Victory of the Garden: Politics in American Gardens, 1801-2014

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY SAN MARCOS

THESIS SIGNATURE PAGE

THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE

MASTER OF ARTS

HISTORY

THESIS TITLE: Victory of the Garden: Politics in American Gardens, 1801-2014

AUTHOR: Jaime K . Secrist

DATE OF SUCCESSFUL DEFENSE: May 1, 2015

THE THESIS HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE THESIS COMMITTEE IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS lN HISTORY.

Dr. Jeffrey Charles THESIS COMMITTEE CHAIR

Dr. Jill Watts THESIS COMMITTEE MEMBER

Dr. Anne Lombard L~ 111~ /,zo,,- THESIS COMMITTEE MEMBER SIGNATTJR! D TE

Victory of the Garden:

Politics in American Gardens, 1801-2014

by Jaime K. Secrist

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ...... iv

Abstract ...... vi

Introduction ...... 1

Historiography ...... 3

Chapter 1 Gardening Across Time: The Yeoman Farmer to the Depression Gardener ...... 15

Chapter 2 A Study in Gardens: The World War II Victory Garden ...... 41

Chapter 3 The Return of the Garden: Writing, Remembering, and Planting Gardens After the

Conclusion: The New Garden ...... 109

Bibliography ...... 115

Table of Figures

Figure 1 “Get Behind the Girl He Left Behind Him”……………………………...…………… 32 Figure 2 “Sow the Seeds of Victory!”….………………………………………………………. 32 Figure 3 “Freedom From Want” ……………………………………………………………….. 45 Figure 4 “The Four Freedoms”…………………………………………………………………. 45 Figure 5 “Going Our Way”……………………………………………………………………... 55 Figure 6 “Join Us on the Farm Front”………………………………………………………….. 55 Figure 7 “Help Harvest War Crops”……………………………………………………………. 55 Figure 8 “Plant a Victory Garden”…………………………………………………………….... 56 Figure 9 “Your victory Counts More Than Ever”……………………………………………… 56 Figure 10 “Grow Your Own Be Sure”…………………………………………………………. 56 Figure 11 “Grow it Yourself”………………………………………………………………….. 56 Figure 12 “War Gardens for Victory”…………………………………………………………. 56 Figure 13 “Food is a Weapon”………………………………………………………………… 59 Figure 14 “Where Our Men are Fighting Our Food is Fighting”………………………………. 59 Figure 15 “Victory Garden Pledge Sign”………………………………………………………. 62 Figure 16 “Garden Plot”………………………………………………………………………... 66 Figure 17 “Live Model Victory Garden Plot”………………………………………………….. 66 Figure 18 “Layout”……………………………………………………………………………... 66 Figure 19 “A Victory Garden on a Rooftop”…………………………………………………… 70

iii

Acknowledgements

To Dr. Jeffrey Charles, for looking at numerous drafts and setting me on the right path when I was overwhelmed and confused. For allowing me to be creative and adventurous as I wrote my thesis and allowing me to take on a topic when it seemed odd to do so. Thank you for guiding me through my thesis process.

To Dr. Jill Watts, for supporting me even before I entered the Master’s program at

California State University. For listening to me talk to you for hours, when there was a million

other things you needed to do, and for pushing me to be a better scholar.

To Dr. Anne Lombard, for inspiring me to see trends from the early days of American

history that still exists in the present. For supporting me and keeping me in check based on my

timelines. Thank you for agreeing to be on my committee and being excited about my topic even

though it was slightly outside of your time period.

To the CSUSM History Department, for being open to non-traditional ideas. For pushing

its students to do outstanding work. For teaching us to be legitimate historians and not allowing

us to simply get by.

For my CSUSM Grad Lab cohort, who spent countless hours encouraging me, working

with me, and listening to me vent about the stresses of writing my thesis, and understanding

because they were all in the same boat. For always making me laugh and making my grad school

experience the most memorable and enjoyable time of my life. I love you guys so much.

To my family, who supported me and encouraged me throughout my years as a Master’s

student. Thank you for always being there when I needed a break, especially when I did not

realize that I needed one, and reminding me that it was okay to take one. Thank you for believing

in me and telling me to keep going when I wanted to stop. Thank you for putting up with my moodiness and stress from deadlines and revisions. Sorry about that.

To my friends, especially Brookey, Brittany, and my Ice Family, who made me smile, prayed for me, and happily celebrated every milestone along the way. Thank you for being there for the little things and keeping me grounded when I felt like I had no control.

To my Love, you were always there to help me forget about my stress and take out my aggression. You taught me to get back up whenever I fall down, that hard work pays off, and to keep persevering no matter what. You taught me to face every obstacle with courage and to believe in myself.

Finally, I want to thank God, with Him all things are possible, Philippians 4:13.

Abstract

During World War II, the United States government implemented a policy that encouraged the home-front population to grow victory gardens. However, the use of agriculture as a way to inspire and bring a population together dates back to a much earlier period in

American history, when Thomas Jefferson was president. Gardening may seem like an unusual topic for historians to study, but gardens have a greater purpose and value in society than supplementing food supply or providing a leisure activity. Gardens can be used as a way to analyze the relationship between the U.S. government and the American people, in order to understand how the two sides relate to one another and demonstrate concepts of citizenship.

This thesis highlights the role that the victory garden has played in U.S. history. Gardens have played a role in public policy during multiple presidential administrations, beginning with the infancy of the United States as a nation and continuing through 2010s. Increased government-endorsed gardening corresponds directly to periods of uncertainty. Gardens have been used by the government in times of reformulating a national identity, in times of war, and in times of economic crisis. Gardens reflect and embody political ideologies, particularly pertaining to what it means to be a citizen. These ideas have changed with various administrations.

However, using the garden as a vehicle to address popular politics remains constant.

Keywords: U.S. History, World War II, Victory Garden, Citizenship, Public Policy, Agriculture, and Franklin D. Roosevelt

Introduction

Gardening or small-scale agricultural production, most often for personal use, has long been a part of the human experience, extending across cultures, The majority of the worlds gardens have been small scale, but the most famous gardens—the Hanging Gardens of Babylon,

Queen Mary’s Garden in London, and the Gardens at Versailles—have been elaborate spectacles

of floral display, and often, amidst their beauty, been associated with displays of government

power; although the majority of garden histories have focused on the design and meaning of

these large ornamental gardens. Food-gardens have an equally widespread history surrounding

them. Just as the flower gardens surrounding European palaces, vegetable gardens have a

political history. In fact, as this study argues, food gardens have had a longstanding tradition in

popular politics since the early days of America’s formulation as an independent country. The

link between gardens and politics has appeared multiple times in America’s history, beginning in

the early 19th century, reaching prominence in the1940s, and continuing on into the current day.

Vegetable gardens can be used as a way to examine the relationship between the United States

government and the American people. The basis for this connection has remained constant: the

idea that gardens can be used to help define what it means to be a citizen. The government has

endorsed gardening and used gardens as a way to inspire, motivate, and/or mobilize the United

States’ civilian population, in the name of a political ideology.

The first time government-endorsed gardening was notably used was under the

administration of President Thomas Jefferson in the early 1800s. Towards the end of that century,

government-endorsed gardening was re-introduced to the American public; this time however,

the push to grow gardens occurred at the local level, rather than the federal level. This local

based level of government-endorsed gardening inspired individuals of the Progressive Era to

petition the government to pass legislation pertaining to nature and public gardens. During World

War One (1914-1918), American citizens planted victory gardens to show their support of the

nation’s military effort. A decade later, the government once again became the primary force behind gardens and passed legislation relief to help vegetable growers, as the nation faced the

Great Depression.

The ending of the Great Depression came with America’s involvement in the Second

World War. It is during this period that the idea of using gardens as a political motivator reached its prime. Franklin Roosevelt used the World War II victory garden as a way to promote his political agenda and generate support for the war. This thesis focuses on the World War II victory garden as a case study, to analyze how successful and powerful an idea can be, when properly and deliberately implemented.

Similar to previous periods in American history, in the years after the Second World War, the popularity of gardens continued to rise and fall with varying administrations. Like the

Progressive Era, the 1960s and 1970s demonstrate a grass roots spawned form of government- endorsed gardening, where the population pushed for legislation that was environmentally and garden friendly. This period showed an increase of civic engagement in terms of gardening, which is contrary to what historian Dr. David Tucker argues in Kitchen Gardening in America: A

History, Dr. Tucker states,

Gardens and politics have rarely mixed in America. Historically those concerns were so separate that gardening literature avoided all mention of political questions. Since both radicals and reactionaries have planted gardens, magazine editors dared not cross the garden fence to comment on controversial questions beyond horticulture and health.1

1 David M. Tucker, Kitchen Gardening in America: A History (Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1993), 155.

While Tucker makes a legitimate point, that magazines probably were reluctant to take a political

stance or promote a particular political party’s ideology, he fails to realize that the government

has used gardens as a way to promote ideology since the early formulations of the United States;

thus politicizing the very nature of gardens. Therefore, while magazines attempted to appeal to

the whole of American society and continue the unifying ideology so as not to offend different

political viewpoints which people hold, at the same time they sponsored the medium that the

government uses in order to implement political ideology. Since then, gardens have again

reached a position of prominence under the Obama administration, which adopts many of the

strategies that Franklin Roosevelt used in order to endorse victory gardens to the public during

World War II.

Historiography

Much of the historiography of this thesis focuses on the World War II victory garden, as it is the linchpin of the ensuing argument. However, in order to develop an argument concerning victory gardens, it was necessary to examine other periods when government-endorsed gardening occurred. The most simplified version of the subsequent argument is that gardens have a more

prominent political role in United States history than they are given credit. This is observed by

analyzing gardens not as a physical construct, but instead as a medium for implementing political

ideology, specifically pertaining to concepts of citizenship. Therefore, gardens can be examined

as a way to understand the relationship between the United States’ government and the American

people in defining their national identity. Often times, historians who write about gardens tend to

focus on the horticulture or urban aspects of gardening. Other times, they write about the history

of an institution and the people responsible for promoting a famous garden.2 Thus, much of the

2 Karen Solit, History of the United States: Botanic Garden 1816-1991 (Washington: U.S. G.P.O., 1993).

literature responsible for constructing the historiography of gardens is based on the way

individuals used various types of plants, or it focuses on the way cities incorporated nature into

public areas.

Garden Overview

Almost every source that was reviewed pertaining to the history of gardening in the

United States mentions Thomas Jefferson’s yeoman farmer model. This tends to be the most

memorable agricultural topics and it acknowledged as the first push for the American people to

grow food.3 The yeoman farmer reflects the desire for the United States to be an independent self-sustaining nation, where there is no obligation to be accountable to another entity in order to satisfy the basic needs of survival.

Gardening scholarship also includes the more scientific side of agriculture, providing the history of cataloging plants and the development of plant classifications. These historical analyses focus on the individuals and organizations that pioneered the experimentation of plants; providing thought-provoking histories about botany and the transportation or exchange of plants, such as those discovered on the Lewis and Clark expedition, as well as the greenhouses that displayed and further encouraged the study of flora and fauna.4 These types of historiographies

provide the broader context, explaining the technical significance of studying the discipline of

agriculture and reflect an important aspect of the history of the botanical and agricultural-based

3 Gordon S. Wood, Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). Tucker, Kitchen Gardening in America, 45-54. Phillip J. Pauly, Fruits and Plains: The Horticultural Transformation of America (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007). Richard W. Judd, The Untilled Garden: Natural History and the Spirit of Conservation in America, 1740-1840 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009). Gary Holthaus, From the Farm to the Table: What All Americans Need To Know About Agricultural (Lexington, Kentucky: The University Press of Kentucky, 2006). 4 Pauly, Fruits and Plains. Solit, History of the United States.

sciences. However, this thesis focuses on the political and ideological significance that

agriculture plays in the broader context of social history, rather than the details of specific plants.

Barbara Wells Sarudy points out that studying gardens is not typically done by historians

and that there is little recorded about smaller gardens. In her book Gardens and Gardening in the

Chesapeake, 1700-1750, she looks at the way that eighteenth century American gardeners developed in contrast to their British counterparts, who had a very different style of gardening. In

America, gardens were not about visually stimulating landscape; rather they were a matter of daily survival as colonists attempted to establish a life in the “untamed” countryside. Sarudy

argues that American gardens were not based on political ideology, at least in the sense that they

divided the country into political parties, like they did in Great Britain. Gardens in Great Britain

represented the aristocracy or gentry class, reflecting the leisure and political power that they

held as the ruling class. Gardens demonstrated a way for the British ruling class to engage with

nature, while upon their estates. Instead the majority of the population grew gardens in a very

democratic fashion. Overall, Gardens and Gardening in the Chesapeake looks at the different

types of gardens that were planned by various types of people. It examines the different layouts

and who was involved in planting and what the gardens meant, with the ultimate goal to discover

why the people of the Chesapeake area would take on the task of growing gardens. Gardening is

examined from in a variety of ways, including geographic location, the way they were physically

planted, and the reason why people grew them. Her focus does not concentrate on the political

relationship of the people and their government, but she does see gardens as something that

historians should explore and look at as more than physical produce.5

Another book that notes the differences between British and American style gardening is

5 Barbara Wells Sarudy, Gardens and Gardening in the Chesapeake (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998).

Andrea Wulf’s Founding Gardeners. She analyzes America’s fascination with nature during the eighteenth century, making the argument that landscape was crucial in the struggle of defining and formulating a national identity. Wulf goes on to say that in order to understand the founding fathers and the formatting of the nation, it is necessary to understand their ties to gardening. In her book, the lives of the founding fathers are explored based on agriculture and nature, which was connected to gardening. Wulf clearly identifies that not only are gardens linked to politics, but she also notes that the history of the United States can be analyzed through the lens of the garden. While this provides a foundation for the argument that is developed throughout this thesis, it is important to note that Wulf focuses more on “great man history,” rather than the

relationship between the American people and their government. Nonetheless, Wulf provides a

crucial cornerstone in historiography that looks at the political side of gardens.6

The Founding Fathers were not the only group of Americans who had an interest; the field of botany also intrigued women. Vera Norwood’s Made From This Earth: American

Women and Nature, notes that by the 1850s, there was an increasing number of women who were cataloging and drawing plants, bringing together nature and art. Women found a way to enter into the field of horticulture, while still remaining in the domestic sphere. Botany provided an entry point into the field of science because in a sense, it was seen as a leisure activity; thus women could venture into the male dominated fields of botany, horticulture, and agriculture.

Studying plants was deemed acceptable by some because flowers were beautiful and had female qualities associated with them, which conformed to socially defined gender roles.7 By the

eighteenth century, gardening conformed to “restrictive gender codes” and was associated with

6 Andrea Wulf, Founding Gardeners: The Revolutionary Generation, Nature, and the Shaping of the American Nation (New York: First Vintage Books Edition, 2012). 7 “The Illustrators: Women’s Drawings of Nature’s Artifacts” in Made From This Earth: American Women and Nature, ed. Vera Norwood, (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1993), 54-97.

family, home, and respectability. Female involvement in the world of gardening has inspired

environment movements and urban planning in today’s world.8 Women played a critical role in

the history of gardening. They were not simply tending gardens just to faithfully support and

provide for their families; rather they used gardens as a way to enter into the world of science.

Norwood notes that women used gardens in order to expand their sphere, meaning that gardens

could be used as a form of political expression.

Additionally, history explains that gardens were a necessary means for survival,

providing the agrarian-based world with vitamins and nutrition from vegetables prior to

advancements in food technology like canning, refrigeration, and frozen foods.9 Gardens provide

access to fresh vegetables. Women, especially those who lived on farms or areas with available

land, faithfully tended to their gardens in order to provide food for their families.10 When gardens

are studied in a more public sphere, they tend to be analyzed in relation to urban development.11

Thus, historical scholarship tends to look at gardens from a more domestic standpoint, examining

it from the view of gardens as a private food source. In contrast, I analyze gardens as an aspect of

popular politics and bring attention to their political standing.

Philip Pauly traces the various periods, trends, and developments of agriculture in his

book Fruits and Plains: The Horticultural Transformation of America. He examines and

analyzes the way that horticulture has been connected and intertwined with the development of

American society. In order to identify this transformation, he tracks history for over a century.

8 “Designing Nature: Gardeners and Their Gardens” in Made From This Earth: American Women and Nature, ed. Vera Norwood, (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1993), 98-142. 9 Shane Hamilton, “The Economies and Conveniences of Modern-Day Living: Frozen Foods and Mass Marketing 1945-1965,” The Business History Review 77, no. 1 (2003): 34, JSTOR. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30041100 (accessed February 19, 2015). 10 Tucker, Kitchen Gardening in America. 11 Laura Lawson, City Bountiful: A Century of Community Gardens in America (Berkley: University of California Press, 2005). Gillette, Civitas by Design. Judd, The Untilled Garden.

Like this study, his is not a study of gardens, which are associated with “private activity… within

a circle of family and friends… [or referred to as a] ‘hobby’”; but instead a study of horticulture,

which deals with the public sphere. However, his study focuses more on the development of

horticulture, particularly in relationship to the environment, rather than looking at civic role that

the garden can play.12 Nonetheless, Pauly provides a solid framework for looking at U.S. history through the lens of horticultural activity.13

Another history of about gardening is Laura Lawson’s City Bountiful: A Century of

Community Gardening in America. She analyzes the history of the community garden focusing

on the way that gardens “appear after initial development” of cities, making an argument about

the development of the communal areas and civic responsibility. While her argument covers a

similar time period as this thesis, she concentrates particularly on gardens that are planted in

urban areas, examining relief, children’s involvement, horticulture, neighborhood betterment and

gardens used as therapy. Lawson sees garden as more than a food source and wants to define a

dominant rationale behind the garden. The book City Bountiful has three prominent themes. First

it looks at the way that agriculture is produced in cities. Next it provides an examination of the

way that education can be and is connected to education. Finally Lawson addresses the way that

gardens bring diverse communities together, and the way that they promote self-help. As she

explores these three themes, Lawson wishes to “document the history of urban garden programs”

as she organized her book around “periods of national promotion.” Overall, Lawson gives a

thought provoking analysis of a new way to look at gardens as more than a food source or a

pleasant thing to look at.14

12 Pauly, Fruits and Plains, 232, 235. 13 Ibid 14 Lawson, City Bountiful, 1-13.

World War II

As previously mentioned, the political significance of the garden seems to be avoided in

historical scholarship. This trend continues in covering the analysis of World War II victory

gardens. However, contemporary scholarship is giving more space and attention to the victory

garden, than the scholarship produced about World War II in the decades immediately after the

War.

One piece of historical scholarship, Eating For Victory: Food Rationing and the Politics

of Domesticity dedicates half of a chapter to the study of victory gardens. Similar to the case

study of this thesis, Amy Bentley uses the victory garden to analyze American society. She looks

at society based on gender, ethnicity, and region; paying particular attention to the way men and

women participated in the victory garden program, the struggle that African Americans faced in

planting gardens, and the various regions where gardens were grown, particularly along the

Atlantic Seaboard and down South. Her purpose in analyzing these case studies is to understand

what the role of food was in aiding the war effort.15 Bentley brings to light important factors related to the World War II victory garden as she demonstrates the social and societal foundation upon which victory gardens were based. However, she does rely heavily on numbers in order to support her point.16 While this is an acceptable way to analyze victory gardens, there is more to the wartime garden than how many people grew them. The victory garden has a greater political idea surrounding it. Bentley hints at this when she mentions the community-oriented significance of the victory garden, noting that it brought all types of people together; however, she attributes it more to a burst of patriotic emotion to counter rationing, than as a political ideology that was

15 Amy Bentley, Eating For Victory: Food Rationing and the Politics of Domesticity (Chicago: University of Illinois, 1998), 114-141. 16 Ibid.

purposefully presented to the home front population.17 This thesis builds on the idea of people

being brought together by gardens and expands on it by looking at it through the socio-political

relationship that is formed between the American people and their government.

A second influential contributor to the history of victory gardens is Cecilia Gowdy-

Wygant, who combined her interests in women’s history and environmental history to pen the

book Cultivating Victory: The Women’s Land Army & the Victory Garden Movement.18

Constructing her argument through a case study comparison of two countries; Great Britain and

the United States, she examines women’s history during the First and Second World Wars through the lens of agricultural production. She does an admirable job bringing together the multiple themes of women, nations, time periods, and the environment in order to explain and interpret historic “cultural memory” related to victory gardening.19 This technique provides a

fresh perspective for chronicling the history surrounding gardens. However, even as Gowdy-

Wygant uses the land movement and agricultural production as one of the components of her

argument, she is more focused on the role of women, than on gardens as she downplays a

broader political meaning. Her ultimate focus is on women’s history and the memory of

women’s roles during wartime agricultural production; examining not only the individual

experiences of women, but also looking at the collective and international experience of women

working in agriculture as a whole.20 Nonetheless, Cultivating Victory provides a very important

analysis about agricultural history. The book adds to the historical discussion and surrounding

17 Ibid, 115-128. 18 Front Range Community College, “Our Faculty: Cecilia Gowdy-Wygant, Ph.D,” Front Range Community College, http://www.frontrange.edu/Faculty-and-Staff/Faculty-Bios/Online-Learning/Cecilia-Gowdy Wygant.aspx (accessed July 15, 2014). Metropolitan State University of Denver, “MSU Denver A to Z: Cecilia Gowdy-Wygant,” Metropolitan State University of Denver, http://www.msudenver.edu/searchchannel/jsp/directoryprofile/profile.jsp?uName =cgowdywy (accessed July 15, 2014). 19 Cecilia Gowdy-Wygant, Cultivating Victory: The Women's Land Army & the Victory Garden Movement (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2013), 9. 20 Gowdy-Wygant, Cultivating Victory, 10-12.

literature, which helps to lay the foundation of analyzing victory gardens.

Both of these historians address the private importance of the victory garden, examining

it from the perspective of who was involved. Gowdy-Wygant and Bentley see the domestic side

of gardening as a point of how gardens provided for people. The relationship that they see is the

connection between the individual and the garden that they rely on, in order to eat. A second

strength of both of those studies is that they both bring a fair amount of attention to the victory

garden. One other asset that is present in both works is that they provide a nod to the

circumstances surrounding victory gardens, noting that there were outside factors that impacted

the victory garden. However, these two authors, and some of their fellow historians, tend to miss

or avoid the political side of victory gardens and the fact that the garden has a place in the public

sphere, particularly in relations to political events. I am tracking gardening as political ideology,

across periods of heightened tension throughout American history.

So, does anyone recognize that there may be more to the victory garden? Do they

recognize that perhaps gardens can have political significance? Is there any regard for the civic

role related to gardens? The article “In the Sweat of Our Brow: Citizenship in American

Domestic Practice During WWII—Victory Gardens” provides this type viewpoint on the concept

of the victory garden. Char Miller, a professor of Cultural Studies at George Mason University,

states, “Victory gardens remain one of the most compelling memories of domestic participation

[from] the Second World War.”21 Miller’s argument paves the way to begin looking at victory gardens from different perspectives, viewing them as a substantial component on their own rather than as a policy of necessity that stemmed from rationing. Miller has a highly positive

21 Char Miller, “In the Sweat of Our Brow: Citizenship in American Domestic Practice During WWII— Victory Gardens,” The Journal of American Culture 26, no. 23 (2004): 395. Wiley Online Library 2013 Full Collection, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1542-734X.00100/epdf (accessed July 19, 2013). George Mason University, “Faculty and Staff: Char R. Miller,” College of Humanities and Social Sciences http://chss.gmu.edu/people/cmillerd (accessed August 15, 2014).

outlook on the victory garden, often mentioning the spiritual and healing side of gardening. Thus,

he provides a unique viewpoint, noting that the victory garden does have significance outside of

its domestic role of providing provisions. But like the two previous scholars mentioned, he

makes sure to include their domestic role. Even if, in the end, he is more concerned with the

philosophical and artistic aspects of gardening, he does include a discussion of gardening and

politics.22

Overall, these three scholars provide ample recognition to the victory garden, pointing out that victory gardens are important and should not only be a side note to the more commonly discussed parts of the World War II home front, such as rationing, Japanese Internment or Rosie the Riveter. However, they fail to grasp or explore the broader political significance of the victory garden; both as the pinnacle of government-endorsed gardening and the lasting legacy and memory that surrounds World War II. Furthermore, historians dedicated to the study of garden history, do not analyze gardens through popular politics.

Post World War II-Urban Gardening

One other aspect that should be mentioned is the historiography surrounding gardens in the post-World War II world. This type of garden that formulated after the war is a bit different and is based in direct reference to urbanization. Doctor Karen Schmelzkopf, a geographer and urban historian, argues that gardens, in the context of cities in the United States, are not a new idea and that gardening increases during periods of crisis.23 This is significant for two reasons.

Similar to my argument, Schmelzkopf acknowledges that gardening is part of American culture,

meaning that they are worth studying because they make up an important facet of our society.

22 Miller, “In the Sweat of Our Brow”. 23 Karen Schmelzkofp, “Urban Community Gardens As Contested Space,” American Geographical Society 85, no. 3 (1995): 364, JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/215279 (accessed November 5, 2014).

Second, She recognizes that gardens can be connected to ideas; although she looks at in an urban

context with the garden being included in the ideas of city planning, rather than examining the

ideas that the garden reflects or encompasses. Furthermore, Schmelzkopf’s article focuses on the

connection between gardens and impoverished areas of New York in relation to politics. She

brings up the family-nature of the garden and the fact that gardens are mostly run by women.

Schmelzkopf also makes the argument that gardens decrease drug usage among the urban poor.24

Chapter Overview

In order to understand the deeper significance of gardens in relation to American politics,

I have examined a variety of sources including: political speeches and documents, garden instruction manuals, propaganda posters, articles discussing the implementation of gardens into schools, contemporary children’s literature, and memoirs. Other historians, including Gowdy-

Wygant have looked at these sources, but they had a less diverse mixture, limited to propaganda posters and instruction manuals.

Ultimately the goal of this thesis is to bring attention to the victory garden’s place as both

a crucial part of World War II policy, and as an example of the way politics have surrounding

gardens throughout U.S. history. In order to do so one must look at how the victory garden fits

into the broader scope of gardening history. Therefore, chapter one lays the foundation of

government-endorsed gardening in American history, noting the various eras that gardens have

been used by the government to implement policy. The second chapter is a case study on victory

gardens, which examines the way that Franklin Roosevelt successfully used gardens to influence

the American population. Chapter three looks at the legacy of the World War II victory garden

and the way that government-endorsed gardening continues to show up in American society

24 Ibid, 364, 369, 371.

since the end of the Second World War. Together, these three chapters look at a combination of social, cultural, and political history through the concept of gardens. Gardens can be used as a platform to analyze the socio-political relationship between the United States government and the American people.

Chapter 1

Gardening Across Time: The Yeoman Farmer to the Depression Gardener

“No occupation is so delightful to me as the culture of the earth, and no culture comparable to that of the garden... But though an old man, I am but a young gardener.”25

-Thomas Jefferson (20 August 1811)

The history of gardening is quite extensive with roots that spread across both time and culture. Due to its deep expanse, this study limits its focus to gardens in the United States, particularly the vegetable gardens grown during the Second World War. However, in order to understand the importance of the World War II victory garden, it is crucial to understand how they fit into the broader historical context of gardens from various periods of America history.

This chapter examines the key political events and ideologies used to stimulate and inspire gardening in the United States.

Before exploring past gardens it is necessary to define a few terms. In this chapter, a very loose definition of gardening is being used, meaning a garden will be classified as any area of land used to grow food non-commercially, specifically vegetables, regardless of the size or acreage of land. Thus, in chapter one, this term encompasses small plots of land used to grow a few vegetables to feed a family with, all the way up to plots of land that were used as kitchen gardens that were grown upon traditional farms. For chapters two and three, the term gardening focuses on smaller sized gardens, because later on in the twentieth century, gardening came to refer to smaller sized gardens, but the term was more expansive in earlier periods of American

25 Jefferson to Charles W. Peale, August 20, 1811. Lipscomb, Andrew A. and Albert Ellery Bergh, ed. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Volume 13. Washington D.C.: Issued under the auspices of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association of the United States, 1903-04, p. 79. Retrieved from The Thomas Jefferson Foundation Inc. “Research and Collections: Famous Jefferson Quotes.” http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and collections/famous-jefferson-quotes (accessed July 29, 2014).

history. Similar to defining the term “garden” in a broader context, so too it is necessary to take

an expanded view of government-endorsed gardening, using the term to convey and describe any

role that the government played in influencing the population to grow their own food on a small

scale. Such endorsements include involvement at the individual level, where a leader expresses

his personal visions and ideas of how society should be structured in terms of growing food; and

extends, all the way to the actual implementation of a political policy, which specifically

instructs the American population to grow their own food in place of commercial agriculture. In

essence, government-endorsed gardening includes any interest, involvement, influence, or action

that the government takes in influencing the way individual citizens, particularly farmers, to

grow their own food.

Thomas Jefferson’s Yeoman Farmer:

The Inspiration for Government-Endorsed Gardening

Thomas Jefferson was elected President of the United States less than two decades after the Constitution was adopted. There was still much debate over how the country should be

governed and organized. Individuals argued whether the nation should industrialize and develop

into cities or if it should remain rural with individual farms. It was in the context of this debate,

during the late 1700s and early 1800s, where the government’s endorsement of gardening truly

begins. The first noteworthy example of government-endorsed gardening was grounded in

Thomas Jefferson’s vision for the United States. America’s third president longed for the United

States to be a land full of small farms, run by independent individuals. These “Yeoman farmers”,

as they were often referred to, would be the foundation of democracy.26 This idea, the yeoman

farmer, set the precedent for the federal government to implement ideology through the use of

26 Wood, Empire of Liberty, 277-278.

agricultural production, connecting politics to the promotion of food production. This established a tradition of connecting citizenship to the land. Thomas Jefferson’s political policy was largely focused upon, fulfilling his vision of the yeoman farmer. This idea did not necessarily originate with Thomas Jefferson, as it was discussed prior to his articulation of the concept, but he is the president who implemented it as a legitimate policy.27 The yeoman farmer was tied to the specific virtues that sprang from the American Revolutionary War.

In 1801, Thomas Jefferson gave his First Annual Message and said that agriculture was one of the “4 pillars of our [the United States] prosperity.” 28 It was through agriculture production that there would be liberation, that the United States could thrive and be the “most free.”29 Jefferson goes on to explain that through “the pursuit of agriculture…[is] sensible that the earth yields subsistence with less labor and more certainty than the forest.”30 On the one hand,

Jefferson was referring to the Native Americans, however; he sees that the best way for them to assimilate into American culture is by adopting the agricultural practices of the nation.

Thomas Jefferson approached both his foreign and domestic policies for the United States with this viewpoint of the yeoman farmer in mind. Jefferson is linked to the idea or need for the

American population to be made up of virtuous landowners, which he believed made the people more free and independent. Thus gardening, in its broader context, represented the main components of his political philosophy. In essence, Thomas Jefferson’s plan was to build an agriculture-based society that connected the people and the government through the use of land, stemming away from an industrial economy and instead embodying the virtues of an agrarian

27 Steven Sarson, “Yeoman Farmers in a Planters' Republic: Socioeconomic Conditions and Relations in Early National Prince George's County, Maryland,” Journal of the Early Republic 29, no. 1 (Spring 2009): 63-99, JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40208239 (accessed July 31, 2014). 28 Thomas Jefferson, “First Annual Message, December 8, 1801” archived by John Wooley and Gerhard Peters http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29443&st=agriculture&st1= (accessed April 12, 2015). 29Ibid. 30 Thomas Jefferson, “Fifth Annual Message, December 5, 1805” archived by John Wooley and Gerhard Peters http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29447&st=farm&st1= (accessed April 12, 2015).

community. He believed that this would provide more freedom to the American people, so that

they were not accountable to another man for their survival. Additionally, focusing on

agriculture diverted attention away from material goods, which spoiled American virtue.31

Jefferson was willing to use the government as a tool to bring about the idea surrounding his vision, but at the same time his vision is one where the government takes a back seat in the actual production of gardening or yeoman farming. Jefferson’s endorsement of gardening was connected to his political power; once he established his visionary society, he wanted to allow the men to be independent farmers. In his 1805 Inaugural Address, he states “the pleasure an the pride of an American to ask, What farmer, what mechanic, what laborer ever sees a taxgather

[sic] of the United States… to extinguish the native right of soil within our limits, to extend those limits, and to apply such a surplus to our public debt as places at a short day their final redemption, and that redemption once effected the revenue thereby liberated.”32 The first group

Jefferson mentioned that had political involvement of paying taxes were those who were

employed in the field of agricultural. He continues by referring to the soil as how the country can

find redemption and be liberated.

Thomas Jefferson’s policy was inspired by his personal life. Monticello, his home in

Virginia, housed three different gardens: flower gardens, vegetable gardens and fruit gardens, as

well as a featured ground. Jefferson had a prominent interest in the gardens surrounding his

home, sketching their layout, cataloging his plants, and even working in them on occasion.

Furthermore, for almost six decades Jefferson kept a diary or “Garden Kalendar” about the plants

that he was growing, breeding, and importing from neighbors and acquaintances from Europe.

Jefferson’s vast botanical collection also housed plant specimens that Lewis and Clark collected

31 Wood, Empire of Liberty, 277-278, 498-500, 20-22. 32 Thomas Jefferson, “Inaugural Address, March 4, 1805” archived by John Wooley and Gerhard Peters http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25804&st=farmer&st1= (accessed April 12, 2015).

during their exploratory expedition to the Pacific. Like many men from his time, Thomas

Jefferson was a dedicated scholar of the study of horticulture, as well as an avid experimenter,

and scientist.33 He enjoyed cross-pollination and the breeding of plants, which he engaged in order to produce the strongest and most successful plant. The meticulous record keeping mirrored itself in the way that Thomas Jefferson structured his garden. As of 1812, Thomas

Jefferson’s two-acre vegetable garden was arranged by placing similar plants next to one another.

There were three main categories of plants. The first category was “fruit” bearing plants and included things like tomatoes and beans. These plants produced a specific product for Jefferson to consume. The second group was classified as “root” based plants, and contained things like beets or carrots. These plants were ones that had a product that grew underground. The third section was defined as plants with “leaves”. These plants are recognized as leafy-greens, which grow above ground, and included cabbage and lettuce.34 Thomas Jefferson paid great attention to

detail and organization, as is illustrated in the precise laying out of his gardens and orchards. He

believed this same type of order should be practiced and applied when implementing democracy.

Similarly to disorder that could be caused in a garden, (mixing plants that required different care

or allowing weeds to overtake the garden) disorder in the young nation would cause problems

and risk the health of the country, thus it must be willfully guarded and tended.

Agriculture was extremely important to Thomas Jefferson on a personal level. His home

was surrounded with hundreds of different types of plants used as both edible and beautifying

decorative plants. He prided himself on these gardens and enjoyed them immensely, especially

as a point of modernization and scientific discovery. Ultimately, he took his private, personal

33 Pauly, Fruits and Plains, 9-32. 34 The Thomas Jefferson Foundation Inc., “House & Gardens.” The Thomas Jefferson Foundation, http://www.monticello.org/site/house-and-gardens (accessed July 29, 2014).

fascination, and applied the idea to the nation during his presidency.35 Jefferson believed that

growing a garden and producing one’s own food made the citizenry more virtuous and were

consequently better citizens.36 In order to demonstrate the idea of being more righteous or moral than non-food growers, Jefferson called for the American people to create a frontier full of garden farms.

Although Thomas Jefferson’s vision for the United States never came to fruition, his

views are an early example of the connection between government policy and gardening. Amidst

these debates, agricultural development and experimentation continued to occur. Historian Philip

Pauly argues, “These activities fundamentally altered not only the vegetation, but also the

economic activities, social relations, and common experiences of Americans. They shaped the

identity of the United States.”37 As the identity of the United States was being shaped and formed, gardens represented the virtuous and moral uprightness to which the new Republic aspired.

Gardens symbolized civic duty and responsibility, showing that it was possible for individuals to be independent and self-sustaining as they grew their own food. Essentially, the garden was a tangible representation of the independence that America had recently won from Great Britain.

This moral way of life was not limited solely to men; women could also demonstrate their civic duty and prove their morality by working in the garden that would help feed their families.38 As the century continued on an ideological shift occurred, which allowed for women to assert their authority as keepers of the family kitchen garden. By tending to the family garden, women not only provided their families with fresh vegetables, but they also demonstrated that

35 The Thomas Jefferson Foundation Inc., “House & Gardens”. 36 Caroline Henderson, Letters From the Dust Bowl (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 2001), 4. Brian Steele, “Thomas Jefferson's Gender Frontier,” The Journal of American History 95, no. 1 (June 2008): 17-42, JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25095463 (accessed July 31, 2014). 37 Pauly, Fruits and Plains, 1. 38 Steele, “Thomas Jefferson’s Gender Frontier”.

they were respectable women. In a sense, by literally growing roots into the ground, it

demonstrated that they were reliable, virtuous, and moral, and that as proper ladies, they could

and would take care of their families, passing on the ideal of the new Republic.39 Gardens upheld

the values of the virtuous citizen, which were promoted by the women of the Republic and

associated with the yeoman farmer. Even as there was a shift away from the values connected to

the yeoman farmer, there continued to be a presence of the United States government in concepts

pertaining to gardening, as the Postal Service subsidized the price of seeds.40

American Gardens Influence Abroad

In reviewing the history of gardens and environmental studies, one name tended to reoccur.41 While this individual has little correlation to the rest of this thesis, it necessary to mention him, as he is not only alluded to in the surrounding conversation of urban garden focused histories, but he also addresses the public significance of gardens. Ebenezer Howard was an Englishman who visited America during the 1890s and was inspired by the gardens in

American cities. Enamored by the idea of improving urban areas, and as a progressive individual himself, Howard returned home to Great Britain and attempted to establish a city dedicated to the

39 Pauly, Fruits and Plains, 234-235. Gowdy-Wygant, Cultivating Victory, 27-28. Judith W. Page, “Reforming Honeysuckles: Hannah More’s ‘Coelebs in Search of a Wife’ and the Politics of Women’s Gardens,” Keats-Shelly Journal 55 (2006), JSTOR http://www.jstor.org/stable/30210647 (accessed March 2, 2015). Susan Groag Bell, “Women Create Gardens in Male Landscapes: A Revisionist Approach to the Eighteenth-Century English Garden History,” Feminist Studies 16, no. 3 (Autumn, 1990), JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3178016 (accessed March 2, 2015). Norma Taylor Mitchell, review of The Enclosed Garden: Women and Community in the Evangelical South, 1830- 1900, by Jean E. Freidman, The Journal of Southern History, 52, no. 4 (November 1986): 626-627. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2209164 (accessed March 2, 2015). 40 Cheryl Lyon-Jenness, “Planting a Seed: The Nineteenth-Century Horticultural Boom in America,” The Business History Review 78 no. 3 (Autumn, 2004), JSTOR, http://www.jstory.org/stable/25096907 (accessed March 2, 2015). 41 Howard Gillette Jr., Civitas by Design: Building Better Communities, from the Garden City to the New Urbanism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2010). Judd, The Untilled Garden.

garden lifestyle. These new developments were referred to as Garden Cities and were

constructed on the idea of “faith in the ameliorative effect of a good environment and sought in

their best efforts to implement change for the betterment of civic life, not just of individuals.”42

In other words, these Garden Cities were built to change the environment that people lived in

because reform could only be achieved if all of society, both people and places, was made better.

Thus, it was believed that by creating peaceful areas connected to nature, and moving away from

the crowds and the overwhelming stress of the city, society could be reformed. Ebenezer

Howard’s theory is important to acknowledge because it highlights the ideological connection

attached to gardens; demonstrating the influence that gardens had on refining society in terms of

the public sphere. By acknowledging Howard’s observation, the motive for the United States

government to adopt gardens as the technique to implement policy can be understood, since there

was a sense of improvement connected to the reputation of the garden. Howard’s theory is

evidence that the idea of the garden is important when it comes to structuring society and

gardens can therefore be used as a way to regulate or encourage a population to adopt a

particular policy.43

1890’s Recession: State Level Government-Endorsed Gardening

Even though the yeoman farmer never truly existed in American society, the garden lingered on, never quite leaving the public sphere. The 1890s witnessed an economic crisis, which caused social upheaval particularly in cities. Many people found themselves unemployed, strikes and protests alarmed local officials. Since even in times of unemployment people still need to eat, the progressive Mayor of Detroit, Hazen S. Pingree, came up with a solution. The

42 Gillette, Civitas by Design, 2. 43 Stanley Buder, Visionaries and Planners: The Garden City Movement and the Modern Community (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990).

city funded and supplied areas for families to plant and grow food so that they could eat during

the upcoming year. These “potato patches” allowed for poorer individuals who could not afford

land to “own” land for the first time. These gardens represented an alternative to charity, by giving men the opportunity to feed their families, providing a connection to nature, and a break from the highly industrialized lifestyle, as well as the communal purpose that many of these now unemployed workers had grown accustomed too. If the garden had any leftover produce, families could sell fresh vegetables as a source of income. The gardens provided the much-needed relief, and the concept quickly spread to other major cities in the United States.44 Even as this time of

crisis enveloped the city, men or women were able to provide for their families through their

own hard work. The urge to help society recover correlated with the Progressive Era, which was

gaining popularity at the time. Additionally, using gardens as a way to help people related to

another political group known as the Populists. The Populists had a strong holding in the South

and Midwest and believed that society should be reformed through the use of agriculture.45

Lingering feelings of nostalgia penetrated the difficult economic times; the people believed that

returning to the land, like Thomas Jefferson had originally endorsed, would help society recover.

Although they did not have paying jobs, there was a place for them to go, reconnect with the land,

and work for their food. Unemployed men worked the vacant plots, which were provided by

their city’s legislators, to keep themselves and their families from starving.46 Local level

government implemented a policy to help take care of the people in their communities.

44 Walter Punch, Keeping Eden: A History of Gardening in America (Boston: Bluefinch Press Little Brown and Company, 1992), 160. Sam Bass Warner, Jr. To Dwell is to Garden: A History of Boston’s Community Gardens, (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1987), 13-16. Lawson, City Bountiful, 17-44. 167. 45 Shigeo Hirano, “Third Parties, Elections, and Roll-Call Votes: The Populist Party and the Late Nineteenth-Century U.S. Congress,” Legislative Studies Quarterly 33, no. 1 (February 2008), http://www.jstor.org/stable/40263450 (accessed April 19, 2015), 135. 46 Punch, Keeping Eden, 160.

This practice of community gardens was adopted by other suffering cities across the country. Twenty other cities implemented this policy; altering it in order to produce a larger variety of vegetable, than the original “Pingree’s Potato Patches” grew.47 The gardens provided

nutritious, fresh food for the community as a whole. These gardens were established as a result

of direct political action. City mayors across the country saw that their constituents were

suffering and needed food; thus, they implemented policy that would help their residents. As the

decade continued, and the charity program was recognized for its success, local city-government

involvement increased, as they advocated the gardens as “‘People Friendly Clubs’” which

allowed the programs to last for quite a while.48 Government-endorsed gardening was implemented at a local level during the 1890s because local governments were most connected to the population. Mayors believed it was their responsibility to help provide food for their suffering unemployed people. Gardens became a public community event, rather than an individual, privatized, independent way to provide for one’s family.49 Gardens helped pave the

way for community togetherness and improvement, creating a period where citizenship was

defined by individuals joining together in order to create a more pleasant and proper society.

Building a virtuous community shifted from the responsibility of the virtuous individual and

became the duty of the public.

The Pingree potato patches began in the early years of the Progressive Era. This period is

remembered for its attempt to reform society through various social movements. This era of

betterment through social reform lasted for three decades spanning the period of the 1890s

47 Punch, Keeping Eden, 160. 48 Punch, Keeping Eden, 160. Pauly, Fruits and Plains, 188. 49 Buder, Visionaries and Planners, 161.

1910s.50 The goal of these social movements was to make the world a better place by fixing society through the implementation of moral practices. Women represented the prominent push behind the Progressive Movement and much of their focus was aimed at fixing life in American cities. This was done through child labor laws, attempting to combat poverty and disease in cities, and through the practice of conservation.51 It is through the interest in conservation and the

related study of horticulture that led to the creation of garden clubs for women, which highlights

the people’s involvement in government-endorsed gardening during the Progressive Era. Local

governments provided programs, which supplied a source for unemployed individuals to work

for food. There is a lingering hint of the yeoman farmer ideology connected to the potato patch

movement; men could regain some of their independence and provide for their families by

returning to the land and embracing the fruits of their hard work. Furthermore, there is a direct

correlation between the government and their encouragement of growing gardens. In this case, it

was to make sure their people did not starve during a difficult economic time, while fulfilling the

ideals of Progressive Era conservation.

Progressive Era Gardens: The People’s Push

In order to understand the concept of government-endorsed gardening, it is equally

important to examine the role that the people played in establishing the policy, as it is to focus on

the government’s role in implementing the policy. Social reform movements heavily influenced

political policy during the Progressive Era. Much of this reform was populace-based and

50 George Washington University, “Teaching Eleanor Roosevelt Glossary: The Progressive Era (1890 1920),” George Washington University, http://www.gwu.edu/~erpapers/teachinger/glossary/progressive-era.cfm (accessed June 24, 2014). 51 Library of Congress, “Progressive Era to New Era, 1900-1929: Cities during the Progressive Era,” Library of Congress, http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/ presentations/timeline/progress/cities/ (accessed June 24, 2014). Library of Congress. “Progressive Era to New Era, 1900-1929: Conservation in the Progressive Era.” (accessed June 24, 2014).

pressured the government to pass legislation, which addressed their concerns. This practice was

used to carry out nature-based legislation. American Progressives created garden societies, which

enthusiastically petitioned the government to create public areas where the people could enjoy

and experience nature.52

The uniting of the population and government is particularly evident in the promotion of gardens in the area of education. School gardening programs were supported by both the education system and the adult population and readily endorsed by President Theodore Roosevelt.

This is in part because children, like the garden, were viewed as something that needed to be gently nurtured and cared for in order to come into proper fruition. Children were introduced to the importance of gardening, in terms of both agricultural production, as well as being exposed to the natural world. This would lead to a more moral and improved citizenry; since, children were being properly cared for and learning about the “beauty and bounty” that nature provides.

Furthermore, children were taught to take pride in this type of civic engagement and value and conserve nature.53

These policies came to fruition under the policy of environmental reform. The garden areas established during the Progressive Era increasingly became areas of public enjoyment.

Women continued their involvement from the nineteenth century, and made gardens a place to cultivate beauty and reflection. Even as the gardens shifted to be a tool for the public, they were still used by the middle and upper classes as a way to create better citizens.54

During the Progressive Era the desire for political reform was combined with idealism

52 Buder, Visionaries and Planners, 40, 50, 103, & 161. Gillette, Civitas by Design, 61. 53 Sally Gregory Kohlstedt, “‘A Better Crop of Boys and Girls’: The School Gardening Movement, 1890 1920,” Education Quarterly 48, no. 1 (February 2008), Wiley Online Library http://www.onlinelibrary.iley.com.ezproxy.csusm.edu (accessed March 2, 2015), 60-61, 66, & 73-74. 54 Buder, Visionaries and Planners, 40, 50, 103, & 161. Howard Gillette Jr., Civitas by Design, 61.

that sought to make the world a better place. Therefore, they used this inspiration to encourage

the government to endorse and implement public gardens. In this case, these public gardens were

more flower and non-edible plant based gardens than the two types of gardens that were

mentioned in the previous sections. However, they still reflect the policy of the government

mandating gardening on the America people. During this period the people readily embraced this

policy and not only eagerly accepted it, they pushed for the government to implement it.

Furthermore, it is also important to note that even though these public gardens typically are not

vegetable-based gardens, and therefore slightly outside of the definition that this thesis is using,

other historians include these plant based public areas as part of the history of gardening in the

United States.55 Additionally, these public area gardens demonstrate the people’s response to

government-endorsed gardening.

The other notable shift about Progressive Era gardens is the role that women played.

Although women had tended the garden prior to the Progressive Era, it was during this period

that gardening officially and deliberately became a form of female activism. No longer were

women using gardens simply as a way to take care of their families; instead, the Progressive Era

paved the way for women to move away from the private sphere and into the public sphere.

Gardens provided the perfect platform for women to show their concern about society. It was at

this point that women became more active in the previously male-dominated field of scientific

research of horticulture. Studying and experimenting with plants quickly turned into a female-

based activity of gardening.56 Gardening had traditionally been a gendered activity, but as it moved to the public sphere, women created gardening clubs and used gardens as beautifying projects. The Progressive Era is a pivotal point in American history because it led to the

55 Pauly, Fruits and Plains, 1. 56 Pauly, Fruits and Plains, 53 & 231. Tucker, Kitchen Gardening in America, 27.

intertwining of women, gardening, and politics. Women found a political voice by advocating for

reform. Gardens and areas of public space provided a platform for women to voice their opinions

in the public sphere.

Over all, the Progressive Era reflects both a very interesting as well as significant

defining moment in the history of government-endorsed gardening. It represents the first

widespread adoption of a conscious policy of encouraging gardening for the civic good. The

Progressive Era reflects the groundbreaking moment, where the endorsement of policy stemmed from the values of progressive women. Furthermore, the Progressive Era highlights the social side of the implementation of a policy. The people pushed for legislation and the government responded. Women were some of the most prominent leaders in pushing for the conservation of gardens and convincing the United States government to implement the garden-based policy of moral reform.

World War One: The Birth of Victory Gardens in America

Since gardening became a tool for Progressive Era social reform, it is not surprising that a war led by a progressive president, Woodrow Wilson, employed gardening as a means to engage the home front. As the world faced the bloodiest, most devastating war that it had ever witnessed, the United States urged its citizens to return to gardening. Once again, women found themselves at the forefront of a political gardening campaign. Unlike the previous decade female gardeners were not reforming society and providing aesthetically pleasing areas or food supplements for their families, but instead women picked up their gardening tools in the name of patriotism and support for the war. Thus continuing the trend of women finding a political voice through the use of gardens.57 Furthermore, Wilson saw food as a way to bring nations together, if Americans

57 Gowdy-Wygant, Cultivating Victory, 63-64.

grew their own food, then surplus food supplies could be sent to Europe and help rectify the

situation on the other side of the Atlantic. Thus helping to make the world “safe for

democracy.”58

Upon America’s entrance into the Great War, the United States government encouraged her citizens to be patriotic and grow gardens. Woodrow Wilson harkened back to the success of the gardens during the Progressive Era, and used gardens as a platform to push the population to demonstrate their allegiance to the nation. By using gardens, a concept that had been of great political and public concern, especially for women, during the previous decade, Wilson realized he could foster a strong sense of civic participation. Thus, America under his leadership would practice democracy and display it to the world. In 1917 Woodrow Wilson gave an address to the

Nation. He stated “that everyone who creates or cultivates a garden helps, and helps greatly, to solve the problem of the feeding of the nations.”59 For Woodrow Wilson, the garden not only showed patriotic support, it also embodied his political ideology, of creating a world that functioned on the standards of democracy.60 Participation in the World War One victory garden program displayed democracy in its most basic form, the people participating in government.

With Wilson’s assurance, and support that gardens were a necessary and helpful thing, gardens planted by a passionate population, sprang up in open public spaces across the country.61

Appreciation for nature and gardening continued on from the Progressive Era, prompting the

World War One home front to plant gardens wherever there was open land. They readily

supported Wilson’s policy of gardens. Furthermore, women were already a main staple in the

58 The White House, “Presidents: Woodrow Wilson,” The White House, http://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/presidents/woodrowwilson (accessed March 6, 2015). Gowdy-Wygant, Cultivating Victory, 77. 59 Woodrow Wilson, “Address to the Nation April 16, 1917” archived by John Wooley and Gerhard Peters http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=65399&st=garden&st1= (accessed April 12, 2015). 60 The White House, “Presidents: Woodrow Wilson”. 61 Tucker, Kitchen Gardening in America, 124-125, & 135.

world of public gardening, thus it was logical to use the garden to reach the population.

According to author Walter Punch, when Woodrow Wilson’s administration presented

the victory garden to the American people readily embraced it with a patriotic spirit and the

nostalgic connection to gardening as proposed by Thomas Jefferson over a century earlier.62 Thus,

gardening shifted away from being the vocation of individuals needing relief, and instead

became the duty of the American people. In doing this, the population presumably freed up the

food supply allowing it to be sent where it was most needed to help end the war.63 Gardens

signified unity for the nation and demonstrated life, via the growing of new plants and vegetables,

in a period when millions of men were being killed. Communities were brought together as they

grew gardens, rather than lounging around in the public areas that were created during the garden

movement of the Progressive Era, Americans were working together for a common goal of

creating a better world. People returned to the land as a source of food stability during this trying

time that the nation was facing.

As the nation mobilized for war, the federal government embraced the strategy of

gardening and implemented it as part of their political ideology. Woodrow Wilson’s

administration designated a government agency to promote gardens to the American public.

Through the aid of the National War Garden Commission, the director, Charles Lathrop Pack

“convinced the nation that gardening was a true test of patriotism…coining the term ‘Victory

Garden’.”64 The first victory gardens emerged during a time of fear, uncertainty, and war. These gardens gave hope to the American people because they were told that their hard work, of tilling the land and growing their own vegetables, would help bring about victory. Pack, shifted the

62 Punch, Keeping Eden, 160. Wood, Empire of Liberty, 277-278, 357, 320. 63 Punch, Keeping Eden, 160. 64 Ibid, 160.

focus of gardening away from the government’s advocacy and onto the American people’s

patriotic push to help liberate Europe and the unify the nation.65 Pack described the importance of

the victory garden saying, “The sole aim of the National War Garden Commission was to arouse

the patriots of America to the importance of putting all idle land to work, to teach them how to

do it, and to educate them to conserve by canning and drying all food they could not use while

fresh.”66

Even as the United States government encouraged and inspired the American people to grow gardens, they tried to shift attention away from the governmental ideology of former administrations. Previous administrations viewed the garden as the image of independence or the political power of the individual. Instead, Wilson marketed the garden as a patriotic duty during the Great War, focusing on the benefit that the garden had in terms of bringing the nation together. The policy of victory gardens was not implemented until close to the end of the World

War One; therefore, there was only about one season’s worth of victory gardens grown during

the First World War. Nonetheless, gardening was again used as a political tool by the United

States government to encourage the American people to enlist in a political ideology:

conservation, patriotism, and not being idle during times of war.

