Lincoln: America's Greatest President; also, Totally Gay!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Irvine511

Blue Crack Supplier
Joined
Dec 4, 2003
Messages
34,518
Location
the West Coast
if anyone saw the cover of The Weekly Standard this week, they'll know what i mean. a book has hit big time -- The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln, by C.A. Tripp -- and everyone's reacting to it. at least everyone in Washington. ;)


i'll post a bit of Andrew Sullivan's review from The National Review:

How gay was Abraham Lincoln? By asking the question that way, it's perhaps possible to avoid the historically futile, binary question of "gay" versus "straight." Futile, because we are talking about a man who lived well over a century ago, at a time when the very concepts of gay and straight did not exist. And C.A. Tripp, author of The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln was, despite the crude assertions of some reviewers, a Kinseyite who believed in a continuum between gay and straight. If completely heterosexual is a Kinsey zero and completely homosexual is a Kinsey six, Tripp puts Lincoln at five. Reading his engrossing, if uneven, book, I'd say you could make a case that Lincoln was, in fact, a four. It's going to be a subjective judgment, and I'm no Lincoln scholar. In any particular piece of evidence that Tripp discovers, I'd say it's easy to dismiss his theory. But when you review all the many pieces of the Lincoln emotional-sexual puzzle, the homosexual dimension gets harder and harder to ignore. As conservative writer Richard Brookhiser has noted, all we can say with complete confidence is that "on the evidence before us, Lincoln loved men, at least some of whom loved him back." That's a pretty good definition of the core truth of homosexuality.

[...]

Here's what I'd say are the most persuasive facts. Lincoln never developed deep emotional relations with any women, including his wife. Even the few snippets we have of early romances or his deeply strained courtship of Mary Todd suggest a painful attempt to live up to social norms, not a regular heterosexual life. His marriage was a disaster, by all accounts. Why? Well, ask Brookhiser, who tries to exonerate Todd from charges of being cruel and psychopathic as well as corrupt: "Explosive, imperious, profligate, she may well have been mad. But in fairness to her, Lincoln was maddening--remote and unavailable, when he was not physically absent." Hmmm. Remote, emotionally unavailable, running away to hang with men whenever he could. Ring a bell? Not in Brookhiser's mind.

Or take this wonderful passage about one of Lincoln's early crushes, Billy Greene, who subsequently remarked that Lincoln's "thighs were as perfect as a human being could be." Brookhiser remarks: "Everyone saw that Lincoln was tall and strong, but this seems rather gushing." Gushing? I'd say. When you also realize that a common form of gay sex back then was "inter-femoral," i.e. ejaculating by humping between the thighs, you might get a slightly different idea of what Lincoln's intimate was talking about. And, yes, they slept together--in a cot-bed. Remember that Lincoln was well over 6 feet tall. It was a tight fit. As Greene said himself, "when one turned over the other had to do likewise." So just picture the actual scene: two young men inseparable each night in bed. Gay? Whatever would give you that idea?


i'll leave it at that. discuss.
 
Last edited:
I'd heard this before. Makes sense to me :up: In what way are they reacting to it in Washington? Sounds like a good read.
 
it's just a book that peolpe in washington might find interesting, but i can't imagine it being a best seller. that's all -- one of those "inside the Beltway" things.
 
But how could he be gay? I thought it was just a late 20th century disease that arose out of MTV or something. :wink:
 
Wait 150 years and a historian can make anyone out to be gay. Who really cares?
 
drhark said:
Wait 150 years and a historian can make anyone out to be gay. Who really cares?

You couldn't say that under your real username? :D
 
I just read about Tripps book. Here's another review.
Interesting interpretation. I bet Falwell would swallow his tongue reading it. :tongue:
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=sullivan011105
...

How gay was Abraham Lincoln? By asking the question that way, it's perhaps possible to avoid the historically futile, binary question of "gay" versus "straight." Futile, because we are talking about a man who lived well over a century ago, at a time when the very concepts of gay and straight did not exist. And C.A. Tripp, author of The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln was, despite the crude assertions of some reviewers, a Kinseyite who believed in a continuum between gay and straight. If completely heterosexual is a Kinsey zero and completely homosexual is a Kinsey six, Tripp puts Lincoln at five. Reading his engrossing, if uneven, book, I'd say you could make a case that Lincoln was, in fact, a four. It's going to be a subjective judgment, and I'm no Lincoln scholar. In any particular piece of evidence that Tripp discovers, I'd say it's easy to dismiss his theory. But when you review all the many pieces of the Lincoln emotional-sexual puzzle, the homosexual dimension gets harder and harder to ignore. As conservative writer Richard Brookhiser has noted, all we can say with complete confidence is that "on the evidence before us, Lincoln loved men, at least some of whom loved him back." That's a pretty good definition of the core truth of homosexuality.
...
 
drhark said:
Wait 150 years and a historian can make anyone out to be gay. Who really cares?

We can only "make" someone gay if it's true. If Anyone X was not gay we can't fabricate and claim that he or she was gay. I don't know much about Lincoln, to be perfectly honest. I specialized in medieval European history in school--as specialized as an undergrad can be, that is--and I know more about twentieth century than I do nineteenth century Presidents at that. I have read snippets that his marriage was difficult, and they usually blame Mary for being unstable and such. I'm not sure, but didn't Victorian era moralists always blame the woman if there was a problem with the marriage? At any rate, the concept of homosexuality was not understood, it didn't exist. I do not know when the word "homosexual" was coined. At any rate, if you're going to prove either that Lincoln was gay or that he was not gay you have to prove it. You can't just say he was gay because you feel like it.
 
drhark said:
real username: drhark

Only 8 posts since 2002? :eyebrow: Oh well, I don't care, I was just busting your chops.

Anyway, back on topic, I think it's significant if in fact Abe was gay. Gays are still treated as second class citizens today and here was one of our greatest leaders, our greatest president, allegedly a gay man.
 
Doozer61 said:
:hmm: i was wondering when the first gay thread of the year would appear and i didn't expect it to be about Honest Abe!

And apparently it's left FYM nearly speechless, lol, although since we haven't read the book it's hard to have a discussion I guess.
 
I don't mind if somebody posits that Abe was gay but saying that this explains his stance on slavery during the war is drawing a very long bow,
 
A_Wanderer said:
I don't mind if somebody posits that Abe was gay but saying that this explains his stance on slavery during the war is drawing a very long bow,

Oh, absolutely. No one in their right mind would suggest this. If any historian at any reputable university or whatever said this they'd get fired on the spot.
 
A_Wanderer said:
I don't mind if somebody posits that Abe was gay but saying that this explains his stance on slavery during the war is drawing a very long bow,

Did someone suggest this?
 
it has been suggested by some academics that Lincoln could better relate to slaves because of his status as a fellow outsider -- sexually, not racially.

while i think that any sort of obvious social difference does increase one's powers of empathy (or maybe just make you really bitter), it is a stretch to view this as a monocausal explanation for Lincoln to free the slaves during the war. while that might have been a small contributing factor, it was a brilliant political move more than anything else.
 
i love my glass house

joyfulgirl said:


...
although since we haven't read the book

it's hard to have a discussion I guess.

sheesh

that never stopped anyone in here from going off to the races with their own uninformed bias

i wish some would just read the initial posted article, before replying
 
Irvine511 said:
it has been suggested by some academics that Lincoln could better relate to slaves because of his status as a fellow outsider -- sexually, not racially.

I once knew someone a long time ago who I believe was gay and he befriended blacks and other outsiders in rural southern Virginia which was, and still is, very racially divided. I kind of got chills reading that description of Lincoln as emotionally remote and always disappearing to hang out with men because that sounds so much like this guy, who was surrounded by women in his family and seemed to crave the company of men. He also found work that took him on long trips away from the family. One day a couple of years ago I had the revelation that he was gay but I'll never know since he committed suicide.
 
Mr. Diamond is up on this book....mentioned it in the Apostle Paul thread.....

He also mentioned it over a beer we had last month.....


Abraham Lincoln, like Kennedy was a politician.....and a pretty good one. He only Emancipated the slaves in the Southern States though.......ever think about that?
 
We don't know what went on in his head, so it's hard to judge. Just a few quick points though - a troubled marriage is not always a result of homosexual feelings, nor is his views on war. I don't know how this conclusion resulted, he wasn't alive during my era, and chances are that I will lose interest in this thread.
 
verte76 said:


Oh, absolutely. No one in their right mind would suggest this. If any historian at any reputable university or whatever said this they'd get fired on the spot.
Interesting, especially since you're involved in history quite a bit.
 
Dreadsox said:
Mr. Diamond is up on this book....mentioned it in the Apostle Paul thread.....

He also mentioned it over a beer we had last month.....


Abraham Lincoln, like Kennedy was a politician.....and a pretty good one. He only Emancipated the slaves in the Southern States though.......ever think about that?

Hmm, being the intellectual tortoise that I am - I vaguely remember that part of the conversation. :reject:

Interesting thought ... so who is responsible for emancipating the slaves in the northern states? A group of people? My Church denomination takes credit for being among the first Americans to take a stand against slavery.
 
joyfulgirl said:


I once knew someone a long time ago who I believe was gay and he befriended blacks and other outsiders in rural southern Virginia which was, and still is, very racially divided. I kind of got chills reading that description of Lincoln as emotionally remote and always disappearing to hang out with men because that sounds so much like this guy, who was surrounded by women in his family and seemed to crave the company of men. He also found work that took him on long trips away from the family. One day a couple of years ago I had the revelation that he was gay but I'll never know since he committed suicide.


tragically, typically gay.

what saddens me is with all the discussion in the media and the hysteria over gay marriage and to a lesser extent gay adoption, what often goes unnoticed is that we are dealing with human beings. i don't know a single gay person who hasn't dealt with severe depression over coming to terms with their sexuality, and many contemplate suicide when faced with a society that consistently belittles them.

but, hey, whatever wins you elections!
 
Macfistowannabe said:
Interesting, especially since you're involved in history quite a bit.

Yes, but not U.S. Presidential history particularly. I've only read bits and pieces of stuff about Lincoln's problem marriage. You're right, a problem marriage is itself not necessarily a sign of homosexuality. I do know that all of the blame has been put on Mary Todd, and I wonder how fair this is.
 
Back
Top Bottom