CHAPTER VIII.

ON HER TRAVELS—STARTS FOR IOWA—EARLY DAYS

IN THE WEST—DELAYED IN ST. LOUIS—THE MISSOURI

RIVER’S RAVAGES—CONSENTS TO DELIVER

A LECTURE—ODD METHOD OF ADVERTISING—OFF

IN A STAGECOACH—BEFRIENDS A STRANGER—ARRIVES

AT GLENWOOD—EARLY HARDSHIPS—SUFFER

FROM DROUTH—FURNITURE WAS SCARCE—DAYS

OF HOSPITALITY—EARLY OMAHA—PLASTERED

HOUSES WERE SCARCE—WORSHIPPED

IN LOG CHURCHES—EARLY CHURCH WORK—DEFENDS

WOMAN’S RIGHTS—THE NEBRASKA LEGISLATURE

INTERESTED—DANGERS MET IN CROSSING

THE MISSOURI—BUFFETS THE ICE IN A SKIFF—WOMAN’S

EQUALITY IN LAW—DESCRIBES COUNCIL

BLUFFS—DESCRIBES HER NEW HOME—LIFE IN

COUNCIL BLUFFS—AGAINST STRONG DRINK—HER

EXPERIENCES—FOR WOMAN’S ENFRANCHISEMENT—VOTING

AND FIGHTING—PROGRESS—STATE SUFFRAGE

SOCIETY—HISTORY OF IOWA SUFFRAGE

WORK—ESSAYS BY MRS. BLOOMER—“WIFELY

DUTIES”—“NAMES OF MARRIED WOMEN”—“IS

IT RIGHT FOR WOMEN TO LECTURE?”—“WOMAN’S

RIGHT TO PREACH”—“PETTICOAT PRESENTATION”—“OBJECTIONS

TO WOMAN SUFFRAGE ANSWERED”—“ON

HOUSEKEEPING; WOMAN’S BURDENS”—THE

CIVIL WAR—MRS. BLOOMER’S ADDRESS—LETTER

TO CONVENTION OF LOYAL

WOMEN—VISITS WASHINGTON—IN NEW YORK

CITY—VISITS COLORADO—A LETTER—ADOPTED

CHILDREN—CHRISTIAN LIFE AND WORK—HER

CHARACTER ANALYZED—“ABOUT THE FIRST SINNER”—GOLDEN

ANNIVERSARY—CLOSING YEARS—END

OF AN EARNEST LIFE—PASSES AWAY PEACEFULLY—GREAT

LOSS TO COUNCIL BLUFFS—HER

LIFE A BUSY ONE—HER CHRISTIAN CHARACTER—LARGE

CIRCLE OF FRIENDS—MEMORIAL DISCOURSE 190

APPENDIX.

WOMAN’S RIGHT TO THE BALLOT 335

A REPLY 355

MRS. STANTON ON MRS. BLOOMER 375

MEMORIAL SERMON 376

ILLUSTRATIONS.

AMELIA BLOOMER _Facing page 193_.

DEXTER C. BLOOMER _Frontispiece_.

LIFE AND WRITINGS OF AMELIA BLOOMER.

CHAPTER FIRST.

HER EARLY LIFE.

The early life of the subject of this Memoir was devoid of any

striking incidents. Her parents were natives of the little State

founded by Roger Williams, where both were born, passed their early

years, and were married some time in the year 1806. Her father,

Ananias Jenks, was a clothier by trade, and was a man of a great

deal of force of character. The maiden name of her mother was Lucy

Webb. She was a devoted Christian woman, and had enjoyed to the

fullest extent the training of a New-England Puritan family of the

last century. She was a faithful member of the Presbyterian church,

and she aimed to bring up her children in its somewhat strict

teachings. With her and her family the holy Sabbath commenced with

the going down of the sun on Saturday evening, and ended with the

setting of the sun on the following day. This was an old Puritan

notion, and was very convenient for the boys and girls who wished to

form acquaintances and spend pleasant hours together on the evening

of the first day of the week. Ananias Jenks, the father of Amelia

Jenks, removed to the state of New York with his wife in the early

days of their married life, residing successively in the counties of

Onondaga, Cortlandt, Wayne, and Seneca. To Ananias and Lucy Jenks

several children were born, at least four daughters and two sons.

One of the latter died in early childhood; but the other, Augustus,

was spared until about his thirtieth year. He married, removed to

the state of Michigan, where five children were born in his family,

enlisted as a volunteer in one of the Michigan regiments in the Civil

War, and lost his life at the great battle of Gettysburg. The four

daughters were Adaline, Elvira, Amanda, and Amelia; Amelia being

the youngest of the family, with perhaps the exception of Augustus,

who may have been younger. All the children married: Adaline left

children surviving her; Amanda, one only, a daughter; while none were

born to either Elvira or Amelia.

The last named, Amelia, was born in the town of Homer, Cortlandt

County, New York, on the 27th day of May, 1818. In some

autobiographical notes left by her, we find the following in

reference to her early years:

“My earliest recollections are of a pleasant home in Homer,

Cortlandt County, New York. Here was I born, and here the first

six years of my life were passed. But little of these early days

can now be recalled after sixty years have been added to them, yet

there are a few incidents that are so deeply impressed upon memory,

that they seem but the occurrence of a week ago. First I recall the

visit of some Indians to my father’s house, and the latter buying

a large knife of them. The Indians, my father and the knife come

before me now as though they were indeed a reality of the present.

Again, a scene comes before the mind’s eye of my brother and myself

looking from an upper window, and seeing some Indians knocking at

the door of a small untenanted house opposite to us. My brother,

who was a few years older than myself, called out ‘Come in.’ The

Indians opened the door and stepped in, then out, and looked up

and around sorely puzzled at hearing a voice, but seeing no one,

while my brother and I laughed and danced behind the blind at the

trick which we had played upon them. Several children were on their

way to school. One little girl jumped upon the wheel of a wagon

which stood in front of a house, intending to get in and ride to

school. The horse became frightened while she stood on the wheel,

and ran away, throwing her violently to the ground and injuring

her severely. The mirth of childhood was turned to sadness, and we

trudged on to school, after seeing her unconscious form carried

into the house. I could not have been over four or five years

old when these things happened, but they are deeply engraved on

memory’s tablet.”

Amelia was carefully trained at home by her truly Christian mother,

and from her she imbibed those high sentiments of honesty, truth,

duty, fidelity and regard for the rights of others which actuated her

during the whole course of her life. Her educational opportunities

were limited to the district school of those early days. Then, it

was commonly thought that about all a girl should be taught was to

read and write, with a little grammar and less arithmetic. These

essentials of a common-school education were fairly mastered by the

little girl, and to such an extent that, when she arrived at about

the age of seventeen years, she was employed as a teacher in one

of the district schools at or near the village of Clyde, in Wayne

County, New York. A single short term, however, was the whole extent

of her life as a teacher. For the brief period of her engagement,

we are told, she discharged her duties with much acceptance. Her

kindness of heart, united with wonderful firmness and a strict regard

for truth and right, qualities which distinguished her throughout her

whole life, endeared her to the children who came under her care.

HER MARRIAGE.

School-teaching however soon ended; and shortly after, she became a

member of the family of her sister Elvira, then recently married and

residing in Waterloo, New York, to which place her father’s family

also removed about the same time. Here the days passed along smoothly

and quietly until about the year 1837, when she became an inmate in

the family of Mr. Oren Chamberlain residing near Waterloo, as the

governess and tutor of his three youngest children. This position she

continued to fill with entire satisfaction for two or three years.

The children all lived to years of maturity, and always manifested

great affection in subsequent years for their former teacher. In

this family, the life of Miss Jenks moved along quietly and evenly.

She enjoyed fully its confidence and the love of her pupils. She

formed new friendships and the circle of her acquaintances was

widened. Among the latter, was a young man residing in Seneca Falls

engaged in the study of law, while taking also a large interest in

the political movements of that day. They met quite frequently, and

soon strong ties of friendship were formed between them, and the

friendship ripened as the months passed by into love. They became

engaged, and finally were married at the residence of John Lowden in

the village of Waterloo, New York, on the 15th day of April, 1840,

by the Rev. Samuel H. Gridley, the Presbyterian clergyman of the

village; and in subsequent years Mrs. Bloomer frequently alluded with

much satisfaction to the fact that he omitted altogether the word

“obey” in the marriage ceremony. Only a few friends were present at

the marriage, but among them besides Mr. and Mrs. Lowden were A. E.

Chamberlain, Miss Caroline Starks, and Mr. and Mrs. Isaac Fuller, all

of whom together with Mr. Lowden are still living at the time (March,

1895) of writing these lines.

At the time of this marriage Mr. Bloomer was twenty-four years of

age, quite tall and slim, weighing about one hundred and fifty

pounds, with gray eyes, a rather tall forehead, and long arms, and of

bashful and reserved demeanor. His bride was much smaller, five feet

four inches in height, and weighed about a hundred pounds. She had a

well-formed head, bright, blue eyes bordering on black, auburn hair

and an exceedingly pleasant and winning smile. Like her husband, she

was reserved in manner, and very unwilling to force herself upon the

notice of strangers, but when she once became acquainted with them

she enjoyed their society most heartily. She was small in person and

modest in demeanor, and standing beside her tall husband, at once

attracted the attention and secured the confidence of her friends

and associates. She was twenty-two years of age at the time of her

marriage. Her husband, Dexter C. Bloomer, was of Quaker parentage,

had a fairly good common-school and academic education, had spent

several years in teaching school, commenced the study of law at the

age of twenty, and at the time of his marriage was still a student

and one of the proprietors and editors of the _Seneca County

Courier_, a weekly newspaper printed in Seneca Falls, N. Y.

