Sociology of Sexualities 1st Edition,

(Ebook PDF)
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/sociology-of-sexualities-1st-edition-ebook-pdf/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Sociology of Sexualities – Ebook PDF Version

https://ebookmass.com/product/sociology-of-sexualities-ebook-pdf-
version/

Sociology in Action 1st Edition, (Ebook PDF)

https://ebookmass.com/product/sociology-in-action-1st-edition-
ebook-pdf/

Sociology of Deviant Behavior 15th Edition, (Ebook PDF)

https://ebookmass.com/product/sociology-of-deviant-behavior-15th-
edition-ebook-pdf/

Introducing Sociology Using the Stuff of Everyday Life

1st Edition, (Ebook PDF)

https://ebookmass.com/product/introducing-sociology-using-the-
stuff-of-everyday-life-1st-edition-ebook-pdf/
Handbook of the Sociology of Mental Health (Handbooks
of Sociology and Social Research) 2nd Edition – Ebook
PDF Version

https://ebookmass.com/product/handbook-of-the-sociology-of-
mental-health-handbooks-of-sociology-and-social-research-2nd-
edition-ebook-pdf-version/

(eBook PDF) Sociology Unlocked, Canadian Edition

https://ebookmass.com/product/ebook-pdf-sociology-unlocked-
canadian-edition/

(eBook PDF) Essentials of Sociology 3rd Edition by

George Ritzer

https://ebookmass.com/product/ebook-pdf-essentials-of-
sociology-3rd-edition-by-george-ritzer/

Sociology of Exorcism in Late Modernity 1st Edition

Giuseppe Giordan

https://ebookmass.com/product/sociology-of-exorcism-in-late-
modernity-1st-edition-giuseppe-giordan/

Sociology in a Changing World 9th Edition, (Ebook PDF)

https://ebookmass.com/product/sociology-in-a-changing-world-9th-
edition-ebook-pdf/
Brief Contents
1. Acknowledgments
2. Preface
1. Chapter 1 The Social Construction of Sexuality
2. Chapter 2 The Science of Sexuality
3. Chapter 3 Gender and Sexuality
4. Chapter 4 Sexuality, Inequality, and Privilege
5. Chapter 5 LGBTQ Mobilization and Activism
6. Chapter 6 Media, Sport, and Sexuality
7. Chapter 7 Sexuality, Schools, and the Workplace
8. Chapter 8 Religion, Family, and Sexuality
9. Chapter 9 Sexuality and Reproduction
10. Chapter 10 Sexual Health
11. Chapter 11 Commodification of Sex
12. Chapter 12 Sexual Violence
3. References
4. Index
5. About the Authors
Detailed Contents
Acknowledgments
Preface
Chapter 1 The Social Construction of Sexuality
The Sociology of Sexualities
Terminology
Evidence of the Social Construction of Sexuality
Nature versus Nurture
Sexual Binaries
The Invention of Heterosexuality and Homosexuality
Heteronormativity
Compulsory Heterosexuality
The Invention of Homosexuality
The Gendered Construction of Sexuality
Sexual Socialization
Sexual Revolutions
Box 1.1: Global/Transnational Perspectives on Sexuality: The
Sexual Revolution in Russia
Sexual Relationships: Beyond Monogamy
Sexual Invisibility
Sexual Pleasure
Sexuality Across the Life Course
Childhood Sexuality
Adolescent Sexuality
LGBTQ Adolescent Sexuality
Not My Child: Parental Views on Adolescent
Sexuality
Sexuality and the Aged
Sexualizing Racial/Ethnic Minorities
Sexual Minorities Beyond LGBTQ
Conclusion
Chapter 2 The Science of Sexuality
Understanding Sexuality Through Science
The Early Years: Sex, Morality, and Medicine
Science of Sex: Sexology
 Psychoanalytical Theory: Sigmund Freud
Box 2.1: Global/Transnational Perspectives on Sexuality:
Sexology in Imperial Japan
Evolutionary Theory: Charles Darwin
The Kinsey Reports: Alfred Kinsey
Sexual Physiology Research: Masters and Johnson
Sociology and Social Constructionism
Sex in America Survey
Feminist Contributions to Sexuality Studies
Intersectionality
Post-Structuralism: Michel Foucault
Queer Theory
The Science of Homosexuality
Homosexuality as Mental Illness
Sociology of Homosexuality
Sexuality Studies in Academia
Researching Sex: Ethical and Methodological Concerns
Ethical Issues in Sex Research
Methodological Issues in Sex Research
Stigma and Sexuality Research
Conclusion
Chapter 3 Gender and Sexuality
Social Construction of Gender: Femininity and Masculinity
Challenging the Gender Binary: Gender in Non-Western
Cultures
Gender Identity
Box 3.1: Global/Transnational Perspectives on Sexuality: The
Guevedoces in the Dominican Republic
Doing Gender
Gender Roles
Gender, Inequality, and Stereotypes
Gender and Social Institutions
Intersection of Gender and Sexuality
Masculinity and Sexuality
Masculinity and Race/Ethnicity
Femininity and Sexuality
Femininity and Feminism
 Femininity and Race/Ethnicity
Transgender
Cross-Dressers, Drag Kings, and Queens
Intersex
Conclusion
Chapter 4 Sexuality, Inequality, and Privilege
The Sociology of Inequality
Legal Discrimination
Marriage Equality
LGBTQ Adoption
Sexuality-Related Discrimination in the Military
Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault in the
Military
Workplace Discrimination
Pregnancy Discrimination
Housing Discrimination
Sexuality and Social Control
Criminalization of Sexual Behaviors
Medicalization of Sexual Behaviors
Box 4.1: Global/Transnational Perspectives on Sexuality:
Paragraph 175 and the Criminalization of Homosexuality
During the Nazi Regime
Homophobia and Hate Crimes
Transgender Discrimination and Inequality
Heterosexual and Cisgender Privilege
Conclusion
Chapter 5 LGBTQ Mobilization and Activism
The Sociology of Social Movements
Social and Cultural Contexts
The Influence of World War II on Gay Rights
Urbanization and the Emergence of Gay Enclaves
The Emergence of a Gay Press
The Role of the Kinsey Studies
The Influence of Right-Wing Opposition
Movements
Identity-based Social Movements
Before Stonewall: The Homophile Movement
 Box 5.1: Global/Transnational Perspectives on Sexuality: Gay
Rights in Russia
After Stonewall: The Modern Gay Rights Movement
Emergence of Lesbian Feminism
AIDS Activism
Queer Nation
Undocumented Queer Youth Activism
The Road to Marriage Equality
Transgender Activism and Rights
Bisexual Activism
Conclusion
Chapter 6 Media, Sport, and Sexuality
Media and Sexuality
Sexualized Language in Media
Sexualized Imagery in Media
Hypersexualization: Magazines and Music Videos
Sexual Objectification: Advertising
Intersectionality: Race, Class, and Ethnic Imagery
Children, Sexualization, and the Media
LGBTQ Representations in Television and Film
From Invisibility to Stereotypical Images: Lesbians and
Gays on Television
Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Images in Hollywood
Cinema
Transgender Images and Issues in Media
Sexuality and Sport
Sport Media
Masculinity and Sport
Sports, Masculinity, and Sexual Assault
Sexuality, Femininity, and Sport
Title IX
Coming Out of the Athletic Closet
Gay Games
Creating Space for Intersex and Transgender Athletes
Trans Inclusion in the Gay Games
Box 6.1: Global/Transnational Perspectives on Sexuality:
South African Sprinter Caster Semenya and Sex Testing in
 International Sports
Conclusion
Chapter 7 Sexuality, Schools, and the Workplace
Schools, Sexuality, and Social Control
Coming Out in School
LGBTQ Students’ Experiences of Harassment in Schools
Impact of Harassment
Transgender Students’ Experiences of Harassment in
Schools
Creating Safe Schools
Gay-Friendly Schools
Queering the Curriculum
Gay Student Organizations
Policies and Programs
Challenging Institutionalized Heterosexuality
College and University Campuses
Inclusion of Transgender Students at Women’s
Colleges
History and Experiences of LGBTQ Teachers
College Campuses: From “In Loco Parentis” to the
“Hook-Up” Culture
Sex Education
Box 7.1 Global/Transnational Perspectives on Sexuality:
American Sex Education Goes Global
Sexuality and the Workplace
Heterosexual Relationships in the Workplace
Sexual Harassment
LGBTQ Employment Experiences
Homophobia in the Workplace
Coming Out at Work
Challenges of a Gay-Friendly Workplace
Conclusion
Chapter 8 Religion, Family, and Sexuality
Religion and Sexuality
Christianity
Christianity, Sex, and Gender
Christian Views on Homosexuality
 Impact of Religious Condemnation on LGBTQ
People
LGBTQ Christians
Same-Sex Marriage and the Church
Transgender and Christianity
Judaism
Judaism, Sex, and Gender
Jewish Views on Homosexuality and Bisexuality
Transgender and Judaism
Islam
Islam, Sex, and Gender
Islam and Homosexuality
Transgender and Islam
LGBTQ Families
The Changing Family
Defining Gay Families
Exiles from Kinship
Marriage Equality
LGBTQ Parenting
Box 8.1: Global/Transnational Perspectives on Sexuality:
Marriage Equality Across the Globe
Intimate Partner Violence
Conclusion
Chapter 9 Sexuality and Reproduction
Compulsory Reproduction
The Body as a Social Construction
Menstruation as Biological Reality
Menstruation as Social Construction
Pregnancy and Childbirth
Access to Maternity Care
Commodification of Birth
Technocratic Model of Birth
Box 9.1: Global/Transnational Perspectives on Sexuality:
Giving Birth in Afghanistan
Breastfeeding
Breastfeeding as Taboo
Costs of Breastfeeding
 Transgender and Gender-Nonconforming Pregnancy
Teen Pregnancy and Birth
Birth Control
History of Birth Control
Gendered Contraception
Forced Sterilization and Eugenics
Sexual and Reproductive Rights and Choice
Women of Color and Reproductive Justice
Disability Rights and Reproductive Rights
Institutional Sexism, Racism, and Reproductive Rights
Politics
Religion
Corporations
Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ARTs)
ARTs, Infertility, and Gender
ARTs and Income Disparities
ARTs and Older Mothers
Conclusion
Chapter 10 Sexual Health
Understanding Sexual Health
Male Sexual Dysfunction
Female Sexual Dysfunction
Sexuality and Disability
Sexuality and People With Physical Disabilities
Sexuality and People With Intellectual Disabilities
Disability and Sex Work
Sex Assistants and Sex Surrogates
Disability Pornography
Disability, Sexuality, and Homophobia
Sexually Transmitted Infections
Common STIs
STIs and Stigma
HIV/AIDS
The Origins of an Epidemic
Moral Panics Surrounding HIV/AIDS
HIV/AIDS Today
Global Pandemic
 Box 10.1: Global/Transnational Perspectives on Sexuality:
The Consequences of HIV/AIDS on Africa
Current Social Consequences of the HIV/AIDS Crisis
Conclusion
Chapter 11 Commodification of Sex
Pornography
Technology and Rise of Amateur Porn
Legalities and Debates
Violence and Pornography
Gender, Race, Class, and Sexuality
Impact of Pornography on Young People
Child Pornography
Youth Sexting
Prostitution
Johns and Pimps
Male and Transgender Prostitutes
Debates Over Legalities
Globalization and Sexuality
Sex Trafficking
Box 11.1: Global/Transnational Perspectives on Sexuality:
Natural Disaster and Child Sex Trafficking in Nepal
Feminist Response
Mail-Order or Internet Brides
Sex Tourism
Female Sex Tourism: “The Caribbean Beach Boys”
Gender, Race, and Ethnicity in Sex Tourism
Sexuality and Militarism
Conclusion
Chapter 12 Sexual Violence
Understanding Sexual Violence
Rape
Consent
Rape Survivors, Double Victimization, and
Victimization Language
Campus Rape
Sexual Violence in Conflict: Wartime Rape
Box 12.1: Global/Transnational Perspectives on Sexuality:
 Sexual Violence and Femicide in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico
Feminist Perspectives on Rape
Child Sexual Abuse
Is Pedophilia a Sexual Orientation?
Child Sexual Abuse Crisis in the Catholic Church
Racialized Homophobic and Transphobic Violence
Sexual Assault of LGBTQ People
Criminalization of LGBTQ People
Carceral Sexuality
LGBTQ Prisoners
Prison Rape
Rape, Homophobia, and Correctional Staff
Consensual Sexual Relations
Sexuality and Male Prisoners
Sexuality and Female Prisoners
Conclusion
References
Index
About the Authors
Acknowledgments
It is impossible to acknowledge all the people who have influenced my
understanding of the sociology of sexualities, and inequalities more broadly,
over the years; but they are reflected in these pages. During my years at
Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville when I was working on my
master’s degree, I was exposed to a committed group of sociologists who
were just as interested in teaching as they were in research. Many of them
wrote textbooks that were innovative and market leaders at the time, which
likely subtly influenced me to try my hand at textbook writing. I am still
grateful for the influence of my former graduate professors at the University
of Missouri, particularly Mary Jo Neitz, Peter Hall, Ibitola Pearce, Ted
Vaughan, and the late Barbara Bank, for their profound influence on my
intellectual development. I am thankful for the thoughtful conversations with
my graduate colleagues then, and over the years, especially Diane Rodgers,
Yngve Digernes, Karen Bradley, and Latanya Skiffer. My late friend and
former colleague Pamela McClure still speaks to me in my head about these
issues. And thank you to my wonderful new colleagues at Tulane University
not just for the intellectual stimulation but for making me feel welcome.

Textbooks are written for a particular audience, of course: students. And so, I
would like to dedicate this textbook to the many hundreds of students I have
had the pleasure of teaching over the years. It is an undeniable privilege to
teach college students, and I know I have been very lucky in my career in that
I have encountered so many amazing people.

To the sociologists working in the field of sexuality studies: thank you. It has
been a pleasure diving deeply into this scholarship—so many smart people
are doing such great work! We wanted this textbook to reflect the best of the
field. We hope we succeeded at doing that. Thanks to Jeff Lasser and the
folks at SAGE for their enthusiasm and assistance with this project.

And a giant thank-you to Kandice Grossman for enthusiastically jumping on

board when I casually mentioned the idea of coauthoring a sociology of
sexualities textbook with her. It has been an incredible pleasure to work with
her on this project. I knew I could count on her! Finally, my ultimate love and
thanks go to my partner, husband, friend, and fellow sociologist, Tony Ladd.
His constant love and support has been invaluable. His brilliant mind keeps
me sharp, and his big heart make me a better person every day. During the
writing of this book, he offered the perfect balance of support and space that
was needed. So, this book is dedicated to him.

Kathleen J. Fitzgerald

July 2016

I would like to express heartfelt gratitude to my daughters, Isadora and

Madelynn Grossman, for their patience and support throughout this project.
They are the light of my life. I would like to thank my two greatest academic
influences: Dr. Kathleen Fitzgerald and Dr. Anthony Alioto. For over twenty
years, they have both consistently believed in me. It was their teachings
twenty years ago that taught me to challenge social ideas and critically
evaluate history. It was their encouragement that motivated me throughout
this entire writing process. With a most sincere heart, I thank them both for
their guidance. And to Kathleen specifically, writing a book with her has
been a huge learning experience and pleasure. She is an inspiration and role
model in so many ways. I cannot thank her enough for her mentorship.

I want to acknowledge the profound influence I received in my upbringing

from my mother, Ginger Mistler, and my grandmother, Bettie Lasley. My
gram bore seven children prior to 1960, before there was accessible birth
control for women. She was very outspoken about her beliefs in women’s
rights to reproductive control, choices, and health; this message was
imprinted on my mind from an early age. It was her narrative, her story, and
her feminist outlook that brought me to the writing of this book. My mother,
too, taught me the importance of higher education. This book is a product of
their combined efforts at shaping who I am today. Thank you to my sister,
Tara Looney, for graciously editing citations and for continued support.
Many thanks to Jeff Lasser at SAGE for his enthusiasm for this project.

Kandice L. Grossman

July 2016
Publisher’s Acknowledgments
SAGE gratefully acknowledges the contributions of the following reviewers:

Sarah A. N. Akers, Washington State University

Lanier Basenberg, Georgia State University
Marni Brown, Georgia Gwinnett College
Angel M. Butts, Rutgers University
Moon Charania, Spelman College
Amanda Czerniawski, Temple University
Barbara Jones Denison, Shippensburg University
Andrea Fitzroy, Georgia State University
Alison Hatch, Armstrong State University
Nicole LaMarre, SUNY Albany
Lisa M. Lepard, Kennesaw State University
Adina Nack, California Lutheran University
Michaela A. Nowell, University of Wisconsin-Fond du Lac
Kathleen O’Reilly, University of Connecticut
Meg Panichelli, Portland State University
Todd Penner, Austin College
Antonia Randolph, Christopher Newport University
Teresa Roach, Florida State University, Appalachain State University
Maura Ryan, Georgia State University
Eryn Grucza Viscarra, Georgia College and State University
Laurie M. Wagner, Kent State University
Kassia Wosick, New Mexico State University
Marik Xavier-Brier, Georgia State University
Preface
This textbook takes a sociological approach to the study of sexualities and is
designed to be a core text for “Sociology of Sexuality,” “Human Sexuality,”
and similar courses. Taking a sociological approach to the study of
sexualities requires an exploration of sexuality as a social construction; the
emergence of sexual and gender identities; a focus on intersectionality;
historical and current inequalities and discrimination faced by sexual and
gender minorities; heterosexual and cisgender privilege;
activism/mobilization to challenge such discrimination; and the ways
sexuality operates in and through various institutions, such as media, schools,
family, religion, sport, and the workplace. Additionally, this text includes
chapters on the science of sexuality, from early sexologists to queer theory;
coverage of issues facing transgender people; an exploration of sexual health,
disability and sexuality, and sexually transmitted infections; and on
reproduction. There are chapters on social problems associated with sexuality
such as the commodification of sexuality, including pornography, human
trafficking, and prostitution; prison sex; and sexual violence. Finally, every
chapter includes a boxed insert that explores a global, transnational
perspective related to the specific chapter topic.

This text includes the most up-to-date social scientific research on sexuality,
as well as coverage of the latest political developments surrounding the
issues. It is designed for students to learn the fundamental concepts of a
sociological approach to understanding sexualities, but also to integrate such
knowledge into their broader understanding of society. An intersectional
approach that considers multiple grounds of identity and the ways various
modes of oppression intersect and work together in society is consistently
woven throughout this book. No sexuality textbook on the market takes such
a comprehensive sociological approach to the study of sexualities.

Key Features of the Text

Sexuality, Inequality, and Discrimination—This topic is absent from
most of the sexuality readers and textbooks, yet this is where students
“see” lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) issues in
their daily lives. What is less visible to students is the extent of
inequalities LGBTQ individuals historically faced and continue to face,
and other forms of discrimination related to sexuality, such as
discrimination against pregnant women. Certainly throughout the
lifetimes of traditional-aged college students, the issue of marriage
equality has been front and center; and, thus, it can appear that the fight
for LGBTQ rights has been won. Yet, inequalities remain. Additionally,
heterosexual and cisgender privilege remains invisible. When
sociologists explore status hierarchies, we look at not only the groups
that are disadvantaged but those that reap advantages as well.
Activism/Mobilization to Challenge Such Discrimination—This
textbook explores not only inequalities sexual minorities face and
heterosexual privilege, but the organized opposition to such
discrimination. It is important for students to shake the misconception
that progress is “inevitable” and, instead, is the result of decades of
organized activism. This text explores LGBTQ activism, from the
Compton Cafeteria riots, known as the first transgender riots, to the
Stonewall riots, the fight for marriage equality, AIDS activism, and
Queer Nation. This book weaves feminist and queer theoretical insights
throughout to reveal how challenges to inequality in the streets are
reflected and translated in academia, and vice versa.
Sexuality and Societal Institutions—This is the only sexuality textbook
on the market that explores the ways sexuality operates in and through
institutions such as sports, media, schools, workplaces, family, and
religion. By exploring institutions, students again find a way to “see” the
inequalities attached to sexuality in their daily lives. For instance, many
traditional-aged college students witnessed or participated in battles to
allow LGBTQ student organizations (or Gay-Straight Alliances) on their
middle-school or high-school campuses. Their generation came of age
during significant cultural battles over sex education versus abstinence
education. Some of them may work in environments that discriminate
against sexual minorities. Some of them come from gay families. They
are also the first generation of Americans to come of age as the first gay
professional athletes chose to come out of the closet during their athletic
careers. This generation of students has also been exposed to a
proliferation of gay images in the media, yet simply having gay images
does not necessarily mean stereotypes are not being perpetrated.
Focus on Transgender People and Issues—Each chapter of this
textbook includes the latest research on transgender people and issues;
from the incorporation of intersex and transgender athletes into a gender
segregated sports world to discrimination against transgender
individuals in the workplace, and epidemic levels of violence directed at
transgender people, overwhelmingly transgender people of color.
Sexual Identities—The invention of heterosexuality and homosexuality
involved the emergence of sexual identities—for the first time, people’s
sexual behaviors defined a “kind of person.” While this resulted in new
forms of discrimination against sexual minorities, it also contributed to
the mobilization of LGBTQ individuals to combat their inequality. As
just one aspect of how we see ourselves, sexual identities are also
understood to intersect with other identities, such as gender, race, and
class, informing how individuals see themselves. Much sociological
research addresses the ways individuals construct and negotiate multiple
identities.
Sexual Health—This text takes a sociological approach to
understanding sexual health, including a critical discussion of the
emergence of female sexual dysfunction, to an exploration of disability
and sexuality, and a discussion of sexually transmitted infections (STIs),
including HIV/AIDS, from a sociological perspective. Finally, we
explore reproduction, from compulsory reproduction to the
commodification of birth, transgender men and childbirth, and the
increasing availability of assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs), and
what these have meant for LGBTQ families.
Social Problems Associated With Sexuality—This is the arena where
sociologists have long contributed to sexuality studies, including
research on sexual assault, rape, pornography, sex trafficking, child
sexual abuse, and prison sex—with feminist sociologists placing
questions of power at the center of such analyses. Additionally, we
explore sexual violence targeting the LGBTQ community, intimate
partner violence within same-sex relationships, and sexuality and
militarism.
Global/Transnational Perspectives on Sexuality—Each chapter
includes a boxed insert highlighting a global illustration of one of the
issues explored in the chapter. This helps students understand sexuality
 as a social construction that changes across time and place.

“Sociology of Sexuality,” “Sociology of Sexualities,” “Human Sexuality,”

and “Sexuality and Society” courses are increasingly being offered by
sociology departments across the nation, often at the behest of students.
Sexuality courses tend to be 200 (sophomore) or 300 (junior) level courses,
generally with a large population of students who are not sociology majors;
thus, having a textbook that takes a sociological perspective is essential. Until
now, no textbook on the market took a sociological approach to the subject
matter. This text is ideal for courses in sociology of sexualities, gender and
sexuality studies, LBGTQ studies, and deviance courses that focus on sexual
deviance.

Instructors, sign in at study.sagepub.com/fitzgeraldss for the following

instructor resources:

A Microsoft® Word test bank is available containing multiple choice,

true/false, short answer, and essay questions for each chapter. The test
bank provides you with a diverse range of pre-written options as well as
the opportunity for editing any question and/or inserting your own
personalized questions to effectively assess students’ progress and
understanding.
Links to exceptional teaching resources from A.S.A.’s TRAILS
(Teaching Resources and Innovation Library for Sociology).
1 The Social Construction of Sexuality

Learning Objectives
Upon completion of this chapter, students will be able to …

Explain the sociological approach to the study of sexuality

Understand what it means to say that sexuality is socially constructed
Identify key characteristics of a sexual revolution
Understand sexuality across the life course
Explain the sexualization of racial/ethnic minorities
Discuss sexual minorities beyond lesbian and gay

For many, it was an unforgettable image: Michael Sam, an openly gay,

African American, male football player, kissing his white male partner on
national television, in celebration of being chosen by the St. Louis Rams in
the 2014 NFL draft. Upon being drafted, Michael Sam became the first
openly gay player in the NFL. Several NFL players openly expressed their
unhappiness with Sam’s actions, while others cheered the action as evidence
of both societal progress and institutional change within the NFL. Former
NFL football player Derrick Ward tweeted his discomfort with the image,
stating, “I’m sorry, but that Michael Sam is no bueno for doing that on
national T.V.” Miami Dolphins safety Don Jones tweeted “OMG” and
“horrible” after the kissing aired on national television (Yan and Alsup
2014). The Miami Dolphins organization reacted to Jones’s comments by
fining him and requiring him to attend diversity training.

Despite the controversy surrounding this event, certainly the image of two
men kissing passionately on national television represents progress for
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) equality, and the fact
that this occurred at the NFL draft is also remarkable. Historically,
masculinity has been strongly linked with heterosexuality. Football is one of
the most masculine sports. Gay male athletes have historically found the
sports world an intolerant and hostile place, and maybe the most hostile place
is on the football field (see Chapter 6). While Michael Sam did not make the
final roster cut as a member of an NFL team, the fact that an openly gay male
athlete was drafted by an NFL team was history making in itself.

When Michael Sam was drafted in 2014, he became the first openly gay NFL
player.

Source: AP Images. Photo/Jordan Strauss.

And yet, this story also provides evidence of how far we still have to go.
After the football season ended, Sam commented to Oprah Winfrey that a
number of gay NFL players reached out to him personally and commended
him for being brave enough to come out, something they were still unwilling
to risk.

You are taking this class during a period of unprecedented change for
LGBTQ individuals. All state prohibitions on same-sex marriage were
overturned in June 2015 with the Supreme Court decision Obergefell v.
Hodges, making marriage equality the law of the land. Prior to that, in 2013,
the Supreme Court declared as unconstitutional the Defense of Marriage Act,
which was the federal prohibition on same-sex marriage. High-profile gay,
lesbian, and bisexual athletes are coming out of the closet regularly. School
policies nationwide are being challenged by the needs and demands of
transgender students. And finally, LGBTQ actors and characters are more
prolific in the media than ever, including the first transgender character
played by a transgender actor, Laverne Cox, on the hit series Orange Is the
New Black. Daily headlines highlight the ongoing cultural changes
surrounding sexuality-related issues, and yet, sexuality is still highly
regulated. Prostitution is illegal in all 50 states, for instance (the state of
Nevada does allow for prostitution in some of its counties, but it is not legal
in the entire state). While the Republican Party remains officially opposed to
gay marriage and other rights for sexual minorities, polls show that among
younger voters of both parties, gay rights are a given. Despite the significant
progress made, LGBTQ individuals still face discrimination and inequality
both in the United States and across the globe. These include violence;
harassment; legal discrimination in numerous institutions, from the
residential sphere to the workplace; and the burden of stereotypical images in
popular culture.

Evidence of the undeniable progress, yet the remaining inequalities faced by

LGBTQ individuals, includes, but is not limited to:

In a 2013 issue of Sports Illustrated, National Basketball Association

player Jason Collins became the first male member of a major American
sports team to publicly announce he was gay during his playing career.
As sexual assaults on college campuses gained increasing national
 attention, in July 2014, Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) announced
the results of a national survey that found more than 40 percent of
colleges had not conducted a single sexual assault investigation in the
past five years—and that is not because there were no charges of sexual
assault at those institutions (Vendituolie 2014).
In July 2014, President Obama signed legislation providing protection
for gay, lesbian, and transgender federal workers and their contractors, a
move that ultimately affects one-fifth of the U.S. workforce (Pickles
2014).
The Boy Scouts of America voted to end the ban on participation by
openly gay adults in 2015, despite warnings that such a move would
result in the demise of the organization; one year later, the Boy Scouts
of America are stronger than ever, with a stabilized membership after
years of decline (Crary and Mccombs 2016).
In July 2016, Sarah McBride became the first transgender person to
speak at a major political party convention when she gave her invited
address at the Democratic National Convention.
Violence against transgender people, particularly transgender people of
color, reached an all-time high in 2015, with 22 murders, nineteen of
whom were people of color. As of July 26, 2016, 16 transgender people
have been murdered in the United States, and 13 of them were
transgender women of color (Fitzgerald 2017).

The Sociology of Sexualities

In this textbook, we explore sexuality through a sociological lens. This means
we approach an otherwise familiar topic from an often unfamiliar angle. Most
of us are socialized to think of sexuality as fixed and innate. If asked, most
people easily identify their own sexual orientation. However, sociologists
view sexuality as more complicated. What defines us sexually? Is it our
behaviors, the people we choose to have sex with, or the sexual acts we
engage in? Or is it about identity—how we define ourselves along sexual
lines? What about our sexual desires and sexual fantasies? Are these the
“true” gauges of sexuality? Is there a genetic determinant to human
sexuality? Sociologists point to instances where sexual identities, desires, and
behaviors are in conflict with one another, rather than the instances where
they are consistent, as evidence of how complicated defining sexuality really
is.

Jessica Taylor and Charlotte Jones married in the summer 2016, something
that was not legal in their state prior to the Supreme Court decision in June
2015 that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

Source: Photo courtesy of Jessica Taylor and Charlotte Jones; Bron Moyi,
photographer.

What does it mean when individuals identify as heterosexual, yet engage in

sexual relations with members of their own sex? It might mean that, due to a
larger homophobic culture, they are hesitant to accept a gay or lesbian
identity despite their actions. It also might mean that they do not have the
opportunity to have sex with members of the opposite sex; a situation
incarcerated people find themselves in. Researchers identify a sexual practice
among black men that is referred to as being on the “down low”; black men
who identify as heterosexual, often have wives or girlfriends, yet who engage
in sex with other men (Boykin 2005; Collins 2005; King 2004; Snorton
2014). Latino men engaging in similar behaviors are categorized as MSMs,
or “men who have sex with men” (Diaz 1997; Gonzalez 2007).

Sociologist Jane Ward (2015) examines patterns of and meanings behind the
sexual contact between straight white men who are not gay. Some scholars
use the term heteroflexibility to describe a broad range of same-sex sexual
encounters experienced by heterosexuals in which the actions are understood
as meaningless and unlikely to fundamentally challenge a person’s
presumably fixed sexual identity (Ward 2015). An example of
heteroflexibility includes girl-on-girl kissing, whether at fraternity parties or
among celebrities, which is generally done for male sexual arousal.
Ultimately, identities, desires, and behaviors are not always consistent, thus a
simplistic understanding of “sexuality,” as based on only one of these criteria,
is problematic.

A sociological approach to understanding sexuality requires we understand it

as cultural rather than as strictly personal. It is not inaccurate to understand
sexuality through an individualistic lens; but that is not the only way to
understand it. Sexuality is very much a product of and a reflection of society.
While we have learned to view our own sexual desires as quite personal, they
are very much a reflection of cultural assumptions surrounding what is
natural or unnatural, acceptable or unacceptable, sexually. We understand our
sexual desires and behaviors through our social contexts and preexisting
cultural scripts. Thus, sexuality is both personal and social. Even further,
sexuality is political, as recent political contestation over sexuality-related
issues and feminists and LGBTQ activists have repeatedly brought to our
attention. Finally, because sexuality is culturally informed, it is important to
note that this text will approach the sociology of sexualities primarily through
a U.S. lens, with some historical and cross-cultural analyses and comparisons
—particularly in the boxed inserts focused on “Global and Transnational
Perspectives on Sexuality” found in each chapter.

Sociology is the study of human social behavior, culture, and interaction

between individuals and groups. While sociologists do not ignore the
importance of biology in sexuality, they instead emphasize the role social
forces play in understanding sexuality. A sociological approach to the study
of sexuality emphasizes the socially constructed nature of sexuality, the
cultural assumptions surrounding sexual behaviors, and the emergence of and
significance of sexual identities—all of which will be introduced in this
chapter. The rest of the book will focus on the following sociological topics:
the science of sexuality; the intersection of gender and sexuality; sexuality as
a status hierarchy where one’s group membership, either as a member of the
privileged group known as heterosexuals or as a member of a sexual minority
group, determines one’s access to various societal goods and resources; the
activism designed to overturn the discrimination faced by LGBTQ
individuals; the ways sexuality operates in and through various institutions
such as the media, sports, schools, workplace, religion, and family; and sex
education, reproduction, disability and sexuality, sexually transmitted
infections, and sexual health. Finally, a sociology of sexualities would be
incomplete without an understanding of social issues associated with
sexuality such as the commodification of sexuality, pornography,
prostitution, sex trafficking, prison sex, and sexual violence.

Terminology
Some of the terminology used throughout this text is assumed to be
straightforward, however, this can be misleading. What does it mean to speak
of a sexual orientation, for instance? Sexual orientation refers to an
individual’s identity based on their enduring or continuing sexual attractions,
and may include behaviors and membership in a community of others who
share those attractions. Sexual orientation generally falls into four categories:
heterosexuality, when one’s romantic and sexual attractions are directed at
members of the opposite sex; homosexuality, when those feelings are
primarily directed at individuals of the same sex; bisexuality, when such
feelings exist for both members of one’s own sex and members of the
opposite sex; and asexuality, which is broadly defined as having no sexual
attraction at all, or being indifferent to sexual activity.

In the current era, the term pansexuality has also gained some prominence. It
refers to having sexual attractions to individuals, regardless of their sex or
gender; a sexual attraction to all sexes/genders. Pansexuality may at first
seem similar to bisexuality, except that pansexuality is a more fluid concept
than bisexuality, which assumes a gender binary, something we will talk
about in great detail throughout this book. Pansexuality rejects the notion of a
gender or a sexual binary (the notion of either/or: gay or straight, male or
female). Sexuality refers to one’s sexual desires, erotic attractions, and sexual
behaviors, or the potential for these; physical acts and emotional intimacies
that are intended to be pleasurable, and that are embedded within larger,
socially constructed, body of meanings. For many people, their sexuality is
congruent; meaning their identities, desires, and behaviors align. For others,
however, this may not be true. Their identities, desires, and behaviors are not
always congruent, and instead are inconsistent. They may identify as
heterosexual, but desire sexual relations with members of their same sex, for
instance. Thus, the definitions we rely on to describe human sexual variation
are somewhat problematic, yet we live in a culture that assigns meaning to
certain sexual behaviors. The definitions above, limitations and all, reflect
those cultural meanings.

Our culture treats sexual categories as real, emphasizing that for each sexual
orientation there is a specific set of fixed traits that are associated with it.
This is something social scientists refer to as essentialism. Essentialist
thinking implies a permanence to sexual orientation; that it is static,
unchanging, and innate. Essentialism naturalizes differences between groups.
As we will see, this is a weakness of the essentialist position on sexuality.
Yet, despite such weaknesses, essentialism is the foundation of Western
understandings of sexuality. That being said, sociologists do not take an
essentialist position on sexuality; instead, we take a social constructionist
position, which will be introduced later in this chapter.

This text will rely on the acronym LGBTQ to represent lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender, and queer individuals and communities. However, that
is simply an editorial decision, as there are other, more inclusive, umbrella
terms used to refer to the community of gender and sexual minorities. The
acronym LGBTIQQAAP (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer,
questioning, asexual, allies, and pansexual) is also sometimes used. We have
already defined sexual minorities such as bisexuals and homosexuals (male
homosexuals are generally referred to as gay while women are referred to as
lesbians), but we have not yet defined gender minorities. Transgender refers
to people whose gender identity is inconsistent with their assigned sex at
birth (see Chapter Three). Queer is also a label that recognizes the fluidity of
sexuality, someone who falls outside the norms surrounding gender and
sexuality. Queer is a term that has political origins and emerged during a
specific historical era, the 1990s (see Chapter Five). This broad overview of
terminology is evidence of the changing cultural understandings surrounding
sexuality and thus, should not be understood as fixed.

Evidence of the Social Construction of Sexuality

Sociologists understand sexuality as a social construction rather than as
something biological. By this we mean that sexuality is defined within
particular social and cultural contexts; and, thus, definitions of appropriate
sexual behavior change across time and place. Social constructionists
emphasize the ways sexuality is learned. British sociologist Jeffrey Weeks
(1981) introduces the notion of constructionism as an opposing position to
essentialism for understanding sexuality. What is defined as sexually
acceptable and natural in our society today has not always been so, just as
what some cultures define as appropriate and natural sexual behaviors can be
seen as deviant in other times and places. For instance, the Ancient Greeks
had a very different sexual order than we do today. In that time and place,
adult men were expected to have young, adolescent men as lovers, while at
the same time they formed sexual relationships with women. Such behaviors
today are viewed not only as deviant but as criminal, due to the ages of the
participants.

Sociologists John Gagnon and William Simon (1973) are the first
sociologists to question existing essentialist claims of biological determinism
—the idea that sexuality is determined primarily by our genetics—and
instead to emphasize its social nature. Their research challenges
psychoanalytic ideas about sexuality popularized by Freud, primarily that
there is an innate sexual drive that should be understood as an overwhelming
force requiring societal control. Gagnon and Simon emphasize the
“everydayness” of sexuality, rather than treating it as special or something
separate from everyday life (Jackson and Scott 2015; see Chapter Two).

Our understandings of particular sexual behaviors and physiological

reactions, such as virginity loss and orgasms, can also be understood as social
constructions. While most of us may think that losing one’s virginity is rather
easy to delineate, research by Laura Carpenter (2013) finds that it is anything
but unambiguous. Virginity loss is generally understood to be the first time a
man or woman engages in vaginal-penile intercourse. One problem with this
definition is that it is heterocentric, centered on and biased toward
heterosexuality. Gay men and lesbians are more likely to define their
virginity loss as their first time engaging in oral or anal intercourse rather
than their first experience with vaginal-penile intercourse. Research also finds
that individuals tend to not include coerced sexual experiences, such as rape
and sexual assault, as virginity loss. Additionally, if the sexual experience is
physically ambiguous in some way or if it is an unpleasant experience, people
are less likely to define that experience as virginity loss (Carpenter 2001).

Finally, there is the idea of “secondary” virginity or “born-again” virgins.

This refers to people who have lost their “true” virginity, but then decide to
abstain from sex until marriage or until some future date when they are in a
committed, significant relationship (Carpenter 2013). Secondary virginity is
more often found among young, white, conservative, Christian women,
particularly those born after 1972. It is linked to the Christian influenced
“abstinence-only” educational curriculum that gained prominence in the
1980s (Carpenter 2011; see Chapter Seven). Moreover, this revirginizing
phenomenon is gendered because virginity has been socially constructed as
more important for women than for men.

Research finds that orgasms can also be understood as social constructions

because people learn to understand certain feelings as sexual and pleasurable.
While orgasms are physiological reactions, they are not comparable to
digestion or sneezing; in fact, orgasms vary considerably across time and
across cultures. Female orgasms vary much more than male orgasms. In
cultures where women are believed to have less interest in sex, the concept of
the female orgasm is unknown (Richters 2011). Much popular media
attention is devoted to the issue of the female orgasm. In fact, since the
1960s, women’s magazines such as Cosmopolitan, under the editorship of
Helen Gurley Brown, became notorious for their discussions of women’s
sexuality, female orgasms, and the radical notion that women should enjoy
guilt-free sex. In reaction to the publication of Helen Gurley Brown’s book
Sex and the Single Girl (1962), a male editor of Life magazine said, “The
assumption that a woman is supposed to get something out of her sexual
contact, something joyful and satisfactory, is a very recent idea. But this idea
has been carried too far” (Allyn 2000:21).

The idea that sexuality is a social construction challenges how we have been
taught to think about sexuality, which is that sexual orientation is innate and
that heterosexuality is natural. In the following section, we provide evidence
that sexuality is a social construction. We begin by exploring the extent to
which sexuality is innate versus the extent to which it is a product of the
environment. From there, we analyze the construction of sexual binaries; the
invention of heterosexuality and homosexuality; the gendered nature of
sexuality and sexual socialization; and finally, the variation in acceptable
sexual behaviors cross-culturally and historically.

Nature Versus Nurture

Is sexuality innate? The short answer is, we do not know. Scientists have
been unable to identify a genetic marker linked to sexuality. There is no
evidence of a so-called “gay gene,” or combination of genes, despite
considerable scientific efforts directed at this question and much popular
interest in the idea. There is somewhat of a cultural preoccupation with the
“nature versus nurture” question, not just pertaining to sexuality but also to
issues like crime, intelligence, and illness. The “nature versus nurture”
question asks: To what extent is homosexuality a result of a genetic
predisposition (nature), or is it a reflection of social forces in an individual’s
environment (nurture)?

Research by Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard (1991) at Northwestern

Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
more alarming than the warnings of Eaton or of Daveiss; for they
proved that Wilkinson was playing a double part. No measure that
promised safety could be taken which would not require an instant
removal of Wilkinson and a vigorous support of Claiborne at New
Orleans.
Nov. 27, 1806, the same day with Dearborn’s letter, the
proclamation was issued.[195] Without mentioning Burr’s name, it
announced that sundry persons were conspiring against Spain,
contrary to the laws; it warned all persons whatsoever to withdraw
from such conspiracy; and it directed all officers, civil and military, of
the United States to seize and detain all persons and property
concerned in the enterprise.
The last chance of stopping the conspirators before they could
enter the Mississippi was at Fort Massac. Beyond that point they
could not easily be molested until they should reach a country more
friendly than Ohio or Kentucky to their purposes; but the President
had reason to suppose that his proclamation came in ample time to
stop the conspirators while they were still on the Ohio River.
The Governor of Ohio, without waiting for the proclamation, acted
promptly. On Graham’s request, the necessary law was passed, and
measures were taken to seize Burr’s boats at Marietta. The boats
and supplies were brought by Burr’s men to Blennerhassett’s island;
but finding that militia were about to take possession of the island
itself, the conspirators, with Blennerhassett in their company, at
midnight of December 10–11, fled down the river,—a half-dozen ill-
fitted boats, with thirty or forty men,—and passed the Falls of the
Ohio at about the time when Burr and Adair entered Nashville.
Graham, leaving Ohio, reached Kentucky December 22, and
induced the Governor and Legislature, December 24, to follow the
example of Ohio; but he lost much time between Chillicothe and
Frankfort, so that even after driving Burr from Ohio to Kentucky, and
from Kentucky to Tennessee, the quickest pursuit could not prevent
the conspirators from taking their path down the Cumberland.
Graham in Ohio heard nothing of Burr’s doings in Tennessee,
although since November 3 Jackson’s close friend Patton Anderson
was scouring the country round Nashville for recruits, and had raised
a company of seventy-five men. As Burr went farther South, the
secrecy of his intimates became more closely guarded, and their
movements more obscure.
Burr and Adair reached Nashville December 14, and went directly
to the river, where their boats were building. By that time Burr was
well trained in the comedy he had within the last month so often
played. Senator Smith of Ohio began it October 23, by writing the
request that Burr’s design should be “candidly disclosed,” because
Smith had fears that it might interrupt the tranquillity of the country. A
month later Henry Clay made the same request. No sooner did Burr
reach Clover Bottom, where his boats were building under Andrew
Jackson’s charge, than he found himself required to repeat the
familiar formula. Jackson, in company with General Overton as his
witness, soon appeared at Clover Bottom, and intimated as plainly
as had been done by John Smith and Henry Clay that his own credit
required a disavowal of designs against the Union. Burr, with his
usual dignified courtesy, instantly complied; and his denials were
accepted as satisfactory by Jackson.
On Jackson’s part this conduct was peculiarly surprising,
because more than a month before he had written to Governor
Claiborne[196] at New Orleans a secret denunciation of Burr and
Wilkinson, couched in language which showed such intimate
knowledge of Burr’s plans as could have come only from Burr
himself or Adair. In accepting Burr’s disavowals, December 14,
Jackson did not mention to Burr his denunciatory letter written to
Claiborne, November 12, in which he had said, “I fear treachery has
become the order of the day.” Like Senator Smith, he was satisfied
to secure his own safety; and upon Burr’s denial of treasonable
schemes, Jackson, although he did not write to Claiborne to
withdraw the secret charges, went on building boats, providing
supplies, and enlisting men for Colonel Burr’s expedition. His
motives for this conduct remained his own secret. Many of the best-
informed persons in Tennessee and Kentucky, including Burr’s
avowed partisans, held but a low opinion of Jackson’s character or
veracity. Eight years afterward Jackson and John Adair once more
appeared on the stage of New Orleans history, and quarrelled, with
charges and counter-charges of falsehood and insinuations of
treason.
“Whatever were the intentions of Colonel Burr,” wrote Adair in a
published letter,[197] “I neither organized troops at that time, nor did I
superintend the building of boats for him; nor did I write confidential
letters recommending him to my friends; nor did I think it necessary,
after his failure was universally known, to save myself by turning
informer or State witness.”
By that time the people of Nashville had heard what was doing in
Ohio and Kentucky. The public impeachment of the conspirators
checked enlistments and retarded purchases; but Burr seemed to
fear no such personal danger as had prevented his return to
Blennerhassett’s island. The Governor and Legislature of Ohio had
taken public measures to seize boats and supplies as early as
December 2; Burr had been driven from Kentucky, and
Blennerhassett had fled from his island, by December 11; but ten
days later Burr was still fitting out his boats at Nashville, undisturbed
by the people of Tennessee. December 19 the President’s
proclamation reached Nashville,[198] but still nothing was done.
At last some unmentioned friend brought to Burr a secret warning
that the State authorities must soon take notice of his armaments.
The authorities at Nashville could no longer delay interference, and
Burr was made to understand that his boats would be seized, and
that he was himself in danger unless he should immediately escape;
but between December 19 and 22 he was undisturbed. The
announcement that Graham was expected to arrive December 23
probably decided his movements; for on the 22d he hastily
abandoned all except two of his boats, receiving back from Jackson
seventeen hundred and twenty-five dollars and taking the two boats
and other articles for his voyage.[199] Jackson afterward declared
that he suffered in the end a loss of five hundred dollars by a note
which Burr had induced him to indorse, and which was returned from
New York protested. Without further hindrance Burr then floated
down the Cumberland River, taking with him a nephew of Mrs.
Jackson, furnished by his uncle with a letter of introduction to
Governor Claiborne,—a confidence the more singular because
Governor Claiborne could hardly fail, under the warnings of General
Jackson’s previous secret letter, to seize and imprison Burr and
every one who should be found in his company.
Thus, by connivance, Burr escaped from Nashville three days
after news of the President’s proclamation had arrived. The
Government had two more chances to stop him before reaching
Natchez. He must join Blennerhassett and Comfort Tyler at the
mouth of the Cumberland, and then move down the Ohio River past
Fort Massac, garrisoned by a company of the First Infantry,
commanded by a Captain Bissell. Having passed Massac, he must
still run the gauntlet at Chickasaw Bluff, afterward called Memphis,
where another military post was stationed. The War Department sent
orders, November 27, to the officers commanding at Massac and
Chickasaw Bluff to be on their guard.
December 22 Burr left Nashville, while Adair at about the same
time started for New Orleans on horseback through the Indian
country. At the mouth of the Cumberland, Burr joined
Blennerhassett, who had with him the boats which had succeeded in
escaping the Ohio militia. The combined flotilla contained thirteen
boats, which carried some sixty men and as many stand of arms, the
arms being stowed in cases as cargo. December 25 Burr sent a note
to Captain Bissell announcing that he should soon reach Fort
Massac on his way South, and should stop to pay his respects.
Bissell had received neither the President’s proclamation nor the
orders from the Secretary of War. As an old friend of Burr, he sent a
cordial welcome to the party. In the night of December 29 the boats
passed the fort, and landed about a mile below. The next morning
Captain Bissell went in his own boat to pay his respects to Colonel
Burr, who declined invitations to breakfast and dinner, but asked a
furlough of twenty days for a Sergeant Dunbaugh, who had been
persuaded to join the expedition. Bissell gave the furlough December
31, and Burr’s party at once started for the Mississippi. Five days
afterward, January 5, Bissell received a letter, dated January 2, from
Andrew Jackson, as Major-General of Tennessee militia, warning
him to stop any body of men who might attempt to pass, if they
should appear to have illegal enterprises in view. The President’s
proclamation had not yet reached Fort Massac, nor had Captain
Bissell received any instructions from Washington.[200]
The proclamation, dated November 27, and sent immediately to
the West, reached Pittsburg December 2,[201] and should, with
ordinary haste, have reached Fort Massac—the most important point
between Pittsburg and Natchez—before December 15. The orders
which accompanied it ought to have prevented any failure of
understanding on the part of Captain Bissell. Bissell’s reply to
Jackson, dated January 5, reached Nashville January 8, and was
forwarded by Jackson to Jefferson, who sent it to Congress with a
message dated January 28. Twenty-three days were sufficient for
the unimportant reply; forty days or more had been taken for the
orders to reach Massac, although they had only to float down the
river. That some gross negligence or connivance could alone explain
this shortcoming was evident; but the subject was never thought to
need investigation by President or Congress. The responsibility for
Burr’s escape was so equally distributed between the President
himself, the War Department, and the many accomplices or dupes of
Burr in Kentucky and Tennessee, that any investigation must have
led to unpleasant results.
Burr for the moment escaped, and everything depended on the
action of Wilkinson. Dayton and the other conspirators who remained
in the Eastern States thought it a matter of small consequence
whether Burr carried with him a party of sixty men or of six hundred.
Doubtless the unexpected energy shown by the people and the
legislatures of Ohio and Kentucky proved the futility of attempting to
revolutionize those States; but if Wilkinson were true to Burr, and if
the city of New Orleans should welcome him, it remained to be seen
whether the Government at Washington could crush the rebellion. A
blockade of the Mississippi was no easy affair, and slow in its results;
England, France, and Spain might have much to say.
Meanwhile Humphrey Marshall and his friend Daveiss enjoyed
the triumph they had won. In spite of silent opposition from the
Republican leaders, Marshall drove the Kentucky Legislature into an
inquiry as to the truth of the charge that Judge Sebastian was a
Spanish pensioner. Sebastian instantly resigned. The committee
took no notice of this admission of guilt, but summoned Judge Innis
to testify. Very reluctantly Innis appeared before the committee and
began his evidence, but broke down in the attempt, and admitted the
truth of what had been alleged.[202] Before the close of the year
Daveiss and Marshall drove Burr and Adair out of the State, forced
Sebastian from the bench, humiliated Innis, and threw ridicule upon
young Henry Clay and the other aggressive partisans of Jefferson,
besides placing Jefferson himself and his Secretary of State in an
attitude neither dignified nor creditable. Of all the persons connected
with the story of Burr’s expedition, Daveiss and Marshall alone
showed the capacity to conceive a plan of action and the courage to
execute the plan they conceived; but Jefferson could not be
expected to feel satisfaction with services of such a nature. A few
months later he appointed another person to succeed Daveiss in the
office of district-attorney.
 CHAPTER XIII.
Samuel Swartwout and Peter V. Ogden, the young men whom
Burr and Dayton charged with the duty of carrying despatches to
Louisiana, crossed the Alleghanies in August and floated down the
Ohio River to Louisville.[203] There they stopped to find Adair, for
whom they brought letters from Burr. After some search Swartwout
delivered the letters, and continued his journey. Adair never made
known the contents of these papers; but they probably contained the
same information as was conveyed in the despatches to Wilkinson
which came in their company.
Supposing Wilkinson to be at St. Louis, the two young men
bought horses and rode across the Indiana Territory to Kaskaskias;
but finding that the General had gone down the Mississippi, they
took boat and followed. At Natchez they learned that the object of
their search had gone up the Red River. Swartwout was obliged to
follow him; but Ogden went to New Orleans with despatches from
Burr to his friends in that city.
Among the mysteries that still surround the conspiracy, the
deepest covers Burr’s relations in New Orleans. That he had
confederates in the city was proved not only by Ogden’s carrying
letters, but also by Erick Bollman’s arrival by sea, as early as
September 27, with a duplicate of Burr’s letter of July 29 to
Wilkinson; and above all, by the significant disappearance of Burr’s
letters carried by Ogden and Bollman to persons in New Orleans.
The persons implicated proved their complicity by keeping Burr’s
letters and his secret.
One of these correspondents was almost certainly Judge
Prevost, Burr’s stepson, whom Jefferson had appointed District
Judge for the Territory of Orleans. That Daniel Clark was another
hardly admits of doubt. Swartwout assured Wilkinson of the fact;[204]
but apart from this evidence, the same reasons which obliged Burr to
confide in Wilkinson required him to confide in Clark. The receivers
of the letters, whoever they were, hastened to make their contents
known to every one whom they could trust. Immediately after the
arrival of Bollman and Dayton about October 1, before any serious
alarm had risen in Ohio, the town of New Orleans rang with rumors
of Burr’s projects. The news excited more consternation than hope;
for although the creoles had been bitter in complaints of Claiborne’s
administration and of the despotism imposed upon them by
Congress, they remembered their attempt to revolt in 1768, and
were far from eager to risk their safety again. Nevertheless, the
temper of the people was bad; and no one felt deeper anxiety as to
the number of Burr’s adherents than Governor Claiborne himself.
Nearly three years had elapsed since Dec. 20, 1803, when the
Spanish governor surrendered Louisiana to the United States, and
the history of the Territory during that time presented an
uninterrupted succession of bickerings. The government at
Washington was largely responsible for its own unpopularity in the
new Territory, its foreign and domestic policy seeming calculated to
create ill-feeling, and after creating it, to keep it alive. The President
began by appointing as Governor of Louisiana a man who had no
peculiar fitness for the place. Claiborne, in contrast with men like
Wilkinson, Burr, and Daniel Clark, rose to the level of a hero. He was
honest, well-meaning, straightforward, and thoroughly patriotic; but
these virtues were not enough to make him either feared or
respected by the people over whom he was to exercise despotic
powers; while Claiborne’s military colleague, Wilkinson, possessed
fewer virtues and a feebler character. The French Prefect, Laussat,
who remained for a time in New Orleans to protect French interests,
wrote his Government April 8, 1804, an interesting account of the
situation as seen by French eyes:[205]
“It was hardly possible that the government of the United States
should have made a worse beginning, and that it should have sent
two men (Messrs. Claiborne, governor, and Wilkinson, general) less fit
to attract affection. The first, with estimable private qualities, has little
capacity and much awkwardness, and is extremely beneath his place;
the second, already long known here in a bad way, is a flighty, rattle-
headed fellow, often drunk, who has committed a hundred impertinent
follies. Neither the one nor the other understands a word of French or
 Spanish. They have on all occasions, and without delicacy, shocked
the habits, the prejudices, the character of the population.”
Claiborne began his sway, assuming that the creoles were a
kindly but ignorant and degraded people, who must be taught the
blessings of American society. The creoles, who considered
themselves to be more refined and civilized than the Americans who
descended upon them from Kentucky and Tennessee, were not
pleased that their language, blood, and customs should be
systematically degraded, in defiance of the spirit in which the treaty
of cession had been made. Their anger was not without an element
of danger. England and France could safely defy public opinion and
trample on prostrate races. Their empire rested on force, but that of
Jefferson rested on consent; and if the people of New Orleans
should rebel, they could not be conquered without trouble and
expense, or without violating the free principles which Jefferson was
supposed to represent.
The colonists in Louisiana had been for a century the spoiled
children of France and Spain. Petted, protected, fed, paid, flattered,
and given every liberty except the rights of self-government, they
liked Spain[206] and loved France, but they did not love the English
or the Americans; and their irritation was extreme when they saw
Claiborne, who knew nothing of their society and law, abolish their
language, establish American judges who knew only American law,
while he himself sat as a court of last resort, without even an
attorney to advise him as to the meaning of the Spanish law he
administered. At the same time that as judge he could hang his
subjects, as intendant he could tax them, and as governor he could
