Reason.com
New at Reason
A new book has everyone buzzing about just how emancipated the Great Emancipator was. In today's column, Cathy Young throws her top-hat into the ring.
Most Popular Stories
- St. Louis Cops Worry That In-Car Cameras 'Are Being Used Against Them' (5.23)
- Here Are the 15 Senators Who Voted to Stop Armed FDA Agents From Conducting Warrantless Raids on America's Farmers (Not One of Them is a Democrat) (5.24)
- Reason "Hero of Freedom" Larry Flynt's Latest Stunt? Photoshopping a Penis into Mouth of Conservative Pundit S.E. Cupp (5.24)
- When Government Privileges Trump the Rights of Citizens (5.25)
- Plastic Bag Ban Will Put Los Angeles In Landfill (5.23)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Reason-Rupe: Wisconsinites Favor Increasing Public Union Retirement Contributions to Address Budget Deficit (5.25)
- Reason-Rupe Poll Finds Support for Public Union Reforms (5.25)
- New Poll: Obama Leads Romney In Wisconsin, But Gary Johnson Could Impact the Race (5.24)
- Wisconsin Recall: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42 Among Likely Voters (5.24)
- Reason-Rupe Poll: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42, Obama Leads Romney 46-36 (5.24)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
clarityiniowa|2.1.05 @ 9:35AM|#
If I woke up and found myself in bed next to Mary Todd Lincoln, I'd start battin' southpaw too.! Brrrrrrr!
|2.1.05 @ 9:38AM|#
I can't get over everyone saying he was our greatest president. I'd say that's more than a little subjective,eh?
gaius marius|2.1.05 @ 9:49AM|#
i think the weekly standard (and the blind-zealot right generally) can be a bastion of unthought prejudice without this book being a piece of noteworthy scholarship. there are two issues here.
but i wonder how widely recognized the western literary and cultural tradition of homoerotica is in an america fleeing any knowledge of its civilizational heritage. going back to dante and shakespeare all the way forward to siegfried sassoon and wilfred owen, admiring love between men has been a recurrent theme of the canon as it is a common aspect of humanity.
these of course depict not the wild-eyed fraudulent stereotype of lasciviousness tossed about by phobic curs -- but the geniune love between people borne of admiration and spiritual affection.
this runs deep in the classics, of course, produced of a civility that had far fewer sexual hangups. homosexual engagement was neither uncommon nor frowned upon -- and actually encouraged in many examples, notably sparta -- and it is reflected in the literature from even before plato. the term "platonic love" has been unfortunately eviscerated of its true meaning for most americans, due to the death of literary education.
but lincoln came of age in an 19th century classical revival that was intimately familiar with plato. the platonic concepts of men bonded by love were more familiar to his age than ours. none of this required the indulgence of sexuality (though that certainly often occurred, lord byron being among many others).
the unevidenced assumption of sexual action under the influence of platonic love is, it seems to me, a symptom of misunderstanding the common aspect of platonic love that has been part of western civilization all along.
|2.1.05 @ 10:08AM|#
Untruth has yet to set anyone free.
I seriously doubt that is the case. :)
|2.1.05 @ 10:15AM|#
Pint, you clearly are trying to flame this thread or you have never read anything about the American Civil War.
(And let me say before I am hammered by libertarians here that I concede that suspending writ of HC in Baltimore was anti-constitutional. Even so, Lincoln was the most successful President)
|2.1.05 @ 10:44AM|#
No, snake. George Washington was much better than Ol' Abe. While even George did some things which I (as a libertarian) do not agree with, still they were fewer than what Lincoln did in that category. On the whole, Washington did more as President to help this country be great and free than Lincoln did. That, of course, is just a subjective opinion, as Pint suggested.
|2.1.05 @ 11:20AM|#
And don't forget how many times Lincoln visited the City of Brotherly Love.
If anyone could have gotten to the bottom of Lincoln that would have been Allan "The Eye" Pinkerton. Just look at this disgraceful affair:
"The following evening, Lincoln eluded the ball, as worked out, through a side door. Waiting in the port-cochere was a blackened carriage containing a fully armed Allan Pinkerton and another agent. Throwing a scarf over Lincoln, they hustled him onto the seat between them, at the same moment signaling the driver (also an agent) to whip the team into action."
Midnight Trains.
Port-cochere, indeed.
|2.1.05 @ 12:33PM|#
First, Lincoln clearly was faced with the most immediate and severe crisis upon his inauguration. The magnitude of secession and his decision to undertake the most difficult course of action in response (and his success in re-forging the union) is unmatched in overall leadership and results.
Washington is definitely second primarily b/c George is the American Cincinnatus.
Before anyone starts running any FDR jive, The Nazis expended 2/3 of their men and material in Russia. Without a Russian invasion D-Day would have been impossible and the Nazis would have had an a-bomb about the time we did. (Scary)
|2.1.05 @ 12:49PM|#
CMS,
Yeah, those German heavy water experiments were really going places. They'd have had the bomb when?
The best part of your scenario would have been when we got to drop an A Bomb on Berlin. That would have been extremely satisfying.
