Closed Thread
Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 81

Thread: Gays in the Civil War

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,246

    Default Gays in the Civil War

    The issue of homosexuality in the military recurs throughout history. While I apologize in advance to the moderators for bringing up a controversial subject, I do so to discourage interpretations that do no justice to that history or to the hobby.

    According to a source I have complete confidence in, a Confederate battalion at last weekend’s Cross Keys/Cedar Creek event staged a mock execution of two “gay” soldiers. This took place in front of 50-100 reenactors and an unknown number of the public. One man in the unit complained and received a rebuke for “being politically correct.”

    For those who don’t automatically recoil at this incident, let me explain why it should appall everyone who cares about the hobby.

    To begin with, the man who complained wasn’t being “politically correct” but “correct, correct.” There’s an excellent discussion of homosexuality at the time in Thomas Lowry’s "The Story the Soldiers Wouldn’t Tell." There was no such offense as being “homosexual” or “gay,” since the first word didn’t come into use until 1895 and the second didn’t take on that connotation until around 1950.

    A Civil War soldier would not have been charged with “being” gay, but could be charged with sodomy or buggery. Yet according to Lowry, who spent decades researching court-martial files, “no record has come to light of a Civil War soldier having been disciplined for either offense, although there are records of three pairs of U.S. Navy sailors who were court-martialed for such activity in 1865” (two pairs from the same ship!).

    Despite this statement, Lowry does provide one Confederate example of “discipline” from a letter home: “The boys ... rode one of our company on a rail last night for leaving the company and going to sleep with Captain Lowry’s black man.” But it’s not clear from this passage that the punishment was official or directed at homosexuality rather than another offense such as interracial fraternization or, for that matter, abusing the Captain’s property or usurping his privileges.

    So at least at the time of Lowry’s writing (1994) no evidence existed of any such execution for any such offense as portrayed last weekend. I would maintain that even if some isolated example did exist, all units – especially ones like the one in question – have many more areas of authenticity they can work on before they start shooting “gays.” But the historical record makes such an argument unnecessary.

    With or without punishment, homosexuality as we know it certainly existed during the Civil War, with Walt Whitman providing perhaps the best example. In his own way he also provided a life-long example of other people’s essential tolerance. Although tens of thousands of Civil War soldiers must have been gay, the absence of any prosecutions indicates that, at a time when most heterosexual men slept with other men, the activity went unnoticed or unremarked upon.

    Thus the Confederate unit last weekend at the very least committed an offense against authenticity by portraying something that never seems to have actually happened during the war. Ignorance provides one defense, but raises the question of why they would do something for which they had no historical basis. In this case they risk the inference that only contemporary prejudice, back-projected to the 1860s, explains what they did.

    This to me compounds the offense. We who live today have no right to use the soldiers of the Civil War as proxies for our contemporary political or moral biases, or to implicate other reenactors in those biases.

    I believe the unit involved further compounded the offense by doing so in public. The public often thinks that reenactors invest as much in research as in uniforms and equipment. Unfortunately, the offending unit undermined this positive view of reenacting. On the other hand, some of the public think we’re all ignoramuses who simply like to play soldier and re-fight the war according to our own private fantasies. Unfortunately, we have units like this one that they can point to as evidence.

    Actions like the one at Cedar Creek last Saturday besmirch the hobby. I applaud the man who complained.
    M. A. Schaffner
    Midstream Regressive Complainer

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,298

    Default

    Wow...hadnt heard about that yet....good lord...

    Pards,
    S. Chris Anders
    Southern Division
    www.southerndivision.org
    www.rearrank.com
    www.marylandmymaryland.org

    There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. - Niccoló Machiavelli, The Prince. 1537.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Tuskaloosa, Alabama
    Posts
    3,916

    Default

    Gentlemen


    It gets worse.

    The report I received indicates that the two men being 'executed' were paraded about in pink uniforms.


    This thing is problematic on so many levels, I was really mulling about on exactly how to speak to the issue. Mr Schaffner has solved that admirably.


    I'll contrast this with a 'by the book' trial and execution for desertion that Silas Tackitt directed for the First Confederate Division several years ago. I stumbled on it unexpectedly during an otherwise unremarkable event. It still stands as the most visceral, solem, heart rending thing I've ever witnessed. And documented.

    This begs the question--Are you here for the laughs or for the history?
    Mrs. Lawson
    Weaver, Spinster, Strong Fast Dyes
    Knitted Goods and yarns available thlawson@bellsouth.net



    Moderator, When I remember. We got Rules here!



    http://www.bluegraygettysburg.com/

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Lincoln Co. Kentucky
    Posts
    68

    Thumbs down Gays in the war

    My God!!!!!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    State of Northern Virginia
    Posts
    253

    Default

    I keep re-reading this and am just speechless...So much for my No stupidiy comment from the other thread...ugh!
    Sgt Coleman
    138th PVI
    Federal Volunteer Brigade

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Macomb, IL
    Posts
    57

    Default

    This hobby has a hard enough time enduring people without a knowledge of history playing shoot 'em up and yelling about "heritage, not hate" without dealing with a situation such as this. One can only hope that someone with a good lawyer and a small tolerance for hate crimes did not witness the events discussed here.
    Bob Welch
    Dirty Shirts

    Macomb and the Civil War
    , my sesquicentennial blog about life in Western Illinois during the war years.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,134

    Default

    I hope that what ever reenactment group did this is excoriated and told by their local fellows that this behavior will not be tolerated. It is neither funny nor historical. I hate "court marshall" scenarios, anyway. They are almost always an excuse for silliness and tomfoolery, the type that always reflects badly on reenacting.

    WTH
    The SickOfIt mess
    Yuma gonna luv it

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pvt Schnapps View Post
    Although tens of thousands of Civil War soldiers must have been gay....

    I would also advise not to go around saying things like that just in an attempt to sound tolerant!

    Tens of thousands is an pretty high estimate. There's no more than 2 or 3% of any population that is gay at any particular moment, so "tens of thousands" is a high estimate. Worse, there is no way to even say what the number is as there is no such source for statistics, anyway. Secondly, we cannot say that gays would have gravitated to the military in precisely the same quotient as their civilian percentage.

    I would agree with "thousands," but would argue against saying "tens of thousands."

    Anyway, that is just me.

    WTH
    The BeanCounters mess
    Yuma gonna luv it

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,246

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by indguard View Post
    I would also advise not to go around saying things like that just in an attempt to sound tolerant!

    Tens of thousands is an pretty high estimate. There's no more than 2 or 3% of any population that is gay at any particular moment, so "tens of thousands" is a high estimate. Worse, there is no way to even say what the number is as there is no such source for statistics, anyway. Secondly, we cannot say that gays would have gravitated to the military in precisely the same quotient as their civilian percentage.

    I would agree with "thousands," but would argue against saying "tens of thousands."

    Anyway, that is just me.

    WTH
    The BeanCounters mess
    The "tens of thousands" estimate was based on the assumption, used by Lowry, that depending on who you listen to somewhere between one and ten percent of the population are born with a same-sex attraction. From that he derives at least 10,000 gays in blue. Since the actual number of men who served, north and south, came to some three million (per Livermore), the number born with a same-sex attraction can conservatively be estimated at 30,000.
    M. A. Schaffner
    Midstream Regressive Complainer

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Clermont County Ohio
    Posts
    358

    Default

    Thank you M.A.Schanffner for bring this subject to the fore.

    That was shocking to me, and I am glad that some like yourself have the courage to let others know about these happenings. Something simular happened at Shiloh this year. Not a event, but a active hostility toward a man simply because he did not have a problem with "gays". A fight almost broke out, and I had to stop things from going very wrong. Spoiled most of the weekend for me, and for coming to his defense, I was removed from the ranks in that particular unit. Which was fine by me. (It wasn't the only reason but it was one of them). I still am shocked that such attitudes, and as I noted to thier leader, it was in DIRECT voilation to thier own rules of conduct.

    Also thanks for the headup for the reference to new reading material. On a side not, the court-marshial cases reenacted with firing squads sometimes are laughable. I acted the part of a shirker that had gotten drunk, and found his way into camp once. There was talk of a firing squad. I almost laughed at that point, since if that was the case everyone should have been shot but me (in real life I am tea drinker). That offence at worse should have been being in the barrel, or riding the horse. Or some form of extra duty. Sometimes you have to wonder about our fellow reenactors.......

Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts