The Failure of Prohibition - Report Example

The Failure of Prohibition (And One Success) Prohibition was ratified on January 17, 1919, and it proved to be a failure right from the start. For instance, HL Mencken announced that he was selling his Studebaker and investing the proceeds in alcohol, and Harry S. Truman, then aged 34, stated that he, himself, wanted to get in on the ground floor of the bootlegging movement (Okrent, 2010, p. 100). This was because these two men knew the reality of the situation – that people might vote for the 18th Amendment, which was a constitutional amendment that banned the sale of alcohol, but these same people will also keep drinking. This was shown already in the states that were already dry – some of the states issued permits for people to bring alcohol from one state to another, and there were 34,000 of these permits issued in Washington state, a state where there was, at the time, only 44,000 registered voters. Before the ratification of the amendment, Michigan was a dry state, and Ohio was a wet one, and the highway between Michigan and Ohio was so convenient for the smugglers that the highway became known as the “Avenue de Booze” (Okrent, 2010, p. 102). This meant that there would be an underground avenue for people getting booze, long after Prohibition was enacted, and this is exactly what happened. Part of the problem is that, as Sinclair Lewis brilliantly noted, during this time there was an overall change in the American landscape. The people were coming from more of a prairie lifestyle into one that was becoming more and more industrialized, and, with this came both disillusionment and rebellion (Lewis, 1922, p. 56). This was the overall wrong time to try to outlaw booze. The generation had just came from war, or at least seen it or known people who have been in it, and they were coming into a period of increasing change. Alcohol becoming forbidden would be a way to rebel, if the people of the twenties engaged in it, while, at the same time, alcohol could be seen as a way to soothe the nerves of the people who are undergoing this powerful change. So, in this way, Prohibition could not have come at a worse time. In the years that followed the ratification and enaction of the 18th Amendment, there was considerable evidence that the Prohibition Amendment was nothing but a sham. For instance, in February of 1920, which was the year that the Prohibition Amendment actually took effect, Leo J. Grove seized three barrels of homemade wine from the basement of an Italian grocery store, and this was only one of many examples of people who still supplied alcohol to the masses (Okrent, 2010, p. 120). In that first year, there were 900,000 cases of liquor that came from Canada and made its way to the United States – and this was just in the first seven months of 1920, which was considered to be a “dry-but-wet year” (Okrent, 2010, p. 124). In New England, the alcohol came from ships that were anchored beyond the three mile limit, and these were ferried to shore. These were the more professional endeavors, but there were also countless moonshiners that would make the alcohol, some of them in their bathtubs, and would distribute them (Okrent, 2010, p. 125). Worse, Prohibition led to crime on a wide scale. The first alliances were between the gangsters, such as Capone, Torrio and Lansky, and these alliances were the first signs of a crime syndicate that had gone across the United States. Moreover, these mobsters had respectability. They took part in anti-Ku Klux Klan campaigns, and they were considered to be glamorous. Longy Zwillman was dating actress Jean Harlow, and there were many mobsters who owned popular nightclubs. Another gangster had an affair with actress Mae West. Al Capone was involved in charities for the poor (Okrent, 2010, p. 274). The reason why there was so much crime, and that these mobsters and others were seen as glamorous was because there was so much money in selling alcohol underground. There were some annual sales of $3.6 billion nationally by 1926 – and these numbers are not adjusted for inflation. The entire federal budget was about the same amount in 1926. Moreover, the cops, politicians and judges were bought off with this bootlegging money as well. This kind of corruption was ever prevalent and “baked into the system almost from the beginning” (Okrent, 2010, p. 274). And, when the civil authorities could not settle their disputes, the mobsters turned to other means – namely, violence. There were 215 mob killings in Chicago in one three-year period, which was a by product of contracts which were broken and there could not be a civil and polite resolution to them. As Clarence Darrow stated, the problem with the bootlegging business was that the business paid very well, but, when there was a dispute, they couldn’t go to court to try to iron it out. So, they ended their disputes in one way – violently (Okrent, 2010, p. 276). Then came the mockery. There were drys who became insufferable, as they were used to getting their way, and, by 1929, they were held up to public contempt. For instance, Henry Ford was quoted as saying that he would close his factories if the liquor ever came back, and he was subjected to lampooning. The drys started to get overconfident, such as the women who thought that they had a final victory over alcohol, and set their sights next on Coca Cola. The daily presses were becoming increasingly wet, so they were able to turn the public opinion against the drys, and this public opinion increasingly turned against the drys. The presses started to uncover the details of the police corruptions as well, and this caused a problem with the image of the police departments across the United States (Okrent, 2010, p. 275). Yet, there was still the issue of the 18th Amendment, which was still the law of the land. There was increasingly a call to repeal the Amendment, although this is very difficult to do, as would implementing a new Amendment to takes its place. The advent of the Great Depression helped it along, however, as people started to lose their businesses and unemployment rose to record highs. The funding for the federal court system, which was a necessary part of government during prohibition, because this is where the cases regarding prohibition often landed, was slashed. This meant that there was less money for enforcement. The political reality of the situation was that the money that could be made for the Treasury by making alcohol legal again would be considerable – for there would be plenty of tax dollars that would come from this. And there simply was not a way to stop the tide. As Okrent (2010) noted, “Each time the president, the Prohibition Bureau, or any other agency announced a new effort, brought in new resources or negotiated a new understanding with other government, the flood of illegal alcohol found a new and often more efficient conduit” (Okrent, 2010, p. 280). At this point, even the big victories against the bootlegging movement were useless – such as Herbert Hoover successfully putting Al Capone into prison. Hoover found that Chicago, by this time, was completely corrupt – the police and the magistrates were completely controlled by the mobsters, and governor was also under their control. Prohibition had also managed to change the street gangs into smoothly run conglomerates, that were regional and national in nature. The bootlegging gave all sorts of criminal thugs a training in becoming “underworld Leviathans” (Okrent, 2010, p. 285). By the end, it had all become too much – and the twenty-first Amendment, which was brief, and stated, simply, that the eighteenth Amendment was hereby repealed, came into effect 1933. Therefore, Prohibition could not be said to be successful, on any given level. Success might be defined as having a lasting, and positive, effect on the US economy or on the drinking patterns in the United States. Or, success might be considered to be defined as simply that Prohibition continued on, and there was not any negative effects that came from it. On these accounts, it did not succeed, but failed miserably. It introduced widespread corruption into our political system, and made the underground mobsters more powerful than they ever could have been in the absence of Prohibition. This would be, at least in part, due to the money that these mobsters made off of the practice, which enabled their power. It increased violence because, as Clarence Darrow had noted, the people who were involved in bootlegging did not have peaceful means of settling their dispute. If there was some kind of contract violation or breach, there would not be a way to go to a judge and have the judge iron out the differences. Therefore, the only way to iron out these differences is with the barrel of a gun. Still, there was one bright spot, and this small victory could be considered to be a success, if it is the only thing that came out of the nightmare that was Prohibition. As Okrent (2010), noted, Prohibition was an unquestioned success because, as the result of Prohibition, “Americans drank less” (Okrent, 2010, p. 373). He stated that, in the first few years of Prohibition, American’s consumption of alcohol was reduced by more than 70 percent, and even repeal did not reopen the spigots, as Americans continued to drink less than they did before Prohibition. And, surprisingly, according to Okrent (2010), Prohibition resulted in less drinking, even after repeal, because of the regulations and codes that went into place when alcohol became legal again. Prohibition had an almost anything goes kind of ethos, where drinking was easy, as alcohol was extremely easy to find. However, once the states once more got involved, and the speakeasies and moonshiners receded into the background, there was strict enforcement of the regulations and codes that were made finding alcohol that much tougher. There were closing hours and age limits and blue laws to contend with, and bars had to keep away from churches and schools. So, in this way, Prohibition could seen to be somewhat of a success (Okrent, 2010, p. 355). Conclusion By almost all accounts, Prohibition was disastrous and is something that never should have happened in America. The politicians who enacted the Amendment should have seen what the intelligent people such as Mencken and Truman saw, and that was that the bootlegging industry was going to rise, and that it would be very powerful. There is just no other thing that could have happened. There was simply too much money in alcohol. All it did was embolden street thugs, as they became part of a powerful syndicate and learned the trade. Then, with the money that the criminals made, and there was a powerful interest in keeping this money rolling, there had to be corruption. Chicago was one example of a city that was completely corrupt, with the magistrates and the politicians and police being bought off there. People kept drinking, and the criminals became more powerful because of it. They couldn’t settle their disputes in court, so they had to kill one another to settle these disputes instead. There was little success that came out of the Prohibition movement, and much failure. However, as Okrent (2010) noted, there was the success that people drank less. This was partially because drinking, after Prohibition, was difficult to do, what with all the state laws and regulations that accompanied the end of Prohibition. But people did drink less after Prohibition was enacted. And they even drank less after Prohibition was repealed by the 21st Amendment. The advocates of Prohibition wanted there to be less drinking – probably nobody ever thought that Prohibition would completely make drinking stop. So, if this was the goal of the Prohibitionists, this would be considered to be a complete success for them. Unfortunately, because of all the blood and corruption that came out of it, it could hardly said to be worth it, even if there is less drinking even today because of Prohibition. References “From Magna Cart to Volstead,” in Okrent, D. (2010) Last Call. New York: Simon and Shuster, pp. 96-117. “Starting Line,” in Okrent, D. (2010) Last Call. New York: Simon and Shuster, pp. 117-128. “A Fabulous Sweepstakes,” in Okrent, D. (2010) Last Call. New York: Simon and Shuster, pp. 128-146. “Crime Pays,” in Okrent, D. (2010) Last Call. New York: Simon and Shuster, pp. 267-247. “Outrageous Excess,” in Okrent, D. (2010) Last Call. New York: Simon and Shuster, p. 313-329. “Afterlives, and the Missing Man,” in Okrent, D. (2010) Last Call. New York: Simon and Shuster, pp. 355-373. Lewis, S. (1922) Babbitt. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co. Read More