Prohibition Amendments

Thirty-one years before the the Eighteenth Amendment was ratified, Judith Ellen Foster, an Iowa lawyer, leading temperance worker, and suffragist, wrote the “Constitutional Amendment Manual”. The 1888 “how-to” contained “argument, appeal, petitions, forms of constitution, catechism and general directions for organized work.” Foster articulated a twofold purpose behind constitutional prohibition, declaring that “the primary object of this legislation on the side of the individual, is to protect the young men from the allurements of the saloon…it is the duty of the State to remove temptation from the inebriate.” Foster believed that liquor posed an “imminent danger to the life of the State” and that “the traffic ought to be wholly destroyed which can only be done by entire legal prohibition” (Foster 15-16). Foster’s manual illustrates the religious zeal behind constitutional prohibition, with its larger goal of promoting moral reform in the United States.

The use of the amendment process to promote moral reform is also seen in the God and anti-polygamy amendments. All three groups of amendments are indicative of a belief that the federal government should take a larger role in legislating the private behavior of citizens (Kyvig 226). The chart below reflects the singular emphasis on both bills and petitions supporting prohibition, as compared to other such amendments. Between the years 1910 and 1930, illsub amendments far outstrip any other kinds of amendments proposed in petitions to Congress.

Number of Illegal Substance-Related Amendments vs. All Other Amendments, By Year

Except for the establishment of the Prohibition Party in 1869, the prohibition crusade took place outside of the national political establishment. Amend data demonstrates that the popular demand for prohibition regularly attracted the attention of Congress. The first illsub petition in Amend data was proposed by Mr Palmer from Iowa, in favor of what was then the “proposed 16th amendment”—namely, prohibition. The first illsub bill in the Amend data was introduced by Representative Henry William Blair (NH-R) in 1876.

Overall, increasing numbers of petitions almost always directly correlated to spikes in bill proposals from representatives. While the ratio between two remains somewhat consistent, Amend data highlights the importance of individuals and citizen-led organizations in urging constitutional change on prohibition. Our data shows that petitions relating to prohibition spiked in the 50th congressional session, around 20 years after the Civil War, during which almost 250 petitions relating to prohibition were recorded. In this congressional session, however, only two bills contained amendments calling for the prohibition of alcohol.

Number of Illegal Substance-Related Bills and Petitions (Separated)

Mounting pressure, in the form of petitions between the 63rd and 64th congressional sessions, translated into congressional action that culminated in the 18th amendment, which was sent to the states in the 65th congressional session. In both the 63rd and 64th sessions, there were close to 856 petitions on the prohibition question, and this was matched by similar increases in amendments proposed in bills between the 63rd and 64th sessions. The ratification of the prohibition amendment by the states during the subsequent 65th congressional session intersected with the entrance of the United States into World War I. This relationship was not incidental—the efforts to “keep intoxicants from soldiers by banning sales near military bases” reflected the “reviling of all things German, including beer and schnapps” (Kyvig 224).

In addition to wartime political incentives, the movement for Prohibition was inextricably connected to that of woman suffrage. Susan B. Anthony—an earnest temperance crusader—rendered an early diagnosis of the misogyny replete in the anti-alcohol movement quickly compelled her to found her own separate women's anti-drink organization, thus spawning a rich catalog of groups that advocated for both women’s suffrage and anti-liquor amendments (Kyvig 226).

From the 1870s onwards, “mutual support” developed between the temperance and women’s rights crusades. For instance, a 1907 petition from the Wisconsin Woman's Christian Temperance Union stated its opposition against disenfranchisement of citizens of United States on account of sex-to the Committee on the Judiciary. On the other hand, women’s groups—such as the National League of Women Voters in a 1926 petition—protested against modification of the ratified prohibition amendment “demanding more stringent enforcement of the law, and recommending that officers in the Prohibition Unit be placed on civil service.”

Amendments with the equalgr1 tag in Amend data denote amendments that proposed equality irregardless of gender (including amendments relating to women’s suffrage). The number of equalgr1 proposals peaked right before the spike in prohibition amendments, perhaps setting the stage and cultivating a hospitable political environment for this crusade. The temporarily concurrent movements of women’s suffrage and prohibition occurred at a relatively active time for activity amending the U.S. Constitution, supporting a cross-movement belief in the amendment process as a tool for political change.

Calls for the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment steadily increased throughout the 1920s, largely as a result of dissatisfaction with organized crime and illegal alcohol sales that followed the amendment’s passage (Reagan Library). In the 72nd Congress, 92 bills called for its end. In the same congressional session, 1586 petitions called for the end of prohibition. This spike in the data gestures toward a burgeoning effort by congressional representatives and constituents alike to end prohibition.

Number of Illsub Amendments vs. Equalgr1 Amendments, By Year

This unhappiness with prohibition would then “[spill] over onto the mechanism by which it had been brought into being”: the Article V state convention ratification process. Despite the passage of the 18th amendment being a testament to the Article V amendment process as an accessible tool for constitutional change, the 1920s, then, “did not become a decade of accelerating constitutional change”. In fact, since 1933, amendments were “significantly fewer in number and less sweeping in their influence,” indicative of a period of constitutional drought (Kyvig 241).

Ratified in 1933, the Twenty-first Amendment repealed the Eighteenth Amendment, marking the only time in American history that a constitutional amendment has ever been undone by another amendment. The Prohibition amendment is a testament to the dynamic nature of the U.S. Constitutional amendment process, and the ability for amendments later considered to have been mistakes be corrected through the political will of the American people.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Kyvig, David E. 2016. Explicit and Authentic Acts: Amending the U.S. Constitution, 1776–2015, with a New Afterword. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas.

McGirr, Lisa. 2016. The War on Alcohol: Prohibition and the Rise of the American State. First edition. New York; London: W.W. Norton & Company.

“Constitutional Amendments – Amendment 21 – ‘Repeal of Prohibition.’” Ronald Reagan, www.reaganlibrary.gov/constitutional-amendments-amendment-21-repeal-prohibition.