![inkyparthia:
Awh Washington’s little boooys. He may not have had his own kids, but he had them :] And an entire nation.
Pfff Lafayette gets derpier every time I draw him; it’s not on purpose, I promise, it just kind of…happens. Must be because my creative subconscious has decided he must always have a BIG smile for his dearie dear General!](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_llgxtx6pYZ1qb3m94o1_500.jpg)
Awh Washington’s little boooys. He may not have had his own kids, but he had them :] And an entire nation.
Pfff Lafayette gets derpier every time I draw him; it’s not on purpose, I promise, it just kind of…happens. Must be because my creative subconscious has decided he must always have a BIG smile for his dearie dear General!
foundingfatherfest replied to your post: phocion replied to your post: HAHA IM SORRY IM…
For some reason, when I think of Washington as a person, the archetype that comes to mind is Dad
lmao no yes that’s perfectly accurate
and it’s funny in an ironic way because he didn’t actually ever have kids of his own yet we all think of him as everyone’s daddy
HAHASIHAIHSADSDuglysobbing
In other news, chapter 1 of my second draft is DONE.
I get that it is impossible to state definitively that most of the relationships that we as moderns perceive as queer throughout history were queer in the sense that the parties involved were totally boning, but a) there is so much more to queer relationships than mere sex, just like you can have two straight people who are agreed to be in love who never get it on, and b) to vehemently deny any possibility of even so much as a queer tendency in a relationship is nasty straight-washing that perpetuates the (just plain wrong) ideas that a) there were no gay people before the evil twentieth century and atheism and feminism corrupting people and making them do sick sick things and b) that, while you can have a meaningful straight relationship that counts as a romantic straight relationship in which the parties were not, as far as we can definitively determine, having sex, a queer relationship can only count if the parties were having sex, and the most important thing in queer relationships is sex.
Indeed. I’m of two minds about Laurens and Hamilton specifically (three if you count my pervy fandom side). On the one hand, that they were boning. On the other hand, that there was a constant UST between them that neither would admit despite the obvious feelings there. I tend to lean on the former. I do believe Hamilton would literally screw just about anything with two legs that walked his way. But Laurens I think, doing some armchair psychology based on his reckless endangerment of himself, had a very real struggle with what we might term ‘homosexuality.’ Toward his wife and child, he was callous to the point of cruelty. I don’t think this alone is indicative of a potentially closeted homosexuality, but I think that taken with everything else about him it lends credence to this armchair psychologizing.
See, this is why I really like the term “homo-romantic” because then somebody can’t point at the situation and go “well you can’t prove they *were* having sex!” It takes the focus off of the actual sexual acts and puts it on where the feelings were, which is something we frequently *can*determine. With Laurens and Hamilton… on the one hand I really want them to have been a couple just because I am petty and want to use them to stick it to all the conservatives trotting out “the founding fathers” as a reason we should make/keep discriminatory policies towards queers. On the other hand, using people as a political football in the bloody game of identity politics is bad. I doubt they ever actually got around to consummating their relationship, but I think there’s enough evidence to say that they almost certainly had a connection that was intense, deep, and troubling to both of them.
Agreed Agreed. The only reason I lean towards the actual physical relationship is due to their being in the Army at the time. I know that sounds stupid, but that sort of thing happened a lot in situations where males were thrown together (ships, armies, etc.). And while everyone shared beds at the time, with their obvious ‘romantic’ feelings for each other, I feel like it’s a perfect, almost impossible to resist venue where they could have explored it “with actions rather than words” at least once. It’s difficult at best for two people to be in such close quarters without some sexual tension going on, and with their admitted affections for each other I have a hard time seeing it NOT happening.
Oh, you make an excellent point there. If they were already so emotionally intimate and used to sharing a tiny bed, and if they were already doing things like hugging and cheek-kissing, then it would be easy enough for lines to get a bit blurred and hands and lips to start wandering and… ;____;
It’s both hot and incredibly sad at the same time. Which actually sums up all of my Lams feelings in one sentence.
I get that it is impossible to state definitively that most of the relationships that we as moderns perceive as queer throughout history were queer in the sense that the parties involved were totally boning, but a) there is so much more to queer relationships than mere sex, just like you can have two straight people who are agreed to be in love who never get it on, and b) to vehemently deny any possibility of even so much as a queer tendency in a relationship is nasty straight-washing that perpetuates the (just plain wrong) ideas that a) there were no gay people before the evil twentieth century and atheism and feminism corrupting people and making them do sick sick things and b) that, while you can have a meaningful straight relationship that counts as a romantic straight relationship in which the parties were not, as far as we can definitively determine, having sex, a queer relationship can only count if the parties were having sex, and the most important thing in queer relationships is sex.
Indeed. I’m of two minds about Laurens and Hamilton specifically (three if you count my pervy fandom side). On the one hand, that they were boning. On the other hand, that there was a constant UST between them that neither would admit despite the obvious feelings there. I tend to lean on the former. I do believe Hamilton would literally screw just about anything with two legs that walked his way. But Laurens I think, doing some armchair psychology based on his reckless endangerment of himself, had a very real struggle with what we might term ‘homosexuality.’ Toward his wife and child, he was callous to the point of cruelty. I don’t think this alone is indicative of a potentially closeted homosexuality, but I think that taken with everything else about him it lends credence to this armchair psychologizing.
See, this is why I really like the term “homo-romantic” because then somebody can’t point at the situation and go “well you can’t prove they *were* having sex!” It takes the focus off of the actual sexual acts and puts it on where the feelings were, which is something we frequently *can*determine. With Laurens and Hamilton… on the one hand I really want them to have been a couple just because I am petty and want to use them to stick it to all the conservatives trotting out “the founding fathers” as a reason we should make/keep discriminatory policies towards queers. On the other hand, using people as a political football in the bloody game of identity politics is bad. I doubt they ever actually got around to consummating their relationship, but I think there’s enough evidence to say that they almost certainly had a connection that was intense, deep, and troubling to both of them.
Agreed Agreed. The only reason I lean towards the actual physical relationship is due to their being in the Army at the time. I know that sounds stupid, but that sort of thing happened a lot in situations where males were thrown together (ships, armies, etc.). And while everyone shared beds at the time, with their obvious ‘romantic’ feelings for each other, I feel like it’s a perfect, almost impossible to resist venue where they could have explored it “with actions rather than words” at least once. It’s difficult at best for two people to be in such close quarters without some sexual tension going on, and with their admitted affections for each other I have a hard time seeing it NOT happening.
I get that it is impossible to state definitively that most of the relationships that we as moderns perceive as queer throughout history were queer in the sense that the parties involved were totally boning, but a) there is so much more to queer relationships than mere sex, just like you can have two straight people who are agreed to be in love who never get it on, and b) to vehemently deny any possibility of even so much as a queer tendency in a relationship is nasty straight-washing that perpetuates the (just plain wrong) ideas that a) there were no gay people before the evil twentieth century and atheism and feminism corrupting people and making them do sick sick things and b) that, while you can have a meaningful straight relationship that counts as a romantic straight relationship in which the parties were not, as far as we can definitively determine, having sex, a queer relationship can only count if the parties were having sex, and the most important thing in queer relationships is sex.
Indeed. I’m of two minds about Laurens and Hamilton specifically (three if you count my pervy fandom side). On the one hand, that they were boning. On the other hand, that there was a constant UST between them that neither would admit despite the obvious feelings there. I tend to lean on the former. I do believe Hamilton would literally screw just about anything with two legs that walked his way. But Laurens I think, doing some armchair psychology based on his reckless endangerment of himself, had a very real struggle with what we might term ‘homosexuality.’ Toward his wife and child, he was callous to the point of cruelty. I don’t think this alone is indicative of a potentially closeted homosexuality, but I think that taken with everything else about him it lends credence to this armchair psychologizing.
My Dad just asked me if I’d read Chernow’s Hamilton before.
HAHAHAAA poor John. Closeted by his own biographer. What I really want is Publius or someone talented to draw John and Ham at a Pride parade.
While indifferent to the fate of his wife and daughter, Laurens formed a passionate ‘romantic friendship’ with Alexander Hamilton. In his letters to Laurens, Hamilton was frank in expressing his devotion. The biographer [Gregory Massey] quotes a few of the less steamy passages from the extant correspondence held by the Library of Congress (some of which is now unreadable because it was censored by John C. Hamilton, an early editor of the manuscripts.) ‘I wish, my Dear Laurens…to convince you that I love you.’ (The ellipsis inserted by the biographer refers to the omitted words ‘by action rather than words’ - perhaps a troubling concept.) ‘You should not have taken advantage of my sensibility to steal into my affections without my consent.’ Hamilton assured Laurens that Hamilton’s marriage to the plain but rich Elizabeth Schuyler would have no effect at all on their continued intimacy. He wrote bawdy passages referring to, among other things, the size of his penis and signed off his letters with an affectionate, ‘Adieu my Dear.’ The biographer concedes that the Laurens-Hamilton letters ‘appear to contain homosexual overtones’ if the passages are ‘taken out of context,’ but he dismisses the language as merely an epistolary convention. ‘Their relationship was platonic,’ he pronounces with assurance, ‘a bond formed by their devotion to the Revolution and mutual ambition for fame.’
William Benemann, Male-Male Intimacy in Early America
I remember laughing when seeing Massey omit the ‘by action rather than words’ part in an effort to go out of his way to convince the reader the relationship was not gay.
(via publius-esquire)
In the only extant modern biography of John Laurens, we get straight-washing.
(via phocion)
Yes, because of course, didn’t you know, nobody was actually really gay before the word ‘homosexual’ was coined in the last decade of the 19th century #sarcasm
(via madtomedgar)
(via madtomedgar)
(Source: publius-esquire, via bunniesandbeheadings)
I DID because now it looks I’m staring in dignified shock at everything I post.
I have to dash off to work now but I remember that my response to how did slaves get food inside the house to the large dining room was met with some disdain. I simply said “We’re not sure because their history is not recorded as well as ours.”
I wasn’t insinuating that the guest was a slave holder decedent. I was stating fact. The histories of women and minorities are not as well documented as those of white men. Sorry if the truth made you uncomfortable sir.
whoever got angry about this needs to read up on history. if you’re angry about the fact that it WASN’T recorded, well that’s good because you appreciate that our historical lens is very limited.
if you got angry because you thought foundingfathersfbconvos was being flippant or dismissive…READ HISTORY. like seriously, a single book of history. why do none of these kids read anymore?
OK WAIT the last time I saw you was when all the Peeps were there. Prior to that I’d seen you and I thought I recognized you from your blog photos - god I am still sounding really fucking creepy. I have cats! no, that’s potentially creepy too. I’m a Federalist?
Alexander Hamilton settles in for a cabinet meeting.
(via crawly)
Sources: Robespierre and the Fourth Estate by Ralph Korngold, The French Revolution by Albert Mathiez, and Robespierre edited by George Rude.
