|
Post by mary on Jun 21, 2004 16:02:28 GMT -5
I felt very honored to be a part of this screening.
I found the movie to be very visually appealing. There were some amazing color paintings and prints of Native Americans that were just stunning! I never knew there was such emphasis on recording and preserving the faces and clothing of Native Americans.
I must say, and I said this to Jeffrey Chown at the screening, that while to movie built a good case for the Indian perspective, particularly Black Hawk, it gave almost no perspective from the white settler point of view. One is left with the very real impression that the settler spent all their time thinking up ways to "stick it" to the Indians, while dozens of years of conflict between Indians and the Spanish, French, English, Dutch, and eventually the Americans on the frontier seemed to be ignored. There was history and traditions of some truly awful warfare that occured, building a foundation from some of the animosity felt by BOTH sides. But what I came away with was the animosity felt by only one side.
I know my husband visably chafed at several of the remarks make by the university professors in the film. I'm sure he will provide his own remarks!
I also would like the film to answer the question "Why is the Black Hawk War important today?" I am not sure the movie answered that question, for me at least.
Mary.
|
|
|
Post by mary on Jul 21, 2003 16:08:42 GMT -5
Pardon me for asking, but would it be possible to move the meeting to September?
Mary.
|
|
|
Post by mary on Nov 4, 2002 9:59:29 GMT -5
A wonderful weekend was had by all!
A special thanks to Jim and Don, who always make us feel so welcome to the event!
Kudos also to all the folks who so generously share their time and talent to anyone with a sincere interest, regardless of their ages! A special thanks to Sharon Duncan for sharing her craft on the dulcimer with Rachel, and also to Carol and Lee Shafer!
The ladies would also like to share a special thanks to Mary Patton! She shared her workdress pattern for 1830's. We know the more affluent patterns are well documented. However, finding documented work clothes are nuggets of gold. We look forward to trying out your suggestions!
|
|
|
Post by mary on Nov 19, 2002 19:12:55 GMT -5
Betsy, Could you bring your tape measure to the meeting. I should have some cap and trowser fabric by then that I can give you for the last of my clothes. Thanks. GMC One Moc- Will you be wearing a blanket or just your "unmentionables" to the meeting? I fear I was unaware that Blackhawk had pillaged your tent to such a degree that you are down to the last of your clothes!" ;D We ladies would love to have Denise join us for the meeting if she's free! Mary
|
|
|
Post by mary on Jun 9, 2006 10:50:55 GMT -5
I have learned from the April 2006 edition of the New Salem Picayune that Ms. Wright and I share a very important viewpoint. Regarding one of the links on her website, she stated: "Make sure you are using primary source information if you are trying to create a period garment." I could not agree more! Kindly, Mary
|
|
|
Post by mary on Mar 13, 2006 16:09:57 GMT -5
I am very greatful to Mr. Josef Kleffman for sharing with us photographs and drawings of an original pair of well-work, patched and repaired pockets, dating from around 1837.
Perhaps Ms. Wright could be invited to view this material as a supplement to her other learnings.
Kindly,
Mary.
|
|
|
Post by mary on Nov 1, 2005 9:19:53 GMT -5
Hello! I have heard that there has been conversation in the Lincoln New Salem newsletter regarding pockets. This discussion apparently stemmed from an historic clothing program which featured several friends from the OLRHS and elsewhere. I was most dismayed to learn that the concept of woemn's pockets appeared to be dismissed out of hand by New Salem. There are indeed 1830s period references to the pocket, and references worthy of study in this discussion. I would like to restart this dialog. Kind regards, Mary. By way of replying to my own post, I see that the September issue of Lincoln's New Salem Prairie Picayune contains a review of Betsy Urven and Joe Kleffmann's clothing presentation in July. The review is written by Ms. Hope Wright, who I know authored a clothing guidelines book for the park in 2000. Many of us own this book, and it containts may good references, sources, and prints. We are aware of several local histories written by some formidable women pioneers, many of whom I quote in this "Distaff" section. It may be worthy of note that Ms. Hope does not seem to quote many of these women in her 2000 publication. I am very puzzled my Ms. Wright's comments regarding pockets: Ms. Wright's concern " I have not found any indication the detached pocket reappeared until the late 1850s" appears solved by several mentions of pockets found in Mrs. Kinzie's Wau Bun. Certainly as an Easterner and a woman of reasonable means, Mrs. Kinzie would have been among those more attuned to recent fashion. She makes no mention of the "reticules" advocated by Ms. Hope. Ms. Hope's comment that pockets are a "practical-but-not historic solution for re-enactors to keep site keys, car keys and cash at hand, as long as the pocket is correctlyworn under the skirt" appears at best ill-informed, given the documentation Betsy and others have collected. Kind regards, Mary.
