Background

The entirety of the Leopold and Loeb case was very bizarre from the very beginning. Two teenage boys, Leopold, 19, and Loeb, 18, brutally murdered their young neighbor, seemingly for no reason at all. All three of the boys came from wealthy Jewish families and resided in Chicago’s Kenwood neighborhood within a walking distance from one another. Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb seemed to have everything in life laid out for them.¹ Despite this, the privileged teenage boys threw away their lives through a single act of violence.

The minds of Leopold and Loeb were complex, revealing, and utterly disturbed. Both boys were excellent scholars, but had something darker residing in their minds. Loeb was popular among his peers, and began studying at the University of Chicago at 14. However, he was also involved with drinking and gambling, and desired to become a “master criminal”.² Additionally, he had always been obsessed with crime. He “read about crime, he planned crimes, and he committed crimes”, but he had never physically harmed someone.³ Leopold had graduated from the University of Chicago and had plans to attend Harvard Law School. Despite excelling academically, he was described as “arrogant” by people he encountered.⁴ Aside from law, Leopold was fascinated with psychology, especially with the works of Friedrich Nietzsche.⁵ Leopold “believed that legal obligations did not apply to those who approached ‘the superman’”, and brought his lover, Richard Loeb, into this mentality.⁶ In return, Loeb tied up Leopold in his crime schemes. When these two minds were put together, they became deadly. Historian Paula S. Fass asks the question of “why two rich, gifted boys would commit a murder embedded in the form of a ransom kidnapping”; a question that will likely never be fully answered.⁷ 

Together, the two boys desired to commit the “perfect crime” and the “crime of the century”. The premeditated murder of a random victim fit this criteria. “The two teenagers spent months discussing and refining a plan that included kidnapping the child of a wealthy parents, demanding a ransom, and collecting the ransom after it was thrown off a moving train as it passed a designated point”, and murder was crucial to get away with the crime.⁸ If murder was not involved, they risked being identified by their victim. Leopold and Loeb started planning this murder in November 1923, 6 months before it actually took place. They ruled against deciding who their victim would be beforehand, and instead opted to make it spontaneous.⁹ In the days leading up to the murder, they began to get their supplies together, including a chisel, which would be the murder weapon.¹⁰ Their last step was to rent a car the morning of the murder. 

Kidnapping and Murder

Bobby Franks was walking home from Harvard School for Boys around 5pm on May 21 following a baseball game.¹¹ At the same time, Leopold and Loeb were circling the area hunting for a victim. Leopold, who was driving the rented car, pulled up next to Franks and “asked him to get in the car to discuss a tennis racquet”, to which he complied.¹² Loeb, who was in the back seat of the car, grabbed Franks, covered his mouth, and “struck the boy with [sic] several times on his head with a chisel”.¹³ Loeb then suffocated young Bobby Franks to death.¹⁴ Sometime between 5:15 PM and 9:30 PM, the boys drove to the Illinois/Indiana border to dispose of the body.¹⁵ Leopold and Loeb shoved Frank’s body into a culvert under a railroad, poured acid on his naked body, and returned to Loeb’s home to burn his clothing.¹⁶ 

At 9:30 PM, Mrs. Franks received a menacing phone call from a man identifying himself as “George Johnson”.¹⁷ “Leopold told Franks that her boy had been kidnapped, but was unharmed, and that she should expect a ransom note soon”; the family received the note the next morning.¹⁸ The note reads: 

Dear Sir: 

As you no doubt know by this time, your son has been kidnapped. Allow us to assure you that he is at present well and safe. You need fear no physical harm for him, provided you live up carefully to the following instructions and to such others as you will receive future communication. Should you, however, disobey any of our instructions, even slightly, his death will be the penalty. 

1. For obvious reasons make absolutely no attempt to communicate with either the police authorities or any private agency. Should you already have communicated with the police, allow them to continue their investigation, but do not mention this letter.

2. Secure before noon today ten thousand dollars. This money must be composed entirely of old bills of the following denominations:

Two thousand dollars in twenty dollar bills, eight thousand dollars in fifty dollar bills. The money must be old. An attempt to include new or marked bills will render the entire venture futile. 

3. The money should be placed in a large cigar box, or if this is impossible, in a heavy cardboard box, securely closed and wrapped in white paper. The wrapping paper should be sealed at all openings with sealing wax.

4. Have the money with you, prepared as directed above, and remain at home after one o’clock P.M. See that the telephone is not in use.

You will receive a further communication instructing you as to your future course.

As a final word of warning, this is an extremely commercial proposition and we are prepared to put our threat into execution should we have reasonable grounds to believe that you have committed an infraction of the above instructions. 

However, should you carefully follow out our instructions to the letter, we can assure you that your son will be safely returned to you within six hours of our receipt of the money.

Yours truly, 

George Johnson¹⁹

A second note was to be placed on the train, but Mr. Franks never received this one. The 2nd note reads:

Dear Sir: 

Proceed immediately to the back platform of the train. Watch the east side of the track. Have your package ready. Look for the first LARGE, RED, BRICK factory situated immediately adjoining the tracks on the east. On top of this factory is a large, black watertower with the word CHAMPION written on it. Wait until you have COMPLETELY passed the south end of the factory – count five very rapidly and then IMMEDIATELY throw the package as far east as you can. Remember that this is your only chance to recover your son.

Yours truly,

George Johnson²⁰

At around 12PM the next day, “Leopold (‘George Johnson’) called Jacob Franks, Bobby’s father, shortly before three o’clock to tell him a taxi cab was about to arrive at his home and that he should take it to a specified drugstore in South Chicago”.²¹ Mr. Franks, of course, refused to do so. A few hours before this call, unbeknownst to the killers or Mr. Franks, a laborer had discovered Bobby’s body.²² Bobby’s uncle went to confirm the identity of the body as soon as he heard the news.²³ It was at the location of the body that a clue to the identity of the killer lay.

Linking Leopold and Loeb to the Crime

Little did he know, Nathan Leopold had lost a pair of eyeglasses at the site where he and Richard Loeb had dumped the body. This specific style of glasses “could be traced to a single Chicago optometrist, who had written only three such prescriptions, including the one to Leopold”.²⁴ Investigators began meticulously questioning Nathan Leopold on May 23, and soon after, Richard Loeb.²⁵ They confirmed each other’s alibis of driving girls around in Leopold’s car, but “state’s attorney Robert Crowe, heading the investigation, was skeptical”.²⁶ Upon further investigation and leads from classmates, prosecutors got ahold of a set of notes from a typewriter that belonged to Leopold, and the flaws matched those of the ransom note.²⁷ Leopold’s chauffeur attempted to defend him by saying the car “the boys claimed they had spent the night driving around with girls, had not left the garage on the day of the murder”.²⁸ He had unknowingly destroyed both the boys’ alibis. 

On May 30, 1924, Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb were arrested for the murder of Bobby Franks.²⁹ The following day, they both confessed to the murder, but neither would own up to actually killing Franks.³⁰ 

Trial

For the trial, “The Loeb and Leopold families hired Clarence Darrow and Benjamin Bachrach to represent the two boys”.³¹ Clarence Darrow was interested in the case due to the opportunity it gave him to “attack the death penalty, which he had called “an abomination”.³² Darrow had persuaded the boys to plead guilty to potentially avoid the death penalty. Professor Douglas O. Linder explains Darrow’s reasoning: 

“It was Darrow’s decision to change the boys’ initial pleas to the charges of murder and kidnapping from “not guilty” (suggesting a traditional insanity defense) to “guilty.” The decision was made primarily to prevent the state from getting two opportunities to get a death sentence. With “not guilty” pleas, the state had planned to try the boys first on one of the two charges, both of which carried the death penalty in Illinois, and if it failed to win a hanging on the first charge, try again on the second. The guilty plea also meant that the sentencing decision would be made by a judge, not by a jury”.³³ 

The defense worked around the testimony of 4 psychiatrists who interviewed the boys.³⁴ The issue was that “the prosecution argued that psychiatric testimony was only admissible if the defendants claimed insanity”, to which the psychiatrists said mental diseases should be considered in the sentencing.³⁵ The judge was convinced and allowed the evidence to be used. The entire trial, which Linder defines as a hearing due to the guilty plea, lasted a little longer than a month.³⁶ The defense claimed that Leopold and Loeb suffered from “emotional immaturity, obsessions with crime and Nietzschean philosophy, alcohol abuse, glandular abnormalities, and sexual longings and insecurities”.³⁷ Leopold was described as paranoid, delusional, and obsessed with Loeb; Loeb was called childish and called out for his lack of judgement.³⁸ Psychiatrist Wiliiam White claimed that “Nathan would never on his own initiative have murdered Bobby Franks. . . And I don’t believe Dickie would have ever functioned to this extent all by himself”, so the two came together to commit the murder.³⁹ The prosecution argued that neither boy was mentally ill.⁴⁰ The Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology highlighted the fact that ”this is probably the first instance of the offer of elaborate psychiatric analyses as the basis for remitting the law’s penalty for a calculated, cold-blooded murder, committed by persons not claimed to be insane or defective in any degree recognized by the law as making them not legally responsible”. This aspect made the case revolutionary when it came to the court becoming less reliant on the death penalty.⁴¹ 

Over the span of 12 hours on August 22, 1924, “Darrow argued that his clients should not bear full responsibility for their crime” due to several external factors.⁴² The basis of Darrow’s argument was that this murder happened due to “a series of infinite chances”; he claimed the boys were victims of nature.⁴³ Darrow had also attempted to sway the jury away from a death sentence by expressing that the boys were too young to have to sit in jail awaiting execution.⁴⁴

Attorney Robert Crowe stated “this was a premeditated crime committed by two remorseless defendants, and the appropriate punishment was obvious”, which he believed to be execution.⁴⁵ After weeks of debating, Nathan Leopold and RIchard Loeb were sentenced to life in prison, mainly due to their age and the inability of the court to determine responsibility.⁴⁶ 

Aftermath

The two boys were held in Joliet Penitentiary in Joliet, Illinois. Richard Loeb was killed here in 1936, and Nathan Leopold was released in 1958 due to his excellent behavior.⁴⁷ Leopold then moved to Puerto Rico, where “he earned a master’s degree, taught mathematics, and worked in hospitals and church missions”.⁴⁸ He passed away on August 30, 1971 following a heart attack.⁴⁹ 

Significance

Newspapers were critical to the entire incident, as well as the 1920s as a whole. Several newspapers provided the public with updated stories about a “sensational kidnap-murder”, provided “the prosecuting attorney with material assistance”, and gathered evidence that helped solve the case.⁵⁰ James Mulroy and Alvin Goldstein, two journalists for the Chicago Daily News, received and “shared some of the reward money as well as the Pulitzer Prize for helping to connect Nathan Leopold, Jr., and Richard Loeb to the abduction and murder of Bobby Franks”.⁵¹ Daily papers ”published the confessions, interviewed the families and friends, and speculated about the nature of the “million-dollar defense” to be mounted by Clarence Darrow and his expensive psychiatric witnesses”; this turned into a type of entertainment for some, and turned this into a nationwide phenomenon.⁵² In addition to keeping the public updated on the case, the newspapers also did some strange things, which are now seen as immoral. “On May 23, 1924, the day the newspapers reported that Bobby had been kidnapped, they also contained a detailed description of his dead body”.⁵³ To expose people, and potentially children, to such a disturbing scene was very odd. Despite this, the case would not have been solved without the contributions of press workers. 

