AHC - Get Prohibition in US repealed before 1933

[Masked Grizzly]

The challenge is to get Prohibition in the US repealed earlier before 1933.

Additionally aside from FDR (and Al Smith), which other Pro-Repeal politicians on both sides of the aisle were capable of rising up the ranks to potentially be elected as President between 1920-1933.

 

[Old1812]

Nicholas Murray Butler, Columbia University president and 1912 Republican VP candidate after James Sherman's death could be a possibility. He was very much anti-Prohibition, while also not being an impossible presidential nominee.

 

[Masked Grizzly]

Nicholas Murray Butler, Columbia University president and 1912 Republican VP candidate after James Sherman's death could be a possibility. He was very much anti-Prohibition, while also not being an impossible presidential nominee.

I see, are there any other potential Pro-Repeal candidates?

 

[Old1812]

I see, are there any other potential Pro-Repeal candidates?

I'm sure there are, but Butler is the only one I remember much of anything about.

 

[David T]

There is some reason to believe that pro-Repeal sentiment was heavier in 1928 than the defeat of Smith (who in any event did not advocate outright repeal at the time) might indicate. Undoubtedly some anti-Prohibition voters rejected Smith on religious or partisan grounds. An example I like to give: In 1928 Montana voted against a state prohibition enforcement law, 54.09-45.91. http://ballotpedia.org/Montana_Adopt_the_Federal_Prohibitio… On the same day, it also voted for Hoover over Smith 58.4-40.5. http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/u/usa/pres/1928.txt

However, it seems that a Republican victory was inevitable in 1928, and the "extreme" wet forces led by Nicholas Murray Butler, James Wordsworth, and Henry Curran were a hopeless minority in the GOP. The Republicans went further than the innocuous draft platform of Senator Reed Smoot which called in general terms for the observance of the Constitution and all laws; they adopted Senator Borah's plank calling specifically for "observance and vigorous enforcement" of the Eighteenth Amendment. When Butler appealed to the full convention, his objections got the support of only two to three hundred delegates out of 1,089. https://books.google.com/books?id=XsYi06oDpHMC&pg=PA99 And of course Hoover was firmly against Repeal at the time, and would be hard to defeat for the presidential nomination, given his prestige as a humanitarian, businessman-engineer, and efficient bureaucrat. Frank Lowden, often mentioned as his likeliest rival for the nomination, actually took a harder line on Prohibition than Hoover.

As for the Democrats, they had no plausible Protestant "wet" candidates. Oscar Underwood--who in 1924 was the leading Protestant "wet" among the Democrats--had retired from politics and would die before long. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Underwood

 

[interpoltomo]

probably easier to avoid prohibition being a thing given how lucky the movement got otl than to repeal it

 

[Corjomc]

I think something shockingly bad would have had to have happened like someone really famous dying from industrial alcohol poisoned by the U.S. Government.

 

[Masked Grizzly]

probably easier to avoid prohibition being a thing given how lucky the movement got otl than to repeal it

That would be too simple a POD

There is some reason to believe that pro-Repeal sentiment was heavier in 1928 than the defeat of Smith (who in any event did not advocate outright repeal at the time) might indicate. Undoubtedly some anti-Prohibition voters rejected Smith on religious or partisan grounds. An example I like to give: In 1928 Montana voted against a state prohibition enforcement law, 54.09-45.91. http://ballotpedia.org/Montana_Adopt_the_Federal_Prohibitio… On the same day, it also voted for Hoover over Smith 58.4-40.5. http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/u/usa/pres/1928.txt

However, it seems that a Republican victory was inevitable in 1928, and the "extreme" wet forces led by Nicholas Murray Butler, James Wordsworth, and Henry Curran were a hopeless minority in the GOP. The Republicans went further than the innocuous draft platform of Senator Reed Smoot which called in general terms for the observance of the Constitution and all laws; they adopted Senator Borah's plank calling specifically for "observance and vigorous enforcement" of the Eighteenth Amendment. When Butler appealed tot he full convention, his objections got the support of only two to three hundred delegates out of 1,089. https://books.google.com/books?id=XsYi06oDpHMC&pg=PA99 And of course Hoover was firmly against Repeal at the time, and would be hard to defeat for the presidential nomination, given his prestige as a humanitarian, businessman-engineer, and efficient bureaucrat. Frank Lowden, often mentioned as his likeliest rival for the nomination, actually took a harder line on Prohibition than Hoover.

As for the Democrats, they had no plausible Protestant "wet" candidates. Oscar Underwood--who in 1924 was the leading Protestant "wet" among the Democrats--had retired from politics and would die before long. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Underwood

Could a possible POD (or few) involving Oscar Underwood have worked provided he had better health and managed to live about 3 or so more years compared to OTL, likely dying as President (akin to Warren G Harding) before the 1932 election?

