Article V of the US Constitution allows Congress to propose an amendment to the state legislatures by a two-thirds vote in both houses. If three quarters of the state legislatures ratify it then it becomes the law of the land, displacing any previous provision if necessary. Alternatively two thirds of the state legislatures may call for a constitutional convention, after which three quarters of the state legislatures or state conventions must ratify.
Both methods of ratification serve to guarantee a substantial national consensus which a minority of one-third would find it difficult to defy, both politically and psychologically.
Wayne B. Wheeler, the forgotten master strategist of the Anti-Saloon League, saw a way the need for a national consensus could be circumvented. He calculated that if the ASL could organize and deliver five to ten percent of the vote it could coerce elected officials and the two major parties into compliance. Five to ten percent is the winning margin in most elections and there were millions of voters convinced that the death of Demon Rum would produce a comprehensive transformation, making America a kinder, gentler place. Crime, domestic abuse, absenteeism, industrial accidents and a raft of bad habits would dwindle and disappear. Family life would flourish, the number of divorces diminish, savings accounts swell, and church attendance grow.
The political landscape was unlike today’s divisions on the social issues. There was no powerful single issue constituency to oppose the ASL. The big brewers and distillers could be denounced as corporate exploiters of human weakness. Even better, they were reviled during World War I as agents of the Kaiser, deliberately undermining Americans’ moral character. In those days German-Americans so dominated the brewing industry that the proceedings of the American Brewers’ Association were conducted in German. Serious drinkers had no countervailing organization and Wheeler probably calculated that deeply dedicated topers would be nursing hang-overs or snoring in gutters on election day. The much larger number of casual drinkers of beer and wine just didn’t feel strongly enough to form a single issue constituency in opposition. They had other priorities.
Wheeler’s genius and energy built an organization that could reliably deliver the winning margins needed to achieve his ends. At the center he built a network of Baptist and Methodist pastors. They were supplemented by support from both the Ku Klux Klan and the Progressives. In those days the KKK was experiencing a revival because of hostility to immigrants. A lot of native Americans had no use for whiskey-swigging Irishmen, wine-sipping Italians and beer-guzzling Germans. And there was the older racial terror that if Blacks had free access to alcohol they would terrorize white women and revert to cannibalism. The Progressive, otherwise determined enemies of the KKK, couldn’t resist an experiment in social engineering. Fifteen of the sixteen progressive congressmen voted for the prohibition amendment.
Although its leader concentrated the ASL’s attention on its single issue, he saw the importance of backing the 16th Amendment, authorizing the income tax. Income taxes were needed to replace the 30 percent of the U.S. government’s revenue derived from liquor taxes. High-minded millionaire Drys like John D. Rockefeller, Henry Ford, and S.S. Kresge, were willing to subordinate their distaste for income taxes to a higher cause and provided generous funding for the ASL’s powerful propaganda machine and organizational infrastructure.
The ASL also backed the 19th Amendment, figuring that women, being generally more abstemious than men, would vote to protect dry legislation once they had the vote.
I offer a prime example of Wayne B. Wheeler’s strategic genius. He targeted a popular but wet governor of Ohio and defeated him on his one issue. This was effective in terrifying other politicians, including the tipplers, drunks and dipsomaniacs among them, into voting dry. He understood that drying out Congress was a hopeless task and aimed only to coerce its members into voting as commanded. That guy was good. We haven’t seen his like since.
Political opposition to Prohibition was strong among working class ethnic Democrats and upper class Republicans, but as long as its mastermind lived the Anti-Saloon League’s defense of the 18th Amendment and its enabling Volstead Act remained impregnable. He had only to twiddle his fingers and his political puppets danced. It wasn’t long before it became apparent that all the Volstead Act enforcement managed to do was increase the price and lower the quality of illegal booze. It didn’t matter, the Drys kept Prohibition going for fourteen years.
The prohibition amendment and enforcement legislation put a lot of strain on the 4th, 5th and 10th Amendments in the Bill of Rights, and the eminent Republican lawyer, Elihu Root attempted to persuade the United States Supreme Court to overturn it on those grounds. An impossible project, the court was not about to overturn a constitutional amendment passed according to the provisions of Article V on constitutional grounds. It was up to Congress to initiate the process. The majority cowered before the ASL and dodged the question.
The point of this story is to illustrate how lightly most politicians take their oath to uphold the Constitution when their political careers are at risk. And in our days the word “oath” has an archaic sound. It suggest an immoderate commitment to principle and an obstacle to pragmatic compromise.
Does this conclusion sound too severe? Consider Article I, Section 2, requires reapportionment of the House of Representatives after each decennial census. The 1910, 1900, and 1890 reapportionments were all accomplished in nine months, but Wheeler calculated that reapportionment would enhance the representation of the wet urban populations. So the ASL succeeded in delaying reapportionment until 1928! In short the drys ordained that millions of voters should be denied representation through three elections cycles. A majority of Republican and Democratic congressmen obediently knocked down 42 reapportionment bills
Is there, perhaps, an enduring lesson here about the fidelity of most politicians to our Constitution?
