What are we to make of Abraham Lincoln? This larger-than-life figure that has cast such an enduring shadow over American history continues to defy historical analysis. The so-called "Lincoln Myth" that emerged shortly after his assassination in 1865 continues as the nation's central memory to this day. The most interesting debate over Lincoln and his legacy has been conducted by a cadre of conservative scholars who have debated Lincoln's real convictions on slavery and his real goal in preserving the union.
At least that was true until now. With the release of The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln by C. A. Tripp, a new question has emerged as a matter of historical interest and immediate media scrutiny. Why? Because C. A. Tripp argues that Abraham Lincoln was "predominantly homosexual."
Welcome to the high-octane world of revisionist history. For years, the field of academic history has been lurching into the ditch of historical revisionism, with various researchers and writers--most hoping for tenure at a major university--pursuing the sex lives of various historical personages, looking for "transgression" and scandal.
Beyond this, a group of homosexual advocates has been ransacking history, looking for traces of homosexuality in major historical figures. Their agenda is clear--to argue for the normalization of homosexuality by suggesting that some of history's most preeminent figures were actually closeted (or not so closeted) homosexuals.
The release of The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln caught the immediate attention of the national media. Reviews quickly appeared in major newspaper and newsmagazines, with some reviewers immediately gushing about the "refreshing" analysis offered by the book's author, the late C. A. Tripp. Larry Kramer, a prominent writer and AIDS activist, told The New York Times that the book "will change history." He certainly hopes so, and his hope is shared by many in the homosexual movement who would eagerly argue that a homosexual Abraham Lincoln should be a model for the normalization of homosexuality itself.
Andrew Sullivan, a prominent homosexual advocate and political commentator, quickly celebrated the book as a great work of scholarship. Even acknowledging the book's lack of clear historical evidence, Sullivan is undeterred. "Certainly if you're looking for clear evidence of sexual relationships between men in Lincoln's time in the official historical record, you'll come to the conclusion that no one was gay in the nineteenth century. But of course, many were." Of course, this is simply not an argument. What Sullivan is really arguing is that the lack of historical evidence should not deter modern interpreters from arguing for a homosexual Lincoln.
Sullivan bases his claim on the following argument. "Here's what I'd say are the most persuasive facts. Lincoln never developed deep emotional relations with any women, including his wife. Even the few snippets we have of early romances or his deeply strained courtship of Mary Todd suggest a painful attempt to live up to social norms, not a regular heterosexual life. His marriage was a disaster, by all accounts." What in the world does Sullivan really mean when he simply asserts that Lincoln did not have "a regular heterosexual life?" History is replete with men who had unhappy marriages, but that hardly made them homosexual.