The Leopold and Loeb case related to The Modern Temper by Lynn Dumenil in terms of psychology, beliefs, and human morality. Dumenil touches on the ideas of several individuals, including psychologist John B. Watson. Watson “described humans as hollow shells, formed by their environment, who responded to external stimuli”.⁵⁴ Leopold and Loeb’s minds and behavior was shaped by the privileged environment that they grew up in, and this led them to believe they could get away with murder. Fiction writer Sherwood Anderson wrote “fashioned dark, brooding stories dealing with marriage, morality, and individuals destroyed by success”.⁵⁵ It would be plausible to say that Loepold and Loeb were destroyed by the financial success of their parents and their own intellectual success. 

The murder of Bobby Franks by Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb would go down in history as “cautionary story about the dangers of modern youth”.⁵⁶ The profiles of the killers were vastly different from those of a “typical” murderer. Their portrayals “set them apart and represented them as larger than life”, making the case even more sensational.⁵⁷

Citations

1. “The “Perfect Crime”: The Story of Leopold and Loeb and the Murder of Bobby Franks” ︎
2. “The “Perfect Crime”: The Story of Leopold and Loeb and the Murder of Bobby Franks” ︎
3. Douglas O. Linder ︎
4. “The “Perfect Crime”: The Story of Leopold and Loeb and the Murder of Bobby Franks” ︎
5. Douglas O. Linder ︎
6. Douglas O. Linder ︎
7. Paula S. Fass ︎
8. Douglas O. Linder ︎
9. “The “Perfect Crime”: The Story of Leopold and Loeb and the Murder of Bobby Franks” ︎
10. “The “Perfect Crime”: The Story of Leopold and Loeb and the Murder of Bobby Franks” ︎
11. “The Loeb-Leopold Murder of Franks in Chicago, May 21, 1924.”; Douglas O. Linder ︎
12. Douglas O. Linder ︎
13. Douglas O. Linder ︎
14. Douglas O. Linder ︎
15. “The Loeb-Leopold Murder of Franks in Chicago, May 21, 1924.” ︎
16. Douglas O. Linder ︎
17. “The Loeb-Leopold Murder of Franks in Chicago, May 21, 1924.” ︎
18. Douglas O. Linder ︎
19. Nathan F. Leopold, Jr. and Richard Loeb, University of Minnesota Web Archive ︎
20. Douglas O. Linder ︎
21. “The Loeb-Leopold Murder of Franks in Chicago, May 21, 1924.”; Douglas O. Linder ︎
22. “The Loeb-Leopold Murder of Franks in Chicago, May 21, 1924.” ︎
23. Paula S. Fass ︎
24. Douglas O. Linder ︎
25. “The Loeb-Leopold Murder of Franks in Chicago, May 21, 1924.” ︎
26. Douglas O. Linder ︎
27. Douglas O. Linder ︎
28. Douglas O. Linder ︎
29. “The Loeb-Leopold Murder of Franks in Chicago, May 21, 1924.” ︎
30. “The Loeb-Leopold Murder of Franks in Chicago, May 21, 1924.” ︎
31. Douglas O. Linder ︎
32. Douglas O. Linder ︎
33. Douglas O. Linder ︎
34. Douglas O. Linder ︎
35. Douglas O. Linder ︎
36. Douglas O. Linder ︎
37. Douglas O. Linder ︎
38. Douglas O. Linder ︎
39. Douglas O. Linder ︎
40. Douglas O. Linder ︎
41. “The Loeb-Leopold Murder of Franks in Chicago, May 21, 1924.” ︎
42. Douglas O. Linder ︎
43. Douglas O. Linder ︎
44. Douglas O. Linder ︎
45. Douglas O. Linder ︎
46. Douglas O. Linder ︎
47. Douglas O. Linder ︎
48. Douglas O. Linder ︎
49. “Nathan Leopold – Loeb, Murder & Death.” ︎
50. Paula S. Fass ︎
51. Paula S. Fass ︎
52. Paula S. Fass ︎
53. Paula S. Fass ︎
54. Lynn Dumenil, 146 ︎
55. Lynn Dumenil, 153 ︎
56. Paula S. Fass ︎
57. Paula S. Fass ︎

• Dumenil, Lynn. The Modern Temper: American Culture and Society in the 1920s, 1995. 
• Fass, Paula S. “Making and Remaking an Event: The Leopold and Loeb Case in American Culture.” The Journal of American History 80, no. 3 (1993): 919–51. https://doi.org/10.2307/2080409.
• “Leopold and Loeb.” Wikipedia, April 11, 2026. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_and_Loeb.
• “Leopold and Loeb Ransom Note: Northwestern Magazine.” Northwestern University. Accessed April 29, 2026. https://www.northwestern.edu/magazine/spring2012/feature/full-of-drama-sidebar/ransom-note.html.
• Linder, Douglas O. “Map of the Scene of the Kidnapping and Murder of Bobby Franks.” Famous Trials. Accessed April 23, 2026. https://famous-trials.com/leopoldandloeb/1750-map.
• Linder, Douglas O. “The Leopold And Loeb Trial: An Account.” The Leopold and Loeb Trial: An account. Accessed April 23, 2026. https://famous-trials.com/leopoldandloeb/1741-home.
• “Nathan Leopold – Loeb, Murder & Death.” Biography, April 7, 2021. https://www.biography.com/crime-figure/nathan-leopold.
• Nathan F. Leopold, Jr. and Richard Loeb, University of Minnesota Web Archive (The Criminal Court of Cook County 1924). 
• O’Connor Davis, Susan. “Lost Hyde Park: Springtime Is for Lovers.” Hyde Park Herald, May 25, 2021. https://www.hpherald.com/news/local/lost-hyde-park-springtime-is-for-lovers/article_c5af7c6e-bd9f-11eb-aacd-779da1769005.html.
• “Psychiatrists’ (‘Alienists’) Phrenological Assessments of Mr. …” ResearchGate. Accessed April 29, 2026. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Psychiatrists-alienists-phrenological-assessments-of-Mr-Nathan-Leopold-and-Mr_fig5_344804194.
• “The Loeb-Leopold Murder of Franks in Chicago, May 21, 1924.” Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology 15, no. 3 (1924): 347–48. https://doi.org/10.2307/1134803.
• “The ‘Perfect Crime’: The Story of Leopold and Loeb and the Murder of Bobby Franks | WTTW Chicago.” WTTW. Accessed April 23, 2026. https://www.wttw.com/chicago-stories/deadly-alliance-leopold-loeb/the-perfect-crime-the-story-of-leopold-and-loeb-and-the-murder-of-bobby-franks. 

More Resources

For the Thrill of It: Leopold, Loeb, and the Murder That Shocked Chicago– Simon Baatz (2008)

The Clarence Darrow Digital Collection

The Leopold and Loeb Trial: A Brief Account– Douglas O. Linder

PBS American Experience: “The Perfect Crime” (2016) (Documentary)

kconley

Ramapo College sophomore majoring in History and minoring in Museum Studies + Music Industry

 

Ross’ Early Years

Nellie Tayloe Ross was born on November 29, 1876, in St. Joseph, Missouri, on a plantation owned by her maternal grandfather in Andrew County. Her parents were James Wynns Tayloe and Elizabeth Blair Green. Nellie’s family had been devastated by the Civil War’s aftermath; in response, she had always feared poverty. Ross’ education was facilitated by her brothers who aided in helping her learn how to read when she was 5 years old. She attended the Maxwell School with her brothers. To achieve a more successful future, her family moved to Miltonvale, Kansas. She attended the United Presbyterian Church and her mother was involved in women’s suffrage. Here, she witnessed her mother in a position of leadership, a position which her father had respected. Her southern upbringing and her mother had influenced her political beliefs. She remained a Democrat for most of her life and gained the belief from her mother that women’s traditional roles were compatible with public responsibilities.² After her mothers death, her family moved back towards the Missouri river into Omaha, Nebraska. There, she became a kindergarten teacher. In 1900, she went to visit relatives in Tennessee where she met and married her husband, William Ross. They moved to Cheyenne, Wyoming in 1902 and had four boys together. William started his own law practice and got involved in politics. He ran for governor and won with the state’s failing economy as his main concern.

The Election of Nellie Tayloe Ross

On September 25, 1924, her husband underwent an appendectomy. He died on October 2, just one month before the general election. The Democratic Party asked Nellie Tayloe Ross to be their candidate and after much convincing, she agreed. Both the Republican and Democratic parties held their conventions in Cheyenne on October 14 to choose their candidates. The Republican Party nominated Casper attorney and politician Eugene J. Sullivan. After receiving the Democratic nomination, Ross remained at home and let her friends lead the campaign. Political advertisements encouraged voters to support Ross because she promised to carry out her husband’s policies. This included policies that helped the economy and workers. They also portrayed her opponent, Sullivan, as a supporter of the founder of Sinclair Oil, Harry Sinclair, who was involved in the Teapot Dome Scandal. One advertisement in The Buffalo Voice encouraged voters to “Beat Texas to It,” encouraging Wyoming to become the first state to elect a female governor, as Miriam “Ma” Ferguson was also running for governor in Texas.⁶ While both Ross and Ferguson were the first women elected as governors in the U.S, Ross was sworn in first, earning her the title of “First Female Governor of the United States”. She defeated Sullivan by more than 8,000 votes. In addition, she even outperformed Republican Francis E. Warren, Wyoming’s senior U.S. Senator.⁷ On January 5, 1925, she was sworn in as governor of Wyoming during an inauguration ceremony in the Senate chambers in Cheyenne. She served as governor from 1925 to 1927.

Ross’ Governorship: Politics, Law, Economics, Prohibition, & Agriculture

The 1920s has the reputation of being a time of prosperity, economic growth, and the boom of the stock market. However, it differed from state to state. Before the Stock Market Crash of 1929 and the Great Depression, Wyoming was facing an economic depression. Ross would be among the governors who confronted this depression. Wyoming’s economy depended on livestock, business, farming, coal production, and the Union Pacific Railroad. In post-WW1 Wyoming, the loss of government contracts, declining demand for certain commodities, deflation, and the 1919 drought contributed to this economic depression. To tackle these problems, Ross proposed a plan to address the state’s budget deficit and outlined strategies for managing it. She found that railroad property values were lower than those in neighboring states and that many mining corporations owned large amounts of property while avoiding taxes. She believed that more equitable taxation could help resolve the issue. In the 1920s, businesses and businessmen were becoming more idealized, striving to present a more polished and positive image. At the same time, the issue of business taxes became a significant concern in response to previous revisions to tax laws. People, such as Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon, sought to reduce business tax, while Ross was concerned with equitable tax within her state.⁸ Following this, she discovered that falling oil prices were causing shortfalls and that light oil production was decreasing. In response, she supported producing more black oil and using it to build state’s highways. To her disappointment, her proposals to explore commercial possibilities for black oil were declined. Banks were also failing. Between 1920-1924, 68 state and national banks had failed in Wyoming. Half had closed by 1924.⁹ To address banking closures, Ross proposed laws to protect banks and depositors. This included laws that made sure that people wouldn’t lose their money if a bank failed. Lastly, Ross answered to further tax concerns by supporting a bill that would give one-third of mineral royalties to public schools. This would help with reducing local taxes. However, it was not approved by the legislature.

When we think of the 1920s, we also often think of Prohibition, a time when alcohol was banned across the U.S. During the late 19th century and into the 1920s, women had entered the political arena. One popular reform amongst them was Prohibition. This led to the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act that made the production, sale, and transportation of alcohol illegal. Women supported Prohibition because they believed male drinking led to reckless behavior, such as sexual excess, which harmed women and children in the home.¹¹ Ross, like these women, supported this law. She believed that the purchaser of alcohol was just as guilty as the bootlegger. She proposed a bill to enforce this, however, it was later declined by the legislature. During her term, she had to deal with two sheriffs who were involved in alcohol related acts. She received and agreed to a request from District Court Judge Metz to allow an investigation into Park County Sheriff William Loomis.¹² Loomis was accused of accepting pay from alleged bootlegger, Fay Willford, in protection money. Loomis faced charges for serving confiscated alcohol to prisoners, accepting bribes and protection money from Willford and James P. Morgan in relation to whiskey on Morgan’s property, and for appearing intoxicated in public. Ross ordered a removal of Loomis who she deemed unfit for his position. On June 17, 1925, The Park County Herald reported that “The Governor (Ross) having heard all the evidence, does find generally against the defendant, William H. Loomis”.¹³ Another Sheriff named Scott Hazen was charged with appearing intoxicated in public, taking confiscated alcohol for his own use, getting involved in a plan to transport and sell alcohol, and failing to serve warrants to known bootleggers while allowing speakeasies to operate. In response to his future hearings on this matter, he resigned from office.

In addition, Ross also dealt with several other issues, including farm and agricultural concerns, and protecting Wyoming’s claims to Colorado River water. Farm foreclosures and low prices were an issue in Wyoming. This prevented the settlement and expansion of farms on federal projects in Wyoming. Under her husband’s governorship, he had created a farm loan program which she continued by making it permanent. Later, Ross convinced Elwood Mead, the man behind water laws, and the Secretary of Interior, Herbert Work to review these projects. Mead explained that he could only point out the problems, and it was up to farmers and state officials to determine the additional funds and introduce legislation to address those issues. Ross worked with a man named George Kreutzer from the Bureau of Reclamation to address these issues. She used local newspapers to collect farmer’s concerns and seek help from the Bureau of Reclamation. She also created a reclamation committee made up of farmers to explain their challenges and issues to the Bureau of Reclamation.¹⁴

Women’s Rights, Feminism, Reform and Ross’ Views on Women

Beginning in the late 19th century and continuing into the 1920s, the “new woman” became more active in politics, with Ross serving as an example. They became political actors and lobbied for progressive reform. Suffrage was one of these reforms. Through this, women had gained the right to vote in 1920 with the ratification of the 19th Amendment. Wyoming, the state where Ross governed, however, already became the nation’s first suffrage state in 1869. This prompted many people and newspapers to declare Wyoming as the “Equality State”, further encouraging the election of Ross. Other reforms that “the new woman” supported included labor laws, which Ross had also aligned with. A suffragist named Grace Hebard had written to Ross in regards to a child labor bill. Ross responded by confirming her position on this issue claiming that the bill would be an important step in protecting the children of America. However, her child labor bill was later declined by the senate because of fear it would interfere with the rights of parents to give their children working roles.¹⁶ She also advocated for protective legislation to support female employees, but this proposal was also rejected. Ross continued to be dedicated to maintaining the welfare of workers. She supported and proposed mine safety legislation. These legislations were successfully approved.

While women became increasingly involved in politics, their views on women’s rights varied. Women, like Alice Paul and The Woman’s Party, advocated for the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) that guaranteed equal rights for men and women. They believed that while suffrage was a major breakthrough in women’s political equality, the ERA would answer to the remaining limitations that women faced. This included the inability to execute contracts, unequal wages, and marriage property rights. In 1923, the legislation was introduced to Congress. Women like Julia Lathrop and Frances Perkins emphasized women’s distinctiveness, arguing that special labor protections tailored to their sex were necessary. This led them to reject the ERA in fear that it would undermine sex-based labor legislation that specifically protected women.¹⁷ Like these women, Ross held her own views on women’s roles, rights, and nature, which often left some feminists disappointed. Initially, many women’s rights advocates, suffragettes, and feminists viewed Ross’ election as a great victory. However, some women were left disappointed in Ross’ refusal to prioritize her influence on the women’s rights movement. Instead, she stated that her duty was to the people of Wyoming as their governor. In 1925, Hebard, the same woman who had written to Ross about a child labor bill, also suggested that Ross appoint women to positions in the Child and Animal Protection Board and the University Board of Trustees. This was left unanswered. Hebard continued to suggest that she attend a meeting of the “National League of Women Voters”, which Ross had declined.

Ross did believe in women’s capabilities within the political sphere and encouraged them to seek public office. However, she would often express her belief that a woman’s most important social role was being a wife and a mother. On March 28, 1926, The Brownsville Herald reported that “Although she (Ross) has faith in the future of America’s young womanhood and believes that ‘freedom of the younger generation of women will prove beneficial. Governor Nellie Tayloe Ross holds that the highest position of woman in life is matrimony and motherhood’”.¹⁹ Despite this, it did not stop her from believing in the importance of women in politics and positions of power. She was more concerned with the perception that engaging in politics had “unsexed” her.²⁰ She was committed to proving that despite her role in political power, she was still a feminine woman. In other words, femininity, politics, and public service were all compatible. While she praised motherhood, marriage, and domestic responsibilities, she also made it clear that women should not limit themselves to traditional roles alone.

Ross did not reject the traditional notion of women being wives and mothers. However, another reason for her distance from feminist ideology was the political climate of the 1920s. Politicians and political parties often supported women who did not engage in the feminist movement. If she had explicitly engaged in feminist activism, it is likely that she would not have been chosen as her party’s political candidate. She found herself having to prove that she could be as tough as any male politician while still maintaining her femininity. She advised women to not portray themselves as too “aggressive” when they entered office.²¹ Ross wanted people to support her because she was a capable candidate, not just because she was a woman. She hoped they would focus on her abilities and not discriminate against her because of her sex. In 1926, Ross responded to concerns that the entrance of women in politics would cause them to create havoc by exercising their newfound power. On January 24th, The Washington Post reported that she responded by stating, “It opens to woman the door for unbounded service and challenges her to prove whether she does possess high ideals.”.²² After losing her second-term election, she admitted regretting not doing more to appeal to women and challenge the sexist notions she faced.

Overall, despite Ross’ goal to distance herself from explicit feminist activism, she is still viewed as an important figure to women’s rights. Her title as the first woman governor in the U.S was and is still revered. She inspired other “new women” to get involved in the field of politics.

Wyoming’s Re-Election & Ross’ Post-Term

In 1926, The Democratic Party remained with her as their candidate for the next election. The Republican Party chose Frank Emerson, the state engineer. While Ross had won the 1924 election by a significant amount of votes, she did not succeed in re-election for a number of reasons. The most basic reason was that Wyoming was still an overwhelmingly Republican state, and the party had strengthened once again. Wyoming’s senior U.S. senator, Francis E. Warren, was believed to have been on the brink of passing away of old age. At the same time, Wyoming also had a Democratic junior senator, John B. Kendrick. If Ross had won re-election, she would have had the right to choose the next senior senator.²⁵ Republicans would not have preferred two Democrats. Another reason was that during the 1920s, the Klu Klux Klan had a resurgence, and many had controlled votes. Anti-immigrant sentiments and nativism surged during the decade, with Catholics and Catholic immigrants facing discrimination. Some Republicans portrayed Ross as a Catholic, which the KKK held hatred against. Lastly, Ross was a woman. Many still believed women were incapable of handling politics. Some female voters even believed that Ross didn’t automatically deserve their votes just because she was a woman. The Cody Enterprise reported on a woman who had voiced this. A woman named Mrs. Jenkins stated “What has Mrs. Ross done particularly to deserve the votes of women? Has she ever since taken any interest in Woman’s Suffrage? Has she ever been a delegate to a Woman’s Suffrage convention, to a Woman’s Christian Temperance meeting, to a Woman’s Relief Corps convention, to a meeting of the Federation of Woman’s clubs for Wyoming?.”.²⁶ However, while she had lost, she remained in politics and Democratic women’s groups. In the 1930s, she became a campaign orator and was even later on appointed as Director of the U.S Mint by Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Significance

I chose Nellie Tayloe Ross’s achievement of becoming the first female governor in the U.S. because of my interest in women’s history. I was surprised to learn that a woman had already become a state governor as early as the 1920s. Ross’s victory was widely reported, with many 1920s newspapers covering her historic achievement and status as the first woman governor. It was perceived as a significant accomplishment.

The story of Nellie Tayloe Ross both reinforces and complicates our understanding of the decade. Common themes of the 1920s are flappers, economic prosperity, and prohibition. Flappers are known to have been young “new women” who strayed away from restrictive and traditional female roles. However, Ross represents a different kind of “new woman” who did the same. She was a woman involved in politics. Another aspect that her story demonstrates is that while women were increasingly becoming involved in politics, some had to distance themselves from feminism in order to gain support from male peers. Ross’ distance from feminism and her commitment to continuing what her husband left behind may explain why newspaper coverage of her victory was more positive than many people today would expect.

The theme of Prohibition is something many associate with the 1920s and Ross’ time as governor demonstrates that it is an accurate depiction. Prohibition had Americans question the amount of power the federal government possessed. Many people and certain senators argued that it violated the constitution by limiting states’ rights.²⁷ However, Ross’ stance on strict prohibition enforcement demonstrated that some state leaders supported it. She proved this by confronting two sheriffs who were accused of crimes associated with it.

Finally, Ross’s story complicates the common image of the 1920s as being filled with prosperity and fun. Wyoming was a state that was going through an economic depression and Ross’s election loss exposed a darker side of the decade. ​The KKK had reemerged and gained some influence in the political sphere.

Bibliography

Mackey, Mike. “Nellie Tayloe Ross and Wyoming Politics.” Journal of the West 42, no. 3 (2003): 25–34.https://research-ebsco-com.library2.ramapo.edu:2443/linkprocessor/plink?id=f5cae36e-3b49-3ace-ba5b-0cabe6b1f206

Scharff, Virginia. “Feminism, Femininity, and Power: Nellie Tayloe Ross and the Woman Politician’s Dilemma.” Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies 15, no. 3 (March 1, 1995): 87–106. doi:10.2307/3346786.

Scheer, Teva J. 2005. Governor Lady: The Life and Times of Nellie Tayloe Ross. Columbia: University of Missouri Press.http://site.ebrary.com/id/10129006.

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

“Beat Texas to It, and Elect Woman Governor,” The Buffalo Voice (Buffalo, Johnson County, WY), October 17, 1924. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers, Library of Congress. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn92067096/1924-10-17/ed-1/seq-1/.

“Wyoming Inaugurates Nellie Tayloe Ross—First Lady Governor in United States.” Park County Herald (Cody, Wyo.), January 7, 1925. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Library of Congress. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn92066928/1925-01-07/ed-1/seq-1/.

“Her Excellency, The Governess.” The Challis Messenger (Challis, Idaho), January 14, 1925. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Library of Congress. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn88056159/1925-01-14/ed-1/seq-3/.

“Evening Star.” Evening Star (Washington, D.C.), January 18, 1925. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Library of Congress. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045462/1925-01-18/ed-1/seq-96/.

“Wyoming Senate Rejects Child Labor Amendm’t.” The Cody Enterprise (Cody, Wyo.), January 21, 1925. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Library of Congress. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn92066929/1925-01-21/ed-1/seq-1/.

“Armed Prohibition Force Guards Gov. Nellie Ross.” The Washington Post (1923-1954), April 11, 1925. ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The Washington Post, pg. 1.

“Gov. Ross Removes Loomis from Office.” Park County Herald (Cody, Wyo.), June 17, 1925. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Library of Congress. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn92066928/1925-06-17/ed-1/seq-4/.

“Matrimony Is Proper Thing.” Brownsville Herald (Brownsville, Tex.), March 28, 1926. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Library of Congress. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn86063730/1926-03-28/ed-1/seq-5/.

“Woman Governor Sees No Havoc in Vote for Her Sex: Merely Opens Door…,” The Washington Post (1923-1954), January 24, 1926. ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The Washington Post, pg. A7.

“Clean Politics Urged On Women.” Evening Star (Washington, D.C.), December 2, 1926. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Library of Congress. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045462/1926-12-02/ed-1/seq-27/.

“Prominent Wyoming Lady Says Mrs. Ross Not Entitled to Woman Vote—Sympath Not Issue.” The Cody Enterprise and the Park County Herald (Cody, Wyo.), October 13, 1926. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Library of Congress. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn92066930/1926-10-13/ed-1/seq-4/.

Rockpile Museum. Nellie Tayloe Ross for Governor. Postcard, 1926. Catalog No. 2004.025.0005. Accessed March 21, 2025. https://rockpilemuseum.pastperfectonline.com/archive/E78C4C54-6A62-4033-A6E8-793416583805.

Bettmann Archive. Nellie Ross and Eleanor Roosevelt. Photograph. July 1928.

Bettmann Archive. Governor Nellie Tayloe Ross Opens Gimbels. Philadelphia, 1926.

Bain News Service. Gov. Nellie T. Ross. [ca. 1915–1920]. George Grantham Bain Collection, Library of Congress. https://www.loc.gov/item/2014709682/.

Featured image: Bettmann Archive. Nellie Tayloe Ross Making a Speech with Clarence Morley, 1924.

Additional Resources

Nellie Tayloe Ross. YouTube video, 7:00. Posted by Wyoming PBS, 7 years ago.

National Governors Association. “Nellie Tayloe Ross.” National Governors Association. Accessed March 17, 2025. https://www.nga.org/governor/nellie-tayloe-ross/.

Rea, Tom. “The Ambition of Nellie Tayloe Ross.” WyoHistory.org, November 8, 2014. Accessed March 17, 2025. https://www.wyohistory.org/encyclopedia/ambition-nellie-tayloe-ross.

Wyoming History Day. “Nellie Tayloe Ross, First Woman Governor in the United States.” Wyoming History Day. Accessed March 17, 2025. https://www.wyominghistoryday.org/theme-topics/nellie-tayloe-ross-first-woman-governor-united-states

“Nellie Tayloe Ross: Wyoming, United States’ First Female Governor.” Wyoming Public Media, January 10, 2025. https://www.wyomingpublicmedia.org/open-spaces/2025-01-10/nellie-tayloe-ross-wyoming-united-states-first-female-governor.

“Nellie Tayloe Ross Papers, 1900-1977.” Archives West, accessed March 24, 2025. https://archiveswest.orbiscascade.org/ark:80444/xv317842.

“Nellie Tayloe Ross.” Digital Public Library of America, accessed March 24, 2025. https://dp.la/search?q=Nellie+Tayloe+Ross.

Lucht, Tracy, and Chelsea Davis. “Gender, Race, and Place in Newspaper Coverage of Women ‘Firsts’ after the Nineteenth Amendment.” Journalism History 47, no. 4 (October 2, 2021): 333–52. doi:10.1080/00947679.2021.1982564.

Citations

1. Bettmann Archive/Getty Images, Governor Nellie Tayloe Ross Opens Gimbels, Philadelphia, featuring Ellis Gimbel, Governor Ross, and Mayor Kendrick of Philadelphia; Bain News Service, Gov. Nellie T. Ross, [ca. 1915–1920], George Grantham Bain Collection, Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/item/2014709682/. ︎
2. Teva J. Scheer, Governor Lady: The Life and Times of Nellie Tayloe Ross (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2005), 27. ︎
3. Wyoming Inaugurates Nellie Tayloe Ross—First Lady Governor in United States,” Park County Herald (Cody, Wyo.), January 7, 1925, Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers, Library of Congress, https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn92066928/1925-01-07/ed-1/seq-1/. ︎
4. “Her Excellency, The Governess.” The Challis Messenger (Challis, Idaho), January 14, 1925. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Library of Congress. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn88056159/1925-01-14/ed-1/seq-3/. ︎
5. Evening Star (Washington, D.C.), January 18, 1925. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Library of Congress. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045462/1925-01-18/ed-1/seq-96/. ︎
6. “Beat Texas to It, and Elect Woman Governor,” The Buffalo Voice (Buffalo, Johnson County, WY), October 17, 1924. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers, Library of Congress. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn92067096/1924-10-17/ed-1/seq-1/. ︎
7. Mike Mackey, “Nellie Tayloe Ross and Wyoming Politics,” Journal of the West 42, no. 3 (2003): 26. ︎
8. Lynn Dumenil, The Modern Temper: American Culture and Society in the 1920s (New York: Hill and Wang, 1995), 32-35. ︎
9. Scheer, Governor Lady, 74. ︎
10. “Armed Prohibition Force Guards Gov. Nellie Ross,” The Washington Post (1923-1954), April 11, 1925. ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The Washington Post, pg. 1. ︎
11. Dumenil, Modern Temper, 229. ︎
12. Mackey, “Nellie Tayloe Ross and Wyoming Politics,” 28. ︎
13. “Gov. Ross Removes Loomis from Office.” Park County Herald (Cody, Wyo.), June 17, 1925. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Library of Congress. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn92066928/1925-06-17/ed-1/seq-4/ ︎
14. Mackey, “Nellie Tayloe Ross and Wyoming Politics,” 30. ︎
15. “Wyoming Senate Rejects Child Labor Amendm’t.” The Cody Enterprise (Cody, Wyo.), January 21, 1925. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Library of Congress. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn92066929/1925-01-21/ed-1/seq-1/. ︎
16. Scheer, Governor Lady, 83. ︎
17. Dumenil, Modern Temper, 105.
    ︎
18. “Clean Politics Urged On Women.” Evening Star (Washington, D.C.), December 2, 1926. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Library of Congress. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045462/1926-12-02/ed-1/seq-27/. ︎
19. “Matrimony Is Proper Thing,” Brownsville Herald (Brownsville, Tex.), March 28, 1926, Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers, Library of Congress, https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn86063730/1926-03-28/ed-1/seq-5/. ︎
20. Virginia Scharff, “Feminism, Femininity, and Power: Nellie Tayloe Ross and the Woman Politician’s Dilemma,” Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies 15, no. 3 (1995): 88. ︎
21. Scharff, “Feminism, Femininity, and Power,” 88. ︎
22. “Woman Governor Sees No Havoc in Vote for Her Sex: Merely Opens Door…,” The Washington Post (1923-1954), January 24, 1926. ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The Washington Post, pg. A7. ︎
23. Nellie Tayloe Ross for Governor, postcard, 1926, Catalog No. 2004.025.0005, Rockpile Museum, accessed March 21, 2025, https://rockpilemuseum.pastperfectonline.com/archive/E78C4C54-6A62-4033-A6E8-793416583805. ︎
24. Bettmann Archive, Nellie Ross and Eleanor Roosevelt, photograph, July 1928. ︎
25. Mackey, “Nellie Tayloe Ross and Wyoming Politics,” 31. ︎
26. “Prominent Wyoming Lady Says Mrs. Ross Not Entitled to Woman Vote—Sympath Not Issue,” The Cody Enterprise and the Park County Herald (Cody, Wyo.), October 13, 1926. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers, Library of Congress. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn92066930/1926-10-13/ed-1/seq-4/. ︎
27. Dumenil, Modern Temper, 29. ︎

grlynn

Grlynn is a Ramapo College senior majoring in history

Women’s lives had changed significantly from the late 19th century into the 1920s. They became more involved in politics and increasingly joined the workforce. This challenged the traditional ideas of women’s roles within society. Social and sexual norms surrounding women had also changed, leading to new ideas about womanhood and femininity. Many women had moved away from restrictive clothing of the Victorian era, as seen with the example of flappers. 

In the 1920s, Nellie Tayloe Ross achieved a historic title. She was elected Governor of Wyoming in 1924. She took office in 1925, becoming the first woman to ever serve as a governor in the U.S.A. Ross represents the “new woman” but in a way that differs from the stereotypical image of the carefree flappers of the 1920s. She was an older woman actively involved in politics. During the late 19th century and into the 1920s, women had entered the political arena. They became political actors, supported suffrage, and sought progressive and urban reforms. One popular reform was prohibition, a law infamously tied to the image of the 1920s. Ross was one of these women. She was a firm supporter of prohibition. Ross had believed that the consumer was just as guilty as the bootlegger. She was even once requested to authorize an investigation of the Park County Sheriff, who had been accused of accepting pay from an alleged bootlegger. 

The “new woman” of the 1920s would agree on one thing: women’s roles within society were changing, and their roles would be different from the old restrictive version of womanhood. However, this did not prevent disagreement and tension. Women’s ideas of feminism and women’s rights were sometimes at odds. Some women, like Julia Lathrop and Frances Perkins, believed in women’s distinctiveness. They believed that women needed special protections that aligned with their sex. While many women supported the Equal Rights Amendment, which promoted equal rights between men and women, many women like Lathrop and Perkins felt indifferent to it. They feared this would create barriers to sex-based labor legislation that specifically protected working women. Ross is an example of a woman who possessed different ideas of women’s newfound roles and power. Feminists and suffragists did view Ross’ election as a victory and a step towards women’s political voices. However, some women’s rights movement leaders were disappointed with Ross’ refusal to prioritize her influence on the movement. She believed in women’s capabilities within the political field but was not a “hardcore feminist”. Echoing the traditional views during the previous century, she stated that a woman’s role as a wife and mother was of the highest importance. She would become cautious with her involvement in feminism because of its negative image within the politics of the time. This cautiousness prevented her from appointing more women in government positions. Nevertheless, Ross firmly believed in women’s roles within the political sphere. While she promoted femininity, she sought to prove it did not have to dismiss a woman’s right to exercise political power. Her status as the first woman governor still inspired other “new women” to get involved in the field of politics. 

Bibliography

Bettmann Archive. USA: Clara Bow in Get Your Man. 1927. Photograph. Bettmann Archive. https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/clara-bow-in-get-your-man-news-photo/514892606.

Bettmann Archive. Portrait of Actress Louise Brooks. Photograph. Bettmann Archive. https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/actress-louise-brooks-poses-for-a-portrait-session-in-news-photo/514205164.

Evening Star (Washington, D.C.). October 24, 1929. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Library of Congress. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045462/1929-10-24/ed-1/seq-3/.

Bettmann Archive. Activist Julia Clifford Lathrop Posing with Her Supporters. Photograph. https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/julia-clifford-lathrop-lead-the-way-for-improving-american-news-photo/517294142.

