On Fleming

During Easter, I was given an op/ed from the Wall Street Journal from back in January (you can read it for yourself here:  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704876104574632273709727450.html.  It was about Prohibition and its author was Thomas Fleming.  Now, at the outset, let me say how much respect I have for Mr. Fleming.  His books on the Revolutionary War and the Founding Fathers are top-notch, well written, and well researched.    And while I appreciate that he doesn't just "limit" himself to one period (he's written about World War I) -- which is something I wish more historians did, or even one genre (he's done some *gasp* historical fiction), but with this op/ed he missed the mark.  In 15 well written paragraphs he committed or repeated 15 fictions about Prohibition.

Now, I realize that people can disagree about Prohibition (just see my last post where I discussed the article by the Cato Institute), and I have no problem with that.  What I do have a problem with is when people, including historians, refuse to engage in a discussion based in the facts, but rather repeat old canards, perhaps even ones they were raised on, that rewrite history.  So, to set the record straight, even if it is after the passage of 3 months, and while understanding Fleming's own space limitations since he was writing for the Journal, here's what I have to say about Fleming's op/ed:

1.  Fleming acknowledges that sin and morality were a driving force for drys, however he seemingly attempts to separate the two.  That is he says one group of drys saw drinking as a sin, and another group of drys were moral reformers trying to be just like the abolitionists of old.  That they were, in the main, one in the same (as the life of Shumaker shows) he does not seem to want to admit.  Why he tries to make this distinction, I don't know.  But it implies a lack of understanding of the Protestant reformer tradition in America.

2.  Fleming introduces readers to one of the top American drys and economists of the early 20th century, Irving Fisher, who asserted that introducing Prohibition was going to increase American industrial productivity and help America's workers.  Fleming seems to dismiss Fisher's claims and work, but doesn't counter them.  Here in lies the problem, he can't.  Fisher was writing at a time when large numbers of workers came to the job hungover and possibly even drunk.  Fleming does not.   The world pre-Prohibition was both similar to the one we live in today and very very different.  What the drys did with their reform helped create the modern American we have today.

3.  Fleming introduces readers to eugenics (the science of the "well born"), which like many other reformers (both dry and not) of the Progressive Era, Fisher subscribed to.  And indeed, perhaps many drys were both narrowly and even broadly eugenicists.  But what does that prove?  If Fleming is trying to use subtext to link dry eugenicists to the Nazis, he is on dangerous ground indeed.  If he is trying to imply that some reformers saw alcohol as inhibiting "race betterment" (to use the language of the time), or even that alcohol might have promoted crime etc, does that discredit those ideas just because eugenicists held them?  Eugenicists were also among the first and leading advocates of genes and heredity, and I assume that Fleming isn't discounting those scientific facts just because eugenicists subscribed to them.

4.  Fleming talks about how drys (including the Anti Saloon League) used democracy at the local level (via local option laws) to enact Prohibition.  I'm confident he isn't implying that political activism is a bad thing.  Why shouldn't concerned citizens get involved?  But what I find more interesting is the lack of mention as to WHY those drys were organizing.  Fleming fails to mention wet/brewer corruption of local politics, nor does he talk about the violence and vice that were part of saloon life.  Even beyond drinking for the sake of drink, drys had good reason to want to deal with alcohol and the industry behind its production.

5. Drys soon moved their activism from the local to the state level, and then on to the national level.  In part, this had to do with the ease of transportation of alcohol from wet areas into dry ones (the advent of the automobile, not to mention the use of inter-urbans and trains).  Fleming decries this imposition on wets, making it into a monumental hardship.  Doesn't what drys did make sense?  And furthermore, what they were doing in seeking to put limits on interstate commerce was little more than what other reformers were doing (such as with prostitution via the Mann Act).

6.  There is no doubt that World War I (and the associated anti-German sentiment) aided drys in achieving Prohibition on the national level.  What Fleming fails to note for his readers is that the dry crusade was something of a cultural struggle wets and drys.  There was, in other words, plenty of animosity between many wet German-Americans and many native born American drys BEFORE the war.  That drys would use World War I to their advantage is really not surprising, nor is was it unexpected.

7.  By April of 1917, a majority of states were dry (including Shumaker's Indiana, which went dry that very month), and all of them had some legal limit to alcohol on the books.  Fleming, however, implies, that World War I made national Prohibition possible, when in fact all it did was speed up the dry timetable.  If they were guilty of anything it was being opportunistic.  But if you were a dry in 1917, could you be blamed for acting when everything seemed to be going your way?

8.  Fleming devotes an entire paragraph to attempts by drys to make the Army dry and to halting the use of grain to make alcohol, both as a war measure.  But he doesn't explain why this is troubling.  Nor does he mention that most of the other combatant nations either pondered or attempted similar actions.


