#jassesham

[revolu]

- why did you ghost me? I thought you loved me! Those lovely promises were fake or what? Uhhmm nana uhhm nana uhhm nanana

Thought of these sillies the moment I heard the sound... I HAD to make a video.

Based on that one letter🤭

MY ART! Also my first time doing this kind of content so...

[revolu]

I'm dropping (a bit old) john laurens yap here. Please correct anything you must + provide the source.

and we know very limited about John but whatever !!

Laurens was described by Hamilton to have honey blonde hair when clean. His hair was generally said to be light brown/blonde. As seen on portraits, he had soft features, blue eyes, and a big nose. He was described to be very handsome, and IMO I agree!! We don't know exactly how tall he was, but he was most likely over 6 feet. One day before Laurens' 15th birthday, his father wrote to James Grant; ''my Little Jack, now as big as I am...'' (Jack being John's nickname). We don't know Henry Laurens' height, but if he was as tall as Henry at 15, he certainly grew to be taller. In 1778, Henry wrote to John ''A Taylor has cut off as much of your Scarlet as will make he says a Wascoat for 6 feet 3 inches...'' which suggests that John could have been 6'3. It's not clear what exactly Henry means in the letter but as said, John was probably over 6 feet. Laurens was one of the strongest abolitionists of the time despite coming from one of the bigger slave plantations and growing up where slavery was normal. John could speak English, French, Italian, Greek, Spanish and Latin. We know that he was fluent in English and French but we don't know about his fluency in the other languages.

Laurens got Martha Manning pregnant and ended up marrying her out of pity (supposedly to protect her reputation too and to keep illegitimacy of their child.) He wrote to his uncle ''...Pity has obliged me to marry...'', When Laurens left for war, he left his pregnant wife in another country. When John was chosen by congress to be a special minister to France and had him travel there, Martha traveled with their daughter to reconnect with him upon hearing about his arrival in France. But John supposedly made no effort whatsoever to visit them; he completed his mission and went back to America. Martha later died during the trip and their daughter, Frances, was sent to live with her aunt.

John Laurens is believed to have been gay... The man didn't seem to express any attraction towards women, though I think his sexist beliefs played a role in this, as well as his lack of effort to humble his wife. His letters to Alexander Hamilton, and Francis Kinloch also suggest he had an eye for men... ESPECIALLY Kinloch's and his correspondence.

Henry Laurens wrote ''Master Jack is too closely wedded to his studies to think about any of the Miss Nanny's''. But it's important to note that he was a teenager at that time and not every teen develops those feelings at the same time. But I would imagine that since he was as tall as his father at 15, he was early in puberty... Romantic/sexual feelings usually come with puberty, but what do we know? Anyways. John expressed a lot of sexist opinions, even towards his own sisters, which can be read in letters. Most men were sexist, but John seemed to be more ''strict'' on the subject... This definitely plays a part in his supposed ''homosexuality''.

John hid the fact that he had a wife and child from Hamilton for nearly two years. Why? The reason is unknown. It's only up to debate. My guess is that he just wanted to try to ''forget'' them in some way, seeing as he literally left them... Why would you bring up that you have a family that you abandoned? But maybe it was because he never found the right time to tell him, or was it to get a better chance with Hamilton? We will never know, sadly. But what we DO know, is that Laurens referred to his wife as ''dear girl'', and Hamilton, and supposedly ONLY Hamilton, as ''Dear boy''. We know for a fact that Hamilton was close to Laurens and was special to him, but why did he call his wife that? Out of pity? He didn't necessarily show any real attraction towards her... But whatever the reason is, it's kinda cute.

We know that Henry Laurens was emotionally manipulative of John, which is like read in letters... So there is no denying that, really. BUT John was close to his father, attachment issues tsk, tsk tsk... But jokes aside, when John told his father that he wasn't super interested in becoming a lawyer or merchant like his father wanted, Henry wrote this to his brother; ''if he enters upon the plan of Life which he Seemed to pant for when he wrote the 5th. July, I Shall give him up for lost & he will very Soon reproach himSelf for his want of Duty & affection towards me, for abandoning his Brothers & Sisters, for disregarding the Council of his Uncle, & for his deficiency of common understanding, in making Such a choice_ if these reflections prevail not over him, nothing will_ he must have his own way & I must be content with the remembrance, that I had a Son.'' Basically, Henry said he would disown John if he pursued his interests in medicine. So, John ended up becoming a lawyer/statesman to please his father. There are more examples of John trying to please his father, but let's not take that now... HOWEVER, after John had died, Henry wrote of him in response to John Adams' letter; ''Thank God I had a Son who dared to die in defence of his Country'' ... We get a lot of mixed signals from Henry... Though I do believe he loved him, at least somewhat.., even if he was controlling/manipulative. Henry wasn't too nice to his other children either, but since this is about John I'm not gonna talk about that.

