Broadway: The Fashionable Place to Shop and Promenade in Antebellum New York

Where did stylish people shop in antebellum New York? Broadway, of course. But selecting a new bonnet or visiting one’s tailor were not the only reasons that locals and tourists alike were drawn to the most exciting street in the metropolis. The great thoroughfare was also THE place to see and be seen. Sumptuous hotels—such as the Astor House—and landmarks including Trinity Church, St. Paul’s Chapel, Barnum’s American Museum, Niblo’s Garden (the famous pleasure garden and theater), and City Hall added to the vibrant scene.

Nathaniel Currier (American, 1813–1888), lithographer and publisher. Broadway New York—South from the Park, ca. 1846. Lithograph. The New York Public Library

This view from about 1846 faces south down Broadway. P. T. Barnum’s American Museum (left) opened in 1841. St. Paul’s Chapel can be seen across the street with the recently completed spire of Trinity Church in the distance. Astor House—a now-demolished luxury hotel that was completed in 1836—is the large porticoed building at the right across from City Hall Park.
Sarony & Major, lithographers. Autumn and Winter Fashions for 1849 & 1850. Lithograph with hand coloring by Asa H. Wheeler. Museum of the City of New York, 29.100.2496

The handsome ballroom of the Astor House provides a sophisticated backdrop for the season’s latest evening fashions (top), while stylish dandies promenade on Broadway across the street (bottom).

Broadway began as a Native American trail, became a road under the Dutch, and continued to evolve as an important street in the British colonial period. What would eventually become the city’s longest thoroughfare kept growing as commerce continually pushed residential blocks farther and farther uptown.

“Broadway, the most splendid street of the city, runs N. from the Battery, about 3 miles, with a breadth of 80 feet,” the Gazetteer of the State of New York explained in 1836. “It is the great and fashionable resort of every thing which inhabits the city, and at some hours of the day, in fine weather, is inconveniently crowded with carriages and pedestrians.” Ladies peered out of fine carriages while young men dashed about in sporty tilburies and phaetons or trotted by on horseback. In the meantime, heavily laden carts and wagons carried deliveries, and packed horse-drawn omnibuses transported masses of men and women to and from work. “From six to seven, Broadway roars—nay, thunders with the noise of omnibuses bearing their freight of the morning back to their residences up town,” J. H. Ingraham tells us in “Glimpses at Gotham” (The Ladies’ Companion, February 1839). Meanwhile, glittering shop windows tempted shoppers and flaneurs with everything from silks to cigars. At night, after gaslights were installed on Broadway, the street was brightly illuminated. “As twilight approaches, the city is suddenly lighted up with its million of gas flambeaux, and inflammable air ignited into brilliant flame succeeds the light of the sun,” Ingraham wrote admiringly.

Henry A. Papprill (British, 1817–1896), etcher; after John William Hill (American [born England], 1812–1879). New York from the Steeple of St. Paul’s Church, Looking East, South, and West, 1849. Color aquatint and etching. Published by Henry J. Megarey. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, The Edward W. C. Arnold Collection of New York Prints, Maps and Pictures, Bequest of Edward W. C. Arnold, 1954

This view shows Broadway as it appeared in 1849 from the steeple of St. Paul’s Chapel and includes Barnum’s American Museum, Genin’s Hatters, and Mathew Brady’s daguerreotype studio. The spire of Trinity Church, which had recently been rebuilt by Richard Upjohn and was the highest structure in the city until 1890, rises prominently in the distance. Pedestrians stroll the busy sidewalks, and carts, carriages, and a large number of omnibuses fill the street.

“Broadway is the fashionable lounge for all the black and white belles and beaux of the city,” the British memoirist Mrs. John Felton observed in Life in America (1838). Mrs. Fenton’s account is only one of numerous sources describing the racial mix on Broadway. In “Glimpses of Gotham,” we learn that “between ten and eleven at night seems to be their [the Black population’s] fashionable hour for promenading.” And in 1842 Charles Dickens wrote about “Negro coachmen and white” in American Notes.

Did people of fashion favor one side of Broadway? Absolutely. The west side of the street was what it was all about. “At this hour [around five o’clock in the afternoon], everybody walks not to shop or on business, but to see and be seen. The whole of the Western side-walk then reminds one of a promenade in a ball-room—two currents being constantly moving in opposite directions . . . doing nothing in the world but look and stare at one another.” (“Glimpses at Gotham”) The thrill of mingling with the haut monde even prompted Ellen Sutphen, a domestic servant, to don her employer’s expensive clothes “and promenade the fashionable side of Broadway as large as life,” the New York Herald reported on May 18, 1859. “On missing Ellen from her accustomed place in the kitchen, [her mistress] sent a policeman after her and had her arrested. On being taken to the station house, it was found that silks and satins to the amount of $160 graced the fair form of the frail prisoner.” The west side was known as the “dollar side.” This was “from the fact, I suppose, that all the fancy stores are upon that side” of Broadway, William M. Bobo concludes in Glimpses of New-York City by a South Carolinian (1852). The east side, on the other hand, was called the “shilling side.”

Ball, Black & Co., Manufacturers & Importers of Silver & Plated Ware, Diamonds, Watches, Jewelry, &c., 247 Broadway, 1856. Illustration from The Historical Picture Gallery; or, Scenes and Incidents in American History. The New York Public Library

In 1848, Ball, Black & Co, a prestigious retailer of jewelry, silver, and fancy goods, moved into a new shop with elegantly appointed showrooms at 247 Broadway across from City Hall.

Crossing the street, however, was no easy task. In fact, it was downright dangerous, and accidents were common. “A few days ago I was occupied in the third story of [Mathew] Brady’s [photography] establishment on the corner store of Fulton and Broadway,” William Bobo recalled, “and I noticed two young ladies who wished to cross over to the ‘Dollar Side’ . . . of Broadway. They made repeated attempts, but failed. . . . After a while, one made an effectual trial, but . . . they were separated; this was too bad. They remained in this predicament for nearly an hour, when ‘a jam’ occurred between a ‘bus and a dray, which stopped the current, and the girls got together.” Newspapers of the period often include reports of pedestrians suffering grave injuries. “Yesterday morning a lady residing in Bleecker street, while crossing Broadway, was run over and seriously wounded by the horse treading on her foot. Great blame must be attached to the driver of the cart.” (Morning Herald, July 2, 1838)

Thomas Benecke (American, active New York, 1855–56). Sleighing in New York, 1855. Nagel and Lewis (New York), printer. Color lithograph with hand coloring. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, The Edward W. C. Arnold Collection of New York Prints, Maps and Pictures, Bequest of Edward W. C. Arnold, 1954

This scene from the 1850s depicts heavy sleigh traffic on Broadway in front of Barnum’s Museum.

Broadway was simply too congested. Although it was touted as spanning a spacious eighty feet, nineteenth-century sources reveal that this measurement included the sidewalks, which left only forty-two feet for the actual carriageway. In 1851, Joel H. Ross counted 1,200 vehicles in one hour passing by the spot where he stood. “The gong-like, tornado-like, oceanic, unceasing roar and tumult of this bustling street make it less inviting than it otherwise would be to promenaders who love to chat, as well as walk,” he observed in What I Saw in New York. Finding a solution to relieve this overcrowding proved difficult, despite a number of plans that were proposed over the years to fix the problem. Disruptions from a seemingly endless building spree did not help matters. “Broadway is like a boy who grows so fast that he can’t stop to tie up his shoes,” Joel Ross whined. “Doors, windows, walls, roofs, brick, stone, mortar, dust and splinters daily come tumbling down to make way for banks, stores, halls, hotels, shops, offices, &c. &c.”

Thomas Hornor (British, 1785–1844), artist; John Hill (American [born England], 1770–1850), etcher. Broadway, New-York, Shewing [sic] Each Building from the Hygeian Depot Corner of Canal Street to beyond Niblo’s Garden, 1836. Aquatint and etching. Published by Joseph Stanley and Co. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, The Edward W. C. Arnold Collection of New York Prints, Maps and Pictures, Bequest of Edward W. C. Arnold, 1954

In this print from 1836, shoppers and strollers along Broadway share the sidewalks with merchandise displays, dogs, and wooden barrels, while omnibuses, stylish carriages, horses, a wagon delivering ice, and more dogs crowd the street.
Left: Hat, ca. 1855. American. Designed by John N. Genin, 214 Broadway. Linen, silk, leather, and paper. The Metropolitan Museum, of Art, Purchase, Judith and Ira Sommer Gift, 2006. Right: Advertisement for Genin, Hatter, 214 Broadway, from A Condensed History of the . . . Great Exhibition of the Industry of All Nations Held in the Crystal Palace, London, during the Summer of the Year 1851 (New York, 1852)

John N. Genin (1819–1878) operated his well-known hat shop at 214 Broadway—next to Barnum’s American Museum—where he sold hats and caps, walking canes, umbrellas, traveling bags, and furs. In 1850, when P. T. Barnum launched Jenny Lind’s American tour in New York, his neighbor Genin, “the celebrated Broadway hatter,” recognized an opportunity for some publicity (as did many other merchants) and gave the superstar Swedish singer a black beaver riding hat bedecked with velvet and satin ribbon, rosettes, and a black plume. “The Jenny Lind Riding Hat” “was worn by the fair lady in her morning rides,” Godey’s Lady’s Book announced in December 1850. In 1853, Genin was among the Broadway shop owners who participated in the Exhibition of the Industry of All Nations at New York’s Crystal Palace.

In March 1842, the New-York Visitor and Lady’s Album, sang the praises of shopping on “Broadway—dear Broadway!” “Between Cedar and Canal Streets, shops, tastefully adorned, meet the eye on either hand. Here are displayed, in their most alluring dress, the wares of booksellers and music venders—dealers in silks, satins, and laces—importers of toys, carpeting, and annuals—confectioners and perfumers—merchant tailors, hatters, and jewelers: in short, every article which can please the fancy.”

Perhaps you stopped at Tiffany, Young & Ellis (later Tiffany & Co.) to pick up a new pair of opera glasses or select a special piece of jewelry for your spouse. This “splendid fancy-store” offered “agreeable and fanciful trifles, from the rose-wood dressing-case to the pearl headpin; fancy boxes for odorous [i.e., sweetly scented] gloves and handkerchiefs; [and] silver and gold fillagree articles of every variety.” Their large inventory also included “Chinese fabrics and productions of all kinds, excepting opium, which is prohibited” (just to be clear!). (The New Mirror, December 30, 1843) If you were looking for a new piece of music to learn for your pianoforte, or even a musical instrument, you could take a look at Hewitt & Co. on the corner of Broadway and Park Place. Were you in the market for a new carpet, oil cloth, or drugget (a woolen cloth laid over a carpet to protect it)? Just head to Peterson & Humphrey at 379 Broadway on the corner of White Street. “In the great carpet-house of Peterson & Humphrey are offered the productions of the best looms in the world, in a variety and profusion probably unequalled elsewhere in America. The principal saloon is like a street, and it is almost always thronged with people.” (“The Palaces of Trade,” International Monthly Magazine of Literature, Science, and Arts, April 1852) And if you needed a pick-me-up in the midst of all this shopping, Thompson & Son confectioners provided elegance and comfort “for ladies and gentlemen who visit the city but for a part of a day, . . . to lunch or dine, or for those who come down Broadway to do shopping and need a resting place, or enjoy an exchange for gossip.” In 1852, the popular confectioner moved into a brand-new building at 359 Broadway, which James Thompson had commissioned from the architectural firm of Field & Correja at great expense. (Mathew Brady’s studio was subsequently located on the upper floors.)

Left: Peterson & Humphrey’s Carpet House, 1852. Illustration from “The Palaces of Trade,” The International Monthly Magazine of Literature, Science, and Art (New York), April 1, 1852. Right: Advertisement for Peterson & Humphrey Carpeting, 377 and 379 Broadway, 1855. The Illustrated American Biography, vol. 3 (New York)
A. T. Stewart & Co., Broadway, Chambers and Reade Streets. The New York Public Library

A shopping trip to Broadway was not complete without a visit to one of the famous dry goods emporiums (the precursors to department stores). The grandest of them all was owned by Alexander T. Stewart (1803–1876), an Irish Protestant immigrant whose merchandising savvy made him one of the wealthiest men in the United States, with a fortune that rivaled that of William B. Astor. In 1846, Stewart moved into a new and larger store a block north of City Hall—his famous “Marble Palace,” a five-story showplace in the latest Italianate style made of Tuckahoe marble, which dazzled shoppers with its rotunda and imported French plate-glass windows. Henry James recalled visiting the store as a child, “the ladies’ great shop, vast, marmorean, plate-glassy and notoriously fatal to the female nerve,” he wrote in A Small Boy and Others. After dark, a multitude of gaslights lit up the building. Stewart broke with precedent when he built this magnificent edifice on the unfashionable shilling side of Broadway. “Stewart’s is the only retail dry-goods store on the east side of Broadway; . . . but the scarcity of stores will compel some of the great establishments further up to cross over before long, and we hope to see more white marble fronts on . . . [this] side of the street,”  declared the author of “New York Daguerreotyped” (Putnam’s Monthly) in April 1853. The building—which later housed the New York Sun—still stands at 280 Broadway and is a designated New York City Landmark.

A New York Belle, Noon and Night: The Secrets of the Crinoline Silhouette, as Demonstrated by a Patron of A. T. Stewart, 1846. Lithograph published by Henry R. Robinson. Museum of the City of New York, 57.300.548

Men, of course, were the primary merchants on Broadway, but women—who shopped not only out of necessity but also as a pastime—were the main clientele. This gender-based activity was sometimes viewed with condescension. “We can hardly wonder that the dear creatures find such enjoyment in ‘shopping,’” sniped the New York Herald on November 16, 1844. “It is her morning visit, her drive, her promenade, her dream at night.” The author derides “the crowd of elegant women, dressed in the first style of fashion, chattering away, and tumbling over the goods, and criticizing each other’s bonnets, and retailing the freshest gossip!” Etiquette doyennes—including Mrs. John Farrar and Eliza Leslie—advised their female readers to treat shopkeepers with courtesy and select purchases carefully. Some disapproving writers, however, even discouraged shopping as a pastime.

Despite the traffic mayhem and a few naysayers, promenading and shopping on Broadway was an experience enjoyed by many, a “scene of gaiety, brilliancy and beauty, and such a mélange of what goes to make up a city,” J. H. Ingraham proclaimed in 1839. “Broadway belongs to his majesty, the people!” he added triumphantly.

Margaret Adams Highland, Bartow-Pell Historian

Posted in Mansion Musings | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Index

Architecture   

Behind the Closed Door: Privacy by Design in 19th-Century Houses

Greek Revival Mystery: Who Designed the Bartow Mansion?

Hold Your Horses: Bartow-Pell’s Carriage House

Restoring the Splendor of the Mansion: The Shutter Restoration Workshop

Sleeping Beauty: A Romantic Ruin Awakes

Bartow Family

The Bartows, the Pells, and the Enslaved People Who Worked for Them: A Sometimes Ignored, Sometimes Forgotten History

The Bartows and Art: A Lost Portrait, Famous Relatives, and Artistic Neighbors

The Bartow Children: Life in a Nineteenth-Century American Family

A Bartow Thanksgiving, 1843

Bridget, Mary, Hannah, and John: Who Were the Bartow Servants?

The Camera as Eyewitness: An Everyday Portrait of the Bartows

Happy Anniversary, Mr. and Mrs. Bartow!

Holidays Past: A Bartow Christmas in the Civil War Era

Living in Style: A June Day at the Bartow Estate, 1838

Living on Hope and Moonbeams: Bartow Tutor Augustus Moore

Miss Lorillard’s Wedding in 1827: Did the Bride Wear White?

