WI: Earlier Prohibition?

WI any one of the many Temperance movements throughout American history had successfully convinced congress to pass prohibition into law?

Firstly, when would this be most likely to succeed in the 19th Century? Just before the ACW seems most likely to me, Maine even abolished alcohol for five years beginning in 1851. Thoughts?

And as far as the outcome of this, how does it affect society, the economy, immigration?

It's certainly interesting to consider 19th century "gilded age" mobsters, wild west rumrunners in the big city, Civil War vets drawn into violent careers in organized crime, speakeasy saloons, and Elliot Nesses trapped in Allan Pinkerton bodies.

Technology could progress differently as in OTL as one side constantly attempts to best the other. And it would be interesting to see which groups of immigrants took control of the underground. Jewish gangs? Irish? Italian?

And when does it end?
 
It seems to me that it would be easiest to pass while the Democratic Party is mostly powerless, so while the South is unable to vote, and northern Democrats have been discredited for a pro-peace platform in '64, and so are are reduced to their core constituency of Irish Catholics.
The window of opportunity for that would be short, say from 65-68, and would need a Radical Republican to succeed Lincoln. The best POD would be to have a pro-temperance Radical Republican on the ticket in 64, and a copperhead Democratic nominee, and then have the war and assassination go the same as OTL. Prohibition would then be legislatively enacted, cause a much bloodier Reconstruction (I'm imagining white supremacist militias backed by bootlegging money, and rum-runners controlling the city government of New York directly through Tammany Hall).
 
Doing this on a Federal level is pretty unlikely, but Maine was simply the first of several - it wouldn't be too hard to get Prohibition on a State level throughout the North in the 1850s. It was brought to a vote in nearly every state legislature, sometimes passing but being vetoed by a drinking governor (Connecticut, New York), sometimes being signed into law and then struck down by a State Supreme Court (Wisconsin). Then you have it imposed on the South as part of Reconstruction.

The North-South divide is telling. I wonder if you actually see a little more immigration to the South because of this (Prohibition in the South is over the second Reconstruction is, and will never be widely enforced; by contrast, it has genuine popular support in the North, and drinking will not be socially acceptable for a while - you may even have old guard criminals who run gambling, prostitution and extortion rackets but who refuse to touch "demon rum").

The 1850s is the only wave of temperance activism I'm aware of prior to Prohibition, and there simply is no precedent for the national government legislating morality or even public health at the time. I don't think you can get it on a national level faster than OTL.
 
What if prohibition in the UK had passed in the mid 1800's and it was initially a great success? There were many temperance movements in the UK at the time that came close to banning alcohol there. If the shining example of British Temperance and the successes of Maine's prohibition had changed popular opinion in the states then by the time England was flirting with supporting the Confederacy, it would seem wise for the Union to consider emulating their move in this direction.

Would that be enough?

Also, might organized crime syndicates begun in the UK spread to the US? A British mafia controlling things in 19th century New York would make for a tantalizing narrative...
 
Extremely unlikely. The main drivers for prohibition was largely absent at this time. Prohibition was largely built upon nativism, evangelical protestantism, and progressive social engineering. Not surprisingly the regions most in favor of prohibition were the South and the West which tended to be the most Waspish and evangelical.

Nativism was prevalent at this time. However, the nativist sentiment was not widely spread. Nativism in the progressive era differed because the immigrants were associated with the Hun, the pope, and of course communism. WWI turned nativism into overdrive, as well as the red scare, and prohibitions supporters capitalized it in order to ram it through congress.

Social engineering is particularly important, as it saw alcoholism as being the primary culprit for ruined homes and ruined workers from a scientific perspective. The problem is that the social drivers for it are absent. Sociology was an undeveloped field, medical science had not yet proved the baleful effects of alcohol abuse, and the plutocrats had not yet taken to scientifically "bettering" their workers.

Incidentally, a gilded age prohibition is likely to be a hilarious farce, because the federal government was at that time to weak to enforce it while American politics were considerably more corrupt.
 