John's brother James died at the age of 9-10 (1765-1775)

James, or Jemmy, was supposedly scaling the outside of their house and tried to jump to the landing outside of John’s window but fell. He received life threatening injuries and cracked his skull. The doctors had figured that the injuries were too severe to save him and John described it to his uncle four days later; "At some Intervals he had his senses, so far as to be able to answer single Questions, to beckon to me, and to form his Lips to kiss me, but for the most part he was delirious, and frequently unable to articulate. Puking, Convulsions never very violent, and latterly so gentle as scarcely to be perceived, or deserve the Name, ensued, and Nature yielded."

Since John was supposed to watch over James during this time, John felt guilty and as if it was his fault. James' death was very difficult for John, and it weighed heavily on him.

Henry did little to alleviate those feelings of guilt, which suggests that he either didn't care enough, or that a part of him also blamed John. (I am not saying he 100% did, but it would not be surprising if he so did, considering how he treated John.)

He could also have been in too much grief to console John... Which, as said, would not be too surprising considering his treatment of John. But nevertheless, he did not do much to help John and John's guilt.

TW: mentions of suicide.

It is highly speculated that John was suicidal. We have a couple of written exchanges where John discusses suicide with friends and family. In February 1774, John wrote to Henry Laurens about two men who had attempted suicide. We don't have the whole letter, but here is a part of Henry's response; ''...But, my Dear Son, I trust that your opinion on that Question is So firm, that you are armed with Such irrefragable proofs of the Impiety as well as Cowardice of Self Murther, as puts you out of danger of being made a Convert to Error...'' (Not gonna put all of it). Another time, when John was a prisoner of war and didn't handle imprisonment well, Hamilton wrote to John ''For your own sake, for my sake, for the public sake, I shall pray for the success of the attempt (of being exchanged) you mention; that you may have it in your power to act with us. But if you should be disappointed, bear it like a man; have recourse, neither to the dagger, nor to the poisoned bowl, nor to the rope.'' It is clear that Hamilton (and Henry, despite how he treated John) were worried about John's thoughts of suicide. John's last letter to Hamilton was probably one of the, if not the, most emotional. He wrote ''Adieu, my dear friend; while circumstances place so great distance between us, I entreat you not to withdraw the consolation of your letters. You know the unalterable sentiments of your affectionate Laurens.'' John died about a month later. On the day of his death, John and his men surprised a troop of British soldiers that outnumbered them. Instead of retreating, John chose to immediately attack. He did not really actively end his own life, though it seems as if it was planned or that he was trying. Which is just sad. Also, it's not sure that Hamilton's last letter to Laurens ever got to him before he died. (In that letter he tells John to quit his sword and come to congress with Hamilton)

I don't know what else to add actually but here you have it!! This is as accurate as I can get it, especially cause it's like mostly based on letters... Uhm. But yay!

[revolu]

Answering a question on Quora; did the characters own slaves?

Decided to post this here for my own sake lol.

I haven't done any deep digging to find this information, and hopefully it is as accurate as possible. Please correct me + give me the source/evidence if you must!!

Lafayette owned slaves, but he only purchased plantations in order to free them later on. He was very against slavery, and even tried convincing Washington to free his slaves. Unfortunately, Lafayette never managed to really free the slaves. A shame. It's ironic how he became a slave owner in order to execute his plan to abolish slavery.

Washington owned slaves, but he freed the majority of them. He's the only president in America who has enslaved people and freed them. He was a gentleman and a stud, kind and authoritative. Probably had some anger issues, but generally he was quite the man. (doesn't excuse owning slaves tho.)

