CHAPTER FOURTH.

The reform-dress movement was simply an episode in Mrs. Bloomer’s life and work, although perhaps an important one. She never dreamed of the wonderful celebrity which it brought to her name. This came upon her accidentally, as we shall see later on. It was first mentioned in theLilyin February, 1851. Other short articles on the subject appeared in subsequent numbers during that year, with pictures of herself dressed in the new costume. The whole story she herself told in the following article which appeared originally some years ago in the ChicagoTribuneand is here reproduced in full, followed by some further items bearing on the subject:

“In January or February, 1851, an article appeared editorially in theSeneca County Courier, Seneca Falls, N. Y., on ‘Female Attire,’ inwhich the writer showed up the inconvenience, unhealthfulness and discomfort of woman’s dress, and advocated a change to Turkish pantaloons and a skirt reaching a little below the knee.“At the time, I was publishing a monthly paper in the same place devoted to the interests of woman, temperance and woman’s rights being the principal subjects. As the editor of theCourierwas opposed to us on the woman’s-rights question, this article of his gave me an opportunity to score him one on having gone so far ahead of us as to advocate our wearing pantaloons, and in my next issue I noticed him and his proposed style in a half-serious, half-playful article of some length. He took up the subject again and expressed surprise that I should treat so important a matter with levity. I replied to him more seriously than before, fully indorsing and approving his views on the subject of woman’s costume.“About this time, when the readers of theLilyand theCourierwere interested in and excited over the discussion, Elizabeth Smith Miller, daughter of the Hon. Gerrit Smith, of Peterboro, N. Y., appeared on the streets of our village dressed in short skirts and full Turkish trousers. She came on a visit to hercousin, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who was then a resident of Seneca Falls. Mrs. Miller had been wearing the costume some two or three months at home and abroad. Just how she came to adopt it I have forgotten, if I ever knew. But she wore it with the full sanction and approval of her father and husband. During her father’s term in congress she was in Washington, and the papers of that city described her appearance on the streets in the short costume.“A few days after Mrs. Miller’s arrival in Seneca Falls Mrs. Stanton came out in a dress made in Mrs. Miller’s style. She walked our streets in a skirt that came a little above the knees, and trousers of the same material—black satin. Having had part in the discussion of the dress question, it seemed proper that I should practise as I preached, and as theCourierman advised; and so a few days later I, too, donned the new costume, and in the next issue of my paper announced that fact to my readers. At the outset, I had no idea of fully adopting the style; no thought of setting a fashion; no thought that my action would create an excitement throughout the civilized world, and give to the style my name and the credit due Mrs. Miller. This was all the workof the press. I stood amazed at the furor I had unwittingly caused. The New YorkTribunecontained the first notice I saw of my action. Other papers caught it up and handed it about. My exchanges all had something to say. Some praised and some blamed, some commented, and some ridiculed and condemned. ‘Bloomerism,’ ‘Bloomerites,’ and ‘Bloomers’ were the headings of many an article, item and squib; and finally some one—I don’t know to whom I am indebted for the honor—wrote the ‘Bloomer Costume,’ and the name has continued to cling to the short dress in spite of my repeatedly disclaiming all right to it and giving Mrs. Miller’s name as that of the originator or the first to wear such dress in public. Had she not come to us in that style, it is not probable that either Mrs. Stanton or myself would have donned it.“As soon as it became known that I was wearing the new dress, letters came pouring in upon me by hundreds from women all over the country making inquiries about the dress and asking for patterns—showing how ready and anxious women were to throw off the burden of long, heavy skirts. It seemed as though half the letters that came to our office were for me.“My subscription list ran up amazingly intothe thousands, and the good woman’s-rights doctrines were thus scattered from Canada to Florida and from Maine to California. I had gotten myself into a position from which I could not recede if I had desired to do so. I therefore continued to wear the new style on all occasions, at home and abroad, at church and on the lecture platform, at fashionable parties and in my business office. I found the dress comfortable, light, easy and convenient, and well adapted to the needs of my busy life. I was pleased with it and had no desire to lay it aside, and so would not let the ridicule or censure of the press move me. For some six or eight years, or so long as I remained in active life and until the papers had ceased writing squibs at my expense, I wore no other costume. During this time I was to some extent in the lecture field, visiting in all the principal cities of the North and lecturing on temperance and woman suffrage; but at no time, on any occasion, alluding to my style of costume. I felt as much at ease in it as though I had been arrayed in the fashionable draggle skirts. In all my travels I met with nothing disagreeable or unpleasant, but was universally treated with respect and attention by both press and people wherever I appeared. Indeed, I received fromthe press flattering notices of my lectures. If the dress drew the crowds that came to hear me it was well. They heard the message I brought them, and it has borne abundant fruit.“My paper had many contributions on the subject of dress and that question was for some time kept before my readers. Mrs. Stanton was a frequent contributor and ably defended the new style. She continued to wear it at home and abroad, on the lecture platform and in the social parlor, for two or three years; and then the pressure brought to bear upon her by her father and other friends was so great, that she finally yielded to their wishes and returned to long skirts.“Lucy Stone, of theWoman’s Journal, adopted and wore the dress for many years on all occasions; but she, too, with advancing years, saw fit to return to the old style. We all felt that the dress was drawing attention from what we thought of far greater importance—the question of woman’s right to better education, to a wider field of employment, to better remuneration for her labor, and to the ballot for the protection of her rights. In the minds of some people, the short dress and woman’s rights were inseparably connected. With us, the dress was but an incident, and we were not willing to sacrifice greater questions to it.“* * * I have not worn the short dress for thirty years, and it does seem as though in that time the interest concerning it must have died out. My reasons for abandoning I have in substance stated above. I never set up for a dress reformer, like Anna Jenness-Miller of the present day. Mrs. Miller, if I understand her correctly, really believes the short skirt and trousers the true style for woman’s costume; but that the time for its adoption has not yet fully come. Women are not sufficiently free and independent to dare to strike for health and freedom. Jenness-Miller is going over the country lecturing on dress and disposing of patterns, and is doing a vast amount of good. I am glad to know that she is not assailed and made the butt of ridicule and caricatured by the press.”

