In 2022, we made a series of garments for a museum in Wheaton, Illinois based on images of three generations of ladies important to their history. We designed and constructed this 1920s era linen suit based on period wedding photos from the exhibit.
This 1920s era linen suit has been awarded our FAVORITE design for 2022! Enjoy!
For more information about our WWI/1920s era fashion, please visit our catalog!
The majority of our 2022 custom commission sewing calendar was filled with our now internationally celebrated WWI Era Hello Girl reproduction Uniforms. We originally launched our design for this garment in 2018 as WWI Centennial celebrations were happening around the world. For two years, we made our WWI Hello Girl uniforms for clients from right here in Tennessee to the stages of NYC and beyond. We are proud our WWI Hello Girl Uniforms have helped bring notoriety and honor to the first acknowledged female soldiers of the United States Army.
We retired our WWI Hello Girl uniforms at the close of the centennial celebrations (in 2020) but last year were contacted by the US Department of Defense and asked to recreate several of our uniforms for the US National Military band. We just couldn’t say “No” to a request like that now could we?
So out of retirement these lovelies came and I have to say we were quite honored to have the opportunity to replicate these amazing WWI Hello Girl uniforms for the United States Military. Our reproduction uniform’s purpose has come full circle now.
In addition, we also made several more replicas in 2022 for various museum exhibits around the nation. If you happen to catch one of our nation’s military concerts or visit an exhibit featuring The Hello Girls, we most likely made the reproduction uniform!
For more information about our WWI Era Uniforms, please visit our catalog or blog!
Read more about the history of The Hello Girls.
Invisible No More is a series based on historical accounts of women who fought for the Allied Cause during The First World War. This series was presented in 2021 at The Association for Living History and Agricultural Museum’s Conference.
Women’s war contributions have largely been dismissed and were not formerly acknowledged until the late 1970s when women of the US Army Signal Corps Telephone Operator’s Units demanded recognition from the US government and equal status as military veterans. This series is based on first hand accounts as well as research by other historians. Women and WWI hopes to spark continued curiosity about the roles women played during The Great War and further propel women’s history into mainstream consciousness.
In July 1914, the world changed in a way that would inevitably rock the entire continent. While the beginning of WWI is often attributed to the assassination of Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the underlying tensions across Europe had been brewing for decades. Strategic alliances, fight for control over resources, and a changing industrial world were all factors that led to war on a scale never before seen in history.
Across Europe, war was embraced with patriotic mobilization as nations were confident in swift victories and short lived action. However, none could have imagined the level of destruction, carnage, and loss of life that would rage across the entire content for nearly 5 years. From August 1914 to November 1918, an estimated 20 million people would die with another 21 million wounded before Germany surrendered at 5:00am on the 11th hour on the 11th day of the 11th month. The Treaty of Versailles was signed June of 1919 signifying the official end of the War.
In 1917, American President Woodrow Wilson issued the famous quote, “This is a war to end all wars.” However, as historians, we know this was indeed wishful thinking. For those who experienced The Great War, life would never be the same. The world could never be the same. And in less than 20 years, history would repeat itself.
Vera Brittain, a young lady of British descent answered the call of patriotism and writes in her memoirs [Testament of Youth], “When the Great War broke out, it came to me not as a superlative tragedy, but as an interruption of the most exasperating kind to my personal plans” (21).
“Between 1914 and 1919 young men and women, disastrously pure in heart and unsuspicious of elderly self-interest and cynical exploitation, were continually re-dedicating themselves – as I did that morning in Boulogne – to an end that they believed, and went on trying to believe, lofty and ideal” (374).
“…It is impossible,” I concluded, “to find any satisfaction in the thought of 25,000 slaughtered Germans, left to mutilation and decay; the destruction of men as though beasts, whether they be English, French, German or anything else, seems a crime to the whole march of civilization” (101).
“How fortunate we were who still had hope I did not then realise; I could not know how soon the time would come when we should have no more hope, and yet be unable to die.” (141).
The words found in Brittain’s Testament of Youth are the expression of just one woman’s account of The Great War. History has often overlooked the important contributions women have made to our past. Lost are the names of countless females who left their homes, moved by moral and patriotic duty, working the lands to provide food for their nation’s men at war, putting their lives at risk to collect valuable intelligence against the Central Powers, and even joined the ranks of the military itself to keep lines of communication open during combat.
Only a handful of these women’s names are acknowledged. The rest are lost to time, their work, their contributions, their risks written in invisible ink. It is time to dust the pages of history and reveal the hidden and often harrowing details of these women’s lives during the First World War.
The past two years have marked major milestones in our past. In 2019, we celebrated the end of WWI. In 2020, we honored the 100th anniversary of the passing of the 19th amendment- a piece of legislation that prohibits government from using gender as a criteria for voting rights. But we know, this amendment was not inclusive and for women of color, the fight would continue on for much, much longer.
As a historian, I often reflect back and wonder- Do we now truly have equality in the eyes of society? Is the female voice valued? What opportunities are there within the living history and museum communities outside of the stereotypical gender roles? Is is now easier for women to challenge the status quo? What must the collective female experience have been like 100 years ago when women entered en masse, for the first time in history, arenas relegated to “the male preserve”- forever challenging the traditional female roles society had set for them?