Now... Did the man himself, Alexander Hamilton, own slaves? There is not enough evidence to support Hamilton owning slaves HIMSELF. He did purchase slaves for his in-laws, however his children and wife did not mention him owning slaves, nor does it say anything in his will about it. So that proves Hamilton not owning slaves >>near his death<<, at least. He was an abolitionist, that's for sure. But we do not know if he actually owned slaves HIMSELF. He surely had SERVANTS, but slaves and servants are different. He did see a fair lot of slavery in the Caribbean where he grew up, I believe, and I do not know if his father owned slaves, but it is not documented that he personally did. And even though his descendent Douglas claims he didn't, it is possible! But as said, he did in fact purchase slaves for his in-laws. (a.k.a. Eliza's family)

Madison owned slaves, yes. I haven't done too much research on him as a person, but he did own slaves.

Jefferson had two sides; either he was kind, socially awkward, a gentleman, or he was a cruel slaveowner. I personally believe, that based on his actions throughout the years, and the fact that he seemed to become more cruel with age, that his wife's death probably caused him to break. However, this does not excuse anything he did. He f*cking r*ped one of his slaves, who is believed to have been around 14 years of age (Sally Hemings, mentioned in the musical). There have been records of slaves being beaten in Monticello, however, there is nothing documented that Jefferson himself hurt his slaves. But when it comes to slavery, it is safe to say that he was rather cruel. Disgusting. Despite originally writing in the Declaration of Independence about slavery, Jefferson wrote that he "suspected black people to be inferior to white people" several years later.

Burr did own some slaves, not many though, at least from what I've read.

King George III, however, is NOT that tyrant that people claim he was. He never owned slaves, and he wasn't as bad as a human as people believe.

Laurens was one of the strongest abolitionist of the time, despite growing up in an environment where slavery was normal. He did not own any slaves himself, nothing recorded (I believe) at least.

Mulligan did own slaves. Haven't done any real research on him, but fairly sure it is true that he owned some slaves.

The Schuyler sisters were members of a wealthy slaveowning family. I am not sure, but I think Angelica owned slaves? I dont know about Peggy, and I dont think there is anything recorded that Eliza HERSELF owned slaves. Her family definitely did tho.

Charles Lee owned slaves, like most military generals.

Samuel Seabury also owned slaves.

Philip Hamilton, obviously, did not own any slaves.

It is important to note that although slavery was wrong and a sin, many people owned slaves or engaged in slavery. Not all slaveowners were cruel, some even treated their slaves as equals. (Which was rare). It was almost like a norm amongst wealthy people, especially people in the south. I think many were influenced by the normalcy, however it is not an excuse. John Laurens grew up in SC, and slavery was very common. Despite that, he was very against it.

Slavery is wrong and disgusting, but in many cases it does NOT define someone as a human. Maybe in Jefferson's case, but people need to remember that not everyone was cruel to their slaves! I do not excuse slavery in any way, and I know I do not have as much as a say in that because I am white. It will always be wrong to degrade someone just because of their race. I mean, slaves were seen as PROPERTY. Which is so incredibly disgusting... Slavery still exists today in some parts of the world, with basically any race being enslaved. White people, black people, asians, etc... Only about 8% of the population is white. (I think?) S3x slaves too. From children to adults. Absolutely disgusting.

But to sum this up, most of the people in the 18th century owned slaves. Not everyone was cruel to them though.

People who have been 'proven' to not have owned slaves:

Philip Hamilton (which speaks for itself)

King George III

John Laurens

(I hope I didn't forget someone)

I am unsure about Maria and James Reynolds. It is possible that James owned some slaves, but I haven't read about it at all, literally have done no research on Reynolds and slaves lmao.

Side note: A slave, James Armistead, later James Armistead Lafayette, who served as a spy under Marquis de Lafayette in the war, supposedly came to own slaves himself. (I am rather unsure if this is actually true or not, so don't take my word for granted lol)

[revolu]

guys I love drawing him

HAMMIE IN THE WOODS !!

moremoremoremore more of the scrunkly

[revolu]

Were John Laurens and Alexander Hamilton lovers?

I think I need to state the obvious here; no one knows 100% if they were lovers or just friends. We have reasonable evidence to believe that they were lovers, or at least had something romantic between them... However, we can also see that they refer to each other as "friends".

I posted a video about this on my tiktok, but I'll post this here as well; in text format instead of a slideshow.

Here is basically what I'll talk about:

History of male friendships

In ancient times, men were extremely close. They valued male friendships a lot, even more than their relationship between their wife. This was because men believed women to be inferior to men. This belief is still present today in many parts of the world, and it was, of course, a common thing to believe in the 18th century – the timeline in which Laurens and Hamilton were alive.

Men would embrace each other, hold hands, sleep in the same bed if necessary, and even go as far as kiss. Kissing your male friend, as a male, on the cheek was nothing unusual. It is not only a greeting in some cultures, it is also a sign of affection and to indicate friendship, family relationship, or to confer congratulations, to comfort someone, or to show respect... It was not generally seen as anything romantic.

Although homosexuality was highly looked down upon, people were not really as scared to be labeled as "gay" as people are today. And feelings of love were not as strictly labeled as either "platonic" or "romantic" as they are today either.

In many instances, male friendships, in the 1700s-1800s, had a similar intensity as a romantic relationship between a female and a male. Many do not know this, and therefore assume close male friends were lovers... Which is probably the case for Hamilton and Laurens.

Men would use very affectionate and endearing words to each other, which is seen in the Hamilton-Laurens letters. However, there is always a line to cross. And many think that Hamilton and Laurens definitely crossed that line.

Hamilton & Laurens

Before we dig deeper into Laurens' relationship with Hamilton, we need to discuss his supposed homosexuality.

John Laurens didn't seem to necessarily express any attraction towards women. We know this, not only because of his sexist behaviors and his lack of effort to humble his wife, but we can also read about this in his father's letters.

"Master Jack is too closely wedded to his studies to think about any of the Miss Nanny's"

Henry Laurens writes.

This basically says that John was too focused on his studies to show any interest in women.

However, he was a teenager at that time, and not every teenager starts developing feelings for people at the same age.

Henry did not seem so happy with John's lack of interest in women, but we also do know that Henry was most certainly emotionally manipulative towards John, which we also can read in letters. But I will not discuss that now, that is for another post.

Anyways, John expressed a fair lot of sexist behaviors and opinions, even towards his own sisters. Most men had some sort of sexist belief, because as said before, men believed women to be inferior. But it's almost as if Laurens showed more toxic masculinity and seemed to be quite strict on the subject. This, most likely, plays a part in Laurens' supposed homosexuality.

Laurens hid the fact that he had a wife (and a child) from Hamilton for nearly two years. This awakes questions. Why did he do that? To get a better chance with Hamilton, or to try and forget his family? Or was it simply because he didn't want to share such a fact about himself to someone new, and never found the opportunity to tell him?

Nevertheless, we know for a fact that Laurens only married his wife, Martha Manning, after she got pregnant. He married her to keep illegitimacy of their child, but also out of pity.

John writes to his uncle;

"...Pity has obliged me to marry.."

When Laurens left for war, he left his pregnant wife in a whole other country... In December 1780, when congress chose John to be a special minister to France and had him travel there, Martha decided to travel with her daughter to reconnect with him upon hearing his arrival in France.

But apparently, John completed his mission and returned to the United States before Martha was able to see him.

Martha Manning died in France, 1781, during this trip. Only a year before John himself died. Their child, Frances, was sent to live with her aunt.

I don't know if he had the opportunity to bring his wife with him when he went home to America to fight, but he certainly did not make any (known) effort to visit his wife or daughter while in France.

However, a thing worth to know, is that Laurens only ever called his wife "Dear Girl", and Hamilton "Dear Boy"... As far as we know. We know that Hamilton was special to Laurens, but was his wife really special? Or was it just an affectionate name out of pity, because he felt bad? Did he grant her that name to make her feel loved? Whatever the reason is, this supports Laurens and Hamilton being lovers, or at least having some kind of chemistry, seeing as Laurens didn't call his other close friends such names.

Many believe that Laurens was gay, mostly because of his extreme lack of affection towards women, which his sexist beliefs could've played a major role in, but also because of his letter correspondence between Alexander Hamilton, and a guy named Francis Kinloch. We will never know his true sexuality though.

Time to talk about Hamilton, his wife, and his supposed bisexuality.