The Pleasures of Imagination: R. & W. A. Bartow and the Book Trade in Early 19th-Century New York

Summer Mourning: Death at Bartow, June 24

A Taste for Poetry: R. & W. A. Bartow, Asher B. Durand, Mozart’s Librettist, and British Verse

Theodoret and Sarah:  A Bartow Love Story

Collection

Beautiful Again: An Argand Lamp Shines Anew

Beneath the Grime: A Dazzling Center Table Revealed

A Botanical Paradise: Transactions of the Horticultural Society of London

Chariot Clock: Neoclassicism in the Hands of an Expert

Classical to Gothic Revival: Recent Acquisitions Attributed to Charles N. Robinson and Thomas Brooks

Classical Reflections: Recent Gifts from Richard T. Button

Crowning Glory: Bartow-Pell’s Lannuier Bedstead

Fit for a Lord of the Manor: A Tester Bedstead Attributed to Duncan Phyfe

The Girl in the Portrait: Emma Beach and Mark Twain

The Latest Fashion: An 1840s Dress Tells All

Let’s Talk Silhouettes: An Edouart Conversation Piece

Look, Don’t Touch

Made in New York: Recent Gifts from Mr. and Mrs. Stuart Feld

More than Summer Style: An 1840s Straw Bonnet

Multitasking Furniture: A Ladies’ Writing Fire Screen

Parlor Must-Have: The Center Table in Nineteenth-Century Interiors

Pretty and Cool: A White Summer Dress, ca. 1895

A Shaving Stand for George

Through the Looking Glass: A Pair of New York Pier Mirrors by Hosea Dugliss

Under the Willow Tree: A Schoolgirl Mourning Embroidery

Decorative Arts  

All the Colors of the Rainbow: Ombré Patterns from 1820 to 1850

Beautiful Again: An Argand Lamp Shines Anew

Chariot Clock: Neoclassicism in the Hands of an Expert

Classical Reflections: Recent Gifts from Richard T. Button

A Mansion Favorite Returns Home: Abigail Walker Needlework Mourning Picture

A New Floor with an Old Look: Bartow-Pell’s “Floor Cloth”

A Shaving Stand for George

Through the Looking Glass: A Pair of New York Pier Mirrors by Hosea Dugliss

Under the Willow Tree: A Schoolgirl Mourning Embroidery

Fashion History   

Beyond Calico and Gingham: Fashion and the Irish-Immigrant Domestic Servant

Fantasy at the Ball: Fancy Dress, Masquerades, and Tableaux Vivants in the 19th Century

Fashion Passion Redux: Making Reproduction 1850s Undersleeves

Gilded Age Glamour Personified: The Gibson Girl

Hats, Gloves, and Pearls: Fashion Promenade in the Garden, 1960

The Latest Fashion: An 1840s Dress Tells All

Miss Lorillard’s Wedding in 1827: Did the Bride Wear White?

More than Summer Style: An 1840s Straw Bonnet

One Thousand “Girls” and the “Indestructible” Crinoline: W. S. and C. H. Thomson’s Skirt Manufactory

A Peek Inside the Wardrobe: Busks, Gloves, Shawls, and Shoes

Pretty and Cool: A White Summer Dress, ca. 1895

A Stitch in Time Saves Nine? Making a Reproduction Late 1830s Dress

They Will Do It Anyway: Bloomers, Cycling, and the New Woman

What Can You Learn from Old Clothes?

Fine Art

Art in the Garden: The Peacocks of Gaston Lachaise

The Bartows and Art: A Lost Portrait, Famous Relatives, and Artistic Neighbors

George Inness’s The Woodchoppers (1858) on Display at Bartow-Pell

The Girl in the Portrait: Emma Beach and Mark Twain

Haunting Likenesses: The Anonymous 19th-Century Woman in Photographic Portraits

Hudson River School Landscapes on Display at Bartow-Pell

Let’s Talk Silhouettes: An Edouart Conversation Piece

Mourning Marietta: A Family Story in Portraiture

Neoclassical Darlings: Two Watercolors after Adam Buck

Pell Family Portraits: Amelia Grace Pell Craft and William E. Craft

Portrait of a Patron: Isaac Bell and Saint-Mémin

Furniture

Beneath the Grime: A Dazzling Center Table Revealed

Classical to Gothic Revival: Recent Acquisitions Attributed to Charles N. Robinson and Thomas Brooks

Classical Reflections: Recent Gifts from Richard T. Button

Crowning Glory: Bartow-Pell’s Lannuier Bedstead

Fit for a Lord of the Manor: A Tester Bedstead Attributed to Duncan Phyfe

If This Mahogany Desk Could Talk: A Colorful Tale of Aaron Burr and His Wives

Made in New York: Recent Gifts from Mr. and Mrs. Stuart Feld

Multitasking Furniture: A Ladies’ Writing Fire Screen

Parlor Must-Have: The Center Table in Nineteenth-Century Interiors

Portrait of a Patron: Isaac Bell and Saint-Mémin

Through the Looking Glass: A Pair of New York Pier Mirrors by Hosea Dugliss

Gardens

Alice Vaughan-Williams Martineau: An Englishwoman’s Crusade to Cultivate American Gardeners

April showers . . . It’s true, they really do bring May flowers

Art in the Garden: The Peacocks of Gaston Lachaise

A Botanical Paradise: Transactions of the Horticultural Society of London

A Carpet of Velvety Green: Lawns on 19th-Century Country Estates

A Modern Man: A. J. Downing and the American Gentleman’s Country Seat

Reimagined: A 19th-Century American Apple Orchard

Rose Garden Mania: A New York City Garden Club Joins the Craze in 1917

Tools from the Past: A Conversation with the Collector

Tussie-Mussies—Do Flowers Talk?

What’s in bloom?  

A Winter Garden Awakens

Winter Gardens: Bringing the Outdoors In!

Zelia Hoffman Does It Again: Untold Stories of the 1916 Flower Show at Bartow

History

The Bartows, the Pells, and the Enslaved People Who Worked for Them: A Sometimes Ignored, Sometimes Forgotten History

Bluestockings and Blue Bloods: The Pelham Priory School for Young Ladies

Broadway: The Fashionable Place to Shop and Promenade in Antebellum New York

Charles Dickens Dazzles New York and Is Feted at the Glittering Boz Ball 

Chicken Pie and Blindman’s Buff: What You Might Not Know about an Old-Fashioned Thanksgiving

The Early Pells: Life in a Colorful 17th-Century World

Fresh Farm Milk from a Historic Estate: How a New York City Garden Club Helped the War Effort in 1918

The Girl in the Portrait: Emma Beach and Mark Twain

A Haunted Mansion?

Home Repairs, Lenape-style

If This Mahogany Desk Could Talk: A Colorful Tale of Aaron Burr and His Wives

In the Pelham Woods: The Poets of Pelham Priory

Just Up the Road: Henry James’s Cousin Minny Temple

Nineteenth-Century Women Lean In

One Thousand “Girls” and the “Indestructible” Crinoline: W. S. and C. H. Thomson’s Skirt Manufactory

Quills and Steel: Using Pens to Interpret the Past

Sea Breezes and Business as Usual: Mayor La Guardia’s Summer City Hall, 1936

Sugarplum Fantasy: Visions of Candy Long Ago

The Wigwam at Bartow-Pell: A Living History for Students

Holidays

A Bartow Thanksgiving, 1843

Baubles and Bling: Holiday Trees Sparkle at Bartow-Pell

Chicken Pie and Blindman’s Buff: What You Might Not Know about an Old-Fashioned Thanksgiving

A Haunted Mansion?

Holidays Past: A Bartow Christmas in the Civil War Era

A Moss-Green Silk Watch Case, Gilded Walnuts, Bird’s-Nest Ornaments, and More: Christmas Crafts in Victorian America

Sugarplum Fantasy: Visions of Candy Long Ago

International Garden Club  

Alice Vaughan-Williams Martineau: An Englishwoman’s Crusade to Cultivate American Gardeners

Curator and Collector: Mary Means Huber

Fresh Farm Milk from a Historic Estate: How a New York City Garden Club Helped the War Effort in 1918

Hats, Gloves, and Pearls: Fashion Promenade in the Garden, 1960

The International Garden Club Goes International: The Barra School Children’s Garden Competition, 1936–1952

The Irrepressible Zelia

Rose Garden Mania: A New York City Garden Club Joins the Craze in 1917

Sleeping Beauty: A Romantic Ruin Awakes

Zelia Hoffman Does It Again: Untold Stories of the 1916 Flower Show at Bartow

19th-Century Customs  

Behind the Closed Door: Privacy by Design in 19th-Century Houses

Cheerful and Bright (and Smoky): Staying Warm in 19th-Century American Homes

A Cup of Tea, Please

Dashing Through the Snow! Sleigh Riding in the 19th Century

An Elaborate Pile of Comfort: Making the Bed in the Days of Horsehair, Straw, and Feathers

Fantasy at the Ball: Fancy Dress, Masquerades, and Tableaux Vivants in the 19th Century

Hold Your Horses: Bartow-Pell’s Carriage House

A Moss-Green Silk Watch Case, Gilded Walnuts, Bird’s-Nest Ornaments, and More: Christmas Crafts in Victorian America

Nineteenth-Century Women Lean In

Parlor Must-Have: The Center Table in Nineteenth-Century Interiors

The Pleasure of Your Company (but No Gaucheries, Please!): Dinner Parties in 19th-Century America

Quills and Steel: Using Pens to Interpret the Past

Soap, Optional (and What Is Shampoo?): The Sometimes-Surprising Bathing Habits of Americans in the Past

Spills: Let There Be Light

Sugarplum Fantasy: Visions of Candy Long Ago

A Taste for Poetry: R. & W. A. Bartow, Asher B. Durand, Mozart’s Librettist, and British Verse

They Will Do It Anyway: Bloomers, Cycling, and the New Woman

Troubled and Unhappy: The Dreaded Task of Doing Laundry in the Mid-Nineteenth Century

Tussie-Mussies—Do Flowers Talk?

What’s a Girl to Do? Nineteenth-Century Lifestyle Guides for Young Ladies

Women and Girls in 19th-century America: The “Quiet Circle”?

Pell Family  

The Bartows, the Pells, and the Enslaved People Who Worked for Them: A Sometimes Ignored, Sometimes Forgotten History

The Early Pells: Life in a Colorful 17th-Century World

Here Lyes the Body: The Pell Family Burial Ground 

Pell Family Portraits: Amelia Grace Pell Craft and William E. Craft

Servants  

The Bartows, the Pells, and the Enslaved People Who Worked for Them: A Sometimes Ignored, Sometimes Forgotten History

Behind the Closed Door: Privacy by Design in 19th-Century Houses

Beyond Calico and Gingham: Fashion and the Irish-Immigrant Domestic Servant

Bridget, Mary, Hannah, and John: Who Were the Bartow Servants?

Living in Style: A June Day at the Bartow Estate, 1838

Living on Hope and Moonbeams: Bartow Tutor Augustus Moore

Troubled and Unhappy: The Dreaded Task of Doing Laundry in the Mid-Nineteenth Century

Women’s History 

Alice Vaughan-Williams Martineau: An Englishwoman’s Crusade to Cultivate American Gardeners

Bluestockings and Blue Bloods: The Pelham Priory School for Young Ladies

Curator and Collector: Mary Means Huber

Haunting Likenesses: The Anonymous 19th-Century Woman in Photographic Portraits

The Irrepressible Zelia

Just Up the Road: Henry James’s Cousin Minny Temple

More than Summer Style: An 1840s Straw Bonnet

Nineteenth-Century Women Lean In

One Thousand “Girls” and the “Indestructible” Crinoline: W. S. and C. H. Thomson’s Skirt Manufactory

A Storm of Applause and Hisses: The Mob Convention and Women’s Rights, 1853

They Will Do It Anyway: Bloomers, Cycling, and the New Woman

Under the Willow Tree: A Schoolgirl Mourning Embroidery

What’s a Girl to Do? Nineteenth-Century Lifestyle Guides for Young Ladies

Women and Girls in 19th-Century America: The “Quiet Circle”?

Posted in Index | Leave a comment

Curator and Collector: Mary Means Huber

For Women’s History Month, we honor one of our own. Curator Emerita Mary Means Huber was Bartow-Pell’s Co-Curator for more than thirty years and was one of the first fellows in the University of Delaware’s Henry F. Dupont Winterthur Museum program, earning her M.A. in 1958.

Mary Means Huber. Photo: Richard Warren

One late spring day in 2012, Mary Huber turned her car through Bartow-Pell’s stone gates, just as she had done hundreds of times since the 1970s. She made her way up the long driveway and through the woods and pulled into a parking place in front of the mansion. Then she got out, opened the trunk, and took out a shopping bag.

We never knew what new gem Mary might bring to the mansion. From the earliest days of her childhood in Woodbridge, Connecticut, she was surrounded by antiques and collectibles. Her father, Carroll Alton Means, was an antiques dealer, appraiser, collector, and owner of a shop that specialized in vintage stamps and coins. As an only child, Mary later inherited the family home full of American antique furniture, art, ephemera, textiles, ceramics, and more. Mary’s daughter Betsy followed the family métier when she joined the staff of Sotheby’s in New York.

When Mary unpacked her bag on that spring day, she gently pulled back layers of acid-free tissue paper to reveal a girl’s dress made between about 1837 and 1841. The pattern-on-pattern striped and floral frock would have been worn by a preteen or a young adolescent paired with pantalettes (long drawers) This marvelous addition to our costume collection is just the type of garment that Robert and Maria Bartow’s eldest daughter, Catharine, would have worn when the mansion was under construction.

Girl’s dress, ca. 1837–41. Cotton. Bartow-Pell Mansion Museum, Gift of Mary Means Huber, 2012
Left: Child’s dress, ca. 1855–65. Wool with velvet trim. Gift of Mary Means Huber, 2015. Right: Mary in this dress as a toddler

Over the years, Mary has donated dozens of objects to the museum, ranging from a commode stool to lusterware tea sets to mourning bonnets. These items, many of which were purchased in the mid-twentieth century by Mary’s father in rural Connecticut, have long helped to interpret Bartow-Pell’s period rooms and have added depth to our study collection of material culture from the Bartow era. Toys remind us that the house was full of lively children, and an oversized Bible adds authenticity to objects placed on the center table in the family parlor. A whitework trapunto coverlet from about 1800 is sometimes used in Clarina Bartow’s bedchamber. A blue-and-white Staffordshire transferware toothbrush holder complements a basin and pitcher. A hayfork helps tell the story of the carriage house, and a foot warmer is a wonderful object to talk about during tours. Sewing and writing implements enliven our worktables, secretaries, and desks. And a gift of Victorian ephemera was put to good use in our Valentine’s Day card workshops.

Bartow-Pell’s 2017 exhibition The “Quiet Circle”: Women and Girls in 19th-Century America included these two portraits formerly in Mary’s collection. Left: Artist Unknown, Portrait of a Lady. American, ca. 1830. Oil on canvas. Bartow-Pell Mansion Museum, Gift of Mary Means Huber, 1991. Right: William R. Hamilton (1795–1879). Portrait of Catherine Masterton, 1834. Oil on canvas. Lent by Mary Means Huber. Mary donated the portrait of the woman on the left to Bartow-Pell in 1991, and soon after our exhibition closed, she gave the portrait of Catherine Masterton to the Bronxville Historical Conservancy.
Monteith, late 19th century. Le Nove Porcelain Factory. Bartow-Pell Mansion Museum

Our Curator Emerita has shared a number of stories over the years about history, decorative arts, Bartow-Pell lore, and her own interesting life. For example, many years ago, Mary—or perhaps her predecessor and co-curator, Jean Bartlett—discovered a valuable ceramic item in the mansion’s kitchen amidst a group of containers that the International Garden Club (which then operated the mansion) was using for floral arrangements. This pretty piece—painted with daffodils, bluebells, and morning glories—was actually a monteith, a bowl with a notched rim once used for chilling and rinsing wine glasses. Our nineteenth-century example was made in Italy at the Le Nove porcelain factory.

Wreaths of Friendship, 1860s. Friendship album owned by Pelham Priory student Fanny J. Everest of Hamden, Connecticut, a birthday present from her father, July 20, 1862. Bartow-Pell Mansion Museum, Gift of Mary Means Huber, 1981. The Pelham Priory School was run by the family of Robert and Anne Jay Bolton, who had connections to the Bartows as well as to Bronxville. Mary Huber’s father found this album on one of his antiquing forays and later, after Mary had become an expert on the Bolton family through her work as Bronxville Village Historian and as Bartow-Pell curator, she was delighted to discover this book’s lucky connection to the Boltons’ school. We were pleased to display it in our 2010 exhibition The Boltons of Pelham Priory: A Cultural Legacy from England to America.

During Mary’s long tenure, a number of objects were either donated to the museum or purchased, including the most important piece in Bartow-Pell’s collection, a superb New York bedstead made between 1812 and 1819 by Charles-Honoré Lannuier. After having been on long-term loan for many years, this significant gift was donated to the museum in 1985 by Henry S. Peltz and Mary Nevius, descendants of the original owners, Isaac Bell and his wife, Mary Ellis Bell. In 1997, new reproduction bed hangings were fabricated by Nancy Britton of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in preparation for the bedstead’s inclusion in the Met’s 1998 exhibition Honoré Lannuier: Cabinetmaker from Paris.

Charles-Honoré Lannuier. French Bedstead, 1812–19. Bartow-Pell Mansion Museum, Gift of Henry S. Peltz and Mary Nevius, 1985.06. Bed hangings: Gift of the Robert Goelet Foundation, the Historic House Trust of New York City, the Bequest of Miss Elizabeth A. Hull, and the Bartow-Pell Landmark Fund, 1997. Photo: Richard Warren. The hangings were fabricated in 1996–97 by Nancy C. Britton of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in preparation for the Met’s 1998 exhibition Honoré Lannuier: Cabinetmaker from Paris. They are based on an 1802 illustration for a lit ordinaire in Pierre de La Mésangère’s Collection de Meubles et Objets de Goût.

Among Mary’s many accomplishments at Bartow-Pell, a couple are worth a special mention here. She, along with her co-curators, created the museum’s first collection catalogue, a critical step in implementing professional standards at the mansion as it slowly but steadily transitioned from a clubhouse to a historic house museum. This mammoth task involved researching and documenting each object, assigning accession numbers, labeling, and creating catalogue entries with descriptions, provenance, measurements, location, condition reports, and other information. Procedures were then put in place for subsequent inventories to be performed every few years as part of regular collection maintenance.

The installation of the upstairs sitting room, or family parlor, was made possible by the Elizabeth Ames Cleveland Fund in the 1970s.

A generous donation from the family of Elizabeth Ames Cleveland in 1975 allowed Bartow-Pell to convert the upstairs board room into a period room. Curators Mary Huber and Jean Bartlett put in many hours of research and planning in order to select the correct furnishings, draperies, and carpet, and their hard work paid off when the upstairs sitting room was finally completed the following year. Thanks to advancing scholarship and a better understanding of historic interiors, their interpretation was more authentic than that of the downstairs period rooms, which had been installed in the late 1940s. Mary recalls the project in Bartow-Pell’s Summer 2013 newsletter: “Most of the furniture in these main rooms was on loan from New York City museums. When I joined the International Garden Club to assist my friend Jean Bartlett of the Museum Committee, we set out to refurbish the Upstairs Sitting Room together with the then President, Virginia Brooks. . . . At the time, the room had applied rectangular wall moldings, antique French furniture, and Chinese porcelain vases. It was used for board meetings. That was the beginning of the long process of acquiring our own furnishings for all the main rooms to reflect more accurately the way the Bartow family lived while they were in residence.”

Samuel H. (Samuel Herman) Gottscho (1875–1971). Bartow mansion, double parlors, October 29, 1948. Museum of the City of New York, 56.323.38

In that same interview, Mary remembers her first visit to Bartow-Pell: “In the late 1970s, friends brought me to the Bartow-Pell Mansion for the first time. My initial impressions of the entrance hall with its spiral staircase and woodwork and the fireplaces and draperies of the double parlors are unforgettable. I felt that I was back in the Empire rooms at the Winterthur Museum! However, for protection, the Aubusson carpets were covered with heavy nautical plastic laid wall to wall, which gave the impression of an indoor skating rink! Then I learned that these first-floor period rooms had been professionally furnished by Joseph Downs, who had been the curator of the Winterthur Museum, where I had studied after college.” The Aubusson carpets were later sold at auction and were replaced in 1992 by wall-to-wall pile carpets more in keeping with the period of the house.

Mary Means Huber received a B.A. in art history from Wheaton College in Massachusetts. After graduate studies at Winterthur, she worked for Joseph T. Butler, curator of Sleepy Hollow Restorations (later Historic Hudson Valley). She married Charles Huber, and the couple settled in Bronxville, where they raised three children and where Mary served as Bronxville Village Historian from 1987 to 1999.

Jean Smith Bartlett, a fine arts appraiser, and Nancy Coe Wixom, a former curator at the Cleveland Museum of Art, were Mary’s colleagues over the years. In the early 2000s, I was honored to follow in the footsteps of these inspiring women and join Mary—who taught me so much—as co-curator in a partnership that I shall always treasure.

Margaret Adams Highland, Bartow-Pell Historian

Posted in Mansion Musings | 3 Comments

Troubled and Unhappy: The Dreaded Task of Doing Laundry in the Mid-Nineteenth Century

Left: Chemise, 19th century. Bartow-Pell Mansion Museum, TC2012.51. Right: “Washing White Clothes,” excerpt from The House Book by Eliza Leslie, Philadelphia, 1840. White clothing and household linens were expected to come out of the laundry “clean and white as snow,” according to many period sources, but such perfection required a great deal of labor.

Women in the nineteenth century apparently did everything they could to avoid doing laundry. Some people—especially city dwellers—sent their washing out for others to do. Families who could afford it employed domestic servants for such things. Even some servants looking for employment preferred to work as cooks and chambermaids rather than as laundresses. Why was the job of washing clothes and household linens so distasteful? How, exactly, was this onerous chore done? And was it really that hard to produce linens that were “white as snow”?

The basic requirements for a household laundry were a plentiful water source; a fireplace or stove for boiling water and heating irons; good ventilation; wide, sturdy benches for holding laundry tubs when in use; at least one sink with a drain for emptying out the dirty water; and suitable indoor and outdoor drying areas. For houses without a separate laundry room, the kitchen was used for washing and ironing. Period sources emphasize the importance of soft water for good results; consequently, lye, potash, or soda ash (sodium carbonate or washing soda) was added to hard water to soften it. Rainwater was preferred because it is naturally soft.

Lilly Martin Spencer (American, 1822–1902). The Jolly Washerwoman, 1851. Oil on canvas. Hood Museum of Art, Dartmouth: Purchased through a gift from Florence B. Moore in memory of her husband, Lansing P. Moore, Class of 1937. This painting depicts a smiling laundress engaged in the arduous task of using a washboard and soap to scrub clothes. The woman’s cheerful face, however, belies the drudgery of her work, and the scene’s idealistic veneer is quietly subverted by her red arms and red face; ripped seams in her bodice; and the cracked, fallen plaster and exposed brick wall behind her. Just imagine the exhausting physical labor of filling and emptying large wash tubs full of water; moving a long paddle through boiling caldrons full of laundry; repeatedly wringing quantities of heavy, dripping fabric; and manipulating wet items ranging from bulky tablecloths to delicate lace. A pair of strong arms, a good back, and a constitution of iron would have been imperative.

Laundresses needed a variety of supplies. Catharine E. Beecher provides a handy list  in A Treatise on Domestic Economy for the Use of Young Ladies at Home and at School (1841). “Two washforms [benches] are needful,” she says—one to hold two tubs for the suds, “and the other for the bluing water and starch tub[s].” In addition, she advises having “four tubs, of different sizes; two or three pails; a large wooden dipper; a grooved wash-board; a clothes-line (sea-grass, or horse-hair, is best); a long wash-stick to move the clothes in boiling; and a wooden fork to take them out.” Other necessities included soap dishes, an indigo bag, a bottle of ox gall to preserve colors, starch, clothespins, and a brass or copper kettle for boiling clothes (iron was to be avoided as rust would create stains). Additionally, Eliza Leslie recommends having a lye barrel, a barrel for soft soap, and clothes horses (The House-Book, or A Manual of Domestic Economy, 1840). Ironing required even more equipment.

Soap was produced at home with lye, a strong cleansing agent that was made by adding boiling soft water to wood ashes, preferably hickory or oak. For making soap, lye was combined with animal fat (beef or pork was best); lime; and, for hard soap, salt. Women also used “washing soda” (sodium carbonate) to launder white cotton and linen fabrics. “A very great improvement in economy of labor has become common, namely, soda washing,” Catharine Beecher wrote in 1841. “Much prejudice has been excited against the method because, if it is not done with proper care, it injures the texture of the cloth.” She advises diluting it with soap. Later in the century, commercially made laundry soap became widely available. In any case, these harsh detergents wreaked havoc on women’s hands.

Left: The Washerwomen. Illustration from Life in New York In Doors and Out of Doors by William Burns, 1853. Right: Excerpts from “Washing Day,” Atkinson’s Casket (New York), December 1834; reprinted in Yankee Notions, February 1852

Monday was traditionally laundry day (ironing was done later in the week). But this was the subject of some debate. Eliza Leslie suggested that Tuesday was better so that items could be sorted, soaked, and mended on Monday, leaving Sunday free. Mrs. Henry Ward Beecher (née Eunice Bullard) disagreed with those who wanted to “break up the custom” of washing on Monday. In order to preserve the Sabbath, she advised soaking the laundry on Saturday night. Why change things if “good and sensible housekeepers” had been satisfied with Monday for so long?, she asks in “Why Is Monday Recognized as the Washing-Day?” (Christian Union, January 10, 1877). In Motherly Talks with Young House-Keepers (1873), Mrs. Beecher exclaims: “If it were not for the washing, housekeeping would lose half its terror. But I rise every Monday morning in a troubled and unhappy state of mind, for it is washing-day! The breakfast will surely be a failure, coffee muddy, meat or hash uncooked or burnt to a coal, everything untidy on the table, and the servants on the verge of rebellion.”

Jean-Jacques Lequeu (French, 1757–1826). Left: Savonnage du linge (Soaping the laundry). Right: Repassage du linge (Ironing the laundry). From a manuscript book entitled Lettre sur le beau savonnage, qu’on pourroit appeller Savonnement de Paris; Adressée aux mères de famille, Paris, 1803. Source: gallica.bnf.fr / Bibliothèque nationale de France
Left: Advertisement for the Universal Clothes-Wringer, The Tribune Almanac for 1864, New York. Right: Buy the Conqueror Wringer: Washing Day, 1870s–1880s. Trade card. Boston Public Library. Laundry technology continued to evolve as the late nineteenth century progressed. The wringer from 1864 (at left) is used with a traditional wash tub. About a decade later, however, a trade card depicts women at work in a modernized laundry. The wringer is now fitted to a stationary wash tub, and children use the old-style tub as a toy.

The washing process was cumbersome. First, the dirty laundry was sorted, with separate groupings for colors, whites, flannels, and fine items. Then, the whites were soaked overnight. On washing day, the laundry was boiled, washed, wrung out, scrubbed, and rinsed multiple times (although this process varied somewhat depending on individual methods and the item being laundered). After washing, white items were rinsed in water tinged with a small amount of blue dye. Bluing was preferably made of indigo, but a compound of Prussian blue pigment and starch was also used. Because white fabric yellows over time, blue offsets this change in color and results in renewed snowy-white perfection. Starching was next, a process that period sources often describe in detail, including how to make and use various starches. Catharine Beecher’s simple method, however, was to dip things to be stiffened in starch just before hanging them out to dry. Whites were ideally dried outside in the sun; colors, wrong side out, were hung in the shade. Everything on the clothes lines had to be taken indoors before sunset. “If still not dry, spread them out on the wooden clothes-horses or hang them on lines in a garret, back kitchen, or in any convenient room, if you have not a laundry,” Eliza Leslie counsels. In bad weather, the wash had to be dried in a warm room, either in the laundry or in a special room set aside for this purpose.

James Fuller Queen (American 1820/21–1886). Woman Ironing at a Table, December 11, 1857. Ink wash and charcoal drawing. Library of Congress. After what was undoubtedly a long day and even though it is after dark, this housekeeper is trying to catch up with a large basket of ironing in what appears to be gas light.

Ironing was usually done on a large table. But there were other options. Eliza Leslie describes a collapsible ironing board connected to the kitchen wall with hinges. Some households had a kitchen settle, which was a wooden settee with a high back that could be lowered to create an ironing table. The work surface was covered with a large, thick, woolen blanket topped by a smooth linen or cotton sheet pinned at each corner. Although there were several kinds of irons (known as “smoothing irons”), the most common was the flat iron, which ranged in size from four to ten inches. Specialized ironing accessories, such as a “skirt board;” a “bosom board” for pressing gentlemen’s shirts; and a fluting iron for ruffles, made these tasks easier. Eliza Leslie specifies that every person engaged in ironing should have at least three irons at their disposal. When the iron became too cool, a hot one was ready to take its place. “For ironing, have a clean well-swept hearth and a large, clear, broad fire with plenty of bright hot coals,” she counsels, “as they heat the irons much better than a blaze.” (And some housekeepers heated their irons on a stove.) In addition, Catharine Beecher says to have “a piece of sheet-iron in front of the fire on which to set the irons” and an “iron-stand” placed on a piece of wood to prevent the “very hot irons” from scorching the ironing surface. Clothing and linens were sprinkled with cold water before ironing, and beeswax was rubbed on the hot irons to ensure smoothness. Some households had a mangle—a weighted press with rollers—for table and bed linen. In Eliza Leslie’s opinion, “mangling machines” were well worth the expense because they achieved superior results while “saving the time and trouble of ironing these articles.”

Gervase Wheeler (British, 1815–1889). Kitchen Settee Table. Illustration from Rural Homes, or Sketches of Houses Suited to American Country Life, New York, 1851. “This is made so as to be used as a settee with a high back, or as an ironing table. . . . The top, forming when not in use the back of the seat . . . ; when shut down, for use as an ironing board. . . . The seat itself is made to lift up . . . so as to form a locker or chest, useful for clothes and a variety of purposes.” Catharine Beecher stored “ironing-sheets” (for covering the table) and “other ironing-apparatus” in these compartments. (Treatise, 1841)

In 1860, a thirty-five-year-old Irish immigrant named Bridget Connor worked as a laundress near New York City at the elegant country estate of Robert and Maria Bartow. Bridget—unlike the Bartows’ Irish-born cook, chambermaid, and coachman—was illiterate, which may have contributed to her settling for a position that many domestic servants did not want. As was common practice, one or more of the other servants probably helped her as needed. After all, there were fourteen people in the household in 1860—eight family members and six servants. (By comparison, the Bartows’ neighbor Philip Schuyler had eighteen people living in his house, including an illiterate Irish-born laundress and an English seamstress.) The sheer volume of undergarments, petticoats, nightclothes, stockings, shirts, sheets, tablecloths, napkins, towels, and clothing to be washed, starched, dried, ironed, and folded must have been a challenge.

“WANTED—BY A RESPECTABLE YOUNG WOMAN, a situation as first rate cook; has no objection to assist in the washing.” New York Herald, December 1, 1853. Women looking for work as cooks and chambermaids knew that helping with the laundry would probably be expected of them. The implication in this advertisement, however, is that some domestic servants objected to this practice.
Top: “WANTED—BY A RESPECTABLE WOMAN, A FAMILY’S or gentlemen’s washing; understands fluting and fine articles.” New York Herald, December 1, 1853. Bottom: “WANTED—BY A RESPECTABLE WOMAN, A SITUATION as chambermaid, and to do fine washing and ironing.” New York Herald, October 11, 1853. Laundresses and chambermaids who were skilled in caring for fine textiles would have been able to find better jobs.

The Bartow mansion was built between 1836 and 1842, and we can get a good idea of their laundry room from Eliza Leslie, who wrote in 1840: “No large house should be without a laundry . . . It should have a large fire-place for the convenience of boiling several kettles of water at a time, if necessary, and for heating the irons. A pump or hydrant should either be within the laundry or close to the door; also a sink for disposing of the dirty water.” We do not know where the Bartows’ laundry was located, but physical evidence in the unrestored basement and mid-nineteenth-century textual sources help us to theorize about where it might have been.

Robert S. Burton. Basement Plan, Bartow-Pell Mansion, 1986. Historic American Buildings Survey, Library of Congress. Original features in the Bartow mansion’s basement date to about 1840 and include a cistern in room 003; fireplaces in rooms 004 and 007; four windows—which look out under the back veranda—in rooms 005, 006, and 007; and a cobbled floor with a longitudinal flagstone pathway in room 007.

In Bartow-Pell’s Historic Structure Report (1987), Daniel Hopping and Zachary Studenroth conclude that the historic kitchen was originally on the first floor, possibly because “a relatively high water table rendered the basement unfit for such a function.” Nonetheless, the authors found that “the basement spaces preserve significant historic details,” and although they do not speculate on how these areas were used (other than for storage), it is impossible to ignore several clues that point to the laundry being situated in the rooms beneath the double parlors. This large space includes a cistern, two fireplaces, good ventilation, and an intriguing floor treatment.

