Editing Lucy Stone (section)

=== Dress reform ===
[[File:Lucy Stone in bloomers.jpg|thumb|left|250px|An engraving of Lucy Stone wearing [[Bloomers (clothing)|bloomers]] was published in 1853.]]
When Stone resumed lecturing in the fall of 1851, she wore a new style of dress that she had adopted during her winter convalescence, consisting of a loose, short jacket and a pair of baggy trousers, under a skirt that fell a few inches below the knees.<ref>Million, 2003, pp. 114-16.</ref> The dress was a product of the health-reform movement and intended to replace the fashionable French dress of a tight bodice over a whalebone-fitted corset, and a skirt that dragged several inches on the floor, worn over several layers of starched petticoats with straw or horsehair sewn into the hems. Ever since the fall of 1849, when the ''Water-Cure Journal'' urged women to invent a style of dress that would allow them to use their legs, freely, women across the country had been wearing some form of pants and short skirt, generally called the "Turkish costume" or the "American dress."<ref>''Water-Cure Journal'', Oct., Dec. 1849; Jan., Feb., June 1850.</ref> Most wore it as a walking or gardening dress, but a letter writer to the National Woman's Rights Convention urged women to adopt it as common attire.<ref>''Proceedings of the Woman's Rights Convention, Held at Worcester, October 23 and 24, 1850''. Boston: Prentiss and Sawyer, pp. 76-77.</ref>

By the spring of 1851, women in several states were wearing the dress in public.<ref>''Lily,'' March, May, June 1851.</ref> In March, [[Amelia Bloomer]], editor of the temperance newspaper ''The Lily,'' announced that she was wearing it and printed a description of her dress, along with instructions on how to make it. Soon, newspapers had dubbed it the [[Bloomers|Bloomer dress]], and the name stuck.<ref>Noun, Louise R., ''Strong-Minded Women: The Emergence of the Woman Suffrage Movement in Iowa,'' Iowa State University Press, 1986, pp. 16-17.</ref> The Bloomer became a fashion fad, during the following months, as women from Toledo to New York City and Lowell, Massachusetts, held reform-dress social events and festivals. Supporters gathered signatures to a "Declaration of Independence from the Despotism of Parisian Fashion" and organized dress-reform societies. A few Garrisonian supporters of women's rights took prominent part in these activities, and one offered silk to any of his friends who would make it into a short skirt and trousers for a public dress. Stone accepted the offer.<ref name="Million, 2003, p. 115">Million, 2003, p. 115.</ref>

When Stone lectured in the dress in the fall of 1851, hers was the first Bloomer most of her audiences had ever seen. But by then, the dress had become controversial. Although newspapers had initially praised the practicality of the new style, they soon turned to ridicule and condemnation, now viewing the trousers as a usurpation of the symbol of male authority.<ref name="Million, 2003, p. 115" /> Many women retreated, in the face of criticism, but Stone continued to wear the short dress, exclusively, for the next three years. She also wore her hair short, cut just below her jaw line. After Stone lectured in New York City in April 1853, the report of her speeches in the ''Illustrated News'' was accompanied by this engraving of Stone in the Bloomer dress.<ref>"Lucy Stone," ''Illustrated News,'' May 28, 1853.</ref>

Stone found the short skirt convenient, during her travels, and she defended it against those who said it was a distraction that hurt the women's rights cause. Nevertheless, she disliked the instant attention it drew, whenever she arrived in a new place. In the fall of 1854, she added a dress a few inches longer, for occasional use.<ref>Million, 2003, pp. 168-69.</ref> In 1855, she abandoned the dress, altogether, and she was not involved in the formation of a National Dress Reform Association in February 1856. Her resumption of long skirts drew the condemnation of such dress-reform leaders as [[Gerrit Smith]] and [[Lydia Sayer Hasbrouk]], who accused her of sacrificing principle for the sake of pleasing a husband.<ref>Million, 2003, pp. 217-18, 235.</ref>