History of Bloomers
Amelia Bloomer, “True History of the So-Called Bloomer Costume,” Religio-Philosophical Journal (Chicago), December 28, 1889.
Mrs. Amelia Bloomer of Council Bluff, Iowa, corrects the Chicago Tribune.
I am led to write you now by seeing my name again dragged into your paper in a manner wholly uncalled for, and statements made equally untrue as those in the article above referred to. This occurs in the Tribune of November 23rd, in an article on the “Oneida Community.” The writer of that article says: “The only costume allowed to the women was what has since become known as the ‘Bloomer.’ It was here that Mrs. Bloomer, the female suffragist, first obtained her knowledge of the costume which she afterwards claimed as her personal invention.” etc.
The reader of the above would infer that I had been a member of the Oneida Community, and one of those whose skirts were cut off by Elder Noyes’ “pruning knife.” This statement is made “out of whole cloth,” with no shadow of truth to sustain it. I was never at the Oneida Community at any time in my life. I never knew any one who had been there. I never knew that the women there wore short skirts and trousers; and I never claimed the short costume as my “personal invention.”
It is said that “nothing lies like history,” and, judging from your writers of history, I believe it. They may not intend to be incorrect and to pervert the truth, but they do it nevertheless; and the wrong done is the same as though willfully done.
True History of the Bloomer Costume
In January or February, 1851, an article appeared editorially in the Seneca County Courier, Seneca Falls, N. Y., on “Female Attire,” in which 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 this 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 the Courier was 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 the Lily and Courier were interested in and excited over the discussion, Elizabeth Smith Miller, daughter of the Hon. Garret Smith of Peterboro, N. Y., appeared on the streets of our village dressed in short skirt and full Turkish trousers. She came on a visit to her cousin, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who was then a resident of Seneca Falls. Mrs. Miller had been wearing this 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 below 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 practice as I preached and as the Courier man advised—and so a few days later I, too, donned the 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 work of the press. I stood amazed at the furor I had unwittingly caused. The New York Tribune contained 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 commended 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 of 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 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 ever have donned it.
As soon as it became known that I was wearing the new style 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 in the mails were for me.
It Increased Her Paper’s Circulation
My subscription list ran up amazingly into the thousands, and the good woman’s rights doctrine was 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 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 and lecturing in all the principal cities of the North on temperance and woman suffrage, but at no time, on any occasion, ever 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 flattering notices from the press 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, so that question was for some time kept before my readers. Mrs. Stanton was a frequent contributor and ably defended the 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. At least this was the understood cause of her change. Elizabeth Miller wore the style for many years, but I think abandoned it several years ago.
Lucy Stone of the Woman’s Journal adopted and wore the style for many years on all occasions, but she, too, with advancing years saw fit to return to long skirts. 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 the 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.
In the spring of 1855 my husband determined on removing to this then far-away city. As there were no facilities here for printing a paper with so large a circulation as mine, I disposed of it to Mary B. Birdsall of Richmond, Ind. In the early years after coming here I lectured in all the cities hereabouts, and on invitation addressed the Nebraska Legislature on woman suffrage; and I was a frequent writer for the local press. But with advancing years and failing health I have retired entirely from the platform, and rested my pen—except an occasional effort. 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. 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 yet 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.
If any one questions any of my statements they can easily be verified. The then editor of the Courier still lives, and many others who were conversant with my doings forty years ago. I have the files of both the Lily and the Courier of those days, and they furnish proof that cannot be refuted.
I have reached and passed my allotted three score and ten years, and my work on earth is nearly done. I would that future writers would seek to learn the truth concerning me and my public career, or let my memory rest in peace.
In writing of the press I do not wish to include all journalists. From some I have received the utmost respect and consideration, and my contributions have been sought after. And on the matter of dress, some who have wished to bring that subject before their readers have of late sent reporters to interview me, others have written me for information and have endeavored to lay the truth before their readers.
The writers for the Tribune prefer to give sensational articles and make themselves witty at the expense of truth and justice. It is to be hoped that in time that old, wornout subject, the “Bloomer Costume,” may have a rest.
Elizabeth Smith Miller on the Adoption of the “Short Skirt” (New York History
Net)
A Fair Retort—A young lady, dressed in the Bloomer costume, who had wit as well as independence, was present at an evening party a short time since, where she attracted the attention of the gentlemen and the sneers of some of the ladies. One extremely sensitive lady, who no doubt envied the pretty appearance of the new costume, remarked to the wearer that it was a very immodest dress, and unbecoming a lady. The witty fair one replied, “If you should pull your dress up enough to cover your shoulders, it would then be shorter than mine!” The modest lady, whose dress seemed in danger of falling from her person, immediately fainted, and fell into the arms of a lemonade waiter.
[
Whatnot] [
Ephemera Home] [
Spiritualist Listings]