thesis on prohibition

• Asian Pacific American History
• Women's History
• Collections

100 years later, do we think Prohibition was good for the nation?

January 17, 1920, was an important day in American history. Why? Because on that day the grand social experiment called Prohibition was first enforced. The Volstead Act, the law that put enforcement teeth into the Eighteenth Amendment, banning intoxicating beverages, went into effect. The transformation of the nation from an alcoholic republic to a dry state created a surprising list of winners and losers.

Let’s start with the obvious people who lost out: drinkers, especially working-class immigrants. Temperance advocates worried about immigrant men who gathered—and drank—in saloons. “Alien illiterates rule our cities today; the saloon is their palace,” proclaimed prominent Prohibitionist Frances Willard. Of course many temperance advocates had a double standard; a drink for themselves with dinner was good manners, but booze for others (especially working-class people) was dangerous.

The increasing number of immigrants, and their bars, was a source of race- and class-based fear for many white middle- and upper-class people born in the United States.  By 1900, there were 300,000 saloons across the nation (one for every three hundred citizens), and they were heavily concentrated in urban areas. The neighborhood drinking establishment was where working-class men aired grievances, organized politically, and found jobs. The patrons, speaking their native languages (such as German, Croatian, and Italian, among others), worried Temperance advocates who feared the saloon customers were socialists or communists and perhaps fomenting political upheaval. To save America, the saloon must go.

While Prohibition may have killed saloon culture, it didn’t end the consumption of alcohol. Working-class men moved their drinking from saloons into their homes, private halls, “athletic clubs,” and illicit bars. Affluent Americans also continued to drink. Famed Chicago mob boss Al Capone was reported to have said “When I sell liquor, it is bootlegging. . . . When my patrons serve it on a silver tray on Lake Shore Drive, it is hospitality.”

One unexpected downside of Prohibition was its impact on the health of the nation. While alcohol consumption initially decreased after implementation of the Volstead Act, working-class consumers soon turned to alternative forms of alcohol, not all of which were safe. Patent medicine and over-the-counter goods with a high percentage of alcohol (even hair tonic) were consumed for off-label purposes. 

Tainted alcohol was an even bigger problem—especially for poor people. Alcohol is an important industrial chemical, and large quantities are produced for use as solvents in paint, antifreeze, and other non-potable substances. Industrial alcohol is not taxed like drinking alcohol and is denatured (purposely adulterated) to make it unattractive for human consumption. During Prohibition, denatured ethyl alcohol and deadly methyl alcohol found their way into the U.S. beverage stream. Many people got sick and some died from unregulated and tainted alcohol.

Retailers and producers of alcohol also lost out during Prohibition. Closing saloons was not only a blow for men who frequented the drinking establishments, but meant a significant loss of business in immigrant communities. Of all licensed saloons, 80% were owned by first-generation Americans.

Some beer producers turned to legal nonalcoholic beverages, but with only limited success. Others made ice cream, cheese, ceramics, and even homebrewing supplies . Vintners and distillers had different options. Since the United States has a large religious population, the Volstead Act allowed for the production and shipment of sacramental wine . Sales went up with Prohibition, essentially making some priests and rabbis bootleggers. A 1925 report by the Department of Research and Education of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ angrily reported that “there is no way of knowing what the legitimate consumption of fermented sacramental wine is, but it is clear that the legitimate demand does not increase 800,000 gallons in two years.”

Most distillers closed their operations during Prohibition, but another loophole in the Volstead Act allowed for the sale of medical whiskey. While medicinal whiskey had been sold by pharmacies for years, sales skyrocketed during Prohibition. Affluent customers could afford the three-dollar physician visit to get a prescription for legally purchasing their whiskey. In general, however, alcohol producers and retailers took a financial loss during Prohibition.

But, not all sellers of alcohol took a loss. The amount of money to be made in bootlegging was astronomical. Booze is big business. According to United States Attorney Emory Buckner, bootleg liquor sales in 1926 amounted to $3.6 billion. That was about the same as the U.S. federal budget at the time. Bootlegging was an opportunity for entrepreneurial criminals to become fast millionaires. But smuggling, transporting, and distributing large amounts of alcohol was complicated. Criminals organized national operations to manage and conduct their business. Where crime had once been local, the Volstead Act inadvertently promoted the development of organized crime. And competition between rival operations soon became violent.

Despite Prohibition, many Americans chose to flout the law and continue consuming alcohol at home or in illicit bars. Making matters worse, the poorly paid Prohibition officers hired to enforce the Volstead Act often found lucrative opportunities in criminal sales of alcohol. The resulting rise in government graft and corruption led to a lack of respect for authority that continued after Prohibition was repealed. 

Who were the winners during Prohibition? One was quick meals. As saloons closed during the first decade of Prohibition, the number of restaurants in the country tripled, and eating patterns changed with the rise of quick meals. Luncheonettes, cafeterias, and soda fountains sprang up in largely urban neighborhoods catering to middle-class and lower-middle-class workers.

Women helped win the argument for Prohibition. White protestant women were the principle advocates for Prohibition. Groups like the Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) and the Anti-Saloon League made a moral argument, claiming that men squandered money on drunkenness, putting their wives and children at risk. Women’s and family rights were recognized and protected to a degree by Prohibition. More importantly, these activist groups not only won their argument when Prohibition became law, they developed skills and expectations that applied to another cause: woman suffrage. In general, the 1920s was an era of increased rights for women (although to different degrees). 

The ultimate loser in the tale of Prohibition was the Eighteenth Amendment itself. Andrew Volstead, author of the Prohibition enforcement act, was defeated in 1922 in his bid for an 11th term in Congress. Widespread unemployment and the economic chaos of the Great Depression fueled political upheaval. The 1932 elections swept many “wets” (politicians opposed to Prohibition) into office. Widely considered unenforceable and a failure, the Volstead Act and the Eighteenth Amendment were repealed by passage and ratification of the Twenty-First Amendment in 1933. The effort for a government-led common good (Prohibition) was replaced by a public desire for a good time. Americans could legally drink again. 

Peter Liebhold is a co-curator of the American Enterprise exhibition in the Mars Hall of American Business.  

Related Stories

Prohibition was fantastic for American beer, or, cheers to homebrewers

Grape gluts and Mother Clones: Prohibition and American wine

Jimmy Carter: American homebrew hero?

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Am J Public Health
• v.96(2); Feb 2006

Did Prohibition Really Work? Alcohol Prohibition as a Public Health Innovation

Jack s. blocker, jr.

The author is with the Department of History, Huron University College, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.

The conventional view that National Prohibition failed rests upon an historically flimsy base. The successful campaign to enact National Prohibition was the fruit of a century-long temperance campaign, experience of which led prohibitionists to conclude that a nationwide ban on alcohol was the most promising of the many strategies tried thus far. A sharp rise in consumption during the early 20th century seemed to confirm the bankruptcy of alternative alcohol-control programs.

The stringent prohibition imposed by the Volstead Act, however, represented a more drastic action than many Americans expected. Nevertheless, National Prohibition succeeded both in lowering consumption and in retaining political support until the onset of the Great Depression altered voters’ priorities. Repeal resulted more from this contextual shift than from characteristics of the innovation itself.

PROBABLY FEW GAPS between scholarly knowledge and popular conventional wisdom are as wide as the one regarding National Prohibition. “Everyone knows” that Prohibition failed because Americans did not stop drinking following ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment and passage of its enforcement legislation, the Volstead Act. If the question arises why Americans adopted such a futile measure in the first place, the unnatural atmosphere of wartime is cited. Liquor’s illegal status furnished the soil in which organized crime flourished. The conclusive proof of Prohibition’s failure is, of course, the fact that the Eighteenth Amendment became the only constitutional amendment to be repealed.

Historians have shown, however, that National Prohibition was no fluke, but rather the fruit of a century-long series of temperance movements springing from deep roots in the American reform tradition. Furthermore, Americans were not alone during the first quarter of the 20th century in adopting prohibition on a large scale: other jurisdictions enacting similar measures included Iceland, Finland, Norway, both czarist Russia and the Soviet Union, Canadian provinces, and Canada’s federal government. 1 A majority of New Zealand voters twice approved national prohibition but never got it. As a result of 100 years of temperance agitation, the American cultural climate at the time Prohibition went into effect was deeply hostile to alcohol, and this antagonism manifested itself clearly through a wave of successful referenda on statewide prohibition.

Although organized crime flourished under its sway, Prohibition was not responsible for its appearance, as organized crime’s post-Repeal persistence has demonstrated. Drinking habits underwent a drastic change during the Prohibition Era, and Prohibition’s flattening effect on per capita consumption continued long after Repeal, as did a substantial hard core of popular support for Prohibition’s return. Repeal itself became possible in 1933 primarily because of a radically altered economic context—the Great Depression. Nevertheless, the failure of National Prohibition continues to be cited without contradiction in debates over matters ranging from the proper scope of government action to specific issues such as control of other consciousness-altering drugs, smoking, and guns.

We historians collectively are partly to blame for this gap. We simply have not synthesized from disparate studies a compelling alternative to popular perception. 2 Nevertheless, historians are not entirely culpable for prevalent misunderstanding; also responsible are changed cultural attitudes toward drinking, which, ironically, Prohibition itself helped to shape. Thinking of Prohibition as a public health innovation offers a potentially fruitful path toward comprehending both the story of the dry era and the reasons why it continues to be misunderstood.

TEMPERANCE THOUGHT BEFORE NATIONAL PROHIBITION

Although many prohibitionists were motivated by religious faith, American temperance reformers learned from an early point in their movement’s history to present their message in ways that would appeal widely to citizens of a society characterized by divergent and clashing scriptural interpretations. Temperance, its advocates promised, would energize political reform, promote community welfare, and improve public health. Prohibitionism, which was inherently political, required even more urgent pressing of such claims for societal improvement. 3 Through local contests in communities across the nation, liquor control in general and Prohibition in particular became the principal stage on which Americans confronted public health issues, long before public health became a field of professional endeavor.

By the beginning of the 20th century, prohibitionists agreed that a powerful liquor industry posed the greatest threat to American society and that only Prohibition could prevent Americans from falling victim to its seductive wiles. These conclusions were neither willful nor arbitrary, as they had been reached after three quarters of a century of experience. Goals short of total abstinence from all that could intoxicate and less coercive means—such as self-help, mutual support, medical treatment, and sober recreation—had been tried and, prohibitionists agreed, had been found wanting. 4

For prohibitionists, as for other progressives, the only battleground where a meaningful victory might be won was the collective: the community, the state, or the nation. The Anti-Saloon League (ASL), which won leadership of the movement after 1905, was so focused on Prohibition that it did not even require of its members a pledge of personal abstinence. Battles fought on public ground certainly heightened popular awareness of the dangers of alcohol. In the mass media before 1920, John Barleycorn found few friends. Popular fiction, theater, and the new movies rarely represented drinking in positive terms and consistently portrayed drinkers as flawed characters. Most family magazines, and even many daily newspapers, rejected liquor ads. 5 New physiological and epidemiological studies published around the turn of the century portrayed alcohol as a depressant and plausibly associated its use with crime, mental illness, and disease. The American Medical Association went on record in opposition to the use of alcohol for either beverage or therapeutic purposes. 6 But most public discourse on alcohol centered on its social, not individual, effects. 7

The only significant exception was temperance education in the schools. By 1901, every state required that its schools incorporate “Scientific Temperance Instruction” into the curriculum, and one half of the nation’s school districts further mandated use of a textbook that portrayed liquor as invariably an addictive poison. But even as it swept through legislative chambers, the movement to indoctrinate children in temperance ideology failed to carry with it the educators on whose cooperation its success in the classrooms depended; teachers tended to regard Scientific Temperance Instruction as neither scientific nor temperate. After 1906, temperance instruction became subsumed within more general lessons on hygiene, and hygiene classes taught that the greatest threats to health were environmental and the proper responses were correspondingly social, not individual. 8

By the time large numbers of voters were confronted with a choice whether or not to support a prohibitionist measure or candidate for office, public discourse over alcohol had produced a number of prohibitionist supporters who were not themselves abstainers. That is, they believed that it was a good idea to control someone else’s drinking (perhaps everyone else’s), but not their own. A new study of cookbooks and etiquette manuals suggests that this was likely the case for middle-class women, the most eager recruits to the prohibition cause, who were gaining the vote in states where prohibition referenda were boosting the case for National Prohibition. In addition to the considerable alcoholic content of patent medicines, which women and men (and children) were unknowingly ingesting, women were apparently serving liquor in their recipes and with meals. In doing so, they were forging a model of domestic consumption in contrast to the mode of public drinking adopted by men in saloons and clubs. 9

Self-control lay at the heart of the middle-class self-image, and middle-class prohibitionists simply acted on the prejudices of their class when they voted to close saloons while allowing drinking to continue in settings they considered to be respectable. Some state prohibition laws catered to such sentiments when they prohibited the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages, but allowed importation and consumption. 10 A brisk mail-order trade flourished in many dry communities. Before 1913, federal law and judicial decisions in fact prevented states from interfering with the flow of liquor across their borders. When Congress acted in 1913, the Webb–Kenyon Act only forbade importation of liquor into a dry state when such commerce was banned by the law of that state. 11

WHY NATIONAL PROHIBITION?

At the beginning of the 20th century, wet and dry forces had reached a stalemate. Only a handful of states maintained statewide prohibition, and enforcement of prohibitory law was lax in some of those. Dry territory expanded through local option, especially in the South, but this did not mean that drinking came to a halt in towns or counties that adopted local prohibition; such laws aimed to stop manufacture or sale (or both), not consumption. 12 During the previous half-century, beer’s popularity had soared, surpassing spirits as the principal source of alcohol in American beverages, but, because of beer’s lower alcohol content, ethanol consumption per capita had changed hardly at all. 13 Both drinking behavior and the politics of drink, however, changed significantly after the turn of the century when the ASL assumed leadership of the prohibition movement.

Between 1900 and 1913, Americans began to drink more and more. Beer production jumped from 1.2 billion to 2 billion gallons (4.6 billion to 7.6 billion liters), and the volume of tax-paid spirits grew from 97 million to 147 million gallons (367 million to 556 million liters). Per capita consumption of ethanol increased by nearly a third, a significant spike over such a short period of time. 14

Meanwhile, the area under prohibition steadily expanded as a result of local-option and statewide prohibition campaigns. Between 1907 and 1909, 6 states entered the dry column. By 1912, however, prohibitionist momentum on these fronts slowed, as the liquor industry began a political counteroffensive. In the following year, the ASL, encouraged by congressional submission to its demands in passing the Webb–Kenyon Act, launched a campaign for a prohibition constitutional amendment.

