In Defense of the Faith

The Reform Dress

“One of the worst blunders Mrs. White ever made,” says Mr. Canright, “was the move she made on dress.”—Ibid., p. 149. DOF 351.4

The issue thus raised is due to the fact that at a time when tight corsets were worn, when hoops were in fashion, and when women’s dresses were dragging behind and mopping up the filth of the streets, Mrs. White, like some other reformers, advocated a reform dress for women. She urged that women’s dresses should “clear the filth of the streets” at least an inch or two, and that nine inches would be better; that for warmth an appropriate undergarment should be worn to protect the lower limbs-pantalettes, these were sometimes called. Now to Mr. Canright this “was a shame and a disgrace.” “Think,” says he, “of a modest woman on the street with pants on, and her dress cut halfway up to the knees!”—Ibid. DOF 351.5

And yet a little later the shears in the hands of fashion leaders began to work, and inch by inch the skirts were clipped until they were six to nine inches from, the ground, then just below the knee, then above the knee. True, conservative and modest women did not carry the clipping process quite so far, but stopped at about nine inches from the ground-just where Mrs. White and other reformers of her day advocated that the skirts should stop. And today a modest woman can go about the streets with her “dress cut halfway up to the knees” and not have her modesty questioned in the least degree. In fact, the length of skirt is of the conservative style, and is taken as an evidence of modesty on the part of the wearer. The reform dress, therefore, only slightly modified from what was originally advocated, is now the prevailing style, minus, however, the protection to I the lower limbs suggested by’ Mrs. White. DOF 352.1

Without giving undue space to this subject, we think attention should be called to the most glaring misrepresentations, made by the use of garbled quotations, in Mr. Canright’s treatment of this question. As an instance of direct contradiction, Mr. Canright quotes two sentences from Mrs. White, out of their setting, thus: “God would not have His people adopt the so-called reform dress” (Testimonies for the Church 1:421), and a statement written four year later, “God would now have His people adopt the reform dress.”—Ibid., p. 525. DOF 352.2

And here is Mr. Canright’s explanation of this seeming contradiction: DOF 353.1

“What occasioned this change in the mind of the Lord? The answer is easy: In the time between the two revelations Mrs. White had spent some time at Dr. Jackson’s Home, Dansville, New York. Here a short dress with pants was worn, and she fell in with the idea, and soon had a vision’ requiring its adoption as above.”—Seventh-day Adventism Renounced, p. 149. DOF 353.2

The whole question becomes clear when it is stated that there were two distinct styles of dress referred to. In the first quotation let the reader notice that it is the “so-called” reform dress, that was condemned by Mrs. White. The one referred to thus is what was known as the “American costume.” In this costume the dress was very short, and the pants worn made the wearer look mannish. DOF 353.3

That Mrs. White was consistent in condemning this, even while recommending another style of “reform dress,” is indicated by the following quotation from a report of meetings written by James White: DOF 353.4

“During the meetings up to this date, Mrs. White has taken the opportunity to explain and harmonize her Testimonies on the dress question, showing the difference between the reform dress and the ‘American costume,’ that while the first mentioned style of dress reaches to about the top of a lady’s boot, the ‘American costume’ does not reach to the knee.”—The Review and Herald, January 15, 1867. DOF 353.5

Although Mr. Canright was, as we shall prove, familiar with this distinction, and with Mrs. White’s consistent attitude in condemning the one while recommending a better, yet he sets out as an apparent contradiction two statements, one referring to the “American costume,“ and the other the reform dress as it was later developed. That the reader may be assured that it was this ultra-short “American costume” that was condemned, it is necessary only to consider Mrs. White’s words in their setting. Here is the quotation as it stands: DOF 353.6

“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 pertains 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.’ DOF 354.1

“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 1:421. DOF 354.2

Elder Canright’s plausible explanation as to Mrs. White’s change of mind-though in fact there was no change-is that she adopted a style that she saw at the “Home” in Dansville. We are fortunate in having in her own handwriting a letter written by her during that visit to which Mr. Canright makes reference. Here is what she wrote regarding the dress as she saw it worn there: DOF 354.3

“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. Our dresses, according to my idea, should be from four to six inches shorter than now worn, and should in no case reach lower than the top of the heel of the shoe, and could be a little shorter even than this with all modesty. 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.... DOF 354.4

“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 healthy.”—From a letter to “Brother and Sister Lockwood,” dated September, 1864. DOF 355.1

