Need Writing Help (ERA)

Reviews in American History 45 (2017) 484–490 © 2017 by Johns Hopkins University Press

ELEANOR ROOSEVELT’S PLACE IN HISTORY

Margaret C. Rung

Patricia Bell-Scott. The Firebrand and the First Lady: Portrait of a Friendship: Pauli Murray, Eleanor Roosevelt, and the Struggle for Social Justice. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2016. xix + 454 pp. Notes and index. $30.00.

Susan Quinn. Eleanor and Hick: The Love Affair That Shaped a First Lady. New York: Penguin Press, 2016. 404 pp. Illustrations, note on sources, notes, and index. $30.00.

Recent books on Eleanor Roosevelt and her relationships with two women emphasize her extensive influence on U.S. politics and society. Activist, poet, legal scholar, and spiritual leader Pauli Murray, for instance, called ER the “mother” of second-wave feminism. Thus, the deeper we delve into ER’s ide- als, actions, successes, and failures, the more nuanced is our understanding of the trajectory of liberalism in the twentieth century. Admirably opting for accessibility in their respective studies of ER and Lorena (“Hick”) Hickok, and ER and Anna Pauline (“Pauli”) Murray, Susan Quinn and Patricia Bell-Scott use biography to explore not only the lives of ER, Hick, and Murray, but also the larger contexts in which they lived. As such, Quinn and Bell-Scott move women to the center of political history, communicating to a broad audience the mark these individual women left on the New Deal, feminism, and civil rights in the tumultuous years from the 1930s to the early 1980s. Moreover, by examining ER through the prism of her relationships, the authors underscore the dialectical nature of ER’s political education as well as the boundaries that women navigated as they sought to craft policies to support class, racial, and gender justice.

Taking as a given the importance of these women in shaping history, the authors have penned well-written and engaging books that should fit comfort- ably on the shelves of chain bookstores and reading lists of college syllabi. At the same time, their narratives tend to advance a great-person version of his- tory that assumes the power of individuals to shape history. Accordingly, the dust jacket of Bell-Scott’s book asserts that the Murray-ER friendship “helped to alter the course of race and racism in America”; Quinn’s subtitle proclaims Hick’s relationship with ER as “The Love Affair That Shaped a First Lady.”

485RUNG / Eleanor Roosevelt’s Place in History

The danger in such claims is that readers absorb a story about heroic people that stresses individual agency, leaving them with little sense of the broad forces, systems, and groups that move history.

Fortunately, educators will find much in both books that will help students grasp the intersection of social movements with the lives of activist women. Most clearly, Bell-Scott’s “portrait of a friendship” offers reflections on the long civil rights movement, as it illuminates Murray’s unwavering commitment to racial justice and ER’s growing cognizance of the depth and perniciousness of racial inequality. From an early age, Murray possessed a sophisticated grasp of systemic racism and fought against it. Her first letter to the White House, written to Franklin Roosevelt in 1938 (with a copy also sent to ER), presented a cogent analysis of race, class, and politics. In it, she explained how low wages and racism prevented her access to the training she needed to reach her full potential as an instructor on the WPA’s Workers Education Project. Excluded from the University of North Carolina due to her race, she reviewed the myriad obstacles African Americans faced as they sought an equal footing with white citizens. Weaving her own family history into the letter, she highlighted her family’s lengthy and patriotic American roots and called on FDR to stand up to white Southern Democrats. In her 1938 voice, we hear contemporary scholarly analyses on race and the New Deal, such as those expounded by Ira Katznelson in Fear Itself: The New Deal and the Origins of Our Time (2014).

As her correspondence and then friendship with ER grew, Murray pushed ER to be a stronger advocate on behalf of civil rights. They drew closer during the ordeal to save sharecropper Odell Waller from execution after he killed a white landlord in self-defense. In this story, ER’s political strategies are on display as she works to convince her husband to intervene in the case more aggressively than he desired. Again, FDR’s hesitancy to oppose Southern Democrats is evidenced, as is ER’s special brand of influence peddling, which included notes and telephone calls to her husband, public utterances to the degree she found constructive, and behind-the-scenes work with individuals and organizations. ER was a consummate politician and had her own sense of how best to achieve goals—typically, by compromise. As a result, she criticized the confrontational approach customarily deployed by Murray and encouraged the young “firebrand” (as she once described her) to blend principle with prag- matism, a strategy that Bell-Scott argues Murray increasingly adopted during her long activist career. Amid one struggle over anti-colonialism resolutions at an International Student Assembly in 1942, ER urged Murray to bend on some issues if it meant the accomplishment of wider aims. As Bell-Scott notes, “Compromise for the sake of holding together a vital coalition was a lesson neither she [ER] nor Murray would forget” (p. 106).

REVIEWS IN AMERICAN HISTORY / SEPTEMBER 2017486

In detailing the financial, psychological, and physical challenges Murray faced, Bell-Scott illuminates how not only racism, but also sexism and ho- mophobia deeply affected Murray’s life choices. Throughout her life, Murray was attracted to women, and her appearance and behavior frequently led people to characterize her as boyish. Well aware of the prejudices against lesbians, Murray struggled with her gender identity, which contributed to severe emotional distress, missed job opportunities, and mental health prob- lems. In a chapter entitled “We Have to Be Careful About the People We Select,” Bell-Scott conjectures that homophobia may have contributed to the decisions by Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP not to represent Murray, who wanted to challenge in court the University of North Carolina’s refusal to admit her because she was black. During World War II, she wrote to her aunt, confessing that

this little “boy-girl” personality as you jokingly call it sometimes gets me into trouble. And to try to live by society’s standards always causes me such inner conflict that at times it’s almost unbearable. . . . This conflict rises up to knock me down at every apex I reach in my career and because the laws of society do not protect me, I’m exposed to any enemy or person who may or may not want to hurt me [p. 121].

Bell-Scott’s close study of her life lays bare the numerous barriers Murray faced simply because she was born as a woman with dark skin who shunned a typical female appearance and preferred romantic relationships with women rather than men. In a world that promised, but did not deliver, a meritocracy, Murray had difficulty finding meaningful, well-paid work. Bell-Scott concludes that she was “one of the brightest and best-trained civil rights attorneys in the nation, irrespective of race or sex. Still, no job offers in government, private practice, or the academy came her way” (p. 184). Thus, while the book stays focused on the lives and friendship of Murray and ER, it offers insight into how institutionalized policies and restrictive cultural norms determine the life choices of individuals. Murray’s own experiences only fortified her determina- tion to dismantle the roadblocks she faced, and her special friendship with ER aided her in the cause.

Curiously, although Bell-Scott addresses Murray’s gender identity on numer- ous occasions, she does not delve into ER’s. There does not appear to be any evidence that the topics of gender identity and sexuality came up between the two women, but Bell-Scott often treats this as a dual biography, so she may have probed and analyzed ER’s personal life as a point of comparison. With twenty-first-century progress on LBGTQ rights and well-regarded scholarship in LBGTQ history, Quinn does not have to dance around questions about ER’s relationship to Hick, which, as noted previously, she describes simply as a

487RUNG / Eleanor Roosevelt’s Place in History

“love affair.” Volume one of Blanche Wiesen Cook’s biography of ER, published in 1992, charted a path for historians grappling with ER’s sexuality (Eleanor Roosevelt, vol. 1, 1884–1933). Cook directly tackled ER’s relationship to Hick, calling it a “romantic and passionate friendship.”1 Through careful reading of their extant correspondence, memoirs, newspapers, speeches, and scholarly works, Quinn painstakingly narrates their growing attraction toward one another, the pleasure and pain each experienced in the relationship, and the transition of their relationship from romantic partnership to platonic friend- ship over the years. Quinn refrains from direct discussion of intimate details of their relationship, preferring to hew closely to surviving written sources (mostly their correspondence as well as standard ER and FDR biographies) and to focus on their love for one another. Primarily through Hick’s life, readers gain some knowledge of the history of homosexuality, although Quinn does not speak to the wide range of difficulties and prejudices encountered by gay and bisexual women in the early to mid-twentieth century. Rather, she paints a picture of a fairly insulated and privileged lesbian community. Thus, while Quinn’s openness to ER’s fluid sexual identity eliminates much of the politics and secrecy that once shrouded this topic, it does not provide as much insight into how gay and bisexual Americans navigated the closet. Instead, the endur- ing impression one gets from the book is the importance to the Democratic Party of New York-based women’s networks in the 1930s and 1940s.

One reason that the gay women with whom ER worked and socialized seemed to exist in such a self-contained universe is that they were white women of means. Class and race privilege gave them an opportunity to lead lives that were not completely dependent on others for their livelihood. Unlike Murray, they could better afford to weather the prejudice they encountered in the job market. In this sense, Quinn’s excavation of Hick’s career is revealing. Hick came from a poor, working-class background and suffered significantly due to her poverty and sexual orientation. She fought her way into the newspaper business, and through tenacity and talent, managed to become a successful reporter. Quinn makes clear the sacrifices that Hick made to her career by getting involved with ER and demonstrates over and over again how depen- dent Hick was on ER’s assistance in finding work. Hick’s finances remained precarious throughout her life. By contrast, ER’s upper-class status gave her a measure of security unavailable to either Hick or Murray. Undoubtedly, ER was unpretentious, not particularly materialistic, and open to relationships with people from all walks of life, but that should not obscure the fact that her class and race gave her a range of choices and experiences that were far different from working and middle-class Americans of any race. Her privileged position accounted for ER’s occasional insensitivities to racial and class preju- dice, as when she crossed a segregation protest picket line at a D.C. theater in 1940. Although she expressed regret at having to cross the line, she also

REVIEWS IN AMERICAN HISTORY / SEPTEMBER 2017488

argued that it “’may not have been quite fair or wise to picket this particular show” because it was a charity event and “the organization had a right to sell its tickets to whomever it wished’” (Bell-Scott, p. 53).

At the same time, ER’s blind spots when it came to class and race dimin- ished over time, emphasizing just how much she evolved, given her privileged background. While a naturally empathetic person, she had to learn about the trials and tribulations of the working class, of African Americans, and others. Her education largely came through personal relationships, such as those with Murray and Hick. In a chapter called “Partnership,” Quinn argues that it was “Hick’s fieldwork [for Harry Hopkins] that inspired action” on resettlement and the establishment of Arthurdale, ER’s experiment in planned communi- ties. (p. 97). Additionally, Quinn asserts that Hick schooled ER in handling the media and encouraged her to the write the column that became “My Day.” In this sense, Quinn’s Hick is much more than an appendage of ER; she was someone who “shaped a First Lady.” Similarly, Murray wrote and spoke to ER thoughtfully and forthrightly on race, stressing the perspective of “the declassed and degraded young Negroes who had never had much chance” (p. 103). On numerous occasions, Murray’s perspective found its way into ER’s “My Day” column, and, over time, ER came to see how social equality, which she initially claimed was not the goal of civil rights, was essential to the struggle for black freedom. She also softened her attitude toward direct action and civil disobedience as tactics and in her last book “’called upon people of conscience to challenge injustice wherever they saw it’” (p. 312). By the 1930s, we see ER educating Hick, who carried her own racist views, about the nature and effects of racial discrimination.

This portrait of ER’s evolving views and actions is well documented in the vast literature on her, including the previously mentioned three-volume biography by Blanche Wiesen Cook (with the last volume published in late 2016), as well as numerous books on Franklin and Eleanor. Both Bell-Scott and Quinn’s books, especially the latter, give us greater insight into ER’s emotional life and marriage, although biographers lack consensus on these topics. As with Cook’s biography and most interpretations of ER, Quinn sees ER as a reluctant first lady. In this version of her life, ER faced her new role with trepidation, but quickly overcame her hesitancy and found her footing as a strong and active first lady. A 2011 book by Hazel Rowley, Franklin and Eleanor: An Extraordinary Marriage, disputes this characterization, representing ER as an enthusiastic politician in her own right who had no qualms about entering the White House. This interpretation empowers ER and credits her as the savvy politician she had become prior to 1932. Entering national politics would have been unlikely to unnerve her; she had been enmeshed in it when FDR served as assistant secretary of the navy and then ran as vice president on the Democratic ticket in 1920. ER had spent nearly her entire adult life with a

489RUNG / Eleanor Roosevelt’s Place in History

spouse who was an elected official and she was as much a political animal as he was. Rowley surmises that her comment to Hick regarding her impending role as first lady was a consequence of public pressure that prevented her from giving voice to her ambition.2 Bell-Scott does not directly address the question of ER’s feelings about becoming a first lady because it is not relevant to her topic, but her rendering of ER makes clear the continuous political calcula- tions ER made in this role.

