What if ‘Satisfied’ was a duet between Angelica and Laurens? Just a thought. It’s been stuck in my head this way, so I had to write it down.
Sorry about the formatting
Remind me when I have free time to put this together and add some kick ass harmonies
in “a winter’s ball” give laurens the line “Now Hamilton’s skill with a quill is undeniable” and make sure it’s known that it’s 100% a phallic reference
[Image description: A digital art piece of Laurens and Hamilton embracing and kissing each other. End description.]
whoooooppsss my hand slipped ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
my favorite thing about alex and john is that laurens tries so hard to be chill and restrained and discrete in his letters and alex is just like “yo you know what’s big? my DICk wanna have a threesome babe i miss you so much i’m [redacted for his reputation’s sake] Love You”
has everybody heard my laurens wisdom teeth story
i feel as if i have but that sounds like something i want to hear again
i have not and i can’t help but fuckin wonder
so i got my wisdom teeth out and the anasthesia made me cry a LOT. I wasn’t in any pain but I was bloody and crying so that looked pretty bad while I was slumped over in the dentist waiting room. My mom and a nurse attendant came out to see me because I was probably scaring some children crying and bleeding everywhere. They wanted to know if I was in pain because I was crying, and I said NO. My mom then asked “tess why are you crying if it doesn’t hurt” and i said, mouth full of gauze and blood, “YOU KNOW JOHN LAURENS PROBABLY NEVER GOT THAT LAST LETTER HAMILTON SENT HIM? THE ONE ABOUT HOLDING HANDS? AND HE WAS SO GOOD WE DIDN’T DESERVE JOHN LAURENS MOM”
then the dental assistant lady asked me who john laurens was and i yanked the gauze out of my mouth to tell her and got in trouble and cried more
I also remember crying in the starbucks parking lot while my mom got a coffee and i was still bleeding and crying and whimpering about how john laurens didnt even really NEED to die because the war was basically over
This is so sweet. You never know what the anaesthetic will do, do you?
I told Ennis that when Laurens died, Hamilton was so distraught
he couldn’t write about it
So I keep thinking about this sentence from Chernow’s biography of Alexander Hamilton:
Because the style of eighteenth-century letters could be quite florid, even between men, one must tread gingerly in approaching this matter [whether Hamilton and Laurens had a romantic/sexual relationship], especially since Laurens’s letters to Hamilton were warm but proper.
I feel like this point comes up so much when discussing whether such-and-such historical person was queer: we can’t tell because straight people in the past said stuff that sounds queer to us.
Okay I’m not going to argue with that. Yes, definitions of masculinity and sexuality are constructed and therefore shift over time. But somehow no one ever, ever mentions the other half of the problem, which seems SO MUCH MORE RELEVANT, which is that:
Queer people usually did not come right out and say unambiguously queer stuff in their letters, so they could have plausible deniability if someone read the letter.
Surely self-censorship by queer people is a much bigger obstacle to our definite knowledge of the nature of someone’s relationship than “the popularity of romantic friendship” or “shifting ideas of masculinity” or whatever!!!!
Many historians behave as if the fact that we can’t tell is simply some (almost charming) by-product of changing ideas of friendship. It’s not. Those letters where you’re like “Does this mean…? Surely they wouldn’t have said that if they didn’t…?” Queer people wrote letters like that ON PURPOSE.
And let’s not forget, Hamilton had no need and no reason to be unambiguous because he was writing to Laurens who, one assumes, knew whether or not they were sleeping together.
(And if Laurens’s letters back were less effusive, what does that prove but that he was more cautious? Sharing less of your business than Alexander Hamilton is not a high standard.)
Reading the mail, by the way, was one activity of George Washington’s spies.
yes. the ‘straight/cis until proven otherwise’ perspective actively does violence against LGBT people by limiting all but a very small few ‘legitimate’ LGBT figures to the modern age. historians will create theories that the nature of friendship has fundamentally shifted in the past 150 years despite limited evidence outside homoromantic letters whilst ignoring the well-established fact that openly LGBT people faced violence and that that would’ve necessitated weariness of being too open about their relationships and yet still act as if it’s LGBT people that are the ones that are ‘choosing to see what we want to see.’
Hamilton Text Post Meme (Part 2/2)
*Bonus:
GOOD MORNING, AMERICA
