Prohibition

[Hank_Scorpio]

To answer my own question: It looks like its online.

http://video.pbs.org/video/15393956

 

[Stoney]

It never really dawned on me how much of a role anti-German sentiment during World War I had with this becoming law.

Same here, thought that part was really interesting. Just think, if we don't go to war with Germany, there's likely no Prohibition, which means likely no Al Capone legend, perhaps no Kennedy dynasty, no all sorts of **** that later became part of our history.

 

[finishthehat]

Don't know if it's based at all on David Okrent's "Last Call," but that's a very good, readable book on Prohibition. FWIW, he says there's very little evidence Joe Kennedy was a bootlegger, IIRC.

 

[Steak Snabler]

It never really dawned on me how much of a role anti-German sentiment during World War I had with this becoming law.

Same here, thought that part was really interesting. Just think, if we don't go to war with Germany, there's likely no Prohibition, which means likely no Al Capone legend, perhaps no Kennedy dynasty, no all sorts of **** that later became part of our history.

A lot of similar laws are based on racial/ethnic hysteria. If I recall correctly, the first anti-drug law in the United States was an opium ordinance in San Francisco aimed at the Chinese in the late 1870s.

 

[Greenhorn]

Don't know if it's based at all on David Okrent's "Last Call," but that's a very good, readable book on Prohibition. FWIW, he says there's very little evidence Joe Kennedy was a bootlegger, IIRC.

That Kennedy part was interesting. The copy I checked out had a cover mentioning the PBS series. I don't get any channels (including PBS) alas. Maybe on DVD.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

But one thing I wonder is why the hell no one stood up and claimed that their freedom was being violated by being denied a drink?

What makes you think "no one" did? There were plenty of "wets" who did exactly that, just like there are some folks who do that for marijuana today--doesn't matter if opposing political forces are stronger. There's no inherent right to any chemical substance.

Yet it seems like it shouldn't have taken 12, 13 years for the ban to be overturned. Shouldn't it have dawned on the temperance people after a couple of years that if people wanted to drink, they should have been able to?

Not to mention, with the uproar of Prohibition, that enough people wouldn't have gotten pissed off that they voted out the temperance people and had Volstead overturned sooner.

I guess I still shake my head that something that was legal for 140+ years that wasn't directly harming anyone else's rights (I'm not referring to DUIs or family issues with alcoholism) would suddenly be taken away.

 

[Brian]

It's amazing that the amendment was concurrent to the dawning of the age of the automobile and yet had nothing to do with drunk driving. Seems like that would've been the best argument for prohibition.

Yet, they went with "Blame the Krauts!"

 

[Stoney]

But one thing I wonder is why the hell no one stood up and claimed that their freedom was being violated by being denied a drink?

What makes you think "no one" did? There were plenty of "wets" who did exactly that, just like there are some folks who do that for marijuana today--doesn't matter if opposing political forces are stronger. There's no inherent right to any chemical substance.

Yet it seems like it shouldn't have taken 12, 13 years for the ban to be overturned. Shouldn't it have dawned on the temperance people after a couple of years that if people wanted to drink, they should have been able to?

That's because it wasn't done through a criminal statute, but instead through Constititutional Amendment. Takes a lot longer than a couple years to garner and mobilize the political muscle to change the Constitution, regardless of how misguided one of its provisions might be.

And, no, I see no reason why the "temperance people" would come to that realization so fast. They'd finally attained the goal they'd devoted decades fighting tooth and nail for, you really think they were gonna promptly change their minds and admit it was all a big mistake after only a couple years?

 

[Baron Scicluna]

But one thing I wonder is why the hell no one stood up and claimed that their freedom was being violated by being denied a drink?

What makes you think "no one" did? There were plenty of "wets" who did exactly that, just like there are some folks who do that for marijuana today--doesn't matter if opposing political forces are stronger. There's no inherent right to any chemical substance.

Yet it seems like it shouldn't have taken 12, 13 years for the ban to be overturned. Shouldn't it have dawned on the temperance people after a couple of years that if people wanted to drink, they should have been able to?

That's because it wasn't done through a criminal statute, but instead through Constititutional Amendment. Takes a lot longer than a couple years to garner and mobilize the political muscle to change the Constitution, regardless of how misguided one of its provisions might be.

And, no, I see no reason why the "temperance people" would come to that realization so fast. They'd finally attained the goal they'd devoted decades fighting tooth and nail for, you really think they were gonna promptly change their minds and admit it was all a big mistake after only a couple years?

After enough people got shot and killed for a ****ing drink, yeah.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

Can usually pick a nit or two w/Burns (no E. Garner, in Jazz? Shoot me, now), but have to love his reach in snagging the appropriate film clips and stills. The series always look great.

 

[Point of Order]

Baron,

You really ought to watch the show and learn why it wasn't repealed sooner. It's not inexplicable.

 

[Stoney]

But one thing I wonder is why the hell no one stood up and claimed that their freedom was being violated by being denied a drink?

What makes you think "no one" did? There were plenty of "wets" who did exactly that, just like there are some folks who do that for marijuana today--doesn't matter if opposing political forces are stronger. There's no inherent right to any chemical substance.

Yet it seems like it shouldn't have taken 12, 13 years for the ban to be overturned. Shouldn't it have dawned on the temperance people after a couple of years that if people wanted to drink, they should have been able to?

That's because it wasn't done through a criminal statute, but instead through Constititutional Amendment. Takes a lot longer than a couple years to garner and mobilize the political muscle to change the Constitution, regardless of how misguided one of its provisions might be.

And, no, I see no reason why the "temperance people" would come to that realization so fast. They'd finally attained the goal they'd devoted decades fighting tooth and nail for, you really think they were gonna promptly change their minds and admit it was all a big mistake after only a couple years?

After enough people got shot and killed for a ****ing drink, yeah.

Then I'd suggest that you're rather naive about both human nature and the political process if you think all that was gonna happen only a couple years in. In fact, one could actually argue that it's impressive that it was done in only 13 years. Do you know how many other times in American history a constitutional provision has been successfully repealed? Hell, the whole reason the temperance folks insisted on doing it constitutionally instead of by statute is they thought that would guarantee that it would never be repealed. Took 13 years, but they were proven wrong.

And do you know how many people have been "getting shot and killed" everyday for god knows how many years because of the legal status of other drugs like marijuana and cocaine (which were also long perfectly legal)? If 70 plus years of drug violence hasn't altered the position of marijuana criminalization proponents, not sure why you think only a couple years would've been enough to change the mind of all the booze banners.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

But one thing I wonder is why the hell no one stood up and claimed that their freedom was being violated by being denied a drink?

What makes you think "no one" did? There were plenty of "wets" who did exactly that, just like there are some folks who do that for marijuana today--doesn't matter if opposing political forces are stronger. There's no inherent right to any chemical substance.

Yet it seems like it shouldn't have taken 12, 13 years for the ban to be overturned. Shouldn't it have dawned on the temperance people after a couple of years that if people wanted to drink, they should have been able to?

That's because it wasn't done through a criminal statute, but instead through Constititutional Amendment. Takes a lot longer than a couple years to garner and mobilize the political muscle to change the Constitution, regardless of how misguided one of its provisions might be.

And, no, I see no reason why the "temperance people" would come to that realization so fast. They'd finally attained the goal they'd devoted decades fighting tooth and nail for, you really think they were gonna promptly change their minds and admit it was all a big mistake after only a couple years?

After enough people got shot and killed for a ****ing drink, yeah.

Then I'd suggest that you're rather naive about both human nature and the political process if you think all that was gonna happen only a couple years in. In fact, one could actually argue that it's impressive that it was done in only 13 years. Do you know how many other times in American history a constitutional provision has been successfully repealed? Hell, the whole reason the temperance folks insisted on doing it constitutionally instead of by statute is they thought that would guarantee that it would never be repealed. Took 13 years, but they were proven wrong.

And do you know how many people have been "getting shot and killed" everyday for god knows how many years because of the legal status of other drugs like marijuana and cocaine (which were also long perfectly legal)? If 70 plus years of drug violence hasn't altered the position of marijuana criminalization proponents, not sure why you think only a couple years would've been enough to change the mind of all the booze banners.

Yeah, it was the only amendment that has been repealed. And if you look at the other 25 amendments, they deal with rights and governing, not behaviors. Only one amendment dealt with behavoirs, and it got repealed.

As far as the other drugs go, sure, they were legal for plenty of years. They also weren't as plentiful, and were used by the wealthy. There was a class element to Prohibition as well. The saloon was seen as a place for the poor and the working class. The wealthy did their drinking in their mansions.

Oh and the Senate proposed the Volstead Act in Dec. 1917. It was ratified in Jan. 1919 and went into effect one year later:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States

 

[Stoney]

Oh and the Senate proposed the Volstead Act in Dec. 1917. It was ratified in Jan. 1919 and went into effect one year later:

Yeah, I know. What's your point?

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Oh and the Senate proposed the Volstead Act in Dec. 1917. It was ratified in Jan. 1919 and went into effect one year later:

Yeah, I know. What's your point?

You wrote about how long it took for an amendment to pass and become law, and how it was a big deal that it took 13 years for the 21st Amendment to pass. Volstead took 13 months to pass after being proposed, and was implemented a year later. Slightly more than two years.

So it could have been repealed sooner.

 

[Stoney]

You wrote about how long it took for an amendment to pass and become law

Wrong. You are misquoting me. I was not talking about how long it took "for an amendment to pass", instead I said that it took more than a couple years "to garner and mobilize the political muscle to change the Constitution." There is a HUGE difference in meaning there.

Are you somehow under the faulty impression that the prohibition effort began in December 1917 when a Senator up and out of nowhere decided to try to constitutionally ban alcohol? If so, then you sure as hell didn't watch this documentary last night. That moment was actually the culmination of a DECADES long prohibition crusade by temperance groups all across the country, including nationwide forced indoctrination campaigns of (future voting) schoolkids and orchestrated political campaigns to force out politicians who opposed prohibition and elect ones who supported it. Introduction of Volstead was something that did not occur until they'd finally gotten their political ducks lined up and built up the political clout to make prohibition feasible (with a nice boost from wartime anti-German hysteria) after decades of striving toward that goal. It was far closer to the end of the prohibition struggle than the beginning.

The idea that the other side could've simply turned around and re-amended the Constitution back the next day is painfully naive. Our political process has never worked that way.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

You wrote about how long it took for an amendment to pass and become law

Wrong. You are misquoting me. I was not talking about how long it took "for an amendment to pass", instead I said that it took more than a couple years "to garner and mobilize the political muscle to change the Constitution." There is a HUGE difference in meaning there.

Are you somehow under the faulty impression that the prohibition effort began in December 1917 when a Senator up and out of nowhere decided to try to constitutionally ban alcohol? If so, then you sure as hell didn't watch this documentary last night. That moment was actually the culmination of a DECADES long prohibition crusade by temperance groups all across the country, including nationwide forced indoctrination campaigns of (future voting) schoolkids and orchestrated political campaigns to force out politicians who opposed prohibition and elect ones who supported it. Introduction of Volstead was something that did not occur until they'd finally gotten their political ducks lined up and built up the political clout to make prohibition feasible (with a nice boost from wartime anti-German hysteria) after decades of striving toward that goal. It was far closer to the end of the prohibition struggle than the beginning.

The idea that the other side could've simply turned around and re-amended the Constitution back the next day is painfully naive. Our political process has never worked that way.

And for all those decades of work (actually over a century), it blew up in their face (no pun intended) in less than two decades. Which goes to show again, that the Constitution is meant for enumerating rights and methods of governing, not mandating personal behavior.

Women were also a huge part of the temperance movement, and it can be argued that they were given the right to vote in exchange for Volstead. The pols figured that if the women were going to vote, then they better vote for what the women wanted.

There are many factors that went into Volstead, some of which you mentioned, plus, like I said, there were class issues as well. It's easy to say that hindsight is 20-20, and that was a much different era in terms of rights (such as the bans on criticizing the government during WWI, plus worker, women, and black rights). But I would have hoped the politicians would have thought things through before, essentially, trashing the Constitution like that.

To use a modern example, I'd cite abortion (sorry, slight threadjack). You have people who think that if there's a Constitutional Amendment banning it, that it'll just magically go away and we'll all live happily ever after. Except, we know, that wouldn't happen.

Oh, and I wasn't trying to misquote you. If I misinterpreted, I apologize.

 

[YankeeFan]

Which goes to show again, that the Constitution is meant for enumerating rights and methods of governing, not mandating personal behavior.

If you read the Bill of Rights, you'll see that id does not enumerate rights. It limits rigths -- of the Government.

It says what the Government can't do.

God grants rights, not man.

President Obama once famously lamented that the Constitution was a charter of negative liberties.

It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/negative_liberties_and_obama_n.html

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Which goes to show again, that the Constitution is meant for enumerating rights and methods of governing, not mandating personal behavior.

If you read the Bill of Rights, you'll see that id does not enumerate rights. It limits rigths -- of the Government.

It says what the Government can't do.

God grants rights, not man.

President Obama once famously lamented that the Constitution was a charter of negative liberties.

It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/negative_liberties_and_obama_n.html

I'd say it can be argued both ways. The 7th amendment gives the right to trial by jury in some civil cases, for instance. I'd find it hard to think that there is a God-given right to a trial by jury.

 

[JR]

It's amazing that the amendment was concurrent to the dawning of the age of the automobile and yet had nothing to do with drunk driving. Seems like that would've been the best argument for prohibition.

The concept of drunk driving didn't even exist back then.

As a matter of fact drunk driving wasn't even on the radar until the early 80's or so.

Until then you just got in your car, hoped you didn't hit anybody or saw a cop.

You drove on top of the the centre white line---just to make sure you didn't drift off the road. The white line was your guiding force. Well, that's what I've been told.