Let’s find out.
“It is probably true to say that the largest scope for change still lies in men’s attitude to women, and in women’s attitude to themselves.” -Vera Brittain, Lady into Woman
The story of The British and American Women’s Land Armies is really the story of the collective experience of all woman who chose to become involved in the advancement of women’s roles at the beginning of the 20th century. Whether stepping up to “do one’s bit” to “be the girl behind the man behind the gun,” there is no denying the onset of World War One ushered in exponential shifts in traditional gender roles for women of both nations.
The Women’s Land Army is the big sister of the The Women’s Land Army of America. The WLA was formally established in 1917 but efforts to prepare a female land army began as early as 1914 in anticipation of war. Unlike other European nations, Britain had no way of feeding its 36 million people as nearly half of all food consumed within the nation was imported. With the mobilization of 700,000 soldiers across the Empire in 1914, Britain was about to face a serious labor crisis. Prior to the war, several women’s farming organizations were in existence; however with war looming and men needed to fight, these organizations began devising ways to create an army of women labourers. By 1915, a Women’s War Agricultural Committee was in full swing- operating under the Ministry of Agriculture.
Leading historian on the Women’s Land Army, Elaine Weiss, argues in her book, Fruits of Victory, working the land was not only seen as part of the British nationalist movement, but also served as a catalyst for the Women’s Right to Serve Movement. Unlike the Suffragette movement, the opportunity to work the land “united women in their desire that the government allow them to assume a useful role- to do war work…” (3).
By the winter of 1915, three million men had joined the war. A poor fall harvest coupled with German submarine attacks left the country desperate and hungry. As a result, women began mobilizing en masse and by 1916, a reported 57,500 women had signed on for agricultural work with 29,000 already in the fields (Weiss, 11).
But the women’s help did not receive a hearty welcome. “The Lilac Sunbonnet Brigade” as they were characterized were “at first pressed upon the farmers in the teeth of a good deal of sluggish and bantering prejudice and opposition.” “ Meetings are called and no one comes!” complained a member of Parliament. “Hundreds of postcards have been sent to farmers, telling them there are women ready to work, and we’ve hard hardly any replies.” (Weiss, 9). Farmers simply responded “…It is impossible for women plow.”
Unlike women who entered the munitions plants of the cities, female agricultural workers faced opposition even through increasing food shortages. Farmers complained they did not have time to train these often middle and upper class women agricultural workers. As a result, the Women’s Farm and Garden Union began recruitment fairs offering six week training programs. By the winter of 1916, food prices has more than tripled and rationing was no longer sustaining the food supply. In Spring 1917, the newly formed Women’s Land Army held an exhibition demonstrating the “Land Lassies” abilities. Finally, after nearly a year of waiting, bargaining, and expositions to prove their worth, farmers across Britain, Wales, and Scotland began opening their farms to women.
That same year, America began mobilizing for war. For the United States, maintaining a consistent food supply was top priority. Taking note of the hard won efforts of the British Women’s Land Army, America wasted no time organizing and in 1917 formed The Women’s Land Army of America. “Farmerettes” as they were called, were urged to “Help the Farmer fight the Food Famine!” and “The Girl the Land Serves the Nation’s Need!” (Weiss 106). Unlike in Britain, American farmers did not fear women labour. Instead, agricultural towns like Elsinore, California welcomed the farmerettes welcomed them with a brass band and were even presented with the key to the city (Weiss, 111). It is estimated from 1917 to 1919, 20, 000 women were employed by the WLA in 42 states.
Like in Britain, most Farmerettes had never worked the land before and were from middle class families. Whereas in Britain, constant argument between fair wage and patriotic duty resulted in long work hours and little to no pay, in America, Farmerettes received equal pay as male laborers, worked 8 hour days, and attended formal agricultural training schools located at various Universities across the United States.
In a speech at a WLAA demonstration, guest speaker Perry Holden of International Harvester praised the farmerettes saying, “These young women have not been content to simply talk about what they were going to do to help win the war, they have come here and demonstrated determination to accomplish; have shown by their own hands what women can do…” (Weiss, 160)
Both the Land Lassies and the Farmerettes played an important role in keeping their nations and their soldiers fed during the war. By 1919, just as the women farmers were gaining ground within the agricultural community, the war ended and rumblings of demobilization echoed. In Britain, this meant the women of the Land Army would be sent home, their services ended. For American women, the end of the war signaled a transfer of governmental leadership and by 1920, America’s Farmerettes were no more.
The dissolution of the Women’s Land Armies in both Britain and America signified a desire to return to post war “normalcy.” Normal meant a return to gender divided labour norms and a return to domestic service for women. The hard won gains toward labour equality faded away as quickly as the songs of the fields as women were expected to return to their natural place within the home. Women’s advancements in agriculture were dismissed as simply war work.
Recommended Readings:
Brittain, Vera. Testament of Youth. Victor Gollancz Ltd. London, 1933.
Brittain, Vera. Lady into Woman. Andrew Dakers Limited. London, 1953.
