How best to interpret the relationship shared by Hamilton and Laurens? Many wonder whether such declarations of love indicate that a physical intimacy was also shared. Others point out that we should not assume that physical intimacy did not occur-that to do so places an unfair burden on LGBTQ people, who most certainly would not have left an obvious record for fear of legal or moral persecution. The declarations most clearly point to an intense romantic bond that may or may not have been physical. Beyond that, little can be discerned. Caleb Crain's essay on the homoerotic friendship of two Philadelphia men in the 1790s contextualizes it by referencing the letters between Hamilton and Laurens. As Crain explains, it was not "unheard of for gentlemen to exchange the word love." Crain finds that the "affection seems genuine" but that the "tone is somewhat arch"-indeed, following conventions of the day. Historian Richard Godbeer similarly notes that the letters between the two (and among Washington and his aides) contain expressions of love and affection, yes, but that it would be "anachronistic" to read phrases, even such as Hamilton's complaint that correspondence is "the only kind of intercourse" he and Laurens can enjoy while separated, as "necessarily implying sexual intimacy." The term "intercourse," after all, means "spending time."84
The letters are certainly not censored in earlier accounts. At the end of the nineteenth century, for example, Sumner notes that Hamilton includes in his letters some writings that "profess very warm affection for Laurens." He characterizes the relationship as a friendship: "His most intimate friend at this period was John Laurens."85 Similarly, in the early twentieth century, when his reputation was strongest, his grandson does not shy away from noting the bond between Hamilton and Laurens: "There is a note of romance in their friendship, quite unusual even in those days." He also explains that the Marquis de Lafayette, also part of Washington's military family, was "on the closest terms with Hamilton." Allan Hamilton's biography also includes a letter from Hamilton to Laurens. Prefacing it with "probably none of his comrades was dearer to Hamilton than Laurens, whose untimely death was a very great blow," Hamilton sees no need to address the possibility that the two could have been lovers. He includes the full letter, which contains this provocative passage: "I wish, my dear Laurens, it were in my power, by actions, rather than words, to convince you that I love you."86
However, as the new fields of sexology and psychology carved out their place in respected medical thought, same-sex romantic desires became pathologized, as did the scientific understanding of homosexuality as an illness. In turn, some Hamilton family biographers delete portions of some letters. The vast majority of biographers simply sidestep the issue by leaving out what they deem to be ambiguously worded letters. Others, such as Miller's 1959 biography, carefully explain away the sentiments expressed as indicative of "the high-flown literary language of the day" and underscore that the two "military men" were also "classical scholars" who in their language alone abided "by the code of the heroes of Plutarch."87
But this perceived omission would not do for gay activists and scholars, who looked to the field of history as they fought for political representation, decriminalization of same-sex romantic and sexual love, and social acceptance, riding the crested wave of other civil rights movements of the 1960s and 1970s. Thus, a late 1970s pioneering work in the field of gay and lesbian history includes excerpts of the letters exchanged between Hamilton and Laurens in its documentary record of "Gay Love in American History." Subtitled I'll Wish, My Dear Laurens... [to] Convince You That I Love You,"' the section on Hamilton uses his own words to highlight the nature of their bond.88
Although most scholars point out that such letters are inconclusive on the question of sexual orientation, some popular audiences claim him as America's gay Founding Father. The Alexander Hamilton Post 448 of the American Legion in San Francisco, a gay veterans group chartered in 1985, takes its name in honor of the perceived homosexual bond between Hamilton and Laurens.89 Other popular researchers of LGBTQ history have used the exchange between Hamilton and Laurens as evidence of an early, possibly erotic relationship. But despite their efforts, few popular biographies even address the possibility of Hamilton's having fallen in love with another man. As with Washington's infertility and Jefferson's interactions with an adolescent slave girl, only certain handling will do.
The reputation that Hamilton enjoys in certain circles as America's gay Founder has most prominently been built up by award-winning playwright and gay activist Larry Kramer. In a speech given at Yale University, Kramer argues "that George Washington was gay, and that his relationships with Alexander Hamilton and the Marquis de Lafayette were homosexual. And that his feelings for Hamilton led to a government and a country that became Hamiltonian rather than Jeffersonian."90 Kramer has been at work on a history of the United States that he promises will detail the depictions that are here only provocatively insinuated. But he is not alone; other popular historians have used Hamilton in their historical studies of same-sex sexuality in early America. Archivist William Benemann in his history of same-sex sexuality in early America remarks that "Hamilton's nearly ungovernable libido was legendary." Benemann selects a passage from one of Hamilton's letters to suggest that sexual interest was at play in a letter from Hamilton to Laurens written after Hamilton was engaged to be married: "In spite of Schuyler's black eyes, I have still a part for the public and another for you; so your impatience to have me married is misplaced; a strange cure by the way, as if after matrimony I was to be less devoted than I am now.""
Virtually all other biographies ignore the love shared between Laurens and Hamilton. One author, for example, mentions every aspect of Washington's sexual scandals, however untenable, and thereby highlights his virility, but makes no mention of the controversy around how to read the Laurens correspondence or the fact that some historians for decades have been using it as evidence of same-sex love. Indeed, the book, which highlights "intimacy" in the Founders' lives, limits itself to that shared between men and women, despite the fact that the author's conceptualization of intimacy is not solely sexual and includes bonds between parent and daughter and platonic, if flirtatious, male-female friendships. The decision to leave aside intimate bonds between fathers and sons and also between men leads perhaps to Laurens's being cast as a participant in a decidedly heterosexual relationship. Indeed, the author quotes from a letter between the two but uses only the passage where Hamilton asks Laurens to find him a suitable wife.92 The memory of Hamilton as a gay Founder (a Founder who happened to be same-gender loving, and a forerunner for the gay community) highlights that although the topic of sex is typically taken up by dominant national ideals and identities, it can be used for sexual minorities and subcultures just as meaningfully.
Hamilton was at first the "bastard brat" who "lecherously" "polluted the spotless linen of American politics" by not only engaging in a sexual affair with a "brazen hussy" but also exposing his wife to humiliation by publishing the sordid details for all to read. He quickly became the man of impeccable public "moral integrity" and private honor who defended his and his wife's honor against the false accusations of political enemies and who stood so steadfastly for his honor that he died in a duel (tragically, as had his first-born son only a few years before). The competition for which of these Hamiltons, the immoral or the moral, would capture the American imagination began to develop in his own lifetime and deepened shortly after his being shot to death by Burr. His political enemies worried that his dying young would make him a national hero-and therefore make his policies and vision for the United States more palatable to the public.
Two events contributed to the sympathetic view of Hamilton. First, his death in a duel underscored that he was a man of great personal integritythereby further highlighting his affair as a "lapse" and not typical of the true man. Second, the ever-growing centralized power of the U.S. federal government has vindicated his view of the nation and made him seem even more correct in his controversial views.
In contrast to the legacies o
f other Founders, in the twentieth century, Hamilton's biographers have been forced to dwell more extensively on his personal transgressions in an effort to resurrect his fading popularity. While most biographers of political leaders of the American Revolution seek to assert their subjects as moral public and private role models for Americans by covering up romantic indiscretions, Hamilton's biographers are forced to give quite detailed explanations for his adultery, given that he made it so public in his own lifetime.
As a model man in both public and private realms, Hamilton's own confession hamstrings the ability of his memorializers to ignore his peccadillos and suspend disbelief. Willful ignorance has long benefited Founding Father legacies. As we have seen, the absence of documentation has vindicated Washington's childlessness (what if we had proof that he was impotent?), the nature of Jefferson's relationship with Sally Herrings (we will never know for sure), and Franklin's flirtations with Parisian women (did they or didn't they?)-but there can never be any doubt that Hamilton was born to unwed parents and that he had an extramarital affair. As Hamilton himself explains in his publication detailing the affair, "It is sufficient to say that there is a wide difference between vague rumors and suspicions and the evidence of a positive fact.... No man not indelicately unprincipled, with the state of manners in this country, would be willing to have a conjugal infidelity fixed upon him with positive certainty." He continues, "He would know that it would justly injure him with a considerable and respectable portion of the society."" Although Hamilton was praised for being forthcoming, his legacy seems to have suffered from the public's inability to avoid his tarnished reputation. His confession, despite his biographers' best efforts, seems to have stalled his position as a model man. Such transgressions can be placed in a positive light for Americans but, like a bell that has been tolled, can never be undone-making him for many biographers the most sympathetic Founding Father of all.
