阻止吹着的风和流着的河:康涅狄格和罗德岛拒绝禁酒令修正案

Henry S. Cohn, Ethan P. Davis
{"title":"阻止吹着的风和流着的河:康涅狄格和罗德岛拒绝禁酒令修正案","authors":"Henry S. Cohn, Ethan P. Davis","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1418009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"On January 17, 1919, the New York Times reported that \"[t]he American nation was voted dry today [January 16, 1919] by Constitutional Amendment when the Legislature of Nebraska, the home of William Jennings Bryan, one of the foremost champions of prohibition, ratified the proposal.\" This development was a triumph for the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, and even more so for the political lobbying group, the Anti-Saloon League. These groups had successfully guided the constitutional amendment through thirty-six states after the House of Representatives voted on December 17, 1917 by 282 to 128, and the Senate voted on December 18, 1917 by 47 to 8, to adopt a national prohibition amendment. The Acting Secretary of State Frank Polk declared that the amendment had been ratified by the requisite number of states on January 29, 1919. It was to take effect under its terms one year following the adoption. But the dry forces were not done with the ratification. There were two other states beside Nebraska that also ratified on January 16, 1919 - Wyoming and Missouri. In public statements, the proponents of the amendment confidently claimed that the number of states ratifying would rise to forty by January 17, 1919, and the remainder would follow quickly thereafter. Actually, the Drys were only partially correct: it took until 1922 for the forty-sixth state, New Jersey, to ratify, and Connecticut and Rhode Island would never do so. This Article presents the record of rejection by the two hold-out states - Connecticut and Rhode Island. It discusses the pressures on the legislators of the two states to ratify or reject the constitutional amendment as well as the outcome of the debate. The Article relates interesting political developments in each state. Connecticut's two legislative bodies split over the issue of ratification and never chose to pursue it further. Rhode Island decided to argue its position in the United States Supreme Court. In an ironic twist, discussed in this article, Connecticut's leading stand against the amendment was almost lost to history. In the end, Connecticut and Rhode Island, though initially in the minority, emerged victorious as the \"noble experiment\" ended with the repeal of prohibition in 1933.","PeriodicalId":166493,"journal":{"name":"Legislation & Statutory Interpretation eJournal","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Stopping the Wind that Blows and the Rivers that Run: Connecticut and Rhode Island Reject the Prohibition Amendment\",\"authors\":\"Henry S. Cohn, Ethan P. Davis\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.1418009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"On January 17, 1919, the New York Times reported that \\\"[t]he American nation was voted dry today [January 16, 1919] by Constitutional Amendment when the Legislature of Nebraska, the home of William Jennings Bryan, one of the foremost champions of prohibition, ratified the proposal.\\\" This development was a triumph for the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, and even more so for the political lobbying group, the Anti-Saloon League. These groups had successfully guided the constitutional amendment through thirty-six states after the House of Representatives voted on December 17, 1917 by 282 to 128, and the Senate voted on December 18, 1917 by 47 to 8, to adopt a national prohibition amendment. The Acting Secretary of State Frank Polk declared that the amendment had been ratified by the requisite number of states on January 29, 1919. It was to take effect under its terms one year following the adoption. But the dry forces were not done with the ratification. There were two other states beside Nebraska that also ratified on January 16, 1919 - Wyoming and Missouri. In public statements, the proponents of the amendment confidently claimed that the number of states ratifying would rise to forty by January 17, 1919, and the remainder would follow quickly thereafter. Actually, the Drys were only partially correct: it took until 1922 for the forty-sixth state, New Jersey, to ratify, and Connecticut and Rhode Island would never do so. This Article presents the record of rejection by the two hold-out states - Connecticut and Rhode Island. It discusses the pressures on the legislators of the two states to ratify or reject the constitutional amendment as well as the outcome of the debate. The Article relates interesting political developments in each state. Connecticut's two legislative bodies split over the issue of ratification and never chose to pursue it further. Rhode Island decided to argue its position in the United States Supreme Court. In an ironic twist, discussed in this article, Connecticut's leading stand against the amendment was almost lost to history. In the end, Connecticut and Rhode Island, though initially in the minority, emerged victorious as the \\\"noble experiment\\\" ended with the repeal of prohibition in 1933.\",\"PeriodicalId\":166493,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Legislation & Statutory Interpretation eJournal\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-06-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Legislation & Statutory Interpretation eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1418009\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Legislation & Statutory Interpretation eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1418009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

1919年1月17日,《纽约时报》报道,“今天(1919年1月16日),禁酒令倡导者之一威廉·詹宁斯·布莱恩的家乡内布拉斯加州的立法机关批准了这项提案,美国国家通过宪法修正案投票决定戒酒。”这一进展是妇女基督教禁酒联盟的胜利,更是政治游说团体反沙龙联盟的胜利。在众议院于1917年12月17日以282票对128票通过宪法修正案,参议院于1917年12月18日以47票对8票通过全国禁酒令修正案之后,这些团体成功地引导宪法修正案通过了36个州。代理国务卿弗兰克·波尔克(Frank Polk)宣布,该修正案已于1919年1月29日得到必要数量的州的批准。它将在通过一年后根据其条款生效。但干旱的力量并没有随着批准而结束。除了内布拉斯加州,还有另外两个州也在1919年1月16日批准了该法案——怀俄明和密苏里。在公开声明中,修正案的支持者自信地声称,到1919年1月17日,批准该修正案的州将增加到40个,其余的州也会很快跟进。实际上,德里夫妇只说对了一部分:直到1922年,第46个州新泽西州才批准了宪法,而康涅狄格和罗德岛州则永远不会批准。本文介绍了两个顽固的州——康涅狄格和罗得岛州的拒绝记录。它讨论了两个州的立法者批准或拒绝宪法修正案的压力以及辩论的结果。这篇文章叙述了每个州有趣的政治发展。康涅狄格的两个立法机构在批准问题上出现分歧,从未选择进一步追究。罗德岛州决定在美国最高法院为自己的立场辩护。具有讽刺意味的是,正如本文所讨论的那样,康涅狄格州反对该修正案的主要立场几乎被历史遗忘了。最后,康涅狄格和罗德岛州虽然一开始是少数派,但随着1933年禁酒令的废除,这场“高尚的实验”最终取得了胜利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Stopping the Wind that Blows and the Rivers that Run: Connecticut and Rhode Island Reject the Prohibition Amendment
On January 17, 1919, the New York Times reported that "[t]he American nation was voted dry today [January 16, 1919] by Constitutional Amendment when the Legislature of Nebraska, the home of William Jennings Bryan, one of the foremost champions of prohibition, ratified the proposal." This development was a triumph for the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, and even more so for the political lobbying group, the Anti-Saloon League. These groups had successfully guided the constitutional amendment through thirty-six states after the House of Representatives voted on December 17, 1917 by 282 to 128, and the Senate voted on December 18, 1917 by 47 to 8, to adopt a national prohibition amendment. The Acting Secretary of State Frank Polk declared that the amendment had been ratified by the requisite number of states on January 29, 1919. It was to take effect under its terms one year following the adoption. But the dry forces were not done with the ratification. There were two other states beside Nebraska that also ratified on January 16, 1919 - Wyoming and Missouri. In public statements, the proponents of the amendment confidently claimed that the number of states ratifying would rise to forty by January 17, 1919, and the remainder would follow quickly thereafter. Actually, the Drys were only partially correct: it took until 1922 for the forty-sixth state, New Jersey, to ratify, and Connecticut and Rhode Island would never do so. This Article presents the record of rejection by the two hold-out states - Connecticut and Rhode Island. It discusses the pressures on the legislators of the two states to ratify or reject the constitutional amendment as well as the outcome of the debate. The Article relates interesting political developments in each state. Connecticut's two legislative bodies split over the issue of ratification and never chose to pursue it further. Rhode Island decided to argue its position in the United States Supreme Court. In an ironic twist, discussed in this article, Connecticut's leading stand against the amendment was almost lost to history. In the end, Connecticut and Rhode Island, though initially in the minority, emerged victorious as the "noble experiment" ended with the repeal of prohibition in 1933.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Antitrust Error Costs Bostock was Bogus: Textualism, Pluralism, and Title VII 5G Deployment: The Role and Challenges of Regulatory Bodies in Ensuring Convergence Within the EU Data Point: 2019 Mortgage Market Activity and Trends The CIA's Democratic Integrity: Information Sharing and Electoral Accountability
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1