In addition to the shift in the political ideology, a second shift connected to gardening

also occurred during the First World War. With American men away fighting in the Great War,

gardening built upon its Progressive Era roots and focused more and more upon women. The

United States’ government, to till the land and grow food for their country, specifically and

deliberately called upon women.67 As noted previously, women often occupied the role of gardener; however, with the men away during the First World War, the United States

65 Gowdy-Wygant, Cultivating Victory, 80-81. 66 Charles Lathrop Pack, The War Garden Victorious (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1919), 10. 67 Gowdy-Wygant, Cultivating Victory, 15-16, 31, 43.

government finally and officially recognized that women were the ones who were responsible for

producing gardeners. This is noticed in the use of propaganda that was published during the First

World War. Figures 1 and 2 highlight the role that women played in gardening. In figure 1,

young woman are called to serve in the “land army” just like young men were called to serve in

Figure 1. Guenter, Get Behind Figure 2. James Montgomery Flagg, the Girl He left Behind Him, Sow the Seeds of Victory! Plant & Join the Land Army (1918). raise your own vegetables, (1918).

the military.68 In both cases, the government calls upon its citizenry to serve. However, the focus of the propaganda poster is clearly on convincing women to join the gardening campaign that the

United States government is endorsing. The female gardener is the prominent figure, and the soldier behind her is shadow-like. Figure 2 has a similar message although, this time it is even more politicized, as the woman represents America, as she is draped in the American flag. The text of the poster encourages the personal responsibility of people, women in particular, to raise their own gardens.69

68 Guenter, Get Behind the Girl He Left Behind Him, Join the Land Army, The American Lithographic Co., New York, 1918. Library of Congress, Pos-WWI-US, no. 156. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/00652171/ 69 James Montgomery Flagg, Sow the Seeds of Vicotory! Plant & raise your own vegetables, 1918. Library of Congress, POS-US.F63, no. 13. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2002712333/. Rose Hayden-Smith, Sowing the Seeds of Victory, (Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Company, Inc., 2014) e-book

Historian Cecilia Gowdy-Wygant explains that these propaganda posters represent the increasing political voice of women during this period, especially considering that the United

States’ government is placing authoritative female figures as the subject of these posters. In expanding upon this point, it is necessary to stress that the United States government was the one endorsing and sanctioning these posters, not necessarily the women themselves. These posters therefore provide a perfect example of the government’s interest and involvement in encouraging

the population to grow gardens. The fact that the government was sponsoring and issuing posters

with strong, able-bodied women carrying out the policy of gardening, demonstrates that Wilson’s

administration understood that if the National War Garden Commission wanted to be successful

in implementing the World War I victory garden policy, they needed to let women know that

they were capable of growing and producing food on their own. The most important thing to note

about these posters is that as the government was pushing and endorsing their policy of

gardening, in order for it to come to fruition, they had to aim the posters at women in order to

inspire them to take part in the victory gardening program.

The period of the Great War had a major impact on the history of government-endorsed

gardening. The government reclaimed its position of authority of making and deciding policy

from the public’s push during the Progressive Era; thus, returning to the government’s side of

government-endorsed gardening. Furthermore, the term victory garden emerged for the first time.

Finally, the gardens from the period of the Great War reflect how a simple idea can be carried

along throughout history, but is redefined for to fit new political ideologies and circumstances.

Gardening during the Great War was about patriotism and hope, whereas in previous periods

gardens were used to demonstrate independence, personal freedom, civic virtue, or used for

Location 2563-2883. Gowdy-Wygant, Cultivating Victory, 116, 119-120

survival.

All across the country, citizens quickly went to work finding pieces of vacant land to till

and plant gardens. In fact, since the World War I victory gardens came on the heels of the

Progressive Movement, which grounded itself in civic and public betterment, there was possibly

more acceptance of the National War Garden Commission’s plea for gardening than during the

Second World War.70 Charles Lathrop Pack commented on the success of the victory gardens of the Great War. He states, “War gardening fostered this spirit by enabling so many individuals not actually in the army to do something tangible in the struggle. Millions of patriots joined the army of the soil because of their deep love for their country and their desire to help in the hour of need.”71 In the eyes of the administration of the federal government, the World War I victory garden campaign was successful. People willingly participated to help win the war. This appeal to the patriotic spirit was replicated during the Second World War under the administration of

Franklin Roosevelt.

Gardening and the Great Depression: Building Community Through Relief

As the Great War came to a close, the patriotic zeal and support for growing World War I victory gardens fizzled out and American citizens returned to their daily lives.72 But this “return

to normalcy” lasted for only a few years, due to another, and this time even more devastating,

economic crisis. The 1930s brought about a second cataclysmic economic downturn, resulting in

the largest depression that the United States has ever witnessed. In order to combat the economic

depression, the government again depended on the influence of gardening. This time it was

70 Gowdy-Wygant, Cultivating Victory, 81-87. Tucker, Kitchen Gardening in America, 135-136. Lawson, City Bountiful, 117. 71 Pack, The War Garden Victorious, 33. 72 Punch, Keeping Eden, 160

through a federal policy implemented under Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal.

Although political ideology was once again apparent, this garden policy was driven

primarily by need. In order to combat unemployment and food shortages, the government urged

the American people to return to gardening. These relief and subsistence gardens demonstrated

the social and economic improvement of public areas and were therefore eligible for government

relief funding under the Federal Emergency Relief Act (FERA) program.73 The federal

government provided the funding, but it was the responsibility of local governments to disperse

it accordingly. Relief funding was offered and assessed on a case-by-case basis, and often times

it provided families with the money needed to purchase equipment, seeds for planting, or even

keep their land. The goal of relief was to help the American population to get back on their feet

and be able to survive.74

The gardens from the Great Depression continued the trend of civic participation. This is noted in the millions of people who participated in the Depression gardens. They participated because it was typically required that participants grow a garden in order to receive relief.75

Gardens were no longer the responsibility of the virtuous citizens of the days of Thomas

Jefferson. The women, who were determined to improve society from the Progressive Era, and

the patriotic individuals from the Great War, were no longer the managers of the garden. Instead

depression gardens reflected the idea of a virtuous government, where the government,

recognizing that its people were in distress, and provided relief to do what felt morally right, by

73 Lawson, City Bountiful, 158-159. 74 Louise V. Armstrong, We Too Are the People (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1938), 58-72. Douglas R. Hurt, The Dust Bowl: An Agricutural and Social History (Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1984), 55. Ronald Edsforth, The New Deal: America’s Response to the Great Depression (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2000), 219-220. Caroline Henderson, Letters From the Dust Bowl, ed. Alvin O. Turner (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 2001), 138. Harry L. Hopkins, Spending to Save: The Complete Story of Relief, 2nd ed. Roger Daniels (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1972), 142. 75 Lawson, City Bountiful, 152 & 163.

taking care of its destitute people.76 The idea of a “helper state” is made evident by Harry

Hopkins, the administrator in charge of FERA; he said,

When you get a man out of the house into the open, with a spade and rake and hoe, you lift him out of a bad mental state into which enforced idleness inevitably plunges him. His improved mental attitude reacts favorably upon his health, and so does the increase of fruits and vegetables in his diet.77 With so many individuals out of work, there was little optimism and hope among the public.

Men needed help from the government, as it was difficult and in some cases nearly impossible,

for the suffering population to express the work ethic of independent citizens. The government

recognized that the conditions of the Great Depression would make survival a very trying task and thus, took it upon itself to do the moral thing and help the discouraged people. Roosevelt’s administration understood that providing relief based on gardening would not only produce food, but it would also give the unemployed male population something to do, to help get their mind off of their hardships.

Facing deprivation, and with the encouragement of the government, the allure of gardening returned. As in the previous economic decline of the 1890s, vacant lots in cities were again turned into gardening plots and tended by those who were out of work. What was once known as the Pingree potato patch and later victory gardens were renamed “subsistence” or

“welfare” gardens.78 These gardens sprang up in cities all across the country helping to counter the impact of economic hardship and providing food for individuals who could otherwise not afford to eat. Unlike the vegetable garden from the economic crisis of the 1890s, the vegetables that were grown in the subsistence and welfare gardens could not be sold.79 This was due to the

other relief policies, which were implemented to help stabilize food prices. Eventually relief

76 Ibid, 161. 77 Ibid, 159. 78 Tucker, Kitchen Gardening in America, 132-133. 79 Lawson, City Bountiful, 144-158.

gardens were pushed aside and replaced with the food program.80

The idea associated with the Depression Era gardens was the need for relief and the idea that the government should do something to help the people in the time of their suffering. The

Depression gardens and the FERA relief program associated with them did not last through the whole Depression. By 1937, financial support from the federal government had dwindled, and

FERA was soon replaced with the Works Progress Administration and the Agricultural

Adjustment Act. Funding gardens as a form of relief was deemed inefficient and unsuccessful.

However, even as gardens ceased to be a requirement for relief, they were incorporated into other policies, as well as spurred on by some cities.81 It was necessary for relief to be provided on

a much bigger scale and in different ways.

In an effort to save the country during the economic crisis, the government took direct

action and produced legislation to aid the nation. In this period of history, the government

showed little restraint in implementing policy that endorsed and aided agricultural production.

The depression garden reflects the period where the United States government took the most

direct action and hands on approach to promoting the garden, but they did it in a benevolent way,

by tending to the needs of the American people. Thus the concept of citizenship was again

defined through the use of the garden. This time it the garden signified the sense of

interconnectedness that the American people share with the United States government and the

mutual reliance that is required in order for a nation to function. Gardens found a new place in

Roosevelt’s administration a few years later, when the United States faced a different type of

crisis, the Second World War.

80 Ibid, 146. 81 Ibid, 160-162.

Conclusion

When analyzing the government’s endorsement of gardening over time, one trend seems to stand out in particular. There seems to be a connection between the government increasing its endorsement of gardening in times of hardship, war, or periods of economic uncertainty, in order to institute a feeling of citizenship.

Thomas Jefferson advocated the idea of the yeoman farmer as the nation was trying to settle down and regain her footing after being shaken up by the Revolutionary War and the replacing of the Articles of Confederation in favor of the Constitution. Jefferson found constancy,

stability and unity for the whole country in the idea of agricultural production. The garden

moved away from the scientific discovery and exploration which so enthralled Jefferson and into

the women’s sphere, so that they could take care of their families. Years later, gardening again

posed itself as the solution to an immediate dilemma. This time however, it was an attempt to

resolve an economic quandary. The 1890s needed gardens to provide food for impoverished

unemployed men and their families. Gardening was used to solve problems at the local level and

for a much more practical purpose than Thomas Jefferson’s plan.

The Progressive Era produced a different view, allowing for government-endorsed

gardening to be looked at from the people’s perspective. This period demonstrates the

importance of the people engaging with the political ideology that the government provides to

the population. The Progressive Era also demonstrates a shift where women turned their private

gardening practices into official and public gardening.

Gardens remained prominent in the Progressive Era and continued on into the Great War.

As this devastating world war raged on, and the American government sent its young men

overseas to fight, the government endorsed a policy of growing gardens because they needed a

point of stability. Additionally, gardens encouraged a sense of solidarity and provided a way for the population to be involved with the states initiatives, particularly in displaying Wilson’s support of democracy. The government drew on progressive ideology, and used the garden in support of the state. Gardening helped to create a sense of unity throughout the country as the nation prepared for war. Therefore, Wilson used a policy that they people had been passionate about in the previous decade to bring the nation together, establishing a new order of government-endorsed gardening. Part of this discovery and his success was attributed to the nostalgic recollection of the kitchen garden as the basis for an independent home but that was not the purpose of the victory garden, which seemed to reveal gardening to be a point of constancy and stability, almost like a fixed point in time, that could be clutched to in times of unpredictability, struggle, or chaos.

When the Great Depression hit, the government recognized that it needed to take an active role in relief, but at first they tried to turn to gardens—perhaps because of continuing associations with independence and subsistence. In seeing that gardens were used successfully in previous times, Franklin Roosevelt implemented programs based on gardening in order to provide relief to the population. Now that the government had established gardening as a way to show loyalty to the state, thanks to Wilson in during the Great War, the government could now show how helpful it was, by providing financial relief if one agreed to plant a garden. Gardens produced food to counter hunger, offered work for men, and they supplied a task for the unemployed to focus upon and work towards. Thus Americans could have food in their bellies, and a more optimistic outlook now that they were receiving relief. Thus depression gardens provided a way for the government to demonstrate its benevolence, and solidify the case for broader relief.

Government-sponsored gardens have brought personal independence, national pride, a sense of security, hope and comfort, and supplied the basic need of food to scared, lonely, and starving people. The nation found itself in need of the comforts of national pride, hope and security as they faced the fears of the Second World War. Franklin Roosevelt found success in using the garden during the Great Depression and he brought it back as a component of his political policy during World War II, since access to food meant access to freedom. The World

War II victory garden provided a way for any citizen on the home front to participate to show their support for the war and demonstrate their solidarity as part of the nation.

Chapter 2

A Study in Gardens: The World War II Victory Garden

“[F]ew people realized the success of the nation-wide [victory garden] project.”82

- New York Times (24 March 1944) Government-endorsed gardening has a deeply rooted history in American political and social culture. While World War I laid the foundation demonstrating how useful gardens were to the government, it was not until the Second World War that the United States government fully realized the potential that gardens held in creating a unified society. Franklin Roosevelt utilized the garden to its full capacity in order to implement the ideology of citizenship.83 During World

War II, the victory garden highlighted concepts of citizenship by uniting the nation. Victory

gardens were grown in cities and in the countryside. In 1943 the U.S. Department of Agriculture

reported that 8,000,000 tons of food had been produced on the 4,000,000 acres of land that was

dedicated to growing victory gardens.84 Many children and adults grew the same type of garden, often times as a community, demonstrating that in order to be a good citizen during the war, one must be part of the whole of the nation and support the war. Citizenship meant involvement and action, doing something, whether it was rationing, scrap metal drives, or buying bonds to win the war. The victory garden was one of the things that anybody could do to show that they were working together to end the war. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt found a way to use gardens both effectively and successfully during his administration. It was under FDR’s political

82 New York Times, “Garden Week Gives Day to Vegetables: New Varieties, Timetable for Planting and Pest Control Discussed at Times Hall,” New York Times, March 24, 1944. 83 Rose Hayden-Smith, Sowing the Seeds of Victory: American Gardening Programs of World War I, (Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, 2014). 84Society of Science and the Public, “Victory Gardens Produce 8,000,000 Tons of Food,” Science News- Letter 44 no. 15 (October 9, 1943), JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3920074 (accessed April 12, 2015).

leadership that government-endorsed gardening reached its full potential, used as a tool to attract

the American people to participate in the war effort, as well as to bring awareness to his food

policy. Under the banner of the victory garden, Roosevelt’s administration rallied the home front

population around the idea of growing their own food.

Franklin Roosevelt had success in inspiring victory gardens because the idea was planted

in the New Deal and constantly propagated to the American population. Roosevelt’s

administration put more effort into advertising and convincing the population to grow gardens

than other administrations had done by presenting the victory garden as a request, rather than

mandating it like rationing.85 Furthermore, the World War II victory garden differed from previous attempts of government endorsed gardening due to the length of the Second World War, as well as the amount of involvement due to the size of the war. FDR continued the use of the victory garden, and expanded it by targeting the home front population from various angles, which stressed the values of a united country with universal involvement, working to end the war by using food as a weapon, both on the home front and away fighting at war.

If victory gardens are studied based only the numerical impact of how much food was produce, or examined solely in conjunction with canning, then perhaps victory gardens are not particularly significant. For example, does the 16 to 20 million pounds of food that was grown in victory gardens back in the 1940s have any impact today? All the food has since perished or been eaten.86 Additionally, what if these numbers have been exaggerated, as historians like Amy

Bentley suggest, and should be called into question. But other historians like Lisa Ossian, use statistical evidence to emphasize the rate of success of children’s participation in agricultural

85 Jessica A. Meyerson, “Theater of War: American Propaganda films During the Second World War,” in Propaganda, ed. Robert Jackall’s (Washington Square, NY: New York University Press, 1995), 226. 86 Gowdy-Wygant, Cultivating Victory

programs.87 Regardless, by looking beyond the numbers of gardens, and analyzing victory gardens as an idea and a symbol of citizen participation, it is evident that they were powerful enough to inspire and shape values.

The New York Times reported that in June 1943 “20,000,000 plots [were] now under

cultivation.”88 During the Second World War, the United States population was approximately

134,204,314. At a first look, the number of gardens that were planted seems to reflect the involvement of only 15% of the population.89 Beyond numbers, victory gardens operated at several levels—as a way to focus public attention on the food supply, as a way to highlight the voluntary, more democratic aspects of the war effort, and as a tool of civic education for children and families. A victory garden was not simply a piece of land used to grow vegetables. It was a political idea that the home front population adopted and embraced.

Roosevelt’s Food Policy: The Context for the Idea of Government-Endorsed Gardens

Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency was particularly focused on the nation’s food supply.

This is in part because he took office during the worst depression that the United States had ever

seen; but his concern did not end when the war helped to ease the conditions of the Depression.

This is evident by the number of speeches FDR gave, discussing the status of food in the United

States during the war years. The major theme presented in these speeches was the need to

increase the food supply in order to win the war; this could be accomplished if the population

grew victory gardens. The importance of this theme is demonstrated by his continual positive

reinforcement and support for those who did grow gardens. FDR endorsed a very specific pre

87 Lisa L. Ossian, The Forgotten Generation (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2011), 45, 97-98. 88 New York Times, “Gardens Held Key to Food Emergency,” New York Times, June 18, 1943. 89Another study estimates that about 1/3 of the population was involved.89 What these statistics fail to note is that many victory gardens were based on community plots, meaning, that even though there were only 20,000,000 gardens registered, there were more than 20 million people participating, because they shared gardens.

war idea to the home front population, having enough food meant that there was freedom.

In 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt gave a speech titled “The Four Freedoms.” In this speech, he tied “freedom from want” with more abstract concepts of national security and international rights. He began the speech talking about democracy and how democracy and freedom are what America stands for. By the end of the speech he stated as a concrete principle, that America stood for four freedoms.90 While the speech did not directly address the issue of food, its importance was implied, especially in the fourth freedom, “Freedom from want”, which was put into a food context by the poster, created by Norman Rockwell to illustrate each of the four freedoms. (See figures 3 and 4.)

If a person is starving and cannot access or afford to buy food, he or she is not free, but rather a slave to hunger. FDR believed that releasing people from the bonds of hunger was just as important as liberating them from oppressive forces. It was the duty of the United States to help feed and provide food to starving war-torn nations. Thus entered the victory garden program to free up the food supply and provide other nations, and our soldiers abroad with food. For

Roosevelt, “freedom from want” was not only an ideal for Americans; it was the right for people all over the world. Franklin Roosevelt’s administration was concern about food supply not only on the home front but also internationally.91

Freedom from want and the right to have food to eat was symbolized by the nuclear

90 Franklin Roosevelt, “Annual Message to Congress on the State of the Union, January 6, 1941,” archived by John Woolley and Gerhard Peters http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=16092&st=&st1= (accessed June 21, 2014). 91 Franklin Roosevelt, “Memoranda on Combined Production and Resources Board and Combined Food Board, June 9, 1942,” archived by John Woolley and Gerhard Peters, (accessed June 21, 2014). Franklin Roosevelt, “Letter to the United Nations Conference on Food and Agriculture, May 18, 1943,” archived by John Woolley and Gerhard Peters, (accessed June 21, 2014). Franklin Roosevelt, “Address to the United Nations Conference on Food and Agriculture, June 7, 1943,” archived by John Woolley and Gerhard Peters, (accessed June 21, 2014). Franklin Roosevelt, “Address on the Ninth Anniversary of the New Deal Farm Program, March 9, 1942,” archived by John Woolley and Gerhard Peters, (accessed June 21, 2014).

family structure depicted in the poster. Parents, grandparents, children, aunts and uncles, and

friends gather happily and eagerly around the table to celebrate what is assumed to be the

Thanksgiving holiday. Everyone is safe in this scene of plenty. There is enough food for

everyone, including fruits and vegetables, most likely grown in the family’s victory garden, as

well as a plump, perfectly cooked turkey.92 There is a sense of community, as well as abundance, being displayed

Figure 3. Norman Rockwell, Ours Figure 4. US Federal Security Agency, To Fight For (1943). The Four Freedoms (1941).

in this image, demonstrating that having enough food to eat is connected with family love. In

connecting freedom from want specifically with food and community, Rockwell clearly

understood the credence of food policy. Thus, Rockwell embraced the opportunity of illustrating

Roosevelt’s speech to emphasize and increase the already existing public support.

In later speeches President Roosevelt moved from a more general concern with food

92 Norman Rockwell, United States Office of War Information, Division of Public Inquiries, “Ours—To Fight For: Freedom From Want,” 1943, University of Northern Texas Digital Library, Texas. United States Federal Security Agency & United States, Office of Education, “‘The Four Freedoms’ Message to the 77th Congress—January 6, 1941,” University of Northern Texas Digital Library, Texas.

supply to focus specifically on what the American population could do to help. In March of 1942,

FDR addressed farmers and assured them that food production was as essential to winning the war as weapon production: “Americans are preparing with all possible speed to take their places on the actual battle fronts, and some are there now. … Farmers are straining every effort to produce the food which, like the tanks and the planes, is absolutely indispensable to victory.”93

Roosevelt announces to the nation that there is no detail too small when it comes to winning the war. Furthermore, he reveals how important food supply is to his policy by acknowledging the food producers of the nation as being vital to achieving victory.

Encouragement of agricultural production did not stop with farmers; individuals of the home front population were also expected to engage in food production. The implementation of the victory garden policy was slow at first, as FDR’s Secretary of Agriculture Claude Wickard feared that the fervor of the First World War would reignite, causing every area of public land to be torn up and replanted into a garden. But as the war progressed, and rationing was put into effect, he changed his mind and endorsed the victory garden.94 Victory gardens were voluntary and while they were heavily promoted both at the local and federal levels of government, unlike rationing, the home front was not forced to follow the policy of growing a victory garden. The education system was one of the greatest proponents of implementing the victory garden program, teaching children about plants and health as well as providing children with a hands on-activity.95 Garden plots were assigned and parceled out by local level committees. Theses

93 Franklin Roosevelt, “Address on the Ninth Anniversary” 94 Tucker, Kitchen Gardening in America, 134-136. 95 Clair C. Culver, “Growing Plants for Victory Gardens,” The American Biology Teacher 4, no. 7 (April 1942), JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4437295 (accessed January 9, 2014). Earl R. Gabler, “School Gardens for Victory,” The Clearing House 16, no. 8 (April 1942), JSTOR, http:///www.jstor.org/stable.30177734 (accessed January 9, 2014). H. W. Hochbaum, “Victory Gardens in 1944: How Teachers May Help,” The American Biology Teacher 6, no. 5 (February 1944), JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/info/10.2307/4437480 (accessed January 9, 2014). Lippincott, Williams, & Wilkins, “Victory gardens for 1943,” The American Journal of Nursing 43 no. 4 (April

committees provided instructions and guidance in the growing of victory gardens. Additionally,

they monitored how many residents of the community participated in the program, encouraging

mass participation in order to meet the desired quotas.96

Between 1942 and 1945 Franklin Roosevelt gave five speeches, which directly encouraged, urged, and endorsed the need for the American population to grow victory gardens.

In the 1942 Thanksgiving Day Proclamation, Franklin Roosevelt said,

In giving thanks for the greatest harvest of our Nation, we who plant and reap can well resolve that in the year to come we will do all in our power to pass that milestone; for by our labors in the fields we can share some part of the sacrifice with our brothers and sons who wear the uniform of the United States.97 Roosevelt used the word we to show that it was not just the farmers that were producing a

bountiful harvest, rather, all across the home front, the population supported the victory garden

idea and engaged in the planting and reaping of agriculture. He equated the struggle of growing

food to the struggle of the soldier, so that the American people felt connected to their family

members who were away fighting. This rhetoric inspired the American home front population to

accept the idea and grow victory gardens.

The 1942 Thanksgiving Day Proclamation inspired the home front population to boost

the food supply. This is evident by the fact that the following spring recorded the highest level of

participation in the victory garden program. Chicago was very responsive to the president’s

message and school-aged children planted and tended over 14,000 victory gardens.98 This is just

1943), JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3416404 (accessed January 9, 2014). M. A. Russell, “Highland Park’s School Victory Gardens,” The American Biology Teacher 6, no. 8 (May 1944), JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4437525 (accessed January 9, 2014). 96 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania State Council Defense, Victory Gardens: Handbook of the Victory Garden Committee War Services, Pennsylvania State Council of Defense, (Pennsylvania, 1944) 36-44. 97 Franklin Roosevelt, “Proclamation 2571 Thanksgiving Day, November 26, 1942,” archived by John Woolley and Gerhard Peters, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=16208&st=&st1 (accessed June 21, 2014). 98 Fred G. Heuchling, “Children’s Gardens in Chicago,” The American Biology Teacher 6, no. 5 (February 1944), JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/info/10.2307/4437481 (accessed January 9, 2014).

one example of home front participation, as across the country there were approximately

20,000,000 gardens planted.99 Perhaps in relation to the whole population these numbers are not very significant. However, Franklin Roosevelt’s main concern about the number of gardens was that there was an increase in how many people participated each year. His speeches reflect the success of victory gardens, by demonstrating how important it was for government-endorsed gardening to be optimistic and centered on the increasing involvement of the people. Roosevelt did not give statistics in his speeches, rather he emphasized that the whole country should be involved. Thus, he was defining citizenship based on compliance with the victory garden policy.

Franklin Roosevelt repeated the tradition of the Thanksgiving Day speech the following year. On November 11, 1943, he addressed the American people, expressing his gratitude to the population for all of their sacrifice. In addition, he encouraged the population, and assured them of their success. He made particular reference to those responsible for building up the food supply. Roosevelt’s speech focused on the abundant harvest or success that, “Our farmers, victory gardeners, and crop volunteers have gathered and stored a heavy harvest in the barns and bins and cellars. Our total food production for the year is the greatest in the annals of our country.”100 President Roosevelt acknowledged the efforts of victory gardeners, telling them that their efforts were as helpful as the farmers. Even though victory gardens were much smaller than farms, their hard work was equally as valuable. By mentioning victory gardeners, FDR made the policy more personal, because if you, a member of the World War II home front population, had participated in growing a garden, the President of the United States was thanking you personally.

99 New York Times, “Gardens Held Key to Food Emergency.” Bentley, Eating For Victory, 114-141. Ossian, The Forgotten Generation, 45. Gowdy-Wygant, Cultivating Victory, 135. Lizzie Collingham, The Taste of War: World War Two and the Battle for Food (London: Penguin Books, 2001). 100 Franklin Roosevelt, “Proclamation 2600 Thanksgiving Day, 1943, November 11, 1943,” archived by John Woolley and Gerhard Peters, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=72459&st=&st1= (accessed June 21, 2014).

He praised your contribution to the war effort. His endorsement of victory gardens was

successfully ascertained by the nation, who produced more food than it had ever produced before.

Again, Roosevelt does not specifically discuss the numbers of gardens planted or the pounds of

food produced because that is not where the significance of the victory garden lies. While he is

stressing garden production as a source of food, he likewise articulates the ideological

importance of food production, emphasizing the solidarity that is achieved through a society

growing food alongside one another.

A few weeks prior to the 1943 Thanksgiving Day speech, President Roosevelt presented

another speech. This address to Congress had a slightly different tone when it came to endorsing

victory gardens than the speech to the American population. Again, his speech focused on the

necessity of food production: “Food is as important as any other weapon in the successful

prosecution of the war. It will be equally important in rehabilitation and relief in the liberated

areas, and in the shaping of the peace that is to come.”101 FDR equated food to weaponry.

However, rather than stopping at that comparison, he went on to tell Congress exactly what they

needed to do in order to have a successful food supply for 1944. The president’s tone softened

when he talked about the American people. Even when addressing Congress, Roosevelt’s pride

in the American people’s contribution to food supply did not change,

Much credit is also due to the patriotic men and women who spent so much time and energy in planting twenty million victory gardens in the United States and helped to meet the food requirements. It is estimated about eight million tons of food were produced in 1943 victory gardens.102

101 Franklin Roosevelt, “Message to Congress on the Food Program, November 1, 1943,” archived by John Woolley and Gerhard Peters, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=16337&st=&st1= (accessed June 21, 2014). 102 Franklin Roosevelt, “Message to Congress on the Food Program, November 1, 1943,” archived by John Woolley and Gerhard Peters. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=16337&st=&st1=( (accessed June 21, 2014).

Victory Gardens are important because they reflect the joining together and uniting of the population.103 One might argue that so much food was produced due to the need of countering rationing; therefore it was not grown out of patriotic ambition. While this is a critical point to address, it is equally important to note that the food supply was not in as much danger as

Roosevelt believed it to be. There was in fact food available for the public to consume, especially in comparison to the previous decade; however, Roosevelt needed to ensure the food supply was adequate, and build up the nation’s reserves for the trying times that the nation faced.

Furthermore, he could bring the population together under that policy.104 It means that there were at least twenty million people involved in the making of those gardens, probably more, because most victory gardens were not tended by a single person, but instead by a family or community.

Gardens were a binding factor across the nation, grown on the east and west coast, up north, and down south.105

103 New York Times, “Gardens Held Key to Food Emergency.” Bentley Eating For Victory, 114-141. Collingham, Taste of War, 418. Robert Heide & John Gilman Home Front America: Popular Culture of the World War II Era, (San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1995), 26, 64. Gowdy-Wygant, Cultivating Victory, 116 Miller, “In the Sweat of Our Brow”, 397. Alan M. Winkler, Home Front U.S.A: America During World War II, 3rd ed. (Wheeling, IL: Harlan Davidson Inc., 2012), 38. William L. Bird and Harry R. Rubenstein, Design for Victory: WWII Posters on the American Home Front, (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1998). 104 John D. Black, “The Food Supply of the United States,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 225 (January 1943), JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1023534 (accessed February 27, 2013), 80-82. Allison Carruth, “War Rations and the Food Politics of Late Modernism,” Modernism/Modernity 16, no. 4 (November 2009), Project Muse, http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/mod/summary/v06/16.4.carruth.html (accessed July 19, 2013), 772-776. 105 New York Times, “To Push ‘Victory Garden’” New York Times January 1942 New York Times, “Victory Garden Yields Treasure” New York Times April 1942 New York Times, “New York States Exhibition of Victory Garden Harvest” New York Times , September 1942 New York Times, “Victory Garden Provides A Real Baseball Farm” New York Times February 1943 New York Times, “Plan A Victory Garden Poll,” New York Times, February 1943, Special Edition. New York Times, “Gardens Held Key to Food Emergency.” New York Times, “Victory Garden in the Making Far From the Home Front” New York Times July 1943 New York Times, “Women Battle Over A Victory Garden; 2 Injured in Family Melee in Brooklyn” New York Times July 1944

In April of 1944, Franklin Roosevelt addressed the American people under the banner of the victory garden. The speech was short, but it did not lack in its encouragement or endorsement of gardening. Roosevelt told the American people,

I hope every American who possibly can [,] will grow a garden this year. We found out last year that even the small gardens helped. The total harvest from victory gardens was tremendous. It made the difference between scarcity and abundance. They Department of Agriculture surveys show that 42 percent of the fresh vegetables consumed in 1943 came from victory gardens. This should clearly emphasize the far-reaching importance of the Victory garden program. Because of the greatly increased demands in 1944, we will need all the food we can grow. Food still remains a first essential to wining the war. Victory gardens are of direct benefit in helping relieve manpower, transportation, and living costs as well as the food problem.106 Although victory gardens easily slip into the background of World War II, making an appearance

as one of the many projects on the home front, according to the president, victory gardens were

quite important.107 Franklin Roosevelt wanted the home front population to continue planting and growing. If people grew their own food, then it made the other components of the American war machine function better, as the government did not have to worry about providing fresh vegetables to the civilian population. This allowed for the government to concentrate on and allocate resources to winning the war. Franklin Roosevelt was successful in endorsing the idea of gardening to the American public because he presented their accomplishment as literal results.

Growing a victory garden had a larger impact on society than simply supplying vegetables to families. They saved gasoline, which was being rationed, since vegetables did not have to be

106 Franklin Roosevelt, “Statement encouraging victory gardens, April 1, 1944,” archived by John Woolley and Gerhard Peters, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=16505&st=&st1= (accessed June 21, 2014). 107 Bentley Eating For Victory, 114-141. Collingham, Taste of War, 418. Heide and Gilman, Home Front America, 26, 64 Winkler Home Front U.S.A, 38. Bird and Rubenstein, Design for Victory.

transported, and it meant the price of consuming vegetables was less expensive.108 FDR’s

speeches convinced the home front that they were truly aiding the war effort as a unified nation.

In January of 1945, three months before his death, President Roosevelt gave one last

address in which he endorsed victory gardens and encouraged the home front to continue

gardening. Even with his fading health, FDR could not help but endorse the idea of gardening,

by personally pleading with the American population saying, “I call upon the millions of victory

gardeners who have done so much to swell the Nation’s food supply in these war years to

continue their good work. … [C]arry on until the war is won.”109 At this point in history, the tide

of the war was turning in the Allies’ favor. The end of the war, and the end of the life of the

United States’ President was fast approaching. Even with both of these things so close at hand,

Franklin Roosevelt continued to promote the idea of growing a victory garden. Food policy

continued to be of the utmost importance to him, for it was equated to freedom. Whether he was

promoting food policy to Congress in order to provide food around the world, inspiring farmers

to continuing growing food because they were providing edible ammunition to soldiers abroad,

or bringing the nation together as citizens joining in gardening policy, food was a constant

concern for the president. Akin to his predecessors before him, Thomas Jefferson, Franklin

Roosevelt saw the importance of the connection between the ability to grow your own food and

be a free people; although there was some difference in the population demographic of the two

presidents. The gardens grown under FDR, were tended by poor individuals and were cheaper in

price, while the gardens from Jefferson’s time were grown mostly by gentlemen. Franklin

Roosevelt took a personal and vested interested in the home front population growing vegetables,

108 Frank Wetzel, Victory Gardens & Barrage Balloons, (Bremerton, WA: Perry Publishing, 1995). Roy Hoopes, Americans Remember the Homer Front: An Oral Narrative of the World War II Years in America, (New York: The Berkley Publishing Groups, 1977). 109 Franklin Roosevelt, “Statement on Food Conservation, January 22, 1945,” archived by John Woolley and Gerhard Peters,http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=16608&st=&st1= (accessed June 21, 2014).

in their own gardens, which is why the World War II victory garden is the most successful period

of government-endorsed gardening.

Propaganda Posters: Seeing an Idea

In addition to political speeches, Franklin Roosevelt’s government commissioned the design of victory garden propaganda posters. These posters were brightly colored, and seemed to boast the success that an individual could have if they grew their own vegetables. The posters gave a sense of familiarity as well as boosted patriotic duty, due to the eye-catching colors and themes. Cecilia Gowdy-Wygant similarly evaluated government propaganda and noticed a shift in government perspectives “from a symbol of political identity to one of personal identity.”110

Additionally, Char Miller also looks at propaganda posters and makes the argument that the

posters main focus was stressing the idea of bodies.111

These agricultural propaganda posters were broken up into three distinct categories. The first set of posters encouraged the home front population to grow food. These posters called individuals, particularly teenagers and young adults to help harvest farms. The second set of posters targeted home front families. This set of propaganda posters depicted children helping tend the home victory garden, and informed mothers of the health and nutritional befits of having a home victory garden. The third set of posters reinforced FDR’s view of food as a weapon.

These posters reminded the population how valuable the food supply was. Regardless of which category the propaganda posters belonged to, the message was always the same. Food was an essential resource in winning the war; the more food that individuals grew, the sooner the war could end. These posters mimicked posters from the First World War and the Great Depression, using similar slogans and color patterns to promote a political idea to the American public.

110 Gowdy-Wygant, Cultivating Victory, 176. 111 Miller, “In the Sweat of Our Brow”, 399-400.

Evoking a similar set of posters, fashioned a sense of nostalgia, giving people hope that they

would get through this difficult time like they got through other hard times.112

The United States Department of Agriculture and the United States War Food

Administration teamed up to convince the American people that food was essential to winning the war. In a series of propaganda posters between the years of 1939 and 1945 these two administrations campaigned to encourage young adults to spend their summers in the countryside planting and harvesting vegetables. These brightly colored posters were displayed in public space including post offices, railroad stations, schools, restaurants, and retail-stores.113 The

posters tended to feature smiling teens on their way to work in the field and included catchy

sayings like: “Going our way? Help Harvest War Crops” and, “Join us on the farm front”.114 In

addition to those slogans these posters advertised that these were victory farms, and that it was

strictly voluntary. (See figure 5, figure 6, and figure 7.) These victory farms were similar to

community victory gardens. Both the community victory garden and the victory farm garden

were places of public involvement. Furthermore, the gardener did not own the land that they

were tilling. In the case of the community garden, the land was typically an empty lot or public

park the city transformed into garden plots. The volunteer farmers on victory farms were often

teens and young adults from the city or nearby areas that were seasonal volunteers. Finally, they

both had the same goal: providing food for Americans. The propaganda posters created by the

112 Max Gallo The Poster in History (American Heritage Publishing Co.) 1972, 158 & 162. 113 Bird. Design for Victory, 1, 11-12. Max Gallo, The Poster in History, 161 114 Figure 5 Anton Bruehl, National Victory Farm Volunteers (U.S.), United States. War Food Administration, & United States. Dept. of Agriculture, “Going Our Way?: Be A Victory Farm Volunteer of the U.S. Crop Corps,” 1945, University of Northern Texas Digital Library, Texas. Figure 6 National Victory Farm Volunteers (U.S.), United States. War Food Administration, & United States Extension Service, “Join Us On the Farm Front!: Be A Victory Farm Volunteer of the U.S. Crop Corps,” 1944, University of Northern Texas Digital Library, Texas. Figure 7 Stevan Dohanos, United States, War Food Administration, & United States. Dept. of Agriculture, “Fill It!: Help Harvest War Crops,” 1945, University of Northern Texas Digital Library, Texas.

Department of Agriculture and the War and Food Administration encouraged people to grow food on a large scale by replacing farmers off to war.

Figure 5. Going our way? Figure 6. Join us on the Figure 7. Fill It Farm Front

Food production and food supply was not the sole responsibility of farmers or their volunteer replacements. Rather, the idea of the victory garden established that it was the responsibility of every citizen to help build up the food supply. The propaganda posters emphasized personal ownership, patriotic duty, health benefits, convenience and security stemming from victory gardens. (See figure 8, figure 9, figure 10, figure 11, and figure 12.)115

115 Figure 8 United States. Office of War Information. Division of Public Inquiries, “Plant a Victory Garden: Our Food Is Fighting: A Garden Will Make Your Rations Go Further,” 1943, University of Northern Texas Digital Library, Texas. Figure 9 Hubert Morley, United States. War Food Administration, & United States. Dept. of Agriculture, “Your Victory Garden Counts More Than Ever!,” 1945, University of Northern Texas Digital Library, Texas. Figure 10 Grover Strong, “Grow Your Own: Be Sure!,” 1945, University of Northern Texas Digital Library, Texas. Figure 11 Herbert Bayer, “Grow It Yourself Plan A Farm Garden Now,” 1941-1943, Library of Congress, Washington, DC. Figure 12 J. H. Burdett & National Garden Bureau, “War Gardens For Victory—Grow Vitamins At Your Kitchen Door,” 1939-1945, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.

Figure 8. Plant a Victory Garden Figure 9. Your Victory Counts Figure 10. Grow Your Own More Than Ever

Figure 11. Grow It Yourself Figure 12. War Gardens for Victory The posters focused heavily on propagating the idea that it was the family’s own garden. The

word “YOUR” stands out in capital letters on three of the posters shown above figure 9, figure

10, and figure 11.116 This was the government’s way of saying that victory gardens were not being forced upon the population. Instead it propelled citizenship showing that individuals could personally help the war effort. In addition, the “YOUR” spurred the idea that not only was it the gardener’s personal responsibility, it was something that belonged to them, putting hard work and dedication into something they could be proud of accomplishing.

116 Ibid

Propaganda posters boasted that growing a victory garden was the patriotic thing to do.

All five of the posters shown above have a very specific color scheme. In addition to the natural coloring of the vegetables, the propaganda posters are predominantly red, white, and blue,

America’s colors.117 The use of these three colors is not overwhelming to the point that it is overtly obvious that they are propaganda posters promoting the United States, but instead they are more subtly incorporated. The posters are emotionally stimulating to make the viewer feel proud to present their association as part of those who grow a victory garden.

If being patriotic was not reason enough to participate in the victory garden project, there was also the added benefit of health and nutrition that victory gardens provided. By growing a victory garden, members of the American home front were “growing vitamins at their kitchen door.”118 This was of particular concern to the United States government because, due to the

Depression, the health of the American population had greatly declined, and a large portion of the population “suffered from vitamin … deficiencies” and many others “suffered from scurvy or near-scurvy.”119 Therefore, by growing vitamins and proper nutrients in a victory garden, healthy eating was potentially made easy and convenient; all you had to do was pick some fresh vegetables from your very own garden. In addition, gardeners were “sure” of their food, because they were the ones who grew it.120 They knew exactly where their food came from, as they were part of the growing process, from small seedling to fully-grown vegetables.

Growing a victory garden was important because it not only provided the home front population with food, but food, following Roosevelt’s speech, was also considered to be a

117 Ibid 118 Figure 10 J. H. Burdett & National Garden Bureau, “War Gardens For Victory—Grow Vitamins At Your Kitchen Door,” 1939-1945, Library of Congress, Washington, DC. 119 Aaron Bobrow-Strain, White Bread: A Social History of the Store-Bought Loaf (Boston: Beacon Press, 2012), 110. 120 Figure 8 United States. Office of War Information. “Plant a Victory Garden: Our Food Is Fighting: A Garden Will Make Your Rations Go Further.”

weapon, which could help fight the war. (See figure 11, figure 12, and figure 6.)121 The United

States’ Office of War Administration emphasized the importance of food, that it was a way to

fight the war and therefore, none of it should be wasted. Americans were told to “Buy wisely”,

“cook carefully”, and “eat it all.”122 There was no room for waste when it came to the food supply. According to the United States government, every precaution should be taken in order to make food go as far as it could. Food was viewed as a weapon because it was the fuel that gave soldiers and home front factory workers the energy to fight or build war materials. The United

States Office of War Administration told home front Americans “where our men are fighting [,] our food is fighting.”123 The home front population was responsible for sustaining the food supply of American soldiers. Therefore, wherever food was sent, it was weaponized. It provided sustenance and allowed American troops to continue fighting in the war. By linking food to

American soldiers, it made individuals of the home front more willing to do things like grow victory gardens, because in doing so, their brothers, fathers, sons, and husbands would be provided with food. Proper nutrition and “cleaning the plate” became defense of the home front.

121 Figure 11 Bayer, “Grow It Yourself,”. Figure 12 Burdett & National Garden Bureau, “War Gardens For Victory” Figure 6 National Victory Farm Volunteers, “Join Us On the Farm Front!” 1944. 122 Figure 13 United States. Office of War Information. Division of Public Inquires, “Food is A Weapon: Don’t Waste It!: Buy Wisely—Cook Carefully—Eat It All: Follow the National Wartime Nutrition Program,” 1943 123 Figure 14 United States. Office of War Information. “Where Our Men Are Fighting, Our Food is Fighting: Buy Wisely—Cook Carefully—Store Carefully—Use Leftovers,” 1943, University of Northern Texas Digital Collection, Texas.

Figure 13. Food is a Weapon Figure 14. Where our Men are fighting Our Food is Fighting Whether these posters showed teens helping harvest vegetables on victory farms, or tilling the ground in their own back yards, this reminded the home front of all the ways that food aided the war. Food took on a persona of its own; it was more than just something to eat. It nourished American soldiers and propelled them to keep fighting in battle and allowed the home front to live up to their duty as citizens during wartime. In a way, it was like the food was fighting the war itself. Food was indispensible in winning the war. Thus, every citizen needed to be involved in the production of food and do his or her best to conserve it.

Propagating Victory Gardens Through Film

Propaganda posters were not the only visual source that encouraged the home front population to grow victory gardens. The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Office of War

Administration created films in order to more fully explain the importance of growing food.

These short propaganda films were produced in the early years of the 1940s and lasted approximately seven to twenty minutes. They all played patriotic music as they explained the proper way to grow a victory garden, the importance of good nutrition, or the significant role that

food plays in the war effort. These propaganda films were made in order to rally the home front

population to adopt the political ideology of growing a victory garden.

The major theme in the propaganda film Wartime Nutrition (1943) was healthy eating

habits. As noted previously in this chapter Franklin Roosevelt and his accompanying government

had a special interest in America’s nutrition. By eating more vegetables the population would

have more energy, which would allow them to work more efficiently.124 Thus, food could reach

its full potential as a weapon, as it fueled the home front war machine.

In addition to food being viewed as a weapon, the films reiterated FDR’s view that those

who grew food were absolutely vital to the war effort. In the film Henry Browne, Farmer (1942)

farmers are compared to United States soldiers.125 After establishing the importance of the farmers, as being “soldiers of production”, the film continued, presenting a typical day in the life of a farmer and his family. The film made sure to mention that in addition to growing peanuts for the use of the government, the Browne family also had a personal victory garden as part of their farm.126 The film highlights the hard work that went into growing and tending vegetables.

Furthermore, Henry Browne, Farmer reminds the viewer that farming is heavily supported by the government and that “every American has a job to do” when it comes to wartime.127 Two

other films move away from the broader argument that food is important in winning the war and

focus specifically on victory gardens. In the film Victory Gardens the Secretary of Agriculture,

Claude R. Wickard is quoted saying, “A victory garden is like a share in an airplane factory. It

124 U.S. Office of War Information, “Wartime Nutrition (1943),” Prelinger Archives, https://archive.org/details/WartimeN1943 (accessed July 13, 2013). 125 U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Henry Browne, Farmer (1942),” Prelinger Archives, https://archive.org/details/HenryBro1942. 126 Ibid 127 Ibid

helps win the war and pays dividends too.”128 Victory Gardens continued the theme that producing food was vital to the war effort. In addition to reminding the home front population that victory gardens played a substantial role, the film Victory Gardens gives instructions about how to properly grow a garden and what to do in case of the invasion of bugs and fungus.129 The film also demonstrates the patriotic side of participating in the growing of a victory garden.

When looking at these propaganda films in relation to one another, it becomes evident that these films provided not only pertinent and introductory gardening information, but they helped to create a unified people. These videos highlight what it meant to be an American citizen on the home front during the Second World War. In order to be successful to fight the war,

United States’ citizens needed to be healthy and strong. Growing a victory garden not only provided the nutrition that was necessary, but it also mobilized the population and creating

“soldiers” at every level of society, thus cementing the notion of citizenship across the home front. The videos helped to visually encapsulate and depict Franklin Roosevelt’s desire for the nation to increase the food supply on an individual bases.

Aspects of the victory garden promoting home front citizenship can be identified particularly in the film Victory Gardens. The young daughter places a sign in the front yard that says “Our family will grow a victory garden in 1942 realizing the importance of reserve food supplies we will produce and conserve food for home use.”130 (See figure 15.) This type of sign could be placed in the yard of any and every person involved in the victory garden program. The victory garden was a physical manifestation that individuals on the home front were voluntarily engaging in the civic duty that the president requested. Victory gardens reflect citizenship on the

128 U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Victory Gardens,” Prelinger Archives https://archive.org/details/victory_garden. 129 Ibid 130 Ibid

home front by turning individuals into producers, in a similar way that working in a war plant

signified unity to end the war.

Figure 15. Victory Garden Pledge Sign

Similar to Victory Gardens, the film Gardening also provided step-by-step instructions to

growing a successful victory garden. In 1943 the federal government reported that based on the

amount of food produced one out of two families participated in the victory garden program. An

article published in 2008 in the journal Race, Poverty & the Environment, reports similar results

for the city of Philadelphia.131 In contrast to the propaganda posters, which tended to feature adolescents, the propaganda film Gardening uses children to emphasized the “ease” of tending a

victory garden.132 Like the other facets, which promoted the victory garden, the main focus of

Gardening was to demonstrate that being a good citizen mean participating in the victory garden program; however, the government did not want the task to be too difficult, so they also

131 Society of Science and the Public, “Victory Gardens Produce 8,000,000 Tons of Food”. Carl Anthony, “Livable Communities,” Race, Poverty & the Environment 15, no. 1 (Spring 2008), JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41554575 (accessed April 12, 2015). 132 Erpi Classroom Films Inc., “Gardening (1940)” Prelinger Archives, https://archive.org/details/Gardening_2.

emphasized that it was easy enough for children to do. If growing a victory garden was too hard,

than people would not grow one; thus solidarity in support for the war would be harmed.

According to the video having a victory garden was something that young kids could produce,

essentially all on their own. This film taught children responsibility as the young boy had to tend

to the plants, water them, and keep bugs off of them, but also keep track of the expenses, thus

turning children into productive and engaging citizens.133

The propaganda film highlights all the positive aspects of participating in the victory garden project and informed viewers exactly how to grow a garden. The film ends with the family, the mother, father, son, and daughter enjoying the fruits of their labor. As the family eats the vegetables that the girl and boy spent all summer growing, they reflect upon a bountiful harvest and allude to the Thanksgiving holiday.134 Thus, this film parallels Franklin Roosevelt’s speeches, where he endorsed gardening and told the home front population to give thanks for the amount of food that they were able to produce during the year.135

Another child friendly propaganda film was Brownie’s Victory Garden, a short cartoon

about two bears building a victory garden. This comical animation starts out with a newspaper

headline about missing vegetables. The two bears then go underground to their vegetable factory

and start pushing the vegetables that they construct through holes in the ground. A possum steals

the vegetable from garden that the two bears are producing. Upon discovering this, the bears

create a bomb out of a pineapple skin and the letters TNT, which were painted by one of the

133 Ibid 134 Ibid 135 Franklin Roosevelt, “Proclamation 2571 Thanksgiving Day, November 26, 1942” archived by John Woolley and Gerhard Peters, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=16208&st=&st1= (accessed June 21, 2014). Franklin Roosevelt, “Proclamation 2600 Thanksgiving Day, 1943 November 11, 1943,” archived by John Woolley and Gerhard Peters,http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=72459&st=&st1= (accessed June 21, 2014). Franklin Roosevelt, “Message to Congress on the Food Program, November 1, 1943,” archived by John Woolley and Gerhard Peters,http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=16337&st=&st1= (accessed June 21, 2014).

bears. Thus, they are literally turning food into a weapon. The bears throw this bomb at the

possum who tries to escape with a car full of food. When the bomb explodes all the food falls to

the ground in perfectly planted rows.136 The cartoon has two messages. First it highlighted the message of food being an important component in winning the war. Thus, it should not be wasted, and it shows that it was wrong to take more food than you needed. The second message it depicts is that victory gardens were child friendly and that everyone should take part in the victory garden program.

Propaganda films were used as instructional videos to tell the home front population how to grow victory gardens. They reminded Americans that growing food was as vital to the war effort as being a soldier or working in a factory. Furthermore, victory gardens were an easy way for kids to participate in the war effort. Victory garden propaganda films explained the importance of good nutrition and proper eating habits to the American home front. Even as these films covered a variety of topics, they had a single unifying theme. The government used the films, to encouraging the home front population to adopt the idea of growing a victory garden and demonstrate what upstanding citizens they were.

A Proper Garden: Instruction Manuals

Victory gardens were an uncomplicated way for children to participate in aiding the war effort.137 However, in order to participate, it was imperative for them to understand the proper technique of growing a victory garden. Along with the films, the government provided standardization of directions about the location, layout, and upkeep of victory gardens, since

136 Official Films Inc. “Brownie’s Victory Garden,” Prelinger Archives https://archive.org/details/6134_Brownies_Victory_Garden_00_29_12_00. 137 Ossian, The Forgotten Generation, 3 & 6. Sylvia Whitman, Children of the World War II Home Front (Minneapolis: Carolrhoda Books, 2001), 21-26. Richard Panchyk, World War II for Kids (Chicago: Chicago Review Press, 2002), 62-66.

many of the participants were first time gardeners.138 This provided “a uniform plan” for teaching

gardeners, especially children.139 Instruction manuals and gardening handbooks included tips such as, when picking the site, a garden needed southern exposure, sunlight exposure, and drainage. When laying out the garden, crops that were harvested sooner were supposed to be grouped together, so new ones could be planted, after the early harvest was ready. In addition, gardeners needed to plant a variety of types of vegetables, preferably in rich, well-fertilized soil.140 By following these instructions, children, were given “an opportunity to make an

important contribution to the national food program [and] supplement their own family food

supplies.”141 Victory gardens were not just a fun filled activity for children to try out. Gardens were expected to serve the practical purpose of substituting a rationed food supply; therefore they were expected to flourish.

The United States government wanted victory gardens to be rather large so that they could provide a substantial amount of food. Vacant lots were repurposed for the home front population to grow food, when they lacked room at home for their own personal garden. These community victory gardens were a common practice in cities, and millions were planted.142 This

proved to be a brilliant idea because many of the community based victory gardens were

partnered up with schools and placed in a location that was close by to where the gardeners lived,

which created stronger community ties and relative ease for tending the garden and transporting

vegetables. At school victory gardens, children were largely responsible for taking care of the

138 Gabler, “School Gardens for Victory” 139 Russell, “Highland Park’s School Victory Gardens”. Pennsylvania State Council of Defense, Victory Gardens: Handbook of the Victory Garden Committee War Services, (Pennsylvania: State Council of Defense,1944). http://www.earthlypursuits.com/VictoryGardHandbook/VGHv.htm Hans Platenius, Victory Gardens in New York: Instructions for Vegetable growing in Urban Areas (New York: Willcox Press, 1943). 140 Gabler, “School Gardens for Victory” 141 Lippincott, Williams, & Wilkins, “Victory Gardens for 1943” 142 Smithsonian Institution, “Victory Garden At National Museum Of American History: What is a Victory Garden,” http://www.gardens.si.edu/our-gardens/victory-garden.html (accessed April 12, 2015).

gardens. In order to accommodate children, large plots were sectioned off so that children could

manage their area.

Figure 16. Garden Plot Figure 17. Live Model Victory Garden Plot Figure 18. Layout

Not all children grew their gardens in the community victory garden; many victory gardens were tended to at home. In order to allow children to do so, one teacher incorporated victory gardens into their curriculum by providing, “Each student [with] one flat and [he] is responsible for its care. Only one variety of seed is planted in each flat. When these plants are ready for transplanting into the victory garden the students will exchange plants according to their needs.”143 In this case, children mostly cared for one type of vegetable. Once the vegetables were mature, the children would share their sprouting plants with one another to be raised to full

143 Culver, “Growing Plants for Victory Gardens”.

term in their home garden.

Victory garden handbooks were very detail-oriented in their instructions. Not only did

they explain the technical procedures for growing the best garden possible, but they provided an

explanation as to why victory gardens should be grown, including providing a brief history about

food production in the United States. Like the propaganda posters and films, there was a similar

tone in encouraging proper nutrition and the consumption of vegetables. Additionally, the

handbooks were informal at times, with the author addressing the victory gardener using first person. This extended and created an inclusive tone to all participants, including those who had physical disabilities, or a difficult time bending to work in a garden.144 The victory garden was

designed to help establish a sense of belonging and togetherness, therefore, even as the victory

garden handbooks were providing official guidance and instruction they were inviting like their

propaganda film and poster counterparts.

Experiencing the Garden: Gauging The Public’s Response

The first half of this chapter looked at the victory garden from a government policy

perspective; however, it is also necessary to evaluate the pragmatic success of its implementation.

Is the victory garden worth analyzing, especially in comparison to other portions of FDR’s home

front policy? Did the home front population honestly enjoy or even care about the victory garden

experience? These questions can be answered by gauging the public’s response through an

examination of the way that newspapers, which chronicled the memory of victory gardens in the

way they reported information pertaining to victory gardens. Even though these articles all come

from the New York Times, the stories and experiences come from all over the United States,

144 Platenius, Victory garden handbook, 1-14 68.

including California, Tennessee, Illinois, Florida, Pennsylvania, New York, and in a few special

cases, outside of the United States, somewhere in the Pacific.145

Celebrating the Victory Garden

Once the home front population understood how to grow a victory garden, they wanted to

show off their gardening abilities. Shows, contests, and events were constantly scheduled for

individuals to show off their triumphs as gardeners. These competitions were open to all ages.

Many times the winners of the shows received prizes. One contest was held in the fall of 1943.

Individuals were requested to send in photographs of their gardens. The first, second and third

place winners received a prize of $25, $15, and $10. The photographs were judged based on their

attractiveness. The purpose of the contest was to spur interest.146 This article implies that there

must have been an adequate amount of success, both in numbers of participants and the quality

of vegetables grown. Otherwise, people would not be willing to send in their photographs. The

interest in this story signifies that people cared about how their gardens looked and how other

people constructed their victory gardens. From articles such as this one, it appears that the home

front population had a much greater interest and involvement in growing gardens than is

traditionally recognized.

Another newspaper article published in 1944, further demonstrates this point. The

Federated Garden Clubs of New York and New Jersey hosted a garden week that dedicated a full

day to the victory garden. One of the members, a Mr. Wedell, “reviewed the history of the

145 The New York Times, “To Push ‘Victory Garden.’” The New York Times, “Victory Garden Yields Treasure.” Dorothy H. Jenkins, “New York States Exhibition of Victory Garden Harvest.” Associated Press, “Victory Garden Provides A Real Baseball Farm,” The New York Times, February 1943. The New York Times, “Plan A Victory Garden Poll.” The New York Times, “Gardens Held Key to Food Emergency.” The New York Times, “Victory Garden in the Making Far From the Home Front.” The New York Times, “Women Battle Over A Victory Garden; 2 Injured in Family Melee in Brooklyn.” 146 New York Times, “Prizes for Garden Pictures,” New York Times, September 5, 1943.

Victory Garden movement and said that few people realized that the success of the nation-wide

project.”147 This shows that the success of the victory garden was being debated during the period that they were being grown; but it also demonstrates that even then, gardens held intrinsic value to individuals and they were worth growing. Victory gardens did matter and they were important to those who grew them.

A third event demonstrating the social success of victory gardens was held in August of

1944. Schrafft’s Restaurant proposed and hosted a competition, challenging participants to come up with their best recipe, using ingredients from their victory gardens. The winning dishes were judged based on “tastiness, most original, and most practical.”148 The competition was open to

victory gardeners and the winners were three girl scouts, who received “war bond prizes of $100,

$50 and $25” respectively.149 Competitions allowed individuals to show off their various skills connected to gardening. These types of community events brought about a sense of unity throughout the population, creating a sense of citizenship that was linked to growing a victory garden. Participation reveals the social value that the victory garden represented to society. This event was an independent business venture of Schrafft’s Restaurant. The owner supported the victory garden program, but the contest was sponsored on his own accord. He wanted his restaurant to promote comfort and wellbeing of his customers. This could be achieved by hosting a contest based on the victory garden since many people were participating.150

Children were crucial to the success of the victory garden program. This is evident by the fact that one-fifth of the newspaper articles mention or focus on the involvement of children’s

147 New York Times, “Garden Week Gives Day to Vegetables.” 148 New York Times, “Three Girl Scouts Win Bonds as Prize In a Victory Garden Recipe Contest,” New York Times, August 16, 1944. 149 Ibid New York Times, “Recipe Contest Underway,” New York Times, June 21, 1944 150 Christopher Gray, “Midday Havens, Lost to Faster- Paced City,” New York Times, June 29, 2008.

participation.151 Boys and girls of all ages took up the call to till the land. The Children’s Aid

Society’s West Center offered their rooftop as a location for children to grow victory gardens.

Children, as young as four or five years old, tended vegetable plots that grew four stories above street level.152 (See figure 17.) The victory garden program was open to people of all ages. No one was too young to participate in growing a victory garden. A child could easily water the vegetables or dig in the dirt. When presenting news about victory gardens to the public, the New

Figure 19. Rooftop 153 York Times wanted to emphasize that children should be involved in the victory garden program.

As noted earlier, many of the victory gardens that children helped tend, were school-based

gardens. One school’s victory garden received extra help when a seventy-three year old farmer

151 Jenkins, “New York Stages Exhibition of Victory Garden Harvest.” New York Times, “Three Girl Scouts Win Bonds as Prize In a Victory Garden Recipe Contest.” New York Times, “Victory Garden Pageant,” New York Times, August 1943. New York Times, “A Victory Garden on a Rooftop,” New York Times, May 1943. New York Times, “Farmer, 73, Helps Pupils in Garden,” New York Times, July 1943. New York Times, “Boys Plan A Garden Despite Big Hazards,” New York Times, May 1942. 152 New York Times, “A Victory Garden on a Rooftop.” 153 Ibid.

taught school-aged children the proper techniques of growing a successful garden.154 Young and

old worked side-by-side in the fight for victory. The victory garden program reflects that the

whole population, especially children, was recruited, for the war effort.

Whether the victory garden was in the news to announce a new event or contest, or to

remind the home front population that anybody could grow a garden, there was one constant

companion continually accompanying and surrounding the victory garden program. The New

York Times equated the victory garden with patriotism and composed articles that highlighted the

success that people had in growing a garden. In March of 1943, one article ran a story boasting

that growing a victory garden was “‘one of the greatest projects of American civilian defense’…

[and] ‘you can feel that you are not only doing something in defense of your country but for the

Allied cause’.”155 This inspirational and patriotic language was used to describe a victory garden rally. The victory garden policy was celebrated as a virtuous cause that would help end the war in its entirety. In contrast is the Axis food supply. While they similarly promoted patriotic feelings about their country, their food supply was scarce and their government could not supply proper food to the people. In some cases, food quality was so poor that there were rocks and sawdust in the wheat that was ground to make bread.156 These types of rallies took place

throughout the nation, presenting the image of a unified country.157 Victory garden shows were

celebrations that demonstrated success and emphasized patriotism. In the fall of 1942, New York

hosted a garden exhibition that celebrated the harvest of vegetables. The showcase was put on as

a “benefit of the emergency needs of the families of our armed forces.”158 This harvest show, and

154 New York Times, “Farmer, 73, Helps Pupils in Garden.” 155 New York Times, “Victory Garden Drive opens with Rally,” New York Times, March 1934. 156 Gerda Weissman Klein, All But My Life, (New York: Hill and Wang, 1995). 157 New York Times, “To Push ‘Victory Garden.’” New York Times, “Victory Garden Shows Planned,” New York Times, April 1942. New York Times, “Buys victory garden ticket,” New York Times, September 1942. 158 Jenkins, “New York Stages Exhibition of Victory Garden Harvest”.

other similar shows reveal that the victory garden was just as important for community morale as

it was for the actual produce that was grown in the victory garden. The patriotic idea was

embedded in these rallies, whether it was to provide aid to families with loved ones away at war,

or to inspire a pro-war sentiment.

These community events were not only for showing off and displaying what types of

plants could be produced. These competitions allowed for the display of both vegetables and

flowers. This was because “One class [vegetables] must suggest victory, another [flowers]

peace.”159 In addition to the patriotic language surrounding these celebrations, there was a symbolic idea present as well. The victory garden is the embodiment of an idea that can be physically handled and touched. Victory gardens represent a national effort to push towards victory. The victory garden was valuable to the home front population during the Second World

War because it was an idea that could be put into action and battled and worked for. Growing a garden was in itself a victory; it was struggle that required patience and perseverance: two characteristics that are necessary when a nation faces war; providing the home front with a tangible sense of comfort, based on the thought that they were helping to win the war.

Headlines Spurring Human Interest

Another theme, depicted in the collection of newspaper articles, exposes some of the scandals memories associated with victory gardens. These articles establish that victory gardens were in fact, quite imperative. The accounts are memories of perseverance, triumph, and in some cases hostility.

Victory gardens played a much more crucial role in home front society than is commonly recognized, as is discussed in the introduction. Moreover, the home front population celebrated

159 Ibid

them. As mentioned above, there were many competitions held across the United States, where

individuals boasted of the prize produce that they grew in their very own victory garden. This

sense of pride expanded beyond competitions and moved into the arena of performing arts. In

August of 1943, one hundred children from the Washington Heights Play School participated in

and put on a performance titled “Food For the Nation”. This production was a “dramatiz[ation of]

the fun they had in raising a Victory Garden.”160 It included scenes that highlighted the important points of gardening such as “how to cultivate the soil… [the] finale brought in an array of cabbages, carrots and tomatoes garnered from the adjoining school lot.”161 It seems that the

children who were involved in growing a victory garden enjoyed the process. They took pride in

their hard work, showing off their success to the community. Victory gardens were not simply

about the literal or physical growth of vegetables. The victory garden is an idea that can be

manifested in the physical form of a garden, or be embodied in a play. Communities were

brought together. Growing a garden was hard work, but it was a memorable experience that

resulted in a deep imprinting in the collective American memory.

The arts were not the only area to support the idea of the victory garden. The victory

garden also made a rookie appearance in the world of sports. A baseball team in Florida adopted

the tradition of celebrating victory gardens as well. The newspaper makes a play-on-words, with

the title: “Victory Garden Provides a Real Baseball Farm”. The references is to the farm system

of minor league teams where players who have the potential of playing major league baseball

refine their skills, practice, and play the game of baseball. This “Baseball Farm” however, was

much more literal. They players planted a vegetable garden. The rationale was that “‘Players are

going to have lots of time on their hands, with gas rationing, and it will do them good to get out

160 New York Times, “Victory Garden Pageant”. 161 Ibid

and do some digging’.”162 This article reveals that victory gardens were not limited to children and families. They were grown by a broad spectrum of individuals, even athletes. No talent should be wasted in helping to win the war; thus, all citizens must be productive and help however they can.

Planting a victory garden was not all fun and games. At times it could be hazardous. The story headlined “Boys Plan a Garden Despite Big Hazards” related that there was a vacant lot on

New York’s East Side, which was riddled with rusted metal and other junk. Among these conditions, there were some brave pieces of grass holding their ground and growing in the lot.

These small patches of grass gave fifty-one boys hope and they decided to plant a garden in the vacant lot. One boy, Albert Simon, said that the grass “proved… that vegetation could survive there.”163 The condition of the soil and the fact that they could get hurt while removing debris from the vacant lot was of little concern to the boys. This article demonstrates that there was a human element of hope and dedication in achieving a goal that is overlooked and missed when looking at victory gardens only for what they produced. Furthermore, it highlights the pride that the home front population exhibited when growing a victory garden.

Participation in the victory garden program was widespread. In one case, soldiers, specifically Marines stationed in the Pacific, planted a victory garden. Their motive for doing so is not clear, as the newspaper simply printed a photograph of the garden, and did not include an accompanying story. Nonetheless, the caption underneath the image reveals that the Red Cross was supplying seeds, and the “Natives of the South Pacific Island” helped in tilling the field.164 A

year later, in a special to the New York Times, another story was published about the South

Pacific. The newspaper article notes that nurses deployed in the South Pacific set up stations for

162 Associated Press, “Victory Garden Provides a Real Baseball Farm”. 163 New York Times, “Boys Plan A Garden Despite Big Hazards”. 164 New York Times, “Victory Garden in the Making Far From the Home Front.”

recuperating soldiers, complete with a victory garden. The recovering soldiers helped take care

of the garden.165 Additionally, as American soldiers made their way across war-torn countries in both the Pacific and European theaters, they left behind gardening plots and seeds for the people in newly liberated territories. Victory gardens were planted all over the world, as U. S. Military officers made the request to the United States government to send them seeds.166 Even though the

intention is not directly stated, two theories can be inferred from these stories. First is the more

obvious explanation that the troops overseas needed food and, in want of fresh vegetables,

decided to grow a garden. The second, and more speculative reason is the fact that soldiers were

far from home, and understandably missed their families; by growing a garden they could almost

establish a connection to those who they left behind, who were tending their own gardens, in

order to relieve the stress of wartime. Perhaps the victory gardens planted abroad provided a re

affirmation of home, or citizenship while stationed overseas.

In addition to their emotional appeal as a form of comfort, and the practical appeal of

physical produce, on one occasion victory gardens reaped another kind of treasure. In Northern

California, a man by the name of Mario L. Bernardi discovered a tin can buried in the ground

that he was preparing to plant his victory garden. The can held “$680 in currency and [another]

$480 in old coins.”167 This discovery in his victory garden sparked enough national interest for the New York Times, to print a story about an event that happened all the way on the other side of the United States. A story about buried treasure made for a good metaphor and was likely to excite the population and possibly, inspire them to search for their own buried treasure by planting a garden.

165 New York Times “Col. Clement Hails Army Nurses in the Pacific; Home Making Skills in Jungle Is Stressed,” New York Times, May 17 1944. 166 Millard C. Faught, “Seeds Are Bullets For the Allies,” New York Times, September 5, 1943. 167 New York Times, “Victory Garden Yields Treasure”.

Not every newspaper story reporting on victory gardens had the positive memory of discovering buried treasure. In fact, two stories express just how contentious a victory garden could be. In the summer of 1943, a Connecticut pastor faced charges for suspicion of misusing his gasoline ration. He had used his car to drive his wife to their summer home so that she could tend to their victory garden. The pastor was ultimately cleared of charges on July 10th, after the district office examined “whether such driving was permissible in order to cultivate a victory garden. [The district office decided that] ‘The respondent cannot be charged with responsibility for violation of the regulations and the order of the local board in this respect must be rescinded’.”168 Although, officially the issue was over abusing the allotted gas ration, it was because of the victory garden, and perhaps his status as a pastor, that he was cleared of the charges. This near-scandal demonstrates just how conflicting home front imperatives could be.

Nonetheless, it is interesting that the garden prevailed over rationing. It was a justifiable expense or, use of a gasoline ration to take care of a victory garden. This article gives credence to the

World War II victory garden signifying that a victory garden was a valid facet of American society. They did matter and were controversial enough to not only cause someone to violate their gas ration, but also provide a legitimate reason to have charges dropped.

An even more alarming story appeared in the New York Times in 1944. On July 27, 1944

a newspaper headline read: “Women Battle Over a Victory Garden; 2 Injured in Family Melee in

Brooklyn”. Two families shared a two-story house, and as part of their patriotic duty, planted a

victory garden. One family was displeased with the way the other family tended the garden, and

trash was found near the vegetables. It was then that that the quarrel arose:

168 New York Times, “Pastor Is Exonerated of Misusing Gasoline For Wife’s Trip to Their Victory Garden,” New York Times, July 10,1943.

The showdown came late Tuesday night. Mrs. Sanguedolce and Pauline, armed with hose and stick, paraded up to the second floor, the abode of the Conenellos. When the battle had ended, Mrs. Sanguedolce, 54, was in King’s county hospital with four broken ribs, and Grace Conenello, 14, had four stitches in her head. …

Mrs. Sanguedolce and Pauline were charged with felonious assault.169 Although it is unlikely the majority of the population felt, as strongly about their garden as the Sanguedolce and Conenellos, this story was newsworthy because it contradicted the unity meant to be fostered by the gardens.

People who read this probably chuckled, shook their heads, or clucked their tongues, at this event, which played up the stereotypes and prejudices about Italians knowing full well from government propaganda that these women were not behaving appropriately around this national symbol. Even in this story, of common effort gone wrong, it is clear that, to the home front population, the victory garden was not something to be treated lightly.

Based on these headlines, it is arguable that the home front population was interested in the practice of growing victory gardens. All over the country, individuals of all ages planted gardens and created fun events to showcase their support for the victory garden. The story of the

World War II victory garden as recorded in the New York Times had points of shocking excitement, both good and bad. Victory gardens were significant enough to make national news and have a reoccurring presence in the New York Times. Finally, victory gardens were important enough for people to get into physical altercations over. They were a source of pride and they were a source of contention. The victory garden did truly matter to the home front population, as it was a way to display their sense of duty as American citizens.

169 New York Times, “Women Battle Over a Victory Garden; 2 Injured in Family Melee in Brooklyn”.

Conclusion

Franklin Roosevelt’s administration was successful in perpetuating the victory garden policy to the home front population because he endorsed it in ways that previous administrations were unable to do. Gardens were continuously propagated through political speeches, propaganda films and posters, and handbooks. They were presented as a patriotic duty. Victory garden were endorsed constructively and seen as a way to be part of the war. Although there was a sense of obligation put upon the home front population because of the constant push of government-endorsed gardening, this idea was not directly forced upon the population. Home front citizens had the choice as to whether or not they wanted to participate.

Roosevelt’s government used every means available to get their message out: that the entirety of the American home front population needed to take part in building up the food supply. The easiest way to do so was by participating in the victory garden program. Franklin

Roosevelt gave multiple addresses encouraging and thanking the population to take part in the growing of victory gardens. Government agencies appealed to the American people through beautifully colored posters, which told the population how important their efforts, were in producing food. Short films were produced to instruct the United States population on how to grow gardens.

Children were the prime targets to inspire to grow victory gardens because the work was easy enough for them to do. However, they needed guidance. Thus teachers were recruited to teach and oversee the construction of victory gardens. The government provided plenty of information in the form of instruction manuals. A standardized method was established which promised the best yield of vegetables possible. In this way the gardens served a didactic purpose, as well as civic one.

The home front population was fully involved in the victory garden program. The newspaper articles demonstrated just how involved the home front population was as they celebrated and created events that showed off the success of personal victory gardens. These community events had prizes and contests, which supported the political idea. The importance and level of involvement is almost exaggerated by the ridiculous tales and surprising stories that newspapers propagated about how dedicated people were to their victory gardens. It can thus be concluded that, the victory garden was not simply about what the government wanted. Rather, there was a much deeper level of participation from the home front population than is recognized or acknowledged. The idea was firmly grasped by the home front population and they took it to heart as they grew their victory gardens.

Franklin Roosevelt also continually reminded the public of the importance of growing their own garden. Food supply was just as much a personal concern to Franklin Roosevelt as it was a political concern. He relentlessly promoted victory gardens and the increase of the food supply in general, because to him, food meant freedom. In a battle between “freedom and oppression,” President Roosevelt found a symbol, the victory garden, to inspire the United States home front population to spread freedom by growing their own food while allowing farmers to send the crops they grew throughout the world.170

170 Franklin Roosevelt, “Annual Message to Congress on the State of the Union, January 6, 1941,”

Chapter 3

The Return of the Garden: Writing, Remembering, and Planting Gardens After the War

“To plant a garden is to believe in tomorrow.”

- Audrey Hepburn171

The idea of the victory garden continued on in decades following the Second World War.

As political and economic crises arose, people once again returned to the land as a source of comfort. The idea of cultivating life and working the ground in the midst of rapid change and international turmoil provides a sense of constancy and hope for individuals. The victory garden has been revived numerous times, arguably because, similar to the mythic memory of World War

II or “the good war”, victory gardens allow Americans to recall a time when citizens were united by an idea.

The revival of victory gardens has several periods of particular prominence, when other cultural currents came into play allowing for the resurgence of gardening. They include the

1970s, when aspects of popular culture encouraged a return to a “do it yourself” ethos (DIY) of home improvement that began earlier in the twentieth century. Due to shortages caused by the

Great Depression and Second World War, Americans were familiar with the idea of “make do and mend”, rather than buying a new product when it became run down, worn thin, or broken;

Americans repaired the good via do it yourself projects.172 Thus, home improvement developed

into the hobby and leisure time activity of many Americans. But by the late 1970s, under the

presidency of Gerald Ford homeowners had “become increasingly interested in restoring, rather

than remodeling or replacing.”173 The cultural attitude of the 1970s was to conserve resources and

171 Audrey Hepburn 172 Catherine Dean 2003. Review of Do It Yourself: Home Improvement in 20th-Century America, by Carolyn Goldstein, The Journal of American History 90, no. 3 (December 2003): 977. 173 Ibid, 978.

fix what was broken instead of purchasing new items. A new economic crisis unfolded during

the 1970s and President Ford looked back to Franklin Roosevelt’s administration and encouraged

the population to grow gardens. As inflation increased Ford tried to counter it by introducing a

new program called WIN (Whip Inflation Now). It consisted of a collection of voluntary

programs targeting the reduction of inflation in the economy, the first point of the bi-partisan

program focused heavily on the food supply. WIN encouraged the American people to grow

gardens and farmers to produce as much food as possible. Gerald Ford allied with financial

columnist, Sylvia Porter, who endorsed this grassroots movement and rebirth of the victory

garden. At first the policy was met with much enthusiasm, but it was short lived.174

The 1970s garden shows an interesting crossroads in United States history. The gardens of the 1970s demonstrate a time when the two sides of the American political spectrum wanted the same thing, a return to the garden lifestyle, but for two very different reasons. Ford’s conservative administration promoted gardening as a way to remember the good days of World

War II, when the country was working together to fight a common enemy-in the case of Ford’s administration, an economic enemy. Both Ford and Porter hoped that Americans would return to the mentality of World War II and once again take up the cause of self-sacrifice in order to combat something that threatened the common good. With the help of the PBS show The Victory

Garden, mainstream society was told that the garden represented the perfect way to strengthen community. On the other side of the political spectrum was was the counterculture movement, but they, too, stressed community. Their ideology inspired a return to a more “authentic” way of

174 Gerald Ford, “Whip Inflation Now, October 8, 1974,” archived by Miller Center, University of Virginia http://millercenter.org/president/speeches/speech-3283 (accessed April 19, 2015). Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum, “Artifact Collection,” Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum, http://www.ford.utexas.edu/ (accessed April 19, 2015). Douglas Brinkley and Arthur M. Shclesinger, Jr., Gerald R. Ford: The American Presidents (New York: Times Books Henry Holt and Company, 2007), e-book Location 1308-1321. Tracy Lucht, Sylvia Porter: America’s Original Personal Finance Columnist (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2013), e-book ocation 1271-1273, 1562-1584, 1701-1711.

living, shifting away from materialism and moving towards the “grow your own” food

movements. This communal movement was anti-national, and ideologically at odds with Ford’s

WIN garden program. Nonetheless, even though these two approaches to gardens, and the

garden’s purpose were very different from one another, both the left and the right used the

garden as a way to achieve the political purposes and restore the community that they desired.175

Two decades later, victory gardens were once again revived in the media. This time however, it was through children’s literature published in the 1990s and the 2000s, which retold the story of victory gardens for a new generation. While it is not entirely clear as to what prompted authors to write about victory gardens in the 1990s and 2000s, three trends occurred in

United States history that may bring light to their motive. First, the dawn of the 1990s and 2000s brought with it the old age and death of many World War II vets.176 As a result, there were many

memoirs and personal accounts of the Second World War published by “the so-called greatest

generation;” they did not want their experiences to go unwitnessed. The forty-five year gap

allowed them to finally discuss events that haunted their lives. Therefore, a new genre opened

and with it the rise of the popularity of World War II literature, which ultimately bubbled over

into children’s literature. In addition, the 1990s brought about the end of the Cold War, which

issued in a period of conflict with the Middle East, leading to the Gulf Wars and the War on

Terror.177 Thus, as the United States faced a new era of uncertain warfare, authors could find reassurance by reaching back, and celebrating the “good war”, and the unity found under the ideology of the victory garden. Additionally, continuing over from the decades before the 1990s

175 Ibid 176 The National WWII Museum: New Orleans, “WWII Veterans Statistics,” The National WWII Museum: New Orleans, http://www.nationalww2museum.org/honor/wwii-veterans-statistics.html (accessed October 11, 2014). 177 U.S. Department of State: Office of the Historian, “A Short History of the Department of State: The First Gulf War,” U.S. Department of State, https://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/short-history/firstgulf (accessed October 11, 2014).

was an increase in public concern about the environment. The Green Party (originally

Association of State Green Parties) was formed in the mid-1990s, bringing awareness about

environmental issues and a desire for individuals to reconnect to the earth. Their platform, “to

enhance ecological balance and social harmony… and the health of the planet” epitomized the

view that penetrated into mainstream thinking.178 With the rise of environmental consciousness across society, it makes sense that authors would include conservation, or ideas about gardening in their writing, in order to teach young readers of its importance.

Memoir: Remembering the Past in the Post-WWII Period

Although World War II is responsible for introducing mass killing in the most horrific and systematic ways; World War II is remembered as being the “good war” – a war that was not only necessary to fight but was also just to fight; since the Allies were fighting, what is widely agreed upon as, the incarnation of evil– Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany.179 World War II is

remembered so positively because the United States was victorious and the majority of the

population was involved in the war effort. Thus, there is a sense of nostalgia towards some

sectors of the past and wistful longing for the social unity surrounding the Second World War.180

This form of American exceptionalism and sense of unification is something that people crave

when they look back at World War II, even though the war resulted in mass casualties for both

military and civilian populations, and is arguably the epitome of human cruelty.

178 Green Party of the United States, “Our History,” Green Party, http://www.gp.org/what-we believe/history (accessed October 11, 2014). Green Party of the United States, “About the Green Party,” Green Party, http://www.gp.org/what-we-believe/about us (accessed October 11, 2014) Green Party of the United States, “Ten Key Values,” Green Party, http://www.gp.org/what-we-believe/10-key values (accessed October 11, 2014). 179 Paul Formosa, “Understanding Evil Acts,” Human Studies 30, no. 2 (June 2007), http://www.jstor.org/stable/27642783 (accessed November 22, 2014): 57-77. 180 Michael Kammen, 2011. Review of The “Good War” in American Memory, by John Bodnar. Journal of American History 98 no.1 (June), http://www.jstor.org/stable/41509166 (accessed November 22, 2014): 246-247. Michael S. Neiberg, 2012. Review of The “Good War” in American Memory, by John Bodnar. Journal of Social History 45 no. 3 (Spring), http://www.jstor.org/stable/41678929 (accessed November 22, 2014): 870-872.

Memoirs from individuals who grew victory gardens are the most common way that victory gardens show up in historic memory. There are a number of oral histories that have been transcribed in the book titled Americans Remember the Home Front: An Oral Narrative of the

World War II Years in America. In this collection of memoirs, the participants present a variety of viewpoints as to how they remember the Second World War. For the most part, however, the reminiscing about victory gardens is quite positive.

A common theme is that often times there was not enough room in a town or city for individuals to have their own personal gardens. However, that did not stop the home front population from participating in the victory garden program. In cases where there was a minimal amount of space, the home front citizenry established a community victory garden. Martha

Wood from Raleigh, North Carolina, took part in such a garden. She recalls, “We formed a neighborhood Victory garden, plowed up the backyards of three houses, and planted beans, corn, tomatoes, okra, squash and all the things we could use.”181 Martha Wood’s experience was very

community oriented. As a neighborhood, they made the garden and then they canned the produce

with they grew. Wood’s recollection has a very patriotic tone surrounding the memory of the

victory garden. She believed in the senses of community that the neighborhood victory garden

brought and it is a pleasant memory that has stayed with her for many years.

Community victory gardens were also cultivated in the work place. One member from the

staff of Newsday recalled that that their company joined in on the community victory garden.

Although this was patriotic, the newspaper had an additional motive; while most of the staff was

unfamiliar with gardening, they eagerly embraced the idea, for it provided a new feature story.

Newsday planned to provide a step-by-step story of a “how-to-do-it” victory garden,

181 Martha Wood, “The Home Front,” in Americans Remember the Home Front, ed. Roy Hoopes (New York: Berkley Books, 2002), 268.

demonstrating the company victory garden’s progress, complete with photographs.182 However,

their plan was less than successful, because the photography department was stretched thin. In

fact, on one occasion the photographers ended up shooting a wedding, still dressed in dirty

gardening clothes.183 The Newsday employees were brought together because of the victory garden. It built a sense of camaraderie amongst the participants especially when they showed up to photograph the wedding covered in dirt. The employees could laugh about their embarrassing encounter afterwards because they had the solidarity of camaraderie already established, thanks to the victory garden.

Even as victory gardens were remembered as strengthening community ties; individuals

also recalled their gardening experiences. One such memoir is from a man from Pittsfield,

Massachusetts, Ted Giddings. He recounts his wartime gardens saying that during the war, his

community was very patriotic and willing to aid the war effort. Giddings proudly participated in

the victory garden movement, although, for him, food was not as much of an issue. Upon

reflection, he recalls that he “was more aware of food shortages in World War I, as a child, than

in World War II.”184 For Ted Giddings, growing a victory garden was done out of patriotic fervor, rather than a need for food. He engaged in the policy because it was not that hard, and because it was the “right thing” to do. Gardening was fairly easy for Ted Giddings. However, some of his coworkers struggled with the gardens that they grew, which was quite humorous to Giddings.185

Similar to the newspapers articles mentioned above, the victory garden experience was quite

positive for the young editor. His memoir reflects the same pride, that the population had in

182 Jack Altshul, “The Home Front,” in Americans Remember the Home Front, ed. Roy Hoopes (New York: Berkley Books, 2002), 270-272. 183 Ibid 184 Ted Giddings “Keeping the Country Informed,” in Americans Remember the Home Front, ed. Roy Hoopes (New York: Berkley Books, 2002), 133. 185 Ibid, 132-134.

supporting the idea of helping the war effort, which is depicted in the New York Times.

One individual who had a difficult experience in growing a victory garden was Erwin

Hargrove. The Hargrove family could only work on their garden once Erwin’s father got home from work. It was difficult to take care of the garden and turned out to be a much more stressful and annoying task than they thought it would be. Tending the garden made for a long summer for

Erwin Hargrove and his father, and it was one experience that they did not much care for. For the

Hargrove family, the victory garden was not a particularly fond recollection in their memoir.186

Upon recalling this event, Erwin Hargrove associates and equates the stress that he felt about the

war, and fear that his father would be drafted, with the difficulty of growing a victory garden.

Erwin has a negative memory of the victory garden because he cannot separate the frightening

thoughts of his wartime experience from the demanding task of growing a victory garden.

In contrast to the difficulties of growing a victory garden, is the positive memory recalled

by Amy Bess Miller. Her family needed to substitute food by growing a victory garden and she

was quite successful with the one that she grew. Her 14-acre garden was large enough to provide

food for her family as well as five other families.187 Her memoir helps support the theory presented in the newspaper articles. As a young woman, the war provided her with new opportunities. These opportunities in turn enforced a positive experience with the war, thus providing a positive memory related to the victory garden. This is noted by the fact that she felt like she was doing something vital by helping to provide food for her family and community.

The memoirs published in the decades after the Second World War provide a mostly favorable look at the memory of the victory garden. While it was difficult to take care of a

186 Erwin Hargrove, “Wives and Children,” in Americans Remember the Home Front, ed. Roy Hoopes (New York: Berkley Books, 2002), 252-253. 187 Amy Bess Miller, “The Home Front,” in Americans Remember the Home Front, ed. Roy Hoopes (New York: Berkley Books, 2002), 261-262.

victory garden, and attempts did not always yield an abundant crop, they were typically viewed

as a positive experience and worthwhile venture. The memoirs reiterate the ideas propagated in

government posters as well as the stories that were printed in the New York Times, demonstrating that the idea of the victory garden was of substantial importance and a crucial facet of World

War II society and culture. The victory garden cannot simply be analyzed based on the number of gardens grown, or the amount of tons of food produced and canned, rather the victory garden must be examined in its cultural context and the ideological value that it reflects.

Children’s Literature

The memoirs discussed above are based on the experiences of individuals from the

Second World War. However, that was not the only type of literature that revived the World War

II victory garden. The genre of children’s literature similarly expressed a particular interest in popularizing the historic memory of the victory garden. Children’s literature provides an ideal canvas to chronicle historical memory by placing historical events into a context and set of terms that children can comprehend. Stories make factual knowledge easier to remember and recall because the concepts are presented in a friendlier manner. Therefore, a recollection of historical events is taught to children and preserved in popular memory. Additionally, telling stories was used for centuries in order to pass along history and culture.188 Not only does children’s literature

allow for the world to be analyzed in the most ingenious way, but it is also describes the human

experience; presenting the world in a less complicated, more straightforward way. Unlike adult

literature, children’s literature allows for the simplification and creative imagination of the world.

188 Bette Bosma, Fairy Tales, Fables, Legends, and Myths: Using Folk Literature in Your Classroom (New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1992), vii Wanda J. Miller, U.S. History Through Children’s Literature: From the Colonial Period to World War II (Englewood, CO: Teacher Ideas Press, 1997), xi-xii Mildred Knight Laughlin and Patricia Payne Kardaleff, Literature-Based Social Studies: Children’s Books & Activities to Enrich the K-5 Curriculum (Phoenix: Oryx Press, 1991)

The commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the Second World War was observed by

the United States once again, entering a war; this time, in the Middle East, in what became

known as the First Gulf War. As the Cold War came to a close, a new confrontation took its

place. The veterans and survivors of the Second World War recounted their stories of war,

during the 1990s, as a way to counsel society about the consequences that war has, and remind

society about the abuses of human rights, which occur during times of war. In addition to the

memoirs of survivors and soldiers, individuals who were children during the war, also wrote

about their experiences of growing up during wartime.189 These accounts, the ones from

individuals who were children on the American home front, are typically more cheerful than

survivors and soldier’s accounts. They memorialize the good war mentality. Often times, these

more positive and upbeat stories are transcribed into children’s novels, which contain plots that

develop around victory gardens.

The idea of victory gardens was continually and increasingly used as a canvas to teach

children about World War II in the 1990s. Victory gardens provide an inoffensive platform to

expose children to war. Rather than dealing with blood, carnage, and death, which is often

portrayed in adult literature, children’s literature authors are able to reach back into the

childhood memories and create a story depicting the popular historical memory about the war.190

This is apparent in the types of books being offered to children, particularly to young girls.

Victory gardens are a symbol of life, which is a nice counter-balance to the death and destruction

connected to war, providing a more agreeable backdrop for their novels. The victory garden

189 Jonathan Bolton, “Mid-Term Autobiography and the Second World War,” Journal of Modern Literature, 30, no. 1 (Autumn 2006), http://www.jstor.org/stable/4619319 (accessed November 22, 2014): 155-158. The President and Fellows of Harvard College, “A Call to Action on the 50th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” Health and Human Rights, 3 no. 2 (1998), http://www.jstor.org/stable/4065293 (accessed November 22, 2014): 7-18. 190 Barbara F. Harrison, “Why Study Children’s Literature,” The Quarterly Journal of the Library of Congress 38, no. 4 (Fall 1981), http://www.jstor.org/stable/29781912 (accessed October 24, 2014), 243.

provides World War II context, without having to directly address the horrors and tragedy of war.

It is a much more positive way to depict the Second World War, especially to young children.191

This approach to literature could be applied in other genres; however, this study’s focus will be narrowed to children’s literature.

In order to keep the focus of this study of children’s literature narrow, only six examples are being analyzed out of the dozen that were examined. Theses novels were written for young girls between the ages of 6-12 years. These books, particularly the American Girl ones validate the role of women, or girls in history. They build upon the ideas mentioned previously in this thesis, of women taking on the role of gardener in society. These examples of children’s literature are making an argument that girls do belong in history and deserve to have their own voice. Beginning forty years after the Second World War, these children’s books were published in 1986, 1990, 1999, 2005, 2009, and 2010 respectively. The majority of these books were published during the period of remembrance of the 50th anniversary of the Second World War.

Four themes developed while examining these six children’s books in relation to one another. The first theme stresses child and community involvement in the tending of victory gardens. The stories also highlight the patriotic zeal and personal pride that individuals experienced, contrasted against the difficulty that occurred when growing a victory garden. Third, the books also touch on the emotional side of the victory garden, whether it was providing comfort to those who had family members away or lost in the war, or spurring on the competitive spirit to have the best vegetables. Finally, the main themes that are written about in these books parallel the themes found in the New York Times newspaper articles and the official governmental stance on the victory garden. They thus demonstrate that while children’s literature

191 Deborah Kogan Ray, My Daddy Was a Soldier: A World War II Story (New York: Holliday House, 1990), 9-10.

is in some sense simplified literature, written on a lower intellectual level, it understands and

acknowledges the intangible importance of the victory garden, in a way that research in

scholarship tends to overlook. Children’s literature captures the ideological legacy of the victory

garden in a way that is not evident in the statistical data records of the victory gardens.

Literature’s Depictions of Garden Involvement

The most widely occurring theme in this sample of children’s literature is the theme of

children’s involvement in helping to grow a victory garden. During the war, children were

heavily targeted by the education system, when it came to tending victory gardens; thus, it is a

natural to connect this historical reality to the fictional world created by these writers. Dr. Lee

Kochenderfer, author of The Victory Garden, pays particular attention to the factual details about

the World War II victory, due to her background as an educator. Nonetheless, the narrative is

nostalgic, directed toward young children, ingraining the good war mentality to a new generation

of American children.192 Like the newspapers and memoirs account, the children in The Victory

Garden took on responsibility of tending the garden, because it was a task that they were

encouraged to do.193 On the one hand, Kochenderfer gives a reliable depiction of who was involved in growing a victory garden during the Second World War. Additionally, the message tells contemporary children that they can also grow gardens. Children reading the story are told that taking care of the earth and growing your own vegetables is very satisfying. The book provides lessons that the reader can put into practice; taking part in the back to land movements

192 Lee Kochenderfer, The Victory Garden (New York: Random House Children’s Books, 2009). 193 The Victory Garden is about a girl named Teresa who lives in Kansas whose older brother is off fighting in the war. In order to keep from worrying about her brother and aid the war effort, her neighbor Tom Bert, challenges her father, Allan Marks, to a contest to see who can grow the best tomatoes. Shortly after, Tom Bert gets in an accident and is forced to stay in the hospital. Since he cannot take care of his garden, it is supposed to be turned under, rather than left to rot. Teresa cannot bear to see this happen so she and her classmates tend the garden. They sell the produce to buy war bonds, allowing them to feel like they are aiding the war effort and following the advice and requests of their government.

of contemporary time.

In contrast is Helen L. Wilbur’s Lilly’s Victory Garden. Wilbur takes wide liberties in her

description of who was involved in growing a victory garden. This is a case where the popular

historical memory overshadows historical accuracy. In the story, the main character is barred

from participating in the community park victory garden program because she is too young.194

However, evidence suggests the opposite, that children were quite involved in the victory garden

program, during the Second World War, as schools partnered with these public parks and vacant

lots to allow children to do their part.195 Thus, contrary to the story, children of all ages were encouraged to participate in the victory garden program, not just the older kids like the book describes.196 This book chronicles the memory of the victory in a positive light, showing that even youth can help their nation. It parallels the contemporary idea that the things that the youth of the nation do, can in fact, impact the country. The 2000s kindled a grassroots movement that encouraged young people to get involved and grow gardens. U.C. Berkley created Edible

Education sponsoring “The Edible School Yard” program. Real School Gardens launched a

national campaign for low-income schools via the “Learning Garden”. Whole Kids Foundation

created an international garden program called “School Gardens” with the goal of bringing

children access to fresh vegetables.197 Additionally, there are many other school garden programs, which invite children to take part in garden movements all across the country. Lilly’s Victory

194 Helen L. Wilbur, Lilly’s Victory Garden (New Freedom, PN: Sleeping Bear Press, 2010). 195 Gabler, Earl R. “School Gardens for Victory”. Heuchling, Fred G. “Children’s Gardens in Chicago”. Hochbaum, H. W. “victory Gardens in 1944: How Teachers May Help”. Lippincott, Williams, & Wilkins. “Victory gardens for 1943”. 196 Lilly’s Victory Garden tells the story of a girl who lives on the World War II home front. She does not have a yard to plant a garden in, so she attempts to get a plot in the local park. However, she is denied a plot because she is not old enough. So, Lilly asks her neighbor if she can grow a garden in his yard. He agrees. As the garden grows, the neighbor’s wife finds healing in regards to her son’s death, who died fighting in the war. 197Edible Education, “The Edible School Yard Project: Our History” (April 15, 2015) http://edibleschoolyard.org/our-story Real School Gardens “Who We Are” (accessed April 15, 2015) http://www.realschoolgardens.org/who-we-are.aspx Whole Kids Foundation, “About Us”, (accessed April 15, 2015) https://www.wholekidsfoundation.org/about/

Garden highlights that children should not be ignored and should be part of the nation’s garden movements.

The author of Jennie’s War, Bonnie Hinman, pays homage to the other type of involvement associated with the victory garden, the communal victory gardens. In order to diffuse a stressful situation and constant bickering between the Jennie and her brother, their aunt provides the two kids with a project. The project is to make a victory garden in an abandoned lot.

The story takes place in Seattle, where there is little open space to produce agriculture.198

Therefore, like the practice of other large cities, with little available land, Jennie’s aunt took advantage of a vacant lot. Thus, she created a public or community victory garden where individuals tend their own sections of a larger plot. Bonnie Hinman demonstrates the importance to historic cultural memory, mentioning that while not everyone could grow a victory garden in their own yard, they could still participate in the program.199 The book points out that victory gardens were a way to build communities and bring people together, as well as, relieve stress. In terms of discussing contemporary times, the book shows how valuable a garden can be in terms of keeping a community together. Karen Schmelzkopf notes this as she describes that the community garden in New York keep trouble from occurring and provides the youth with a safe place that does not have gang violence, drug usage, or other harmful influences.200

198 Bonnie Hinman, Jennie’s War: The Home Front in World War 2 (Uhrichsville, OH: Barbour Publishing Inc., 2005). 199 Jennie’s War opens with her oldest brother away at war and ten-year-old Jennie constantly bickering with her nine-year-old brother, which irks everyone around them. In an attempt to stop the hostility between the two kids, Aunt Irene, tells the two kids that she has a mission for them. The project is to grow a victory garden in an abandoned lot. Competition continues between the two siblings, but the garden provides emotional support by occupying the thoughts of the growers, so as to ease their minds of thinking about family members away at war. The novel also highlights the gardens practicality of providing a supplement to rationing. As beneficial as the garden is, it does not mean it is easy to grow. Jennie and her brother experience the difficulty of growing a victory garden and the labor-intensive task of digging up the ground. Although growing a garden was difficult, Jennie plants a victory garden the following year. She clings to its optimistic appeal, that this was really helping the war effort and that it was a way for her to deal with her brother being away. 200 Schmelzkopf, “Urban Community Gardens as Contested Space,”.

Patriotic Determination: Promoting the Legacy

Besides bringing attention to the victory garden and those who was grew them, these

works of fiction promote the patriotic and pro-war sentiment that is commonly associated with

the memory of the Second World War. The three novels that promote this mentality,

commenting on current struggles about the relationship between the way that history is

transformed into memory and the way that history is documented.

Valerie Tripp, author of Meet Molly, takes great pains to present an accurate depiction of

patriotism in relation to the victory garden. This is evident, due to the fact that at the end of the

Meet Molly there is a section, called “Looking Back: America in 1944”, which includes primary

sources and explanations about what it was like to live during the Second World War. A portion

of this segment discusses the role that victory gardens played on the World War II home front,

which parallels the theme in the novel.201 Although Molly hates turnips, and initially vows to not eat them, she ultimately succumbs to her patriotic duty and eats her vegetables. Not all of the seeds that were planted grew into beautiful vegetables; however, Molly’s family would not waste the vegetables that were grown in her family’s victory garden. Molly does her patriotic duty and cleans her plate, because she knows that eating all her food is a way to fight the war.202 She

understands Franklin Roosevelt’s message that says that food is equated with freedom. This

piece of popular historical memory reflects the World War II propaganda posters, bringing

awareness to the ideology of food responsibility into the present day. One could argue that being

201 Valerie Tripp, Meet Molly (Middleton, WI: American Girl Company Inc., 2000). 202 In Meet Molly, the victory garden first makes an appearance when Molly is forced to eat the turnips, which were grown in her family’s victory garden. The entire household was involved in the tending the garden all summer. Like many first time gardeners, their crop was not very successful; however, that did not stop them from eating the vegetables that survived. As the whole point of a growing a victory garden was to aid the war effort. Molly was not allowed to waste food, although, she utterly despises turnips. Ultimately, Molly does her patriotic duty and cleans her plate, because she knows that eating all of her food was a way to fight the war. At the end of the book there is a section, called “Looking Back: American in 1944” that includes primary sources about what it was like to live during the Second World War.

patriotic was a choice that Molly had to make for herself, even as her government heavily endorsed it. This is quite similar to the Second Gulf War. The United States government rallied up a patriotic spirit around the war, nonetheless, individuals had to choose whether or not they would support it. In fiction, especially when that fiction is about the memory of the good war, it is much easier to make the patriotic decision; in real life, the patriotic decision is not always as clear-cut.

The novel The Victory Garden gives a more “hoorah” view of patriotism in connection to victory gardens, as the predominant theme of Kochenderfer’s novel is growing a victory garden to aid the war and bring the boys home safe.203 The Victory Garden highlights that victory gardens are in fact, crucial when creating the popular historical memory of the Second World

War, in contemporary times. There was an elevated level of patriotism during the war, due to the factors that impacted society, such as rationing, news reel updates at the movies and family members working in wartime production. Essentially, the war mentality was constantly surrounding the home front population, thus there was a rise in consciousness about the war.

This thought process is the backdrop of Kochenderfer’s novel and while she may have exaggerated on just how prominent the patriotic spirit was across the home front population, she does create the setting from a valid World War II feeling. Additionally, it reveals the positive view of victory gardens, which is supported by public memory, demonstrating that even though gardens required a substantial amount of hard work, they were worth it.204 It was a way for the home front population to continue on while members of their family were away. Lee

203 Kochenderfer, The Victory Garden. Ted Giddings, “Keeping the Country Informed,” 132-134. 204 New York Times, “Boys Plan A Garden Despite Big Hazards”.

Kochenderfer’s book The Victory Garden reflects the opinion of the World War II home front and their desire to remember victory gardens as a positive thing.205

Growing a Victory Garden is no Bed of Roses: Struggles and Problems

Even as these authors play up the patriotic spirit that urged these young girls to

participate in the victory garden program, they did not stop at that. The authors bring in historical

authenticity highlighting the struggles that occurred during the growing process. There were

many different types of issues that gardeners experienced while growing a victory garden:

insects, drought, heat waves, soil issues, and tilling the ground was painstaking labor. The

authors establish credibility in depicting the World War II victory garden by mentioning some of

these challenging factors that were common to the victory garden policy.

In the book, Jennie’s War, Bonnie Hinman points out the difficulty of growing a garden:

tilling the land, and dealing with the elements. Thus, the memory of the Second World War is

authentically described in this account of popular historical memory. Jennie and her friends

struggle over the labor-intensive task of digging up the ground, eventually, a farmer arrives and

tilled up the lot with his plow.206 This reflects the struggle that occurred in growing a victory garden; but it also expresses the way that more established agricultural workers set out to help less experienced workers.207 This trend was noted in the newspaper articles, which recorded that people willingly helped one another. In addition, this is a point of comparison for contemporary society. While there is an increase in the amount of people interested in growing their own organic food, or participating in community garden projects, the vast majority of contemporary

American society has little knowledge on how to actually grow produce. If they did participate in

205 Ibid 206 Hinman, Jennie’s War. 207 New York Times, “Farmer, 73, Helps Pupils in Garden”. L. H. Robbins, “Mr. and Mrs. Novice Make A War Garden” New York Times, March 15, 1942.

a garden project, they would require instruction and aid from already established gardeners.208

As a result of such time consuming and arduous work, the entire household was involved in the tending of the victory garden. Members of the home front had to tend their garden all summer long. Similar to accounts of memoirs and newspapers articles, Meet Molly emphasizes the struggle to keep the garden alive.209 Unfortunately, like many first time gardeners, the fictional McIntire family’s crop was not very successful. However, that did not stop the McIntire family from eating the vegetables that survived and endured, as the whole point of a growing a victory garden was to aid the war effort.210 Author Valerie Tripp suitably alludes to the official government mentality of the Second World War, mentioned in the messages broadcasted in propaganda posters; messages that include ideologies to not waste anything and use up everything, and grow a victory garden.211 This piece of children’s literature remembers two

fundamental ideological components associated with growing a victory garden, the amount of

work required to grow a garden that could turn people away from the policy and the continuous

push from the government to remind the population that they were doing a vital work by growing

a victory garden. Different memories can be emphasized based on who is giving account of the

event. This memory shows that why it has a positive image surrounding it, there were many

gardens that did not produce adequate crops. This is the same plight that contemporary gardeners

208 CSUSM Education Department, “The Sustainable Food Project at CSUSM” (2015). 209 Erwin Hargrove, “Wives and Children,” 252-253. Associated Press, “Victory Garden Provides A Real Baseball Farm”. 210 Valerie Tripp, Meet Molly (Middleton, WI: Pleasant Company Publications, 2000). 211 Anton Bruehl, National Victory Farm Volunteers, “Going Our Way? National Victory Farm Volunteers, “Join Us On the Farm Front!”. Dohanos, “Fill It!: Help Harvest War Crops,” United States. Office of War Information., “Plant a Victory Garden”. Morley, “Your Victory Garden Counts More Than Ever!”. Strong, “Grow Your Own: Be Sure!” Bayer, “Grow It Yourself Plan A Farm Garden Now”. Burdett & National Garden Bureau, “War Gardens For Victory”.

face. On the one hand gardening can be a very uplifting experience; on the other hand,

sometimes no matter how much effort is put into a garden, the garden will not produce.

Emotional Healing and Competitions

Another noteworthy theme in this assortment of children’s literature is the theme of the

victory garden as a source of emotional healing, or individuals using the victory garden as a way

to deal with the stress of war.212 Around the time that these children’s books were being published, there were a number of psychological studies researched, which explored the connection between gardening and stress or trauma reduction. The studies found that connecting and engaging with nature had many healing qualities, both for physically and psychologically, for those who were exposed to traumatic incidents. Gardens are used as therapeutic environments to counter high-stress situations by providing a literal “Mixing with the earth,” which formulates

a connection between the individual and the environment. This lowers stress, by releasing

chemicals into the human body in a way that other actions and environments fail too do.213 While

these are psychological studies, and thus focus on the clinical side of the experiment, the

information that they provide is valuable because it highlights why books written in the 1990s

would take this psychological approach to connect the home front to their gardens.

212 Kogan Ray, My Daddy Was a Soldier. Wilbur, Lilly’s Victory Garden. Hinman, Jennie’s War. Kochenderfer, The Victory Garden. 213 The Children’s Nature Institute, “About Us,” The Children’s Nature Institute, http://childrensnatureinstitute.org/about-us/ (accessed May 17, 2014). Agnes E. Van Den Berg and Mariëtte H.G. Custers, “Gardening Promotes Neuroendocrine and Affective Restoration from Stress,” Journal of Health Psychology 16, no.3, June 2010. http://hpq.sagepub.com/content/16/1/3 (accessed November 24, 2014). Christine Milligan, Anthony Gatrell, and Amanda Bingley, “‘Cultivating Health:’ Therapeutic Landscapes and Older People in Northern England,” Social Science and Medicine 58, no.9, 2004. 1781-1793. Elsevier Science Direct Complete doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00397-6 (accessed November 24, 2014). Ingrid Söderback, Marianne Söderström, and Elisabeth Schälander, “Horticultural Therapy: the ‘Healing Garden’ and Gardening in Rehabilitation measures at Danderyd Hospital Rehabilitation Clinic, Sweden,” Pediatric Rehabilitation 7 no.4, October-December 2004. 245-260. EBSCO HOST (accessed November 24, 2014).

In Lilly’s Victory Garden, Helen Wilbur depicts the healing qualities of tending to a victory garden. One of the characters, Mrs. Bishop, is devastated and depressed in regards to her son’s death, he died fighting in the war. However, while helping Lilly take care of the victory garden in the Bishop’s yard, Mrs. Bishop receives emotional and psychological relief.214 The

victory garden helped shift her focus, rather than constantly dwell on the death of her son, Mrs.

Bishop tailored her grief towards doing something constructive. Thus she reaped the healing

benefits that occur when an individual engages with nature. This sense of healing seems to have

a connection between land, the home front, and soldiers. As mentioned earlier in this chapter,

victory gardens provided a point of emotional connection or healing between the home front and

American soldiers abroad.215 Furthermore, the book connects to the contemporary period, with the wars going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. Like Mrs. Bishop, many people lost loved ones and they had to find a way keep going. The memory about the Second World War, finding healing through gardening is offered for those impacted by the Wars on Terror. Returning to the land, a theme mentioned in many of the books, can help individuals suffering from trauma to relax and find healing by connecting to the earth.

This trilateral relationship is also mentioned by Bonnie Hinman. This children’s novel

uses the victory garden as a way to deal with the stress of war. She emphasizes the emotional

support that the home front had, by using the victory garden as a way of occupying the thoughts

of the growers, so as to ease their minds of thinking about family members away at war. Jennie

and her family, particularly her younger brother were negatively impacted by the war, leading to

their constant bickering. Their personal victory gardens provided an avenue for the two kids to

channel their anxiousness. Tending a victory garden was a way for her to deal with her brother

214 Wilbur, Lilly’s Victory Garden, 2010. 215 New York Times, “Victory Garden in the Making Far From the Home Front”.

being away.216 In this book, the emotional strain and aggression of not knowing if her brother was safe was pacified by bonding with nature, as if to show her readers than one should not just be soothed, but rather should maintain the warlike spirit. This sense of emotional consolation was further made possible by the competition of growing a victory garden. Not only were the stresses of war pushed aside as home front attention shifted to the garden; but in the novel, the competitive spirit took root, inspiring positivity to surround the victory garden to see who could grow the best one. This highly competitive spirit allowed home front gardens to proudly displayed their gardens in order to bring emotional consolation during this difficult period. This book reflects both the history it discusses as well as the culture that it was produced in.

Gardening did provide a sense of relief as they drew attention away from worrying about loved ones. But equally as important, this book reflects the use of therapeutic gardening techniques that are used to counter emotional trauma in contemporary times.

Lee Kochenderfer provides a similar portrayal of victory gardens. The purpose of planting a garden in The Victory Garden is to help console Teresa’s family, while her older

brother is away at war. A competition forms between the neighbors and they see who can grow

the best tomatoes.217 On the one had Kochenderfer highlights the competitive emotional spirit, which as mentioned earlier, was one of the highpoints of growing a victory garden. On the other hand she points out just how important the victory garden was to providing a source of comfort.

They helped to diminish the stress of the war and produced life in a time when the death of a loved one was a constant threat.

Victory gardens were as much a distraction from missing family members, as they were an aid to the war effort. Victory gardens provided an emotional release and a way to deal with

216 Hinman, Jennie’s War. 217 Kochenderfer, The Victory Garden.

the war. They also allowed for the pleasurable relief of competition. Furthermore, victory gardens provide an inoffensive way to discuss the Second World War. Therefore, it is an appealing theme for children’s authors to use in their stories about World War II, so as to emphasize national unity instead of blood and destruction. Contemporary literature about victory gardens teaches children not only about the “factual details” of the Second World War, they also taught children about important issues from the 1990s and 2000s. Whether it was to be more aware about the environment, the fact that children can be involved with local gardening movements, or that gardens are a way to relieve stress, children’s novels discussing victory gardens provide a platform to chronicle the memory of the war.

Another Form of Memory: A Second Progressive Era Garden, The 1960s and 1970s

Moving away from the theme of literary-based memory, and returning to historical-based analysis, it is necessary to go back in time, to a period that more closely felt the repercussions of the end of World War II. The 1960s and 1970s reflect a turbulent era in American history. Amid the escalation of the war in Vietnam, increasing levels of Civil Rights activism, and the economic crisis coupled with rising oil prices, this period is arguably one of the most politically charged times in American history. Thus, it is not surprising that these two decades of social and political crisis bring with them a return to gardening. As noted earlier, periods of crisis spur a desire to reconnect to the land, allowing Americans to find comfort and stability by growing their own food. This volatile period was no different.

The 1960s gave birth to a new subculture movement hereby referred to, as the counter culture movement. Many individuals who adopted this political ideology moved in with one another and formed places of communal living. In an attempt to escape corporate America and achieve self-sufficiency, back to landers planted their own food in order to get out from under

100

the government’s control.218 Back to landers wanted to return to a more virtuous style of living, away from the urban environment, similar to the agricultural philosophy of Thomas Jefferson.219

In additionally to living a life that was morally superior to the mainstream, since they were in

tune with the earth, the back to land movement stressed an independent way of living.

Individuals who took up this way of life thought that it to be liberating and freeing as their

dependence came not from urbanized society, but from the land.220 As enticing as the back to

land movement sounded, many of those who participated fond themselves at a loss, once they

actually embarked on the back to land movement. Those who were successful in their pursuit of

the back to land movement soon found that they needed to supplement the lifestyle with some

form of production. Some of the career choices included selling hammocks, publishing literature,

like the Whole Earth Catalog, and working in agriculture or construction.221 By entering into any

of these avocations, the participants in the back to land movement found a way to reconcile their

personal worldview with the practically of survival.

The rationale for returning to the land was that the process would allow for individuals to

become healthier, cleanse themselves both physically and mentally, as well as find a sense of

community.222 The back to land movement took the best points of previous periods of government-endorsed gardening and implemented it into the counter culture movement, without having the oversight of the authorities. Although the United States government was not in charge

218 Timothy Miller, “The Roots of the 1960s Communal Revival,” American Studies 33, no.2 (Fall 1993): 73-93 (accessed October 14, 2014). John Robert Howard, “The Flowering of the Hippie Movement,” Annals of the American Academy of Political And Social Science 382, (March 1969): 43-55 (accessed October 14, 2014). Tucker, Kitchen Gardening in America, 156. 219 Ryan H. Edfington, “‘Be Receptive to the Good Hearth’: Health, Nature, and Labor in Countercultural back-to-the-Land Settlements,” Agricultural History 82 no. 3 (Summer 2008), JSTOR http://www.jstory.org/stable/20454851 (accessed March 12, 2015): 299. 220 Dona Brown, Back to the Land: The Enduring Dream of Self-Sufficiency in Modern America (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 2011), 207 221 Edgington, “‘Be Receptive to the Good Hearth’”280-282. Brown, Back to Land, 207-208 222 Edgington, “‘Be Receptive to the Good Hearth’” 280-282.

101

of this program, they people of the counter culture movement did use the government’s authority, to support their platform.

The back to land movement focused on the protecting the environment from being destroyed. Participants believed that moving away from metropolitan areas was the only way that they could return to the “last uncorrupted havens” in America. The back to land movement spurred a mentality of “anti-urbanism” in favor of a more pastoral lifestyle. Counter cultures focused on a lifestyle that was non-destructive to the environment, as well as producing and consuming food that was wholesome. While the back to land movement was open to anyone who wanted to live a lifestyle that preserved the environment and was free of the detestable factors of urban life, the majority of those involved in the movement were young people under the age of

30. This demographic makes sense, as they reflect the age group that was targeted during the

Second World War as children, now grown. In analyzing the generational age progression, it appears that the youth that were educated about gardens during the World War II, are the same people who grew up to become young adults that remember the lessons of childhood and apply them to daily life. The back to land movement took the idea of the garden and applied it to the larger political issue of environmental concerns.223

Even as participants in the back to land movement attempted to flee mainstream society, the counter culture movement was making a political statement. This liberal-minded society allowed for participants to experiment in any way they chose, and believed in peace above all else.224 In addition to their morally relaxed view on life, these societies planted gardens as a

component of their ideology. This allowed them to not be dependent on corporate America;

223 Ibid 281-284, 286. 224 Miller, “The Roots of the 1960s Communal Revival,” 83.

102

instead they were self-sustaining and connected to the earth in a spiritual way.225 This connection

to the earth prompted an increasing concern about the environment. In fact, “For many young

radicals in the age of ecology, gardening ceased to be merely a private activity and became part

of the fate of the universe.”226 While mainstream society was in an uproar, torn apart by war, economic problems, and civil unrest, this counterculture movement found stability and comfort in taking care of the earth, growing food, and tending their gardens. Gardens demonstrated their political stance: disgust for the overwhelming problems and demanding expectations of

American society and a desire for a much freer and simpler utopian society.

This defining political ideology grew into larger concerns about the environment. No longer was gardening simply a way to provide healthy food, rather gardening transformed into a philosophy of environmental awareness. Growing personal gardens meant that the earth would be better taken care of. This need to preserve and save the earth was critical to the counter culture political ideology:

When gardeners grew food organically, their actions extended beyond their private world, contributing to the health of the planet by reducing the amount of food grown with poisonous chemicals and capitalistic agriculture. The new philosophy of ecology taught, “we are morally obligated to our planet if not ourselves, to grow at least part of our food.” Ecology and gardening came together advocating not only a cleaner environment but space for urban Americans to oppose corporate agriculture by growing their own vegetables.227 Thus the desire for a clean and better environment became a pressing concern, once again

spurring interest in gardening because of its connection to environmentalism. Like the

Progressive Era a few decades earlier, those who followed this ideology petitioned for the

government to pass environmental legislation. Once again, there was a period where the attention

225 Ibid. Howard, “The Flowering of the Hippie Movement,” 43-55. 226 Tucker, Kitchen Gardening in America, 156. 227 Tucker, Kitchen Gardening in America, 156.

103

focused on the public’s side of the relationship of government-endorsed gardening, where the

people requested for the government to pass legislation. Upon seeing the success of previous

periods when the government responded to the public, sentiment formulated into a grass-roots

“garden” movement, prompting the counter culture to advocate for environmental policy. These

movements found some success under the presidencies of Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter.

Stricter laws were passed regarding environmental conditions of how food should be grown.228

In the decades following the Second World War, gardens yet again embodied a political idea. This time the idea came from the fringes of society, who created their own brand of citizenship. What started out as an escape from society and authority, transformed into a movement to protect the earth. The counter culture movement found a way to defy corporations by growing their own food, which was more healthy and safe for the environment, since these gardens did not rely on pesticides to grow food. Thus began the organic movement, which connected the political ideology of fighting against corporate-grown food and instead growing food personally, to help save the environment and preserve the earth.

Conclusion

The World War II victory garden is immortalized in the memoirs of those who grew up and lived during the Second World War. Victory gardens are often recalled with fondness, as the elderly generations of today reflect back on what their war experience was like. Often recalling how they supported the war effort when they were children and adolescents. Other times, they

228 The White House, “Presidents: Richard M. Nixon,” The White House. http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/richardnixon (accessed November 13, 2014). The White House. “Presidents: James Carter,” The White House. http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/jimmycarter (accessed November 13, 2014). Legal Information Institute, “Environmental Law,” Cornell University Law School. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/environmental_law (accessed November 30, 2014)

104

are not so fondly remembered due to an unpleasant war experience. Whether it was a personal victory garden or a community victory garden, a massive garden or a small garden, the victory garden clearly impacted the citizens of the World War II home front. This is apparent because it so often alluded to in the relocations of their memoirs.

These first hand accounts are not the only reason that victory gardens are entrenched in the memories of our society. Victory gardens are revitalized through the children’s literature. In doing so, the victory garden is used as a canvas to teach lessons to contemporary readers, telling them the importance of taking care of the earth and inspiring youth to take action when they believe in something. Additionally, the stories reflect important issues of today, advocating for the release of tension, stress, and anger through gardening.

Times of crisis ensued once again in the period following World War II, and society gravitated towards the comfort of nature. Counter culture movements planted gardens as a way to rebel against mainstream society and the control of the government and corporate America.

Cautiousness about the environment helped to solidify the platform and political ideology of the

1960s and 1970s. Thus gardens found themselves at the center of political policy yet again.

Participants in the back to earth movement endorsed environmental consciousness as they embraced the freedom that non-metropolitan life provided them.

The 1970s launched the production of the show The Victory Garden, which continues to be on the air as of 2015. The television show stemmed from the DIY ethos that taught individuals how to restore, or improve their gardens. During World War II, media, such as radio and newsreels, played a crucial role in providing the home front population with information about the war. The information provided in these broadcasts included advice about growing victory gardens. Therefore, it is no surprise that, information about gardening continues to be

105

presented through public broadcasting on PBS, during economic crisis. Continuation of this media tradition is most evident in The Victory Garden. It is the longest running gardening show to premier on television and has been on air for over thirty years. It focuses on providing “eco conscious how-to tips”, “earth-to-table cooking” instructions, and advice on “garden design”.229

Furthermore, the show provides information about varying types of plants and vegetables; meaning it brings recognition to flora and fauna that a normal person, or beginning gardener might not be familiar. In addition to providing exposure of different types of vegetables, the show also provides advice and instruction for growing and tending a garden.

Episodes of The Victory Garden provide information on how to grow plants in a way similar to instructional manuals produced during the Second World War. In one particular episode, The Victory Garden: Simply the Best Tomatoes from October 2006, gardener Kip

Anderson provides helpful hints to his audience about growing tomatoes. First he explains the different types of tomatoes, ranging in color from dark purple, to white, to orangey-red, to bright red. (World War II advice manuals designated vegetables into vitamin-based groups and then focused more on the nutritional benefits that each group provided.)230 After presenting a description of the different kinds of tomatoes, he gives advice as to how to grow them; including the drip watering system and the cage verses staking growing strategy.231 This is similar to the advice manuals that were produced during the Second World War, which informed gardeners on the various types of vegetables that they could plant, and how to properly prepare the earth in order to create the best growing environment for their gardens.232

229 PBS, “The Victory Garden About: Overview,” PBS, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/victorygarden/show/ (accessed January 6, 2014). 230 Pennsylvania State Council of Defense, Victory Gardens. 231 Kip Anderson, The Victory Garden, “Simply the Best Tomatoes,” (Originally aired October 5, 2006). 232 Pennsylvania State Council of Defense, Victory Gardens Platenius, Victory Gardens in New York

106

The Victory Garden has expanded to include a podcast series, where gardening experts answer viewers’ questions. In a podcast from July 31, 2008, host Jamie Durie discussed the way to set up a vegetable garden to not only be functional and practical in providing food, but to also look attractive. When setting up a garden, he recommends that the gardener use more permanent, or long lasting vegetables such as parsley or society garlic to create borders. Once the practical, but ornamental boarders are placed, then plant the more temporary vegetables inside the boarders.

Jamie Durie is providing layout advice to individuals who garden as a hobby, people who have the luxury to be more ornamental in the layout of their garden. The instruction provided in the victory garden handbooks was more straightforward, advocating for the home front to include the greatest amount of nutrition in their garden. In order to do so, the handbooks provided strict guidelines measuring out how close together vegetables could be planted in order to conserve space.233 The podcast provides much more leeway and room for creativity when it comes to laying out a garden.

In addition to providing information to the beginning gardener, Jamie Durie also provides advice for the creative or adventurous gardener, saying that border vegetables can be planted into different shapes to create an even more attractive looking garden.234 The use of

podcasts to provide information as to how to construct a garden is an echo of the days of the

Second World War, in which the home front citizenry received the majority of their information

through radio broadcasts. Thus The Victory Garden podcast is not only keeping the memory of

the victory garden alive by providing advice and direction for growing gardens, but it mimics the

style in which gardening guidance was originally given, which establishes an even greater link to

the past. This resurgence shows that the idea of the victory garden has not died out, and it

233 Pennsylvania State Council of Defense, Victory Gardens, 49-55. 234 Jamie Durie, The Victory Garden, “Combing Ornamentals with Vegetables,” (podcast), 2008.

107

continues to be something near and dear to the hearts of post-World War II individuals.

The Victory Garden, whether it is in the form of a television show or a podcast has continued the memory of the World War II victory garden for over three decades. The weekly episodes provide information to the public about how to grow and take care of gardens. This show is evidence that there is an interest among the population of the United States to continue the trend of giving the public access to proper gardening techniques. The show has made it possible for the World War II victory garden to live on, as the program has adopted the name, victory garden, and follows the victory garden tradition of growing a personal garden, and has the end goal in mind to get more people to participate in the practice of gardening.

108

Conclusion: The New Garden

In the post-World War II years, the American citizenry embraced the policy of gardening.

Even though it was a mostly populace-led gardening movement, there continued to be traces of governmental presence, advocating gardening. This was evident in the Obama administrations’

social policy. Similar to Franklin Roosevelt’s wife, Eleanor Roosevelt, a fervent campaigner for

social reform during the Second World War, Michelle Obama took an active role in influencing

social policy, particularly focusing on American food production and what was provided to

school-aged children while at school.235 This prompted changes in the nutritional value of foods that were offered to children and teens, as well as impacting the education system, providing more hands-on gardening experience for kids to connect with the production of their own food.

First ladies have often overseen a garden while living at the White House. Michelle

Obama was no exception, however, her association with gardening did not stop on the White

House lawn. Rather, in a non-partisan effort, she partnered with the U.S. Department of

Agriculture (USDA) and set out on a campaign to convert the American population to eating healthier foods, many of which can be found in the garden.236 In 2012, she published a book

titled American Grown: The Story of the White House Kitchen Garden and Gardens Across

America. The book is divided up into four sections, “Spring”, “Summer”, “Fall”, and “Winter”

which discussed her experience of struggling to grow a garden for the first time, and it provided

advice for individuals who want to grow a garden at school or in their communities.237 Mrs.

Obama tried to establish the credibility of her health and nutrition campaign by showing that she

235 The White House, “ The First Ladies: Anna Eleanor Roosevelt,” The White House, http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/first-ladies/eleanorroosevelt (accessed October 24, 2014). 236 The White house, “Statements and Releases: The White House and USDA Announce School Wellness Statndards,” The White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/02/25/white-house-and-usda announce-school-wellness-standards (accessed November 30, 2014). 237 Michelle Obama, American Grown: The Story of the White House Kitchen Garden and Gardens Across America (New York: Crown Publishers, 2012).

109

had experience with the realm of gardening, as the book exhibits her personal experience,

information about the White House garden, and her contribution to the nutrition campaign.

This advice manual is similar to the informational pamphlets from World War II. In fact,

Michelle Obama alluded to victory gardens at two different points in the book. She claimed

authority on the subject of vegetables because her mother’s family tended a victory garden

during the Second World War, and when Mrs. Obama was a child, they were constantly eating

fresh produce.238 Later in the book, Mrs. Obama gave a brief and concise history of White House gardens, where she again alluded to victory gardens. In this case, it was to mention that Eleanor

Roosevelt ordered a victory garden to be grown on the White House lawn; although Mrs.

Roosevelt did not tend to the garden herself, it reflected a “symbolic victory”.239 Ironically

however, initially, the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture would not permit Eleanor

Roosevelt to plant a garden on the White House lawn; but as the war continued, this ruling was

overturned.240 As the Roosevelts encouraged Americans to grow victory gardens, Mrs. Roosevelt felt the need to demonstrate the same patriotic spirit that was expected of the World War II home front. It made her relatable to the American people; Mrs. Obama tried to emulate that connection.

She ended the section by alluding to victory gardens with the note that with the exception of a few tomatoes being grown and a herbal garden for the chefs, no president has grown food at the white house between the Roosevelt administration and the Obama administration.241 By

mentioning victory gardens, Michelle Obama helped to establish a sense of unified authority,

with the involvement of two first ladies being concerned over food production via the garden.

Mrs. Obama revived the legacy of the World War II victory garden, and demonstrated how the

238 Ibid, 13. 239 Ibid, 28-29. 240 Tucker, Kitchen Gardening in America, 134-136. 241 Obama, American Grown, 29.

110

World War II victory garden remained important in popular politics. It inspired and authenticated

Michelle Obama’s call to action to provide school-aged children with better nutrition.

As the victory garden was a nation-wide campaign, so was the nutrition program. In addition to providing a catalyst to inform the public about life in the White House, the book heavily endorsed Michelle Obama’s plan for the country. She pushed for “[s]ustainable local agriculture, national farm policy, school gardens and, most of all, childhood nutrition and health have all found common ground in the garden.”242 For Michelle Obama, gardening was a

centerpiece for a shift in the life styles of the masses. This modification could be achieved by

supporting local agriculture through the farm to table movement, which provided healthier

choices, better nutrition, and fresher produce. Rather than being trucked across the country,

produce was grown locally and brought to local farmer markets where communities bought and

sold fresh fruits and vegetable to one another. Additionally the farm to table movement

supported organic eating and was used by some restaurants to provide fresher and healthier

cuisines.243 She wanted the American population to participate in the garden movement because she was convinced that it would fix other social problems in the United States. The White House garden was the platform for launching a larger social movement.

Michelle Obama advocated and endorsed her husband’s administration’s agenda, which

242 Adrian Higgins, “Michelle Obama Champions Vegetable Gardens and Healthy Food in ‘American Grown,’” Washington Post (August 2, 2012), http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/michelle-obama champions-vegetable-gardens-and-healthy-food-in-american-grown/2012/08/02/gJQAYrBvSX_story.html (accessed February 20, 2014). 243 Kate Flaim, “Table to Farm,” Fortune, 167 no. 8 June 10, 2013. 37-39. http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.csusm.edu/ehost/detail/detail?sid=24d13f77-0aaf-4978-8df4 03290e9a2386%40sessionmgr4003&vid=2&hid=4209&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=buh&A N=87863600 (accessed November 30, 2014). National Farm To School Network, “Farm to School Month,” National Farm to School Network, http://www.farmtoschool.org/about/farm-to-school-month (accessed October 13, 2014). The Edible School Yard Project, “Food Corps California,” The Edible School Yard Project http://edibleschoolyard.org/node/11582 (accessed October 13, 2014). Edible Education: Hands-On Lessons for Healthy Living, “Who We Are: How We Cooked Up Edible Ed,” Edible Education, http://edibleedu.com/ (accessed October 13, 2014).

111

began with gardening, particularly for children in urban schools. Mrs. Obama embarked on a

mission to revamp school lunches, aimed at providing children with better nutrition and more,

healthy foods. Her program Let’s Move! advocated ending childhood obesity and her

endorsement of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids act of 2010 fought to end childhood hunger by

increasing children’s nutrition at school. One way that this was approached was by encouraging

schools to grow gardens on their campuses.244 This idea is similar to FDR’s victory garden

policy, where children were exposed to gardening while at school.

Government-encouraged gardening under the Obama administration was not solely

aimed at children. Adults were also included in the program and were encouraged to buy locally

grown foods. The adult population was targeted through the “real food movement.”245 The

movement instructed individuals to supplement food found at grocery stores with their own

communal gardens or buy from local farmers. This proved to be rather unsuccessful, in part

because, as the Center for Science in the Public Interest reports, “‘[w]e can hardly get people to

eat a carrot, much less grow it’.”246 If people are essentially unwilling to eat healthy foods, they will absolutely refuse to put the time, effort, work, and energy that it takes into growing their own food. Gardening for the beginner is an arduous task that is often discouraging as there is no

244 Higgins, “Michelle Obama Champions Vegetable Gardens” United States Department of Agriculture, “Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010,” USDA, http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/governance/legislation/CNR_2010.htm (accessed February 20, 2014). USDA Farm and Nutrition Services, “Farm to School,” USDA http://www.fns.usda.gov/farmtoschool/farm-school (accessed November 30, 2014). USDA Farm and Nutrition Services, “Healthier School Day, Tools For Schools: Offering Fruits and Vegetables,” USDA, http://www.fns.usda.gov/healthierschoolday/tools-schools-offering-fruits-and-vegetables (accessed November 30, 2014). USDA Farm and Nutrition Services, “School Meals: Guidance and Resources,” USDA http://www.fns.usda.gov/school-meals/guidance-and-resources (accessed November 30, 2014). USDA, “Final Rule Nutrition Standards in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs – Jan. 2012,” USDA http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/dietaryspecs.pdf (accessed November 30, 2014). USDA “New Meal Pattern Requirements and Nutrition Requirements and Nutrition Standards: USDA’s National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs,” USDA http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/LAC_03-06 12_0.pdf (accessed November 30, 2014). 245 Higgins, “Michelle Obama Champions Vegetable Gardens”. 246 Ibid.

112

guarantee that the vegetables will grow. Furthermore, it is much more convenient to go to the store and buy already grown vegetables offered in a variety of forms including fresh produce, canned, and frozen options.

All this is to say that a garden is not only a garden. Rather, when analyzing the history of gardening, not as a scientific study of plants and horticulture or as environmental history; but instead, as an idea, it is evident that there is a much deeper context surrounding the lowly garden.

Like the vegetables that grow deep in the ground, unseen and at times unnoticed; the history of gardens in the United States, has a deeply rooted, rather complex, more complicated history, than its leafy surface reveals. It is only when closely analyzing the idea of the garden that one can recognize that its produce includes more than vegetables and flowers. It seems that regardless of the time period that the United States is in, whether it was in the early stages of solidifying the country or the contemporary times that we are living in today, the American government tends to have an underlying policy, in which it endorses and encourages, but never directly forces, the idea of gardening on its citizenry. Three trends are notable when examining this policy.

First is that the government tends to encourage the population to gardens during times of hardship, crisis, or difficulty. This is significant because it shows that when times are uncertain, people want stability, and what better way to demonstrate steadiness and reflect strength than to literally plant roots? Federal and local governments encourage gardening because it provides a foundation and a point of constancy and life when the world is going crazy and there is death and destruction. Gardens bring the promise of life and growth during hard times, which is a source of comfort to people.

The second point of interest is the shift in whom gardening is aimed. What started as a policy directed towards men, has now become a political policy aimed at children. Growing

113

gardens started as an ideology of the yeoman farmer, where white men could be independent.

Since then, the policy has been aimed at women and children, for them to display their patriotism and support for the war effort. Today, gardening is directed mostly at children who grow gardens in school. The government has discovered that the most optimal age group is children, because children must do what they are told. Therefore, the government can implement its policy at the youngest levels of society, in hopes that they will continue to grow food as they grow up.

Finally, the third theme that presents itself is the idea of incentive or voluntarily participation. Throughout American history, although greatly desired and encouraged by the government, gardens have been voluntarily. No one forces the American people to grow gardens.

When individuals do grow gardens, they get something out of it. They receive the benefit of hard work and the produce of their labor. They can eat what they grow. This presents a feeling of pride. Gardening is hard work and can be quite a difficult experience, but the reward seems to be worth it. Since gardening is encouraged positively, rather than forced on the population and the added benefit of getting something out of it, the American population has viewed victory gardens, and gardening in general, quite positively.

After looking at the history of government-endorsed gardening, examining a particular case study, and tracing the legacy, it is evident that victory gardens should be held in much higher regard than they currently are. Gardening has been a part of American political policy for centuries, and it should therefore be given its rightful place in historic study. Gardening plays a much greater role than it is given credit for playing. The victory garden has a long past, with roots that stretch backwards to the original founding of our country and forwards to what we will become as a nation. The history of the victory garden parallels the history of America.

114

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Altshul, Jack. “The Home Front.” In Americans Remember the Home Front, edited by Roy Hoopes, 270-272. New York: Berkley Books, 2002.

American Girl. “Our Company: American Girl Overview.” American Girl Company. http://www.americangirl.com/corp/corporate.php?section=about&id=2 (accessed October 24, 2014).

Anderson, Kip. The Victory Garden. “: Simply the Best Tomatoes.” (Originally aired October 5, 2006).

Armstrong, Louise V. We Too Are the People. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1938.

Bayer, Herbert, “Grow It Yourself Plan A Farm Garden Now,” 1941-1943, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.

Bell-Rehwoldt, Sheri. Great World war II Projects. Chicago: Nomad Press, 2006.

Bruehl, Anton National Victory Farm Volunteers. (U.S.), United States. War Food Administration, & United States. Dept. of Agriculture, “Going Our Way?: Be A Victory Farm Volunteer of the U.S. Crop Corps,” 1945, University of Northern Texas Digital Library, Texas.

Burdett, J. H. & National Garden Bureau. “War Gardens For Victory—Grow Vitamins At Your Kitchen Door,” 1939-1945, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania State Council Defense, Victory Gardens: Handbook of the Victory Garden Committee War Services, Pennsylvania State Council of Defense, (Pennsylvania, 1944).

Culver, C. Clair. “Growing Plants for Victory Gardens” The American Biology Teacher 4, no. 7 (April 1942) http://www.jstor.org/stable/4437295 (accessed January 9, 2014).

De Crèvecoeur, Hector St. John. Letters From An American Farmer and Sketches of Eighteenth-Century America: More Letters from an American Farmer. Chicago: The New American Library, 1963.

Dohanos, Stevan, United States, War Food Administration, & United States. Dept. of Agriculture, “Fill It!: Help Harvest War Crops,” 1945, University of Northern Texas Digital Library, Texas.

115

Durie, Jamie. The Victory Garden. “Combing Ornamentals with Vegetables.” (podcast). 2008. Edible Education: Hands-On Lessons for Healthy Living, “Who We Are: How We Cooked Up Edible Ed,” Edible Education, http://edibleedu.com/ (accessed October 13, 2014).

Erpi Classroom Films Inc., “Gardening (1940)” Prelinger Archives, https://archive.org/details/Gardening_2.

Flagg, James Montgomery. Sow the Seeds of Victory! Plant & raise your own vegetables, 1918. Library of Congress, POS-US.F63, no. 13. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2002712333/.

Flaim, Kate. “Table to Farm,” Fortune, 167 no. 8 June 10, 2013. (accessed November 30, 2014).

Ford, Gerald. “Whip Inflation Now, October 8, 1974.” Archived by Miller Center, University of Virginia http://millercenter.org/president/speeches/speech-3283 (accessed April 19, 2015).

Gabler, Earl R. “School Gardens for Victory” The Clearing House 16, no. 8 (April 1942) http://www.jstor.org/stable/30177734 (accessed January 9, 2014).

Giddings, Ted. “Keeping the Country Informed.” In Americans Remember the Home Front, edited by Roy Hoopes, 132-134. New York: Berkley Books, 2002.

Gourley, Catherine. Welcome to Molly's World: 1944 Growing Up in World War II America. Middleton, WI: American Girl Publishing, Inc., 1999.

Guenter, Get Behind the Girl He Left Behind Him, Join the Land Army, The American Lithographic Co., New York, 1918. Library of Congress, Pos-WWI-US, no. 156. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/00652171/ (Accessed October 19, 2013).

Hargrove, Erwin. “Wives and Children.” In Americans Remember the Home Front, edited by Roy Hoopes, 252-253. New York: Berkley Books, 2002.

Harrison, Barbara F. “Why Study Children’s Literature.” The Quarterly Journal of the Library of Congress 38, no. 4 (Fall 1981). http://www.jstor.org/stable/29781912 (accessed October 24, 2014).

Henderson, Caroline. Letters From the Dust Bowl. Edited by Alvin O. Turner. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 2001.

Heuchling, Fred G. “Children’s Gardens in Chicago” The American Biology Teacher 6, no. 5 (February 1944), http://www.jstor.org/stable/info/10.2307/4437481 (accessed January 9, 2014).

116

Higgins, Adrian. “Michelle Obama Champions Vegetable Gardens and Healthy Food in ‘American Grown.’” Washington Post (August 2, 2012). http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/michelle-obama-champions vegetable-gardens-and-healthy-food-in-american grown/2012/08/02/gJQAYrBvSX_story.html (accessed February 20, 2014).

Hinman, Bonnie. Jennie’s War: The Home Front in World War 2. Uhrichsville, OH: Barbour Publishing Inc., 2005. Hochbaum, H. W. “Victory Gardens in 1944: How Teachers May Help” The American Biology Teacher 6, no. 5 (February 1944), http://www.jstor.org/stable/info/10.2307/4437480 (accessed January 9, 2014) Home Front, edited by Roy Hoopes, 270-272. New York: Berkley Books, 2002. Hopkins, Harry L. Spending to Save: The Complete Story of Relief, 2nd, Edited by Roger Daniels, Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1972. http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/LAC_03-06-12_0.pdf (accessed November 30, 2014). Jefferson to Charles W. Peale, August 20, 1811. Lipscomb, Andrew A. and Albert Ellery Bergh, ed. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Volume 13. Washington D.C.: Issued under the auspices of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association of the United States, 1903-04, p. 79. Retrieved from The Thomas Jefferson Foundation Inc. “Research and Collections: Famous Jefferson Quotes.” Accessed July 29, 2014. http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/famous-jefferson quotes. Jefferson, Thomas. “Fifth Annual Message, December 5, 1805” archived by John Wooley and Gerhard Peters http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29447&st=farm&st1= (accessed April 12, 2015). Jefferson, Thomas. “First Annual Message, December 8, 1801” archived by John Wooley and Gerhard Peters http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29443&st=agriculture&st1= (accessed April 12, 2015). Jefferson, Thomas. Garden Book Manuscript, 1766-1824. Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society Accessed July 29, 2014. http://www.masshist.org/thomasjeffersonpapers/garden/. Jefferson, Thomas. “Inaugural Address, March 4, 1805” archived by John Wooley and Gerhard Peters http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29447&st=farm&st1 (accessed April 12, 2015).

117

Keyes, Evelyn. “The War Effort- Almost Everyone Was Involved.” In Americans Remember the Home Front, edited by Roy Hoopes, 154-156. New York: Berkley Books, 2002. Kochenderfer, Lee. The Victory Garden. New York: Random House Children’s Books, 2009. Kogan Ray, Deborah. My Daddy Was a Soldier: A World War II Story. New York: Holliday House, 1990.

Lippincott, Williams, & Wilkins, “Victory Gardens for 1943” The American Journal of Nursing 43 no. 4 (April 1943) http://www.jstor.org/stable/3416404 (accessed January 9, 2014) Lynch, Jack. “Don’t You Know There’s a War On?.” In Americans Remember the Home Front, edited by Roy Hoopes, 183-185. New York: Berkley Books, 2002.

McMahon, Bernard. The American Gardener's Calendar: Adapted to the Climate and Seasons of the United States (1857). Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott and Co., 1857. Accessed July 29, 2014. https://archive.org/details/americangardcal00mmahrich.247 Millard C. Faught, “Seeds Are Bullets For the Allies,” New York Times, September 5, 1943.

Miller, Amy Bess. “The Home Front.” In Americans Remember the Home Front, edited by Roy Hoopes, 261-262. New York: Berkley Books, 2002.

Montgomery Flagg, James. Sow the Seeds of Victory! Plant & raise your own vegetables, 1918. Library of Congress, POS-US.F63, no. 13. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2002712333/ (Accessed October 19, 2013). Morley, Hubert, United States. War Food Administration, & United States. Dept. of Agriculture, “Your Victory Garden Counts More Than Ever!,” 1945, University of Northern Texas Digital Library, Texas.

National Farm To School Network, “Farm to School Month,” National Farm to School Network, http://www.farmtoschool.org/about/farm-to-school-month (accessed October 13, 2014).

National Victory Farm Volunteers. (U.S.), United States. War Food Administration, & United States Extension Service, “Join Us On the Farm Front!: Be A Victory Farm Volunteer of the U.S. Crop Corps,” 1944, University of Northern Texas Digital Library, Texas.

247 This is a later edition of the book that Thomas Jefferson used. However, there was not an edition number listed on the book.

118

New York Times Collection, 1940-1945. Nies, John. “Industry War.” In Americans Remember the Home Front, edited by Roy Hoopes, 95-96. New York: Berkley Books, 2002. Obama, Michelle. American Grown: The Story of the White House Kitchen Garden and Gardens Across America. New York: Crown Publishers, 2012. Pack, Charles Lathrop. The War Garden Victorious. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company. 1919. Panchyk, Richard. World War II for Kids. Chicago: Chicago Review Press, Inc., 2002. PBS. “The Victory Garden About: Overview.” PBS. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/victorygarden/show/ (accessed January 6, 2014). Platenius, Hans. Victory Gardens in New York: Instructions for Vegetable growing in Urban. Areas. New York: Willcox Press, 1943.

President, Address, “Address on the Ninth Anniversary of the New Deal Farm Program” Federal Register 27, (March 9, 1942): http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=16228&st=&st1= President, Message, “Message to Congress on the Food Program,” Federal 125, (November 1, 1943): http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=16337&st=&st1= President, Proclamation, “Proclamation 2571 Thanksgiving Day,” Federal Register 134, (November 26, 1942): http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=16208&st=&st1= President, Proclamation, “Proclamation 2600 Thanksgiving Day, 1943,” Federal Register (November 11, 1943): http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=72459&st=&st1= President, Speech, “Four Freedoms Speech”, (1941): http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/fourfreedoms. President, Statement, “Statement encouraging victory gardens” Federal Register 28, (April 1, 1944): http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=16505&st=&st1= Rockwell, Norman. United States Office of War Information, Division of Public Inquiries, “Ours—To Fight For: Freedom From Want.” 1943, University of

Roosevelt Franklin. “Statement encouraging victory gardens, April 1, 1944.” archived by John Woolley and Gerhard Peters. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=16505&st=&st1= (accessed June 21, 2014).

119

Roosevelt, Franklin “Proclamation 2571 Thanksgiving Day, November 26, 1942.” archived by John Woolley and Gerhard Peters. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=16208&st=&st1 (accessed June 21, 2014).

Roosevelt, Franklin, “Proclamation 2600 Thanksgiving Day, 1943, November 11, 1943.” archived by John Woolley and Gerhard Peters. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=72459&st=&st1= (accessed June 21, 2014).

Roosevelt, Franklin. “Address on the Ninth Anniversary of the New Deal Farm Program, March 9, 1942.” archived by John Woolley and Gerhard Peters. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=16228&st=&st1=(accessed June 21, 2014). Roosevelt, Franklin. “Address to the United Nations Conference on Food and Agriculture, June 7, 1943.” archived by John Woolley and Gerhard Peters. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=16406&st=&st1= (accessed June 21, 2014). Roosevelt, Franklin. “Annual Message to Congress on the State of the Union, January 6, 1941.” archived by John Woolley and Gerhard Peters. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=16092&st=&st1= (accessed June 21, 2014). Roosevelt, Franklin. “Letter to the United Nations Conference on Food and Agriculture, May 18, 1943.” archived by John Woolley and Gerhard Peters. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=16401&st=&st1= (accessed June 21, 2014).

Roosevelt, Franklin. “Memoranda on Combined Production and Resources Board and Combined Food Board, June 9, 1942.” archived by John Woolley and Gerhard Peters. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=16268&st=&st1= (accessed June 21, 2014).

Roosevelt, Franklin. “Message to Congress on the Food Program, November 1, 1943,” archived by John Woolley and Gerhard Peters, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=16337&st=&st1= (accessed June 21, 2014).

Roosevelt, Franklin. “Message to Congress on the Food Program, November 1, 1943.” archived by John Woolley and Gerhard Peters. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=16337&st=&st1=(accessed June 21, 2014).

120

Roosevelt, Franklin. “Proclamation 2571 Thanksgiving Day, November 26, 1942” archived by John Woolley and Gerhard Peters, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=16208&st=&st1= (accessed June 21, 2014).

Roosevelt, Franklin. “Proclamation 2600 Thanksgiving Day, 1943 November 11, 1943,” archived by John Woolley and Gerhard Peters, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=72459&st=&st1= (accessed June 21, 2014).

Roosevelt, Franklin. “Statement on Food Conservation, January 22, 1945.” archived by John Woolley and Gerhard Peters, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=16608&st=&st1= (accessed June 21, 2014).

Russell, M. A. “Highland Park’s School Victory Gardens” The American Biology Teacher 6, no. 8 (May 1944) http://www.jstor.org/stable/4437525 (accessed January 9, 2014) Altshul, Jack. “The Home Front.” In Americans Remember the Home Front.

Society of Science and the Public. “Victory Gardens Produce 8,000,000 Tons of Food,” Science News-Letter. 44 no. 15 (October 9, 1943). JSTOR. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3920074 (accessed April 12, 2015). St. John De Crèvecoeur, Hector. Letters From An American Farmer and Sketches of Eighteenth-Century America: More Letters from an American Farmer. Chicago: The New American Library, 1963. Strong, Grover. “Grow Your Own: Be Sure!,” 1945, University of Northern Texas Digital Library, Texas.

The Edible School Yard Project, “Food Corps California,” The Edible School Yard Project http://edibleschoolyard.org/node/11582 (accessed October 13, 2014).

The President and Fellows of Harvard College, “A Call to Action on the 50th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” Health and Human Rights, 3 no. 2 (1998), http://www.jstor.org/stable/4065293 (accessed November 22, 2014). Tripp, Valerie. Meet Molly. Middleton, WI: Pleasant Company Publications, 2000. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Henry Browne, Farmer (1942),” Prelinger Archives, https://archive.org/details/HenryBro1942.

U.S. Office of War Information, “Wartime Nutrition (1943),” Prelinger Archives,

121

United States Department of Agriculture. “Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010.” USDA. http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/governance/legislation/CNR_2010.htm (accessed February 20, 2014). United States Federal Security Agency & United States, Office of Education. “‘The Four Freedoms’ Message to the 77th Congress—January 6, 1941.” University of Northern Texas Digital Library, Texas. United States. Office of War Information. Division of Public Inquiries, “Plant a Victory Garden: Our Food Is Fighting: A Garden Will Make Your Rations Go Further,” 1943, University of Northern Texas Digital Library, Texas.

USDA “New Meal Pattern Requirements and Nutrition Requirements and Nutrition Standards: USDA’s National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs,” USDA, USDA Farm and Nutrition Services, “Farm to School,” USDA http://www.fns.usda.gov/farmtoschool/farm-school (accessed November 30, 2014).

USDA Farm and Nutrition Services, “Healthier School Day, Tools For Schools: Offering Fruits and Vegetables,” USDA, http://www.fns.usda.gov/healthierschoolday/ tools-schools-offering-fruits-and-vegetables (accessed November 30, 2014).

USDA, “Final Rule Nutrition Standards in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs – Jan. 2012,” USDA http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/dietaryspecs.pdf (accessed November 30, 2014).

Victory Gardens in New York: Instructions for Vegetable growing in Urban Areas

Wetzel, Frank. “Easy Aces, Casablanca Brought Laughter, Tears.” In Victory Gardens and Barrage Balloons edited by Frank Wetzel, 89-94. Bremerton, WA: Perry Publishing, 1995. Wilbur, L. Helen. Lilly’s Victory Garden. New Freedom, PN: Sleeping Bear Press, 2010. Wilson, Woodrow. “Address to the Nation April 16, 1917” archived by John Wooley and Gerhard Peters http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=65399&st=garden&st1= (accessed April 12, 2015). Wood, Martha. “The Home Front.” In Americans Remember the Home Front, edited by Roy Hoopes, 268-269. New York: Berkley Books, 2002.

122

Secondary Sources

American Girl. “Our Company: American Girl Overview,” American Girl Company. http://www.americangirl.com/corp/corporate.php?section=about&id=2 (accessed October 24, 2014).

Anthony, Carl. “Livable Communities,” Race, Poverty & the Environment 15, no. 1 (Spring 2008), JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41554575 (accessed April 12, 2015).

Barber, Richard J. “Government and the Consumer.” Michigan Law Review Association, 64 no. 7. May 1966 http://www.jstor.org/stable1287132 (accessed April 19, 2015). Bell, Susan Groag. “Women Create Gardens in Male Landscapes: A Revisionist Approach to the Eighteenth-Century English Garden History.” Feminist Studies 16, no. 3 (Autumn, 1990), http://www.jstor.org/stable/3178016 (accessed March 2, 2015).

Bentley, Amy. Eating for Victory: Food Rationing and the Politics of Domesticity. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1998. Bird, Jr., William L., and Harry R. Rubenstein. Design For Victory: World War II Posters on the American Home Front. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1998. Black, John D. “The Food Supply of the United States.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 225 (January 1943). http://www.jstor.org/stable/1023534 (accessed February 27, 2013).

Bobrow-Straubm, Aaron. White Bread: A Social History of the Store-Bought Loaf. Boston: Beacon Press, 2012. Bolton, Jonathan. “Mid-Term Autobiography and the Second World War.” Journal of Modern Literature, 30, no. 1 (Autumn 2006), http://www.jstor.org/stable/4619319 (accessed November 22, 2014): 155-172. Bosma, Bette. Fairy Tales, Fables, Legends, and Myths: Using Folk Literature in Your Classroom. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1992.

Brinkley, Douglas and Arthur M. Shclesinger, Jr., Gerald R. Ford: The American Presidents (New York: Times Books Henry Holt and Company, 2007), e-book Location 1308-1321.

Brown, Dona. Back to the Land: The Enduring Dream of Self-Sufficiency in Modern America. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 2011.

Buder, Stanley. Visionaries and Planners: The Garden City Movement and the Modern Community. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.

123

Carruth, Allison. “War Rations and the Food Politics of Late Modernism.” Modernism/Modernity 16, no. 4 (November 2009), http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/mod/summary/v06/16.4.carruth.html (accessed July 19, 2013).

The Children’s Nature Institute. “About Us,” The Children’s Nature Institute. http://childrensnatureinstitute.org/about-us/ (accessed May 17, 2014).

Clinic, Sweden,” Pediatric Rehabilitation 7 no.4, October-December 2004. 245-260. EBSCO HOST (accessed November 24, 2014).

Collingham, Lizzie. The Taste of War: World War Two and the Battle for Food. London: Penguin Books, 2001. Dean, Catherine. Review of Do It Yourself: Home Improvement in 20th-Century America by Carolyn Goldstein, The Journal of American History 90, no. 3, December 2003. “Designing Nature: Gardeners and Their Gardens.” In Made From This Earth: American Women and Nature, edited by Vera Norwood. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1993. Edfington, Ryan H. “‘Be Receptive to the Good Hearth’: Health, Nature, and Labor in Countercultural back-to-the-Land Settlements.” Agricultural History 82 no. 3 (Summer 2008), http://www.jstory.org/stable/20454851 (accessed March 12, 2015).

Edsforth, Ronald. The New Deal: America’s Response to the Great Depression. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2000. Formosa, Paul. “Understanding Evil Acts.” Human Studies 30, no. 2 (June 2007), http://www.jstor.org/stable/27642783 (accessed November 22, 2014): 57-77. Front Rrange Community College. “Our Faculty: Cecilia Gowdy-Wygant, Ph.D.” Accessed July 15, 2014. http://www.frontrange.edu/Faculty-and-Staff/Faculty Bios/Online-Learning/Cecilia-Gowdy-Wygant.aspx. Gallo, Max. The Poster in History. American Heritage Publishing Co. 1972.

Gardens to Table. “Bring Your Garen to the Table.” Gardens to Table. http://www.gardenstotables.com/ (accessed October 11, 2014).

George Mason University. “Faculty and Staff: Char R. Miller.” College of Humanities and Social Sciences http://chss.gmu.edu/people/cmillerd accessed August 15, 2014.

124

George Washington University. “Teaching Eleanor Roosevelt Glossary: The Progressive Era (1890-1920).” George Washington University. http://www.gwu.edu/~erpapers/teachinger/glossary/progressive-era.cfm (accessed June 24, 2014). Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum, “Artifact Collection,” Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum, http://www.ford.utexas.edu/ (accessed April 19, 2015).

Gillette, Howard Jr., Civitas by Design: Building Better Communities, from he Garden City to the New Urbanism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2010. Gowdy-Wygant, Cecilia. Cultivating Victory: The Women’s Land Army and Victory Garden Movement. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2013. GRACE Communications Foundation. “Local & Regional Food Systems.” GRACE Communications Foundation. http://www.sustainabletable.org/254/local-regional food-systems (accessed October 11, 2014). Green Party of the United States. “About the Green Party,” Green Party. http://www.gp.org/what-we-believe/about-us (accessed October 11, 2014).

Green Party of the United States. “Our History.” Green Party. http://www.gp.org/what we-believe/history (accessed October 11, 2014).

Green Party of the United States. “Ten Key Values.” Green Party. http://www.gp.org/what-we-believe/10-key-values (accessed October 11, 2014). Hamilton, Shane. “The Economies and Conveniences of Modern-Day Living: Frozen Foods and Mass Marketing 1945-1965.” The Business History Review 77, no. 1 (2003): 34, accessed February 19, 2015, JSTOR. Harrison, Barbara F. “Why Study Children’s Literature.” The Quarterly Journal of the Library of Congress 38, no. 4 (Fall 1981), http://www.jstor.org/stable/29781912 (accessed October 24, 2014).

Hayden-Smith, Rose Sowing the Seeds of Vicotry: American Gardening Programs of World War I, (Jefferson, North Carolinia: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, 2014).

Heide, Robert, and John Gilman. Home Front America: Popular Culture of the World War II Era. San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1995.

Hirano, Shigeo “Third Parties, Elections, and Roll-Call Votes: The Populist Party and the Late Nineteenth-Century U.S. Congress.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 33, no. 1 February 2008. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40263450 accessed April 19, 2015. Holthaus, Gary. From the Farm to the Table: What All Americans Need To Know About Agricultural. Lexinton, Kentucky: The University Press of Kentucky, 2006.

125

Holton, Woody. Forced Founders: Indians, Debtors, Slaves, and the Making of the American Revolution in Virginia. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1999. Hoopes, Roy. Americans Remember the Homer Front: An Oral Narrative of the World War II Years in America. New York: The Berkley Publishing Groups, 1977. Hopkins, Harry L. Spending to Save: The Complete Story of Relief. 2nd ed. Roger Daniels Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1972.

Howard, John Robert. “The Flowering of the Hippie Movement,” Annals of the American Academy of Political And Social Science 382, (March 1969) (accessed October 14, 2015).

Hurt, Douglas R. The Dust Bowl: An Agricultural and Social History. Chicago: Nelson- Hall, 1984. The Illustrators: Women’s Drawings of Nature’s Artifacts.” In Made From This Earth: American Women and Nature, edited by Vera Norwood, (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1993).

Judd, Richard W. The Untilled Garden: Natural History and the Spirit of Conservation in America, 1740-1840. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Kammen, Michael. 2011. Review of The “Good War” in American Memory, by John Bodnar. Journal of American Hi story 98 no.1 (June): 246-247. Knight Laughlin, Mildred and Patricia Payne Kardaleff. Literature-Based Social Studies: Children’s Books & Activities to Enrich the K-5 Curriculum. Phoenix: Oryx Press, 1991.

Kohlstedt, Sally Gregory. “‘A Better Crop of Boys and Girls’: The School Gardening Movement, 1890-1920.” Education Quarterly 48, no. 1 (February 2008). http://www.onlinelibrary.iley.com.ezproxy.csusm.edu (accessed March 2, 2015).

Lawson, Laura J. City Bountiful: A Century of Community Gardening in America. Berkley: University of California Press, 2005. Legal Information Institute. “Environmental Law,” Cornell University Law School. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/environmental_law (accessed November 30, 2014) Library of Congress. “Progressive Era to New Era, 1900-1929: Cities during the Progressive Era.” Library of Congress. http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/ presentations/timeline/progress/cities/ (accessed June 24, 2014).

126

Lucht, Tracy. Sylvia Porter: America’s Original Personal Finance Columnist (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2013), e-book Location 1271-1273, 1562-1584, 1701-1711.

Lyon-Jenness, Cheryl. “Planting a Seed: The Nineteenth-Century Horticultural Boom in America.” The Business History Review 78 no. 3 (Autumn, 2004) http://www.jstory.org/stable/25096907 (accessed March 2, 2015).

Metropolitan State University of Denver. “MSU Denver A to Z: Cecilia Gowdy- Wygant.” http://www.msudenver.edu/searchchannel/jsp/directoryprofile /profile.jsp?u Meyerson, Jessica A. “Theater of War: American Propaganda Films During the Second World War. ” in Robert Jackall’s Propaganda. New York University Press, Washington Square, NY, 1995. Miller, Char. “In the Sweat of Our Brow: Citizenship in American Domestic Practice During WWII—Victory Gardens.” The Journal of American Culture 26, no. 23 (2004): 395, accessed July 19, 2013, Wiley Online Library 2013 Full Collection. Miller, Timothy. “The Roots of the 1960s Communal Revival.” American Studies 33, no.2 (Fall 1993) (accessed October 14, 2014).

Miller, Wanda J. U.S. History Through Children’s Literature: From the Colonial Period to World War II. Englewood, CO: Teacher Ideas Press, 1997.

Milligan Christine, Anthony Gatrell, and Amanda Bingley. “‘Cultivating Health:’ Therapeutic Landscapes and Older People in Northern England.” Social Science and Medicine 58, no.9, 2004. 1781-1793. Elsevier Science Direct Complete doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00397-6 (accessed November 24, 2014). Moore, Andrew. “The American Farmer as French Diplomat: J. Hector St. John de Crèvecoeur in New York after 1783.” The Western Society for French History. Accessed January 4, 2015. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.0642292.0039.013. National Women’s History Museum. “The Depression and World War II (1930-1945).” National Women’s History Museum. https://www.nwhm.org/online exhibits/industry/16.htm (accessed October 11, 2014). The National WWII Museum: New Orleans. “WWII Veterans Statistics.” The National WWII Museum: New Orleans. http://www.nationalww2museum.org/honor/wwii veterans-statistics.html (accessed October 11, 2014). Neiberg, Michael S. 2012. Review of The “Good War” in American Memory, by John Bodnar. Journal of Social History 45 no. 3 (Spring): 870-872. NYU Steinhardt. "Faculty: Amy Bently." Accessed July 15, 2014. http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/faculty_bios/view/Amy_Bentley.

127

Ossian, Lisa L. The Forgotten Generation: American Children and World War II. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2011. Page, Judith W. “Reforming Honeysuckles: Hannah More’s ‘Coelebs in Search of a Wife’ and the Politics of Women’s Gardens.” Keats-Shelly Journal 55 (2006) http://www.jstor.org/stable/30210647 (accessed March 2, 2015).

Panchyk, Richard. World War II for Kids. Chicago: Chicago Review Press, 2002.

Pauly, Philip J. Fruits and Plains: The Horticultural Transformation of America. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007. PBS. “The Victory Garden About: Overview,” PBS. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/victorygarden/show/ (accessed January 6, 2014).

The President and Fellows of Harvard College. “A Call to Action on the 50th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” Health and Human Rights, 3 no. 2 (1998), http://www.jstor.org/stable/4065293 (accessed November 22, 2014)

Punch, Walter. Keeping Eden: A History of Gardening in America. Boston: Bluefinch Press Little Brown and Company, 1992. Sarson, Steven. “Yeoman Farmers in a Planters' Republic: Socioeconomic Conditions and Relations in Early National Prince George's County, Maryland.” Journal of the Early Republic 29, no. 1 (Spring 2009). http://www.jstor.org/stable/40208239. (accessed July 31, 2014). Schmelzkofp, Karen. “Urban Community Gardens As Contested Space.” American Geographical Society 85, no 3 (1995): 364-381, accessed November 5, 2014, J STOR. Smithsonian Institution, “Victory Garden At National Museum Of American History: What is a Victory Garden,” http://www.gardens.si.edu/our-gardens/victory-garden.html (accessed April 12, 2015). Söderback Ingrid, Marianne Söderström, and Elisabeth Schälander. “Horticultural Therapy: the ‘Healing Garden’ and Gardening in Rehabilitation measures at Danderyd Hospital Rehabilitation Clinic, Sweden.” Pediatric Rehabilitation 7 no.4, October-December 2004. 245-260. EBSCO HOST (accessed November 24, 2014). Solit, Karen. History of the United States: Botanic Garden 1816-1991. Washington: U.S. G.P.O., 1993. Steele, Brian. “Thomas Jefferson's Gender Frontier” The Journal of American History 95, no. 1 (June 2008): 17-42. JSTOR. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25095463 (accessed July 31, 2014).

128

The Thomas Jefferson Foundation Inc. “Historic Gardens.” The Thomas Jefferson Foundation. http://www.monticello.org/site/house-and-gardens/historic-gardens (accessed July 29, 2014). The Thomas Jefferson Foundation Inc. “The Flower Gardens: Oval Flower Beds.” The Thomas Jefferson Foundation. http://www.monticello.org/site/house-and gardens/oval-flower-beds (accessed July 29, 2014). The Thomas Jefferson Foundation Inc. “The Flower Gardens: Winding Glower Border.” The Thomas Jefferson Foundation. http://www.monticello.org/site/house-and gardens/winding-flower-border (accessed July 29, 2014). The Thomas Jefferson Foundation Inc. “The Fruit Gardens: Monticello's South Orchard.” The Thomas Jefferson Foundation http://www.monticello.org/site/house-and gardens/monticellos-south-orchard (accessed July 29, 2014). The Thomas Jefferson Foundation Inc. “The Fruit Gardens: Overview of Fruits at Monticello.” The Thomas Jefferson Foundation http://www.monticello.org/site/house-and-gardens/overview-fruits-monticello (accessed July 29, 2014). The Thomas Jefferson Foundation Inc. “The Fruit Gardens: The Nurseries and Fruit Propagations.” The Thomas Jefferson Foundation http://www.monticello.org/site/house-and-gardens/nurseries-and-fruit-propagation (accessed July 29, 2014). The Thomas Jefferson Foundation Inc. “The Vegetable Garden: Jefferson the Scientist and Gardener.” Accessed July 29, 2014. http://www.monticello.org/site/house and-gardens/jefferson-scientist-and-gardener. The Thomas Jefferson Foundation Inc. “The Vegetable Garden: The Site of the Vegetable Garden.” Accessed July 29, 2014. http://www.monticello.org/site/house-and-gardens/site-vegetable-garden.

Tucker, David M. Kitchen Gardening in America: A History. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press, 1993. U.S. Census Bureau. “Historical National Population Estimates: July 1, 1900 to July 1, 1999.” under “Population Estimates Program, Population Division.” www.census.gov/population/estimates/nation/popclockest.txt (accessed September 27, 2014).

U.S. Department of State: Office of the Historian, “A Short History of the Department of State: The First Gulf War,” U.S. Department of State. https://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/short-history/firstgulf (accessed October 11, 2014).

129

United States Census Bureau. “Census of Population and Housing.” http://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html (accessed September 27, 2014).

United States Department of Agriculture. “Why Local Foods Matter.” USDA. http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5105706 (accessed October 11, 2014).

University of Florida. “Locally Grown Food.” University of Florida. http://livinggreen.ifas.ufl.edu/food/local.html (accessed October 11, 2014).

Van Den Berg Agnes E. and Mariëtte H.G. Custers. “Gardening Promotes Neuroendocrine and Affective Restoration from Stress.” Journal of Health Psychology 16, no.3, June 2010. http://hpq.sagepub.com/content/16/1/3 Accessed Warner, Sam Bass Jr. To Dwell is to Garden: A History of Boston’s Community Gardens, Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1987. Weissman Klein, Gerda. All But My Life, (New York: Hill and Wang, 1995).

Wells Sarudy, Barbara. Gardens and Gardening in the Chesapeake. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998. Wetzel, Frank. Victory Gardens & Barrage Balloons. Bremerton, WA: Perry Publishing, 1995. The White House, “Presidents: Richard M. Nixon,” The White House. http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/richardnixon (accessed November 13, 2014). The White House. “ The First Ladies: Anna Eleanor Roosevelt.” The White House. http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/first-ladies/eleanorroosevelt (accessed October 24, 2014). The White House. “Presidents: James Carter,” The White House. http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/jimmycarter (accessed November 13, 2014). The White House. “Presidents: Woodrow Wilson.” The White House. http://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/presidents/woodrowwilson (accessed March 6, 2015). The White house. “Statements and Releases: The White House and USDA Announce School Wellness Statndards,” The White House. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the press-office/2014/02/25/white-house-and-usda-announce-school-wellness standards (accessed November 30, 2014).

130

Whitman, James Q. “Consumerism Vs. Producerism: A Study in Comparative Law.” The Yale Law Journal 117 no. 3 December 2007 http://www.jstor.org/stable20455797 (accessed April 19, 2015).

Whitman, Sylvia. Children of the World War II Home Front. Minneapolis: Carolrhoda Books, 2001. Winkler, Allan M. Home Front U.S.A: America During World War II. 3rd ed. Wheeling, IL: Harlan Davidson Inc., 2012.

Wood, Gordon. Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Wulf, Andrea. Founding Gardeners: The Revolutionary Generation, Nature, and the Shaping of the American Nation. New York: First Vintage Books Edition, 2012. Yoder, Anne. “Military Classifications for Draftees: World War II (Through 1947?).” Swarthmore College Peace Collection, http://www.swarthmore.edu/library/ peace/conscientiousobjection/MilitaryClassifications.htm (accessed October 11, 2014).

131