Talk:John Laurens

Untitled

In regards to John Laurens being a homosexual, perhaps this excerpt from a letter to him from Alexander Hamilton might shed some insight

The following letter, which will be quoted in pertinent part, was written by Hamilton when he was twenty-two years of age. It was written to his friend colonel John Laurens, who was a few years older than Hamilton. Laurens was the son of the President of the Continental congress, Henry Laurens, the dating of the letter was made by scholars, based on internal evidence: April, 1779:

Cold in my professions, warm in my friendships, I wish, my Dear Laurens, it might be in my power, by action rather than words to convince you that I love you. I shall only tell you that 'til you bade us Adieu, I hardly knew the value you had taught my heart to set upon you. Indeed, my friend, it was not well done. You know the opinion I entertain of mankind, and how much it is my desire to preserve myself free from particular attachments, and to keep my happiness independent of the caprice of others. You should not have taken advantage of my sensibility to steal into my affections without my consent. But as you have done it,and as we are generally indulgent to those we love, I shall not scruple to pardon the fraud you have committed, on condition that for my sake, if not for your own, you will always continue to merit the partiality, which you have artfully instilled into me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.120.12.19 (talk) 17:17, February 5, 2004‎ (UTC)

Intellectual Integrity?

I for one was surprised when I read the letter from Hamilton to Laurens, and I was even more surprised that I had never heard of the letter before. This article blithely ignores the letter from Hamilton to Laurens, and attributes the suggestion of homosexuality to the existence of a statue.

I believe the suggestions of homosexuality should be presented in an unbiased manner or left out entirely. I lean towards full disclosure rather than excision of the information.

I believe it is deceptive to imply that the homosexual suggestion is a result of idiots drawing absurd conclusions from a statue. I have noticed selective presentation of facts in other articles on the Wiki; ultimately this damages Wiki's credibility. Users should exercise caution in using the information provided here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.13.75 (talk) 14:33, October 20, 2004 (UTC)

Okay guys Bhaskar here, I think that the article needs more depth, this is kind of an overlooked figure however, the excerpted letter below (April 1779) should NOT be posted, because it implies that it was a short love letter, in the SAME text, Hamilton asked him to look for a wife for him in Carolina and listed chararistics he looked for in a woman. Also i don't like how he said it was a useless skrimish, in hindsight yes it wasnt significant but he went to go intercept the british force in his sector, it was significant given his proximity to the british so he engaged..

After listing his desired qualities in a wife and how he would like to be described to potential love interests, however, Hamilton goes on to say that the entire thing was a joke and that he has no desire to marry. He then goes on to say that he doesn't know why he spent so long on that tangent, and suggests that perhaps it was because he simply wanted to draw out the interaction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.129.234 (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• The issue has already been discussed, please see section "Hamilton" on this talk page, and the article in its present text is based on the consensus reached based on WP:NEUTRAL reporting referenced authoritative different opinions on the related speculations. Users can access the correspondence Laurens-Hamilton from the external links provided at the footer of the article and make up their own mind. Isananni (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Letters

I'm glad someone added something about the letters to the entry. I had been meaning to do that but, I guess, forgot. Further examination of the letters can be found here, and two of Hamilton's letters to Laurens can be found in the Library of America's Hamilton: Writings. I've not seen the full text of any other letters, though. Excerpts can be found in Ron Chernow's Alexander Hamilton and James Thomas Flexner's The Young Hamilton. If anyone knows where copies of these letters can be found (especially electronic versions), I'd appreciate it if one would let me know. Erekrose 19:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

We should remember, however, that this was an age of sentiment; Hamilton got equally lush letters from his sister-in-law. Septentrionalis 23:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What about Laurens' duel with General Lee??

From Bob P. -- I could be wrong, but didn't Laurens duel with -- and severely wound -- the notorious General Charles Lee in a duel? And if true (it is) wouldn't that be a fact to include, oh I dunno, at the TOP of any article about him???? Instead of OMITTING IT ENTIRELY?? I quote from the Wiki article on Lee:

>>>>>> Colonel John Laurens, an aide to Washington, challenged him to a duel, in which Lee was wounded in the side.<<<<<<<

Just wondering... 69.118.234.2 (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I know the initial comment is a little old, but yes --- Laurens was involved in a duel with Charles Lee over some statements Lee made regarding Washington. Hamilton served as Laurens second and there is at least his account of what happened, a narrative written down for an inquest into the incident. I'm still pulling together outside sources, but I'll add this to the article as its relevant to Lee and could have derailed Laurens' involvement with the Revolution. Roving Ginger (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

time to semi-protect?

