Was Lincoln gay? New doc conscripts American icon to LGBT cause



Abraham Lincoln holds a mythic position in the American consciousness. He’s respected across the political spectrum. He redrew America’s social contract and self-image. And because he led the country through the Civil War and abolition, he’s now accorded a status befitting a Greek god, cast in bronze and marble.

Lincoln is essential to the American social contract, which makes him essential to any political cause seeking to reframe the national project. He’s criticized by “woke” leftists and alt-righters as a symbol of the neo-liberal consensus and used as a symbol of equality and unity by those in power.

One of the saddest things about the modern world is that the concept of close male friendship has functionally been destroyed.

It’s no surprise, then, that the LGBT movement would come to claim him as well. While no American presidents have ever been openly "gay" as such, a handful have attracted questions concerning their sexual proclivities. Lincoln’s predecessor James Buchanan, for example, was America’s only bachelor president, a pink flag for certain historians looking to "out" him.

Lincoln's outsized stature naturally makes him a far more tempting catch. As transgender and gay issues increasingly dominate the discourse, there have been more than a few attempts to use speculation about Lincoln’s private life and vague comments in his letters to canonize our 16th president as an official "queer" icon.

A deliberate provocation

A recent documentary boldly announces its intention in its blunt title: "Lover of Men: The Untold Story of Abraham Lincoln."

The film was released this fall to general praise from the press and backlash from conservative media. The filmmakers mostly laughed off said backlash, telling the Hollywood Reporter that they were “thrilled” that Ben Shapiro, Alex Jones, and Elon Musk were furious about it. “The reason that they notice the film is because it is compelling. This story is provocative,” said director Shaun Peterson.

The case "Lover of Men" makes goes roughly like this: Lincoln had very close relationships with multiple men throughout his adult life, relationships that were arguably more intimate than traditional friendships. He shared beds with men for months or years at a time, revealed details of his sex life to them in letters, and openly expressed his deep emotional connection to them.

The film essentially argues that Lincoln was LGBT avant la lettre, living an identity that would today be recognized as "queer," "fluid," or "non-conforming." Whether Lincoln actually had sex with any of these men is largely immaterial.

Strange bedfellows

"Lover of Men" dismisses most of the immediate rebuttals with a shrug; the first among them being that beds in the 19th century were expensive and scarce, and it wasn’t uncommon for inns to assign multiple men to a bed or for male friends to share beds.

Peterson's argument relies upon the common modern assumption that intimacy and sexuality are deeply entwined things. The possibility that two men would share deep affection without any hint of the erotic is mostly overlooked because the alternative soundbite — Lincoln was gay! — proves irresistible.

Ironically, Peterson's eagerness to reach this conclusion tells us more about the America of today than it does about Lincoln's era. One of the saddest things about the modern world is that the concept of close male friendship has functionally been destroyed. Even progressive feminists will admit that one of the privileges women enjoy is the ability to form intimate, non-sexual relationships without any hint of Eros.

Men consequently tend to be lonelier than women and have more trouble intimately bonding.

Part of this can be attributed to a decline in fraternal organizations, with most male-only organizations now admitting women. Part of it is also the growing masculine insecurity with being perceived as unmasculine.

The erosion of male friendship

Still, the pernicious influence of the LGBT lobby's tendency to cast public male intimacy as gay should not be underestimated. One needs only recall the particularly fanciful attempts to affirm the secret, sexual passion between "Lord of the Rings" protagonists Frodo and Sam, despite all evidence to the contrary, not least of which is author J.R.R. Tolkien's devout Catholicism.

The result is a negative feedback loop. Men have fewer and fewer opportunities to express themselves. They are criticized for not being emotional; at the same time, any emotional expression is seized upon as evidence of homosexuality.

Tolkien's close friend C.S. Lewis, himself a target of LGBT revisionists, diagnosed the problem more than 60 years ago in his book "The Four Loves": “Those who cannot conceive Friendship as a substantive love but only as a disguise or elaboration of Eros betray the fact that they have never had a Friend. The rest of us know that though we can have erotic love and friendship for the same person yet in some ways nothing is less like a Friendship than a love affair.”

