FINAL+DRAFT

Alcohol: Friend or Foe? By Elenita, Raina, Emma, Cristina

Do you Drink? It is reported that 109 million people 12 years and older do. What would the American Temperance Union (ATU) and the Washington Temperance Society say of our current drift into the un-respectable? The Washington Temperance Society and the American Temperance Union though both fighting for temperance were fighting in very opposing ways. The Washington Temperance Society was made up of the rough who were trying to reform their ways--the enemy alcohol. The American temperance union was made up of the respectable trying to reform the rough--the enemy alcoholics. //Six founders, sermons Establish sobriety Through speech and reform// The American Temperance Union and Washington Temperance Society—two coalitions for the common cause of defeating the enemy that was alcohol and what came along with it. Never was there a time in America when alcohol was not at all drank, but the consumption rates drastically increased in the 1820s, 30s, and 40s. The heaviest consumers of the time were adult men, and they drank so as to release their elemental impulses, but sadly this release caused a very large shortage of productivity by these men. They abused or at least stopped caring for their families and were fired from jobs, slowly making alcohol their sole focus in life. This was an obvious problem, to have an increasingly large group of drunkards roaming around being nothing but an inconvenience to the respectable Americans in society. This was the motivation for the founding of the ATU and WTS. The American Temperance Union was the first to be established in 1826. It was based off of six sermons written by Lyman Beecher, a Presbyterian preacher from Connecticut, and they discussed all the evils of alcohol. It was definitely argued that it was a completely evil substance, and that it should never be drunk. The Union used the sermons to have their members take a pledge to abstain 100% from alcohol consumption. It was wildly successful, and recruited more than 150,000 members in a matter of years. One limiting factor of the American Temperance Union was that it was comprised only of respectable elites, and it is preached that the enemies are the alcoholics. This made it difficult for an alcoholic to be accepted into the union, since they receive no sympathy. With this in mind came the founding of the Washington Temperance society, which catered more to the rough and rough-respectable men. In 1840, Baltimore resident William Mitchell and his friends were having their daily drinks at their usual bar, Chase’s Tavern, when they start wondering what at all is advantageous about drinking alcohol, for all it really does is waste their money and time. They signed pledges to completely stop their drinking, and when others saw the fun they still had without having to spend money on drinks, more and more people joined the society. Over time they had as many as a few hundred thousand members. //Top down; bottom up Choose your enemy: it’s all ideology// The American temperance union was a top down reform effort. Their goal was to get rid of all alcoholics. They did this with a “better than thou” perspective. Many of the people in the American temperance union were involved in politics. They were attempting to solve the problem from a position of power. This is in contrast with the Washington temperance society. The society was formed of former alcoholics. These men were working class and had no political power. It began as grassroots organization formed directly out of their collective desire for a better life. They realized that drinking was costing them a lot of money and they could have just as much fun without it. The American temperance union, according to the author of __Symbolic Crusade__ (Joseph R. Gusfield), practiced coercive reform. This means that the reformer did not perceive the subjects of his reform with sympathy or warmth [1]. The Washington temperance society, however, according to Gusfield, used assimilative reform, characterized by sympathy toward those needing help. Assimilative reformers believe that that people they are helping will be able to rejoin society and contribute to a better world. Contrastingly, coercive reformers believe that the actual people that they’re trying to help cannot be helped. His explains why the American temperance union decided to go about reform through lawmaking instead of giving direct help and support to those in need as Washington temperance society did. One of the fundamental differences between the two temperance groups was the way in which the framed the problem of drinking. The ATU viewed alcoholics as the central problem of society. They thought that the alcoholics were addicted to drinking because of their moral failings. Most of the people in the of American temperance union were proto-aristocratic elites. These elites wanted nothing to do with the so called “rough-respectable” drunkards. They thought that all the problems of society stemmed from the unrestrained nature of the alcoholics. The Washington temperance society however, viewed alcohol and grog sellers as the source of the problem. They were frustrated because the grog sellers and making money off of something that did not have good results, which to them violated the idea of republicanism that says that the good of the community is greater than the good of the individual. The American temperance union and Washington temperance society were very different and because of this, did not view each other in a good light. One of the reasons for this can be explained by the wheel of respectability. It says there is an axis of antipathy between the rough respectable and the proto aristocratic. William Henry Blair, a New Hampshire senator, and proto aristocrat, wrote a book on the temperance movement. In the section where he discusses the Washington temperance society he questions its validity because of the fact that it was started by drunkards. “On the whole it may be doubted whether the Washingtonian excitement was a blessing or a curse…” [2]. He also complains about the unwillingness of the members of the Washington temperance society to deal with the politics of the issue. The wheel of the respectability as shown in the figure above, protrays class tensions during the 19th century. The Respectable middle class stands a-top the the triangle and circle judging the prot-artistocrats and the rough for their unrestrainability. The rough respecteble and the proto-aristocrats are instead connected through an axis of antipathy. They each struggled with each others ideas of how to approach temperence. There were three main things that they fought over: entertainment, religion, and prohibition. The Washington Temperance Society had various forms of entertainment such as Charlie Whites Jim Crow entertainment to encourage people to come come to meetings and learn about temperence, however the American Temperance Union greatly frowned upon this saying it was "too close of an assoc between temperance and the low-life grog shop". One of the more famous conflicts between the two groups took place on October 1842. The Columbian Temperance Society (a section of the Washington Temperance Society) decided to sponor a concert by Isaac Covert. They requestes the Free Congressional Church to host it, and the church gladly accepted as they were great supportors of the American Temperance Union and the cause, but upon learning that the church would be used for entertainment they turned the Columbian Temperance Society away. The Columbian Temperance Society was outraged. This tension between the two groups did not stop there though it continued to resonate especially in religion. Evangelicals were a huge supporter of the American Temperance Union, and made up a huge component of the group. The Washington Temperance Society on the other hand was trying to avoid such things as sectarianism and excluded prayers from their meetings. This greatly alarmed the American Temperance Union who thought the Washington Temperance Society was anti-clerical and aethiest. Though this wasn't true, many of the speakers talked about finding God, there continued to be tensions over religion. The Washington Temperance Society believed that the self and reform of the self should come before all else. The American Temperance Union and the evangelicals believed that before reforming the self you must first have a spiritual transformation. They continually argued over whether which one was to come first. And last but not least the class tensions showed through their differing views on prohibition. The Washington Temperance Society did not push prohibition unlike the American Temperance Union who wanted prohibition by 1840. The American Temperance Union along with renouncing alcohol renounced abstinince to manufacture and traffic of liquour. The Washington Temperance Society on the other hand because of their connections to the lower class--since it was made up of the rough and the rough-respectable thought that prohibition was a law that had too many posobilities of corruption. Woodman, a member of the Washington Temperance Society, had been put in reform houses 17 times for intemperance and hated it. The Washington Temperance Socitey thought that the best way to reach people is through moral arguments not the argument of the law. //Temperance Unions lowered alcoholism rates in the u.s.// The Washington Temperance Society and The American Temperance Union (ATU) differed in many ways with regard to how they approached alcohol. They each questioned who was too blame for the various issues caused by alcohol, and what to do to stop people from drinking it. They both fought for the same thing though, temperance in their communities and they had a considerable effect on the people that can be seen through various censuses: 1810: 5.5 gallons per capita consumption of liquor to 1850: 4 gallons and 1810:4.5 gallons consumption of distilled spirits to 1850: 2.25 gallons. One in every ten americans abstained from alcohol, a very radical position for the time. But which was more effective? Was the earlier ATU approach to temperence the more effective because of its lack of respect for anybody who drank it or was the later Washington Temperance Society's more effective because it helped the "unrespectable" drunkards. All in all it seems the Washington Temperance Society with its sobriety pledge was more effective at reaching people in different communities. This probably has a lot to do with the fact that the proto-aristocrats view of alcoholics did not make alcoholics want to become more "respectable", it might have even pushed them to the extent to make them want to drink more. The Washington Temperance Society was founded an made up of by the rough respectable, therefore they respected each other. Many joined at a rapid pace, from 1840: 300 people, by 1841: more than 200,000 people, and by 1843: It was in millions. However both temperance socities were effective. An average of 2 gallons of pure alcohol a year; 1820-1830 versus the 7.1 gallons of pure alcohol a year. The temperance society did work though, they lowered the amount of alcohol that was drunk, and they therfore died down until later in the 20th century, when alcohol was prohibited. All in all the Washington Temperance Society and the American Temperance Union were both very effective in reducing drinking but they went through very different methods to reach people and believed at times opposing things. This dynamic is illustrated by the axis of antipathy between the rough and the conscientious elites on the wheel of respectability. This tension is a uniquely American phenomenon because of the lack of a well established social hierarchy.much like in the 19th century when America was to be the kingdom of god, the perfect society, the model for the rest of the world, America continues to try and pioneer the world.