1920 prohibition essay

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

Course: US history   >   Unit 7

• The Nineteenth Amendment
• 1920s urbanization and immigration
• The reemergence of the KKK

Prohibition

• Republican ascendancy: politics in the 1920s
• The presidency of Calvin Coolidge
• 1920s consumption
• Movies, radio, and sports in the 1920s
• American culture in the 1920s
• Nativism and fundamentalism in the 1920s
• America in the 1920s
• Prohibition was a nationwide ban on the sale and import of alcoholic beverages that lasted from 1920 to 1933.
• Protestants, Progressives, and women all spearheaded the drive to institute Prohibition.
• Prohibition led directly to the rise of organized crime.
• The Twenty-first Amendment , ratified in December 1933, repealed Prohibition.

The temperance movement

Enacting prohibition: the eighteenth amendment, repealing prohibition: the twenty-first amendment, what do you think.

• Lisa McGirr, The War on Alcohol: Prohibition and the Rise of the American State (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2016), 11-13.
• Daniel Okrent, Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition. (New York: Scribner, 2010), 2-3.
• Kenneth D. Rose, American Women and the Repeal of Prohibition (New York: NYU Press, 1997), 2-3.
• See Karen Blumenthal, Bootleg: Murder, Moonshine, and the Lawless Years of Prohibition (New York: Flash Point, 2011).

Want to join the conversation?

• Upvote Button navigates to signup page
• Downvote Button navigates to signup page
• Flag Button navigates to signup page

MA in American History : Apply now and enroll in graduate courses with top historians this summer!

• AP US History Study Guide
• History U: Courses for High School Students
• History School: Summer Enrichment
• Lesson Plans
• Classroom Resources
• Spotlights on Primary Sources
• Professional Development (Academic Year)
• Professional Development (Summer)
• Book Breaks
• Inside the Vault
• Self-Paced Courses
• Browse All Resources
• Search by Issue
• Search by Essay
• Become a Member (Free)
• Monthly Offer (Free for Members)
• Program Information
• Scholarships and Financial Aid
• Applying and Enrolling
• Eligibility (In-Person)
• EduHam Online
• Hamilton Cast Read Alongs
• Official Website
• Press Coverage
• Veterans Legacy Program
• The Declaration at 250
• Black Lives in the Founding Era
• Celebrating American Historical Holidays
• Browse All Programs
• Donate Items to the Collection
• Search Our Catalog
• Research Guides
• Rights and Reproductions
• See Our Documents on Display
• Bring an Exhibition to Your Organization
• Interactive Exhibitions Online
• About the Transcription Program
• Civil War Letters
• Founding Era Newspapers
• College Fellowships in American History
• Scholarly Fellowship Program
• Richard Gilder History Prize
• David McCullough Essay Prize
• Affiliate School Scholarships
• Nominate a Teacher
• Eligibility
• State Winners
• National Winners
• Gilder Lehrman Lincoln Prize
• Gilder Lehrman Military History Prize
• George Washington Prize
• Frederick Douglass Book Prize
• Our Mission and History
• Annual Report
• Contact Information
• Student Advisory Council
• Teacher Advisory Council
• Board of Trustees
• Remembering Richard Gilder
• President's Council
• Scholarly Advisory Board
• Internships
• Our Partners
• Press Releases

History Resources

The Supreme Court upholds national prohibition, 1920

A spotlight on a primary source by wayne b. wheeler.

To provide for enforcement of the amendment, a powerful lobbying group called the Anti-Saloon League, led by its top lawyer, Wayne B. Wheeler, devised the National Prohibition Act, also known as the Volstead Act. Though the law’s wording was confusing, it defined intoxicating liquors as anything over 0.5% alcohol by volume. It also laid the groundwork for federal and state responsibility to prosecute violators. President Woodrow Wilson’s veto of the law was swiftly overridden by Congress in October 1919. The constitutionality of the new law and the amendment itself were challenged in a series of legal cases that were brought before the US Supreme Court as the National Prohibition Cases (1920). In this document, Wheeler reviewed the meaning of the Court’s decision to uphold the law:

The decision will go down in history as one of the great judicial landmarks in the progress of our civilization. There will be an effort in Congress and in the State Legislatures to nullify the law, and we will meet the practical problem of law enforcement for years to come, but this decision will be the judicial foundation upon which prohibition will rest through the ages.

Thirteen years later, the Twenty-first Amendment was ratified, overturning the Eighteenth Amendment and ending national prohibition in 1933.

View images of the entire document  here . 

Questions for discussion.

Read the introduction and view the image of the pamphlet. Then apply your knowledge of American history to answer the following questions:

• Develop a timeline noting prior attempts to limit or ban alcohol.
• List the participants and their reasons for opposing alcohol.
• Explain what Wayne B. Wheeler meant when he noted that “. . . we will meet the practical problem of law enforcement for years to come.” (*Additionally, research the involvement and growth of organized crime during the thirteen years of prohibition.)
• How flawed was the prediction by Wheeler that the decision of the Supreme Court upholding the Volstead Act “. . . will go down in history as one of the great judicial landmarks in the progress of our civilization?”
• Extra Assignment : Why do we have a system now where national, state, and local laws regulate the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages?

A printer-friendly version is available  here .

Stay up to date, and subscribe to our quarterly newsletter..

Learn how the Institute impacts history education through our work guiding teachers, energizing students, and supporting research.

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

The Roaring Twenties

By: History.com Editors

Updated: March 28, 2023 | Original: April 14, 2010

The Roaring Twenties was a period in American history of dramatic social, economic and political change. For the first time, more Americans lived in cities than on farms. The nation’s total wealth more than doubled between 1920 and 1929, and gross national product (GNP) expanded by 40 percent from 1922 to 1929. This economic engine swept many Americans into an affluent “consumer culture” in which people nationwide saw the same advertisements, bought the same goods, listened to the same music and did the same dances. Many Americans, however, were uncomfortable with this racy urban lifestyle, and the decade of Prohibition brought more conflict than celebration. But for some, the Jazz Age of the 1920s roared loud and long, until the excesses of the Roaring Twenties came crashing down as the economy tanked at the decade’s end.

Flappers: The 'New Woman'

Perhaps the most familiar symbol of the “Roaring Twenties” is probably the flapper : a young woman with bobbed hair and short skirts who drank, smoked and said “unladylike” things, in addition to being more sexually “free” than previous generations. In reality, most young women in the 1920s did none of these things (though many did adopt a fashionable flapper wardrobe ), but even those women who were not flappers gained some unprecedented freedoms.

They could vote at last: The 19th Amendment to the Constitution had guaranteed that right in 1920, though it would be decades before Black women in the South could fully exercise their right to vote without Jim Crow segregation laws.

Millions of women worked in blue-collar jobs, as well as white-collar jobs (as stenographers, for example) and could afford to participate in the burgeoning consumer economy. The increased availability of birth-control devices such as the diaphragm made it possible for women to have fewer children.

In 1912, an estimated 16 percent of American households had electricity; by the mid-1920s, more than 60 percent did. And with this electrification came new machines and technologies like the washing machine, the freezer and the vacuum cleaner eliminated some of the drudgeries of household work.

