19th Century Fashionista--Part One: Choosing What To Wear By Jaymi Trimble M.A. Southern Antebellum History

It is Sunday.  This morning, I got up, put on bike pants, a t-shirt and slipped into a pair of Ariat boots.  I live on a farm.  This is pretty common attire—even on weekdays—and sometimes my ensemble is picked up off the floor where I dead-tired dropped it the night before!!   If I lived in the 1800s, my regiment would not be so gloriously simple.  In fact, I would be so depressed about the thought of getting dressed (over and over throughout the day), I might not get out of bed!  

In the 1800s, women of a certain class, spent their time being pretty, socializing…and dressing.  Just writing this, I am overwhelmed at the mind-numbing tedium of a life’s purpose studying and following etiquette then selecting an array of garments to remain within the confines of it.  

The main source of fashion and etiquette back in those days was the Godey's Lady's Book.  It might surprise you to learn that the force behind the pages of this extremely popular ladies magazine...was a man.  Godey, a self-taught son of French immigrants with no education, was a publisher who wanted to make MONEY.  For seven years 1830-1837, he published the Godey's Lady's Book...with the help of no women until 1837, when he hooked up in a business venture with a schoolteacher named Sarah Josepha Hale.  Hale is remembered for writing Mary Had A Little Lamb (among other things).  Hale's father owned and ran a tavern.  Etiquette? Fashion? My, my, my.

Ok.  Time to get out of bed.  So...if you were upper or middle class, you would first need to think about what your day had in store.  This was crucial because there was a dress style for every occasion and you best know the difference or your social standing could suffer.  In fact, you would probably have had to change your outfit several times in a day!  If you made the wrong choice, there would be tittle-tattle that involved a hand in front of one’s mouth and a conspiratorial lean toward the lady sitting nearest.  The lightning speed of the ether had nothing on how fast whisper-tales could spread like wildfire, setting a woman’s reputation ablaze.

Best not let your tongue waggle too much because there were ways of dealing with that nasty little problem.   Interesting contraption though it was, a Punish Gossip, also known as a Scold's Bridle or Brank's Bridle, was a way of punishing women who gossiped and exposing them to public humiliation.  The contraption was an iron muzzle that enclosed the head and it had a bit (often studded with spikes), about 2 inches long and 1 inch wide that fit into the mouth and pressed the tongue down.   Actually, that did not happen in the 1800s—rather the 1500s &1600s in Europe.

Ok.  So now you’re up, and it’s time to pick the first dress of the day!!  Let the choices begin...

Are you planning to lounge around the house today?  If so, your best choice would be a house dress, which was worn ONLY in the home!  You best not be running out to the 7-11 for a Twinkie in your house dress, or scandal would await.  This was a plain dress, considered comfortable by 19^th century standards and lovely (not) with its high neckline, long sleeves, subdued color and no decoration.  By all means, don’t forget that bonnet (especially on bad hair days). 

If your desire was to receive visitors, you would frock yourself in a Toilette de Reception ensemble, which was a snazzier version of the house dress.  You could, of course, receive guests in your house dress, but hey, if you've got it flaunt it.  Taking the time to dress for visitors was said to show respect for the visitor.  I’m thinking it might have been to show off just a little.  Oh, and it was not necessary for the reception dress or the house dress to change with the seasons (as most other dresses would), since you wouldn't have been going out.

Man or woman (or cross-dresser), dressing for success in the 19th Century was serious business.

Now, if you were inclined to go visiting, you would wear the Toilette de Visite—BUT only if you were going visiting during the daytime.  And you would really have to be careful in choosing this dress because it had to be polite in its design, yet have a subdued elegance that didn't embarrass the hostess (just in case she was of lesser means).  Dress selection was very serious business (just ask Godey!!!).  Now, this dress would need to reflect the seasons—BUT—accessories like coats and things were considered add-ons, not part of the dress.  Seriously, it might be winter-like cold on an April spring day so you couldn't be seen wearing a winter dress, but you could be seen wearing a winter coat!!  By the way, if you were planning on stepping over the threshold of a door leading outside, you better properly and according to etiquette, have your head covered with a hat or bonnet. 

