Were there any openly homosexual soldiers, officers, or generals during the Civil War? And if not openly, were there any known?

While not directly answering your question, there has been some speculation that President James Buchanan was gay, and had a long standing relationship with William Rufus DeVane King, VP under President Franklin Pierce. Many rumors circulated throughout the halls of Washington City about their relationship and possible proclivities, none of it proven. There is, however, the destruction of a number of letters between the two by their respective descendants that have put fuel of the fire.

As a collateral descendant of King, I can say that my very own Grandmother had been told of King's 'peculiar leanings' (her words) by elder family members, so there indeed may be some truth to these stories.
 
Vote Here:
Although neither a political nor a military figure, undoubtedly the best-known openly homosexual person of note was hospital nurse, author, and poet Walt Whitman who established a long-term relationship with one of the wounded Confederate soldiers in his care.
 
Vote Here:
Here is book review about gay Confederate and Union soldiers:

1556124045775.png


https://www.laprogressive.com/gay-confederate-union-soldiers-2/
 
Vote Here:
I just read this article and like many if not most written and/or published from such a questionable source or perspective I think them greatly exaggerated in order to make the numbers appear to have been greater - and their "cause" thereby more acceptable - than is likely to have been the case. The number she gives of one in ten is surely too great; it would be far greater than in the general population, especially in the relatively straight-laced Victorian era. The book in question, however, is likely the best (and to my knowledge, the only) source on this and other topics related to the general subject of Sex in the Civil War.
 
Vote Here:
I just read this article and like many if not most written and/or published from such a questionable source or perspective I think them greatly exaggerated in order to make the numbers appear to have been greater - and their "cause" thereby more acceptable - than is likely to have been the case. The number she gives of one in ten is surely too great; it would be far greater than in the general population, especially in the relatively straight-laced Victorian era. The book in question, however, is likely the best (and to my knowledge, the only) source on this and other topics related to the general subject of Sex in the Civil War.

I agree about the exaggerations contained within the book, but I find that in most EVERY publication on the Civil War in general. Wade through that, however, and you can find some pretty good info.
 
Vote Here:
I agree about the exaggerations contained within the book, but I find that in most EVERY publication on the Civil War in general. Wade through that, however, and you can find some pretty good info.
I wasn't talking about any exaggerations in the book, which I admit I haven't read but only perused a little, now long ago when it was first published. I was referring to the link Andrea @FarawayFriend posted above, which leads to an online homosexual California "magazine" which features the book including the questionable commentary regarding it.
 
Last edited:
Vote Here:
I' wasn't talking about any exaggerations in the book, which I admit I haven't read but only perused a little, now long ago when it was first published. I was referring to the link Andrea @FarawayFriend posted above, which leads to an online homosexual California "magazine" which features the book including the questionable commentary regarding it.

Then I do stand corrected, though if my rusty memory serves me, I felt there were a few questionable statements in the book as well, though it was well researched and written.
 
Vote Here:
The operative word in the title is "openly." The answer would have to be very, very few, if any "soldiers, officers, or generals" were openly gay.

Regarding Walt Whitman, he frequently spoke of a "comradeship" among men that was very emotional and often openly affectionate. The degree to which that was sexual is hotly disputed even among his best biographers. His language in both his poems and letters has usually (and not unreasonably) been interpreted as homosexual -- he always denied it. Wikipedia has a good outline of the question.
 
Vote Here:
...I think them greatly exaggerated in order to make the numbers appear to have been greater - and their "cause" thereby more acceptable...it would be far greater than in the general population, especially in the relatively straight-laced Victorian era...

Just to keep in mind that, exaggerated or not, gender preference wasn't a "cause" back in the day. People just were who they were. Let's avoid suggesting that they somehow willfully "made themselves into" an alternate gender identity. Best they could do to function in that straight-laced Victorian era was quite the opposite, to "make themselves into something they were not."

In any event there's no evidence that the percentage of alternative gender identity was significantly lower back then compared to now. The only thing that's apparent is how little it was discussed in public then as compared to now.
 
Vote Here:
Just to keep in mind that, exaggerated or not, gender preference wasn't a "cause" back in the day. People just were who they were. Let's avoid suggesting that they somehow willfully "made themselves into" an alternate gender identity. Best they could do to function in that straight-laced Victorian era was quite the opposite, to "make themselves into something they were not."
There are always the examples of Amelia Bloomer (who likely was not homosexual) and her "disciple" in America, Mary Walker (who very well may have been) who openly and flagrantly flouted public mores, at least in regards to dress, despite strong public censure.

In any event there's no evidence that the percentage of alternative gender identity was significantly lower back then compared to now. The only thing that's apparent is how little it was discussed in public then as compared to now.
Exactly my point - the so-called "reviewer" in the linked thread proposed the, I believe, ridiculous figure I stated, one out of every ten, and no doubt for the reason I opined, to inflate numbers for a dubious agenda and non-historical purposes.
 
Vote Here:
Abraham Lincoln







Just kidding. It's the most common myth about him, perpetrated by that horrible book in the 2005
The current candidate seems for some obscure reason to be Pat Cleburne. The only reason I can think of for this was his close friendships with several fellow generals, notably Lucius Polk and Thomas Hindman, despite evidence to the contrary in the form of his engagement to a Mobile belle at the time of his death.
 
Vote Here:
The current candidate seems for some obscure reason to be Pat Cleburne. The only reason I can think of for this was his close friendships with several fellow generals, notably Lucius Polk and Thomas Hindman, despite evidence to the contrary in the form of his engagement to a Mobile belle at the time of his death.

Didn't @diane say that Patrick shared the same bed with a married couple but it wasn't as our minds would think now? We would think in this time, that's pretty odd! But for the time, sharing beds, even with new couples (if I have that right) was okay?

Walt Whitman wasn't a favorite of everyone's though, even in his time. One of the Union nurse's diaries I read really brought this out. I wish I could remember who she was, she was a prominent Union nurse and stayed the course - which meant she didn't die from illness. She disliked it intensely when Whitman would come to her ward to visit. She remarked in her diary "I think something wicked this way comes from the pricking of my thumbs." He would often linger over some very helpless young men, caressing them and she wasn't having any of that. Then he would insist on doing some readings and she wondered if he drank because some of the soldiers would be polite but kind of smirk because he would ramble on and one but nothing would make sense. Without "naming the thing that must not be named" she did a pretty good job conveying what it was she thought he was.
 
Vote Here:
The current candidate seems for some obscure reason to be Pat Cleburne. The only reason I can think of for this was his close friendships with several fellow generals, notably Lucius Polk and Thomas Hindman, despite evidence to the contrary in the form of his engagement to a Mobile belle at the time of his death.

Cleburne is a candidate for the same reason Lincoln is - bed sharing. Today, if two people share the same bed for a long time they're a couple but back then it wasn't that clear. Beds were scarce. Most people slept on a bag of hay, basically, and beds were hauled around everywhere and handed down for generations. Both Cleburne and Lincoln had room-mates who had a bed, and they shared it. Cleburne had a room-mate for several years, then the guy got married - Cleburne still shared the bed with them! (Myself, I think I'd say at some point, Pat, love ya like a brother but...you got to find another bed!) Grant would rent a room with a bed and have a couple of his aides share it with him - nothing more to it than he had a big bed and why not let them get off the floor.

The topic's interesting, and there are a few generals who might have been gay - hard to really say. Wilson is one of them. In those days, it was just something that wasn't talked about openly.
 
Vote Here:
… Regarding Walt Whitman, he frequently spoke of a "comradeship" among men that was very emotional and often openly affectionate. The degree to which that was sexual is hotly disputed even among his best biographers. His language in both his poems and letters has usually (and not unreasonably) been interpreted as homosexual -- he always denied it. Wikipedia has a good outline of the question.
I've sure read a lot of information to the contrary confirming it, but am always open-minded on subjects like this which by their very nature depend on the honesty and willingness to talk about it of persons like this in an altogether different era. There's no question about the open affection at the time between members of the same sex, especially those who shared a close bond like combat conditions could engender.
 
Vote Here:
Back
Top