Historical Investigation
The “Noble Experiment”
U.S. History VSC:
5.2.1.c
Describe the impact of the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th amendments
to the Constitution
5.2.1.j
Describe the positive and negative impact on the Progressive
Era
I.
Engage the Students
Show students the following picture. Explain that they are holding bumper
stickers calling for the repeal of the Prohibition Amendment.
http://collections.mnhs.org/VisualResources/image.cfm?imageid=9105&ImageNum=39&RecCount=55
1. Why might some people feel that Prohibition should be repealed?
Created by Amy Rosenkrans, MSDE, Revised 8/15/08
1
2. What arguments might supporters of Prohibition use to keep the
Amendment from being repealed?
Narrative:
Read the narrative to the class, stressing the focus question at the
end.
In the early twentieth century, many Americans began to view the
prohibition of alcohol as a part of the progressive reform program. Support for
Prohibition came mostly from areas that had large populations of native-born
Protestants, primarily the South and the West. Reformers considered liquor a
prime cause of corruption. They believed that liquor was responsible for crime,
domestic abuse, accidents on the job, prostitution and other forms of social
disorder. Southern supporters of prohibition believed that keeping alcohol out of
the hands of African Americans would keep them in “their place.”
Cities were the sight of the strongest resistance to Prohibition. Alcoholic
beverages played an important part in the social life of many ethnic groups, such
as the Irish and the Germans. Saloons were in working class neighborhoods and
served as gathering places for workers and places of business for machine
politicians. Many immigrant groups saw Prohibition as an attempt to impose
certain cultural values on them.
Despite their protestations, 23 out of the 48 states had adopted antisaloon legislation by 1916. Many of them had also gone so far as to prohibit the
manufacture of alcohol. World War I stimulated the passage of a national law.
Several major breweries had German names and drinking beer became
unpatriotic. Due to rationing, the use of foodstuffs like hops and barley in
breweries and distilleries was forbidden by Congress. Finally, in December
1917, Congress passed the Eighteenth Amendment that prohibited the
“manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors.” It was ratified in
1919 and became effective on January 16, 1920. Soon after, Congress passed
the Volstead Act that allowed for the implementation and enforcement of the
Amendment.
Focus Question:
II.
How successful was the “noble experiment” of
Prohibition?
Conduct the Investigation
Created by Amy Rosenkrans, MSDE, Revised 8/15/08
2
In order to answer the question you will examine several documents
independently. Analyze each document by answering the following questions on
your graphic organizer:
1. How do I know this information is reliable?
2. When was this document written? Who wrote it? What was its
purpose?
3. Explain the author’s point of view.
4. How can this document help me answer the focus question?
III.
Discussion
Now that the documents have been analyzed, you will have the opportunity to
discuss the documents and the focus question with the students in your group.
As you discuss interpretations of the documents, cite evidence for your opinions.
Multiple interpretations can emerge and may or may not be accepted by all.
Write your group responses in the appropriate section of your graphic organizer.
IV.
Report the Findings
Once historians complete their research, they formulate a thesis that answers the
focus question. You will do the same. Your summary should answer the focus
question below and be supported with details from the documents.
Focus Question:
How successful was the “noble experiment” of
Prohibition?
Created by Amy Rosenkrans, MSDE, Revised 8/15/08
3
Individual Analysis
How do I know this
is reliable
information?
When was this
document written?
Who wrote it? What
is its purpose?
Explain the author’s
point of view
How can this
document help me
answer the focus
question?
Document 1
Document 2
Document 3
Document 4
Document 5
Created by Amy Rosenkrans, MSDE, Revised 8/15/08
4
Document 6
Document 7
Document 8
Document 9
Document 10
Document 11
Created by Amy Rosenkrans, MSDE, Revised 8/15/08
5
Document 12
Document 13
Document 14
Document 15
Document 16
Document 17
Created by Amy Rosenkrans, MSDE, Revised 8/15/08
6
Group Analysis
How do I know this
is reliable
information?
When was this
document written?
Who wrote it? What
is its purpose?
Explain the author’s
point of view
How can this
document help me
answer the focus
question?
Document 1
Document 2
Document 3
Document 4
Document 5
Created by Amy Rosenkrans, MSDE, Revised 8/15/08
7
Document 6
Document 7
Document 8
Document 9
Document 10
Document 11
Created by Amy Rosenkrans, MSDE, Revised 8/15/08
8
Document 12
Document 13
Document 14
Document 15
Document 16
Document 17
Created by Amy Rosenkrans, MSDE, Revised 8/15/08
9
AMENDMENT XVIII
Passed by Congress December 18, 1917. Ratified January
16, 1919. Repealed by Amendment 21.
