Talk:Elizabeth Cady Stanton/Archive 1

Other Editing Comments

This is the text I took out of the main article. There's clearly a POV here. Additionally, the fact that it made up such a large part of the (admittedly small) article is inherently POV. Stanton may have felt strongly about the issue, but it was not a major part of her public life and works. Imagine if the George W. Bush article had a major section on fighting spam. Schmeitgeist 22:27, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

im relaited to Elizabeth Cady Stanton

Stanton on Abortion

The modern political debate over abortion has forgotten or ignored the position of early feminists on the issue, but writings clearly display the very negative opinion Stanton and others held of abortion. In an 1873 letter to Julia Ward Howe, recorded in Howe's diary at Harvard University Library, Stanton stated of abortion:

"When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit."

In The Revolution of February 5, 1868 Stanton called abortion "infanticide." In the March 12, 1868 issue she proposed the solution to abortion would be found, at least in part, in the elevation and enfranchisement of women.

Well - the editor who placed the information here may have had a POV. But this information clearly defines Stanton's point of view as well, and so may be appropriate. Abortion was a significant issue at the time, as was birth control and a women's right to retain her children following a divorce. All women's rights figures declared opinions on these issues. So, I put a little back in, but did not make it the focus of an entire section. Comments welcome. WBardwin 06:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

--removed the same material from the article. As the two versions are nearly identicle, it may be quote/copyvio or copied from this page. Please, editor, explain your intent on this matter. Discussion pages are designed for justification, compromise and concensus. Your POV is clear, but the material does not accurately reflect the feminist stance on the issue at the time. Certainly accurate parallels cannot be drawn between the views of 18th century feminists and modern abortion critics. Comments are welcome here. WBardwin 09:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Meeting of Stanton and Anthony

How can Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony have organized the 1848 Seneca Falls Convention together if they didn't meet until 1851?

Thank you for your question -- someone had placed Anthony's name (inappropriately) in the early paragraph in place of Lucretia Mott. I think I have corrected the error. WBardwin 01:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This women is very admirable and would be fabulous for a research report. Exspecially for young women who want someone to look up to.

I myself have done a report on women's rights... she was a key part of it. So was the Seneca Falls Convention.Ferocious marshmallow 03:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Relation to Frederick Douglass & John Brown

I read somewhere that Stanton was acquainted with John Brown and that he and Frederick Douglass had atteneded the Seneca Falls Conference or was that just Douglass or maybe a different conclave? Tom Cod 23:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about Stanton's acquaintance with John Brown, but she certainly knew Frederick Douglass. They were friends until their disagreement over whether or not the 14th and 15th amendments should be ratified. (I've added a discussion of this to the article.) She very well may have known John Brown since her cousin, Gerrit Smith, was a member of the Secret Six that financially supported his raid (also added to article), but I don't know that they met. User: --Jancarhart 13:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

HELP! Citations Needed in ECS Article

There are a couple of good quotes in the Stanton article, but they aren't specifically cited, and it seems to me they should be. Please see the following: (1) end of the 3rd and end of the 5th paragraphs in section on "Marriage & Family," and (2) end of the 1st paragraph in section on "Stanton and Division within the Women's Rights Movement." If someone can leave information here about page and reference work used, I'm happy to take care of getting it properly included in the footnotes for the article. Jancarhart 19:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The following quote, which needed proper citation, may actually be attributable to Anthony rather than Stanton, as pointed out by user Smarkham01 (see history page), so I moved it here pending further discussion. 71.192.45.207 23:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It was at this time that Stanton declared, "I will cut off this right arm of mine before I will ever work for or demand the ballot for the Negro and not the woman." (Garth E. Powell, citing R.C. Dorr's 1928 "Susan B. Anthony: The Woman who changed the mind of a nation", attributes this remark to Susan Anthony. (W.E.B. Du Bois on Woman Suffrage: A Critical Analysis of His Crisis Writings, Garth E. Pauley Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 30, No. 3. (Jan., 2000), pp. 383-410. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-9347%28200001%2930%3A3%3C383%3AWDBOWS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-S)

Pasted the following here, pending location of proper citation for quote involved: She was remembered by her daughter Margaret as "cheerful, sunny and indulgent". Jancarhart 01:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The following is from 28 Dec 2005 version, showing a Baker reference. That is when I was reading the book, I think (time does fly!).

Cady Stanton assumed the primary responsibility for rearing their children and was remembered by her daughter Margaret as cheerful, sunny and indulgent. The marriage lasted forty-seven years until Henry's death in 1887, and both Stantons considered it an overall success. (Baker, pp. 99-113).

WBardwin 07:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic! It should be back in with the citation by the time you read this. Jan Carhart 71.192.46.152 13:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

CITATIONS FOR POSITION ON ABORTION: Have searched both Baker and Dubois references with no luck in finding the following passages on ECS & abortion. Am placing them here until citations are found:

• "She addressed the issue in various editions of The Revolution and, in an 1873 letter to Julia Ward Howe recorded in Howe's diary at Harvard University Library, she wrote: "When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." She suggested that solutions to abortion would be found, at least in part, in the elevation and enfranchisement of women."

--letter to Julia Ward Howe, Oct. 16, 1873, recorded in Howe's diary held at Harvard University Library. It may be that I grabbed the quotation from something I was reading on Howe. Will strain my memory. This web site is not where I first saw the quote (http://www.feministsforlife.org/taf/1996/spring/honorecs.htm), but may be a useful (if POV) link. WBardwin 07:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me we definitely need a scholarly, non-POV source, particularly if there's any thought of going for FA-class status -- or, I suppose, of even keeping A-class status. If I get a chance, I may try to contact a reference librarian at Harvard.Jancarhart 19:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, I'll be doing some research at a Western US university in June. If you have no success, perhaps I could get the research librarian working on it then. Let me know. WBardwin 02:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Racist? I think not. (Stanton's opposition to passage of the 14th and 15th Amendments to the US Constitution)

"Stanton declared, 'I will cut off this right arm of mine before I will ever work for or demand the ballot for the Negro and not the woman.' While her frustration was understandable, Stanton's position arguably helped do two things: (1) fragment the civil rights movement by pitting African American men against women, and (2) establish a basis for the literacy requirements that followed the Black male franchise. At the time, Stanton's position caused a significant rift between herself and many civil rights leaders, particularly Frederick Douglass. (Kern, pp 111-112)"

Arguably? This woman and her friends practically started the abolishinist movement! If there are historians who don't see Stanton's actions as racist -- and I am sure there must be -- then this ought to be reflected in the piece. As it reads now, it is not NPOV.

The problem is this Wiki piece starts off witht the assumption that Stanton and her associates took up the cause of slavery and then took up the cause of women. In the PBS special I saw about Stanton, it was clear that these early feminists saw that it was pointless to push for equality while their brothers and sisters in bondage did not also have equality. It was never -- never -- an either/or thing. And so later, when Frederick Douglass told Stanton that they were going to have to wait until later for equality because it was the slaves' turn (because the men in office weren't "ready" to accept women as equals) they were justifiable outraged. After all, what good does it do to free a black woman who immediately becomes bonded in another way? This was their reasoning.

Here is the Douglass quote which implies that their two causes are seperate. (Note that Douglass was a strong supporter of women's rights, and his position is a political one, and was done because he honestly felt - and may have been right - that the two causes wouldn't both be accepted by the public):

"On putting a priority, after the Civil War, on votes for African Americans males before women in general] When women, because they are women, are dragged from their homes and hung upon lampposts; when their children are torn from their arms and their brains dashed upon the pavement;... then they will have the urgency to obtain the ballot."

For Wikipedia to point out that Stanton was not being realistic to expect all those changes at once -- for women and for slaves -- is just. For Wikipedia to claim that she suddenly became racist after years of pushing for equality for slaves, is not.

66.57.225.77 19:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me anyone is claiming that Stanton "suddenly became a racist." Whether or not Stanton's expectation that both women and African Americans -- male and female -- be granted the franchise is reasonable or not is beside the point. Reasonable or not, it was her expectation, and both she and Anthony were unwilling to lend their support to giving the vote in stages, particularly, so far as Stanton was concerned, if it meant leaving educated women out of the equation. Like it or not, Stanton expressed her anger over the wording of the 14th and 15th amendments in what can be called racist language, and her doing this did cause a substanatial rift in the women's rights movement -- at least in part because many other early feminists, including Lucretia Mott, disagreed with Stanton's "all or nothing" position and were willing to support voting rights for African American men in hopes that similar rights for women would follow.

Stanton's involvement in the abolitionist movement came largely through her association with her cousin, Gerrit Smith, and her husband. Prior to spending time with her cousin and his family, she was not, so far as I know, particularly involved in the movement. People like Lucretia Mott, William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglass, Thaddeus Stevens, and others had been involved in the movement well before Stanton ever came on the scene. While true that Stanton's first social cause as an adult was abolition, she soon became primarily concerned with women's rights and issues, a cause which Lucretia Mott might be credited with introducing her to. While an excellent overview of the women's movement, the PBS program was, for obvious reasons, somewhat limited in its discussion of all the various complexities of the movement in general and of Stanton's role in particular. Jancarhart 02:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

"Eventually, Stanton's rhetoric took a potentially racist turn."

In our society, "potentially racist" means you think it was racist. Regardless, there's nothing there to back that assertion up -- it just goes on to show how for her, equal rights meant equal rights for all. There's nothing racist about that. I still think it's POV. 66.57.225.77 13:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

QUESTION: would the phrase "Stanton's rhetoric had racially prejudiced aspects" or "Stanton's rhetoric was taken in racially derogatory ways" work better for you? To me, "racist," taken as an adjective, simply means that, in this case, a statement is derogatory, either directly or in a "back-handed" fashion, when looked at from a racial perspective. I'm wondering if, for you, it implies that the speaker is, in effect, a card-carrying member of the KKK. Maybe simply changing the phrasing would make you more comfortable.

