Talk:Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Shared a bed

It is absurd to say that including mention that Speed & AL "shared a bed" "cannot be allowed". It is a central part of the issue--JimWae 22:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• From the edit comment, the complaint is that "'sharing a bed' is 21st century shorthand for sex." I don't think it is, but accordingly I am rewording the comment. Incidentally, I note in passing that the fictional Ishmael and Queequeg share a bed in the novel "Moby-Dick;" I've read that passage as implying affection but not intimacy. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I support Dpbsmith rewording and I agree with JimWae. The "21st century shorthand" is a bit ORish to me. Both Tripp and Donald use the phrase and I certainly don't think Donald is using it as sexual shorthand. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 03:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

So if it isn't sexual, why are we using it in this article on the sexuality of Lincoln? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me, I'm not following you. The phrase "shared a bed" is not sexual in and of itself. It's just...well sharing. The inclusion of the phrase is just part of describing what happened during Speed & Lincoln's relationship. Reliable sources have contended that there was a sexual element to the sharing. Other reliable sources have said that there isn't. I don't see what the objection to the phrase is. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 03:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I follow. Sorry, I thought the assertion being made on talk was that nobody ever said that Lincoln sharing a bed had sexual connotations. Thanks for clearing that up! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is the article not balanced about bed sharing? There is no mention of Lincoln ever sharing a bed with a woman. Or his parents or siblings. Mfields1 (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

A modest proposal

Why not rename the article "Speculation about the Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln"? All this stuff about the use of the term "intimate friend" or "sharing a bed" would not have been seen as connoting sexual activity at the time. Of course, in our time, everyone is a voyeur. If there were a vote, I'd vote to delete. --Tsunami Butler 00:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Weasley. That these terms "would not have been seen as..." is the opinion of yourself and some scholars. Other scholars say the opposite. You should review the history of why this article is even here, otherwise you'd know that "vote to delete" just isn't going to happen. It's been done and failed what.. three times I think? Wjhonson 07:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

All sources need to be verified credible

The offered sources reliability need verification. With the continued controversy of the topic, each reference should be carefully verified and proven credible. The article also contradicts itself by offering two views. This is an obvious controversial topic, the article should be tagged as such. (instead of supporting both views) --Masterpedia 22:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. see WP:SELFPUB "Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves." --Masterpedia 00:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• LOC=Library of Congress. Please provide evidence that LOC is fringe or extremist - also you have broken a link --JimWae 04:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• As for "contradicts itself", the article MUST present both sides & I find this objection very vague --JimWae 05:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. In this case NPOV=apparently contradiction. Further, as far as I can tell, NONE of the sources are self published. I am removing the tag until Knowpedia can provide a detail explanation on exactly what source he is challenge and why. This blank tag seems very point driven. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 06:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete

We've been here, and done that, many many many times. If you have an objection to a specific statement, then feel free to tag that statement. Tagging the entire article is unhelpful. Personally I believe it's well-cited. Wjhonson 00:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"POV" of Image alignment

Overall I don't think it that big of a deal so I'm content to leave the images as is but Jeff's edit summary did catch my eye. "reorganize images to make NPOV. Previous image alignment gives impression that most think Abe was straight". Well first and foremost, my decision for leading with the book cover of "We are Lincoln Men" was based largely for aesthetic reasons-it is simply the better photo image of Lincoln to begin the article with. It seemed much better then the side view of a sitting Lincoln with Tripp's book and the cartoonish drawing of the Time cover. Secondly, the majority of scholarship does think Lincoln was straight. That is not POV but rather due verifiable weight being given to each side of the discussion. As a fellow member of the LGBT studies project, my interest in this article is to maintain inclusion of the scholarship and public interest in Lincoln's sexuality and to prevent a white wash version of history where there is no mention of this information. But we do need to maintain the balance that current scholarship has on this subject-which the majority is that Lincoln was straight. Again, my major reason for ordering the pictures as I did was for aesthetics so it not worth edit warring for. However, I did want to note my objection to the POV comment. There was simply no POV intent there. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 21:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not see the placement of images as biased, and still don't. However Jeffpw considered the images placement biased, therefore other readers would come to the same conclusion. Interesting how images can bring a perceived threat of undue discrimination to the article and may tip the balance against somebody. --Masterpedia 22:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for not having expressed myself well in my edit summary. Both book cover images expressed a POV. One that Lincoln was straight, the other that he was gay/bi. I felt that to lead with either, which is the only image one sees without scrolling, expressed a POV. That's why I didn't simply switch book covers. The Time magazine cover, on the other hand, does not mention his sexual orientation at all. It just says "Uncovering the real Abraham Lincoln". To me, that image seems to best represent what this article is about, without setting the reader up on a subconscious level to decide one way or the other without first reading the entire article and making up his or her mind. Once again, my apologies for my lack of clarity, and for not taking this to the talk page. I didn't think it was abig deal (and I guess it wasn't in itself, but my summary was). Jeffpw 22:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

In the grand scheme of things, it's not. In hindsight, I think my reaction was probably more PMS-driven then it should have been. :/ For that I do apologize as well. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 05:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Relationship with his wife

The fact that there is no section on this seems a glaring omission from this article. Surely there is enough material in Lincoln biographies to write a section about his relationship with Mary Todd at least as large as those about Joshua Speed and David Derickson? WjBscribe 03:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Quote farm?

I have just a general, stylistic concern about the recent addition of several quotes. While obviously not forbidden by the WP:MOS, I thought there was active discouragement not to turn articles into a collection of quotes. I'm just curious as to others thoughts on this. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There was a reason why I added those quotes, and I totally disagree that the article has been turned into a "collection of quotes". There was a previous question in the Talk concerning the Kramer claim. If the decision is to keep that questionable claim, then it is appropriate to provide two single sentence quotes,especially one from Tripp who is the main topic of this article, that cast doubt on that claim. One editor who has contributed heavily to the Talk appears to me to have specifically solicited such evidence.

A brief quote from Burlingame was already provided in the article, but it did not really capture the full conclusion that Burlingame had reached and suggested that he had only a mild problem with the book. In fact earlier (page 227) Burlingame calls Tripp's arguments "a disservice to history". Fairness dictates that the competing argument represented by Chesson also be presented, and his own words best serve that purpose. Two block quotes relating to the same issue do not seem out of place in an article this size. Tom (North Shoreman) 20:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Time cover photo

I removed the photo since it is POV. Does that artilcle even address Lincoln's sexuality? Thanks! --Tom 17:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

How on earth is it POV? --G2bambino 17:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The articles in question are available at http://www.time.com/time/covers/20050704/. It is my recollection that Lincoln's sexuality was not mentioned, but it has been a while since I read it -- it was certainly not a major focus. The photo, however, seems to be less of a POV issue than a relevancy issue. Tom (North Shoreman) 18:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

PS -- Doublechecked and there is about a two or three paragraph mention of the Tripp book -- the article certainly does not discuss the iss ue in great detail. Tom (North Shoreman) 18:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the homework Tom. My issue with the photo was that it gives the impression that the "real" Abe will now be on uncovered. Was that in reference to his sexuality or something else? It gives the POV that Time agrees with the primise of this article which is misleading. Anyways, my edit lasted all of 15 minutes and I am sure the owners of this article will not stand to have that image removed so I guess I am out for now. Cheers, --User:Threeafterthree 18:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Strangely, it seems as though you're using "premise" in place of "assertion" or "agenda." But there is none. The article merely presents a number of views on a subject, without endorsing any one over any other. I suspected the "real Abe" words were what instigated the removal of the image, but it didn't take long for me to see that there was no "real Abe" being pushed here. The article comes to no conclusions that would be construed as a POV. --G2bambino 18:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the article title "Uncovering the Real Abe Lincoln". Anyways, no biggy. --Tom 20:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have corrected the wikipedia article regarding the Time article to more accurately reflect Shenk's views. The wikipedia article suggested that there might be some conclusions of Tripp that Shenk agreed with -- in fact Shenk very clearly questioned the whole basis of Tripp's work and I provided a direct quote from the article to demonstrate this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by North Shoreman (talk Tom (North Shoreman) 19:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Article is a WikiProject

This article is still within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies. --Knowpedia 01:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure your title's quite right here, the article is within the scope of the project but an article cannot be a Wikiproject by definition. WjBscribe 01:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up. --Knowpedia 01:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact given that this article was started back in December 2004, it predates the LGBT Wikiproject by over 18 months I believe. WjBscribe 01:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I need clarification. The definition of the project is "The initialism LGBT (or GLBT) is used to refer collectively to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender people." In this instance, the overwhelming evidence is that Lincoln does not fall into this category. To take the opinions of a few non-historians as determinant over the opinions of over a century of Lincoln historians and biographers is POV to a fantastic extreme. If I in fact followed the incorrect procedure, then how does one contest the inclusion of an individual in the LGBT category? I would like to use this discussion area for those folks who would argue that the preponderance of the evidence indicates that Lincoln was gay. Or is the standard used by the project is the "mere suspicion"?

