While tension after World War I began to fall slightly, there were still many unresolved issues among countries in Europe. Naturally, this makes sense as World War I was a war the likes of which the world had never seen before, but the attempt at peace after through the Treaty of Versailles would simply be a temporary bandage to these problems. The country that was impacted the most by the Treaty of Versailles was definitely Germany, who had their economy destroyed by the treaty. At the time, Germany was being forced to pay 132 billion gold marks in total ($33 billion) which was an impossible task for them to ask for, especially considering the amount of money they spent on the war.¹ The failure to pay said reparations would cause a crisis for the country after France occupied the Ruhr district, one of Germany’s most profitable areas, in hopes of seizing some profit from their coal mines themselves. Enter Charles G. Dawes and Owen D. Young, two lawyers who turned to economics. These two men, along with eight others, were appointed to the Dawes Plan by the Reparations Committee under the League of Nations. The committee was given the task of easing the heavy burden placed on Germany to bring stability to a very unstable Europe. The plan that these ten men came up with would be known as the “Dawes Plan” which would see noticeable success in the year after its enactment.

Treaty of Versailles

The first major misstep that allowed for the exploitation of Germany during the 1920s was the Treaty of Versailles. As Germany was a part of the Central Powers during World War I, they would be punished by the victors for their actions during the war. The Treaty of Versailles laid the groundwork for an attempt at peace throughout Europe, one that would ultimately prove unsuccessful through certain decisions involving Germany that would lead to the need for the Dawes Plan. While the Treaty of Versailles was very harsh on Germany, it goes without saying that the German narrative complicates the conversation surrounding the success of the treaty. Though there were initial attempts to sign the treaty, they were too disorganized and were not able to make progress in the signing of the treaty. During the creation process, “The Four”, or Woodrow Wilson, David Lloyd George, Georges Clemenceau, and Vittorio Orlando, would come together in an attempt to create peace. In particular, Wilson made his famous “Fourteen Points” in regards to the Treaty of Versailles, which were much too large of an undertaking for Europe, who just came out of a war.³ This lack of unity would allow for unreasonable requirements on the end of Germany to slip through, creating the problem that the Dawes Plan would attempt to fix.

Ruhr District

Upon Germany’s failure to pay the reparations placed by the Treaty of Versailles, the first action taken against Germany was by France in the Ruhr District. At the time, coal amounted to 15-16% of the annual obligation according to France, and 11% according to Germany.⁵ The Ruhr district was easily Germany’s largest producer of coal, which accounted for much of the reparations that Germany was attempting to pay. In response, France and Belgium took matters into their own hands in an attempt to seize control of Germany’s coal production to funnel the reparation funds away from the German economy as punishment.⁶ Much of this desire to occupy the district for the French was out of stubbornness. The French Premier’s Monsieur Poincare said in a speech where he stated the riches contained in the Ruhr district, including 14,000 coke furnaces that he wanted under French control, as well as saying that France did not want to exploit the district, but rather control it.”⁷ The actions from the French can be seen as exploitative in a way, but they also represent the greater flaws of the Treaty of Versailles that allowed for French occupation in the first place.

Charles Dawes and His Committee

Germany would find a light in the darkness of a recession in the form of Charles Dawes. Dawes, who was appointed to the Director of the Budget three years prior in 1920, would show his hand in efficiency and unity in the budget for the United States. His success in his position was so great that he was invited to a committee by the League of Nations to tackle the problem of German reparations.⁸ Created by the Reparations Commission in Germany, the Dawes Committee hired ten of the smartest economic minds from the United States, France, Belgium, Great Britain, and Italy, to handle how much money would need to be estimated for Germany to pay back realistically.⁹ Every member of the committee was paid in full by the Reparations Commission except for the members from the United States, likely due to United States never joining the League of Nations. One of the many goals that the committee aimed to achieve was a “restoration of confidence” in the German nation, allowing it to successfully recuperate into a secure environment in which its economy can grow.¹⁰ Another goal of the committee was to prevent Germany from lacking a fallback, considering the impossible amount in reparations it was required to pay. If Germany was unable to successfully manage its reparations after the committee’s work, then Germany would have to fix the problem itself.

The Dawes Plan

When creating the Dawes Plan, there were a few goals and considerations that the ten experts had to work with. The first thing on the agenda for the committee was dealing with France, who were still occupying the Ruhr district of Germany at the time. While in control of the Ruhr district, France saw little increase in profit from their coal mines and instead saw a rise in inflation. This inflation led to a higher cost of living that was damaging the French economy and the franc currency. Dawes and Young planned on using this to their advantage when working out a reparation deal, as Germany was only causing problems for the French economy.¹² The other thing that came first on the agenda was ensuring that Germany accept the weight that the Dawes Plan would carry. Much of the plan to turn around Germany’s economy can be credited to Owen Young, the other U.S. member on the committee. Young’s outline of the Dawes Plan was to place reparations on Germany that were comparable to the burdens of England and France from having to pay for the war. This was to ensure that Germany would not fall behind in the economy and cause chaos for the rest of Europe, but also to ensure that Germany did not become a superpower that could control the rest of Europe. Young wanted to ensure that Germany could pay off its reparations and serve as an economic force that England and France would have to trade with to gain access to its funds.¹³ This served not only as a way to get Germany out of an endless cycle of debt, but also to get the allies to pay back their debt as well. As the plan was officialized, Germany would have a $1.25 billion mark limit on reparations until the Allies drew on a balance, then moving the limit to $5 billion marks. This ensured that Germany would pay and that the Allies would pay into Germany’s economy in a way.

Dawes Plan in Action

While the process from the rough draft into the Dawes Plan is very important, was it able to actually make an impact on German reparations at the time? The answer is unequivocally yes, though the details of the implementation are also very important. In the very beginning of the plan’s implementation, a loan totaling $200 million would be issued to Germany, $110 million of which was subscribed to by the United States. The German central bank (Reichsbank) would also be reorganized, and the plan would introduce a new monetary unit in the form of the Reichsmark. Possibly the most important action that was initially implemented was the evacuation of the Ruhr District, forcing the French out of the area.¹⁵ The immediate and future economic results from the Dawes Plan also show a great improvement to the German economy. German exports increased by twenty percent from the Dawes Plan, but the Allies did not find themselves receiving much of the expected benefits from the plan.¹⁶ While there was short-term success with the Dawes Plan, it was only a short-term measure that was attempting to solve a long-term problem for Germany.

Significance

The Dawes Plan is one of the earliest examples of how the relations changed between countries across the world. The Post World-War I environment during the 20s was the first opportunity for globalization to kick off. During the 20s, the success of the United States had the side effect of transforming them into the dominant force of globalization. Prior to World War I, there were many examples of the United States interacting with other countries, but it usually concerned trade or warfare. The 20s represented the first time that the U.S. was ahead of the rest of the world in terms of capital, allowing them to give Europe a helping hand. The Dawes Plan was also a result of a change in culture in the U.S. following World War I. There was disappointment among many Americans as a result of the violation of civil liberties, as well as disappointment over the attempt of peace that was the Treaty of Versailles and the failure of the treaty to meet up to the expectations of Wilson’s Fourteen Points.¹⁷ Much of these complaints were what resulted in the decline of pushes for reform, both in and out of the United States. The 20s, however, would change this notion to become more positive. Many aspects of the country would be reconstructed in the new post-war period, as it was seen as “the winning of a new world”.¹⁸ This new wave of progress and reform would bring about a new period in the history of the United States that brought it to its most progressive state domestically. Not only did the U.S. break its own mold domestically, but it also participated in foreign aid, something that was uncharacteristic for them to do during the time. As it stands, the Dawes Plan served as a solution that, while temporary, provided Germany with enough footing that it was able to recuperate more than it would have without the plan. While foreign aid towards Germany is the most talked about in the current day, the U.S. also provided aid to other countries such as Austria, Hungary, and Poland. The Dawes Plan is pivotal for understanding the United States’ first attempts at foreign aid and for understanding how foreign policy in the U.S. would change, going into the 20s and onward.

Map

Bibliography

“Charles G. Dawes – Biographical.” NobelPrize.org. Accessed May 3, 2025. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/1925/dawes/biographical/.

“THE FRENCH IN THE RUHR.” Advocate of Peace through Justice 85, no. 3 (1923): 111–13. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20660241.

“One Year’s Dawes Plan” The Milwaukee Leader. September 8, 1925

Allied Experts in Berlin — Flora – Sir R. Kindersley – McFadyean – Pirelli – Allix – Parmentier – Dawes – Young – Houtart – Sir J. Stamp. Bain News Service.

Clayton, John. “Germans Killed in Ruhr.” Chicago Daily Tribune. March 6, 1923.

Costigliola, Frank. “The United States and the Reconstruction of Germany in the 1920s.” The Business History Review 50, no. 4 (1976): 477–502. https://doi.org/10.2307/3113137.

Dawes, Rufus C. The Dawes Plan in the Making, 1929.

Dumenil, Lynn. The Modern Temper: American Culture and Society in the 1920s. United States: Hill and Wang, 2024.

Gilbert, S. Parker. “The Meaning of the ‘Dawes Plan.’” Foreign Affairs 4, no. 3 (1926): i–xii. https://doi.org/10.2307/20028477.

Marks, Sally. “Mistakes and Myths: The Allies, Germany, and the Versailles Treaty, 1918–1921.” The Journal of Modern History 85, no. 3 (2013): 632–59. https://doi.org/10.1086/670825.

Noël Dorville. Recueil de 40 Planches de Portraits Dessinés de Sénateurs, 1902-1903. 

Patterson, Ernest Minor. “The Dawes Plan in Operation.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 120 (1925): 1–6. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1015627.

Peterecz, Zoltán. “American Foreign Policy and American Financial Controllers in Europe in the 1920s.” Hungarian Journal of English and American Studies (HJEAS) 18, no. 1/2 (2012): 457–85. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43488487.

Schumacher, Hermann. “The Situation in the Ruhr.” The Economic Journal 33, no. 130 (1923): 155–62. https://doi.org/10.2307/2222840.

Additional Resources

Footnotes

1. Ernest Minor, Patterson. “The Dawes Plan in Operation.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 120 (1925): 1 ︎
2. Noël Dorville. Recueil de 40 Planches de Portraits Dessinés de Sénateurs, 1902-1903.  ︎
3. Rufus C, Dawes. The Dawes Plan in the Making, 1929. P. 18-20 ︎
4. Clayton, John. “Germans Killed in Ruhr.” Chicago Daily Tribune. March 6, 1923. ︎
5. Schumacher, Hermann. “The Situation in the Ruhr.” The Economic Journal 33, no. 130 (1923): 155 ︎
6. Schumacher, Hermann. “The Situation in the Ruhr.” The Economic Journal 33, no. 130 (1923): 156 ︎
7. “THE FRENCH IN THE RUHR.” Advocate of Peace through Justice 85, no. 3 (1923): 111 ︎
8. “Charles G. Dawes – Biographical.” NobelPrize.org. Accessed May 3, 2025. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/1925/dawes/biographical/. ︎
9. Rufus C, Dawes. The Dawes Plan in the Making, 1929. 18-20 ︎
10. Parker S, Gilbert. “The Meaning of the ‘Dawes Plan.’” Foreign Affairs 4, no. 3 (1926): vi ︎
11. Allied Experts in Berlin — Flora – Sir R. Kindersley – McFadyean – Pirelli – Allix – Parmentier – Dawes – Young – Houtart – Sir J. Stamp. Bain News Service. ︎
12. Frank, Costigliola. “The United States and the Reconstruction of Germany in the 1920s.” The Business History Review 50, no. 4 (1976): 477–502. P. 486 ︎
13. Frank, Costigliola. “The United States and the Reconstruction of Germany in the 1920s.” The Business History Review 50, no. 4 (1976): 477–502. P. 487 ︎
14. “One Year’s Dawes Plan” The Milwaukee Leader. September 8, 1925 ︎
15. Zoltán, Peterecz. “American Foreign Policy and American Financial Controllers in Europe in the 1920s.” Hungarian Journal of English and American Studies (HJEAS) 18, no. 1/2 (2012): 457–85. ︎
16. Ernest Minor, Patterson. “The Dawes Plan in Operation.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 120 (1925): 3-4 ︎
17. Lynn, Dumenil. The Modern Temper: American Culture and Society in the 1920s. United States: Hill and Wang, 2024. 21 ︎
18. Lynn, Dumenil. The Modern Temper: American Culture and Society in the 1920s. United States: Hill and Wang, 2024. 21 ︎

dthomson

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

One of the most significant examples of this was the creation of the Winter Olympics. The games began during a very unique period in human history. Technologies like the automobile, radio, and film emerged. At same time, the academic fields of science, psychology, and the liberal arts saw great shifts. The combination of these events lead people farther and farther away from the Biblical centered view of the past towards a more transformative and modern outlook on life. The rise of popular media outlets further fueled this shift.¹ In 1921, the International Olympic Committee decided that France could hold a one week winter sports exhibition to coincide with the Summer Olympics of 1924. Taking inspiration from the Norse Games of the prior decades, the First Winter Olympics was attended by sixteen countries. The athletes competed in sixteen different sport disciplines. This new modern take on winter sports proved successful enough. Four years later the Second Winter Olympics happened in 1928, and the tradition of global winter sports competition officially began.

At the same time the Winter Olympics were taking shape in Europe, the United States was grappling with its own problems around new cultural ideas. For much of the early twentieth century, the country had been welcoming to immigrants. This changed following the passage of the Emergency Quotas Act of 1921 and the National Origins Act of 1924. Despite these new laws, millions had already made the U.S. their home. They were expected to abandon their own cultures in favor of the historically white Anglo-Saxon Protestant standard of what it meant to be American. This did not sit well with outspoken writers, who instead called for a pluralist culture in America. Hoarse Kallen argued, “Democracy involves not the elimination of differences but the perfection and conversation of differences.²” Kallen’s words, were not directly related to the Olympic games, but they beautiful encapsulated the spirit of the sporting event. It was an idealist platform where people from diverse cultures could come together, not to erase their differences, but to celebrate them through the shared experience and enjoyment of athletic completion.³

Further expanding on this idea, sociologist Robert Park advocated for the preservation of cultural identity within American society. He proposed the controversial idea that people should retain their heritage and contribute their cultural practices to mainstream society, making it better in the process. This too aligned with the broader Olympic ideals. The Gams were a global stage where the nations of the world could showcase their unique cultures and histories. Like all things though, the vision is often better than the reality. Had the United States chosen to adopt the pluralistic vision presented at the Olympic Games, it would have been a wonderful example to the world about how a diverse country could look and function. Instead the vision was all but ignored, and the world just got an exhibition of winter sports.⁴

The same year the Winter Olympics were introduced, the U.S. continued to battle with increasingly violent waves racism and hate. The Ku Klux Klan was growing in power, causing major political upheaval, especially at the 1924 Democratic National Convention. The group terrorized Black Americans, as well as Jewish and Catholic communities. These groups faced intense persecution for their race and religious beliefs. The reality of the American political and societal make up was a stark contrast to the ideals of the Olympics global pluralistic message. The United States government only added to the problem by passing increasingly stricter immigration laws. ⁵

Kallen and Park’s hopeful vision for a pluralistic society, where cultural differences would be celebrated rather than erased, fell on deaf ears. Instead, the U.S. clung to its exclusionary practices, furthering the divide between different racial, ethnic, and religious groups. Even though the Winter Olympics showcased a potential for global unity and cultural understanding, it would take decades before the U.S. could begin to reflect this ideal in its own society. The Olympics might have presented an opportunity to demonstrate how diverse cultures could coexist and enrich one another, but the U.S. was still entrenched in ideas of racial superiority and segregation.

Citations

Footnotes

1. Dumenil, 146, 149. ︎
2. Dumenil, 166. ︎
3. Dumenil, 167. Patsantaras, “Olympic Messages: Olympic Ideology and Olympic Social Reality,” 50. ︎
4. Dumenil 167-168. Patsantaras, “Olympic Messages: Olympic Ideology and Olympic Social Reality” 51. ︎
5. Dumenil 240-243. ︎

Biography

Chamonix 1924 Winter Olympics – athletes, medals & results. Accessed April 2, 2025. https://www.olympics.com/en/olympic-games/chamonix-1924. 

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

Nikolaos Patsantaras, “Olympic Messages: Olympic Ideology and Olympic Social Reality,” Xophia Choregia Sport Management International Journal 4, no. Number 1 (2008): 45–55, https://eclass.uoa.gr/modules/document/file.php/PHED268/o.k….15.%2010%20Olympic%20Messages.%20Olympic%20Ideology%20and%20Olympic%20social%20reality.pdf.

Hearst Networks EMEA. “Homepage,” March 7, 2025. https://www.history.com/articles/ellis-island#Ellis-Island-Timeline.

faythe

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

The Nixon Nitration Works was a factory that manifactured highly flamable materials like cellulose nitrate and the lack of supervison in the factory caused the huge disater of March 1, 1924 which destroyed forty buildings and killed twenty people at the company’s New Jersey facility on the Raritan River. After the explosion, the Nixon factory was rebuilt into a smaller factory then kept functioning for a while but Lewis Nixon died due to the exposure of the deadly chemicals. Stanhope Nixon was the son of Lewis Nixon who also took over the factory but his son couldnt keep the busines going causing the closore of the nixon factory after a while the location was donated to the state of New Jersey and has since been re-named Edison, near New Brunswick.

The company was founded by naval architect Lewis Nixon in 1915 to manufacture cellulose nitrate, besides the production of celluloid, this factory used to supply some European nations with gunpowder and other materials for World War 1. When the war ended, these facilities were put to broader uses, were involving other explosive materials and dangerous chemicals The nitrate made the material highly flammable, but at the works cellulose nitrate was maintained in large sheets and had been piled in buildings. Within the works, Nixon leased a building to the Ammonite Company which was salvaging the contents of artillery shells for use as agriculture fertilizer. When the Ammonite building exploded, the shock was felt and the sound heard as far away as Manhattan and Brooklyn. After the initial explosion massive fires spread to other buildings.

Additionally, On March 1, 1924, an explosion, likely originating from an Ammonite Company building within the works that was processing ammonium nitrate from artillery shells, triggered a fire that spread rapidly through the surrounding building The disaster resulted in at least 20 deaths, with dozens more injured, many suffering from severe burns, inhalation of toxic fumes, and blunt force trauma from collapsing buildings and flying debris. Some victims were never recovered due to the intensity of the blast. The explosion leveled approximately 40 buildings within the chemical plant, reducing the once-thriving industrial hub to rubble. Fires burned for hours, fueled by volatile chemicals, making it nearly impossible for firefighters to contain the blaze immediately. Nearby factories and homes were also damaged due to the shockwave and subsequent fires. The explosion released toxic chemicals into the air and local waterways, contaminating soil and water supplies. Given the lack of environmental regulations at the time, the full extent of the damage was not immediately addressed, but the effects likely persisted for years.

The History

The workplace accidents/deaths are connected to how harsh the environment was in the workplace during the 1920s. The United States of America during the 1920s was in the revolutionary era when big factories, industrial work, construction, mining, oil rigs, mechanics, soldiers, hard labor, and big-name companies started to rise. All men had to go to work every day to survive and yet most men died at their jobs in the 1920s. Additionally, workplace injuries/deaths were common, and, in many cases, labor conditions were nothing less than grueling. Moreover, the main cause of death was not because of the jobs, they were due to exposure to harsh/deadly chemicals to the body. People were not as knowledgeable as today and many resources we have today they did not have 100 years ago. For example, men who worked in the mines all died due to Tuberculosis and lung cancer for not having the right oxygen mask protection. Mining is one of the deadliest industries, with cave-ins, explosions, and toxic gas exposure causing many deaths. Factories and manufacturing plants also had unsafe machinery with little to no protective measures, leading to crushing, amputations, and fatal injuries. Additionally, the 1920s had very unsafe workplace safety, leading to early labor protections, but this did not change until stricter regulations and enforcement significantly reduced workplace fatalities, like OSHA, ASSP, ANSI, and CSB. These organizations were designed to protect workers from unsafe work environments. During the 1920s, the jobs were extremely limited when it came to women. Additionally, women were only allowed to work as nurses and teachers during the 1920s but given this, women were not exposed to harsh workplace environments as men did.

In the book, The Modern Temper chapter three mentions how the country was expanding to the consumer culture in the late 1920s causing many new jobs to arise for the automobile factories due to its 3.7 million car production number. Chapter 3 mentioned how in the 1930s the American Federation of Labor was extremely focused on the labor movement and making the work environment safer. Furthermore, the AFL association was extremely racist because it did not help Mexicans, African Americans, Asians, and women. The connection this book has with Nixon’s Nitration Work is about the industrial expansion of evolution in factories and construction. The Nixon Nitration Company was founded by Lewis Nixon in 1915. The factories manufacture cellulose nitrate and the production of celluloid and other early plastics. The nitrate made the material highly flammable, and the cellulose nitrate was supported in large sheets and had been piled in buildings. There was an explosion that started in one of the buildings, and the fire spread taking down a few nearby buildings along with 20 people’s lives. All those chemical materials stored together made the fire spread much quicker. Additionally, this is just one of the many accidents that happened during the 1920s due to unsafe procedures in the workplace.

Map

Over time, the site of the Nixon Nitration Works was redeveloped, with much of the area now consisting of residential and commercial properties. The industrial nature of Nixon faded as Edison, NJ, transformed into a suburban community. Additionally, In 1951, the company downsized and donated 48 acres of land and a dam to the city of New Brunswick. The site of the Nixon Works is now a part of Middlesex County College and the Raritan Center Industrial Park.

The End of the accident

The Nixon Nitration Works disaster of 1924 remains a significant event in the history of industrial accidents in the United States. It was a tragedy that claimed lives, devastated a community, and exposed critical weaknesses in industrial safety procedures. The explosion exposed the dangers associated with chemical manufacturing and the need for better safety measures to protect workers and the public. Additionally, this heartbreaking event ultimately contributed to the evolution of industrial safety regulations and environmental protection policies. Today, industries operate under much stricter guidelines, reducing the likelihood of similar catastrophes. The lessons from the Nixon Nitration Works explosion continue to be relevant, serving as a reminder that safety must always be a top priority in hazardous industries.

Citations

Bibliography

“March 03, 1924 – Topics on Newspapers.com.” Topics, www.newspapers.com/topics/century-ago-today/march-1924/march-03-1924/.

‌“1924 Nixon Nitration Works Disaster.” Wikipedia, 1 Oct. 2023, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1924_Nixon_Nitration_Works_disaster.

‌

In 1924 the United States passed the Johnson-Reed Immigration Act that drastically decreased the number of immigrants allowed into the U.S. through the implementation of a quota system. The Immigration Act established both the Visa process and was the beginning stricter border security protocols being introduced. The quota system disproportionately favored Western countries in Europe as countries such as the United Kingdom received higher quotas, whereas Southern and Eastern European countries received stricter quotas. The document “Letter Regarding the Immigration Act of 1924” was written by Portugeese-American Manuel S. Amaral in 1925 as a response to the quota set on immigrants from Portugal. The Immigration Act granted Portugal a total of 440 immigrants per fiscal year to be allowed to enter the United States. Authored on behalf of 200,000 Portugeese-American citizens living in California, Amaral requests the U.S. government amend the Immigration Act to allow more Portugeese to enter the country. The letter was sent to James J. Davis who served as the U.S. Secretary of Labor from 1921 to 1930. Under this role Davis was responsible for carrying out the actions established by the Immigration Act. 

I selected this document because of its significance to the Immigration Act of 1924 and showcases how American immigrants resisted the act throughout the 1920s. The letter offers insight into the Portugeese-American experience in California and presents arguments against the quota act through the lense of immigrant farmers out West.

Document

Document Text

Hon. James J. Davis,¹

Dept. of Labor,

Washington, D.C.

November 25, 1925.

Dear Sirs:

In the name of 200,000 Portugese people, citizens of California, we beg to enlist your endeavour to have amended the Immigration Act, which limits the admission into this country to 500 Portugese each year. Or if this means of solving the pressing problem be impracticable to find some other way to overcome the hardship which this limitation  places upon one or more of California’s leading industries.

We beg to remind you that approximately 90 per cent of the Portuguese population in California came from the Azores and Madeira Islands. They emigrated to California to make their homes, rear their families, live the lives of good citizens and to educate their children to follow in their footsteps. They are an industrious, frugal, home-loving people and comprise and one of the most useful and patriotic elements of our composite population. There is not a more law-abiding class of citizens in our State or one that is more uniformly contributive to substantial development of its basic industries and the spiritual, social and material advancement of the commonwealth.

In the great Valleys of the State, in the foothills and plains, the Portuguese people will be found successfully engaged in diversified agriculture, truck farming, dairying and horticulture. They have reclaimed the virgin land and developed it to that high state of productivity which contributes so largely to the wealth of the State and the Nation. They have clung to the soil, and constitute one of the greatest and most dependable factors in the conservation of the most important of all California industries- the farm.

Many of the largest dairies in the State are operated by the Portugese who are naturally adapted to that line of work, as experience proves. There are approximately 3,500 Portugese dairies in California and the labor involved is in large measure performed by the families  of the owners. In the face of existing labor conditions, it would be utterly impossible to replace these workers with other help. Americans of other racial extractions cannot be induced to labor in the various agricultural pursuits, especially in the arduous work of the dairy, despite the high wages prevailing. This is patent to anyone familiar with the situation in all lines of agricultural operation.

With the immigration quota as low as that now permitted to Portugal, our Portuguese farmers and dairymen find it impossible to overcome the losses and wastage of the necessary help to continue their business, from other available sources.

We appeal, therefore, to out California representatives in the Congress to use their best endeavors to relieve a condition that threatens thousands of out Portugese farmers- these industrious and constructive citizens from The Azores and Madeira Islands- and their families, with financial ruin and a loss annually to the State and Nation of millions of dollars. Whether this relief comes from the admittance of more willing and competent workers in this field from Portugal or through other means is immaterial so long as the essential objective is attained.

May we ask you, therefore, to give this vital problem to the best interests of the foremost industry of California the serious consideration that it deserves?

Respectfully yours,

Mr Manuel S. Amaral

Citations and Sources

Letter to James J. Davis, Department of Labor, from Portuguese Citizens of California Regarding the Immigration Act of 1924; 11/25/1925, Records of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Record Group 85; National Archives Building, Washington, D.C. https://www.docsteach.org/documents/document/letter-immigration-act-1924

The Immigration Act of 1924(brief overview): https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/immigration-act

Lauren S

Senior History and American Studies student at Ramapo College of New Jersey enrolled in Discovering Digital History course taught by Dr. Hajo during Spring 2021.

Following the end of World War I, The United States had adopted an isolationist mindset in regards to international affairs. This meant that the U.S. government would aim to strengthen its borders and focus more on domestic matters than getting involved in the businesses of Europe. While fears of Communism in the East were spreading across the country, immigration became a major issue for Americans. The Johnson-Reed Immigration Act was a response to the increased hostility towards immigrants and is a document which placed numerical restrictions on immigration from certain countries along with establishing what we know today as the Visa process in order to legally reside in the country. 

Before the Act

Prior to the Immigration Act being passed by Congress, it is important to understand how the United States was experiencing immigration and what attitudes towards immigrants were. Throughout the late 19th century and early 20th century the U.S. experienced a wave of immigration, largely in cities where unskilled labor work was readily available. In 1917 Congress passed one of its first restrictive laws on immigration that included a literacy test to be performed before entering the country, it increased taxes for new immigrants and gave more power to border officials on who should and should not enter the United States. The 1917 act also excluded all immigrants from anyone born in Asia, except Japan and the Philippines.

Despite the U.S. government establishing new barriers to limit immigration numbers, the 1917 act was not enough to prevent new immigrants from entering the country. It was during the 1920s that the idea of implementing quotas was brought up as a method in which immigration could be hindered. Republican Senator William P. Dillingham introduced action of setting a three percent rule on all forign born citizens of the United States. This would mean that passed on the percentages taken from the previous census, only a specific number of Visas would be granted for each country. Dillingham’s policy was established in 1922 and would continue to be praised until 1924 when the Johnson-Reed Act made some changes to the quota system that greatly shifted the narrative of immigration for the following decades.

The Immigration Act of 1924

So what changed in 1924? While the major point of using a quota system to limit immigration remained intact, there were some changes regarding exactly how many of each ethnicity was allowed into the U.S. Another change was that the previous measure from 1917 that excluded immigration from the far East and Asia would now include immigrants from Japan. 

As a result of increasing the calculations of Americans of British descent, the quotas for The United Kingdom and other countries in Western Europe increased, while Southern and Eastern European countries saw a decrease in available Visas. In the act there are dramatic jumps between countries such as Greece who have a 307 immigrant quota restriction and Germany who has an allowed quota of 25,957. These differences not only restricted the overall number of immigrants coming from those countries, but also who was most likely to be granted citizenship. In countries with severely restricted quotas such as Egypt(100), Armenia(100), Turkey(226) those of higher status and more educated would be more likely to gain one of the allotted hundred spots available. The disproportions of the quotas highlighted the racialized system of achieving citizenship in the U.S. Through the law nationality was able to remain designated for white Europeans who fit in with Western values. 