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

Mackey, Mike. “Nellie Tayloe Ross and Wyoming Politics.” Journal of the West 42, no. 3 (2003): 25–34. https://research-ebsco-com.library2.ramapo.edu:2443/linkprocessor/plink?id=f5cae36e-3b49-3ace-ba5b-0cabe6b1f206.

Scharff, Virginia. “Feminism, Femininity, and Power: Nellie Tayloe Ross and the Woman Politician’s Dilemma.” Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies 15, no. 3 (1995): 87–106. https://doi.org/10.2307/3346786.

grlynn

Grlynn is a Ramapo College senior majoring in history

Going into the 1920s, the world had been shocked by the horrors of World War I due to the gruesome and horrifying nature of the weapons used. This includes the use of chemicals such as chlorine, phosgene, and mustard gases, all of which were used heavily by both sides during the war and were responsible for an estimated 100,000 deaths and 1.3 million injuries.¹ In response, many countries were looking for a solution to prevent further suffering in conflicts. On June 17, 1925, the Geneva Protocol was signed, prohibiting the use of Asphyxiating, Poisonous, Bacteriological, and other dangerous gases. ²The Geneva Protocol and its effects on the 1920s and future decades, while seldom studied, provides a look into how the impact of the “Great War” was felt in the years following it. The Geneva Protocol as a response to World War I also provides an insight into how those at the forefront of the war, both diplomatically and physically, were able to shape its creation and set a standard for anti-war sentiment in the 1920s. This article analyzes the contents of the Geneva Protocol, as well as its effect on the 1920s and its importance in the future Geneva Convention.

Background of Chemical Weapons Used in World War I

The context of the time period that led to the creation of the Geneva Protocol is a reaction to the damage caused by World War I as a whole and specifically the use of chemical weapons. World War I differed from any war that had arose before it, partially due to new inventions. While new vehicles such as tanks and planes were being implemented in war for the first time, one of the most dangerous weapons for a soldier on the battlefield was the many new chemical weapons, such as the infamous mustard gas, which would quickly and efficiently put an end to a soldier’s life, given they did not have a gas mask. These gases would seep into the soldier’s lungs and burn them until they were unable to breathe, all the while causing immense pain the moment, they breathed in even a small amount of it.³

History Prior to the Geneva Protocol

After World War I and the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, many countries began to turn their attention to other aspects of the war that made it so horrifying. In the case of the U.S., the Conference on the Limitation of Armament was held in Washington D.C., which confirmed many of the sentiments that the U.S. government felt came out of the war. The conference showed that most of the American people were strongly against the use of poisonous gases in war, with 385,170 of Americans voting in favor of gas warfare abolition, and only 169 in favor of allowing it. The voices of the people were so prominent that the U.S. decided to ignore the advice of a chairman representing the country in the Subcommittee of Chemical Warfare and ratified the treaty⁵. While the U.S. had ratified the In the United States, France, who also had two members in the committee, declined to ratify the treaty due to its provisions on submarine use.⁶ The idea of ratifying a treaty that banned chemical weapons would lay dormant for three years until 1925. Prior to this, the League of Nations would classify chemical agents into three categories: toxic agents, asphyxiating gases, and irritant gases, and would also study their effects on plant life, but no talk of ratifying anything yet.⁷ In 1925, there were talks about implementing a treaty that would ban the use of chemical weapons in war. At the Conference for the Supervision of International Trade in Arms and Ammunition and in Implements of War, the Geneva Protocol was first drafted. The first draft would not include certain details, like the control of exports of chemical weapons, but these details would be added into future iterations.⁸

Contents of the Geneva Protocol

The Geneva Protocol, officially known as the “Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare”, contains simple yet important declarations and demands for the world. ¹⁰The Geneva Protocol calls for the prohibition of asphyxiating and poisonous gases, as well as any other gas or liquid that “has been justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilized world.¹¹ Also written in the Geneva Protocol is a request for its demands to become accepted as international law, and to be upheld as such in the future.¹² The implementation of the Geneva Protocol as “International Law” is very interesting, as the idea of international programs such as the League of Nations was new, making this one of the earliest attempts at trying to enforce something internationally. The Geneva Protocol could have been a landmark event in the history of international law, had it had been followed in World War II. An important point to note is that the prohibition of all chemical weapons only applies during war, and the use of chemical weapons outside of war is allowed by the Geneva Protocol. The Geneva Protocol also outlined how it would deal with international conflict come a situation where two or more countries were to wage war, if there were signs of conflict. Article 12 of the Geneva Protocol states that countries in a dispute that may lead to a war “will submit the matter either to arbitration or judicial settlement or to enquiry by the Council” and are only allowed to fight each other as long as they have an award from the arbitrators or from the council that allows them to fight.¹³ In Article 15 of the Geneva Protocol, it states that two countries that do not reach out to arbitration who are on the verge of a war will have a full investigation of their situation performed.¹⁴ The Geneva Protocol extended past a simple ban of chemical weapons and also acted as a system to prevent wars between countries that signed off on the Geneva Protocol, all of which were also in the League of Nations.

While there were many fewer countries that ratified the Geneva Protocol in the 1920s, the ones that did were at the center of global conflict at the time. Countries who signed the Geneva Protocol had to meet a few requirements before they were able to sign it. Firstly, any country that wanted to sign the Geneva Protocol had to be a member of the League of Nations, as it would be impossible for a country not to agree with and be a member of the League of Nations while also agreeing with the Geneva Protocol. If the Geneva Protocol were to pass, then countries would be split into three groups: members of the League of Nations who signed the Geneva Protocol, members of the League of Nations who have not signed it, and countries who are not members of the League of Nations.¹⁵ The majority of the ratifications come from Europe, with major countries such as Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Finland, Italy, Russia, and Turkey ratifying during the 1920s. There are also a few ratifications from countries outside of Europe, such as the U.S., Egypt, Liberia, and Venezuela. () There was a collective consensus from countries across the world to set some limit on the weapons that are used during war to prevent the suffering of soldiers to some degree, though the restrictions that came along with said agreement may have been too much for some countries at first, as it took a while for many countries to be in agreement with the terms of the Geneva Protocol.

The Importance of the “Lost Generation” to the Geneva Protocol

The Lost Generation is the youth that had to fight in World War I. The way of life of the Lost Generation was completely altered after World War I, and this can be seen through the writings and ideas that began to gain traction among the new generation. One example of this among the Lost Generation is the interest that they took in the writings of Sigmund Freud, an author whose ideas on concepts such as the unconscious brought him to popularity to the point where he became a household name.¹⁷ There was also an increase of popularity in certain forms of psychology, one of which being behaviorism, or the study of human behavior, which claimed that humans were shells that were molded from their environment.¹⁸ The connection between a generation that was torn apart by chemical weapons in warfare and ideas of humans being formed by their environment is very sound, though these ideas were unpopular among the older generations. Lastly, the acceptance of science by this generation was at an all-time high, with Einstein’s theory of relativity being published and positively received, even though it was a reality-changing theory that would reshape the way humans looked at the world around them.¹⁹ This new “Lost Generation” was very interested in ideas that were seen as troubling to previous generations due to the horrific circumstances that World War I brought about.

Not only was the Lost Generation more interested in sciences and psychology more than any generation before them, but they were also very vocal against the implementation of chemical weapons in war. Both those from the Lost Generation and those from other generations gave their thoughts on chemical weapons in warfare during the previously mentioned Washington Conference, which was a big motivator for the creation of the Geneva Protocol. The people also reacted very positively to announcements on the creation of the Geneva Protocol, with multiple newspaper issues being published with articles stressing the importance of the Geneva Protocol and giving updates on the countries that wanted to sign it.²¹ While the lack of proper implementation of the Geneva Protocol itself makes gathering reactions from people hard, it can be assumed that the those affected by the chemical weapons of World War I would have reacted positively, had the Geneva Protocol been put into action, it would have definitely been received positively.

Significance

The Geneva Protocol served not only as the first attempt at implementing a ban on weapons of war but also served as one of the first forms of international law. The Geneva Protocol represents the initial response to the shock that World War I brought to the world, and even though the Geneva Protocol did not hold up, it acted as a steppingstone to future implementations of international law. The Geneva Protocol also contains many declarations hidden in the lines of its many articles that justify its standing as one of the earliest attempts at international law. While the Geneva Protocol acted as a treaty to ban the use of asphyxiating, poisonous, and bacteriological gases, it also contained many restrictions on those who signed that resemble modern forms of international governing systems such as the United Nations (UN). Ideas such as having a council to deal with conflicts being written into a treaty on the banning of chemical weapons in war is very interesting, as it is a form of international law that was, and still is, ahead of its time. While these ideas were ahead of their time, they would have proved to be unsustainable if there was any attempt to implement the Geneva Protocol, especially during World War II.

               The existence of the Geneva Protocol itself stands as a signifier of just how much the times had changed from the previous century, as the concept of something like the Geneva Protocol would have been very fringe in the late 19^th century, and non-existent at any time before that. The change from weapons that were meant to kill, to weapons that were meant to efficiently incapacitate and kill soldiers in the most painful way imaginable was one that the entire world was not ready for. While the finer details of the Geneva Protocol may have seemed extreme for a treaty meant to ban chemical weapons, it was an attempt by international law to ensure a better future for the next generation.

Timeline

Bibliography

Footnotes

1. Moore, John Norton. “Ratification of the Geneva Protocol on Gas and Bacteriological Warfare: A Legal and Political Analysis.” Virginia Law Review 58, no. 3 (1972): p. 430. ︎
2. Baxter, R. R., and Thomas Buergenthal. “Legal Aspects of the Geneva Protocol of 1925.” The American Journal of International Law 64, no. 5 (1970): p. 2. ︎
3. “Gas Warfare.” The British Medical Journal 1, no. 3828 (1934): p. 903 ︎
4. “Types of Gas Masks Used by the Various Armies During the World War.” Bulletin of the United States Chemical Warfare Association, April 15, 1925, No. 10. ︎
5. Jones, Daniel P. “American Chemists and the Geneva Protocol.” Isis 71, no. 3 (1980): p. 428 ︎
6. Jones, Daniel P. “American Chemists and the Geneva Protocol.” Isis 71, no. 3 (1980): p. 429 ︎
7. Moore, John Norton. “Ratification of the Geneva Protocol on Gas and Bacteriological Warfare” Virginia Law Review 58, no. 3 (1972): p. 456, 465 ︎
8. Baxter, R. R., and Thomas Buergenthal. “Legal Aspects of the Geneva Protocol of 1925.” The American Journal of International Law 64, no. 5 (1970): p. 2 ︎
9. Ewing, Harris &. “[The Conference on Limitation of Armaments, Washington, D.C.].” Library of Congress, January 1, 1970. ︎
10. U.S. Department of State. Accessed March 26, 2025. https://2009-2017.state.gov/t/isn/4784.htm. ︎
11. U.S. Department of State. Accessed March 26, 2025. https://2009-2017.state.gov/t/isn/4784.htm. ︎
12. U.S. Department of State. Accessed March 26, 2025. https://2009-2017.state.gov/t/isn/4784.htm. ︎
13. Miller, David Hunter. The Geneva Protocol. Miami, FL: Hardpress Publishing, 2016. p. 18 ︎
14. Miller, David Hunter. The Geneva Protocol. Miami, FL: Hardpress Publishing, 2016. p. 19 ︎
15. Miller, David Hunter. The Geneva Protocol. Miami, FL: Hardpress Publishing, 2016. p. 13 ︎
16. Associated Press. “Geneva Protocol Issue Is Raised.” The Evening Star. February 17, 1925. ︎
17. Dumenil, Lynn. The modern temper: American culture and society in the 1920s. United States: Hill and Wang, 2024. p. 146 ︎
18. Dumenil, Lynn. The modern temper: American culture and society in the 1920s. United States: Hill and Wang, 2024. p. 146 ︎
19. Dumenil, Lynn. The modern temper: American culture and society in the 1920s. United States: Hill and Wang, 2024. p. 147 ︎
20. Martin, William. “Geneva Protocol Success Declared in Hands of U.S.” The Evening Star. March 10, 1928. ︎
21. Associated Press. “Geneva Protocol Issue Is Raised.” The Evening Star. February 17, 1925. ︎

dthomson

Duncan Thomson is a History Major and Museum and Exhibition Studies minor at Ramapo College of New Jersey.

Significant events occurred in the 1920s; this includes the creation of prominent organizations, like the League of Nations, the women’s suffrage movement, and peacemaking efforts. The Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom was one such organization that rose to prominence during this decade, although it had been established before the 1920s. This awareness is tied to my work with the Jane Addams Papers Project. Outside of this, I look at the 1920s as an era in between important world events. It is before the Great Depression, which is of course tied to the presence of Wall Street during the 1920s. Furthermore, it takes place after the industrial revolution and after an important era of the labor movement, which thus means that this decade saw the results of these movements in labor. Perhaps most importantly, the 1920s was part of the interwar period, as it was after World War I and before World War II. This is of course indicative of the post-WWI turmoil that plagued the world, in particular the losing parties in Europe, after the peace treaty. 

1. Louis Armstrong Playing the Trumpet, Herbert Art Gallery & Museum (Herbert Art Gallery & Museum, July 12, 2022), https://www.theherbert.org/news/259/grown-up-in-the-1920s-music.

Upon searching for images of the 1920s, I stumbled upon one of the iconic trumpeter and singer Louis Armstrong. I was, of course, aware of his presence before seeing this image, but I had not known that his music came into popularity during the 1920s. With consideration to the fame and legacy of Armstrong, I can infer from this image that the 1920s was an important era for jazz as a genre. With that said, most images I saw that included people of color were limited to performers like Armstrong. This is indicative of the discrimination that people of color were subjected to during the 1920s.

2. Frank Scherschel, Revelers Celebrating the End of Prohibition, Wisconsin Historical Society (Wisconsin Historical Society), accessed January 27, 2025, https://www.wisconsinhistory.org/Records/Image/IM9426.

This second image demonstrates one of the many reactions the American public had to prohibition, a policy that had slipped my mind upon my first consideration of the events of the 1920s. Although there were individuals who supported prohibition, like Jane Addams, this image makes it clear that there were many who were in complete defiance of this law. The tongue-in-cheek manner in which this image is posed demonstrates the humor with which many interacted with the 18th amendment.

3. An American Advertisement for Cars, Public Broadcasting Service (Public Broadcasting Service), accessed January 27, 2025, https://ny.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/ush22-soc-1920sadvert/american-advertisements-in-the-1920s-interactive-image/.

The final image I located when searching through pictures of the 1920s appears to be an advertisement for cars. This makes it clear that by the 1920s, cars became a popular mode of privately owned transportation. This may also be indicative of the increased affordability of cars. The rhetoric of this advertisement further demonstrates the consumer culture that was likely prominent during this decade. 

These images tell a fascinating story of the musical, political, and technological changes that the 1920s saw, but there is much left to be said about the era. I look forward to discovering more about this decade during this semester!

Bibliography

An American Advertisement for Cars. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Accessed January 27, 2025. https://ny.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/ush22-soc-1920sadvert/american-advertisements-in-the-1920s-interactive-image/. 

Louis Armstrong playing the trumpet. Herbert Art Gallery & Museum. Herbert Art Gallery & Museum, July 12, 2022. https://www.theherbert.org/news/259/grown-up-in-the-1920s-music. 

Scherschel, Frank. Revelers Celebrating the End of Prohibition. Wisconsin Historical Society. Wisconsin Historical Society. Accessed January 27, 2025. https://www.wisconsinhistory.org/Records/Image/IM9426. 

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.

Many historians and political organizations would say the Nazi Party was one of the most powerful and influential organizations of the 20th century. But did you know it took the Nazi party less than 15 years to have control of Germany? In addition, its mere existence lasted for only 25 years. However, in those 25 years, the Nazi Party was able to take a country that was devastated by World War I and took most of the blame for the destruction of Europe. Was able to turn around another world war, almost taking over the entire world. This paper will analyze and understand how the Nazi party was able to gain so much power in such a short time and explain the events that put the party on the map, as well as the people that supported/influenced the rise of the far-right extremist movement. Adolf Hitler might have been the one to bring the party to its highest potential; however, it was the party that started the ideology of a far-right, extremist anti-Semitic movement.

The Aftermath of World War I and the Treaty of Versailles:

On November 11, 1918, the German army and the country finally surrendered, which would mark the end of the First World War. After four years of bloodshed and destruction, as well as the first time the world has ever seen a world war. The world was at ease when Germany took full blame for the destruction and economic hardship of the other ally countries. Despite other countries starting to rebuild after a devastating world war, Germany was the country most affected by the war and had some of the biggest problems within its nation. Poverty, economic, township, and destruction throughout Germany made the country look like a third-world country with no vision of it getting better or easier for the German citizens. In addition, European countries forced Germany to sign an agreement that would inevitably be the reason some would say that caused World War II. This document would be called the Treaty of Versailles. 

The Treaty of Versailles was presented by other European countries to prevent Germany from causing another world war. This treaty made Germany give up land, population, military freedom, and the German economy to rebuild Europe. “Germany lost 13% of its land and 12% of its population to the Allies. This land made up 48% of Germany’s iron production and a large proportion of its coal production, limiting its economic power.² The German Army was limited to 100,000 soldiers, and the Navy was limited to 15,000 sailors”. This treaty devastated the German economy and brought record inflation and massive unemployment, and Germans struggled to understand their country’s uncertain future.³ 

The German government and politicians tried reassuring their citizens, saying it would take a couple of years for the economy to bounce back and look like pre-war times. However, politicians and government officials had no clear vision or opportunities to fix the German economy and solve the unemployment crisis. “Early in 1922, a dollar was worth 1,000 marks—by November, a dollar bought 6,000 marks. On January 4, 1923, a dollar fetched 8,000 marks; less than a week later, it was worth 10,000 marks, and by January 15, it took 56,000 marks to purchase one US currency unit. From then on, the mark skyrocketed with little relation to anything approaching economic reality, reaching 60,000,000 marks to the dollar by the first week of September. 7 Inflation was such that a typical Hamburg dock worker was paid 17 billion marks a day by fall 1923”.⁵ With record spending by the German government, corrupt politicians, a treaty devastating the German economy, and no clear sign of what Germany’s future will look like—this cost far right and far left groups to start gaining momentum and popularity with citizens. Germany’s status in 1919 ultimately created the German Workers Party (DAP), founded by a far-right politician named Anton Drexler. 

The Start of the Party:

In January 1919, Anton Drexler, a far-right extremist, saw the economic status and corrupt politicians within the German country and wanted to make a change and bring Germany back to prosperity. He was the primary founder of the German Worker Party (GAP), which, at the start, had about 30 members. Drexler oversaw the appointment of the chairman of the DAP, Karl Harrer. Harrer was appointed chairman on January 5, 1919, which would mark the start of the DAP party. “The party met weekly in a beer hall in Munich. After the pressures of the war, Munich was politically unstable. People were inclined to support new ideas that advocated extreme change. The party advocated a range of ideas, including hostility toward the Treaty of Versailles, nationalism, concern about the nation’s moral standards and changing culture, and extreme antisemitism”.⁶ In the first year of the parties, they lacked support from outsiders and local party organizations. However, on September 12, 1919, a man walked into a bar hall where the DAP were having their usual meeting. The man sparked interest in what the DAP was campaigning for in terms of the future of Germany. The man ultimately joined the discussion with the DAP members, and the man’s name was Adolf Hitler. “Hitler entered into a discussion with the main speaker at the event, and Drexler, impressed with Hitler’s points and oratory skills, invited him to join the party”.⁷ 

Anton Drexler:

Anton Drexler was born on June 13, 1884, in Munich. In Drexler’s early life, he was a railway toolmaker and a locksmith in Berlin. Sources suggest that Drexler struggled with financial sustainability and alcoholism. He was also summoned to serve in World War I but was ultimately discharged due to being physically unfit. During the war, he joined the German Fatherland Party, which was ultimately a far-right party. Drexler got involved with the Free Workers Committee, and while working on the committee, he met a journalist named Karl Harrer. Both men shared a lot of the same views on nationalism and antisemitism. Ultimately, Drexler founded a new party, which was called the German Worker Party, and appointed Harrer as Reich chairman. On February 24, 1920, the party saw a complete renaming, and Drexler became the chairman of the party. However, despite Drexler being the leader of the party, he was ultimately removed as chairman after falling out with Adolf Hitler. On July 29, 1921, Drexler was removed as chairman, and his replacement was Hitler. He ultimately left the party in 1923 but rejoined in 1933 after the party’s success in Parliament and Hitler’s becoming chancellor. Anton Drexler died on February 24, 1942, at the age of 57 due to his lengthy illness due to alcoholism. Despite being in the party for only a short amount of time, he is the primary reason why Hitler got into politics and the primary founder of the Nazi party. 

The Beginning of the Nazi (1920-1923)

The German Workers Party has finally been established and, at this point, has been around for over a year. The party’s membership of followers varied throughout the year, getting as high as 35 but as low as only 13. However, this would all change when Adolf Hitler joined the party. Drexler showed Hitler the parties, values, and far-right policies he hoped to spread and gain support from outsiders. Drexler did not realize at first how important Hitler would be to the parties, growth, and popularity within a couple of months. Hitler was a phenomenal speaker and passionate about the policy and future that Germany should take. The way that Hitler preached his policies and rhetoric made people listen and want to learn more about what they could do and how to join. Because of this, the party went through a rebranding on February 24, 1920. The party was renamed the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP) or the German Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. This would also be the time when the party came up with the ideology of Nazism, a far-right antisemitic movement. In the years following the rebrand, the party expanded little by little, gaining support from middle-class workers and people who had lost faith in the German government. The following shows how the Nazi party progressed through the years with party membership and how they spread their propaganda: 

“These early days of the NSDAP were unspectacular and gave no promise whatever that it would ever achieve prominence, even within Bavaria, for it was competing for support principally among the most radically minded sections of the middle class along with a score of similar groups such as the Germanen-Orden, the Thule Society, and the Deutschvöllische Schutz-und Trutz Bund. The party, whose membership was only 1,100 in June 1920, lay in the twilight world of local Munich politics and several times might easily have collapsed. Even the advent of Hitler as a party member in September 1919 did not immediately produce a significant improvement in prospects. However, the oratorical and propagandistic skills of Hitler eventually allowed the NSDAP to make something of a minor breakthrough in terms of public recognition, mainly on account of his anti-Semitism, which was vehement even by Munich standards. Membership gradually increased to 3,300 by August 1921, and the party managed to secure a more definite foothold in radical rightist circles. Its innately social darwinistic outlook supplied a basic impetus behind NSDAP activity, but of more specific importance were the changes in the organization, leadership, and direction of the party in July 1921”.⁸

Stachura, Peter D. “The Political Strategy of the Nazi Party, 1919-1933.” German Studies Review 3, no. 2 (1980): 261–88. https://doi.org/10.2307/1429723.

