Why Is The Prohibition So Important To The Progressive Movement?
Introduction
Prohibition began with the ratification of the 18th American Constitutional Amendment on January 16th, 1919 prohibiting the manufacture, sale, or transportation of alcoholic beverages for consumption.[footnoteRef:1] Prohibition was the end product of opposing views of social activism, and political reform known as the Progressive Era in America from 1890 to 1920 and was the first legislative attempt of the federal government to regulate consumption of a legal product in the United States.[footnoteRef:2] It was an era dominated by the attempts of several social, financial and political factions to reform ?American life?.[footnoteRef:3] The historiography of prohibition is abundant and has gradually developed into four divisions …show more content…
of discussion, each exhibiting an exciting evolution. [1: . Eighteenth-amendment. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged.RandomHouse,Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/eighteenth-amendment] [2: . John D. Buenker , John C. Burnham, Robert M. Crunden, PRO-GRES-SIV-ISM, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Schenkman Publishing, 1977), 3-6.] [3: . John D. Buenker , John C. Burnham, Robert M. Crunden, PRO-GRES-SIV-ISM, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Schenkman Publishing, 1977), 7.]
Historians have had difficulty throughout history in the evaluation of prohibition due to the abundance of misleading and fabricated documents as well as the dramatic cultural changes in America from the progressive era to modern day capitalism. Historians have been able to divide historiography of the prohibition into political, theoretical, economic and cultural areas of debate. The political and theoretical deliberations dominated the literature of the major historians for the first 50 years following the ratification of the 21st amendment. More recently historians such Mark Thornton in his book The Economics of Prohibition have begun the economic discussions and effects of prohibition on the post war industrial changes and the financial industry. In more recent times, authors such as Edward Behr have reviewed the relationship between the prohibition and its effects on entertainment, social behavior, and gender roles. Inquiries into the prohibition sub-cultures of flappers, creation of teen-age culture, and the rise of organized crime continue to be active subjects of interest in today?s research.
The historiography of the prohibition has had three rapidly advancing stages of development. The first stage began with politically influenced discussions of social and political reform. The major work during the initial stage and one of the most referenced texts by historians was ?Hofstadter?s The Age of Reform, From Bryan to F.D.R.?. His analysis first organized the prohibition as part of the Progressive Movement as well as presenting some initial political and social theory behind the movement.[footnoteRef:4] This developed into a period of critical analysis by several historians such as James Timberlake in Prohibition and the Progressive Movement, 1900-1920 that involved a methodical and significant review of primary sources. This stage included the categorizing of prohibition historiography into political and theoretical discussion as well as opposition to the traditional understanding of prohibition by John Rumbarger in Profits Power and Prohibition. The progression of prohibition into the social fabric of America has been the most recent phase of development. The understanding and general public knowledge of the concept of prohibition has influenced the progress of opposing social core philosophies throughout the country concerning legalization of other substances. [4: . Richard Hofstadter, The Age of Reform, From Bryan to F.D.R., (New York: Vintage Books, 1955), 5. ]
Thesis
The differences and similarities in the historiography, objectivity, and philosophical vantage points of the major historical writings about Prohibition and the proximal events surrounding amendments 18 and 21 will be explored. The challenges that have faced previous and current historians on documenting prohibition will be analyzed. Beginning with Ashbury?s The Great Illusion and Hofstadter?s work the Age of Reform there will discussions on the challenges and changes of historiography leading up to Last Call. Exploration in the way two opposing opinions can be reached after examination of the same primary sources will be analyzed. The historiographical differences and unique challenges of documenting between the political and theoretical aspects versus the cultural and social aspects will also be explored.
Historiography of Prohibition Prohibition ended on December 5th, 1933 with the Ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment to the American Constitution. It was the end of the progressive era and a time of transition from social activism and temperate political movements to F.D.R and the ?New Deal?.
The academic discussion of the history of prohibition began in 1950 with The Great Illusion: An Informal History of Prohibition by Herbert Asbury. In this narrative historical work he positions prohibition as a cyclical product of several hundred years of conflict between temperate and intemperate forces and makes no reference to the Progressive Era in America. He compares the similarities of the British Parliament failed attempt at prohibition in 1735 to amendment 18 in America. Both attempts are considered passing events in history and did not indicate the beginning or end of any larger movements. Although he acknowledges the first formalized temperate organization was the Union Temperance Society of Moreau and Northumberland on April 30, 1808, he documents a history of temperate discussion as early as President John Adams. [footnoteRef:5] He further links the temperate movement to a 1785 pamphlet by Dr. Benjamin Rush, An Inquiry into the Effect of Spirituous Liquors on the Human Body and Mind.[footnoteRef:6] The majority of the primary resources are in the political, religious, and social documents from as early as 1630 from the governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. He relies heavily on social habits, bar expenses, minutes from the church and political meetings as well as newspapers to maintain the narrative flow. He also places concern that objectivity with prohibition history cannot be achieved because of the inaccuracy of the primary data. He refers to the prohibition as ?The Big Lie? and subsequently most of the publications during prohibition are fabricated for the intended gain of the publisher.[footnoteRef:7] [5: . Herbert Asbury, The Great Illusion: An Informal History of Prohibition, (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company Inc., 1950), 9, 30.] [6: . Herbert Asbury, The Great Illusion: An Informal History of Prohibition, (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company Inc., 1950), 27.] [7: . Herbert Asbury, The Great Illusion: An Informal History of Prohibition, (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company Inc., 1950), 332. ]
Richard Hofstadter provided the next historical review in 1955 with The Age of Reform: From Bryan to F.D.R. This discussion is another predominantly narrative historical review of prohibition. He provides the initial and most complete review of the progressive era and the political forces leading up to the ratification of the 18th amendment. In his publication he clearly defines the prohibition as part of the progressive movement.[footnoteRef:8] Hofstadter provides detailed links of political relationships and social reformers of the era. Further discussions on the need for social stability with political power and portrays the prohibition as a social movement are key points. It is one of the most referenced pieces of historical literature in progressive era discussions and his historiographical methods sparked several debates following its publication. He offers some Quantitative history during some of his political narration, however the material is significantly lacking in references and skewed with political interest from the author.[footnoteRef:9] It is the historiographical criticism and his philosophical discussions on political views that make this an excellent source for a historiographical comparison. The main contribution to historiography is his designating prohibition as the conclusion of an era thus giving the progressive movement a beginning and an end. [8: . . Richard Hofstadter, The Age of Reform, From Bryan to F.D.R., (New York: Vintage Books, 1955), 7. ] [9: . Richard Hofstadter, The Age of Reform, From Bryan to F.D.R., (New York: Vintage Books, 1955), 5. ]
Several discussions over the following decade would attempt to solidify prohibition with the progressive movement. There are 3 distinct historiographical changes during this time period along with the re-emergence of opposing historical views. James H. Timberlake in Prohibition and the Progressive Movement, 1900-1920 and Andrew Sinclair in Prohibition: The era of Excess both continued to document the link of prohibition to the progressive era and a result of social, moral and political pressure.[footnoteRef:10] [10: . James H. Timberlake, Prohibition and The Progressive Movement: 1900-1920, (Atheneum, New York: Harvard University Press, 1963), 2, and 67-68. ]
The first major historiographical change was that unlike Hofstadter and Asbury, Sinclair did not live during the prohibition or during the progressive era.
He would arguably be the first historian to review prohibition without having personal experience of the era or being influenced by people who were active participants during prohibition. His objectivity would not be affected by having lived during the events. The 2nd change is in the documentation by Sinclair. He creates a narrative history similar to that of Asbury but continues the link prohibition to the progressive movement. Although Sinclair takes the same approach as Ashbury in his bibliography statement, he specifically references inaccurate, misleading, and fabricated documents on several occurrences.[footnoteRef:11] Sinclair also references Hofstadter and Timberlake over 14 times during in his publication, which propagates the theories and opinions of previous authors. The 3rd substantial change was Timberlake?s significant use of specific religious documents as primary sources in his text. Throughout his publications he references minutes, sermons, letters, and religious text condemning and debating the use of alcohol. He includes sources from Protestant, Catholic, and Episcopalian leaders as well as from religious scholars reviewing the same primary sources [11: . Andrew Sinclair, Prohibition: The Era of Excess, (Boston, Massachusetts: Little, Brown and Company, 1963),
419.]
The historical outcome of this period in history was the beginning of opposing editorial comments as to the cause of prohibition and its link to the progressive era. Nuala M. Drescher from Penn State University in an editorial review of Timberlake states that historians have not adequately documented the link to the progressive era, nor have they recognized the influence of labor politics as the cause of prohibition.[footnoteRef:12] He does not go so far as to suggest prohibition was a cyclical temperate reform movement as Asbury States, but he clearly is exposing doubt on the documentation used by current authors. Additional editorial reviews throughout the 1960?s state that Timberlake has definitively documented the link with the progressive era.[footnoteRef:13] It was the time of Sinclair and Timberlake that a solid difference in editorial opinion would lead to further changes in historiography of prohibition and debate over the integrity of the facts. [12: . Nuala M. Drescher, Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic StudiesVol. 32, No. 2 (April, 1965), pp. 229-231.] [13: . Alexander B. Callow, Jr, Indiana Magazine of History Vol 60, issue 1 (1964), pp 112-113.]
