The American Spectator

Denver Todd| 10.9.09 @ 8:51AM

The libertarian in me says smoke anywhere. The practical in me remembers the neighbor next door whose smoking was so plentiful, it became a form of vile home invasion. My home. She moved out, and now there is an unseen apartment dweller 50 feet away who shares his smoke with me at all hours of the day and night. So, I am all for rights, but NIMBY.

Kurt| 10.9.09 @ 9:40AM

The honesty in your comment is what most 'right' fights are all about. Do what you will as long as it doesn't affect me, or as Todd said, "not in my back yard." Well then where?

Michael L. Hauschild| 10.10.09 @ 8:01AM

You bet Denver, and the conscientious, polite, politically correct person I am says that you are a meddling, overacting, obnoxious buffoon that does not exhibit even the slightest libertarian tendency. I, as a real libertarian, sincerely hope your new uber-offensive unseen smoking neighbor is a militant Montana militia member who was transferred in because of an incident with his job in the U.S. Postal Service.

Self-Righteous Much?| 10.11.09 @ 3:26AM

Good thing you're not a judgmental, stick-up-his-butt, arrogant ninny, who displays not even the slightest proclivity to engage in discussion, but who instead resorts to self-congratulatory put-downs, in the vain hope of assuaging his massive sense of inferiority.

Thank goodness that's not you!

Thanks, too, for the deep, meaningful, and profound comment.

Kevin,Meath| 10.9.09 @ 9:51AM

I am glad that we have a smoking ban in pubs here as it could spoil a night down the pub to engulfed in second hand smoke.

However what many 'health extremists' really want is to ban alcohol and tobacco like any other 'harmful drug'. If you follow the logic of tax on these products because they are harmful then a tax on 'harmful foods' is the next logical step. We are always told how much 'abuse' of alcohol etc costs well poor eating habits cost even more so we 'should' control it. One of the main problems is people eat to much. Simple in the UK between 1939 -56 there was food rationing ,because of the small matter of a world war, one side effect was the carefully measure ration meant the health of the nation improved immensely. So introduce food rationing and we will all be healthier, infact allow extra 'food credits' if you go to the gym, play football etc we will be geting healthier and healthier and saving huge amounts in healthcare. There will of course be the 'small' matter of the black market where the rich can buy anything they want and criminality will spread. My grandfather was a farmer at that time and always miscounted the number of cattle when the man from the 'ministry of food' came around. The exceess would be quietly butchered and 'shifty' looking blokes from the city would arrive and exchange for luxuries would smuggle steaks and roasting joints , all very illegal naughty grandad.
Infact look at the harm done to society by parents who have children they will struggle to finnancially support and have little idea how to look after themselves let alone raise a child to be a productive member of society. We should only allow people who have passed parenting exams and been granted a permit to have children. Why on earthdo we allow people to marry anyone they like? when its obvious that they are not compatable, look at the damage divorce does to families! no a panel of experts should identify appropriate partners, we could test their genes to ensure there are no hereditary conditions as well. Think of the health benefits there.
Oh yes and President is such a cold formal name for the leader of a country, 'Dear Leader' would be better or perhaps 'Big Brother' or 'Uncle Joe' has a certain ring to it.

Back to reality shouldn't the individual take responsibility for themselves? if you tax food what next?

Al Adab| 10.9.09 @ 12:53PM

I'll drink to that. Sorry, couldn't resist.

Louis Jenkins| 10.9.09 @ 3:59PM

It's not if the product is harmful! It's a ready made cash cow for the government. Alcohol was banned for a short time during the depression, yet consumption continued, so it was legalized again and taxed. Our District of Crimminals will not outlaw tobacco as it represents income for them and for the state. However, tax income from tobacco, because sales, have lessened, and it most likely will for alcohol. Therefore, it is natural for the every money hungry Federal government to look for other venues of taxation. ie Value Added Tax, soft drink tax, McDs tax, milage tax... But we can rest well at night as it is for the children and our health. Be that as it may, there will still be a demand for sin products.

