Some thoughts about Farmers’ Clothes

[Emmanuel Dabney]

Re: Some thoughts about Farmers’ Clothes

Sir,

I am intrigued by him not having an overseer. Obviously you will know more than I do (or anyone else on the forum) about him hiring an overseer.

However with sixty slaves, the man (as I call tell Joseph Foy) who owned Poplar Grove was a planter. If he didn't have a white overseer then he probably relied on a male overseer. Basically all the planters in the South went to inspect their fields at some stage. What I have found is that corduroy was used by a wealthy planter as a more riding to the fields clothing.

However, broadcloth and linen suits were his standard wear. I'd reason the same would be applicable for your portrayal.

[DougCooper]

Re: Some thoughts about Farmers’ Clothes

Outstanding stuff there Emmanuel! The terms satinette, cassimere, broad cloth, satin and kersey appear throughout. Would it be a good assumption that a cloth mentioned without one of those descriptors (such as "blue", "drab" or "black" cloth) might be jean?

[KarinTimour]

Re: Some thoughts about Farmers’ Clothes

You mention knee pants, which are worn with long hose -- and now you're touching on my patch (socks and stockings). You mention that they are considering knee pants for your impression. What documentation do they have that knee pants were worn in this time period or by this gentleman? My understanding is that knee pants, for grown men, were worn as dress up civilian wear much earlier than the 1860s. Even then they weren't worn for everyday clothing -- unless you've got something site specific that says otherwise.

Knee pants were worn as men's dress wear in the 1810s, and early 1820s. By the 1830s and 1840s most men were wearing trousers that ended at the ankle for both dress-up and everyday.

Hope that's helpful,
Karin Timour
Period Knitting -- Socks, Sleeping Hats, Balaclavas
Atlantic Guard Soldiers' Aid Society
Email: Ktimour@aol.com

[Hank Trent]

Re: Some thoughts about Farmers’ Clothes

Outstanding stuff there Emmanuel! The terms satinette, cassimere, broad cloth, satin and kersey appear throughout. Would it be a good assumption that a cloth mentioned without one of those descriptors (such as "blue", "drab" or "black" cloth) might be jean?

"Cloth" alone normally means broadcloth. "100 Black Cloth Frock Coats at $25 00" Ain't no way those are made of black jeans.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Carolann Schmitt]

Re: Some thoughts about Farmers’ Clothes

Outstanding stuff there Emmanuel! The terms satinette, cassimere, broad cloth, satin and kersey appear throughout. Would it be a good assumption that a cloth mentioned without one of those descriptors (such as "blue", "drab" or "black" cloth) might be jean?

Satinette, cassimere, broadcloth, satin, kersey and jean are different fabrics: different fiber content, different threads used to weave them, different weave structure, different hand, different drape, different finishing. If you search Vicki's site using the terms "jean" or "jeans" (without quotation marks), you'll find many references for jean among the lists of other fabrics. Put the same terms in other search engines and you'll find similar advertisements and announcements from across the country.

Period citizens knew the differences between the fabrics, and they knew which fabrics were commonly used for various garments. It's very unlikely the merchants would list broadcloth when they meant jean, or jean when they meant satin. And a citizen would immediately know that a dress coat was made from fine broadcloth and not jean.

There will be a presentation at this year's 1860s Conference on selecting fabric for mid-19th century men's (non-military) clothing. An exhibit of original garments and modern fabrics will accompany the presentation.

[Elaine Kessinger]

Re: Some thoughts about Farmers’ Clothes

Indeed, Miz Karin is correct. As a general rule, adult men wore long trousers, both every-day wear and dress-wear. The few noticable exceptions are livery uniforms, "fancy dress" balls (costume party!!), European court clothing (and that was changing fast) and as an option for the very younger gentlemen. Also remember, if they are going from a painted portrait, it was a fashion for a time to have your portrait done "you as a famous character".:)

[DougCooper]

Re: Some thoughts about Farmers’ Clothes

Satinette, cassimere, broadcloth, satin, kersey and jean are different fabrics: different fiber content, different threads used to weave them, different weave structure, different hand, different drape, different finishing. If you search Vicki's site using the terms "jean" or "jeans" (without quotation marks), you'll find many references for jean among the lists of other fabrics. Put the same terms in other search engines and you'll find similar advertisements and announcements from across the country.

Period citizens knew the differences between the fabrics, and they knew which fabrics were commonly used for various garments. It's very unlikely the merchants would list broadcloth when they meant jean, or jean when they meant satin. And a citizen would immediately know that a dress coat was made from fine broadcloth and not jean.

There will be a presentation at this year's 1860s Conference on selecting fabric for mid-19th century men's (non-military) clothing. An exhibit of original garments and modern fabrics will accompany the presentation.

Carolann - I am extremely familiar with period textiles, their use, hierarchy, etc.. I was asking the question from a period advertising standpoint - i.e., jean being a more sturdy laborers fabric, perhaps a merchant would not describe it as jean, but instead leave that descriptor blank...since as you say, the citizens knew the grade, weave and usage of all types. If I were shopping, and did not see the fabric listed as cassimere, satinette, etc, I might assume it was a more inexpensive, lower grade such as jean if a relative price was not listed.

I note the use of the term "fancy cassimere" and wonder if this merchant had a lower grade cassimere or merely called all cassimere "fancy."

[Carolann Schmitt]

Re: Some thoughts about Farmers’ Clothes

Doug -

I misunderstood your question. I think the wording in the advertisements is literal. If the merchant is selling fabric or clothing made of jean, they list it as jean in the ad. As Hank mentioned, in this context the word "cloth" usually means broadcloth.

In textile terminology, "fancy" is used to describe a fabric differing in pattern or construction from the plain or staple version of said fabric. Instead of being woven in a plain weave or a two-up, two-down twill, a fancy cassimere would have a pattern or variation woven into the fabric. These variations can be small motifs (spots, diamonds, squares, etc.) larger patterns (woven windowpanes, large open diamonds or squares, a diagonal line on the opposite grain, etc.), or any one of a number of other variations.

During this period, I have not found the term "fancy" used to describe a higher quality fabric.

Regards,

[cap tassel]

Re: Some thoughts about Farmers’ Clothes

Sir,

I am intrigued by him not having an overseer.

Not meant to derail the thread but the 1860 census indicates that 8% (3,800) of the total 47,584 planters had overseers at that time.

[cap tassel]

Re: Some thoughts about Farmers’ Clothes

There will be a presentation at this year's 1860s Conference on selecting fabric for mid-19th century men's (non-military) clothing. An exhibit of original garments and modern fabrics will accompany the presentation.

Someday I'm going to have to make it to a conference. They just keep sounding better and better.

[Hank Trent]

Re: Some thoughts about Farmers’ Clothes

Not meant to derail the thread but the 1860 census indicates that 8% (3,800) of the total 47,584 planters had overseers at that time.

How are you calculating that? By taking the total number of people whose occupation was "planter" and the total number whose occupation was "overseer"? Or are you screening the planters to see that they actually had enough slaves and property to potentially require an overseer?

The problem is that in areas where it was typical to identify oneself as a "planter," it didn't necessarily imply you had any certain amount of land or slaves, just the opposite of what Emmanuel mentioned is post #29 where a wealthy slave-owner self-identified as a "farmer."

I've been looking at the 1860 Louisiana Natchitoches census for Into the Piney Woods lately, and while some of the residents are your classic "planter" with real and personal property in the tens of thousands and an overseer in the same household or listed next, others are like these fellows, name followed by real property, then personal property (census page 20):

J. M. Williamson, planter, $840, $900
L. B. Armstrong, planter, $400, $225
Hugh(?) McRay, planter, $0, $900
G.A.(?) Clark, planter, $0, $300
John A. Walker, planter, $400, $250

Unless the planters are qualified by number of slaves or amount of property, I would suggest that the 92% of "planters" without overseers would include a lot of fellows like those, who would self-identify as "farmers" if they'd lived in other parts of the country. Those listed without real estate probably rented their land, and though it's possible they rented a significant amount of land, slaves and implements to cultivate it, despite having very little property, I'd guess the more likely explanation is that they were simply poor farmers who called themselves planters just because everybody else did.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[cap tassel]

Re: Some thoughts about Farmers’ Clothes

Hank, no these were slave owning of 20 or more, what modern historians qualify as 'planter class'.

[Hank Trent]

Re: Some thoughts about Farmers’ Clothes

Hank, no these were slave owning of 20 or more, what modern historians qualify as 'planter class'.

Could you share the source of your statistic? I'm curious about other things now: if "planters" were defined as those holding 20+ slaves (and then we get into issues like did they actually farm themselves, or rent them out, or use them in manufacturing), how were "overseers" defined? Anyone who called himself an overseer in the census, even if he oversaw a farm with free labor or a factory? Or were overseers matched with planters, for example side-by-side on the census? To draw conclusions from statistics, I find it immensely helpful to see how they were derived.

Time on the Cross gives much higher statistics for overseers, with a chart here. See the previous page for more text, which states less than one in six (under 16%) for those owning 16-50 slaves, and one in four for those with over 50 slaves, or 30% for those with over 100 slaves. However, I believe that was based on the Parker-Gallman sample of only about 5,000 plantations, mostly cotton ones I believe, so I'm interested to see how a different percentage was derived using a larger database.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[cap tassel]

Re: Some thoughts about Farmers’ Clothes

Could you share the source of your statistic? I'm curious about other things now: if "planters" were defined as those holding 20+ slaves (and then we get into issues like did they actually farm themselves, or rent them out, or use them in manufacturing), how were "overseers" defined? Anyone who called himself an overseer in the census, even if he oversaw a farm with free labor or a factory? Or were overseers matched with planters, for example side-by-side on the census? To draw conclusions from statistics, I find it immensely helpful to see how they were derived.

Time on the Cross gives much higher statistics for overseers, with a chart here. See the previous page for more text, which states less than one in six (under 16%) for those owning 16-50 slaves, and one in four for those with over 50 slaves, or 30% for those with over 100 slaves. However, I believe that was based on the Parker-Gallman sample of only about 5,000 plantations, mostly cotton ones I believe, so I'm interested to see how a different percentage was derived using a larger database.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

The figure might come from Time on the Cross, I think (I'd have to check. I can't remember). My source here is Myths and Realities of American Slavery. I should point out that two separate comparisons are being made. The link you provided is dealing with the % pertaining only to the race of the overseers. So of those that did employ overseers it is showing what % were white. The figure I gave simply shows of all the planters how many employed overseers.

I think overseers are being matched to farming in this figure. Given the unusually high amount of agriculture to factory work I don't know how much the inclusion of overseers from a factory would affect it that much. I don't know how many factory supervisors called themselves overseers to begin with or would even want to be one.

The book makes a distinction between overseer and driver but that there was no real line drawn between the two, only that an overseer was of higher status than a driver and the difference being the amount of responsibilities. It goes into hiring out of slaves and says that in cities it was much more common with 31% of slaves there being hired out and 7.5% in rural areas on plantations. Usually it was on a 51 week stint but lesser lengths of times also.

[laxdoc]

Re: Some thoughts about Farmers’ Clothes

Thanks all for info. My remark about kneepants came as two ladies comented on a dance scene(joking I hope). I have a better idea of dressing now. I belive this whole subject is a can of worms. As soon as you think you have it solved, you find a new set of info, and you begin again. As to the overseerer, I am going to go to the censues records. I am getting imput from family that Joseph used the morning room to give orders for the day. So who did he give orders too. More digging. As there were saw mill, grist mill, brickyard, turpinetine still, and a store, did he employ sawyers, millers, or store keepers to run these sites with slaves working for them. Records not clear. Again thanks for help, will ask you for more info as I run into stone walls. Isn't research fun!!!!!!