New Lincoln "documentary"

[Rob Wick]

I have been going back and forth this afternoon about posting this. Not because of the content so much, but because I really am not sure I want to give the people behind this any free publicity. But, after some consultation with one of the wisest men I know, I decided to go ahead. Of course, this is nothing new, and I have had long arguments with Lewis Gannett both here and on Sam Wheeler's old blog, but it saddens me to see this getting ready to be released. My guess is that it will make a brief splash and then go away, but the fact that James Stauffer and, especially, Jean Baker are involved may give it some legs. I will let everyone come to their own conclusion.

Best
Rob

https://people.com/lover-of-men-abraham-...ve-8675362

[RJNorton]

My favorite read on this general topic is chapter ten of Ed Steers' Lincoln Legends. That chapter is entitled The Gay Lincoln Myth.

[Rob Wick]

I agree, Roger.

Best
Rob

[Gene C]

For all you aspiring writers don't wait too long to jump on the bandwagon for the next Lincoln research trend, a dementia connection.
The next thing in Lincoln biographies will be more pseudo scientific studies on Lincoln's mental health.
Any one can see the stress on Lincoln in his photographs from the beginning to the end of his presidency. How did that effect his decision making ability during his presidency.

Throw in a little Lewis Gannett, mix in some C.A. Tripp, a dose of Thomas Dilorenzo, a pinch of Wilma Minor, a trace of William Herndon, and a mixture of Joshua Shenk,
you might have a book sensation for the New York Times, Psychology Today, and The View

[J. Beckert]

More rubbish from people that want to rewrite history so it makes them feel better about themselves.

[AussieMick]

How about "Was Lincoln Autistic?" or "Did Lincoln suffer from Megalomania?" (i.e delusions of grandeur and an obsession with power)

[RJNorton]

https://currently.att.yahoo.com/entertai...37513.html

[Rob Wick]

I honestly don't believe the film will get much in the way of viewings, given that it is only in limited release right now. Plus, while any person is free to create a project that takes a divergent approach to history, it is up to that filmmaker to provide verifiable evidence if they want to be taken seriously. From the interviews I have read with this filmmaker, he has failed miserably. The film will be lauded by those predisposed to believe it (a minority, to be sure), but it will not go very far in proving the story.

As a personal note, I have no problem if verifiable evidence was uncovered that showed Lincoln to have romantic feelings for other men (the concept of "gay" being unheard of during this time). It wouldn't change how I see Lincoln in history. What I do object to, however, is that because some academic historians and biographers are willing to accept this (saying far more about their beliefs than it does about arriving at historical truth), it somehow provides evidence and gravitas. If the filmmaker were indeed an honest broker, he would have provided an opportunity for those holding the opposite viewpoint to be heard just as loudly. Given what I have read so far, I haven't seen any attempts to do so.

I'm not really worried about this. There is an old journalistic maxim that when a dog bites a man, that isn't news, but when a man bites a dog, that is. This is simply a case of a man biting a dog, and it will likely be treated as such by most people. How many people today even know who C.A. Tripp was?

Best
Rob