I have heard that he was and that he was known as “Aunt Fanny.” I also heard that he had a sexual relationship with one of his cabinet members. Is there any truth to any this?
http://www.tompaine.com/history/1999/10/14/
Anything else?
Thanks, nothing else right now.
Mblackwell,
if he “was”, he still is. Sexuality is not a political party, can not be changed.
service in five minutes or less or your money back.
Um was that a joke? I guess, if he was gay in life, his eternal soul is still gay.
It was not a joke, it was my fatigue: I did not “see” the first name. I was surprised to see the question, now I understand it. Sorry.
Since we touched it, how does it matter?
It doesn’t matter at all, I was just curious.
I went to the site posted above and noticed something interesting.
Here’s the posted excerpt from James Loewen’s book, Lies Across America: What Our Historic Sites Get Wrong:
Here’s an excerpt on the same subject from Nigel Cawthrone’s book, Sex Lives of the Presidents:
Cawthorne’s book was published in 1996; Loewen’s in 1999. Even given that both men were writing on the same subject and may have worked from the same sources, the two passages are startlingly similar. Admittedly I have very little regard for Loewen’s scholarship in general, but in this particular case I think he’s coming very close to plagiarism.
Little Nemo, I think you’re jumping the gun. (Wrong cliche, but I’m tired.)
Both authors are trying to make the same point, concisely. They have the same material to work from, namely the same examples of nicknames from the same parties and the same letter to quote. You present the same information without is sounding extremely similar.
As for why they make the same point with the same information, perhaps that is all there is to go on, or the best material to go on.
Not that I care, just doesn’t seem your criticisms are valid to me.
Pardon me a second… but he’s dead. Why does it matter NOW about his sex life. It’s not going to get him kicked out of the presidency retroactively or anything.
You know, virtually the same passage can also be found in the book Presidential Ambition, by Richard Shenkman, 1999. I’ll take a look at that when I get the chance…
I take issue with a particular comment. The one where Buchanan describes King as a “very gay, elegant looking fellow.”
That quote is clearly taken out of context with the intent of projecting the modern connotation of the word onto the far more common nineteenth-century usage, which we are still quite familiar with. Buchanan is describing King as a dandy, a fop; and while he might be something else as well, he’s not saying it in that comment.
Just dipping a toe into the literature and letters of the time will reveal countless instances of men refering to each other as “my dear” and other such things.
As far as the two being roommates, yes they were. If you ask around up there on Capitol Hill today, you’ll find dozens of congressmen living together–in dormitories. The United States provides housing for Congressmen, and many of them take us up on the proposition. With the rent I’m paying, I understand why.
Look, I’m not saying that the evidence isn’t there, but this borders on irresponsible speculation and projection of our social climate onto the past. We may as well speculate that Mr. Peanut is a dandy because he wears tights.
Oops. Let me amend that last sentence, lest my entire post be rendered irrelevant.
We may as well speculate that Mr. Peanut is gay because he wears tights.
Stupid thing to say, anyway.
William Rufus de Vane King, Vice President under Franklin Pierce (the one right before Buchanan), was the one referred to above as “Miss Nancy.” He and Buchanan were “roommates” for either 20 or 40 years, I can’t remember which. (Another dubious distinction is having been the only VP to never set foot in Washington, D.C. - he took the oath in Havana, came home to Alabama, and died from tuberculosis.)
Buchanan’s fiancee committed suicide, but no reason was ever given - it has long been suspected to be because of Buchanan’s orientation. Buchanan had papers sent to a valut in New York that were to be opened and read upon his death, but when he did die, another note was found that instructed his executors to burn the papers without reading them, which they did, so we’ll never know what they contained - this, too, has long been suspected to be some kind of revelation, or at least an explanation of his fiancee’s death.
Want to read a GREAT book? Bland Ambition, a quite humorous look at the history of the Vice Presidents of the U.S.
Esprix
I second that! The spine on my copy is close to breaking from all the times I’ve read that book.
My favorite VP was Thomas Marshall, who truly understood what a joke the VP position is.
John Updike’s novel Memories of the Ford Administration had very little on Gerald Ford, but was mostly about James Buchanan. Updike did not get into the issue of JB being gay or not. As for the death of his fiancée, she was feeling ambiguous about their engagement and put it on hold (or she broke it off, I forget which). Updike imagined a scene after that in which she became sick and she was left alone in her room while the rest of her family went out for the evening. She took an overdose of laudanum. Was it deliberate suicide, or an accidental overdose? This question will never be answered. In Updike’s speculation, she wasn’t even sure of her own motivation. She felt very sick and was seeking relief.