The Rise and Fall of Prohibition: The Human Side of What the Eighteenth Amendment and the Volstead Act Have Done to the United StatesTowne, Charles Hanson
History
The Rise and Fall of Prohibition: The Human Side of What the Eighteenth Amendment and the Volstead Act Have Done to the United States
Towne, Charles Hanson
Prohibition -- United States; United States. Constitution. 18th Amendment
“Every loyal member of the Protestant Episcopal Church should hold
that the Volstead Act is a blasphemy against God. Jews, Unitarians
and others who do not consider that Jesus was God, are entitled
to hold different views from us regarding the religious aspect of
this Act, but for us there is no escape. We believe that Jesus was
God, and we believe that He made wine at Cana and that He ordered
it to be drunk publicly in His memory for all time to come. Our
Church has declared that unfermented grape juice is not wine and
should not be used for it in the Sacrament of Holy Communion. A
law to say that wine containing more than one half of one per cent
alcohol should not be allowed to be made and carried about freely
from place to place, implies that Jesus did wrong in making it and
ordering it to be used publicly by Christians. If He did wrong, He
was not God. Therefore, the Volstead Act from the standpoint of our
Church, blasphemes God.
“Every true Churchman, consequently, should despise and abhor the
Volstead Act as lying, robbing, cruel and blaspheming and unworthy
of respect, although it must be obeyed by all good citizens till
it can be repealed. We give it obedience, but not respect.
“‘But,’ some will say, ‘if this is so, why should we obey such a
law? Would it not be better to rebel against it, to flout it openly
and take the consequences?’ It is unjust. It is tyrannical. It is
un-American. It is due to a combination of religious and universal
ignorance of physiology. It is the result of active political
propaganda carried on by money of persons who are financially
interested in prohibiting alcoholic beverages. The weapons used
have been trickery, deception, falsification of statistics,
lobbying, slander and abuse. It has been forced on legislators
by intimidation of the grossest kind. Good men have been afraid
to oppose it, for fear of being called ‘boozers,’ ‘bootleggers,’
lawbreakers,’ and other opprobrious epithets. It was smuggled in as
a war measure when our young men were overseas, and later on was
made more and more stringent, till it far surpassed in tyranny any
thought entertained by its supporters in the beginning. Why should
we obey such a law? Would it not be more American to treat this
piece of iniquity as our forefathers treated the Stamp Act?
“No. It is our duty to obey it. We could not repeal the Stamp Act,
and we can repeal this. In the case of the tyranny of George III
there was no legal redress. All that freedom-loving men could do
was to rebel. That tyranny was forced on us from the outside. This
we have allowed to be imposed on us in our supineness by tyrants in
our own household. The two cases are not similar. We must obey the
Volstead Act till we can repeal or amend it....
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account