Was Lincoln "closeted"? It's certainly possible — but it seems likely that the claim is beyond proving. "Lover of Men" takes this as reason enough to indulge its speculation. As one interviewee argues, “If the naysayers had their way, there wouldn’t be a gay history because you couldn’t prove it.”

And yet "Lover of Men" is not content to settle for the past. Appropriating Lincoln’s life as a story of repressed homosexuality is a means to entrenching the LGBT movement's power in the present; one commentator goes so far as to say the 14th Amendment should be extended to Americans identifying as transgender.

Whatever one's personal opinions on the matter, using Lincoln as a vehicle for modern-day activism in this way is bad history. We don’t know the secrets of Lincoln’s cloistered heart, and neither do the historians Peterson has assembled. We should be happy to admit our ignorance; some things are meant to remain a mystery.

The Case For Mass Deportation

Deportation is necessary not only to bring back law and order and protect the working class, but also to restore the full political rights of every American.

Why we need God’s blessing more than ever in 2024



A republican form of government deriving its powers from the people? Check. A system of checks and balances? Check. A dual track of federalism? Check. Respect for natural law and fundamental rights? Check.

However, one critical component remained for our Founders to establish this country successfully — an element they universally regarded as the most important factor in uniting and prospering as a nation: God’s providence and blessing. To secure that blessing, America’s Founders believed the new nation had a responsibility to publicly acknowledge, proclaim, and give thanks to God for the blessings already bestowed.

The challenges we face today are far too great for any human plan to overcome. We must return to the one course of action that has always sustained this nation.

The Bible inspired the concept, timing, and customs of Thanksgiving. The Jewish holiday of the Feast of Tabernacles, also known as the Feast of Ingathering, was celebrated every fall to thank God for a successful harvest and acknowledge his providence as the source of their blessings. During this time, as the Israelites prepared for the new rainy season that would nourish the land for the next year's harvest, they prayed for rain. This practice emphasized that all existing bounty came from God and that future success depended on remaining worthy of his continued blessings. Today, devout Jews around the world celebrate this holiday, which falls in late September or early October.

On September 25, 1789, the newly established Congress passed a resolution asking President George Washington to declare a “day of public humiliation and prayer.” This day of prayer and thanksgiving, as described by Roger Sherman, aimed to replicate “the solemn thanksgivings and rejoicings which took place in the time of Solomon, after the building of the Temple.” That celebration, mentioned in 1 Kings, occurred during the Feast of Tabernacles following the fall harvest.

George Washington issued the proclamation on October 3, to be observed on November 26 of the same year. This public day of prayer aimed to beseech God “to pardon our national and other transgressions” and “to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue.”

Notably, as a lasting rebuttal to the ultra-secular zealots of today, the House passed this resolution on the very same day it approved the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, ensuring no law would be made “respecting an establishment of religion.” While the Founders sought to protect individuals from being coerced into practicing a particular religion, they also recognized the importance of promoting voluntary public thanksgiving to God. Just as a nation relies on its military and economy, they understood the necessity of divine providence.

President William McKinley reflected this sentiment in his 1899 Thanksgiving proclamation. He advised,

This day religious exercises shall be conducted in the churches or meeting places of all denominations, in order that in the social features of the day its real significance may not be lost sight of, but prayers may be offered to the Most High for a continuance of the divine guidance without which man’s efforts are vain, and for divine consolation to those whose kindred and friends have sacrificed their lives for country.

McKinley used Thanksgiving to express gratitude for those who sacrificed for the country while also emphasizing the day’s focus on “religious exercises.” Fast forward 120 years, and unelected judges now wield power to ban public prayer and remove a 92-year-old World War I memorial. Had President Washington proclaimed Thanksgiving as a national holiday in today’s era, federal judges might have declared it “unconstitutional” under the guise of extremism.

It’s clear we need God’s blessings now more than ever.

This year, it’s difficult to mask the reality of cultural depravity and the seemingly irreparable nature of our political system. Our current government stands in direct opposition to the founding virtues Thanksgiving was meant to celebrate. Yet, we must remember that the earthly powers destroying our nation hold no true power on their own. That assurance — that we rest solely in God’s hands — remains a profound reason for gratitude.