Anyone object to me asking for this to be semi-protected? The edit history here is getting silly. —Luis (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Blame Lin-Manuel Miranda's fans. 73.172.190.166 (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Can we get this article under protection again? When the last one expired it took all of 30 minutes for the vandalism to start up again. EDIT: I put in a request for semi-protection; crossing my fingers. Roving Ginger (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2016

Could somebody change the word "Georgian" in the Legacy section to "Georgia"? Georgian is not correct American usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B16A:A4F3:43AD:A925:EB2D:AD8D (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Done by Roving Ginger (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Laurens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.earlyamerica.com/early-america-review/volume-1/slavery-liberty-american-revolution/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Article Organization

I've been watching, editing, and re-reading this article on Laurens for a while, and while I'm glad to see how it's grown, I think it could use some tightening up structurally and additional citations in the section of Laurens' sexuality and relationship to Hamilton. I don't have an opinion either way on the subject, but there are several places that could use scholarly back up. Thoughts? Roving Ginger (talk) 15:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Hamilton

Hello. I'd like to simply state that you marked my comment of the addition of "Alexander Hamilton" as John Laurens' "alleged boyfriend" as vandalism, when there is a significant portion of his article regarding this topic. I did not simply state that he was his boyfriend, and can change it to "rumored" or something along those lines if that is more fitting in your mind, but I feel it inappropriate to mark it as vandalism when it was a significant topic discussed in the article. I understand its a controversial topic, but I don't feel it is vandalism if it is simply restating a topic brought up later in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.Burr (talk • contribs) 04:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

[The above originally posted on my talk page] Your edits are vandalism because you are inserting material in an infobox that doesn't belong. There is no place on infoboxes for alleged extra-marital sexual relationships or any references to a subject's sexuality. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Tom, I wholeheartedly agree and I regret that hardly any historian points out that Hamilton and Laurens spent hardly a month together in over three to four years due to Laurens' captivity, his plan to form a black battalion in South Carolina while Hamilton was stationed in the North, his mission to France, etc. All the allegations of a supposed physical extramarital relationship are based on admittedly flowery correspondence that first of all shows the two of them were hardly ever together. For a "heated" relationship, circumstances reduced it to a lame platonic exchange of missives. Maybe the prolonged lack of contiguity hindering any real relationship other than an affinity of minds should at least be mentioned in the article. Just my two pence. Isananni (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Hello! Some of your information is completely wrong. Hamilton and Laurens spent much more time together than "hardly a month", as Laurens arrived at camp in August 1777 (my own research based off of Generals' correspondance, the aide invitation etc). He stayed with Washington's staff with no assignment until July/August 1778 (again my own research but significantly less, just based off of his correspondance & where it was written from), while Hamilton was in camp with Laurens from August 1777 to December 1777, when he left on an asssignment to Albany (he returned in January 1778 and spent time in camp with Laurens until the aforementioned July/August 1778 estimations). When Laurens returned from his Rhode Island campaign in December 1778, he was a) with Hamilton and b) did not leave until March 1779, where he went South and was not reunited with Hamilton until Yorktown (aside from a few short trips to headquarters and Hamilton likely visiting him in Philadelphia November 1780). In addition, regarding edits to this article, It is my opinion that matters regarding a "physical relationship" between the two should be addressed & both sides given instead of avoiding the subject by solely placing the letters in context of flowery language — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geekyhistorian (talk • contribs) 02:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• I've now checked the citations to the Laurens biography by Massey, as well as reading portions not cited here. The Massey biography does not support the previous editor's synthesis. Massey concluded that despite the letters, the Hamilton/Laurens friendship was platonic, and he proceeded to explain the reasoning. No reliable source has been cited that concludes they were gay - the historians only acknowledge that it's in question, as Chernow did. I will edit the section to accurately quote Massey. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you! Some sense at last! Isananni (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• I just bought the Massey bio but haven't had a chance to dive into yet. Thank you for adding those accurate citations!! Roving Ginger (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'm still on it. I will get the revision written this week. In the meantime, I read through the cited reference Lt Colonel John Laurens by the National Park Service, and I despaired because it summarizes Laurens' life and significance in one web page, and does it far better than this Wikipedia article does. I nearly wish we could copy and paste it whole, in place of this entire article! I won't overdo it, but it's going to get cited a few times more. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• I do not think there is any rule about extensively revising an article if it means improving on reliability, neutrality and references. At the moment the article is highly unbalanced due to the overgrowth of the "sexuality issue" since it is a non issue - sexual proclivities one way or another do not add to nor detract from anyone's accomplishments and that is what the article should be about. Honestly, if you think you can improve on the article by revising it with reliable references and possibly reduce the "sexuality" section to a more balanced length and equally balanced and substantiated approach one should only be grateful. I'm not such an expert on Laurens to be able to help, but I can see the issues in the article. Isananni (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Lwarrenwiki: Hi, I know we are all volunteers here and every day life and work take precedence, but I was wondering if you had the time to work on/have a look at a possible revision of this article. Since I lack the sources you mentioned I only managed to remove some unreferenced assumptions from the sexuality section, which is still heavily unbalanced and far too long, but it would really be great if you could help have this article regain some sort of credibility with some more extended revision. Thank you in advance for what you can do for the community of Wiki readerds. Isananni (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, we can't use someone's investigation on Tumblr as a source; we'd need something that passes WP:RS. On the other hand, a lot of the quotes are WP:PRIMARY sources used in a way that seems to be using them for original research; unless it's completely obvious how a particular quote relates to the topic, we would probably need a WP:SECONDARY source. For example, we can cite a biographer saying "look at this racy quote, which may indicate that they were lovers"; we can't do that ourselves or we fall into original research. (I'm a bit cautious about removing them wholesale, though, because several of the article's cites to secondary sources like biographies do mention the sensual language - the important question is whether they refer to the specific ones we have; if so, it should be restructured to make it clear that it's such-and-such a biographer highlighting that quote and not us. If no secondary sources have highlighted a specific quote, it should probably be removed, and possibly replaced with one that we have a specific secondary source talking about.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I found it ok to remove my edit on the analysis of the handwriting. The analysis did seem sound, but I agree the referenced source does not pass present WP:RS. I had some doubts about the overuse of primary quotes myself and while the censored sentence does refer to a secondary source quoting the innuendos and makes it clearer for the reader what one is talking about (the nose was used as a reference to the male organ in writing at the time), the previous long quotation from Hamilton's letter should probably fit better in the reference text if we do mot want to lose content alltogether - it was certainly not appropriate at the beginning of this section since it did not relate to any research and was misleadingly placed there to set the tone of the section hinting at so far unproven conclusions, thus breaching the Wikipedia neutrality policy. Isananni (talk) 07:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, there's a great deal more that could and should be removed as OR, synthesis, undue weight, and misleading quotes from primary sources. I believe a consensus has emerged on this. Also, the whole premise of inferring Laurens' sexuality from Hamilton's letters is flawed; it tells us about Hamilton's state of mind, but we have no evidence that Laurens responded positively, and actual evidence (from Laurens' own letters) that Laurens did not reciprocate Hamilton's flowery tone. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Lwarrenwiki: Good points. Isananni (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

And thank you both for taking up this difficult editorial job, and the ball that I dropped here. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 12:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Lwarrenwiki: You are welcome, thank you for raising the issues. I removed one further quotation because it was honestly misleading - if the analysis of the handwriting is correct (and I think it is even though the source does not live up to the present WP:RS criteria) it sounds like locker room talk, nothing more compromising than the selfies that my husband's basketball team mates (all of whom are heterosexually married) exchange on their Whatsapp group from said locker room. Furthermore, as you quite rightly put it, it speaks more of Hamilton than of Laurens. I left the mention that Hamilton invited his friend to his wedding but Laurens could not be there because it's historical fact against the fictional representation in the musical show that Laurens attended the event. Feel free to remove it if you think it's the case.Isananni (talk) 12:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Isananni: Your locker-room analogy is perfect. I reached exactly the same conclusion, based on experience, but I could not cite my own personal experience or gut feeling as any sort of evidence, of course. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Adrienne de la Fayette

• As recently revised, this article makes it much clearer that Laurens was already a married man with a child, before he joined the Continental Army and met Hamilton. In fact, Lafayette was also a married man; he had a young and beautiful wife (Adrienne) and a daughter back in France. Once you know that Laurens and Lafayette both had wives and kids, all the speculation about their relationships with men start to look less historically sound, and more like wishful thinking by people who want it to be true.

In summary: don't rely on the bachelor party scene in "The Story of Tonight (Reprise)" as a historical text. Contrary to the musical, Hamilton's three friends (including Hercules Mulligan) were all married men, before Hamilton ever met them. Lin-Manuel Miranda may have ignored the wives because they were far away and/or dramatically inconvenient, but during the war, those guys each had a wife and at least one kid back home. Hamilton was the last of that group to get married, by several years. (Not including Burr, who had to wait for it several years longer.) Lwarrenwiki (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2017

John Laurens in the place to be, often drinking Sam Adams. Those red coats don't want it with him cuz he will popchickapop those cops till he's free. Hamiltrash11 (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 22:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Spy category

The article doesn't support categorizing Laurens as a spy. He hired spies, but there is no indication that he spied on the British himself. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Sexuality and relationship with Alexander Hamilton

In my opinion, the speculation of the relationship between Laurens and Hamilton are substantiated, and quite frankly, I think to deny a romantic, or even possibly sexual relationship between the two is to admit dismissal of key evidence. John Laurens was almost without question, homosexual. Pity obliged him to marry, as he said to his father, and he was known to have a romantic relationship with fellow student Francis Kinloch while at boarding school in Geneva.

The correspondence between Hamilton and Laurens is undeniably extremely affectionate. It strays beyond the realms of male friendship at the time, including professions of deep love and sexual innuendos. Hamilton's letters show more unbridled affection when compared to Laurens', however, to say this means the latter felt less affection to Hamilton would be incorrect. The context of his upbringing, eldest son of an influential Virginian plantation owner and congressman, student of an elite European boarding school, contrasts with Hamilton's own, more liberated upbringing. It is likely he felt constrained by his social standing when writing to the man. When comparing Laurens' letters with his correspondences to others, his love for Hamilton is evident. There are also many more written to Hamilton than to his other friends, despite Hamilton's complaints he didn't write enough. His affection is subtler, it requires some study and caution, but it is there.

As well as this, how could the sanitation of their letters be explained otherwise? Portions of their letters, and entire letters themselves were destroyed, many certainly contained explicit sexual or romantic details. For example, in one letter, a sentence directly after Hamilton's joking allusion to his penis it cut out. By use of Occam's razor, there is no other justifiable reason to the destruction of their correspondence. By John Hamilton's destroying of them, he provides us with some of the hardest evidence towards their relationship.

At the time of their relationship, it was described as unusually romantic by many who knew them and that Hamilton spent more time with Laurens than he did with his own. newly wedded wife. Hamilton's deepest affections were always reserved for Laurens and after the man's death, Biographer Ron Chernow states that Hamilton locked away some compartment of his emotions he never again opened.

The issue has already been addressed with reliable sources duly referenced and with differing opinions all duly noted per WP:NEUTRAL. Should you have an academic paper you would like to submit on this subject, please feel free to do so in the due venues, Wikipedia is not the place for WP:OR Also please remember to sign your comments when posting on the talk page. Thanks. Isananni (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, by intentionally omitting quotes from both Laurens and his father that suggests that he was exclusively interested in men, it is indeed dismissing key evidence. Simply because there are not very many academic papers on the subject doesn't mean that evidence can or should be dismissed just to illustrate a skewed point of view. Geekyhistorian (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

on the section regarding hamilton and laurens

A few things I'd like to say:

1. Defining the "final consummation" as the wedding is incorrect. Consummation, as defined by a few sources which I will link below, is the act of intercourse immediately following marriage. This is a simple Google search, so I don't know how this was missed. It's also important to note that the definition of "consummate" is very consistent among all the pages I've looked at. Here are the links: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consummation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consummation

2. "extravagent or hyberbolic language such as the phrase "your obedient servant", is commonly seen in personal correspondence of this period"--this sentence is irrelevant since it's never used in the Hamilton-Laurens letters. This was also used more as a "less personal" closing, so it not being used makes sense because the two were incredibly close.

Regarding the second point, I believe it would be more relevant to include a few lines on how Laurens likely wasn't interested in women. I have a quote below that I think relevant.

"Master Jack is too closely wedded to his studies to think about any of the Miss Nanny's I would not have such a sound in his Ear, for a Crown; why drive the poor Dog, to what Nature will irresistably prompt him to be plagued with in all probability much too soon"

3. "For example, in one bantering letter to Laurens prior to his marriage to Elizabeth Schuyler, Hamilton wrote to Laurens to reassure him that their friendship would not be diminished"--misleading since the actual quote talks about how his marriage to Elizabeth was a "strange cure" for his "devotion" to Laurens, heavily implying that they had talked about marriage as a cure for something

References

Geekyhistorian (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I hate to repeat myself, but I can’t see how my answer should change given the message does not seem to get through. The issue of the Laurens-Hamilton friendship and related correspondence has already been addressed with reliable sources duly referenced and with all differing opinions (including one supporting the possibility of a homosexual attraction) all duly noted per WP:NEUTRAL. Should you have an academic paper you would like to submit on this subject, please feel free to do so in the due venues, Wikipedia is not the place for WP:OR which is what you are doing by quoting scattered passages of original correspondence out of context and giving them your personal interpretation other editors in previous discussions do not agree with. Should you not be satisfied with Wikipedia’s policy on the need to refer to reliable sources and avoid WP:OR, as well as the need to keep all articles neutral per WP:NEUTRAL please discuss your complaints in the appropriate venues. Isananni (talk) 04:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Have you ever read the letter with the quote in #2? It is absolutely not taken out of context. Also, the interpretation and definition of "consummation" is entirely incorrect. So fine, I can see that #3 has mostly been addressed, but the big thing standing is that there is incorrect information in the article (the definition of consummation) Geekyhistorian (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The article is accurate as it stands, with citations to reliable sources rather than original research. It is also balanced, giving appropriate weight to a contentious theory.

The article's interpretation of the word "consummation" is also accurate as it stands, rather than "entirely incorrect". See, for example, wikt:consummation in Wiktionary, as well as the definition in Dictionary.com (here). The primary meaning of the word "consummation" is completion; e.g., the ultimate conclusion or fulfillment of an endeavor or a project. The consummation of a marriage is one example of a consummation. For another example, the final crowning work of somebody's career would be considered the consummation of their lifetime of work, according to Macmillan (here).

And yes, I have read the letter, and I'm sure Isananni (talk · contribs) has read the letter, and I have no doubt that every major biographer of Hamilton and/or Laurens has read the letter. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

When Hamilton wrote the letter inviting Laurens to his wedding the consummation he referred to was the consummation of his engagement, therefore his wedding. The consummation of his marriage as carnal union of the spouses came AFTER the wedding. In this respect the interpretation of the word consummation as Lwarrenwiki (talk · contribs) has kindly so thoroughly illustrated is entitely correct. As for the letter you mention, yes I have read it, alongside the entire Laurens-Hamilton corrispondence during the over 3 years when they were separated indicating per se the impossibility of any carnal union between Laurens and Hamilton due to distance if not lack of desire even for those who so desperately want to read more than words in those pages. Given Elizabeth Hamilton got pregnant with her husband’s first child barely months into their marriage, not to speak of the following 8 pregnancies (including the miscarriage) as well as of Hamilton’s notorious one-year adulterous affair with Maria Reynolds, Hamilton must have found heterosexual consolation elsewhere. There is no indication Hamilton showed any inclination for men after his wedding or at least after Laurens’ death if you wish to stick to your speculations Isananni (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

hate to say it, but bisexual people exist. i know it's incorrect to assign modern words for sexuality to historical figures because it's never wholly accurate since sexuality was so different, but saying "Hamilton liked women so he was straight" is naive. Also, you're forgetting the sentence right after that line in which he states that Elizabeth loves him "a la americaine" and not "a la francois" referring to the French's relaxed stance on sex outside of marriage. I don't know how you could read that and say that since consummation means finishing something, its obviously referring to the wedding. Both of your cited webpages refer to consummation as the sex right after marriage as well. In addition, Hamilton being attracted to other men outside of Laurens has nothing to do this since we are talking specifically about his relationship to Laurens.

