The Renovation Diary is on Hold...

Confederate gray wool and twill, delicate white sheers, buttery unbleached muslin, rich dark mauve linen and deep olive cotton scraps litter the floor.  

"...there is no more left over in snippets than will serve to make tippets for mice"

as Miss Potter's poor Tailor of Gloucester would say.

Zuave Jackets pulled from the pattern of a riding coat...

skirts turned and re-pleated...

and soldiers trousers with signature "mule-ear" pockets have taken over sewing scene.

From the Renovation Diary

During a recent trip to the thrift store this skirt caught my eye.  It was at least five sizes too large and an unfortunately blasé shade of tan, but nearly brand new and, according to the label, 100% cotton (minus the decoration).  For less than ten dollars I decided it was worthy to be the first patient on which to try my hand at custom-dyeing.

As soon as I removed the necessary width of fabric (fortunately devoid of embroidery...don't know how I would have braved chopping it otherwise) from the back to trim it down to size, I saw the potential for a kick pleat in the back seam to balance the front interest.  Since the top-stitching was most likely polyester, I did all the sewing first with poly thread that matched the original color so that my top-stitching would come out the same after dyeing.

Using strips of the poor dissected work, I started test-dyeing.  I had the primary colors in RIT dyes and then a few neutrals, but since even the primaries I had tended to be less than pure, I needed to work some to get the right color.  I used taupe (green-based) because that was the general direction I was working, but it was really just a darker shade of the same blasé color I was starting with...I wanted even more green and a richer color.   Some dark green (which was remarkably strong and more blue than I thought it would be, so I didn't end up using the blue at all) joined the mix, scarlet red (also too strong at first, but made the color pop once I got it right) and golden yellow to warm it a bit.

At this point, the color was too bright...I wanted it to be rich but understated...so I added a pearl grey to tone it down.  First too red, then too green...I had about three swatches that were complete misses and three less than satisfactory.  Finally, the right color emerged, and after finishing out the kick pleat and seam, my venture "took the plunge" in a deep dark brew and percolated for a bit less than an hour.  

My only trepidation was concerning that ruffle, which was definitely some kind of nylon (the tag did not oblige with info on this score).  I had no idea how it would take the dye, nor did I intend to remove it all and dye it separately, since it was obviously attached with nylon thread for a slightly shirred look...I didn't want to mess with it, so I took a risk and left it.

I had aimed for a chartreuse-based taupe or brown, so when the nylon ruffle came out in that green, I'll admit I couldn't have been more pleasantly surprised.

The experience was exhilarating to say the least, primarily because I received such a good return on laying out very little money and a few hours of easy labor.  I don't count the full cost of the dye, since I laid in a good store of it that will last me at least another three or four garments.  There you have it...a brand new skirt for ten dollars in exactly the desired shade!

An 1877 fashion designer on the nature of dress...

James Abbot McNeill Whistler,
Portrait of Lady Meux, 1881

"A dress should never overpower the wearer. It should merely be an appropriate frame for a charming picture, bringing out the beauties of the picture, but never distracting attention from, it. So few women understand this. Why, when I find I can make a costume for less money than, has been agreed upon, I actually annoy clients by telling them so. They think that it can not be as haudsome as it ought to be, and they would rather have more material added, however much the design may be marred, than pay less. I assure you this is a fact. Consequently when I meet ladies who know that dressing is an art, I take very great satisfaction in having them as patrons."

Harper's Bazaar, December 15 1877

In response to our preceding post on reenacting, the following comment was offered.  We decided to answer in another post because we felt a clarifying response may serve to make our previous article more lucid as well:

Douglas John says:

"Were not the "Bluestockings" simply what were considered to be intellegent or advanced women? How did the connotation arrive that a bluestocking or intellectual woman of the 18th century was a feminist. The picture you paint of the genteel Christian southern woman is very nice however quite romanticized. The unfortunate exploits of women of the south during the War of the States have not truly been recorded in places where the public can become familiar with them. Much of the published literature about women in the 19th century focused on prescriptions for proper female behavior, expressing social norms formulated largely by men. Their writings described the ideal female, emphasizing the passivity of her Christian nature and her domestic attributes, and focused on middle-and upper-class urban women. The ACTUAL experiences of women who were forced (by blockade or otherwise) by circumstances to earn their own way or own living, of common women, of immigrant women, and of black women bore no relation to those established norms. Scrubbing pots near an open fire with a white apron and white bodice would be indicitive of an upper class woman pretending to be a common woman. While the intent of what you are saying is to be a soft portrayal of dependency and true womanhood, an honest living historian would realize that there were not a lot of menfolk Christian or otherwise in the South to depend upon and lead them. The picture is painted quite prettily but the reality is that the women who sacraficed were not at all able to compare to those you have relayed in your information."

