In Her Own Right : The Life of Elizabeth Cady Stanton (47 page)

Nor does social learning theory provide an explanation for periods of depression in Stanton’s life, although her manner of dealing with them—by cleaning house or taking action—was a learned response. Stanton’s depressions follow deaths, child-births, separation, and conversion, and do not seem abnormal. Nor does the theory answer other questions: why Stanton treated Anthony so shabbily in the 1870s; why she cared about remaining paired with Henry and Susan; why she took risks over Train or the Fifteenth Amendment or
The Woman’s Bible
; why she got so fat.

But the overall conclusions gleaned from social learning theory fit Stanton’s life neatly and are reinforced by the findings of other theories. For example, an application of Erik Erikson’s developmental approach might locate the source of Stanton’s self-confidence and lack of status anxiety in her secure childhood. Studies on the “psychology of commitment,” suggesting that having to endure criticism for
one’s beliefs for a long period of time serves to reinforce one’s allegiance, would confirm Stanton’s perseverance. New studies of the motivations of modern women repeat the importance of the parental and female role models found in Stanton’s life.

The application of other theories can only increase our understanding of this multidimensional woman. For example, although the records are scanty, Freudians might be able to probe questions about Stanton’s relationship with her parents, her bonding with Henry and Anthony, her identification with male mentors, sexual attitudes, and obesity. Indeed, the tension Stanton personally experienced in trying to balance public and private roles, or male and female spheres, foreshadows the difficulty of contemporary women in balancing their needs for “affiliation and achievement.”
⁸

Elizabeth Cady Stanton would have been intrigued by this psychological approach. She recognized the significance of individual psychology on development. She understood that women suffered mental as well as physical bondage. One reason she makes such an appealing subject of biography is that many of the issues she addressed and the opinions she expressed have contemporary vitality. In an era of unusual orthodoxies, she was open to new ideas. She believed in family traits and prenatal influences. She thought she had inherited her father’s intelligence and ability to nap, and she attributed her political instincts and her fear of cats to events her mother had experienced while pregnant.
⁹
She also endorsed phrenology, the nineteenth-century “science of the mind.”

Even before psychology developed as a discipline in the late nineteenth century, there had been interest in how the mind influenced behavior. As early as the 1840s America was enamored with the theories of Johann Kaspar Spurzheim,
*
a German immigrant who introduced phrenology and became a teacher of brain anatomy at Harvard Medical School. According to Spurzheim, the faculties of the mind had specific locations in the folds and fissures of the brain and could be measured on the outside by “bump-reading.” A corollary of Spurzheim’s theory was especially attractive to Jacksonian-era Americans: if one could have his faculties identified, one might then become what one wanted to be by “depressing” some that were too prominent or “elevating” others.
¹⁰
According to phrenology, mental discipline and physical exercise produced mental health.

Although her father considered Spurzheim and his disciples “arrant humbugs,” Elizabeth Cady Stanton had her bumps read in 1853, when she was thirty-seven.
†
The examiner found her “social faculties” and “combativeness” large and her appetite “strong.” The report concluded that she was “adapted to the business and subjects of conversation peculiar to men . . . capable of enjoying the connubial relation in a high degree. . . . liable to act from the impulse of the moment and exhibit a boldness and energy of character. . . . afraid of nothing . . . and have more individuality and positiveness than females generally.” Stanton believed that her “phrenological character hits the nail on the head—I really did not mean to make a phrenological comparison.” It confirmed her proclivity for “idiosyncracies” and independent action.
¹¹

So does social learning theory.

Children of Daniel Cady and Margaret Livingston

Children of Henry and Elizabeth Cady Stanton

1.
Daniel Cady Stanton

b. 3/2/1842, Johnstown, N.Y.

d. 1/18/1891, Logan, Iowa

m./div. Fredericka L.

1 child: Florence L., b. 1885

2.
Henry Brewster Stanton, Jr.

b. 3/1844, Albany, N.Y.     Columbia Law School, 1865

d. 12/5/1903, New York, N.Y.

m. 1892, Mary O’Shea

no children

3.
Gerrit Smith Stanton

b. 9/18/1845, Boston, Mass.     Columbia Law School, 1865

d. 4/24/1927, Long Island, N.Y.

m. Augusta Hazelton

adopted daughter: Hazel, d. 1929

4.
Theodore Weld Stanton

b. 2/10/1851, Seneca Falls, N.Y.     Cornell University, 1872,

d. 3/1/1925, New Brunswick, N.J.   M.A. 1876

m. 1881, Marguerite Berry

4 children:

Elizabeth Cady Stanton II, b. 1882

baby, d.

Robert Livingston Stanton, b. 1885

Helene, b. 1886

5.
Margaret Livingston Stanton Lawrence

b. 10/20/1852, Seneca Falls, N.Y.     Vassar College, 1876,

d. 1938?                                            Columbia University, 1891

m. 10/2/1878, Frank E. Lawrence, d. 1890

no children

6.
Harriot Eaton Stanton Blatch

b. 1/20/1856, Seneca Falls, N.Y.     Vassar College, 1878, M.A. 1891

d. 11/20/1940, Greenwich, Conn.

m. 11/12/1882, William Henry Blatch,

d. 1915

2 children:

Nora, b. 9/30/1883

Helen, b. 1892, died

7.
Robert Livingston Stanton

b. 3/14/1859, Seneca Falls, N.Y.     Cornell University, 1880

d. 2/23/1920, New York, N.Y.       Columbia Law School, 1881

unmarried

Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s seven children produced only six surviving grandchildren. Daniel’s daughter Florence could not be located as early as 1891, when her Uncle Henry tried to find her in Chicago after Daniel died. There are no further records for Gerrit’s adopted daughter or for the daughters of Theodore Stanton, who may have remained in France. Theodore’s son Robert was a Cornell graduate and an army officer. One source indicates that he stayed in France, near Mazamet, married a Frenchwoman, and had a son named François, who subsequently married a widow with two children.

Harriot Blatch’s daughter Nora returned to the United States to attend Cornell. She graduated magna cum laude in 1905, the first woman there to earn a degree in civil engineering. She was married for one year, 1908–09, to Dr. Lee deForest, a prominent pioneer in radio electronics. They had a daughter Harriet. Harriet produced a daughter, Catherine Clarke Allaben, born in 1936. Harriet deForest is still alive, living in Londonderry, Vermont.

In 1918 Nora Blatch deForest married Morgan Barney. The couple had two children, Rhoda, born in 1920, and John, born in 1922. Rhoda married Frederick Jenkins. Rhoda Barney Jenkins and John Barney live together in Greenwich, Connecticut.

A
Book of Origins for Barney-Blatch Family
, by Katherine Beecher Stetson Chamberlin (Pasadena, Calif., 1951), in the possession of Rhoda Barney Jenkins, provided the essential information for these genealogical charts.

Given at Seneca Falls by E. S. Stark, January 10, 1853
*

Mrs. Elizabeth Stanton

You have a predominance of the vital and mental temperaments with a full degree of the motive but the last is not sustaining in its influence, the vital having the ascendancy and not being abused. Your life principle is ample and health perfect; few persons have a better organization for longevity. You derive the tone of your mind and constitution from your mother hence partake of the nature of the Livingston family rather than that of your father. You have a plump round form fair complexion and amiable expression.

Your brain is above the common size, large at the base, occipital and frontal regions. Some faculties are quite large, while others are inferior in strength and influence.

All the social faculties are large with large combativeness, destructiveness, alimentiveness, firmness, Benev[olent] Construc[tiveness]; and several of the intellectual organs. You are characterized for the following traits.

First, are warm hearted, capable of enjoying the society of your friends much are greatly attached to your kin and find it especially difficult to give up those whom you have once loved, enjoy the society of the gentlemen, are not cold hearted toward them and under favorable circumstances are ready to respond to the expressions of sympathy and affection from them, are better adapted to the business and subjects of conversation peculiar to men than those of women, are capable of enjoying the connubial relation in a high degree, are very fond of children, well qualified to sympathize with them in their helplessness. Attachment to place is also strong. You are fond of home and its associations, still would enjoy traveling by way of gratifying the other faculties.

You lack continuity of mind and close application to some things, find it difficult to attend to details either in business or in thought; prefer to have your mind occupied with things that are extensive and comprehensive in their nature. Your
thoughts and feelings are more intense and vivid than prolonged and connected. Love of life is strong. You have great desire to live and enjoy the pleasures of life. Your large Combat[iveness] and Destruc[tiveness] joined with your vital temperament give an unusual degree of force, energy and executiveness of mind. You never stop at trifles, are much more inclined to labor where there are severe difficulties to overcome than to walk in the smoother paths of life, are full of resolution and have a daring spirit and when provoked are capable of being decidedly indignant. Your feelings are not of the tame, quiet class. You are capable of being very sarcastic, vigorous in your style of conversation or writing and at times are not sufficiently gentle and easy in your manners. Appetite is strong and digestion good, none better. Your desire for gain is comparatively good, but owing to the combination of your faculties you are not naturally qualified to attend to the details of business or to make it a special matter of effort to economize, but you prefer to live as you go along and have what you like.

Secret[iveness] and Cautiousness] are rather wanting, hence with so much propelling and executive power are liable to act from the impulse of the moment and exhibit a boldness and energy of character, that the occasion does not warrant. You are afraid of nothing, are not restrained from acting or speaking through fear of consequences. You show your character just as it is, hence have more individuality and positiveness than females generally. You are no hypocrite, tho’ you may not always express in words the depths of your feelings. You detest nothing so much as underhanded means and do not as many do take advantage of circumstances to show off and would not be likely to exhibit those captivating qualities of love or make that display in the manifestation of agreeable qualities necessary to attract attention. Approbativeness is rather prominent but its function joined with self esteem in your case is rather to give sense of character, independence of thought and moral courage than love of show and display or desire for attention and flattery. You are not naturally dignified, have not the feeling of self love, are not devoted to yourself, care more to exert a moral and intellectual influence on society than to put yourself forward as an object of attraction.