Progressivism was a movement of the
early twentieth century that sought political and social reform through
education, industrialization, direct democracy and increased government
intervention. Perhaps the most
monumental—and also the most controversial—progressive reform was the prohibition of alcohol. 'Strong drink' seemed to be at the
root of most social problems: drunken parents neglected or abused their
children while spending money on alcohol instead of on food or clothing; prison
inmates blamed alcohol for leading them into crime, and businessmen supposed
alcohol to be indirectly decreasing production through worker absences and
accidents due to drunkenness. The
progressives saw Prohibition as a means of eliminating these major social
issues; the general supposition was that crime and
poverty would be outlawed along with alcohol.
Prohibition
was established by the Eighteenth Amendment, ratified in 1919, and progressives
assumed everything would fix itself after that. We all know that
nobody could acquire a drop of liquor during the roaring twenties, right? No, an illegal bootlegging industry quickly sprang up, with “moonshiners”
brewing and selling liquor under cover of darkness, “rum runners” smuggling in
alcohol from the Caribbean, and illegal saloons serving bathtub gin. Organized crime and police corruption
flourished. The “roaring twenties” were
called that for a reason! It was soon
realized that instead of solving the social problems I mentioned, Prohibition
had actually made things worse; only thirteen years after it took effect, the
Eighteenth Amendment was repealed by the Twenty-First Amendment.
I
have recounted this piece of our constitutional history because it contains
some modern parallels that have seen heated debate for years, and conveys a
very important lesson for Americans today.
The Twenty-first Amendment taught us that there are things the
government can and should reasonably and successfully control or regulate, and
things it absolutely can and should not.
Firearms, now taking the place of alcohol in this sense, are being
viewed as the root of many societal problems, and are being outlawed in an
attempt to solve those issues.
It
is my fervent contention that neither alcohol nor guns are inherently evil. Each has the ability to amplify the character
and intentions of the one who holds it in his hands. Alcohol has beneficial uses, both medical and
medicinal, depending upon whether it is applied externally or internally. Guns have
enabled some of their owners to protect themselves or others, or defend their
country; and others to conquer or commit murder. We didn’t need to keep liquor from
God-fearing, sober men in the twentieth century, and we could not effectively
keep it from those committed to abusing it.
Neither can we succeed with the kind of gun control that would, in any
reasonable attempt, keep guns from being abused by those bent on evil without
crippling the ability of the law-abiding citizen to utilize these tools for
good causes. This problem will perhaps
never disappear, but it cannot be resolved by the passage of a law that
attempts to deny persons something that they will not be denied.
The point is that
those individuals who are willing to be held to a certain set of morals already
are, while persons seeking more than tacit approval of their behavior are
already engaging in it at will, and will continue to do so. Morality cannot be held in place by
legislation. The government created by
the United States constitution is a self-government, whose success depends upon
the moral responsibility of its keepers.
As John Adams aptly stated, “Our Constitution was made only for a
moral and religious people; it is wholly inadequate to the government of any
other.” Individuals must accept an inherent moral code, because without it their actions cannot be effectively controlled. The Eighteenth Amendment and
the resulting Twenty-First Amendment are permanent scars on our Constitution:
they are a stark reminder that the morality of a nation comes from deep within
the hearts and consciences of individuals, not from government legislation.