Prohibition in the United States (1920-1933) is a national ban on the sale, production and transportation of alcoholic beverages.
How it all began
In the midst of the war, with four million Americans wearing military uniforms and two million of them fighting on the fronts of Europe, the United States passed Prohibition. Several stages were previously passed in accordance with the Constitution. The draft constitutional amendment was first discussed in Congress. It was discussed - this is very mildly said. 1917, August 1 - The text of the amendment was adopted by the Senate by 65 votes to 20.
The debate lasted 13 hours, while each speaker was given no more than 10 minutes. In December, the House of Representatives discussed the draft amendment throughout the day and approved it by 282 votes to 128. The draft, which was voted in favor by 2/3 of the deputies of both legislative assemblies, was then referred to the legislative assemblies of the states. If 3/4 of them approves it, then it will enter into force a year later and become the XVIII amendment to the Constitution.
Let us recall its content:
I. One year after the ratification of this amendment to the Constitution, the manufacture, sale, transportation of alcoholic beverages within the United States and in all territories under the jurisdiction of the United States, as well as their import or export, is prohibited.
II. Congress and the states together will be able to enforce this article through appropriate legislation.
Promotional video:
III. This article will not enter into force until it is ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of all states, as provided for by the Constitution, within 7 years from the time it was submitted by Congress to the states.
True, the use of alcoholic beverages was not prohibited. But how can you use them if it is forbidden to make and buy them? The most prudent alcohol drinker could do was stockpile, unless subsequent legislation filled that gap in the constitutional amendment. The second paragraph of the amendment in this sense is formulated absolutely clearly. It means that the amendment defines the main direction, the general solution to the issue. Federal authorities and states need to outline and approve specific measures for applying the amendment. Without them, the amendment would be meaningless.
Adoption of the amendment
State ratification was quick. January 1919 - Nebraska was the 36th state to approve the amendment. As a result, the amendment gained the force of law in January 1920. And in the meantime, the still vacillating states also rushed to take a positive decision, with the exception of two irreconcilable ones - Connecticut and Rhode Island.
Be that as it may, in March 1920, Brian celebrated the victory of prohibitionists in New York, which he regarded as the embodiment of evil. According to him, the problem with alcohol was solved in the same way as the problem of slavery was solved in 1865. And the head of the Prohibition Bureau said: “This law must be strictly enforced in cities and towns and in rural areas. Where the law is not followed, it will be applied…. The law prohibits the production of alcohol. We will make sure that it is not produced, sold or transported either by land, underground or by air."
Volstead's law
Nevertheless, the Anti-Saloon League did not lay down its arms. She knew that without vigilant control, "dry law" would not be able to resist. In July 1919, Congress voted to close saloons, liquor factories, and breweries. This was done six months before the entry into force of the amendment due to the emergency situation that developed during the war. The representative of the state of Minnesota Valstead proposed the concept of "intoxicating drink", which went down in history as the Valstead Act.
According to this law, the danger of intoxication begins with the consumption of a drink containing 0.5% alcohol: this includes, in addition to all spirits and wine, beer and cider. President Wilson vetoed this law. Meanwhile, Congress decided differently and supported the law with a 2/3 majority. After 2 years, the doctors could no longer recommend, contrary to the traditions of that time, the consumption of beer. Pharmacists and church officials could use alcohol or wine, but only in exceptional cases.
Attitude of the population to Prohibition
Have such measures been met with enthusiasm by the population? It should be recalled that before 1919, 4 out of 5 Americans already lived in states adhering to the "dry law". For them, the ban, which expanded to a national one, changed nothing. And the results of the vote for the ratification of the amendment could indicate that the ban on alcoholic beverages was met with the approval of the majority of the population. You can recall the methods of the Anti-Saloon League, which keeps a dossier on each candidate and is ready to use incriminating evidence if necessary. And yet, American lawmakers did not resist the ban, because they themselves were convinced of its necessity, and voters pushed them to do so.
The result of the vote by state gave an overwhelming majority: 85% of members of the lower houses (houses of representatives) and 78% of members of the higher houses (senates) voted for the amendment. South Dakota, Idaho, Washington, Kansas and Wyoming unanimously supported the amendment to the Constitution. Delaware, Arizona, Florida, Michigan, East Virginia, Arkansas, Oregon, Utah, Colorado, Nebraska, New Mexico voted almost unanimously. Siegfried mentions that some states nevertheless showed insufficient "agility", "senseless resistance to an already accomplished fact." Undoubtedly, it was not worth neglecting the tendency towards conformism, pragmatism and, in the end, what we now call consciousness intoxication, deception, and deception.
Cancellation of Prohibition in the United States - just look at those eyes !!!
Opposition
Was there opposition? She showed herself to such an extent weak, as if she doubted herself. Rather, it was a battle of ambition. A meeting in New York, a fashion show in Baltimore, an attempt by the American Federation of Labor to at least legalize beer, a little shouting around the Capitol in Washington - that's probably all. Although no, there was another last attempt: an appeal to the Supreme Court with a request to express its opinion on the constitutionality of the XVIII Amendment in March 1920. However, on what grounds should we attack the text approved by the overwhelming majority of legislators in a state where the expression of the will of the majority of the population is considered an inviolable dogma ?
Opponents of the amendment tried to argue that the amendment was approved by two-thirds of the deputies of Congress, but it was 2/3 of those present at the vote, not 2/3 of the list. Another, in their opinion, complicating circumstance: the state of Ohio ratified the amendment after a referendum, which was contrary to the Constitution. In the end, they pointed out that the XVIII Amendment contradicts the X Amendment, which gives states full power outside the federal government, because it allows states to independently develop legislation to enforce federal law.
Nagging and chicanery of this kind was a source of great pleasure to those who like legal debates. But first of all, they could testify to the weakness of the positions of the opponents of the "dry law". Fighting against a decision made by the will of the majority means not recognizing the fundamental principles of democracy. True, the amendment limited the legislative power of the assemblies, since in connection with the introduction of "dry law" all measures should be aimed at its strict implementation. But was 1920 a good time to address this aspect of the problem? In addition, according to the testimony of contemporaries, the Americans did not think about the legality of the adopted amendment, they did not doubt this, but about what the United States would become under the "dry law", finally freed from this "evil" and ready to experience the way of life,where honesty, decency and abstinence will reign.
A. Kaspi