Talk:John Laurens/Archive 3

Changing "Friendship" to "Relationship"
I'm not sure if I'm editing this correctly, so please let me know if I am not, but I strongly request that "Friendship" be returned to the more neutral "Relationship", as friendship implies that they were in fact just friends instead of allowing for interpretation. After reading this talk page, and as a developing historian myself with a particular interest in Laurens, I've noticed a very concerning bias towards Massey and the heterosexual view of Laurens — especially considering that there is no mention of any of Lauren' other alleged homosexual relationships such as with Francis Kinloch, focusing only on Hamilton. All things considered, the bias is both very clear and very concerning. I suggest changing the phrasing, and instead of having it be his relationship with Hamilton, just a section about his sexuality in general to include others such as Francis Kinloch. I think it's worth it to mention that he notedly had no interest in women according to his father and left his wife in child in France with no apparent intent to return for them, even when suggested to fetch them as they couldn't return to America themselves. As I've also seen the argument that Hamilton referred to him as a friend, please remember that this was the 18th century and that they obviously would not have been able to flat out call it a romantic relationship if that is what it was because it carried a death penalty. I can call my partner just a friend to avoid backlash, that doesn't make us any less actually dating.

Consider unprotecting the page to allow for adding more information rather than keeping it biased and locked so people can't add the facts. I have also noticed, not just here, that people are more adamant about portraying important figures as heterosexual — meaning, I believe that if Hamilton was just another man instead of a Founding Father, there wouldn't be this big issue about whether or not they were possibly together. Have you noticed that this argument isn't on Francis Kinloch's page? Right. Because he was essentially a nobody to us. Nobody cares if he was possibly gay — but a Founding Father? Oh no, that's not allowed. We were founded by proper straight men!

As for flowery language of the time, I can say there WAS very flowery and intimate language between male friends in those days, but this article fails to realize that these people were still human beings with their own ways of writing and their own personalities. Flowery intimate language was common, not a rule, and reading these men's letters both to each other and to others, you see that they don't talk to any others the way they talk to each other — I believe this was in the article before but I may be wrong, as a quote from the Chernow biography on Hamilton. [Possible libel (not about Chernow) removed] so I wouldn't consider the best source anyways, even if Laurens was without a doubt heterosexual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainyquill (talk • contribs) 23:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC) Rainyquill (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)Rainyquill


 * It is noteworthy that no sources, reliable or otherwise, were cited by Rainyquill for any of the preceding assertions or proposed additions to the article.
 * As pointed out above, Francis Kinloch contains a previously unnoticed allegation concerning Laurens. That article similarly fails to cite any reliable source supporting the theory, and the statement there should be removed.
 * Of greater concern: in the concluding paragraph above, there was an unsourced assertion attacking a living person's professional reputation, which could potentially subject Wikipedia to liability for libel. It has been removed, per WP:LIBEL and WP:TALKNO.
 * Lwarrenwiki (talk) 04:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * ”Relationship” is not a neutral word as Rainyquill wishes to portray it. It implies a romantic, homosexual in this case, attachment that is not supported by any evidence. “Friendship” is the term that was used by Hamilton himself and the section reports all possible opinions from reliable sources. As for Hamilton being straight, producing 8 living children with his wife, let alone one miscarriage, as well as publicly admitting to a 1-year adulterous affair with a woman does seem to be strong evidence of his heterosexuality, as well as Laurens’ child with Martha Manning also strongly indicates Laurens’ own inclination to bed women. Given the amount of unjustified attacks by people with a clear biased agenda in the issue of homosexuality in general, rather than renaming this section I am seriously considering removing it alltogether. It is just an old vestige of an appaling attempt at delivering unsupported opinions on a dead man that we have strived to manage according to WP:NEUTRAL. Since our efforts to keep the article informative but balanced at the same time are so little appreciated, I wonder why we should even bother. Isananni (talk) 06:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Relationships is a neutral word. We have relationships with every single person we know. I have a relationship with my friends, a relationship with my boss, my partner, my family, and so on. "Friendship" leaves absolutely no room for any other interpretation than the one YOU like, when there are clearly other interpretations. At the end of the day, there ARE other interpretations and to blatantly state that you're considering removing the entire piece tells me a lot about how much you really seem to care about representing the whole story. It is not at all "neutral" to shove one idea in the public's face under the guise of neutrality. As a historian, I know that you can never tell anything that isn't displayed flat out. It is our job to interpret, and yes, to accept the fact that not everyone interprets the same as you. If you want to write a biography all about why Laurens was straight, more power to you! — But keep the Wikipedia open and representative of others interpretations as well.

As I also said above, I'm not denying that Hamilton called their relationship a friendship. Again, as it was the 18th century, a time with a very literal death sentence over homosexual relationships, what do you want him to have said, assuming that they were in fact romantically involved? It is unfair and unprofessional to assume that because they couldn't have been open about it it must not have happened. Homosexual relationships existed long before the people in them were allowed to be open about it. Secret doesn't equal not real.

Lastly, "Laurens' child with Martha Mannings *strongly* indicates an inclination towards women" — firstly on this, along with your points of Hamilton, you seem not to know what a "bisexual" is. It's possible to have attraction to both sexes. Secondly, it doesn't take a lot of strong inclination to get somebody pregnant once. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't know gay history very well, but gay men have been marrying women for centuries. I mean, it isn't like they could have just married men. May I also ask, I might be misinterpreting tone, why do you seem to believe that the possibility of him being homosexual in any way is some kind of accusation or slander? I mean, "Given the amount of unjustified attacks" — who's attacking him?? "an appaling attempt at delivering unsupported opinions" — what exactly is so appalling?? If you think that considering a man possibly not heterosexual is appalling and an attack, I'm very reasonably not sure if you should have control over what goes in because you're clearly biased yourself. As for being unsupported, there IS support for it. If there wasn't, there wouldn't be an opinion to begin with. If there was absolutely no substance to it as you claim, it wouldn't even have gotten to the point where the section was created. People didn't just pick two random dead men from a hat and decide they were involved then try to force you to write about it, there was clearly a reason. Massey would have no reason to reassert the heterosexual view if there wasn't a homosexual view opposite it.

The point is not whether or not YOU think he was straight or not, it's that actual historians and biographers, Chernow for example and another who hasn't yet written a biography but who I may be able to get you some things from, have said, and regular people even have said, that he was possibly not straight. It is the duty of the article to be neutral and fairly present all sides. Not just the one I like, not just the one you like.

Regarding Francis Kinloch, that relationship is far less documented but it is documented nonetheless. As for sources, what exactly are you requesting sources for? I would be glad to provide any. Though I'm going to assume that you mean my talking about how Laurens and Hamilton were only so flowery and intimate with each other — I can get you things on this as well, but again, it doesn't matter whether you read it and agree with me, it matters that you represent all sides of the conversation including the one that interprets Laurens as being particularly intimate with Hamilton. I believe Chernow may have also mentioned this but at the time it is very early and I would have to edit it in later. The line I'm referring to in his Hamilton biography I believe was included in an earlier version of this Wiki and made note that after Laurens' death Hamilton never opened up that way to anyone again.

As an end note, I also want to add that because much of Laurens' personal letters were burned, it would also be unfair to try and rely solely on them for a story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainyquill (talk • contribs) 13:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Were you there when Laurens’ allegedly compromising letters were burnt? By whom? There is not a single claim in your comment that is supported by evidence. Enjoy writing lams fan fics on AO3 and leave historical articles well enough alone. ALL opininions on Laurens coming from reliable sources including the ones supporting the possibility of homosexuality have been quoted per WP:NEUTRAL, you will excuse me if I do not find the unreferenced comments of an anonymous user who does not even sign his/her comments to be reliable, especially when the only contributions by such user seem to be the last 2 comments on this talk page and said user seems to have been registered one day after other users were blocked for repeatedly trying to disrupt this article. Coincidences? And you ARE attacking the editors who stick to the wiki policies, including the policy forbidding personal attacks. Isananni (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Historians are free to interpret history, and to get their interpretations of history published in journals or books. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (a tertiary source), not a journal. A Wikipedia article has requirements that are not the same as those of an article by a historian. Wikipedia articles must be based upon reliable sources, such as peer-reviewed published articles by historians. Wikipedia is not a place where historians and other scholars (amateur or otherwise) are permitted to publish their original research or interpretations. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Are you implying that his letters WEREN'T burned or that they weren't "compromising"? I mean, I can get you the source on them being burned as well if I look but I was under the impression that this was common knowledge?? I'm not only referencing his possible letters to Hamilton either, as far as I am aware the majority of his letters were burned after his death. This was...a fairly common practice in that time period to preserve privacy. All I'm saying is that NEITHER of us were there. We don't know if he was writing love songs to Martha or Hamilton. And where am I attacking anybody? If anything I said or say feels too harsh, I sincerely apologise. I have a hard time with tone and by all means call me out on it as it is never my intention to be rude or disrespectful in what I hope to be a civil conversation about compromise. I also assumed that my addition would tag itself as it seemed to have done so before? But now that I know my mistake I'll do it on my own.

And I don't know what you mean by "writing lams fanfic"? That feels like it was supposed to be insulting but I don't know what you're trying to say here. And again I ask, what specific claims do you want sources on? Most of my argument was that you should represent all sides of the story and did not actually include anything that needs to be sourced? I can see if you wanted proof about Kinloch or some documentation about the culture of homosexual men marrying women, but I don't really see how relevant those two are in the grand scheme of anything?

The referenced unsourced letter from his father seems to have been brought up on this page before so I didn't figure it needed a source again. I assumed it was common knowledge here at this point. I can see a request to source my implication that they only opened up that intimately with each other, but this is more of an analysis than something that can be sourced? I can show you as many comparisons of their letters to others letters as I want, and that wouldn't require you to change your mind because it is an interpretation. As I suspect you should know, sourcing is harder for history because the job of a historian is so much interpretation. One letter might mean something different to you than it does to me. None of us were really there. All we have is educated guesses.

It's also harder to source letters and themes across letters, because I could tell you about how Laurens only called Hamilton and his wife "dear girl" and "dear boy" respectively, but then what? Are you going to read through every single one of his letters to make sure he never said it to anyone else? It doesn't help that Laurens unlike Hamilton doesn't seem to have a searchable archive of his documents. If he does, let me know and I'll use it to help you out! I don't intend to be difficult.

I'd also like to point out though, something that I CAN source, that even Massey since he seems to be liked here, said this in his biography:

"In Geneva John worked hard, but he did not let his studies prevent him from forming close ties with fellow students and teachers. It marked the beginning of a pattern: he continually centered his life around homosocial attachments to other men.  A handsome young man, properly genteel in his comportment, intellectually stimulating in his conversation, John never had difficulty attracting women and men.  Women played important roles in his life, but he reserved his primary emotional commitments for other men."

Even he has to admit it that John was primarily attached to and "homosocial" with men. Do you need page links and all such to this? I tried to add them, unsure if it worked. Now that I have found a few of Laurens' things, I was also reminded of this:

"I should inform you of an important change in my circumstances_ Pity has obliged me to marry_ but a consideration of the duty which I owe to my country made me choose a clandestine celebration, lest the father should insist upon my stay in this country as a condition of the marriage_ the matter has proceeded too far to be longer concealed, and I have this morning disclosed the affair to Mr. Manning in plain terms_ reserving to myself the right of fulfilling the more important engagements to my country. It may be convenient on some accounts that the matter should be kept secret till you hear next from me, & you will oblige me by keeping it so."

A letter from Laurens to his uncle detailing that "Pity" has obliged him to marry, and that he reserves himself the right of "fulfilling the *more important* engagements to [his] country". I also didn't notice this before, but even Massey right below states:

"While John expressed pity, noticeably absent from this passage were any feelings of love for the young woman in question, Martha Manning,"

There seems to be a common agreement that whether you believe he was homosexual or not, the guy really just didn't like women as much as some people want him to. Or at least his wife.

Laurens, in his own words, married Martha to preserve the honor of her and their child. He left before his daughter was born, giving the impression that he cared more about his country than his new family. Laurens would, as far as I or we (maybe you have something I hadn't seen) know, never see his wife or child again. Martha would die near the end of 1781, and Laurens would die in August 1782. He did make some attempts to bring them over the America, but since their countries were in the middle of a war, this was difficult. He seems to have only written a few letters to her during the war, and we only have one that survived. It also seems that Martha wrote him more often than he wrote to her, but there's wiggle room there with his burned letters. And even though John was in France in 1781 (before Martha died) to gain more aid from France, it does not appear that he made any attempt to meet with his wife or daughter during this visit.

Combine a lifetime of ""homosocial"" relationships, being primarily attached emotionally to men, only ever being notedly involved with one woman who he married in his own words out of pity and obligation, being read as romantic with Hamilton and Kinloch, and I think you get a pretty convincing argument that you should be fairer to the side you don't agree with. Even if it's only to change "Friendship" to "Relationship", which again would allow for all interpretations. I'd actually also suggest these things that support the homosexual view be added — and they're all from Massey or Laurens himself, I made sure of such, so there should be no arguing about whether or not the source is reliable since Massey is already used in the article. I don't ask that you agree with me, just that all sides be fairly represented.Rainyquill (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * There is certainly evidence that Laurens did not love Martha Manning. That is not evidence that he wasn't straight. Does anybody deny that straight men typically have sex, and fully enjoy having sex, with women they do not love?
 * If the suggestions of homosexuality had been made during Laurens' lifetime, which man would have been first – Hamilton or Laurens? – to respond that anyone who would spread such baseless libels is a scoundrel? Which one would be the first to demand satisfaction in a duel? Would either man have considered a retraction and apology to be sufficient, or would the insult be so extreme that no apology would be adequate to prevent an affair of honor from taking place? Nobody has denied that a published allegation of homosexuality would have been perceived as an insult in the 1770s–1780s, and there is common agreement that both men had a history of responding to perceived insults to their honor by challenging the transgressor to a duel. I've raised these questions here because no reliable source contains a definitive answer to them, but amateur historians seem to claim a remarkable ability to provide answers using unavailable sources. Perhaps the answer appears in letters that were burned, which I regret that I cannot read for myself. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * "Women played important roles in his life, but he reserved his primary emotional commitments for other men." This quote would describe the friendships of a large number of straight college-age males. For example, it matches a stereotypical profile of certain fraternity brothers, or players on college varsity teams. It is equally stereotypical of young soldiers in combat (or combat training). The recognized common element is that these are situations in which straight men spend much of their time working as a team in a single-sex environment. There is nothing notable or unusual in male bonding of that kind, which the quoted sentence describes well. The neologism "homosocial" may be accurate in this case, since that term implies neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality. Unfortunately, it is a label that is often misused, with the effect of misleading readers by suggesting homosexuality where none exists. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

It's late where I'm at right now, so excuse me but I don't understand what you're asking of me in your first part? I never claimed that anyone suggested homosexuality during their lifetimes, and I have no doubt that if anyone had one of them would have been quick to call it out, because it WAS considered a terrible accusation at the time. That doesn't mean it didn't happen or couldn't have happened. See, to use a modern example, imagine that you are homosexual, but perhaps your family is very religious and homophobic and they don't know. Somebody calls you gay, or questions your sexuality in front of your family — clearly your response is not going to be to agree with them. If you're not as fight-quick as Laurens or Hamilton you might find it sufficient to ignore it, though this would likely draw suspicion from your family. Or perhaps you keep up appearances and start arguing or fighting with the person. Or even, maybe you're alone with the person when this happens and you have some internalized issues with your sexuality of your own — you may still be compelled to argue or fight with them. The human being is very complex. Notice how no matter what you decide to do in this hypothetical situation, you're still homosexual no matter what you say about it out loud. Now imagine this is taking place in the 18th century, not with a homophobic family and someone privately accusing you in front of them, but in a homophobic SOCIETY with someone PUBLICLY accusing you. You don't want anyone thinking you're gay. YOU probably don't even want to think you're gay. So maybe you do go off and duel this person, or call them out on it in writing, or publicly deny it to anyone who asks. But you're still homosexual at the end of it. Sexuality is defined by who you're attracted to, not what you have to say about it. Tl;dr: What his reaction would have been to the idea doesn't affect the reality of it because none of us are in his bed or his head.

I also have to ask, please explain why you are just so adamant about him being straight? Why will you not allow for anything but that? Yes, you can look at all this and you can say that you believe he was heterosexual despite only ever having one relationship with a woman who he near immediately left then didn't bother with women again after, you can say you believe he enjoyed sex with women despite that we only have definitive proof of him having sex with women enough times to get one pregnant which could have very well have been just once and no documentation saying he enjoyed it at all. But you can also take these things and fairly say "maybe he wasn't straight", and there is absolutely no harm at all in any way, shape or form in being fair to things you don't agree with. I fully support your right to think that Laurens was into women, and I fully support the right of anyone who reads the Wiki to read the section and decide that they agree with you. What I don't support is other interpretations being unfairly represented and brushed off with a title of "Friendship", because that gives the impression that we know for an absolute fact that there was nothing else going on there when we don't. When you make the title "Friendship", even when you include the other interpretations, it gives the impression after reading that "oh so he was straight but some silly people think he wasn't". It unfairly leans to one side and plain and simple is not neutral.

I'm not asking that the section be changed to say he was homosexual. I'm not asking for the title to imply that he was without a doubt homosexual the way the current one implies that he was without a doubt heterosexual. All I'm asking is that it be neutral and say "Relationship with Hamilton", or simply "Sexuality". Sexuality might even be better, since both homosexuality and heterosexuality are sexualities, and the title "Sexuality" doesn't allude unfairly to either one of them. I'm not asking for anything unreasonable. The section is already there, so unless the intention is to make sure the reader thinks he was straight, which should not be the intention of a neutral and/or fair article, what is the harm in using a neutral word? If it was truly without a doubt "just a friendship", there would be a section for every one of his friends, not just Hamilton. Yet people haven't theorized that he was involved with any of his other friends, save for Kinloch. If this was just how he was with friends, wouldn't we have a section discussing all of them? Or wouldn't historians have never brought up the possibility of homosexuality, since that's just the way he was with friends? If he was like that with all of his friends, I would agree with you that maybe he wasn't homosexual or was just "homosocial", but he WASN'T like that with all of his friends. There's something there with Hamilton that historians and biographers haven't picked up in all of his normal relationships. It is fair to be neutral. Rainyquill (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * That's enough. The issue has already been discussed ad nauseam. Hamilton himself described his relationship with Laurens as “friendship”, deal with it. Your failure to respect the established consensus is blatant harassing and you have been reported. Isananni (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Refusing to take historical context into account and forcing one view onto the article is not neutral. If the rules of Wikipedia demand neutrality, then you are blatantly not following the rules. I'm not going to "deal with" the facts not being fairly or appropriately represented, and I hardly think that simply asking for a compromise on a name change is """harassment""". I'm willing to find something that works for everyone and have suggested two alternate titles that don't unfairly lean towards one side or the other — otherwise known as "being neutral", you know, the rules, while you are the one being uncompromising and biased — not neutral. Why do the rules only apply when they're in your favor? You can be petty and report me for harassment despite the fact that I'm not harassing anybody by trying to reach a fair common ground. I haven't been rude to you or anyone else, and if I have I was unaware — though you were rude to me earlier by implying that I am just some "lams fanfiction writer" instead of someone legitimately and professionally attempting to reach something that works for everybody, which I could have made into a problem but let go of because one of us here is trying to be an adult. If a report results in suspension or banning of my account or something of the like, then perhaps you won't hear from me again — but people aren't going to stop demanding something change until the article complies with actual neutrality. You're going to deal with this a thousand times over a thousand until it's neutral and fair. So if you're tired of the argument coming again and again and again, "ad nauseum", my only suggestion would be for you to "deal with it" and make the thing neutral like Wikipedia rules say and "friendship" is not, or "deal with it" and keep having this happen until something changes. People aren't going to stop asking for fairness. Rainyquill (talk) 12:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Done Section header has been changed back, as requested, to the term "relationship". That term is appropriate because the section does, in fact, discuss the nature of Laurens' relationship with Hamilton. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

opening a new page
Isananni suggested opening a new page on the Hamilton-Laurens relationship. As this debate is contentious, I wanted to explain the discourse between historians/biographers (rather than the opinions of every user). If length is the problem I have no issue stating a new page on the debate and replacing the section on this page with a link and short note on the debate. I don't think censoring this debate because it's contentious is working, instead I think we are better off acknowledging the differing interpretations between historians. Do other users think this is a good idea? Justanotherhistorybuff (talk) 06:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no problems with a separare page where ALL sides of the discussion are presented in equal weight and respecting WP:NEUTRAL. A new page on Wikipedia must still respect ALL Wikipedia policies. A link to this new page can then be added under the header of the more concise section on this page. This is not about censoring, it’s about respecting Wiki policies. Isananni (talk) 07:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I was trying to present ALL sides as equally as possible, while only citing reliable sources. If you are aware of other historians/biographers who state their interpretation of the relationship in a published source you are of course welcome to add it. I'd like to hear from more than one person on this before crating a new page though. Justanotherhistorybuff (talk) 07:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course, I will welcome other opinions myself. The problem in what you were doing, reporting every single comma on a contentious theory on THIS page, was not giving appropriate weight to a contentious theory thus making the article unbalanced, using direct quotations as original research, giving more weight to some points of view rather than others, etc., all against Wikipedia policies. The fact that your account was quite interestingly created in the same days as Rainyquill and Sonofhistory, all apparently in response to a call to action against "straight" users editing on John Laurens that was posted on Tumblr in the same days when your accounts were opened (as Rainyquill admitted and reported) and the apparent single-mindedness of all these accounts does not look good, nor does it speak of unbiasedness on your side and it is honestly difficult to assume good faith under the present circumstances. Isananni (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no idea who Rainyquill or Sonofhistory are. I wasn't aware Founders Online was considered an unreliable source as I have seen it used a on wikipedia elsewhere. The page already talks about the contentious theory but at the moment is somewhat of a mess including not only quotes from Founders Online but wikipedia users interpretations of the primary source material. By reframing the debate to focus on the interpretations of historians/biographers I hoped to give a more unbiased perspective. As I said I'm happy to move the whole section to a new page if more than one person thinks thats best.Justanotherhistorybuff (talk) 08:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The real issue with relying on Founders Online in this context is not whether it's reliable but the danger of using it for original research. We should cite significant historians who have said things about Laurens' sexuality and the nature of his relationship with Hamilton, rather than trying to imply things ourselves using WP:PRIMARY quotations.  That said, just at a glance, it looks like there are at least some quotes to credible historians in the disputed version that we could use (possibly replacing some of the remaining things that rely exclusively on primary sources - particularly the quote about Hamilton's wedding.  Has any historian discussed that in this context?) --Aquillion (talk) 10:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I apologise for using Founders Online then. As it's already used as a source on this page I didn't realise there was a problem. I cant think of a historian who has talked about the "final consummation" quote, as it has a debatable interpretation I wished to exclude it from this page. But I do think it's worth inducing Benemanns criticism of Massey if we are going to include Massey. At very least I think it should be mentioned that Massey latter said he regretted using decisive statements about the Hamilton-Laurens relationship if we are going to include him. Justanotherhistorybuff (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

on the section regarding hamilton and laurens
A few things I'd like to say:

1. Defining the "final consummation" as the wedding is incorrect. Consummation, as defined by a few sources which I will link below, is the act of intercourse immediately following marriage. This is a simple Google search, so I don't know how this was missed. It's also important to note that the definition of "consummate" is very consistent among all the pages I've looked at. Here are the links: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consummation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consummation

2. "extravagent or hyberbolic language such as the phrase "your obedient servant", is commonly seen in personal correspondence of this period"--this sentence is irrelevant since it's never used in the Hamilton-Laurens letters. This was also used more as a "less personal" closing, so it not being used makes sense because the two were incredibly close.

Regarding the second point, I believe it would be more relevant to include a few lines on how Laurens likely wasn't interested in women. I have a quote below that I think relevant.

"Master Jack is too closely wedded to his studies to think about any of the Miss Nanny's I would not have such a sound in his Ear, for a Crown; why drive the poor Dog, to what Nature will irresistably prompt him to be plagued with in all probability much too soon"

3. "For example, in one bantering letter to Laurens prior to his marriage to Elizabeth Schuyler, Hamilton wrote to Laurens to reassure him that their friendship would not be diminished"--misleading since the actual quote talks about how his marriage to Elizabeth was a "strange cure" for his "devotion" to Laurens, heavily implying that they had talked about marriage as a cure for something

Geekyhistorian (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I hate to repeat myself, but I can’t see how my answer should change given the message does not seem to get through. The issue of the Laurens-Hamilton friendship and related correspondence has already been addressed with reliable sources duly referenced and with all differing opinions (including one supporting the possibility of a homosexual attraction) all duly noted per WP:NEUTRAL. Should you have an academic paper you would like to submit on this subject, please feel free to do so in the due venues, Wikipedia is not the place for WP:OR which is what you are doing by quoting scattered passages of original correspondence out of context and giving them your personal interpretation other editors in previous discussions do not agree with. Should you not be satisfied with Wikipedia’s policy on the need to refer to reliable sources and avoid WP:OR, as well as the need to keep all articles neutral per WP:NEUTRAL please discuss your complaints in the appropriate venues. Isananni (talk) 04:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Have you ever read the letter with the quote in #2? It is absolutely not taken out of context. Also, the interpretation and definition of "consummation" is entirely incorrect. So fine, I can see that #3 has mostly been addressed, but the big thing standing is that there is incorrect information in the article (the definition of consummation) Geekyhistorian (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The article is accurate as it stands, with citations to reliable sources rather than original research. It is also balanced, giving appropriate weight to a contentious theory.
 * The article's interpretation of the word "consummation" is also accurate as it stands, rather than "entirely incorrect". See, for example, consummation in Wiktionary, as well as the definition in Dictionary.com (here). The primary meaning of the word "consummation" is completion; e.g., the ultimate conclusion or fulfillment of an endeavor or a project. The consummation of a marriage is one example of a consummation. For another example, the final crowning work of somebody's career would be considered the consummation of their lifetime of work, according to Macmillan (here).
 * And yes, I have read the letter, and I'm sure has read the letter, and I have no doubt that every major biographer of Hamilton and/or Laurens has read the letter. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * When Hamilton wrote the letter inviting Laurens to his wedding the consummation he referred to was the consummation of his engagement, therefore his wedding. The consummation of his marriage as carnal union of the spouses came AFTER the wedding. In this respect the interpretation of the word consummation as has kindly so thoroughly illustrated is entitely correct. As for the letter you mention, yes I have read it, alongside the entire Laurens-Hamilton corrispondence during the over 3 years when they were separated indicating per se the impossibility of any carnal union between Laurens and Hamilton due to distance if not lack of desire even for those who so desperately want to read more than words in those pages. Given Elizabeth Hamilton got pregnant with her husband’s first child barely months into their marriage, not to speak of the following 8 pregnancies (including the miscarriage) as well as of Hamilton’s notorious one-year adulterous affair with Maria Reynolds, Hamilton must have found heterosexual consolation elsewhere. There is no indication Hamilton showed any inclination for men after his wedding or at least after Laurens’ death if you wish to stick to your speculations Isananni (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * hate to say it, but bisexual people exist. i know it's incorrect to assign modern words for sexuality to historical figures because it's never wholly accurate since sexuality was so different, but saying "Hamilton liked women so he was straight" is naive. Also, you're forgetting the sentence right after that line in which he states that Elizabeth loves him "a la americaine" and not "a la francois" referring to the French's relaxed stance on sex outside of marriage. I don't know how you could read that and say that since consummation means finishing something, its obviously referring to the wedding. Both of your cited webpages refer to consummation as the sex right after marriage as well. In addition, Hamilton being attracted to other men outside of Laurens has nothing to do this since we are talking specifically about his relationship to Laurens Geekyhistorian (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * So what exactly do you think it means for Laurens to be present? If I take your interpretation seriously, what would it mean for Laurens to be present for this consummation? Are you suggesting Hamilton meant that Laurens was going to watch? Are you suggesting Hamilton meant that Laurens would be part of a threesome on Hamilton's own wedding night? Are you suggesting that Eliza would be fine with either of those things on her wedding night? Does that really seem to you like a scenario that Hamilton would be discussing in writing, in that time and place, even if it had any appeal to him? Lwarrenwiki (talk) 02:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, that is the basis of my argument. Based off the innuendo employed in that particular letter, my argument is that I wouldn't put it beyond him. The line directly after that line (and I'm putting this very bluntly so bear with me) is essentially implying that Hamilton's wife would (obviously) be put off by the idea (like I've said before, the merits of "americaine" love versus "francois" love) EDIT: just noticed the recent edit to the main page. it's much better, thanks. Geekyhistorian (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Master Jack and "the Miss Nanny's"
The "Master Jack" quote (cited above) has no place in this article, because it is unrelated to any notable characteristic of John Laurens. To include the quote in this article would serve no purpose other than lending undue weight to an editor's suggestion that "Laurens likely wasn't interested in women."[*] And when the quote is actually examined, it does not even provide actual support for that nonscholarly theory.

The quote consists of one sentence written by Laurens' father in a letter to a friend. Here is the quote, repeated in full, but this time including the sentence before it and the sentence after it (which I've numbered): "1My poor old Woman has been very Sick & this is the first of her appearance in the Garden for near two Months past. 2Master Jack is too closely wedded to his studies to think about any of the Miss Nanny's I would not have such a sound in his Ear, for a Crown; why drive the poor Dog, to what Nature will irresistably prompt him to be plagued with in all probability much too soon. 3But now the name of Dear Nanny is mentioned I have room to acknowledge a mistake in placing that Bill of £64.5.9 to Mr. Penman's instead of Mr. Oswald's Credit which I did not advert 'til this hour; but tis of no great consequence I shall either transpose the Entry or he may send another Bill if he shall find my Account now sent, free from error."

It appears that some Hamilton fans on Tumblr have tried to inflate this quote's importance, which can only be done by omitting or ignoring necessary facts such as these:
 * 1) John Laurens was 12 years old when his father wrote the letter.
 * 2) The letter was written about two weeks before John's 13th birthday, so Henry Laurens was aware that his son would soon be a teenager.

And in light of those facts, here is a restatement of what Henry Laurens wrote, interpreted in its context:
 * John Laurens' mother has been very sick for two months, and she could not even go to her garden until recently.
 * As John's father, Henry is pleased that the boy is "wedded to his studies", rather than thinking about girls.
 * Henry would not want anybody to even suggest to John that he should be focusing on girls, instead of studying.
 * Henry jokes that it would be worth a Crown (a coin worth &frac14; pound) to prevent such a suggestion from even reaching John's ear.
 * There is no reason to rush John into growing up too fast, because in due time, "Nature will irresistably prompt him to be plagued with" thinking about girls.
 * This will happen "in all probability much too soon", since John is nearly a teenager.
 * Henry is stating what seems obvious to him: when teenage hormones take over, the boy will naturally become more interested in girls.

In summary, a close reading shows that Henry Laurens was saying exactly the opposite of what today's activists seem to think he was saying.

