Emma Silverman: I'm going to put the three of us on screen now for the discussion portion
that will be the remainder of tonight's event. So, I...we're going to start with a prompt for
Dave and Tom to kick us off. And while we're talking about that audience members,
we've got the pre-submitted questions. We've gotten some questions already through
a Q&A button and the Chat. But I would ask you...we'd love to get some more. So, as we start
off this conversation, please do use that Q&A button and send us a couple more. And again, we'll
get to as many as we can. And then follow up later if we're not able to get to all the questions.
So my opening query for Dave and Tom, which I think follows really well from what you were
saying, Tom, is so we've spoken kind of about the context and we've spoken about the statue
So what are the two of you what are your opinions?
Do you think that LGBTQ history should be part of the National
Park Service, its formal interpretation of the General von Steuben statue?
What I mean here is it's not just when people come in kind of happened to mention it. But for
a plaque in writing somewhere, somewhere integrated somewhere
into that formal interpretation. And in answering that question,
I'd like to hear your thoughts on how we balance what we know about von Steuben's life. What we
think about what he might have wanted with what the monuments creators intended.
And then also, again, what is important to contemporary marginalized communities seeking
representation in the commemorative landscape? Dave Lawrence:
I'll begin. All right. It's a...it's a lot to try to cover.
I will say that I often find it very difficult, especially in the setting of Valley Forge,
should be able to try to incorporate that in simply because so much of our programming
interpretation is based more on act actions within the encampment. And there...and the impact on
systemic and the institution of the army and the military that was going on here.
We very rarely get an opportunity to get into the social history and the personal history of
some of the the key figures that are here. And also we have also been moving away from
talking a lot about the officers and doing more of a, you know, rank and file view of the army,
including talking about the demographics of the people who made up the army, the women
and children and civilian...civilians who would travel with the army.
So now we have to focus our attention back to the personal lives of the officers again, as we as
we do that. I think it should be incorporated in some way or another because there's an important
part of understanding his identity. However, I think it has to be included with modifiers.
We can state why he...why he might be suspected of being gay, but again, to suggest that he
might be out as you know, as blatant has to be he has to be couched properly.
We we can point out, I think the best thing that we could do is use primary sources and talk about
the relationship. The lifelong relationship they had, especially with North, but also with
Benjamin Walker and, you know, use quotes that they send to each other in their letters.
And I think that would allow that sort of relationship to kind be brought out,
you know, basically holistically rather than...the...rather than making it an act of,
hey, look, we're trying to appease to the LGBTQ. Instead making it integrate that as part of
the natural, you know, expression of von Steuben and the life that he led.
Thomas Foster: I think I would agree with that. I definitely think it's important. But I'm an
historian. And if I'm at the grocery store and you had a bag of carrots there. And there was some
history that I wanted to talk about, I would. Say, I just think any opportunity to talk about
history is a great opportunity and why would you not want to? For me, it's a missed opportunity
if you don't. So then the question is, how do you do it? And I really like the idea.
The idea Dave is raising about the context that there's clearly personal lives being
talked about for the other individuals related to Valley Forge. And people do want to know
about loved ones for the individuals. Are they writing to loved ones at home?
What is that? How do they manage that whole aspect of their lives? Is there...especially
if they're head of a household, or want to be head of a household name. It's such an important
role for a man. Are their loved ones that could affect their performance basically there also.
So I just think it is relevant, intimate life, personal life, is relevant. And so then therefore,
it makes sense to talk about what is known about student von Steuben.
I do think moving away from terms is important. In other words, we don't have enough of a
enough of an accurate terminology to use or enough of a shared terminology for all of us
as a group to get together, or for strangers to come together in front of a monument and just
hear a term like he's a gay general. You clearly have to talk I think, much
more descriptively about what is known about an individual. My concern becomes about the modifiers
because I think there's very little evidence about heterosexuality in so many cases. But
we are not using modifiers there. So you won't see modifiers about love between George and Martha.
But what's missing there is that we have almost nothing about the love they expressed for each
other in written letters and there are no children. They got married. That's pretty
thin evidence for a lifelong love, right? I mean, we know from our own personal
relationships, relationships are complicated, really complicated.
And I will also throw into this mix: We don't talk about bisexuality or fluidity or that a
person's sexuality could change over time. In other words, we sort of possibly...
Dave Lawrence: Hamilton. Thomas Foster: Right. We sort of
immediately move to terms that we can grasp that are going to be sort neat and nicely contained
for us to just sort of get used to. But I think, again, with those modifiers,
I guess I'd like to see them more evenly applied or perhaps not used at all. Perhaps
we really just talk about what we know. Emma Silverman: David, you have a question?
