Was Abraham Lincoln Queer? A New Docu, ‘Lover of Men’ Makes a Compelling Case That He Was

As a seasoned movie enthusiast and historian with a knack for uncovering hidden truths, I must say that “Lover of Men: The Untold History of Abraham Lincoln” has piqued my interest like no other documentary before it. The audacity to challenge the status quo and delve into the sexuality of one of America’s most revered figures is nothing short of exhilarating.

In “Lover of Men: The Hidden Past of Abraham Lincoln,” filmmaker Shaun Peterson presents a strong argument suggesting that Abraham Lincoln might have been gay or queer.

This 102-minute documentary showcases insights from 20 experts on Lincoln and history, along with previously unseen images and correspondence. It puts forth compelling arguments suggesting that Lincoln had intimate relationships with men. The movie offers a wealth of proof, highlighting the former president’s connections with a number of men – four of whom are particularly noteworthy. One of these significant figures was Joshua Speed, who, according to the film, lived in the same bed with Lincoln for a period of four years, an arrangement that is well-documented.

The book ‘Affinity for Men’ delves into more than just Lincoln’s romantic inclinations; it also uncovers the historical aspects of human sexual flexibility, highlighting the significant distinctions between the sexual norms of the 19th century and those prevalent today.

I’m thrilled to be part of the movie that’s set to hit theaters this coming Friday. Lately, it has joined forces with Special Occasion Studios and the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) in the unveiling of this very film.

EbMaster engaged in a discussion with Peterson and Rob Rosenheck, the show’s producer, regarding the contentious nature of labeling President Lincoln as homosexual.

Shaun, what drove you to make this documentary?

Shaun Peterson expressed intrigue after reading Gore Vidal’s essay in Vanity Fair titled “Was Lincoln Bisexual?” Regarding Lincoln’s sexuality, he delved deeper by researching as much information as possible. Over the years since 2008, he proposed various versions of this story, but the common reaction was skepticism. During the pandemic, tired of hearing people dismiss his idea, Peterson decided to create a documentary. Consequently, he compiled a sizzle reel featuring interviews with three scholars: John Stauffer (Harvard professor), Jean Baker (historian), and Jonathan Ned Katz (historian).

Rob, how did you get involved?

Rob Rosenheck: Shaun and I got together and he filled me in on his current projects, and he mentioned something intriguing: “Did you know Abraham Lincoln was gay?” I hadn’t known that before. He proceeded to share the tale, which left me astounded. I expressed my amazement, saying it was one of the most captivating things I’d ever heard, and I wanted to bring it to life as a production. It’s an engaging story with a compelling twist.

Steven Spielberg made “Lincoln,” which was released in 2012 and there was Ken Burns’ acclaimed docusies “Civil War” that featured Lincoln, but I don’t remember anything in either film about Lincoln being queer. Why?

In our movie, Stauffer claims that Lincoln represents the epitome of America, and for many, this symbol is associated with whiteness and heterosexuality. However, if you watched the Democratic National Convention, it’s clear that America isn’t exclusively white or heteronormative. The concept of a queer Abraham Lincoln might be unsettling to those who fear “the other,” but I understand why people are afraid of what they don’t know. I’m not labeling these individuals as evil or misguided, just uninformed. This fear of the unknown is a significant issue our country is grappling with, and it was this larger discourse about identity that attracted me to the project. The debate over Lincoln’s sexuality serves as a springboard for discussing who we are as a society, which is mirrored in how we perceive Abraham Lincoln.

As a passionate cinephile, I ponder over the question of why Tony Kushner, who authored the screenplay for “Lincoln” and the groundbreaking play “Angels in America,” chose not to delve into Lincoln’s queer identity in his film adaptation. Given Kushner’s keen awareness of Lincoln’s suspected queerness, as supported by numerous scholarly findings, particularly those from Clarence Tripp, it seems intriguing that this aspect was not addressed in the movie.

The docu makes it clear that in the 19th century society was much more accepting of being queer than it is now. Why do you think that is?

The sensational title suggesting Lincoln was LGBTQ+ is misleading. Instead, the film aims to show that such behavior was not uncommon during Lincoln’s time, making it more socially accepted. We use the term ‘queer’ for modern comprehension, but terms like ‘homosexual,’ ‘gay,’ or ‘straight’ did not exist then. Lincoln, along with many men, simply exhibited behaviors driven by sexual impulses that we now associate with those identities.

How do you think audiences will react to the doc?

We’re delving into a significant aspect of American history that has long been concealed and overlooked. The focus isn’t whether Abraham Lincoln had intimate relationships with multiple men, but rather, are we comfortable with this notion? Our movie might provoke discomfort among certain viewers, yet we aren’t concerned about their reactions because we’re presenting factual historical evidence supported by 20 distinguished scholars from esteemed universities. This consensus indicates that Lincoln was attracted to men.

2024-09-06 20:47