The 18th Amendment established Prohibition in 1920. Groups such as the Women’s Christian Temperance Union and the Anti-Saloon League believed alcohol consumption was responsible for the social problems such as domestic violence, crime and poverty which caused them to contribute to the implementation of prohibition laws.² Through a legal ban of the manufacture or sale of alcohol, many believed “prohibition would re-create a socially ordered community through the establishment of Protestant middle/class values.”³ Prohibition directly impacted the immigrant communities such as the Irish, Italians, and Germans as drinking was deeply ingrained in their culture and traditions. Native born Americans expected immigrants would “conform to the dominant English Protestant culture,” and prohibition attempted to legally enforce this conformity.⁴ Instead, the immigrant communities tended to oppose the prohibition which further exposed how the movement failed to unite the population through enforcement. Law enforcement often targeted immigrants as speakeasies and bootlegging operations were frequently associated with their neighborhoods. Prohibition’s restrictive laws fueled resentment and widened cultural divides, reinforcing nativist prejudices.⁵ Figures such as Al Capone and George Moran rose to prominence through these large smuggling and distribution operations which further established organized crime within immigrant communities.

While many viewed Prohibition as a progressive step towards social order and homogeneity, instead it marked the rise of powerful organized crime groups who profited off the illegal liquor trade. These gangs acquired immense wealth and political influence through bribery and coercion; “there were fortunes to be made from the illicit trade, and prohibition agents were not up against individual law breakers, but faced well-organized and well-mannered gangs.”⁶ Law enforcement and the government were easily persuaded and often turned a blind eye to organized crime activities potentially out of fear or financial pressure. These tactics led to the increase in violence and corruption in both the political and social spheres. These factors created the environment of the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre and allowed organized crime to thrive. 

 The St. Valentine’s Day Massacre was not just an isolated event, but part of a broader pattern of increasing gang violence present in the 1920s. The massacre exposed the violent basis of organized crime competition and the limits of law enforcement in an era of mass corruption. This Massacre emphasized the tensions between rival gangs while fueling public outrage. It effectively demonstrated how prohibition failed as the movement promoted lawlessness and corruption rather than temperance. Ultimately, the increase in organized crime and violence exposed the failures of Prohibition and contributed to its eventual repeal in 1933.

Citations

Footnotes

1. The Mob Museum in downtown Las vegas. Accessed April 2, 2025. https://themobmuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/trio.jpg.  ︎
2. Lynn Dumenil, The Modern Temper: American Culture and Society in the 1920s, ed. Eric Foner (New York, NY: Hill and Wang, 1995), 229. ︎
3. Dumenil, The Modern Temper, 228. ︎
4. Dumenil, The Modern Temper,204. ︎
5. Dumenil, The Modern Temper, 230. ︎
6. Dumenil, The Modern Temper, 233. ︎

Bibliography

“Divisions.” Labor & Capital, America in the 1920s, Primary Sources for Teachers, America in Class, National Humanities Center. Accessed April 2, 2025. https://americainclass.org/sources/becomingmodern/divisions/text6/text6.htm. 

McDonough, Daniel. “Chicago Press Treatment of the Gangster, 1924-1931.” Illinois Historical Journal 82, no. 1 (1989): 17–32. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40192250.

The Mob Museum in downtown Las vegas. Accessed April 2, 2025. https://themobmuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/trio.jpg. 

Erin Pryor

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

The Socio-Political Climate of the 1920s To understand the trial of Sacco and Vanzetti, it is crucial to contextualize it within the broader socio-political landscape of the 1920s. Following the end of World War I, the United States experienced a wave of nativism and anti-immigrant sentiment fueled by fears of radicalism and the perceived threat of anarchist and communist ideologies. The American people were not ready for the wave of immigrants that would start to arrive into their homeland. Many people feared that it would spread more religion, different political views, which would lead to protest and physical altercations.  The Red Scare which stands as a perfect example, was a period of intense anti-communist hysteria gripped the nation, leading to widespread paranoia and government crackdowns on perceived subversive elements.

Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti were Italian immigrants who arrived in the United States in the early 20th century seeking a better life for themselves and their family. America is the land of the free and home of opportunity. As an immigrant myself, it makes it easy to understand and relate with so many people who have a desire to be an American. Both men became involved in anarchist circles, advocating for radical social and political change. Sacco worked as a shoe factory worker, while Vanzetti labored as a fish peddler. Their outspoken views and activism made them targets of government surveillance and scrutiny. They were easy targets for the government and civilians because of how outspoken they were, but ultimately this could have been one of the many reasons for their downfall. 

The Braintree Robbery and Murder On April 15, 1920, a shocking crime occurred at the Slater and Morrill Shoe Company in South Braintree, Massachusetts. Two armed and masked men carried out a brazen robbery, resulting in the deaths of a security guard and a cashier who were carrying $15,776 at the time of the murder.. In the ensuing chaos, the perpetrators fled the scene with a substantial amount of cash. The brazenness of the crime and the ensuing manhunt captivated the nation and thrust Sacco and Vanzetti into the spotlight as prime suspects.

They were both arrested by an officer who pulled over a car with no license plate and found two men who fit the description, as well as both having possession of a firearm.  Following a series of arrests and interrogations, Sacco and Vanzetti were apprehended and charged with the Braintree murders. The prosecution built its case on circumstantial evidence, including witness testimonies and ballistic analysis purportedly linking Sacco’s gun to the murder weapon. However, the defense argued that much of the evidence was unreliable and tainted by prejudice. Throughout the trial, Sacco and Vanzetti maintained their innocence, claiming they were victims of a political witch hunt. This was one of the tactics that Sacco and Vanzetti lawyers used to help sway the decision in the courtroom for their clients’ freedom.

The Trial: The trial of Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti is one of the most infamous cases in American legal history. Sacco and Vanzetti were Italian immigrants and anarchists who were arrested and charged with the murder of two men during a robbery in South Braintree, Massachusetts, in 1920. The trial lasted from May 31, 1921, to July 14, 1921.

The prosecution’s case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, witness testimony, and the defendants’ anarchist beliefs rather than concrete proof of their guilt. Many believe that Sacco and Vanzetti were unfairly targeted by the justice system because of their anarchist political views and their status as immigrants.Central to the prosecution’s case were witness testimonies, which purportedly placed Sacco and Vanzetti at the scene of the crime. However, these accounts were marred by inconsistencies and later recantations, raising questions about their reliability. Eyewitness testimony, while compelling, is notoriously susceptible to error and manipulation as we see even during today’s age, particularly in cases where biases and external pressures come into play.

Another pillar of the prosecution’s argument rested on the alleged connection between the murder weapon and Sacco and Vanzetti. Ballistic evidence suggested that the bullets recovered from the victims matched the type owned by the defendants. Yet, the limitations of forensic science at the time would cast a huge doubt on the conclusiveness of this evidence. The absence of definitive proof linking the bullets to Sacco and Vanzetti underscores the speculative nature of the prosecution’s claims. The problem with this case is the lack of technology the prosecution had in order to prove without a shadow of a doubt that both men were truly guilty. 

Furthermore, the prosecution sought to exploit Sacco and Vanzetti’s anarchist beliefs as evidence of their guilt. Their political affiliations and activities were portrayed as indicative of a predisposition towards violence and criminal behavior. However, political ideology alone does not constitute proof of criminal conduct. The attempt to conflate dissent with criminality speaks to the climate of fear and suspicion that pervaded the era, particularly towards immigrants and political dissidents. Although Sacco and Vanzetti might have had their own radical beliefs, in no way should that be used against a defendant in a court of law from the prosecution, because being suspicious is not a crime.  

In their defense, Sacco and Vanzetti provided alibis for their whereabouts at the time of the crime. Yet, these alibis lacked tantelizing corroboration and were overshadowed by the weight of suspicion cast upon them. The burden of proof shifted uneasily between the prosecution’s tenuous evidence and the defendants’ assertions of innocence, leaving room for doubt to flourish.

The trial was highly controversial due to allegations of prejudice against the defendants, including anti-immigrant and anti-anarchist sentiment. The judge, Webster Thayer, was accused of bias and prejudice against the defendants, and his conduct during the trial has been widely criticized. This trial was at the center of attention and had now gained world wide coverage and followed closely by people of all nations.

Despite worldwide protests and appeals for clemency it was not enough to persuade the courtroom during the ending of the trial, Sacco and Vanzetti were found guilty on July 14, 1921, and sentenced to death. The case became a cause célèbre, with intellectuals, activists, and artists around the world protesting the perceived injustice of their conviction. 

Protests took various forms, including rallies, marches, and demonstrations. In the United States, cities such as Boston, New York, and Chicago saw large-scale protests calling for a fair trial for Sacco and Vanzetti and condemning what many saw as their unjust treatment by the authorities. Even though the American public was disgusted by the ruling Sacco and Vanzetti team lacked a proper defense because playing the victim card was only gonna take them so far. 

Internationally, the case garnered attention and support from activists and intellectuals in countries such as Italy, France, England, and the Soviet Union. Intellectuals, writers, and artists, including prominent figures like Albert Einstein and George Bernard Shaw, publicly expressed their support for Sacco and Vanzetti and condemned their conviction. Again, even though we love a good underdog story it’s important to remember that we will never truly know who really killed the security guard along with the cashier.

The protests continued even after Sacco and Vanzetti were sentenced to death. Appeals for clemency were made to Massachusetts Governor Alvan T. Fuller, and petitions with millions of signatures were submitted urging him to grant reprieve or commute their sentences. Despite the efforts of supporters worldwide, Sacco and Vanzetti were ultimately executed in 1927.Sacco and Vanzetti were executed in the electric chair on August 23, 1927. Their case has continued to be the subject of much debate and controversy, with many historians and legal scholars arguing that they did not receive a fair trial and may have been wrongly convicted. The case remains a symbol of the injustices faced by immigrants and political dissidents in the United States.

A Flawed Quest for Justice The trial of Sacco and Vanzetti commenced amidst a maelstrom of media sensationalism and public outcry. The proceedings were marked by a series of legal irregularities, including biased jury selection, prejudicial remarks by the judge, and the admission of questionable evidence. Despite passionate pleas from their defense team and widespread public support, the jury returned a guilty verdict in July 1921. The subsequent appeals and legal maneuvers failed to overturn the verdict, sealing Sacco and Vanzetti’s fate.

Public Outcry and International Appeals The trial of Sacco and Vanzetti galvanized widespread public outcry and international condemnation. Protests erupted across the globe, with activists and intellectuals decrying the perceived miscarriage of justice. Prominent figures, including Albert Einstein and George Bernard Shaw, lent their voices to the chorus of dissent, calling for a retrial or clemency for the defendants. Despite these efforts, Sacco and Vanzetti were executed by electric chair on August 23, 1927, sparking further outrage and indignation.

The legacy and controversy of the trial of Sacco and Vanzetti continues to provoke debate and controversy to this day. While some view the case as a tragic miscarriage of justice, emblematic of the perils of prejudice and political persecution, others argue that the evidence against the defendants was sufficient to warrant conviction. The legacy of Sacco and Vanzetti serves as a stark reminder of the dangers of unchecked power, the fragility of justice, and the enduring struggle for equality and human rights.Their case exposes the fault lines within the American legal system and serves as a sobering reminder of the consequences of intolerance and injustice. As we reflect on this dark chapter in history, we are compelled to confront uncomfortable truths about the nature of power, privilege, and the pursuit of justice in a democratic society.

The trial of Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti deeply impacted the justice system in the United States, leaving a lasting legacy that influenced both legal procedures and public perceptions of the legal process. Throughout the trial, widespread public scrutiny highlighted systemic biases against immigrants, political dissidents, and individuals with unpopular beliefs. The perceived injustices in the trial eroded public confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the justice system, raising fundamental questions about its ability to deliver justice impartially to all citizens.

One significant outcome of the Sacco and Vanzetti trial was the spotlight it cast on flaws in legal procedures. Critics pointed to issues such as the reliance on circumstantial evidence, the exclusion of certain evidence, and the perceived bias of the judge, Webster Thayer. These concerns prompted discussions about the need for reforms to ensure fairer trials and more transparent judicial proceedings. The case served as a catalyst for reevaluating legal practices and implementing changes aimed at addressing systemic biases and shortcomings.

Moreover, the prolonged appeals process in the Sacco and Vanzetti case underscored the challenges faced by defendants seeking to overturn convictions. Despite numerous appeals and petitions for clemency, it was not enough for Sacco and Vanzetti to overcome and would eventually lead to their death. Their case highlighted the limitations of the appeals process and the difficulty of overturning convictions, particularly in high-profile cases where political considerations may influence judicial decisions.

Beyond its legal implications, the trial of Sacco and Vanzetti had a profound cultural impact, inspiring artistic works, literature, and social commentary that explored themes of justice, oppression, and political persecution. The case became a symbol of resistance against injustice and a rallying cry for broader social movements advocating for civil rights, immigrant rights, and labor rights. It galvanized support for legal reform efforts aimed at addressing issues of bias, discrimination, and injustice within the legal system, leading to ongoing conversations and actions to uphold the principles of justice and equality for all.

In summary, the trial of Sacco and Vanzetti left an indelible mark on the American justice system, prompting reflections on the principles of fairness, equality, and due process. While exposing shortcomings and biases within the legal system, it also sparked movements for change and inspired efforts to reform laws, procedures, and attitudes to better uphold the ideals of justice and equality. 

References

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Sacco-and-Vanzetti

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1927/03/the-case-of-sacco-and-vanzetti/306625

https://www.mass.gov/info-details/sacco-vanzetti-justice-on-trial#the-trial-

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/sacco-and-vanzetti-executed

https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3387

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.

The 1920s is a decade in which an enormous amount of historians have contributed to the ongoing discussions surrounding the time period. While some praise the decade as a time of great accomplishment, progress and prosperity following World War I, others view the 1920s with criticism. As a historian, the 1920s can be analyzed through a lens of social, political, cultural and even religious perspectives; all leading to a clearer picture of what the so-called “roaring twenties” was actually like for all kinds of people.

In 2012 American historian of ethnicity and immigration in the United States, Marni Davis, wrote the book Jews and Booze: Becoming American in the Age of Prohibition. In her book Davis looks at how Jewish Americans engaged with Prohibition in the 1920s. She breaks down how the Jewish religious exemption worked in favor of immigrants as they became sources of a newly formed underground economy. Despite mass immigration and the industrial revolution that brought different ethnicities into urban centers like New York City, ethnic and religious minorities continued to face discrimination and alienation from white Americans in the 1920s. Jews in particular faced hurdles due to their religion, making it increasingly more difficult to fully assimilate into American society. In her work, Davis is able to capture the Jewish-American experience during the 1920s and paint a picture of what it was like for a religious group to travel upwards in social rank due to a legal loophole provided by their religion. 

The idea of “becoming American” is not new in terms of the historiography of the 1920s, yet Davis is able to bring a novel perspective by connecting Jewish-Americans to prohibition and how the two actually worked together to provide a bath for assimilation. Although prohibition was not enforced specifically against Jews, Davis’s work showcases the ingenuity of Jewish immigrants during a dry period in American history. Davis pulls sources from historians of the 1920s, immigration and the anti-alcohol movement. In doing so, Jews and Booze offers a dynamic take on one of the paths taken by an immigrant group during this time to assimilate into the greater American society.

During the 21st century many historians began to analyze how immigration and women fit into the puzzle of the 1920s. Books such as At America’s Gates: Chinese Immigration During the Exclusion Era, 1882 – 1943 by Erika Lee and journal articles like “Nationalism, Immigration Control, and the Ethnoracial Remapping of America in the 1920s” written by Mae M. Ngai began to look at how different ethnic groups were experiencing American society during the decade. In doing so, historians and readers can better understand how Americanization occurred in the beginning of the 20th century, and what attributes or stereotypes associated with certain ethnicities stem from that group’s process of assimilation.

Jews and Booze: Becoming American in the Age of Prohibition provides readers with a comprehensive exploration of the prohibition era with an emphasis on how politics and practices impacted Jewish-Americans and the Jewish community. Historian Marni Davis is able to highlight how Jews during the 1920s utilized the anti-alcohol movement to their advantage, securing their ledge in the climb towards acceptance in American society. 

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.