+- Lincoln Discussion Symposium (https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium)
+-- Forum: Lincoln Discussion Symposium (/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Books - over 15,000 to discuss (/forum-6.html)
+--- Thread: Clarence Tripp (/thread-153.html)
Pages: 1 2
Clarence Tripp - Gene C - 08-01-2012 09:23 AM
Has anyone read "The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln" by C A Tripp?
The reviews on Amazon are very mixed, with about one third of them being favorable. From what I've read on Amazon, it seems like a book of little redeeming value.
RE: Clarence Tripp - Gene C - 08-02-2012 09:16 AM
For some excellent comments about this book "The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln", go to Abraham Lincoln before he was President...Lincoln and Ann Rutledge, post #21 by Rob Wick, on Aug 1, 2012
RE: Clarence Tripp - Bill Richter - 08-02-2012 09:37 AM
The text of the book is not half as good as Jean Baker's introduction to the book.
RE: Clarence Tripp - LincolnMan - 08-02-2012 11:14 AM
Funny, I've never read the Tripp book but am forever having to deal with the question: "Was Lincoln gay?" Fortunately, the question serves as a conversational platform to talk about Lincoln.
RE: Clarence Tripp - LincolnMan - 10-15-2012 07:09 AM
As we all probably know, Arlen Specter passed away yesterday. I'm reminded that he was a recipient of the "Abe Award" in 1998 by the Log Cabin Gay Republicans for his support of AIDS research and other activites. The award was a bronze bust of Abraham Lincoln. Specter, coincidently, was born on Lincoln's birthday. Because of his birthdate, Specter had remarked that his mother almost named him "Abraham." Forgive me for posting this on the Clarence Tripp thread-I just thought it made sense since Tripp was an advocate of Lincoln having been gay.
RE: Clarence Tripp - BettyO - 10-15-2012 07:38 AM
I think that the assumption that Lincoln was "gay" and any other assumptions about gentlemen being gay in the Victorian era (Powell, Herold and JWB have also had this tag) is because folk don't understand the Victorian social culture.
In the 19th Century, men slept with men in the same bed if there was not enough room at a boarding or lodging house. There was seemingly nothing wrong with this other than that there was not sufficient beds for more than a certain number, so gentlemen "bunked" up with each other. It also accorded warmth in the winter time in rooms lighted with a sole fireplace. Let that fire die during the night and the room could get pretty cold! So a "bed mate" also afforded warmth in the colder seasons. Nothing wrong was viewed with that in the least, and nothing scandalous was accorded to having "bunk mates" in the Victorian era....
RE: Clarence Tripp - LincolnMan - 10-15-2012 08:07 AM
I agree. I've not read the Tripp book-only some articles about his thesis-in rebuttle.
RE: Clarence Tripp - RJNorton - 10-15-2012 08:17 AM
Perhaps there are more, but I can think of two well-known writers - Jean Baker and William Hanchett - who seem to have accepted (at least in part) Tripp's thesis. Dr. Hanchett wrote a 4 part series for the Lincoln Herald in which (at least to my understanding) he seemed to say Tripp may have been right.
RE: Clarence Tripp - Laurie Verge - 10-15-2012 08:29 AM
I must admit that I was very surprised when both Baker and especially Hanchett seemed to back that theory. I agree with Betty as to the sleeping arrangements during the earlier centuries.
Surratt House has a travelers' bedrom because gentlemen travelers could purchase sleeping space in that room for 25-cents a night (it cost a dollar, however, to house one's horse across the road at the Surratt's stable!).
Notice that I said sleeping "space." There is only a double bed in that room, and our visitors are often surprised when we tell them that it was routine for strangers to share that bed and that sometimes one might be the third man in that bed. Late-comers might get a straw pallet on the floor. We Americans are much more private today than our ancestors were -- and even more now than many other cultures.
RE: Clarence Tripp - Gene C - 10-15-2012 09:40 AM
With estimates of the gay population in the US as high as 5%, I find most of this subject regarding Lincoln's sexual orientation "balderdash". It is either an attempt to draw personal attention to the writer who promotes the theory, and/or an attempt to gain acceptance of a lifestyle that many find morally wrong by associating it with a famous, highly regarded and respected man.
RE: Clarence Tripp - JMadonna - 10-15-2012 10:08 AM
(10-15-2012 09:40 AM)Gene C Wrote: With estimates of the gay population in the US as high as 5%, I find most of this subject regarding Lincoln's sexual orientation "balderdash". It is either an attempt to draw personal attention to the writer who promotes the theory, and/or an attempt to gain acceptance of a lifestyle that many find morally wrong by associating it with a famous, highly regarded and respected man.Agreed Gene,
RE: Clarence Tripp - Laurie Verge - 10-15-2012 11:12 AM
I also worry about such trends and theories being subtle ways of tearing down our heroes. Granted that heroes are still mortal men with human failings, but high achievements should trump the flaws/questionable qualities that they had.
During the Cold War especially, we were taught the various ways to destroy a country or civilization from within; and demeaning and tearing down hero figures is one of those ways. The Mount Vernon Ladies Association has a nationwide project to secure funds to "Put George Washington Back in the Schools." Donations go towards getting his portrait back in the classrooms. I know that Charles County, Maryland, and its historical society are two entities working on this. They have already placed about ten portraits in elementary schools in the county.
When I was a child, Abe was up on that school wall also. Maybe the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum should take up a similar cause?
RE: Clarence Tripp - LincolnMan - 10-15-2012 12:53 PM
No Washington or Lincoln portraits on the walls-and now no more cursive writing----is 2 + 2 still equal to 4?
RE: Clarence Tripp - Laurie Verge - 10-15-2012 02:33 PM
I think 2 + 2 still equals 4, but the kids today are taught some round-about way of learning that. No more flash cards or pure memorization.
RE: Clarence Tripp - J. Beckert - 10-15-2012 03:08 PM
An accountant puts a sign in his window - "Help Wanted".
An out of work accountant stops in. The man asks him - "What's 2 + 2?"
"Four", he says. "Have a nice day" the prospective employer said.
Another man stops - same scenario - same answer.
A third man stops and is asked "What's 2+2?" He answers "What do you want it to be?"
"You're hired"
* Apologies to any accountants on the forum.