Hello, everyone! Phoenix Woman here, sitting in for Pouting Baby while he recovers from a nasty case of diaper rash takes the evening off. Hope you’re all doing well tonight.
The subject of tonight’s post: Moonshine. See, during World War I, the Federal government encouraged farmers to produce more foodstuffs than ever before, as it was needed for the war effort. The government guaranteed prices for crops, which spurred farmers to borrow money to buy more land and to invest heavily in the first generations of motorized farm equipment. Unfortunately, when the war ended, so did the price supports, and millions of farmers nationwide were suddenly faced with huge debts they had almost no hope of repaying, and land they had bought just a year or two earlier was suddenly worth only a small fraction of the price they’d paid for it. Thus began the Farm Depression, which foreshadowed, and contributed to, the Great Depression that would follow a decade later.
The Farm Depression was extremely severe. Families that had recently expected to create long-lasting prosperity for themselves were soon faced with starvation. No region of the country was spared. But, because of a quirk of fate, some regions were given a way to ease the pain and to even achieve prosperity for a few years — though at the price of learning a contempt for the law and societal structures. One of these regions was Minnesota’s Stearns County.
The lifeline for Stearns County turned out to be the Volstead Act, or the Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, that banned the sale of alcohol in the United States of America. While the Volstead Act — named, ironically enough, for the prohibitionist Minnesota congressman who sponsored it — made booze illegal, it certainly didn’t stop people from drinking. What it did was fuel the rise of various organized-crime syndicates, collectively known as “the Mafia“, and cause normally-law-abiding Americans to turn to drinking unsafe “bathtub gin”, expensive whiskies smuggled in from Canada or Mexico, or — in the case of Stearns County’s residents — become master distillers on the sly. They were well equipped for this, as most of them were German, Polish or Irish Catholics with both a long tradition of drinking and brewing and a shared religious belief that had sacramental wine as a featured component. Priests not only preached against Prohibition from the pulpit, they often actively aided the moonshiners among their parishioners, and some even became moonshiners themselves. [cont'd.]
The grain used in the creation of most Stearns County liquor was Minnesota 13, a high-yield, short-season corn variety developed by University of Minnesota agronomists that allowed Minnesota farmers to grow corn as a cash crop. One farmer was so proud of his double-distilled product that he started putting “Minnesota 13″ on the labels he painstakingly lettered by hand, and soon all Stearns County liquor went by that name. Its superior quality, relatively low price, and easy availability soon caused it to become the whiskey of choice at Al Capone’s Chicago speakeasies; this saved him the problems — and deaths — presented by engaging in machine-gun battles at the Canadian and Mexican borders.
In the current discussion of what legalization of marijuana might bring, some people have pointed to the use of National Park Service lands as surreptitious marijuana farms by Mexican drug cartels, suggesting that legalizing weed wouldn’t cause these cartels to suddenly give up their pot farms. But the experience of Stearns County shows otherwise. Once Prohibition was repealed in 1933, all the money — and the profit motive — went out of moonshining. One producer cited in Elaine Davis’ book on the subject stated that repeal of Prohibition cost him $30,000 in revenue.
One should also note the similar motives behind the Stearns County moonshiners of the 1920s and many of the marijuana growers in Mexico. Just as poverty and the opportunity presented by criminalizing booze led to normally law-abiding Minnesota farmers becoming moonshiners, the inability of Mexican farmers to make a living growing food crops (an inability that was touched off by NAFTA) fuels both Mexican emigration and drug importation to the US — and cartel-led drug smuggling is far more violent and deadly than undocumented worker emigration. But one suspects that too many people are making too much money from the artificially-high prices created by drug prohibition for them to willingly give up their gravy trains, no matter how many people die at or near our borders.




36 Comments












Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
pw! copperhead road
Yup, prohibition was a gift to organized crime, just like our idiotic “War on Drugs”. To take drugs off the street you first have to take the profits out of the drugs. Making them illegal creates a lucrative black market, which does just the opposite.
Score another one for our self-aggrandizing, whoring, assinine, narcissitic political class.
PW!
It tells me that like the Hoover austerity making the Great Depression worse, politicians are incapable of learning from history.
Bottoms up!
PW!
Oklahoma, where I grew up, did not repeal prohibition until 1959 and the moonshiners and bootleggers hung around much longer. You could still get old school moonshine when I was in college in the 1970s. Mostly, however, that business went bust after legalization. In the eastern part of the state, some of those same families turned to growing marijuana up in the hills. The made contact with the same Mafia families in New Orleans, Kansas City, and St. Louis who had brought the liquor in to take their Okie toke out (nothing suspicious about a semi drive up a dirt road miles from the highway in the Kiamichi Mountains at 3:00am). Today many are cooking meth.
That’s not quite fair. They clearly know the parts of history where political hacks enabled plutocratic excess for a piece of the action…
Indeed. (Ironically enough, Volstead was gone from Congress less than two years after Prohibition passed, but not because of it — his constituents, farmers for the most part, were upset that he hadn’t done anything to keep the price paid for their produce high enough for them to survive.)
Thanks!
I know I can always use such an excellent history
lessonreviewAloha, PW…! I hope Jim had had a successful procedure…! *g*
Just a little factoid:
Repealing Prohibition (the 18th Amendment to the Constitution) was done by the 21st Amendment to the Constitution.
There are 4 paths that the Constitution lays out for ratifying Amendments:
That one time use of Conventions? Was the 21st Amendment. Congress was sure that local legislatures were corrupt, and put the measure before the People.
Wouldn’t that be nice today….
Aw, you’re too kind.
What struck me about how Prohibition affected Minnesotans was how the religious and cultural angle played such a big role. In Stearns County, the bulk of the population was made up of German, Polish and Irish Catholics, unlike in much of the rest of the state (Saint Paul being the big exception) where Scandinavian and German Lutherans held sway.
That does not seem to have had much impact in Oklahoma, where most of the moonshiners came from families that were Baptist, Evangelical, or Pentacostal.
What was astonishing was how professional some operations were. There was one, George Vos’ distillery, which was raided shortly before Prohibition came to an end; it was housed in an abandoned creamery in Holdingford that was all outfitted with stainless steel vats, spotless whitewashed floors, and even conveyor belts. The Feds raiding it were so impressed that they offered George a job on the spot as an authorized distiller so he could keep the operation going long enough to be ready for when Prohibition was no more, but he turned them down.
I know, just like in the South. That’s why Stearns County stands out; the moon there was almost all made not by Protestants, but by Catholics.
Hey, I’ve gotta hit the hay for tonight. You all be excellent to each other, hear?
G’night!
Can we please have Chris Hayes permanently replace LoDo…? ;-)
There are ‘dry’ areas still around. With bootleggers. And probably moonshiners, if the crops permit.
Sweet dreams, PW…!
Time for me to toddle off. Had to endure an all day faculty meeting today and it sucked the life right out of me. Take care all.
I grew up in an area with winemaking. The wineries survived prohibition by making sacramental wine (mostly, I think. for the local archdiocese).
I find it ironic that Lynchburg, TN, home of Jack Daniels, is a ‘Dry’ county…! ;-)
Would someone please buy out MSNBC and replace it with a news channel?
Aloha, Dr. D…!
*heh* But they’re the least obnoxious of the lot…! ;-)
I might start watching again. OOPS. No cable. Oh well…
Ironically, the state that put the 21st Amendment over the top was hard-drinking Utah. You might win a bar bet with that factoid.
The Volstead Act had several major loopholes that don’t exist in the Controlled Substances Act. It allowed the production of sacramental wine. (Predictably, ersatz churches popped up and claimed the exemption.) . It permitted farmers to make alcoholic beverages with their crops. And it allowed doctors to prescribe alcohol for medical purposes. According to a tourguide at the Wild Turkey distillery in Kentucky, about 200,000 residents of Cook County, Illinois, were given prescriptions for bourbon.
Sorry for the OT, but is there anyone here who can help me.
My diary http://my.firedoglake.com/tambershall/2011/08/26/citizen-this-is-so-absurd/ is not showing up on the diary list.
Thanks. And sorry for the OT.
Having sacramental wine was also a big deal for the Italian Catholics. Heard stories from a really old elder about what it took to get wine for Mass (I now assume the story was pre-Volstead Act). I’m sure they felt this was a direct assault upon their faith and culture as many treated wine as one of the few safe beverages to drink in order to wash down a meal as they didn’t always have safe water. They didn’t abuse it and they sure didn’t think it was some kind of drug.
Thanks whoever that was.
Bourbon is whiskey made in specific counties in Kentucky. Not made there, can’t be called bourbon.
Ie. Bourbon is Kentucky whiskey.
But wiki says it may be made anywhere in the US. Anyone know if wiki is full of shite on this?
Can’t come up with the reference offhand —somewhat recent Salon article maybe— but I think wikipedia is correct on that. KY has not trademarked “bourbon,” though I think that method of making whiskey is trademarked so that some other grains, say, wouldn’t be allowed. JD call their product something else because they want to be distinctive.
Can we pass a law against hypocrisy?
You’re exactly right. Comparing alcohol prohibition to the current drug prohibition is not a valid comparison. Phoenix woman’s analysis is flawed for that reason.
Under Prohibition, it also was:
a) Legal to acquire alcohol for medicinal purposes. A doctor could prescribe it for you.
b) Legal for you to produce your own, up to 200 gallons a year.
c) Never illegal to consume it.
Now–if current pot smokers could get medical marijuana perfectly legally, if pot smokers could legally “grown their own”, if pot smokers could sit on their front porch and wave happily to passing policemen while toking because consuming wasn’t illegal–why, they’d think they were in heaven. That is how much more draconian today’s current drug prohibition is compared to alcohol prohibition.
As I have written before–the story of Prohibition is frequently misrepresented by advocates of drug law reform. First of all, with some exceptions, Prohibition was largely a liberal, not a conservative, initiative. Despite all the loopholes described above, most people supported Prohibition. Alcohol consumption in the US, insofar as can be measured, fell by 2/3rds. And it stayed depressed, such that it did not reach pre-Prohibition levels until the 1960s.
Nor did Prohibition create a link between alcohol and organized crime–it did not create a link because the link pre-existed. Organized crime was already involved in the alcohol business, it just wasn’t the most profitable part of their business enterprises (as opposed to gambling and prostitution). Prohibition only changed the relative profitability of the link, not the link itself.
Likewise, the evidence that Prohibition touched off a crime wave is suspect. The homicide rate increased, but the “prosperity” of the 1920s was akin to that of Reaganomics: prosperity for the few, economic desperation for the many. There were other possible cofactors than Prohibition, and indeed since 65 % of homicides today are alcohol-related, it’s possible that certain types of crime *fell*, not rose.
In short, Prohibition was not a success. But as Mark Klieman of UCLA has pointed out, the repeal of Prohibition hasn’t been a success either, at mitigating the effects of alcohol. Legal alcohol accounts for more deaths, more illness, more accidents, more arrests, and more crimes than all the illicit drugs put together, and by a wide margin at that. Yet, as Klieman (who is a supporter of cannabis reform, I should add) says that paradoxically, that what passes as drug law reform is that we “are urged to apply to these other drugs the same policies that have proven so grossly unsatisfactory when applied to alcohol”.
This is especially important because what got Prohibition nixed in the 1930s more than anything else was the economic argument–that ending Prohibition would create jobs. That the income from this business would provide tax revenue. This argument is illusory, however. It is illusory because the alcohol industry is BP writ even larger: an industry that privatizes its profit while externalizing its costs. Alcohol is reckoned to be a $145 billion dollar industry in the US. But the damage inflicted by legal alcohol in the US is reckoned to be $185 billion. Even if we were to confiscate not only the industry’s profit, but also their gross sales, you wouldn’t cover the cost. I’m all for the government “creating jobs”, but “creating jobs” by sponsoring industries that inflicts more damage than benefit it provides makes no sense to me.
For marijuana, which medically speaking while not harmless is probably the safest psychoactive drug (and far safer than alcohol)–I think we have a case. Probably not for others.
-stewartm
One of the few things that I remember my father talking about from his days as a child in the Great Depression was that one year his father could not make the interest payment on the land loan.
At 12 years old, he lead a string of pack mules from Arkansas into Springfield, Missouri, following the rivers and streams. The money paid the interest. Simply leading one single load of illegal moonshine made more than his father’s farm made all year.
What amuses me is that the idiots in congress think the people will just quietly starve. The black market is going to boom. Once people drop into that, it is hard to go back to the recorded economy. $8 per hour under the table is a lot better than $11 taxed. They won’t come back and pay taxes. That money will be off the books forever and that loss of tax revenue is strictly due to political posturing.
Of course, Ben Bernanke will never even admit that the US has a black market. He thinks all of the drug profits, stolen cars and ransacked homes’ material just magically disappears. Hell, Karl Marx didn’t ever mention the black market. Raised wealthy and only communicating with people who never had dealt in the black market left a huge hole in his assessment of capitalism. The black economy is a pure capitalist economy, even if everything is stolen or illegal. Cash or salable items only, no paperwork, no lawyers, no judges, no police, just a pure capitalist system.
There is no fool bigger than an educated fool.