It's January 1920, and in America it’s about to get a lot harder to get a drink.
The Volstead Act has come into force, making it illegal to sell alcohol across the United
States.
But the ban on drink would not be easy to enforce – it's prohibition.
Hi, I’m Jesse Alexander and welcome to the Great War which is made possible by the generous
support of our Patreons.
Help us keep The Great War free for everyone as a learning resource and support us at patreon.com/thegreatwar
- and now on to the show.
The immediate post war period was a time of great social revolution across the globe,
including in the prosperous United States.
The world war was seen by many as the end of an old order, and now it was time for modern
morals.
For some, in the US and elsewhere, alcohol was a dark remnant of the Old Ways – and
they felt it had no place in a progressive post war society.
Well, prohibition certainly did change society – but not always in the way its supporters
intended.
So let’s take a look at why prohibition came about, and how thirsty Americans got
around it.
Now, although prohibition is commonly associated with the so called Roaring Twenties, it had
been a hot topic in American public life for decades before the war.
This kind of moral politics was strengthened by the progressive idealism which would grip
the country afte r the end of the War to End All Wars.
For many, Wilson’s 14 Points would secure democracy and peace for the world, while progressive
politics like prohibition would improve American society at home . Many of these ideas, including
prohibition, found support amongst both democrats and republicans, but also from citizens’
groups.
At the forefront of the fight against alcohol was the Temperance movement , which campaigned
for government action against all sorts of problems they ascribed to the quote “evil
of the saloon.”
Since women were a driving force behind the push for prohibition, temperance became associated
with their growing role in public life.
Groups like the Women's Christian Temperance Union often spoke out about the connection
they saw between drunkenness and a host of other ills affecting women, such as domestic
violence, financial dependence on men, and a lack of political representation - since
they did not yet have the vote.
By the time of the Great War, temperance was a major political issue, with campaigners
targeting 'wet' anti-prohibition politicians and championing 'dry' ones.
From 1913 onwards temperance campaigners began demanding an amendment to the constitution
and a national law prohibiting alcohol.
So although prohibition was an important debate in political life, it was not the law, since
most of its supporters were women who could not vote.
But the First World War would soon bring changes for women, and for the nation's relationship
with booze.
It turns out the pressures of wartime life were a godsend to the temperance movement.
Drinking back at home was hard to justify when men were dying on the front line, and
was seen as unpatriotic.
This added a very practical – and masculine – argument to a movement that had previously
been defined as mostly moral, feminine and religious.
Beer was particularly vilified, as it was seen as a German beverage and many American
breweries – like Pabst, Miller and Bush – were owned by ethnic Germans.
Also, using valuable grain to mak e beer or whiskey was seen as a waste of resources that
could be better used for the war effort.
Although the alcohol industry claimed to use only 1 percent of the nation's wheat production,
some eager politicians jumped on such accusations of waste.
(NASS) 'Dry' politicians could now associate their politics with support for the troops,
while accusing their 'wet' rivals of hurting the war effort and encouraging drunkenness.
The war also meant that women had taken up many jobs previously reserved for men , and
tens of thousands served as nurses, drivers or switchboard operators overseas . In addition
to their new economic role, some women were also politically active in the women’s suffrage
movement . The prospect of women voting lit a fire under the prohibitionist movement,
giving it renewed energy, as it seemed that prohibition would not be far off if women
could cast ballots.
Their efforts resulted in the passing of the temporary War Time Prohibition Act in November
1918.
Though the law was actually passed after the armistice and was designed to save grain,
it was carefully worded so it could remain in force until US troops returned home.
So, the temperance movement had gained a partial success just as the war ended.
But, although prohibition is best remembered as an American endeavor, many other belligerents
also tried to clamp down on alcohol during the war.
In Britain for example, Munitions Minister David Lloyd George was a tee-totaler and staunch
prohibitionist, and he proclaimed in 1915: “We are fighting Germany, Austria, and drink,
and as far as I can see the greatest enemy of the three deadly foes is drink.”
(Imperial War Museum)
King George V also got on board and introduced the 'King's Pledge' – a promise not to drink
alcohol until the war was over.
It was heavily promoted by the Church of England as a means of showing support for the war.
The government also stepped in, but instead of banning drink outright, it used emergency
war powers under the 1914 Defence of the Realm Act.
This allowed the government to nationalise some pubs and breweries, and to introduce
methods to dissuade drinking.
These included changing the opening times, increasing prices, dropping the alcohol content
of drinks, and even rearranging the layout of pubs to throw off regula rs.
These measures were particularly used in areas with lots of armaments factories.
And actually, the British approach seemed to work.
Alcohol consumption dropped by half throughout the war and even continued to decline after
it.
Russia also tried its hand at prohibition, especially as a means to improve discipline
in the army.
Some Russians blamed excessive drinking for Russia’s defeat in the Russo-Japanese War,
and even for the 1917 revolution.
During the Great War, alcohol was banned during recruitment and mobilisation, and this policy
was later continued throughout the conflict and even after the Bolshevik revolution . Lenin
in particular saw the benefit in prohibition, which he saw as focusing the mind of revolutionaries.
He told the 11th Party Congress: “The Proletariat does not need intoxicants, the communist ideal
is a good enough stimulant to power the class struggle.
A model communist is a teetotaler, a model state does not deal in alcohol.”
(Ehmer and Hindermann 54)
But Lenin soon changed his mind.
Although semi-dry rules had been introduced in 1919, the government later took control
of the vodka industry in an effort to wean it off foreign imports: “If we cannot borrow,
if we are impoverished of capital and if […] we cannot indenture ourselves to Western European
capitalists [...] then it is necessary to choose between indenture and vodka.”
(Nemtsov 90).
They chose vodka.
Even France – the wine capital of the world – flirted with prohibition, although their
efforts concentrated purely on absinth, which had been blamed for a rash of social problems.
It was outlawed in 1914 , although wine was still common across the country – and was
regulation issue to frontline troops.
In fact you can see an original French wine canteen behind me.
SEGUE
So even though many countries controlled or banned alcohol, the laws often didn’t outlast
the war.
Only in the US did prohibition continue, and became a part of the constitution with the
Volstead Act.
The National Prohibition Act was ratified in January 1919, making it the 18th Amendment
to the Constitution.
Americans had one year to prepare – and stock up – before the whole country became
dry in January 1920: “After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture,
sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the
exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction
thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.”
(National Archives)
The temperance movement had prevailed, but neither the 18th amendment nor the Volstead
Act would end the debate about liquor.
In 1924, noted Chicago defense lawyer, and soon-to-be Scopes Trial Prosecutor Clarence
Darrow criticized the law and refuted progressive claims that society should legislate to fix
its problems: “I am one of those, I will admit, [who is] doubtful and suspicious of
authority.
I don't like it.
I think the less we have, the better...Now, you can't find where the line is and I can't
find where.
I am here to say that prohibition is way over the line in reason, in logic, in human experience.”
(Darrow, and Holmes 30) Darrow’s opposition was based partly on government overreach,
and was partly by his experience as a defence lawyer in Chicago, where organized crime thrived
on the illegal trade in booze.
So America was officially dry.
But the ink wasn’t dry on the Volstead Act before people looked for ways to get around
it.
In fact, it might be fair to say that the prohibition era has been associated with partying
and debauchery rather than sobriety and piety.
Flouting the Volstead Act was commonplace across the US, as drinkers found loopholes
to get hold of booze by any means necessary.
There was a sudden explosion in demand for sacramental wine and prescriptions for medicinal
whiskey , both of which were exempted from the law.
However, the most common way to indulge was at an illegal tavern known as a speakeasy.
Also known as blind pigs or tiger pigs, speakeasies came in a variety of shapes and sizes.
Some were small secretive backrooms with hidden entrances , while others were grand clubs
which offered entertainment in full public view.
Well known speakeasies, like Chumley’s in New York, even had some famous regulars, like
Ernest Hemingway , John Steinbeck and F. Scott Fitzgerald.
If the police showed up, many bars had rapid escape routes for patrons , or the bar owner
would simply claim the customers had brought their own booze – since it was illegal to
buy but not to consume.
Of course, as with any illicit substance in high demand, prohibition provided a lucrative
money-making opportunity for organized crime.
Hooch-running, especially from Canada, became a big business, and mobsters like Chicago’s
Al Capone built illegal empires which rivaled some of the America's largest legitimate businesses
. At the height of his power, Al Capone was pulling in around 100 million dollars a year,
around 1.5 billion in today's money . (Sullivan) Crime spiked as mobsters tried to protect
and grow their assets, including via murder, extortion and bribing officials.
Naturally Capone denied everything: “I’ve never done anything wrong.
Nobody can ever say I done anything wrong.
They arrest me.
They search me.
They lock me up.
They charge me with all the crimes there are, when they get me into court.
The only charge they can book against me is disorderly conduct, and the judge dismisses
even that because there isn't any evidence to support it...I’ve been the goat for a
long time...”
(Iorizzo, 59)
But, despite the flagrant disrespect for the law, America did in fact drink less.
Alcohol consumption dropped around 30 to 40 percent during prohibition, resulting in a
decrease in health issues like cirrhosis of the liver, and absenteeism from work also
dropped.
(Miron, Zweibel) Another side effect was the rise of plea bargains in criminal trials.
As courts became bogged down with prohibition related cases, judges increasingly turned
to plea bargains to ease the strain and reduce the backlog, which is a practice that continues
today.
Eventually, prohibition was repealed in 1933.
The triumph of the progressive temperance movement of 1919 lasted just 14 years , but
prohibition had a major impact on postwar American society.
The law was deemed a failure, because it couldn’t be enforced, encouraged violence and crime,
and deprived the government of tax revenue.
In fa ct, 17 of the 22 Senators who had approved the 1919 law voted against it in 1933, and
President Roosevelt repealed prohibition for good:
“I trust in the good sense of the American people that they will not bring upon themselves
the curse of excessive use of intoxicating liquors, to the detriment of health, morals
and social integrity.”
(Codification of Internal Revenue Laws 596)
We want to thank Daniel Faas and Mark Newton for their help with this episode.
As usual, you can find all our sources for this episode in the video description, including
links to our amazon stores.
To get access to all our podcast episodes with expert interviews and other perks, you
can also support us on Patreon or by clicking the join button below.
I’m Jesse Alexander and this is The Great War 1920, a production of Real Time History
and the only YouTube history channel that could really go for a little medicinal whiskey.