How Lincoln Was Dissed

[Kieran McAuliffe]

An interesting article in the latest Atlantic.
How Lincoln Was Dissed in His Day
The difficulty of recognizing excellence in its own time
by Mark Bowden
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arch...ot/309304/

[ELCore]

See, for instance, the quotation in my signature.

[Troy Cowan]

I read the article in the Atlantic. I have a problem with a writer that complains about Lincoln being dissed and then go on to diss another.

He said of Lincoln, "He was called a coward, “an idiot,” and “the original gorilla” by none other than the commanding general of his armies, George McClellan."

McCellan did no such thing. Edwin Stanton in a communication to General McCellan called Lincoln the original gorilla. It was Stanton, not McCellan.

McCellan said,
"I had never seen Mr. Stanton, and probably had not even heard of him, before reaching Washington in 1861. Not many weeks after arriving I was introduced to him as a safe adviser on legal points. From that moment he did his best to ingratiate himself with me, and professed the warmest friendship and devotion. I had no reason to suspect his sincerity, and therefore believed him to be what he professed. The most disagreeable thing about him was the extreme virulence with which he abused the President, the administration, and the Republican party. He carried this to such an extent that I was often shocked by it.
He never spoke of the President in any other way than as the " original gorilla," and often said that Du Chaillu was a fool to wander all the way to Africa in search of what he could so easily have found at Springfield, Illinois. Nothing could be more bitter than his words and manner always were when speaking of the administration and the Republican party. He never gave them credit for honesty or patriotism, and very seldom for any ability."

[J. Beckert]

McClellan wasn't much better. Lincoln stopped at his home to see him once and was told the General was out. He sat down to wait and I believe Seward was with him. When McClellan came home, he was told the President was waiting to see him. He went directly upstairs and went to bed.

[brtmchl]

"Who would have thought, I would be called upon to save my country."

Has there ever been a more vain military leader than McClellan. When given command of the newly named Army of the Potomac he took 10 months training them. Dismissing every urge of President Lincoln to fight. Training his men, yes, but also allowing an amateur army in the South to train also.

In letters to his wife he wrote, " I am called to save my country. These baffoons in Washington don't know what they are doing. Stanton is an idiot," and at one point he calls Lincoln "a baboon", which apparently went public.

July 27,1861 Washington D.C. Saturday To Mary Ellen McClellan
... I find myself in a new & strange position here-Presdt, Cabinet, Gen! Scott & all deferring to me-by some strange operation of magic I seem to have become the power of the land. I almost think that were I to win some small success now I could become Dictator or anything else that might please me-but nothing of that kind would please me-therefore I won't be Dictator.

Oct 11, 1861
I can't tell you how disgusted I am becoming with these wretched politicians - they are a most dispicable set of men & I think Seward is the meanest of them all - a meddling, officious, incompetent little puppy - he has done more than any other one man to bring all this misery upon the country & is one of the least competent to get us out of this scrape. The President is nothing more than a well meaning baboon. Welles is weaker than the most garrulous old woman you were ever annoyed by.

When he caught typhoid fever and was sick for a month, he blatantly refused to even answer Lincoln's messages. The President of the United States calls upon you and you have the audacity to blow him off for days at a time. Remarkable. Ultimately leading to Lincoln's famous quote, "General, if you are not going to use your army, might I borrow it."


I find his remarks in letters to be hilarious now, but worthy of insubordination then. He should have been court-martialed.

[LincolnMan]

(06-11-2013 12:16 PM)brtmchl Wrote:  "Who would have thought, I would be called upon to save my country."

Has there ever been a more vain military leader than McClellan. When given command of the newly named Army of the Potomac he took 10 months training them. Dismissing every urge of President Lincoln to fight. Training his men, yes, but also allowing an amateur army in the South to train also.

In letters to his wife he wrote, " I am called to save my country. These baffoons in Washington don't know what they are doing. Stanton is an idiot," and at one point he calls Lincoln "a baboon", which apparently went public.

July 27,1861 Washington D.C. Saturday To Mary Ellen McClellan
... I find myself in a new & strange position here-Presdt, Cabinet, Gen! Scott & all deferring to me-by some strange operation of magic I seem to have become the power of the land. I almost think that were I to win some small success now I could become Dictator or anything else that might please me-but nothing of that kind would please me-therefore I won't be Dictator.

Oct 11, 1861
I can't tell you how disgusted I am becoming with these wretched politicians - they are a most dispicable set of men & I think Seward is the meanest of them all - a meddling, officious, incompetent little puppy - he has done more than any other one man to bring all this misery upon the country & is one of the least competent to get us out of this scrape. The President is nothing more than a well meaning baboon. Welles is weaker than the most garrulous old woman you were ever annoyed by.

When he caught typhoid fever and was sick for a month, he blatantly refused to even answer Lincoln's messages. The President of the United States calls upon you and you have the audacity to blow him off for days at a time. Remarkable. Ultimately leading to Lincoln's famous quote, "General, if you are not going to use your army, might I borrow it."


I find his remarks in letters to be hilarious now, but worthy of insubordination then. He should have been court-martialed.

Wonder what sweet satisfaction Lincoln might have experienced having defeated the General in the 1864 Presidential election?

[brtmchl]

How is Lincoln " dissed today?"

Has anyone read this article or this book that is contained within? It seems there is a question as to whether Lincoln was gay. The article attempts to play both sides, but has anyone read C. A. Tripp's book, The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln?

Is it me, or will people stretch anything in order to make a claim? Whether Lincoln was gay or not cannot be proven now, so in my oppinion I think it is disrespectful to make any claim that he was. He had a loving wife and children. To make this claim now, only seems to wreak of agendas in todays society.

The fact that there are books claiming this by people claiming to be authors and researches is shameful. If there was any real evidence then that is one thing, but it seems to me, based on this article, this claim is based entirely on the idea that Lincoln, in his younger years through his adult life, may have shared a bed with other men.

I know that in this day, immediately one may leap to the conclusion that he must be gay. But again, as talked about in numerous threads, one has to account for the time period. Am I wrong that boarding houses routinely boarded more than one person in a room or bed? Houses were much smaller and guests and relatives often shared beds. Atzerodt was found in bed with two others when he was arrested. One instance implied that Lincoln shared a bed with a friend Joshua Speed, implying that the two must have been lovers. Didn't terms such as " slept with" imply travel with also?

Lincoln had many enemies during his political career, especially as President. Wouldn't this " claim that Lincoln was gay " have ignited a frenzy to his critics. Lincoln lost his Senate bid to Douglas. Two years later, however, he found himself running against the same man for the presidency. When Douglas was told of Lincoln's victory, he unselfishly told his informants: "You have nominated a very able and very honest man." Democrats and newspapers were ruthless in this period, if there were rumors of Lincoln's sexuality would it not have been used against him politically? I can't believe that McClellan would have passed on it. You would think that as someone claiming to be a historian or reasearcher he would take the era into consideration, I do, and I am only a novice.

Before I am attacked for being anti gay, back off. I am simply stating that to make these claims to such a great man without proof is damaging. We think of Lincoln as Honest Abe, The Great Emancipator, The Liberator, and Father Abraham. Lincoln’s integrity and insistence on honesty became even more apparent in his law practice as detailed in his book, An Honest Calling: The Law Practice of Abraham Lincoln, Mark Steiner. People recognized his integrity and were soon asking him to act as judge or mediator in various contests, fights, and arguments. According to Robert Rutledge of New Salem, "Lincoln's judgment was final in all that region of country. People relied implicitly upon his honesty, integrity, and impartiality." "Mary Todd Lincoln once wrote to a friend that "Mr. Lincoln . . . is almost monomaniac on the subject of honesty."

To make the claim that Lincoln was gay, goes further than his sexuality. Leading a double life and having affairs, any affair, man or woman destroys the IDEA of Lincoln. It leads to new implications that Lincoln is dishonest, a betrayer, and an adulterer.

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860...w=fulltext

[Gene C]

We have discussed Tripp and his book under the Book section "Clarence Tripp"

http://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussio...d-153.html

I would guess that most of us feel the same as you do.

With Lincoln's knowledge of the Bible, he certainly knew that homosexual behavior was clearly condemned (Romans 1:26-27 - read all of Chapter 1 for the full context)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...ersion=NIV

Even though all sin can be forgiven, and Lincoln knew this, it is still highly unlikely that he would ever engage in this kind of behavior. The level of acceptance of this kind of "life style" was not what it is today, and his respect for God and the Bible was to great.

[brtmchl]

(08-30-2013 10:50 AM)Gene C Wrote:  We have discussed Tripp and his book under the Book section "Clarence Tripp"

http://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussio...d-153.html

I would guess that most of us feel the same as you do.

With Lincoln's knowledge of the Bible, he certainly knew that homosexual behavior was clearly condemned (Romans 1:26-27 - read all of Chapter 1 for the full context) Even though all sin can be forgiven, and Lincoln knew this, it is still highly unlikely that he would ever engage in this kind of behavior. The level of acceptance of this kind of "life style" was not what it is today, and his respect for God and the Bible was to great.

Thanks Gene

[Liz Rosenthal]

Gene: You suggest that Lincoln took the Bible literally. I beg to differ. He was not a man consumed with fear of "sin." He was, in fact, among the most tolerant of human beings when it came to differences amongst people and their behaviors. He didn't judge alcoholics, he told off-color jokes (which prompted Lamon's collaborator Chauncey Black to ask Herndon if Lincoln had a "diseased" mind), he never claimed to know what God wanted or that one religion was superior to another. Yes, he took great comfort in the Bible, but there is no credible evidence that he used it to bring the hammer down on "sinners," either in words or deeds. For this reason, among others, he's one 19th century figure I think I could have a modern conversation with.

Incidentally, did you know that Lincoln came up with a little rhyming ditty - possibly before he was married - about prostitution, which demonstrated that he did not judge the conduct of prostitutes? A typical 19th-century, God-fearing, Bible-thumping man would not have written such a ditty.

I don't think Lincoln was gay, chiefly because there is nothing in the record, other than modern-day supposition, that he was gay, although he did things that all or most men did in those days- i.e., share beds with men. Heterosexual men tend not to do that today. I think the whole "Lincoln was Gay" meme is very silly. But I don't view Tripp's book, from what I know of it as I don't intend to read it, or other discussions about Lincoln possibly being gay, as a "diss." It's really much ado about nothing; most people disregard the notion.

Sure - if Lincoln were accused of infidelity to Mary, that would be an insult, as well as false. But - and this next bit is going to offend people here who view gays as sinners - gay men have suffered greatly from being forced to "live a lie." Over the decades many a gay man has been married solely because it was expected of him - to the detriment of his happiness as well as the happiness of his wife and family. So I wouldn't view a gay man who, despite being married to a woman, sleeps with another man, as presenting a textbook case of infidelity. In this case, it's about a human being who really needs to get out of the conventional situation that he's in. And if Lincoln did that - and I don't think he did! - one could not fairly paint him as a dishonest or deceitful man.

But let's talk about Lincoln's sex life for a minute. According to Daniel Mark Epstein, in his book The Lincolns, which I just finished reading, he and Mary had a very active sex life. I'm not sure how he figured this out, but apparently this is the impression he got from the research he did. Also, according to Jean Baker's biography of MTL, it's likely that the only reason they did not have more children is because MTL breast-fed her children well beyond their first year, and sometimes breast-fed other babies in the neighborhood if their mothers were ill. Apparently, breast-feeding acts as a natural form of birth control. Epstein thought that the Lincolns likely stopped having sex after Mary gave birth to Tad and was seriously injured in her womanly parts, while Baker doesn't think that that the injury necessarily means the end of the Lincolns' sex life, even though they had no children after Tad, and even though renovations to their Springfield home in the late 1850s included separate bedrooms for the couple.

There is some evidence that, whatever the status of the Lincolns' sex life, Lincoln was tempted by women but never acted on it. David Davis recalled that Lincoln had great "passions"; although Lincoln was very, very attracted to other women he came across on the circuit, and could barely keep his hands off them, he nevertheless exercised remarkable self-control and always remained faithful to Mary. It might have been David Davis who also said that some women even flirted with Lincoln, but again, Lincoln did not pursue relationships with them. It was either Dennis or John Hanks (can't remember) who bemusedly recalled that, in the weeks leading up to Lincoln leaving for Washington in 1861, the president-elect was noticeably impressed with the attractiveness of a particular woman.

The reason we don't know more about Lincoln's sex life is due to 19th century prudish sensitivities, prevalent among men as well as women. For example, Henry Clay Whitney wrote in a letter to Herndon (and then crossed out, although the words he crossed out were still legible) that Lincoln once compared "sexual contact" to a "harp of a thousand strings." It's interesting that Whitney crossed out this very mild sentence. It's also interesting that Whitney used the words "sexual contact" instead of "orgasm," which is what I think Lincoln meant by his rather picturesqe description. Whitney was evidently ambivalent about disclosing this and also somewhat embarrassed to even write about it.

Anyway, there is more that we can probably learn about Lincoln's sex life and sexuality, but his sexual preference seems to have been thoroughly heterosexual and no prominent Lincoln scholars take seriously the idea that he might have been gay. "Not that there's anything wrong with that," as Jerry Seinfeld cautioned 20 years ago.

[L Verge]

I am in your corner also, brtmchl. Tripp's work is a disgrace to history, IMO. I've mentioned before that we have a travelers' bedroom at Surratt House and incorporate in our tours that it was nothing for two male friends/strangers or even three to share that bed. To my knowledge, we have never had to contend with any visitor associating the homosexual context with that.

Lincoln was obviously able to stand his wife long enough to father four children. Willie Jett was arrested while sleeping with his girlfriend's brother at the hotel in Bowling Green. While I am in favor of the present learning from the past, I am not in favor of proposing things without factual arguments.

[Gene C]

Liz, like most people, Abraham Lincoln's views of his understanding and duty to God evolved as he got older. Lincoln was a very forgiving person, a biblical principle, but let's not forget his strong view on slavery, based mainly upon his understanding of biblical principles. As a lawyer, I think he understood the value of judgement, punishment and reward, which again is a biblical principle.

[Liz Rosenthal]

Well, Gene, I maintain that Lincoln was not a judgmental man. There is ample evidence of this, from all periods of his life. And he definitely did not enjoy the thought of punishing anyone, even if they deserved it. He was all for second chances, unlike many others in his own party. And there is no question he was very open-minded.

[brtmchl]

Liz, you wrote : according to Jean Baker's biography of MTL, it's likely that the only reason they did not have more children is because MTL breast-fed her children well beyond their first year, and sometimes breast-fed other babies in the neighborhood if their mothers were ill. Apparently, breast-feeding acts as a natural form of birth control.

The idea of breast feeding other people 's children and parents allowing it, makes the whole notion of men sharing a bed during that time period ( or any ) seem as normal as tying ones shoes.

You also wrote :unlike many others in his own party. And there is no question he was very open-minded.

I would say there is no doubt in my mind, especially now, that he was VERY open-minded

Thank you for the remarkably strange, and semi disturbing bit of history.

---

(08-30-2013 11:44 AM)L Verge Wrote:  I am in your corner also, brtmchl. Tripp's work is a disgrace to history, IMO. I've mentioned before that we have a travelers' bedroom at Surratt House and incorporate in our tours that it was nothing for two male friends/strangers or even three to share that bed. To my knowledge, we have never had to contend with any visitor associating the homosexual context with that.

Lincoln was obviously able to stand his wife long enough to father four children. Willie Jett was arrested while sleeping with his girlfriend's brother at the hotel in Bowling Green. While I am in favor of the present learning from the past, I am not in favor of proposing things without factual arguments.

Laurie, I agree it is disgracful. Does he actually call it history? I find it tabloid-ish. To me it just seems like such a grasp at straws. Tripp would have had to know the historical period, which leads me to believe that he was intentionally trying to "reshape" history. I guess I will never know since I will never read his book.

Aside from just Tripp, I think there is an idea that if you write a historical piece now, people will believe it because you say it is backed up by historical data. Hoping that people will read it, take your word for it and never research anything for themselves. Creating " New " history. I find it especially true with children. The farther a generation/s become from a time period. The easier it can be to rewrite it or at the very least " white wash " it, in way that best suits the time they are in now.

Whether it be to erase old wrongs, eliminate shame, to be politically correct, to make someone look the hero or the hero a villain.

Why is there such a need to create new history? History alone should be fascinating enough.

[Liz Rosenthal]

(08-30-2013 12:18 PM)brtmchl Wrote:  The idea of breast feeding other people 's children and parents allowing it, makes the whole notion of men sharing a bed during that time period ( or any ) seem as normal as tying ones shoes.

Thank you for the remarkably strange, and semi disturbing bit of history.

Mike: What did I say that was disturbing? What's so terrible about a woman breast-feeding someone else's child, where necessary? It's not like MTL marched into someone else's house and said, "Hey, I'm in the mood for breast-feeding a bunch of children!" Sometimes, a woman might fall ill and not be able to breast-feed her baby. So MTL would step in. How else was the baby going to be fed? They didn't have "formula" in those days.

By the way, did you know that slave women routinely breast-fed their master's babies? This was probably regardless of the health of the natural mother, the master's wife. It was just one more task that slaves had to do in the good 'ol days.