“At the time, I was publishing a monthly paper in the same place devoted to the interests of woman, temperance and woman’s rights being the principal subjects. As the editor of theCourierwas opposed to us on the woman’s-rights question, this article of his gave me an opportunity to score him one on having gone so far ahead of us as to advocate our wearing pantaloons, and in my next issue I noticed him and his proposed style in a half-serious, half-playful article of some length. He took up the subject again and expressed surprise that I should treat so important a matter with levity. I replied to him more seriously than before, fully indorsing and approving his views on the subject of woman’s costume.

“About this time, when the readers of theLilyand theCourierwere interested in and excited over the discussion, Elizabeth Smith Miller, daughter of the Hon. Gerrit Smith, of Peterboro, N. Y., appeared on the streets of our village dressed in short skirts and full Turkish trousers. She came on a visit to hercousin, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who was then a resident of Seneca Falls. Mrs. Miller had been wearing the costume some two or three months at home and abroad. Just how she came to adopt it I have forgotten, if I ever knew. But she wore it with the full sanction and approval of her father and husband. During her father’s term in congress she was in Washington, and the papers of that city described her appearance on the streets in the short costume.

“A few days after Mrs. Miller’s arrival in Seneca Falls Mrs. Stanton came out in a dress made in Mrs. Miller’s style. She walked our streets in a skirt that came a little above the knees, and trousers of the same material—black satin. Having had part in the discussion of the dress question, it seemed proper that I should practise as I preached, and as theCourierman advised; and so a few days later I, too, donned the new costume, and in the next issue of my paper announced that fact to my readers. At the outset, I had no idea of fully adopting the style; no thought of setting a fashion; no thought that my action would create an excitement throughout the civilized world, and give to the style my name and the credit due Mrs. Miller. This was all the workof the press. I stood amazed at the furor I had unwittingly caused. The New YorkTribunecontained the first notice I saw of my action. Other papers caught it up and handed it about. My exchanges all had something to say. Some praised and some blamed, some commented, and some ridiculed and condemned. ‘Bloomerism,’ ‘Bloomerites,’ and ‘Bloomers’ were the headings of many an article, item and squib; and finally some one—I don’t know to whom I am indebted for the honor—wrote the ‘Bloomer Costume,’ and the name has continued to cling to the short dress in spite of my repeatedly disclaiming all right to it and giving Mrs. Miller’s name as that of the originator or the first to wear such dress in public. Had she not come to us in that style, it is not probable that either Mrs. Stanton or myself would have donned it.

