We have noted American boys wearing dresses over a wide range of ages from infancy into school years. This has varied chronologically. We see boys of different ages, including school-age boys, wearing dresses in the 19th century. We do not have a lot of information on the early 19th century, but with the development of photography we have a much better understanding of the mid- and late-19th century. The conventions of wearing dresses declined in the late 1890s and after the turn of the 20th century it became less common for boys to wear dresses, especially after World War I (1914-18). We also begin to see mostly very young boys wearing dresses. Our assessment is somewhat complicated by the failure of many parents to date and identify photographic images. But we can roughly estimate the age of children in many portraits as well as the approximate dates they were taken. Here readers are invited to comment if they have any insights on these old photographs. It is notable how widespread this convention was. We note portraits from all over the country and not just the fashion conscious big northeastern cities.

Infants

Mothers have swaddled infants from the earliest times. Votive statuettes from Greece and Romre show babies in swaddling clothes. Swandling clothes are mentiined in the Bible. The prevalence of swaddling sems because it made child care easier. Only in the 17th century did opinions begin to chnge. By the 19th century we see very young babies in long dresses, but older infants might be dressed in shorter-length dresses. As far as we can tell, the syules for boys and girls were identical. All infants in the 19th century wore dresses. We do not begin to see infant outfits done with pants until the 20th century.

Figure 1.--This Ceci Maurice Breeden from Bloomfield, Iowa, probably in the 1890s. He looks to be 1-2 years old. Almost all boys at that age wore dresses in the 19th century.

Age 1

Almost all boys at age 1 wore dresses in the 19th century. There seems to have been a variety of reasons for this. Convenience in toilet training may have been a factor. There were a range of other issues such has how childhood was viewed and the the strong convention that the care of younger children was the mother's responsibility. This seems to be the class accross social classes and throughout the country. We do not see pants and trousers being made in sizes for 1 year olds. The photographic record confirms this. We note dresses that look something like kilt suits. We are not sure if they were one or two piece outfits, but we do not note kikt suits being offered for 1 year olds. Nor do we notice tunic suits beung offered for boys this young. And we do not see portraits of boys 1 year old wearing pants. All the portraits we have found show really young boys wearing dresses. We note Illinois brothers 1-3 year old wearing dresses. We also notice Minnesota brothers about 1-3 years old wearing dresses with lace collars in 1888. After the turn-of-the 20th century we see fewer boys wearing dresses. Even so, it was still common to see 1 year olds wearing dresses. As far as we know boys and girls wore the same style dresses in the early 19th century, but we seem to detect some boys with plainer dresses agter mid-century. There were defunite boy styles by the late-19th century, but not all mothers chose the plainer boy styles.

Figure 2.--Most boys at age 2 still wore dresses in the 19th century. Some 2 year olds boys were being breeched in the 1890s, but it was not very common earlier. This boy looks to be wearing a blouse and skirt rather than a dress.

Age 2

Most boys at age 2 like 1 year olds also wore dresses. We believe it was very common during the 19th-century. We are not sure about the eaely-19th century. Daguereotypes suggest that at least some quite young boys had been breeched. Most boys were not breeched, at least after mid-century. This suggest that sociual-class was an important factor. After mid-century of course we see markedly rising prosperity and incomes as aresult of the industrial fevolution. until after age 2 years. At age 2 toilet training seems to have been an important factor, but as we note with 1 year olds, it was a much more complex convention. It was a well established convention over several centuries. Of course large numbers of images date from the 19th century because of the invention of photograoht. The photographic records shows numerous photograpic portraits of 2-year old boys wearing dresses. We have archived quite a number of these images on HBC. A Virginia boy at about age 2 wears a white dress and pantalettes. An Ohio boy looks to be 2-3 years old. We note an unidentified brother and sister, probably in the 1840s who look about 2-4 years old. Some boys may have been breeched at age 2 at the end of the century, but it was still not very common. Almost all the 2-year olds we note in the photographic record during the 19th century are wearing dresses, at least after mid-century. After the turn-of-the 20th century we only see very young boys wearing dresses. A good example is Malcomb Overbagh who looks to be about 2 years old. We also notice Bert Cross wearing a dress. His was a white, low-waisted style. And not all 2-year olds wore dresses. We begin to see some 2 year olds wearing pants. This was not the dominant trend, however, until after World War I (1914-18) in the 1920s.

Figure 3.--This unidentified boy looks ti be about 3 years old. He wears a white pleated dress, probably in the 1880s. The outfit looks somewht like a blouse and skirt. He wears it with a small colored bow. The sti=udio was J.W. Woodhill at a railroad station--the Central City Station. The city is bot specified.

Age 3

The age at which boys were breeched varied over time and from family to family. We still see many boys wearing dresses at age 3. A good example is an unidentified Pennsylvania boy, we think in the 1880s. We also note an unidentified Indiana boy. Another example is an unidentified Illinois boy. And we note twins Arthur and Henry about 1870. And two more Indiana boys look to be about 3-4 years old. We note another Massachussetts boy in the 1880s. Many families brreched their boys at 3 years of age or sometimes while they were age 3. We note many different dress styles, both plain and fancy. A California boy, Carlton Gardner, wears a white dress at age 3 years. We notice an Ohio boy wearing a very plain, long front-buttoning dress. Another example is J. Nelson Patterson. Another example is Richard Lancaster Witzleben in 1899. Like the Ohio boy, he weaes a very plain dress. We do not know a great deal about the breeching process. We have few actual breeching images, but we know that breeching occured because we begin to see more portraits of 3 year olds wearing knee pants and fewer boys even at this young age wearing dresses. Breeching at age 3 became less common in the early-20th century, but we do not have photigraphic imges to help assess this. We believe that social class factors were involved here, but we do not yet fully understand this. Toilet training was a factor in boys wearing dresses. The fact that many boys were not breeched at age 3, suggests that much more was involved than toilet training. It is likely of course that boys from affluent families are over represented in the photographic record. A complication here is that families in isolated rural areas may be less connected with fashion trends and some of the boys may have contunued wearing dresses in the early -0h century when this convention was passing out of fashion. Some options appeared for 3 year olds that mothers were not yet ready to breech, these include both kilt suits (1870s-1890s) and tunic suits (1900s-10s). Se see a lot of boys as young as 3 years beginning to wear knee pants in the 1880s. This was in part due to mothers' desired to outfit them in Little Lord Fauntleroy suits--a popular craze befinning after Mrs. Burmnett published her book in 1885.

Figure 4.--Age 4 was a mixed age. We see many boys who have been breeched, but there are also many boys who have not yet been breeched. This boy is not identified, but he looks about 4 years old to us. We are not sure, how to date it, probably the 1890s.

Age 4

Age 4 was a mixed age. It was still a pre-school year so the boys were mostly at home being looked after by mother. There were no nursery schools at the time. We see many boys who have been breeched, but there are also many boys who have not yet been breeched. Many parents who did not breech boys at age 3, did so at age 4. This varied, however, from family to family. Thus we see fewer boys wearing dresses at age 4. There are numerous portraits showing boys that had not yet been breeched. This varied chronologically. We are not sure how to assess the numbers. We would say the boys not yet breeched were a minority, but they were still large numbers. An example is an unidntified Massachsusettes boy, probably in the 1880s. A Pennsylvania boy looks to be 4-5 years old. Here there were various factors involved, but family conventions were very strong as were social class factors. In addition to dresses, we see a lot of boys in the late 19th century wearing kilt suits and after the turn-of-the 20th century wearing tunic suits. A shift to breeching boys a little earlier may have resulted from the Fauntleroy craze. We believe that social class factors were involved here. Boys from working-class families were most likely to be breeched by age 4. Boys from affluent families were more likely to be still wearing dresses. Boys at this age had few contacs outside the family. Perhaps they had a few neoghborhood friends, but most boys until old enough for school spent almost all their time at home with family. There were very few outside activities for boys this age. Some may have tagged along after older bothers. We note both plain and fancy dresses. A good example of a plain dress is an unidentified Philadelphia boy, probably in the 1880s.