(honestly i know this is original research you're just being incredibly naive) Isananni (talk · contribs) {User|Lwarrenwiki}} Geekyhistorian (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2018

Alexander Hamilton was Johnny bois boyfriend and they were very kinky. 2.27.213.145 (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Your opinion is duly noted. No reliable sources have reached that conclusion. The issue has been addressed on this page. See above. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Master Jack and "the Miss Nanny's"

The "Master Jack" quote (cited above) has no place in this article, because it is unrelated to any notable characteristic of John Laurens. To include the quote in this article would serve no purpose other than lending undue weight to an editor's suggestion that "Laurens likely wasn't interested in women."[*] And when the quote is actually examined, it does not even provide actual support for that nonscholarly theory.

The quote consists of one sentence written by Laurens' father in a letter to a friend. Here is the quote, repeated in full, but this time including the sentence before it and the sentence after it (which I've numbered):

¹My poor old Woman has been very Sick & this is the first of her appearance in the Garden for near two Months past. ²Master Jack is too closely wedded to his studies to think about any of the Miss Nanny's I would not have such a sound in his Ear, for a Crown; why drive the poor Dog, to what Nature will irresistably prompt him to be plagued with in all probability much too soon. ³But now the name of Dear Nanny is mentioned I have room to acknowledge a mistake in placing that Bill of £64.5.9 to Mr. Penman's instead of Mr. Oswald's Credit which I did not advert 'til this hour; but tis of no great consequence I shall either transpose the Entry or he may send another Bill if he shall find my Account now sent, free from error.

— Laurens, Henry (1976) [1767]. "To James Grant, October 13, 1767". In Rogers, George C., Jr.; Chesnutt, David R. (eds.). The Papers of Henry Laurens: Vol. 5, Sept. 1, 1765–July 31, 1768 (1st ed.). Columbia, S.C.: Univ. of South Carolina Press. p. 359. ISBN 978-0-87249-331-5.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)

It appears that some Hamilton fans on Tumblr have tried to inflate this quote's importance, which can only be done by omitting or ignoring necessary facts such as these:

1. John Laurens was 12 years old when his father wrote the letter.
2. The letter was written about two weeks before John's 13th birthday, so Henry Laurens was aware that his son would soon be a teenager.

And in light of those facts, here is a restatement of what Henry Laurens wrote, interpreted in its context:

• John Laurens' mother has been very sick for two months, and she could not even go to her garden until recently.
• As John's father, Henry is pleased that the boy is "wedded to his studies", rather than thinking about girls.

• Henry would not want anybody to even suggest to John that he should be focusing on girls, instead of studying.
• Henry jokes that it would be worth a Crown (a coin worth ¼ pound) to prevent such a suggestion from even reaching John's ear.

• There is no reason to rush John into growing up too fast, because in due time, "Nature will irresistably prompt him to be plagued with" thinking about girls.

• This will happen "in all probability much too soon", since John is nearly a teenager.
• Henry is stating what seems obvious to him: when teenage hormones take over, the boy will naturally become more interested in girls.

In summary, a close reading shows that Henry Laurens was saying exactly the opposite of what today's activists seem to think he was saying.

But just for the sake of argument, let's assume for a moment that Henry Laurens was implying that his son was gay. Unlike today, that implication would have been considered disreputable and scandalous in 1767. If it were made public, it would bring dishonor to the Laurens family. Therefore, it would not be tossed off lightly or casually as a quip, and it would be grossly out of place in a business letter to a friend. Also, if Henry had just written a damaging admission about his son, the letter's very abrupt transition to dry financial matters would make no sense (or even less sense than it does). The suggestion is not plausible. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)