Thursday, November 3, 2016

Research Paper Rough Drafts: Prohibition


Esther Bae
Dr. Steph Brown
English 306
3 November 2016
Drafts
Historical Context:
            America in the 1920s was like nothing ever before. It was the epoch of new culture and frivolous lifestyle, the advancement of technology, reform of politics, the breaking off from tradition, the modern-day beginnings of metropolitan – the “Roaring Twenties” they liked to call it. Embodied by Great Gatsby themes, America’s long, spirited party celebrating the end of World War I, was quickly becoming a new era, reaching the greatest height of social and political reform in its decade.
            The Progressive Era – an attempt (largely by government) to reform the country – was concluded with Prohibition. Prohibition was passed as the 18th Amendment under U.S. law in 1920: sale, transportation, and production of alcoholic beverages were banned, although, that did not entirely prevent its consuming. In fact, many dubbed Prohibition as the failed “Noble Experiment” – a mockery to President Hoover’s speech. In fact, the idea of it (even when engrained as law) was a naïve one (Peck 12). Expectedly, this enactment came with a response from Americans – more so from those residing in urban areas. Prohibition meant stripping citizens of their rights (Ely 255). Personal choice no longer seemed to be in effect. It meant that the opportunity to be carefree and happy, especially relevant when placed in context of the vibrant Jazz Age, was no longer. Anti-prohibition groups protested in a less visible way; they protested by deliberating going against law – choosing illegal over legal (an act of defiance against government). It did not take long for speakeasies to become an accessible medium between Americans wanting to consume alcohol, crime (liquor smuggling), and politics in the form of bribery (Funderburg). In historical literature, Al Capone may just be the most famed gangster. The presence of such people and associated movements during the Progressive Era, marked one of largest (illegal) protest movements against government of its time. However, opposition to these anti-Prohibition movements continued to survive well into this decade, forming a dichotomy of American values.
            The Temperance movements were led by Christian evangelical groups (especially, women) 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). However, the Temperance movements did not stir America for a rude awakening, rather, it was a 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).  The scale of what these reformers were about to undertake was incomprehensible, almost too burdensome: it was the shiniest time in America and liquor was the common core of all social activity, leisure, and mass politics. “Urbanities, ethnic minorities, immigrants, and blue – color workers generally favored little or no regulation of the liquor traffic” (Funderburg 3). And especially, crime bosses favored no government regulation of their most prosperous, underhanded business. However, an organized constituency of those for the control of alcohol became apparent: the rise of the Prohibition Party in the late 19th century reached its height during the 1920s, becoming the longest-living 3rd party in U.S. history.
            The 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). In fact, the era in which Prohibition was placed in was denounced as a “pseudo-reform, a pinched, parochial substitute for reform” and Prohibition itself as “ludicrous caricature of the reforming impulse” by historian Richard Hofstadter (Witt). However, scholars have shown sympathy towards the determinations prevalent during the Progressive Era. Exaggerated failures and shortcomings of a new era came naturally with a break from tradition and rise to modernity. Nonetheless, 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). The essence of Prohibition – to improve society – became a curveball: anti-Prohibition movements played hardball in this tense game between the national government and its people.  
            Now, the period of crisis following its inception (the divided stance on liquor – essentially, Temperance activists versus those not), 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 endless circle of drinkers relying on liquor businesses and concurrently, businesses placing their trust on their faithful customers threatened their purpose and contributed to their lackluster organization. However, one thing was sure. There was a brewing (literally) taking place underground as saloons, family homes and apartments, “mom-and-pop operations,” all practiced illegal liquor business, creating “an epidemic of greed, ineptitude, and hypocrisy” (Funderburg 340). Because of this desirable trend of illegal practice that produced glamorous luxuries and heroic tales of noncompliance against government, many hopped onto the bandwagon and soon, the infiltration of corrupt politics and crime became a reminder that America was falling back onto itself and regressing back into the Gilded Age. 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 (although, some states continued to implement temperance laws).
            Regardless of whether or not Prohibition had been effective in its original intent, “The decade-long national experiment, McGirr argues, laid the foundation for the modern American state, fundamentally transforming a federal government… [which] … helped produce the New Deal coalition and the modern Democratic Party” (Witt). For us (the spectators) who get a zoomed-out perspective, the game between government, Temperance movements, and anti-Prohibition saloons and businesses, may have looked like a three-way tie – there was no clear winner. However, the game left America with the vision of a larger government, a sense of moralism (and demoralization), and the notable rise to modernity.
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.

Ely, James W. “The Progressive Era Assault on Individualism and Property Rights.” Social      Philosophy and Policy, vol. 29, issue 2. Cambridge University Press, 2012, pp. 255-282.
Funderburg, Anne J. Bootleggers and Beer Barons of the Prohibition Era. McFarland, 2014.
McGirr, Lisa. The war on alcohol: Prohibition and the rise of the American state. W.W. Norton          & Company, 2015.
Peck, Garrett. Prohibition Hangover: Alcohol in America from Demon Rum to Cult Cabernet.             Rutgers University Press. 2009.
Witt, John F. “Booze and Big Government.” The Wall Street Journal, 18 Dec. 2015.

Rhetorical Context:
            Progressive rhetoric is a term coined from the language used during Progressive Era – a time in which America underwent a large socio-political reform in an arguably futile attempt to get rid of corrupt politics and modernize culture. Scholar Malcolm Magee states that the Progressive Era was “fueled by a moral rhetoric that was 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” (90). National leaders were persuasive in language by amassing all American hood into a single unity of progress. 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). The essential component in this era’s rhetoric is the balance between containing individualism yet entrusting people with their government – use of ethos proves effective. The Progressive Era was interesting in that the many movements associated with this time period – specifically, anti/pro-Prohibition protest groups – employed specific rhetoric from their respective camps and both government and its people introduced a new sort of rhetoric.
            The Temperance movements (specifically, the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union) merged under the large umbrella of the Prohibition Party, were led by women that were defiant and purposeful – not docile or static – in their choice of rhetoric. These women were the largest fraction of women in the 19th century (Mattingly 1). Characterized by orators and rhetors that were able to “meld a progressive message with a rhetorical presentation and image comfortable to a large number of women and men,” Temperance women paralleled the ideas of both men and women in order to accommodate to the entire prism of America (Mattingly 1). In order to do this effectively, these women tuned to their audiences and speeches and letters were addressed accordingly to the listeners – an effective use of ethos. Moreover, Mattingly states that the stirring of the audience was most notably seen when rhetors were first introduced to the “traditional feminine expectations with persuasive appeals for change” (19). These 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 language and new ideas were placed in context of tradition and value in order to gain a sense of past in the present. As their rhetorical goals were strengthened by influential supporters of their campaign, their legislative goal had been manifested by the passage of the 18th Amendment. 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.
            A common identity to both arguments of Prohibition was “American.” The definition, and more so the importance, of being an American meant freedom and responsibility – and these two concepts often parallel one another. However, the division of freedom versus responsibility created two fractions: anti-Prohibition groups and Temperance movements, respectively. And the overall identity of “American” became fractured 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”). And while these different styles did not seem to be apparently appropriate, these different applications of rhetoric were effective to its audience. The Temperance movement was a moral campaign that wanted to push for legislation prohibiting liquor; whereas, the anti-Prohibition movement was a large, collective social club that fought for the return of alcohol. The dichotomy here is manifest: one was for the progression of humanity and value whereas the latter was for the regression into American social culture.  
            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 (specifically, black humor) was used to address the controversy on government. Since, government was involved in the black market of liquor and crime even throughout the Progressive Era, the whole idea of Prohibition was a fallacy to drinkers. Hence, their rhetoric (and form of protest) was in ways, a way in which the national government was outsmarted by their citizens.
            The Prohibition Party – a minor party that opposed the consumption and sale of alcohol – took on rhetoric and this time, the Temperance movement literally applied rhetoric in its standard context – politics.  The Prohibition Party was special in that it encountered the turn of the 20th century and witnessed the development of modernity; the Party underwent Progressive change and especially, Progressive rhetoric. Their 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 better country), disapproving the current state of government affairs, and criticizing the opposition (anti-Prohibitionists).
            Progressive rhetoric was a reminder of America’s transition into modernity: new vocabulary was an indication of a break from tradition and the creation of a new state. 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.

Works Cited
Andersen, Lisa M. F. The Politics of Prohibition: American Governance and the Prohibition   Party, 1869-1933. Cambridge University Press, Sept. 2013.
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.

Questions:
1. My historical context is dense with significant movements and eras that span over a long time period. Is the organization of my historical context seem to provide clear details/examples of the movements without being overly wordy or out-of-place?
2.  I feel as though my rhetorical context lacks analysis – do you think there are certain rhetorical elements in which I should introduce and analyze (i.e. are there any major rhetorical elements missing?)  
3. In some parts of my paper, I do think I am being redundant – especially, in the rhetorical context portion. Can my paper be re-organized in such a way to avoid this?


No comments:

Post a Comment