sign in sign up
<<
Home , 1780s, Breeches, Surtout

Guidelines, Civilian Men, Massacre Reenactment 2017 David Niescior – 2017

1760s Clothing: The Boston Massacre occurred in 1770, a period of transition in men’s clothing from rococo forms which defined the earlier part of the century, to the neo-classical lines of the -90s. Cuffs and sleeves became slimmer, pleats at the became less full, and were buttoned closed at the chest rather than at the waist. With that in mind, there are some few details which are preferable in the coats worn at the massacre.

First, coats should generally have back panels which, taken together, are about the same size as one of the foreparts at the waist. The side seam should run close to the side of the body, with wider panels than were common by the mid-1770s. Ideally, coats should be able to close to the waist, though this is not a hard and fast rule. A popular feature from the mid- until about 1770 were long, fitted cuffs, which went from the wrist to near the elbow but remained closely fitted to the sleeve. Otherwise, by the latter 1760s cuffs had become much more closely fitted to the sleeve and more generally became the small cuffs we are all so familiar with from the 1770s. Further, popular on coats that did not have (as in, what we typically term a collar), were short standing collars, of about one inch in height. These departed from by the mid- 1770s, but returned, albeit in a taller height, by the middle part of the 1780s. The 1760s were also one of the last periods in which center back pleats were popular, though they were on their way out and were now much less full than their earlier counterparts. Center back pleats were, originally, a means of distributing further fullness into the waist earlier in the century when the fashionable silhouette was more wide, but as the style shifted towards the clean lines of neo- classicism, such pleats became retained out of tradition. By the latter 1760s the 1770s they became increasingly less common. of the 1760s, too, typically featured details that became less commonly employed when cutting waistcoats in the 1770s. First, the transition between and the length of the buttons/buttonholes was more gradual before the 1770s. By the ‘70s, waistcoats often featured hard 45 degree angles from the bottom button and along the front edge of the skirts, but earlier typically utilized a more gradual cut away, more a curve than a hard angle. Skirts, too, were typically longer. By the mid-1770s, waistcoat skirts typically extended to the about the wrists when the wearer’s hands fell by their sides. This height climbed higher as the fashion waist climbed, particularly by the turn of the 1780s. Earlier waistcoats, though, of the 1760s typically extended to the middle of the hand or even lower. Waistcoats were most typically single breasted, but double breasted waistcoats were not terribly rare. were less dramatic in their change from the 1760s to the 1770s. From the 1750s on, fall-front breeches increasingly superseded the button breeches which predominated in the earlier part of the century. Button fly breeches were not completely absent by the 1760s, but were increasingly rare. Breeches from the 1740s were closely fitted to the legs, sat low on the hips (think of where most modern sit), and closed below the knee. The general shape did not change much until the latter part of the 1770s and 1780s, when the fashion waistline began its ascent to levels. were also popular among the lower sort, especially poor tradesmen or those involved in dirty trades. Trousers typically followed the general form of breeches at the waist, but were less fitted to the leg, and could be of different lengths, some reaching well to the , others stopping sort well above them. Dressing for the Role: For the most part, the above are basic forms which applied to men’s attire across the social structure. More important for the sake of social identity was the materials that garments were made of. Appearance was, just as today, crucially important in the , but for reasons that are somewhat different. Modern day clothing, in all its variation, is partially intended to express individuality; statements about who we are as people. 18th century clothing, too, expressed aspects of the person wearing it, but much more about the wearer’s relationship to other people. Simply put, class identity as we understand it (lower, middle, upper, etc.) did not exist yet. Certainly, there was a concept of sorts (gentlemen, the middling sort, the common people, or even the herd), but self-identification was more about understanding what the individual was not, rather than what the individual was. Social standing in an era ordered by pervasive hierarchies was about knowing where you were on the ladder, that is, being more concerned with vertical ideas of who was above and below you, not horizontal categories of who shared the rung with you. In that sense clothing was a determinate for where you fit, not only for yourself but for others. Part of this was determined by simple price; it’s difficult to afford fine fabrics and trimmings if those things are beyond one’s ability to pay for them. But, perhaps more important than that, were cultural ideas about what was acceptable for individuals to wear. The early modern period was defined by assumptions of human inequality, both applied to others and to the self. For the lower sort to wear the finery of those above their station was worthy of ridicule, if not scorn. 18th century theatrical works, for example, are replete with servants awkwardly mimicking their social betters, for how ridiculous such actions were. described proper social bearing as a tradesman in detailing his behavior as a printer in , particularly that he worked “to secure my Credit and Character as a Tradesman” by being “in Reality Industrious and frugal” and by avoiding “all Appearances of the Contrary.” Such efforts included hauling paper himself via wheelbarrow down the city’s streets, but also by dressing plainly; dressing his part. This is not to say men dressing above their station did not happen. From the second quarter of the 18th century through to the end saw an explosion of goods consumption in America. Consumerism, as it developed, had important repercussions on the American , perhaps most importantly, as the historian T.H. Breen argues, as a means by which the colonies could identify with each other. But, further, it began shaping cultural assumptions of appearance as an indicator of social rank. The highest ranking of American society, by the middle of the century, sometimes complained of the members of an emergent “middling” sort as dressing above their station, and using their possessions to justify their pretensions; of confusing lines between the gentility and the common sort. A physician traveling through in 1744, for example, commented on a fellow he found himself dining near one morning in a public house. A man who seemed “a rough spun, forward, clownish blade” argued with an innkeeper, who had served the man who was dressed in “a greasy and breeches and a dirty worsted ” a breakfast adequate “for some ploughman or carman.” The shabbily dressed man claimed that he was a gentleman, and to presented a linen cap from his pocket as evidence, besides as well detailing the silver knee and breeches he possessed, his gold sleeve buttons, Holland , other “neat” nightcaps. The affronted man also claimed that he could easily afford fine meals, and that his “little woman att home drank tea twice a day.” The moral of the story, as presented by the physician diarist, was the absurdity of the shabby man trying to assert his gentility by goods, but it’s important to note that the unidentified man tried it at all. He clearly thought by ownership of certain kinds of goods that he ought to be regarded as the gentleman he imagined himself to be.1

Guidelines Fit and Style: Coats- Best: Entirely handstitched full or short length coats which button to the waist, with wide back panels and sleeves with either long or short fitted cuffs. Acceptable: Partially machine sewn full or short length coats which button to the waist, with wide back panels and sleeves with either long or short fitted cuffs. Coats which cut away at the chest with narrow back panels. Discouraged: Entirely machine sewn coats, coats which obviously predate or postdate 1770, coats which are baggy or otherwise ill-fitting. Waistcoats- Best: Completely handsewn waistcoats with skirts that reach between the middle of the hand to the middle of the thigh, with a gradual cutaway from the bottom button. Acceptable: Waistcoats that reach below mid-thigh, waistcoats with hard angle cutaways from the bottom button. Partially machine sewn waistcoats. Discouraged: Round cut waistcoats, high waisted waistcoats. Completely machine sewn waistcoats. Breeches- Best: Completely handsewn breeches with fall front flys, that sit low on the hips and are closely fitted to the legs. For those representing the lower sort, handsewn trousers with fall fronts that sit low on the hips. Acceptable: Button fly breeches, breeches that are partially machine sewn. For the lower sort, partially machine sewn trousers of button or fall front flies.

1 1 T.H. Breen, “Baubles of Britain”: The American and Consumer Revolutions of the Eighteenth Century, Past & Present, No. 119 (, 1988). Discouraged: Completely machine sewn breeches or trousers, baggy breeches.

Material Choice and Social Rank: The Lower Sort: Coarse broadcloths, worsteds, and flannels for coats, waistcoats, or breeches. Garments should generally not be made of the same materials in the same , and ought to show evidence of hard wear and difficult work. Consider the weather, and avoid wearing garments made of linen.

The Middling Sort: Common or fine broadcloths and fine worsteds for coats, waistcoats, or breeches. can have materials made of the same materials, but a mixture of different colors and materials is perfectly acceptable. Some silk, particularly for waistcoats, is acceptable. Consider the weather, and avoid wearing garments that are not fully lined, or made of materials ill-suited to the cold. Consider wearing a or , ideally made of dense woolen cloth. The Affluent: Superfine broadcloths, silk, velvet, or fine worsteds for coats, waistcoats, or breeches. Suits should generally be made of the same materials, though waistcoats can be made of different materials. Here, particularly, the devil is in the details. Clothing of those dressing as gentlemen should be complete with silver buckles, and bright clean linen. In general, though, the affluent should be absent from the Massacre event. The social leadership of Boston wanted nothing to do with anything that potentially disturbed the Whig efforts to depict Boston as a town in a state of “profound peace.” Besides, the gentility had other avenues to vent political frustrations, either by exerting their influence or even by serving as government officials themselves. One or two gentlemen caught in the fray is acceptable, but they ought to try to calm the crowd than rile it up.