It’s amazing what one can find via Google sometimes. I was curious who the first recorded gay soldier was that faced disciplinary action in the military and found this interesting excerpt from Conduct Unbecoming: Gays & Lesbians in the U.S. Military by Randy Shilts:
On March 11, 1778, just sixteen days after [Baron Friedrich Wilhelm Ludolf Gerhard Augustin von] Steuben arrived at Valley Forge, drums and fifes assembled on the Grand Parade in the brisk morning air to conclude the punishment ordered by a general court-martial and approved by General Washington himself. On that morning Lieutenant Gotthold Frederick Enslin became the first known soldier to be dismissed from the U.S. military for homosexuality.
Enslin had arrived in the United States on September 30, 1774, aboard the ship Union, which had sailed from Rotterdam to Philadelphia. He was in his late twenties or early thirties. He arrived alone, according to the ship’s records, suggesting that he was single. Three years later he enlisted in the Continental Army; within a few months he was serving as an officer in Colonel William Malcom’s regiment.
Though little is known of Enslin’s earlier life, the exact penmanship he used on his company’s muster sheets and his command of the English language indicate that he was an educated man of some financial means. The Continental Army preferred its officers to be educated and able to provide their own supplies.
Under the bunking arrangements at Valley Forge, enlisted men lived in communal barracks while officers resided in small cabins with officers of similar rank. It was in Enslin’s cabin that Ensign Anthony Maxwell apparently discovered the lieutenant with Private John Monhart. Maxwell reported this to his commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel Aaron Burr. Enslin responded that Maxwell was lying in an attempt to impugn his character.
On February 27, 1778, the company commander being in New York, Burr presided first at a court-martial of Ensign Maxwell, charged with “propagating a scandalous report prejudicial to the character of Lt. Enslin”. In his orderly book, Burr later wrote, “The court after mature deliberation upon the evidence produced could not find that Ensign Maxwell had published any report prejudicial to the character of Lt. Enslin further than the strict line of his duty required and do therefore acquit him of the charge”.
Eleven days later, on March 10, Burr presided over Enslin’s court-martial, in which the lieutenant was found guilty of sodomy and perjury, the latter presumably stemming from his charges against Maxwell. According to General Washington’s general order of March 14, was “…to be dismiss’d with Infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of the Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return; the Drummers and Fifers to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that purpose”.
Drumming a soldier out of the Army was a dramatic event in those times. According to custom, an officer’s sword was broken in half over the head of the disgraced soldier, while drummers played a very slow tattoo. So did Lieutenant Enslin leave the Continental Army on that cold morning in March, trudging away alone on the deeply rutted and muddy road out of Valley Forge, not far from where Major General von Steuben was shouting orders in broken English.
Some observers have suggested that Enslin’s sentence is evidence that Washington held a lenient view of homosexuality, since such transgressions could have been punishable by imprisonment or even death in the conventions of the day. (Thomas Jefferson demonstrated his liberalism by proposing a year earlier that sodomy be punished by castration instead of death in the new penal code that would replace Virginia’s Colonial charter.) This, however, remains speculation.
So the infamous Aaron Burr presided over Lt. Enslin’s trial, eh? How ironic that Enslin would be “drummed out” when such widely-known homosexuals as Baron von Steuben proved himself as indispensable to the success of the American Revolution as the great General Washington himself. I suppose that lower-level officers were not considered to be as essential to the military to overlook their sexual preferences. It’s not clear though whether Enslin really was gay, or like some heterosexual males in prisons, merely engaged in homosexual behavior due to the lack of access to a female partner. Nothing is known about what happened to Enslin after he left the Continental Army in disgrace, Shilts speculates that he returned to his native Germany. As former enlisted myself, I notice that nothing is said about what happened to Pvt. Monhart. Was he kicked out? Imprisoned? Killed? There does not appear to be anything in the records about this. While some allowances for the times need to be made for Enslin’s perjury and perhaps the fraternization with Monhart, even so because of the latter especially Enslin does not make much of a symbol in my view for efforts to repeal DADT today. There are very good reasons why fraternization is punishable under the UCMJ and though I strongly favor repealing DADT (along with Article 125 which effects everybody), allowing fraternization regardless of sexual orientation would indeed negatively impact unit cohesion. Officers and enlisted have no business nor right to have intimate relationships with each other and when they are caught deserve the punishments they face. All in all though, Enslin’s story is interesting and I’m glad to have found out about this book. This looks like one I’m going to have to buy from Amazon and read fully.
— John (Average Gay Joe)
Indeed.
I should explain what I mean: I suspect perjury and fraternization were what really made Enslin’s behavior “infamous” or imperative to deal with. By many accounts, the 18th century was tolerant of discreet homosexuality.
von Steuben is an interesting example. Per Wiki, he was drummed out of Germany allegedly because he did it with underage boys. That would be not only fraternization, but pedophilia. (Or ephebophilia, as they were probably teenagers.) It was never proven… but… isn’t it odd that von Steuben came to the U.S., instead of defending his honor in (say) a duel? Now, once von Steuben is in the U.S., there are no reports of him doing it with underage boys. Perhaps he “learned his lesson”. Wiki talks about him having “intense emotional relationships” with two of his aides de camp. Aides de camp are officers and grownups, so, von Steuben then becomes an example of the 18th century tolerating gays who kept it semi-discreet, raised no question of perjury or fraternization or pedophilia, etc.
Perhaps, difficult to say though since there isn’t more on the matter. You raise an interesting point though, how old was Pvt. Monhart? We don’t know but it wouldn’t be unsual in those days if he were a teenager below the age of 18. That too could have led to Enslin being drummed out. All in all though, based just on the known facts, if this happened today I’d agree with his dismissal on the fraternization charge. Of course times are different today than back then so perhaps that’s easy for me to say, but I can say that if an officer today is caught in delicto flagrante with a enslited soldier like Enslin was, he should be punished.
Good point about the age of PVT Monhart. A lot of our opponents like to point out that homosexuality has “traditionally” been looked down on in the military. But they didn’t think twice about sending young teenagers into battle – and not just as drummer boys. Wonder what they would have to say if we proposed going back to that “tradition”?
It just seems to me that the perjury issue – and the potential age-of-consent or ‘exploitation’ issue, if there is any – compounds the fraternization.
I wonder what would have been different if, upon being caught, Enslin had admitted it and offered to resign for fraternizing – rather than trying to trash another man’s (Maxwell’s) reputation and life.
Pepe: Good point. Since we mostly have just speculation here, I am curious what a Navy Ensign was doing at Valley Forge and that he was the one who discovered Enslin and Monhart in flagrante delicto. A jealous lover perhaps? Eh, probably waaaaay to much speculation there I guess but what he was doing at Enslin’s cabin in the first place is a question.
ILC: Agreed, however an unofficial tolerance for homosexuals doesn’t mean that when it is officially known the same ‘rules’ apply. I doubt that Enslin would have been able to resign under those circumstances. It is interesting though that Burr & Washington showed some leniency given the punishments for sodomy at that time. That in itself may argue against Monhart being a young teenager as I surmise Burr & Washington might have come down harder if her were. Then again, perhaps one of the reasons we don’t hear about what happened to Monhart is that because of his possible young age he could be said to have been taken advantage of by an older man. Difficult to say and the dearth of further information is frustrating.
Personally, I think if he’d offered to resign, he’d have been transferred somewhere else. Officers were in short supply.
As for Baron Steuben, I’d read somewhere once that he was more ‘discreet’ he likely was, but then again I think he was too good.
And AGJ, you’re right, with fratrinzation rules in the UCMJ, DADT isn’t needed
I wouldn’t read anything into it. The U.S. barely had armed forces in that war. Times were always desperate. To the extent there was a Navy, it would have been co-ordinating with Washington on supplies, activity, etc. Or Washington might have had refugees (so to speak) from a recently defeated Navy ship. Etc.
ILC: Well the Continental Navy had some ships afloat harassing the Brits during the Valley Forge encampment from 1777-1778. I doubt that Maxwell came from a sunken vessel, but co-ordination with Washington sounds plausible.
Sorry I can’t go back quite far enough to give you an eye witness account of what happened at Valley Forge, but during WWII “discreet” was the word.
Fraterization among officers and inlisted men were forbidden in the States but Overseas we were buddies. Anything other than that though had to be “off base”. Actually, as far as I know, there were very little sexual activity among the men. Reasons were that we were kept very busy, there were no place to go “off base or out of camp”, and we were all buddies which means that
they were like brothers.
The military term “ensign” was traditionally used for junior infantry or cavalry officers. Now we would call them Second Lieutentants or in the Bristish cavalry units, Cornets. It derives from those who carried the ensign or unit banner. In the 18th century it was used especially for newly-commissioned youg officers without prior military-training or experience….but often with some social standing. If Ensign Maxwell was from a politically-connected family it would doubly be a serious matter, for to challenge a gentlemen-officer’s word begged both perjury and a dueling-offense…all taken very seriously.
One aspect of this viewed from an 18th-centuruy P.O.V. is that while “rank hath it’s privledges”, there’s the issue of military discipline. In the Royal Navy of this period one reason that officers where punished when caught with enlisted was that since since the refusing the advances of an officer was “mutiny”, a hanging offense, it was legally considered forcible-rape since the enlisted could not legally refuse ANY orders of an officer if iron-discipline was to be maintained.
If it had been Enslin’s personal valet or servant…military or civilian…which officers of that period had to maintain their gear, cook, etc. in the field; and he hadn’t challenged his fellow officer-and-gentleman’ word and reputation there probably wouldn’t have been any court-martial. Perhaps just a word-aside in-private to be more discrete.
Eighteenth-century martial concepts of “honor” and “discipline” were deadly affairs, where nowadays similar incidents would be “merely” contentious or litigatous.
That makes perfect sense. Fraternizing is/was treated as a crime because otherwise, an officer could exploit an enlisted guy up and down. And, barring clear ‘magnifying’ circumstances, the enlisted guy (Monhart) would be presumed innocent of whatever.
Bravo, Ted! I guess my time in the Navy colored how I read that. Wikipedia even confirms what you say here:
Good commentary about Monhart’s role as well.
Von Steuben’s arrival in the United States had more to do with his profession than his sexuality. The Prussian Army had gone through a reduction in size at the end of the 7 years war and the good baron was among those who lost their jobs. He came to America after the Revolution had begun, presumably because he knew he (like the Hessians who fought for the British) could find work. I think he’d likely have washed up on our shores regardless of any scandal he was fleeing at home.
I also wouldn’t read too much into Monhart’s age — in fact none of the sources I seem able to find list him as anything but “a soldier” and make no reference to his age. Do to the quite ad hoc nature of the Continental Army and the eighteenth century tendency to award rank based on social status rather than experience, he could easily have been any age at all.
Burr, incidentally, for all his infamy, was tremendously progressive on several fronts, especially women’s rights and treatment of the American Indians and, despite his tendency to follow prevailing winds on matters political, an early and ardent abolitionist. It would not surprise me at all that he might be rather unconcerned with homosexuality.