We do not think much about the objects that surround our daily lives. We use objects, we see them, and we share them without any exploration into the origin and significance of such items. Yet objects tell our stories every day. We use the way we dress to express ourselves and share something with others, we decorate our homes to portray a certain aesthetic, and we even buy cars to make meaning out of material objects. It is hard to understand the significance of our material objects in expressing our society’s culture and our own lives because we are living in the present. It is the examination of objects from history that allows us to make these connections. The preservation of an object of someone long gone can tell a story like no other about the person. More importantly, the information that the item shares goes beyond a eulogy, a person, or the memories remembered by loved ones. Instead, we create a window into the everyday life of one person via the object they used regularly. Through preserved objects, there is no singular focus on the extraordinary events of one person, but rather on who they were for each mundane moment of their life. This unique aspect of preserved objects is what allows us to delve deep into the mind and life of one Midwestern Quaker woman and her dress.

The plum Quaker dress from the Kansas State University Historic Textile Museum tells a story about the life of a woman and her family as they lived in Kansas and Missouri. The story is influenced by many factors, including the entirety of Quaker history, multiple civil rights movements, the treatment of women in the nineteenth century, and the simple construction and material of the dress. The piece of clothing gives us an insight into critical events, and its creation reflects critical cultural moments for one family and even for all people in the United States. One of the most interesting ideas this dress presents is the way in which women rebelled each day against the conservatism and restrictions put upon them. I will discuss how the construction of the dress, its owner’s history, and historical events at the time encourage the idea of rebellion in the Quaker women of the time period.

Dress Description

A dress is different from any other object of clothing because of its seemingly simple features. Dresses have skirts that are attached to the bodice. They often have sleeves and clasps or zippers for ease of wear. These basic descriptors allude to a dress as a simple object, but dresses are far more complex because of nuances in style, the various shapes, and the multitude of colors and cloth used. While dresses of today lose parts of their complex

history through mass factory manufacture, those like the plum Quaker dress have a unique story due to being hand-sewn and individualized in great detail for the owner.

The Quaker dress has an empire waist, with the seam of the waistline ending just below the bust. The skirt tapers out in an A-line shape, forming a triangle with the narrowest part at the waist. The length of the skirt is approximately 39.1 inches while the height of the bodice is only 10.2 inches, showing that the dress would come about to the ankles on a woman who is about 5 feet, or 60 inches, tall. On a woman any taller, the dress would have an inappropriate

skirt length, as skirts shorter than the ankles were not acceptable in America until WWI (“Vintage Fashion”). These measurements make it clear that the woman wearing this dress would have a very small frame. Netscape Home & Living says that today the average white woman has a 41-inch bust, 34-inch waist, and 43-inch hip. These measurements indicate our dress owner was well below today’s average, as the bust measures 16 inches and the waist 27.3 inches. Such below-average measurements, especially in the bust, indicate that the wearer may have been young or early in puberty because of the short height and small, girlish frame.

The structure of the sleeves is one of the most interesting aspects of the dress. The sleeve length is 29.5 inches from the shoulder and 25 inches from the topmost seam. The length across the sleeve at this seam is only 3.5 inches, which creates a tightness and restriction of movement that would have caused the wearer to be unable to lift their arms past their shoulders. The sleeve then billows out into a large swath of cloth 8 inches across where the upper arm and elbow would be. This is a staggering 5 inches of extra cloth in the elbows to create a style element reminiscent of medieval fashion. It then narrows again to about 3 inches at the wrist. The sleeve seems to be closest to two descriptions of popular 1830s styles, the elephant sleeve and the gigot, or leg-of-mutton, sleeve. The gigot sleeve had an expansive puff on the sleeve from shoulder to elbow while tapering at the wrist (“Gigot Sleeves”), while the elephant sleeve is tapered at the shoulder and expands at the wrist (Torfason). The sleeve on the plum dress seems a combination of both styles. In talking about plain style, Connerley says, “Quakers were understood as both plain and genteel. So a vast consuming public interpreted the bonnet instead as a cover to a lovely and conservative woman” (146). The dress too encourages this view of Quaker women, as restrictive sleeves would keep their bodies enclosed and composed and the medieval billowing could show a genteel sort of quality.

