Challenge: James Buchanan as the first openly gay president

To keep him power, let say he did something extraordinary such as expand the country or did something that will "wow" the american public. Then, he wooed some men he fancies and openly declares homosexuality.

Plausibility? Rewrite? Eh?
 
Not any changes. Culture was too anti-homosexuality that Buchanan can't say being homosexual and stay on power. If he would say that, he can't be president very long, probably wouldn't even live very long.
 
The most you could really get is something where halfway through the 1856 election, an abolitionist newspaper seeking to discredit Buchanan publishes details on his scandalous relationship with a certain William Rufus King. Buchanan wouldn't deign to respond, of course.
 
He wouldn't be able to come out as it were back then because last time I checked at this point in time male homosexuality was a criminal offence and even if you weren't prosecuted it was also regarded as a form of mental-illness.
 
He wouldn't be able to come out as it were back then because last time I checked at this point in time male homosexuality was a criminal offence and even if you weren't prosecuted it was also regarded as a form of mental-illness.

Prison or an asylum? In 1857? PRISON.

James Buchanan was our first and so far only gay POTUS. But I am certain that there is NO other President the Gay Community would have wanted less as their sole representative, and I include William Henry Harrison, Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Woodrow Wilson:eek:. He was not exactly the kind of man you would want to have to "look up to".:rolleyes:

Whether we may have had a bisexual IDK.
 
Prison or an asylum? In 1857? PRISON.

James Buchanan was our first and so far only gay POTUS. But I am certain that there is NO other President the Gay Community would have wanted less as their sole representative, and I include William Henry Harrison, Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Woodrow Wilson:eek:. He was not exactly the kind of man you would want to have to "look up to".:rolleyes:

Whether we may have had a bisexual IDK.


It's entirely possible, and even likely we may have already had one or two Bisexual or even actual Gay Presidents, but of course no one can prove such a fact about any of our Presidents.
 
It's entirely possible, and even likely we may have already had one or two Bisexual or even actual Gay Presidents, but of course no one can prove such a fact about any of our Presidents.

Meh. I consider the "proof" of Buchanan's gayness to be as close to metaphysical certitude as makes no difference. Other gay presidents? With all having wives that produced children, its hard to see any claims being even remotely substantiated. Though I know the Gay Community would LOVE to claim Lincoln as being at the very least bisexual. Meh. He married Mary Todd for her $$$ and cuz he knocked her up.:p
 
Meh. I consider the "proof" of Buchanan's gayness to be as close to metaphysical certitude as makes no difference. Other gay presidents? With all having wives that produced children, its hard to see any claims being even remotely substantiated. Though I know the Gay Community would LOVE to claim Lincoln as being at the very least bisexual. Meh. He married Mary Todd for her $$$ and cuz he knocked her up.:p

There are plenty of people in real life who have married, had husbands or wife's, and even had kids and then later came out as a homosexual or bi, it doesn't discount any US President from being as such just because they had Wife's and Kids, (sans Buchanan of course), now I am not saying that any US President's were Bisexual or Gay, but it's a statistical possibility and a entirely possible concept, through they would have been closeted obviously.
 
There are plenty of people in real life who have married, had husbands or wife's, and even had kids and then later came out as a homosexual or bi, it doesn't discount any US President from being as such just because they had Wife's and Kids, (sans Buchanan of course), now I am not saying that any US President's were Bisexual or Gay, but it's a statistical possibility and a entirely possible concept, through they would have been closeted obviously.

Quite correct, and I should have remembered also that Washington had no children of his own, being sterile. (1) But his friendship with Lady Fairfax would suggest that in his case his childlessness was physical in nature.

1) Martha had four children in rapid succession before her first husband died. She did not even conceive one with George.
 
How about this scenario:

One week after his inauguration, Buchanan publicly announces that he's a homosexual. He's impeached a few days later, because this is the 1850s. James Buchanan is remembered as the first gay head of state and the shortest-serving president in US history.

See? Easy.
 
What about have him came out as he leaves office, saying how could I run a country like America and be mentally ill.
This moves the gay civil rights movement forward.
 
What about have him came out as he leaves office, saying how could I run a country like America and be mentally ill.
This moves the gay civil rights movement forward.

I'm not sure about that given that when Buchanan left office the country was coming apart at the seems and there was nothing he could do about it. How much you want to blame any of that on him or not is academic but I would think that Buchanan coming out in March 1861 would lead to the publication of whole volumes about how if the US had had a president who was not a mentally ill pervert the whole unfortunate aspect of American history better known as the War to Save the South From its Own Temerity could have been avoided.
 
Not going to happen, for several reasons. For one, the whole idea of James Buchanan "wowing" the American public is verging on ASB territory anyway. For another, the whole concept of homosexuality, in the sense of an immutable orientation with you from birth and distinct from and exclusive of heterosexuality, only came about in the latter half of the 19th century, and I'm not sure that the idea of "coming out" would even make sense absent this concept. Finally, even if Buchanan did say "I like having sex with men", this would almost certainly be political suicide, much as if a modern-day politician said "I'm sexually attracted to little children". It doesn't matter how popular he may have been before the admission or what achievements he had to his name, saying something like that would instantly ruin him and quite possibly lead to criminal proceedings.
 
In the 1850s, modern ideas of sexual orientation did not exist. There was no such thing as homosexuality. There were, in the cultural consciousness, homosexual acts(ie gay sex), which were viewed as sinful crimes, but the idea that some people were simply attracted to members of the same sex did not exist.
 
Ok, I've looked up Sodomy laws in the United states (homosexual activity was still called sodomy at this time)

In 1779, Thomas Jefferson wrote a law in Virginia which contained a punishment of castration for men who engage in sodomy, however, what was intended by Jefferson as a liberalization of the sodomy laws in Virginia at that time was rejected by the Virginia Legislature, which continued to prescribe death as the maximum penalty for the crime of sodomy in that state.

Prior to 1962, sodomy was a felony in every state, punished by a lengthy term of imprisonment and/or hard labor.

So that kills this thread, if James Buchanan spoke openly about it, it would have been a crime punishable.
He would have been compare able with Oscar Wilde.

I think the only plausible person to be the "First Openly Gay" president is Harvey Milk.
 
Top