The day following their marriage Mr. and Mrs. Bloomer drove in a

carriage to the residence of Mr. Isaac Fuller, in Seneca Falls,

where rooms had been prepared for their reception. Mr. Fuller was

Mr. Bloomer’s partner in the printing business, and both he and his

excellent wife are still (in 1895) living in the same town, and have

ever proved most dear and excellent friends of the young couple who

on the 16th day of April, 1840, took up their residence with them.

Mr. Bloomer had very many friends in the town, and on the evening of

his arrival with his bride they filled Mr. Fuller’s rooms to welcome

the newly wedded couple to their new home and their new life. With

them came many members of a fire company of which Mr. Bloomer was

a member, accompanied by a band of music, and all went merry as a

marriage bell. Refreshments were of course served, and among them

a plentiful supply of wine, for in those days, this was the almost

certain accompaniment of all social gatherings. All, or nearly all,

partook of it; and just then occurred an incident which told most

instructively as to the moral character and firmness of the young and

happy bride. Glasses were filled with the sparkling beverage, and

one of them was presented to her by the bridegroom himself, but she

firmly yet pleasantly declined to accept it. “What,” he said with

the greatest earnestness, “will you not drink a glass of wine with

me on this joyful occasion? Surely it can do you no harm.” “No,” she

smilingly yet firmly replied, “I cannot,—I must not.” A crowd of

guests standing around could but admire her great self-denial and

devotion to principles; and ever after, to the end of her days, she

was the firm and consistent advocate of Temperance and the unceasing

enemy of strong drink in all its varied forms.

TIPPECANOE AND TYLER, TOO!

The year 1840 was a memorable one in the history of this country.

It witnessed the great “Tippecanoe and Tyler, too,” campaign,

in which Gen. William Henry Harrison and Martin Van Buren were

opposing candidates. The whole country went wild with political

speech-making, songs, log-cabins, great gatherings of people and

enormous processions of the opposing hosts. Mr. Bloomer was absorbed

heart and soul in the contest. He was the editor of the only Whig

paper in the village and county, and he was present at political

caucuses, conventions and assemblages in all that region. His wife

at first took little interest in the great hubbub raised over the

land. In fact, her health was quite delicate that first summer of her

married life. It is remembered distinctly now by the writer of these

lines, that while he was on the 4th of July, 1840, delivering an

address at a political celebration, she was at home prostrated with

some form of intermittent fever. His address over, he hastened to

her bedside; and soon after, having so far recovered as to leave her

room, she was taken to Avon Springs, in western New York, where she

regained her health so as to return to her boarding place early in

August. But Mrs. Bloomer gradually became interested in the political

turmoil so far as to attend political gatherings, visit the log-cabin

which stood on one of the principal streets of the town, and assist

in preparing badges and mottoes for the use of those who espoused the

cause advocated by her husband.

And so the months moved quietly along during that eventful year,

and the first of October found Mr. and Mrs. Bloomer settled down to

housekeeping in a modest dwelling in Seneca Falls. The great election

contest terminated in November, and they both rejoiced most heartily

in the result, although what particular benefit it would be to either

of them, except the satisfaction of being on the winning side, it

would have been very difficult for either to very fully explain.

A WRITER FOR NEWSPAPERS.

As has already been stated, Mr. Bloomer was one of the editors of

a village paper printed in Seneca Falls. He was a great reader

of books and newspapers, and sought to inspire in his young wife

a similar love for the current literature of the day. This was no

difficult task, for she also was fond of books and sought in all

suitable ways to store her mind with useful knowledge. But Mr.

Bloomer desired her to go further and become a writer for the papers

also. He had got the idea well fixed in his mind, from letters

received from her during the years preceding their marriage, that she

possessed the power of expressing her thoughts on paper with both

ease and grace. But from the natural modesty of her character, she

was quite unwilling to embark in this to her new and untried field

of mental experience. Nevertheless, through the kind and persuasive

appeals of the husband the young wife began to commit her thoughts to

paper, and from time to time there appeared in the newspapers of the

town various articles bearing upon the social, moral and political

questions of those times. They all appeared anonymously, sometimes

written over one signature and then over another, but they all came

from Mrs. Bloomer’s pen and excited no little curiosity among the

people of the town as to their real author. It was in this way that

Mrs. Bloomer acquired that easy and pleasant style of writing for

publication which so marked her career in later years.

WASHINGTONIANISM.

Meantime, the great Washingtonian Temperance Reformation of 1840

and 1841 made its appearance, led by the six reformed drunkards of

Baltimore. It swept over the country like a whirlwind; thousands of

men under its influence were led to abandon their drinking habits

and become useful and sober citizens, while thousands more attached

their name to the Temperance pledge of total abstinence from all

intoxicating liquors. This movement reached Seneca Falls and produced

a great sensation, almost revolutionizing public sentiment on the

subject. Pollard and Wright, two of the reformed men of Baltimore,

visited the town and held public meetings in halls and parks and were

listened to by great crowds of people. An “Independent Temperance

Total-Abstinence Society” was formed headed by reformed men, and the

current topics of the time nearly all turned upon this all-absorbing

subject.

Into this movement Mrs. Bloomer entered with her whole heart and

soul. Along with her husband, she attended the great Temperance

gatherings, and took an active part in carrying forward the great

reformation. She acted on committees, and wrote articles in support

of the good work. A newspaper called the _Water Bucket_ was issued

as the organ of the Temperance society of the village. For this Mrs.

Bloomer wrote freely and vigorously. A copy of this paper cannot be

found, but a few articles from her pen have been preserved. Here

is one of them. It was written in 1842 and is a fair specimen of

Mrs. Bloomer’s then style of composition. She has been answering

objections to the Temperance pledge, when she proceeds as follows:

“Another cannot make cake fit to eat without wine or brandy. A

third must have brandy on her apple dumplings, and a fourth comes

out boldly and says she likes to drink once in a while herself

too well. What flimsy excuses these! brandy and apple dumplings,

forsooth! That lady must be a wretched cook indeed who cannot make

apple dumplings, mince pies or cake palatable without the addition

of poisonous substances. But I would ask these ladies if they

have ever tried to do without it? Their answer I fear would be in

the negative. They do not _wish_ to do without it. They act from

purely selfish motives. Would they but visit the drunkard’s home

and see the misery and wretchedness that is brought upon families

once happy and prosperous as themselves, and hear the drunkard’s

wife recount her tale of woe, methinks their hearts would soften.

They could then sympathize with those who are trying to break

loose from the galling yoke of intemperance, and instead of being

stumbling blocks in our way, they would come to our aid with their

whole hearts and devote their talents to the cause of temperance,

nor cease in their efforts until drunkenness should be completely

driven from the land. What examples these ladies are setting

before their families! Have they a husband, a brother or a son,

and have they no fear that the example they are now setting them

may be the means of their filling a drunkard’s grave? Have they a

daughter? Their example teaches her to respect moderate-drinking

young men, and receive their addresses, and should she unite her

fate with such an one, almost certain ruin awaits her. * * * Could

all those ladies who oppose the efforts which we are making to

reform our land, but have their minds awakened to the importance

of the subject! Could they but know the experience of thousands

of their own sex, who from being surrounded by every happiness

that wealth and station can impart, have through the means of that

fell destroyer, intemperance, sunk to the lowest depth of misery

and degradation, and, more than all, did they but know how far

their influence may be instrumental in saving a fellow-creature,

they would hasten to the standard of temperance and unite their

influence against the disturber of human happiness, and become

volunteers in the moral contest to extirpate the fell monster from

our shores.”

The above article was signed “Gloriana,” a favorite signature of Mrs.

Bloomer’s. Another which is preserved, and was printed over the

signature of “Eugene” at about the same date, is as follows:

“Many people think there is nothing more to do towards the

advancement of temperance in this place, because we have succeeded

in breaking up the drinking of ardent spirits in a measure, and

have enlisted some four or five hundred members under our banners.

This is a mistaken idea, and if cherished long, those who feel

most secure will find to their dismay that the viper has only been

crushed for a time, and will arise again upon his victim with a

firmer and more deadly grasp than before. It is the duty of every

man to be at his post, to lend his aid in sustaining the weak, and

to encourage others by his presence and example of perseverance in

the course they have begun. If the reformed inebriates see those

whom they have looked upon to sustain and encourage them in this

great work grow careless and indifferent towards them and the

cause, have we not reason to fear that they too will drop off one

by one into their old practices, and forsake that Temperance Hall

where they have long passed their evenings so pleasantly and so

profitably for their old haunts, the grogshop and the gutter? * * *

Let it not be said of Seneca Falls that she deserted her post in

the hour of danger, but let every temperance man feel that he has

a duty to perform and that there is no time for rest or inaction

until the ‘hydra-headed monster’, shall be driven from our borders.”

These extracts show how earnestly Mrs. Bloomer gave herself to the

great Temperance reform. Of some of the features of the reform she

gives the following sketch in an historical review written at a much

later date:

“In 1840 a great impulse was given to the temperance cause, such as

had never been known before in the world’s history. This movement

originated with seven drunkards of Baltimore, who met in a saloon

in that city and then and there, with their glasses filled before

them, resolved that they would drink no more. They poured out

the liquor and went home. They at once formed a society for the

promotion of total abstinence among those who, like themselves, had

been addicted to the use of intoxicating drink. Only one of the

seven is known to have backslidden, while the others lived and died

honoring the cause they had embraced. Several of these men became

eloquent speakers, and traveled the country over, holding meetings,

pleading earnestly for the reformation of others, and depicting

in burning words the sad lot of the drunkard and his wretched

family. No such temperance meetings have been held since, no such

eloquent appeals made for temperance. This was called the great

‘Washingtonian movement,’ and by it an impetus was given that has

led to all subsequent effort in that cause. Following this movement

various societies were started, some open, some secret. We had the

Sons of Temperance, Reformed Brotherhood, Rechabites, Cadets of

Temperance, Carson Leagues, Alliances, Good Templars, Temple of

Honor, and open local, county and state societies, and finally the

Women’s Christian Temperance Union.”

JOINS THE CHURCH.

About this time (1843) Mrs. Bloomer and also her husband united

with and became members of the Episcopal Church, in Seneca Falls;

she maintained her membership in that body until the end of her

life, a period of over fifty years. This new relation opened a new

field for her quiet and gentle activities. She became very soon

deeply interested in parish work in its various forms, and as a

member of various parochial organizations labored faithfully to

advance Christian progress. This was especially noticeable after her

removal to her new home in the West, as we shall have occasion to

remark further on. We may add here that Mrs. Bloomer, while a firm

believer in the truth of the Christian religion, always insisted that

certain passages in the Scriptures relating to women had been given

a strained and unnatural meaning, and that the whole teaching of the

Bible, when fully interpreted, elevated her to a joint companionship

with her brother in the government and salvation of the race.

CHAPTER SECOND.

UNJUST LAWS FOR WOMEN.

Up to about the middle of the nineteenth century, the maxims of the

common law of England relating to the rights and responsibilities

of married women were in force in nearly all the states of the

Union. This was true especially in the state of New York. They were

exceedingly stringent in their character, and confined her, so far

as related to her property rights, within exceedingly narrow limits.

Indeed, in some respects they might well be regarded as brutal. They

merged the legal being of the wife in her husband. Without him, and

apart from him, she could hold no property, make no contracts, nor

even exercise control over her children. If she earned money by

whatever means, she could not collect it. Her time and her earnings

belonged to her husband; and her children, when above the age of

infancy, could be taken from her by will or otherwise and committed

to the charge of strangers. On the decease of the husband, the

personal property acquired through their joint efforts and industry

passed at once to his heirs, through the legal administration of his

estate; while the wife was turned off with a bare life estate in

one-third of the real property standing in his name at the time of

his decease.

The gross injustice of these laws began to excite attention soon

after the adoption of the new constitution in the state of New York,

in 1846. The first step towards their modification was taken in the

legislature of 1844-5, when certain recognitions of the property

rights of married women were enacted into laws; and in other states

attention about that time began to be turned in the same direction.

These were the beginning of the series of laws since enacted in

nearly all the states as well as in the dominions and provinces

of the British Empire, by which the old and absurd and barbarous

features of the old common law of England applicable to married women

have been to a large extent abrogated. But this result has been the

work of years of earnest thought, earnest labor and earnest devotion

to the principles of right and justice, upon which it is our boast

that all our laws are based.

REFORM BEGINS.

To Ansel Bascom, a lawyer of Seneca Falls, a member of the

Constitutional Convention of 1846 and of the first legislature

following its adoption, and to David Dudley Field, a distinguished

citizen of the state, were largely due the modifications in the

laws relating to married women which began about that time. These

gentlemen were also largely instrumental in securing the adoption of

the reformed code of practice in the courts, which has since been

substantially enacted in nearly all the states of the Union. But

women themselves had much to do in this most important work. Two of

them were Lucretia Mott, a well-known Quaker preacher of those days,

and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, wife of Henry B. Stanton and daughter

of Daniel Cady, an eminent lawyer and judge. These ladies had been

delegates to an anti-slavery convention in London, to which they

were refused admission on account of being women, and they mutually

resolved to enter upon an effort to secure an amelioration in the

laws relating to the legal and property rights of their sex. They

even went further and asked that the constitutions of the several

states should be so amended, that to women should be extended the

right to vote and even to hold office. That was a new thing under the

sun. It was the beginning of what has since been so widely known as

the women’s rights movement, the agitation of which has occupied a

large place in the public discussions of the last half century.

WOMEN TO THE FRONT.

The first public meeting to bring these questions prominently before

the country was held in the Wesleyan Chapel, in Seneca Falls, on

the 19th day of July, 1848. It was attended by the ladies I have

mentioned, by Mr. Bascom, by Mr. Thomas McClintoch, a Quaker preacher

and member of his family, by several clergymen, and other persons of

some prominence in the village. Frederick Douglass was also present.

Mr. James Mott, the husband of Lucretia, presided, and that lady

opened the meeting with a careful statement of women’s wrongs and

grievances and made a demand for their redress. Mr. Stanton read a

clearly written paper to the same purport and reported a woman’s

declaration of independence, in which her wrongs were fully set forth

and her rights as fully insisted upon and proclaimed. The position

was boldly taken that the ballot should be placed in her hands on a

perfect equality with man himself, as only through the ballot could

her rights be effectually asserted and maintained. The discussion

lasted through two days, and the declaration was signed by fifty

women and about the same number of men. The papers over the country

generally noticed the gathering, and with few exceptions ridiculed

the whole movement, while bearing testimony to the earnestness of

those engaged in it.

Two weeks later, a second meeting of the same character was held in

Rochester; and this one, as showing signs of progress, was presided

over by a woman, the first event of the kind that had occurred up to

that date, although since then it has become a common occurrence,

and as a general rule it has been found that women make excellent

presiding officers. Several new recruits were enlisted at the

Rochester meeting, both women and men, among the latter being the

Rev. William Henry Channing, a popular Unitarian clergyman of that

city. The Rochester meeting fully endorsed the resolutions and

declaration of independence of the Seneca Falls meeting, and from

that time the new movement of women’s rights was fully launched upon

the great ocean of public discussion and public opinion. Lucretia

Mott and Mrs. Stanton were the acknowledged leaders; but soon other

advocates of wide influence were enrolled in the cause, and its

influence from that day has continued to widen and extend, until it

now includes men and women of great distinction and power in every

English-speaking country in the world.

MRS. BLOOMER THINKS ABOUT IT.

Mrs. Bloomer, at the time these meetings were held, was residing

quietly at her home in Seneca Falls, engaged in a modest way in

religious and temperance work. She had not yet thought much on

the subject of women’s rights, so called, except so far as it

related to the obstacles which the laws as then formed threw in

the way of securing the triumph of total-abstinence principles.

The Washingtonian movement had continued to exert its influence

upon the community. Now total-abstinence societies sprang up, among

them the Sons and Daughters of Temperance,—separate organizations,

but including within their lists of members many thousands of both

sexes. The _Temperance Star_ of Rochester was an organ of these

organizations, and Mrs. Bloomer wrote freely and frequently for its

columns. She attended the Mott-Stanton convention in Seneca Falls,

but took no part in its proceedings and did not sign either the

resolutions or declaration of independence.

But the principles promulgated in those documents began to have an

effect upon her thoughts and actions, as they did upon those of many

other women of that day. They realized, almost for the first time,

that there was something wrong in the laws under which they lived,

and that they had something to do in the work of reforming and

improving them. Hence they moved slowly out of the religious circles

in which their activities had hitherto been confined and, while not

neglecting these, yet began in a modest way to organize societies

in which they could work for the improvement of their surroundings

and the moral regeneration of society. In Seneca Falls a Ladies’

Temperance Society was organized for the first time in 1848. Mrs.

Bloomer became a member of it and one of its officers. Whether she

ever became a member of the “Daughters of Temperance” lodges is not

now remembered, but it is thought no lodge of that order had been

organized in the place of her residence.

Of some of these movements, Mrs. Bloomer in later years wrote as

follows:

“In 1848 or ‘49, after the order of the ‘Sons’ was started, which

order excluded women, some one among them conceived the idea of

starting a similar order for women. This was probably as a salve

to the wounded feelings of the women, just as Masons and Odd

Fellows at this day will not admit women to their lodge-rooms, but

to pacify them have branches called Star of Hope and Daughters of

Rebekah, composed of women. Be this as it may, the order of the

Daughters of Temperance was started, composed of women entirely. It

continued many years and may still be in existence, though I have

not heard of it for years. The order was planted in twenty-four

states and in England and the British provinces. The daughters held

state and national conventions, issued addresses and appeals to

the women of the state, circulated petitions to the legislature,

and were very zealous in good works. In 1851 this order numbered

over twenty thousand members. It was a secret society, and no one

could gain admittance to their meetings without the password. This,

so far as I know, was the first organized movement ever made by

women to make themselves felt and heard on the great temperance

question, which was then agitating the minds of the people as it

never had done before. And so long as they kept to themselves and

held secret meetings they were not molested, their right to talk

and resolve was not called in question. But as the years rolled on,

women became more earnest and self-reliant, and were not satisfied

with these secret doings. They wanted to let their light be seen.

So a few prominent daughters, with Susan B. Anthony (who up to that

time had only been known as a Daughter of Temperance, an earnest

temperance worker and a school-teacher) as leader, called an open

temperance meeting at Albany. This was not largely responded to,

women not daring to come out openly after having so long heard ‘let

you women keep silence’ sounded in their ears from the sacred desk.

This meeting was conducted so quietly it hardly caused a ripple of

excitement, and passed almost unnoticed by the press.”

CHAPTER THIRD.

SHE WRITES ABOUT IT.

Women up to this time had never, or very seldom, indeed, come forward

as public speakers in behalf of Temperance or any other reform

movements. True, Abby Kelly Foster had made her appearance on the

platform as an abolition lecturer, but her speeches were so radical

and denunciatory in their character that they added little strength

to the position or popularity of women speakers. The Quaker preachers

were of both sexes; of these Lucretia Mott was the recognized leader

among the gentler sex, and the purity of her character and the

mildness of her addresses, compared with those of Mrs. Foster, made

her popular with all classes. Mrs. Bloomer heard both of these women,

and her husband well remembers that, on one occasion after she had

been listening to Mrs. Foster’s radical criticisms on an article

which appeared in the editorial columns of his paper, she came home

greatly distressed and with tears in her eyes over the denunciations,

to which she had listened. She learned in subsequent years to take

such things more calmly.

But though public sentiment did not then sanction the appearance

of women speakers even to advocate so good a cause as Temperance,

yet they could use their pens in its support. Mrs. Bloomer did this

quite freely as we have seen, but the little society in Seneca Falls

concluded that it must have a paper of its own, and on the 1st of

January, 1849, such a paper was commenced in that place.

BIRTH OF THE _LILY_.

Mrs. Bloomer herself tells the story of its birth and her connection

with it as follows:

“Up to about 1848-9 women had almost no part in all this temperance

work. They could attend meetings and listen to the eloquence

and arguments of men, and they could pay their money towards

the support of temperance lecturers, but such a thing as their

having anything to say or do further than this was not thought of.

They were fired with zeal after listening to the Washingtonian

lecturers and other speakers on temperance who then abounded,

and in some instances held little private meetings of their own,

organized societies and passed resolutions expressive of their

feelings on the great subject. It was at a meeting of this kind

in Seneca Falls, N. Y., which was then my home, that the matter

of publishing a little temperance paper, for home distribution

only, was introduced. The ladies caught at the idea and at once

determined on issuing the paper. Editors were selected, a committee

appointed to wait on the newspaper offices to learn on what terms

the paper could be printed monthly, we furnishing all the copy.

The president was to name the paper, the report to be made at next

meeting by committee. And so we separated, satisfied and elated

with our doings. But on my reporting my proceedings to my husband

on my return home he ‘threw cold water’ on the whole thing. He said

we women did not know what we were talking about, that it

cost a good deal of money to print a paper, and that we could not

carry on such an enterprise and would run ourselves into debt, get

into trouble and make a failure of it. He advised that I counsel

the ladies to abandon all thought of such a movement. At the next

meeting I reported all he said, but it was of no avail. The ladies

had their hearts set on the paper and they determined to go ahead

with it. They were encouraged thereto by a temperance lecturer who

was traveling over the state. He promised to get subscribers for

them and greatly help them. He kept his word so far as sending

us a goodly list of names, but the money did not accompany them

and we never saw the man or the money afterwards. This was very

discouraging, and the zeal of the ladies abated wonderfully. They

began to realize that they had been hasty in incurring a great

responsibility for which they were not fitted, and very soon the

society decided to give up the enterprise altogether. But meantime

we had been getting subscribers and money, had issued a prospectus,

and every arrangement was made at the printing office for bringing

out the paper January 1, 1849. We had even ordered a head from

New York. I could not so lightly throw off responsibility. Our

word had gone to the public and we had considerable money on

subscriptions. Besides the dishonesty of the thing, people would

say it was ‘just like women’; ‘what more could you expect of them?’

As editor of the paper, I threw myself into the work, assumed the

entire responsibility, took the entire charge editorially and

financially, and carried it successfully through.”

The following is taken from the first editorial in the new paper,

written by Mrs. Bloomer:

“It is woman that speaks through _The Lily_. It is upon an

important subject, too, that she comes before the public to be

heard. Intemperance is the great foe to her peace and happiness.

It is that above all which has made her home desolate and beggared

her offspring. It is that above all which has filled to its brim

her cup of sorrow and sent her moaning to the grave. Surely she

has a right to wield the pen for its suppression. Surely she may,

without throwing aside the modest retirement which so much becomes

her sex, use her influence to lead her fellow-mortals away from

the destroyer’s path. It is this which she proposes to do in the

columns of this paper. Like the beautiful flower from which it

derives its name, we shall strive to make the _Lily_ the emblem of

‘sweetness and purity;’ and may heaven smile upon our attempt to

advocate the great cause of Temperance reform!”

NEW WORK FOR HER.

With the birth of this little journal, a new life opened before

Mrs. Bloomer. She was at once initiated into all the mysteries and

details of an editor and publisher. She had to make contracts for the

printing and publication, to send out circulars to friends asking

for their assistance in extending its circulation, place the papers

in proper covers and send them to subscribers through the mails, to

prepare editorials and other matter for its columns, to read the

proofs and, in short, to attend to all the details of newspaper

publication. She gave herself heartily and earnestly to the work. Of

the first issue of the _Lily_ not over two or three hundred copies

were printed, but the number of its subscribers steadily increased.

Many friends came forward from different parts of the state to

help in adding new names to its lists. Among these none were more

zealous and earnest than Miss Susan B. Anthony, then a very competent

school-teacher in the city of Rochester, but whose name has since

become one of world-wide fame as that of the great leader in the

cause of woman’s emancipation. Mrs. Mary C. Vaughan, a most estimable

lady and fine writer, also came forward both with her pen and lists

of new subscribers to help in the great Temperance reform to which

the _Lily_ was devoted.

FIRST IN THE FIELD.

The _Lily_ was very nearly, if not quite, the first journal of

any kind published by a woman. Mrs. Nichols, in Vermont, and Mrs.

Swishelm, in Pennsylvania, were connected with newspapers published

in each case by their husbands, and they wrote vigorous editorials

for their papers, but neither of them took upon herself the entire

charge of the publication. Mrs. Bloomer did this to the fullest

extent, and it therefore may be justly claimed that she was the

pioneer woman editor and proprietor. True, her journal was not a

very large one, yet it labored zealously in the cause to which it

was devoted and prepared the way for other and more pretentious

publications to follow, under the charge of women. It showed what

women could do when their thoughts and energies were directed to some

practical and beneficial purpose, and so made ready for the great

advance which has since taken place in opening for her wider fields

of usefulness.

Mrs. Bloomer herself writes as follows:

“The _Lily_ was the first paper published devoted to the interests

of woman and, so far as I know, the first one owned, edited and

published by a woman. It was a novel thing for me to do in those

days and I was little fitted for it, but the force of circumstances

led me into it and strength was given me to carry it through. It

was a needed instrumentality to spread abroad the truth of the

new gospel to woman, and I could not withhold my hand to stay the

work I had begun. I saw not the end from the beginning and little

dreamed whereto my proposition to the society would lead me.”

MRS. STANTON APPEARS.

Among those who soon became writers for the _Lily_ was Mrs. Elizabeth

Cady Stanton, a resident of Seneca Falls. One day during the summer

of 1849, she came into the post office where the editor of the _Lily_

was busily engaged and introduced herself to Mrs. Bloomer, and

proposed to write for the columns of her paper. The offer was gladly

accepted, and very soon articles began to appear in the columns of

the _Lily_ over the signature of “Sunflower.” They were forcibly

written and displayed not a little wit and many sharp hits at some of

the prevailing “fads” of the day. At first they were on Temperance

and literary subjects, and the duties of parents in bringing up their

children. The various theories of education were also vigorously

analyzed and some new ideas put forth. By and by, as months went

by, her readers were apprised as to her views on Woman’s Rights, so

called. They learned something from her of the unjust laws relating

to married women, and saw that the writer was about right in asking

that they should be changed and made better. And then the paragraphs

moved further along and intimated that women should vote also for

her rulers and legislators. Mrs. Bloomer herself became a convert

to these views. How this came around, she herself tells in the two

following paragraphs:

MRS. BLOOMER CONVERTED.

“When a child of fifteen years, my feelings were deeply stirred

by learning that an old lady, a dear friend of mine, was to be

turned from her home and the bulk of her property taken from her.

Her husband died suddenly, leaving no will. The law would allow

her but a life interest in one-third of the estate, which had

been accumulated by the joint earnings and savings of herself and

husband through many years. They had no children and the nearest

relative of the husband was a second or third cousin, and to him

the law gave two-thirds of her property, though he had never

contributed a dollar towards its accumulation, and was to them a

stranger. Later, other similar cases coming to my knowledge made me

familiar with the cruelty of the law towards women; and when the

Woman’s Rights Convention put forth its declaration of sentiments,

I was ready to join with that party in demanding for women such

change in the laws as would give her a right to her earnings, and

her children a right to wider fields of employment and a better

education, and also a right to protect her interests at the

ballot-box.”

BECOMES ASSISTANT POSTMASTER.

“In the spring of 1849, my husband was appointed postmaster at Seneca

Falls, N. Y. He proposed that I should act as his deputy. I accepted

the position, as I had determined to give a practical demonstration

of woman’s right to fill any place for which she had capacity. I

was sworn in as his deputy, and filled the position for four years,

during the administration of Taylor and Fillmore. It was a novel step

for me to take in those days, and no doubt many thought I was out of

woman’s sphere; but the venture was very successful and proved to me

conclusively that woman might, even then, engage in any respectable

business and deal with all sorts of men, and yet be treated with the

utmost respect and consideration.”

THE _LILY_ ON HER HANDS.

During the first year of its existence, the _Lily_ bore at its head

the words “published by a committee of ladies”; but the truth was

that no person, save Mrs. Bloomer herself, had any responsible share

in its management or control. Therefore, at the beginning of the new

year 1850 that fiction was dropped, and her name alone appeared as

publisher and editor, and at its head stood the legend “devoted to

the interests of woman.” Says Mrs. Bloomer:

“I never liked the name of the paper, but the society thought it

pretty and accepted it from the president. It started with that

name, and became known far and wide. It had been baptized with

tears and sent forth with anxious doubts and fears. It was not

easy to change, and so it remained _The Lily_ to the end, pure in

motive and purpose as in name. * * * It was never the organ of any

society, party or clique, or of any individual but myself. That

it was always loyal to temperance is evidenced by the fact that

its files are sought after by writers of temperance history. That

subject was never lost sight of in a single number, as its files

will show. Mrs. Stanton became a contributor to the _Lily_ near the

close of its first year. Her subjects were temperance and woman’s

rights. Her writings added interest to the paper and she was

welcome to its columns, as were Frances D. Gage, Mary C. Vaughan,

and many others who came to my aid. She occupied the same position

as any other contributor, and she never attempted to control the

paper in any way.”

The year 1850 was a quiet one for Mrs. Bloomer. Early in the spring,

her husband purchased a modest cottage. This had to be fitted up and

occupied, and took up a good deal of her attention. Then several

hours each day were spent in the post office in the work of receiving

and delivering letters. Once a month the _Lily_ continued to make its

appearance, filled with good, substantial temperance arguments and

pleadings, and occasional articles pointing strongly in the direction

of the new doctrines of woman’s rights then coming more and more into

prominence. Her editorials were written plainly but with a good

deal of spirit, and whoever attacked her position on either of these

subjects was sure to receive a sharp rejoinder from her pen. Several

weeks during the summer were spent at a sanatorium in Rochester, from

which she returned greatly improved in health. Sometime during the

year a great anti-slavery meeting was held in the town, attended by

the celebrated English orator, George Thompson, and many prominent

abolitionists of the state. Among others came Susan B. Anthony,

who was the guest of Mrs. Bloomer and whom she introduced to Mrs.

Stanton, and then commenced that life-long intimacy of these two

celebrated women.

VISITS NEW YORK CITY.

During the winter of 1849-50 Mrs. Bloomer visited the city of New

York for the first time, accompanied by her husband. They passed up

Cayuga Lake on a steamer, and from there were in the first railroad

cars, by special invitation, over the Erie railroad from that

village to the metropolis. It is remembered that several of the men

who afterwards became distinguished as railroad magnates were on that

train, and their conversation was listened to with a great deal of

interest. That was long before the days of sleeping cars, and they

had to pass the night as comfortably as they could in their seats

in the passenger coach. In the city, they spent three or four days

visiting some of the noted places, including Barnum’s Museum on

Broadway, then one of the great attractions of the growing town. They

returned by the same _route_ in the midst of a great snowstorm which,

with the high wind that came along with it, made their trip down the

lake somewhat hazardous.

Mrs. Bloomer wrote of this trip as follows:

“We traveled by the _route_ of the lake and the New-York-and-Erie

railroad. Those who have not been over this road can form no idea

of its sublimity and grandeur. To one who like myself had never

been beyond the level country of western New York, it presents a

grand, imposing spectacle. The prospect is at one moment bounded

on either side by lofty mountain peaks covered with evergreens,

and the next by solid masses of rock towering higher than the eye

can reach, and through which at an enormous expense and great

amount of labor the road has been cut. The water pouring over these

rocks from above had frozen in its descent, and now hung in masses

and irregular sheets down their perpendicular sides, forming a

beautiful contrast to their surface. Occasionally you come into

a more open country, while at one spot you find yourself on the

summit of a mountain where you have a view of ten miles in extent

through the valley below. * * * Winter had robed all in her snowy

mantle on our return, adding new beauty to the scene. Summer, we

think, would lend enchantment to the picture; and should we ever

take a trip over this road again, we shall aim to do so at a more

mild and genial season.

“We were fortunate in meeting several directors of the road on our

downward trip from Ithaca. To them, and especially to Mr. Dodge, of

New York City, we are indebted for much information concerning the

road. Every attention was shown us by this enterprising gentleman

from the time we left Ithaca until we shook hands with him at

parting upon our arrival in the city.”

MISS ANTHONY IS INTRODUCED.

Mrs. Bloomer, in later years, wrote:

“It was in the spring of 1850 that I introduced Susan B. Anthony

to Mrs. Stanton. Miss Anthony had come to attend an anti-slavery

meeting in Seneca Falls, held by George Thompson and William

Lloyd Garrison, and was my guest. Returning from the meeting, we

stopped at the street corner and waited for Mrs. Stanton, and I

gave the introduction which has resulted in a life-long friendship.

Afterwards, we called together at Mrs. Stanton’s house and the way

was opened for future intercourse between them. It was, as Mrs.

Stanton says in her history, an eventful meeting that henceforth

in a measure shaped their lives. Neither would have done what she

did without the other. Mrs. Stanton had the intellectual, and Susan

the executive, ability to carry forward the movement then recently

inaugurated. Without the push of Miss Anthony, Mrs. Stanton would

probably never have gone abroad into active life, or achieved

half she has done; and without the brains of Mrs. Stanton, Miss

Anthony would never have been so largely known to the world by name

and deeds. They helped and strengthened each other, and together

they have accomplished great things for woman and humanity. The

writer is glad for the part she had in bringing two such characters

together.”

MRS. BLOOMER ON THE TENNESSEE LEGISLATURE.

The columns of the _Lily_ during the first year of its publication

were almost exclusively filled with articles bearing upon the great

purpose for which it was established, the promotion of the Temperance

cause. True, some other questions were touched upon by Mrs. Stanton,

and perhaps by other correspondents; but Mrs. Bloomer’s editorials

were all directed to that end. With the March _Lily_ for 1850 she

struck out in a new direction, as will appear from the following

article which appeared in the editorial columns for that month:

“The legislature of Tennessee have in their wisdom decided after

gravely discussing the question that women have no souls, and no

right to hold property. Wise men these, and worthy to be honored

with seats in the halls of legislation in a Christian land. Women

no souls! Then, of course, we are not accountable beings: and

if not accountable to our Maker, then surely not to man. Man

represents us, legislates for us, and now holds himself accountable

for us! How kind in him, and what a weight is lifted from us!

We shall no longer be answerable to the laws of God or man, no

longer be subject to punishment for breaking them, no longer

be responsible for any of our doings. Man in whom iniquity is

perfected has assumed the whole charge of us and left us helpless,

soulless, defenseless creatures dependent on him for leave to speak

or act.

“We suppose the wise legislators consider the question settled

beyond dispute, but we fear they will have some trouble with it

yet. Although it may be an easy matter for them to arrive at such

a conclusion, it will be quite another thing to make women believe

it. We are not so blind to the weakness or imperfections of man

as to set his word above that of our Maker, or so ready to yield

obedience to his laws as to place them before the laws of God.

However blindly we may be led by him, however much we may yield to

his acquired power over us, we cannot yet fall down and worship him

as our superior. Some men even act as though women had no souls,

but it remained for the legislature of Tennessee to speak it to the

world.

“We have not designed _ourself_ saying much on the subject of

‘Woman’s Rights;’ but we see and hear so much that is calculated

to keep our sex down and impress us with a conviction of our

inferiority and helplessness, that we feel compelled to act on the

defensive and stand for what we consider our just rights. If things

are coming to such a pass as that indicated by the above decision,

we think it high time that women should open their eyes and look

where they stand. It is quite time that their rights _should be

discussed_, and that woman herself should enter the contest.

“We have ever felt that in regard to property, and also as to many

other things, the laws were unjust to women. Men make laws without

consulting us, and of course they will make them all in their own

favor, especially as we are powerless and cannot contend for our

rights. We believe that most women are capable of taking care of

their own property, and that they have the right to hold it, and

to dispose of it as they please, man’s decision to the contrary

notwithstanding. As for ourselves, we have no fears but we could

take care of a fortune if we had one, without any assistance from

legislators or lawyers, and we should think them meddling with what

did not concern them should they undertake to control it for us.

“The legislature of our own state has taken a step in advance on

this subject and granted to women the right to their own property.

We trust this is but a forecast of the enlightened sentiment of

the people of New York, and that it will pave the way to greater

privileges, and the final elevation of women to that position

in society which shall entitle her opinions to respect and

consideration.”

FOR WOMAN SUFFRAGE.

And from that time on, a considerable part of the _Lily_ was devoted

to the same subject. The above article related simply to property

rights, but Mrs. Bloomer’s views rapidly widened out until she took

the position, also, that women should be granted the right of

suffrage and thus possess a controlling influence in the passage

of all laws. Nevertheless, she remained true and faithful to her

temperance principles and firm in their advocacy. Witness the

following written and printed in her paper in 1853:

“We think it all-important that woman obtain the right of suffrage,

but she cannot do this at once. She must gradually prepare the way

for such a step by showing that she is worthy of receiving and

capable of exercising it. If she do this, prejudices will gradually

give way and she will gain her cause. We cannot consent to have

woman remain silent on the Temperance question till she obtain her

right of suffrage. Great as is our faith in the speedy triumph of

temperance principles were women allowed their right of franchise,

and strong as is our hope that this right will be granted ere many

years, we feel that the day is too far distant for her to rest all

her hopes and labors on that issue. Let her work with her whole

heart in this cause and, while she demands a law that entirely

prohibits the traffic in strong drink, let her also obtain a right

to a voice in making all laws by which she is to be governed.”

LETTER TO AKRON CONVENTION.

On the ninth of May, 1851, Mrs. Bloomer addressed an elaborate

letter to the women’s convention held at Akron, O., in that month,

in which she discussed at great length the position of woman as

regards her education, her right to employment, and the laws relating

to her property rights. She first takes up the liquor traffic and

shows wherein it was unjust to woman in her dearest privilege,—the

enjoyment of children, family and home. She “unfolds the great wrong

done to woman in her circumscribed sphere of industry, and the meagre

wages she receives for her industry.” Passing on from this, the

property rights of married women are considered, and their unjust

provisions are pointed out. She concludes as follows:

“But woman is herself aroused to a sense of her wrongs, and sees

the necessity of action on her part if she would have justice

done her. A brighter day has dawned for her. A spirit of inquiry

has awakened in her bosom, which neither ridicule nor taunts can

quench. Henceforth her course is upward and onward. Her mind is

capable of grasping things hitherto beyond her reach and she will

not weary of the chase until she has reached the topmost round in

the ladder. She will yet prove conclusively that she possesses

the same God-given faculties which belong to man, and that she is

endowed with powers of mind and body suitable for any emergency in

which she may be placed.”

“RULING A WIFE.”

During this year, Mr. T. S. Arthur published a book bearing this

title, in which he undertook to define the duties of the wife of a

hard-hearted, thoughtless man, and to show that even under the most

shocking circumstances of injustice it was still the wife’s duty to

submit and obey. Mrs. Bloomer took exception to this position. Mr.

Arthur answered her, and she then wrote in reply in part as follows:

“I have too good an opinion of my sex to admit that they are such

weak, helpless creatures, or to teach them any such ideas. Much

rather would I arouse them from their dependent, inferior position,

and teach them to rely more upon themselves and less upon man, so

that when called upon, as many of them are and ever will be, to

battle with the rough things of the world, they may go forth with

confidence in their own powers of coping successfully with every

obstacle and with courage to meet whatever dangers and difficulties

may lie in their way. The more you impress this upon their minds,

the more you show that she is man’s equal, and not his slave, so

much the more you do to elevate woman to her true position. The

present legal distinctions between the sexes have been made by

man and not by God. Man has degraded woman from her high position

in which she was placed as his companion and equal, and made of

her a slave to be bought and sold at his pleasure. He has brought

the Bible to prove that he is her lord and master, and taught her

that resistance to his authority is to resist God’s will. I deny

that the Bible teaches any such doctrine. God made them different

in sex, but equal in intellect, and gave them equal dominion. You

deny that they are ‘intellectually equal.’ As a whole, I admit

that at the present day they are not; though I think there have

been individual cases where woman’s equality cannot be denied.

But at her creation no difference existed. It is the fault of

education that she is now intellectually inferior. Give her the

same advantages as men, throw open the door of our colleges and

schools of science and bid her enter, teach her that she was

created for a higher purpose than to be a parlor ornament or mere

plaything for man, show her that you regard her as an equal and

that her opinions are entitled to consideration, in short, treat

her as an intelligent, accountable being, and when all this has

been done, if she prove herself not man’s equal in intellect I will

yield the point and admit her inferiority. It is unjust to condemn

her as inferior when we consider the different education she has

received and the estimation in which she has ever been held. We are

by the laws and customs of society rendered dependent and helpless

enough, at the best; but it is both painful and mortifying to see

our helplessness shown up to the world in such colors, and by such

a writer as yourself. If, instead of leading Mrs. Long into such

difficulties after she had left her husband, you had allowed her

to hire out as a servant, if nothing better presented itself, you

would have done justice to woman, set her a better example, and

more truly drawn her character.”

The above presents very fully the views of Mrs. Bloomer at that

time (1850). She was pleading for the elevation of woman, for her

redemption from the curse of drink, for a better education for her,

and wider fields for the work of her hands. She had not yet troubled

herself much about the suffrage question,—the right to the ballot;

that came along later in life, as we have already seen.

CHAPTER FOURTH.

THE REFORM DRESS.

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 the _Lily_ in 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 Chicago _Tribune_ and is here reproduced in full,

followed by some further items bearing on the subject:

“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 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 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 the _Courier_

were 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 her cousin,

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 the _Courier_ man 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 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 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 into the 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 from the 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 the _Woman’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 laying aside 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 questions

of 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 the _Lily_ at 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

present fashion. 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.”

WOMAN’S ATTIRE.

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.”

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 with clothes

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 her

sin 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.”

FASHION IN DRESS.

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.”

CHAPTER FIFTH.

THE _LILY_ PROSPEROUS.

As intimated by Mrs. Bloomer in the preceding pages, the circulation

of her paper was largely increased through the notoriety given to

it by her adoption and defense of the new costume. Nearly every

newspaper in the land had to have its comments on it, as well as

upon those who had the courage to wear it. Some denounced, some

ridiculed. Besides receiving numerous letters on the subject, many

persons called to see how the little woman appeared in the short

dress and trousers. Fortunately or otherwise, they became her very

well; usually they were becoming when worn by small persons or those

of medium stature. People generally retired well pleased with their

interview with her. She said but little about it in her paper, as

she had subjects of much greater importance to engage her attention

and fill its columns. Occasionally a sharp article appeared in

its defense. She had many offers to take the platform as a public

speaker. Even the stage was suggested as a fit place for bringing the

new costume before the public. The interest in the subject was not

confined to this country only, but extended to England, also; the

matter was commented on by the press of Great Britain very generally,

and the London _Graphic_ contained pictures of the new costume more

or less correct.

All these proposals for public action were declined by Mrs. Bloomer;

but nevertheless the suggestion as to public speaking, the advocacy

by woman of temperance and woman’s rights through the medium of

the public platform and her own voice as a public speaker, were

not forgotten by her and brought forth from her very much in these

directions in future years. But for the time being she continued

on in the even tenor of her work, transforming her paper steadily

more and more, as the months went by, into an advocate of woman’s

enlargement in various directions. “Devoted to the interests of

woman,” was now its motto, and she strove to faithfully carry out

the legend. It was still the ardent advocate of temperance, but

it insisted also that the evils of intemperance could only be

effectually overthrown by giving to woman a more potent voice both

in the making and enforcement of the laws designed to overthrow that

great evil.

WOMAN’S TEMPERANCE SOCIETY.

We now copy again from Mrs. Bloomer’s writings:

“In the Spring of 1852 a few of the daughters [of Temperance]

celebrated an open two-days temperance meeting at Rochester, N.

Y. It was very largely attended, between four and five hundred

women being present at the first session. The numbers increased,

and at the later sessions the large hall, which would contain

1,800, was packed to the platform with eager, earnest temperance

men and women. This meeting was not only not secret, it was

not exclusive,—men forming a large part of it and doing their

share of talking. It was at this meeting that I first let my

voice be heard in public after much persuasion. Able men came to

our aid—among them I remember the Rev. William H. Channing (the

younger), an eloquent divine of those days; and the meeting was

very enthusiastic, and was the beginning of much in the same

direction that followed. This convention resulted in organizing a

woman’s state Temperance Society, which became very effective and

had much to do in breaking down the barriers and introducing women

into temperance and other work. Some half-dozen women were employed

by the society as agents on salaries of twenty-five dollars per

month and their expenses. These lecturers traveled through the

state, holding meetings, and securing membership to the society

and signatures to the pledge, and petitions to the legislature.

They were well received on all sides, partly because of the novelty

of a woman speaking, and partly because the principle of total

abstinence and Washingtonian temperance was stirring all hearts. Up

to these times no woman had thought of speaking in public outside a

Quaker meeting-house. To have attempted such a thing at an earlier

day would have called down upon her much censure, and St. Paul

would have been freely quoted to silence her. Now, however, women

took matters Into their own hands and acted as their own impulses

prompted and their consciences approved. And it was surprising how

public sentiment changed and how the zeal of temperance men and

women helped on the new movement of women.”

Mrs. Bloomer and Miss Anthony were secretaries of this convention,

and Elizabeth Cady Stanton president; in the final organization Mrs.

Stanton was made president, Mrs. Bloomer corresponding secretary, and

Miss Anthony and Mary C. Vaughan recording secretaries.

MRS. BLOOMER ON DIVORCE.

At this convention, Senator Gale used very strong language in

regard to women who had petitioned the legislature for a Maine

Law. Mrs. Bloomer criticised him for saying in a sneering way

“that representatives were not accustomed to listen to the voice

of women in legislating upon great public questions.” A resolution

was proposed in the convention that “no woman should remain in the

relation of wife to the confirmed drunkard, and that no drunkard

should be father of her children.” On this Mrs. Bloomer said:

“We believe the teachings which have been given to the drunkard’s

wife, inculcating duty—the commendable examples of angelic wives

which she has been exhorted to follow—have done much to continue

and aggravate the vices and crimes of society growing out of

intemperance. Drunkenness is ground for divorce, and every woman

who is tied to a confirmed drunkard should sunder the ties: and if

she do it not otherwise, the law should compel it, especially if

she have children.

“We are told that such sentiments are exceptional, abhorrent,

that the moral sense of society is shocked and outraged by

their promulgation. Can it be possible that the moral sense of

a people is more shocked at the idea of a pure-minded, gentle

woman sundering the tie which binds her to a loathsome mass of

corruption, than it is to see her dragging out her days in misery

tied to his besotted and filthy carcass? Are the morals of society

less endangered by the drunkard’s wife continuing to live in

companionship with him, giving birth to a large family of children

who inherit nothing but poverty and disgrace, and who will grow up

criminal and vicious, filling our prisons and penitentiaries and

corrupting and endangering the purity and peace of the community,

than they would be should she separate from him and strive to

win for herself and her children comfort and respectability? The

statistics of our prisons, poorhouses, and lunatic asylums teach us

a fearful lesson on this subject of morals!

