It was mentioned in another thread how little the the average American citizen knows about the Lincoln Assassination, and it started me thinking about how much of it is currently taught in schools. I know when I was growing up, to the best of my memory, here is what we were taught…

1. Abraham Lincoln was shot by John Wilkes Booth in Ford's Theater
2. John Wilkes Booth was an actor
3. It took 12 days to catch him

That's it. And that was in the 5th grade because I can remember our teacher Mrs. Jordan telling us these things. After that, I guess it was assumed that we all knew the extreme basic facts, and I can't remember any new facts ever being taught. I discussed this with a friend of mine who grew up in a different part of the country and he said that's all they were taught also.

A few years ago, while browsing Border's bookstore, I picked up Manhunt by James Swanson, and thought I'd give it a shot. At the time, I remember thinking that the assassination was a pretty big deal, and yet I knew next to nothing about it. Now I realize that the opinions of Manhunt kind of run the gamut, but from that book I began to learn that there was much more to the story than an actor walking into the theater and shooting the President. I learned that there was another attack by a man named Powell. I learned about Mary Surratt, Davy Herold, George Atzerodt, and a "simple country doctor". I learned about the Petersen House, the Garrett place, Willie Jett, Mrs. Quisenberry...the Lincoln funeral train. And, of course, I was fascinated. So I read more.

So how much about the assassination is currently taught in schools, generally speaking? I realize that it would likely differ depending on location, and I realize that there's a serious limit on how deeply into the assassination a school could dig, but surely it's worth a few days time. After all, this was a defining moment in, and one of the crimes of, our nation's history. The question was posed recently about Alaska, and what would have happened there if Powell had been successful in his attack on Seward. Would we even own Alaska?? Shouldn't I have been taught about the attack on Seward, and should't we have pondered the Alaska question when I was in school? It wouldn't have taken long.

I grew up in a fairly typical American school system, and I realize there are a lot of factors to consider when deciding what to teach and what to skip. I just think it's sad that such a huge event was glossed over for so many years of my education. I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but I think that history is just so incredibly important to learn and to learn from. As time goes by, that feeling only becomes stronger. To me, history puts so many things in perspective. When we see all the people and events that have come and gone, when we consider all the people and events yet to come, we start to understand our spot. We realize that all things will pass, and so in that odd kind of way, history sooths a troubled mind. I hope that I'm wrong, and that the assassination gets more attention than it did when I was growing up. I just feel like there are certain events that deserve a little special attention. How could the Lincoln Assassination possibly not qualify?

Jonathan,

While I'm not sure about "a few days" I certainly agree that there should be more time given over to many subjects of which the Lincoln assassination is definitely one.

I think Laurie hit on it in another thread, though. Standardized testing requires teachers to teach to the test, and since the tests don't really measure how much one learns, but rather how much they can regurgitate, things are going to get lost.

If we were truly serious about education in our country, we would require much longer school years and require history to be taken all four years of high school (among other subjects). That way, a teacher could pick and choose which times are more important and require some detailed study, and which could be glossed over with a few comments. I think that should also apply to world history. It's all well and good to learn our country's history, but we need to understand that other nations have a past, and our own self-perceived exceptionalism aside, other nations were doing things that made them world powers in another age.

As for how much I was taught about Lincoln's assassination....I would have to say none. To be honest, I can't remember much about what I was taught in high school. I've often said I learned in spite of my teachers, not because of them. It wasn't until I was in college, and made the determination to study history (against the advice of my mother), that I seriously attacked it with a vengeance. It wasn't until I met Everton Conger that I became seriously interested in the Lincoln assassination, and I still hold to the idea that I'm more interested in Lincoln overall, and the Civil War, then I am in the assassination. That said, it doesn't mean that the study of the crime should be cordoned off as it has been over the past few decades. It tells of one aspect of the life of one of the greatest men our country ever produced, and it should be given far more attention then it is now.

Luckily, you chose to further your knowledge on your own, and while I'm one of those who questions the value of Manhunt, I'm glad to see that you're reading and learning. Keep going!

Best
Rob

As a retired high school Teacher of History for 35yrs.I taught about the Assassinations of Presidents,B.Kennedy,and MLKing.Now,there are so many State Competency Exams that teachers teach to the tests! Sad but True!

Jonathan, you are spot on about what should be taught and what is being taught. Right now, I have a grandson in the 7th grade who is chomping at the bit to get American history. Right now, he's getting it from me because the curriculum doesn't call for it until the 8th grade. And lord help that 8th grade teacher - she better pass muster!

Many long years ago, I was that 8th grade teacher and loved almost every minute of it -- especially when I got to the 1850s-60s. I made sure that several weeks were devoted to the causes of the Civil War, the various aspects of that war, and the Lincoln assassination.

And Rob, I apologize for saying this, but I am so glad that thousands of people who have visited the Surratt House and praised Manhunt for getting them interested in the story have outvoted you. My grandson has read both the children's version and the adult version and was inspired to do a PowerPoint presentation for a summer project last year. With grandma behind the wheel and a camera in his hand, we spent an entire day doing the escape route. It was a day made in heaven for me!

Quote:And Rob, I apologize for saying this, but I am so glad that thousands of people who have visited the Surratt House and praised Manhunt for getting them interested in the story have outvoted you.

That's OK Laurie. Being off on one's own is often lonely, but I have my moral superiority to keep me company.

Best
Rob

[quote='Rob Wick'
That's OK Laurie. Being off on one's own is often lonely, but I have my moral superiority to keep me company.


It's a shame this generation is not blessed with the education we had. Even the junk on TV and Radio is not as good as the junk we had. They are being culturaly deprived. Rob your comment made me think of this. Our youth need to be exposed more to the classics. Remember this....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-07_2DWfEmQ

I went to Detroit Public Schools in the 1960's. The Civil War was covered-but not Lincoln's assassination-and this was before the age of political correctness.

I went to a Richmond Public School when I was in elementary school and boy, I was lucky! We had the Civil War literally crammed down our throats with a Virginia History textbook (I'd LOVE to have a copy of that old textbook!) that basically was an account of nothing but the Confederacy and the Civil War! I loved that textbook and the illustrations were grand. We'd study the Civil War for weeks - only the Northern side was pretty much left out.....they only touched on the assassination inasmuch as simply saying that John Wilkes Booth was shot in a barn in Caroline County, Virginia and an accomplice (always unnamed) was captured. End of the assassination....

Betty: that's interesting about the Northern point of view being left. Is that because the textbook itself left it out? Or did the teachers leave it out when they talked about? So, back then, textbooks used American public schools weren't the same for all students-whether in Detroit or Richmond?

(09-03-2012 07:06 AM)LincolnMan Wrote:  Betty: that's interesting about the Northern point of view being left. Is that because the textbook itself left it out? Or did the teachers leave it out when they talked about? So, back then, textbooks used American public schools weren't the same for all students-whether in Detroit or Richmond?

Yes - it was mostly all a history of the Confederacy (Robert E Lee who had a semi-god status), and the Civil War from the Confederate viewpoint! It was the textbook - although the teacher used it as a Bible somewhat. Back in the early 1960s, (the Centennial of the Civil War), this was apparently the typical viewpoint of studying the Civil War in the south! Nothing of African American history; nothing of the Northern perspective other than that Lincoln passed the Emancipation Proclamation....nothing else at all! Oh, it DID mention that Lee surrendered to Grant on April 9, 1865!. Apparently the textbooks were different - but I didn't know of any difference at all.

I wonder if the "slant" you refer to in the schools of your day is still occurring now in Richmond schools? Or anywhere for that matter? And are you saying that General Lee's "semi-god" status has changed? If so, is that a good thing?

The slant is most certainly gone now! I really and truly think that basically no or at least very little Civil War history is being taught today in Richmond schools. While that is definitely wrong, it was also wrong not to teach the war from all perspectives, North, Black, women as well. It was, as I remember, battles and leaders - not much about the common soldier either.... another flaw.

Correct teaching of history requires that ALL angles of the subject be taught - history is basically the story of human kind - ALL human kind and deserves to be taught from all angles.

Agree totally Betty!

I agree totally with Betty also. However, the textbooks that I used in the 1960s and 70s were largely published in the North, so there was a definite slant. I think it had been that way for one hundred years since the publishers were largely based in New York and Boston and were going to tell the side of the winner.

As for universal textbooks in the education systems of that era - no such thing. I actually served on some review committees for my county to determine which were the better textbooks to use. There was big business to be had in the sale of textbooks, so it was a highly competitive field for us.

The State of Maryland has held a statewide teachers' convention every October since the beginning of time, I think. One of the great benefits of paying to go was to walk the aisles of displays and receive free textbooks to help you "decide" which publisher got it semi-right.

As for more well-rounded portrayals of history, things did get better after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 brought about change. Of course, that depended on whether or not the teacher took the effort to tell well-rounded history. Sometimes it's a Catch-22 situation, however. The more angles of history that you teach, the more time it takes to teach it, and some things have to be overlooked in order to complete it all in one nine-month period.

For vacations I used to take my kids to every battle-site in America. When my daughter's High School teacher got tired of being corrected by her about the Civil War he invited her to teach the class, which she did. When my son arrived 3 years later he just handed him the chalk and let him teach it.

Ask anyone under 20 what caused the civil war and 9 times out of 10 they'll give you a one word answer "slavery" . Aagh! If you don't learn the past mistakes of history you're bound to repeat them.