The good professor states “The point of this story is to illustrate how lightly most politicians take their oath to uphold the Constitution when their political careers are at risk.” But he presents no evidence of this. In fact in many ways just the opposite. While he may deplore the outcome of the constitutional process in the enactment of the “constitutional” amendment on prohibition but he does not present any indication of it being unconstitutional. He opines that the Volstad act “put a lot of strain on the 4th, 5th and 10th Amendments in the Bill of Rights” and implicates political cowardice he does not however mention that in fact this was passed over the veto of the democratic progressive president Woodrow Wilson. While condemnation seems to come easily to the professor acknowledgments especially of someone of the progressive persuasion seem nearly impossible for him . The Good professor also neglects to mention that in fact 20 senators voted against presenting the amendment to the states (including 12 democrats and 8 republicans). It is also of note that the 18th amendment unlike any previous had a ratification deadline increasing the difficulty of its ratification.
Despite this the amendment was ratified by the states with ultimately 46 of the then 48 states passing it. History records this as a disastrous decision on the part of the citizenry. But fortunately we can learn from our mistakes and the amendment was repealed.
The more critical lesson is not the ethical strength of politicians but rather the ease with which the populace can be manipulated into such disastrous courses of action. We see this over and over with such events as the overwhelming and misinformed popular support for the invasion of Iraq
If Wilson vetoed it, the Volstead Act must have had some good points that history has suppressed.
In the lead-up to Congress’ passing the Iraq War Resolution, the anti-war crowd was at its loudest stridency, aided and abetted by the media. Despite this message, 77 senators voted for the bill, including the next Democrat presidential candidate and a future Secretary of State. If it was the constitutional duty of these representatives of the people to kill that bill, evidently they parked their oath at the door, alongside their principles.
Indeed, the US populace is easily manipulated into disastrous courses of action. The most recent example took place in November ’08. Fortunately this mistake too can be corrected.
Frostproof:
If you recall the media (ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox, NBC, NYT, WSJ, etc) doing anything but banging the war drum prior to the Iraq invasion, you are mistaken. Media flag waving and manipulation by the pentagon was the order of the day in early 2003. You can look it up.
The statement
If Wilson vetoed it, the Volstead Act must have had some good points that history has suppressed.
Is a clear demonstration of decision making driven by bias rather than evidence. The writer draws the conclusion not from any evidence in relation to the act itself but rather on the basis of who opposed it. This same kind of partisan fervor (rather than issue/evidence based thought) seems to inform much of discussions today. This of course is not new. George Washington warned us strongly of the danger in his farewell address.
BTW Frostproof is simply histoically incorrect when he states
the anti-war crowd was at its loudest stridency
He is apparently either two young or slept through the antiwar movement during the Vietnam conflict. Further while I am also two young to have personally experienced the events the antiwar movements preceding the first and second world wars are documented as much more vigorous than the meager showing prior to invasion of Iraq. This is simple historical fact.
Further he might note that I made no assertion that the Iraq war resolution was not constitutional. Thus his reference to the 77 senators parking their oath at the door is what is known in debate as a straw man which he has created out of nothing to support his partisan (i.e. including the next Democrat presidential candidate and a future Secretary of State) position.
Correct Seamus: Frostproof, you’ve swallowed the “liberal media” salami. That is not true. The media is corporate and whatever sells, they’re for. The lead up to the Iraq War was full-on saber rattle time. I can even remember just hoping that they did it and got it over with because the media had built up this tension so well any backtracking would have been terribly disappointing.
The anti-war movement in fact was highlighted as a bunch of ingrateful American dissidents who didn’t know how the world really works.
It was passed on 10/16/2002. There were major differences in media coverage pre- and post- “authorization”.
But, never mind. Drop my text “In the lead-up to … Despite this message,” and leave the media out of it. My comment still stands regarding our invertebrate congress-critters and the popular disaster in 11/2008.
I’ll add another disaster, that of March 23, 2010, which draws together both popular manipulation and principle-free politicians.
The hopeless inability of liberal-leaning commentators, here and elsewhere, ever to get the point is one of the wonders of the age.
Professor Can you say ad homonem,
Unfortunately we can all get the point. Which in this case is: when evidence and argument fail throw mud and hope no one will notice the bankruptcy of your position.
Sad, Sad, Sad.
Professor Can you say ad hominem,
Unfortunately we can all get the point. Which in this case is: when evidence and argument fail throw mud and hope no one will notice the bankruptcy of your position.
Sad, Sad, Sad.
(whoops sloppy keyboarding on my prior post sorry)
A bit of fluff as the constitutional argument here is at war with itself, the reading of Okrent tortured, and the pledge of allegiance to the Dunham redistricting lawsuit transparent. Or, as the redistricting in 1920 was held up, in part, due to rural, and bipartisan, fear of new immigrants in the cities gaining the vote, the author is actually entering a plea for greater power being accorded to urban areas. No better than a C- You can do better.
The incredible bombast of certain “columnists,” here, there, and everywhere, is as soggy as the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, and as monomaniacal as Cheops’ Pyramid.