You wanted to...see raising your hand? Dave Lawrence: Yeah. I also want to get into
going back to the original sources. One of the issues, especially when parsing out the
relationships between the people back then, is I'm and I'm saying this in part because
I would like Dr. Foster's opinion on this one. The one of the things that I often have trouble
with when trying to figure out the relationship between folks back then was me trying to put my
21st century idea of both queer culture and normative culture into an 18th century context.
Perfect example would be the things, as you mentioned, the expressions of love that are
expressed between various men with within this army are very effusive and there comes
a question as to how much of...and was often very rarely question. And that does lead to the
question of how, you know, how do you define the filial, maybe platonic love that is being
expressed by those statements compared to ones that might be of a more romantic nature?
Because a lot of folks back then would write to one another to close
friends with expressions that in modern day parlance would be seen as romantic overtures.
If I were to write to a male friend of mine, or a friend of mine to whom I am not romantically
connected, that I love until I absolutely adore and love them and cannot wait, wait with bated
breath upon our next return. So that they may once again be in my arms. People would consider
that to be romantic overtures today, but would not necessarily back in the 18th century.
And I'm wondering with Dr. Foster, as someone who has
dove into this era a lot, lot more than I have, how that how he works with parsing that out.
Thomas Foster: It's a real challenge for historians. I will say. And
it becomes a really central question like what is your burden of proof then to say someone is
involved in a same sex sexual relationship, or an intimate relationship?
Historians for the most part, for heterosexual relationships,
rely on birth records. If there's a child that happened, then we know the individuals had sex,
or again, a marriage certificate. And that's really sort of the hard evidence that we rely on.
But honestly, in the background with the hardest evidence is just the default that that historical
individuals are presumed to be heterosexual. Unless we have clear evidence, clear evidence, to
argue otherwise. For the most part, that it seems to be a problem of how we approach history.
So some of those expressions of love, I think, again, you have to really contextualize them
with what you know about the individuals and maybe what all the other letters say.
Perhaps it's very hard to know. And you end up in the realm of biography You end up in the
realm of individuals in their heads. I mean, these are really complicated things. Motives
are really hard for historians to get at. And so I just think it's we don't have really
neat answers here, unfortunately. I do think it's worth noting that some of those
letters where they do talk about love also use references to physical intimacy. So long to hold
you in my arms or curl up and sleep with you, miss you in my bed, those kinds of things.
There are even I think in Hamilton's letters with Lawrence, there are references to,
I think, a bedpost which sort of in the way that it's written about it,
it's clearly a phallic reference. I think that's what Hamilton...may be with others. But this is
an example of the sort of like in other words, a range that's being expressed within this
genre of expressing oneself, if you will. And so it ends up being where the historians
find what they think is the truth about those individuals.
Emma Silverman: I have a question about sources that I wanted to bring into this conversation.
She asks. "This conversation raises so many questions about the expansive suite of source
material available to interpret the past written public documents folklore stories,
past structures and landscapes, fashion, artistic renderings, etc. and the different frameworks we
might use and questions we might ask to draw meaning from these? How might we rethink or
reconsider source credibility, apply new types of questions, and/or draw satisfaction from
open ended or unresolved findings, so as to bring under-voiced stories to the center?"
Do either of you have thoughts about...We've been talking about letters. You spoke about
the newspaper articles a bit, Tom. But this question of sources is again, if we don't...it's
often about all people's personal, intimate lives. We have the marriage and birth certificates as
the hard evidence. And then we have this other range of sources. How important are sources? And
can they help us maybe be more open ended in our findings? Not having to draw one-to-one
parallels with contemporary identities. But maybe draw something more fluid or open ended?
Thomas Foster: I think we have to be more open ended ultimately. But
was there a question about what sources are available for this type of study?
Emma Silverman: I think I think that would be helpful to hear. And then Lysa was also
asking, you know...what, "Are their sources that aren't...don't seem as
credible, maybe like oral traditions?" Or something that's not like a state document
that looking from that sometimes looking at sources that are not so
official actually helps bring marginalized voices to the fore. So, I think her question
was about that in relationship to this. Thomas Foster: I think the...great. I mean, it's
really almost a question of methodology. It's part of it is at least. And I do think there's been
such great work about using even official records, to read, if you can, read against the grain to
understand what is being said in there, that it is sometimes in opposition to the official.
In other words, the official record is produced for a reason to perpetuate the official in power.
But there are also all sorts of ways to read about what is going on on the ground. What
was this individual doing? What what are they expressing? Reading those sources against the
grain, I think can be very helpful. I, I often, at least in intro classes,
hear from students that they're concerned about sources with bias. Look, for me, bias is often
what's most interesting to an historian. So in terms of how you evaluate a source, it comes
down to I think the audience is probably quite familiar with this, your claims.
And so you can make certain claims about a fiction fictional account that has the queer scene between
two individuals could be written about in terms of spread of information and knowledge about this.
Thomas Foster: Right. So that could be the claim. That's a clear claim. You have this
published circulates understanding and awareness of it. That's fine. And your claim there,
once you start talking about that, this is evidence of individuals actually engaging
in the activity, then you need a source that actually would talk about the individuals.
So I'm not sure I've gone off the question, but hopefully that speaks to it somewhat.
And I do want to say about sources I saw in the chat, also a reference to Jonathan Katsas. He has
these great early volumes, I think they're from the seventies or nineteen eighty even
really early on a pioneer in American history. There are two massive volumes that are collections
of documents. And so that's...a...and there are all sorts of documents. I mean, what's interesting
about doing LGBTQ history in a time period that people think LGBTQ history didn't really
exist is you do see it in just about every type of source, court records, newspaper personal letters,
et cetera. Emma Silverman:
Dave, I know we have a we do actually have and we're talking about histories that where
you have to sort of read between the lines. But we do actually have an official record
of LGBTQ history at Valley Forge? Do you want to talk about that a little bit?
Dave Lawrence: But yeah, actually, it was...I know this it was brought up in the chat and at the
looks, and it's a good reminder also of the consequences of being outed
in that time period. Even if things might occasionally be suspected. It was always a
wink and a nod and never outright stating. There was actually a Court-Martial that occurred
at Valley Forge. Lieutenant Frederick Enslin was was charged with sodomy, attempted sodomy
of a soldier under his command, and was ordered to be discharged. As Washington said, "with infamy"
from the Army. And if I can, I have a copy of the general orders that marched it.
"His Excellency, General Washington approves the sentence with abhorrence and detestation at such
infamous crimes and orders Lieutenant Enslin to be drummed out of the camp tomorrow morning
by all the drummers fifers in the army never to return."
That he made sure that ge included in his General Orders, his personal feelings on the matter. But
it is also interesting to know that the guy was court martialed and drummed out of camp.
Concerns that sometimes sodomy could be considered a capital crime. Clearly was not the case within
this army, but that was occurring...that... that court martial occurred in March. Right at
the same time that von Steuben is beginning to start training and drilling the men.
And there has been actually a running question about whether or not Benjamin Franklin and
Silas Deane in Europe or in Washington and other senior officers in America
knew anything about the scandals that von Steuben was leaving behind when he arrived here.
I tend to think that maybe Franklin might have been keen to it because he was always
up on the scuttlebutt about going on in French...in the...in the European courts.
But Washington very likely was not, or that the very least turned a blind, blind eye to any
any suggestions. And I think that court martial is a perfect example of it.
And a perfect example, again, of why someone like von Steuben would still need to be very
circumspect and very coded in his language. You know, in that era, in that society.
Emma Silverman: You know, we got a question related to that from
Robert, a pre-submitted question asking, "As a high status man, one striving sexuality,
possibly was an open secret, understood or at least rumored about? Any information?"
And so I think that question speaks to the question of what was the flow of information
about von Steuben? Even if we know. And also, how did class and other forms of identity affect
how sexuality was read or policed in the time period?
Dave Lawrence: I would I cannot speak with authority on this. I'm
going to probably punt this over to Dr. Foster. I will say, though, that it, it is very similar to
other ideas of class. When somebody is doing something that is considered
away from what was considered social norms, if you are poor you are ostracized for it. If you
are rich, you are considered eccentric. And I'm willing...I'm thinking that it was
probably similar in this day and age...for...for...for von Steuben's
behavior. But I can't say for sure or with authority. So I will pass on to Dr. Foster.
Thomas Foster: I mean, I would agree with you on that point. I think
class plays a role in a few ways here. You could provide cover it certainly for elites
would just provide more opportunity for them to have private unobserved time. Or some sort of
privacy, essentially. Are a measure of that. I do think elites could be subjected to policing,
though, certainly if there's a morals campaign. We do see, though, I think obviously,
that elites would have much more leeway than non-elites. That being said, for
class segregated world, non-elites, are also going to have opportunity if they are away from
interaction or closely watched by elite. They would, however, be much more subject
to policing by elites. And you see this in a whole host of contexts.
You would see this not only with not elites, but with dependents, servants. In the colonial
context, you have cases where indigenous individuals engaged in same sex behavior
are being policed as part of the colonial project, as part of bringing a different moral structure,
and trying to overlay it and impose it on that society as colonial subjects. So I think there's a
whole host of ways that we need to think about how class is playing a role here. But there's probably
not a really simple way to just say that one group is allowed in one class and not the other.
I do want to add, however, that the elites seem to fall under more emasculating satire. For example,
for first or suspect same sex socializing. And so you do see there were all those images of
the Macaronis in the slideshow. It's sort of an example of an 18th century fop that is suspect.
They are a queer character in that they have this kind of deviant same sex, social, and suggestive
sexual world. They clearly dress in the manner and act in a manner that's effeminate. So the
the awareness of same gender, sexuality, and intimacy is so prevalent in the culture that
you can actually use it to emasculate men in in tropes that are somewhat cryptic.
And you see that in Europe. You see even in the colonies and certainly
in the time of the Revolution. Emma Silverman: And for those I know,
we're making reference to the PowerPoint. If you joined us right at 6:00PM, you didn't
show up ten minutes early for that. We will be playing it again at the end of the event.
So you can watch it with fresh eyes or you see it for the first time. And
take a look at some of these images that are being referenced I wanted to return to that question.
We've touched on it a bit, but we've been speaking to the complexity of interpreting
personal lives and intimacy in this time period and terms that read today and are
even politically important today. So what do you all think about Matthew's question about
the language or semantics to use? I think both you have, and I,
well, sort of a resistance to a very easy label like the "gay general." On the other hand,
when I think about that webcomic, it ends with a sort of a plea for us to honor the contributions
of LGBTQ service people to the nation. In other words, von Steuben is being called
the "gay general," in part to to talk about why queer people today should have rights
and should be able to serve in the army. And so on. And so I just I guess, again,
I'm coming into that sort of conundrum. What I'm hoping you could speak to it just
in terms of language. So if really practically if we're talking about the personal lives and
intimacies of figures at Valley Forge, including von Steuben, then in some way, in relationship
to the monument, what kind of language is actually being used in that interpretation?
Thomas Foster: It's a I think I mentioned this briefly earlier on, so I won't. I'll give Dave
some time to talk about if he wants to. But I do think I agree with you. It's really hard to find
shorthand terms that are going to really accurately capture for everybody what's going.
I do think it's I think what you're doing is really wonderful that you're having a
series like this on monuments, but then that you would have a particular one to really do a much
deeper dive to talk about all the issues here is what's needed.
And in the actual site, I just would hope there, you would have the
discussion, the conversation, the fuller information provided. I think that's key.
I'm seeing in the chat some really important things that should also, I would think,
be mobilized in that context. So that if a reference was made to the fact that others have
referred to him as the "gay general," in other words, that's another way of doing it then. You
don't have to own it then. You could say this is occurring, which I think is what you are doing.
But then you might also include some of this historical context that's so important. LGBTQ
individuals have not been allowed to serve openly in the military until very recently. And so it
just gives you, I think, another window into how important it is to be having this conversation
and in a place that is like Valley Forge and so important to the founding and really to our
understanding of patriotism. I think those are really important things to be accomplishing.
And there's another comment here that it's not that far back that LGBTQ individuals would
not be allowed to work in the NPS. Right? And that would...be...because they were fired in
droves, LGBTQ people from the federal government. I think that's what that is a reference to.
It's not that long ago. I mean, in many people's lifetimes.
I think just also really important context. I err on the side of more information than less.
So - and it doesn't mean you can't be concise. Dave Lawrence: Terminology is also difficult. I
think, again, going back to what evidence that we can use what we can parse out,
I think it's more important to point out the emotional connections that these folks had
with one another and no matter what their physical intimacy might have been. Obviously von Scheuben
remained deeply devoted to Benjamin Walker and North for much of for the rest of his life.
And we can use that as a springboard for their service together in the military and the times
that they spent, you know, living together at --- post war as well. And so, you know, sometimes,
rather than focusing on you the more physical aspects of the particular relationships,
whether it be hetero or whether it be heterosexual or homosexual, the general focus should be instead
on how they express their affection towards one another and love for one another.
As far as like the foundation, as a foundational theme for presenting for
presenting these relationships, because that is something that we can more easily back up
by using the documentation. Emma Silverman:
Yeah. And I wanted to follow up. I think also, I think it's really important to point out that this
whole conversation about the interpretation of the monument is happening against
a backdrop of the National Park Service and many other history institutions not recognising the
existence of what we would now today call queer people or LGBTQ people for a very long time.
And I did mention, or put in the slideshow, and also a link that we will be sharing at the end is
to the LGBTQ heritage study, which was done in 2016. So these same studies are studies of the
National Park Service does to try to illuminate histories that have been obscured or excluded.
So this one was done in 2016 and part of it was to lift up sites to the National Register
of Historic Places national historic landmarks or national monuments. In the case of Stonewall...so
that that is available online. Thirty two chapters is a wealth of information.
There is an incredible project. And it's relatively I mean, I would say quite recent
in the over century long history of the National Park Service. So
certainly that's the backdrop against which all of these conversations are happening.
But I wanted to switch to a question now that we had a pre submitted question from Maggie.
Maggie had asked, "Are there other LGBTQ people in our history that we haven't learned about?"
And since we have limited time left in this Q&A, I wanted to narrow the question slightly to ask you
to are there other LGBTQ or people that we would understand today as LGBTQ in the history of the
founding of the nation and the American Revolution that should be more well known in your opinion?
Dave Lawrence: Well, the first part of the question I'll answer was yes. I am
absolutely certain there were far more folks from the LGBTQ...who from history,
who are not being properly recognised as such. And again, I would allude to the fact that that is
due in large part to the the issues of trying to clarify whether or not that person was or was not
a good example in the opening in the opening scroll that we had. Some of the images include
the image of Deborah Sampson. It's a perfect example. She dressed and as a man had joined the
American army and served in the American army. And there's a question, was she doing that as an
expression of gender identity? Or was she doing it as an opportunity to get
to enlist in the Army and get a salary and gain some positions and bonus and recruitment bonuses
and basically get an opportunity for economic advancement that would otherwise be barred off
to women...to women like her? Was she using this as an opportunity for what she's battling against
sexism or gender identity or both? We don't know. And we can't. And sussing that out would be
incredibly difficult. I'm sure that we're many people like her. And like others who, you know,
who it's always going to be left up in the air. I compare it similar similarly to trying to
sometimes figure out the espionage game that was constantly going on through the American
Revolution. One of the best ways to keep a spy secret was to not mention his name.
And we have accounts I've been studying accounts of military operations that went
on around Valley Forge and I get accounts and letters from officers regarding hey,
we just got word from our friend regarding this movement, we never find out who that friend is.
It's coded specifically in order to maintain a secret. And that's sort of coding is for
most people who are LGBTQ have that is what they have had to deal with for much of their
lives until just very recently. So and trying to figure out that coding is an onerous task.
Thomas Foster: And seeing the time...I won't say much more. But I did want to say that there's
a fascinating controversy that occurred about five years ago now. Actually, it was 2015, in
a Civil War Journal, "We Proceeded On." I think it's the publication of the Lewis and Clark
Trail Heritage Foundation. And so the name of the publication is "We Proceeded On"
and this is actually about Lewis and Clark, that there's a scholar named William Benjamin,
who was a two part series that was very speculative about Lewis Clark.
So it would be an interesting read if you're interested in sort of pushing the boundaries
of this, but what is also great to read are the letters to the editor in the publications after
it was published, in that it's a handful of people that are really outraged that
their names could be dragged through the mud in this way, to capture their perspective.
And then others that really applaud the journal for taking this opportunity to explore that aspect
or possible aspect of Lewis and Clark lives. And then the editor themselves has a statement in the
letters to the editors. I would encourage people to check that out if they're interested in this
topic and the controversy around it. Emma Silverman:
Sorry, I kept myself muted. I noticed that Mike in the chat.
Also noted the recent study by the Smithsonian of Kazmir Polaski, another Polish American
War hero, who's been honored in a number of events, including monuments and national
parks. And what that study...they analysed Pulaski's bones and the study indicated that
polaski might have been female or intersex. It's a little bit unknown from the analysis that
they did, but there's another sort of like example of a hero who their gender or sexual identity may
have been different than what was presumed. We're still finding out information like that,
even if it's not like we were talking about sources even if it's not in the official records,
we don't have letters or even science analyses of remains. Materials are actually giving us new
information to understand the landscape of gender and sexuality at the time.