Figure 6.1 (above). Portrait of Morris. (Gouverneur Morris Esq'r., Member of Congress. Print by Pierre Eugene du Simitiere. Published by R.Wilkinson, 1783. Courtesy of the Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., LC-USZ62-45482.)
We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility...
After Dinner we join in fervent Adoration to the Cyprian Queen, which with Energy repeated conveys to my kind Votary all of mortal Bliss which can be enjoyed.'
HESE PASSAGES, both written by Gouverneur Morris (Figure 6.1), point to two aspects of a Founder whose unconventionality challenged his biographers for nearly two centuries. The first, the preamble to the U.S.Constitution, he penned as chairman of the Committee on Style at the Constitutional Convention. It is perhaps his most notable public achievement. The second passage he wrote privately in his diary, detailing with exuberance a sexual encounter with a married woman. When we look at how Americans have remembered Morris, we can see that for most of the nine teenth and twentieth centuries, his personal life was whitewashed. In his most recent incarnation, however, Morris's unconventional sexuality and body have become something to celebrate rather than overlook. Popular and academic biographies fuse these two aspects of Morris's personal life, portraying him as an inspirational figure for today's American-a sexually active bachelor who overcame his disability. His legacy reveals much about the nexus of masculinity, sexuality, and the body-and how it has shifted over time.
Morris spent much of his life in New York, where he was born in 1752 and died in 1816. Despite his many significant contributions to the founding of the nation, Morris has never enjoyed mainstream popularity. While still in his twenties, he signed the Articles of Confederation of 1778 and served in the Constitutional Congress in 1778 and 1779. He represented Pennsylvania at the Constitution Convention of 1787 and served as Minister Plenipotentiary to France from 1792 to 1794. In 1800, he served as a Federalist in the U.S.Senate for the State of New York. He closed his illustrious public career as chairman of the Erie Canal Commission from 1810 to 1813. In the words of one of his earliest biographers, "He made the final draft of the United States Constitution; he first outlined our present system of national coinage; he originated and got under ways the plan for the Erie Canal; as minister to France he successfully performed the most difficult task ever allotted to an American representative at a foreign capital."2
Yet as one of his recent biographers laments, "The two-hundred-fiftieth anniversary of Morris's birth in 2002 came and went without a single commemorative gesture by the nation he helped to found; by his native state of New York, whose constitution he helped to write; by the city of New York, whose urban plan can be fairly attributed to his bold vision; or by Columbia University, as one of its most distinguished graduates."3
Compared with other Founders, Morris has been relatively neglected by biographers. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, only four full-length biographies were published.' Perhaps responding to "Founders chic," publishers have put forth three academic works and two popular biographies since 2003.5 But a veritable mountain of books has been published on other Founders. A recent biographer offers that the "simple answer" to nearly two centuries of neglect is a "persistent problem of mistaken identity," the public's confusing him with the (unrelated) Robert .6 Others have argued that his aristocratic and antidemocratic sensibilities have made him a less appealing subject than other more easily celebrated Founders.
Morris's multiple disabilities and sexual conduct may also have seemed insurmountable obstacles to memorializing him as a model American man. As a teenager, he was accidentally burned by scalding water in a manner that rendered his right arm "almost fleshless" and his "right side extensively scarred."' In his twenties, a carriage accident resulted in the amputation of his left leg just below the knee. Morris lived much of his life as a bachelor, enjoying sexual relationships with married and unmarried women and marrying only at the age of fifty-seven. Even when Morris married, he continued to cross boundaries of propriety. His spouse, Ann Cary Randolph, had a checkered reputation, having been accused of having a child with her brother-in-law, who was tried for and later acquitted of murdering the newborn to cover up the scandal.' As we have seen, popular memory of the Founding Fathers has long heralded that cadre as an extraordinary group of individuals whom Americans should emulate, yet whom we could never match in greatness.9 Morris's nonnormative body and sexuality hardly suited him to serve as a model of American manhood, which has long emphasized both normative bodies and sexuality contained by marital monogamy.10
In His Lifetime
Unlike other Founders, Morris left extensive and explicit diaries that reflect on his intimate life. No such documents survive the other Founders, nor do we know whether any of them wrote anything comparable. In his diaries, Morris writes about sexual behavior in a way that emphasizes the pleasure that he shared with a married woman, his main premarital relationship, and fashions it as cosmopolitan and enlightened. Morris expresses a certain degree of pride in his lifestyle, a sense of satisfaction at his ability to combine sexual, romantic, commercial, and political concerns. Typical of the Founders' generation, Morris's writings reveal an attitude toward sexual relations that is unencumbered by the traditional moral framework that would dominate the culture of his nineteenth - and even twentieth-century biographers."
In his own lifetime, Morris was the subject of humor coupled with mild derision. In a classical reference to his sexual appetite, John Jay once quipped that "Gouverneur is daily employed in making oblations to Venus."" That he was a disabled man seems to have contributed to his sexual reputation's harmlessness. Most surviving comments on Morris's sexual reputation connect his disability to his intimate affairs-making him very different from Aaron Burr, for example, whose reputation focused on the threat that his sexual activities posed to female virtue and to stable male society.13 Indeed, much like Benjamin Franklin's old age, Morris's disability seems to have encouraged a more benign assessment of his active sexual life than would have been possible otherwise.
Morris lived in a world that was in transition from viewing disability as a marker of sin to the modern conception of disability as a deviation from the medicalized normative body. Scholars on the body and on disability specifically have shown that the early modern period closely associated disability and deformity with signs from God that deviance had taken place. "The surface of the body," Mary Fissell reminds us, "was supposed to speak truth about aspects of an individual's innermost core." 14 In the early modern period, "deviance," Hal Gladfelder argues, "produces a bodily signature."" In particular, there were sexual associations with monstrous births and other marks of illness. Although the "relationship between sin and bodily marking was slow to disappear," it is clear that in Morris's circles, older cultural associations between deviant sex and deformity blended with newer Enlightenment explanations based on reason and pointing to a "diagnosis" and a "cure."1C Recent scholarship has noted the increased medicalization and discrimination of those defined as disabled in the modern era.
As David M.Turner and Kevin Stagg point out, "In the early modern period, deformity carried moral stigma and could also be a source of laughter and contempt."7 We do see evidence of Morris's disability clearly eliciting humor in both America and Europe-often with sexual overtones. An oft-told joke recounts his losing his leg while escaping a jealous husband. In a letter to Morris, Jay writes that "a certain married woman after much use of your leg had occasioned your losing one." In a similar vein, Jay writes Robert Morris that it would have been better if Gouverneur Morris had "lost something else."" In reply to Jay, Gouverneur Morris writes, "Let it pass. The leg is gone, and there is an end of the matter."" But such stories continued. A decade later, an Englishman writes in his diary that he had met Gouverneur Morris and describes him as a man who had lost his leg "in consequence of jumping from a window in an affair of gallantry."" In another example of humor as a way to deal with difference, Morris records in his Paris diary one day having flirted with a married woman in front of her husband. At the end of that day, among entries about a variety of personal and professional affairs, he writes, "Dress and go at four to Made Foucault's. Dine, & after Dinner, in chatting on one Side, among other Things it is a Question as to the Causes why Children have or have not the Talents and Beauty of those who produce them. I tell her that I wish she loved me enough to let me give her a Child." Her reply indicates his physical body operated as a source of tension. "She asks if I think myself able. I reply that at least I could do my best, and as Monsieur is listening I change the Conversation."" Such witty, flirtatious banter was commonplace in Morris's heterosocial world and illustrates an Enlightenment distancing from an earlier era that had situated deformity and illness in a moral Godly framework.
Sex and the Founding Fathers: The American Quest for a Relatable Past (Sexuality Studies) Page 19
