Common Sense	Common Sense Archive

I was at my work station, at the bookshop, having a nice chat with an older friend. He's a retired schoolteacher who likes to travel. For whatever reason these things happen, we got onto Presidential politics and then onto the name of Abraham Lincoln. Another fellow, much younger, joined in: "Wasn't there some book that came out that said that Lincoln was gay?" I sometimes enjoy hearing the end product of whatever it is that snakes through the media, ultimately repeated by the final recipient of the tune. I explained that Larry Kramer, the noted playwright and author, had, in the past few years, been advocating the position that Abe and his friend Joshua Speed had been intimate boyfriends, and thus Lincoln was for part of his life homosexually active Kramer probably called Abe "gay." The younger fellow said he knew nothing about Kramer's pitch, but some book had it that Lincoln was gay. I suggested he read Charley Shively's book on Walt Whitman, in which Shively has a long digression on Lincoln and Speed. No, no, he didn't think it was that. He was sure there was a book.

View our poll archive

As a person in retail, and especially one that deals with books, I am always interested in the semi-information or the misinformation that folks operate on in our AmeriKan world of self-empowerment and entitlement, clearly a dangerous thing. This is particularly poignant when it comes to items that are featured on various web sites. The guys come in, insist the item is available: "I saw it on the Web!" I have a friend who sees the Virgin Mary every Tuesday. At any rate, my retired friend rejoined the conversation. "I don't believe any of this stuff about Lincoln being involved with Speed. Sure, Lincoln shared a bed with Speed for four years. Who care? What does it mean? Beds were in short supply then and people doubled up. And their [Lincoln's and Speed's] affectionate letters, well, that was simply the custom of the time," and he went on and on.

I was annoyed listening to this blather. Why go on about how normal Lincoln was? Why deny Lincoln a boyfriend if he had one? Listening to my pre-Stonewall friend, I simply heard every old ghetto-mentality, media-driven cliché that gets pumped into peoples' minds. Must we still assume a man is heterosexual until he comes out or is "outted"? Can't we assume he is available to men as he may be to women? I thought that this was the point of our revolution in consciousness.

Since persons such as ourselves are always being judged harshly by the religious bigots and talk-show harridans, I have always thought that acceptance is our forte. Abe Lincoln was one long cool drink of water when he rode into Springfield. He didn't have much social support didn't know anybody, and he was something of a hick. Joshua Speed ran a dry-goods store, and he hired Lincoln right off the bat. And, yes, they shared a bed. This is what Lincoln and I have in common Mid-Western roots and retail experience. I only hope my jokes in the shop are better than his though his have become more famous, at least for the time being. When Speed went off to Kentucky to marry a rich lady, Lincoln wrote him, begging him back. Lincoln reminded Speed that they had shared a bed for exactly four years, yes, Lincoln had counted the days. The way up for an ambitious poor young man then was to marry a rich man's daughter. Nothing changes the mentality of the ordinary, marrying for money. Speed married his belle. Lincoln, after an on and off engagement with Miss Todd, took her in marriage. The longer I look at the life and career of Mary Todd, the more saint-like Abe gets in having taken her hand. (Many have played Mary Lincoln. My favorite is Ruth Gordon in "Abe Lincoln in Illinois.")

Why should the young men give it up? Times were different then, but not in the way my friend was suggesting which, I think, was something along the line of the old way: that famous historical people are never queer, and that icons of the republic must never be "tainted," and that the occasional gay or lesbian in the history tableau is such a marvelous exception, often someone with great wealth, beauty or some sinister corruptive ability thus we get those ridiculous Gays In History Lists .

I reject this mentality. Shouldn't Lincoln and all the Presidents have as many boyfriends as they can get? I am a Kinsey Six, if you like taxonomy. Most men aren't. Especially men who by their economic circumstances and their ambition must appear conventional the vast throng. What's so shocking is that my very well-educated friend would have missed all this and done the ghetto-patter. Is it still only the radicals, of whatever age, that have the view finder right? Are many in our community no better off intellectually than they were in the 50s?

Each one out there has a different story; you eventually hear them all. Which can be OK, if you scavenge copy as I do, but, believe me, there's a price. But in listening to how gay men talk, you get their history, the role of their class background, whichever that may be, and their participation in or denial of the politics of liberation. In the debates now, which seem to be dominated with the military again and domestic partnership, the vector of discourse doesn't always resonate with the issue of rights, which you'd think would be the foundation. Equity, as an argument, has its utility, but "rights" fill the flag, call to action. My toast to Abe and Josh. **

Author Profile:  Mitzel
	Mitzel was a founding member of the Fag Rag collective, and has been a Guide columnist since 1986. He manages Calamus Books near Boston's South Station.
	Email:	mitzel@calamusbooks.com
	Website:	calamusbooks.com