The Quaker dress is made of a combination of materials including silk, cotton, and lace. Its beauty is derived almost entirely from construction rather than added decoration, which makes sense because of the Quaker aversion to adornment (Jones Lapsansky 2). In looking inside the dress there are patches of an undyed cotton cloth, with a tan color and rough texture stark against the soft plum silk. There is a clear difference between the weights of the cotton and silk parts of the dress. When weighed against an average wool cardigan, the cotton sections were heavier, while the silk alone was extremely light to the point of fragility. The cotton pieces are most noticeable at the 

base of the dress, where they measure 7.8 inches high, and where structural integrity may have been weak. The extra cloth to hold the dress together encourages the idea that it was worn by multiple generations of women in a Quaker family. History would support the idea that the silk is imported rather than made in the U.S.A., as Federico describes how the United States was unsuited to silk production because of its sparse population (15). If the silk was purchased before the 1820s, as the donor history suggests, then the use of imported silk makes sense. After the revolution, the U.S. was desperate to begin trade with China directly because of the large sums of money that

Britain was making from this practice (“Early American Trade With China”). The author notes,“During the late 1850s, the United States’ trade with China declined.” If the dress was worn and purchased prior to the 1820s, then it could have easily been acquired during the post-independence boom of trade rather than during the decline. A dress with long sleeves and skirt on average requires a minimum of five yards of cloth and to import such a large amount would have cost enormously (Saunders Maresh). Women tended to only wear silk to special occasions in the early 1800s, and the making of this dress would have been expensive because of the cost of international shipping alone (Dreissen). Silk was more available at this time to wealthy merchant elites and not just royalty, but the family would have had to be well above the middle class to afford it (Kurin). In lieu of discovering accurate pricing per yard, an example of the kind of wealthy people that were able to afford silk dresses can be used. The paintings below of Quakers who not only wore silk, but also could afford professional portraits, show the amount of wealth necessary to import silk for everyday use. Concerning the Pembertons, Jones Lapsansky says “Their family portraits are lavish and bold,” and continues with, “the couple is portrayed in gleaming silks in a manner reflecting the height of rococo fashion” (134).

The final unique element to this dress is the cochineal dye used to create the plum color. The cochineal insect originates in Central America, specifically Mexico, and creates a unique and concentrated red dye (Behan). While this insect is strongly associated with red dye in clothing, the mixture examples on the “Creating Cochineal Dye 2010” page show that purple can easily be created with an addition of baking soda to the insect bodies. Behan states that “by 1600, cochineal was second only to silver as the most valuable import from Mexico.”  Due to the rare color, red clothing became associated with wealth, privilege, and power. This association is shown by the use of the red dye in Roman Catholic Cardinal robes (Behan). In fact, the peak of the cochineal industry was in the mid-1800s, and it only declined with new synthetic dyes. This time period coincides with the creation of the Quaker dress. The use of the cochineal purple would create a unique color and emphasize status, not only through the expensive nature of the insect-based dye, but also because purple as a color has long been associated with royalty. It would also be expressed well in the silk material, which is expensive again because of its ability to hold color (Kurin). The material and dye of this dress emphasize that its outer plainness is outdone by the expense of its creation.

The connection between a dress dated to the 1820s and its original owner can be elusive. Yet the unique form and material of the dress still give some indication about the woman who would have worn it. There are three facts that I had to work with: a Mrs. J.T. Hickman donated the dress, it was given in 1987, and it is listed as a Quaker dress. The lack of information and full names makes it difficult to pinpoint the exact donor of this dress and their history. But with the historical context and information that Mrs. Hickman’s grandmother may have owned the dress, a possible story of a woman’s life can be constructed.

In order to properly understand the possible donor and wearer of the plum dress, we must first become familiar with Quaker history. The Quakers, otherwise known as the Religious Society of Friends, were founded in England by George Fox (Robinson). It is a protestant denomination that emphasized the “inward light” or a direct connection to God (Robinson). They also focused on the equality of all people, despite their skin color or gender. Quaker persecution in England caused many to emigrate to the United States and also created the popular name “Quaker,” which was used to make fun of the quaking motions they made when praying (Robinson). One of the most well-known Quakers is the founder of Pennsylvania, William Penn. Penn’s colony was known for religious tolerance in general (Robinson). Quaker government in the United States was considered decidedly liberal and the people of the religion were grounded pacifists who refused to participate in or fund any war action (“Quakers in Pennsylvania and New Jersey”). The tendencies toward equality explain the Quaker participation in the abolition and women’s rights movements at the forefront of change. There were also several schisms in the church in the 1800s. The first was led by Elias Hicks and the split was caused by his de-emphasis of anything but the inner light (Robinson). Many of these dissenters moved to the Midwest after the schism (Jones Lapsansky 33).