We do not know how rainwater in Bartow-Pell’s brick-walled and plastered cistern was collected or distributed, but Hopping and Studenroth found “an inlet . . . in the west foundation which may have provided a source of water” for it. In any case, the following description explains how these systems worked: “A large cistern should be dug, paved and walled with brick and coated with water lime . . Tin or wooden troughs should be fastened along the eaves to conduct the water to the cistern. A small cast iron pump . . . should be placed over the kitchen sink and should be supplied with water by a leaden pipe from the cistern.” (“The Kitchen and Its Accessories,” The Ohio Cultivator, May 15, 1853) Two fireplaces in the mansion’s basement correspond to those in the parlors above. “For a laundry, a large fire-place is better than a stove,” Mrs. Leslie cautioned, “as the latter will make the room intolerably hot in the summer.” Four original tri-part windows line the exterior-facing walls in this area of the basement. “It is essential that a draught or current of air should be excited in a drying-room, or a laundry used as such, to carry off the moisture from the linen. This current may be obtained by keeping a part of the upper sashes open, or [having] panes to open.” (Thomas Webster and Mrs. Parkes, Encyclopaedia of Domestic Economy, New York, 1855) Finally, the floor in the largest room is made of cobblestones and divided lengthwise by a flagstone path. This floor is original, according to Hopping and Studenroth. Cobbles were traditionally used on roads for drainage but are occasionally seen in basements, such as in the Samuel Stearns house in Northfield, Massachusetts (1819–24). Bartow-Pell’s cobbled floor is located on the side of the house facing Long Island Sound, where good drainage would have been essential to control flooding. Would this feature also have been helpful in a laundry room?

Advertisement for French’s Conical Washing Machine, Harper’s Weekly, June 23, 1860. “This simple, compact, durable, economical, portable, and efficient machine will easily, certainly, and perfectly perform the work of twelve women.” “It can not [sic] get out of order.” Despite the aspirational—and blatantly unrealistic—promises made here, improvements in laundry technology still had a long way to go.
Advertisement for the Celebrated Solid White Crockery Stationary Wash Tubs, The Railroad, Telegraph and Steamship Builders’ Directory, New York, 1890. Stationary wash tubs were common by 1890, but thirty years earlier, they would have been installed only in the most modern houses. This evolving technology plays a role in “A Professed Cook,” a short story by Fanny Smith published in Peterson’s Magazine in February 1860: “‘Have you stationary wash-tubs, ma’am?’” a cook asks a prospective employer. “‘No,’” replies the lady of the house. The cook persists, “‘Not stationary wash-tubs? That’s strange; there’s always stationary wash-tubs in the first families. I suppose you’ve a range, and hot and cold water pipes in the kitchen?’ ‘Yes,’” answers her exasperated interlocutor.

During the second half of the nineteenth century, technology improved. More houses had indoor plumbing. Laundry sinks (“stationary wash tubs”) were common. Better equipment and even washing machines made work easier. New machinery, however, did not seem to make laundress jobs more appealing to young women looking for work. In 1882, the matron of a Children’s Aid Society facility in New York City complained about the “difficulty of finding girls willing” to be trained in this field. “Most of them avoid laundry work as they might poison,” she bemoans. (Documents of the State of New York, 1882) Things would not really change until well into the twentieth century, but, luckily, the extreme dread of laundry day is now part of history.

Margaret Adams Highland, Bartow-Pell Historian

Posted in Mansion Musings | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Bartow Children: Life in a Nineteenth-Century American Family

A boy who did not like to study. A heartbreaking marriage. A lost hunting dog. A murdered widower. And a twelve-year-old girl who moved into a brand-new mansion. Who were the Bartow children, and what do their stories reveal about life in a nineteenth-century American family?

Robert Bartow (1792–1868)—book publisher, entrepreneur, and gentleman farmer—was a descendant of the Lords of the Manor of Pelham. In New York City, on March 20, 1827, he married Maria Lorillard (1800–1880) [pronounced “Mariah”], an heiress to her family’s tobacco fortune. The couple’s nine children—five boys and four girls—were born between 1828 and 1846.

Nicolino Calyo (Italian, 1799–1884). The Great Fire of 1835: View of New York City Taken from Brooklyn Heights on the Same Evening of the Fire, ca. 1835. Gouache on paper over board. New-York Historical Society, Purchase. The Great Fire of 1835 occurred on the bitterly cold and gusty evening of December 16–17, 1835, and destroyed hundreds of buildings in lower Manhattan.

At first, Robert and Maria stayed in the city, where their household grew to include four children. But urban living in the 1830s had its hazards, including overcrowding, poor sanitation, and disease. There was no large-scale water supply system until 1842. In addition, dangerous fires spread easily and were fought only by a volunteer fire department. The Great Fire of 1835 brought these shortfalls to a dramatic head on the frigid night of December 16–17, 1835. Water froze amid plunging temperatures, and fiercely high winds thwarted firefighters as they struggled to contain the raging inferno. Meanwhile, booming explosions rocked the city. The fiery blaze lit up the smoke-filled sky, creating an orange glow that was seen by steamboat passengers forty-five miles upriver and by people even farther away than that. Miraculously, only two lives were lost, but the fire destroyed up to 700 buildings in the city’s business district. For the Bartow family, this was a dramatic backdrop to an even greater personal tragedy. On December 18, as the stunned city smoldered, their three-year-old daughter Clarina died, and three days later, their little son Robert died one day before his first birthday. Presumably, the children succumbed to an infectious disease, such as scarlet fever. The couple’s grief must have been unbearable.

Headstone for Clarina Maria Bartow, born April 5, 1832, died December 18, 1835; and Robert Erskine Bartow, born December 22, 1834, died December 21, 1835. St. Peter’s Episcopal Church cemetery, Bronx, New York

The trauma of losing two children during one of the worst catastrophes that New Yorkers had ever experienced probably hastened Robert and Maria’s departure from the city. Indeed, four months later, in April 1836, the couple purchased the 233-acre Bartow-Pell estate (which Robert’s grandfather had once owned) with funds from Maria’s generous Lorillard inheritance. There, they spent the next six years building a handsome residence, which their neighbor Robert Bolton Jr. described in 1842 as “a fine stone house,” “lately erected” “in the Grecian style.” During its construction, the family is believed to have occupied an older house on the property. The children were now surrounded by healthy country air. Their tutor Augustus Moore described the Bartows’ waterfront estate in 1838, saying that it had a very large farm, “splendid” gardens with gooseberries and currents, and an orchard. “It’s a very agreeable family. They live in first style I assure you. Have servants and waiters in abundance. . . . Mr. & Mrs. B. are very free, social, and kind,” he wrote to his sister.

Bartow mansion, ca. 1905. The children’s suite was upstairs in the wing on the left. “The present proprietor has lately erected a fine stone house, in the Grecian style, which presents a neat front with projecting wings.” Robert Bolton Jr., A Guide to New Rochelle and Its Vicinity, 1842
Bartow mansion, second floor plan. Historic American Buildings Survey, National Park Service, Richard S. Burton, 1986. The children’s quarters comprise several small bedchambers radiating from a larger room with a fine marble fireplace that would have served as a nursery and schoolroom. A series of doors leads to a service hall and to the main bedchambers.

George Lorillard Bartow (1828–1875), the eldest sibling, was probably named after his great-uncle George Lorillard. When George Bartow was ten years old, Augustus Moore was hired to teach him and his cousin (and future brother-in-law) Henry E. Duncan. “My business is to take charge of two boys—fit them for college. One his [Robert Bartow’s] nephew is about 14, a fairly little fellow and a good scholar—the other his son about 10, a pleasant little boy but does not like to study very well.” George was the only Bartow son not to attend Columbia College, so his academic indifference apparently continued. George—who never married—lived at the mansion as an adult. He died on March 23, 1875, at the age of forty-seven in St. Augustine, Florida. It is unknown why he traveled there, but his second cousin George Lorillard later built a winter residence in the historic seaside town. We can tell that George enjoyed riding and outdoor pursuits because his estate inventory mostly consists of a few horse-related items—three horses, a sleigh and sleigh bells, a wolf skin and blankets, a wagon, and a few harnesses. He was probably a fan of horse racing, especially since his wealthy Lorillard cousins owned famous thoroughbreds.

William Hamilton (Scotland, active United States, ca. 1810–1865 or 1795–1879). Alexander Masterton and His Wife and Children, 1834. Oil on canvas. Los Angeles County Museum of Art. This portrait depicts the idealized country life that Robert and Maria Bartow envisioned for their family. Alexander Masterton (1797–1859), who owned a marble quarry in Tuckahoe, built a country house in the Greek Revival style in Bronxville, about seven miles from the Bartow mansion. Some of the home’s original contents were later sold, including a bedstead which, according to descendants, was used by the Masterton sons. This piece was purchased by Bartow-Pell and is now in George Bartow’s bedchamber.
William Rickarby Miller (1818–1893). Pelham Priory, 1856. Watercolor on paper. Collection of Catherine Boericke. Catharine, Clarina, and Henrietta Bartow possibly attended the Pelham Priory School for Young Ladies, which had connections to the Episcopal Church and was a little over a mile from the Bartow estate. Here, students had lessons in literature, mathematics, Latin, French, music, art, deportment, religion, and other subjects. Two of the Bartow sisters married Episcopal ministers, and one married the son of one.

Catharine Ann Bartow Duncan (1830–1907), the eldest daughter, was twelve years old when the family moved into the newly completed mansion. In 1903, she explained in a letter: “I know the house to have been built by my father—we moved into the house in 1842.” (Catharine’s address when she wrote this letter was 37 West 49th Street, a mere half a block from the new townhouse of Zelia Hoffman, who would soon lease the Bartow mansion to use as the seat of the International Garden Club.) Catharine was taught by a governess, “a young lady from Boston who teaches the same time to those in her charge that I do to mine,” her brother’s tutor wrote. As teenagers, the Bartow daughters likely attended the Pelham Priory School for Young Ladies, which had ties to the Episcopal Church and had been founded in the late 1830s by the Bartows’ neighbors, the Reverend Robert Bolton and his wife, Anne. On September 7, 1848, eighteen-year-old Catharine wed her cousin, the Reverend Henry Erskine Duncan, at St. Paul’s Church, where he was the minister from 1847 to 1852 and where her father was one of the wardens. (St. Paul’s Church National Historic Site is located in an area of Mount Vernon that was formerly part of Eastchester.) The couple had five children. Catharine’s husband was subsequently the rector at St. Anna’s Church—in what is now part of Beacon—which was rebuilt as St. Luke’s in 1868. Henry E. Duncan became an invalid in 1881, and by 1900, he was a patient at the Bloomingdale Insane Asylum in White Plains, where affluent patients with mental illnesses were placed for care. Henry remained institutionalized until his death in 1904. Catherine died in 1907 at the age of seventy-seven. The couple are buried at St. Luke’s Church Cemetery.

Bartow mansion (detail), 1870. Albumen print. Bartow-Pell Mansion Museum. This photograph depicts Clarina Bartow Morgan and her children Maria, age eight; Elizabeth (Bessie), age six; and James, age four. Their younger siblings, Duncan, age two, and Clarina, an infant, would have remained in the nursery. One more child, Clement, was born later. Clarina gave birth at her parents’ home, where she had her mother’s care and a staff of servants, and where her children could enjoy their grandparents’ large country estate. The gentleman in the photo is either Clarina’s husband or one of her brothers. Maria Bartow, a widow, is seated. A servant—perhaps Kate Marshall or Annie Regan—stands at the left.

Clarina Bartow Morgan (1838–1898) was named after her deceased sister, Clarina, and after her paternal grandmother. She was christened at St. Paul’s Church by the Reverend Robert Bolton on June 24, 1838. Soon after the start of the Civil War, on September 18, 1861, Clarina married the Reverend James Hervey Morgan at Christ Church, the beautiful little Episcopal church on the grounds of Pelham Priory. The officiants were her brother-in-law (and cousin), the Reverend Henry E. Duncan, and her new father-in-law, the Reverend Richard U. Morgan, Rector of Trinity Church in New Rochelle. The newlyweds spent the early part of their marriage in Hoosick Falls, New York, where Morgan was Rector at St. Mark’s Church. He left this position after only a couple of years and was living in New York City by the mid-1860’s, performing “occasional services” in various churches. Meanwhile, Clarina gave birth to six children; at least five of them were born at the Bartow mansion. Here, she would have had help from her mother and from the household servants, along with the benefits of a large, comfortable house in the country. Although Clarina and the children appear in her mother’s household in the 1870 census, her husband is enumerated with his parents in New Rochelle. James H. Morgan died prematurely in 1876 at the age of forty-four, leaving Clarina a widow at thirty-eight with a brood of children to raise. By 1880, she had moved to Plainfield, New Jersey, where she died in June 1898.

William Rickarby Miller (1818–1893). Christ Church, Pelham, 1856. Watercolor on paper. Collection of Catherine Boericke. In 1861, Clarina Bartow married the Reverend James Hervey Morgan at Christ Church, which was built by the Reverend Bolton and his sons on the grounds of Pelham Priory. Clarina’s brother Robert Erskine Bartow served on Christ Church’s vestry when he was only twenty-four.
Inscription on headstone for Robert Erskine Bartow, born May 22, 1840, died June 24, 1867. St. Peter’s Episcopal Church cemetery, Bronx, New York

Robert Erskine Bartow (1840–1867) was given the same name as his brother who had died in 1835. Robert, a serious student, graduated from Columbia College in 1862 and earned a master’s degree in 1865. Meanwhile, in 1864, he was elected to the vestry of Christ Church, Pelham, at the age of twenty-four. The ambitious young man was also an inspector of elections and an assessor for the town of Pelham. Sadly, his promising life was cut short on June 24, 1867, a month after he turned twenty-seven and exactly one year to the day before his father died. The circumstances of both deaths are unknown, but father and son are buried in the family plot at St. Peter’s Episcopal Church in what is now the Bronx.

Heber Bartow placed a notice for a lost hunting dog in the New Rochelle Pioneer on September 20, 1884, which he described as “a small white pointer dog, liver colored ears, and large liver colored spot on back.” A new country club for wealthy sportsmen had recently opened next to the Bartow property at Oakshade, the former estate of Richard L. Morris. An upcoming steeplechase at the club was announced just below Heber’s offer of a reward for his missing pointer. The financier and thoroughbred racehorse owner August Belmont Jr. was to be one of the handicappers. At least three of the Bartow brothers enjoyed riding and shooting sports.

Reginald Heber Bartow (1842–1888) went by his middle name, according to period sources. After graduating from Columbia College in 1864, Heber—like his unmarried brothers—lived at the family home. In 1882, however, the New Rochelle Pioneer reported that he was wintering in Florida, possibly in St. Augustine, where his brother George had died in 1875. Perhaps he also spent time in New York City. Primary sources suggest that Heber enjoyed hunting and riding. On September 20, 1884, for example, he offered a $15 reward in the Pioneer for the return of a small tan and white pointer dog. Heber bequeathed his gun to his younger brother, Theodoret, and made provisions in his will for his horse, wagon, “harness furniture,” and a silver cup “won by me as a prize.” It is likely that Heber won his trophy at the fashionable new country club that had been formed in 1883 at Oakshade—the former home of Dr. Richard L. Morris on the property that adjoined the Bartow estate—which offered its well-heeled members sports such as steeplechase races, shooting competitions, and polo. (Theodoret won a crystal flask at the club for clay pigeon shooting in 1884.) Heber also indicates in his will that family heirlooms were important to him. As the eldest surviving son after the death of his brother George, he became the owner of a portrait of his grandmother, which is now lost but has been attributed to the important Hudson River School painter Asher B. Durand (1796–1886). “I devise that the portrait in oil of my grandmother Clarina Bartow now in the possession of my sister Catharine B. Duncan and my two silver tea pots and the silver sugar bowls which formerly belonged to my mother and are now in the possession of my sister Clarina B. Morgan shall remain the property of persons related to me by blood.” In 1888, the City of New York bought the Bartow estate for the development of Pelham Bay Park. On October 13 of that year, Reginald Heber Bartow died in Pelham of tuberculosis at forty-six (according to church records), thus taking his final breath in the old family home. It was the end of an era.

Henrietta Bartow Jackson’s obituary was published in the New Rochelle Pioneer on November 8, 1902.

Henrietta Amelia Bartow (1843–1902) was just eighteen months younger than Heber, so the two must have been frequent playmates as children. On October 24, 1871, she married William Henry Jackson at St. Peter’s Church, where her late father-in-law had been the rector before his recent death. In his absence, Henrietta’s brother-in-law the Reverend Henry E. Duncan officiated, just as he had done at Clarina’s wedding ten years earlier. The groom was a graduate of Columbia College and had been in the same class as Henrietta’s late brother Robert Erskine Bartow. Jackson had also served in the Civil War as a Union soldier and pursued a successful career on Wall Street. Henrietta and her husband never had children of their own but, in 1892, they became the guardians of her niece Theodora Bartow, an orphaned toddler whose ailing mother had also been under Henrietta’s care. Ten years later, on October 30, 1902, Henrietta Bartow Jackson died of kidney disease in New Rochelle at the age of fifty-nine. Her husband subsequently returned to the city and took up residence at the New York Yacht Club. But on June 22, 1911, he moved a couple of doors down West 44th Street to the Iroquois Hotel. This turned out to be a terrible mistake, for a little over a month later, after retiring to his apartment for the evening, Jackson was brutally murdered and robbed by a bellboy. The horrific crime made sensational headlines from coast to coast.