 

[David T]

Could a possible POD (or few) involving Oscar Underwood have worked provided he had better health and managed to live about 3 or so more years compared to OTL, likely dying as President (akin to Warren G Harding) before the 1932 election?

The problem with Underwood is that he was very conservative and disliked by the Bryan/McAdoo forces in the Democracy almost as much as Smith. (Bryan called him "a tool of Wall Street" and "A New York candidate living in the South." http://www.kevincmurphy.com/uatw-1924-schism.html) In the very unlikely event he would be nominated in 1928, he would have no more chance of getting elected than Smith. True, not being a Catholic, he might carry OK, TX, TN, and NC--the four states Davis carried in 1924 which Smith lost in 1928. But this would leave him far from an Electoral College majority, and he might well lose heavily Catholic RI and MA, which Smith carried. Moreover, unlike Smith, Underwood would probably not even come close to carrying New York. Ethnic voters were not going to be swayed by Prohibition alone to the extent that they were swayed by Smith's combination of Prohibition, Catholicism, and an at least modestly progressive record as governor (despite his basic conservatism).

 

[Masked Grizzly]

The problem with Underwood is that he was very conservative and disliked by the Bryan/McAdoo forces in the Democracy almost as much as Smith. (Bryan called him "a tool of Wall Street" and "A New York candidate living in the South." http://www.kevincmurphy.com/uatw-1924-schism.html) In the very unlikely event he would be nominated in 1928, he would have no more chance of getting elected than Smith. True, not being a Catholic, he might carry OK, TX, TN, and NC--the four states Davis carried in 1924 which Smith lost in 1928. But this would leave him far from an Electoral College majority, and he might well lose heavily Catholic RI and MA, which Smith carried. Moreover, unlike Smith, Underwood would probably not even come close to carrying New York. Ethnic voters were not going to be swayed by Prohibition alone to the extent that they were swayed by Smith's combination of Prohibition, Catholicism, and an at least modestly progressive record as governor (despite his basic conservatism).

Surely there must be other suitable Pro-Repeal alternatives?

Additionally was it Wilson alone or some other factor that made Conservative Democrats almost unelectable? If Wilson was the issue would that have helped the latter remain an electable force for a bit longer compared to OTL?

 

[Colonel Zoidberg]

The Crash happens a year earlier, Smith gets elected, and everyone’s pretty sick of Prohibition by 1930 or so.

Or the government’s practice of poisoning liquor containers goes full-blown scandal in the 1920s when enough famous people are killed from it, people decide the whole thing is bullshit, and they demand the immediate repeal. The government, trying to save face, complies.

 

[David T]

Surely there must be other suitable Pro-Repeal alternatives?

Additionally was it Wilson alone or some other factor that made Conservative Democrats almost unelectable? If Wilson was the issue would that have helped the latter remain an electable force for a bit longer compared to OTL?

The problem conservative Democrats faced in the 1920's is exemplified by their experience in 1928. Al Smith tried to convince middle- and upper-class voters that the Democrats would not interfere with the prosperity the US was enjoying under the Republicans. The Democratic platform even endorsed the protective tariff! It didn't work. As Newton Baker reflected after the election: "The results of this election make a fairly clear case against the Democratic Party's trying to be more Republican than the Republican Party. The Houston platform got us nowhere. As a matter of fact, I think it hurt us very badly, for in effect it was a concession that the Republicans had created and maintained the country's prosperity and that we...were going to try to do it the same way. Naturally the people who were voting on the prosperity plea would rather have experienced experts rather than amateurs do the job." Quoted in Allan J. Lichtman, Prejudice and the Old Politics: The Presidential Election of 1928, p. 195. https://books.google.com/books?id=KbGiJpDk6pwC&pg=PA195 Lichtman quotes Arthur Burns' s study of businessmen and the 1928 campaign: "Armed with inveterate convictions, the rank and file of the business community continued to cling to their shibboleths. Even the examples of their pecuniary idols--the Raskobs and the Du Ponts--left them undisturbed. They knew full well that men of big business venture occasionally on social and political experiments, but as merchants and dentists they could afford no such luxury."

This was not a new problem for conservative Democrats. In 1904, when the Democrats hoped to appeal to business by nominating the conservative Alton Parker,
the New York Sun, the newspaper with closest ties to Wall Street, backed TR, writing: "We prefer the impulsive candidate of the party of conservatism to the conservative candidate of the party which the business interests regard as permanently and dangerously impulsive.." https://books.google.com/books?id=X43uHzjM_GIC&pg=PA82

This is not necessarily to say that the Democrats would have been better off in the 1920's had they followed the Bryan-McAdoo strategy of appealing to pro-Prohibition, economically progressive farmers in the West and South. Those who advocated such a course pointed to the Wilson victory of 1916 which was made possible by the old Bryanite union of the South and West combined with labor support in states like Ohio. Conservative Democrats replied that 1916 was an aberration because of the peace issue; they looked backward to the Cleveland victories, which depended on winning northeastern states like New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey. Very likely neither strategy would have worked for the Democrats in 1924 or 1928 in the absence of some downturn in the economy.

