Lincoln and Ann Rutledge

[Mike B.]

(06-26-2014 09:02 AM)Lewis Gannett Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 06:29 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 06:19 PM)Mike B. Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 09:02 AM)Lewis Gannett Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 06:29 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?

I do know Andrew Sullivan endorsed the book too.
And I believe Baker thinks Buchannan was gay too.
In any case, is this proving a negative? One can't "prove" Lincoln wasn't one thing or the other.