This is a picture of one of my ancestors, going visiting in her Toilette de Visite.  Notice her sweet disposition (that is a family trait) :)

If a promenade was on your agenda, then you would want to attire yourself in an outdoor dress you could wear for a nice walk.  This dress would definitely need to be season appropriate (have y’all ever been to the South in the Summer!!).  Since this was an outside dress, fashion accessories such as gloves, coat, mantilla, parasol, etc would definitely have been part of the ensemble.  In your hand, summer or winter, there might have been a walking stick.  Not for need, rather fashion…and many of those walking sticks had a more important purpose—the top of the walking stick unscrewed to reveal a small flask, perhaps for refreshment along the way.  What happens on the promenade, stays on the promenade!!!

Would you Power Walk in these??

What in the world would you wear if you decided to go calling on a day like this???

If you were going somewhere that required travel by carriage or coach, you would need to choose a practical dress that would keep you warm…or cool, depending on the season.  Bottom line, you had to be able to get on and off that coach gracefully (a.k.a. not falling flat on your face and bringing shame and disgrace onto you and your family!!).  Oh, and travelling dresses would need to be made in colors on which dust wouldn't be too conspicuous.

Equestrian pursuits, (riding sidesaddle of course), were considered the only sport women could participate in until the late 19^th century (with the occasional exception made for riding a camel).   Women were well-heeled in their equine (or dromedary) pursuits.  Red, black and green were the most popular habit colors—a carry-over of hunt colors from the 18^th century.  To accommodate the side saddle, there were no skirt supports and the fabric was sturdy so it wouldn't rip if a twig was snagged, showing a lady’s unmentionables. 

As the late afternoon rolled around, it would be time to dress for dinner, or supper (as the case may be).  Necklines would plunge and sleeves would become shorter.

After dinner, a concert, perhaps the theater, or a party might be fun and, if so, evening dress would be in order.  Evening dress would reflect beauty and status, without quite reaching the elegance of a ball gown.  Close, but not quite. 

Ball gowns were considered the height of elegance.  These dresses were intricate, showcasing the wearer’s taste and social standing and the seamstress’ talents.  The ball gown is a lady’s best dress, with all the accoutrements of beauty and wealth sewn up in dozens of yards of exotic imported fabric.  Like a flower to a bee, it was meant to attract attention (and possibly a husband) with a low neckline, no sleeves, tight bodice and a lot of trim.  Some ball gowns sported 50 feet of ruffles.  That’s like 5 stories of ruffles! 

My goodness!  What a day!! You've been taking callers, calling, dining, promenading, riding, traveling and dancing.  You must be exhausted!! You're not? You want to what??!! Go shopping??!!  Wow!!  You truly are a true 19^th Century Fashionista.

Hope to see y'all back soon for "19th Century Fashionista--Part Two--Putting It ALL On," when we’ll foray into how in the blue blazes to get ALL this frockery on using the necessary undergarments, stays, ties, laces, contraptions, etc—and in what order to put them on.  

Thank you for stopping by!

19TH CENTURY MOURNING—PART TWO: GRIEF KNOWS NO CLASS BOUNDS By Jaymi Trimble M.A. Southern Antebellum History

After a study of upper and middle class mourning practices, it left me wondering…what of the lower class?  Their grief is no less fierce.  Grief knows no class bounds.  Yet, unlike upper and middle class women, the poor were not afforded the luxury of a time of mourning—a period set aside for one’s heart to mend.

To a life already burdened with financial woes, visited grief.  There was no time to stop and mourn.  Life must go on.  There were mouths to feed. 

Could love flourish as a couple, could parents love young children when there was a black cloud of fatalism looming on the horizon?  There was sickness, disease, accidents, plagues…and there was Civil War.  Over 600,000 men died.  Every family, from upper class to slave, was touched by grief.

When a loved one was lost, all grieved, yet, only some could afford to indulge mourning.  For upper class women, mourning was a job.  Lower class women already had a job and languishing in their grief was not an option.  How could  women so devastated by their loss as to require a regimented three year’s mourning period, be so out of touch with the sorrow of women less fortunate?  Money buys privilege, not brains.  To be more precise, mourning is the outward expression of grief.  Mourning for the lower class was considered unnecessary.

