So, for Laurensâ death day, I post this picture of two leafs that are from his grave in Mepkin, SC. My intent is to eventually make it up to Hamiltonâs grave in New York and leave them there, but for now they sit upon my desk.
So long due update to this; I finally got around to doing part of it đ . I laid one of the leaves from Laurensâ grave at Hamiltonâs in New York (as close as I could get by his name marker). I also found a leaf laying from a nearby tree that I took to bring back to Mepkin to Johnâs grave when I get back there.
Something really fascinating recently fell into my hands by a very interesting twist of fate⊠( of which I could go into a long, slightly sentimental story about, but alas). This is a Owenâs Dictionary dating from what I believe to be the mid-late 18th century (could be incorrect; donât quote me on that) However, what made my heart race is what is written in the inside, or rather by who. John B. Laurens was the nephew of John Laurens. I have not yet found out who Frederick Laurens is as of yet, but I am working on that. If anyone has any insight, it would be greatly appreciated.
I love being an amrev historian because youâll be reading books about the northern vs southern campaign and itâs genuinely:
Northern campaign: first they ate the cattle. Then they ate the horses. Then they ate the commanders dog. Then they ate leather boots. And then someone finally stepped in when they started considering eating eachother.
Southern campaign: Itâs s o h o T and we have been REDUCED to thickening soup (in the heat) with the ornamental hair powder we brough with us! How inhumane!
Two things I realized while watching Wicked Part 1 and For Good
1. Feldspar is the âHorse of a different colorâ as noted from The Wizard of Oz film (1939).
2. The Ozians, (especially the Munchkins) choreography is all based on mimicking someone else. This was especially true in Dancing Through Life and the Ozdust Ballroom scene, wherein they follow/copy what Galinda and Fiyero do first. This foreshadows the fact that they donât think for themselves, and rely on following what others do and what theyâre told, especially in the case of propaganda fed to them.
You may recall @my-deer-friend and I previously discussing a poem reportedly written by John Laurens. There was much speculation and discussion amongst ourselves and other users about why such a poem may have been written, why it was supposedly included on an "undated note from John to his father," and where the poem/its transcript may now be held. I come to you today with answers to some of these questions - and many new questions posed.
The good news: I've located the original poem, held by the South Caroliniana Library
The bad news: It almost certainly wasn't written by John Laurens
The ??? news: It was potentially written by Alexander Hamilton
What follows here is a large amount of speculation about the author of the poem and the author's intent. Handwriting comparisons will be presented to discount Laurens and support Hamilton as the author. We may never be able to fully confirm the poem's author or why it ended up in the Laurens papers, but this presents an opportunity for discussion and further research!
Thanks to @my-deer-friend for their collaboration and input during this endeavor!
As a brief refresher, this whole endeavor began because of a poem referenced by Sara Bertha Townsend in her book An American Soldier: The Life of John Laurens (pp. 46-47):
Across the bottom of an undated note from John to his father is a bit of neatly-turned love poetry. It reads:
Celia, I sued with many a kind caress
For leave to paint her portrait on my breast
She, sweetly answered with a thought quite new
If I must place it, I must paint it too
Then turning round, with a Celestial Air
Lookâd in my heart and left her likeness there.
The probable date was when he had been six months or more on Washingtonâs Staff, at least a year after his return to America. The euphonious Celia he probably used because it is poetic, a diminutive of Saint Cecilia's lovely name; it does not follow that he knew anyone having the name. One can hardly fabricate a fair lady to whom he would write delicate flattery at this era of his busy life, ans he had given no evidence earlier of such a tendency. Perhaps he was only trying his skill at verse-making, or perhaps the girl who had "look'd in his heart and left her likeness there" was definitely the one he married. Henry Laurens would have understood this without comment. At any rate, "Celia" is mentioned nowhere else in John's correspondence.
This is the only place I have ever seen this poem mentioned. Townsend cited this poem as being held by the Long Island Historical Society. The Long Island Historical Society was renamed the Brooklyn Historical Society in 1985 and then became a part of the Brooklyn Public Library in 2020.
I therefore began my efforts by contacting the Brooklyn Public Library (BPL), as the transcript of this poem was likely held in their collection of Henry and John Laurens papers. The collection guide for the Henry and John Laurens papers gives this note about the chain of custody:
This collection was purchased from W. Gilmore Simms of South Carolina and donated to the Long Island Historical Society (now the Brooklyn Historical Society) in 1868. After being transcribed, the papers were sold in 1960. As such, this collection now consists of transcriptions of the papers originally donated to LIHS.
While I was waiting on a response from the BPL, @18thistorixn provided me with some additional information about the scope of the BPL's collection and also helpfully sent me the transcript of the poem from the collection. I eventually received select scans of the Laurens collection from the BPL, including this scan of the poem transcript (Henry and John Laurens papers, 1974.119; Brooklyn Historical Society):
This transcript provided a major clue for locating the original poem - it gave the contents of the "undated note" that the poem was supposedly appended to. @my-deer-friend was able to find a scan of the original note from John Laurens to his father, as held by the South Caroliniana Library (SCL):
The poem was not included with this digitized note, but this find informed us that many (all?) of the Henry and John Laurens letters previously held by the Long Island Historical Society/BPL are now held by the SCL. I reached out to the SCL with the information I had and asked if there was perhaps a reverse to the note or other section of the note that contained the poem. After weeks of dedicated searching, the SCL was able to locate the poem in their collections (huge shout out to Abigail, the librarian who answered my query - she put so much effort into locating this for me, and I am forever grateful). They sent me two scanned versions of the poem. Version 1 (from the Henry Laurens Papers, the South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina, Columbia, S.C.):
Version 2 (from the Henry Laurens Papers, the South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina, Columbia, S.C.):
After my initial excitement of seeing the original poem, I quickly realized that this was likely not John Laurens's handwriting. When determining if handwriting could belong to John Laurens, I first check the shape of the lowercase r's. John wrote his r's like the r's typed in this text - this was distinct from the other style of the time, which wrote r's like the modern cursive r. (Note: this style of writing r's is not unique to John Laurens, but I find it to be the easiest way of telling his handwriting apart from those who use the other style.) On the left is "round" written by Laurens in a July 18, 1778 letter to his father. On the right is "round" from the poem.
There are a few subtle differences here besides the r shape. For example, Laurens connects his o's near the very top of the letter whereas the author connects their o's on the sides of the letter.
Another distinct difference is the shape of the capital F. Laurens makes his F's with the âhatâ of the F being written separately from the vertical line, but the poem's author writes their F with a loop/one motion. On the left is Laurens's "Father" from the undated note shown/linked above. On the right is "For" in the poem.
There are several words that can be directly compared across the poem and Laurens's known writings. Here is a comparison of "request," with Laurens's writing on the left (from an August 22, 1778 letter to his father) and the author's on the right.
Again, note the differences in the r's. The loop of the q is also made differently (connected to the u in Laurens's, not connected in the poem). Generally, the words are not a good match.
Now compare the word "with," with Laurens's writing on the left (from a June 15, 1778 letter to his father) and the author's on the right.
The slant of the writing, the shape of the w, and the crossing of the t all noticeably differ.
Here is "it," with Laurens's writing on the left (from a January 23, 1778 letter to his father) and the author's on the right.
Laurens's "it" is much taller and tighter while the author's is wide, short, and loopy.
Many more comparisons could be made, but as it stands, I am reasonably confident that John Laurens did not write this poem. So who did?
Allow me to propose Alexander Hamilton as the author.
To begin, the handwriting in the poem is a much better fit to Hamilton's. Hamilton writes his lowercase r's and capital F's very similarly to the author. On the left is "rapture" written by Hamilton in a 1774 poem on the death of Elias Boudinot's child. On the right is "round" written by the author.
