Going beyond simple rudeness in the ballroom, here's a wonderful account of a French-American culture clash turned violent at a ball in New Orleans on January 23, 1804. Aside from showing what people of that era would fight over and how hair-trigger tempers were in New Orleans in particular at that time, it also usefully documents some ballroom dance practices of the era. Slowly piecing together such tidbits eventually allows me to draw larger conclusions.
I'm not going to explain the whole background of the Louisiana Purchase, which transferred an enormous swathe of North America from French to American control in 1803, but it is worth noting that the formal transfer of New Orleans itself took place on December 20, 1803, only a month or so before the incident described. There is a suggestion earlier in the article that feelings were running high among the French in the wake of (perceived?) American disrespect during the replacement of the French flag with the American one. There had already been a "slight misunderstanding" at a previous assembly on January 6th. The fight on the 23rd is a small example of the sort of cultural conflicts that would be a problem in New Orleans society for decades afterward.
Accounts of the incident appeared, attributed to letters from New Orleans, in at least two newspapers: on March 11th in the Gazette of the United States (Philadelphia) and in the Maryland Gazette (Annapolis) on the 15th. The latter seems to have been a little uncertain about the story. The story included a disclaimer:
"We have reason, however, to believe that it is not so perfectly correct as the editor imagines. But as we cannot rely with perfect confidence upon the information which we have received, we shall not, at present, attempt to make a different statement."
The Philadelphia paper further attributed the story to the Washingon, D.C.-based National Intelligencer, but I've been unable to find any article on it in that paper.
The accuracy of the account is therefore far from confirmed, and probably not confirmable unless by miraculous chance some letters turn up. It still offers a glimpse of what people considered plausible enough ballroom habits to put in print.
First, the rules of the New Orleans assemblies were described for the American reader:
Regular assemblies are periodically held at New-Orleans, under the direction of the municipal officers. According to rules fixed by them, which existed previous to the cession of the country, the dances were arranged, in the following order: first, two cotillons; next, a country dance for twelve couple, and lastly, the Waltz.
Four dances is a very short ball program; it wouldn't take much more than an hour to an hour and a half (if the cotillons and country dance were very lengthy ones) to do the listed dances. I wonder whether it was meant to be repeated over the course of the evening or whether people occupied themselves more with socializing than with dancing at these events.
On the dances themselves:
Cotillons were French square dances of the eighteenth century, to oversimplify wildly. They were a familiar part of ball programs in France, England, and America.
Country dances were much longer dances in the early nineteenth century, with couples leading off one by one instead of all starting at once. The New Orleans citizens obviously had a higher tolerance for lengthy dances than people do today, since a set of twelve couples could take twenty to forty minutes, depending on the length of the dance figures and speed of the music. The specific number of couples given here is an interesting hint about what a suitable length for a set was. It exactly matches the diagram The Progressive Motion of a Country Dance published by London dancing master Thomas Wilson in his Regency-era The complete system of English country dancing. I don't think that coincidence suggests that there was any definitive rule about length, but it's another bit of data on the topic of set length.
It is no surprise that a former French colony like Louisiana would have an active waltz tradition, but the waltz had also reached the east coast of America by 1804, so it would not have been a totally unfamiliar dance to the papers' urban readers. It may well have been less familiar to the Americans who had moved to New Orleans. The French apparently felt quite strongly about their waltzing:
On the 23d of January another assembly was held. According to the above rules the dancing commenced with cotillons, followed by a country dance of twelve couple; the music, having received instructions in conformance with this arrangement, ceased to play the tune appropriate to the country dance, as soon as the twelve couple had led down the dance. In the meantime six additional couple, composed of Americans, had placed themselves at the end of the dance. As soon as the music ceased, the Americans required a continuation of it and of the country dance; while the French citizens called for the Waltz, a dance, in which it is understood, as many of the company as please participate.
The music declining to play a continuation of this tune, an American citizen broke the violin of one of the band with his cane, which likewise being broken, exposed a sword. Some tumult ensued, during which a French officer left the room and returned with broad sword. In the mean-time, to appease the disorder, governor Claiborne and general Wilkinson addressed the company, and inquired what were the wishes of the dissatisfied. The French officers replied, "we want the Waltz." This reply from being made in French, not being understood by the Americans, but, on the contrary, being interpreted to a menace, increased the disorder.
From there, it disintegrated into further chaos during which more swords were drawn but apparently no one was seriously injured. I'm less interested in the details of the brawl than in the hints about the dancing and etiquette violations.
First, I'm amused at the musicians having "received instructions in conformance with" the twelve-couple arrangement of the set. Some things never change; I've had those conversations with musicians at my own assemblies many times. They generally start with "how many times do we play the tune through?" The answer for a twelve-couple set would be forty-four times, which explains everything to me about why the musicians declined to keep playing.
Joining a country dance after it had begun was not necessarily utterly forbidden everywhere in the early nineteenth century; there were even rules for the situation in English etiquette:
All persons joining the Dance after the first couple have been down it, may stand before the said couple that called the Dance.
-- G. M. S. Chivers, The Modern Dancing Master.. London, 1822.
But in a situation where local custom was strict, the Americans were being quite rude to try to extend the dance in this way.
Finally, it's interesting to see what was specifically noted about the waltz in contrast to the country dance, at least, and possibly the cotillons as well: "as many of the company as please participate." The French citizens were not just grumpy because they were especially fond of waltzing. Since only twenty-four of them had been able to be in the country dance, which could have been going on for a very long time, everyone else in the room just wanted to get a chance to get up and dance anything. And the waltz was the designated dance for all to join in.
One wonders if the Americans were not as familiar with the waltz as the French and therefore perceived the situation in exactly the opposite way: continuing the country dance would let them participate in the dancing, whereas switching to waltzing would shut them out. There's a lesson here about whether culture is necessarily a zero-sum game.
Interesting. This incident (or one much like it) is called out in Herbert Asbury's (he of "Gangs of New York") "The French Quarter". I recall his description of it as a brawl over English country dance vs. French contredanse, but it's not as though he knew anything about dance practices of that time. No time to look it up now but I think I still have the book.
Posted by: Alan Winston | October 04, 2015 at 03:05 PM