Gotthold Frederick Enslin: A Life Rebuilt

Lieutenant Gotthold Frederick Enslin served less than a year in the Continental army, and if his name is remembered, it is most often invoked for how that career ended. In what was certainly one of the more painful moments in his life, George Washington had him drummed out of the army for attempted sodomy, the only recorded case of its kind.[1] While this moment continues to recur in discussions about the role of LGBTQ+ people in the US military, it is too easy to reduce Enslin to merely this one incident in his life. While time has taken many of the finer details, Gotthold Frederick Enslin was an immigrant, a minister’s son, a soldier, a clerk, a husband, and occasionally a defendant or witness in court.

Enslin’s story begins with his parents. On June 14, 1744, a clergyman named Johann Freidrich Ensslin, wed Magdalena Elizabetha Venninger in Oberkochen, Duchy of Württemberg, Germany.[2] The groom was thirty-two and the bride twenty.[3] They had eleven children over the course of their marriage including Gotthold, born on August 10, 1755.[4]

In 1774, Gotthold joined 250 German passengers aboard the ship Union, bound for America. Captained by Andrew Bryson, the Union set out from Rotterdam, Holland and stopped at Cowes, England before arriving in Philadelphia at the end of September. The immigrants were described in the Pennsylvania Gazette as “very healthy, and mostly young people.” Upon arrival, boys and men aged sixteen and older were marched to the courthouse, where they were obliged to swear an oath of allegiance to Pennsylvania and the British Crown. Of the 133 men who took this oath on September 30, one was “Gotthold Freid. Enslin,” who would have just turned nineteen years old.[5]

Service

On March 4, 1777, at age twenty-two, “Frederick Gotthold Enslin” was commissioned a lieutenant in Capt. Samuel Kearsley’s independent company, organized from Philadelphia and the surrounding area.[6] His company was briefly annexed to the 6th Virginia Regiment, which saw action in the Battles of Brandywine and Germantown.[7] On October 13, 1778, Kearsley’s company was reassigned to Malcolm’s Continental Regiment. Malcolm’s Regiment had spent the summer and early autumn of 1777 guarding stations along the Hudson River, and they were reassigned to the main army on September 23.[8]

Advertisement

Two other consequential figures had also enlisted in the spring of 1777, Anthony Maxwell and John Manhart (Monhort), in Capt. John Santford’s company of Malcolm’s Regiment. Maxwell was originally from Kirkmahoe, Scotland, born December 12, 1754. The twenty-three-year-old joined Santford’s company on May 1, 1777, as a sergeant, and two months later was promoted to ensign.[9] Manhart was German and only sixteen when he enlisted. Unfortunately, his name has proven a bit too common to determine his birth date or when he came to America. What is certain is that he joined Santford’s company as a private soldier in either April or May 26, 1777 (different muster rolls give different dates) for a three-year term.[10]

As part of the main Continental army, the newly consolidated Malcolm’s regiment of Kearsley’s and Santford’s companies wintered at Valley Forge in 1777-1778, and from what unraveled next, it appears that Lt. Gotthold Frederick Enslin, Ens. Anthony Maxwell, and John Manhart were in close contact. Possibly their German connection drew Enslin and Manhart together; based on their names, there appear to have been only a few men with German heritage in the two companies: in Kearsley’s company of thirty-six men, there were only Lt. Enslin, fifer Phillip Reamer, and private soldiers Peter Reamer and Abraham Louk.[11] In Santford’s company of twenty-six men, there were only Manhart and fifer Jacob Ezeler.[12]

What is certain is that in February 1778, Maxwell was arrested and underwent a brigade court-martial for “propagating a scandalous report prejudicial to the character of Lt. Enslin”—specifically, that Enslin had committed sodomy with John Manhart. While no records of the proceedings survive, Maxwell was acquitted:

At a Brigade Court Martial whereof Coll Burr was President (Feby 27th 1778,) Ensign Maxwell of Coll Malcom’s Regiment tried for propagating a scandalous report prejudicial to the character of Lieutt Enslin—The Court after maturely deliberating upon the Evidence produced could not find that Ensign Maxwell had published any report prejudicial to the Character of Lieutt Enslin further than the strict line of his duty required and do therefore acquit him of the Charge.[13]

Advertisement

Shortly thereafter, Enslin was arrested and tried by a general court martial (a higher level than brigade) on March 10, 1778, charged with attempted sodomy and perjury. He was found guilty and sentenced to be cashiered:

