Writing in the January 1858 issue of the journal, A. F. Compton, M.D., distinguished between "the allopathic" and "the Hygienic system." Roland S. Houghton, M.D., who never became a Hygienist, both lectured and wrote on Hygiene and hydropathy, one of his books being entitled: Three Lectures on Hygiene and Hydropathy.

The preamble of the constitution of the American Hygienic and Hydropathic Association of Physicians and Surgeons, established in 1850, says that "its objects shall be the diffusion of those physiological principles which are usually comprised under the term Hygiene, and the development of the therapeutic virtues of water to their fullest extent, on a strictly scientific basis, and with special reference to the laws of the human system, both in health and disease . . ." Thus it will be seen that at the very outset, this organization made a sharp distinction between Hygiene and hydropathy.

A man travelling in Iowa and selling the Water-Cure Journal, stopped at the home of a physician. The physician was out, so the man attempted to sell a subscription to the Journal to his wife. "No," she said, "that's Graham's system. I don't believe anything in it. I've heard of Grahamites that died." I recount this story, not to emphasize the fact that for Grahamism to be good the Grahamites had to live forever, but rather to stress the fact that, both professionally and popularly, the Water-Cure Journal was associated with Grahamism. It was a common complaint against Hygienists that they "dashed Graham into everything." His influence was far greater than the infrequent references to him would indicate.

When, in 1853, Trall wrote that "all persons . . . whose living is physiologically bad, may rightfully consider themselves as the particular 'shining marks' at which Death levels his arrows," he wrote after the theories of Graham, not those of Priessnitz. When people discontinued the use of tea, coffee, tobacco, alcohol and animal foods, they were following Graham and Alcott, not Priessnitz.

Writing on what he called "A Chapter of 'Water-Cure,'" in an article published in the September 1851 issue of the Journal, E. Potter, M.D., begins by saying: "Six years ago, this past winter, I commenced the study of Dr. Graham's 'Lectures on the Science of Human Life.'" Then he tells briefly of his previous mode of living, his suffering and his use of drugs. Immediately after reading Graham, he made several radical changes in his way of life and he says: "I never felt so well in my life."

Potter says that sometimes he strayed from the Graham System and that when he did so, he never failed to experience a physiological impairment proportioned to his departure. He tells us also that he had ceased to use drugs and that he had no occasion to use them. If this was a chapter on "water-cure" as understood by the practitioners of the time, what justification can be offered for crediting the man's changed way of life and changed practices to the reading of the work of Graham? Certainly, Graham's work was not a water-cure work and was published before the water-cure was introduced into America.

A woman, writing in the Journal 1854, of her experiences with both allopathy and hydropathy, frankly acknowledges her debt to Graham, whom she had known personally and who had visited her home, and to his teachings and thought of Grahamism as a part of hydropathy. In discussing the "Theory and Practice of Medicine," in the Journal, November 1858, D. A. Gorton, M.D., quotes approvingly from Graham's Science of Human Life.

In the January 1861 issue of the Journal, Trall replies to a series of questions asked by a sick man, under the title, "Physiological Living," this taking us back to Graham. In the February 1861 issue of the Journal is an article under the title: "Rearing Children Physiologically," which also takes us back to Graham.

Writing in 1850, Thomas Low Nichols, M.D., said: "Sixteen years ago, while attending medical lectures at Dartmouth College, when Dr. Muzzy, the eminent surgeon, was a professor in that institution, my attention was directed to the influence of diet and regimen, and I adopted, as an experiment, what has been commonly, but very improperly, called the Graham system of diet; for if the system is to be named after any man, it might with much greater propriety be called the Pythagorean, or even the Adamic. A system practiced by the primeval races of mankind, by many of the sages of antiquity, by the wisest and purest men of every age, and by a majority of the human race in all ages, surely ought not to receive the name of a modern lecturer, who, whatever his claim to zeal and science, can have none to originality."

Thomas Low Nichols

This does not tell the whole story. As a result of listening to the lectures of Graham, young Nichols abandoned the study of medicine and became a newspaper reporter. Several years were to pass before he resumed the study of medicine, this time in New York City, which he was never to practice. After graduation, he established himself in what was called a hydropathic practice; but it was in reality a combination of Hygiene and hydropathy. This practice he was to continue for the remainder of his life, until his retirement at an advanced age.

The force of Nichols' argument is patent to all, but it should not be overlooked that it was largely due to the zeal and original thinking of Graham that this plan of eating was revived in America and even in Europe. What is even more to the point is the fact that the Graham System was and is vastly more than a system of diet and that he may justly have laid claim to much originality of thought. It is to his credit, also, that he based his dietary plan on physiology and comparative anatomy and not, as did Pythagoras, upon a belief in reincarnation. Graham did not believe that animals housed the souls of men and women who had died and that, for this reason, to kill an animal is murder.

Graham was not unaware of the water-cure movement and of the association of physiological reform with the movement, and was a regular reader of the Water-Cure Journal. In a letter published in a Northampton, Massachusettes, paper, where Graham lived, Graham endorsed the journal as "one of the most valuable publications in our country." This letter was reproduced in the Journal of March 1851. It is not to be accepted as an endorsement of hydropathy. At a previous date Dr. Jennings had endorsed the Journal, but Jennings was very outspoken in his opposition to hydropathy. The fact is that the Journal carried more information about Hygiene than it did about hydropathy.

Writing in the Science of Health, July 1873, Mrs. Julia A. Carney tells some of her experiences, as a young girl, with Graham and the Graham System. She mentioned that, for many years, those who "would not accept the gospel of Hygiene which he preached," called him "maniac," "fanatic," and "fool."