Additionally, Quinn and other biographers portray ER as generally “uncom- fortable with physical intimacy” and trapped in an unromantic marriage that she ultimately addressed by finding other companions (p. 79). Leaving aside the fact that these observations about ER’s attitudes toward sex seem to have come from her children and grandchildren (probably not the best judges of this topic), ER’s correspondence and behavior with close friends suggests she was a passionate woman. Quinn contends that during FDR’s 1932 campaign, Hick awakened ER’s romantic passion. In terms of ER and FDR’s marriage, Rowley, however, challenges the usual perception of it, preferring to see it as modern and unconventional but far from loveless. Rather she details how the Roosevelts allowed themselves space and opportunity to integrate com- munity (or communities) into their marriage. Many authors, including Quinn, perceive nearly all of these communities/friendships as distinct to either ER or FDR. The central pole of the networks tended to be one or the other, but, as Rowley shows, there was a great deal of communication and interaction between these networks. FDR and ER did not lead separate lives; their lives were very intertwined with one another. Bell-Scott provides an example of a couple living independent lives that look nothing like the Roosevelts: Pauli Murray married at twenty and quickly separated from her husband, although she did not divorce him for eighteen years. They lived apart from one another and seemingly had little interaction. FDR and ER did not fall into that category. Perhaps their marriage is so open to the “loveless” characterization because it flouted conventional patriarchal patterns and therefore people regard it as a physically and emotionally distant one. Nonetheless, letters and actions between FDR and ER reflect a real and abiding love, not just dispassionate respect. Their choices reveal how marriages may operate in many different ways and on many different levels. Murray captured the importance of this marriage and its networks when she wrote to the Roosevelts on the occasion of FDR’s decision to run for a historic fourth term: “I believe,” she wrote, “your great success as incumbents of the White House has been because not a single man guided the country, as in Lincoln’s time, but a whole family” (p. 139). Bell-Scott observes that the perception of the Roosevelts as a “team” was particularly pervasive in the black community, an intriguing and insight- ful observation that deserves further examination and analysis.

REVIEWS IN AMERICAN HISTORY / SEPTEMBER 2017490

Thanks to these thoughtful and intimate studies of ER and her attachment to two women, we have a richer appreciation of her complex inner world and the permeable boundaries between her public and private lives. Neither saint nor sinner, ER’s imperfections and nobilities emerge from the pages of Bell-Scott and Quinn’s biographies, as does a more complete picture of why and how certain individuals influenced her views and shaped her activities. They cement a vision of ER as a powerful politician in her own right. Ide- alistic, yet calculating, ER remained devoted to the Democratic Party, which she pushed to promote human and civil rights, especially for the working class. Willing to compromise and open to new ideas, she was able to rethink a position if presented with a persuasive argument or compelling story. Her reliance on friendships and communities to accomplish her public aims and fortify her private needs communicated her awareness that not only powerful people made history. Instead, as these books illustrate in various ways, ER and other women used their bonds to fight for a democracy that rested on political equality as well as economic security. In an age of political polariza- tion, the place in history of ER, Murray, and Hick may offer a road map for those seeking twenty-first-century versions of a New Deal fortified by gender and racial justice. But their lives may also remind us that there will not be another female leader like ER in the United States unless we continue to build the movements, establish the communities, and create the space needed for her to flourish.

Margaret C. Rung teaches history and directs the Center for New Deal Studies at Roosevelt University. Currently, she is working on a manuscript that charts gender, race, and labor relations in the U.S. Treasury Department’s Bureau of Engraving and Printing from the mid-nineteenth to the late twentieth century.

1. Blanche Wiesen Cook, Eleanor Roosevelt, vol. 1, 1884–1932 (1992), 479. 2. Hazel Rowley, Franklin and Eleanor: An Extraordinary Marriage (2011), 182–83.

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.