At a General Court Martial whereof Coll Tupper was President (10th March 1778) Lieutt Enslin of Coll Malcom’s Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false Accounts, found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th Article 18th Section of the Articles of War and do sentence him to be dismiss’d the service with Infamy—His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with Abhorrence & Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieutt Enslin to be drummed out of 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.[14]

Ultimately, Enslin was cashiered and drummed out before the crowd, with his coat turned inside-out to further shame him. Three diarists described the scene:

James McMichael:

March 15. — I this morning proceeded to the grand parade, where I was a spectator to the drumming out of Lieut. Enslin of Col. Malcom’s regiment. He was first drum’d from right to left of the parade, thence to the left wing of the army; from that to the centre, and lastly transported over the Schuylkill with orders never to be seen in Camp in the future. This shocking scene was performed by all the drums and fifes in the army—the coat of the delinquent was turned wrong side out.[15]

Ebenezer Wild:

15 March. After roll call I went on the grand parade, where there was a very large concourse of people assembled. After the guards were paraded, Lieut. Enslin was brought on the parade under a strong guard and his crime was read, which was for attempting to commit sodomy and swearing to false returns. He was sentenced to be drummed out of camp, never to return any more. His coat was turned wrong side outwards, and then he was drummed off the parade and through the camps down to the side of the Skool Kill, where a guard took him and carried him over the bridge and dismissed him.[16]

Paul Brigham:

On 15th Sunday Lt. Inslee was Brake and Drum^d out of Camp by all the Drums and Fifes in the army Some thing curious.[17]

While it is sometimes reported that there is no record of Manhart being tried, a June 1778 muster roll mentions a court-martial.[18] He was probably tried by a regimental rather than a general court; as such, information about his trial would be recorded in regimental orderly books but not in general orders. To date, no record has been found of the trial, nor of Manhart receiving any punishment. Suggestions of him not receiving a court-martial likely stem from a mix-up due to the various spellings of Manhart.

Without any record of what was said at either man’s trial, it is impossible to know exactly what transpired between the two men. One historian asserts without evidence that this was a case of sexual assault.[19] But there is insufficient information to know whether the relationship was consensual or not, or what bearing that many have had on the sentences passed down by the courts. A close examination of the language is limited by a lack of comparisons, but the specific language used does not appear to indicate assault.[20]

Manhart appears to have fallen ill within weeks of Enslin’s trial. This is not surprising given the multitude of illnesses documented at Valley Forge, but it is possible that corporal punishment was the cause of his hospitalization. He was listed as “sick” in March 1778. In May, he was in the regimental hospital, along with five others in his regiment.[21] His court martial occurred in June, but that summer he was treated at Yellow Springs Hospital, and in November he was furloughed.[22]

Concerning Enslin’s punishment, there is a political factor to consider. Baron Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben arrived a mere sixteen days before Enslin’s cashiering. Steuben’s preference for men seems to have been something of an open secret, yet as is the nature of open secrets, there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence rather than any direct statement like “this person was gay.” Indeed, such labels are more apropos to our own time than eighteenth century understandings of sexuality. Still, the Baron served under Frederick the Great and Prince Henry of Prussia, both of whom were also rumored to be interested in men by their contemporaries.[23] Benjamin Franklin and Silas Deane, who recommended Steuben to George Washington, quite possibly knew some of these rumors concerning the Prussian court and perhaps even concerning Steuben himself, as he was facing rumors of sexual misconduct when he left for America. While there is no direct evidence Washington knew of any rumors, there also likely wouldn’t be such evidence. Still, it is fair to wonder if it is really a coincidence that at the exact time a rumored German homosexual joined the Continental army, a German lieutenant was drummed out of the army in a big show to demonstrate how much the commander detested sodomy.

While we’d like to believe every decision was made purely on principles and cases judged independently, the political practice of choosing a scapegoat and acting to send a message to the majority is hardly anathema to war politics. Unfortunately, while we can ask the question, it remains true that political reasonings are impossible to prove.

What Happened Next: Maxwell and Manhart

Shortly after his acquittal, Anthony Maxwell was promoted to 2nd lieutenant on February 28, 1778. He kept serving when Malcom’s Regiment was broken up into Spencer’s in 1779. That year he became a lieutenant and retired in 1781.[24] He married Eve Platter (b. 1771) on December 17, 1791, at Trinity Church in New York City and the couple appear to have had eleven children. Maxwell died on May 24, 1825, in Hudson, upper-state New York, at the age of seventy.[25]

John Manhart rejoined his regiment in December 1778. He was promoted to corporal on May 1, 1779, and served the remainder of his three years.[26] After the war, he wed Martha Lyons, the widow of another soldier, on October 17, 1781.[27] After her death, he wed a twenty-five-year-old named Rebecca around December 25, 1813. In total, he had twelve children that could be traced from family trees. Manhart died in Van Etten, upper-state New York, on June 10, 1835, aged seventy-four.[28]

While Manhart’s marriages might surprise modern people, there are significant challenges in applying modern understandings of sexuality to the eighteenth century. During this period, homosexuality was primarily viewed as an expression of excess vice, rather than as a part of identity, and that was only just beginning to shift.[29] Romantic relationships between people of the same gender were not generally acknowledged, and further limited depending on other cultural considerations, such as class. People coped in different ways: some men opted to remain bachelors and engaged in dalliances behind closed doors, some opted for conventional marriages and repressed their desires with varying degrees of success, and some adopted their lovers in order to legally provide for them after they died. Steuben, for example, may have done the latter.[30]

But what about Gotthold Frederick Enslin?

A Forbidden Marriage and the Mysterious Elizabeth Geyer

Post-cashiering, many assert that Enslin disappears from the record. For example, one historian concludes that as “His name does not appear on any of the young nation’s census rolls from 1790, 1800, or 1810 . . . he probably abandoned whatever dreams he might have had for a new life in America and returned to Germany.”[31]

He did not.

He reappears in Boston marriage records on August 19, 1781, when “Frederick Enstin” and “Elizabeth Geyer” announced their intent to marry, but this marriage was forbidden. Forbiddance usually occurred for reasons like an existing marriage, consanguinity, parental disapproval if the bride or groom was under the age of majority, and other objections.[32]

This forbiddance didn’t last forever. Three years later, on July 24, 1784, a marriage intent was published between “Gothold Frederick Enslin,” who was just shy of twenty-nine years old, and “Elizabeth Geyer.”[33]

Between 1752 and 1809 in Boston, of 171 forbidden marriages, only thirteen couples tried again, and eleven of those thirteen married within the same year. Enslin and Geyer were one of two only couples who waited longer.[34]

Elizabeth was born Elizabeth Cooler. She married John Peter Geyer (b. January 8, 1755), who appears to have gone by John, on July 3, 1774, and took to using the name Elizabeth Geyer.[35] Not much is known about her early life. The earliest potential record found was a 1772 entry in the King’s Chapel baptisms, where “Elizabeth Coler” and “Peter Geyer” sponsored the baptism of Henrich Christian Geyer’s son Peter; Henrich, or Henry Geyer, was John Geyer’s brother.[36]

After their marriage, Elizabeth and John Geyer sponsored several more baptisms over the years, until 1778.[37] In October 1779, a “Mrs. Geyer” alone sponsored the baptism of Henry Geyer’s son, and on August 11, 1782, “Elisa. Geyer” sponsored a baptism, again without her husband.[38] So what happened to John?

John was a mariner, and in April 1779, at the mere age of twenty-four, he recorded a will charging his “trusty friend” and uncle “Peter Geyer, a fisherman” with overseeing his estate and leaving everything to his “beloved wife Elizabeth Geyer” and “her heirs and assigns.”[39]

There is no obituary or record of John’s death, which could be explained if he was on a ship that did not return. If he disappeared around 1779 or 1780, Elizabeth might have been forbidden from marrying Enslin in 1781 but allowed in 1784 after John’s estate was settled.

A court record from December 1781 reveals there were significant tensions between Elizabeth’s new choice of husband and John’s uncle and executor, Peter Geyer. “Gotthold Frederick Enslin,” identified as a laborer, sued Peter, identified as a merchant. Peter seems to have indebted himself to Enslin for a sum of 400 pounds in coin for unspecified reasons, but he not only never repaid Enslin, he assaulted him. Although Peter claimed that Enslin had agreed to “amicably settle” via arbitration, the court sided with Enslin and his attorney, who declared Peter’s claims “insensible and void.” Peter was ordered him to pay back damages, including medical bills to Dr. Benjamin Curtis for “his attendance on said Enslin while Confined by the Blows given to him by said Geyer.”[40]

On December 10, 1782, John Geyer’s will was probated.[41] The estate was fully settled on July 17, 1784.[42] The second marriage announcement between Elizabeth and Enslin was just one week later. Whether Enslin was bisexual and he and Geyer had a conventional marriage, whether he was repressing his sexuality and trying to live by societal norms, or whether they had a lavender marriage cannot be known. There is one curious detail about this marriage, however: Elizabeth Geyer, identified as a widow, sold her land and house on Walker Street to Gotthold Frederick Enslin on August 26, 1784. The deed specifies that this land was bound northerly on the land of John Clough’s heirs and northwesterly on the land of Joseph Scott’s heirs, and southeasterly on the land of Joseph Clarke. It appears Elizabeth was illiterate, given that she left her mark on this deed rather than signing her name.[43] This transaction is unusual as Enslin should have automatically inherited Elizabeth’s property by marrying her per coverture laws.[44] Why he purchased it anyway is not clear.

Later Life

Boston birth records reveal no evidence of Enslin and Elizabeth having children, which is not entirely surprising given both what we know about Enslin, and the lack of evidence for children during Elizabeth’s first marriage.

In 1787, a fire swept the area of Boston that included Walker Street, destroying close to one hundred dwellings.[45] Though his exact name does not appear on a list of those displaced, there is a “Frederick Incley” mentioned in the Boston Gazette; this same individual has his name recorded as “Mr. Ensley” in the Massachusetts Centinel.[46] Paul Brigham’s diary entry about Enslin’s cashiering named him as “Inslee,” which reflects the German pronunciation of Enslin.[47]

In the 1789 Boston Directory, “Frederick Insley” is reported as living on Nassau Street, and in the Boston 1790 census, he is listed as living with one female.[48] A 1798 atlas shows that Walker Street turned into Nassau Street, so this may be the same or restored house he purchased in 1784.[49]

Over the next decade, Enslin definitively appears in several court records, sometimes as witness, sometimes as defendant. In October 1789, he was sued by his former employer, Capt. John Gray. The main deposition was from Hezekiah Bryant, who had lived with Gray at the time of Enslin’s employment in October and November 1788. According to Bryant, “I observed that in Gray’s absence, said Enslin was idle, and doing nothing, but as soon as he perceived said Gray was coming to the Store, he then would appear to be busey, in writing in the books.” Moreover, Bryant alleged that Enslin had taken at least thirty gallons of Gray’s personal rum and “not only drank the rum himself but treated other people with it,” and asked him to keep a lookout for Gray. Bryant also suggested that Enslin’s drinking was excessive, such as opening the cask up to twelve times per day, and it occasionally rendered him “incapable” of his duties.[50] Enslin was fined four pounds twenty-eight shillings four pence; his appeal fell through because he “did not recognize nor did he appear to recognize” that “forty eight hours had more than Lapsed,” which appears to have been the time allotted for an appeal.[51]

If Enslin was struggling with alcohol, it did not render him incapable of clerkship duties or assisting others. On December 29, 1789 trader Frederick Enslin and painter Joseph Sprague became bound with Martin Syder of Taunton and Nathaniel Glover of Boston for their “faithful discharge” of administrating the estate of the widowed Sarah Syder.[52]

In 1790, Enslin was again sued, this time by trader Francis Burns of Medford, for owing almost twelve pounds. Enslin did not appear in court and was thus ordered to pay Burns the owed amount plus fees.[53]

In 1791 and 1792, Enslin appeared as a witness in a dispute between William Dean and Joseph Kingsbury, both of Dedham. One of the many accusations in this lengthy and complex case involved Kingsbury neglecting to deliver an order of staves to one Ebenezer Dorr. Enslin wrote several pages of rather meticulous testimony that he had examined Kingsbury’s accounting books and could find no record of Dorr’s alleged purchase. The court eventually found in Kingsbury’s favor for the staves.[54]

The June 18, 1794 edition of the Columbian Centinel announced the death of Mrs. Anna Elizabeth Enslin, age thirty-eight: “after a lingering sickness of ten years, which she bore with the greatest fortitude, in pains, during that space—confidentally depending upon her Saviour, Jesus Christ—and well may we say, sweet and pleasant was this meditation of her soul!”[55]

Was this the same Elizabeth who wed Enslin? There were only two male Enslins in Boston at the time: Dr. John Christopher Frederick Enslin (1765-1822) and Gotthold Frederick Enslin.[56] Despite the similar names, they do not appear to have been closely related. Both were from Baden-Württemberg, but Dr. Enslin was born in Entringen, and Gotthold Enslin’s family was from Oberkochen. By modern-day roads, that’s about 126 km (78 miles) apart, and no clear relation between the two is known.

All that said, thirty-eight-year-old Anna Elizabeth is unlikely to have been Dr. Enslin’s wife or mother, as he was only twenty-eight in 1794.[57] It is certainly possible that Elizabeth Cooler was born Anna Elizabeth but went by Elizabeth—much like her first husband went by John and his uncle went by Peter, when both were named John Peter. Also, John Geyer and Gotthold Frederick Enslin were the same age, and it thus seems reasonable to suggest Elizabeth may also have been about thirty-eight in 1794.

Presuming this is the correct Elizabeth Enslin, a decade-long illness spanning her entire second marriage might further explain a lack of children. It also sheds some light, especially when coupled with being burnt out of their home, on why her husband seems to have struggled with debt.

That same year, Dr. Enslin sued Gotthold Enslin, alleging that Gotthold owed him over £140, perhaps for the care of his wife, and had promised to pay his sum on demand. Gotthold and his lawyer, Harrison Gray Otis Esq., argued that Gotthold had made no promises to the doctor. The court agreed; Dr. Enslin was ordered to pay Gotthold the cost of the suit.[58]

Two years after the death of Anna Elizabeth Enslin, the 1796 Boston Directory lists Dr. Enslin on Battery-march St, and a second Enslin without a first name still living on Nassau St. and thus matching the 1789 record for Frederick Insley.[59] The 1798 Boston Directory is more specific: the second Enslin in Boston is “Gotthold F. Enslin,” on Newbury Street.[60]

This apparent change in address may stem from his employment: per the Boston tax records, “Frederick G. Ensley” worked as a clerk in Joel Hagar’s small grocery shop at No. 28 Newbury Street.[61] The tax records classify him as living on Sheafe Street, though this is actually where Joel Hagar lived, and this same information is repeated in the 1799 taking book.[62]

In July 1798, the Supreme Judicial Court served Gotthold a writ of scire facias, but he failed to appear in court to explain why the Commonwealth should not proceed with their unspecified case against him. In February 1800 he was thus ordered to pay the Commonwealth of Massachusetts $200, taxed at an unspecified amount.[63] Unfortunately, it does not appear he was able to pay that debt.

On September 23, 1800, the Suffolk County Probate and Family Court Department began an inventory of the estate of the late Gotthold Frederick Enslin, a bookkeeper in Boston. He left behind an old bed, a desk, and four volumes of books, along with his house and land on Nassau Street.[64] His wife is not mentioned in this record, further suggesting that she predeceased him. Piecing together court records, it appears Enslin died between July and September 1800, either just before or just after turning forty-five years old.

As for his house, it has an interesting fate that entwines, once again, with Dr. Enslin. The probate records reveal that Dr. Enslin claimed to be administrator of Gotthold’s estate, and by 1801, tax records report Dr. Enslin as living at a “good home” on Nassau Street,[65] a step up from the “½ small H” he dwelt in during 1799.[66]

On April 15 through June 3, 1801, an advertisement appeared in the Columbian Centinel listing estates to be publicly sold to satisfy taxes due. Among those listed is the unoccupied dwelling house owned by Frederick Insley, again on Nassau Street, valued at $1,980 and exactly matching Gotthold’s probate records.[67] On December 10, 1801, the Boston Gazette advertised the auctioning of this same house, occupied by Dr. Enslin, “bounded southerly on Nassau-Street, westerly on land of the Heirs of John Clough, northerly on land late of Joseph Scott, easterly on land of Joseph Clark.” Again, the description matches the property originally purchased by Gotthold from his wife.[68]

Apparently, what transpired was this: in 1800, Gotthold was sued one final time, by Dr. Jonathan Davies of Roxbury. After Gotthold’s death, Dr. Enslin stepped in to defend the suit, but by the time the case moved forward, Dr. Davies had also died. Davies’ widow and executor carried on their lawsuit, and when Dr. Enslin failed to appear in court, Gotthold’s house was forfeited and purchased by Josiah Wheeler on January 1, 1802.[69]

Gotthold Frederick Enslin’s life did not end that painful day when he was drummed out of the army for his relationship with another man. Instead, he went on to live in Boston, the city where the Revolution started. Despite evident struggles with money and potentially with alcohol, he rebuilt his life and quite literally his home after a devastating fire. Regardless of the nature of their marriage, given his three-year wait and the touching obituary written for Elizabeth, he also seems to have had a marriage based on some sort of lasting affection. In addition, there is certainly an irony to Gotthold Frederick Enslin residing and eventually marrying in the capital city of the state that would become the first in the United States to approve same-sex marriage, almost exactly 230 years after he first arrived in the country.

[1] James C. Neagles, Summer Soldiers: A Survey & Index of Revolutionary War Courts-Martial, (Salt Lake City: Ancestry Incorporated, 1986). There are only two recorded sentences for attempted sodomy in the Continental army. In the second, private soldier John Anderson was sentenced to run the gauntlet in 1782, but not dismissed from the army.

[2] Württemberg Lutheran Baptisms, Marriages, and Burials (Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2016), 2:132.

[3] Ibid. 3:112.

[4] Ibid. 3:105. Volume 51 of The American Genealogical-Biographical Index to American Genealogical, Biographical and Local History Materials, ed. Fremont Rider, lists Enslin as being born in “174?,” explaining journalist Randy Shilts’ assertion that Enslin was in his “late twenties or early thirties.” However, the editor of the AGBI would not have had access to the German birth records which state his date of birth as August 10, 1755. Shilts accepts that the court-martialed Enslin was the same Enslin who sailed to Pennsylvania aboard the Union, and there are no records of anyone else by the name of Gotthold Frederick Enslin in Germany dating back to 1730. Hence, it is reasonable to conclude the AGBI’s speculative “174?” birthdate for Gotthold Frederick Enslin is incorrect, and his birth year was actually 1755. Randy Shilts, Conduct Unbecoming: Gays and Lesbians in the U.S. Military (1st Ballantine books ed. Macmillan, 1994), 11.

[5] Names of Foreigners Who Took the Oath of Allegiance to the Province and State of Pennsylvania, 1775-1797, With the Foreign Arrivals 1785-1808. Ed. William Henry Engle, M.D. (Harrisburg: Edwin K. Meyer, State Printer, 1892), 516.

[6] George Washington to John Hancock, April 10, 1777, Philander D. Chase, ed. The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, 28 March 1777–10 June 1777, vol. 9 (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1999), 112–15.

[7] Muster Rolls, July 1777, Samuel Kearsley’s Company, US, Revolutionary War Rolls, 1775-1783; Robert K. Wright Jr., The Continental Army. Center of Military History, United States Army (Washington D.C., 1983), 287.

[8] Ibid., 323.

[9] Find a Grave Index. FamilySearch. S.v. Anthony Maxwell; Francis B. Heitman, Historical Register of Officers of the Continental Army during the War of the Revolution, April 1775, to December, 1783 (Rare Book Shop Publishing Company, 1914), 385.

[10] Jenn Winslow Coltrane, comp., Lineage book – The National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution, vol. 60 (Press of Judd & Detweiler, Inc. 1906), 141; Muster Rolls, September 1777, December 1778, John Santford’s Company, US, Revolutionary War Rolls, 1775-1783.

[11] Muster Rolls, July 1777, Samuel Kearsley’s Company, US, Revolutionary War Rolls, 1775-1783, 15; 18. It appears that Peter Reamer was hospitalized in Lancaster sometime between September and November 1777, and kept there until at least March 1779, so was not present at Valley Forge.

[12] Muster Rolls, September 1777, December 1778, John Santford’s Company, US, Revolutionary War Rolls, 1775-1783, 17; 14.

[13] General orders, March 3, 1778, The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, v14, 1 March 1778 – 30 April 1778, ed. David R. Hoth (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2004), 45–46.]

[14] General orders, 14 March 1778, ibid., 171–173.

[15] William P. McMichael, “Diary of Lieutenant James McMichael, of the Pennsylvania Line, 1776-1778,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 16 no. 2 (1892): 129–59.

[16] Ebenezer Wild, “The Journal of Ebenezer Wild (1776-1781), Who Served as Corporal, Sergeant, Ensign, and Lieutenant in the American Army of the Revolution,” Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society 6 (91 1890): 78–160.

[17] Edward A. Hoyt, “A Revolutionary Diary of Captain Paul Brigham, November 19, 1777–September 4, 1778,” Vermont History 34 (1966): 31–32.

[18] Muster Rolls, September 1777, December 1778, John Santford’s Company, US, Revolutionary War Rolls, 1775-1783.