The Party’s Takeover of Germany: (1924-1933)

By the middle of 1921, the Nazi parties made a name for themselves and started getting crowds, listening to what they had to say and proposing policies for the future of Germany. Despite Hitler being one of the main reasons why the party was gaining popularity, he still did not have full control. Drexler still was the chairman of the party and still called the shots for what the party should do next. However, Hitler disagreed with most Drexler ideas. One of Drexler’s prominent ideas was to combine forces with another far-right party. In July 1921, Drexler held a secret meeting without Hitler’s knowledge to work with other parties to gain more popularity. Hitler was outraged at Drexler, so the next day he left the Nazi Party. But when other members of the party heard about Hitler’s exit from the party, they were outraged and realized that Hitler was their only hope for the future of the Nazi party. On July 29, 1921, Drexler was kicked out as chairman, and Hitler became the chairman and dictator of the Nazi party. The future of the party was now in Adolf Hitler’s hands.

The Nazi Party’s first attempt to take over the German government was the Beer Hall Putsch. On November 8, 1923, Hitler and his party set up a protest to overthrow the German government. However, Hitler’s plan did not go through as he planned; the next day he was stopped by the German army and arrested for the attempt to overthrow the national government. Yet this did not stop the Nazi party. The party realized that overthrowing the government would take a lot of men and weaponry to have somewhat of a chance. Hitler and the Nazi party realized the popularity his party was getting around Germany. So the party decided to do it the way that all other parties did it: by winning seats in Parliament. The first time the Nazi party gained seats in Parliament was in the election of 1828, where they gained 12 seats. After that election, the Nazis gained momentum and popularity around Germany, and by November 1933, the Nazis had taken over parliament. Despite the Nazi party only being around for about 13 years, the party would get complete control of Germany on January 30, 1933, when Adolf Hitler was appointed chancellor of Germany by President Hindenburg. By 1934, after the death of President Paul Von Hindenburg, the Nazi party had complete control of the German government and the whole country. After 15 years of the party’s founding, the Nazis completely controlled Germany.

Significance:

The reason why I picked this topic for the 1920s project was because I wanted to understand how the Nazi party got its name, its members, and how it became so powerful so quickly. I always thought that Hitler was the one who started the movement and his own far-right policies. But when researching the Nazi Party, I found that that was not the case where the party originated before Hitler even joined. Most of Hitler’s views on ideology came from joining what was then called the German Workers Party. Despite Hitler being the one who took the Nazis from 30 members to taking over the whole country. If it were not for the party and their rallies, Hitler might have never gotten into politics in the first place. It was the German Workers Party that started the evil, bloodshed, destruction, and immoral beliefs of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, A.K.A. the Nazi Party.

Bibliography

1. “File: Nazi Party Rally Grounds (1938) 3.Jpg.” n.d. Wikimedia.org. Accessed May 3, 2024. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nazi_party_rally_grounds_(1938)_3.jpg. ︎
2. “The Aftermath of the First World War – The Holocaust Explained: Designed for Schools.” n.d. Theholocaustexplained.org. Accessed May 2, 2024. https://www.theholocaustexplained.org/the-nazi-rise-to-power/the-effects-of-the-first-world-war-on-germany/. ︎
3. “Aftermath of World War I and the Rise of Nazism, 1918–1933.” n.d. Ushmm.org. Accessed May 2, 2024. https://www.ushmm.org/learn/holocaust/aftermath-of-world-war-i-and-the-rise-of-nazism-1918-1933. ︎
4. Homeschool History. 2021. “The Early Years of the Nazi Party 1919-1923 | GCSE History.” Youtube. November 11, 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fkPOpyNVJ8. ︎
5. Pelz, William A. “Economic Collapse and the Rise of Fascism, 1920–33.” In A People’s History of Modern Europe, 127–41. Pluto Press, 2016. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1c2crfj.14. ︎
6. “The Early Years of the Nazi Party – The Holocaust Explained: Designed for Schools.” n.d. Theholocaustexplained.org. Accessed May 2, 2024. https://www.theholocaustexplained.org/the-nazi-rise-to-power/the-early-years-of-the-nazi-party/. ︎
7. “The Early Years of the Nazi Party – The Holocaust Explained: Designed for Schools.” Accessed May 2, 2024. https://www.theholocaustexplained.org/the-nazi-rise-to-power/the-early-years-of-the-nazi-party/. ︎
8. Stachura, Peter D. “The Political Strategy of the Nazi Party, 1919-1933.” German Studies Review 3, no. 2 (1980): 261–88. https://doi.org/10.2307/1429723. ︎
9. Niets. 2023. “Horst Wessel Lied – Co-National Anthem of Nazi Germany.” Youtube. November 7, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awKecML3GXs. ︎
10. Wikipedia contributors. “Nazi Party.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. May 3, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party#Election_results ︎

Both articles are very broad on the topics they talk about; they do not focus on one event in the 1920s but talk about multiple throughout their writings. However, despite talking about the same decade, both articles had different viewpoints on certain historical events, and the future of America after this decade. An example of this is in the article published in 1956 by May, in which he argues for the reason that America’s prosperity during the 1920s was the result of postwar errors, particularly World War I, that brought manufacturing jobs and America’s help in rebuilding Europe after the war. However, in the article published in 2007 by Goldberg, he argues the reason why America prospered during the 1920s was due to entrepreneurs like Henry Ford, a lack of government involvement, corporate greed, and a high labor market, mostly due to immigration. May is right that America did prosper after both world wars in the 20s and the 50s. In addition, he doesn’t point out what exactly made the economy so strong or the problems that led to the stock market crash of 1929. However, Goldberg does point out the causes of a booming economy but also realizes the devastation it could have if not properly managed. 

From the evidence that was just presented, we can safely say that these two articles disagree more than they agree on what the 1920s decade brought to America. Something else that needs to be noted when comparing these two articles is that the one by Goldberg mentions more than the broad topics the 1920s brought us. The article mentioned things like the KKK, unions developing, presidents’ flaws/achievements, racism, jazz errors, and women’s rights. Whereas we look at the May 1956 article. Most of those topics are either not mentioned or completely looked over in the article. However, May does mention key problems in the 1920s but fails to explain or elaborate on those issues. We can see by looking at both articles that both have different ideas on what is an important topic to talk about when looking into the 1920s decade. Both articles do mention key factors and events that happened during the 1920s but failed to bring up more defining issues (women’s suffrage, corporate greed, causes for certain events, and discrimination problems) that impacted not just the United States but the rest of the world.

How I see the change in historical events in the 1920s from then to now is that today we can take responsibility for our actions. Whereas I have seen back, then we either hide those tragic events or justify our bad behavior. Our society today is not afraid to point out the wrongdoings that previous generations did back then. In addition, we can see that papers that were published back then, only talked about one viewpoint of the 1920s, usually white middle-class men. Completely excluding anybody else’s viewpoint or problems during that time. Today, we are more open to seeing everybody’s side and understanding everybody’s problems, and nobody’s problems or issues are more important than others. Also, what helps me understand history is reading articles that were published in the 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s, et cetera, because it shows you how people thought of events and portrayed them during that particular time. Overall, the lesson that I would take away from this assignment is to never look at or read one article about a particular time but to read several articles on the same issue and see which ones connect with or agree with one another. 

Bibliography

• Goldberg, David J. “Rethinking the 1920S: Historians and Changing Perspectives.” OAH Magazine of History 21, no. 3 (2007): 7–10. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25162122.
• May, Henry F. “Shifting Perspectives on the 1920’s.” The Mississippi Valley Historical Review 43, no. 3 (1956): 405–27. https://doi.org/10.2307/1893530.

The Federal Aid Highway Act of 1921 was an act that on its surface gave more structure to the increasing number of plans for a highway system across the U.S. and to the federal aid allotted for highway construction. The act arose as a solution to the debate about whether the U.S. government should focus on building long-distance or farm-to-market roads. Developed by Thomas H. MacDonald, director of the Bureau of Public Roads, in tandem with the American Association of State Highway Officials, the act favored desires for more farm-to-market roads, otherwise called county roads, and rejected the idea of a national highway network. It restricted federal aid to a specific system of federal-aid highways, which were “not to exceed 7 percent of all roads in the state” and three-sevenths of which “must consist of roads that are ‘interstate in character.’”¹

This act was only one piece of a much larger move towards an integrated highway system that began in 1916 with the Federal Aid Road Act of 1916. Project decisions and implementation were handled at a state level, however, causing disjointed improvements of roads that made it difficult to oversee progress across state lines. Along with the diversion of World War I, this led to a need for change by the war’s end in the late 1910s. 

The debate about long-distance roads versus farm-to-market roads reflects a larger conflict between the old and the new within society during the 1920s. The 1920s brought much change and growth, both financially (at least for some) and culturally. Many of these cultural changes brought in modern ideas that pushed back against the more conservative way of thinking that stemmed from the Victorian era. Lynn Dumenil discusses this in “The Acids of Modernity: Secular and Sacred Interpretations” chapter of The Modern Temper. She mentions that women’s emerging role in the workplace and politics, shifts in social organization because of new mass culture and technology, a rise in urban culture, and an increase in bureaucratization challenged the older worldview that allowed and encouraged order and hierarchy as well as racism, sexism, and nativism.²

It’s important to consider that as consumers bought cars, which Dumenil described as one of the “symbols of the new order,” more frequently throughout the early 1900s and into the 1920s, this impacted the need for improvement to road infrastructure.³ In addition, if more people had the means to drive farther around the country, they needed well-maintained roads to travel, many of which were not instated yet. Thus, the creep of modernity in the 1920s influenced the need for highways, federal funding for highway construction, and, therefore, the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1921.

The debate about long-distance or farm-to-market roads also represented the push and pull between the old and the modern. Advocacy for a large national highway system can be viewed as in alignment with modern or progressive ideals, such as those that supported the increase of cars, more federal intervention and regulation, and so on. On the other hand, the support for maintaining and creating smaller farm-to-market roads with construction projects that would remain under state supervision leans more towards the older beliefs.

Seeing as the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1921 was meant to appease those who did not support long-distance roads, the act can viewed as a win for the older ideals. Set against the larger history of plans for highway systems both before and after the act, The Modern Temper helps put the act in the cultural context of the 1920s. With how the U.S. highway system is set up today, the long-distance road advocates clearly prevailed, so the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1921 can seem out of place. Context about how the 1920s was a generally tumultuous time, especially in terms of culture with modernity and tradition in battle, helps the act’s existence make sense.

Footnotes

1. Richard F. Weingroff, “From 1916 to 1939: The Federal-State Partnership At Work,” Public Roads 60, no. 1 (1996), https://highways.dot.gov/public-roads/summer-1996/1916-1939-federal-state-partnership-work. ︎
2. Lynn Dumenil, The Modern Temper: American Culture and Society in the 1920s (New York: Hill and Wang, 1995), 88. ︎
3. Dumenil, 88. ︎

Rebecca Gathercole

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

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.

The Irish Civil War started on June 28, 1922, and lasted approximately ten months, ending on May 24, 1923. Even though this war started in June 1922, the Irish had been fighting for their independence way before that. In reality, the Irish started fighting for their independence from Great Britain in 1919. Great Britain refused Ireland’s departure to leave the United Kingdom and to be an independent country. Ireland and Britain fought in over a two-year war, with many casualties and land destroyed. Despite the majority of Irish citizens wanting to leave the United Kingdom summit districts in Ireland, did not want to leave the United Kingdom. This created a separate territory, called Northern Ireland, that voted to remain in the United Kingdom and have close connections with Great Britain. However, England was unwilling to give up all of Ireland, and they suggested negotiating new terms to make Ireland an independent country while remaining in the United Kingdom. 

The Build-Up to the Civil War:

After the war against the United Kingdom, Ireland, in the majority of the population, didn’t want to give up the hopes of Ireland becoming an independent country. Even though there were a lot of lives lost, homes destroyed, and a lack of motivation, Ireland would not go back to the old rules the United Kingdom had under. So Ireland’s parliament and England’s parliament agreed to negotiate terms on how independent Ireland would be, what terms they no longer have to follow, and what terms they still have to follow. Despite Ireland’s resentment toward negotiating with Britain, they realized it was better to negotiate than have more bloodshed and damage to their country. Ireland brought their top-ranking officials in the military and in politics to negotiate the new terms for Ireland’s independence. However, Britain also brought its brightest and most highly ranked commanders to negotiate on behalf of the United Kingdom the terms of Ireland’s independence.

In November 1921, negotiations started with Britain and Ireland on what would ultimately determine how much control the United Kingdom would have over Ireland. Negotiations were held at 10 Downing St. in London. The people who were negotiating on Ireland’s behalf were people like Michael Collins, Arthur Griffith, and Robert Barton. The people negotiating on behalf of the United Kingdom were people like David L George, Lorn Birkenhead, Authen Chamberlain, and even Winston Churchill. To this day, we still do not know what the negotiations were like in what specific topics either side we’re fighting for. A lot of it was to remain confidential and were to be announced when Ireland reached their homeland. Ultimately, the treaty was finally signed on December 6, 1921, with all members in the room signing their names on the document. The treaty was called the “Anglo-Irish Treaty,” which gave the United Kingdom less control of Ireland, but still stayed in power, uncertain things the country did. The United Kingdom parliament and members ultimately agreed to the new terms; however, it would be quite different in Ireland. Now the people who negotiated these terms have to convince the Irish citizens and parliament that Ireland is finally gaining its independence.

The Anglo-Irish Treaty was finalized and now just has to be passed in the Irish parliament. The negotiators had to convince the Irish parliament of the Anglo-Irish Treaty, which would ultimately prevent another war or conflict with Britain. Some of the terms and regulations that Irish citizens and government must obey are the following:

• Recognized parliament for non-imperial affairs: The Irish parliament can make decisions on behalf of its citizens, but not from a broad perspective. 
• Financial Autonomy: the British would only have some control of Ireland’s finances.
• Small Military Force: Ireland could have only a limited number of military troops. However, British troops would ultimately leave Ireland.
• Ireland State remains within the British Empire: Ireland will remain in the United Kingdom and must swear allegiance to the British monarchy for any person in elected office. 
• The Royal Navy would patrol Irish Waters: the British controlled the waters around Ireland
• Ulster’s Six Counties can choose to join or not: Give counties the option to remain completely in the control of the United Kingdom. (Northern Ireland)¹

The treaty finally reached the public and the Irish parliament, and there were many different opinions about the treaty. Some members of parliament didn’t like all the terms in the treaty but ultimately agreed, and some parliament members agreed to the treaty not because they liked it but because they didn’t want more conflict or division with Britain. However, there was a group of parliamentarians who were completely outraged by the terms they had to follow and obey. Some members stated that this was the opposite direction of Irish independence and believed that the negotiators just applied to anything that England said. Ultimately, the Anglo-Irish Treaty went up for a vote on January 7, 1922. It passed the Irish parliament 64 to 57 in favor of the treaty. This sparked a whole new division in Ireland, no longer with the United Kingdom, but now between their own citizens.

This image represents the 1922 election and what parties held what seats. As well as how the outcome of the Anglo-Irish Treaty passing happened. Red: Labour Party 17 seats, Green: Anti-treaty party 36 seats, Light Green: Pro-treaty 58 seats, Yellow: Farmer’s Party 7 seats, Blue: BPG 1 seat, White: Independent 9 seats. (Irish general election 1922)

The passing of the treaty raised high tensions in Ireland, not just in parliament, but around the whole country. Due to the passage of the treaty, some ministers of parliament started resigning. On January 14, 1922, Éamon de Valera, Cathal Brugha, and Austin Stack resigned from their post. From January to June, tensions rose throughout Ireland on the treaty and the new rules they must obey. This tension created two sides in Ireland: the Irish Free States (also called pro-treaty forces) and the Anti-Treaty IRA (also called anti-treaty forces). Ultimately, the forces of the two sides would become a reality when a man named Michael Collins and his forces attacked the Four Quarts, which ultimately would be the start of the Irish Civil War. 

The Two Sides in the War:

At the beginning of any war, there are always multiple sides that become frustrated and take action, which ultimately results in fighting and battles. In the Irish Civil War, there were two sides to the war, and one of the sides was the Pro-Treaty Forces. The people who aligned with these forces agreed with the Anglo-Irish Treaty and the rules that came with it. They believe this is one step forward to Irish independence and the country being an independent nation. Some members did not even agree with every measure and term in the treaty but did not want to raise conflict or more bloodshed with the British Empire. Some of the leaders of the pro-treaties forces were people like Arthur Griffin, Richard Mulcshy, Elon O’Buffy, and most notably Michael Collins. Collins is an important figure, being a high-ranking politician and military officer, as well as being the commander and chief of the Irish free state forces. He was also the cause of the start of the Irish Civil War when he directed an order to bombard the Four Quarts in Dublin, which anti-treaty forces had taken control of two months prior. This side also had the support of the United Kingdom and its military forces.

“Deputies have spoken about whether dead men would approve of it, and they have spoken whether children yet unborn would approve it, but few have spoken of whether the living approve it.”

-Michael Collins, Dáil debate, Christmas 1921.³

On the other side of the Civil War was the Anti-Treaty IRA. The anti-treaty for us is that they will do anything in their power—even go to war again with the United Kingdom—to finally have Ireland as an independent nation. They believed that the British Empire was keeping Ireland from doing great things economically and self-governing their citizens. They believe the Anglo-Irish Treaty favors England more than it does Ireland. The leaders of the anti-Treaty forces were people like Liam Lynch, Frank Allen, and most notably Éamon de Valer. Valera was one of the first ministers to speak out against the treaty and was the first to resign from parliament when the treaty passed. He could not plan on behalf of the anti-treaty and got Irish citizens to volunteer in the army to fight the pro-treaty forces. However, his charisma and popularity would ultimately get him in trouble with British forces being in prison for speaking against the Anglo-Irish Treaty and fighting for complete independence from the British Empire.

Beginning & End of the War:

The Four Courts were occupied by anti-treaty forces that took control of Dublin in the beginning of April. Michael Collins and pro-treaty forces were starting to exert pressure on the UK and their own forces about the anti-treaty forces’ control of the Four Courts. Winston Churchill told Michael Collins that if he did not get control of Dublin by August 10, he would inevitably have to send British troops to Ireland to stop the conflict. Michael Collins ultimately made the decision to bombard the courts on June 28, 1822, to get control back and push the anti-treaty forces out of Dublin. This is considered the start of the Irish Civil War and the first battle.

The first battle of the Irish Civil War was called the Battle of Dublin. Where pro-treaty forces and anti-treaty forces fought for control of the four courts and Dublin as a whole. The battle started on the 28th of June and lasted until the 5th of July, when, ultimately, pro-treaty forces got control back of the four quarts and Dublin from the anti-treaty forces. Ultimately, 44 soldiers were killed, a couple hundred were wounded, and 35 citizens were killed and over 100 wounded as well. Despite the bloodshed and people injured during this battle, it still did not stop both forces from fighting for what they ultimately wanted. Both sides continued the fight despite the bloodshed, injuries, and destruction in their own countries; there were no signs of them slowing down in the early months of the war. July, August, and September are where the most bloodshed happened, as well as destruction and battles. However, the war would take a dramatic turn at the end of August when news broke out about a certain man.

On August 22, 1922, about two months into the war, the commander-in-chief of the pro-treaty forces, Michael Collin, was killed in battle. This brought a new wave of supporters to the pro-treaty forces, who supported the treaty and even joined the fight. Ultimately, the man who replaced Collins as commander-in-chief was called Richard Mulcahy. Despite Collins’ death, the fighting did not stop, with both forces coming at each other from all angles and around the whole country. The Irish parliament, which was controlled by the pro-treaty forces, tried passing legislation to stop the fighting and prevent more bloodshed and destruction in their country. 

However, on May 24, 1923, over 10 months into the war, a man named Frank Aiken, told the anti-treaty forces to “dump their arms” and surrender. This decision ultimately got the approval of Éamon de Valera, knowing that this war would not go anywhere and that innocent people were dying because of it. This officially marked the end of the Irish Civil War. Despite the war being over, there was still conflict between the pro-treaty forces and the anti-treaty forces, with some people being killed and assassinated after the end of the war. Months later, the anti-treaty forces finally accepted the Anglo-Irish Treaty. The treaty was ultimately put into law on March 31, 1922, and stayed the same for a couple of decades until the Irish attempted a second try to gain their independence in 1949 from the United Kingdom, and that battle had a different outcome than this one.

Significance:

The reason why I picked this topic was because of the interest I have in the United Kingdom and the empire they have built throughout the centuries. The United Kingdom or the British Empire was one of the biggest empires in the world controlling over 90% of the world at one point. But since 1776, the British Empire has been losing its colonies and countries for years, and there is a reason for all of them many of them are quite different. Sometimes the British Empire was OK with giving up some countries or negotiating with them for partial independence. Despite the British going easy on other countries, that was not the case with Ireland with the British fought tooth and nail to keep Ireland part of the United Kingdom. It always interests me how the Irish got into a Civil War with their people, and how different it was compared to the American Civil War. Hence the reason why I picked the Irish Civil War was to understand how desperate the Irish were to gain independence and how powerful/influential the United Kingdom was trying to keep them in their empire.

 Bibliography

1. The Great War. 2021. “Treaty That Caused Irish Civil War – the Anglo-Irish Treaty 1921 (Documentary).” Youtube. November 26, 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4h8XTRj6Oc. ︎
2. “File: Michael Collins 1921.Jpg.” n.d. Wikimedia.org. Accessed March 26, 2024. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Michael_Collins_1921.jpg. ︎
3. “‘They’ll Never Shoot Me in My Own County’ — Famous Quotes from Michael Collins.” 2022. Irishexaminer.com. August 20, 2022. https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/spotlight/arid-40942814.html. ︎
4. “File: Eamon de Valera c 1922-30.Jpg.” n.d. Wikimedia.org. Accessed March 26, 2024. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eamon_de_Valera_c_1922-30.jpg. ︎
5. “30 Best Eamon DE Valera Quotes with Image.” 2023. Bookey.App. September 4, 2023. https://www.bookey.app/quote-author/eamon-de-valera. ︎
6. joekilgobinet. 2009. “The Irish Civil War 1922 1923.” Youtube. May 31, 2009. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9ayLHPLROg. ︎
7. “Timeline of the Irish Civil War.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. March 26, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_the_Irish_Civil_War&oldid=1215710689. ︎