quote:Book Questions Abraham Lincoln's Sexuality By Jennifer Viegas, Discovery News
Dec. 8, 2004 — A forthcoming book claims that the sixteenth president of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, was a homosexual, based on evidence ranging from a post-assassination interview with Lincoln's stepmother to a poem about gay marriage written by the Civil War leader.
The book, entitled "The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln," will be published on Jan. 11 by The Free Press, a Simon & Schuster company. It was authored by C.A. Tripp, associate professor of psychiatry at the State University of New York, and a researcher who worked closely with Alfred Kinsey on studies concerning human sexuality.
Tripp died at the age of 83, just two weeks after finishing the book, which he worked on over the last 14 years of his life.
A spokesperson at The Free Press told Discovery News that Tripp's book would not be available to the media until closer to January, but the L.A. Weekly published sections of the book, on which this article is based.
To argue his case that Lincoln (1809-1865) was gay, Tripp gathered biographical texts contemporary to Lincoln's time, private correspondence, and other books and documents culled from his database of more than 600 Lincoln-related texts, which now are housed at the Lincoln Institute in Springfield, Ill.
The L.A. Weekly also published Lincoln's poem about gay marriage. The poem, which he wrote when he was a teenager, may have been the most explicit of its kind for America in the 1800s. It reads:
"I will tell you a Joke about Jewel and Mary It is neither a Joke nor a Story For Rubin and Charles has married two girls But Billy has married a boy The girlies he had tried on every Side But none could he get to agree All was in vain he went home again And since that is married to Natty So Billy and Natty agreed very well And mama's well pleased at the match The egg it is laid but Natty's afraid The Shell is So Soft that it never will hatch But Betsy she said you Cursed bald head My Suitor you never Can be Beside your low crotch proclaims you a botch And that never Can serve for me"
The book also includes affectionate correspondence between the former president and merchant Joshua Speed, with whom Lincoln shared a bed for four years from his late 20s to early 30s, and an account written by Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Chamberlain, a 19th century historian.
Chamberlain wrote that in Mrs. Lincoln's absence, the president would sleep, share nightshirts, and conduct an "intimacy" with David Derickson, who was captain of Lincoln's bodyguard Company K.
Additionally, the book contains descriptions of Lincoln from his stepmother, who said he "never took much interest in the girls," and poet Carl Sandburg, who wrote that both Speed and Lincoln possessed "a streak of lavender, and spots soft as May violets."
Jean Baker, professor of history at Goucher College and the author of "Mary Todd Lincoln: A Biography," told Discovery News, "I believe that Lincoln engaged in homosexual acts with several men, but this was an era before any understanding of the concept of self-identifying as an homosexual. The word was not even used during Lincoln's life."
As for Lincoln's wife, Baker believes she knew nothing of her husband's purported relationships with men.
"I think that his homosexuality was not noticed by either his wife, or many of his friends, which is one reason why we are only finding out about it today," Baker said.
Tripp was not the first to theorize about Lincoln's sexuality. Charles Shively, University of Massachusetts at Boston professor emeritus of American history, described what he viewed was a homosexual relationship between Lincoln and Speed in his book concerning the private life of poet and naturalist Walt Whitman, whom many researchers also believe was gay.
Conservative groups have denounced the suggestions, and several historians remain skeptical about the Lincoln claims.
Douglas L. Wilson, co-director of the Lincoln Studies Center at Knox College, told the Southern Voice newspaper, "(Lincoln) and Speed were soul mates and all the indications I have seen show they had this close relationship. They were both the same age and in the same situation. They were concerned about this transition from bachelorhood to marriage and all that."
Wilson added, "I can see how that is suggestive and points in other directions but it really indicates that they saw things in very similar ways and had the same emotional take on the world."
Personally, I tend to be skeptical of these kinds of attempts at historical psychoanalysis. But I bet we hear some yelling about this for awhile.
posted
I probably won't ever read this book, since I don't care enough to read speculation on something I don't personally care much about.
But I was already struck by this passage in the article:
quote:The L.A. Weekly also published Lincoln's poem about gay marriage. The poem, which he wrote when he was a teenager, may have been the most explicit of its kind for America in the 1800s.
Poem about gay marriage???
First line of poem:
quote:I will tell you a Joke about Jewel and Mary
Laying aside the question of Lincoln's sexual orientation, is the description of the poem an accurate one? And does the author article (and maybe the book author) underestimate the capacity of 19th century people generally - and Lincoln specifically - for appreciating ribald humor?
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am sure talk radio will be all over that. Seriously, I have all but lost my faith in understanding history.
All writers of History have an agenda. Whether it is a political agenda (like the winning side of a war writing it's version of world history), a social agenda, or a personal agenda, there is always a skewed point of view.
If I was to write the history of my family, it would be very different then my brothers. What we remember and what we choose to put down is affected by our belief system, world view, and values.
How can we trust history? I love history, but it seems there is so much revision. I remember seeing a book (not too long ago) that set out to show one of the Mormon Prophets was homosexual.
Not being a huge fan of Mormonism, I didn't stop to investigate (now I forgot the name of the book), but I remember thinking, "I know many Mormons, and I have a hard time believing a prophet was gay."
Incidentally, for this post I tried to find the book, but I could only find this book.
It is impossible for me to believe that the book about Lincoln was not written with an agenda. It is impossible for me to believe that the naysayers will be driven by an equal and opposite agenda. It will be emotion, not history, that will drive these debates, and frankly, I have too many other things I need to focus on. I could care less either way.
The only thing I can say for sure about Lincoln is that he makes a great scary looking guy in a horror book/movie. Evil Lincolns and possessed kids are the two things that always give me the jeebs!
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Although many of us might not care much about Lincoln's sexual orientation, it will matter to some people very much.
As Chris mentioned, there will be "horrified commentary" from the usual suspects.
But I think a lot of gays will want this to be true. I know it matters - a lot - to many people with disabilities that Franklin Roosevelt governed the country from a wheelchair (Jeb Bartlett recently reminded us on "West Wing.").
Anyway, I think there will be more than enough impassioned and articulate people wanting to talk about this that there'll be some good entertainment ahead on the news shows for those who like that kind of thing. Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn't have to be an either/or type of thing. I mean, don't Mormons encourage people with homosexual desires to 'close their eyes and think of the [whatever]'? It stands to reason that there could be lots of 'mormosexuals' in the church. Not that it matters at all to me.
Which is why this book gets a big ol' *SHRUG* from me. Who cares if he danced the wicked with the occasional man? It doesn't change anything.
Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is why you should burn any poetry you wrote as a teenager. It always comes back to embarrass you.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, one never knows.. Does it matter? Not really. Lincoln was, for the most part, cool no matter what. But, it is a bit interesting...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe Phelps will picket the Lincoln Memorial.
I expect that Phelps would be much more likely to picket the cemetary where the author of this book was buried, cursing to himself that he missed the opportunity to picket the man's funeral.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
For those who are interested in this sort of thing you should go over to Ornery and read posts by Richard Dey. He purports to be a historian, and according to him every famous person who ever lived was gay.
Just as a tangentially related aside- I despise revisionist history which seeks to imprint the values of our society onto historical figures. I recall reviews of a book a few years back which congratulated an author for his "unflinching honesty" in painting Lincoln as a racist because he laughed at and even *gasp* told "darkie" jokes.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes he was Republican... back in a time when Republicans were generally liberals by comparison to democrats. So that really has no meaning, pollitical parties of the past generally have little relation to political parties of the present. Just thought I'd point that out.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
One way to lend yourself legitimacy is to inject yourself into the story. That's why the Romans invented the story of Romulus, why people love to trace a bloodline back to William the Conquerer, why people believe that Steve Martin is Mormon, why the most popular etymology of "hip" is that it comes from Africa, and why, every once in a while, a group proudly announces that someone you admire was gay.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jacare, Coming to here to bad-mouth someone behind their back using what I'm pretty willing to bet is a pretty significant misharacterization of their beliefs is not proper behavior for this forum. At least, I really hope it isn't. Leave the high school stuff (with appologies to any high school students) on Ornery where it's apparently acceptable.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: All writers of History have an agenda. Whether it is a political agenda (like the winning side of a war writing it's version of world history), a social agenda, or a personal agenda, there is always a skewed point of view.
Very good statement, lem. Histories aren't really histories of the time written about so much as they are histories of the people who wrote them. Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes he was Republican... back in a time when Republicans were generally liberals by comparison to democrats. So that really has no meaning, pollitical parties of the past generally have little relation to political parties of the present. Just thought I'd point that out.
Yeah, I titled the thread the way I did for purely shameless, sensationalist, attention-grabbing reasons.
Just for amusement, Alcon, you ought to try making your points at a Republican event right after a speaker has referred to the GOP as the "Party of Lincoln."
We'll be glad to hear about the reaction it gets from whatever parts of you that are left.
posted
Just had a thought. I'll bet the Log Cabin Republicans will be all over this story, although it's not on their website yet. Lincoln is featured on the upper left hand of the webpage.
Couldn't find any info, but I wonder now if they took their name from earlier rumblings about Lincoln's sexual orientation.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"One way to lend yourself legitimacy is to inject yourself into the story."
The problem with this statement is that it suggests that people don't otherwise have that legitimacy.
If you'd like to see why my thoughts on this, there's a thread over on ornery I started called dominant cultural hegemony. Basically, in this sort of case, a way that a minority group shows that it, too, is important to the larger culture which it lives in is by showing that people who have made the larger culture great are part of the minority culture. This is true whether it be blacks, jews, muslims, hindus, asians, latinos, gays, women, etc.
" Leave the high school stuff (with appologies to any high school students) on Ornery where it's apparently acceptable."
No more acceptable there then here. I've said this numerous times. Stop trying to ship the trash that occurs here over to ornery. We don't appreciate it.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact that this book was written or that this thread exists indicates to me how little our tolerance horizons have grown in the past 100 years.
posted
I was just wasting time doing some searching around and found a really great article from 4 years ago in a Vermont LGBT publication called "Out in the Mountains." It's about a speech that someone other than Tripp gave on the subject (but is mentioned in the NY Times article). It's a really thoughtful analysis of the issues, but I'll just give you the closing paragraphs:
quote:Kramer’s argument misses the point. True acceptance will come not because the gay community can suddenly use Lincoln as a poster-boy.
Acceptance will come only when all Americans live by the principles he set: with malice towards none, with charity for all.
posted
I think it would be nice if people barely blinked if they heard someone was gay. If they just didn't care, if it didn't really even matter... At least there wouldn't be those gay rumour articles in those rags.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read the name of this thread and thought that you had meant that the actual person who posts in Hatrack (Book) claimed that Lincoln was gay. Now I find that Book has made no such remark!
How preposterous! I propose a 'change-of-thread-name' so that poor, innocent victims are not accused of things that they quite clearly did not do!
Posts: 701 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
I missed this bit in the article by Heather Peake:
quote:This isn’t to say homosexuality didn’t exist. To the contrary, it probably flourished in the mid-19th century, as increasing urbanization made it easier for potential partners to meet. Sometimes two men living together meant just that. Lincoln’s predecessor in the White House, James Buchanan, is politely described as our only bachelor president. He shared quarters with fellow Senator William King for 15 years, until King’s death in the 1850s.
Washington insiders knew exactly what kind of relationship Old Buck had with “Nancy” King. Of course, who wants to embrace the weak, ineffectual Buchanan as our first gay Chief Executive? Most historians would like to forget he was Chief Executive at all.
Note: According to online sources, James Buchanan was one of six American presidents born in a log cabin. He was a Democrat.
posted
I don't care, one way or another, about Lincoln's sexuality. What I do care about is the "revalation" that Lincoln must be gay because of x, y, and z when it really isn't clear.
Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Agreed. Following that logic, I know some people who "must" be gay even though they are happily married.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Am I reading that link correctly to say regardless of Lincoln's orientation, we've had a gay president in Buchanan? Out of 42 men, not much of a surprise. Especially back in the times when the President was given more reverance and privacy.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Question: if someone could prove beyond the shadow of a doubt--a very high order, of course--that a famous historical figure of good rapport such as Abraham Lincoln preferred to express their sexuality with members of their own sex, what are the conditions for releasing that information without having it attached to the 'revisionist' meme?
I mean, I have not read the book and it's been a long time since I've visited the 19th century, so I can't say anything as to the veracity of this specific claim, but I find some of your reactions a bit... defensive, maybe?
We say we don't care because it doesn't change anything. That's pretty true. But some of us believe that oppressive attitudes toward unconventional sexual behaviour throughout history have been among the many lenses through which we have been taught to understand the various histories of our species (see someone's comment on agendas, above).
Can the anti-revisionist see any value in making a discovery such as this? Are we to teach that the Earth was flat up until Columbus' time because that is how the world was understood in its proper historical context?
Would it mean nothing to you that the author of the emancipation proclamation and the Gettysburg address was a man who's passions were so scorned by the culture in which he lived that it could not even have been reasonable to discuss (or historically record) until now? Again, I'm not going to just accept this on faith without having done my own study, and there likely isn't enough evidence to say definitively either way (although there may be such a thing as a retrograde gaydar). But personally I find the possibility intriguing, and I consider the truth of the matter to be worth knowing.
Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I propose people stop using common nouns as screen names to avoid needless confusion.
I couldn't agree more strongly, sndrake. It's high time that spoke up against this sort of tomfoolery!
By the way, I'll be leveying a fee of 5 cents for each use of my name here on the forum. You don't like it, come up with your own definite article.
Posts: 2 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I read the name of this thread and thought that you had meant that the actual person who posts in Hatrack (Book) claimed that Lincoln was gay. Now I find that Book has made no such remark!"
This is a joke, right???
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been trying to figure out why this bugged me, but I think Caleb's post got it for me.
I feel like, with this, Lincoln has been forcefully "outed". He did great things in his presidency, and pretty much everyone knows his wife was such a shrew he was unlikely to be too enthused about jumping in the sack with her. But whether or not he had homosexual feelings and/or sex was unimportant to the time, especially in the context of his accomplishments. He didn't crow it from the roof of the White House, so it obviously was not as important as, say, freedom for slaves. This book feels like a tabloid "outing" of a revered celebrity.
Very distasteful for me, in any case. Same for the "outing" of Buchanan. My point is that Lincoln is revered for what he did as President, not for who he slept with, what positions he liked, how many partners at one time, etc. Serving our time's voyeuristic, voracious hunger for this kind of garbage is the only purpose behind this speculation.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pretty much. It makes a person who is gay feel so much less like a mutant or a freak. Especially young people. You can just say, "See, not all gays are the way the Right says they are. <Insert famous person here> was gay too!"
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But it doesn't! That's the point. It serves to say "Hey, Lincoln was gay and flaunted it, so you should too!"
The point is that the accomplishments of the person are of far greater importance than who he sleeps with. Lincoln didn't discuss, as far as I know, *anything* about his sexuality. It was *unimportant* in the context of his purposes. In other words, it might have been important to him personally, but not important in the grander scheme of what he meant to accomplish. By the same token, a young person, no matter what their sexual preferences, should focus not so much on their sexuality but on who they are as people and what the purpose of their lives might be. I believe Lincoln found his purpose with great art and dedication.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not really, as to a certain extent gayness IS a part of someone's personality... More so than straightness in a way, because it's focused on more nowadays and like gaining too much weight, it can be something a person can fret about a lot. Maybe they thought about it differently. Perhaps, like in ancient Japan homosexuality was a hobby. Most folks, even married folks probably had a piece of cake on the side... Perhaps... And there was no label of homosexuality, just, someone with an odd proclivity. Perhaps it was better that way. Although, Tchiachosky's homosexuality is extremely interesting. It really fueled his music. It's so amazingly diverse! Like Eugene Onegin and Moj Genii, Moj Angel, Moj Drug...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, I would imagine some people think it helps to destigmatize being gay.
Precisely.
And of course one could call that an agenda.
And I might agree with jeniwren if this were a book about, say, Billy Graham or Ronald Reagan. But I think there's a statute of limitations of some sort for this kind of thing, because you wouldn't necessarily object to discovering that Charles Darwin flunked science class or that Christopher Columbus had three failed marriages or whatever else. If the point of history or the point of a biography is to attempt to understand the events/motives/outcomes of the past, then of course it would be relevant to know that Lincoln engaged in homosexuality.
I have to be careful here because I can't say that he did, only that conceptually speaking, the fact that it would have been a tabloid story in the 1800's (more likely impeachment and/or lynching, one would think) doesn't mean it's on that level to reflect on it today.
For example, if we accept this theory at face value, is it not relative to our understanding of Lincoln that he would have been motivated to keep this secret well-guarded for the sake of the Union? Why must it be tabloid material that one of our greatest heroes was forced to live in the closet for the sake of his career, and ostensibly the United States itself?
To me this paints a picture of a self-sacrificing hero. Why do you look at it as if it were smut?
posted
We will never know for sure whether he was or wasn't gay. I guess I'm with Sndrake in my perception that it dosen't really matter either way but it will make for some incendiary discussions.
*Ponders if Lincoln spent much time in rapt appreciation of the Washington monument*
Edit to add that the monument wasn't completely erect during Lincoln's Presidency so it might have been chagrin that marked his countenance rather than rapt appreciation
posted
Caleb, the thing is, though, that if Buchanan was sleeping in the same bed as a male senator for years and years, it's fairly clear that as long as the sex itself wasn't flaunted in public, it wasn't something that kept him out of office. I propose that it is *our* time that has such an issue with it, not previous times where people were relatively circumspect about their sexuality, regardless of which direction in swung. At the time, it wasn't socially acceptable to say "pregnant" in mixed society. But obviously it was more than okay to BE pregnant.
The gay thing is such a hot button because there is a tug of war. On the homosexual side, correct me if I'm wrong, the desire is to be able (and accepted) to flaunt it as garishly as heterosexuals have come to do. And on the conservatives side, they want not only for homosexuals to keep it in the bedroom, they want heterosexuals to go back there too. And shut the door, please. That isn't to say that sex of all kind should stop -- it means that it has its place, and that place isn't in the middle of Main Street.
Honestly, I've never given it a second thought what Lincoln liked sexually. Think he liked oral sex? Who CARES?? That's not what he was about.
And really, isn't this the same argument that was used to excuse Clinton's indiscretions? It wasn't what he was about, but because he was 'outed', even though it was without a doubt TRUE, it has tainted what his presidency might otherwise have represented.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