Section 1.
After one year from the ratification of this article the
manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors
within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof
from the United States and all territory subject to the
jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby
prohibited.
Section 2.
The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent
power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 3.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been
ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the
legislatures of the several States, as provided in the
Constitution, within seven years from the date of the
submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
Created by Amy Rosenkrans, MSDE, Revised 8/15/08
10
Volstead Act- 1920
TITLE II.
PROHIBITION OF INTOXICATING BEVERAGES.
SEC. 3. No person shall on or after the date when the eighteenth amendment to the
Constitution of the United States goes into effect, manufacture, sell, barter, transport
import, export, deliver, furnish or possess my intoxicating liquor except as authorized in
this Act, and all the provisions of this Act shall be liberally construed to the end that the
use of intoxicating liquor as a beverage may be prevented.
Liquor for non beverage purposes and wine or sacramental purposes may be
manufactured, purchased, sold, bartered transported, imported, exported, delivered,
furnished and possessed, but only as herein provided, and the commissioner may, upon
application, issue permits therefor: Provided, That nothing| in this Act shall prohibit the
purchase and sale of warehouse receipts covering distilled spirits on deposit in
Government bonded warehouses, and no special tax liability shall attach to the business
of purchasing and selling such warehouse receipts....
SEC. 21. Any room, house, building, boat, vehicle, structure, or place where intoxicating
liquor is manufactured, sold, kept, or bartered in violation of this title, and all intoxicating
liquor and property kept and used in maintaining the same, is hereby declared to be a
common nuisance, and any person who maintains such a common nuisance shall be
guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined not more than $1,000
or be imprisoned for not more than one year, or both....
SEC. 25. It shall be unlawful to have or possess any liquor or property designed for the
manufacture of liquor intended for use in violating this title or which has been so used,
and no property rights shall exist in any such liquor or property.... No search warrant
shall issue to search any private dwelling occupied as such unless it is being used for the
unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor, or unless it is in part used for some business
purposes such as a store, shop, saloon, restaurant, hotel, or boarding house....
SEC. 29. Any person who manufactures or sells liquor in violation of this title shall for a
first offense be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not exceeding six months, and
for a second or subsequent offense shall be fined not less than $200 nor more than $2,000
and be imprisoned not less than one month nor more than five years.
http://www.multied.com/documents/Volstead.html
Created by Amy Rosenkrans, MSDE, Revised 8/15/08
11
U.S. Officials
Destroying Liquor at
the Brownsville
Customs House,
December 20,1920.
http://runyon.lib.utexas.edu/r/RUN08000/RUN08600/RUN08690.JPG
Created by Amy Rosenkrans, MSDE, Revised 8/15/08
12
Gary Giddins, music critic:
“Then in 1920, the best thing that could have happened for jazz, they passed the
most idiotic law in the history of the United States, prohibition... Well, from a
handful of saloons around the country, you now have thousands and thousands
of speakeasies, especially in all the major cities. I mean, at one point in New
York City alone, Manhattan had 5,000 speakeasies. And in the competition, you
want to bring in people, you have music. So suddenly, there's work. There's tons
of work for jazz musicians. Also, Prohibition is loosening up morals. It's doing
exactly the opposite of what it was supposed to do. Women, for example, did not
drink in saloons. They sure drank in speakeasies ... So the Jazz Age became a
kind of umbrella term to this whole loosening up, this whole lubrication thanks to
Prohibition when everybody was drinking more than they should just to defy an
absolutely unenforceable law.”
http://www.pbs.org/jazz/exchange/exchange_speakeasies.htm
Created by Amy Rosenkrans, MSDE, Revised 8/15/08
13
Fiorella H. LaGuardia
Hearings before the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S.
Senate, 69th Congress, 1st Session,1926
It is impossible to tell whether prohibition is a good thing or a bad thing. It has never been enforced in this
country.
There may not be as much liquor in quantity consumed to-day as there was before prohibition, but there is
just as much alcohol.
At least 1,000,000 quarts of liquor is consumed each day in the United States. In my opinion such an
enormous traffic in liquor could not be carried on without the knowledge, if not the connivance of the officials
entrusted with the enforcement of the law. ...
I believe that the percentage of whisky drinkers in the United States now is greater than in any other country
of the world. Prohibition is responsible for that. ...
