RuntheDamnBall Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 Before anyone goes nuts about it, the article is a review of a book and it is made clear by the reviewer that there are conflicting viewpoints on this. Still, I wonder what the ramifications would be if this could ever be proven (I don't think it can, realistically). Link to NY Times article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 It would be very hard to prove. I know that some people will immediately discount this as trash or a crazy hypothesis, but it is possible. After reading the article thoroughly, I am convinced that either one of two things is possible: Either he mistakes the language of the 19th century and derives some hidden meaning from the life of a man who was obviously never comfortable with people anyways whether be man or woman, or his in-depth analysis of the sources available point to a careful plan to obscure the truth by biographers and other people. I'll wait and see on this... Lincoln we know had flaws that makes him vulnerable (particularly his handling of Indian matters), but who knows? Aside from the thigh comment, I really found no other example of something that makes you go hmmm. Needless to say, his private life is not nearly as important as the study of his public life and deeds, whether good or bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 I'll wait and see on this... Lincoln we know had flaws that makes him vulnerable (particularly his handling of Indian matters), but who knows? Aside from the thigh comment, I really found no other example of something that makes you go hmmm. Needless to say, his private life is not nearly as important as the study of his public life and deeds, whether good or bad. 163787[/snapback] This is what I hate about modern historical studies. They always try to fit a political agenda rather than looking at the facts and drawing a neutral conclusion. Moral relativism is far too prevalent in today's historical academia. I can't tell you how many times I was FORCED to call out my professors for trying to inject modern viewpoints and judgements on ancient and medieval figures. Ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 This is what I hate about modern historical studies. They always try to fit a political agenda rather than looking at the facts and drawing a neutral conclusion. Moral relativism is far too prevalent in today's historical academia. I can't tell you how many times I was FORCED to call out my professors for trying to inject modern viewpoints and judgements on ancient and medieval figures. Ridiculous. 163802[/snapback] How do you know this is fitting something to an agenda? Maybe the agenda for the last 80 years was ignoring that he was gay because that's what we were mor comfortable with. For example, we can now talk comfortably about the "companionship" of Greek men when we couldn't twenty years ago. That's not an agenda, but a fact- and one relatively suppressed before attitudes shifted. (That doesn't save that POS movie Alexander from sucking.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 Supposing that he was at least he had the good sense to keep it to himself and not go marching in any pride parades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 Good Lord, who cares? I'm waiting for the book about Jesus being gay. After all he was 33 and unmarried, living with his mom when he could. What more proof does one need? Oooooo now THAT would be fun to watch and see how fast the neocon wingnuts banned it, burned it, whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 How do you know this is fitting something to an agenda? Maybe the agenda for the last 80 years was ignoring that he was gay because that's what we were mor comfortable with. For example, we can now talk comfortably about the "companionship" of Greek men when we couldn't twenty years ago. That's not an agenda, but a fact- and one relatively suppressed before attitudes shifted. (That doesn't save that POS movie Alexander from sucking.) 163862[/snapback] I dont' think there was really ever any denial about the Greek and Roman propensity toward homosexuality. In fact, I am in posession of more than one old (pre-1930) history books which mention it specifically. However, when one attempts to paint a historical figure in a different light (whether it's Lincoln being gay or not), one misses the mark academically, in my opinion. Because eventually it's unprovable, unlike the actions of countless thousands of Greek and Roman men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted December 17, 2004 Author Share Posted December 17, 2004 Good Lord, who cares? 164059[/snapback] I think a lot of people have a lot at stake if this could be proven, specifically the gay community and the religious right. It would definitely blow a lot of perception out of the water, and you can bet that the gay community would love to see it acknowledged that we had a President who was gay, not to mention one of our best ones. Again, I'm making no judgement here as to whether there is any truth to it, and I believe it's ultimately unprovable, unless there are some daguerrotypes out there I don't know about. But what's at stake is obvious and there is a reason historians are debating it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 I think a lot of people have a lot at stake if this could be proven, specifically the gay community and the religious right. It would definitely blow a lot of perception out of the water, and you can bet that the gay community would love to see it acknowledged that we had a President who was gay, not to mention one of our best ones. Again, I'm making no judgement here as to whether there is any truth to it, and I believe it's ultimately unprovable, unless there are some daguerrotypes out there I don't know about. But what's at stake is obvious and there is a reason historians are debating it. 164099[/snapback] Gee you're right. It might be really really fun to have a Republican gay president to throw in their faces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 Gee you're right. It might be really really fun to have a Republican gay president to throw in their faces. 