November 13th, 2006

From St. Louis Today:

Jennie Irene Hodgers was born in County Louth, Ireland, on Christmas Day in 1843 and later sailed to New York with her family.

But she already was calling herself Albert D.J. Cashier when she turned up in Belvidere, Ill., and enlisted in the 95th Illinois Regiment in 1862. She served as an infantryman through three years and some 40 Civil War battles.

Later, it was as Cashier that she lived and worked in Saunemin, voted in elections, collected her Army pension and moved in 1911 to the Illinois Soldiers' and Sailors' Home (now the Illinois Veterans Home) in Quincy.

She became Jennie Hodgers again only when she was transferred in 1913 to the former Watertown State Hospital near East Moline and psychiatrists forced her to wear female attire.

But while she was confined at Watertown, men from her old unit rallied to her defense, convincing the federal Pension Board to rule in 1914 that she could continue to collect her pension as Pvt. Albert D.J. Cashier.

And at the insistence of Saunemin residents, that was the name she was buried under — clad in her Civil War uniform — after her death in 1915.

Interesting story about women who disguised themselves as men in order to fight in wars. About Jennie Hodgers, historians say she may have taken a male persona for economic rather than transsexual reasons:

As an illiterate immigrant girl, Hodgers could have found lawful employment only as a domestic servant. But in male disguise, she could work in factories or as a farmhand. At enlistment, Hodgers gave her occupation as "laborer, farmhand and shepherd." A private in the Union army earned more than an agricultural worker.

Just call me Butch. I do tech.

Comments
1
Elaine Nelson - 7:30 pm 11/13/2006

Fascinating! Thanks for passing that one on. Dorothea recommended a fantasy novel on that topic a while back, which alas I can't remember the name of. :( But I'd definitely recommend it.

2
Phil - 5:17 am 11/14/2006

This is a very old trope in traditional music - have a look at these songs. I do wonder how often this happened - and how many of the women involved were what we'd regard as trans-gender, or even gay. Apart from the obvious economic factors which might make it preferable to pass as a man, I think we tend to forget just how restrictive gender dress codes were in the 19th century (and most of the 20th for that matter). My daughter went straight from romper suits to trousers, and only wears dresses for special occasions; judging from her friends that's pretty normal, but even thirty years ago it would have been unthinkable (or at best made her look like a farm girl). I don't know about Albert, but maybe some 'handsome cabinboys' just got a taste for wearing short hair and trousers.

3
Suzan Foster - 9:11 am 11/14/2006

As a transgendered person myself I would say that the fact that he had to be forced to wear female attire after his discovery would at least hint at a preference to identify as male. But of course any assumptions we make about someone who we didn't personally know is conjecture.

4
Suzan Foster - 9:19 am 11/14/2006

Sorry for that last sentence :(

5
Shelley - 1:30 pm 11/14/2006

No worries on the last sentence, Suzan: it's a good point. We really don't know what Albert's motivation was. It is a fascinating story, not the least of which is the support that Albert received from other soldiers and the retirement community.

6
Suzan Foster - 4:14 am 11/15/2006

I agree. It goes to show that people weren't the monsters we often make of them in our more 'enlightened' times.

Thanks to all those who have contributed to the discussion. Comments are now closed, but you can contact the author of the post directly.