At first, Hitler appeared to be a failed revolutionary whose political career had ended. He attempted to overthrow the German government by force, failed badly, and was arrested. However, the months that followed changed history. During his imprisonment in Landsberg Prison, Hitler wrote Mein Kampf, a book that explained his beliefs about nationalism, race, propaganda, leadership, and Germany’s future. Although many people ignored the book at first, it later became one of the most influential political writings of the twentieth century.

Who Was Adolf Hitler?

Adolf Hitler was born in Austria in 1889 and served as a soldier during World War I. After the war, he joined a small political group called the German Workers’ Party, which later became the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, also known as the Nazi Party.

Hitler quickly became an incredibly powerful speak. He blamed Germany’s problems on the Treaty of Versailles, communists, democratic politicians, and Jewish people. His speeches were emotional, angry, and dramatic. Many Germans who felt hopeless after the war listened carefully to his promises of national rebirth.

During the early 1920s, Hitler believed Germany was weak enough for a revolution. Inspired by Benito Mussolini’s successful march on Rome in Italy, Hitler hoped he could seize power in Bavaria and eventually take control of Germany.

Germany After World War I

Germany lost the war in 1918, and many Germans blamed the new democratic government for the defeat. The Treaty of Versailles, signed in 1919, forced Germany to pay massive reparations, reduce its military, and give up territory. Many Germans believed the treaty humiliated the country.
The German government during this period was called the Weimar Republic. Although it was democratic, many citizens viewed it as weak and unstable. Political groups on both the left and the right fought in the streets. Communist uprisings frightened conservatives, while nationalist groups claimed the government had betrayed Germany.

Economic problems made conditions even worse. By 1923, hyperinflation destroyed the value of German currency. Prices increased so quickly that ordinary people struggled to buy food. Workers carried wheelbarrows filled with money to stores because paper currency became almost worthless. Families lost life savings in only a few weeks.
These conditions created an environment where extremist political movements could gain support. Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party used fear, anger, and nationalism to attract followers.

The Beer Hall Putsch

On November 8, 1923, Hitler and his supporters entered a large beer hall in Munich where Bavarian leaders were giving speeches. Hitler interrupted the meeting and announced that a revolution had begun. He hoped government officials and military leaders would support his movement.
The next day, Hitler and thousands of supporters marched through Munich. The march ended violently when police confronted the Nazis near the Feldherrnhalle. Shots were fired, several people died, and the coup collapsed.

The Beer Hall Putsch failed completely. Hitler was arrested two days later and charged with treason.
At first glance, the event looked like the end of Hitler’s political career. Instead, it became the beginning of his national fame.

Hitler’s Trial and Public Attention

Hitler’s trial began in February 1924. Rather than being ashamed, Hitler used the courtroom as a political stage, giving long speeches defending his actions and attacking the German government. Newspapers covered the trial closely, and many Germans became familiar with Hitler for the first time. Some citizens viewed him as a dangerous extremist, but others saw him as a passionate nationalist trying to restore German pride.

The court treated Hitler surprisingly lightly. Although he was convicted of treason, he received a sentence of only five years in Landsberg Prison and served less than one year.
This soft punishment reflected how sympathetic some judges and officials were toward nationalist politics during the 1920s.

Writing Mein Kampf

While imprisoned in Landsberg Prison, Hitler began writing Mein Kampf, published in 1925, which translates to “My Struggle.” Rudolf Hess helped organize Hitler’s ideas and prepare the manuscript. The book combined autobiography with political theory. Hitler discussed his childhood, his experiences during World War I, his hatred of communism, his nationalism, and his beliefs about race and power.

Historian R. C. K. Ensor explained that Hitler wrote the first part of the book while in prison “during a period of detention in a fortress to which Hitler was sentenced for his part in the Munich Putsch fiasco of November 1923.”¹ The prison sentence gave Hitler time to reflect on why the putsch had failed. He decided that the Nazi Party should no longer attempt to seize power violently. Instead, the party would gain influence legally through elections, propaganda, and mass political support.

Inside Mein Kampf, Hitler described how he believed propaganda should work on the public. He argued that political movements succeeded when they appealed to emotion instead of complex ideas. Hitler wrote that large groups of people responded more strongly to forceful and repeated messages than careful debate. These ideas later became central to Nazi propaganda during the 1930s.

The book also revealed how Hitler developed his racist and antisemitic beliefs while living in Vienna before World War I. In one section, Hitler described encountering Jewish communities in Vienna and claimed that his views changed over time. These passages later became some of the most infamous sections of the book because they helped shape Nazi racial ideology.

Hitler also focused heavily on nationalism and German identity. He believed Germany’s defeat in World War I had humiliated the country and argued that national unity and obedience were necessary for Germany to become powerful again. Much of the book attacked democracy, compromise, and political opposition. This strategic change became one of the most important results of Hitler’s imprisonment.

The Main Ideas Inside Mein Kampf and Nationalism

Although many people today know the title Mein Kampf, fewer understand what the book actually argued. Hitler presented several major ideas that later became central to Nazi Germany. One major theme was nationalism. Hitler argued that Germany had been humiliated after World War I and needed to become powerful again. He attacked the Treaty of Versailles constantly and promised national rebirth.
Many Germans connected with these ideas because they felt embarrassed by defeat and frustrated by economic hardship.

Racism and Antisemitism

Another major part of the book focused on race. Hitler falsely believed Germans belonged to a superior race and claimed Jewish people threatened Germany’s future. These hateful and false beliefs later became central to Nazi policy.

In Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote extensively about antisemitism and claimed that Jewish influence harmed German society. While living in Vienna, he claimed his opinions changed after observing Jewish communities and reading antisemitic political writings. These sections became extremely important later because they revealed ideas that eventually influenced Nazi racial laws and propaganda.
The racism inside Mein Kampf was not hidden or unclear. Hitler openly described these ideas years before becoming dictator.

Propaganda

Hitler also discussed propaganda in detail. He believed repeated messages could shape public opinion and influence the masses. He understood how newspapers, posters, speeches, and rallies could create emotional reactions.

The article by Ensor explains Hitler’s views by quoting him directly: “The mentality of the people at large is not sensitive to anything hesitant and weak.”² This quote helps explain Hitler’s belief that people respected strength more than compromise.

Leadership and Power

Hitler believed democracy was weak because it depended on debate and compromise. Instead, he argued that Germany needed one powerful leader who could unite the nation completely.
This idea later became known as the Führer principle, where total loyalty to one leader became central to Nazi ideology.

Why Mein Kampf Mattered During the 1920s

At first, many readers ignored Mein Kampf. The book was long, repetitive, and difficult to follow at times. Ensor even described it as “a hotch-potch of the most varied ingredients.”³ Still, the book became important because it clearly explained Hitler’s goals.

Ensor wrote, “Very few great men of action have ever disclosed beforehand so clearly as Adolf Hitler the principles and purposes that guide their acts.”⁴ This observation is important because Hitler openly described many of the ideas he later put into action.

The book mattered during the 1920s because Germany was unstable. Even after hyperinflation slowed down in the middle of the decade, many Germans still feared economic collapse and political violence. Democratic governments changed often, and confidence in the Weimar Republic remained weak. The Nazi Party used this instability to spread its message.

The Great Depression and the Growth of the Nazi Party

During the late 1920s, the Nazi Party was still relatively small compared to other political groups. However, everything changed after the American Great Depression began in 1929. Millions of Germans lost jobs. Businesses closed, banks failed, and poverty spread rapidly throughout Germany in the 1930’s. Once again, many citizens lost faith in democratic leaders.

Hitler and the Nazi Party used this crisis to attract more support. Their propaganda promised jobs, national pride, and strong leadership. The ideas first written in Mein Kampf suddenly reached a much larger audience. What had once seemed like a fringe political movement became a powerful national force.

The Significance

The story of the Beer Hall Putsch and Mein Kampf remains important because it shows how quickly democracy can weaken during times of crisis, similarly to today’s day in age.

Germany during the 1920s faced economic collapse, political violence, and public fear. Hitler used those conditions to spread extremist ideas and gain support.

The event also reminds people that dangerous political movements do not always begin with immediate success. Hitler’s coup failed, and he went to prison. Yet the failure gave him national attention and the opportunity to reshape his strategy.

Today, historians study these events carefully because they demonstrate the dangers of propaganda, political extremism, and public desperation.

Timeline of Events

1918 – Germany loses World War I.
1919 – Treaty of Versailles is signed.
1920 – German Workers’ Party becomes the Nazi Party.
1923 – Hyperinflation crisis spreads across Germany.
November 8–9, 1923 – Beer Hall Putsch takes place in Munich.
November 11, 1923 – Hitler is arrested for treason.
February 1924 – Hitler’s trial begins.
April 1924 – Hitler is sentenced to prison.
1924–1925 – Hitler writes Mein Kampf in Landsberg Prison.
1929 – Great Depression begins and Nazi support increases rapidly.

Map of Key Locations

Munich, Germany – Site of the Beer Hall Putsch.

Feldherrnhalle – Location where police stopped Hitler’s march.

Landsberg Prison – Prison where Hitler wrote Mein Kampf.

Berlin – Capital of the Weimar Republic.

Citations:

Ensor, R. C. K. “‘Mein Kampf’ and Europe.” International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1931-1939) 18, no. 4 (1939): 478–96. https://doi.org/10.2307/3019298.

General Research Division, The New York Public Library. “Mein Kampf.” New York Public Library Digital Collections. Accessed May 13, 2026. https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/192a4b10-c5b8-012f-2fd4-58d385a7bc34

The 1920s are known for their glamour and fast-paced cultural changes in the United States. When we think of the time, we imagine flappers, jazz clubs, booming cities, transportation, travel, and new technology. Yet beneath this surface of excitement and booming progress, the decade was also marked by social issues such as racial violence, corruption, and struggles over America’s growing wealth. One of the clearest examples of this dark reality was the Osage murders. This terror was found in a series of murders that targeted the Native American Osage Nation in Oklahoma between 1921 and 1926. These horrific mass killings were driven by nothing other than greed. These horrific acts revealed to the world just how the 1920s were not only a time of innovation and progress, but it was a time negatively impacted by racism, exploitation, and corruption. Understanding the circumstances surrounding the Osage Murders helps us see the decade in a more honest way by focusing on the tragedies as well as the successes. 

The Reign of Terror Began

On May 14, 1921, Minnie Smith, the sister of Mollie Burkhart, died of a peculiar illness. Only eight days later, on May 22, 1921, Anna Brown, another sister of Mollie, was murdered. Photo from the Oklahoman Collection at the Oklahoma 

Historical Society. Home | Oklahoma Historical Society 

This photo was used during the Hale Murder Trial.

The body of Anna Brown was found in a ravine with a gunshot wound to the back of the head. Only two months later, Anna and Mollie’s mother, Lizzie Q. Kyle, died in July 1921 after a long, mysterious illness. William Stepson, a 29-year-old Osage man, died in February 1922 of poisoning. While seeking help from the federal government, Barney McBride was stabbed to death in August 1922. Two other Osage members, Joe Greyhorse and Anna Sandford, were found murdered in January 1923. Only a month later, on February 6, 1923, Henry Roan was found shot to death from the rear of his car.  Family members of Mollie Burkhart, Rita Smith, Bill Smith, and Nettie Brookshire were killed in an explosion at their home on March 10, 1923. On June 14, 1923, Henry Grammer died in a car accident after his brakes were compromised.

Osage Tribal Headrights

To understand the reason for this reign of terror on the Native American Tribe, it is important to know how the Osage Nation became one of the wealthiest groups of people in the United States during the early 1920s. The Osage people had been forced from their native lands many times during the 1800s. Eventually, they made their way to open land in what is now known as Oklahoma. Unlike other tribes, the Osage people were forced to buy their reservation land, which gave them legal control over it. When a huge wealth of oil was discovered beneath their land in the early 1900s, the Osage tribe created a system of wealth giving each member a share of the profits from the oil. This share was called a “headright.” By the 1920s, these headrights were generating enormous amounts of money. Some Osage families earned hundreds of thousands of dollars every year. Newspapers at the time often described the Osage as “the richest people per capita in the world.” Their wealth allowed them to buy cars, hire servants, build large homes, and send their children to good schools. But this prosperity also attracted the attention of corrupt white settlers, businessmen, and criminals who believed that the Native Americans did not deserve wealth, and they were determined to take it for themselves.

1920s Racial Prejudice and Discrimination  

The Osage wealth existed in a decade shaped by racial prejudice and discrimination. Although the 1920s are sometimes portrayed as a new age modern era, it was also a time when the Ku Klux Klan grew, segregation remained, and many Americans believed in racist ideas about Native Americans, African Americans, immigrants, and other minority groups. These attitudes influenced how white society viewed the Osage. Many white residents of Oklahoma believed that the Native Americans would not be smart enough to manage their profits and that they needed white “guardians” to oversee their finances. Under federal law, many Osage adults were actually declared “incompetent” for the simple reason that they were Native American. This meant that white guardians had to be appointed to control their money. These guardians were often local businessmen, lawyers, or local ranchers. They frequently stole from the Osage, they overcharged them for goods and services, and they manipulated them into giving away property. This system created an environment where exploitation was easy and very common. It also set the stage for something even more evil: murder for profit.

William Hale and Ernest Burkhart

 At first, the deaths seemed isolated, but then one Osage woman, Anna Brown, was found fatally shot in the head and left in a ravine to die. Then a family member of hers was killed by poison. Shortly after that, more of her family members were murdered in their home. Over time, it became clear that these were not accidents or unrelated murders. These killings were part of a murder plot to wipe out an entire family line. There was a close connection to the victims who clearly benefited from the deaths, William Hale and his nephew, Ernest Burkhart. Hale was a very wealthy white rancher known as the “King of Osage Hills.”  One method used by Hale and his nephew was manipulation. They successfully manipulated several Osage women into marrying white men. This method allowed the white husbands to inherit the headrights after the death of their wives. Other victims were targeted because they were next in line to inherit wealth from relatives who had already been killed. Once the family line was taken out, the plot began to reveal itself, and the motive was clear. The local law enforcement did not come to help the Osage people because most of them were somehow connected to the same white businessmen who were benefiting from the murders. It was later discovered that some of the local law enforcement and officials were bribed to look the other way, while others simply did not care about crimes committed against Native American people. This action allowed the killings to continue unsolved for many years.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation

The failure of local authorities eventually forced the Osage Nation to seek help from the federal government. In 1923, they traveled to Washington, D.C., and demanded an investigation. Their request reached the newly formed FBI. At the time, the FBI was small and its new director, J. Edgar Hoover, saw this case as an opportunity to show the country just how effective the new FBI could be. In an effort to solve his first official investigation, J. Edgar Hoover assigned a former Texas Ranger, Tom White, to lead this investigation. White and his team used undercover agents, conducted interviews, and applied forensic techniques to uncover the truth. Once all information was collected, Hale’s elaborate plot was revealed. It was Hale’s nephew, Ernest Burkhart, who married the Osage woman named Mollie Kyle.  Shortly after their marriage, the members of Mollie’s family were murdered one by one. This allowed Burkhart and Hale to inherit the victim’s valuable headrights. In 1926, Hale, Burkhart, and several accomplices were arrested and eventually convicted. Their trials exposed the corruption and racism that had allowed the murders to continue for so long. Although the convictions brought some justice, many other murders remained unsolved.

The Climate of the 1920s

The 1920s brought economic expansion, a new excitement for transportation, and the development of a consumer culture. This created new opportunities for wealth across America. These new opportunities brought about a new enemy: greed and corruption. The driving force of the Osage Reign of Terror was profit and greed. The lives of the Osage people were simply obstacles for the corrupt murderers. This greed and corruption also brought about financial schemes and unethical business practices, which later became increasingly common. Another defining feature of the 1920s was the overwhelming racial discrimination. This allowed the Osage to be targeted specifically because they were Native Americans. Many white Americans believed they had the right to control the Native American land and resources. This right led to the creation of a guardianship system where Native American adults were treated like children who were not to be trusted with their own money. This system reflected the racist beliefs of a decade full of cultural conflict. In the 1920s, common traditional values conflicted with new ideas about gender, race, science, and modern life. The attack on the Osage people occurred in a region where many white settlers believed in those traditional, old‑fashioned racial hierarchies and resisted the idea of Native people having wealth or independence. Their violent response to Osage prosperity and growth reflected the cultural conflict and the tensions of a time when many traditional Americans struggled to adapt to a rapidly changing society. The 1920s also saw widespread corruption in government and law enforcement. Prohibition, for example, led to the rise of organized crime and bribery of police officers. In the Osage case, it was reported that many local officials ignored or covered up murders because they knew or were connected to the criminals responsible. This failure of justice was not unusual for the decade. It shows just how easily local powerful individuals could manipulate the system for their own benefit. This local corruption highlights the need for the involvement of the federal government. The Bureau of Investigation’s involvement marked one of the first major cases in which the federal government stepped in to solve crimes that local authorities could not—or would not—handle. This shift reflected a broader trend in the decade, as the federal government began taking on more responsibility for regulating business, enforcing laws, and protecting citizens.

The Trauma and the aftermath

While the Osage murders reveal important historical themes, it is essential to remember that they were also a human tragedy. Dozens of men, women, and children were killed. Families were destroyed and wiped out. Survivors lived in fear, and many suffered long‑term trauma. This trauma is still felt in the Osage community today. The story of Mollie Burkhart is especially heartbreaking because she lost her sister, her mother, and other relatives in such a short period of time. She later discovered that her own husband had been responsible for the plot to kill her family members when he confessed. Her experience symbolizes the betrayal and suffering that many of her people endured. It is not just a story about the past because it raises many important questions that are relevant today. How do racism and prejudice shape who has access to wealth and power? How can legal systems fail to protect vulnerable communities? What happens when greed becomes more important than human life? All of these questions must be answered honestly. 

Justice and the Future

In recent years, the Osage Reign of Terror has received renewed attention through books, documentaries, and films. This renewed interest has helped bring the story into public awareness and has encouraged more people to learn about Native American history. It has also sparked conversations about justice, historical memory, and the need to acknowledge the darker parts of American history. These darker parts reveal a side of the 1920s that is often overlooked. The side that is marked by racism, corruption, and violence. While the 1920s are frequently remembered as a time of progress and excitement, this story reminds us that not everyone shared in the decade’s prosperity. For the Osage Nation, the 1920s were a time of fear, loss, and betrayal. This shows us how economic growth could coexist with exploitation, how modern institutions could fail to protect people, and how racism could shape the lives of entire communities. Most importantly, we honor the memory of the Osage victims by acknowledging their story and recognizing its significance in American history.

Bibliography

Grann, David. Killers of the Flower Moon: The Osage Murders and the Birth of the FBI. New York: Doubleday, 2017

Osage murders case | Federal Bureau of Investigation, n.d.

“The FBI’s First Big Case: The Osage Murders.” History.com, May 28, 2025. https://www.history.com/articles/the-fbis-first-big-case-the-osage-murders.

February 29, 1929

Planning and Funding the Construction of Mount Rushmore

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

The Artist

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

The Significance 

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

Funding the Project

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

.

The Mount Rushmore National Memorial Act

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

Timeline of Events

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

The 1920s

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

Construction

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

Conclusion

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

Bibliography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1952): 86–87. 

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

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

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

An interesting method of considering the historiography of the 1920s is to consider how history was taught to students throughout the decades. Comparing and contrasting two textbook chapters from two very different periods of time brought to life the focus and themes of 1920s historiography. The 2005 textbook chapter, “The Roaring Life of the 1920s,” and the 1977 textbook chapter, “From Prosperity to Economic Collapse, 1920–1932,” certainly reflect very distinct historiographical traditions, emphasizing the themes and beliefs of the time. In Jennifer Fronc’s article, “The 1920s: A Historiographical Survey,” the author clearly details the 1920s themes to consider. Knowing when these textbooks were written truly assists us in evaluating why each chapter emphasizes certain themes and omits others. Together, the chapters illustrate both the evolution of historical interpretation and the limitations of textbook narratives shaped by the priorities of their decade.

In Fronc’s article, the author notes that the 1920s themes that dominated the 1930s through the mid-20^th century focus heavily on political leadership, economic policy, and the origins of the Great Depression. This older tradition framed the decade as a prelude to economic disaster, emphasizing Republican governance, laissez‑faire ideology, and structural weaknesses in the economy.[1] The 1977 textbook chapter fits neatly within this framework. It centers on presidential administrations, tariffs, budget policy, labor unrest, and the eventual collapse of prosperity. The chapter’s attention to Harding’s scandals, Coolidge’s conservatism, and Hoover’s economic challenges mirrors the political‑economic emphasis of mid‑century historians who viewed the 1920s primarily through the lens of governance and economic instability. Its publication date clearly matters because it was written before the development of cultural history, which was experienced more in the 1980s and 1990s. The textbook chapter reflects 1970s priorities as a period where political and economic themes still dominated history education.

By contrast, the 2005 textbook chapter takes a very different approach. It teaches the history of the 1920s through a social and cultural lens. As Fronc explains in her article, this new perspective shifts the focus away from presidents and policies and toward urbanization, gender, sexuality, race, consumer culture, and modern ideas. The 2005 chapter highlights flappers, Prohibition, the Scopes Trial, the Harlem Renaissance, and mass entertainment, illustrating this new cultural-history approach. This approach considers the cultural identity of the time rather than merely focusing on an economic boom before its collapse.  By 2005 in America, cultural history had become the dominant mode of interpreting the 1920s. Textbooks during the early 2000s increased their content of issues like gender, race, popular culture, and everyday life.

