Victorian Etiquette & Dress
in Washington, D.C.
There are a number articles and books available about court
dress and etiquette in Europe, but until recently, I’d never seen anything
historical about etiquette and society in Washington, D.C. Yet, for our
American ancestors, the question of how to treat their representatives was a
large one. Should the old European titles and attitudes be kept, or should
completely new ones fall into place?
When I discovered a chapter on Washington etiquette in
The Manners That Win
(“compiled by the Latest Authorities” in 1883), I was surprised to find that
most practices considered appropriate by the editors then are now completely
obsolete...and surprisingly, what Victorian Americans considered appropriate
was often ruled by old European traditions.
According to Manners,
the history of etiquette in Washington, D.C. is not complex. George and
Martha Washington followed strict rules of etiquette, and encouraged all
officers beneath them to do so, as well. This etiquette was followed fairly
closely by all presidents down to Jackson. But, said the editors of
Manners, “Jackson,
with his imperious nature, and contempt for all law which did not for the
time suit his purposes or fit his plans, broke down all barriers, and
received anybody and everybody without rule, and inaugurated a series of
receptions where disorder and rudeness were allowed, which no gentleman
would have tolerated in his own house. Since then no fixed social code has
been generally recognized at Washington.”
Manners
readily admitted that etiquette in Washington was “peculiar.” Since so many
people entered the Capital from not only other states—but also other
countries—solid rules of etiquette were difficult to uncover. Because
Washington was almost wholly made up of people who in some way were involved
with the government, “social rules are complex, and ladies who lead in
society have vexatious contests over disputed points of etiquette.” But one
“rule” was unquestionable: “Men have precedence by virtue of the offices
they hold, and with the dignity of which they are invested; women have
social precedence by virtue of the official title of their husbands.”
The question was, what kind of precedence should be
given to elected officials in this new-style government? While it was
distasteful to Americans to treat their officials with the same sort of
“pomp and splendor” seen in European courts, it also felt distasteful to
treat them as Joe-schmo-next-door. Being in office was an honor, and as
such, certain distinctions and privileges seemed in order. Indeed, the term
“first gentleman and lady of the land” was happily given to the President
and his wife, and many Victorians felt this honor upon the President also
reflected back and honored the voters who put him in office.
However, some Americans in the 19th century referred to
top politicians as the “Republican Court”—a term that dismayed many others.
In Etiquette of Social Life in Washington, the author chides: “We have no
‘Court Circles,’ nor do we expect to remain a republic and at the same time
ape ‘Court’ manners...Our official etiquette is not intended as a personal
compliment, but addresses itself to the office borne, so that it remains
strictly in harmony with our republican sentiments. When the incumbent loses
office, he becomes again simply a private citizen, whom the Republic has
honored...The very words 'Republican Court,' have a
fatal sound of Caesarism; and...words become facts—they are the expression
of the soul’s aspirations.”
So the line between etiquette inspired by European monarchies and etiquette
fit for an American president was a fine one. Still, 19th century Americans
agreed that the President was entitled to all precedence, whenever he
appeared in public. Unlike the average Victorian man, he could receive calls
without necessarily returning them. The same as today, he was addressed as
“Mr. President;” he was also sometimes referred to as the now-outdated “Your
Excellency.” Around him, no special formalities were considered necessary,
and any person could meet him. Often, the president devoted his morning
hours to receiving citizens. According to Manners, anyone who wished to see
the President in person came to the White House and was shown upstairs to a
room occupied by the secretaries of the President. There, the caller
presented his card and waited to be admitted. When finally in the
President’s company, the caller would say a few words of respect, and then
exit. “Of course,” Manners commented, “those who have business with the
President are rightfully given the precedence over ladies and gentlemen who
merely call out of curiosity, or simply to pay their respects, and, as the
time of the President is fully occupied, those who wish to make private
calls, will find it to their advantage to secure the company of some
influential friend or official, to make disappointment less probable.”
Still, the idea that anyone could simply show up at the White House and
visit the President is something most modern Americans have trouble
fathoming.
During
sessions of Congress, receptions were given at the White House and anyone
could attend. A caller would simply enter the reception room and give his
name to an usher, who would in turn give the name to the Marshal of the
District (or some other official who’d been assigned the duty), who in turn
announced the caller to the President and his family. The caller then moved
on, and could view the rooms, chat with others, etc. until the end of the
reception. “If he is precise,” Manners explained, “as he makes his exit he
will leave his card.”
If the reception was held in the morning, morning costumes for both men and
women were considered proper. If the reception was held in the evening full
evening dress (“at least a demi-toilet,” according to Manners) was
appropriate, and it was considered best if women never appeared wearing a
bonnet.
It was not permitted to decline an invitation extended
by the President to dinner, or to any social engagement, except on account
of real illness, or the illness or death of some near relative. Therefore,
any previous engagements had to be broken, and a formal letter explaining
the reason for absence was required.
The president’s wife could also receive calls without returning them, but
other members of the President’s family were required to follow the standard
Victorian practices for receiving and making calls.
Women were accorded the respect due to them according to their husband’s
office, but the practice of giving them titles (as in “Mrs. Secretary
Sherman,” “Mrs. General Sheridan,” “Mrs. Senator Thurman”), based upon
European ideas, was thought questionable.
The wives and daughters of cabinet officers usually
held receptions every Wednesday during “the season” (which, according to
Manners, was from January first to Lent and lasted from about two or three
o’clock until half-past five). “The season” for dinners lasted throughout
the session of Congress. The visiting hours in Washington in the late 19th
century were from two until half-past five, and many ladies preferred to
walk from home to home, instead of riding in a carriage, if the weather
permitted. Popular visiting costumes in the 1880s, according to Manners,
were “short suits.”
New Year’s was a special time in Victorian Washington.
There was a reception held at the White House, and women commonly reserved
“the first wear of their most elegant toilettes, suited to a morning
assemblage” for the occasion. The New Year reception was considered the
“most ceremonious known to the executive mansion,” and members of foreign
legations wore the court dresses of their respective countries—one of the
few occasions when they were worn in the U.S. (Other proper times to wear
court dress were at inaugurations, the celebration of a monarch’s
wedding-fete, or at funeral services held in honor of a king.) The wives of
foreign ministers wore visiting suits and hats, while the ladies of the
cabinet officers’ families, wore “reception toilets, without bonnets.”
According to Manners, “The handsomest uniforms worn at these receptions are
usually those of the Russian, British, Swedish and Austrian ministers, most
of whom carry three-cornered hats, with, perhaps, long, white ostrich
plumes.”
The wives of the cabinet members “have literally the
public at their doors,” according to Etiquette of Social Life in Washington,
“and no one woman can possibly have health, strength and endurance to enable
her to meet the heavy burden imposed...To return a thousand visits in person
is a hardship none can realize except those who have attempted the task.
And, moreover, it becomes an utterly senseless formality.” But this was not
the only hardship of social life in Washington, the author insisted.
Receptions given by cabinet ministers were notoriously crowded, yet held in
small places.
"It is rather
to be wondered at that dreadful accidents have not before now recalled
society to its senses in this matter. We have entered many a hospitable
door, and, looking upward, beheld such a surging mass of human beings on the
stairway that, dismayed at the idea of wedging ourselves into this fearful
crowd, we have sent our wraps back into the carriage from the door, rather
than attempt to gain the dressing-room; and only venturing far enough to pay
our respects to the beleaguered host and hostess, have made a speedy
exit...”
The length of time preceding a dinner invitation marked the degree of
formality that was to be expected at the event. An invitation sent out ten
days in advance was a state dinner. Sent out eight to five days prior, it
was considered a standard social dinner, and two or three days indicated a
small party. Ladies went to formal dinners “en grande toilette,” and
gentlemen in conventional suits of black, “with white ‘choker’—only,
messieurs, do not wear white gloves; take lavender or any delicate tint in
preference.” Army and Navy officers were allowed to appear in uniform, but
it was not required unless it was a state occasion. “Gloves must be worn
upon entrance to the drawing-room, but must always be taken off at the
moment one is seated at the table,” Manners insisted. “A recent
innovation...permits that the gloves shall not be replaced at all, after
their removal at the table. This, however, may be only one of those flitting
fashions, worn like the glove for the moment and then cast aside. Yet, do
not forget that during the serving of a dinner, the waiters in attendance
alone wear gloves! And even the waiter serves with greater elegance with the
thumb of the hand wrapped in a damask napkin.”
Yet, there were always murky areas of etiquette to be
found. For example, in the 19th century it was unquestionable that “very
aged persons should be treated with peculiar respect.” And, Manners
confided, “a friend of ours, the wife of a public man, was led into dinner
by the then President. The aged father of His Excellency being present, it
was made a question if the President should precede his own father? By right
as President, yes—by filial courtesy as son, no. Exceptions to ordinary
claims of social, or even official precedence, may also be allowed by
courtesy to strangers of distinction who make us passing visits, to
remarkable worth and merit, such as philanthropists and other benefactors of
mankind exhibit, or to extraordinary and acknowledged scientific, artistic
or literary excellence. Defense to these conditions illustrate the existence
of that advanced state of civilization it is our aim to acquire.”
So, true to form, Americans in the 19th century were
doing their best to live by the old saying: “While all things may be
allowed, all things are not advantageous!” Through pruning and experience,
the guidelines for approaching a new system of government were established.
Washington etiquette, like all forms of true etiquette, was not merely a
list of rules. Washington etiquette was slowly being formed to create a
standard that would make not only help elected officials live up to their
duties, but aid American citizens in trying to create a great country were
equality and respect were standards.
(c) Copyright 2003 by Kristina Harris. All Rights Reserved.
04/22/2006