Transcriber’s Note
  Italic text displayed as: _italic_
  Bold text displayed as: =bold=




[Illustration: D. C. Bloomer(signature)]




  LIFE AND WRITINGS OF
  AMELIA BLOOMER

  BY
  D. C. BLOOMER, LL. D.

  WITH PORTRAITS

  [Illustration: Art for Truth]

  BOSTON
  ARENA PUBLISHING COMPANY
  COPLEY SQUARE
  1895

  Republished 1976
  Scholarly Press, Inc., 22929 Industrial Drive East
  St. Clair Shores, Michigan 48080




  COPYRIGHTED, 1895,

  BY

  D. C. BLOOMER.


  =Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data=

  Bloomer, Dexter C     1820-1900.
  Life and writings of Amelia Bloomer.

  Reprint of the ed. published by Arena Pub. Co.,
  Boston.

  1. Bloomer, Amelia Jenks, 1818-1894. 2. Women’s
  rights—United States. I. Title.
  HQ1413.B6B6   1975b   301.41’2’0924    72-78650
  ISBN 0-403-01994-X




TO MY WIFE.




PREFACE.


As Mrs. Bloomer was one of the pioneers in what is sometimes called
the “Woman’s Movement,” it seems right that a record of her work
should be placed in durable form. Such a record I have endeavored to
set forth in the following pages. While giving a brief narrative of
her life, I have also included, as being most satisfactory, quite
extended extracts from her writings; and one of her lectures is
printed in full. I will add for the information of the curious that a
complete bound copy in one volume of the LILY, as printed and issued
by Mrs. Bloomer for six years, is deposited in the State Library,
in Albany, N. Y., and is probably the only copy of that work in
existence.

                                                       D. C. BLOOMER.

  September, 1895.




  CONTENTS.


                                                                  PAGE

  PREFACE                                                            v


  CHAPTER I.

  HER EARLY LIFE—HER MARRIAGE—TIPPECANOE AND
  TYLER, TOO!—A WRITER FOR NEWSPAPERS—WASHINGTONIANISM—JOINS
  THE CHURCH                                                         7


  CHAPTER II.

  UNJUST LAWS FOR WOMEN—REFORM BEGINS—WOMEN
  TO THE FRONT—MRS. BLOOMER THINKS ABOUT
  IT                                                                28


  CHAPTER III.

  SHE WRITES ABOUT IT—BIRTH OF THE _LILY_—NEW
  WORK FOR HER—FIRST IN THE FIELD—MRS.
  STANTON APPEARS—MRS. BLOOMER CONVERTED—BECOMES
  ASSISTANT POSTMASTER—THE _LILY_ ON
  HER HANDS—VISITS NEW YORK CITY—MISS ANTHONY
  IS INTRODUCED—MRS. BLOOMER ON THE
  TENNESSEE LEGISLATURE—FOR WOMAN SUFFRAGE—LETTER
  TO AKRON CONVENTION—“RULING
  A WIFE”                                                           38


  CHAPTER IV.

  THE REFORM DRESS—WOMAN’S ATTIRE—FASHION IN
  DRESS                                                             65


  CHAPTER V.

  THE _LILY_ PROSPEROUS—WOMAN’S TEMPERANCE SOCIETY—MRS.
  BLOOMER ON DIVORCE—CONVENTION
  INFLUENCE—THE WOMEN REJECTED AT SYRACUSE—CONVENTION
  IN ALBANY—A LECTURER—IN
  NEW YORK CITY—AT HORACE GREELEY’S HOUSE—AT
  METROPOLITAN HALL—MRS. BLOOMER’S
  SPEECH—IN BUFFALO—AT HOME—HATING THE
  MEN—GOOD TEMPLARS—IN THE PULPIT—IN
  ROCHESTER AGAIN; A CHANGE—A LECTURE
  TOUR; FOURTH OF JULY—RESTING—NEW LECTURES—A
  CLUB OF TALKERS                                                   82


  CHAPTER VI.

  AT THE WORLD’S CONVENTION—A WESTERN TRIP—CONTINUES
  HER JOURNEY—AN ANNOUNCEMENT;
  A REMOVAL—A TESTIMONIAL—DEMONSTRATION
  OF RESPECT TO MR. AND MRS. BLOOMER                               133


  CHAPTER VII.

  AN ASSISTANT EDITOR—PROSPERITY OF THE _LILY_—ENFRANCHISEMENT
  OF WOMAN—WOMAN’S RIGHT—WOMAN’S
  CLAIM—DESTROYING LIQUOR—GOLDEN
  RULES FOR WIVES—THE CLERGY—MALE BLOOMERS—WOMEN
  MECHANICS—WOMAN’S DRESS—WOMEN
  DRUNKARDS—PROGRESS—SEWING MACHINES—GOVERNOR
  SEYMOUR’S VETO—FIGHTING
  HER WAY—ON THE LECTURE PLATFORM—AT THE
  OHIO STATE CONVENTION—A WOMAN TYPESETTER—A
  STRIKE FOLLOWED—LUCY STONE APPEARS—A
  VISIT TO NEW YORK STATE—AT THE NEW
  YORK STATE CONVENTION—GOOD TEMPLARS IN
  OHIO—THE _LILY_ SOLD—SHE IS SORRY                                149


  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.

  “Another obstacle to the progress of temperance principles is that
  women live in close companionship with drunken husbands. This
  may be a delicate point upon which to enter and many may object
  to mentioning it, but nevertheless the truth must be spoken. In
  my mind no greater sin is committed than by woman consenting to
  remain the wife of the drunkard, rearing children in poverty and
  wretchedness and thus transmitting his sins. A pure and virtuous
  woman tied to such a piece of corruption, and giving birth to
  children who will grow up to be a curse to themselves and society!
  The drunkard knows that the gentle being is bound close to him and
  is literally his slave, and that she will remain with him be his
  conduct what it may. Thus are thousands surrounded by these gentle
  and loving creatures, when they are not worthy to have even a dog
  for a companion. (Applause.)

  “And yet public sentiment and law bid woman to submit to this
  degradation and to kiss the hand that smites her to the ground.
  Let things be reversed—let man be made subject to these various
  insults—and how long would he suffer anger, hunger, cold and
  nakedness! How many times would he allow himself to be thus
  trampled upon! (Applause.) Not long—not long—I think! With his
  right arm would he free himself from such degrading bondage.
  (Applause.) But thanks to a few brave hearts, the idea of relief
  to woman has been broached to society. She has dared to stand
  forth and disown any earthly master. (Applause.) Woman must banish
  the drunkard from her society. Let her utterly refuse to be the
  companion of a drunkard, or the man who puts the intoxicating cup
  to his lips, and we shall see a new order of society.

  “Woman must declare an unceasing war to this great foe, at all
  times and upon every occasion that presents itself. She must not
  wait for man to help her; this is her business as much as his. Let
  her show to the world that she possesses somewhat of the spirit
  and the blood of the daughters of the Revolution! Such thoughts as
  these may be thought unladylike; but if they are so, they are not
  unwomanly. (Applause.)

  “Mrs. Bloomer then made a brief argument in favor of the Maine Law,
  and concluded her remarks amid long continued applause.

  “It will be seen that Mrs. Bloomer’s address was almost entirely
  confined to women, and marked out an entirely new field in
  temperance thought; and it therefore attracted not a little
  attention.”

The meeting in New York city did not end the work of the three
ladies in the Temperance cause during the winter. They made a tour
of the state, holding meetings in Brooklyn, Poughkeepsie, Sing Sing,
Hudson, Troy, Cohoes, Utica, Syracuse, Rochester, Lockport, Buffalo,
and other places along the Hudson River and the line of the Central
Railroad. They were everywhere received by great crowds of people
anxious to see the now famous speakers and listen to their words.
It was a new thing for women to speak in public; and no doubt the
fashion of the dresses worn by Mrs. Bloomer and Miss Anthony had
something to do with calling out the people to their meetings.


IN BUFFALO.

Mrs. Bloomer described the closing meeting of the series at Buffalo
as follows:

  “Townsend Hall was crowded at an early hour by the curious and
  interested portions of the community, who came together to see the
  women who had made themselves notorious by their boldness in daring
  to face a city audience, and to listen to the strange and ‘funny
  things’ they might utter on the worn and rather unpopular subject
  of temperance. The capacity of the hall is said to be sufficient
  to seat 1,000. Every spot where a standing place could be had was
  occupied, and very many went away unable to gain admittance. Steps
  were immediately taken by some friends here to secure a hall for
  another meeting the next evening. Townsend Hall and American Hall
  were both engaged, and the Eagle-Street Theatre was secured;
  and last night, for the first time in many years, I attended a
  ‘theatre’ not as a looker-on but as an actor in the play. I don’t
  know the capacity of the theatre but it was estimated that fully
  1,200 persons were present, the body of the house and lower gallery
  being densely filled, while many occupied the lower gallery and the
  rostrum. Seldom I think is a theatre put to better use, and pity it
  is that all its performances and performers are not as truthful and
  earnest in laboring for the good of humanity. The audience appeared
  interested, and was for the most part quiet and attentive.

  “We received calls from a large number of ladies of the city who
  were interested in our movement, and we hear from all the same
  expression of feeling and that is: ‘We must have the Maine law;
  what can we do to obtain this law?’ I find there is a strong
  woman’s-rights sentiment prevailing on the subject among those whom
  I have met here. All feel that the only way in which women can do
  anything effectually in this cause is through the ballot-box, and
  they feel themselves fettered by being denied the right to thus
  speak their sentiments in a manner that could not be misunderstood.
  If voters would but all do their duty, all would be well and we
  should soon have a prohibitory liquor-law; and methinks that if
  voters who claim to be temperance men could hear all comments made
  by women upon their actions, and see themselves in the light that
  women see them, they would blush and hang their heads in shame at
  their treachery and inefficiency.”


AT HOME.

On returning home from one of her tours, Mrs. Bloomer wrote as
follows:

  “After an absence of two weeks, we again find ourselves in our own
  loved home, where we meet with a hearty welcome. Most forcibly do
  the words of the poet come before our mind as we enter our quiet
  sanctum, and from the depths of our heart we endorse them: ‘Home,
  sweet home! be it ever so humble, there’s no place like home.’

  “During the two weeks spent in jaunting through some of the cities
  and villages of the beautiful Hudson, we have seen much of the
  grand and beautiful in nature and made the acquaintance of some
  of the choice spirits of that section of the state. It has been
  a relaxation from cares we much needed, and we trust will prove
  time profitably spent both to us and to those who listened to the
  message we bore them.”


HATING THE MEN.

The editor of the Utica _Telegraph_ having charged Mrs. Bloomer with
“hating the men,” she replied to the insinuation as follows:

  “Bless your soul, Mr. _Telegraph_! we dearly love them all—except
  rumsellers and those editors who patronize and sustain them in
  their ruin-and-death-dealing business. Hate the men? Why, such an
  idea never entered our head and we are sure our tongue never gave
  expression to such a thought! You must have had a curtain lecture
  before going to the meeting that night, Mr. _Telegraph_, which
  soured your feelings toward all womankind so that you saw through
  green glasses and heard through a cracked ear-tube; or else you
  must be a devotee to the wine cup, and are frightened lest the
  women are going to adopt some measure to make it unlawful and
  disreputable for you to gratify your low appetite. Oh, dear! how
  people are worried about our domestic relations. How much sympathy
  our ‘bigger half’ receives because of his sore domestic troubles!
  Strange that the _Telegraph_ forgot to speak of our ‘five neglected
  children’! They have met with great sympathy from many people, but
  are entirely overlooked by this student of the ‘Natural Sciences.’
  We do wish those editors who are so much interested in our domestic
  affairs would appoint a committee to investigate the matter and
  devise some plan of relief for our poor suffering husband and ‘five
  children.’ Ha, ha! we should like to see the workings of our ‘gude
  man’s’ face as they offered words of condolence and sympathy, and
  hear the kind and unruffled tones in which he would thank them for
  their tender solicitude and politely bid them return and bestow
  equal care on their own domestic relations.”


GOOD TEMPLARS.

Up to 1852-3 women were excluded from the several temperance secret
fraternities which had come into existence, such as the “Sons of
Temperance” and similar societies. To give to women a chance to
work for the cause in the same way the order of the “Daughters of
Temperance” was organized, but Mrs. Bloomer persistently refused to
connect herself with them for the reason that she believed that
women and men should be admitted to all such societies on a footing
of perfect equality. The church opened its doors to both alike; so
she insisted the secret societies should do the same. But in the
latter part of 1852, the order of “Good Templars” was organized in
Onondaga County, and soon spread out over the adjacent counties. It
admitted women to membership and to all offices on an entire equality
with men. Mrs. Bloomer was greatly pleased with the idea, and when a
lodge of the new order was established in the village she soon became
an active member, took great interest in its work, and held various
positions in the lodge. She believed that it furnished an opening for
women’s work in the Temperance cause which should not be neglected.
In a notice of this new temperance organization, in the July number
of the _Lily_, Mrs. Bloomer says:

  “Of course, to those who believe that women should not work
  together with the men in the Temperance Cause this organization
  presents insuperable objections. No man who is not willing to
  admit woman to entire equality with himself in labors, duties,
  honors and offices, who is not willing that her vote should be
  deposited with his in the same ballot-box, and her voice be raised
  with his on all questions relating to its affairs, need apply for
  membership in this order. But the number of such men is small,
  indeed, and is daily growing beautifully less. It has long been the
  desire of many Sons of Temperance to admit women into their doors,
  and the recent omission of the National Division of that order to
  comply with that desire has sadly disappointed many of its best
  members. But what the Sons of Temperance have refused to do, the
  Good Templars amply provided for, and this feature we believe to be
  one of its chief excellencies, and which more than any other will
  commend the order to the hearty approval of the high-minded and
  right-thinking portion of the temperance community.”

The first State gathering of the new order was held in Ithaca, in
June, 1853. Mrs. Bloomer was appointed a delegate to it from her
local lodge, along with her husband, and when the state grand-lodge
was organized she was admitted to that, also. A Rev. Mr. Wilson had
been engaged to deliver the address, but he failed to attend. Mrs.
Bloomer described the result as follows:

  “They then selected me to take his place. On the morning of the
  public demonstration, an unthought-of trouble arose. The church
  which had been engaged to Mr. Bristol was now refused to a woman.
  Its trustees would not open it for a woman to speak in. This caused
  a great excitement among the men. They gathered in the lodge-room
  to consider the situation. They were puzzled to know what to do.
  They would not give up their speaker. There was talk of going
  to a grove, but it was too far; talk of speaking in the street,
  but there was no shade; and the lodge-room was not large enough.
  Finally the Baptists came to their relief and offered their church,
  and I did the talking to the immense throng who gathered there.”


IN THE PULPIT.

At the time of the above occurrence it was a new thing indeed for
women to appear in public, and especially to stand in the pulpit to
deliver their thoughts. All this is now greatly changed. Mrs. Bloomer
in writing on this subject in subsequent years says:

  “The pulpit was sacred ground, that no woman’s foot must profane.
  One minister in Syracuse preached a sermon against us and had
  it printed in pamphlet form. These he sent out by hundreds to
  ministers of his church throughout the state for them to scatter
  among the women of their congregations, hoping to head off this
  new movement of women. Whether these determined opponents of other
  days who meant to crush the women’s movement in the bud ever became
  reconciled to the part she has since played in the world’s doings,
  I don’t know. Some of them, and probably all, have passed to their
  account where they have learned that God’s ways are not man’s ways.
  I suppose that we cannot greatly blame them when we remember that,
  up to that time, the world had been educated to believe woman an
  inferior creation; that she had been placed by her Creator in an
  inferior and subordinate position; and that St. Paul’s injunction
  to the uneducated women of his day to keep silence in the churches
  was intended for the women of all time, included public halls as
  well as churches, and political, social, temperance and all other
  subjects as well as the gospel of Christ, of which women were to
  know nothing except what they learned from their husbands at home.
  We find a very different state of things in these days, when the
  clergy everywhere are ready to listen to women—nay, to welcome and
  invite them to their desks; and even dismiss their own services
  that the women may be heard. They must have learned a new gospel,
  or a new interpretation of the old one. In those early days,
  ministers before hearing us would refuse to open our meetings with
  prayer—feeling, I suppose, that we had gotten too far out of our
  sphere to be benefited by their prayers. Now, they hesitate not to
  lend us all the aid in their power. There may be here and there one
  who turns the cold shoulder, but the cause is too far advanced to
  be affected by anything such can bring against it.”


IN ROCHESTER AGAIN—A CHANGE.

In May, 1853, the annual meeting of the Woman’s State-Temperance
Society convened in the city of Rochester. It was very largely
attended by many of the prominent Temperance workers in the state.
Mrs. Bloomer was present and took an active part in the proceedings.
At the convention, the question of admitting men as members came up
and excited a great deal of interest. It was agreed that, as both
sexes were equally interested in the work, they should all bear an
equal responsibility in guiding the doings and sharing in the labor
of the society. Those who took this view insisted that it should be
placed on the broad grounds of equal rights and equal duties for all.
Others thought the time had not yet come for so radical a change in
the constitution, but preferred that it should continue to be an
exclusively feminine organization. Mrs. Bloomer took this view and so
the majority decided, with the result that Mrs. Stanton declined a
reëlection as president and Miss Anthony also declined a reëlection
as secretary.

In their places, Mrs. Mary C. Vaughan was elected president; Mrs.
Angelina Fish, secretary; Mrs. Albro, chairman of the executive
committee, and Mrs. Bloomer corresponding secretary. These ladies
continued the work of the society with great zeal and fidelity. It
kept its lecturers in the field and continued to labor earnestly in
promoting its temperance work. Mrs. Bloomer’s connection with it
ended with her removal from the state at the end of the year. She
always exceedingly regretted that this divergence of views occurred
between her and Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony, but their old-time
friendship continued on as of old and Mrs. Stanton continued her
interesting contributions to the columns of the _Lily_.

The proceedings of this convention, as also of the Good-Templars
meeting at Ithaca, were printed as a double number of the _Lily_
soon after the adjournment of these bodies. Many extra copies were
also printed, for which there was a very active demand. Mrs. Bloomer
insisted that the work of the Woman’s Temperance Society should go
on vigorously, as in the preceding years, and she exerted all her
influence to that end as one of its officers. She however did not
long remain a resident of New York, and after leaving the state she
was no longer responsible for the work. The zeal of some of the
workers may have become cold, or rather (which seems to have been
the fact) was turned into other channels. Mrs. Bloomer always looked
upon her connection with the society as one of the most useful and
interesting events of her life.

After the close of the convention Mrs. Bloomer visited Niagara Falls
for the first time, accompanied by her husband, spending a couple of
days of much needed rest and recreation. While there they looked over
nearly all the most noted points, including a visit to Termination
Rock under the mighty cataract itself, passing on their way under
Table Rock, which has since disappeared.


A LECTURE TOUR—FOURTH OF JULY.

Of one of her lecturing tours, Mrs. Bloomer gives the following
report:

  “We left home on Saturday the second instant for Harford, where
  we were engaged as orator for the celebration on the Fourth. The
  weather was fine and the trip up the lake a delightful one, made
  doubly so by meeting some old acquaintances and the forming of some
  new ones on the boat. Arrived at Ithaca we found friends awaiting
  from Harford, and were soon on our way to that place, where we
  arrived after a pleasant carriage ride of sixteen miles at about
  ten o’clock in the evening. The glorious Fourth was ushered in
  by a salute at daybreak and another at sunrise. At an early hour
  people began to arrive from the country, and the streets soon
  presented a lively appearance. At ten o’clock the procession was
  formed in front of the Union Church and, the Good Templars and Sons
  of Temperance in the regalia of their orders first, led by a band
  of music and followed by the people, proceeded to a grove where
  seats and a stand handsomely decorated had been prepared for the
  occasion. We were escorted by a committee of ladies all in short
  dresses to the stand, where after the usual exercises came the
  address; but of the merits of this it becometh us not to speak.
  Suffice it to say that the large audience of fifteen hundred or two
  thousand persons listened to us throughout with the most earnest
  attention, and judging from their countenances the novelty of
  hearing a woman was lost in the interest excited by the subject.”

Mrs. Bloomer’s toast at the dinner was as follows:

  “By Mrs. Bloomer: ‘_The Women of the Revolution_. Although they
  toiled along with the men of the Revolution for independence and
  freedom yet they failed, when the struggle was over, to secure an
  equality in those rights and duties which are the common birthright
  of all. May their daughters of the present generation be more
  fortunate in their struggle for rights so long withheld!’”

After several sentences laudatory of her hosts, Mrs. Bloomer
continues:

  “On our return home we were escorted as far as Homer by our friends
  from Harford. Homer is our native village, and as we had not been
  there since the days of our childhood we took advantage of our stay
  to stroll through the place in quest of our old home around which
  clustered many fond recollections. We had no one to guide us in
  the search, but the impressions left on our mind at six years of
  age were so strong that we could not be mistaken. The place was
  soon found and, though much altered, it still retained enough of
  its former likeness to enable us to identify it after an absence
  of twenty-nine years. Emotions both pleasurable and painful were
  awakened as we gazed upon the spot where we first drew breath and
  where we spent the early years of our life. Scenes long since
  forgotten arose in memory as clearly as though but yesterday
  enacted. Not to the old home only has change come, to us and ours
  Time has brought much of change and somewhat of sorrow; yet upon
  us personally has his hand rested lightly, to us he has imparted
  kindness and blessing far more liberally than sorrow. With saddened
  feelings we returned to the hotel where we left our friends. Here
  we were soon surrounded by those who had known us in childhood and
  were intimate friends of our parents. Somehow, they had gotten
  notice of our being there and came forward to offer congratulations
  and welcome us back to our early home. Intercessions were made for
  us to remain with them for the night and give them a lecture, which
  we decided to do. After bidding adieu to our kind friends from
  Harford, who now turned their steps homeward, we were escorted to
  the mansion of William Sherman who with his estimable wife and
  family contributed largely to the pleasures of our visit to Homer.

  “The Presbyterian church was at once opened to us, and notice of
  the meeting circulated as fully as possible in the brief time that
  remained before the evening. The house though large was densely
  filled with an attentive and intelligent audience. On the earnest
  invitation of a committee of gentlemen we remained over another day
  and spoke in the same church on the following evening, when the
  body of the house and the large gallery were again as full as could
  be comfortably seated. Though we interspersed our lecture pretty
  freely with woman’s rights, or rather we might say with woman’s
  wrongs, no one seemed at all alarmed; but, if we may believe the
  assertions of the people, new trains of thought were awakened and a
  most favorable impression made on the minds of the community.”

Mrs. Bloomer then proceeded by stage to Glen Haven where she received
a most cordial welcome from Dr. Jackson, and at his request:

  “We addressed the patients and other inmates of the house in a
  large sitting room on Thursday evening, and at his solicitation
  concluded to accept the invitation of Judge Osborn, of Scott,
  to return to that place and speak on Friday evening, instead of
  returning home as we had intended to do. Accordingly on Friday
  evening we rode over to Scott, a distance of three or four miles.
  The church in which the meeting was held was densely filled, and
  we could but wonder where all the people came from in so small a
  place. Many warm though strange friends gathered around us here,
  and bade us a hearty God-speed in our mission. They would have kept
  us for another night, but home after a week’s absence was doubly
  endeared to us and we could be detained no longer; so we again took
  the stage for the Glen on Saturday morning, and from thence on
  steamboat and cars returned home on Saturday evening. Altogether
  the excursion was a delightful one and we have no cause to regret
  that we were induced to accept the invitation of our Harford
  friends to join with them in celebrating the 77th anniversary of
  the birthday of our National Independence.”


RESTING.

Mrs. Bloomer’s activities during the year had been so unremitting
that she now needed rest. Small in person and fragile in health, she
had been enabled to endure so much only by her indomitable courage
and the spirit of perseverance which ever controlled all her actions.
This needed rest she therefore sought at Dr. Jackson’s water cure, on
the beautiful shores of Skaneateles Lake. Here secluded from public
gaze she spent some weeks in retirement; and yet not entirely so, for
she was there invited and consented to deliver her lecture on Woman’s
Enfranchisement to the inmates of the cure.


NEW LECTURES.

This lecture had been prepared during the early months of the year
and the closing months of 1852. She delivered it on many occasions
in subsequent years in various parts of the country, rewriting it
several times in whole or in part for that purpose. Towards the
closing years of her life she revised it once more, fully setting
forth her ideas and convictions on the subject of woman suffrage;
and in this completed form it is printed in full in the Appendix of
this work. It is believed to be one of the strongest arguments that
has ever been written in favor of woman’s right to the ballot. Mrs.
Bloomer also prepared lectures on woman’s right to employment and
education as fully in all respects as that enjoyed by the other sex.
These lectures, she delivered to audiences in different parts of the
country as occasion offered. They were radical in their claims for
equality for woman in all the employments and acquirements of life
with man, for at that time this claim was only just beginning to
be discussed. No colleges were then open to women. No universities
offered her the literary advantages of their halls and lecture rooms,
and the general opinion was entertained among the mass of the people
that the three studies of reading, writing and arithmetic were enough
for her. So also there was little for women to do but to sew and
stitch, and occasionally teach school for wages far below those paid
to men. There were no women lawyers, no women preachers, except among
the Quakers, no typewriters, no clerks in the stores, no public
offices filled by women. Mrs. Bloomer in her lectures insisted that
all this was wrong. She argued that the schoolroom, the workshop,
the public office, the lawyer’s forum and the sacred desk should
be opened to her sex on entire equality with man. These were then
unpopular doctrines to promulgate either in the public press or on
the lecturer’s platform; but Mrs. Bloomer was spared long enough to
see her rather radical ideas on this subject brought into practical
application, for at the end of 1894 woman’s right to both education
and employment on an equality with man had come to be almost
universally recognized.


A CLUB OF TALKERS.

Mrs. Bloomer derived much mental culture from attending the
conversation-club which had been organized through Mrs. Stanton’s
exertions and was led by her. It followed largely the line of thought
and action set forth in the Life of Margaret Fuller Ossoli, published
about that time, who had conducted clubs of like character some
years before in Boston. It met from time to time in the parlors
of prominent residents of the village and many questions social,
literary and even political were freely discussed at its meetings,
each member being required to take some part in the conversation. It
was not exactly a ladies’ club, for gentlemen also were invited to
attend and did so to some extent; but the attendance and discussions
were mainly confined to the other sex. Mrs. Stanton was eminently
qualified to lead the club as she was and is a woman of great
general information, of large culture and literary attainments, and
an excellent talker. Occasionally an essay was read by some member
previously appointed, and on the whole the club added greatly to the
mental attainments of its members. Seneca Falls as a village was
noted at that time for its liberality in all reformatory movements.
It was the residence of Mrs. Stanton, of Bascom, of Tellman, and
other leaders in liberal thought, to say nothing of the Bloomers.




CHAPTER SIXTH.


AT THE WORLD’S CONVENTION.

In September, Mrs. Bloomer attended the two great temperance
conventions held in that month in the city of New York. During her
stay of ten days she was the guest of Mrs. L. N. Fowler, where for
the first time she met her old correspondent, Mrs. Frances D. Gage,
between whom and Mrs. Bloomer there existed for many years and until
Mrs. Gage’s decease the warmest friendship. She also here again met
her old co-laborers in temperance and other reform work, Miss Lucy
Stone and Miss Antoinette L. Brown. When the World’s Temperance
Convention met in Metropolitan Hall a most bitter wrangle at once
commenced over the question of admitting women to seats in the
convention, and after one or two days spent in its discussion it
was decided in the negative. The Whole World’s Temperance Convention
then followed, over which Rev. T. W. Higginson presided. To this
convention both men and women were admitted as delegates, and the
proceedings throughout were intensely interesting. A public meeting
held in the Tabernacle was interrupted to some extent by a noisy
demonstration whenever a man attempted to speak, but the women were
listened to without interruption. Among the speakers were Miss
Stone, Miss Brown, Mrs. Gage, and Wendell Phillips. Mrs. Bloomer was
an intensely interested participant in all these meetings, and in
a quiet way took part in them, speaking briefly from the platform
in Metropolitan Hall. She also delivered a temperance address in
Broadway Tabernacle to a very large audience, Miss Emily Clark and
Mrs. Mary C. Vaughan being the other speakers. While in the city Mrs.
Bloomer also attended the Crystal Palace exhibition then open to
the public. It was a very interesting presentation of the progress
of the world up to that time in the several departments of human
skill, industry and the fine arts, but has been far exceeded in
extent and variety in subsequent years. One of the curious things
occurring at these gatherings was a vegetarian banquet held in the
Metropolitan Hall in which, it was said by the newspapers of the day,
were gathered all the reformers of every description then in the
city. The table was abundantly supplied with all kinds of fruit and
vegetable productions, but every form of animal food was strictly
excluded. Some speeches were made; but, on the whole, the affair was
not esteemed a very great success. On the following day Rev. Miss
Brown delivered a sermon from the platform in the same hall to a fair
congregation on that old subject, “The exceeding sinfulness of sin.”

Of the Whole World’s Temperance Convention Mrs. Bloomer wrote as
follows:

  “It was largely attended, and passed off most happily. There were
  no old fogies present to raise a disturbance and guy the speakers;
  no questioning the right of each individual, whether man or woman,
  to utter his thoughts on the great subject which they had met to
  consider. All was peace and harmony and it did the heart good to be
  there.

  “There were delegates present from some twenty states and Canada
  and Europe, and a more earnest and intelligent set of men and women
  were never met together. We had the pleasure of meeting and taking
  by the hand many of our friends and co-workers to whom though
  personally unknown we had long been attached.

  “The time allotted to the convention was too short to allow so
  full and free an interchange of sentiment as was desirable. Many
  who had come up hither with hearts burning with zeal for the good
  cause, many from whom it would have been pleasant and profitable to
  hear, were obliged to forego the privilege of speaking on account
  of the limited time which had been fixed upon for the convention.
  The ‘whole world’ could not possibly be heard in two days, yet all
  appeared satisfied with the rich feast that had been furnished
  them; and we trust that those who were not heard in New York have
  gone home strengthened and better prepared to make themselves heard
  and their influence felt in the coming contest.”

Returning home Mrs. Bloomer issued another number of her paper, and
then with her husband started on a Western trip. Of the first part of
this tour, Mrs. Bloomer herself gave the following report:


A WESTERN TRIP.

  “Columbus, Oct. 10, 1853. We reached Cleveland about six o’clock
  on Sunday morning, when we soon found our old friend C. E. Wheeler
  and wife where we spent the few days of our stay very pleasantly.
  We had heard much of the beauty of Cleveland, but in this respect I
  think it has not been overrated. It is indeed a fine city full of
  life and enterprise. The broad streets so nicely shaded give it an
  appearance of health and comfort unlike that of any other city I
  have ever visited. It is rapidly growing in population and wealth,
  and great numbers of fine buildings are now in process of erection.
  It is destined ere long to take rank in importance with any city in
  the West.

  “On Monday evening, I addressed a large and attentive audience
  at the Athenæum on the subject of temperance and the Maine law.
  The subject is attracting great attention in this state this
  fall, and great efforts are being made to secure the passage of a
  prohibitory law at the next session of the legislature. Party lines
  are set aside and the frowns and threats of party leaders entirely
  disregarded in many sections. This is the only true course to be
  pursued, and I rejoice to see the men thus breaking away from party
  shackles and earnestly contending for the right.

  “Yesterday, the National Woman’s-Rights Convention commenced its
  session. The attendance, though respectable, was not large. There
  are many here from abroad, and I should judge the Northern states
  were well represented. Mrs. F. D. Gage, our dear Aunt Fanny, is
  president. I was prevented from attending the afternoon session
  on account of having accepted an invitation extended to me by
  the Temperance Convention to repeat before that body the address
  delivered on Monday evening at the Athenæum. Gen. Gary, Dr. Jewitt,
  and others of the great men were present. I was rather disappointed
  in Dr. Jewitt; but I was under the necessity of leaving before he
  finished his speech, to meet another engagement.

  “The attendance at the Woman’s-Rights Convention at the Melodeon,
  in the evening, was very large. Mrs. Garrison read several
  resolutions submitted by the business committee. I followed with
  an address of about three-quarters of an hour on woman’s right of
  franchise, after which Lucretia Mott occupied a half-hour or more
  in her usual happy and interesting style of speech.

  “We next visited Mount Vernon, which is a pleasant village of
  about 6,000 inhabitants, and where I addressed the people on the
  Maine law. There are four papers published here; among them is
  the _Western Home Visitor_, which is a reformatory paper of high
  character and has a circulation of about four thousand copies.
  Newart was our next stopping place. It has a rather bad reputation
  for hard drinking, but it has a division of the Sons of Temperance
  which is doing good work. I judge there is a considerable reform
  spirit here, also, from the fact that the First Presbyterian church
  was opened to me by the unanimous consent of the trustees, that I
  might be heard on the Maine law.

  “We arrived in this city on Saturday, and stopped at the Niel
  House where the attendance is excellent. Just opposite is the
  magnificent state house in process of erection, which when
  completed will be second in size and grandeur only to the National
  Capitol at Washington. I addressed a large audience on Saturday
  evening on the Maine law, and this evening I propose speaking again
  on intemperance and the wrongs of woman. I had the pleasure of a
  call from Mrs. Janney, secretary of the Woman’s State-Temperance
  Society of this state, from whom I learned that the society is far
  less efficient than ours though it is slowly gaining ground. The
  reason for this inefficiency is doubtless the fact that its leaders
  are unwilling to send out agents of their own sex to lecture and
  gather funds to promote the cause. To-morrow we leave here and
  travel westward.”


CONTINUES HER JOURNEY.

Mrs. Bloomer then passed on to Richmond, Indianapolis, Detroit,
Chicago, and Milwaukee. Unfortunately, her own report of her visits
to these cities is lost and cannot be reproduced. She remained
one or two days in each of them, and in each delivered one or two
addresses,—certainly two in Detroit, Chicago, and Milwaukee, one on
temperance and one on woman’s enfranchisement in each city. In all
she was favored with large audiences and listened to with the closest
attention, and highly favorable notices of her lectures appeared in
the newspapers of all the cities visited. With the exception of Lucy
Stone, who had previously spoken in some of them, she was up to that
time the first woman who had been heard on the platform in the large
towns of the great West.

But the journey, with all she did during its continuance, was really
beyond her strength and she was very glad to return home the latter
part of the month and secure the rest she so greatly needed. But she
could not keep quiet, and her pluck and perseverance enabled her to
go on with her work. The issues of the _Lily_ were resumed, and she
was soon again in the lecture field in reply to pressing invitations
from surrounding towns. Her last lecture, at this time, in New York
was delivered at the courthouse in Ovid, in which beautiful town some
of the earlier years of her life had been spent.


AN ANNOUNCEMENT—A REMOVAL.

The December number of the _Lily_ contained the following
announcement:

  “Our husband having purchased an interest in the _Western Home
  Visitor_ published at Mount Vernon, Ohio, and determined upon
  moving to that place forthwith we, as a true and faithful wife,
  are bound to say in the language of Ruth ‘where thou goest, I
  will go’; and so, before another number of the _Lily_ reaches its
  subscribers, we shall if all is well be settled in our Western home.

  “This announcement, we are well aware, will be an unpleasant
  surprise to many of our readers and friends in this state; yet
  we trust that our change of location will not be deemed by them
  sufficient cause for deserting us. We go but a short distance
  to the west. The _Lily_ will continue to be published and its
  character will be in no wise changed. ‘Uncle Sam’ will carry it as
  safely and regularly to the homes of our friends as he has done
  heretofore, and also convey all letters and remittances to us as
  safely and securely in Ohio as in New York. Then, friends, we pray
  you let not our change of location affect our intercourse with each
  other; but remember that, there as well as here, we shall labor
  for the promotion of the great and good cause to which we have
  devoted so many years of our life. We look confidently to you for
  that support and encouragement which you have bestowed so liberally
  heretofore, and we trust that your efforts in behalf of the _Lily_
  will be increased rather than diminished.

  “We feel that it matters little in what part of the vineyard we
  are placed, so we but improve and cultivate to the best of our
  ability the part assigned us. And this feeling bears us up under
  the heart-sorrow occasioned by the sundering of the many ties that
  bind us to home and friends in our native state. We bid farewell to
  all with an aching heart.

  “Yet our grief in parting with associations so dear, is mingled
  with hope for the future. We prefer to look on the bright side
  of every picture, and to do what we can to render life’s journey
  pleasant and happy rather than darken and embitter it by mournings
  and grief. So we will dash aside the tears, and school our heart
  to bear with fortitude this the greatest sorrow ever laid upon us;
  believing that it is for our interest to take this step, though it
  be so agonizing to part with those we love.

  “We go to seek a home among strangers, not knowing what will be
  our reception, or whether kindred spirits are there to gather
  around and cheer our loneliness; but in this, too, we have hope
  that we shall be met in the same spirit of kindness which we bear
  with us.

  “We have never been pleased with the appearance of our paper in
  folio form, and so have determined to change it back to a quarto;
  and we shall hope, with the increased facilities which we shall
  have for printing it at Mount Vernon, that _The Lily_ will present
  a more respectable appearance than it has done the past year.”

The removal of Mr. and Mrs. Bloomer from Seneca Falls excited a good
deal of interest, as they had been many years residents of that
place and had taken an active part in the events of village life. A
public meeting was called and largely attended by their friends and
admirers, at which speeches were made and a fine supper served. A
report of this gathering will be given in full. The editor of the
_Courier_, Mr. Isaac Fuller, who had been intimately acquainted with
Mr. and Mrs. Bloomer for many years, published the following article
in his paper:


A TESTIMONIAL.

  “_The Lily._ This paper will hereafter be published at Mount
  Vernon, Ohio, its editor and proprietor having moved with her
  husband to that place. Although we disapprove of some of the
  measures advocated in the _Lily_, we part with it and its
  worthy editor with sincere regret. It is now five years since
  its publication was commenced, and during the whole time Mrs.
  Bloomer has had the entire direction of it, both editorially
  and financially, displaying talents and business qualifications
  possessed by few of the gentler sex and which but few of her
  friends were prepared to see her exhibit. The ability and energy
  with which the _Lily_ has been conducted have attained for it a
  circulation of over four thousand copies in different parts of the
  Union, thus giving to our enterprising village notoriety which it
  would not have otherwise obtained. Our business engagements with
  Mrs. Bloomer have been such as to give us a knowledge of the facts
  above mentioned, to which we add that she possesses in an eminent
  degree, those social virtues which everywhere command respect and
  which give value to character in every position occupied by members
  of refined society. We say this because we know that strangers
  are wont to consider the editor of the _Lily_ a coarse, unrefined
  woman possessing few or none of the traits which adorn the female
  character, and as cherishing a disregard of the duties devolving
  upon woman in the domestic relations of society; whereas just the
  reverse is the fact. We hope the _Lily_ will lose none of its
  vitality from being transplanted, and may its amiable editor enjoy
  a long and happy life!”[1]


DEMONSTRATION OF RESPECT TO MR. AND MRS. BLOOMER.

  “D. C. Bloomer, Esq., having made known his intention to remove
  from the village where he has resided for sixteen years past, the
  numerous friends of himself and wife assembled by appointment at
  Union Hall, on Tuesday evening last, for the purpose of publicly
  testifying their respect for them. The proceeding originated with
  the Good Templars, a temperance order to which Mr. and Mrs. Bloomer
  belong, but was participated in by citizens of all classes. The
  assemblage composed about equally of both sexes was very large,
  numbering we should judge from 400 to 500 persons. Five tables
  most bountifully spread and extending the whole length of the hall
  were twice filled. After the refreshments were disposed of C.
  Salisbury, Esq., was called to the chair, and speeches and toasts
  followed. Appropriate and extended remarks were made by Gilbert
  Wilcoxen, Esq., C. H. Reed, Esq., S. D. Tillman, Esq., Rev. Mr.
  Fraly, and others. We are not able to report what was said, but
  the sentiments offered were highly complimentary to Mr. and Mrs.
  Bloomer, both of whom responded in a very handsome manner. The
  following resolutions were presented and passed by a hearty and
  unanimous ‘aye’:

  “_Whereas_ we have learned that our respected friend and
  fellow-citizen, Dexter C. Bloomer, and his wife, Mrs. Amelia
  Bloomer, are about to remove from this village;

  “And _whereas_ they have, during the long period they have resided
  among us not only sustained the character of good citizens, but
  have been known as efficient and active workers in the cause of
  temperance; therefore,

  “_Resolved_ that we, the temperance men and women of Seneca Falls
  here assembled on this occasion, do tender to Mr. and Mrs. Bloomer
  our warmest and most sincere acknowledgments for their faithful and
  devoted service in promoting the noble work of redeeming the world
  from the evils of intemperance.

  “_Resolved_ that, as citizens of the village, we also desire to
  tender to Mr. and Mrs. Bloomer an expression of the high regard
  we entertain for them, and to bear our willing testimony to
  the general esteem and respect in which they are held by their
  neighbors and associates among whom they have so long resided.

  “_Resolved_ that, while we part with our friends with sincere
  regret, our warmest wishes for their future welfare will go
  with them to their new home, and we shall always hear of their
  prosperity with the greatest satisfaction.

  “The serious part of the proceedings having been gotten along
  with, music and dancing were introduced and the festivities were
  prolonged to a late hour, when the assembly dispersed and all
  retired to their homes with a consciousness of having discharged
  their duty to valued friends who were about removing from their
  midst.

  “The whole of the proceedings passed off most agreeably and
  pleasantly, and we regard the affair as the very highest compliment
  that could have been paid to those in whose honor it was gotten up.”


FOOTNOTES:

[1] From _Seneca County Courier_, Dec. 1853.




CHAPTER SEVENTH.


AN ASSISTANT EDITOR.

On taking up her residence in Mount Vernon, Mrs. Bloomer became
assistant editor of the _Western Home Visitor_, of which her
husband was editor and one of the proprietors. This was a weekly
family paper, having a large circulation and printed in folio
form on a large sheet. It was devoted to educational progress and
all reformatory questions designed to advance the interests of
the community in which it circulated. It advocated temperance and
sound morality, and its columns were filled weekly with matter
appropriate to be read in the family circle. Its columns contained
no advertisements, and it depended for its support solely on
its patrons’ yearly subscriptions. We give below Mrs. Bloomer’s
salutatory, and also her first additional article on assuming her
position as assistant editor:

  “_Salutatory._ Following the custom set to me by my husband, I make
  my editorial bow to the readers of the _Visitor_. I suppose it is
  not necessary for me to enter into any detailed account of myself,
  as the papers have already done that for me. Neither do I suppose
  it necessary to make any statements in regard to my sentiments and
  principles, as they are already generally well known to the public.
  What I have been in the past, I expect to be in the future,—an
  uncompromising opponent of wrong and oppression in every form, and
  a sustainer of the right and the true, with whatever subject it
  may be connected. I have no promises to make, preferring to stand
  uncommitted and at liberty to write as the spirit moves me, or as
  the circumstances of the case may require. Having a separate organ
  of my own independent of any other paper or person through which
  I can speak forth my sentiments on the great reform questions of
  the day, freely and independently, I probably shall not introduce
  into the columns of the _Visitor_ anything particularly obnoxious
  on those subjects; yet I may frequently come in contact with old
  prejudices and bigoted notions, for it is impossible for the free
  progressive spirit of the present day to be bound by the opinion
  and prejudices of a former age. I trust, however, that my readers
  will bear with me and listen to me even though they do not approve,
  and if I say anything very bad, attribute it to my womanly folly
  or ignorance. And, as it is but right that I should bear whatever
  censure my doings may deserve, I shall write over my own initials
  in all matters of any moment. With this much for an introduction
  I extend to you, readers of the _Visitor_ one and all, a cordial
  greeting, and wish you not only a ‘Happy New-Year’ but that it may
  prove happy and prosperous to you to its close.”

  “_Woman’s Right to Employment._ To woman equally with man has
  been given the right to labor, the right to employment for both
  mind and body; and such employment is as necessary to her health
  and happiness, to her mental and physical development, as to his.
  All women need employment, active, useful employment; and if they
  do not have it, they sink down into a state of listlessness and
  insipidity and become enfeebled in health and prematurely old
  simply because denied this great want of their nature. Nothing has
  tended more to the physical and moral degradation of the race than
  the erroneous and silly idea that woman is too weak, too delicate
  a creature to have imposed upon her the more active duties of
  life,—that it is not respectable or praiseworthy for her to earn a
  support or competence for herself.

  “We see no reason why it should be considered disreputable for a
  woman to be usefully employed, while it is so highly respectable
  for her brother; why it is so much more commendable for her to be
  a drone, dependent on the labors of others, than for her to make
  for herself a name and fortune by her own energy and enterprise. A
  great wrong is committed by parents toward their daughters in this
  respect. While their sons as they come to manhood are given some
  kind of occupation that will afford not only healthy exercise of
  the body and mind but also the means of an honorable independence,
  the daughters are kept at home in inactivity and indolence, with no
  higher object in life than to dress, dance, read novels, gossip,
  flirt and ‘set their caps’ for husbands. How well the majority of
  them are fitted to be the companions and mothers of men, every
  day’s history will tell.

  “Certainly, our girls would be far better and happier than now
  if they were educated and encouraged to occupy their hands and
  minds in some useful business occupation; and parents do a great
  injustice to their daughters when they doom them to a life of
  idleness or, what is worse, to a life of frivolity and fashionable
  dissipation.

  “It was said by a distinguished clergyman of one who had passed
  away from earth, ‘She ate, she drank, she slept, she dressed, she
  danced and she died.’ Such may be truly said to be the history of
  many women of the present day. They eat, they drink, they sleep,
  they dress, they dance and at last die, without having accomplished
  the great purposes of their creation. Can woman be content with
  this aimless, frivolous life? Is she satisfied to lead a mere
  butterfly existence, to stifle and crush all aspirations for a
  nobler destiny, to dwarf the intellect, deform the body, sacrifice
  the health and desecrate all the faculties which the Almighty
  Father has given her and which He requires her to put to good
  use and give an account thereof to Him? While all other created
  things both animal and vegetable perform their allotted parts in
  the universe of being, shall woman, a being created in God’s own
  image, endowed with reason and intellect, capable of the highest
  attainments and destined to an immortal existence, alone be an
  idler, a drone, and pervert the noble faculties of her being from
  the great purposes for which they were given?

  “It will not always be thus; the public mind is undergoing a rapid
  change in its opinion of woman and is beginning to regard her
  sphere, rights and duties in altogether a different light from
  that in which she has been viewed in past ages. Woman herself is
  doing much to rend asunder the dark veil of error and prejudice
  which has so long blinded the world in regard to her true position;
  and we feel assured that, when a more thorough education is given
  to her and she is recognized as an intelligent being capable of
  self-government, and in all rights, responsibilities and duties
  man’s equal, we shall have a generation of women who will blush
  over the ignorance and folly of the present day.

                                                              “A. B.”

And for six months thereafter, the _Visitor_ contained nearly every
week one or more articles from her pen. Some were on temperance, some
on woman’s “fads” and foibles of that day. She aimed to sustain every
good word and deed and to rebuke vice in all its forms.

Of course she did not escape criticism in prosecuting her work.
Especially, people at that early day would not listen quietly to her
severe analysis of the laws bearing upon the legal rights of women.
They sometimes denied her positions, and at other times doubted the
wisdom of the changes which she advocated. Between her and the editor
of another paper published in the city, quite an extended controversy
arose which ran through several numbers of their respective papers,
Mrs. Bloomer sustained her side of the debate with numerous
quotations from legal writers, and she had the satisfaction of seeing
her position substantially admitted by her opponents.


PROSPERITY OF THE _LILY_.

But Mrs. Bloomer’s attention and time were given chiefly to the
_Lily_, the publication of which in her new home was commenced on
the first of January. Printed in new type on a steam press, it
presented a very neat and handsome appearance. The people of the
state were greatly pleased with its removal to their limits and new
subscriptions came in with surprising rapidity; its semi-monthly
issue soon reached over six thousand copies. Mrs. Bloomer was greatly
encouraged by these signs of approval and renewed her exertions and
labors to make the _Lily_ in all respects acceptable to its many
friends. She wrote from one to three pages each week of original
matter for its pages, and was aided at the same time by numerous
correspondents. She continued to write continuously in advocacy of
temperance, making that the leading object of her work, but she also
wrote for woman’s advancement in all the fields of honest endeavor.
She asked for her plenty of work and good pay; she insisted that to
her should be opened every educational institution; and she demanded
for her also the right of suffrage as her inalienable right. Some
extracts from her editorials will follow.


ENFRANCHISEMENT OF WOMAN.

Replying to and commenting upon an article on an alleged corruption
in the state legislature, Mrs. Bloomer wrote as follows:

  “Where then shall the remedy for purifying and healing the nation
  be found? We answer, in the education and enfranchisement of woman!
  Loose the chains that bind her to the condition of a dependent, a
  slave to passion and the caprices of men. Open for her the doors
  of our colleges and universities and bid her enter. Hold up before
  her a pattern for womanly greatness and excellence, and bid her
  to occupy the same high positions held by her brothers. Teach her
  to aspire to that true knowledge that should fit her to become
  the future mother and teacher of statesmen and rulers. Resign to
  her control the children committed to her care, and bid her guard
  them from all temptation and danger that threaten to assail them
  both at home and abroad. Restore to her her heaven-born right of
  self-government, and give her a voice in making the laws which are
  to govern for good or evil the actions and sentiments of society
  at large. Let _her_ say whether the grogshop, the gaming house
  and the brothel shall be suffered to open wide their doors to
  entice her sons to ruin. Let her say whether man shall have power
  to override virtue and sobriety and send the minions of evil into
  our halls of legislation to make laws for the people. Let her say
  whether we shall have a Maine Law, and whether such a law shall
  be observed and enforced——Do this, and we shall soon see a great
  change wrought in society and in the character of our rulers! Our
  only hope for the future of our country lies in the elevation
  of woman physically, mentally, socially and politically, and in
  the triumph of the principles which lie at the foundation of the
  so-called ‘Woman’s Rights’ reform.”


WOMAN’S RIGHT.

  “Woman _has_ a right to vote for civil officers, to hold offices,
  and so rule over men. If any law against it exists in the Bible, it
  has been overruled by divine sanction. Deborah ruled Israel forty
  years and, instead of being told she was out of her sphere, that
  she had usurped authority over men, we are assured that she was
  highly approved and that she ruled wisely and well. No one calls
  in question the right of Queen Victoria to rule over her kingdom
  notwithstanding there are some men in it; nor do we believe, if
  she is a wise and faithful sovereign, that she will be condemned
  at the last great day for thus ruling over men. What was right for
  Deborah was right for Queen Victoria. If it is right for Victoria
  to sit on the throne of England it is right for any American Woman
  to occupy the Presidential Chair at Washington. All that is needed
  is votes enough to elevate her to that post of honor and of trust
  and sufficient ability to discharge its duties. Of the latter
  requisite, judging from some of those who have already occupied
  that seat, no great amount is demanded.”


  WOMAN’S CLAIM.

  “A correspondent asks what it is that we and other advocates of
  woman’s rights want?

  “We answer, we claim all the rights guaranteed by the Constitution
  of the United States to the citizens of the republic. We claim to
  be one-half of the people of the United States, and we deny the
  right of the other half to disfranchise us.”


  DESTROYING LIQUOR.

  “We hold in all honor the names of those noble women of Mount
  Vernon who, a few years ago, boldly entered the rumshop and
  gambling house and poured out the liquors and destroyed the
  implements wherewith their husbands and brothers had been at
  once robbed of their reason and their money, and converted into
  dupes and madmen. And we believe, if the same spirit now dwelt in
  the hearts of all the women of this beautiful city, that every
  rumshop would soon be closed, no matter whether legislators or
  councilmen passed ordinances or not. Woman has neither made nor
  consented to laws which leave her, and her children, at the mercy
  of heartless rumsellers and she should never submit to them. She
  has a right—nay, it is her duty—to arise in her own defense and
  in the defense of the souls entrusted to her keeping and insist
  that, either with or without law, the destroyer shall be driven
  from the land. And if men have not the courage to boldly attack
  the foe, then let woman meet him face to face and never retire
  from the contest till she can do so as a victor. Horace Mann tells
  that woman may with propriety go into the dark lanes and alleys of
  our great cities and endeavor to conquer men to virtue. If it be
  proper for her to visit such haunts of iniquity on such an errand,
  it would be far more praiseworthy for her to apply her efforts to
  remove the cause which produces vice and crime.”


  GOLDEN RULES FOR WIVES.

  “Faugh, on such twaddle! ‘Golden rules for wives’—‘duty of
  wives’—how sick we are at the sight of such paragraphs! Why
  don’t our wise editors give us now and then some ‘golden rules’
  for husbands, by way of variety? Why not tell us of the promises
  men make at the altar, and of the injunction ‘Husbands, love your
  wives as your own selves’? ‘Implicit submission of a man to his
  wife is disgraceful to both, but implicit obedience of the wife
  to the will of the husband is what she promised at the altar.’ So
  you say! What nonsense! what absurdity! what downright injustice!
  A disgrace for a man to yield to the wishes of his wife, but an
  honor for a wife to yield implicit obedience to the commands of her
  husband, be he good or bad, just or unjust, a kind husband or a
  tyrannical master! Oh! how much of sorrow, of shame and unhappiness
  have such teachings occasioned. Master and slave! Such they make
  the relationship existing between husband and wife; and oh, how
  fearfully has woman been made to feel that he who promised at the
  altar to love, cherish and protect her is but a legalized master
  and tyrant! We deny that it is any more her duty to make her
  husband’s happiness her study than it is his business to study her
  happiness. We deny that it is woman’s duty to love and obey her
  husband, unless he prove himself worthy of her love and unless his
  requirements are just and reasonable. Marriage is a union of two
  intelligent, immortal beings in a life partnership, in which each
  should study the pleasure and the happiness of the other and they
  should mutually share the joys and bear the burdens of life.”


  THE CLERGY.

  “It is too true that the majority of this class of men stand
  aloof from the humanitarian questions of the day, and exert their
  influence to prejudice their people against them and to prevent
  their hearing the truth; yet it is not less true that there are
  among them many warm-hearted, earnest and true men; and for this
  reason the charges brought by reformers should be limited. We find
  that it is with clergymen as with other people; there are some
  very open and liberal, and others very conservative and bigoted.
  Some would think it a desecration to allow a woman to lecture in
  their church, while others not only freely offer their church
  for temperance, but also for woman’s-rights lectures. Some think
  it an abomination for women to speak in public on any subject,
  while others wish that there were a hundred to take the platform
  in behalf of temperance where there is but one now. We have
  discussed temperance and woman’s rights in numerous churches and
  have had clergymen for our listeners. While we would by no means
  excuse those who so coldly and scornfully turn away from the woman
  question and its discussion, yet we feel unwilling to see the more
  liberal classed with them and subjected to censure. We know of no
  other course for reformers to pursue, but to be sure they are right
  and then ‘go ahead’ without regard to the opposition of the clergy
  or any other class of men.”


  MALE BLOOMERS.

  “Under this head, many of our brother editors are aiming their wit
  and ridicule at those gentlemen who have donned the _shawl_ as
  a comfortable article of wearing apparel in cold weather. There
  is a class of men who seem to think it their especial business to
  superintend the wardrobes of both men and women, and if any dare
  to depart from their ideas of propriety they forthwith launch
  out all sorts of witticisms and hard names, and proclaim their
  opinions, their likes and dislikes, with all the importance of
  authorized dictators. As to the shawl, it would be well if it
  could be banished from use entirely, as it is an inconvenient and
  injurious article of apparel, owing to its requiring both hands
  to keep it on and thereby tending to contract the chest and cause
  stooping shoulders. But, if worn at all, men have the same right
  to it that women have. If they find it convenient that is enough,
  and no one has a right to object to their wearing it because women
  wear shawls. Indeed, we think the shawl of right belongs to men as
  it answers so well to the description of the garment prescribed
  for them in Deut., xxii. 12: ‘Thou shalt make thee fringes upon
  the four quarters of thy vesture wherewith thou coverest thyself.’
  True, men have departed from this injunction in former years, and
  resigned to women the dress prescribed for themselves and worn by
  their fathers in olden times. But that is no reason why they should
  not resume it.”


WOMEN MECHANICS.

It having been stated that a woman in New Jersey had made a carriage,
Mrs. Bloomer comments as follows:

  “This is told as though it were something wonderful for women to
  have mechanical genius when, in fact, there are thousands all over
  the country who could make as good mechanics and handle tools with
  as much skill and dexterity as men, if they were only allowed to
  manifest their skill and ingenuity. A girl’s hands and head are
  formed very much like those of a boy; and, if put to a trade at the
  age when boys are usually apprenticed, our word for it she will
  master her business quite as soon as the boy at the same trade, be
  the trade what it may. Women have taste and ingenuity for something
  besides washing dishes and sewing on buttons, and so people will
  find out some day, hard as it is now to believe it.”


WOMAN’S DRESS.

  “Our counsel to every woman is, wear what pleases you best. Pursue
  a quiet and independent course in the matter, turning neither to
  the right nor the left to enquire who is pleased or displeased;
  and, if others do not see fit to keep you company by patterning
  their dress after yours, you will at least be left in the peaceable
  enjoyment of your own comfortable attire, and real friends will
  value you according to your worth, and not according to the length
  of your train.”


WOMEN DRUNKARDS.

  “Pity the law couldn’t be brought to bear upon a few more
  respectable lady drunkards—and respectable gentlemen drunkards,
  too—and shut them in a dungeon till they could learn in what real
  respectability consists! The so-called ‘respectable ladies,’ the
  upper-ten drunkards, are in our view decidedly vulgar, and should
  be classed in public estimation with the drunken occupant of the
  shanty or the frequenter of the low drunkery. They are even worse
  than these, for their influence is much greater.”


PROGRESS.

  “The signs of the times cheer on the honest true-hearted laborers
  in this cause to greater devotion in the work in which they are
  engaged. They point to a triumph in the future, to the coming
  of that brighter day when the mists of ignorance and barbarism
  that have so long rested upon the life and hopes of women will
  be dispelled, and when justice and right will bear sway. For be
  it remembered that these things point, as unerringly as does the
  needle to the pole, to the wider and fuller emancipation yet in
  store for our sex, to the acknowledgment of her civil as well as
  her social and legal rights. And that this end will be achieved we
  believe to be as certain as that time will continue to roll on in
  its course and humanity continue to struggle against selfishness,
  bigotry and wrong in whatever form they may present themselves.”


SEWING MACHINES.

The question having been asked Mrs. Bloomer, What will women do now
sewing machines are coming into use? she replied as follows:

  “It will be no strange thing to see, within a few years,
  women merchants, women bookkeepers, women shoemakers, women
  cabinetmakers, women jewelers, women booksellers, typesetters,
  editors, publishers, farmers, physicians, preachers, lawyers.
  Already there are some engaged in nearly or quite all these
  occupations and professions; and, as men crowd them out of their
  old places, the numbers will increase. It is well that it is so.
  Woman has long enough stitched her health and life away, and it is
  merciful to her that sewing machines have been invented to relieve
  her of her toilsome, ill-paid labor, and to send her forth into
  more active and more lucrative pursuits where both body and mind
  may have the exercise necessary to health and happiness. Men are
  aiding to forward the woman’s-rights movement by crowding women out
  of their old places. Women will be the gainers by the change, and
  we are glad to see them forced to do what their false education and
  false delicacy have prevented their doing in the past.”


GOVERNOR SEYMOUR’S VETO.

A Maine Law, having passed the New York legislature, was vetoed by
the governor; on which Mrs. Bloomer commented as follows:

  “The news of this treacherous act on the part of the governor was
  celebrated by the liquor party with firing of cannon, bonfires
  and illuminations, with shouts of rejoicing and drunken revelry.
  The devils in hell must have rejoiced, while the angels in heaven
  must have wept, over the scene. And how was it in the home of the
  drunkard? Ah, who can picture the agony and despair, the wailing
  and agonizing prayers that went forth from the hearts of the poor
  stricken women who saw all their hopes of deliverance thus dashed
  to the earth and themselves and famishing babes consigned to
  hopeless degradation and misery! While those who are called their
  protectors, and those who are heaping upon them every injury and
  killing them inch by inch, are enjoying their fiendish orgies,
  those poor sorrowing ones sit desolate and heart-broken in their
  dreary cellar and garret homes bowed with shame and anguish. Would
  that the man who has wrought all this sorrow and wretchedness could
  be made to behold the work!”


FIGHTING HER WAY.

Referring to a strike in a Philadelphia printing office because two
women had been employed as typesetters, Mrs. Bloomer wrote:

  “Thus we see that woman has to fight her way as it were at every
  step. Her right to employment is denied, no matter how great her
  wants, unless she find it in the limited sphere prescribed to our
  sex by custom and prejudice. Yet we rejoice that there are men who
  are sufficiently liberal to open to her, here and there, a wider
  field for her industry, and who will see justice done her even
  though themselves are for a time inconvenienced thereby. Let not
  women be discouraged by such hostile manifestations on the part
  of men, but rather let them press forward until they break down
  every barrier which is raised to obstruct their advancement; and
  if they are but true to themselves, they will come off victorious
  and thenceforth find their way to every lucrative employment clear
  before them.”


ON THE LECTURE PLATFORM.

During Mrs. Bloomer’s year of residence in Ohio, she received a
great many invitations to deliver her lectures. Some of these she
accepted. The first one was at Zanesville; and, although she stated
in giving a report of it that she had been told she would meet with
only a cold reception, yet she declared she had never found warmer
friends or was treated with greater respect than at that place. “My
lecture was listened to by a very large and attentive audience;
indeed, all who came were not able to get within the doors. Judging
from the expressions after the meeting, people were well satisfied
with the lecture on woman’s rights. I was earnestly requested to
lecture again in the evening; but as I had made an appointment in
Columbus to-night, I was under the necessity of declining.” And
substantially the same report might have been made as to all lectures
delivered in different parts of the state. But she did not confine
her work on the platform to Ohio only. During the summer she visited
Indiana, also, and was listened to by large meetings held in Richmond
and other towns.

Of some of her experiences in her lecture tours, Mrs. Bloomer gave
the following report:

  “At M. I lectured by Invitation before a young men’s literary
  society. No price was fixed upon in advance, and I expected but
  little; but having been told that no lecturer, unless it was Horace
  Mann who preceded me, had drawn so large a house and put so much
  money in the treasury, when they asked me how much they should pay
  me I said, ‘You say I have done as well for you, and even better
  than did Horace Mann, pay me what you paid him and it will be
  right.’ I think they were a little surprised that a woman should
  ask as much as a man; but seeing the justice of my demand, they
  paid it without a word. At that day lecturers were more poorly
  paid than since, and for a woman to have the same pay for the same
  work as a man was no doubt a new idea to them. At Z. a gentleman
  invited me and made all other arrangements. On my arrival there he
  called on me and said that some society, thinking that money would
  be made by my lecture, were talking of seeing me on my arrival
  and arranging with me for a certain sum and they would take the
  balance. He advised me to have nothing to do with them if they
  should propose it, as I could just as well have the whole. Men
  were so accustomed to getting the services of women for little or
  nothing, that they seemed jealous when one got anything like the
  money that would cheerfully be paid to men for the same service.”


AT THE OHIO STATE CONVENTION.

Mrs. Bloomer attended the meeting of the Ohio Woman’s
State-Temperance Society, held at Columbus early in January,
and took an active part in its proceedings. She was elected its
corresponding secretary, and was a member of the committee which
proceeded to the State Capitol and presented a petition to each
branch of the legislature then in session asking for the enactment
of stringent prohibitory laws. Not being entirely satisfied with
the regular report of the committee on resolutions, she offered a
series on her own responsibility. These declared in substance, that
the redemption of our race from the manifold evils of intemperance
is of greater importance than the triumph of any political party;
that the question must go to the ballot-box for final settlement;
that, as men regard women as weak and dependent beings, women ask
protection at their hands; and that it should be their duty to make
themselves acquainted with woman’s sentiments on this great question,
and honestly carry them out. In support of the resolutions, she
said she considered many of the temperance men really responsible
for the protracted rum interest. They were so wedded to party that
they heeded not their duty to the welfare and morals of society. In
spite of all that had been done, the cause lingers and the rumsellers
and manufacturers triumph. The temperance men are to blame for not
acting consistently or independently for the cause. They will not act
together as for a paramount interest; they do not strike the nail
on the head. It is useless to dally thus from year to year and not
strike a blow to tell upon the evil and the curse. The resolutions,
after discussion, were unanimously adopted.


A WOMAN TYPESETTER.

Fully believing that she should carry out in practice what she
advocated in theory, Mrs. Bloomer secured early in the spring the
services of Mrs. C. W. Lundy, of New York, as typesetter; previously
to coming to Mount Vernon, she had had three months’ experience in
the work. The fact of her employment and coming into the office
was freely talked of in the presence of the employees, all of whom
were men, and no word of dissent or disapproval, to Mrs. Bloomer’s
knowledge, was expressed. It was agreed that her employee should
receive all necessary instructions from Mr. Higgins himself, he
being a practical printer, or from the men engaged in the office. It
was soon seen that the men employed in typesetting, and especially
the foreman, looked with disfavor on the movement and by various
uncourteous acts and remarks endeavored to make the situation an
unpleasant one.


A STRIKE FOLLOWED.

Mrs. Bloomer herself gave the following report of this strike of the
male typesetters. After alluding to the employment of Mrs. Lundy and
her introduction into the printing office of the _Home Visitor_, she
proceeds:

  “Nothing, however, occurred of sufficient magnitude for us to
  notice till the fourteenth of last month. On that day, in the
  absence of both Mr. Bloomer and Mr. Higgins, Mrs. Lundy asked our
  opinion in relation to the proper indention of a piece of poetry
  which she was at work upon. As we are not a printer, we could
  only give a guess at its correctness; so we advised her to step
  into the other room and ask one of the men about it. She did so,
  and directly returned saying they refused to give the desired
  information. We went directly in and asked an explanation of their
  conduct; when all hands, with the foreman of the office as leader,
  avowed their determination not to work in an office with or give
  instruction to a _woman_. And, further, they said they had drawn up
  a paper to that effect which had been signed by all the printers
  in town. The foreman also defied us to find a printer in Ohio who
  would give instructions to a woman.

  “This was placing us in a ‘fix,’ truly. We must do one of two
  things: either break our word with Mrs. L. and sacrifice our
  preferences and principles, or else the place of these men must
  be supplied by others who were more gentlemanly and who did not
  despise the efforts of woman to place herself in a position
  where by her own talents and industry she could earn for herself
  an honorable independence. The question was at once decided in
  our mind, and we knew well that in their decision we should be
  sustained by the proprietors of the _Visitor_. We took the first
  opportunity to acquaint Mr. Higgins with the state of affairs;
  and, on Mr. Bloomer’s return the next day, we also informed him
  how things stood. They then repaired to the _Visitor_ office
  and held a long conference with their workmen, telling them it
  was not their intention to employ women to set the type of the
  _Visitor_, but that Mrs. L. would remain and work on the _Lily_,
  and that they should expect of them that they should give her all
  the instructions she might need in her work. If they would do
  this willingly and cheerfully, well; if not, they might consider
  themselves discharged. They would not yield to such an arbitrary
  rule on the part of those in their employ. To this, the printers
  replied that they were firm in their resolutions and would not
  depart from them; whereupon all hands took up their march out of
  the office.

  “This action on the part of the printers has resulted in the
  employment of women to set the type for the _Visitor_. Three women
  were at once engaged for that purpose. A journeyman was immediately
  procured from Columbus, and other help has since been engaged;
  so that the proprietors have been enabled to get out their paper
  regularly, without acceding to the unreasonable demands of the
  printers of Mount Vernon.

  “We have removed our _Lily_ cases into the _Visitor_ office,
  and now the work on both papers is done in the same room, four
  women and three men working together peaceably and harmoniously.
  It does our heart good to see the happy change which has been
  wrought in the office by the attempt to crush woman’s efforts
  in her own behalf. The moral atmosphere has been purified,
  and superciliousness has given place to friendly and cheerful
  intercourse.”


LUCY STONE APPEARS.

While Mrs. Bloomer’s troubles with her printers were under way, Miss
Lucy Stone visited the city and gave an address on “Woman and Her
Employment.” Mrs. Bloomer says:

  “This happened most fortunately in the midst of the excitement
  about our difficulties in our office, and her words were like
  soothing oil on the troubled waters. It seemed as though an
  overruling Providence had directed her steps hitherward to allay
  the excitement and to subdue the angry feelings, to plead the cause
  of womanhood, to proclaim the eternal principles of justice and
  right; and she was in a great degree successful. We have heard no
  word of dissatisfaction or disapproval, but on the contrary all
  were highly pleased with her remarks, and we trust those who heard
  her are wiser and better for having listened to her.”


A VISIT TO NEW YORK STATE.

During the summer, Mrs. Bloomer visited her former home at Seneca
Falls, N. Y., where she received a very warm welcome from her many
co-workers and friends of former days. Writing home to the _Visitor_,
she says:

  “Seneca Falls! There is a charm in that word, D——, that will ever
  arrest our attention and awaken an interest whenever and wherever
  we may see or hear it. So many years of our lives have been spent
  here, and so intimate and dear are many associations connected with
  the place and the people, that they can never be forgotten however
  attractive or absorbing may be the future events and associations
  of life’s journey. You will feel a thrill of pleasure, not unmixed
  with sadness, when you know that I am again on the spot thus
  endeared to memory, and again surrounded by those with whom we have
  long held social and business intercourse. Would that you were
  with me here for a little time, would that you could walk with me
  again the streets so often trod by us, and note with me the changes
  that a few months have wrought! Would that you could see face to
  face the friends of old, and receive the hearty grasp of the hand
  which would meet you at almost every step, and above all that you
  could gaze with me upon our dear cottage home which we took so much
  pleasure in improving and beautifying and in which we found so
  much real enjoyment! I can hardly realize that it is not my home
  still, that I should not if I passed within find everything as of
  old, and you to welcome my return.—A. B.”


AT THE NEW YORK STATE CONVENTION.

While in New York, Mrs. Bloomer went to the second annual meeting
of the Woman’s State-Temperance Society held at Utica on the 7th
day of June. It was largely attended, and was presided over by Mrs.
Mary C. Vaughan who made an able and eloquent opening address. Great
interest prevailed among the temperance workers in the state at that
time, owing to the veto by Gov. Seymour of a prohibitory liquor law
which had passed the legislature. Various resolutions bearing upon
this subject, and upon the reasons assigned by the governor for his
action, were offered and discussed. One resolution, aimed at the use
of tobacco as a fruitful cause of drunkenness and of injury to the
boys and young men of the country, was also offered; on this, Mrs.
Bloomer took the floor and spoke as follows:

  “She said the resolution under consideration seemed to her one of
  great importance. The tendency to this vice in the young boys of
  the day cannot escape the attention of any observing mind; if one
  may believe the statements of some of the best physicians of the
  country in relation to the use of tobacco, it is a fruitful source
  of disease and crime. That it creates a thirst, is admitted by
  those who use it; and that thousands are led to quench that thirst
  in the intoxicating bowl, is a truth that cannot be denied. One of
  these poisons seems to imply and call for the other. Tobacco comes
  first in order, alcohol follows.

  “In view of these facts, what must we anticipate from the boys
  of our country who have so early become addicted to the use of
  the weed? Is there not fear that their future career will be an
  inglorious one, and that they will be led to slake the unnatural
  thirst which tobacco has occasioned in the cup? Does not this
  thought call loudly to the parents to look well to the habits
  of their sons, to fathers to set them an example of virtue and
  sobriety by themselves abstaining from the use of the filthy weed,
  and to both fathers and mothers by their wise commands and counsels
  to lead them to hate and shun the vice as they would that of its
  twin brother, drunkenness?

  “It is a mournful truth that too many parents regard the tendency
  to evil on the part of their sons with indifference, as an innocent
  harmless habit. They seem to think it a matter of course that they
  should grow up filthy tobacco chewers and smokers; and hence we see
  little fellows who have hardly escaped from their frocks smoking
  the cigar or long pipe in perfect imitation of their elders, and
  this, too, without reproach or warning from those who should teach
  them better. The practice if followed will prove ruinous to health,
  if no more terrible results follow. Parents should take this
  into consideration and act accordingly, as they value the future
  happiness of their children.”

Of this New York Convention, Mrs. Bloomer on returning home wrote for
the _Lily_ as follows:

  “The meeting passed off most happily and we trust it will be
  productive of great good to the cause. The officers and agents of
  the society, with one or two exceptions, were present. The report
  of the executive committee and the treasurer show the society to be
  in as prosperous a condition, if not even more prosperous than at
  its annual meeting one year ago. A determination was manifested on
  the part of all to go forward in the work so long as their efforts
  were needed. Five or six agents have been in the field during the
  year, and their collections have amounted to nearly two thousand
  dollars. This money has been expended for the good of the cause.
  One of the agents told us that she had lectured one hundred and
  fourteen times since last October. This shows an amount of labor
  expended in the cause equal to, if not exceeding, that given by any
  man in the state. Altogether, the convention was highly interesting
  and pleasant and it afforded us much pleasure to be present at its
  meetings.”


GOOD TEMPLARS IN OHIO.

During the year the temperance order of Good Templars was introduced
into the state and its lodges established in several of its cities
and villages, so that towards the close of the year a state
grand-lodge was organized at Alliance. The first lodge was instituted
at Conneat, and the second at Mount Vernon.

This latter lodge was called Star of Hope lodge, and soon numbered
among its members many of the leading Temperance men and women of the
city. Mrs. Bloomer, for reasons already given, took great interest
in the spread of this order. For that purpose she visited different
parts of the state, and also several towns in Indiana, in some of
which she instituted lodges, special authority having been given her
for that purpose. She also occupied a prominent position in her home
lodge, and had the pleasure as presiding officer of assisting to
initiate into its mysteries Hon. William Windom, afterwards Secretary
of the Treasury, and Hon. William F. Sapp, both of whom were
residents of Mount Vernon, together with other prominent citizens. It
cannot be doubted that the institution of this lodge, together with
Mrs. Bloomer’s labors in the cause, had a controlling influence in
the temperance work in Mount Vernon during the year 1854.

On leaving Mount Vernon, in December, Mrs. Bloomer published the
following card:

  “Star of Hope lodge in this city continues to prosper. Its members
  now exceed 150 and are constantly increasing. Its weekly meetings,
  which are very fully attended, are deeply interesting and we hope
  are productive of great good to the cause. Our association with the
  members of this lodge has been pleasant and agreeable, and we shall
  part with them with real regret. Our wish and prayer is that Star
  of Hope lodge may long continue to hold its weekly meetings, and
  that its members may never falter in unwavering fidelity to their
  pledges. When far away we shall often refer to hours spent in their
  lodge-room during the last year as among the pleasantest passed in
  Mount Vernon.”


THE _LILY_ SOLD.

But another change now came to Mrs. Bloomer. Her husband in July had
sold out his interest in the _Western Home Visitor_ to his partner,
Mr. E. A. Higgins, and both his connection and that of Mrs. Bloomer
with the _Visitor_ then ceased, except that the former continued to
aid Mr. Higgins for a few months in its editorial management. This,
of course, made no change in the publication of the _Lily_. In
September, Mr. Bloomer made an extensive tour in the West proceeding
as far as western Iowa and Nebraska. After looking the ground
carefully over, he determined to locate at Council Bluffs, on the
Missouri River, in Iowa, and made purchases of property at that
place. In relation to this change of residence and the disposition of
the _Lily_, Mrs. Bloomer in reply to a statement that her paper had
died of “fun poked at it” wrote in 1890 as follows:

  “My husband after leaving the _Visitor_ determined on locating
  in this far-away city (Council Bluffs), then three hundred miles
  beyond a railroad. There were no facilities for printing and
  mailing a paper with so large a circulation as mine, except a
  hand press and a stagecoach, and so it seemed best for me to part
  with the _Lily_. Finding a purchaser in Mrs. Mary A. Birdsall,
  of Richmond, Indiana, I disposed of the paper to her and it was
  removed to that city. Mrs. Birdsall published it for two or three
  years and then suffered it to go down, from what cause I never
  knew. But this much is true, it did not die of ‘fun poked at it.’
  It had long outlived fun and ridicule and was highly respected
  and appreciated by its thousands of readers. It had done its
  work, it had scattered seed that had sprung up and borne fruit
  a thousandfold. Its work can never die. You say rightly that
  the _Lily_ was the pioneer journal in the Northwest for woman’s
  enfranchisement. Other journals have taken its place, and the
  movement has gone steadily forward and nears its final triumph.”

The above was written about 1890.


SHE IS SORRY.

In announcing the change in her residence and the transfer of the
_Lily_ to Mrs. Birdsall, at Richmond, Ind., Mrs. Bloomer wrote among
other matters connected with the change as follows:

  “We have deeply cherished _The Lily_, and we have been greatly
  cheered by the daily evidence we have had of the good it was doing.
  This has encouraged us to go forward even when we were nearly
  fainting under our self-imposed task, and did circumstances favor
  it we should probably labor on, weary as we have sometimes felt and
  great as has often been the effort necessary to the discharge of
  duty. But the _Lily_, being as we conceive of secondary importance,
  must not stand in the way of what we believe our interest. Home and
  husband being dearer to us than all beside, we cannot hesitate to
  sacrifice all for them; and so we cheerfully resign our pet to the
  care of its foster-mother, feeling well assured that our readers
  will lose nothing by the change, if they will only put forth their
  hands to strengthen her in her undertaking.

  “As will be seen by the prospectus, we do not entirely sunder our
  connection with the _Lily_, but only throw off its greater burdens.
  As Corresponding Editor, we shall hold frequent chats with our old
  friends and readers provided they will listen to us and welcome
  it to their homes as of old. We have no idea of retiring into
  obscurity, but shall keep the public posted as to our whereabouts,
  and tell them of the events occurring in our far-distant home amid
  the Bluffs of the Missouri.”




CHAPTER EIGHTH.


Mrs. Bloomer gave up her residence in Mount Vernon with sincere
regret, but with the earnest hope that it would bring a much-needed
rest and improved health. She had mingled freely among the people,
and many social courtesies had been extended to her. She had worked
faithfully in the temperance cause, through the medium of the Good
Templars and in other ways, and enjoyed greatly the fact that the
sale of intoxicating drinks had been almost entirely suppressed in
the town.


ON HER TRAVELS.

On leaving Mount Vernon she proceeded to Richmond, Indiana, where
she transferred the _Lily_ and all belonging to it, type, cases,
subscription books and lists, to Mrs. Mary Birdsall, the new editor
and proprietor. She spent several days there very pleasantly
visiting, among others, the family of Mr. James S. Starr, a resident
of Richmond. On its becoming known that Mrs. Bloomer was in the town,
an invitation was soon extended to her to deliver her lecture on
woman’s wrongs and rights. This she accepted, and was greeted with
a large audience. She gave to Mrs. Birdsall all information in her
power relative to the new work she had taken upon herself in assuming
the publication of the _Lily_, and promised to write frequently for
its columns, a promise which she faithfully discharged so long as the
paper continued to be published; but of these productions it is now
impossible to obtain a copy—at least the writer hereof has found it
so.

The two or three months following were spent in travel and in
visiting relatives and friends. She first journeyed to Indianapolis,
reaching there on the first day of January, 1855. The city was
resonant with the sounds of rejoicing on the advent of the New Year
and firecrackers and toy pistols were ablaze on all the streets. On
the following evening, she delivered her lecture on woman’s rights in
one of the principal public halls of the city to a large audience.
Leaving the next day, she passed on to Cincinnati, viewing on the way
the point on the Ohio River known as North Bend from which General
Harrison had been taken to assume the responsible duties of the
presidential office, which he was able to meet only for a single
month. In Cincinnati she delivered but one lecture, having been
taken dangerously ill and being in consequence confined to the hotel
for several days. With the first signs of returning strength, she
left for the home of a relative in central Ohio where she remained
until her health was partially restored. She was then able to accept
invitations to lecture in surrounding towns; among those she visited,
was West Jefferson where she met Mrs. Mary Swan and her son, Mr. A.
B. Walker, who subsequently became respected and useful residents
of Council Bluffs and renewed their acquaintance with Mrs. Bloomer.
Leaving Ohio towards the end of the month, she spent the remainder of
the winter with relatives in her old home in New York.

[Illustration: Amelia Bloomer picture]

Brothers and sisters both of herself and of her husband were then
living, and all were in the prime of life. The journey was made by
rail from Cleveland to near the head of Seneca Lake, where some
days were passed. Then down the lake to Geneva, at which place and
at Buffalo, Canandaigua, Waterloo, and Seneca Falls their relatives
mostly resided. Mrs. Bloomer delivered one or more of her lectures
during the winter; but this was a season of rest for her, and one
she greatly needed. Her long years of work on the _Lily_ had ended,
although she still continued to write monthly communications for its
columns. The little village of Aurora, the place of her husband’s
nativity, was also one of her stopping places. Near it was a Friends’
or Quaker neighborhood, and her sojourn was with some of these
kind-hearted people. One of them was Humphrey Howland, a venerable
man and an old resident. With these kind hosts Mrs. Bloomer attended
a fifth-day morning meeting in their plain frame meeting house, and
had an opportunity of witnessing their peculiar customs and their
mode of religious service. The building was of the plainest kind
and wholly devoid of paint. The people sat on wooden benches, in
profound silence, the women on one side, the men on the other with
their hats on. After the stillness had lasted nearly half-an-hour a
comparatively young woman arose, and after laying aside her bonnet
proceeded to deliver a most earnest exhortation to all present to
live holy lives. And so Mrs. Bloomer on that day listened to a woman
preacher. Then ensued a season of quiet thinking; after which all
arose to their feet, handshaking followed all round, and the good
people departed to their homes. By special invitation, Mrs. Bloomer
delivered one of her lectures in the village. And so the winter
passed among relatives and friends rapidly and pleasantly away, and
the time drew near when she must leave for her new home in the far
distant west.

This had been purchased by her husband while on a visit to Council
Bluffs, in the state of Iowa, the previous autumn. It was in those
days a long journey to undertake, especially as a large portion
of it must be made either in stagecoach or by steamboat, and was
therefore looked forward to with a great deal of interest.


STARTS FOR IOWA.

Finally making her adieu to her parents, to brother, sisters and
relatives, she started westward about the 20th of March. A few days
were spent with Mr. C. A. Bloomer, a brother of her husband, at
Little Rock near Buffalo, and several more in the family of Mr. F. V.
Chamberlain, in Chicago. That city was just then beginning to put on
metropolitan airs and had a population of 40,000 or 50,000. Here Mrs.
Bloomer bade good-bye to a niece who had accompanied her thus far,
and who took the cars to meet a brother in the central part of the
state. Leaving Chicago, the travelers proceeded by railroad to Alton.
The country on either side of the road exhibited the vast prairies
of the state in an almost unbroken condition for a great part of the
way, and it is recollected that from the car windows deer and other
game were frequently seen running at large. Springfield, the state
capital, was then only a small village. The railroad terminated at
Alton, and from thence the passage was by steamboat to St. Louis. At
that city, then just beginning to loom up in importance among the
great western towns, the halt was first at a hotel; but a call having
been made at the hospitable home of Mrs. Frances D. Gage, her house
thereafter became the home of the travelers until they embarked on a
steamer on the Missouri River for their destination.

We now give Mrs. Bloomer’s reminiscences, written some years later by
herself:


“EARLY DAYS IN THE WEST.

  “In compliance with the wishes of my old-settler friends, I have
  called to remembrance and jotted down some of the events connected
  with the early years of my residence in this western land. I fear
  they will not prove as interesting to my readers as they were to me
  at the time of their occurrence and are now as I recall them after
  a lapse of thirty-eight years.

  “One beautiful spring day in the middle of April, 1855, I first set
  foot on Iowa soil in our neighboring city of Glenwood. We came
  from our New York home to settle in Council Bluffs. The only public
  conveyance at that time to this section of the country was the
  stagecoach across the state from Davenport and the Missouri-river
  steamer hailing from St. Louis. Preferring the steamer we went to
  St. Louis to embark for our destination, but learned on reaching
  there that owing to low water no boat had yet been able to come as
  far as this city, St. Joseph having been the farthest point reached.


“DELAYED IN ST. LOUIS.

  “Encouraged with the hope that by tarrying in St. Louis a week
  we could come all the way through by steamer we restrained our
  impatience and spent a week very pleasantly with our old-time
  friend, Frances D. Gage. She was a noted writer and lecturer of
  that day, but has since laid down the burden of life and gone to
  her reward.

  “During our stay in St. Louis Mrs. Gage and I together held a
  woman’s-suffrage meeting in the library hall of that city, which
  was largely attended and well received by press and people. At
  the end of a week as there was yet no prospect of a rise in the
  river we took a packet and came on to St. Joseph. Here we had to
  wait two days for the stage, which only made tri-weekly trips to
  Council Bluffs and had left the very morning of our coming to the
  Missouri town, some hours before we arrived. The hotel at which we
  were obliged to stop was a very ordinary affair, as was common to
  western towns at that early day. The waiting was long and tedious.
  We could not even walk about and view the city because of a high
  wind that prevailed and sent the dust in clouds into our faces.


“THE MISSOURI RIVER’S RAVAGES.

  “Here we first saw the devastations the Missouri River was making
  in eating its way up into the city and undermining great brick
  buildings and swallowing them up in its waters. The second day
  of our arrival it got out that we were at the hotel, and all
  unknown to us some progressive or curious ones went about and
  obtained numerous signatures to a paper requesting me to give them
  a lecture. The first intimation I had of this was after supper,
  when I was summoned to the parlor to meet two gentlemen who, after
  introducing themselves, made known the object of their call
  and presented me with the paper largely signed by the citizens
  begging me to give them a woman’s-rights lecture before leaving
  the place. Thanking the gentlemen for their kindness, I informed
  them of my intended departure in a few hours and that it would be
  impossible to comply with the request. They replied they were aware
  of my going and for that reason they wanted the lecture that very
  evening. There would be time before the stage left at ten o’clock
  in the evening. ‘This evening, gentlemen!’ said I; ‘how can that
  be when there has been no notice given?’ One of them looked at
  his watch and said: ‘It is a little after seven o’clock. We will
  give you a good house in an hour if you will consent to speak, the
  lecture to commence at eight o’clock.’


“CONSENTS TO DELIVER A LECTURE.

  “Being so urged I reluctantly consented, though with many
  misgivings, for I could not understand how an audience could be
  collected in an hour. I had never yet refused to proclaim the new
  doctrine of woman’s rights when I found people anxious to hear and
  opportunity offered and I could not go back upon it now.

  “My consent obtained the gentlemen left, while I hastened to my
  room to make known to my husband the extra effort I was to make
  in the few hours intervening before we started on our homeward
  journey. And it was an extra effort, for my trunk was packed and
  strapped and must be opened, for I was not willing to go upon the
  platform in my traveling dress. I, who had ‘turned the world upside
  down’ by preaching a new gospel and was being sorely criticised
  therefor, must make as good an impression as possible with my
  clothes at least. Immediately after I reached my room we were
  startled by hearing a great outcry and ringing of bells on the
  street. Rushing to the window we soon learned the cause. Passing
  along the sidewalk under our window was a large black man ringing a
  dinner bell.


“ODD METHOD OF ADVERTISING.

  “Every other minute the bell would stop and then come forth the
  stentorian cry: ‘Mrs. Bloomer will lecture at the courthouse at
  eight o’clock.’ Then the bell again, and again the cry, and the
  same cry and ringing of bells off on the other streets, till the
  town was alive with noise. We were greatly amused over this novel
  western way of giving a notice and calling a crowd together, and we
  realized then how fully a notice could be given in the time fixed.

  “My preparations were delayed somewhat over this new use to
  which slaves could be put, for it was in slavery days and the
  bell-ringers were slaves. However, we were at the courthouse on
  time, and sure enough the place was filled with an eager and
  curious crowd that had come to see and listen to that strange woman
  whose name and doings had startled the world from its old-time
  peace and sobriety. It was the first time one of the ‘women
  agitators’ had come so far as St. Joseph, and it was not strange
  that an anxious audience awaited me.


“OFF IN A STAGECOACH.

  “Returning to the hotel after the lecture, I hardly had time to
  remove my hat when I was again summoned to the parlor, there to
  meet the gentlemen who had called on me a few hours before. They
  had come to ask for another lecture, and on my declining urged
  that if necessary Mr. Bloomer could go on to Council Bluffs by
  himself and I follow a day or two later. They had heard enough to
  whet their appetite for more and were very anxious to hear me
  again. But I was firm in denying their request. I had given them
  one lecture with considerable inconvenience to myself. I was far
  from well, was anxious to reach the end of my journey, and could
  not think of traveling by myself on a stagecoach through a strange
  land and would not be persuaded to tarry with them longer. At two
  o’clock on a rainy morning, feeling tired and sick and suffering
  from a severe cold and want of sleep and rest, we bade adieu to St.
  Joseph and took the stage for Council Bluffs.

  “The coach was filled with passengers, but no women were aboard but
  myself. There were several young men bound for the newly organized
  territory of Nebraska, and the famous Kit Carson returning to his
  home in Nebraska. Having heard much of him we eyed him with a good
  deal of interest and curiosity, but saw nothing remarkable about
  him except his clothes, which were of buckskin, fringed around the
  bottom, wrists and collar, a style entirely new to me. One of the
  young men had come from the far east, Massachusetts, I think, going
  to Nebraska to seek his fortune. He had run out of money and found
  himself without means in a land of strangers.


“BEFRIENDS A STRANGER.

  “At one of the stations where they changed horses, he approached
  Mr. Bloomer and asked for a loan, offering his watch as security.
  Though an entire stranger Mr. Bloomer concluded to befriend him,
  so gave him the money he asked and took his watch. But when the
  time came for him to leave us and cross into Nebraska, Mr. Bloomer
  gave him back his watch. He felt that he could trust him and that
  he would need his watch. It was not a misplaced confidence, for
  in due time the money was returned. All of the passengers left us
  before we reached Glenwood at some point below to cross a ferry
  into Nebraska, and from there on to Council Bluffs we were the only
  passengers. It was a real relief to have the coach to ourselves,
  after riding two days and a night crowded in with six or eight men,
  and we saw them leave without regret.


“ARRIVES AT GLENWOOD.

  “On the afternoon of April 15, 1855, we reached Glenwood; and
  here, while our driver tarried to change horses, we left the coach
  and took a survey of our surroundings. The place was small, the
  hotel uninviting, but the country beautiful. Being tired with our
  long cooped-up ride, we strolled on in advance of the stage and
  soon reached a lovely grove. Here we sat down upon a log to enjoy
  the scenery and eat a light lunch from our basket. The stage soon
  came along, and we took our seats inside feeling refreshed by our
  walk and rejoicing that we were nearing the end of our 1,500-mile
  journey.


“EARLY HARDSHIPS.

  “At about five o’clock the second day out from St. Joseph we drew
  up in front of the Pacific Hotel in this city, which was then _the_
  hotel of Council Bluffs and comprised about half of what has since
  been known as the Inman House. Here we remained two weeks hoping
  in vain that a rise in the river would float a boat bringing our
  household goods up from St. Louis; but finally went to housekeeping
  with a few things kindly lent us by a friend in a home purchased
  some months before and in which, with some additions, we have
  continued to reside for thirty-eight years. We had brought with us
  from our eastern home a trunk full of choice shrubbery and fruit
  grafts. It was necessary that these should be planted and cared
  for; so we went into our home under these discouraging conditions,
  and only planted out our shrubbery to see it sicken and die under
  the burning sun for want of water.


“SUFFER FROM DROUTH.

  “For weeks there was no rain and no water in the well to give the
  thirsty plants, which had beautifully sprouted in the trunk, and so
  we lost them all. One morning a great mystery came to us. We had
  set out a patch about twelve feet square with apple grafts. These
  were budded and growing about two feet high, when all at once we
  discovered that every one had been cut off near the ground with a
  sloping, smooth cut as with a sharp knife. We could come to but one
  conclusion, and that was that some one envying us the trees had
  taken off half of them, thinking to root the tops. But why did they
  not pull them up and take the whole? was our query. It was to us
  ‘a nine days’ wonder,’ but was finally solved by our learning that
  rabbits had been the thieves and had cut them off so smoothly with
  their teeth.


“FURNITURE WAS SCARCE.

  “Our first housekeeping in Council Bluffs was in two rooms with
  bare floors and bare walls. The furniture consisted of two old
  wooden chairs, an old table, a bed made on the floor, and three
  trunks. The bedstead lent us with the bed went together with
  screws, but as the screws could not be found the bedstead was
  useless and the bed had to lie on the floor. To these borrowed
  things, we added an old-fashioned cook stove that we were so
  fortunate as to find here and a few common dishes. Here, with
  these surroundings, I received my first calls and made my first
  acquaintances. If more than two happened to call at the same time
  the two chairs were utilized as far as they would go and I and the
  others sat on the trunks. It was sometimes unpleasant and a little
  mortifying, but I made the best of it, knowing it would not always
  last.


“DAYS OF HOSPITALITY.

  “And really I don’t know as my furniture and surroundings made
  one bit of difference in my welcome to Council Bluffs society.
  I afterwards learned that many others were little better off,
  and that there were no furniture and carpet stores in the city.
  Nevertheless, I was more than glad when word was brought us, on the
  morning of July 4th, that a steamer had arrived with our household
  goods. I was glad to get carpets down and my rooms made more
  comfortable, for our own sakes. On that Fourth of July the citizens
  were so patriotic as to have a celebration. The oration was
  delivered in ‘Hang Hollow,’ so called because an emigrant murderer
  had been hung there, but by later citizens named Glendale. We
  attended this celebration and had pointed out to us the tree from a
  limb of which the man was hung. The reader and orator for the day I
  do not remember.


“EARLY OMAHA.

  “Having joined the people of Council Bluffs in celebrating in the
  forenoon of this Fourth of July, 1855, we took a carriage and drove
  over to Omaha about noon, crossing the Missouri on a ferry-boat.
  This being the first Independence Day in Nebraska since it had
  become a territory, the people of Omaha showed their patriotism
  in common with the rest of the country by celebrating. It was the
  first time, too, that I had stepped foot on Nebraska soil, so the
  day possessed more than usual interest. We found that an oration
  had been delivered by Secretary Cuming, then acting governor.
  This had been followed by the usual reading of the Declaration of
  Independence. The exercises were over when we reached the Douglass
  House, then the only hotel in Omaha. Across the road from this
  place a speaker’s stand had been erected. A dinner table was placed
  on the east side of the house and covered with boughs cut from
  trees for shade. Liquor flowed freely.

  “Council Bluffs was then a city of 2,000 or 3,000 inhabitants.
  The buildings were mostly of logs. There were no sidewalks. The
  streets were not opened, beaten paths through fields of sunflowers
  answering for thoroughfares in many places. The place was well
  supplied with hotels. Besides the Pacific House there was the City
  Hotel, a little low log building on the corner of Broadway and Glen
  Avenue, kept by Mrs. Dunn; and farther up on Broadway, where the
  blue barn now stands, the Robinson House kept by G. A. Robinson.
  This was also an old log building covered with cottonwood boards on
  the outside and lined with muslin tacked to the logs on the inside.


“PLASTERED HOUSES WERE SCARCE.

  “I think there were but two or three plastered houses in the city
  at that time, and no greater number built of lumber. Nearly all
  were of logs covered outside on the front with cottonwood boards
  and on the inside, both walls and ceiling, with unbleached muslin
  sewed together and nailed on.

  “Bancroft Street, now Fourth, where we had made our home, was open
  but a little way from Willow Avenue, the bright bluffs extending
  across to Main Street. Besides our house, which was newly built,
  the frame house adjoining and a log house just below were all the
  street contained, and from Bancroft to the river there was not a
  house to obstruct our view. Bluff Street was not opened, and no
  house of any description was built upon it. It was only a high
  bluff, which extended down across Bancroft Street to Main Street.
  Turley’s Glen was the only opening, being a resort for the Indians,
  who frequently pitched their tents and camped there for days
  together. The little valley between the bluffs contained Broadway,
  the only street. No good buildings were on it except a few log
  structures.


“WORSHIPPED IN LOG CHURCHES.

  “Of churches I think there were but two. The Methodists had a
  small frame building on the side of the hill in rear of where the
  Ogden House now stands. The Rev. Mr. Shinn was the pastor. The
  Congregationalists worshipped in a log building on Broadway, west
  of Atkins’ drugstore. The Rev. George Rice owned this property at
  that time. He lived with his family in one log house, and held
  services in the one adjoining. This latter was fitted up for a
  church with a row of seats around the wall made of slabs with the
  flat side turned up and sticks put up through the holes bored in
  the floor for legs. The pulpit was a dry-goods box turned up on
  end with the open side next the preacher. The congregation was not
  large and was made up of people from several denominations, many of
  whom were new arrivals in the city.


“EARLY CHURCH WORK.

  “One morning soon after we were settled in our new home, I had a
  call from the Rev. Mr. Rice, of the Congregational church, inviting
  me to attend a meeting of the sewing society at his house in the
  afternoon. I went and found there about half-a-dozen ladles.
  This was the annual meeting, and officers were to be elected for
  the ensuing year. This church had commenced the erection of a
  new edifice on a lot donated by S. S. Bayliss, on Main and Pearl
  Streets, opposite the park. It was of brick and the walls already
  up, but they had no money to go further. The object of the ladies
  was to raise money for flooring and seating the new church, and
  they evidently wanted to infuse new spirit and aid into their
  society. I was consequently chosen their president, and Mrs. Sophia
  Douglass who was also a newcomer was elected first director—thus
  putting their affairs into the hands of two Episcopalians. Inasmuch
  as there was no church of our own here and we were attendants upon
  the Rev. Mr. Rice’s instructions, we took hold of the work with a
  will and the following winter carried through a very successful
  fair by which we raised money enough to put the new church in shape.


“DEFENDS WOMAN’S RIGHTS.

  “Thanksgiving evening, 1855, by invitation of the Rev. Mr. Rice,
  I gave a temperance lecture from the pulpit of the new church
  and a little later, about the last of November, one on ‘Woman’s
  Enfranchisement’ at the Methodist church, by invitation of the
  Men’s Literary and Debating Society; and again, by invitation of
  the same society and the Rev. Mr. Rice, Jan. 18, 1856, I spoke
  on ‘Female Education’ at the Congregational church. During the
  following years I gave several lectures on some phase of the woman
  question.

  “At the close of my lecture on ‘Woman Suffrage’ in the Methodist
  church, in November, 1855, I was approached by Gen. William
  Larimer, then of Omaha, but recently of Pittsburg, Pa., and a
  member of the first Nebraska legislature, with a request that I go
  to Omaha and repeat my lecture before the legislature. A few days
  later I received a formal invitation from the legislature, signed
  by twenty-five of its members, to give them a lecture on woman
  suffrage or such phase of the woman question as I might select.

  “Jan. 8, 1856, I made my appearance in the House of Representatives
  of Nebraska, having accepted the invitation to appear before that
  body. I was escorted to the platform by Gen. Larimer, who made
  way for me through a great crowd who had congregated to hear me.
  Indeed, it was a packed house, men standing up between those who
  were sitting on benches around the room, and leaning against the
  wall, and the platform was so packed up to the very desk that I
  hardly had elbow-room. Gen. Larimer introduced me amidst silence so
  profound that one could almost hear a pin drop, and I was listened
  to with the most absorbed interest to the end. Then came great
  applause and a request that I give the lecture for publication.
  This latter I declined doing. Omaha was hardly large enough and
  was without daily papers and, besides, I felt that I might wish to
  make further use of the lecture and publishing it would prevent its
  again being brought out.


“THE NEBRASKA LEGISLATURE INTERESTED.

  “The papers gave very flattering notices of the lecture, and
  it caused a great deal of excitement among the members of the
  legislature; those opposed to the principles it discussed showing
  opposition, while its friends, who were in the majority, were loud
  in extolling it. The result of the lecture was the bringing in of
  a bill in favor of woman suffrage some days later, which passed
  the lower house, and was read twice by the senate, and only failed
  of a passage because the session came to an end before it could
  be reached for a third reading—the last hours being consumed by
  the wrangling of the members over the fixing of county boundaries
  and the location of city sites. Men talked to kill time till the
  last hour expired and the session adjourned _sine die_. A number
  of important bills were not reached, the woman-suffrage bill among
  them. I was assured by Gov. Richardson and others that the bill
  would undoubtedly have passed had a little more time been allowed
  them. The session was one of only forty days and it was near its
  close when the bill was introduced. Other matters engrossed the
  attention and the speaker’s gavel stopped all further discussion of
  matters in dispute.


“DANGERS MET IN CROSSING THE MISSOURI.

  “In the year following I gave a lecture on ‘Woman’s Education,’
  on invitation of the Library Association of Omaha, and for its
  benefit. I so well remember that trip to Omaha! It was in the
  winter. The river was breaking up and when I reached it I found the
  ice floating and no way to get across except on a flatboat, which
  was poled across. I feared to place myself upon it and came near
  turning back. But I remembered my engagement and saw a carriage
  waiting for me on the other shore; so, with many misgivings and
  assurances from the boatmen, I ventured on board and was landed
  safely on the other side. The lecture that evening was given in
  the Presbyterian church to a full house, Dr. Miller presiding and
  introducing me. But if I ran a risk in crossing to Omaha my heart
  fairly stood still coming back. A high wind was blowing and when I
  reached the river I found it filled with great blocks of floating
  ice that endangered any boat it encountered. The ice was running
  badly, and there was no conveyance over, except a skiff rowed by
  two boatmen. The flatboat could not be managed in such a gale. The
  skiff was in great danger of being swallowed up by the high tossing
  waves or struck by the great cakes of floating ice and capsized.


“BUFFETS THE ICE IN A SKIFF.

  “The boatmen at first positively refused to take me into the skiff.
  The man waiting could go, they said, but the woman must be left
  behind. I thought of my danger in embarking and being swallowed
  up by waves; and I thought of husband and child awaiting me at
  home, and no one to care for them; then I asked why I could not
  cross as well as the man. The boatmen said, because women would
  get frightened and jump and rock the boat and upset it, and there
  was really great danger. Then I said if I will promise to sit very
  still and not stir, can I go? The gentleman interceded, and on my
  promise I was allowed to get into the boat. I sat in the middle
  of my seat and held on to each side of the boat, and I am sure I
  never stirred a muscle or winked an eye or hardly breathed while
  those brave men guided their skiff over the tossing waves, which
  seemed to engulf us at times and anon bore us on their tossing
  crests. Soon we were safely over and landed, ready to take stage
  for home, feeling that we had been mercifully preserved on our two
  very dangerous trips, and on my part resolved never to incur a like
  danger again.


“WOMAN’S EQUALITY IN LAW.

  “On my previous trip to Omaha, I had gone in an old-fashioned
  stagecoach and crossed the river on a ferry-boat. But the
  ferry-boat was laid up at this time on account of the ice, so there
  was no way of crossing but the skiff and the flatboat while the ice
  was running. Thanks to enterprise and skill, we at this day know
  nothing of such inconvenience and danger. And thanks to progress
  and enlightenment, woman’s cause has so far advanced that there
  is little need of her making extra effort to bring her claims and
  the knowledge of her rights to equality in law with man before the
  people.”

DESCRIBES COUNCIL BLUFFS.

Writing in 1855, soon after her arrival in her new home, Mrs. Bloomer
describes it as follows:

  “Council Bluffs is located on the east side of the Missouri River,
  in Iowa, instead of on the west or Nebraska side, where it is
  placed on most of the maps. It lies about three miles from the
  river, the level lands or bottoms being about that distance in
  width; and then commences a chain of high hills, or bluffs, which
  line the Missouri for thousands of miles and which, at this point,
  extend eastward in the state some five or six miles. These bluffs
  are composed of immense piles of yellow marl varying in height
  from fifty to two hundred and fifty feet and thrown into every
  conceivable shape and form—rounded, oblong, conical, and peaked.
  Sometimes we see them covered with trees and bushes, but most
  commonly with only grass and flowers. They present at this season
  of the year, robed in their rich carpet of green, a delightful
  appearance. Among these bluffs are numerous beautiful valleys,
  some of them sufficiently extensive for large farms, and through
  which clear and pellucid streams of water flow gurgling down to
  join the mighty Missouri, forming as they find their way across
  the bottoms streams which glisten as pure as silver in the sun. It
  was along one of these valleys, a fourth of a mile in width and
  extending for upwards of half-a-mile into the bluffs, that the old
  town of Kanesville was built. Here a log city was constructed, and
  here for several years dwelt from two to eight thousand of those
  singular people who have now found a home in the vicinity of Great
  Salt Lake. These people, or most of them, remained here until
  1852 when they took their departure, selling out or surrendering
  up their claims to the gentiles. Hundreds of the log cabins in
  which they lived have disappeared, but many are still standing.
  The gentiles who succeeded the Mormons soon began to build better
  houses. Several good frame and brick buildings have already been
  constructed, including a three-story brick hotel and the land
  office, besides a number of stores and private residences.

  “Others are in process of creation and will be carried forward
  as fast as materials and labor can be obtained. On all sides we
  see the work of beautifying the town going forward. Gardens are
  being fenced, trees planted, streets opened and graded, and every
  preparation made for accommodating the population. The city is
  extending out on the bottoms towards the river, the bottom lands
  being here high and dry and in no danger of being overflowed, and
  the probability is that at no distant day they will be covered with
  dwellings. These lands are considered very valuable and are held
  at high prices by their owners. The soil is extremely rich and
  productive and finely adapted to either farming or gardening.

  “Situated as we are three hundred miles west of the railroads
  connecting the Mississippi with the cities of the East, we of
  course neither hear the shrill whistle of the locomotive nor see
  the trains of cars dashing through our streets with a velocity that
  outstrips the speed of the light-footed deer; but we are living in
  full expectation of the day when these things will be as familiar
  to us as they now are to my eastern readers. This city will be the
  western terminus of the first railroad built across the state, and
  it is fondly hoped and expected that three years hence we shall
  be startled by the shrill whistle of the iron horse as he comes to
  bathe his head in the waters of the Missouri, and from here, or
  from Omaha, directly opposite, will he set out on his long journey
  to the most western limit of the continent. Then Council Bluffs
  will no longer be ‘out of the world,’ but directly in the centre
  of it, and many who now hesitate about making their home here will
  regret that their doubts and fears debarred them from uniting their
  labors with their more enterprising countrymen in building up a
  great and prosperous community in the very centre of the Union.”

It will be noted that the above was written in 1855; and with what
remarkable correctness Mrs. Bloomer prophesied as to the future of
the country in which she had just taken up her residence must strike
every one, except that it was nearly ten years instead of three
before the railroad reached Council Bluffs.

She then goes on to advise people to come West and acquire land (then
to be had at government price) and thus secure homes for themselves,
and then continues:

  “My residence is on a gentle elevation at the foot of one of the
  highest bluffs in the city, with a western front commanding a
  fine view of the grass-carpeted bottoms upon which hundreds of
  cattle are grazing, of Omaha across the river, and of the plains
  of Nebraska beyond which stretch away in the distance as far as
  the eye can reach. I love to ascend the bluffs in the rear of our
  house, and watch the setting sun as it descends below the horizon
  far off towards the blue and peaceful waters of the Pacific; and as
  I do so, I contemplate the day when the wild valley before me will
  be filled with the hum and stir and thronging multitude of a great
  city, and these bluffs covered with elegant residences and tasteful
  retreats from the turmoil and activity that will reign below,—for
  no one here doubts that such is to be the future of Council Bluffs.”


DESCRIBES HER NEW HOME.

Here is also another letter written by Mrs. Bloomer in May, 1855,
giving a further description of her home in the west and of its
surroundings:

  “COUNCIL BLUFFS, _May_, 1855.

  “MY DEAR MRS. VAUGHAN:

  “From my far-distant home among the bluffs of the Missouri I send
  you greeting. We have now been here four weeks, and for two weeks I
  have been installed as housekeeper in my own house. The business of
  housekeeping, as you well know, is not new to me; but it is a long
  time since I have confined myself to that business alone, and it
  seems a little strange after the many and various duties devolving
  upon me for the last six or seven years to be relieved of the
  greater part of them and to settle down in this strange place with
  nothing to care for save my house and garden.

  “Far from the place of my nativity, far from the spot where since
  childhood all the years of my life have been spent, save one, far
  from dearly loved kindred and highly cherished friends, far from
  all the noble spirits with whom I have long labored in the cause of
  humanity, far from all I have ever best known and loved save him
  who is my companion in life’s journey, I have commenced life as it
  were anew. Here, surrounded by lovely flower-decked prairies and
  nestled down among the hills that overlook the Missouri and the
  vast plains of Nebraska beyond, we have chosen our future home and
  shall do what we may by our aid and influence for the upbuilding
  and prosperity of this infant city.

  “Do not imagine us in a wild and uncultivated country, deprived
  of the comforts of life, and of the enjoyments and advantages of
  refined society, for it is not so. Neither are we surrounded by
  hordes of savage Indians and in danger of falling victims to the
  tomahawk and scalping-knife, as some people in the east imagine. *
  * * We do not consider ourselves as far out of the world as we are
  set down by those who realize nothing of the immense emigration
  into the mighty West, or of the energy and ‘goaheadativeness’ of
  the people who come hither. We see some Indians occasionally, it
  is true, but they are only visitors from Nebraska, they do not
  belong to this state. A party of Pawnees some two weeks ago pitched
  their tent on the summit of a high bluff near our house where they
  remained until last Sunday, when they struck their tent, packed
  it and all other movables on the back of a mule and then took up
  their line of march to the westward, the men riding on horseback
  while the ‘squaws’ went on foot. The mule was led by a squaw. Two
  squaws had papooses on their backs, and another carried a dog in
  the same manner. I had frequent visits from some of them while they
  remained here, and on leaving they called to bid us good-bye, in
  tolerably fair English. There is something interesting to me in
  these children of nature and I almost regretted their departure.

  “The Indians who come here are perfectly harmless and no one pays
  any attention to them. They come and go at their pleasure. We shall
  see little of them hereafter, as the government has just paid off
  its indebtedness to the Omahas and they were then removed to the
  new quarters assigned them about a hundred miles to the northward,
  in Nebraska. They were all collected at Omaha City, and from
  thence started on their journey accompanied by the Indian agent
  who is to pay them twenty thousand dollars in cash when they reach
  their destination. The tribe now numbers but eight hundred and
  five, counting men, women and children, and has but two hundred
  men capable of bearing arms. Ten years ago they numbered sixteen
  hundred. Their parting from their old home and the graves of their
  fathers is said by those who witnessed it to have been exceedingly
  interesting and pathetic. The women and the aged men wept, and
  the stout-hearted warriors could ill conceal their emotion of
  tenderness and affection.

  “People are now flocking in here in considerable numbers, either
  to settle or to make investments in real estate, in the hope and
  expectation of realizing a fortune by the rise in the value
  of property. We have dally stages from the east and south, and
  they generally come loaded inside and out to the extent of
  their capacity. The land-office is crowded both by settlers and
  speculators eager to enter the choicest lands remaining unsold. The
  land directly adjoining the town, and for some five or six miles
  back, is all taken, and one cannot buy a farm at Uncle Sam’s prices
  within that distance of the city. Good land can be obtained at
  second hand for from five dollars to ten dollars per acre.

  “By the laws of the state, women can own and hold property, both
  real and personal, and I am happy to know that many women are
  availing themselves of these provisions by securing to themselves
  a share of its broad acres. I do wish that more women would become
  owners of the soil, and I am especially anxious that you, Mrs.
  Vaughan, and those women who labored so untiringly with you in
  the cause of humanity, should come in for a share. I know that
  such women do not usually carry long purses, and are not very well
  rewarded for their wearing toil, yet with land at $1.25 per acre it
  does seem as though they ought to be able to secure at least eighty
  acres. One woman who is supporting herself by typesetting in your
  state has secured an interest in this vicinity, and she is now
  hoarding her wages that she may add a few acres more to those she
  has already. A few years hence, these lands will be valuable and
  the owners will realize something from their sale, if they do not
  wish to retain them.

  “This city is the western terminus of railroads to be located
  across this state, and it is ardently hoped and expected that ere
  many years the shrill whistle of the iron horse will be heard among
  the bluffs of the Missouri. There are two newspapers published
  here and both are well sustained, I am told. There are two church
  edifices nearly completed, Methodist and Congregational. Each has
  a settled pastor and services are held regularly on Sundays. The
  people who settle here are mostly from the east, and are nearly
  all Americans; consequently we have an intelligent, well-ordered
  community. Omaha, the capital of Nebraska, is situated directly
  opposite, on the western bank of the Missouri, and in full view of
  this city. It now contains about four hundred inhabitants.

                                                              “A. B.”


The personal reminiscences of Mrs. Bloomer given above show very
fully that, in removing to Council Bluffs, she did not give up any
of her wonted zeal in behalf of those reforms to which so much of
her life had been devoted. She continued to write for the _Lily_ so
long as its publication was kept up, and the productions of her pen
frequently appeared in the columns of the city papers, and of other
papers in the state and throughout the Union.


LIFE IN COUNCIL BLUFFS.

But the first months of her life in Council Bluffs were quiet ones.
They gave her opportunity to gain the much needed rest which years
of labor and activity had rendered necessary. She spent many hours
in roaming over the bluffs and valleys. Life seemed to have opened
a new page for her, and in its daily duties she found sufficient
employment. The population of the city was small and social
intercourse amongst its members, as in all new western communities,
was pleasant and unconventional. Everybody knew everybody else,
and all whose characters were clean and untarnished met each other
on a footing of perfect equality. All attended the same church and
all joined in the same festivities. It was in many respects an
ideal state of society; being far away from railroads and the great
centres of population, there was great exemption from the cares and
anxieties of older communities. Housekeeping was the first duty that
fell upon Mrs. Bloomer, and she strove to make her new home pleasant
and inviting. It soon became the resort of many new as well as old
friends. People coming to the city very often desired to meet her and
she always received them kindly, extending to all a generous welcome.
With her husband she early joined with others in the organization of
a literary club, taking an active part in its proceedings.


AGAINST STRONG DRINK.

Mrs. Bloomer had begun her public life in New York state as an
advocate of Temperance. She had opposed at all times the use as a
beverage of intoxicating drinks in all their various forms, and in
her adopted state she continued the earnest advocate of these ideas
and principles. She wrote and spoke when called for in their advocacy
and defense. When a lodge of Good Templars was organized in 1856, she
became an active member and continued her membership in it so long as
it was kept up.

Though the custom of using strong drinks at social gatherings was
common in her new home, yet she firmly set her face against it and
nothing of the kind was ever found in her dwelling. When societies
were organized, plans adopted, money expended in promoting temperance
principles she was always found among the most zealous in promoting
sobriety in all its forms.

In subsequent years, Mrs. Bloomer became an active worker in the
Women’s Christian Temperance Union; and in an address delivered
before it in Council Bluffs, some ten years before her death, she
referred to her own and others’ labors in the city as follows:


HER EXPERIENCES.

  “I have thus given you, as briefly as possible, a sketch of
  the introduction and early efforts of woman in this cause of
  temperance. It may not be so interesting to you as to those of
  us who encountered the opposition, bore the suffering, endured
  the struggle, who were subject to ridicule, censure and frowns
  for the cause’s sake and for woman’s sake. It is well that you
  of this later generation should know something of what has gone
  before; that you should know that, long before the W. C. T. U.
  arose, organizations of women did as great and greater work than
  that large body of women are doing. We had a cause and a purpose,
  and there was no lack of zeal and enthusiasm. There was no
  cold-hearted, half-way work with the Washingtonians and those who
  enlisted under them. I must mention Rev. George G. Rice, of this
  city, as among the liberal-minded men of early days. On my coming
  to Council Bluffs, he very soon called upon me and invited me to
  give a temperance lecture in his church; and later, at his request,
  I spoke on the education of girls from his pulpit, and also the
  church was freely given me for woman’s-rights lectures.

  “Council Bluffs has always been a hard field for temperance work.
  Originally a frontier town, it was for many years almost completely
  in the hands of the gambling and liquor-drinking classes of the
  community. On my first coming here, in 1855, Sunday was hardly
  recognized at all as a day of rest or religious observance. It was
  the carnival day of the pleasure-seeking of every kind. Business
  was carried on as usual. The saloons were open and games of
  chance openly carried on along the streets. But even then there
  were a faithful few. A division of the Sons of Temperance had
  been organized, and very soon after we came we assisted in the
  organization of a lodge of Good Templars. These two societies
  handsomely fitted up and carpeted a large hall in Empire Block,
  opposite the Pacific House, and held regular meetings on different
  evenings of each week for several years. But financial troubles
  coming on, they were unable to meet their expenses, and before
  1860 both had ceased to exist. I do not know whether the Sons of
  Temperance ever renewed their organization, but think they did
  not. But the Good Templars have at different times started up anew
  and I am glad to hear are quite prosperous at the present time. I
  have a strong feeling of sympathy with this organization because
  I was connected with it in New York, Ohio, and here, in my earlier
  days, and because it admits women to its membership on a footing of
  equality with men, and it was through its membership women passed
  through struggles for recognition. I have frequently assisted in
  the formation of lodges, and one of my last acts before coming to
  Council Bluffs was going by myself as deputy grand-chief templar
  to Indiana to organize two new lodges. Other organizations for
  promoting temperance work have existed here at different times.
  The late D. W. Price was president of one of the most effective
  of these, and really did a good work. Moved by his eloquent and
  effective pleadings, many votaries of strong drink were reformed
  and restored to their right minds and still remain sober citizens.

  “The women of the city have not been wholly remiss in their duties
  to this cause, though they have not done all they could and should.
  In 1874 a society was organized, a constitution adopted, and a
  committee appointed to canvass the city to obtain memberships, and
  signatures to a petition to the city council asking that the laws
  enacted for their protection against liquor selling be enforced,
  and the license law amended. But their petitions passed unheeded,
  as those of tens of thousands of women in other sections had done
  before them. They were laid on the table as unworthy of notice,
  and when taken up received but one vote in their favor. What cared
  our city fathers for the petitions of disfranchised women? They
  had no votes to give to affect them at the next election, while
  the veriest drunkard had; and so should they not consult their
  constituents? Temperance workers, either men or women, have never
  received much help from the constituted authorities either of our
  city or county. Generally they have looked upon violations of
  the law with indifference. That is the case at the present time.
  Although we have a rigid prohibitory law now in force in this
  state, its provisions are openly violated and whatever effort is
  made to enforce it comes not from the men sworn to enforce the
  law but from individuals in private life, who are thus compelled
  to give their time and money to do that which should be done by
  officers elected for that purpose.”

Mrs. Bloomer fully believed in the virtue of prohibitory legislation.
She rejoiced when this principle was adopted into the laws of Iowa
and strove in all suitable ways to secure the advancement of those
laws. She wrote frequently and largely in their defense and the
columns of the city press bear witness to the zeal with which she
advocated her views. She was greatly distressed when her rector
came out in his pulpit and preached sermons against the virtues of
prohibition, and censured and criticised his position with great
force and spirit.


FOR WOMAN’S ENFRANCHISEMENT.

But beyond all other questions, Mrs. Bloomer’s thoughts, hopes and
labors were given to Woman’s Enfranchisement. In that cause she was a
pioneer. She studied, considered and dwelt upon it in all its various
bearings. She believed most sincerely that the Temperance principle
of which she was an ardent advocate could never fully triumph until
Woman’s voice could be fully and decisively heard in its settlement.
This was her position in all her writings and addresses on that
subject, and these were continued and frequent so long as her
strength lasted. Moreover, she fully believed that the unjust legal
enactments coming down from a semi-barbarous age, together with the
harsh teachings of legal writers, would have to be completely changed
in letter and spirit before woman could occupy the high place for
which she was designed by her Creator and become in very deed and
truth a helpmeet for man. And finally she insisted that the precious
right of suffrage, the high privilege of casting a ballot along with
man, should be accorded to woman as her inalienable birthright, and
that she should exercise that right as a solemn duty devolving upon
her as a responsible human being and as a citizen of a free republic.
These were unpopular doctrines when she first commenced to espouse
and uphold them in her paper, more than fifty years before her
decease; but she never failed to maintain them, in all suitable ways
and at all proper times, throughout her subsequent career.

Her house in Council Bluffs was always the welcome resort of those
who were engaged in proclaiming these doctrines and urging them upon
the favorable consideration of the people of the great West. From
time to time, especially in the earlier days, nearly all these
prominent advocates were her guests. Among them may be named Miss
Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Mary A. Livermore, Anna
Dickinson, Mrs. M. H. Cutler, Frederick Douglass, Phœbe Cozzens, and
many others. And frequently when these advocates of her favorite
reform visited her she arranged for public meetings for them in
church or hall, so that through Mrs. Bloomer’s instrumentality
her neighbors and friends were afforded opportunity of listening
to some of the most noted lecturers of the day; and it is here no
more than strict justice to record that she was, in all her work of
promoting temperance and woman’s enfranchisement, aided and sustained
by the cordial assistance and support of her husband. No note or
word of discord ever arose between them on these subjects (and,
indeed, very few on any other); they passed their long lives happily
trying to alleviate the sufferings and right the wrongs of their
fellow-travelers through the journey of life.

Mrs. Bloomer’s pen was also very busy and she frequently wrote for
the newspapers in her own city and in other parts of the country.
Whenever an attack was made, either upon her personally or upon her
favorite ideas, it was sure to call forth from her a vigorous reply.
She did not confine herself to temperance and woman’s rights; but
wrote freely and often upon other kindred subjects, also. It would
extend this work far beyond its prescribed limits, to republish even
a small part of the productions of her pen; but some articles will be
given further on. Just here we cannot omit to give one of her replies
to the objection that woman should not vote because she could not
fight:


VOTING AND FIGHTING.

  “My reply to the argument of our opponents that ‘if women vote they
  must also fight,’ is this: All men have not earned their right to
  the ballot by the bullet; and, if only those who fight should vote,
  there are many sickly men, many weak little men, many deformed men,
  and many strong and able-bodied but cowardly men, who should at
  once be disfranchised. These all vote but they do not fight, and
  fighting is not made a condition precedent to the right to the
  ballot. The law only requires that those of sufficient physical
  strength and endurance shall take up arms in their country’s
  defense, and I think not many women can be found to fill the
  law’s requirement: so they would have to be excused with the weak
  little men, the big cowardly men, and the men who are physically
  disqualified. We know there are thousands of voters who never did
  any fighting and who never will. Why then must woman be denied
  the right of franchise because she cannot fight? If there are any
  great strong women who want to fight for their country in its hour
  of peril, they should be allowed to do so, and men have no right
  to disarm them and send them home against their will. But as there
  are other duties to be discharged, other interests to be cared for,
  in time of war besides fighting, women will find enough to do to
  look after these in the absence of their fighting men. They may
  enter the hospitals on the battlefields as nurses, or they may care
  for the crops or the young soldiers at home. They may also do the
  voting and look after the affairs of government, the same as do
  all the weak men, who vote and hold office and do not fight. And,
  further, as men do not think it right for women to fight, and fear
  it will be forced upon them with the ballot, they can easily make a
  law to excuse them, and doubtless with the help of the women will
  do so. There is great injustice, so long as the ballot is given
  to all men the weak as well as the strong, without condition, in
  denying to woman a voice in matters deeply affecting her interest
  and happiness, and through her the happiness and welfare of mankind
  because, perchance, there may come a time in the history of our
  country when we shall be plunged into war and she not be qualified
  to hold a musket!

  “This objection, like many others we hear, is too absurd to emanate
  from the brains of intelligent men and I cannot think they honestly
  entertain such views. If they will but give us a voice in the
  matter, we will not only save ourselves from being sent to the
  battlefield, but will, if possible, keep them at home with us by
  averting the threatened danger and difficulties and so compromising
  matters with other powers that peace shall be maintained and
  bloodshed avoided.

                                                              “A. B.”


PROGRESS.

Mrs. Bloomer was mainly instrumental in organizing a woman’s-suffrage
society in Council Bluffs, in 1870, and was its first president.
Through her influence woman’s position was greatly enlarged in
that community. In 1880, she was enabled to write as follows: “The
trustees of the public library of this city are women, the teachers
in the public schools, with one or two exceptions, are women, the
principal of the high school is a woman, and a large number of the
clerks in the dry-goods stores are women.”

The revised Code of Iowa, promulgated in 1873, almost entirely
abolished the legal distinction between men and married women as
to property rights. As to single women there was, of course, no
distinction. That code is still in force, and its liberal provisions
in regard to the rights of married women have been still further
enlarged. The wife may hold separate property, and may make contracts
and incur liabilities as to the same, which may be enforced by or
against her as though she were a single woman. So also a married
woman may sue or be sued without joining her husband in matters
relating to her separate property, and she may maintain an action
against her husband in matters relating to her separate property
rights. Their rights and interests in each other’s property are
identical. They may be witnesses for, but they cannot be against,
each other in criminal actions.

It is not claimed that, for bringing about these beneficent changes
in the laws of Iowa, Mrs. Bloomer is entitled to the sole credit.
There were other efficient workers in the same field; but it is
certain that her long residence in the state, and her continued and
persistent advocacy of the principles of justice on which they are
founded, contributed largely to their adoption by the lawmaking
powers.


STATE SUFFRAGE SOCIETY.

The first Iowa Woman’s State Suffrage Society was organized at Mount
Pleasant, in 1870. Mrs. Bloomer was present at this gathering of
the earnest workers of the state and took an active part in their
proceedings. Hon. Henry O’Conner, then attorney-general of the
state, was made its first president, and Mrs. Bloomer its first
vice-president. On her way home, she stopped over at Des Moines,
with Mrs. Anna Savary and with Mrs. H. B. Cutler; addressed in the
afternoon a large Temperance gathering on the capitol grounds, and
in the evening both ladies spoke on woman’s enfranchisement in the
Baptist church. The first annual meeting of the society was held in
Des Moines in October, 1871. Mrs. Bloomer presided and was chosen
president; she attended its annual meetings in subsequent years
so long as she had the strength to do so. She was for years in
constant correspondence with its members, and whenever the question
of woman suffrage was before the general assembly she did not fail,
by petition and otherwise, to do all in her power to promote its
success. In 1875 she was an inmate of the Cleveland Sanitorium,
and while there delivered to the inmates an address on the subject
in which she was so deeply interested. In 1867 she made a long and
wearisome journey, while in very poor health, to the city of New
York to attend the meeting of the Woman-Suffrage Association, and
was elected one of its vice-presidents, a position she continued
to hold so long as she lived. She was an interested listener to the
proceedings of the Woman’s Council held in Des Moines in 1883, but
took no part in them further than a very short address.


HISTORY OF IOWA SUFFRAGE WORK.

Mrs. Bloomer furnished the main portion of the chapter on Iowa in
the third volume of the History of Woman Suffrage, published by Mrs.
Stanton and Miss Anthony in 1887. In short, the advocacy of woman’s
enfranchisement was her life-work from 1851 down to the end of her
days. She was in constant written communication with many of its
leading advocates not only in Iowa but all over the country. They
visited her often in her home, and she was subjected to frequent
interviews from newspaper reporters. A volume could be filled with
their writings called out by conversations with her. She always
treated them with kindness and courtesy, and received many kind
notices from the press. She always had a cheerful and pleasant
greeting for her many visitors.

Mrs. Bloomer was spared to witness the triumph of many of the
reforms she had earnestly advocated. The temperance principle in
which her heart was so much absorbed made great progress during her
lifetime, and the prohibitive features she so earnestly advocated
were engrafted on the laws of her adopted state. She was not spared
to see woman accorded a right to the ballot in all the states, but
she was cheered by the wonderful progress in that direction that took
place all over the world. In Wyoming and Utah women had voted for
several years, and only a few weeks before her departure she learned
with infinite satisfaction from Mrs. Jennie A. Irvine, a favorite
niece residing in Colorado, that the right of suffrage had been
granted to women in that state. While therefore she was never herself
permitted to exercise that inestimable right, yet she died in the
full conviction that only a few years would elapse before it would be
accorded to women in all the free countries in the world.


ESSAYS BY MRS. BLOOMER.

In the following pages are given the productions of Mrs. Bloomer’s
pen on a variety of subjects. Most of these essays have been printed
in newspapers located in different parts of the country, but are here
made public again in more durable form. It is believed they will not
be devoid of interest to the reader:


“WIFELY DUTIES.

  “‘_Unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over
  him._’—GEN., iv. 7.

  “These words were addressed to Cain by the Creator. They are the
  same as those used to Eve, except that in the one case they were
  addressed to the one to be ruled, and in the other to the one
  who was to rule. The latter is more clearly a command than the
  former. And if a command, then Cain only obeyed it in ruling over
  his brother; and, as there was no limit fixed to the rule, was he
  very much to blame for taking the life of his brother? Did not God
  command him to rule and was not God responsible for the result?

  “And if God foretelling to Eve that her husband should rule over
  her was a command to which all women were to be subject for all
  time, does not this command to Cain to rule over his brother follow
  the seed of Cain for all time, and are not all elder brothers
  commanded to rule over the younger, and is it not the duty of the
  younger to submit to such rule?

  “Clearly the Scripture quoted was not a command in either case. We
  cannot throw upon God all the fearful consequences that have grown
  out of and resulted from the construction so often put upon these
  words. Read them as prophecy, substitute ‘wilt’ for ‘shalt’—as I am
  told the original fully warrants—and they become clear enough. In
  both cases it was a prophetic declaration of what was to follow,
  and the prophecy as we all know has been fulfilled to the letter.

  “But read this Scripture as we may, I do not believe it has any
  binding force at this day. However much the first Adam may have
  ruled his wife, other Adams can derive no warrant from his case for
  ruling their wives, except in the evil nature they have inherited
  from him. The Adams still abound in the land, and will abound
  until woman fully asserts her individuality and compels men to
  acknowledge her equal right with themselves to life, liberty and
  the pursuit of happiness.

  “The passages from the New Testament so frequently quoted have lost
  their terrors. We all know that in the early days when they were
  written woman’s position was one of ignorance and subjection. Peter
  and Paul were imbued with the prevalent sentiment of the times,
  and wrote of things as they found them. In writing of woman they
  followed the law and custom of the day in which they lived. They
  thought woman’s name was ‘submission’ just as many men think now,
  and wrote of her just as they write now.

  “Barnard, in his ‘History and Progress of Education’ tells us that:
  ‘In India it was a terrible disgrace for a woman to learn to read,
  and the avowal of that knowledge was sufficient to class her with
  the most abandoned of her sex. Her duties and attainments were only
  such as would conduce to the mere physical comfort of her lord
  and master.’ Again, in writing of the ancient Persians, he says:
  ‘Female education was utterly neglected. The wife was the slave
  of the husband, and every morning must kneel at his feet and nine
  times ask the question, What do you wish that I should do? and,
  having received his reply, bowing humbly, she must withdraw and
  obey his commands.’

  “Of Greece he says: ‘The female children were not allowed any
  instruction except such as they might receive at home. The
  condition of the female sex, except the abandoned portion of it,
  at Athens was pitiable. Secluded from society and all intellectual
  improvement, their lives must have been gloomy, dull and hopeless.’

  “When we consider the condition of woman in the early ages we
  cannot be surprised at the injunction laid upon her by the
  apostles. But would John have her remain in that position? Clearly
  he would; but not so her Creator. He has called her out of former
  bondage and pointed out to her a higher mission.

  “It is worthy of note that the writers of the New Testament did
  not give us a ‘Thus saith the Lord’ with any of the injunctions to
  women, nor did our Saviour enjoin any such rules upon her. So while
  we admit that the words of the apostles may have been proper at
  the day and under the circumstances of their utterance, we claim
  that the condition of woman has been so changed and her mind so
  educated since that time that they are not applicable to her now.
  We are told by some that her condition thousands of years ago was
  her natural condition, that in which God placed her and intended
  her to remain. If this be so, a great wrong has been done her
  by taking her out of the condition of ignorance and depravity
  in which she then existed. An educated mind cannot be kept in
  slavery. Our system of education is all wrong if God intended her
  to remain the ignorant slave of man she then was. How comes it
  that, if that was her natural God-ordained position, we find her
  condition so different at the present day? Whether right or wrong,
  that condition has greatly changed ever since the introduction of
  Christianity. And this work, this change, is not of herself, not
  of man. We must recognize in her course the direction and guidance
  of a Higher Power. If this change, this progress, tend to evil (as
  its opponents predict), then He who rules and overrules is for some
  wise purpose of His own bringing the evil on the world. But if, as
  we believe, it is for the good not only of woman but of humanity
  then, too, we should recognize the Higher Power that so orders it
  and do what we may to help forward His work. In any case we cannot
  by opposition, Bible argument, or indifference stay His work and
  will.

  “Woman had a part to play in life that St. Paul never dreamed of,
  and he who lives in the next generation will see greater changes
  than the past has produced. As well say that men should be and
  do as they were and did in the days of Abraham, as to say that
  women should be kept in the state of bondage in which she existed
  thousands of years ago. The world moves and woman must move with
  it. She inherits the same blood, the same spirit of liberty,
  that descends to her brother and for which her fathers bled and
  died. To fight against this progression is like fighting against
  the emancipation of the slaves. As the chains of the latter were
  broken and the oppressed set free, in spite of opposition and
  Bible argument, so will the All-Father, in His own good time and
  way, bring about the emancipation of woman and make her the equal
  with man in power and dominion that He proclaimed her to be at the
  creation, that we may have—

                          “‘everywhere
    Two heads in council, two beside the hearth,
    Two in the tangled business of the world,
    Two in the liberal offices of life.’

                                                              “A. B.”

Mrs. Bloomer, in commenting on an article in the Chicago _Tribune_
stating that women should not be called by their husbands’ titles,
wrote for the _Western Woman’s Journal_ as follows:


NAMES OF MARRIED WOMEN.

  “I am glad the _Tribune_ has spoken out on this question, and
  had it gone further and included names as well as titles in its
  criticisms it would have done better. It has become so much the
  fashion for women to call themselves and to be known by their
  husbands’ names and titles that a woman’s Christian name is seldom
  heard or known. Why a woman as soon as she is married is willing
  to drop the good name of Mary or Elizabeth and take that of John,
  Thomas or Harry I never could understand. And as to titles, why a
  woman should be called Mrs. General, Mrs. Colonel, Mrs. Captain
  or Mrs. Judge I don’t know except it be on the principle that
  husband and wife are one and that one the husband, and the wife is
  his appendage and must be known by his title instead of having an
  individuality of her own.

  “So far is this matter of appropriating names and titles carried,
  that women retain them after the death of the husbands and call
  themselves Mrs. Colonel or Mrs. Doctor when there is no such doctor
  or colonel in existence. It would seem as though, the man being
  dead, his title would die with him and henceforth his wife assume
  her Christian name.

  “Quite recently an inquiry came to me from New York for the
  Christian name of a woman who had been quite prominent. On looking
  over letters and papers bearing her name I found that in every
  instance she had used her husband’s initials, and it was only after
  sending a postal with the inquiry one hundred and fifty miles that
  I learned her name and transmitted it to New York. This is but one
  instance of the many where women use the name of the husband with
  ‘Mrs.’ prefixed whenever they have occasion to write their names.

  “But women are not alone to blame in the matter. The press does
  its part to keep up what the _Tribune_ calls a vulgar custom. We
  have an instance at hand. Only a short time ago the daily press
  announced that ‘Mrs. Colonel C. S. Chase, of Omaha, is very ill.’
  And again a short time after it announced ‘the death of Mrs.
  Colonel Chase,’ thus following the woman to the grave with her
  husband’s name and title. She was not a colonel, had never been a
  colonel, and it surely would have been more proper to say Mary,
  the wife of Col. Chase. Doubtless all have fallen into the custom
  thoughtlessly.

  “Where a woman has earned a title of her own, it is right that she
  should be called by it, and I see no reason why the prefix of Mrs.
  should always be attached. It would be quite improper to say Mr.
  Doctor Green; then why should we say Mrs. Doctor Hilton?

  “There are cases where it may be allowable and necessary to use the
  husband’s initials when naming or addressing his wife, but usually
  it is best for her to retain and be known by the name her parents
  gave her. The name or title of her husband gives no additional
  dignity or character to her, and it sinks her own individuality in
  him; which no woman should allow.

  “Ever since the world began all women of note have been known by
  their own Christian names. Adam named his wife Eve and we have no
  account of her ever being called Mrs. Adam. Victoria of England has
  never called herself Mrs. Albert Saxe-Coburg, nor has Eugénie been
  known as Mrs. Emperor Louis Napoleon. Go back through all history
  and all married queens, all members of royal houses, all married
  women of any distinction such as artists, authors, scholars,
  teachers, actresses, singers, etc., have ever been known and called
  by their Christian names. In our own day and country this is the
  universal custom. Lydia H. Sigourney, Emma Willard, Margaret
  Fuller Ossoli, Lucretia Mott, Frances D. Gage, Mary A. Livermore,
  Harriet Beecher Stowe, Paulina W. Davis, Isabella Beecher Hooker,
  Lucy Stone Blackwell, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Celia Burleigh, and
  a host of others of equal or less note never called themselves
  Mrs. John, Mrs. Tom and Mrs. Henry. Anna Mary Howitt, Dinah Maria
  Muloch, and Elizabeth Barrett Browning may be given as instances
  of English writers who have seen fit to drop their own names and
  adopt the Christian name and title of their husbands. The wife
  of our first president is known and revered in memory as Martha
  Washington, instead of Mrs. George or Mrs. General Washington; and
  Susannah Wesley is far better known than Mrs. Rev. John Wesley.

  “In law, women must use their own names and no document is legal
  unless it bears the Christian name of the woman who signed it. Her
  appointment to any office is always made in her own name and not
  that of her husband. And yet many women have gotten the idea that
  their husbands’ names and titles in some way add to their dignity
  and importance and so appropriate them to their own use.

  “May the day soon come when all this will be done away and women
  bear honored titles of their own, earned and conferred, but not
  borrowed!

                                                              “A. B.”


IS IT RIGHT FOR WOMEN TO LECTURE?

Mrs. Bloomer answered this question through the press as follows:

  “The press has been very severe, in some instances, in its
  strictures upon a certain woman of this state for leaving home and
  husband to go before our public as a lecturer, thereby as they
  claim causing her husband to commit a fearful crime.

  “Now supposing, instead of being out lecturing, and home
  frequently, this woman had gone away on a three months’ visit to
  friends—as many ladies are in the habit of doing—would the press
  be as ready to blame her as it now is? Would she be, and are other
  women, guilty of all the crime and wrongdoing which she or their
  husbands may commit in their absence? And would it be right, would
  it be manly, to publicly accuse these women and hold them up to
  censure? Is not their suffering already sufficient without this
  added sting? Why, pray, is it a more heinous offense to leave home
  to lecture than to visit, to travel abroad, or to sojourn for
  months at fashionable watering places?

  “I know nothing of the domestic affairs of the person referred to.
  She has been to some extent a lecturer on temperance. Whether led
  into it by pecuniary necessity, or solely from inclination or a
  desire to do good, I never knew. But be the case as it may she is
  the first woman lecturer, so far as my knowledge extends, whose
  husband has ever disgraced both himself and her by such or any
  similar crime or any crime at all; while the cases are frequent
  of wives who are keepers at home and faithful guardians of family
  relations being humbled and disgraced by husbands guilty of all
  manner of crimes and wickedness. Men claim to be the stronger both
  mentally and physically. Then why are they ready to shoulder upon
  women the responsibility of their own wrongdoing? Why make the
  so-called ‘weaker vessel’ the scapegoat to bear their sins?

  “But it was ever thus. The first Adam, the ‘lord of creation,’
  tried to shield himself by accusing Eve and putting upon her the
  punishment of his transgression. And all Adams from that time to
  this have imitated his weakness and meanness by doing the same
  thing. Let the strong bear the burdens of the weak, is I believe
  a Scripture injunction, but men have reversed this and put upon
  the weak and powerless the burdens they are too cowardly to bear
  themselves. In these days the Adams abound and, no matter of what
  crime they may be guilty, some daughter of Eve must be made to
  sorrow, not only over the fall of a loved one but by seeing herself
  publicly accused of being in some way accessory to the crime.

  “If a man commits suicide, it is forthwith charged to unpleasant
  domestic relations. If another, in a fit of insanity, takes himself
  out of the world his wife’s extravagance is the cause. So, too,
  ‘the extravagance of the wife’ is offered as an excuse for the
  reckless spendthrift and defaulter. If a man deserts his wife and
  family and goes after strange women, the wife is in some way to
  blame for it; and if he gratifies his lust by the ruin of innocent
  girls, there are enough of his fellows to come to his defense by
  implicating his wife as the guilty cause of his ruin. And so on to
  the end of the chapter, the same old story: ‘The woman whom Thou
  gavest me did it.’ What a pitiful sneaking plea to come from the
  self-styled ‘lords of creation,’ the boasted superiors of woman!

  “I object to this frequent blaming of women for the misdeeds of men
  and in the name of all womanhood protest against its injustice.

                                                              “A. B.”


WOMAN’S RIGHT TO PREACH.

On this subject Mrs. Bloomer wrote as follows:

  “The question of woman’s right to preach has been agitated more
  since the action of the Brooklyn presbytery in arraigning Dr.
  Cuyler for allowing Miss Smiley to occupy his pulpit than ever
  before. Instead of this action having the effect of preventing a
  repetition of the offense, or of convincing the people of its wrong
  or sinfulness, and silencing women preachers, the discussion has
  resulted favorably to the women and encouraged them in their good
  work.

  “Two weeks ago Miss Smiley preached on Sunday both in a Methodist
  and Presbyterian church in Buffalo, N. Y., by invitation of the
  pastors of the churches, and she has preached in other orthodox
  churches since the Brooklyn trial, and no one has been called to
  account for a transgression of the rules.

  “In St. Louis, the women of the Union Methodist church lately
  held a meeting to express their sense of the propriety and need
  of an ordained ministry for women in the church. The meeting is
  said to have been spirited and earnest, and embraced many of the
  leading women of the Methodist church and of other denominations.
  They offered their own prayers, made their own speeches, and called
  no man to their aid. The proceedings and speeches are reported at
  length in the _Democrat_, and reflect much credit upon the able
  women engaged in them. The following memorial reported by the
  committee was unanimously adopted:

  “‘To the General Conference of the Methodist Church. Fathers and
  Brethren: We the undersigned members of the Methodist church
  respectfully but earnestly petition your venerable body to take
  such action, at your coming session in Brooklyn, New York, as may
  be necessary to allow women to be ordained as preachers, subject
  only to such requirements as are defined in our discipline.’

  “In this, as in all other reforms, persecution and opposition
  strengthen the cause they would crush. The result of the
  anti-slavery movement should convince all that any God-ordained
  progressive movement, though it may be stayed for a time, cannot
  be killed and buried because men will it so.”


PETTICOAT PRESENTATION.

Some ladies of Quincy having presented a petticoat to some obnoxious
individual, Mrs. Bloomer wrote as follows:

  “It has long been customary for men, when they wish to express
  great contempt for the action of an individual, or to hold him
  up to the scorn and ridicule of the world, to present him with a
  _petticoat_. No matter whether the action be one of meanness and
  cowardice, or one of heroism in defense of a good cause, the man so
  acting must be degraded in the eyes of the world by the offer of
  a woman’s garment—no other being found sufficiently expressive of
  the disgust of its contemners. It has always seemed strange to me
  that men were willing to dishonor the mothers who bore them and the
  wives they have chosen for life-companions by thus selecting one of
  their garments as the most fitting badge of cowardice, of meanness,
  of treachery, of weakness, of littleness of soul; and I have never
  heard of an instance of the kind but my cheek has tingled with
  shame and indignation—shame that men could thus unblushingly offer
  insult to woman, indignation that woman must receive and submit
  tamely to the insult.

  “But if such action on the part of men has been painful to me,
  much more so is the action of the women of Quincy as given in last
  week’s _Chronotype_. It is bad enough for men thus to dishonor
  and insult us; but when woman imitates them in wrongdoing and
  desecrates her own garment to so bad a use, it is doubly to be
  deplored, for it is an admission that we are guilty of all the
  weakness and meanness they attribute to us and that our garment is
  chosen to represent. It should rather be woman’s part to frown down
  all such acts with any part of her costume, and ever stand ready to
  defend it from dishonor.

  “I by no means wish to condemn the ladies of Quincy for showing
  their contempt of the ‘gallant soldier of Kansas.’ Far from it,
  I admit their spirit and glory in their womanly courage; for I
  hold it to be the right and duty of woman to mark the slanderer,
  to speak out against wrong, to defend the injured and innocent,
  and to drive out and put down immorality and crime, by the
  power of her own might if need be. I only differ with them in
  the manner of punishing the coward and would have counseled a
  more womanly course. Had they waited upon the ‘slanderer’ and
  ‘coward,’ expressed in strong terms their scorn and contempt for
  his actions, and warned him to leave the town, it would have been
  more creditable to them and to the sex than was the presentation
  of the ‘red flannel garment’—a woman’s garment—as a badge of all
  that is most despicable in man. I am too jealous of the good name
  of woman, and hold in too much respect a woman’s petticoat to see
  it disgraced by any ‘slanderer,’ ‘coward’ or ‘whipped puppy,’ and I
  would to the last defend it from such disgrace.

  “If that garment is in reality the badge of cowardice and
  inferiority that men would make it to be, then the sooner it is
  abandoned by woman and one more appropriate to her true character
  substituted the better. But it is not so. On the contrary it is
  honored by having been worn by the good, the great, the noble, the
  heroic, the virtuous, the honorable, the gifted, the most highly
  praised and exalted among women; and so long as it continues to be
  so worn it is entitled to respect from both men and women, and he
  who dares treat it with disrespect should receive the censures of
  men and the scorn of women.

  “The error of the Quincy women was one of the head and not of the
  heart. Women are sometimes led into error by unthinkingly imitating
  the follies and vices of men, or by acting under their direction.
  In the ‘good time coming,’ when women learn to do their own
  thinking and to rely more on their own judgments, they will rarely
  be led into wrong or unwise action. May the day hasten speedily
  on when woman’s dormant powers shall be so developed by education
  that she will stand forth before the world in all the nobleness
  and excellence of her being! Then no longer will men revile her
  garments or taunt her as they now too often do, directly or
  indirectly, with cowardice, inferiority and weakness of intellect.

                                                              “A. B.”


OBJECTIONS TO WOMAN SUFFRAGE ANSWERED.

While the woman-suffrage amendment was before the general assembly
of Iowa, Senator Gaylord, a member of that body, published a list of
twenty-one reasons why it should not be adopted. These Mrs. Bloomer,
in a letter to the Des Moines _Register_, answered as follows:

  “1. He says ‘it is not in the interest or in the disposition of
  man to legislate against woman,’ etc. And yet for ages men have
  legislated against woman and deprived her of all right to her own
  person, her earnings, her property, and her children. The common
  law places woman in a position little better than that of slavery.
  And this law was made by men; and it was not until the agitation
  of the woman’s-rights question by women, and their exposure of the
  injustice of the laws and their demands for redress of grievances,
  that changes were made in their favor. If the senator does not know
  of this, let him read up the common law on these points and the
  history of the woman-suffrage question for the last thirty years,
  and he will find that up to that time it _was_ the ‘disposition of
  men to legislate against’ every interest of woman.

  “2. He says ‘she ought not to be compelled by law to work out a
  poll-tax in the public highway, nor to learn the art of butchery
  on the battlefield.’ Most certainly she ought not, but she could
  hire a substitute to do these things, just as Senator Gaylord does.
  I venture the assertion, without knowing, that he did not earn
  his right to the ballot by the bullet or by shoveling dirt on the
  highways. If only those who do these things were allowed to vote
  the number of voters would be small indeed.

  “3. ‘Because there is no evidence that the most intelligent women
  ask for the miserable privilege of becoming politicians.’ Does the
  senator think that it is a miserable privilege to have the right to
  the ballot, the right to vote for good men and measures, the right
  to self-protection, the right to sit in the halls of legislation
  making wise and just laws for the government of his country, which
  shall tend to the interest and happiness of the whole people? One
  who prizes these privileges so lightly should be deprived of them
  and the wonder is that, holding such opinions as he does, we find
  a ‘miserable politician’ having his seat in the legislative hall
  of this great state, where he surely ought not to be. The fact
  that the women and the men who are asking for the enfranchisement
  of women are among the most intelligent, refined, affectionate and
  exemplary citizens is too patent to need proof from me.

  “4. ‘Because woman is superior to man, and she owes her superiority
  to the fact that she has never waded in the dirty pool of
  politics.’ Dear me! how worried this man is about the ‘dirty,’
  ‘miserable’ politics! And again how strange, knowing the pool to
  be so muddy, that he has waded in so deep! and to think of his
  going home to his family with all this filth upon him! Really, if
  the place is so muddy it is high time that woman come in, with all
  the purity and goodness he gives her credit for, and sweep out the
  dirt that is befouling her husband and sons and make it a more fit
  place for them. An atmosphere that is too impure for her to breathe
  cannot but be dangerous to them, and it is her duty to rescue them
  from the ‘muddy’ pool or so to cleanse it that it will be safe for
  both.

  “5. Senator Gaylord may call himself a wizard if he likes, and
  we shall not object; but women prefer not to be angels while
  sojourning here below, but rather good, sensible, practical wives
  and mothers, prepared to discharge life’s duties in whatever
  situation they may be placed—in the home, at the ballot-box or in
  legislative halls, wherever duty, interest and inclination may lead
  them.

  “6. ‘Because a deference is now shown to women, which would be
  denied,’ etc. Deference shown to women does not make up for
  deprivation of rights, Mr. Gaylord. Besides, it is not a fact, but
  on the contrary, that equality of rights, politically or otherwise,
  leads men to disrespect woman. Give us rights and then, if you
  must, withhold courtesy: I trust we should have strength to bear it.

  “7. ‘Because, if married women should vote against their husbands,
  there would be war.’ And who would make the war, Mr. Gaylord? No
  man, except one who wishes to play the tyrant in his family and
  enslave his wife’s thought and actions, could ever utter so silly
  a reason for depriving her of rights to which she is as justly
  entitled as himself. Does he question the right of a man to do his
  own thinking and vote as he pleases? Why then a woman? The very
  fact that he thus claims the right to make her action subservient
  to his wishes, or to make war upon her if she does not submit to
  his own dictation, is reason sufficient why her individuality and
  right to self-government should be recognized and secured to her by
  making her an enfranchised citizen.

  “8. ‘Because there are bad women,’ etc. Well, why may not bad women
  vote as well as bad men? If they had had a vote long ago perhaps
  they would not be bad now, and perhaps there would not be so many
  bad men either. I would sooner trust those women to vote right than
  many men who now disgrace the ballot; and as to any contamination
  at the polls, we no more fear it than on the streets, at public
  gatherings, in the stores, and in various places where we meet and
  brush by them unharmed. We have more to fear from the men who make
  women bad. But, inasmuch as many women are compelled to associate
  in the closest relations with these men, and we all have to
  tolerate them in society, and come in contact with them in business
  matters, we think no great harm can come to us by dropping a bit
  of paper in the same box. But if there is really danger from such
  contact, we can avoid it by having voting places for our own sex
  away from theirs.

  “9. ‘Because, if a woman trains up her children right, they will
  vote right.’ etc. No, not always. The training of the mother is
  often counteracted by the influence, authority and example of the
  father, and the two might differ as to what was right. The mother
  might teach her son that the ballot is a high and sacred thing, a
  mighty power to be wielded for the best interests and happiness
  of humanity, a power for the putting down of evil and for the
  forming and sustaining just governments; while the father might
  teach him that the right of the elective franchise is a ‘miserable
  privilege,’ that it leads to a ‘muddy pool’ into which all must
  wade, that it is all ‘moonshine and monsoons’ and that the
  ‘privilege of voting is not to be so much desired as the privilege
  of being voted for.’ Which training is he to follow? Where lies the
  danger?

  “10. The senator here claims that men are ‘vain, ambitious and
  aspiring, caring more to be voted for than to vote,’ and he
  fears that women will show the same weakness if permitted to
  vote. It is to be hoped, for the credit of womanhood, that if a
  woman ever takes his seat she will not disgrace herself by the
  utterance of such senseless twaddle in opposition to any measure as
  characterized his effort on the proposed amendment!

  “13. ‘Because there must be a dividing line, somewhere, between
  those who may vote and who may not,’ etc. Then why not let the
  educated, intelligent, sober and moral of both sexes vote, and shut
  out the ignorant, drunken and immoral? Why let men vote and make
  laws, no matter how low and vile they may be, simply because they
  are men while those who are subject to the man-made laws are denied
  the right to vote, simply because they are women? The line so drawn
  is unnatural, unjust, and productive of great wrong to all parties.
  The line as now drawn shuts out only Indians, idiots, and women.

  “14. Here our senator throws all the responsibility upon the
  ‘All-wise Author of our natures,’ and claims that He has made laws
  to prevent woman entering the ‘moonshine and monsoon of politics,’
  forgetting that God called Deborah to the political field and
  made her a judge in Israel, and that for all time there have been
  queens and rulers among women, evidently with God’s approval.
  The All-Father gave woman an intelligent mind and capacity for
  governing, and then left her free to exercise her gifts as she saw
  fit; and if there be times when by sickness or other circumstance
  she may be prevented from the discharge of political duties, so
  also there are times and circumstances when men are kept from the
  polls and from office, and if this be reason why the former should
  not be enfranchised then it is also reason why the latter should be
  disfranchised.

  “15. ‘Because the wife has a voice and a vote already, and her
  husband is her agent to carry that vote to the ballot-box.’ How is
  it about the thousands of women who have no husbands to do such
  errands for them? How does this proxy-voting work when the wife
  differs with the husband on the question to be voted on? Does he
  waive his own preference and deposit the vote in accordance with
  her wishes? If he does not, then does he represent her? The only
  just course is to let her deposit her own vote; then both will be
  represented. Now, they are not. Man deposits his vote regardless of
  his wife’s interests and wishes.

  “17. ‘Because there cannot be two equal heads in the same family.’
  ‘Where the wife is anybody, the husband must be a nobody.’ ‘If
  the wife has sense enough to vote, the husband is dwarfed.’ So,
  according to our senator, the wife should be a weak-minded,
  senseless thing deprived of all right of opinion, so that the
  husband may rise to the dignity of a voter. Is not this sound
  logic? Did the superior brain of man ever before conceive of so
  strong an argument why woman should not vote? Two heads are better
  than one, Mr. Senator, and there may be two equal heads in the
  same family, at the same time, and neither of them be ‘dwarfed’
  or belittled by the superiority of the other. If such is not the
  condition of your family, your wife is a subject for sympathy.

  “18. ‘Because politics would pervert and destroy woman’s nature,
  the religious element,’ etc. God implanted in woman’s nature a
  love of home and a love of her offspring, and also an instinctive
  knowledge of what is proper and what improper for her to do; and
  it needs no laws of man’s making to incite the one or compel the
  other. Give her her rights and her own good sense will teach her
  how to use them. Does the ballot change man’s nature for the worse?
  Why then woman’s?

  “Pp. 11, 12, 19, 20 and 21. These concluding reasons show a
  dreadful imaginative picture of the condition of things that would
  exist in the family should women be permitted to go to the polls
  and exercise the rights secured to them by the laws of their
  country. ‘Strife, contention, jealousy, hatred, slander, rivalry,
  intemperance, licentiousness, temper, retaliation, suicide,
  suspicion, discord, divorce,’ all these are to come to our good
  senator’s family when his wife has a right to vote. He anticipates
  it all and is doing all he can to avert the dire calamity. But
  while he is to be commiserated, he must remember that all families
  are not alike, and where he sees only dire disaster other men see
  the dawning of a better day and are ready to ‘turn the crank’ that
  shall hasten it on. Other men do not fear and tremble; but calmly
  await the time when they can take their wives on their arms and,
  side by side, go to the polls and drop in the little paper that
  declares them equal in rights and privileges. In these families
  there will be no war, for such men are proud to own their wives
  their equals and do not feel that they themselves are dwarfed
  thereby. As the ballot elevates and ennobles man, so they believe
  it will be with woman, and they cannot understand how rendering
  justice to her is going to convert her into the coarse, vile,
  quarrelsome thing our senator predicts, or how acknowledging her
  the equal of her husband is going to ‘dwarf’ men and convert them
  into ruffians and nobodies.

                                                              “A. B.”


ON HOUSEKEEPING—WOMAN’S BURDENS.

The following essay on this subject was read by Mrs. Bloomer before a
local society or club in Council Bluffs:

  “It has always seemed to me that there was something wrong in
  the present system of housekeeping. Men have particular branches
  of business to which they give their exclusive attention, and
  never attempt to carry on three or four trades at the same
  time. Housekeeping comprises at least three trades, that of
  cook, laundress and seamstress, to which might be added that of
  house cleaning; and yet it is expected of woman that she will
  single-handed successfully carry on these various trades, and at
  the same time bear and rear children and teach them to become great
  and good. How long would men undergo a like amount of labor without
  devising some means of lightening and separating its burdens?

  “I wish to call your attention to the fact that in the mythical
  second chapter of Genesis, upon which men lay so much stress as
  their authority for subjugating and belittling the position of
  woman, no toil was imposed on our Mother Eve. The ground was cursed
  for man’s sake, and he was to labor and eat his bread in the sweat
  of his face. But to woman no command to labor was given, no toil
  laid upon her, no ground or stove cursed for her sake. She was to
  bear children; but motherhood was never cursed by the Almighty.
  Woman is the mother of mankind, the living Providence (under God)
  who gives to every human being its mental, moral and physical
  organization, who stamps upon every human heart her seal for good
  or for evil. How important then that her surroundings be pleasant,
  her thoughts elevated, her mind imbued with the best and noblest
  traits, her individuality acknowledged, her freedom assured, that
  she may impart wise and noble characters to her children, surround
  them with good influences and train them in all goodness and
  virtue! This is the part of woman. But how can she be fitted for
  such life work when subjected to the whims and commands of another,
  to the constant round of housekeeping labor, to toil and drudgery,
  to cares, annoyances and perplexities which she has not health and
  strength and nerve to bear? How can one woman cook and wash dishes
  three times a day, sweep and dust the house, wash and iron, scrub
  and clean, make and mend and darn for a family, and yet have time
  or spirit for the improvement of her own mind so that she may stamp
  strong characters upon her children? How can a mother whose every
  hour from early morn to late at night is filled with cares and
  worries and toil to supply the physical needs of her family find
  time or be prepared to instruct properly the tender minds committed
  to her care?

  “It is to woman’s weary hours and broken health, and to her
  subject, unhappy and unsatisfactory position, that we may impute
  much of the evil, vice and crime that are abroad. And to the same
  cause are due so many domestic quarrels, separations and divorces.
  Children are born into the world with the stamp of the mother’s
  mind upon them. I believe it is conceded that children are more
  indebted to their mothers than to their fathers for their natural
  gifts. How important then that every facility be afforded the
  mother for making good impressions on her child! How strange that
  men so entirely overlook this law of inheritance! What can they
  expect of children when the mother is degraded and enslaved?

  “Is there not some way of relief from this drudging, weary work
  over the cook stove, washtub and sewing machine; from this load of
  labor and care? Why should one hundred women in each of one hundred
  separate houses be compelled to do the work that could equally as
  well or better be done by less than one-fifth of that number by
  some reasonable and just system of coöperation? Why cannot the
  cooking and washing and sewing be all attended to in a coöperative
  establishment, and thus relieve women, and mothers particularly,
  of the heavy burdens their fourfold labors now impose upon them,
  and give them time for self-improvement and the care and culture
  of their children? It is said that in the city of New York there
  are but 30,000 household servants to more than 270,000 families. By
  this we see that nine out of every ten wives and mothers in that
  city are subjected to the daily round of household labor. Can we
  not trace a large percentage of the vice and degradation of that
  city to that cause? And this state of things will hold good to a
  large extent over the whole country.

  “Time is not allowed me to go into the details of coöperative
  housekeeping, even had I the matter well matured in my own mind,
  which I have not. But I have given reasons why some plan should
  be devised to relieve woman of hard labor and crushing care, and
  I leave it for her who is to follow on my side of the question to
  present a plan that shall recommend itself to our approval.

                                                              “A. B.”


THE CIVIL WAR.

The War of the Rebellion aroused the feelings, as also the
patriotism, of the women of the Northern states to a high state of
activity. Perhaps at first they did not enter into the contest so
earnestly as did the women of the South, that is, their feelings were
not so deeply aroused; but ere long, as the war went on, they came
up nobly to the duties before them and were henceforward unwearied
and unremitting in their discharge. Their fathers, brothers, sons
and husbands were in the armies of the Union periling their lives
for its complete restoration. They could but hope that success might
crown their efforts, and in various ways they sought to help on the
contest until the end should be reached, the republic saved; and many
also hoped and prayed that, when victory came, it would bring also
the complete destruction of slavery. Mrs. Bloomer entered into this
feeling, and the work done by the women of the North, with all the
energies of her ardent spirit. Two regiments were raised in Council
Bluffs and the vicinity, and many of the young men of the city were
in their ranks. The women did a great deal towards providing them
with camp conveniences and furnishing them with needed clothing and
other comforts necessary for the arduous and dangerous life on which
they were about to enter. Each day, dress parade found very many on
the regimental grounds encouraging “the boys” in the discharge of
their duties. Among other things, a beautiful flag was prepared and
Mrs. Bloomer was delegated by the ladies to present it to company
A, which had been mainly recruited in the city. This she did in the
presence of the whole regiment, in the following short speech:


MRS. BLOOMER’S ADDRESS.

  “Captain Craig, Sir: In behalf of the loyal ladies of Council
  Bluffs I present to you, and through you to the company you
  command, this flag. Its materials are not of so rich a texture as
  we could have wished, but they are the best our city afforded; and
  we hope that you will accept it as an expression of our respect for
  yourself and your company, and our warm sympathy for the cause you
  go forth to uphold. This flag has emblazoned upon it the stars and
  stripes of our country. It was under these that our Fathers fought
  the battle of the Revolution and secured for us that priceless
  gift, the Constitution of the United States.

  “You are now going forth to sustain and defend that Constitution
  against an unjust and monstrous rebellion, fomented and carried
  on by wicked and ambitious men, who have for their object the
  overthrow of the best government the world has ever seen. To this
  noble cause we dedicate this flag. We know you will carry it
  proudly, gallantly and bravely on the field of battle and wherever
  you go, and we trust it may ever be to you the emblem of victory.

  “Soldiers: We cannot part with you without a few words of counsel
  and warning. In the new and dangerous path you are entering upon,
  let us entreat you to guard well your steps and keep yourselves
  aloof from every vice. Avoid, above all things, profanity and the
  intoxicating cup. The latter slays annually more than fall on the
  battlefield. The hearts of mothers, wives and sisters go forth
  after you. Many tears will be shed and many prayers will be offered
  in your behalf. See to it, then, that you so conduct yourselves
  that whatever may befall you, whether you fall in the service of
  your country or return to gladden the hearts of the loved ones you
  leave behind and to enjoy the peace you will have conquered—that no
  sting shall pierce their hearts, no stain rest on your fair fame.
  Go forth in your sense of right, relying on the justice of your
  cause. Seek peace with God your Saviour, that you may be prepared
  to meet His summons should it come suddenly, or to enjoy life
  should it please Him to spare you for many days.

  “Our good wishes go with you, and we shall ever hold you in
  honorable remembrance; and when this important war is ended which
  calls you from us, and you are discharged from duty, we shall
  heartily welcome you back to your home and friends.”

This address was delivered at dress parade just as the sun was going
down and only a day or two before the regiment left for the front.
The volunteer soldiers listened with deep emotion, and when allusion
was made to the homes and friends left behind many a stout heart
heaved and tears trickled down many a manly face.

Lieutenant Kinsman, in behalf of Captain Craig, accepted the flag
from Mrs. Bloomer in a neat and appropriate address.

Lieutenant Kinsman had been a partner of her husband and a dear
friend of Mrs. Bloomer’s; over his subsequent career she watched with
the greatest interest. He soon rose to be the captain of his company,
then a lieutenant-colonel, and then colonel of an Iowa regiment at
whose head he fell bravely fighting at the Battle of Black River
Bridge, in Mississippi, in 1863. As showing the earnest patriotism of
Mrs. Bloomer and her intelligent appreciation of the great questions
involved in it, the following letter written by her to the convention
of loyal women in New York City in 1864 is here inserted:


LETTER TO CONVENTION OF LOYAL WOMEN.

  “MISS ANTHONY:

  “Your letter inviting me to meet in council with the loyal women of
  the nation on the 14th inst. in the city of New York is received.
  Most gladly does my heart respond to the call for such a meeting,
  and most earnestly do I hope that the deliberations on that
  occasion will result in much good to woman and to the cause you
  meet to promote.

  “The women of the North are charged by the press with a lack of
  zeal and enthusiasm in the war. The charge may be true to some
  extent. Though for the most part the women of the loyal states
  are loyal to the government, and in favor of sustaining its every
  measure for putting down the rebellion, yet they do not I fear
  enter fully into the spirit of the revolution, or share greatly in
  the enthusiasm and devotion which sustain the women of the South
  in their struggle for what they believe their independence and
  freedom from oppression. This is owing, doubtless, to the war being
  waged on soil remote from us, to women having no part in the active
  contest, and to the deprivation and heart-sorrows it has occasioned
  them. There are too many who think only of themselves and too
  little of the sufferings of the soldiers who have volunteered to
  save their country. While they are willing to give of their time
  and means to relieve the sick and wounded, they at the same time
  decry the war, lament the sacrifices and expenditure it occasions,
  think it should have been prevented by a compromise and long for
  peace on almost any terms. These think not of the great cause at
  stake, they care not for the poor slave, think not of the future
  of our country, and fail to see the hand of God in the movement
  punishing the nation for sin and leading it up through much
  suffering and tribulation to a brighter and more glorious destiny.

  “But there is a class of women who have looked beyond the mere
  clash of arms and the battlefield of the dead and dying, and
  recognize the necessity and importance of this dark hour of trial
  to our country. The first cannon fired at Sumter sounded in their
  ears the death knell of slavery and proclaimed the will of the
  Almighty to this nation. These have never believed we should have
  peace or great success until the doom of slavery was irrevocably
  sealed. That seal has been set. Our noble President has bowed to
  the will of the Supreme Power and by the guidance and sustaining
  spirit of that Power will, I trust, lead our country successfully
  through the great and fearful struggle and place it upon a firm and
  more enduring basis.

  “The contest has outlasted the expectation of all, and has cost the
  nation a vast amount of blood and treasure. It has called into the
  field a million or more of soldiers, and the number of fathers,
  brothers and sons slain upon the battlefield and wasted away in
  camps and hospitals is counted by hundreds of thousands, while its
  expenses run up to billions. And still the war for the Union, for
  Freedom, and the integrity of our national boundaries goes forward;
  and in the hearts of true Union men everywhere the firm resolve has
  been made that it shall go on until the rebellion is crushed, cost
  what it may, and continue though it should last as long as did the
  war which brought our nation into existence.

  “Now the question for us to consider is: Are we prepared for
  the further and continued sacrifice? Have we yet more sons and
  brothers to yield up on the altar of our country? To this question
  let every loyal woman address herself; and I fondly hope that the
  proceedings of your convention will be such as to nerve woman for
  whatever sacrifice and trial await her.

  “I know there are many women in whose hearts the love of country
  and of justice is strong, and who are willing to incur any loss and
  make almost any sacrifice rather than that the rebellion should
  succeed and the chains of the bondmen be more firmly riveted. If
  they manifest less enthusiasm than their patriotic brothers it is
  because they have not so great an opportunity for its exercise. The
  customs of society do not permit any stormy or noisy manifestation
  of feeling on the part of woman. But the blood of Revolutionary
  sires flows as purely in her veins as in those of her more favored
  brothers, and she can feel as deeply, suffer as intensely, and
  endure as bravely as do they.

  “But I would have her do more than suffer and endure. I would that
  she should not only resolve to stand by the government of the
  Union in its work of defeating the schemes of its enemies, but
  that she should let her voice go forth to the government in clear
  and unmistakable tones against any peace with rebels, except upon
  the basis of entire submission to the authority of the government.
  Against the schemes and plans of the ‘peace party’ in the North the
  loyal women everywhere protest. That party seeks to obtain peace
  through compromise, and it advocates an armistice with rebels who
  ask for none. Such a peace we do not want, for it would be either
  brought about by the recognition of the rebel government, or by
  base and dishonorable submission to its demands. To either of these
  results we are alike opposed. When peace comes, let it come through
  the complete triumph of the Union army; and with the destruction of
  the great cause of the rebellion, which we all know to be African
  Slavery.

  “What part woman is to take in the work, and in what way she can
  best hold up the hands and cheer the heart of the great man who
  is at the head of our government, will be for the loyal women in
  council to determine.

                                                              “A. B.”

The ladies of Council Bluffs were zealous in sending clothing and
necessary hospital stores to the soldiers fighting at the front.
Mrs. Bloomer was one of the most active in this work. She was placed
on many committees, often at the head of them, and her house was a
centre around which their efforts were directed. She was a thorough
patriot, and did all in her power to promote the welfare of those
who were fighting the battle of the Union. She attended for three
weeks the great Sanitary Fair held in Chicago in the early part of
1865, and previous to going to it had been largely instrumental in
collecting the noble contribution sent thither by Iowa. Here, for
the first time, she met General Grant, the illustrious commander
of the Union armies. Mrs. Bloomer had never been classed among the
“abolitionists,” but she was nevertheless an intense hater of slavery
and the slave power, and no one rejoiced more sincerely that the war
finally ended with the overthrow of that blight upon the fair name of
our country.


VISITS WASHINGTON.

Mrs. Bloomer, after her removal to the West, made occasional visits
to her old home in New York, there spending several weeks with
relatives and friends. In the autumn of 1880, with her husband,
she passed nearly a week in the national capital viewing the noble
buildings and the wonderful collections of nature and art with which
they are so abundantly filled. One day was spent at the Smithsonian
Institution, where the ethnological department attracted great
attention. The Patent Office was looked through, and the Corcoran
gallery of paintings and statuary admired and carefully inspected.
One day was given to Mount Vernon and the former residence of the
Father of his Country visited. It was a beautiful day and the passage
down and up the Potomac delightful. The scenes at Mount Vernon were
most impressive, and made a place in her memory never to be effaced.


IN NEW YORK CITY.

Proceeding from Washington northward, they spent one day in
Philadelphia very pleasantly; and, on arriving in New York, Mrs.
Bloomer and her husband arranged for a stop in the great metropolis
of several weeks. They spent two days with relatives in Westchester
County, and after her return Mrs. Bloomer met her old and dear
friends, Mrs. Douglass and Mrs. Chamberlain, and had very pleasant
visits with them. A day was taken up in visiting some of the noted
places in the city, and then Mrs. Bloomer accepted an invitation to
visit Mrs. Stanton at her residence in Tenyfly, in New Jersey; but
before she had time to do this, word came to her of the dangerous
illness of her sister. Giving up all her plans, she at once repaired
to the residence of Mr. John Lowden, at Waterloo, N. Y., and remained
by the bedside of her sister until her spirit passed away. Of a large
family of brothers and sisters, Mrs. Bloomer was then the only one
left. After attending the funeral, she spent a few days with her
husband in the excellent family of her niece, Mrs. N. J. Milliken,
at Canandaigua, N. Y., being present at the marriage of one of her
daughters; and then, after another stop in Buffalo of a few days
more, returned to Council Bluffs.

One more visit was made to New York, in 1889, to attend the golden
anniversary of her husband’s brother, Mr. C. A. Bloomer, of Buffalo.
The occasion was a very happy one; and after some days spent in
that city, she once more passed on to her old home in Seneca Falls,
visiting also at Canandaigua and other places in the vicinity.


VISITS COLORADO.

In 1879 Mrs. Bloomer made her first journey to Colorado, its
mountains and magnificent scenery. This was repeated in subsequent
years, the last trip having been made in 1894, only a few months
before her death. During these tours she spent many days in Denver,
Leadville, Idaho Springs, Pueblo, Colorado Springs, and Manitou. All
the points round the latter famous watering place were visited. She
rode through the Garden of the Gods, Monument Park, and Cheyenne
Cañon, and traversed the great caves opened up in the mountains.
Climbing Cheyenne Mountain, she stood on the spot where the famous
poet and writer Helen H. Jackson was laid at rest. The scenery
from this point over the surrounding mountains and valleys is truly
wonderful and makes a great impression on all beholders.


A LETTER.

The following descriptive letter written to a local paper by Mrs.
Bloomer from Manitou, Colorado, August 12, 1879, gives her impression
of that place and vicinity at that time:

  “Our stay at Denver was a short one, as we found the weather at
  that place about as hot as in Council Bluffs. After looking over
  that city for one day, we hastened on to this famed resort for
  invalids and summer tourists seeking pleasure and recreation. As
  usual at this season, the hotels are crowded, and scores of camp
  tents dot the hills in every direction.

  “We took up our temporary abode at the Cliff House, principally
  because of its nearness to the springs, three of which are in the
  immediate vicinity. This is a popular house and is crowded with
  guests. The Manitou and Beebe, though farther from the springs, are
  full and are first-class houses. Scores of cottages are leased for
  a few weeks or months by visitors, and many private houses take
  temporary lodgers or boarders. Among owners of the latter is Mrs.
  Dr. Leonard, formerly of Council Bluffs. She is proprietor of the
  bath-houses here, and is doing a good paying business, sometimes as
  many as a hundred a day taking baths. She has built a house of her
  own, but leases the bath-house, which belongs to the town company.
  She has also considerable practice as a physician.

  “Cheyenne Cañon, Ute Pass, Williams Pass, Pike’s Peak, the Garden
  of the Gods, Glen Eyrie, Queen’s Cañon, and Monument Park are the
  principal points of interest visited daily by people here. A few
  mornings since, a party of seventeen gentlemen and ladies left
  one hotel on horseback for the ascent of Pike’s Peak. They made
  the journey safely and returned at dark, some of them feeling
  little worse for the trip, while others were pretty well used up.
  Yesterday a gentleman and lady made the same journey on foot. As
  the distance is twelve miles, all the way up the steep mountain
  side, this was considered quite a feat. To-day the same parties
  have gone on foot to Cheyenne Cañon, a distance of twelve miles. I
  have not heard that the lady is one of the celebrated ‘walkers,’
  but she certainly deserves that her name be added to the list.

  “Yesterday we made up a party of six and started soon after
  breakfast for the Garden of the Gods, Glen Eyrie, and Monument
  Park. The day was one of the finest imaginable, the air cool and
  invigorating, and our driver a man experienced in the business of
  showing to tourists the wonders of this section of this wonderful
  state. We found him a very intelligent and much-traveled man, and
  learned that he was one of the magistrates of the town. Our road
  to the Garden of the Gods was ascending all the way. In reply to
  a query as to why the place was so named, the guide told us a
  story of how a southern gentleman came to the spot some years ago
  bringing with him two colored slaves, a man and a woman. He built
  here a cabin, and soon after took his gun and started out for a
  further journey, leaving the slaves behind and promising an early
  return. But days and weeks passed on and he returned not, and never
  was heard of more. The negroes remained in their new home, made
  improvements and planted a garden, which in this new land was a
  sight to gladden the eye. This, in connection with the grand works
  of nature surrounding it, grew to be the Garden of the Gods, the
  name which has made it famous throughout the world. So much for the
  story. The negroes, Jupiter and Juno, are no more; but the great
  works of nature remain in all their grandeur, and a visit to them
  well repays the traveler for the journey he takes to see them.

  “The rocks in this so-called garden have been shaped into every
  conceivable form by the action of wind, water and frost. Many of
  them, by a little stretch of the imagination, are made to bear a
  strong resemblance to men and animals. The prevailing formation is
  red sandstone, but there are also conglomerate, gypsum and other
  varieties. At the south entrance, is a huge rock standing upon the
  narrowest foundation, and seemingly ready at any moment to topple
  over on the people who are constantly passing. As the incline is a
  little away from the road, it is to be hoped no such catastrophe
  will ever happen, even should the rock in ages to come be so
  top-heavy as to break loose from its foundations. The Grand Gateway
  is a narrow passageway between immense piles of rocks over three
  hundred feet high, of irregular outline and surface, which rise
  sharply and perpendicularly like a mighty wall. These rocks are
  full of holes, rifts and crevices and chasms in which thousands
  of swallows have built their nests, and we could plainly hear the
  twittering of the young ones from the ledge of rocks a few feet
  distant, on which we climbed. Our guide led us to a cave under one
  of these walls. The opening was near the base, and so low that one
  had to bend the knees and crawl in. The guide assured us that once
  inside the cave was high and roomy. Half of our party ventured
  in, but they found it too dark to see far beyond. Those of us who
  remained outside could hear the echoes of their voices high up
  in the rocks, showing that there is a high open space within the
  seemingly solid stone. Other rocks but a few feet distant are of
  gray color, and a little further on are large white rocks composed
  of gypsum, very soft and pliable. This is now being taken out in
  large quantities to be converted into plaster of Paris.

  “At the time we were passing through this huge gateway, an Iowa boy
  was standing on the top of one of these towering red walls waving
  a white flag, and upon the other stood a young woman waving her
  handkerchief. They looked like pygmies at that great elevation,
  and but for their moving about we should have supposed them a
  slight projection of rock. These we are told are the same persons
  who made the journey to Pike’s Peak mentioned above. Their ascent
  up the rocks was a difficult and dangerous one, and though our
  guide proposed to lead us also up to their summit, we declined
  the temptation to view the surrounding mountains from so dizzy a
  height. It is very singular that these different varieties of rock
  formation should be found in so close proximity, and they furnish
  abundant food for the study of the geologist. The prevailing shape
  of the rocks is high and narrow, and some of the forms into which
  they have been brought by the forces of nature are remarkably
  beautiful and unique.

  “Passing on from this famed locality over a smooth and level
  road, we visited Glen Eyrie. This spot derives its name from an
  eagle’s nest high up in a crevice or shelf of the rocks, so our
  guide informed us, and also that within a year the eagles had
  occupied the nest, which was plainly visible to us, looking the
  size of a bushelbasket. They have now abandoned the place. The
  name Glen Eyrie is given to a large tract of land belonging to
  General Palmer, president of the Denver and Rio Grande Railroad. He
  has fenced in this wild tract, opened a road across it, and in a
  nook close under the towering rocks by which it is surrounded and
  far from any other habitation he has built a costly and elegant
  residence. The dwelling stands at the foot or entrance to Queen’s
  Cañon, a narrow gorge up which we traveled on foot the distance of
  half a mile till we reached a pool or basin of water, eight or ten
  feet in diameter, which blocked our further progress. This pool is
  known as the Devil’s Punchbowl, but General Palmer has named it the
  Mermaid’s Bathtub. Whether either devils or mermaids come here to
  either drink or bathe, history does not record. Our path was over
  big stones and rocks, and along the bed of a mountain torrent,
  which we crossed several times, stepping from rock to rock as our
  path led first to one side and then to the other. High above us
  on either side the mountains rose to a great height, their sides
  covered at times with the evergreen pine and scrub-oak, and again
  consisting simply of bare and naked rocks ready at any moment
  apparently to tumble down upon our heads. Our guide informed us
  that General Palmer has already spent forty or fifty thousand
  dollars upon the house and grounds of Glen Eyrie. I would not give
  him one thousand for the whole thing.

  “After the exploration of Queen’s Cañon our party voted unanimously
  to proceed to Monument Park, a distance of five miles, which we
  reached just in time to enjoy a most excellent dinner prepared for
  us by Mrs. Lewis, whose husband is an extensive cattle-raiser and
  lives in a comfortable dwelling at the entrance of the park. We
  are told that he came a confirmed consumptive, but has now become
  a strong and healthy man. This we could well believe, for in this
  locality the air was wonderfully pure, dry and bracing, and our
  party greatly enjoyed its exhilarating effects. Dinner over, we
  proceeded to explore the Park and gaze upon its unique formations.
  I do not feel competent to adequately describe them. The rocks
  are unlike any others in Colorado. They are nearly white with a
  yellowish tinge and often pyramidal in form. Standing out from the
  general mass are numerous statue-like columns, which seem to have
  been carved by the hand of man. They bear various designations,
  such as Adam and Eve, Lot’s Wife, the Democratic Caucus, Henry Ward
  Beecher’s Pulpit, the Dutch Wedding, the Anvil, etc., etc. They
  range from eight to fifteen feet in height and, what is singular,
  all of them are crowned with a flat rocky cap considerably larger
  than the top of the column on which it rests. This covering is
  composed of materials different from the statue itself, being of
  a harder or darker substance, considerable iron being mixed with
  its other constituents. I noticed one exact form of a bottle or
  decanter, large and round, with a small neck. This was smaller than
  the forms that surrounded it, but it had the same flat cap-stone
  that surmounted all the others. How came these statues here? Who
  can tell? Some of our party said the rocks had been washed away
  in the progress of ages from around them and left them standing
  out boldly by themselves, a puzzle and a wonder to all beholders.
  But some of them rise from a level plain, standing alone, with no
  rocks near them, and no evidence of any having been washed away.
  They rise from the ground, a solid column, and look as though
  placed there by the hand of man to mark the spot of some great
  event or the tomb of some departed one. Men have their theories,
  but the mystery is buried in the darkness of ages and none solve it
  satisfactorily. We leave them to their solitude and silence and,
  awe-stricken and subdued, turn our faces whence we came.

                                                              “A. B.”


ADOPTED CHILDREN.

No children of her own came to the home of Mrs. Bloomer, but she
cared carefully and almost continually for the children of others.
Her residence, whether in the east or the west, was hardly ever
without their presence. Nieces and nephews were nearly always under
her roof, and some of them remained with her until they had homes of
their own. Soon after her removal to Council Bluffs, a little boy
was adopted into her family and his sister came to it a few years
later. These were carefully cared for, instructed and educated, and
remained with her until they took their welfare into their own hands.
Both have now families of their own, one residing in Oregon and the
other in Arizona. The boy, Edward, took her name, and his children
bear it also. For him as a boy and a man, and for his children,
she ever manifested the warmest interest, preparing and sending to
them each year boxes of clothing and other articles designed to add
to their comfort and happiness in their distant home. In the early
days of Council Bluffs, not a few of the teachers in the public
schools resided in her family. They were mostly young women and she
always strove to afford to them a pleasant and comfortable home.
She ever insisted that the wages of young women employed as teachers
by the school board should be the same as those paid to men. Her
position was that, so long as they did an equal amount of work and
did it equally well, they should receive equal pay, and this is an
argument which never has been and never can be successfully answered,
although school boards continue to set it aside as unworthy of their
consideration.


CHRISTIAN LIFE AND WORK.

Mrs. Bloomer was a zealous worker in the church of which she was
a member, as well as in all efforts to promote the spread of true
Christianity. While a resident of Seneca Falls, she contributed her
full share to the various agencies employed to advance the interests
of the parish. She was zealous and faithful in attending church
services and all gatherings whether social or festive to advance
church interests. Modest and retiring in demeanor, she took her place
calmly and pleasantly wherever called upon to labor, and found her
chief reward In the approval of a good conscience.

After her removal to her new home in the West, much additional labor
came to her in the untrodden field in which her lot was cast. When
she took up her residence in Council Bluffs, society was unorganized,
without places of worship, and without any of the religious or moral
agencies of older communities. We have seen in her personal memoirs
how she was very soon called into the work before her. For two years
none of the religious services to which she had been accustomed were
held in the town, except that occasionally a bishop or minister made
his way thither; when they came along, these always found a genuine
welcome in her home. It is remembered that Bishops Kemper and Lee,
and the Rev. Edward W. Peet, were among her guests during the first
year of her residence. They all held religious services in the little
Congregational church building which then stood on Main Street. At
last a young missionary arrived and took up his residence, making
his first home with Mrs. Bloomer in her modest dwelling under the
bluff. And so it was in future years; whenever new clergymen of her
denomination came to begin their work in town, they all uniformly
found a home and resting place in her house until permanent quarters
were secured. Clergymen, temperance lecturers, reformers of almost
all kinds, among them advocates of woman’s enfranchisement, always
found a welcome place at her table. On one occasion, being alone
in the house during her husband’s absence, she was thrown into
great trepidation at finding that her guest for the night (who had
just come up from the bloody fields of Kansas) was armed both with
bowie-knife and revolver; but the night passed in safety, for the
owner of these appalling weapons was one of the noble men who periled
their lives to win that state for freedom.

The building up of a new community was in those days attended
with great labor and called for unflinching courage and steady
perseverance. Churches had to be erected, school-houses built,
libraries established and good works of all kinds encouraged. In all
this Mrs. Bloomer did her full part. The support of the minister and
the building of churches, especially, fell largely upon the women.
They held festivals and collected money for these objects. They
organized and maintained sewing societies and gave entertainments of
various kinds for these objects. Mrs. Bloomer was among the active
workers in this field. She was for many years secretary and treasurer
of the Woman’s Aid Society in her parish, a society which contributed
many thousands of dollars towards the erection of three successive
churches and wholly built the rectory, as well as contributed largely
in other ways towards the support of the parish. In 1880 she was
president of the Art Loan-Exhibition given for the joint benefit of
the city library and the church, one of the most successful efforts
of the kind ever held in the city. On the parish register of her
church under the date of 1856 her name stands as that of the first
woman admitted to membership, and until within a few months of her
decease, when she was prevented by bodily infirmities, she was
a regular attendant upon the services. She was, however, no mere
copyist, taking the words or teachings of others without thought
or examination; but looked into all questions, theological, social
or reformatory, for herself, and her clergymen will bear testimony
to the many discussions they held with her on these and kindred
subjects. One occasion her husband recalls: He came to his dinner at
the usual hour, but found his wife and a visiting clergyman engaged
in warm argument. They had been at it all the forenoon, the breakfast
table standing as left in the morning and all preparations for dinner
being forgotten. Of course, he enjoyed a good laugh at their expense.


HER CHARACTER ANALYZED.

Mrs. Bloomer was a great critic, and for that reason may not have
been so popular with her associates as she otherwise might have
been. Her criticisms, possibly, were sometimes too unsparing and
too forcibly expressed. She had strong perceptive faculties and
noticed what she believed to be the mistakes and failings of others,
perhaps, too freely. No one ever attacked her, in print or otherwise,
without receiving a sharp reply either from tongue or pen if it
was in her power to answer. But no person ever had a kinder heart,
or more earnestly desired the happiness of others, or more readily
forgot or forgave their failings. Perhaps, she was deficient in the
quality of humor and took life too seriously; this over-earnestness,
however, if it existed at all, it is believed was brought out more
fully by dwelling so much upon what she regarded as the wrongs of
her sex and the degradation to which they were subjected through
unjust laws and the curse of strong drink. The same charge, that of
taking things too seriously, has recently been made by a noted writer
against the women of the present day who are battling for what they
conceive to be the sacred rights of women.


ABOUT THE FIRST SINNER.

Although Mrs. Bloomer was a member of one of the more conservative
branches of the Christian community, she was an earnest advocate
of woman’s admission to all departments of Christian work. She
repudiated the notion that woman was so great a sinner in the Garden
of Eden that she should be forever excluded from ministerial work and
responsibilities. As to the first sin in the garden, here is her view
of it as stated by herself:

  “How any unprejudiced and unbiased mind can read the original
  account of the Creation and Fall and gather therefrom that the
  woman committed the greater sin, I cannot understand. When Eve
  was first asked to eat of the forbidden fruit she refused, and it
  was only after her scruples were overcome by promises of great
  knowledge that she gave way to sin. But how was it with Adam
  who was with her? He took and ate what she offered him without
  any scruples of conscience, or promises on her part of great
  things to follow—certainly showing no superiority of goodness, or
  intellect, or strength of character fitting him for the headship.
  The command not to eat of the Tree of Life was given to him before
  her creation, and he was doubly bound to keep it; yet he not only
  permitted her to partake of the tree without remonstrating with
  her against it and warning her of the wrong, but ate it himself
  without objection or hesitation. And then, when inquired of by
  God concerning what he had done, instead of standing up like an
  honorable man and confessing the wrong, he weakly tried to shield
  himself by throwing the blame on the woman. As the account stands,
  he showed the greater ‘feebleness of resistance and evinced a
  pliancy of character and a readiness to yield to temptation’ that
  cannot be justly charged to the woman. As the account stands, man
  has much more to blush for than to boast of.

  “While we are willing to accept this original account of the
  Creation and Fall, we are not willing that man should add tenfold
  to woman’s share of sin and put a construction on the whole matter
  that we believe was never intended by the Creator. Eve had no more
  to do with bringing sin into the world than had Adam, nor did the
  Creator charge any more upon her. The punishment inflicted upon
  them for their transgression, was as heavy upon him as upon her.
  Her sorrows were to be multiplied; and so, too, was he to eat his
  bread in sorrow and earn it with the sweat of his face amid thorns
  and thistles. To her, no injunction to labor was given; upon her
  no toil was imposed, no ground cursed for her sake. * * * * The
  Bible is brought forward to prove the subordination of woman and
  to show that, because St. Paul told the ignorant women of his time
  to keep silent in the churches, the educated, intelligent women of
  these times must not only occupy the same position in the church
  and the family but must not aspire to the rights of citizenship.
  But the same Power that brought the slave out of bondage will, in
  His own good time and way, bring about the emancipation of woman
  and make her the equal in dominion that she was in the beginning.”


GOLDEN ANNIVERSARY.

On the 15th of April, 1890, Mr. and Mrs. Bloomer commemorated the
Fiftieth Anniversary of their marriage at their home in Council
Bluffs. Many invitations were issued, nearly all of which were
generously responded to, and their house was filled with guests from
three o’clock in the afternoon when the reception began until late
in the evening. Over one hundred persons were in attendance. A local
paper describes the affair as follows:

  “The reception of the guests began at three o’clock. At the
  front-parlor entrance stood Mr. Bloomer attired in a black
  broadcloth suit. Next to him sat Mrs. Bloomer. She wore a
  black-satin costume _en train_ with gray damascene front, _crêpe_
  lace in the neck, diamond ornaments. There were present Chas. A.
  Bloomer and wife, of Buffalo, N. Y., N. J. Milliken and wife, of
  Ontario County, N. Y., and Miss Hannah Kennedy, of Omaha. Chas.
  A. Bloomer is a brother of D. C. Bloomer, and is president of the
  Buffalo Elevator Company. N. J. Milliken is a nephew by marriage
  and publisher of the _Ontario County Times_, of New York. These
  constituted the reception company. The evening reception commenced
  at eight o’clock, and lasted until a late hour. Among the callers
  were the vestry of St. Paul’s Church, who paid their respects in a
  body to the worthy couple.”

Mrs. Harris read a beautiful poem, and an original poem was also read
by Mrs. C. K. White, of Omaha, and Prof. McNaughton, superintendent
of city schools, read the following address:

  “To Mr. and Mrs. Bloomer: It seems meet and proper on this joyous
  occasion that the public schools, their officers and teachers
  and pupils, should send kindly greetings to one who for the past
  thirty-five years has extended to them a generous sympathy and, in
  the earlier days of their existence, rendered them distinguished
  service by aiding in the erection of a well-planned and commodious
  edifice, the adoption of a wise curriculum, and the laying of a
  broad and deep foundation upon which has been reared the fair
  structure of to-day; one who has aided the teachers and pupils
  by words of wise counsel and kindly sympathy and is, by common
  consent, regarded as the father of the public-school system of the
  city.

  “To you, Mr. Bloomer, and your estimable and noted wife, in
  behalf of the public schools of the city, I wish to offer sincere
  and hearty congratulations; congratulations that, under a rare
  dispensation of Providence, you have been permitted to enjoy
  together a half-century of companionship in the sacred bonds of
  family ties—fifty years of mutual helpfulness and love! fifty years
  of sowing and reaping together in the fields whose fruitage is
  intelligent progress and eternal joy! And now, amid the abundance
  of the harvest, in the golden glories of life’s autumn, may you be
  long permitted to remain among your devoted and admiring friends!”

The following letter from Miss Susan B. Anthony was received and read:

                                      “_Washington, April 9th, 1890._

  “My Dear Friends, Mr. and Mrs. Bloomer:—

  “And is your Golden Wedding to be here April 15, 1890? That seems
  quite as impossible as that I should have rounded out my three
  score and ten years on February 15, 1890, just two months before.

  “Well, your lives have been side by side for a whole half-century,
  and this, too, when the wife has been one of the public advocates
  of the equality of rights, civil and political, for women. I hardly
  believe another twain made one, where the wife belonged to the
  school of equal rights for women, have lived more happily, more
  truly one.

  “Your celebration of your fiftieth wedding day is one of the
  strongest proofs of the falseness of the charge brought against
  our movement for the enfranchisement of women, viz., that the
  condition of equality of political rights for the wife will cause
  inharmony and disruption of the marriage bond. To the contrary,
  such conditions of perfect equality are the best helps to make for
  peace and harmony and elevation in all true and noble directions.
  Hence I rejoice with you on having reached the golden day of your
  marriage union, not only for your own sakes, but for our cause’s
  sake as well.

  “I wish I could be present in your happy home on that day, but the
  marriage of my younger sister’s son, on April 17th, takes me to
  Cleveland to witness the starting out of two dear young people on
  the way you have traveled so long and so well.

  “So, with gratitude for the good work done in the first fifty years
  of your married life, and wishing for you many more equally happy,
  and hoping that both you and I and Mrs. Stanton and others of the
  pioneers of our great movement may live to see not only Wyoming
  fully in the Union but many others redeemed from the curse of sex
  aristocracy, hoping _and believing_ I am

        “Very sincerely yours,

            “Susan B. Anthony.”

The following telegram was received from Bishop Perry, of Iowa:

                                      “_Davenport, April 15th, 1890._

    “Hon. D. C and Mrs. Bloomer:—

  “Congratulations and benedictions. Fifty golden years exhaust
  neither love nor hope.

                                        “William Stevens Perry,

                                                    “Bishop of Iowa.”

Rev. G. W. Crofts also furnished a timely and very beautiful poem.
Because of his inability to attend the reception, he called upon the
couple Monday afternoon and in a few well chosen words presented
it to them. It was the production of the minister’s own pen, and
handsomely written on embossed cardboard fastened with orange-tinted
ribbons. The poem was beautifully illustrated by Miss S. D. Phere,
the cuts being the representations of a well-spent life. Upon its
receipt Mrs. Bloomer and her husband were greatly moved. The poem is
as follows:

                       “1840. April 15. 1890.

                      “TO MR. AND MRS. BLOOMER.


    “The Psalmist says that he who goes forth with tears,
      Conveying precious seed, shall doubtless come again
    Rejoicing, bringing with him sheaves. ’Tis fifty years
      Since you as one were made, and out upon the plain
    Of Life’s great field together moved, ‘mid hopes and fears,
      And in your faithful bosoms bearing golden grain.

    “To-day you come with sheaves, oh rich and golden sheaves!
      Immortal sheaves, sheaves glowing in the light of heaven
    So softly sifting down thro’ life’s autumn leaves;
      And, while the clouds that deck the sky above are riven,
    I see the angels smile. And who is there that grieves
      When noble souls in life’s great harvest-field have striven?

    “This is a day of joy and praise, a crowning day!
      Together you have walked for fifty years, and He
    Who made your hearts to beat as one thro’ all the way
      Has been your guide, His voice has stilled the stormy sea;
    In darkest hours, you’ve heavenward looked and seen the ray
      Of cloudless hope shine down with sweet tranquillity.

    “When worn with toil, His loving arms have given you rest;
      Sustaining grace He gave when you were weak and faint;
    When sorrows came, ’twas then the haven of His breast
      That opened wide and took you in. To each complaint
    He lent His ear. In all things, you were truly blest
      And ever upward drawn by love’s divine constraint.

    “And now upon a lofty Mount you stand and look
      Back o’er your pilgrim way; back o’er the fields you’ve sown
    You see the stubborn soil, the burning sun, the nook
      Where you did rest; and all the way is overstrown
    With flowers; flower-wreathed you see the plow and pruning-hook.
      And on that Mount there comes to you a fadeless crown.

    “To Faithfulness there comes a crown, a Crown of Life;
      ’Tis one the Lord doth give to those who serve Him well,
    To heroes true and strong amid the daily strife
      ’Tween right and wrong. For such, the sweetest anthems swell
    By holy angels sung, and joy on earth is rife,
      While thro’ the vanished years you hear a golden bell.

    “Foremost in every noble work, in every cause
      Where God leads on, where Light is seen, where Truth is heard,
    There have you stood from first to last, the eternal laws
      Of Right obeyed. Where’er your lips could frame a word
    To voice the thought, a hand could strike the great applause
      Of onward march, your helpful force has been conferred.

    “To you, this day, a grateful people tribute bring
      For all you’ve been to them, for all your steadfastness,
    For all your words and deeds; for every noble thing,
      They would this day your true and honest worth confess;
    They would a golden cup, filled from Affection’s spring,
      Hold out to you, and thus their gratitude express.

    “Take, then, the Crown. Both heaven and earth proclaim it yours,
      The Sower’s crown, the Reaper’s crown, that glows with light,
    That glows with light and love, and one that aye endures.
      The Evening Star, that hangs upon the fringe of night
    And, like a lamp, the weary wanderer allures
      And tells him of his home afar, is not more bright.

    “Look round you, then, crowned as you are, and upward, too:
      Here shine the golden sheaves; there gleam the jasper walls;
    Around you gather here the noble, good and true,
      With hearts aglow, and chant their tender madrigals.
    Around, above, all things are wreathed in smiles for you,
      While on you, like a burst of sun, God’s blessings fall!”

Many valuable presents were received. One was an elegant silver
tea-set from the lawyers of the city; another a beautiful ice-cream
set of solid silver in a handsomely ornamented plush case of old-gold
velvet, from the rector and vestrymen of St. Paul’s Church. Other
elegant souvenirs were sent in by friends from abroad. Indeed, the
gifts were so numerous and of so great variety that they almost
proved a burden to the recipients who, however, realized that they
came to them from generous friends with hearts full of love and
kindness, and most thankfully received them.


CLOSING YEARS.

Following this happy anniversary, Mrs. Bloomer’s life moved gradually
along to its close. In 1891, after returning home from a visit to
the Chautauqua Grounds near her residence, she suffered a partial
paralysis of her vocal organs and for a short time lost the power
of speech; but this trouble soon gradually passed away so that she
was once more able to converse with her friends, although not so
freely and readily as formerly. Her mind was still clear and her
memory remarkably good, and it was during this period that she
wrote the reminiscences given in the earlier part of this work. She
gradually lost to a considerable extent the activity of movement
for which in earlier days she had been noted, and her husband was
easily able now to keep up with her in their walks on the streets.
Mrs. Bloomer retained her youthful traits to a remarkable degree,
even in advanced years, and her friends frequently noted this and
complimented her on her vigor and cheerfulness. On meeting them, she
was ever bright and cheerful and had a pleasant smile and word of
encouragement for all.

Her early religious convictions remained unimpaired to the end
of her life. So long as health permitted, she was a constant and
regular attendant upon the services of her church and at the monthly
celebration of the Holy Communion. She was active in every good work
in the parish, and a steady friend of all benevolent enterprises
in the city. During the last few years of her life, she gave much
thought to the teachings of Christian Science and read and studied
the writings of Mrs. Eddy and others on that subject. While she never
gave her adhesion to its peculiar doctrines, yet she found in them
very much that she deemed worthy of careful consideration. She bore
witness to some of the remarkable results following their application
to disease in its various forms; and, on the whole, their study
enlarged her views on religious subjects and perhaps enabled her to
look with greater calmness upon the vicissitudes of the present life
and the untried realities of the life beyond.

To Mrs. Mary J. Coggshell, of Des Moines, Iowa, who had then recently
lost her husband, she wrote in 1889 as follows: “My heart goes out
to you in love and sympathy in this sad bereavement, and I pray that
the Almighty Father may sustain and comfort you and give you strength
to bear up under the great affliction. Mourn not for your beloved
one as dead, but think of him as only transferred to another sphere
of existence where he still lives and will await your coming. We
believe that the life that God gave can never die, that the grave has
no power over the spirit, but that it will live on forever doing the
Father’s will.”

Her last journey was made to Colorado, in the latter part of the
summer of 1894. She spent about two weeks at Colorado Springs and
Manitou, mainly in taking electric treatment at the sanatorium of
Mrs. Doctor Leonard who had long been an intimate friend; but was
prevented by impaired strength from again visiting with her husband
many of the interesting places of the vicinity. Another week was
spent in a visit to a dear niece and her family in southern Colorado;
she returned home about the middle of August, somewhat improved in
health and strength. She continued to occasionally accept the kind
invitations of her friends to social gatherings, and spent her last
Christmas at the home and table of N. P. Dodge, one of the most
prominent citizens of Council Bluffs, where she met also her old
and long-known neighbor and friend, Mrs. M. F. Davenport. This was,
however, the last time she was able to leave her residence. Friends
and neighbors continued to visit her to the end and on Friday,
December 28th, several were with her during nearly the entire day;
they remembered that she appeared remarkably bright and cheerful. The
final attack came on the evening of that day, and her brave and noble
spirit passed away at twelve o’clock noon on the following Sunday,
December 30th, 1894.

Of her last sickness and death, the Council Bluffs _Daily Nonpareil_
of January 1st, 1895, gave the following report:


“END OF AN EARNEST LIFE.

  “Mrs. Amelia Jenks Bloomer died at her home, No. 123 Fourth Street,
  Sunday at noon of heart failure at the advanced age of 76. For
  years she had been afflicted with stomach trouble, which gradually
  affected her heart and brought on a serious attack last Friday,
  from which she never rallied.

  “About six o’clock in the evening she was sitting in her accustomed
  place reading, when suddenly she fell back in her chair and
  exclaimed: ‘I am sick; I am sicker than I ever was before in my
  life.’ Her husband was sitting opposite to her at the time and
  quickly came to her assistance. She was in intense pain, and a
  physician was at once summoned. He was unable to give her much
  relief and she continued in a very critical condition during the
  night and all day Saturday.


“PASSES AWAY PEACEFULLY.

  “It soon became evident that she could not rally from the attack
  and the physicians told Mr. Bloomer and the anxious friends about
  her bedside that she could not recover. She was conscious during
  the entire time and bore her suffering bravely. Sunday morning she
  began to sink rapidly. Towards the end her pain seemed to leave
  her, and she fell into a quiet sleep from which she never awoke.
  Her husband was at her bedside holding her hand and noted the
  gradual slowing of the pulse which ceased to be perceptible about
  noon, when he knew she had passed away.


“GREAT LOSS TO COUNCIL BLUFFS.

  “In the death of Mrs. Amelia Bloomer Council Bluffs loses one of
  its oldest and most prominent residents. She was one of the early
  pioneers of the west and for many years has been a striking,
  picturesque character of western Iowa. Her prominence in the
  woman-suffrage movement made her one of the eminent American women
  of the century. Her name has become firmly linked with every reform
  movement for the uplifting and betterment of woman’s condition
  during the last fifty years.


“HER LIFE A BUSY ONE.

  “Her life was an intensely busy one, filled with many deeds of
  kindness and charity aside from the active part she always took
  in the temperance cause and the advancement of her sex. During
  her last years, however, she was unable to actively engage in the
  work, but was always ready and willing to discuss these cherished
  subjects in her characteristic, fluent manner. Up to within a
  few years of her death she had been a contributor to prominent
  journals, and her advice and counsel was always highly esteemed by
  the more active workers of the equal-rights cause. Her death will
  be felt throughout the entire nation as an irreparable loss to the
  cause she so warmly espoused.


“HER CHRISTIAN CHARACTER.

  “Although her death will bring sorrow to many a friend, the
  remembrance of her kindly life and true, Christian character will
  remain as an inspiration to them for all time to come. Earnest and
  steadfast as were her life and character, so she died trusting in
  the faith that has always shone through her kind words and deeds.
  She will never be forgotten, for her influence, with that of other
  good women, has done more to make the civilization of the west a
  possibility than the many inventions of modern science. Her great
  strength of character, manifested by her earnest and energetic
  life, was a part of the truly essential civilizing influence
  that sustained the early settlers in the rough experiences of
  the frontier. It was her intention before she died to publish
  reminiscences of these stirring times, and her sudden death left
  several manuscripts unfinished. What has been missed by her sudden
  taking off, leaving this work incomplete, can only be judged by
  those who knew her best.


“LARGE CIRCLE OF FRIENDS.

  “Mrs. Bloomer’s circle of friends in Council Bluffs was large,
  and she was highly esteemed and loved by all who knew her. She
  was an excellent entertainer, and was a great favorite among the
  young people of the Episcopal Church of which she was a faithful
  member. She was very fond of society and took an active part in
  church and charitable work. Her death, although she has been an
  invalid for several years, was very sudden. On Christmas day, she
  was able to be about and with her husband took dinner at the home
  of Mr. and Mrs. N. P. Dodge. She was in excellent spirits at the
  time and enjoyed the holiday festivities with much interest. On the
  day of her last attack, a number of friends called upon her and
  she spent the afternoon pleasantly chatting with them. The sudden
  announcement of her death came as a shock, for the fact of her
  serious illness had not yet become generally known.”


MEMORIAL DISCOURSE.

  On the thirteenth of January, 1895, her rector, Rev. Eugene J.
  Babcock, delivered a memorial discourse on the life and character
  of Mrs. Bloomer in St. Paul’s Church, Council Bluffs. In this he
  reviewed the main incidents in Mrs. Bloomer’s life, and concluded
  as follows:

  “Mrs. Bloomer also held the relation of pioneer to this parish. On
  the two registers in my possession the first woman’s name is hers.

  “On my journey hither to assume the rectorship, I visited by the
  way at my former home in Michigan. There I first learned of Mrs.
  Bloomer from a gentleman whom I had met in a college connection
  while I was an undergraduate. He was a former resident of Seneca
  Falls, and informed me that in my new home I should meet a unique
  and striking person in Mrs. Bloomer, whose early days were
  associated with a remarkable career; that she was now living
  quietly, ill health having compelled her to forego active duties;
  and that she was now advanced in years.

  “Our arrival here was signalized by becoming guests in the Senior
  Warden’s home. In this we did as all the clergy had done before,
  for no other home in this city has been the hospitable asylum
  for so many of the cloth. Among ourselves, the happy descriptive
  of ‘Saints’ Rest’ has come in vogue. From Mrs. Bloomer that
  pleasant smile, which often had to triumph over bodily ailment,
  was my greeting. This showing of hospitality was in keeping with
  her ambition, which she frequently sacrificed to her personal
  discomfort.

  “Going back to a view of her early days, we are prepared now to
  forecast her activity in church affairs. Such a nature could not
  sit by with hands folded. Following her acceptance of gospel
  privileges through which she came into this church, she immediately
  entered into parish activities at Seneca Falls. Being a woman of
  action, she did her part in the then somewhat limited sphere of
  woman’s church work. Little as it may have been comparatively, it
  was another demand upon her already enlarging engagements.

  “Her removal to this city deprived her of the worship of her
  own church. The then line of demarcation of the religious public
  into ‘Mormons’ and ‘Gentiles’ very likely infused into the latter
  a fellow sympathy. Soon after her settlement here, the Rev. Mr.
  Rice invited her to attend a meeting of a sewing society which was
  held at his house. This happened to be the annual meeting; she was
  elected president of the society, and Mrs. Douglas first director.
  In her ‘Early Recollections’ her felicitous comment is this: ‘Thus
  putting their affairs in the hands of two Episcopalians.’ But
  evidently affairs did not suffer at their hands, for they ‘carried
  through a successful fair’ which secured money to put the first
  church of the Congregationalists into shape for use.

  “Her usual interest in what concerned her came out in the
  organization of this parish. She entered with the same
  characteristic zeal and expenditure of means into its upbuilding,
  both as to what was preliminary and also permanent. She has been a
  good example of what woman can do, and faithful in her service. The
  women of this parish have worked so assiduously in raising money
  that among men it has become a lost art.

  “In spite of advanced years and impairment of strength, she
  responded with her kindly support to my call for organization
  of a Woman’s Parochial Aid Society. Her kindness to me was ever
  constant and uniform, and her ingenuous frankness such as I always
  enjoyed. Plain and albeit of rugged candor in her speech, such is
  better for this world than the honey covering of deceit. A former
  Rector, the Rev. Mr. Webb, writes respecting her: ‘My impression
  of her kindness of heart is that it never failed; and I believe
  more firmly than ever that it was God’s own cause which she so
  characteristically espoused, and labored so long and faithfully to
  promote.’

  “She had the habit of clipping from newspapers whatever took her
  fancy. Her recent quiet and somewhat afflicted living, owing to
  her illness, was given to reading, needle work and entertaining of
  guests when circumstances admitted. As the golden clouds brightened
  in the west of her life’s decline, there came a strong inward
  faith. A late clipping seems to speak her thought: ‘As the weeks
  and months fly past, do you not think that the spirit of our daily
  prayer ought to be—

    “‘Break, my soul, from every fetter,
        Him to know is all my cry;
      Saviour, I am thine forever,
      Thine to live and thine to die,
           Only asking
      More and more of life’s supply’?’

  “She passed into Paradise on Sunday, December 30, 1894, and left a
  name worthy to be entered among the illustrious galaxy of notables
  whom the past year has numbered with the dead. On a beautiful
  winter’s day, all that remained of mortality was brought to this
  church, so large an object of her affection, and here, with
  impressive funeral rites which speak comfortably our blessed hope,
  we committed her body to the ground. And as the sweet notes of the
  committal anthem broke in upon the constrained stillness of the
  scene, how appropriate were the words—mutely echoed by the hushed
  assembly: ‘Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord * * * for they
  rest from their labors’!”

In a grassy plat in beautiful Fairview Cemetery, overlooking the
cities of Council Bluffs and Omaha, lies the grave of the true woman,
the earnest reformer, the faithful Christian, whose history is
delineated in these pages; and near its foot stands a modest monument
bearing this inscription:

                            “IN MEMORIAM

                 AMELIA JENKS, WIFE OF D. C. BLOOMER

                        DIED DEC. 30TH, 1894

                 AGED 76 YEARS, 7 MONTHS, AND 3 DAYS

                A PIONEER IN WOMAN’S ENFRANCHISEMENT”

And here the author and compiler, commending these pages to the
kindly consideration of his readers, brings his labor of love to a
close.




APPENDIX.




APPENDIX.


WOMAN’S RIGHT TO THE BALLOT.

BY AMELIA BLOOMER.

  It is a principle of all free governments that the people rule.
  Each member of the community, in theory at least, is supposed to
  give assent to Constitution and laws to which he is subject; or,
  at least, it is assumed that these were made by a majority of the
  people. And this assent is given according to forms previously
  prescribed. The people vote directly upon the adoption of the
  Constitution, and by their representatives in making the laws.
  And since all the people must be subject to the Constitution and
  laws, so all the people should be consulted in their formation;
  that is, all who are of sufficient age and discretion to express
  an intelligent opinion. No one who claims to be a republican
  or lover of freedom at heart can dispute these positions. They
  are in substance the principles promulgated in the Declaration
  of Independence, and they form the common basis upon which our
  national and state governments rest. When they shall cease to be
  recognized and respected by the people and by our lawmakers, then
  free institutions will cease to exist.

  But I presume their correctness, when applied to man, will be
  doubted by none; for man is willing enough to claim for himself the
  full recognition of all the high prerogatives I have shown him to
  be entitled to. But I hold more than this to be true. I hold that
  these rights belong, not to man alone, but to the race, and to
  each individual member of it, without regard to sex. I hold that
  woman has as good and rightful a claim to them as her brother, and
  that the man who denies this claim is not only no good democrat,
  and much less a good republican, but that in being guilty of this
  denial he commits an act of the grossest injustice and oppression.
  And I insist, not only that woman is entitled to the enjoyment
  of all these rights which God and nature have bestowed upon the
  race, but that she is entitled to the same means of enforcing
  those rights as man; and that therefore she should be heard in the
  formation of Constitutions, in the making of the laws, and in the
  selection of those by whom the laws are administered.

  In this country there is one great tribunal by which all theories
  must be tried, all principles tested, all measures settled: and
  that tribunal is the ballot-box. It is the medium through which
  public opinion finally makes itself heard. Deny to any class in
  the community the right to be heard at the ballot-box and that
  class sinks at once into a state of slavish dependence, of civil
  insignificance, which nothing can save from becoming subjugation,
  oppression and wrong.

  From what I have said you will of course understand that I hold,
  not only that the exclusion of woman from the ballot-box is
  grossly unjust, but that is her duty—so soon as she is permitted
  to do so—to go to it and cast her vote along with her husband and
  brother; and that, until she shall do so, we can never expect to
  have a perfectly just and upright government under which the rights
  of the people—of all the people—are respected and secured.

  It is objected that it does not belong to woman’s sphere to take
  part in the selection of her rulers, or the enactment of laws to
  which she is subject.

  This is mere matter of opinion. Woman’s sphere, like man’s sphere,
  varies according to the aspect under which we view it, or the
  circumstances in which she may be placed. A vast majority of the
  British nation would deny the assumption that Queen Victoria is
  out of her sphere in reigning over an empire of an hundred and
  fifty millions of souls! And if she is not out of her sphere in
  presiding over the destinies of a vast empire, why should any woman
  in this republic be denied her place among a nation of sovereigns?
  There is no positive rule by which to fix woman’s sphere, except
  that of capacity. It is to be found, I should say, wherever duty
  or interest may call her,—whether to the kitchen, the parlor, the
  nursery, the workshop or the public assembly. And, most certainly,
  no narrow contracted view of her sphere can suffice to deprive her
  of any of those rights which she has inherited with her being.

  Again, it is objected that it would be immodest and ‘unbecoming a
  lady’ for women to go to the ballot-box to vote, or to the halls of
  the capitol to legislate.

  This, too, is mere matter of opinion, and depends for its
  correctness upon the particular fashions or customs of the
  people. In deciding upon what is appropriate or inappropriate for
  individuals or classes the community is exceedingly capricious.
  In one country, or in one age, of the world, a particular act may
  be considered as entirely proper which in another age or country
  may be wholly condemned. But a few years ago it was thought very
  unladylike and improper for women to study medicine, and when
  Elizabeth Blackwell forced her way into the Geneva, N. Y., medical
  college people were amazed at the presumption. But she graduated
  with high honors, went to Europe to perfect her studies, and now
  stands high in her chosen profession. She let down the bars to
  a hitherto proscribed sphere. Others followed her lead, and now
  there are several colleges for the medical education of women, and
  women physicians without number; and the world applauds rather than
  condemns.

  It is not a great many years since women sculptors were unknown,
  because woman’s talent was not encouraged. Some years ago a
  match-girl of Boston fashioned a bust of Rufus Choate in plaster
  and placed it in a show window, hoping some benevolent lover of
  art might be so attracted by it as to aid her to educate herself
  in the profession of sculpture. A gentleman who saw great merit
  in it inquired who was the artist, and when told that it was a
  young girl, exclaimed, ‘What a pity she is not a boy!’ He saw that
  such talent in a boy would be likely to make him famous and enrich
  the world. But a girl had no right to such gifts. It would be an
  unladylike profession for her, and so she must bury her God-given
  talent and keep to match selling and dish washing. A few years
  later Harriet Hosmer overleaped the obstacles that stood in her way
  and went to Rome to undertake the work of a sculptor. The world now
  rings with her praises and is enriched by her genius. She, too,
  removed barriers to a hitherto proscribed sphere and proved that
  the All-Father in committing a talent to woman’s trust gave along
  with it a right to use it. Vinnie Ream and others have followed
  in the way thus opened, and no one now questions the propriety of
  women working in plaster or marble.

  And so of many other departments of trade, profession and labor
  that within my recollection were not thought proper for woman,
  simply because she had not entered them. Women are debarred from
  voting and legislating, and therefore it is unfashionable for them
  to do either; but let their right to do so be once established, and
  all objections of that kind will vanish away.

  And I must say I can conceive of nothing so terrible within the
  precincts of the ballot-box as to exclude woman therefrom. Who
  go there now? Our fathers, brothers, husbands, and sons. And do
  they act so badly while there that they dare not suffer us to go
  with them? If it is really so bad a place surely they should stay
  away from it themselves, for I hold that any place that is too
  corrupt for woman to go to is also too corrupt for man to go to.
  ‘An atmosphere that is too impure for woman to breathe cannot but
  be dangerous to her sires and sons.’ We mingle with our gentlemen
  friends elsewhere with safety and pleasure, and I cannot think it
  possible that the exercise of the right of franchise turns them at
  once into ruffians.

  Yet we are gravely told that woman would be treated with rudeness
  and insult should she go to the polls in the exercise of a right
  guaranteed to her by the laws of her country.

  And would you, sir objector, be the one to do this? Would you
  insult the wife or mother or sister of your neighbor? I think not.
  Then judge other men by yourself and believe that, as each man, the
  low as well as the high, would have some female relative or friend
  with him there, each would be equally careful for the safety of
  those belonging to him and careful also of his own language and
  deportment. And should one dare to offer insult would there not,
  think you, be a score of stout arms to fell the insulter to the
  earth?

  Men will behave as well I verily believe at the polls as at other
  public assemblies, if they will permit woman to go with them
  there; and if they have behaved badly heretofore, which from their
  continual asseverations we must believe to be the case, it is
  because woman has not always been there with them.

  The idea advanced that woman would become debased by participating
  in so important and sacred a duty as the selection of those who
  are to be placed in power, and to whom are to be committed the
  interests and happiness of the whole people, comes with a bad grace
  from men, who are ever claiming for her superior natural virtues.
  They should remember that God made her woman, that He gave her
  equal dominion with man over the world and all that is therein,
  and endowed her with high moral faculties, keen perceptions of
  right, and a love of virtue and justice, and it is not easy to
  change her nature. Her delicacy and sensitiveness will take care
  of themselves, in any exposure, and she will be as safe at the
  polls as at political and other conventions, at state and county
  and church fairs, at railroad and Fourth of July celebrations, and
  the various other crowds in which she mingles freely with men. That
  virtue is little worth which cannot bear itself unharmed through a
  crowd, or awe and frown down impudence whenever it meets with it.
  The true woman will be woman still in whatever situation you place
  her; and man will become elevated just so far as he mingles in her
  society in the various relations of life.

  In fact this argument that it would be unsafe for woman to go to
  the polls is one that man, at least, should be ashamed to bring
  forward, inasmuch as it impeaches his own gallantry and instinctive
  regard for woman. But, if it be true that it would really be unsafe
  for us to go to the polls with our husbands and fathers, all danger
  could be avoided by our having separate places for voting apart
  from theirs.

  But here I am answered that it is not _men_ whom we have to fear so
  much as the bad of our own sex, who will rush to the polls while
  the good women will stay away. To this I have to say that I have
  never yet met a woman that I was afraid of, or from whom I feared
  contamination. In the theatre and concert and festival halls, the
  Fourth of July gatherings, in the cars, on the fair grounds, and
  any day upon the street or in the stores we meet and pass by the
  coarse, the frail, the fallen of our sex. They have the same right
  to God’s pure air and sunshine as we, and we could not deprive them
  of it if we would and would not if we could. I see not how these
  are going to harm us any more at the polls than at all these other
  places.

  The good women will vote as soon as the exercise of the right is
  granted them, and they will outnumber the bad more than a hundred
  to one. Instead then of the pure woman being contaminated, the
  vile woman will be awed and silenced in her presence, and led by
  her example into the right paths. Even those called low and vile
  have hearts that can be touched, and they will gladly seize the aid
  which the ballot and good women will bestow to raise themselves
  from the degraded condition into which bad men, bad laws and bad
  customs have plunged them.

  This objection, then, which assumes such proportions in the minds
  of many, looks very small when viewed in the light of truth and
  Christian charity. I think no man would consider it good reason for
  depriving him of rights because a bad man also enjoyed the same
  rights.

  This arguing that all women would go to the bad if allowed to vote
  because some women are bad now when none of them vote is the most
  absurd logic ever conceived in the brain of man, and if those who
  use it could see their silly reasoning in the light that sensible
  men and women see it there would be less of it. If the ballot makes
  people bad, if it is corrupting in its tendencies and destructive
  of virtue and goodness, then the sooner men are deprived of it the
  better.

  All men, good and bad, black and white, corrupt, debased,
  treacherous, criminal, may vote and make our laws, and we hear no
  word against it; but if one woman does or says aught that does
  not square with men’s ideas of what she should do and say, then
  she should not have the right of self-government, and all women
  everywhere must on that account be disfranchised and kept in
  subjection!

  Such reasoning might have answered once, but the intelligence of
  the present day rejects it, and women will not long be compelled to
  submit to its insults.

  But, again, one says votes would be unnecessarily multiplied, that
  women would vote just as the men do, therefore the man’s vote will
  answer for both. Sound logic, truly! But let us apply this rule to
  men. Votes are unnecessarily multiplied now by so many men voting;
  a few could do it all, as well as to take the mass of men from
  their business and their families to vote. My husband votes the
  republican ticket, and many other men vote just as he does; then
  why not let my husband’s vote suffice for all who think as he does,
  and send the rest about their business? What need of so many men
  voting when all vote just alike?

  Again, another says: ‘It has always been as now; women never have
  had equal rights, and that is proof that they should not have.’
  Sound logic again! Worthy emanation from man’s superior brain! But
  whence did man derive his right of franchise, and how long has he
  enjoyed it?

  It is true that women never have had equal rights, because men have
  ever acted on the principle of oppressors that might makes right
  and have kept them in subjection, just as weaker nations are kept
  in subjection to the stronger.

  But must we ever continue to act on such principles? Must we
  continue to cling to old laws and customs because they are old? Why
  then did not our people remain subject to kings? How did they dare
  to do what was not thought of in the days of Moses and Abraham? How
  dared they set aside the commands of the Bible and the customs of
  all past ages and set up a government of their own?

  It is the boast of Americans that they know and do many things
  which their fathers neither knew nor did. Progress is the law of
  our nation and progress is written upon all its works. And while
  all else is progressing to perfection, while the lowest may attain
  to the position of the highest and noblest in the land, shall woman
  alone remain stationary? Shall she be kept in a state of vassalage
  because such was the condition of her sex six thousand years ago?
  Clearly, my friends, when the prejudice of custom is on the side of
  wrong and injustice in any matter we are not to be governed by it.

  But again it is objected that if women should be enfranchised it
  would lead to discord and strife in families. In other words, to
  come down to the simple meaning of this objection, if women would
  not vote just as their husbands wanted them to the husbands would
  quarrel with them about it! And who are the men who would do this?
  Surely, not those who consider and treat their wives as equals. Not
  those who recognize the individuality of the wife and accord to her
  the right to her own opinions, the right to think for herself, and
  to act as her own sense and judgment may dictate. With such there
  would be no cause for quarrels, nothing to contend about. In such
  families all is harmony.

  It would be only those who desire to rule in their families, only
  those who regard and treat their wives as inferiors and subjects
  who would get up contentions and discord; and it is only these who
  bring forward this objection. No man who honors woman as he should
  do would ever offer so flimsy a pretext for depriving her of rights
  and enslaving her thoughts. I believe the enfranchisement of woman
  will bring with it more happiness in the marriage relation, and
  greater respect from the husband for his wife, because men are
  always more respectful to their equals than to those they deem
  their inferiors and subjects.

  Another objection of which we hear much in these days, and to
  which men invariably resort when answered on every other point, is
  that women do not want to vote. They say when _all_ the women ask
  for the right it will be granted them. Did these objectors take
  the same ground in regard to the negro? Did the colored men very
  generally petition for the right of franchise? No such petition
  was ever heard of and yet men forced the ballot unasked into their
  hands. Why then must woman sue and petition for her God-given right
  of self-government? If one human being only claims that rights are
  unjustly withheld, such claim should receive the careful attention
  and consideration of this government and people. Yet tens of
  thousands of women, subjects of their government, have made such
  claims and set forth their grievances from time to time during the
  last thirty years. They have come as suppliants before the people
  asking for rights withheld, and they have been met with sneers and
  ridicule, and told that they must wait till all the women of the
  nation humbly sue for the same thing! Would such excuse ever be
  offered for withholding rights from men?

  Again, it is said that no considerable number of women would
  exercise the right if granted. This, if true, and men do not know
  it to be so, has nothing to do with the question. Give them the
  right and let them exercise it or not as they choose. If they do
  not want to vote, and will not vote, then surely there is no need
  of restrictions to prevent their voting, and no harm can come from
  removing the obstacles that now obstruct their way.

  Men are not required to give pledges that they will vote. There
  is no compulsion in their case. They are left free to do as they
  please, or as circumstances permit. The right is accorded and there
  the matter rests.

  There is no justice in requiring more from women. That thousands
  of women would vote is pretty certain. If _all_ do not avail
  themselves of such privileges, it will be of their own choice and
  right, and not because of its denial. The ballot is the symbol of
  freedom, of equality; and because the right to use it would lift
  woman from a state of inferiority, subjection and powerlessness
  to one of equality and freedom and power we demand it for her.
  If properly educated, she will use it for the best interests of
  herself and of humanity.

  Another objection that carries great weight in the minds of many
  is that if women vote they must fight. Even some of our friends
  are puzzled how to settle this question. But a few days ago a lady
  friend asked me how we could get around it. I reply that all men
  have not earned their right to the ballot by firing the bullet in
  their country’s defense, and if only those who fight should vote
  there are many sick men, many weak little men, many deformed men,
  and many strong and able-bodied but cowardly men who should be
  disfranchised.

  These all vote but they do not fight, and fighting is not made
  a condition precedent to their right to the ballot. The law
  requires that only those of physical strength and endurance shall
  bear arms for their country, and I think not many women could be
  found to fill the law’s requirements. So they would have to be
  excused with the weak little men who are physically disqualified.
  If there are any great, strong women able to endure the marching
  and the fighting who want to go to the front in time of battle,
  I think they have a right to do so, and men should not dismiss
  them and send them home. But as there are other duties to be
  discharged, other interests to be cared for in time of war besides
  fighting, women will find it enough to look after these in the
  absence of their fighting men. They may enter the hospitals or the
  battlefields as nurses, or they may care for the crops and the
  young soldiers at home. They may also do the voting, and look after
  the affairs of government, the same as do all the weak men who vote
  but do not fight.

  And further, as men do not think it right for woman to bear arms
  and fear it will be forced upon her with the ballot, they can
  easily make a law to excuse her; and doubtless, with her help,
  they will do so. There is great injustice, so long as the ballot
  is given to all _men_ without conditions, the weak as well as the
  strong, in denying to woman a voice in matters deeply affecting her
  happiness and welfare, and through her the happiness and welfare
  of mankind, because perchance there may come a time again in the
  history of our country when we shall be plunged into war and she
  not be qualified to shoulder a musket.

  This objection, like many others we hear, is too absurd to emanate
  from the brains of intelligent men, and I cannot think they
  seriously entertain the views they express. But give us a voice
  in the matter, gentlemen, and we will not only save ourselves
  from being sent to the battlefield, but will if possible keep you
  at home with us by averting the difficulties and dangers, and
  so compromising matters with foreign powers that peace shall be
  maintained and bloodshed avoided.

  In justification of the exclusion of woman from a voice in the
  government we are told that she is already represented by her
  fathers, husbands and sons. To this I might answer, so were our
  fathers represented in the parliament of King George. But were they
  satisfied with such representation? And why not? Because their
  interests were not well cared for; because justice was not done
  them. They found they could not safely entrust their interests
  to the keeping of those who could not or would not understand
  them, and who legislated principally to promote their own selfish
  purposes. I wholly deny the position of these objectors. It is
  not possible for one human being to fully represent the wants and
  wishes of another, and much less can one class fully understand
  the desires and meet the requirements of a different class in
  society. And, especially, is this true as between man and woman.
  In the former, certain mental faculties as a general thing are
  said to predominate; while in the latter, the moral attain to a
  greater degree of perfection. Taken together, they make up what we
  understand by the generic term _man_. If we allow to the former,
  only, a full degree of development of their common nature one-half
  only enjoys the freedom of action designed for both. We then have
  the man, or male element, fully brought out; while the woman, or
  female element, is excluded and crushed.

  It should be remembered too that all rights have their origin in
  the moral nature of mankind, and that when woman is denied any
  guarantee which secures these rights to her, violence is done to
  a great moral law of our being. In assuming to vote and legislate
  for her, man commits a positive violation of the moral law and
  does that which he would not that others should do unto him. And,
  besides all these considerations, it is hard to understand the
  workings of this system of proxy-voting and proxy-representation.
  How is it to work when our self-constituted representative happens
  to hold different opinions from us? There are various questions,
  such as intemperance, licentiousness, slavery, and war, the
  allowing men to control our property, our person, our earnings,
  our children, on which at times we might differ; and yet this
  representative of ours can cast but one vote for us both, however
  different our opinions may be. Whether that vote would be cast for
  his own interests, or for ours, all past legislation will show.
  Under this system, diversities of interest must of necessity arise;
  and the only way to remove all difficulty and secure full and exact
  justice to woman is to permit her to represent herself.

  One more point and I have done. Men say women cannot vote without
  neglecting their families and their duties as housekeepers. This,
  to our opponents, is a very serious objection. Who would urge a
  similar one to man’s voting and legislating, or holding office—that
  he would neglect his family or his business? And yet the objection
  would be about as reasonable in one case as in the other. In
  settling a question of natural and inherent _right_, we must not
  stop to consider conveniencies or inconveniencies. The right must be
  accorded, the field left clear, and the consequences will take care
  of themselves. Men argue as though if women were granted an equal
  voice in the government all our nurseries would be abandoned, the
  little ones left to take care of themselves, and the country become
  depopulated. They have frightened themselves with the belief that
  kitchens would be deserted and dinners left uncooked, and that
  men would have to turn housekeepers and nurses. When the truth
  is, mothers have as much regard for the home and the welfare of
  the children as have the fathers; and they understand what their
  duties are as well as men do; and they are generally as careful for
  the interests of the one, and as faithful in the discharge of the
  other, as are these watchful guardians of theirs who tremble lest
  they should get out of their sphere. God and nature have implanted
  in woman’s heart a love of her offspring, and an instinctive
  knowledge of what is proper and what improper for her to do, and it
  needs no laws of man’s making to compel the one or teach the other.
  Give her freedom and her own good sense will direct her how to use
  it.

  Were the prohibition removed to-morrow, not more than one mother
  in a thousand would be required to leave her family to serve
  the state, and not one without her own consent. Even though all
  the offices in the country should be filled by women, which
  would never be likely to happen, it would take but a very small
  proportion of the whole away from their families; not more than
  now leave home each year for a stay of months at watering places,
  in the mountains, visiting friends, or crowding the galleries of
  legislative halls dispensing smiles on the members below. There
  would, then, be little danger of the terrible consequences so
  feelingly depicted by those who fear that the babies and their own
  stomachs would suffer.

  But I have no desire, nor does any advocate of the enfranchisement
  of woman desire, that mothers should neglect their duties to their
  families. Indeed, no greater sticklers for the faithful discharge
  of such duties can be found than among the prominent advocates
  of this cause; and no more exemplary mothers can be found than
  those who have taken the lead as earnest pleaders for woman’s
  emancipation. Undoubtedly, the highest and holiest duty of both
  father and mother is to their children; and neither the one nor
  the other, from any false ideas of patriotism, any love of display
  or ambition, any desire for fame or distinction, should leave a
  young family to engage in governmental affairs. A mother who has
  young children has her work at home, and she should stay at home
  with it, and care well for their education and physical wants.
  But having discharged this duty, having reared a well-developed
  and wisely-governed family, then let the state profit by her
  experience, and let the father and the mother sit down together in
  the councils of the nation.

  But all women are not mothers; all women have not home duties;
  so we shall never lack for enough to look after our interests at
  the ballot-box and in legislative halls. There are thousands of
  unmarried women, childless wives and widows, and it would always
  be easy to find enough to represent us without taking one mother
  with a baby in her arms. All women may vote without neglecting any
  duty, for the mere act of voting would take but little time; not
  more than shopping or making calls. Instead of woman being excluded
  from the elective franchise because she is a mother, that is the
  strongest reason that can be urged in favor of granting her that
  right. If she is responsible to society and to God for the moral
  and physical welfare of her son; if she is to bring him up as
  the future wise legislator, lawyer and jurist; if she is to keep
  him pure and prepare him to appear before the bar of the Most
  High,—then she should have unlimited control over his actions and
  the circumstances that surround him. She should have every facility
  for guarding his interests and for suppressing and removing all
  temptations and dangers that beset his path. If God has committed
  to her so sacred a charge He has, along with it, given the power
  and the right of protecting it from evil and for accomplishing the
  work He has given her to do; and no false modesty, no dread of
  ridicule, no fear of contamination will excuse her for shrinking
  from its discharge.

  Woman needs the elective franchise to destroy the prevalent idea
  of female inferiority. She needs it to make her the equal of
  her own sons, that they may not in a few years assume the power
  to rule over her, and make laws for her observance without her
  consent. The fact that she is the mother of mankind—‘the living
  providence under God who gives to every human being its mental,
  moral and physical organization, who stamps upon every human heart
  her seal for good or for evil’—is reason why she should occupy
  no inferior position in the world. In the words of Mrs. Stanton,
  ‘That woman who has no higher object of thought than the cooking a
  good dinner, compounding a good pudding, mending old clothes, or
  hemming dish-towels—or, to be a little more refined, whose thoughts
  centre on nothing more important than an elegant dress, beautiful
  embroidery, parties, dances, and genteel gossip concerning the
  domestic affairs of the Smiths and Browns—can never give to the
  world a Bacon or a Newton, a Milton or a Howard, a Buonaparte or a
  Washington.’ If we would have great men, we must first have great
  women. If we would have great statesmen and great philanthropists,
  we must have mothers whose thoughts soar above the trifling objects
  which now engage the attention of the mass of women, and who are
  capable of impressing those thoughts upon the minds of their
  offspring.

  In conclusion the enfranchisement of woman will be attended with
  the happiest results, not for her only, but the whole race. It will
  place society upon a higher moral and social elevation than it has
  ever yet attained. Hitherto, the variously devised agencies for the
  amelioration of the race have been designed mainly for the benefit
  of man. For him colleges have been established and universities
  endowed. For his advancement in science and the arts professorships
  have been founded and lecture rooms opened. And, above all, for
  securing to him the widest field for the fullest display of
  his abilities republican institutions have been proclaimed and
  sustained at a great sacrifice of toil, of bloodshed and of civil
  commotions. Although the doctrine of the innate equality of the
  race has been proclaimed yet, so far as relates to women, it has
  been a standing falsehood, We now ask that this principle may be
  applied practically in her case, also; we ask that the colleges
  and universities, the professorships and lecture rooms shall be
  opened to her, also; and, finally, we ask for the admission to the
  ballot-box as the crowning right to which she is justly entitled.

  And when woman shall be thus recognized as an equal partner with
  man in the universe of God—equal in rights and duties—then will she
  for the first time, in truth, become what her Creator designed her
  to be, a helpmeet for man. With her mind and body fully developed,
  imbued with a full sense of her responsibilities, and living in the
  conscientious discharge of each and all of them, she will be fitted
  to share with her brother in all the duties of life; to aid and
  counsel him in his hours of trial; and to rejoice with him in the
  triumph of every good word and work.


A REPLY.

A lecture entitled, “Woman’s Sphere, Woman’s Work and Woman Suffrage
Discussed,” was delivered at the Central Presbyterian church, Des
Moines, on the evening of December 25th, 1870, by the Rev. T. O.
Rice. The address was published in the Des Moines _Register_ of
January 1st, 1871, and Mrs. Bloomer replied to it through the columns
of the same paper January 21st, 1871, as follows:

  EDITOR OF THE REGISTER: A friend has placed in my hand a copy of
  _The Register_ of January 1, containing a sermon by the Rev. T. O.
  Rice on ‘Woman’s sphere, woman’s work, woman suffrage,’ etc.

  After carefully reading this sermon, I find nothing new or
  original in it. It is but a rehash of what has before been served
  up to us by the Reverends Todd, Bushnell, Fulton and others, who
  are alarmed lest woman should get the start of the Creator and
  overleap the bounds He has set to her sphere. It throws no new
  light on the vexed question of woman suffrage, brings to view no
  passages of Scripture hitherto hidden from our sight, and gives no
  arguments which have not already been met and refuted again and
  again. In much that he says the advocates of woman suffrage fully
  agree with him. A mother’s first duty is at home with her children,
  and nothing can excuse her for neglect of those entrusted to her
  care. Home is the happiest spot on earth when it is a _true home_—a
  home where love and harmony abide, where each regards the rights,
  the feelings, the interest, the happiness of the other, where
  ruling and obeying are unknown, where two heads are acknowledged
  better than one, and true confidence and esteem bind together the
  wedded pair. And I know of no happier homes, no better trained and
  better cared for children, than among the prominent advocates of
  woman suffrage. Whatever may be thought to the contrary, Elizabeth
  Cady Stanton is a model housekeeper, wife and mother; and nowhere
  can greater sticklers be found for the full discharge of all wifely
  duties than those who are pleading for woman’s enfranchisement. So
  far, then, as relates to home and children your divine has given us
  nothing but what we can subscribe to, and what we have preached for
  a score of years, at least, before he awakened to the necessity of
  giving the women of his congregation a sermon on their domestic
  duties. If they were ignorant on those matters, his words have not
  come to them an hour too soon.

  After quoting familiar passages from both the Old and New Testament
  referring to woman, your divine opens by saying: ‘The general drift
  of these passages is obvious. Woman was designed to be a helpmeet
  for man.’ To this we have nothing to object. We, too, say that God
  made woman a helpmeet for man, finding it not good for him to be
  alone. But God said nothing of her being inferior, or subordinate,
  when he brought her to Adam—nothing of her being intended to fill
  an inferior position or discharge particular or inferior duties.
  She was made a helpmeet for man, not his subject and servant,
  but his assistant, companion and counselor. Not a helper in any
  particular sphere or duty, but in all the varied relations of life.
  Not to be always the frail, clinging, dependent vine, which falls
  helpless with the oak when it is riven by the thunderbolt, but to
  take the place, _if need be_, of the sturdy oak at her side when so
  riven, and bear upon her shoulders all the burdens which as true
  helpmeet and companion fall to her lot. Not to be an idle drone in
  the hive, but a sharer with him in all his head and his hands find
  to do. Not a helpmeet in the domestic relation merely, but also in
  the government of the earth and in the councils of the nation. It
  was not to _him_ but to _them_ that God gave power and dominion
  over the whole earth.

  He next goes on to show why woman was to occupy a subordinate
  position, and of all the arguments brought forward by our
  opponents I never read a more weak and flimsy one than this.
  Because Adam was first formed and then Eve, she was therefore to
  be subordinate. But where is the proof of this? Do we find in all
  nature that the things last formed were inferior and subordinate
  to those first created? Again, that ‘Adam was not deceived, but
  the woman being deceived was in the transgression.’ Now, will the
  reverend gentleman tell us which he deems the greater sin, to
  commit a wrong after being misled and deceived by promises of great
  good to follow, or to commit the same wrong without such promises
  or deception, and with the eyes wide open to the wrong? In any
  court of the present day, the extenuating circumstances would be
  considered and the former held the less guilty of the two.

  How any unprejudiced and unbiased mind can read the original
  account of the creation and fall, and gather therefrom that the
  woman committed the greater sin, I cannot understand. When Eve
  was first asked to eat of the forbidden fruit she refused, and it
  was only after her scruples were overcome by promises of great
  knowledge that she gave way to sin. But how was it with Adam, who
  was with her? He took and ate what she had offered him without
  any scruples of conscience, or promises on her part of great
  things to follow—certainly showing no superiority of goodness, or
  intellect, or strength of character fitting him for the headship.
  The command not to eat of the Tree of Life was given to him before
  her creation, and he was doubly bound to keep it; yet he not only
  permitted her to partake of the fruit without remonstrating
  against it, and warning her of the wrong, but ate of it himself
  without objection or hesitation. And then, when inquired of by
  God concerning what he had done, instead of standing up like an
  honorable man and confessing the wrong he weakly tried to shield
  himself by throwing the blame on the woman. As the account stands,
  he showed the greater ‘feebleness of resistance, and evinced a
  pliancy of character, and a readiness to yield to temptation,’ that
  cannot justly be charged to the woman. As the account stands, man
  has more to blush for than to boast of.

  While we are willing to accept this original account of the
  creation and fall, we are not willing that men should add tenfold
  to woman’s share of sin, and put a construction upon the whole
  matter that we believe was never intended by the Creator. Eve had
  no more to do with bringing sin into the world than had Adam, nor
  does the Creator charge any more upon her. The punishment inflicted
  upon them for their transgression was as heavy upon him as upon
  her. Her sorrows were to be multiplied, but so too was he to eat
  his bread in sorrow, and to earn it in the sweat of his face amid
  thorns and thistles. To her no injunction to labor was given, upon
  her no toil imposed, no ground cursed for her sake.

  But now we come to the consideration of a passage which seems to
  bear more heavily upon woman, and which men have used as a warrant
  to humble and crush her through all the ages that have passed since
  our first parents were driven from the Garden of Eden: ‘_Thy
  desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee._’

  This Mr. Rice regards as a command binding upon every woman for all
  time. Because Eve sinned, every woman must be ruled over by some
  man as long as the world stands. It is a little strange that the
  Creator did not tell us this. When talking to the serpent, He put
  enmity between his seed and the seed of the woman; but to the woman
  He said not a word of this law of subordination following her seed;
  and to Adam he gave no command, or even license, to rule over his
  wife.

  Will the Rev. Rice please explain to us the meaning of a like
  passage in the chapter following? ‘_The Lord said unto Cain, the
  desire of thy brother shall be unto thee, and thou shalt rule over
  him._’ Was this, too, a command for all time? Did God command
  Cain to rule over Abel? And if so, to whom does it now apply? The
  language is the same in both instances, except that in the latter
  case it was addressed directly to the party who was to rule, and in
  the former to the one who was to be ruled.

  Clearly, the passage quoted should be regarded in the light of
  prophecy or prediction, and not of command. Substitute _wilt_ for
  _shalt_, which I am told the original fully permits, and then all
  is clear. The prophecy has been fulfilled to the very letter. There
  are other passages that I think clearly show that the word _shall_
  has been wrongly translated. For instance, Cain says, ‘Whosoever
  findeth me _shall_ slay me,’ taking the form of command rather than
  prediction.

  Having done with the Old Testament, our reverend lecturer proceeds
  to give us what, in his opinion, was the idea and full meaning
  of the Apostle Paul in his rules and injunctions to the women of
  the churches he was addressing, and he wonders how there can be
  any opinion but his own on the subject. He makes the apostle go a
  long way beyond the Creator or the Saviour in his condemnation and
  subordination of women, and then thinks it strange that all do not
  take his version of the whole matter. Yet there are vast numbers
  of good, Christian men and women who cannot read with his eyes and
  who have presumed to differ from him. He quotes from some of the
  early Fathers on the subject, and proves that they entertained
  the same opinions and had the same fear of women getting into
  authority the Todds, Rices and Fultons of the present day suffer
  from. And the opinion of one party goes for as much as that of the
  other. The women of those early days, as all know, were ignorant
  and degraded and regarded as absolutely inferior to men. Custom
  had assigned them an inferior place and, instead of being treated
  as companions and equals, they were little better than servants
  and slaves. None but dissolute women, or women of loose character,
  sought for knowledge, and education was wholly denied to those who
  were virtuous. They were expected to remain at home in ignorant
  subjection to their masters. What wonder then if any, moved by
  the spirit, dared raise their voice in the presence of men they
  were instantly silenced, and told that it was not permitted them
  to speak? The early Fathers, like St. Paul, but conformed to
  the customs and shared the prejudices of the day in which they
  lived, and under the circumstances no doubt their injunctions were
  entirely proper and right.

  We have no account on record of these ancient clergy disgracing
  themselves over a woman speaking as did the Rev. John Chambers,
  and other reverends of his stamp—and as we suppose the Rev. Rice
  would have done had he been there—a few years ago at the World’s
  Temperance Convention, in New York, when by their violent stamping,
  shouting, scolding and other uproarious conduct they succeeded in
  drowning the voice and driving from the stand a lovely, refined and
  highly educated Christian woman whom the president had invited to
  the platform. They carried their ends at that time; but that did
  not awe all women back into silence, or do themselves or the church
  any good. So all the warnings, and quotations from St. Paul, by all
  the reverends since his day, have not succeeded in keeping women in
  that state of ignorance and subjection they occupied two thousand
  years ago. The world moves, and it is God’s will that women move
  with it. He is no respecter of persons, but regards His people as
  all one in Christ Jesus.

  But what have we next? After putting women down as low as possible
  our divine throws them a sop by telling them, if they will not
  usurp authority over men in the pulpit they may speak, and pray,
  and teach in Sunday schools, and in conference and covenant
  meeting. And where, pray, does he get his authority for this? Not
  in the Bible, surely. Paul says, ‘I suffer not a woman to teach.’
  Teach what? The scriptures—the gospel, to be sure. This is direct
  and explicit. How can she teach the gospel in the Sunday school and
  elsewhere, without violation of St. Paul’s law? ‘Let women keep
  silence in the church,’ says the apostle. Then how can they talk,
  and pray, and teach in the conference meeting, the covenant meeting
  and other kindred places? St. Paul gives them no such liberty.
  Plainly your divine is willing the women of his church should do
  almost anything, so they do not interfere with his place, or usurp
  authority over him.

  Poor _me_ next comes in for a severe castigation from your reverend
  lawgiver because I dared say that, while I supposed St. Paul’s
  injunctions to women were right and proper at the time and under
  the circumstances of their utterance, I did not believe they were
  the rule for the educated Christian women of this enlightened day
  and age, the circumstances surrounding them having greatly changed
  since the introduction of Christianity. That I believed women were
  no more bound by the laws and customs of that time than men were
  bound to observe all the laws and customs of the same period; and
  further, that the church, _by its practice_, teaches the same
  thing, to a great extent. And, still further, that the words of St.
  Paul had nothing to do with woman’s political rights. The reverend
  gentleman puts words in my mouth I never uttered, thoughts in
  my head that I never conceived, places me in a position I never
  occupied and then, having attributed all manner of bad things to
  me, wipes me out with a sweep of his pen. Well, I do not feel a bit
  bad over all this. I have the consolation of knowing that I am in
  good company, and cannot be so easily annihilated as he supposed.
  There are scores of divines as able, as learned, as eloquent and
  as orthodox as T. O. Rice, of Des Moines, who take the same view
  of the matter as I do, and any number of good Christian people who
  subscribe to the same doctrine. I ‘have no painful solicitude as
  to which side will ultimately triumph.’ I am no more ‘squarely and
  openly at variance with God’s Word’ than is our reverend lecturer,
  who has set himself up as God’s oracle, and hopes to intimidate all
  women, and strengthen the rule of all men to whom the sound of his
  voice may come.

  I do not question his right to think as he pleases, and lecture
  women on proprieties and improprieties; but I must say, I consider
  women quite as capable of judging for themselves what is proper and
  what is improper for them to do as any man can be; and I think if
  our reverends would turn their attention to their own sex, search
  out passages and rules of conduct applicable to them, and lecture
  them on their duty to their families and society, they would be
  much better employed than in trying to subordinate women.

  God has implanted in woman’s nature an instinctive knowledge of
  what is proper and what improper for her to do, and it needs no
  laws of man to teach the one or compel the other.

  Our lecturer assumes that ‘God did not design that woman’s sphere
  and woman’s work should be identical with that of man, but distinct
  and subordinate.’ That ‘woman is happiest in subordination, as well
  as more attractive,’ etc. This is, of course, only a picture of
  his imagination—only an expression of his own feelings and wishes.
  He can find no warrant for it in the Bible; for, as we have shown,
  God did not assign her to any particular sphere or work, but made
  her an helpmeet to stand side by side and walk hand in hand with
  man through the journey of life.

  ‘When aspiring, insubordinate, overtopping and turbulent woman
  loses all the attraction and fascination of her sex.’ Very true!
  and so do men of the same character lose all that commands our love
  and respect, and there are many more of the latter than of the
  former class! I know no such woman, but if there are any, every
  advocate of woman’s enfranchisement will do all they can to prevent
  her ever becoming so ‘restless, troubled, muddy, and bereft of
  beauty.’ So far as she has been admitted to the society of men they
  have not yet made her that terrible being they fear and dread. She
  has not proved herself coarse, vulgar, turbulent and corrupting
  in any society to which she has been admitted; and we would bid
  the reverend calm his excited mind, and remember that God made her
  woman, and under no change that has come to her has she proved
  untrue to the nature He implanted within her. So let him trust that
  the good God who is leading her forward into broader fields of
  usefulness will take care that she goes not beyond, in any respect,
  the limit He has fixed to her sphere.

  Having settled the question that the sexes are to move in spheres
  distinct from each other to his own satisfaction, and having
  dismissed the apostle from the witness stand, we are told what,
  in the judgment of the speaker, is the proper and appropriate
  sphere of woman. In much of what follows we agree with him; but not
  altogether. ‘By analyzing any persons,’ men or women, ‘physically,
  mentally and morally, we can ascertain what station they are fitted
  to fill—what work they are fitted to do.’ And whatever either man
  or woman has capacity for doing, that is right and proper in and
  of itself; that thing it is right and proper for both, or either
  of them, to do. If God has given them a talent, He has along with
  it given them a right to its use, whether it be in the direction
  of the home, the workshop, the public assembly, or the Legislative
  Hall.

  And if woman has hitherto neglected to improve all her God-given
  talents, it is because men have only permitted her to get glimpses
  of the world ‘from the little elevation in her own garden,’ where
  they have fenced her in. But let them invite her to the ‘loftier
  eminence’ where they stand, with the world for her sphere, as
  it was at the beginning, and then they can better judge of the
  qualities of her mind, and her capacity to fill any station.

  In talking of man’s strength of body and mind fitting him for
  certain places, and woman’s weakness consigning her to other
  places, he forgets that intellectually, at least, a great many
  women are stronger than a great many men, and therefore better
  fitted for places where brains, instead of muscle, are needed. It
  is no more true that every woman was made to be a cook and a washer
  of dishes and clothes, than that every man was made to be a wood
  sawyer and a ditch digger. While some are content, in either case,
  to fill those stations, others are not content, and never will be,
  and will aspire to something better and higher. To what place the
  weak little men are to be consigned our speaker fails to tell us.

  The home picture in the sermon is all very beautiful. Would
  that all homes were a realization of the picture! Woman is told
  great things of her duties, her influence, her glories and her
  responsibilities, but not a word have we of man’s duty to the
  home, the wife, the children. Woman is told that it is hers to
  make her children great and good, as though they were like a blank
  sheet of white paper and would take any impress she chose to give;
  when, in fact, they are stamped before they see the light of the
  world with the gross and vicious natures of their tobacco-chewing
  and wine-bibbing fathers, as well as with the weaknesses of the
  mothers, and it is often impossible for the best of mothers to
  so train their children that they may safely pass the pitfalls
  that men have everywhere placed to lead them into temptation and
  destruction. We protest against the mothers being held alone
  responsible for the children, so long as fathers wholly neglect
  their duties and set such examples and such temptations before
  their children as to corrupt their young lives and destroy the good
  influence the mother might otherwise exert. Not till mothers have
  a voice in saying what influences and temptations shall surround
  their children when they go beyond the nursery walls, can they
  justly be held accountable to society or to God for their conduct.
  The woman who only takes a narrow view of life from the little
  eminence in her garden can never give to the world very good or
  very great children. She must be permitted to take in a wider
  range from a loftier eminence, before she can form those great
  characters and inscribe upon the immortal mind the great things
  that are expected and demanded of her. If we would have great
  men, we must first have great women. If we would have noble men,
  we must first have noble mothers. A woman whose whole thought is
  occupied in cooking a good dinner and mending old clothes—or (a
  little more refined) whose thoughts center on a beautiful dress,
  elegant embroidery, the fashionable party, the latest novel or the
  latest fashion—can never give to the world a Bacon or a Newton,
  a Howard or a Wesley, a Buonaparte or a Washington. Our preacher
  lays a heavy responsibility on woman, but all his talk about her
  influence, her duty and her subordination is not going to give her
  that wisdom, strength and moral material out of which to properly
  construct the fabric of the Church and the Commonwealth.

  We would by no means undervalue the home, or the mother’s duty and
  influence; but we would ennoble and purify the one, and enlarge
  the duties and extend the influence and power of the other. Our
  divine thinks that, because woman is mother, daughter, sister and
  wife, it is enough for her and she should desire nothing more. Man
  is father, husband, son and brother, and why is he not therefore
  content? What can he desire or ask for more? Let men realize that
  they, too, have duties to the home beyond merely supplying the
  money to satisfy the physical wants of the family; let them throw
  down the wall they have built up around the woman’s garden and
  invite her to survey with them the wider range from the loftier
  eminence, and many homes would be made glad that are now anything
  but Gardens of Eden, and many women would be strengthened for the
  full and faithful discharge of all their duties.

  ‘Woman is not a mechanic.’ Yes, she is. All men are not mechanics.
  I know women who have more mechanical genius than their husbands;
  and I believe there are few of the mechanical arts that women
  could not master and perform successfully, if custom permitted and
  necessity required. They are naturally ingenious, and fashion many
  things as difficult to learn as to saw a board or drive a nail,
  to make a watch or a shoe, a saddle or a harness. My next-door
  neighbor is a natural mechanic, and has manufactured various
  articles in wood, from a foot to two feet in size, such as tables,
  chairs, bedsteads, wardrobes, frames, brackets, etc., with only
  a penknife and a bit of sandpaper for tools, which are perfect
  specimens of workmanship, and are so acknowledged by first-class
  cabinetmakers. She has taken premiums on these articles for the
  best woodcutting and carving at our agricultural fairs. This work
  has only been done for pastime, and the lady is equally ingenious
  with the needle, as well as a good housekeeper, wife and mother.
  There are many women engaged in various kinds of mechanism.

  There are many inventions by women; but how many have been
  patented, can only be known by inquiry at the Patent Office. And
  even then it would be difficult to ascertain facts, since the
  patent is generally obtained in the name of the husband. I have a
  lady friend who invented patterns for parlor stoves. Her husband
  had them patented in his own name, and entered upon the manufacture
  and sale of them.

  The ‘natural difference in the turn of mind in the sexes’ is not
  so great as is supposed. The seeming difference is more owing to
  education and custom, than to nature. It is a very common thing to
  hear a young girl wish she was a boy, or a man, that she might be
  free to do what she lists in this world of work—to make use of the
  powers which she feels burning within her. The girl envies the boy
  his freedom and his privileges. In ‘earliest childhood,’ if let
  alone, there is little difference between the boy and the girl.
  The girl likes to ride the horse and blow the trumpet, as well as
  the boy; and the boy loves a doll and a needle and thread, as well
  as the girl. It is not the child that selects, but the parent that
  selects for him. From the very first (the whip, the horse, the
  trumpet) the boy is taught that it is not right or manly for him
  to play with dolls, or girls; and the girl, that little girls must
  not play with boys, or with boys’ playthings, because it is not
  ladylike, and will make a tom-boy of her. And so education does
  what nature has not done, and was never intended to do.

  ‘Those who would curse our race have ever attempted, in imitation
  of the great progenitor, to poison all our fountains and wither and
  blast all our budding hopes by directing their artful attacks and
  deadly shafts against the breast of woman.’

  Alas! this is but too true. Ever since Satan, who was a man, struck
  the first blow at her happiness, men have directed their deadly
  shafts against her, by first subjugating her to their will, and
  then using their power to ‘poison the fountain of her happiness
  and wither and blast her budding hopes.’ She has been made their
  sport and their victim, with no power to avert the evil, or protect
  herself, or those entrusted to her care, from their artful and
  brutal attacks.

  But what have we here? After telling women that home is their
  sphere, and that God placed them in it, and they should not go
  beyond it, the reverend lecturer turns right about and supposes
  a case where a woman is called upon to devote her time, or
  her energies, to home duties and family cares, or of one who
  voluntarily chooses to do something else; and, strange as it may
  seem after all that has gone before, he says ‘she may follow a
  trade, teach, lecture, practise law and medicine, and fill a
  clerkship.’ This is good woman’s-rights doctrine! The bars are let
  down that separated the spheres, and woman is permitted to leave
  the ‘distinct and subordinate’ one allotted to her, and enter upon
  a sphere and work ‘_identical with that of man_.’ Here we can
  join hands with our divine, and be thankful that light has so far
  dawned upon him. And he farther ‘demands that all the sources of
  learning, all the avenues of business which they are competent to
  fill shall be thrown open to the whole sex, and that they shall
  be fairly and fully rewarded for all they do’! These good words
  go far to atone for all he has said before, and we will not ask
  why this change, or concession. Enough that he comes thus far
  upon our platform. But can he stop here? After giving her so wide
  a sphere, and educating her mind to the fullest extent, can he
  again put up the bar and say ‘thus far and no farther shalt thou
  go’? Indeed, no! God himself has in these latter days broken down
  the bounds that men had set to woman’s sphere, and they cannot,
  by opposition or Bible argument, remand her back into the state
  of silent subjection whence she came. The ministers of the church
  for years set themselves up against the anti-slavery cause, and
  proved conclusively, to themselves, from the Bible, that slavery
  was right and God-ordained; that the Africans were, and were to
  be, a subjugated race, and that to teach differently was in plain
  violation of the teachings of the Bible. They held themselves
  aloof from that cause, in the days of its weakness, at least, and
  cried out against those who were pleading for the emancipation of
  the slave. But God proved their mistake by setting that people
  free, and endowing them with all the rights of citizenship. So,
  too, the Bible is brought forward to prove the subordination of
  woman, and to show that because St. Paul told the ignorant women
  of his time that they must keep silent in the church the educated,
  intelligent women of these times must not only occupy the same
  position in the church and the family but must not aspire to the
  rights of citizenship. But the same Power that brought the slave
  out of bondage will, in His own good time and way, bring about the
  emancipation of woman, and make her the equal in power and dominion
  that she was at the beginning.

  The divine uses the column and a half that remains of the space
  allotted to him to show why, in his opinion, women should not
  vote—after telling us there is nothing against their voting in the
  Bible, and omitting to tell us what the passages quoted at the head
  of his discourse have to do with politics or political rights.
  One of these reasons is that women will want to hold office; and
  in proof of this he tells us that the office of deaconess, which
  existed in the church till the middle of the fifth century, was
  abolished because the women ‘became troublesome aspirants after
  the prerogatives of office.’ It is ever thus. Men are willing
  women should be subordinate—do the _drudgery_ in the church and
  elsewhere; but let them aspire to something higher and then, if
  there is no other way to silence them, abolish the office. _Men_
  want all the offices, and it is a crying shame for a woman to think
  of taking one from them, thus setting them all aquake with fear!

  Men argue as though, if women had the right to vote, they would
  all abandon their homes and their babies, and stand at the polls
  from year’s end to year’s end and do nothing but vote. When the
  fact is men do not vote but twice a year; are detained from their
  business but a few minutes to deposit their ballots; and then go
  their way, none the worse for the vote. I regret that Rev. Rice
  thinks so badly of the advocates of woman’s cause. So far as I
  know them, his charges are unfair and sometimes untrue. A better
  personal acquaintance would disarm him of much of his prejudice.
  The women are all good sisters, wives and mothers, living in love
  and harmony with their husbands, to whom they are true helpmeets,
  and whom they have no thought of deserting. Not half of them ever
  expect to hold office—certainly not, unless the offices are greatly
  multiplied—nor to have any part in turning the world upside down.
  On the contrary they will continue to care for the babies, cook the
  dinners, and sew on the buttons the same as ever.

  Another reason why woman should not vote is that he thinks ‘God has
  not fitted her for government, that He never made her to manage the
  affairs of state, that very few women would make good stateswomen,’
  etc. And yet God did at the Creation give her an equal share in the
  government of the earth, and our divine imposes upon her all the
  government of the family! God called Deborah to manage the affairs
  of state, and approved of her management, never once telling her
  she was out of her sphere, or neglecting her domestic duties. And
  the queens of the Bible are nowhere reproved for being in authority
  and ruling over men. Many women have shown a fitness for government
  in all ages of the world. There are few able statesmen among men,
  and the world is suffering sadly for want of woman’s help and
  woman’s counsel in the affairs of state.

  But I cannot ask you to allow me space to follow the reverend
  gentleman through all that follows on the question of woman
  suffrage. His arguments are very stale, and many of them absurd.
  I doubt not he is honest in his convictions; but all do not see
  with his eyes, or judge with his judgment. As able minds as his own
  among men take a different view of the matter, and believe that at
  the polls, as elsewhere, woman will have a refining moral influence
  upon men, and that she will herself be benefited and ennobled by
  the enlarged sphere of action.

  I cannot better close than with the words of Bronson Alcott, at a
  recent ‘conversation’ in Chicago: ‘There is no friend of woman who
  does not believe that, if the ballot were extended to her, not one
  would ever vote for an impure man. To give woman the ballot would
  purify legislation, plant liberty and purity in our families, our
  churches, our institutions, our State.’

                                                      AMELIA BLOOMER.

  Council Bluffs, Iowa.


MRS. STANTON ON MRS. BLOOMER.

  “In the fall of 1850 I met Mrs. Bloomer for the first time, in
  Seneca Falls, N. Y. I was happy to find her awake to the wrongs
  of women. Mrs. Bloomer was publishing a paper at that time called
  the _Lily_; a rather inappropriate name for so aggressive a paper,
  advocating as it did all phases of the woman’s-rights question.
  In 1849 her husband was appointed postmaster, and she became his
  deputy, was duly sworn in, and during the administration of Taylor
  and Fillmore served in that capacity. When she assumed her duties,
  the improvement in the appearance and conduct of the office was
  generally acknowledged. A neat little room adjoining became a kind
  of ladies’ exchange, where those coming from different parts of the
  town would meet to talk over the contents of the last _Lily_ and
  the progress of the woman’s-suffrage movement in general. Those
  who enjoyed the brief interregnum of a woman in the post office can
  readily testify to the loss to the ladies of the village, and to
  the void felt by all, when Mrs. Bloomer and the _Lily_ left for the
  West, and men again reigned supreme.

                                                           “E. C. S.”


MEMORIAL SERMON.

Preached by the Rev. Eugene J. Babcock, in St. Paul’s Church, Council
Bluffs, January 13, 1895:

  ECCL., vii. 1.—“_A good name is better than precious ointment, and
  the day of death than the day of one’s birth._”

  Wisdom is surveying life, and giving its best retrospect. The
  thought which has entered this judgment is the righteous, just,
  temperate, and loving care of God.

  A life spent in satisfying the pleasures of sense alone leaves
  nothing of value to the ‘pilgrims of night,’ for it passes away
  like a shadow and is gone. The greatest heritage that can come to
  the children of men—an inheritance that they should administer
  jealously—is a good name. As to other things we can carry nothing
  out of this world, but good character, like the ancient embalming,
  forever preserves a good name.

  The ‘name’ which wisdom here mentions is that which has acquirement
  of reputation. This is suggested by the second member of the text.
  The old application would have limited it to one who had won fame.
  Evidently, reputation is to be the outcome of character just as
  the perfume is associated with the nard. The things in comparison
  are the good name which all delight to honor, and the fragrant odor
  of the good, i. e. precious, ointment which all enjoy.

  But more than this. Names of the great and good have a diffusive
  power, subtly and incisively invading our spirits as their golden
  deeds are told off and become signs to the world that earth has
  souls of heroic mould. Then we are athrill with emotion as our
  souls thus catch better insight of humanity. The correspondence is
  in opening the box of delicate, pure and costly ointment, the odor
  thereof filling the house.

  How comes it that the day of death is better than the day of birth?
  Solomon may have meant that life’s vexations, toils, temptations
  and trials were thus at an end. This is the justifying consolation
  that we give when our fellows depart hence and are no more seen.
  The passing hence is undoubtedly merciful relief in many instances.
  But life’s issues are varied and diverse, and to most of us
  life, in its purely temporal aspect, is the sweetest and closest
  companion of thought. There are but few to receive Solomon’s words.
  Possibly, they are designed for the few. At an earlier stage of
  his life he would not have written them. They came out of his
  experience. He may have been touched by a gloom of apprehension
  which sprung from ignorance, an ignorance that was done away in
  Christ our Lord. That life does not cease absolutely is knowledge
  which Christ’s religion has fixed in human minds. It is true that
  there is as yet no test of experience, save that I point you to
  Jesus Christ the Great Exemplar and those recorded cases who were
  subjects of his power. In the spirit’s return to God, the ancients
  did not know that to die is gain.

  In view of acquirements attained from a well ordered and well spent
  life, may there not be a sense in which the day of death is better?
  As the three score and ten years come on, our minds contrast origin
  and decline, infancy and age. What prodigious issues are involved!
  The advances of time disclose two pathways, well worn and leading
  up to these issues. In moral aspect they bear the names of good and
  evil. Yet they are not so absolutely distinct as to be two separate
  paths. Rather, to the eye of discernment, the individual walks
  in two planes, the subject of two kingdoms. God, in His goodness
  and mercy, furnished a guideboard for the journey of life, and
  prophetic of the parting of the ways: Reject the evil; choose the
  good. Behold the key to the good name that is better than precious
  ointment!

  Such was the high animating principle that guided Amelia Jenks
  Bloomer through her womanhood. Born in Homer, New York, May 27,
  1818, she removed from her native place at an early age, and after
  a residence in two other villages in the same state, during which
  her life passed through girlhood to young womanhood, she finally
  came to Seneca County. She was little aware of the destiny that
  awaited her, and of the probability that the precincts of her new
  dwelling place were to become the theatre of events in which she
  would play the part of leading character.

  On her mother’s side she inherited a trend toward an earnest and
  positive religious bent. This was supplemented by the mother-love
  instilling into the child those principles of belief in things
  supreme which become a part of moral fibre and the basis for
  action. The one avenue of woman’s employment from time immemorial,
  the public school, she seems to have eschewed. This may have been
  owing to possession of talents for larger and higher educational
  function; talents which found successful trial in a happy and
  peculiar relation of governess in a family with three children.

  This relation was terminated for another and more sacred bond,
  she being joined in marriage the twenty-second year of her age.
  Her married life began at Seneca Falls, New York, where was Mr.
  Bloomer’s home.

  In the beginning of the decade of years which are known as the
  ‘forties,’ there were gathering forces of a distinctively moral
  movement which had for its object the regeneration of society.
  Re-proclamation of an old truth in new form took aggressive phase
  of agitation against the evils of intemperance with a view to
  lessen them. The instrument employed was the ever truthful and
  laudable agency of moral suasion. In due time there came into the
  purview of such as were enlisted heart and soul in this noble
  effort, the additional agency of suppression by means of legal
  enactment. This first and new demonstration gathered momentum until
  1856, when it seems to have spent its force in electing Myron A.
  Clark, of Canandaigua, to the governorship of New York.

  A glance at the early endeavors which led to the upheaval of
  society and had a widespread effect for good, enables us to see the
  sway of the agitation in that part of the state where dwelt the
  honorable subject of this memorial. The movement had taken form in
  the concrete by virtue of an organization named the Washingtonian
  Society. To the influences of this society we are indebted,
  indirectly at least, for the new firmament which spread above this
  land in woman’s emancipation, and for its bright peculiar star,
  Amelia Bloomer.

  This came about in a simple and matter-of-fact way. Local
  societies, of which there was one in Seneca Falls, were doing their
  specific work. Mr. Bloomer was already in the newspaper field as
  editor of the village press. To his editorial duties he joined
  the duties of maintaining a paper called the _Water Bucket_, as
  the organ of the local society. Another element came in the shape
  of a religious awakening, following the Washingtonian movement,
  and growing out of it. While the air was ringing with eloquent
  words of precept, there was forced upon the mind that which was
  equally eloquent, viz., personal example. Mr. and Mrs. Bloomer were
  baptized and confirmed by Bishop Delancey in the parish church of
  Seneca Falls in the year 1842. Henceforth, to the _rationale_ of
  the movement was added the religious motive.

  In response to her husband’s earnest and persuasive appeals to
  ‘lend a hand,’ she modestly and even reluctantly contributed
  articles to the paper. With repeated protestations, she complied
  with other demands. She did not desire to reveal her identity as
  her contributions became subject to favorable comment and wide
  quotation. She hid herself under a round of names, now masculine,
  now feminine, in order to avoid publicity. But behind them there
  was a personality that could not be hidden long. A keen and
  powerful mind, and brimming sentiments of a woman’s heart, intense
  and moving, came to the surface. The flashing of a bright pen,
  tempered and pointed as a Damascus blade, was probing its way
  to the forefront of discussion, and into the vitals of opposing
  argument, and lo! a woman stepped forth into the arena, a champion
  of woman’s side in the conflicting controversy!

  With her lifeboat thus pushed out into the current of this mental
  activity, and thrown upon her own resources, latent powers came to
  her support. These were reabsorbed, again developed, and carried
  on to renewed struggles. It is surprising to note how resolutely
  and with what eminent capability she met the varied demands of true
  sentiment, sound judgment and business tact.

  She had great regard for the principles she advocated; for her
  self-respect as an advocate; and for her pledged or promised word.
  Thinking that woman was capable of originating an enterprise,
  that she had capacity for conducting it, her ruling passion was
  to show to the world that woman could do as woman, be accountable
  to self, and had the right potential to do what she could. That
  she esteemed woman a responsible creature is indicated in the
  manner in which her paper _The Lily_ was launched upon society.
  A woman’s temperance club had planned the paper, the president
  of the society had named it; another was appointed editress,
  Mrs. Bloomer to be associate; the first issue to appear January
  1, 1849. A woman’s convention which had assembled in 1848 in the
  village, and the first on record, may have stimulated the project.
  But as the time approached to undertake the issue faintheartedness
  dashed the scheme. Not even prospectuses and money received could
  stay the retreat. Mrs. Bloomer was left alone. Her own words are:
  ‘My position was a most embarrassing one. * * * * I could not so
  lightly throw off responsibility. There was no alternative but
  to follow the example of the others and let the enterprise prove
  a miserable failure as had been predicted it would, or to throw
  myself into the work, bare my head to the storm of censure and
  criticism that would follow, and thereby make good our promises to
  the public and save the reputation of the society. It was a sad, a
  trying hour, for one all inexperienced in such work, and at a time
  when public action in woman was almost unknown. So unprepared was
  I for the position I found myself in, so lacking in confidence and
  fearful of censure, that I withdrew my name from the paper and left
  standing the headline: “Published by a Committee of Ladies.”’ With
  such splendid courage, integrity and determination, we can almost
  predicate in advance the eminent success which attended this effort
  during a period of six years.

  The study of woman’s condition incident to aggressive measures
  against intemperance and the direct appeal to woman’s sympathies,
  without doubt, widened the scope of vision. That woman often stood
  in need of independence was enforced cogently. Having succeeded in
  a limited temperance work and become useful agents in lifting the
  burdens of sisters, the idea of relief in other directions followed
  hard apace. Some of these burdens were of woman’s own placing, some
  were forced upon her by the inequalities of law, and others were in
  deference to a wrong public opinion.

  The power of the Press did not suffice for the complete extension
  of the aims which the woman’s association had in view. The human
  voice, than which there is nothing more potential in moving us,
  was now raised to make the battlecry of reform more effective. The
  last wonder of the world had come—for woman appeared as her own
  advocate. Amelia Bloomer had gathered strength and reliance for a
  new phase of her work. She more deeply realized that she had to
  cope with other evils than the horrors of intemperance. The rising
  questions were still more difficult, from their inherent nature
  and there being no public sentiment to support them. As the issue
  confronted her the same distrust of self, yet the same unfaltering
  courage and devotion to a cause, prepared her for the rostrum as
  armed her for the editress’ chair. She had faith in the justice
  of men, and believed that God was on her side. She overstepped
  mere conventionality, not that she spurned good, but to show that
  conventionalism is sometimes a tyrant, and harmful. She could brave
  the strictures of public opinion, knowing that it is not always
  right. But that she could do this does not indicate that there
  was no cost to herself, or that the cruel arrows of ridicule when
  proceeding from unkindness did not reach tender sensibilities.
  Had she but her own glory to seek, or were it but a vain notoriety
  in order to puff up the mind, she could not have ‘bared her head
  to the storm’ which a canvass of woman’s rights and woman’s wrongs
  brought upon her.

       *       *       *       *       *

  It is for us to learn the lesson of her life: that, conspicuously,
  she was unselfish. A conviction had come to her—may it not have
  been true inspiration?—that what was wrong in practice might be
  righted by promulgation of true principles. She had the courage of
  her convictions, if ever any one had. Like a true reformer, she
  had to furnish the principles and disclose the facts upon which
  they were based, in order that correction might obtain. That which
  sent her to the principal cities of her native and adopted states
  and to cities far beyond, to legislative halls, to the use of her
  trenchant and vigorous pen, was love for her own sex. To win for
  one was gain for all. It was a doing for others all along. What
  though abstract justice, statue-like, could point the index at
  inequalities? There was no voice to awaken and plead!

  In this part of her career she was as eminent a success as in the
  other. She was mistress of argumentative persuasion, and could turn
  the shafts of opponents with consummate skill. The extravagance
  of rhetoric into which excited feelings are prone to lead a
  controversialist, she met with good-natured repartee. It may be
  said that she was advance-courier of ‘temperance literature,’ her
  sprightly contributions being original matter, and in turn becoming
  texts for other writers and publishers. She had other helpers in
  creating a literature of woman’s rights, notably Mrs. Stanton,
  who was one of others who accompanied her on a tour of lectures.
  Her contention as to woman’s place was that she is created man’s
  intellectual, moral and spiritual equal.

  It certainly would have been derogatory to the Almighty Creator
  to have bestowed on man an inferior partner for life. Genesis
  discloses to us that the word for man and woman is the same, save
  that a feminine termination is added to the latter. The true rise
  of woman is centred in the Incarnation of our Blessed Lord. From
  that time the dawn of woman’s elevation has been breaking into a
  cloudless sky. Mrs. Bloomer rightly caught the gleaming light in
  attributing to that august event a possibility for the broader and
  higher sphere of woman’s action. With this she was wont to silence
  Old-Testament quotations of opponents, and for that matter the
  handlers of New-Testament writings which referred to a condition
  closely approximating the old order of ignorance; the enlightenment
  of Christianity not then having bathed the nations. She never
  countenanced levity respecting the married state, or suffered the
  intrusion of degrading theories respecting the domicile of home.
  Her interpretation of a ‘help’ meet for man ranged along the high
  lines of being a help in all that man does for the good of the
  world, self, and actions that bear fruit of moral freedom.

  Whenever she was asked to teach about woman’s sphere she complied,
  as being a call to duty. Not long ago she related to a me thrilling
  adventure which I am now able to see in a more characteristic
  light. A certain and constant solidarity of character becomes
  apparent at every turn. Duteous devotion, regard for promise, and
  personal bravery enter into the exploit. She was to lecture on
  ‘Woman’s Education’ before, and for the benefit of, the Library
  Association of Omaha. I find the story transcribed in her ‘Early
  Recollections.’[2]

       *       *       *       *       *

The reference to home yearnings is a side light which illumines
the whole background of her public career. Ardently devoted to her
mission and responsive to its imperious calls, yet she was not a Mrs.
Jellyby of Bleak House. She cared for others, near to her as well as
remote. Adopted children have taken the Bloomer name, and other young
have found a home beneath the hospitable roof.

A woman engaged in the active enterprises of life was a new thing
under the sun. Beneath the royal occupation of queen-regent, or that
of gifted authorship, or being a ‘Sister of Charity,’ the lines of
woman’s work were few and greatly limited in the world outside of
home. Amelia Bloomer was a pioneer in woman’s emancipation and, as
falls to the lot of the pioneer, she had work to do which succeeding
generations reckon not, and of which successors in the field have
never felt the sting of the deep intensity of the striving. The first
faint, far-off echo has swelled to thunder tone as to-day there goes
over the land a call for the Second Triennial Meeting of the National
Council of Women, which was founded on the fortieth anniversary
of ‘the first organized demand for equal education, industrial,
professional, and political rights for women, made at a meeting in
Seneca Falls, New York, in 1848.’

It is given to but few to realize the effectiveness of consecration
to a work like that Mrs. Bloomer undertook. Rarely does one see
the rich results of a contention so manifoldly difficult. As iron
sharpeneth iron, so has been the clash of minds. Imaginary barriers
have gone, and a rigid conservatism, strong principally by reason of
inherited tendency, is supplanted by a _rationale_ of woman’s sphere
which has made occupation for thousands. She who was both prominent
and eminent in bringing this result ought to be an object of their
everlasting gratitude!”[3]


THE END.


FOOTNOTES:

[2] Here, with slight omissions, is quoted in Mrs. Bloomer’s own
words the narration of the incident of the “Dangers met in crossing
the Missouri,” previously given on pp. 214-216.

[3] The remainder of the sermon has already been given. It will be
found on pp. 327-331.




  Transcriber’s Notes

  pg 5 swapped Amelia’s and Dexter’s photo location
  pg 33 Removed hyphen between Seneca and Falls
  pg 40 Removed duplicate word from: women did not not know what
  pg 120 Added hyphen between State and Temperance
  pg 158 Removed extra quote after: so-called ‘Woman’s Rights’
  pg 168 Removed hyphen after: having passed the New
  pg 181 Removed hyphen from: AT THE NEW-YORK
  pg 183 Removed hyphen from: Of this New-York Convention
  pg 197 Removed hyphen from: We came from our New-York home
  pg 200 Removed repeated word the from: and again the the cry
  pg 206 Removed hyphen between Council and Bluffs
  pg 296 Removed hyphen between bushel and basket
  pg 322-323 Removed hyphen between Council and Bluffs
  pg 337 Removed repeated word is from: but that is is her duty
  Many hyphenated and non-hyphenated word combinations left
           as written.