Talk:Elizabeth Cady Stanton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Elizabeth Cady Stanton has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.


We need a report on Elizabeth Cady Staton's awards —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Excellent idea! If I have time to track them down and add them with citations, I will. Perhaps you would be able to find some and do the same. 15:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Abortion Issue, Revisited[edit]

I don't really have a strong feeling about "the abortion issue" per se -- at least in so far as it pertains to these articles. All I really care about is that whatever is said is, first and foremost, properly cited referencing a reputable, scholarly source, and that it not be given undo weight in context of the rest of the article. Since her position on abortion was, I believe, entirely incidental to the work she did on women's rights and female suffrage, I don't think it should be given more than passing mention in a sentence or two. I'd love to be able to source the ECS to Howe quote so that it can be included in the article simply because I think it fleshes ECS out in interesting ways and makes it clear that you can't simply put her in a late 20th century feminist box. I would not, however, like to see it used to make her come across as a "pro-life" advocate, as we use the term now.
I agree that there's no way of knowing what her position would be today, and I agree that it's only reasonable to allow that ECS, while certainly ahead of her time, was a product of her time and that it's not really reasonable to judge any position she may have taken from today's perspective -- whether that perspective be the current pro or con position on abortion. I also think that articles on these women are not the place to hash out an abortion debate. As long as the biographical information about what they said and did is accurate, is properly cited, and is given reasonable weight within the scope of the article, I think it should be included.
We can't control the fact that these women, as wonderfully admirable as they may be, may have held opinions that don't feel "right" to many people today or don't feel "right" from today's feminist or "politically correct" perspective. But, as long as the information is accurate, fully cited, and objectively presented, it is what it is -- warts, unpopular positions, and all.
On another note, I can't help but think that ECS would be delighted to know that her positions are causing as much brouhaha today as they did 100 years ago! Jancarhart 00:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Some abort fundamentalists simply don´t accept other people beliefs. And it´s more then proved that abortion is really murder, as much insignificant it´s the human life that it kills. Elizabeth Cady Stanton was a true feminist for believing in that. Only a complete imbecil could say he will know if today she wouldn´t think basically about this issue like back then. It´s like saying that Hypocrates who condemned abortion in a time were even infanticide was legal would be pro-choice if he lived today. By the way this articles need to be neutral. If she was against abortion like many great feminists, it should be mentioned, even if some idiots want to "tear their hair down" (sic) because of that. (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

These are a lot of opinions about the significance of abortion and what it might mean if ECS had an opinion about abortion. Our standard in doing a biography of ECS should be describing what was important to her and what she did that was historically notable. As Awadewit points out below, she likely had opinions on a great many matters of contemporary interest; but unless she was notable for those opinions (or there is strong evidence that they were personally defining beliefs) then they really don't belong in a biography of ECS. One appropriate place might be to write an article discussing nineteenth century views on abortion; in such an article, the position of various social and political leaders of the time might be relevant. --Lquilter (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Right-Wing group 'Feminists for Life' uses her as an illustration...not sure if that's relevant, though.LeeRamsey (talk) 06:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

FFL is a nonpartisan organisation whose members span the entire political spectrum. (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Saints banner and category[edit]

Based on this individual being included in the Calendar of saints (Episcopal Church in the United States of America), I am adding the Category:Anglican saints and the Saints WikiProject banner to this article. I am awaiting reliable sources which can be used to add the content to the article. John Carter 19:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I suspect ECS would be spinning in her grave if she had any idea she was listed as a saint by any organized religion -- although, if she made any exception, I suppose it would have been for the Episcopal Church since she so enjoyed attend Episcopal services with Peter Teabout -- apparently preferring it over her family's affiliation with the Presbyterian Church. In any event, I appreciate your emphasis on wanting reliable sources before adding material on this to the article since ECS herself greatly disliked organized religion and seemed to far prefer humane reason, logic, and a strong sense of social and moral obligation to notions of divine direction. Jancarhart 21:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Solitude of Self & final speech before Congress[edit]

