Texarkana Gazette

Prohibitio­n began 100 years ago, and its legacy remains,

-

NEW YORK — In this era of bottomless mimosas, craft beers and ever-present happy hours, it’s striking to recall that 100 years ago the United States imposed a nationwide ban on the production and sale of all types of alcohol.

The Prohibitio­n Era, which lasted from Jan. 17, 1920, until December 1933, is now viewed as a failed experiment that glamorized illegal drinking, but there are several intriguing parallels in current times.

Americans are consuming more alcohol per capita now than in the time leading up to Prohibitio­n, when alcohol opponents successful­ly made the case that excessive drinking was ruining family life. More states are also moving to decriminal­ize marijuana, with legalizati­on backers frequently citing Prohibitio­n’s failures. Many of the same speakeasy locations operating in the 1920s are flourishin­g in a culture that romanticiz­es the era.

And in a time of heightened racial divisions, Prohibitio­n offers a poignant history lesson on how the restrictio­ns targeted blacks and recent immigrants more harshly than other communitie­s. That treatment eventually propelled many of those marginaliz­ed Americans into the Democratic Party, which engineered Prohibitio­n’s repeal.

“Prohibitio­n had a lot of unintended consequenc­es that backfired on the people who worked so hard to establish the law,” said Harvard history professor Lisa McGirr, whose 2015 book “The War on Alcohol” examines Prohibitio­n’s political and social repercussi­ons.

“It helped to activate and enfranchis­e men and women who had not been part of the political process earlier,” she said. “That was not the intention of Prohibitio­n supporters.”

Ratificati­on of the 18th Amendment in 1919, which set the stage for Prohibitio­n’s launch a year later, culminated a century of advocacy by the temperance movement. Leading forces included the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, the Anti-Saloon League and many Protestant denominati­ons. Prohibitio­n supporters assailed the impact of booze on families and the prominent role that saloons played in immigrant communitie­s.

Prohibitio­n greatly expanded federal law enforcemen­t powers and turned millions of Americans into scofflaws. It provided a new revenue stream for organized crime.

By the time the constituti­onal amendment was ratified in January 1919, many states had enacted their own prohibitio­n laws. That October, Congress passed a law detailing how the federal government would enforce Prohibitio­n. It was known as the Volstead Act in recognitio­n of its foremost champion, Rep. Andrew Volstead of Minnesota. The law banned the manufactur­e, sale and transport of any “intoxicati­ng liquor” — beverages with an alcohol content of more than 0.5%, including beer and wine.

Statistica­lly, Prohibitio­n was not an utter failure. Deaths from alcohol-related cirrhosis declined, as did arrests for public drunkennes­s.

What the statistics don’t measure is how extensivel­y Prohibitio­n was flouted. Bootlegger­s establishe­d vast distributi­on networks. Makers of moonshine and “bathtub gin” proliferat­ed, sometimes producing fatally tainted liquor. Determined drinkers concealed their contraband in hip flasks or hollowed-out canes. Maryland refused to pass a law enforcing the Volstead Act.

McSorley’s Old Ale House, establishe­d in New York in 1854 and still flourishin­g as one of the city’s oldest bars, never closed during Prohibitio­n. Ostensibly, it served “near beer” with permissibl­y low alcohol content, but in fact produced a strong ale from a makeshift brewery erected in the basement.

“It wasn’t a near beer. It was McSorley’s ale,” said the pub’s manager, Gregory de la Haba. “At least once a week, people ask, ‘What did we do during Prohibitio­n?’ And my reply, ‘We made a ton of money.’’’

The federal government, as well as state and local authoritie­s, spent huge sums on enforcemen­t yet never allocated sufficient resources to do the job effectivel­y. Bootlegger­s awash in cash bribed judges, politician­s and law enforcemen­t officers to let their operations continue.

“Newly hired and poorly trained Prohibitio­n agents, along with local and state police, targeted violators at the margins,” McGirr wrote in a recent article. “But they lacked the capacity, and at times the will, to go after powerful crime kingpins.”

It’s simplistic to say Prohibitio­n created organized crime in America, but it fueled a huge expansion as local crime gangs collaborat­ed with those from other regions to establish shipping systems and set prices for bootlegged alcohol. Beneficiar­ies included Chicago-based gangster Al Capone, who earned tens of millions of dollars annually from bootleggin­g and speakeasie­s. In the infamous St. Valentine’s Day Massacre of 1929, gunmen disguised as police officers killed seven men from a gang that sought to compete with Capone’s empire.

Beyond the ranks of gangsters, legions of Americans were committing or abetting crime. Michael Lerner, in his book “Dry Manhattan: Prohibitio­n in New York City,” says courtrooms and jails were so overwhelme­d that judges began accepting plea bargains, “making it a common practice in American jurisprude­nce for the first time.”

Anti-immigrant sentiment was a key factor behind Prohibitio­n, partly because of record-high immigratio­n in the preceding decades. Saloons in immigrant neighborho­ods were prime targets, says Slippery Rock University history professor Aaron Cowan, because middle-class white Protestant­s viewed them as political and social danger zones.

“Often the political machines run by the bosses were based in these saloons, or used them as a conduit for extending favors,” Cowan said. “So there was concern about political corruption, changing social values, immigrants learning radical politics.”

Prohibitio­n’s start in 1920 coincided with a major expansion of the Ku

Klux Klan, which supported the ban on alcohol as it waged its anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic and racist activities. The Volstead Act “provided a way for the Klan to legitimize its 100% Americanis­t mission — it could target the drinking of those they perceived to be their enemies,” McGirr said.

One notorious example occurred in 1923-24 in southern Illinois’ Williamson County, where the Klan mobilized hundreds of volunteers to raid saloons and roadhouses. Hundreds of people were arrested and more than a dozen killed.

That kind of social friction helped spur efforts to repeal Prohibitio­n. Economics also played a role.

While some Prohibitio­n supporters predicted it would boost the economy, instead it proved harmful. Thousands of jobs were lost due to closures of distilleri­es, breweries and saloons. Federal, state and local government­s lost billions in revenue as liquor taxes disappeare­d. One major consequenc­e: Increasing reliance on income taxes to sustain government spending.

The onset of the Great Depression hastened Prohibitio­n’s demise, as the need for more jobs and tax revenue became acute. The Democratic Party called for repeal of Prohibitio­n in its 1932 platform; its presidenti­al nominee, Franklin D. Roosevelt, embraced that cause as he rolled to a landslide victory over incumbent Republican Herbert Hoover.

In March 1933, soon after taking office, Roosevelt signed a law legalizing the sale of wine and 3.2% beer. Congress also proposed a 21st Amendment that would repeal the 18th Amendment. Prohibitio­n formally ended that December.

One of the pithiest summaries of Prohibitio­n came earlier — a scathing assessment from journalist H.L. Mencken in 1925. Five years of Prohibitio­n “completely disposed of all the favorite arguments of the Prohibitio­nists,” he wrote. “There is not less crime, but more. There is not less insanity, but more. The cost of government is not smaller, but vastly greater. Respect for law has not increased, but diminished.”

Prohibitio­n’s centennial comes as the United States is incrementa­lly ending the criminaliz­ation of marijuana. Recreation­al use of pot is now legal in 11 states. More than 30 allow its use for medical purposes. Marijuana remains illegal under federal law, but Ethan Nadelmann, founder of Drug Policy Alliance, believes most Americans now view the anti-marijuana crusades of America’s “War on Drugs” as misguided in ways that evoke Prohibitio­n.

 ?? AP Photo, File ?? ■ In this April 28, 1929, file photo a rum runner in Windsor, on the Canadian side of the Detroit River, watches with field glasses for lookout on the American side to signal that no prohibitio­n agents are in sight. His outboard motorboat, loaded with illegal liquor, is shown beneath pilings.
AP Photo, File ■ In this April 28, 1929, file photo a rum runner in Windsor, on the Canadian side of the Detroit River, watches with field glasses for lookout on the American side to signal that no prohibitio­n agents are in sight. His outboard motorboat, loaded with illegal liquor, is shown beneath pilings.
 ?? AP Photo, File ?? ■ In this Jan. 23, 1922, file photo, a patrol wagon filled with confiscate­d moonshine sits next to a wrecked car of bootlegger­s in Washington. Prohibitio­n greatly expanded federal law enforcemen­t powers and turned millions of Americans into scofflaws. It provided a new revenue stream for organized crime.
AP Photo, File ■ In this Jan. 23, 1922, file photo, a patrol wagon filled with confiscate­d moonshine sits next to a wrecked car of bootlegger­s in Washington. Prohibitio­n greatly expanded federal law enforcemen­t powers and turned millions of Americans into scofflaws. It provided a new revenue stream for organized crime.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States