Puitan dress code, many family descendants appeared in Court

Question

Not a question just an observation--As I was researching many family sources, I ran across many court cases that had to do with the attire.

The General Court again revisited the Puritan dress code in 1651. By then it softened its attitude toward silver and gold thread — at least for the rich and powerful. For others, not so much.

The Plymouth General Court declared its ‘utter detestation and dislike’ that men or women of ‘mean condition, educations and callings should take upon them the garb of gentlemen.’  The Court forbade the poorer folk to wear gold and silver lace, buttons or points at their knees. Ordinary men couldn’t walk in great boots, and women of the same rank couldn’t wear silk or tiffany hoods or scarves.

Persons ‘of greater estate or more liberal education,’ on the other hand, had much greater freedom of dress.  You could wear silk hoods and scarves, silver and gold lace and bright buttons if you had the rank of magistrate, military officer, high official or wealthy person with more than £200. Others who wore these items would be fined.

And the punishments weren’t just confined to Plymouth. Throughout Massachusetts and Connecticut, court records show punishments handed out for overdress.

http://www.newenglandhistoricalsociety.com/puritan-dress-code-and-outrage-slashed-sleeves/

Answer 1

Since there were "many court cases," I would guess that the people of "mean condition" did not agree with or like this law.  It is interesting that they did not fine the wealthy, who could afford to pay the fine, but instead fined the poor for the same activity.

Comments

It was weird seeing women getting fines for wearing silk dresses or scarves. Some  wealthy were fined and had to prove in court that they were of wealth to not have to pay the fine.

Answer 2

As someone who is interested in the history of clothing and fashion, I appreciated reading this.  Thanks for sending it in!

Answer 3

Sumptuary laws i.e laws that restricted the use of luxury goods and clothing  to those of higher social class were not new. The Greeks and Romans had them. An English law of 1363  (act of apparell) stated what each class could eat and drink. Similar laws continued  and were even introduced  in England during the reign of Elizabeth I. They were also in effect in France and elsewhere in Europe into the 17th C. So it's not particularly to do with puritan ethics. Perhaps more to do with  attempting to continue to  enforce the  social hierachy in the New World see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumptuary_law