“The idea of living with a drunkard is so abhorrent, so revolting

to all the finer feelings of our nature, that a woman must

fall very low before she can endure such companionship. Every

pure-minded person must look with loathing and disgust upon such

a union of virtue and vice; and he who would compel her to it,

or dissuade the drunkard’s wife from separating herself from

such wretchedness and degradation, is doing much to perpetuate

drunkenness and crime and is wanting in the noblest feelings of

human nature. Thanks to our legislature, if they have not given us

the Maine law they are deliberating on giving to wives of drunkards

and tyrants a loophole of escape from the brutal cruelty of their

self-styled lords and masters. A bill of this kind has passed the

house, but may be lost in the senate. Should it not pass now, it

will be brought up again and passed at no distant day. Then, if

women have any spirit, they will free themselves from much of the

depression and wrong which they have hitherto by necessity borne.”

CONVENTION INFLUENCE.

Probably, no single event ever had so great an influence in promoting

the cause of woman’s enlargement as this Rochester convention. It

opened the door wide for women to enter. It brought out a number

of faithful workers in that cause, as well as in the cause of

Temperance, who from that time devoted their lives to the work.

Some took a wider view of their work than others, but all devoted

themselves with a singular fidelity and earnestness to the noble

aims before them. Nor was the influence confined solely to women who

took part in that convention. Others, in every part of the country,

soon enlisted in the cause and became zealous advocates of woman’s

redemption from the thralldom of evil habits and unjust laws. Mrs.

Stanton and Miss Anthony continued a tower of strength for half a

century and upwards, and Mrs. Bloomer nearly as long, but in the

latter years of her life not so prominently; and there came to their

aid Lucy Stone, Frances D. Gage, Mrs. C. H. Nichols, Antoinette L.

Brown, Mary A. Livermore, Lydia A. Fowler, and many more who might be

mentioned.

Mrs. Bloomer, as corresponding secretary of the new society, was

brought into immediate and close connection with its agents and

friends. Her home was at all times open to them, and they often

visited and consulted with her and Mrs. Stanton, who resided in the

same village. Mrs. Vaughan, Mrs. Albro, and Miss Emily Clark, besides

Miss Anthony, were earnest workers in the good cause. Mrs. Bloomer’s

correspondence was also very extensive; but in her removals from

place to place it has been mostly destroyed, and the death of nearly

all her correspondents renders it impracticable to procure copies of

her letters to them.

THE WOMEN REJECTED AT SYRACUSE.

At the Rochester convention Gerrit Smith, Mrs. Bloomer, and Miss

Anthony were appointed delegates to the state convention then soon

to meet in Syracuse. The call was to all temperance organizations to

send delegates to it, and clearly included the Woman’s Temperance

Society. Mrs. Bloomer and Miss Anthony accepted the appointment and

attended; but their simple appearance caused a tremendous hubbub,

and after a whole day spent by the men in discussing the question of

their admission they were excluded. Mrs. Bloomer describes the scene

as follows:

“The women had friends in the convention who were as determined

on their side that women should be recognized, and so they had

it, each side determined to have it’s way—a dozen men talking at

the same time all over the house, each claiming the floor, each

insisting on being heard—till all became confusion, a perfect babel

of noises. No order could be kept and the president left his chair

in disgust. Time and words fail to give you the details of this

disgraceful meeting. The ringleaders were prominent clergymen of

Albany, Lockport, and Buffalo. Their names and faces are indelibly

engraven on my memory. During this whole day’s quarrel of the

men, no woman said a word, except once Miss Anthony addressed the

chair intending to prefer a request for a donation of temperance

tracts for distribution by our society. She got no farther than

‘Mr. President,’ when she was rudely called to order by one of the

belligerent clergymen and told to sit down. She sat down and no

other woman opened her mouth, though they really were entitled to

all the rights of any delegate, under the call; and the treatment

they received was not only an insult to the women present, but to

the organization that sent them.”

In referring to this incident, on page 488 Vol. I. of History of

Woman Suffrage, it is said: “Rev. Luther Lea offered his church just

before adjournment, and Mr. May announced that Miss Anthony and Mrs.

Bloomer would speak there in the evening. They had a crowded house,

while the conservatives scarcely had fifty. The general feeling was

hostile to the action of the convention. The same battle on the

temperance platform was fought over and over again in various parts

of the state, and the most deadly opposition uniformly came from

the clergy, though a few noble men in that profession ever remained

true to principle through all the conflicts of those days in the

anti-slavery, temperance, and woman’s rights movements.”

CONVENTION IN ALBANY.

In the winter of 1852 and 1853, meetings of both the regular

state Temperance societies were held in Albany for the purpose

of influencing the legislature then in session to pass the Maine

prohibitory law. Mrs. Bloomer attended the women’s convention, and

delivered an elaborate speech in the Baptist church. She herself

gives the following report of the proceedings at the convention:

“The ladies were there with their officers and lecturers. During

the day they held meetings in the large Baptist church which was

packed, seats and aisles, to its utmost capacity. During the

morning session a committee of three ladies, previously appointed,

slipped out through a back entrance and wended their way to the

capitol bearing between them a large basket filled with petitions

from 30,000 women of the state, each petition neatly rolled and

tied with ribbon and bearing upon it the name of the place from

which it came, and the number of names it contained. We were met

at the state-house door by Hon. Silas M. Burroughs, of Orleans,

according to previous arrangement, and escorted by him within the

bar of the house. Mr. Burroughs then said: ‘Mr. Speaker, there is

a deputation of ladies in this house with a petition of 30,000

women for a prohibitory law, and I request that the deputation may

present the petition in person.’ He moved a suspension of the rules

for that purpose. Some objection was raised by two or three members

who sneered at the idea of granting such privileges to women, but

the vote was taken and carried; and then the committee and the big

basket, carried by two of us by the handles at each end, passed

up in front of the speaker’s desk, when one of our number made a

little speech appealing for prohibition and protection from the

rum power in the name of the 30,000 women of the state whom we

represented. The petitions were sent up to the clerk’s desk, while

we retired again to the bar where we were surrounded and received

congratulations of members. We soon after retired and returned to

the meeting at the church. On the announcement being made to the

meeting of what we had done and our success, it was received with

a perfect shout of congratulation by the vast audience. It was an

unheard-of thing for women to do, and our reception augured success

to the hopes of temperance people for a prohibitory law. But alas!

Our petitions availed us nothing, as we learned in due time. Those

30,000 petitioners were only women; and what cared our so-called

representatives for the petitions of a disfranchised class? Our

meetings were kept up during the day and evening, women doing all

the talking though men composed full half the audience. In the

evening, in addition to the Baptist church meetings were held in

another church and in the representatives’ hall, the capitol having

been placed at our service, our lady speakers separating and going

by twos and threes to each house; and all were crowded, every foot

of standing room being occupied.”

It should be added, that Mrs. Bloomer was one of the Committee

of Three who appeared before the legislature and presented the

petitions. The other members were Miss Emily Clark and Mrs. Albro.

A LECTURER.

Mrs. Bloomer’s life during the latter part of 1853 was a very busy

one. In addition to her duties as editor and publisher of the _Lily_

and clerk in the post office, she was also frequently invited to

deliver addresses on Temperance. A few of these invitations she

accepted, and appeared before well-pleased audiences in villages of

western New York. She never until later years acquired the habit

of extemporaneous speaking, but all her addresses were carefully

written out and delivered from manuscript. There is a big pile of

her writings now before me. They are all characterized by great

earnestness in appeal both to the reason and sympathies of her

hearers.

Mrs. Bloomer’s appeals were mainly addressed to her own sex, but she

never failed to call upon the men also to practise total abstinence

and give their influence in all proper ways for the overthrow of

the liquor traffic. She also introduced other questions into her

addresses. She insisted that the laws relating to women were narrow

and unjust and should be changed. She thought that women should have

a voice in making the laws and also in their enforcement. When this

change should be brought around, she had hopes that woman would be

relieved from the curse of drunkenness under which she suffered

so keenly. And it so happened that it was frequently said of Mrs.

Bloomer that “she talks on temperance, but she gives us a large

supply of woman’s rights, also.” To this Mrs. Bloomer in the _Lily_

in April, 1853, made the following reply:

“Some of the papers accuse me of mixing Woman’s Rights with our

Temperance, as though it was possible for woman to speak on

Temperance and Intemperance without also speaking of Woman’s Rights

and Wrongs in connection therewith. That woman has rights, we

think that none will deny; that she has been cruelly wronged by

the law-sanctioned liquor traffic, must be admitted by all. Then

why should we not talk of woman’s rights and temperance together?

Ah, how steadily do they who are guilty shrink from reproof! How

ready they are to avoid answering our arguments by turning their

attention to our personal appearance, and raising a bugbear about

Woman’s Rights and Woman’s Wrongs! and a ready response to the

truth we utter wells up from women’s hearts, and breaks forth in

blessings and a hearty God-speed in our mission.”

IN NEW YORK CITY.

We now quote from Mrs. Bloomer’s personal reminiscences:

“In February, 1853, in company with Miss Susan B. Anthony, Rev.

Antoinette L. Brown, and Mrs. L. N. Fowler, I held three meetings

in the city of New York. We had been attending a Temperance mass

meeting in the city of Albany, where we had both day and evening

been addressing the assembled temperance hosts that had come

together from all parts of the state in response to a call for that

purpose. At these meetings we were met by parties from New York,

who invited us to visit that city and hold a series of meetings,

assuring us that every preparation would be made and we should be

received by good audiences. We accepted the invitation and in a few

days went to New York to fill the engagement. Full notice had been

given and all things put in readiness for us. These meetings were

held in Metropolitan Hall, where Jennie Lind made her _début_ on

arriving in this country, which has since been burned down; and in

the old Broadway Tabernacle; and in Knickerbocker Hall.

“That was in the early days of the woman’s movement, and

women speaking in public was a new thing outside of a Quaker

meeting-house. We were the first to address an audience of New

Yorkers from a public platform; and much curiosity was excited

to hear and see the wonderful women who had outstepped their

sphere and were turning the world upside down by preaching a new

doctrine which claimed that women were human beings, endowed with

inalienable rights, among which was the right to life, liberty, and

the pursuit of happiness.

“The halls at each of these meetings were filled to their utmost

capacity, from 3,000 to 5,000 persons being the estimated number

in attendance. At the Metropolitan, Horace Greeley and wife,

Dr. S. P. Townsend, Colonel Snow, and a number of others were

seated with us on the platform; and in all the after meetings,

Mr. Greeley was present and manifested much interest in our

work, taking copious notes and giving columns of the _Tribune_

to reports of our speeches. While in the city we were guests of

the great phrenologist, L. N. Fowler, one of the editors of the

_Phrenological Journal_, and his wife, and Mrs. S. P. Townsend; and

the evening was spent at the home of the Greeleys.

“AT HORACE GREELEY’S HOUSE.

“At the latter place we met about a dozen of New York’s literati.

Of these I only remember Charles A. Dana, then on the _Tribune_

staff; Mrs. E. F. Ellet, a prominent story writer of that time; and

Alice and Phœbe Gary, the poet sisters. I remember the latter as

dressed with very low necks and arms bared to the shoulders, while

their skirts trailed upon the floor. Around their necks were hung

huge boas, four feet long, the style of that day; as a protection,

I suppose, from the cold. These being heaviest in the middle were

continually sagging out of place, and kept the wearers quite busy

adjusting them. I confess to a feeling short of admiration for this

dress display at a little social gathering in midwinter, and my

estimation of the good sense of the Cary sisters sank accordingly.

And I never read of them to this day but those bare necks and

shoulders and trailing skirts appear before me. They, no doubt,

were as much disgusted with my short dress and trousers which left

no part of the person exposed. Tastes differ, that is all; and I

was not used to seeing women in company half-dressed.

“It was in the early days of spiritualism, when the Rochester

rappings had excited much wonder throughout the country. Horace

Greeley was known to have taken a good deal of interest in the

subject, to have given time to its investigation, and to have

entertained its first propagandists, the Fox sisters, for days at

his house. During the evening of our visit that subject came up and

Mr. Greeley warmly espoused the side of the spiritualists. He said

many things in confirmation of his belief in the new doctrine of

spirit visitation. Standing midway of the two parlors and pointing

to a table that stood against the wall between the front windows,

he said: ‘I must believe what my eyes have seen. I have seen that

table leave its place where it now stands, come forward and meet

me here where I now stand, and then go back to its place without

any one touching it, or being near it. I have also seen that table

rise from the floor, and the weight of a man sitting on it would

not keep it down. I cannot deny the evidence of my own eyes.’ Miss

Fox was in the house at the time of this occurrence, but not in the

room. This he said in answer to questions.”

AT METROPOLITAN HALL.

Of the meeting in Metropolitan Hall, the New York _Tribune_

stated that it was nearly as large and fully as respectable as

the audiences which nightly greeted Jenny Lind and Catherine

Hayes during their engagements in that hall. Mrs. Lydia N. Fowler

presided, and delivered an address. The _Tribune_ gave a full report

of the meeting. It said: “Mrs. Bloomer was attired in a dark-brown

changeable tunic, a kilt descending just below the knees, the skirt

of which was trimmed with rows of black velvet. The pantaloons were

of the same texture and trimmed in the same style. She wore gaiters.

Her headdress was cherry and black. Her dress had a large open

corsage, with bands of velvet over the white chemisette in which was

a diamond-stud pin. She wore flowing sleeves, tight undersleeves and

black lace mitts. Her whole attire was rich and plain in appearance.

* * * She was introduced to the audience and proceeded to her address

which occupied more than an hour.” And as giving a fair expression of

Mrs. Bloomer’s then views on the subject of temperance and woman’s

duty in reference to it, the _Tribune’s_ full report of her address

is here given:

MRS. BLOOMER’S SPEECH.

“Mrs. Bloomer, of Seneca Falls, was introduced and proceeded to

read an address which occupied nearly an hour. She commenced

by remarking that, from the earliest agitation of the subject

of temperance down through the whole past course of the cause,

woman has had a great and important part to perform in the great

struggle for freedom. And most nobly has she performed her part,

according to the light she possessed. She has done all that the

custom of the time permitted her to do. She has faithfully attended

temperance meetings and listened to many wise discourses from

temperance lecturers. During all this woman has imagined that she

was doing the cause good service. But lo! she still sees the great

destroyer passing triumphantly on in his work of death; she sees

poverty, wretchedness and despair still rampant in our midst; she

sees that her prayers to rumsellers to desist from their murderous

work have fallen upon hearts of stone; she sees that, in spite of

her remonstrances, the stream of death still flows on and that

thousands and tens of thousands are still going to destruction.

But, though she is often weary, yet is she not hopeless; she

still has faith to look beyond the clouds to the bright prospect

beyond—still has faith to look beyond the efforts of man to One who

is mighty for deliverance.

“Yet, notwithstanding the efforts already put forth in this work,

woman was not without guilt in this matter. While man endeavors

to compel obedience to his laws, and make woman dependent upon

him and an echo of his thoughts, while man has greatly sinned in

thus usurping this great prerogative, woman has greatly sinned in

submitting to this power. Woman has suffered her individuality to

be merged in a name. She forgets that God created them equal; she

forgets that our Heavenly Father has not made one to rule over the

other. She forgets that she is as necessary to his happiness as he

is to hers. They are created to work hand in hand, bearing equally

the burden of life; and though we may fail to do our duty on earth,

yet will our individuality be recognized and held to account on the

Last Day. The plea often raised that it is immodest and unladylike,

that we are out of our sphere in thus battling against the evils of

intemperance, will not avail in the sight of God who has commanded

that even one talent should be put to a good use. He has created

woman intelligent and responsible and given her a great work to do,

and woe unto her if she does it not! Woe unto him who hinders her

in its fulfillment! Her individuality must be recognized before the

evils of intemperance can cease to exist. How absurd the idea, how

degrading the thought, that before marriage woman can enjoy freedom

of thought, but afterwards must endorse her husband’s sentiments be

they good or bad! Call you not this slavery? But if she acts the

part of true womanhood, the path of duty will be made so plain that

she cannot err therein.

“The speaker next said that she proposed to show how woman, by

her own acts, had retarded the cause of temperance. And, first,

woman had done much to retard the cause by herself partaking of

stimulating drink during lactation, and thus transmitting it

through the system of her infant. She imagines that this gives her

stimulus and strength. But in this she sins from ignorance. As

the child grows, his appetite grows perverted, and he will desire

still stronger stimulus such as tobacco and cigars. Let mothers

study the physiology of themselves and their children that they may

know how to feed them so as to give them regular appetites. Woman

has also done much to retard the cause of temperance by presenting

the intoxicating cup to her guest. Not unfrequently does the first

glass taken from the hands of woman destroy both body and soul

forever. Home is said to be woman’s sphere; herein, at least, she

should forbid the intoxicating cup to enter. Women, Christian

women, as you hope for salvation, let not this guilt rest upon your

souls!

“Woman has also retarded the cause of temperance by using

intoxicating drinks for culinary purposes. Such an one voluntarily

yields up her children to the Moloch of intemperance. Let no woman

think this a little matter. Let no woman think that because she

occupies a high place in society the destroyer will pass her by.

Such is not his course. He delights to cut down the high and noble

and trample them beneath his iron hoofs.

“Another class who in my view greatly retard the cause of

temperance principles are those who profess love for our cause

and hope that it will triumph, but do nothing for it. They say we

have men to attend to this work and that it is none of woman’s

business. Deliver us from such dead weights on society and on the

spirit of Progress! None of woman’s business, when she is subject

to poverty and degradation and made an outcast from respectable

society! None of woman’s business, when her starving, naked babes

are compelled to suffer the horrors of the winter’s blast! None of

woman’s business, when her children are stripped of their clothing

and compelled to beg their bread from door to door! In the name

of all that is sacred, what is woman’s business if this be no

concern of hers? (Great applause.) None of woman’s business! What

is woman? Is she a slave? Is she a mere toy? Is she formed, like a

piece of fine porcelain, to be placed upon the shelf to be looked

at? Is she a responsible being? or has she no soul? Alas, alas

for the ignorance and weakness of woman! Shame! Shame on woman

when she refuses all elevating action and checks all high and holy

aspirations for the good of others! (Applause.) Sisters, the liquor

traffic does concern woman deeply; and it is her business to bring

her influence to bear against it, both by private and public acts.

Some mothers say it is as much as they can do to look after their

own children without going to the trouble of looking after children

of their neighbors. If all mothers would do this and train up their

own children in the right way, it would be all well. But such is

not the case; and therefore are we to go out into the world and

help reclaim the children of poverty and crime around us.