AHC: How to Prevent Prohibition

[MichaelWest]

Avoid US Entry into WWI could well do it. It marginalized many of the groups most opposed to prohibition so that they could not effectively stop it and it effectively put the country on prohibition early thanks to War Prohibition

That or have the intent of the Volstead Act spelled out beforehand. A lot of pro-Prohibition people thought it went way too far and were surprised at hell at the banning of everything over .5% ABV, War Prohibition had only gone to 2% ABV, and that it included beer and wine rather than just spirits. If the public realizes the truth it likely won't pass

One could also avoid the 16th Amendment, as without that the response is "we can't afford that" as without an income tax something like 30-40% of US Government revenue came from taxing liquor

Despite relying heavily upon the "USA does not enter the war" POD, I have mostly ignored such big butterflies to the USA. First, Wilson not running and another Democrat such as Clark being President, next the failure to pass Income Tax and/or some of the early legislation such as the Federal Reserve, and lastly the war no war impacts the economy, culture and passage of Prohibition. I think to keep the USA out of the war, no Wilson is a more certain bet, but it unwinds some big potential butterflies. Again I have simply ignored them. Moving through a neutral USA, the potential is to me a toss up whether butterflies overtake Prohibition or if it is independent enough of a thing that it prevails in spite of these butterflies.

Temperance was a murky social engineering moralistic drive that seems all too American, despite the values of limited governance and personal freedom, lurking in the shadows is this Utopian urge to make men "good' through any coercion necessary. My sense is that without the pressures of war, Prohibition has only a slightly less chance of passing, for me the ball was rolling, but oddly I think that Suffrage might have faltered. And that is a bitter irony. Without the anti-German hysteria but existing antipathy to a distinct minority, I would think enforcement gets even less enthusiasm in many ways. Prohibition might be an even more scoffed at law, more openly defied or ignored, with the Federal authorities having not gained the same wartime expansion in power, the thing needs State power to work, and the resulting struggle between Federal and State and Local police powers could be messy. If we let Prohibition fail, the butterflies are many and interesting.

First, it might quash Women's rights and voting in many ways, it might derail the anti-German and by extension anti immigrant tenor but shift energy to private hate through the KKK, it will forestall the rise of a big Federal government and police power response, it changes the Roaring 20s, kills the Gangster legend, quashes the noble criminal motif, preserves industry and revenue that moderate the Depression, and on and on. I cannot tell what thread pulled unravels Prohibition or once undone how that reshapes the USA. Every time I think about it the image of Mothra appears and America is buffeted mightily.

 

[1940LaSalle]

One thing people have overlooked so far is the possibility of someone raising the questions of the practicalities of enforcement: thousands of miles of an undefended border with Canada; still more miles in the middle of nowhere as the border between the US and Mexico; untold miles of coastline with uncounted small inlets, bays, estuaries, barrier islands and the like on the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts (the Pacific, not so much), all having to be patrolled and watched around the clock. Add to that the knowledge in the cultures of Italian-Americans for winemaking and German/Czech/Polish/etc.-Americans for brewing, and the rough-and-ready Appalachian moonshine know-how, and it would be tantamount to trying to dry Lake Superior with one roll of cheap paper towels. Some major public official (no idea who) could lay all that out and conclude that in practical and financial terms prohibition would be impossible (and impossibly expensive) to enforce--with the side effect of reducing respect for law enforcement. So right there are two major arguments near and dear to the heart of the American public: a drop in law and order, and excessive public expenditures. Spun like that and Prohibition would be dead on arrival.

 

[1940LaSalle]

More adds like this. I can't think of anything that would make me want a drink more.

If I had to face faces like that on a regular basis, I'd want more than one bottle of a good single malt handy. At least one looks like she's first cousin to a hatchet.

 

[Thomas Jefferson]

The 18th Amendment (Prohibition) came before the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage).

However - there was a considerable overlap between the temperance movement and the suffragettes.

If women's suffrage was enacted earlier - say in 1910 - then the suffrage movement would end, and the activist women in it would retire to other activities or disperse their efforts. While some might become full-time temperance crusaders, others would drop the cause entirely. This could diminish the temperance movement, so that Prohibition is not enacted.

Women in most Western states had the vote before the 19th Amendment passed. Delay that for a few years, and you might not have the votes to ratify the 18th Amendment in those states.

 

[darklordoftech]

Have the US not have crappy beer!

Crappy beer is an effect of prohibition.

 

[Mark E.]

Have the US not have crappy beer!

Prohibition closed some 3000 breweries. Only half of them re-opened upon repeal. After WW2, a trend would emerge to "lighten" beers by using less malt, replacing more of it with rice and corn, less hops, etc. One local brewer in my town (Dick Brothers Brewery) tried to make light beers before their time. True light beer technology requires a strain of hops that ferments more completely and different ingredient balances. The premature result was so bad that the brewery closed before 1950. Breweries consolidated and grew in size. There were only 78 licensed breweries in the US in 1978 (78-78, easy to remember). Then, alcohol/energy laws streamlined the licensing and the rest is history. Not until the mid-nineties did brew-pub microbreweries begin to spring up. I started crude home brewing myself. Since 2000, the number of micro-breweries with fancy craft beers has exploded. In 1985, the grocery store beer shelves might have a few imports: Heineken, Corona, maybe one from Germany. Ale? What's that?

Go to any store today, even gas station convenience stores (unless you are in a heavy liquor control state). You will see the standard light varieties from Budweiser, Miller and Coors, as well as a rather impressive selection of craft beers; always no shortage of India Pale Ale. Flat Branch Brew Pub (near the University of Missouri) actually uses English beer engines to fill selected ales. Others will have dual gas systems for beer delivery, using nitrogen for Guinness (and others) and CO2 for the more standard fare. Where is the highest concentration of microbreweries? Start with Colorado, Oregon and Iowa.

 

[Pesterfield]

Would it be possible for liquor manufacturers to recognize the threat and really coordinate a counter movement?

 

[RamscoopRaider]

Would it be possible for liquor manufacturers to recognize the threat and really coordinate a counter movement?

Without them being shut down by WWI it's a maybe. Would likely be helped by the post WWI recession, "Prohibition will mean X # of men out of work and mean Y Dollars not going into the Federal Coffers having to be replaced by your Income Tax Dollars" is a good argument in that case

 

[Thomas Jefferson]

Would it be possible for liquor manufacturers to recognize the threat and really coordinate a counter movement?

IOTL breweries failed to coordinate effectively with distillers because they hoped the Temperance Movement would focus on stronger drinks and leave them alone. Once the brewers were sidelined by WWI, there was no one left to mount an effective opposition. If the brewers and distillers had realized their shared interest earlier, they could have fought back against Prohibition more effectively.

 

[Crowbar Six]

You also need to prevent economists like Irving Fisher claiming that alcohol consumption cost the US economy $6 billion in lost production. He made some assumptions based on fairly ridiculous alcohol consumption figures ie every worker was drinking 32! single shots a weekend and a further 3-4 shots every day before work. This is clearly ridiculous, anyone drinking like that is a) an alcoholic b) be incapable of hard physical labour c) getting fired.

 

[ennobee]

Have the US not have crappy beer!

In fact, Adolphus Bush, the founder of the Anheuser-Bush brewery imperium was a very vocal supporter of the temperance movement. Of course in his view, and at that time also in the views of many anti-alcohol crusaders, their real concern was the husband or son getting violent after boozing on hard liquor, alone in his room, drinking away the family fortune. As a beer Brewer Adolphus was no friend of hard liquor itself and so he always maintained that all the evils ascribed to 'alcohol' never applied to beer proper and that if you included beer in the list of things no decent husband should ever drink, you could as well include coffee. At that time he hardly was alone and it was not uncommon of friends to discuss the merrits of a hard liquor ban while sitting together on a Sunday afternoon at a beer garden having a good time with their families.

(Draw your own similarities to the arguments and counter-arguments of the marijuana debates here...)

Curiously, at that time the Mormons DID actually ban coffee alongside alcohol -all alcohol- as being forbidden for the True Believer. No idea what their stance on Coca Cola was....

 

[ennobee]

And while we're in the subject. My pet theory is that the prohibition was a thinly veiled attempt to go after the influence of the German-Americans in public life by going after their foremost social institution: the beer garden. (With the shutting down of the Irish neighborhood bars which were rightly seen as hotbeds of the labor union movements as a lucky side effect). However, 18 months of war had already sidelined the German-American voice -literally as one now was ashamed to speak German in public or use German words on their store signs. So the one voice that could have organized a meaningful opposition to the 18th amendment instead choose to keep silent in order not to draw any more attention to themselves.

I do not go so far as to say that to detail prohibition the US had to stay neutral in WWI, but if somehow the anti-German backlash could be avoided or lessened, prohibition would have had a much harder time getting passed by the required 2/3 margin in both house and Senate

 

[Thomas Jefferson]

Curiously, at that time the Mormons DID actually ban coffee alongside alcohol -all alcohol- as being forbidden for the True Believer. No idea what their stance on Coca Cola was....

That's actually a long-running theological debate that was only settled by the church in 2012. I think opposition to beer gardens/saloons drew on generalized anti-immigrant sentiment that was exacerbated by WWI, rather than being set up specifically to weaken German influence. As for the brewers, its obvious to see why they would have supported a ban on distilling - it eliminates a source of competition. The best way to change their mind is probably for Wheeler/the Anti-Saloon League to be more explicit that their goal is to ban beer as well as liquor, which would also have evaporated alot of the public support for Prohibition.

 

[Mikestone8]

Without them being shut down by WWI it's a maybe. Would likely be helped by the post WWI recession, "Prohibition will mean X # of men out of work and mean Y Dollars not going into the Federal Coffers having to be replaced by your Income Tax Dollars" is a good argument in that case

So we could get the ironic situation that Bryan could be nominated and elected in 1912, keep America out of war and thus cause the 18A to fail of passage. So the election of a Prohibitionist POTUS has the effect of preventing Prohibition.

 

[jmc247]

Prohibition as a movement managed to marry the Carry Nation types with anti German sentiment with anti-Catholic American sentiment. Sticking it hard to the Italians and Irish immigrants was no small part of it as well.

Take away one of the pillars it fails.

 

[overoceans]

In fact, Adolphus Bush, the founder of the Anheuser-Bush brewery imperium was a very vocal supporter of the temperance movement. Of course in his view, and at that time also in the views of many anti-alcohol crusaders, their real concern was the husband or son getting violent after boozing on hard liquor, alone in his room, drinking away the family fortune. As a beer Brewer Adolphus was no friend of hard liquor itself and so he always maintained that all the evils ascribed to 'alcohol' never applied to beer proper and that if you included beer in the list of things no decent husband should ever drink, you could as well include coffee. At that time he hardly was alone and it was not uncommon of friends to discuss the merrits of a hard liquor ban while sitting together on a Sunday afternoon at a beer garden having a good time with their families.

(Draw your own similarities to the arguments and counter-arguments of the marijuana debates here...)

Curiously, at that time the Mormons DID actually ban coffee alongside alcohol -all alcohol- as being forbidden for the True Believer. No idea what their stance on Coca Cola was....

According to Mormon missionaries I spoke to about a decade or so ago, there is no formal prohibition against drinking cola, and they are free to do so, but many of them choose not to. (Possibly as advised by the church? I'm not sure. And I can't say 100% for certain if these missionaries were describing the Mormon attitude toward cola, or caffeinated drinks generally. I think the former, with coffee being outright forbidden.)