06-26-2014, 10:45 AM
Mary said such, too (comparing him to Douglas): "Mr. Lincoln may not be as handsome a figure…but the people are perhaps not aware that his heart is as large as his arms are long."
(06-26-2014 10:45 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote: [ -> ]Mary said such, too (comparing him to Douglas): "Mr. Lincoln may not be as handsome a figure…but the people are perhaps not aware that his heart is as large as his arms are long."
(06-26-2014 01:02 PM)L Verge Wrote: [ -> ]Wouldn't the world be a better place if we all could be described as having hearts larger than our arms are long?
(06-26-2014 10:02 AM)Lewis Gannett Wrote: [ -> ](06-26-2014 07:29 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote: [ -> ]Lewis, I'm sorry, I've yet read your theories only as far as posted on this thread (but am generally not unfamiliar with the topic and arguments). I have also drawn my personal conclusions on this so far unprovable topic. May I ask - have you (of anyone else) ever investigated what gay men think of the theories of Lincoln being gay?
(I wonder in how far such theories are developed and promoted by people who have personally only little experience and acquaintance with homosexuals and homosexuality. )
Lewis, just to say - this is a serious question, and I would highly appreciate any comment. Thanks!
Eva, yes it is a serious question. You're asking about bias. That's probably to most important question in the practice of history. Can any of us free ourselves from preconceptions, background, things we learned when young, and so on. If I understand you correctly you're asking specifically if heterosexual scholars have addressed theories about Lincoln's sexuality--and if so, are they less biased than gay scholars might be. Here's what I can tell you. Jean Baker is a professor history at Goucher College. She's married with kids and as far as I know, thoroughly "straight." Jean also is a leading biographer of Mary Todd Lincoln. For what it's worth--and it might not be a great deal--Jean's the only academic I've ever heard of who turned down tenure at Harvard. In short, she's very well respected. She wrote the Introduction to C. A. Tripp's book about Lincoln's sexuality (bisexuality the most accurate way to put it). She doesn't buy every last aspect of the book's argument; she thinks for example that Tripp is too hard on Mary Lincoln. But on the whole, Jean has endorsed the Tripp thesis. Now, can we conclude that because Jean isn't gay, her endorsement is "less biased" than that of, say, Gore Vidal, a gay writer? Vidal wrote, "I found Tripp's conclusions not only convincing but, in the light of his evidence, irrefutable." Some people might say, "Vidal's gay! Of course he likes the book." But wait a second: Vidal has written numerous acclaimed novels about American history in which gay themes don't figure in the least. Is it fair to say that he has a "gay agenda" that distorts his views? Probably not, in my opinion. But it's a tricky issue. Dealing with it requires honesty and effort.
(06-26-2014 07:19 PM)Mike B. Wrote: [ -> ](06-26-2014 10:02 AM)Lewis Gannett Wrote: [ -> ](06-26-2014 07:29 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote: [ -> ]Lewis, I'm sorry, I've yet read your theories only as far as posted on this thread (but am generally not unfamiliar with the topic and arguments). I have also drawn my personal conclusions on this so far unprovable topic. May I ask - have you (of anyone else) ever investigated what gay men think of the theories of Lincoln being gay?
(I wonder in how far such theories are developed and promoted by people who have personally only little experience and acquaintance with homosexuals and homosexuality. )
Lewis, just to say - this is a serious question, and I would highly appreciate any comment. Thanks!
Eva, yes it is a serious question. You're asking about bias. That's probably to most important question in the practice of history. Can any of us free ourselves from preconceptions, background, things we learned when young, and so on. If I understand you correctly you're asking specifically if heterosexual scholars have addressed theories about Lincoln's sexuality--and if so, are they less biased than gay scholars might be. Here's what I can tell you. Jean Baker is a professor history at Goucher College. She's married with kids and as far as I know, thoroughly "straight." Jean also is a leading biographer of Mary Todd Lincoln. For what it's worth--and it might not be a great deal--Jean's the only academic I've ever heard of who turned down tenure at Harvard. In short, she's very well respected. She wrote the Introduction to C. A. Tripp's book about Lincoln's sexuality (bisexuality the most accurate way to put it). She doesn't buy every last aspect of the book's argument; she thinks for example that Tripp is too hard on Mary Lincoln. But on the whole, Jean has endorsed the Tripp thesis. Now, can we conclude that because Jean isn't gay, her endorsement is "less biased" than that of, say, Gore Vidal, a gay writer? Vidal wrote, "I found Tripp's conclusions not only convincing but, in the light of his evidence, irrefutable." Some people might say, "Vidal's gay! Of course he likes the book." But wait a second: Vidal has written numerous acclaimed novels about American history in which gay themes don't figure in the least. Is it fair to say that he has a "gay agenda" that distorts his views? Probably not, in my opinion. But it's a tricky issue. Dealing with it requires honesty and effort.
Burlingame had a dissent in the book too though. The part of the book he did like was that it was hard on Mary. Go figure...
BTW,
Is Morton Smith and "Secret Mark" involved in this tangent?
(06-26-2014 09:23 PM)Lewis Gannett Wrote: [ -> ]OK then, the obvious question: Am I making that mistake? Maybe. However--this might come as a bit of a surprise--I don't care very much about whether or not Lincoln was "gay."
(06-26-2014 09:23 PM)Lewis Gannett Wrote: [ -> ]Lincoln scholars have performed spectacular interpretative flip-flops over not only almost EXACTLY the same evidence, but also--it's amazing--a very SMALL body of evidence. I'm talking about the Rutledge-related interview material gathered by Herndon after Lincoln's assassination. A bright high-school student can read ALL of it in just a couple of hours. But: how peculiar: Herndon extracted one picture from it, decades later J. G. & R. P. Randall and David Donald extracted a completely different picture, decades after that J. Y. Simon and Douglas L. Wilson extracted yet another picture (similar to Herndon's but with important differences). From the same small set of extremely short interviews! How is that possible? that old problem of seeing what one wants to see.
(06-26-2014 09:23 PM)Lewis Gannett Wrote: [ -> ]For example, why did Lincoln Studies reverse itself on the Rutledge story? I find that kind of question enormously interesting. It's the subject of my next book.
[
(06-27-2014 05:24 AM)RJNorton Wrote: [ -> ]Well said, that is what I think, too. BTW, I didn't question the bias or "motives" of gay authors, actually rather those of heterosexual ones. In the end it doesn't make much difference, I was basically interested in whether authors of both "sides" brought up this theory.(06-26-2014 09:23 PM)Lewis Gannett Wrote: [ -> ]OK then, the obvious question: Am I making that mistake? Maybe. However--this might come as a bit of a surprise--I don't care very much about whether or not Lincoln was "gay."Lewis, this is also the way I feel (although I've stated my personal opinion)...
"American history be revised" based on whether or not Lincoln was gay?! Wow. I totally do not understand why it's that important in the big scheme of things.
(06-24-2014 05:33 PM)Lewis Gannett Wrote: [ -> ]The idea that AL & AR had a doomed romance unbeknownst to Herndon until after AL's death is completely implausible. Herndon had long been obsessed with L. He'd long known all the self-professed witnesses. Why did he frame the romance as a major new discovery?
(06-27-2014 08:32 AM)Gene C Wrote: [ -> ]I find it interesting to see the changes in how Lincoln is portrayed in literature over the past 100 years.
(06-24-2014 05:33 PM)Lewis Gannett Wrote: [ -> ]Why did he frame the romance as a major new discovery?(In any case - whenever he learned this) Money? Love and romance, especially "newly discovered presidental affairs" sell (think of all the yellow press magazines)...and it makes sense to embellish and dramatize things for that purpose, doesn't it? If I remember correcly, Herndon at the time he came up with this was in need of money (and had also sold a copy of his documents to Lamon upon a written agreement not to publish his own biography of Lincoln for at least ten years in exchange for $2,000 cash and an agreement to receive up to $2,000 of the book's royalties.).