Prohibition History – Page 4 – Old Magazine Articles

Shall Tobacco Be Prohibited, Too?
(Current Opinion, 1921)

Tobacco is not food. It is a drug. A healthy human being can get along without it. One who has never used it is better off, his health has a surer foundation and his life expectancy is greater than in the case of one who is a habitual user.

The cautionary paragraph posted above was written in the early Twenties, and this article points out that the health advocates of the that era were not delusional or ill-informed in matters involving tobacco and health care. Tobacco’s ability to harm was understood so well that an effort was afoot in the U.S. Congress to make the weed illegal. Needless to say, that effort did not get very far.

In the 1950s, some people questioned whether cigarettes were truly dangerous – click here to read about it…

Anti-Soft Drink Legislation Defeated
(The Atlanta Georgian, 1917)

On the same day that it was announced that the state of Georgia was going to prohibit alcohol a full year and a half prior to the Congressional measure, a bill died in the state legislature that would have prohibited all alcohol substitutes that had caffeine, as well (Georgia, you’ll recall is the home of the Coca-Cola Company):

In an effort to force the bone-dry majority of the House to the greatest extreme, Representative Stark of Jackson, Friday offered an amendment which would have barred all substitutes for liquor, all patent medicines, and soft drinks containing caffeine.

The 1918 New York Elections
(The Stars and Stripes, 1918)

By the time this short notice was seen on page one of THE STARS and STRIPES during the Spring of 1918, the political momentum was clearly on the side of the Prohibition advocates and the voters of many states had elected to go dry long before the Congress had decided to amend the Constitution. The 1918 election in New York between Wets and Drys was a close one and the eyes of the nation were watching. The headline read:

PROHIBITION RACE NOW NECK AND NECK: TWENTY NEW YORK CITIES DRY AND NINETEEN WET…

The deciding and unknown factor was the women of New York, who were permitted to vote in municipal elections.

Lord, Deliver Us from Prohibition
(The Smart Set, 1920)

For some unexplained reason, H.L. Mencken (1880 – 1956) wrote this essay under the pseudonym Major Owen Hatteras. The one page article is written in typical Menkenese and catalogs example after example of how prohibition is creating a worse society, not a better one; citizens of all stripes who would otherwise be judged as honest souls, are instead committing illegal acts and there seemed to be no end in sight to such behavior.

Christianity vs. Prohibition
(The North American Review, 1918)

Seeing that much of the momentum to prohibit the national sale, distribution and consumption of wine and spirits originated with a hardy chunk of the observant Christian community, the Reverend John Cole McKim decided to weigh in on the topic. McKim tended to believe that:

Christ, being divine and consequently infallible, could not have erred. Since it is well known that Christ used wine Himself and gave it to others…

He further opined:

But to vote what one regards as a natural right shall be declared forever illegal, is cowardly, un-American, and un-Christian.

Bootleg Whiskey as Poisoner
(Literary Digest, 1922)

A 1922 magazine article concerning the dangers of black market liquor in the United States during the Prohibition period (1919 – 1933):

When you drink bootleg the chances are better than nine out of ten that you are drinking rank poison.

This is not the statement issued either by Prohibitionists to discourage drinking, or by a Anti-Prohibitionist to show what Prohibition has brought us to. It is the conclusion of a large newspaper service, which had it’s men in various parts of the country buy the ‘ordinary mine-run of bootleg liquor’, and then had the samples analyzed to get an idea of what a man’s chances are of getting poisonous booze.

Click here to read about President Woodrow Wilson and his wish to re-write the post-war Prohibition restrictions.

W.W. I and the Advancement of Prohibition
(Literary Digest, 1916)

Since the earliest days of World War I, the European combatant nations made some adjustments in regard to the sale of alcohol and the hours in which pubs could operate. When the U.S. entered the war in April of 1917, Congress decided that they had better do the same – but they were far more harsh on the topic – closing bars entirely and outlawing all wines and spirits – except for their use in religious sacraments. In the attached article journalist gathered data from various newspapers that were located in states that were already dry in order to study how the experiment was proceeding.

Prohibition Comes to Washington, D.C.
(The Atlanta Georgian, 1917)

In 1917 Washington, D.C. had no mayor, no city council and no say as to the goings on in Congress – the city was lorded over by the President and a Congressional commission. It was set up that way by the founders – and that is how Prohibition came to Washington, D.C. two years earlier than the rest of the nation: with the flick of his wrist, President Wilson signed the Sheppard Bill, legislation that declared that after November 1, 1918 all alcohol would be prohibited in the District of Columbia.

The New Guy Who Took Her Place
(Literary Digest, 1929)

Making his bow to the nation with the praise of the Anti-Saloon League and of Andrew J. Volstead, father of the Prohibition law, ringing in his years, Mr. Youngquist (1885 – 1959) was quick to announce that

I am dry politically and personally, but I am not a fanatic on the subject.

BLOODBATH
(’47 Magazine, 1947)

Written some eighteen years after the event, here is a reminiscence of the worst day in Prohibition history: the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre.