“The Roaring Life of the 1920s” splits its chapter into four parts, detailing the changing mindsets of the time, the women of the 1920s, education and pop culture, and the Harlem Renaissance. When discussing women during the 1920s, they do mention there being a “double standard” and that “many women were pulled back and forth between the old standards and the new.”¹ A discussion of struggle happens in the section on the Harlem Renaissance, writing that “Northern cities in general had not welcomed the massive influx of African Americans. Tensions had escalated… culminating… in approximately 25 urban race riots.”²

This is very important, as the struggles for both women and black Americans during the 1920s are clearly stated in the book, and not sugarcoated so children have an idea that, despite the movements during the time, the past is complicated, especially when it comes to oppressed groups.

Despite this, there is no mention of the hardships immigrants faced, with the most being that they “often ached for home.”³ Additionally, under a chart for the causes and effects of prohibition, the authors write that “native-born Americans developed a hostility to German-American brewers and toward other immigrant groups that used alcohol,” which could easily be glossed over if a child isn’t paying close attention.⁴

On the other hand, “Prosperity’s Promise” has more subtle splits that discuss the presidency and government of the time, the different movements and changes across America, and the economy. 

There is no mention of “flappers” in this textbook, only referring to them as “liberated women” who became less and less modest, with examples such as skirts being “9 inches from the ground! It soon had reached the knee” and “[women cutting] their hair short—and differently, it seemed, every year.”⁵

Any mention of the Harlem Renaissance is within the economic section, as they had moved to cities such as New York City due to labor shortages due to World War I. Despite this, it is only written as “a period of extraordinary creativity for Negro artists and musicians.”⁶

There are very few similarities between these two chapters. Neither chapter discusses the Stock Market Crash, though I figure that topic is saved for their respective Great Depression chapters. They also discuss the culture of the decade, albeit in varying depths. Overall, “The Roaring Life of the 1920s” is better for a general overview of the culture of the 1920s, while “Prosperity’s Promise” is better for a general overview of the 1920s, before the Great Depression.

Based on what Jennifer Fronc writes in “THE 1920s—A HISTORIOGRAPHICAL SURVEY,” these chapters fit into the context of what she writes about. “The Roaring Life of the 1920s” doesn’t go into full depth to how women were treated during the 1920s, but does mention how they were trapped between modernity and tradition. In regards to the Harlem Renaissance, it does a does still treat it “as an adjunct to the mainstream narrative of U.S. history,” as they discussed prominent African-Americans, such as James Weldon Johnson and Marcus Garvey and their accomplishments.⁷

On the contrary, “Prosperity’s Promise” Barely touches upon women and black Americans in the 1920s, but does touch upon immigrants. Unfortunately, there is only mention of Jewish and Catholic immigrants and the discrimination they faced.

Understanding when historians write helps evaluate how one could use a source, and understand how trustworthy it is. The different motives historians have during each decade is a huge driving factor that scholars have to take into account. Older sources are not more trustworthy than more modern sources, and trustworthiness depends on the author’s motives rather than the age of a source. Once this is finally understood scholars can more accurately determine which sources are best to use when writing a paper.

Citations

Footnotes

1. Gerald A. Danzer et al., The Americans, 647. ︎
2. Danzer et al., 659. ︎
3. Danzer et al., 642. ︎
4. Danzer et al., 643. ︎
5. Henry Graff and John Krout, The Adventure Of American People, 615. ︎
6. Graff and Krout, 623. ︎
7. Jennifer Fronc, “THE 1920s—A HISTORIOGRAPHICAL SURVEY,” 20. ︎

Bibliography

Danzer, Gerald A., J. Jorge Klor de Alva, Larry S. Krieger, Louis E. Wilson, and Nancy Woloch. The Americans. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, 2005.

Fronc, Jennifer. “THE 1920s—A HISTORIOGRAPHICAL SURVEY.” Taylor & Francis Group, 2018.

Graff, Henry and John Krout. The Adventure Of American People. Rand McNally, 1966.

Eryn Argonza

Eryn is a Ramapo College sophomore majoring in History and minoring in Museum Studies.

In 1956 American historian Henry F. May wrote a historiographic article on the 1920s titled “Shifting Perspectives on the 1920s.” Throughout the essay, May challenges the dominant historical perspective that portrayed the twenties as merely a decade of cultural excess. May begins his essay with a discussion of the origin of these popular narratives. He highlights how the majority of the characterizations of the twenties did not come from historians, however from leaders of the twenties such as businessmen and writers.

Similarly, in 1966 American historian Burl Noggle wrote “The Twenties: A New Historiographical Frontier.” Burl Noggle also critiqued previous historians for their narrow interpretations of the decade. He begins his article with a discussion of the works of John Spencer Bassett and Fredrick Lewis Allen.³ Noggle describes how Allen’s interpretation of the twenties remained the dominant perspective nearly thirty years later. Allen published his book Only Yesterday, in 1931 immediately following the 1920s, however, the majority of the writing took place during the decade. Allen claimed to provide a historical account of the decade while living through it; this further proves May’s perspective that many historical interpretations were not in fact historical but simply primary sources of the decade which complicated the historical narrative of the twenties.⁴

Noggle goes on to cite May’s argument surrounding the historiography of the decade. Similar to May, Burl Noggle called for historians to seek beyond the popular narratives to explore the political, economic, and cultural complexities that drove the dynamics of the decade. Noggles believes historians could portray an accurate historical interpretation through an analysis of these intellectual complexities. 

Significance of Historiography

I agree with the historiographic interpretations of both May and Noggle. As history and society move further away from the 1920s the more scholars can interpret the effects of the decade and learn about how the political, economic, and cultural dynamics informed history. This is due to a multitude of reasons such as accessibility of sources, the internet, and overall the acceptance of less dominant narratives. It is essential to analyze historiographical interpretations over time because they often reflect the cultural conditions of their time period. It is extremely difficult, maybe even impossible to present a purely objective historical analysis. All historical interpretations reflect some narrative or bias to some degree. Historiography allows scholars to explore those narratives to better comprehend the attitudes of society at that time. For instance, prior to the Civil Rights Movement, there was not much scholarship surrounding the black experience during the early twentieth century.⁵ As social and cultural attitudes developed throughout the later twentieth century, the scholarship surrounding Black Americans increased and reflected that shift. 

Through their articles, both historians analyze the political landscape of the decades following the twenties to reveal the true effects of the movements from the 1920s. Henry F. May and Burl Noggle helped reframe the 1920s as more than a period of cultural excess and explored the economic and political tensions that drove the dynamics of the decade. They called for historians to analyze the decade as a critical turning point in society. The changing historiographic interpretations and scholarship also emphasize the cultural importance of hidden narratives from previously marginalized groups. Historiography reveals how historical interpretation is shaped by the values of each generation. It provides a unique opportunity to rewrite and reveal new narratives of the past. 

