There are many pieces of legislation that have been written throughout America’s history. We have determined that murder, schedule I and II drugs (some III), and robbery are all immoral and illegal crimes against humanity. But what happens when the government intervenes too aggressively and beyond their jurisdiction in the regulation of what is right and what is wrong, or as we shall see, who is right and who is wrong? Those representatives that the people elected decided to make the distribution and consumption of alcohol illegal by law with the passing of the 18th Amendment that went into effect January 17, 1920—but how did this happen? We look back on this period today as lunacy, and how could the freest nation in the world prohibit something as simple and natural as alcohol from its citizens. The answer is neither one sided, nor simple. There is no doubt that high consumption of alcohol in the United States had led to more domestic abuse, less productivity, and all around worsening of the commoner’s life, especially after the Civil War leading up to the start of Prohibition. So it would seem like a good idea to ban something so horrible, right? Another belief system that was widespread during this era was that of Eugenics, or elective breeding. Many of those in power around the world held strong beliefs (rooted in pseudoscience) that there were certain groups of people that were unfit to reproduce, and this will be brought to the light in great detail with its proponents and their actions. It is my belief, and in understanding what happened during the period of Prohibition and Sterilization, that there are some things that should never be withheld from the people of a governed nation, because it leads to more murders, robberies, homelessness, and promiscuity; which is the very thing were trying to prevent, right? In the end, you cannot keep people from needing substances, procreating, or reproducing; you create more problems than you had to begin with when there is too much intervention. There is simply no way to fully regulate morality or stupidity, or to engineer the perfect human being fit for a utopian society.
During the 1830’s, leading up to the start of Prohibition, alcohol consumption in the United States was unbelievably high. The average person (mostly men) over the age of 15 was consuming roughly 7 gallons of pure alcohol per year. As is commonly known, alcohol is medicine, and it has been used as such and for household uses since the beginning of its creation. However, it is not hard to understand how the women of this Temperance Movement could feel helpless when their husbands would abuse them and their children. When you have been the victim on the other end of an abusers hand, it is easy to hate that substance and want it wiped away. Women before, during, and after the mid-nineteenth century had little to no social standing, and certainly no political or land owning rights in America. They could not vote, so there was no chance of their voices reaching Washington in hopes of creating a law that would ban liquor. The Women’s Christian Temperance Union or WCTU held their twentieth annual conference in 1893 in Chicago, Illinois during the World’s Fair. Frances Willard gave a speech at the exposition calling for a “Do-Everything” policy. Willard’s speech is filled with poignant vocabulary and follows the standard of pathos which is so necessary when convincing all of the ears to believe in your morals. “In about seventy days from now, twenty years will have elapsed since the call of battle sounded its bugle note among the homes and hearts of Hillsboro, Ohio” (Willard). This piece from her speech is referencing Uncle Tom’s Cabin, and its protagonist, Eliza Thompson, whose sole purpose was to eradicate and cleanse the states from the cursed institution of slavery. This was the era in which slavery was equated with drunkenness under the umbrella of ethical and moral standings. Willard goes on to demonize alcohol further in her address. “…but prohibition is as lively an issue today as emancipation was in 1856; an issue that stirs such deadly hatred is by no means dead” (Willard). She referred to herself and her followers as the White Ribbon Army; a symbol of purity and cleanliness.
The eighteenth amendment would go into effect on January 17, 1920, marking the beginning of the widespread sentiment among (mostly) women that their lives would be better as the country became dry. There were now legal repercussions to consuming alcohol and the righteousness of America could rise again, and instill hope in their hearts that people were going to obey the law and do the right thing—the moral thing. But we know all too well that Prohibition failed to eliminate alcohol, and even exacerbated many of the social ills related to its consumption, because government is limited both by its knowledge of how people react to regulation and also by the incentives faced by the regulators themselves (Rogers).
The Prohibition Department hired just 1,520 agents to enforce the new law, or roughly 75,000 people per agent (Bryson, 162). The economic loss on the state level was far greater than pre-Prohibition levels, so it is no great wonder why states were so resistant in enforcing a foolish law that destroyed their source of income. There was simply no way to continue down this path of economic disaster. But prohibition brought about a different type of disaster all together—death. Because the federal government no longer filtered and checked for impurities; many consumers died or became deathly sick because of the unsanitary conditions in which the alcohol was produced, or because of the ingredients. One chemist found kerosene, soap, formaldehyde, iodine, nicotine, benzoyl, and benzene in a sampling of several hundred batches (Bryson, 163). Another source of death during this time was death via the United States Government. It is estimated that as many as 11,700 deaths took place as a result of the government denaturing alcohol by mixing mercury or other chemicals into the liquor (Bryson, 161).
One man among these workers was Wayne Bidwell Wheeler, leader of the Anti-Saloon League, who was ruthless in his campaign to make America a dry land. All of his opponents were either squashed or ran off with their tails tucked never to be seen again. The greatest tool at Wheeler’s disposal was that of World War I, and with it anti-German sentiment. Because many beers imported to the United States were German made, pushing the dry agenda became easier for Wheeler and his associates—who were already masters of propaganda and knew the market well. As the old saying goes, “there is more than one way to skin a catfish,” and Prohibition was no different. If people want to drink they will find a way, and suddenly doctors and clergymen became immensely popular. Doctors were still allowed to prescribe whiskey for sickness, and the church was allowed to purchase wine for religious practices, such as mass. Since they were still not allowed to import wine, occupation of acres dedicated to the growing of grapes rose in California from 100,000 to nearly 700,000 (Bryson, 169). Because Prohibition was not going quite according to plan; the government grew impatient. Wheeler insisted that the poisoning of industrial alcohol was the only solution. Wheeler sincerely believed that people who drank poisoned alcohol got what they deserved. It was in his view, “deliberate suicide” (Bryson, 173). The strangeness of these sudden deaths went unnoticed at first, but then it became more obvious that this was not a result of the natural impurities of the liquor; it was a deliberate denaturation. Doctors were accustomed to alcohol poisoning during this time because the bootlegged whiskies and so-called gins often made people sick. The liquor produced in hidden stills frequently came tainted with metals and other impurities. But this outbreak was bizarrely different in its entirety (Blum). The symptoms that the victims endured were often blindness, paralysis, and hallucinations; which were not common among alcohol poisoning; but the pace and speed at which the victims perished was startling. There were some other chemicals involved, such as detergent and mercury, in this killing spree; giving this battle the term “The Chemist’s War.”
However, there were many who profited from Prohibition, naturally. When the government refuses to sell alcohol we turn to the black market. One of the greatest businessmen who thrived during the Progressive era was Al Capone. Stationed in Chicago, IL, Capone was successful largely because he didn’t kill his customers.
[“I make my money by supplying a public demand…Ninety percent of the people of Cook Country drink and gamble, and my offense has been to furnish them with those amusements. Whatever else they may say, my booze has been good and my games have been on the square”] (Bryson, 405).
Capone’s business was short lived, however, lasting approximately 2 years, but in that time he created an empire and a name for himself for generations to come. To roughly quote Premchand, author of “The Road to Salvation,” oftentimes there is more malice among the good than the bad. A thief and liar will always cover for a thief and liar, but the pious rat each other out for gained power or authority. I would have to agree with this statement, and say that although Capone was breaking the law, he created a sense of camaraderie among his consumers, and that is why he was successful. His people trusted him, and they knew he meant business.
It became increasingly clear that Prohibition was not working. It was simply too costly and had little effect on how much people actually drank. Finally, in 1933, president Franklin Delano Roosevelt repealed the eighteenth amendment by signing into law the twenty-first amendment, which voided the prior piece of legislation. This was the first and only time an amendment has been repealed. The overreaching hand of the U.S. government had finally learned its lesson and had no choice but to listen to its people and withdraw their flawed failure, known as the “Noble Experiment.”
Now on to the science of Eugenics, sterilization, and the desire to cleanse society of the undesirables; how this study of genetics affected America and its beliefs, but mostly among the elite and “educated” of America and around the globe. This movement could simply be defined as the scientific cultivation of superior beings (Bryson, 363). The goal of Eugenics proponents was to see a society free from homelessness, drunkenness, and promiscuity. They believed that by sterilizing the unwanted, and preventing them from further reproducing, that society would naturally elevate its standards and become as productive as it could be. It was in this era that the standardized IQ test was invented; not to determine intelligence, but to conclude how stupid a test subject was. One special case surrounding sterilization was Buck v. Bell. The case involved a lower class white female who bore an illegitimate, feeble-minded child. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. convinced his colleagues in an 8-1 ruling that Carrie Buck should be sterilized and not be permitted to create more undesirables that were sure to be a burden on society. The now famous quote that we all know today was born from this case. “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” Thanks to this ruling, states now had the right to perform surgery on healthy citizens against their will—a liberty never before extended in any advanced country (Bryson, 369). This strange movement, and legal mind you, led to the sterilization of at least sixty thousand people; California and Virginia being the biggest users of this newfound privilege, and this law continues to be on the book in twenty states today (Bryson, 370). But let’s not forget that what Hitler did was perfectly legal as well, but the morality is what we’re questioning in this paper, not legality.
When you hear the name George Bernard Shaw—what comes to mind? Philanthropist? Poet? Humanitarian? Playwright? While those titles may be afforded to him, Shaw was also a staunch Eugenicist, and believed that citizens should be analyzed yearly to measure their worth, justify their existence, and show how much they have contributed to society. If they did not fulfill the requirements, but instead took away from society and created a burden—then that person should be given a peaceful death; because a peaceful death is more humane than a regular death I suppose. Eugenics is now called bioethics, transhumanism, posthumanism, genetics or by other highfalutin or less sinister-sounding names; it is the real agenda behind abortion, euthanasia, and the many “liberation” movements (Sanclan). He often referred to the mass as “livestock” and needed to be bred in order to create perfection and productivity. Shaw was a heavy supporter of Margaret Sanger, and her creation of Planned Parenthood to weed out and destroy the undesirables. Sanger often coined the phrase “amoeba” to describe those who were not “white elitists”, and those who should be given a permanent form of birth control. We associate in modern times that “pro-choice” is a positive thing. Women can choose whether to keep their child or terminate the pregnancy. However, Sanger called for parents to have a “License to Breed.” She wanted all would-be parents to go before her eugenics boards to request a “Permit to Breed;” so much for choice, huh? (WordPress Blog). This way of thinking gave very heavy influence to the Third Reich in Germany under Hitler. Most Americans try to remove themselves as far as possible to the genocide of millions of people, and wouldn’t dare associate their method of thinking with the Germans, but in reality; the thinkers and elite in America had a huge impact on what transpired the decade following our “progressive era.”
Another famous Eugenicist and Conservationist was Madison Grant, who published The Passing of the Great Race. In his book he explains his belief that Europe is divided into three tiers of being—Nordic, Alpine, and Mediterranean—which grew progressively degenerate as one moved south (Bryson, 363). What Grant failed to produce in his work was how the great Athenians and Romans were able to conquer, build, and rule the known world for a thousand years or more. How were these “feeble-minded” civilizations and cultures able to build complex waterways, bathhouses, and even modern sewer lines without the help of the Nordic race? Grant’s excuse was that these Greeks and Romans were not Mediterranean at all, but rather northern Europeans who had drifted south (Bryson, 363). It is the same theory that the people of the Americas, particularly the Incas, were not able to build Machu Picchu, but that the only explanation was that it was built by extraterrestrials. Grant said, “the cross between any of the three European races and a Jew is a Jew” (Bryson, 364). Sound familiar? This was exactly the same mindset in America during the reign of slavery. The “one drop” rule was religiously enforced and encouraged in order to justify and maintain humans in bondage. The term is used today in a different way, but it is important to know how it came to fruition.
When you hear the name George Bernard Shaw—what comes to mind? Philanthropist? Poet? Humanitarian? Playwright? While those titles may be afforded to him, Shaw was also a staunch Eugenicist, and believed that citizens should be analyzed yearly to measure their worth, justify their existence, and show how much they have contributed to society. If they did not fulfill the requirements, but instead took away from society and created a burden—then that person should be given a peaceful death; because a peaceful death is more humane than a regular death I suppose. Eugenics is now called bioethics, transhumanism, posthumanism, genetics or by other highfalutin or less sinister-sounding names; it is the real agenda behind abortion, euthanasia, and the many “liberation” movements (Sanclan). He often referred to the mass as “livestock” and needed to be bred in order to create perfection and productivity. Shaw was a heavy supporter of Margaret Sanger, and her creation of Planned Parenthood to weed out and destroy the undesirables. Sanger often coined the phrase “amoeba” to describe those who were not “white elitists”, and those who should be given a permanent form of birth control. We associate in modern times that “pro-choice” is a positive thing. Women can choose whether to keep their child or terminate the pregnancy. However, Sanger called for parents to have a “License to Breed.” She wanted all would-be parents to go before her eugenics boards to request a “Permit to Breed;” so much for choice, huh? (WordPress Blog). This way of thinking gave very heavy influence to the Third Reich in Germany under Hitler. Most Americans try to remove themselves as far as possible to the genocide of millions of people, and wouldn’t dare associate their method of thinking with the Germans, but in reality; the thinkers and elite in America had a huge impact on what transpired the decade following our “progressive era.”
Another famous Eugenicist and Conservationist was Madison Grant, who published The Passing of the Great Race. In his book he explains his belief that Europe is divided into three tiers of being—Nordic, Alpine, and Mediterranean—which grew progressively degenerate as one moved south (Bryson, 363). What Grant failed to produce in his work was how the great Athenians and Romans were able to conquer, build, and rule the known world for a thousand years or more. How were these “feeble-minded” civilizations and cultures able to build complex waterways, bathhouses, and even modern sewer lines without the help of the Nordic race? Grant’s excuse was that these Greeks and Romans were not Mediterranean at all, but rather northern Europeans who had drifted south (Bryson, 363). It is the same theory that the people of the Americas, particularly the Incas, were not able to build Machu Picchu, but that the only explanation was that it was built by extraterrestrials. Grant said, “the cross between any of the three European races and a Jew is a Jew” (Bryson, 364). Sound familiar? This was exactly the same mindset in America during the reign of slavery. The “one drop” rule was religiously enforced and encouraged in order to justify and maintain humans in bondage. The term is used today in a different way, but it is important to know how it came to fruition.
Bryson refers to the 1920’s as the “Age of Loathing;” is this an accurate statement? I think that it most definitely is. We have such a merging of cultures in the big cities like New York and Chicago, but there was also the reemergence of the KKK. Why is it that when we seem to have progress someone somewhere else in the country or the world is promoting the complete opposite? How do hate groups exist in America, and why? I think a lot of it has to do with our way of thinking, and how we are taught to think. No one is born hating another person; it must be taught. So can humanity be untaught the belief of hatred? In the end, I don’t believe so. I would love to believe in peace, but so long as humans exist on this planet, so too will hatred and war.
It is noteworthy that it was not only people of color who were targeted for being inferior, but also certain ethnic European groups, such as Italians, Jews, and Irish. As Dickstein writes in his book, Dancing in the Dark, the Jews in the neighborhood were kept in squalor and flea-infested tenements in the ghettos of New York City. Michael Gold is the author that he references in order to display and reveal how and why immigrants were able to adopt a Communistic economic belief. When you grow up in abject poverty, and see the world around you flourishing, it is no wonder Gold saw the world as a horrible, wretched, and most of all, unfair place to exist. “Fleas that not even a Jewish mother could exterminate,” Gold writes. In describing his tenement and the surrounding neighborhood, Gold is not only saying that it should be torn down and burned; he is explaining that the entire system needed to burn to the ground; the system of Capitalism. To Gold, poverty is not simply an economic fact but a soul-destroying malaise that infects its victims with hopelessness and depression (Dickstein, 31). When speaking of “soul-destroying” it reminds me of the Abolitionist movement and the Temperance movement. Many believed that slavery was more damaging and morbid to the white end of the whip than the receiver, and that it needed to be terminated for their own salvation, safety, and soul. Referring back to the poverty of the Depression Era, Dickstein writes, “The Depression was one of those moments of visibility, when many in the middle class were impoverished, too, and often proved less able to deal with it than the chronic poor” (Dickstein, 24). This too I believe to be true. The Depression wasn’t as hard on the poor because they had always been poor; they had little to nothing to lose. So, can we assume that the Jews in the ghettos of New York were simply victims of Capitalism, or were they the subjects of something grander, like Eugenics? Were these certain ethnic groups placed under poverty for a reason? Did the United States purposely subject them to poverty so they could use the excuse to sterilize them, or perhaps kill them? Was this worsening of the tenements and ghettos a precursor to their demise in Nazi Germany? Perhaps. One thing is for certain however; that Sanger, Shaw, Hitler, and to some extent, Charles Lindbergh all believed in the extermination of the undesirables and the purity of the human race to survive. While Lindbergh later said he regretted speaking against Jews so harshly in the 1930’s he is quoted as saying, “A few Jews add strength and character to a country. Too many create chaos, and we are getting too many” (Bryson, September, Summer’s End opening quote, 358). Lindbergh was the crown jewel of America, our Golden Boy. There was nothing outrageous or scandalous that he could say or do that would keep America from loving the first man to fly non-stop across the Atlantic—or was there? If we like someone personally it is always easy to forgive slurs that they may say against a race, ethnic group, or gender, so we didn’t really bat an eye to harshly at Lindbergh when he spoke out against flaws in humanity. But there was another, ugly dimension to Lindbergh’s rhetoric that would disgust his many critics – anti-Semitism. There was a running theme through many of his speeches that blamed the Jews for the outbreak of war in Europe (Callan). In a rough remembrance of one of Lindbergh’s quotes he says that the world has seen a Europe dominated by France and Great Britain, so why not have one dominated by Germany? The difference between dominating and living under Nazi rule is that France and Great Britain did not control and murder millions of their own citizens and aid in the extermination of millions of other lives in Communist countries. That is why Germany was never going to succeed, but they got scarily close to their realization of a new world order and the flourishing of a pure Aryan race. How was Hitler able to convince and control so many of his own people (and other leaders such as Stalin and Mussolini) that the Jews were to blame for the economic crisis? Well, some believe that it is easier to tell people an outright lie than a slight twist in the truth; that we are more likely to believe that something is one hundred percent evil rather than slightly evil because it displaces the blame on that person or item and offers the outlet to pursue your selfish agenda. Do not mistake my admiration of Hitler’s leadership and oratory skills as an admiration of the man and his vision, but rather a realization that words are the most valuable weapons—and they’re cost effective.
In conclusion, in developing and studying my case for Prohibition and Eugenics, and the failure of its regulation and realization, it is clear that human nature will always triumph. History repeats itself, and I have no doubt that there will one day be another push for an extermination of a particular race or ethnic group, but I hope that we can remember what happened during America’s Progressive Era and never let it happen again. We have to learn that human desires cannot be fully controlled or regulated, and must never be extinguished or punished, because that is just the nature of the world.
WORKS CITED
Blum, Deborah. The Chemist’s War: The little-told story of how the U.S. government poisoned alcohol during Prohibition with deadly consequences. Feb 2010. Web. 26 April 2014.
Bryson, Bill. One Summer America, 1927. New York. Penguin Random House Company. 2013. Print.
Callan, Paul. Charles Lindbergh. Hitler’s All-American Hero. 25 September 2010. Web. 27 April 2014. http://www.express.co.uk/expressyourself/201613/Charles-Lindbergh-Hitler-s-all-American-hero
Carrie and Emma Buck. 1924. Photograph. 19 April 2014. http://web3.encyclopediavirginia.org/resourcespace/filestore/1/5/1_8d1a6a9014d0c37/151pre_686abaf94aadf85.jpg.
Dickstein, Morris. Dancing in the Dark. New York. W.W. Norton & Company. 2009. Print.
It is noteworthy that it was not only people of color who were targeted for being inferior, but also certain ethnic European groups, such as Italians, Jews, and Irish. As Dickstein writes in his book, Dancing in the Dark, the Jews in the neighborhood were kept in squalor and flea-infested tenements in the ghettos of New York City. Michael Gold is the author that he references in order to display and reveal how and why immigrants were able to adopt a Communistic economic belief. When you grow up in abject poverty, and see the world around you flourishing, it is no wonder Gold saw the world as a horrible, wretched, and most of all, unfair place to exist. “Fleas that not even a Jewish mother could exterminate,” Gold writes. In describing his tenement and the surrounding neighborhood, Gold is not only saying that it should be torn down and burned; he is explaining that the entire system needed to burn to the ground; the system of Capitalism. To Gold, poverty is not simply an economic fact but a soul-destroying malaise that infects its victims with hopelessness and depression (Dickstein, 31). When speaking of “soul-destroying” it reminds me of the Abolitionist movement and the Temperance movement. Many believed that slavery was more damaging and morbid to the white end of the whip than the receiver, and that it needed to be terminated for their own salvation, safety, and soul. Referring back to the poverty of the Depression Era, Dickstein writes, “The Depression was one of those moments of visibility, when many in the middle class were impoverished, too, and often proved less able to deal with it than the chronic poor” (Dickstein, 24). This too I believe to be true. The Depression wasn’t as hard on the poor because they had always been poor; they had little to nothing to lose. So, can we assume that the Jews in the ghettos of New York were simply victims of Capitalism, or were they the subjects of something grander, like Eugenics? Were these certain ethnic groups placed under poverty for a reason? Did the United States purposely subject them to poverty so they could use the excuse to sterilize them, or perhaps kill them? Was this worsening of the tenements and ghettos a precursor to their demise in Nazi Germany? Perhaps. One thing is for certain however; that Sanger, Shaw, Hitler, and to some extent, Charles Lindbergh all believed in the extermination of the undesirables and the purity of the human race to survive. While Lindbergh later said he regretted speaking against Jews so harshly in the 1930’s he is quoted as saying, “A few Jews add strength and character to a country. Too many create chaos, and we are getting too many” (Bryson, September, Summer’s End opening quote, 358). Lindbergh was the crown jewel of America, our Golden Boy. There was nothing outrageous or scandalous that he could say or do that would keep America from loving the first man to fly non-stop across the Atlantic—or was there? If we like someone personally it is always easy to forgive slurs that they may say against a race, ethnic group, or gender, so we didn’t really bat an eye to harshly at Lindbergh when he spoke out against flaws in humanity. But there was another, ugly dimension to Lindbergh’s rhetoric that would disgust his many critics – anti-Semitism. There was a running theme through many of his speeches that blamed the Jews for the outbreak of war in Europe (Callan). In a rough remembrance of one of Lindbergh’s quotes he says that the world has seen a Europe dominated by France and Great Britain, so why not have one dominated by Germany? The difference between dominating and living under Nazi rule is that France and Great Britain did not control and murder millions of their own citizens and aid in the extermination of millions of other lives in Communist countries. That is why Germany was never going to succeed, but they got scarily close to their realization of a new world order and the flourishing of a pure Aryan race. How was Hitler able to convince and control so many of his own people (and other leaders such as Stalin and Mussolini) that the Jews were to blame for the economic crisis? Well, some believe that it is easier to tell people an outright lie than a slight twist in the truth; that we are more likely to believe that something is one hundred percent evil rather than slightly evil because it displaces the blame on that person or item and offers the outlet to pursue your selfish agenda. Do not mistake my admiration of Hitler’s leadership and oratory skills as an admiration of the man and his vision, but rather a realization that words are the most valuable weapons—and they’re cost effective.
In conclusion, in developing and studying my case for Prohibition and Eugenics, and the failure of its regulation and realization, it is clear that human nature will always triumph. History repeats itself, and I have no doubt that there will one day be another push for an extermination of a particular race or ethnic group, but I hope that we can remember what happened during America’s Progressive Era and never let it happen again. We have to learn that human desires cannot be fully controlled or regulated, and must never be extinguished or punished, because that is just the nature of the world.
WORKS CITED
Blum, Deborah. The Chemist’s War: The little-told story of how the U.S. government poisoned alcohol during Prohibition with deadly consequences. Feb 2010. Web. 26 April 2014.
Bryson, Bill. One Summer America, 1927. New York. Penguin Random House Company. 2013. Print.
Callan, Paul. Charles Lindbergh. Hitler’s All-American Hero. 25 September 2010. Web. 27 April 2014. http://www.express.co.uk/expressyourself/201613/Charles-Lindbergh-Hitler-s-all-American-hero
Carrie and Emma Buck. 1924. Photograph. 19 April 2014. http://web3.encyclopediavirginia.org/resourcespace/filestore/1/5/1_8d1a6a9014d0c37/151pre_686abaf94aadf85.jpg.
Dickstein, Morris. Dancing in the Dark. New York. W.W. Norton & Company. 2009. Print.