Prohibition
The period between 1890s1890’s and 1920’s 1920s, termed as the progressive era, is remarkably at the forefront of America history as a period of intense social activism and political reforms (“Research Guides: 18Th Amendment to The U.S. Constitution: Primary Documents in American History: Introduction”). Progressive era, as championed by the progressive movement, was waged based on several issues some Americas wished sorted. The significant aspects of the progressive era included government purification, modernization, prohibition, education and family focus, and women suffrage. Of them all, prohibition found itself catapulted to the front of debate since it entailed banning of manufacture, sale and importation of alcoholic beverages; a business which was highly lucrative at the time. Although initially instituted by Christians and protestant churches, prohibition, among other reforms attracted the attention and support of women across America before becoming a national effort (Jones, Jonathan, 2019: 150-152). Christians were critically concern about the prohibition owing to the erosion of Christian culture and adoption of drinking culture, which was being escalated by the highly rewarding brewing industry, saloons and a large number of immigrants. The leading proponent of prohibition was the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, founded in 1873 to ameliorate negative social impacts arising from rapid industrialization (“Research Guides: 18Th Amendment to The U.S. Constitution: Primary Documents in American History: Introduction”). The American Temperance Society which as founded in 1826 advocated for voluntary abstinence from alcohol and became influential in mandatory prohibition. Anti-saloon league was also instrumental in amassing nationwide support for alcohol beverage bans (Jones, Jonathan, 2019: 150-152).
Whether to pass prohibition amendment during the progressive era not only ignited mixed reactions but also become a divisive tool among the American leaders. An attempt to differentiate between good and wrong and what is deemed beneficial to Americans created two opposing sides. Proponents of the prohibition bill argued on various points. According to Jones & Jonathan (2019: 150-152) prohibition bill was necessary since, at that time, religious revivalism was at the apex, and many of them saw alcoholism not only as a threat to Christianity but also as a reason behind numerous acts of crimes in the country. The benefits of the sober and religious nation were advocated for by those who supported the move. Jones and his colleague asserted that sober and religious nation accrues improved standards of living as a consequence of better utilization of income. It was true since, at that time, many families desperately struggled to meet basic needs with the little penny left from aggressive saloon owners. Addiction among employed persons reduced their productivity, and some eventually lost their jobs. The crime rate was intensifying in alcohol prone areas. Children and women were the most vulnerable group and, in several instances, sexual harassment and abuse were witnessed.
Furthermore, robbery with violence, fraudulent activities and other illegal ways of obtaining money was escalating. Most of these acts are against the Christian teachings and women rights. Other writers asserted that the prohibition bill was necessary for America to become an efficient country and boost economic growth (Pegram, Thomas, 2017: 1068-1069). Their judgement was justified by a lack of concern on development matters by alcohol drinkers. The performance of employees at work reduced by 40% with some permanently leaving jobs (Pegram, Thomas, 2017: 1068-1069). The movement was also paying heavily on medical expenses associated with alcohol consumption and rehabilitation of alcoholic addicts.
On the contrary, Thompson Jr & Paul, (2017) are against the prohibition bill. The authors argue on the economic grounds that banning alcoholic beverages threats more harm than the gain to the economy. Alcoholic beverages were a highly lucrative industry at that time and boosted economic growth through taxes and income earned by traders. Their view is right given that circulation of money was rapid, and industrialization was flourishing at a fast pace. The industry employed more than 5 million Americans and banning of alcohol manufacture, sale and its importation would consequently lead to loss of employment opportunities. Millions of families, as a result of the loss of employment, would be unable to meet their needs, and some might wage illegal acts such as robbery to raise basic needs. He further noted that the money lost through taxes on alcohol will threat the overall revenue generated by the government and will harbour development plans. This view was strongly supported by the government and was vital in determining the direction of the country. In fact, during the early 1900s 1900s, American government generated revenue nearly twice those generated during the prohibition period. One of the weaknesses of his judgment is that he failed to provide the economic losses as a result of alcohol usage, medical expenses, rehabilitation and crime-related activities. In a study, Bisto & Andrew (2019: 365-401) provides their view on prohibition bill terming it unnecessary social activity mainly when leaders campaigned on religious grounds. According to Bisto & Andrew, alcohol use should be a personal matter, and campaigning for it should be voluntary and not a mandatory ban. Their view was justified when the anticipated sober nation turned into a crime-prone country because people were forced against their will to leave alcohol. Their argument has weaknesses which include lack of concrete explanation and proof on the consequences of forced religion.
The campaign for prohibition bill began with few members of Women Temperance Union and proliferated into a nationwide phenomenon (Pegram, Thomas, 2017: 1068-1069). The government and its leadership ere forced to pass constitutional amendments to incorporate the prohibition Act on January 16, 1919, and the changes took effect one year later. The debate played a significant role in American history, particularly on distinguishing what is right based on reason and preferably not by religious believes. America is never the same again after the bill was passed and is en argued as one of the critical moves Americans made to put into test social reform (“Brown Digital Repository | Collection | Alcohol, Temperance …”). The proponents of prohibition Act ultimately succeeded in passing the law. However, the forecasted benefits were dealt a significant blow by the unforeseen circumstances. The dream of a sober and crime-free nation was cut short by a rapid surge in illegal activities, particularly on the brewing and sale of banned alcohols. Lack of enforcement or lack of robust implementation plan fostered crimes instead of eradicating (“Brown Digital Repository | Collection | Alcohol, Temperance …”). The period of prohibition played a huge role in decision making and ways of successfully implementing policies to realize anticipated benefits. Unforeseen factors can occur and bar the success of formulated policies.
There are a lot of lessons to learn from the progressive era and alcohol prohibition. Firstly, arguments tabled should be rational and scientifically correct and shift away on religious beliefs which cannot be justified. Secondly, women are instrumental in revolutionary changes, and their position in society should not get undermined. Also, the perceived benefits of a particular decision may never yield them if there is no robust implementation plan and support from top leadership. Lastly, prohibition should be regulated not only on the side of sellers but also buyers; the government should have banned the consumption of alcohol. My background influences my opinion on the effects of alcohol; for instance, my religious and family experience condemns alcohol consumption. Current topics should be resolved based on facts, in-depth research on available information and possible outcomes of every option. Rational judgement is inevitable to realize better decisions and positive results.
Work Cited
“Brown Digital Repository | Collection | Alcohol, Temperance ….” Repository.library.brown.edu. N.p., 2020. Web. September 2 2020.
(“”Brown Digital Repository | Collection | Alcohol, Temperance …””)
“Research Guides: 18Th Amendment To The U.S. Constitution: Primary Documents In American History: Introduction.” Guides.loc.gov. N.p., 2020. Web. September 2 2020.
(“Research Guides: 18Th Amendment to The U.S. Constitution: Primary Documents in American History: Introduction”)
Jones, Jonathan S. “THE LONG ANTI-ALCOHOL MOVEMENT: Prohibition: A Concise History.” The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era 18.1 (2019): 150-152.
Pegram, Thomas R. “The Politics of Prohibition: American Governance and the Prohibition Party, 1869–1933.” (2017): 1068-1069.
(Pegram, Thomas, 2017: 1068-1069).
(Jones, Jonathan, 2019: 150-152).
Thompson Jr, H. Paul. “Temperance and Prohibition.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of American History. 2017.
Thompson Jr, H. Paul, 2017
Bisto, Andrew. “Testing the symbolic properties of alcohol prohibition in Hermann, MO.” Crime, Law and Social Change 71.4 (2019): 365-401.