Lincoln: 'Gaydar' vs. 'Straightdar' Among History Scholars

Lewis Gannett sent me the following comments about Sean Wilentz's article on Lincoln in The New Republic: "There's something just a little odd about Wilentz's hostility. First, he's factually wrong in characterizing C. A. Tripp's Lincoln book as "a discredited hodgepodge of supposition and deception." Sure, the book attracted a great deal of scorn. But both Richard Brookhiser in the NYT and Christine Stansell in TNR acknowledged, after heaping contumely, that Tripp might be right (I assisted Tripp with the book but don't think I misread these reviews). What gives with Wilentz's tone of barely suppressed outrage, his contempt? Stauffer doesn't deserve it! And again, it boils down to what constitutes credible evidence. Wilentz derides Stauffer's interpretation of evidence about Lincoln & Joshua Speed so curtly, it's as if Wilentz believes that Stauffer hallucinated his interpretation. This of course was a common theme in reactions to Tripp's book. All of which prompts questions about how scholars "see" history. Literally, how they envision the objects of their studies. In terms of the subject at hand one could speculate about "gaydar" vs. "straightdar." The two scopes produce radically different pictures. And they capture their images from radically different platforms. Critics characterize gaydar as the periscope of a pink submarine, toy-like and fanciful. Straightdar crashes to the surface with severe authority, bristling with sensors (and prepared to launch scary-ass missiles)." And: "Sean Wilentz is a self-righteous thug. He's eloquent and reasonably smart but utterly clueless about John Stauffer's argument, which amply points out many of Wilentz's pet issues. For example: How dare Wilentz close on a censorious, purportedly omniscient note of claiming that current Lincoln scholarship takes too little into account the fact that Lincoln was a consummate politician? Stauffer makes this clear better than anyone. What on earth is the matter with Sean Wilentz?" I cannot agree more.