The Gay Side Of Abraham Lincoln Alluded To In Major New Film

[Jingthing]

Wow, the first Republican president was gay.

Yes there is some irony in that considering how that party has evolved into the anti-gay American political party.

Lincoln was hardly a saint as president. For example one policy during the civil war allowed Yankee men to avoid the draft for a payment of 200 dollars. A lot back then, but definitely corrupt.

Edited November 20, 2012 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

Look forward to next year when perhaps Winston Churchill or Laurence of Arabia will get their turn of gay fame.

Dear me.......you should study history. Laurence of Arabia really was gay and a masochist to boot.

Well, Winston Churchill's original Sandhurst Military Academy file described him as, "An idle layabout and a confirmed sodomite who was a menace to the younger boys".

Churchill may or may not have had some gay encounters (Ivor Novello, for one), but there was no such entry in his "Sandhurst Military Academy file", nor any such unit in existence at the time to make such a file.

The Royal Military Academy Sandhurst did not come into existence until 1947 when the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich and the Royal Military College at Sandhurst were amalgamated. Churchill, aged 18 on entering the RMC, was one of the "younger boys".

Lawrence of Arabia (TE Lawrence) was certainly a masochist, but not a practicing homosexual and generally viewed by "history" as asexual.

[LeCharivari]

...

Lincoln was hardly a saint as president. For example one policy during the civil war allowed Yankee men to avoid the draft for a payment of 200 dollars. A lot back then, but definitely corrupt.

Little seems to have changed!

[Thaddeus]

Just to even things up a bit, was Monica a closet lesbian who couldn't give up cigars.

[Sateev]

Enough of this desperate search for legitimacy by projecting onto celebrities and important historical figures.

You're gay? Great, just be gay and get over it...

Jesus, Honest Abe, et al have as much right to be whatever they were as you do to be gay. OK?

[Jingthing]

Calling it desperate search for legitimacy is your opinion. Who said gay people aren't legitimate already, Lincoln or not, certainly not me.

Really, this has absolutely nothing to do with me or anyone else other than Lincoln being gay. The topic is about LINCOLN.

The thing is throughout much of history homosexuality has been hidden and repressed, so because of that there is a hidden history out there. Some people are interested in history and some aren't and famous figures sexuality IS part of history. Carl Sandburg didn't have any kind of a gay agenda. He was telling it is like it was based on what he knew. There is a lot of evidence that the truth about Lincoln has been covered up indeed because he is the iconic messianic president that he is. I think there is plenty of evidence to pretty much prove there was a gay side to Lincoln but as a man of his times of course he didn't think of it the way modern people do.

Edited November 25, 2012 by Jingthing

[MrRealDeal]

Enough of this desperate search for legitimacy by projecting onto celebrities and important historical figures.

You're gay? Great, just be gay and get over it...

Jesus, Honest Abe, et al have as much right to be whatever they were as you do to be gay. OK?

+1

[MrRealDeal]

The funny part of all this is that the topic is it's about a hollywood movie as though that has some legitimite basis for a historical discussion in the first place ! ....... Let's use hollywood movies as evedence for history ! LOL

The topic isn't really about Lincon being gay or not ...... it's about Lincon being possibly portrayed that way if you have a big imagination in a MOVIE

It's a little far reaching to base a historical opinion on a hollywood movie and absurd to use one as evidence for your opinion.

I don't think Jing is trying to "justify" anything , but I do tend to agree he finds gayness in places others would not on occation. But maybe that because his gaydar is better than others.

Edited November 25, 2012 by MrRealDeal

[Jingthing]

The funny part of all this is that the topic is it's about a hollywood movie as though that has some legitimite basis for a historical discussion in the first place ! ....... Let's use hollywood movies as evedence for history ! LOL

In this case, you've got it wrong. History was taken VERY SERIOUSLY for this particular movie:

http://www.greatamericanhistory.net/lincolnmoviefacts.htm

[endure]

For the avoidance of any doubt the gay forum on Thaivisa is for gay folks and their friends to talk about stuff that interests them. It's not the place for people who don't agree with homosexuality to come and have a pop. Anyone who thinks that way is probably best served by not visiting the forum at all.

[MrRealDeal]

The funny part of all this is that the topic is it's about a hollywood movie as though that has some legitimite basis for a historical discussion in the first place ! ....... Let's use hollywood movies as evedence for history ! LOL

In this case, you've got it wrong. History was taken VERY SERIOUSLY for this particular movie:

http://www.greatamer...nmoviefacts.htm

That's not especially true ... the movie has been critisised for exaguration of the main plot and overexagurating the importance that Lincon played in slavery , no serious historian thinks the movie portrays the situation very accurately at all.