In any case, assuming your objections are centered on the description of Stanton's statements and their effect, whatever I may personally think of Stanton's language is irrevalent. Others objected to her language at that time for the reasons discussed in the article. Those who disagreed with Stanton over ratification of the amendments did so for, it seems, one of two reasons. Some people believed, no matter how she expressed herself, Stanton was wrong: some progress was better than no progress. ("Let African American men obtain the right to vote, then we'll work for female suffrage.") This camp included Lucy Stone and Julia Ward Howe among others. Other people found the language she used on more than one occasion to be objectionable and called her to task on her choice of words, but they agreed with -- or at least saw the reasoning in -- the basic idea that African American men should not be granted the right to vote without that right extending to all women as well. This group included, I believe, Lucretia Mott, and, perhaps even Susan B. Anthony as well as Sojourner Truth, who presumably joined Stanton's women's suffrage organization, not because she agreed with the idea of describing blacks as "Sambo," but because she agreed with the notion that black women as well as black men should be able to vote. (It seems even Sojourner Truth would have taken issue with Douglass' idea that a woman's political power was adequately represented by her husband, father, and brother.)

Furthermore, "potentially" or "arguably" racist mean just what the words say: that the rhetoric being discussed, such as using the term "Sambo" to describe African Americans, might reasonably be interpreted as being a racially derogatory statement. If you know of historians who discuss the language Stanton used regarding passage of the 14th and 15th amendments from another perspective, I agree with you, their understanding should certainly be included. I have not come across anyone who sees such language as not being racially derogatory or who says no one at the time had any objection to her language, and I've studied a huge amount of what's been written on Stanton, but certainly not all that's been written. I don't think, however, that something many historians have written should be omitted simply because it doesn't fit an idealized image of Stanton or because a contributor hasn't yet found an opposing interpretation to include. If you find a historian who examines Stanton's word choice regarding this issue from another perspective, I think you should absolutely add it to the article.

Stanton's decision to actively work against passage of the 14th and 15th amendments was somewhat complex. Understandably, she feared that increasing the number of male voters might make it even more unlikely that female suffrage would pass. She did not, however, only express her disagreement from this objective perspective. Instead, she at times publically used derogatory language. Referring to African Americans as "Sambo", for instance, is not now, nor was it then, a respectful thing to say. Quite to the contrary, it was taken by Douglass and others at that time as being a racially biased statement. Stanton’s comment, cited in the article, about the inherent discrimination in calling a woman “Mrs. John this” being similar to calling “colored men Sambo and Zip Coon” indicates she was aware of the derogatory aspects of her word choice and that it reflected racial prejudice even to her. Yet, apparently angry over feeling betrayed by her abolitionist allies and outraged that a large number of men with little to no formal education would be voting while educated women could not, she resorted to such language.

All this is certainly not to say Stanton was inhumane, or supported slavery, or supported Jim Crow laws, or was a card-carrying member of the KKK. Clearly such notions couldn't be farther from the truth. She was very much an abolitionist and had, prior to the time of these amendments, strongly supported the anti-slavery movement in particular and the rights of African Americans in general. Her language simply indicates that, like any number of people, she may have had her own underlying prejudices and that these prejudices, for whatever reason, had a racial aspect.

Why Stanton chose such language, from a psychological standpoint, is clearly up for grabs. She did grow up in a slave-owning household, as evidenced by federal census along with various historical writings, although this is not something she really confronts in her memoir. She was certainly a woman of privilege, property, education, and culture, all attributes she clearly valued. In fact, it appears she valued them to the point that she believed that, if choices were to be made, they entitled such women to vote before – or at least as soon as – others were granted that right, as evidenced by her focus on women of "wealth, education, and refinement" as opposed to men of "pauperism, ignorance, and degradation," and her concern that such men would negatively impact the American political system.

Her personal prejudices, however, are not the point. The point is that her language, which had racial, class-conscious, and pro-higher education overtones was not, in many quarters, well received and, coupled with her "all or none" approach, contributed substantially to the schisms described in the article.

All that said, none of this diminishes her brilliance, her capacity for social awareness, or the remarkable work she accomplished. It simply makes it clear that, like all human beings, she may have had her flaws and blind spots. At the least she chose some questionable language to express her feelings publically. Including this is not a "point of view." In fact, not to include a discussion of her language and its effect would, in and of itself, be a biased thing to do and would risk oversimplifying Stanton and/or doing nothing more than pedestalizing a remarkable, complex, intelligent, capable, very human woman whose shoulders we all stand on to this day. Jancarhart 20:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)