Footnotes

1. Henry May, “Shifting Perspectives on the 1920s
    Download Shifting Perspectives on the 1920sOpen this document with ReadSpeaker docReader,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review (Dec. 1956), 406. ︎
2. Henry May, “Shifting Perspectives on the 1920s
    Download Shifting Perspectives on the 1920sOpen this document with ReadSpeaker docReader,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review (Dec. 1956), 427. ︎
3. Burl Noggle, “The Twenties: A New Historiographical Frontier
    Download The Twenties: A New Historiographical FrontierOpen this document with ReadSpeaker docReader,” The Journal of American History (Sept. 1966), 299. ︎
4. Burl Noggle, “The Twenties: A New Historiographical Frontier
    Download The Twenties: A New Historiographical FrontierOpen this document with ReadSpeaker docReader,” The Journal of American History (Sept. 1966), 302. ︎
5. Banks, James A. “African American Scholarship and the Evolution of Multicultural Education.” The Journal of Negro Education 61, no. 3 (1992): 273–86. https://doi.org/10.2307/2295248, 2. ︎

Bibliography

Banks, James A. “African American Scholarship and the Evolution of Multicultural Education.” The Journal of Negro Education 61, no. 3 (1992): 273–86. https://doi.org/10.2307/2295248.

Burl Noggle, “The Twenties: A New Historiographical Frontier
 Download The Twenties: A New Historiographical FrontierOpen this document with ReadSpeaker docReader,” The Journal of American History (Sept. 1966), pp. 239-314.

“Burl Lee Noggle Famous Death.” Khoolood, October 29, 2014. https://www.khoolood.com/obituaries/5130/Burl-Lee-Noggle. 

“Henry F. May (1915–2012).” AHA. Accessed May 7, 2025. https://www.historians.org/perspectives-article/henry-f-may-1915-2012-december-2012/. 

Henry May, “Shifting Perspectives on the 1920s
 Download Shifting Perspectives on the 1920sOpen this document with ReadSpeaker docReader,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review (Dec. 1956), pp. 405-427.

Erin Pryor

Erin Pryor is a History and Philosophy double major in the Honors Program, graduating with the Class of 2025. She is a writing consultant on campus at the Center for Reading and Writing. She is the president of Phi Alpha Theta history honors society and a member of Phi Alpha Delta pre-law fraternity.

In Fronc’s 2018 The 1920s – A Historiographical Survey, she specifically focuses on the idea that the 1920s has been departmentalized into this singular decade by historians. This type of thinking has existed from at least the 1950s when Burt Noggle made note of how historians often referred to the 1920s as “a distinct unit” in the Journal of American History.¹ She calls out how this is opinion is wrong and undermines the very political and social movements that people recognize the decade for: Women’s Rights, The Harlem Renaissance, and Immigration. Fronc sights a 2009 proposal by Rebecca Edwards to reclassify this tumultuous period in American history by using what she coins as the “long Progressive Era model.”² This period in time would stretch from the 1870s and possible to through the introduction of the New Deal. The hope with this new name is that it would extend historians views outward instead of them solely focusing on the narratives of the 1920s. This would give more equity to the stories of minorities.³

Goldberg wrote his Rethinking the 1920s: Historians and Changing Perspectives in 2007. It approaches the 1920s from a different angle. He provides a detailed timeline of previously published works on various elements of the 1920s and call out their strengths and weaknesses. He sights the first important work of about the 1920s as Fredrick Lewis Allen’s Only Yesterday, An Informal History of the 1920s as the building block for all future works on the 1920s. He mentions other books, including Modern Temper, showing how the political, social, and cultural views covered in each book has evolved over time. With each new topic he introduces: immigration, social issues, consumerism, the Ku Klux Klan, African American Writes, and the Woman’s Movement he provides a collection of historical books that show the evolution of ideas in a particular field of study in the 1920s. Ultimately he concludes that “the 1920s will continue to generate controversy and provoke debates about its meaning.⁴” This is due to the complicated and shifting narrative of the decade, with much of its culture being replaced the following decade in the 1930s.⁵

While Goldberg and Fronc take a differing approach to interpreting the 1920s, they both discuss the political nature of the decade. Goldberg showed how the study of 1920s politics evolved from a mostly Calvin Coolidge centered study to one that included discussions of the Democratic Party and the white power movement of the Ku Klux Klan. Fronc focused more on showing where the political ideologies of the 1920s originated from. She discussed how World War 1 created a willingness for upper and middle class Americans to accept government control of their lives. This allowed for the passage of Temperance and the various immigration laws. She also included how these laws negatively impacted the minority communities in the country. Both Goldberg and Fronc show how the political structure of the country was dominated by a white middle and upper class agenda. This created lasting negative effects for non white Americans.

Through both Goldberg and Fronc’s articles, there is a clear tracking of historical changes to the study of the 1920s. Fronc shows how there is an evolving definition of historical terminology related to the 1920s. Goldberg shows how the historical works and ideas have evolved around a number of popular topic associated with the decade. Both do an excellent job of showing their reader where history has come from, where it is now, and what the future may hold. These reading provided a foundation of how the understanding of the 1920s is constantly evolving.

Foot Notes

1. Fronc, “The 1920s,” p 15. ︎
2. Fronc, “The 1920s,” p 15. ︎
3. Fronc, “The 1920s,” p 23. ︎
4. Golberg, ” Rethinking the 1920s” p 10. ︎
5. Golberg, “Rethinking the 1920s” p 10. ︎

Biography

David J. Goldberg, “Rethinking the 1920s: Historians and Changing Perspectives,” OAH Magazine of History, (July 2007), pp. 7-10.

Jennifer Fronc, “The 1920s–A Historiographical Survey,” Routledge History of the United States (2018) p 15-24.

faythe

I am an undergraduate teacher education student at Ramapo College, minoring in history. As a future teacher, I hope to inspire my students to love the subject of history and to understand its importance in their lives.

In 2007, David J. Goldberg, a white professor of history at Cleveland State University,  provided an overview of the evolving way in which historians have analyzed the 1920s in his historiographical work entitled “Rethinking the 1920s: Historians and Changing Perspectives.” He highlights the manner in which there has been a shift from a focus on political history to a more holistic image of the divisions of American society during that decade.¹ 

A little over 10 years later, white Progressive Era historian at the University of Massachusetts Amherst Jennifer Fronc published “The 1920s – A Historiographical Survey” in 2018. Fronc takes an even more aggressive historiographical approach, as she criticizes previous historical analyses that viewed it as a distinct historical unit and focuses on the lavishness typically associated with those years. She then details the manner in which a more intersectional analysis of the 1920s, using the lenses of race, class, gender and sexuality, is necessary to properly understand the 1920s. Fronc supports Rebecca Edwards’ “long Progressive Era model” when discussing the new turn 1920s history is taking.² 

Comparing & Contrasting

The key similarity between Goldlberg’s and Fronc’s historiographical analysis of the 1920s is that they note a recent change in which historians are shifting from a surface-level perspective of the decade, whether it be politics or excessiveness, to a holistic consideration of how different social groups were impacted by and shaped events in the 1920s. Specifically, Goldberg demonstrates how historians have analyzed 1920s politics, business, prohibition, white supremacy, immigration, African-Americans, women, gay communities, and media.⁴ Similarly, Fronc focuses on the manner in which recent historians have supported a more diverse perspective on prohibition, women’s suffrage, African-American movements outside of the Harlem Renaissance, and immigration.⁵ 

Despite there only being a decade-long gap between the two articles’ publication, there are some notable differences. For example, Goldberg did not capture the importance of intersectionality, or the manner in which multiple identities intersect to create unique situations, in historical considerations of the 1920s. However this can be attributed to the fact that this only emerged as an analytical category in the 1990s. Goldberg further viewed the decade as a distinctive era, while Fronc preferred to view it as a part of an extended Progressive Era. Additionally, Fronc mainly discussed works published in the 1980s onward, while Goldberg’s historiographical examination included works that were published as early as the 1930s. This may be because she wished to go more in depth on recent scholarship that have not received as much historiographical attention.

