Bramett wore a Colonial-era dress she hand stitched, and brought three other dresses she made--all pink, all using different types of fabrics and styles to illustrate the points she made in her power presentation.
"The fabric of our lives" evokes the 1980s television commercial encouraging people to turn away from polyester and return to cotton. She said since she started wearing cotton for work, that when she wears synthetic materials they just don't feel right.
Her presentation was neatly organized into four categories:
1) Functional
2) Status
3) Political
4) Artifact
Functional: in the 1600s clothes served a function. Everyone, even the most wealthy, had two outfits that they wore every day. One for work, and the other (if lucky) to wear to church on Sundays.
Status: Around the 18th century, fabric became tied to the economy. Cotton and linen were exported from the New World and sent to Britain to be turned into cloth, which was then sold to people in the New World. At the same time, people were traveling to other parts of the world and seeing what others were wearing.
Fabric became a status symbol. Rather than having plain fabric, printed material began to exist. The lower classes still wore solid colors (often in linen), the middle class citizens wore patterned cotton cloth, but the wealthy wanted something different. They wore silk fabric with patterns. After all in those days of slavery, labor was cheap so to show your wealth, you had to wear better fabric. This extended to your bedding, drapes, table cloths, and all fabric you needed.
Political: Laws were made to dictate what Black people could wear. Louisiana's Tignon Law of 1786 said women of color must cover their hair to suppress their beauty. South Carolina's 1735 Slave Code law specified that Blacks could only wear "Negro cloth," which was not as fine as what their owners wore. This law was ignored by the slaveholders who chose what their property would wear. She compared it to posted speed limit signs versus how we drive in New Jersey, some might obey but most don't.
Another interesting rabbit hole was that during the Revolutionary War era there were boycotts on buying fabric from Britain. Instead people spun their own fabric and made their own clothes as part of the Homespun Movement. Think of it as the original Buy in America movement started by women.
Artifacts: this was the most fascinating part of Bramett's discussion. She pointed out that very little fabric actually exists from the Colonial era, so how do historians like herself know so much about them? There are three ways: runaway ads, wills, and foundling homes. Each a little more distressing than the previous.
Runaway ads described not just the physical characteristics of the runaway slaves, but their attire, often in great detail. Remember, people did not have a lot of clothing in that time period.
Wills. Fabric was so valuable that everyone who had a will listed it in their wills. For the William Trent House they listed linens at a modern day value of $312. Linens were passed down to the the next generation. One man in the audience said he remembers helping his grandmother create quilts for each of the people in her family so they would have something from her when she passed.
She noted that while the ordinary people were boycotting British (including Irish and Indian) goods, George Washington and the wealthy class were not. They still wanted to keep up appearances among their friends. Way not to show leadership, George.
It was a fun talk. They introduction included extending an invitation to others who want to give presentations. They are always looking for guest speakers, often academics have to give talks as part of their requirements.
Next up is a talk by Robert Selig called: German Soldier in America: Georg Daniel Flohr, Regiment Royal Deux Points on March 15 at 2 pm. Same place.
