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 “To John’s wife and child, and may they prosper. (Well-informed.)” 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 wife’s 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.
izzy806
gummygunk
germansingergirl
yousharknotpass
kaledo-art
baratheonpilled
