A Smock and Trowsers, Spade and Hoe, Will Do For My Remaining Days

An Analysis of the Use of Farmer’s Smocks by Massachusetts Militia on April 19, 1775

Alexander R. Cain, Esq.

Since 2000, a growing number of reenactors have been relying upon farmer’s frocks as their primary outer clothing for the reenactments of the Battles of Lexington and Concord and the British Retreat to Boston. The purpose of this paper is to examine the appropriateness of this clothing item, especially in light of recent research.

A frock (often erroneously called a “smock”) was an oversized shirt made out of heavy linen that was worn by laborers, farmers, sailors and soldiers[1] to protect their clothing from dust, tears, rips and bad weather while in the field or at work (See figures 1 and 2). Frocks were quite common in Europe. However, sources do indicate that frocks were also in existence in New England on the eve of the American Revolution. To quote John Adams, “a frock and trowsers, spade and hoe, will do for my remaining days.”[2] Ebenezer Blancher had on “frock and trowsers, over a dark homespun jacket and breeches” when he fled from his employer in 1770.[3] Finally, period paintings also seem to support the existence of frocks in 18^th century New England. In Copley’s Watson and the Shark, a least one of the sailors is depicted wearing a linen frock. Likewise, in the 1770 mezzotint entitled A Scene Near Cox Heath, or The Enraged Farmer a pitchfork wielding farmer is depicted in a knee length frock, flop hat and farmer’s boots.

However, a frock should not be confused with a hunting shirt. According to John Trumball, “you express apprehension that the rifle dress of General Morgan may be mistaken for a waggoner’s frock, which he, perhaps wore when on expedition with General Braddock; there is no more resemblance between the two dresses, than between a cloak and a coat; the waggoner’s frock was intended as the present cartman’s to cover and protect their other clothes and is merely a long coarse shirt reaching below the knee . . . the dress of the riflemen . . . was an elegant loose dress . . . with fringes in various locations.”[4]

Given the documentation that frocks did exist in 18^th century Massachusetts, the next logical question is whether frocks were considered a fashionable clothing items worn to town meetings, religious gatherings and political protests or a piece of equipment limited in use to the field and shop. A review of probate inventories, period political cartoons and the actions of the Massachusetts Provincial Congress suggest that on the eve of the American Revolution frocks were little more than a coverall, were of little value to its owners and were not worn outside of the workplace.

Probate records comprise all materials related to a deceased’s estate. Documents often found in probate records include wills, administration accounts and estate inventories. Of these documents, estate inventories are often the most significant as it lists a person’s possessions at death and their rated or fair market value. Interestingly, estate inventories from 18^th Century Middlesex, Essex and Norfolk Counties reveals extensive information about male clothing and their worldly possessions, but yield no information about frocks. For example, an inventory of the estate of Samuel Jones describes in detail a wide array of personal items, including one hat, three coats, five breeches, over eight shirts and seven pairs of stockings.[5] However, a frock was noticeably absent from the inventory list. Similarly, a review of William Wilson estate details a wide array of personal items and belongings, including “one staffe….one gun”, but fails to reference a frock.[6] The inventory list of Job Brooks went to great length to identify his worldly belongings and included references to insignificant items such as a hat case and garters. Unfortunately, a frock was never identified amongst his personal clothing.[7]

Given that such minor items as staffs, hat cases and garters are listed in estate inventories, but frocks are not, it is likely 18^th century farmers did not view this item as part of a their personal clothing and belongings. However, frocks were not listed amongst farm equipment, livestock or household goods for Job Brooks and Samuel Jones of Concord and Joseph Bridge of Lexington either.[8] This suggests that frocks were merely seen as minor equipment or disposable pieces of fabric that covered other clothing for the purpose of keeping it clean. When frocks outlived their usefulness, they were discarded and replaced.[9]

Furthermore, period paintings and cartoons support the theory that smocks were unlikely to be worn beyond the field or shop. For example, Revere’s Bloody Massacre depicts the Boston populace clad in jackets and frock coats. A 1773 print of a tarring and feathering of a government official in Boston show a Boston mob clad in jackets and sailors coats. Absent are frocks. (See Figure 3) The cartoon Political Electricity depicts the Boston working class clad only in jackets. The 1775 Doolittle prints depict the Lexington militiamen in brown and blue coats. The 1774 print The Bostonians Paying the Excise Man or Tarring and Feathering shows five Bostonians assaulting a customs commissioner. The Bostonians are all wearing frock coats and sailor’s jackets (see Figure 4).

Finally, there is the decision by the Massachusetts Provincial Congress regarding the provincial soldiers surrounding Boston. According to Henry Cooke, Congress chose to clothe these troops in “bounty coats”. These coats were modeled after common laborer jackets and from a deliberate political standpoint represented the citizen soldier and America’s self sufficiency in the face of England’s colonial policies.[10] Interestingly, the Massachusetts Provincial Congress never considered clothing its soldiers uniformly in frocks.

Were frocks worn by Massachusetts militia on April 19, 1775? The answer is possibly. However, it is unlikely frocks were worn by militia men from Central Middlesex County, between Medford and Concord, due to the fact they were alarmed well before sunrise on April 19, 1775 . On the other hand, militia and minute companies located in Northern and Eastern Essex, Northwestern Middlesex, Worcester, Norfolk and Barnstable Counties all received the Lexington alarm between 5 AM and Noon. For these militiamen, they were already in the fields and shops when news of the British expedition towards Concord arrived. Many farmers and laborers immediately sprung into action, abandoned their plows and shops and raced to the appointed assembly site. As a result, many militia men from those counties may have fielded in smocks.

Given the above, reenactors portraying militia and minute companies that mobilized on April 19, 1775 prior to 5 AM should consider prohibiting or discouraging frocks from its ranks. However, for those organizations that portray militia or minute companies that alarmed after 5 AM, members could be permitted to wear frocks.

Figure 1: Mid 19^th Century frock of heavy gray linen with wide collar edged in double cross-stitch; front and back made alike with coarse smocking and three pearl buttons. Shoulder reinforcements and cuffs edged with double cross-stitch. Some smocking on upper part of sleeve. (Old Sturbridge Village)

Figure 2: Mid-19^th Century Smock (Old Sturbridge Village)

Figure 3

Figure 4