164129[/snapback] Lincoln was not a current kind of Republican. Republicans of Lincoln's day were not interested in social conservatism. Their primary focus was the promotion of capitalism through favoring business, and also were looked as the party of progress. Democrats represented the stringent moral voice of the nation, while also catering to the people through populist movements. Since Theodore Roosevelt, Republicans have lost their interest in progressive causes, and have become very conservative, which is sad to see. This explains why I keep ol TR as my avatar- the ultimate Presidential example of common sense AND action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 This is what I hate about modern historical studies. They always try to fit a political agenda rather than looking at the facts and drawing a neutral conclusion. Moral relativism is far too prevalent in today's historical academia. I can't tell you how many times I was FORCED to call out my professors for trying to inject modern viewpoints and judgements on ancient and medieval figures. Ridiculous. 163802[/snapback] I agree with you, but I will not reject this man's findings out of hand. I know exactly what you mean... there is such a thing as going too far (i.e. forming views to fit an agenda like Berkeley or Regent universities have tried to do). You can't POSSIBLY judge men and women by another era's standards, and I think the historians that do that are making the term 'revisionist history' a BAD one, when it should not be. Revisionist history to me means taking into account all factors in analysis, not merely excluding a race or nation(s) as past historians tended to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 Lincoln was not a current kind of Republican. Republicans of Lincoln's day were not interested in social conservatism. Their primary focus was the promotion of capitalism through favoring business, and also were looked as the party of progress. Democrats represented the stringent moral voice of the nation, while also catering to the people through populist movements. Since Theodore Roosevelt, Republicans have lost their interest in progressive causes, and have become very conservative, which is sad to see. This explains why I keep ol TR as my avatar- the ultimate Presidential example of common sense AND action. 164170[/snapback] I know that and you know that but still and all he was a Republican and they like to use him to try to get the descendants of former slaves to vote for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berg Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 Good Lord, who cares? I'm waiting for the book about Jesus being gay. After all he was 33 and unmarried, living with his mom when he could. What more proof does one need? Oooooo now THAT would be fun to watch and see how fast the neocon wingnuts banned it, burned it, whatever. 164059[/snapback] Heehee. Watching the mad scramble would be humorous, now wouldn't it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 I'm waiting for the book about Jesus being gay. After all he was 33 and unmarried, living with his mom when he could. What more proof does one need? 164059[/snapback] Haven't you read The DaVinci Code? Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 Gee another gay republican! WTF gives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 Haven't you read The DaVinci Code? Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene... 164659[/snapback] I thought he just banged her and sired a line of descendents that only a handful of people know about, but has been secret for years, and a secret cult of Catholics wants to stamp this out and the bloodline peeps don't even know about the Jesus bloodline but they feel the blood of Jesus in their veins somehow anyway. Talk about gay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 this thread is pretty gay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 18, 2004 Share Posted December 18, 2004 I thought he just banged her and sired a line of descendents that only a handful of people know about, but has been secret for years, and a secret cult of Catholics wants to stamp this out and the bloodline peeps don't even know about the Jesus bloodline but they feel the blood of Jesus in their veins somehow anyway. Talk about gay. 164803[/snapback] Just got the book for Chanukah, thanks for saving me some reading time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 Lincoln was a Unitarian (hmmm). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted December 21, 2004 Author Share Posted December 21, 2004 Lincoln was a Unitarian (hmmm). 170763[/snapback] Hey, what are you saying? Seriously, he had a rather Unitarian outlook and influence, but I don't think he was a Unitarian or Universalist out-and-out (no pun intended). Lincoln & Unitarianism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 Their primary focus was the promotion of capitalism through favoring business How is that any different then today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 I'm waiting for the book about Jesus being gay. After all he was 33 and unmarried, living with his mom when he could. Don't forget that he hung out with 12 guys all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 Hey, what are you saying? Seriously, he had a rather Unitarian outlook and influence, but I don't think he was a Unitarian or Universalist out-and-out (no pun intended). Lincoln & Unitarianism 171238[/snapback] I am a unitarian universalist - not that there is anything wrong with that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 As much as I would love to see that Honest Abe was the original Log Cabin Republican, I don't think any fashion conscious gay man would be caught dead in that stupid hat and wearing that much black. The color is all wrong for a man that tall and thin. Also, his portraits suggest he had very poor complexion. Couldn't the leader of the free world get a facial once in a while? And that beard!?!?!......let's just say as a gay man Abbey needs a complete makeover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 How is that any different then today? 171265[/snapback] You missed my MAJOR point, which was that the progressive nature of the social aspect of Republicans during that time has now completely vanished, and has been replaced by the old Democratic Bible Belt constituency and its conservatism. In other words, the social platforms switched parties somehow. I would probably venture to guess that it partly happened after a series of very conservative Republicans in Coolidge and Hoover(Hoover, naturally conservative in all aspects, had to be countered by a progressive FDR), and the other foot dropped in reaction to the Civil Rights Era/Kennedy and Johnson programs. NIXON's presidency began what we know today as the modern Republican party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalkie Gerzowski Posted December 24, 2004 Share Posted December 24, 2004 Geez, leave the man alone already. If you want to talk about gay, look at the fairy who shot him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts