So this male>female transgendered history buff decides to take up Civil War reenacting and goes to an event. This is not a joke. This really happened. Here is her report on her blog.
Predictably, some people have a problem with this, the first of whom left the lovely comment on the post. The commenter and others wonder about men dressing as women in the antebellum south: did it happen? Was it tolerated? Would they have been arrested? And how appropriate is a man dressed as a woman at a modern reenactment. First of all, Stephanie is not dressing as a man dressed as a woman, but has the impression of a woman plain and simple. Second, Civil War reenacting is loaded with explicit and implicit sub textual commentary on contemporary culture and I believe that one’s position on Stephanie’s participation is a rough reflection of one’s views of GLBT people and issues today. I am a big fan of GLBTs, so the fact that one of them wants to do this is just fine. But if you are not, then you might not be so accommodating. Either way, this influences how we interpret history. See for instance the commenter’s bizarre insistence that cross-dressers would be arrested, or the general suggestion that Stephanie is not appropriate for the wholesome world of reenacting.
Here’s what I am thinking. Regarding gender in the world of antebellum southern law, society, and culture, white men were free to do any damn thing they pleased and I suspect that if one chose to dress like a woman, then there was nothing anyone could do about it. The interests of law and society regarding gender lay entirely in the control of white women's reproductive function: the law attempted to ensure that white women only gave birth to white children within the bonds of marriage. (The law, by the way, was altogether ineffectual in this endeavor.) The concern for the sexual behavior of white women was so extreme that black men, slave or free, were rarely prosecuted or punished for illicit trysts with white women (before the war...that changed after emancipation.) Would there have been some social opprobrium for cross-dressing? Very much so. The damage to masculine honor would have been beyond repair. Law and society permitted white men, as I said, to do as they pleased. But there were a certain small number of already marginalized people (white/black/indian, man/woman/whatever) who were simply not all that concerned with what elite white society demanded. Mostly these were poor people or other outsiders, and illicit activity was kept on the downlow (until some white girl gave birth to a black man’s child).
And here is where I think Stephanie can play a unique and valuable role in historical interpretation. She could portray one of these marginalized people. The living history community and the public could use a good reminder that the class and racial stratification of southern society left little room for people who did not fit in. That outside of yeoman and planter parlors, some people tended to do things not sanctioned by society like drink, gamble, trade, and have sex with people they weren’t supposed to. There is one flaw in my plan: Stephanie apparently likes to do the southern belle and the people I’m talking about are anything but. And she might not be interested at all in my highbrow interest in lowbrow culture. And that's fine... But that would be an awesome impression.
To Stephanie--Good for you. Do whatever you want. And it sure is good to see that you are working to get some better quality reproduction stuff.