Len| 10.9.09 @ 6:53PM

A religious matter to Hamilton?? Unless this author considers government and banking as religions he is utterly clueless. To suggest that Hamilton who wanted at minimum a Nationalist all powerful government if he couldn't have a monarchy wanted these taxes for religious reasons is to attempt to rewrite history. He wanted these taxes for the same reason he wanted a national bank, in order that power would be accrued by the federal government.

hardius| 10.10.09 @ 5:10AM

A certain amont of taxes is mandatory to the survival of our Nation. The excessive taxes we now face are about the destruction of the middle class. So very little of what Congress now does has any relationship to the Constitution or the appropriate role of Government that to call Congress corrupt is an understatement of humongous proportions.

Margie| 10.11.09 @ 12:52PM

Indeed. And how far we have come from this:
"A rigid economy of the public contributions and absolute interdiction of all useless expenses will go far towards keeping the government honest and unoppressive."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Lafayette, 1823
And this: "But with respect to future debt; would it not be wise and just for that nation to declare in the constitution they are forming that neither the legislature, nor the nation itself can validly contract more debt, than they may pay within their own age, or within the term of 19 years."
Thomas Jefferson, September 6, 1789
And this: "For example. If the system be established on basis of Income, and his just proportion on that scale has been already drawn from every one, to step into the field of Consumption, and tax special articles in that, as broadcloth or homespun, wine or whiskey, a coach or a wagon, is doubly taxing the same article. For that portion of Income with which these articles are purchased, having already paid its tax as Income, to pay another tax on the thing it purchased, is paying twice for the same thing; it is an aggrievance on the citizens who use these articles in exoneration of those who do not, contrary to the most sacred of the duties of a government, to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816
And finally: "Excessive taxation… will carry reason and reflection to every man's door, and particularly in the hour of election."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Taylor, 1798
~~~~Vote the Socialists out!~~~~

Richard Baker| 10.10.09 @ 5:34AM

The Whiskey Rebellion had Washington going to Western Pennsylvania, not Southward. Grew up in Virginia and a tip for those who've not had any is: Don't drink it if you don't know the Old Boy who made it or have real faith and trust in your friends who offer you some. Franklin County, Virginia is truly the moonshine capital of the state.

Michael L. Hauschild| 10.10.09 @ 9:34AM

Not all the bootlegging took place in the South and not all the “cookers” were Irish immigrants, the Germans did their share. My great uncle was a bootlegger and his brother, my grandfather, was a “runner.” Grampa Jack picked up milk from the farmers in the area, some of which were also bootleggers.
Most times this “industry” is depicted as characters from the movie “Deliverance” swilling moonshine from an earthen crock on their way to the creek for a rendezvous with Ned Beatty. The fact is that most operations were quite sophisticated and family oriented. The “milk cans” grandpa used to haul the product had a soldered in lower chamber, which was capped and then covered with the raw milk. First by team and later by truck these “composite” containers were taken to one of our local milk bottling operations where both the milk and the moonshine were bottled.
My father who quit school at the age of twelve and was probably made more money for the family than many grown men in that era. He eventually cornered the delivery boy trade with four different newspapers, The Bee, The Sun, The World, and The Herald; his prohibition-beating gimmick was the “paper and pint.”
Later dad worked the trade “delivering fuel” from one of the first “Gas Stations in the area, “The Dutch Mill,” adjacent to a farm stead with one of the new “grain silos.” The silo contained the largest still ever discovered in the country and had another notoriety, the first moonshine pipeline which transferred the product over a quarter of a mile to the trucks running out of the “Service Station.” The “Dutch Mill” also had a pipeline to the silo that transfered “white gas:” it burned clean and provided the heat for the distillation.
