L. Neil Smith and Prohibition - Part 2

Continued from Part 1.

Now, with regard to Smith's claims, the one from "Empire of Lies" is mostly ridiculous. Some prohibitionists such as John D. Rockefeller, Jr., did bemoan the fact that the public had not embraced it as eagerly as they had hoped, but even he admitted that it had produced some serious problems. Smith's assessment that Prohibition was "one of the butt-stupidest political ideas in the history of mankind" is colorful, but is based on his anarchist ideology, not on historical facts. In other words, it is an assumption, not a conclusion. Granted, he has the advantage of hindsight to justify his belief, but the point is that he believes Prohibition was doomed from the start, because it was a bad idea, rather than became doomed because it was a good idea that failed to work as expected.

Meanwhile, his claims from "When You Wish Upon a Star...", while also based on his ideology, at least make an attempt at a historical evaluation. That they are based on myths is not necessarily a point against them; H. L. Mencken in 1925 made the same mythical claims, as did Rockefeller in 1932. Nonetheless, we can now recognize where Smith is way off base.

His claim that prohibitionists ignored criticism that they disregarded individual rights has no basis. There has always been a strong disapproval for alcoholic consumption in this country, even before the Revolution, and numerous communities experimented with prohibition laws as a form of religious and social reform. There was even a Prohibition Party after the Civil War. This disapproval did not go away until after Prohibition was repealed, until now alcoholic consumption is largely considered normal (though drunkenness is still disapproved of). It began as a call for abstinence, but gradually grew to encompass the general alcohol industry, especially saloons. Much of what we now call the prohibition movement of the late 19th to early 20th centuries was an anti-saloon campaign. Several states and many townships and communities banned alcohol long before the 18th Amendment. The prohibitionists had legitimate health and social concerns, which were acknowledged by many leading citizens and in court decisions.

Most drys were members of pietistic religious groups, such as Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, and Quakers, but also organizations associated with liturgical churches, such as Catholics, Lutherans, and Episcopalians. The drys considered saloons to be corrupt and drinking to be a sin. They were opposed by wets mostly from liturgical churches, who opposed the idea of government legislating morality. The drys were supported by tea and soda business interests, who saw prohibition as a way to increase sales, whereas the wets were supported by the alcohol industry and local saloons. Many drys were nativists and even racially motivated, whereas many wets were immigrants or decedents of immigrants. Interestingly enough, drys helped to pass the 16th Amendment, which replaced a national alcohol tax with the income tax, and the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote (at that time, a majority of women supported prohibition). World War I helped to foster prohibition by the understanding that a ban on alcohol production meant more grain to feed the troops. Meanwhile, the 65th Congress of 1917 had a dry majority, and it passed the resolution calling for the 18th Amendment.

But at no time did the wets argue for individual rights. As anathema as this may sound to Smith, that is a modern concern, rising out of the 60's and 70's; before 1920, the emphasis was on social rights.

As for prohibitionists ignoring the deleterious side effects of Prohibition, there were those who argued that if given a chance it would work, but there were others who recognized the problems and worked to solve them. What Smith means by ignoring is that they did not admit they were wrong and repeal the amendment as soon as the first glitch manifested itself, which is patently ridiculous.

His overall claim that Prohibition caused a general disregard for the law that ultimately ruined society is also ridiculous. We've already seen that his claim that the Volstead Act turned citizens who drank into criminals is flat wrong, as is his claim that consumption increased. His claim that people who never drank before Prohibition started doing so "simply to assert their [individual] rights" is based on his ideology, not hard facts. He is also wrong that drinking was considered acceptable behavior; it wasn't, not by most citizens, hence the various temperance movements. Ultimately, everything leading up to this point is based on his mistaken belief that drinking alcohol was outlawed, but his final assertion that people at that time could not distinguish between the "crime" of drinking and the crime of murder is particularly insulting. I also question his conclusion that today moral lines are "hopelessly" blurred and that people have a general disregard for the law. That may be his opinion, but where are his facts to support it?

Still, in two senses he is right. Drinking may not have violated the letter of the Volstead Act, but it did violate its spirit. In that philosophical sense, you can argue that people who drank were criminals, but that is not what Smith means, so for the sake of this discussion it's a moot point. What made people criminals was bootlegging, more so if they sold their product to others, and only a small percentage of people did that. Also, in one back-alley fashion he is surprising correct about new people starting drinking. Before Prohibition, saloons were exclusively male territory, a place for men to escape the rigors of work and family life for a few hours. After Prohibition, as the saloons died out, drinking lost its macho connotation with the public, and it became acceptable for women to drink in public. In fact, speakeasies actively encouraged women to be patrons, so as to increase their sales. As such, women did start drinking, or drinking more, than they had before Prohibition, but that did not compensate for the overall drop in men drinking.

Again, we've seen that Smith's claim about "unsavory types" (ie, gangsters) getting their hooks into business is at best exaggerated and at worst mistaken (most of that happened after Prohibition, as the mob attempted to form tax shelters and to increase their revenue after the loss of bootlegging), and that his claim people were exposed to criminal and legal violence is also exaggerated or mistaken. Shootouts on the street were rare; for the most part, if people did not involve themselves with bootlegging, they had nothing to fear, from the mob or the police. And Prohibition was not "partly" repealed. The 21st Amendment nullified the 18th completely, and the Volstead Act became unconstitutional and was abandoned. What Smith may be referring to is that the 21st Amendment did not prohibit states from enacting their own prohibition laws, and it prohibited the transport or import of any alcoholic beverages into any state, township, or community that had such laws. However, as I point out earlier, some states and many townships and communities already had prohibition laws in place before the 18th Amendment was passed, and many kept their laws after it was repealed. The last state to repeal prohibition laws was Kansas, in 1987! Meanwhile, hundreds of counties nationwide still have prohibition laws on the books. Smith's hatred of government in any form at any level may permit him to believe that in all these places there are politicians and bureaucrats trying to rob people of their rights and freedoms, but for the rest of us, who don't engage in Insane Troll Logic, Fridge Logic tells us that this is simply a reflection of a trend that has been a part of this country since people first settled here.