[19] William Benneman, Male-Male Intimacy in Early America: Beyond Romantic Friendships (Routledge Press, 2006), 73. Benneman’s precise wording is that “Both the Enslin and the Anderson cases appear to be cases of sexual assault” after quoting the court-martial records. There is no specific reason or evidence cited for this conclusion, and the records of both cases lack the typical language used in such cases. Benneman also writes of Enslin’s case that “No record survives of whether the sentence was executed or what happened to the dismissed lieutenant” (72). While records of what happened to Enslin are indeed challenging to find, records of the sentence being carried out have been fairly well-publicized for centuries.

[20] The other American court-martial for sodomy during the revolution, for John Anderson in 1782, does not name the partner. The language used in the sentence here is “with John Monhort a soldier.” The use of the word “with” appears to be uncommon for the time. Newspaper reports for sodomy cases in eighteenth-century England from 1758 to 1790 found that typically sodomy was reported as committed “upon” or “on the body of” another, who may or may not have been willing. Only four cases used the term “with,” and they were all either consensual or libelous attempts to claim a consensual encounter:

• “WHEREAS we ELIZABETH BRIANT, of the Parish of Chalfont, St. Giles’s, in the County of Bucks, and ANN MILES, of the same Place, having published some false, feigned, scandalous, and defamatory Words, respecting the Characters of WILLIAM MANDERSON and CHRISTOPHER MANDERSON, both of Amersham, in the said County of Bucks, Drapers, by saying that they had committed an unnatural Crime with each other.” Oxford Journal, April 29, 1780.
• Tuesday one Hippesley was apprehended… for… extorting money from a gentleman at Shepton, under the abominable charge that the gentleman offered to commit acts of Sodomy with them.” Bath Chronicle and Weekly Gazette, September 20, 1781.
• “At our Assizes and general Gaol Delivery, the five following Persons received Sentence of Death: — Benjamin Loveday and John Burke, for the Detestable Crime of Sodomy with each other.” Oxford Journal, October 6, 1781.
• “Action was brought against the defendant for inserting in his paper a letter signed ‘Joseph Pullen,’ accusing the plaintiff of unnatural practices with his servant.” Bath Chronicle and Weekly Gazette, February 22, 1787.

[21] Muster Rolls, September 1777, December 1778, John Santford’s Company, US, Revolutionary War Rolls, 1775-1783, 23; 29.

[22] National Archives and Records Administration. “Manhart, John – State: Continental Troops, Regiment: Spencer’s Regiment.” NAID 31078440. Washington, DC; Muster Rolls, September 1777, December 1778, John Santford’s Company, US, Revolutionary War Rolls, 1775-1783, 43.

[23] Voltaire, Histoire du docteur Akakia; Supplément au Siècle de Louis XIV, Jonathan Mallinson and Claude Lauriol, ed. (Voltaire Foundation, 2012).

[24] Heitman, Historical Register, 385.

[25] New York, Churchtown, Churchtown I:82:23; New York, Church Records, 1660-1954, FamilySearch. S.v. Anthony Maxwell and Eve Platner, December 17, 1791; Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty Land Warrant Application File W. 21762, for Anthony Maxwell, New York, NAID: 144163442. Washington, DC.

[26] Muster Rolls, September 1777, December 1778, John Santford’s Company, US, Revolutionary War Rolls, 1775-1783, 45; Capt. John Santford’s company in the regiment commanded by Colonel Oliver Spencer’s, May and June 1779, 6. Washington, DC.

[27] Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty Land Warrant Application File W. 25,672, for John Manhart, New York, 1818, 67; New York, Goshen, First Presbyterian Church, Baptisms, Births, Marriages, Deaths 1773-1851, 23.

[28] Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty Land Warrant Application File W. 25,672, for John Manhart, New York, 1818, 15.

[29] Jonathan Ned Katz, The Invention of Heterosexuality (New York: Dutton, 1995).

[30] Frederick William Baron de Steuben, Last Will and Testament (New York, February 12, 1794), as cited in Morgan H. Pritchett and Edith von Zemenszky, “The Three Wills of Baron von Steuben,” Report 35, 19–26, 23

[31] Shilts, Conduct Unbecoming, 17.

[32] Boston Marriage Publications, 1759-1782, 5:457.

[33] Boston Marriage Publications, 1782-1798, 6:52.

[34] A Volume of Records Relating to the Early History of Boston, Containing Boston Marriages, from 1752 to 1809 (1903). I assume Mary and Polly Hall are the same person in my tally.

[35] The New England Historical & Genealogical Register, 1847-2011 138: 229; Boston Marriage Publications, 1759–1782, 5:324.

[36] Register of Baptisms 1703-1777, Vol. 91: The Colonial Records of Kings Chapel 1686-1776, 2:644.

[37] Trinity Church Records—Baptisms 1738–1830, 56: 571; 579.

[38] Ibid. 586; 600.

[39] John Geyer, April 2, 1779, Massachusetts, U.S., Wills and Probate Records, 1635-1991, Probate Records, Vol 80-81, 1780-1782, 706-707.

[40] Suffolk Court Records, County Court of Common Pleas, 1781, 1782–1783, images 164-167.

[41] Inhabitants and Estates of the Town of Boston, 1630–1800, and The Crooked and Narrow Streets of Boston, 1630–1822. Thwing Collection. Boston: New England Historic Genealogical Society, 2001.

[42] Boston Gazette, 1783; Suffolk, Massachusetts, United States records, image 352.

[43] Inhabitants and Estates of the Town of Boston, 1630–1800, 2001; Massachusetts Land Records, 1620-1986, Suffolk County Deeds 1784-1785, 144-146:178, 167.

[44] William Blackstone, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book the First: Chapter the Fifteenth: Of Husband and Wife, 430.

[45] Samuel C. Clough, Clough’s 60-Page 1798 Boston Atlas, Atlas of Boston Neighborhoods Based on the Direct Tax Census of 1798 (Massachusetts Historical Society 1798; Belknap, Jeremy. MHS Collections Online: Manuscript Map of the 1787 Fire of Boston, Massachusetts. Massachusetts Historical Society, April 23, 1787. 23.6 cm x 18.5 cm.

[46] Boston Gazette, April 23, 1787; Massachusetts Centinel, April 21, 1787, 3.

[47] The German pronunciation in International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) would be ɛnslˈiːn.

[48] Boston Directory 1789, 26; Population schedules of the first census of the United States, 1790: Massachusetts. Vol 1, image 70.

[49] Clough, Clough’s 60-Page 1798 Boston Atlas, 1798.

[50] Suffolk, Massachusetts, United States Records, images 600-602.

[51] Ibid, 640.

[52] Ibid., 378 and 2000. Martin and Sarah were the younger brother and mother, respectively, of Christopher Seider, killed several days before the Boston Massacre. Glover was Sarah’s son-in-law. Register of Baptisms 1703-1777, Vol. 91: The Colonial Records of Kings Chapel 1686-1776, 2:592, 602; Nathaniel Glover wed Sarah’s daughter Mary “Siders” on August 4, 1780. A Volume of Records Relating to the Early History of Boston, Containing Boston Marriages From 1752 to 1809 (Boston: Municipal Printing Office, 1903), 81.

[53] Suffolk, Massachusetts, United States records, image 705.

[54] Ibid., 519-559.

[55] Massachusetts Magazine, June 1794; Columbian Centinel, October 17, 1794.

[56] Württemberg, Germany, Lutheran Baptisms, Marriages, and Burials, 3:678; Columbian Centinel, April 10, 1822; Boston Marriage Publications, 1782-1798, 6:328; Boston Directory 1796, 41.

[57] Dr. Enslin married Sally McCarney in 1795. Boston Courier, August 26, 1795.

[58] Suffolk, Massachusetts, United States records, image 256.

[59] Boston Directory, 1796, 41.

[60] Boston Directory, 1798, 46. Although Dr. Frederick Enslin is listed as living on Blind Lane, it appears he and one James Ray illegitimately took part of this land from the widowed Deborah Ray, which was rectified by the court in April 1799 (Suffolk Deeds, 187:70, image 692).

[61] Assessing Dept, City of Boston tax records 1797-98, 819.

[62] Boston Directory, 1798, 57; Assessing Dept, City of Boston tax records 1799, 519, 537.

[63] Suffolk Court Records 1800–1804, Commonwealth vs. Enslin, image 20 and 27.

[64] Suffolk, Massachusetts, United States records, images 22-26.

[65] Ibid., 1801-1802, 295.

[66] Assessing Dept, City of Boston tax records 1799, 483. Ibid., 1800-1801, 543.

[67] Columbian Centinel, “Direct Tax,” April 15, 1801; Ibid., “Direct Tax,” June 3, 1801.

[68] Boston Gazette, “Taken by Execution,” December 10, 1801, 3.

[69] Suffolk, Massachusetts, United States records, images 519 and 920.