The best explanation for this decision is simply that National Prohibition had long been the movement’s goal. The process of constitutional amendment in the same year the ASL launched its campaign both opened the way to a federal income tax and mandated direct election of US senators (the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments), seemed to be the most direct path to that goal. 15 Its supporters expected that the campaign for an amendment would be long and that the interval between achievement of the amendment and their eventual object would also be lengthy. Ultimately, drinkers with entrenched habits would die off, while a new generation would grow up abstinent under the salubrious influence of prohibition. 16 ASL leaders also needed to demonstrate their militance to ward off challenges from intramovement rivals, and the route to a constitutional amendment lay through state and national legislatures, where their method of pressuring candidates promised better results than seeking popular approval through a referendum in every state. 17

Once the prohibition movement decided to push for a constitutional amendment, it had to negotiate the tortuous path to ratification. The fundamental requirement was sufficient popular support to convince federal and state legislators that voting for the amendment would help rather than hurt their electoral chances. The historical context of the Progressive Era provided 4 levers with which that support might be engineered, and prohibitionists manipulated them effectively. First, the rise in annual ethanol consumption to 2.6 US gallons (9.8 liters) per capita of the drinking-age population, the highest level since the Civil War, did create a real public health problem. 18 Rates of death diagnosed as caused by liver cirrhosis (15 per 100000 total population) and chronic alcoholism (10 per 100000 adult population) were high during the early years of the 20th century. 19

Second, the political turbulence of the period—a growing socialist movement and bitter struggles between capitalists and workers—made prohibition seem less radical by contrast. 20 Third, popular belief in moral law and material progress, trust in science, support for humanitarian causes and for “uplift” of the disadvantaged, and opposition to “plutocracy” offered opportunities to align prohibitionism with progressivism. 21 Concern for public health formed a central strand of the progressive ethos, and, as one historian notes, “the temperance and prohibition movements can . . . be understood as part of a larger public health and welfare movement active at that time that viewed environmental interventions as an important means of promoting the public health and safety.” 22 Finally, after a fleeting moment of unity, the alliance between brewers and distillers to repel prohibitionist attacks fell apart. 23 The widespread local battles fought over the previous 20 years brought new support to the cause, and the ASL’s nonpartisan, balance-of-power method worked effectively. 24

The wartime atmosphere during the relatively brief period of American participation in World War I played a minor role in bringing on National Prohibition. Anti-German sentiment, shamelessly whipped up and exploited by the federal government to rally support for the war effort, discredited a key antiprohibitionist organization, the German-American Alliance. A federal ban on distilling, adopted to conserve grain, sapped the strength of another major wet player, the spirits industry. 25 But most prohibition victories at the state level and in congressional elections were won before the United States entered the war, and the crucial ratification votes occurred after the war’s end. 26

In sum, although the temperance movement was a century old when the Eighteenth Amendment was adopted, and National Prohibition had been a goal for many prohibitionists for half that long, its achievement came about as a product of a specific milieu. Few reform movements manage to win a constitutional amendment. Nevertheless, that achievement, which seemed at the time so permanent—no constitutional amendment had ever before been repealed—was vulnerable to shifts in the context on which it depended.

PUBLIC HEALTH CONSEQUENCES OF PROHIBITION

We forget too easily that Prohibition wiped out an industry. In 1916, there were 1300 breweries producing full-strength beer in the United States; 10 years later there were none. Over the same period, the number of distilleries was cut by 85%, and most of the survivors produced little but industrial alcohol. Legal production of near beer used less than one tenth the amount of malt, one twelfth the rice and hops, and one thirtieth the corn used to make full-strength beer before National Prohibition. The 318 wineries of 1914 became the 27 of 1925. 27 The number of liquor wholesalers was cut by 96% and the number of legal retailers by 90%. From 1919 to 1929, federal tax revenues from distilled spirits dropped from $365 million to less than $13 million, and revenue from fermented liquors from $117 million to virtually nothing. 28

The Coors Brewing Company turned to making near beer, porcelain products, and malted milk. Miller and Anheuser-Busch took a similar route. 29 Most breweries, wineries, and distilleries, however, closed their doors forever. Historically, the federal government has played a key role in creating new industries, such as chemicals and aerospace, but very rarely has it acted decisively to shut down an industry. 30 The closing of so many large commercial operations left liquor production, if it were to continue, in the hands of small-scale domestic producers, a dramatic reversal of the normal course of industrialization.

Such industrial and economic devastation was unexpected before the introduction of the Volstead Act, which followed adoption of the Eighteenth Amendment. The amendment forbade the manufacture, transportation, sale, importation, and exportation of “intoxicating” beverages, but without defining the term. The Volstead Act defined “intoxicating” as containing 0.5% or more alcohol by volume, thereby prohibiting virtually all alcoholic drinks. The brewers, who had expected beer of moderate strength to remain legal, were stunned, but their efforts to overturn the definition were unavailing. 31 The act also forbade possession of intoxicating beverages, but included a significant exemption for custody in one’s private dwelling for the sole use of the owner, his or her family, and guests. In addition to private consumption, sacramental wine and medicinal liquor were also permitted.

The brewers were probably not the only Americans to be surprised at the severity of the regime thus created. Voters who considered their own drinking habits blameless, but who supported prohibition to discipline others, also received a rude shock. That shock came with the realization that federal prohibition went much farther in the direction of banning personal consumption than all local prohibition ordinances and many state prohibition statutes. National Prohibition turned out to be quite a different beast than its local and state cousins.

Nevertheless, once Prohibition became the law of the land, many citizens decided to obey it. Referendum results in the immediate post-Volstead period showed widespread support, and the Supreme Court quickly fended off challenges to the new law. Death rates from cirrhosis and alcoholism, alcoholic psychosis hospital admissions, and drunkenness arrests all declined steeply during the latter years of the 1910s, when both the cultural and the legal climate were increasingly inhospitable to drink, and in the early years after National Prohibition went into effect. They rose after that, but generally did not reach the peaks recorded during the period 1900 to 1915. After Repeal, when tax data permit better-founded consumption estimates than we have for the Prohibition Era, per capita annual consumption stood at 1.2 US gallons (4.5 liters), less than half the level of the pre-Prohibition period. 32

Prohibition affected alcoholic beverages differently. Beer consumption dropped precipitously. Distilled spirits made a dramatic comeback in American drinking patterns, reversing a three-quarters-of-a-century decline, although in volume spirits did not reach its pre-Prohibition level. Small-scale domestic producers gave wine its first noticeable, though small, contribution to overall alcohol intake, as wine-grape growers discovered that the Volstead Act failed to ban the production and sale of grape concentrate (sugary pulp that could be rehydrated and fermented to make wine). 33

UNINTENDED AND UNEXPECTED CONSEQUENCES

Unexpected prosperity for wine-grape growers was not the only unintended consequence of National Prohibition. Before reviewing other unexpected outcomes, however, it is important to list the ways in which National Prohibition did fulfill prohibitionists’ expectations. The liquor industry was virtually destroyed, and this created an historic opportunity to socialize rising generations in a lifestyle in which alcohol had no place. To some degree, such socialization did take place, and the lessened consumption of the Prohibition Era reflects that. Although other forces contributed to its decline, Prohibition finished off the old-time saloon, with its macho culture and links to urban machine politics. 34 To wipe out a long-established and well-entrenched industry, to change drinking habits on a large scale, and to sweep away such a central urban and rural social institution as the saloon are no small achievements.

Nevertheless, prohibitionists did not fully capitalize on their opportunity to bring up a new generation in abstemious habits. Inspired and led by the talented writers of the Lost Generation, the shapers of mass culture—first in novels, then in films, and finally in newspapers and magazines—altered the popular media’s previously negative attitude toward drink. In the eyes of many young people, especially the increasing numbers who populated colleges and universities, Prohibition was transformed from progressive reform to an emblem of a suffocating status quo. 35 The intransigence of the dominant wing of the ASL, which insisted on zero tolerance in law enforcement, gave substance to this perception and, in addition, aligned the league with the Ku Klux Klan and other forces promoting intolerance. 36 Thus, the work of attracting new drinkers to alcohol, which had been laid down by the dying liquor industry, was taken up by new hands.

One group of new drinkers—or newly public drinkers—whose emergence in that role was particularly surprising to contemporary observers was women. Such surprise, however, was a product of the prior invisibility of women’s domestic consumption: women had in fact never been as abstemious as the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union’s activism had made them appear. 37 Women’s new willingness to drink in public—or at least in the semipublic atmosphere of the speakeasy—owed much to Prohibition’s achievement, the death of the saloon, whose masculine culture no longer governed norms of public drinking. The saloon’s demise also made it possible for women to band together to oppose Prohibition, as hundreds of thousands did in the Women’s Organization for National Prohibition Reform (WONPR). 38

Public drinking by women and college youth and wet attitudes disseminated by cultural media pushed along a process that social scientists call the “normalization of drinking”—that is, the breakdown of cultural proscriptions against liquor. Normalization, part of the long history of decay in Victorian social mores, began before the Prohibition Era and did not fully bear fruit until long afterward, but the process gained impetus from both the achievements and the failures of National Prohibition. 39

Other unintended and unexpected consequences of Prohibition included flourishing criminal activity centered on smuggling and bootlegging and the consequent clogging of the courts with drink-related prosecutions. 40 Prohibition also forced federal courts to take on the role of overseer of government regulatory agencies, and the zeal of government agents stimulated new concern for individual rights as opposed to the power of the state. 41 The bans on liquor importation and exportation crippled American ocean liners in the competition for transatlantic passenger service, thus contributing to the ongoing decline of the US merchant marine, and created an irritant in diplomatic relations with Great Britain and Canada. 42 Contrary to politicians’ hopes that the Eighteenth Amendment would finally take the liquor issue out of politics, Prohibition continued to roil the political waters even in the presidential seas, helping to carry Herbert Hoover first across the finish line in 1928 and to sink him 4 years later. 43

WHY REPEAL?

All prohibitions are coercive, but their effects can vary across populations and banned articles. We have no estimates of the size of the drinking population on the eve of National Prohibition (or on the eve of wartime prohibition, which preceded it by several months), but because of the phenomenon of “drinking drys” it was probably larger than the total of votes cast in referenda against state prohibition measures, and many of the larger states did not even hold such referenda. So Prohibition’s implicit goal of teetotalism meant changing the drinking behavior of a substantial number of Americans, possibly a majority.

Because the Volstead Act was drafted only after ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment was completed, neither the congressmen and state legislators who approved submission and ratification, nor the voters who elected them, knew what kind of prohibition they were voting for. 44 The absolutism of the act’s definition of intoxicating liquors made national alcohol prohibition a stringent ban, and the gap between what voters thought they were voting for and what they got made this sweeping interdict appear undemocratic. Nevertheless, support for prohibition in post-ratification state referenda and the boost given to Herbert Hoover’s 1928 campaign by his dry stance indicate continued electoral approval of Prohibition before the stock-market crash of 1929.

Historians agree that enforcement of the Volstead Act constituted National Prohibition’s Achilles’ heel. A fatal flaw resided in the amendment’s second clause, which mandated “concurrent power” to enforce Prohibition by the federal government and the states. ASL strategists expected that the states’ existing criminal-justice machinery would carry out the lion’s share of the work of enforcement. Consequently, the league did not insist on creating adequate forces or funding for federal enforcement, thereby avoiding conflict with Southern officials determined to protect states’ rights. The concurrent-power provision, however, allowed states to minimize their often politically divisive enforcement activity, and the state prohibition statutes gave wets an obvious target, because repeal of a state law was easier than repeal of a federal law or constitutional amendment, and repeal’s success would leave enforcement in the crippled hands of the federal government. 45 Even if enforcement is regarded as a failure, however, it does not follow that such a lapse undermined political support for Prohibition. Depending on the number of drinking drys, the failure of enforcement could have produced the opposite effect, by allowing voters to gain access to alcohol themselves while voting to deny it to others.

Two other possible reasons also fall short of explaining Repeal. The leading antiprohibitionist organization throughout the 1920s was the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment (AAPA), which drew its support mainly from conservative businessmen, who objected to the increased power given to the federal government by National Prohibition. Their well-funded arguments, however, fell on deaf ears among the voters throughout the era, most tellingly in the presidential election of 1928. Both the AAPA and the more widely supported WONPR also focused attention on the lawlessness that Prohibition allegedly fostered. This argument, too, gained little traction in the electoral politics of the 1920s. When American voters changed their minds about Prohibition, the AAPA and WONPR, together with other repeal organizations, played a key role in focusing and channeling sentiment through an innovative path to Repeal, the use of specially elected state conventions. 46 But they did not create that sentiment.

Finally, historians are fond of invoking widespread cultural change to explain the failure of National Prohibition. Decaying Victorian social mores allowed the normalization of drinking, which was given a significant boost by the cultural trendsetters of the Jazz Age. In such an atmosphere, Prohibition could not survive. 47 But it did. At the height of the Jazz Age, American voters in a hard-fought contest elected a staunch upholder of Prohibition in Herbert Hoover over Al Smith, an avowed foe of the Eighteenth Amendment. Repeal took place, not in the free-flowing good times of the Jazz Age, but rather in the austere gloom 4 years into America’s worst economic depression.

Thus, the arguments for Repeal that seemed to have greatest resonance with voters in 1932 and 1933 centered not on indulgence but on economic recovery. Repeal, it was argued, would replace the tax revenues foregone under Prohibition, thereby allowing governments to provide relief to suffering families. 48 It would put unemployed workers back to work. Prohibitionists had long encouraged voters to believe in a link between Prohibition and prosperity, and after the onset of the Depression they abundantly reaped what they had sown. 49 Voters who had ignored claims that Prohibition excessively centralized power, failed to stop drinking, and fostered crime when they elected the dry Hoover now voted for the wet Franklin Roosevelt. They then turned out to elect delegates pledged to Repeal in the whirlwind series of state conventions that ratified the Twenty-First Amendment. Thus, it was not the stringent nature of National Prohibition, which set a goal that was probably impossible to reach and that thereby foredoomed enforcement, that played the leading role in discrediting alcohol prohibition. Instead, an abrupt and radical shift in context killed Prohibition.

LEGACIES OF PROHIBITION

The legacies of National Prohibition are too numerous to discuss in detail; besides, so many of them live on today and continue to affect Americans’ everyday lives that it is even difficult to realize that they are Prohibition’s byproducts. I will briefly mention the principal ones, in ascending order from shortest-lived to longest. The shortest-lived child of Prohibition actually survived to adulthood. This was the change in drinking patterns that depressed the level of consumption compared with the pre-Prohibition years. Straitened family finances during the Depression of course kept the annual per capita consumption rate low, hovering around 1.5 US gallons. The true results of Prohibition’s success in socializing Americans in temperate habits became apparent during World War II, when the federal government turned a more cordial face toward the liquor industry than it had during World War I, and they became even more evident during the prosperous years that followed. 50 Although annual consumption rose, to about 2 gallons per capita in the 1950s and 2.4 gallons in the 1960s, it did not surpass the pre-Prohibition peak until the early 1970s. 51

The death rate from liver cirrhosis followed a corresponding pattern. 52 In 1939, 42% of respondents told pollsters that they did not use alcohol at all. If that figure reflected stability in the proportionate size of the non-drinking population since the pre-Prohibition years, and if new cohorts—youths and women—had begun drinking during Prohibition, then the numbers of new drinkers had been offset by Prohibition’s socializing effect. By 1960, the proportion of abstainers had fallen only to 38%. 53

The Prohibition Era was unkind to habitual drunkards, not because their supply was cut off, but because it was not. Those who wanted liquor badly enough could still find it. But those who recognized their drinking as destructive were not so lucky in finding help. The inebriety asylums had closed, and the self-help societies had withered away. In 1935, these conditions gave birth to a new self-help group, Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), and the approach taken by these innovative reformers, while drawing from the old self-help tradition, was profoundly influenced by the experience of Prohibition.

AA rejected the prohibitionists’ claim that anyone could become a slave to alcohol, the fundamental assumption behind the sweeping approach of the Volstead Act. There were several reasons for this decision, but one of the primary ones was a perception that Prohibition had failed and a belief that battles already lost should not be refought. Instead, AA drew a rigid line between normal drinkers, who could keep their consumption within the limits of moderation, and compulsive drinkers, who could not. Thus was born the disease concept of alcoholism. Although the concept’s principal aim was to encourage sympathy for alcoholics, its result was to open the door to drinking by everyone else. 54 Influenced by Repeal to reject temperance ideology, medical researchers held the door open by denying previously accepted links between drinking and disease. 55

Another force energized by Prohibition also promoted drinking: the liquor industry’s fear that Prohibition might return. Those fears were not unjustified, because during the late 1930s two fifths of Americans surveyed still supported national Prohibition. 56 Brewers and distillers trod carefully, to be sure, attempting to surround liquor with an aura of “glamour, wealth, and sophistication,” rather than evoke the rough culture of the saloon. To target women, whom the industry perceived as the largest group of abstainers, liquor ads customarily placed drinking in a domestic context, giving hostesses a central role in dispensing their products. 57 Too much can easily be made of the “cocktail culture” of the 1940s and 1950s, because the drinking population grew only slightly and per capita consumption rose only gradually during those years. The most significant result of the industry’s campaign was to lay the foundation for a substantial increase in drinking during the 1960s and 1970s.

By the end of the 20th century, two thirds of the alcohol consumed by Americans was drunk in the home or at private parties. 58 In other words, the model of drinking within a framework of domestic sociability, which had been shaped by women, had largely superseded the style of public drinking men had created in their saloons and clubs. 59 Prohibition helped to bring about this major change in American drinking patterns by killing the saloon, but it also had an indirect influence in the same direction, by way of the state. When Prohibition ended, and experiments in economic regulation—including regulation of alcohol—under the National Recovery Administration were declared unconstitutional, the federal government banished public health concerns from its alcohol policy, which thereafter revolved around economic considerations. 60

Some states retained their prohibition laws—the last repeal occurring only in 1966—but most created pervasive systems of liquor control that affected drinking in every aspect. 61 Licensing was generally taken out of the hands of localities and put under the control of state administrative bodies, in an attempt to replace the impassioned struggles that had heated local politics since the 19th century with the cool, impersonal processes of bureaucracy. Licensing policy favored outlets selling for off-premise consumption, a category that eventually included grocery stores. With the invention of the aluminum beer can and the spread of home refrigeration after the 1930s, the way was cleared for the home to become the prime drinking site.

LESSONS FOR OTHER DRUG PROHIBITIONS

Perhaps the most powerful legacy of National Prohibition is the widely held belief that it did not work. I agree with other historians who have argued that this belief is false: Prohibition did work in lowering per capita consumption. The lowered level of consumption during the quarter century following Repeal, together with the large minority of abstainers, suggests that Prohibition did socialize or maintain a significant portion of the population in temperate or abstemious habits. 62 That is, it was partly successful as a public health innovation. Its political failure is attributable more to a changing context than to characteristics of the innovation itself.

Today, it is easy to say that the goal of total prohibition was impossible and the means therefore were unnecessarily severe—that, for example, National Prohibition could have survived had the drys been willing to compromise by permitting beer and light wine 63 —but from the perspective of 1913 the rejection of alternate modes of liquor control makes more sense. Furthermore, American voters continued to support Prohibition politically even in its stringent form, at least in national politics, until their economy crashed and forcefully turned their concerns in other directions. Nevertheless, the possibility remains that in 1933 a less restrictive form of Prohibition could have satisfied the economic concerns that drove Repeal while still controlling the use of alcohol in its most dangerous forms.

Scholars have reached no consensus on the implications of National Prohibition for other forms of prohibition, and public discourse in the United States mirrors our collective ambivalence. 64 Arguments that assume that Prohibition was a failure have been deployed most effectively against laws prohibiting tobacco and guns, but they have been ignored by those waging the war on other drugs since the 1980s, which is directed toward the same teetotal goal as National Prohibition. 65 Simplistic assumptions about government’s ability to legislate morals, whether pro or con, find no support in the historical record. As historian Ian Tyrrell writes, “each drug subject to restrictions needs to be carefully investigated in terms of its conditions of production, its value to an illicit trade, the ability to conceal the substance, and its effects on both the individual and society at large.” 66 From a historical perspective, no prediction is certain, and no path is forever barred—not even the return of alcohol prohibition in some form. Historical context matters.

Bone Dry Forever! This sign on a St Louis street at Prohibition’s onset illustrates the widely held belief that the liquor ban would be permanent.

Source. Missouri Historical Society, image SNDC 7-08-0022.

Seized distilling equipment early in the Prohibition Era reflects the artisanal scale to which the production of beverage alcohol was reduced.

Source. Chicago Historical Society, image DN-0072348.

The Federal Prohibition Bureau, led by Roy Haines (left), was chronically underfunded by Congress and harrassed by officials of the Anti-Saloon League, such as O. G. Christgau (right).

Source. Chicago Historical Society, image DN-0079835.

Prohibition fostered increasing consumption of nonalcoholic beverages, such as fruit juices and carbonated drinks, the latter symbolized by this A&W Root Beer stand in Madison, Wisc, in 1931.

Source. Wisconsin Historical Society, Image 18489.

Acknowledgments

Tom Pegram and Ted Brown provided helpful comments on an earlier version of the article.

Peer Reviewed

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

Course: US history   >   Unit 7

• The Nineteenth Amendment
• 1920s urbanization and immigration
• The reemergence of the KKK

Prohibition

• Republican ascendancy: politics in the 1920s
• The presidency of Calvin Coolidge
• 1920s consumption
• Movies, radio, and sports in the 1920s
• American culture in the 1920s
• Nativism and fundamentalism in the 1920s
• America in the 1920s

• Prohibition was a nationwide ban on the sale and import of alcoholic beverages that lasted from 1920 to 1933.
• Protestants, Progressives, and women all spearheaded the drive to institute Prohibition.
• Prohibition led directly to the rise of organized crime.
• The Twenty-first Amendment , ratified in December 1933, repealed Prohibition.

The temperance movement

Enacting prohibition: the eighteenth amendment, repealing prohibition: the twenty-first amendment, what do you think.

• Lisa McGirr, The War on Alcohol: Prohibition and the Rise of the American State (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2016), 11-13.
• Daniel Okrent, Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition. (New York: Scribner, 2010), 2-3.
• Kenneth D. Rose, American Women and the Repeal of Prohibition (New York: NYU Press, 1997), 2-3.
• See Karen Blumenthal, Bootleg: Murder, Moonshine, and the Lawless Years of Prohibition (New York: Flash Point, 2011).

Want to join the conversation?

• Upvote Button navigates to signup page
• Downvote Button navigates to signup page
• Flag Button navigates to signup page

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Author Guidelines
• Open Access Options
• Why Publish with JAH?
• About Journal of American History
• About the Organization of American Historians
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic
• < Previous

Prohibition

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Tona Hangen, Prohibition, Journal of American History , Volume 99, Issue 1, June 2012, Pages 374–377, https://doi.org/10.1093/jahist/jas127

• Permissions Icon Permissions

With their three-part documentary on Prohibition, Ken Burns and Lynn Novick turn the rise and fall of the Eighteenth Amendment into a cautionary tale about metastasizing single-issue politics in America. Perhaps as expected, the films hit their stride when talking about the late 1920s, with tommy-gun wielding gangsters, bootleggers, and speakeasy patrons battling earnest federal enforcers for the soul of the nation. But the films brood far more than they sensationalize, ultimately making the story of Prohibition not only more expansive but also much more serious and less rollicking than it might be.

The “noble experiment” (a term attributed to Herbert Hoover) of Prohibition was enacted to protect American families and society from the pernicious and widely acknowledged effects of alcohol consumption. While saluting these laudable intentions, Burns and Novick cast Prohibition as not only a “notorious civic failure” but, even more damning, also as a violation of the American character itself. Although Prohibition was in effect only from 1920 to 1933, its roots tapped into the early years of antebellum reform and it had lasting effects on American culture, politics, and law. Prohibition takes in an ambitious sweep of more than a century, starting with the beginnings of the temperance movement in the 1820s.

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Process - a blog for american history
• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1945-2314
• Print ISSN 0021-8723
• Copyright © 2024 Organization of American Historians
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Prohibition Research Paper Topics

In this page dedicated to Prohibition research paper topics , we delve into the captivating era of alcohol prohibition in the United States. This abstract provides an overview of the content and aims of the page, offering students a glimpse into the comprehensive list of research paper topics, an insightful article on Prohibition, and valuable guidance on how to choose and write a research paper on this intriguing subject. Whether you are fascinated by the social, cultural, or political aspects of Prohibition, this page will serve as your guide in unleashing your potential to uncover its historical significance.

100 Prohibition Research Paper Topics

The Prohibition era in the United States, spanning from 1920 to 1933, was a transformative period marked by the nationwide ban on the production, sale, and transportation of alcoholic beverages. This comprehensive list of Prohibition research paper topics is designed to provide students with a wide array of subjects to explore and analyze within this captivating historical context. Organized into ten categories, each consisting of ten topics, these research paper ideas will inspire students to delve into various aspects of Prohibition, including its social, political, economic, legal, and cultural dimensions.

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% off with 24start discount code.

Origins and Impact of Prohibition

• The Temperance Movement: Pioneers and Influential Figures
• Prohibition Amendments: From the 18th to the 21st
• Prohibition and Social Change: Women’s Suffrage and Beyond
• Bootlegging and Organized Crime During Prohibition
• The Repeal of Prohibition: 21st Amendment and Its Aftermath
• Prohibition’s Influence on American Society and Culture
• Prohibition and Public Health: Impact on Alcohol Consumption
• The Volstead Act: Legislation and Enforcement Challenges
• Prohibition’s Legacy: Long-term Effects on Alcohol Regulation
• Prohibition and the Great Depression: Economic Ramifications

Prohibition and Law Enforcement

• Prohibition Agents: Roles, Challenges, and Successes
• The Rise of Gangsters and Mobsters During Prohibition
• Prohibition Raids and Their Impact on Speakeasies
• Corruption and Bribery in Law Enforcement During Prohibition
• The Temperance Movement’s Role in Shaping Law Enforcement
• Prohibition and the Creation of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics
• Prohibition and the Formation of the Coast Guard’s Rum Patrol
• The Role of Informants and Undercover Agents in Prohibition
• Prohibition Agents’ Surveillance Techniques and Strategies
• The Decline of Prohibition Agents after Repeal

Prohibition and Politics

• Political Figures and Their Stance on Prohibition
• The Anti-Saloon League: Prominent Advocates and Achievements
• Prohibition Party: Formation, Objectives, and Influence
• Prohibition and Presidential Elections: Voting Patterns and Impact
• The Dry vs. Wet Debate: Political and Social Ideologies
• Prohibition Advocacy in the Media: Newspapers and Magazines
• Prohibition’s Influence on Political Campaigns and Propaganda
• Prohibition’s Effect on Local and State Politics
• The Women’s Christian Temperance Union: Grassroots Advocacy
• The Role of Religious Groups in Prohibition Advocacy

Prohibition and Public Opinion

• Public Perception of Prohibition: Support and Opposition
• Prohibition and the Temperance Movement’s Public Relations
• The Impact of Prohibition on Alcohol Consumption Patterns
• Media Portrayal of Prohibition: Cartoons, Posters, and Advertisements
• Prohibition’s Effect on Public Health and Social Welfare
• Prohibition and Public Demonstrations: Rallies and Protests
• Prohibition and Public Discourse on Individual Liberties
• Public Sentiments Toward Bootleggers and Speakeasies
• The Media’s Role in Shaping Public Opinion on Prohibition
• Prohibition’s Impact on Immigrant Communities and Ethnic Groups

Prohibition and Culture

• Prohibition’s Influence on Art, Literature, and Music
• The Roaring Twenties: Cultural Expression and Rebellion
• Prohibition and the Harlem Renaissance: Cultural Contributions
• Flappers and the Changing Roles of Women During Prohibition
• Prohibition and the Evolution of American Cuisine
• Prohibition’s Influence on Film and Theater
• The Birth of Jazz Age Culture and Its Connection to Prohibition
• Cultural Icons and Personalities During Prohibition
• Prohibition’s Effect on Sports and Entertainment
• Cultural Significance of Prohibition in Modern America

Prohibition and Organized Crime

• The Rise of Al Capone: Chicago’s Crime Boss
• Bootlegging: Production, Distribution, and Supply Chain
• The Role of Speakeasies in Prohibition Culture
• Prohibition and the Mafia: Organized Crime Syndicates
• The St. Valentine’s Day Massacre: Infamous Crime Event
• Prohibition and the Rise of Gang Warfare
• The Beer Wars: Rivalries and Conflicts Among Bootleggers
• The Prohibition and Moonshine Trade in Rural Areas
• Gangland Murders and Assassinations During Prohibition
• Prohibition and the Formation of Crime Families

Prohibition and Social Reform

• Prohibition and Women’s Empowerment: Changing Roles
• The Impact of Prohibition on African American Communities
• Prohibition’s Effect on Native American Reservations
• Prohibition and LGBTQ+ Communities: Hidden Histories
• The Temperance Movement’s Educational Efforts
• Prohibition and the Promotion of Health and Hygiene
• Prohibition’s Influence on Public Morality and Ethics
• Prohibition and the Spread of Religious Revivalism
• The Intersection of Prohibition and Social Justice Movements
• Prohibition’s Legacy: Impact on Minority Rights

Prohibition’s International Impact

• Prohibition in Other Countries: Global Perspectives
• Prohibition and International Alcohol Trade
• Prohibition’s Influence on Global Alcohol Policies
• Smuggling and Bootlegging Across International Borders
• International Temperance Movements and Prohibition Advocacy
• Prohibition’s Effect on Cross-Border Relations
• Prohibition and International Diplomacy
• Prohibition’s Legacy in Global Alcohol Regulation
• Prohibition’s Influence on Alcohol Consumption Worldwide
• The Aftermath of Prohibition: Lessons for International Alcohol Policy

Prohibition and Economic Consequences

• Prohibition’s Impact on the Brewing Industry
• The Economic Costs of Enforcing Prohibition Laws
• Prohibition and the Creation of New Industries
• The Decline of Saloons and Bars During Prohibition
• Prohibition and the Loss of Government Revenue
• Prohibition and the Growth of Bootlegging Economies
• The Economic Impact of Repealing Prohibition
• Prohibition’s Effect on Consumer Spending
• Prohibition’s Influence on Agricultural Practices
• The Economic Legacies of Prohibition in Modern Times

Prohibition and Legal Perspectives

• Supreme Court Cases and Prohibition: Legal Challenges
• The Constitutionality of Prohibition: Legal Debates
• Prohibition and the Right to Privacy: Fourth Amendment Issues
• The Role of Lawyers and Judges in Prohibition Cases
• Legal Loopholes and Workarounds During Prohibition
• Prohibition’s Effect on Criminal Sentencing and Punishment
• Legal Opposition and Advocacy Groups During Prohibition
• Prohibition and Civil Liberties: First Amendment Concerns
• Prohibition’s Influence on Due Process and Fair Trials
• The Prohibition Era and Its Impact on Modern Legal Thought

This comprehensive list of Prohibition research paper topics provides students with a diverse range of subjects to explore within the complex and fascinating era of Prohibition. By examining various aspects of Prohibition’s origins, impact, politics, economics, social dynamics, and cultural expressions, students can develop insightful research papers that shed light on this transformative period in American history. The ten categories and their respective Prohibition research paper topics offer a wealth of opportunities to investigate the complexities and consequences of Prohibition, ensuring that students can choose a research area that aligns with their interests and objectives.

Exploring Prohibition Research Paper Topics

Prohibition, also known as the Prohibition Era, was a significant period in American history that lasted from 1920 to 1933. It was a nationwide constitutional ban on the production, sale, and transportation of alcoholic beverages. The 18th Amendment, which officially established Prohibition, aimed to address social issues, promote public health, and reduce crime rates associated with excessive alcohol consumption. This era saw the rise of speakeasies, bootlegging, and organized crime, along with heated debates over individual liberties and government intervention. In this article, we will delve into the multifaceted aspects of Prohibition, exploring its origins, impact, social dynamics, cultural expressions, and eventual repeal.

The Temperance Movement and the Push for Prohibition

The roots of Prohibition can be traced back to the Temperance Movement, a social reform movement that gained momentum in the 19th century. Advocates of temperance believed that alcohol consumption led to moral decay, domestic violence, and a range of social issues. Led by organizations like the Anti-Saloon League and the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, the movement campaigned for alcohol restrictions and ultimately influenced the passage of the 18th Amendment. The Temperance Movement’s influence extended beyond advocating for Prohibition, as it also shaped public perceptions of alcohol and its impact on society.

The 18th Amendment

Prohibition Becomes Law: In 1919, the 18th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, officially prohibiting the manufacture, sale, and transportation of intoxicating liquors. This marked the beginning of the Prohibition Era, a time when the government attempted to regulate personal behavior through legislation. The amendment was a result of growing concerns about the negative effects of alcohol on American society and public health. It represented a significant shift in the role of government in shaping the behaviors and choices of citizens.

Social Impact of Prohibition

Prohibition had far-reaching effects on American society. It gave rise to speakeasies, illegal drinking establishments that flourished in urban areas, as well as an underground economy driven by bootlegging. Organized crime syndicates, like those led by figures such as Al Capone, profited immensely from the illegal alcohol trade. The enforcement of Prohibition led to unintended consequences, as it created new opportunities for criminal activity and corruption among law enforcement officials.

The Volstead Act and Enforcement Challenges

To enforce the 18th Amendment, the Volstead Act was passed, defining intoxicating liquors and providing guidelines for enforcement. However, the Act faced numerous challenges, including corruption among law enforcement officials, inadequate resources, and the difficulty of monitoring vast illicit networks. The limitations of the Volstead Act contributed to the rise of a black market for alcohol and the growth of organized crime, leading to increased violence and public safety concerns.

Cultural Responses to Prohibition

The Prohibition Era gave rise to a unique cultural expression, as people found ways to circumvent the law and continue consuming alcohol. Jazz-age culture and the emergence of the flapper persona embodied the spirit of rebellion against societal norms. Speakeasies became hubs of social life, where people gathered to enjoy music, dance, and camaraderie while defying the restrictions on alcohol consumption.

Opposition and Repeal of Prohibition

As the negative consequences of Prohibition became apparent, opposition to the ban grew. Economic hardships during the Great Depression further fueled calls for repeal. In 1933, the 21st Amendment was ratified, officially ending Prohibition. The repeal of Prohibition marked a significant moment in American history, as it reflected a shift in public sentiment and recognition of the limitations of alcohol prohibition as a social policy.

Legacy and Lessons of Prohibition

The Prohibition Era left a lasting impact on American society. While it did not achieve its intended goals of reducing crime and improving public health, it sparked discussions on the balance between individual freedoms and government intervention. The era also highlighted the potential consequences of enacting sweeping social policies without proper consideration of their implications. The lessons learned from Prohibition continue to resonate in modern debates over social and public health policies, as well as discussions on the role of government in regulating personal behaviors.

Prohibition in the Context of Modern Alcohol Regulation

Today, the Prohibition Era serves as a historical reference point in debates over alcohol regulation, drug policies, and individual liberties. The lessons from Prohibition have influenced subsequent approaches to alcohol regulation, with a greater emphasis on harm reduction, public health, and education. Understanding the complexities and failures of Prohibition has informed modern-day efforts to address alcohol-related issues through evidence-based policy-making.

The Prohibition Era remains a captivating and complex period in American history, characterized by its impact on society, culture, and politics. This article has explored the origins of Prohibition, the impact of the 18th Amendment, social and cultural responses, the challenges of enforcement, and the eventual repeal. By understanding the multifaceted aspects of Prohibition, we gain valuable insights into the complexities of public policy, individual liberties, and the role of government in shaping society. The Prohibition Era serves as a reminder of the importance of thoughtful and evidence-based approaches to social reforms. As we reflect on this chapter of American history, we recognize the significance of learning from past mistakes and successes to inform present and future decision-making.

How to Choose Prohibition Research Paper Topics

Selecting the right research paper topic is crucial for a successful and engaging academic project. When it comes to studying Prohibition, a fascinating and transformative period in American history, the abundance of potential research topics may seem overwhelming. In this section, we will provide you with practical guidance on how to choose Prohibition research paper topics that are compelling, relevant, and capable of offering fresh insights into this historical era.

• Understand the Context and Significance : Before choosing a research paper topic on Prohibition, it is essential to understand the historical context and significance of this period. Familiarize yourself with the events leading up to the enactment of the 18th Amendment, the temperance movement, and the societal attitudes towards alcohol consumption. Understanding the broader historical context will help you identify specific areas of interest and potential research questions.
• Identify Gaps in Existing Literature : Conducting a thorough literature review is a crucial step in choosing a research paper topic. Look for existing studies, books, and articles related to Prohibition to identify gaps in the current scholarship. These gaps can serve as valuable entry points for your research, allowing you to contribute to the existing body of knowledge and offer new perspectives on the subject.
• Consider Different Perspectives : Prohibition is a complex and multi-faceted historical event that impacted various aspects of American society. Consider exploring the topic from different perspectives, such as political, social, economic, and cultural. For example, you could examine the role of women in the temperance movement or the economic implications of Prohibition on industries and businesses.
• Focus on Local or Regional Impact : Prohibition had varying effects across different regions of the United States. Consider narrowing your research to focus on the local or regional impact of Prohibition in specific cities or states. This approach will enable you to delve deeper into the unique experiences and challenges faced by different communities during this era.
• Examine Resistance and Opposition : Prohibition was met with significant opposition, with many individuals and groups openly defying the law. Investigate the resistance to Prohibition, including the rise of bootlegging, speakeasies, and the involvement of organized crime. Exploring the reasons behind the widespread non-compliance with the ban can provide valuable insights into the limitations of social policies.
• Analyze the Role of Media and Popular Culture : The Prohibition Era had a profound impact on popular culture, influencing music, literature, and film. Investigate how the media portrayed Prohibition and its consequences, and how popular culture both reflected and shaped public perceptions of this historical period.
• Explore the Repeal of Prohibition : The repeal of Prohibition in 1933 marked a significant turning point in American history. Consider exploring the events and factors that led to the repeal of the 18th Amendment, such as the role of interest groups, the economic impact of the Great Depression, and changing societal attitudes towards alcohol.
• Incorporate Primary Sources : To add depth and authenticity to your research, utilize primary sources from the Prohibition Era. These may include newspaper articles, government documents, personal diaries, photographs, and oral histories. Analyzing primary sources can offer firsthand accounts and insights into the experiences of people living during Prohibition.
• Consult with Your Instructor or Advisor : If you are struggling to choose a research paper topic, don’t hesitate to seek guidance from your instructor or academic advisor. They can provide valuable feedback, suggest additional resources, and help you refine your research question.
• Stay Passionate and Curious : Finally, choose a research paper topic that genuinely interests you. Staying passionate and curious about the subject will motivate you throughout the research process and ensure that your work is engaging and insightful.

Choosing the right Prohibition research paper topic is an essential step in crafting a compelling and impactful academic project. By understanding the historical context, identifying gaps in existing literature, considering different perspectives, focusing on local impact, examining resistance and opposition, analyzing the role of media and popular culture, exploring the repeal of Prohibition, incorporating primary sources, and seeking guidance from instructors, you can select a topic that sparks your curiosity and contributes to the broader understanding of this transformative period in American history. Remember to stay passionate and committed to your research, and your exploration of Prohibition will yield valuable insights and a meaningful academic contribution.

How to Write a Prohibition Research Paper

Writing a research paper on Prohibition requires careful planning, rigorous research, and effective organization. This section will guide you through the step-by-step process of writing a compelling and well-structured Prohibition research paper. From formulating a strong thesis statement to presenting your findings coherently, we will provide you with valuable tips to ensure your paper is engaging and academically sound.

• Develop a Strong Thesis Statement : A strong thesis statement is the foundation of your research paper. It should clearly and concisely state the main argument or central theme of your paper. In the case of a Prohibition research paper, your thesis statement should highlight the specific aspect of Prohibition that you will be exploring and the main conclusions you intend to draw from your research.
• Conduct In-Depth Research : Prohibition is a multifaceted and historically rich topic, so conducting in-depth research is crucial. Utilize a variety of reputable sources, including books, academic journals, government documents, and primary sources from the Prohibition Era. Be sure to critically evaluate the credibility and reliability of each source to ensure the accuracy of your information.
• Create an Outline : Organize your research and ideas by creating a detailed outline for your research paper. An outline will serve as a roadmap for your writing, helping you maintain a logical flow of information and a coherent structure throughout the paper. Divide your research into sections and subsections, each focusing on a specific aspect of Prohibition.
• Introduction : Begin your research paper with an engaging introduction that provides background information on Prohibition and its historical context. Introduce the significance of the topic and its relevance to contemporary issues. End your introduction with a clear and concise thesis statement that sets the direction for the rest of the paper.
• Body Paragraphs : In the body of your research paper, present your arguments and findings in a systematic manner. Each body paragraph should focus on a single idea or argument supported by evidence from your research. Use topic sentences to introduce the main point of each paragraph and provide smooth transitions between paragraphs to maintain the coherence of your paper.
• Incorporate Primary Sources : To enrich your Prohibition research paper, incorporate primary sources from the Prohibition Era. Primary sources, such as newspaper articles, letters, speeches, and photographs, offer firsthand accounts and perspectives from individuals who lived during that time. Analyzing primary sources can add authenticity and depth to your research.
• Analyze and Interpret Data : If your research paper includes data or statistical information, take the time to analyze and interpret the data accurately. Use charts, graphs, and tables to present your data visually and draw meaningful conclusions from your analysis. Ensure that your data is properly sourced and cited.
• Address Counterarguments : A well-rounded research paper acknowledges counterarguments and addresses potential criticisms of your thesis. Anticipate opposing viewpoints and use evidence and logical reasoning to refute them. This will strengthen your argument and demonstrate the depth of your research.
• Conclusion : Conclude your research paper by summarizing your main findings and restating your thesis statement. Reflect on the significance of your research and its implications for understanding Prohibition’s impact on American history and society. Avoid introducing new information in the conclusion and focus on leaving a lasting impression on your readers.
• Citations and References : Properly cite all the sources you have used in your research paper, following the appropriate citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, etc.). Create a comprehensive list of references at the end of your paper to give credit to the authors and researchers whose work you have referenced.

Writing a successful Prohibition research paper requires careful planning, thorough research, and effective organization. By developing a strong thesis statement, conducting in-depth research, creating a well-structured outline, and presenting your findings coherently, you can craft an engaging and academically rigorous paper. Remember to incorporate primary sources, analyze and interpret data, address counterarguments, and provide proper citations and references to support your arguments and give credit to the original sources. By following these steps, you will be well on your way to creating a compelling and insightful research paper on Prohibition.

iResearchNet’s Writing Services

At iResearchNet, we understand the challenges students face when tasked with writing a Prohibition research paper. The intricacies of this historical era, coupled with the need for in-depth research and coherent organization, can be overwhelming. As your trusted partner in academic writing, we are here to assist you every step of the way. Our team of expert writers holds advanced degrees in history and other related disciplines, making them well-equipped to handle any Prohibition research paper topic you may have. With our custom writing services, you can unleash your potential and achieve academic excellence.

• Expert Degree-Holding Writers : At iResearchNet, we take pride in our team of writers who are experts in the field of history, including Prohibition studies. Each writer holds an advanced degree from reputable universities, and their expertise ensures that your research paper will be well-researched, insightful, and of the highest academic standard.
• Custom Written Works : We understand that every research paper is unique, and that is why we offer custom writing services tailored to your specific requirements. When you place an order with us, you can be confident that your Prohibition research paper will be crafted from scratch to meet your academic needs.
• In-Depth Research : Our writers are skilled in conducting in-depth research on Prohibition research paper topics. They have access to a wide range of reputable sources, including academic journals, books, primary sources, and historical archives, to ensure that your research paper is well-grounded and well-supported.
• Custom Formatting : Formatting your research paper according to the required citation style can be time-consuming and tedious. Let our expert writers take care of the formatting for you. Whether it’s APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard, or any other style, we will ensure that your paper adheres to the prescribed guidelines.
• Top Quality and Customized Solutions : At iResearchNet, we are committed to delivering top-quality research papers that meet your specific needs. Our writers pay attention to every detail, ensuring that your paper is well-structured, coherent, and meets the highest academic standards.
• Flexible Pricing : We understand that students may have budget constraints, and that’s why we offer flexible pricing options to accommodate your needs. Our pricing is competitive, and we provide transparent pricing information upfront, so there are no hidden costs.
• Short Deadlines : If you are facing a tight deadline, don’t worry. Our team is accustomed to handling urgent orders, and we can deliver high-quality research papers in as little as 3 hours. Your deadline is our priority.
• Timely Delivery : We understand the importance of timely submission, and we are committed to delivering your Prohibition research paper on or before the agreed-upon deadline. Rest assured that you will have ample time to review the paper and request any necessary revisions.
• 24/7 Support : Our customer support team is available 24/7 to assist you with any queries or concerns you may have. Whether it’s about placing an order, tracking its progress, or communicating with your assigned writer, we are here to provide prompt and helpful assistance.
• Absolute Privacy : At iResearchNet, we take your privacy seriously. Your personal information and order details are kept strictly confidential, and we never disclose any sensitive information to third parties.
• Easy Order Tracking : With our user-friendly platform, you can easily track the progress of your Prohibition research paper. Stay informed about every stage of the writing process and communicate directly with your assigned writer.
• Money-Back Guarantee : We are confident in the quality of our services, and that’s why we offer a money-back guarantee. If you are not satisfied with the final product, we will refund your payment.

iResearchNet is your ultimate partner in crafting outstanding Prohibition research papers. Our team of expert writers, in-depth research capabilities, and commitment to delivering top-quality and customized solutions make us the perfect choice for students seeking academic excellence. With our support, you can unleash your potential and achieve success in your academic journey. Place your order today and experience the difference our professional writing services can make in your Prohibition research paper.

Unleash Your Potential with iResearchNet’s Writing Services

Are you struggling to find the right research paper topic on Prohibition? Do you need expert assistance in crafting a high-quality and well-researched paper? Look no further than iResearchNet’s Prohibition Writing Services! As a leading provider of academic writing solutions, we are committed to helping you unleash your potential and achieve academic excellence.

Don’t let the challenges of writing a Prohibition research paper hold you back. Unleash your potential and achieve academic success with iResearchNet’s Prohibition Writing Services. Place your order today and experience the difference our professional writing can make in your academic journey. Let us be your trusted partner in crafting a remarkable Prohibition research paper that will impress your professors and elevate your academic performance. Your success is our success!

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

The Darker Side of Prohibition

During Prohibition, industrial-grade alcohol cost hundreds of American lives. The Coolidge administration encouraged its circulation.

When we think of Prohibition, the cultural touchstones of the Jazz Age come to mind: gangsters and molls, feather boas, glittering headpieces, and of course, bathtub gin. Sourced by shadowy bootleggers, noxious homemade moonshine killed or blinded hundreds of Americans. But that’s only half the story. What we once considered criminality run amok, was in fact inextricably tied to a willingness at the highest levels of American government to sacrifice the lives of those considered worthless degenerates.

Throughout the Prohibition period from 1920 to 1933, some forms of alcohol were still available for purchase. Prescription alcohol—to treat bronchitis and other conditions—was one. Industrial-grade alcohol—designed for use in paints and floor thinners—was another. Although it was undrinkable, industrial-grade alcohol was often stolen and resold by criminal syndicates to be used in cheap liquor. The Coolidge administration effectively encouraged the practice as a way of discouraging illegal consumption, by giving tax breaks to industrial-alcohol manufacturers who “denatured,” or poisoned, their supply.

The week of Christmas, 1926, almost a hundred people died from the effects of drinking industrial alcohol. Hundreds more died in subsequent years. They were drinking a substance that, thanks to government intervention, had been intentionally but unnecessarily rendered fatal.

For many in Coolidge’s administration, this was hardly a problem; in fact, in some cases it was seen as beneficial. It did, after all, get drunks off the streets expediently.

But for Charles Norris, New York’s medical examiner, it was just another example of the dark side of Prohibition’s would-be moral certainty. Writing for The North American Review in Christmas of 1928, Norris condemns America’s “essay in extermination” wrought by Prohibition.

“In a word,” Norris says, “wood alcohol is not ‘poison liquor’. It is simply poison. If it gets into liquor, the liquor is poisoned. So these Americans died not of poison liquor but of poisoned liquor. Who poisoned it?” He denies that it is “The Government.” Nevertheless, he sees the ubiquity of wood alcohol poisonings as “a serious indictment of Prohibition before the court of public opinion.” Addicts’ access to unsafe alcohol accelerates an existing danger: “Death by alcoholism means death by excess drinking of alcohol, encouraged and accelerated more or less by sundry poisons put into active service by our benevolent Government.”

Norris is something of a moderate when it comes to his views on Prohibition. He’s at once keen to stress that “these denaturants were originally added to the alcohol under Government control and connivance.” But (perhaps due to his governmental position) he is tactful in his assignation of blame. “But let us not blame the Government too harshly. Something must be added to grain alcohol to prevent its being all drunk away and thereby denied to legitimate industry and business.” Rather, Norris blames the system itself: a moral philosophy of prohibition that drives the drunk and the desperate toward noxious materials the government is perfectly willing to let them consume.

Weekly Newsletter

Get your fix of JSTOR Daily’s best stories in your inbox each Thursday.

Privacy Policy   Contact Us You may unsubscribe at any time by clicking on the provided link on any marketing message.

Norris reveals how New York of the 1920’s viewed certain populations as disposable. By entering the sphere of immorality, alcoholics, in the eyes of the Coolidge administration, forfeited their right to life. It’s telling that, even in death, there are two rules: one related to “respectable drunks” and one for the degenerates.  As Norris writes, “Private physicians will rarely make such a report and expose their deceased customers to the indignity of a post-mortem examination, [but] will prefer to ascribe death to other “natural causes” when they can, in the case of clients in good standing or society.”

Norris’s essay reminds us that moral outrage over perceived danger—and a concern for the reality of human life—don’t necessarily go hand in hand. Especially when those lives lost are not “in good standing” in the society in which they live.

JSTOR is a digital library for scholars, researchers, and students. JSTOR Daily readers can access the original research behind our articles for free on JSTOR.

Get Our Newsletter

More stories.

• Luanda, Angola: The Paradox of Plenty

• Political Corruption in Athens and Rome

• Capturing the Civil War

Growing Guerrilla Warfare

Recent posts.

• How the Universe Forges Stars from Cosmic Clouds
• The Vital Near-Magic of Fire-Eating Fungi

Support JSTOR Daily

Sign up for our weekly newsletter.

22 Winning Topics For An Argument Essay On Prohibition

The prohibition in the United States was repealed after just thirteen years. In that time, however, a number of topics were developed worth exploring in an argument essay. Here are 22 worth consideration:

• Do you think the prohibition amendment was ratified in response to women activists who were seeking equal voting rights?
• How did the estimate and apparent rise of alcohol consumption across the nation in the 1850s encourage the debate about prohibition?
• How did prohibition lead to the rise of organized crime in major cities across the United States and could it have been prevented?
• Do you think the United States should reintroduce prohibition or tax alcohol with a higher rate as a means to lower the amount being consumed?
• Do you believe a prohibition law similar to the law passed in the early 20th century work today in your state?
• Would prohibition or a similar law regulating the consumption of alcohol have a different effect in today’s society?
• What are the biggest similarities and differences between prohibition and the War on Drugs? Do you think the U.S. learned from the results of prohibition?
• What were the greatest social and economic effects of prohibition in the early 20th century? Did it influence the following decades in any way?
• Why do think the Federal Government decided to regulate the consumption of alcohol anyways rather than impose higher taxes?
• Did prohibition give rise to America’s bootleggers and moonshiners counter-culture in the United States?
• Do you think the very act of prohibiting alcohol distribution and consumption promoted curiosity in people?
• Was organized crime the biggest factor behind the bringing about the end to the prohibition era or were there other pressures?
• What were the immediate societal and economic effects of repealing prohibition in the early 20th century?
• How did F. Scott Fitzgerald deal with the issue of prohibition in his classic American novel “The Great Gatsby”.
• Did prohibition lead to rise to other types of crime? And if so why do you think congress didn’t consider the relationship before passing the amendment?
• Do you think the repeal of prohibition paved the way for the United States’ current societal push to legalize marijuana?
• Do you think that if there had been a greater emphasis on enforcement of prohibition then the amendment would have been a success?
• Do you think the amendment was repealed because of the rise of crimes or because of public pressures from normal citizens?
• Do you think that the thirteen years in which prohibition was in effect was a failure largely because of lack of enforcement?
• Do you think the lessons learned from prohibition posit support for legalization of all types of drugs in the U.S.?
• Do you think that prohibition was destined to fail right from the start and that it may have only been a political ploy to gain voting support?
• Which political group was the most responsible for the repeal of the prohibition amendment and did it lead to future success?

Once the writing is done, the student has just a rough draft. For this rough draft to become a final draft, the student needs to edit it first. Students may want to change the font size for a larger one so that the writing seems new. This will make it easier to spot errors as the student reads through their work. The student may also want to ask a teacher or friend for help so that they can catch every error that occurs in their writing.

Compare & contrast paper

Informal essay format

Argumentative paper on gay marriage

Organizing a narrative essay

• © Letourmed.com. All rights reserved.

Prohibition - Free Essay Samples And Topic Ideas

Prohibition refers to a period in American history (1920-1933) when the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcoholic beverages were banned. Essays on Prohibition might explore the social, political, and economic factors that led to the ban on alcohol, the impact of Prohibition on American society, or the reasons for its eventual repeal. Discussions might also delve into the cultural resistance to Prohibition, the rise of organized crime during this period, or the legacy of Prohibition on American alcohol laws and social norms. Analyzing Prohibition offers a lens into American social history, the unintended consequences of legislative actions, and the complex dynamics of public morality and individual freedom. A vast selection of complimentary essay illustrations pertaining to Prohibition you can find at Papersowl. You can use our samples for inspiration to write your own essay, research paper, or just to explore a new topic for yourself.

The Great Gatsby and Prohibition

There was two different names for the 1920s. The first one was the Roaring Twenties. the second name was known as the jazz age. Prohibition is the illegal sale of alcohol. In the illegal commodity, prohibition created the black market. Prohibition created a market that became a battleground between warring bootlegging factions. The number of crimes increased by twenty-four percent. That was only thirty major cities during the prohibition that people did a study on. Prohibition was putting a ban […]

Riding with the Bondurant Brothers: Moonshine and Mayhem in the Prohibition Era

Let's turn the clock back to the roaring 20s and early 30s, to the hills of Franklin County, Virginia, where the Bondurant brothers - Howard, Forrest, and Jack - carved out a legend that still echoes in American folklore. These weren’t just any run-of-the-mill bootleggers; they were the Bondurant brothers, whose exploits during the Prohibition era turned them into something akin to folk heroes, or villains, depending on who's telling the tale. The Prohibition era was a wild time in […]

The Great Gatsby and Bootlegging

The American dream is a captivating bait that tempts, perplexes, and tricks young people from all over the world to exploit their own values and talents in America. The American dream is a swamp, which makes young people frantically struggle in working while bringing no fruitful achievements. Ultimately, only confusedness and disappointments remained in every dream seekers. “American investors defined the American Dream as ‘The belief that anyone can attain their own version of success in a society where upward […]

We will write an essay sample crafted to your needs.

Analysis of Unhealthy Alcohol Consumption

Harmful use of alcohol continues to be a global health issue that results in 3.3 million deaths (WHO, 2014). Alcohol consumption in developing countries is rising, as its increased risk of social harms, alcohol-related morbidity, and mortality persist (WHO, 2014). As a result, many countries make regulatory efforts to address the burdens of alcohol misuse. Alcohol policies that tend to be effective in developed countries need to be examined closely in low-income countries such as India. In the past three […]

January 20th in History

"January 20th is an important day in history. It is an important day because Prohibition took effect, the National Board of Censorship was created, the United States Senate allowed the Navy to lease Pearl Harbor as a naval base, United States President Harry S. Truman in his inaugural address for a full term as President, and that the stock markets fall. Prohibition succeeded in cutting overall alcohol drinking, and use during the 1920s. Pre-prohibition levels stayed low until the 1940s. […]

Alcohol and Criminality

Alcohol Effects on Behavior of Adolescents and Young Adults that Leads to Criminality Alcohol was been made by fermented grain, fruit juice and honey as early as 2000b.c when the people of India created a drink, called sura from fermented rice (Olson 1985). Aboard the Mayflower, the Puritans brought about forty tons of beer and ten thousand gallons of wine as opposed to the only fourteen tons of water. These settlers maintained and had passed down their ideology of alcohol […]

The Volstead Act: Prohibition’s Legal Backbone

The Volstead Act, formally acknowledged as the National Prohibition Act, emerges as a captivating and somewhat contentious chapter within American annals. Enacted on October 28, 1919, this legislative endeavor was crafted to uphold the 18th Amendment, earlier ratified in the same year, heralding the dawn of the Prohibition epoch in the United States. The act is named after Andrew Volstead, chairing the House Judiciary Committee, pivotal in its endorsement. While purporting to eradicate alcohol consumption and its corollary societal maladies, […]

The Aims of the Temperance Movement: Social Reform in the Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries

The movement advocating temperance, which began to amass notable momentum in the United States during the waning years of the 19th century and persisted into the nascent stages of the 20th century, transcended a mere campaign against the imbibing of alcohol; it epitomized a lofty reform endeavor aimed at restructuring American society. The overarching objective was absolute prohibition—the utter annihilation of the manufacture and vending of alcohol. However, underlying this objective was an intricate network of social, ethical, and political […]

The Impact of the 21st Amendment on American Society and Law

In the historical narrative of the United States, the impact of the 21st Amendment stands out as particularly transformative, both in societal norms and legal principles. Officially ratified in December 1933, this amendment marked the end of Prohibition—a period driven by a mix of moralistic zeal and unintended consequences. The 18th Amendment, which initiated Prohibition, aimed at purifying the nation from the perceived scourges of alcohol. However, its high ideals soon collided with harsh realities. Rather than eliminating vice, Prohibition […]

The 18th Amendment Simplified: Impact and Legacy of Prohibition in the United States

In the annals of American history, few epochs loom as large or provoke as much intrigue as the Prohibition era sparked by the 18th Amendment. Enacted in 1920, this constitutional amendment set the stage for a bold experiment in temperance, outlawing the manufacture, sale, and transportation of alcoholic beverages nationwide. Yet, what began as a crusade against the perceived evils of alcohol soon morphed into a complex saga of unintended consequences, societal upheaval, and lasting legacies that continue to shape […]

Al Capone: the Infamous Gangster and his Criminal Enterprise

Renowned as "Scarface," Al Capone stands as a pivotal figure in the annals of American criminality. His appellation is indissolubly linked with the era of Prohibition, an epoch marred by the federal proscription of alcohol's production, sale, and transit. Born in Brooklyn, New York, in 1899 to Italian immigrant progenitors, Capone forged a notorious criminal hegemony that indelibly marked an era, culminating in his apprehension and subsequent confinement. Capone's foray into delinquency commenced at an early age, initially serving as […]

The Twenty-first Amendment: how America Said Cheers to the End of Prohibition

When America decided to turn off the tap with Prohibition, it didn’t just ban the booze; it sparked an era that was anything but dry. Speakeasies, moonshine, and a roaring underground market for alcohol defined the 1920s, while the law intended to cleanse society’s vices did anything but. The story of Prohibition's end, however, is not just about America getting its liquor back; it's a deeper tale of societal reflection, change, and the acknowledgment that maybe, just maybe, the government […]

The Impact of Prohibition: a Historical Analysis

Prohibition, a grandiose experiment etched into the annals of American history, remains a captivating tale of societal transformation and unintended consequences. Emerging from the fervent temperance movement of the early 20th century, it bore the lofty goal of curbing the perceived ills of alcohol consumption, yet its legacy is a tapestry woven with complexities and contradictions. The dawn of Prohibition in 1920 cast a shadow over American society, altering the very fabric of social interactions and cultural norms. Once bustling […]

The 21st Amendment: Repealing Prohibition and Restoring Choice

The 21st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States occupies a singular position in the annals of American legislative history, standing as the sole amendment to annul a preceding one, notably the 18th Amendment, which had imposed the prohibition of alcohol. Enshrined on December 5, 1933, it signaled the cessation of a contentious epoch in American societal evolution, thereby concluding the era characterized by Prohibition. This treatise delves into the backdrop, ramifications, and enduring repercussions of the 21st Amendment, […]

Prohibition’s and its Lasting Effects on America

The epoch of Prohibition in the United States, spanning from 1920 to 1933 under the 18th Amendment, remains one of the most captivating and intricate chapters in American history. This period, often idealized for its speakeasies and jazz, had profound and extensive repercussions on society that extended well beyond the mere ban on alcohol production, sale, and transport. The ramifications of Prohibition permeated various facets of American life, encompassing social behaviors, cultural norms, economic activities, and the very essence of […]

Prohibition’s Legacy: the 18th Amendment’s Wild Ride

When the 18th Amendment hit the scene, officially stamped into existence by Congress on December 18, 1917, and getting the final nod on January 16, 1919, it was like the U.S. decided to throw the ultimate curveball at its citizens. Picture this: a country that had been pretty okay with its breweries and saloons suddenly decides, "Let's call it quits on booze." The goal? To clean up the supposed mess that alcohol had been stirring in society—crime, poverty, you name […]

Additional Example Essays

• The Importance of Professional Bearing in the Military
• Rosa Parks Vs. Harriet Tubman
• Why Gun Control Won’t Work
• Mental Illness and Gun Control
• Ted Bundy Research Paper
• Was the American Revolution really Revolutionary?
• Legal And The Nco Leader Informative Essay
• Social Problems Reflected in Zootopia
• Personal Narrative: My Family Genogram
• Gender Roles in the Great Gatsby
• Comparison Of Introverts VS Extroverts
• The Cask of Amontillado Literary Analysis

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

We will keep fighting for all libraries - stand with us!

Internet Archive Audio

• This Just In
• Grateful Dead
• Old Time Radio
• 78 RPMs and Cylinder Recordings
• Audio Books & Poetry
• Computers, Technology and Science
• Music, Arts & Culture
• News & Public Affairs
• Spirituality & Religion
• Radio News Archive

• Flickr Commons
• Occupy Wall Street Flickr
• NASA Images
• Solar System Collection
• Ames Research Center

• All Software
• Old School Emulation
• MS-DOS Games
• Historical Software
• Classic PC Games
• Software Library
• Kodi Archive and Support File
• Vintage Software
• CD-ROM Software
• CD-ROM Software Library
• Software Sites
• Tucows Software Library
• Shareware CD-ROMs
• Software Capsules Compilation
• CD-ROM Images
• ZX Spectrum
• DOOM Level CD

• Smithsonian Libraries
• FEDLINK (US)
• Lincoln Collection
• American Libraries
• Canadian Libraries
• Universal Library
• Project Gutenberg
• Children's Library
• Biodiversity Heritage Library
• Books by Language
• Additional Collections

• Prelinger Archives
• Democracy Now!
• Occupy Wall Street
• TV NSA Clip Library
• Animation & Cartoons
• Arts & Music
• Computers & Technology
• Cultural & Academic Films
• Ephemeral Films
• Sports Videos
• Videogame Videos
• Youth Media

Search the history of over 866 billion web pages on the Internet.

Mobile Apps

• Wayback Machine (iOS)
• Wayback Machine (Android)

Browser Extensions

Archive-it subscription.

• Explore the Collections
• Build Collections

Save Page Now

Capture a web page as it appears now for use as a trusted citation in the future.

Please enter a valid web address

• Donate Donate icon An illustration of a heart shape

Essays on Prohibition

Audio with external links item preview.

Share or Embed This Item

Flag this item for.

• Graphic Violence
• Explicit Sexual Content
• Hate Speech
• Misinformation/Disinformation
• Marketing/Phishing/Advertising
• Misleading/Inaccurate/Missing Metadata

plus-circle Add Review comment Reviews

18,813 Views

2 Favorites

DOWNLOAD OPTIONS

In collections.

Uploaded by librivoxbooks on October 4, 2019

SIMILAR ITEMS (based on metadata)

Home — Essay Samples — History — History of the United States — Prohibition

Essays on Prohibition

The Prohibition era in the United States had a significant impact on the country and its history. Writing an essay on Prohibition is important because it allows us to understand the reasons behind this movement, its effects on society, and the long-term consequences it had on the nation.

When writing an essay on Prohibition, it is essential to do thorough research on the historical background of this period. Understanding the events leading up to Prohibition, such as the Temperance movement and the social and political climate of the time, will provide a solid foundation for your essay.

In addition, it is crucial to explore the impact of Prohibition on society. This includes examining the rise of organized crime, the changes in social behavior and attitudes towards alcohol, and the economic effects of the ban on alcohol production and distribution.

Furthermore, discussing the long-term consequences of Prohibition is also important. This could include examining how the repeal of Prohibition in 1933 shaped the country's alcohol policies and regulations, and how it continues to influence attitudes towards alcohol consumption today.

When writing about Prohibition, it is important to use credible sources and provide evidence to support your arguments. This may include historical documents, scholarly articles, and expert opinions. It is also important to consider different perspectives and arguments related to Prohibition, as this will make your essay more comprehensive and well-rounded.

In summary, writing an essay on Prohibition is important because it allows us to understand the historical, social, and economic implications of this significant period in American history. By conducting thorough research and considering various perspectives, you can create a compelling and informative essay on this topic.

What Makes a Good Prohibition Essay Topics

When it comes to writing a compelling essay on Prohibition, choosing the right topic is crucial. A good Prohibition essay topic should be thought-provoking, engaging, and relevant to the historical context of the Prohibition era. To brainstorm and choose an essay topic, consider exploring different aspects of Prohibition, such as its impact on society, the rise of organized crime, the political and social implications, and the lasting effects on American culture. Additionally, consider What Makes a Good essay topic, such as its ability to spark discussion and debate, its relevance to contemporary issues, and its potential to shed new light on the Prohibition era.

Best Prohibition Essay Topics

• The role of women in the temperance movement
• The impact of Prohibition on American culture and society
• The rise of bootlegging and organized crime during Prohibition
• The political and economic implications of Prohibition
• The role of the media in shaping public opinion on Prohibition
• The lasting effects of Prohibition on alcohol consumption
• The influence of religious and moral values on the Prohibition movement
• Prohibition and its impact on racial and ethnic minorities
• The failure of Prohibition and the repeal of the 18th Amendment
• The global impact of Prohibition on alcohol trade and consumption
• Prohibition and its influence on the rise of speakeasies and jazz culture
• The role of law enforcement and the challenges of enforcing Prohibition
• The cultural and social changes brought about by the Prohibition era
• The impact of Prohibition on public health and safety
• Prohibition and its impact on the economy and government revenue
• The legacy of Prohibition in shaping alcohol policies and regulations
• The role of women in the bootlegging and speakeasy culture
• The role of literature and art in shaping public perception of Prohibition
• The impact of Prohibition on the brewing and distilling industries
• The influence of Prohibition on the rise of cocktail culture

Prohibition Essay Topics Prompts

• Imagine you are a prominent advocate for the temperance movement during the Prohibition era. Write a persuasive speech to rally support for the prohibition of alcohol.
• You are a journalist covering the rise of organized crime during Prohibition. Write a series of articles detailing the impact of bootlegging and the influence of notorious gangsters on American society.
• Create a fictional narrative set during the Prohibition era, exploring the experiences of individuals involved in the underground speakeasy culture.
• Imagine you are a historian conducting research on the lasting effects of Prohibition. Write a proposal outlining the key areas of study and potential findings that could shed new light on this pivotal period in American history.
• You are a policy advisor tasked with developing a comprehensive plan to address the social and economic consequences of Prohibition. Write a detailed report outlining your proposed strategies and their potential impact on contemporary society.

Argumentative Essay About Prohibition

Prohibition dbq questions and answers, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Introduction of Prohibition

How prohibition led to a rise in organised crime and corruption, the flaws of a set of prohibitionist policies in the united states, analysis of liquor prohibition in bihar, india, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Organization for The Prohibition of Chemical Weapons

The issues of sea piracy in history and international law prohibitions during the 1400s to 1500s, how prohibition contributed to the rise of organized crime in chicago.

1920 - 1933

United States

Prohibitionists first attempted to end the trade of alcohol during the 19th century. The purpose was to solve alcohol-related problems such as alcoholism, family violence and saloon-based political corruption.

By the turn of the century, temperance societies became a common fixture in American society. Women played a strong role in the temperance movement. Prohibition movement was an important force in state and local politics from the 1840s through the 1930s. Many factory owners supported prohibition in purpose to prevent accidents and increase the efficiency of workers.

In 1917, President Wilson instituted a temporary wartime prohibition in purpose to save grain for producing food. The Eighteenth Amendment passed in both chambers of the U.S. Congress in December 1917, which banned the manufacture, transportation and sale of intoxicating liquors, for state ratification.

Over the course of the 1920s, both federal and local government struggled to enforce the Eighteenth Amendment. The illegal manufacturing and sale of liquor went on throughout the decade. In addition, the Prohibition era encouraged the rise of criminal activity.

Prohibition ended with the ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment on December 5, 1933. However, a few states continued to prohibit alcohol after Prohibition’s end until 1966.

Relevant topics

• Industrial Revolution
• Westward Expansion
• Civil Rights Movement
• Harlem Renaissance
• Salem Witch Trials
• Philippine-American War
• Captains of Industry
• Oregon Trail
• Pearl Harbor

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Essay Database
• world trade center
• Greek Food and Culture
• The Future Portrayed I…
• Intercultural Communications
• In Heart of Darkness, …
• Things Fall Apart by C…
• In J.M. Coetzee's Wait…
• The Criminals Of Profe…
• Socialization of Children
• The Poet of Nature, Wi…
• Leonhard Euler
• Articles of Confederat…
• About all Sharks
• Vietnam Poetry

prohibition

What is paper-research.

• Custom Writing Service
• Terms of Service
• Privacy Policy
• Biographies

Essay on Prohibition

The views of people on prohibition have always been different. A controversy has been raging for the last few centuries about the usefulness and efficacy of Prohibition. Prohibition implies banning of drinking by the Government.

Those who are opposed to prohibition have their own arguments to support their views. The lovers of wine find nothing wrong in drinking. According to them, Hindu Mythology is replete with names of gods and demons who drank Soma’ and Sura’ respectively. They further say that the Russians have been taking Vodka’ and even the English are not against drinking.

They contend that wine is used in the religious rituals of the English and that it has become a second nature with them to drink. They even go to the extent of saying that during the British rule in India drinking became a mark of gentility with the people to drink and those who did not were considered backwards in civilization.

The opponents of Prohibition argue that life is full of miseries and sorrows and that it is a ring of dejection. According to them, there is no other way to forget their worries except by drowning their sorrows in a cup of wine. Even some state governments of India of the post-independence era imposed prohibition only to withdraw it later on.

Maharashtra, Gujarat, Andhra and Haryana had bitter experience on this issue. This speaks, according to the lovers of wine, of the uselessness of prohibition because it deprives the states of a big part of revenue coming from excise and custom of liquor.

Some argue that drinking is a personal matter and any prohibition amounts to suppressing individual liberty. Moreover, they point out, that the more prohibition exerted itself, the greater will be the popularity of drink. Illicit sale and smuggling of wine have raised its fangs in the states where prohibition was imposed.

But those who oppose prohibition do not realise the: drowning of sorrows in a cup of wine is a temporary escape from ironic; tragedies stresses and strains of life. They should not forget that habit is second nature. Habit is the first cobweb, then a cable.

We weave a thread of it every day, and at last, we cannot break it. The supporters of prohibition are of the view that revenue from custom and excise of liquor should not be earned to the moral and economic detriment of unfortunate individuals and their families.

The advocates of individual liberty should not forget that liberty is not licensed. It is not a curtailment of an individual’s liberty to prevent a man from drinking that results in the ruin of his family and very often leads to his personal physical, mental, moral and material ruin.

The evil effects of drinking are obvious. It ruins discriminate discrimination between good and evil. It switches off the control of reason and conscience, and makes one blind with passion. It engenders an irresistible craving for wine, women and wealth.

It makes a man completely imbecile, besides ruining his finances family and his family. It incapacitates the brain and imagination and breaks down a man’s morale and will-power. It overstrains the nerves, shatters the lungs and the heart, thereby bringing the person who indulges in it to premature death.

Apart from this, the habit of drinking is a great social evil too. It degenerates and perverts society. A man under the influence of liquor fails to distinguish between wife and daughter.

His judgement fails ments falter and he loses all sobriety. It has cost many promising People dearly S.T. Coleridge, Marlowe, singer Prince Sehgal, etc., fell victims to the evil of drinking.

Prohibition implies complete abstinence from wine. Gandhi. Morarji Desai and social reformers of India wanted prohibition to be enforced in the country so that the poor classes like the knights of the broom, the washermen, the cobblers, the unskilled labourers, drivers, professional soldiers and others might not ruin themselves by drinking liquor.

But the job is not that easy. It cannot be a success as long as people are illiterate and poor. The government must realise that the people are still groping in the dark. They cannot tell good from evil, right from wrong. The spread of education can alone broaden their mental horizon.

Since our education system is itself defective, it cannot be expected to deliver the good. There is strong need of awakening in the masses. Changes in the education system be brought about to suit the purpose. Healthy diversions, cultural activities and love for life are very essential before the cup of wine is snatched from the lips.

Prohibition is a social problem. The economic conditions of the people will have to be improved. Labour laws will have to be enacted to lessen the physical strain of the workers. Sources of amusement and recreation will have to be provided.

Honest administration vigilantly guarding against smuggling and illicit distillation is a must. Work and ideals of success and prosperity will have to be made available to every individual to achieve freedom from want, worry, fear and frustration. Social conscience will have to be awakened against the custom of drinking on days of festivals and other occasions of festivity.

If the above mentioned steps are taken both by the government and the Social reformers with courage and will-power and that too in right earnest, there is no reason why is reason why the people of India will not be healed of this evil of drinking.

Related Posts:

• Mirza Ghalib Shayari on God
• Random Joke of the Day Generator
• Freedom by GB Shaw; Summary & Analysis
• Common Conversational Phrases in English [List of 939]
• Random Phrase Generator [English]

Educate your inbox

Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.

Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.

Alanna Durkin Richer, Associated Press Alanna Durkin Richer, Associated Press

Wyatte Grantham-Philips, Associated Press Wyatte Grantham-Philips, Associated Press

Leave your feedback

• Copy URL https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-live-garland-holds-news-conference-announcing-ticketmaster-live-nation-anti-trust-lawsuit

WATCH: Garland announces Ticketmaster, Live Nation anti-trust lawsuit

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department filed a sweeping antitrust lawsuit against Ticketmaster and parent company Live Nation Entertainment on Thursday, accusing them of running an illegal monopoly over live events in America — squelching competition and driving up prices for fans.

Watch in our player above.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Manhattan, was being brought with 30 state and district attorneys general and seeks to break up the monopoly they say is squeezing out smaller promoters and hurting artists.

“We allege that Live Nation relies on unlawful, anticompetitive conduct to exercise its monopolistic control over the live events industry in the United States at the cost of fans, artists, smaller promoters, and venue operators,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement. “The result is that fans pay more in fees, artists have fewer opportunities to play concerts, smaller promoters get squeezed out, and venues have fewer real choices for ticketing services. It is time to break up Live Nation-Ticketmaster.”

WATCH: Senators question Ticketmaster over monopoly concerns, botched Taylor Swift ticket sale

The Justice Department accuses Live Nation of a slew of practices that allow it to maintain a stronghold over the live music scene, including using long-term contracts to keep venues from choosing rival ticketers, blocking venues from using multiple ticket sellers and threatening venues that they could lose money and fans if they don’t choose Ticketmaster. The Justice Department says Live Nation also threatened to retaliate against one firm if it didn’t stop a subsidiary from competing for artist promotion contracts.

Live Nation said in prepared remarks Thursday that the Justice Department’s lawsuit “won’t solve the issues fans care about relating to ticket prices, service fees, and access to in-demand shows.”

Live Nation added that “calling Ticketmaster a monopoly may be a PR win for the DOJ in the short term, but it will lose in court because it ignores the basic economics of live entertainment” — stating that most service fees go to venues. The company said it would defend itself “against these baseless allegations” and push for other reforms.

Live Nation has for years denied that it is violating antitrust laws and also said Thursday that competition had “steadily eroded Ticketmaster’s market share and profit margin.”

But competitor ticket sellers have long complained that Live Nation makes it difficult for them to disrupt the market with practices such as withholding acts if those venues don’t agree to use Ticketmaster’s service.

The lawsuit is the latest example of the Biden administration’s aggressive antitrust enforcement approach targeting companies accused of engaging in illegal monopolies that box out competitors and drive up prices. In March, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit against Apple alleging that the tech giant has monopoly power in the smartphone market. The Democratic administration has also taken on Google, Amazon and other tech giants.

WATCH: Taylor Swift ticket sale problems spark widespread criticism of Ticketmaster

“Today’s action is a step forward in making this era of live music more accessible for the fans, the artists, and the industry that supports them,” Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco said in a statement.

Ticketmaster, which merged with Live Nation in 2010, is the world’s largest ticket seller. During its annual report last month, the company said that Ticketmaster distributed more than 620 million tickets through its systems in 2023.

Around 70 percent of tickets for major concert venues in the U.S. are sold through Ticketmaster, according to data in a federal lawsuit filed by consumers in 2022. The company owns or controls more than 265 of North America’s concert venues and dozens of top amphitheaters, according to the Justice Department.

The ticket seller sparked outrage in November 2022 when its site crashed during a presale event for a Taylor Swift stadium tour. The company said its site was overwhelmed by both fans and attacks from bots, which were posing as consumers to scoop up tickets and sell them on secondary sites. The debacle prompted congressional hearings and bills in state legislatures aimed at better protecting consumers.

The Justice Department allowed Live Nation and Ticketmaster to merge as long as Live Nation agreed not to retaliate against concert venues for using other ticket companies for 10 years. In 2019, the department investigated and found that Live Nation had “repeatedly” violated that agreement and extended the prohibition on retaliating against concert venues to 2025.

AP Reporters Michelle Chapman and Maria Sherman contributed to this report from New York.

Support Provided By: Learn more

Advertisement

Supported by

Inside the White House, a Debate Over Letting Ukraine Shoot U.S. Weapons Into Russia

After a sobering trip to Kyiv, Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken is urging the president to lift restrictions on how Ukraine can use American arms.

• Share full article

By David E. Sanger

Reporting from Washington

Since the first American shipments of sophisticated weapons to Ukraine, President Biden has never wavered on one prohibition: President Volodymyr Zelensky had to agree to never fire them into Russian territory, insisting that would violate Mr. Biden’s mandate to “avoid World War III.”

But the consensus around that policy is fraying. Propelled by the State Department, there is now a vigorous debate inside the administration over relaxing the ban to allow the Ukrainians to hit missile and artillery launch sites just over the border in Russia — targets that Mr. Zelensky says have enabled Moscow’s recent territorial gains.

The proposal, pressed by Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken after a sobering visit to Kyiv last week, is still in the formative stages, and it is not clear how many of his colleagues among Mr. Biden’s inner circle have signed on. It has not yet been formally presented to the president, who has traditionally been the most cautious, officials said.

The State Department spokesman, Matthew A. Miller, declined to comment on the internal deliberations over Ukraine policy, including Mr. Blinken’s report after his return from Kyiv.

But officials involved in the deliberations said Mr. Blinken’s position had changed because the Russians had opened a new front in the war, with devastating results. Moscow’s forces have placed weapons right across the border from northeastern Ukraine, and aimed them at Kharkiv — knowing the Ukrainians would only be able to use non-American drones and other weaponry to target them in response.

In an interview with The New York Times this week, Mr. Zelensky said the inability to fire American missiles and other weaponry at military targets in Russia gave Moscow a “huge advantage.”

For months, Mr. Zelensky has been mounting attacks on Russian ships, oil facilities and electricity plants, but he has been doing so largely with Ukrainian-made drones, which don’t pack the power and speed of the American weapons. And increasingly, the Russians are shooting down the Ukrainian drones and missiles or sending them astray, thanks to improved electronic warfare techniques.

Now, the pressure is mounting on the United States to help Ukraine target Russian military sites, even if Washington wants to maintain its ban on attacking oil refineries and other Russian infrastructure with American-provided arms. Britain, usually in lockstep with Washington on war strategy, has quietly lifted its own restrictions, so that its “Storm Shadow” cruise systems can be used to target Russia more broadly.

The British foreign secretary, David Cameron, a former prime minister, said during a visit to Kyiv ahead of Mr. Blinken’s that Ukraine “absolutely has the right to strike back at Russia.”

The United States is now considering training Ukrainian troops inside the country , rather than sending them to a training ground in Germany. That would require putting American military personnel in Ukraine, something else that Mr. Biden has prohibited until now. It raises the question of how the United States would respond if the trainers, who would likely be based near the western city of Lviv, came under attack. The Russians have periodically targeted Lviv, though it is distant from the main areas of combat.

Another hint of a shift came in recent days. Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III, in repeating the usual administration position — “our expectation is that they continue to use the weapons that we’ve provided on targets inside of Ukraine” — seemed to suggest that there may be exceptions made for Russian aircraft operating in the safety of Russian territory, just over the border, enabling pilots to release glide bombs into eastern Ukraine.

“The aerial dynamic’s a little bit different,” Mr. Austin allowed, but he struggled to articulate the new standard. “And so — but again, don’t — don’t want to speculate on any — any one or — or any type of engagement here at the podium, so.”

When a reporter followed up by asking whether such aerial operations by the Russians were “off-limits or not off-limits?” Mr. Austin did not respond.

The Russians are accustomed to such debates, and they have been unsubtle in playing to American concerns about an escalation of the war.

This week they began very public exercises with the units that would be involved in the use of tactical nuclear weapons, the kind that would be used on Ukrainian troops. Russian news reports said it was “a response to provocative statements and threats from Western officials against Russia.”

But the administration appears less sensitive to such threats than it was in the early days of the war, or in October 2022, when there were fears that Russia, its forces failing, might use those weapons against Ukrainian military targets. During that incident, some administration officials, picking up conversations among Russian officers, feared there was a 50 percent chance a nuclear weapon could be detonated.

The current exercises, in contrast, are being dismissed as bluster and muscle-flexing.

In a notable break from the administration’s public position, Victoria Nuland, who left her position as No. 3 official in the State Department this spring, is now making a public argument that the administration needs to drop its ban on the use of its weapons against targets inside Russia.

“I think if the attacks are coming directly from over the line in Russia, that those bases ought to be fair game,” she said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”

“I think it’s time for that because Russia has obviously escalated this war,” she added, noting that Russia’s attack on Kharkiv is an effort “to decimate it without ever having to put a boot on the ground. So I think it is time to give the Ukrainians more help hitting these bases inside Russia.”

Ms. Nuland was always among a far more hawkish camp inside the administration, and her view was in the minority. But over time she won more and more of the arguments over whether to send more sophisticated missiles and artillery systems to Ukraine, and each time Mr. Biden relented, the worst fears he had about escalation did not materialize.

In his interview with the Times, Mr. Zelensky dismissed fears of escalation, saying President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia had already escalated the war. And he thought it unlikely that Mr. Putin would ever make good on his threat to unleash a nuclear weapon.

Mr. Biden and some of his aides are clearly not convinced. Over the past year they have said they believe there is some red line out there that would unleash a more severe reaction from Mr. Putin. They just don’t know exactly where that is, or what the reaction might be.

In private with Mr. Blinken last week and in his interview with The Times, Mr. Zelensky argued that at this desperate stage of the war, it was critical to let him use American weapons against Russian military units.

“This is part of our defense,” Mr. Zelensky told The Times. “How can we protect ourselves from these attacks? This is the only way.”

David E. Sanger covers the Biden administration and national security. He has been a Times journalist for more than four decades and has written several books on challenges to American national security. More about David E. Sanger

Our Coverage of the War in Ukraine

News and Analysis

Russia sent a pointed reminder that it could use battlefield nuclear weapons in Ukraine, releasing video of its forces beginning exercises  to practice their use.

As Russia’s war effort in Ukraine intensifies, it is increasingly clear that efforts by the West to squeeze Moscow’s oil revenues are faltering .

The United States and Europe are coalescing around a plan to use interest earned on frozen Russian central bank assets to provide Ukraine with a loan to be used for military and economic assistance .

Europe’s Defense Industry: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine jolted Europe out of complacency about military spending. But the challenges are about more than just money .

Putin’s Victory Narrative: The Russian leader’s message to his country appears to be taking hold : that Russia is fighting against the whole Western world — and winning.

A Boxing Win Offers Hope: The Ukrainian boxer Oleksandr Usyk became the world’s undisputed heavyweight champion, a victory that has lifted morale  in a country struggling to contain Russian advances.

How We Verify Our Reporting

Our team of visual journalists analyzes satellite images, photographs , videos and radio transmissions  to independently confirm troop movements and other details.

We monitor and authenticate reports on social media, corroborating these with eyewitness accounts and interviews. Read more about our reporting efforts .

Constant customer Assistance

Please enter your email to receive the instructions on how to reset your password.

Customer Reviews

Estelle Gallagher

U.S. Debates Letting Ukraine Shoot Into Russia

May 23, 2024 at 5:02 am EDT By Taegan Goddard Leave a Comment

“Since the first American shipments of sophisticated weapons to Ukraine, President Biden has never wavered on one prohibition: President Volodymyr Zelensky had to agree to never fire them into Russian territory, insisting that would violate Mr. Biden’s mandate to ‘avoid World War III,’” the New York Times reports.

“But the consensus around that policy is fraying. Propelled by the State Department, there is now a vigorous debate inside the administration over relaxing the ban to allow the Ukrainians to hit missile and artillery launch sites just over the border in Russia — targets that Mr. Zelensky says have enabled Moscow’s recent territorial gains.”

The Independent : With Ukraine losing ground, allies debate how to squeeze cash for Kyiv out of frozen Russian assets.

Recent Posts

Quote of the day.

“There’s plenty of work for senators seven days a week if you want to work, but you can’t solve this country’s problems if you’re only working two and a half…

GOP Lawmaker’s Daughter Killed by Haitian Gang

Missouri state Rep. Ben Baker (R) said that his “heart is broken in a thousand pieces” after his daughter and son-in-law were taken hostage then later killed by a gang…

The Two Governors ‘Nobody Likes’

Gov. Chris Sununu (R) said “almost all the governors get along” but there were two over the years “who nobody likes.” He called former Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) “just a…

How the U.S. Fought Nazis with Economics

Just published: The Wealth of Shadows: A Novel by Graham Moore. Neil Irwin: “In the late 1930s, as Hitler prepared the German economy for war, a secret team assembled in…

Gaza Protests Are Mostly an Elite School Phenomenon

The Washington Monthly finds that the vast majority of protests over the war in Gaza are happening at elite colleges and universities.Save to Favorites

A Fresh Look at the Senate Map

Time: “This is the point in the election cycle where both sides insist they are best positioned to end up with control of the Senate. Democrats have exactly zero margin…

What Trump Got Right

From Jonathan Last: Republican voters. For 40 years it was dogma that Republican voters wanted a president who blended social and fiscal conservatism and waited his turn to run. In…

Google Is Now Spreading Disinformation

“It’s been less than two weeks since Google debuted ‘AI Overview’ in Google Search, and public criticism has mounted after queries have returned nonsensical or inaccurate results within the AI…

Colorado Governor Opposes Biden’s Tariffs

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) said he is opposed to President Biden’s new China tariffs due to inflation concerns, the Washington Post reports. Said Polis: “If we are reducing our…

How Biden and Trump Are Preparing for Their Debate

CNN: “Between the president’s two multi-day trips scheduled for Europe to commemorate D-Day and for the annual G-7 summit and a fundraising swing to California, Biden aides have plans for…

Biden Plans to Get More Aggressive Once Trump Trial Ends

“With a verdict in Donald Trump’s hush money trial set to come as soon as next week, President Joe Biden’s campaign is exploring a shift to a new, more aggressive…

Are Russia and North Korea Planning an October Surprise?

“The Biden administration is increasingly concerned that the intensifying military alliance between Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un could vastly expand Pyongyang’s nuclear capabilities and…

Members of Far-Right Group Stand for Office in Oregon

“At least 66 members of an anti-government group founded by far-right militia figure Ammon Bundy have attempted to win local positions of influence in the Republican party in Oregon,” The…

Arizona Doctors Can Now Perform Abortions in California

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed a new law to allow some Arizona doctors to become temporarily licensed in the state to perform abortions, Politico reports.Save to Favorites

A Few Thoughts for the End of the Week

The internet is amazing. It allowed me to set up Political Wire nearly 25 years ago and compete for your attention against much bigger and more established news organizations, like…

Netanyahu to Address Congress

“Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) announced Thursday that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will address a joint session of Congress,” NBC News reports. “It is unclear when the address will take…

Rick Scott Plots the Ultimate McConnell Revenge

Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) is playing up his feud with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) as he vies to replace him as GOP leader, Politico reports. Scott blamed McConnell…

Democratic Lawmaker Suffers Stroke

Rep. Dwight Evans (D-PA) said he suffered a “minor stroke” that will keep him out of Congress for six weeks, The Hill reports.Save to Favorites

Trump’s Pattern of Sowing Election Doubt Intensifies

“Donald Trump has baselessly and publicly cast doubt about the fairness of the 2024 election about once a day, on average, since he announced his candidacy for president,” according to…

RFK Jr. Will File Complaint Over Debate

Robert F. Kennedy told Scripps News he plans to file a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission over his potential exclusion from next month’s presidential debate. Said Kennedy: “There’s strong…

About Political Wire

Goddard spent more than a decade as managing director and chief operating officer of a prominent investment firm in New York City. Previously, he was a policy adviser to a U.S. Senator and Governor.

Goddard is also co-author of You Won - Now What? (Scribner, 1998), a political management book hailed by prominent journalists and politicians from both parties. In addition, Goddard's essays on politics and public policy have appeared in dozens of newspapers across the country.

Goddard earned degrees from Vassar College and Harvard University. He lives in New York with his wife and three sons.

Goddard is the owner of Goddard Media LLC .

Praise for Political Wire

“There are a lot of blogs and news sites claiming to understand politics, but only a few actually do. Political Wire is one of them.”

— Chuck Todd, host of “Meet the Press”

“Concise. Relevant. To the point. Political Wire is the first site I check when I’m looking for the latest political nugget. That pretty much says it all.”

— Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the Rothenberg Political Report

“Political Wire is one of only four or five sites that I check every day and sometimes several times a day, for the latest political news and developments.”

— Charlie Cook, editor of the Cook Political Report

“The big news, delicious tidbits, pearls of wisdom — nicely packaged, constantly updated… What political junkie could ask for more?”

— Larry Sabato, Center for Politics, University of Virginia

“Political Wire is a great, great site.”

— Joe Scarborough, host of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”

“Taegan Goddard has a knack for digging out political gems that too often get passed over by the mainstream press, and for delivering the latest electoral developments in a sharp, no frills style that makes his Political Wire an addictive blog habit you don’t want to kick.”

— Arianna Huffington, founder of The Huffington Post

“Political Wire is one of the absolute must-read sites in the blogosphere.”

— Glenn Reynolds, founder of Instapundit

“I rely on Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire for straight, fair political news, he gets right to the point. It’s an eagerly anticipated part of my news reading.”

— Craig Newmark, founder of Craigslist.

More From Forbes

Russia’s stationing a nuclear asat in orbit could spark next world war.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

The mushroom cloud produced by the first atmospheric explosion by the Americans of a hydrogen bomb, ... [+] with a mind-boggling yield of 10.4 megatons, during Cold War I. Russia's development of a nuclear-armed ASAT could spark a new superpower conflict. (Photo by SSPL/Getty Images)

The Kremlin’s development of a nuclear-tipped anti-satellite missile and rejection of a new space arms control resolution at the United Nations - both denounced by White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan - could ultimately spark a great-power conflict, say defense experts across U.S. universities, think tanks and the American military.

If Russia launches a nuclear-armed ASAT, designed to perpetually circle the globe and potentially challenge the satellites of NATO allies aiding besieged Ukraine, the two sides will move closer to direct confrontation, these experts say.

Defense scholars have been testing nuclear war-game models that predict how the detonation of a warhead in low Earth orbit could play out, projecting the potential casualties in terms of satellites, human spacecraft, space stations and their pilots.

If Russia were to detonate a relatively powerful nuclear bomb at the same altitude and in the vicinity of the International Space Station or the Chinese Space Station, “there would be grave dangers to the astronauts,” says Victoria Samson , Chief Director, Space Security and Stability, at Washington’s Secure World Foundation.

These astronauts “might require an emergency evacuation,” but their docked space capsules could also be damaged by the explosion, she told me in an interview.

Samson points to a massive study conducted by the Pentagon’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency, whose experts used sophisticated computer modeling to examine “the potential damage to satellites from high altitude nuclear detonations .”

Why Is Chief Boden Leaving ‘Chicago Fire?’ Eamonn Walker’s Exit Explained

Nvidia are splitting 10-for-1 here’s what it means and how to profit, massive dota 2 7 36 patch notes add innate abilities and facets.

Conducting a series of simulated nuclear explosions at varying altitudes with increasingly powerful warheads, the defense agency scholars reported they tested “twenty-one trial nuclear events with varying yields and locations” that ranged from low Earth orbit to geosynchronous orbit.

They discovered the detonation of a 5000 kiloton warhead at an altitude of 200 kilometers - near the International Space Station’s orbit - inflicted “severe damage on the ISS.”

“More significantly,” they reported, “this exposure would cause radiation sickness to the astronauts within approximately one hour and a 90% probability of death within 2-3 hours.”

That means spacefarers aboard the blasted outpost - the ISS or the Chinese Station - would require split-second evacuation after a nuclear burst.

Simulated image captured at the Beijing Aerospace Control Center of the new Chinese Space Station. ... [+] The Station's astronauts would require a split-second evacuation if Russia were to detonate its nuclear-armed ASAT nearby. (Photo by Guo Zhongzheng/Xinhua via Getty Images)

Russian President Vladimir Putin has denied overseeing a secret project to build a new nuclear ASAT. Stationing nuclear weapons in space would be prohibited by the Outer Space Treaty , a UN pact that Moscow has ratified, Samson says.

But Russian weapons designers decades ago developed a missile defense interceptor , fitted with a nuclear warhead, initially aimed at shooting down an enemy’s intercontinental ballistic missiles, Samson says.

That interceptor might be adapted into a devastating ASAT.

To test Russia’s adherence to the Outer Space Treaty, the U.S., Japan and 60+ cosponsors introduced a resolution at the UN Security Council in April calling on all nations to reaffirm their support for the treaty, and to pledge not to deploy any space-based nuclear weapons .

Russia’s envoy to the UN abruptly vetoed the resolution.

From the White House, Jake Sullivan condemned the veto and Moscow’s rebuff of the call by the resolution’s world-spanning backers to avert a space arms race .

“The United States assesses that Russia is developing a new satellite carrying a nuclear device,” Sullivan declared. “We have heard President Putin say publicly that Russia has no intention of deploying nuclear weapons in space. If that were the case, Russia would not have vetoed this resolution.”

Detonating a thermonuclear bomb in low Earth orbit could, in a flash, destroy vast clusters of satellites, according to a former nuclear researcher at the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, Lt. Col. Robert Vincent.

In a project codenamed Starfish Prime , Vincent reported in a research article, Pentagon leaders who staged a 1962 test were astonished to discover: “Even one high altitude nuclear detonation is particularly effective at destroying satellites.”

“Not only were satellites in the line of sight destroyed, but even satellites on the other side of Earth were damaged and rendered inoperable,” Vincent, now a professor of advanced physics at the U.S. Air Force Academy, wrote in a prescient prediction of nuclear clashes in space two years before American intelligence agencies uncovered evidence of Russia’s clandestine rush to produce a nuclear-armed orbiter.

Vincent posited that countries whose satellites have come under nuclear attack would face an intense dilemma in formulating a response that doesn’t involve further use of atomic weaponry or spiral into a great-power clash - in the heavens or across the Earth.

He reported the Cold War super-bomb “Starfish Prime damaged or destroyed roughly one third of all satellites in low Earth orbit at the time.”

“There are currently around 5,000 satellites in low Earth orbit,” Mark Massa , deputy director for strategic forces policy at the Atlantic Council, told me in an interview.

Blasting this high-traffic region of space with a high-yield nuclear device, he says, would damage thousands of civilian satellites, launched by an assemblage of spacefaring nations almost as diverse as the UN.

Since Russia launched its blitzkrieg against democratic Ukraine, Putin’s emissaries to the UN have repeatedly threatened to begin shooting down SpaceX satellites , which have beamed broadband internet coverage to the embattled country.

Astrophysicist Joel Primack , Distinguished Professor of Physics Emeritus at the University of California, Santa Cruz, told me in an interview: “If ~1000 Starlink satellites were explosively destroyed, a debris chain reaction would create a lethal debris field” - a giant and deathly halo of “tiny missiles” that circles the Earth for generations into the future.

Spenser Warren, an expert on Moscow’s new-millennium race to modernize its nuclear arsenal, said there could be a range of Russian rationales for stationing atomic arms in orbit.

The most ominous objective, he told me, would be to give Putin the capability to launch a preemptive nuclear strike against an adversary. The Russian ASAT could be deployed to stage a surprise attack that destroys an enemy’s nuclear command and control satellites, including missile tracking sensors, in advance of a full-scale nuclear “first strike,” says Warren , a postdoctoral fellow at the University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation.

Russian nuclear ICBM rolls through Red Square during a Victory Day Military Parade. President Putin ... [+] is now playing a form of nuclear Russian roulette that could spark a great-power conflict. (Photo by Mikhail Svetlov/Getty Images)

If the Russian weapon were rocketed into orbit, the U.S., Britain and other NATO nations Putin has already threatened with nuclear strikes would have no way of ascertaining whether the spacecraft was aimed at destroying their strategic command satellites, adds Warren, who is now expanding his doctoral thesis, “Russian Strategic Nuclear Modernization Under Vladimir Putin ,” into a book.

Rather than tolerate having its all-important strategic satellites under constant threat of attack by Russia’s nuclear ASAT, the U.S. might opt to destroy Moscow’s orbital missile with a conventional ASAT, Warren predicts.

There would be no possibility of accidentally detonating the Russian nuclear warhead by hitting it with a ground-launched American ASAT, he told me in an interview.

“It is possible to strike a nuclear device with a conventional kinetic kill vehicle without causing a nuclear detonation,” he explains.

But to destroy a Russian spacecraft bearing a plutonium bomb, the U.S. government would first have to navigate a labyrinth of key UN Charter obligations and other rules of international law, says Professor Jack Beard , one of the world’s leading experts on the UN treaties governing space defense.

Moscow’s nuclear ASAT stationed in space would unquestionably violate the Outer Space Treaty , but that treaty does not include any enforcement mechanisms, he told me. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and any use of force tied to that invasion, violates Article 2 of the UN Charter, a basic building block of the entire UN system, he adds.

But to justify the American use of force against even an illegally stationed Russian weapon of mass destruction, orbiting the Earth, Professor Beard adds, the U.S. would have to claim it was facing “an imminent armed attack,” and therefore resorted to an act of anticipatory self-defense, arguably permitted under the UN Charter.

With its serial breaches of fundamental obligations under the UN Charter and other international laws, he says, “Russia is undermining the entire international order” and the UN itself.

Yet ironically, Russia retains tremendous power inside the UN system, as a Permanent 5 member of the Security Council, with an absolute right to veto any Council resolutions.

If Russia does send its nuclear ASAT into orbit, and the U.S. does shoot it down with a conventional missile, “You have all the makings for a large world conflict,” Beard says.

Alternatively, Russia’s detonation of a nuclear warhead in orbit, destroying rings of Allied satellites, might also trigger a superpower clash.

“Given that so many critical military assets are now located in orbit, a strong argument could be made that the next world war between the superpowers is going to begin in space, particularly in the sense that the first shot is likely to be fired there,” Professor Beard says.

Formerly a high-ranking counsel at the Pentagon, Beard is also chief editor of the globe-spanning “Woomera Manual on the International Law of Military Space Activities and Operations,” a new tour-de-force codex that focuses on the practice of states and reflects the work of vanguard space law scholars based in the U.S., Canada, Britain, Sweden, the Netherlands, France, Israel and Australia: the Manual was just released by Oxford University Publishing.

Russia’s igniting a nuclear warhead hundreds of kilometers above the Earth, or a tactical weapon on a Ukrainian city, could speedily spiral into a global conflict, says Dr. Laura Grego , research director of the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, and a preeminent expert on nuclear weapons, missile defense, and space security.

An initial clash of ASATs “could trigger a war between the U.S. and Russia,” she told me.

Dr. Grego says that despite Putin’s projection of power and ongoing military build-up, there are widening cracks in his facade of control that could edge him toward actually exploding a tactical bomb in Ukraine. The Russian army’s massive casualties in occupied Ukraine, and the aborted coup that briefly threatened Putin’s grasp on power, have been followed by his escalating threats on nuclear strikes.

“Russia’s activities and rhetoric indicate that it is prepared to use nuclear weapons in this conventional war in Ukraine,” she says. “It’s a very dangerous time.”

“If Russia used a nuclear weapon of any kind, and remember that most so-called “tactical” nuclear weapons are many times more powerful than those used to destroy the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Russia would become even more isolated politically and economically than it currently is,” she predicts.

“I don’t think anyone knows what happens next after the use of a nuclear weapon of any kind, but of course I’m very concerned that it risks direct conflict between nuclear-armed countries.”

Putin’s maneuvers to wage nuclear Russian roulette in the heavens or on Earth underscore the immense dangers to humanity posed by nuclear arms, says Tim Wright , Treaty Coordinator at the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. ICAN won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2017 for its pivotal role in promulgating the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons .

“The war in Ukraine has awakened the global public to the very real possibility that nuclear weapons will be used again for the first time since 1945 – and the insanity of allowing any leader to have at his fingertips the means to kill on such a massive scale,” he told me.

But in an equal and opposite reaction to Putin’s doomsday threats, more nations have been joining the treaty, which calls for the absolute abolition of nuclear weapons across the face of the Earth, Wright says.

Universal adoption of the treaty, and the speedy dismantlement of nuclear warheads planet-wide, he says, would usher in a new paradisical stage of civilization, opening a spectrum of new futures for youths around the world.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Join The Conversation

One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts. 

Forbes Community Guidelines

Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.

In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's  Terms of Service.   We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.

Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:

• False or intentionally out-of-context or misleading information
• Insults, profanity, incoherent, obscene or inflammatory language or threats of any kind
• Attacks on the identity of other commenters or the article's author
• Content that otherwise violates our site's  terms.

User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:

• Continuous attempts to re-post comments that have been previously moderated/rejected
• Racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory comments
• Attempts or tactics that put the site security at risk
• Actions that otherwise violate our site's  terms.

So, how can you be a power user?

• Stay on topic and share your insights
• Feel free to be clear and thoughtful to get your point across
• ‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ to show your point of view.
• Protect your community.
• Use the report tool to alert us when someone breaks the rules.

Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's  Terms of Service.