Bosom Friends: The Intimate World of
James Buchanan and William Rufus King
by Thomas J. Balcerski
Oxford University Press. 337 pages, $34.95
IN THE YEARS before the Civil War, Washington, D.C., was “very much a work in progress”: most of its roads were muddy mires, neighborhoods were far apart by horseback, and much of the city sat in a genuine swamp to which most Congressmen had to travel from far away. In Bosom Friends, Balcerski conveys the roughness of the city in you-are-there detail, showing why a politician would come to Washington without his delicate, genteel wife.
In general, families were in fact left at home to tend to estates or other affairs, since nearly all of those men were landowners in far-flung parts of the fledgling U.S. The politicians who came to our nation’s capital sans family needed a place to live, so boardinghouses—called “messes”—sprang up to house them. This, then, is the backdrop, described at considerable length, for Balcerski’s tale: It was at a “mess” that William King met James Buchanan.
As for Buchanan, he too was born into wealth and was highly educated and well-traveled, but his personal life diverged from that of King. At the age of 43, Buchanan was still a bachelor, much to his despair and to the chagrin of his eight siblings. Balcerski says that Buchanan “engaged in half-hearted efforts at courtship” and finally got engaged, but a dramatic spat caused his fiancée to call off the nuptials shortly before she fell ill and died. Buchanan, too, could now point to his broken heart to justify being a bachelor. In fact, no one paid all that much attention to his single status, or anyone else’s, since unmarried politicians in Washington were commonplace.
It was under these circumstances that Buchanan and King met, became friends, and sent insiders and gossipmongers into a fit over their “Siamese twin” friendship, a frenzy that might be familiar to any tabloid reader. To be sure, pre-Civil-War gentlemen were encouraged to develop deeply “intimate” friendships with other men—but only up to a point, and homosexuality was strictly forbidden. Balcerski argues that in all probability Buchanan and King enjoyed just such a relationship while living at a “mess” as congressmen.
The main reason one might come to this book would be to learn whether King and Buchanan were lovers and whether America has already had its first gay president. Alas, Balcerski is ultimately inconclusive on this point. He ends up tipping the scales to the negative, though evidence to the contrary is there to be found by readers looking for it. The backdrop of 19th-century political history, which can at times be rough going in this book, can help explain the complicated position of both men as well as the rancor with which their relationship seems to have ended—or did it? This author’s opinion aside, history cannot completely know the truth of what happened, since letters that could have confirmed or denied rumors about the Buchanan-King friendship disappeared shortly after the Civil War, leaving a bit of mystery—and possibly some unsatisfied readers.
_______________________________________________________
Terri Schlichenmeyer is a freelance writer based in Wisconsin.