Japan

The Immigration Act of 1924 greatly angered the Japanese. This is because in 1907 the Japanese government had made an agreement with then president Theodore Roosevelt which included an increased quota for Japan given that the country makes an effort to restrict its own citizens from leaving. Yet the 1924 act neglected the agreement in favor of severe restrictions at a loss to Japan, causing the Japanese government to lose respect for American leadership. 

Public Perception

In general the American public was pretty split on the issue of Immigration during the 1920s. While many naturalized citizens supported the act as they believed their job opportunities had dwindled due to new immigrants, there were also those who felt that the principals on which America was founded upon were being thrown away. World War I had a great impact on identity politics and increased nationalism within the U.S., making something like the Johnson-Reed Act appear to be in favor of maintaining America’s national identity. Fear of the “other” coming from Communist Eastern Europe or Asia caused many to support a more restrictive policy on who was able to enter the country. 

There was this idea that immigrants from the South or East would have a more difficult time adjusting to American customs and way of life. There was also the belief that they would bring unfamiliar traditions or traits into American society. There was an increased stigma about anyone from countries with a predominantly Jewish or Muslim population and those with starkly different racialized features that stood out against the white majority. 

Mapping the Johnson-Reed Immigration Act

The 1920s

The Johnson-Reed Immigration Act of 1924 is a product of its decade and a result of the uncertainty many felt as they entered into the 20th century. While many Americans supported the act in favor of an isolationist mindset, the act is a reminder of how immigration policies are reflective of the society that makes them. Despite the artistic and technological revolutions of the 1920s, there was still incredible prejudice against immigrants from Asia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and South America. The Immigration Act of 1924 is an example of how the United States government continued to look inward during the 1920s, instead of embracing the global landscape surrounding them. The restrictions placed during the decade have implications that continue to be felt in the 21st century as attitudes about Visa status and citizenship are continued to be debated along racial and ethnic lines.

Significance

The legacy of the Johnson-Reed Act can be seen in a heightened border security system and a more regulated Visa process. The ethnic makeup of the country is a direct result of immigration policies which allowed for increased quotas for Western European countries. It is also a foundation that sets a standard for who is deemed a greater asset to American society, and which group of people is undesired by the government. Although a bill like the Johnson-Reed Act could never be passed in 2021, discussions about physical walls and militarized border security have roots stemming from the immigration policy of the 1920s.

I chose this topic because I believe it is important to understand the lasting impact on historical policies and note how certain legal measures can still be felt today. As the world continues to grow more interconnected it is essential to reflect on how immigration policy impacts our views on certain cultures and ethnicities in order to move forward in favor of more inclusive measures that are not based on racial, political or xenophobic foundations.

Citations

Ngai, Mae M. “The Architecture of Race in American Immigration Law: A Reexamination of the Immigration Act of 1924.” The Journal of American History 86, no. 1 (1999): 67-92. Accessed April 19, 2021. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2567407 

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. Accessed April 19, 2021. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25162123. 

Jaret, Charles. “Troubled by Newcomers: Anti-Immigrant Attitudes and Action during Two Eras of Mass Immigration to the United States.” Journal of American Ethnic History 18, no. 3 (1999): 9-39. Accessed April 19, 2021. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27502448. 

Milestones: 1921- 1936: https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/immigration-act

Library of Congress: https://www.loc.gov/item/uscode1925-003008006/

President Calvin Coolidge signs into law the Immigration Act of 1924: https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/coolidge-signs-stringent-immigration-law

The 1924 Law That Slammed the Door on Immigrants and the Politicians Who Pushed it Back Open: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1924-law-slammed-door-immigrants-and-politicians-who-pushed-it-back-open-180974910/

Closing the Door on Immigration: https://www.nps.gov/articles/closing-the-door-on-immigration.htm

Lauren S

Senior History and American Studies student at Ramapo College of New Jersey enrolled in Discovering Digital History course taught by Dr. Hajo during Spring 2021.