Page 1
by D. E. Robinson
A statement by D. E. Robinson concerning the historical setting of Ellen
White’s call for dress reform and the principles that may be derived
today. Drawn from The Story of Our Health Message, chapters 9, 10, and
13.
"My sisters, there is need of a dress reform among us. There
are many errors in the present style of female dress." With these words Mrs.
White introduced her sixth and last article on "Disease and Its Causes," in the
series entitled "How to Live," which appeared in print in the early part of
1865.
In the literature of that period there is abundant evidence of
the truthfulness of Mrs. White's arraignment of the current fashions in women's
dress. About three years earlier a spokesman for the unfortunate sex, when
addressing a large audience in Washington, D. C., made the following plaint
regarding the disadvantages and tortures of women:
"Women's clothing is arranged with such an eye to inconvenience and
burdensomeness, that if they go out at all it is under great disadvantage. if
they should cross the threshold, they may dampen their feet and soil their
skirts on the steps, and have their unprotected limbs chilled by the wind. If
they wish to walk, they must wait till the dew is off the grass, and a sultry
summer sun detracts from the benefit of it. If they work in the garden, more
strength is expended on account of the dress than with the plants, for it not
only is so arranged that they cannot make a motion easily, but it must be
gathered up in their arms while they work with their hands. If they go to
market they must carry skirts as well as a basket, for dew, dust, mud, or snow
has to be cleared. If they ride they must be lifted in and out of the carriage,
while they take care of their skirts, and even then they are often caught, and
have to be extricated from them; and if, by accident, any danger comes to life
or limb in carriage or on horseback, it is tenfold greater on account of such
shackling garments. . . .
"If they turn to the leafy adorned temple of nature to recreate,
they must zigzag their way around every bush and log, in spending all their
care on muslin instead of enjoying nature; and if they come to a fence the
field beyond is forbidden ground to them, though it be all abloom with choicest
flowers."--Ellen Beard Harmon, Dress Reform: Its Physiological and Moral
Bearing, (a lecture delivered at the Y.M.C.A. Hall, Washington, D. C.,
February 10. 1862, pp. 10, 11; New York: Davies and Kent, 1862).
For more than a decade voices of protest had been heard against
the barbarous, health-destroying styles of dress imposed upon women by those
who regulated the fashions. Eleven years earlier the Honorable Gerrett Smith, a
member of Congress, declared:
"A reformation in the dress of woman is very much needed. It is
indispensable to her health and usefulness. While in the prison of the present
dress, she is, and ever will remain comparatively unhealthful and useless."
--Quoted by Mrs. M. Angeline Merritt in Dress Reform, Practically and
Physiologically Considered, pp. 169, 170 (Buffalo: Jewett, Thomas, and Co.,
1852).
Page 2
With such pronounced opposition to the prevailing styles of
dress, it is not surprising that the congressman gave his hearty approval when
his daughter, Mrs. Elizabeth Miller, adopted a dress somewhat on the style of
the Turkish costume. Mr. Miller also approved, and vigorously defended his
wife's startling but sensible dress in the United States. The costume made a
news feature for the press of that time.
After wearing the dress for about three months, Mrs. Miller
went to Seneca Falls, New York, to visit her cousin, Mrs. Elizabeth Cady
Stanton, one of the honored ladies of the nation because of her efforts in the
cause of women. Evidently the advantages in freedom and comfort of the costume
worn by Mrs. Miller made a strong appeal to her cousin, for she very soon
donned a dress made in the same style.
Mrs. Amelia Bloomer then entered the scene. She lived in Seneca
Falls, and edited The Lily, a monthly paper for women. Seeing the
novelty, she admired it, and soon became the third member of a triumvirate of
dress reformers. In the issue of her journal for March, 1851, she described and
praised the costume, and in the following month she announced her personal
adoption of it, saying:
"Readers ours, behold us now in short dress and trowsers, and
then, if you please, give free vent to your feelings on the subject--praise or
blame, approve or condemn, as might suit you best. We have become used to both,
and are indifferent as to your opinion."--The Lily, April, 1851.
Mrs. Bloomer at that time had no thought of permanently
adopting the new style of dress, no thought that her action would create an
excitement throughout the civilized world, or that her own name would be given
to the costume. She always declared that such credit should have gone to Mrs.
Miller. The public press spread the innovation far and wide as a spicy news
item. Writing later an account of the event for the Chicago Tribune,
Mrs. Bloomer commented:
"I stood amazed at the furor I had unwittingly caused. The New
York Tribune contained the first notice I saw of my action. Other papers
caught it up and handed it about. My exchanges all had something to say. Some
praised and some blamed, some commended, and some ridiculed and condemned.
'Bloomerism,' 'Bloomerites,' and 'Bloomers' were the headings of many an
article, item, and squib. . . .
"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."--Quoted by
her husband, Dexter C. Bloomer, Life and Writings of Amelia Bloomer, p.
68 (Boston: Arena Publishing Company, 1895).
In June, Mrs. Stanton, Mrs. Bloomer, and four or five other
ladies appeared in the costume while attending a health convention at Dr.
Jackson's health institution, which was then at Glen Haven, New York. The new
style of dress was placed on the agenda for discussion, and Dr. Harriet Austin,
an associate physician at the institution, became a convert. She and Dr.
Jackson were won as ardent
Page 3
and enthusiastic advocates of the reform. As editors of the
Water Cure Journal, and its successor, the Laws of Life, they
were in a position to give wide publicity to it. For several years scarcely an
edition of their journal failed to urge its adoption, or to print testimonials
from enthusiastic readers who had received health benefits from it. The style,
however, was considerably modified by Miss Austin, and soon became generally
know as the "American Costume."
Praise and commendation on the one hand, and reproach and
sarcasm on the other, were the lot of the dress reformers. This makes it
possible for alter commentators on the movement either to heap contumely upon
it and to represent it as unpopular and ridiculous, or to comment upon it as
meritorious and worthy of the praise which it received in many quarters. Dr.
Jackson tells how its adoption by his wife, at a time when she had become a
hopeless invalid, not only saved her life, but restored her to health, and
speaks thus of the severity of the criticism he received from some:
“No one can tell what we all have suffered in public
estimation for our conviction of the need of a change of a style in dress for
our country women if they are to have health as a rule and sickness as an
exceptional condition of life. I do believe that no representation of villainy
supposed possible for a man to be capable of committing, and yet be luckily
free from liability to be hung, has not been made against me, simply because I
advocated a reform in dress of women and a vegetarian diet for
invalids."--Laws of Life, November, 1860.
There was a steady increase year by year in the number of women
who changed to the new style. In June of 1863, about twelve years after Mrs.
Miller had initiated the reform, an annual meeting of the Dress Reform
Convention was held in Rochester, New York. In her opening address Dr. Austin
stated that she invariably included as a part of the prescription to her
patients, the words "Adopt the American Costume," and she claimed credit for
having thus influenced at least a thousand women to follow her advice. As to
its general adoption, she said further:
"No reform, so truly conservative as this, ever made more progress,
during the first years of its existence, than this has done. In all the
Northern States it has hundreds of representatives; and in number of them it
has thousands. It is known and worn in California, Canada East and West, New
Brunswick, and Nova Scotia. Thousands of women in this State are wearing the
American Costume. There are many neighborhoods, in central and western New
York, where it is the common dress worn. There are counties in Ohio, Michigan,
Iowa, and other of the Western States, where its wearers can be counted by
hundreds."--Laws of Life, August, 1863.
In this same address before an audience of 1,700 people, Dr.
Austin gives us a picturesque arraignment of the style of dress against which
the "American Costume" was a protest. Personifying "lank, sallow Disease," she
graphically pictured the results of his clutches upon wives and mothers, and
added:
"How he delights in the apparel they wear! He sits in their
dressing rooms, and nods and chuckles and grins in gratified maliciousness, as
the process of dressing goes on; and ever and anon, as some articles specially
adapted to his
Page 4
hateful purpose is appropriated, he holds his sides and
twinkles his eyes in merry satisfaction. Those shoes--yes, those suit him
precisely! How beautifully they pinch the toes, and press upon the veins at the
ankles! 'Dear madam, what a loyal subject you are! I will stand by you till
your dying day. And these bands about the waist--adjust them carefully. There,
make them a little tighter. Cut off the action of the abdominal muscles
entirely. 'Tis vulgar to let your breath descend so low.
"'And this dress is capital--excellent! The flowing sleeves
will allow the cool, damp, evening air to play easily about the white arms.
Whalebones in it? Ah, yes, that will do. Now hook it, madam. Draw a little
tighter. Exhaust your lungs, and contract your chest into the smallest compass.
Bravo! One hook is fastened! No sensible woman would wear corsets. They are
injurious, and, what is worse, they are out of date. But a dress just fitting
closely and beautifully can do no harm. . . .
"'Stop, madam, and pant a moment. There, now, proceed. Oh, what a
model of a dress! Stand now, and examine its length in a mirror. Elegant! It
just sweeps the floor so gracefully. And your hoops are of the most genteel
size. Ha! Ha! . . . won't the wind find easy access to her limbs? And won't she
be harassed, and hampered, and hindered, in every step she takes, in the midst
of all this drapery? By the time she is ready to lay it off, won't she feel
nervous and weary and exhausted? And shall I not have gotten a faster hold upon
her?'"--Laws of Life, August, 1863.
Among the persons selected at this gathering to serve as
officers of the convention for the ensuing year, were seven physicians, three
ministers, one minister's wife, and one professor. Joshua V. Himes, a former
co-worker with William Miller in connection with the Advent Movement, was a
member of the executive committee. His name found frequent mention in the
Laws of Life as one of those interested in, and approving of, the
various reforms for the maintenance and restoration of health.