On the left is "For" written by Hamilton from the same source. On the right is "For" written by the author.
Another word that can be directly compared between Hamilton and the author is "breast." The left is Hamilton's writing (from an April 11, 1777 letter to Catharine Livingston), the right is the author's writing.
The "bre" is a very close match. The "ast" in the poem is more scrawly, perhaps because it was written at the end of the line/near the edge of the page.
Several small words/prepositions also closely match between Hamilton and the author. On the left is "with" written by Hamilton in his April 1779 letter to Laurens. On the right is "with" written by the author.
The slant of the writing, shape of the w, and crossing of the t (or lack thereof) are a much closer match between Hamilton and the author than between Laurens and the author (see above).
Here is "it," with Hamilton's writing on the left (from his April 1779 letter to Laurens) and the author's on the right.
Both of these words are wide, short, and loopy and stand in contrast to Laurens's writing shown above.
Besides the handwriting, there is other compelling evidence that Hamilton could have been the author of the poem. Hamilton wrote poetry throughout his life, and he even referenced a Celia in a poem published in the Royal Danish American Gazette. @my-deer-friend found this great article from the Library of Congress that discusses several of the poems Hamilton wrote. Given Hamilton's proclivity for poetry and previous use of Celia as a muse (or perhaps a stand-in for the poem's true subject), it's not unreasonable to think that he wrote this poem that describes another Celia. Laurens, in contrast, was much more well known for his gifts in the arts of drawing and painting, and I am unaware of any poetry that has been accurately attributed to him.
So if John Laurens likely wasn't the author (and Hamilton potentially was), why is this poem associated with a note from John Laurens to Henry Laurens? It's possible that the poem and note are completely unrelated and only became associated as the Laurens papers were repeatedly collected, organized, transcribed, and archived over the years. The items appear to be written on different types of paper, with the poem on laid paper and the note on wove paper. I believe Townsend would have had access to the original note and poem held at the Long Island Historical Society before they were transcribed and sold, so it's possible she observed them in a different state that more clearly connected the two items. However, she also made several mistakes in her biography on Laurens, so I would not be surprised if her connection of the note and the poem was incorrect. She even made a mistake in the transcription of the poem - she gave the first line as ending in "caress" when it clearly ends in "request," as noted both by the original and the transcript from the BPL.
Because the poem and note may actually be unrelated, dating the poem becomes difficult. @my-deer-friend pointed out that the note may be an unsent draft of this letter from Laurens to his father dated January 5, 1778. Both the note and the dated/sent letter mention needing the help of a "french acquaintance" for translating some tricky words. It's possible that the poem also dates to the Valley Forge time period, though Hamilton would been away from headquarters until late January 1778. But again, there's no concrete reasoning that the poem and the note had to have been written at the same time.
There's also the question of the author's intent with and subject of this poem. It could simply be a verse-writing exercise, as suggested by Townsend, or a poem addressed to a real-life Celia or other woman. But of course, the most interesting scenario to me is that this poem was potentially written by Hamilton for Laurens. The use of artistic imagery (painting, portraits) in the poem parallels Laurens's own artistic talents. The name Celia could have been used in the poem to disguise its homoromantic meaning. This could also explain how the poem came to reside in the Laurens papers despite John Laurens not being the author. If the poem was not intended for Laurens and simply got caught up in his papers somewhere along the way, it seems unlikely that Laurens would have kept it in his possession for long. He probably would have returned it to Hamilton or its true recipient upon discovering it, and it's unlikely that he would have consciously carried it around for years. If this was a poem from Hamilton to Laurens, it is incredibly telling that this poem written on a small scrap of paper was safely kept amongst Laurens's belongings. It was not lost, discarded, or destroyed - it was preserved with care. Certainly we have many affectionate and tender sentiments that exist in the surviving Hamilton-Laurens letters, but this poem somehow feels more intimate. Letters were the standard form of communication, and they often were read by people besides the specific addressee. The poem, in contrast, feels like a more intentional act. It's a carefully crafted expression of love - not widely published for others to read, but only intended for and fully understood by its disguised subject.
As I stated at the beginning of this post, much of this is speculation. I feel confident in stating that Laurens is unlikely to be the author of the poem, but proving the "true" author is a much harder task. It may not have been written by Hamilton. It could have been written by Hamilton, but it may not have been about Laurens. Multiple interpretations and arguments are possible, and I invite others to offer their own opinions.
Previously, I discussed Richard Fowler's views on John Laurens's sexuality and his relationship with Alexander Hamilton as written in the "writer's notes" section of Henry and John Laurens: Tragic Heroes. Fowler stated that he did not care about Hamilton and Laurens's expressions of love to one another (sigh), reminded the reader that Hamilton asked Laurens to find him a wife (double sigh), and generally approached the topic of Laurens's queerness with a "it doesn't matter (and therefore I will ignore it)" attitude (banging my head against the wall). He even applauded Gregory Massey (author of John Laurens and the American Revolution) for making "no mention of the issue" (in reality, Massey very much did discuss Laurens's sexuality, which you can read more about in the post linked above). I have now read Fowler's work in its entirety, and his handling of Laurens's relationships with Martha Manning and Alexander Hamilton is incredibly confusing, to say the least.
For a man who apparently finds John Laurens's queerness irrelevant to his life story and relationships, Fowler begins his discussion of John's life by repeatedly acknowledging that John preferred the company of men and exhibited little closeness with women. Fowler states that "Mary Esther Kinloch and Alicia Hopton were the only girls known that befriended him." Fowler quickly moves forward to John's time in Europe and his relationship with Martha Manning, focusing heavily on John's written sentiment of "Pity has obliged me to marry." Oddly, Fowler suggests that John's use of the word "pity" could suggest that John was not the father of Martha's child:
The word "pity" does not seem appropriate in John's letter to his Uncle James, because it appears that he used it to exonerate him of blame or even to imply that he might not be the father of the unborn child. At his age, without a career begun, that might explain why he was so disappointed in the pregnancy and wanted to justify the marriage. William Manning might not have accepted any other suitor to his daughter. His close friendship with John's father was no doubt an important consideration in giving his consent to the marriage. Whatever the true cause, John did marry her.
There truly is no evidence to suggest that Frances was not John's child. But Fowler, who supposedly wants to ignore any suggestion of John's queerness, is positing this theory and thus potentially removing John's only known sexual encounter with a woman as part of his narrative? What is the reasoning for this?
When John returns to America and reunites with his father Henry, Fowler writes a fictionalized discussion between the two men regarding John's shotgun wedding. Internally, Henry expresses relief at the idea that his son is actually attracted to women, despite what past events had indicated:
Once in Stateburg, John and Henry stopped at a friend's home. At supper, one of the daughters openly batted her eyelids at John, who paid no attention to her at all. He remembered her vaguely as an eight year old.
No need to explain to her that he is a married man now. Actually much to my satisfaction. Henry had formally expressed concern that John seemed to prefer the company and friendship of men as he matured. He had concluded that it was because he himself had always treated his oldest son as a friend as well as a son. Yet he felt relief at the unexpressed thought by actually approving of his attraction and marriage to a girl.
Again, for a man who treats discussions of John's queerness as "amateurish historical gossip," Fowler spends a significant amount of time highlighting John's interest in men and disinterest in women. He even has his version of Henry Laurens explicitly ponder his son's queerness! I would love to know why Fowler can discuss this topic, albeit clumsily, in his book while others who discuss John's queerness are "amateurs" and "gossips." Methinks it might have something to do with Fowler being a presumably straight and cis white male. I can only imagine what Fowler would have to say about the many queer people who have found value in discussing Laurens's sexuality and relationships.
If you think that Fowler continues this quasi-queer depiction of John Laurens throughout the remainder of the book, you'd be wrong! Suddenly, when John joins the Continental Army, he becomes much more attracted to women and interested in his wife and child, whom he just abandoned in England. Fowler does introduce Alexander Hamilton and repeatedly claim that Laurens and Hamilton were very close friends, and he even makes a few remarks about Laurens missing sharing a bed with Hamilton during the latter's absence from camp. However, Fowler never does much to actually show the closeness and intimacy between Hamilton and Laurens. Most of their shared scenes consist of them getting drunk in a local tavern and discussing some of the military goings-on. Which brings me to my first example of John "I like girls now" Laurens:
The landlord reached for the spigot on the ale barrel and began to fill pitchers. He yelled something intelligible, and two attractive serving wenches ran into the room. One brought a pitcher to the table where Lafayette and his friends were gathered and touched the arm of the Marquis, as if by accident.
"My daughter, sir!" said the landlord plainly. "She's yours for the askin'."
"Ah dear sir, a beauty she is. But I have a wife, even younger. She would not take kindly to a tryst that i might truly enjoy." His English was slightly broken, but already vastly improved. He dropped a coin into her hand, and she blushed, but quickly dropped the coin into her bodice.
John Laurens had a quick thought of his own wife and small daughter, now under Manning's care. But he said nothing, respecting the fact that Hamilton was still unmarried. Still, he had to admit, the girl looked good.
...
[Laurens] drained his mug and held it out to the girl with the pitcher, who also refilled the others. With effort, he resisted a gentle slap on her rump.
Fowler has repeatedly acknowledged that John expressed little interest in women, to the point that it apparently concerned Henry. But now John, a newly married man, is acknowledging the attractiveness of other women and barely resisting sexually harassing them? Fowler neither explains nor justifies this change in character for John. Additionally, I am confused (but not surprised) by Fowler acknowledging that Laurens did not readily inform Hamilton of his wife and child while explaining this away as Laurens having "respect" for Hamilton's bachelor status. Fowler has clearly read Hamilton's April 1779 letter to Laurens, where Hamilton reveals that he learned about Laurens's wife and child through some forwarded correspondence. This reveals that Laurens, in his ~1.5 years of knowing Hamilton at this point, never told Hamilton that he was both married and a father. And Fowler thinks that this is just a man trying to avoid rubbing his marriage in the face of his unmarried friend? Does he think there is no possible other (queer) explanation for this?
Fowler goes on to misquote Hamilton's September 16, 1780 letter to Laurens:
Hamilton also continued to proclaim his deepest affection for John, although he had become betrothed to Eliza Schuyler, daughter of the former commander of the Northern Army, Philip Schuyler. Hamilton was aware that John's parole limited him to Pennsylvania, so that he could not plan to attend the wedding, which was held at the Schuyler estate near Albany, New York. But he did go so far as to wish John could be there to witness the "final consummation of the wedding."
The actual quote from Hamilton's letter is "I would invite you after the fall to Albany to be witness to the final consummation." Fowler adds the words "of the wedding," which take away from the likely sexual innuendo of Hamilton's true phrasing. Knowing Fowler and his propensity for typos and errors, it is possible that he simply misplaced the end quotation. Regardless, the way he has presented the quotation has altered the meaning of the letter, and it is somewhat reminiscent of Gregory Massey placing an ellipsis in a section of Hamilton's April 1779 letter to Laurens in order to lessen the intensity of the love and physical affection suggested by Hamilton's words.
Throughout the remainder of the story, there are multiple references to John's wife and child and his apparent deep love of them. At a meeting with Comte d'Estaing, d'Estaing toasts âTo Johnâs wife and child, and may they prosper. (Well-informed.)â Given that Laurens had not even told Hamilton about Martha and Frances at this point, it is basically impossible that d'Estaing would have known about them. What was Fowler's intention behind including this? Was it to make d'Estaing seem like a knowledgeable person? Unlikely, considering Fowler's apparent hatred of the man (discussed further in this post). It seems like a poor attempt to shoehorn in another mention of Martha and Frances to convince the audience that Laurens is constantly thinking of their well-being. Similarly, Fowler brings up Martha and Frances again as Laurens is preparing to travel to France on his diplomatic mission:
There were two other reasons that pressed Laurens to make the trip to France. First was that he had learned of his father's imprisonment in the Tower of London, and hoped that he might somehow arrange for his release. Secondly, his wife and four year old daughter were in England, and he was no doubt anxious to join them, and to try to help them to move to America to make their home.
To my knowledge, there is no (surviving) evidence that John contacted Martha during his time in France or made any attempt to meet with her and Frances. Martha did apparently learn about John's presence in France and traveled there in an effort to meet up with him, but she does not seem to have arrived until after he departed on his return voyage to America. All accounts point to Laurens's focus on his mission in France and a quick return to America; to claim that Laurens was "anxious" to visit with his wife and child in Europe misconstrues his character and tamps down his flaws.
In his final paragraph of John's story, Fowler makes a radical claim: "It may be that news of his wifeâs death spurred him to make the wrong decisions that led to his death." What evidence is there to support this? We have no surviving account of how Laurens learned of or reacted to his wife's death. But Fowler feels comfortable claiming that the death of Laurens's wife, whom Laurens readily left behind in England in 1776 to pursue his military career and had not seen since, was the catalyst for Laurens's reckless battlefield decisions and ultimate death? This is a stark contrast to the relationship between John and Martha that Fowler presented at the beginning of his story. What happened to the John Laurens that was not interested in women and only married Martha out of pity? When did he become the loving husband that Fowler desperately wants to present?
While reading Fowler's work and assessing his handling of John Laurens, Martha Manning, and Alexander Hamilton, I was repeatedly reminded of a line from William Benemann's Male-Male Intimacy in Early America: Beyond Romantic Friendships. This line was about Massey's handling of the Laurens-Hamilton relationship in his own Laurens biography, but the sentiment rings true for Fowler as well:
The biographer categorically rejects any suggestion of sexual attraction between the two men - but then is puzzled to explain their behavior.
Fowler is truly puzzled in his approach to Laurens's sexuality/queerness: Laurens's queerness is unimportant gossip, irrelevant to his story. But we must understand that Laurens's closest relationships were with men, and he had no interest in women. Henry worries that John is queer, but no one else should consider this possibility. In fact, it's best to make no mention of the issue. John married a pregnant Martha Manning, but maybe the child wasn't his. He quickly leaves Martha after their wedding without witnessing the birth of their child, but he constantly thinks about them once he reaches America and joins the Army. But also he can't help being attracted to other women. He loves Hamilton deeply and longs to share a bed with him, but no one should suggest that their relationship was at all queer.
Fowler believes that John's queerness should essentially be disregarded in any discussion of his life. But in writing this book, Fowler unintentionally demonstrates that one cannot truly separate a person from their queerness. It is deeply intertwined in their world view, their self-perception and presentation, and in their relationships with others - platonic, romantic, or otherwise. To ignore this is not a neutral approach - rather, it presents an incomplete and biased picture that leaves gaps and questions. John's queerness certainly does not need to be the whole focus of any biography, but its acknowledgement and inclusion makes any telling of his life more complete.
I could say so much about this book and Flowler⊠but I will keep it to simply stating that many of these books and biographies about Laurens do so much countering of reasons why he couldnât possibly be queer, that it just inadvertently provides further evidence that he was.
I hate that historical documents can just be bought and sold by rich people as collectors items. They should all be in archives that are open to the public.