Considering how much time I have spent fighting ACTUAL vandalism, I would also appreciate the removal of the accusation of vandalism from by talk page by the person who put it there. Tom (North Shoreman) 01:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to split hairs, I did not accuse you of anything. I quote "removing a template could be considered vandalism." Are you familiar with wikiprojects? --Knowpedia 02:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes -- I am somewhat familiar with wikiprojects. I have an honest difference of opinion in including Lincoln under this specific project for the reasons I've stated. I've actively contributed to this page as well as actively discussed this subject on the main page -- and I've actually read the Tripp book. I think a review of my contributions to both this article and combating vandalism in general will show that it was inappropriate to use the word "vandalism" in your addition to my talk page -- I explained why I made the edit when I deleted the categorization. You brought the issue to this page -- that was appropriate and I would responded here exactly as I have without the need for any discussion of vandalism. I again request that you remove the word from my talk page and address here whether Lincoln should be included in this project (or direct me to the appropriate forum to discuss the issue. Tom (North Shoreman) 02:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm new to this discussion, so forgive me if I state something incorrectly or inadvertently step on anyone's toes. There are very few articles on wikipedia about a specific person's sexuality. Seven, if they all start with "Sexuality of..." [1]. So while I won't argue if Lincoln was gay, straight, bisexual, or of some other orientation, I will say that those seven articles probably do fall within the LGBT projects scope. Which, by the way, is "cultural, political and historical manifestation of same-sex, bisexual, or transgender identities, attractions, and relationships, and related societal reactions." This one definitely falls under related societal reactions if nothing else. Just my $0.02US... -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Tom please keep in mind that this article is not Abraham Lincoln. While Abraham Lincoln may not fall in the project, the Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln does. They are two seperate articles. Wjhonson 05:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point, Wjhonson!Agne^Cheese/^Wine 07:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I am glad you acknowledge that the two articles are separate -- especially considering the ongoing efforts by some to feature this article prominently on the main article. I do wish someone would address the basic threshold issue -- given that there is no consensus (or actual evidence) that Lincoln is gay or bisexual, isn't it a POV position to claim that any aspect of Lincoln's personality falls under the purview of the LGBT project. The project banner posted on this page provides a direct link to LGBT and nowhere in that link is there the suggestion that the project's criteria for inclusion is the mere suggestion that someone MIGHT fall into the category. Also, if I recollect correctly from my intial review of this entire talk page, wasn't there a specific proposal made that this article be specifically about Tripp's theory and book rather than about Lincoln and wasn't that proposal rejected? Tom (North Shoreman) 12:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The banner clearly says the project covers "LGBT related issues" not "LGBT people". I fail to see the problem here. WjBscribe 14:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, me have a factual difficulty here.

This article claims:

When Speed left Lincoln and returned to his native Kentucky in 1841, on the eve of Lincoln's marriage to Mary Todd, Lincoln is believed to have suffered something approaching clinical depression. Lincoln's Preparation for Greatness: The Illinois Legislative Years by Paul Simon has a chapter covering the period that Lincoln later referred to as "The Fatal First," which was January 1, 1841. That was "the date on which Lincoln asked to be released from his engagement to Mary Todd." Simon explains that the various reasons the engagement was broken contradict one another and it was not fully documented, but he did become unusually depressed, which showed in his appearance, and that "it was traceable to Mary Todd". During this time, he avoided seeing Mary, causing her to comment that he "deems me unworthy of notice."

However, according to Abraham Lincoln:

On 4 November 1842 Lincoln married Mary Todd who came from a prominent slave-owning family from Kentucky. The couple had four sons:

Catn we reconcile the two articles? If both are correct, the timeline runs:

• 1 January 1841: the date Lincoln broke off his engagement to Mary Todd (according to Paul Simon cited here).
• Some unspecified time in 1841: Speed left Lincoln (there may be a loaded choice of words there) ... "on the eve of Lincoln's marriage to Mary Todd".
• 4 November 1842: Lincoln married Mary Todd (according to both Abraham Lincoln and Mary Todd).

This is a confused timeline and leaves ambiguous when Speed left for Kentucky and when and whether the engagement with Mary Todd was actually broken. Furthermore, since November is the eleventh month of the year, the assertion that an 1841 departure by Speed came "on the eve of Lincoln's marriage to Mary Todd" is much more than a bit of a stretch.

Joshua Fry Speed reads as follows:

Almost four years of the two men living in intimate quarters came to an end due to the death of Judge John Speed on 30 March 1840. Joshua announced plans to sell the store and return to his parent's large plantation home, Farmington, near Louisville, Kentucky. Lincoln was notoriously awkward and shy around women. He was however at the time engaged to Mary Todd, a vivacious, if temperamental, society girl. But as the dates approached both for the departure of Speed and his own marriage, Lincoln apparently cracked. Lincoln broke the engagement on the planned day of the wedding (1 January 1841). Speed departed as planned soon after, leaving Lincoln mired in depression and guilt.

Seven months later, in July 1841, Lincoln visited Speed in Kentucky. Speed welcomed Lincoln to his paternal house where the latter spent a month being nursed back to health. During his stay in Farmington, Lincoln rode into Louisville almost daily to discuss legal matters of the day with James Speed, attorney and Joshua's older brother. Lincoln and Joshua were at odds over Joshua's courtship of his future wife, Fanny Henning (1820 - 1902). Lincoln had romance problems too. He was still recovering from a deep depression which preceded his break with Mary Todd earlier in the year. Lincoln resumed his own courtship of Mary Todd upon his return to Springfield. Joshua and Fanny married on 15 February 1841. Joshua assured his friend in letters that married life had made him happier. Lincoln finally decided to taste married life for himself and married Mary Todd on 4 November 1842.

Lincoln and Joshua corresponded affectionately for decades, chronicling their most personal internal conflicts.

Okay, this seems a little more detailed. Perhaps Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln can learn something? --7Kim 08:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem you cite goes back to the focus of the article. By any logical, historical, NPOV standards the relationship with Mary Todd Lincoln should be the main focus in discussing Lincoln's sexuality. Probably separate sections on Lincoln's wife as well as his significant "girl friends" should be included, and featured prominently, in the article. Although this would be low on my list of priorities, does anybody have problems with adding a few sections? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by North Shoreman (talk • contribs) 14:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Proposed Major Additions to Article

This is a continuation of my proposal from number 17 Larry Kramer's claims above. This should be considered only as a rough and incomplete draft and is being posted here for comments. There are obvious gaps and obvious needs for transition between sections and paragraphs, but since this will take more work than I though I decided to provide this so that folks can comment on the direction I am heading. There have been discussions and disputes about Lincoln’s intimate and romantic (i.e. sexual) interests since about 1866 and the current article in no way reflects these discussions. I intend to place much of the current article in a separate section or sections after the following is added – chronological order of the historiography seems to be the logical way to proceed. The draft is as follows:

The intimate life of Abraham Lincoln has been a topic of historical interest since William Herndon first addressed it in his 1889 biography, Lincoln. In the 1940s historian J. G. Randall dismissed Herndon's work, which was based largely on oral histories, as unprofessional and Herndon himself as unreliable; but in the 1980s and 1990s a new generation of historians with a greater respect for oral histories came to value these early sources as a route of access to Lincoln's psychology, opening up a new dimension of understanding the profound importance of Lincoln's intimate life. In the 1990s this exploration, led by social scientists such as C. A. Tripp and Jonathan Ned Katz, has raised the question of homosexual attachments made by Lincoln during his life.

William Herndon and his “Life of Lincoln

William Herndon was Abraham Lincoln’s law partner, beginning in 1844, and not technically ending until Lincoln’s death.[1] Shortly after Lincoln’s death Herndon, with the intent of writing a short biography of Lincoln began gathering records and oral testimony concerning Lincoln’s life. In his attempt to create what Donald terms “the first large-scale oral history project in the United States”, Herndon’s goal, as communicated in a letter to Josiah Holland, was to picture Lincoln “in his passions – appetites – and affections – perceptions – memories – judgement – understanding – will … just as he lived, breathed – ate and laughed.” In the summer of 1865 Herndon visited the locales in Kentucky, Indiana, and Illinois where Lincoln had lived, and by November 1866 he had gathered around 400 testimonials from people who knew Lincoln in addition to letters, court documents, and newspaper articles. In 1872 Lincoln associate Ward Hill Lamon published a biography (largely ghost written by journalist Chauncey Black) using some of Herndon’s research but it was not until 1889 that Herndon, spurred on by the assistance and enthusiasm of Lincoln admirer, Joseph Weik, made full use of his resources and published “Herndon’s Lincoln: The True Story of a Great Life.”[2]

Herndon’s biography, as well as the letters, interview notes, and Herndon’s monographs to Weik during their collaboration describing particular aspects of Lincoln’s marriage, religious beliefs, and law practice, has served as an indispensable resource for most biographers of Lincoln. .” Herndon rarely provided personal confidences from Lincoln, but is generally regarded as an “astute reporter” concerning his observation of Lincoln’s daily actions, demeanor, and work habits. Much of the Herndon material consists of third party information gathered after Lincoln’s death, and it is this material that has been questioned by some historians.[3]

Lincoln suffered from melancholy throughout his life, and Herndon was the best chronicler of his mood swings. Herndon identified two particular crises in Lincoln’s life. From his interviews with people in New Salem, Herndon determined that at age 26 Lincoln had suffered some sort of nervous breakdown. Then, after Lincoln’s move to Springfield, the events in the winter of 1840-1841 produced a new crisis that historian frequently refer to as ‘that fatal first” since January 1, 1841 was the key date for Lincoln in that winter.[4]

Ann Rutledge

This first episode of depression involved Lincoln’s relationship with Ann Rutledge, the daughter of a tavern owner in New Salem where Lincoln boarded for a time. When Herndon started interviewing people from Lincoln’s New Salem days, Ann Rutledge was unheard of by virtually all people without a direct association with New Salem in the 1830s. That changed on November 16, 1866 when Herndon delivered the fourth in a series of lectures based on his research that introduced Ann Rutledge to the Lincoln historiography. Herndon, creating a controversy that has lasted for over a century believed that Ann Rutledge was the only true love that Lincoln ever experienced. .”[5] In this lecture Herndon said:

“He sorrowed and grieved, rambled over the hills and through the forests, day and night… . He slept not, he ate not, joyed not. This he did until his body became emaciated and weak. His mind wandered from its throne. … It has been said that Mr. Lincoln became and was totally insane at that time and place.”[6]

Born January 7, 1813, Ann’s father was one of the original founders of new Salem. Besides her attractive appearance and skills as a seamstress, Ann was well read from using her father’s library and could discuss the great philosophers and recite from the works of Shakespeare. [7] Girls in New Salem married early with courtship beginning at age 13 or 14 leading to marriage by age 16. By age 17 Ann had already rejected several suitors.

Need to add the specifics of Lincoln's and Rutledge's romance.

January 1, 1841

The winter of 1840-1841 was a critical time in Lincoln’s life. In what historian Allen Guelzo calls “one of the murkiest episodes in Lincoln’s life”, Lincoln called off his engagement to Mary Todd at the same time that the legislative program he had supported for years collapsed, his best friend and roommate since 1837 Joshua Speed left Springfield, and John Stuart, Lincoln’s law partner, proposed ending their law practice.[8]

Need to expand to provide specifics which will get into several other Lincoln romances during this time and the on and off again nature of the Mary Todd courtship.

Husband and Wife

Need to add either before or after this section specifics on the work of James and Ruth Randall that rejected the significance of Ann Rutledge and Herndon's criticism of Mary Lincoln.

Jean H. Baker, historian and biographer of Mary Todd Lincoln, describes the relationship between Lincoln and his wife as “bound together by three strong bonds – sex, parenting and politics.”[9] In addition to the anti-Mary Todd bias of many historians engendered by Herndon’s personal hatred of Mrs. Lincoln, Baker discounts the criticism of the marriage as both a basic misunderstanding of the changing nature of marriage and courtship in the mid-19th Century and attempts to judge the Lincoln marriage by modern standards.

Baker notes that “most observers of the Lincoln marriage have been impressed with their sexuality.” Some “male historians” claim that the Lincolns’ sex life ended either in 1853 after their son Tad’s difficult birth or in 1856 when they moved into a bigger house have no actual evidence for their speculations. In fact, there are “almost no gynecological conditions resulting from childbirth” other than a prolapsed uterus (which would have produced other noticeable effects on Mrs. Lincoln) that would have prevented intercourse, and in the 1850s “many middle-class couples slept in separate bedrooms”.[10]

Far from abstaining from sex, Baker suggests that in fact the Lincoln’s were part of a new development in America that saw the birth rate declining from seven births to a family in 1800 to around 4 per family by 1850. As Americans separated sexuality from child bearing, forms of birth control such as coitus interruptus, long-term breast feeding, and crude forms of condoms and womb veils, available through mail order, were available and used. The spacing of the Lincoln children (Robert in 1843, Eddie in 1846, Willie in 1850, and Tad in 1853) is consistent with some type of planning and would have required “an intimacy about sexual relations that for aspiring couples meant shared companionate power over reproduction.”[11]

Both Lincolns were fully engaged in raising their children, and both were very permissive. It is well documented by Herndon and others that whenever Eddie or Robert were in their law offices they were given the run of the place, and Mary Lincoln said, “We never controlled our children much.” Differences over child rearing, a frequent source of unhappy marriages and obstacle to intimacy, were totally missing from the Lincolns’ home. When the couple had, as every married couple does, problems, their shared commitment to their children brought them through it and strengthened their marriage.[12]

Unlike most women of her social standing, Mary Lincoln was interested in politics throughout her life. Historian William Lee Miller states that politics was an important part of the Lincoln-Todd courtship. Prior to her marriage Mary Todd was an enthusiastic Whig, and many of the men she saw socially (which included Stephen Douglas) had political ambitions. Early in their marriage Mary Lincoln predicted that her husband would be president some day. She kept track of newspaper reports for Lincoln and corresponded frequently with influential friends on behalf of her husband’s interests. When Lincoln received his party’s presidential nomination the national press was surprised of Mary Lincoln’s grasp of politics and once in the White House she cultivated her own political contacts, including the Radical Republican leader Charles Sumner. [13] In Springfield when Lincoln received the telegraphic message that he was elected he ran home and as he approached to house he called out, “Mary, Mary we are elected.” [14]

Speaking of an isolated quarrel that made the gossip circuit, Donald writes, “For all their quarrels, they were devoted to each other. In the long years of their marriage Abraham Lincoln was never suspected of being unfaithful to his wife. She, in turn, was immensely proud of him and was his most loyal supporter and admirer.”[15]

References and footnotes

1. ^ Herndon pg xv. Herndon was actually originally acquainted with Lincoln in 1834.

2. ^ Donald “We Are Lincoln Men”: Abraham Lincoln and His Friends pg. 92-93. Shenk pg. 221. Herndon pg. xxvi

3. ^ Donald “We Are Lincoln Men”: Abraham Lincoln and His Friends pg. 93-94

4. ^ Shenk pg. 222-226

5. ^ Donald “We Are Lincoln Men”: Abraham Lincoln and His Friends pg. 93. Herndon pg. xxviii-xxx.

6. ^ Winkler pg. 1

7. ^ Winkler pg. 41.

8. ^ Guelzo pg. 97-98.

9. ^ Baker pg. 55

10. ^ Baker pg. 49-50

11. ^ Baker pg. 50. Baker relies on (page 286 footnote 36) Linda Gordon’s “Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control” (1976) and Janet Brodie’s “Contraception and Abortion in 19th Century America (1994).

12. ^ Baker pg. 50-51. Donald pg. 108-109. Godwin states of a period in 1848 when Lincoln was in Washington while Mary remained in Springfield, “During this period of great political stress and turmoil, Lincoln came to sorely miss the companionship of his wife and the presence of his children”.

13. ^ Miller pg. 97-98. Baker concludes (pg. 52) that “This was a couple who transformed a mutual interest in public events into a love affair.”

14. ^ Baker pg.55

15. ^ Donald pg. 108

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by North Shoreman (talk • contribs) 16:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

You cannot add the section on Ann Rutledge, claiming it was the cause for his depression when that very point is disputed. An alternate approach would be to *quote*, with quote marks and specific citation, what Herndon says or what he quotes someone else saying. But the above is complicit in not elucidating the facts but rather covering them. Wjhonson 17:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I've already introduced this explanation with a direct quote from Herndon. From the above:

In this lecture Herndon said:

“He sorrowed and grieved, rambled over the hills and through the forests, day and night… . He slept not, he ate not, joyed not. This he did until his body became emaciated and weak. His mind wandered from its throne. … It has been said that Mr. Lincoln became and was totally insane at that time and place.”[6]

Of course, the whole idea whether Lincoln's melancholy is related to romantic misadventures (whether it be Rutledge, Speed, or Mary Todd) or something different needs to be explored and this fits better in the section January 1, 1841 -- I should have made that clear. Herndon attempted a psychological analysis of sorts on Lincoln's melancholy and the Shenk and Burlingame books cover this in more detail -- this is also the part of my research where I'm bogged down. Tom (North Shoreman) 17:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is how you started, and here I'm quoting you: "This first episode of depression involved Lincoln’s relationship with Ann Rutledge, " This section is not enclosed in quotes and presents as a fact that the depression involved his relationship with Ann. This section must be enquoted, since this is a *fact* which is in dispute. We shouldn't be trying to present the answer, but the evidence. Wjhonson 17:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I will add the following footnote right after "Rutledge" in the quote you provided Herndon pg. 112-114. Shenk pg. 222. Shenk notes that Herndon had interviewed twenty-four people from New Salem regarding this episode, and seventeen of them stated “that Lincoln had grieved to an unusual degree after Rutledge’s death and many considered that he had had a brush with insanity.” Does this attribution to Shenk and Herndon (Herndon's actual words are similar to the ones quoted later in the paragraph) resolve the problem? If not, the entire sentence and quote can be incorporated into the paragraph itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by North Shoreman (talk • contribs) 20:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:Lincoln Men cover.JPG

