No Experience Required: Women In the Federal Workforce

“What difference is there in value to the government between my work and that done by the pantaloons standing near me? We have performed the same amount and the same kind in the same time, and who can discover the sex of the same after it shall have passed from our own hands?” The Revolution, December 1869. 

Welcome to Civics and Coffee. My name is Alycia and I am a self-professed history nerd. Each week, I am going to chat about a topic on U.S history and give you both the highlights and occasionally break down some of the complexities in history; and share stories you may not remember learning in high school. All in the time it takes to enjoy a cup of coffee. 

INTRO MUSIC

Hey everyone, welcome back. 

Ahead of the Civil War, the business of running the federal government was relatively small. Tracking down total federal job numbers is a bit of a beast considering the current size of our government’s bureaucracy, but according to the latest data I could find, which was published by the Office of Personnel management in 2013, nearly 3 million people were employed by the federal government. 

In 1859, just two years before the outbreak of the Civil War, the federal government was considerably smaller. Consisting of only eight departments and employing less than 6,000 individuals, it was a mere shadow of what it would become. However, as war broke out and demands increased, so too did the need for manpower. Or in this case, woman power. Before the war’s onset, only a small number of women could claim to be members of the federal service and were often in positions that reinforced nineteenth century social norms. By the end of the conflict in 1865, however, the federal government was a robust, sexually integrated workforce. But what exactly prompted this shift? 

This week, I am diving into women and federal employment during the Civil War. Why did women go into the federal workforce? What challenges did they face? And how did it influence future employment opportunities for women in the private sector?

Grab your cup of coffee, peeps. Let’s do this. 

As I mentioned at the start of the episode, federal employment for women wasn’t exactly new. Several agencies employed women; however, their roles were fairly limited and mostly confined to tasks deemed suitable for women at the time or were otherwise labor intensive such as laundry. This most often translated to work that could be performed inside the home and, as a result, women could, under the right circumstances, earn a wage while staying on the right side of social expectations of the nineteenth century. I say the right circumstances because, despite the fact that women did work for the federal government, it remained widely unacceptable for women to proactively seek waged employment. As historian Cindy Sondick Aron observed, quote: “the domestic ideology elaborated in the early nineteenth century instructed proper ladies to remain in a separate, domestic sphere, and to refrain, unless absolutely necessary, from entering the labor force,” end quote. 

Despite laboring in the home by caring for the children, taking care of the housework, and overseeing the day to day tasks required of running a smooth household, women were expected to stay outside of public view. It was considered abnormal or beneath what was considered proper to leave the home to seek waged employment. Women who did seek out a job usually had to have an acceptable reason - such as being widowed. And when they did work, women were often viewed as temporary employees who were only engaging in waged work until they could find a suitor to marry and relieve them of the laborious practice of working outside of the home. 

Tracking the data related to early federal employment is no easier than current data, but information from the federal registrar shows that of the 850 jobs listed in 1859, only 18 were identified as being held by a woman - or just 2% of the positions. And again, these jobs were generally menial in nature with no opportunities for advancement. When women were given jobs, they had to contend with the frequently incorrect assessment that they were just temporary, flighty employees who only wanted to stay on staff until marriage saved them. 

With the onset of the Civil War, many women found themselves in a precarious situation. As men left home to serve on the front lines, women were faced with new responsibilities beyond just overseeing the family home. They also had to figure out how to bring in sufficient money to cover the costs of living. Some women tried to earn money through taking in boarders, becoming teachers, or serving as seamstresses; however, the income generated from these efforts usually did not amount to much and prompted more than a few women to seek other opportunities. This included becoming nurses and, eventually, petitioning to become members of the federal service.  

