Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

How the Sufferage Movement, Income Tax, and xenophobia affected the Prohibition Movement.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
pampango Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 11:45 AM
Original message
How the Sufferage Movement, Income Tax, and xenophobia affected the Prohibition Movement.
Interesting interview today with Daniel Okrent who wrote Last Call about the gestation of the temperance movement and the passage of the 18th Amendment.

From an interview with Okrent at http://bnreview.barnesandnoble.com/t5/Interview/Daniel-Okrent/ba-p/2564 .

"I thought Prohibition was simply a movement of pinched, narrow people who, as Mencken put it, were worried that somewhere, somebody else was having fun. What I found is that there were very, very good reasons for the movement. The amount of drunkenness -- particularly at the edge of the frontier, in the Midwest, in the rural areas -- was terrifying. Women had no legal rights at the time, and husbands were off getting drunk, drinking away the family money, not doing their work, coming home, hitting their wives, treating the kids badly, sometimes bringing home venereal disease from the prostitutes connected to the taverns. It was a real, real problem. So beginning to build a movement around the idea of home protection, as the Women's Christian Temperance Union called it, that was really, really important. I think Prohibition was a really bad idea -- but I think there were really good reasons for the nation to want to cut down on the amount of drinking that people did in the 19th century."

"It begins with Susan B. Anthony. It couldn't be more perfect. Susan B. Anthony is involved in temperance -- that's her movement in the late 1840s, as it was Elizabeth Cady Stanton's, and various others'. Anthony got up at a meeting of the New York chapter of the Sons of Temperance to give a speech, and she was told she couldn't give a speech; only the sons of temperance could, and she was a daughter, not welcome. That enabled her to realize how politically powerless women were. So when she and Stanton and others initiate a movement to get women the vote, one of the reasons they want it is because they hate the presence of liquor in American life. The two movements really merge by the 1870s-1880s. The Prohibitionists are supporting the idea of suffrage, and vice versa. We might think of the Prohibitionists as being narrow and conservative, but in fact, they were very progressive on many social issues: the betterment of women's condition in the home, child welfare, any number of other things.

The two amendments go into the Constitution within one year of another; they are really siblings, the right for women to vote and the limitation of people's ability to get alcohol.

In fact, the income tax comes into play at both ends of Prohibition. Up until 1912-1913, as much as 40% of the federal government's domestic revenue came from excise tax on liquor. The excise tax on liquor goes back to the Whiskey Rebellion in the 1790s; then it was used again to finance the Civil War, and stayed in place. You couldn't have a government without this revenue, because there was no income tax -- the income tax had been declared unconstitutional in the 1890s by the Supreme Court. So the Populists, who were the primary movers behind the income tax movement, say, "Look, if we can get income tax, that will enable the Prohibitionists to get their Prohibition in, because the government won't need that excise money any longer." The Prohibitionists realize the same thing, and the two groups make an alliance, just as the Prohibitionists and the suffragists did.

A third factor (I'm getting ahead of your questions now) is World War One. The anti-German feeling during World War One was incredibly strong; the Prohibitionists brilliantly took advantage of this by pointing out that all the brewers had names like Schlitz and Anheuser-Busch and Pabst. They demonized them as agents of the Kaiser trying to destroy America's will with their poison, alcohol. Given the intensity of anti-German feeling in the U.S., that's what finally put it over. So you have these three things that seem unrelated -- suffrage, the income tax, and World War One. Their combination is what gives us Prohibition.

Yes, there were people who cared desperately about Prohibition, but it was also a way to rally around a set of issues that had to do with who was going to control the country. We haven't talked about the strongly xenophobic aspect of Prohibition. There was the White, Protestant, middle of the country movement against the growing Catholic and Jewish populations of the large cities of the East and the upper Midwest. Whose country was this? Prohibition became the issue around which the anti-city, anti-immigrant world could gather.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 11:50 AM
Response to Original message
1. Great info
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
2. Good Meta-View
And that's what happens when politics makes strange bedfellows.

That's why we don't have an ERA--there wasn't any group that sought the power of women, but lots that sought to continue the second-class citizenship, and those forces are still at it.

Women's coalition consists of women's rights, children's rights, adoption, jobs and unions, equal pay and worker's rights, single-payer health care, social security, welfare and marriage reforms--all the things that the Democratic Party has turned its back on, given away, and neglected or subverted. Women's needsand their solutions cross all barriers--race, age, status, even sex.

I am wishing and working to make the Democratic Party the women's party once again, but I am thinking it's hopeless. Corporations don't like women--women's lives are messy and emotional and not easily regimented. Corporate Democrats don't like women--they nag and complain and argue--they don't have the good soldier attitude, they won't trade today's pain for tomorrow's gain. Too many times, tomorrow never comes for women.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Voice for Peace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
3. interesting! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spike89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 12:04 PM
Response to Original message
4. Fun to explore the web that is history
Too bad history is generally taught as a series of free-standing events. I'd add to the discussion above that the advent of the industrial revolution had a huge and profound effect in fostering women's independence. So much of what happened in the early and mid 1800s is still reverberating within our society.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pampango Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. It is interesting that some many disparate forces came together to push Prohibition.
All I remembered from history class was that it was a Puritan-inspired movement gone wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MicaelS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 12:05 PM
Response to Original message
5. Fascinating....Thanks n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dappleganger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
6. Excellent post!
Unfortunately I've never had a history teacher pull it together as you've presented it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 12:36 PM
Response to Original message
7. Blaine-Cleveland presidential election...The Republican James G, Blaine lost New York State
but under 1500 votes. He was smeared as," James G. Blaine - the continental liar from the State of Maine", but what cost him NY and the election ws the casting of the GOP as the party of "Rum, Romanism and Rebellion!"
After his election, Cleveland detractors started rumors that he had fathered a child out of wedlock, and paraded about, carrying signs and chanting,
" Ma, Ma,,where's my Pa?" "He's gone to the White House, Ha - Ha- Ha."

The wisdom of the American voter knows no bounds.


mark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. "Rum, Romanism and Rebellion!" was an ATTACK on Democrats
Remember we are talking the 1884 election, 19 years AFTER the end of the Civil War. The Democrats were tied in with the South and the Civil War and this the "Rebellion" part. The Romanism claimed was by the GOP supporters of Blaine, who was born a Catholic in Brownsville Pa area and thus avoided the issue. Blaine converted to a protestant faith when he entered politics given the general hatred of Catholics by a large segment of the population at that time. Even then the Irish was tied in with Alcohol and Catholicism and the New York City Democrats (One of the few cities of that time period which was Democratic) was an anti-Democratic message.

The big democratic supporter for Prohibition, William Jennings Bryan (Democratic Candidate 1896, 1900 and 1908) tended to support prohibition for the reason cited above AND that the Saloons were one of the ways the GOP controlled most large urban areas prior to 1920 (Even Southern large urban areas, New Orleans was one of the very few large southern urban areas and as such tended to be GOP strongholds). One of the subsequent conversion of most urban areas to be Democratic Strongholds starting in the 1930s is the destruction of these GOP controlled saloons. The GOP managed to hold onto them in the 1920s (Al Capone's biggest support was the last GOP Mayor of Chicago in the 1920s) but as the economy went bad the lack of control over such saloons saw the GOp lose control of more and more cities (In my home City of Pittsburgh the GOP held the mayorship till 1928, with his control dependent on support from the speakeasies in town, he lost election in 1928 and by 1934 the last GOP member of the city Council was replaced by a Democrat). Now Pittsburgh had the advantage that is had been a GOP strong hold in a Democratic dominated part of the State of Pennsylvania (And Urban areas traditionally sooner or later reflect the surrounding rural area) but the GOP had held controlled of the City of Pittsburgh since the Civil War through control of the city's saloon (and in the 1920s the Speakeasies).

Yes, one of the chief side affects of Prohibition is the GOP was chased out of almost every major urban area and retreated into the Suburbs and rural parts of the Country (and that includes small towns and cities). Prohibition was NOT intended to destroy the GOP control over urban areas, but it was one of its chief side affects.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 12:39 PM
Response to Original message
8. So people went for the completely wrong solution to a real problem.
It never changes, does it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. No, alcohol was and is a problem for families with children.
Even today almost every Protection from Abuse I do involves alcohol (Exception occur, but they are exceptions). Alcohol tends to make people mean, not so much while getting drunk but as they "Sleep it off". It is during these "recovery times" that family members get hurt, and as such the real enemy was seen as alcohol, if the Abuser would stay away from alcohol almost all the abuse would disappear (Drugs are a close second, through it is rare it hear of Marijuana is an abuse case).

In Domestic Relations, Alcohol comes up frequently, again do to a tendency to violence and neglect when a parent is one it. If the alcoholic would just stay off Alcohol the problems involving custody and visitation would disappear in the majority of cases (Alcohol is NOT as common a factor in Custody and Visitation cases as in Abuse cases, but alcohol is still a factor in most cases when one parent wants to cut out visitation of the children with the other parent).

Yes, in my opinion alcohol is a PROBLEM and was a problems prior to Prohibition. The problem did go down during prohibition as alcohol consumption went down (and it did go down substantially from pre-Prohibition days). In many ways most of the opposition to appeal reflected these improvements, but the cost in term of making the mob rich, the huge amount of cash to bribe law enforcement and the attack on civil liberates to keep alcohol illegal was to much and by 1934 the country wanted to give it up. Notice the reason had less to do with permitting people to drink but the cost of ENFORCING the prohibition (In my home state of Pennsylvania the GOvernor in the 1920s had to ask for money from the Women Christian Temperance Union to pay for enforcement of Prohibition for the state legislature refused to provide the money).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Where did I say that I don't consider alcohol to be a problem? -nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Just wanted to point out that alcohol was and is a problem...
And groups like the Women Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) and other woman groups recognized that it was a problem. We may disagree as to their solution to that problem, but I wanted to point out they had a solution and tried to see if it would work (and at times paid for enforcement of Prohibition as I pointed out above).

Alcohol is still a problem and we have to address it. MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Drivers) solution as to stricter driving while intoxicated (DUI) laws is another effort to solve that problem. The adoption of 21 as the legal drinking age nationwide is viewed as part of the solution (And I live in a state that NEVER dropped the age to drink from age 21). I, for one, would like to see a ban on Alcohol advertisements, simply on the grounds we do NOT need to encourage people to drink (This would hurt sports and other programs marketed to "Males") for we have to STOP the connection of having fun with alcohol while ignoring the more common harm that comes with alcohol use (and I would do the same with marijuana, legalize it but ban any advertisement for its sale AND sell it through state owned stores maned by Civil Servants who do to being Civil Servants know they can NOT be fired without just cause).

Just commenting on the a fact was and is a problem not anything more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RainDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 02:08 PM
Response to Original message
10. excellent article. thanks! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 06:50 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC