Sex and the Founding Fathers: The American Quest for a Relatable Past (Sexuality Studies) Read Online Free Page B

decidedly rare.10 In some colonies, one of
the only grounds for divorce, in addition to adultery and abandonment, was
sexual incapacity at the time of marriage. Some women in New England, for
example, divorced their husbands for being impotent or sterile. Divorce was
more difficult to obtain in Virginia, but as an elite woman, Martha certainly
would have had options for separation if she so desired and could demonstrate that her husband was dysfunctional. She would almost certainly have
been aware of the negative cultural view of men with sexual inability. The
language of the household medical literature of the period deems infertile
husbands as lesser men."
    In his lifetime, however, Washington played the role of consummate
general, head of household, and father to his wife's children and suffered
no scathing commentary about his manhood with regards to having no
children of his own.12 The issue was raised perhaps in closer circles, going
undocumented and now lost to us. The only surviving mention of the issue
comes from a letter written by Washington to his nephew Augustine. In the
letter, Washington reassures his nephew that he could develop lands that he
would eventually inherit from Washington, because Washington would not
be having any other heirs. "If Mrs. Washington should survive me," explains Washington, "there is a moral certainty of my dying without issue; & should
I be the longest liver, the matter in my opinion, is hardly less certain; for
while I retain the faculty of reasoning, I shall never marry a girl; & it is not
probable that I should have children by a woman of an age suitable to my
own, should I be disposed to enter into a second marriage."" As this chapter
shows, Washington's positioning himself as capable of having children has
been taken at face value by biographers concerned with developing an explanation for his having had no children. But we would do well to heed the
reminder of early American scholars, such as Karen Lystra, who notes that
understanding historical subjects "by reading their mail is neither as simple
nor as straightforward as it sounds."14

    Having no son meant that he had no heir to inherit his political dynasty.
Even at the time, commentators remarked that this helped the Republican
transfer of power and authority. As historian Gordon Wood points out, "So
prevalent was the thinking that Washington resembled an elected monarch
that some even expressed relief that he had no heirs."15 Such relief may not
have been unwarranted. John Adams's oldest son, John Quincy Adams,
became president. Fortunately, Washington, James Madison, James Monroe, and Jefferson did not have sons of their own, or, according to some, the
Virginia dynasty may well have threatened the democracy in its infancy."
    By having no children of his own, the version of Washington memorialized is free of paternal attachments. As people have long noted, this perception leaves him able to directly serve, without competition, as the father of
the nation, a view that would only strengthen through the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries. One early-twentieth-century biographer envisions that
having no children also allows Washington to be "father" of the development of the capital city. He declares, "Denied the satisfaction of children of
his body, Washington put into the Federal City, child of his brain and heart,
his hopes and ambitions for the future of his country.""
    Only recent biographers have become explicit about the issue of his
childlessness and evidently feel the need to explain the cause. But for generations, writers have been implicitly compensating for this chip in his otherwise flawless masculine facade by crafting a depiction of Washington that
demonstrates manliness in his personal life on par with his extraordinary
military and political achievements.
    Domestic Ideal
    Washington's absence of children positioned him dangerously close to unmanliness both in his own life