David Kent
COOPERSTOWN —
I was an American history major in college and one topic that my professors never discussed was prohibition.
This ``oversight’’ occurred in spite of the fact I took several intensive classes on 20th century America, and my senior thesis class focused on issues from 1890-1940. After reading Daniel Okrent’s new book, ``Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition,’’ it’s hard to understand how the subject could have been so consistently ignored.
One commentator has referred to the book as the authoritative work on prohibition. It’s probably true. I doubt another title has looked as in-depth into the topic as this one. But why is a mystery to me. After reading Okrent’s work I not only found an overlooked piece of American history but one that provides valuable object lessons into the way our nation’s politicians make decisions today.
For those of you not familiar with it (and considering how it’s glossed over in history classes, that’s very likely) prohibition was passed as the 18th Amendment to the Constitution in 1919. Its passage basically banned the drinking of alcoholic beverages except for medicinal and religious purposes.
If you find it hard to believe in this day and ageof over-hyped wine and beer commercials that prohibition could have actually existed you also won’t be surprised to find out it was a colossal failure. In 1933 it was repealed by the 21st Amendment. The story of how prohibition managed to pass in the first place, how difficult it was to enforce once it was enacted, and how it managed to be repealed after 14 years is a fascinating one.
One thing that stands out in the 50 years that prohibitionists fought to have an amendment was their unusual coalition of supporters.
Progressives who saw it as a sin and vice were joined by suffragettes, racists, and nativists. Women pushing for the right to vote were tired of having to deal with husbands who would come home drunk after work.
Southern whites stereotyped former slaves as drunks who raped white women (the Ku Klux Klan were avid supporters of prohibition). And nativists who hated Irish and German immigrants saw those people as drunks who debased society.
The common theme is ``drunk.’’ There is no question that there was a huge increase in the number of saloons and drinking establishments around the country as the 19th century wore on. Still, the movement to ban alcohol seemed overwhelming because it takes two-thirds of Congress and three-quarters of the states to pass a constitutional amendment. But as we see today clever political maneuverings can overcome what seems like long odds.
One thing that helped the ``dry’’ movement was that there were four constitutional amendments passed during the second decade of the 20th Century. The direct election of senators, the federal income tax, and women’s suffrage all led up to the passage of prohibition. For example, suffragettes and ``dry’’ advocates represented a common coalition. Employers also supported it as a way to keep their workers from coming to work intoxicated.
Of course, what works in theory doesn’t necessarily work in practice. When enough people want something they often find ways to get it whether it’s illegal or not. Just look at prostitution and drug use today. The passage of prohibition opened up a black market that enterprising entrepreneurs learned how to exploit. It also led to the rise of organized crime. Not only was there a huge market for illegal booze but there was no tax on it either.
Recent studies indicate that prohibition cut alcohol consumption by 30 percent in the U.S.
That doesn’t sound bad until you realize that the whole idea was to reduce it by 100%. A .300 batting average is pretty good in baseball but not with a constitutional amendment.
Enforcement of prohibition became something of a joke in many cases. When Al Smith became governor of New York he pushed through a law that banned state funding to enforce it. Saloons and ``speakeasies’’ in New York City operated openly in many cases.
The ``wets’’ started to shift the momentum towards repeal in the mid-20s. They were led by several corporate chieftains who despised the dry movement.
As conservatives they hated the federal income tax and corporate tax and thought re-establishing legalized alcohol and taxing it would undo the need for the other duties.
The Great Depression also helped the cause as the federal government needed the tax revenue that repealing prohibition would bring.
There are many lessons to be learned from the experience of the 18th Amendment and its eventual repeal. For one thing, politics and the manipulation of the federal system have gone on throughout our history and aren’t new phenomena.
There were just as many politicians back then who talked out of both sides of their mouth and weren’t as ``moral’’ as they claimed to be (Sound familiar?).
Also, taking away individual rights often brings about a backlash that makes enforcement difficult and opens up a black market.
And the experience may present a template on how to deal with such current issues as the war on drugs.
Prohibition was passed mainly because it was considered immoral and dragging down society. Its failure provides a life lesson in how not to deal with a societal ill. It’s a shame that our U.S. history curriculum tends to gloss over it. It’s an important and fascinating part of our history. Okrent’s work isn’t perfect.
It reads like a textbook at times, and at one point he digresses into an impassioned but unnecessary defense of Joe Kennedy who was commonly suspected of being a bootlegger. But those are minor flaws. There is so much valuable information here. It should be considered a must read.
DAVID KENT is the Cooperstown Village Librarian.
