Posted on 12/19/2004 6:19:45 AM PST by TFine80
It is news guaranteed to make many Republicans squirm. Was Abraham Lincoln, founder of the party now seeking a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in America, actually gay himself?
A new book, published next month, certainly thinks so. The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln by C.A. Tripp produces evidence that one of America's greatest Presidents had a long-term relationship with a youthful friend, Joshua Speed, and shared his bed with David Derickson, captain of his bodyguards.
Tripp, a former researcher for sex scientist Alfred Kinsey and an influential gay writer, includes asides by many of Lincoln's close friends. 'He was not very fond of girls, as he seemed to me,' his stepmother, Sarah Bush Lincoln, once told a friend.
It also includes a diary excerpt by one upper-class Washington woman who wrote of Derickson: 'There is a Bucktail soldier here devoted to the President, drives with him, and when Mrs L is not home, sleeps with him. What stuff!'
Scholars have long debated Lincoln's sexuality, and as early as the 1920s were making veiled references to his relationship with Speed. However, critics say that in the pioneer days men sleeping together in rough circumstances was not uncommon.
Now Tripp has discovered letters between Lincoln and Speed which supposedly betray a deep intimacy.
But Tripp's book really breaks new ground in its exhaustive portrayal of many of Lincoln's possible gay lovers, including one man who said Lincoln's thighs 'were as perfect as a human being could be'.
'Make no mistake - Abe Lincoln was gay,' said Professor Scott Thompson, from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts.
But David Donald, a Harvard professor and respected Lincoln biographer, has disputed Tripp's findings in his own book, We Are Lincoln Men, published last year, and says there is no definitive proof of Lincoln having affairs with any men.
my we have alot of troll on troll love here...
And you have to love the Guardian, who does less research than a high school paper. Lincoln didn't found anything.
Lincoln shredded the Constitution, to be sure. He put the continuation of the federal government above the interests of the people and states. There is no excuse for that.
Reply 31, may interest you.
Nice catch, and very much appreciated; tx.
Unless you are referring to their dwellings in opposite corners of the same fiery place, you are mistaken. Though nobody living can know for sure where Stalin and Lincoln ended up, it is a generally safe rule of thumb that nonbelievers don't make it to heaven. Lincoln was a nonbeliever as documented by those closest to him throughout his life, and thus is an unlikely candidate for eternal reward in the afterlife on that basis alone. And that's before even beginning to consider all the people he killed.
Why would I need an embassy to investigate what is known to be historical fact? Unlike you yankee types who are always looking for some sort of handout, reparation, or free ride off the backs of others who in reality owe you nothing, I have no need for payment to redress the grievances committed upon roughly half the geographical area of this country by Abe Lincoln. The million body death toll and destruction he caused can never be replaced by material things thereby making the pursuit of such payment fruitless. My only interest here is to document the crimes he and his minions committed against humanity with the hope that they may serve as a warning from history and shall never be repeated.
...I was Gay once...then they changed the meaning of happiness!...prof you would be more accurate if you didn't try to take yesterday's definition and apply it to todays interpretation!
I'm sure if Abe were still around he would tell those liberal history revisionist to kiss his ass. The liberal commies always convolute crack pipe induced stories for other idiots to believe as the truth. Abe was not my fondest person being an Alabamian, but a country divided will fall. Abe did what he thought was right and he had the gonads to make a decision unlike, carter, klintoon and the Biggest POS ever, scary-kerri.
Abe had a lot to hide, and hid it well. NOT! The point that Lincoln would have hid this stuff if he had something to hide has been made by Lincoln historian David Donald, hardly a conservative.
There was this thing called common decency prevalent in Lincoln's day, and one part of it was that you didn't draw scurilous conclusions based on two people of the same sex living together.
Deep down inside, I swear, the Left is the persuasion that has qualms about homosexuality and is threatened by their own deep seated fears of their own sexuality.
You seem to share same conception of "the union" as the Grand Kleagle, so what exactly does that make you? Bogus ad hominem attacks can go both ways, cracker.
Unlike you yankee types who are always looking for some sort of handout, reparation, or free ride off the backs of others who in reality owe you nothing.
And what exactly did Kunta Kinte and his homies do to deserve the lovely status accorded to them by your ideological forebears? Seems the yankees aren't the only ones who like to get a free ride off the backs of others. At least we omit the whips, though.
"General Sherman, we have a white trash pickup on Aisle 5."
The do it because the homosexual label is a negative. The left KNOWS homosexuality is bad in every sense. (the homosexuals are the useful idiots the left will kill first)
Last I checked Robert Byrd was a liberal Democrat Lincoln-praiser, so I don't believe any valid connection could be made.
Bogus ad hominem attacks can go both ways, cracker. Your indulgence in racial slurs aside, I need only note that you have yet to demonstrate how or why my factual note upon the shared opinions of Lincoln and Hitler is in any way false, irrelevant, or otherwise not applicable to a discussion of the deaths that both caused.