Our donor’s family enters the picture within this Quaker context. Hickman is an unfortunately common name in the United States and becomes hard to trace with only two initials. The immigration map on Ancestry.com shows a possible history of the name in Quaker history, as it was common in Pennsylvania in the 1840s, where Penn popularized the Religious Society of Friends in early America. There is also a trend toward Midwestern immigration, specifically into Kansas, which is where the Hickmans likely lived in order to donate the dress to Kansas State University. In exploring Ancestry.com, there are several J.T. Hickmans that seem promising. The most promising comes from a record in Manhattan, Kansas, of graves in Sunset Cemetery. Buried there is a James T Hickman and his wife Jossie B. Jossie B Hickman could very well be our donor, because, despite her death in 1955, she had two children who could have donated the dress in her name. This gravesite is made even more important because the plot is owned by a Mr. J.S. Hughes, whose wife donated objects along with Mrs. J.T. Hickman. These results are promising as the first generation, but it is difficult to find records beyond these gravesites. Because Mrs. Hickman mentions that her grandmother wore the dress, it is necessary to explore one generation deeper. In using FamilySearch, a woman named Mary Hickman seems like a promising match for several reasons. She is married to a John Hickman, her son is named John Hickman Jr., she was born in 1869, and her father was born in Pennsylvania, which creates a possible connection to Quakerism. It must be emphasized that Mary’s connection to the donor is complete speculation. There is no solid way to confirm if John Hickman Jr. is the father of James T. Hickman, but the dates that these people lived allow them to be good examples of the life of a Midwestern Quaker.

We know that Mrs. Hickman would be unrelated by blood to Mary Hickman even if Mary was James Hickman’s grandmother. However, it is very likely that Mary Hickman was also a Quaker and could be an accurate parallel to the unknown maiden grandmother. Quakers of the eighteenth century emphasized marriage to those within the Quaker religion (Jones Lapsansky 25). This tenet makes it very likely that J.T. Hickman and his family would also be Quakers. Mary Hickman lived in Missouri, which was possibly because of the schism among Quakers in 1927-28 (“A Brief History of the Branches of Friends”). Mary Hickman’s mother and father could have easily been part of this immigration, as her father was born in Pennsylvania but Mary was born in Missouri. Even if Mary wore the Quaker dress early in her life, it is also likely she inherited it from her mother, as the dress is dated to the 1820s and 1830s, and has obviously been repaired and altered with extra cotton cloth. If Mary’s mother wore this dress in her youth and moved to Missouri, she could have been involved with the Bleeding Kansas time period. The PBS article states, “Eli Thayer organized the New England Emigrant Aid Company, which sent settlers to Kansas to secure it as a free territory” (“Bleeding Kansas”). Quakers were heavily associated with the abolitionist movement, and friends and family of Mary’s mother could have moved to Kansas in order to fight for the end of slavery. It is also likely that the immigration of the Hickman family was influenced by Manifest Destiny, which was in full swing prior to the Civil War. Women’s rights would have also been an issue that Mary could have been involved with. Lucretia Mott, one of the founders of the women’s rights movement, created her most influential works between 1921 and 1968 (Unger). She started in abolition and quickly moved to women’s rights, which may have been a path that Mary Hickman and her mother shared, as the Friends allowed women to minister and have a space to speak and express themselves (“Rights of Women”). When Mary wore the plum Quaker dress, the religion’s pointed display of women’s equality may indicate that the dress’s restriction of movement is more related to the plain dress of the Quaker rather than restrictions on women in the religion. This is especially true when we note the extra details on the dress, like the 30 pleats on each sleeve and the small lace decoration on the waist. Both of these decorations would be considered rebellious to Quaker ideology because they go against the disapproval of adornment (Jones Lapansky 2). While the expensive material and dye creates a show of wealth generally approved by Quakers because of its subtlety, the extra accents emphasize a rebellious quality against both the restrictive religion and the ideas of what a woman should be and wear at the time.

The Subversion of Gender Restrictions Among Quaker Women

It is not hard to miss the numerous moments of speculation involved in trying to construct the life of the women who wore the plum Quaker dress. The difficulties faced by a researcher emphasize the erasure of women in records and history in the nineteenth century and today. Mrs. J.T. Hickman was recorded as a donor in the common method of using her husband’s name and surname as her own. This style of recordkeeping makes it hard to find out Mrs. Hickman’s actual name and information about her. The patriarchal method of taking a husband’s last name also erases the involvement of women because it makes finding a woman’s maiden name difficult. Unless a marriage license is present, the woman’s maiden name, and, effectively, her life before marriage, is erased. These patriarchal structures are what made Mrs. J.T. Hickman extremely difficult to pin down from her donation record. It is a bitter irony to have her life erased when her Quaker lifestyle would have emphasized women’s importance and equality. Yet there is a glimmer of hope when examining the surprising elements of the dress. The likelihood that Mrs. Hickman was involved in the women’s rights movement is high, as she could easily follow the example of the many Quaker women involved, from Susan B. Anthony to Mary Ann M’Clintock. If her life was restrictive at home because of nineteenth century ideals, her dress shows rebellion in its own way with disapproved embellishment and a display of wealth. Mrs. Hickman may have been erased from records in the typical way for a woman of her time, but the existence of her dress creates a narrative she never got to tell, one of revolution and taking back control in whatever way she could.

Ancestry.com. Ancestry, 1997. Web. 26 Oct. 2014.

“Average Clothing Size is WHAT?” Netscape Home & Living. CompuServe Interactive Services, 2014. Web. 7 Dec. 2014.

Behan, Jeff. “The Bug That Changed History.” Grand Canyon River Guides. GCRC, 2009. Web. 15 Nov. 2014.

“Bleeding Kansas.” PBS. Public Broadcasting Service, 1995. Web. 26 Oct. 2014.

“A Brief History of the Branches of Friends.” Quaker Information Center. Earlham School of Religion, n.d. Web. 26 Oct. 2014.

Chenoweth, John M. “Social Identity, Material Culture, and the Archaeology of Religion: Quaker Practices in Context” Journal of Social Archaeology 9 (2009) : 319. Web. 18 Sept. 2014. PDF file.

Connerley, Jennifer. Friendly Americans: Representing Quakers in the United States, 1850-1920. Chapel Hill, 2006. Web. 18 Sept. 2014. PDF file.

“Creating Cochineal Dye 2010.” 2010. Web. 15 Nov. 2014. PDF file.

Davis: A Quaker Family: Charles Davies, the Immigrant, to Pennsylvania about 1725, from There to North Carolina, His Wife, Hannah Matson, and Their Descendants. Ed. Eleanor M. Davis. Baltimore: Gateway Press Inc, 1985. Print.

Deegan, Deirdre. “The Biology of Bombyx mori, circa 1840.” The Northampton Silk Project. 22 Aug. 2002. Web 18 Sept. 2014.

Dreissen, Kris. “The Influence of 19th Century Women’s Lives on Textiles.” Quilt History. Quilt History, n.d. Web. 7 Dec. 2014.

“Early American Trade with China.” The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois. 2006. Web 18 Sept. 2014.

FamilySearch. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, n.d. Web. 26 Oct. 2014.

Federico, Giovanni. An Economic History of the Silk Industry, 1803-1930. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Print.

“Gigot Sleeves.” Fashion Encyclopedia. Advameg Inc, 2014. Web 7 Dec. 2014.

Gruwell, Leigh Christine. “Image and the Construction of Rhetorical Ethos: Portraits of Nineteenth-Century Women Rhetors.” Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations. Florida State University. 2010. Web 18 Sept. 2014. PDF file.

Hamm, Thomas D. The Quakers in America. New York: Columbia University Press, 2003. Print.

“Hickman Family History.” Ancestry.com. Ancestry, 1997. Web. 26 Oct. 2014.

Holton, Sandra Stanley. Quaker Women: Personal Life, Memory and Radicalism in the Lives of Women Friends, 1800-1920. New York: Routledge, 2007. Print.

Jones Lapsansky, Emma. “Past Plainness to Present Simplicity: A Search for Quaker Identity.” Quaker Aesthetics: Reflections on a Quaker Ethic in American Design and Consumption. Ed. Emma Jones Lapsansky and Anne A. Verplanck. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003. 1-15. Print.

Kurin, Richard. “The Silk Road: Connecting People and Cultures.” Smithsonian Folklife Festival. Smithsonian Institution, 2014. Web. 7 Dec. 2014.

Larson, Rebecca. Daughters of Light: Quaker Women Preaching and Prophesying in the Colonies and Abroad 1700-1775. New York: Knopf, 1999. Print.

 “Quakers in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.” U.S. History. Independence Hall Association in Philadelphia, 2008. Web. 7 Dec. 2014.

“Rights of Women.” Quakers in the World. Chilterns Quaker Programme, 2010. Web. 26 Oct. 2014.

Robinson, B.A. “Quaker History.” Religious Tolerance. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, 1996. Web. 7 Dec. 2014.

Saunders Maresh, Jan. “Estimating Fabric Yardage Needs for Common Misses Garments.” For Dummies. John Wiley & Sons, 2014. Web. 7 Dec. 2014.

Torfason, Ragnar. “A History of Sleeves.” Tempus’ Sewing and Garb Accessories. n.p. 2006. Web. 7 Dec. 2014.

Unger, Nancy C. “Lucretia Coffin Mott.” American National Biography Online. Oxford University Press, 2010. Web. 26 Oct. 2014.

“Vintage Fashion – The History of Hemlines.” Glamour Daze. Glamour Daze, 2009. Web 15 Nov. 2014.