University of Virginia Library

XXV. The Uniform Law

It would be presumed that the Board of Visitors, with
so many grave causes for irritation and rebellion already
rankling in the students' breasts, would have been slow
to adopt any new ordinance that was quite certain to
increase the existing discontent. Now, a uniform law
was as nicely calculated as the rule requiring early rising
to create perpetual friction with the Faculty, for it too
could only be enforced by espionage, and by an espionage
that would be frequently constrained to descend to a
pettiness that was as exasperating as it was undignified.
This law was in operation as early as 1827. The proctor,
Brockenbrough, once spoke of it as "the favorite
measure" of the Visitors. Why was it of such preeminent
importance in their view? As we have previously
stated, the University, during these formative
years, was looked upon by many persons with a censorious
eye as the institution of the wealthy alone,[30] and this
popular impression was to be particularly deprecated in
its case, since it had to rely upon the General Assembly
principally for its support. The accusation seemed to be

confirmed by the spirit of profusion which pervaded
Southern life at that time, and which, naturally enough,
was reflected in the behaviour of young men turned practically
at large, before they were of age, upon the free
arena of the University.

The reasons for the passage of the ordinance were set
forth succinctly in a circular issued in 1828,—they were
the enforcement of economical habits among the students,
the prevention of invidious distinctions, and the discouragement
of frivolous tastes. The law was primarily a
fulmination against extravagance in dress, and its general
purpose was to preserve the University's reputation for
sobriety, on which its ability to retain popular favor depended;
and also to maintain, as far as feasible, an equality
of expenditure among the young men, so that those
of small means would not be made to feel the disparity in
fortune. The ordinance had in view, not only the cultivation
of the public good-will, but also an increase in the
attendance, for the lower the general expenses could be
cut down, the more students would be led to matriculate.

It is possible that the idea lurked furtively in the minds
of the Visitors that the University of Virginia, like all its
great prototypes, should have an academic costume, but
that the adoption of the English cap and gown would
appear imitative, if not pretentious, in a Republican seat
of learning. In their judgment, the uniform agreed
upon accomplished the same sentimental and ornamental
purpose, accompanied by an equal, if not higher, degree
of practical utility in the spirit of economy which it would
foster. Madison did not assent to this view. He declared
that the peculiar organization of the University
made such a law inconvenient. "I am of the opinion,"
he said, "that a cheap black gown, such as is used in other
like institutions, would answer all purposes better."

It was thought that the law would strengthen the hand
of discipline, but time failed to prove that this forecasting
was correct. The expectation probably had its origin
in the stern associations of a uniform. The Faculty,
as a body, showed a conscientious determination to enforce
the law; but it is questionable whether they considered
it a wise one, apart from those public aspects
which had led the Board to adopt it. It was only natural
that they should look at it chiefly in its practical
working within the University; and as that working only
caused inconvenience, annoyance, and resentment, their
judgment may well, on the whole, have been biassed
against the ordinance. Two of the most sensible men
connected with the government of the institution were the
first proctor, Brockenbrough, and the first chairman,
George Tucker, both of whom held the regulation in
very small esteem.[31] "I have no doubt that the uniform
law was adopted for economy," wrote the former to
Cocke, who was its ardent advocate, "but, in many cases,
to persons in moderate circumstances, it is otherwise.
There are hundreds of Virginians who can clothe their
sons decently at home in order to send them to the University,
but would find it inconvenient to raise forty or
fifty dollars, in addition to the other charges, to purchase
clothing at the University, for the kind and cut
of the cloth can't always be known in every section of
the State. Some might think it proper to clothe them in
Virginia cloth. I have known students to come here
with clothes sufficient for the session that have been
obliged to procure the uniform dress, and some of them

have found great difficulty in getting it. The objection
is so great that I consider it rather a preventive than an
inducement to students to come here."

This was the opinion of a man who considered the law
on its practical side alone, and whose ability to judge
that side correctly had been ripened by his long participation
in the administrative affairs of the institution.
Prof. Tucker, as chairman, looked at the law on its sentimental
side. "He has not only made up his mind not
to execute it because he deems it unreasonable," wrote
Trist to Cocke, in 1828, "but he goes so far as to express
himself to that effect to the students themselves.
In relation to the proscription of boots, he observed to
one or more of the students that he was not going to
examine whether they had on boots or shoes; and although
Dr. Dunglison made repeated reports to him
concerning the violation of the uniform law, they were
never noticed." Trist had been asked by Cocke to report
as to how far the ordinance was enforced, and it is clear
from his words that he sympathized with Cocke's feeling
in favor of its being carried out unfalteringly.
Tucker's sense of dignity was probably ruffled by the suggestion
that it was the chairman's duty to lower his eyes
to the feet of every student who passed him; or it is
possible that he scornfully regarded such a regulation as
puerile in an institution that was founded on the broadest
principles of personal liberty. Indeed, to such an
absurd point was this opposition to boots pushed that, at
a later date, a student who had been reported for wearing
a pair, earnestly asserted that, in doing so, he had
not intended to "bid defiance to the Faculty."

What was the character of the uniform? It consisted
of a coat, waistcoat, and pantaloons, manufactured from
cloth of a dark mixture. The coat was cut high in the

neck, with a braided standing collar, and skirts of moderate
length, with pocket flaps; the waistcoat was single-breasted,
and the pantaloons were marked by a conspicuous
stripe. The buttons were flat in shape and covered
with cloth of the same dye as the suit. One of the students
of this period, in recalling the uniform in afterlife,
said that it was of the color popularly known as
pepper and salt, while another speaks of it as having been
of an invisible gray tint. The cloth was usually designated
as "Oxford mixed," and it was, from year to year,
imported in large quantities by the merchants of Charlottesville.
The shoes in use were labeled in the stores
as "cotton" and "union." In the beginning, gaiters
were required in winter and white stockings in summer.
Boots were, as we have seen, strictly forbidden. In winter,
the stock was made of black cloth, and in summer, of
white. The hat was black in color and round in shape;
but at a later date, a cheap cap was also permitted to be
worn. The entire details of the summer costume were not
fully agreed on until after 1827. The choice, at first, lay
between bombazine, bombazet, and silk. Silk was preferred
by the students; they objected to bombazet as too
heavy; but it was the least costly of the three. As
finally prescribed, the pantaloons for the warm season
were to be of a light brown, inexpensive cotton stuff,
while the waistcoat was to be of some white material.
An embroidered vest was at first connived at, but was
afterwards prohibited.

How unsteady even as late as 1830 was the rule governing
the proper materials for the uniform was shown
by what Cocke then noticed in the shop of Henry Price,
the principal tailor. "I found on the shelves," he told
Brockenbrough, "so great a variety of cloths—all of
which seemed to be considered to be within the meaning

of the regulation for uniforms,—as to explain at once,
at least in part, the difficulties we have heard of in this
branch of police. Would it not be best in you to adhere
strictly to the enactments in selecting some specific shade
of dark mixed cloth, and apprise Mr. Price that no other
can be received in compliance with the regulations?"

By the terms of the ordinance, each student's outlay
for clothing was not to run beyond one hundred dollars
during a single session. What proportion of this sum
was used up in the purchase of the uniform? In 1832,
the cost of a full suit of the best quality, embracing the
coat, waistcoat, and pantaloons, was thirty-eight dollars.
In such case, the tailor furnished the material. The
charge often ran down to thirty-three, twenty-nine, and
twenty-seven dollars. The cost of the most expensive
coat did not exceed eighteen, while the average price
ranged somewhat lower. The students whose incomes
were small procured the cloth from the local stores, and
then had it converted into a full suit,—under these circumstances,
the charge for the uncut material, including
the trimmings, was fourteen dollars and fifty cents; the
charge of the tailor for making the coat, four and a half to
six and a half, for the waistcoat, one dollar and seventy-five
cents, and for the pantaloons, one dollar and fifty.
The total expense at the shop was rarely in excess of ten
dollars. The buttons cost about twenty-five cents the
dozen; the cloth cap, two dollars and a half. Every student
was called upon to purchase two suits in the course
of each session,—one for the frigid season, the other for
the warm, which fortunately for him, was less expensive.
Some of the young men were compelled to buy at least
three suits, if not four, during a single session as their
only means of keeping up an appearance of neatness.
With one hundred dollars as the limit of their expenditures

for clothes, it would not require many suits to trench
so closely on the margin as to leave but little for the
purchase of under-garments.

