"Our One Common Country" author talk in Stratford, CT

[David Lockmiller]

(08-22-2014 11:28 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  

(08-22-2014 11:15 AM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  After seeing Spielberg's "Lincoln" movie, would your granddaugher know that portion of the film showing "AL entering fallen Richmond on horseback" was not true? Of course, you could correct for her the misinformation. But are you intending to make it your life's work with all of the other little girls and little boys in the South who see the free "Lincoln" DVD at school to correct this single misstatement of historical fact? Are there any other major historical blunders within the movie that you intend to correct only for your granddaughter?

There are not only little boys and girls at school, there's also a teacher who will know how to handle such media. Please see post #27.

From post #27: As for its use for educational purposes - even in the media country USA I can't imagine any movie/docu will replace text(book) work and make it superfluous. Personally I think the value of showing such a movie in lessons is to get to exactly such discussions as we are having here - is it accurate? Why/why not? Give reasons.

The teaching plan:

1. Show the "Lincoln" movie at the start of the day.

2.Then, go through the movie again, stopping at least at every major historical mistake or complete fiction, and have "such discussions as we are having here - is it accurate? Why/why not? Give reasons."

3. Then, at the end of the day or however long it takes to complete step #2, there would be a test created and graded by the instructor to make sure that each historical error in the movie, such as AL riding into Richmond, has been properly "unlearned" by each and every student. And, any student receiving less than a "C" on the test would be required both to view the "Lincoln" movie once again and the history correcting video created at step #2, and then, a retest. Let's hope that everyone gets at least a "C" the second time.

And, of course there is the problem of even noted Lincoln historians (and unpaid amateurs such as ourselves) disagreeing on elements of Lincoln history depicted in the "Lincoln" movie. I guess in such situations there would be no wrong answers on the test.

[L Verge]

David, I apologize, but I think you are being contrary just for the sake of being contrary at this point.

Having nearly a decade of teaching American history to about 2000 8th graders behind me (and being darn good at it, I must say) and with forty years of working with another several thousand or so school children who have visited Surratt House, I can only say that I hope your lesson plan above is not reflective of how you would handle the situation. If you were to use the same approach to every aspect of history that is misinterpreted, in error, or debateable in even a textbook, your students would never get past the chapters on exploration of the New World!

First and foremost, there is a dividing line between "movies" and "documentaries." Although I feel that Mr. Spielberg could do very well with documentaries, I feel more strongly that his strength is in capturing the emotions and broad concepts of the subject matter he is portraying. He plays to a general audience as well as to historians. To me, that general audience is all-important because they go into the theater without a great deal of knowledge on the subject matter and stand a 50-50 chance of coming out somewhat intrigued with learning more. That is the basic principle of any educational endeavor.

As for the effect that the historians will have, it is their interpretation (and I think 85-90% of history is interpreted or mis-interpreted by those of us in the field) that will affect the final judgment of critics as well as those who seek to learn even more. An educated person will read and evaluate more than one source, get confused over right and wrong a number of times in the process, and form their own stand on major issues. Note that I said "major," because I see no value in nit-picking the little things. When carrying arguments to the extreme, one loses the audience.

I have not seen the movie, but from what I have heard from others (both positive and negative aspects), I think that Mr. Spielberg achieved a great deal in making Mr. Lincoln and his struggles with the Thirteenth Amendment issue - as well as the struggles of others - more significant to the average American. Now let's hope that many of them take up the cause of furthering their own education in American history.

[Eva Elisabeth]

(08-22-2014 11:48 AM)L Verge Wrote:  Would it be rude of me to suggest that Mr. Lincoln wasn't taking orders from God or his wife? Since I consider him a prime pragmatist (as I have said before), he was reluctantly following his political instincts.

Thanks, Laurie, that was actually what I've been trying to express when I said I doubt he was merely acting as a will-less puppet on the strings. As I said before, even if he might have believed to act upon God's will, I think it was his own will, too. However, at all and so far I cast doubts on the reliability of the quote, and this was one point to argue why. Also this quote seems strange to me as I do NOT believe Lincoln was hesitant about issuing the Emancipation Proclamation. So said Mary to Herndon: "Mr. Lincoln was mild in his manners, but he was a terribly firm man when he set his foot down. None of us, no man or woman, could rule him after he had once fully made up his mind."

[Eva Elisabeth]

(08-22-2014 12:13 PM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  

(08-22-2014 11:28 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  

(08-22-2014 11:15 AM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  After seeing Spielberg's "Lincoln" movie, would your granddaugher know that portion of the film showing "AL entering fallen Richmond on horseback" was not true? Of course, you could correct for her the misinformation. But are you intending to make it your life's work with all of the other little girls and little boys in the South who see the free "Lincoln" DVD at school to correct this single misstatement of historical fact? Are there any other major historical blunders within the movie that you intend to correct only for your granddaughter?

There are not only little boys and girls at school, there's also a teacher who will know how to handle such media. Please see post #27.

From post #27: As for its use for educational purposes - even in the media country USA I can't imagine any movie/docu will replace text(book) work and make it superfluous. Personally I think the value of showing such a movie in lessons is to get to exactly such discussions as we are having here - is it accurate? Why/why not? Give reasons.

The teaching plan:

1. Show the "Lincoln" movie at the start of the day.

2.Then, go through the movie again, stopping at least at every major historical mistake or complete fiction, and have "such discussions as we are having here - is it accurate? Why/why not? Give reasons."

3. Then, at the end of the day or however long it takes to complete step #2, there would be a test created and graded by the instructor to make sure that each historical error in the movie, such as AL riding into Richmond, has been properly "unlearned" by each and every student. And, any student receiving less than a "C" on the test would be required both to view the "Lincoln" movie once again and the history correcting video created at step #2, and then, a retest. Let's hope that everyone gets at least a "C" the second time.

And, of course there is the problem of even noted Lincoln historians (and unpaid amateurs such as ourselves) disagreeing on elements of Lincoln history depicted in the "Lincoln" movie. I guess in such situations there would be no wrong answers on the test.

The suggestion I made would certainly be a transfer task (i.e. apply aquired knowledge, or competence on the subject, to new areas), also to challenge the students' self competence (ability to scrutinize and judge etc.) and improve media competence (as Laurie said, understanding the difference between "documentaries" and "movies", and awareness of that the latter take certain artistic licenses in order to entertain). To achieve that, believe me, it will not be necessary going through each and every error in the movie, and not at all the monotonous, ineffective way you feared either. Finally - sometimes school needs certain entertainment, too, to motivate.
.

[L Verge]

"Finally - sometimes school needs certain entertainment, too, to motivate."

Boy, do I agree with that! I also think that analogies help to give better meaning to concepts. A dogmatic drill of facts shuts down the average student, but using the same idea in a way that is relevant to a student's life brings on a "teachable" moment.

We're veering away from the Emancipation Proclamation and the Thirteenth Amendment here, but in teaching the Lincoln conspiracy to children (and many adults), I use an analogy to make the principles of "vicarious liability" and "laws of conspiracy" better to understand. First, many don't know what the word "conspiracy" even means. The minute I use the word "gang," however, they come alive. That (unfortunately) is something they can relate to in this day and age.

My analogy is the idea of a bank robbery where three members of that gang decide to rob a bank. One is the get-away driver and remains in the car while the other two enter the bank. In the course of the robbery, one of the guys shoots and kills a bank employee. Who is guilty of murder? The students are surprised to discover that, under the definition of vicarious liability, technically they all are.

I then change the scenario and have the driver outside change his mind, spot a cop on the corner, and report that a bank robbery is in progress. By the time the cop gets to the bank, however, the murder has already been committed. Will a jury find the driver guilty of murder? Probably not, because he tried to stop the bank robbers by going to an authority (one must be able to stop a conspiracy, not just drop out).

My parting words were always to "choose your friends wisely because they can get you in trouble." I actually had a vice principal hug me one day for using the gang analogy in order to get the point across in Booth's conspiracy. If I had played the law professor - or the dry old historian - and droned on with stuff that the kids could not relate to, I would have failed with my lesson plan.

Roger and I have both used mock trials in our classrooms too in order to bring the Lincoln assassination to a conclusion. My education staff at Surratt House uses them too in grades 5-8 as a concluding activity after a PowerPoint presentation. Let me just tell you that the students are very sharp in getting judicial points across; they are ham actors to boot; and Mary Surratt does not fare very well at their hands most of the time.

While we can argue about the errors and interpretations made by Spielberg's script until the cows come home, we have to ask ourselves whether or not he got a "teachable moment" across in the end. Since I have not seen the movie, I can't make my personal, final judgment; but, I'm betting that he came very close.
.

[LincolnToddFan]

[After seeing Spielberg's "Lincoln" movie, would your granddaugher know that portion of the film showing "AL entering fallen Richmond on horseback" was not true? Of course, you could correct for her the misinformation. But are you intending to make it your life's work with all of the other little girls and little boys in the South who see the free "Lincoln" DVD at school to correct this single misstatement of historical fact? Are there any other major historical blunders within the movie that you intend to correct only for your granddaughter]//quote

David Lockmiller,

You directed these questions/comments to me but I am neither a grandmother nor a Southerner. I am a proud Ohio born Yankee, transplanted to sunny Southern California. And for the record, no.. IF I did have a granddaughter I would not lose any sleep if she saw a movie with the 16th president entering Richmond on horseback, and I would not make it my "life's work" to run around correcting schoolchildren North OR South.

There are much more serious "historical blunders" that have made it to the big screen about the 16th president...like the ridiculous idea that he loathed his wife and cursed her out on election night 1860.

(See 1940's "Abe Lincoln in Illinois")

And if Lesley Stahl is as smart as you say she is, there is no way she would have accepted everything in the Spielberg movie as 100% accurate. I don't have half Ms. Stahl's brainpower but I sure knew fact from fiction...any attentive 5th grader would have!

---

(08-22-2014 05:47 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Here is another person's opinion on Mary and emancipation.

Five days after Mary Lincoln's death Jane Grey Swisshelm wrote a letter to the editor of the Chicago Tribune. She wrote, "In statesmanship she was farther-sighted than he [Lincoln] — was more radically opposed to slavery, and urged him to Emancipation, as a matter of right, long before he saw it as a matter of necessity."

Roger-

I luv you for finding this for me(sshhh...don't tell Vicki!)

Jane Swisshelm was as hardcore an abolitionist as you would've found anywhere...she was sort of the Jane Fonda of the mid-1800's...and she came to the WH all prepared to hate MTL. But she actually met her in person and came to love her dearly. She was so devoted a friend that she wrote a very moving obituary for her in the New York Times, and even briefly considered writing a bio of the viciously maligned former First Lady.

Unfortunately she never got around to it.

If Mary Todd Lincoln had truly opposed emancipation, Swisshelm wouldn't have touched her with a ten foot pole and neither would former slave Harriet Tubman, who liked her and visited her at the WH ("Looking For Lincoln" Kunhardt, pgs#428-429)

Anyway, these were Mary's contemporaries who actually knew and spoke with her. I prefer to believe them, rather than any third-hand evidence produced by Burlingame and Guelzo.

Thanks again!

[Eva Elisabeth]

(08-22-2014 05:52 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Also this quote seems strange to me as I do NOT believe Lincoln was hesitant about issuing the Emancipation Proclamation. So said Mary to Herndon: "Mr. Lincoln was mild in his manners, but he was a terribly firm man when he set his foot down. None of us, no man or woman, could rule him after he had once fully made up his mind."

I found what I actually was thinking of and vaguely remembered reading. These are Seward's son Frederick's recollections:
"At noon, accompanying my father, I carried the broad parchment in a large portfolio under my arm. We...went upstairs to the President's room, where Mr. Lincoln speedily joined us. The broad sheet was spread open before him on the Cabinet table. Mr. Lincoln dipped his pen in the ink, and then, holding it a moment above the sheet, seemed to hesitate. Looking around, he said: 'I never in my life felt more certain that I was doing right, than I do in signing this paper. But I have been receiving calls and shaking hands since nine o'clock this morning, till my arm is stiff and numb. Now this signature is one that will be closely examined, and if they find my hand trembled they will say 'he had some compunctions.' But anyway, it is going to be done.' So saying, he slowly and carefully wrote his name at the bottom of the proclamation. The signature proved to be unusually clear, bold, and firm, even for him, and a laugh followed at his apprehension."
(Frederick Seward: "Reminiscences of a War-time Statesman and Diplomat", p. 227.)

For my understanding, if he was anxious about anything in this context, then that others would doubt his firmness due to his shaky handwriting caused by "overwork".

[L Verge]

(08-22-2014 08:28 AM)Wild Bill Wrote:  Thanks Roger. I knew I had read something about Mary being the real antislaverite in the Lincoln family years ago. I never could find it again until now.

Given Mrs. Lincoln's close ties with Henry Clay from her childhood, it makes sense that she would share his emancipation views - even though both came from slaveholding backgrounds.

