Bootleggers, speakeasies, Al Capone, Walgreens, dry rural counties, wet cities, the jazz age – all unintended consequences of prohibition. The idea for prohibition began in the church. This was before the days of Alcoholics Anonymous, before there was any sense that alcoholism could be helped by therapeutic or spiritual means. Alcoholism was seen as a dire sentence leading to insanity or death. If a family man struggled with drinking, he was guaranteeing that his wife and his children would be forced to go with him on this path of insanity and death. Divorces were frowned upon and seen as shameful, and so some women would take abuse daily from their husbands who struggled with drinking, and try to find ways to endure. One way that some tried to endure was by going to church and sharing their hardships with their minister. They would share their pain, and share how hopeless they felt. They wondered aloud with their ministers if there could be another way – a way to correct moral corruption, and curb violence and dishonesty both at home and in society. This was the beginning of prohibition.
I think it is important to note that prohibition was not based on abstract moral claims or birthed from a bunch of fuddy duddy’s who didn’t want anybody to have a good time. No. It began from a place of real pain based on lived experience, and the daring hypothesis that by stopping access to alcohol the entire moral character of the country would be changed, beginning at home. It was a grand social experiment to curb violence. Looking back it may look wrongheaded and simplistic, and it’s easy to see the holes in this way of thinking in retrospect. In the moment, though, this kind of simple solution seemed like salvation, especially for women and children. With one swipe of the pen, passing legislation, we could have our fathers and husbands back – they would be good again.
Even knowing all the unintended consequences of prohibition, I find this origin authentic and poignant. It began with legitimate concern and sensitivity. Women through the church found their voice on a national scale unlike anyone had seen before, 1 year before they were given the right to vote. Ohio was a hub for leaders and organizations that passed the 18th amendment in favor of prohibition. The religious tract that was read was published in Westerville, Ohio. The Anti-Saloon league, one of the most powerful lobbying efforts in American history originated in Oberlin, Ohio and later moved to Columbus. Throughout towns and cities in Ohio were the first instances of civil disobedience by women. They would gather at their church, and march out to saloons and pharmacies and stand there asking the owners to promise to stop the sale of alcohol for the sake of their family. Many small towns were shocked by this kind of behavior, and didn’t know how to respond. Some towns were friendly. Some threatened to arrest them, but it was seen as uncouth to arrest all these women. Cities like Cincinnati were less friendly – spraying these women with fire hoses, and laughing at them. When they faced resistance, instead of faltering they decided to organize themselves and the Women’s Christian Temperance Unions were formed beginning in Hillsboro, Ohio.
This was in the late 19th century, 1873, a good 30 years before the constitutional amendment was passed. They came up with a brilliant idea. They would write curriculum for public school children on the impact of alcohol on the mind and body. It was propaganda, not scientific fact. So they had stories of young boys and girls taking one drop of liquor and having the lining of their esophagus burned up. They included stories of drinking and sudden explosion. They showed pictures of deformed livers that became deformed after one beer. These children eventually became the voters who would pass legislation for prohibition in 30 years.
To be clear, not all the churches were on board with prohibition. The Lutherans were not, and the Catholics made sure that there was an allowance for sacramental wine for communion. After the passing of legislation, the orders for sacramental wine increased 30 times what it was the year before prohibition. The reason that the Lutherans and Catholics were not on the forefront of prohibition is explained simply that many in their membership were immigrants – Germans, Irish, and Italians that valued beer and wine as part of their heritage. There was no way they wanted to give that up, and their religious leaders understood this, many of them being immigrants themselves.
Prohibition created a cultural divide between dry rural communities throughout the south and middle America, including Ohio and urban centers like New York City. In New York City, the entire city rebelled against prohibition including the mayor, police, and local citizens. The mayor held press conferences where he would drink a beer, and dare the federal government to arrest him. Al Smith, the governor of New York ran to be presidential candidate for the Democratic Party. He was born and raised in New York City and very critical of Prohibition. At the democratic national convention of 1928, the he was depicted as being aligned with immigrants in his sensibilities including his criticism of prohibition. Those in favor of prohibition were aligned with what was described as the real America – white Protestants. The KKK marched on Washington in favor of prohibition. Many members of the KKK were some of the most powerful democratic political leaders in this country and no candidate would dare criticize the KKK. Al Smith did. He spoke out at the national convention about his disdain for the KKK and how un-American they were. He lost the election, and they elected a democratic candidate who sat silently when the KKK entered the convention to take their seats…
Prohibition created a new moral order, an alternate social reality, an alternative economy. It also created this sense that those people out in New York City or Chicago are a different kind of people than the people in Ohio. They’re values in the city are skewed – they flout authority and make a mockery of our constitution. There was some truth to this. Al Capone built an alternate economy built on the illegal sale of alcohol, and he wasn’t the only one. In Washington D.C, Seattle, San Francisco empires were being built off of the bootlegging industry. In Boston a man named Kennedy would open a bootlegging operation and eventually help fund his grandson’s presidential campaign. A small pharmacy named Walgreens is allowed to sell alcohol for medical purposes. They boom overnight, though their board of directors report it’s probably due to the popularity of their milkshakes. Lois Long is given a column in the New Yorker where she writes about entering speakeasies, drinking until early in the morning, and flirting with men and people from all walks of life, listening to jazz. She becomes the original Carrie Bradshaw – an image of a woman about town that is smart, funny, and free to do and say as she pleases. Men and women didn’t drink together at bars until prohibition. Bars were for men to unwind with other men after work before prohibition. The speakeasy introduced women and men together enjoying a drink, and as they say, the rest is history.
It’s not my intention to purely give you a history lesson. I wonder based on the experience of prohibition – can we legislate morality? Put another way, can we change the moral character of a country by changing laws. We are wondering this currently as we wrestle with the second amendment – the right to bear arms. Like the women who attended churches traumatized by their experience, we are all feeling sick of violence and many are ready for a concrete step forward. We want something tangible to be done, at least some of us do. Many of us would love to forever change the moral character of this country with a swipe of the pen, offering proper prohibitions and limitations. The second amendment was written with a certain intention, and it has led to modern day tragedies that the original writers never foresaw.
Based on prohibition, it seems that legislation undoubtedly has a powerful impact. This impact can be intentional and is often unintentional. Simply put, I think any piece of legislation is just the beginning. The scale of prohibition was so visionary and expansive, that there was no way it could be properly enforced. Even if the laws can be properly enforced, I think there is always the wily heart and habit. By the heart, I don’t just mean feeling, I mean conscience. Prohibition began with a full heart, with great feeling, conscience, and moral authority. That moral authority over the course of a decade came to be a mockery and a new set of values emerged led again by women. Women in urban areas pushed for the repeal of the 18th amendment, because they were fed up with hypocrisy – politicians who voted for prohibition and then got drunk at their dinner parties.
For me, the wisdom of prohibition is to lead sensitively, and be open to unintended consequences. It teaches me to understand how easily a concrete moral crisis can become abstracted and lead to further harm and hypocrisy. It also teaches me the power of the individual. I believe firmly in a separation between church and state. The state passes laws that guide and restrict our behavior. The church exists to galvanize, challenge, and criticize the state. The church also exists to encourage the individual conscience. The individual must stand apart from both these institutions and remain both skeptical of the church and the state. The more power we acquire, the greater our capacity for self-deception. Use your power wisely, be sensitive to your power as an individual – follow the direction of the wily heart and encourage us always to take a closer look.
