Constitutional alcohol Prohibition in the United States: Power, profit and politics Item Type text; Dissertation-Reproduction (electronic) Authors Taylor, Kristie A. Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 30/09/2021 21:02:05 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/289817 INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has t)een reproduced from the microfilm master. UMi films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may t>e from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quaiity of the copy submitted. Broicen or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will t)e noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to t)e removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overiaps. ProQuest Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600 CONSTITUTIONAL ALCOHOL PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES; POWER. PROFIT AND POLITICS by Kristie A. Taylor A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 2002 UMI Number: 3060952 (ft UMI UMI Microform 3060952 Copyright 2002 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 2 THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA ® GRADUATE COLLEGE As members of che Final Examination Committee, we certify chat we have read the dissertation prepared by Krlstie A. Taylor entitled Constitutional Alcohol Prohibition in the United Prnffr, Power and Prohibition and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement the^egree of Doctor of Philosophy /Y) KaChJLeeh Sch^rtzman Date loot. feth Cleme Date Healv Date Date Final approval and acccptance of this dissertation is contingent upon the candidate's •ubmission of the final copy of the dissertation to the Graduate College. I hereby certify chat I have read chis dissercacion prepared under my direction>^d recoaaend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation Dissertation Dace 3 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This dissertation has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this dissertation are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his or her judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author. SIGNED: 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Members of three separate institutions made my work on this dissertation possible. First, the faculty in the Department of Sociology at The University of Arizona taught me to view social policy as a puzzle. Second, my colleagues and friends at The University of Arizona Cancer Center helped me to understand substance abuse policy as a substantive concern. Third, my co-workers and employers at Westat, who provided time and support for the final version of this document. I thank them all. Furthermore, this dissertation would not have been possible without the assistance of the reference librarians at the University of Arizona and the University of Maryland. I owe a particular debt to the often-invisible specialists who work in inter- library loan and government documents at both locations. Further thanks are due to the quick and efficient assistance of the reference staff in the Social Science Reading Room at the Library of Congress. Several individuals have made particular contributions to my success. William Winston handed me my first sociological lens and Michael Flaherty taught that I could create my own. Kathleen Schwartzman. Elizabeth Clemens. Kieran Healy, David Snow and Calvin Morrill were members of my Ph.D. committee as it evolved over time and their influence is imprinted on these pages. James Cook pushed me to see further into data than I thought was possible. Robert Emanuel. Stacey Nofziger and Stephen and Nanette Miller held my hand at crucial moments. Tasha and Oscar were there when things were hard. DEDICATION To Chris, for whom no words of thanks are enough. 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES 9 LIST OF FIGURES 10 ABSTRACT 11 1. THE PUZZLE OF REPEAL 12 1.1 THEORIZING PROHIBITION 18 1.2 THEORIZING REPEAL 30 1.3 THEORIZING CRISIS 37 1.4 RESEARCH DESIGN 40 1.5 CONCLUSION 42 2. PROHIBITION AS A MEANS TO AN END: CONFLICT OVER IMMIGRATION AND CLASS 43 2.1 PHASES OF PROHIBITION LEGISLATION 44 2.2 PROHIBITION AS A MEANS TO CONTROL IMMIGRANTS 44 2.2.1 Aggregated Immigration 47 2.2.2 Concentrated Immigration 50 2.3 INTER-CLASS CONFLICTS OVER PROHIBITION 55 2.4 CONCLUSION 62 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS - CONTINUED 3. WAR AND OPPOSITION: PASSAGE OF THE 18TH AMENDMENT 63 3.1 THE ANTI-SALOON LEAGUE 63 3.2 ELITE SUPPORT OF PROHIBITION 65 3.3 OPPOSITION TO PROHIBITION 70 3.3.1 Opposition From Alcohol-Producing Industries 70 3.3.2 Opposition From Alcohol Retailers 74 3.3.3 Opposition From the Working Class 76 3.3.4 Opposition From German-Americans 77 3.3.5 Opposition in Congress 83 3.4 AMENDING WAYS: PASSAGE OF THE 18™ AMENDMENT 87 3.4.1 Opportunity and War 87 3.5 CRISIS AND PASSAGE 92 4. IMPLEMENTING PROHIBITION: POLICY FEEDBACK AND CONSTITUENCY 95 4.1 DEFINING INTOXICATION 96 4.1.1 Political Effects of Volsteadism 99 4.2 STATE AND FEDERAL COOPERATION 106 4.3 POLICING AND IMPLEMENTATION 110 4.4 PUBLIC OPINION 112 4.5 CONCLUSION 115 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS - CONTINUED 5. REPEALING PROHIBITION; PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS AND POLITICAL OPPORTUNITY 116 5.1 PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS AND PROHIBITION CONTROVERSIES 117 5.1.1 Positions of Republican Presidents on Prohibition 119 5.1.2 Positions of Democratic Nominees on Prohibition 121 5.2 PROHIBITION AFTER THE CRASH 126 5.2.1 Lawyers and Prohibition 128 5.2.2 Roosevelt and Prohibition 129 5.3 CONCLUSION 134 6. IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 137 6.1 THE EIGHTEENTH AMENDMENT 137 6.2 THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT 140 6.3 THE 18TH AND 21ST AMENDMENT WERE DIFFERENT 144 6.4 POLICY REVERSALS 146 WORKS CITED 149 9 LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1 Predictions Regarding Prohibition's Passage and Repeal 17 Table 2.1 Theories of the Effect of Immigration on Moral Reform Movements. by Immigrant Threat and Political Involvement 46 Table 2.2 Percentage of the U.S. Population that was Foreign Bom or Native Bom of Foreign Parents, by Census Year. 1890 to 1930 49 Table 2.3 State Prohibition Laws in Effect in States that Contained Counties with the Highest and Lowest Immigrant Concentration 54 Table 2.4 Workstoppages and Workforce Size. 1900 to 1920 61 Table 4.1 Results of 13 State Referenda on Prohibition Related Issues. 1926 to 1928 114 10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Gallons of Absolute Alcohol Consumed Per Capita, 1900 to 1975 19 Figure 2.1 Union Membership as a Percentage of the Labor Force, 1900 to 1920 59 Figure 3.1 Institutional Affiliation of Wimesses in Prohibition Hearings. 1900-1920 79 Figure 3.2 Wet and Dry Wimesses as a Percentage of all Wimesses Testifying in Prohibition Hearings. 1900-1920 84 Figure 3.3 States that Ratified the 18"* Amendment 91 Figure 4.1 Source of Federal Tax Revenues. 1900 to 1933 102 Figure 5.1 States that Ratified the 21"" Amendment. 1933 133 II ABSTRACT Why was national alcohol Prohibition repealed in the United States? Prohibition's repeal is unique in several respects. Alcohol Prohibition is the only American drug prohibition to ever be repealed, and the only constitutional amendment to ever be repealed. Furthermore, the volatility of Prohibition policy serves as a useful case for political sociology, which tends to focus on stable policies and government agencies. Prohibition's repeal is important substantively because it is the only American drug prohibition to be repealed. The question of repeal requires examination of several theoretical issues. First, is the process of creating a new policy fundamentally different from the process of dismantling an existing policy? Second, what effect does an exogenous crisis (like World War I or the Great Depression) have on state actor's response to the demands of a social movement? Third, what is the role of elites in a social movement? Fourth, what effect does the implementation of a policy have on those constituencies supporting it? I examine the substantive and theoretical issues of Prohibition's repeal using a variety of primary and secondary sources. National Prohibition resulted from the combined effects of crisis and elite social movement activity.