This thesis focuses upon the impact of war upon the progressive movement in Texas during 1914-1918. Chapter I defines progressivism in Texas and presents an overview of the political situation in the state as relating to the period. Chapter II discusses the negative impact that the first two years of World War I had upon the reform movement. Chapter III examines the revival of the Anti-Saloon League and the 1916 Democratic state convention. Chapter IV covers the war between James E. Ferguson and the University of Texas. Chapter V tells how the European war became a catalyst for the reform movement in Texas following America's entry, and its subsequent influence upon the election of 1918. Chapter VI concludes that James E. Ferguson's war with the University of Texas as well as World War I were responsible for the prohibitionist victory in the election of 1918.

On 13 November 1942, Thelma E. Page, a black high school teacher in Dallas, Texas, brought suit against the Dallas Board of Education in order to bring about the equalization of black and white teachers' salaries. This suit was part of a national movement of blacks, under the direction of the NAACP, and was an indirect attack upon segregation. Most of these suits were filed against large city school systems, in the South, in order to effect the greatest possible number of black teachers. This suit was won by the plaintiff and brought about equalization.

Reacting to the Great Depression, Texans abandoned the philosophy of rugged individualism and turned to their state and federal governments for leadership. Texas's Governor Miriam Ferguson resultantly created the state's first relief agency, which administered all programs including those federally funded. Because the Roosevelt administration ordered state participation in and immediate implementation of the CCC, a multi-governmental, multi-departmental administrative alliance involving state and federal efforts resulted, which, because of scholars' preferences for research at the federal level, often is mistakenly described as a decentralized administration riddled with bureaucratic shortcomings. CCC operations within Texas, however, revealed that this complicated administrative structure embodied the reasons for the CCC's well-documented success.