posted on February 1, 2005 12:50:40 PM new
Co-opting Lincoln's sexuality
By Cathy Young | January 31, 2005
WAS ABRAHAM LINCOLN gay? And does it matter? These questions have been the subject of heated debate in the past few weeks, thanks to a new posthumous book by the late sex researcher C.A. Tripp, "The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln."
The gay Lincoln theory has been floated among the academic left before, but the current debate brings it closer to the mainstream. Andrew Sullivan, the right-of-center gay commentator usually known for challenging politically correct orthodoxy, has proclaimed in an online New Republic essay that the only question left is just how gay Lincoln was. Rejection of this "truth," Sullivan has argued, stems from the homophobia of the modern Republican establishment -- epitomized, to him, by an attack on Tripp's book in the conservative Weekly Standard, accompanied by a cartoon of a limp-wristed Lincoln.
But while the cartoon is cringeworthy, the article, by former Tripp coauthor Philip Nobile, makes some devastating points about the book's cavalier treatment of its material and possible plagiarism.
And what of the scathing criticism from reviewers in no way linked to a right-wing antigay agenda -- such as Rutgers historian David Greenberg, who, in Slate.com, dismisses the book as "tendentious, sloppy, and wholly unpersuasive"? The New Republic itself ran an equally negative review by Princeton feminist historian Christine Stansell, posted online two days before Sullivan's essay.
Central to Tripp's thesis is the fact that early in Lincoln's career, he spent four years bedding with Springfield, Ill., store owner Joshua Speed. (Lincoln's law partner William Herndon often slept in the same room.) Yet such arrangements were notoriously common on the frontier. Tripp's other "smoking gun" is more intriguing: when Lincoln was president, the captain of his bodyguards over an eight-month period, David Derickson, was said to have sometimes shared his bed when Mrs. Lincoln was away. If true, it was certainly unusual. Yet looking back nearly 150 years at a vastly different culture with the added difficulty of separating fact from rumor, it's impossible to arrive at any real conclusions.
The rest of "The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln" is often bizarre conjecture. If Lincoln's and Speed's letters after their separation dwell on mundane details, it's an obvious coverup for the feelings of "distraught lovers." Tripp's critics cite numerous instances of his leaving out or airbrushing salient details to bolster his case. Thus, he makes much of Lincoln signing his letters to the alleged love of his life, "Yours forever" -- omitting the fact that Lincoln used this same salutation toward at least six other friends.
Is Lincoln's sexuality relevant? If his sexual and romantic feelings were directed toward men in a culture where such love was taboo, it would surely affect our understanding of Lincoln the private man, including his depression and his strained marriage. Clearly that's not what the debate, and the passion, is all about.
Nobile writes that gay playwright/activist Larry Kramer threatened to expose him as a "homophobe" if he attacked Tripp's book, telling him that "gay people need a role model." More recently, Kramer has been quoted as saying, "It's a revolutionary book because the most important president in the history of the United States was gay. . . . Now maybe they'll leave us alone, all those people in the party he founded."
While it's highly dubious that even true revelations about Lincoln's sexuality could affect Republican policies today, the desire to find gay heroes in history is understandable, given the vilification of gays that persists. But subordinating history to identity politics is never a good idea.
Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen has written that even if Tripp had proved his case, many Americans would be reluctant to recognize that one of our greatest presidents was gay. True, and unfortunate. But it's equally unfortunate that clear-thinking people like Sullivan would embrace a shoddy piece of historical speculation to help their cause. Untruth has yet to set anyone free.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on February 1, 2005 02:04:43 PM new
Who cares?
____________________________________________
Dick Cheney: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..."
posted on February 1, 2005 02:39:54 PM new
Many people, including bush, have tried to use historical figures to boost their agenda.
It usually backfires.
Lincoln did what he did, it can't be changed and what he did in bed is of no interest to anyone. It's kinda like today's Republicans trying to say they're the party of Lincoln......no, no,no....the Republican party of 140 years ago is NOT the Republican party of today. And bush isn't worth the dirt on Lincoln's boots.
posted on February 1, 2005 02:50:41 PM new
This is the furst I've heard this idea brought up, so I have nothing but simple logic to work with.
Let's leave the college roommate thing out of it. That's common practice for non-gays even today.
But a gay President during the most controversial war in US history?
Granted in the 1860's they didn't have the mass-media press of today, but still, no one on the planet would have garnered more press coverage than the man behind the American Civil War. Also, no one on Earth was so hated by the South (even worse than some people hate Bush today). It's a safe assumption that he had MANY powerful and informed enemies, not mention actual southern SPIES informing on him.
If there was even the HINT that this sort of thing were going on, don't you think it would have been spread quickly? In that Victorian society, Lincoln's career would have been destroyed immediately.
Whatever Lincoln's INTERNAL feelings were, I don't believe for a moment he could have acted on them in secrecy.
--------------------------------------
Replay Media - The best source for board games, card games and miniatures on the web! http://www.replaymedia.com
posted on February 1, 2005 05:39:49 PM new
I'd love to hear why you think Elton John and Liberace are BAD? Why is it always good or bad with you doubleblabla?
posted on February 1, 2005 05:40:16 PM newLongansdad just wants to keep his agenda going about a story about a person who has been dead. How many years!! That can't speak for himself.
More words of wisdom from the narrow minded peanut gallery.
Because Lincoln was outed while he was alive doesn't make this story false. It doesn't make this story true.
Libra's statement above proves one point that was made in the article: many Americans would be reluctant to recognize that one of our greatest presidents was gay. True, and unfortunate.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on February 1, 2005 05:43:41 PM new
kraft: What's a role model going to do for gay people?
What does a role model do for any group of people?
Was Rosa Parks a role model for the black people during the civil rights movement? Why are some athletes are role models for children?
I suppose only straight people can be role models.
I guess you can say Elizabeth Taylor is the role model for straight marriages. How many has she had?
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on February 1, 2005 05:53:02 PM new
Logan, I think gays have many role models but if people think gays need some big wig to give credibility for being gay, then there's something wrong, imo.
posted on February 1, 2005 06:03:56 PM new
Kraft, I would agree that people should have role models, but they should not be celebrities.
Even if Lincoln was gay I would not consider him a role model. Rather he would have been a great illusionist who had millions of people fooled.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on February 1, 2005 06:25:46 PM new
Logan, I'm not sure I think people should have role models, I said gays already have good role models. Why do you say a celebrity isn't as good as the next person?
posted on February 1, 2005 07:48:06 PM new
Geezus how low can you blow... oh wait we are taking about homosexuals... grasping at straws and they wonder why people hate them LOL
Claiming one of the US's greatest presients was a homosexual is pretty far fetched... Learn some history and then try again...
posted on February 1, 2005 07:53:38 PM new
Although I highly doubt that Lincoln was homsexual or even bi-sexual, it would not surprise me to discover that at least one of our presidents was. The same people claiming it could never be are probably the same that swore up & down that Jefferson could never have had a black mistress he fathered children by...
Presidents are people, not gods.
____________________
"Bad temper is its own scourge. Few things are more bitter than to feel bitter. A man's venom poisons himself more than his victim." --Charles Buxton
posted on February 2, 2005 12:52:35 AM newLogan, I think gays have many role models but if people think gays need some big wig to give credibility for being gay, then there's something wrong, imo.
Yes drafty I will have to consorrt with a dikonary to find out what sarcasm means. But we dont have any books in this house so in the meantime maybe you can telks me if its a "good thing" or a "bad thing" so i know right what to think of it? ..and while your at it, maybe you cans tell me how Abraham Lincoln comes with a big weig??????? I know he had a big hat!!?... but I think it was elton john and liberace who had them big wigs. ya, umhhmm, serious, I think you getting your men with wigs confused up.
posted on February 2, 2005 02:29:37 AM newIt makes you wonder....