Did you know? Because the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act did not make it illegal to drink alcohol, only to manufacture and sell it, many people stockpiled liquor before the ban went into effect. Rumor had it that the Yale Club in New York City had a 14-year supply of booze in its basement.

Fashion, Fads and Film Stars

During the 1920s, many Americans had extra money to spend—and spend it they did, on movies, fashion and consumer goods such as ready-to-wear clothing and home appliances like electric refrigerators. In particular, they bought radios.

The first commercial radio station in the United States, Pittsburgh’s KDKA , hit the airwaves in 1920. Two years later Warren G. Harding became the first president to address the nation by radio —and three years later there were more than 500 stations in the nation. By the end of the 1920s, there were radios in more than 12 million households.

People also swarmed to see Hollywood movies: Historians estimate that, by the end of the decades, three-quarters of the American population visited a movie theater every week, and actors like Charlie Chaplin , Gloria Swanson, Rudolph Valentino and Tallulah Bankhead became household names.

But the most important consumer product of the 1920s was the automobile . Low prices (the Ford Model T cost just $260 in 1924) and generous credit made cars affordable luxuries at the beginning of the decade; by the end, they were practically necessities.

By 1929 there was one car on the road for every five Americans. Meanwhile, an economy of automobiles was born: Businesses like service stations and motels sprang up to meet drivers’ needs—as did the burgeoning oil industry .

The Jazz Age

Cars also gave young people the freedom to go where they pleased and do what they wanted. (Some pundits called them “bedrooms on wheels.”) What many young people wanted to do was dance: the Charleston, the cake walk, the black bottom and the flea hop were popular dances of the era.

Jazz bands played at venues like the Savoy and the Cotton Club in New York City and the Aragon in Chicago ; radio stations and phonograph records (100 million of which were sold in 1927 alone) carried their tunes to listeners across the nation. Some older people objected to jazz music’s “vulgarity” and “depravity” (and the “moral disasters” it supposedly inspired), but many in the younger generation loved the freedom they felt on the dance floor.

The novels of F. Scott Fitzgerald chronicled the hedonism and excitement of the Jazz Age—Fitzgerald once claimed that the 1920s were “the most expensive orgy in history”—while other writers, artists, musicians and designers ushered in a new era of experimental Art Deco and modernist creativity.

Prohibition Era

During the 1920s, some freedoms were expanded while others were curtailed. The 18th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1919, had banned the manufacture and sale of “intoxicating liquors,” and at 12 a.m. on January 16, 1920, the federal Volstead Act closed every tavern, bar and saloon in the United States. From then on, it was illegal to sell any “intoxication beverages” with more than 0.5 percent alcohol.

This drove the liquor trade underground—now, instead of ordinary bars, people simply went to nominally illegal speakeasies, where liquor was controlled by bootleggers, racketeers and other organized crime figures such as Chicago gangster Al Capone . (Capone reportedly had 1,000 gunmen and half of Chicago’s police force on his payroll.)

To many middle-class white Americans, Prohibition was a way to assert some control over the unruly immigrant masses who crowded the nation’s cities. For instance, to the so-called “Drys,” beer was known as “Kaiser brew.” Drinking was a symbol of all they disliked about the modern city, and eliminating alcohol would, they believed, turn back the clock to an earlier and more comfortable time

Immigration and Racism in the 1920s

Prohibition was not the only source of social tension during the 1920s. An anti- Communist “Red Scare” in 1919 and 1920 encouraged a widespread nativist and anti-immigrant hysteria. This led to the passage of an extremely restrictive immigration law, the National Origins Act of 1924 , which set immigration quotas that excluded some people (Eastern Europeans and Asians) in favor of others (Northern Europeans and people from Great Britain, for example).

Immigrants were hardly the only targets in this decade. The Great Migration of Black Americans from the rural South to Northern cities and the increasing visibility of Black culture—jazz and blues music, for example, and the literary movement known as the Harlem Renaissance —discomfited some white Americans. Millions of people, not just in the South but across the country, joined the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s.

By the middle of the decade, the KKK had two million members, many of whom believed the Klan represented a return to all the “values” that the fast-paced, city-slicker Roaring Twenties were trampling. More specifically, the 1920s represented economic and political uplift for Black Americans that threatened the social hierarchy of Jim Crow oppression. 

Early Civil Rights Activism

During this decade, Black Americans sought stable employment, better living conditions and political participation. Many who migrated to the North found jobs in the automobile, steel, shipbuilding and meatpacking industries. But with more work came more exploitation.

In 1925, civil rights activist A. Philip Randolph founded the first predominantly Black labor union , the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters , to draw attention to the discriminatory hiring practices and working conditions for Blacks. And as housing demands increased for Black people in the North, so did discriminatory housing practices that led to a rise of urban ghettos, where Black Americans—excluded from white neighborhoods—were relegated to inadequate, overcrowded and unsanitary living conditions.

Black Americans battled for political and civil rights throughout the Roaring Twenties and beyond. The NAACP launched investigations into Black disenfranchisement in the 1920 presidential election, as well as surges of white mob violence, such as the Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921.

The NAACP also pushed for the passage of the Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill, a law to make lynching a federal crime, but it was defeated by a Senate filibuster in 1922. A political milestone for Black Americans finally occurred when Oscar De Priest , a Chicago Republican , became the first Black congressman since Reconstruction to be elected to the House of Representatives in 1928.

The Roaring Twenties ushered in several demographic shifts, or what one historian called a “cultural Civil War” between city-dwellers and small-town residents, Protestants and Catholics, Blacks and whites, “New Women” and advocates of old-fashioned family values.

But coming immediately after the hardships of World War I and the Spanish flu epidemic , the Roaring Twenties also gave many middle-class Americans an unprecedented taste of freedom, unbridled fun and upward economic mobility unsurpassed in U.S. history.

What Caused the Roaring Twenties? Not the End of a Pandemic (Probably). Smithsonian Magazine . The Roaring Twenties. The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History . The Roaring 20s. PBS: American Experience .

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Prohibition

By Annie Anderson

Despite the national prohibition of alcohol from 1920 to 1933, Philadelphia earned a reputation rivaling Chicago, Detroit, and New York City as a liquor-saturated municipality. The Literary Digest described Pennsylvania as a “bootlegger’s Elysium,” with every city as “wet as the Atlantic Ocean.” The Quaker City in particular was singled out, by newspapers from New Haven to Newark, as one of the wettest and wickedest cities in the United States. Philadelphia and Atlantic City, New Jersey, a seaside resort town that served as a major port of entry for illegal liquor, were considered “open towns” during Prohibition—open in their defiance of liquor laws.

Prohibition began in 1919 with the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment , which made the production, transportation, and sale of alcohol illegal. Although the Eighteenth Amendment took effect nationally in 1920, several states enacted prohibition before then, including Delaware on March 18, 1918, and Pennsylvania on February 25, 1919. New Jersey ratified the Eighteenth Amendment on March 9, 1922. A confluence of social forces brought Prohibition to the national stage after nearly a century of Protestant criticism aimed at the supposed moral laxity induced by alcohol. In the early 1900s, the United States saw a rise in xenophobia against immigrants whom nativists associated with alcohol—especially those of Irish and German descent. Factions of the women’s suffrage movement propped up their claims to full citizenship by proclaiming a distinctly feminine moral authority, guided by temperance. Advocates of clean government and clean living argued that the elimination of the saloon would promote moral character and curtail the power that political bosses held. Prohibition encapsulated the Progressive Era ’s impulse toward reform.