While the following passage is nice and does demonstrate the change in public and political opinion toward Stanton, it needs to be cited. I'm unable to locate a source and am hoping whoever originally put it in might be able to provide a proper citation:

"In contrast to the response common earlier in the century, the suffragists were cordially received and members of the House listened carefully to their prepared statements." Jancarhart 23:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This link [1] includes a quote from the contemporary Washington Star commentary — which may be the ultimate source of idea about them listening carefully to the women's presentation. Other links [2] contains a record of, but not a transcript of, the 18 Jan. 1892, “Solitude of Self,” address delivered before Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Congress. Excerpts from text found on [3]. Must be something in writing, somewhere, however. Will keep looking. Best.......WBardwin 00:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

ECS's personal position on abortion[edit]

An earlier editor included what I think was a worthwhile quote regarding ECS and abortion. Unfortunately, a formal citation for the quote, which indicated a traditional 19th century position in opposition to abortion, was not able to be found. I have two thoughts. First, it's worth mentioning that ECS had an opinion on abortion. While, in the absence of a proper citation, it might not be reasonable to state what that position was, I do think it's entirely reasonable to point out that she had one. Secondly, I am hoping the editor involved might be able to locate the formal source (apparently a letter to Julia Ward Howe) so that it might actually be cited in the article.Jancarhart 19:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Quoting lquilter from previous debate on Mary Wollstonecraft (he says it better than I could):
There's been a concerted effort on the part of some editors to put in the views of abortion in every major early women's rights figure, even though abortion figured in very little of their careers or influence. I strongly disagree with this ahistoricity -- a retroactive attempt to rewrite historic figures thru a modern political perspective. If done just for the hot-button issues (abortion, capital punishment), it distorts the article leading a reader to think that this was a significant part of their thought (WP:NPOV#Undue weight). If done in any kind of consistent fashion, we would survey a historic figure for all hints we could glean as to their positions or likely positions on modern issues--war, imperialism, capitalism, and so on. The main point is that the debates of today are simply not translatable to the past -- the person in question grew up in a very different society, with different technologies, and social realities, and access to philosophical ideas. On abortion, modern abortion and indeed modern reproductive rights debates simply are not translatable to the past -- a woman might have been less in support of abortion than she appeared, because birth control is more available; on the other hand, if she had any support for a woman's reproductive rights in the 19th century when it was against the grain, then that might be an indication that she would be more supportive in today's climate. Either way it's an unfruitful line of discourse, akin to comparing Babe Ruth to Barry Bonds. Fun for trivia and what-if speculation but not encyclopedic. --lquilter 17:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Kaldari 23:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it is important to only include in this article what, according to reliable sources, was significant to Stanton herself. If abortion was not important to her as an issue, I do not feel it should be mentioned. This article is not a forum for listing all of Stanton's beliefs and views, it is a place to explain her most important and influential ideas. We should always attempt to describe historical figures, such as Stanton, in the most accurate light possible. Conflating modern and historical debates is not the way to do that. Awadewit | talk 11:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
This is not related to her abortion position. Her statement against abortion can't just be dismissed by saying abortion was dangerous back then. She isn't merely stating that the procedure should be avoided, but that the act itself is immoral. She classed abortion as infanticide. She once said "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.". I don't think the unborn would decrease in value in her eyes just because support of abortion became more popular. (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Her Religious Life[edit]

She was an atheist and nevertheless now she´s also an anglican saint. It´s an odd idea. Anybody can show a source about her religious beliefs ? Mistico (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably the best source for her religious beliefs is The Woman's Bible in which she critically analyzed many basic notions of Christianity and organized religion. There is also much in her own memoir criticizing organized religion and unchallenged religious beliefs. (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)~

Thanks for pointing that. Neverthless, it´s odd that she´s an anglican saint.Mistico (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The only thought I have is that they "sanctified" her because of her role in empowering women and not for her personal religious persuasions. Whatever the reason, it's ironic. I can't help but wonder if there's any chance it was done, to some extent, with tongue in cheek. (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ironic? No. Contradictory? Yes. "Tongue in cheek"? Biased. Note as well the complete absence of any mention of the story that in the words of Walter A. McDougall, "drove Reconstruction off the front pages for two and a half years" and became "the most sensational 'he said, she said' in American history" see the entry for Henry Ward Beecher for how she was instrumental in perpetrating that lie. It's Wikipedia that has declared her a saint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:0:4280:57A:61A9:159E:C47B:D05B (talk) 08:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Good Article Review[edit]