John D Buenker was the first historian to focus attention on the lack of formal academic discussions on the opposing theories of prohibition. He formally opened the dialogue for the review of the origins of Prohibition. In the form of an essay he calls into question why historians have been so slow to challenge accepted theory and that politicians may have created the concept of the progressive era to facilitate their agendas. This constitutes a significant addition to the historiography of prohibition as he judging historians for their prejudice and unwillingness to challenge theory. He states in his essay that he does not blame earlier historians for ?being children of their own times? but lashes out against the profession for not properly elucidating the facts of prohibition.[footnoteRef:14] It was Jack S. Blocker Jr. however, that cycled the concept of reform back to Asbury and John J. Rumbarger who developed new and well-documented theories of prohibition. [14: . John D. Buenker , John C. Burnham, Robert M. Crunden, PRO-GRES-SIV-ISM, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Schenkman Publishing, 1977), 4.]
In Blocker?s publication, American Temperance Movements: Cycles of Reform, he as one of multiple reformation attempts during American history. He supports his reform theory with abundant primary sources of information as well as comparative secondary sources throughout his narrative discussion. Although he discusses progressivism, the Progressive Era is never mentioned as with previous historians. ref This publication represents the thorough review of a long existent alternate theoretical positions concerning prohibition as Blocker was suggesting. Rumbarger?s publication, profits powers and prohibition, creates a third counter argument as the origin of prohibition. His added theory is based on industrial profits and need for work force modifications. The historiography of the prohibition began as a brief concept of cyclical reform followed by 40 years of documenting prohibition as the end product of moral reform at the end of the Progressive Era. During this period there was gradual improvement in use of primary sources of political, religious, social, and financial documents and the acknowledgement that significant amounts of data was misleading, fabricated, or incorrect. During the 1970?s, Historians became concerned about the lack of effort to challenge conventional theories and lack of willingness to elucidate alternative theories of prohibition. Historians have answered the calling with the production of multiple, well referenced comparative discussion on prohibition. Today, the theories of cyclical moral reform, terminal effects of the Progressive Era, and profits of an industrializing nation are all well documented throughout historical literature. The next step is to further advance the theories of 1920 prohibition era into modern social sciences.
Prohibition began with the ratification of the 18th American Constitutional Amendment on January 16th, 1919 prohibiting the manufacture, sale, or transportation of alcoholic beverages for consumption.[footnoteRef:1] Prohibition was the end product of opposing views of social activism, and political reform known as the Progressive Era in America from 1890 to 1920 and was the first legislative attempt of the federal government to regulate consumption of a legal product in the United States.[footnoteRef:2] It was an era dominated by the attempts of several social, financial and political factions to reform ?American life?.[footnoteRef:3] The historiography of prohibition is abundant and has gradually developed into four divisions …show more content…
of discussion, each exhibiting an exciting evolution. [1: . Eighteenth-amendment. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged.RandomHouse,Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/eighteenth-amendment] [2: . John D. Buenker , John C. Burnham, Robert M. Crunden, PRO-GRES-SIV-ISM, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Schenkman Publishing, 1977), 3-6.] [3: . John D. Buenker , John C. Burnham, Robert M. Crunden, PRO-GRES-SIV-ISM, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Schenkman Publishing, 1977), 7.]
Historians have had difficulty throughout history in the evaluation of prohibition due to the abundance of misleading and fabricated documents as well as the dramatic cultural changes in America from the progressive era to modern day capitalism. Historians have been able to divide historiography of the prohibition into political, theoretical, economic and cultural areas of debate. The political and theoretical deliberations dominated the literature of the major historians for the first 50 years following the ratification of the 21st amendment. More recently historians such Mark Thornton in his book The Economics of Prohibition have begun the economic discussions and effects of prohibition on the post war industrial changes and the financial industry. In more recent times, authors such as Edward Behr have reviewed the relationship between the prohibition and its effects on entertainment, social behavior, and gender roles. Inquiries into the prohibition sub-cultures of flappers, creation of teen-age culture, and the rise of organized crime continue to be active subjects of interest in today?s research.
The historiography of the prohibition has had three rapidly advancing stages of development. The first stage began with politically influenced discussions of social and political reform. The major work during the initial stage and one of the most referenced texts by historians was ?Hofstadter?s The Age of Reform, From Bryan to F.D.R.?. His analysis first organized the prohibition as part of the Progressive Movement as well as presenting some initial political and social theory behind the movement.[footnoteRef:4] This developed into a period of critical analysis by several historians such as James Timberlake in Prohibition and the Progressive Movement, 1900-1920 that involved a methodical and significant review of primary sources. This stage included the categorizing of prohibition historiography into political and theoretical discussion as well as opposition to the traditional understanding of prohibition by John Rumbarger in Profits Power and Prohibition. The progression of prohibition into the social fabric of America has been the most recent phase of development. The understanding and general public knowledge of the concept of prohibition has influenced the progress of opposing social core philosophies throughout the country concerning legalization of other substances. [4: . Richard Hofstadter, The Age of Reform, From Bryan to F.D.R., (New York: Vintage Books, 1955), 5. ]
Thesis
The differences and similarities in the historiography, objectivity, and philosophical vantage points of the major historical writings about Prohibition and the proximal events surrounding amendments 18 and 21 will be explored. The challenges that have faced previous and current historians on documenting prohibition will be analyzed. Beginning with Ashbury?s The Great Illusion and Hofstadter?s work the Age of Reform there will discussions on the challenges and changes of historiography leading up to Last Call. Exploration in the way two opposing opinions can be reached after examination of the same primary sources will be analyzed. The historiographical differences and unique challenges of documenting between the political and theoretical aspects versus the cultural and social aspects will also be explored.
Historiography of Prohibition Prohibition ended on December 5th, 1933 with the Ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment to the American Constitution. It was the end of the progressive era and a time of transition from social activism and temperate political movements to F.D.R and the ?New Deal?.
The academic discussion of the history of prohibition began in 1950 with The Great Illusion: An Informal History of Prohibition by Herbert Asbury. In this narrative historical work he positions prohibition as a cyclical product of several hundred years of conflict between temperate and intemperate forces and makes no reference to the Progressive Era in America. He compares the similarities of the British Parliament failed attempt at prohibition in 1735 to amendment 18 in America. Both attempts are considered passing events in history and did not indicate the beginning or end of any larger movements. Although he acknowledges the first formalized temperate organization was the Union Temperance Society of Moreau and Northumberland on April 30, 1808, he documents a history of temperate discussion as early as President John Adams. [footnoteRef:5] He further links the temperate movement to a 1785 pamphlet by Dr. Benjamin Rush, An Inquiry into the Effect of Spirituous Liquors on the Human Body and Mind.[footnoteRef:6] The majority of the primary resources are in the political, religious, and social documents from as early as 1630 from the governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. He relies heavily on social habits, bar expenses, minutes from the church and political meetings as well as newspapers to maintain the narrative flow. He also places concern that objectivity with prohibition history cannot be achieved because of the inaccuracy of the primary data. He refers to the prohibition as ?The Big Lie? and subsequently most of the publications during prohibition are fabricated for the intended gain of the publisher.[footnoteRef:7] [5: . Herbert Asbury, The Great Illusion: An Informal History of Prohibition, (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company Inc., 1950), 9, 30.] [6: . Herbert Asbury, The Great Illusion: An Informal History of Prohibition, (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company Inc., 1950), 27.] [7: . Herbert Asbury, The Great Illusion: An Informal History of Prohibition, (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company Inc., 1950), 332. ]
Richard Hofstadter provided the next historical review in 1955 with The Age of Reform: From Bryan to F.D.R. This discussion is another predominantly narrative historical review of prohibition. He provides the initial and most complete review of the progressive era and the political forces leading up to the ratification of the 18th amendment. In his publication he clearly defines the prohibition as part of the progressive movement.[footnoteRef:8] Hofstadter provides detailed links of political relationships and social reformers of the era. Further discussions on the need for social stability with political power and portrays the prohibition as a social movement are key points. It is one of the most referenced pieces of historical literature in progressive era discussions and his historiographical methods sparked several debates following its publication. He offers some Quantitative history during some of his political narration, however the material is significantly lacking in references and skewed with political interest from the author.[footnoteRef:9] It is the historiographical criticism and his philosophical discussions on political views that make this an excellent source for a historiographical comparison. The main contribution to historiography is his designating prohibition as the conclusion of an era thus giving the progressive movement a beginning and an end. [8: . . Richard Hofstadter, The Age of Reform, From Bryan to F.D.R., (New York: Vintage Books, 1955), 7. ] [9: . Richard Hofstadter, The Age of Reform, From Bryan to F.D.R., (New York: Vintage Books, 1955), 5. ]
Several discussions over the following decade would attempt to solidify prohibition with the progressive movement. There are 3 distinct historiographical changes during this time period along with the re-emergence of opposing historical views. James H. Timberlake in Prohibition and the Progressive Movement, 1900-1920 and Andrew Sinclair in Prohibition: The era of Excess both continued to document the link of prohibition to the progressive era and a result of social, moral and political pressure.[footnoteRef:10] [10: . James H. Timberlake, Prohibition and The Progressive Movement: 1900-1920, (Atheneum, New York: Harvard University Press, 1963), 2, and 67-68. ]
The first major historiographical change was that unlike Hofstadter and Asbury, Sinclair did not live during the prohibition or during the progressive era.
He would arguably be the first historian to review prohibition without having personal experience of the era or being influenced by people who were active participants during prohibition. His objectivity would not be affected by having lived during the events. The 2nd change is in the documentation by Sinclair. He creates a narrative history similar to that of Asbury but continues the link prohibition to the progressive movement. Although Sinclair takes the same approach as Ashbury in his bibliography statement, he specifically references inaccurate, misleading, and fabricated documents on several occurrences.[footnoteRef:11] Sinclair also references Hofstadter and Timberlake over 14 times during in his publication, which propagates the theories and opinions of previous authors. The 3rd substantial change was Timberlake?s significant use of specific religious documents as primary sources in his text. Throughout his publications he references minutes, sermons, letters, and religious text condemning and debating the use of alcohol. He includes sources from Protestant, Catholic, and Episcopalian leaders as well as from religious scholars reviewing the same primary sources [11: . Andrew Sinclair, Prohibition: The Era of Excess, (Boston, Massachusetts: Little, Brown and Company, 1963),
419.]
The historical outcome of this period in history was the beginning of opposing editorial comments as to the cause of prohibition and its link to the progressive era. Nuala M. Drescher from Penn State University in an editorial review of Timberlake states that historians have not adequately documented the link to the progressive era, nor have they recognized the influence of labor politics as the cause of prohibition.[footnoteRef:12] He does not go so far as to suggest prohibition was a cyclical temperate reform movement as Asbury States, but he clearly is exposing doubt on the documentation used by current authors. Additional editorial reviews throughout the 1960?s state that Timberlake has definitively documented the link with the progressive era.[footnoteRef:13] It was the time of Sinclair and Timberlake that a solid difference in editorial opinion would lead to further changes in historiography of prohibition and debate over the integrity of the facts. [12: . Nuala M. Drescher, Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic StudiesVol. 32, No. 2 (April, 1965), pp. 229-231.] [13: . Alexander B. Callow, Jr, Indiana Magazine of History Vol 60, issue 1 (1964), pp 112-113.]
John D Buenker was the first historian to focus attention on the lack of formal academic discussions on the opposing theories of prohibition. He formally opened the dialogue for the review of the origins of Prohibition. In the form of an essay he calls into question why historians have been so slow to challenge accepted theory and that politicians may have created the concept of the progressive era to facilitate their agendas. This constitutes a significant addition to the historiography of prohibition as he judging historians for their prejudice and unwillingness to challenge theory. He states in his essay that he does not blame earlier historians for ?being children of their own times? but lashes out against the profession for not properly elucidating the facts of prohibition.[footnoteRef:14] It was Jack S. Blocker Jr. however, that cycled the concept of reform back to Asbury and John J. Rumbarger who developed new and well-documented theories of prohibition. [14: . John D. Buenker , John C. Burnham, Robert M. Crunden, PRO-GRES-SIV-ISM, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Schenkman Publishing, 1977), 4.]
In Blocker?s publication, American Temperance Movements: Cycles of Reform, he as one of multiple reformation attempts during American history. He supports his reform theory with abundant primary sources of information as well as comparative secondary sources throughout his narrative discussion. Although he discusses progressivism, the Progressive Era is never mentioned as with previous historians. ref This publication represents the thorough review of a long existent alternate theoretical positions concerning prohibition as Blocker was suggesting. Rumbarger?s publication, profits powers and prohibition, creates a third counter argument as the origin of prohibition. His added theory is based on industrial profits and need for work force modifications. The historiography of the prohibition began as a brief concept of cyclical reform followed by 40 years of documenting prohibition as the end product of moral reform at the end of the Progressive Era. During this period there was gradual improvement in use of primary sources of political, religious, social, and financial documents and the acknowledgement that significant amounts of data was misleading, fabricated, or incorrect. During the 1970?s, Historians became concerned about the lack of effort to challenge conventional theories and lack of willingness to elucidate alternative theories of prohibition. Historians have answered the calling with the production of multiple, well referenced comparative discussion on prohibition. Today, the theories of cyclical moral reform, terminal effects of the Progressive Era, and profits of an industrializing nation are all well documented throughout historical literature. The next step is to further advance the theories of 1920 prohibition era into modern social sciences.