history – Empowering women through fiction and history.

The (Not so) Roaring Presidents of the Roaring Twenties

President’s Day is on February 16 in America. In spite of how people feel about the current president, presidents have had a major influence on the nation throughout the years, and each president, in many ways, reflects the era in which he serves.

Some decades have had more presidents than others. The 1840s and the 1880s tie for the most presidents in America, as people saw five during each of those decades (that’s a lot of presidents!) But the 1920s, when my Grave Sisters Mysteries is set, saw its share of presidents too. The decade had no less than three presidents who occupied the Oval Office at one time or another.

In many ways, these three presidents (Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover) represented the ethos of the 1920s. Since the Republicans dominated politics at the time, the men favored business and incorporated things like low taxes for large corporations, high important tarrifs, and a hands-off approach to business regulations that sharply contrasted the pre-war anti-trust politics. Not surprisingly, they embraced a free market, which was partly responsible for the economic boom of the Roaring Twenties. They also shied away from the global market, focusing more on domestic issues (though not focusing on them enough, as we’ll see with the Hoover administration).

Photo Credit: Warren Harding and a group of men outside the White House, Washington D.C., 1923, Harris & Ewing Collection, Library of Congress: Public Domain Media/Public Domain

However, each of the presidents faced very different challenges. Harding, who took office in the first third of the decade, was dealing with a nation devastated by the effects of World War I. His campaign promise was a “return to normalcy”. Consequently, his approach to politics was so laid back that many people thought him lazy and incompetent. It may be that this laid-back attitude was the reason why his administration was riddled with scandal. Of special note was the Teapot Dome Scandal, where the Secretary of the Interior accepted bribes from private oil companies to whom he had leased reserves in Teapot Dome, Wyoming, and in California. In addition, the head of the Veterans Bureau (established in 1921 and which is featured in Book 2 of the Grave Sisters Mysteries) ran off with nearly $250 million, though he did return and was tried and convicted after Harding’s death in 1923.

Photo Credit: Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover walking outside the White House, 1928, Harris & Ewing Collection, Library of Congress: Picryl/No known restrictions

Succeeding Harding was Coolidge. If Harding was thought incompetent, Coolidge was thought ineffectual. In fact, he really didn’t do much for the country other than clean up the mess left behind by the Harding administration. He was known for his silence, and his involvement in politics was quite minimal by today’s (and even 1920s’) standards. Nevertheless, this uber laid-back attitude was popular with voters, and he lasted until 1929. In fact, one of the reasons why he wasn’t re-elected was because he chose not to run with no reason other than “I choose not to run.” How’s that for a man of few words?

You would think, with two Republican presidencies marred with scandal, incompetence, and inefficiency, the Democrats would win the election at the end of the 1920s, but such was not the case. This was mainly because the Democratic candidate, Alfred E. Smith, had several strikes against him that made him unpopular with many voters. He was Irish and Catholic, for one. It seems incredible now that Americans would be so prejudiced as to consider these aspects a drawback, but it would take another 30-odd years until they voted an Irish Catholic into the White House (that would be John F. Kennedy, of course). Smith was also anti-Prohibition and had big-city manners, which didn’t go over well with the small-town voters of the time. So Hoover got the presidency. However, the Republican laid-back politics and free market favor proved to be exactly what the country did not need at the time. Less than eight months after he was inaugurated, the stock market crashed, and the years Hoover served were the most difficult of the Great Depression. He was defeated when he ran again in 1933 for a president who could take the country by the hand and create interventions that would pull America out of the biggest economic disaster in history (that president, by the way, was Franklin D. Roosevelt

My Grave Sisters Mysteries begins at the start of Harding’s administration, and you can expect the series to run well into Hoover’s and beyond. You can get the first book of the Grave Sisters Mysteries, The Case of the Washed-Up Corpse, here.

If you love fun, engaging mysteries set in the past, you’ll enjoy The Missing Ruby Necklace! It’s available exclusively to newsletter subscribers here. By signing up, you’ll also get news about upcoming releases, fun facts about women’s history, classic true-crime tidbits, and more!

Forensic Pathology in the 19th and Early 20th Centuries

Mourning practices were an art form in the 19th and early 20th centuries. When I did research on mourning for my Gilded Age family saga, the Waxwood Series, back in 2022, I found no shortage of information. People during these eras had a fascination with death that is almost the antithesis of how we approach death in the 21st century.

However, when I started doing research on the more technical and scientific aspects of dealing with the dead for my Grave Sisters Mysteries series, the information was surprisingly lacking or difficult to find. As Deborah Blum emphasized in this TED-ED video, in our CSI-friendly era, crime investigation relies heavily on picking apart the corpse (both physically and emotionally). But 19th and early 20th century crime investigation focused much more on clues, witnesses, and suspects, and less on the victim’s body.

In the 19th and early 20th century, you couldn’t even say American forensic pathology was in its infancy. More like it was in the womb. The role of medical examiner was pretty ad hoc and didn’t officially exist in many places until the 1930s. In addition, many medical examiners were not trained specifically in pathology, consisting mostly of local doctors who were good at treating the living but had little experience with examining the dead. Both my Adele Gossling Mysteries and Grave Sisters Mysteries feature this type of medical examiner, though both doctors have enough experience to know what they’re doing. In contrast, in the latter series, Helena Wright (the middle Grave sister), is the mortician of the family funeral home, and her training provides her with more in-depth knowledge of pathology (something the medical examiner resents!)

Medical examiners and pathologists were, like policemen and mayors, government-appointed, and as such, subject to the kind of corruption that ran rampant in the 19th and early 20th centuries (until the Progressive movement called for reforms). They could be bribed to cover up evidence for various reasons. Maybe the victim was a well-respected citizen, and the pathology brought up something that pointed toward a less-than-stellar life the influential family didn’t want made public (like certain diseases). Or maybe the examination of the victim showed foul play that would require important people to be involved in the case, who didn’t want to be involved. The examination might even implicate someone important to the town in a dastardly crime, so evidence needed to be covered up or distorted. I’m reading a true crime book right now about the death of a woman in the early 20th century, where the writers surmise this is exactly what happened.

Photo credit: Leather doctor’s bag and its contents dated between 1890 and 1930, Wellcome Collection Gallery: Fae/Wikimedia Commons/CC BY 4.0

Thankfully, things started to change in the 1920s. Law enforcement began to take forensic experts and medical examiners more seriously and saw them as a vital part of the investigation rather than just part of their standard procedure. One example that changed the way the New York police thought about forensic pathology happened in 1923. A housewife living in one of the tenement buildings in the city was found dead in her apartment. At first, the case seemed cut and dried – accidental death by poisoning from a gas oven (not an uncommon thing in the early 20th century, as gas was the main source of power in tenements). However, because of reforms going on in the city at the time, the coroner was also a trained medical man and was able to determine that death had not occurred due to carbon monoxide poisoning (interestingly, based on the color of the dead woman’s skin) and in fact had been strangled (as there were marks on her neck). Later, it was discovered her husband had indeed strangled her (for the insurance money) and had tried to stage the murder to look like an accident, which the authorities almost bought.

Pathology plays a role not only in my Grave Sisters Mysteries (as I discussed above), but in Book 3 of my Adele Gossling Mysteries. A doctor is asked to write out a new death certificate because what looked like an accident proves to be anything but. It was possible to retract the death certificate if further examination suggested otherwise. This is what starts off the investigation into Thea Marsh’s death in the book.

Death At Will has been chosen by Barnes & Noble as a favorite reading year pick! To celebrate, I’ve discounted the book to $2.99. You can grab it here. And did you know Book 1 of the series, The Carnation Murder, is free? If you haven’t yet gotten into this series, you can start now by getting your copy of the first book for free here.

And if you want to see some more fascinating early 20th century pathology at work (without the gore!), check out my Grave Sisters Mysteries! Book 2 of the series was just released last November and is on Barnes & Noble’s Top Indie Favorites list for this month. The book is still at a nice discount of $3.99, so you can get The Missing Witness now.

Making Progress: Thanksgiving in the Progressive Era

It’s that time of year when Thanksgiving is upon us (at least it is if you’re in the US). A few years ago, I wrote a blog post about Thanksgiving in the Gilded Age. But since I’ve been diving into the Progressive Era with my Adele Gossling Mysteries, I was curious to know how turn-of-the-century Thanksgiving traditions compared to those of America’s Gilded Age.

The Gilded Age was, remember, all about excesses, wealth, and showing off when it came to the holidays. Well-to-do Americans saw the holidays as a time to get into their best dress and parade themselves in hotel dining rooms or swank restaurants for a multi-course Thanksgiving meal that included non-traditional Thanksgiving fare such as oysters and lobster (if you don’t believe me, take a peek at the menu I included in the blog post mentioned above.)

Photo Credit: Cover of Puck magazine showing a mother making a pumpkin pie in the kitchen while her four children look onward, emphasizing the family nature of Thanksgiving, 1903, chromolithograph, created by L. M. Glackens: pingnews.com / Flickr/Public Domain Mark 1.0

Americans started to get a grip on all those excesses and realized their country needed to make some changes in the Progressive Era. Reform was the order of the day, including worker’s rights, women’s rights, and environmental concerns. There was also more emphasis on intimate social circles (family, friends), probably because the modern era made many people feel fragmented and isolated (something I daresay we struggle with today in our social-media-heavy 21st century.)

For all these reasons, Thanksgiving became more of a family affair at the turn of the century. Magazines and books came out with Thanksgiving recipes to help encourage Americans to stay home for the holiday rather than let hotels and restaurants do the cooking. The recipes were much more what we consider traditional Thanksgiving foods, such as roasted turkey, cranberry sauce, and pumpkin pie. The 1902 menu on this site still has some oddities, such as oysters, but it looks much more like the kind of Thanksgiving meal we feast upon these days than the menu on my previous blog post.

Progressive reformers carried their work into the holidays as well. One thing we see with turn-of-the-century Thanksgiving which was less prevalent in the Gilded Age was the idea of giving thanks and gratitude by helping others. Missionaries and other charitable organizations hosted large Thanksgiving feasts for the poor all over the country. In addition, holiday gift boxes became popular just as they are today (my local Sprouts Market prepares gift bags with food every year that customers can purchase and have the store give to a family in need). Overall, the spirit of gratitude and giving was not lost on early 20th-century progressives.

While none of my Adele Gossling Mystery stories feature a Thanksgiving murder yet, be on the lookout for one in the future! In the meantime, check out The Carnation Murder, the first book of the series, which is totally free on all bookstore sites.

If you love fun, engaging mysteries set in the past, you’ll enjoy The Missing Ruby Necklace! It’s available exclusively to newsletter subscribers here. By signing up, you’ll also get news about upcoming releases, fun facts about women’s history, classic true-crime tidbits, and more!

One Thing Leads To Another: The Great San Francisco Earthquake of 1906

America is no stranger to natural disasters. We’ve seen it all: hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, fires, earthquakes. Only last month, Florida experienced two hurricanes back-to-back (Hurricane Helene and Hurricane Milton) and the damage and lives lost from these two disasters combined was devastating.

Whether due to Mother Nature’s temperament or human error, disasters seem to come in packs. In the case of the above-mentioned Hurricane Milton, damage was caused not only by the winds and floods it brought but also by the tornadoes that formed even before the hurricane hit the ground. Looking back in history, this is not something we can blame on climate change or global warming. One of the worst natural disasters in the history of Northern California endured a back-to-back disaster: the Great San Francisco Earthquake of 1906. While there is no doubt that the earthquake itself caused a lot of damage in San Francisco and smaller cities along the coast, reports show most of the damage (nearly eighty percent and some sources state it was closer to ninety-five) happened because of the fires that followed.

The facts of the earthquake are well-documented, and I go into them in the author’s note included in my upcoming Adele Gossling Mysteries book. The earthquake began on April 18, 1906, at 5:12 a.m. in, ironically, the ocean. But it quickly moved to land and tore up cities along the coast, including San Francisco (though to call it the San Francisco Great Earthquake is misleading, since many smaller cities in the area, including Santa Rosa and San Jose, suffered massive damage). The magnitude of the earthquake has been debated, but most experts put it at 7.9-8.25 which stands today as the biggest quake in the area. The strong shock lasted about 45-60 seconds. While that might not seem like a long time, it was enough to completely incapacitate the entire city. The quake broke gas and power lines, damaged water pipes, and made telegraph lines useless. Houses and buildings of the time were made of wood (and still are, so they easily crumbled with the strong tremors, especially in the downtown area. There were a few buildings that withstood the disaster and survive even today in their more-or-less natural state, including the Flood Building (a majestic-looking office building on Market Street) and St. Mary’s Cathedral.

Photo Credit: Residents looking toward the downtown at the fires breaking out during the 1906 Great San Francisco Earthquake, 1906: U.S. Geological Survey/Flickr/CC0 1.0 Universal

While the earthquake did its damage to buildings, infrastructure, and pavements, leaving some places with such huge cracks that horses fell through them, many argue the majority of the disaster came not from the tremors but from the multiple fires that broke out in the city almost immediately after the earthquake. Gas lines broke all over the city and ignited fires that were difficult to stop. There’s the famous “Ham and Eggs Fire,” for example, where a housewife in Hayes Valley turned on her gas stove to make breakfast for her family soon after the earthquake. Little did she know the chimney had been damaged by the quake. The stove ignited a fire that spread throughout the downtown area. Before it was finally quenched, it had destroyed some of the city’s most important and iconic buildings, including City Hall. To add insult to injury, water lines were broken so firefighters had trouble getting water out of the pipes to put the fires out. And human error had a hand in it as well. When water was clearly not going to be the answer to putting out the massive flames, the military resorted to dynamiting buildings (in an effort to prevent the fires from spreading), but their lack of experience in this area only made the fires worse.

Photo of San Francisco downtown area after the earthquake and fires had ceased, taken from a camera attached to a kite and suspended some 1,000 feet from the air. The large street going down the center is Market Street. Note how nearly all the buildings on either side are completely destroyed.

Photo Credit: Taken by George R. Lawrence, 28 May 1906, Panoramic photographs, Library of Congress: Grook Da Ogre/Wikimedia Commons/PD US

All told, by the time the fires had subsided (and it would take four days for this to happen), they had claimed three thousand lives across the Bay Area and eighty percent of San Francisco. It took two years for the city to rebuild.

My book, Murder Among The Rubble, features this disaster and focuses on the rebuilding phase just a few weeks after the earthquake (featuring a murder, of course). You can pick up a copy on preorder now at a special price here.

I’ll be talking more about the 1906 San Francisco Great Earthquake, its aftermath, and the effect it had on the lives of the residents in my newsletter as the release date for this book gets closer in December. You won’t want to miss that! If you’re not already signed up for my newsletter, I encourage you to click here and do so. You’ll get lots of free goodies, including my book The Missing Ruby Necklace (not available anywhere else!) if you do.

Fun and Mischief: Halloween in the Early 20th Century

It’s Halloween in the United States today, and if you live in America, you likely already have bags of candy stashed on the front table near your door, expecting little nippers to come knocking and calling “trick or treat!”

Halloween these days is a relatively tame affair where fun is the name of the game. It means dressing up in costumes, taking the kids door to door to get candy, and for some, attending a party or settling on the couch to watch spooky movies (I already have my collection of classic horror films geared up). But in the early 20th century, kids had a very different idea of what constituted “fun” for Halloween. Mischief and mayhem were the order of the day (or, I should say, the night).

What do I mean by mischief? Watch this clip from the 1944 classic film Meet Me in St. Louis. The film is set in 1904 and gives a pretty accurate glimpse of how kids celebrated Halloween in the early 20th century. In the scene, kids build a bonfire, throwing in anything flammable they can get their hands on (and one suspects some of the chairs they’re throwing into the fire might have been ripped off neighborhood porches). Then, they huddle together, trying to figure out who they’re going to torture with their bags of flour (yes, knocking on someone’s door and throwing flour in their face was a thing back then). That was the turn-of-the-century’s idea of Halloween fun.

Photo Credit: A non-grotesque and non-creepy Halloween costume of a witch, 1910: jamesjoel/Flickr/CC BY ND 2.0

This scene also shows how kids dressed up for Halloween over one hundred years ago (and if you’re curious to see more costumes from this era, you can look here). Unlike today where we’re more likely to see cute costumes on smaller kids and spooky-fun costumes on older kids, kids used whatever they could find around the house. The results were creepier and, in some cases, even grotesque.

Trick-or-treating is an organized affair in the 21st century. In the neighborhoods in my area, the local newspaper designates specific days (not necessarily October 31) and times when trick-or-treaters can go around town. In the early 20th century, things were a lot more chaotic. Kids would go trick-or-treating in parades and they could become quite unruly. And did they get candy? Not always. Until the mid-20th century, kids got whatever was lying around. That could be a toy or a game the child of the house didn’t want anymore or some non-candy goodies or fruits or nuts (which would make many moms and dads very happy today).

But what really characterized early 20th-century Halloween was mischief. In addition to the bonfire and the flour-in-the-face, it wasn’t unusual for kids to vandalize homes belonging to people in town they didn’t like or even steal things off their lawn or porch (in the film clip above, one of the adults warns her children to return a neighbor’s hammock after they steal it). I remember when I was a kid, Halloween meant you were at risk of being “egged” (having kids throw rotten eggs at your house) if you didn’t open the door and give out candy. Thankfully, that practice has largely gone out of style.

I talk a lot about holiday history and traditions in my newsletter. So come sign up and get a free book from the Adele Gossling Mysteries series!

Sign me up!