Mrs. Bloomer, who lived to the end of the year 1894, was the supposed originator of a semi-masculine dress for women, which was worn by Dr. Mary Walker on the streets of Washington at least as late as 1880. She did not invent it, was not the first to wear it, and protested against its being called by her name. See D. C. Bloomer’s ‘Life and Writings of Amelia Bloomer,’ 1895. For some years she edited and published, at Seneca Falls, N.Y., a magazine called The Lily, in which (Feb., 1851) the new costume appears to have been first mentioned in print. It was adopted by a few women in London in that year (see Notes and Queries, 8 S. viii. 6), and afforded much scope for ridicule in Punch (see vol. xx. 220; xxi. 3, 68, 141, 150, 158, 160, 168, 175, 184, 186, 189, 191–2, 196, 200, 202, 204, 208–10, 217–9, 229, 232, 269); also Leech’s two cartoons. There are copious allusions to it in the Boston Transcript, May 6, 10, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21, 26–9, 31, 1851. Two ladies appeared in “Bloomers” on May 10 in New York.

1

1851.  The Turkish Dress. On Saturday afternoon, says the Times (Boston), a young lady of 18, daughter of a well-known West End citizen, made her appearance on Cambridge street, accompanied with her father, dressed in a round hat, short dress, fitting tightly, and pink satin trousers…. The same young lady was out yesterday afternoon, for a walk around the Common and upon the Neck…. The Bee says the daughter of Dr. Hanson, of this city, appeared in the Bloomer suit at a convention at South Reading last week.—The Transcript, May 26, p. 2/3.

2

1851.  The New Costume. The first “Bloomer” made it appearance in our city yesterday. [Worcester Spy.]—Id., May 29, p. 2/4.

3

1851.  The New Costume.—A Lowell correspondent of the Bee says quite a large number of young ladies have made arrangements to attend church to-morrow in the Bloomer costume.Id., May 31, p. 2/4.

4

1851.  National Theatre. This evening, June 2, Will be performed a new, whimsical, satirical, and comical Burletta, entitled the Bloomer Rig: Or, The Revolutionists of the 19th Century.—Id., June 2, p. 3/4.

5

1851.  Leech’s cartoons in Punch, Sept. 27, Nov. 8.

6

1852.  Grammarians have discovered a new gender, viz. the “Bloomer,”—half way between the masculine and feminine, with a touch of the neuter.—Frontier Guardian, Jan. 9 (Kanesville, Iowa, edited by Orson Hyde).

7

1852.  I should not like to have Bloomers about my house, but folks have different notions, and there is no accounting for taste. Besides, I understand that there are some very clever folks at the North who put on that dress.—Mr. Stanly of North Carolina, House of Repr., June 14: Cong. Globe, p. 707, App.

8

1852.  We consider Bloomerism as the most dangerous of modern ‘isms.’… The Bloomers once triumphant, and no prophetic ken will be required to read their future tactics.—Bloomerism: an essay, by Tho. W. Lane of Georgia: Knick. Mag., xl. 240–1 (Sept.).

9

1853.  A Bloomer was seen in Cleveland the other day. Her skirts were unusually short.—Daily Morning Herald, April 12 (St. Louis).

10

1854.  A party “scotched but not killed,” traitors to the Constitution and the Union, with the black banner of Abolition for their ensign, a Garrison for their leader, and garrisons of whitened sepulchres “holding forth” on the Sabbath to gloomy and fanatical assemblages, Spiritualists and Millerites, Bloomers wearing the apparel of men, and men wrapped in the apparel of women; who know nothing, care for nothing, saw what ministers to their “minds diseased”; a motley set, sir, for whom pity no longer weeps.—Mr. Chastain of Georgia, House of Representatives, May 20: Cong. Globe, p. 717, Appendix.

11

1855.  Perhaps Lawrence [Kansas] is the only city in America where the majority of the ladies wear Bloomers.Kansas Tribune, n.d.

12

1855.  One of those strong-minded females who pass their declining years in asserting ‘women’s rights’ and ‘higher laws,’ and who generally become ‘Bloomers’ about the time when they cease to bloom.—Knick. Mag., xlv. 47 (Jan.).

13

1857.  She was pretty far gone in Bloomerism.—Charles Reade, ‘True Love,’ ii. 153. (N.E.D.)

14

1859.  I don’t like the Bloomers any too well,—in fact, I never saw but one, and she—or he, or it—had a mob of boys after her, or whatever you call the creature, as if she had been a——.—Holmes, ‘The Professor at the Breakfast-Table,’ chap. vii.

15