Re: MtMan-List: underwear

["Barry Conner" <buck.conner@worldnet.att.net>]

Snakeshot,

I think I read something like that years ago, maybe in Buckskin Report and
wondered if this person had someone or even himself make an under garment
from disgarded flour sacks, that was a common source of useable material.
Have seen slips, bloomers and the pockets worn under a women's skirt made of
this material on the east coast in several museums, (Amish,  Quakers, as
well as the Movains were some of the groups that had early clothing shown).

Funny side note to calico linings;
Picked up a Ute wedding dress 20 years ago down in the Four Corners area,
made about 1860 according to old lady selling it, had several look at bead
work and it looked right. My daughter loved it and wore it to the next
rendezvous up at Chadron, she got really upset that a white powder was
coming out of the lining on the inside of the dress. Charles E. Hanson, Jr.
really got a kick out of it, wedding dresses often used the calico flour
sacks for a lining (unwashed so the flour would make the wearer white and
show she was pure).

Interesting to think what would be said if that town saw a modern rendezvous
????

Buck
_______________________________
-----Original Message-----
From: Bishnow <bishnows@swbell.net>
To: hist_text@lists.xmission.com <hist_text@lists.xmission.com>
Date: Monday, November 02, 1998 4:36 PM
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: underwear


>Barry Conner wrote:
>>
>> I have read articles when the Buckskin Report (John Baird - fur trade)
was
>> still available, along with articles by Charles E.Hanson, Jr.(Museum of
the
>> Fur Trade - fur trade), Vernon L. Bigsby (Valley Forge Museum - pre Rev.
>> War) and one from Colorado Historical Society (1849'ers and into the
Civil
>> War), will have to look for exact information and get back to you. But
all
>> of the articles mentioned were about period male under garments.
>>
>> As I remember their were no one piece "union" suits as seen at outing
today,
>> the pre Rev War garments were like night shirts split front and back to
slid
>> down the breeches, the fur trade depending on early or late were: night
>> shirt style - early being split or solid (solid being shirt tail pulled
>> between legs to the front and front being tucked to the rear) seems to be
a
>> good load in the seat of one's pants? The late garments were straight leg
>> bloomer style with a long tailed shirt - no collar.
>>
>> Hanson felt that they, (the under garment) may have lasted the first
winter
>> and were used for repair of other garments afterwards. He felt that this
was
>> an item found not that serviceable in the field, as you would need to
almost
>> get undressed if nature called, not like the "union" suit found a decade
or
>> two later with its back and front access.
>>
>> I'm sure others will have additional information from their research and
I
>> will look for those articles, have a 4 drawer file cabinet with
information
>> collected for 40 years.
>>
>> Buck
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: TrapRJoe@aol.com <TrapRJoe@aol.com>
>> To: hist_text@lists.xmission.com <hist_text@lists.xmission.com>
>> Date: Monday, November 02, 1998 7:46 AM
>> Subject: Re: MtMan-List: underwear
>>
>> >Interested in your coments on underwear.  There are detailed
discriptions
>> of
>> >male underwear even in the Bible, so no dout the males had underwear.
But
>> >there are many  ladies at our rendezvous.  In reality they wouldn't have
>> been
>> >there at all in 1830, but they are here now.  What about our, their
>> underwear.
>> >
>> >
>   Terrel DeWald a brother from Amarillo once told me that the
>mountain man wore calico as underwear. He said he got the info
>from an original journal he read somewhere. Anyway he said he
>also read an account of a feller getting arrested in a town for
>being on the streets in a calico shirt, arrested for indecent
>exposure?
>
>Snakeshot
>
>