February 29, 1929

Planning and Funding the Construction of Mount Rushmore

The construction of Mount Rushmore is one of the most ambitious public art projects in United States history. The massive undertaking required a mix of artistic vision, political lobbying, and persistent fundraising efforts. The monument today is an iconic symbol of American nationalism carved into the granite of South Dakota’s Black Hills. This significance drove the hearts and minds of those involved in the project to keep pushing forward despite many obstacles. The planning and funding of Mount Rushmore is a story of local ambition, federal intervention, economic hardship, and the complex conflict between art and politics in the 1920s. The idea for Mount Rushmore was developed by South Dakota’s state historian, Doane Robinson. In 1923, Robinson wanted to bring tourists to the State so that they could experience the natural beauty. South Dakota was not a popular destination in the American West, so Robinson was determined to make a change. His initial thoughts on the project were to have western heroes like Lewis and Clark or Buffalo Bill carved into the mountains. He contacted the famous sculptor Gutzon Borglum to begin the project. When Borglum visited the Black Hills, he became inspired to expand Robinson’s ideas and create a national monument. Borglum felt that the expression of American patriotism would bring about broader support and ultimately federal funding. 

The Artist

Gutzon Borglum chose Mount Rushmore, a 6,000 foot high mountain, because it had great natural lighting and a 300 foot high area for carving. Initially, he had planned to carve local historical figures representing the great history of South Dakota in an effort to bring tourism and travel to the area. He later decided to expand this project to a national significance. This was to become a celebration of our country and its national history. This nationalist project came about at a time after World War I, when there was a very narrow view of what it meant to be American. Also, there was a growing intolerance of foreigners, and the evils of racial discrimination were experienced across the country. It was common for white Protestant men to show hostility toward all marginalized groups, which included Asians, African Americans, Catholics, and Jews. In 1924, Congress passed the National Origins Act, limiting the immigration of certain groups of people. The Act included a provision stopping the immigration of all Asians. The rise of the Ku Klux Klan during this time was also no surprise. This climate explains the challenges Borglum experienced when he decided to construct the monument on land that was sacred to the Lakota Indians. The customs and beliefs of the Lakota Indians were bypassed, and the land was ultimately taken from them. Borglum pushed ahead with his plans and ultimately dedicated the rest of his life to this project. 

The Significance 

In his planning of the monument, Borglum called Mount Rushmore a tribute to “the spirit of a people’s Government.” This phrase showed his belief that the monument reflected the values of the Progressive movement, which Borglum viewed as distinctly American. He believed that the monument symbolized America’s achievements, particularly those connected to the expansion of the national domain. He included figures like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt because they represent the story of American history. He saw this monument as a picture of American values and accomplishments and compared its significance to the Pyramids of ancient Egypt. 

Funding the Project

Funding the project proved impossible from the start. Borglum initially promised that private donors would contribute heavily, but these donors never provided enough funds for the massive project. Early fundraising efforts in South Dakota also fell short. In an effort to fund the massive project, the South Dakota legislature was approached. Initially, the legislature refused to provide any public funds, so private investors were sought out. This was a problem because the funds needed for the project were great and significant. The cost estimates were somewhere between $400,000 and $800,000. It was extremely difficult to raise such an astronomical amount of money, leading to serious financial roadblocks. These roadblocks threatened to end the project before it even began. Borglum however, was hopeful and continued to hold ceremonies and give speeches where he invited many political leaders to attend. These efforts would attract support and hopefully donors, but the donations were too small to get the project up and running. Borglum realized that the only way to fix this problem was to seek out federal funding. A turning point came about when President Calvin Coolidge was on vacation in the Black Hills in 1927. This was the opportunity Borglum needed to secure federal support, and he was not going to pass up the chance. The President was invited to attend the project’s dedication ceremony and see the significance of the planned project for himself. At this ceremony, the President publicly endorsed the project and promised federal funding. At a later date, the Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon agreed with the President and backed the federal funding bill. This was a win for Borglum and South Dakota Senator Norbeck as they were now able to drive the project forward. The support of the Federal Government was necessary and the only thing that would allow this project to continue. President Calvin Coolidge believed in the project and promised federal funding to support its completion.

.

The Mount Rushmore National Memorial Act

The Act authorized the U.S. government to provide funds up to $250,000. It also created a commission of 12 members to be appointed by the President of the United States. This commission would oversee the projects, planning, and construction. Although South Dakota had already passed legislation authorizing the carving of a national memorial in the Harney National Forest, the federal Act provided the legal and financial authority necessary for a project of national scale. The earlier state bill had authorized the Mount Harney Memorial Association to select the site, design, and name of the memorial, but it lacked the resources to complete a project of this scale. In February of 1929, the President continued his support when he signed the bill establishing the Mount Rushmore National Memorial Commission and allocated $250,000 toward its completion. At the end of Coolidge’s presidency, President Herbert Hoover took over the organization of the commission. The support of the President and Congress for the Rushmore bill displays the progression and optimism of the 1920s. This was a time when prosperity and expansion were very possible. Even after the stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression, the project remained a priority as it created many jobs for workers who would have otherwise been unemployed. The Mount Rushmore National Memorial Act transformed the project from a statewide tourist attraction to a national project displaying national American pride. The efforts of Gutzon Borglum and the South Dakota State Senator Norbeck secured the support of the Treasury Secretary and President Coolidge. 

Timeline of Events

To fully understand how Mount Rushmore grew from a local idea to bring about tourism to a national monument supported by the federal government, it is useful to show this massive development through a chronological timeline. The table below highlights the major milestones in planning, funding, political support, and construction.

