On Jan 23, 2007, at 12:23 PM, Martha Katz-Hyman wrote:

> Quilting as a sewing technique to stitch together layers of cloth and
> padding did exist in the 18th century, and there are many surviving
> bedcoverings that are constructed in this way, with very decorative
> stitching.  There are also surviving 18th century bedcoverings that are
> constructed from cloth with appliques applied to the top layer, and 
> which
> are then sewn to a backing, with some kind of padding between the two
> layers, with quilting stitches.  In all probability, enslaved women 
> sewed
> these kinds of bedcoverings in the 18th century. Patchwork quilting 
> begins
> to be found towards the end of the 18th century, with its fullest
> development in the 19th century, and "crazy quilts" appear towards the 
> end
> of the 19th century.
>
> This is my general understanding of the history of this technique.  
> Since I
> am not a textile historian, I would welcome corrections and 
> clarifications
> from any textile historians on the list.

This is my understanding as well.  It's important to note, though, that 
the antique quilts we now treasure--with their iconic piecework (a more 
accurate term than "patchwork") tops--were never the most common type 
of quilt.  Pride of craftsmanship dictated that they be made by hand, 
even after the advent of the sewing machine, and they required a great 
deal of time and skill (which is why they were treasured in the 
nineteenth century also, and have sometimes been preserved).  "Crazy 
quilts," a middle-class fad of the late nineteenth century, were 
similarly special decorative (as well as useful) objects.

Far more common in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were 
the utilitarian "tacked" or "tied" quilts, often made of recycled or 
remnant cloth (feedsacks were used in the twentieth century), usually 
lacking any design in the piecing of components (if pieced, in which 
case they were sometimes called "strip" or "string" quilts) and quilted 
quickly with a series of single knotted stitches.   Not pretty, but 
serving the fundamental purpose of a speedily crafted and economical 
object that could provide warmth.  (See 
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/qlthtml/qltgloss.html for more explanation 
of terms.)

All of which adds to the overwhelming weight of evidence against the 
likelihood that there was an Underground Railroad "quilt code" 
involving the rarer and far more time-consuming piecework-pattern 
quilts.

Remember, too, that the practice of "quilting bees" to complete these 
fancier coverings by stitching their layers together did take place, 
though not as often as we might like to think and less frequently in 
some parts of the country than in others.   So consider: either making 
a "coded" quilt was a one-person job, requiring many months for 
completion; or it required help from family, friends, and neighbors for 
completion in a somewhat shorter time--in which case the designer/maker 
would surely have been questioned about her piecework design choices, 
if they were out of the ordinary (as in a "code"); and if they weren't 
out of the ordinary, how would the fugitive know that a message was 
intended?

Not to mention the fact that a carefully made piecework quilt left 
hanging outdoors longer than was necessary to dry it on the rare 
occasions when it was washed would immediately have excited local 
curiosity, gossip, and disapproval--precisely the sort of attention 
someone involved in assisting escaping fugitives would not have wanted.

As for slaves themselves making and displaying such quilts: is there 
any evidence at all of slaves owning the fancy quilts they undoubtedly 
made for slaveholders?  And if not, is it remotely reasonable to 
conclude that they could have been used as communicative devices 
without the knowledge and consent of the mistress of the 
farm/plantation?

The "quilt code" story simply falls apart under sustained scrutiny.  
The really interesting question, as others have noted, is why this 
story has so quickly assumed the status of sacred truth in our schools 
and among large swaths of the general public in our own time--and why 
its universal condemnation by responsible scholarly specialists has 
been ignored or dismissed.  Now, there's a terrific American Studies 
dissertation waiting to be written!

Apart from the question of spurious codes, a fairly recent bibliography 
of useful works on quiltmaking is at 
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/qlthtml/qltbib.html.  I'd welcome an update 
from someone more recently versed in the literature than I, but some 
years ago I found Quilts in America, by Patsy and Myron Orlofsky 
(Library of Congress call number NK9112 .O74 1992), to be the best 
possible general introduction to the subject.  There's been a ton of 
research since their book was first published, but I don't know if 
there's been another that is as comprehensive and scrupulous.

--Jurretta J. Heckscher

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html