Lincoln and Ann Rutledge

[Eva Elisabeth]

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."

[RJNorton]

(06-26-2014 09:45 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."

I love that quote, Eva! Thank you for posting it.

[L Verge]

Wouldn't the world be a better place if we all could be described as having hearts larger than our arms are long?

[Lewis Gannett]

(06-26-2014 12:02 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?

In a word: Yes!

[Eva Elisabeth]

I agree. And it would be nice if more people would notice in a similar way those still many who do have.

[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.

[Lewis Gannett]

Tripp's book attracted giant negatives and some positives in critical reaction. The most interesting reviews--Christine Stansell's in The New Republic and Richard Brookhiser's in The New York Times--mixed sharply negative remarks about various aspects but ended with acknowledgments that Tripp's analysis carried a certain weight that couldn't be dismissed outright--and as it's turned out, still hasn't been dismissed (not even by Edward Steers). But I think there's a much more important issue going on with the entire argument. It dwarfs the debate over Lincoln's love life, and it has directly to do with what Eva brought up: bias in the practice of history. Can a gay person do objective historical work about gay--or straight--aspects of the past? Can anyone be objective about a subject that's "close to home"? It's an old problem and it won't be solved here, needless to say. But to put it in the context of Lincoln history: scholars have looked at exactly the same body of evidence and drawn opposite conclusions. Take the case of Ann Rutledge. 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? I won't get philosophical but will say this: the bias issue is deep. Essentially, even historians can make the mistake of seeing what they want to see. 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." It's interesting, and important in some ways, but it's not my focus. I'm much more interested in why, in academia, especially in top-tier academia, interpretation flip-flops happen. 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.

---

Mike, I forgot to mention. Yes on the question of "Secret Mark." That was a while ago & I haven't gone further with it since. Sullivan endorsed Tripp, yes. About Baker & Buchanan I don't recall, but it wouldn't surprise me if she, along with a lot of informed people, thinks that Buchanan had a "spousal relationship" with William Rufus de Vane King. Not proving a negative: yup. No can do. Burlingame beat that drum in his Afterword. Burlingame's "dissent" was reasonable, I think. It wasn't desperately ignorant. Of course, I think he's wrong. But then. There's that old problem of seeing what one wants to see.

[Lewis Gannett]

Clarification: Above, I refer to Herndon's Rutledge interview material. I meant to say the interview & correspondence material. Herndon, of course, gathered some of his information from letters.

[RJNorton]

(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.

[Gene C]

(06-26-2014 08:23 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.

There's a little more to it than that. Each of the writers you mentioned had more material to examine than their predecesor. They had more facts to consider, and more material to sort through. Some of them were more talented in their tasks than Herndon. Whether your agree with R P Randall, we have all acknowledged that she is a talented writer. Did Herndon consider how reliable his informants were. Did he cross check the accuracy of what they told him? Many of the writers you mentioned have, and naturaly they have used that additional info in reaching their conclusions. So it's not so much a flip flop as it is reaching a different conclusion by using additional information.
(and sometimes the additional info is not correct)

---

(06-26-2014 08:23 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.
[

Sounds interesting. I find it interesting to see the changes in how Lincoln is portrayed in literature over the past 100 years. His life is examined in more dertail now than ever before. There are exceptions, but the attention to his personal character still seems to be a key factor.

[Eva Elisabeth]

(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)...
"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.

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.

[David Lockmiller]

(06-24-2014 04:33 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?

When did Herndon first see Lincoln? When did Herndon first become acquainted with Lincoln? And, most importantly, when did Herndon become "warmly attached" to Lincoln?

On these first two questions, Herndon is quoted in the book Herndon's Life of Lincoln, Da Capo ed., pp. 72-73: "The early spring of 1832 brought to Springfield and New Salem a most joyful announcement. It was the news of the coming of a steamboat down the Sangamon River . . . I remember the occasion well, for two reasons. It was my first sight of a steamboat, also the first time I ever saw Mr. Lincoln--although I never became acquainted with him till his second race for the Legislature in 1834."

Professor David Herbert Donald wrote in his book Lincoln, at page 66, of Lincoln's move to Springfield:

On April 15, 1837, Lincoln rode into Springfield on a borrowed horse, with all his wordly possessions crammed into the two saddlebags. Speed was the proprietor of a store at which Lincoln intended to purchase a mattress and bedding. The quoted cost was $17, which Lincoln did not have. Telling Speed that he had come to Springfield to try an "experiment as a lawyer," he asked for credit until Christmas, adding in a sad voice: "If I fail in this, I do not know that I can ever pay you." Speed, who knew this young man by reputation and had heard him make a political speech, suggested a way he could avoid incurring a debt that clearly troubled him. "I have a large room with a double bed up-stairs, which you are welcome to share with me," he offered. Lincoln picked up his saddlebags and went up stairs to check out the situation. Shortly afterward, he returned beaming with pleasure and announced, "Well, Speed, I am moved."

The point of presenting this statement is that Joshua Speed, who was to become Lincoln's closest and long-lasting friend, apparently was never made aware by Lincoln of the deep trauma inflicted upon him by the death of Ann Rutledge on August 25, 1835. According to a previous posting made on this thread, the details of Lincoln's love for Ann Rutledge were not made known to Speed until Herndon sent him a copy of his "Ann Rutledge" lecture in 1866. A portion of Speed's response, quoted in that previous posting that someone else made, was that "it was news to me." (Or, words to that effect.)

Professor Donald also noted that at the time of Lincoln's move to Springfield that "it was now a thriving community of 1,500 residents." Ibid. p. 67. "The courthouse--soon to be replaced by the new state capitol--was surrounded by nineteen dry goods stores, seven groceries, four drugstores, two clothing stores, and a bookstore. Four hotels cared for transients. In addition to schools and an 'academy,' the town boasted six churches. The professions were represented by eighteen doctors and eleven lawyers. There was a Whig newspaper, the Sangamo Journal, edited by Simeon Francis, to whom Lincoln during the previous sessions of the legislature had frequently sent news from Vandalia."

I now return to Herndon's statements of his own history with Lincoln and again quote from Herndon's Life of Lincoln, Da Capo ed., pp.145-46:

"After his return from the Legislature, Lincoln determined to remove to Springfield, the county seat, and begin the practice of the law. . . . I had up to this time frequently seen Mr. Lincoln--had often, while visiting my cousins, James and Rowan Herndon, at New Salem, met him at their house--but became warmly attached to him soon afte his removal to Springfield. There was something in his tall and angular frame, his ill-fitting garments, honest face, and lively humor that imprinted his individuality on my affection and regard. What impression I made on him I had no means of knowing till many years afterwards (emphasis added). He was my senior by nine years, and I looked up to him, naturally enough, as my superior in everything--a thing I continued to do until the end of his days."

In conclusion, if Speed was unaware of the "Ann Rutledge" story until 1866, is it implausible (nay, even highly probable)that Herndon was also unaware of this episode in Lincoln's life until he conducted interviews with long-time residents of New Salem following Lincoln's death?

[RJNorton]

(06-27-2014 07:32 AM)Gene C Wrote:  I find it interesting to see the changes in how Lincoln is portrayed in literature over the past 100 years.

Gene, do you have Lincoln in American Memory by Merrill Peterson? IMO it's the best book out there dealing with the way different generations of Americans have viewed Lincoln since 1865.

[Gene C]

Thanks for the recommendation. I don't have that.

[Eva Elisabeth]

(06-24-2014 04:33 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.).

Allow me this general remark: Maybe I'm not that smart or knowledgeable, but I admit, I often get lost in the length of the posts and quotes on this thread, especially as for what a quote (or which passage of it) shall "prove" (better: indicate) what (assumption, believe, or so), and why at all it (in such detail) is important. (Hope you understand what I mean.)