Ross’ Early Years

Nellie Tayloe Ross was born on November 29, 1876, in St. Joseph, Missouri, on a plantation owned by her maternal grandfather in Andrew County. Her parents were James Wynns Tayloe and Elizabeth Blair Green. Nellie’s family had been devastated by the Civil War’s aftermath; in response, she had always feared poverty. Ross’ education was facilitated by her brothers who aided in helping her learn how to read when she was 5 years old. She attended the Maxwell School with her brothers. To achieve a more successful future, her family moved to Miltonvale, Kansas. She attended the United Presbyterian Church and her mother was involved in women’s suffrage. Here, she witnessed her mother in a position of leadership, a position which her father had respected. Her southern upbringing and her mother had influenced her political beliefs. She remained a Democrat for most of her life and gained the belief from her mother that women’s traditional roles were compatible with public responsibilities.² After her mothers death, her family moved back towards the Missouri river into Omaha, Nebraska. There, she became a kindergarten teacher. In 1900, she went to visit relatives in Tennessee where she met and married her husband, William Ross. They moved to Cheyenne, Wyoming in 1902 and had four boys together. William started his own law practice and got involved in politics. He ran for governor and won with the state’s failing economy as his main concern.

The Election of Nellie Tayloe Ross

On September 25, 1924, her husband underwent an appendectomy. He died on October 2, just one month before the general election. The Democratic Party asked Nellie Tayloe Ross to be their candidate and after much convincing, she agreed. Both the Republican and Democratic parties held their conventions in Cheyenne on October 14 to choose their candidates. The Republican Party nominated Casper attorney and politician Eugene J. Sullivan. After receiving the Democratic nomination, Ross remained at home and let her friends lead the campaign. Political advertisements encouraged voters to support Ross because she promised to carry out her husband’s policies. This included policies that helped the economy and workers. They also portrayed her opponent, Sullivan, as a supporter of the founder of Sinclair Oil, Harry Sinclair, who was involved in the Teapot Dome Scandal. One advertisement in The Buffalo Voice encouraged voters to “Beat Texas to It,” encouraging Wyoming to become the first state to elect a female governor, as Miriam “Ma” Ferguson was also running for governor in Texas.⁶ While both Ross and Ferguson were the first women elected as governors in the U.S, Ross was sworn in first, earning her the title of “First Female Governor of the United States”. She defeated Sullivan by more than 8,000 votes. In addition, she even outperformed Republican Francis E. Warren, Wyoming’s senior U.S. Senator.⁷ On January 5, 1925, she was sworn in as governor of Wyoming during an inauguration ceremony in the Senate chambers in Cheyenne. She served as governor from 1925 to 1927.

Ross’ Governorship: Politics, Law, Economics, Prohibition, & Agriculture

The 1920s has the reputation of being a time of prosperity, economic growth, and the boom of the stock market. However, it differed from state to state. Before the Stock Market Crash of 1929 and the Great Depression, Wyoming was facing an economic depression. Ross would be among the governors who confronted this depression. Wyoming’s economy depended on livestock, business, farming, coal production, and the Union Pacific Railroad. In post-WW1 Wyoming, the loss of government contracts, declining demand for certain commodities, deflation, and the 1919 drought contributed to this economic depression. To tackle these problems, Ross proposed a plan to address the state’s budget deficit and outlined strategies for managing it. She found that railroad property values were lower than those in neighboring states and that many mining corporations owned large amounts of property while avoiding taxes. She believed that more equitable taxation could help resolve the issue. In the 1920s, businesses and businessmen were becoming more idealized, striving to present a more polished and positive image. At the same time, the issue of business taxes became a significant concern in response to previous revisions to tax laws. People, such as Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon, sought to reduce business tax, while Ross was concerned with equitable tax within her state.⁸ Following this, she discovered that falling oil prices were causing shortfalls and that light oil production was decreasing. In response, she supported producing more black oil and using it to build state’s highways. To her disappointment, her proposals to explore commercial possibilities for black oil were declined. Banks were also failing. Between 1920-1924, 68 state and national banks had failed in Wyoming. Half had closed by 1924.⁹ To address banking closures, Ross proposed laws to protect banks and depositors. This included laws that made sure that people wouldn’t lose their money if a bank failed. Lastly, Ross answered to further tax concerns by supporting a bill that would give one-third of mineral royalties to public schools. This would help with reducing local taxes. However, it was not approved by the legislature.

When we think of the 1920s, we also often think of Prohibition, a time when alcohol was banned across the U.S. During the late 19th century and into the 1920s, women had entered the political arena. One popular reform amongst them was Prohibition. This led to the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act that made the production, sale, and transportation of alcohol illegal. Women supported Prohibition because they believed male drinking led to reckless behavior, such as sexual excess, which harmed women and children in the home.¹¹ Ross, like these women, supported this law. She believed that the purchaser of alcohol was just as guilty as the bootlegger. She proposed a bill to enforce this, however, it was later declined by the legislature. During her term, she had to deal with two sheriffs who were involved in alcohol related acts. She received and agreed to a request from District Court Judge Metz to allow an investigation into Park County Sheriff William Loomis.¹² Loomis was accused of accepting pay from alleged bootlegger, Fay Willford, in protection money. Loomis faced charges for serving confiscated alcohol to prisoners, accepting bribes and protection money from Willford and James P. Morgan in relation to whiskey on Morgan’s property, and for appearing intoxicated in public. Ross ordered a removal of Loomis who she deemed unfit for his position. On June 17, 1925, The Park County Herald reported that “The Governor (Ross) having heard all the evidence, does find generally against the defendant, William H. Loomis”.¹³ Another Sheriff named Scott Hazen was charged with appearing intoxicated in public, taking confiscated alcohol for his own use, getting involved in a plan to transport and sell alcohol, and failing to serve warrants to known bootleggers while allowing speakeasies to operate. In response to his future hearings on this matter, he resigned from office.

In addition, Ross also dealt with several other issues, including farm and agricultural concerns, and protecting Wyoming’s claims to Colorado River water. Farm foreclosures and low prices were an issue in Wyoming. This prevented the settlement and expansion of farms on federal projects in Wyoming. Under her husband’s governorship, he had created a farm loan program which she continued by making it permanent. Later, Ross convinced Elwood Mead, the man behind water laws, and the Secretary of Interior, Herbert Work to review these projects. Mead explained that he could only point out the problems, and it was up to farmers and state officials to determine the additional funds and introduce legislation to address those issues. Ross worked with a man named George Kreutzer from the Bureau of Reclamation to address these issues. She used local newspapers to collect farmer’s concerns and seek help from the Bureau of Reclamation. She also created a reclamation committee made up of farmers to explain their challenges and issues to the Bureau of Reclamation.¹⁴

Women’s Rights, Feminism, Reform and Ross’ Views on Women

Beginning in the late 19th century and continuing into the 1920s, the “new woman” became more active in politics, with Ross serving as an example. They became political actors and lobbied for progressive reform. Suffrage was one of these reforms. Through this, women had gained the right to vote in 1920 with the ratification of the 19th Amendment. Wyoming, the state where Ross governed, however, already became the nation’s first suffrage state in 1869. This prompted many people and newspapers to declare Wyoming as the “Equality State”, further encouraging the election of Ross. Other reforms that “the new woman” supported included labor laws, which Ross had also aligned with. A suffragist named Grace Hebard had written to Ross in regards to a child labor bill. Ross responded by confirming her position on this issue claiming that the bill would be an important step in protecting the children of America. However, her child labor bill was later declined by the senate because of fear it would interfere with the rights of parents to give their children working roles.¹⁶ She also advocated for protective legislation to support female employees, but this proposal was also rejected. Ross continued to be dedicated to maintaining the welfare of workers. She supported and proposed mine safety legislation. These legislations were successfully approved.