And what exactly did Kunta Kinte and his homies do to deserve the lovely status accorded to them by your ideological forebears?
Strange. It seems that we have an individual on hand who not only indulges in racial slurs but also fictionalized tales by bigotted race hustling plagiarists. In most cases people like Kunte whatever his name was got themselves sold into slavery by a neighboring African tribe for tokens, trinkets, and gold provided by yankee slave traders onboard ships built in and based out of New England. If you knew your history, and it is obvious that you do not, you would comprehend those finer details. Or are you too busy waiting for Calypso Louis to come down from the mothership to care about the complexity that yankeeland's slave industry introduces into your overly simplistic view of history?
Seems the yankees aren't the only ones who like to get a free ride off the backs of others. At least we omit the whips, though.
Yeah, and opting instead for shackles fastened securely to the crowded decks of slave ships. Instead of whipping y'all just tied 'em to a board where they couldn't move around at all.
You mean crimes like freeing millions of slaves? I know it's hard to have to do your own laundry and pick your own cotton.
Cheer up: You may not have free labor from Africa anymore, but you do have very cheap labor from Mexico. Maybe you should press for more immigration. That way, wages you pay Mexicans will fall so far that it will seem just like "the good old days."
No. I mean crimes like killing a million people in a violent and bloody war. As I explained previously, the crime of murder extracts a far greater and irreparable penalty from its victim (depriving life itself) than the crime of slavery (which deprives liberty). Nor can it be validly said that Lincoln waged his war to free the slaves seeing as he openly admitted that he did not. That the slaves were freed was but a single incidental shining moment in an otherwise brutal, wretched, bloody, and murderous war that brough needless destruction and carnage upon an entire generation, wiped out a greater portion of the American population than all other wars in our history combined, and left millions maimed, scarred, and impoverished for the remainder of their lives.
I know it's hard to have to do your own laundry and pick your own cotton.
Your bigotted and dishonest comments aside, I have never once said so much as a word in praise of the evil institution of slavery. You know that to be true yet you persist in your attempt to impugn me with comments such as the one found above. That makes you a liar, and a rather filthy one at that.
I will additionally note that whereas I have never attempted any comment upon the moral wrong of slavery that did not condemn it, you have not behaved similarly with regards to the moral wrong of murder. Persons who praise, glorify, justify, and otherwise excuse away the mass crimes against humanity committed by William T. Sherman and his murderous ilk forfeit their right to pass moral judgement upon other wrongs by other people, slavery included. It is akin to Stalin complaining about Hitler's genocide at the very same moment he is conducting his own. Why persons such as yourself would freely admit themselves into that wretched class of inhuman filth for the purpose of scoring a few snide and childish cheap shots against the south is beyond any rational capacity, but that only goes to show that your position is not one derived from reason and thus, per Swift, not one that I or anybody else could respond to in rational discourse.
There were lots of other little wizards, kleagles, and probably hobbits other than Byrd. For example, these folks seem to share your views on the legality of secession. Nice company you're in.
http://www.freewebs.com/tkkkk/racialeducation.htm
I need only note that you have yet to demonstrate how or why my factual note upon the shared opinions of Lincoln and Hitler is in any way false, irrelevant, or otherwise not applicable to a discussion of the deaths that both caused.
I didn't "note it" because it should be blindingly obvious. But here you go....
You wish to associate Lincoln -- and presumably folks like me -- with Hitler because Hitler believed that secession was unlawful. By that exact same logic, I can equate you with the racist white supremacists of the KKK because they share your views on the legality of secession. Clear enough?
Now, maybe you're comfortable being linked to the KKK, so having your own crappy logic tossed back at you doesn't matter. But at least others who are wasting their time on this thread can see where you stand.
In most cases people like Kunte whatever his name was got themselves sold into slavery by a neighboring African tribe for tokens, trinkets, and gold provided by yankee slave traders onboard ships built in and based out of New England.
Pretty reprehensible, yet the people of New England didn't secede because the slave trade was outlawed. Whatever moral equivalency existed in the past was gone by 1860. It was the South that was the overwhelming supporter of slavery. Funny, it was also the stronghold of the Tories in the Revolution. Apparently, secession is only a good idea when it involved the retention of slavery.
Yeah, and opting instead for shackles fastened securely to the crowded decks of slave ships. Instead of whipping y'all just tied 'em to a board where they couldn't move around at all.
Nope. I didn't do it. And my fine state was one of the ones that voted to ban the importation of slaves. What further distinguishes you from me is that I look back on the states that supported slavery and think they were wrong. You look back on them and think they were right.
Fortunately, we won, and the result was that millions of people had their basic human rights restored. That appears to really bum you out. Sucks to be on the losing side, doesn't it?
You're not a fan of Patrick Henry, are you?
It's interesting to see that you're such an expert on Klan heirarchy. Are they the ones who taught you how to use racial slurs?
For example, these folks seem to share your views on the legality of secession. Nice company you're in.