From this letter it will be noted that all that Mrs. White claimed as being given by revelation regarding dress was the principles that should prevail. It is evident that she was seeking a style which she should recommend, a style that should be modest, healthful, becoming, and economical. She, with others connected with the Health Institute in Battle Creek, worked out the details of a costume that was adopted by the ladies at the health institution, and so recommended itself by its good sense that some of the patients adopted it, and took patterns away with them upon their return home. DOF 355.2

Regarding some of the details connected with the introduction at the Health Institute of a reform dress in harmony with the principles of health and modesty, we have the following statement: DOF 355.3

“When the Health Reform Institute was established, the physicians decided that a better style of dress for women than the long, dragging skirts, was desirable.... ‘The physicians declared 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. Again, it seemed to be understood and conceded by all health reformers who had investigated the subject, that a reform dress was necessary, and if it was not adopted at the Institute, a class of patients would surely be driven to other institutions, where something different from the prevailing fashion was adopted. Therefore to neglect this reform would be to sacrifice the best interests of the Institute, and of a certain class who most needed its benefits.... DOF 355.4

“As might be expected, when it was first being adopted at the Institute there was not complete uniformity, but the taste and choice of the wearers had much to do with the length and appearance of the dresses worn.... DOF 356.1

“At my request the physicians at the Institute named a number of its inmates whose dresses they considered as nearly correct in make and appearance as could be found to that number among the varieties. I measured the height of twelve, with the distance of their dresses from the floor. They varied in height from five feet to five seven inches, and the distance of the dresses from the floor was from 8 to 1OV2 inches. The medium, nine inches, was decided to be the right distance, and is adopted as the standard.”—The Health Reformer, March, 1868. DOF 356.2

It is true that positive testimony was borne by Mrs. White regarding the need of dress reform, and certain principles that should be adopted; yet it was the physicians and others at the sanitarium, as shown above-doubtless in collaboration with Mrs. White, who was then living in Battle Creek-who experimented, designed, modeled, and recommended it as a dress that conformed to health principles. She urged its adoption, as being consistent with the principles she had been shown. DOF 356.3

At the time when the dress reform was agitated by Mrs. White, it was impossible to devise any sort of healthful costume that would not be so far from the prevailing fashions as to arouse ridicule from the devotees of fashion. In later years, when more healthful styles were adopted, Mrs. White expressed her pleasure that Christians could wear healthful and modest clothes without appearing singular. DOF 356.4

Mr. Canright says of the reform dress: DOF 356.5

“It created a terrible commotion. Husbands swore, brothers refused to walk with their sisters, men sneered, and boys hooted.”—Seventh-day Adventism Renounced, pp. 149, 150. DOF 357.1

Mrs. White, however, was not responsible for any trouble in families created by the reform dress for she distinctly cautioned her sisters against taking a course to which there was opposition on the part of their husbands: DOF 357.2

“Sisters who have opposing husbands have asked my advice in regard to their adopting the short dress contrary to the wishes of the husband. I advised them to wait... The opposition which many might receive should they adopt, the dress reform, would be more injurious to health than the dress would be beneficial.”—Testimonies for the Church 1:522. DOF 357.3

But not all husbands were, as Mr. Canright intimates, opposed to the new costume recommended by Mrs. White. Here is the testimony of one husband: DOF 357.4

“The modesty of the short dress is not the smallest thing to be considered. Any one that has travelled as much as I have, can bear testimony with me to the immodesty of the hoop skirt. A lady with one on very seldom enters a carriage, omnibus, car, and such places, without immodestly exposing herself. But with the reform dress on, 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.”—The Review and Herald, June 18, 1867. DOF 357.5

This husband was D. M. Canright, who expressed this opinion before he severed himself from the Seventh day Adventists. And we have the most positive evidence that Mr. Canright, understood the difference between the American costume, which Mrs. White from the first condemned as immodest, and the reform dress which was adopted. In a report of a meeting, in which he set forth the advantages of the reform dress, he says, immediately after the paragraph just quoted: DOF 357.6

“Nearly all decided in favour of it, and others had but very slight objections to it.... The reform dress and the American costume are two very different things. All could readily see this.”—Ibid. DOF 358.1

In giving the history of the reform dress agitation, it should be recognized that good judgment was not always used by those who made the change. And no one more than Mrs. White deplored this fact. Thus she says: DOF 358.2

“In some places there is great opposition to the short dress. But when I see some dresses worn by the sisters, I do not wonder that people are disgusted, and condemn the dress. Where the dress is represented as it should be, all candid persons are constrained to admit that it is modest and convenient.”—Testimonies for the Church 1:521. DOF 358.3

The reader who desires to judge for himself as to the good sense manifested in Mrs. White’s advocacy of a health reform dress, is referred to a chapter entitled “The Reform Dress,” in Testimonies for the Church 1:521-525. DOF 358.4