Historiographical Changes

When comparing the types of sources referred to by Fronc and Goldberg in their historiographical examination of the 1920s, it becomes clear that different themes come in and out of focus in different decades. For example, with consideration to Goldberg’s sources, from the 1960s-1970s, most historians were focused on the politics of the 1920s. By the 1980s, historians seemed to take a particular interest in African-American history of the 1920s, and this swell occurred again in the 2000s. In between those two decades, historical analysis of women in the 1920s gained popularity in the 1990s. Fronc’s sources are a bit more limited due to the fewer thematic focuses and the fact that she did not use sources from before the 1980s, so it is a bit less representative of historiographical development. With that said, for all of Fronc’s sources from the 1980s-2010s, histories on African-Americans outnumbered all other themes, with the exception of the 2000s, when there was an equal number of sources on women and African-Americans. However, this is without considering the intersectionality of many of these historical works, as many used multiple different lenses. 

Due to the fact that both of these articles are more recent, the reader is able to see how more diverse historical research is pursued with regard to the 1920s, particularly in the 1980s and beyond. With that said, research on immigration is woefully underrepresented, despite the important developments that occurred in the 1920s for immigrant communities. This may be because immigration became a more important issue in society by 2017, making it so there are not as many historical analyses that focus on it. In the timeline of both Fronc’s and Goldberg’s historiographical surveys, immigration-focused works sparsely appear in historical pieces starting in the 1980s. One may anticipate an increase in immigration-focused historical works about the 1920s in the future, considering how pertinent that subject is today. 

Learning about how past history has been written is essential to understanding history now, as different subjects will be emphasized over others depending on new developments in the field and the importance of such history to contemporary events. In analyzing what has been studied, one can also better determine what areas need further development, and thus improve historical knowledge of that era. 

Bibliography

African American boy selling The Washington Daily News – sign on his hat reads, “Have you read The News? One cent” – headline reads “Millionaire tax rends G.O.P.” November 8, 1921. Wikimedia Commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:African_American_boy_selling_The_Washington_Daily_News.png. 

Cheney Johnston, Alfred. Muriel Finley (aka Murrel Finely). 1927. Wikimedia Commons . https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Muriel_Finley_(aka_Murrel_Finely)_-_1920s_-_by_Alfred_Cheney_Johnston.jpg. 

Fronc, Jennifer. “The 1920s–A Historiographical Survey.” Routledge History of the United States, 2018, 15–24. 

Goldberg, David J. “Rethinking the 1920S: Historians and Changing Perspectives.” OAH Magazine of History 21, no. 3 (2007): 7–10. https://doi.org/https://www.jstor.org/stable/25162122. 

1.  David J. Goldberg, “Rethinking the 1920s: Historians and Changing Perspectives,” OAH Magazine of History 21, no. 3 (2007): 7–10, https://www.jstor.org/stable/25162122. ︎
2.  Jennifer Fronc, “The 1920s–A Historiographical Survey,” Routledge History of the United States, 2018, 15–24. ︎
3. Alfred Cheney Johnston, Muriel Finley (Aka Murrel Finely), 1927, Wikimedia Commons, 1927, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Muriel_Finley_(aka_Murrel_Finely)_-_1920s_-_by_Alfred_Cheney_Johnston.jpg. ︎
4.  Goldberg, “Rethinking the 1920s,” 7–10. ︎
5.  Fronc, “The 1920s,” 15–24. ︎
6.  African American Boy Selling The Washington Daily News – Sign on His Hat Reads, “Have You Read The News? One Cent” – Headline Reads “Millionaire Tax Rends G.O.P.,” November 8, 1921, Wikimedia Commons, November 8, 1921, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:African_American_boy_selling_The_Washington_Daily_News.png. ︎

stefanieviera

Stefanie Viera is a 3rd year History and Humanities & Global Studies double major who is taking the Discovering Digital History course in the spring of 2025. She currently work at the Jane Addams Papers Project as an Editorial Assistant.

As the context in which history is interpreted changes, historical interpretations change as well. For example, the way that historians view minority groups today is very different from how historians viewed minority groups in the 1920s. In the same vein, historians’ entire outlook on a decade can change with time. This historiographical change is apparent in two pieces of writing on the 1920s which I read:  “Shifting Perspectives on the 1920s,” written by Henry May in 1956, and “The New Woman and the Politics of the 1920s”  written by Lynn Dumenil in 2007. While both articles argue the transitional and fluid nature of the 1920s, they emphasize different parts of this decade’s history, with May’s article focusing on economic and social change, and Dumenil’s article focusing on women and political change. 

Comparison

In Henry May’s article, he focuses more on different trends in historical writing over different decades. First, he outlines how historians felt in the 1930s:  that the twenties “became a deplorable interlude of reaction.”¹ Then, he explains how historians felt in the 1940s:  that “in the twenties a deep chasm had opened between the views of life of most writers and their fellow citizens.”² And finally, he provides his viewpoint, how historians feel in the 1950s:  that “the most important developments in the decade did not take place in the realms of politics, or economics, or literature, or science alone, but in all these areas and the relation, or lack of relation, among them.”³ Essentially, what these three quotes show is that May outlined three distinct views of the twenties, from one that saw them as reactionary, to one that saw them as having a large divide between the upper and lower class, to one that saw them as a period of separate movements that all encouraged change. May’s main focus was on larger themes of the 1920s, specifically looking at cultural, political, and economic trends to understand the decade.

On the other hand, Dumenil took an almost completely opposite approach. Instead of focusing on larger trends to understand the decade, Dumenil looked at more specific themes like women’s roles and their part in politics in order to understand and assess the decade. By looking through a gender-based lens, Dumenil shows women’s opportunity for influence in the public sphere while also showing the limitations women had in politics and work. Specifically, Dumenil’s main purpose in her article was to focus on “African American and white women’s efforts to expand their political influence once enfranchised. Their activism illustrates women’s role in developing political pressure groups in the early twentieth century and demonstrates both the continuation of reform—and its limits—in the so-called “jazz age.”⁴  Dumenil’s article focuses heavily on women and looks at minority involvement in making change in the 1920s.

Historiographical Changes Over Time

Overall, both of these historians have very different views on the 1920s, which are influenced by the 50 years of difference between their writing. While May was writing post WWII and on the dawn of the Cold War, he likely was looking at history in terms of political and economical struggles which were all still affecting his decade. While he discusses the different historical interpretations of the 1920s, he never calls any of them a “wrong” interpretation, as he follows consensus beliefs of shared American values, which he highlights in his interpretation of the decade. The large focus of his writing is on business and political history during the 1920s, specifically on how the boom and bust of the stock market influenced social change throughout the decade. Just like this photo to the right shows, people had a large increase in purchases with their disposable income in the 1920s, and quickly needed to sell these items in the 1930s, which is why, May argues, historians in the 1930s had a more negative view of the 1920s as they were actively dealing with the repercussions of this decade. While May takes into account many different perspectives of the 1920s, he completely ignores the New Woman and the plethora of contributions made by minorities in the 1920s.

Fifty years later, the context for Dumenil’s writing is very different from the world that May was writing in. During the multicultural wave of the 21st century, Dumenil wrote during a time that was focused on social and cultural history, minority history, and revisionist history. Her work which focuses on a group that was not always the highlight of 1920s historiography (specifically in regards to African American women) shows how, with time, historiography has become more liberal in its understanding of minority involvement in general trends and changes in history over time. Just as her article looks at women’s impact on the 1920s, Dumenil’s textbook, which we use in class, further looks at the impacts of minority groups in the 1920s. In The Modern Temper: American Culture and Society in the 1920s, Lynn Dumenil assesses how African Americans, women, immigrants and lower or working class citizens all had distinct impacts on the cultural and social reforms of the 1920s. She discusses each different minority group, and explains how overall, the impacts of these different minority groups on the 1920s helped to “broaden the definition of what it meant to be American.”⁵ Therefore, through Dumenil’s writing in a time which emphasized the importance of multicultural history we can see how much historical interpretations of the same decade have changed over time. Looking at past historical interpretations of history has shown me that while the facts of history have not changed, the way that history is understood changes depending on the context in which people are writing about it.

1. Henry May. “Shifting Perspectives on the 1920s,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review (Dec. 1956), p. 412. ︎
2. May, Shifting Perspectives, 1956, 418 ︎
3. May, Shifting Perspectives, 1956, 426 ︎
4. Lynn Dumenil. “The New Woman and the Politics of the 1920s.” OAH Magazine of History (July 2007), p. 22. ︎
5. Lynn Dumenil. The Modern Temper: American Culture and Society in the 1920s. United States: Hill and Wang, 2024, 302. ︎

hannahsteinlauf

Hannah Steinlauf is a senior history major with a minor in museum and exhibition studies at Ramapo College. She is a student research aide for the Jane Addams Papers Project. She is a member of the Ramapo College Dance Company and Tri Sigma. Hannah is going to attend Trinity College Dublin for a masters degree in Public History after graduation.

May’s article focuses on how discussions about the 1920s during the ‘20s generated praise and criticism for various reasons. He states that the most popular view of the ‘20s defines it as the “New Era,” focusing on technological advancements, financial gains, and new business structures, and going so far as to define it all as “a new civilization.”¹ The social science perspective similarly viewed the decade in a positive light, as bringing in a transitional period of social intelligence and order.² However, the view of literary intellectuals was negative, defining the ‘20s as a time of moral decline.³

May tracks how the 1920s was studied and discussed through the 1930s, ‘40s, and ‘50s. Historians of the 1930s, with the Great Depression as their reality, did not look kindly upon the ‘20s, dismissing any of its abundance or progress in favor of portraying it — especially its conservatism — as “merely a contrasting background for the New Deal.”⁴ May points out that this one-sided view of the 1920s continued well into the 1950s but with some subtle changes. 

The 1940s brought some cold feelings towards the ‘20s because of the decline in progressivism, specifically blaming the writers of that time for ruining morale.⁵ With some more distance from the ‘20s, historians of the 1950s were divided, some still viewing it with disapproval while others displayed nostalgia or appreciation, especially for the achievements made during the decade.⁶

Fronc’s historiographical analysis of the 1920s included more focused subject matter. Fronc mainly pulls from texts of the 2000s and 2010s. However, she leads by referencing texts from the 1950s and ‘60s, which described how the 1920s were (and continue to be) studied as distinct from the surrounding decades. However, she supports interpretations that frame the ‘20s as part of a decades-long Progressive Era.⁷

Fronc analyzes the historiography of the 1920s through a few different lenses: prohibition and women’s suffrage, African American history, and immigration history. These all challenge the notion of the 1920s as an entirely positive decade, emphasizing where the decade had its pitfalls. Fronc cites many pieces of writing to discuss how Prohibition developed as a means of controlling working-class and immigrant populations and how many pieces of legislation were meant to keep poor white and African American women, in particular, from exercising their voting rights.⁸

Much writing in the past couple of decades has also pointed out how the depiction of African American history in the ‘20s often places too much emphasis on the Harlem Renaissance, ignoring the racism and violence that still occurred in that decade.⁹ Similarly, Fronc states that historians decentering the Ellis Island narrative have allowed many to explore more deeply the xenophobia and racism that caused the 1920s anti-immigrant policies and the switch to a “gatekeeping” attitude within the U.S.¹⁰

In some ways, May and Fronc focus on entirely different areas. Because of when May’s piece was written, it understandably stays on the surface level when discussing how historical viewpoints have changed from the ‘20s to the ‘50s. Fronc’s piece dives much deeper, offering more analysis and nuances to specific subjects, such as sexism, racism, and xenophobia, that easily fly under the radar in discussions of the 1920s. Fronc’s focus also makes sense given the period it’s written in. For one, most of the surface-level discussion about the historiography of the 1920s had probably already been done by 2018, and discussions about social issues were and still are much more prevalent than in the 1950s.

These articles seem to agree on the broader portrayal of the 1920s, though, and how the decade is often overhyped as a time full of partying and abundance that had no underlying problems. Both exemplify how the 1920s must be and already has been analyzed within the context of the decades surrounding the ‘20s. 

What all of the historical writings about the 1920s also have in common is how they have distinctly changed based on the social factors within the U.S. of the time. Thus, the 1920s seemed frivolous and were looked at with resentment during the difficult 1930s but brought up nostalgia during the prosperous 1950s, while they are now analyzed through a social justice lens in the 2010s. 

Overall, the main changes seem to be that analysis has grown more specific over time and has included more diverse perspectives, which aligns with how history and public opinion have shifted through the decades. While the plights of women, people of color, and immigrants were often overlooked before the middle of the 20th century, the change has been reflected in how history is studied now. 

Learning about how history was previously written contextualizes what historians, and society as a whole, found important. Analyzing the changes can track what society values and how public opinion shifts. It allows people studying history now to understand better the inherent biases embedded within older texts and to remember to consider the biases that now exist in modern historical writings. Any biases and interpretations, whether old or modern, can certainly impact student learning and analysis for the future.

1. Henry May, “Shifting Perspectives on the 1920s,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review (1956), 406. ︎
2. May, 407 ︎
3. May, 409 ︎
4. May, 412 ︎
5. May, 418 ︎
6. May, 420 ︎
7. Jennifer Fronc, “The 1920s–A Historiographical Survey,” in the Routledge History of the United States (2018), 15. ︎
8. Fronc, 16-18 ︎
9. Fronc, 18 ︎
10. Fronc, 21 ︎

Rebecca Gathercole

Rebecca Gathercole is a senior Communications Arts major with a minor in Creative Writing.

Eagles, Noggle, and the 1920s

Despite the different topics of each author’s paper there are many similarities between the two. The similarities between them help form a solid general historiography of the 1920s. They both agree that Frederick Lewis Allen in his book, Only Yesterday, published in 1931, was the first to write about the 20s as its own historical period and define it as a historical period. They agree that is the interpretation most historians took of the 1920s for the next two decades . Noggle says that the period after 1950 is when Historians started to “transcend” Allen’s original interpretation of the 1920s.¹ Eagles agrees with Noggle but he goes more into detail about why. He cites examples of various writing to support the argument that Allen’s interpretation was that the aftereffects of World War I was what caused the unique culture and events of the 1920s . He also shows that the 1940s weren’t a monolith and that Historians were already starting to write about an urban-rural divide as the reasoning for the 1920s.² Even though Allen wasn’t an historian he is the person who kickstarted the studying of the 1920s and whose interpretation would dominate historical writing up until around 1950.

What revises Allen’s official narrative? This is where Eagles and Noggle start to differ. Noggle never says who broke the narrative or why it was broken. Noggle only says that after 1950 historical analysis of the 1920s became much more common and detailed than it was before. He cites the increase in doctoral studies and papers written about the 1920s after 1950. After that Noggle goes into the different topics that have been analyzed in the 1920s.³ Eagles disagrees with Noggle and says there was an important of the 50s that changed the narrative. The next major work was the book, The Age of Reform, written by Richard Hofstadter in 1955. According to Eagles, Hofstadter takes the interpretation that it was the decline of rural life that made the rural areas want to resist reform.⁴ Now, both Eagles and Noggle show the differences that arose after 1950 in historiography of the 1920s but they never said the reasons for these changes. The reason why they don’t is to them, it was pretty obvious. Only two big events happened between when Allen published his book in 1931 and 1950. The end of WWII and the New Deal. These events re-shaped the way Americans thought. Having gone through the biggest war and reform movement in American history, historians realized the 1920s was more than just an after effect of WWI. There was much more that went into the complicated society and events of the 1920s.

Now, Noggle stops at the revisions that take place during the 1950s since in 1966 when he wrote his article there was no new revisions yet. It seems both Eagles and Noggle agree that nothing much changed from 1950 to 1966 as Eagles cites the next revision as being in 1967 with the publishing of William Leuchtenberg’s book, The Perils of Prosperity. Eagles says Leuchtenberg went deeper than any other historian into the evidence for the urban-rural divide of the 1920s being the cause for much of the reactionary policies and actions of the 1920s. Eagles adds that in the 70s came a sort of backlash that wanted to ignore what Leuchtenberg wrote. Eagles claims Noggle supported the backlash by leaving Leuchtenberg’s book as a footnote in an essay he wrote in the early 70s.⁵ The 70s seems to be where Noggle and Eagles fully steer way from each other. Noggle refuses to go along with the urban-rural narrative even after Hofstadter and Leuchtenberg’s popular evidence based books. While Eagles says it is incredibly hard to not talk about the urban-rural divide when talking about the history of the 1920s.

My Thoughts

Based on Burl, Noggle, and a couple other sources provided to me my thoughts on the timeline don’t differ too much from Burl and Noggle. I just used more modern sources to expand on it. Only Yesterday in 1931 was the definitive start of the telling of the history of the 1920s. Allen’s definition of the decade is the one that stuck and the book came out right after the 1920s ended. It’s hard to deny Only Yesterday its rightful place as the start of 1920s historiography. As I already mentioned before, this narrative focused on how the consequences of WWI formed the 1920s.

I agree with Noggle and Eagles again that the 1950s is when the first major revision of the main narrative surrounding the 1920s happened. The narrative shifted to a more Urban-Rural divide narrative with the likes of Hofstadter and Leuchtenberg. This specific narrative came into focus probably because of how rural life changed in the post WWII era. By the 1950s the traditional Urban-Rural divide was starting to become more an Urban-Suburban divide as rural farmland was turned into suburbs for returning soldiers to live in. With a huge decline in rural life in the post WWII era the Urban-Rural conflict reared its ugly head again. Because of this Urban-Rural divide narrative was very much in the minds of the people of the 50s.

After the 1950s the next revision doesn’t come until after Eagle’s wrote his paper. This new revision starts in the late 80s to early 90s. During this era Historians start to focus away from the Urban-Rural divide and completely focus on the social history of the 1920s. Historians start to focus more on things like women’s involvement with prohibition, the Great Migration, the secular vs traditional religious debate, racism and the immigration acts, etc. They start to focus on more of the stories that were ignored before the late 80s and 90s. The reasoning for this probably comes the red wave of Reagan and Busch when these social issues started to become more prevalent again. Historians might’ve realized that much of the rhetoric that came with Reganism reminded them of the 1920s and they realized they needed to write about these social issues which were ignored before to remind people of the consequences of erasing all the progress America made in the last 70 years. The evidence for this comes from David J Goldberg’s article, Rethinking the 1920s where he states the best books on each topic of the 1920s starting from the earliest to the latest. In his article for most topics like politics of the 1920s the earliest book is usually from the 60s or 70s. But, for topics like the Black Life in the South the earliest books start in the late 80s to early 90s. Goldberg even acknowledges this himself saying that Lynn Dumenil’s book, The Modern Temper, published in 1995, was a major representation of the 1920s because of its focus on social and cultural issues.⁶

How Does this Help?

What was the point of this blog? How does it help me understand the 1920s better? By looking at history as been written over time one can learn a lot. Its put every source you read on the topic into perspective. For example, if the book is written before the 80’s then you’ll understand why there is a lack of discussion surrounding the social history of the 1920s. It also helps you understand how current events of the author’s time helps effects the telling of history.

1. Burl, Noggle, “The Twenties: A New Historiographical Frontier.” The Journal of American History 53, no. 2, (1966): 300, https://doi.org/10.2307/1894201. ︎
2. Charles W., Eagles, “Urban-Rural Conflict in the 1920s: A Historiographical Assessment.” The Historian 49, no. 1, (1986): 30-31, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24446743. ︎
3. Noggle, “A New Historiographical”, 300-301 ︎
4. Eagles, “Urban-Rural Conflict”, 34-35 ︎
5. Eagles, “Urban-Rural Conflict”, 36-39 ︎
6. David J,. Goldberg, “Rethinking the 1920S: Historians and Changing Perspectives.”, OAH Magazine of History 21, no. 3, (2007): 7–10, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25162122. ︎

Bibliography

Eagles, Charles W. “Urban-Rural Conflict in the 1920s: A Historiographical Assessment.” The Historian 49, no. 1 (1986): 26–48. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24446743.