The 1920s

The planning and funding of Mount Rushmore reveal a complex story of local ambition, federal intervention, economic hardship, and the merging of art, politics, and the cultural climate of the 1920s. The 20s was a decade where the conflicts and cultural climate shaped the path of this project. The original idea for Mount Rushmore came about during the Roaring Twenties, a time in history when economic expansion, mass consumer culture, and a national fascination with all things modern were booming. The 1920s were also a period when states and cities across the country sought to attract tourists, investment, and national attention. South Dakota was no exception. The 1920s also brought about a feeling of American patriotism because in the aftermath of World War I, the interest in national identity was intense. Americans everywhere idolized the Founding Fathers, and past presidents were huge symbols of patriotism and national unity. Borglum’s choice to depict Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt fit right in with the cultural moment of the 20s. The political landscape of the 1920s also shaped the project’s early development because the Republican administrations during this time supported business enterprise and national pride. The decade was dominated by Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover, all known for their support of limited federal intervention, tourism, and the celebration of American ideals and patriotic display. These priorities were seen in Borglum’s vision of a monument celebrating American greatness. During the 1920s, states often began ambitious projects celebrating the country on a national scale. Rural states like South Dakota did not benefit much from the economic boom, which made tourism development even more of a priority. The development of Mount Rushmore came at a time when there was an agricultural depression that hit the Midwest just years before the 1929 crash. 

Construction

Borglum’s original artistic vision was a moment of presidential torsos, inscriptions, and an elaborate “Hall of Records” behind the monument. Funding limitations quickly downgraded his plans to a less ambitious design. The construction of the monument was extremely dangerous and technically difficult. The work crews used dynamite, jackhammers, and hand tools to carve away nearly 450,000 tons of rock. With all of the danger and dynamite, it was truly shocking that not one worker died during the construction. The funding problems stopped the construction at times, and Borglum himself spent a lot of his time lobbying Congress and pushing for funding so that he could return to supervising the carving. 

Conclusion

The planning and funding of Mount Rushmore reveal a story far more complex than the noble faces carved into the mountain display. What began as a struggle to bring about state tourism developed into a federally supported national monument. The merging of artistic ambition, political strategy, and relentless advocacy was necessary to complete the project. The monument’s completion required an extreme amount of navigation through legislative hurdles, financial shortfalls, and adapting the grand artistic visions to the reality of resources available. Mount Rushmore today stands not only as a symbol of American presidents but also honors the collaborative effort at a time when nationalism was important to Americans. Its history shows us how monuments are shaped by politics and the economy just as much as they are shaped by the tools of a talented sculptor.

Bibliography

Biome, Albert. “Patriarchy Fixed in Stone: Gutzon Borglum’s ‘Mount Rushmore.’” 

American Art 5, no. 1/2 (1991): 143–67. 

Fite, Gilbert C. “Gutzon Borglum Mercurial Master of Colossal Art.” Montana: The 

Magazine of Western History 25, no. 2 (1975): 2–19. 

Glass, Matthew. “Producing Patriotic Inspiration at Mount Rushmore.” Journal of the 

American Academy of Religion 62, no. 2 (1994): 265–83. 

Rood, John. Review of Giants in Stone, by Gilbert C. Fite. Minnesota History 33, no. 2 

(1952): 86–87. 

Rumble, Walker. “Gutzon Borglum: Mount Rushmore and the American Tradition.” The 

Pacific Northwest Quarterly 59, no. 3 (1968): 121–27. 

• Featured Image: August 10, 1927 Mount Rushmore dedication ceremony where President Coolidge promised funding for the project. Memorial History – Mount Rushmore National Memorial (U.S. National Park Service)

The opening of the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in New York City was at the end of the 1920s. Scholars often note that the 1920s was a progressive era, and the museum helped with it being progressive. The museum’s origins were diverse because it was hiring racial and gender minorities, which would be considered unheard of during that era. Women and people from different backgrounds working at the museum helped cause the museum’s success. The museum’s original collection had a decent amount of contemporary art that was donated to, or purchased by, the museum. Art enthusiasts considered these paintings as new and revolutionary compared to typical art styles at the time. The MoMA currently sits as one of the most popular museums in New York and for art in general due to its success during the 1920s.

The original idea for the MoMA was in 1928 by three important women: Abby Aldrich Rockefeller, Lillie P. Bliss, and Mary Quinn Sullivan, known collectively as “The Ladies”, who came up with the idea for the MoMA over lunch, as the story goes. On March 7, 1928, Lillie and Aldrich were at a social gathering in Jerusalem where apparently they came up with the idea.¹ They wanted a place where they could display the trendiest and newest art at that time, namely contemporary art. Abby Rockefeller wrote about why she wanted the museum in the first place, “I began to think of women whom I knew in New York City, who cared deeply for beauty and who bought pictures, women who would be willing, and had faith enough, to help start a museum of contemporary art.”² She wanted a place that she and other women would be able to experience and enjoy the arts. The Ladies were daughters and wives of some of America’s wealthiest families living in New York, with Abby being the daughter-in-law of John D. Rockefeller. “The Ladies” were able to pool together their resources along with inviting investors and succeeded in opening the MoMA on November 7, 1929. The founding director of the MoMA, Alfred H. Barr Jr. set a goal for the museum to be “the greatest museum of modern art in the world” by helping everyone, and not only art experts, to enjoy art by understanding it.³

The MoMA had a decently sized Board of Trustees that helped it during its first couple of years. Three major trustees who helped the MoMA during this time were A. Conger Goodyear, Paul J. Sachs, and Josephine Boardman Crane. A. Conger Goodyear was a railroad and lumber tycoonist who also was the MoMA’s first president. Goodyear had previous museum experience from working at the Buffalo Art Museum from 1912-1928. While working there at that time, he played fast and loose with the museum’s money to acquire artwork that the museum might not have acquired otherwise. His actions sparked some controversy among other trustees, which resulted in Conger being voted out of the Buffalo AKG Art Museum’s Board of Trustees.⁴ Aldrich Rockefeller wanted Conger to be president of MoMA due to his accomplishments at the Buffalo AKG Art Museum and his ability to acquire paintings that the MoMA probably could not. Paul J. Sachs was a professor at Harvard who helped finance the MoMA in its early years. As the Board was searching for a director of the museum, Sachs was the one to recommend one of his former students, Alfred H. Barr Jr. Sachs also donated to the museum some of his drawings from his early career. Josephine Boardman Crane helped the museum by donated her Russian art collection and also offered fiscal aid. Shortly before the grand opening of the MoMA, the Stock Market crash had just hit the world. But with the help of multiple trustees, the mere idea of the MoMA was not lost to the trash bin. Since all of the trustees came from rich families, they were able to provide help to the MoMA during this trying time.

