CONSUMER CULTURE IN THE U.S.A - 1870-1900

INTRODUCTION

Consumers, those who purchased goods and services, had always been vital in the American economy. During the colonial period, many manufactured goods had been imported from England. Trade, both internationally and regionally, had long been a part of American life. But in the latter part of the 1800s, there were unprecedented changes in the nature and scope of consumption in the United States. As Richard Ohmann aptly puts it, "the way people made what they needed in our society changed utterly in the last half of the century".
Prior to industrialism, the home was a site of both consumption and work. People tended to live where they worked, be that on a farm, next to a workshop, or near an attached storefront. Even within a household, most products, from soap to clothing, had to be made by hand. With the rise of industry, work increasingly became something people left the home to do.
That left less time for producing items for personal consumption, requiring additional purchases of goods. Then, of course, much of the work being done in factories was to produce the very items now being sold to consumers. While this brief summary addresses a major change in the period, it should not gloss over the diverse experiences of Americans. By 1900, 39 percent of Americans still worked on farms. Even in urban households there was still plenty of work being done, including the labor performed by paid domestic workers, the unpaid work of cleaning and childcare carried out by homemakers, and the paid piecework or small businesses women ran from their homes.
That said, during the industrial era, across classes, Americans began to purchase items that once had been made at home, including food, clothing, and soap. Even products that had long been part of American culture, such as alcohol and patent medicines, were experienced differently by consumers who now bought national brands.
To get these items, consumers turned to a new array of sellers, from department stores to mailorder catalogs. A new industry, advertising, emerged to facilitate (or, as some would say, manipulate) these transactions. To this day, historians and critics argue over whether these changes were good or bad for Americans. The conclusion of this chapter considers the question of the political impact of consumer culture through an examination of Edward Bellamy's best-selling 1888 novel, Looking Backward: 2000-1887.

FOOD

Before industrialism, most people ate what we today would consider a restricted diet, varying primarily by region and season. People's food consumption was largely limited to what they grew or what could be grown near them. For many Americans, this led to diets with little variety, particularly in the winter months, and a host of medical maladies associated with monotonous eating habits from constipation to rickets. Harvey Levenstein describes the dominant eating habits prior to industrialism as part of "the British-American Culinary Heritage." 
The typical food regimen was high in meat, with vegetables used primarily for sauce or boiled beyond recognition. Though we may now look at this diet with disdain, for many Americans, especially those who recently immigrated, the United States was notable for having relatively few food shortages. With the rise of industrialism, there were astonishing changes in how some, though not all, Americans ate. Railroad shipping, industrial food processing, and new nutritional ideas began to transform the American culinary landscape. At the beginning of this period, many Americans raised much of their own food and cooked on open hearths, even in urban areas. But by the end of the century, a variety of stoves were common, and familiar brands of packaged food were increasingly popular.
Additionally, a range of household innovations were either introduced or perfected during this period including the ice box (a forerunner to the refrigerator), the Mason jar, the pressure cooker, the eggbeater, and the apple corer (Mclntosh 89; Hooker 212).
As notable as these advances were, it is important to remember that a relatively limited group of Americans, stratified by class and region, experienced these innovations. As Richard J. Hooker notes, Neither the new knowledge of nutrition nor any consequent improvement in health affected a great part of the country's population. Northern slum dwellers, southern sharecroppers, small farmers on the Great Plains, the recently freed slaves, and the underprivileged everywhere were, as always, concerned only with getting enough to eat. An appreciable portion of the country's population was regularly hungry and a larger part was badly nourished.
Class made a significant difference in how people ate. This is partly due to the fact that people with more money could afford to buy more food and food of a different quality. But the difference was not only financial. Food was also a way in which social classes distinguished themselves from each other. Though this is not what is meant by the phrase, "you are what you eat," that cliche takes on new significance when applied to eating during this period.
Commentators had long remarked that the American diet was unique in the amount of meat people consumed, a trend that only escalated from 1870 to 1900. Existing evidence suggests that most Americans of this period ate as much meat as they could, at every meal if they could afford it. Of course, the kinds and qualities of meat people ate varied greatly across social class and region (Levenstein 23-24; Hooker 220; Mclntosh 93).
Beef was the meat of choice among most Americans, and foreign commentators were often aghast at the amount of meat Americans could consume at a sitting. However, Americans tended to celebrate this carnivorousness.
"We are essentially a hungry beef-eating people, who live by eating," wrote one newspaper (qtd. in Jones 123). On average, as Americans became wealthier, they ate more beef. One study estimates that families with per capita incomes of over $800 consumed over twice as much beef than those earning under $400. However, since most Americans were not wealthy, beef was not the most frequently eaten form of meat. Pork, a less expensive meat, was consumed at an even greater rate. Not surprisingly, this distinction soon took on social dimensions, as middle- and upper-class cooks looked down upon pork as a lesser or crude meat (Hooker 221; Levenstein 218; Mclntosh 92).
In 1879, Gustavas Swift revolutionized the meat industry by introducing refrigerated railroad cars. Prior to this time, grass-fed cattle had to be shipped cross-country directly to markets where they would be slaughtered. But now, cattle only needed to be sent for slaughter to Chicago or Kansas City. Refrigerated carcasses then made the journey to the Eastern seaboard. As a result, throughout the 1880s beef prices for consumers dropped, and the amount of beef purchased rose (Levenstein 31-32).
Food products were among the earliest and most successful products to be branded (sold under a specific title). Food and These products were sold nationally and supported by, Brands what were for the time, elaborate advertising campaigns. Most of these new brands involved processed food, and by the end of the century, processed food had become a huge industry. By 1900, 20 percent of U.S. manufacturing involved food processing. A partial list of popular brands from this era include many that are still with us today: Chase and Sanborn coffee, Golden Cottonlene cooking fat, Knox's gelatine, Lion coffee, Pillsbury flour, Quaker oats, Price baking powder, Postum, Uneeda biscuit, Swan's Down flour, and Van Camp's beans (Hooker 213; Sutherland 70).
In many cases, the companies that owned these brands simply created a national market for types of food that were already popular throughout the country. In other instances, entirely new markets were created, transforming the ways in which people ate. The first breakfast cereals appeared in the 1870s as innovations offered by food reformers such as those by Kellogg's, made on behalf of a vegetarian, Seventh-Day Adventist organization.
Brands that are familiar today such as Kellogg's Toasted Corn Flakes, Post Grape Nuts, Post Shredded Wheat, and Post Toasties soon made inroads on the American breakfast table. Part of the appeal of these cereals was the speed and convenience they offered, particularly to the majority of Americans who lived in homes without servants. However, these cereals also were promoted by advertisements in national magazines aimed at middle-class homemakers concerned about providing sanitary, healthy food for families. Ads for breakfast cereal typically made use of children and posited that it was a matter of maternal care to serve cereal rather than the more traditional breakfast of the previous night's meat and potatoes (Hooker 213; Levenstein 34; Norris 108).
Though different branded foods made all kinds of claims to being unique, what most shared in common is that they were standardized. A branded product should have been the same no matter where in the country or in what kind of store you bought it. For customers used to purchasing generic items of varying quality, standardization was seen as an advance that guaranteed a uniform condition. For example, one 1876 magazine article giving advice for planting a vegetable garden noted, "send to some responsible seed merchant, and don't depend on the kind of stock found in small boxes in the country grocery stores" (P.T.Q. 137). However, the rise of national brands also disrupted many traditional consumer practices. Once national brands began to dominate store shelves, familiar, regional foods became harder to purchase.
The industrial production of food in the nineteenth century was unregulated. Sanitation and quality control in food processing plants varied widely, but few facilities would have met standards considered acceptable today. It was also common practice to adulterate processed food. Adulteration added chemicals or other foreign matter to products to improve color and taste, to make them less expensive to produce, or to act as a preservative. Unregulated adulteration could, and often did, result in hazardous substances being added to food. Government studies conducted at the end of the 1800s found food adulteration was widespread.
For example, formaldehyde was used to disguise rotten eggs; currant jam was actually flavored with a coal tar derivative; flour contained ground rice, sand, and plaster of paris; lard was made with lime, alum, and starch; cayenne pepper contained lead, rice flour, and iron oxide; vinegar included sulfuric, hydrochloric, and pyroligneous acids. None of these ingredients were listed on labels and most people were unaware of the dangers to be found in everyday foods (Hooker 298-99; Goodwin 42-44).
The appeal of canned goods varied by region, but they gained rapidly in popularity during this time. From 1860 to 1870, there was a six-fold increase in the number of canned  goods sold nationwide, 5 million to 30 million cans (Hooker 214). Canned goods such as beans, vegetables, and fruit found a ready market in the western and Plains states, where they often provided the only alternative to the limited diet of rural regions. However, in the East, the situation was different.

The poor were unable to afford canned goods, and the middle and upper classes initially were suspicious of canned goods' ability to spoil. It was also a matter of pride for many housewives to use fresh ingredients in cooking. Also, as refrigerated railroad cars had made fresh produce available for much of the year, such ingredients were often preferred. Despite some initial resistance though, canned food did become popular, particularly in middle-class households. Nevertheless, causes for concern did remain. The ingredients in prepared foods were not always obvious, and in some cases they could be hazardous. Though canned goods were by no means the only adulterated food, in government studies they were found to contain foreign matter including copper and tin (Goodwin 43).
The conditions of meat packing plants and the state of canned meat became particularly notorious. A large number of canned meats contained spoiled or parasite-infested products that were adulterated with a range of chemicals. Leftover scraps were shoveled directly off floors into preparation vats where they were ground up with pigskin, rope, dead rats, and garbage off the floors. "Potted chicken" did not contain any chicken; "deviled ham" was minced tripe with red dye. Though consumer groups and health professionals had long railed against these conditions, they did not become a public controversy until 1906 when revelations in Upton Sinclair's novel The Jungle led to nationwide outrage over the condition of food in beef packing plants (though, unfortunately, less outrage over the treatment of packing plant workers). Soon after, the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act began the process of establishing standards for the food processing industry (Goodwin 43; Hooker 300).
Among the urban rich—those with the most income to spend on food and the most access to food shipped by rail-road—French cooking reigned supreme, and it was associated with distinction and sophistication. Though French cooking was not new to America, before this time it had not been part of mainstream tastes. Elaborate dinner parties became the rage in elite society, requiring chefs trained in French cooking and a number of servants to assist. These meals also tended to be gastronomical events, with multiple courses and an enormous amount of food served at one sitting.
Excess was common, and it was seen to reflect the wealth of the host. Levenstein notes that the menu for one 1880 dinner party honoring General Winfield Hancock, the Democratic candidate for President that year, included raw oysters, soup, fish, a saddle of lamb, a filet of beef, chicken wings with green peas, lamb chops with beans, mushroom-stuffed artichokes, a terrapin casserole, roast duck, and quail. Dessert included ice cream, banana mousse, and fruit (11-12).
Even for daily meals, the rich tended to rely on hired personnel to do their cooking (employing a trained French cook was considered a sign of distinction). It should come as no surprise that clothing manufacturers during this period had to increase clothing sizes to account for the newly expanded waistlines of prosperous Americans. Girth became a symbol of affluence, and books such as How to be Flump recommended high fat and starch diets to achieve a desired stout appearance (Hooker 218; Levenstein 12-13).
Middle-class families, who typically had only one or two servants, could not afford to employ a trained chef. Nevertheless, some middle-class households attempted to mirror the food consumption patterns of the upper class, reproducing scaled-down elegant banquets. Other middle-class homemakers cooked in a more traditional manner, remaining suspicious of "fancy French cooking," and attempting to set a competent if not elaborate table.
Almost all middle-class households had at least one servant, but even if that servant assisted with food preparation, there was no guarantee that that servant had been trained as a cook. As a result, Levenstein writes, most cooking in middle-class homes retained British-American culinary tastes. "Roast meats, scalloped dishes, thick gravies—simple recipes that could be mastered by the succession of immigrant cooks under the watchful eye of the housewife remained the backbone of the cuisine".
Books addressed to middle-class homemakers often encouraged them to view cooking as an essential household task. Catherine E. Beecher and Harriet Beecher Stowe, writing in the 1869 American Woman's Home, stated  "The person who decides what shall be the food and drink of a family, and the modes of its preparation, is the one who decides, to a greater or less extent, what shall be the health of the family" (119). The Beecher sisters were critical of some traditional means of American cooking, finding that Americans, taking for granted the surplus and variety of food grown in the United States, tended to prepare meals sloppily and wastefully. They called for cooks to emulate the economy of traditional French cooking.
Yet, it was not the economy of French cooking that appealed to many middle-class Americans, but rather its suggestion of elegance. Inspired by the development of Home Economics (a movement that aimed to elevate and professionalize homemaking, often by employing scientific concepts), new cooking schools instructed women who aspired to prepare more elaborate meals. Middle-class dinner parties still involved a substantial outlay of funds for detailed menus. The finest cuts of beef, seafood, and fresh fruits, all served in large quantities, came to be expected. Faced with higher expectations for variety, the urban middle-class cook increasingly was drawn to the convenience of canned food (Levenstein 19).
While some middle-class families put on dinner parties, their everyday meals were far simpler. A breakfast might include bread, mush, ham and eggs, or cold cereal, all with coffee. During this time, urban families began to transition away from a large midday meal (such a meal remained typical in rural households). Lunch may have consisted of a hot or cold dish with fruit or cake with tea. Dinner would involve soup, meat or fish, vegetables, and perhaps cheese (Plante 120).
The best sources for information on middle-class meals are the myriad of cookbooks that catered to the middle-class reader. Though some detailed elaborate dishes that few readers were likely to prepare, many others list the kind of meals that people often ate. As cooking became the purview of middle-class homemakers rather than servants, a greater variety of meals undoubtedly became part of the middle-class palate. Recipes also began to incorporate canned food and prepared ingredients.
There was no single working class diet. Some workers Working- thrived in the cities and their nutrition reflected that fact. Many recent immigrants attempted (and were often able) to maintain traditional ways of eating despite being in a new country. However, many others did not eat better for being in the cities, particularly if they came from rural areas where they were used to growing their own food in gardens. While new large clothing sizes were being designed for larger, wealthy Americans, poor nutrition and living conditions led to an overall decline in the height and weight of Americans beginning in the 1830s and lasting into the 1870s (Levenstein 23).
Quality of food tended to be more of an issue for workers than quantity. While bread, potatoes, cabbage, and onions could be found in most workers' diets, skilled workers, typically of Anglo-Saxon and Northern European origin, tended to eat traditional British-American cuisine. Unskilled workers, who were often recent immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe, would eat food prepared according to ethnic traditions. Stews and goulashes were typical (though middle-class food reformers frowned upon them, erroneously thinking they were less nutritious than foods prepared and served separately).
Most working-class families could not afford canned foods, and they ate few fruits and vegetables out of season other than what they canned or "put up" themselves. Notably, all workers during this time were likely to live in rented housing, and so the introduction of kitchen gadgets had little impact on their lives. Many workers still continued to cook on open hearths into this period (Levenstein 23-26; Mclntosh 102-05).
In the 1870s, Carroll D. Wright carried out the first statistical studies of workers' daily lives. Though by today's standards these studies were methodologically flawed (see D. Horowitz 13), they did provide a detailed glimpse into daily lives that would otherwise have gone unrecorded. For instance, an 1875 study Wright carried out for the Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics of Labor detailed how select working-class families spent their money. One typical mill laborer family of seven earned a total of $650 per year. Of that $650, $54.62 was spent on meat, $18.00 on dry goods, $13.50 on fish, $14.80 on milk, and $300.00 on assorted groceries. Rent and fuel for this same family amounted to $122.75 per year. This family spent more than three times as much on food than housing. In fact, food purchases made up more than 60 percent of this family's yearly expenditures (D. Horowitz 15).
Considering the cost of food, it is perhaps not surprising to see that the family ate a ratherlimited diet. The study recorded typical meals for this family as follows: Breakfast: Bread, butter, sometimes fish, or the remains of the day before, coffee. Dinner: Meat or fish, potatoes, bread, sometimes pie. Supper: Bread, butter, gingerbread, molasses, tea. (D. Horowitz 15) It is notable that breakfast was a small meal, often consisting of leftovers from the previous day and not including packaged cereals. The family's large meal was in the middle of the day, the typical pattern for families who lived close to their workplace and worked long hours. Supper was a light repast, thrown together quickly for often exhausted workers. Bread was served at every meal.

RECIPES

Contemporary cooks will notice that animal fat was used frequently in cooking. Also, no precise oven temperature or cooking time could be recommended, considering the variety of stoves and the imprecision of their heating at this time. These recipes were collected in Ellen Plante's The American Kitchen, 1700 to the Present (155-59).

Beef or Mutton Pudding

Boil some good potatoes until they are ready to fall to pieces; drain well in a sieve, clear them of all impurities and specks, mash, and make into a smooth batter, with two eggs and a little milk. Then place a layer on rather thick slices of cold roast beef or mutton, seasoned with pepper a nd salt, at the bottom of a baking dish, cover them with the batter, and so on until the dish is full, adding a thin layer of butter at the top. Bake it till well browned.
—Alexander V. Hamilton, The Household Cyclopaedia of Practical Recipes (1873)

Fritters of Canned Corn

1 can sweet corn, drained in a cullender [sic], 3 eggs very light; 1 cup of milk; pepper and salt; 1 table-spoonful butter; flour for thin batter; dripping for frying; a pinch of soda. Beat up the batter well, stir in the corn and drop the mixture in spoonfuls into the boiling fat. Drain off all the grease in a cullender.

Baking Powder Biscuits

Have the oven hot to begin with, then rub a piece of butter the size of an English walnut into a cup of flour and butter your baking tins. Next put a level teaspoon of salt, and two heaping teaspoons of baking powder in the flour and stir it well. Up to this time you can work leisurely, but from this onward, work as fast as you can "fly." Add a cup of sweet milk, stir it, and add enough more flour to make a soft dough; take it out onto the molding board, and form it quickly into a round mass; cut it in 2 parts, then 4, then 8; give the pieces just a roll in the floured hands, put it in the tin, and bake 8 to 10 minutes. The oven should brown them top and bottom in that time. Everybody likes them.
—Smiley Publishing Co., Smiley's New and Complete Guide for Housekeepers (1898) —Marion Harland, Breakfast, Lunch and Tea (1875)

By Julie Husband and Jim O'Loughlin in the book 'Daily Life in the Industrial United States, 1870-1900. The Greenwood Press "Daily Life Through History" Series, Greenwood Press. Westport, Connecticut (USA) & London, 2004, p.151-159. Edited and adapted to be posted by Leopoldo Costa.