the-cock-in-cockles reblogged
One Jealous Horse, pround dad Washington and Young Ham. Another study that was a lot of fun.
the-cock-in-cockles reblogged
there is a road that meets the road that goes to my house
everyone must breathe until their dying breath: Part One: IV. we’ll remember this when we are old and ancient (33081 words) by pocky_slash Chapters: 5/20 Fandom: Hamilton - Miranda Relationships: Alexander Hamilton/John Laurens Characters: John Laurens, Alexander Hamilton, Molly Ludwig Hays, George Washington, Martha Washington, Charles Lee, Edward “Ned” Stevens, Gilbert du Motier Marquis de Lafayette, Hercules Mulligan, Benjamin Walker (1753-1818), Peter Stephen Du Ponceau, Louis de Pontière, Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben, Aaron Burr Additional Tags: Alternate Universe - Modern Setting, Alternate Universe - Ghost Hunters, Graduate School, Summer, Established Relationship, Male-Female Friendship, Idiots in Love, Plans For The Future, Moving In Together, Self-Destructive Behavior, Childhood Trauma, Depression, Anxiety Disorder, Suicidal Recklessness, Hurt/Comfort, Fist Fights, Drinking to Cope, Blow Jobs, Hand Jobs, Anal Sex
In which John and Alex aren’t the only ones who hate Lee, Molly makes a very persuasive argument, and no one knows much about wine.
*
This is mostly about food and banter.
#reblogging bc it’s kismet that i found it again#i was DREADING having to try to look it up bc this series is definitely what i’m reading next again#i loved it so much#hamilton#john laurens#lams#paranormal investigators#im still convinced TWO YEARS LATER after reading it the first time that the author is a psych graduate or at least a phd in psych#bc the parallels are UNREAL#can’t wait to dive into this again with all the historical knowledge i have now due in part to looking things up from rev fuckboys#like MOLLY HOLY SHIT.#i just thought she was some rando oc 😂#not THE mary/molly fuckin hays from the american revolutionary war!!!
the-cock-in-cockles reblogged
publius-esquire-deactivated2018
I feel like everyone should know that Alexander Hamilton owned a horse named Peacock, because of course he would.
softjoly
source?
publius-esquire
ARE YOU KIDDING ME @because-cur-non?!?! incredible. sensational. 13/10 always.
the-cock-in-cockles reblogged
I found a second awful drawing that Hamilton did in his account book and all I’m going to say is that at least he tried to improve on the other one
I can’t believe Hamilton has never seen a person or even his own reflection ever in his life
i tried to recreate it in The Sims 4
this is what he thought people looked like
the-cock-in-cockles reblogged
I’m putting this submission of a very large image of a found-in-the-wild(?) piece of art of the kind that Lafayette made on the dorm window under a cut but thank you lol
the-cock-in-cockles reblogged
me: i
my friends: we fucking get it. you would die for john "jack" laurens, an american soldier and statesman originating from south carolina during the american fuckn revolutionary war, best known for his early criticism of slavery and efforts to recruit slaves for their freedom as us soldiers, born october 28, 1754, died august 27 in
y-yes.
the-cock-in-cockles reblogged
A study of how Alexander Hamilton and John Laurens wrote their names
Left side is Laurens’s writing; right side is Hamilton’s writing
bless this post
the-cock-in-cockles reblogged
hamilton's august 1782 (last) letter to laurens:
i’ve never seen anything more accurate in my entire life and i’m not even being hyperbolic.
the-cock-in-cockles reblogged
I am happy to have it in my power to mention the merit of your friend Hammy. _ He was incessant in his endeavours during the whole day – in reconnoitring the enemy, and in rallying and charging. _ But whether he or Col. Laurens deserves most of our commendation is somewhat doubtful_ both had their horses shot under them, and both exhibited singular proofs of bravery. They seemed to court death under our doubtful circumstances, and triumphed over it as the face of war changed in our favor. _ Independent of any prejudice I may have conceived for Colonel Laurens in consequence of his virtues, I cannot but speak of him in terms of the highest military deserving. _ Colonel Fitzgerald also, and Colonel Mead claim the greatest encomiums – The former received a slight contusion. Even the Secretaries caught the general contagion, and had the audacity to put themselves in the place of danger, and to share some of the honors of the day.
-From James McHenry to Elias Boudinot, 2nd July 1778, speaking of the battle of Monmouth
the-cock-in-cockles reblogged
hwat the fuck what the fuck w ht the fuk
IM—?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
the-cock-in-cockles reblogged
This message will probably catch you by surprise, but a while back I was Googling, using search terms like “Laurens,” “Hamilton,” and “Massey,” my last name, just to see if my work was making an impact in the historical literature, and I came across several blogs that deal quite a lot with Laurens and Hamilton, and, by implication, sometimes cite my book on John Laurens. Your blog is the best of the ones I’ve seen, and you’ve done some thorough research and nice writing on Laurens.
I appreciate your work and respect your views on the Laurens-Hamilton relationship and on JL’s sexual orientation. I do hope, however, that you won’t assume that in drawing a different interpretation from you and other bloggers that I selectively used evidence to prove my points. For example, on p. 45 of my book, I left out part of Hamilton’s famous first letter to JL, putting in an ellipsis. I wasn’t purposely omitting evidence that would go against my argument; I was trying to shorten a quotation and blend Hamilton’s words with the text. The section I omitted, where Hamilton wishes it were in his “power, by action rather than words” to convince JL of his love, doesn’t cinch the case that their relationship was sexual. But I can see how some readers think that these words lend strong support to that conclusion. I wish now I’d included the omitted words, so there would have been no later questions about my motives, but at the time I was simply making a stylistic choice to shorten the quotation.
When I wrote the JL biography twenty years ago, I considered the question of his sexuality. I did see how the evidence could be read either way, but I believed the context of their time, particularly the way younger men expressed themselves to each other with such emotion and love, supported an interpretation that the JL-Hamilton relationship was platonic. A French translator who helped me translate into English the letters of L. de Vegrobre, a friend JL made in Geneva, remarked that “these men sure spend a lot of time writing about how much they love each other.” Were all or most of them gay? Or were they employing the conventions of sensibility? Or is it possible that the answer to both questions is yes or a partial yes?
In drawing conclusions on JL and Hamilton, I opted to write a decisive statement that they were platonic. It fit what I was doing throughout the book, since I was making similar decisive statements about what motivated JL’s recklessness in public life, areas of his interior life that none of us can be certain about and about which we can only speculate. Bill Benemann, author of the fine book, Male-Male Intimacy in Early America, rightly took me to task for making such a confident assertion without sufficient evidence to back it up. Benemann, however, made the mistake of imputing motive to me and also questioned the ellipsis I mentioned above. He asserted that I shied away from the possibility of a sexual relationship between JL and Hamilton because I was afraid to go there. After his book was published, he and I exchanged some cordial emails and he admitted that he shouldn’t have made that assertion without consulting me first. I assured him that if I could’ve made a definite case that the JL and Hamilton were gay that I would’ve sold a lot more books. It wasn’t something I was afraid of. I just saw their relationship differently, based on the eighteenth-century context of the letters. I also told Benemann that he was right to call me out on my definite statement that the relationship was platonic. I shouldn’t have done so and I used the Preface to the new paperback edition of the JL bio to say that publicly.
I go into all this detail just to say that I still think people can read the evidence and either draw the conclusions I made in my research or the conclusions you make in yours. There’s evidence that JL was attracted to women on a superficial, physical level: You’re already aware of the reference on p. 44 of the book, when JL asked Francis Kinloch “to kiss all the pretty Genevoise for me.” Also I encourage you to take another look at pp.47-48, and p. 250, n. 5, which suggests that the JL-Martha Manning relationship was far from platonic. I don’t expect those references to change your judgment on this issue, but I hope you’ll see that I didn’t draw my conclusions lightly. Although I still lean toward the JL-Hamilton relationship being platonic, I could be wrong. That’s the risk all historians take. Our knowledge of the past is provisional and we may be wrong on some of our assertions. We also bring our biases to our work, which doesn’t negate our research, but it does create the arguments about the past that are what history is all about. History matters greatly and I appreciate blogs like yours that take it seriously and also promote more understanding and discussion of unsung individuals like John Laurens.