Our response:

Douglas John, 

Thank you for taking the time to comment. We appreciate your thoughts on the subject. The connotations associated with “Bluestockings” are broad but the most commonly accepted is that of a feminist who is uneducated and intellectually negligent. Feminists were “advanced”... we believe in the wrong direction. It is true that the general attitude towards Victorian women in their time was often in need of reform due to the influence of Enlightenment philosophies declaring men to be reasonable and women to be purely emotional and unreasonable. Unfortunately, the men and women who were most influential in the feminist movement, in an attempt to rectify enlightenment errors, only made matters worse through continued disregard for the Word of God. Instead of establishing women and men as joint heirs of the grace of God, content in the complimentary roles preordained for them by God, they encouraged discontent, strident rebellion and independent autonomy among women taught to believe themselves ill-used victims under a Judeo-Christian paradigm. This brought about not mutual respect and honor between men and women but furthered destructive degradation of the “weaker sex” mirroring some of the most uncivilized and pagan societies in history.
Regarding romanticizing Christian Southern women; permit us to recommend a few resources for your further research. South Carolina Women of the Confederacy by Mrs. A. T. Smythe, The Women of the Confederacy by J.L. Underwood and The Women of the South in War Times by Matthew P. Andrews are source books recording ACTUAL women and their actions, not behavioral prescriptions. Dabney’s Life and Campaigns of Stonewall Jackson, Christ in the Camp by J. William Jones, and Beloved Bride - The Letters of Stonewall Jackson to His Wife, by Bill Potter are also excellent resources for understanding the Christian men and women of the time, describing what they actually thought and acted.
There is also extensive research on excellent women such as Mrs. Lee, Mrs. Jackson, Mrs. Stuart and other virtuous and thoroughly intelligent, influential women. Our article often directly reflects the perspectives we gleaned from journals concerning the character and convictions of these women. In the direct sources and biographies of the women we seek to emulate there is no trace of passivity. Their Christian character is ardent and unaffected; the phrases in their letters pattern after phrases in Scripture implying their thorough familiarity with it, bolstering their men with confidence in their righteous cause, assuring them of their support from home. They recognize the tremendous impact of domestic dependability and efficiency and delight in serving in this way.
Perhaps the low-class, common, uneducated women were numerically dominant. We honestly have not researched numeric denominations thoroughly as yet because it is not a crucial factor for us right now. Mrs. Dawn Eggers captured the intent of our article in her responding comment well. We are not primarily interested in portraying the “51% majority,” whether or not they are righteous. In other words, our primary concern IS portraying the righteous minority, however minute in numbers.
Concerning muslin Garibaldi blouses and Osnaburg aprons, both are visually documented among working women throughout the 1860’s. You may be interested in researching sources other than CDV’s where women appeared in their best matching bodice and skirt with starched white collar in anticipation of being formally photographed.
Lastly, we would like to say a word in defense of Southern men. We believe they together constituted one of the last significant Christian civil governments in latter times. Their eventual dissolution and loss of impetus was simply God’s judgement on a nation which persists in rebellion and seeks not the Law of God.  Jefferson Davis, Thomas Jackson, Robert E. Lee, and other Southern men were some of the most remarkable leaders in history comparable to George Washington, Monroe, Admiral Coligny, Joshua Son of Nun, William of Orange, James Polk, and Napoleon Bonaparte (militarily). Their wives testify to their greatness and honor through their unmitigated, informed devotion and unfaltering loyalty.
A little more research may reveal that our short paraphrase was merely scratching the surface of a most beautiful deeply, characteristically Christian culture, the remnants of God’s special grace in the foundations of our nation. Alexis De Tocqueville (a French lawyer and historian analyzing American culture) paints a far prettier picture in his remarkably insightful work, Democracy in America, written in the 1830‘s, wherein he describes how the very topography of America was conducive to productivity and dominion. He also outlines the vastly different ethics in North and South and predicts their incompatibility. Interestingly, he notes, “I have no hesitation in saying that although the American woman never leaves her domestic sphere and is in some respects very dependent within it, nowhere does she enjoy a higher station. And if anyone asks me what I think the chief cause of the extraordinary prosperity and growing power of this nation, I should answer that it is due to the superiority of their women.”
Humbly in the service of our King,