Not all this was simple depression era survival or enterprise. It is also interesting to note that all of the huge elaborate churches in our community were built and maintained during those tough times with funding from this shadow industry. All the old deacons (now mostly deceased) of the various denominations were those exact same farmers who had the stills. They were the ones that managed to keep their farms, and were selectively pious enough to build and maintain the churches.
My Methodist tea-totaling brethren now have a fairly nice church but it should also be noted in our congregation’s photo history our places of worship during that period were nothing more than ramshackle shacks.

Gazinya| 10.10.09 @ 9:40AM

I used to drink. I used to drink a great deal and it irritated me that others found it disgusting. I used to be married, now I'm not and it irritated me that others 'wondered' why I never re-married. I used to make fun of people who claimed alligence to flag and country. I used to believe that those goody two shoes that went to church were jerks. I believed a great many things but the worst was I used to believe that what is good for me is good enough for everybody.

Today, I am grateful to my God that he removed from me the ability to see the splinters in my neighbors eye. He did this by removing from me the plank that I had stuck in my own eye. So today I am not yoked to what my neighbor enjoys or despises but I am and get enraged when my government attempts to stick that damn plank back into my eyes with its own godlessness parading as a measure of 'their good will' towards me.

Margie| 10.11.09 @ 2:12AM

Lawlessness=chaos.
"Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics. There must be a positive passion for the public good, the public interest, honour, power and glory, established in the minds of the people, or there can be no republican government, nor any real liberty: and this public passion must be superior to all private passions."
John Adams, April 16, 1776
"Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The divine law, as discovered by reason and the moral sense, forms an essential part of both."James Wilson
"Experience having long taught me the reasonableness of mutual sacrifices of opinion among those who are to act together for any common object, and the expediency of doing what good we can; when we cannot do all we would wish."
Thomas Jefferson, 1803
~To that this end, I say, Libertarians and conservatives unite to elect conservatives to office. We know who they are!

Michael L. Hauschild| 10.11.09 @ 1:22PM

~And to this end, I say......... you kind of turned into a one way street there Margie, how about....... Libertarians and conservatives unite to elect Libertarians and conservatives to office.

Margie| 10.11.09 @ 6:34PM

Can't say what you want me to say, Michael. I'm a Reagan conservative and a Republican. I think the Libertarians as a party doesn't have a chance, and besides, I don't want a no-laws society. I think they ought to back conservatives such as Sarah Palin and in the Republican party where we have a chance to win. Otherwise we'll see Obama II. That's just reality. And I'm sticking with it.

Roy| 10.11.09 @ 3:13PM

If the stills are illegal, how does Mr. Orlet know this was the last one?

Quartermaster| 10.11.09 @ 7:45PM

He's talking about part of a government agency being shut down, not a still.

Bud| 10.12.09 @ 5:55AM

For some "sin taxes" are a way to appropriate the police power of government to force people to behave in ways they find salutary. For most "sin taxes" are a way to get more money to support the use of the police power of government to force people to behave in ways they find convenient to them. So take your pick - Mrs. Kravitz staring through her blinds or Al Capone. Neither is appealing. Neither has any place in a free society.

Paul Crowley| 10.12.09 @ 1:31PM

“Alcohol was banned for a short time during the depression, yet consumption continued, so it was legalized again and taxed.” [Louis Jenkins| 10.9.09 @ 3:59PM]

Hi Louis:

Alcohol was never banned by any federal laws in this country.

Whether it was banned in specific locations, municipal, county, or state, then that’s a different matter, and I don’t know.

If so, then it would most likely have been somewhere in the southern states (A.K.A. "Dixie"), Utah, the eastern portions of the Mountain states of the west east of the Rockies), or Mormon communities, but not the northeast, upper midwest, or most of the rest of the west.

The Federal Prohibition was against the SALE of alcohol.

This is exactly the form of prohibition laws that I remember as a kid and teenager, but at the state, county and municipal levels. Federal prohibition laws ended in 1933.

Prohibition was only against the SALE of alcohol, or particular type of sales, not against possession or consumption of alcohol (with ony a couple minor exceptions) or its purchase where legal.

I remember the prohibitions on the the sale of alcohol when I was young, clearly enough.

I never lived in a Dry County, or Dry City, but I did live in a state, New Mexico, with both, and adjacent to other states, Texas, Colorado, Arizona and Utah, with both.

There were only a couple state-wide prohibitions in New Mexico that regulated liquor sales under special circumstances:

Prohibitions on package liquor sales (“carry out”) on Sundays (lounges and such were still open, but no "carry out”).

All liquor sales were prohibited on Election Days, until the poles closed (an eminently sensible law in those days, and probably in the ones that preceeded them).

Of course, in neither case was possession or consumption of alcohol prohibited, so if one simply had the sense to get in his Sunday or Election Day stock before hand, he could drink it to his heart’s content, without fear, and with a clear conscience (unless he was a Mormon, or a Baptist or something, where the latter is concerned).

The only laws prohibiting possession, or consumption, in New Mexico, that I was aware of, concerned operating motor vehicles (no “open container” allowed inside a motor vehicle in NM in those days) or while being in public (we weren’t allowed to walk down the street drinking. . . ). Most states, counties and municipalities still have these kinds of laws, to one degree or another, today.

Louisiana and Texas have laws, and dodges to them, that were foreign to me, before the 1990s. The alcohol sold has to be bagged, I guess. But, put the can of beer in a TINY little paper bag, and you can carry it from the store to the car. New Mexico had no laws against carrying an unopened can or bottle of beer from the store to the car.

Other than that, no other prohibtions where I lived.

Elseswhere in the state, and adjoining states, it was a different matter: There were locations with prohibition laws.

Eastern New Mexico used to be the western edge of the Bible Belt, with the populations dominated by Methodists, Presybeytrians, and a plethora of Congregational Protestants, of numerous kinds, all of which were prone to lean pro-prohibition. Lutherans, Anglicans and Catholics were usually not prohibition-inclinded, in the least. But those were all in a distinct minority in Eastern New Mexico. However all of the hospitals in all of the cities on that side of the state were erected by the Catholic Church and manned by Catholic Religious orders (mostly female, but many male also), in those days.

There were also still numerous small towns (real ones, not merely metropolitan suburbs like today) in New Mexico that were almost solid, or majority, Mormon communities, and that began as Mormon settlements. They were mostly on the western side of New Mexico (Kirkland, Ramah, . . . ).

Since the prohibition was only against the SALE of alcohol, or particular type of sales, not its purchase or consumption, then that resulted in liquor stores popping up just outside the city limits (if the Dry City was in an otherwise Wet County), or just over the country line in an adjacent Wet Country.

Lubbock, Texas, was a dry city in those days and there were numerous counties in the panhandle and west Texas that were Dry Counties also.

Salt Lake City, in the 1960s, was interesting.
It was exactly like Kurachi, Pakistan, when I was in Kurachi later in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
Whatever else the statutes prohibited, lounges were not allowed in hotels in Salt Lake City in those days.
However, package sales were allowed, so one could buy a bottle and sit in his room and drink it, if so inclinded.
Kurachi was exactly the same when I was there.

You're right about Prohibition and the Great Depression, insofar that the tail end of federal prohibition came during the beginning of the depression.

As to the Great Depression, circa 1929-39 (or 1927, for the farmers), then Prohibition was in place for only the first 4 years.

The Federal Prohibition against the sale of alcohol was lifted in 1933.

The Federal Prohibition against the sale of alcohol was in place during the War (WWI) and during the boom period after the war, up to, into the first few years of the depression.

One of my grandaunts brewed beer in a bath tub during the federal Prohibition period.

What she did was perfectly legal.

There were no statutes against the personal production and consumption of that beer by my family.

My family produced no whiskey.
There may very well have been statutes regarding distillation, but I don’t know.

If there were, then depending upon what they were, then they might very well have made perfect sense.
Distillation is a far more dangerous process than brewing, and the danger from explosion is far greater.

Statutory regulation, especially regarding amateur distillation, is only good sense in an urban setting, town, city, or metropolis.

Paul Crowley| 10.12.09 @ 1:50PM

“consumption continued.” [Louis Jenkins| 10.9.09 @ 3:59PM]

The federal prohibition against alcohol sales was successful in reducing the amount of consumption.

Estimates that I've seen, but am not aware how good they are, or am able to cite for you, claim that per capita consumption was reduced by up to a third of pre-prohibition levels.

This isn't in the least surprising.

Paul Crowley| 10.12.09 @ 2:01PM

“I used to drink. I used to drink a great deal and it irritated me that others found it disgusting.” [Gazinya| 10.10.09 @ 9:40AM]

This brings back memories from my navy days.

This was back in the still the pre-effeminatized navy.

When I drew Shore Patrol one duty day, a Chief who was a pal, and in my duty section, but who drew a deck watch instead, looked at me and said:

“Better you than me. I don’t like being around drunks when I’m sober, and I don’t like being around sober people when I’m drunk.”

I have to say that's still the best summation of my view of the matter also.

Sarah| 10.12.09 @ 11:30PM

How can anyone make the assumption that "Hamilton wouldn't have cared anyway?" Hamilton was an orphan, and worked for a merchant as a clerk. Hamilton was not born into wealth and prosperity; he got there himself. Hamilton wanted to build a strong nation that other countries could trust to build allies with. Without an economy or money supply, he believed that would not be possible. He created taxes (such as the whiskey tax) to build revenue to help rebuild our nation from the Revolution from which each state owed a tremendous amount of debt (other than Virginia which managed to pay it off themselves). The whiskey tax may not have been his best idea, but taxes are a much needed source of revenue for this country. You can't get anything for free and that includes, cheap accessability to water and electricity. The health costs our nation and our tax dollars endure come from people who smoke, drink, and eat junk food contributing to heart disease, cancer, and obesity. Yes, there is a limit to how much any item can and should be taxed esp in the alcohol industry. Farmers, truck drivers, and others involved in the alcohol industry contribute a large part to our economy. But, let's face it, you don't need alcohol to survive. A little tax never hurt anyone: it is when it gets too high there is a problem.
There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Paul Crowley| 10.13.09 @ 3:25PM

CORRECTIONS

“Alcohol was banned for a short time during the depression, yet consumption continued, so it was legalized again and taxed.” [Louis Jenkins| 10.9.09 @ 3:59PM]

Hi Louis:

Alcohol was never banned by any federal laws in this country.

However, I apologize.

My comment on your comment [Paul Crowley| 10.12.09 @ 1:31PM] was made too quickly, was too rambling and also contained some errors, where federal prohibition was concerned (and me having watched all of those episodes of The Untouchables, with Eliot Ness, and the boys manned with pick axes, busting kegs, while taking on the crime syndicates while growing up!).

It’s interesting no one here commented on them.

I’ll stay with may statement that:

Alcohol was never banned by any federal laws in this country and whether it was banned in specific locations, municipal, county, or state, then that’s a different matter, and I don’t know.

It was clearly the intent of the supporters of the XVIII ammendment, but the ammendment was badly phrased, and that caused unsurprising problems in as a result.

The XVIII Amendment to the Constitution prohibited the sale, production, and transport of alcoholic beverages.

Federal Prohibition lasted from (1919)-1920-33.

The XVIII Amendment to the Constitution was enacted into law in January 1919.

Enforcement of the XVIII Amendment to the Constitution began in January 1920.

So, the Federal Prohibition against the sale of alcohol was not in place during the War (W.W.I).

The proposal to amend the constitution was submitted to the states during the war.

A sufficient majority (greater than 3/4) of the state governments ratified the ammendment by 1919.

The proposal to amend the constitution by prohibiting the manufacture, transportation, or sale of alcoholic beverages was submitted to the states by Congress in December 1917.

The proposal to amend the constitution was ratified by a sufficient majority of state legislatures, and received a sufficient majority in Congress, to be enacted into law in January 1919.

The Prohibition enforcement bill was passed by Congress in October 1919.

The bill was immediately vetoed by President Wilson.

President Wilson’s veto was overridden by Congress.

The bill was enacted into law as the Prohibition Enforcement Act of 1919.

