The Complexity of Brewing in Minnesota and Wisconsin - 1933 - 1952
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
‘Please give this matter your immediate attention:’ the complexity of brewing in Minnesota and Wisconsin - 1933 - 1952 Doug Hoverson Introduction The neighboring states of Minnesota and Wisconsin entered Prohibition in 1920 When legal beer went on sale just after with mixed enthusiasm. Both were known midnight on 7 April 1933, the stagnant for their politics of social reform in which American economy witnessed a welcome temperance legislation played a leading surge of commerce. Changing technolo- role. Congressman Andrew Volstead, gy, proliferating laws and regulations, author of the National Prohibition Act, developing tastes and simple business was a resident of Granite Falls, concerns created challenges for each of Minnesota. Wisconsin governor and US the more than seven hundred breweries senator Robert M La Follette Sr is recog- that emerged in the US after Prohibition. nized as one of the most important Because of the inconsistent availability reform politicians in history. On the other of records, a study combining the neigh- hand, the two states had been settled by boring states Minnesota and Wisconsin immigrants with beer drinking traditions: provides a more complete view of the Germans, Czechs, Irish and others. challenges facing breweries of all sizes - Milwaukee had become synonymous challenges that any modern brewer with lager beer decades before would recognize. The period ending in Prohibition, but both states had dozens of 1952 provides a useful limit since it was medium and large breweries in the cities when wartime shortages were ending but and scores of small breweries dotting the before national multi-plant expansion countryside. The brewing industries of began in earnest and before television the two states followed parallel courses advertising began to shape public per- emerging from Prohibition, and most dif- ceptions of leading brands. ferences were circumstances encountered by individual breweries rather than state- wide business or economic conditions. Both states had extensive brewing *This article has undergone peer review. industries prior to Prohibition. Minnesota, Brewery History Number 141 67 while not among the national leaders, While it is not within the scope of this had approximately sixty breweries prior article to discuss the weaknesses of the to Prohibition, including regional powers Volstead Act from 1920 - 1933, there Hamm and Schmidt of St Paul and were factors that created a more Minneapolis Brewing Co. By contrast, receptive climate for the return of family Wisconsin, while not much bigger in breweries in Wisconsin than in population and smaller in area, had Minnesota. The Wisconsin legislature approximately 130 firms including Pabst dragged its feet on passing state prohi- and Schlitz - which were among the bition legislation, and the widely-shared most famous in the world. The small and German cultural heritage provided agents medium-sized breweries in the two states with a significant disincentive to enforce had similar rates of closure or conversion an unpopular law. Extensive surveys of to other business.1 The three biggest local newspapers in both states suggest Milwaukee breweries, Pabst, Schlitz, and that Minnesotans tended to make and Blatz, had significantly greater resources sell distilled spirits rather than beer, but to draw on in their conversion - Schlitz Wisconsin residents continued to make went so far as to build an all-new beer despite the much lower percentage chocolate factory.2 of alcohol than hard liquor. Dozens of Figure 1. Many breweries in Wisconsin and Minnesota drew on images of the outdoor life to sell their beer. The U-Permit number on the label was used only in the first three years after Prohibition. After 1936, brewers were forbidden to use the permit wording because it might give the impression the government had approved the brewery or the beer. 68 Journal of the Brewery History Society breweries continued to make real beer generally prepairing [sic] our brewery for during Prohibition, and while some were the anticipated return of brewed beer. The closed, other violators were given light return, however, was quicker than we penalties. JL Erickson of the Monitor expected, we were caught short, and are Brewery in La Crosse, Wisconsin was unable to supply the demand for the new given a fine instead of jail time for making malt drink.5 strong beer, because the judge ruled that the strong beer was ‘due more to The George Walter Brewing Co. of carelessness than to any attempt to Appleton, Wisconsin, published an ad violate the law’.3 Even when breweries which attempted to convert their delay were closed, so-called ‘wildcat’ breweries into virtue: sprang up both in cities and rural areas. One such brewery in La Crosse was With but a limited time elapsing between located in an elaborate tunnel system the passage of the beer bill and the time under the house of ‘an attractive 35- when beer may actually be sold, we decided year old woman.’ The brewery was not a not to rush production at the risk of small homebrewing operation, but a disappointing our patrons.6 large plant with an ice machine, four fer- mentation vats of 450 gallons each and Minneapolis Brewing Co made similar a bottle-capping machine.4 claims: We have not hurried: Time has been taken Preparing the way so that our beer will attain a quality of mellow taste satisfaction which every experienced After Franklin D Roosevelt won the pres- user instantly recognizes.7 idential election in 1932 on a platform that included repeal of Prohibition, many While those firms that had active near brewers began to prepare for the day beer lines had minimal retooling to when beer would be legal. Those who undertake, breweries that had been had continued to make near beer during mothballed or converted to other uses Prohibition were best able to convert became scenes of frantic activity. This quickly to regular beer. Some brewers flurry of building was most welcome to appear to have underestimated the tradesmen unemployed during the speed with which the necessary legisla- depression. In Ripon, Wisconsin: tion would pass through Congress and the state legislatures. Otto's Brewery in a large crew of men are employed ... , and Mantorville, Minnesota lamented: many trades are represented in the work. Electricians are re-wiring the place, boilers Since the election last fall we have been and tanks are being reconditioned, and the making repairs, improvements and bottling apparatus is being brought up to Brewery History Number 141 69 Figure 2. Blatz was one of several breweries that continued to make near beer throughout Prohibition, and was able to resume production of beer in short order. The pre-Prohibition practice of brewing lagers in the styles of particular German brewing capitals diminished considerably during the mid-20th century. date. An addition to the present bottling plant employed connecting a power line to the is to be built later.8 brewery, which apparently did not have electricity prior to Prohibition.10 Other A few miles to the northeast, in Chilton, breweries needed to install all new equipment, or at least claimed they did The ice house of the Calumet Brewing Co. in articles and advertisements. here was in the process of being remodeled for the manufacture of legal beer. The upper As much interest as there was in job story of the building was being removed and creation, brewers continued to remind the lower part renovated for early use. The the public of the amber nectar soon to brewery proper was being overhauled and arrive. The Milwaukee Journal reported the interior whitewashed, painted and on 26 March 1933 that Blatz Brewing varnished. Five carpenters were busy on Co had become the first in Milwaukee to the job.9 start bottling its beer and was filling 600,000 bottles each day. On the same In some cases, the improvements were page, the Journal carried a press release even more fundamental. In the small thinly disguised as an interview with village of Arcadia, Wisconsin, a crew was Gustave Pabst Jr touting the virtues of 70 Journal of the Brewery History Society steel beer kegs. Breweries needed to planned to broadcast the arrival of a prepare citizens for this innovation plane carrying Blatz beer from Milwaukee because traditional coopers were so via a microphone placed outside the stu- prevalent in Wisconsin. Indeed, an dio.13 amendment was offered to the bill legal- izing beer which would have outlawed Breathless promotion was hardly need- metal kegs in Wisconsin (it was ultimate- ed. Crowds numbering in the thousands ly defeated). Though much less popular gathered outside nine Minnesota and in Minnesota, wooden kegs were still twenty-seven Wisconsin breweries. used by Wisconsin breweries for several Brewery personnel were allowed to load decades and the last traditional cooper- brewery trucks and rail cars before mid- age remained open until 1966.11 night in anticipation of the great moment. At 12:01, factory whistles blew, bands played, and shouts arose from the New Beer's Day assembled throngs. Traffic moved only through careful management of cars The excitement surrounding the return of and trucks that had arrived many hours legal beer bordered on frenzy. The earlier from all points of the compass. In Sheboygan (WI) Press enthused: Sheboygan, an observer spotted vehicles ‘Independence day without the firecrack- from Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, ers! Armistice day with the return of beer Missouri, and Michigan. Except for the instead of soldiers!’ The brewers fed the largest Milwaukee firms, the breweries media hype. Alvin Gluek, superintendent themselves had few delivery vehicles. of his family's brewery in Minneapolis, The Peter Bub Brewery in Winona, dramatically announced that Minnesota, had planned to make deliv- eries, but decided that brewery personnel police protection will be necessary if the would be better employed loading pri- lame and the halt are not to be trampled vate cars and trucks.