|
|
|
Post by mary on Oct 26, 2005 15:48:58 GMT -5
Friends... here are quotes from Mrs. Juliette Kinzie's wonderful book Wau Bun-- The "Early Day" in the North West. These quotes specifically related to Mrs. Kinzie's wear and use of pockets:
1. The morrow came. Plante and Roy had a bright fire and a nice pot of coffee for us. It was our only breakfast, for, on shaking the bag and turning it inside out, we could make no more of our stock of bread than three crackers, which the rest of the party insisted I should put in my Pocket for my dinner. I was much touched by the kindness of Mr. Kellogg, who drew from his wallet a piece of tongue and a slice of fruit-cake, which he said "he had been saving for the lady since the day before, for he saw how matters were a-going. pp. 131-2.
2. Two little girls, inmates of the lodge, sat gazing at me with evident admiration and astonishment, which were increased when I took my little Prayer-book from my pocket and began to read. They had, undoubtedly, never seen a book before, and I was amused at the care with which they looked away from me, while they questioned their mother about my strange employment and listened to her replies. . p. 136.
3. I had put into my pocket, on leaving home, a roll of scarlet ribbon, in case a stout string should be wanted, and I now drew it forth, and with the knife which hung around my neck I cut off a couple of yards for each of the little girls. They received it with great delight, and their mother, dividing each portion into two, tied a piece to each of the little clubs into which their hair was knotted on the temples. They laughed, and exclaimed "Saum!" as they gazed at each other, and their mother joined in their mirth, although, as I thought, a little unwilling to display her Maternal exultation before a stranger. p. 137.
These mentions form a foundation for the use of ladies' pockets in the Michigan Territory 1831-1833.
Kind regards,
Mary.
|
|
|
Post by mary on Oct 25, 2005 22:36:56 GMT -5
Hello!
I have heard that there has been conversation in the Lincoln New Salem newsletter regarding pockets. This discussion apparently stemmed from an historic clothing program which featured several friends from the OLRHS and elsewhere.
I was most dismayed to learn that the concept of woemn's pockets appeared to be dismissed out of hand by New Salem. There are indeed 1830s period references to the pocket, and references worthy of study in this discussion.
I would like to restart this dialog.
Kind regards,
Mary.
|
|
|
Post by mary on Jul 14, 2004 10:22:01 GMT -5
The early settlers had but little money. All that was needed was to pay a small tax, sometimes a doctor’s bill, and for blacksmith work. This was obtained from the sale of cattle and hogs. Store goods and groceries were generally paid for with butter, eggs, beeswax and peltries. Corn frequently sold as low as five cents a bushel, wheat at thirty, forty, and fifty cents, cows and calves at five dollars, beef and pork at a cent and a-half a pound, and other products of the farm proportionately low. Produce was gotten to market in a wooden cart drawn by a yoke of oxen. Salt was one of the dearests of the commodities that the pioneer settler absolutely needed. In 1818 salt sold at Edwardsville for three dollars a bushel, and in 1821 at one dollar. Whisky was cheap and frequently could be bought at twenty-five cents a gallon by the barrel. Coffee and sugar were expensive and considered luxuries not to be indulged in every day. Their use was reserved for old people and visitors. Wild honey was often used in place of sugar. Because of the scarcity of mills and the difficulty of travelling to them, hominy, green corn, beans and potatoes often supplied the table to the exclusion of bread. Every farmer calculated as much on having his barrel of honey when winter came as on having a supply of corn or other provisions. Hence bee hunting was common.
In the summer of 1817 corn at Edwardsville, Illinois sold at thirty-three and one-third cents a bushel, in the spring of 1818 at fifty cents, and in the summer at seventy-five cents. Potatoes were from fifty cents to a dollar, oats fifty cents, and wheat on dollar. Cows that in 1819 sold at twenty-five dollars, in 1820 brought only fifteen. The price of a yoke of oxen fell from one hundred and twenty to eighty dollars. Matters grew worse in 1821. There were times in territorial days, when corn sold as low as six and a quarter cents a bushel, and wheat thirty cents.
History of Madison Co., Illinois, pages 95, 99.
|
|
|
Post by mary on Apr 5, 2004 16:24:52 GMT -5
A recent visit to "The Hermitage" outside Nashville brought usd into a discussion with the site's costume interpreter. She mentioned a most interesting custom regarding the wear of ring's on the left hand of young women. According to the interpreter, a ring worn on: - the index finger meant: "I am single and very interested and 'looking'";
- the second finger meant: "I am single, but engaged";
- the third or 'ring' finger meant: "I am married";
- the fourth or 'pinkie' meant: "I am single and definately not looking!"
Has anyone else heard of this custom? If so I would be delighted if you would share your learnings.
Thanks!
Mary
|
|
|
Aprons.
Jan 26, 2004 10:46:33 GMT -5
Post by mary on Jan 26, 2004 10:46:33 GMT -5
Thanks to our resourceful friends at Lincoln's New Salem, the January-February edition of the "The Prairie Picayune" lists an excellent source for reading up on aprons. To read research done by Ms. Sue Felshin, click here www.18cnewenglandlife.org/18cNEL/aprons%20Nov%2000.htm(Note: This information dates from the American Revolution, and thus should be compared with the "Workwoman's Guide" and other source material from the 1820s-1830s period.) Mary.
|
|
|
Post by mary on Dec 8, 2003 16:19:26 GMT -5
An English visitor to America, Mrs Frances Trollope made the folowing observations of women in Washington D.C . in the spring of 1831: The ladies have strange ways of adding to their charms. They powder themselves immoderately, face, neck, and arms,with pulverised starch; the effect is indescribably disagreeable by day-light, and not very favourable at any time. Theyare also most unhappily partial to false hair, which they wear in surprising quantities; this is the more to be lamented, as they generally have very fine hair of their own. I suspect this fashion to arise from an indolent mode of making their toilet, and from accomplished ladies' maids not being very abundant; it is less trouble to append a bunch of waving curls here, there, and every where, than to keep their native tresses in perfect order.
Though the expense of the ladies' dress greatly exceeds, in proportion to their general style of living, that of the ladies of Europe, it is very far (excepting in Philadelphia) from being in good taste. They do not consult the seasons in the colours or in the style of their costume; I have often shivered at seeing a young beauty picking her way through the snow with a pale rose-coloured bonnet, set on the very top of her head: I knew one young lady whose pretty little ear was actually frost-bitten from being thus exposed. They never wear muffs or boots, and appear extremely shocked at the sight of comfortable walking shoes and cotton stockings, even when they have to step to their sleighs over ice and snow. They walk in the middle of winter with their poor little toes pinched into a miniature slipper, incapable of excluding as much moisture as might bedew a primrose. I must say in their excuse, however, that they have, almost universally, extremely pretty feet. They do not walk well, nor, in fact, do they ever appear to advantage when in movement. I know not why this should be, for they have abundance of French dancing-masters among them, but somehow or other it is the fact. I fancied I could often trace a mixture of affectation and of shyness in their little mincing unsteady step, and the ever changing position of the hands. They do not dance well; perhaps I should rather say they do not look well when dancing; lovely as their faces are, they cannot, in a position that exhibits the whole person, atone for the want of tournure [bustle], and for the universal defect in the formation of the bust, which is rarely full, or gracefully formed.(Source: Domestic Manners of the Americans by Frances Trollope. ) Pulverized starch, anyone? Mary
|
|
|
Post by mary on Oct 6, 2003 11:53:58 GMT -5
Susan Gordy has authored a new article offering an historical perspective on sausage and sausage-making! Don't miss it! Click on www.geocities.com/old_lead/sausage.htm Sausage making will be one of the featured activities at Apple River Fort this December.
|
|
|
Post by mary on Jan 19, 2004 16:42:51 GMT -5
Our dear contributor "Laurel" writes: Jane C. Nylander in her book, Our Own Snug Fireside, Images of the New England Home 1760 - 1860, addresses the short gown. "Expensive and inexpensive gowns differed primarily in the matter of the cost of the fabric from which they were made rather than the line or style, although some women preferred to wear hip-length short gowns over an exposed petticoat for daily work." In the painting "Corn husking Frolic," by Alvin Fisher, 1828 - 1829, two women seem to be wearing short gowns. The women in the front looking over her shoulder and the women bending down with the apron. Notice that the sleeves are narrow and pushed up to the elbow.It is interesting to note that the fitted sleeves are pushed up, in a manner similar to the Harper's New Monthly illustration seen in the first posting of this thread! Mary.
|
|