I'll take your word for it if you say so, but on another note my views on the legality of secession are also shared by, among others, Thomas Jefferson and Alexis de Tocqueville. I'll take their company over Lincoln any day.
You wish to associate Lincoln -- and presumably folks like me -- with Hitler because Hitler believed that secession was unlawful.
Nope. I wish to associate Lincoln with Hitler because both Hitler and Lincoln shared a view of the union and of the national government that both coalesced power in that national government and asserted its supremacy as a matter of dogmatic civil religion to the degree that all else, including basic matters of human life and freedom, are treated as subservient to it.
By that exact same logic, I can equate you with the racist white supremacists of the KKK because they share your views on the legality of secession. Clear enough?
No, as that would not be the "exact same logic" but rather a strawman construction of your own that offers a cheap replica of my argument about the Hitler-Lincoln view of the state in which the designated common opinions of the two men are falsely supplanted for a deeper common mindset and practice as respective heads of their governments.
Pretty reprehensible, yet the people of New England didn't secede because the slave trade was outlawed.
No. They simply took to smuggling them in.
Nor would it be correct to say that the south seceded because slavery was outlawed as your statement seemingly implies. Slavery was not outlawed in 1861 nor was there any threat of doing so (in fact Abe Lincoln even obtained a constitutional amendment that prohibited congress from outlawing slavery. It was fortunately never ratified)
Whatever moral equivalency existed in the past was gone by 1860.
Really? As of 1860 Yankee slavery still existed in Delaware and its grandfathered remnants still existed in New Jersey (which "abolished" slavery in the 1840's but permitted slaveowners to retain certain grandfathered "servants" who fit into specific age categories). As of 1860 Illinois still had a system of forced indentured servitude applied almost exclusively to blacks as the "criminal penalty" for being unable to pay the $500 fine they owed for violating a state law that banned persons of color from remaining in the borders of the state for more than about a week. And as of 1860 the U.S. navy was still seizing yankee slave smugglers in oceans all over the world as they tried to carry their illicit and evil practice into American borders just as they always had done. And as of 1860 there were still thousands of yankee families living fat off the money they made a few decades earlier when they sold their slaves down river for hundreds of dollars each on the eve of abolition in their respective states.
It was the South that was the overwhelming supporter of slavery.
...but by no means its exclusive patron or beneficiary. There were also actually more northerners who opposed slavery not out of moral interests but rather racist interests. They detested the simple idea that blacks should even be in the United States at all, thus states like Illinois, Ohio, Oregon, Iowa, and several others all over yankeeland passed laws banning blacks from taking up residence there or owning any property. Then there were their politicians like Abe Lincoln who toyed around with racist "colonization" schemes to deport the blacks - make them somebody else's problem, they said - who dominated enough government offices in the north to actually appropriate money in 1862 for exactly that purpose.
Funny, it was also the stronghold of the Tories in the Revolution.
You are behaving in a manner that is both childish and historically mistaken. Tory strongholds were scattered throughout the colonies, as were revolutionaries. Two of the first and boldest public declarations against the British after they moved to occupy Boston in 1775 were from Mecklenburg and Tryon Counties, North Carolina. South Carolinians played a decisive role in the war itself by supplying militia and guerilla fighters and by their roles at Cowpens and King's Mountain. The majority of leading figures in the Revolution, with a few notable exceptions, (i.e. Hancock, the Adamses, and Franklin) were also southerners: Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Mason, Henry, Lee, Monroe etc.
Nope. I didn't do it.
Well I'm happy for you then. But yankeeland slave traders and slave smugglers certainly did up until the 1860's and denying it is to deny history.
What further distinguishes you from me is that I look back on the states that supported slavery and think they were wrong. You look back on them and think they were right.
No. What distinguishes us is that you look back and selectively identify some of the participants in a sinful act and label them as evil while simultaneously overlooking, excusing, justifying, ignoring, and even praising other participants in that same sinful and evil act as well as other sinful and evil acts on the lone basis that they are not the same people as the first group, which you have labelled as evil. I, on the other hand, look back and see evil on the hands of several people all around, condemn that evil where it existed, and similarly condemn subsequent acts of evil that, by simple unintended incidence and convenience, resulted in the alleviation of of one of the prior evils while extending other forms of it elsewhere and in greater severity. Those who refuse to recognize an evil when it falls upon their own side's hands in spite of all evidence of the wrong it perpetrated forfeit any claim they would have otherwise had to the moral high ground based upon the sins of their opponents.
Put another way, had Lincoln stated he was initiating a morally driven war of liberation and conducted that war solely for the purpose of freeing the slaves, he might have been able to claim the moral high ground. But history shows that he did not. Instead he waged a war of conquest - a war to hold an unwilling people in the country without their consent, a war to extract wealth and taxes from them, and a war to exert his government's dominance over their daily lives and political freedoms at all costs. And sadly we've been paying for his Pyrrhic victory ever since.
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.