While women became increasingly involved in politics, their views on women’s rights varied. Women, like Alice Paul and The Woman’s Party, advocated for the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) that guaranteed equal rights for men and women. They believed that while suffrage was a major breakthrough in women’s political equality, the ERA would answer to the remaining limitations that women faced. This included the inability to execute contracts, unequal wages, and marriage property rights. In 1923, the legislation was introduced to Congress. Women like Julia Lathrop and Frances Perkins emphasized women’s distinctiveness, arguing that special labor protections tailored to their sex were necessary. This led them to reject the ERA in fear that it would undermine sex-based labor legislation that specifically protected women.¹⁷ Like these women, Ross held her own views on women’s roles, rights, and nature, which often left some feminists disappointed. Initially, many women’s rights advocates, suffragettes, and feminists viewed Ross’ election as a great victory. However, some women were left disappointed in Ross’ refusal to prioritize her influence on the women’s rights movement. Instead, she stated that her duty was to the people of Wyoming as their governor. In 1925, Hebard, the same woman who had written to Ross about a child labor bill, also suggested that Ross appoint women to positions in the Child and Animal Protection Board and the University Board of Trustees. This was left unanswered. Hebard continued to suggest that she attend a meeting of the “National League of Women Voters”, which Ross had declined.

Ross did believe in women’s capabilities within the political sphere and encouraged them to seek public office. However, she would often express her belief that a woman’s most important social role was being a wife and a mother. On March 28, 1926, The Brownsville Herald reported that “Although she (Ross) has faith in the future of America’s young womanhood and believes that ‘freedom of the younger generation of women will prove beneficial. Governor Nellie Tayloe Ross holds that the highest position of woman in life is matrimony and motherhood’”.¹⁹ Despite this, it did not stop her from believing in the importance of women in politics and positions of power. She was more concerned with the perception that engaging in politics had “unsexed” her.²⁰ She was committed to proving that despite her role in political power, she was still a feminine woman. In other words, femininity, politics, and public service were all compatible. While she praised motherhood, marriage, and domestic responsibilities, she also made it clear that women should not limit themselves to traditional roles alone.

Ross did not reject the traditional notion of women being wives and mothers. However, another reason for her distance from feminist ideology was the political climate of the 1920s. Politicians and political parties often supported women who did not engage in the feminist movement. If she had explicitly engaged in feminist activism, it is likely that she would not have been chosen as her party’s political candidate. She found herself having to prove that she could be as tough as any male politician while still maintaining her femininity. She advised women to not portray themselves as too “aggressive” when they entered office.²¹ Ross wanted people to support her because she was a capable candidate, not just because she was a woman. She hoped they would focus on her abilities and not discriminate against her because of her sex. In 1926, Ross responded to concerns that the entrance of women in politics would cause them to create havoc by exercising their newfound power. On January 24th, The Washington Post reported that she responded by stating, “It opens to woman the door for unbounded service and challenges her to prove whether she does possess high ideals.”.²² After losing her second-term election, she admitted regretting not doing more to appeal to women and challenge the sexist notions she faced.

Overall, despite Ross’ goal to distance herself from explicit feminist activism, she is still viewed as an important figure to women’s rights. Her title as the first woman governor in the U.S was and is still revered. She inspired other “new women” to get involved in the field of politics.

Wyoming’s Re-Election & Ross’ Post-Term

In 1926, The Democratic Party remained with her as their candidate for the next election. The Republican Party chose Frank Emerson, the state engineer. While Ross had won the 1924 election by a significant amount of votes, she did not succeed in re-election for a number of reasons. The most basic reason was that Wyoming was still an overwhelmingly Republican state, and the party had strengthened once again. Wyoming’s senior U.S. senator, Francis E. Warren, was believed to have been on the brink of passing away of old age. At the same time, Wyoming also had a Democratic junior senator, John B. Kendrick. If Ross had won re-election, she would have had the right to choose the next senior senator.²⁵ Republicans would not have preferred two Democrats. Another reason was that during the 1920s, the Klu Klux Klan had a resurgence, and many had controlled votes. Anti-immigrant sentiments and nativism surged during the decade, with Catholics and Catholic immigrants facing discrimination. Some Republicans portrayed Ross as a Catholic, which the KKK held hatred against. Lastly, Ross was a woman. Many still believed women were incapable of handling politics. Some female voters even believed that Ross didn’t automatically deserve their votes just because she was a woman. The Cody Enterprise reported on a woman who had voiced this. A woman named Mrs. Jenkins stated “What has Mrs. Ross done particularly to deserve the votes of women? Has she ever since taken any interest in Woman’s Suffrage? Has she ever been a delegate to a Woman’s Suffrage convention, to a Woman’s Christian Temperance meeting, to a Woman’s Relief Corps convention, to a meeting of the Federation of Woman’s clubs for Wyoming?.”.²⁶ However, while she had lost, she remained in politics and Democratic women’s groups. In the 1930s, she became a campaign orator and was even later on appointed as Director of the U.S Mint by Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Significance

I chose Nellie Tayloe Ross’s achievement of becoming the first female governor in the U.S. because of my interest in women’s history. I was surprised to learn that a woman had already become a state governor as early as the 1920s. Ross’s victory was widely reported, with many 1920s newspapers covering her historic achievement and status as the first woman governor. It was perceived as a significant accomplishment.

The story of Nellie Tayloe Ross both reinforces and complicates our understanding of the decade. Common themes of the 1920s are flappers, economic prosperity, and prohibition. Flappers are known to have been young “new women” who strayed away from restrictive and traditional female roles. However, Ross represents a different kind of “new woman” who did the same. She was a woman involved in politics. Another aspect that her story demonstrates is that while women were increasingly becoming involved in politics, some had to distance themselves from feminism in order to gain support from male peers. Ross’ distance from feminism and her commitment to continuing what her husband left behind may explain why newspaper coverage of her victory was more positive than many people today would expect.

The theme of Prohibition is something many associate with the 1920s and Ross’ time as governor demonstrates that it is an accurate depiction. Prohibition had Americans question the amount of power the federal government possessed. Many people and certain senators argued that it violated the constitution by limiting states’ rights.²⁷ However, Ross’ stance on strict prohibition enforcement demonstrated that some state leaders supported it. She proved this by confronting two sheriffs who were accused of crimes associated with it.

Finally, Ross’s story complicates the common image of the 1920s as being filled with prosperity and fun. Wyoming was a state that was going through an economic depression and Ross’s election loss exposed a darker side of the decade. ​The KKK had reemerged and gained some influence in the political sphere.

Bibliography

Mackey, Mike. “Nellie Tayloe Ross and Wyoming Politics.” Journal of the West 42, no. 3 (2003): 25–34.https://research-ebsco-com.library2.ramapo.edu:2443/linkprocessor/plink?id=f5cae36e-3b49-3ace-ba5b-0cabe6b1f206

Scharff, Virginia. “Feminism, Femininity, and Power: Nellie Tayloe Ross and the Woman Politician’s Dilemma.” Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies 15, no. 3 (March 1, 1995): 87–106. doi:10.2307/3346786.

Scheer, Teva J. 2005. Governor Lady: The Life and Times of Nellie Tayloe Ross. Columbia: University of Missouri Press.http://site.ebrary.com/id/10129006.

Dumenil, Lynn. The Modern Temper: American Culture and Society in the 1920s. New York: Hill and Wang, 1995.

“Beat Texas to It, and Elect Woman Governor,” The Buffalo Voice (Buffalo, Johnson County, WY), October 17, 1924. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers, Library of Congress. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn92067096/1924-10-17/ed-1/seq-1/.

“Wyoming Inaugurates Nellie Tayloe Ross—First Lady Governor in United States.” Park County Herald (Cody, Wyo.), January 7, 1925. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Library of Congress. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn92066928/1925-01-07/ed-1/seq-1/.

“Her Excellency, The Governess.” The Challis Messenger (Challis, Idaho), January 14, 1925. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Library of Congress. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn88056159/1925-01-14/ed-1/seq-3/.

“Evening Star.” Evening Star (Washington, D.C.), January 18, 1925. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Library of Congress. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045462/1925-01-18/ed-1/seq-96/.

“Wyoming Senate Rejects Child Labor Amendm’t.” The Cody Enterprise (Cody, Wyo.), January 21, 1925. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Library of Congress. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn92066929/1925-01-21/ed-1/seq-1/.

“Armed Prohibition Force Guards Gov. Nellie Ross.” The Washington Post (1923-1954), April 11, 1925. ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The Washington Post, pg. 1.

