NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... , perhaps the largest social conflict over Prohibition occurred with the working classes and labor unions: central to the support of Prohibition was the idea that alcohol and alcoholism caused working class poverty. Labor unions, on the other hand, tended to think the reverse that alcoholism was a result of working class poverty. Instead of eliminating alcohol in the hope that it would improve the conditions of the working, labor forces hoped to improve working conditions and worker standing to eliminate the need for alcohol (Drescher 36). In addition, labor forces were concerned about the effect of closing saloons on working class morale, as saloons had been centers of community for the lower classes. Similarly, labor leaders were upset about the loss of jobs caused by the closing of the alcohol industry (Drescher 37). To them, the intrusion of Prohibition forces felt more like a threat to union solidarity than an offer of assistance (Drescher 35) Prohibition seemed little more than class legislation attempting to once again subvert the working classes.
Needless to say, labors opposition to Prohibition, although most likely in the best interests of the worker, did not help labors image among the middle and upper classes (Drescher 38). Others had an ideological basis for opposition to Prohibition. The decade of the twenties had ushered in a new era in American history, as the automobile, mass-media, and mass production gave many a new sense of individual existence, ready to be protected from any form of tyrannical oppressiveness whether from a previous generation or a government power (Thornton, Failure 70). Many believed that the idea of Prohibition limited the franchise of American liberty personal and individual freedom and that it developed only as a giving play to that ineradicable passion for regulating and controlling and tyrannizing over the livers of others. While not opposed necessarily to temperance itself, these anti-Prohibitionists fought against government enforcement of a moral decision (Monahan 155157). To them, Prohibition was, in effect, legal coercion imposing the morals of the majority on the individual, disregarding his personal freedom (Murphy 6869) and punishing those who practiced wise indulgence (Monahan 84) by inhibiting the natural or harmless appetites (Monahan 90).
Thus, the Eighteenth Amendment and the Volstead Act seemed little more than another government attempt to intrude upon the lives of ordinary citizens. In any case, Prohibition did produce its share of conflict, especially politically. Many understood that such an absolute moral crusade had to be disruptive to political systems. Prohibitionists, almost by definition, hated party politics and compromise, feeling that any such settlement meant concessions and sacrifices of a part or more of any one of their goals. Thus, many refused to be anything but absolute, and few could find a middle road (Isaac 266). Most of the period from 1920 to 1933 saw the Democrats and Republicans either fighting over the Prohibition issue or attempting to ignore it.
No amendment to the Constitution had ever been repealed, and many were not even sure if such a thing was possible (Kyvig 137). And conflict did not occur exclusively between the two parties, but also within them, and wet and dry Republicans and Democrats battled over their stand on the issue, swaying each party back and forth, for and against Prohibition (Kyvig 137). The Democrats, for instance, tried to gain support in both the anti-Prohibition urban centers and the pro-Prohibition rural areas (Eagles 533) effectively splitting the Democratic party to the point of near collapse in 1928 (Volstead Act). Roosevelt himself waffled on the issue while senator, following with the tide of political forces New York ran strongly for Prohibition, so did he, and as they changed their minds, he did so too (Kyvig 147). Few who depended on party support could afford to do anything but the same for fear of upsetting or alienating half of more of the party.
Local politics also played a role in the Prohibitions effectiveness, or lack thereof. Local officials were often against Prohibition and refused to enforce it (Isaac 267): Too many officials were weak, corrupt, or at least not dedicated to the enforcement of Prohibition. (Isaac 267) As in the case of the New York City policemen, enforcing Prohibition meant bring charges upon themselves (Thornton, Economics 133). And policemen were no different than the general population as general support for Prohibition faded, so too did the willingness of the police force to enforce it. The rise of wet organizations and influence equally led to the repeal of Prohibition. The increase in media support for anti-Prohibitionist sentiment, for instance, came in the form of colorful stories of speakeasies and bootlegging in well-know papers and magazines such as the Chicago Tribune and World (Sinclair 335). At the same time, the formation of the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment (AAPA) successfully turned the away wealthy support from Prohibition by focusing on the economic benefits of Prohibition repeal (Sinclair 338) since the Act had removed a significant source of government income previously provided by liquor taxes and alcohol regulations while simultaneously increasing government spending (Thornton, Failure 70), many hoped repealing Prohibition would give the wealthy some sort of relief from heavy taxes (Sinclair 338) and restore a number of desperately needed jobs (Clark).
By the end of Prohibition, Prohibitionists themselves were loosing interest in supporting their cause. According to Joseph Kett, the Great Depression killed Prohibition, creating an unavoidable distraction from Prohibitions moral crusade. As the Depression set in, the economy of the nation became the first concern, and few wanted to continue to spend large amounts of money on enforcing the Volstead Act. Plus, alcohol provided an effective and well-welcomed form of escapism from the harsh conditions the Depression brought.
By 1930, the Progressive reformers of early temperance movements had long ago lost their influence and few now were willing to maintain the dying cause of Prohibition (Kett). In addition, the Anti-Saloon League and other pro-Prohibition movements received continually less support throughout Prohibition. The loss of wealthy support, both influentially and financially, eventually left the League with a few too few resources to produce a sturdy effort the upper classes were no longer willing to support a cause which was not only a dismal failure but also a source of restriction and regulation for themselves (Sinclair 339). In the end, the League was more interested in spending its time and money spreading propaganda in support of voluntary temperance rather than enforcing obviously unenforceable Prohibition laws. Soon, the ineffectiveness of the League made many, especially among the middle classes, lose interest (Clark). Prohibition at its end, many thought, was destroying respect for law and order throughout the nation (Clark).
Other nations had ended their experiments in Prohibition long before and continued to smuggle liquor into the United States (Sinclair 336). The problems with enforcement and the disrespect shown toward the Eighteenth Amendment were making the American government seem an ineffective force, unable to control its own people. As more and more people, angered by the governments interference in their personal lives, refused to take Prohibition seriously, Prohibition was met with failure at nearly every count (Clark). While Prohibitionists looked to decrease crime, eliminate corruption, and improve the general health of the population, they were met instead with an increase in crime, an increase in corruption, and an increase in public health problems.
Efforts to raise up the working classes disregard the workers needs as they themselves saw them, and both racial and ethnic tension ensued. Politicians fought over which stand to take on the issue of Prohibition, dividing parties and delaying resolution of the issue. The expense of maintaining Prohibition, both socially and monetarily, was just too high. Thus, people soon drew away from the support of Prohibition to the point of utter disrespect for the law.
Angered at government interference in personal choices during the new era of individual freedom and tired of dealing with Prohibition as an issue with the onset of the Great Depression, anti-Prohibition forces grew in influence and support. Legislation which had directly opposed the will of the people had been created and maintained (Kyvig 138). Yet prohibitions effort to reduce consumption of a good in order indirectly to reduce social ills... and to promote social goals had proved a failure an unenforceable measure (Thornton, Economics 4).
By the 1930 s... Americans had had enough (Cooper). Bibliography:
Free research essays on topics related to: eighteenth amendment, working classes, upper classes, labor unions, volstead act
Research essay sample on Eighteenth Amendment Labor Unions