Though drinking moved underground with the introduction of Prohibition, Philadelphians actually had more saloons and watering holes to choose from after the law was enacted. The supposed abolition of bars and liquor dispensaries allowed for the emergence of a black market economy regulated only by bootleggers. Journalists reported that Pennsylvania’s largest cities, including Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, and Scranton, showed no pretense of obeying the Prohibition laws. Philadelphia, meanwhile, was the worst Prohibition violator in the Commonwealth, allowing its citizens considerable ease and freedom to obtain intoxicating beverages. Philadelphia had long been one of the nation’s leading beer brewing capitals. Though some breweries switched to making “near beer” (a malt beverage with an alcohol content of less than 0.5%) and soft drinks during Prohibition, many continued brewing beer. Philadelphia police suspected and pounced on the illegal activity. Vice raids on dozens of brewers—including Esslinger & Son, Finkenauer Brewing Co., Liebert & Obert, Roehm Brewing Co., and Philadelphia Brewing Co.—turned up high-powered beer. Most Philadelphia breweries failed or were padlocked out of existence by the early 1930s. A city of nearly 100 breweries in the 1880s, Philadelphia had just 10 licensed breweries when Prohibition ended in 1933.

A Cyclical Pattern of Corruption

A city of two million residents, Philadelphia accommodated as many as 16,000 speakeasies during Prohibition. City officials, public servants, bootleggers, and consumers contributed to a cyclical pattern of corruption around the management and distribution of vice. Long before Prohibition, the Republican political machine used the police as a central tool in maintaining control over the city’s various districts. Philadelphia police officers, many taking bribes from bootleggers, prostitution houses, and other illegal entities, contributed to corrupt ward politicians who hand-picked police captains and provided job protection. One policeman estimated that politicians took one day’s pay per month from each of the 7,000 men employed as police officers and firefighters. While Prohibition did not invent corruption among political and law enforcement entities in Philadelphia, it exacerbated established patterns of misconduct. As the 1920s wore on, bootlegging gangs wreaked violent havoc on the city, while officials took a cut of their profits. In describing the Quaker City’s entrenched machine politics and lax law enforcement, journalists resurrected the nickname “ corrupt and contented ,” first used by Lincoln Steffens in 1903.

Philadelphia received help from the federal government twice in the 1920s to combat its Prohibition-fueled crime problem. The first intervention involved the appointment of General Smedley Butler (1881-1940), a decorated Marine, as director of public safety—the equivalent of police commissioner—in 1924. While running for mayor in 1923, Freeland Kendrick (1874-1953) pleaded with President Calvin Coolidge to release Butler from the Marine Corps to Philadelphia. Coolidge complied, and Butler, originally from West Chester, Pennsylvania, arrived in January 1924 with a mandate to clean up the vice-ridden city. Over the course of Butler’s first year in Philadelphia, police closed more than 2,500 speakeasies, compared to just 220 the previous year. While raids and arrests increased during Butler’s tenure, liquor law violators saw few repercussions. In 1925, of the 10,000 individuals arrested on the charge of conducting a speakeasy, only a few hundred were punished with more than a light fine.

Despite—and perhaps because of—Butler’s tenacity in pursuing Prohibition violators, he immediately clashed with Kendrick and the Republican political machine, including South Philadelphia ward boss William Vare (1867-1934). Butler left his post as director of public safety in December 1925. Many observed that his honesty and zealous commitment to enforcing Prohibition contributed to his speedy exit from Philadelphia. Upon his departure, Butler called Philadelphia the “cesspool” of Pennsylvania, and implored Quaker City citizens to demand honesty from their politicians.

A Crime Crescendo in 1928

Gangland murders, as well as Philadelphians’ continued disregard for liquor laws, reached a breaking point in the summer of 1928. Judge Edwin O. Lewis (1879-1974) charged the Special August Grand Jury with investigating organized bootlegging syndicates, gang violence, and police corruption. Investigators and journalists attributed twenty deaths in the year preceding the inquiry to bootlegging gangs vying for territory. Once again, the federal government intervened to help Philadelphia with its Prohibition-fueled crime problem. Prohibition officials in Washington ordered a unit of the Internal Revenue Service ’s intelligence department to Philadelphia to aid the investigation.

The grand jury revealed that hundreds of police officers received bribes for protecting bootlegging operations and illegal taverns. Twenty-four high-ranking police officers, each paid $1,500 to $2,500 in an annual salary, had accumulated $750,000 in assets amongst them. The grand jury’s final report found 138 police officers unfit for service, but failed to garner any indictments against the city’s organized bootlegging outfits.

Prohibition—like the prominent 1928 investigation initiated to curtail bootlegging, payoffs, and violence—proved a failure in Philadelphia, costly in financial and political terms, but also in human lives. One Philadelphia coroner noted that every day ten to twelve deaths from poison liquor, including denatured industrial alcohol improperly distilled, came to his attention. Still more deaths, including untold unreported or unsolved murders, resulted from the violence that sprang up between warring bootleg factions.

A Widespread Disregard of Prohibition

Philadelphians, like many Americans, disregarded Prohibition en masse. Despite the federal mandate, residents of the Quaker City continued to consume alcohol (legal), thereby spurring its production, transportation, and sale (all illegal). In the working class saloons of Brewerytown and Kensington , and the ritzy hotels dotting Center City ’s Broad Street , Philadelphians of divergent classes saw alcohol as social ritual and social fabric. Many advocates for repeal argued that this widespread lawlessness undermined American values, creating a nation of hypocrites. Other critics of Prohibition observed that a multitude of organized crime networks sprung up to control bootlegging, creating a dangerous black market business. Still others exposed Prohibition’s financial failings, an argument that gained potency after the stock market crash of 1929.  Prohibition was costly to enforce, and the government lost millions—if not billions—of dollars in liquor tax revenue. Organizations such as the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment, which counted several members of the wealthy Delaware Valley du Pont family as its leaders, worked to defeat Prohibition. With the passage of the Twenty-First Amendment in 1933, the Eighteenth Amendment mandating Prohibition was repealed.

Liquor laws in Pennsylvania—as well as a slew of South Jersey towns—harken back to an earlier era when temperance advocates held public office. Pennsylvania Governor Gifford Pinchot , a reform-minded “dry” politician, created the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board days before Prohibition ended so that the state would retain some control over the sale and distribution of liquor. Little has changed since Pinchot’s action; Pennsylvania is one of two states (the other is Utah) in which liquor is sold only in state-run stores. Though private retailers may sell beer, the state regulates when, where, and how much. Attempts to privatize liquor sales have met with a measure of popular and political support. However, resistance from the United Food and Commercial Workers’ Union , which represents liquor store clerks, and legislative gridlock have swiftly dissolved these efforts.

Annie Anderson is the senior research and public programming specialist at Eastern State Penitentiary and the co-author, with John Binder, of Philadelphia Organized Crime in the 1920s and 1930s (Arcadia Publishing, 2014). She received her M.A. in American Studies from the University of Massachusetts-Boston.

Copyright 2015, Rutgers University

Smedley Butler Destroying Kegs of Beer

Library of Congress

Philadelphia received help from the federal government twice in the 1920s to combat its Prohibition-fueled crime problem. The first intervention involved the appointment of General Smedley Butler (1881-1940), shown here in 1924 destroying a barrel of beer. Butler was a decorated Marine who became director of public safety—the equivalent of police commissioner—in 1924. While running for mayor in 1923, Freeland Kendrick (1873-1953) pleaded with President Calvin Coolidge to release Butler from the Marine Corps to Philadelphia. Coolidge complied, and Butler, originally from West Chester, Pennsylvania, arrived in January 1924 with a mandate to clean up the vice-ridden city. Over the course of Butler’s first year in Philadelphia, police closed more than 2,500 speakeasies, compared to just 220 the previous year. While raids and arrests increased during Butler’s tenure, liquor law violators saw few repercussions.

Smedley Butler

Major Smedley Butler, born in West Chester, Pennsylvania, in 1881 and seen here in 1910, had a thirty-four-year career as a U.S. Marine. He participated in military action in China, Central America, France, and other countries, and later became a major general. In 1924, Butler was asked to serve as director of public safety for the city of Philadelphia. The city government was notoriously corrupt, and Butler, a man with high moral standards, initially refused. However, after President Calvin Coolidge requested his service, the general took the job.

During his time in city government, Butler made it clear that he was not on the side of corruption. He fired corrupt officers and ordered raids on thousands of speakeasies, closing or destroying many of the illegal drinking establishments. Though Butler cut crime rates and cleaned up the city, the attack on alcohol was too much for the city's political machine and the general fell out of favor quickly, resigning after only two years.

Police Testing a New Speedboat in 1925

Special Collections Research Center, Temple University Libraries

Over the course of Smedley Butler’s first year as Philadelphia’s director of safety, police closed more than 2,500 speakeasies, compared to just 220 the previous year. Butler’s tenacity in pursuing Prohibition violators extended to the waterfront, patrolled by a new police speedboat obtained at Butler’s direction and seen here during a test trip in 1925. Butler’s desire to stop Prohibition violations immediately clashed with Mayor Freeland Kendrick and the Republican political machine. By December 1925, Butler left his post as director of public safety and many observed that his honesty and zealous commitment to enforcing Prohibition contributed to his speedy exit from Philadelphia. Upon his departure, Butler called Philadelphia the “cesspool” of Pennsylvania, and implored Quaker City citizens to demand honesty from their politicians.

Mayor Freeland Kendrick and Senator William Vare

While running for mayor in 1923, Freeland Kendrick (1873-1953), here on the left, pleaded with President Calvin Coolidge to release Smedley Butler from the Marine Corps to Philadelphia. Coolidge agreed, and Butler arrived in January 1924 with a mandate to clean up the vice-ridden city. Despite—and perhaps because of—Butler’s tenacity in pursuing Prohibition violators, he immediately clashed with Kendrick and the Republican political machine, including South Philadelphia ward boss William Vare (1867-1934), on the right in this photo from January 1927.

Special August Grand Jury of 1928

The murders that jump-started the Special August Grand Jury of 1928 were those of Hugh McLoon and Daniel O’Leary. McLoon, a humpbacked little person who in the 1910s served as the mascot for the Philadelphia Athletics baseball team, managed prizefighters and operated a speakeasy at Tenth and Cuthbert Streets. When he was killed in a drive-by shooting outside his nightclub and O’Leary died in a revenge-style killing, Judge Edwin O. Lewis tasked the grand jury with probing the liquor trade and eliminating the banditry and thuggery surrounding it.

District Attorney John Monaghan (1870-1954), leading the investigation, publicly outed the well-known boxing promoter Max “Boo Boo” Hoff (1895-1941) as the “King of the Bootleggers." Monaghan padlocked more than 1,000 speakeasies and claimed to have closed every brewery and distillery in Philadelphia.

Though Hoff owned several well-known speakeasies and entertained the likes of Al Capone, he escaped a liquor charge.

The grand jury's revelations included detailed financial minutiae—high-level bootleggers had accumulated about $10 million in liquor racket earnings—as well as embarrassing testimony—Philadelphia Director of Public Safety George Elliott and several high-ranking police officers were on Hoff's Christmas gift list. As the grand jury's disclosures reached the press, Collier’s magazine noted that lawlessness was the price Philadelphia had to pay for what it wanted to drink. Indeed, a culture of desperado vengeance and violent intimidation around liquor trafficking saturated the city before—and prevailed beyond—Monaghan's ambitious investigation.

The Special August Grand Jury did not shift public opinion against Prohibition or halt bootlegging-related gang violence. Within three years of the investigation's close, one of the city’s most prominent bootleggers, Mickey Duffy (1888-1931), was slain in his hotel suite in Atlantic City, New Jersey. Infighting appears to have killed Duffy (his murder was never solved), as well as several underlings who grabbed for power in his absence.

Celebrating the Repeal of Prohibition

This photograph, from December of 1933, shows a Philadelphia man and two women celebrating the repeal of Prohibition. Alcohol was illegal for fourteen years and when the passing of the Twenty-First Amendment repealed the Eighteenth Amendment, celebrations were held across the country. Though taverns were once predominantly male-dominated spaces, the desire to consume alcohol in secret forced men and women into close quarters together. After the repeal of Prohibition, speakeasy culture influenced the way men and women participated in nightlife. Many taverns ceased to be male only, and led to the modern bar of the twenty-first century, where men and women often drink and socialize together.

Related Topics

• Corrupt and Contented
• Greater Philadelphia
• Philadelphia and the Nation

Time Periods

• Twentieth Century to 1945
• Center City Philadelphia
• Bootlegging
• Children’s Aid Society of Pennsylvania
• Great Depression
• Immigration (1870-1930)
• Police Department (Philadelphia)

Related Reading

Anderson, Anne Margaret and John J. Binder. Philadelphia Organized Crime in the 1920s and 1930s . Charleston, S.C.: Arcadia Publishing, 2014.

Baldwin, Fred D. “Smedley D. Butler and Prohibition Enforcement in Philadelphia, 1924-1925.” Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 84 (July 1960): 352-368

Funderburg, J. Anne. Bootleggers and Beer Barons of the Prohibition Era . Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, 2014.

Haller, Mark H. “Philadelphia Bootlegging and the Report of the Special August Grand Jury.” Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 109 (April 1985): 215-233.

Kobler, John. Ardent Spirits: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition . New York: De Capo Press, 1973.

Leichtman, Ellen C. “The Machine, the Mayor, and the Marine: The Battle over Prohibition in Philadelphia, 1924-1925.” Pennsylvania History 82 (Spring 2015), 109-139.

Okrent, Daniel. Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition . New York: Simon and Schuster, 2010.

