Welcome Daniel Okrent, and Host Jon Walker.
[As a courtesy to our guests, please keep comments to the book. Please take other conversations to a previous thread. - bev]
Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition
Daniel Okrent was the first public editor of “The New York Times.” In his new book “Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition,” he tells the fascinating and often-overlooked story of Prohibition. Despite being one of the most important issues in the country for decades and a dominant force in our nation’s politics, the history of Prohibition is little known to most Americans.
It is almost impossible to understate how monumental the 18th Amendment, prohibiting the manufacture, sale and transportation of “intoxicating liquors,” was. It was a massive social, political and financial reform almost on the level of women’s suffrage or the civil rights movement. Passing the 18th Amendment required a massive grassroots movement over decades, a huge change in public opinion, one of the most powerful pressure groups in American political history, the destruction of one of the major industries in the nation and a radical change in how we financed our government.
At the birth of this nation, we were a country awash in alcohol. In 1830, an American adult on average consumed the equivalent of 1.7 bottles of standard 80-proof liquor per week. In 1910, just nine years before the ratification of the 18th Amendment on January 16, 1919, the excise tax on alcohol accounted for more than 30 percent of all federal revenue. The alcohol industry was the fifth largest in the country.
“Last Call” explains how the country went from a nation that loved to drink to one that wrote Prohibition into its core governing document. How did two-thirds of Congress and three-quarters of state legislatures vote to destroy one of the country’s largest industries? Much of the credit goes to the Anti-Saloon League and its brilliant head lobbyist, Wayne B. Wheeler. Wheeler was one of the most powerful lobbyists ever. With his single-minded focus on Prohibition, he was able to strike terror into Senators, dictate to Presidents and hold the balance of power in both political parties.
Wheeler was a master of cut-throat realpolitik and created the political “litmus test.” The ASL judged candidates purely on the issue of Prohibition, and the ASL controlled dedicated blocs of single-issue voters that could swing elections at all levels across the country. By strategically controlling a minority of voters, the ASL became the deciding force in many elections.
To achieve the 18th Amendment, Prohibitionists became a major force pushing for women’s right to vote and passage of the 16th Amendment, creating the income tax. (The tax was the only funding source that could make up for the huge loss of government revenue that would result from making alcohol illegal.) To achieve his goals, Wheeler had to turn enemies into unlikely allies. Evangelical Christians, progressives, industrialists, women’s groups, the Ku Klux Klan and labor unions all unified behind ending the evils of alcohol.
Yet, for the visionaries who thought Prohibition would lead to a dry future, the noble experiment was a complete failure. Okrent documents how liquor continued to flow through the country in every imaginable way. It was smuggled in from Canada and the Caribbean, sold as legal “medicine,” brewed at home from malt syrup or bricks of grape extract, and made from repurposed industrial products. The difference, though, is that the products were now tax free and the profits went to criminals. And boy, were there profits. Some believed the annual sale of bootleg liquor was equal in size to the entire federal budget.
With all that money, Prohibition fueled corruption on an almost unimaginable scale, with the rise of violent and powerful criminal syndicates. A group of extremely wealthy upper-class individuals bankrolled by Pierre du Pont led the fight for its repeal, with the hope that taxation of alcohol would result in the end of the income tax on du Pont’s vast personal fortune. The nation saw the 18th Amendment as completely unworkable, corrupt and ripe with hypocrisy, and repealed it after just 14 years with the ratification of the 21st Amendment. A mere 10 years before the ratification of the amendments, both appeared to be near-impossible tasks. Yet in only 14 years, Americans experienced the impossible twice.
To anyone interested in bare-knuckle politics or massive grassroots social and political movements, there is probably no better case study than the rise and fall of Prohibition.
To get a good sense of “Last Call,” read Okrent’s excellent article in last month’s “Smithsonian” magazine, Wayne B. Wheeler: The Man Who Turned Off the Taps.



78 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Dan, Welcome to the Lake.
Jon, Thank you for Hosting this Book Salon.
Hi Bev, Hi Jon.
Thanks so much for being with use Daniel Okrent. As both a political person and a history nut I really enjoyed the book.
Lets start with the basic question: what originally made you interested in writing about prohibition?
My last book was about New York in the 1920s, specifically about the origins of Rockefeller Center. The land that Rockefeller Center eventually was built on was the heart of the speakeasy belt in New York – and I kept running into speakeasy owners who had more political muscle than the Rockefellers. And once I started to think about that, the fundamental question about Prohibition arose: How the hell did that happen?
Dan welcome to FDL this afternoon.
How are you today Jon?
Dan, I have not had an opportunity to read your book but do have a somewhat pertinent comment. I grew up in Kentucky whee the law allows “local option” elections down to the precinct level. Out of 120 counties, I think 90 of the counties are dry, with approx half of those having a “wet” county seat.
One of the common attributes that has held true over the years is that the wet/dry elections are the one time that the local preachers and the local bootleggers are on the same side.
You’re absolutely right, dakine01. There’s a saying in the Prohibition history business — that Prohibition is the product of Baptists and Bootleggers.
what I thought was interesting was a part about how basically in the same year the 18th amendment was ratified I believe in Missouri an anti-alcohol state-wide ballot measure lost.
How popular was the movement among regular people compared to something hijacked by a very dedicated large group of voters?
As a technical note, there’s a “Reply” button in the lower right hand of each comment. Pressing the “Reply” will pre-fill the commenter name and comment number you are replying to and helps folks to follow the conversation.
Note: Some browsers do not like the “Reply” if it is pressed after a browser refresh and the page has not completed loading.
Well, “hijacked” is one way of describing it; another would be “engineered.” The Anti-Saloon League, which was the organization that made Prohibition possible, controlled the margins — they delivered their 10 or 15 or 25 percent of the electorate to candidates who supported their position; they didn’t care what those candidates thought about anything else. And if you can deliver a bloc like that, you’re going to win a lot elections, even though you have nothing near a majority.
Thanks!
Greetings Daniel, Hi Jon
You’ve gotten wonderful reviews, I hope book sales reflect this.
One of my favorite fun things is an old can of Peacock American Rye Whiskey from a old family friend’s attic. Inside was a bottle of hooch and a charming little shot glass with a spiderweb embossed in the bottom (the can was all ready opened). Hiram Walker & Sons – Walkersville Canada, was the maker.
I suspect the Canadian liquor manufacturers made a fortune during Prohibition, how many American Companies moved up across the border? And what other impact did our Prohibition have on Canada?
I always know prohibition was a real corrupting force but I was really blown away in the book by was just how completely it corrupted the system.
What fraction of police/judge/enforcement agents were probably on the take in most cities? It seems like almost all of them were.
The Bronfman family, which controlled Seagram’s, actually bought a defunct distillery in Kentucky and moved it piece by piece to Montreal. They then spent most of Prohibition making liquor that was shipped, illegally, in tothe U.S. The bottle you have is from the Hiram Walker Distillery just across the river from Detroit. In one year, an estimated half a million gallons of Hiram Walker’s best went directly from Ontario to Michigan — all of it illegally, all of it protected by hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes.
It’s hard to know exactly, Jon, but the assistant attorney general in charge of Prohibition enforcement laws estimated that street cops in New York were collecting $160,000 a week — the modern day equivalent of roughly $2,000,000.
What of the dozens of crazy ways people managed to smuggle, buy or make their own alcohol did you find most amusing?
I’m personally a bit horrified by the though of how a homemade wine from a brick of cheap extract grapes would taste.
Greetings Mr. Okrent, and thank you for joining us today. (And thanks to Jon for hosting.)
There are so many single issue movements that have failed to achieve the kind of success the Anti-Saloon League did, and I am wondering, beyond the political gifts of Wheeler, why. Was it the simplicity of the ask? The fact that it was an “anti” movement instead of a “pro?” The ability to merge the ASL’s interests with another powerful social movement?. . . .
The most ingenious, I think, was in fact the wine bricks. It was a compressed mass of grape skins, stems, and juice, the size of a brick, in a paper wrapper that said, basically, “Do not put in a vat with two gallons of water, do not add yeast, and do not leave in a dark closet, or it will turn into an intoxicating substance.” Not very subtle!
I also admire the sacramental wine suppliers, who made wine for the Catholic Church — one, Beaulieu Vineyards in the Napa Valley,made it in ten grape varietals, including chardonnay, cabernet, and tokay.
Yes, the anti- group always seems to have more energy than the pro- group; it’s easier to play offense than defense. But mostly, it was the ASL’s single-issue focus. They didn’t care if you were for high taxes, invasion of foreign countries, or denying the vote to people whose names didn’t end in vowels — so long as you were with them on the Prohibition issue. These are exactly the tactics followed by the NRA today– with nearly the same influence.
Welcome to the Lake, Daniel. I haven’t had a chance to read the book yet, so please forgive me if you’ve addressed this: How big of a role did inconsistent enforcement across regions of the US play in the failure of Prohibition? My grandmother once told me that here in FL, Prohibition was something one read about in the newspaper.
Thanks so much for being here today, Mr. Okrent. I can’t tell you how much discussion your book, and the anti-saloon league, have provoked around these parts thanks to Mr. Walker.
Do you see any parallels with what is happening with the Mexican drug cartels, and the impact of marijuana prohibition?
Dan’s appearance on Rachel Maddow
In New Orleans, they said Prohibition was only a rumor!
Enforcement did vary. Generally speaking, large cities (especially those with large immigrant populations) and coastal communities had the least enforcement. The closer you were to the center of the country, and the larger the white Protestant population the greater the likelihood of strong enforcement. But even in those places, people with money were always able to get their liquor.
The one thing I thought was interesting about Prohibition in comparison to other mass grassroots movements that achieved a similar level of change, women’s suffrage, civil rights, ending slavery, anti-child labor laws, increase enfranchisement, etc… is they all had the weight of history and were happening in many countries.
But prohibition was different it was like the crazy wrong turn American made separate from most of the western world. What do you think was the primary cause of that? Was it just Wheeler’s genius or a result of our demographics that created a lot of “others” that drank (new European immigrants, African Americans, etc…)
It’s easy to connect those dots. As in the 1920s, an enormous trade in forbidden substances continues; as in the 1920s, the profits are going to criminal syndicates; as in the 1920s, those profits are not being taxed. The only difference is that we spent very little on enforcement during Prohibition (after all, it was the very Republican ’20s, when Congress and the Presidents had little interest in expansive government). Today, of course, we’re spending billions, with very little apparent effect.
Well, Jon, it wasn’t that separate. Canada had Prohibition in every province but Quebec during the first part of the century. All the Scandinavian countries had Prohibition. Prohibition as such never hit England, but the bizarre pub closing hours that continued until very recently were the product of temperance agitation. Fundamentally, wherever you had Protestants, you had some form of government limits on alcohol. Even Germany barred alcohol from certain industrial areas during World War I.
Hi Mr. Okrent, thanks for coming by. It’s funny that enforcement is dwarfed for alcohol prohibition, but it seems, on a large scale, usage continues unabated on probably comparable levels, no?
What kind of cultural shift, people letting their breath go if you will, happened after alcohol prohibition? And do you see any other parallels to today’s marijuana prohibition?
The biggest surprise about what happened after Prohibition is that people drank less, not more. During Prohibition, anyone selling liquor could sell it to anyone he wanted, at any time, on any day, so long as he had his proper bribes in place. But the Repeal Amendment, in assigning liquor control to the states, brought on age limits, Sunday blue laws, limitations on where a bar could operate (not near a church or school, for instance), closing hours, etc. Bar owners and package dealers had licenses they could lose if they violated these laws. Regulation meant control. My guess is that today, in most of the U.S., it’s easier for a 17-year-old to buy marijuana than to buy liquor. Everyone is eligible to be a marijuana dealer, in a way;liquor dealers are much more constrained.
well, prohibition did bring us the mob
Absolutely. The national crime syndicate was born in a meeting of the gang leaders from six cities who had gathered in Atlantic City, in 1929, specifically to set prices, define trade areas, and work out details of intercity cooperation.
That lines up pretty well with the Portugal and Netherlands experiences after they eased their laws on marijuana. It’s very fascinating. And really, we’re seeing the same restrictions tightening in LA and Colorado, where a once Wild West of dispensaries is now being curtailed by legislatures.
And, if I recall correctly, there was part of prohibition where pharmacies dealt alcohol to deal with various ailments, yes? Could you explain some of that if you know of it?
It was interesting for me to see how much prohibition lead to a real expansion of the power of the State with new search rulings, first ever wiretapping, etc…
What would you say is the lasting effect prohibition had on our legal tradition?
Wow, there’s the money quote for today’s drug prohibitionists.
Mr. Okrent, I heard your interviews on a couple of NPR shows. Very, very interesting. I liked your point that it was the onlly Constitutional amendment against something, or taking away a right.
It’s amazing the continuing ramifications on society today from this relatively short aberration in law. I look forward to readng your book.
The medicinal liquor business was a huge racket. It worked like this: you would go to your physician and purchase a liquor prescription for $3. You would then take that to your pharmacy, where you could get a pint every ten days, legally. And this wasn’t anonymous rotgut — this was branded whiskey or gin, in bottles with familiar labels and logos, selected by the customer. For one Chicago business, it was especially convenient: in 1920, at the start of Prohibition, Walgreen’s had 20 drugstores; in 1930, after a decade in the medicinal liquor business, they had 525. Family legend always has it that the chain grew because of malted milk shakes. I don’t think so.
I always found it interesting how criminal syndicates for controlled substances be it alcohol or drugs are one of the only truly “free markets” and the result is almost always a quick market concentration with either an oligarchy agreement or brutally enforced monopoly.
Thanks. But there was one other constitutional provision that limited the rights of individuals (at least certain individuals): The 13th Amendment said you couldn’t own slaves!
The notion that these two proscriptions — against slavery and liquor — were of equal standing in the Constitution is really kind of shocking.
I think you’ve nailed it, Jon. Search and seizure law, especially, was turned inside out by Prohibition.
On the other hand, Justice Brandeis’s dissent in the Olmstead case (which allowed wiretapping of phone lines) included the phrase, “the right to be let alone.” And those were exactly the words cited by Justice Stewart in his decision in Roe v. Wade.
Women are the battleground for Prop 19 in California this year. What lessons can we take from the appeal of the ASL to women who might find appeals to ‘save the children from drugs’ worthwhile?
very interesting I did not know that
Too true (my copy function isn’t working=response to equivalency of slavery and prohibition)
You may be glad to know that my public library has 21 holds on your book. That may mean they’ll be buying more copies!
Only this: women hoping to save their children from alcohol (and from alcoholic fathers) helped usher Prohibition in. But many of those same women, fed up with inconsistent enforcement, government hypocrisy, collapse in respect for the law, etc., helped bring Prohibition down. The most effective pro-Repeal organization was the Women’s Organization for National Prohibition Reform, led by a remarkable woman named Pauline Morton Sabin. I think she’s my favorite person in my book!
I haven’t finished yet, but I have been enjoying your book. I makes for a fun beach read– which is a bit unusual for non fiction.
There are so many amusing anecdotes and character profiles. And some of them really were characters.
Nice! Where do you live?
Thanks, Cynthia.
Right now about 50% the people support marijuana legalization in California and roughly 40% across the country. Despite being a fairly mainstream you have almost no politicians embracing it. During prohibition many politicians were terrified by the ASL into taking the dry position.
Do you see the possibility for a similar rapid sea change is support from marijuana legalization that you saw for ending prohibition?
I’m in San Antonio, Texas.
I do, Jon — and not because of moral or criminal matters, but because of tax issues. There is absolutely no political support, and very little public support, for raising income taxes. But both sin taxes specifically and user taxes generally seem to be the default when governments want to raise money today. It is no accident that the California ballot measure is called a law to “legalize and tax” marijuana.
The state I grew up in, Oklahoma, was dry much longer than the rest of the US. It actually was kind of convenient. Kids in school could make money bringing liquor in from other states. Also you didn’t have to go out to buy booze. Just call your bootlegger and it was at your door in 15 minutes.
Frankly I would just as soon the war on drugs to go on. If not all that DEA structure and modes and methods will just be turned on the people in other witch hunts.
“Was” dry? When I left after my 2 1/2/ yrs there in the mid-80′s, it still was. Well, partially, I guess. You could buy beer etc at a store, but you had to “join a private club” to be able to drink at a bar.
I know that was a big part of the debate about whether to put it on the ballot now or in 2012. Any hope the some group of California millionaires we be our Du Pont trying to stop tax increases on their income.
Only if there were a real threat of tax increases on their incomes — which, of course, there isn’t.
On a lighter note, I am a lifelong, rabid baseball fan, and while I will confess to wasting many hours as a young teen playing APBA (for the less nerdy, that’s a statistics-based baseball board game), I have never joined a rotisserie league. In fact, I have often complained about what the this kind of fantasy baseball has done to baseball fandom. I encounter fans, at games and bars and over backyard grills, who are so focussed on individual performance–at the expense of appreciating the team game. . . and more often than not, these types are fantasy team owners.
I could go on and on, but, Mr. Okrent, as the father of rotisserie ball, what do you have to say for yourself??? ;)
Just peeked at the Smithsonian article — Bat Masterson became a sportswriter? In New York?
Another childhood myth of the west wrecked….
How about… “I’m sorry”???
FDL is a very political blog and has a lot of political activist read it.
Given how Wheeler was probably one of the most powerful political strategist in this country’s history what do think you would be the most important lesson he would pass on to people hoping to shape policy/politics?
Depending on which county I think it is a bit more open now. I don’t recall a problem the last time I was there in 2000 but I was in hotels and could get what we wanted in OC.
Apology accepted! :)
Unquestionably, focus on one issue at a time. The broader your agenda, the less likely you can deliver a bloc of votes. Living proof? The NRA.
Back from Smithsonian agaiin – if Wheeler hadn’t died in 1927, might the movement to repeal Prohibition have failed?
Well, there seems to be a pretty well organized opposition in Humboldt County to the legalization proposition. I guess they’ll set themselves up with the fundie preachers in a modern day baptists&bootleggers coalition.
Also, I fear, living proof of the opposite – the Democratic Party.
I think it is funny you keep bring up the NRA because I have been doing a serious of post about political activism from the turn of the century, prohibtion, Canada’s Cooperative Commonwealth federation, North Dakota’s Nonpartisan League. And they keep reminding me of the NRA. The NRA seems like a group that learned well from history.
I have always suspected that one of the reasons marijuana was made illegal was the huge prohibition bureaucracy at the FBI suddenly had nothing to do, is there any truth to that theory?
No, I think it would still have succeeded. But Wheeler would have stalled it some, chiefly but not letting Congress vote in much harsher penalties for breaking the liquor laws. That really increased public outrage, and gave fuel to the Repeal movement. Wheeler knew better than that. For instance, he never made drinking illegal; only selling, manufacturing and transporting. That’s because he knew it would weaken public support (a lot of Prohibitionists just wanted to keep liquor out of the hands of the poor, or the black, or the immigrants). But it was also because no drinker would ever testify against his supplier if the drinking itself was illegal!
That’s it — Baptists and Bootleggers.
What’s going on in Humboldt was also true in coastal regions of New England, which voted heavily to keep liquor laws in place — the livelihood of too many people depended on it!
I don’t think so. The FBI, in fact, had almost nothing to do with enforcement of the liquor laws; that was the province of the Prohibition Bureau in the Treasury Department.
Do you know is there was a real noticeable the effect of repeal n the economy, employement and tax revenue? Do it produce a real uptick in the historic charts of GDP and revenue?
Absolutely had a measurable effect on tax revenue. In the first post-Repeal year, excise taxes on alcoholic beverages brought in 9% of federal revenue. As for employment, bear in mind that the combined distilling and brewing industries were the fifth largest industry in the U.S. before Prohibition — so Repeal obviously put a lot of people back to work.
Barney Frank always says that LGBT Americans need to be ‘more like the NRA’ in our lobbying of Congress. But when so many of our civil rights and basic fundamental issues (DADT, DOMA, iENDA, immigration/families, AIDS) are at stake, how easy is it for other multi-faceted groups to be ‘like the NRA?’
Absolutely. But the NRA also had an industry behind their efforts, who found a way to sustain the drive by giving them a percentage on every gun sold, as I recall. Though I think they eventually stopped that.
There is some interest from various lobbying arms that hope to profit from marijuana distribution, but so far I don’t think they’ve put the kind of money into the effort that the gun manufacturers did.
As we come to the end of this Book Salon,
Dan, Thank you for stopping by the Lake and spending the afternoon with us discussing your new book and the causes and repercussions of Prohibition.
Jon, Thank you for Hosting this great Book Salon.
Everyone, if you would like more information, here is Dan’s website.
Thanks all.
That’s the problem — multi-faceted. It’s hard to imagine, but think of it this way: Let’s say DOMA is the thing you care about most, and you decide to devote all your energies to its revocation. Then let’s say that a libertarian Republican like, say, Ron Paul says he’s in favor of its revocation. The NRA (or ASL) strategy would have you give your support to him, irrespective of what he felt on all the other issues of the day.
Or, worse: let’s say Dick Cheney decides to run for the Senate. He’s on the record against the DOMA. Playing by ther ASL strategy, you’d have to support him if he were up against someone who did NOT want to revoke the DOMA.
Politically, from what you have learned about Prohibition, and re marijuana legalization/decriminalization — would it be more effective to focus on decriminalization or go for legalization? – not presuming you are in favor of either but strategically, what would be the more effective approach?
And thanks to all of you. I hope you do see my last response (#71), which points out a real conundrum.
Bye,
Dan
The prohibitionists seems to have gotten more and more fanatic as they went on. Poisoning industrial alcohol as a way to get people to stop drinking, trying to stop redistricting was a really scary action.
Do you think they were always this crazy about the issue all along but it did not show until they were losing or do you think only the most fanatics stuck around when the tide began turning?
Thanks so much for coming by to talk.
Dan, Thanks again.
The post will stay open for a while if you want to stay around.
yes we’re spending billions on modern drug prohibition, but I think the purpose of it is to merely siphon taxpayer money to defense corporations, which many politicians own stock in, and the corporations also bribe money back during election season
so now you have more people fighting back against repeal of drug prohibitions. cops, gun manufacturers, etc. are trying to script policy, instead of merely upholding it
oh noes! Thanks Bev, and Jon and Daniel.