Image:Lincoln Men cover.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Suitability of This Article for Inclusion in Wikipedia

It is interesting to me that this long, long article which reports the idea that our sixteenth President was secretly gay, with razor-thin sourcing, somewhat wily editorial privileges, spotty logic and what I sense as more than a smidgen of wishful thinking by the homosexual sponsors, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia - and yet that same logic forbids any such mention of America's first gay Supreme Court Justice.

Jessemckay (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

And forbidden for how long? Not long at all, I suspect. Jessemckay (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Intimate World of Lincoln cover.JPG

Image:Intimate World of Lincoln cover.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Main Lincoln article

Why are there no mentions whatsoever of Lincoln's sexuality in his main article? There is not even a "See Also" link. SHould this be added under "Marriage and family"? GeneralBelly (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Whata pathetic topic

Why is someone sexuality even an article? Absolutely rediculous. Leave this nonsense for the tabloids.

Aggreed.. This is Abraham Lincoln we're talking about, show some dignity. It's pretty obvious he was strait, quit trying to raise questions and establish a great gay leader of the past or something, you're really slandering a great president. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.25.234 (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It's actually a subject of study about Abraham Lincoln, that's why it's in an encyclopedia. It's not just random speculation. Unsourced speculation is for tabloids. Areas of study and topics are in encyclopedias. If someone wanted to know about the topic, they can look it up here and see that there is credible historical research into the subject. Others are Walt Whitman, Virginia Wolfe, and Cary Grant. The fact that these topics enter in existing legitimate documentation (published biographies, literary analysis, etc.) qualifies them for an entry. Obvious.Luminum (talk) 14:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this topic is completely rediculas. All it is a propaganda for gay activists to say "look! a president was gay!" like they try to do with so many other historical figures. It's actually pathetic. It should be removed. -x

It's tabloid-like because the topic is controversial and superficial in nature. It doesn't matter how much "credible" research is done on this topic, it's still stupid and unnecessary. And as far as I can tell the only person really attempting to make Lincoln into a Homosexual is C.A. Tripp, so there is not much on the subject matter.Lolcontradictions (talk) 23:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point. Do you know what the purpose of an encyclopedia is? It provides information on topics. Since the topic is controversial and corroborated based on tangible debate it warrants an entry. Wikipedia serves as an information source supported by third-party sources. If you think it's "stupid" (how relative and eloquent, by the way) that's your problem. The only time an article doesn't hold in Wikipedia is if it's unsourced and baseless. Clearly since the topic has been written about and debated in legitimate venues, it makes it a notable topic and therefor it should have an explanation on Wikipedia. Tabloids aren't based in anything other than imagination. But, if you'd like to go through every page on Wikipedia and comment about how "stupid" you think it is because it makes you feel better, be my guest.Luminum (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a "fact about opinions," and C. A. Tripp's opinion is important because his book was an important book, which was major news when it appeared, and even its critics have taken it seriously as a book that made a case that needed to be answered. This article seems to cover both what the book says and what critics of the book say. It is not true that Tripp is "the only person really attempting to make Lincoln into a Homosexual;" earlier biographers, writing at a time when the topic was too taboo to discuss directly, dropped broad hints that the saw at least the possibility of homosexuality; there's no other possible way to read Sandburg's "streak of lavender."

If you think there is important material, critical of Tripp that should be mentioned in the article, present it here for discussion or add it to the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Because gee, an admitted Gay Activist wouldn't have any kind of a bias would he? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.172.254 (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Then I'm sure wikipedia won't mind be adding a bunch of other frivolous articles. Hmm...should I start with Lil' Wanye being gay or Britney Spears being overweight?Lolcontradictions (talk) 05:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Clearly everything Dpbsmith wrote went over your head. You do whatever you want. Just be sure you know what you're doing. You can start here: Wikipedia:Five_pillars. There are more tutorials on your user talk page now. Have fun! :)Luminum (talk) 06:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing has gone over my head. I just think it is a silly topic.Lolcontradictions (talk) 07:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion. Strictly speaking, the Talk pages are supposed to be for discussions about how to improve the article they are commenting upon, so if you don't really have suggestions for improvement you're not really on topic here.

If you think the article should be deleted, the proper forum for that is Articles for Deletion, but as a contributor here since 2003 I don't think there's a snowball's chance that you could muster a consensus to delete this article, and I think that you would just find it frustrating to try. There is a very strong feeling in the Wikipedia community that material that can be supported by verifiable sources should not be deleted, and there is also very strong feeling that Wikipedia is not censored. But if you want to get rid of the article, that's where you'd go.

I think your best shot is to find a good, well-cited quotation from some reasonably important person, or an institution like the Abraham Lincoln Institute saying that C. A. Tripp's book is silly, or that it is misguided even to discuss the possibility of Lincoln's being homosexual or something like that. You have to be able to make the case that adding it to the article accords with the neutrality policy. There's a chance you could get that to stick. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

What a complete joke of an article. Nothing to "confirm Lincoln's sexuality"? You have got to be kidding me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.155.6 (talk) 22:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Additional References

There's an article on the proported homosexuality of Lincoln in Gay City News. Including a cite together with a quote from that article:

Ireland, Doug (September 1, 2010). "Forget Mehlman—What About Lincoln?". Gay City News. Retrieved 2010-0917. New "paradigm" embraces scholarship on Honest Abe's homosexuality {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

“We are getting closer to the day that a majority of younger, less homophobic historians will at long last accept the evidence of Lincoln’s same-sex component,” John Stauffer, chair of Harvard University’s Department of American Civilization, told Gay City News, adding, “ We’re already seeing the beginnings of a trend that will amount to a major paradigm shift.”

According to the newspaper, Stauffer is one of the leading experts on the Civil War era. There is more useful information in the article, including a reference to a book by Stauffer:

Stauffer, John (2008). Giants: The Parallel Lives of Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln (1st ed.). New York: Twelve (Grand Central Publishing). ISBN 978-0446580090.

— Becksguy (talk) 08:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

What is a same sex component? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Well there is what the average reader might assume it meant. That component or part of human sexuality that tends toward the homosexual end of the Kinsey Scale, as contrasted with the opposite-sex component that tends toward the heterosexual end. But then there is the possibility of a more precise or different meaning among academics and researchers, as related to sociology, psychology, biology, history, anthropology, or sexology. I'll have to research that. The contents of the Stauffer book doesn't appear to be on-line, but my local library has a copy. Stauffer is an interesting source since he is a credentialed (with a Yale PhD) and tenured professor at Harvard and is Chair of the History of American Civilization there. And apparently he is one of the leading experts on the Civil War era. — Becksguy (talk) 08:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like you may be on the right track. We just don't want ambiguous words for controversial subjects. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree. Which is why I'm bringing it up here and doing my homework before placing anything in this article. — Becksguy (talk) 08:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• This Lincoln-was-gay stuff immediately reminds me of the alleged George W. Bush - Victor Ashe claims. The fact that an academic after the Tripp book (2005) would write on the subject is not shocking. The book created a big ruckus, but was roundly criticized for lack of evidence and leaps of logic. Prior to that, in 1999, Larry Kramer's claimed that a secret diary of Joshua Speed (that he could not produce) was the proof, and a flurry of press came about. There's enough about the topic written to merit the article, but this is still pretty fringe stuff.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

What does Tripp say?

This article starts out discussing what Carl Sandburg said in his 1926 book. But then for Tripp's book, it seems to go right into a lengthy discussion of a falling out with a co-author, and then goes into critical & supportive reviews of the book. But hardly anything about what Tripp actually says in the book! Seems like there should be at least a sentence or two summarizing the book before covering criticism of it. 206.55.187.37 (talk) 11:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

More info

I simply don't have time and not sure of the significance, but wanted to at least drop this article off here:

• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sylvia-rhue-phd/a-family-history-provides-more-evidence-that-lincoln-was-gay_b_2169482.html

Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Looks like it is mentioned in the article already. Everyone is gay on the internet.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Lincoln & Speed's differences of slavery

I've added a citation on this point, specifically a letter Lincoln wrote to Speed in August of 1855. I realize that this doesn't show that their differences continued, as is implied by the article, but I hope this will at least help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisnameisalsoinuse (talk • contribs) 19:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)