“Gov. Ross Removes Loomis from Office.” Park County Herald (Cody, Wyo.), June 17, 1925. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Library of Congress. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn92066928/1925-06-17/ed-1/seq-4/.

“Matrimony Is Proper Thing.” Brownsville Herald (Brownsville, Tex.), March 28, 1926. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Library of Congress. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn86063730/1926-03-28/ed-1/seq-5/.

“Woman Governor Sees No Havoc in Vote for Her Sex: Merely Opens Door…,” The Washington Post (1923-1954), January 24, 1926. ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The Washington Post, pg. A7.

“Clean Politics Urged On Women.” Evening Star (Washington, D.C.), December 2, 1926. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Library of Congress. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045462/1926-12-02/ed-1/seq-27/.

“Prominent Wyoming Lady Says Mrs. Ross Not Entitled to Woman Vote—Sympath Not Issue.” The Cody Enterprise and the Park County Herald (Cody, Wyo.), October 13, 1926. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Library of Congress. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn92066930/1926-10-13/ed-1/seq-4/.

Rockpile Museum. Nellie Tayloe Ross for Governor. Postcard, 1926. Catalog No. 2004.025.0005. Accessed March 21, 2025. https://rockpilemuseum.pastperfectonline.com/archive/E78C4C54-6A62-4033-A6E8-793416583805.

Bettmann Archive. Nellie Ross and Eleanor Roosevelt. Photograph. July 1928.

Bettmann Archive. Governor Nellie Tayloe Ross Opens Gimbels. Philadelphia, 1926.

Bain News Service. Gov. Nellie T. Ross. [ca. 1915–1920]. George Grantham Bain Collection, Library of Congress. https://www.loc.gov/item/2014709682/.

Featured image: Bettmann Archive. Nellie Tayloe Ross Making a Speech with Clarence Morley, 1924.

Additional Resources

Nellie Tayloe Ross. YouTube video, 7:00. Posted by Wyoming PBS, 7 years ago.

National Governors Association. “Nellie Tayloe Ross.” National Governors Association. Accessed March 17, 2025. https://www.nga.org/governor/nellie-tayloe-ross/.

Rea, Tom. “The Ambition of Nellie Tayloe Ross.” WyoHistory.org, November 8, 2014. Accessed March 17, 2025. https://www.wyohistory.org/encyclopedia/ambition-nellie-tayloe-ross.

Wyoming History Day. “Nellie Tayloe Ross, First Woman Governor in the United States.” Wyoming History Day. Accessed March 17, 2025. https://www.wyominghistoryday.org/theme-topics/nellie-tayloe-ross-first-woman-governor-united-states

“Nellie Tayloe Ross: Wyoming, United States’ First Female Governor.” Wyoming Public Media, January 10, 2025. https://www.wyomingpublicmedia.org/open-spaces/2025-01-10/nellie-tayloe-ross-wyoming-united-states-first-female-governor.

“Nellie Tayloe Ross Papers, 1900-1977.” Archives West, accessed March 24, 2025. https://archiveswest.orbiscascade.org/ark:80444/xv317842.

“Nellie Tayloe Ross.” Digital Public Library of America, accessed March 24, 2025. https://dp.la/search?q=Nellie+Tayloe+Ross.

Lucht, Tracy, and Chelsea Davis. “Gender, Race, and Place in Newspaper Coverage of Women ‘Firsts’ after the Nineteenth Amendment.” Journalism History 47, no. 4 (October 2, 2021): 333–52. doi:10.1080/00947679.2021.1982564.

Citations

1. Bettmann Archive/Getty Images, Governor Nellie Tayloe Ross Opens Gimbels, Philadelphia, featuring Ellis Gimbel, Governor Ross, and Mayor Kendrick of Philadelphia; Bain News Service, Gov. Nellie T. Ross, [ca. 1915–1920], George Grantham Bain Collection, Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/item/2014709682/. ︎
2. Teva J. Scheer, Governor Lady: The Life and Times of Nellie Tayloe Ross (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2005), 27. ︎
3. Wyoming Inaugurates Nellie Tayloe Ross—First Lady Governor in United States,” Park County Herald (Cody, Wyo.), January 7, 1925, Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers, Library of Congress, https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn92066928/1925-01-07/ed-1/seq-1/. ︎
4. “Her Excellency, The Governess.” The Challis Messenger (Challis, Idaho), January 14, 1925. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Library of Congress. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn88056159/1925-01-14/ed-1/seq-3/. ︎
5. Evening Star (Washington, D.C.), January 18, 1925. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Library of Congress. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045462/1925-01-18/ed-1/seq-96/. ︎
6. “Beat Texas to It, and Elect Woman Governor,” The Buffalo Voice (Buffalo, Johnson County, WY), October 17, 1924. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers, Library of Congress. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn92067096/1924-10-17/ed-1/seq-1/. ︎
7. Mike Mackey, “Nellie Tayloe Ross and Wyoming Politics,” Journal of the West 42, no. 3 (2003): 26. ︎
8. Lynn Dumenil, The Modern Temper: American Culture and Society in the 1920s (New York: Hill and Wang, 1995), 32-35. ︎
9. Scheer, Governor Lady, 74. ︎
10. “Armed Prohibition Force Guards Gov. Nellie Ross,” The Washington Post (1923-1954), April 11, 1925. ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The Washington Post, pg. 1. ︎
11. Dumenil, Modern Temper, 229. ︎
12. Mackey, “Nellie Tayloe Ross and Wyoming Politics,” 28. ︎
13. “Gov. Ross Removes Loomis from Office.” Park County Herald (Cody, Wyo.), June 17, 1925. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Library of Congress. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn92066928/1925-06-17/ed-1/seq-4/ ︎
14. Mackey, “Nellie Tayloe Ross and Wyoming Politics,” 30. ︎
15. “Wyoming Senate Rejects Child Labor Amendm’t.” The Cody Enterprise (Cody, Wyo.), January 21, 1925. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Library of Congress. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn92066929/1925-01-21/ed-1/seq-1/. ︎
16. Scheer, Governor Lady, 83. ︎
17. Dumenil, Modern Temper, 105.
    ︎
18. “Clean Politics Urged On Women.” Evening Star (Washington, D.C.), December 2, 1926. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Library of Congress. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045462/1926-12-02/ed-1/seq-27/. ︎
19. “Matrimony Is Proper Thing,” Brownsville Herald (Brownsville, Tex.), March 28, 1926, Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers, Library of Congress, https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn86063730/1926-03-28/ed-1/seq-5/. ︎
20. Virginia Scharff, “Feminism, Femininity, and Power: Nellie Tayloe Ross and the Woman Politician’s Dilemma,” Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies 15, no. 3 (1995): 88. ︎
21. Scharff, “Feminism, Femininity, and Power,” 88. ︎
22. “Woman Governor Sees No Havoc in Vote for Her Sex: Merely Opens Door…,” The Washington Post (1923-1954), January 24, 1926. ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The Washington Post, pg. A7. ︎
23. Nellie Tayloe Ross for Governor, postcard, 1926, Catalog No. 2004.025.0005, Rockpile Museum, accessed March 21, 2025, https://rockpilemuseum.pastperfectonline.com/archive/E78C4C54-6A62-4033-A6E8-793416583805. ︎
24. Bettmann Archive, Nellie Ross and Eleanor Roosevelt, photograph, July 1928. ︎
25. Mackey, “Nellie Tayloe Ross and Wyoming Politics,” 31. ︎
26. “Prominent Wyoming Lady Says Mrs. Ross Not Entitled to Woman Vote—Sympath Not Issue,” The Cody Enterprise and the Park County Herald (Cody, Wyo.), October 13, 1926. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers, Library of Congress. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn92066930/1926-10-13/ed-1/seq-4/. ︎
27. Dumenil, Modern Temper, 29. ︎

grlynn

Grlynn is a Ramapo College senior majoring in history

Women’s lives had changed significantly from the late 19th century into the 1920s. They became more involved in politics and increasingly joined the workforce. This challenged the traditional ideas of women’s roles within society. Social and sexual norms surrounding women had also changed, leading to new ideas about womanhood and femininity. Many women had moved away from restrictive clothing of the Victorian era, as seen with the example of flappers. 

In the 1920s, Nellie Tayloe Ross achieved a historic title. She was elected Governor of Wyoming in 1924. She took office in 1925, becoming the first woman to ever serve as a governor in the U.S.A. Ross represents the “new woman” but in a way that differs from the stereotypical image of the carefree flappers of the 1920s. She was an older woman actively involved in politics. During the late 19th century and into the 1920s, women had entered the political arena. They became political actors, supported suffrage, and sought progressive and urban reforms. One popular reform was prohibition, a law infamously tied to the image of the 1920s. Ross was one of these women. She was a firm supporter of prohibition. Ross had believed that the consumer was just as guilty as the bootlegger. She was even once requested to authorize an investigation of the Park County Sheriff, who had been accused of accepting pay from an alleged bootlegger. 

The “new woman” of the 1920s would agree on one thing: women’s roles within society were changing, and their roles would be different from the old restrictive version of womanhood. However, this did not prevent disagreement and tension. Women’s ideas of feminism and women’s rights were sometimes at odds. Some women, like Julia Lathrop and Frances Perkins, believed in women’s distinctiveness. They believed that women needed special protections that aligned with their sex. While many women supported the Equal Rights Amendment, which promoted equal rights between men and women, many women like Lathrop and Perkins felt indifferent to it. They feared this would create barriers to sex-based labor legislation that specifically protected working women. Ross is an example of a woman who possessed different ideas of women’s newfound roles and power. Feminists and suffragists did view Ross’ election as a victory and a step towards women’s political voices. However, some women’s rights movement leaders were disappointed with Ross’ refusal to prioritize her influence on the movement. She believed in women’s capabilities within the political field but was not a “hardcore feminist”. Echoing the traditional views during the previous century, she stated that a woman’s role as a wife and mother was of the highest importance. She would become cautious with her involvement in feminism because of its negative image within the politics of the time. This cautiousness prevented her from appointing more women in government positions. Nevertheless, Ross firmly believed in women’s roles within the political sphere. While she promoted femininity, she sought to prove it did not have to dismiss a woman’s right to exercise political power. Her status as the first woman governor still inspired other “new women” to get involved in the field of politics. 

Bibliography

Bettmann Archive. USA: Clara Bow in Get Your Man. 1927. Photograph. Bettmann Archive. https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/clara-bow-in-get-your-man-news-photo/514892606.

Bettmann Archive. Portrait of Actress Louise Brooks. Photograph. Bettmann Archive. https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/actress-louise-brooks-poses-for-a-portrait-session-in-news-photo/514205164.

Evening Star (Washington, D.C.). October 24, 1929. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Library of Congress. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045462/1929-10-24/ed-1/seq-3/.

Bettmann Archive. Activist Julia Clifford Lathrop Posing with Her Supporters. Photograph. https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/julia-clifford-lathrop-lead-the-way-for-improving-american-news-photo/517294142.

Dumenil, Lynn. The Modern Temper: American Culture and Society in the 1920s. New York: Hill and Wang, 1995.

Mackey, Mike. “Nellie Tayloe Ross and Wyoming Politics.” Journal of the West 42, no. 3 (2003): 25–34. https://research-ebsco-com.library2.ramapo.edu:2443/linkprocessor/plink?id=f5cae36e-3b49-3ace-ba5b-0cabe6b1f206.

Scharff, Virginia. “Feminism, Femininity, and Power: Nellie Tayloe Ross and the Woman Politician’s Dilemma.” Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies 15, no. 3 (1995): 87–106. https://doi.org/10.2307/3346786.

grlynn

Grlynn is a Ramapo College senior majoring in history

Many historians and political organizations would say the Nazi Party was one of the most powerful and influential organizations of the 20th century. But did you know it took the Nazi party less than 15 years to have control of Germany? In addition, its mere existence lasted for only 25 years. However, in those 25 years, the Nazi Party was able to take a country that was devastated by World War I and took most of the blame for the destruction of Europe. Was able to turn around another world war, almost taking over the entire world. This paper will analyze and understand how the Nazi party was able to gain so much power in such a short time and explain the events that put the party on the map, as well as the people that supported/influenced the rise of the far-right extremist movement. Adolf Hitler might have been the one to bring the party to its highest potential; however, it was the party that started the ideology of a far-right, extremist anti-Semitic movement.

The Aftermath of World War I and the Treaty of Versailles:

On November 11, 1918, the German army and the country finally surrendered, which would mark the end of the First World War. After four years of bloodshed and destruction, as well as the first time the world has ever seen a world war. The world was at ease when Germany took full blame for the destruction and economic hardship of the other ally countries. Despite other countries starting to rebuild after a devastating world war, Germany was the country most affected by the war and had some of the biggest problems within its nation. Poverty, economic, township, and destruction throughout Germany made the country look like a third-world country with no vision of it getting better or easier for the German citizens. In addition, European countries forced Germany to sign an agreement that would inevitably be the reason some would say that caused World War II. This document would be called the Treaty of Versailles. 

The Treaty of Versailles was presented by other European countries to prevent Germany from causing another world war. This treaty made Germany give up land, population, military freedom, and the German economy to rebuild Europe. “Germany lost 13% of its land and 12% of its population to the Allies. This land made up 48% of Germany’s iron production and a large proportion of its coal production, limiting its economic power.² The German Army was limited to 100,000 soldiers, and the Navy was limited to 15,000 sailors”. This treaty devastated the German economy and brought record inflation and massive unemployment, and Germans struggled to understand their country’s uncertain future.³ 

The German government and politicians tried reassuring their citizens, saying it would take a couple of years for the economy to bounce back and look like pre-war times. However, politicians and government officials had no clear vision or opportunities to fix the German economy and solve the unemployment crisis. “Early in 1922, a dollar was worth 1,000 marks—by November, a dollar bought 6,000 marks. On January 4, 1923, a dollar fetched 8,000 marks; less than a week later, it was worth 10,000 marks, and by January 15, it took 56,000 marks to purchase one US currency unit. From then on, the mark skyrocketed with little relation to anything approaching economic reality, reaching 60,000,000 marks to the dollar by the first week of September. 7 Inflation was such that a typical Hamburg dock worker was paid 17 billion marks a day by fall 1923”.⁵ With record spending by the German government, corrupt politicians, a treaty devastating the German economy, and no clear sign of what Germany’s future will look like—this cost far right and far left groups to start gaining momentum and popularity with citizens. Germany’s status in 1919 ultimately created the German Workers Party (DAP), founded by a far-right politician named Anton Drexler. 

The Start of the Party:

In January 1919, Anton Drexler, a far-right extremist, saw the economic status and corrupt politicians within the German country and wanted to make a change and bring Germany back to prosperity. He was the primary founder of the German Worker Party (GAP), which, at the start, had about 30 members. Drexler oversaw the appointment of the chairman of the DAP, Karl Harrer. Harrer was appointed chairman on January 5, 1919, which would mark the start of the DAP party. “The party met weekly in a beer hall in Munich. After the pressures of the war, Munich was politically unstable. People were inclined to support new ideas that advocated extreme change. The party advocated a range of ideas, including hostility toward the Treaty of Versailles, nationalism, concern about the nation’s moral standards and changing culture, and extreme antisemitism”.⁶ In the first year of the parties, they lacked support from outsiders and local party organizations. However, on September 12, 1919, a man walked into a bar hall where the DAP were having their usual meeting. The man sparked interest in what the DAP was campaigning for in terms of the future of Germany. The man ultimately joined the discussion with the DAP members, and the man’s name was Adolf Hitler. “Hitler entered into a discussion with the main speaker at the event, and Drexler, impressed with Hitler’s points and oratory skills, invited him to join the party”.⁷ 

Anton Drexler:

Anton Drexler was born on June 13, 1884, in Munich. In Drexler’s early life, he was a railway toolmaker and a locksmith in Berlin. Sources suggest that Drexler struggled with financial sustainability and alcoholism. He was also summoned to serve in World War I but was ultimately discharged due to being physically unfit. During the war, he joined the German Fatherland Party, which was ultimately a far-right party. Drexler got involved with the Free Workers Committee, and while working on the committee, he met a journalist named Karl Harrer. Both men shared a lot of the same views on nationalism and antisemitism. Ultimately, Drexler founded a new party, which was called the German Worker Party, and appointed Harrer as Reich chairman. On February 24, 1920, the party saw a complete renaming, and Drexler became the chairman of the party. However, despite Drexler being the leader of the party, he was ultimately removed as chairman after falling out with Adolf Hitler. On July 29, 1921, Drexler was removed as chairman, and his replacement was Hitler. He ultimately left the party in 1923 but rejoined in 1933 after the party’s success in Parliament and Hitler’s becoming chancellor. Anton Drexler died on February 24, 1942, at the age of 57 due to his lengthy illness due to alcoholism. Despite being in the party for only a short amount of time, he is the primary reason why Hitler got into politics and the primary founder of the Nazi party. 

The Beginning of the Nazi (1920-1923)

The German Workers Party has finally been established and, at this point, has been around for over a year. The party’s membership of followers varied throughout the year, getting as high as 35 but as low as only 13. However, this would all change when Adolf Hitler joined the party. Drexler showed Hitler the parties, values, and far-right policies he hoped to spread and gain support from outsiders. Drexler did not realize at first how important Hitler would be to the parties, growth, and popularity within a couple of months. Hitler was a phenomenal speaker and passionate about the policy and future that Germany should take. The way that Hitler preached his policies and rhetoric made people listen and want to learn more about what they could do and how to join. Because of this, the party went through a rebranding on February 24, 1920. The party was renamed the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP) or the German Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. This would also be the time when the party came up with the ideology of Nazism, a far-right antisemitic movement. In the years following the rebrand, the party expanded little by little, gaining support from middle-class workers and people who had lost faith in the German government. The following shows how the Nazi party progressed through the years with party membership and how they spread their propaganda: 

“These early days of the NSDAP were unspectacular and gave no promise whatever that it would ever achieve prominence, even within Bavaria, for it was competing for support principally among the most radically minded sections of the middle class along with a score of similar groups such as the Germanen-Orden, the Thule Society, and the Deutschvöllische Schutz-und Trutz Bund. The party, whose membership was only 1,100 in June 1920, lay in the twilight world of local Munich politics and several times might easily have collapsed. Even the advent of Hitler as a party member in September 1919 did not immediately produce a significant improvement in prospects. However, the oratorical and propagandistic skills of Hitler eventually allowed the NSDAP to make something of a minor breakthrough in terms of public recognition, mainly on account of his anti-Semitism, which was vehement even by Munich standards. Membership gradually increased to 3,300 by August 1921, and the party managed to secure a more definite foothold in radical rightist circles. Its innately social darwinistic outlook supplied a basic impetus behind NSDAP activity, but of more specific importance were the changes in the organization, leadership, and direction of the party in July 1921”.⁸

Stachura, Peter D. “The Political Strategy of the Nazi Party, 1919-1933.” German Studies Review 3, no. 2 (1980): 261–88. https://doi.org/10.2307/1429723.

The Party’s Takeover of Germany: (1924-1933)

By the middle of 1921, the Nazi parties made a name for themselves and started getting crowds, listening to what they had to say and proposing policies for the future of Germany. Despite Hitler being one of the main reasons why the party was gaining popularity, he still did not have full control. Drexler still was the chairman of the party and still called the shots for what the party should do next. However, Hitler disagreed with most Drexler ideas. One of Drexler’s prominent ideas was to combine forces with another far-right party. In July 1921, Drexler held a secret meeting without Hitler’s knowledge to work with other parties to gain more popularity. Hitler was outraged at Drexler, so the next day he left the Nazi Party. But when other members of the party heard about Hitler’s exit from the party, they were outraged and realized that Hitler was their only hope for the future of the Nazi party. On July 29, 1921, Drexler was kicked out as chairman, and Hitler became the chairman and dictator of the Nazi party. The future of the party was now in Adolf Hitler’s hands.

The Nazi Party’s first attempt to take over the German government was the Beer Hall Putsch. On November 8, 1923, Hitler and his party set up a protest to overthrow the German government. However, Hitler’s plan did not go through as he planned; the next day he was stopped by the German army and arrested for the attempt to overthrow the national government. Yet this did not stop the Nazi party. The party realized that overthrowing the government would take a lot of men and weaponry to have somewhat of a chance. Hitler and the Nazi party realized the popularity his party was getting around Germany. So the party decided to do it the way that all other parties did it: by winning seats in Parliament. The first time the Nazi party gained seats in Parliament was in the election of 1828, where they gained 12 seats. After that election, the Nazis gained momentum and popularity around Germany, and by November 1933, the Nazis had taken over parliament. Despite the Nazi party only being around for about 13 years, the party would get complete control of Germany on January 30, 1933, when Adolf Hitler was appointed chancellor of Germany by President Hindenburg. By 1934, after the death of President Paul Von Hindenburg, the Nazi party had complete control of the German government and the whole country. After 15 years of the party’s founding, the Nazis completely controlled Germany.

Significance:

The reason why I picked this topic for the 1920s project was because I wanted to understand how the Nazi party got its name, its members, and how it became so powerful so quickly. I always thought that Hitler was the one who started the movement and his own far-right policies. But when researching the Nazi Party, I found that that was not the case where the party originated before Hitler even joined. Most of Hitler’s views on ideology came from joining what was then called the German Workers Party. Despite Hitler being the one who took the Nazis from 30 members to taking over the whole country. If it were not for the party and their rallies, Hitler might have never gotten into politics in the first place. It was the German Workers Party that started the evil, bloodshed, destruction, and immoral beliefs of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, A.K.A. the Nazi Party.

Bibliography

1. “File: Nazi Party Rally Grounds (1938) 3.Jpg.” n.d. Wikimedia.org. Accessed May 3, 2024. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nazi_party_rally_grounds_(1938)_3.jpg. ︎
2. “The Aftermath of the First World War – The Holocaust Explained: Designed for Schools.” n.d. Theholocaustexplained.org. Accessed May 2, 2024. https://www.theholocaustexplained.org/the-nazi-rise-to-power/the-effects-of-the-first-world-war-on-germany/. ︎
3. “Aftermath of World War I and the Rise of Nazism, 1918–1933.” n.d. Ushmm.org. Accessed May 2, 2024. https://www.ushmm.org/learn/holocaust/aftermath-of-world-war-i-and-the-rise-of-nazism-1918-1933. ︎
4. Homeschool History. 2021. “The Early Years of the Nazi Party 1919-1923 | GCSE History.” Youtube. November 11, 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fkPOpyNVJ8. ︎
5. Pelz, William A. “Economic Collapse and the Rise of Fascism, 1920–33.” In A People’s History of Modern Europe, 127–41. Pluto Press, 2016. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1c2crfj.14. ︎
6. “The Early Years of the Nazi Party – The Holocaust Explained: Designed for Schools.” n.d. Theholocaustexplained.org. Accessed May 2, 2024. https://www.theholocaustexplained.org/the-nazi-rise-to-power/the-early-years-of-the-nazi-party/. ︎
7. “The Early Years of the Nazi Party – The Holocaust Explained: Designed for Schools.” Accessed May 2, 2024. https://www.theholocaustexplained.org/the-nazi-rise-to-power/the-early-years-of-the-nazi-party/. ︎
8. Stachura, Peter D. “The Political Strategy of the Nazi Party, 1919-1933.” German Studies Review 3, no. 2 (1980): 261–88. https://doi.org/10.2307/1429723. ︎
9. Niets. 2023. “Horst Wessel Lied – Co-National Anthem of Nazi Germany.” Youtube. November 7, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awKecML3GXs. ︎
10. Wikipedia contributors. “Nazi Party.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. May 3, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party#Election_results ︎

The Irish Civil War started on June 28, 1922, and lasted approximately ten months, ending on May 24, 1923. Even though this war started in June 1922, the Irish had been fighting for their independence way before that. In reality, the Irish started fighting for their independence from Great Britain in 1919. Great Britain refused Ireland’s departure to leave the United Kingdom and to be an independent country. Ireland and Britain fought in over a two-year war, with many casualties and land destroyed. Despite the majority of Irish citizens wanting to leave the United Kingdom summit districts in Ireland, did not want to leave the United Kingdom. This created a separate territory, called Northern Ireland, that voted to remain in the United Kingdom and have close connections with Great Britain. However, England was unwilling to give up all of Ireland, and they suggested negotiating new terms to make Ireland an independent country while remaining in the United Kingdom. 