[Eva Elisabeth]

(08-22-2014 11:15 AM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  ...the other little girls and little boys in the South who see the free "Lincoln" DVD...

Since the movie's age rating is 12 here, it's not allowed to let the very little girls and boys watch it anyway. Just curious - what is the age rating in the US (if there's any at all)?

[RJNorton]

(08-24-2014 03:20 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Just curious - what is the age rating in the US (if there's any at all)?

Hi Eva. There is information on the Lincoln movie rating here.

There is general information on the USA movie ratings here.

[Eva Elisabeth]

Thank you, Roger! So the US rates even stricter!

[David Lockmiller]

(08-22-2014 05:47 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Here is another person's opinion on Mary and emancipation.

Five days after Mary Lincoln's death Jane Grey Swisshelm wrote a letter to the editor of the Chicago Tribune. She wrote, "In statesmanship she was farther-sighted than he [Lincoln] — was more radically opposed to slavery, and urged him to Emancipation, as a matter of right, long before he saw it as a matter of necessity."

Hi Roger. I was wondering if you had a citation reference to the entire letter published by the Chicago Tribune on July 20, 1882. I tried to find the complete text of the letter but I was unable to do so.

Jane Grey Swisshelm was indeed radically opposed to slavery. Following Lincoln's assassination, she wrote in a letter or article published shortly thereafter by the St. Cloud Democrat on May 4, 1865: "I do not look on this death as a National calamity" because she feared "the destruction of our Government through the leniency and magnanimity of President Lincoln" She believed that God "removed from this place one who was totally incapable of understanding, or believing in, the wickedness, the cruelty, and barbarism of the Southern people." (Abraham Lincoln: A Life, Professor Michael Burlingame, Vol. Two, page 821.)

As regards the government's Reconstruction policy following Lincoln's death, Jane Grey Swisshelm got her wish. I wonder if Mary Todd Lincoln who "was was more radically opposed to slavery" than President Lincoln and a close friend of Jane Grey Swisshelm shared the same opinions regarding the Southern people and the correct Reconstruction policy for the government to follow.

[David Lockmiller]

(08-22-2014 05:47 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Here is another person's opinion on Mary and emancipation.

Five days after Mary Lincoln's death Jane Grey Swisshelm wrote a letter to the editor of the Chicago Tribune. She wrote, "In statesmanship she was farther-sighted than he [Lincoln] — was more radically opposed to slavery, and urged him to Emancipation, as a matter of right, long before he saw it as a matter of necessity."

Hi Roger. I was wondering if you had a citation reference to the entire letter published by the Chicago Tribune on July 20, 1882. I tried to find the complete text of the letter but I was unable to do so.

Jane Grey Swisshelm was indeed radically opposed to slavery. Following Lincoln's assassination, she wrote in a letter or article published shortly thereafter by the St. Cloud Democrat on May 4, 1865: "I do not look on this death as a National calamity" because she feared "the destruction of our Government through the leniency and magnanimity of President Lincoln" She believed that God "removed from this place one who was totally incapable of understanding, or believing in, the wickedness, the cruelty, and barbarism of the Southern people." (Abraham Lincoln: A Life, Professor Michael Burlingame, Vol. Two, page 821.)

As regards the government's Reconstruction policy following Lincoln's death, Jane Grey Swisshelm got her wish. I wonder if Mary Todd Lincoln who "was was more radically opposed to slavery" than President Lincoln and a close friend of Jane Grey Swisshelm shared the same opinions regarding the Southern people and the correct Reconstruction policy for the government to follow.

[RJNorton]

Hi David. Unfortunately I don't have the text of the entire letter. However, if a person would like to sign up for a free trial, I think it can be read here. Another source is here.

In the Mary Lincoln Enigma Professor Brian Dirck writes, "Whereas before the war she carried a mixture of contradictory sentiments and ideas about slavery, the war served to quietly harden her into a staunch advocate of emancipation. Far from acting the part of a Southern apologist, Mary wanted her husband to adopt some sort of emancipation policy; she 'urged him to Emancipation, as a matter of right, long before he saw it as a matter of necessity,' remarked Jane Grey Swisshelm, an abolitionist who became acquainted with Mary during the war." (from p. 49)

[David Lockmiller]

(08-21-2014 05:19 PM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  

(08-20-2014 08:09 PM)LincolnToddFan Wrote:  Never, at any time or anywhere in over 30 years of reading about Mary Lincoln, have I ever heard that she opposed the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation.

Lincoln scholar, Professor Allen C. Guelzo, wrote in his book, “Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation: The End of Slavery in America,” Simon & Schuster, Copyright 2004, 2005 (paperback edition), pages 204 -05:

Professor Michael Burlingame published his material containing the very same Mary Lincoln quote in 2008, in “Abraham Lincoln: A Life,” Vol. Two, pages 468-69. This was four years after Professor Guelzo’s book was first published in 2004. I prefer the Professor Allen C. Guelzo version. It is much more informative.

And, I never quite understood Lincoln’s shortened reply to Mary’s question ("Well, what do you intend doing?") in Professor Burlingame’s book: “I am a man under orders, I cannot do otherwise.” By contrast, Professor Guelzo wrote above: Lincoln only looked upwards, “as to heaven,” and replied, “I am a man under orders, I cannot do otherwise.”

I do not have access to the footnote source reference used by Professor Guelzo since I used Google books and the footnote material was not available to me.

Last week, I went to the San Francisco Public Library and did a microfiche search for The Christian Science Monitor article. It turns out the Professor Guelzo had the wrong date source for the story (September 27, 1937) and Professor Burlingame had the correct date (February 12, 1935). [It just goes to show that not everybody is perfect.]

On February 12, 1935, the 126th anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln, the following story was published on page one of The Christian Science Monitor and entitled “New Light on Lincoln’s Character.” The lengthy subtitle reads as follows: “Inspiration of Sturges Etching Recalls Long Night of Prayer When the Great Emancipator Was Struggling Against Opposition to His Proposed Edict That Freed the Slaves – Letter Reveals Mrs. Lincoln Was Against the Emancipation Proclamation.

An abbreviated introduction to the full letter of Mrs. Florence W. Stanley follows:

From boyhood Dwight C. Sturges, Monitor staff artist and considered among the leading modern etchers, has held a deep reverence for and interest in the Great Emancipator. . . . Mr. Sturges’ mental sketchbook accumulated many scenes: Lincoln the thorough; Lincoln the conciliator; Lincoln the humble. It was among such conceptions that there grew the picture of Abraham Lincoln the divinely led, the man who almost unfailingly, during those sorely trying days of the rebellion, turned his weary thought to higher vistas for wisdom to follow the path of right.

Mr. Sturges transferred this mental image to copper. He named the etching “Guidance.” It pictures Honest Abe, his homely face creased by the lines of deep stresses, his head tilted at an almost listening angle, and his kind, deep eyes gazing out beyond the temporal realm into regions where dwelt the source of that hope that was in him. And, unusual among the pictures of Lincoln of the Civil War period, that face, so easily recollected by the world’s millions, has lost its note of sadness.

This etching was chosen to illustrate an article in appreciation of Lincoln which appeared in the Monitor’s weekly magazine section on Feb. 6. The piece and its illustration brought many responses, but none more in keeping with the subject than that written to the artist by Mrs. Florence Weston Stanley of Needham, Mass. The letter, which is self-explanatory, reads as follows:

Feb. 7, 1935

Dear Mr. Sturges:

Both of your etchings of Abraham Lincoln impressed me, but the one with the sadness removed called to thought an incident in Lincoln’s life.

It was my privilege to know from the time I was four years old Robert Todd Lincoln. Because of my great love for Abraham Lincoln he spoke very freely to me of homely incidents and when I wanted some material on Lincoln in the course of my studies he told me many things among which was the following:

“My mother was very much opposed to the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation and expressed her views at great length before retiring. My father never retired that night but paced his study—back and forth—stopping now and then to read a few favorite verses from the Bible or to gaze at the sky.

“In the morning my mother and I went to his study, my mother inquiring in her quick sharp way, ‘Well, what do you intend doing?’

“My father looked up, as to heaven, a great light illuming his face and for the moment removing the care-worn lines, replied, ‘I am a man under orders, I cannot do otherwise.’”

Mr. Robert Lincoln commented that there seemed to be a “presence” which silenced further comment from his mother or himself. That day Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation.

The above is from my notes taken as Mr. Robert Todd Lincoln spoke.

Very sincerely yours,
(Mrs.) Florence W. Stanley

Mrs. Stanley reports that to the best of her knowledge this is the first time that this important incident in the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation has been recorded in print.