Calvin Coolidge captured this sentiment in his 1923 Thanksgiving proclamation: “Even in the least propitious times, a broad contemplation of our whole position has never failed to disclose overwhelming reasons for thankfulness.” Similarly, Abraham Lincoln’s 1863 proclamation — the first to establish Thanksgiving on its current date — found hope and gratitude amid the “civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity.”

Reflecting on recent natural disasters reminds us of our vulnerability and our place in God’s hands. We may believe we have everything under control, but ultimately, we are not in charge. As Proverbs 19:21 states, “Many are the plans in a person’s heart, but it is the Lord’s purpose that prevails.”

The challenges we face today are far too great for any human plan to overcome. We must return to the one course of action that has always sustained this nation — recognizing and seeking the blessings of the one who grants them.

“If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land” (2 Chronicles 7:14).

Let us turn to the Lord, lifting our prayers as our forefathers did in the first Thanksgiving proclamation of the Continental Congress on November 1, 1777: “It is the indispensable duty of all men to adore the superintending Providence of Almighty God; to acknowledge with gratitude their obligation to Him for benefits received, and to implore such further blessings as they stand in need of.”

Editor’s note: A version of this article was first published at Conservative Review as “Do we still desire God’s blessings?” on Nov. 22, 2017.

Are We There Yet?

Today, the American soul is sick. A few of its many afflictions include tribalism, loneliness, institutional dysfunction, and widespread public distrust. There's a pervasive atmosphere of unease in modern life—a sense that the United States is stumbling toward complete internal collapse. But though it's widely acknowledged that something is wrong, persuasive answers to the question of how we can revive the American spirit and continue striding toward a more perfect union are difficult to discern amid the noise of partisanship. Perhaps, then, we should seek answers in a more tranquil environment. Maybe we should turn to the open road.

The post Are We There Yet? appeared first on .

Withdrawing Support For Trump Would Be Political Suicide For The Pro-Life Movement

As Donald Trump and J.D. Vance try to win over swing voters, some pro-life leaders are busy dispiriting pro-life voters.

How Trump Can Win Over Black Families Whose Communities Democrats Decimated

With a pro-family agenda that benefits not only black Americans but all Americans, Trump can usher in a historic shift that is long overdue.

No, God Wasn’t Making A Political Statement By Sparing Trump

Conflating religion and politics does an injustice to both.

The J.D. Vance Pick Is A Win For Wives Everywhere Begging Their Husbands To Keep The Beard

Breaking the 'beard barrier' is a step forward for the entire GOP up and down the ticket this fall, and several steps forward for women.

Fringe Benefits

Marching Proud Boys wearing black Fred Perry polos and getting into fisticuffs with Antifa. Anonymous hacktivists wearing creepy, plastic Guy Fawkes masks and messing with the computers of law enforcement and other organizations they think corrupt or cruel. Oath Keepers proclaiming to be "Guardians of the Republic" and traveling to the U.S. Capitol with paramilitary equipment to "Stop the Steal" in January 2021. Woke "Free Gaza" protesters clad in keffiyehs and N-95 masks storming university buildings and building squatter camps. The American taking all this in would be forgiven for feeling the country's politics have gotten weird and extreme over the past 20 years. Certainly, many in the media have treated all these instances as novelties that may portend the death of American democracy. In truth, crazy politics is a recurring feature of our nation. Groups sprout up either adjacent or in antagonism to the major political parties, and it can be difficult to discern whether their confrontational style and tactics mask nefarious and violent designs.

The post Fringe Benefits appeared first on .

Abraham Lincoln targeted for theatrical character assassination; filmmaker suggests he was a philandering homosexual



Activists' so-called "Pride Month" is over, but their campaign to queer America is clearly a perennial undertaking. While American youth are a popular target, long-dead American greats are apparently also fair game.

Shaun Peterson, a self-described "director/preditor" from California who has previously worked on multiple Disney projects, is set to debut a so-called documentary film in September that accuses Abraham Lincoln of having extramarital affairs with men.

"As told by preeminent Lincoln scholars, historical recreations and never before seen photographs and letters, the film details Lincoln's romantic relationships with men," says the website for the film. "Lover of Men widens its lens into the history of human sexual fluidity and focuses on the profound differences between sexual mores of the nineteenth century and those we hold today."

The filmmakers made sure there was no mistaking the agitprop nature of the film, stating, "Lover of Men is not only an exploration of gender roles and sexual identity, but also serves as an examination of American intolerance."

According to the trailer for the film, sexuality "through the mid-19th century was far more fluid, but for someone who wanted a political career, it was mandatory that you have a wife."

"If you can accept a queer Lincoln, you can accept queer people overall," says the trailer. "He should inspire us to achieve a true democracy for everyone."

Whereas the new Broadway show "Oh, Mary!" similarly accuses Lincoln of being gay, the LGBT publication Queerty indicated its transvestic playwright Cole Escola readily admits that his play is utterly baseless. The trailer for Peterson's film, on the other hand, adopts a pretense of seriousness about its projection of faddish contemporary notions about sex onto a revered 19th-century statesman.

'I've seen those letters, and they have no homoerotic overtones.'

Lincoln married Mary Anne Todd, a Kentucky woman, on Nov. 4, 1842. Together, they had four children, only one of whom — Robert Todd Lincoln — lived past the age of 18.

While there have been various efforts over the years to paint the American father and husband who issued the Emancipation Proclamation as gay or a "bisexual" — especially by the late gay activist Larry Kramer, who made no secret of his political aim to the New York Times — these appear to have consisted largely of projections, inventions, speculations, and misinterpretations.

One reason people have concluded Lincoln was gay was that he shared a bed with a man on more than one occasion. It's clear from the trailer for Peterson's film that it similarly will lean into the suggestion embraced by other revisionists that Lincoln had a romantic relationship with Joshua Speed, a man whose marriage to Fanny Henning lasted 40 years.

Michael Burlingame, the Naomi B. Lynn distinguished chair in Lincoln Studies at the University of Illinois Springfield, told the Hartford Courant in 2021 that the supposedly controversial aspects of Lincoln's relationship with Speed seized upon by the likes of Larry Kramer would "be a footnote" in his multi-volume biography of the Republican president.

"The evidence I've seen seems insignificant to justify its inclusion," said the Lincoln expert. "I've seen those letters, and they have no homoerotic overtones."

Burlingame suggested, instead, that he had found evidence that Lincoln was infatuated with women besides Todd prior to their marriage.

Charles Strozier, a psychoanalyst and history professor who addressed the false narrative in his 2016 book "Your Friends Forever, A. Lincoln: The Enduring Friendship of Abraham Lincoln and Joshua Speed," told the Daily Beast that it was very common for men to share a bed in Lincoln's time.

"Inns at the time were really just homes where they finished the loft. They weren't hotels like we have now. They were just hostels, where you have the men over here and the women over there," said Strozier.

According to the Daily Mail, Lincoln originally shared a bed with Speed because when he moved to Springfield, Illinois, in 1837, he didn't have enough money to acquire his own bed and bedding.

The Mail noted further that Lincoln would also sleep in the same bed as other lawyers — a common practice for the traveling "circuits" of his time, where up to 20 would share one room.

Doris Kearns Goodwin was another award-winning historian who reportedly poked holes in the gay Lincoln narrative in her biography on the Republican, noting, "Their intimacy is more an index to an era when close male friendships, accompanied by open expressions of affection and passion, were familiar and socially acceptable."

"Nor can sharing a bed be considered evidence of an erotic involvement. It was common practice in an era when private quarters were a rare luxury," continued Goodwin. "The attorneys of the Eighth Circuit in Illinois where Lincoln would travel regularly shared beds."

The late Harvard professor David Herbert Donald, long regarded to be the definitive biographer of Lincoln, also disputed the suggestion — by C.A. Tripp, a gay researcher for Alfred C. Kinsey — that the 16th president was gay. The New York Times indicated that no one at the time had ever suggested Lincoln and Speed were sexual partners — not even his enemies in the yellow press. Donald, like Strozier, emphasized that in frontier times, space was tight and men shared beds. It was not out preference but necessity.

In response to a similar effort — again by Kramer — to paint Alexander Hamilton as non-straight, Hamilton biographer Ron Chernow warned against "ransacking history in service of a political agenda."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!