Why the Teapot Dome Cartoons Still Annoy People Today
The Teapot Dome Scandal of 1921-1922 was the worst corruption case before Watergate, and political cartoonists absolutely lost their minds over it. I've spent years digging through primary sources and archived newspapers trying to understand how cartoonists from the 1920s actually communicated complex political information in just a single panel. It turns out they were incredibly effective at it, and modern creators still have a lot to learn from them. Let me walk you through what the scandal was about, how cartoonists handled it, and what I learned when I actually tried reproducing one of these panels for a research project.
Understanding the Political Cartoon Teapot Dome Scandal
Secretary of the Interior Albert Fall leased Navy oil reserves at Teapot Dome in Wyoming and two sites in California to private oil companies without competitive bidding. In exchange, he received over $400,000 in "loans" and gifts. That was the core of it. The cartoons never stayed focused on just that detail though. They expanded into bigger themes about capitalism, presidential impunity, and the whole system being rigged. Most of the famous ones came from newspapers like the New York World and the Washington Post. Cartoons by operators like Clifford Berryman and others piled on for years. Fall was depicted as a rat, a pig, a skeleton, or whatever cheap visual metaphor got the point across fastest. The public ate it up because it made a complicated legal and financial situation feel simple and morally clear.
How the Cartoonists Actually Worked
Here's what most people don't realize about these cartoons. They weren't created as standalone art pieces. They were newsroom products made under tight deadlines, often after the cartoonist had read a morning paper and seen a new filing or indictment. The visual shorthand was learned through repetition across hundreds of cartoons on different topics. Fall became a character in the cartoonist's head, and the artist knew exactly what visual element to drop in to signal corruption without needing a caption that spelled everything out. The technique relied heavily on a few tricks:
Get the Full Details
- Caricature: Exaggerating Fall's facial features so he looked shifty or sneaky
- Symbolic props: Holding sacks of money, wearing a sailor's uniform (referencing the Navy oil reserves), or standing on a teapot-shaped platform
- Labeling: Writing labels directly on objects or characters because not every reader would catch the reference
- Historical parallels: Comparing Fall to notorious corrupt politicians from earlier eras
One thing that surprised me when I was researching this. The cartoons were more politically sophisticated than people give them credit for. Some of them referenced the Taft administration's broader culture of corruption, not just the specific lease deals. The artists understood that falling oil prices and the Harding administration's general decline in moral authority were part of the story too. About three years ago I was working on a digital humanities project that involved redrawing several Teapot Dome cartoons in a consistent style for a university exhibition. I ran into a specific problem that I haven't seen anyone address in the literature. The original newspaper cartoons used a specific kind of cross-hatching and ink density that modern digital tools struggle to replicate authentically. When I traced the images digitally, they looked too clean and sterile compared to the originals. The newspaper halftone printing process from the 1920s created a grainy texture that became part of the visual language of the cartoon itself. My workaround was to scan actual newspaper pages at high resolution instead of using digital files, then apply a custom Photoshop filter that simulated the newspaper grain and ink bleed. It took me about four hours to set up the filter correctly, but after that each cartoon reproduction took maybe twenty minutes. Without doing that step, the reproductions looked like modern political cartoons rather than period pieces, which defeated the purpose of the exhibition.
If you're working with archival cartoons, don't assume you have access to the originals just because digitized versions exist online. Most of what you'll find on museum websites has been cleaned up or cropped. Go to the actual newspaper archive if you need accuracy. The Library of Congress has a solid collection, and some state archives hold original artwork that hasn't been digitized at all.
Where Modern Depictions Go Wrong
I see a lot of modern students and creators try to make Teapot Dome cartoons and miss the mark in predictable ways. Here's what usually goes wrong. First, they focus entirely on Albert Fall and forget that the scandal involved multiple players. President Harding died before the scandal broke publicly, but the cartoons frequently depicted him either sleeping through it or pointing at Fall as a scapegoat. The visual narrative of the scandal wasn't just about one corrupt official. It was about an entire administration's relationship with oil lobbyists and the concept of presidential accountability. Second, they use overly literal imagery. A common mistake is drawing a literal teapot with money coming out of it. The better cartoons used the teapot as a background element or a piece of furniture and focused on human action instead. The teapot was symbolic, not descriptive. Showing a man pouring money into a teapot is less interesting than showing a man sitting at a desk with a teapot-shaped paperweight while a lobbyist hands him an envelope.
Third, and this is a real problem in my experience, the captions and punchlines are often anachronistic. Cartoonists of the 1920s wrote captions that assumed the reader knew basic facts about the leasing controversy. Modern creators tend to over-explain, writing captions that spell out the entire scandal in five seconds of reading time. The original cartoons trusted the audience more than that.
Practical Tips for Working With This Material
If you're creating content about the Teapot Dome Scandal or working with these cartoons in any professional capacity, here's what I've found useful. Read the political cartoon databases from the University of Virginia and the Newseum collection before you start drawing anything. These have thousands of examples and will show you the range of approaches cartoonists took. You'll notice that some cartoons were genuinely funny while others were just angry. Both approaches had an audience, and the funny ones tend to age better because they didn't rely solely on outrage. If you're a student working on a project about the Political Cartoon Teapot Dome Scandal, don't just pick the most famous cartoon and analyze it. Pick three from different newspapers published within a six-month window. Compare how the coverage shifted as the story developed. The cartoons from early 1922 look very different from the cartoons published after Fall was indicted in 1923. That shift tells you something about how public opinion and the press were responding to the legal proceedings in real time.
For digital creators trying to make this relevant to a modern audience, the Teapot Dome framework works well for discussing any corruption scandal involving resource extraction and government contracts. The structure of secret leases, uncompetitive bidding, and personal enrichment repeats across many different eras and countries. The cartoonists who understood this best were the ones who drew Teapot Dome cartoons that could have applied to almost any corruption case, using archetypal imagery rather than specific names. The Harding administration was eventually associated with several scandals beyond Teapot Dome. The cartoons sometimes conflated them visually, which is something to be careful about if you're doing historical analysis. Fall's conviction in 1929 was the only criminal conviction from the entire Harding administration, but that doesn't mean he was the only corrupt figure involved. The cartoons reflected that awareness, and so should your work if you're using them as source material.