Goldberg, David J. “Rethinking the 1920S: Historians and Changing Perspectives.” OAH Magazine of History, vol. 21, no. 3, 2007, pp. 7–10. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25162122.

Noggle, Burl. “The Twenties: A New Historiographical Frontier.” The Journal of American History 53, no. 2 (1966): 299–314. https://doi.org/10.2307/1894201.

Introduction

Despite the fact that history remains permanent and unchanging as time passes, the nature of history fluctuates with historians revisiting the past with new ideas and philosophies. Although the 1920s took place a century ago, historians since then have often revisited this decade which still exists as one of the most influential and progressive eras within history.

Countless forms of media have explored the themes and culture of the 1920s. However this blog post will be examining Charles W. Eagles’s article “Urban-rural conflict in the 1920s: A historiographical assessment.” from 1986 as well as Maw Ngai’s article “Nationalism, immigration control, and the ethnoracial remapping of America in the 1920s” from 2007. While both these articles explore two different topics from the 1920s, similarities as well as some minor differences can be spotted between the writings of both authors.

Urban vs Rural Conflict

Eagles writes a compelling article and historiographical assessment which analyzes the growing conflict and tension between urban and rural settlers. Ideas and policies such as prohibition and flappers became the subject of this growing tension. Urban fashion and trends was opposed by rural settlers who prefered traditional values. Additionally, while urban settlers opposed prohibition, rural citizens were not as resistant.¹

Urbanized citizens saw rural Americans as out of touch as modern trends took longer to reach rural areas. Rural Americans were also often associated with conservatism and anti-immigrant sentiment. Urbanized Americans prefered a more progressive outlook.

Nationalism and Immigration Control

Within her article, Ngai expands on American nationalism and how strong it was during the 1920s. This strong sense of nationalism sparked radical ideologies and immigration reform. Racial policies such as the 1924 Immigration Act was one of the major byproducts of strong American nationalism. Ngai goes into further detail about ethnoracial remapping, which were mapping laws which strategically shaped demographics within America. ²This strategic mapping undermined cultural groups and their power while further fueling American nationalism.

Similarities and Differences

Although Eagles and Mgai cover two different topics from the 1920s, both articles follow very similar themes. Both articles discuss the “us vs them” narrative which held a strong influence during the 1920s. For Eagles, the “us” can be seen as urbanized settlers who viewed rural settlers as “them”. Mgai’s article discusses this same trend with race instead. American nationalists can be seen as the “us” while immigrants are seen as “them”. This similarity in theme and narrative promotes the idea that the 1920s was a very inclusive time period. Despite the fact that this time period may be seen as a very “progressive” period, there was a lot of conservatism which fostered this “us vs them” trend of the 1920s.

Both articles written by Eagles and Mgai were written about 2 decades apart with Eagles’s article being written in 1986 and Mgai’s article being written in 2007. 20 years in terms of American history is not a significant amount of time. And considering that both 1986 and 2007 took place a long time after the 1920s, it is easy to see how both articles have a more modern outlook on the 1920s. As a result of these two factors, it becomes clear that Eagles and Mgai’s articles don’t hold strong differences when it comes to exploring the 1920s. Both articles explores different themes, yet they talk about the same phenomena. Both 1986 and 2007 are considered to be part of the modern contemporary era. Both years are long passed the time of industrialization, urbanization, and racial segregation. As a result, it is clear that the modernity of both years have influenced both authors into taking on the similar points in their two separate articles. For a modern person in America, concepts such as immigration quotas and rapid urbanization are foreign. Furthermore, for both modern authors, the “us vs them” phenomena stands out the most.

Bibliography

• Eagles, Charles W. “Urban‐rural conflict in the 1920s: A historiographical assessment.” The Historian, vol. 49, no. 1, 1 Nov. 1986, pp. 26–48, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6563.1986.tb02006.x.
• Ngai, M. M. “Nationalism, immigration control, and the ethnoracial remapping of America in the 1920s.” OAH Magazine of History, vol. 21, no. 3, 1 July 2007, pp. 11–15, https://doi.org/10.1093/maghis/21.3.11.

1. Eagles, Charles W. “Urban‐rural conflict in the 1920s: A historiographical assessment.” The Historian, vol. 49, no. 1, 1 Nov. 1986, pp. 26–48, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6563.1986.tb02006.x. ︎
2. Ngai, M. M. “Nationalism, immigration control, and the ethnoracial remapping of America in the 1920s.” OAH Magazine of History, vol. 21, no. 3, 1 July 2007, pp. 11–15, https://doi.org/10.1093/maghis/21.3.11. ︎

The two historiographical articles that will be discussed are  “Nationalism, Immigration Control, and the Ethno-racial Remapping of America in the 1920s”  by Mae M. Ngai, published in 2007, and “Shifting Perspectives on the 1920’s” by Henry May, published in 1956. With over 50 years between these two articles, it was extremely interesting to see the differences between writing style and content covered. 

The second article, “Shifting perspectives on the 1920’s” starts off with May comparing writing about the 1920’s with historians writing about the Civil War. He states that studying this period is not easy because of cultural battles fought over the decade. The article goes on to discuss the social scientists of the time, and how they had different interpretations and wanted to create a new history for themselves. It also discusses how opinions shifted and how there were separate and conflicting loyalties with historians. 

Comparing these two articles was interesting because not only are they both focusing on unconnected topics , but the logistics of each article are different. Since “Nationalism Immigration Control, and the Ethno-racial Remapping of America in the 1920s” was more recent, the text is a tad bit easier to understand. The formatting is also different. It has pictures and all of the footnotes at the bottom. “Shifting perspectives on the 1920’s” has no pictures and footnotes at the bottom of each page. 

“Shifting Perspectives on the 1920’s” focuses more on historians and their ideas rather than events, and uses many names of the famous historians of the time like Parrington, Beard, Becker and Schlesinger. This article also does not mention any type of racism, since it was written in the 1950’s and many of those practices were still going on. “Nationalism, Immigration Control and the Ethno-racial remapping of America in the 1920’s” shows how racism was so rampant, since it was written in 2007, people recognize now the effects and prominence of racism throughout history, since it is no longer “normalized” like it was in the 1950’s. Shifting perspectives on the 1920’s” is more historiography based because the article is discussing how other historians viewed this time and wrote about it, while the other article is discussing how racism was so rampant during the 1920’s and how many minority groups were left out of the history until recently. It was interesting to read two different articles on two totally different subjects written 50 years apart and place different instances together on a timeline. There was so much going on at the same time, with discrimination on one hand and historiographical battles on the other. 

Citations:

Mae M. Ngai, “Nationalism, Immigration Control, and the Ethno-racial Remapping of America in the 1920s,” OAH Magazine of History (July 2007), pp. 11-15

Henry May, “Shifting Perspectives on the 1920s,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review (Dec. 1956), pp. 405-427

1. https://www.businessinsider.com/photos-of-1920s-100-years-ago-2020 ︎
2. https://fashionhistory.fitnyc.edu/1920-1929/ ︎

The 1920s aimed to bring American society to the modern world amidst the political corruption, victimization of industrialization, and growth of the Socialist Party.¹ During this time, many social justice and humanitarian laws were produced, such as milk codes, child labor laws, public health laws, and workers’ compensation.² Amidst this was another very overlooked action: the changing of the death penalty.