shoot the disobedient. Even under the Spanish despotism, appeal
might be made to Havana or Madrid; but no appeal lay from
Claiborne’s judgment-seat.
Before this temporary system was superseded, the creoles
already yearned for a return to French or Spanish rule. They had but
one hope from the United States,—that, in the terms of the treaty,
Louisiana might be quickly admitted into the Union. This hope was
rudely dispelled. Not only did Congress treat their claims to self-
government with indifference, but the Territory was divided in halves,
so that it must be slower to acquire the necessary population for a
State; while as though to delay still longer this act of justice, the
growth of population was checked by prohibiting the slave-trade.
Years must pass before Louisiana could gain admission into the
Union; and even when this should happen, it must be the result of
American expansion at creole expense.
Jefferson’s Spanish policy, which kept the country always on the
verge of a war with Spain, prevented the French and Spanish
population from feeling that their submission was final. In case of war
between the United States and Spain, nothing would be easier than
to drive Claiborne away and replace Casa Calvo in the government.
Claiborne soon found himself confronted by an opposition which he
could neither control nor understand. Even the leading Americans
joined it. Daniel Clark, rich, eccentric, wild in his talk and restless in
his movements, distinguished himself by the personal hatred which
he showed for Claiborne; Evan Jones, another wealthy resident,
rivalled Clark; Edward Livingston, who had come to New Orleans
angry with Jefferson for removing him as a defaulter from office,
joined the old residents in harassing the Governor; while the former
Spanish officials, Casa Calvo and Morales, remained at New
Orleans under one or another pretext, keeping the Spanish influence
alive, and maintaining communications with Governor Folch of West
Florida, who controlled the Mississippi at Baton Rouge, and with
General Herrera, who commanded the Spanish force in Texas. So
bad was the state of feeling that when Oct. 1, 1804, the new
territorial system was organized, Messrs. Boré, Bellechasse,
Cantrelle, Jones, and Daniel Clark, whom the President had named
as members of the legislative council, refused to accept the office;
while Messrs. Sauvé, Destréhan, and Derbigny were deputed by a
popular assembly to present their grievances at Washington. Two
months elapsed before Governor Claiborne could form any council at
all; not until Dec. 4, 1804, was a quorum obtained.
No pretence of disguising their feelings was made by the Spanish
population. In French minds the power of Bonaparte was a stronger
reliance than the power of Spain; no Frenchman willingly admitted
that Napoleon meant to sacrifice Louisiana forever.[207]
 “The President’s Message,” wrote Governor Claiborne to Madison,
Dec. 11, 1804,[208] “has been translated into the French language,
and I will take care to have it circulated among the people. It will tend
to remove an impression which has heretofore contributed greatly to
embarrass the local administration; to wit, that the country west of the
Mississippi would certainly be re-ceded to Spain, and perhaps the
whole of Louisiana. So general has been this impression, particularly
as relates to the country west of the Mississippi, that many citizens
have been fearful of accepting any employment under the American
government, or even manifesting a respect therefor, lest at a future
time it might lessen them in the esteem of Spanish officers.”
Under the remonstrances of Sauvé, Destréhan, and Derbigny,
and at the intercession of John Randolph, Congress was induced to
yield a single point. The Act of March 2, 1805, gave Louisiana
ordinary Territorial rights, an elected legislature, and a delegate to
Congress. After its passage, Claiborne wrote to Madison that the
people were disappointed; and in fact the concessions were so trivial
as to irritate rather than soothe. Claiborne, whom the people
obstinately disliked, was re-appointed governor under the Act, and
nothing in reality was changed.
Burr visited New Orleans in June and July, 1805. The new
Legislature assembled, Nov. 4, 1805, when Claiborne found himself
surrounded by a council partly elected by the Legislature, and a
Legislature wholly elected by the people. He was soon at odds with
both. The leader of opposition was Daniel Clark; and for a moment in
May, 1806, the quarrel went so far that the two legislative bodies
were on the point of voluntary disbandment, and a majority of the
council actually resigned. The Legislature chose Daniel Clark as
their delegate to Congress. Claiborne thought that the choice was
made merely out of personal spite; but no sooner did he hear of
Burr’s disunion scheme than he wrote to Madison,[209]—
“If this be the object of the conspirators, the delegate to Congress
from this Territory, Daniel Clark, is one of the leaders. He has often
said that the Union could not last, and that had he children he would
impress early on their minds the expediency of a separation between
the Atlantic and Western States.”
 In the same month of May Lieutenant Murray of the artillery, an
intimate friend of Daniel Clark, came with a Lieutenant Taylor from
Fort Adams to New Orleans, and heard the ordinary conversation of
society.
“Lieutenant Taylor and myself,” he afterward testified,[210] “were
invited to dine with a gentleman there whose name was on the list
before mentioned [of persons engaged in an expedition against
Mexico]; it was Judge Workman. We three dined together. After the
cloth was removed, Mr. Lewis Kerr came in.... After a number of
inquiries about Baton Rouge and the Red River country, they
proceeded to lay open their plan of seizing upon the money in the
banks at New Orleans, impressing the shipping, taking Baton Rouge,
and joining Miranda by way of Mexico.... When I told Mr. Clark that I
was calculated on as the officer to attack Baton Rouge, he advised
me by all means to do it. He urged as an inducement that he was
coming on to Congress, and would do all he could in my favor; that he
would represent to the Government that it would require a large force
to retake it; and he further observed that, at any rate, if the
Government should be disposed to trouble me, before they could
send off a sufficient force I should be in a situation to take care of
myself.”
This attempt to seduce officers of the United States army into
Burr’s conspiracy was flagrant; for although Burr’s name was not
mentioned, no one could fail to see that the seizure of government
money in the banks at New Orleans was an act of treason, and that
the attack on West Florida implied a permanent military
establishment on the Gulf.
June 7, 1806, the first Louisiana legislature adjourned, and
Governor Claiborne felt relief as deep as was felt by Jefferson at
escaping the stings of John Randolph; but although for a time
Claiborne flattered himself that his difficulties were lessening, he
soon became aware that some mystery surrounded him which he
could not penetrate. General Herrera began to press upon the Red
River from Nacogdoches in Texas with a force considerably stronger
than any which Claiborne could oppose to him. The militia showed
indifference. August 28 the Governor wrote to the Secretary of War
that the French population would not support the government in case
of hostilities.[211] September 9 he wrote to Cowles Meade, then
acting-governor of the Mississippi Territory, a letter of uneasiness at
the behavior of Wilkinson’s troops: “My present impression is that all
is not right. I know not whom to censure, but it seems to me that
there is wrong somewhere.” The militia could not be stimulated to
action against Herrera, and the feeling of hostility between
Americans and creoles was so bitter that Claiborne intervened for
fear of violence.[212]
October 6, 1806, the Governor returned to New Orleans after a
tour of inspection. Erick Bollman had been then ten days in the city,
and young Ogden had arrived about October 1, bringing Burr’s
despatches. According to Bellechasse and Derbigny the creole
society was already much excited; but this excitement showed itself
to Claiborne in a display of assumed stolidity.
“There is in this city,” wrote Claiborne to the Secretary of War
October 8,[213] “a degree of apathy at the present time which mortifies
and astonishes me; and some of the native Americans act and
discourse as if perfect security everywhere prevailed.... I fear the
ancient Louisianians of New Orleans are not disposed to support with
firmness the American cause. I do not believe they would fight against
us; but my present impression is that they are not inclined to rally
under the American standard.”
Claiborne’s spirits fluctuated from day to day as he felt the
changes in a situation which he could not fathom. October 17 he was
elated because the militia of New Orleans unexpectedly, and
contrary to the tenor of all its previous conduct, made a voluntary
tender of services. November 7 he was again discouraged; and
November 15, and even as late as November 25, he fell back into
despondency. During all that time the enemies whom he feared were
Spaniards in Texas and West Florida; the thought of conspiracy
among the apathetic creoles had not yet entered his mind.
Yet around him the city was trembling with excitement; and of all
persons in the city Daniel Clark was the one whose conduct showed
most signs of guilty knowledge. A few months later, he collected
affidavits from four or five of the most important gentlemen in New
Orleans to show what his conduct had been. At the moment when
Bollman and Ogden arrived, Clark was preparing for his journey to
Washington, where he meant to take his seat in Congress as the
Territorial delegate. The news brought by Bollman and Ogden that
Burr was on his way to New Orleans placed him in a dilemma. Like
Senator Smith and Andrew Jackson, his chief anxiety regarded his
own safety; and he adopted an expedient which showed his usual
intelligence. An affidavit of Bellechasse,[214] on whose character he
mainly depended, narrated that—
“in the month of October, a very few days before Mr. Clark left this
city to go to Congress, he called together a number of his friends, and
informed them of the views and intentions imputed to Colonel Burr,
which were then almost the sole topic of conversation, and which,
from the reports daily arriving from Kentucky, had caused a serious
alarm; and he advised them all to exert their influence with the
inhabitants of the country to support the Government of the United
States and to rally round the Governor, although he thought him
incapable of rendering much service as a military man,—assuring
them that such conduct only would save the country if any hostile
projects were entertained against it, and that this would be the best
method of convincing the Government of the United States of the
attachment of the inhabitants of Louisiana, and of the falsity of all the
reports circulated to their prejudice. And Mr. Clark strongly
recommended to such members of the Legislature as were then
present not to attend any call or meeting of either House in case
Colonel Burr should gain possession of the city, stating that such a
measure would deservedly expose every individual concerned to
punishment, and would occasion the ruin of the country.”
According to Bellechasse, the society of New Orleans between
Oct. 1 and Oct. 15, 1806, was in serious alarm. Burr’s intentions
formed “almost the sole topic of conversation;” daily reports were
arriving from Kentucky, although in Kentucky, down to October 1, no
alarm existed, and Burr’s intentions were not even developed. Each
of the four affidavits which Clark obtained, one of them signed by
Peter Derbigny, affirmed that about the middle of October, 1806,
Burr’s projects were the general theme of conversation in the city;
but nothing was more certain than that this knowledge of Burr’s
projects must have come not from Kentucky, but from Burr’s own
letters and from the messages brought by Ogden and Bollman.
 Clark, having thus secured himself from the charge of abetting
Burr, sailed for the Atlantic coast, and in due time made his
appearance at Washington; but neither he nor Bellechasse nor
Derbigny nor Bouligny, although officers of the government, giving
each other excellent advice, communicated to Governor Claiborne
what they knew about Burr’s plans. From October 1 to November 25,
the projects of Burr were “the exclusive subject of every
conversation” in the city, yet the single official who ought to have
been first informed, and who bore all responsibility, had not a
suspicion that any conspiracy existed. Claiborne’s isolation was
complete. This isolation was natural, since all the gentlemen of New
Orleans quarrelled with the Governor; but the same silence was
preserved where their social relations were friendly. Neither Clark
nor any of the persons who talked so much with each other about
Burr’s projects communicated with General Wilkinson, who was in
full sympathy with their hatred of Claiborne. Wilkinson stood in
relations of close confidence with Clark; intimate letters passed
between them as late as October 2.[215] Clark knew that Wilkinson
was Burr’s most intimate friend; yet he neither warned Claiborne nor
Wilkinson nor President Jefferson, although as early as October 15
he warned a number of other gentlemen who needed no warning,
and although October 17 the militia of New Orleans, evidently in
consequence of his advice, tendered their services to the Governor.
For two months, between September 27 and November 25,
Burr’s emissaries were busy in New Orleans, without suspicion or
hindrance from the United States authorities; while every prominent
Frenchman in the Territory knew the contents of Burr’s letter to
Wilkinson as soon as Wilkinson could have known them. That Burr
had few active adherents might be true; but nothing showed that
Bollman regarded the result of his mission as unfavorable. Toward
the end of October Bollman sent letters by a certain Lieutenant
Spence, who reached Lexington in due course, and November 2
delivered his despatches to Burr;[216] but whatever their contents
may have been, they were not so decisive against Burr’s hopes as to
stop his movement. The people of New Orleans were careful not to
commit themselves, but they guarded Burr’s secret with jealousy.
They warned no United States official of the danger in which the city
stood; they wrote no letters to the President; they sent no message
to Burr forbidding his approach.
This was the situation in New Orleans Nov. 25, 1806, the day
when District-Attorney Daveiss at Frankfort made his second attempt
to procure an indictment against Burr, and when President Jefferson
at Washington was startled into energy by receiving a letter, almost
equivalent to a confession, from General Wilkinson. From the Ohio
River to the Gulf of Mexico the conspiracy had numerous friends;
and in New Orleans it had the most alarming of all qualities,—
silence.
Meanwhile young Samuel Swartwout, after parting from his friend
Ogden, had slowly ascended the Red River, pursuing General
Wilkinson, as Evangeline pursued Gabriel, even as far as “the little
inn of the Spanish town of Adayes.” The military point for Wilkinson
to decide was whether he should make an effort to drive the
Spaniards back to their town of Adayes, or whether he should allow
them to fix themselves on the Red River. The movements of the
Spanish General Herrera, who had brought a considerable mounted
force to Nacogdoches, were supposed at the moment by many
persons to have been made in concert with Burr; but in reality they
were doubtless intended only to derange the plan, recommended by
Armstrong and Monroe to Jefferson, by which Texas should be
seized for the United States, while West Florida for the moment
should be left aside. The Spanish government saw the danger, and
sent a little army of some fifteen hundred men to the Red River,
where they posted a strong garrison at Bayou Pierre, and pressed
close upon Natchitoches. The Americans, instead of taking the
offensive and advancing with five thousand men, as Wilkinson
wished, to the Rio Grande, were thrown upon the defensive, and
trembled for New Orleans, protected only by a French militia which
neither Claiborne nor Wilkinson could trust.
Under orders from Washington, General Wilkinson reached
Natchitoches September 22, and found the Spaniards in force
between his own post and the Sabine. For a few days Wilkinson
talked loudly, after his peculiar manner. War seemed imminent.
September 28 he wrote from Natchitoches a letter to Senator Smith
of Ohio, the contractor for his supplies:[217]—
“I have made the last effort at conciliation in a solemn appeal to
Governor Cordero at Nacogdoches, who is chief in command on this
frontier. Colonel Cushing bore my letter, and is now with the Don. I
expect his return in four days; and then,—I believe, my friend, I shall
be obliged to fight and flog them.”
Governor Cordero, whose object was probably no more than to
restrict American possession within the narrowest possible limits,
withdrew his troops from Bayou Pierre, September 27, to the west
bank of the Sabine, and left open to Wilkinson the road to the
eastern bank. The Spanish forces recrossed the Sabine before
September 30, but a week later, October 8, General Wilkinson had
not begun his ostentatious march, of some fifty miles, to retake
possession of the east bank of the river.
On the evening of October 8, General Wilkinson was sitting with
Colonel Cushing, of the Second Infantry, alone in the Colonel’s
quarters at Natchitoches, discussing the military problem before
them, when a young man was introduced who said that his name
was Swartwout, and that he brought a letter of introduction from
General Dayton. After some little ordinary talk, Colonel Cushing
having for a moment been called out of the room, Swartwout slipped
into General Wilkinson’s hands a packet which he said contained a
letter from Colonel Burr. Wilkinson received the letter, and soon
afterward retired to his chamber, where he passed the rest of the
evening in the labor of deciphering Burr’s long despatch of July 29.
[218]