The availability of positions within the federal government were made possible because of the demands of war. In her analysis of women working for the federal service during the conflict, historian Jessica Ziparo argues that the decision to hire women was not some altruistic endeavor taken on by the various department heads. Instead, Ziparo asserts that women were hired because quote: “the growing mountain of war-related work had created workload crises and women could do the work well and for a mere fraction of what would have to be paid to men,” end quote. Ziparo also argues that far from pure patriotic duty, many women sought federal service out of economic necessity. But they would have to work hard to get - and keep - their job.

Despite the expansion of the government, securing a position within the federal government was no easy feat. Whereas today we have civil service rules and qualifying examinations to enter into government work, there was no such merit system in place in the nineteenth century. If you wanted a job inside the government, whether you were a man or a woman, it did not matter how qualified you were or what your educational background was. In a world where the spoils system still dominated government appointments, it all came down to knowing the right people. Being friendly or at least familiar with politicians and influential party leaders was pivotal in one’s quest for federal employment; it was these men who could open doors and help ensure a placement within the federal bureaucracy by writing letters of introduction or otherwise offering an endorsement on someone’s behalf. While one could apply for a federal job without the support of these men, their chances of succeeding in their quest without them was slim.   

Although securing a post within the government was difficult for both men and women, women hoping for federal employment were at a distinct disadvantage. Kept out of public spaces, many women lacked a robust, political network they could draw upon. As a result, women seeking a job in the federal service often had to rely on their ties to the men in their lives to convince influential people to lend their support. Women also leaned into the social norms of time, playing up their helplessness in order to gain sympathy and curry favor with the powerful men who could make a difference. Given their lack of access to the right people, some women had to try dozens of times, applying for a number of departments, even being forced to wait years before successfully securing a federal position. Those who were especially desperate and without any male relationships they could draw on even took to writing to President Lincoln directly, requesting he take pity on their plight and recommend them for a post. 

Female applicants who tried to emphasize or tout their skills and abilities in their requests for a job repeatedly found themselves shut out from government work. Again from historian Jessica Ziparo, quote: “generally, female dependence and helplessness were rewarded over female independence and ambition,” end quote. The more a woman presented herself as intelligent or capable of working in the post she was applying for, the less chance she had at actually securing that position. 

In response, women quickly learned that the best way to both get and keep their jobs was to lean into the social constructs of the period. They understood that their livelihoods were tied to the whims of the men in power and did what they could to safeguard their positions. As Ziparo observed quote, “female applicants downplayed their experience, intellect, and ambition, and paid particular attention to the feelings of men - it was what would get them hired, and once employed would help to keep them at their desks,” end quote. If the government wasn’t going to hire women based on their merit, then they would have to find another, more creative way to land their job.

It is estimated that the union spent nearly two billion dollars on the Civil War. And that is not a figure adjusted for 2024 estimates, but is representative of what was spent in the 1860s. Such a massive expenditure required the government to devise creative ways to fund the war as quickly as possible. One of the solutions was to move away from the gold standard. Beginning in 1861, the federal government began printing paper money which was known as greenbacks. The paper currency had to be produced, cut, and counted quickly and without error. Initially, the process for cutting greenbacks included cutting the paper by hand and was quite labor intensive. In recommending hiring women at the Treasury Department, Secretary Salmon P. Chase wrote quote, “a woman can use scissors better than a man, and she will do it cheaper,” end quote.

And this gets us to both why women sought federal service and one of the many challenges they faced. Women in need of waged work were consistently underpaid for their labor. Teachers then, as now, made paltry sums and laboring in factories was an inconsistent, difficult way to earn a living. Federal service, however, guaranteed a job with a high rate of pay - at least a higher rate of pay than women had thus far been able to enjoy. Working in the Treasury Department, women earned $600 each year, which was more than three times the salary they could expect working in a factory. However, it was 50% of what their male counterparts did for performing the exact same job. The federal government supported this deviation in pay, making separate classifications for women performing the work. If a male worked as a clerk, for example, then the woman performing the same tasks was hired - and paid - as a female clerk. 

The federal government codified this inequity by passing the Deficiency Act in 1864 which permitted, in fact, encouraged, heads of the various federal agencies to hire women over men, especially when quote “in their opinion, the same can be done consistently with the interests of the public service,” end quote. The federal government knew they could hire a dedicated, talented labor market and save an incredible amount of money by paying them half of what they paid their male counterparts. So as the federal government expanded, so too did the number of women employed in the federal service. 

By 1863, 14% of Treasury Department employees were women and by 1871, almost 1,000 women were listed on the federal registrar as employees. Despite these numbers, women continued to face hurdles that made maintaining their jobs a challenge. Although their compensation with the federal service was significantly more than they could enjoy elsewhere, women who worked in the nation’s capitol struggled to make ends meet. The district was a very expensive city and male employees frequently complained that their annual salaries were not enough to support themselves and their families. And these men were making double - I repeat, double - that of their female co-workers. Like men, women had families to care for. Like men, women had to pay for room and board, send money home to families who lived outside the district, and find ways to feed and clothe themselves. But despite these realities, the government did not shift its stance on compensation. Women who did manage to live within the district limits got creative in meeting their cost of living; they sought extra income through taking on boarders or finding other ways to make extra cash to pay their way. 

Working women also had to deal with accusations of sexual misconduct. Because this was a time before the establishment of a merit system or entrance exams, women who cultivated close relationships with their male supervisors risked being labeled as being inappropriate. This was further exacerbated by what became known as the Treasury Scandal of 1864. As described by historian Jessica Ziparo quote, “often in mixed-sex workplaces, women carried out important affairs of the nation including creating, verifying, and shepherding enormous amounts of U.S. current. And, allegedly, many of them were also engaged in some form of prostitution,” end quote. While the quote unquote scandal was largely false and blown up by the national press, it nevertheless put the experiment of employing women at risk. Shackled to the Victorian ideals of what it meant to be a proper lady, women who challenged these norms and entered into otherwise inappropriate sexual dalliances put their female coworkers careers and future at risk. While men also participated in otherwise uncouth behavior, they largely avoided the stigma, national attention, and risks to their livelihood that women could not escape. 

Despite these and several other challenges, women remained part of the federal service. They even lobbied for pay equity, rightfully pointing out the hypocrisy that they were performing the same tasks as men but for half the rate of pay. Women and their allies came incredibly close to securing victory, however the bills providing equal pay stalled in Congress and women would have to wait another century before the federal government authorized pay equity. Again from historian Jessica Ziparo, quote: “equal pay would have been a difficult policy to retreat from once adopted, and could have accelerated women’s civil rights battles in other areas, including suffrage. Instead, Congress sent a clear message to the nation’s employers and to women that they were somehow fundamentally inferior to men in matters of employment,” end quote. 

The federal government had tremendous influence on private industry and as the government chose to hire more women, so did the private sector. So the failure of the federal government to legalize equal pay for equal work ensured that women in both the public and private sector were forced into an economic disadvantage for decades to come. But not all was lost. Despite the many drawbacks women had to contend with - the precarity of their employment, reduced wages, and constant innuendo over just how they got and kept their job - the fact of the matter is, employing women broke a gender barrier. By working in the federal service, performing the same jobs as men - often alongside them - women demonstrated they were not only capable of doing the same work as men, but that they could do so without grinding the entire office to a halt. 

As historian Cindy Sondik Aron asserts quote, “the federal government thus became the first large, sexually integrated, white collar bureaucracy in America,” end quote. Working for the federal government in many ways opened doors for women in the United States. While they would remain incredibly underrepresented in a whole swath of various industries, the federal civil service workers in the mid nineteenth century proved that women could work. And could do it just as good as a man.  

Thanks, peeps. I’ll see you next week.

Thanks for tuning and I hope you enjoyed this episode of Civics & Coffee. If you want to hear more small snippets from american history, be sure to subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Thanks for listening and I look forward to our next cup of coffee together. 

OUTRO MUSIC