Customer Reviews

The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(7)
1 star:		(17)

 

 

Tripp offers an intriguing thesis -- Lincoln's fundamental
homosexuality -- that can be useful in understanding and
explaining many of the most difficult aspects of his character.
Lincoln's famed melancholy, his evident sorrows, and his stormy
marriage and difficult family life can be readily explained and
perhaps rightly understood in the light of this premise.

Nevertheless, though Tripp's conclusions make a great deal of
sense from a psychological perspective, I do not find them
wholly convincing. This is possibly an inherent scepticism I
have with pyshological explanations of historical figures: I
am unsure and unconvinced that what we know now about
pyschology must always hold true for the past (it was a
different context, and thus quite similar manifestations may
have quite dissimilar causes while similar causes may have very
dissimilar manifestations.)

My scepticism is also due to my training as a historian. While
a pyschologist may well be allowed (perhaps MUST be allowed) to
make great conclusions from scant evidence, a historian
generally should not be. Tripp offers a goodly body of
evidence about the relationship between Lincoln and Speed (one
that I find persuasive, even.) But he draws a great deal of
inference from a small body of evidence for other examples.
And Tripp relys upon a style of argumentation which I cannot
abide: "Since we know my premise to be true, all this that
follows must be true." This is a common tact in psychological
writing starting with Freud, at least, but it fails to convince
me.

Were Tripp to have offered the text as a history paper in a
class of mine, I'd've told him to get more data or moderate his
conclusions. My feeling is that Tripp's case deserves Scotland's
so-called "(...) verdict:" neither "guilty" nor "not guilty,"
Tripp's case remains "not proven."

Still, this work adds a useful dimension to Lincoln scholarship
and provides a worthwhile starting point for future exploration.

I much appreciate the book's presentation with its introduction
by Mary Todd Lincoln's biographer Jean Baker and its two
afterwards, both pro and con. These enhance the book's value to
both the scholar and the casual reader.

When I carry THE INTIMATE WORLD OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN with me, people comment on the book's content and express their opinion. However, I discover that few of these people have actually read the book! Clearly, this is a controversial book that generated a great deal of TV talk, but the talk lacks substance. Mostly frustratingly, people will draw conclusion regarding the validity of Tripp's position without reading the book. Thus, my first recommendation is to read the book and assess Tripp's methodology. Don't buy the TV talk.

Tripp (deceased just prior to publication), a well known clinical psychologist, has hypothesized that Lincoln was not a heterosexual. This is considerably different from stating that Lincoln was a homosexual - which is how people who haven't read the book (i.e., Bill O'Reilly) interpret Tripp's findings. Besides failing to read the book, many people lack the biological, historical and sociological background to understand Tripp's findings. Here is where a solid liberal arts education pays off and perhaps herein lays the major criticism of Tripp's work. Tripp fails to build the biological, historical and sociological foundation that provides the legitimacy for Tripp's conclusions.

I can give examples of critical foundation issues that Tripp failed to address. First, he needed to review the function of genes in human biology. Many people with limited knowledge believe that genes provide discrete and clear cut outcomes - male/female; blue eyes/brown eyes. Many genes don't function in this manner. This biological tidbit has profound implications for sexual orientation.

Second, Tripp needed to address the fundamentals of linguistic and sociological theory regarding the consequences for NOT having the term "homosexual" during Lincoln's life span. "Homosexuality" as a social science concept didn't exist until after Lincoln's assassination. The sociological and linguistic implications are profound and would have an impact on Lincoln's sexual activities.

Third, he failed to address statistical theory. Forty-two (42) men were presidents. According to the current state of the art for estimating homosexuality among men, every 10th man is homosexual. Thus, employing the central limit theorem, our best estimate includes the notion that less than 4.2 of our Presidents have homosexuality tendencies. So, who are the gay presidents?

The major contribution of Tripp's work is that he forces us to realize "so what!" If Lincoln was gay, it doesn't change anything. Nevertheless, Tripp's work is an excellent exercise of one' critical thinking skills.