Getting back to Republicans: Had James Wadsworth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Wolcott_Wadsworth_Jr. been re-elected to the US Senate in 1926, he might have led the anti-Prohibition forces in a serious (but probably unsuccessful) fight for the presidential nomination against Hoover. But Wadsworth had been defeated by Robert Wagner. Sr. who was of course equally "wet". The decisive vote was the 8.16% cast for the pro-Prohibition "independent Republican." F. W. Cristman. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1926_United_States_Senate_elections#New_York https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_W._Cristman Thus, even in New York state, it was not yet safe for a Republican to be a "wet."

 

[Masked Grizzly]

Or the government’s practice of poisoning liquor containers goes full-blown scandal in the 1920s when enough famous people are killed from it, people decide the whole thing is bullshit, and they demand the immediate repeal. The government, trying to save face, complies.

That could work, would it be enough in terms of public outrage for repeal to be pushed through in 1924-1928 (the latter probably being more likely) or would one or few more catalysts be necessary?

The problem conservative Democrats faced in the 1920's is exemplified by their experience in 1928. Al Smith tried to convince middle- and upper-class voters that the Democrats would not interfere with the prosperity the US was enjoying under the Republicans. The Democratic platform even endorsed the protective tariff! If didn't work. As Newton Baker reflected after the election: "The results of this election make a fairly clear case against the Democratic Party's trying to be more Republican than the Republican Party. The Houston platform got us nowhere. As a matter of fact, I think it hurt us very badly, for in effect it was a concession that the Republicans had created and maintained the country's prosperity and that we...were going to try to do it the same way. Naturally the people who were voting on the prosperity plea would rather have experienced experts rather than amateurs do the job." Quoted in Allan J. Lichtman, Prejudice and the Old Politics: The Presidential Election of 1928, p. 195. https://books.google.com/books?id=KbGiJpDk6pwC&pg=PA195 Lichtman quotes Arthur Burns' s study of businessmen and the 1928 campaign: "Armed with inveterate convictions, the rank and file of the business community continued to cling to their shibboleths. Even the examples of their pecuniary idols--the Raskobs and the Du Ponts--left them undisturbed. They knew full well that men of big business venture occasionally on social and political experiments, but as merchants and dentists they could afford no such luxury."

This was not a new problem for conservative Democrats. In 1904, when the Democrats hoped to appeal to business by nominating the conservative Alton Parker,
the New York Sun, the newspaper with closest ties to Wall Street, backed TR, writing: "We prefer the impulsive candidate of the party of conservatism to the conservative candidate of the party which the business interests regard as permanently and dangerously impulsive.." https://books.google.com/books?id=X43uHzjM_GIC&pg=PA82

This is not necessarily to say that the Democrats would have been better off in the 1920's had they followed the Bryan-McAdoo strategy of appealing to pro-Prohibition, economically progressive farmers in the West and South. Those who advocated such a course pointed to the Wilson victory of 1916 which was made possible by the old Bryanite union of the South and West combined with labor support in states like Ohio. Conservative Democrats replied that 1916 was an aberration because of the peace issue; they looked backward to the Cleveland victories, which depended on winning northeastern states like New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey. Very likely neither strategy would have worked for the Democrats in 1924 or 1928 in the absence of some downturn in the economy.

Getting back to Republicans: Had James Wadsworth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Wolcott_Wadsworth_Jr. been re-elected to the US Senate in 1926, he might have led the anti-Prohibition forces in a serious (but probably unsuccessful) fight for the presidential nomination against Hoover. But Wadsworth had been defeated by Robert Wagner. Sr. who was of course equally "wet". The decisive vote was the 8.16% cast for the pro-Prohibition "independent Republican." F. W. Cristman. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1926_United_States_Senate_elections#New_York https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_W._Cristman Thus, even in New York state, it was not yet safe for a Republican to be a "wet."

Regardless of whether WW1 happened under the watch of the Republicans or Democrats in this ATL, assuming Prohibition still happens in 1920 as in OTL what PODs would allow for Prohibition to get repealed by around 1924-1928 and how would it likely unfold?

As mentioned in Colonel Zoidberg's post, would the government's practice of poisoning liquor containers becoming a full-blown scandal* post-1920 onwards have provided the necessary window for a Pro-Repeal Republican or Democrat (a Conservative Democrat swansong before the likes of Progressives such as McAdoo and FDR takeover the party) candidate to become President depending on whose watch the scandal got exposed under or would other PODs be required for such a scenario to be viable?

*- Depending on when it is repealed in ATL if a scandal is necessary, of the opinion that any subsequent post-1924/1928 prohibition-inclined candidates on both sides of the aisle would not dare broach a issue that became politically toxic.

 

[David T]

People just don't seem to take into account the extreme difficulty of repealing a constitutional amendment. The Eighteenth Amendment was the only amendment in the history of the US Constitution to be repealed. And even to do that required the Great Depression, in part because of the idea that Repeal would create new jobs (in breweries, etc.) and in part because the Depression had drastically increased the federal deficit and liquor taxes seemed essential as a new source of revenue. A few years of failed enforcement, scandals, etc. would not be enough for repeal--too many people would simply say that the answer was better enforcement.

 

[Masked Grizzly]

Not suggesting the challenge is easy far from it, though not of the view an earlier repeal is a complete impossibility.

 

[1940LaSalle]

Suppose someone like Charles Dawes (from his post of Director of the Bureau of the Budget) put forth a white paper detailing how (a) ludicrously expensive prohibition would be to enforce, (b) the near-total impossibility of enforcing it, and (c) the projected social problems (rise in crime rates, violence, etc.). Dawes had substantial credentials from his wartime work on supplying the Allied armies, such that his analysis and conclusions would have carried significant weight. Further, Dawes was a Protestant, so he wouldn't have been linked with the ethnic / Catholic repeal-minded element. Team Dawes with Nicholas Murray Butler and they're likely to sway significant public opinion toward repeal--perhaps sufficiently to make it part of the GOP platform in 1924.

 

[jack_donaghy_is_the_shado]

Probably unlikely, but...

Chicago Mayor William Hale Thompson is elected president in 1928 over Hoover or is Hoover's running mate, Hoover dies (perhaps his train does get attacked. ), Thompson takes his place, Capone makes a bribe to Thompson to begin ending prohibition (in a way favorable to Capone) and manages to effectively neuter the remnant before he leaves and/or removed from office?

I'll admit right off the bat it is pretty outlandish.

 

[David T]

Probably unlikely, but...

Chicago Mayor William Hale Thompson is elected president in 1928 over Hoover or is Hoover's running mate, Hoover dies (perhaps his train does get attacked. ), Thompson takes his place, Capone makes a bribe to Thompson to begin ending prohibition (in a way favorable to Capone) and manages to effectively neuter the remnant before he leaves and/or removed from office?

I'll admit right off the bat it is pretty outlandish.

Big Bill Thompson for president? A very wealthy man with "populist" appeal, emphasis on infrastructure ("Big Bill the Builder"), strident "America First" rhetoric, ties with organized crime, ethnic slurs (Cermak the "Bohunk"), and who won an election (1927) where virtually all the "respectables" opposed him?

I just can't see the GOP nominating someone like that!

 

[Masked Grizzly]

Suppose someone like Charles Dawes (from his post of Director of the Bureau of the Budget) put forth a white paper detailing how (a) ludicrously expensive prohibition would be to enforce, (b) the near-total impossibility of enforcing it, and (c) the projected social problems (rise in crime rates, violence, etc.). Dawes had substantial credentials from his wartime work on supplying the Allied armies, such that his analysis and conclusions would have carried significant weight. Further, Dawes was a Protestant, so he wouldn't have been linked with the ethnic / Catholic repeal-minded element. Team Dawes with Nicholas Murray Butler and they're likely to sway significant public opinion toward repeal--perhaps sufficiently to make it part of the GOP platform in 1924.

That is one idea, especially since it does not entail Butler becoming President and encourages other GOP candidates to follow public opinion towards repeal.

Probably unlikely, but...

Chicago Mayor William Hale Thompson is elected president in 1928 over Hoover or is Hoover's running mate, Hoover dies (perhaps his train does get attacked. ), Thompson takes his place, Capone makes a bribe to Thompson to begin ending prohibition (in a way favorable to Capone) and manages to effectively neuter the remnant before he leaves and/or removed from office?

I'll admit right off the bat it is pretty outlandish.

Pretty outlandish, though quite like the idea of an unlikely GOP duo of Hoover/Thompson in 1932/1936 following the additionally unlikely Democrat duo of Underwood/Palmer in 1928 (with Palmer taking over from a deceased Underwood who lived a bit longer compared to OTL). With repeal being part of the GOP platform from 1924 onwards.

 

[David T]

The challenge is to get Prohibition in the US repealed earlier before 1933.

Additionally aside from FDR (and Al Smith), which other Pro-Repeal politicians on both sides of the aisle were capable of rising up the ranks to potentially be elected as President between 1920-1933.

Remember that FDR was not pro-Repeal until after the Great Depression started. He had even cautioned Smith against signing the repeal of the New York state prohibition enforcement law, warning Smith that it could hurt him Upstate.