The MoMA originally opened at a different location from where it currently stands. When the MoMA opened, it was located at the Heckscher Building on 730 Fifth Avenue, not on 11 West 53rd Street, which is two streets away from the Heckscher Building. The Heckscher Building was home to the MoMA for 3 years, until 1932 when they moved to a different building. The MoMA was located in the Heckscher Building for multiple reasons. The Heckscher Building was one of the very few skyscrapers (it would not be considered a skyscraper by today’s standards) in New York City and it had the reputation of being “The Tower of Trade.” Other famous establishments also were renting floors on the Heckscher Building, so the moniker had precedence. The fact that the Heckscher Building could be easily seen from anywhere in New York City, along with its prestigious reputation, made the location perfect for the MoMA.

The opening of the MoMA was not all sunshine and rainbows because John D. Rockefeller Jr. did not like Modern art. John D. Rockefeller Jr. was the son of John D. Rockefeller and husband to Aldrich Rockefeller. Although John D. Rockefeller Jr. did like art and was an art collector who helped fund the Cloisters—a museum designed to collect Medieval Art—John D. Rockefeller Jr. simply disliked Modern Art. Even though Aldrich Rockefeller was the founder of MoMA and played a very important role in it, John D. Rockefeller Jr. chose not to support the MoMA in its initial years. Although John D. Rockefeller Jr. disliked Modern Art and avoided it the best he could, he did not try to prevent his wife from acquiring pieces of Modern Art and yet he never paid for them.⁵ John D. Rockefeller Jr. was a Baptist, and in the 1920s Baptists preferred not to deal with secular art like Modern Art of the era. John D. Rockefeller Jr. was a conservative, and conservatives often disliked Modern Art from that era because it was challenging traditional norms. Though John D. Rockefeller Jr. did donate to the MoMA, it was not until later in the 1940’s. And due to his funding, the MoMA was then moved to its modern location where it is still standing today.

The original MoMA gallery contained paintings by Vincent van Gogh, Georges Seurat, Paul Cézanne, and Paul Gauguin. When the MoMA was created, it was not able to afford the purchase of any artwork; so instead, they received donations of artwork. Alfred H. Barr wanted the MoMA to display newer pieces instead of older, which was difficult since most of the MoMA’s collections were already over one hundred years old. Alfred H. Barr got rid of the older paintings by stating “a torpedo moving through time, its nose the ever advancing present, its tail the ever receding past of 50 to 100 years ago.”⁶ Alfred H. Barr was a Harvard professor who also loved contemporary art. During his time at Harvard, he helped to run the Harvard Society of Contemporary Art. In July, 1929, he was interviewed for the position of founding director, and on August 12, 1929, was accepted for the position.⁷ As its director, Barr sent Anson Goodyear—Anson being a member of the Board of Trustees—to travel to Europe to collect six paintings by van Gogh, Seurat, Cezanne and Gauguin, whose exhibition was very successful for both Barr and the MoMA.⁸

Themes of the 1920s

The 1920s was an era that challenged the old traditional norms from the previous era, the Victorian era. The Victorian era held strict social and gendered norms that favored traditionalism and did not like feminism. After the conclusion of the First World War, America challenged Victorian thought by consuming the works of modernist philosophers. It sparked such ideas as the New Women, a rise of secular culture, pluralism, and an expansion of new ways of thinking. The MoMA embodied the rise of modernism in America by connecting many of these themes to the MoMA in some way.

Vincent van Gogh, Georges Seurat, Paul Cézanne and Paul Gauguin were deliberately chosen to be the MoMA’s first exhibit. The reason was because all four of these painters were impressionist painters who also helped revolutionize the art world. Impressionism as a form of art is described as capturing the sense of time passing by with the changing of lighting, where the subject is often something found in the modern world such as a building, a crowd of people, a pier, or a park. Impressionism came about from the rejection of a previous form of art, which was supposed to be the accepted standard for art: Neoclassicism and Romanticism. Both forms of art are very similar to each other, in that they are typically still images of important historical events and subjects. The difference between these two forms of art lie in their treatments of the subjects. Neoclassicism is a rigid form of art based on the Greco-Roman form of art and favors historical scenes. Romanticism is a similar form but focuses on nature and the subject’s emotions. Impressionism is a rejection of those forms, just as the 1920s was a rejection of the Victorian values and norms. These painters all influenced the discipline of impressionism. And because the MoMA chose to display these painters’ works as its first exhibits, it showed everyone that they were going to revolutionize the enjoyment of art and what a museum should display in their exhibits.

Abby Rockefeller was a very important component in the creation of the MoMA. Out of the three founding women, Abby Rockefeller created, actively participated in, and did the most amount of work for the MoMA. Unlike most other women during that era who may later step out of the spotlight after creating a museum or let go of that idea, Abby was different. Abby was a member of the Board of Trustees and also was the MoMA’s treasurer. Due to her work in the MoMA, she gained new titles and responsibilities throughout her years. When she worked at the MoMA, she was often a negotiator between Barr and Goodyear due to their disagreements. Elsewhere in Abby’s life, she was a women’s suffragist and helped women with their economic and social disadvantages.  She was a member and chairwoman of the Young Women’s Christian Association for twenty years, and donated large amounts of money to them.⁹ She used her privileged status to help underprivileged women to have better lives and advocated for women’s progress. These traits the Abby presented are similar to historian Lynn Dumenil’s interpretation of the New Women.¹⁰ The New Women challenges traditional gender norms established in the Victorian age. Common people who challenged these notions of normalcy were known as flappers and women suffragists. It is the same to say that Abby Rockefeller is associated with the New Women due to her challenging of traditional gender norms of the 1920s.

The MoMA did not just hire white people but was a diverse place of employment. Though technically hired in the early 30s, Soichi Sunami, a Japanese-American photographer, showed that the MoMA embraced the ideals of modernism and pluralism founded in the 1920s. Soichi Sunami was a photographer who was a member of the Seattle Art Club, participated in multiple exhibits, and studied under painter John Sloan.¹¹ Soichi Sunami was the living embodiment of the MoMA’s focus on diversity of the 1920s. In the 1920s, many groups of people experienced a cultural and economic boom. Japanese Americans were one of those groups, due to their tight-knit families, their focus on education, along with their support of each other out of poverty. Soichi was born in Japan but lived in New York City for a long time. His talent caused him to be recognized, with Aldrich Rockefeller asking him to work at the MoMA in 1930 due to his successful career.¹² This caused him to have a very successful forty-year long career working at the MoMA.

Conclusion

The MoMA was one of the last events that occurred at the end of the 1920s. It was a radical idea that came about due to the climate of the 20s. The MoMA’s existence challenged the traditional Victorian social norms by predominantly displaying impressionist art, by the founders of the MoMA being all women, and by hiring diverse people. These decisions caused the MoMA to be the embodiment of the themes of the 1920s. Since these themes were entrenched in the MoMA’s identity, they fueled the success of the MoMA in the late 1920s early 1930s and to become the very successful museum as we know it today.

1. Kate Walbert, “Lillie P. Bliss, ” in Inventing the Modern: Untold Stories of the Women Who Shaped The Museum of Modern Art, ed. Ann Temkin and Romy Sliver-Kohn, (New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 2024) 64 ︎
2. Abby Aldrich Rockefeller, “MoMA through Time,” MoMA, accessed Apr 21, 2026, https://www.moma.org/interactives/moma_through_time/1920/three-women-have-a-vision/. ︎
3. “The Museum of Modern Art history,” MoMA, accessed April 21, 2026, https://www.moma.org/about/mission-statement/history#:~:text=In%20the%20late%201920s%2C%20three,Its%20founding%20director%2C%20Alfred%20H. ︎
4. “A. Conger Goodyear” Buffalo AKG Art Museum, accessed April 30, 2026, https://buffaloakg.org/person/conger-goodyear ︎
5. David Rockefeller, interviewed by Sharon Zane, transcript, January 17 1991, The Museum Of Modern Art Oral History Program. https://buffaloakg.org/person/conger-goodyear ︎
6. Alfred H. Barr Jr. “Time” MoMA, accessed on April 21, 2026, https://www.moma.org/interactives/moma_through_time/1920/starting-a-collection-from-scratch/ ︎
7. Sybil Gordon Kantor, Alfred H. Barr, Jr., and the Intellectual Origins of the Museum of Modern Art, (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2002) 211. ︎
8. Kantor, Origins of MoMA 190-214. ︎
9. “Abby Aldrich Rockefeller, 1874-1948,” Rockefeller Archive Center, accessed on March 31, 2026. https://rockarch.org/resources/about-the-rockefellers/abby-aldrich-rockefeller/
   ︎
10. Lynn Dumenil, Modern Temper: American Culture and Society in the 1920s, (New York: Hill and Wang, 1995), 99. ︎
11. Kathy Muir, “Soichi Sunami,” Seattle Camera Club, accessed April 30, 2026, https://www.seattlecameraclub.com/soichi_sunami.html ︎
12. Muir, “Soichi Sunami,” Seattle Camera Club, accessed April 30, 2026, ︎

Bibliography and Suggested Resources

“A. Conger Goodyear.” Buffalo AKG Art Museum. accessed April 30, 2026.

“Abby Aldrich Rockefeller, 1874-1948.” Rockefeller Archive Center. accessed on March 31, 2026.

Barr, Alfred H. Jr. “MoMA through Time.” Museum of Modern Art . accessed on April 21, 2026.

Dumenil, Lynn. Modern Temper: American Culture and Society in the 1920s. (New York: Hill and Wang. 1995)

Kantor, Sybil Gordon. Alfred H. Barr, Jr., and the Intellectual Origins of the Museum of Modern Art. (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2002)

Muir, Kathy. “Soichi Sunami.” Seattle Camera Club. accessed April 30, 2026.

Rockefeller, Abby Aldrich. “MoMA through Time.” Museum of Modern Art. accessed Apr 21, 2026.

Rockefeller, David. interviewed by Sharon Zane, transcript, January 17 1991, The Museum Of Modern Art Oral History Program.

“The Museum of Modern Art history.” Museum of Modern Art. accessed April 21, 2026.

Walbert, Kate. “Lillie P. Bliss. ” in Inventing the Modern: Untold Stories of the Women Who Shaped The Museum of Modern Art. ed. Ann Temkin and Romy Sliver-Kohn. (New York: The Museum of Modern Art. 2024)

J Pelar

Josh Pelar is a History student at Ramapo College of New Jersey.

Across the entire world, the 1920s served as a period of extensive change. Americans experienced the roaring prosperous twenties while Europeans reconstructed from World War I yet Mexico lived through unceasing revolutions. During 1926-1929, both soldiers and civilians lost their lives in the Cristero War to the extent of 90,000 fatalities. The paper analyzes the Cristero War within the historical framework of Mexican society and politics in the 1920s. The United States lived in economic prosperity with cultural freedom at the same time that Mexico faced difficulties applying revolutionary standards which led to widespread population alienation (Meyer, 2008). During the Cristero conflict the worldwide modernization patterns of the 1920s took distinct forms in different societies that produced violent religious upheaval when they confronted traditional cultural identities and beliefs.

Historical Background

After Mexican independence in 1821, the complex dynamics between the state of Mexico and its Catholic Church initiated the Cristero War. Maintaining their belief that progressive reform and democratic progress required diminished Church power, secular reformers pursued measures to reduce the institution’s enormous economic and political capabilities during the 19th century. Anticlerical measures of the 1857 Constitution and Reform Laws by President Benito Juárez finished in nationalized Church properties and separation of state and religion.

In 1910, the Mexican Revolution launched as an opposition against dictator Porfirio Díaz but transformed into several opposing movements that contested Mexico’s prospective direction. Several parts of the 1917 Revolutionary Constitution enforced strict limitations upon religious practices across Mexico (Bailey, 2019). The Mexican Revolution adopted Article 3 to forbid religious education alongside Article 5, which banned monastic orders, and Article 24 limi, ted worship to church buildings as well as Article 27, which legalized all church properties, then denied legal recognition to churches through Article 130 while imposing public dress code limitations on clergy members and demanded civil official approval for clergy during Article 130.

The first post-revolutionary president, Venustiano Carranza, along with Álvaro Obregón, chose not to strictly implement religious opposition laws in order to establish political harmony. Plutarco Elías Calles took over the presidency in 1924 and began systematically enforcing strict measures against the Catholic Church because he believed revolutionary nationalism rejected its religious presence.

The Calles Law and Religious Persecution

The Calles administration established significant changes between the state and church during this period. Calles established the “Law for Reforming the Penal Code” in June 1926 as “Calles Law,” through which he established harsh consequences for breaking anticlerical provisions in the Constitution (Reich, 2018). All priests needed state registration according to the law, while the government maintained limits on religious numbers per state and bans on teaching religion and public worship.

These measures were launched rapidly through forceful execution. Government officials closed monasteries together with convents and religious education institutions. The authorities performed foreign religious staff deportations and created laws against priestly apparel in public while stopping religious parades. Local area officials exceeded federal commands through church closures and religious image destruction. When the government enforced restrictions on Catholic practices, it targeted longstanding Mexican traditions that maintained their essence through rural Catholic communities.

This marked the first time in Mexican history when the Catholic leadership stopped all church-based public worship on July 31, 1926, denying millions of their vital sacraments and religious events. Unpaid religious clerks conducted the “clerical strike” as a peaceful stand that would pressure the government to modify its legislative measures (Rice, 2017). These actions heightened conflicts to a point that sparked military revolt across Mexico.

The Cristero Uprising

In late 1926, several states across Mexico entered into armed conflict with the government because of its religious policies, most notably in the highly Catholic western-central region known as the Bajío. The rebels started using the battle cry “Viva Cristo Rey!” as their war chant. The rebels started using “Long live Christ the King!” as their battle cry and received the nickname “Cristeros.” An initial wave of spontaneous local insurgencies formed into widespread opposition against government religious policies.

Peaceful rural peasants, alongside indigenous people and landowning families, participated in the Cristero rebellion based on their strong connection between Catholicism and their cultural beliefs and social integration. Various Catholic demographics from urban areas united with them by bringing monetary backing, tactical help, and material resources. The “Feminine Brigades of St. Joan of Arc” served as women combatants who managed supply chains and medical aid while distributing ammunition to the resistance forces.

Despite their lack of organization, the Cristero fighters learned to fight through irregular warfare against federal troops. As the conflict grew more intense Generals Enrique Gorostieta regardless of his former stature as a federal general and his skeptic religious views and José Reyes Vega and Jesús Degollado Guízar led the development of the Cristero fighters into a larger fighting force. During 1928, the Cristero fighters successfully ruled across the Mexican states of Jalisco, Michoacán, Guanajuato, Zacatecas, and Colima.

During this time, the government intensified its violent tactics against rebellion supporters. Federal troops conducted executions on captured Cristeros while troops destroyed suspected rebel-supporting villages and forced population relocations to separate the rebels from each other. The Church punished priests through immediate executions when they displayed support for the revolt (Bailey, 2019). Both sides launched a vicious cycle of violence throughout the conflict, which included Cristeros violently targeting government officials and teachers but also federal forces carrying out executions and church desecration of priests.

International Context and U.S. Involvement

During this period, Mexican-American diplomatic relations stood in a state of diplomatic strain. American petroleum industries clashed with the Mexican government through diplomatic conflicts because they objected to provisions in the 1917 Constitution commanding control of natural resource assets. The religious tensions between Mexico and American Catholics became international because of the U.S (Butler, 2007). Catholics defended Mexico’s religious freedom, yet Protestants, along with secular groups, sided with the Mexican government’s church-state separation efforts.

Officially, the U.S. government declared neutrality but concurrently sold weapons to the Mexican government, and at the same time, it instituted an arms embargo against the Cristeros. Under President Calvin Coolidge, America adopted a different approach when he appointed Dwight Morrow as the new ambassador to Mexico in 1927. Morrow devoted his efforts to building better diplomatic ties, which led him to play a decisive role in ending the conflict.

The Cristero War took place alongside the rise of religious conflict, which spread throughout different parts of the world. The 1925 Scopes “Monkey Trial in the United States” displayed the battle between tradition and modernity (Rice, 2017). Through the 1929 Lateran Treaty, Italy resolved previous disputes between its state authorities and the Vatican. The modernizing world witnessed worldwide societal responses to religious questions during these simultaneous historical events.

The Mexican Church and State in the Modern Era

The peace treaty that settled the Cristero War developed in June 1929 as the “Arreglos” through diplomatic efforts by U.S. Ambassador Morrow. The agreement enabled religious worship services inside church buildings while allowing religious education activities within church properties, though educational institutions remained prohibited. The Church acquired the right to demand alterations of the existing laws (Meyer, 2008). The Church accepted to silence its criticisms against the government as part of this deal.

The resulting agreement contained solutions that failed to please the groups involved fully. Several Cristeros felt despair after religious leaders failed to bring about formal legal change through their concessions to the government (Young, 2019). The government decided to maintain the Constitutional anticlerical provisions while agreeing to enforce them with reduced strictness. Hardline officials in the government believed the giveaway of concessions was a major mistake.

The agreement ended the primary combat state, although both parties felt unsatisfied. The June 27, 1929 reopening of churches led most Cristero guerrillas to surrender their arms by August of that year (Tuck, 2021). The government reneged on its promise to provide amnesty, so it executed over 500 leaders of the Cristero movement. The federal government’s betrayal of its promises ignited another Cristero rebellion called “La Segunda,” which fought through the 1930s.

Cultural Impact and Legacy

The Cristero War deeply marked Mexican culture and historical memory. The Cristero War motivated Graham Greene to write “The Power and the Glory” in 1940 and filmmakers to produce the divisive “For Greater Glory” in 2012. John Paul II carried out Church canonizations and beatifications of 25 martyrs during the conflict with 25 priests and other laypeople attaining sainthood status in 2000.

During the Cristero War, rural populations showed that revolutionary elites in Mexico City had lost touch with the traditional Catholic beliefs and cultural elements their rural supporters wished to preserve (Butler, 2007). The conflict made the post-revolutionary state soften its approach to secularization as it recognized that Catholicism remained fundamental to Mexican cultural traditions.

During the 20th century, religious tradition, as an element of Mexican politics, battled continuously against the revolutionary anti-religious initiatives. The government altered its opposition to religion through World War II because it needed national unity for survival (Meyer, 2008). Under President Carlos Salinas de Gortari, Mexico changed its constitution in 1992 to establish legal religious organization recognition, which enabled public worship outside churches and permitted clergy voting rights along with faith-based education in private schools.

Conclusion

Studies of the Cristero War constitute an essential piece of the North American historical narrative that receives minimal attention. During the 1920s, Americans lived in prosperity and cultural liberation. However, Mexicans faced violent conflicts about how religion should shape their national identity. During the 1920s, modernizing trends of the era created diverse reactions across nations, which prompted opposition toward any threats toward prevailing cultural characteristics.

References

Bailey, D. C. (2019). Viva Cristo Rey!: The Cristero Rebellion and the church-state conflict in Mexico. University of Texas Press.

Butler, M. (2007). Popular piety and political identity in Mexico’s Cristero Rebellion: Michoacán, 1927-29. Oxford University Press.

Meyer, J. (2008). The Cristero Rebellion: The Mexican people between church and state 1926-1929. Cambridge University Press.

Reich, P. L. (2018). Mexico’s hidden revolution: The Catholic Church in law and politics since 1929. University of Notre Dame Press.

Rice, E. A. (2017). The diplomatic relations between the United States and Mexico, as affected by the struggle for religious liberty in Mexico, 1925-1929. Georgetown University Press.

Tuck, J. (2021). The holy war in Los Altos: A regional analysis of Mexico’s Cristero rebellion. University of Arizona Press.

Young, J. (2019). Mexican exodus: Emigrants, exiles, and refugees of the Cristero War. Oxford University Press.

Laurel and Hardy were a comedy duo composed of Stanley Laurel (1890-1965) and Oliver Hardy (1892-1957). Laurel and Hardy were featured in their first silent short The Lucky Dog (1921). Their first silent short as a comedy duo was The Second Hundred Years (1927). Their career followed the new technological advances of sound in film. In addition to silent shorts in the 1920s, they also released silent films with music and effects. Their first talkie, Unaccustomed As We Are, was released in 1929. Unaccustomed As We Are stars Laurel and Hardy. The talkie was written by Thomas “Leo” McCarey and Harley “H.M.” Walker. The directors were Lewis Foster and Harold “Hal” Roach Sr. The following transcription is from a scene that take place between the 5:39 and 12:31 minute marks.

Video

Text

(In Hardy’s apartment. Hardy brought Laurel over to his apartment for dinner without telling Mrs. Hardy. Mrs. Hardy refused to make dinner and left) 

Laurel: Well, l guess we don’t eat.

Hardy: Oh, yes, we do eat. l’ll cook you a meal like you’ve never eaten. 

(to himself, cleaning off a table in the center of the room) Nobody else needs to cook my meals for me. One thing about me, l am absolutely independent. l’ve cooked loads of meals.

(Laurel sits reclined in a chair; Hardy trips over Laurel’s outstretched legs)

(to Laurel) Why don’t you do something to help me?

Laurel: What can l do?

Hardy: Set the table. That’s simple. You don’t have to use any brains for that.

(Laurel places plates previously on table on the floor. Hardy trips over the plates. Laurel continues to fumble with table. Hardy swats at Laurel’s hands) 

Get your hands off of that. Go in the kitchen and light the oven. (Laurel trips over Hardy’s foot)

And pick your feet up. And take your hat off. Now go in and light the oven. Thank you.

(Laurel looks at oven and around kitchen with a confused expression on his face. He checks the pockets of his pants. Laurel walks out of the kitchen to Hardy.) 

Laurel: Got a match?

Hardy: Yes. l’ll light it. You fix the table. (Hardy enters kitchen)

(Laurel begins to places cutlery on table)

(Off screen explosion. Fire blazes out of the kitchen for a brief second while Hardy is thrown from the kitchen.)

Why don’t you be careful? You might have blown the whole house up.

You know, there’s a right and wrong way to do everything.

(Off screen explosion. Fire blazes out of the kitchen for a brief second while Hardy is thrown from the kitchen.)

(unintelligible) light that again.

Laurel: Now wait a minute now. l didn’t mean anything-

Hardy: l’m sorry l brought you here! You’ve done nothing-

(knock at the door)

Mrs. Kennedy¹: What in the world is happening, Mr Hardy?

Hardy: Well, l was cooking dinner for my friend and l, and we had a slight accident.

Mrs. Kennedy: Oh, you poor dear boy. Maybe there’s something l could do to help you.

Hardy: That’s awfully sweet of you, Mrs Kennedy.

Mrs. Kennedy: Why, lt would be a pleasure, Mr Hardy.

Hardy: You’re sure l’m not imposing, Mrs Kennedy?

Mrs. Kennedy: Oh, not at all, Mr Hardy.

Hardy: Thank you, Mrs Kennedy.

(Mrs. Kennedy enters kitchen)

Laurel: Was that Mrs Kennedy?

Hardy: Oh, shut up!

(off screen explosion, Mrs. Kennedy screams)

Hardy: Quick What’s the matter?

Mrs. Kennedy, exiting the kitchen: I’m on fire, put me out. I’m on fire, put me out. Oh please put me out. Mr. Hardy, please. Please put me out, Mr Hardy! Put me out!

(Laurel uses his hat and Hardy uses his jacket to put the fire out. Laurel hits Hardy multiple times instead of the fire.) 

Oh please, something to cover me up. (Laurel covers Mrs. Kennedy with the table cloth).

Hardy: Goodness gracious, are you hurt?

Mrs. Kennedy: No, Mr Hardy. lt frightened me to death.

Hardy: l’m awfully sorry that happened, Mrs Kennedy.

Mrs. Kennedy: Oh that’s all right Mr Hardy, accidents will happen.

Hardy: You’re right, Mrs Kennedy.

Mrs. Kennedy: It won’t take me but a minute to put on another dress, Mr. Hardy.

Hardy: You sure l can’t help you Mrs. Kennedy?

Mrs. Kennedy: Oh no, thank you, Mr Hardy.

(Mrs. Kennedy goes to leave. She sees her husband entering the Kennedy apartment. She reenters the Hardy apartment and closes the door). 

My husband.².lf he sees me, he’ll, I think, he’ll kill all of us. What’ll l do?

Hardy: Do? Why, we’ll tell him the truth.

Laurel: The whole truth.

Hardy: And nothing but the truth.

Laurel: Absolutely.

Hardy: Pardon. 

(Hardy exits the apartment to approach Mr. Kennedy. He sees his wife in hallway and returns to his apartment)

My wife. What’ll we do?

Laurel: Tell her the truth.

Hardy: Oh shut up. We’ve got to get out of here. (all enter the Hardy’s bedroom) Right in here. (to himself) l don’t know where to go. (to Laurel) Close that door.

(to Mrs. Kennedy) ln the trunk.

(Laurel gets in trunk) 

Mrs. Hardy³ (off-screen): Yo-hoo

Hardy: (to Laurel) No, not you! Get up!

(to Mrs. Kennedy) Now keep your head down.

Mrs. Hardy: Oh, pussums.

Hardy: What do you mean, pussum?

Mrs. Hardy: Don’t be cross. l’m sorry for what happened and l’ll fix Stan dinner. Look, l brought him some nuts.

Hardy: No, Barbara. We are through.

Mrs. Hardy: Oh but what do you mean?

Hardy: You’ve broken the camel’s back once too often. My trunk is packed and l’m leaving for South America tonight to do big things.

Mrs. Hardy: Oh! But, Oliver…

Hardy: And l’m burning my bridges behind me.

Laurel: Burning your what?

Hardy: Burning my bridges.

Laurel: Oh, l thought you said britches.

Mrs. Hardy: Oh oh but, Oliver, why are you leaving me?

Hardy: Because my friend advised me to go.

Hardy: Come, Stan.

Mrs. Hardy: Oh.

(Laurel and Hardy carry trunk with Mrs. Kennedy out of bedroom)

Mrs. Hardy: Just a minute (grabs Laurel’s shoulder).

You wolf in sheep’s clothing (Mrs. Hardy hits Laurel on his shoulder). lt’s men about town like you that cause all the trouble between man and wife. What do you mean by taking this poor little innocent to South America and advising him to burn his bridges when he never even started a fire in his life?

(Laurel does not respond)

l’m talking to you. Come on. Answer me.

(getting more agitated) What do you mean? Well come on. What do you mean? 

Can’t you answer? 

(Laurel uses his arms to cover his head)

Oh! You’d thrash me, would ya? Oh you would?

Hardy: That boy wasn’t gonna hit you.

Mrs. Hardy: You’d thrash me!

Hardy (yelling over Mrs. Hardy): He wasn’t gonna hit you.

(Hardy and Mrs. Hardy start indistinctly yelling over each other. Camera cuts to outside of apartment where yelling can still be heard). 

Source

Unaccustomed as We Are. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 1929.

Bibliography

IMDb. “Unaccustomed as We Are (Short 1929).” www.imdb.com. Accessed April 25, 2023. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0020531/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0_tt_2_nm_1_q_unaccustome.

Unaccustomed as We Are. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 1929. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BHU6MPJ-_o.

mkukan

Michelle Kukan is a spring 2023 student of Discovering Digital History at Ramapo College. She is a sophomore studying history, American studies and museum & exhibition studies. She is a volunteer for Mahwah Museum’s Veterans Project and works on the Jane Addams Paper Project.

The history of the stock market dates back to the 17^th century, when the first stock exchange was established in Amsterdam in 1602.  The Dutch East India Company issued shares of stock to the public to raise capital for its trading ventures, and these shares were bought and sold on a stock exchange.  This marked the beginning of modern stock markets, which have since become an important part of the global economy.  In the United States, the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) was founded in 1792, when a group of stockbrokers signed the Buttonwood Agreement to trade securities in New York City.  The agreement was a response to a need for a more organized and regulated stock market, which had been growing rapidly in the United States.  Under the terms of the agreement, the signatories pledged to deal only with each other and to charge a minimum commission of one quarter of one percent on all trades.  They also agreed to refrain from trading securities that were not publicly held, and abide by rules that would govern their dealings.  The Buttonwood Agreement helped to establish the principles of transparency and trust that are still fundamental to the operation of the modern stock market.  It paved the way for the creation of the New York Stock Exchange, which became the most important stock exchange in the world.  The NYSE grew to become the largest and most prestigious stock exchange in the world, and it played a central role in the growth of the American economy in the 19^th and 20^th centuries. Over time, other stock exchanges were established around the world, and today there are thousands of stock exchanges and trading platforms around the globe.  This allows investors to buy and sell shares of stock in companies of all sizes and from all sectors of the economy.

            The history of the stock market has been marked by periods of growth and innovation, as well as by crises and instability.  The stock market has played a central role in the growth of the global economy, but it has also been subject to speculation, manipulation, and other forms of abuse.  Despite these challenges, the stock market is still an important tool for raising capital, promoting economic growth, and creating opportunities for investors around the world.

            There are many reasons the stock market is an important component of the economy.  One reason the market is important is it provides a way for companies to raise capital by issuing shares of stock to the public.  This capital can be used to fund new projects, expand operations, and basically invest more in the company to help it grow.  This fuels not only the growth and innovation of the companies, but it also stimulates and grows the economy.  Another reason is the stock market allows individuals to invest in companies and earn a return on these investments.  Individuals can invest in the growth of a company and benefit from that company’s success, though there is always a risk of losing the investment. This concept can help create wealth for individuals, which in turn helps to stimulate the economy.  The stock market is also used as a symbol of the quality of the economy.  For instance, when stock prices are on the rise, it can be a sign of strong economic growth and a decline in prices can indicate economic weakness.  As mentioned earlier, the stock market can allow companies to have more capital for their growth, therefore when companies use this capital to become successful and grow it creates more job opportunities to keep up with the growth and demand.  This can reduce unemployment which can be a sign of a growing, prosperous economy.  The stock market can also help play a role in helping people build wealth over time on less risky investments to supply funds for their retirements.  The health and stability of the stock market has become crucial to the success of the economy.

            The stock market crash of 1929 was a catastrophic event in the United States that signaled the beginning of the Great Depression.  It occurred on October 24, 1929, also known as “Black Thursday”. The causes of the crash were numerous and complex, including speculative investing, overproduction in industry, a credit boom, and unequal distribution of wealth.  The crash had widespread and devastating effects on the economy, including bank failures, unemployment, and a decrease in consumer spending. The effects of this crash were felt worldwide, especially in the United States, leading to a global economic downturn that lasted until the late 1930’s. Partially due to the lavish living and spending in the roaring 20’s the market crash devastated many people in the United States, becoming one of the multiple causes of the Great Depression, which was a period of extreme financial struggle for many people in the country.  This led to many attempts by the government to create programs and amendments to help the country escape the Great Depression.

Black Thursday 1920’s Significance

Black Thursday was a key event that marked the beginning of the stock market crash of 1929.  On Black Thursday, the market experienced a rapid decline in stock prices, with too many investors attempting to sell their shares out of panic.  The impact of Black Thursday was devastating, it led to widespread bank failures, unemployment, and a decrease in consumer spending.  Over the next several days after Black Thursday, the market continued to plunge, with Black Tuesday on October 29, 1929, being another of the most infamous days of the crash.  On black Thursday and Tuesday, the NYSE experienced a sudden and massive sell-off of stocks, which triggered a chain reaction of panic selling.  By the end of Black Tuesday, the stock market had lost billions of dollars in value, wiping out the savings of countless investors and causing a widespread financial crisis.  These events had a lasting impact on the nation’s economic policies and financial regulations.

Black Thursday was triggered by several factors that had been building up in the years leading up to the event.  One key factor in the crash was stock market speculation.  In the years leading up to Black Thursday, there was a large number of investors buying stocks on margin, which means they were borrowing money to invest in stocks.  This led to a bubble in the stock market, causing prices to rise far beyond their fundamental values. Another trigger was overproduction and underconsumption.  In the 1920’s, there was a great deal of overproduction of goods in many industries, which led to a surplus.  At the same time, many individuals were unable to afford the goods being produced, leading to underconsumption.  This had to do with the unequal distribution of wealth, and created an imbalance in the economy that contributed to the crash. The banking system also had a lack of regulation and oversight, which allowed banks to engage in risky practices such as lending too much money to people who could not pay it back and would invest their loan in the stock market.  This led to high levels of debt that could not be paid back after immense loses in the market. 

This is a significant event of the 1920’s because this era was known for its prosperity and lavish living by many people, even people that did not have the financial stability to live this way.  This had a lot to do with the ability to make purchases on credit and the ability to get loans very easily from banks. The lives of Americans changed drastically after Black Thursday.  The country went from many years of prosperity, quickly changing to a decade of financial turmoil that devastated many people throughout the country.  This vast change in the economy stemming from Black Thursday hurt the citizens of the United States in many ways.  Many people went bankrupt after suffering large monetary loses and losing their jobs from companies going under, causing many families not to be able to make ends meet.  Poverty and homelessness became very widespread across the country, which led an overall feeling of hopelessness and despair.  This also led to many other factors that hurt many people including a physiological depression, not just a financial depression, and health issues like malnutrition and relying on the government to help afford doctor bills.  Black Thursday was the beginning of all of the problems caused by the market crash as well as the Great Depression.  The prosperity of the 1920’s created a false sense of security and the thought that the economy could only get better from there causing many people to invest in the stock market.  Therefore, the events of Black Thursday could not have been predicted and caused a chain reaction leading to one of the worst periods financially for American society.

Sources

Amadeo, K. (2021, January 27). The first day of the worst stock market crash in U.S. history. The Balance. Retrieved April 25, 2023, from https://www.thebalancemoney.com/black-thursday-1929-what-happened-and-what-caused-it-3305817

Pells, R. H., & Romer, C. D. (n.d.). Causes of the decline. Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved April 25, 2023, from https://www.britannica.com/event/Great-Depression/Causes-of-the-decline

Richardson, G. (n.d.). Stock market crash of 1929. Federal Reserve History. Retrieved April 25, 2023, from https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/stock-market-crash-of-1929