"…the current Old Guard was the new form of the late 1950s and early 1960s."
 -Joseph Bean(1)

"'Old Guard' is really a misnomer - a misapplied name - for the earliest set of habits that jelled by the mid to late 1950s in the men's leather community here in the U.S."
  -Guy Baldwin(4)

"If I'm going to make any point in today's rambling, it's going to be that there never was, and never will be, an Old Guard."
-Jack Rinella(2)

     These statements are as opposing as they are supporting anything which is written about the history of late 20th century America.
     Are the 'Old Guard' gay men in the military uniform of another era? Are they the people who were the predecessors of the current leather movement in the United States? Are they the folks in the chat rooms and at munches telling us their ancestry for "Nth generations" is 'Old Guard'?

     Why can we not get one solid perspective on the history of the "Old Guard"?

     Is it perhaps because (as with so many other things about leather) we cannot define specifically what it means?  Or, is it that the history of the time and for the people who comprise the "Old Guard" is not as we might believe it to be today?

Napoleon and the "Old Guard":

"Soldiers of my Old Guard: I bid you farewell." (10)
  -Napoleon Bonaparte

     The term "Old Guard" was first used by Napoleon Bonaparte as a means of distinguishing the veterans who had served under him from those who were supporting the new government of 1814. He graced these veterans with the moniker as the highest praise possible for their devotion and loyalty to his cause and to France. After being exiled to Elba in 1814, these same veterans came to his aid and released him from his imprisonment to return him to power until his ultimate defeat at Waterloo.

     Since that time, veteran's organizations occasionally declare themselves to be "Old Guard" as a means of denoting their perceived deserved honor and fealty towards the government in which they served. It is also the name since the Civil War for the US Army military area that is charged with protecting the District of Columbia.(11)

     Unlike the above, the 'leather-men' of mid 20th century (c. 1945 - 1970) America was not self-imposed and applied. The application of the 'handle' was used to separate them from the people who have composed the leather community from approximately 1970 to the present. The terms most commonly used for the modern leather community is "New Leather" or "New Guard".(8) As with many other 'titles' in organizational human behavior, it appears to have been originally applied as a cudgel, to demean those who were senior in the community by denigrating them for the age they were at and for the time spent in leather. It was used to state that they were passé and 'out of the loop' as compared with the young Turks of "New Leather".
     Relative to the awe in which some hold the "Old Guard" currently, this appears to have backfired. But then, we must keep in mind: history is one part fact, one part remembrance, and one part legend. Unfortunately, the legend of the Old Guard has taken on a life of its own, usurping the facts and despoiling the memory of those who were there.

History in the 'Making' or the 'Making' of History?

     One of the advantages of the historian is the ability to interpret happenings based on his interviews, readings, research and intuition about the rest.

     Some critics of the historical essays and books (in general) declare that if the writer 'interprets' the history (in any way) he is 'debasing the reality' of it through the addition of a unique perspective and insight into the people and the happenings under study. Of course, this generally means that the critic sees the subject of the writing in a different light or perspective than the writer did.
     Many times historians will make their mark on the community (of historians) through a unique perspective or a revelation that may not be readily apparent, or spoken of. This brings them the acclaim of the public for the way things had occurred as different in some manner (especially if it is titillating). They may not agree with the gist of another writer's writings and would like to (in turn) correct our interpretation of what the other said "in the interest of truth" (I never really liked that expression).
     However, when people write, no matter how stringent a purist, they impart some of their own ideals and thoughts onto the things and the people written about. In doing so, the more that is recorded, archived, or fantasized about the subject, the more it deviates from whatever the actuality of it was.
     Besides the deviation of whatever is compiled and written from the 'historical reality' there is the alteration of perspective coming from the source of the information (the interviewees, other literary or archival sources, subjective observation).
     Luckily, for us, much of this perspective is from the writing and the interviews of people still living or known when they are living. But, regardless of the 'live sources', "Bill's" observations in Seattle will not be what "Craig's" perspectives were in Miami and "George's" experience in Miami may not mesh with "Craig's". There is a definitive differentiation in experience and observations that lends confusion to the 'overall picture' for a societal phenomenon such as this.

Inconsistency and the "Gray Areas":

     It doesn't help when the historical basis for the writings about the 'Old Guard' is muddled.

     We are told the individuals and groups comprising the 'Old Guard' were started by gay veterans returning home from World War 2. If you have read these histories (4, 5, 6, 7) and accounts of the group dynamics, it may appear as though the "Old Guard" sprang up suddenly with protocol already entrenched through osmosis and the magic of spontaneous institution. There is no 'pre-history' of the true organizations mentioned. It is as though these groups sprang up over night.
     Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Bean, and others speak of the mid fifties for the first known appearance of these groups without attribution towards what specific group(s) appeared and when, general location of where they may have been based, or how the information may have been spread to form any sort of cohesion in behavior or social mannerism. (1, 4, 5)
     We can suppose that the communication among men returning (contact with others coast to coast who may have been in the same military outfit, etc.) was ardent right after the war. But, it would be a grotesque misrepresentation to state that they all used specific protocols (coast to coast and North and South) in a spontaneously cohesive way.
     Certainly we can believe that these "norms" slowly developed through talk and interaction of the regions and groups over the years that passed, and relative conformity for "high protocols" became more standardized. But, there would always be dissenters, people who will never conform to a set of standards demanded of them by others. There would always be those (as well) who thought specific rules were 'silly' and would not care to partake in them. So a homogenous set of rules for all gay men in leather would be a practical impossibility.
     Organizations (unless there is a 'downside' or 'penalty' - and, sometimes even then) will never get members to follow specific rules that are outside of that person's experiential and social desires. So, claims that someone knows the "true" or "real" way of  'Old Guard' behavior or mannerisms may be 'simple fraud' or a misunderstanding about what they read, what they were told, or what they observed. Certainly someone might get 'turned out' of the social circle in which they desire to belong for non-conformity, but some of these are the people who would then go and start their own group (12), altering any historical "certainty" through which we might definitively state was the "one true way" or "protocol" that they used.

     History is fraught with writings on cultures that have formed sets of rules and culturally accepted behavior. They did not come to these through a conscious effort (necessarily) but, through trial and error experiential expertise about what works, what does not work, what is 'fashionable' and the region of that culture's development (which often plays a key role in the developments realized). The core group of these men who might have formed societies had a lot in common. They had the country, the experience of military regimen, the experience of active warfare (some more, some less, but commonly), the feeling of dissociation due to their (socially described as deviant) sexuality and separation from a life (the military) that had been their total experience for several years.
     This provides key elements for a potential generic grouping (in later years by our leather historians/detractors) as "Old Guard". The term is not incorrectly applied, no matter the reason for it's initial application or the protestations of the people it describes.

The Internet and Pablum:

     But what have we, in the internet age, done to develop this deviational dynamic of "drift" in the historical renditions of what they were and what they did (way back when)? 

     Quite a bit, actually.

     Recent writing by senior and 'revered' leather folks shows their disgust at the misapplication of this term and fantastical claims lodged about them (the time and the people).

     The internet is a great outlet for groups desiring something more in their lives than what is present in their 'reality' and day-to-day life. But, in seeking out "leather on line", many of the electronic dominants and submissives are reading and (either) misinterpreting what it meant by the term "Old Guard" or (blatantly) developing their own fantastical histories to support some quirk or need they have. In doing this, (unfortunately) many people have been mislead about what the "Old Guard" were and what they meant to leather communities that were to come.
     I have heard everything on line and in real life from "I am Old Guard" (from a 22 year old heterosexual male) to "I was raised in an Old Guard family" from someone who was openly wondering (a few sentences before) if "…leather would be in fashion this fall".
     These statements really show more about the ignorance of the person speaking than they could ever possibly say about what the history of our culture (is and was).
But, what this does is feed additional misinformation to people who really do not know about any of this and they (in turn) tell others of their "knowledge" of the 'Old Guard' based upon this.
     We are re-creating a culture's history through the legend and myth of 'oft told tales' on the web.

Retrospective:

     The 'Old Guard' are the folks who pioneered the leather movement.
They were mostly comprised of gay men recently out of uniform looking for something that they would never have found had they not made it their reality.
     They were not heroic visages that the web has created, but people who (for the most part) held jobs, shopped for groceries and found the time to make a life. They did this amidst a culture that abandoned them for their sexuality and a community embarrassed by their aspired proclivities. Tendencies that would come to be known as BDSM in the decades to come.
     The name was applied to them first in derision and later in awe for something they never were, myths.

     The 'Old Guard' was a time in American leather history. They were a group of men outcast from their communities (through their own needs and preferences).  In being so, they found meaning through the implementation of a loose social order, which they created (not necessarily by means of popular vote). Through tried and true behaviors this social order became the traditions and customs of an insular culture.
     They were something we have made into legend through our own perceptions and expectations of what we "Think" it should have been, not necessarily what it was.