I recently watched the Burns documentary on Prohibition. I had just a basic knowledge of the 18th amendment and it’s repeal. I had heard of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, Al Capone and speakeasies, about all that was mentioned in our history classes.
The documentary states that weak 2% beer was commonlyconsumed throughout the day, but public drunkenness became a problem once cheap whisky became available. Did this happen due to the Wars, immigration, a change of habits or other reasons?
Once it dawned on people the Anti-Saloon League was serious, they still thought the Volstead Act would permit beer. The actual act was much more draconian, surprising people. Was it misrepresented, or just not taken seriously? You could still legally make wine at home, but not brew beer or moonshine. How was the wine exception justified?
Doctors could prescribe one pint of whisky every ten days for its medicinal value. Given distilleries were locked or shut down, where did this supply come from (before George Remus)?
Rabbis could also supply some alcohol, leading to “many rabbis with last names like Kelly or O’Shea”. Was this true? Was this enforcement so lax, so easy to obtain?
The argument was made that Prohibition increased freedom, paradoxically, because if something is illegal, it is not regulated. Thus, speakeasies in cities were open at any hour, you could drink at any hour, any drink was available, etc. Does this same principle apply to other situations?
Since judges preferred to spend time on weightier matters, over half of urban policemen disagreed with the law, smuggling and crime became commonplace… it was argued that the (unthinkable and unworkable) Prohibition increased disrespect for the law, police, media, politicians and religion due to hypocrisy. Is this true? Was this the first major thing to do so?
Temperance was originally linked to the Women’s Suffrage Movement (vote). Did Prohibition accelerate or delay this development?
The series talks about lawyer George Remus, who bought locked distilleries, started drug companies, trucking companies and all the middlemen needed to “legally” supply booze after buying off many officials. He became rich, but was later found to be breaking the law. He was imprisoned, screwed over by his second wife, killed her in public and was exonerated at trial. Have you heard of him? What is his legacy?
Could Prohibition have happened if not for anti-German sentiment in WW1? Or the development of income tax as a source of governmental revenue?
Why did the Anti Saloon League not try to compromise at all when it became clear it was unpopular?
How much of Franklin Roosevelt’s popularity was due to his repeal of the 18th Amendment?
Has anything similar happened in other countries than the US? Where booze was available, outlawed and restored? Which US areas are still dry?
The series implies the only notable thing about Capone was his thirst for publicity, that he was like a hundred other people. Is this true? Is it true the truth about the St. Valentine’s Day shooting in Chicago is still unknown, as implied?
Were you aware the term “scofflaw” was invented during Prohibition to describe those who disagreed with it?
Drinking in public, outside of saloons and restaurants, is still illegal in many places. Does this have any relation to Prohibition?
Any other trivia, thoughts on the series or observations?
The series begins with a Mark Twain quote about how morality is for other people. It makes a case alcoholism was a serious problem for many families at a time when there was no divorce or ability to deal with domestic situations. It implies that in the cities no one thought an Amendment would ever succeed and many were surprised when it did. It turned out Prohibition caused other problems, and was ignored in many cities. It’s supporters refused to compromise and were surprised when it was repealed, as other problems were deemed more important.
Ten percent (?) in some places still have a problem with alcohol. Covid might have made this worse. Post-Covid, where are we at?
Prohibition did have long-term anti-alcohol effects on US culture. With the rise of Soft Drinks, folks finally had an alternative to booze at lunch and a lot of drunkenness disappeared or was reduced.
The ASL was effective because it played politics extremely well and never allowed itself to be sidetracked or bogged down with other issues the way that the Temperance League was. The one and only criterion used by the ASL for supporting or opposing a candidate was prohibition.
I wanted to upload a PDF of one of those booze prescription forms but I can’t seem to find it on my hard drive. Well I’m sure you can google it.
The reason you could make your own wine was that the ban was on buying and specifically on selling booze. If you bought a brick of pressed dried grapes and let it ferment in the shed, then hey, no booze was bought or sold.
Prohibition also allowed hard cider. This was because that was the favorite booze of the rural electorate that backed prohibition. Utter hypocrisy.
I’m surprised to see a Canadian ask that question.
Bootlegging didn’t start with Remus. Supplies were flowing across borders from Canada and elsewhere into the U.S. within weeks of Prohibition taking effect. Add to existing stocks of booze and there was plenty for doctors to prescribe and “patients” to take, along with what could be produced legally for so-called medicinal purposes.*
*Alcohol as medicine had a vogue even before Prohibition; prior to the 18th Amendment physicians were encouraging its use in various conditions, and patent medicines often had high alcohol content. I recall hearing that a dose of Lydia Pinkham’s formula for “female complaints” had a jolt equivalent to a typical cocktail. The book “Last Call” contains an amusing ledger excerpt showing the conditions for which doctors were prescribing alcohol. There was a virtual epidemic of “La Grippe” and “debility” for which booze was the remedy.
**most or all Canadian provinces enacted prohibition during WWI but had rescinded it by the early 1920s, facilitating an economic boom resulting from supplying the U.S.
There was divorce, but it was much harder to obtain. There typically had to be a reason shown, such as adultery. And it was considered a genuine scandal. Divorced women were often treated by general society as not much better than prostitutes.
The suppliers of alcohol didn’t run background checks on their customers. If you said you were a rabbi, and you were legally allowed to sell wine to rabbis, then they took you at your word.
It probably accelerated it slightly.
The anti-German feelings probably weren’t a factor, but the income tax was important. Most of the government’s revenue came from excise taxes on liquor and beer, so it wasn’t economically feasible to ban alcohol until another source of revenue was developed.
They deeply believed that what they were doing was the right thing to do.
A minor factor. The big factor was that he was trying to do things to end the Depression and help people who were devestated by it.
He wasn’t the only gangster running things in Chicago, but he was the biggest and had taken over most of the other organizations. No one is entirely sure who was behind the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre, but the most intriguing theory I saw was that it was cops out for revenge.
Hadn’t heard that, but Google Ngram viewer does seem to support the claim.
Jebus Kripes. The OP reads like an essay test I forgot about and didn’t study for. Like that school dream we all have from time to time.
My Dad was around during prohibition. In the area he grew up it was basically ignored. Taverns that were opened before remained open and law enforcement did nothing about it.
Remember, in those days there was no social media. People had no inkling what was coming. They either were uninformed, misinformed or just didn’t take serious the implications.
Anti-German sentiment, prior to WWI hysteria, had been somewhat common many years before the 1920’s as an adjunct of the anti-Irish/anti-Catholic Know-Nothing nativists.
Over half a century earlier, violence occurred because the Germans used their one day off to drink beer instead of praying.
There were a lot of weird, unintended consequences of prohibition, one was that anti-alcohol was seen as a feminist issue, but younger women started going to speakeasies. It created a rift between earlier women activists who saw alcohol as evil and younger women who wanted the freedom to go to saloons, dance to jazz and live a more modern life.
It also helped create a vast network of criminals, much like the war on drugs has.
This is a good book and easy read in the topic, the author was one of the talking heads in the Burns documentary.
Sorta. When Prohibition was repealed, states were given the option to remain dry on a county by county basis. This leads to the patchwork laws we have in this country today. In establishing new laws, most counties elected to keep or establish laws against drinking in public both as a crime control measure and as a sop to the Prohibitionists.
Why don’t anti-abortion activists try to compromise when it is clear that their stand is unpopular?
IIRC, in quite a few Muslim nations, booze is banned.
All the countries with complete bans on alcohol (Libya, Kuwait, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen) are majority Muslim. Because it is banned in the Quran, many Muslim countries tend to take a dim view of drinking even if they don’t ban it outright for everyone. S
That notion was probably bolstered by the way the gangsters, upon exiting the building, pretended to be arresting their own, hustling them into a fake cop car.
In addition, one of the victims said, “Cops did it.” Neither of these prove anything, but I read a Capone biography (Get Capone by Jonathan EIG) a few years ago that laid out even more evidence.
So this is the fact that amazed me most from that doc. And also confused me. Prohibition is usually given as the reason for the proliferation of bland weak lager in the US prior to the craft beer movement in the last twenty years or so.
In that case why is “hard” cider so rare in the US compared to the UK? (It’s become a bit more common along with the rise of craft beer, but it still rare to see on draft at a regular bar). Why didn’t every bar in America replace beer with cider. And every apple in north America go to cider production?
What Prohibition did was consolidate the brewing industry. The trend towards love in a canoe beer started after World War 2, with the rise of Suburbia and all those new families going out to dinner and having to stretch a dollar by getting a pitcher of beer. The wife usually wouldn’t like the full-strength stuff, so they got the lightest, cheapest draft on tap. Since the wife did the grocery shopping, she’s the one that bought the 6-pack in the fridge. Which, BTW, was chosen because it was the most beer cans a frail, dainty female could be expected to carry. So beers got blander and blander. Profits went up, so everybody was happy.
As for cider, my guess is that it just can’t be ramped up to industrial scale as easily. Cheaper to just switch to gin.