Figure 5.--The boy here is Richmond V. Risley from New York City. He looks to be about 5 years old. The portrait was probably taken inthe 1880s.

Age 5

Boys are becoming much more aware at age 5. They see a note how their mothers and fathers dress. Many would have begun to want clothes like their older brothers and fathers. But moothers still ruled the roost in the 19th century and children did not have alot to say about how they dressed. And 5 year olds still mostly associated with their immediate family. And there was no television and movies to give 5 year olds visual images of how other children dressed. Age 5 is the last year that we see really large numbers of American boys wearing dresses. Age 5 was still a pre-school year. Kindergarten were not well established, even in the late-1890s. Many boys had been breeched by age 5. Social class differences were a factor, but considerable diffrences existed among families--even upper-class families. It is impossible to be precise, but clearly most boys had been breeched by age 5. It was an age, however, that it was still fairly common to see boys wearing dresses and other skirted garments. Kilt suits were especially popular. We even see dresses styled somewhat like kilt suits. We have found a substantial number of portraits showing that quite a number of boys had not yet been breeched. Thus there are many examples archived on HBC. A good example is a Pennsylvania boy, probably about 1890. A Connecticut boy and his older sister wore identical dresses. We note an Indiana boy who wears a dress with ringlet curls, probably in the 1880s. We note many different dress styles, including fany ones. A good example of a fancy dress is a Pennsylvania boy in the 1880s who also has ringlet curls. The dress and curls suggest to us that the boy came from an affluent family. We also see a lot of 5 year olds wearing kilt suits and tunics. The Fauntlroy suit beginning in the 1880s was also very popular for 5 year olds. This was a factor leading to an earlier breaching.

Figure 5.--This American boy in a CDV portrait is Buster. He wears a velvet hat with dropped waisted dress and high button boots. We do not know where he lived or when the portrait was taken. We would guess the early 1870s. We do know that he was 6 years old. He might not have been 6 years old when school began in September or perhaps he was being educated at home.

Age 6

By age 6 we begin to see far fewer boys wearing dresses. This varied somewhat chrobnologically. It was probably more common un the early-19th century than the later part of the century. This is, however, complicated by the fact that there were a lot more affluent Americans in the late19th century. This was a result of the wealth created by the industrialization of the country after the Civil War. We believe a major factor in the fewer number of boys wearing dresses at age 6 years was the developing public education system. Age 6 years was when many boys began school and few boys attended school still wearing dresses. Of course many boys turned 6 years after September when school began. Thus they might not begin school until they were nearly 7 years old. We suspect this was a factor for some some of the older boys wearing dresses. There was also a major chronological factor. Public schools were not well-established in the early 19th century. And in the South there were few public schools even by the mid-19th century. The situation was changed by the late-1890s when most children were attending school. Again social class was a factor. Working-class boys if they went to school at all went to public schools. And we suspect that most working-class boys were breeched well beforeage 6 years. Boys from affluent families were most likely to be still wearing dresses as age 6 years. They might be tutored at home and thus breeching could be delayed by doting mothers. Mothers in the 19th century had much more say about how children were dressed. Until the late-19th century, ready-made clothes were not common and thus there was much more diversity. The mass-media was not yet an important factor. And until a boy began school, his acquaintces were largely limited to family. Thus family dress conventions were very strong. All of this mean that some mothers could continue to outfit boys in dresses at age and in some cases well beyond age 6. We notice a Rhode Island family in which the younger brother looks about 6 years old.

Age 7

We notice an unidentified family with children aboy 2-7 years old all wearing white dresses, both the boys and girl. Note the baby boy wears white socks, but the older children wear long black stockings. We would guess that these children came from an affluent family. We note other skirted garments being made in size 7s for boys, such as tinics and kilt suits. What is not real clear to us for school-age boys like 7 year olds if they might have a dressy out fit such as a frock or kilt suit, but might have play outfits that might include trousers. Our confusion here is in part because we do not fully understand the breeching process. We though that some boys may have had some formal outcits that wre skited even after they began wearing trousers. We note an unidentified boy in the 1870s wearing a white dress and sash. He looks ti be 7-8 years old.

Age 8

We see some boys at age 8 wearing dresses. This is an age where it was beginning to become relatively rare for boys to wear dresses. This varied greatly from family to family. And while boys wearing dresses at age 8 was only a fraction of those wearing dresses through age 5, it was by no means rare. This was something some mothers insisted on in the 19th century. These boys would surely be boys that were home schooled. They would also be mostly kept at home, although we note some acounts indivating that theseolder boys wearing dresses did not stay at hom all the time. Here we often have to estimate ages. Boys by age 8 would certainly have begun to want to wear trousers. We would like to find accounts describing discussions with mother. One aspect here we are unsure about is if these boys might have wore trousers on some occasions. Several boys about age are archieved on HBC wearing dresses. We note a Baltimote who looks to us to be 8 years old, we think in the 1870s. We note a Michigan boy who loos to be about 8 years old. We note an unidentified family, probanly in the 1870s. The older boy looks to be about 8-9 years old.

Age 9

Every year beyond age 6 years we see fewer and fewer boys wearing dresses. This is clear from available school photography which becomes abailable from the late-19th century. We do not see boys wearing dresses to school even at age 6 years. This can clerly be seen in the photographic record. Unfortunately many available portraits are not identified or the age of the children specifed. So we are often left to assess the image as best as possible. But we can estimate ages to within a year or at leat two years. These images of school age boys wearing dresses raise a range of questions. We know that they were not sent to school as we do not see them in school portraits. So they were educated at home by their parents (presumably mother) or a tutor. This means almost surly that the family was somewhat afflunt. And we suspect they were mostly city children, although this needs to be confirmed. We believe that breeching was not partial so these boys did not have pants outfits they wore for some occassions. Very few boys were still wearing dresses, but the photographic record clearly shows that a few did. Unfortunately we only have the photograpjuc images and no family history.

Age 10

It was not common for 10-year old boys to wear dresses, even in the 19h century. But it was not unknown. We have archieved a few images of these older boys on HBC. We note an Indiana boy named Howard. He may be Howard Coate, although we are not sure. His younger cosins have already been breeched. Howard looks to be about 10 years old. We note an unidentified family where all the eight children are wearing dresses. This includes a boy who looks to be about 10 years old as well as his brothers who look to be about 5-8 years old. We also note a New Jersey boy who was still wearing dresses at age 10 in the 1880s.

Age 11

We see very few boys wearing dresses by age 11. An exception is Frank, but we do not know where he lived. He wears a summer frock in 1894. Such an old boy wearing dresses seems especially out of character for the 1890s.

Age 12

We have found a few images of older boys wearing dresses. Some look to be about 12-yearsold or even 13-years old. It is difficult to tell the difference. In the 19th century these would still be pre-pubesent boys. Unfortunately we have dound no accomphying information to explain these images. It coould be examples of mothers keeping boys at home and and hnging on to their youth abd innosence. Or perhaps a mother ofartistic sensabilities. Even in the 19th century, however, not breeching a boy this age would have been seen as unusual, but not as today requiring outside intervention. Mothers were given great lattitude in such matters. Often fathers would intervene. But fathers might be absent in some families or for a variety of reasons no asertive, There of course is always the possibility that the child is a girl with short hair. By this age, however, it is increasingly possible to spot the differences betwen boys and girls. And girls even with short hair often had their hair styled slightly differently than boys. Thus the images we have found of 12-years olds are simething of a mystery. There are not many such images, but we have found a few, unfortunately all without any accompanying family information.

Created: 7:03 PM 9/12/2007
Last updated: 4:15 AM 1/14/2015