Best regards,
Greg Massey
Hello Dr. Massey. You are quite correct in assuming that your message surprised me. I must say that I never expected to receive a message from you, nor did I ever expect my blog to be as popular as it has become over the past few months. When I began this blog a little over two years ago, I could not have imagined how this blog would transform into my own way of informally publishing my research on Laurens, and I certainly never expected to see my blog on the first few pages of search results when one googles John Laurens. I thank you for your kind words and am pleased that you find my blog to be a thorough source for John Laurens information. Likewise, I also appreciate the research you have done on John Laurens and often refer to your biography on Laurens when I need to fact-check.
We do have differing opinions in regards to Laurens’s sexuality, and I agree with you that we probably won’t be able to change each other’s views. When I read through your biography on Laurens, it did seem to me that your selection of quotes and use of ellipses was done to withhold evidence that suggested a relationship between Hamilton and Laurens that went beyond platonic friendship. I don’t think that the inclusion of “by actions rather than words” would have confirmed that Hamilton and Laurens loved each other in a romantic sense, but I do think it can be used to support that argument, especially when considered with the other evidence I have compiled. Upon reading this message, I appreciate the explanation you have offered regarding your use of ellipses, and I agree that you should have included the omitted words. They add extra meaning to the quotation, and it would have been better to include them and let the reader make their own interpretations from the complete passage. I also appreciate your admission in your new preface that it would have been better to leave the Hamilton/Laurens relationship up for interpretation rather than definitively claim that the relationship could only have been platonic.
Please know that I by no means mean to suggest that all use of emotional language between 18th-century men was indicative of a romantic or sexual relationship. I understand that such language was quite commonplace between men in platonic relationships. However, I do believe that men who experienced same-gender attraction could have used this practice to safely express their feelings for one another without revealing the true romantic or sexual nature of their relationship. This is what I believe Hamilton and Laurens did with their correspondence – and I believe that in some instances their correspondence went beyond the bounds of propriety as dictated by their society. This is perhaps best illustrated in the April 1779 letter from Hamilton to Laurens that you mentioned. In it, Hamilton fills a paragraph with multiple sexual innuendos, and five words were scratched out by (presumably) John Church Hamilton. Said editor also wrote at the top of the page, “I must not publish the whole of this.” (Again, I think it is odd that you did not include this in your book – it once again seems like an attempt to withhold some information about the nature of their relationship.) Furthermore, as the editor’s quote implies, most of this letter was not published – in his publication of his father’s papers, JC Hamilton omitted everything in the letter from the paragraph about Martha Manning Laurens onward (the postscript, however, was included). This means that the paragraphs wherein Hamilton wrote to Laurens about the size of his penis were omitted. If this was just an example of “bawdy humor,” as you suggested in your book, and was common language between male friends, why did JC Hamilton feel so compelled to exclude it and permanently etch out five words? Why did he seem to fear for his father’s reputation because of this letter?
I must say that I take issue with your comment that writing the Hamilton-Laurens relationship as a romantic one rather than a platonic one “would’ve sold a lot more books.” While possibly true, I can tell you that the readers who have been upset with the way you wrote the Hamilton-Laurens relationship were not upset because a heterosexual Laurens wasn’t very interesting or controversial enough. I know that many people who follow my blog and agree with my interpretations of the Hamilton-Laurens relationship are queer. One could claim that they are biased and view Laurens as gay simply because of their own queerness. Perhaps. Or perhaps they can view Laurens as a gay man because they see his struggles and his relationship with Hamilton and can identify with them. They know what it’s like to grow up in heteronormative societies and be forced by societal norms and religious beliefs to seek romantic and sexual relationships with someone of the opposite gender. They know what it’s like to feel confused about one’s feelings for a close (same-gender) friend. They pick up on the language and phrasing and actions that are used to convey romantic feelings to one’s partner while giving off the appearance of a close, platonic friendship to the rest of the world. Queer history has been erased for so long, but when people try to reclaim it and suggest that a historical figure was queer, they are all too often met with outright rejections of their claims. They are told time and time again that their favorite historical figures were heterosexual because “queer people didn’t exist in that time period” or “that’s just how they wrote to each other back then.” Many historians seem to follow a “heterosexual until proven otherwise” rule and set heterosexuality as the “normal” or “correct” sexuality. I don’t know if that is in line with your beliefs, but your writing of the Hamilton-Laurens relationship did come across this way. And honestly, this viewpoint is offensive to anyone who is not heterosexual – it just reinforces the idea that being queer is somehow wrong. So writing Laurens as a potentially gay man isn’t about selling more books. It’s about identifying with a man that could represent queer people and their history.
