Images:Source: “Washington’s Reception at the White House, 1776.” Library of Congress, US Congress, http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2006677658. Accessed 20 Apr. 2017.

Source: Allmendinger, Carrie. “Nathan Bergelson: SUNY New Paltz Honors student emailing about object to study.” Received by Nathan Bergelson, 10 April 2017.

Caption:

To be done when I have all of my information

Physical Description:

The print is a lithograph, sized 33.5 inches by 27.5 inches. It depicts the historically impossible scene of President George Washington greeting guests in an ornate ballroom of one of the US’s most prestigious buildings, the White House, with his wife Martha standing by his side. The title is printed in serifed block letters reminiscent of fonts printed on contemporary US currency, with line weights varying to give the illusion of embossing. Below the title, written in delicate calligraphy is a dedication to the American people, and above in very fine print is essentially written recognition of an 1867 copyright for the print to Kelly. A light gray, linen matte and wooden frame with subtly gilded edges display it simply and cleanly, keeping with the Colonial Revival aesthetic popular at the time of its creation.

• Add more specific, not immediately apparent details once I’ve seen print in person

Provenance:

This print was conceived by a lithographer named George Spohni and then published by Thomas Kelly in downtown Manhattan in 1867. Since the print is in the style that was popular in the late nineteenth century, what seems likely is that a collector purchased it from Kelly, and that it later made its way upstate where it decorated a home in the Colonial Revival style. A descendant of that original homeowner may have decided to give it to Historical Huguenot Street (HHS) once Colonial Revivalism fell out of favor in the mid-twentieth century. This is admittedly speculation, however, because there exist no records regarding HHS’s acquisition of the print.

Narrative:

In the late nineteenth century, Americans became enamored with the Colonial Revival aesthetic, which celebrated historical figures and events in the US’s past. Sometimes, artists took this idealization further by fabricating events and placing these figures in them, as is the case in Washington’s Reception.

• Give brief overview of the little bit of info found on T. Kelly and G. Spohni?
• Look into books on American printing in this era that were recommended by Library of Congress curator
  • • Look into possibility that the print is a political cartoon
• Explain how the print would have fit into a room styled in the Colonial Revival aesthetic, using the current interpretation of the Formal Parlor in the Deyo House as model

References:

Allmendinger, Carrie. “Nathan Bergelson: SUNY New Paltz Honors student emailing about object to study.” Received by Nathan Bergelson, 10 April 2017.

Haley, Jacquetta. “East Parlor.” Furnishings Plan: Deyo House, Historical Huguenot Street, New Paltz, NY, 2001, pp. 94–102.

John G. Waite Associates, Architects PLLC. “Room 111 (Music Room).” Deyo House: Historic Structure Report, Historical Huguenot Street, New Paltz, NY, 1997, pp. 54–56.

Kennedy, Martha. “Library Question – Answer [Question #12435925].” Received by Nathan Bergelson, 19 Apr. 2017.

Spohni, George. Washington’s Reception at the White House, 1776. Lithograph. Historic Huguenot Street, New Paltz, NY, 1867.

Trainor, Ashley. “Nathan Bergelson: Dimensions of and materials used in ‘Washington’s Reception’ print.” Received by Nathan Bergelson, 20 April 2017.

“Washington’s Reception at the White House, 1776.” Library of Congress, US Congress, http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2006677658. Accessed 20 Apr. 2017.

The object I chose to research and analyze for our Historic Huguenot project is a quilt made by Sarah M Lefevre (11/12/1825 – 3/4/1902). Sarah was married to Joseph Hasbrouck, a notable figure of the time in New Paltz.

Object description: The quilt has a simple and cohesive pattern, laid out horizontally and vertically, consisting of a white background with pink and green design. These are feathered stars alternating with diagonally crossing oak leaf pieces making up the pattern that spans the entirety of the quilt. In the center of each feathered star there is also an additional 6-pointed star applique. The quilt’s backing is is made of white muslin, white seams, and a cotton backing. The quilt’s front is made of cotton; pink, green, and beige. The border surrounding the quilt is single, with butted corners. On the very end of the front “Sarah M Lefevre 1847” is appliqued in pink. All hand sewn and stitched.

After looking into the unique history of quilting, and how the art played an important role in the lives of 19th Century people, I grew interested in the industries surrounding quilting and textiles, specifically regarding how different textiles were valued and used over others. I researched further into Sarah’s quilt and discovered that many of the colors she used were actually considered very popular at the time, specifically the greens. I also discovered that the pink fabrics she used were at one time originally red, specifically “turkey reds”, and were part of a very complex system of old/new world economics.

The Fascinating History of Turkey Red

“Turkey red” was a very distinguished and vibrant color of red that was very popular in Britain during the 18th and 19th Centuries. The color was used in many different textiles to add vibrancy and regalness to designs, and proliferated quickly through the textile industry, especially in Scotland. Popularized originally as a colour-fast red dye that could withstand frequent washing and sunlight, Turkey Red was a long-standing ambition of dyers in eighteenth-century Britain. Coined “Turkey Red” because it originated from the Levant region of the Middle East (the Red Sea). The color’s original dying process, which was time-consuming and expensive, was based on the extraction of alizarin from the madder root, which was then fixed to fibre using oil and alum, as well as a number of other ingredients such as sheep excrement, bull blood, and urine. Because of its high-quality, in conjunction with its arduous and time-consuming processing, the color became extremely valuable and sought after, and subsequently caused a competitive and aggressive industry to emerge, all surrounding one simple shade of red.

According to the National Museum of Scotland, from their exhibition “Turkey Red: A Study in Scarlet”, The Turkey red dyeing and printing industry in Scotland was concentrated in the Vale of Leven, Dunbartonshire, and was brought to Scotland in 1785 by a Frenchman named Pierre Jacques Papillon. Papillon was hired by David Dale and George Macintosh, both prominent businessmen of Glasgow, and worked together with other manufacturers who saw the potential profitability of Turkey red. The color soon popularized, and a was printed for fabrics made for clothing and furnishings and, unlike tartan, another textile which was popular among Scots, many of the Turkey red fabrics were intended for foreign markets such as India, China, the West Indies, and North America. The Scottish firms at the forefront of the industry went to great lengths in ensuring their designs would be catered to foreign markets. They wrote regularly to agents in different countries and stuck to designs they knew were popular. For example, the “Peacock” was a pattern or motif made of Turkey Red which was popular throughout the nineteenth century and was often produced for saris and shawls for the Indian market.

As markets became more and more competitive, synthetic versions of Turkey Red began emerging to keep up with high demand; and all for lower prices. However, instead of remaining bright and vibrant over time as the Turkey Red was widely known for, these synthetic versions would turn a brown/pink color as they would age. This brown/pink is what we can see in the Sarah Lefevre Quilt, and delineates the demand and prestige of Turkey Red in the 19thy Century, as a sign of wealth and indulgence. Even though at that time, many of the people who must have seen Sarah’s quilt must have thought the Turkey Red was real. But now that some time has past, and the color has faded, we can tell now that it was fake.
Course Connection

Relating back to our class and much of what I have written about thus far regarding my own textiles and Oxford shirts; image, prestige, and ostentation played a large role in the popularization and proliferation of Turkey Red. As I have written previously about my own predilections to well known brands and quality textiles, Turkey Red found itself in the hands of many people because of its reputation, rarity, and prestige. Sarah Lefevre and other wealthy women of her time knew this, and incorporated it into their quilting patterns. I find it interesting to think about how Sarah was not immune to our seemingly 21st Century craze of branded goods, elucidating a connecting between our time and hers.

Basket weaving was one of the most common practices throughout early human civilization. Instead of Glad tupperware containers, people had baskets. They held everything from foods, to clothing, to seeds and crops, and were also used to transport goods. The item I have chosen is an enormous basket. It could probably fit a relatively large toddler inside of it. It is rounded, composed of rawhide, reed, and is bound with straw. It is also tightly woven, with two small loops of either side, possibly to string some kind of strap through them. It now resides in the Jean Hasbrouck house, sitting flush against the wall of Joshiah Hasbrouck’s shop as part of the current interpretation of the room.

The toddler sized basket.  Photo courtesy of Ashley Trainor.

The family lore attached to this basket claims that it arrived in America with Louis DuBois in the 17th century, when the Huguenots originally fled religious persecution. In actuality, it is said to most likely be a 19th century basket. This is a period of 200 years that could separate fact from fiction. From the beginning, I knew I would have to do some mythbusting. After researching general material on Artstor, I’ve found that there are many more results for “19th century basket” than “17th century basket.” The first search also yields many similar looking artifacts. Woven baskets, some of them enormous. Right off the bat, this makes me believe that the family lore is simply lore indeed. But, to add only more confusion, the basket was also mislabeled as a clothing basket upon its donation by Evelyn DuBois McLaury. The donation date is prior to 1990, however there is no exact date.

Being made of rawhide, this indicates that it is made of animal skin. If it was made locally, it most likely would have been cow or sheep skin. On a nearby farm called Locust Lawn, located in Gardiner, crops grown included rye, oats, corn, wheat, and apples. Animals included milk cows, chickens, beef cattle, and pigs, all of which were used completely to their full potential.

Also while on my general Artstor search, I found many sketches of cotton pickers. Pictured were slaves carrying huge baskets full of cotton. My immediate thought is that the basket was used for gathering crops. Since it is so large in size and so tightly woven it would make sense that it was used for storing freshly picked crops. If I were to stick to the 19th century track, this would be the most plausible assumption.

Lithograph on the wall in the office of the Deyo House

This is a lithograph entitled “Lincoln and His Family”, which currently resides in the office of the Deyo House. It was made in 1866 by William Sartain and engraved from a painting of the same name by S.B Waugh. It shows Abraham Lincoln sitting at a table with his one arm around his youngest son, Thomas, and his other arm resting on the table. Thomas is sitting next to Lincoln with one leg and arm pushed back and his opposite leg lunged forward and other arm relaxed on his fathers leg. His oldest son, Robert is standing behind the table with his arm resting on an empty chair and other arm resting at his waist. Mary Lincoln, his wife, is sitting to the left of Lincoln and Thomas. Her right elbow is resting on the table and her hands are in her lap. They are all in elegant clothing; Lincoln in a suit, the boys in a nice shirt and pants, and Mary in a large gown. On the left wall, light is coming in through a window, which through the Capitol Dome can be seen. Next to the window is a bust of George Washington. On the center back wall is a portrait of William, Abraham and Mary’s son who died from Typhoid Fever during Abraham’s first term as president. On the table rests an elegant looking table cloth and on top of it sits a vase of roses, magnolias, sweet clematis, and Virginia creeper(Lincoln Collection). This current print has been shifted in its frame and hides the engraving,  “Lincoln and His Family” on the bottom.

Full image where the engraving “Lincoln and His Family” can be seen

This print is particularly interesting since it’s not based off any actual photo of the Lincoln family. There has never been a photo of the entire Lincoln family together. Mrs. Lincoln had taken a group photo with both William and Thomas and Lincoln has only had a picture with Thomas. After Lincoln’s death in 1865, many artists wanted to show they’re grievances by painting pictures of him and his family, yet since there was no full family photo, they had to combine multiple photos to form one. By doing this, they somewhat alter history, making Lincoln seem more like a family man than he really was. But romanticizing the “great” presidents like this wasn’t uncommon during the colonial revival period when this was made. They also idealized his looks; Lincoln was a bit rough around the edges looking and often was self-deprecating about his appearance. Yet after his death, painters created a more flattering image than reality, bringing more color into his skin and smoothing his complexion. (Holzer)

There is also a lot of symbolism in this print that can go easily unnoticed. The George Washington bust is one that connects very well to the historical  Colonial Revival time. The bust is meant to show the connection between the “father” of our country and “savior” of our country.  What is also interesting is that Sartain is known for another piece called “Washington and His family” which is seen as a companion piece to “Lincoln and His Family”.

Sartain’s “Washington and His Family”

The flowers on the table are also an important symbol. The roses in the bunch are meant to represent the north while the magnolias, sweet clematis, and Virginia creepers are flowers that grow in abundance in the south. The vase is meant to be the union of these flowers, therefore stating there should be peace between north and south.

Since “Lincoln and His Family” is a print, many have been produced but it appears to be the most popular of the Lincoln family prints made during the time. There isn’t much record on the current value of each lithograph either. Yet Saunders in American Faces: A Cultural History of Portraiture and Identity, states that at the time made, it was worth $7.25 for a print and $20 for an artist proof.

The print’s connection to New Paltz is practically unknown since there was a lot of copies of “Lincoln and His Family” made and there is no known donor of this specific print. There has been a print of “Lincoln and His Family” that was donated to a organization in Osage. The family who donated it has said that it has been passed down in their family for generations. I think it’s not a stretch to say it could be a similar situation to this particular print. To own this kind of print, one must have had considerable amount of money. One could hypothesize that this specific print was handed down through generations of the Deyo family (if it’s placement in the house is historically accurate), since they were a wealthy family.

This ladder back chair, owned by Pierre Deyo in his lifetime and by the Deyo family until 1926, is thought to have been built between 1650 and 1700, making it older than the United States. Picture credit: Ashley Trainor

This is a heavy, large wooden chair in the ladder back style. The style was popular in the Middle Ages all the way through the eighteenth century. It has a tall back with four slats. It has a seat of rush, a common plant used in weaving, painted black. The seat is caving inwards, and is fraying towards the front of the seat. The right leg has some scratches on its finial. It is made of a pale wood, such as oak or pine, with a shellac finish.

Picture credit: Ashley Trainor. Used with permission.

The chair’s craft is derived of the area. The piece would have been made out of wood that could be obtained easily and locally; pine, or oak, or perhaps maple. Additionally, it would most likely have been finished with linseed oil, which was the custom of the time, as well as shellac (which could be made with tree resin and alcohol). Tar could also be used, but this was mostly used for shipbuilding, and would not likely be used for crafting furniture.

This style reveals an important aspect of New Paltz life at this time: their Protestant religion. Protestants tended to favor simpler, less ornate pieces which were more functional than beautiful. Later on, the Deyos and other important families of New Paltz would obtain the more ostentatious and beautiful furniture of the Victorian era, but the desirability of the furniture shows that there is an enduring charm to this aesthetic.  Simple objects and simple homes speak to the fast held beliefs of these people—witnessed by the plain decoration of the rebuilt French Reform Church. It was less about beauty, more about God and community.

Pierre Deyo, one of the original patentees of New Paltz, was the first owner of this piece.  It is thought to have been built between 1650 and 1700. He most likely would have bought it from a local craftsperson. When Pierre died in 1708, his land and estate was split between his four sons, Abraham, Christian, Pierre, and Hendricus. This item was considered part of the Deyo household, included within Deyo’s grandson Peter’s will in 1791. The chair remained in the Deyo family up until it was purchased from the Andrew LeFevere Deyo estate shortly after his death in 1926.

The shellac on the chair shows that the craftsperson wanted to ensure that the natural beauty of the wood to come through. Shellac does have a shelf life (albeit of months or years), and requires skill to apply, so the reader can infer that Deyo was not the craftsperson, but rather some other local woodworker.

This piece would most likely have sat by the fireplace in one of the few rooms of the Deyo home. After a long day of work, it would have been a comfortable place to return to and to unwind. Possibly, it could have been sat or worked on by a slave—Pierre owned at least one, as evidenced by a receipt from 1694. A piece like this was quietly handed down from family member to family member, until it finally found its way back to Huguenot Street.