While this book was interesting and I actually read the whole thing, even as a gay person, I found the "evidence" to not be compelling. Gay people (as well as some heterosexuals) do this all the time ....try to judge someone else's outside (actions, mannerisms, etc) in relation to their insides (feelings, experiences, etc.) For me, it mostly shows that you can find or interpret "evidence" to support anything you want to believe. An argument could just as easily be made that Mary Lincoln was a dominatrix and that Lincoln loved being dominated. Sorry, but if it takes 200+ pages to try and convince us, it ain't that convincing. In that no one is going to believe this except those already inclined to do so, what is the point?

At any rate, Lincoln was an extremely interesting man on many levels, and I enjoyed reading about him.

The world of Lincoln scholarship can be highly contentious, but controversy about this book relates to Tripp's use of evidence, not the topic he examines. My own specialty is Lincoln's pre-presidential life. Determining what happened in those years can involve surmise and supposition. I don't fault Tripp for lacking unobtainable proof. Even outright speculation can freshen thought.

I am concerned, however, by Tripp seizing a kernel of evidence, extrapolating from it, and pronouncing the resultant structure to be proof of his contention. For example, he finds a unique statement from Bill Greene noting that Lincoln had well-developed thighs. Tripp then turns to the Duncan and Nichols biography of Mentor Graham, a source I consider so unreliable that I have never dared cite it as authority for anything. Relying on an undependable source and a single comment from Greene, Tripp claims to prove a homosexual relationship between Greene and Lincoln.

Tripp extrapolates further and argues that because Greene became embarrassed when Lincoln introduced him to Secretary of State Seward as Lincoln's grammar teacher, that meant Greene was uneasy about his old homosexual relationship with Lincoln. Tripp considers and rejects the possibility that Greene said little during the meeting because he didn't want to reveal his poor grasp of grammar to Seward, thereby belying Lincoln's praise and humiliating himself. I find the possibility that Tripp rejects to be more plausible than the one he embraces.

Another type of reasoning is illustrated by Tripp arguing for a homosexual relationship between Lincoln and Joshua Speed because (in part) when Lincoln moved into their sleeping quarters, Speed failed to say anything about his admiration of a Lincoln speech. Tripp here assumes that because Speed failed to mention this in his account of his conversation with Lincoln, that absence means no conversation about the speech occurred. Lincoln and Speed may have talked about many things that Speed didn't mention (weather, crops, politics). Tripp seems to think that if an account doesn't say something happened, then it didn't happen. That's invalid reasoning.

Regarding Lincoln and Speed being bed mates, neither man was secretive about the arrangement, and some men Lincoln slept with had definite heterosexual orientation. Public comment about a politician's sex life was rare in that era, but I have seen examples in Illinois newspapers. If anyone had thought the Lincoln-Speed sleeping arrangement could be portrayed as homosexual, I think political opponents would have raised the issue regardless of whether they believed it.

We can speculate all day about Lincoln's place on the sexual continuum between heterosexual and homosexual, and speculate reasonably, but speculation isn't proof. Still, the topic is worthy. For me, the big disappointment in Tripp's book was in finding him wrong again and again about things I know about. If it had been the other way around I would probably have found the book exciting rather than frustrating.

I heard a quick review of this book on the radio and ordered it fully expecting the "National Enquirer" version of Lincoln's life. Pleasantly surprised, I found it rather to be a well researched and documented glimpse into Lincoln the man. While the first three chapters are devoted to building evidence for a homosexuality issue, the reader may draw their own conclusions. Other writers have offered forwards and afterwards to this work which was published posthumously. I enjoyed the anecdotal Lincoln and find him to be even more an icon, if more approachable.

I have read the book. I have read the press reviews. I have read the opinions expressed on this web site. So I believe I am qualified to comment. The negative reviews here on amazon appear in many cases to be motivated by their authors' disgust at the thought that Lincoln might have preferred the intimate companionship of men over women. These reviewers seem to think that an icon is being smashed and defamed. This book does not deserve such a bashing.

True, the book is built around only a few documentable instances where Lincoln appears to have slept with men. True, Dr. Tripp's scholarship also appears to ignore some evidence that Lincoln cavorted with a female prostitute and otherwise showed an interest in women. But here's the key: This is the first book which gathers together the shards of hard evidence that suggest that Lincoln was anything but purely heterosexual. And though they are just scattered factual tidbits showing that Lincoln may have had sex with men, they are valuable in suggesting that Lincoln was unlikely to be strictly "straight" -- a characteristic that reflects the icon-building which Lincoln's admirers began the moment he was carried from Ford's Theatre. This book helps to show the human being behind the icon.

Those who criticize Tripp's book in many of the negative amazon reviews seem to be insecure at the thought that Lincoln might have been gay, or at least bisexual. Such criticism causes me to wonder if they are insecure regarding their own sexuality, and use their scathing reviews to try to assure themselves that they never, ever, ever would be anything other than "straight."

This book is worth reading.

C. A. Tripp (The Homosexual Matrix) has written a controversial though scholarly treatise on the sexuality of our greatest president. The text is supported by voluminous footnotes and bibliography. There is a thoughtful introduction by the historian Jean Baker as well as three essays in the "Afterward" by Michael Burlingame, Michael Chesson and Alice Fennessey. Additionally the appendices contain relevant correspondence (the Speed letters as well as Lincoln's youthful attempt at doggerel.)

A psychologist and associate of Alfred Kinsey, Tripp uses both the research gathered by Kinsey on human sexuality and factual information from Lincoln's life to arrive at his conclusions. He ascertained that Lincoln arrived at puberty very early, at age nine or ten, and from Kinsey's research, hypothesized that Lincoln would have been more likely to have been homosexual or bisexual because of that. On Kinsey's seven-point continuum, with zero being completely heterosexual and six exclusively homosexual, he opined that Lincoln would fall at five.

Although there are other men mentioned-- Billy Greene, a lad who helped Lincoln with his grammar, often slept with him and said of the small cot they slept on that when one of them turned over the other had to do likewise-- Tripp discusses in detail three men that Lincoln may have had a romantic or sexual interest in. David Derickson was a captain in the Union Army, from a "socially prominent" family in Pennsylvania and nine years younger than Lincoln. For a time, when Mrs. Lincoln was away from the White House, this young man slept with Lincoln. Colonel Elmer Ellsworth was the "first casualty of the Civil War" and someone who had come to Lincoln's attention through a Col. John Cook. Lincoln invited him to study law at the Lincoln law office and later wrote letters to the Secretary of War recommending promotions for him. Ellsworth was killed in an effort to tear down a Confederate flag that waved across the Potomac in Alexandria that Lincoln could see from the White House. Upon learning of this young man's death, the President was distraught. The most compelling evidence, however-- though of course circumstantial-- comes from Lincoln's relationship with Joshua Speed. These two men shared the same bed for four years in Springfield, Illinois. When Speed moved out and moved back to Kentucky, Lincoln had a nervous breakdown. Speed later married and had promised to write to Lincoln the following day to report on "how the wedding night had gone." Lincoln responded as follows: "I opened the latter [letter] with intense anxiety and trepidation; so much, that although it turned out better than I expected, I have hardly yet, at the distance of ten hours, become calm." It is Tripp's belief that these men had concerns over whether Speed would be able to perform on his wedding night and that this letter is the closest we have of a smoking gun. Speed and his wife never had children. There are other interesting facts: apparently Lincoln married Mary Todd because of societal pressures if he were to be a public figure. He only bought the marriage license on the day of the wedding. Mary later nixed the naming of their first child "Joshua" and never liked Speed. After Lincoln's death, when people were gathering all the information available about this martyred president, Speed gave some of Lincoln's letters to William Herndon but only those of "any interest." Finally, Speed is the only person that Lincoln ever signed his letters, "Yours forever."

There is more here-- about what a shrew Mary was as well as evidence that the story of Ann Rutledge as Lincoln's one tragic love is probably as mythical as George Washington's cutting down the cherry tree. For starters, she was engaged to someone else. Tripp discusses Lincoln's lack of conventional religious beliefs-- nowhere in his writings does he discuss a personal savior or mention Jesus. During the illness and death of his first born-- whatever Lincoln felt about marriage, he adored his children-- at no time did he appear to pray or seek divine intervention.

Tripp winds up this certainly intriguing study in a final chapter labeled "On Lincoln's Sexuality with Extensions" with comparisons of Lincoln to Churchill -- I didn't know heretofore that Churchill admitted to at least one homosexual involvement that he labeled "musical"-- and the World War II code-breaker Alan Turing-- a somewhat bizzare ending, but perhaps Tripp would have made revisions had he lived (he died before the publication of this book).