Additionally, I also take issue with the way you use Laurens’s possible attraction to women to prove that he couldn’t have been gay. This implies that liking men and women are mutually exclusive and ignores the existence of bisexual and pansexual people. (I realize that it may seem like I try to do the opposite – that is, use Laurens’s possible attraction to men to prove that he wasn’t straight. When I try to show Laurens as a gay man, I do try to find instances that exhibit his lack of attraction to women and instances that exhibit his attraction to men to show that he was likely not straight and likely not bisexual/pansexual.) That being said, I do agree with you that Laurens and Martha Manning were friendly with each other – at least before their marriage. I do see how their interactions can be interpreted as romantic, though my interpretation is different. Laurens lived in a heteronormative society that encouraged people to seek out romantic and sexual relationships with people of the opposite gender. This likely was reinforced by Henry Laurens, as he was a strict Christian father. I believe that Laurens was likely gay and that his interactions with Martha Manning were born out of these religious and societal pressures. I do believe that the two got along as good friends (and I do take note of your three references), but I think it is possible that Laurens felt pressured to pursue a sexual relationship with Martha – even if he did not desire it – to both follow what society/his father expected of him and possibly to prove to himself that he was capable of loving a woman (that is to say, to prove to himself that he wasn’t gay). If Laurens did love Martha in a romantic sense, why did he leave before his child was born? I understand that Laurens was very eager to return home and fight in the war, but for a man who had to live through seven of his siblings dying (most in infancy/toddler years) and had to watch his mother die after a difficult childbirth, it seems a bit odd that he did not want to stay at least until his child was born to be sure that both mother and child were well. He also failed to communicate with Martha while he was in France despite the fact that only a channel of water separated them, making meeting much easier than it had been while he was in America. If he truly loved Martha, why was he not eager to reunite with his wife after four years or see his daughter for the first time? I see that Laurens and Martha Manning got along quite well before they had sex, but after having sex, Laurens seemed to want to distance himself from Martha as much as possible. To me, this suggests that their sexual encounter was a negative experience for Laurens and could be explained as him lacking a sexual attraction to women. I do understand how you can interpret this as a romantic relationship, but this is my interpretation of the events.
As I said earlier, it seems like we will have to agree to disagree. We both have our own interpretations and supporting facts, and I don’t think either of us is likely to be swayed anytime soon. I do appreciate you coming to my blog and offering an explanation for your views, and I hope that through my response you can understand how I have formed my opinions.
omfggggg. im dying. im dead. i cannot wait to read this in full. **high-pitched screeching**
the-cock-in-cockles reblogged
wнαт тнe ғυcĸ ιѕ тнιѕ?
Beautiful madness
the-cock-in-cockles reblogged
Anonymous asked:
Do you have any ideas about the ethnicities of some of characters where it hasn't been mentioned like the Schuyler Sisters or Gouvs? (Also not gonna lie in my head GWash is just Captain Holt from B99)
(I’ve never seen that show but I have seen gif sets and lmao)
I know I don’t really do character descriptions in fic (someone once commented that they knew something was up because I actually bothered to describe an outfit) because 1) I’m not good at it 2) when I’m reading it’s usually not what I care about unless it’s plot-relevant. Which means this is all kind of tokenism for the minor characters because several of them don’t get a physical description anyway or it’s buried somewhere and because I hardly spend any time on them there’s no discussion of how it impacts them or anything.
The Schuylers are basically OBC (anyone canon is basically OBC but like… the more NSFW scenes they are in, the less they’re described as looking exactly like them because that’s really weird to me), or at least that ethnic make up. Gouvernor is… idk some kind of general overly complicated mix. One of those guys who if he tried to really break down what was what he’d get into the x/16ths when trying to combine all the different flavors of European and it’s just very confusing and involves Math and he can never remember which is the percentage for Latin and which is the percentage for Slavic but more significantly he does have actual legal documentation for Native ancestry so at least there’s that.
Several of them some kind of physical description is mentioned very briefly and most of them I’ve got enough of a mental image that I can tell you. Ben Walker’s family is from Uruguay and that was going to come up in one of the Tumblr shorts but it made the joke I was going for clunky with it added so I cut the reference. Aglae is very white. McHenry’s mixed Irish and African American. Humphreys is Black, Tallmadge is a basic white boy, Tench is Indian, John Church is African British and should actually be appearing in fic very soon. André is mixed white and East Asian like Eliza (although not the same mix), that one was supposed to be more obvious. Mina is Iranian, Adelaide is from Senegal, Adrienne is white and North African (and her family has been in France for ages and doesn’t pay attention to the North African part). De Ségur is Maghrebi. Grayson is Eastern European. The Trumbull brothers are mostly Samoan. Uh idk who else people want to know about lol…
the-cock-in-cockles reblogged
Bonus Revolutionary Fuckboys Content
Images
Driving @alamb99
RF moodboard @bluesyturtle
Portraits @shinsticks
foul watercolors @ a friend irl
Scenes from RF @eightmonkeys
Francis @ my girlfriend
Kiss @shinsticks
Flower crown @i-hate-peas
Prep School Closet Raid @elphias
Train down (sketch) @shinsticks
Nature Gay @lamsfan1
The Bad Decisions Train @ submission
Peggy moodboard @i-hate-peas
Train down @shinsticks
John André @ my girlfriend
Waiting @steady-little-soldier
“Can I take your hand now?” @steady-little-soldier
Life model (semi-NSFW) @turquoise-spark
Angelica moodboard @i-hate-peas
Pin-up calendar (semi-NSFW) @steady-little-soldier
Varsity jacket (semi-NSFW) @steady-little-soldier
Laurens sketched & colored versions @shuffle-cats
Trying on costumes @platonicvariations
Draw me like one of your SC girls by Poli~
Shorts
Spooked (slurs, homophobia)
Breakdown (terminal illness, homophobia)
The Francis Kinloch Arc (NSFW, slurs, terminal illness, homo/transphobia)
Not even broken up (abortion mention)
Kitty (NSFW-ish)
Henry Laurens and the terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day (bad parenting, injury mention)
Adelaide and her mother (aphobia)
Guidance counselor (terminal illness)
We are responsible for all the good we do not do (bad parenting)
Push Back (racism, anti-Semitism, violence)
Unwanted (death mention)
“How did Peggy and Aglae’s night in go?” (NSFW-Ish)
I Know my Son (bad parenting, homophobia)
AU-Within-an-Au Shorts
Eliza and McHenry pumpkin carving (injury/medical mention)
Going to SC (death mention)
Schuyler Sisters in the (distant) future (death mention)
Other
i think i might pass out. i just finished this fic and i feel all kinds of bereft, like a part of me is missing, BUT NOW I HAVE ALL THIS EXTRA CONTENT AND IM SO FUCKING HAPPY IDK WHAT TO DO WITH MYSELFFFFFFFF
the-cock-in-cockles reblogged
Supernatural had the opportunity to do something great. To send a message of love and validation to a whole community. Not only to the part of the community that liked their show, but to all of us. But instead they decided to pander to the people, who never had to fight for their representation.
I support #TheySilencedYou, #TheySilencedThem and #TheyWillNeverSilenceUs and I'm in awe of all of you. Of your eloquence, passion, coordination and decisiveness. And I feel like your message goes beyond this particular TV show and the CW.
It's about protesting a pattern of disrespect towards otherness in Mainstream Media. It's about demanding meaningful, unmistakably queer representation, that enables discourse and furthers understanding in a heterogenic Audience. It's about asking Networks to not only hire diverse staff but to also give them the freedom to tell their stories the way they want to. It's about telling creators to own up to the inherent messages they leave us with in the end.
And that's inspiring and should be celebrated.
Stories matter.
the-cock-in-cockles reblogged
too much information，I just leave this here