QFMC cos. V
|2.1.05 @ 1:46PM|#
Snake,
PintofStout's point was that judgements about which President was "greatest" are subjective, and not all of us are on the Lincoln bandwagon. Your response to Pint was that "you clearly are trying to flame this thread." I chimed in with my own subjective opinion. I guess that I am now continuing to flame. You admit that FDR has a following too. You can't think that everyone has the same opinion about which President was greatest.
If Lincoln is objectively the greatest President (as opposed to Pint's and my view that such things are subjective), you need better arguments than you have shown so far.
|2.1.05 @ 2:11PM|#
The greatest President? Its really a contest between a half-dozen of them.
The same is true of the worst U.S. President.
|2.1.05 @ 2:29PM|#
Of course it is subjective. It all depends on what the goal is.
Did the Southern States have a right to succession? I think they did.
Did Lincoln consolidate power in the Federal Government? I think he did, but more importantly I think this was a mistake we continually pay for.
My goal would be decentralized (to the point of individuals voluntarily associating) governance and ultimately no governance by an outside authority at all; governance only by one's ethics.
Shannon Love|2.1.05 @ 2:58PM|#
In the 19th century men sharing beds was quite common and not just on the frontier. Ordinary travelers staying at an inn could expect to share a bed with up to 4 or 5 complete strangers.
The reason was largely technological. Before the development of forced air, buildings were brutally cold in the winter, even mansions like the White House. Moving a few feet away from a hearth or stove deprived on of virtually any heat at all. It was common for temperatures inside homes in the winter to drop below freezing.
The only warm place was in a bed, with curtains around it to trap air, buried under fanatically thick quilts and wearing a night shirt and cap. It was more like what we would think of as camping conditions. People didn't have the option of sleeping on the couch or the floor in cold weather. Consequently, they didn't think much of it in warm weather either.
I think the other problem with evaluating Lincoln or other historical figures is that we have become the anti-Victorians. We see sex everywhere and in virtually ever action and relationship. When we read about to people in bed together we immediately think sex.
|2.1.05 @ 3:01PM|#
Um, who cares?
|2.1.05 @ 3:11PM|#
Gay people trying to prove celebrities gay are like black people trying to prove Cleopatra black.
|2.1.05 @ 3:14PM|#
Lincoln was black?
Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)|2.1.05 @ 3:18PM|#
I've said before that acceptance of homosexuality inevitably leads to sex with dogs. (Just recall what happened to me after my one night stand with a Southern man named Strom.) If Lincoln was gay, then surely the next step would have been a President who likes sex with dogs.
Since none of our Presidents have had puppy orgies in the Oval Office, I therefore conclude that Lincoln was heterosexual.
Just like me!
|2.1.05 @ 3:24PM|#
The greatest President? Its really a contest between a half-dozen of them.
The same is true of the worst U.S. President.
People use highly subjective criteria to pick their best or worst.
Those who think FDR the greatest will likely state that he ended the depression and/or established the welfare state*. Those who doubt the former and/or question whether the latter is a good thing will likely hold an opposing viewpoint.
In my view there is little controversy over Washington's qualities. He still has detractors though. And even while recognizing his qualities it's possible to consider other presidents greater.
As for the worst, I have heard that Franklin Pierce was utterly lacking in redeeming qualities.
*Or they my cite his wartime leadership.
|2.1.05 @ 3:47PM|#
FWIW, my own view is that the first 4 were the greatest because they established important traditions that have sustained us:
-The original George W established a tradition of voluntarily relinquishing power after 2 terms. Only 2 Presidents have tried to breach that tradition, and only 1 has succeeded. Were it not for this tradition, it's possible that we might have seen a tradition of Presidents keeping office indefinitely, in ways analogous to those used by leaders in other post-colonial nations. There are plenty of former British colonies in Africa, for instance, with Presidents who have "won" election after election.
-The first John Adams, in collaboration with his rival Jefferson, established an even more important tradition: The peaceful transfer of power to a rival faction. Washington is generally regarded as being a unifying figure, so handing over power to Adams, while a crucially important step in the maturing of our Republic, did not entail crossing any factional lines. On the other hand, things were quite bitter leading up to the transfer from Adams to Jefferson, and it is a credit to both of them that it happened peacefully. It set the tradition (broken on only one very awful occasion) that an opposing faction can be elected without using or facing violence.
-And Madison is one of the principal architects of the Bill of Rights.
|2.1.05 @ 4:00PM|#
Since none of our Presidents have had puppy orgies in the Oval Office,....
I dunno, man, I'm still wondering what else LBJ did with those beagles. :)
http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/FAQs/dog/JPEG/C311-7-64.jpg
|2.1.05 @ 4:19PM|#
Isaac Bartram,
Buchanan was pretty bad. Some of them were simply inconsequential.
Ruthless|2.1.05 @ 9:27PM|#
Lincoln was black?
Yes, Super Prole.
Lincoln was really and truly our first simultaneously black AND gay president... a tough act to follow.
I'm thinkin' only Condi and Hillary have a chance at toppin' Abe...
Condi, Hillary and the "dark horse, " 'Natty from Cincinnati.
|2.2.05 @ 6:58AM|#
If I woke up and found myself in bed next to Mary Todd Lincoln...
Not to disparage a great man, but he wasn't exactly Erroll Flynn himself, you know?