The textbook From Colony to World Power was written less than two decades after the end of the 1920s, and almost exclusively focuses on political history. In the aftermath of World War II, the isolationist and nationalist movements that grew exponentially during the 1920s were relevant to public discourse once again. This is reflected in how frequently the textbook discusses the League of Nations, and the chaos of European politics after World War I. From an educational perspective in 1947, it would have seemed exceptionally important to teach students of American history that the country had been entangled in international war once before, and had come out the other side without the economic or physical destruction that was wrought upon the old world.

This focus on drawing a continuous historical line between World War I and World War II allows the textbook to avoid covering cultural and demographic developments during the 1920s, which were not considered important to educational narratives in 1947. It is only in a post-Civil Rights Movement world in which authors began to dedicate space to the activities of minority communities during the early 20th century. As noted by David J. Goldberg, topics such as the Harlem Renaissance and rural-urban migration are thoroughly discussed in books from the 1970s and 1990s, whereas American literature from the 1920s receives historical praise as soon as the 1930s.¹

From the perspective of the 2004 edition of The American Pageant, the 1920s is a time period where the very makeup of American society was radically changed. Regardless of the geopolitical storm that was brewing in the interwar era, new patterns of migration and evolving concepts of the government’s role in the daily lives of citizens fundamentally redefined the nation’s identity. The book also covers negative aspects of this time period with more earnestness. The KKK, anti-radicalism, and religious intolerance all have their own section within the chapter on the 1920s, and are directly juxtaposed with discussions of economic prosperity.² Also, concepts such as the rise of consumerism and the modern corporation are placed in the larger political and economic context of the decade. In the textbook from 1947 these aspects of 1920s American society are mentioned, but are not treated with as much historical significance as in 2004. These broader cultural trends had not yet been thoroughly analyzed in 1947, and in many ways were still developing.

By the 21st century, historians and textbook authors had constructed a new canon of what aspects of society were integral to American history, and this new ideological framework rebalanced political and cultural topics. Goldberg notes this shifting focus to more holistic representations of the United States during the 1920s, and writes that the new framework creates “a fuller and more well-rounded portrait of a society where class, ethnic, racial, regional, political, and cultural divisions remained quite sharp.”³ As the function and focus of American history is reshaped by subsequent social climates, the significance of the 1920s will undoubtedly fluctuate accordingly in textbooks.

1. David J. Goldberg, “Rethinking the 1920s: Historians and Changing Perspectives,” OAH Magazine of History 21, no. 3 (July 2007): 10. ︎
2. Thomas A. Bailey, David Kennedy, and Lizabeth Cohen, The American Pageant (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2004), 783-784. ︎
3. Goldberg, “Rethinking the 1920s,” 7. ︎

Chris Flug

A senior at Ramapo College, majoring in American Studies and minoring in Anthropology.

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

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

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

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

Foot Notes

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

Biography

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

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

faythe

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

Noggle

               Noggle is a historiographer who wrote “The Twenties: A New Historiographical Frontier” in 1966, which was published to the Journal of American History. In this text, Noggle demonstrates the transcendence of the idea of an isolated decade through the introduction of new avenues that historiographers looked to. To back up his titular point, Noggle points to historian John Spencer Bassett, who wrote on the context of the United States, saying that “The country craved rest” from the war. This goes along with the view being reported by historians, saying that the 20s were an isolated decade in American history due to World War I. Noggle also points to historian Fredrick Lewis Allen who classified 1919-1929 as a unique segment of American history.[1]

Noggle points readers to the historical events such as World War II and the New Deal that came after the 20s, both of which expanded on the idea of an isolated decade in interesting ways. Noggle ends the passage by quoting historian Arthur S. Link calling the 20s a frontier, saying that the 20s are now being studied with sources, rather than the memory of the decade that pervaded the minds of historians for decades. [2]

Fronc

               Fronc is a historiographer who wrote “The 1920s—A Historiographical Survey” in 2018. Fronc treats the 1920s much differently from how Noggle had previously treated it, as there were many new revisions and updates to the historiography of this decade. Fronc begins by quoting Noggle on the idea of 50s historians following the idea of the 1920s as an isolated decade. Fronc turns to the modern era, where there is a multicultural approach used in the 20s, unlike what was published before. Fronc includes multiple examples of writings from the 21^st century that cover women’s suffrage, which was left out of the old historiography. Fronc includes the idea of the “new woman”, a relatively new concept that is present in all modern-day studies of the 1920s.[3]  Additionally, Fronc turns to African American history as another previously unexplored avenue during the mid-20^th century.

