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.
The Jacquess anecdote of 1839 that you speak of is among them. Authenticated documents from Lincoln himself contradict that claim. We can start our investigation into the Lincoln documents in 1837, right before the time of your alleged anecdote. Fortunately Lincoln left us a letter to a friend that mentions his religion. That letter states specifically that, as of 1837, Lincoln had never been to church and did not soon intend to go to one:
"I have commenced two letters to send you before this, both of which displeased me before I got half done, and so I tore them up. The first I thought wasn't serious enough, and the second was on the other extreme. I shall send this, turn out as it may. This thing of living in Springfield is rather a dull business after all, at least it is so to me. I am quite as lonesome here as [I] ever was anywhere in my life. I have been spoken to by but one woman since I've been here, and should not have been by her, if she could have avoided it. I've never been to church yet, nor probably shall not be soon. I stay away because I am conscious I should not know how to behave myself." - Lincoln, letter to Mary Owens, May 7, 1837 (Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, vol. 1)
So, did he go to James Jacquess' church for the first time in 1839 as you claim? The answer is probably not, or that if he did he was not convinced by it to turn to Christianity. We know this because in 1843, a few years AFTER the alleged church visit, Lincoln wrote a confidential letter to another friend following a political campaign in which he specifically states that his wife has some family members who are Presbyterian and Episcopal, but that he himself belongs to no church. He even states that because he did not belong to any Christian church he was suspected of being a deist - a leaning that several of his friends and family members later confirmed:
"There was too the strangest combination of church influence against me. Baker is a Campbellite, and therefore as I supose, with few acceptions got all that church. My wife has some relatives in the Presbyterian and some in the Episcopal Churches, and therefore, whereever it would tell, I was set down as either the one or the other, whilst it was every where contended that no ch[r]istian ought to go for me, because I belonged to no church, was suspected of being a deist, and had talked about fighting a duel." - Lincoln to Martin Morris, March 26, 1843 (Collected Works Vol. 1)
The testimony against the claim that Lincoln was a Christian extends to virtually all of his closest friends and family. After his death Lincoln's wife Mary Todd had the following to say about his religion:
"Mr. Lincoln's maxim and philosophy were: 'What is to be, will be, and no prayers of ours can arrest the decree.' He never joined any Church. He was a religious man always, I think, but was not a technical Christian."
After his death several authors began making up apocryphal stories in which they claimed Lincoln converted to Christianity or secretly met them in their churches. Lincoln's good friend and law partner William Herndon refuted several of those charges:
"No one of Lincoln's old acquaintances in this city ever heard of his conversion to Christianity by Dr. Smith or anyone else. It was never suggested nor thought of here until after his death"
Herndon also included a lengthy discussion of Lincoln's religion in his famed biography of Lincoln with the conclusion that Lincoln was a nonbeliever or, at most, a loose deist of some sort. It recounted several personal conversations and anecdotes between Herndon and Lincoln, who, unlike the overwhelming majority of persons who later claimed to have witnessed Lincoln's religion, actually knew each other and saw each other on a daily basis.
Lincoln's friend and personal bodyguard Ward Hill Lamon, who also knew Lincoln on a daily basis and accompanied him virtually everywhere during his presidency, also testified repeatedly that Lincoln was not a believer.
Another of Lincoln's close friends Joshua Speed (aka the guy he's now being alleged to have had a fling with) recalled that Lincoln knew the bible and read its text often, but that "He was very cautious never to give expression to any thought or sentiment that would grate harshly upon a Christian's ear." In other words, he did it to appeal to a political audience that liked hearing Christian themes in speeches.
That is why you will find Christian-sounding themes in some of his speeches and proclamations. But even then it gets more complicated. If one looks at the original drafts by Lincoln of his most famous documents to mention God (i.e. the Gettysburg Address and the Emancipation Proclamation) he will find that it simply is not there. Salmon Chase and the cabinet advised Lincoln to add a mention of religion to the Emancipation Proclamation and "under God" was a revision added to a later draft of the Gettysburg speech of unknown origins.
In short, credible evidence that Lincoln was a Christian simply isn't there and is explicitly contradicted by the statements of two of his best friends and his wife.
My premise is based upon my belief that I am a better judge of Lincoln's character than you are, because I do not have an old Confederate-age axe to grind, as do you
To the contrary. You are unqualified as a judge of Lincoln's character because you idolize him and thus ascribe non-human characteristics to his person in the face of documented fact. You began with the premise that YOU knew Abe Lincoln to be in heaven despite the facts that (a) you cannot possibly know that to be true unless you are God, which you are not and (b) a solid amount of evidence exists that Lincoln did things in his life that are generally believed to preclude most individuals who practice them from salvation, namely he was a non-believer and he had innocent blood on his hands.
plus I read of Lincoln's conversion to Christianity probably long before you ever posted your first hate-Lincoln screed.
No you read an apocryphal story that is contradicted by an overwhelming volume of evidence
Lincoln wrote in 1837 that he had never been to church and never intended to join one. Your story says he not only went to church but joined up as a converted Christian in 1839. Yet in 1843 Lincoln wrote that he still wasn't a member of any church AND that it had hurt him in his political campaign!
In addition to that Lincoln's own wife and two of his best friends who knew him on a daily basis all said he was not a Christian. Their testimony is easily accessible and well known to virtually anybody who has ever read anything about Lincoln. Yet, unsurprisingly, you choose to ignore Lincoln's wife and best friends, opting instead to believe the apocryphal story that is rendered impossible by Lincoln's own letters. As I noted previously, yours is not a position derived from reason but rather an emotional attachment to Lincoln. Thus your ability to evaluate him factually is, and always will be, clouded.
And your problem with that is...? Most good presidents were/are war monger's. So he killed a bunch of rebs...Too bad. The "Lost Cause"..yadda.. It took him four years, but Lincoln finally found men who could fight (Grant & Sherman). They reinvented the concept of "Total War", and the horses and kids and houses all went up in flames. As a matter of fact, we could use some of Lincoln's leadership skills right now.
Compared to you, scalawag, indeed I am.
Who is this "we" Sparky?
Do you seriously need me to give you an english lesson in addition to an education in history now? The word "we" is a common plural modifier employed before an action to signify or designate the actor or recipient of that action. In this context "we" refers to "southerners," a plural term signifying people from the south and, in the context I used it, excluding those people from the south who are classified as scalawags, namely you.
Oh by all means, make the pick for me.
Thanks but no thanks. It already suffices to logically reduce your behavior on this thread to one of two inescapable explanatory possibilities, illiteracy and dishonesty. Given that neither is a desirable characteristic, I am indifferent as to which one of the two is the correct explanatory device for your posting actions and content to accept that it must be one or the other. So once again, it's your choice to make.
Wise up. Even Robert E. Lee, if he were around would tell you to bury that hatchet before it kills you. I buried my hatchet long ago. But hat does not mean I have to embrace your selective historical amnesia regarding unpleasant events for the sake of a "feel good" get together with otherwise obnoxious and detestable people such as yourself. Besides, there is actually some evidence that Lee, in a conversation with Fletcher Stockdale, expressed regret that he surrendered when he did after witnessing the abuses and corruption of the radical republicans during reconstruction.
Damn man, I've been called a scalawag
...after exhibiting the characteristics of a scalawag, thus making its use appropriate.
illiterate (or a liar)
...after making a factually erronious statement that is only explained by either illiteracy or dishonesty, thus making a query as to which one applies appropriate.
accused of accusing someone of having "sympathy for slavery"
...after having done just that, thus again making a note of it appropriate.
and Joe Stalin
...only by analogy though, in that by willfully ignoring and even praising several widespread acts of evil committed by Lincoln's minions, you forfeit your right to pass judgment on other evils much as Stalin and Hitler forfeit their rights to condemn each other for genocide.
EU, are you joking or are you being serious?
My Taiwan illustration remains out there unanswered. Does Taiwan have a right to secede from China? Yes or no? If so why does Taiwan have a right to secede and we didn't? If no, if Taiwan went on and seceded anyway, would China be justified in sending in enormous amounts of troops including nukes which they have threatened, to suppress Taiwan's desire to be free? How many Taiwanese lives would it be worth to maintain the Chinese Union?
Translation: Mad Mammoth discovers himself unable to make a salient, rational response to the overwhelming majority of what I said and thus opts for snide remarks while clinging to the slim hope that, in doing so, he will divert attention away from the fact that he is formulating a non-response.
(insert pompous John Kerry-like tone here)
(remove artificially inserted pompous John Kerry-like tone and replace with a normal spoken voice making a salient and valid critique of an irrational individual): As I noted previously, yours is not a position derived from reason but rather an emotional attachment to Lincoln. Thus your ability to evaluate him factually is, and always will be, clouded.
I see that you are fond of quoting senile old liberal windbags. It's very fitting for you and apparently consistent with your politics.
Your vitriol will do nothing but to encourage others to defend the honor of a man who has been dead and buried for 139 years, and you are apparently unable to even consider the possibility that your views might be tainted by the intense hatred that you nurture within yourself on the subject of Lincoln.
...says he who, from the very moment of his arrival on this thread, proceeded to praise the indefensible William T. Sherman with no other purpose than to inflame (#18), responded to a salient critique of his might make's right philosophy with the ever so eloquent "I say p!ss away" (#72), and has been spending his time ever since on a tirade of name calling, diversions, and personal insults against those who have bested him on matters of factual consideration. Yes Mammoth, I have indeed known vitriol and you sir are vitriol personified!
I have forfeited nothing whatsoever
You keep telling yourself that and further your delusions. Meanwhile I need only point to your praise and defense of the morally indefensible and evil acts of William T. Sherman as conclusive evidence that you have forfeited any claim to the moral high ground.
Additional note to other freepers and any lurkers out there: the above statement was the deranged mammoth's "response" to a post in which I provided a lengthy sourced and documented rebuttal of previous post in which he used an apocryphal story as "evidence" that Abe Lincoln converted to Christianity in 1839. My rebuttal contained documented quotations by Lincoln's own wife and closest friends noting that he was never a Christian as well as a series of letters from Lincoln himself that proved in 1837 he had never belonged to church and in 1843 nothing had changed, contrary to the 1839 anecdote's claims.
To put it simply, the deranged Mammoth smugly presented a shady piece of evidence as conclusive fact and saw that evidence dismantled and disproven. But rather than face up to his mistake like a man, he threw a diversionary bomb aimed at dismissing the evidence that discredits his story without consideration and attempted to slip out the back door hoping nobody would notice.
Yet again you offer only diversions. Meanwhile the thorough dismantling of your claim about Lincoln's supposed conversion to Christianity stands unrefuted. As a rule of thumb nonbelievers don't typically make it into heaven. I'll leave you to figure out what that means for nonbeliever Abe Lincoln.
Would a sane person respond to salient points in an historical discussion about Abe Lincoln by hitting the delete key and dismissing his opponent with a string of bizarre vitriol disguised as humor? Of course not, hence my characterization of you as deranged as in "deranged, synonym for mad."
GOPCapitalist, you still haven't told me what kind of car you drive
Why would it matter to you what I drive? If you are curious suffice it to say that one of my cars is substantially bigger and guzzles substantially more gas that whatever it is you drive. And the other is substantially faster than whatever it is you drive.
Considering that you have posed the same question no less than four times in a matter of minutes, one may only conclude that you've gone trigger happy on the reload button. As I said previously, deranged.
Only if you drive a broken down 1960's era Mr. Bean style mini, in which case virtually anything, a Yugo included, would be both bigger and faster than what you drive.
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.