New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1853-05-23
THE WAR OF THE FLOWERS.

readers, to turn from the wars of the Giants
from the contest of parties from the law
struggles of masculine bipeds in their various
relations-to the pleasant and vivacious tour
nament which has been going on for some days
past, in the columns of the Crescent, between
those lovely representations Of the Floral world,
the lively Daisy and the modest Violet. The
public, or, which is the same thing, all Ores
centdom, has been intensely excited by this
novel Ind well contested combat The eager
| demand for an unusually large edition of our
paper attests this strong interest, we'll as the
great Importance of the points involved. We
confess that we have never known a controversy
which was maintained with more spirit than
that between these two gentle and fragrant
daughters of Flores If we may be allowed,
however, to run a parallel between them, we
should say that Violet is more terse and curt
Daisy more witty and ingenious. Violet is ner-
vous and rather shrinks from prolonged cOntro-
versy, Daisy, conscious Of her logical aptitude
and felicitous humor, as we'll as Of her exhaust
less good temper, rather courts and luxuriatcs in
| controversy. Violet is confdng, trusting and
credulous. Daisy is selfreliant, independent
and courageous Violet is no doubt sweet,
pretty girl-who contemplates matrimony rs
one of the eventualities Of life, and wisely de-
termines to prepare herself for its responsible
ties by thinking better of the sex with whom
she is doomed to co-exist Hence her gentle
forbearance to the gregarious starers Of Camp
and St Charles-hence her general advocacy Of
the ruder sex-her charity for their weaknesses,
and her boundless confidence in their virtues
| Violet will get husband, if she has not al
ready one-she will make a good wife; but
Daisy the mischievous, racy, witty, pungent,
man-de preciating and woman exalting Daisy
catch her sparing the weakness of womans
| tyrant. Her motto is that Of Mrs. Nickleby to
the mysterious individual in gray smalls who
threw bouquets Of carrots and beets over the
garden walls: I" pity your ignorance, and de-
spise youi"
Daisy does not fear aught that wears panta-
looms. She is a Lady Macbeth in courage but
very different from that grim old murderess in
her manner of displaying that quality She
would murder with curl of her beautiful lips
stab with witticism; PROSTATE with strain
of irony as powerful as the club of Hercules;
and annihilate her natural enemy with rail
lery as effective as a battery Of thirty two
Founders charged with grape and canister.
She does not lose her temper; oh, mo- that
would place her at disadvantages She has a
great mission to perform, and it can only be
done by GOODNESS, patience and perseverance,
Man is to be brought down to his proper
level-to be debased and punished for his innu-
merable sns-and woman is to be raised to her
original superiority, and restored to all her |
primeval rights, among which are the pursuit |
of happiness, the right to parade the streets |
without being stared out of countenance by red |
nosed loungers and broken-down politicians, |
and the right to wear rice -powder and French |
anti sudorifcs
But Is Daisy pretty that is the question with |
which hundreds of adventurous young gentle |
men are continually disturbing our equanimity
But what has that to do with the points in con-
troyersy' How does that bear upon your right
to stare, or her right to clothe her (no doubt) |
lovely face in Chinese mourning Attack |
Daisy's arguments--assail her logic--respond to |
her wit-but spare your suspicious imputations
and criticisms of her personal pulchritude"
We deny, in toto, your conclusions, irrelevant
as they are, The fact of Daisy protes ing
against being stared at, so far from being
proof that she cannot be beautiful, tends, in our
view, rather to show that if she were not pretty.
she would not be stared at, unless the aforesaid
"starers" contradict well established rule of
human conduct, that we always admire our
opposites. But then the skeptics adduce the
powder argument Let them take care that it
doesn't blom them up
If Daisy is beautiful, why does she require
powderi" Pray, who said she did Does
the lovely flower, which she personates, require
the soft and fragrant powder which Nature
sprinkles upon its petals Shakespeare, it is
true, thinks it is very absurd to gid refined
gold and add perfume to the violet hut
Shakespeare lived before the age of cosmetics
and steam-engines; and although his poetry
is good, his authority, noY-a days, on almost
any question, may be set down as sold
Fogyish." And further, if the use of powder
justifes the presumption that the user is not
those who use gossamer wells, by which the
glowing beauty throws over her perhaps too
splendid charms, binding one with excess of
light, the slightest imaginable shade, softeniur
and mellowing the effect, infaming the imaci-
nation of the beholder and driving mankind TO
madness and despair, On this point we confess
that We are willing to apply the doctrine of
,dtSses nous faire. The ladies are the best
Judges of what concerns their own beauty.
They can take care of themselves in this, as in
all other regards
1t is an aggression and presumption for men
to be poking their noses amoug their pretty lit
tie walls, their silver tinted powder-boxes, and
Sermillion saucers, and avoiding that sanctHfn
conference.-the toilette On all these themes
We adopt the monarchial maxim and admit that
he sspsegn tof beauty can do no wrong But
hen rsen do not like TO be caalBedi Perbaps
t is true of most men, but not of those of the
Dress, who are ever fond of being chalhed. Some
iaring innoyator who attacks the ehalking sys-
EN- in our paper, hopes that the time is not
'emote when it will be possible to touch the !
cheek of wife, sister, etc. II
The reply Of Daisy is quite conclusive, that
much greater satisfaction could be found in J
ouching the lips than the cheeks, and that none
'ut mealy-mouthed man, quite as bad as a {
'halk-faced woman, would talk so mincingly of t
oHching the cheek of a wife, etc. To which we
VIII add the elincher, that no man who has !
INV II