Rick:

I take your point about Lincoln’s weirdness; and the explaining of it, or at

least the “placing” of it on the spectrum of known human sexual types, is

certainly a legitimate historical exercise. The notion that incoln was

“gay” in the modern, self-conscious sense seems to me preposterous, though;

and the adducing as evidence for it, that he shared a bed with other men, is

preposterosity on stilts. However, this is not really fair comment, since I

know Tripp’s book only from your review, and Lincoln not half as well as I

ought.

Generally speaking, though, I would take this business of “outing”

historical characters more seriously — I actually just mean “seriously” –

if it were ever done by someone not a homosexualist ideologue; just as I

would take the “intelligent design” stuff more seriously if it were argued

by someone not a committed religious believer. As it is, these cannot but

come across as exercises in axe-grinding.