From the Introduction Oral History as a Methodology Oral history is a relatively new methodology, steadily growing in popularity following the creation of an oral history archive at Columbia University in 1948. Since the 1970s, oral history as an academic discipline has exploded, for it excels at giving history an intimate, human face. It democratizes history, giving voice to many of those who otherwise would be lost to the ages. Why were the ERA''s supporters so adamant about the need to amend the U.S. Constitution? Why were its opponents so strongly opposed to it? How did the ERA advocates convince their legion of supporters to turn out for rallies and demonstrations, and how did they translate that into pressure on certain legislators? Conversely, what motivated those who opposed the ERA, and what tactics did they use to sway legislators to vote against it? Few historical tools are better suited to find answers to such questions than well executed oral history interviews. This is especially true in an age where diaries and letter collections are increasingly rare. And as Prof.

Cullom Davis, the renowned creator of the Sangamon State University Oral History Program and former president of the Oral History Association stated during his own oral history interview, "older people enjoy, generally, the exercise of memory of their life experiences. It''s positive; it''s even maybe therapeutic." Oral history does have its downsides, however. While narrators often relate vivid memories of an event or a personality in ways that illustrate larger themes, those interviewed are often hard-pressed to remember when or where an incident occurred, or who specifically was involved. Memory is a fragile thing, and typically deteriorates over time or just as often, evolves to meet a narrator''s own biases and point of view. Who doesn''t know someone who tells a favorite story over and over again only to have the "fish" (or in the case of politicians, the crowd) get bigger with each telling? Yet, the very human tendency to share these stories helps narrators preserve their memories of important events. Donald Ritchie, the former Historian of the United States Senate, noted in his landmark book Doing Oral History that for those interviewed, "direct, dramatic, and emotional situations tend to produce more fixed and lasting memories." It is up to the skill of the interviewer, he emphasizes, to prepare himself thoroughly before the interview to elicit the best results.

For the most part, I have found that when interviewed for posterity, narrators usually strive to get their story right. For those interviewed, remembering what year something occurred was especially problematic since ERA legislation came up year after year. That is where an interviewer''s skill and careful preparation comes into play. Going into an interview, interviewers must be as knowledgeable as possible on the subject, armed with a firm understanding of the timeline of events. So equipped, they can gently provide important context when needed (the who, what, when and where of an event), facts that the narrator probably cannot recall. For example, who was governor that year; who was Speaker of the Illinois House at the time of a vote; were Democrats or Republicans in the majority; did the incident being recalled occur during the 1978 or the 1981 debates? Once provided with that kind of information, narrators can more confidently move beyond potential stumbling blocks and give insights into the nuances of the fight. Solid preparation on the interviewer''s part also helps establish the interviewer''s credibility, which in turn encourages narrators to get things right. In order to bolster interviewees'' memories and provide structure to the chronological narrative, I have used many other sources, including a document prepared upon request by the Illinois Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability in August 2020.

That document details the year-by-year voting record, by legislator, for the Illinois House and Senate. The General Assembly''s document, (referred to in the endnotes as "History of Illinois Votes") will provide crucial details and help anchor the chronological flow. To further compensate for the shortcomings of oral history interviews, articles from many of Illinois''s newspapers were also used extensively, for the state''s journalists, columnists, cartoonists and photographers were irresistibly drawn to the drama playing out in Springfield every year. These newspaper articles proved invaluable in providing a factual foundation for events, especially establishing specific dates that legislative actions occurred as well as providing information on those involved. Also valuable were the many colorful quotations and descriptions of the theatrics often encountered when the journalists fleshed out their stories. Finally, because of the extensive way that the printed press covered the entire ten-year fight, I discovered a couple of key legislative actions that General Assembly researchers missed when providing the "History of Illinois Votes" to me. It was not just Illinois media which covered the ERA. There is an abundance of fascinating video documents that I mined as well, all available on the internet, including debates between Betty Freidan and Phyllis Schlafly on "Good Morning America," another with Representative Pat Schroeder of Colorado, one featuring Schlafly on Phil Donahue''s show in 1974, and several others.

Following FX TV''s production of "Mrs. America" which appeared on Hulu in 2020, there was a plethora of videos discussing the TV political drama, representing every side of the argument. These sources added more spice to an already fascinating story. Finally, many secondary sources were used to bolster the narrative and provide historical context. The subject has been well mined by scholars and activists of all stripes over the years. None of the many books on the Equal Rights Amendment and women''s rights published over the last few decades, however, have trained an intimate eye on the role the Illinois legislature played in the fight. This book is meant to fill that void. But first and foremost, whenever possible, this story will be told using the voices of those involved using excerpts from their oral history interviews.

Many oral historians avoid interviewing the influential and powerful among us. They prefer to focus their energies on the unsung people who work behind the scenes, those who give their muscle and sinew to a cause or historical event without garnering the accolades of society or the recognition of traditional historians. While this is a laudable approach, it is not entirely the model chosen for this project. In order to tell the complete story of ERA''s defeat in Illinois, it was necessary to include many of the more prominent individuals who played a central role in the fight. Thus, governors, key legislators and leaders in both the pro and anti-ERA movement were also interviewed in addition to many of those who labored for their cause in obscurity. Regardless of an individual''s prominence, for most of these individuals, their oral history interview was their first chance to discuss their involvement in the ERA fight for the record. I approached every interview with the belief that this might be their only opportunity for an in-depth discussion on the relevant issues. For that reason, many of the interviews conducted involved multiple sessions, sometimes occurring over several months.

This was especially the case for the governors and legislative leaders interviewed, where the ERA fight was only one of the many topics discussed. That was also the case for several of the key pro-ERA leaders as well as ERA''s chief opponent, Phyllis Schlafly. One overriding goal when conducting the interviews was to strive for objectivity, the old-fashioned kind of objectivity that schools of journalism traditionally taught. This was especially important since the participants represented all sides of the issue. The Equal Rights Amendment became one of the most polarizing issues of the day, and thus was often fought at a red-hot pitch, especially as the combatants approached the 1982 deadline. "Combatants" is not too strong a word to describe members of the opposing camps. STOP ERA leader Phyllis Schlafly became one of the most polarizing and reviled women in America at the time. The disdain Mrs.

Schlafly''s supporters held toward their "radical feminist" opponents was every bit as strident. Since it was my task to interview participants on both sides of the issue and to elicit their true feelings and memories, it was therefore imperative to approach each interview free of bias, maintaining a strict impartiality throughout the interview. Every interviewee, regardless of their point of view, got tough questions. Once asked, they received a fair hearing and were allowed to answer the question without interruption or equivocation. Often, the tough questions were the ones that elicited the most revealing responses. A useful technic when asking those questions was to quote or paraphrase something said by an opponent. The responses were invariably illuminating. Nevertheless, regardless of how much an issue was pressed, in all cases the narrator was allowed to have the last word on the subject.

The goal for each interview was to conduct it in a way that the narrator could not determine my own biases or point of view. Considering that many of those interviewed were politicians or people who were otherwise familiar with the public spotlight, getting narrators to be candid was not always easy. By virtue of their profession or experiences, politicians spend their lives being elusive during interviews. Therefore, while I strove for a journalist''s objectivity, the tone I sought was conversational and not confro.