At least $1,000,000,000 a year is lost to the National Government and the several States and counties in
excise taxes. The liquor traffic is going on just the same. This amount goes into the pockets of bootleggers
and in the pockets of the public officials in the shape of graft....
I will concede that the saloon was odius but now we have delicatessen stores, pool rooms, drug stores,
millinery shops, private parlors, and 57 other varieties of speak-easies selling liquor and flourishing.
I have heard of $2,000 a year prohibition agents who run their own cars with liveried chauffeurs.
It is common talk in my part of the country that from $7.50 to $12 a case is paid in graft from the time the
liquor leaves the 12-mile limit until it reaches the ultimate consumer. There seems to be a varying market
price for this service created by the degree of vigilance or the degree of greed of the public officials in
charge.
It is my calculation that at least a million dollars a day is paid in graft and corruption to Federal, State, and
local officers. Such a condition is not only intolerable, but it is demoralizing and dangerous to organized
government. ...
The Government even goes to the trouble to facilitate the financing end of the bootlegging industry. In 1925,
$286,950,000 more of $10,000 bills were issued than in 1920 and $25,000,000 more of $5,000 bills were
issued. What honest business man deals in $10,000 bills? Surely these bills were not used to pay the
salaries of ministers. The bootlegging industry has created a demand for bills of large denominations, and
the Treasury Department accommodates them.
The drys seemingly are afraid of the truth. Why not take inventory and ascertain the true conditions. Let us
not leave it to the charge of an antiprohibition organization, or to any other private association, let us have
an official survey and let the American people know what is going on. A complete and honest and impartial
survey would reveal incredible conditions, corruption, crime, and an organized system of illicit traffic such as
the world has never seen. ...
http://prohibition.history.ohio-state.edu/laguardi.htm
Created by Amy Rosenkrans, MSDE, Revised 8/15/08
14
Russell Lee Post
Student at Yale University
Testimony before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary,
1926
Senator Reed of Missouri. What are the facts with reference to the
ability of students to obtain liquor?
Mr. Post. Why, it is obtainable, sir; the greater the attempts at
enforcement the stronger the sentiment against it.
Senator Reed of Missouri. Do bootleggers ply their trade among the
students?
Mr. Post. Well, it is the reverse; the students go to the bootleggers.
Senator Reed of Missouri. The students go to the bootleggers?
Mr. Post. Yes; they do not enter the university campus.
Senator Reed of Missouri. Is there any difficulty of any student of
ordinary intelligence--and I presume they are all that at Yale University-getting all the whisky he wants to buy, or alleged whisky at least?
Mr. Post. No, sir.
Senator Reed of Missouri. Is this liquor drunk on the campus or in the
quarters of the students?
Mr. Post. Yes, sir.
Senator Reed of Missouri And is it drunk elsewhere?
Mr. Post. Yes, sir.
Senator Reed of Missouri. That is all.
http://prohibition.history.ohio-state.edu/student.htm
Created by Amy Rosenkrans, MSDE, Revised 8/15/08
15
"Excessive drinking among young people is a
natural consequence of our prohibition laws.
This is not evidence of depravity on their part,
but a youthful reaction against the challenge of
restraint. It is smart to drink. It is smart to carry a
flask. Before prohibition the lad who took liquor
on the hip to a party was almost unknown.
Today he is a common figure."
-Henry H. Curran, "The Wet Side of Prohibition," New York
Herald Tribune, 12 January 1926.
http://www.history.ohio-state.edu/projects/clash/Prohibition/prohibition-page5.htm
Created by Amy Rosenkrans, MSDE, Revised 8/15/08
16
The Women's Organization for National Prohibition Reform
(WONPR)
Excerpts from the WONPR Convention, April 23-24, 1930.
1. We are convinced that National Prohibition is fundamentally wrong. (a)
Because it conflicts with the basic American principle of local home rule and
destroys the balance established by the framers of our government, between
powers delegated to the federal authority and those reserved to the sovereign
states or to the people themselves. (b) And because its attempt to impose total
abstinence by national government fiat ignores the truth that no law will be
respected or can be enforced unless supported by the moral sense and common
conscience of the communities affected by it.
2. We are convinced that National Prohibition, wrong in principle, has been
equally disastrous in consequences in the hypocrisy, the corruption, the tragic
loss of life and the appalling increase of crime which have attended the abortive
attempt to enforce it; in the shocking effect it has had upon the youth of the
nation; in the impairment of constitutional guarantees of individual rights; in the
weakening of the sense of solidarity between the citizen and the government
which is the only sure basis of a country's strength.
http://www.history.ohio-state.edu/projects/clash/Prohibition/prohibition-page5.htm
Created by Amy Rosenkrans, MSDE, Revised 8/15/08
17
Transcript
Mother of 16 in city on way to prison
Mrs. Katherine Post to Serve 18 Months for Selling Whisky.
Mrs. Katherins Post, 56 years old, Altus, Ark., passed through St. Louis today on her
way to the Federal Industrial House of Correction at Alderson, W. Va., to serve an 18
months' term for selling whisky. She is the mother of 16 children, five of whom are
under 18 years old and are living at home.
Mrs. Post, in the custody of United States Marshal Cooper Hudspeth, Fort Smith, and
Hudspeth's mother as matron, changed trains at Union Station. She had pleaded guilty of
a first offense under the Volstead Act at Fort Smith last week.
The wife of a fruit farmer, Joseph Post, 45 miles from Fort Smith, Mrs. Post told a
Post-Dispatch reporter that repeated crop failures during recent years had tempted her to
sell two quarts of whisky from a homemade stock in the hope of obtaining money to help
educate her children.
WAS SLAVERY EVER WORSE THAN THIS?
-June 22, 1929
Created by Amy Rosenkrans, MSDE, Revised 8/15/08
18
http://asms.k12.ar.us/armem/rossmeir/pic6.htm
Created by Amy Rosenkrans, MSDE, Revised 8/15/08
19
Interview with a man, only identified as Callano
American Life Histories, Library of Congress
“Work?" Callano said with a laugh. "Me work? Only suckers work." His rugged, scarred face bore the
marks of dissipation but there was dynamic energy in his short and sturdy body. His hands were very large
for a man his size, formidable looking hands as he gestured freely while talking. The wavy brown hair was
thinning at his temples.
"I know because I tried it. I worked in the stonesheds. I didn't like it though. I wasn't cut out to
work steady. What the hell is seven-eight bucks a day? Chickenfeed. I could make more chips
shooting craps and playing poker. I quit one day. The night before I made about ninety bucks
shooting craps. I was up all night and I didn't feel much like working that day. The boss started
riding me in the yard. I don't take that stuff from anybody. Especially not when I got ninety bucks
in my pocket. I just looked at him. . . .
"That was during Prohibition and all the boys was running booze. My brothers, the older ones,
had a gang bootlegging. They had a bunch of big old Packards and Caddies. I went in with 'em
and we made plenty dough. There was dough in that racket all right, and it was fun to bring it in.
Times was good then, everybody had money, everybody was spending it. This always was a
good spending town. You know how stonecutters are, they're all spenders and they all drink.
Granite was going good then.
"We ran mostly ale. We got it in Canada for five bucks a case and sold it here for fifteen or
twenty. You could load a lot of ale into those big crates we had. We kept five or six cars on the
road all the time. We sold everybody in Barre and Montpelier from the poolroom crowd to the
town bigshots. We was sitting pretty them days. A gang from Burlington tried to chisel in but they
didn't last long. We high-jacked three of their cars one night and they was loaded, what I mean,
loaded. We gave them a good beating, we put a couple of 'em in the hospital. They kept away
from Barre after that, they didn't bother us no more. We had a tough crew to fool round with, see?
We liked to fight too. Nobody messed round much with us. Our gang was bad news. We could
drive like hell and fight like hell. We ran a lot of stuff cross that Line, I'm telling you.”
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?wpa:18:./temp/~ammem_jBlZ:
Created by Amy Rosenkrans, MSDE, Revised 8/15/08
20
U.S. Apparent Consumption of the Drinking Age Population in Gallons per Year,
1850-1935
Beer
Year
Spirits
Volume Ethanol Volume Ethanol
Wine
All Beverages
Volume Ethanol
Ethanol
1850
2.7
0.14
4.17
1.88
0.46
0.03
2.05
1860
5.39
0.27
4.79
2.16
0.57
0.1
2.53
1870
8.73
0.44
3.4
1.53
0.53
0.1
2.07
1871-80
11.26
0.56
2.27
1.02
0.77
0.14
1.72
1881-90
17.94
0.9
2.12
0.95
0.76
0.14
1.99
1891-95
23.42
1.17
2.12
0.95
0.6
0.11
2.23
1896-1900
23.72
1.19
1.72
0.77
0.55
0.1
2.06
1901-05
26.2
1.31
2.11
0.95
0.71
0.13
2.39
1906-10
29.27
1.47
2.14
0.96
0.92
0.17
2.6
1911-15
29.53
1.48
2.09
0.94
0.79
0.14
2.56
1916-19
21.63
1.08
1.68
0.76
0.69
0.12
1.96
1934
13.58
0.61
0.64
0.29
0.36
0.07
0.970
1935
15.13
0.68
0.96
0.42
0.5
0.09
1.200
U.S. Alcohol Epidemiologic Data Reference Manual
(Vol. 1, Rockville, Md. : U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services,
Public Health Service, Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration,
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 1985):6
http://prohibition.history.ohio-state.edu/consumption.htm
Created by Amy Rosenkrans, MSDE, Revised 8/15/08
21
Source: U.S. Treasury Department, Bureau of Industrial Alcohol; Statistics
Concerning Intoxicating Liquors, December, 1930
Created by Amy Rosenkrans, MSDE, Revised 8/15/08
22
Total Expenditure on Distilled Spirits as a Percentage of Total Alcohol Sales (1890-1960)
Source: Clark Warburton, The Economic Result of Prohibition (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1932),
Created by Amy Rosenkrans, MSDE, Revised 8/15/08
23
Homicide Rate: 1910-44
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970 (Washington:
Government Printing Office, 1975), part 1, p. 414.
Created by Amy Rosenkrans, MSDE, Revised 8/15/08
24
AMENDMENT XXI
Passed by Congress February 20, 1933. Ratified
December 5, 1933.
Section 1.
The eighteenth article of amendment to the
Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2.
The transportation or importation into any State,
Territory, or Possession of the United States for
delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in
violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
Section 3.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have
been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by
conventions in the several States, as provided in the
Constitution, within seven years from the date of the
submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
Created by Amy Rosenkrans, MSDE, Revised 8/15/08
25
My Day
Eleanor Roosevelt
NEW YORK, July 14, 1939 - A number of letters have come to me complaining bitterly
about the fact that I said in an article recently that the repeal of prohibition had been a
crusade carried on by women. I know quite well, of course that the Democratic Party
took the stand in its platform that Prohibition should be repealed. I have always felt,
however, that the women's organization for repeal, which was a nonpartisan organization,
laid the groundwork which finally brought about the vote for repeal.
I was one of those who was very happy when the original prohibition amendment passed.
I thought innocently that a law in this country would automatically be complied with, and
my own observation led me to feel rather ardently that the less strong liquor anyone
consumed the better it was. During prohibition I observed the law meticulously, but I
came gradually to see that laws are only observed with the consent of the individuals
concerned and a moral change still depends on the individual and not on the passage of
any law.
Little by little it dawned upon me that this law was not making people drink any less, but
it was making hypocrites and law breakers of a great number of people. It seemed to me
best to go back to the old situation in which, if a man or woman drank to excess, they
were injuring themselves and their immediate family and friends and the act was a
violation against their own sense of morality and no violation against the law of the land.
I could never quite bring myself to work for repeal, but I could not oppose it, for
intellectually I had to agree that it was the honest thing to do. My contacts are wide and I
see a great many different groups of people, and I cannot say that I find that the change in
the law has made any great change in conditions among young or old in the country
today.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/eleanor/sfeature/md_ke_02.html
Created by Amy Rosenkrans, MSDE, Revised 8/15/08
26
Board of Liquor License Commissioners for Baltimore City
Background:
The Board of Liquor License Commissioners for Baltimore City was created by
Act of the State Legislature after the repeal of the Volstead Act in 1933. Prior to
Prohibition, alcoholic beverage licenses were issued directly by the Clerk of what
was then referred to as the Court of Common Pleas. There was little intervention
on the part of the public, zoning or other authorities, and alcoholic beverage
licenses were routinely issued as in the case of Trader's Licenses, marriage
licenses, etc.
When the Volstead Act was repealed, it became apparent that appropriate
controls and licensing of alcoholic beverages at the retail level were necessary in
the State of Maryland to insure public safety. Boards of Liquor License
Commissioners were, therefore, created in all of the political sub-divisions in the
State of Maryland by act of the Maryland General Assembly. Article 2B of the
Annotated Code of Maryland was the enabling legislation and remains as the
alcoholic beverage statute for the State of Maryland. There have been many
changes in the law since 1933, and at each session of the Maryland General
Assembly, new laws and statutes are introduced and passed which affect the
operation of alcoholic beverage establishments in Baltimore City and throughout
the State of Maryland
http://www.ci.baltimore.md.us/government/liquor/
Created by Amy Rosenkrans, MSDE, Revised 8/15/08
27