If I Had My Own Blue Box:

Women in America; Being an Examination into the Moral and Intellectual Condition of American Female Society, by Mrs. A. J. Graves (New York:1844)

Look round upon the groups of young females who crowd our private parties or public balls; who lounge upon the sofa receiving visits, or throng the city promenades to exhibit their decorated persons or to make morning calls, and how many can you point out among them who have fulfilled one useful purpose of existence to themselves, to their families, or to society? And all this waste of time and energy in the pursuit of folly is in the hope of becoming thereby candidates for matrimony, while by this very means they are seeking to attain. Nor is this all: their efforts defeat the wished for end, inasmuch as the habits of indolence and extravagance in which so many young women are brought up, deter a multitude of young men from becoming husbands, lest they should involve themselves in pecuniary embarrassment; and as wealthy young men are extremely rare, we see marriages in fashionable life every day becoming fewer; thus leaving in our cities a numerous class of finely-dressed, pretty, and accomplished young ladies, doomed to become disappointed “establishment-seekers,” and to fade into fretful and repining “’old maids.” An intelligent, useful woman, who continues in a state of celibacy from choice or from disappointed affection, is an honoured and valuable member of society, but she whose youth has been spent in idleness and folly, and is seeking for a husband in crowded scenes of amusement, becomes a pitiable object – a burden to herself, and the jest and by-word of her acquaintance. (p52-53)

Among the many causes that are tending to deaden in the heart of woman a sense of her appropriate obligations, is the fatal notion that there is something servile in labour. It is, indeed, much to be lamented, that in the praiseworthy effort to redeem herself from the life of slavery and degradation to which past ages doomed her, so many of her sex should have passed to the other extreme – a life of indolence and uselessness Nor is this notion that there is gentility in idleness, confined to females alone: we find it widely and deeply cherished by society at large. Hence we see that the aristocratic titles of “lady” and “gentleman” are by common consent thought to be applicable only to those who hold it beneath their fancied dignity to toil with their hands. The farmer who guides his own plough, and the mechanic who still plies his tools, are thus considered as belonging to a lower caste than the “gentleman” farmer who lives solely upon the toil of his dependant[sic] labourers, or the retired mechanic who has thrown aside his implements, and employs the capital amassed by their use in extensive speculations in lands or stocks. (p25-26)

Dress as a Fine Art, by Mrs. Mary Philadelphia Merrifield (Boston: 1854)

We violate the laws of nature when we seek to repair the ravages of time on our complexions by paint, when we substitute false hair for that which age has thinned or blanched, or conceal the change by dyeing our own gray hair; when we pad our dress to conceal that one shoulder is larger than the other. To do either is not only in bad taste, but is a positive breach of sincerity. It is bad taste, because the means we have resorted to are contrary to the laws of nature. The application of paint to the skin produces an effect so different from the bloom of youth, that it can only deceive an unpracticed eye. It is the same with hair: there is such a want of harmony between false hair and the face which it surrounds, especially when that face bears the marks of age, and the color of the hair denotes youth, that the effect is unpleasing in the extreme. Deception of this kind, therefore, does not answer the end which it had in view; it deceives nobody but the unfortunate perpetrator of would-be deceit. It is about as senseless a proceeding as that of the goose in the story, who, when pursued by the fox, thrust her head into a hedge, and thought that, because she could no longer see the fox, the fox could not see her. But in a moral point of view it is worse than silly; it is adopted with a view to deceive; it is acting a lie to all intents and purposes, and it ought to be held in the same kind of detestation as falsehood with the tongue. Zimmerman has an aphorism which is applicable to this case – “Those who conceal their age do not conceal their folly.” (p12-13)

The immediate objects of dress are twofold – namely, decency and warmth; but so many minor considerations are suffered to influence us in choosing our habiliments, that these primary objects are too frequently kept out of sight. Dress should be not only adapted to the climate, it should be also light in weight, should yield to the movements of the body, and should be easily put on or removed. It should also be adapted to the station in society, and to the age, of the individual. These are the essential conditions, yet in practice how frequently are they overlooked; in fact, how seldom are they observed! Next in importance are general elegance of form, harmony in the arrangement and selection of the colors, and special adaptation in form and color to the person of the individual. To these objects we purpose directing the attention of the reader. (p16)

Had the Bloomer costume, which has obtained so much notoriety, been introduced by a tall and graceful scion of the aristocracy, either of rank or talent, instead of being at first adopted by the middle ranks, it might have met with better success. We have seen that Jenny Lind could introduce a new fashion of wearing the hair, and a new form of hat or bonnet, and Mme. Sontag a cap which bears her name. But it was against all precedent to admit and follow a fashion, let its merits be every so great, that emanated from the stronghold of democracy. We are content to adopt the greatest absurdities in dress when they are brought from Paris, or recommendation by a French name; but American fashions have no chance of success in aristocratic England. It is beginning at the wrong end.

A TRIFLE.

 Pound the sweet and bitter almonds to a smooth paste, adding a little rose-water as you pound them.

 Grate the yellow peels of the lemons, and squeeze the juice into a saucer.

 Break the sponge cake and maccaroons into small pieces, mix them with the almonds, and lay them in the bottom of a large glass bowl. Grate a nutmeg over them, and the juice and peel of the lemons. Add the wine and brandy, and let the mixture remain untouched, till the cakes are dissolved in the liquor. Then stir it a little.

 Mix the cream and sugar with a glass of noyau, and beat it with a whisk or rods, till it stands alone.

 As the froth rises, take it off with a spoon, and lay it on a sieve (with a large dish under it) to drain. The cream, that drains into the dish, must be poured back into the pan with the rest, and beaten over again. When the cream is finished, set it in a cool place.

 When the custard is cold, poor it into the glass bowl upon the dissolved cakes, &c. and when the cream is ready, fill up the bowl with it, heaping it high in the middle. You may ornament it with nonpareils.

 If you choose, you can put in, between the custard and the frothed cream, a layer of fruit jelly, or small fruit preserved.

Seventy-Five Receipts for Pastry Cakes, and Sweetmeat (Philadelphia, 1832) is one of Miss Leslie’s earlier culinary/cooking works. https://archive.org/details/seventyfiverecei06677gut (For those unfamiliar with Project Gutenberg, I do suggest browsing for a while. The vast majority of their texts have been transcribed into plain text, while several are read aloud.) She includes easy to follow ingredient lists and directions. I happen to think there are very tasty sounding dishes in this book.

You may also enjoy some of her other cookery books:

Miss Leslie’s New Receipts for Cooking, 1874 https://archive.org/details/misslesliesnewre02lesl

Miss Leslies’ New Cookery Book, 1857 https://archive.org/details/misslesliesnewco00lesl

Miss Leslie’s Complete Cookery, 1853 https://archive.org/details/misslesliescompcol00lesl

It is said that soon after the publication of Nicholas Nickleby, not fewer than six Yourkshire schoolmasters (or rather six principals of Yorkshire institutes) took journeys to London, with the express purpose of presecuting Dickens for libels – “each one and severally” considering himself shown up to the world as Mr. Squeers of Dotheboys Hall.

Now, if Dickens had drawn as graphic a picture of Dothegirls Hall, we firmly believe that none of the lady pricipals of similar institutes would have committed themselves by evincing so little tact, and adopting such impoltic proceedings. They would wisely have held back from all appropriation of the obnoxious character, a passed it over unnoticed; as if it could not possibly have the slightest reference to them.

Therefore we wish that those of our fair readers whom certain hints in the following pages may awaken to the consciousness of a few habitual misbehavements, (of which they were not previously aware,) should pause, and reflect, before they allow themselves to “take umbrage too much.” Let them keep in mind that the purpose of the writier is to amend, and not offend; to improve her young country-women, and to to annyoy them. It is whith this view only that she has been induced to “set down in a note-book” wuch lapses from les bienseances as she has remarked during a long course of observation, and on a very diversified field.

She trusts that her readers will peruse this book in as friend a spirit as it was written. ~Eliza Leslie.

 This is the preface from Eliza Leslie’s The Ladies’ Guide to True Politeness and Perfect Manners; or, Miss Leslie’s Behaviour Book (Philadelphia, 1864) https://archive.org/stream/ladiesguidetotru00lesl#page/n3/mode/2up  Her guidance not only covers individual behaviour, but also how to prepare the room or home for different occasions. This includes a suggestion of opening the window sashes in the summer for tea.