Emily and Aubrey Lenz

The attack of Scarlet O'Hara and The Bluestockings

Since our family recently undertook the enterprise of reenacting the War Between the States, we are specifically working through the different ideas behind our war-time impressions.  In the midst of our research regarding 19th century women we have uncovered a troubled sea of mixed and muddied waters.  While we were not surprised by it, the mayhem will take a good deal of sorting through, and we have started by scratching the surface.  It is important to us to represent our unit and family well, to be accurate and excellent historical re-enactors. At the same time, our paramount concern is the Kingdom of God and reforming culture for His glory.

If the topic of this discourse seems to present a defense to the air, then perhaps a brief explanation here will clear the matter.  We are often questioned, usually in good spirit, about our impressions of the Southern women.  Some are mildly curious, many sincerely interested in our purpose, and a few are mistakenly quite confused and a bit piqued by "Northern" girls reenacting Southern women.  It is not our intention to make loud statements merely for a "shock effect," so we believe we are responsible to think and answer circumspectly regarding our purposes and the messages we convey through our actions. 

Flora Cooke Stuart
wife of Gen. Jeb Stuart

During our research, the feminist Bluestocking reared her wild head first.  As is true with any endeavor, it is regrettably easy to compromise and promote a feminist or anti-Christian agenda inadvertently. Growing up with four brothers instilled in us a marked aversion to weak frilliness.  The opposing "tom-boy" can be an all-too-convenient alternative.  With that said, we have no intention of representing the exclusively self-sufficient, "tough" woman "toting my faggot on my back with my pipe in my mouth" (as one reenactor put it).
As far as we can observe, feminism in its modern manifestation was not prevalent until the late 1800's and even then only amongst the lowest of society representative of European licentiousness. However, even if feminism were the normative context, we would yet desire to represent the remnant faithful to God in any given society.  As in every area of life, we are primarily concerned with reforming culture to God's standards through accurate representation of history rather than simply reenacting the lowest supposed common denominator in any given society. 

Mildred Lee
daughter of Gen. Robert E. Lee

Further than this, we aspire to portray superiority of intellect and education characterized by quiet humility, not snobbish arrogance.  With a thorough knowledge of the facts of the war, history and theology similar to what women like Anna Jackson, or the Lee daughters would have been familiar with, we would avoid the representation of loud, ignorant, Southern country bumpkins. 

Here Scarlet O'Hara flounces onto the field to confuse the air further. Our aim towards impressions of specifically upper-class Southerngentlewomen is predominantly personal preference and priority.  We are not averse to representing poverty. Frankly, fortitude and self-sufficiency in hardship intrigue us in many ways reminiscent of the challenging pioneering lifestyle. However, Dabney wrote in the Life and Campaigns of Stonewall Jackson that the South was characterized by "...gallant gentlemen and their reputable dependents".The phrase reputable dependents necessarily includes merchants and business men of every class.  Dabney's description is particularly obnoxious to the egalitarian Northern industrialist who favors equal distribution of wealth and libertarianism.  Consequently, history revisionism has painted a gross calumny on Southern women characterizing them as  frail, manipulative, weak-minded, vaguely malicious, spoiled and obtusely prejudiced wall-flowers.

Mary Curtis Lee
daughter of Gen. Robert E. Lee

Aversion to the "aristocratic, agrarian, multi-generationaly prosperous South" concept has only grown in society to the present day. The associated phraseology probably grates on the modern mind taught to envision social, economic and personal horrors of the worst kind in connection with the antebellum South.  It is in the interest of winsomely laying to rest the scandalous libels on these heroic Southern women that we are endeavoring to portray their counterparts.  In spite of the prejudice cultivated by propaganda, we believe Dabney's description captures the essence of Southern Christian heritage and the blessings of inheritance passed down from generations of righteous, industrious patriarchs.  

Anna M. Jackson
wife of Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson

So, specifically regarding the issue of femininity, we as girls have a fine line to walk. We want to portray sturdy usefulness so we try to avoid silly ornamentation that renders us incompetent for productive conversation and work. We also want to portray noble feminine dependancy, and by that I mean a graceful acceptance of chivalrous assistance offered us.  We do not seek to compete with anything our brothers or father do, nor do we wish to seem to desire to be physically stronger or independent of their protection and service.

While it is obviously more difficult and probably more likely to be misunderstood, we would like to emulate the dignified, informed gentlewomen of the South.  Women who sacrificed dearly for a righteous cause; who were perhaps accustomed to a life of relative ease yet discovered by painstaking forethought how to guard and dispense their fortunes unhesitatingly; whose characters were sturdy and whose minds were resourceful to face whatever danger with calm fortitude and inventive courage.  Women who considered it an honor to serve meals and scrub pots for a righteous cause and did not shirk hard labor but rather believed themselves privileged to accomplish work in the service of others.  Women who could wear both the practical attire suited to physical industry and the dignified attire suited to daughters, sisters or wives acting as household plenipotentiaries in the absence of their statesmen, warrior and reforming men.

Essentially, we want to represent the women we would wish to be in that era: Christian women in the service of our King.  This means that while studying historical documentation on dress and custom, we will not necessarily portray the most common women found in pictures or journals from the South. After all, were our descendants to reenact our lives, we could hope they would not find us entirely characteristic of our era!

 We hope to post more of our findings and discoveries on the topic and related issues in the near future and invite comments, questions and constructive critique.