Theodoret Bartow (left) and his wife, Sarah Elliott Marshall Bartow (right)

Theodoret Bartow (1846–1891) was eighteen years younger than his oldest sibling. He attended Columbia College and then returned to the family estate to lead the life of a country gentleman. In his late thirties, however, Theodoret took up a career in New York City’s financial district. Shortly after his fortieth birthday, he married Sarah E. Marshall, a Southerner whose family owned both a nearby Pelham Bay estate and plantations in Natchez, where the couple married in 1886. They soon built a large house at Merrick, Long Island, and their happiness increased when their only child, Theodora, was born in 1890. But bliss soon turned to tragedy. Theodoret died of kidney disease in the spa town of Richfield Springs, New York, in 1891, and Sarah died in New Rochelle about a year later of ovarian cancer. As mentioned previously, Theodora, not yet two years old, went to live with her aunt Henrietta Bartow Jackson. Unhappily, the family’s bad luck continued when eight-year-old Theodora died of a ruptured appendix in 1899. For more on Theodoret and Sarah, click here.

The Bartow children were not famous. And many details of their existence have been lost. But still, the lives of everyday people are sometimes the ones to whom we feel the strongest connection. Their stories help us to use our imagination and remind us that the Bartow mansion was not a museum but a real home, where a real family experienced real life with all of its daily routines, joys, and sorrows. And isn’t everyone’s story interesting in one way or another?

Margaret Adams Highland, Bartow-Pell Historian

Posted in Index, Mansion Musings | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

The Bartows, the Pells, and the Enslaved People Who Worked for Them: A Sometimes Ignored, Sometimes Forgotten History

Bartow and Pell advertisements for runaways. Along with the offer of a reward, notices like these describe the enslaved person’s clothing and physical appearance, including marks or injuries that sometimes suggest physical abuse. Left: “TEN DOLLARS REWARD, RUN away from the subscriber, living in Westchester, the 2nd inst. [of this month], a negro man named TOM . . .“ JOHN BARTOW. Loudon’s New-York Packet, January 30, 1786. Tom “has a small lump his forehead, near his hair.” Right: “Westchester County, State of New York. RUN AWAY from Thomas Pell, a certain Negro boy about 16 years of age, named HONCE . . . Whoever takes up said boy and puts him in the GOAL [sic] of this city . . . shall receive 10 dollars reward by me THOMAS PELL. The Weekly Museum, March 15, 1794. Honce is “marked on one cheek with a burn, which he got when young.”

Robert Bartow was born in 1792 to a family that had taken slavery for granted for generations. Indeed, for over two hundred years, this cruel custom was practiced by many prosperous New Yorkers. The Bartow mansion was built between 1836 and 1842 after slavery had become illegal in New York. But, is it any surprise that, as large landowners and local gentry, previous generations of Bartows and Pells were slaveholders?

These families lived in an idyllic landscape of salt marshes, woodlands, meadows, and picturesque islands near Long Island Sound and the villages of Eastchester, Westchester, and New Rochelle, originally part of the 50,000 acres of land acquired in 1654 by Thomas Pell, the First Lord of the Manor of Pelham, in a treaty with the local Native Americans. Today, the area spans the Bronx and part of southern Westchester County.

Skecth [sic] of the Road from Kings Bridge to White Plains, 1778 (?). Library of Congress. This map shows the locations of “Pels Manor,” “East Chester,” “West Chester,” and New Rochelle in the eighteenth century. The Hudson River (on the left) was once known as the North River.

The history of slavery in New York goes back to its days as a Dutch colony (and even before), continuing through the British Colonial era and the new American republic. In 1799, the state legislature began a long and gradual process toward emancipation. Slavery was finally abolished in New York State in 1827, but vestiges—such as allowing slave ships to dock in the port of New York and returning fugitives to the South—lingered for years.

John Hesselius (American, 1728–1778). Charles Calvert and Once-Known Enslaved Attendant, 1761. Oil on canvas. Baltimore Museum of Art, Gift of Alfred R. and Henry G. Riggs in Memory of General Lawrason Riggs

In 1790, New York had the largest enslaved population in the Northern states, numbering more than 21,000 people, and almost 7,800 slaveholders who enslaved an average of 2.7 people each, according to the census. The sparsely populated town of Pelham—which then included City Island and parts of the current Bronx—had eleven heads of slaveholding households (including five Pells) with a combined total of thirty-eight enslaved people, or 3.5 per household, higher than the state average. A few miles away, the Bartows lived on various family farms around what was then the village of Westchester (now the Westchester Square area of the Bronx). Here, in 1790, they were among sixty-two slaveholding families that enslaved a total of 242 people, an average of 3.9 per household, even higher than in Pelham and forty-four percent above the state average.

Emanuel Leutze (American, born Germany, 1816–1868). Mrs. Schuyler Burning Her Wheat Fields on the Approach of the British, 1852. Oil on canvas. Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Bicentennial gift of Mr. and Mrs. J. M. Schaaf, Mr. and Mrs. William D. Witherspoon, Mr. and Mrs. Charles C. Shoemaker, and Jo Ann and Julian Ganz Jr. An enslaved teen assists Mrs. Schuyler as she sets her fields ablaze to stop the British from harvesting the wheat in this historical scene based on family lore. Catherine Van Rensselaer Schuyler (1734–1803) and her husband, General Philip Schuyler (1733–1804), enslaved a number of people over many years. Their daughter Elizabeth married Alexander Hamilton, and one of their grandchildren was Philip B. Schuyler (1788–1865), a contemporary and close neighbor of Robert Bartow in what was then part of Pelham.

Robert Bartow (1792–1868) was forty-four years old in April 1836 when he signed the papers to buy the estate that had once belonged to his grandfather and to a long line of his ancestors. But enslaved people had also lived and worked on the property, and Robert Bartow would have seen that firsthand.

Little is known about the Pell family’s ties to slavery in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. However, in his will dated September 21, 1669, and written shortly before his death in Fairfield, Connecticut, Thomas Pell, the First Lord of the Manor of Pelham, gave his “servant” Barbary her freedom. “I sett [sic] her at liberty to be a free woman a month after my burial except [if] my nephew [and heir] John Pell, come[s] in person she then to attend his occasions whilst he is here not exceeding three months.” He also left her bedding, a rug, cooking implements, pewter platters and spoons, a chest with a lock and key, and two cows.

The Slave Ship Brooks (or Brookes), 1808. Illustration from The History of the Rise, Progress, and Accomplishment of the Abolition of the African Slave-Trade by the British Parliament by Thomas Clarkson (British, 1760–1846). David Rumsey Map Collection, Courtesy Stanford University Libraries. This schematic drawing depicts the miserable conditions that enslaved people endured on lengthy ocean voyages.

Around 1750, more evidence of the Pells as enslavers begins to appear. Although Thomas Pell II (ca. 1675–1752), Third Lord of the Manor, makes no mention of enslaved people in his will, there is abundant proof that many of his children and their descendants were slaveholders. In 1748, for example, his son John (1702–1773) placed advertisements in the New-York Gazette offering a reward of five pounds for the capture and return of six people—two adults and four children. But, like so many stories of enslavement, the dramatic details of what must have been a daring family escape have been lost in time. Philip Pell I (d. 1751–52), Caleb Pell (1712–1768), and Joshua Pell Sr. (ca. 1710–1781) were three more sons of Thomas Pell II, Third Lord, who were slaveholders.

“RUN away from John Pell, of the Mannor [sic] of Pelham, a Negro Wench named Bell, a Boy named Janneau, a Girl named Tamer, another named Dinah, and another named Issabel; also a Negro Man named Lewis. Whoever will take up said Negroes, and bring them to John Pell aforesaid, shall have Five Pounds Reward, and all reasonable Charges, paid by John Pell. The New-York Gazette, Revived in the Weekly Post-Boy, November 28, 1748

Philip I names seven enslaved people (one “boy” and six “children”)—Lew, Kate, Robin, Jean, Moll, Titus, and Boss—in his will dated December 21, 1751. His grandson, Colonel Philip Pell (1753–1811), a distinguished veteran of the Revolutionary War and a delegate to the Continental Congress, lived in a house in Pelham that once stood near today’s Colonial and Cliff Avenues. In 1800, Colonel Pell was the largest slaveholder in Pelham, holding nine people in bondage. His brother David J. Pell (1761–1823) lived in the farmhouse that had once belonged to their father, Philip Pell II, which was later known as Pelhamdale and rebuilt as a grand residence after David Pell’s death. The 1790 census reports that David J. Pell enslaved five people; by 1820, as the date for final emancipation drew closer, this number had decreased to one (in addition to one free person of color).

“The Homestead of Colonel Philip Pell. Erected 1750. Cliff and Colonial Avenues, Village of Pelham. Destroyed 1888.” Illustration from Ancient Town of Pelham by Lockwood Barr, 1946

Caleb Pell’s will, dated March 24, 1768, reveals that he held eleven nameless people in slavery in the Manor of Pelham, leaving six of them to his wife and children and ordering the other five to be sold. The will includes a reference to barracks, a term sometimes used to denote an outbuilding used as slave quarters. A few years later, Caleb’s widow, Mary Ferris Pell, in her will of April 18, 1772, was less harsh, directing that “My negro man, Dick, is to be sold and may choose his master,” with the proceeds going to her daughters. She also left “a negro boy” to her son Elijah.

Joshua Pell Sr., another son of Thomas II, the Third Lord, built the Shrubbery, a mid-eighteenth-century house that was located near today’s Split Rock Road and Boston Post Road in Pelham, which was subsequently owned by Augustine James Frederick Prevost (1765­–1842), the elder son of Theodosia Bartow Prevost Burr and a stepson of Aaron Burr. In his will, Joshua Pell left three enslaved people—Michael, Arrabella, and Hagar—to some of his children.

Bathsheba was one of the daughters of Thomas Pell II, Third Lord, and his wife, Ann(a). She married Theophilus Bartow (ca. 1710–before 1779), and they were Robert Bartow’s great-grandparents. In the 1755 slave census for Westchester, we learn that they enslaved Ben, Moses, and Lille.

Runaway notice by Punderson Bartow for “a negro fellow named TOM.” Greenleaf’s New York Journal and Patriotic Register, February 15, 1794. Punderson Bartow (1768–1795) was the son of Basil Bartow, one of the six surviving sons of the Reverend John Bartow. Punderson and his wife, Clarina, lived in the area around Westchester village. Tom is described as “a likely fellow, pretty black, speaks bold and cunning, is very handy at all kinds of business.”

The Bartows lived a few miles away from Pelham in the area around what was then the village of Westchester (now part of the Bronx). In 1702, the Reverend John Bartow (1673–1725)—a British cleric educated at Cambridge—was sent to New York by the Church of England to take charge of the colonial parish comprising Westchester (village), Eastchester, Yonkers, and the Manor of Pelham (including New Rochelle). Bartow and his wife, Helena Reid, had ten sons, but only six survived. Robert Bartow was descended from two of them—Theophilus (husband of Bathsheba Pell) and Anthony (1716–1790). Anthony Bartow’s daughter Clarina married Theophilus Bartow’s grandson Augustus. Clarina and Augustus were Robert Bartow’s parents.

Anthony Bartow was Robert Bartow’s maternal grandfather. In 1755, Johne, Jeck, and Nell are listed under his name in the slave census. About fifty years later, Anthony’s son (and Robert Bartow’s uncle) Robert Stevenson Bartow (1767–1843) worked as an auctioneer who sometimes sold the rented-out time of enslaved people. On April 25, 1800, for example, along with a private sale of dry goods, he advertised “the time of a smart active Negro boy, 7 years old” in the American Citizen and General Advertiser.

Runaway notice by Thomas Pell in The New-York Gazette and the Weekly Mercury, July 14, 1777. Pell offered a five-pound reward for a family of four—three pounds for Abraham, “a negro man of a yellow complexion, part Indian,” and two pounds for his wife, Moll, “a small mulatto wench,” a three-year-old boy, and a five-month-old girl. The runaways could be brought to Thomas Bartow, “in New-York,” or to Thomas Pell in the Manor of Pelham. Thomas Pell (b. 1744) was the son of Joseph Pell, Fourth Lord of the Manor, and lived in the old Pell manor house with his wife (and first cousin Margaret Bartow). They sold what is now the Bartow-Pell site to their siblings John Bartow and his second wife, Ann Pell Bartow, in 1790.

John Bartow (1740–1816) [sometimes known as John Bartow Jr.] was the eldest son of Theophilus Bartow and Bathsheba Pell and was Robert Bartow’s paternal grandfather. In 1790, John and his second wife (and first cousin) Ann Pell bought the 233-acre Pell estate from their siblings Thomas Pell and his wife Margaret Bartow and later sold it to Herman and Hannah LeRoy (selling a smaller parcel in 1807 and the remainder in 1813). This property—the site of the old Pell manor house—was subsequently owned by Robert Bartow and his wife, Maria Lorillard. Census records prove that John Bartow enslaved six people in 1790 while still living on his farm in Westchester. Meanwhile, his brother-in-law Thomas Pell held three people in slavery in Pelham. (This must have been shortly before the Pell estate changed hands.) In 1800, when John Bartow was living on the Bartow-Pell property and his grandson Robert Bartow was eight years old, John enslaved five people. As a child, Robert probably visited his grandfather regularly and would have seen enslavement as part of everyday life. Moreover, his father, Augustus Bartow (1762–1810), enslaved one person in 1800, according to the Westchester census. In 1806, the family moved to Fishkill, where Augustus died unexpectedly in 1810. That year, the census reports that his widow, Clarina (1763–1839), held one person in slavery. As the eldest son, Robert, who was eighteen and still living at home, would have taken on some of the responsibilities of his late father, perhaps even supervising the enslaved laborer, if that person was a man. By 1815, however, Robert had moved to New York City and in 1827, he married Maria Lorillard (1800–1880). Her large inheritance, which provided the funds to construct the Bartow mansion, was built on tobacco products made with raw materials grown by enslaved labor in the South.

John Bartow “Jr.’s” brother Theodosius “Parson” Bartow (1747–1819) was Rector of Trinity Church in New Rochelle. Census records reveal that the reverend held seven people in slavery in 1800. Only the year before, the 1799 Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery had legalized the abandonment of newborn children by the owners of enslaved women who had recently given birth. Some children were turned over to the overseers of the poor; others were kept in the household even though the owner had relinquished the right to demand their services in the future. In 1803, Parson Bartow “abandoned” Jane, the infant daughter of Seib, and in 1805, he “abandoned the services of” George and Jane, according to slavery records that can be found in the New York Slavery Records Index. Parson Bartow’s grandson was Colonel Francis Stebbins Bartow of Savannah, one of the largest slaveholders in Georgia. Colonel Bartow fought for the Confederacy and died at the First Battle of Manassas.

“View of chained African slaves in cargo hold of slave ship, measuring three feet and three inches high,” 19th century. Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture, Photographs and Prints Division, The New York Public Library
“Negroes just landed from a Slave Ship,” 1810. Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture, Manuscripts, Archives and Rare Books Division, The New York Public Library

What did the life of an enslaved person look like in New York? Many unfortunate souls were bought and sold at auction on Wall Street, where a large slave market was in business from 1711 to 1762. In addition, strict laws controlled the actions of enslaved people in public. In 1730, the New York General Assembly expanded earlier slave codes as a means to further discourage and prevent insurrections, like the slave rebellion of 1712. This legislation made it illegal for more than “three Slaves to meet together at any time” unless they were working for “their Masters or Mistresses Profit” and “consent,” “upon Penalty of being whipt upon the naked Back . . . not exceeding forty Lashes for each Offence.” Furthermore, the Assembly made it lawful “for every City, Town, and Manor within this Colony to have and appoint a common Whipper for their Slaves.” These were only some of the inhumane laws designed to oppress the enslaved population and literally beat those individuals into submission.

