Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Homosexual Civil War Leaders


Walt Whitman with one of his supposed lovers

       We've all heard about Walt Whitman and his homosexuality or bisexuality.  If what has been written about Whitman is true, he moved a fifteen year old boy named Bill Duckett in with him as a lover. If true, today Whitman would be viewed as a child molester instead of a great poet. Now that same sex marriages and homosexual rights groups pressuring for equal rights, it should come as no surprise that these people should attempt to degrade the names of famous Civil War heroes in an attempt to better their own cause. When I read a recent blog about some of my Confederate heroes, I couldn't help but shake my head in disgust. If your going to write as a historian, you should do a little research. Yet, the blog I read was written by a homosexual author who wants to use our heroes and good decent men to help his own cause. 


Bill Duckett with Whitman at age 15

       Among the most ridiculous stories is one that is mentioned in two books, both written by homosexuals to further their own cause. The book American Masculinites and Conduct Unbecoming both attempt to prove a love affair between General Patrick Cleburne and one of his staff officers named Irving Buck. Let's take a look at the comment Buck made about his relationship with Cleburne and what how the books attempt to twist his words. 
       Buck wrote a biography on Cleburne after the war entitled Cleburne and His Command in which he is quoted as saying, "We were close and confidential. I habitually messed with him and shared his tent and often his blankets." 
       For those of you who are not familiar with the English language and its interpretation during that time period it may be easy to mistake what Buck was saying. Every soldier in the Civil War would share blankets with another man. Does this mean every Civil War soldier was homosexual? If one studies the gear carried by the soldier and reads books like Sam Watkins's Company Aytch you will understand that each soldier carried a gum blanket (water proof blanket) and one wool blanket. To stay warm at night, one soldier would place his gum blanket on the ground, two soldiers would lie on the blanket, they would use both wool blankets and the other gum blanket on top. This was especially helpful in wet weather and kept both men dry and warm. 
       While there are those of us that are too immature to understand what "mess with him" means, everyone in the army during those days referred to eating as having mess. In other words when Irving Buck "messed" with Cleburne, it means they ate meals together. 


Patrick Cleburne a true war hero

       The author of one of these books goes a step further. He attempts to mislead the reader into believing something about Cleburne that is only half true. In his attempt to swing Cleburne to his side of the homosexual argument, he says that Cleburne was a life long bachelor. This is true in a sense. What this idiot fails to tell you in his book is the fact that Cleburne had two girlfriend's back in Helena, Arkansas during the early 1850's and until the time the war began in 1860. One was Maggie Tollison and the other was Marion A. "Mitty" Yerby. He wrote a letter to his mother proclaiming that he had several girlfriends. Another letter to his brother gave the reason why he'd waited so long before marrying. He'd been wounded in a duel helping his friend Thomas Hindman and because of his health, he refused to marry until he was certain he was physically capable of providing for a wife. Because of the bullet wound to one of his lungs, he continued to cough up blood at times. In Helena, Cleburne also had a relationship with the Hargett sisters who were considered the most beautiful women in town. (Irving Buck even mentioned a time when several ladies came to Cleburne's camp to visit. He stated they were so beautiful that he wished he was a Mormon so he could marry them all.)
       The two authors of the books mentioned above also fail to mention the fact that Cleburne became engaged to Susan Tarleton of Mobile in 1864. This piece of information would damage their argument, therefore they chose to exclude it and his pre-war girlfriends from their books. Neither author cared much for the accuracy of their books, but chose to twist things to aide their side of the argument and to sell their books. Patrick Cleburne was a moral and upright man. He would be rolling over in his grave if he knew what these future men were doing to his name. Fortunately, the only two people who believe any of this are the two authors mentioned above and they probably know better. 


James Jay Archer

       Another Confederate general accused of being a homosexual is James Jay Archer of Maryland. Archer's father died when he was a boy leaving him to be raised in a house full of women only. He attended Princeton where he earned the nickname "Sally" because of his frail build. This along with the fact that he became intoxicated and hugged a man that he said he'd shared blankets with during the Mexican War (see Patrick Cleburne above) got him painted today as a homosexual. Archer was also never seen with women and never married. This along with the fact that he may have been somewhat feminine being raised around a family of all women may have helped start the rumor. Still, there is no evidence of him being homosexual.
       William Edwin "Grumble" Jones once accused Confederate General William W. Loring of having a lovers spat with a young boy. He noted that he had never seen Loring with a woman and assumed the man was homosexual, but not in so many words. During that time period, no man would mention something like this, but he alluded to the fact. If you know anything about General Jones you will know that he earned his nickname "Grumble". After his wife drowned, Jones had such a sour disposition that he was difficult to get along with at all. 


Abraham Lincoln

       Being a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, I've heard numerous stories claiming that Abraham Lincoln was either homosexual or at the very least bi-sexual. C.A. Tripp in his book The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln claims that Lincoln spent his entire life with erotic attractions to other men. He goes on to note the living arrangements between Lincoln and his close friend Joshua Speed. They lived in a boarding house for over a year together sharing a bed. Does this make the man homosexual? Not at all, but modern authors and historians attempt to look at that time period through today's glasses. It's just not possible. As I have said numerous times, you can't study a different time period using the values of the present time to make your judgments of men. 
       As a historian, I would never paint an image of a man, North or South, friend or enemy as something that I can't prove is not true. I would never call Lincoln or Cleburne a homosexual unless I found hard evidence that it was true. These men, both important participants in our nations history whether we like either of them or not, deserve better. 

      

15 comments:

  1. Don't worry, the two biased historians you mentioned were not taken seriously by the scholars. Even liberal historian called "BS" on their assertions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Any farmboy who's ever brushed out a barn, Hefty, knows that 99% of what passes for BS in a barn is, in fact, cow shit. Historians like Shiveley (Harvard), Percy (Princeton), Dynes (Bard), Lauritsen (Harvard), and Mullin (Drew), all 'liberals', did not lift their dresses over their heads and scream "BS". They knew better. Homophilics has a higher standard of historiography than your heterophilic presumptions backed up by 2600 years of hysterical homophobic religiosity -- filipped with an acute case of microphallia; and that's all you're putting on the line with your autonomic skepticism based on very little. Homosexuality turned out to be more than the rumor of discreditation and a match setting fire to a pyre that you suggest. Gay men were putting not only their 4800 years of homophilic culture on the line, not only their invention and implementation of History (Xenophon) on the line, but their HONOR. With only homphobia to back up your assertion, when a gay historian or biographer says somebody was gay, you have no more choice but to believe him than you have the right and freedom to claim a homophobe. You pay attention to your job, and gay historians and biographers will pay attention to ours. PS: In the fight for gay freedom, gay men defeated the army, the navy, the air corps, the marines, the House, the Senate, The White House, the US Supreme Court, the Hague, the UN, and soon Africa and India. You don't get to march through Titus' gay arch of victory. You go sulk in your tent and reread Samuel to a 78-rpm version of 'My Buddy'. "The pretentious accusing the unpretentious of pretension is the fons et origo of dishonesty." - Coulter, the homophilicist, 1934-1975

      It comes as a great shock to Christians, who claim that homosexuals destroyed the Roman Empire when, in fact homosexuals founded the empire and that it was they, Christians, who destroyed it -- by building churches with money due to the Roman legions dedicated to the gay god Mithra. Blaming homosexuals for heterosexual shortcomings is no longer fashionable. So stop generalizing about gay historians and biographers as if they're the only ones who stand up to defend their positions. They don't have the floor at more. And add Stephen Decatur to your list of things to research. Meanwhile, perhaps you ought to be worrying. Nobody I know, and I am in the business, said "BS" to anybody you've mentioned. Whilst perusing, keep in mind that, whilst 2.5% of men are K6ers, >50% have had homosexual affairs, and Hs is determined on that basis, not on yours.

      Delete
  2. Thanks for the comment Mark!!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks for setting the record straight, Master Scholar. Contrary to your learned opinion, it is not "disgusting" to "accuse" a man of homosexuality. You say, "If your going to write as a historian, you should do a little research." Perhaps you should hire an editor if your (you're) going to publish your invective. And who says your (you're) a historian? What university awarded you a Ph.D in history? Have you published anything (your own blog not withstanding)? Your (you're) a "lifelong Civil War historian", and I have a bridge in London I'd like to sell you.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm sorry that you're so upset that any of these individuals are judged as either homosexual or heterosexual. They were what they were. relax.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Poor Mr. Rigdon is a homosexual and gets upset that history doesn't support his "CHOICE," sorry sir, but keep trying.....

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well, I guess Mr. Kent can make a "Choice" on any given day to be attracted to a man or a woman....guess that makes Kent Bi-sexual. It is a known fact that there were many gay soldiers in the War Between the States, there was just nothing to call those folks back then because people were so ignorant of the situation it was not dignified with any designation. Alexander Stephens and his step-brother are two other Confederates I've heard about being born differently as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lordnorth Stephens, Alexander Stephens' cousin was homosexual. ( I am not certain about Alexander Stephens.) One of Alexander Stephens' slaves, Georgia Baker, was interviewed by the WPA and this slave explained how Lordnorth Stephens had no use for women because he was a homosexual.

      Delete
  8. Keep trying Jack. You haven't a clue what you're talking about, but don't let me upset your homosexual world.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm so sorry these guys weren't queer and that upsets ya'll so bad. be queer, just don't expect me to re-write history for you!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  10. These researchers didn't do their homework. Cadmus Wilcox of Alabama was gay. He never married and latter lived with his sister-in-law for many years; something that would have been scandelous in that era if the community wasn't aware that he was gay.

    Another general in the confederate army probably was the eldest son of Robert Lee, GWC Lee. He never married nor ever courted a female. He was not given a field command although highly qualified because of some of his effeminate habits. GWC Lee (graduated first in his class at West Point) demonstrated his ability to command on several occasions, but was not given a command until the end of the war. (GWC Lee sued the US Government for their seizure of Arlington and won. The government had no choice but to buy it from him thereafter. He was also president of Washington and Lee University for more than 20 years.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Of for the gods sake. Sexual relations between the same sex was not a huge taboo until the 20th century. Now you want to take that attitude into the 21st. Clam up, what is the big deal. This guy calls himself a lifelong Civil War Historian... As nice title for a white supremacist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Then why did Byron flee England for the Continent. If you believe that homosexuality was not a capital offense in the 19th century, you need to read Louis Crompton's (rather grand) panoply of gay history. Homosexuality was legalized in France by the Code Napoleon, but not in Germany until the Weimar Republic and, then, reintroduced by Hitler from 1933-1945. What rosy century are YOU living in, reading history by the light of faggot pyres? As late as the 1970s, homosexuals in Holland were held more dangerous to the Dutch lifestyle than murderers. Gay deniers don't even comprehend the crimes against humanity they've been committing for 2500 years! PS: 0tt-1 computer programming was a gay invention; why don't you write a book? 'Why I am a Self-Righteous Skeptic and Think Straight People Invented Everything'? Now there's a best-seller. You could buy some books on gay biography and gay history. Start with Crompton and Dynes. You could even read some of the suggestions at: fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/lgbcathbib3.asp)
      They're empathetic AND straight-empathetic.

      Delete