While the leaders of the world’s nations concerned themselves with escalating war in the late summer of 1914, Ellen Axson Wilson lay on her deathbed with her husband, the president of the United States, holding her hand. Just a day earlier on August 5, the severity of her condition had been revealed to the public.1 In the company of her three daughters and loving husband, the First Lady, between episodes of unconsciousness, imparted words of care to her loved ones. Concerned for her husband’s well-being, she bid White House physician Dr. Cary Grayson to take care of him if she passed.2 Remarkably, her last wish, recorded in numerous newspapers and proclaimed throughout the nation’s capital, was her earnest desire that the Alley Bill, a testament to her welfare efforts during her time as First Lady, would be passed by Congress.
Despite no recorded mention of Mrs. Wilson’s final wish as Senator Atlee Pomerene called up the bill on August 6, rumors confirmed the inspiration for the Senator’s request.3 Much like the public, the members of Congress frequently discussed Mrs. Wilson’s welfare and social reform efforts. Many Congressmen had been invited by the First Lady herself to consider improvement alternatives for the housing conditions in Washington’s alleys and were swayed to fulfill one of her aspirations for reform. In her last hours, the Senate passed “Mrs. Wilson’s Bill.”
Mrs. Wilson’s endeavors in promoting alley reform and securing the support and passage of related legislation feature in three significant historical discourses; however, scholars from each discourse differ in how they evaluate the significance of the First Lady’s individual actions in the context of wider Progressive Era reforms. Similar to studies of the First Ladies, the biographical literature on Ellen Wilson highlights her influence but neglects the contributions of those who preceded her in alley reform as well as in the history of female progressive reform. Only a limited collection of literature exists on the First Lady, a scarcity most likely explained by Mrs. Wilson’s unexpected death one year into her husband’s presidency in conjunction with a general lack of interest in her role. In fact, Kristie Miller, one of the few scholars to have extensively studied Ellen Wilson, acknowledges that she is generally forgotten in historical conversation and rarely regarded as an example of a contemporary female reformer, despite her influence in the presidency of her husband Woodrow Wilson, her “impact” in transforming housing conditions for Washington’s poor, and her direct involvement in the expansion of the role of First Lady.
Literature concerning Progressive Era reform emphasizes the crucial role of the First Lady, particularly in granting her fellow female reformers and their causes unprecedented political and social visibility. Mrs. Wilson’s inspiration for engaging in a career of social reform largely proceeded from an emerging “female dominion” in politics, as described by Robyn Muncy.6 Other scholars exploring the subject of women’s role in progressive reform similarly note the transition to women’s greater involvement in politics during this period. The changing definition of women’s role in the political sphere and the rising influence of female reformers during the Progressive Era implicate the unique influence of “women in power,” such as First Ladies, in the expansion of female political participation.
Nevertheless, historical conversation concerning alley reform discredits Ellen Wilson’s legacy for being “too little, too late”: despite her impact in social reform, historians scarcely refer to the First Lady’s individual contributions regarding Washington’s alleys. Scholars such as James Borchert cite her only briefly in discussions about alley life and reform efforts surrounding the turn of the twentieth century.7 Often, historians investigate alleys within the context of general urban renewal in the nation’s capital and as the consequence of related progressive rhetoric that gained recognition and support in the early twentieth century.
As these studies demonstrate, multiple contemporary forces motivated the individual efforts of social reformers such as Ellen Wilson. The presence and participation of female reformers, Mrs. Wilson’s colleagues, and President Wilson, as well as the ongoing deterioration of Washington’s alleys and the situation of the city’s poor contributed equally to the passage of the bill bearing her name. Thus, despite being credited by some scholars for facilitating political and social developments concerning Washington’s alleys, her contribution in the long and difficult history of alley reform is often overlooked. After all, her (female) predecessors in progressive reform had arguably already cleared the path on which Ellen Wilson was able to move forward in securing the passage of the Alley Bill. Nevertheless, Mrs. Wilson’s influence as First Lady deserves recognition as crucial in advancing her welfare priorities in addition to the efforts of her reform colleagues even in the years following her death, when her name and image continued to carry symbolic strength for alley reform measures in the nation’s capital.
When Ellen Wilson moved into the White House in 1913, nearly twenty thousand poor African Americans lived in the miserable conditions of Washington, D.C.’s crowded alleys alongside a smaller population of white residents.8 Though alleys certainly existed in the city prior to the Civil War, the war’s end signaled an influx of African Americans to Washington, exacerbating already cramped conditions.9 Due to the greater number of opportunities for African Americans in the nation’s capital as compared to other regions of the country, the city experienced several waves of “black migration,” forcing residents to adjust and prompting concerned and even hostile reactions.10 Additional obstacles to the experiences of African Americans in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries included largely “segregated residential patterns” that characterized the District, as well as profit-driven alley housing.11 Selective (segregated) neighborhoods prevented numerous African Americans from improving their situation by barring them from occupying what were considered cleaner, “better”—in other words, whiter—city neighborhoods.12
A dominant middle-class presence in political and public life, as well as widespread progressive sentiments that inspired a desire for an improved national capital, characterized alley reform and urban renewal movements in Washington, D.C. These sentiments especially resonated with the “City Beautiful” movement that accumulated political support and popularity in the early twentieth century. Famously introduced by Senator James McMillan, the Senate Park Commission Plan of 1902 exemplified legislation inspired by the City Beautiful movement by proposing significant transformations to the city’s landscape, including the reconstruction and “beautification” of the National Mall.13 Other than physically and permanently imposing “spatial and moral order” in the District, the aim of the movement was to transform Washington, D.C. into a modern, organized city that would embody one shared national identity.14
Unfortunately, as indicated by the Commission’s overwhelming concern for “aesthetic rather than social considerations,” few social reformers and McMillan Plan supporters incorporated the poor of the nation’s capital into their vision of a City Beautiful.15 Despite changing attitudes toward the poor in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries which inspired greater public interest in their conditions, the poor were among the many bodies incompatible with the “ideal”—clean, white, middle-class. Due to the inseparable relationship between the nation, city, and citizen bodies in the imagination of a City Beautiful, the contemptible “bodies” of the city’s poor eventually persuaded social reformers to alleviate the disagreeable conditions of immigrants, African Americans, and other groups.16
Following the example of City Beautiful proponents, the District’s alley reform movement utilized rhetoric associated with a physical and moral transformation of Washington’s image. Supporters of reform generally considered alleys and their inhabitants a stain on the otherwise clean appearance of the national capital. Alleys were characterized by poor sanitation due to a lack of indoor bathrooms and proper plumbing and, as a consequence, were believed to transmit widespread disease.17 Unsurprisingly, the public associated the deplorable conditions in the alleys with their inhabitants, who were considered morally and physically filthy: ill, disabled, and illegitimate.18
Reformers involved in alleviating some of the conditions of the poor consequently became interested in protecting neighboring communities from the disease and crime that was popularly associated with alley neighborhoods. The increasing participation of female reformers could therefore be explained by a motivation to protect white neighborhoods in Washington from the demoralizing alleys. Charlotte Hopkins, board member of the National Civic Federation (NCF) Women’s Division and member of the Associated Charities’ Committee on the Improvement of Housing Conditions, admitted that the conditions to which numerous African Americans were forced to accommodate in poorer neighborhoods strongly “reacts on the white population.”19 Nevertheless, many poor African Americans had little choice but to submit themselves to the dismal conditions of the alleys, further worsened by the desire of landlords to maintain the largest number of tenants in the smallest unit of space. In conjunction with superficial adherence to the law regarding proper housing necessities, this indifference most likely contributed to the lack of water and plumbing and the otherwise “insanitary conditions, physical and moral” of Washington’s alleys.20
Early efforts to correct alley conditions in Washington date back to an 1892 law that prohibited the building of additional alley dwellings.21 Even following direct government intervention however, housing reformers observed an increase in alley dwellings beginning in 1897.22 Generally, reformers experienced limited success except by promoting the idea that “the health and prosperity of the whole city depended on rooting out problems in alleys.”23 Oddly enough, where they fell short, businesses succeeded in enacting greater change: many alley dwellings were removed as a result of physical growth in the public sector and the transformation of transportation in Washington. City trolley construction, for instance, impacted the “retreat” of alleys.24 Nevertheless, reformers were frustrated with the lack of substantial action, and despite the renewed dedication of Congress in the late nineteenth century to “improving” the city’s alleys by encouraging the conversion of alleys into minor streets, stronger initiatives such as demolition continued to be ignored.25
A popular plan was to convert alleys into parks. In southwest Washington, D.C., Willow Tree Alley experienced a physical revitalization due to the efforts of housing reformers in 1913.26 Prior to the alley’s transformation, however, it had been infamously designated “the most notorious of all” alleys in the District, largely due to its proximity to the seat of the national legislature.27 Moreover, the alley’s inhabitants in the early twentieth century included a majority of whites—273 white residents as compared to the 228 “colored” residents in 1908.28 Thus, it is not unreasonable to assume that due to the bulging population of poor whites in such contemptible living conditions visible from the Capitol, the alley especially captivated housing reformers. Opened to the public in November 1914, the new and improved Willow Tree Alley recreation park featured a baseball diamond, playground space, and natural elements of beauty including trees and flowerbeds, all of which redefined the former alley as a publicly desirable space “of Beauty and Joy Forever.”29
As well as reviving general interest in alley reform, Charlotte Hopkins of the NCF and other prominent Washington female reformers spearheaded the movement to transform Willow Tree Alley, consequently illustrating the significance of the early twentieth century as a period of transition and transformation for reform movements, and more importantly, for female reformers who were rapidly gaining ground and national attention. At the time, nineteenth century “cult of domesticity” beliefs strongly influenced women’s perception of their roles; these beliefs prevailed into the twentieth century, further emphasizing women’s role in caring for their children and family by expanding that responsibility to include the welfare of children and families in other communities.30 In accordance with this way of thinking, First Lady Ellen Wilson asserted that “the happiest life for a woman contains three elements—a husband with whose tastes you sympathize, home and children.”31 Like her fellow female reformers, Mrs. Wilson was inspired to bear the extension of her responsibility in the domestic sphere as an obligation in the public sphere.
Emerging female involvement in social reform and the political sphere culminated in the establishment of the Children’s Bureau in 1912.32 Despite “male help” in the federal government facilitating the achievement, the creation of the Children’s Bureau signified new patterns in Progressive Era politics that contributed to the success of supporters of reform in securing federal interest in a social issue.33 Moreover, the matter of child welfare likewise brought female reformers to national attention.34 Contrary to earlier reformers, who were only able to rely on philanthropic assistance in their efforts, activists in the twentieth century directed their efforts towards gaining federal recognition and eventually ensuring desired legislation.35 While—and perhaps because—their progress in “infiltrating” the traditionally male political sphere prior to the early 1900s had been unsurprisingly limited, female reformers were able to amass and wield a distinct power in the domestic sphere.36 Their previous efforts being confined to participation in “locally based moral and social reform,” many women considered charitable work the “solution” to problems that affected their communities.37
Eventually, female reformers realized that these problems were not restricted to their local communities, but in fact reflected widespread concerns nearly impossible for them to solve through their individual efforts. Poverty, for instance, was an abstract issue reformers simply could not rectify without a powerful entity that could reasonably address it—an entity with sufficient ability and “scope,” like the state.38 The subsequent rise of female involvement in the political sphere dramatically shaped progressive policy: “social policy—formerly the province of women’s voluntary work—became public policy.”39 In other words, women’s expanding political presence instigated a transition from settling for solutions funded by charity and local action to demanding those enforced by the state.
Consequently, the position of First Lady became distinctly suited to bringing female reformers’ concerns to the attention of the federal government, particularly if the First Lady herself associated with specific reform movements. As she had already discovered from her experience as New Jersey’s First Lady during her husband’s governorship, Ellen Wilson’s position carried expected “traditional” obligations as well as unique “political” opportunities. In fact, her previous involvement in charitable work and relationship with the State Charities Aid Association most likely set the stage for her later interest in Washington alley reform and participation in national politics.40
The title “First Lady” entails two facets to the woman who holds it: the mother and/or wife, and the unconventional “political figure.” Despite being well known for her presence and interest in politics, Mrs. Wilson considered her foremost responsibility as First Lady to be the partner and source of support for her husband—hence her concern for President Wilson when she was dying.41 During Woodrow Wilson’s presidency, she demonstrated her support as a wife in accompanying him to speeches before the legislature and attending events in his stead when he was ill.42 As a mother, she raised their three daughters and was actively involved in ensuring the girls’ well-being and security through duties that included planning their weddings.43
In the example of her predecessors, Ellen Wilson also exercised traditional duties associated with her title: most importantly, entertaining. Her time was divided between receiving and answering social calls, organizing musical performances, hosting receptions, and maintaining weekly meetings with important fgures, such as the wives of cabinet members.44 Simply put, she exemplified common nineteenth-century beliefs of republican motherhood that dictated her responsibility—and the responsibility of other wives and mothers—for the good of her children and her husband and, consequently, emphasized creating a “nurturing environment” and “refuge” for them.45 For this very reason, Mrs. Wilson was popularly viewed as the “ideal woman” of the time, putting herself and her interests second to her family’s needs.46 Among these interests was her passion for painting, which she did not forget despite her new obligations as First Lady; she took it up at every available opportunity, even exhibiting and selling some of her works while her husband was in office. Her success in this regard earned her historical renown as the first First Lady to earn money in an activity not related to the political sphere.47
By no means did Mrs. Wilson maintain distance from politics, however. Her coveted position as First Lady awarded her the benefits of an honorary political official with incomparable access to the President, whose personal efforts she could ensure in certain situations. As advisor and partner to President Wilson, she assisted him in his work, guided him in his career, and played a role in the selection of his own political advisors.48 During Wilson’s presidency, Mrs. Wilson remained attentive to domestic and international news and regularly cultivated her political awareness in general, which became useful in advising her husband on a variety of “controversial political matters.”49 Indeed, Ellen Wilson illustrated her enthusiasm in more than one meaningful piece of legislation. Undeterred by a temporary relapse in her health, she followed her husband’s work while recovering in New Hampshire; tariff reform in particular inspired her to lobby President Wilson in the interest of artists like herself.50
Ellen Wilson’s introduction to the capital was likewise an introduction to its alleys. After attending a lecture on Washington’s housing conditions held by the Women’s Division of the National Civic Federation, the recently designated First Lady displayed an earnest desire to view the conditions of the alleys in person. Within mere weeks of moving into the White House in March 1913, Mrs. Wilson made her first alley visit to Freeman’s Court, accompanied by NCF members Charlotte Hopkins and Grace Bicknell.51 The same day, the women visited the alleys of Pierce Street Court, Goat Alley, and Logan Court.52 Following her initial visits, the First Lady attempted to conduct others incognito, yet failed to remain unnoticed by residents. Despite refraining from speaking publicly about the issue, she participated in NCF-hosted trips through alleys with public officials, and even personally toured with key members of Congress.53
The culmination of the First Lady’s participation in politics was illustrated through her direct involvement in legislative matters, especially legislation relating to alley clearance. By “lending” her name to the cause and bill, commonly referred to as “Mrs. Wilson’s Bill,” as well as personally lobbying for the bill’s support, Ellen Wilson expanded upon the actions of former First Ladies in an unprecedented manner.54 How she was able to achieve this notable designation was largely due to the advantages of her position as the hostess of the Washington elite. Hosting events offered Mrs. Wilson the opportunity to personally “educate” officials about the alley issue, and in the meantime, introduce members of Congress to her colleagues on the NCF board who were directly involved in raising awareness of the housing conditions in Washington’s alleys and pushing for clearance measures to be secured.55
Included in these measures was “Mrs. Wilson’s Bill” (HR 13219), written by Dr. William C. Woodward and introduced in Congress by Ben Johnson in February 1914.56 The bill’s creation resulted from the passionate efforts of “an executive committee of some of the best known charitable and civic organizations of the city,” of which Hopkins and Bicknell of the NCF were a part.57 President Wilson himself, recruited by Ellen, reviewed the bill and iterated his support for her efforts.58 Her influence had not gone unnoticed, even by herself: when reflecting on the success of her NCF colleagues, Mrs. Wilson acknowledged the advantages afforded to a woman of her position in accomplishing certain initiatives in months when her colleagues had struggled to do so for years.59
When Mrs. Wilson showed signs of illness in June 1913 resulting from the serious “toll” of her welfare efforts, she put her reform-related activities on pause.60 After returning to her welfare work in October, she again exhibited signs of health problems as early as March of the following year, and the seriousness of her illness was realized in late July 1914.61 Around this time, she was confirmed to have an advanced kidney disease, and on August 5, the White House disclosed her condition to the public.62 She passed away the next day.
Despite being referred to as “Mrs. Wilson’s Bill” in the headlines, the bill (S. 1624) whose passage Ellen Wilson had insisted would make her “‘happier’” in the final moments of her life differed from the Alley Bill (HR 13219) introduced in February 1914.63 When the Senate district committee convened in response to the First Lady’s deteriorating health in August to deliberate on the House bill, whose measures Mrs. Wilson had strongly supported for the duration of her career in social welfare, an objection to its passage encouraged the committee to establish more “drastic” change in Mrs. Wilson’s honor and agree upon a “Substitute Alley Bill” (S. 1624).64 Originally designed as reinforcement to the 1892 law concerning the construction of alley dwellings, the Senate bill included an additional amendment to clear residents from the city’s alleys by July 1, 1918, as opposed to the House bill’s goal of clearing the alleys within a ten-year period.65
The Substitute Alley Bill prevented the District from constructing any dwelling on or along an alley unless the alley was at least thirty feet wide and supplied with necessities such as access to sewers, water, and light.66 Additionally, any alley dwellings could be condemned if the building was damaged “more than one-half its original value.”67 The rhetoric of the legislation is particularly noteworthy as it emphasized popular beliefs that the existence of the alleys indicated physical and moral degradation of the city. In other words, alleys were perceived as nothing short of a stain on Washington, D.C., and their clearance meant eliminating a threat “to [the] life, public health, morals, safety and welfare” of the District.68
Other than the passage of the Substitute Alley Bill, the First Lady’s attempts to facilitate urban renewal through her housing reform efforts and assistance to Washington’s poor fell short of expectations.69 Yet, despite her brief involvement in alley reform and social welfare, the public revered her by claiming that she was responsible for raising awareness of the neglected situation of the city’s poor.70 Newspapers honored her for her achievements during “office,” including her dying wish for the passage of the alley clearance bill and her hand in advancing “many needed reforms” in service of the poor—and by extension, the [white] middle-class and elite.71 Mrs. Wilson herself had acknowledged a personal responsibility for African Americans, a duty she had been raised to accept as a “southern Christian woman.”72
While Ellen Wilson exercised this personal responsibility during her time in “office” by meeting with Congressmen, inciting her husband’s involvement, and continually pressing for the passage of alley legislation, her name became additionally useful to female reformers and the alley reform cause following her death in 1914. Charlotte Hopkins alludes to this posthumous influence in her exchanges with President Wilson about the issue. Notably, Hopkins mentioning Mrs. Wilson prior to requesting the President’s approval of her housing initiatives suggests that she was aware of the benefuts of utilizing the former First Lady’s name to request attention at the highest level of government. According to Hopkins, in her efforts to establish the Ellen Wilson Memorial Homes—low-rent housing designed to attract the city’s poor and serve as an agreeable alternative to alley living—she often experienced resistance from potential supporters after the discovery that at least the first block of housing would primarily benefit African Americans. Summoning the memory of the First Lady “in every instance,” Hopkins asserted that “Mrs. Wilson understood the general situation” of the city’s poor, a third of whom were reportedly African Americans and therefore had the greatest need for improved housing.73
Shortly following Ellen Wilson’s death, however, new developments emerged that played a significant role in limiting the impact of her work. Most importantly, her legacy was overshadowed by the outbreak of World War I in 1914, which diverted federal attention from domestic matters, especially issues concerning the District.74 In response to the housing scarcity during the war, Congress postponed the Substitute Alley Bill’s deadline to clear alley housing by July 1, 1918.75 Consequently, the housing frenzy worsened the situation of thousands of displaced alley dwellers.76 Even in the war’s aftermath, concern for Washington’s physical reconstruction and development rarely included the poorer neighborhoods—or, if they were included, they came second to the city’s parks and buildings.77 Alley reform initiatives met further obstacles. For instance, the Alley Dwelling Authority, established by the Alley Dwelling Act of 1934, was ineffectual in condemning and demolishing properties due to the lack of public housing available for displaced inhabitants.78
Inspired by a period of growth in Progressive Era Washington, D.C., the physical transformation of the city complemented its symbolic and moral transformation, including a newly discovered consciousness of the shameful situation of Washington’s poor, the welfare for which First Lady Ellen Wilson attempted to take responsibility. Given the complex and difficult history of urban renewal in the District of Columbia, it comes as little surprise that her success was fairly limited for a variety of reasons, perhaps foremost her untimely death. Nevertheless, her participation in the progressive cause of alley reform, however brief, followed and furthered her predecessors’ legacies as First Ladies and the duties that role entailed. The accomplishments Mrs. Wilson was able to obtain as a “political figure,” even by her death, can be confidently traced to the influence of other figures, including her mostly adoring public, her husband, her reform colleagues, City Beautiful advocates, members of Congress, and the often ignored population of the city’s poor.
Ellen Wilson was a product of her time, and, more importantly, the dramatic social and political movements that characterized her time. The prominent emergence of women into the political sphere allowed Mrs. Wilson to carry out her social reform work while capturing positive attention from the public for the issue of alley conditions, as well as for the efforts of her like-minded reform colleagues, including the women of the National Civic Federation. Mrs. Wilson could have lent her name and influence to another cause, perhaps one more traditionally within the realm of the First Lady; yet, her enthusiasm for an “unpopular” cause (at least among the Washington elite) pertaining to the city that had only recently become her home, should be acknowledged and credited, even if her role was minor. Despite the relative insignificance of her personal contributions in the form of social reform, Ellen Wilson’s involvement in the “beautification”—physically and morally—of Washington, D.C. reflects larger initiatives that allowed for her limited political success and the expansion of her roles as both female reformer and First Lady.