If the falsehoods contained in the letters of Burr and Dayton

found any credit in Wilkinson’s mind, they should have decided him
to follow his old bent toward revolution. Everything beckoned him on.
His secret relations, nearly twenty years old, with the Spanish
officials guaranteed to him the connivance of the Spanish force. The
French militia of Louisiana, deaf to Governor Claiborne’s entreaties,
would have seen with pleasure Claiborne deposed. About five
hundred United States troops were under Wilkinson’s command on
the Red River, of whom few were native Americans, or cared for the
Government except to obtain their pay. In New Orleans a breath
would blow away the national authority; and what power would
restore it? If it were true, as Burr wrote, that a British fleet stood
ready to prevent a blockade of the Mississippi, the success of the
Western empire seemed assured.
Severance of the ties that bound him to Dayton and Burr was not
a simple matter for Wilkinson. That they were old friends was
something; and that all three had fought side by side under the walls
of Quebec in the winter of 1776, with the father of young Peter
Ogden for a friend, and with Benedict Arnold for their commander,
was still more; but the most serious difficulty was that Wilkinson
stood in the power of these men, who knew his thoughts and could
produce his letters, and who, in case of his deserting them, would
certainly do their utmost to destroy what character he possessed.
Whatever may have been his reflections, Wilkinson took at once
measures to protect his own interests. Like Senator Smith, Andrew
Jackson, and Daniel Clark, his first step was to provide against the
danger of being charged with misprision of treason. The morning
after Swartwout’s arrival, Wilkinson took Colonel Cushing aside, and
after telling him the contents of Burr’s letter, announced that he
meant to notify the President of the plot, and that after making some
temporary arrangement with the Spaniards, he should move his
whole force to New Orleans. In one sense this avowal was an act of
patriotism; in another light it might have been regarded as an attempt
to sound Colonel Cushing, whose assistance was necessary to the
success of the plot.
In any case the deliberation of his conduct proved no eagerness
to act. A week passed. Although time pressed, and Burr was to move
down the Ohio River November 15, Wilkinson did not yet warn the
President or the authorities in Mississippi and Tennessee, or the
commanding officers at Fort Adams or Chickasaw Bluffs. About
October 15 a troop of militia reached Natchitoches; and Wilkinson
confided his plans to Colonel Burling, who accompanied it. One
might almost have suspected that he was systematically sounding
his officers. Not until October 21 did he send the promised letter to
President Jefferson, and in that letter he did not so much as mention
Burr’s name.[219] He spoke of the expedition as destined for Vera
Cruz. “It is unknown under what authority this enterprise has been
projected, from whence the means of its support are derived, or what
may be the intentions of its leaders in relation to the Territory of
Orleans.” The communication was so timed as to reach Washington
after Burr should have passed down the Ohio; and it was so worded
as to protect Wilkinson in case of Burr’s failure, but in no event to
injure Burr.
After sending this despatch to Washington by a special
messenger, Wilkinson wrote October 23 a letter of mysterious
warning to Lieutenant-Colonel Freeman, who commanded at New
Orleans.[220] He wrote also a letter to Burr, which he afterward
recovered at Natchez and destroyed.[221] He sent his force forward
to the Sabine, and passed ten days in making an arrangement with
the Spanish officers for maintaining the relative positions of the
outposts. Not until November 5 did he return to Natchitoches. Then,
at last, his movements became as rapid as they had hitherto been
dilatory.
November 7 he wrote to Colonel Cushing from Natchitoches:[222]
“On the 15th of this month Burr’s declaration is to be made in
Tennessee and Kentucky. Hurry, hurry after me; and if necessary, let
us be buried together in the ruins of the place we shall defend!” He
had at last chosen his part; and having decided to act as the savior
of the country, he began to exaggerate the danger. “If I mistake not,
we shall have an insurrection of blacks as well as whites to
combat.”[223] “I shall be with you by the 20th instant,” he wrote to
Freeman the same day;[224] “in the mean time be you as silent as
the grave!” He left Natchitoches November 7, and reached Natchez
on the 11th, whence he wrote “from the seat of Major Minor” a letter
of alarm to the President, confiding to the messenger an oral
account of Burr’s letter, for Jefferson’s benefit:[225]—
“This is indeed a deep, dark, and widespread conspiracy,
embracing the young and the old, the Democrat and the Federalist,
the native and the foreigner, the patriot of ’76 and the exotic of
yesterday, the opulent and the needy, the ‘ins’ and the ‘outs;’ and I