The Revolution in Dress
Joseph Rodes Buchanan, “The Revolution in Dress,” Buchanan’s Journal of Man, July 1851: 27-31.
A lady correspondent of the Lowell Courier writes as follows from St. Louis:
“On our way here I was in company with four young ladies, who were bound to California, under the protection of their father and brother; and as they were all four dressed in male attire, I have thought some account of them would be interesting to you. They were from Philadelphia—are highly respectable—their father, Mr. Springer, having been an eminent merchant there, who met with reverses in business. I first met this family at Louisville, on board the steamer on which I embarked for St. Louis, and continued with them to this city. They intended going over the plains, from Independence, in wagons, and will have a long and tedious journey to perform. They are in fine spirits, however, seeming to look upon the journey as a pleasant excursion. Their conduct on the boat was perfectly lady-like; indeed, every one was pleased with them. They have a supply of coarse male apparel for the plains; but their suits worn on the boat were fashionable and fine black dress coats, black pants, buff vests, and hats of glossy black. The buttons of their vests were plain, flat surfaced, and very rich. Their coats and pants were all modish and fit to a nicety. Their hair was cut short, and their whole appearance was very genteel, I must admit. They stated to me that they felt perfectly at ease in their new garments, and preferred them to gowns. I asked them whether they proposed traveling on the plains in their fine suits? They answered in the negative, observing that they had a supply of rough clothes for the journey, but that while they were yet in civilized regions they intended to dress like gentlemen. Now, I can say, with perfect truth, that no harm or ill-nature resulted from the course pursued by the Misses Springer. Every passenger spoke well of them, and the lady-passengers, with only one exception, acknowledged that they no longer saw anything wrong in females dressing in male attire. I began to think, therefore, that Miss Webber may come to our country in safety, and not be considered an eccentric. At all events, I have written to her to that effect, and volunteered her a cordial reception. But I must caution you not to keep your eyes too intently upon her person, or you will be sure to fall in love with her. She is the beau ideal of a handsome gentleman, and I could never desire to see her in female dress. The eldest Miss Springer is very intelligent and well educated. She says the day will yet come when all women will wear male attire. I have a strong notion of getting a handsome suit for myself, to be worn occasionally in select company. I do not fancy black clothes, and therefore must adopt Miss Webber’s evening suit, I suppose—the blue dress coat, buff vest and drab pantaloons.”
The Cincinnati Nonpareil, of May 14th, says that a party of visitors from Pittsburgh, dressed in the Turkish style, have created quite a desire among the Cincinnati ladies to adopt the new fashion, from which they are deterred only by their timidity in taking the lead.
The New York Home Journal says, under the head of “Ladies in Trowsers”:
“We have been for some time aware that there was a town somewhere in the interior of the State, where a common gymnasium dress of trowsers and frock had been adopted and persevered in, as an out-of-door costume, by the leading ladies of the place. We have heard that the boys did, at first, hoot after the fair Spartans, but that by resolute persistence, the good sense of the change had made its impression on public opinion, and the ladies had been sustained. There is now a town where the sex is not subjected to wet heels and bedraggled petticoats in wet weather, and that town is Seneca Falls.”
The Telegraph, of Kenosha (Wisconsin), says:
“There is no reform which is correct in theory, and which cannot find some independent spirit in Kenosha, to reduce it to practice. On Wednesday afternoon two of the wives of our most respectable citizens appeared in short dresses and pants. The fashion on the whole is appropriate, and has some show of common sense to back it. If anything, the frocks are a little too long, and the pants a little too full. We admire the independence of the ladies, who dare do as they please—what business is it to the carping and carking crowd, if the ladies of this city are tired of using their dresses to sweep the crossings and sidewalks? The ladies of Milwaukie, Racine, and Eagleville, can now get their dresses made and come here and wear them, till they get used to them, and our ladies will return with you, and assist in breaking up mock modesty.”
Every few days we hear of some new instance of this change of costume, and many commendatory notices are given in the various newspapers. Everybody seems to admire the neatness and convenience of the new style.
The Boston Transcript says:
“A New York house has recently transmitted an order to Paris for an invoice of dress-goods, with a deep border on the side. These goods are intended for ladies’ short dresses, the width of the cloth will comprise the length of the skirts. We give the following description from a New York paper: ‘The skirt comes a little below the knee, and buttons in front; the waist is cut plain, and also buttons in front. The border extends round the skirt, and in front to the bottom of the waist—the latter being cut to have the border form the letter V. The trousers are made loose, gathered into a band at the ankle.’”
In the proceedings of the Woman’s Rights’ Convention, at Worcester, there is a very good letter from Miss Webber, advocating, with great force, a change in female dress. There is more in this reform than a mere matter of fashion.
A correspondent of the Tribune expresses the following views, which are too good to be omitted [. . .]:
“It is very desirable that this reformation extend beyond the diminishing of the lengthened volume of skirt. The innumerable fantastic and troublesome details of female apparel should be discarded. Two or three visible garments should suffice. This would give a charming and dignified simplicity, at the same time that the ease and dispatch of dressing and undressing would be secured, and leave the mind free for better and nobler things. It is indisputable that the best part of a woman’s life is consumed in trifles, and if woman is ever to come to a right knowledge of herself and her own capacity for intellectual development, let her joyfully hail anything that promotes, even in a small degree, to disenthrall her from the thousand pettinesses and contemptible little cares and avocations which degrade her into a mere lay figure, swathed with silks and velvets and bedizened with ribbons and laces.
“If it were understood as vulgar, not to say ungenerous, to the poorer, to appear in the streets in any fabric better or more expensive than cotton, linen, and wool, (and these include fabrics of great taste and beauty) then the movement would be decidedly republican, and breathe a truly American spirit, excelling Rome’s best days, and surpassing in true humanity, Rome’s noblest women.
“Invidious distinctions bespeak a groveling soul, and I have often wondered that a woman from whom is naturally expected a delicate generosity, could parade upon her person expensive fabrics and ornaments, with which not one in tend of her compeers, fellow-countrywomen, sisters in the great human family, could compete. It is a most unworthy and improper use to make of God’s rich gifts. Let ostentatious show be avoided as indecorous and wicked, while peculiar characteristics and variety of taste may find proper and ample scope. I am not saying that ‘full dress’ and ornaments should never be worn. There is a time for them, but not at church, or on the promenade, or in a promiscuous assemblage.
“Let us, as American women, set a noble example to the world. Let us shake off the trammels of the French metropolis, and dare to be sensible and rational in studying our own rights, convenience and comfort.
“By so doing, we shall gain, undoubtedly, much credit to ourselves. The whole world will admire, and ere long imitate us. Admiration we shall secure—but it is the lesser good, for humanity will be benefited. There is no question that many of our suicidal and unnatural customs in dress have dwarfed and enfeebled the race. The women of the present generation are unfit for maternity. Let them so act and so live, as not only to enjoy themselves in a newer and greater degree, but to insure more of life and vitality to their children. Each woman is in duty bound to give whatever influence she may possess to the promotion of anything that promises improvement, reformation and advancement in human welfare and happiness.
“If the mooted change in costume does not promise
all these things, then, for one among many, including physiologists, physicians
and women of mind and character, I have read its promises
blindly and stupidly.
It
is delightful to observe the hearty support given by the press to this
new movement. A single No. of the Tribune publishes extracts from
fifty-six newspapers, highly favorable to the change. There is indeed
little opposition except from certain newspapers, such as the New York
Herald, which are commonly recognized as the “Satanic Press,” although
a few of the very dignified conservatives now and then throw out a little
ridicule.
The following engraving, obtained from the Publishers of the Nonpareil, of this city, will be interesting to the lady readers of the Journal. The style it represents is beginning to be worn by several ladies in Cincinnati. A letter writer says that it is worn by many ladies in New York in private, and will soon become a street dress. In Lowell, Mass., according to reports, it is already beginning to be the fashion.
Small parties dressed in the new costume have assembled privately in various places, and there will probably be several celebrations [of] the 4th of July in which the new costume will be recognized as the established fashion and none other admitted. Something of this kind is already announced at Cincinnati and Akron, Ohio, and at Lowell, Mass.
The Republican, of Toledo, O., says:
“An elegant party came off last evening at Mrs. E. Haskill’s—decidedly one of the finest affairs of the kind ever known in Toledo. Nearly every lady present, some sixty or seventy, as we learn, had the good taste to come out in the new style of costume. The dresses were tastefully got up, beautiful and becoming, and were worn with an easy grace that was quite enchanting. The half dozen ladies who adhered to the old ‘draggletails’ did themselves great injustice by appearance in such ungainly disguise, where all besides were so elegantly attired. Arrangements, we understand, are in progress for a succession of parties in the same style. Our ladies have taken hold of the dress reform in the right spirit, and the new style will be henceforth ‘all the rage’ in Toledo.”
Finally—the Home Journal (New York), edited by N. P. Willis, the poet, makes the following excellent comments on the revolution in costume, which are highly creditable to his philosophic good sense:
“Against the slavery of fashion, our republican country is properly the place for the first revolt. Of all the weeds of monarchy and aristocracy, such servile imitation of the exterior of others I the most rank and unprofitable. It extends to other apings of our superiors quite as easily. ‘Every one of Alexander’s followers,’ says Montaigne, ‘carried their heads on one side as he did; and the flatterers of Dionysius ran against each other in his presence, and stumbled at, and overturned whatever was under foot, to seem as purblind as he.’
“We repeat, that we see signs, which look to us as if the present excitement as to one fashion were turning into an universal inquired as to the sense or propriety of any fashion at all. When the subject shall have been fully discussed, and public attention fully awakened, common sense will probably take the direction of the matter, and opinion will settle in some shape which, at least, may reject former excesses and absurdities. Some moderate similarity of dress is doubtless necessary, and there are other points the ladies are likely to come to new decisions about. While they consult health, cleanliness and convenience, however, we venture to express a hope that they will get rid of the present slavish uniformity—that what is becoming to each may be worn without fear of unfashionableness, and that, in this way, we may see every woman dressed somewhat differently, and to her own best advantage, and the proportion of beauty largely increased, as it would, thereby, most assuredly be.”
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
[
Whatnot] [
Ephemera Home] [
Spiritualist Listings]