Alexander Hamilton was born out of wedlock in Charlestown, in the Colony of Nevis, in the British West Indies in 1755 or 1757. His father left when he was about 10 (depends on what birth year you go off), and his mother died when he was around 12-13, leaving both him and his brother orphaned.

Contrary to popular belief, Alexander did have a number of parental figures growing up. But unlike Laurens, who was born and raised to be that typical man of their time, and whose father chose his career path, Alexander was more "free".

This is a possible factor to Alexander's openness, the way he started his first (survived) letter to Laurens with the famous;

"Cold in my professions, warm in my friendships..."

Laurens was pretty disciplined, and was probably taught a number of different things on how to be the ideal man.

Hamilton, however, didn't have the same opportunity, and his environment growing up was very different from Laurens'.

We can see in letters when comparing them that Hamilton seems much more affectionate. Although Laurens uses affectionate language as well, he seems more "professional" and "careful" than Hamilton.

Another thing to note is that Hamilton was often described as feminine.

"...something almost feminine about his gentleness and concern for the comfort and happiness of other people..."

These are reasons as to why people believe Hamilton was bisexual, especially because he expressed love (true love, mind you) towards Eliza as well! Reading the letters between him and Eliza, it is evident that he really did love her.

Note that Hamilton was a flirtatious man, and that his letters to Laurens seem almost as flirtatous as his letters to Eliza. Even if his flirtatious language calmed when he met Eliza, the years before that he definitely expressed something more "romantic" and flirtatious in his letters to Laurens.

And supposedly, someone(?) had asked Hamilton if he was bisexual (in other terms, of course). I don't know whether or not this is true, but it is certainly another reason as to why people think he was bisexual.

Did Alexander really invite Laurens to have a threesome with him and Eliza on their wedding night?

The simple answer for this is "probably not."

But this obviously needs more digging.

Hamilton writes to Laurens;

"I would invite you after the fall to Albany to be witness of the final consummation"

The word "consummation" is most commonly used to refer to two people having sexual intercourse to seal their relationship/marriage. It was quite common, especially around Christians, to do this.

Hamilton is most certainly referring to this, and he is inviting Laurens to "witness" it. A.k.a., to watch. (which wasn't too unusual!)

Hamilton, in the same letter, mentions that Eliza loves Laurens in the American manner and not the French manner, meaning that she loves him as a friend and nothing more. So the possibility of Hamilton inviting Laurens to have a threesome with them is pretty low... Especially because Hamilton explicitly wrote "witness", and not "join". So, he most likely did NOT invite Laurens to have a threesome with him and his wife.

So, were Hamilton and Laurens lovers? (Conclusion)

Considering the little knowledge we have, we cannot say for sure.

Historians say that the possibility of them being lovers, at least before Hamilton met Eliza, is big!

Personally, I think it is very possible that they were lovers, or at the very least had some sort of romantic relationship. A lot of things point to a romantic bond, however a lot of things also point to them being only close friends.

But from my perspective, the romantic signs outnumber the platonic ones in their first years of friendship. It is clear, however, that Alexander did really love Eliza, and you can see an obvious change in Alexander's language towards John after Eliza came into his life.

To summarize their relationship with a bit of comedy, I'd say it's more like a high school crush type of situation; Alexander and John had a crush on one another, which possibly turned into something more serious, before Alexander fell in love with the new girl at school, and they ended up together, later marrying. High school sweethearts.

But in all seriousness, my friend actually worded it amazingly good;

"they were just real close friends trying to serve one anothers ‘needs’ till they found the one"

Which is a very good and possible theory!

But, is it okay to ship Lams?

I'd say so, yes.

Shipping historical figures is weird asf if the people didn't have any romantic chemistry and so... Which Laurens and Hamilton seemed to have.

Therefore, I think it is okay to ship Lams. But of course is it also okay to not ship Lams, and to dislike it! We will never know for sure if they were lovers or not, and we cannot say that they 100% weren't lovers or 100% were. Sadly, a lot of letters have been destroyed/not found, and we can only know so much.

Feel free to ask questions or add anything, whether it's supporting them being just friends or the possibility of them being lovers.

I know I haven't covered everything in this post, like Hamilton joking about his own pp in the first (survived) letter to Laurens, so if you're interested in reading that; go on my tiktok (@historicalhamsandwich) and check out my slideshow about this there. (I also cover more letters)

With that said, have a good day/night!! :)