But just for the sake of argument, let's assume for a moment that Henry Laurens was implying that his son was gay. Unlike today, that implication would have been considered disreputable and scandalous in 1767. If it were made public, it would bring dishonor to the Laurens family. Therefore, it would not be tossed off lightly or casually as a quip, and it would be grossly out of place in a business letter to a friend. Also, if Henry had just written a damaging admission about his son, the letter's very abrupt transition to dry financial matters would make no sense (or even less sense than it does). The suggestion is not plausible. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * using your ideals, isn't this original research? Geekyhistorian (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * It isn't in the article, and I don't intend to add it to the article. Editors aren't required to cite references on a talk page – a talk page post is the right place to express an opinion or make a persuasive statement about any disputed issue. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 06:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * ok great, then I'm gonna go ahead and put mine here: No one is trying to claim that this letter was HL admitting that his son was gay or whatever, and neither was I. The only thing I used this quote for was to illustrate the idea that Laurens never centered his social life around females. Among other details, this quote was only used to say "hey look at this, Laurens was never interested in females, and because of all of his relationships with other men, he may have been gay" Geekyhistorian (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Geekyhistorian, you just wrote that the quote was used by you as evidence that "Laurens was never interested in females". This is actually the third time you've stated what you're trying to establish: "that he was exclusively interested in men" (here), and "how Laurens likely wasn't interested in women" (here). Therefore, I've got to take your stated purpose seriously, and I've got to believe that you meant exactly what you wrote three times.
 * That premise is hard to believe, because it is... well, obviously and demonstrably not true. There is unambiguous proof of the opposite. John Laurens courted Martha Manning, he had a sexual relationship with her, and he got her pregnant. Those are documented facts, and they're the only facts necessary for proof. Nothing more is required to prove conclusively that "Laurens was never interested in females" is false, "he was exclusively interested in men" is false, and "Laurens likely wasn't interested in women" is little more than a falsehood.
 * It is also true that John Laurens did not want to marry Martha. He got his girlfriend pregnant, and didn't want to marry her. That's a fact, but I don't see how it would be evidence that he was anything other than straight. The very same thing has happened to thousands (perhaps millions) of straight men every year throughout history. By all accounts, Laurens was an honorable man, and in this situation he chose the honorable thing to do: he married her out of "pity".
 * It's documented that they got married in a church. Martha's parents signed the church record as witnesses, and Mr. Manning gave his formal consent to the wedding (because she was a minor). John Laurens and his wife moved into a house in Chelsea together. These details establish that it wasn't some kind of a sham marriage. And several months later, Laurens went off to war and left his pregnant wife behind. That is, sadly, a thing soldiers sometimes do. Even if they're straight. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, I will admit that there's no conclusive evidence that Laurens ever had a sexual relationship with any other woman, during all his years of service in the Revolutionary War. None at all, for six years, from 1776 until his death in 1782. This particular kind of sexual behavior has a name. It is known, among married men, as "being faithful". Lwarrenwiki (talk) 04:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * In further response to the continuing civil POV pushing, here's something to consider:
 * Let's imagine a 12-year-old boy today – a kid in 5th or 6th grade named Jack, who likes to study. He has friends, and they're all 12-year-old boys too. Jack doesn't really think about girls much, but of course he's going to marry one someday.
 * Now, let's imagine a second person who decides to get on the Internet and go to Jack's page to tell the whole world, "Jack doesn't like girls! Even his dad said so!! Jack is totally gay!!!"
 * Nobody who actually cares about Jack would want to do that to him, at any age. Bigger words and fewer exclamation points wouldn't make Jack feel any better about being victimized by cyberbullying. And even if, hypothetically, Jack later turns out to be gay when he grows older, that really wouldn't turn a cruelty to the 12-year-old into a kindness.
 * It's much different, of course, if the person only posts on Jack's page after Jack is dead. But it doesn't strike me as being very much kinder. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 06:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * It’s not different, doing anything like that to dead people is just more coward because they cannot defend themselves. Isananni (talk) 06:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but is merely questioning the sexuality of a historical figure harassment? Using that logic, are historians harassing Thomas Jefferson for questioning the nature of his relationship with Sally Hemings? Are historians harassing, say, Meriwether Lewis for debating if his death was suicide? The entire basis of studying history is questioning what really happened. It's not any different in this case just because the sexuality is the thing in question, and it certainly isn't cyberbullying if someone is putting forth pieces of evidence that one thinks support a fairly commonly shared idea. And I can defend myself in these claims, as I've been doing for the entirety of our conversation. Geekyhistorian (talk) 01:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)