Lincoln and Ann Rutledge

[Lewis Gannett]

(06-27-2014 04:24 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 08:23 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), but can you (or anyone else) explain why Dr. Hanchett seems to feel it is? I am looking at Part 4 of his Lincoln Herald series as I write this, and I quote: "The thesis C.A. Tripp presents in The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln requires either that it be refuted or that Lincoln biography and American history be revised."

"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. Lewis, I realize what you have said regarding private lives and Lincoln biography, but when it comes to American history as a whole I do not understand why a revision is necessary.

Hanchett mostly likely is referring to history about Lincoln's personal life. While it's true that the personal side isn't of the same importance and scale as his public place in history, the "everyday Lincoln" has long held a major place in our conception of the American past. Should we have as accurate an understanding as we can of "Lincoln the man"? I think so. And by the way: I do know that many people resist efforts to change the image of a favorite historical figure, especially if the changes seem to serve an irrelevant purpose. So of course there will be controversy with new interpretations--probably with any new interpretation of the "inner self" of so iconic a figure as Lincoln. But the gay idea is particularly explosive. To some it seems like a desecration. That kind of protectiveness can sometimes--like everything else--go overboard. An eminent Lincoln scholar, whom I won't name out of respect for his contributions, once said to me that gay people want to think that Lincoln was gay only because "it makes them feel better about themselves." He was saying that there's no reason to question understandings of Lincoln's love life: he basically slammed the door. What a bunch of issues that opens up! It gets back to the problem of objectivity. It seems to me that if you can't have an open mind about new ways to see the past, you probably shouldn't be in the history profession. New interpretations should be greeted with skepticism, obviously. Most new ideas in my experience are wrong, and often ludicrously wrong. But to rule out a new way of seeing the past just because it offends you, is something else entirely. This is a roundabout way of commenting on Hanchett's attitude. I think he's saying that the historian must deal with evidence and revise--or not revise--accordingly, regardless of one's own private feelings. Let me hasten to add that I don't speak for William Hanchett. This is my understanding.