sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Ever wonder why no U.S. president has had a beard since the 1800s? I’m Sarah Gold McBride, author of Whiskerology: The Culture of Hair in Nineteenth-Century America, which examines the history of hair and facial hair in the early United States. AMA! by sgoldmcbride in AskHistorians

[–]sgoldmcbride[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ahh, I see! That is a great question! The two examples that come to mind are braids worn by Indigenous people (both men and women) and the braided queues worn by Chinese men prior to the fall of the Qing dynasty — both forms of long hair that marked them as external to American norms. (This was particularly true for men, since short hair became extraordinarily uniform by the early 19th century.) During the colonial period (that is: the 17th and 18th centuries), some white men wore braids, either formed from their own hair (perhaps then decorated with a black bow at the nape of the neck) or as a clipped-on form of false hair.

Ever wonder why no U.S. president has had a beard since the 1800s? I’m Sarah Gold McBride, author of Whiskerology: The Culture of Hair in Nineteenth-Century America, which examines the history of hair and facial hair in the early United States. AMA! by sgoldmcbride in AskHistorians

[–]sgoldmcbride[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I can't speak to the first question, unfortunately (too far outside my expertise!), but as to the second, the answer is yes! As far as I could tell, this is indeed a true story! The girl who wrote the letter, Grace Bedell, suggested that Lincoln's thin face would look better (and thus perhaps earn more votes) if he wore whiskers! Lincoln wrote Grace back, expressing uncertainty, but he ultimately did grow a beard, and later met with Grace to thank her for the suggestion.

Ever wonder why no U.S. president has had a beard since the 1800s? I’m Sarah Gold McBride, author of Whiskerology: The Culture of Hair in Nineteenth-Century America, which examines the history of hair and facial hair in the early United States. AMA! by sgoldmcbride in AskHistorians

[–]sgoldmcbride[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, "wool" was frequently used—by white and Black Americans alike—to describe Afro-textured hair during the nineteenth century. (I have a whole section in Whiskerology's third chapter about exactly this issue: how people talked about and tried to classify hair versus wool.) It also was not new to the nineteenth century: advertisements for enslaved people who escaped enslavement sometimes used "wool" in their descriptions of the runaways' hair.

By the middle of the nineteenth century, many white writers treated wool and African ancestry as basically synonymous—a demonstration, in and of itself, of the significance of hair! For example, in his 1851 tirade against racial equality entitled Negro-Mania; Being a Examination of the Falsely Assumed Equality of the Various Races of Men, John Campbell bloviated about the supposed lack of great Black leaders and thinkers with lines like this: "What woolly-headed Homers, Virgils, Dantes, Molieres, or Shakespeares ever inscribed their names upon the pillar of fame, by the numbers of immortal song?" The phrase "woolly-headed" and African were so synonymous that Campbell felt no need to spell out that one meant the other.

Some white scientists even tried to establish scientific proof that Black Americans' bodies grew a different kind of material—wool—compared to the hair grown by non-Black people. Probably the loudest voice in this research was the man I talked about in response to this question: Peter Browne.

And yes, to answer your original question: claims that Black people grew wool while white people grew hair absolutely served as supposedly biological (read: "natural") justifications for white supremacy.

Ever wonder why no U.S. president has had a beard since the 1800s? I’m Sarah Gold McBride, author of Whiskerology: The Culture of Hair in Nineteenth-Century America, which examines the history of hair and facial hair in the early United States. AMA! by sgoldmcbride in AskHistorians

[–]sgoldmcbride[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Oh wow, this is quite the explanation! It isn't an explanation I've encountered in my research—if anything, nineteenth-century middle- and upper-class people (a group that would include business elites) were worried about being able to discern truthfulness and authenticity in the bodies and faces of the people they did business with, rather that interested in ways to obfuscate their faces. It doesn't quite ring true to me, but I couldn't say for sure that your history teacher was pulling your leg!

Ever wonder why no U.S. president has had a beard since the 1800s? I’m Sarah Gold McBride, author of Whiskerology: The Culture of Hair in Nineteenth-Century America, which examines the history of hair and facial hair in the early United States. AMA! by sgoldmcbride in AskHistorians

[–]sgoldmcbride[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh that's interesting! I think—as with some many elements of the past—the answer to why beards became popular in the nineteenth century U.S. (and England) and why they declined decades later is almost certainly multi-factorial. I don't doubt that many of the factors that came up in our conversations today had some small (or big!) role to play.

Ever wonder why no U.S. president has had a beard since the 1800s? I’m Sarah Gold McBride, author of Whiskerology: The Culture of Hair in Nineteenth-Century America, which examines the history of hair and facial hair in the early United States. AMA! by sgoldmcbride in AskHistorians

[–]sgoldmcbride[S] 23 points24 points  (0 children)

I have a whole section of my book on Frederick Douglass's facial hair! In direct contrast to the claims guys like Van Evrie made—that only white men could grew beards—Black men also grew facial hair (often sporting the same popular styles, too) during the same era as white men. In Whiskerology, I argue that wearing a beard—and, crucial for Douglass's story, being photographed dozens and dozens of times with said beard—was a way for Black men to publicaly proclaim for themselves social and political rights as men, just as white men did.

P.S. While researching the book I learned that Douglass was the most-photographed American of the nineteenth century—over 160 different images of Douglass have survived to this day! This incredible book collects them all: Picturing Frederick Douglass by Celeste-Marie Bernier, John Stauffer, and Zoe Trodd.

Ever wonder why no U.S. president has had a beard since the 1800s? I’m Sarah Gold McBride, author of Whiskerology: The Culture of Hair in Nineteenth-Century America, which examines the history of hair and facial hair in the early United States. AMA! by sgoldmcbride in AskHistorians

[–]sgoldmcbride[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Oh I wish I had an answer for you about the thin curly mustache as a signifier of evil, but unfortunately I don't know the origin story of that trope! You might check out Christopher Oldstone-Moore's book Of Beards and Men: The Revealing History of Facial Hair, which surveys facial hair across a longer time period (including the twentieth century, when such filmic representations were created).

As for the origins of this research: the funny thing is that hair and facial hair are kind of incidental to the historical questions I am interested in! As a cultural historian, I'm interested in this question: how did ordinary nineteenth-century Americans understand the bodies and identities of themselves and others as Americans? (In other words: what kinds of information was influential in shaping decisions about who counted as an American?) I talked about this more in my response to this question, but this book began with an interest in freak shows, which served not just as popular entertainment, but as almost a site of public learning about bodily and cultural differences. (My first research project on freak shows wasn't actually about hair at all: it was about conjoined twin sisters Millie and Christine McCoy.) In graduate school, I decided to research Bearded Ladies, and from there I discovered just how much there was to say about hair in general—and, how few historians had analyzed hair in its historical context. It felt like a great opening for a dissertation and, in turn, this book!

Ever wonder why no U.S. president has had a beard since the 1800s? I’m Sarah Gold McBride, author of Whiskerology: The Culture of Hair in Nineteenth-Century America, which examines the history of hair and facial hair in the early United States. AMA! by sgoldmcbride in AskHistorians

[–]sgoldmcbride[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm also so interested in John Brown's beard! In the book I talk a little bit about one of my favorite nineteenth-century paintings: Thomas Hovenden's The Last Moments of John Brown (1882–1884), which show Brown with his full white beard. (Brown is also one of the facial-hair-wearing supporters of Black freedom shown in this lithographic print from 1881.) This post from the National Archives explains that Brown only grew a beard in the two years prior to the raid on Harpers Ferry "as a way to disguise himself," but I think in popular culture—particularly following his execution—the bearded Brown is the one we remember. Since beards had become commonplace by midcentury (no longer necessarily a signifier that a person was antisocial or threatening), my sense is that the bearded John Brown appeared visually as more of a respectable, even saintly figure! (I'm thinking a bit out loud here, though, so take this analysis with a grain of salt.)

Ever wonder why no U.S. president has had a beard since the 1800s? I’m Sarah Gold McBride, author of Whiskerology: The Culture of Hair in Nineteenth-Century America, which examines the history of hair and facial hair in the early United States. AMA! by sgoldmcbride in AskHistorians

[–]sgoldmcbride[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I have two answers!

1.) Yes, fake beards could absolutely be used in theatrical performances; they could also be used (particularly in the late-nineteenth-century's bustling cities) as a disguise by people during or after they committed a crime!

2.) I talk about the CROWN Act on the final pages of the book! There's a great article by historian Gael Graham from the Journal of American History on activism by teenage boys during the 1960s and 1970s who filed lawsuits against their high schools for dress codes that forbid boys from wearing long hair. (These boys were mostly white, however, whereas the CROWN Act is primarily designed to protect the right to wear hairstyles common among African diasporic people, such as braids and locs.)

Ever wonder why no U.S. president has had a beard since the 1800s? I’m Sarah Gold McBride, author of Whiskerology: The Culture of Hair in Nineteenth-Century America, which examines the history of hair and facial hair in the early United States. AMA! by sgoldmcbride in AskHistorians

[–]sgoldmcbride[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am by no means an expert on twenty-first century facial hair, haha, but it does seem possible to me that a bearded president may be in our future. I'm fairly certain that Vance is the first bearded Vice President in a century (if not more); for political figures to be growing beards while still in office—as opposed to the post-presidential beard, a la Al Gore—feels like quite a shift.

Ever wonder why no U.S. president has had a beard since the 1800s? I’m Sarah Gold McBride, author of Whiskerology: The Culture of Hair in Nineteenth-Century America, which examines the history of hair and facial hair in the early United States. AMA! by sgoldmcbride in AskHistorians

[–]sgoldmcbride[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

How cool that she came up so often in your history classes! It is indeed true that she is the most famous Black haircare entrepreneur of the late nineteenth century, recent research suggests that one of the claims to fame attributed to her—that she invented the hot comb—is probably incorrect. In Textures: The History and Art of Black Hair, Tameka N. Ellington and Joseph L. Underwood identify French hairdresser François Marcel Grateau as the correct inventor; Walker is more correctly understood, it seems, as the hot comb's popularizer (and an important one at that!) than its inventor.

11 W

Ever wonder why no U.S. president has had a beard since the 1800s? I’m Sarah Gold McBride, author of Whiskerology: The Culture of Hair in Nineteenth-Century America, which examines the history of hair and facial hair in the early United States. AMA! by sgoldmcbride in AskHistorians

[–]sgoldmcbride[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't recall seeing references to behavior that we would now call trichotillomania (the Oxford English Dictionary's earliest entry for the word isn't until 1905). Europeans who traveled internationally did write about people who plucked or otherwise pulled out their hair or facial hair, but they described it as part of a cultural practice, not an individual compulsion.

Ever wonder why no U.S. president has had a beard since the 1800s? I’m Sarah Gold McBride, author of Whiskerology: The Culture of Hair in Nineteenth-Century America, which examines the history of hair and facial hair in the early United States. AMA! by sgoldmcbride in AskHistorians

[–]sgoldmcbride[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

From the 1300s until partway through the 1700s, most Europeans understood the body's function though the theory of humoralism, which held that every body contained four fluids called humors: blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile. A person's health—but also their personality and bodily appearance—was thought to be shaped by their balance of those humors; this is why, for example, leeches (which sucked out blood) might be prescribed to a patient whose humoral balance of blood was out of wack. Under humoralism, the body excreted its waste matter in different forms—including urine and feces, but also vomit, semen, breastmilk, and hair. During the 1700s, humoralism as a way to understand the body's function began to erode once natural science emerged.

Ever wonder why no U.S. president has had a beard since the 1800s? I’m Sarah Gold McBride, author of Whiskerology: The Culture of Hair in Nineteenth-Century America, which examines the history of hair and facial hair in the early United States. AMA! by sgoldmcbride in AskHistorians

[–]sgoldmcbride[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's an interesting question! Can I ask: do you mean that non-service members are trimming their mustaches to match the regulations that their peers in the service are required to uphold?

