How Did The 18th Amendment Shape Social And Moral Behavior

The Eighteenth Amendment which instituted prohibition in America and its territories was an interesting attempt at using the constitutional amendment process to shape social and moral behavior in America. Until the Twenty-First Amendment which repealed prohibition, the road to prohibition in America dates back to colonial days. Although the amendment did not last as it was reversed by the Twenty-First Amendment less than 15 years later, along the way, the battleground for prohibition grew from local organizations to a national political party and set new interpretations for the Constitutional amendment process and played an important role in in American history.
The Eighteenth Amendment was the high-water mark for what is often referred to

Between 1851 and 1855, thirteen states adopted prohibition within their state boundaries. Future president Abraham Lincoln even discussed temperance during his 1842 address to the local unit of the Washingtonian Temperance Society as the state of Illinois moved towards prohibition. This time in history is representative of the process followed by many temperance organizations, that is, they worked more with state governments to establish prohibition within sectional areas of the nation. After the Civil War, national organizations and political party development elevated the temperance movement to the national level, although not to the point where the nation was ready to implement a national ban on alcohol. At this point, the temperance movement was still very sectional with a split in support between the immigrant centered urban north and the rural regions of the south and west.
As stated earlier, the second period of temperance began post-Civil War. During this time period, national organizations such as Woman’s Christian Temperance Union teamed with a new political party known as the National Prohibition party to take prohibition to the national political scene. In the past, many prohibition supporters, the ‘drys’ as they were called, believed the lack of political support undermined their efforts to nationalize the issues associated with alcohol use. In 1876 there was

In the 1900 presidential elections, the Prohibitionist Party gained a merger 1.5 percent of the popular vote. As miniscule as this may seem, they were on the big stage in national politics. As pressure from prohibitionists grew in the early twentieth century, Senator Kenyon from Iowa and Representative Webb of North Carolina sponsored legislation that forbad the shipment of liquor into dry states. In early 1913 more than two-thirds majorities in both houses approved what was called the Webb-Kenyon Act. Supporters had to override a veto from President Taft, who coincidently opposed prohibition, before Webb-Kenyon could be signed into law. Although President Taft questioned the Act’s constitutionality, the Supreme Court upheld the Webb-Kenyon Act in 1917. The battle to approve the Webb-Kenyon Act did two things. First, Taft’s actions demonstrated to prohibitionists the only way they were likely to achieve national prohibition was through a constitutional amendment, and second, it showed prohibitionists there was enough support in the House and Senate to push a constitutional amendment