The first state execution using lethal gas was at Nevada State Prison in Carson City, Nevada, where Gee Jon, a twenty-nine-year-old Chinese immigrant, was the first human to be given this penalty. The switch occurred because lethal gas was considered more humane than the usual execution style of a firing squad, hanging, and electrocution. If done correctly, people would inhale the gas and, within seconds, become unconscious and choke to death. However, it was almost always done incorrectly, and those would suffer for up to twenty minutes in excruciating pain.³

First, officials initially attempted to pump the gas directly into Gee Jon’s cell while he was asleep. However, it was unsuccessful, as the gas leaked out of his cell. In response, a makeshift gas chamber was set up outside of the prison, in the old butcher shop. The gas chamber was eleven feet long, ten feet wide, and eight feet high and killed at least one cat to test the effectiveness of the gas. When Gee Jon was put inside at 10:00 a.m., after eating a last meal of ham, eggs, toast, and coffee, the electric heater failed. The chamber should have been at 75 °F, the ideal temperature, but was instead at 52 °F due to the broken heater. This caused acid to form a toxic puddle on the ground.^{4 5}

One testimony states that after about five seconds, Gee Jon seemed to lose consciousness, and his head nodded up and down for six minutes. After about ten minutes, he was completely immobile.⁶ However, other sources claim he was in more apparent pain and was being berated by the prison officials. It cannot be precisely known what occurred as it was a closed event, and there are few records. The records that are there contradict each other.

Not everyone was in favor for this execution. Four guards who did not want to participate immediately resigned. Many others, some important officials, sent letters to Nevada State Prison pleading to halt the execution and change his sentence. They thought it was cruel and unusual punishment, and that Gee Jon did not deserve to die.

“From my observations of Gee Jon… I am of the opinion that he is in a mental collapse and in a state of mental irresponsibility amounting to insanity… I hope at this time that you… can see your way clear to commute the sentence of Gee Jon to life imprisonment.”

Nevada State Prison. Record Blank. 15.

During the execution, witnesses claim they thought they smelled almond blossoms, which is believed to be the odor of cyanide, leaking from the chamber. That caused Warden Dickerson, who was present at the time of the execution, to clear the area. After Gee Jon’s death, they opened a vent and put on a fan in the gas chamber to clear the air, and waited to open the door until the puddle on the floor evaporated. At 12:20 p.m., Gee Jons’ body was removed and taken to the prison hospital. Seven doctors pronounced him officially dead, but Warden Dickerson said an autopsy was not allowed because they were worried his body would release the toxic gas.⁷

Official records claim that there is no correlation between using an immigrant for the first gas execution. However, one can infer that it symbolizes progressiveness or shows the deep-rooted racism towards immigrants. First, there is symbolism in using an Asian immigrant for the most modern and humane execution style. It shows a step towards a more accepting country, especially since other countries used “outdated” options. For example, the United Kingdom and Japan primarily used hanging, and the Soviet Union and France used the guillotine. Nevertheless, it can also be viewed in a negative light.

It is no secret that Americans and the government disliked immigrants. The National Origins Act, passed in 1924, heavily excluded the amount of Asian immigrants in the United States.⁸ This act highlights the anti-Asian sentiment during the mid-nineteenth century, specifically on the West Coast and among the Chinese.⁹ Chinese immigrants were particularly discriminated against, which is reflected in a law passed in 1882 that stated the Chinese were a “vilified…debased, corrupting race.”¹⁰ Immigrants as a whole were seen as challenging to American culture and society.¹¹ Americans linked immigrants to the crisis of the cities, making immigration seem like a multifaceted threat to American society.¹²

“CHINESE KILLER MUST DIE TODAY.” Nevada State Journal. February 8, 2024.

People

Hughie Sing was a newly recruited Hip Sing Tong gang member and Gee Jon’s apprentice of two months. Sing found and pointed to Tom Quong Kee as the target for the murder. Sing was nineteen at the age of the shooting and got life imprisonment instead of the death penalty. Sing was born in the United States, which helped his case, unlike Gee Jon who was described as an “illiterate Chinese unacquainted with American customs.” Sing was bilingual, unlike Gee Jon, and was told to cooperate more with the authorities. He was released on parole in 1938.^{13 14} The treatment of Sing versus Gee Jon shows a vast difference. Since Sing was more “American,” he was sentenced to a lesser degree.

Tom Quong Kee was an elderly member of the rival gang, the Bing Kung Tong, in Mina, Nevada. Gee Jon murdered him with a .38 caliber revolver with two shots to the heart.¹⁵

James M. Frame was Hughie Sing’s attorney and Fiore Raffetto was Gee Jon’s attorney. Sing and Gee Jon both pled not guilty. Frame argued that Gee Jon’s punishment was a cruel and unusual punishment, but the appeal was denied. Raffetto filed a writ of certiorari but was unsuccessful. Frame and Raffetto tried to keep the execution from happening up until the deed was done.^{16 17}

Denver S. Dickerson was the warden at the time of Gee Jon’s death and oversaw the execution. Warden Dickerson thought the use of lethal gas was impractical and that the best method of execution was the firing squad.¹⁸

Events and Timeline

America in the 1880s had a very negative view of Chinese immigrants, which marked the height of anti-Chinese sentiment. Like most immigrants, Chinese immigrants were more likely to work in cheap labor jobs. This “took away” job security for Americans, and were perceived as a threat. They were also discriminated against due to their cultural and religious differences.

The death penalty in America in the 1880s was much different than it is now. Hanging was the primary execution style; each state had its own laws regarding the death penalty and execution. Public executions were still common, and people started to advocate more for ending it.

• May 6, 1882: The Chinese Exclusion Act was passed.²¹

From 1900 to 1919, America still had a negative view of Chinese immigrants. Their racial stereotypes were strong in popular culture, which highlighted anti-Chinese sentiment.

The death penalty in American in the 1900-1919 had a shift in thinking. The electric chair was starting to replace hanging as it was considered more humane, execution rates had times of increased and decreased, and there was a stricter checklist to qualify for the death penalty.

• 1913: Nevada invents an “automated firing squad.” This is an execution method where three rifles are mounted on an iron frame, and all fire simultaneously. It is used one time in the execution of Andriza Mircovich.²²

In the 1920s, America regarding the death penalty showed a time of change. They now introduced lethal gas, but it was still not widespread. Execution rates decreased, and instead of the death penalty, there was greater advocacy for rehabilitation, reformative justice, and the right to live.

• March 17, 1921: Assembly Bill No. 104 was passed, which authorized the use of lethal gas in Nevada.
• August 28, 1921: Gee Jon murders Tom Quong Kee.
• February 8, 1924: Twenty-nine-year-old Gee Jon dies by lethal gas in Carson City, Nevada.
• May 26, 1924: The National Origins Act passed, which heavily limited the number of Asian immigrants into the United States.

From the 1940s to the 2000s, America experienced major changes regarding Chinese immigrants. During World War II, America and China were allies against Japan, leading to a better portrayal of Chinese people and immigrants in America. An increase in Chinese immigrants in America in 1965 made them more visible, and there was significant political and social reform advocating for their rights.

From the 1940s to the 2000s America, the death penalty had a significant change. Hanging and electric chair were the most common, yet towards the 2000s, lethal injection was the most favored, the legal procedures and reasons why a person is given the death penalty is stricter than ever, there was an increase in abolishing the death penalty, and the execution rates still fluctuated.

• December 17, 1943: The Chinese Exclusion Act is repealed.
• 1955: Eleven U.S. states adopted lethal gas as their primary method of execution.²³
• May 4, 1990: Donald Harding, also known as Jesse Tafero, was executed by lethal gas in Florida. He was convicted of murder in 1976.
• 1996: A federal appeals court says that California’s statute authorizing lethal gas violated the U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments. The primary execution style was replaced by lethal injection.²⁴
• The early 2000s: In California and Missouri, there is a right to choose between lethal gas or injection.

In America in the 2020s, anti-Chinese sentiment grew due to the COVID-19 pandemic. While things are better than they were a hundred years ago, Chinese immigrants and Chinese-Americans are still treated unjustly and unfairly.

In America in the 2020s, a hundred years later after the first lethal gas execution, lethal injection is the primary style as it is the most painless, and more and more people want to end the death penalty.

• January 25, 2024: Kenneth Smith is given the lethal gas execution in Alabama. It is likely to constitute torture, which violates international human rights treaties ratified by the U.S.

Significance

While browsing lesser-known events of the 1920s, this immediately piqued my interest. I had never given the death penalty’s history much thought, so it stood out to me. As I started researching more and more, I realized there was more to this topic than it seemed. The death penalty has been around since humans began walking and has since been a widely debated topic for centuries, with the controversy still ongoing. It is just a prevalent topic now, as it was a hundred years ago when Gee Jon was executed. It also ties into Chinese immigration, which also spans human history. Studying the historiography of the death penalty, not just in the United States, is very interesting, just as the history of immigration. As I was researching, it was fascinating to see the change in the death penalty and Chinese immigration within the United States and compare to how it is now. Presently, the death penalty is still a highly controversial topic that causes quite a stir, which shows the increasing fight for human rights. Chinese immigration and the way Americans view the Chinese and Chinese Americans is a shaky relationship, too. Due to racism and xenophobia, Chinese immigrants and citizens are still heavily discriminated against in the United States. A prime example is the COVID-19 pandemic when anti-Chinese sentiment peaked in the early 2020s. This topic both shows the history of the death penalty and Chinese immigration, where in the present-day conversation, it is vital to stay knowledgeable in the history of it and how it is viewed in the American past.

While lethal gas execution may still whisper within the United States, this torturous method remains largely unused. Nevada State Prison, the infamous starter to the deadly gas execution, executed thirty-two men with this method from 1924-1979. Since then, it has stopped, yet the state’s execution chamber that killed Gee Jon a hundred years ago still remains.²⁵

More Resources

Newspapers.com

“Past to Present: 100 Years Since the United States’ First Lethal Gas Execution, a Recently Renowed Practice.” Death Penalty Information Center. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/past-to-present-100-years-since-the-united-states-first-lethal-gas-execution-a-recently-renewed-practice.

Bibliography

Bye, Raymond T. “Recent History and Present Status of Capital Punishment in the United States.” Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology 17, no. 2 (1926): 234–45. https://doi.org/10.2307/1134506.

Chan, Loren (1975). “Example for the Nation: Nevada’s Execution of Gee Jon”. Nevada Historical Society Quarterly.

“Chinese Killer Must Die Today.” Nevada State Journal. February 8, 2024. https://www.newspapers.com/article/nevada-state-journal/144232683/.

“Death Penalty Information Center.” Death Penalty Information Center, December 1, 2023. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/.

Denno, Deborah W.. “gas chamber”. Encyclopedia Britannica, 20 Oct. 2023, https://www.britannica.com/topic/gas-chamber.

Gerber, Rudolph Joseph; Johnson, John M. (2007). The Top Ten Death Penalty Myths: The Politics of Crime Control. Greenwood Publishing Group.

“History of the Death Penalty.” Death Penalty Information Center. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/state-and-federal-info/state-by-state/nevada.

Lynn Dumenil, The Modern Temper (Hill and Wang).

Nevada State Prison. Record Blank.

Reid, John Bevis; James, Ronald Michael (2004). Uncovering Nevada’s Past: A Primary Source History of the Silver State. The University of Nevada Press.

“Waiting on Nevada’s Death Row… 55 years ago.” Nevada State Journal. September 23, 1979. https://www.newspapers.com/article/nevada-state-journal/144232683/.

Wikipedia contributors, “Gee Jon,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gee_Jon&oldid=1213442489.

Featured Image: Nevada State Prison. Gee Jon Mug Shot. Photograph.

Citations

1. Lynn Dumenil, The Modern Temper (Hill and Wang). 17. ︎
2. Modern Temper. 18. ︎
3. Reid, John Bevis; James, Ronald Michael (2004). Uncovering Nevada’s Past: A Primary Source History of the Silver State. University of Nevada Press. ︎
4. Chan, Loren (1976). Example for the Nation: Nevada’s Execution of Gee Jon. Chinese Historical Society of America. ︎
5. “Descriptions of Execution Methods: Gas Chamber”. Death Penalty Information Center. 2010. ︎
6. Reid. ︎
7. Christianson, Scott (2010). Fatal Airs: The Deadly History and Apocalyptic Future of Lethal Gases That Threaten Our World. ABC-CLIO. pp. 49–51. ︎
8. Dumenil. 207. ︎
9. Dumenil. 208. ︎
10. Dumenil. 208. ︎
11. Dumenil. 204. ︎
12. Dumenil. 205. ︎
13. Reid, 108. ︎
14. Chan, 90-106 ︎
15. Wikipedia contributors, “Gee Jon,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gee_Jon&oldid=1213442489. ︎
16. Chan, 90–106. ︎
17. Gerber, Rudolph Joseph; Johnson, John M. (2007). The Top Ten Death Penalty Myths: The Politics of Crime Control. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 9–10. ︎
18. Reid, 108. ︎
19. “Waiting on Nevada’s Death Row… 55 years ago.” Nevada State Journal. September 23, 1979. https://www.newspapers.com/article/nevada-state-journal/144232683/. ︎
20. Nevada State Prison. Record Blank. ︎
21. Dumenil. 207. ︎
22. “Death Penalty Information Center.” Death Penalty Information Center, December 1, 2023. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/. ︎
23. Denno, D. W.. “gas chamber.” Encyclopedia Britannica, October 20, 2023. https://www.britannica.com/topic/gas-chamber. ︎
24. Denno,”gas chamber.” ︎
25. “History of the Death Penalty.” Death Penalty Information Center. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/state-and-federal-info/state-by-state/nevada. ︎

Isabella Apgar

History major and Human Rights and Genocide Studies minor at Ramapo College of New Jersey class of 2025.