Because the popular agitation over dress reform was carried
forward for only two or three decades, and because the costumes they designed
and advocated were later discontinued, it might seem that the cause of these
reformers was lost. But the principles for which they valiantly contended have
prevailed. This is well set forth in an editorial in a popular journal, from
which we quote:
"The cause for which the early dress reformers labored and suffered
martyrdom has triumphed in almost all points, but in a very different way than
they anticipated. They considered only health and convenience. They cared
little for beauty, knew nothing of art. Their attempts to introduce the bloomer
and other costumes of equal ugliness fortunately failed, but their efforts were
not altogether wasted. . . .
"The chief points in the indictment of woman's dress of former
times were that the figure was dissected like a wasp's, that the hips were
overloaded with heavy skirts, and that the skirts dragged upon the ground and
swept up the dirt. Nowadays the weight of a woman's clothing as a whole is only
half or a third of what it used to be. Four dresses can be packed in the space
formerly filled by one. In the one-piece dresses now in vogue the weight is
borne from the shoulders, and the hips are relieved by reducing the skirts in
weight, length, and number. The
Page 5
skirt no longer trails upon the street. . . . The women who,
for conscientious reasons, refused to squeeze their waists, and in consequence
suffered the scorn of their six, now find themselves on the fashionable side. A
32-inch waist is regarded as permissible, where formerly a 20-inch waist was
thought proper. A fashionably gowned woman of the present day can stoop to pick
up a pin at her feet."--The New York Independent, October 23, 1913.
It is possible for womanhood today to be clothed neatly,
modestly, inexpensively, and healthfully, without the necessity of a wide
divergence from accepted styles.
Having noted the fashions of the time, and the movements of the
dress reformers, we should consider the attitude of Seventh-day Adventists to
these questions.
Between 1840 and 1844, when the believers in the Advent
Movement were looking for the imminent coming of Christ, they sought earnestly
for such a preparation of heart and of life as would enable them to meet Him
with a conscience void of offense. Many of them felt as did the youthful Ellen
Harmon, who, in recounting later the experience of herself and her sisters,
wrote:
"We talked the matter over among ourselves, and decided to earn
what money we could, and spend it in buying books and tracts to be distributed
gratuitously. This was the best we could do, and we did this little gladly. . .
. I had no temptation to spend my earnings for my own personal gratification.
My dress was plain; nothing was spent for needless ornaments, for vain display
appeared sinful in my eyes. . . . The salvation of souls was the burden of my
mind."--Life Sketches of Ellen G. White, pp. 47, 48.
And so it was also with most Seventh-day Adventists from the
earliest days of their experience as a separate people. While neatness and
durability of dress were regarded as in harmony with the mind of Christ,
unnecessary adornment was shunned as being sinful. From time to time articles
appeared in the Review and Herald counseling simplicity in dress, though
the consideration of the matter from the standpoint of health was for some
years subordinated to the thought of the scriptural injunctions against pride
and display. In 1855 the editor of the Review and Herald inserted as a
leading article the pronouncement of John Wesley on dress in his "Advice to the
People Called Methodists" (July 10, 1855); and "Judson's Letter on Dress"
appeared in 1859. In this letter Adoniram Judson had appealed, from his mission
in Burma, to the ladies of the home churches, because of the difficulties and
embarrassments created when the Christian natives of Burma, having discarded
their ornaments, would see similar decorations worn by the wives and daughters
of those who came to his field as missionaries.
On May 27, 1856, at a conference of believers in Battle Creek,
Michigan, a very solemn message was given for the church through the Spirit of
Prophecy, deploring the "conformity of some professed Sabbathkeepers to the
world." It was pointed out that these "have a disposition to dress and act as
much like the world as possible and yet go to heaven."--Testimonies for the
Church, vol. 1, p. 131.
Page 6
Concerning the view given her at that time, Mrs. White
wrote:
"I saw that some professed Sabbathkeepers spend hours that are
worse than thrown away, in studying this or that fashion to decorate the poor,
mortal body. While you make yourselves appear like the world, and as beautiful
as you can, remember that the same body may in a few days be food for worms.
And while you adorn it to your taste, to please the eye, you are dying
spiritually. . . . I saw that the outside appearance is an index to the heart.
When the exterior is hung with ribbons, collars, and needless things, it
plainly shows that the love for all this is in the heart; unless such persons
are cleansed from their corruption, they can never see God, for only the pure
in heart will see Him."--Ibid, pp. 1134, 136.
Thus for a time were set forth general principles that should
govern the Christian who seeks to follow the injunction of the apostle against
the "love of the world." The first word of opposition found in our
denominational literature against a specific style of dress is in the Review
and Herald of August 5, 1858, where Elder J. Byington makes the following
innuendo in the form of a question and a conclusion:
"Are sleeves which are largest at the little end, and round tires
like the moon, or hoops (Isa. 3:18), articles of dress that are modest apparel?
1 Timothy 2:9. If so, let them be recommended to the church
generally."--Review and Herald, August 5, 1858.
Only four ladies, apparently ventured to respond to the
question, with its implication. All these were agreed in condemning the first
style, and three agreed that the wearing of hoops was a practice "unbecoming
women professing godliness." One, however, expressed her opinion that the hoops
were unobjectionable and might be "recommended to the church generally in this
season of the year, when used with moderation."--Ibid, September 23, 1858.
In the latter part of 1861, Mrs. White said of this oddity,
"Hoops, I was shown, were an abomination, and every Sabbathkeeper's influence
should be a rebuke to this ridiculous fashion, which has been a screen to
iniquity."--Ibid, August 27, 1861.
Hoops continued to be frequently denounced in the church paper,
both by ministry and laity. The general stand of the church against them is
reflected in a letter from a lady correspondent who wrote of her experience in
accepting the message. At a tent meeting she asked one good sister if she could
be an Adventist and continue wearing her hoops. A negative reply caused her to
assert that she could not become a member if that were the case. However, after
hearing a lecture on dress by Elder Waggoner, she decided that she "could lay
them off forever if it would be pleasing in the sight of the Lord."--Ibid,
April 28, 1863.
The deplorable physical effects of the fashionable dress of
that period began to receive attention about this time. Under the heading
"Talks About Health," two articles appeared, both selected from the writings of
Dr. Dio Lewis of Boston. In the first (November 25, 1862) he pointed out the
evil effects of insufficient clothing for the limbs, and in the second (May 25,
1863) he condemned the corset
Page 7
and recommended a "full and loose" dresswaist to be supported
from the shoulders instead of the hips. The "dress reformers" who advocated the
"American Costume" exerted but little influence, however, upon Seventh-day
Adventists, and only a few of them adopted it.
The fact that many Spiritualists had adopted the Bloomer, or
"American Costume," and wore it at their meetings gave it an unsavory
reputation in the eyes of many sincere Christians. The costume as modified was
now very much shorter than when first introduced, coming barely to the knee or
even higher than that, and this tended to bring it into discredit as being
immodest.
It was from the standpoint of modesty and propriety that the
"American Costume" was first discussed by Mrs. Ellen G. White. In 1863, in
writing of the "cause in the East," where some had taken extreme positions and
others had run into fanaticism, she stated:
"God would not have His people adopt the so-called reform dress. It
is immodest apparel, wholly unfitted for the modest, humble followers of
Christ."--Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1, p. 421.
In presenting Scriptural arguments against this extreme style,
she also wrote:
"I saw that God's order has been reversed, and His special
directions disregarded by those who adopt the American costume. I was referred
to Deuteronomy 22:5: 'The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a
man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are
abomination unto the Lord thy God.'"--Ibid.
Mrs. White wrote also of the influence that might be exerted
against Seventh-day Adventists were they to adopt this extreme form of dress,
pointing out that they might be mistaken for Spiritualists if they were to
adopt it:
"Some who believe the truth may think that it would be more
healthful for the sisters to adopt the American Costume, yet if that mode of
dress would cripple our influence among unbelievers so that we could not so
readily gain access to them, we should by no means adopt it, though we suffered
much in consequence. . . .
"Spiritualists have, to quite an extent, adopted this singular mode
of dress. Seventh-day Adventists, who believe in the restoration of the gifts,
are often branded as spiritualists. Let them adopt this costume, and their
influence is dead. The people would place them on a level with spiritualists
and would refuse to listen to them. . . . There is a great work for us to do in
the world, and God would not have us take a course to lessen or destroy our
influence with the world."--Ibid, pp. 431, 422.
While the unfavorable features of the "American Costume" were
opened to Mrs. White and she wrote against the adoption of it by our sisters,
yet she was equally clear regarding the objectionable features of the
prevailing styles of dress, and the need for reform. Her attention was directed
to a medium position which our sisters should take, following neither the
extreme mannish "American Costume" nor the health-destroying, action-impeding,
long, heavy dresses of the time. Introducing a call for reform, Mrs. White
said:
Page 8
"We do not think it in accordance with our faith to dress in
the American Costume, to wear hoops, or to go to an extreme in wearing long
dresses which sweep the sidewalks and streets. If women would wear their
dresses so as to clear the filth of the streets an inch or two, their dresses
would be modest, and they could be kept clear much more easily, and would wear
longer. Such a dress would be in accordance with our faith."--Ibid. p.
424.
"There is a medium position in these things. Oh, that we all might
wisely find that position and keep it."--Ibid, p. 425.
A fuller presentation of the subject of dress was prepared by
Mrs. White for the concluding and sixth article as later presented in How to
Live. In this we may discover the following basic principles upon which a
true reform must be built:
1. "It is injurious to health, and, therefore, sin for females
to wear tight corsets, or whalebone, or to compress the waist."--How to
Live, No. 6, p. 57.
2. "Many females drag down the bowels and hips by hanging heavy
skirts upon them. These were not formed to sustain weights. . . . The female
dress should be suspended from the shoulders."--Ibid., p. 58.
3. "Should not the people of God, who are His peculiar
treasure, seek even in their dress to glorify God? And should they not be
examples in point of dress, and by their simple style rebuke the pride, vanity,
and extravagance of worldly, pleasure-loving professors?"--Ibid., p. 58.
4. They should not, however, be "careless of their own apparel.
. . . and dress without order and taste." "Decency and neatness" are not to be
classed "with pride."--Ibid., pp. 58, 59.
5. "It would be pleasing to God if there was greater uniformity
in dress among believers."--Ibid., p. 58.
6. "The length of the fashionable female dress is objectionable
for several reasons. . . . The dress should reach somewhat below the top of the
boot; but should be short enough to clear the filth of the sidewalk and street,
without being raised by the hand."--Ibid., pp. 62-64.
7. "Whatever may be the length of the dress, females should
clothe their limbs as thoroughly as the males. This may be done by wearing
lined pants gathered into a band and fastened about the ankle, or made full and
tapering at the bottom; and these should come down long enough to meet the
shoe."--Ibid., p. 64.
To those who might object to such a costume on the grounds that
it would be old-fashioned, Mrs. White replied:
"What if it is? I wish we could be old-fashioned in many respects.
If we could have the old-fashioned strength that characterized the
old-fashioned women of past generations it would be very desirable."--Ibid., p.
64.
She urged that womanhood should "manifest a noble independence,
and moral courage to be right, if all the world differ from them."--Ibid., pp.
61, 62.
"Christians should not take pains to make themselves
gazing-stocks by
Page 9
dressing differently from the world. But if, in accordance
with their faith and duty in respect to their dressing modestly and
healthfully, they find themselves out of fashion, they should not change their
dress in order to be like the world."--Ibid. p. 61.
Such were the circumstances when Elder and Mrs. White made
their visit to Dr. Jackson's institution at Dansville, New York. A definite
stand had been taken against hoops. Mrs. White had spoken specifically against
the adoption of the "American Costume" because of its immodesty, its
resemblance to male attire, as being contrary to the scriptural injunction, and
because of the prejudice it would raise against those who had a solemn truth to
give to the world. She deplored the ultra-long dress, and recommended one short
enough so that it would always clear the ground. And she was praying that God's
people might find the proper medium position in these things.
During their three weeks' stay at Our Home, Mrs. White and her
husband had opportunity to observe at close hand the mode of dress that she had
formerly declared to be unsuitable for Seventh-day Adventists. Through the
lectures and the literature put out by Doctors Jackson and Austin, they had
opportunity to become better acquainted with the reasons for its adoption. But
they were not led to alter their former counsel that it was not suitable for
Seventh-day Adventist womanhood. It is evident, however, that they did find in
their hearts a deepening conviction that they should endeavor to find a dress
pattern that would be healthful in every way and yet be free from the
objectionable features of the "American Costume." Elder White expressed his
views as follows:
"At Our Home, the ladies wear what is commonly called the short
dress, which is so frequently worn in its ultra-style by brazen-faced and
doubtful female Spiritualists. These things have a tremendously prejudicial
influence abroad against the invaluable good of this institution. We
recognize the principles from which arise the valid objections to the present
fashionable style of women's dress, and look for a remedy that will have to the
world her appearance as a woman, and save her from public ridicule, and to
herself influence. But we have serious objections to woman's dress being so
long as to constitute her a street sweeper, and we strongly incline to the
opinion that existing evils in her dress can be fully removed without adopting
those extremes which we sometimes witness."--Ibid, No. 1, p. 1. (italics
supplied).
A similar recognition of the need for a reformed dress that
might be adopted by Seventh-day Adventist women is voiced in a letter written
by Mrs. White to friends during the time of her visit to Dansville. In a free
and easy manner she said:
"They have all styles of dress here. Some are very becoming, if not
so short. We shall get patterns from this place and I think we can get out a
style of dress more healthful than we now wear, and yet not be Bloomer or the
American Costume. . . . I am going to get up a style of dress on my own hook
which will accord perfectly with that which has been shown me. Health demands
it. Our feeble women must dispense with heavy skirts and tight waists if they
value health. . . .
"We shall never imitate Miss Dr. Austin or Mrs. Dr. York. They
dress very much like men. We shall imitate or follow no fashion we have ever
yet seen. We shall institute a fashion which will be both economical and
healthful."--Letter 1a, 1864 (italics supplied).
Page 10
It is evident from this statement that up to that time,
although Mrs. White had "been shown" certain principles that should govern a
reform in dress, there had been no detailed, specified pattern revealed to her.
Later she consulted with other sisters in Battle Creek, Michigan, in seeking
for a costume that would be consistent with the faith and practice of
Seventh-day Adventists. It seems probable that it was about this time, while
they were endeavoring to find such a middle-of-the-road pattern, that the
vision was given in which she saw three companies of women, each with a
different length of dress. Regarding this she wrote, in 1867, in reply to a
question:
"The first were of fashionable length, burdening the limbs,
impeding the step, sweeping the street and gathering its filth; the evil
results of which I have fully stated. This class, who were slaves to fashion,
appeared feeble and languid.
"The dress of the second class which passed before me was in
many respects as it should be. The limbs were well clad. They were free from
the burdens which the tyrant Fashion had imposed upon the first class; but had
gone to that extreme in the short dress as to disgust and prejudice good
people, and destroy in a great measure their own influence. This is the style
and influence of the 'American Costume,' taught and worn by many at Our Home,
Dansville, New York. It does not reach to the knee. I need not say that this
style of dress was shown me to be too short.
"A third class passed before me with cheerful countenances, and
free, elastic step. Their dress was the length I have described as proper,
modest and healthful. It cleared the filth of the street and sidewalk a few
inches under all circumstances, such as ascending and descending steps,
etc."--Review and Herald, October 8, 1867.
In September, 1865, Mrs. White put on such a dress, which she
wore for a time "excepting at meetings, in the crowded streets of villages and
cities, and when visiting distance relatives."--Ibid. After a time she wore it
in all places at all times.
Her example was soon followed by several of the Seventh-day
Adventist women in northern Michigan, and numerous letters of inquiry came from
many quarters. When she saw that some were overemphasizing the question, as a
matter of prime importance, she was led to protest:
"The dress reform was among the minor things that were to make up
the great reform in health, and never should have been urged as a testing truth
necessary to salvation. It was the design of God that at the right time, on
proper occasions, the proper persons should set forth its benefits as a
blessing, and recommend uniformity, and union of action."--Ibid.
Mrs. White's advocacy of the health reform dress came thirteen
years after Mrs. Miller, Mrs. Stanton, and Mrs. Bloomer had initiated in the
United States the movement in favor of dress reform. There was scarcely a
section of the country in which the voices of its friends were not heard. It
had found able and honored advocates in its favor, as well as critics and
defamers. Thousands of women were rejoicing in new-found freedom and health.
Yet with all that might well be said in its favor, Mrs. White presented
adequate reasons given to her why it was unsuit-
Page 11
able for Seventh-day Adventists, and she determined to help her
fellow sisters to find and adopt a style of dress in harmony with that shown
her, one that would avoid the extreme and unfavorable aspects of the popular
reform dress and yet give freedom of action and be healthful in every way. She
was not, therefore, introducing and initiating a style of costume that was so
ridiculous and strange as to merit the criticisms that some in later years have
been led to present in a manner that seems plausible to those who are unaware
of the circumstances which have been here presented.
The physicians at the Health Institute, from the very first,
had seen the need for a style of dress that would conform to correct
principles, saying that "it was not only desirable, but necessary in the
treatment of some cases; and that being so it would be useless and wrong to
receive such cases without adopting what they were assured was essential to
effect cures." They also saw that if a healthful dress was not adopted a
certain class of people who most needed the benefits of the Institute would be
led to go elsewhere to other institutions where they might be freed from the
"cumbersome, prevailing fashion,"--The Health Reformer, March, 1868.
At first, general principles of healthful dress were urged, and
the individual wearers might consult their own taste and choice as to the
length and appearance of the garments worn by them. While such a diversity had
its disadvantages, yet it afforded an opportunity to observe and compare a
number of patterns, and thus to select the best features in striving for a
uniform style and length.
How this was done is related by Elder J. H. Waggoner.
At his request the physicians at the Institute named a number
of its inmates whose dresses they considered the best in make and appearance.
He then "measured the height of twelve, with the distance of their dresses from
the floor. They varied in height from five feet to five feet seven inches, and
the distance of the dresses from the floor was from 8 to 10 1/2 inches. The
medium, nine inches, was decided to be the right distance, and is adopted as
the standard."--Ibid.
It was the style of costume thus adopted at the Health Reform
Institute that had become the prevailing pattern used not only by Seventh-day
Adventist women there, but among the churches.
However, Mrs. White did not unduly urge the adoption of the
dress reform. "None need fear," she wrote, "that I shall make dress reform one
of my principal subjects as we travel from place to place. . . . I shall urge
none and condemn none. This is not the work assigned me."--Testimonies for
the Church, vol. 1, p. 523.
The ministers, as they visited the churches, regarded the newly
adopted healthful dress as an important feature of the health reform, and gave
it a place in their discourses. As they reported their work, they frequently
mentioned the favorable reception of this portion of their message. Hence,
Elder D. M. Canright, in commenting on a special meeting in Portland, Maine,
wrote:
Page 12
"The modesty of the short dress is not the smallest thing to be
considered. . . . With the reform dress one, all exposure is entirely avoided.
After seeing it worn, I think it is the most modest dress I have ever seen, and
I am not alone in this opinion.
"All these things were freely talked over here. Nearly all decided
in favor of it, and other had but very slight objections to it. . . . Most of
the sisters resolved as soon as consistent to adopt it. My wife, who wears one,
has assisted them in preparing their dresses. They have adopted the health
reform quite thoroughly."--Review and Herald, June 18,
1867.
For about four years or more considerable was written in our
denominational publications about the advantages accruing from the consistent
use of the health dress. Many willingly and gladly adapted their garb to
conform with the principles of health as well as of modesty, which prompted the
designing of the "health reform dress." But its acceptance was not general, and
there was opposition and criticism. Some, forgetting "that none were to be
compelled to wear the reform dress," sought to control others' conscience by
their own. "With extremists, this reform seemed to constitute the sum and
substance of their religion. It was the theme of conversation and the burden of
their hearts. . . . Instead of prizing the dress for its real advantages, they
seemed to be proud of its singularity." So wrote Mrs. White in 1881 in answer
to the question, "why has this dress been laid aside?" And she continued:
"To those who put it on reluctantly, from a sense of duty, it
became a grievous yoke. Still others, who were apparently the most zealous
reformers, manifested a sad lack of order and neatness in their
dress."--Testimonies for the Church, vol. 4, p. 636.
Consequently, "because that which was given as a blessing was
turned into a cruse, the burden of advocating the reform dress was
removed."--Ms 167, 1897.A
Page 13
Nevertheless, she still urged that Seventh-day Adventist women
"adopt a simple, unadorned dress of modest length," and suggested "another,
less objectionable style." This consisted of "a plain sack or loose-fitting
basque, and skirt, the latter short enough to avoid the mud and filth of the
streets." It was to be "free from needless trimmings, free from looped-up, tied
back overskirts."--Testimonies, vol. 4, p. 640.
Such a dress Mrs. White personally wore during her later life,
but she deplored any attempt to urge a uniform style upon others. When in later
years a few conscientious sisters in the faith felt that a move should be made
to restore the "reform dress," and to agitate for its general adoption, she
earnestly counseled against this. She sought to correct a mistaken impression,
saying:
"Some have supposed that the very pattern given was the pattern
that all were to adopt. This is not so. But something as simple as this would
be the best we could adopt under the circumstances. No one precise style has
been given me as the exact rule to guide in all their dress."--Letter 19,
1897.
By this time, prevailing styles had changed and were more
sensible and healthful, and there was no reason for departing widely from
established custom in the matter of dress. In view of this fact, Mrs. White
spoke decidedly against an issue "to divert the minds of the people and get
them into controversy over the subject of dress," and she counseled:
"Let our sisters dress plainly, as many do, having the dress of
good material, durable, modest, appropriate for this age, and let not the dress
question fill the mind."--Ibid.
Page 14
by Mrs. E. G. White
In answer to the questions that have recently come to me in
regard to resuming the reform dress, I would say that those who have been
agitating this subject may be assured that they have not been inspired by the
Spirit of God. The Lord has not indicated that it is the duty of our sisters to
go back to the reform dress. The difficulties that we once had to meet are not
to be brought in again. There must be no branching out now into singular forms
of dress. New and strange things will continually arise, to lead God's people
into false excitement, religious revivals, and curious developments; but our
people should not be subjected to any tests of human invention that will create
controversy in any line.
The advocacy of the old reform dress proved a battle at every
step. With some there was no uniformity and taste in the preparation of the
costume, and those who refused to adopt it caused dissension and discord. Thus
the cause was dishonored. Because that which was given as a blessing was turned
into a curse, the burden of advocating the reform dress was removed.
There were some things that made the reform dress a decided
blessing. With it the ridiculous hoops, which were then the fashion, could not
possibly be worn; nor the long, trailing skirts, sweeping up the filth of the
streets. But in recent years a more sensible style of dress has been adopted by
the world, which does not embrace these objectionable features; and if our
sisters wish to make their dresses after these models, simple and plain, the
Lord will not be dishonored by their doing so.
Some have supposed that the shirt and sacque mentioned in
Testimonies, vol. 4, page 640, was the pattern that all should adopt.
This is not so, but something as simple as this should be used. No one precise
style has been given me as the exact rule to guide all in their dress. Should
our sisters think they must adopt a uniform style of dress, controversy would
arise, and those whose minds should be wholly given to the work of the third
angel's message would spend their time making aggressive warfare on the outward
dress, to the neglect of that inward piety, the ornament of a meek and quiet
spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
The dress question is not to be our present truth. To create an
issue on this point now would please the enemy. He would be delighted to have
minds diverted to any subject by which he might create division of sentiment,
and lead our people into controversy.
I beg of our people to walk carefully and circumspectly before
God. Follow the customs in dress so far as they conform to health principles.
Let our sisters dress plainly, as many do, having the dress of good, durable
material, appropriate for this age, and let not the dress question fill the
mind. B
Our sisters should dress with simplicity. They should clothe
themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety. Give to the
world a living illustration of the in-
Page 15
ward adorning of the grace of God. Place yourselves under the
discipline of the living oracles of God, subjecting the mind to influences
which form the character aright.
We are nearing the close of this world's history. We are face
to face with tremendous conflicts, storms of dissension of which few dream; and
all our time and power of thought are to be centered on the living issues
before us. God has tests for this age, and they are to stand out plain and
unmistakable. It is too late now to become enthusiastic over any man-made
tests. The great test for this time is on the commandments of God, especially
the Sabbath, and nothing is to be brought in to draw the mind and heart from
the preparation needed to meet it. The people of God will have all the test
that they can bear. The Sabbath question is a test that will come to the whole
world. We need nothing to come in now as a test for God's people that shall
make more severe for them the test they already have. . . .
Let our sisters conscientiously heed the word of God for
themselves. Do not begin the work of reform until you do. You cannot possibly
change the heart. To get up a different style of dress will not do it. The
difficulty is, the church needs converting daily. There are many things that
will come to try and test these poor, deluded, spiritually-dwarfed,
world-loving souls. They will have deep trials. Let there be no man-made tests,
for God has prepared to prove and try them. If they will heed His admonitions
and warnings, humble their souls before Him, and let Him be the object of their
worship, He will receive them graciously.
The working of the Spirit of God will show a change outwardly.
Those who venture to disobey the plainest statements of Inspiration will not
heed any human efforts made to induce them to wear a plain, neat, unadorned,
proper dress, that will not in any way make them odd or singular. They will
continue to expose themselves by hanging out their colors to the world.
There are those who will never return to their first love. They
will never cease to make an idol of self. With all the light of the word of God
shining on their pathway, they will not obey His directions. They will follow
their own tastes, and do as they please. These sisters give a wrong example to
the youth, and to those who have newly come to the faith, for they see little
difference between their apparel and that of the worldling.
To those who are making self their idol nothing in the line of human tests
should be presented, for it would only give them an excuse for making the final
plunge into apostasy. Such do not know whom they are serving. Knowledge and
power belong to God. The ignorantly guilty must learn their condition. We must
wait patiently, and not fail or be discouraged, for God has His plans all
arranged. While we are burdened and distressed, but waiting in patient
submission, our invisible Helper will be doing the work we do not see, and will
bring to pass in His providence events which will either work reformations, or
will separate these half-hearted, world-loving members from the believers. The
Lord knows about every case, and how to deal with each. Our wisdom is limited
to a point, while infinite wisdom comprehends the end from the beginning. Our
whole term of probation is very brief. A short work will be done in the earth.
God's own tests will come; His proving will be sharp and decisive. Let every
soul humble himself before God, and prepare for what is awaiting us.
Page 16
Let these conscientious sisters who would enter upon the work
of dress reform, walk circumspectly, and work in a manner that will correspond
with the burden of the message for this time. The surrender of heart, soul, and
mind in obedience to the commandments of God is as a thread of gold, binding up
the precious things of God and revealing their value in the time of trial.
Therefore I say to my sisters, Enter into no controversy in
regard to outward apparel, but be sure you have the inward adorning of a meek
and quite spirit. Let all who accept the truth show their true colors. We are a
spectacle to the world, to angels, and to men. False prudence, mock modesty, may
be shown by the outward apparel, while the heart is in great need of the inward
adorning. Stand ever committed to the right.
Do not look around to see if there are not tests that can be
brought upon God's people. God has given a test--the Sabbath of the Fourth
Commandment. "Verily My Sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between Me and
you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth
sanctify you. . . . Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to
observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It
is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever: for in six days the
Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day He rested, and was
refreshed" [Ex. 31:13-17].
All who bring to the observance of the Sabbath a heart
consecrated to God, will find that the day God has sanctified is more to them
than they had any idea of. "I am the Lord that doth sanctify you" (Ex. 31:13).
"If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on My
holy day; and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable; and
shalt honor Him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor
speaking thine own words: then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord; and I
will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with
the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it"
(Isa. 58:13, 14).--Ms 167, 1897.
Footnotes
A - Note: Some may
ask, "Does the Lord ever lower His standards to suit people's tastes or ways?"
Elder G. I. Butler, in speaking of the reform dress, answers this question as
follows:
"The Lord does accommodate His requirements to people's ways,
even when He would prefer they should do some other and better way. Though He
does not always do it, or do it concerning some of His requirements, or
generally do it, yet in matters of lesser moment, and of expediency where He
has recommended a better way, He sometimes permits them to follow their own
choice, though it always proves less beneficial to them than if they had done
as He directed. We propose to prove this too plainly for denial."
Several instances are cited, such as:
God's provision for flesh food for Israel when they murmured
because of the manna (see Num. 11), and His giving Israel a king when they
requested it, although such was not God's original design (see 1 Sam. 8).]
B -
Note: In a letter of counsel written at this time, Mrs. White urged: "Follow
the custom of dress in health reform, but do not again introduce the short
dress and pants unless you have the word of the Lord for it."--Letter 19,
1897.
Ellen G. White Estate
February, 1950
Retyped June, 1990.