“Chronicling America- Historic American Newspapers.” Library of Congress. chroniclingamerica.loc.gov
Mougel, Nadege. “WWI Casualties.” Reperes, 2011.
“On this Day.” The Western Front Association. www.westernfrontassociation.com
Weiss, Elaine F. Fruits of Victory: The Women’s Land Arm of America in the Great War. University of Nebraska, 2008.
“Women’s Land Army and Timber Corps.” cc. www.womenslandarmy.co.uk
White, Bonnie. The Women’s Land Army in First World War Britain. Macmillan, 2014.
CalicoBall is a grassroots effort to document, preserve, and present rural America’s diverse historical traditions. CalicoBall is an educational extension of Maggie May Clothing. All rights reserved.
Hi all! All of this info is posted on my website in varying locations, but I thought it might be nice to provide a quick, concise read for those of you not yet familiar with our company. You can always find this info in more detail around our website, but here goes:
Learn more about Maggie May Clothing or check out our services, policies, and clientele
Women and WWI is a series based on historical accounts of women who fought for the Allied Cause during The First World War. Women’s war contributions have largely been dismissed and were not formerly acknowledged until the late 1970s when women of the US Army Signal Corps Telephone Operator’s Units demanded recognition from the US government and equal status as military veterans. This series is based on first hand accounts as well as research by other historians. Women and WWI hopes to spark continued curiosity about the roles women played during The Great War and further propel women’s history into mainstream consciousness.
In America, the call to war sounded in December 1917. Due to the worsening state of communication at the Western front, General John J. Pershing requested the formation of a specialized unit formally called the Signal Corps Female Telephone Operators Unit. This unit was unique because it was only open to women applicants. And it was completely volunteer. Candidates had to be proficient speakers of the French language and be able to translate communications on the spot. Over 7,600 women applied for this volunteer service, but only 223 women were accepted- thus becoming the U.S. Army’s all female unit we now call the “Hello Girls.”
The term “Hello Girls” was not new to contemporary vernacular. The earliest notation of “Hello Girls” comes from Mark Twain‘s 1889 A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court. He writes”The humblest hello-girl along ten thousand miles of wire could teach gentleness, patience, modesty, manners, to the highest duchess in Arthur’s land.” The term referred to female switchboard operators as it was common practice to greet callers with “hello” upon ringing the switchboard. It is therefore no surprise to learn most of the US Army’s Hello Girls were indeed former switchboard operators or employees of telecommunications companies.
Unlike telegraph and radio communications, the telephone was untraceable. And they were immediate. However, every call had to be connected manually. And women could connect five calls in the same time it took a man to do one. Initially when the US Army arrived in France, the Generals on both sides were confronted with the language barrier. Many American officers did not speak French and many French switch board operators did not speak English. So, the Hello Girls served as translators as well as operators. In an interview by Smithsonian magazine, author Elizabeth Cobbs [The Hello Girls: America’s First Women Soldiers] states “They were constantly fielding simultaneous calls; they were translating; they were sweeping the boards; and even giving the time. Artillery kept calling them and saying, can I have the time operator? The women were really critical” (Boissoneault).
Grace Banker, chief telephone operator, and her unit sailed for Europe in March 1918. Over the next year, six more units would follow. The Hello Girls worked in varied locations in varied locations and facilities- from makeshift bases just several miles from the front lines to the more stationary communications hubs in Tours.
Banker writes in her memoirs, “the work was fascinating; much of it was in codes- which changed frequently. The girls had to speak both French and English and they also had to understand American Doughboy French.” The women were often in range of German artillery, but they stayed at their posts because their work was essential” (Grace D. Banker collection).
Like all women who rose to the call of their countries, patriotism and a sense of “doing one’s bit” was a driving force behind their motivations. One widow who had lost a son in battle joined La Dame Blanche with her four daughters to work as couriers and transcribers in an effort to reconcile their loss. Hello Girl Merle Egan wrote upon leaving for France, “As we sailed out of the harbor past the Statue of Liberty…. there was an emotional tension experienced, I am sure by every Veteran who has served overseas. For some, there would be no returning but we knew we were answering our country’s call and we were proud of that mission” (Merle Egan Anderson: Montana’s “Hello Girl.”). It would take 60 years for the service of the Signal Corps Female Telephone Operators Unit to be officially recognized by the US government.
When Grace Banker and Merle Egan and the other 221 Hello Girls returned home from war in 1919, they were told by the US Army they weren’t members of the US Military. Banker was awarded the Distinguished Service Medal by General Pershing but was told she was not a veteran. She was merely a civilian who participated in war work. She was told her war service did not count. She writes in her diary on November 11, 1919, “We have lived so long under war conditions that it doesn’t seem that it could come so simply. On Nov. 11th the Armistice was signed at eleven o’clock this morning, the eleventh day, the eleventh hour. All fighting was ordered to cease at that time. Our Corps lines were in bad condition and poor Capt. Beaumont of the telegraph office was having a terrible time. Suppose the message didn’t get through all right. It must get through if not by telegraphs then by telephone. So we put him through on our lines and he used my telephone. He yelled the message out. It had to get through!” (Grace D. Banker collection).
In Lille, there is a monument erected in 1920 to Louise De Bettignies inscribed with the words “To Louise De Bettignies and to the heroic women of invaded countries 1914-1918.” History only records the name of Louise De Bettignies because she was caught and her trial caused an international sensation. The work of thousands of nameless women has been obscured. But why? The majority of archives from these secret services were destroyed during WWII and the reason is unclear. Was it to protect the organizations themselves or was there another reason? In a 1926 newspaper article, an intelligence officer is quoted as saying “Women are fundamentally inaccurate. They experience a constant ‘urge’ to be working in the limelight…” (Chronicling America). Upon reaching Tours, it was Merle Egan’s her duty to train men on the switchboard. “The men were initially hostile: â€Where’s my skirt?’ was their standard greeting. . . . [After] I reminded them that any soldier could carry a gun but the safety of a whole division might depend on the switchboard one of them was operating I had no more trouble” (Merle Egan Anderson: Montana’s “Hello Girl.”).
Dismissive tones such as this resonate throughout history and as Proctor states so eloquently in her book “have left no space to honor [women’s wartime sacrifices and contributions] as active, intelligent patriots” (109). Even the terminology used for these women is deeply gendered. The term “farmerette” means little or less than farmer. Referring to women as “girls” denotes a child-like and inexperienced nature. It is often used to infer that women must be taken care of or raised (i.e. The Pygmalion complex). A 2018 Daily Mail article attempting to celebrate the heroism of Louise De Bettignies instead belittles her efforts from the get go with its article title “French Housekeeper Spied for Britain in WWI before being captured by Germans” (September 21). Classifying Louise as a “Housekeeper,” dismisses her upper class lineage, extensive educations, and paints her simply as a rogue savant relegating her back into domestic service. It devalues her status as an elite intelligence agent of MI5. Although this is terminology contemporary to the era, we as modern historians must be aware of the biases the language continues to promote.
As we look to the future, I challenge you to lift the veil of obscurity and uncover the hidden truths of our diverse past. Never again allow the contributions of women be dismissed or forgotten. Amplify the whispers of our history into a loud and clear roar. Let the voices, faces, sacrifices, and resilience of all those who have come before us spark inspiration for how we will shape our future. Let the stories of women remain Invisible No More.
Recommended Readings:
Boissoneault, Lorraine. “Women On the Frontlines of WWI Came to Operate Telephones.” Smithsonian Magazine, APRIL 4, 2017.
Brittain, Vera. Testament of Youth. Victor Gollancz Ltd. London, 1933.
Brittain, Vera. Lady into Woman. Andrew Dakers Limited. London, 1953.
“Chronicling America- Historic American Newspapers.” Library of Congress. chroniclingamerica.loc.gov
“Grace D. Banker collection (1918),” William L. Clements Library, University of Michigan.
“Merle Egan Anderson: Montana’s “Hello Girl.” Women’s History Matters. montanawomenshistory.org
Timble, Carolyn. “100 Years Ago “Hello Girl” Grace Banker receives Distinguished Service Medal.” United States World War One Centennial Commission. www.worldwar1centennial.org
CalicoBall is a grassroots effort to document, preserve, and present rural America’s diverse historical traditions. CalicoBall is an educational extension of Maggie May Clothing. All rights reserved.
Women and WWI is a series based on historical accounts of women who fought for the Allied Cause during The First World War. Women’s war contributions have largely been dismissed and were not formerly acknowledged until the late 1970s when women of the US Army Signal Corps Telephone Operator’s Units demanded recognition from the US government and equal status as military veterans. This series is based on first hand accounts as well as research by other historians. Women and WWI hopes to spark continued curiosity about the roles women played during The Great War and further propel women’s history into mainstream consciousness.
In the Spring of 1915, the British Intelligence Service enlisted a modern young French woman by the name of Louise De Bettignies to gather information about German movements in occupied Lille (just on the French border). Fluent in English, German, Italian and able to understand Russian, Czech and Spanish, Louise was trained in Britain by intelligence officers in codes, drawing up plans, gathering information, and sending messages. Upon being smuggled into Belgium, she adopted the name Alice Dubois.
Prior to becoming an official British agent of espionage, Louise and her sister worked underground smuggling supplies to the front. Upon entering Belgium, she began collaborations with Marie-Léonie Vanhoutte, (alias Charlotte Lameron) who was affiliated with the ambulance services throughout German occupied Belgium and the neutral Netherlands. Together, they expanded and centralized a secret organization of 80-100 nameless men and women, now known as “The Alice Network.” The Alice Network watched trains, identified positions of gun batteries, munitions depots, and identified the houses of officers throughout Belgium. Many involved in the secret network worked for the railways or the postal services.
Despite her meticulous training and prior experience, crossing the Belgian-Dutch border every week quickly brought Louise to the attention of the German counter-intelligence agency. She was captured in October 1915 and was found guilty of espionage. She was sentenced to death but after pressure from Belgium officials, was commuted to forced labour in Germany. After refusing to make German munitions, she was confined to a dungeon and fell ill. She died in 1918 from an infection resulting from a poor surgery and unsanitary conditions. In 1920, her body was returned to Lille and given a state funeral.
Louise De Bettignies was known as the “Joan of Arc of the North” by her comrades and “The Queen of Spies” by the British. The Alice Network was so effective, it is estimated over 1,000 British lives were saved during its short period of operation (“On this Day.”).
The most successful espionage effort in occupied Europe was La Dame Blanche (or The White Lady) network. There are multiple legends surrounding the term “La Dame Blanche.” In 1870, Folklorist Thomas Keightley describes the “Dames Blanches” as a type of FĂ©e known in Normandy “who are of a less benevolent character.” Additionally, famous Celtic scholar James MacCulloch believed Dames Blanches were a recharacterization of medieval female guardians who watched over the home. During WWI, La Dame Blanche was symbolic of the ancient German legend that tells the story of the appearance of a white lady (or spectre) just prior to the fall of the Prussian Empire.
Much of what we know about La Dame Blanche comes from author Tammy Proctor in her book, Female Intelligence: Women and Espionage in the First World War (published in 2003). La Dame Blanche was an extensive network throughout occupied Europe and was thought to have had at least 1,100 agents of which 300 were female. “Women provided an important component to intelligence and escape networks because their movements aroused fewer suspicions than the activities of men” (75). The network’s leaders devised a network that could be run entirely by women. A female executive committee was created which could perform leadership functions and take over the Network completely if necessary.
Proctor also writes about a La Dame Blanche battalion based in Brussels, headed up by two schoolmistresses sisters named Laure and Louise Tandel. The Tandels’ batallion employed 190 agents- of whom 59 were women. Of these 59 women, two-thirds were unmarried and in their thirties and forties. They were highly independent women from “respectable” backgrounds- ranging from the middle class to the aristocracy.
La Dame Blanche concentrated most of its espionage on railway observation. Reports were collected, verified, and then given to a “courier” service who then transmitted them to English agents in the Netherlands. It is known that La Dame Blanche collaborated with The Alice Network in Belgium.
Additionally, La Dame Blanche surveyed the countryside for any details that could be of military interest. La Dame Blanche was so efficient in their espionage that by 1918, the Allied Forces knew (with almost daily accuracy) the exact details of all German positions within Belgium, Northern France, and Luxembourg.
Unlike the Alice Network, few agents of La Dame Blanche were ever caught. Of the 1,100 active collaborators, only two were ever convicted and condemned for spying. La Dame Blanche was highly skilled at evading most all German counter intelligence efforts (Decock).
There is no doubt, ”The intelligence community rested on the backs of female laborers,” Proctor writes (55). The patriotism and motivation to protect the home front motivated these women to “do their bit.” As one unnamed La Dame Blanche reflected, “We were â€soldiers without uniforms’ (75)”. Interestingly enough, Germany’s defeat in 1918 led to a German Revolution. The German monarchy was overthrown and the Weimar Republic was established, thus bringing an end to the Prussian Dynasty just as predicted. It seems the foretelling of the appearance of La Dame Blanche proved true.
Unlike the Alice Network, few agents of La Dame Blanche were ever caught. Of the 1,100 active collaborators, only two were ever convicted and condemned for spying. La Dame Blanche was highly skilled at evading most all German counter intelligence efforts (Decock).
Recommended Readings:
Antier, Chantal. “Bettignies, Louise Marie Jeanne Henriette de.” International Encyclopedia of the First World War. encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net
Brittain, Vera. Testament of Youth. Victor Gollancz Ltd. London, 1933.
Brittain, Vera. Lady into Woman. Andrew Dakers Limited. London, 1953.
“Chronicling America- Historic American Newspapers.” Library of Congress. chroniclingamerica.loc.gov
Debruyne, Emmanuel. “Espionage.” International Encyclopedia of the First World War. encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net
Decock, Pierre. “La Dame Blanche.” International Encyclopedia of the First World War. encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net
“On this Day.” The Western Front Association. www.westernfrontassociation.com
Proctor, Tammy M.Female Intelligence: Women and Espionage in the First World War. New York and London: New York University Press, 2003.
“Queens of the Spy World.” The Uncommon Wealth: Voices from The Library of Virginia. August 12, 2018.
CalicoBall is a grassroots effort to document, preserve, and present rural America’s diverse historical traditions. CalicoBall is an educational extension of Maggie May Clothing. All rights reserved.
This research was originally presented at The Costume Society of America’s regional symposium in Nashville, TN in 2014.
In the autumn of 1825, a fair haired 30 year old Scottish- born expatriate used her personal fortune to purchase virgin land in the Western Tennessee wilderness to carve out a community where her ideas about emancipation and equality for the citizens of humanity could unfold. It was a community called Nashoba, a Chickasaw word for WOLF.
Frances Wright (called Fannie by her closest friends), was lauded as a beautiful, wealthy woman with “a stately carriage, lovely ringlets” and a “rich resonant voice” (Martin). Fervent, charismatic, and altruistic, Wright was a passionate champion of equality for enslaved Americans. In an effort to rid the world of what she called a sin against humanity, she developed a plan to end slavery through her Nashoba community. She believed that “the races should be equal; the prejudices of color…. as absurd as the European prejudice of birth” (Kolmerten 126).
She also renounced the societal restraints placed upon women, writing “society condemned [its daughters] to the unnatural repression of feelings and desires inherent in their very organization” (Kolmerten 126). She called for marriage that required the joining together of two people without the loss of individual rights and even proposed interracial love. She encouraged women to find empowerment through their sexuality and strove to move American society toward utopia.
Her ideas were blasphemous. In many towns, politicians forbade her to speak. Opponents tried to demolish her podium and over turned her carriage to prevent her escape. Undeterred, Fannie found fields from which to deliver her message. Conservative enemies were forced “to play pranks during her lectures in an effort to undercut her effectiveness” (Martin 274). On one occasion, a barrel full of trash covered with turpentine was set on fire and rolled into the audience. On another occasion, the gas lights were turned off on a crowd of nearly 2,000 people in an attempt to disperse the gathering. The sensationalism associated with her lectures made her so popular, she had to be accompanied by bodyguards (Martin 274).
But it was not her ideology that would incite the most degradation from her contemporaries. It was her chosen manner of dress. Described as “a loose, long sleeved tunic of some very fine material, bound at the waist with a flowing sash and reaching only to the knee; and below it a pair of Turkish trousers…” (Lane, 3), she must have evoked a shocking visage. The press quickly dubbed her The Great Red Harlot of Infidelity, The Whore of Babylon, The Voluptuous Preacher of Licentiousness, The Priestess of Beelzebub, Miss Epicene Wright, and a female monster. By 1836, Fannie Wright was “the most infamous woman in America” (Crawley).
A stark contrast to the fashion of her day, Wright’s use of bifurcated trousers and tunic- garments considered masculine or affiliated with the exotic opened a pandora’s box in the timeline of history. Tunics were not new to women’s fashion, but her public use of trousers was insidious. By donning the tunic and trousers, Wright made her stance on the side of reform. Her adoption of the new plain dress reinforced her staunch objections to the restraints placed on women through marriage and the frivilous dictates of high fashion.
As Gayle Fischer points out in her article ‘PANTALETS’ AND ‘TURKISH TROWSERS’, “by wearing pants of any kind, women appropriated male dress, and, by association, male privilege and power.” Evidence of this is found in Jane Clay’s recollection of Frances Wright upon her visit to Monticello in 1824: “In person she was masculine, measuring at least 5 ft 11 inches and wearing her hair a la Ninon in close curls, her large blue eyes and blonde aspect were thoroughly English and she always seemed to wear the wrong attire.” And also, “The Frenchmen told many instances of her masculine proclivites- on occasion she would harrangue the men in the public room of a hotel and the like.” (monticello.org)
If Wright’s use of bifurcated trousers was an attempt to harness the power of the male gender, it referred only to the power and priviledges affiliated with the freedoms men enjoyed. In no way was Wright attempting to emasculate women’s clothing. On the contrary, Turkish trousers, often affiliated with the eroticism of the East, instead harnessed the power of the feminine mystique. In her quest to adopt a style of dress that was distinctly different from mainstream fashion, she could thus throw off the proverbial corsets of societal constraint.
In 1717, Lady Mary Wortley Montague, who lived in the Middle East while her husband served as an ambassador, wrote of the freedom she enjoyed wearing her pants… “the first part of my dress is a pair of drawers, very full, that reach to my shoes, and conceal the legs more modestly than your petticoats.” But the physical release of the body implied a sensuality, stereotypically associated with Eastern culture, that was not possible for a body confined in stays and long skirts (Fischer). What other garment besides Turkish trousers could embody Wright’s ideas about female equality.
There is no known record of Wright’s extant garments still in existence. All we are left with are the written accounts left by others, a roughly drawn sketch, and formal portraits of Wright showing her dressed in the modern fashion of the day. So how then are we to envision Frances Wright’s reform garment?
Drawing from the world in which she lived, along with our knowledge of period clothing and textiles, we can piece together an image of the garment she might have worn. We can draw from the Orientalist movement in art. These images draw a clear portrait of how the West interpreted Eastern garments.
We can also look at the clothing of the period. There is speculation that Robert Owen took his ideas of dress reform from the clothing styles of children. While I doubt Wright would have taken kindly to “dressing like a child,” we can assume the freedom of movement affiliated with children’s clothing relevant.
And finally, we can turn back the pages of time to the Directorate period when long, loose fitting tunics were worn as layers atop sheer muslin gowns. This silhouette is an image that serves as a beacon of Post revolutionary France- a time in which Wright was heavily influenced.*
In December of 1825, with the aid of Andrew Jackson, Frances Wright purchased 320 acres of rolling, swamp land on the Wolf River in Southwest Tennessee. It was her hope to build a community based upon united labor where “every individual member of either sex is secured the protection and friendly aid of all” (NHG Feb 6, 1828). Construction of houses, “which she placed within a quarter mile from the bank of the… river” (Kolmerten 118) began first. Wright planned to construct a washhouse and bathhouse on the river, to add a dairy, “to open up some beautiful wooded pastures and retired walks extending our meadows along the….. watery bottoms” (Kolmerten 118), and to add a school where both white and black children could become educated together. But those dreams never came to fruition.
Upon her arrival, Wright quickly found she was unprepared for the wilderness. She writes of riding up to 40 miles per day and “Sleeping with my saddle for a pillow” as she oversaw the construction of her community. In letter written by the Marquis de LaFayette to Thomas Jefferson on October 1, 1824, he writes:
“It was not anticipated that one born in the lap of wealthy aristocracy, who probably had never kneaded bread, churned butter or perchance put a stitch in a garment should without the pressure of necessity, voluntarily turn woodman….. But she did it, and might be seen with her swarthy companions, piling brush, rolling logs, etc. from dawn to dusky eve. As a specimen of her application to business, she left in the morning twilight in search of their cows, and returned in the evening twilight having traversed the forest a whole day without a mouthful of food. Several times she went alone on horseback from Tennessee to New Harmony, Indiana through a wilderness country with several rivers of swimming depth” (Elliot).**
Four years after Frances Wright began her great experiment, Nashoba consisted of nothing more than “three or four log houses and a few small cabins for the slaves” (Kolmerten 119). Upon her visit in 1828, Frances Trollope describes the scene:
“On reaching Nashoba I found it so infinitely more dreadful that I ever imagined possible that I almost immediately decided upon not suffering my children to breathe the pestilential atmosphere more than a day or two- it is impossible to give you an idea of their miserable and melancholy mode of life while I was there. Whitby and his wife [Camilla] both look like spectres from fever and ague. Lolotte the New Orleans washerwoman and her three children, full of wretched regret and repining. This was the whole community, except the slaves- whom we only saw when they brought logs for the fires. The food was scanty and far from wholesome- no milk or butter- bad water- very little bread- and no meat but pork. In short I left them in ten days” (Domestic Manners).
A horrified Trollope writes Miss Wright’s cabin “had no ceiling and the floor consisted of planks laid loosely upon piles” (Crawley 60). The total Nashoba school population consisted of “three yellow children running wild in the swamps” (Kolmerten 120). By 1828, even Lafayette who had always been a champion of Wright, begged her “to see a conclusion to [her] philanthropic adventure” (Crawley 61).
From these accounts, we can get a clear picture of what life was like in Nashoba. It was hardly place suited for long skirts, corsets, and petticoats. As historians, we can assume Wright most likely modified her attire in one way or another out of necessity. In order to adapt to a lifestyle heavy with physical labor and short on the comforts of life, she may have shortened her skirts and loosened her bodice simply to perform the tasks of day to day living in the American wilderness. Perhaps she adopted the loose fitting frocks of the farmers of England and France as a way to keep the dirt and muck from staining the clothing she did have. Maybe she found the use of a bifurcated trousers entirely more decent and practical. Perhaps forced to deal with the intrepid heat and humidity of the American South, she was moved to adopt clothing styles more suited for European watering holes for garments worn in the Indies. These are all plausible speculations.
More concrete evidence of the reasoning for her antifashion can be found in her connections with New Harmony. Various accounts from visitors and members of the community describe the “uniform” or new plain dress as pants and a tunic of inexpensive American made material; an over jacket reaching to the knees; a dress similar to that of an Indian, the gown reaching to the knees with pantalettes on the legs; the female dress being a pair of undertrowsers tied around the ankles over which is an exceedingly full slip reaching to the knees, though some have made them longer and also to have the sleeves long (Kolmerten 56, 78, 94); is of black and white striped cotton (Fischer 39).
Owen believed by enforcing uniform (and somewhat androgynous) clothing, he could enhance his egalitarian society. But Wright had her own ideas about how a costume of equality should look. Frances Trollope describes Wright’s attire as distinctly different, being “….of plain white muslin which hung around her in folds that recalled the drapery of a Grecian statue” (Fischer 37). The reform dress at New Harmony was meant to liberate women but there was a great deal of resistance to accept the radical mode of dress amongst the married women in the community.
Both Nashoba and the New Harmony communities failed within 5 years of their inception. Robert Owen’s attempt at women’s dress reform failed because he only succeeded in liberating women for the purpose carrying out greater physical labor. Wright’s insensitivity toward the traditional female role isolated her from the very sex she was trying to liberate.
However by creating her own version of the New Harmony “dress,” Wright sent a clear message she was not just a follower of Robert Owen but a social reformer in her own right. She laid the groundwork for future movements toward equality. Her Tunic and turkish trousers the prototype for reform. Thirty years later, another dress reform movement would find greater success. The world in which Frances Wright lived was not yet ready for her ideas.
Recap:
Notes:
*Wright was an avid follower of Byron. His use of the exotic and his rejection of traditional values struck a chord with her at a young age. Byronic heroes appear larger than life and dress and style themselves in elaborate costumes for the purpose of making themselves as different from others as possible. Her manner of dress was the product of English/French Romanticism and preceded the women’s equal rights and Suffragette movement.
**Wright was the daughter of wealthy Scottish political radicals who championed The French Revolution.
Wright was simultaneously a product of her time and a woman before her time. The world in which she lived was not ready for her ideas. She used her manner of dress as a tool of empowerment. It would be 30 more years before bifurcated garments for women would be successfully implemented as reform dress and nearly one hundred and forty years before they were accepted into mainstream society. Frances Wright, one the most infamous women in contemporary America, was written into obscurity- her groundbreaking new ideas only to be attributed to others.
Bibliography:
CalicoBall is a grassroots effort to document, preserve, and present rural America’s diverse historical traditions. CalicoBall is an educational extension of Maggie May Clothing. All rights reserved.
Etsy™ and I have had an on again-off again relationship for many years now. In fact, I opened an auxiliary Etsy shop WAY BACK in 2009 (just 4 years after they launched as an exclusively handmade marketplace) and was one of the first sellers on the platform to offer historical fashion. I chose to sell on Etsy’s marketplace back in the day because I knew it was something special and would offer a viable secondary outlet to sell some of my ready made fashions in addition to my main website (maggiemayfashions.com- est. 2000).
Etsy was attractive then because it was a place exclusively for hand made items. It was finally a place for creatives to have their own marketplace. Even back in 2009, it was hard to compete with mass produced imported goods. It was understood customers who valued one of a kind items made by individual hands could search out Etsy knowing they were supporting true makers, creators, and artists.
Since 2009, our world has changed significantly. The rise of behemoth selling platforms like Amazon, Facebook, Instagram, and Ebay put Etsy at a crossroads. Could Etsy still exist as it was or did it need to change to keep up?
That is a question left only for speculation as Etsy chose to throw its handmade hat into the Megalith Marketplace and strike out to become one of the giants themselves.
In 2017, Etsy ousted its CEO and replaced him with Josh Silverman- an Etsy board member and “progressive” businessman. With a Silicon Valley curricula vitae as long as the novel War and Peace, Silverman was the man investors wanted at the forefront. And it has paid off.
But for whom? And at what cost?
In 2018, Etsy garnered a gross income of $603 million with a profit of a little over $41 million generated in the US alone. Etsy currently draws its profits from 3 revenue streams: sales commissions (5-15% depending on Etsy’s terms), a listing fee (currently $0.20 per item), and a catch all category entitled “Seller Services” (1).
It all sounds straight forward, right?
Not quite.
Since 2018, Etsy has been rapidly changing its policies to benefit the good of its investors. There seems to be less transparency about these changes with increasing burdens on the seller. In 2019, there was an uproar amongst Etsy sellers about a coerced “free shipping” policy. According to a 2019 The Verge article, Etsy would begin giving perks to shops who offered free shipping. This encouraged Etsy sellers (and still does) to increase their product pricing and roll shipping fees into their retail prices (i.e. pass the cost onto the buyer). While this not a new business practice, it is not a one size fits all model and when Etsy stated it would give preference to shops who conformed (based on sales analytics that ultimately generate more sales for the platform), it created HUGE seller inequalities (2).
In 2020, Etsy announced ALL of its sellers would be subject to an additional 7-10% commission rate increase to pay for unsolicited seller advertising on search engines. Essentially, Etsy would begin advertising products from shops on various search engines (mainly Google) in order to drive more traffic to its site. If a customer clicks on say a Google Ad leading him/her to your Etsy shop and that customer then purchases the advertised item, your Etsy commission rate jumps from 5% (which was 3.5% in 2009) to 12-15%. All shipping fees are also subject to the 15% commission rate. In addition, Etsy is now penalizing sellers for slow turn around times in order to compete with its next day shipping arch-nemesis- Amazon.
Recently, Etsy acquired a third party payment processing system further increasing revenue for the platform. These additional “Seller Service” fees include payment processing (so long PayPal), shipping transaction fees, shipping service fees, and now unsolicited “promoted listing” fees.
For some sellers, the “cost of doing business” with Etsy is definitely worth it. In a consumer oriented world that is now doing more of its buying and selling online than ever before, it is becoming harder and harder for small businesses to compete with Big E-Corps. In some ways, Etsy seems to be out there fighting to get the little guy’s stuff in front of customers. It’s going head to head with platforms like Amazon, Ebay, and Instagram. And small businesses who choose to go at it alone have already realized that “promoted listings” for independent websites not only cost significantly more but seem to be pretty ineffective.
But one has to ask– Is doing business with Etsy worth it? Personally, I have seen my sales double since reopening my Etsy shop. It is ideal for businesses who do not necessary want to be tasked with the management of a private e-commerce site or invest in an extensive digital marketing plan. It allows businesses to capitalize on the collective power that comes from a mega platform. However, understanding that Etsy has a proven history of selling out sellers for increased platform/investor profits, one must really consider if it is worth the risk. And one must consider at what point does partnering with Etsy (or any large platform) reach the point of diminishing return?
It’s no surprise there has been a mass exodus from Etsy by individual makers, creators, and artists over the past two years. The progress ushered in by Etsy has irreversibly changed its culture and customer base. So, I suppose the answers to the Etsy dilemma really depend on one’s business model, one’s business ethics, one’s belief in free trade, and one’s willingness to give up a huge chunk of profit just to make sales.
Etsy has made it clear- it wants you to succeed so it will succeed. For Etsy, it’s go big…. or go home.
Business Bevies is a series designed to address small business topics for creatives.
2. https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/9/20687821/etsy-free-shipping-policy-seller-us-uk