Pegram, Thomas R. “Brewing Trouble: Federal, State, and Private Authority in Pennsylvania Prohibition Enforcement Under Gifford Pinchot, 1923-27.” Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 138 (April 2014): 163-191.

The Special August Grand Jury (1928), Committee of Seventy, Grand Jury Investigations, Box 7, Temple University Libraries, Special Collections Research Center.

Related Collections

Eastern State Penitentiary , 2027 Fairmount Avenue, Philadelphia.

Independence Seaport Museum , J. Welles Henderson Archives & Library, Bill McCoy scrapbooks, Penn’s Landing, Philadelphia.

Philadelphia City Archives , Record Group 38: Inspector of County Prisons and Record Group 79: Philadelphia Police, 3101 Market Street, Philadelphia.

Pennsylvania State Police Historical, Educational & Memorial Center , 187 E. Hershey Park Drive, Hershey, Pa.

Temple University, Special Collections Research Center , Paley Library, 1210 Polett Walk, Philadelphia.

Related Places

Eastern State Penitentiary , 2027 Fairmount Avenue, Philadelphia, imprisoned a number of bootleggers, including Mickey Duffy, Peter Ford, Francis Bailey, and Al Capone.

1321 Locust Street, the site of one of Max “Boo Boo” Hoff’s speakeasies, The 21 Club.

The Franklin Mortgage & Investment Co ., 112 S. Eighteenth Street, Philadelphia, a speakeasy-style drinking establishment named for Max “Boo Boo” Hoff’s industrial alcohol firm.

Backgrounders

Connecting Headlines with History

• Prohibition left lasting mark on national identity (WHYY, September 30, 2011)
• Constitution Center to focus on 'American Spirits,' the Prohibition years (WHYY, July 31, 2012)
• Could Pa. liquor privatization reignite this year? (WHYY, October 5, 2013)
• Pa. State Police don't care if you're a bootlegger (WHYY, September 3, 2014)
• Potable Power: Delaware Valley Bootlegging During Prohibition (Temple University Libraries)
• Beer and Brewing History at Hagley Museum and Library
• Brewed in Philly (Free Library of Philadelphia)
• A Saint Guided By Spirits (Hidden City Philadelphia)
• Ground Zero for Philadelphia Beer (The PhillyHistory Blog)
• American Spirits: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition (National Constitution Center)
• Indomitable Spirits: Prohibition in the United States (Exhibit, Digital Public Library of America)
• Renovations in Bella Vista Reveal Barber Supply and Bootlegging Biz (Hidden City)

Connecting the Past with the Present, Building Community, Creating a Legacy

Toast the Constitution: Prohibition Resources

Beginning in 1920, t

The Rise and Fall of Prohibition Essay

Beginning in 1920, the Eighteenth Amendment prohibited the manufacture, sale, and transport of alcohol, but the idea of controls on alcohol began more than a century earlier. Eventually, religious groups, politicians, and social organizations advocated for total abolition of alcohol, leading to Prohibition. The Eighteenth Amendment caused widespread disregard for the law and a surge in organized crime before it was eventually repealed in 1933. Why did some groups want a Prohibition amendment passed? How did Prohibition fit into the progressive movement? What were its effects, and why was it eventually repealed? Explore these questions with  this full lesson plan .

Dinner Party Activity

Many notable Americans played many roles during the Prohibition era, from government officials and social reformers to bootleggers and crime bosses. Each person had personal reasons for supporting or opposing Prohibition. What stances did these individuals take? What legal, moral, and ethical questions did they have to wrestle with? Why were their actions important? And how might a “dinner party” attended by them bring some of these questions to the surface? Download  this activity  and step back in time with these American icons.

Prohibition Pictionary Activity

The Eighteenth Amendment banned the manufacture, sale, and transport of alcoholic beverages and was in effect from 1920 to 1933. What impact did this amendment have on government power? What powers did the national government gain or lose? What powers did the state governments gain or lose? Who were the important players in the Prohibition amendments? What ideas, terms, and concepts were developed or came to the forefront during this period?  Download this activity and explore these important questions.

The Darker Side of Prohibition

During Prohibition, industrial-grade alcohol cost hundreds of American lives. The Coolidge administration encouraged its circulation.

When we think of Prohibition, the cultural touchstones of the Jazz Age come to mind: gangsters and molls, feather boas, glittering headpieces, and of course, bathtub gin. Sourced by shadowy bootleggers, noxious homemade moonshine killed or blinded hundreds of Americans. But that’s only half the story. What we once considered criminality run amok, was in fact inextricably tied to a willingness at the highest levels of American government to sacrifice the lives of those considered worthless degenerates.

Throughout the Prohibition period from 1920 to 1933, some forms of alcohol were still available for purchase. Prescription alcohol—to treat bronchitis and other conditions—was one. Industrial-grade alcohol—designed for use in paints and floor thinners—was another. Although it was undrinkable, industrial-grade alcohol was often stolen and resold by criminal syndicates to be used in cheap liquor. The Coolidge administration effectively encouraged the practice as a way of discouraging illegal consumption, by giving tax breaks to industrial-alcohol manufacturers who “denatured,” or poisoned, their supply.

The week of Christmas, 1926, almost a hundred people died from the effects of drinking industrial alcohol. Hundreds more died in subsequent years. They were drinking a substance that, thanks to government intervention, had been intentionally but unnecessarily rendered fatal.

For many in Coolidge’s administration, this was hardly a problem; in fact, in some cases it was seen as beneficial. It did, after all, get drunks off the streets expediently.

But for Charles Norris, New York’s medical examiner, it was just another example of the dark side of Prohibition’s would-be moral certainty. Writing for The North American Review in Christmas of 1928, Norris condemns America’s “essay in extermination” wrought by Prohibition.

“In a word,” Norris says, “wood alcohol is not ‘poison liquor’. It is simply poison. If it gets into liquor, the liquor is poisoned. So these Americans died not of poison liquor but of poisoned liquor. Who poisoned it?” He denies that it is “The Government.” Nevertheless, he sees the ubiquity of wood alcohol poisonings as “a serious indictment of Prohibition before the court of public opinion.” Addicts’ access to unsafe alcohol accelerates an existing danger: “Death by alcoholism means death by excess drinking of alcohol, encouraged and accelerated more or less by sundry poisons put into active service by our benevolent Government.”

Norris is something of a moderate when it comes to his views on Prohibition. He’s at once keen to stress that “these denaturants were originally added to the alcohol under Government control and connivance.” But (perhaps due to his governmental position) he is tactful in his assignation of blame. “But let us not blame the Government too harshly. Something must be added to grain alcohol to prevent its being all drunk away and thereby denied to legitimate industry and business.” Rather, Norris blames the system itself: a moral philosophy of prohibition that drives the drunk and the desperate toward noxious materials the government is perfectly willing to let them consume.

Weekly Newsletter

Get your fix of JSTOR Daily’s best stories in your inbox each Thursday.

Privacy Policy   Contact Us You may unsubscribe at any time by clicking on the provided link on any marketing message.

Norris reveals how New York of the 1920’s viewed certain populations as disposable. By entering the sphere of immorality, alcoholics, in the eyes of the Coolidge administration, forfeited their right to life. It’s telling that, even in death, there are two rules: one related to “respectable drunks” and one for the degenerates.  As Norris writes, “Private physicians will rarely make such a report and expose their deceased customers to the indignity of a post-mortem examination, [but] will prefer to ascribe death to other “natural causes” when they can, in the case of clients in good standing or society.”

Norris’s essay reminds us that moral outrage over perceived danger—and a concern for the reality of human life—don’t necessarily go hand in hand. Especially when those lives lost are not “in good standing” in the society in which they live.

JSTOR is a digital library for scholars, researchers, and students. JSTOR Daily readers can access the original research behind our articles for free on JSTOR.

Get Our Newsletter

More stories.

• Zheng He, the Great Eunuch Admiral

• Fredric Wertham, Cartoon Villain

The Power of the Veil for Spanish Women

Before Palmer Penmanship

Recent posts.

• The Dangers of Animal Experimentation—for Doctors
• Separated by a Common Language in Singapore
• Katherine Mansfield and Anton Chekhov

Support JSTOR Daily

Sign up for our weekly newsletter.

Study Like a Boss

The Prohibition In The 1920s Essay

During the roaring twenties, society began evolving into political and industrialize perspectives which allow growth in many different aspects of life. The events occurred during this period exceed the feminine rights to vote and show prospects in equality of gender. However, many illegal activity began due to the eighteenth amendment enacted on January 16th, 1920. The eighteenth amendment was ratified to decrease drunkenness and family abuse when consumed alcohol. The prohibition interdicted the manufacture, distribution, and sale of alcohol in the United States.

Thus, contributed in the creation of ootlegging liquor business as a complex criminal enterprise and many other illegal activities. Bootlegging was an illegal production and distribution of liquor into speakeasies. The consequences of drinking liquor in public or selling a beer was considered against the prohibition was six months of jail time and a fine of one thousand dollars. Although, the law did prevent citizens to drink publicly, it was a loose enforced law which did not consider containing liquor within a flask.

Bootlegging was an ‘undercover’ market business and raced up the prices of bottled liquor to make profit due to the emand of alcohol. Even though, at the time it was illegal to sell liquor, many purchases the beverage and drank it at home because the law did not suggest the action as illegal. In the book “Bootleg, Murder, and the lawless years of Prohibition,” Karen Blumenthal emphasizes the bootlegging business in a more depth perspective of American citizens throughout the United States who were in desperate need of alcoholic beverage.

Blumenthal accentuates the demand of liquor had not improved since the enact of prohibition where in a matter of months “drinking moved from bars and restaurants to the ome,”(Blumental 62) people began to distilled and brew their own liquor in households. Doctors wrote prescriptions for alcohol as medicine, priest and rabbis would purchase wine for worships and more to be sold for profit. Many would buy kettles, yeats, grains and other supplies create homemade brews and moonshine. William McCoy, known as ‘the real McCoy,’ sold pure liquor and was an early rumrunners who smuggled liquor from the Bahamas to New York.

In the East, many cabarets open businesses and were called “speakeasies. ” Leroy Ostransky father, Sharkey, would inject pure alcohol into he ‘legal beer which contain “less than one-half percent”(67) of alcohol and produce ‘bathtub gin. ‘ Furthermore, bootlegging business in New York and Chicago rose the American Mafia, the Italian-American Mafia and the rise of gangsters. Notorious gangsters rose was Alphonse “Al” Capone, John Gotti, Charles “Lucky” Luciano, and Johnny “Fox” Torrio who increase the rate of crimes for many years which consist of gang violence .

Johnny “Fox” Torrio recruited “Scarface” Capone as an enforcer for debt collecting. In “The Mammoth Book of Gangs: The fascinating inside story of 34 notorious gangs,” James Morton states during he Mann Act in 1910-1920, “Torrio arranged for Jim Colosimo. to receive a shipment of whiskey”(Morton 48) four months after the prohibition was enacted. On February 9, 1925 Torrio gave his position as mafia leader to his understudy Al Capone, who became the Boss of Chicago. Karen Blumenthal states “In Cicero, the Capone crowd turned out in force. ” (Blumenthal 96).

Al Capone had killed the town president because he did not pass Capone order. The killings continue throughout the years and escalated. Additionally, Mafias integrated illegal activities with their racketeering as a cover to not raise any suspicion. In ” Buster, Maranzano and the Castellammare War, 1930-1931,” David Critchley explores key aspects of the Castellammare War, which began in New York City between the two biggest Italian- American criminal gangs. A war for bloody power in the criminal business and Salvatore Maranzano declared himself as “Capo di tutti capi” which means boss of all bosses.

Critchley states “Uprising mobster Charles ‘Lucky’ Luciano murdered Maranzano” and ended the war between gangs . Luciano formed a central organization consist at least 20 crime families across the country. All families in the mafia followed a code of loyalty nd silence. Once the repeal of the prohibition occurred, Mafia moved beyond bootlegging into the underworld activities such as illegal gambling, loan-sharking, to prostitution rings. Into legitimate business which provided millions of dollars to bribe police officers . Al Capone controlled all of the underworld go.

He had a great public relations by donating money to charities and opened a soup kitchen during the Great Depression. Mobsters were engaged with street battles over power control issue. In conjunction with Mafia rivalry, on February 14, 1929 St. Valentine’s Day Massacre occurred etween arch rivals Al capone and George”Bugs” Moran. Based on “History on the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre” states” four men dressed as police officers enter gangster Bugs Moran’s headquarters on North Clark Street in Chicago. ” The police officers were associated as men who worked for Al Capone.

These men killed seven of Moran’s henchmen against a wall. After this event, Criminals became national celebrities which activities in Ch symbolized public’s lack of faith in society’s institutions. The mafia gathered for a conference on May 13-15, 1929 in Atlantic City, New York. Mafia leaders lead the conference in fear of the nding of banning alcohol. Without the prohibition enact there would be less money for the mafia, and would lose business in bootlegging. Violence became discreet, less visible in American society and the mafia’s power increase drastically.

The Teapot Dome Scandal occurred in April 7, 1922 involving national security, big oil companies and bribery and corruption at the highest levels of the government of the United States during President Warren G. Harding term. The Teapot dome was a naval petroleum reserves which would not be drilled unless a national emergency when at time of war. President Harding ave positon of office to his closest friends who had no experience of the role. His best friend, Albert Fall, was given the position of Secretary of the Interior under President Warren G. Harding.

In the book “The Teapot Dome Scandal Trial A headline Court Case,” Jonathan L. Thorndike reveals the main events of the scandal made in the government corruption arising out of the administration of President Warren G. Harding. Jonathan L. Thorndike explains the complex of the scandal which took ten years to resolve and states ” in 1921, Albert B. Fall persuaded him to secretly transfer control of three huge government oil eserves from the Navy to the Department of the Interior. ” (7). The oil reserve for Naval use to insure there was fuel during war time.

Secretary Fall, secretly sold the bases to Teapot Dome oil rights to Harry Sinclair’s Mammoth Oil Company and the Elk Hills oil rights to the Pan-American Petroleum Company to gain profit from leasing the oil fields. President Harding placed his friends in high authority where they committed bribery, embezzled government money, and committed fraud. The first major scandal formed by the Harding administration consist involvement of Charles R. Forbes and the Veterans Bureau.

The Veterans Bureau was in charge of taking care of former members of U. S military. Forbes began taking advantage of his position and sold government medical supplies to private companies. Another crime committed was between Attorney General Harry M. Daugherty and his assistant Jesse Smith, rented a little green house on K. Street which store liquor legally and many times deliver in government vehicles. Attorney Daugherty took “bribes from bootleggers, tried to get criminals out of jail. ” (Thorndike 44). The Harding Administration was known as the ‘Ohio Gang’ because they were a collection of crooks and black-mailers.

The Harding Administration benefited from their positions for personal gain of profits. As a result, in the 1920s many criminal activity rose from the prohibition era lead to illegal activities such as illegal liquor, gambling, prostitution ring, and government corruption. Police complicity to accept bribes and blackmail from bootleggers were a common situation during the time. People wanted to prosper in wealth and business after the great depression drained money and employment in the United States . Throughout the roaring twenties, organized crimes activity began to increase worldwide and manage to continue today .

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Related posts:

• Prohibition Led to the Rapid Growth of Organized Crime
• Commercial Vices
• Social change in the United States
• The 18th Amendment to the Constitution
• The 1920s in America and Great Gatsby
• The Economic Boom 1920s
• 1920s And 1930s Essay
• Jazz In The 1920s Essay
• Essay on 1920s Economic Changes
• Prohibition and the Roaring Twenties
• Residential Education In The 1920s Essay
• African American Social Issues In The 1920s Essay
• Prohibition of the 1920’s
• Prohibition in 1920

Prohibition and Organized Crime in the 1920’s

This essay about Prohibition and its unintended consequences examines how the 18th Amendment, intended to reduce crime and improve public morals by banning alcohol, inadvertently fueled the rise of organized crime in America. The prohibition created a lucrative black market for alcohol, dominated by figures like Al Capone and Lucky Luciano, who established widespread smuggling, distillation, and distribution networks. This era saw an increase in corruption within law enforcement and politics, as criminal syndicates paid off officials to turn a blind eye to their activities. Despite Prohibition’s repeal in 1933 with the 21st Amendment, the criminal organizations it helped create had diversified into other areas of crime, maintaining their influence long after. The essay underscores the complexity of legislative impacts on society, illustrating how Prohibition’s failures provide lessons on the dynamics between law enforcement and criminal activities.

How it works

Between 1920 and 1933, the United States underwent Prohibition, a period notorious not for its intended effects but for the unintended repercussions it bore. The 18th Amendment, which enforced Prohibition, aimed to diminish crime rates, enhance public health, and fortify communal morals by prohibiting alcohol. Ironically, it achieved nearly the opposite, creating fertile soil for organized crime to thrive and expand.

The prohibition of alcohol failed to quench the populace’s thirst; instead, it drove the entire industry underground. Opportunistic criminals seized upon this lucrative venture, filling the void left by closed breweries and distilleries.

Renowned figures like Al Capone and Lucky Luciano emerged not only as mobsters but as icons of a vast illicit market in bootlegged liquor. They orchestrated intricate schemes spanning smuggling, distillation, and distribution, often bribing law enforcement and politicians to ensure the smooth operation of their enterprises.

The influx of money from this clandestine alcohol trade empowered these criminal syndicates to diversify into other unlawful activities such as gambling and prostitution, laying the foundation for the multifaceted criminal organizations prevalent today. This era also placed immense strain on law enforcement and the judicial system, fostering widespread corruption that undermined the objectives of Prohibition.

Even after Prohibition’s repeal in 1933 with the 21st Amendment, organized crime persisted. By then, these syndicates had entrenched themselves and expanded beyond the realm of alcohol. Prohibition stands as a prime example of how legal constraints can inadvertently fuel criminal enterprises instead of suppressing them. It serves as a pivotal period offering valuable insights into the intricacies of law enforcement and criminal economics, demonstrating the resilience of criminal networks in adapting and thriving amidst legislative shifts.

Cite this page

Prohibition And Organized Crime In The 1920's. (2024, Apr 22). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/prohibition-and-organized-crime-in-the-1920s/

"Prohibition And Organized Crime In The 1920's." PapersOwl.com , 22 Apr 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/prohibition-and-organized-crime-in-the-1920s/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Prohibition And Organized Crime In The 1920's . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/prohibition-and-organized-crime-in-the-1920s/ [Accessed: 14 May. 2024]

"Prohibition And Organized Crime In The 1920's." PapersOwl.com, Apr 22, 2024. Accessed May 14, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/prohibition-and-organized-crime-in-the-1920s/

"Prohibition And Organized Crime In The 1920's," PapersOwl.com , 22-Apr-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/prohibition-and-organized-crime-in-the-1920s/. [Accessed: 14-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Prohibition And Organized Crime In The 1920's . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/prohibition-and-organized-crime-in-the-1920s/ [Accessed: 14-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

The Deep, Tangled Roots of American Illiberalism

By Steven Hahn

Dr. Hahn is a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian at New York University and the author, most recently, of “Illiberal America: a History.”

In a recent interview with Time, Donald Trump promised a second term of authoritarian power grabs, administrative cronyism, mass deportations of the undocumented, harassment of women over abortion, trade wars and vengeance brought upon his rivals and enemies, including President Biden. “If they said that a president doesn’t get immunity,” Mr. Trump told Time, “then Biden, I am sure, will be prosecuted for all of his crimes.”

Further evidence, it seems, of Mr. Trump’s efforts to construct a political world like no other in American history. But how unprecedented is it, really? That Mr. Trump continues to lead in polls should make plain that he and his MAGA movement are more than noxious weeds in otherwise liberal democratic soil.

Many of us have not wanted to see it that way. “This is not who we are as a nation,” one journalist exclaimed in what was a common response to the violence on Jan. 6, “and we must not let ourselves or others believe otherwise.” Mr. Biden has said much the same thing.

While it’s true that Mr. Trump was the first president to lose an election and attempt to stay in power, observers have come to recognize the need for a lengthier view of Trumpism. Even so, they are prone to imagining that there was a time not all that long ago when political “normalcy” prevailed. What they have failed to grasp is that American illiberalism is deeply rooted in our past and fed by practices, relationships and sensibilities that have been close to the surface, even when they haven’t exploded into view.

Illiberalism is generally seen as a backlash against modern liberal and progressive ideas and policies, especially those meant to protect the rights and advance the aspirations of groups long pushed to the margins of American political life. But in the United States, illiberalism is better understood as coherent sets of ideas that are related but also change over time.

This illiberalism celebrates hierarchies of gender, race and nationality; cultural homogeneity; Christian religious faith; the marking of internal as well as external enemies; patriarchal families; heterosexuality; the will of the community over the rule of law; and the use of political violence to achieve or maintain power. This illiberalism sank roots from the time of European settlement and spread out from villages and towns to the highest levels of government. In one form or another, it has shaped much of our history. Illiberalism has frequently been a stalking horse, if not in the winner’s circle. Hardly ever has it been roundly defeated.

A few examples may be illustrative. Although European colonization of North America has often been imagined as a sharp break from the ways of home countries, neo-feudal dreams inspired the making of Euro-American societies from the Carolinas up through the Hudson Valley, based as they were on landed estates and coerced labor, while the Puritan towns of New England, with their own hierarchies, demanded submission to the faith and harshly policed their members and potential intruders alike. The backcountry began to fill up with land-hungry settlers who generally formed ethnicity-based enclaves, eyed outsiders with suspicion and, with rare exceptions, hoped to rid their territory of Native peoples. Most of those who arrived in North America between the early 17th century and the time of the American Revolution were either enslaved or in servitude, and master-servant jurisprudence shaped labor relations well after slavery was abolished, a phenomenon that has been described as “belated feudalism.”

The anti-colonialism of the American Revolution was accompanied not only by warfare against Native peoples and rewards for enslavers, but also by a deeply ingrained anti-Catholicism, and hostility to Catholics remained a potent political force well into the 20th century. Monarchist solutions were bruited about during the writing of the Constitution and the first decade of the American Republic: John Adams thought that the country would move in such a direction and other leaders at the time, including Washington, Madison and Hamilton, wondered privately if a king would be necessary in the event a “republican remedy” failed.

The 1830s, commonly seen as the height of Jacksonian democracy, were racked by violent expulsions of Catholics , Mormons and abolitionists of both races, along with thousands of Native peoples dispossessed of their homelands and sent to “Indian Territory” west of the Mississippi.

The new democratic politics of the time was often marked by Election Day violence after campaigns suffused with military cadences, while elected officials usually required the support of elite patrons to guarantee the bonds they had to post. Even in state legislatures and Congress, weapons could be brandished and duels arranged; “bullies” enforced the wills of their allies.

When enslavers in the Southern states resorted to secession rather than risk their system under a Lincoln administration, they made clear that their Confederacy was built on the cornerstone of slavery and white supremacy. And although their crushing defeat brought abolition, the establishment of birthright citizenship (except for Native peoples), the political exclusion of Confederates, and the extension of voting rights to Black men — the results of one of the world’s great revolutions — it was not long before the revolution went into reverse.

The federal government soon allowed former Confederates and their white supporters to return to power, destroy Black political activism and, accompanied by lynchings (expressing the “will” of white communities), build the edifice of Jim Crow: segregation, political disfranchisement and a harsh labor regime. Already previewed in the pre-Civil War North, Jim Crow received the imprimatur of the Supreme Court and the administration of Woodrow Wilson .

Few Progressives of the early 20th century had much trouble with this. Segregation seemed a modern way to choreograph “race relations,” and disfranchisement resonated with their disenchantment with popular politics, whether it was powered by Black voters in the South or European immigrants in the North. Many Progressives were devotees of eugenics and other forms of social engineering, and they generally favored overseas imperialism; some began to envision the scaffolding of a corporate state — all anticipating the dark turns in Europe over the next decades.

The 1920s, in fact, saw fascist pulses coming from a number of directions in the United States and, as in Europe, targeting political radicals. Benito Mussolini won accolades in many American quarters. The lab where Josef Mengele worked received support from the Rockefeller Foundation. White Protestant fundamentalism reigned in towns and the countryside. And the Immigration Act of 1924 set limits on the number of newcomers, especially those from Southern and Eastern Europe, who were thought to be politically and culturally unassimilable.

Most worrisome, the Ku Klux Klan, energized by anti-Catholicism and antisemitism as well as anti-Black racism, marched brazenly in cities great and small. The Klan became a mass movement and wielded significant political power; it was crucial, for example , to the enforcement of Prohibition. Once the organization unraveled in the late 1920s, many Klansmen and women found their way to new fascist groups and the radical right more generally.

Sidelined by the Great Depression and New Deal, the illiberal right regained traction in the late 1930s, and during the 1950s won grass-roots support through vehement anti-Communism and opposition to the civil rights movement. As early as 1964, in a run for the Democratic presidential nomination, Gov. George Wallace of Alabama began to hone a rhetoric of white grievance and racial hostility that had appeal in the Midwest and Middle Atlantic, and Barry Goldwater’s campaign that year, despite its failure, put winds in the sails of the John Birch Society and Young Americans for Freedom.

Four years later, Wallace mobilized enough support as a third-party candidate to win five states. And in 1972, once again as a Democrat, Wallace racked up primary wins in both the North and the South before an assassination attempt forced him out of the race. Growing backlashes against school desegregation and feminism added further fuel to the fire on the right, paving the way for the conservative ascendancy of the 1980s.

By the early 1990s, the neo-Nazi and Klansman David Duke had won a seat in the Louisiana Legislature and nearly three-fifths of the white vote in campaigns for governor and senator. Pat Buchanan, seeking the Republican presidential nomination in 1992, called for “America First,” the fortification of the border (a “Buchanan fence”), and a culture war for the “soul” of America, while the National Rifle Association became a powerful force on the right and in the Republican Party.

When Mr. Trump questioned Barack Obama’s legitimacy to serve as president, a project that quickly became known as “birtherism,” he made use of a Reconstruction-era racist trope that rejected the legitimacy of Black political rights and power. In so doing, Mr. Trump began to cement a coalition of aggrieved white voters. They were ready to push back against the nation’s growing cultural diversity — embodied by Mr. Obama — and the challenges they saw to traditional hierarchies of family, gender and race. They had much on which to build.

Back in the 1830s, Alexis de Tocqueville, in “Democracy in America,” glimpsed the illiberal currents that already entangled the country’s politics. While he marveled at the “equality of conditions,” the fluidity of social life and the strength of republican institutions, he also worried about the “omnipotence of the majority.”

“What I find most repulsive in America is not the extreme freedom reigning there,” Tocqueville wrote, “but the shortage of guarantees against tyranny.” He pointed to communities “taking justice into their own hands,” and warned that “associations of plain citizens can compose very rich, influential, and powerful bodies, in other words, aristocratic bodies.” Lamenting their intellectual conformity, Tocqueville believed that if Americans ever gave up republican government, “they will pass rapidly on to despotism,” restricting “the sphere of political rights, taking some of them away in order to entrust them to a single man.”

The slide toward despotism that Tocqueville feared may be well underway, whatever the election’s outcome. Even if they try to fool themselves into thinking that Mr. Trump won’t follow through, millions of voters seem ready to entrust their rights to “a single man” who has announced his intent to use autocratic powers for retribution, repression, expulsion and misogyny.

Only by recognizing what we’re up against can we mount an effective campaign to protect our democracy, leaning on the important political struggles — abolitionism, antimonopoly, social democracy, human rights, civil rights, feminism — that have challenged illiberalism in the past and offer the vision and political pathways to guide us in the future.

Our biggest mistake would be to believe that we’re watching an exceptional departure in the country’s history. Because from the first, Mr. Trump has tapped into deep and ever-expanding illiberal roots. Illiberalism’s history is America’s history.

Steven Hahn is a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian at New York University and the author, most recently, of “ Illiberal America: a History .”

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .