Oh, I dunno. I can think of a couple who were real cocksuckers.
Sooner or later, someone in this thread will bring up that old canard about Lincoln sharing a bed with another man. But doing so in a nonsexual manner was actually quite common back in frontier days.
The Greeks. Not the ones contemporary to Washington, but the ancients. The Founding Fathers had a serious Greek fetish going on, as did a lot of the political and intellectual elite in England and the colonies of the time. Plus, there was a general trend towards questioning religious dogma at the time. Very few of the Founders could be called particularly observant Christians, to say the least. It’s not hard to imagine Washington weighing a few verses from the Bible, versus the writings of Plato, and figuring Plato had the better argument.
On the other hand, Washington did put in the official record when he confirmed Enslin’s sentence, that he had “Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous crimes.”, which isn’t an extremely tolerant statement. I don’t know if there’s any real evidence of Washington’s stance on homosexuality. I don’t know that there’s really any evidence that Washington knew about the accusations against von Steuben, or at least I don’t know that he ever commented on them
Outside the fact that Plato condemned homosexual acts, and wished those engaging in them to lose their civil rights *, of course.
“Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous crimes” sounds like boilerplate language to me. Further, I’m having a hard time imagining that Washington would not have known about von Steuben’s queerness; counter to what Brownworth implies, this seems to have been common knowledge at the time, and I have never read a single book as an adult that commented on von Steuben without mentioning his sexuality. In retrospect, even some of the picture books I read as a boy seemed to portray him as somewhat soft and effeminate.
My impression is that Washington had more important things to worry about, and that’s in keeping with everything I’ve read about his character.
In a thread of days gone by, a Doper recommended Ron Chernow’s book on Washington. I bought it on their say-so, but haven’t been moved to read it until now.
Oh, I got another one for you, watchwolf49: Not only was GW not gay, he didn’t actually throw a coin across the Potomac.
Tomorrow, we talk about that cherry tree…
Not only was GW gay, but many believe he was “Toothless Virginny Boy 32” in the hook up social media outlet Craig’s Almanac, but there’s no way to prove it.
I’m by no means a Washington biographer or scholar, but I’ve read a good many books about him and it never crossed my mind he was gay. He was seemingly infatuated with Sally Fairfax (his Loyalist best friend’s wife) and he made little secret of having married Martha for her money but that said he was devoted to her and her children. Given what we know of his medical history (mumps, measles) and his lack of children with Martha (who had 4 with her first husband) there’s a lot of speculation he was sterile, but that’s about the extent of the speculation I’ve read about his sex life. (Well, Gore Vidal implied there was a lot of Greek love going on, but I skipped past that because he believed the same thing about the backroom of Mr. Rogers’ neighborhood.)
Alexander Hamilton seems a bit more complicated. His letters to John Laurens definitely seem to go beyond the “flowery prose” of the day and into love-letter territory, but then we don’t know what he was responding to as Lauren’s letters don’t survive. He also was known to be unfaithful to his wife with at least one other woman whose husband blackmailed him (Mrs. Reynolds, though there is speculation that the true nature of the blackmail may have been something worse than adultery, which he knew many people would turn a blind eye to anyway).
Almost no doubt von Steuben was gay and that Washington probably took a “don’t scare the horses” attitude towards it. LaFayette definitely loved Washington like a father- named his only son for him and sent him to George for safekeeping during the Revolution (story there- Washington was a savagely political animal at times)- but he had too many mistresses in later years to believe he didn’t like the ladies. (One of his mistresses actually brought him and his wife and daughters gifts of food and clothing and books when they were imprisoned in an Austrian dungeon during the French Revolution.)
I believe homosexuality was decriminalized in France during the Revolution. I don’t have a cite for that, but a quick look at Wikipedia seems to support this hazy recollection of mine. A few years later homosexuality was decriminalized throughout the Napoleonic Empire, but Washington was dead by then.
According to the same Wikipedia article, Poland was also relatively tolerant of homosexuality during Washington’s lifetime. It says Poland itself actually never criminalized homosexuality, although after losing its independence in the late 1700s there were anti-sodomy laws imposed upon Poland by Russia, Prussia, and Austria.
Hamilton and Lafayette both were probably seeking father figures. Hamilton was illegitimate and had no relationship at all with his father until he was middle aged, while Lafayette’s father was killed when he was a very small child leaving Europe’s premiere Poor Little Rich Boy to be raised by his great-grandfather and some spinster aunts and largely ignored. Both seem to have had clingy streaks as well, but I don’t think there’s anything really sordid about their relationship to Washington.
Also, laws on the books don’t necessarily correspond to actual practice. I’m not familiar enough with the late eighteenth century to comment on it, but, for example, in Elizabethan England sodomy was theoretically a crime punishable by death, but in practice very rarely prosecuted (and most of the prosecutions that did take place involved situations that we would now consider rape or child molestation).
Agree. In letters men were far more affectionate with each other in words than would be “acceptable” today. There are still some vestiges of that remaining. If I wrote you a letter, I might begin it with “Dear Amateur Barbarian.”
Someone not familiar with the customs might interpret the word “dear” to mean a sexual or loving attraction towards you when we simply use that word as an opening to a letter without giving it any meaning at all. Same thing with “Sincerely yours.”
Was Washington really gay? Really, really gay? Or only slightly so?
George Washington Carver was gay. Does that count?
And a eunuch.
The man could do extraordinary things with a peanut.
Lincoln, and now Washington, gay ? Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Maybe it is meant in the former definition ? Happy, joyful, etc. I don’t really care either way. Both were towering figures, and not just tall. Maybe we should start asking which former presidents were NOT gay ? Not that there’s anything wrong with that. (I’m trying harder, today, not to offend anyone; not that there’s anything wrong with that).
He was a eunuch ? No wonder he found so much time to spend on the peanut. Castration would have saved me a lot of time and money. But…what would I have done with Saturday night ? Bingo, maybe.
Lincoln may or may not have been a homosexual (I’m doubtful), but he was definitely not that kind of gay.
Probably not. But then, he had a lot on his mind. There are no photos of him smiling. But it seems for about the 1st 50 years of photography, NOBODY smiled. I realize the main reason was the need for long exposure times and for the subject to remain still. I wonder, though, whether there was a sense of seriousness about having one’s picture taken which had something to do with that. Also the poses struck, a-la Napoleon, with one hand tucked inside the jacket. (I know the previous sentence lacks a subject; I couldn’t think of one) It is said a picture is worth a thousand words. Wonder how they calculate that ? I don’t know math.
Am I the only person here who can say that she really doesn’t give a shit if he was gay straight or confused? Since I am not planning on sleeping with him at any time soon [as he has been dead a couple hundred years now] it is of absolutely no interest to me.