Prohibition in the USA

From 1920-33, making, selling or transporting alcoholic drinks was illegal in the USA. This is now referred to as prohibition and was the result of years of campaigning by many who felt that alcohol was having a derogatory effect on the country. Unfortunately, however, prohibition led to many adverse effects, and is widely considered to have been a failure.

Why was prohibition introduced?

1) To reduce crime, corruption, alcohol related problems.

2) People were starting to realise that alcohol was damaging to your health. (Heart attacks and liver disease.)

3) Labourers were missing work due to drunkenness and hangovers.

4) People were wasting family savings on alcohol rather than more useful things.

5) Prohibition was seen as an act of self-sacrifice for devout Christians.  

Many forms of Christianity, like Mormonism do not allow the consumption of alcohol.

As stated in the Bible “Don't be drunk with wine, because that will ruin your life. Instead, let the Holy Spirit fill and control you.”

6) There was a nationwide campaign headed by organizations like the ‘Anti-Saloon Organization’ to make prohibition law. This meant that a government that would pass laws of prohibition could win more votes.

7) In much of Europe, drinking and becoming drunk had become somewhat tradition and culture. Many Americans did not want this.

8) Many brewers in the USA were German, and just after WW1, people were generally hostile to these ‘alien enemies’. The Anti-Saloon League even went as far as saying that you were a traitor to the country if you drank beer.

How was a nation of people who drank regularly forced to stop drinking?

The actual act of drinking was not illegal.

The 18^th amendment to the constitution meant that:

Manufacture, importation or sale of alcohol was officially illegal.

There were two exceptions to the 18^th Amendment. You were still allowed to consume alcohol for medical and sacramental purposes. All of a sudden people felt the great urge to become religious. In the space of two years (1922 – 1924) the amount of wine bought to be used for sacramental purposes increased by 800, 000 gallons. Doctors reportedly earned $40 million by writing prescription for whisky in 1928.

Problems:

1. The Prohibition basically created the gangsters. Gangs of illegal alcohol traffickers (called gangsters), comparable to today's illegal drug crews, became common. They were able to charge a high price for smuggling alcohol into the country and thrived in these years.
2. European "rum fleets" appeared. Small boats would sail out to ships waiting in international waters and bring back large quantities of alcohol. The USA has 30 000 km of coastline and land borders so this was not hard to do. It was also very easy to smuggle alcohol from Canada or Mexico.
3. Prior to Prohibition, there were fewer than 15,000 legal bars in the United States. By 1927, however, thousands of venues were serving alcohol illegally across the whole country. Also approximately 100,000 people brewed alcohol illegally from home.
4. Political corruption exploded, as those who were profiting from illegal trafficking were able to provide corrupt officials with huge bribes. Police raided and trashed many vendors to stop their trade. Sometimes however, the police took their share of the whiskey they were supposed to break, and paid reporters to look the other way. Those who were caught selling or transporting illegal alcohol could easily bribe a police officer with either the illegal alcohol or with the money they had made with the illegal drinks.
5. People started making their own, homemade alcohol beverages. They didn’t know how to make them properly though and so they often ended up having far too much alcohol in them. This subsequently led to alcohol poisoning and even death.
6. It led many drinkers to switch to opium, marijuana, patent medicines, cocaine, and other dangerous substances that they would have been unlikely to encounter in the absence of Prohibition. Many average Americans became criminals during the age of Prohibition. They found innovative new ways to drink, produce and transport liquor. People used hip flasks, false books, coconut shells, hot water bottles and garden hoses to transport illegal liquor. One man was even caught hustling liquor over the border in two boxes of eggs.

Gangsters and Bootlegging:

Gangsters and Bootlegging were very closely related. Throughout the Prohibition the crime rate increased greatly. Bootleggers were people who made and sold their own whiskey. They were often also gangsters. One of the most famous of these gangsters was Al Capone. Capone's bootlegging operation earned him approximately 60 million dollars a year. One example of gang related crime was the St. Valentines’ Day Massacre, in which Capone's gang gunned down and killed seven members of "Bugs" Morgan's gang.

Speakeasies:

Speakeasies were opened in the 1920s as a way to get around the 18th Amendment. As many legitimate saloons closed as a result of the new law, many underground bars sprung up. These speakeasies were one of the many ways that people during the 1920s and early 1930s obtained illegal alcohol. By the middle of the 20s there were thought to be 32,000 speakeasies in New York City alone. Secret drinking was considered a glamorous thing, even at Washington parties. The owners of these speakeasies earned a lot of money, often enough to bribe policemen to look away whenever beer was being delivered.

Results:

Deaths caused by cirrhosis of the liver in men dropped significantly for men and women between 1911 and 1929.

On the other hand, adulterated or contaminated liquor contributed to more than 50,000 deaths and many cases of blindness and paralysis. Is fairly certain that this would not have happened in a country where liquor production was monitored and regulated.

According to official figures, alcohol consumption during Prohibition declined between 30 and 50 percent, although these figures may not be fully reliable.  

By the end of the 1920s, there were more alcoholics and illegal drinking establishments than before Prohibition.

A failure?

1) Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased.

2) Alcohol became more dangerous to consume; crime increased and became "organized"; the court and prison systems were stretched to the breaking point.

3) Corruption of public officials, law enforcement and other government workers increased.

 4) No measurable gains were made in productivity and absenteeism was not reduced.

5) Prohibition removed a significant source of tax revenue and greatly increased government spending. The brewing industry was ruined.

6) Many drinkers switched to opium, marijuana, patent medicines, cocaine, and other dangerous substances that they would have been unlikely to encounter in the absence of Prohibition.

How democratic was prohibition?

Many argue that the government cutting off the alcohol supply of America was undemocratic, removing peoples’ primary rights.

When the importation, manufacture and selling of alcohol was banned, many companies suffered considerably. In the brewing industry many jobs were lost.

Most people didn’t want prohibition. Was it right to have prohibition against their will?

Crime and gangsters tightened their deadly grip upon the US during the period of prohibition. The rise in crime during the period was largely due to the prohibition of alcohol.

Alcohol consumption did go down, however, and it can be argued that health standards improved, with fewer alcohol related diseases. Less money was spent on average on alcohol; the money was possibly used for more useful things.

Considering the huge campaign for prohibition in the early 20^th century, some believe it would not have been democratic for the government to not pass the 18^th amendment.

In the end, prohibition turned out to have been nothing more than an experiment, an experiment that didn’t work. Prohibition ended in 1933, and most saw this as a good thing.

The development of the Indian National Movement from 1900 to 1918

From 1900 and 1918 was a time of change in India. The once supreme British Raj began to show serious signs of weakness, and the people of India, under the direction of several key figures, began to push for independence. The following is a brief summary of the events in these years:

Lord Curzon:

·         Viceroy of India 1898-1905 (two terms).

·         Went to Eton.

·         Passionate about India and convinced that it was invaluable to the British Empire. ‘We have not the smallest intention of abandoning our Indian possessions.’

·         His unsuccessful policies in his latter term in office made the British far less popular in India.

·         Curzon aimed to make India more secure from invasion and to make the administration of India more efficient.

·         Frontier Policy: Curzon created a buffer zone between the densely populated Indo-Gangetic plain and the lawless north-western tribal areas (modern Afghanistan).

Britain had been engaged in a series of spying missions and skirmishes with Russia, which lay to the North for several decades (the Great Game).

A new frontier province was split from the Punjab – even today this province is not controlled directly by either Pakistan or India.

British territory was expanded north, into Russian and Chinese territory, causing tensions

Most importantly, Curzon, convinced that the Russians were occupying Tibet, ordered an expeditionary force to invade the country. This force annexed much of Tibet violently, severely damaging the British reputation.

·         Administration: Curzon lengthened the railway network by 10,000km and had 3 million hectares of new land irrigated. In 1904, he created a Criminal Investigation Department in each province to provide secret reports on Indian political activities – this received criticism from some British officials.

When he initiated an inquiry into Indian higher education with an inquiry committee that included no Indians, this caused anger. The 1904 Universities act aimed to restrict private colleges and bring universities under more centralised control – this was seen as an insult by the Indian middle classes.

Indian National Congress:

·         Founded in 1885 – originally a meeting of princes, intellectuals and gentlemen.

·         Had become popular with the middle classes by the 1900s.

·         As congress grew, the organising committee became more important, becoming the representatives of congress over the years.

·         Congress initially focused on establishing a small office and newspaper in London to convey its demands to the British.

·         The capital of British India was Calcutta, in Bengal, the most important province.

·         Many educated and ambitious Indians were frustrated because they were unable to gain entry into the Indian Civil Service.

Partition of Bengal:

·         Bengal had a population of 78 million, twice that of Britain.

·         It often experienced famines and unrest because of the high population density.

·         Administration of the huge province was very difficult, and Curzon sought a solution to make it more manageable.

·         Curzon was also threatened by the growing influence of Congress in Bengal, and thought that dividing the province could split the party up into separate ‘centres of activity’. This was a classic example of ‘divide and rule’.

·         His plan to divide Bengal into two provinces, West and East Bengal was approved by the secretary of state.

·         Bengal was thus divided in October 1905, without any formal consultation with Congress or in fact any Indian body

·         West Bengal was a majority Hindu province, East Bengal had a Muslim majority.

Reaction:

·         Hindus outraged by the creation of a majority Muslim province with equal status to West Bengal.

·         West Bengal merged with Bihar and Orissa – Bengalis themselves were now a minority in West Bengal.

·         Muslims were initially delighted because they were provided with a strong power base.

·         Congress headed a national protest movement which was dominated by the middle classes, involving the aristocrats less than previous movements.

Three main avenues of protest:

·         Newspaper articles, petition and letters.

·         Swadesh: Boycott of British goods – created a feeling of national unity and self-respect. (Possibly inspired by the ‘white mutiny’ which followed the Ilbert Bill).

·         Terrorism: Terrorist activity increased in Bengal – 1908: two European women killed by a bomb in Bengal – 1909: India Office official shot in London by a Punjabi. This caused tension within congress – many did not believe in such violence.

Results:

·         Curzon ended his second term very unpopular.

·         Those who had been against pushing for independence now changed sides and joined the campaign for independence.

·         Muslims saw the anger that had arose because of the deliberate creation of a Muslim majority province – this caused much anxiety about how they would be treated in a Hindu dominated independent India.

Gopal Krishna Gokhale (1866-1915):

·         Born into a Brahmin family.

·         Admired the British Raj – wanted to use it to improve India.

·         Wanted self-government, but only if accompanied by social reform and better education.

·         Appealed to the cautious middle classes.

·         Worked closely with the British liberal government.

·         Leadership of Congress ensured prevalence of the moderate view.

Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1856-1920):

·         Born into Brahmin family.

·         Studied law.

·         Inspired by the rebellious Marathas – created new festivals to celebrate Hindu leaders.

·         Wanted India to achieve full independence – not so interested in social reform.

·         Appealed to the masses – favoured direct action.

·         After deportation to Burma in 1908, he was changed greatly, becoming far less radical.

Congress splits:

·         1906 Congress in Calcutta – moderates, led by Gokhale, afraid of radicalism, did some manoeuvring to get an ageing, moderate president elected.

·         1907 Congress scheduled for Nagpur, a city sympathetic to the radicals (led by Tilak).

·         Moderates switched the venue to Surat, a moderate power base, at the last minute. They proposed to change the constitution of the Congress so that members would have to accept the ultimate goal as self-government within the British Empire, not full independence. This would basically make it impossible for radicals to be Congress members.

·         The 1907 congress saw the election of another moderate president. Proceedings became incredibly heated, with much shouting and interrupting. Eventually a full-scale brawl broke out. Proceedings were abandoned as the police arrived.

·         The moderates met in private the next day, electing a convention committee which rapidly approved a new constitution requiring acceptance of self-government within the British Empire.

·         For the next decade, the radicals were excluded from Congress. Several radical leaders, including Tilak, were deported.

The Simla Delegation:

·         Muslims were convinced that Hindus would dominate if India was given any self-governing powers (because of the Hindu reaction to the creation of East Bengal).

·         Curzon’s successor, Lord Minto and the new Liberal government had indicated that reforms were being considered.

·         Seventy Muslim leaders travelled to Simla in October 1906 to propose separate electorates for Muslims in any future reforms.

·         Minto responded favourably, seen by some as part of the ‘divide and rule’ policy.

All-India Muslim League

·         Created in Dacca, Bengal, in December 1906 by Nawab Viqar-ul-Mulq as a result of the Simla delegation’s success.

·         Little more than a middle class debating society for many years, but by 1916 it was important enough to negotiate the Lucknow Pact with Congress.

Morley-Minto Reforms:

·         New liberal government believed the gulf between the rulers and their subjects had grown too large.

·         Few of mutiny led to an increase in the number of police informers.

·         1908 – Royal Commission on Decentralisation created to recommend administrative improvements. It recommended an increase in the number of Indians in the councils of Indian administration.

·         Reforms sculpted by Lord Minto, the Viceroy and John Morley, the secretary of state.

·         Although many had high hopes for Morley, who had pushed for Irish home rule in the 1880s, he made it clear that self-government for India was not in the foreseeable future.

·         1909 Indian Councils Act: Changes made to provincial, central and executive legislative councils. Indian members would be elected indirectly – organisations and groups recommended a number of candidates to a council. Although these recommendations were never rejected, there was no system of direct election to the councils. The total elected membership of all councils was just 135 (up from 39) and the constituencies were very small.

·         The reforms aimed to bring in a better cross-section of public opinion.

Consequences:

·         Congress protested.

·         The Muslims, on the other hand, were satisfied as council seats were reserved specifically for Muslims as well as other groups like universities.

·         Laid foundations for the partition movement.

·         Councils were still only advisory – their recommendations could simply be ignored.

·         It became clear that very little had actually changed – in 1917 only 24 of the 168 submitted resolutions were accepted.

·         The reforms had, however, created official opposition to the British in the form of the new council members.

Further Changes:

·         In 1911, Bengal was reunited, pleasing Hindus but disappointing many Muslims.

·         The capital of India was at the same time transferred to Delhi, the old Mughal capital, providing some consolation for Muslims.

World War One:

·         Most Indians supported Britain in WW1 – thousands volunteered for military service.

·         The war made it apparent that Britain was not the supreme global empire.

·         The British alliance with Russia meant that India was fairly secure, but the possibility of Russian invasion, were the British to be defeated, terrified Indians and encouraged them to support the British cause.

·         Many hoped that the war would weaken Britain, making it more willing to make concessions.

·         Numerous Indian regiments experienced the horrors of the Western Front – the carnage of trench warfare proved that Europeans were no more civilised and no less violent than their colonial subjects.

·         The conflict between various European leaders, many of whom were related, seemed to some to resemble the local fighting in India between Hindus and Muslims. The British lost the moral high-ground.

·         The main campaign in which Indian troops were involved was the Mesopotamia campaign – Indian troops invaded this area of the Ottoman Empire from Bahrain, and after much initial success, the British found themselves over-extended, having advanced too far along the Tigris in a badly planned attempt to capture Baghdad. This advanced force was encircled and forced to surrender at Kut, but a secondary British offensive did succeed in capturing Baghdad.

·         Many Indians were angered by the campaign nicknamed ‘the Mess Pot’ – the troops were under-equipped and in some cases very badly led. Indian industry was not ready to produce the necessary weapons and vehicles and Britain was reluctant to divert supplies from the European war.

·         Overall, WW1 moderated attitudes. India was overriding loyal, although the growing sense of nationalism was furthered by Indian pride in their contributions to the war.

Ghadr:

·         Some Indians saw the war as an opportunity, and there were a series of mutinies.

·         In the winter of 1914 there were two mutinies of Pathans (people from North-West India/Pakistan/Afghanistan) who feared the possibility of being led by Muslim officers.

·         Indian troops in Singapore mutinied, killing a number of European civilians upon hearing that they were to be dispatched to the Western Front. This was crushed, with 37 ringleaders being publicly executed.

·         In early 1914, the Japanese steamer Komagata Maru carried over 300 Sikhs from Malaya to Canada but was refused entry due to immigration laws and sent back to Calcutta. When it arrived in September 1914, the war had begun and the Sikhs were arrested and taken to a holding camp. This was because of a growing community of anti-British Indians living in the Canadian province of British Colombia. The name of this movement was Ghadr, meaning ‘mutiny’. Its newspaper, called Ghadr, was widely distributed in America and the East and declared itself as ‘enemy of the British government.

·         Attempting to escape, 22 were shot. The rest were imprisoned, aggravating the people of the Punjab.

·         Consequently, British secret police activity in the Punjab increased, breaking up a planned uprising in 1915. Five thousand Ghadrites were arrested and 46 hanged.

·         This was a serious blow to the British, the Punjab having traditionally been one of the most loyal areas.

Home rule leagues:

·         Two home rule leagues launched in 1916, one by ex-Congress radical Tilak and one by 69 year old British woman Annie Beasant.

·         Took inspiration from Irish home rule campaigns (Irish home rule was inevitable after the war).

·         Congress had not been campaigning for home rule, so Beasant tried to revive it. She discovered, however, that Congress was not at all supportive of the home rule movement.

·         The term ‘home rule’ was adopted because it was deemed to be more familiar to the British than words like ‘swaraj’. It would only involve self management of domestic policy – Britain would still control defence and foreign policy. Beasant called it ‘freedom without separation.’

·         Tilak’s Home Rule League for India soon had 32,000 members, although it was focussed only on the regions of Maharashtra and Karnataka.

·         Beasant’s All India Home Rule League was smaller but covered most of India.

·         The two joined each other’s organisations and toured the country, instilling a public reaction that congress had never been able to achieve.

·         Muslims and lower-caste Hindus were wary, afraid of a Brahmin Hindu dominated state.

·         Caused much concern – Official report: ‘Moderate leaders can command no support among the vocal classes who are being led at the heels of Tilak and Beasant.’

·         The British ordered for home rule campaigners to be arrested where possible. Students were forbidden from discussing home rule in meetings. Tilak was arrested and required to pay a 40,000 rupee deposit in promise of ‘good behaviour’. Beasant was actually imprisoned without trial.

·         These decisions were a mistake, convincing many moderates to join the home rule campaigns. The Viceroy wrote that the campaign was ‘attracting many of those who hitherto have held less advanced groups.’

The Montagu Declaration, August 1917:

·         This was the British response, issued on 20 August 1917 a declaration which appeared to promise eventual home rule.

·         Named after secretary of state Montagu, it succeeded in calming the hoe rule movement without making any concrete promises.

·         It stated the intention of there being ‘a progressive realisation of responsible government in India as part of the British Empire.’ This seemed to suggest that reform would take a long time, although the promise of ‘self-governing institutions’ clearly implied that an Indian parliament would be created.

·         Having been freed, Beasant was elected President of Congress in December 1917. She was reluctant to support boycott or resistance campaigns, and the home rule campaign soon lost momentum.

·         The campaign but it was the first real mass national movement, although in the end, it failed to achieve home rule. Its failure did, however, make many more willing to take more direct action, which may have assisted Gandhi in his campaigns of the 1920s.

By the end of WW1, the foundations had been laid for the Indian Nationalist Movement to begin in earnest. The years 1900-1918 had been critical years for the future of India.