Object Analysis: Prohibition

Esther Bae

Dr. Steph Brown

English 306

10 November 2016

Analysis of movement artifacts

            The war was over, men came home, women rejoiced, the Jazz Age – hand in hand with urban living and modernity manifested the Roaring Twenties, and the triumph of hard-fought victory was celebrated with alcohol – perhaps, even, with a few too many drinks. “Per capita beer consumption rose over 1,000% between 1840 and 1910. Alcohol’s effects were often devastating, especially for poor families” (Witt, “Booze and Big Government”). This way of living, however, contradicted the society in which Progressives wanted to build. These Progressives were determined to change America – to break away from political corruption and to encourage and advance humanity into a modern era of democracy, value, opportunity and equality. Since alcohol seemed to be hindering that possibility of progression, the 18^th Amendment was put into motion and stamped as America’s prohibition on the production, sale, and transportation of alcohol. The response from this national constitutional ban was divided: Progressives and Temperance movement activists (who had fought a century-long battle for a dry America) were proud and elated whereas the anti-Prohibitionists (i.e. drinkers), were confused and bitter. With the inception of Prohibition, the rhetoric in which the two sectors expressed their crisis was drastically different.

            Anti-Prohibitionists were a separate identity from the pro-Prohibitionists, although the two divisions fell under the label, “American.” The way in which many anti-Prohibitionists protested was by defying government rules; the illegal trade of alcohol was evident in the rise of speakeasies and bootlegging that sprung up in urban areas. Moreover, most of the protests were not simply strikes bringing to attention the encroachment of individual rights but rather took on new forms of non-verbal protest – one of which being political cartoons (a medium to publicly share thought and especially, thought on controversial and polarizing political topics).

            Although, the cartoonists themselves may not have had extreme political views, they exposed the popular thought of Americans at the time of Prohibition – and that is, Prohibition was ineffective and a failed attempt that was largely disregarded by the general American public. However, the salience of the issue was not silent as Prohibition was an influential movement during one the greatest reform eras of the country. Opinions on Prohibition were on a continuum; however, political cartoons illustrated the extreme ends of the spectrum. The anti-Prohibition cartoon below shows the inefficacy of Prohibition by showing the bigger influence of American society as organized crime and the smaller influence as the law (see Fig. 1). “…Prohibition in the 1920s rested not on an ordinary Congressional statue, but on an amendment to the Federal Constitution, which made it part of the most basic and sacred law of the land…” (Mennell 160). In spite of that, this reality was shattered by the different image: the law of the land was not able to withstand the power, wealth, and dominance of the bootlegging business. Al Capone – the most recognized bootlegger and infamous gangster of his time – might have perhaps possessed more connections and power than all the combined people tailing him. Protest against Prohibition had simply evolved into a new definition in the 1920s – organized crime.  

Fig. 1 Carey Orr, “Bullet Proof,” (Chicago Daily Tribune, 29 April 1926).

            The rhetoric of the anti-Prohibitionists was not always directed towards government but also aimed towards their rival contenders – the Temperance movements and alongside, Christian unions. As representative of politics in a modern era of reform, anti-Prohibitionists satirized and criticized those for Prohibition. Below is a political cartoon aimed at Prohibition supporters (see Fig. 2). The camel was symbolic for a “dry” America and more specifically, became a symbolic marker for supporters of a dry America. (In contrast, the “wets” were anti-Prohibitionists.) Underneath, the camel are legs (assumingly those of Prohibition supporters) and on them are written the words, “bigotry” and “religious prejudice.” Bigotry and prejudice (often used together) are examples of rhetoric that ring a negative connotation. The wets denounced the drys as stubborn, prejudiced people who naively hoped for Prohibition to work – this idea resonating with historian Richard Hofstadter who described the idea of Prohibition as a “ludicrous caricature of the reforming impulse” (Witt, “Booze and Big Government”). In fact, Witt states that Hofstadter probably thought of Prohibition as “the final gasp of a 19^th-century Protest culture.” This political cartoon is a reminder of the splintered identities of “American” during the Progressive Era – two sides of the Prohibition debate were clear but greater and more significant than that, was the idea that Prohibition was simply a smaller category under the larger political debate regarding religion, anti-immigration (and xenophobia), labor unions, and women’s suffrage (“Prohibition”, NPR).  

Fig. 2 Edwin Marcus, “What a Queer Looking Camel,” (The New York Times, 8 July 1928).

            The Temperance movement was drastically different than the anti-Prohibition movement in that the structural differences in organization and collective identity created new styles of rhetoric and new modes of expressing a particular rhetoric that resulted in a collective action rather than disjoint inaction (as expressed with the anti-Prohibition groups). Writer and editor Daniel Orkent points out that the “difference between the pro-Prohibition and the anti-Prohibition groups in the years leading up to the passage of the 21st Amendment was that the pro-Prohibition people were out there marching and organizing and voting and the anti-Prohibition people were too busy drinking to do any of those things” (“Prohibition,” NPR). That statement can be realized in the strenuous efforts of the Temperance groups – especially the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union – compared to the unconnected body of lackluster anti-Prohibition groups. Temperance groups protested in formal ways by giving public addresses, sending letters, rallying their local towns (and importantly, in cultural and social context) a century prior to the Prohibition Era. These women recognized that citizen participation was the fastest route in reaching their goal – creating a dry, safe America. A leader in the Temperance movement, activist Frances Willard delivered an address to the 20^th Annual Conference of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) in 1893. In this excerpt, formal, didactic rhetoric utilized by and aimed towards women is a clear indication of collective identity – an element absent in the anti-Prohibitionists’ social movement. Willard starts her address by stating “When we began the delicate, difficult, and dangerous operation of dissecting out the alcohol nerve from the body politic” and later concludes that arguing, “If Congress persists in its refusal, why shall not the WCTU make a sweeping, and thorough investigation of the liquor traffic? Undoubtedly the political machinery of state and nation would place all possible obstacles in our way; but we have a personnel in every community throughout the republic, than which none that exists is more intelligent and devoted” (“Do-everything Policy, LOC). Immediately, the sense of rationality, vigor, and persuasion resonates through her speech. Moreover, ethos (as a well-respected social activist and leader and fellow women) and pathos (emotion-based diction) are rhetorical strategies employed to strengthen her argument. Compared to the efforts of Temperance groups and anti-saloon leagues, anti-Prohibitionists were informal, loosely organized without a clear definitive center, and the mannerisms of protest were illegal acts against the government.

            The leaders of the anti-Prohibition movements were somewhat of a figurative character to the anti-Prohibition supporters – speakeasies and mobsters like Johnny Torrio and Al Capone – were leaders symbolic of their supporters’ frustrations that manifested their desires by doing the thing they so desired – consumption and sales of liquor. However, the leaders of the Temperance movements were active organizers that were directly a part of their supporters’ lives – and that, allowed for a connected body of shared values and effort.

            The transformation of the undertakings of the Temperance movement eventually saw its consummation (enactment of the 18^th Amendment) as did the failure of Prohibition shortly after. Nonetheless, the fractured identities of being “American” came to eventually contribute to a new modern state in the 1930s and created a new sort of rhetoric – Progressive rhetoric.

Questions:

1. Should I be more thorough in the analysis of my 3 objects?

2. Is there a balance between rhetorical, historical, and object analysis?

3. Should I include more of logos, ethos, pathos in my paper?

           

Works Cited

“Becoming Modern: America in the 1920s, Wets & Drys.” America in Class. National            Humanities Center, 1921-1930.

“Do-everything Policy.” Progressive Era to New Era, 1900-1929. Library of Congress, 1893.

Mennell, S. J. “Prohibition: A Sociological View.” Journal of American Studies, vol. 3, no. 2.            Cambridge University Press, 1969, pp. 159-175

“Prohibition: Speakeasies, Loopholes and Politics.” NPR Author Interviews. NPR. 10 June 2011.

Witt, John F. “Booze and Big Government.” The Wall Street Journal, 18 Dec. 2015.