The Woman They Could Not Silence: One Woman, Her Incredible Fight for Freedom, and the Men Who Tried to Make Her Disappear

Nonfiction | Biography | Adult | Published in 2021

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Download PDF

Summary

Background

Chapter Summaries & Analyses

Part 1, Chapters 1-15

Part 2, Chapters 16-21

Part 3, Chapters 22-30

Part 4, Chapters 31-35

Part 5, Chapters 36-47

Part 6, Chapter 48-Epilogue

Key Figures

Themes

Index of Terms

Important Quotes

Essay Topics

Background

Socio-Historical Context: Rights of Women with Respect to Autonomy and Marriage

Gender roles were clearly delineated in mid-19th century America, and set standards based on the culture’s collective values were expected to be upheld, particularly by middle- and upper-class men and women. Women were meant to be gentle, kind, demure, deferential, forgiving, nurturing, and loyal to their domestic sphere. Men were meant to be the protectors and supporters of their wives and other dependents, assuming responsibility for major life decisions on the presumption of their inherent wisdom and the guidance that they were thought suited to provide. While neither legally nor socially equal, these roles were thought to complement each other and believed to result in the mutual support and love experienced in an ideal marriage. Many men took to heart these expectations of them and tried their best to embody these values and act accordingly in their relationships with themselves and others. As is often the case where unequal power dynamics exist, many others either consciously or otherwise took advantage of their privilege. Disproportionately, women were held to their prescribed standards to the letter, while deviation from what was expected of men was accepted with greater leniency. Thus, pervasive hypocrisy permeated many 19th-century marriages.

Coverture laws also placed women at a significant disadvantage; when a woman married during this period, most state and federal laws dictated that her personal property became that of her husband and that she, as a person, became a subordinate extension of him. In this way, men could make decisions on behalf of their wives without their consent, as shown in the placement of Elizabeth at Jacksonville. Similar laws extended to a couple’s children, so decisions made for them were ultimately finalized based on what their father decreed or what an elder male relative might decide in the absence of a fatherly figure.

Women were particularly vulnerable because of their lack of choice in partners and their inability to secure a divorce if their husbands failed to treat them with the expected kindness and respect. Women like Elizabeth of the upper and middle class would only have socialized with those men considered appropriate companions and only under controlled settings. For these women, decisions were often made under the persuasion or suggestion of their families or due to limited options. A suitor might have hidden thoughts, ideas, behaviors, and tendencies that could evolve into abusive treatment. However, because a woman did not have a chance to get to know him in a domestic context until after their marriage, in instances where husbands proved to be other than they had presented themselves to be, there was little recourse for her. Culturally, there also existed a reluctance on the part of many to interfere with what happened within another man’s private domicile, so unless a woman’s family or friends were willing to intervene, many women were trapped in abusive relationships indefinitely. Still, they were many men who took their call to be valiant protectors very seriously and very personally, and this is evidenced by Elizabeth’s male friends, the jurors on her trial, the men who chose to testify on her behalf, and the politicians who allied themselves with her in later years.

Religious Context: Prevalence of Religion and Its Place in 19th-Century Perceptions of “Insanity”

In its many denominations, Christianity was the most prevalent religion in American society in the mid-19th century. Most middle- and upper-class individuals identified with a particular denomination and attended church regularly. Many physicians of the time agreed that those who were overzealous in their faith to the degree that it disrupted their ability to function in society or who possessed a ferocity in voicing opinions that deviated significantly from accepted doctrine were suffering from “insanity” of a religious nature. Laypersons, however, were often inspired to accuse others of “insanity” simply because their religious views differed from their own. The opinions Elizabeth Packard began to voice in the wake of her husband’s decision to steer their congregation away from their former adherence to New School doctrine and align themselves with Old School doctrine did not constitute a significant deviation from theologically accepted practices. Logically, it was Theophilus Packard who should have had to defend his choice to deviate from their established viewpoints, but it was Elizabeth who was targeted because of her outspokenness. Many of those in positions of power as leaders of churches, whether they be ministers, priests, pastors, deacons, or those in possession of another title, were not held to any legitimate national standards for any required level of scholarship or demonstrated expertise in biblical teachings qualifying them to pontificate on religion. One of the concepts Elizabeth began exploring as she became interested in theology was the idea that the content of any individual religious leaders’ sermonizing should not be readily accepted but should instead be evaluated according to the degree to which it measured up to the collective body of academic religious study. Theophilus may have had authority as a minister, but he did not possess the sophistication to debate with his wife on Christianity. When Elizabeth’s trial took place, the question of her theological perspective was evaluated on the grounds that her way of thinking had caused a disruption in her marriage and in her life. It was revealed that Elizabeth knew more about the Bible than her husband and that the particular characteristics of her faith not only fell well within accepted parameters of rational religious thought but also were bolstered by the findings of some of the most well-respected scholarship by some of the most renowned theologians of the period.

Institutionalization in the Mid-19th Century

Moore indicates that The Woman They Could Not Silence is not a history of mental health but a biographical account of Elizabeth Packard’s activism and an examination of how accusations of irrationality and “insanity” can be used for social control. Moore provides comparative examples to illustrate the extent to which Elizabeth’s experiences at Jacksonville either mirrored or deviated from the environments in other psychiatric instructions across the country. The climates inside mid-19th century “asylums” varied significantly due to the power wielded by each superintendent and the highly individualized theoretical orientation that each superintendent adopted and through which they formed their treatment approaches and style of practice and administration. Theories surrounding the etiology of mental illness, which treatments, if any, should be employed, the degree to which restraints and medicinal remedies should be administered, which privileges should be granted to whom, and the set standards for candidacy of admittance or discharge were unique to their respective institutions. Similarly impactful in these variances was whether or not a hospital was a state-run and state-funded institution, or whether it existed as a private entity. In mid-19th century America, while connected to each other under the umbrella of the Association of Medical Superintendents for American Institutions for the Insane, not all psychiatrists agreed with one another; their power was largely similarly absolute, but the laws of each state and the specifics of each “asylum” were proprietary and dictated by their leadership. No licensing boards existed at the time. Thus, there were no specific requirements for considering oneself a psychiatrist after going through basic medical training and, therefore, no powers of self-governance or disciplinary recourse throughout the field by which psychiatrists could censor or regulate the standards of their profession.

Most “asylum’s” superintendents answered only to their boards of trustees, and in many cases, members of those boards were appointed based on personal connections, community standing, or other entanglements that had the potential to obscure or compromise objectivity. Trustees’ experiences and interactions during their visits were often carefully manipulated so that a superintendent’s wishes and recommendations would be granted and respected by their board. Not all state hospitals functioned as custodial institutions; many, like Jacksonville under McFarland’s governance, reserved the right to discharge patients they considered incurable after sufficient time had elapsed for them to claim they had done their best to help the person in need. In keeping with the idea of a rest cure, many institutions like Jacksonville did not offer a regimen of treatment protocols for patients but ascribed to the “rest cure” notion that rest, relaxation, and isolation from the stressors of life would alleviate the problems that brought that to the institution. As Elizabeth observed on Seventh Ward at Jacksonville, some institutions emphasized—for their female patients possessed of sufficient faculties—a habitual approach to encouraging compliance with expectations of self-censoring and repression of emotions that would serve them in the event that they could be considered eligible for discharge back to their family situations.