I was wondering if a Good Article review is really what this article needs? It has been approved for A-class already, so wouldn't the next logical step be FA? A GA review at this point seems somewhat regressive IMO. I also noticed that in the very abbreviated FA nom, no major authors commented, responded, or addressed FA reviewers' concerns. I would suggest, instead of pursuing GA (somewhat pointless after the much more collaborative A-class and peer reviews), that the main author(s) fix the concerns raised at the FA nom--namely, wlinking and source/citation format and quality--and renom there. Regards, --Malachirality (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-essential considerations for the article

  • Please use logical quotation in the future.
  • Except in some circumstances (such as before coordinating conjunctions), comma usage is a matter of preference and interpretation. Too many commas, often non-essential, can interrupt or make confusing the flow of the sentence. Consider rewording or using em dashes to indicate parenthetical thought.
  • I have changed the titles of the two sections preceding "Later years" b/c the original titles seemed more indicative of an article on the Women's Rights Movement and distracted the focus from ECS. Please take a look at this and comment or change.

Thanks! --Malachirality (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination[edit]

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of December 29, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: prose is good throughout, although several sentences benefit by being either shorter, split in two, or less complicated by commas
2. Factually accurate?: a variety of reputable and/or print sources were used.
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: make sure that the more controversial parts of the article are not substantiated by Stanton's own writings, but rather those of a neutral writer
Are there particular points for which you feel this is a concern? Part of the glitch here is that much of what has been written on Stanton, including Griffith's seminal book, rely heavily on Stanton's own writings, although they have certainly not hesitated to contest her positions when other material has shown variance with her viewpoint. (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: sufficient, but could use more (especially a variety of pictures from different points in Stanton's life)

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Malachirality (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth Cady Stanton and White Supremacy[edit]

I believe the tone of the article is overly apologetic over her racism. The statements are in the form, "She did this racist thing, BUT..." I believe the historical record should stand on its own without trying to correct her language or actions to reflect the standards of today's mores. Feminist hero, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, offended Frederick Douglass--an abolitionist woman attempted to prevent his daughter from gaining entrance to a girls' school--when she referred to black men as "sambos." She was an unabashed white supremacist. She said in 1867," [w]ith the black man we have no new element in government, but with the education and elevation of women, we have a power that is to develop the Saxon race into a higher and nobler life."

These points and issues should be expanded upon to present a true and accurate record.

Douglass’ also advocated the rights of women. He participated in the first Women’s Rights Convention in Seneca Falls in 1848 and signed the Declaration of Sentiments. Elizabeth Cady Stanton later reported that the resolution calling for women’s suffrage was passed by that Convention to a great extent through Douglass’ efforts on its behalf. After the convention, Douglass published a positive editorial on "The Rights of Women," which appeared in the July 28, 1848 edition of the North Star. The History of Woman Suffrage notes that during the subsequent adjourned Women’s Rights Convention held in Rochester on August 2, 1848, "Frederick Douglass, William C. Nell, and William C. Bloss advocated the emancipation of women from all the artificial disabilities, imposed by false customs, creeds, and codes." In 1853, Douglass signed "The Just and Equal Rights of Women," a call and resolutions for the Woman’s Rights State Convention held in Rochester on November 30 and December 1, 1853. He also attended and spoke at that meeting.

During the years before the Civil War, Douglass was a close friend of Susan B. Anthony and her family, and often visited the Anthony home. He delivered a eulogy upon the death of Anthony’s father Daniel in November 1862. However, during the years from 1865 to 1870, Douglass split from many women’s rights activists over the issue of passage of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Anthony and Stanton refused to support the Fifteenth Amendment because it excluded women. Douglass, on the other hand, believed with many abolitionists that it was important to secure the rights of African-American males before working to achieve the rights of women. Their argument was both public and private, and there was resentment and hurt on both sides.

Immediately after the adoption of the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870, Douglass resumed his women’s rights activities. He called for an amendment giving women the right to vote, and wrote an editorial supporting women’s suffrage entitled "Women and The Ballot," published in October 1870.

Paime77 (talk) 04:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

ECS and Episcopal Sainthood[edit]

While I found the source for ECS's recognition by the Episcopal church as an important person, I could neither find any mention of her as a "saint" in the Episcopal tradition, nor could I obtain any confirmation of her sainthood from the Episcopal church when I contacted the national office. I received email from the Program Officer for Women's Ministries and Leadership Development at the The Episcopal Church Center saying that the Episcopal Church does not canonize saints. Perhaps there is another way the church recognizes saints, but I can find no confirmation of it. (I removed the citation that I had added to the article showing her recognition by the church because, while it confirms her importance, her recognition, and the fact that she along with other suffragists is celebrated by the church, it doesn't confirm ECS's Episcopal sainthood: Episcopal Church; Women's Ministries; "Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Amelia Bloomer, Sojourner Truth, and Harriet Ross Tubman (Liberators and Prophets) July 20")

The article does not describe her as a saint. It does say -- correctly -- that she is commemorated along with three other women on the Calendar of Saints of the Episcopal Church. The link points to the collects and biographies authorized by the church's General Convention for this commemoration; these collects and biographies are also found in the church's Handbook of Lesser Feasts and Fasts. The Handbook really does describe them as "Prophets and Liberators." I think the link is appropriate, but you are correct in that it is not actually a reference for the information provided. TechBear (talk) 13:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

yeah boy —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Promise to obey[edit]

Stanton arranged ahead of time with her minister to remove the word "obey" from the wedding vows. Her husband-to-be agreed on the wording. Do we have any idea what the vows would have been if she had not made this arrangement? My understanding is that Presbyterian vows were various, but maybe I'm wrong and there was a widely-used version of the wedding vows. The vows might have folded the word "obey" into a sentence containing other injunctions to the new bride. For instance, here is one traditional version:

  • "Wilt thou obey him, and serve him, love, honor, and keep him, in sickness and in health, and forsaking all others, keep thee only unto him, so long as ye both shall live?" (Bride answers "I will.")[4]

A similar phrasing but in the first person goes like this:

  • "I promise to love and obey you, honor and keep you, in plenty and in want, in joy and in sorrow, in sickness and in health, and forsaking all others, I will be yours alone as long as we both shall live."[5]

Another version has the bride promising to "love, honor and obey." None of these versions actually string these three words together: "promise to obey"... Binksternet (talk) 03:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Lucy Stone[edit]

Lucy Stone was listed as someone who "soon joined" Stanton and Anthony and "began assuming leadership positions within the movement". I took that bit out because Lucy Stone was already in a leadership position before Anthony turned from abolition and temperance to begin her life's work on women's rights. It was a women's rights speech that Lucy Stone made in Worcester in 1850, one which Anthony later read in a paper, that caused Anthony to take up the cause.

Also, the difference between the American Woman Suffrage Association (AWSA) and National Woman Suffrage Association (NWSA) was profound in terms of size and reach. NWSA was "all but moribund" in 1882 when their membership rolls showed about 100 people. AWSA membership was always much, much larger. In the 1890s, the combined AWSA/NWSA membership in NAWSA, plus new members, totaled about 13,000. Binksternet (talk) 03:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth cady stanton was born in November 12,1815 in Johnstown,NewYork she had 7 chidren —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

კა:ელისაბედ კედი სტენტონი[edit]

This piece of text appears at the bottom of the English-language page at the moment. Anybody know what it's doing there... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

GA icon[edit]