Throughout the decades, textbook treatment of the 1920s failed to show the complexity of the decade as we understand it today. In her article, Jennifer Fronc describes the treatment of the 1920s as a “dual historiographical tradition.” The older tradition of a political/economic narrative and the newer tradition of a social/cultural narrative.[2] The 1977 chapter discusses the Red Scare and the Palmer Raids, framing them as political overreach rather than part of a broader history of state repression and the expansion of federal policing power.[3] Similarly, the 2005 chapter celebrates the Harlem Renaissance, but does not discuss the deeper issues of housing segregation, racialized policing, or economic exclusion.[4]  Today’s textbooks present the 1920s as a complex decade of conflict and growth from many different cultural perspectives. This method has grown from the older traditions of the 1970s and early 2000s.

[1] Fronc, Jennifer. “The 1920s—A Historiographical Survey,” in The Routledge History of the United States, ed., Routledge, 2018.

[2] Fronc, Jennifer. “The 1920s—A Historiographical Survey,”

[3] “Chapter 33: From Prosperity to Economic Collapse, 1920-1932” in Rise of the American Nation by Todd, Lewis Paul, 544-588. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1977.

[4] “Chapter 21: Roaring Life of the 1920s” in The Americans: History of the United States by Kennedy, David M. 638-667. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2005.

The 1925 Tri-State Tornado outbreak lasted from March 17-18 1925, and it is one of the deadliest tornado outbreaks in recorded history. It was given its name because it traveled across three different states, that being Missouri, Illinois, and Indiana. The distance being 219-mile-long (352 km). The reason why it’s considered to be the deadliest tornado is because at least 751 men, women, and children died and 2,2298 were injured. While we can consider the Tri-State Tornado to be a natural disaster, to fully understand this catastrophic event, we should place it in the broader context of the 1920s. The 1920s was a decade that’s often associated with economic growth, flappers, the jazz era, technological advances, and lots of cultural change. The tornado revealed a lot of strengths and weaknesses of what society was like during the twenties, rapidly modernizing but still very vulnerable to natural disasters. 

The 1920s: A Time of Unpredictability

The 1920s, also known as the “Roaring Twenties,” was a time of significant economic expansion, especially in urban areas. New technologies such as automobiles, radios, and telephones changed the way people lived their everyday lives. Lynn Dumenil, who wrote the book The Modern Temper: American Culture and Society in the 1920s, describes the decade as a time when Americans embraced “speed, efficiency, and innovation” in ways that significantly transformed both work and leisure.¹ However, the progress in some areas was not the same as the progress in other areas. Rural communities, especially in the Midwest and South, often fell behind cities in infrastructure, communication, and access to emergency services. This uneven development is very important when understanding the devastation of the Tri-State Tornado. While cities were becoming more modern, there were a lot of smaller towns that still relied on older systems of communication. Weather forecasting in 1925 was also very limited. The U.S. National Weather Service did not issue tornado warnings at the time, partly because officials feared causing panic. As a result, lots of different towns and communities in the tornado’s path had little to no warning before the storm struck. Additionally, the cultural atmosphere of the 1920s focused more on modernization and human experience rather than nature. Scientific progress and industrial growth gave many Americans confidence that technology could solve most problems. Yet, disasters such as the Tri-State Tornado challenged this belief. As Lynn Dumneil said, modernity created both optimism and anxiety, as Americans confronted forces they could not fully control in the 1920s.² The tornado showed everyone in the midwest that nature is still just as powerful and unpredictable despite the technological advancements we make.

The Tornado and its Path

The Tri-State Tornado began in southeastern Missouri and moved through southern Illinois and into southwestern Indiana. It traveled at speeds estimated to exceed 60 miles per hour. This gave residents absolutely zero time to prepare for the tornado.³ Entire towns were destroyed within minutes, whether or not people were ready. One of the towns that was hit pretty hard by the tornado was Murphysboro, Illinois, where over 200 people were tragically killed. Contemporary newspaper accounts described scenes of total devastation. In the article “The Murphysboro Tornado” by W.O. Blanchard states “The description of the tornado’s approach by eye-witnesses varied with the position of the observer, the time of the observation and his mental state at the time. The rapid approach of such a huge death-dealing phenomenon provides conditions hardly conducive to calm and careful observation.”⁴ Many newspapers and primary accounts highlight the suddenness and intensity of the disaster. Eyewitnesses often struggled to describe what they saw due to how traumatic the event was. Statements from many survivors include: “A tornado is a unique kind of horror, with the ability to conjure up apocalyptic and downright bizarre scenes. Your house might be flattened, whilst your neighbor’s is untouched. The person you’re sitting next to might die, and you live.” and “From the time you realize a tornado is going to hit, you’re living with the absolute certainty that every second might be your last. When the outer bands reach you, you’re in almost complete darkness and your house is being soaked in torrential rain and hammered with debris. And when it strikes with a defining roar, there’s nothing to do but hold on and wait, and hope you come out alive.”⁵ What the people saw reflected the terrifying and unfamiliar nature of tornadoes for many people at the time, especially given the limited time noticed before the disaster struck. 

News Coverage and Reactions

Newspaper articles from 1925 provide insight into how people experienced and understood the disaster. Newspapers across the country very quickly started to report on the destruction, often emphasizing the scale of the tragedy. Eyewitness News had this to say about the event “In total, 695 people lost their lives. The town of Griffin, among others, was destroyed but rebuilt. A Main Street building is believed to have survived the tornado. The school, destroyed, but later rebuilt as well. What’s left of that school still stands today, along with memories of the town’s resilient spirit,”⁶ the high death toll, countless injuries, and widespread damage were proof of how deadly and traumatizing the tornado was. Relief efforts also reveal a lot of information about this era. Organizations such as the American Red Cross played a huge role in providing aid for those affected. After the tornado, the Tri-State region demonstrated remarkable strength and compassion. Survivors, victims’ families, and affected communities showed resilience as they endured, grieved, and began to rebuild. Rescue workers and neighboring communities provided essential food, temporary housing, and medicine to support recovery efforts.⁷ There were also lots of volunteers who distributed food, clothing, and medical supplies, showing the importance of national relief organizations in times of crisis. Local governments, churches, and civic groups also participated in relief efforts. In many cases, communities relied heavily on volunteer labor rather than formal emergency systems. This reliance reflects the limited role of the federal government in disaster response during the 1920s. Unlike today, there was no centralized agency equivalent to modern emergency management organizations. Personal letters and survivor testimonies further illustrate the impact the disaster had on those living in the area. Many accounts describe families searching for missing relatives or attempting to rebuild their homes with limited resources. These sources remind us that beyond the statistics, the tornado caused profound personal loss.

Has Modernity Caused Problems in the Long Run?

The Tri-State Tornado also shows us how much people contradicted themselves in the twenties. On one hand, the decade was characterized by technological progress and optimism. On the other hand, the disaster exposed the limits of that progress. As Dumenil explains, modernity in the 1920s often created “a sense of both excitement and unease,” as Americans navigated rapid change.⁸ The Tri-State Tornado tells us what Dumenil meant by “a sense of unease”. For example, while railroads and telegraphs allowed news of the disaster to spread quickly, it didn’t help with preventing the disaster from happening. Similarly, advances in engineering had not yet led to tornado-resistant buildings. Many structures in the affected areas were poorly constructed and unable to withstand extreme winds. Another important factor was the absence of a coordinated national response. The federal government in the 1920s generally followed a policy of limited intervention in local affairs. As a result, disaster relief depended heavily on private organizations and state governments. This approach often led to uneven recovery efforts, with some communities receiving more assistance than others.

Social and Economic Impact

The economic impact the Tornado had on the midwest was severe, especially in smaller towns that relied heavily on agriculture and local businesses. Unfortunately, crops were destroyed, livestock killed, and infrastructures were damaged. In many cases, local towns and communities were going to be struggling for years. We can highlight areas where the economic hardships are most notable through the broader prosperity of the 1920s. During this time, America was split in two; some Americans enjoyed rising incomes and consumer goods, while others faced ongoing challenges. The tornado disproportionately affected rural populations, highlighting inequalities within American society. Many farmers were already dealing with the prices of their crops dropping during the 1920s, and this natural disaster only made their situation even worse. In the social aspect, the disaster brought communities together. Neighbors helped one another rebuild, and aid from local organizations provided support for those in need. However, recovery was very slow during this time, and many families never fully regained what they had lost during the time the tornado struck. Several communities were almost completely demolished, which required them to be rebuilt immediately, which altered the psychical and social landscape of the region.

Making a Change

One of the many long-term effects of the Tri-State Tornado was its impact on scientific research and public policy. Meteorologists began to study tornadoes more seriously than ever before. They wanted to understand a tornado’s formation and behaviors. Over time, the extensive research contributed to improved forecasting techniques that will greatly help citizens if another tornado were to attack. Although these changes were not immediate and they would take some time. The disaster did however greatly shift how we predict the weather. Eventually, the U.S. government became more willing to invest in meteorological research and warning systems. By the mid-20th century, tornado warnings became more common, significantly reducing the death tolls in future storms. This natural disaster also greatly influenced architecture and construction. People in affected areas advocated for sturdy homes and structures. Although it would take a while to build, people got to work with constructing stronger buildings that would hold up during a tornado.

Interpretations

Historians and scholars have analyzed the Tri-State Tornado from various perspectives. While some historians liked to focus on its meteorological significance, with how tense and scary the tornado was. Other historians liked to examine the social and historical context. Scholarly studies show that the high death toll was not only due to the storm being unusually fast (60-70 mph), but it also struck rural areas and residents had zero warning beforehand. These interpretations align with Lynn Dumenil’s broader arguments that the 1920s were a time of transition, where old traditions and new traditions coexisted.⁹

The Legacy of the Tri-State Tornado

There’s a lot of things the Tri-State Tornado can be known for, it’s the deadliest tornado of all time, and it also holds the record for the longest path length in history. It led to increased interest in tornado research and eventually contributed to the development of how we get natural disaster warnings. Over time, scientists gained a better understanding of severe weather and because of this, we can help reduce the impact future storms may have. The disaster also serves as a reminder that the rapid technological advances did not eliminate the vulnerability that was still present. Even if the twenties were filled with modernization, natural disasters were able to have devastating effects on people.

Conclusion

The Tri-State Tornado outbreak of 1925 was more than just a natural disaster; it also serves as a reflection of the broader tensions of the 1920s. While the decade is often remembered for its prosperity and innovation, the tornado revealed the limits of that progress, especially in rural areas in America. By taking a look at news and weather reports that happened during this time, and scholarly interpretations, we can see how the events fit into a larger context of the 1920s. At the end of the day, the Tri-State Tornado highlights how important it is to prepare for incoming storms and natural disasters, to properly inform citizens that something dangerous is coming, and how scientific understanding on the weather is important. It reminds us that even in times of growth and optimism, societies must remain aware of their vulnerabilities. The disaster still remains relevant today as we are still facing environmental challenges and it still holds many records to this day. 

Bibliogrpahy

1. Atteberry, Todd. 2025. Tracing the Scars of Hell.
2. Bailey, Cody, and Isaiah Calalang. 2025. “Remembering the 1925 Tri-State Tornado.” Eyewitness News (WEHT/WTVW). March 18, 2025. https://www.tristatehomepage.com/news/local-news/posey-county/remembering-the-1925-tri-state-tornado/.
3. Blanchard, W. O. “The Murphysboro Tornado.” The Scientific Monthly 23, no. 5 (1926): 434–46. http://www.jstor.org/stable/7421.
4. Dumenil, Lynn. 2007. The Modern Temper : American Culture and Society in the 1920s. New York, Ny: Hill And Wang, [Ca.
5. Museum, Evansville. 2025. “The Tri-State Tornado: Tragedy and Resilience | Evansville Museum of Arts, History & Science.” Emuseum.org. 2025. https://www.emuseum.org/exhibitions/the-tri-state-tornado-tragedy-and-resilience.
6. US Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Weather Service. 2020. “1925 Tornado.” Weather.gov. 2020. https://www.weather.gov/pah/1925Tornado.

1. Dumenil, Lynn. 2007. The Modern Temper : American Culture and Society in the 1920s. New York, Ny: Hill And Wang, [Ca.
   ‌ ︎
2. Dumenil, Lynn. 2007. The Modern Temper : American Culture and Society in the 1920s. New York, Ny: Hill And Wang, [Ca. ︎
3. US Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Weather Service. 2020. “1925 Tornado.” Weather.gov. 2020. https://www.weather.gov/pah/1925Tornado. ︎
4. Blanchard, W. O. “The Murphysboro Tornado.” The Scientific Monthly 23, no. 5 (1926): 434–46. http://www.jstor.org/stable/7421. ︎
5. Atteberry, Todd. 2025. Tracing the Scars of Hell.
   ‌ ︎
6. Bailey, Cody, and Isaiah Calalang. 2025. “Remembering the 1925 Tri-State Tornado.” Eyewitness News (WEHT/WTVW). March 18, 2025. https://www.tristatehomepage.com/news/local-news/posey-county/remembering-the-1925-tri-state-tornado/.
   ‌ ︎
7. Museum, Evansville. 2025. “The Tri-State Tornado: Tragedy and Resilience | Evansville Museum of Arts, History & Science.” Emuseum.org. 2025. https://www.emuseum.org/exhibitions/the-tri-state-tornado-tragedy-and-resilience.
   ‌ ︎
8. Dumenil, Lynn. 2007. The Modern Temper : American Culture and Society in the 1920s. New York, Ny: Hill And Wang, [Ca. ︎
9. Dumenil, Lynn. 2007. The Modern Temper : American Culture and Society in the 1920s. New York, Ny: Hill And Wang, [Ca. ︎

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

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

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

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

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

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

Themes of the 1920s

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Bibliography and Suggested Resources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

J Pelar

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

The first chapter has a heavy focus on economic and political history. Economically the chapter focuses heavily on the great depression and business. Politically the chapter had a big focus on President Coolidge, States, and War. The chapter is geared towards great man history although it does focus on the issues of common people. The chapter ideology wise can be described as traditional. For one it disapproves of modern cultural trends associated with the twenties. This is clear as it uses the word “disillusion” and says that old traditions were “under attack”. The chapters conservatism was also shown as it was not found of Marxism. ¹.

While a lot was covered in “TheUnitedStates” (1964) importent parts of the twenties recivied little attention. The rise of black culture through jazz was one these ways. The chapter neglects to talk about African American intelcualsim, that was a importent part of the Harelem rensiance that occured during the decade. The evoultion of female culture during the decade was downplayed as the chapter said very little about how flappers changed gender norms. The social aspect of immigration also was scarcely mentioned. Staying within the world of immigration the chatper also did not mention the Scopes trial.

The second chapter was more diverse in regards to its content. While politics and great men were still mentioned social history was also prevelent. The top terms that represented social history were immigration and Jazz. The top terms politically were war and states. Economics were less of a factor in this chapter as none of the top words were directly related to it. Ideologically the chapter chapter was less conservative and more liberal. For one the KKK within it were describes as “Hooded Hoodlums” and the Scopes the result of the scopes trial was described as “judicial lynching”. A large portion of the chapter also featured the Harlem Renaissance and the culturally of the younger generation. This cultural was featured through the discussion of flappers and bootleg culture. Immigration wise the chapter focused on how immigrants dealt with discrimination through nativism, and on how they helped build the nation.².

The articles general point that history of the decade has become more inclusive over time was true. Economically this was evident as the best book “The Dollar Decade: Business Ideas in the 1920s” on traditional business history was from 1954. However not all books followed the general trends of their era. This was clear as the article mentioned a work called “The lean years: “A History of the American Worker, 1920-1933” from 1960 that focused on the decline of the labor movement during the twenties. The article also featured a social vs more traditional approach in regards to more overtly political topics. The focuses of these topics evolved as The KKK was one of such topics. This is evident as the book “Women of the Klan: Racism and Gender in the 1920s” (1991) which was featured, focused on progressive aspects of the Klan, while “Hooded Americanism: The History of the Ku Klux Klan” (1964) takes a more holistic approach.³. ⁴. ⁵.

Understanding the differences of how history is written throughout different times is important This is because it provides context for why people saw things that way they did. The history that we read today gives us this context also. The historiography today is more inclusive overall to people but it cannot be defined as more professional as modern historians have great bias as well.

Who Flew?

The two pilots tasked with the ambitious journey were General Sir Helperus Andreas “Pierre” van Ryneveld and Air Vice Marshal Sir Christopher Joseph Quintin “Flossie” Brand. Both men were highly decorated military veterans and had lengthy aviation experience that made them uniquely suited for the expedition. Pierre and Flossie were each highly decorated earning awards such as the Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire (KBE), the Companion of the Order of the Bath (CB), the Distinguished Service Award (DSO), and the Military Cross (MC) during their careers. After their successful flight each man was officially knighted by the British Empire. 

General Sir Helperus Andreas van Ryneveld (aka Pierre van Ryneveld)

Despite Pierre van Ryneveld’s impressive military career, he is most notably known for the trans-African flight. During the first world war Pierre originally served as a part of the North Lancashire Regiment before he transferred to the Royal Flying Corp, and then to the Royal Air Force. After the war, and in addition to his other awards Pierre was given the Chevalier of Legion of Honor by the French government. Part of the reason Pierre was chosen to take on such an ambitious flight was to establish the first South African Air Force (SAAF) on behalf of the British government. Following the success of the flight Pierre established the SAAF and became the director of such until 1933, after which he became the Chief General Staff until his retirement in 1949. 

Air Vice Marshal Sir Christopher Joseph Quintin Brand (aka Flossie)

Commonly referred to as Quintin Brand or Flossie, although did not begin his career within the air force he still managed to accumulate an impressive career. Originally Flossie joined the CID Inspectors Unit (Criminal Investigation Department) in Johannesburg, and only a few years later in 1913 he joined the South African Defense Force, which included the air force at the time. In 1915 Flossie traveled to England to join England’s Royal Flying Corps, and earned several medals of honor which also included the Distinguishable Service Order. After his successful flight to Cape Town, Flossie continued his military career during the second world war and was made a commanding officer with several different air force regiments. 

Jan Smuts
Although Smuts did not personally take to the sky, he was a significant driving force behind the financial and political support for the flight. Before becoming one of the more influential prime ministers of his era, Smuts was a decorated military officer, statesman and philosopher. He took office as the prime minister of the Union of South Africa between 1919-1924 and 1939-1948. His government fueled a large majority of expeditions, and viewed it as a technological opportunity and as a symbolic gesture to link South Africa to the British Empire. 

Reasons for Flight

The origins of the flight were rooted in both competition and imperial ambition. One contemporary report suggested that The Times of London had offered a £10,000 prize for the fastest flight from London to Cape Town. Smuts, eager to demonstrate South Africa’s modernity and its place within the British imperial network, authorized the purchase of the Vickers Vimy for £4,500 and selected Pierre and Flossie to undertake the mission. However several other accounts emphasize the fact that Pierre was also tasked with establishing the South African Air Force after landing in Cape Town.

The only reason the flight was deemed feasible was because of the significant innovation made in aviation technology during the first world war. Such innovations included advancements in propellers, engines and turbines which allowed for longer flight times and more stability while in flight.  

Innovations in Aviation

Although the first world war resulted in mass casualties, violence, and the collapse of several empires, it also provided the world with several innovations in technology. Despite the fact that many of these innovations were a part of destructive machines and weaponry, there were several other developments made that greatly improved modern life. Such as innovations made within aviation. These improvements included the modernization of communication between pilots and those on the ground, within the early years of the first world war these communications mainly occurred through Morse code, however by the end of the war radiotelephone communication made it easier, faster and clearer to communicate. Additionally innovations were made so that planes were able to endure more types of weather conditions, as well as allowed pilots to fly for long times and distances. The installation of oxygen systems allowed for the long-range flights, and several German pioneers created liquid-oxygen systems for extended altitude missions. The development of the Gyroscopic instruments enabled safer night and cloud-covered flights. Several other innovations in engines and propellers, as well as in the very design of aircrafts themselves made flight, and especially long-distance flights more possible. Without these modernizations in aircraft the first trans-African flight would have never occurred, and it’s likely that modern flight would have been different than what many know today. 

The Events of the Flight

The journey itself began on February 4th  1920, when Pierre and Flossie departed from Brooklands in the United Kingdom. They aimed to reach Cape Town, completing a direct air route that had never before been achieved. Their arrival on March 20th 1920 marked the end of a 45‑day odyssey that included multiple crashes, mechanical failures, and aircraft changes. 
The original Vickers Vimy, named The Silver Queen, was forced to land in Wadi Halfa after crossing the Mediterranean and was ultimately deemed beyond repair. A second Vimy, The Silver Queen II, carried them from Cairo until a crash in Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) on March 5th-6th. The final leg of the journey was completed in an Airco DH.9, renamed The Voortrekker, provided by the South African government. In total, the flight required 109 hours and 30 minutes of actual flying time. In May of 1920, both aviators were knighted for their achievement. 

The map below is interactive, and details the flight path taken by Pierre and Flossie, the purple pins are confirmed stops within official reports and the blue pins illustrates the flight path Leo Walmsley detailed in his report from March 1920.

Public Reactions

There were several different reactions to the success of the first trans-African flight. Although the majority of the public, both in London and in South Africa, had very positive and hopeful reactions there were also several groups of people who reacted negatively to the flight’s success. 

The divided reactions between populations revealed deeper political and social tensions within Africa, and especially within South Africa and Cape Town. The public’s reactions were sharply drawn by racial and social differences that were already deeply rooted within their society.  For the better half of a century South Africa, and especially Cape Town was colonized by Britain, therefore it’s unsurprising a large population of white people lived within the settlements. The majority of this population was very proud of this achievement, since it not only demonstrated Western superiority in aircraft technology but it also connected the British Empire in ways never before seen. This reaffirmed their connections to their home country. Simultaneously these triumphant feelings exposed racial anxieties of the white population who felt political unrest and resistance from black South Africans even before the flight. The celebration of the flight thus became entangled with efforts to assert control and reinforce racial hierarchies. 
 On the contrary the native and black populations of the settlements often viewed and met the success of the flight with much skepticism and even indifference. Rather than the flight symbolizing progress, it represented a deepening entrenchment of imperial power and the strengthening of settler authority. The aircraft itself, descending from the sky, and bearing the symbols of the empire, became a metaphor for the technological and political imbalances that defined colonial rule. In this sense, the flight encapsulated the contradictions of the early 20th century: extraordinary technological innovation paired with profound social inequality. 

How this reflects themes of the 1920s

The significance of the 1920 trans‑African flight extended far beyond its technical accomplishment. It demonstrated the rapid advances in aviation technology that had emerged from the First World War and showcased the growing ability of aircraft to shrink imperial space. Before this moment, travel between Britain and South Africa required long sea voyages along the western coast of Africa. The flight symbolically collapsed this distance, reinforcing the idea that the empire could be connected through modern technology. It also positioned Britain, and by extension its dominions, as leaders in global aviation. The flight also stands as a representation of the broader themes of the early 1900s and the 1920s in particular. It highlights the transformative impact of wartime technological development, the imperial ambitions of Britain and its dominions, and the racial tensions that shaped South African society. It was both a triumph of engineering and a reminder of the unequal world in which such triumphs were celebrated. 

Conclusion

The 1920 trans‑African flight ultimately stands as far more than a remarkable feat of early aviation. It was a moment in which the technological momentum generated by the First World War collided with the political ambitions of the empire and the deeply hierarchical social realities of South Africa. Pierre van Ryneveld and Quintin Brand’s journey demonstrated how wartime innovations which included stronger engines, improved communications, oxygen systems, and more reliable aircraft designs, had transformed the possibilities of flight, shrinking imperial space and redefining the limits of human mobility. Yet the public responses to their achievement revealed that technological progress did not translate into social unity. Instead, the flight exposed the fractures within South African society: the pride and imperial enthusiasm of white settlers contrasted sharply with the skepticism and apprehension of Black Africans who saw the event as another symbol of entrenched colonial power. In this way, the Silver Queen expedition encapsulated the contradictions of the early twentieth century, an era marked by extraordinary innovation alongside profound inequality. By tracing the story of this flight, its origins, and its reception, we gain insight not only into the development of modern aviation but also into the contested meanings of “progress” in a world still shaped by empire, race, and the legacies of war.

Citations

• Barker, Ralph. “A Brief History of the Royal Flying Corps in World War I : Barker, Ralph, 1917- : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive.” Internet Archive, 2022, archive.org/details/briefhistoryofro0000bark/page/n5/mode/2up. 
• Barns, T. Alexander. “A Trans-African Expedition.” Journal of the Royal African Society, vol. 24, no. 96, 1925, pp. 272–86. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/716208. 
• Biddle, Tami Davis. “AIR POWER THEORY: AN ANALYTICAL NARRATIVE FROM THE FIRST WORLD WAR TO THE PRESENT.” VOLUME I: THEORY OF WAR AND STRATEGY, edited by J. Boone Bartholomees, Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, 2010, pp. 279–310. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep12114.23. Accessed 2 May 2026.
• DEDERING, TILMAN. “Blue Skies into White Space: Southern African Responses to the Trans-African Flight of the Silver Queen, 1920.” Technology and Culture, vol. 59, no. 2, 2018, pp. 289–312. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26804414. 
• Filby, A. E. “A New Trans-African Route.” The Geographical Journal, vol. 93, no. 5, 1939, pp. 419–24. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1788712. Accessed 1 Apr. 2026.
• Gazette, London. ““The London Gazette” Issue 31900.” The Gazette Official Public Record, 14 May 1920, p. 5480, www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/31900/page/5480.
• Masego Panyane. “University of Pretoria Commemorates 100 Years of Trans-African Flight and Re-Installation of Flight Monument.” University of Pretoria, 2020, www.up.ac.za/news/university-of-pretoria-commemorates-100-years-of-trans-african-flight-and-re-installation-of. Accessed 1 Apr. 2026.
• Stanley, William R. “Trans-South Atlantic Air Link in World War II.” GeoJournal, vol. 33, no. 4, 1 Aug. 1994, pp. 459–463, https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00806430. 
• “The Evolution of World War I Aircraft.” Si.edu, 7 May 2025, airandspace.si.edu/explore/stories/world-war-i-laboratory-air.
• Walmsley, Leo. “The Recent Trans-African Flight and Its Lesson.” Geographical Review, vol. 9, no. 3, 1920, pp. 149–60. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/207254.  

madison

Madison is currently a senior at the Ramapo College of New Jersey, who took this course in the spring of 2026. She has a major in Visual Arts, with a concentration in Art History, along with a double minor in Anthropology and Museum and Exhibitions Studies. After graduating Madison hopes to continue her education in order to become an Archaeologist or Museum Educator.

Voyant Analysis and Chart 

For and foremost, before diving into the specifics of either chapter I wanted to take a look at the data that Voyant produced, just to get a basic understanding of how these chapters might differ. The results were not shocking, and there were several differences within the sets of data the program produced. Most notably the bar graph it produced based on some language data. 

As one can see the chapter from 1948 heavily focused on work and war, providing a more economic standpoint on the 1920s as a whole. Comparatively the 2009 chapters heavily focused much of its sections on African Americans, although it does still mention work heavily. This therefore demonstrates that the 2009 chapter focuses on the experience and stories of minority groups during the 1920s, something that would have been considerably lacking since these minorities would have been continually marginalized while the 1948 chapter was written. Overall based on this data alone it can be concluded that the 1948 chapters focused on the economic, and possibly even political aspects of the 1920s, whereas the 2009 chapter included more stories and perspectives of marginalized groups. 

Comparison of Chapters 

Unfortunately in order to finish this assignment well and on time I used Microsoft’s AI platform ‘Copiolit’ to summarize and provide further analysis and details regarding the chapters. Overall the information it provided was well organized and gave clear differences between the two chapters. And by comparing the two chapters further using Burl Noggle’s 1966 article, the differences of how the 1920’s narrative is written is even clearer. 

The two textbook chapters share the same basic purpose, to educate students on the 1920s, and to emphasize its importance, however they construct slightly different versions of the period. Noggle’s historiographical analysis aids in providing an explanation. 

The American Journey presents the 1920s as a self‑contained decade of conflict, reaction, and cultural transformation. It opens with fear and repression: “Events after World War I made some Americans intolerant of immigrants and foreign ideas.”¹ The chapter moves through the Red Scare, the Palmer Raids, Sacco and Vanzetti, labor strikes, lynchings, and the Chicago race riot. It highlights African American agency through A. Philip Randolph and Marcus Garvey, and frames politics around Harding’s “return to ‘normalcy’” and Coolidge’s probusiness conservatism.² The economic boom, consumer culture, and mass production appear alongside cultural change—jazz, the Harlem Renaissance, women’s new roles, and the Scopes Trial. This chapter offers broad domestic coverage, with attention to workers, immigrants, African Americans, women, and political elites. 

The Story of Our Country, written in 1948, tells a very different story. It places the 1920s within a longer international narrative about peace, diplomacy, and global interdependence. It emphasizes the Washington Naval Conference, the League of Nations, the World Court, and the Kellogg‑Briand Pact, noting that the pact “rests on the will of people everywhere to end war.”³ It devotes substantial attention to war debts, reparations, tariffs, and trade agreements. Scientific and technological change—radio, aviation, medicine—receives extended treatment, as do democratic reforms and social welfare. What is missing are the domestic conflicts that dominate The American Journey: the Red Scare, Sacco and Vanzetti, the Klan, the Scopes Trial, and the Harlem Renaissance. The chapter focuses on diplomats, statesmen, scientists, and reformers; ordinary Americans appear mainly as beneficiaries of peace and progress.

These differences reflect the historiographical patterns Noggle describes. He argues that early and mid‑twentieth‑century historians viewed the 1920s through the lens of the Great Depression and World War II, focusing on diplomacy, isolationism, and the failure of interwar peace efforts. This is exactly the perspective of The Story of Our Country, which treats the 1920s as a cautionary tale about missed opportunities for international cooperation. Noggle also notes that before 1950, historians largely ignored the decade’s cultural and social conflicts.

By contrast, The American Journey reflects the post‑1950 expansion of scholarship that Noggle identifies as a “new historiographical frontier.” Later historians moved beyond Frederick Lewis Allen’s popular narrative and began studying race, gender, labor, urban politics, and cultural modernism. The 2009 chapter incorporates these developments: it foregrounds racial violence, migration, labor unrest, and cultural creativity, offering a more inclusive and conflict‑centered account.

Knowing when historians write helps us evaluate their interpretations. Older histories are not necessarily less professional, but they are shaped by the concerns of their own moment. A 1948 textbook, written in the shadow of WWII and at the dawn of the Cold War, naturally emphasizes diplomacy and global institutions. A 2009 textbook, shaped by decades of scholarship on race, gender, and culture, tells a more socially expansive story. Both are historically grounded, but each reflects the questions of its era considered most urgent. In that sense, our historical narratives always make sense to the times that produce them—and comparing these chapters through Noggle’s framework makes that clear.

¹ The American Journey (2009), “Fear of Radicalism.”

 ² The American Journey, “Harding and Coolidge.”

 ³ The Story of Our Country (1948), on the Paris Pact. 

Citations: 

The American Journey. Glencoe/McGraw‑Hill, 2009, pp. 744–753.

The Story of Our Country. American Book Company, 1948, pp. 511–526.

Noggle, Burl. “The Twenties: A New Historiographical Frontier.” The Journal of American History, vol. 53, no. 2, 1966, pp. 299–314. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1894201.

madison

Madison is currently a senior at the Ramapo College of New Jersey, who took this course in the spring of 2026. She has a major in Visual Arts, with a concentration in Art History, along with a double minor in Anthropology and Museum and Exhibitions Studies. After graduating Madison hopes to continue her education in order to become an Archaeologist or Museum Educator.

Rise of American Nation views the 1920s as a time of progress and advancement. The textbook Rise of American Nation‘s chapters 33 through 35 retell the events of the 1920s and is called The Golden Twenties. The textbook views the 1920s as an era of great social advancements, as both economic and scientific achievements were made during the era. The book talks about the Presidents, rural America, and the industrial growth. The Harlem Renaissance was mentioned as a wonderful piece of culture that was produced in the 1920s. The textbook also viewed African American history during this time as positive due to them finding new rights, and being equals to whites.¹ The textbook does not really mention other minorities. Mexico and Nicaragua where mentioned, but only as nations not the people living there. Overall the textbook describes the era as a relatively good time to live in.

On the contrary the textbook The American Journey views the 1920s differently. Chapter 24 of the American Journey textbook talks about the 1920s. The textbook mostly talks about the societal impacts that the era had, along with major events like the Red Scare during the 1920s. The textbook also examines the oppression of minorities during the 1920s. The book views the 1920s through a lens of social inequality. Unlike Rise of American Nation, The American Journey stated that African Americans did not have it good and they were struggling for self identity.² The textbook also mentions the economic boom, but also notes those that were left behind. These people were farmers, textile workers, railroad workers, and coal miners due to a lack of needs for them in the New American Society.³ The book mentions social changes and it’s impact on society. The book examines the conflicts of Prohibition, nativism, and the Scopes Trial. American Journey writes the event as neutral even though some of these things are pretty bad for American society. For the most part the book examines the 1920s through the lens of social changes.

Though the messages of these two books are different, they have some similar thoughts of the 1920s. Both books examined the New Women that arise due to events in the 1920s. Technology, like radio, was mentioned in both books as a good advancement. Both talked about how the economic boom occurred and how beneficial it was for those who were effected by it. The books also talked about how industries evolved in the 1920s. It is interesting that the book from 2009 talked less about African Americans compared to the book from 1977. One would think that these be flipped. Though there are few similarities they do not share a lot in common

The article that I compared these two textbooks to was Mae Ngai’s “Nationalism, Immigration Control, and the Ethnoracial Remapping of America in the 1920s”. Ngai focused her research on immigration and nationalism in America during the 1920s. Neither textbook mention immigration a lot throughout their chapter, though some of the themes present in Ngai’s work is found in the textbooks. She talks about how during the 1920s and 1930s that there were multiple laws that restricted immigrants based on ethnicity. The Rise of American Nation briefly mentions Mexican immigration, with the view that they were poorly educated and disrespected due to them crossing the border based on Mexico’s economic situation.⁴ Her ideas have similar themes of American Journey due to how both works view the era through social change. The American Journey talks about the rise of nativism, which revived the Ku Klux Klan, and where the reason why the quota system was ineffective.⁵ Ultimately Ngail views the immigration policy during the 1920s in a negative light, which The American Journey also agree with.

Though the American Journey came out in 2009, I trust it less than Rise of American Nation which came out in 1977. American Journey feels like the book was for a younger audience than for high schoolers. The book cover, pages, and images look like it would attract young kids rather than high schoolers. The textbook either has simple retelling of events or are neutral about certain events. Rise of American Nation has a clear theme, that the era was great. It is honest about what the themes are about and does not distort information to fit its themes. Though the thesis is a little outdated, the information in the textbook is still valuable and could still be used in the classroom. These textbooks are still valuable for the retelling of the historiography of the 1920s.

1. Lewis Paul Todd and Merle Curti, Rise of American Nation, (Harcourt, 1977), 579-580. ︎
2. Joyce Appleby, Alan Brinkley, James M. McPherson, The American Journey, (National Geographic Society, 2009), 747. ︎
3. Appleby, Brinkley, McPherson, The American Journey, 757. ︎
4. Todd and Curti, Rise of American Nation, 549. ︎
5. Appleby, Brinkley, McPherson, The American Journey, 762. ︎

Bibliography

Appleby, Joyce. Alan Brinkley, James M. McPherson. The American Journey. National Geographic Society, 2009

Ngai, Mae M. “Nationalism, Immigration Control, and the Ethnoracial Remapping of America in the 1920S.” OAH Magazine of History 21, no. 3 (2007): 11–15. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25162123.

Todd, Lewis Paul, Merle Curti. Rise of American Nation Harcourt, 1977.

J Pelar

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