Extremely unlikely. The main drivers for prohibition was largely absent at this time. Prohibition was largely built upon nativism, evangelical protestantism, and progressive social engineering. Not surprisingly the regions most in favor of prohibition were the South and the West which tended to be the most Waspish and evangelical.

Nativism was prevalent at this time. However, the nativist sentiment was not widely spread. Nativism in the progressive era differed because the immigrants were associated with the Hun, the pope, and of course communism. WWI turned nativism into overdrive, as well as the red scare, and prohibitions supporters capitalized it in order to ram it through congress.

Social engineering is particularly important, as it saw alcoholism as being the primary culprit for ruined homes and ruined workers from a scientific perspective. The problem is that the social drivers for it are absent. Sociology was an undeveloped field, medical science had not yet proved the baleful effects of alcohol abuse, and the plutocrats had not yet taken to scientifically "bettering" their workers.

Incidentally, a gilded age prohibition is likely to be a hilarious farce, because the federal government was at that time to weak to enforce it while American politics were considerably more corrupt.

I agree that it will be a farce. Prohibition may not be strictly enforced until... well... the 1920's or only very slightly before.

How do we make alcohol wicked before we know the reasons it can be? I feel like Prohibition in the United Kingdom would strengthen the temperance movement in the 1850's but it may not be enough...
 
I agree that it will be a farce. Prohibition may not be strictly enforced until... well... the 1920's or only very slightly before.

How do we make alcohol wicked before we know the reasons it can be? I feel like Prohibition in the United Kingdom would strengthen the temperance movement in the 1850's but it may not be enough...

I can see limited prohibition, namely the banning of hard liquor. However, societally, beer is still seen as being a foodstuff. Bear in mind, at this point in time, Americans went on whiskey rather than coffee breaks.
 
I can see limited prohibition, namely the banning of hard liquor. However, societally, beer is still seen as being a foodstuff. Bear in mind, at this point in time, Americans went on whiskey rather than coffee breaks.

So it begins with liquor in the 1850's. This is good because while not very well enforced (if at all) there would still be some positive effects apparent within the next few years and tougher temperance laws have a chance to become enacted. How long until the earliest feasible full prohibition can occur?

And no one is theorizing on organized crime. Surely it wouldn't be intense until the government begins to enforce prohibition strongly, but at that point who is in charge? Which mafias would do the best in the short and long terms?
 
The only minority present in enough numbers to create a 'mafia'-like organization in the large cities are the Irish. Between the crushed Fenian revolts in 1837 and the Famine in 1845, though, you have an awful lot of new immigrants who have experience with violence and atrocity, and a severe dislike of WASPs - they seem like perfect grounds for this to me, and even have a use for the money they make (financing revolution in the motherland, or British North America if the motherland is looking like a nonstarter this decade).

However, the USA is much less urbanized in 1850 than in 1920. The primary source and deliverer of hard alcohol will be the Appalachian folks often called "hillbillies", (often Scotch-Irish themselves), delivering a bottle or two of their homebrew to every house on their route from the back of a fast horse - Whiskey Riders. These guys are going to be pretty harmless at first...but are going to make a nasty cadre to build bushwhackers around during the ACW, and possibly an unfortunate cash and organizational starting point for a postwar Ku Klux Klan.
 
The only minority present in enough numbers to create a 'mafia'-like organization in the large cities are the Irish. Between the crushed Fenian revolts in 1837 and the Famine in 1845, though, you have an awful lot of new immigrants who have experience with violence and atrocity, and a severe dislike of WASPs - they seem like perfect grounds for this to me, and even have a use for the money they make (financing revolution in the motherland, or British North America if the motherland is looking like a nonstarter this decade).

However, the USA is much less urbanized in 1850 than in 1920. The primary source and deliverer of hard alcohol will be the Appalachian folks often called "hillbillies", (often Scotch-Irish themselves), delivering a bottle or two of their homebrew to every house on their route from the back of a fast horse - Whiskey Riders. These guys are going to be pretty harmless at first...but are going to make a nasty cadre to build bushwhackers around during the ACW, and possibly an unfortunate cash and organizational starting point for a postwar Ku Klux Klan.

I like this. I'm going to do some more research and bump this discussion...
 
Top