The Build-Up to the Civil War:

After the war against the United Kingdom, Ireland, in the majority of the population, didn’t want to give up the hopes of Ireland becoming an independent country. Even though there were a lot of lives lost, homes destroyed, and a lack of motivation, Ireland would not go back to the old rules the United Kingdom had under. So Ireland’s parliament and England’s parliament agreed to negotiate terms on how independent Ireland would be, what terms they no longer have to follow, and what terms they still have to follow. Despite Ireland’s resentment toward negotiating with Britain, they realized it was better to negotiate than have more bloodshed and damage to their country. Ireland brought their top-ranking officials in the military and in politics to negotiate the new terms for Ireland’s independence. However, Britain also brought its brightest and most highly ranked commanders to negotiate on behalf of the United Kingdom the terms of Ireland’s independence.

In November 1921, negotiations started with Britain and Ireland on what would ultimately determine how much control the United Kingdom would have over Ireland. Negotiations were held at 10 Downing St. in London. The people who were negotiating on Ireland’s behalf were people like Michael Collins, Arthur Griffith, and Robert Barton. The people negotiating on behalf of the United Kingdom were people like David L George, Lorn Birkenhead, Authen Chamberlain, and even Winston Churchill. To this day, we still do not know what the negotiations were like in what specific topics either side we’re fighting for. A lot of it was to remain confidential and were to be announced when Ireland reached their homeland. Ultimately, the treaty was finally signed on December 6, 1921, with all members in the room signing their names on the document. The treaty was called the “Anglo-Irish Treaty,” which gave the United Kingdom less control of Ireland, but still stayed in power, uncertain things the country did. The United Kingdom parliament and members ultimately agreed to the new terms; however, it would be quite different in Ireland. Now the people who negotiated these terms have to convince the Irish citizens and parliament that Ireland is finally gaining its independence.

The Anglo-Irish Treaty was finalized and now just has to be passed in the Irish parliament. The negotiators had to convince the Irish parliament of the Anglo-Irish Treaty, which would ultimately prevent another war or conflict with Britain. Some of the terms and regulations that Irish citizens and government must obey are the following:

• Recognized parliament for non-imperial affairs: The Irish parliament can make decisions on behalf of its citizens, but not from a broad perspective. 
• Financial Autonomy: the British would only have some control of Ireland’s finances.
• Small Military Force: Ireland could have only a limited number of military troops. However, British troops would ultimately leave Ireland.
• Ireland State remains within the British Empire: Ireland will remain in the United Kingdom and must swear allegiance to the British monarchy for any person in elected office. 
• The Royal Navy would patrol Irish Waters: the British controlled the waters around Ireland
• Ulster’s Six Counties can choose to join or not: Give counties the option to remain completely in the control of the United Kingdom. (Northern Ireland)¹

The treaty finally reached the public and the Irish parliament, and there were many different opinions about the treaty. Some members of parliament didn’t like all the terms in the treaty but ultimately agreed, and some parliament members agreed to the treaty not because they liked it but because they didn’t want more conflict or division with Britain. However, there was a group of parliamentarians who were completely outraged by the terms they had to follow and obey. Some members stated that this was the opposite direction of Irish independence and believed that the negotiators just applied to anything that England said. Ultimately, the Anglo-Irish Treaty went up for a vote on January 7, 1922. It passed the Irish parliament 64 to 57 in favor of the treaty. This sparked a whole new division in Ireland, no longer with the United Kingdom, but now between their own citizens.

This image represents the 1922 election and what parties held what seats. As well as how the outcome of the Anglo-Irish Treaty passing happened. Red: Labour Party 17 seats, Green: Anti-treaty party 36 seats, Light Green: Pro-treaty 58 seats, Yellow: Farmer’s Party 7 seats, Blue: BPG 1 seat, White: Independent 9 seats. (Irish general election 1922)

The passing of the treaty raised high tensions in Ireland, not just in parliament, but around the whole country. Due to the passage of the treaty, some ministers of parliament started resigning. On January 14, 1922, Éamon de Valera, Cathal Brugha, and Austin Stack resigned from their post. From January to June, tensions rose throughout Ireland on the treaty and the new rules they must obey. This tension created two sides in Ireland: the Irish Free States (also called pro-treaty forces) and the Anti-Treaty IRA (also called anti-treaty forces). Ultimately, the forces of the two sides would become a reality when a man named Michael Collins and his forces attacked the Four Quarts, which ultimately would be the start of the Irish Civil War. 

The Two Sides in the War:

At the beginning of any war, there are always multiple sides that become frustrated and take action, which ultimately results in fighting and battles. In the Irish Civil War, there were two sides to the war, and one of the sides was the Pro-Treaty Forces. The people who aligned with these forces agreed with the Anglo-Irish Treaty and the rules that came with it. They believe this is one step forward to Irish independence and the country being an independent nation. Some members did not even agree with every measure and term in the treaty but did not want to raise conflict or more bloodshed with the British Empire. Some of the leaders of the pro-treaties forces were people like Arthur Griffin, Richard Mulcshy, Elon O’Buffy, and most notably Michael Collins. Collins is an important figure, being a high-ranking politician and military officer, as well as being the commander and chief of the Irish free state forces. He was also the cause of the start of the Irish Civil War when he directed an order to bombard the Four Quarts in Dublin, which anti-treaty forces had taken control of two months prior. This side also had the support of the United Kingdom and its military forces.

“Deputies have spoken about whether dead men would approve of it, and they have spoken whether children yet unborn would approve it, but few have spoken of whether the living approve it.”

-Michael Collins, Dáil debate, Christmas 1921.³

On the other side of the Civil War was the Anti-Treaty IRA. The anti-treaty for us is that they will do anything in their power—even go to war again with the United Kingdom—to finally have Ireland as an independent nation. They believed that the British Empire was keeping Ireland from doing great things economically and self-governing their citizens. They believe the Anglo-Irish Treaty favors England more than it does Ireland. The leaders of the anti-Treaty forces were people like Liam Lynch, Frank Allen, and most notably Éamon de Valer. Valera was one of the first ministers to speak out against the treaty and was the first to resign from parliament when the treaty passed. He could not plan on behalf of the anti-treaty and got Irish citizens to volunteer in the army to fight the pro-treaty forces. However, his charisma and popularity would ultimately get him in trouble with British forces being in prison for speaking against the Anglo-Irish Treaty and fighting for complete independence from the British Empire.

Beginning & End of the War:

The Four Courts were occupied by anti-treaty forces that took control of Dublin in the beginning of April. Michael Collins and pro-treaty forces were starting to exert pressure on the UK and their own forces about the anti-treaty forces’ control of the Four Courts. Winston Churchill told Michael Collins that if he did not get control of Dublin by August 10, he would inevitably have to send British troops to Ireland to stop the conflict. Michael Collins ultimately made the decision to bombard the courts on June 28, 1822, to get control back and push the anti-treaty forces out of Dublin. This is considered the start of the Irish Civil War and the first battle.

The first battle of the Irish Civil War was called the Battle of Dublin. Where pro-treaty forces and anti-treaty forces fought for control of the four courts and Dublin as a whole. The battle started on the 28th of June and lasted until the 5th of July, when, ultimately, pro-treaty forces got control back of the four quarts and Dublin from the anti-treaty forces. Ultimately, 44 soldiers were killed, a couple hundred were wounded, and 35 citizens were killed and over 100 wounded as well. Despite the bloodshed and people injured during this battle, it still did not stop both forces from fighting for what they ultimately wanted. Both sides continued the fight despite the bloodshed, injuries, and destruction in their own countries; there were no signs of them slowing down in the early months of the war. July, August, and September are where the most bloodshed happened, as well as destruction and battles. However, the war would take a dramatic turn at the end of August when news broke out about a certain man.

On August 22, 1922, about two months into the war, the commander-in-chief of the pro-treaty forces, Michael Collin, was killed in battle. This brought a new wave of supporters to the pro-treaty forces, who supported the treaty and even joined the fight. Ultimately, the man who replaced Collins as commander-in-chief was called Richard Mulcahy. Despite Collins’ death, the fighting did not stop, with both forces coming at each other from all angles and around the whole country. The Irish parliament, which was controlled by the pro-treaty forces, tried passing legislation to stop the fighting and prevent more bloodshed and destruction in their country. 

However, on May 24, 1923, over 10 months into the war, a man named Frank Aiken, told the anti-treaty forces to “dump their arms” and surrender. This decision ultimately got the approval of Éamon de Valera, knowing that this war would not go anywhere and that innocent people were dying because of it. This officially marked the end of the Irish Civil War. Despite the war being over, there was still conflict between the pro-treaty forces and the anti-treaty forces, with some people being killed and assassinated after the end of the war. Months later, the anti-treaty forces finally accepted the Anglo-Irish Treaty. The treaty was ultimately put into law on March 31, 1922, and stayed the same for a couple of decades until the Irish attempted a second try to gain their independence in 1949 from the United Kingdom, and that battle had a different outcome than this one.

Significance:

The reason why I picked this topic was because of the interest I have in the United Kingdom and the empire they have built throughout the centuries. The United Kingdom or the British Empire was one of the biggest empires in the world controlling over 90% of the world at one point. But since 1776, the British Empire has been losing its colonies and countries for years, and there is a reason for all of them many of them are quite different. Sometimes the British Empire was OK with giving up some countries or negotiating with them for partial independence. Despite the British going easy on other countries, that was not the case with Ireland with the British fought tooth and nail to keep Ireland part of the United Kingdom. It always interests me how the Irish got into a Civil War with their people, and how different it was compared to the American Civil War. Hence the reason why I picked the Irish Civil War was to understand how desperate the Irish were to gain independence and how powerful/influential the United Kingdom was trying to keep them in their empire.

 Bibliography

1. The Great War. 2021. “Treaty That Caused Irish Civil War – the Anglo-Irish Treaty 1921 (Documentary).” Youtube. November 26, 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4h8XTRj6Oc. ︎
2. “File: Michael Collins 1921.Jpg.” n.d. Wikimedia.org. Accessed March 26, 2024. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Michael_Collins_1921.jpg. ︎
3. “‘They’ll Never Shoot Me in My Own County’ — Famous Quotes from Michael Collins.” 2022. Irishexaminer.com. August 20, 2022. https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/spotlight/arid-40942814.html. ︎
4. “File: Eamon de Valera c 1922-30.Jpg.” n.d. Wikimedia.org. Accessed March 26, 2024. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eamon_de_Valera_c_1922-30.jpg. ︎
5. “30 Best Eamon DE Valera Quotes with Image.” 2023. Bookey.App. September 4, 2023. https://www.bookey.app/quote-author/eamon-de-valera. ︎
6. joekilgobinet. 2009. “The Irish Civil War 1922 1923.” Youtube. May 31, 2009. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9ayLHPLROg. ︎
7. “Timeline of the Irish Civil War.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. March 26, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_the_Irish_Civil_War&oldid=1215710689. ︎

Phoebe Ensminger Burn was born in the quiet community of Mount Verd, Tennessee on November 23, 1873, and was more often well-known by her nickname of “Febb.” She was married at age 22 to James Lafayette Burn but was widowed in 1916 when James passed. In 1895, she gave birth to Harry Thomas Burn, who would eventually go on to serve on the Tennesse General Assembly where both he and his mother made history in the ratification of the 19th amendment in August of 1920.

Febb was an educated woman who graduated from, what is currently, Tennessee Wesleyan University in 1894. It was not commonplace for women to attend and graduate higher education, especially in southern states like Tennessee. She even went on to hold a career as a teacher in Niota, Tennessee. She owned a farm, along with her husband, and worked alongside many men who did not have the same education as Febb, but could vote in political elections. Harry T. Burn even noted this disparity and how it affected his vote in favor of the ratification of the 19th amendment.

Harry T. Burn received a letter from Febb which ultimately changed the fate of the ratification of the 19th amendment. Together, they both made history and Febb has been eternalized as a influential mother who ended up changing the history of the United States.

The Ratification of the 19th Amendment

The 1920s was a decade where advocates for women’s rights made tremendous strides in the United States government. For years before the ratification of the 19th amendment, women all over the United States had rallied and protested for equality and the right to vote; prominent women like Carrie Chapman Catt, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Susan B. Anthony all helped to push women towards a more equal country. It took decades for their efforts to reach federal hands, and even then, their fate was not yet guaranteed. In the state of Tennessee, the assembly was one of the remaining states to hold a meeting to vote on the 19th amendment; at this point in time thirty-eight states had already voted on ratifying the amendment while eight had voted against it. For the ratification to be legitimized, one more state needed to vote in favor of it.

Initially, Burn entered the meeting with a significant amount of pressure on him to vote against the ratification; he was up for re-election and needed votes, especially because the majority of the citizens staunchly opposed the ratification. If he had voted in agreement to ratify the 19th amendment, there was the possibility that he would lose the support of the members of his state so he donned a red rose on his lapel to symbolize his anti-suffrage position. Febb, his mother, knew the pain of the neglect of women’s rights and wanted to urge her son to vote for women’s suffrage and penned a heartfelt letter expressing how she felt.

Dear Son:

Hurrah and vote suffrage!…Don’t forget to be a good boy and help Mrs. Catt put the “rat” in ratification. Your Mother.

Excerpt from Febb’s letter to Harry T. Burn

That day, not only did Burn don a red rose on his lapel, he also entered the meeting with his mother’s note in his coat pocket; a physical reminder of the importance of passing the ratification of the 19th amendment. The council was tied 48:48 and Burn was the last to make the final decision; he was faced with standing for what he believed in or appealing to voters. Ultimately, he voted in favor of the ratification of the 19th amendment, abiding by his mother’s advice. Not only did his vote change the outcome of Tennesse, but it was his vote that pushed the ratification throughout the entire country, as now enough states had voted in favor of it. Without Febb’s words weighing on him throughout the meeting, there is the very real chance that Burn could have succumbed to the political pressure and voted against the bill.

Significance

One of the main events that identify the 1920s as the memorable decade it was is the fact that women gained the right to vote, which carried a huge weight along with it. It was a breakthrough for women all across the United States; they were viewed as politically active citizens, their voice mattered now! It sparked a huge movement of freedom throughout the decade; women wore shorter skirts, dated, went out to parties, and many other things that were once taboo for them. What would the 1920s have been like if women did not gain this monumental advancement? Arguably the most defining feature of the 1920s is the stark contrast in the way women viewed themselves in society; they could go out and enjoy a night just like their male counterparts, they could dress in the clothes they felt most comfortable in, and they were no longer bound to be silent in elections.

This article chooses to focus specifically on Febb as her actions directly impacted the ratification of the 19th amendment; a mother felt so strongly about women’s suffrage that she wrote her son on the morning of the council meeting in a passionate attempt to sway his vote. There is no way Febb could have known the severity of her actions; for her son to be the tie-breaking vote seems to be almost destined, in a way. However, she must have known the importance for Tennessee to vote in favor of ratification as the United States government needed one more state to be able to put the bill in motion. If Tennessee had rejected the ratification, it would have delayed the process and put the stakes even higher for the fate of women’s rights. Febb was educated and held a career as a teacher in Tennessee; she was smart and knew how important it was for women to win this fight. She knew of the pressure her son might have been facing and saw his hesitation and reluctance, so she decided to write to him that the efforts of the suffragettes should not go unheard and to vote in favor of the movement. Though it was behind the scenes, Febb Ensminger Burn made history that day.

Citations

1930 US Federal Census, Febb E. Burn

Cohen, Jennie. “The Mother Who Saved Suffrage: Passing the 19th Amendment.” History. August 16, 2010. https://www.history.com/news/the-mother-who-saved-suffrage-passing-the-19th-amendment

Find a Grave, Febb Esminger Burn

“Harry T. Burn.” National Park Service. https://www.nps.gov/people/harry-t-burn.htm

Nunley, Esther. “Desk of Febb Ensminger Burn Donated to Museum.” Daily Post Athenian. July 21, 2017. https://www.dailypostathenian.com/community/article_217c0300-6e1c-11e7-8086-10604b9f0f42.html

The Nineteeth Amendment and After, Wm. L Marbury, Virginia Law Review, Oct., 1920, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1064407

Sarah Grider

Sarah Grider is a student of the 2021 Spring Discovering Digital History class at the Ramapo College of New Jersey. She is currently studying History and Museum & Exhibition Studies. She is an editorial assistant for the Jane Addams Papers Project.

To be born and raised in the United States of America but denied citizenship and the right to vote; this was the unfortunate reality for Native Americans all over the nation. Within their own communities, Indigenous Peoples were often based on chiefdoms, whether they were hereditary or through social status, which served as a type of self-government. Nonetheless, they were still barred from participating in the United States government and were not seen as citizens in the eyes of government officials. The Snyder Act, also called the Indian Citizenship Act, was put into action in 1924 and granted citizenship, and thus the right to vote, to Native Americans. The debate of whether Native Americans should be considered citizens in the eyes of the United States was still heavy in the air; so much so that the Snyder Act was left up to the states to decide if they would follow through with granting Native Americans the right to vote. While now Native Americans were recognized as citizens and taxed as such, they still could not use their voices in many states for decades after the Snyder Act was enacted. Several other laws sought out to privatize and distribute Native American reservation to white, non-Indigenous land owners for several years before the Snyder Act was passed. This became possible through the Dawes Act and later the Burke Act.

Through the Dawes Act, or General Allotment Act of 1887, the government divided Native American reservation into plots allotted for certain members of several communities. The government considered many Native Americans to be incapable of running their allotment, as well as all of the financial dealings that came along with it, and thus their land was seized and put back into the hands of the government. From there, it could be distributed and sold to private landowners who were not Ten years earlier, the Fifteenth Amendment barred the restriction of voting rights based on race. Even then, Native Americans were not included and could not yet take part in elections. Once the Snyder Act was passed, they were explicitly granted access to vote through the bill attached with a sneaky loophole; the state government had control over whether they would adopt voting rights for Native Americans. This led to many states still restricting Native Americans to vote, even though they should have had access. Their rights were never guaranteed nor protected by the government.

Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment

The Fourteenth Amendment was added to the Constitution in 1868 and granted citizenship to all persons born within the US. Before this, the government had made it clear that Native Americans did not belong to any part of the United States government due to the fact that Native Americans had their own tribal legislation and government. Even if an individual were to leave his or her tribe to assimilate, they would most likely be unable to obtain rights as a U.S. citizen considering they were not white and not seen as equal.

The Fifteenth Amendment, however, was added to the Constitution two years later and stated that no citizen shall be denied the right to vote based on their race or skin color. Keeping in mind that the United States government did not see Native Americans as citizens, they still could not gain access to a seemingly inalienable right. It was not until many years later that an amendment would attempt to patch the division through the Snyder Act and even many years after that.

The Dawes Act and the Burke Act

Just seven years after the Fifteenth Amendment, in 1887, the government passed the General Allotment Act or the Dawes Act. This was a blatant division and destruction of Native land hidden under the guise of government aid, as control of the reservation was often taken away from the Native Americans and put into the hands of the government instead. Not only this, but the Dawes Act enabled the possibility white landowners to take control of Native American reservation instead of the intended owners. It privatized land ownership instead of being own by the tribe as a whole. This had been exacerbated in 1906 when the Burke Act passed and explicitly put the government in charge of determining the competence of Native American landowners. Once the government had determined the owner as fully able to control their own land, the land was then taxed which led to financial turmoil for many Native Americans and resulted in a mass loss of reservation. If the government deemed the owner unfit to care for their land, it was taken from them and put into other hands. This meant that Native American reservations were not always controlled by the rightful owner.

The Snyder Act

With so many amendments and bills passed with little to no change in Native American rights, the Snyder Act seemed like it would be a change headed in the right direction; and it was, for some Native Americans. The 1920s were proving to be a more progressive era than the nation had seen in the past. Social norms were changing rapidly and Americans were shifting their beliefs. As mentioned earlier, the policy varied from state to state, as the federal government left it up to the states to make the final decision. This meant that many states refused to grant voting rights to Native Americans for nearly forty years. An argument against suffrage for Native Americans was that since they still partially belonged to their tribe, then they could not be full United States citizens as their loyalty was already pledged elsewhere. It was an unfair ruling that left many Native Americans stuck between two worlds; their culture had been decimated and assimilated through colonization and the new nation responsible for this refused to see them as equals. They had little to no control of their land and, at every second, the government was seeking new loopholes to restrict them of their rights.

Protection of Native Americans

There was opposition to this discrimination; Zitkala-Ša, Marie Louise Bottineau Baldwin, and Carlos Montezuma were all Native Americans who spoke out and made significant strides for suffrage and equality. They knew of the secrecy and deceit within the Constitution and amendments so they actively worked against it to move towards a nation that accepted everyone. Zitkala-Ša formed the National Council of American Indians in 1926, just two years after the passing of the Snyder Act. She worked tirelessly for Native American voters and equality for all through several different organizations that she established. The NCAI aimed to protect Native Americans and keep their culture and history alive. She was adamant on keeping the voice of Native Americans alive and strong through voting drives, lectures, and fundraisers.

Ša, Montezuma, and Baldwin worked together, as well, through the Society for American Indians which was formed in 1911 by Montezuma. The SAI deviated from other groups for suffrage, as it encouraged assimilation and submission of land when the Dawes Act first was enacted. It also focused on ways to provide health services and education to Native Americans as well as how they can invoke change in the government.

Relation to the 1920s

The 1920s are often thought to be a time of glamor and new-age ideals; women courted and wore short skirts, businesses began to adopt leisure activities, and there was a rise in the entertainment industry. While these were all true aspects of the 1920s, these luxuries only applied to a portion of the American population. Native Americans, even with the passing of the Snyder Act, could not vote in every state. There were multiple laws in action, leading up to the Snyder Act and following it, that intentionally kept Native Americans apart from becoming US citizens. The Snyder Act seemed to be a very progressive law that would ignite change for civil rights, especially within the Native American community, however it left many open gates for states to continue to deny suffrage to them. In states where Native Americans could vote, there was always the chance of voter intimidation or suppression tactics such as voting literacy tests and turning away Native Americans at the polls.

The Native American fight for suffrage in America rose during 1924 after the Snyder Act, as they had come so close to gaining the right to vote yet it was inaccessible to many. They gained citizenship in a country they spent their entire lives in, yet they could not vote.

Bibliography

“Carlos Montezuma.” Wassaja: A Carlos Montezuma Project. http://wassaja.lib.asu.edu/people-archive/carlos-montezuma

“Fighting for a Voice: Native Americans’ Right to Vote in Arizona.” Arizona Historical Society. July 15, 2020. https://arizonahistoricalsociety.org/2020/07/15/fighting-for-a-voice-native-americans-right-to-vote-in-arizona/

“History of Federal Voting Rights Laws.” The United States Department of Justice. https://www.justice.gov/crt/history-federal-voting-rights-laws

“Indian Citizenship Act.” Library of Congress. https://www.loc.gov/item/today-in-history/june-02/

“Land Tenure History.” Indian Land Tenure Foundation. https://iltf.org/land-issues/history/

Maltz, Earl M., “The Fourteenth Amendment and Native American Citizenship.” University of Minnesota Law School. 2000. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=concomm

“Marie Louise Bottineau Baldwin.” National Park Service. https://www.nps.gov/people/marie-louise-bottineau-baldwin.htm

“Society of American Indians.” National Historical Publications and Records Commission. https://www.archives.gov/nhprc/projects/catalog/society-of-american-indians

“Voting Rights for Native Americans.” Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/elections/right-to-vote/voting-rights-for-native-americans/“Zitkala-Ša (Red Bird/Gertrude Simmons Bonnin).” National Park Service. https://www.nps.gov/people/zitkala-sa.htm

Sarah Grider

Sarah Grider is a student of the 2021 Spring Discovering Digital History class at the Ramapo College of New Jersey. She is currently studying History and Museum & Exhibition Studies. She is an editorial assistant for the Jane Addams Papers Project.