Doesn't make me wonder. It's just more from the left's agenda to make statements, not based in fact nor with proof - just speculation, about many of our early Presidents..or our Founding Fathers.
And it doesn't make me wonder why logansdad and other gays would use this to push their own agenda. Many on the left have written negative remarks and revised history for their own purposes.
When I was in school...we were taught about the great things these men did for our country. We were encouraged to see their 'greatness' as founders of our Nation. Now what is promoted are smear tactics and garbage like this to make them look bad.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Feb 2, 2005 02:33 AM ]
posted on February 2, 2005 03:38:17 AM new
OP, linduh, is about, "new posthumous book by the late sex researcher C.A. Tripp".
But with a great, but easy stretch, of stupidity you've made it...
"It's just more from the left's agenda to make statements".
No, dumbkin, it was just one person's opinion nothing else.
And...""""Now what is promoted are smear tactics and garbage like this to make them look bad.""""
First: sorry, to more sophisticated, intelligent people being gay isn't "bad".....only to nazis like you.
Second: I haven't seen any concerted efforts anywhere to promote smear tactics......I have seen a lot of research and study about many historical figures.....but , of course, neocons never want the truth ...just the soothing, mind deadening pap they can easily digest.
posted on February 2, 2005 04:14:19 AM new
From the Weekly Standard:
Unfortunately, that is merely a way of saying the Gay Lincoln Theory fails any historical test. "Useful history" is always a dubious kind of scholarship. But in its attempt to be useful for gays today, The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln reaches far beyond the merely dubious. The book is a hoax and a fraud: a historical hoax, because the inaccurate parts are all shaded toward a predetermined conclusion, and a literary fraud, because significant portions of the accurate parts are plagiarized--from me, as it happens.
posted on February 2, 2005 04:18:42 AM new
Why don't you write the AUTHOR....nobody else cares.
poor pathetic linduh, there's big, bad gays, socialists, people who don't think exactly like she does (thank heavens) and other evil people all over just trying to take over the country!
posted on February 2, 2005 04:41:13 AM new
I understand...that the words of the man who WAS to co-authoring this book...mean nothing to you...it's all about Linda.
But they will mean something to those who are much more objective that you could ever HOPE to be.
It has been exposed as Tripp's AGENDA to promote the 'gay agenda'. No surprise to anyone.
"But Tripp would not let go. The temptation to portray Lincoln as a nine-year-old poster boy for the Friends of Dorothy was too great."
The fact that is it NOT based on FACTS...will mean something to many also.
"IN TEN YEARS OF ASSIDUOUS RESEARCH Tripp found no final proof of consummation with any of the five men identified as Lincoln's lovers."
Plus mentioning what he left OUT of the book....Lincoln's writings about heterosexual feelings, encounters, etc.
yea...he has no agenda...wrong.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Feb 2, 2005 04:47 AM ]
posted on February 2, 2005 06:54:04 AM newWhen I was in school...we were taught about the great things these men did for our country. We were encouraged to see their 'greatness' as founders of our Nation. Now what is promoted are smear tactics and garbage like this to make them look bad.
Then you were taught what only what people wanted you to hear. When you were taught about the ancient Greek philosophers, were you taught that many of them were gay?
I don't see the article smearing Lincoln at all. It just presents another side of him. But I guess you can't believe a great man in history may have been gay. How is that smearing what Lincoln did?
Lastly Linda, if you would have read some other articles written by Phillip Nobile you will see his agenda. He is anti-gay and in my opinion Anti-American suggesting former President Truman be convicted of war crimes for dropping the atomic bombs in Japan.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on February 2, 2005 07:58:53 AM new
Try to comprehend this, logansdad. If there was proof Lincoln REALLY was gay...it wouldn't change MY life one bit.
This book proves nothing...it's a gay mans 'theory'. Just that and nothing more.
And when I was in school they only felt it necessary to teach us history...not the personal sex lives of our leaders.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Feb 2, 2005 08:02 AM ]