A Silent Language

Apparel is a language. Just as the music we play, the books we read, the tone and inflection of our voices, our eyes, our personal carriage, and our choices of association speak volumes about who and what we are; so our clothing speaks a language all its own. Children speak this language almost before they can talk; and while it is unwise to judge character solely on appearance, the clothing of any person you meet can speak the unspoken.
I personally know a professional tailor. She, or any person in the clothing industry, will tell you that they intentionally design clothes to “say something” about the wearer. Clothing is advertised and sold this way. “Feel confident,” “Be yourself,” “Look attractive.” These are some of the slogans of the modern pagan fashion culture. Whether we are aware of it or not, our apparel and our appearance communicate what and who we are.
Many Christians attempt to cast off direct responsibility on this issue on the plea that our heart condition, not our appearance, is the real issue. I would humbly submit that it is because our heart condition as Christians is a primary concern that we must be doubly conscientious about what we wear.
Many people are aware of the common biblical references directly regarding clothing. (Deuteronomy 22:5, Isaiah 3:16, etc. speak clearly on the issue of femininity and masculinity in clothing) I believe we often fail to consider the indirectly inferred principles God’s word gives us on the matter. 1 Thessalonians 5:22 says “Abstain from all appearance of evil.” Philippians 4:8 says “Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.” Godliness, then, does not exclude beauty, or loveliness, or things deserving of admiration, but rather defines these things and gives them substance.
If something that appeals to me does not speak the language of humility, gentleness, or honor; or carries a spirit of pride or dissimulation, I need to check my measure of “appeals.” I find that I need to continually reform what appeals to me to meet the standard of beauty that Christ demands; continually measuring my opinions against His word. When the question of whether Christian young ladies should attempt to maintain some level of style is raised, this is the perspective from which we need to start.
Many of the current fashions do not, by nature, speak the language of true beauty, as defined by God. Therefore, to put a constraint of current fashion on the typical Christian young lady who is seeking, albeit imperfectly, to obey Christ in this area, is demanding much. However, if something “trendy” or “stylish” stands the test of the word of God, is it acceptable? Should the right kind of “trendy” be one of our goals?
I am a musician, and consequently, I am frequently made aware of the unspoken languages with which we are surrounded. I see more unmistakably every day that my external actions and attitudes are a reflection of my heart condition. There are perhaps two sides of this matter that have the same answer and deserve the same close attention.
First, rather than asking “How can I avoid looking dorky or being stereotyped and classified as one of those strange homeschoolers?” according to scripture, we should be considering first how to personally imitate Christ.
Many Christians fear they will “turn off” or offend unbelievers. Let’s face it; in general, the more we grow in Christ, the more we will be misunderstood and disliked by the world. Jesus told us this would happen, and warned us not to be surprised. (Matthew 24:9-10, Mark 13:9-13) We should expect opposition. This is not without exception. Even unbelievers will sometimes recognize the value of true beauty. But as a whole, the world is at war with us consciously or unconsciously. I recently heard someone say that if we are not experiencing attack, we may need to examine ourselves to discern whether we are in the will of God. This is not to say that you are in sin if you are not under attack, only that it is something to consider carefully.
We carry a singularly important responsibility to bear witness to Christ before the world. It cannot bear assimilation with unrighteousness. (2 Corinthians 6:11-18) Simply put, don’t compromise for any good reason! We as Christians can’t afford to please anyone but Christ. Until we have conviction in this area, (to use my dear Mama’s words) “We don’t have the freedom” to add the current style to our list of requirements. Christ did not say style is required and neither should we.
Secondly, I believe it is important not to be lazy or careless, about our opinions on clothing. There is nothing clumsy, inferior, unbecoming, or shapeless about true beauty. Truly beautiful garments complement the feminine beauty God creates in every woman, and cover the body in a becoming manner. The very responsibility that requires we do not compromise also asks us to be active, not passive, in our witness. If I cause someone to stumble because I have elevated my personal preference over the will of God, I am at fault as well. It is not enough to throw on any old skirt or cast my lot in with anyone else’s standard of clothing merely because it looks good to me. If I take that approach, either my standard will slip because it is not backed by a substantial conviction, or I will be unable to “give an answer” for the same reason, and will become instead dogmatic on my personal opinion, which is dangerous.
I believe that condemning or defending the wearing of certain types of clothing (i.e. Pants vs. skirts) is an important discussion. But I feel that often we miss the point in these dialogues. I would compare some of the logic used in these debates to an exchange on tattoos. To my knowledge, tattoos are not mentioned directly in scripture. Please correct me if I am wrong. Nevertheless, I believe that a tattoo, especially in our culture, makes a statement about who someone is and what they believe; that is, “where their treasure is.” The scripture does speak to that issue! I think the same goes for our apparel. These things speak a silent language.
So…Should “trendy” be one of our goals?
Each of us has weaknesses that need to be removed. Inasmuch as I fail to place my heart where it should be, I misplace my treasure as well. While scripture does not say “Women shall not wear pants,” I believe it does place responsibility on us to maintain the distinctions and standards God has set in order for us.
Our femininity, modesty, propriety, and sobriety are treasures that need an especial guard in a culture that is out to destroy them. I have therefore determined not to be passive in the area of clothing, but to make a clear purposeful statement with what I wear.
Proverbs 27:19 says As water reflects a face, so a man's heart reflects the man.
Luke 6:45 - A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart brings forth evil. For out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.
Practically speaking, I wear skirts, with a few exceptions, because I believe they best communicate the language that I am seeking to perfect in my heart: femininity, humility, purity, etc. (Because we live on a farm, there are times when wearing pants is a necessary safety precaution.) I choose my clothing purposefully to say, “I am precious in the sight of God, holy and set apart.” I try to select garments that are complementary and becoming. Often, clothes bear description in verbal terms. Sometimes a garment is not necessarily immodest, but just shouts, “I need attention!!!” I look for pieces that speak quietly, but confidently.
Some things I test my clothing against frequently are…Does it reflect…
· Femininity
· A gentle and quiet spirit
· Humility
· Willingness to Serve
· Strength of Character
· Confidence in Christ
· Diligence
· Holiness
· Submissiveness
· True Beauty
· Excellence
· Purity
· Nobility
· Contentment
· Honor
· Wisdom
· Dignity
· Modesty
· Propriety
Romans 12:1-2 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.