Way Too Trivial Trivia on 1860s Trousers Quiz

Answer: virtually none, all were ankle length

Little boys got to wear shorts, but grown men were pretty well limited to ankle-length trousers, if they wanted to stay in fashion. Knee breeches of colonial days had finally disappeared, and capri length just wasn't a thing. I'm sure I will see or someone will point out a period photo or painting of an old man in knee breeches or an immigrant in native clothing wearing something short now that I've said that, but they'd still be a rare exception. And even as I type, I thought of one: Zouave chasseur trousers.

But we won't go there. Trousers were ankle length.

Answer: a strap and buckle in back should have kept them up even without suspenders

One sees images of men without suspenders or belt and one wonders: how did they do that? Ideally, trousers were made to fit, though they could be bought ready-made, but if they fitted fairly well, the final adjustment could be done with a buckled cinch or strap in the center back a couple inches below the waistline.

It would make a fit snug enough to keep the trousers up. The buckle might be the kind with a pair of prongs that jabbed anywhere in the fabric, rather than a belt buckle with corresponding eyelet holes, but anything would do.

The oldest surviving pair of Levi's, from 1879, has this cinch or strap on back.

Answer: suspender buttons were very common, belt loops almost unknown

Suspender buttons were a common fixture on trousers, either inside or outside the waistband, and either in pairs, or single. You don't realize how many options there are, until you have to match suspender style and buttoning preference. Remember, they needed unbuttoned each trip to the privy for a #2, or else the coat and vest needed unbuttoned and removed. Trivia? No way.

These things mattered! Belt loops weren't really necessary. A person who wanted to wear a belt could do so without loops. The trousers were fairly high waisted, so the top just lopped over the belt and stayed in place -- speaking from experience. Belt loops were very rare, the idea being that trousers made for vigorous physical activity might need loops but others didn't. Boxers, firemen, tumblers, sailors in the rigging are some examples of men whose trousers might contain loops, but not necessarily even then.

The original 1879 Levi trousers that were discovered, surely produced for hard-working squatting miners, had suspender buttons only, no loops.

Answer: side pockets and a watch pocket were common; back pockets were almost unknown

Back pockets (hip pockets) were virtually unknown, though of course one can find exceptions. Side pockets built into the side seam or the waistband seam, with or without buttons, were common. A discrete little watchpocket within a side pocket or concealed in the waistband was also common. Trousers without any pockets at all were rare.

Answer: trouser legs and sleeves were tighter in the 1840s, gradually loosening in the 1860s

Clothes in general underwent a loosening period from the 1840s to the 1860s. Coat sleeves were broader especially at the elbow. Women's bodice sleeves widened too, sometimes worn quite full and open. The narrow legs on trousers widened, and everything together gave a less constricted, more relaxed look. Why? So what? Well, I've got to agree, with John Brown storming a federal arsenal, South Carolina threatening secession, a congressman attacking a senator in the Capitol building... the width of trouser legs surely meets the definition of something completely trivial for people to worry about. And yet they did. "In my young days, a tight leg was a pretty accurate sign of a gentleman; in your young days, the loose, or peg-top leg, is fashionable," wrote a woman in the 1860 London magazine, "The Welcome Guest." With Crimea just over, an opium war, the Trent affair, and concerns about neutrality in the US war, seems Brits would be too busy for trouser widths too.

Answer: button fly was most common, occasional fall front

A button fly was most common. It consisted of buttons which fastened into a layer of fabric with buttonholes. Over that, a layer of fashion fabric automatically concealed the buttons, so when just looking at the trousers, no buttons were visible. Hooks and eyes were never (don't say never, someone surely did--naw, I'll say it)... Hooks and eyes were never used, nor were laces.

A fall front, which had been common for decades, still lingered rarely, especially for older and overweight men. It consisted of a flap held up by buttons on the top, which could be unbuttoned to drop it down.

The buttons were in plain view, but they generally disappeared under the vest and weren't noticeable when fully dressed.

Answer: none was typical, could be anything from waistband only, to full lining

Winter trousers might have a full wool lining for warmth, while lightweight summer trousers might have just a light cotton lining on the waistband or upper waist area. There's usually something that one can say is typical in fashion, but this case is difficult. I'd just say that a full lining wasn't common, because it added bulk, but beyond that, there were many choices.

Answer: lightweight cotton ankle-length drawers

A one-piece union suit was rare -- Dr. Jaeger's health invention wouldn't come till the 1880s -- but ankle-length drawers were very common. They were typically made of lightweight white cotton, or perhaps flannel in winter. They tied at the ankle so they wouldn't ride up as you pulled other clothes over them. Fancy ones could be silk, and machine knitting was just beginning to make knitted possible.

They are one reason that lined trousers weren't as important -- you already had a full layer over your legs. Older men might follow the style of their youth and wear no drawers, but the idea then was to wear a long shirttail to protect your trousers.

Answer: broadcloth was a typical dress fabric, except maybe in intense heat; jeans or coarse fabric indicated working class or lower

The typical black trousers to go with a businessman's suit were broadcloth, a finely woven wool. In hot summer weather, he might substitute thin cotton, maybe in a checked pattern. Silk was virtually unknown. Other fabrics such as linen, heavier cotton, corduroy, coarser wool, worked down the line toward lower class laborer's fabrics, or casual clothes for wealthy men who were out hunting, gardening or pursuing other hobbies. Jeans (pronounced janes) was a fabric of cotton warp and wool weft, used by the lowest laborers and also provided to the Confederate army.

It upset the soldiers that they weren't dressed any better than slaves. Northern soldiers were typically dressed in light blue wool kersey trousers.

Answer: under riding habits, with bathing or gymnastics costumes and with Bloomer costumes

Trousers hardly showed under the long skirt of a riding habit, and in fact they made a woman more "respectable", if the wind or the horse should raise her skirt and expose her leg. The trousers were generally dark. Bathing costumes were accepted at many beaches along the east coast, and even some places elsewhere.

The costume usually had a mid-length skirt with ankle-length trousers underneath, showing quite a bit of a woman's legs as she bathed, in many colors. The Bloomer costume, popular in the 1850s, was fading as a women's rights statement and was drifting into certain niches where it actually made sense, roughing it in the woods, heading out on the western trails, visitng a cavern, doing gymnastics. Like the bathing costume, it consisted of a typical dress with the skirt ending a little below knee level, and trousers worn under the skirt.

This avoided the fullest part of the skirt, and hoops were generally not worn either, so the legs and feet were unencumbered, but the resemblance to a normal dress made for less of a shock. Still, it was a long way from a woman just putting on a man's trousers. Only women who chose to pass for men could get away with that in the 1860s, plus a few hopeless eccentrics who were tolerated, like Dr. Mary Walker.