The Harlem Renaissance is the focus of Fronc, including examples from texts such as When Harlem was in Vogue and Black Women and the Re-Construction of American History.[4] Lastly, Fronc moves to immigration history, where much of the marginalization of immigrants was left out of the historiography previously. One common theme among the topics in Fronc’s paper is their controversial nature, as representation of marginalized groups had made little progress during the writings of historians like Noggle.

Conclusion

               There is a clear difference between the writings of historians from the 20^th and 21^st centuries. Probably the most important distinction between the two is the approach of the two, with historians from Noggle’s writing covering the mystified culture of the 20s, while the writings from Fronc’s writing covering marginalized groups.

[1] Noggle, Burl. “The Twenties: A New Historiographical Frontier.” The Journal of American History 53, no. 2 (1966): 300

[2] Noggle, Burl. “The Twenties: A New Historiographical Frontier.” The Journal of American History 53, no. 2 (1966): 314

[3] Jennifer Fronc. “The 1920s—A Historiographical Survey.” 17

[4] Jennifer Fronc. “The 1920s—A Historiographical Survey.” 18-19

Bibliography:

Fronc, Jennifer. “The 1920s—A Historiographical Survey.” 15-24

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

dthomson

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

Both Noggle and Goldberg begin by discussing Only Yesterday by Frederick Lewis Allen. They both identify it as the first significant contribution to the history of the 1920s. This book was published after the 1920s. This makes it important because it is a direct reaction to the decade. During this time, most interpretations portrayed the 1920s as a distinct period of isolationism in response to World War I. The weariness of reforms was seen as a result of exhaustion from WWI.¹ This early view of the 1920s seems similar to how the average person today might view the decade. Many view the 1920s as a time that celebrated the end of the war. This is why it has gained the reputation of being a time when people were concerned with fun and becoming prosperous.

Noggle states that historians did not challenge Allen’s interpretation much. He argues that this is largely because no historian believed him to be wrong. Noggle and Goldberg both agree that Allen’s interpretation survived without much revisionism. Instead of challenging Allen’s interpretation, historians chose to explore new questions and topics regarding the decade. Noggle proceeds to discuss the popularity of analyzing the economics of the 1920s. This makes sense to me considering the Great Depression of the 1930s. Studying the economic history of the 1920s could be seen as a way to find answers to what led to the Great Depression. Beginning in the late 1940s, Noggle notes a new focus in international politics, biographies of politicians, and presidential elections. Historians’ interest in international politics peaked during the 1950s.² This also makes sense to me considering it is after World War II. During World War II, the United States was even more involved in the war compared to its late entry into World War I. I believe that this would have ignited an interest in the international politics of the 1920s. This is different from the isolationist perspective of the decade.

Writing in the 1960s, Noggle discusses the new topics being discussed during his time. Historians were becoming interested in the Ku Klux Klan and how it correlated with issues like prohibition, rural life, and fundamentalism. Goldberg builds on this by examining books written from the 1970s through the early 2000s. He mentions Women of the Klan: Racism and Gender in the 1920s (1991), which is a more gender-focused approach by analyzing women’s involvement.³ This shift reflects an interest in women’s history. In addition, Goldberg mentions books that discuss racial issues. This includes the whiteness of European immigrants and the lives of African Americans. This shift makes sense considering the growing interest in diverse or underrepresented groups that one would assume emerged after the 1960s.

Reading Noggle and Goldberg’s historiographies, it is clear that historians introduced new historical topics and revisions during Noggle’s time. A debate that Noggle states intrigued him was the debate regarding reforms of the 1920s. This included studies regarding the progressivism and social welfare movements of the decade. With my knowledge of the ’60s, I know that social reform movements, like Women’s Liberation and Civil Rights, were gaining traction. This influenced historians and their choice of focus within the history of many historical subjects. The Women’s Liberation Movement influenced a new interest in studying women’s history. During the 1920s, many social welfare movements were led by women. This explains why it may have begun to gain attention during Noggle’s time of writing his historiography. This example demonstrates why studying the way history is written throughout periods of times is important. The history of history can reveal why certain perspectives, interpretations, and subjects are introduced. It gives meaningful context and reveals society’s thought processes during different decades.

Bibliography

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

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

“Cover of Discontented America: The United States in the 1920s by David J. Goldberg.” Photograph. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999. https://www.amazon.com/Discontented-America-United-States-American/dp/0801860059.

Noggle, Burl. Teapot Dome: Oil and Politics in the 1920s. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1965. Book cover. https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FTeapot-Dome-Oil-Politics-1920s%2Fdp%2F0393002977&psig=AOvVaw0qiN8rKYTryGnC8MwH4-B0&ust=1746075231044000&source=images&cd=vfe&opi=89978449&ved=0CBcQjhxqFwoTCKjojaH7_owDFQAAAAAdAAAAABAE

Allender, Nina E. Political cartoon on the cover of the July 28, 1923, issue of Equal Rights. July 28, 1923. National Woman’s Party Records, Box OV:41. Manuscript Division, Library of Congress.

“Washington State Senate Roll Call Sheet for the Equal Rights Amendment, March 22, 1973.” Photograph. Courtesy of Washington State Archives. https://www.historylink.org/file/22674.

Citations

1. Burl Noggle, “The Twenties: A New Historiographical Frontier,” The Journal of American History 53, no. 2 (1966): 299, https://doi.org/10.2307/1894201. ︎
2. Noggle, “The Twenties,” 302. ︎
3. David J. Goldberg, “Rethinking the 1920s: Historians and Changing Perspectives,” OAH Magazine of History 21, no. 3 (2007): 9, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25162122. ︎

grlynn

Grlynn is a Ramapo College senior majoring in history

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

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

Comparing & Contrasting

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

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

Historiographical Changes

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

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

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

Bibliography

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

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

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

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

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

stefanieviera

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

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

Comparison

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

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

Historiographical Changes Over Time

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

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

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

hannahsteinlauf

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

Kansas City

While most people associate the beginnings of Disney with cartoons such as Steamboat Willie, the journey of the studio actually began over 5 years prior to the creation of Mickey Mouse in 1928. It is well known of the founding date of the Disney Brothers Studio on October 16, 1923, but if any person were asked about it, the details of it event and what occurred would be lost. Not only that, but this event’s relation to the entertainment industry in the 1920s plays an important role in the growth of the Disney company far into the future. From technological advancements by combining cartoons and live-action film, the optimism and drive to follow any opportunity that came about, and social details regarding who would be working in the industry at the time, the founding of the Disney company gives more insight into the 1920s than many are aware. Starting in 1923, the road to Disney’s success was just beginning. In the midst of the 1920s with increased production and growth in the entertainment industry, it was almost too perfect of a time for Walt and Roy Disney to start their own studio that would become beloved for years to come. 

Twenty-one year old Walt and four-year old Virginia Davis in a scene from Alice’s Wonderland in 1923.

“We have just discovered something new and clever in animated cartoons! The first subject of this distinctly different series is now in production, and will require a few more weeks more for completion. It is a new idea that will appeal to all classes, and is bound to be a winner, because it is a clever combination of live characters and cartoons, not like “Out of the Inkwell” or Earl Hurd’s, but of an entirely different nature, using a cast of live child actors who carry on their action on cartoon scenes with cartoon characters. These new subjects will be a full reel in length, and can be released in regular intervals of two weeks or a month. However, before you go any further into the matter, we desire that you see some of our former work, so you may appreciate the quality the same. We ask that you get in touch with Mr. W.R. Kelly, of Pictorial Clubs Inc., 350 Madison Ave., New York City, and he will gladly screen several of our [Laugh-O-gram fairy tale] subjects for you. We will not try to explain to tell you any more about this new idea; instead, we will send you a print upon completion of the first one, if you so desire.” (Letter from Walt Disney to M.J. Winkler, from Walt Before Mickey, Disney’s Early Years 1919-1928, Timothy S. Susanin)

Margaret J. Winkler, played a key role in the foundation of the Disney company. She started her own company at 26, becoming established in the animation industry and one of very few female film distributors. Winkler handled press releases, promotional campaigns, advertising, and distributing animations. She was an important figure in animation history as the first woman to produce and distribute films. 

Despite her initial interest in the animation, Walt pulled back, having not completed the series to send out, and his company struggled even further until it was eventually bankrupt. Nonetheless, the film was completed and ran for twelve minutes and twenty-five seconds. 

However, even after completing the film with Virginia Davis, many of the deals and work he was getting kept falling through. It seemed to prove that all the opportunities in Kansas City were exhausted. Even his brother Roy suggested that he move to Los Angeles, and in the summer of 1923, Disney decided to go to Hollywood when he was just twenty-two years old.

Los Angeles

Walt was satisfied with his decision to move to Los Angeles stating that “the pull toward Hollywood became strong. Animation was big there, and if [he] couldn’t be successful at that, [he] wanted to be a director or a writer.”¹ L.A. was an obvious choice for opportunities in film and animation as it quickly became the film capital in the United States. After arriving in L.A., Walt did not have his own place to stay and work on his animations. He instead moved in with his uncle, Robert Disney. 

“In the past, all cartoons combining live characters have been produced in an amateur manner with cartoonists doing the acting, photographing, etc. It is my intention to employ only trained and experienced people for my casts and staff that I may inject quality humor, photography, and detail into these comedies. I would appreciate an interview with your representative here that I may screen several comedies and explain my new idea.” (Letter from Walt Disney to M.J. Winkler, from Walt Before Mickey, Disney’s Early Years 1919-1928, Timothy S. Susanin)

The Staff of Disney Brothers Studio, taken outside the Kingswell Avenue location.

Walt almost immediately accepted this deal, even reaching out to Margaret Davis, the mother of Virginia Davis, to star her in the series and that it would be an opportunity for her to work in Hollywood. He offered her a one-year contract, one in which she accepted very promptly as she planned to go to Hollywood in the first place for more opportunities for Virginia. The first short produced in Los Angeles was Alice’s Day at Sea in November, shortly after Virginia Davis and her parents made the move to California in 1923. 

The Alice Comedies after being distributed by Winkler.

Significance in the 1920s

The period of the 1920s had a significant impact on Disney’s studio being established. Around the 1920s animation had many issues with being distributed. Movie theaters were mostly focused on showing live-action films and did not want to spend money on preliminary animations that would be shown before the featured film. The entire film industry in the U.S. was very quickly changing and growing, not just the animation industry. Animation studios primarily stayed in the New York area, but meanwhile the rest of the film industry was moving west towards California, especially Hollywood. Many studios made the move in the early 1900s due to good weather conditions, good natural light, and inexpensive costs. By the 1920s the Hollywood area became the capital of the U.S. film industry. Animation did become a part of the Hollywood film business shortly after though. Walt Disney was not immune to the urge to go to Hollywood with this quick rise in business in California. Especially since at the time, the rise of popularity in leisure and watching movies grew within American culture. 

The 1920s show the emergence of America as a consumer culture. It highlights the way in which people turned to leisure and consumption to find satisfaction in life, which included going to see movies in theaters. This turn towards leisure activity is what Walt Disney was also able to capitalize on at the time with starting his business in animation. Hollywood also rapidly turned into a cultural symbol along with being the center of entertainment. It was considered glamorous, exciting, and with new emerging technological advancements in film and animation, was considered the place to go for aspiring directors, writers, and actors. The Alice Comedies series, as a part of Disney’s work at the time, shows not only the progression of technology and entertainment by combining live-action and animation, but also the appeal of said entertainment to the public as it grew in popularity. 

Many movies were made to appeal to the general public as an audience, this included animated cartoons and films. Audiences were often made up of both adults and children, and the themes shown in films were aimed at both older and younger viewers. Especially as changes in the film and animation industry shifted as social attitudes, context, and events occurred in the U.S. With societal changes that film themes followed, the workers and distributors behind these films were relevant for the 1920s and Disney’s start. Margaret Winkler, as previously stated, was one of few female distributors and even went on to start her own company. Even after her involvement in her company declined after getting married, she still made important decisions that impacted the development of many animated series. Acceptance of women in this industry was not common and that they were a threat to their positions. As stated by The Boston Traveler, “one of the few remaining fields in which you have not had to face feminine competition is being invaded… by a woman distributor!”⁴ However Winkler considered the ambitions a woman may have to be in the film industry, the opportunities presented from these ambitions, and that “there is no reason why she shouldn’t be able to conduct business as well as the men.”⁵ At the time, while women were starting to make up more of the workforce slowly, they still only made up about 20%. Most of the opportunities that women did work were often “feminine”, had lower wages, and less opportunities to grow to a higher position of work. So Margaret Winkler playing such a key role by proposing the contract to Disney to distribute his work as an initial chance in Hollywood, sheds light on one of the women that was part of societal shifts in regards to gender inequality, specifically in the film industry.

Citations

Footnotes

1. Walt Before Mickey, Disney’s Early Years 1919-1928, Timothy S. Susanin ︎
2. Letter from M.J. Winkler to Walt Disney, from Walt Before Mickey, Disney’s Early Years 1919-1928, Timothy S. Susanin ︎
3. Walt Before Mickey, Disney’s Early Years 1919-1928, Timothy S. Susanin
   ︎
4. Margaret J. Winkler – Women Film Pioneers Project. ︎
5. Margaret J. Winkler – Women Film Pioneers Project. ︎

Bibliography

1. Arnold, Gordon B. 2017. Animation and the American Imagination : A Brief History. Santa Barbara, California: Praeger.
2. J Michael Barrier. 2008. The Animated Man : A Life of Walt Disney. Berkeley ; London: University Of California Press.
3. Susanin, Timothy S. 2014. Walt before Mickey : Disney’s Early Years, 1919-1928. Jackson: University Press Of Mississippi.
4. Walt Disney Archives. n.d. “Disney History.” D23. Disney. https://d23.com/disney-history/.
5. Magazine, Smithsonian, and Kat Eschner. n.d. “Walt Disney’s First ‘Princess’ Was a Spunky Four-Year-Old.” Smithsonian Magazine. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/walt-disneys-first-princess-was-spunky-four-year-old-1-180967392/.
6. Dumenil, Lynn. 1995. The Modern Temper : American Culture and Society in the 1920s. New York: Hill And Wang.
7. “Margaret Winkler: First Female Film Distributor | the Walt Disney Family Museum.” Www.waltdisney.org, www.waltdisney.org/blog/margaret-winkler-first-female-film-distributor.
8. “Margaret J. Winkler – Women Film Pioneers Project.” Wfpp.columbia.edu, wfpp.columbia.edu/pioneer/margaret-j-winkler/.
9. Sohrab. 2023. “Here’s How a Four-Page Contract Started the Walt Disney Company – D23.” D23. October 16, 2023. https://d23.com/heres-how-a-four-page-contract-started-the-walt-disney-company/.
10. Featured Image: “Take a Look Back at Disney in the Year 1923.” 2014. D23. March 6, 2014. https://d23.com/a-walk-with-walt-disney-1923/.

jbaham

Jordyn Baham is a senior at Ramapo College studying Photography with a minor in Museum and Exhibition Studies. She takes the Discovering Digital History class in Spring 2025.

Historian John Higham, in his own words, aimed to provide “a semi autonomous scope for belief and emotions” with his book Strangers in the Land. This was a unique goal at the time, as many historians preferred remaining objective in the face of human emotional culture, and still do. Higham advocated for moral engagement within historical analysis. That is what made his work so groundbreaking. However, his thesis is not solely based on the scope of beliefs and emotions; he classified them as cultural factors in history worthy of consideration. The main thesis of the book surrounds the concept of nativism; a subgenre of nationalism, it is the fear of outsiders disrupting the dominant culture of the nation. Higham argued that nativism is rooted in ideas like anti-catholicism, anti-immigration, and racism. The way this concept spread or remained contained depended on economic, political, and cultural factors of the time. In essence, nativism has a “double it and pass it on” quality to it. 

“The resumption of immigration, the onset of depression, a wave of crime – each of these formed a part of a social pattern shaped by a return to peace, and all three had precedents in the circumstances of earlier peacetime eras in which nativism flourished.”

Higham, John. “Chapter Ten: The Tribal Twenties.” Essay. In Strangers in the Land, 268. Eighth Paperback Printing, 2008. New Brunswick , NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1955.

The monograph analyzed the effects of nativist conviction on the United States of America during years 1860-1925. Chapter ten of the book specifically hones in on the 1920s, the chapter is titled, “The Tribal Twenties.” In summary, Higham delineated the 1920s as an unstoppable culmination of nativist and nationalist beliefs. He did an excellent job highlighting the sheer hypocrisy and irony of those convicted in nativism. The interpretation of the 1920s within this chapter is largely applicable in today’s society. Overall Strangers in the Land has not yet been majorly challenged by other scholars. On the contrary it has been continuously built upon.

Significance

During the 1950s, the consensus perspective dominated historiography scholarship. The aim of consensus historiography was preserving traditional viewpoints and emphasizing unity through American values. This era witnessed the civil rights movement which combatted the narrative consensus historiography pushed. The social conflict of the 1950s provoked much thought amongst historians and other scholars. In Higham’s case specifically, bearing witness to the effects social conditions had on his present reality ignited reflection into the social conditions of the civil war through to the roaring twenties. He was not alone in his reflection, however his analysis is by far the most profound. He was a progressive historian within a field dominated by conservative historians. 

“The Klan’s snowballing advance in the early twenties paralleled the upthrust of racial nativism in public opinion generally. And within the order an insistence on preserving the superiority of the old Anglo-Saxon stock over foreigners of every description became pronounced.”

Higham, John. “Chapter Ten: The Tribal Twenties.” Essay. In Strangers in the Land, 291. Eighth Paperback Printing, 2008. New Brunswick , NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1955.

For instance, Higham analyzes the conception of the KKK or “the Klan” and the role they played in 1920s American society. He describes them as home grown terrorists without specifically using those terms. What’s considered profound about his take in this instance, in the opinion of this author, is how the rise of the Klan was more or less a direct result of post WWI social conditions. Higham illustrated this claim through other circumstances throughout chapter ten, but his focus on the KKK demonstrates the universal quality of his thesis. Higham’s dissection of the KKK in the 1920s served to illustrate another extreme way nativism re-emerged and immensely impacted society. It simultaneously provided context for 1950s America, in the thick of the civil rights movement. Conservative consensus historians of the 1950s aimed to unite the American public by enforcing a narrative which overlooked the dark, negative aspects of past American societies that Higham desired to highlight. It’s no coincidence that his analysis begins with the Civil War. 

“The secret of their success, however, lay essentially in the mood and circumstances of 1920. The whole complex of factors – depression, prohibition, and immigration; disillusion, isolationism, and reaction- that shunted 100 percent Americanism into the older nativistic channels contributed to the Klan’s growth.”

Higham, John. “Chapter Ten: The Tribal Twenties.” Essay. In Strangers in the Land, 289. Eighth Paperback Printing, 2008. New Brunswick , NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1955.

Bringing Higham’s thesis on nativism further, the points made in this monograph are food for thought as the “Alt-Right” is rising in the United States. Nativist, anti-immigration, racist sentiments are building up again within American society. In a way Higham predicted this, as mentioned earlier nativism has a “double it and pass it on” quality. It will go away for a while and re-emerge stronger than before. Readers seeking deeper understanding of the 1920s, or any era of American history from 1860 to the present, will get just that through the concepts presented within Strangers in the Land.

Bibliography

Bodnar, John. Review of Culture without Power: A Review of John Higham’s Strangers in the Land, by John Higham. Journal of American Ethnic History 10, no. 1/2 (1990): 81 http://www.jstor.org/stable/27500801.

Higham, John. “Chapter Ten: The Tribal Twenties.” Essay. In Strangers in the Land, 264–99. Eighth Paperback Printing, 2008. New Brunswick , NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1955.

Michelle Steidle

Michelle Steidle is a History Major at Ramapo College, graduating with the Class of 2023. She enjoys historical research, long walks on the beach, and a good joke.