we discuss A World on Fire: Britain’s Crucial Role in the American Civil War.

Even before the first rumblings of secession shook the halls of Congress, British involvement in the coming schism was inevitable. Britain was dependent on the South for cotton, and in turn the Confederacy relied almost exclusively on Britain for guns, bullets, and ships. The Union sought to block any diplomacy between the two and consistently teetered on the brink of war with Britain. For four years the complex web of relationships between the countries led to defeats and victories both minute and history-making. In A World on Fire: Britain’s Crucial Role in the American Civil War Amanda Foreman examines the fraught relations from multiple angles while she introduces characters both humble and grand, bringing them to vivid life over the course of her sweeping and brilliant narrative.

The book club is free and open to the public. All book club books can be purchased in the Freedom Center gift shop.

To join the book club or for more information please contact Richard Cooper, the Interpretive Services Manager at 513.333.7595 or rcooper@nurfc.org.

There is a spark within each of us, Fan the Flame.

Join us for a special afternoon with Frank Williams, the former Chief Justice of the State of Rhode Island and Lincoln scholar, on Saturday October 15th at 1:00 pm. His lecture, “Abraham Lincoln & Ulysses S. Grant: Forging a Partnership in Battle,” will focus on the fact that neither President Lincoln nor General Grant was prepared to lead as commander-in-chief or general-in-chief at the beginning  of the Civil War, but that both had the character and ability to  learn and evolve in their respective roles.

He will discuss how their political courage saved their careers and their country; and, how each learned from the other, as well as from the bitter combat – political and military – that subsumed each leader.

For more information contact Jackie Wallace at 513.333.7586 or jwallace@nurfc.org

There is a spark within each of us, Fan the Flame.