Sojourner Truth, 1864. Albumen silver print. National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution

The abolitionist and women’s rights activist Sojourner Truth (ca. 1797–1883) was born into slavery in Ulster County, New York. In 1850, she published Narrative of Sojourner Truth: A Northern Slave, in which she describes her life of enslavement in rural New York state. At first, Isabella (Sojourner’s birth name) and her younger brother remained with their parents. She heard them talk for hours of their many older children who had been sold “and for whom their hearts still bled.” Isabella’s mother taught her to rely on a strong faith in God and “to kneel and say the Lord’s Prayer.” All of the enslaved people—male and female—slept together in one cellar room with mud and water often seeping in through the loose floorboards. When she was about nine years old, Isabella was sold at auction and taken away from her family, later having the impression that “in this sale she was connected with a lot of sheep.” It was then, she says, that “her trials in life” began. One Sunday morning after being sent to the barn, “she found her master with a bundle of rods, prepared in the embers.” He tied her hands together and “gave her the most cruel whipping she was ever tortured with. He whipped her till the flesh was deeply lacerated and the blood streamed from her wounds.” Sojourner’s scars were still there years later. And the same can be said about the legacy of slavery today.

Robert F. Mott. Billy and Jinny. From an original watercolor, ca. 1814. Illustration from Adam and Anne Mott: Their Ancestors and Their Descendants, by Thomas C. Cornell, 1890. Billy and Jinny were enslaved by the Mott family in Mamaroneck and lived in what is now known as the Mill House in Larchmont, which is about five miles from Bartow-Pell. The Motts were Quakers and, sometime in the 1770s, Jinny and Billy were freed but continued to live in the household. A member of the family later recalled: “Jinny was a native African, black as anthracite. Stolen when a child, but old enough to remember much of her young life.” “Uncle Billy was a famous banjo player. . . . He not only played, but he made banjos, having a large dried gourd for the sounding-board. Hence his soubriquet of Billy Banjo.”

Did the Bartows and Pells employ Black Americans after slavery began to wind down in New York?  In 1820, some “free colored persons” appear on Pell census reports and in the household of Herman LeRoy, who then owned what is now the Bartow-Pell site. In 1838, after Robert Bartow had bought the estate, his children’s tutor describes a “negro boy” working there. By 1850, however, while legions of people were still enslaved in the South, Irish immigrants filled the servant quarters at the mansion. Meanwhile, many questions remain. Maybe one day we will learn more of the story.

Margaret Adams Highland, Bartow-Pell Historian

My thanks to former Town of Pelham Historian Blake Bell for publishing many wills in his Historic Pelham blog and for all of his important work on the subject of slavery.

Posted in Mansion Musings | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Charles Dickens Dazzles New York and Is Feted at the Glittering Boz Ball 

This is the second in a series about headline news in mid-nineteenth-century New York.

Left: “The Great Boz Ball Last Night: The Most Brilliant Affair Yet.” New York Herald, February 15, 1842. Early in his career, Dickens used the pseudonym Boz, the nickname of one of his younger brothers.
Right: Welcome to Charles Dickens: the Boz ball to be given under the direction of a committee of citizens of New York, at the Park Theatre, on the evening of the fourteenth of February next, 1842. This official report records the committee’s plans for the ball.

On January 3, 1842, Charles Dickens (1812–1870) and his wife, Catherine (1815–1879), stepped aboard the steamer Britannia in Liverpool and set sail for the United States and Canada, where the energetic celebrity novelist was about to begin his first North American tour. Meanwhile, on the other side of the Atlantic, impatient fans excitedly awaited the arrival of the popular British author of The Pickwick Papers, Oliver Twist, Nicholas Nickleby, The Old Curiosity Shop, and Barnaby Rudge, all published while Dickens was still in his twenties.

Boston was the first big American city on the celebrated writer’s busy schedule. “Boston and all New-England has caught the Dickens fever,” the New York Herald announced on January 27, 1842. But, for now, star-struck New Yorkers who were hungry for any tidbit about the great man had to settle for a few mere crumbs of news coverage. “The last Boston journals are silent as death relative to the movements of Charles Dickens,” the Herald complained on January 30. “What is the meaning of this nonsense?” the journalist joked. Dickens was a former reporter, and newspapermen felt a connection to him.  In addition, many Americans admired the novelist not only as a master storyteller but also as a democratic champion of the downtrodden, indeed of all humanity.

Dickens was in high spirits when he finally arrived in New York City with his wife on February 12, five days after his thirtieth birthday. The couple, who had traveled by steamboat from New Haven, were met by a “crowd [that] was perfectly whirlwindish,” the Herald recounted on February 13. Cries of “There he is!,” “Let me see!” and “G–d d–n you, stand back!” filled the air, and the paper reports that when at last the boat touched the dock, about one hundred people rushed on board before they could be stopped. On the other hand, the Herald’s serious-minded rival, the New-York Tribune, downplayed the spectacle, describing “a very miscellaneous but not large assemblage” on the wharf that “were content to gratify their curiosity in silence.” (February 14, 1842)

The New York Herald—founded by James Gordon Bennett (1795–1872)—was a leader in the American penny press. Daily newspapers like this one became affordable to wide audiences through cheap mass production and often regaled readers with sensationist stories. On the other hand, the New-York Tribune, edited by Horace Greeley (1811–1872), was known for its moral probity, support of social reforms, and professional standards of journalism.

Left: Daniel Maclise (Irish, 1806–1870). Charles Dickens, 1839. Oil on canvas. © National Portrait Gallery, London. Transferred from Tate Gallery, 2015. This portrait was painted in 1839 shortly after the publication of Nicholas Nickleby.
Right: Daniel Maclise. Catherine Dickens, ca. 1847. Oil on canvas. © Charles Dickens Museum, London. Catherine Hogarth, a daughter of the Scottish journalist George Hogarth, married Charles Dickens in 1836, and they became the parents of nine surviving children.

An official welcoming committee comprised members of the city’s elite. But on February 13, the Herald noted that because these gentlemen were concerned that large public throngs would prevent them from “reaching or even seeing Boz” (Dickens’s well-known pseudonym), “they wisely resolved to send a Committee of one” to welcome him. The lawyer David Cadwallader Colden was subsequently selected to greet Mr. and Mrs. Dickens, and, luckily, he managed to be the first person to jump on board the boat the minute it reached shore. After being introduced to Boz and “then to his beautiful wife (for beautiful she really is), Mr. Colden took her arm, and they all went on to the lower deck.” The Dickens party then crossed the gangplank and squeezed through the bystanders, making their way around piles of wood, “boxes, barrels, bags, coffee, sugar, molasses, rum, gin, grease, tar, pitch, cotton, cheers, curses, laughter, noise, confusion, and swearing almost unprecedented. It seemed as if the very devil had let loose all the demons of disorder on that particular dock to give Dickens an unsophisticated notion of life at a New York steamboat landing,” the Herald reported.

New-York: Bird’s-Eye View from Union Square, 1849. The Miriam and Ira D. Wallach Division of Art, Prints and Photographs, The New York Public Library. This view was published seven years after Dickens visited New York City when, in 1842, he described the city from the deck of his ship: “There lay stretched out before us . . . confused heaps of buildings, with here and there a spire or steeple, looking down upon the herd below, and . . . a forest of ships’ masts, cheery with flapping sails and waving flags. Crossing from among them to the opposite shore were steam ferry-boats laden with people, coaches, horses, wagons, baskets, boxes, crossing and recrossing by other ferry boats. . . . Stately among these restless Insects were two or three large ships, moving with slow majestic pace . . . making for the broad sea.” (American Notes)
Carlton House. The Miriam and Ira D. Wallach Division of Art, Prints and Photographs, The New York Public Library. The Carlton House hotel was located on the corner of Broadway and Leonard streets and had only been in business for a few years when Charles and Catherine Dickens stayed there. According to an ad in the Morning Herald on May 25, 1838, “this new and elegant establishment” promised “attention, comfort, and privacy.” It went out of business in 1857.

Charles and Catherine stayed at the Carlton House hotel on Broadway, and Dickens describes “the great promenade and thoroughfare” in American Notes for General Circulation (1842). “Was there ever such a sunny street as this Broadway?” he asks happily. The couple had a lively view from their hotel windows. “When we are tired of looking down upon the life below, [shall we] sally forth arm-in-arm and mingle with the stream?” he proposes. And what a dynamic scene it was. Dickens writes about an abundance of omnibuses, hackney cabs, coaches, and light carriages driven by both Black and white coachmen wearing all manner of hats and coats. (Only one wore livery, and Dickens surmises that this was the coachman of a pompous Southerner “who puts his blacks in uniform.”) Moreover, Boz exclaims, “Heaven save the ladies, how they dress! We have seen more colours in these ten minutes than we should have seen elsewhere in as many days. What various parasols! What rainbow silks and satins! What . . . pinching of thin shoes and fluttering of ribbons and silk tassels!” At night, Broadway was lit up with “bright jets of gas.” It is no surprise, however, that the creator of Oliver Twist also made a point of exploring the underbelly of American society, visiting slums, prisons, and the New York City Lunatic Asylum on Blackwell’s (now Roosevelt) Island.

Nathaniel Currier (American, 1813–1888), lithographer and publisher. Broadway New York—South from the Park, ca. 1846. Lithograph. The Miriam and Ira D. Wallach Division of Art, Prints and Photographs, The New York Public Library. The planning committee for the Boz Ball met at the Astor House (the large porticoed building seen here at the right). This opulent hotel, completed in 1836, was on Broadway across from City Hall Park. St. Paul’s Chapel can be seen down the street with the spire of Trinity Church in the distance. A large American flag flies above P. T. Barnum’s American Museum, which had opened on the corner of Broadway, Park Row, and Ann Street in 1841.

On the evening of January 26, 1842, the welcoming committee met at the Astor House hotel on Broadway. Excitement was at fever pitch, and the Herald reveled in the chance to build anticipation tabloid-style. “Read, reflect, and prepare yourselves—ladies and gentlemen. Next week will constitute an era in the literary history of the world. Boston can’t do the thing—and New York has to step forward and welcome the greatest original genius of the age,” the Herald’s writer proclaimed with more than a little civic pride on February 3. “Let us, therefore, bid welcome to Charles Dickens—he deserves all the honor we can smother him with, short of absolute suffocation. Hurrah!”

William D. Smith (American, 1800–after 1860), engraver, after a drawing by Charles W. Burton (American, born England 1807). Street Views No. 1 – Park Row, New York, 1830. Engraving. Smithsonian American Art Museum, Gift of International Business Machines Corporation. The Park Theatre—where the Boz Ball was held—is the large arcaded building shown in this view of Park Row and City Hall Park. The steeple of the old Brick Church on Beekman Street is visible at the north end of the block.

With less than three weeks to go, the committee (chaired by the mayor, Robert H. Morris) threw themselves into planning a magnificent ball in honor of Boz and his wife to be held at the Park Theatre on February 14. This was the perfect opportunity to include ladies and the community at large in a festive event to welcome their illustrious visitors. “The Boz Ball tonight, at the Park, will be the most brilliant affair that has been given in any part of this country for the last ten years,” the Herald declared. Ticket sales had closed. “Exactly 1006 have been sold—no more—no less—” and would “admit precisely 2212 [sic] persons.” 

View of the Interior of the Park Theatre on the Night of the Great Boz Ball. New York Herald, February 16, 1842. Partygoers admire one of the tableaux vivants from Dickens’s works in the Herald’s front-page illustration.

The night of the ball was damp and cold, but the mood was jolly. Guests descending from their carriages stayed dry, thanks to an awning overhead and green baize (a woolen feltlike material) covering the pavement. The ladies—in silks, satins, gauze, lace, ribbons, jewels, pearls, and gold—dazzled on the equivalent of today’s red carpet. Police officers kept order and held back the crowd of spectators. Inside the Park Theatre, more than one thousand lights illuminated the splendid spaces, including a radiant array of gas lights, wax candles, oil lamps, candelabra, and chandeliers. Scenes from Dickens’s novels were depicted in painted medallions and by actors in tableaux vivants. Festoons of flowers, gold-accented drapery, wreaths, rosettes, stars, cupids, presidential portraits, and a portrait of Boz decorated the four tiers of the theater, which resonated with the chatter and laughter of the partygoers and the rich sounds of the music. 

Left: Evening dress, ca. 1842. American or European. Silk.
Center: Habit de drap noir à revers de soie brochée [Black wool coat lined with silk brocade] (detail). La Mode (Paris), April 15, 1837.
Right: Evening dress, 1840–42. American. Silk. The Metropolitan Museum of Art www.metmuseum.org

Thomas Downing, the famous African-American caterer (1791–1866), was in charge of the refreshments, serving 28,000 oysters; 7,000 fried oysters; 10,000 sandwiches; 40 hams; 76 tongues; 12 floating swans; 2,000 mutton chops; and a variety of other items. Dessert included 2,000 meringue kisses; 350 quarts of jelly and blancmange; 300 quarts of ice cream; 25 ornamental sugar pyramids; and thousands of pastries. Although some guests sipped coffee, tea, and lemonade, the most popular beverage was port wine negus (a hot drink made with port, sugar, lemon, and spices). One hundred and fifty gallons of Madeira and two dozen cases of claret rounded out the drinks. It took one hundred and forty men and women three days and nights to prepare the food, which was served by sixty-six men on the different tiers of the theater.

The Boz Waltzes: As Performed by Dodworth’s Band at the Grand Festival Park Theatre, 1842. Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University. The Viennese composer Joseph Lanner (1801–1843) was known for popularizing the waltz. Each dance bears the name of a Dickens character and features a classic oom-cha-cha waltz rhythm.

The ball opened at eight o’clock, but graceful moves across the floor with one’s dance partner were a challenge in such a large gathering. “Never were so many fashionable, beautiful, and well-dressed ladies so insufferably squeezed up before in any place,” the Herald prattled on February 17. After a cotillion (a dance performed by sets of four couples) and a waltz, the large gong sounded, the curtain was drawn, and the actors presented the first tableau vivant. But the guest of honor was nowhere in sight.

“At last the immortal lion of the pageant—the illustrious Boz and his fair lady were announced—the orchestra struck up ‘God save the Queen’—and led by half-a-dozen of the Committee, Mr. Dickens and his lady crossed the stage . . . where they were received by the Mayor. Boz looked pale and thunderstruck—his charming wife was completely overpowered,” the Herald reported dramatically on the following day.

City Hotel, Trinity & Grace Churches. Irma and Paul Milstein Division of United States History, Local History and Genealogy, The New York Public Library. The City Hotel on Broadway was the site of a sumptuous dinner held in honor of Dickens and attended by dignitaries such as Washington Irving, Henry Brevoort, Mayor Robert H. Morris, William B. Astor, William Cullen Bryant, Hamilton Fish, Abraham Schermerhorn, and Duncan Pell.

The next morning, Dickens was sick in bed with a sore throat and had to cancel his appearance at another ball a couple of days later. Meanwhile, he received many private invitations to “anything and everything; to be dined, and wined, and done everything to but to be let alone. However his sickness has been his excuse.” (Herald, February 19, 1842) He did, however, attend a grand dinner given in his honor on February 18 at the City Hotel on Broadway. Washington Irving led Dickens in by the arm as the band played Handel’s “See the Conqu’ring Hero Comes.” 

Left: Horace Greeley, Editor of the New-York Tribune. Mathew Brady Studio, mid-19th century. National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution. Right: James Gordon Bennett, Editor of the New York Herald. The Miriam and Ira D. Wallach Division of Art, Prints and Photographs: Print Collection, The New York Public Library

The New York Herald devoted thousands of words of copy to the Boz Ball, and the public must have loved it. On the other hand, the New-York Tribune barely mentions it, merely saying in a short paragraph on February 15 that the ball “was probably the most splendid affair of the kind ever witnessed in this city. [However,] we have neither room nor time for any details of the arrangements this morning.” Why did the Tribune display such a perplexing lack of interest?  Well, it turns out that on the same day that the Herald entertained readers with chatter about the ball, the Tribune’s editor, Horace Greeley, ran both a news article and an editorial about the libel conviction of none other than the Herald’s publisher, James Gordon Bennett, and—in the Tribune’s view—his appallingly light sentence. Greeley made it clear that criticizing his powerful rival for journalistic misdeeds was more important than writing about fashionable balls, even one that was actually newsworthy. (For the record, both papers published long articles a few days later about the dinner for Dickens at the City Hotel.)

At first, Dickens was captivated by America, and the feeling was mutual. However, it did not take long for him to change his mind, and some of his comments in American Notes (published a few months after he returned to England) consequently offended readers in the United States. The novelist condemned the lack of international copyright laws in this country and the abhorrent practice of slavery, but he became especially disenchanted after being hounded by the public and the press and experiencing the bad manners of some Americans. The prospect of making good money by giving readings, however, lured him back on a second and final American tour from 1867 to 1868, despite ill health. He died a couple of years later, in 1870.

Margaret Adams Highland, Bartow-Pell Historian

Posted in Mansion Musings | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Classical to Gothic Revival: Recent Acquisitions Attributed to Charles N. Robinson and Thomas Brooks

South parlor, Bartow-Pell Mansion Museum

Greek Revival houses like the Bartow mansion were often filled with furnishings from the Classical period of American furniture (ca. 1820s to 1840s).  But Gothic Revival and other new styles were appearing in the early 1840s when the house was completed, and Bartow-Pell is delighted that Joseph F. Huber has recently given the museum both a monumental Classical pier or overmantel mirror and a pair of Gothic Revival slipper chairs.

Left: Charles N. Robinson (attr.), mirror (detail) Right: Asher Benjamin. Design for Leaves (detail), drawn by Daniel Raynerd. The American Builder’s Companion; or A New System of Architecture (2nd edition), 1811, plate 30

This splendid Classical mirror was designed to be hung over a mantel or on the wall—or pier—between a pair of windows or doors. It was made about 1840 and retains its original gilding; its single, heavy-plate mirror glass (probably imported from France); and a paneled frame adorned with acanthus leaves carved in high relief. The mirror is attributed to Charles N. Robinson of Philadelphia (1780–1855). “The attribution to Charles N. Robinson is based on a very closely related labeled mirror in the collection of the Athenaeum of Philadelphia,” explains decorative arts expert and Bartow-Pell Curatorial Committee Chair Carswell Rush Berlin. “It appears that Robinson’s design for the acanthus leaf carving was inspired directly by Asher Benjamin’s The American Builder’s Companion (1811).”

Advertisement for Charles N. Robinson’s shop at 248 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia. Church’s Bizarre for Fireside and Wayside, June 26, 1852
Rae’s Philadelphia Pictorial Directory & Panoramic Advertiser: Chestnut Street, from Second to Tenth Streets, plate 15, 1851. Library Company of Philadelphia, www.librarycompany.org. This plate depicts businesses along what later became the 900 block of Chestnut Street (these addresses were 244–293 before renumbering in 1856). C.N. Robinson’s looking-glass shop with its large street-level windows is clearly shown at number 248. (He had moved his shop here in 1850 after many years at 86 Chestnut.)

Charles N. Robinson was born in Philadelphia in 1780. He married Hannah Mundy in 1807 and died of cancer in 1855 at the age of seventy-four. Robinson first appears as a gilder in the Philadelphia city directories in 1810 on South 3rd Street (but his name appears incorrectly as “E. N. Robinson”). From 1823 to 1849, his shop was at 86 Chestnut, across from Congress Hall near 6th Street, in the area that is today Independence National Historical Park. In about 1850, he moved a few blocks away to 248 Chestnut at 9th Street, where he continued operations until his death in 1855. According to Church’s Bizarre: For Fireside and Wayside, a short-lived magazine published on Chestnut Street in the 1850s, Robinson’s shop was good for the neighborhood. “Mr. Robinson is one of the oldest picture and looking-glass dealers in the city, and his work is greatly admired by all people of taste. He was among the first dealers in his line to remove away from the cent-per-cent atmosphere of Chestnut and Third, and property holders should testify to him, we think, in some manner their gratitude for the act. . . . [All] changes of a business character in upper Chestnut Street, as we think, spring measurably from the pioneership [sic] of the gentleman in notice.”

George Endicott (1802–1848), lithographer, after a painting by Henry Inman (1801–1846). Fanny Elssler, published on November 23, 1841. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division. Fanny Elssler (1810–1884) was a megastar Austrian ballerina who performed in Philadelphia’s Chestnut Street Theater while on an American tour in the early 1840s.
C. N. Robinson’s ad in the Philadelphia Inquirer on December 18, 1841, announces that he has “a few fine proof copies for sale” of Fanny Elssler in the title role of La Sylphide “from Henry Inman’s splendid picture, just finished from the life.” Robinson, like a number of others in the Philadelphia carving and gilding trade, was also a print seller.
John Moran (1831–1903), photographer. James S. Earle & Son, Looking Glasses, 816 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, ca. 1861. This stereograph shows the shop of one of C. N. Robinson’s competitors on Chestnut Street in the mirror and picture business. Library Company of Philadelphia, www.librarycompany.org

In addition to his work as a carver, gilder, and maker of looking glasses and frames, Charles N. Robinson doubled as a picture and print dealer. According to advertisements dating from 1812 in the Aurora General Advertiser, he was active in the print trade from the early days of his long career. Almost thirty years later, his ongoing commercial success is evident in ads published in the Philadelphia Inquirer. For example, on December 4, 1841—around the time that Bartow-Pell’s mirror was made—Robinson “has for sale an extensive assortment of superior quality French LOOKING GLASS PLATES, of all dimensions, suitable for Mantels, Piers or Walls, framed in a great variety of the latest London patterns, from the plainest to the most elegant styles of Ornamental Carving.” In addition, he offers “a large and fine assortment of fine French and English Engravings, colored and plain, of new importations” and “a very large variety of Portrait Frames, patterns [in] elegant styles, which will be framed to order at short notice and at the lowest prices.” In fact, a number of Philadelphia mirror and frame makers with shops in the Chestnut Street area were active in both the carving and gilding trade and the print trade, such as James S. Earle, Thomas and Joseph Natt, and Spencer Nolen.

Downstairs sitting room, Bartow-Pell Mansion Museum

Unlike the mirror, which was made for a grand and imposing room, Bartow-Pell’s beautiful Gothic Revival slipper chairs were probably designed for a somewhat intimate space—such as a bedchamber, morning room, or sitting room—and are a lovely and appropriate addition to our downstairs sitting room. They feature pierced Gothic arches with quatrefoils, milk-thistle finials, dramatically shaped rear legs, and brass castors, which allowed them to be moved easily over the wall-to-wall floor coverings of the period. The chairs were made about 1845, probably in New York. Carswell Berlin relates them to a group of chairs attributed to the Brooklyn furniture maker Thomas Brooks (1811–1887), which are illustrated in Katherine S. Howe and David B. Warren’s The Gothic Revival Style in America, 1830–1870. A similar example is in the collection of the Philadelphia Museum of Art, and another one is in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. A related slipper chair and settee, also attributed to Thomas Brooks, are illustrated in Nancy Carlisle’s Cherished Possessions: A New England Legacy. In addition, it was in the mid-1840s that the merchant and publisher Henry C. Bowen (1813–1896), a fellow resident of Brooklyn, purchased a selection of Gothic Revival pieces from Brooks to furnish Roseland Cottage, his summer home in Woodstock, Connecticut, which was highly influenced by the designs of the landscape designer and architect A. J. Downing (1815–1852).

Attributed to Thomas Brooks (Brooklyn, 1811–1887). Pair of slipper chairs, ca. 1845. Bartow-Pell Mansion Museum, Gift of Joseph F. Huber
Unknown maker, American. Side chair, one from a pair, 1850–70. Philadelphia Museum of Art, Gift of Peter Barr Kelly in memory of Mr. and Mrs. Thomas F. Kelly, 1991 www.philamuseum.org

Gothic Revival was influential in Europe and America during the first half of the nineteenth century. “It was an important element of Regency taste and part and parcel of the widespread fascination with ancient and exotic cultures, which influenced British design in the late eighteenth and nineteenth century,” Berlin notes. In the United States, Gothic style did not emerge until the late 1830s but soon became extremely popular, peaking in the 1840s. The far-reaching influence of the Gothic Revival on architecture and the arts continued until the outbreak of the Civil War.

George Smith (British, active London 1808–33). Cylinder Desk and Bookcase. Illustration from A Collection of Designs for Household Furniture and Interior Decoration, 1808, plate 100

Thomas Brooks had a very successful and long career as a cabinetmaker and upholsterer in Brooklyn from 1840 to 1876, after which he turned the company over to other members of the firm (which finally closed down for good in 1884). Over the years, Brooks adapted to changing tastes in the home furnishings market and is particularly remembered for historically inspired designs in the Gothic Revival and Renaissance Revival styles. He also offered upholstery services and window treatments.

Brooks was in partnership with others in the early 1840s—first with Lorenzo Blackstone and then with Christian D. W. Lilliendahl. He bought out Lilliendahl (who was merely a financial partner) in 1848. Six months later, on October 18, 1848, Thomas Brooks announced in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, that “he has enlarged his place of business [at 44 Fulton Street] and has now FIVE SHOW-ROOMS, fitted up exclusively for his different styles of work.” But a little more than a year later, in January 1850, readers of the Eagle learned of exciting plans for an even grander store a few blocks down the street at 127 Fulton. The enterprising cabinetmaker subsequently opened his new showroom in one of the “three beautiful brick buildings,” four stories high, with “brownstone fronts” on the corner of Sands and Fulton Streets, which were being built to replace wooden structures that had been lost in the fire of 1848. He also rented “the upper part of all the other buildings.” Today, the area where Brooks’s shop once stood has been completely demolished and replaced by Cadman Plaza Park, where there is an exit ramp from the Brooklyn Bridge.

T. Brooks & Co. furniture and upholstery store, 127 Fulton Street at Sands Street, Brooklyn, 1882. New York Public Library. Thomas Brooks moved his shop to this location in 1850. Here, a delivery wagon with the company’s name on it waits in front of the store. This photograph was taken in 1882—six years after Brooks’s retirement—when the business was run by other members of the firm, which closed its doors in 1884. Today, this is the site of Cadman Plaza Park.

An article about the brand-new shop at 127 Fulton appeared in the Eagle on May 20, 1850. Only twenty years before, Brooklynites in need of any furniture “beyond a cot bedstead and a rush-bottomed chair” had to shop in Manhattan. But Fulton Street in Brooklyn had become a preferred location for some of “the surplus cabinet makers of New York [i.e., Manhattan],” and “it was reserved for our friend Brooks to cap the climax in the manufacture of luxurious furniture.” “His showroom is the largest in the city. . . . The furniture contained in it is of the most costly description and embraces the styles of various periods of Queen Elizabeth, Louis the Fourteenth, and the antique Gothic.” Gas lights lit the fine new building, which “presents a very handsome appearance of an evening when illuminated.” In 1851, the New York City Fire Department commissioned Thomas Brooks to make a tabletop bookcase made of rosewood for a seven-volume edition of Audubon’s Birds of America to present to Jenny Lind in gratitude for her generosity to their widows and orphans fund. Almost forty years later, on July 22, 1888, the Eagle reminisced about Thomas Brooks and his legendary furniture store. “Many a young married couple here made the selections for their first home. The several windows always displayed the best workmanship and material in parlor suits [sic], cushioned chairs, tables, etageres, sofas, lounges, bedsteads, bureaus, washstands, mirrors, shaving stands, [and] ottomans,” the writer recalls. “Many houses in the city are still adorned with the furniture from this store.”

By the early 1850s, Brooks was living near the Episcopal Church of the Holy Trinity in Brooklyn Heights, which was built from 1844 to 1847 in the Gothic Revival style by the architect Minard Lafever (1798–1854). Robert Bartow’s brother Edgar John Bartow provided the funds and also hired the brothers William Jay Bolton and John Bolton (Robert Bartow’s Pelham neighbors) to create the stained-glass windows.

Although these popular shops have long since closed their doors, the work of Charles N. Robinson, Thomas Brooks, and their contemporaries tells a story of multi-layered design trends when the Bartow mansion was constructed, and we are grateful to Joseph F. Huber for generously donating these superb pieces as we continue to refine our period rooms.

Margaret Adams Highland, Bartow-Pell Historian

Posted in Mansion Musings | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

A Storm of Applause and Hisses: The Mob Convention and Women’s Rights, 1853

This is the first in a series of posts about headline news in mid-nineteenth-century New York.

Lucy Stone, November 1853. Library of Congress. The suffragist and abolitionist Lucy Stone was a powerful orator and one of the main speakers at the 1853 women’s rights convention at the Broadway Tabernacle. Stone was a graduate of Oberlin College when it was unusual for women to even attend college.

“Time’s up.” “That’ll do.”“Shut up.” “Go to bed.” “Take a drink.” Hissing. Groans. Stamping of feet. Contemptuous laughter. General uproar and confusion. And countless loud interruptions by derisive, raucous men. “Friends, will you keep order!” This is what greeted women (and their male supporters) at the Woman’s Rights Convention in New York City on September 6 and 7, 1853. Because of these unruly and hostile troublemakers, the gathering later became known as the Mob Convention.

Snyder, Black & Sturn, printers. The Broadway Tabernacle, New York, in Anniversary Week, ca. 1856. Lithograph. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, The Edward W. C. Arnold Collection of New York Prints, Maps and Pictures, Bequest of Edward W. C. Arnold, 1954. www.metmuseum.org

The convention took place at the Broadway Tabernacle, a well-known church between today’s Worth Street and Catherine Lane. During the same week, some activists also participated in anti-slavery and temperance meetings at the Metropolitan Hall, a grand, new theater about a mile north on Broadway (which, by the way, burned to the ground a few months later). But reformers were not the only attractions in town. The Exhibition of the Industry of All Nations (America’s version of the 1851 Great Exhibition in London) was drawing crowds uptown at the New York Crystal Palace in what was then known as Reservoir Square (now Bryant Park).

History of Woman Suffrage (edited by Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Matilda Joslyn Gage) points out that the crowd of antagonistic men at the 1853 convention openly showed—as never before—the sort of “public sentiment woman was then combating.” The mob, the author adds bleakly, clearly confirmed “that general masculine opinion of woman” which, turned into law, “forges the chains which enslave her.” Things were heating up, and converting the opposition was not going to be easy.

Lucretia Mott, ca. 1870. Records of the National Woman’s Party, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress
Antoinette Brown. Illustration from Autographs for Freedom, edited by Julia Griffiths, 1854

The meeting was chaired by Lucretia Mott (1793–1880), the abolitionist and social reformer who had teamed up with Elizabeth Cady Stanton to organize the groundbreaking Seneca Falls Convention five years earlier in 1848. Other influential reformers—both women and men—took the stage in 1853. Lucy Stone (1818–1893) was a gifted orator and an early female graduate of Oberlin College who kept her maiden name after marriage. The Reverend Antoinette Brown (1825–1921) was the first ordained female minister in the United States and had just been prevented from speaking at the Temperance Convention because she was a woman. Sojourner Truth (1797–1883) gave her moving speech “What Time of Night It Is” amid hisses, rude laughter, and applause. Dr. Harriot K. Hunt (1805–1875) was a physician who specialized in women’s health. Susan B. Anthony (1820–1906) was there, too. The abolitionists William Lloyd Garrison (1805–1879), Wendell Phillips (1811–1884), and Charles C. Burleigh (1810–1878) were among the sympathetic men who participated. A few opponents were also given the chance to speak.

Sojourner Truth, 1864. Albumen silver print. National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution
William Lloyd Garrison, ca. 1870. Library of Congress

Press coverage was extensive and lasted several days. The New York papers were represented in force at the reporters’ table—including the Tribune, the Herald, and the newly launched Times. Each had its own distinct point of view, ranging from progressive to very conservative (just like the media in today’s democracies). “The Tribune was independent, and fearless in the expression of opinions on unpopular reforms,” a writer in History of Woman Suffrage later recalled. “Its editor, Horace Greeley, ever ready for the consideration of new ideas, was on many points the leader of liberal thought.” The Herald, the author continues, “was recognized by reformers as at the head of the opposition, and its diatribes were considered ‘Satanic.’” Finally, because the Times was “established at a much later date, its influence was not so great or extended as either The Tribune or The Herald.” In the writer’s view, “It represented that large conservative class that fears all change . . . knowing that in all upheavals the wealthy class is the first and greatest loser. From this source the mob spirit draws its inspiration.”

Charles Calistus Burleigh. Collection of the Massachusetts Historical Society. Burleigh, an abolitionist, journalist, and advocate for women’s rights, was a flamboyant figure with carefully styled ringlets, a copious red beard, and unconventional clothing.

The press gave wildly different attendance figures for the opening session. According to the Times, only about three to four hundred individuals, mostly women, were present. The Tribune, on the other hand, reported that there four to five times that many people in “an audience of about 1,500 persons, composed about equally of men and women.” In any case, increasing numbers of rowdy adversaries crowded the cavernous church on Broadway and often drowned out the speakers on the platform. An inflammatory writer for the Herald even provoked a nineteenth-century flash mob by promising hecklers good entertainment if they would “put a shilling in their pockets [the price of admission] and journey toward the Tabernacle.” By the evening of September 7, the large space overflowed with three thousand people.

Ye May session of ye woman’s rights convention—ye orator of ye day denouncing ye lords of creation. Illustration from Harper’s Weekly, June 11, 1859. Noisy men in the gallery heckle the orator at a women’s rights convention. By 1859, when this satirical cartoon was published, bloomers had fallen out of favor at such gatherings because activists now viewed these revolutionary garments as a distraction that undermined their efforts to influence public opinion on serious matters. According to History of Woman Suffrage, the so-called bloomer costume was so ridiculed that women feared it “might injure the suffrage movement. . . . Hence a stronger love for woman’s political freedom, than for their own personal comfort, compelled them to lay it aside.” Here, the cartoonist uses fashion as a means to belittle his subjects. A single woman is attired in skintight bloomers with an extremely improper short skirt while others wear enormous hoop skirts in the latest fashion, suggesting that some of the women cared more about their clothes than their rights.
New York Herald, September 8, 1853

It is fascinating to compare contemporary newspaper accounts written from the scene. “The Bloomer Comedy: Second Day’s Proceedings of the Woman’s Rights Convention” was the Herald’s disparaging front-page headline on September 8, 1853. (Some of the women wore shortened skirts with trousers—i.e., bloomers—which became associated with the women’s rights movement in the early 1850s after such outfits were worn by Amelia Bloomer, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucy Stone, and others.) The Herald makes many more sneering comments, such as referring to the meeting as the “Woman’s Wrong Convention.” Unapologetic and blatant sexism abounds in their coverage. “It is almost needless for us to say that these women are entirely devoid of personal attractions. They are generally thin maiden ladies, or women who perhaps have been disappointed in their endeavors to appropriate the breeches and the rights of their unlucky lords.” The article refers to these “unsexed women” and their “champions” as the “Greeley Clique.” Horace Greeley (1811–1872), the founder and editor of the New-York Tribune, was at the convention and joined with a policeman to help quiet a disturbance in the gallery, according to one of his paper’s rivals, the Times (September 7, 1853).

Lucy Stone, ca. 1853. Engraving from a daguerreotype by Mathew Brady (ca. 1823–1896). Library Company of Philadelphia, www.librarycompany.org. Lucy Stone was one of a number of women at the convention wearing a shortened skirt and bloomers.

On September 8, Greeley’s paper described the convention’s final proceedings in “Tremendous Uproar: Close of the New York Session,” saying that when the Tabernacle doors were thrown open at about seven o’clock, the “rush for tickets and admissions by the anxious throng could only be equaled to that on a Jenny Lind night.” After a tumultuous evening, the convention ended with “shouting, screaming, laughing, stamping,” and so much noise that nothing could be “heard or done in order.” Although “the Convention broke up amid the wildest uproar,” a resolution was passed giving thanks to Lucretia Mott “for the grace, firmness, ability and courtesy with which she has discharged her important and often arduous duties.” Even the unfriendly Herald grudgingly complimented the women’s “coolness and self-possession,” despite not having “right on their side.”

The belligerent mob could not deter advocates for women’s rights. On the last evening of the convention, Lucy Stone stood up on the platform to thunderous applause from supporters and deafening interruptions from insolent men in the gallery. Although the clamor was so great that her words were barely caught by reporters, she hoped that people “would remember what had been said, and one day there might be a convention when the men of New York would work with women for their rights.” “And then,” she went on, “men won’t believe the scenes that have been enacted here, [and] that men should be found to come here in solid phalanx to gag down women.” After declaring that the women in the room “were not to be frightened by trifles,” Stone announced that another convention would be held a month later in Cleveland, Ohio.

Margaret Adams Highland, Bartow-Pell Historian

Posted in Mansion Musings | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

An Elaborate Pile of Comfort: Making the Bed in the Days of Horsehair, Straw, and Feathers

Bedstead, ca. 1840. Bartow-Pell Mansion Museum, Gift of Vivian O. Wills, 1979. This double bed was originally in an upstairs bedchamber at the Greek Revival Masterton-Dusenbury House in Bronxville, New York, built in the 1830s for Alexander Masterton (1797–1859). According to a subsequent owner of the home, the family’s sons slept in this bedstead. (A portrait of the Masterton family is in the collection of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art and can be viewed here.)

Everyone wants to wake up refreshed in the morning after a good night’s sleep in a comfortable bed. But in the days before memory foam, fitted sheets, and down-alternative comforters—when straw, horsehair, feathers, wool, and sometimes even corn husks, moss, and leaves filled the lofty layers piled on bedsteads—making a bed was not always easy.

Frontispiece from The Young Housekeeper’s Essential Aid to the Thorough Understanding of the Duties of Her Maid Servants, London, 1852. In her treatise on domestic economy, Catherine Beecher instructed American young women in the 1840s how to make up a bed. “Open the windows and lay off the bed-covering on two chairs . . . After the [feather] bed is well aired, shake the feathers from each corner to the middle; then take up the middle and shake it well, and turn the [feather] bed over. Then push the feathers in place.” More detailed instructions follow on how to add the sheets, blankets, coverlets, and pillows.

So, how, exactly, did people make their beds in the nineteenth century?

To begin with, rope (“bed cords”), canvas (“sacking”), or wooden slats (“laths”) were attached to the bedstead’s side rails to support the mattress, which was stuffed into linen or cotton ticking. More bedding elements were then added to form “the elaborate pile of comfort designed to cushion our motionless forms.” (“Wholesome Beds,” The Health Reformer, June 1873) (Readers of fairy tales might recall the bedstead heaped high with twenty mattresses and twenty feather beds in Hans Christian Andersen’s “The Princess and the Pea” [1835].)

Bedding advertisement for H. N. Lamb, 431 Sixth Avenue, in Trow’s New York City Directory for the Year Ending May 1, 1873

Sometimes the bottom of the bed frame was fitted with a straw-filled pallet called a “paillasse” (paille is French for “straw”). According to the author of The Workwoman’s Guide (1838), “it is very thick and as hard as a board; . . . they are made in a frame and should be covered with a very strong good tick or Holland [a plain-woven linen].” Thomas Webster and Mrs. Parkes note in their Encyclopedia of Domestic Economy (1845) that “when the bottom of the bedstead is made with laths [slats], a paillasse is necessary, as the laths cut the mattress or bed.” But when sacking supported the mattress, the use of a paillasse was not advised. Straw deteriorated over time and had to be replaced every spring.

Bedstead with a reproduction sacking bottom, straw mattress, and feather bed on display at the Winterthur Museum

The mattress came next. Horsehair and wool were the most popular choices. Horsehair was the most desirable, being long-lasting and cooler, but it was more expensive. Mattresses were also filled with straw, rags (“flock”), Spanish moss, cotton, hemp, corn husks, and shredded wood (known as Excelsior). Woven wire supports and coiled metal springs were sometimes employed later in the nineteenth century. Not everyone could afford to buy a good mattress, however, even one made from inexpensive materials like corn husks. The author of You Ask!—I’ll Tell!, published in Philadelphia in 1873, reminds readers that for people living in poverty, “dried leaves from the maple or beech make a clean, healthy bed.” Webster and Parkes are of the opinion that dried beech leaves are even better than straw for stuffing a mattress. Their Encyclopedia claims that in addition to being soft and flexible, beech leaves retain a pleasant fragrance similar to that of green tea. “The only objection to them is the slight crackling noise which they occasion when a person turns in bed.”

Adolph Menzel (German, 1815–1905). Ungemachtes Bett (Unmade Bed), ca. 1846. Chalk drawing. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett / Jörg P. Anders CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Striped ticking covers the mattress (which appears to have lost some of its stuffing) in this drawing of a rumpled bed.

A well-stuffed and plumped feather bed (sometimes simply referred to as a “bed”) was then laid on the mattress. (People slept on top of these—not underneath—and they are not to be confused with today’s down duvets.) Together, a feather bed, bolster, and pillows might be stuffed with up to ninety pounds of feathers. Caroline Howard King (1822–1909), who dreaded climbing up and down bed steps as a girl in Massachusetts, wrote in her memoirs about the experience of sleeping on this precarious mound of bedding: “The fear was emphasized by the fact that the bed was piled up very high in the middle, so that unless I landed exactly in the centre of the mountainous island on my first entrance, I passed my night in rolling down hill, or in vain efforts to scramble up to the top, to avoid falling out on the floor.’” Feather beds were taken off or stored under the mattress in the summer—when some areas sweltered under oppressive heat and humidity—because “nothing is more debilitating than, in warm weather, to sleep with a featherbed pressing round the greater part of the body.” (Catharine E. Beecher, Treatise on Domestic Economy, 1843)

Advertisements for feathers and feather beds, A.E. Wright’s Boston, New York, Philadelphia & Baltimore Commercial Directory, and General Advertising Medium, 1840

Feather beds, however, developed a widespread reputation for their alleged “enervating” or enfeebling effect. (This was also a time when some individuals thought that bathing in warm water was debilitating.) They began to be seen as unhealthy, and their popularity declined. By 1855, when Godey’s Lady’s Book discussed bedding in the August issue, this attitude appears to have been well established. “The days of feather beds may be considered as entirely past, at least among people who have sufficient good sense and education to understand their enervating unhealthiness.” But Eliza Leslie,  author of The House Book (1844), did not completely agree. As long as the feather bed was placed on a thick mattress “to prevent the feather-bed beneath from rising or swelling around you, the proper end is answered as far as health is in question,” she explains. “We believe that there are few grown persons who, during the severity of an American winter, would really find their health impaired by sleeping with the feather-bed on the top of the mattrass [sic]; and few that, in the summer, would find themselves too warm by having a feather-bed, instead of a paillasse, underneath a mattrass [sic] of moderate thickness.” Miss Leslie makes a good point, and feather beds continued to be used for a while, but her opinions were soon considered outdated.

Seymour Joseph Guy (American, born England 1824–1910 New York). Story of Golden Locks, 1870. Oil on canvas. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Gift of Daniel Wolf and Mathew Wolf, in memory of their sister, the Honorable Diane R. Wolf, 2013. www.metmuseum.org. Square pillows were standard for most of the nineteenth century.
Eugène Delacroix (French, 1798–1863). Le lit défait (The Unmade Bed). Watercolor. Musée du Louvre. Sometimes bolsters were wrapped in a sheet rather than being placed in a specially made case.

Bolsters and pillows were also well stuffed with feathers. Miss Leslie warns that they “are not comfortable unless they are large and full,” adding that “it is a pitiful economy to put in so small a quantity [of feathers] that they become nearly flat as soon as you lie down on them.” Horsehair filled pillows as well. According to Godey’s in 1855, “[horse]hair pillows are more generally in use than ever before.” Pillows stuffed with small strips of paper, which were considered to be cooling, were sometimes recommended for invalids and people with fevers, children in the summer to keep their heads cool, and people on a low income. Pillows and bolsters were made in various dimensions, but pillows were usually square for much of the century. “‛I am accustomed to hair mattresses, square pillows, and linen bedding,’” sniffs a well-to-do lady in “Fanny’s Flirtation,” a serialized novella published in Peterson’s Magazine in 1864. Two pillows and a bolster were the norm—which meant that people slept propped up in a somewhat elevated position—but Godey’s (1855) advises that “to use the bolster alone at night, or one pillow, will preserve the figure best against curvature; an almost upright posture, which the use of square pillows makes necessary, cannot be as healthful.” By the end of the century, oblong pillows had become more common than square ones, according to “The Linen Closet,” an article printed in Demorest’s Family Magazine in October 1892.

Henry R. Robinson (American, died 1850), lithographer and publisher. Misery Acquaints a Man with Strange Bed-Fellows, 1848. Library of Congress. Well-stuffed bolsters and square pillows raised the upper body during sleep, but some experts advised against this practice, saying that it could induce curvature of the spine. For example, in 1875, Dr. R. T. Trall wrote in his book Popular Physiology that “sleeping on two or three pillows, or on a bolster and pillow, is a prevalent yet pernicious custom. If long continued, the effect is surely a distortion of the spine to some extent. If the head is raised high while sleeping, the stomach and lungs are injuriously compressed, and the upper intestines pressed downward on the pelvic organs.”

Linen sheets and pillowcases were preferred by those who could afford them and, as Eliza Leslie puts it, were “universal in genteel families.” Cotton sheets did not last nearly as long as linen ones, but they were warmer and were sometimes recommended for use during cold winters. So-called Russian sheeting was long-wearing (but coarse) and was sometimes chosen for servants’ beds or by those on a limited budget.

Left: Harry Tyler (1801–1858). Coverlet, 1839. Jefferson County, New York. Wool and cotton. Center: J. Wright. Wholecloth whitework quilt, ca. 1815. Massachusetts. Quilted cotton. Right: Star of Bethlehem quilt, ca. 1835. Possibly made in Maryland. Cotton. The Metropolitan Museum of Art http://www.metmuseum.org

Linens were marked with cross stitch and other embroidery (mostly earlier in the century) or with ink to identify the various sets of sheets and pillowcases that mingled together amidst a jumbled sea of white linen on laundry day. “All the bed-linen should be marked with the whole name of the family, and each pair of sheets and pillow-cases should have the same number or figure,” Miss Leslie instructs. Lavender sachets imparted a lovely scent to snowy white linens after laundering. Finally, a wide variety of blankets, coverlets, counterpanes, comforters, and quilts completed the bedding ensemble.

Attributed to Duncan Phyfe (1770–1854). High-post bedstead, ca. 1815–25. Mahogany. Bartow-Pell Mansion Museum, Gift of Justine Bayard Erving, 1956.05. Bedsteads like these are as “a room in itself, with four carved posts, flowered curtains for walls, [and] a chintz tester for ceiling.” (Caroline Howard King, When I Lived in Salem)
Left: Charles-Honoré Lannuier. French Bedstead, 1812–19. Bartow-Pell Mansion Museum, Gift of Henry S. Peltz and Mary Nevius. Right: Pierre de La Mésangère. Lit Ordinaire. Engraving from Collection de Meubles et Objets de Goût, 1802

Bed curtains were used with high-post bedsteads and French bedsteads (a style that was placed sideways against the wall). Curtains prevented drafts, keeping sleepers warm in cold weather, and provided privacy. They were also elegant. “For a large and handsomely furnished chamber,” Eliza Leslie writes, “no bedstead looks so well as the square, high post, with curtains.” Bed curtains were usually made of the same (or similar) fabric as the coverlet, window curtains, and valance. “The bedstead in our own spare room was a very beautiful mahogany one, with richly carved posts and legs, and hung with a canopy and curtains of lovely soft India cotton, with counterpane and valances to match,” Caroline Howard King recalled. Watch pockets kept timepieces handy and were made of the same material as the bed curtains or of dimity, muslin, velvet, or buckskin. Mahogany bed steps—with a compartment for a chamber pot—were sometimes needed to climb up into these high beds. The treads were covered in Brussels carpet to prevent slipping. (Today, antique bed steps are often used as end tables, and the carpet has been replaced with leather.)

John Claudius Loudon (Scottish, 1783–1843). Illustration of a so-called French bedstead and bed steps from An Encyclopedia of Cottage, Farm, and Villa Architecture and Furniture

“Mattress, blankets, as well as sheets, soon become foul, and need purification,” owing to the large amount of “poisonous matter” that escapes through the body during the night, cautions the author of “Importance of Wholesome Beds” (New England Farmer, August 1861). In order to keep bedding and bedchambers fresh, “all beds, pillows, etc., should be exposed to a current of fresh air a few minutes every morning. Pillows and bolsters ought to be placed in the sun now and then to remove all tendency to unpleasant effluvia,” Godey’s advises. Turning the mattress and dusting the bedstead helped to deter infestations of bedbugs and other insects.

Advertisement for English brass and iron bedsteads, R. Shepherd, 661 Broadway, New York, from How to Furnish a Home by Ella Rodman Church, 1881

Metal bedsteads made of brass and iron became increasingly prevalent in the second half of the nineteenth century. These were considered more sanitary than wooden ones, because they are easily cleaned and do not attract insects. Modern spring mattresses also made their way into many households and were topped by hair or wool mattresses (straw mattresses also continued to be used). Housekeepers must have been delighted when they no longer had to plump and air out bothersome, old-fashioned feather beds or replace the straw in paillasses.

Making the bed is still a daily chore that no one looks forward to, but it is certainly much less trouble than it used to be. And let’s not even get started on washing the sheets. We will save that investigation for a future post.

Margaret Adams Highland, Bartow-Pell Historian

Posted in Mansion Musings | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment