Esther Bae
Dr. Steph Brown
English 306
3 December 2016
1920s Progressivism and Prohibition:
A look into America’s Noble Experiment
A Historical Anecdote
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. Progressives were determined to change America – to break away
from political corruption and to advance humanity into a modern era of
democracy and value. In due course, the government had granted their wish: the
18th Amendment was put into motion and stamped as the America’s national
prohibition on the production, sale, and transportation of alcohol in January
of 1920. Expectedly, this enactment came with response – more so from those
residing in urban areas. 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. It was the second time in American history
(the first outlawing the ownership of slaves) in which a constitutional
amendment limited the practices of citizens and with that, “Prohibition changed
the way we live, and it fundamentally redefined the role of the federal
government” (Orkent 4).
This
research paper explores 1920s Progressivism and Progressive rhetoric by closely
examining the historical efforts of the leading up to Prohibition a century
before the 18th Amendment, the national implementation of
Prohibition in 1920, the response, and finally, the transition into 20th
century modern American liberalism. Moreover, the fractured American identity made
manifest as a consequence of Prohibition, will be discussed to compare the pro
versus anti-Prohibition groups in terms of their collective identity,
respective collective actions, leadership – and the lack thereof, and the medium
through which arguments were conveyed.
The
period of crisis following its inception (the divided stance on the 18th
Amendment) was marked by respective methodologies in articulating protest.
Temperance movements saw that sobriety was the only way to save mankind. “With
the focused zeal of true believers, dry activists preached and proselytized.
They organized, petitioned, marched, lobbied, and voted for their noble cause”
(Funderburg 4). However, the “wets” (those against Prohibition) were strikingly
different in their approach to crisis: the biggest flaw was the lack in strong
leadership.
The comparison between
anti-Prohibition groups and pro-Prohibition groups allows for understanding of
the cultural, social, and political context of 1920s America. 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. Anti-prohibition groups protested by deliberating going against law, choosing
illegal over legal, as the act of defiance against government. The idea of
getting drunk as a means of protest may have seemed silly. This type of
irresponsible protest most likely did not resonate well with the opposing protest
group and would not have been considered legitimate to the public – a political
repercussion undermining the ethos of such protest groups. 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).
In
contrast, pro-Prohibitionists had a much longer history of protest. The
Temperance movements were led by Christian evangelical groups and later on,
moral suasion organizations, anti-saloon leagues, the middle-class, and working
men who fought to reduce the dependence and limit the quantity of liquor
consumption (Andersen 15). Andersen points out that “this movement nagged that
the nation’s alcohol consumption levels had crossed the threshold of
acceptability” (9). These groups (largely religious) like the Woman’s Christian
Temperance Union (WCTU) did not stir America for a rude awakening. It was a
rather long, arduous effort dating back to colonial America that gradually
became recognized for its political activism and moral crusades against the
dangers of saloon and liquor traffic (McGirr 17). Mostly women, these protest
groups had a solidified collective identity that rested on the basis of responsible
motherhood and womanhood in order to reform the country into a dry,
non-secularized land with leaders actively fighting for many social and
political causes – one of which, (appropriate in the context of Prohibition)
being women’s suffrage.
Firstly,
anti-Prohibition groups and their backlash to Prohibition was great and the
idea of it, was ridiculed as naïve. Scholar Ian R. Tyrrell argues that many
modern historians “have depicted the temperance movement as an intolerant and
futile attempt…to stem the flow of social change and to impose the cultural
values of native-born Americans on urban and immigrant America” (Blocker 45).
Such ideas were commonly illustrated through political cartoons. 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 American public living in urban areas. Opinions on Prohibition were on a
continuum; however, political cartoons sketched 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 national law (see Fig. 1). Thus, this
cartoon exposes that lack of power and control that the national government had
on its citizens. Although, “Prohibition in the 1920s rested not on an ordinary
Congressional statue, but on an amendment to the Federal Constitution, [making]
it part of the most basic and sacred law of the land…” (Mennell 160), the 18th
Amendment simply did not withstand the power, profit, and connections that the
bootlegging business had already established. The idea of it (even when
engrained as law) was a naïve one (Peck 12). Protest against Prohibition had
evolved into a new definition in the 1920s – organized crime. The dominance of
Italian gangsters and associated criminal activity during the Progressive Era,
marked one of largest illegal protest movements against government of the 20th
century.
Fig. 1 Carey Orr, “Bullet Proof,” (Chicago Daily Tribune, 29 April 1926).
Municipal
politics involving political machines and alcohol had already established a
friendship long before Prohibition (McGirr 47). However, with the
implementation of Prohibition, saloon activity did die down initially and the
strong, interdependent tie between politicians (of all levels) and alcohol was
severed. Nonetheless, “organized-crime entrepreneurs” like Al Capone and Johnny
Torrio “…were well positioned to exploit the tremendous new opportunities
created by the criminalization of the alcohol traffic” (McGirr 55). This was a time in which bootleggers were more
heavily relied than before for access to alcohol (Funderburg). It was evident
that Prohibition (a major progressive movement from 1920 to 1933) had a counterintuitive facet – that is, “The enactment of
Prohibition unleashed a massive crime wave from coast to coast” (Funderburg 3).
While crime
and liquor survived and increased as the years went on, the hostility towards
the 18th Amendment and the government’s continuing with Prohibition
grew larger each day. This response came to shape the ideas of early 20th
century modern democracy.
The
rhetoric of the anti-Prohibitionists was not always directed towards government
but also aimed towards their rival protest group – Temperance activists and
more specifically, Christian unions. As representative of politics in a modern
era of reform, anti-Prohibitionists satirized and criticized those not in their
movement for the return of alcohol – pro-Prohibitionists. 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, religious, and prejudiced people who naively hoped for Prohibition to
work. Historian Richard
Hofstadter argues that Prohibition was plainly “the final gasp of a 19th-century
Protestant 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 more significant, was the notion 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 opposed to 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). This statement can be realized in the
strenuous efforts of the Temperance activist groups 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 a century prior to the Prohibition. These women recognized that citizen
participation was the fastest route in reaching their goal of creating a dry
and safe America for all families. The transformation of the undertakings of
the Temperance movement eventually saw its consummation (enactment of the 18th
Amendment) albeit, as did the failure of Prohibition shortly after.
Activist
Frances Willard, a prominent leader in the Temperance movement, delivered an
address to the 20th Annual Conference of the Woman’s Christian
Temperance Union (WCTU) in 1893. In this excerpt, formal, didactic rhetoric
aimed towards women is a clear indication of collective identity (womanhood) –
an element that is 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, 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 their mannerisms
of protest were illegal acts against the government – perhaps, not even protest
(if such restrictions exist).
A
major feature distinguishing the two protest groups was leadership. The leaders
of the Temperance movements were active organizers that were directly a part of
their supporters’ lives which allowed for a connected body of shared values and
effort. Anti-Prohibition groups did not have leaders that solidified their
protest movement. Instead their “leaders” or simply, the most visible
protesters against Prohibition were too busy with their illegal liquor businesses,
making deals with politicians, or sometimes, running away from police.
Anti-prohibitionists may not have even actively supported the actions of these
people. However, these mobsters may have been a necessary evil – the only real
chance at repealing the 18th Amendment.
Finally,
the re-infiltration of corrupt politics and crime became a reminder that
America was falling back onto itself and regressing into the Gilded Age – a
much satirized period of time between the 1870s and 1900 marked by economic
expansion and the presence of a shiny, gold lining of social issues and laying
underneath, corruptness. Eventually, the U.S. government was disillusioned with
the outcome and the anticlimactic demise of Prohibition concluded with its
consummation: the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st
Amendment in 1933 and the national ban on liquor was lifted.
Progressive
Rhetoric
Progressive
rhetoric was a new sort of rhetoric that defined the Progressive Era in the
early 20th century: an era which “…witnessed a rhetorical
renaissance that changed how Americans talked about politics and society.
Progressives shared a strong faith in public opinion, and they revitalized the
public sphere through a variety of initiatives to encourage public discussion”
(Hogan 1). This era was manifested by America’s large socio-political reform
with a collection of initiatives such as: Prohibition, women’s suffrage,
education, municipal reform, labor unions, and the beginnings of equality
movements. The Progressive Era “…mark[ed] a clean break from the
rhetoric of the Gilded Age [and] the discourse of progressivism represented a
new common language of political and social analysis that was reform-oriented,
moralistic, and optimistic about the future” (Hogan 1). Arguably, the Progressive Era
was, in ways, a period of rhetorical crisis that was expressed in response to
the period of inception – the Gilded Age. Progressivism – a 20th century
reformist movement – was “…fueled by a moral rhetoric founded on faith in the
common man and optimism about the possibilities for human progress…[which]
introduced a new vocabulary along with its new view of society and politics”
(Magee 90). Since Prohibition was the era in which the break from tradition
became the ultimate direction in moving the country and its people, rhetoric
was reflected off of that notion – the era introduced “…robust democratic
speech and public deliberation” (Magee 90). In Griffin’s words, this epoch appealed to the
“initiation of new arguments [and] the employment of additional channels of
propagation [resulting in] irrevocably disturbing the balanced between the
groups which had existed in the mind of the collective audience” – Americans
(11).
A
key idea in this era’s rhetoric was containing the balance between
individualism and entrusting people with their government. This suggestion gave
rise to the 20th century modern liberalism (as opposed to classical
liberalism). Modern liberalism values “equality of opportunity, developing
individualism, and positive freedom” (Stansfield 1).
The
Progressive Era was interesting in that the associated movements and its
respective protesters of this time period, most importantly, anti and pro-Prohibition
groups, employed different styles of rhetoric. Most notably, the Woman’s
Christian Temperance Union, founded in 1874, was a large religious women
organization that fought a moral crusade against the consumption of alcohol as
they were concerned for the safety and well-being of their families. These
women led the Temperance movement into the enactment of the 18th
Amendment and were the largest fraction of women in the 19th century
(Mattingly 1). These leaders were orators that were able to “meld a progressive
message with a rhetorical presentation and image comfortable to a large number
of women and men” (Mattingly 1). Although centered around womanhood/motherhood,
these rhetors did not exclude any particular group. Strong appeals were marked
by allusions to history, the Bible, and womanhood (a central identity) in order
to secure purpose and mutual understanding between the orators themselves and
the audience.
Rhetorically, Temperance leaders
“…reached mainstream, middle-class women by couching innovative, nontraditional
ideas in traditional language, thereby familiarizing the unfamiliar” (Kessler
636). This was the movement’s rhetorical goal: new ideas were placed in context
of old language and traditional values in order to emphasize the need to return
to a dry, non-secularized America. However, the desire to reform America into a
dry land and entirely stop the consumption of liquor was a massive undertaking
not entirely in their hands. This was because of the disenfranchisement of
women. The lack to vote inherently limited the maximum potential for change.
The women’s suffrage movement – alongside the Temperance movement – worked hand
in hand and marked the two greatest reform movements by women in the 19th
century.
A
common identity to both arguments of Prohibition was “American.” However, the overall identity of “American”
became splintered into two distinct images during the Progressive Era. These
two images produced contrasting rhetoric and the medium in which rhetoric was
shared.
Temperance
groups protested formally through letters and speeches that contained didactic
language, using logic-based and pathos-driven persuasion. However, the
anti-Prohibition groups used a different type of rhetoric: dark humor mainly
through political cartoons satirizing government’s ineffective attempt in
creating a dry America (“Becoming Modern”). The dissonance between government and its
unsatisfied citizens (drinkers) produced rhetoric that was different: the idea
of going against government in a modern era through dark humor and protesting
in illegal ways, was new. Anti-Prohibition groups made sure to blame the
government on its shortcomings: use of satire was used to undermine the weight
of government. And while the latter methodology did not seem to be apparently
appropriate, the application of rhetoric was effective in exposing the
government’s failed noble experiment. While the Temperance movement was a moral
campaign and crusade that pushed for legislation prohibiting liquor, the anti-Prohibition
movement was a scattered, social club that fought for the return of alcohol. The
Temperance movement aimed for the progression of humanity and value whereas the
latter was for the regression into American social culture and pre-Prohibition
secularism.
The
Prohibition Party and the Temperance movement was one of the earliest political
movements that applied rhetoric in its standard context today – politics. The Prohibition Party was special in that it
encountered the turn of the 20th century and witnessed the
development of modern liberalism (i.e. modernity); the Party underwent
Progressive change and developed a new style of rhetoric. The methodologies
changed in order to accommodate the changing historical, social, and rhetoric
sphere. “The Prohibition Party’s story… [depicted] partisans’ debate with
reformers, pressure groups, and anti-prohibitionists about the relative value
of nineteenth-century governance through courts and parties and
twentieth-century forms of governance that prioritized professional and
centralized leadership … and to Prohibitionists’ critics, gestures such as
celebrating women leaders, [and] engaging in direct action protests” (Andersen
5). The rhetoric of the Prohibition
Party was not unlike any other political party; the leaders and orators valued
the identity of “American,” retaining tradition but also emphasizing the need
for progress, a modern democratic state, disapproving the current state of
government affairs, and criticizing the opposition (anti-Prohibitionists).
Progressive
rhetoric was a reminder of America’s transition into a new state of democracy a
consideration for a larger role of government. The Progressive Era also
generated new vocabulary, an indication of a break from tradition. Like the
term suggests, Progressive is defined as the involvement of government and reform,
and rhetoric as persuasive speech or writing. The collaboration of these
elements created a new sort of language that embodied the idea of progress and
socio-political activism with the help of government intervention.
A Look into America’s ____ Experiment.
The
pro-Prohibitionists’ protests were communal, representative, ethical, legal,
and effective as evidenced by the consummation of the 18th
Amendment. The anti-Prohibitionists’ protests and more specifically, the
actions of the most visible protesters (mobsters), were certainly not legal,
ethical, or communal.
Regardless
of being perceived as a failed, noble, courageous, brilliant, or a foolish
experiment, Prohibition (arguably, positively) influenced the natural
consequences from its rather controversial, historical aftermath. “The U.S. war
on alcohol built the foundations of the twentieth-century federal penal state.
The 18th Amendment helped pave the way for the burst of policy
innovation during the New Deal. The intense attention to the social behavior of
criminality during Prohibition’s war on alcohol also opened up space at the
national level for fresh, penetrating critiques of the coercive state and crime
control” (McGirr 229). Therefore, Prohibition brought to attention the
shortcomings of the federal government and the realization for the need of stronger,
more organized policies on social, criminal, political, and economic issues –
all progressing towards 20th century democratic modern liberalism.
The
aftermath of Prohibition “sparked a new debate over federal power in an era of
otherwise conservative retrenchment. Its manifest successes and failures
contributed to widely altered understandings of government’s purview” (McGirr
61). The role of the federal government in the lives of affected Americans were
reevaluated and reconsidered.
Works Cited
Andersen,
Lisa M. F. The Politics of Prohibition:
American Governance and the Prohibition Party,
1869-1933. Cambridge University Press, Sept. 2013.
Blocker,
Jack S. Alcohol, reform and society: the
liquor issue in social context. Greenwood Press,
1979.
Funderburg, Anne J. Bootleggers and Beer Barons of the Prohibition Era. McFarland,
2014.
Griffin, Leland M.
“The Rhetoric of Historical Movements.” Readings in the Rhetoric of Social Protest. Browne, Stephen Howard, and
Charles E. Morris III, eds. State College, PA: Strata
Publishing, Inc., 2013.
Hogan, J. Michael. Rhetoric and Reform in the Progressive Era.
A rhetorical history of the United
States, vol. 6, Michigan State University Press, 2003.
Magee, Malcolm.
"Speaking of Progress: The Rhetoric of Reform in the Progressive
Era." The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, vol. 3, no. 1, 2004, pp. 90-94.
Mattingly,
Carol F. Well-tempered women: Nineteenth-Century
Temperance Rhetoric.
McGirr, Lisa. The war on alcohol: Prohibition and the rise of the American state.
W.W. Norton & Company, 2015.
Orkent, Daniel. Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition. Scribner, 2010.
Peck,
Garrett. Prohibition Hangover: Alcohol in
America from Demon Rum to Cult Cabernet. Rutgers
University Press. 2009.
“Prohibition: Speakeasies, Loopholes and
Politics.” NPR Author Interviews.
NPR. 10 June 2011.
Stansfield, Clare. “The Development of
Modern Liberalism.” Political Ideologies,
vol. 22, no. 4, Hodder
Education, 2013.
Witt, John F. “Booze and Big Government.”
The Wall Street Journal, 18 Dec. 2015.
No comments:
Post a Comment