Supporters of Prohibition tended to be white, middle class, overwhelmingly protestant, from small towns in the South and West and generally voted Republican. Opponents were likely to be urban, of non-northern European ethnic origin, Roman Catholic and vote Democrat.
Despite the controversy that you might expect a proposed amendment such as this to evoke, there was actually very little opposition to the measure. Two principal factors lead to an increase in popularity of Prohibition at the time. The first of these was the impact of war, which gave several impetuses to Prohibition. Grain was needed for food; so many people felt that it was patriotic to go without a drink. Also many of the largest brewers (e.g. Ruppert, Pabst and Leiber) were of German origin and their businesses had helped finance the National German American Alliance which supported the Kaiser before the war. Alcohol was thought to lead young soldiers, away from home for the first time, into the grip of temptation and sinful ways, so many deemed it best to remove it from their grasp. The second factor was the disorganisation of the opposition, which did not go beyond a march and rally in New York City, a parade in Baltimore and a resolution against taking away the working man’s beer by the American Federation of Labour.
With the passing of the 18th Amendment and the separate Volstead Act, prohibition was adopted by every State in America; however despite the confident predictions of unequivocal success from the likes of John F Kramer the first prohibition commissioner, there were many problems that arose which threatened the success of prohibition.
It has been claimed by many historians that Prohibition was doomed to failure and that it was a classic case of a law being passed that was impossible to enforce. One of the main reasons for the failure of Prohibition was the USA’s massive coastline and border of 18700 miles (almost impossible to adequately monitor) with the waters just outside US jurisdiction becoming known as “Rum Row” and smuggling from Mexico and Canada abundant. Smuggling was so incredibly successful that in 1925 it was estimated that only 5% of alcohol illegally coming into the country was intercepted (the $40 millions worth they seized in 1924 showing the volume of business.
A further reason for Prohibition’s failure was that Chemists could sell alcohol on doctor’s prescriptions, a flawed system that was widely abused. Perhaps the most famous example of this is the “King of the Bootleggers” George Remus, who bought up many breweries on the eve of prohibition for the manufacture of medicinal alcohol, then arranged for an army of 3000 gangsters to highjack his products and divert them to big cities, it is estimated Remus made $5 million.
An additional problem was that industrial alcohol was easily diverted, redistilled and sold on. As might be expected this alcohol was largely unsuitable for consumption and led to the invention of many exotic cocktails to try to mask the taste. Drinking of this Industrial alcohol sometimes led to illness or even death with 34 people dying in New York from alcohol poisoning.
A further reason for its failure was the lack of treasury officials to enforce the law. With only 3000 treasury officials employed to enforce prohibition and these were widely open to corruption (10% of officials were fined for corruption between 1920 and 1930) from a $2 billion a year profit making industry meaning the law was poorly enforced.
As the 1920s progressed so did the mood of the decade, with the emphasis being put on fun, entertainment and hedonism (particularly in the cities) with illegal drinking in ‘speakeasies’ becoming a fashionable past-time of many city dwellers. At the same time, those who had worked so hard to see the law come to fruition, organized groups like the Anti Saloon league were ill equipped to enforce it and even within groups like these there was division over policy.
Whilst there is no question that Prohibition contributed to the rise of crime and gangsterism in the 1920s, it was not as dramatic during as is sometimes claimed, with the concentration of crime in the cities distorting the national picture and a general trend of a fall in drink related crime.
Prohibition certainly brought about an increase in organised crime. In Chicago, Al Capone was able to rule by force and through bribery of officials (the mayor of Chicago most famously known to have been on Capone’s pay roll). The likes of Capone obtained a huge amount of wealth through smuggling liquor and setting up illegal drinking clubs which provided the capital for other vice rackets. The Mafia also established itself in the USA through trafficking of illegal liquor. In addition to this some figures suggest a massive rise in crime in some areas, with 227 gangland murders in Chicago, between 1927 and 1930 alone.
However it cannot be categorically stated that organised crime in this scale, the political corruption and gangland warfare that went along with it all, would not have emerged without the stimulus of Prohibition. The economic boom of the twenties and the affluence it created would almost certainly have provided alternative opportunities for organised crime.
However, perhaps the catalyst for the speedy repeal of Prohibition was the depression that ensued as a result of the Wall Street Crash. At this time the Government, desperately needed the extra money and any possible boost the economy, saleable alcohol production being formerly America’s 6th biggest industry, it thus made financial sense to end Prohibition.
However, it is inaccurate to dismiss Prohibition as a complete failure for several reasons. Firstly it should be noted that large sections of the population which readily welcomed prohibition (many women, many in the South and Mid West and many in rural areas). Some businesses actually benefited from Prohibition (e.g. soft drinks companies such as Coca Cola) and contributed to America’s buyout economy (pre depression).It is often claimed that the consumption of alcoholic beverages increased dramatically, whilst this may have been true in cities like Chicago, the statistics do not support the claim nationally, with figures showing an overall drop from 9.8 litres per person, per year to 3.7 litres. After the Prohibition laws were repealed, the figures show that alcohol consumption never again reached pre Prohibition levels, suggesting that the law did have a long term reforming effect on the drinking habits of a significant proportion of the population.
The initial passing of the Prohibition law (the 18th amendment and the Volstead Act) was controversial in itself, firstly for the reason that the legal alcohol industry was the 7th largest industry in America, where big business was established and respected as the main creator of the countries vast wealth. However, more importantly Prohibition appeared to be a violation of the rights and freedom of the individual so treasured by the US constitution and Bill of Rights. Although initially there was relatively little opposition to Prohibition on these grounds, throughout the 1920s the concept of individual freedom came to be regarded by many as of greater importance than individual morality and thus Prohibition came to be seen increasingly as an infringement of this vital principle, especially in the cities. The problems that were perceived to have arisen as a result of Prohibition contributed to it being a controversial issue, it led to mass evasion (especially in urban areas, and gave rise to smuggling and illegal manufacture. It also stimulated organised crime and gangland warfare. However, it should be noted that it was also well supported, especially in rural America and, one could speculate, that without the depression this controversial law might have existed for considerably longer.