If Tripp's conclusions are accurate-- we will never know, although other scholars believe that Lincoln was at least bisexual-- then ironies abound. Walt Whitman's tribute to Lincoln, the elegiac and beautiful "When Lilacs Last In The Dooryard Bloomed" takes on new meaning. (According to the footnotes from my college Norton anthology, lilacs in some cultures are symbolic of male love as I recall). And maybe we have the last laugh on that great heterosexual President Mr. Jefferson who, although he apparently had no qualms about impregnating his slave again and again, suggested that sodomites be castrated. Of course "jelly babies," Lincoln's term for what happens when two men have sex, leave no DNA evidence, Mr. Jefferson.

In the final analysis, it probably doesn't matter who slept with Lincoln. But at the very least, as Jean Baker says in her introduction, we should give this book a "fair reading."

Anyone reading this book that has 1/2 a brain can easily understand what Abe's preferences and practices were. Due to the very sensitive fact that he was a US President, it has become grounds for certain entities to try to discredit the writer and the contents of the book, it is no surprise and it's truly sad that they feel the need to do this, esp. in this 21st century and I do understand why they think they would have the need. Certainly by admitting the facts about his preferences (at least according to this book) would open some major cans of worms that the establishment is not willing to deal with at this juncture, really too bad and sad. While this comment is not an endorsement in any fashion or form of the Log Cabin Republicans, they have known "what time it is" about Abe's practices and preferences for quite some time, to the extent of naming their group after him. BTW, the book is well-written, backs up it's assertions and is from a highly-respected author. Buy it, read it, you decide.

Readers interested in opinion about C. A. Tripp's book on Abraham Lincoln should look beyond the truly awful article that Mr. Nobile published in The Weekly Standard. The article does not reflect Nobile's vigorous endorsement, made in 2001 on the History News Network, of the thesis that Lincoln was bisexual. Search the Net for "Homophobia in Lincoln Studies" and you will find that Nobile tried mightily to publish his own book on Lincoln's bisexuality, and when rebuffed, complained loudly that his evidence was not taken seriously because of "homophobia." This same evidence he attacks and derides in his current article on Tripp's book. Yes, his interpretation of the evidence differs in some ways from Tripp's, but only in nitpicking about very minor issues. I call this intellectual dishonesty. Nobile's distortions, when examined for what they are, do not diminish the integrity of Tripp's scholarship. His book contains hundreds of footnotes and careful analyses of Lincoln's relations with the key men and women in his life. It adds up to much more than a discussion of sexuality. This is a thoughtful new view of Lincoln the whole man, of his personality, his character, the many traits that made him extraordinary. Check out the reviews in the New York Times, The New Republic, and Publishers Weekly. They will give you a much better sense than does Nobile's article of what Intimate World is all about. Disclosure: I replaced Nobile as Tripp's personal editor in late 2000. This fact perhaps raises questions about my objectivity. But it perhaps also indicates that I know whereof I speak.

The name signed below is my real name. I find it baffling that one must disclose credit card information to validate a "real name."

Lewis Gannett

In order to get anything out of this book, one has to keep the times of Lincoln firmly in mind. There won't be any "hey look, y'all, I'm gay" statements found anywhere because that didn't happen during that time. Just read and see what your gut says. For ex., yes, it was common for poorer men to share a bed back then. But when they became less poor, and other beds were available, they didn't opt for the buddy in a bed scenario anymore. When someone clings to that convention and then limits the buddy in the bed to young, good looking guys (why not the toady, old guys if it's just about convenience?), you have to wonder. And then, there is the amazing ability of people very close to you to NOT see what is obvious. In college, I shared my dorm room with three straight guys and not one ever guessed I was gay (this in spite of the opera record collection, arty/gay friends, interest in theatre, and total absence of any female dates, pix, posters or interest when they showed theirs . . . twenty yrs later these roommates expressed shock in finding out, one even wrote a nonfiction piece on "the discovery"). Today, you'd think that's all amazingly blind. But just 30 years ago, folks worked really hard to NOT see things they didn't want to see. Take it back 100+ years and you see how much more willful blindness there was likely to have been.