1841 New Orleans: New Orleans Fashion Shifted Society

New Orleanians in the early 1800s faced a few different fashion struggles: keeping up with trending styles, managing the subtropical climate, and appearing of a high class to society. Affluent women in New Orleans in the early 1800s were itching to be adorned in the newest trend: the chemise gown. The city was filled with excitement over these fashionable new frocks because they allowed women to have more freedom in their movements and the fabric was lightweight, thus, perfect for warm weather.

The affluent women’s husbands were pleased with the chemise gown as they believed women looked more seductive than ever in these gowns. The high-class men were experiencing a similar sort of fashion revolution with the fast-changing trends of pant-wear. New Orleans gentlemen took cues from British royalty and through this, found themselves making the transition from pantaloons to trousers. During a time when “clothing was an important and immediately visible mark of social status”, affluent men and women aimed to look as high status as possible and found these garments solved their fashion struggle. However, this wasn’t the case for all populations. The textiles labeled “Negro Clothing” in the Times Picayune further solidified the struggles present for African Americans in New Orleans at this time. As illustrated by these particular garments, society, specifically the government, royalty, social hierarchy, and racial hierarchy, heavily influenced how individuals chose to adorn their bodies, and, at the same time, these trending garments were altering the societal system by having an impact on the individuals who wear them.

This is an example of the chemise gown worn by affluent New Orleans women.

The chemise gown was a pillar of fashion that shifted society because it gave affluent women a garment that was both freeing and alluring, thus solving their fashion struggles. Though money afforded wealthy women some choice in their attire, their decision of how to dress themselves was heavily influenced by societal pressures, such as the opinions of the other men and women of their social class. The chemise gown alleviated these pressures. This gown was made popular by the Queen of England, though, when she first wore it, she was harshly criticized for it being too undignified. Despite this original label, it still began quite a trend. Everyone wanted to wear what the Queen was wearing – it was the ultimate symbol of status. Not only this, but the chemise gown was extremely popular due to it being made of lightweight fabric such as “muslin, lawn, and other sheer textiles” that made it comfortable for women in the tropics. These gowns were also celebrated because wearing one meant you would be perceived by men as a “voluptuous delight”. The chemise gown was known to be liberating and seductive because women appeared “freer in their gestures” and “nonchalant” in their movements. Thus, the struggle of fashion women were experiencing during this time was solved all in one by this revolutionary gown. Affluent women were keeping up with the trends set by the Queen, would be perceived as high status by others, kept cool in the New Orleans weather, and were less physically constrained. Because the chemise gown could solve all these struggles, the gown altered society by empowering women themselves. Once they had the comfort in the warm weather and the approval of others, women not only looked high class but felt freer when wearing this gown.

Judgement of choice in fashion was not only present for affluent women, but also for high-class men and they found a similar solution: following the pantwear trends while also contributing to the way these trends altered society. Much the same as the popularity sparked due to the Queen wearing the chemise gown, affluent men in New Orleans looked to royalty for guidance when it came to their choice of dress. Originally, after men saw the Prince of Wales wearing pantaloons, they called them “the most hideous garments ever invented” and believed they were only worn to “conceal their deformed calves”. However, a member of British society named Beau Brummel changed their minds when he popularized “exceptionally well-fitting and hand-tailored bespoke suits” in order to show that he was of a higher class. Brummel’s style inspired the King of England which, in due course, inspired the fashion of New Orleans gentlemen. Additionally, affluent men looked to political figures such as Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe for guidance on their dress. The trends steadily went from pantaloons to trousers. Bloomers for women in New Orleans came to surface in the 1850s but were quickly shut down; it was only men who were allowed to follow this trend. Like the chemise gown for women, following the pantwear trends gave men power because their attire resembled those who had power, British royalty and American politicians. But, pantwear was especially empowering because of the exclusivity of these garments. Only men could wear them because they were the ones who could hold that level of power. While the chemise gown symbolized sensuality and freedom, pants symbolized a powerful, working man. 

The struggle of what to wear experienced by non-whites at this time differed greatly from that of wealthy whites and due to this, the way their fashions shifted their society differed as well. For African Americans, keeping up with the trends of royalty and politicians was not on the radar so much as finding something of decent quality to wear. Advertisements in the early 1800s Times Picayune read “Negro Clothing” and were followed by a listing of imports such as “plain and twilled Lowell negro cottons” and “Virginia negro shirting’s”. Other advertisements would detail “negro cottons”, “negro blankets”, and “negro shirtings” further supporting the fact that they had access to different fabrics and resources when it came to their fashions. Because of this public label, it was clear to all who had access to the Times Picayune what was acceptable and available for this population to wear. African Americans had access to what was chosen for them by white people whether this was through the newspaper or by their owners if they were enslaved. For example, if slave owners did not care what others thought, they would provide attire that resembled a “sort of sack, without any particular waist” and they were often “barefooted”. If enslaved people were to make their own clothes, the textiles that were available to them were “inexpensive and durable rather than comfortable or fashionable”, almost the complete opposite of the chemise gown. Because of these limited offerings and dressing out of necessity, the societal impact of these garments was drastically different. While the chemise gown gave affluent women freedom and pant-wear gave affluent men power, these drab clothes further solidified the lower place in society that non-white populations occupied. Their fashions were a weapon wielded by the white people in power. Even though some African Americans were freed by this time, limiting what they could wear when appearance meant so much, kept them in the bottom tier of society. 

Overall, fashion and clothing in New Orleans in the early 1800s was characterized by a stratification of what clothing meant to individuals and what struggles they faced because of it. Specific garments were significant to the populations who adorned them. Each group had access to different clothing to address their fashion needs whether that was keeping up with a trend or just finding something to wear out of necessity. Affluent women found their struggles solved by the chemise gown which represented their high status and gave them freedom of movement and made them an object of affection. Affluent men kept up with prominent political and royal figures by adorning pants that gave them power as working men. But, the less affluent, African American population wore only the inexpensive fabrics allocated to them, which further affirmed their low place in the societal hierarchy. These garments changed society by changing the mindset of the individual and what was worn was ultimately controlled by the influence of those in power: government and royalty. To control what one wears, controls how they think about themselves which affects their actions and that impacts society as a whole. So although these fashions were shifting society by shifting the individual, what was acceptable and available for each person to wear was largely controlled by those in power.