Posted on 10/28/2004 6:07:00 AM PDT by Pokey78
If the loving heart of the Great Emancipator found its natural amorous passions overwhelmingly directed toward those of his own sex, it would certainly be a stunning rebuke to the Republican Party’s scapegoating of same-sex love for electoral purposes. And a forthcoming book by the late Dr. C.A. Tripp — The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln, to be published in the new year by Free Press — makes a powerful case that Lincoln was a lover of men.
Tripp, who worked closely in the 1940s and 1950s with the groundbreaking sexologist Alfred Kinsey, was a clinical psychologist, university professor and author of the 1975 best-seller The Homosexual Matrix, which helped transcend outdated Freudian clichés and establish that a same-sex affectional and sexual orientation is a normal and natural occurrence.
In his book on Lincoln, Tripp draws on his years with Kinsey, who, he wrote, "confronted the problem of classifying mixed sex patterns by devising his 0-to-6 scale, which allows the ranking of any homosexual component in a person’s life from none to entirely homosexual. By this measure Lincoln qualifies as a classical 5 — predominantly homosexual, but incidentally heterosexual."
Tripp also found, based on multiple historical accounts, that Lincoln attained puberty unusually early, by the age of 9 or 10 — early sexualization being a prime Kinsey indicator for same-sex proclivities. Even Lincoln’s stepmother admitted in a post-assassination interview that young Abe "never took much interest in the girls." And Tripp buttresses his findings that Lincoln was a same-sex lover with important new historical contributions.
(Excerpt) Read more at laweekly.com ...
"Capitan_refugio even posted a wholly unsubstantiated and gratuitous slur against the justice who had been detained - falsely accusing him of being a confederate agent or sympathizer or something without even so much as a single shred of evidence!"
I provided evidence in the form of documentation from the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion concerning Judge Merrick's suspected disloyalty. A plea from his brother that Merrick was really loyal to the Union isn't exactly a ringing endorsement.
You are getting melodramatic. One can never be slandered by the truth. That goes for Judge Merrick as well as you.
Nonsense. You posted a reference to documentation about his harassment after he ruled against the Lincoln administration. Now you conveniently attempt to change the nature of your slur against Merrick from being an outright "confederate sympathizer" to simply being "suspected" of disloyalty as if that's supposed to be proof in and of itself. Here's a newsflash for ya, capitan. There were some radical republicans in the government at the time who suspected EVERYBODY except for themselves of "disloyalty" and saw a "confederate agent" behind every tree. That doesn't mean it was so though and it does not prove that the persons they suspected were "confederate sympathizers" as you claimed. A plea from his brother that Merrick was really loyal to the Union isn't exactly a ringing endorsement.
And exactly why shouldn't we accept it, capitan? Neither you nor the Lincoln administration ever produced so much as a single shred of substantiated evidence against Judge Merrick. That did not stop them from harassing him, impeding him from ruling in a case, and unconstitutionally stripping his salary away from him though.
Did I miss any other Lincoln epithets you like to thrown around?
Indeed I do, though you have just displayed that the same is not true in the reciprocal, having entirely missed the reversal I offered to your initial attempt.
You have learned the way to find the truth about the fudge packers for Kerry.
Now use that power to shine the light of truth on the fudge packers for Kerry.
Sick indeed.
Just so that Lincoln trashing group trying to sell books doesn't use this similarly.
Jim R doesn't appreciate such efforts hereon, as I understand it.
"Neither you nor the Lincoln administration ever produced so much as a single shred of substantiated evidence against Judge Merrick."
Changing your threshold with every post? What is is going to be next? He wasn't convicted in a court? There were many who were disloyal who were not convicted in courts. Merryman, for instance. He was as guilty as sin and everybody knew it, including his friend and neighbor, Roger Taney.
"We just have not been outed".
-----another reason why John Kerry should not
be elected President. He plans to do a regular
Friday night Fireside "Outing" reading ALL FR
names he can get his hands on.
Ain't enough sun in the sky to shed light on Kerry or his Gay Caballero bunch of seditious nuthuggin freaks of nature....
Just my personal opinion mind ya .......;o)
Stay safe Dave !
"The Kinsey report has been shredded so many times that Freddy Kruger would be proud of the devastation."
LOL. I like this line. Good one.
You mean a vague, anonymous, and unsubstantiated claim from Chicago?
Changing your threshold with every post?
There you go projecting again. My threshold is the same as it was previously - that your slander upon Merrick by accusing him of being a confederate sympathizer is unsubstantiated. You, on the other hand, have attempted to alter that claim from being a confederate sympathizer to being a suspected confederate sympathizer to being accused in an anonymous and equally unsubstantiated letter of having vaguely described knowledge of a confederate plot in Maryland.
What is is going to be next? He wasn't convicted in a court?
That is true, but also unnecessary as he wasn't even accused of anything specific. Lincoln's henchment simply harassed him because they didn't like the way he was ruling.
That's an odd claim for even you considering the many recent revelations about the Lincoln idolater's club here on FR. Consider:
WhiskeyPapa - Pro-Lincoln "Wlat Brigade" leader, banned for bashing Bush, recently observed on usenet calling Michael Moore a "hero."
#3Fan - frequent south basher and Lincolnista, outed as a neo-nazi and banned for posting aryan nation material on FR.
Llan-Ddeussant aka Titus Fikus aka The Cruiser aka Mortin Sult aka Held to Ransom aka about a dozen other pseudonyms - frequent and reappearing south basher, banned for anti-semitic posts and use of pseudonyms after original banning.
That's a pretty shabby lot you travel with, snicker boy.
"... falsely accusing him of being a confederate agent or sympathizer or something without even so much as a single shred of evidence!"
Here is your #402 threshold:
"... so much as a single shred of substantiated evidence against Judge Merrick."
What is it going to be next? "Substantiated credible evidence?" "Substantially substantiated evidence?" "Evidently substantiated evidence?" You are a game-player.
By the way, the letter wasn't "anonymous." The name was redacted.
I take it then that you are content to use evidence that lacks substantiation? Well thanks for finally admitting it, capitan! And excuse me for expecting that the evidence you offer would be factual since made up garbage that you pull out of your rear end is so much easier for you to come by!
Your idiocy aside, let me state very clearly that when I ask you for evidence it is presumed that the evidence you will provide should be substantiated and thus credible. If it is not substantiated or credible then it is not true evidence, the noun, because it does not suffice to factually evidence, the verb, a given event that you seek to demonstrate.
By the way, the letter wasn't "anonymous." The name was redacted.
...which is the equivalent of making the accuser anonymous. In short, your argument rests upon a non-specific letter from Chicago that provides no indication of its own credibility nor does it give any means of establishing as much. Your exhibit has been reviewed, capitan, and deemed inadmissable. Feel free to try again though.
By the company you keep, snicker boy. By the company you keep.
[LINK] "The surveillance was removed a few days after it had been established."
[LINK] Merrick remained an associate justice of the circuit court until 1863 when the court was abolished.
Removing the surveillance within days, dropping the "charges" which specify no law having been violated, and leaving Judge Merrick on the bench until 1863 isn't exactly a ringing endorsement that any alleged "evidence" existed.
The documentation in the Official Records contains no "evidence" of any wrongdoing. There is no citation to any law having been violated and no description of any wrongful act on the part of Judge Merrick.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.