It's also worth noting that Prohibition came about because of a constitutional amendment, and the American Constitution is difficult to amend. You need 2/3rds of both the House and Senate to vote for the amendment and 3/4ths of the states to ratify it. Given that the temperance movement had enough political power to get an amendment passed there's no reason for them to settle for half measures.Isn't there a bit of a catch 22 situation in terms of a long term semi prohibition as there is in all compromises like this. A wet government would reverse it and a dry government would expand it. You need neither to happen.
Isn't there a bit of a catch 22 situation in terms of a long term semi prohibition as there is in all compromises like this. A wet government would reverse it and a dry government would expand it. You need neither to happen.
But the 18th Amendment did not specify which alcoholic drinks would be banned from being sold. It was the Volstead Act that did so. Also, a poll at the time showed a plurality of people supported allowing the sale of beer and wine while banning that of hard liquor.It's also worth noting that Prohibition came about because of a constitutional amendment, and the American Constitution is difficult to amend. You need 2/3rds of both the House and Senate to vote for the amendment and 3/4ths of the states to ratify it. Given that the temperance movement had enough political power to get an amendment passed there's no reason for them to settle for half measures.
Right, but the fact that the temperance movement was able to pass an amendment shows their political power. This political power was further shown when the the House and Senate overrode a Presidential veto of the Volstead Act. Basically the Prohibitionists have no reason to compromise because they were able to get everything they wanted.But the 22nd Amendment did not specify which alcoholic drinks would be banned from being sold. It was the Volstead Act that did so. Also, a poll at the time showed a plurality of people supported allowing the sale of beer and wine while banning that of hard liquor.
@Nyvis said that only a few in the Temperance Movement wanted to ban wine and beer. Couldn't we find a way to sideline them?Right, but the fact that the temperance movement was able to pass an amendment shows their political power. This political power was further shown when the the House and Senate overrode a Presidential veto of the Volstead Act. Basically the Prohibitionists have no reason to compromise because they were able to get everything they wanted.
I know the problems with such polls, as they were before the era of scientific polling. I'll also admit that it was a Literary Digest poll and I know that their 1936 election poll was laughably wrong, but it's worth noting that most of their polls before that election were accurate. Also, a reason for their error in 1936 was that they polled the middle class more than they did the working class. In contrast, the fact that many working class people liked beer may indicate that support for the allowing its sale was even higher than the poll indicated.I would put a major health warning on any 'poll' from as far back as the prohibition era.
I'm pretty sure they were also the ones driving the movement though, or it wouldn't have happened this way.@Nyvis said that only a few in the Temperance Movement wanted to ban wine and beer. Couldn't we find a way to sideline them?
Do you think that if Prohibiting only spirits worked for say twenty years it would make full Prohibition more likely to succeed?Isn't there a bit of a catch 22 situation in terms of a long term semi prohibition as there is in all compromises like this. A wet government would reverse it and a dry government would expand it. You need neither to happen.
I think less honestly? It'd feel like a settled issue. Unless it's working terribly, wets wouldn't burn themselves trying to reverse it, but the momentum behind prohibition candidates would have dried up too (heh). The leadership of the prohibition movement wouldn't think of it as enough, but the popular support who brought them to success would.Do you think that if Prohibiting only spirits worked for say twenty years it would make full Prohibition more likely to succeed?
The upside is that if it's just for the ruling class' consumption, you don't need a war on the crime it generates, you just politely ignore it, which reduces the level of escalation drastically.There's still the problem of the fact that so long as the rest of the world doesn't ban spirits, smuggling is going to be extremely lucrative for organised crime.
This is especially a problem because the upper classes didn't violate Prohibition for beer, or even so much wine- they did it for spirits. This the great age of the cocktail! Smuggling whiskey in across the Canadian prairie or via St Pierre et Miquelon, or running rum across the Caribbean is going to be extremely good business. That in turn will- as per our timeline- incentivize any entrepreneurial American to start a still.
What are you going to do, raid your congressman's campaign party to see if they and all their donors are only drinking iced tea?
Yep, definitely part of it, especially when smuggling for lower class consumption.Wasn't part of the reason for the spirits focus the fact that, since it was all prohibited anyway, if you're smuggling you'll want to maximise the amount of alcohol you're carrying? If you can get your beers and wines legally you're probably not gonna be as fussed about the spirits.
Reduces the escalation, sure, but also risks a Kray like situation wherein the gangs are left to rule a neighbourhood because they're useful for the elites and a blind eye is turned to all the bodies.The upside is that if it's just for the ruling class' consumption, you don't need a war on the crime it generates, you just politely ignore it, which reduces the level of escalation drastically.
Smaller and narrower but more establishment-accepted organized crime? Yeah that sounds likely. I could even see the elites drawing on those connections when they need muscle down the line.Reduces the escalation, sure, but also risks a Kray like situation wherein the gangs are left to rule a neighbourhood because they're useful for the elites and a blind eye is turned to all the bodies.