Carl Sandburg and Lincoln

[RJNorton]

Bill, we lived in Illinois but came to the cabin a lot during the spring, summer, and fall. Possibly the reference to golf made folks wonder, but whenever I played golf and introduced myself as an American history teacher, the others would often bring up history-related topics. That's why I was so surprised that I spent so much time only 20 miles from where Sandburg lived but never once did a Michigan resident ever mention it to me. Trust me, it would have stuck in my brain if it had been mentioned.

[LincolnMan]

Roger: there has been a lot of discussion on other threads regarding education of history in the past compared to today. Where is the teaching of history getting it right or wrong today as compared to before?

[RJNorton]

Bill, I really am at a loss to give you a good answer. I can tell one specific change from when I was a student in 8th grade (1950's) to what was expected of me when I was teaching 8th grade. I remember in 8th grade we were required to do a lot of memorization. I recall memorizing the Preamble to the Constitution and the Gettysburg Address for sure, and probably several other works as well. But when I was teaching I was told this approach was wrong; it wasn't important for the students to memorize material...rather what was important was the ability to critically analyze documents and speeches (not memorize them). Another thing my school did when I was teaching was drop letter grades. Rather than give A's, B's, C's, etc. the teacher was required to write an analysis of how the student was doing. Papers written for class were given positive or negative comments, not letter grades. Students weren't compared to other students; they were analyzed only in relation to their own abilities. This lasted for many years, but eventually the outcry from the parents for letter grades was so great that a return to letter grades took place.

My personal observation was that the students didn't try as hard during the years in which our school did not give letter grades.

I have been out of the classroom so long that I really don't know what the current thinking is regarding teaching techniques, curriculum emphasis, etc.

[L Verge]

Just a personal, disgruntled opinion; but I think we have "analyzed" teaching methods, curriculum content, etc. to such a degree that the good old basics have been left behind - and those good old basics are genuinely needed in the world we have today.

Genealogists have taught us to trace our individual roots, but many historians (on the elementary and secondary level) are not teaching how to trace and understand our roots as a nation. I had a wonderful 8th grade teacher who did just that so that we understood why one thing caused another to happen, etc. My 11th grade teacher, however, was a P.E. teacher being forced to teach history. You can guess how that went.

I had made up my mind in the 8th grade to be a history teacher. When I got to the 11th grade, I made up my mind to be a MUCH BETTER history teacher than the one who was standing in front of me!

[Rob Wick]

Bill,

I think pretty well most of the quotes attributed to Sandburg were actually said by him.

One of the things I plan to study in my book will be why Sandburg fell out of favor, which I think is the biggest reason for the lack of knowledge about him today. From a poetic standpoint, Sandburg was always looked upon by his harshest critics as a regionalist and not deserving of a national reputation. I'm not a literary critic and I don't know a lot of literary theory, but his reputation as a poet was already flagging in the 1920s. I've always believed that was one reason he started turning to prose. Not that he was giving in to the literati, but that he personally wanted to expand his horizons. He continued to write poetry even after The Prairie Years came out. In many ways, though, The People, Yes was just another homage to Lincoln and what he meant to the common man. I think literary flavors change, and given the strikes that Sandburg had against him, and the revolution which occurred in historical studies in the 1960s, I really think it was inevitable that Sandburg would lose favor in the modern world.

As for the questions surrounding the study of history, I never cared for memorization. Sometimes I feel a little bad when someone can recite poetry or documents from memory. But I think as a throwback to my newspaper career, I much prefer the ability to take a document, analyze it, and try to provide a reasonable and coherent interpretation of what it means. To me, education's main purpose is to provide someone with the ability to think critically, and to make their own decision based on their understanding of the facts. I'm not saying that people shouldn't know things for their own sake, but rote memorization was more in favor during a time when promoting nationalism through the study of history held sway. I've always believed that the study of American history, warts and all, is far more important than using it to develop blind patriotism. Once a person gets all sides of the story, and has the ability to process that information in a critical and analytical manner, I think a natural outgrowth of that will be developing a love for one's country.

I think for many historians in the 1960s, Sandburg represented the nationalistic school of history, along with Allan Nevins, J.G. Randall and others. I think one of the reason that Nevins, et al embraced Sandburg as they did was that they all pretty well had the same outlook on what it meant to be an American and what one could take away from those of the past. Of course, it's far deeper than that, but it's too close to supper for me to get really analytical.

Best
Rob

[L Verge]

Reference your third paragraph: I never liked memorization either and did not expect it of my students. In fact, teaching during the Cold War as I did, some of my students actually believed that I was a Communist because I didn't expect memorization! Most of the students did not appreciate the fact that I leaned towards essays on tests either...

However, I do believe in sequential study of history so that a person can understand WHY some things happened based on what came before. From what I have seen in my daughter's education and now my grandson's over the past thirty years, that ain't happening!! As for teaching all sides of the story, that's not happening either. Of course, I can only speak for my region of the country, but since we're only a few miles from the nation's capital, one would hope for better results.

I might also add that my daughter has a Master's in curriculum development (newborn to Grade 8) and now serves as a mentoring teacher to those who are finding it difficult to teach in today's classrooms. She is quite disturbed with the quality of teachers in this area and has found, on the elementary level, that few have a well-rounded background in any subject. My hope is that the problems are only indigenous to certain areas of our country and that excellent teachers and excellent students are still out there in the hinterlands.

[LincolnMan]

I'm having mixed thoughts about the memorization vs. analysis approaches. Maybe the best solution would be to incorporate both. Like Roger, I was required to memorize certain documents-and to this day I can still quote them pretty well (there has been some slippage!). I experienced that when required to memorize something-that very act also led me to consider the words/sentences carefully-and to actually think about what I was memorizing.
I don't care at all for the "let's have no grades" approach to education. Maybe I'm just "old school" (no pun intended). That is the same thinking that doesn't want to have winners and losers in sport activities. To me, that kind of thing doesn't promote excellence. Hey, if I'm in a fox-hole in a combat situation-give me an "expert" rifleman by my side to watch my back-not someone who barely passed qualification.

[Laurie Verge]

I am in complete agreement with you, Bill, as far as having letter grades. Most people are competitive by nature, and the letter grade enhances that competitiveness in my mind. My grandson's school system uses both letter grades and comments in each subject matter.

I am evaluated each year on the job, and the same system applies. Ours uses a 0, 1, 2 evaluation with 2 being excellent/meeting all expectations. Then, there are side comments in each category (about ten) and an overall summary. Life in the school and in the work force is one arena of competition to achieve at your highest level IMO.

[Rob Wick]

Quote: I experienced that when required to memorize something-that very act also led me to consider the words/sentences carefully-and to actually think about what I was memorizing.

Bill, that's the way it's supposed to work in theory, but in practice I think many history teachers (especially coaches...the bane of my existence) just do it because it's easy and doesn't require a lot of planning. I remember in reading Robert Remini's biography of Daniel Webster how school children could recite his famous second reply to Hayne, and I thought that was fine, but could they tell what significance it had?

To tie it in to Sandburg, most people are familiar with the poems "Chicago" or "Fog", but what benefit does it have if all they know are the words? Don't get me wrong...it's half the battle, but only half.


Best
Rob

[Kevin]

(07-19-2012 11:26 AM)Rob Wick Wrote:  Bill,

I have. From a dramatic standpoint, it was good. Historically, I think it pretty well marks the nadir of Sandburg's public influence. Many people who saw it probably went out and bought the single-volume biography, but by then he was more a brand name then a historian/biographer. (Edit: of course, by that time he was dead, but I mean people didn't see him as a Lincoln biographer but more like a brand of soap. "Carl Sandburg's Abraham Lincoln")

I thought Sada Thompson was especially good as Mary Todd Lincoln. I think Hal Holbrook made a good Lincoln, although some times I felt his make-up made him look like Herman Munster.

Best
Rob.

I watched the entire mini series (6 separate episodes) and just loved it. How accurate do you think this mini series depicted Lincoln's personality?

Thanks,

Kevin

[Rob Wick]

Kevin,

I think it, like Sandburg's work, gave us more the mythical Lincoln, and by that I don't mean false. I mean the Lincoln that most people would want to know and believe him to be. Even Lincoln's contemporaries made it known that it was hard to know who Lincoln really was, so that"s why I think Sandburg's interpretation is just as valid as anyone else.

Best
Rob

[LincolnMan]

Too bad the mini-series wasn't made while Carl Sandburg was alive. I'd like to think he would have been involved in the project. Do you think that his presence would have been helpful?

[Rob Wick]

That's hard to say, Bill. Sandburg didn't have a very good track record with movie making. D.W. Griffith wanted Sandburg to consult when he was making his biopic of Lincoln. Sandburg wanted $30,000 but Griffith only would give him $10,000. Sandburg declined.

Later in life he consulted on George Steven's Greatest Story Ever Told, although I'm at a loss to figure out what Stevens thought Sandburg would ever bring to the picture. It had nothing to do with Lincoln or the Civil War, and Sandburg wasn't known for his theological expertise. I imagine both men figured it would give them some cheap publicity and wouldn't do much harm. The movie, of course, is forgotten today, as is Sandburg.

In his newspaper career, Sandburg wrote a number of movie reviews, but again they really don't show someone who one could describe as cinematic.

Best
Rob

[LincolnMan]

I started watching my copy of the DVD The Day Carl Sandburg Died last night. I got maybe a third of the way through and had to "knock off" for the night. What was immediately encouraging for me to note was the narrator's mention that Sandburg is beginning to have a revival now-he has been "dead" but he is coming back. I liked the clips of the various poets, readers, and singers using Sandburg material. Looking forward to watching more.

[LincolnMan]

One thing I've noticed about Sandburg is that he seemed to enjoy being a celebrity-all the attention he got in his heyday. I don't think it was a bad thing-who wouldn't enjoy being so? But he wasn't arrogant about it. I'm remembering the photos, for instance, that were taken of him and Marilyn Monroe-I think he had meetings with her twice? Anyway, he obviously knew he had "arrived." Yet, he never lost touch with common folk-because deep inside he still felt he was a common folk.