It’s not that the poor didn’t grieve.  Of course they did.  They had responsibilities to uphold, where outward signs of grief were not acceptable. In stolen moments and in private, they grieved.  Grief is the commonality between the classes.  How it is expressed is what money could buy.  The amount of money spent on grief was inferred as an indication of depth of grief.  If a lot of money was spent on mourning attire, hired coach, funeral, headstone; then, it was inferred the departed must have been very well loved.  The man destined for the pauper’s grave was not to have the epilogue of not being loved.  Rather, he had the misfortune to be poor in wealth, not necessarily in love, family and friends.

 

When someone of meager financial means passed, it must have been difficult to separate grief from worry over the added financial burden of a funeral and burial…not to mention the loss of a wage earner to contend with.  Loss is certainly entwined in material concerns, but not bound by them.  More important than financial concerns, there is a broken heart, loss of companionship, loss of dreams and plans for the future.

 

The poor had practical considerations in planning a funeral, which the rich were not encumbered by.  Funerals among the working classes were planned around work and most often held on Sundays, so family and friends wouldn’t have their pay docked to attend.

Extravagance was not equal to respectability.  Even if the departed was bound for a pauper’s grave, the family would do their best to fashion mourning attire—sometimes that meant using black tape to make a tie (which was common).  Being practical folk, they relied on their ingenuity and simply dyed their existing wardrobe black—bundling up their clothes and carting them to the backyard to be dyed in the wash pot.  The reason they dyed their clothing outside was because the black dye smelled horrible.  To create black dye iron was used with madder and logwood.  Sometimes an entire neighborhood would smell foul from the dye pots if the person that passed came from a large extended family, or if several neighbors were dyeing clothing to attend the funeral. 

One equaling factor among classes was religion.  The church was often turned to for solace.  Having lots of money or having little money didn’t change the fact that spiritual rights were the same, rich or poor…it was the private meaning placed on them that was important. 

For upper and middle class, mourning dress was a way to share the prevalence and stage of one’s grief with others.  It was also a way to display economic and social status.  The boom years of the mourning industry were from 1815 to 1915.  Fashion magazines flaunted mourning wear and the rich supported this thriving industry.  Accordingly, it was expensive to look properly anguished. 

In 1863, Nannie Haskings, a Tennessee teenager, called mourning practices to task in a journal entry that questioned why she should care at all about what she wore instead of focusing on her emotional pain: “What do I care whether it becomes me or not? I don't wear black because it becomes me. ... I wear mourning because it corresponds with my feelings."

The lower classes may not have been able to afford expensive mourning attire, an extravagant funeral, ornate headstone (or mausoleum), let alone commission a death mask or hire  a photographer for the very popular post mortem photography of the day…but what they commonly did was save a lock of hair.  This was popular among the upper classes too, however, they would likely have had the hair made into jewelry or art.

The lower class would paste the hair into a simple remembrance book.  An article in Godey’s Lady’s Book May 1855, expressed sentiment that crossed class lines: “Hair is at once the most delicate and lasting of our materials, and survives us, like love.  It is so light, so gentle, so escaping from the idea of death, that with a lock of hair belonging to a child or friend, we may almost look up to heaven and compare notes with the angelic nature—may almost say, “I have a piece of thee here, not unworthy of thy being now.”

Our body is a vessel for our spirit, and once the spirit no longer has need of it, the time has come for our body to be put to rest.  For those of little means, there would be no hearse pulled by a horse decked out in plumes.  Possibly a friend with a buckboard...otherwise, mourners carried the coffin from the home all the way to the graveyard.  There was support among friends--a spirit of kindness, not extravagance.  Having enough money to grieve properly by societal standards, was not a reflection of the love for the departed.

We all end up not needing our body anymore.  Some of us end up in the cemetery—a Greek word meaning “sleeping place.”  Death and graveyards remind us of our mortality, of our short time on earth, our ultimate death.  Rich or poor.  Pauper’s grave or mausoleum.  We all end up…dead.

19TH CENTURY MOURNING—PART ONE: DID THE VICTORIANS HAVE IT RIGHT? By Jaymi Trimble M.A. Southern Antebellum History

Victorians didn't pretend death wasn't a part of life, as death came calling often.  Death was unpredictable…mourning was not. 

Mourning was governed by strict rules of etiquette.  There were three different and specific periods of mourning. Deep Mourning was the first stage.  During this time, mourning clothes were plain with little or no adornment.  Everything was black—clothing, jewelry, gloves, and a black veil would obscure the woman’s face.  This attire was referred to as “widow’s weeds” a name popularized after Queen Victoria’s beloved Prince Albert died (1861).  While in Deep Mourning, a woman would seclude herself—no parties, gatherings or calling (i.e. visits—not Ma Bell).  This phase of mourning would last (at least) one year and a day. 

Not only did women drape themselves in black during this time of mourning, their homes reflected their grief and loss as well.  My old stomping grounds while living in Houston was the history rich corridor of plantations between Houston and New Orleans (and thereabouts).  Toward the beginning of my fascination with Southern History (1820 up to the War Between The States), I visited The Myrtles Plantation in St. Francisville, Louisiana and learned about mirrors being draped in black crape to keep the spirit of the newly departed, from getting trapped in the looking glass (mirror) while crossing over.  Given that this was considered a time when the veil was thin, the black crape would also serve to catch any wayward spirits from exiting the looking glass.

When Deep Mourning had passed, a woman entered Second Stage Mourning, which would last another nine to 12 months.  During this stage the strict rules of mourning were relaxed.  Black was still worn as the predominant color; however, the veil of black crape was lifted.  During the latter part of the Victorian Era doctors were calling for losing the thick black veils after the first few days of Deep Mourning had passed because they claimed womens' eyesight was being permanently affected!  During Second Stage, black lace, collars and cuffs were removed and replaced with white signifying to others that Deep Mourning had passed.   Jewelry choices were more liberal, as well. 

Last, in this long process was Half Mourning.  Half mourning lasted about six months, during which time women were no longer limited strictly to black garments adorned in a touch of white.  They could add lilac, lavender, violet, mauve and gray.  Though still limited to bonnets (not hats), stylish bonnets could be crafted by the milliner in white or lavender silk, or even straw. 

Half Mourning Dress, circa 1855.
Courtesy of the North Carolina Museum of History

At the time of Half Mourning, women might want to begin calling again.  This was not as simple as going out for a visit.  Such re-introduction to society was governed by rules of etiquette.  “When persons who have been in mourning wish to reenter society, they should leave cards on all their friends and acquaintances, as an intimation that they are equal to the paying and receiving of calls. Until this intimation is given, society will not venture to intrude upon the mourner's privacy.” (Mourning and Funeral Usages", Harpers Bazaar, April 17, 1886).

And…just in case you were not grieved by your husband’s passing, there were instructions for that too.  Consider this excerpt from, "Mourning and Funeral Usages", Harpers Bazaar, April 17, 1886:  “For the heartless wife who, instead of being grieved at the death of her husband, is rejoiced at it, should be taught that society will not respect her unless she pays to the memory of the man whose name she bears that "homage which vice pays to virtue," a commendable respect to the usages of society in the matter of mourning and of retirement from the world. Mourning garments have this use, that they are a shield to the real mourner, and they are often a curtain of respectability to the person who should be a mourner but is not.”  

Mourning was BIG business.  Many companies preyed upon…I mean…catered to the grieving, providing everything right down to the proper mourning pins—because—even the pins you used had to be black!  

And…what of men during times of mourning?  Women sure did get the short end of the stick—even in death.  Men were not held to the same strict standards as women.  Men wore a black crape band around their arm and set about their business.  If it was the wife that passed, the husband was not encumbered by any mourning mores.  In fact, he would probably begin to look for a new wife right away, because there was the practical matter of the children to be looked after.  If one horse dies, another must be purchased right away to run the race.  Practical and patriarchal.  Seriously…if it was the wife left surviving with a passel of children, she could have no way looked for a new husband.  So, unless the widow wanted dishonor and scandal to befall her and her family, societal norms said she and the children were to rely on the kindness of others.  If that kindness was not forthcoming for THREE YEARS while she honored mourning etiquette, she may likely have found herself in the poorhouse—while a man had no such restraints on his practicality. 

Inequality and mourning etiquette aside…let's consider why the Victorian mourning period was sooooo long?  Because…grief is like that.  Were the Victorians onto something (sans the mourning garb, of course)?  Those we love leave us too soon.  If you've lost someone dear to you, you’ll understand that by today's norms, folks expect your grieving to be well under control by the time your two week (if you have that much) leave from work is done.  Does grieving begin to end that quickly?  Grieving is a process.  It is physical.  It is emotional.  It is mental.  After a period of about two and a half years the pain begins to ebb.  That doesn't mean we don't begin to move on with life much sooner than that, however, in our society, if you aren't “better” after, say, six weeks, nine at the most, you are sent to the doctor for pills to help you cope.  Do you suppose not coping well after you've had your world ripped apart is…dare I say it…normal and not a pharmaceutical issue that needs to be labeled and medicated.  Just sayin’. 

Why Does Historical Fashion Matter? By Jaymi Trimble, M.A., Southern Antebellum History

Historical fashion, like history, is important because it shows us how women's lives have changed over time, via the clothing they wore, in relation to societal views, norms, mores and class. 

Fashion, then, as now, says a lot about who we are.  Clothing in the 19^th Century was not mass produced.  Garments were tailored for an individual’s size and preference.  There were few synthetic fabrics and certainly no knock-offs.  No Wal-Mart.  No having a Couch bag instead of a Coach bag. 

What you wore told folks who you were.  Clothing was fashionably tailored by accomplished seamstresses, with fabric imported from far away exotic lands, and it reflected social rank.  Or...it was hand sewn from flour sacks or simple calico purchased at the mercantile and was utilitarian.  If you had money (never talked about among women—rather flaunted), the quality and yardage of fabric and trim choices, foretold your place in society.  Women who did not spend their lives in toil or servitude wore ensembles in which restricted movement was not an issue.  You did not require a great range of motion to drink mint juleps on the porch (kidding).  However, if you were working class or a servant, the clothing you wore would need to allow you the freedom of movement to perform your duties.  A servant might even roll up her sleeves in a hot kitchen or in the comings and goings of a busy day—a lady would never roll up anything, least of all a sleeve.  She might pull up a sleeve a little on the sly to reveal her hella diamond bracelet...or even ride an ostrich...but never roll up a sleeve!

Oddly, fashion sometimes regressed in the liberation of women.  Yes, as strange as this sounds, it is true.  It was not a faux pas for 18^th Century women to show a little ankle.  However, in the 19^th Century, it was considered scandalous to do so.  Women in the 19^th Century could show cleavage, but dare not let an ankle peek out.  In fact, there were strategically placed mirrors around the home (particularly in the parlor) for ladies to ensure they were not scandalized in such fashion--pardon the pun :).

Actually, Petticoat Mirrors have been debunked by some historians as Pier Tables in disguise.  However, in the American South, I daresay there were strategically placed floor mirrors that were not Pier Tables trendily positioned between windows, as was the norm.  We’ll just have to agree to disagree on that one.   I realize Petticoats were remiss to slip and slips were sewn in mightily, however, there were just certain things a lady wouldn't  do…and showing an ankle or petticoat was one of them.  Great pains were taken to avoid this.  How strange to think of this when now-a-days you are almost guaranteed not only to see a woman’s ankle (knee, thigh...), there is a high probability it will be tattooed!    Oh, my how things have changed. 

As we begin this blogging journey together, it is in pursuit of understanding, not debunking, that I hope to share and explore with you.  I question that term "debunking" when applied to history without the benefit of primary source documentation or citations.  Claiming anything (including "because the museum curator said so," is just not how the business of history is done.

 

Like present day fashion, historical fashion was personal.  It reminds us from where we came…and what the journey was like along the way for centuries of women before us.

I love to sew historical garments for the same reason I collect and study antiques--it puts me in touch with history.  How did people do things then…and why.  I may be utilizing contemporary materials and sewing in a new millennium, but fashioning an item in a style (although not often with purist materials) that someone actually would have worn makes the time period and people that lived then more real.

Feel free to email me: sewintohistory@gmail.com  or post in the comments section.  Please visit me on Facebook and give a like:  facebook.com/sewintohistory.  Thank you for spending a little time here today!!