Here is a quote from your link ..... Of course, in order to make an interesting story it was necessary for the movie’s screen writer, Tony Kushner, to start with Goodwin’s book and add a lot of conjectured dialogue.

Edited November 25, 2012 by MrRealDeal

[Jingthing]

That's kind of silly considering it isn't a DOCUMENTARY. It is a dramatic movie but it is deeply rooted in the actual history.

That said, if you'd like to post some links of actual historians who are trashing the movie, that would be more useful than your general statement.

Back to the Lincoln-gay connection. Frankly, anyone can find deeply felt competing links and opinions on whether Lincoln really had a gay side or not. Carl Sandburg was the first major writer to address it but only with a clear and obvious verbal flourish (the lavender statement). Anyone who looks will easily conclude that it is a LEGITIMATE area of continuing historical interest. In the past, such questions were buried. Not anymore.

Edited November 25, 2012 by Jingthing

[MrRealDeal]

That's my point it's a dramatic movie not somthing we should be trying to use as evidence for history.

I wouldn't say they were trashing the movie in the review I saw , they were just saying the importance of Lincon and slavery was exagurated for a number of reasons and the movie gave a perception that was inaccurate.

Edited November 25, 2012 by MrRealDeal

[Jingthing]

That's my point it's a dramatic movie not somthing we should be trying to use as evidence for history.

I wouldn't say they were trashing the movie in the review I saw , they were just saying the importance if Lincon and slavery was exagurated for a number of reasons and the movie gave a perception that was inaccurate.

OK. I actually never said the movie was evidence of history. Did I?!? I said the movie used good historians for source material.

[MrRealDeal]

You are using the movie to have a historical discussion on the gay side of Lincon, you didn't say it was evedence you are trying to use it as evedence , if you were simply having a topic about the movie itself that would be fine but you are using the movie to support some idea that Lincon had a gay side ..... thats using the movie as evedence in a historical discussion.

PS ..... It might be a good idea to actually see the movie before deciding what you think it alludes to.

Quote from your link and end of discussion . ...... So in a strictly academic sense, we can say with certainty that Lincoln was not gay.

Edited November 25, 2012 by MrRealDeal

[Jingthing]

In a strictly academic sense, we can say Lincoln definitely did not have a modern gay self identity. In a strictly academic sense, there is no consensus from historians whether or not at some points in Lincoln's adult life he felt romantic love / sexual attraction for and/or engaged in sexual activities with another man. If he did he certainly was aware of that and could have impacted on his emotional life and how he acted as president.

As far as the movie raising the history of Lincoln in the current public eye, yes it does that, obviously, this is an internet forum, not a court of law ...

One other thing that is known about the FACT that Lincoln slept for four years in the same small bed with Joshua Speed -- while it is known such arrangements weren't rare in the frontier for practical and financial reasons it is also known that the sleeping arrangement lasted much longer than it had to for economic reasons because well before the four years both could have afforded separate sleeping arrangements. It is also known that Lincoln retained an emotional bond for Speed later in life when Speed showed up in Washington when Lincoln was president, affording him special attention and favors. Historians draw different conclusions from that.

Edited November 26, 2012 by Jingthing

[MrRealDeal]

Their is not one single shred of evedence the Lincon ever engaged in any homosexual acts , just pure speculation from wackjobs.

If polititions offering special favors to their friends makes them gay I guess that would make pretty much every president gay now wouldn't it ! LOL

Next we will be reading about the gay bush cheney connection in 100 years.

Everything involved is just overreaching nonsense speculation ...... get over it.

Edited November 26, 2012 by MrRealDeal

[MrRealDeal]

I laughed for 5 minutes thinking about how absurd it is to put a link between high ranking political figures and special favors to being gay ! ......... That's the silliest thing I have heard on TV yet !

[Jingthing]

Carl Sandburg has been called a lot of things, but this might be the first time he has been called a wackjob.

No, there is no hard evidence of any homosexual sex acts of President Lincoln. Another thing to keep in mind is that one does not need to actually engage in any sex acts to have homosexual romantic, sexual, and emotional feelings.

Edited November 26, 2012 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Again, Carl Sandburg wasn't making this stuff up:

''The sweet violet you enclosed came safely to hand, but it was so dry, and mashed so flat, that it crumbled to dust at the first attempt to handle it.... The juice that mashed out of it stained a place in the leteter, which I mean to preserve and cherish...''

Abraham Lincoln replying to Joshua Speed

It is worth noting how very DIFFERENT the times were back then. Sexual and/or ROMANTIC friendships of the kind that Lincoln seems to have had with Speed between men were common and seen as LESS OF A TABOO than ... masturbation. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Also, even the word homosexual did not exist until 1892, after Lincoln's death.

Edited November 26, 2012 by Jingthing

[MrRealDeal]

There you have then you have solve the case congratulations ..... Since the word didn't exist I guess it wuld have been impossible for him to have homosexual feelings.

Having a good freind doesn't make you gay in any century. It was less taboo because straight people commonly slept in the same bed not because people who did were gay.

Your basic evedence is that he had a good friend , he felt a loss once when he was gone , they slept in the same bed which was common back then , and he did him policical favors , none of that alone or combined has anything to do with being gay UNLESS you want it to.

It another attempt to PRODUCE gayness not an attempt to see things for what they are and they just happen to be gay. Now you are saying he seems to have had a sexual relationship ...... thats plainly PRODUCING it , not uncovering it with evedence , since as you stated their is none ............ Your saying he seems to have had a sexual relationship but I have no ededence for it ......... the only reason it seems that way to you is because you and others just made it up not because you have any facts at all , not even 1 accusation , not even 1 person claiming to have seen it heard it or at the time even thought that way ..... now 100 years later with no facts or evedence you just make something up ...... you need to do better than that to be taken seriously at all.

[Jingthing]

It's not rocket science. Two virile young men (who were obviously VERY FOND of each other based on the documentation of letters) sleeping in the same small bed for four years for much longer than they needed to for economic reasons. Hot, humid, Illinois summers. Cold Illinois winters -- think body heat. Do the math. Seriously, does any rational adult not think there wasn't some comfort taken there? The thing is, it wasn't a big taboo back then and it wouldn't have been very remarkable, it would have been expected, so no need for so called accusations. It did not make them "gay men"; they didn't think that way!

OMG! Of course homosexuality existed for thousands of years before the word homosexual. That is obvious. What didn't exist was the MODERN concept of gay identity.

The concept you use of ACCUSATION so totally comes from a heterosexual bias. Do we say Lincoln was "accused" of heterosexuality because he clearly participated in heterosexual sex? That isn't the point. The point is that it is a LEGITIMATE concern of legitimate historians to ask questions about Lincoln's sexuality in general.

Again, no historian is saying Lincoln was a gay man in the modern sense of how modern people think about gay men.

Edited November 26, 2012 by Jingthing

[endure]

Please stop the bickering.

[Jingthing]

Response to removed post self deleted.

Edited November 26, 2012 by Jingthing

[MrRealDeal]

Well I thnk it's run it's course .... we will have to once again agree to disagree.

[Jingthing]

Based on my understanding of social sexual mores of the time, the rumored relationship between older and married President Lincoln in his 50's and the young man guard WOULD have been rather a big scandal if it both happened and was fully revealed. There are some circumstantial clues, it certainly COULD have happened, and we know there were rumors and gossip. That's probably all we'll ever know about that. Nobody was calling President Lincoln President Nancy, but he did have his beard(s)!

Edited November 26, 2012 by Jingthing

[MrRealDeal]

Yes we can agree you don't know that it happend............. the or not part is irelevant.

Edited November 26, 2012 by MrRealDeal

[Jingthing]

In any case, based on the history of what is known about Lincoln's sexuality and his times, I don't think it makes any sense for modern people to look to him as any kind of role model for gay liberation. That would be doing both Lincoln and actual gay liberation an injustice. But consideration and digging for the sometimes hidden facts about the sexuality of historical figures and seeking an understanding of the different mores of their times (how they perceived sexuality differently than modern people and also of course across different cultures as well) is a good thing. More light, not less.

So of course this graphic is so very wrong ...

Edited November 26, 2012 by Jingthing

[MrRealDeal]

Do you think he was assinated by Booth who was a homophobe for being gay ?

Here is someone who does : All these assertions, however, pale in the face of Kramer’s most outrageous theory: that Lincoln’s murder may have been a kind of gay-bashing, resulting from a kinky sexual set-up. “There’s some evidence that shows that Speed presented Booth to Lincoln as a ‘present’ and the young Booth, who was a gorgeous man, was virulently homophobic, like the men who killed Matthew Shepard,” he says. “If the murder turns out to have had a homosexual underpinning, that’s going to freak everybody out.

[endure]

I asked you to stop bickering please.