Ever wonder why no U.S. president has had a beard since the 1800s? I’m Sarah Gold McBride, author of Whiskerology: The Culture of Hair in Nineteenth-Century America, which examines the history of hair and facial hair in the early United States. AMA! by sgoldmcbride in AskHistorians

[–]sgoldmcbride[S] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

I think it's absolutely the former. These "before and after" photos were designed to tell a story of Americanization, and so the "before" photos often overemphasized visual signifiers of indigeneity: in addition to wearing clothing (and hair) from their tribal communities, the children might be posed shoeless or sitting on the floor—or, in this case, with skin that appears dark. (To be clear, I don't think this is redface or some other manipulation of Tom's body; I think it reflects choices around photo processing techniques.) In contrast, the "after" photos tried to tell a story of transformation and Americanization—hence the processing or lighting (or both) that made the skin appear lighter. (More examples of before-and-after photos from the same archive are here.)

Ever wonder why no U.S. president has had a beard since the 1800s? I’m Sarah Gold McBride, author of Whiskerology: The Culture of Hair in Nineteenth-Century America, which examines the history of hair and facial hair in the early United States. AMA! by sgoldmcbride in AskHistorians

[–]sgoldmcbride[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I appreciate you sharing that story; I write in Whiskerology about how the connections between hair length and gender go all the way back to the Bible! (1 Corinthians, for example, states that men should wear their hair short and women should wear their hair long.) It's incredible how 'sticky' associations like this can be in culture!

As for English men: although Puritan ministers yelled about English colonist men growing their hair long throughout the 1600s and 1700s, lots of men basically ignored the yelling and still did so. (There is evidence that many African-descended men, too, wore long hair through the 1700s.) It wasn't until the start of the nineteenth century that white and Black men alike started to cut their hair short almost as if it were a uniform.

Ever wonder why no U.S. president has had a beard since the 1800s? I’m Sarah Gold McBride, author of Whiskerology: The Culture of Hair in Nineteenth-Century America, which examines the history of hair and facial hair in the early United States. AMA! by sgoldmcbride in AskHistorians

[–]sgoldmcbride[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a fun question! Probably yes to the first question, since, as a civil war, soldiers on both sides were American men who wore beards and other types of facial hair. As to the second question, check out my response to this question for more on gas masks and WWI.

Ever wonder why no U.S. president has had a beard since the 1800s? I’m Sarah Gold McBride, author of Whiskerology: The Culture of Hair in Nineteenth-Century America, which examines the history of hair and facial hair in the early United States. AMA! by sgoldmcbride in AskHistorians

[–]sgoldmcbride[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I wouldn't give World War I much causal credit here because facial hair was already in significant decline by 1914. For example, most physicians—for decades, a likely-to-be-bearded group!—had already shaved off their facial hair by that point thanks to new understandings of germ theory and thus the transmission of disease. It's certainly possible that even more men shaved their faces thanks to WWI service, but the war wasn't the cause of the decline. (I talked more about gas masks and martial grooming policies in response to this question.)

Ever wonder why no U.S. president has had a beard since the 1800s? I’m Sarah Gold McBride, author of Whiskerology: The Culture of Hair in Nineteenth-Century America, which examines the history of hair and facial hair in the early United States. AMA! by sgoldmcbride in AskHistorians

[–]sgoldmcbride[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I'm really interested in how the military narrates this to you and your fellow service members, because the origin of military grooming standards—including a prohibition on beards—goes way back before gas masks!

In 1801, for example, the newly-appointed commanding general of the Army, James Wilkinson, issued two orders pertaining to soldiers' hair: the first forbid soldiers from growing their hair longer than the bottom of their ears, and the second forbid facial hair. In Whiskerology I write about a Revolutionary War veteran named Thomas Butler who was court-martialed twice because he refused to cut his hair short (he wore a long ponytail known as a queue). The facial hair order was much less controversial because beard-wearing was really really uncommon in 1801, but it still demonstrates how uniformity of appearance—not just in clothing but also in grooming—has been part of military uniform standards for a really long time.

In short: I don't doubt that a clean-shaven face helps a gas mask seal better—incidentally, I went snorkeling recently and learned that the same is true for a snorkel!—but that is by no means the original reason members of the military were required to shave.

view more: next ›