Sullivan's Travels

Sullivan's Travels

Sullivan's Travels was a film released in 1941 so just a few years after The Great Depression of the 1930s.  It was hugely successful. The two actors were Joel McCrea and Veronica Lake who were huge box office draws during this time. I've already talked about the film industry in a previous post so this is mainly going to talk about the movie and my opinion about it.

This film is very telling of America during a period where things were much more conservative and people just wanted to return to a period of normalcy. 

There are many things in this film that shows how conservative America was during this time.

First off, Joel's character and his wife are sleeping in separate beds.

Secondly, you never once see Veronica and Joel kiss at all. 

The most scandalous things during this movie were when one of the women has her legs showing when the bus is jumping around and when Veronica and Joel are sleeping together at a homeless shelter.

In the eyes of society today, that is nothing compared to what people see today in movies. There is lots of violence and plenty of sex in movies.

During the 1930s there were codes installed by the Motion Picture Association of America, this is where films get their ratings as well.  Also the Catholic Church had set aside a Legion of Decency where they got to deem which films were appropriate for audiences.

This know is a Hollywood during Code Period. There were things that could and couldn't be shown. Often times, films had to be edited in order to fit the standards of both codes.

 Sullivan's Travels overall was a great movie despite all the rules that had been placed upon it because of the time period in which it had been produced and created.

If I could, I would watch the movie again just to catch more of the historical aspects of the time. There are so many are telling of the times. I personally wished that Veronica and Joel had kissed at the end to signify that they were together and that didn't happen which was kind of disappointing to say the least.

Sexual Revolution Part 2

The Sexual Revolution Part 2

In this blog post, I will focus on homosexuality and more of the sexual revolution during the 1920s as stated in my previous post about the sexual revolution and women.

The views of homosexuality have constantly changed throughout time and the 1920s and the 1930s was no exception to this change. During the 1920s, homosexuality was very geographically specific, meaning that there were locations that in larger cities dedicated to the homosexual community and partially that continues today.

In Chicago, there is a district that was known as the red light district which was south of the loop. Even today, we know the district as Boys Town.

The views on homosexuality have continued to change throughout time itself and even today, the debate continues as more and more states begin to legalize gay marriage.  There are people who view homosexuality as sinful and that marriage should only be between a man and a woman and then there are those who view homosexuality from a neutral point.

Personally, I identify more with the LGBTQ community just because I fall into one of those letters. I think that the 1920s were a hard time to be party of that community just because everything was so conservative and people were so religious as well. Nowadays people are more open minded and religion tends to take a back burner sometimes as much as more conservative people try to throw the bible at homosexuality.

I'm personally glad things are changing for the homosexual community and I just hope that the change continues to happen and grow in a positive manner. Who knows, maybe someday all 50 states will allow gay marriage.

Sexual Revolution Part 1

Sexual Revolution Part 1

In this blog, I will be talking about the sexual revolution that began to take place during the 1920s. There will be a part 2 to this particular topic that will follow right after this post.

I'd like to think about this blog post as more of a blog post dedicated to mainly women during this period and how the sexual revolution affected them.

The introduction of birth control was huge during the sexual revolution of the 1920s.  Margaret Sanger had her clinic open for women who were looking to have abortions and have access to affordable to birth control during a period in which it was completely unheard of.

You also have the introduction of the Flapper culture. Women were were wearing their hair shorter, dresses were shorter and that continues up until the Great Depression and there is a reverse of the culture at some points.

The notion that women had to wait before marriage was slowly fading but it was acceptable for a couple to have sex before marriage if they were engaged to one another.  It's during the sexual revolution of this time that the film industry began to put up standards for their films as well but I've kind of touched based on the film industry in another blog.

Women had just received the right to vote and were definitely gaining power during this period. They were slowly becoming sexually liberated, especially with birth control being more widely available.

I think the 1920s served as a large catalyst for so much to happen. You have the boom of the film industry, the Red Scare, the Great Depression and the sexual revolution of the homosexual culture which I will talk about in my next blog post.

I think that the women during the 1920s truly set the bar for the following generations of women to come in the United States.

Film in the 1920s

Film during the 1920s

This blog post will mainly focus on film during the 1920s and partially the 1930s and there is so much to talk about during this time but I'm going to attempt to hit on a lot of the main points about film.

First off, the introduction of sound during the 1920s was a major hit. The first film with sound was The Jazz Singer in 1927 and many people believed it would be a phase. The introduction of sound to films allowed for musicals to be produced and movie studios slowly began to transition their theatres to allow for sound even though about equal amounts of silent and sound films that were being produced well into the 1930s.

Second, the film industry during the 1930s boomed and ticket sales began to double during the Great Depression.  People needed an escape during the depression from all what was going around them. The movies provided a great outlet for this. It provided an escape and a cool place to stay while the depression took hold around them and the heat during the summer.

Third, the 1920s was pre-code Hollywood. Film producers slowly began to push the limits as to what could and couldn't be shown. It was not uncommon for there to be violence and as always, sex always tended to sell.

It's not until in the 1930s were there is a code put into place in Hollywood which determined what could be shown on film and what couldn't be shown on film.

I personally believe that film was an escape as film is an escape in today's society. It's a way for people to be entertained for very little money and during the Great Depression what other forms of entertainment were there. People could sit in a comfortable movie theatre for hours and hours and forget the world around them.

I believe that the film industry is constantly changing and for some reason the 1920s and 1930s were the catalyst for creating what the film industry is today.

Herbert Hoover

Herbert Hoover

Herbert Hoover probably is best known for being the president during the Great Depression. His presidency is also probably known as one of the worst as well.

The Historical Narrative given about his presidency is that of failure and the word that immediately comes to mind is Hoovervilles which were just little shacks and towns that people who had lost their homes built on the outskirts of cities. They were made with whatever people could find and they were like little communities.

Hoover attempted many times to assure the nation that everything would be fine and that the Depression would soon be over. The interesting thing is that Hoover had a background in business so it amazes me that he wasn't more successful in his programs to bring an end to the Depression.

I think Hoover really let down the nation during this time. They were looking towards federal government to fix the problem and the federal government was looking towards the people to fix the problem.  I think there was a major stalemate and there wasn't a right solution to it all. Federal government thought that trickle down economics was going to solve the problem and the people thought that the government needed to step in more to solve the issue.

I feel like Hoover was ahead of his time as well. I feel like had he not been president during this period, he would've been a lot more successful. I think he was president at the wrong possible time and thus it made his presidency a complete failure.

Bull Market

The Bull Market 

In this blog post, I will be talking about The Bull Market and President Calvin Coolidge just before the stock market crash of 1929. 

First things, first.  President Calvin Coolidge. 

In 1928, he assured American's that business was good in his address to the union. He states that America had never met with a more pleasing prospect than that which appears at the present time."

There were things that made this statement completely true. First off, the economy was doing extremely well. It seemed like the party was never going to end. People were buying and spending. They were also buying things on credit.

Items such as cars, stoves, fridges were hot commodities during this period.

Second of all, the Stock Market was like a fantasy. It seemed like everyone could get rich off the Stock Market during this period from butchers to business men. Everyone wanted a piece of the pie.  I think this idea that people could get rich quickly added to the appeal of the market.

There has always been this ideology of America. That America was the place to go if you wanted to make money and get rich. The Stock Market definitely added to this ideology. If you wanted the American dream, you had to invest in the Stock Market.

People came to America for all sorts of reasons but one of the biggest was to make money, to become rich and the Stock Market appeal that even local people could make a lot of money.

I think that people thought the party would never end, I think that the wealth would just keep on flowing during this time and that things couldn't be more perfect. In my opinion, they were looking at the world through rose colored glasses.

Unfortunately, all good things must come to an end sooner or later.

Rural America

In this blog post, I will be talking about Rural America during the Great Depression.  More importantly, I will be talking about The New Deal and how Black Farmers were impacted by the Great Depression during this period.

First of all, What was the New Deal?

The New Deal was a series of acts that were put in place between 1933 and 1936. It was to attempt to relieve the pain of the Great Depression.


Black Farmers were hit the hardest during the Great Depression because they were a minority. Many minority groups were hit extremely hard during this period. I think because they were a minority and the fact that they were farmers, had a lot to do with why they were so hit hard during the depression.

Farmers themselves hadn't been doing well since World War I and it was just spiral downhill from there that they continued to go down. People weren't buying and things weren't selling. People just didn't want to do business with them at all and the New Deal did nothing to relieve their struggles and in fact only served to throw them more under the bus.

It's not until after the Great Depression that they slowly start to rise back up.

I do believe that their heritage had a lot to do with why people didn't want to do business with them but I also believe that industrialization during this time had a lot to do with it as well. People no longer were looking to be farmers, they were moving to larger cities and suburbia began to take place in America during this time. There were just a lot of factors that took place in the fall of farming during this period.

Sacco and Vanzetti Part 2

In my first blog post about Sacco and Vanzetti, I talked about the basics of the trial of Sacco and Vanzetti, In this blog post, I will be focusing more on the impact the trial made and what followed after the trial itself as well as my own opinion on the verdict.

So the whole trial of Sacco and Vanzetti stirred up a lot of debate in the United States and there would be another trial later on in the decade that would spark just as much debate. That case would The Scopes Trial but that's for another blog post.

In the Sacco and Vanzetti case, each man had to recount their anarchist beliefs in court and it wasn't that hard for the jury to find them guilty for their crimes.There were many appeals after this but to no avail. 

There were protests in many countries on their behalf for those who truly believed in their innocence but also were anarchists themselves and these protests were too no avail. The two men were eventually sentenced to death.

After they were put to death, there were riots that occurred in various places and there's been debated on whether or not they were executed because of their Italian heritage and anarchist beliefs.  

I personally believe they were wrongly tried for their crimes and the time period in which they lived in played a huge part as to how the verdict came out to be. It was time where there was much going on from The Red Scare to just getting out of a war to pure chaos. I don't think America was quite ready for such a trial. I think because the Red Scare had been taking a hold of in American society, I think it just served to fuel the fire for this trial and hence why the trial was just made so huge and blown to such a large proportion.

People in America during this time needed something else to focus on besides The Red Scare alone.

The Scopes Trial

The Scopes Trial 

The Scopes Trial was probably one of the most famous trials of the 20th century.  It was known as The State of Tennessee V.S. John Thomas Scopes

It refers to a legal case in which John Scopes was accused of violating Tennessee's Butler Act which made it unlawful to teach human evolution in any state-funded school.

Scopes was found guilty and fined 100 dollars but the verdict was overturned on a technicality.

The case funded the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy regarding what was appropriate to be taught in school. 

During the 1920s, America was very conservative.  America was very church going. I think the Scopes Trial was simply a way for America to start talking about something else.  The 1920s were filled with The Red Scare and the idea that Communists were going to take over the United States.

Being that America was so conservative, I think the Scopes trial really was the one case that kind of lit everyone into a stir of sorts because a lot of people during that time were church going, very religious people. 

The Scopes Trial got people talking again about something after The Red Scare.

I almost feel like the United State purposefully blows things out of proportion to create a stir. The Scopes Trial wouldn't have made such a stir if it had occurred today due to so much else going on. But there needed to be something after The Red Scare for America to talk about and debate about and The Scopes Trial was the perfect thing for this.

The Harlem Renaissance Part 2

The Harlem Renaissance Part 2

In my first blog post about the Harlem Renaissance, I talked about how it was a cultural explosion and how there was a lot of racial tension during this period. In this blog post, I want to focus more on race, women and how the New Negro Movement helped move this movement forward.



Due to the racial tension in this time, Harlem was the absolute perfect location for this explosion of culture and new ideas. What ended up emerging from this time was a swarm of new ideas and new views. What came out of this was a New Negro.

The New Negro was educated, they spoke well, they were progressive thinkers. Unlike their ancestors, their ancestors were old fashioned, they weren't educated, a lot of them were former slaves.  An example of someone who was a New Negro was someone like W.E.B DuBois who thought very progressively, he was really ahead of his time and his biggest opponent was Booker T. Washington.  W.E.B. DuBois believed in immediate action while Booker T. Washington believed in slow and steady steps.


Overall in both of my blog posts about the Harlem Renaissance it's easy to see how this explosion of culture lead to the development of new ideas and much more progressive thinking.

Sacco and Vanzetti Part 1

Sacco and Vanzetti Part 1 

This is probably one of the biggest cases of the 1920s. It had such an impact on not only the nation but also the world.  These two men Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti were anarchists which only added fuel to the racial fire during this period.

The basics of this trial are as follows.

Sacco and Vanzetti were convicted in 1920 of committing armed robbery and murdering two men. The case gained massive media attention because they were anarchists and the fact that they were Italian. It caused an uproar.  They were convicted and sentenced to death.


I think due to the fact that these men were immigrants and the fact that they were anarchists added major fuel to the fire. There was the Red Scare and just so much happening during this period that the trial was just an explosion of just all of that combusting into one trial.  The nation was turned upside and was extremely divided due to how many parties people were a part of.

In my next blog, I'll discuss more in details about this race war during this period and this party war as well.

Big Business

Big Business in the 1920s

The 1920s were a period in which business was booming. There was a small recession in 1921 but it ended without government interference in a matter of 18 months. This was a period in which people were buying big ticket items likes cars, fridges, stoves, washing machines, vacuum cleaners and other high ticket items.   

By this time, electricity was becoming widespread available and people were able to heat their homes using electricity.

It was definitely a consumer culture during this period. It was the popular to thing to have the latest hot ticket items. People were buying and spending like crazy.  Wages were high and prices were low. It seemed like the absolute dream to live during this time.



However that dream would soon come to an end towards the end of this decade. That I will discuss in another blog post.


I do believe the 1920s were a time of great wealth and prosperity. People thought this party would never come to an end.  The money was flowing, wages were high, prices were low. I believe however people should have been more cautionary. There were people who warned against the fact that there would be a great downfall to the prosperity .

As they say, what goes up, must come down.  It would come down all too quickly.

Work and Consumerism

Work and Consumerism 

During the 1920s, unionization decreased and mass production industries were not unionized.  However, during this period, there was a jump in consumerism. The economy was doing very well and businesses were booming.  Women had the most spending power during this time. The catalogs would be delivered to their homes and you see this become the emergence of women becoming influenced by the media.

There was a lot of advertising that was geared towards women during this time as well. This is the beginning of where media geared towards specific age groups and genders begins to emerge.

The automobile industry slowly begins to take off during this period as well. Along with this, we see the automobile being targeted towards men. There are products that are targeted towards men and women during this period.

This slowly begins to create a domino effect that society continues to see to this day. Advertisements are deliberately targeted towards a specific age group and gender.

Back in the 1920s, is where this phenomenon begins to take off.


I believe that many people are deeply influenced by the media without consciously thinking about it. To think that this phenomenon began in the 1920s is slightly shocking. I feel like women are more influenced by the media than men are. They see these images of women who are photoshopped and have these nice things, so it influences them to want to be like what they see in magazines. Not to say that it doesn't happen with males as well because it does.

Everyone nowadays even if people aren't thinking the media is affecting them, it is. You may see something at the store and then remember that you saw it in an ad online, on television or in a newspaper. That advertisement has influenced your decision to purchase that product.

Historical Narrative

Historical Narrative 

In an earlier blog post, I had posted about historical narratives. 

So as mentioned before, what is a historical narrative?

A historical narrative is the facts that you would hear in your high school history class. An example of this would be that the 1920s were a prosperous time in American history.

It something that is repeated and told over and over again. It is usually what America accepts a truth.

But what exactly is a Historical truth compared to a Historical fact?

Is there is a difference between the two?

What is the truth couldn't be fact and what is fact could or couldn't be considered truth depending on which side of the argument is looking at.

But I'm getting too philosophical. 

What one person might consider as historical truth another person might view it as false, therefore the argument is kind of invalid.

Depending on which side of history one is looking at, both answers might be correct.

There are many different view points in history so there isn't a correct answer to a historical fact and a historical truth in my opinion.

The Harlem Renaissance

The Harlem Renaissance 

What is the historical narrative given to this period?

The narrative given to this period is that of great cultural change. It was the golden age of culture in Harlem in particular.



There quite a few cultural triggers that led to the explosion of culture in the African American community. People were looking for a sense of identity and Harlem was the perfect pocket of culture for this to happen. There was a lot of pockets of African Americans popping up in urban communities.   It was after the Great Migration after World War I.

The New Negro?

A new negro was an African American who were urban, educated, politically active, cultured and were born free. A new negro was someone like W.E.B DuBois


Social Climate?

The social climate during the Harlem Renaissance was that of a need. A need for expression, a need for the right now instead of the later. There was a lot of adult themes and a desire to get away from the old and into a new era.


There is so much to say about the Harlem Renaissance that it cannot be covered in this first half of the blog.  I do believe the Harlem Renaissance brought about great change in America. It came about as a large cultural movement and in part from the Great Migration. Many African Americans were moving to urban areas and becoming well educated people.

They began to develop what soon became to be known as the New Negro and thus a boom in culture was born known as the Harlem Renaissance. 

American Gangsters

American Gangsters

(Pictured above Al Capone)

In class we discussed Prohibition and American Gangsters such as Al Capone.

First off, the accepted historical narrative of Prohibition is that it gave way to organized crime but that it was a way to help marriages and people in general because people were not going out and spending their money on alcohol.  It was also possibly related to anti-German sentiment since most of the beer produced in the country was produced by Germans.

Organized crime was huge during Prohibition and it gave rise to men like Al Capone who was a huge gangster during this time and he's probably one of the most well known gangsters of our time. There has not been a criminal in recent years that has achieved the recognition and the prestige that Al Capone received.

Al Capone was extremely ambitious. He was the son of immigrants and overall he was a good-business man. Do I believe that he would've been able to be a great gangster had not Prohibition occurred. Prohibition was the reason why he became as great as he did.

Many immigrants perhaps idolized him because of how he was able to move up in society and rise to such power. It was like the ultimate American dream and for awhile Al Capone was living it.

Fashion of the gangsters was almost just as important as the gangsters themselves.

Men wore suits but there were just a little bit flashier to show off the wealth they had. They were almost making fun of the white collar people. They were able to purchase more and more extravagant clothing in a time where material to produce these suits were very scarce.

The suits became almost like a uniform that these men wore. People could tell they were gangsters from just watching them walk, the way they dressed and the way they talked. But at the same time, they seemed to blend into everyday society to a point.

There were a lot of gangster films produced during this time and at one point actors started dressing like gangsters and gangsters started dressing like the actors, it was like a mix of the two worlds combining and sort of blending into one another.


But in a nutshell, the 1920s gave birth to gangsters, new political ideals, new fashion trends and it was period of prosperity and overall change within our nation.

The Progressive Era and Historical Narratives.

In class, we discussed the Progressive Era, reforms, social changes and historical narratives.

The first thing is The Progressive Era itself. The definition for this time period is huge and it's a period of time where there was so much going on but it's a time where people didn't want big government, they wanted a more laizze-faire approach to things.

During this time many Progressives combined their beliefs into social life itself. There was an implementation of Christianity, people were doing charity work because it was the Christian thing and there might have been some that did it out of the kindness of their hearts but there were others who did it for other reasons to make a point.

There was a point where some progressive reforms sought social control and it was during this time where history sees laws and acts implemented to control people's behavior. Some of these laws include film censorship, prohibition and no work on Sundays just to name a few.

On top of these laws and acts, there was other social, economic and political changes during this time as well. 

The Maternity Act was passed and it set up federal and State funds for women to get the healthcare they needed during their pregnancy because at the moment there was still a high death rate for mothers and infants during this time. However, due to pressure from the American Medical Association this Act is dead by 1929.

On top of discussing social reforms, we also discussed more about historical narratives.

A Historical Narrative is history which involves a story and it is told in a story based form.

Traditional Narratives are in chronological order and they are event driven. A example would be Henry VIII of England died on January 28th, 1547 afterward, his son Edward VI took the throne at the age of nine on February 20th, 1547.

Modern Narratives use structures and general trends. There is a pattern to them. Historians want to know why and exactly why an event occurred. This would fit into more of Micro-history which I've discussed in an earlier blog post.

Voice uses 3rd person to describe events.

The one act I want to focus on for this blog post is the Maternity Act. It amazes me how far society has come in terms of women's rights but at the same time, I know that society still has a long way to go before there is truly equality achieved.

(Pictured above: Nurse visiting a family and checking on a baby during Maternity Act period)

The Maternity Act or the Sheppard-Towner Act benefited women who were unable to get the healthcare they needed and it only lasted a few years before it was killed off. Women were then unable to get the healthcare they needed for a healthy pregnancy. 

To this day, women are still be denied certain rights and it's almost like society is stuck in the 1920s. There are furious debates about whether or not it should be legal to get an abortion and whether birth control should be covered by health insurance. I would think that after about 80s, society would've opened it's eyes and realize that we're not in the 1920s, times have changed.

President Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge

President Warren Harding

 There isn't much that is spoken about President Warren Harding. There is not a particular Historical Narrative that is really spoken about him.  However he was very much the president that was Anti-Wilson. He was everything that President Wilson was not.

Wilson was egotistical, a thinker ahead of his time and someone didn't really care about being well liked in the country. He was the kind of man who made sure things were going to go his way and Harding wasn't like that at all. He was well-liked and over all he tried to portray himself as the average American man.

He won the nation over by the promise of normalcy. To return the nation to just focus upon itself instead of worrying about foreign powers and foreign issues. 

However, his good nature and intentions were soon found out after his sudden death in California. It was after his death that many scandals were discovered. The scandals are as follows.

The Teapot Dome Scandal was a bribery incident which leased Navy petroleum reserves at Teapot Dome in Wyoming and two other locations in California to private oil companies at lower costs without bidding from competitors.

The scandal wasn't discovered until after his death and even if he was caught, at the time it was not normal to impeach a president. Plus during his presidency, the economy was doing fairly well.

During Harding's Presidency, the position of Vice President was being taken more seriously and it was being reevaluated at this time as well.

President Calvin Coolidge

President Calvin Coolidge's presidency was very much overshadowed by the roaring 20s. There was not a lot that he could do.  The government was very much laizze-faire at the time and was hands off government.

Calvin Coolidge was more worried about being well liked, being respectable and dignified than he was concerned with affairs that were going on in the nation. It just seemed like everything was doing well. The reality of it was that after the war, there were industries that were not doing well such coal mining due to oil being used, ship building, agriculture was greatly in debt and instead of using railroads people were using automobiles.

In class we discussed a few more things such as Historical Scale, Macro-history, Micro-history and Historical Simultaneity. 

Historical Scale is the level in which history is presented.

Macro-history is the big picture. It is the story that high school teachers give their students. An example of Macro-history would be a book on the history of the world.

Micro-History is very detailed, it's condensed and it can tell people larger things about events. An example of this would be a dissertation where one just focuses on something very specific.

History Simultaneity is when two major events occur at the time but are not necessarily related. One does not necessarily cause the other to occur.



I believe that both presidents were very much overshadowed by the period of time they lived in. While Harding's scandals weren't discovered until after he passed away, he was well liked by the public like his successor Calvin Coolidge.  They both presented themselves as dignified and unfortunately is due to the overshadowing of the roaring 20s that they were sort of pushed into the background of the decades.

People didn't want to hear about how virtuous or how dignified a president was, they wanted to hear about the gangsters and the bootlegging which were prominent during this time as well. I'll discuss gangsters and bootlegging in a later blog.

The Red Scare Part 2

The Second Half of the Red Scare

Sedition Act of 1918 and Espionage Act of 1917


 In class we discussed the second half of the Red Scare and two acts which we discussed in detail during the class. 

The Sedition Act of 1918 forbid the use of disloyal, profane,and abusive language about the United States government while the Espionage act of 1917  and it prohibited the interference of military operations or recruitment.

During the second half of the red scare, congress was very drastic with it's measures and congress instead were restricting freedoms because they believed it would serve the greater good.

An example given in class about this was as follows.

People who walk at night around the quad have been getting robbed and instead of stopping the crime, the university decides to punish the people instead of punishing the crime itself.

It became easier to round up sedition actors then it was to round up the National Guard. and there were those people who wanted to take the sedition act even further and become more specific on what they could and could not do.

Senator of Tennessee stated, "If we cannot reason with men to be loyal, it is high time we forced them to be loyal."

There were only a few people who benefited from the Red Scare such as politicians and even psychologists since psychology was in it's infancy during this time.

 There was however an original Sedition Act which was passed in 1776 right after the American Revolution.

In this case, the newly formed country had every right to pass such an act due to the fact that America was a brand new country at the time. There was much fear that a new revolution would soon take hold in America because we just come out of the Revolutionary War.

There was massive immigration during this time as well and in a twisted sense it created unity within the nation. People were coming together during this time and trying to eradicate the red menace.

Shockingly enough, the House approve the Sedition Act of 1918 in a staggering vote of 293 to 1 but then again 1918 was a reelection year as well.

The Espionage Act of 1917 conflicted with the first amendment and it attempted to deny freedom of speech and freedom of the press.


Another thing was there was no really strong political view or person during this time compared to years prior like in 1798 with men like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams.

 There was no one to really take a stand against the two acts, one of which is still in place to this very day and that would be the Espionage Act of 1917.


I feel like Congress proved their point to the country itself and then killed the Red Scare out, that's why it ended so quickly. There was just so many events which lead up to the destruction of the first Red Scare and the killing of the Sedition Act of 1918.

I believe that Congress used the acts to instill fear and control over the country before deciding enough was enough and killing off one of the Acts. It was a way for Congress to stay in power and for Congress to show America and the world who exactly was in control at that particular time.

The Red Scare

The Red Scare

The First Red scare in America occurred between 1918 and 1921, right after World War I and it was this idea that Communism was inside of America.

The second Red Scare took place in the 1950s after World War II and is the one most discussed about when discussing the Red Scare.

However, the first Red Scare tends to be overshadowed by the beginning of the Roaring 20s.

But was their justification for this?

Perhaps and it was possibly used for selfish purposes.

There was a lot going on overseas that definitely affected the growth of the Red Scare in America.

The Bolshevik Revolution occurred between October and November 1917 and then the Russian Civil War occurred between 1918 and 1920.

Vladmir Lenin is calling for revolution throughout the world and there is attempted revolution throughout the world.

The Red Scare contributes to the growth of the Ku Klux Klan and at it's height has about 2 million members.

There was a lot of intolerance throughout the country and it became kind of like a witch-hunt. People were searching for those who were Communist and there was a lot of paranoia throughout the nation.

The FBI emerged out of this period and American Civil liberties Union really took hold in America during this time as well.

The accepted Historical narrative about this Red Scare is that there is no accepted Historical narrative for this time period.  It's not something is taught and the fact is that is overshadowed by other events of the roaring 20s.


I truly believe after a time of great triumph, there comes a period of hardship. During this time, America had just gotten out of World War I victorious and then afterward there was a lot of problems that began emerging. I feel like during those periods of high nationlism and then a low point is where people start looking for someone to blame or point the finger to. I believe that during this time, Communists unfortunately were the ones that people were pointing the finger to. They were blaming the Communists for the hardships that America was entering during this time and it was due to this that I believe began the Red Scare in America for the first time.

Treaty of Versailles

The Treaty of Versailles 

What was the Treaty of Versailles? 

The Treaty of Versailles was a document in which Germany was forced to sign to end the war. Germany in the end took all the guilt for the war and was forced to pay debt to the various countries.

However, the actual treaty was a result of the US congress shooting it down once and then once revisions were made, it was brought back into play. 

It was after this that the Soviet Union was being looked upon as a threat.

But what is the accepted historical narrative? Better yet, what is a historical narrative? 

A historical narrative is the story in which we as a society are taught about a particular event. 

Using the above example about the Treaty of Versailles, the accepted historical narrative is that the Treaty of Versailles was a failure in which the outcome lead into World War II.

The criticism of the Treaty was almost immediately after it was signed. People began to criticize it around 1922 and President Woodrow Wilson was depicted as the Good Guy.

The book mentions that on November 11th, 1918, the war had finally ended and that President Wilson was intent on peace of reconciliation rather than peace of hate.

The war had technically ended on November 7th, 1918 but the government waited until November 11th, 1918 to formally end the war and in those four days, more men died.

During class, we discussed psychohistory.  

Psychohistory is getting into the mind of someone and in this case, it'd be the mind of President Woodrow Wilson.

He was the first President with a History degree and he was the son of a minister.  He was brought up on strong right and wrong idealism and he was a southerner.

He was the first sitting President to go overseas and he went overseas for six months to negotiate the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations.

He was kind of egotistical. Instead of sending a representative from the United States, he went instead because he felt like no one else was fit for the job. While he negotiated in Europe, there were millions of troops returning back to the United States.

Those troops were looking for jobs, price controls were removed, restrictions were removed and there were millions of people striking companies.


In Europe, there are negotiations being made.  France wants land and restrictions on Germany's army while Great Britain wants restrictions on Germany's navy and Italy wants money and landed rewarded to them but Italy walks out unable to get what they wanted.

Wilson at first stated that Germany would take no guilt for the war but then Wilson is unable to give Germany what he had promised.

Henry Cabot Lodge (above photo) was Wilson's rival and and he was powerful at the time enough to become chairman of foreign relations committee.

He had no issues with the Treaty of Versailles as long as the United States had no participation in the League of Nations.

To gain support, Wilson went on speaking tours by train and they were very successful in gaining momentum for the Treaty.

Wilson was going to get what he wanted, no matter what anyone else said or did.

However in June of 1919, he suffered his first stroke and returned from his speaking tours to Washington D.C.

Personally, I believe that Wilson was very egotistical. I think he was a man who was very firm in his decisions and in getting what he wanted.  He wasn't going to take no for an answer, despite his ailments, he pushed through until March of 1921.

I do believe that Wilson was a dreamer, that he was far ahead of his time for his ideas. If he had done what he had done today, he wouldn't have been as successful and the Senate would have never allowed to do it.

Never in History before this time did a sitting President leave the country for months at a time, leaving America without it's leader.

Historical Fact?

What is considered to be a Historical Fact?

In 1492, Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean blue on three ships, the Nina, the Pinta and the Santa Maria and discovered America.

This statement is widely considered to be a Historical Fact.

We would not cite this in a document because there is an implication that there is a source and that it is widely known and accepted as a fact by the public.

However, new evidence states that this is not a historical fact due to the fact that he did not "discover" anything. America was already here when he arrived.

In order for something to be considered a Historical Fact, it must contain the following.

Action:
Something  taking place or happening.

 An example would be.

Queen Elizabeth I was crowned queen on January 15th, 1559 at Westminster Abbey.  The action of this statement would be crowned.

Location:

Where did it take place?

Using the example from above, the location would be Westminster Abbey.

Date/Time:

What was the day and what time did the event take place?

 The date would be January 15th, 1559.

Finally, historical facts must contain the individual involved, in the example above, the individual would be Queen Elizabeth I.



I believe there are no right or wrong answers when it comes to what is a historical fact as History itself is based upon theory.

 Take using the example above, some may argue that Elizabeth I was crowned queen the moment Queen Mary I died while others may use the above date.

There is always new evidence that comes forward and thus changing what is Historical fact.  An example of this would be that the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4th, 1776. Delegates from the colonies signed it on that particular date.  However, new evidence shows that it was signed over a period of time. This new evidence has not been brought to the general public because the date July 4th, 1776 has been accepted by the public as a Historical fact.

I personally believe that for something to be accepted as a Historical fact, it needs to be accepted by the general population as one. So while it's well and good to have the above criteria for the base, the outcome ultimately needs to be that the general public accepts it as such. If it is not, then in my opinion it cannot be accepted as a Historical fact.