A Republican hero, but was Abe Lincoln gay?

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.

Seems as if your thinking is evolving.

Not a bit. I just didn't understand I had to put a straightforward concept into thrid-grade level chunks before you'd understand it.

Your post # 191 said that slavery was the primary cause and triggering issue of the war.

And it was. The prospective banning of slavery from new territories and other slavery-related issues are the "but for" cause that led the south to secede. I haven't wavered from that one iota. And like I told your fellow apologist, I don't really care if either of you guys believe that or not.

Then in your post #235 you offer that upcoming Congressional Reapportionment was the reason leading to secession.

No, I said nothing about Congressional Reapportionment. That's something very specific that happens only every ten years. I wasn't referring to that, and never used those words.

("They will become a smaller and smaller minority, and eventually the addition of new free territories as free states will give the North the ability to vote to end slavery in the entire country. If all territories as future states are free, the slaveholding states are doomed.")

Right. And you're saying what I said doesn't support my poit that slavery was the issue? You seem to be laboring under the delusion that I said something to the effect that the North intended to end slavery immediately. It didn't, and I never stated or implied that it did. But you seem to be refutting that point ad nauseum as if it is the point I made. Which it isn't.

Then in post #241 you say: "The immediate cause of the war was secession".

Right. And my opinion is that slavery was the "but for" reason the South seceded. You disagree. Fine.

I didn't say that the seceding government would necessarily be better. In fact, if I recall, I said it possibly would be worse, and gave as an example Quebec which would probably be more liberal than the rest of Canada. What I can say with certainty, is that the seceding government would be smaller and cover less land area. When it comes to government, smaller is almost always better. To use your Mass. example. If those clowns seceded I would throw a party, and you would be invited. (I'm not sure, but it seemed you were insinuating that I had recanted or backed off my call for Blue State secession. I have not. Since I favor Confederate State secession, if some of those Blue States left, it would grease the skids for us I would hope.) No Mass would not be freer, unless your idea of freer is homosexual marriage. But the rest of us would be freer by not being dragged down by those Kennedy re-electing knuckleheads. And they would suffer under their own wealth redistributing system, until hopefully it crashed down and they came to their senses. But we would be bystanders and they would be getting what they deserve. Same is true of Quebec. The rest of Canada would be freer and more conservative if Quebec left and created it's own socialist hell hole. If there were some good conservative Americans still living in Mass, and I'm sure there are a few, surely liberal Mass would not begrudge them exiting the State and I would have no problems giving them back their citizenship. Even as an immigration hawk, I would have no objection to grandfathering Mass. immigrants in.

The Georgia example was a mental scenario. I was not suggesting that was the historical rational, if that is what you are suggesting with the reference to Lincoln. But you seem very hung up on people losing their rights in the seceded government. If a conservative Southern State seceded, what rights would they have less of. Would they have less right to keep and bear arms? Would they be more taxed? Would unborn babies have less rights? Perhaps they would have less right to view porn.

Secession does have "inherent virtue" because it strikes a blow at big central government in favor of smaller more local government.

"Different governments do different things. None are perfect, but neither are the virtues of every government outweighed by its weaknesses."

Please name me one government where its virtues aren't outweighed by its weaknesses.

You act as if the Government we have is actually protecting your Constitutional rights. Yet it routinely ignores the 2nd amendment. CFR, tramples on the 1st. The Patriot Act allows searches without a warrant. And Lord knows they sure don't follow the 10th. I could grow old listing all the Constitutional violations by our current government. What history has shown is that nice little things written on paper, such as "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" are worth no more than the paper they are printed on unless the people are willing to enforce them. One way they enforce them is through nullification and secession. So a state could enforce the 2nd Amendment by nullifying the Gun Control Act of 1968. (I think I have that date right.) A local government could nullify the abomination of requiring a permit to carry a concealed weapon by nullifying that state level law within its borders.

"Do you realize that by saying you'd "send in the troops", you are giving the majority the power to decide whether or not the minority will secede? That secession is not an absolute right, but only permissible to the extent permitted by the larger state?"

My mental scenario was in response to your seeming need for me to address your far fetched scenarios. I think I am correct to assume that you feel that secession could be used for lawlessness. But I didn't feel like scrolling back up to find out the exact scenario you proposed, so I made one up. I don't think that I said secession was an absolute right. Just that I can think of very few cases where it would be better to suppress it than allow it. What if we left the UN and they objected. Wouldn't you tell them to kiss your behind?

What I can say with certainty, is that the seceding government would be smaller and cover less land area. When it comes to government, smaller is almost always better.

Two of the most "free" countries in the world are the United States and Canada (compared to, say, Cuba, not to a laissez faire ideal). Some of the most repressive are the smallest in either area or population.

I don't think there is a shred of correlation between freedom and land area/population. What's important isn't the overall size of government, but its size relative to population. And even then, "size" isn't a very good proxy for level of government repression or control. So when you're talking about the virtues of a "smaller" governmnet", I agree, but I don't think the correct measurement of "smaller" is land area.

No Mass would not be freer, unless your idea of freer is homosexual marriage. But the rest of us would be freer by not being dragged down by those Kennedy re-electing knuckleheads. And they would suffer under their own wealth redistributing system, until hopefully it crashed down and they came to their senses.

The problem I have is with your "they". That "they" may include a very sizeable minority of freedom-loving people like you and I. I am very concerned about how the rights of them -- my fellow citizens -- would be trampled by a People's Republic of Massachusetts. Enforced collectivism, government appropriation of all wealth without compensation, etc.

If there were some way to put all the socialists in their own little dinghy and cast them adrift, I'd applaud the hell out of that. The problem is that their dinghy is a cruise ship with an awful lot of innocents aboard.

. If there were some good conservative Americans still living in Mass, and I'm sure there are a few, surely liberal Mass would not begrudge them exiting the State and I would have no problems giving them back their citizenship.

A fat lot of good that would do them if the PRM took all their property and left them with nothing. Sure, they could emigrate. But they wouldn't have enough money to feed their famililes. Or suppose they wouldn't let people emigrate? Suppose they closed the borders. Would that give our government the right to liberate its former citizens by force?

But you seem very hung up on people losing their rights in the seceded government. If a conservative Southern State seceded, what rights would they have less of. Would they have less right to keep and bear arms? Would they be more taxed? Would unborn babies have less rights? Perhaps they would have less right to view porn.

The problem is that you can't pick and choose who will secede, and who will not. Either all states, cities, and counties have that right, or they do not. Either they are fully sovereign after seceding, or not.

Secession does have "inherent virtue" because it strikes a blow at big central government in favor of smaller more local government.

I disagree. A smaller political entity ruled by marxist totalitarians is just as oppressive to its subjects as would be a larger state. I just don't buy your premise that smaller political entities are more likely to have more "free" governments. It all depends on who is running things, and I see no reason to assume that the proportion of people who lean towards totalitarianism would be smaller just because the political subdivision is smaller.

I suppose one current example of this in the "real world" is the little islamofascist enclave that existed for a time in Fallujah. The country as a whole wasn't that oppressive, but the particular clowns running that place were. And the mere fact that their government was smaller in an absolute sense didn't seem to spare anyone any suffering.

Please name me one government where its virtues aren't outweighed by its weaknesses.

Our current government. If it had not existed, the Brits would have reconquered us in 1812.

But if you really believe that the weaknesses of every government outweigh their virtues, you truly are an anarchist. And presumably, you think the signers of the Declaration were way off with that "to preserve these rights, governments are instituted among men" language. Absent some form of government, the physically strong will prey on the weak. See, e.g., the Vikings.

If you really think the virtues of our current government are outweighed by its weaknesses, you'd necessarily support (in addition to eliminating all taxation and government regulation), the immediate decommissioning of the entire U.S. Navy, the dissolution of our other military branches, the immediate dismantling of our nuclear capability, disbanding of the FAA, customs, border patrol, FBI, CIA, DIA, etc. Wipe out all your state national guards as well, because those all provide a government service as well.

I suppose at that point, you'd count on the goodwill of our nation's enemies to protect us from terrorists, etc.

And hey, you mentioned permitting those folks in Massachusetts to emigrate to the U.S. Exactly how are you going to work the whole concept of immigration? You've eliminated the government that will control that.

If you truly believe that the weaknesses o every government outweighs its virtues, then that's where you end up.

What if we left the UN and they objected. Wouldn't you tell them to kiss your behind?

Yes.

I am not an anarchist, as I have said before. But I am an anti-federalist, and proud of it. Smaller political entities are not necessarily freer as I have conceded, but they are less dangerous to others without a doubt. A loose federation of German speaking republics, such as Prussia and Bavaria would not and could not have started WWII. "Greater Germany" did. And the justification for creating a Greater Germany was very similar to the logic used by Lincoln, the nonsense that the Nation preexisted the States.

The Catholic principle of Subsidiarity (I think that is the right word) is helpful here. The important question is not just should government do this or that, and it should do little, but what level of government should do it. I don't think it is controversial to say that the more local the government the closer to the people it is, and I think in general the less likely to tyrannize.

Just to take an example you used above to illustrate. You mention the FBI. I have no problem with a federal law enforcement agency as long as it is only enforcing laws that are legitimately federal. The only federal crimes mentioned in the Constitution are counterfeiting, piracy, and treason. So if that is all they were enforcing, fine. All else should be done at the state and local level. You mention the FAA. Where is regulating airlines or at the time, stagecoach service, mentioned in the Constitution? And please don't mention the much abuse interstate commerce clause. That was specifically to address one of the "shortfalls" of the Articles of Confederation and prohibit intrastate tariffs. It was not meant as a catch all to open up every bit of commerse that leaves a state to federal regulation as the liberals have alleged.

My problem is not with government, as long as government is doing only those things it is supposed to be doing. But part of the problem with modern conservatives and even Constitutionalists is their utter inability to come to grips with the fact that that Constitution is being run roughshod over. And none of what you are doing now is reversing that. It gets worse every day. As evidenced by Bush's and the Republican congress's drunken sailor like spending. And it ain't going to get better by electing some "mainstream" conservative in '08. If you are uncomfortable with secession, which you should not be because it was understood to be a right at the time the Constitution was passed, then at the least why not pledge to only support "conservatives" who will vote no on or veto any spending not authorized by the Constitution. (Funny how us anti-federalist are the ones most insistent on actually following the Constitution.)

Just out of curiosity, do you think the Constitution, which was hotly contested, would have passed if the States felt at the time they could not leave it voluntarily?

Smaller political entities are not necessarily freer as I have conceded, but they are less dangerous to others without a doubt.

That sounds like a reason for other countries to wish that we'd break apart. But as for the United States, how does it benefit us to become less dangerous to other countries? And of course the flip side is that smaller countries are less able to defend themselves against outside aggression then are larger ones.

I don't think it is controversial to say that the more local the government the closer to the people it is, and I think in general the less likely to tyrannize.

I used to think that was correct, but I think history disproves it. Just as one example, some of the local soviets in the old Soviet Union were worse than the central government. You mention the FAA. Where is regulating airlines or at the time, stagecoach service, mentioned in the Constitution? And please don't mention the much abuse interstate commerce clause.

I would agree that the commerce clase was twisted out of all reasonable meaning a long time ago. But I honestly think the FAA, or at least some of its functions, is legitimate under that clause because virtually every flight is truly interstate. The vast majority of stagecoach traffic was not, so it wasn't addressed.

And none of what you are doing now is reversing that. It gets worse every day.

"You"? Exactly what have I done or not done? Obviously, nothing you've done has reversed that either. Not sure why you're pointing the finger at me for the expansion of government power over the course of the last century or so. What makes you think I favor it?

If you are uncomfortable with secession, which you should not be because it was understood to be a right at the time the Constitution was passed....

Not sure that's entirely correct. But certainly, at least by the Presidency of Andrew Jackson, any marginally well-informed person should have realized that the federal government did not consider secession to be permitted. Jackson was very blunt about that. So states like Texas that joined the union after that, and which could have joined upon the express conditon that secession was permitted, screwed themselves.

then at the least why not pledge to only support "conservatives" who will vote no on or veto any spending not authorized by the Constitution. (Funny how us anti-federalist are the ones most insistent on actually following the Constitution.)

Because as much as I might wish our elected officials would do exactly that, I see no point in refusing to support "conservatives" if the only alternative on the ballot is a liberal who is twice as bad. Liberalism infected this country gradually, and it is impossible to reverse it overnight. You seek an instant, immediate cure that has zero possibility of ever occuring. Liberalism infected us incrementally, and incrementally is the only way its going to ever leave. At least if we're talking reality rather than fantasy.

Just out of curiosity, do you think the Constitution, which was hotly contested, would have passed if the States felt at the time they could not leave it voluntarily?

We can't know that for sure. Though it seems odd that some states would have so resisted joining in the first place if they believed they could change their minds as easily as their shoes.

Well maybe I should have been more precise. When I said you, I meant the pro-Bush, pro-Republican, "mainstream" conservatives who make up the vast majority of this forum. As for what I'm doing to help, for one thing I'm on this forum getting called bad names for trying to convert y'all(using you in the sense above.) to real conservatism. I only started recently, but already I have had a few articles published on conservative websites and intend to continue. Although that may well fall more into the preaching to the choir category than do my postings here, since they were on more friendly wed sites.

Unless you are in the business of empire building, certainly we have not stake in being dangerous to other countries. Only amply able to defend ourselves. Some of the post Soviet countries may in fact be more despotic than they were before, particularly the Stans, but they are unarguably less capable of menacing their neighbors or us.

Also, I could care less what was understood by the time of Andrew Jackson. What is important is what was the understanding at the time of it's adoption. It is this little idea we call original intent.

As for incrementalism. OK I will accept that. So instead of ending all unconstitutional spending overnight, we could cut the budget by a fixed 10% a year for the next 8 years. Or for the moderates we could cut it a fixed 5% for the next 16 years. Ah. But that is not what is happening and is just about as much a fantasy as ending it all overnight. What we have now and will have for the indefinite future, unless a lot of folks wake up, is incrementally more socialism. With the so called conservative element wanting to grow it at a slower rate. Please explain to me how we get down to a Constitutional sized government, if the incremental change happens in the opposite direction? At some magic point in the future is it going to reverses itself? Are you resigned to the fact that America will never again actually follow the Constitution? If not, how do you get there from here?

When I said you, I meant the pro-Bush, pro-Republican, "mainstream" conservatives who make up the vast majority of this forum.

Most of the Republicans here are pretty conservative and, like you, are in favor of shrinking the government. Where the parting of the ways usually occurs is how best to affect that. There are basically two schools of thought. The first is to vote for the lesser of two evils, and hope to reverse course gradually. I think that's the folks you're talking about. The second is to draw a line in the sand and not vote for anyone who doesn't advocate radical change. That's where you and some others are.

I'm in the first group. Not because I like RINOS, but because I look at the current political landscape and see that radical change is not going to happen. IMHO, the course of action most likely to return us to where we want to be is an incremental one. And because its incremental, and we have to roll back each gain made by liberals, "principle" votes against Republican moderates in general elections that help liberals to win hurt the cause.

I believe the time and place to support the true conservatives is in the primaries. The best we can hope for right now is to frame the debate by pulling the majority over to our side more gradually. If we're too abrupt, we lose them. So really, its a disagreement over strategy rather than over the end result.

To make the point a bit more applicable to our discussion, secession just isn't going to happen. No matter how wondeful an idea you may think it is, its not reality. Better to look in other directions that are more possible.

Unless you are in the business of empire building, certainly we have not stake in being dangerous to other countries. Only amply able to defend ourselves.

I don't see a functional difference between being "more dangerous" and being amply able to defend ourselves. Both require an exceptional military. Our wealth inevitably will make us a target for evildoers, and we much have the capability to project power to go after them when and if that is necessary.

Or for the moderates we could cut it a fixed 5% for the next 16 years. Ah. But that is not what is happening and is just about as much a fantasy as ending it all overnight.

Doesn't that make the point, though? If you can't even get 5% reduction a year, what chance does even more radical change have?

What we have now and will have for the indefinite future, unless a lot of folks wake up, is incrementally more socialism.

Agreed. The question is how best to wake them up. And I think proposing what you're proposing is more likely to scare them off. When I think "incrementalism", I think about stuff like welfare reform. Privatization of social security. Those things are possible, and its with the "possible" that we should focus our efforts.

With the so called conservative element wanting to grow it at a slower rate.

I disagree. I don't think the conservatives actually want that. But we do think growth of 2% is better than growth of 5% because its closer to 0%. I don't like Bush's domestic spending at all, but Kerry getting in was going to speed up socialism even more. That wasn't going to help.

We can't win every battle. SO what we need to do is to shape the debate. First, convince them that less government growth is better. Then, convince them that no government growth is better than slower government growth. Finally, convince them that shrinking government is better than freezing it.

That is an admittedly difficult task, and one that is going to have some ups and downs. But I see it as the only way to succeed.

Well I agree with your characterization entirely. Put me down in the draw a line in the sand camp. (Shocker.)

People often say that politics is driven by dollars. But unless a candidate is engaging in graft, they don't actually see that money. It is all about getting votes, getting elected, and staying elected. Therefore, the real currency in politics is votes. Without that there is none of the other. Problem is your vote is a very blunt instrument. It is a shot gun blast, not a rifle shot. Every vote counts the same whether you are holding your nose or casting it enthusiastically. The politician doesn't know if your mad about his spending or immigrating but thought he was better than the other clown. He just knows he got your vote, and he can keep on doing what he has been doing. The only way your vote, or a block of votes such as conservatives, can count is if they are willing to be withheld. By either voting dem (yuck), voting third party (yeah), or staying home (partial yeah). Lets say you have a primary with three candidates, an ultraconservative, a mainstream conservative, and a moderate. If conservatives go into the primary saying we will support the ultraconservative candidate, but if he loses we will support the winner either the mainstream or the moderate, then the PTB likely incentive is going to be to ensure the ultracon loses, because the troops will follow anyway and they don't want that radical dragging them down. If however, 20 - 30% of the primary voters said, it is our way or the highway. Either the ultracon gets the nomination or we vote third party. The PTB would have to listen, because they could not win the general if 20-30% of their base bolted. This is assuming a remotely competitive district.

I agree that this strategy or secession is unlikely barring a monumental political shift, but it is better than giving up which is basically the current strategy of losing as slowly as possible. But a monumental shift is not impossible, esp. if the economy collapses under its unsustainable current level of debt.

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.