9.  Anti-German sentiment was hardly the sole province of drys during the war, which is something Fleming seems to imply.  After all, the restriction on the German language was hardly a dry idea.

10.  Fleming does a disservice to the discussion of the ratification of the 18th Amendment.  At the time, it was the fastest ratified amendment in American History.  Fleming never mentions its ratification, instead implying that it all but bogged down.

11.  To say that Wilson's signing of full Wartime Prohibition cost him German and Irish voes (for the 1918 mid-term election), as Fleming does, seems to ignore that the nation was now at war against Germany and allied to Great Britain!  The Democrats, spearheaded by Wilson, had run in 1916 on the promise that they would keep the nation out of the Great War.  Indeed, Democrats attempted to paint Republicans from the top down as "war mongers" for talking about preparedness.  This was part of a re-election strategy to keep German and Irish voters in the Democratic fold.  Wilson waited roughly a month after being sworn in for his second term to ask for a declaration of war, which is probably something the Anglophile president had wanted to do since 1914.  German and Irish voters had a much larger reason to turn on the Democrats than wartime Prohibition.

12.  The Volstead Act was the enforcement law for the 18th Amendment, the Constitutional amendment that Fleming never acknowledges had passed.  Wilson's veto measure, which was quickly overridden, was penned after his famous stroke and in the midst of his "recovery."  We actually don't know what Wilson thought about Volstead at the time.  It is highly likely that his wife penned the veto measure, not the president himself.  But Fleming is content with discussion of Volstead, he goes on to assert that "tens of thousands" of people suddenly found themselves unemployed once the law went into effect in 1920.  That's not exactly true either.  Many brewers converted into other businesses, as did many saloons.  The net unemployment of Prohibition is almost zero, as American industry boomed during the 1920s.  Those who did lose their jobs quickly found new ones.

13.  Fleming virtually repeats the old line that during Prohibition "everybody" was drinking.  The evidence, simply put, does not support such wet propaganda.  Had Fleming consulted Norman Clark's work, he'd have seen that most studies indicate that drinking dropped nearly 90% and that most people never saw the inside of a bootleg saloon or engaged in home brew experimentation.  Furthermore, drinking levels AFTER repeal   don't return to pre-Prohibition levels until the 1960s.  In short, most people weren't drinking and most people didn't return to drinking after repeal.  Indeed, Fleming seems to miss the point of the 18th Amendment's ratification:  minorities don't pass Constitutional Amendments.  Wets may have blamed Prohibition for the Great Depression, but surely Fleming doesn't actually believe that (though he does imply it). After all, that would discount the international loan/monetary system, over production, banking abuse, and the stock market (not to mention problems with American agriculture and the rebound of European economies).

14.  Franklin Roosevelt NEEDED repeal, the 21st Amendment was proof that he and his New Deal were doing something.  Furthermore, he was just as opportunistic in 1932/1933 as drys had been in 1918, and could cite good reasons for bringing about the repeal of Prohibition.  But leaving no wet propaganda unrepeated, Fleming asserts that FDR's repeal was a blow to the Mafia, all but implying that the Mob and gangsters had been born because of Prohibition.  This shows a lack of understanding the history of organized crime in America, and is simply wrong when it comes to the Mob's finances and future.  For one, while the Mob did make millions from bootlegging, that was simply more money the Mob was making.  It was already making millions from gambling, prostitution, and the start of influence within unions.  Furthermore, the Mob didn't "die" because of repeal, it kept going quite strong right up to the 1970s and 1980s, when the Federal Government finally broke the back of the Italian Mafia (only to have to face off against the Russian and Chinese organized crime families).

15.  In his final paragraph, Fleming links Prohibition (as an attempt at economic restructuring) to events today (with the Federal Government increasingly active in automobile production, health care, and banking), and sees it as a warning to us today.  But he'd do better to go back and reread his first paragraph.  Prohibition's goal was not to restructure the economy, it was about sin and public morals.  Asserting otherwise is to not give drys their due, nor to say that they unintentionally attempted such a restructuring is a misreading of the historical record.

There is other news to spread, but I think I've written enough for now.  But if you want to read about how Prohibition actually happened in Indiana, then pick up: 
http://undpress.nd.edu/book/P01293

Shumaker comes to Columbia City

Ever since 1994, Columbia City has been a part of my life. Sure, back in high school I'd been there once or twice (to go to Paige's Crossing), but once Erin entered my life, so did Columbia City. Her dad's family is based there, so I've had the pleasure of being a part of lake activities as well as witness the fun of Hoosier Hysteria there, not to mention getting an inside view of one of greatest county courthouses in the state (and I'll just say it, nation). Today, however, marked a new moment in my relationship with Columbia City. Today, I got to be "Professor Lantzer" there for the very first time.

The Whitley County Historical Society hosts a monthly event called "Second Sundays" in which they have guest speakers come in and give presentations to the public. Last year I contacted the WCHS about bringing Shumaker's story to "the City," and my proposal was accepted. The WCHS is based in the home of Vice President (former governor and Columbia City favorite son) Thomas Marshall. As luck would have it, not only does Marshall play an important role in my book, but March 14 also happens to be his birthday, so it all came together rather nicely as it turned out.

The WCHS went all out. There was good publicity in the Ft. Wayne papers and a presence on the internet beyond my own efforts on Facebook and Twitter. In addition to PR, they also put together a nice display, complete with artifacts from a brewery that had operated in CC, some clippings on Prohibition raids on stills, and lots of things from the WCTU. The centerpiece by far was the Francis Willard memorial window from the old Methodist Church. The PR paid off, as the hall was filled, and not just because I had 7 family members in attendance, there were about 30 other people there I'm not related to!

My talk itself centered on Shumaker (of course) but also on the 1908 election cycle, when Shumaker and Marshall first went head-to-head. It went well, the questions after I was done were great, as was the discussion I had (actually before as well as) after the talk with folks who were there. This included the grandson of the woman for whom that aforementioned memorial window had been dedicated (who also passed along that his grandfather had been saved at a revival in town and had taken the temperance pledge, which helped him land the aforementioned grandmother as his wife), the grandson of Attorney General Arthur Gilliom (whose father I had the honor to interview), a member of the ABC board for Whitley County, and a local oral historian who recently interviewed a man in the southern part of the county who told about a brewing operation that never closed when Prohibition became law, and was never shut down during Prohibition.

All in all, it was just a great time! I was very happy that Erin, Kate, and Nick got to watch me in action, and very pleased that my CC in-laws and my parents were in attendance to boot. I hope there are more days like this for the book, it was a very nice way to cap off the spring set of Shumaker talks.

Is Mother Nature A Wet?: Snow and the DC Book Talk

Let me be clear, I love Washington, D.C. I love going there, researching there, staying there, and getting to see friends and family. And if you can spend time (and I urge you to stay on Capitol Hill) in the midst of power (as well as people who want it and those who think they have it), it is just an awesome place to be -- whatever time of year.

Now, how does all this tie into Prohibition, not to mention Shumaker? Well, this past weekend (two days after the State of Union and the same day that President Obama met with Congressional Republicans) I arrived in D.C. The purpose was to do a little research, do some work, maybe relax a bit, and then talk to the IU Alumni Association's Washington, D.C. chapter about Shumaker, IU and Prohibition (including why Bloomington is still officially a dry campus -- the legacy of President William Lowe Bryan, who hired and nurtured Paul V. McNutt as a law professor, who in turn was the governor whose "little New Deal" undid Shumaker's life's work).

Sure, when I landed, it was cold. But it had been cold in Indiana, and I didn't really care that I had flown to Milwaukee before arriving at Reagan National. Off I went on the Blue Line Metro to Capitol South and I was there. After a little time at the Library of Congress, I passed by the Capitol building, the Supreme Court (which, by the way, sits right beside the Methodist Building, where Shumaker's co-religionists once kept watch and pushed for legislation ), through a sea of uniformed military (both foreign and domestic), and down to the Hyatt Capitol Hill for more work and some rest. After a night of rest, it was time to talk Shumaker to the alums.

And then, the snow hit! I walked throught it on the way to the Metro. Along the way, I noticed our government in action. There were good federal employees out shoveling the snowy walkways in front of our nation's buildings. Of course, in front of the Capitol, I got to see why we have a debt. One worker was spreading salt on the snow, and about 30 seconds behind him came someone with a little snow plow, plowing the freshly salted snow! But I made it to where I needed to be and waited.

The snow, of course, caused delays. I'm from Northern Indiana. I understand snow and what it can do to a city and what it can do to drivers who aren't (and even sometimes those who are) used to driving on it. So I was ready to wait. I ate lunch. I got to visit with some of my family (thanks Jeff, Spencer and Abby for making the trek), and then the IU folks began to slowly trickle in. I really appreciate the fact that they braved the elements, and am very thankful that Nikki White put the event (the centerpiece of which was the IU-IL basketball game) together. But of course there was the snow, which dropped attendance (not unlike the buzzer beater shot that gave IL the win), and meant I needed to get to the airport sooner rather than later. Nikki was gracious enough to invite me to come back the next time I'm in D.C., an invite I'll be taking her, and the Alumni Association up on.

The end result, was a good trip to D.C., although it wasn't over JUST yet. I got to the airport and then waited. My flight was supposed to leave at 3pm, we got pushed back to 330. We sat on the the plane for over 4 hours, before taking off for Atlanta. I made my connection with 30 minutes to spare, and got home safe and sound a bit before 1am.

The only conclusion I could draw from this D.C. adventure was that Mother Nature was a wet! However, the Shumaker bandwagon continues. Next stop: Noblesville, February 3!