When was the uniform to be put on? In 1829, the
Board announced that it was to be worn on the Sabbath,
during examinations, at public exhibitions,—including
balls and parties,—and whenever the student left the University
precincts. In the interval, at this time, a plain
black frock-coat was permissible in winter, and a light
gown or coat in summer. In 1836, the occasions for the
use of the uniform were stated to be public balls, private
parties, church services, public celebrations, public addresses,
visits to private houses, and excursions to Charlottesville.
The uniform was also to be worn on Sunday
whenever the students were absent from their dormitories.
Apparently, it was not required at this time
while they were attending lectures.

The extreme strictness of the regulation was, from the
beginning, subject, during short intervals, to relaxations.
In April, 1833, for instance, the young men were permitted
to wear round-abouts. They had already obtained
leave to put on the summer pantaloons and waistcoats
which they had procured from home. So many of
them, during the autumn of 1835, asserted that it was
necessary to send their uniforms to the tailor that no
objection was offered for the time being to their appearing
outside of their rooms in ordinary clothes, provided
that they were not seen in that dress at a private ball.
When, in 1840, Dr. Tyng, of New York, preached in the
Rotunda, the chairman feared lest the students should
remain away because their uniforms were shabby; and as
he was anxious for the congregation to be a large one,
he posted a notice that the uniform could, if desired, be
doffed in anticipation of the services.

At first, there was no relaxation of the ordinance in
the case of single individuals. Melville Gillies, a naval
officer, was a student at the University in 1834, and having,
before he left home, purchased all the clothing he
would need, he asked to be relieved from the operation
of the uniform law. "The change of seasons," he wrote
Cocke, "required a constant change of dress, but as I
have been advised to hold myself in readiness for sea
service this summer, I feel very unwilling to subject myself
to expense for clothing, which I shall be compelled
to lay aside in the course of a few weeks, and I request
I may be permitted to wear those in my possession."
Reasonable as this application was in substance and in
spirit, it was, in obedience to the supposed requirements
of the ordinance, denied. But in the following year, the
good sense of this action was questioned; John Rodgers,
George Wickham, and George W. Randolph,—all of
whom were young naval officers like Gillies,—were now
granted the right to wear their professional uniforms.
J. H. Bryant was also excepted on the ground that he was
a married man, and had reached the age when exemption
was always allowed. That age was twenty-three. Professor
Garland, formerly of Hampden-Sidney College,
was excepted too; but John B. Young, who had lost both
parents, was refused permission to wear an ordinary
mourning suit.

Although the uniform was, as a rule, becoming to the
young men, and although too it was noticed that they
showed no dislike to wearing it voluntarily when passing
the summer in the mountain resorts, yet, within the precincts,
they always exhibited a sharp distaste for its use.
As early as 1828, the hostility to the law was so acute
that the Faculty had to seek the assistance of the parents
by asking them to curtail their sons' supply of pocket

money, with which they had been buying civilian clothing.
At a private ball held in Mr. Rose's hotel, a few years afterwards,
nineteen of those present were dressed without
any regard to the ordinance; and at another ball, given
at Mrs. Gray's, there were eleven in the same irregular
costume. In 1831, the students held a tumultuous public
meeting, and after violently condemning the uniform law,
announced that they would not observe it. The resolution
was withdrawn when it was suggested that more
could be accomplished for its recall by a riot; and this was
at once precipitated.

There were, after this date, frequent dismissals and
suspensions for defying the ordinance; but this only
served to fan the exasperation. In 1833, thirty-seven
young men were, on a single occasion, summoned for violating
it; the proctor, in fact, acknowledged that, at this
time, only one-fourth of the students observed the law;
and as spring had now set in, and the hot season was
approaching, he predicted that there would be an ever
increasing number disposed to ignore contemptuously its
hateful provisions. At a ball given in one of the hotels
in April, 1835, the members of the Faculty present, we
are told, were shocked by the extravagant costumes
which were flaunted in their eyes. Many of the pantaloons
had been made especially for that festive hour, and
in cut and color, bore no resemblance whatever to the
sober model which the Board had enjoined; indeed, some
of the young men had even had the audacity to discard
the plain trousers and to substitute the courtly velvet
knee-breeches for them. From this time, the violations
of the ordinance continued to grow in number, and the
culprits included some of the steadiest and ablest collegians
then in the precincts. William J. Robertson, perhaps
the most distinguished lawyer and judge of the

State in his day, and James A. Seddon, afterwards a
conspicuous member of Congress and Confederate Secretary
of War, both very quiet in their general demeanor
and successful in their classes, revolted against the irksome
inconvenience of the law; and their example was
imitated by many others equally temperate and studious
in their habits. Robertson went so far as to prefer
rustication at Bowcock's tavern, where so many suspended
students, in those times, in supposed seclusion,
chewed the cud of defiance of unpopular ordinances.
Some, when summoned, boldly said in the presence of
the Faculty that they considered themselves fully justified
in disobeying the law, as its only effect was to impose
offensive restrictions without proportionate advantages in
economy or discipline.

The reasons offered for assuming civilian dress were
numerous, but, in most instances, bear the stamp of honesty
and sincerity. In the autumn of 1830, a party was
given at one of the hotels, and one-third of the young
men present were observed to have left off their uniforms,
though required to wear them on an occasion of that
nature. The plea of each one was that his coat was too
thread-bare to be worn at such entertainments. The
chairman's reply was concise and pointed. "If your suits
are so shabby," he said, "then stay away." Another popular
excuse was that the coat, trousers, or waistcoat had
been sent to the shop for repairs; and this was quite
probable, for as long as the expenditure for clothing was
limited to one hundred dollars, there must have been
many students whose wardrobes did not contain a single
surplus garment of the approved model. The venerable
age of the coats was frequently brought up in defense;
so was the monstrous dilatoriness of the tailors in fulfilling
their commissions. Some asserted that no gentleman

would be willing to dance in such a plebeian suit as
the uniform; one at least justified himself on the score
that his coat had been spattered with mud and torn by
briars in an "anatomical expedition"; another, charged
with wearing a white hat, said that his head was so diminutive
that the cap prescribed would not fit it; and still
another, who had appeared in white pantaloons, swore
that they had been originally brown, but had been worn
white. The chairman candidly admitted that, by the end
of the session, the excuse of shabbiness was one that it
was not possible to rebut.

Although the existence and practical enforcement of
the uniform law would seem to have been sufficient to
shut out the possibility of the students spending much
money in the purchase of other clothing, yet the records
for this period show that large sums were often wasted
in this manner by those among them of extravagant
tastes or handsome fortunes. A single bill sent in by
Henry Price to Richard Morris, in 1833, amounted to
sixty-three dollars and twenty-six cents; and among the
articles that had been bought by him were white silk
handkerchiefs, white waistcoats, satin stocks, gloves, and
flesh brushes. Robert C. Stanard's haberdasher's account
was even larger; and hardly smaller were the
accounts of Robert H. Tomlin and S. Posey,—all men
of distinction afterwards in professional or political life.

Pumps seem to have been a very popular footwear in
those times, and their variety gave room for a wide latitude
of choice. There were prunella, morocco, and
buck calf pumps. The shoe most often called for was
known by the name of "nullifier,"—in honor presumably
of Calhoun. There were several kinds of hats in
use,—two of which, the silk and the fur, were very
costly. The silk, as it was always associated with a London

hat-box, was, doubtless, imported from England.
The cap, which was inexpensive, was of cotton and the
cloak, of blue camlet. The overcoat was dubbed the
"Petersham"; and this, too, was probably from a British
factory. There was a rich profusion of satin scarfs
and stocks, and also of Pongee handkerchiefs. The
gloves were made of white silk or buck-skin; the shirts of
linen or cotton; the waistcoats, of figured silk, or of pure
white or black stuffs of different sorts; the stocks of silk
or nankeen. A handsome pair of trousers was often of
checkered pattern, and the dress coat, of dark blue cloth,
with brass buttons. Very costly umbrellas are frequently
noted; so also are embossed snuff-boxes, elaborated cigarcases,
clouded canes, and the other elegant paraphernalia
of fops. These expensive articles of clothing or ornamental
service could only, for the most part, have been
used at long intervals, and perhaps then surreptitiously;
and they were too costly to be in the possession of the
average student, who, very probably, continued to wear
his more or less shabby uniform even during the hours
when he was not required to do so.[32]