Dolly Hancock: Romance, Wedding Shoes & Revolution, August 1775

His choice was very natural, a granddaughter of the great patron and most revered friend of his father. Beauty, politeness, and every domestic virtue justified his predilection.

--John Adams on the marriage of Dorothy and John Hancock

Dolly Hancock's London-made wedding shoes. Courtesy, The Bostonian Society

Dorothy Quincy and John Hancock married August 28, 1775 at Fairfield, Connecticut, the Thaddeus Burr estate. Their wedding was held against the backdrop of the start of the American Revolution. According to family tradition and based on the style of the shoes, it is possible that she wore these delicate London-made, cream silk, low-heeled shoes. The cordwainers were Bragg & Luckin.. 

Their wedding occurred while John was on recess from 2nd Continental Congress in Philadelphia, where he oversaw the war effort as President. John's widowed aunt, Lydia Henchman Hancock, was a close friend of the Burr family and spent much time at their estate. Evidence suggests she played a major role in overseeing the relationship and encouraging the marriage.

For more on the wedding and the Burr Estate, see "Burr Mansion: A Love Story" by Cathryn Prince, November 2013 in http://allthingsliberty.com/2013/11/burr-mansion-love-story/

Silk Brocade Shoes Worn by a Bride Who Was Lame, 1764

According to Ipswich Museum files, these silk brocade shoes were worn at wedding of Miss Mary Wise of Chebacco (Ipswich, Essex County, Massachusetts). She married Nathaniel Farley in 1764 or early 1765 (their intention to marry was  dated 17 November 1764).  She was in her early twenties and 
this was her first marriage, while it was Nathaniel's second.

Even at first glance, it is clear the shoes are unusual in their composition. One shoe has been built up at the sole and heel to accommodate the difference in the length of the bride's legs--she was lame. Therefore, the height of one of the heels is 1.25" and the other is 2.75”. How was this accomplished? A special wood “platform”  was added to one shoe. Using the same quality materials which comprise the shoe textile, special care was taken to match the front portion of the "addition." It is neatly, even meticulously sewn. More study is needed of the wooden super structure, its method of construction and attachment, and any interior details. The style, quality of material and work would indicate a London manufacture, special order, or an especially highly skilled British American cordwainer.

Rather than hide her "infirmity" by wearing less attractive, but practical, heavy leather shoes built up on the inside or outside, Mary appears to have made the decision to celebrate her wedding in the elegant style of the times. The silk of her brocade shoes would have caught glints of light as she walked, as would the glittering buckles. Her shoes were not meant to be hidden. She may also have been bowing to familial wishes, but I like to think that she expressed her intentionality through a conscious decision. Then as now, most brides want to look their best on their wedding day.

Mary was born in Chebacco in 1741 and died in Ipswich in 1792.  Her first child was a son named Daniel, born 26 September 1765.  Her husband Nathaniel Farley had a son named Nathaniel by his first wife Elizabeth Cogswell. The shoes were passed down through the family and are now in the care of the Ipswich Museum. They are currently on view (2015) in the exhibition "Cosmopolitan Consumption: New England Shoe Stories, 1750-1850" at the Portsmouth Athenaeum (www.PortsmouthAthenaeum.org.)

Ph.D. candidate Nicole Belolan is examining this topic via her dissertation: “Navigating the World: The Material Culture of Physical Mobility Impairment in the Early American North, 1700-1861,” is about material culture and disability in early America. If you have information to share, she may be reached at http://nicolebelolan.org

Remade Brocade: From Wedding Dress to Wedding Shoes

Textiles in the 17th and 18th century held their value long after a given style had ceased to be popular. Over and over, we find examples of brocades, damasks, woolens and so on, cut down and made into smaller items: a child's dress made from a mother's gown; a woman's bodice or jumps fashioned from a man's coat or an earlier a dress; a quilted petticoat transformed to bedspread, and textiles to shoes, needle cases and any number of smaller belongings. In this context, the use of a silk brocade from a 1739 wedding dress being refashioned for wedding shoes in 1773 is certainly consistent. Further, weddings are frequently conservative events, naturally imbued with traditions shared across generations.

When the 21 year-old bride, Deborah Thaxter (1752-1832) married Capt. James Todd (1751-1831), on 18 November, 1773, her mother had died few years earlier, in 1769. According to the Maine Historical Society (For more:), the young bride wore these silk brocade shoes, made from the fabric of her mother's wedding dress. (Her mother, Deborah [Lincoln] Thaxter, was married on 29 November 1739.) The family had its roots in the founding of Hingham, Massachusetts.

The survival of these shoes, created using a “repurposed” silk most likely held personal significance and meanings not included in the current family record. While the mother's circa 1730s silk brocade features rosy peach colored floral motif at the toes and bold plant forms associated with Baroque textiles, the form of the shoe is in keeping with the changes found in the later 18^th century: longer shoe with a pointed toe and much smaller and narrower heel. The decision to employ an approximately 40 year-old textile was clearly of the bride's choosing. Memory of her mother was carried literally and figuratively into her new life via her new/old shoes.

The early years of Deborah's married life were punctuated by considerable uncertainty. Her husband, Captain Todd, was captured by the British while en route from Havana to Boston shortly after their marriage. The couple's first child was born 4 May 1774 and their next child, not until 1788. Capt. Todd was held prisoner for nearly nine years. Released in June 1784, he remained a sea captain until 1804.

As noted by the Maine Historical Society, the couple's youngest son, James, apprenticed as a gilder and looking-glass maker in Boston, then moved to Portland in 1820, where he operated the Portland Looking Glass Manufactory, served as president of the Maine Charitable Mechanic Association, and was active in politics.

"Welcome, little stranger..though the port is block't up 1774" - Mary Rand's Pincushion

It was Thursday, June 3rd, 1773, when Mary Simpkins married Robert Rand in Boston. Mary’s father, William (1704-1780), was a well-known jeweler and silversmith. Rand was a Boston merchant, from an established family. Despite the fact that the Boston Tea Party was a mere six months away and her husband took part in militia activity in Bedford, Mary (b. 1754 ?) wore wedding shoes from London. She was most likely quite pleased with her stylish cream-colored silk shoes, brocaded with pink and green flowers. The label reveals that they were made by the cordwainers “Jno. Hose & Son. At the Rose in Cheapside near Milk Street. London.”  Clearly a treasured family heirloom, they were passed down to her daughter and eventually, found their way to the collections of the Connecticut Historical Society. 

John Hose, c. 1773

Connecticut Historical Society, Object Number: 1953.16.0a,b

Mary Simpkins Rand Wedding Shoes

http://emuseum.chs.org:8080/emuseum/

About a year after their marriage, Mary and Robert welcomed their first born--a daughter. The child did not survive and was buried at the Granary Burying Ground, according to family sources. 

http://www.ma-roots.org/books/hearth/chapter23.html
Rand Family Collections

A poignant memento survives from this troubled period in Mary's life. The soon-to-be or new mother made a pincushion for her firstborn; it bore the inscription: "Welcome, little stranger, to Boston, though the port is block't up 1774." It was a token to her new role as mother, but also to the tumult of revolutionary politics.  Enraged over the Boston Tea Party, Parliament had passed the Boston Port Act in March, and the Royal Navy had formed a blockade around the port of Boston.  Patriot families fled the city, as Boston’s population fell from some 15,000 to fewer than 3,000.  Mary was one of those who fled the besieged city. While Robert fought against the British, serving as sergeant of the Bedford minutemen at Concord in April 1775, Mary went to Chelmsford, Massachusetts. She did not return to Boston until sometime in 1777, after Washington’s artillery forced the British forces to move on to New York.

In her flight to Chelmsford, Mary had to cross British checkpoints, where suspicious British soldiers examined the few personal items that frightened Bostonians could pack.  For the grieving mother, few items were more precious than the modest keepsake that held the memory of her lost child. The image posted here is from family collections.

(http://www.ma-roots.org/books/hearth/chapter23.html)

Today, even after a period of over two centuries, we can relate to Mary’s feelings of both joy and sadness, represented by these treasured family artifacts.