“As soon as it became known that I was wearing the new dress, letters came pouring in upon me by hundreds from women all over the country making inquiries about the dress and asking for patterns—showing how ready and anxious women were to throw off the burden of long, heavy skirts. It seemed as though half the letters that came to our office were for me.

“My subscription list ran up amazingly intothe thousands, and the good woman’s-rights doctrines were thus scattered from Canada to Florida and from Maine to California. I had gotten myself into a position from which I could not recede if I had desired to do so. I therefore continued to wear the new style on all occasions, at home and abroad, at church and on the lecture platform, at fashionable parties and in my business office. I found the dress comfortable, light, easy and convenient, and well adapted to the needs of my busy life. I was pleased with it and had no desire to lay it aside, and so would not let the ridicule or censure of the press move me. For some six or eight years, or so long as I remained in active life and until the papers had ceased writing squibs at my expense, I wore no other costume. During this time I was to some extent in the lecture field, visiting in all the principal cities of the North and lecturing on temperance and woman suffrage; but at no time, on any occasion, alluding to my style of costume. I felt as much at ease in it as though I had been arrayed in the fashionable draggle skirts. In all my travels I met with nothing disagreeable or unpleasant, but was universally treated with respect and attention by both press and people wherever I appeared. Indeed, I received fromthe press flattering notices of my lectures. If the dress drew the crowds that came to hear me it was well. They heard the message I brought them, and it has borne abundant fruit.

“My paper had many contributions on the subject of dress and that question was for some time kept before my readers. Mrs. Stanton was a frequent contributor and ably defended the new style. She continued to wear it at home and abroad, on the lecture platform and in the social parlor, for two or three years; and then the pressure brought to bear upon her by her father and other friends was so great, that she finally yielded to their wishes and returned to long skirts.

“Lucy Stone, of theWoman’s Journal, adopted and wore the dress for many years on all occasions; but she, too, with advancing years, saw fit to return to the old style. We all felt that the dress was drawing attention from what we thought of far greater importance—the question of woman’s right to better education, to a wider field of employment, to better remuneration for her labor, and to the ballot for the protection of her rights. In the minds of some people, the short dress and woman’s rights were inseparably connected. With us, the dress was but an incident, and we were not willing to sacrifice greater questions to it.

“* * * I have not worn the short dress for thirty years, and it does seem as though in that time the interest concerning it must have died out. My reasons for abandoning I have in substance stated above. I never set up for a dress reformer, like Anna Jenness-Miller of the present day. Mrs. Miller, if I understand her correctly, really believes the short skirt and trousers the true style for woman’s costume; but that the time for its adoption has not yet fully come. Women are not sufficiently free and independent to dare to strike for health and freedom. Jenness-Miller is going over the country lecturing on dress and disposing of patterns, and is doing a vast amount of good. I am glad to know that she is not assailed and made the butt of ridicule and caricatured by the press.”

In reference to the further connection of Mrs. Bloomer with the dress she wrote to a friend, in 1865, as follows:

“It is very true that I have laid aside the short dress which I wore for a number of years, and to which the public (not I) gave my name. I have not worn the dress for the last six years or more. * * * As to my reasons for layingaside the dress, they may not satisfy you, though they were sufficient for me. It was not at my husband’s dictation, by any means, but was my own voluntary act. * * * After retiring from public life and coming to this land of strangers where I was to commence life anew and make new friends, I felt at times like donning long skirts when I went into society, at parties, etc., and did so. I found the high winds which prevail here much of the time played sad work with short skirts when I went out, and I was greatly annoyed and mortified by having my skirts turned over my head and shoulders on the streets. Yet I persevered and kept on the dress nearly all the time till after the introduction of hoops. Finding them light and pleasant to wear and doing away with the necessity for heavy underskirts (which was my greatest objection to long dresses), and finding it very inconvenient as well as expensive keeping up two wardrobes—a long and short—I gradually left off the short dress. I consulted my own feelings and inclinations and judgment in laying it off, never dreaming but I had the same right to doff that I had to don it, and not expecting to be accountable for my doings, or required to give a reason to every one that asked me. There were other questionsof greater importance than the length of a skirt under discussion at the time, and I felt my influence would be greater in the dress ordinarily worn by women than in the one I was wearing. * * * I always liked the dress and found it convenient and comfortable at all times, and especially so for a working dress. I never encountered any open opposition while wearing it, though I have traveled much in the dress and freely walked the streets of all our large cities. On the contrary, I was always treated with respect and should continue to be, I have no doubt, did I still wear it. * * * When I saw what a furor I had raised, I determined that I would not be frightened from my position, but would stand my ground and wear the dress when and where I pleased, till all excitement on the subject had died away. And I did so.”

As to just how the reform dress should be prepared, Mrs. Bloomer gave her idea as follows in theLilyat the time when the subject was most prominently before the public eye:

“We would have the skirt reaching down to nearly half way between the knee and the ankle, and not made quite so full as is the presentfashion. Underneath this skirt, trousers made moderately full, in fair mild weather coming down to the ankle (not instep) and there gathered in with an elastic band. The shoes or slippers to suit the occasion. For winter or wet weather the trousers also full, but coming down into a boot, which should rise at least three or four inches above the ankle. This boot should be gracefully sloped at the upper edge and trimmed with fur or fancifully embroidered, according to the taste of the wearer. The material might be cloth, morocco, mooseskin and so forth, and made waterproof if desirable.”

The above describes the dress as Mrs. Bloomer wore it at the time it was written, but she afterwards abandoned the elastic band and allowed the trousers to hang loose about the ankle. The general opinion expressed in those early days was favorable.

Mrs. Russell Sage, now a venerable and highly respected matron, was a young woman and a resident of Syracuse at the time of Mrs. Bloomer’s visit to that place to attend a Temperance convention; in a recent interview, she thus describes her appearance at that time:

“Mrs. Bloomer came as a delegate and her appearance excited some attention. Her manner was unpretentious, quiet and delicately feminine. Her costume showed a total disregard for effect, and was mannish only to the extent of practicability. Her bodice was soft and belted at the waist, her collar simple and correct, as was also her prim bonnet; her skirt fell half way from knee to ankle, and then the bloomer—really a pantalet—made of black material, as the rest of her costume, reaching to her boot tops.”

The interviewer continues:

“As Mrs. Sage so knew Mrs. Bloomer, she agreed she was entirely what she aimed to be—a practical woman, progressive and competent of realizing results from her theories.”

On this subject Mrs. Bloomer, in an elaborate review (only a part of which is here presented) of a sermon by the Rev. Dr. Talmage in which he had quoted Moses as authority for women not wearing men’s attire, wrote as follows:

“There are laws of fashion in dress older than Moses, and it would be as sensible for the preacher to direct us to them as to him. The first fashion we have any record of was set us by Adam and Eve, and we are not told that there was any difference in the styles worn by them. ‘And they sewed fig-leaves together, and made themselves aprons’: Genesis, iii., 7. Nothing here to show that his apron was bifurcated, and hers not; that hers was long, and his short. We are led to suppose that they were just alike.“The second fashion was made by God Himself, and it would be supposed that if He intended the sexes to be distinguished by their garments explicit directions would have been given as to the style of each. ‘Unto Adam, also, and unto his wife, did the Lord God make coats of skins and clothed them’: Gen. iii., 21. Not a word as to any difference in the cut and make-up of the coats. No command to her that she must swathe and cripple herself in long, tight, heavy, draggling skirts, while he dons the more comfortable, healthy, bifurcated garment. God clothed them just alike, and made no signs that henceforth they should be distinguished by apparel. And for long years there was little, if any, difference.”

“The second fashion was made by God Himself, and it would be supposed that if He intended the sexes to be distinguished by their garments explicit directions would have been given as to the style of each. ‘Unto Adam, also, and unto his wife, did the Lord God make coats of skins and clothed them’: Gen. iii., 21. Not a word as to any difference in the cut and make-up of the coats. No command to her that she must swathe and cripple herself in long, tight, heavy, draggling skirts, while he dons the more comfortable, healthy, bifurcated garment. God clothed them just alike, and made no signs that henceforth they should be distinguished by apparel. And for long years there was little, if any, difference.”

After showing the character of the dress of different ancient nations, Egyptians, Babylonians, Israelites, Persians, Romans, Saxons, Normans, Turks, and Chinese, and that there was no essential difference between the dress worn by men and women, Mrs. Bloomer proceeds:

“With all the history of male and female attire before him, and with so much proof of the similarity in dress, how can Mr. Talmage set up the claim that men have a right to any particular style, and that if women dare to approach that style they break divine law and commit great sin and wrong? It is a presumption and insult which women everywhere should resent.“It matters not to us what Moses had to say to the men and women of his time about what they should wear. Our divine entirely disregards the command of the ancient lawgiver by not putting fringes and blue ribbons on his garments. Common sense teaches us that the dress which is the most convenient, and best adapted to our needs, is the proper dress for both men and women to wear. There is no reason why woman should burden herself withclothes to the detriment of her health, comfort and life, while man adopts a style that gives freedom of limb and motion. There is no divine law requiring such doings. A hundred other laws and customs of the days of Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses are as binding upon the men and women of this day as the text from which he gives his lecture. Judging from the present customs, men have transgressed that law more than women.“We do not advocate the same style of dress, altogether, for both sexes and should be sorry to see women dress just like men; yet we should like to see a radical reform in woman’s costume, so that she might be the free, healthy being God made her instead of the corseted, crippled, dragged-down creature her slavery to clothes has made her. No law of God stands in the way of her freedom. Her own judgment and inclination should be her guide in all matters of attire.“If divine law or vengeance is ever visited upon woman because of the cut of her garments, it will be upon the wearers of the suicidal long, heavy skirts, instead of upon those who have rid themselves of the grievous burden. That sorrow and suffering are visited upon woman because of her clothes we know, and that hersin is visited upon her we know; and yet how dare she throw off the burden and the sin, when the clergy from the pulpit hold over her head the threatenings of divine vengeance!“No sensible woman can sit under such preaching. Would that women had the independence to act out the right in defiance of such sermons, and in disregard of all laws that condemn her to the slavery of a barbarous age.“A. B.”

“It matters not to us what Moses had to say to the men and women of his time about what they should wear. Our divine entirely disregards the command of the ancient lawgiver by not putting fringes and blue ribbons on his garments. Common sense teaches us that the dress which is the most convenient, and best adapted to our needs, is the proper dress for both men and women to wear. There is no reason why woman should burden herself withclothes to the detriment of her health, comfort and life, while man adopts a style that gives freedom of limb and motion. There is no divine law requiring such doings. A hundred other laws and customs of the days of Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses are as binding upon the men and women of this day as the text from which he gives his lecture. Judging from the present customs, men have transgressed that law more than women.

“We do not advocate the same style of dress, altogether, for both sexes and should be sorry to see women dress just like men; yet we should like to see a radical reform in woman’s costume, so that she might be the free, healthy being God made her instead of the corseted, crippled, dragged-down creature her slavery to clothes has made her. No law of God stands in the way of her freedom. Her own judgment and inclination should be her guide in all matters of attire.

“If divine law or vengeance is ever visited upon woman because of the cut of her garments, it will be upon the wearers of the suicidal long, heavy skirts, instead of upon those who have rid themselves of the grievous burden. That sorrow and suffering are visited upon woman because of her clothes we know, and that hersin is visited upon her we know; and yet how dare she throw off the burden and the sin, when the clergy from the pulpit hold over her head the threatenings of divine vengeance!

“No sensible woman can sit under such preaching. Would that women had the independence to act out the right in defiance of such sermons, and in disregard of all laws that condemn her to the slavery of a barbarous age.

“A. B.”

On the general subject of “Fashion in Dress,” Mrs. Bloomer wrote to Charlotte A. Joy, June 3, 1857, as follows:

“Your letter inviting me to attend the annual meeting of the National Dress Association to be held in Syracuse on the 17th inst. is received. Owing to the great distance and my imperfect health, it will be impossible for me to be with you on that occasion, much as I should be pleased to meet some of the members personally and listen to their deliberations on so important a subject as a reform in woman’s costume.“At the present moment there is perhaps no subject which is more frequently pressed upon the attention of the public than that of dress.Our magazines are radiant with fashion plates illustrating the latest styles; our newspapers abound with allusions and discussions bearing upon the subject, as though it were a matter of national concernment; and it is continually the theme of conversation and a subject either of praise or satire wherever men and women meet together. It would be fortunate, indeed, if this discussion should result in securing a reform in all those styles and modes of woman’s dress which are incompatible with good health, refined taste, simplicity, economy and beauty; and it is to be hoped that the labors of your association may be so discreetly directed and so faithfully prosecuted, that they may go far to the accomplishment of this end.The costume of woman should be suited to her wants and necessities. It should conduce at once to her health, comfort, and usefulness; and, while it should not fail also to conduce to her personal adornment, it should make that end of secondary importance. I certainly need not stop to show that these conditions are not attained by the present style of woman’s dress. All admit that they are not. Even those who ridicule most freely the labors of your association are ready to admit the folly and inutility of the prevailing styles.“It is well, perhaps, in the present aspect of the movement, that its friends should abstain from prescribing any particular form of dress. It is better to learn wisdom from the experience of the past and, while successively lopping off all excrescences, produce at last that outward form of personal garniture which shall most fully secure the great end to be attained.“What may be the next feat of the fickle goddess of Fashion, or how near or how soon it may approach the more rational and more desirable form recommended by your association, none can say. At present, we must admit, the reform dress is quite obnoxious to the public and all who bear testimony in its favor, either by precept or example, must expect to meet with some trials and discouragements; yet it may, as you believe it will, be ultimately adopted. In bringing about such a result your association will have a leading part to perform, and in your labors you will have the good wishes, if not the active coöperation, of all who desire the emancipation of woman from the tyranny of prejudice and fashion.“A. B.”

“At the present moment there is perhaps no subject which is more frequently pressed upon the attention of the public than that of dress.Our magazines are radiant with fashion plates illustrating the latest styles; our newspapers abound with allusions and discussions bearing upon the subject, as though it were a matter of national concernment; and it is continually the theme of conversation and a subject either of praise or satire wherever men and women meet together. It would be fortunate, indeed, if this discussion should result in securing a reform in all those styles and modes of woman’s dress which are incompatible with good health, refined taste, simplicity, economy and beauty; and it is to be hoped that the labors of your association may be so discreetly directed and so faithfully prosecuted, that they may go far to the accomplishment of this end.

The costume of woman should be suited to her wants and necessities. It should conduce at once to her health, comfort, and usefulness; and, while it should not fail also to conduce to her personal adornment, it should make that end of secondary importance. I certainly need not stop to show that these conditions are not attained by the present style of woman’s dress. All admit that they are not. Even those who ridicule most freely the labors of your association are ready to admit the folly and inutility of the prevailing styles.

“It is well, perhaps, in the present aspect of the movement, that its friends should abstain from prescribing any particular form of dress. It is better to learn wisdom from the experience of the past and, while successively lopping off all excrescences, produce at last that outward form of personal garniture which shall most fully secure the great end to be attained.

“What may be the next feat of the fickle goddess of Fashion, or how near or how soon it may approach the more rational and more desirable form recommended by your association, none can say. At present, we must admit, the reform dress is quite obnoxious to the public and all who bear testimony in its favor, either by precept or example, must expect to meet with some trials and discouragements; yet it may, as you believe it will, be ultimately adopted. In bringing about such a result your association will have a leading part to perform, and in your labors you will have the good wishes, if not the active coöperation, of all who desire the emancipation of woman from the tyranny of prejudice and fashion.

“A. B.”

Back to Index Next