Hi, I'm kind of newer to this but I was just curious howcome the article has a GA icon at the top but it's rated above that as an A-Class article, shouldn't it have the A icon? Symbol a class.svg just wondering, Face-smile.svg  daintalk   16:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, icons are only used there for GA and FA, not other classes or assessments. That's consistent with the "Current Status" values used in the {{Article history}} status box. DMacks (talk) 16:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Holy smokes that article history template is intense. Thanks for the hasty reply DMacks! I appreciate it.  daintalk   16:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

abolition vs. women's rights -- Henry vs. Elizabeth[edit]

"After succumbing to family pressure and breaking her engagement to Stanton, Elizabeth had a change of heart, and the two married hastily in May 1840. They then went to London, where Henry was due to serve as a delegate at the World Antislavery Convention. Well-known within women’s rights history is the fact that none of the female delegates at the meeting were allowed to take a seat on the convention floor, but were segregated behind a screen in the balcony. This enraged Elizabeth as well as other American women present, such as Lucretia Mott, Abby Southwick, and Elizabeth Neal. Significantly, Henry gave a speech in favor of full participation by the women present, but his support stopped there. He did not join William Lloyd Garrison and a handful of other male delegates when they sat in the women’s section as an act of protest against such overt inequality.

Henry Stanton’s moderate support of women’s rights in London signaled an ongoing point of disconnect between Elizabeth and her husband. His passion was for abolition. The suffragists and feminists argued that women needed more social and political freedom than they currently had. For Henry, however, the plight of slaves held in bondage, abused, oppressed, and murdered at their masters’ whim was a far greater concern than women’s liberty to fill out a ballot or to hold office. Elizabeth’s passion was for women’s rights. Certainly American slavery was cruel and unjust, but the system of oppression that permitted it was the same system that allowed men to rule over women with arbitrary and capricious authority. A woman who was married to a kind and egalitarian man was simply lucky. The legal system still maintained the power of all men over their wives, no matter how cruel and unkind they may be.

Biographers have debated whether Henry was truly an advocate of Elizabeth’s quest for women’s rights, merely moderately supportive, or actually antagonistic to both her quest and her stature as a suffragist." ref: Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1815-1902); Dorothy Rogers, 2010; The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, - (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

timeline, genealogy[edit]

What are the best sources of detailed timeline for life of ECS? What are the best sources of genealogy? - (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

1840s: Chelsea not Boston[edit]

Although ECS spent much of the 1840s in the Boston area, their home (from about 1843 to 1847) was actually not in the city of Boston, but rather in Chelsea, a city in Suffolk County directly across the Mystic River, just north of downtown Boston.

"She had married Stanton on May 10, 1840, at the age of 25 and accompanied him immediately thereafter on a journey to the World's Anti-Slavery Convention in London. At the close of the convention, the Stantons traveled around the British Isles and France for several months; in November 1840, they returned to Elizabeth Cady Stanton's childhood home in Johnstown, New York, where Henry Stanton studied law for two years under his father-in-law, Judge Daniel Cady. In 1842, Henry Stanton started a law practice of his own in Boston and the family relocated to a home outside the city of Chelsea. [1] [1. Edward T. James, Janet Wilson James, Paul S. Boyer, eds, Notable American Women, Vol. III (Massachusetts, 1971), pp. 342-3.]

Here, Elizabeth Cady Stanton wrote "I spent some of the happiest days of my life, enjoying, in turn, the beautiful outlook, my children, and my books." [2] [2. Stanton, Eighty Years, p. 140.] Through her husband's associations with the leading abolitionist and reform figures of the day she made the acquaintance of many of the liberal, literary, and philosophical lights then illuminating Boston. Stanton took full advantage of her stimulating situation and later wrote that "I attended all the lectures, churches, theaters, concerts, and temperance, peace, and prison-reform conventions within my reach. I had never lived in such an enthusiastically literary and reform latitude before, and my mental powers were kept at the highest tension." [3] [3. Stanton, Eighty Years, p. 133.] Henry Stanton's health, however, was not up to the raw Boston winters, and after four years the decision was made to return to New York state." - (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Elizabeth's Photo Is a Dead Source[edit]

The photo of Elizabeth Cady Stanton uses a dead source, which has since become a parked Go Daddy domain. I'm not sure if this is an issue or not, but I figured I might as well point it out. Firework917 (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)