Veterans and Votes

20121127-080442.jpg
On Wednesday last, I met with two fantastic colleagues, one from my own house, and the other from the local living history farm/museum. We went over topics and themes and ideas about history, and we tried to stay focused…but it was hard, because really, all three of us think the 18th century is hot stuff, and the thing we most want to share with the rest of the world.

At one point, our farm based colleague reminded us that his people (tenant farmers) would not have been able to vote. And I realized, as the conversation quickly hopped to the westward migration of Rhode Islanders–some to take occupation and ownership of Western Reserve lands given as bounty for Revolutionary War service–that there were plenty of men who served in the Continental Army who, at war’s end could not vote.

Let that one sink in for a moment: in Rhode Island, only property owners could vote. A man who served with the Rhode Island Regiments who did not own property fought, in some cases for eight years, but at war’s end, could not vote. They could not participate in the democracy they might have sacrificed not only time and profit but their own bodies to achieve.

One man, one vote was not the law in Rhode Island until after the Dorr Rebellion of 1841, when white male property owners AND men who could pay a $1 poll tax were granted suffrage.

Universal suffrage rights aside, what did voting mean to the men who fought in the Revolutionary War? How did the people of the late 18th century understand their rights, and they role in democracy? It was far different from what we take for granted in America now, which is different from how democracy was understood just 100 years ago.

Again, we could delve into how Senators were formerly not chosen by popular vote or argue about the electoral college, but what I wonder now, as I ponder the men who portray Rev War units, is to what degree those men understand how very different the men of the past were from the men they are today. It is not just breeches and “Good Days” that make us different. The way we think– how we see the world and how we see ourselves– is fundamentally different.

I Love a Man in a Uniform

Maybe it’s about the musket?

But that’s not my man, that’s Brian. Nice uniform, though, right? Blue broadcloth with white facings and pewter buttons, a cap with a red cockade, fitted white overalls: what’s not to like? (Making one, that’s what, and one is in my future.)

After getting Mr S’s workman’s jacket to the brink of buttons and buttonholes, we looked at it and said, “It’s so…plain. Where are the contrast facings? The tape and the lace? Should it be so much, well, one color?” Peacocks suddenly made sense.

It’s not about the musket. It’s about the buttons. And the breeches.

I spend my 18th century time with men in uniforms, and I forget the role of line, fit, and color in determining style. I see it in paintings, and in lovely coats in museums, but one thing we don’t have a lot of are paintings of middling and lower men who look stylish. Of course not! They couldn’t afford paintings, and style–refinement at least–was associated with class and gentility. There was a coded language, and clothes said a lot about the wearer.

So what did uniforms say about men, and how much could civilians, especially women, read the symbols? Hessians, with their tall brass hats, and grenadiers, with bearskins, are dressed not just to impress, but to overwhelm, visually. At Fort Lee last year, my mother was distinctly impressed by, and a little frighted of, the Hessians and Jaegers: the uniforms worked as intended.

Facings and frocks: Rhode Island stands out

Light Infantry troops wanted to set themselves apart, and used their cut-down caps and short jackets to achieve immediate visual distinction.

Working men used what they had: checkered or printed handkerchiefs, patterned waistcoats, and better buttons were some of the ways they dressed up their clothes. I know brass buttons will be in my sewing box soon, the sooner the better, say the men I sew for.

Fort Lee Surrealism

Surreal: that was the word for the morning at Monument Park. The RI Reg’t walked over the park instead of parading with the troops, because one of our members has not been well, and did not think he could keep up with the parade. It was odd to follow the reenactors in 18th century clothing under power lines and past high rise apartment buildings shouldering out old frame homes, but the surrealism really kicked in at the park.

Describing sniper fire in WWII to salsa music

There it became multi-sensory when the ceremony’s organizers turned on the music. It wasn’t exactly merengue, and it wasn’t exactly salsa…then the soundtrack switched to updated Big Band hits and finally landed on a strange, over-the-top, quasi-operatic version of “Battle Hymn of the Republic.”

So when you look at the photos on flickr, play some salsa or an album you might have ordered at 2 AM from a TV ad, and think about standing in 40F/4C weather eavesdropping on politicians talking about inching closer to universal health, and the lessons of Hurricane Sandy for high-rise dwellers, while squeezing up next to you for a photo op.

Later, at Fort Lee Historic Park, the artillery demonstration was loud and satisfying, but we got behind schedule and to the oddness of the morning was added rushing. It was capped off at the end by the order to fix bayonets, which led to bayonets being caught in branches.

Bayonets fixed, Capt. Becker takes measure of the trees

Finally, for me, the day nearly foundered when I pulled my phone out of pocket at the end of the event to check the time, and saw my boss had been texting me all afternoon over a non-crisis. Part of why I love re-enacting and living history so much is that it takes me so far away from myself and from my daily existence. It’s related (slightly) to my work, but to be so far away in place and time and effort is a delight. I can’t just throw the phone away or not take it along: I am supposed to be on call, all the time…but it’s history, not a hospital, and if budgets change, so should expectations.

Evenings by the Fire

I am chasing two things at once these days: late 18th century high-style table settings, and late 18th century life after dark. They’re related topics, but in a way they’re not.

Setting aside the table, for I have diagrams and dishes and silver service identified and am down to questions of exact napkin folding and placement, how did people spend their time in the 18th century? We assume life was more tuned than ours to diurnal rhythms ( see Circles and Lines) but was it always?

There were differences between the days of servants, slaves and masters, and one good place for resources on those differences is Colonial Williamsburg. Like OSV, CW has placed some of their research papers online. For the house where I work, the Daily Schedule for a Young Gentry Woman is very helpful:

“From about 8:30 p. m. until 10 or 11 p.m. she, members of her family, and guests socialize at home or with neighbors. Their evening activities include conversation, toasting friends, singing or listening to music, reading aloud, playing cards or board games such as backgammon, dancing, and taking moonlight strolls. … “Kate read the Vicar of Wakefield to me this evening and highly entertained me” (Robert Hunter journal, 1786).  … “We play’d whist from 9 to 11. Capt. Clopper & myself, Mr. Harris & Munroe” (Ruth Henshaw Bascom diary, 1802).”

These observations of Virginia pastimes coincide with how we know Providence residents spent their evenings in the late 18th century. How late people stayed up was determined in part by need: was there work still to be done writing a sermon? was a family member ill? and in part by access: were there candles by which to work or read?

Fun to think and read about, but for now, I must put it aside. Fort Lee is tomorrow, and I have mending to do or we will all be cold. It will be an early bed for us all tonight, since we are driving down tomorrow morning. Photos on Sunday, as long as I remember the camera.