Enforcement of the XVIII Amendment to the constitution took effect in January 1920.

Repeal of the XVIII Amendment was made a Democratic Party platform position in 1932.

A resolution to amend the Constitution to repeal the prohibition against production, transport and consumption of alcoholic beverages was made by Congress in February 1933, in the last days of the Hoover administration.

An amendment to the Enforcement of Prohibition Act of 1919 was signed into law by President Roosevelt in April 1933, legalizing 3.2 percent beer.

The XXI Amendment received the 3/4 majority of the states needed with the ratification of the amendment by the legislature of Utah in December 1933.

The XVIII Amendment to the constitution was repealed by the XXI Amendment to the constituton in December 1933.

So Federal prohibition against the production, transport and sale of alcoholic beverages spanned the period of the last few months of the Wilson administration, all of the Harding, Coolidge and Hoover administrations, and the first months of the Roosevelt administrations.

So much for the fantasy of a anything like a libertarian Old Right.

The corrections:
Federal prohibition lasted through the boom period following the war (the first world war).

Clearly, my grand-aunt who was brewing beer in a bath tub during the federal Prohibition period, was breaking the law by producing an alcoholic beverage.

However, my family members who drank the beer, were not breaking any laws, since the XVIII Amendment to the constitution did not outlaw consumption of alcoholic beverages, and no municipal or state statutes were enacted into law where they lived forbidding the consumption of alcoholic beverages. I believe that it’s fair to point out that they were violating the spirit of the law (i.e. the intent).

As noted, none of my family ever produced whiskey.
There was one amateur brewer, but no amateur distillers in my family, during the period.

My comments on prohibition laws, which were state, country and municipal level laws, when I was a kid and young man, post-WWII and pre-1989, still hold. The ones I focused upon were most common in the state and region in which I'm from: They were prohibitions on the SALE of alcohol, and not on its manufacture or transport.

Most of those seem to have been erased by the end of the decade of the 1980s.

In addition to comments on Wet and Dry counties in Texas, and comments on Louisiana, then I’ll note that I also remember when in portions of both states, drinking and driving were allowed.

In southern Louisiana, it was common to ask for a Go Cup at closing time, so as to carry home one’s drink, in a paper or plastic cup, if one hadn’t finished it by then. There were other states that allowed this also.

I don’t think anywhere allows anything remotely like this any longer.

One no longer even needs to be drunk to arrested and heavily fined any longer: Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) laws, based on ability or inability to function, have mostly all been replaced by Driving Under The Influence (DUI) laws, based on alcohol content in the blood, now.

Again, I apologize for the errors and sloppiness in my first comment on your comment.

Paul Crowley| 10.13.09 @ 6:08PM

“The original Celtic inhabitants of the Appalachians brought with them the practice of distilling alcohol.” [By Christopher Orlet on 10.9.09 @ 6:08AM]

The Celtic Race is pure Horse Manure.

Something that never existed, and never will exist.

Whiskey distillation can’t be blamed on the Irish, Protestant or Catholic, and it’s a stretch to blame it on the Scots alone. Are the Welsh being blamed (to name the three Races of the mythical Celtic Race)?

By the end of the 18th century, there were plenty of Englishmen who were addicted to Gin (rightly dubbed ‘the heroin of the 18th century’).

Were there any Americans of English descent in the Appalachians back then?

There sure were. Damn sure more than any who were of Irish descent, whether Prostetant (the new Scots-Irish”) or Catholic. The Protestant Irish didn’t start showing up in large numbers until after 1847-50.

Scots (who were mostly Protestant, and mostly a Presbyterian form of Protestantism) and Protestant Irish (who were mostly a Presbyterian and Congregational Protestant form of Protestantism) also brought religious-, and non-religious-based Tee-Totalism with them to this country as well.

Or are we supposed to believe they were sitting reading their bibles, while sitting beside their bourbon stills, sometime about 1860?

Irish Catholics also brought with them the religious formation that included knowledge of moderation being a virtue.

Only a damn fool forms himself by heritage-based stereotypes being popularized in novels, Hollywood movies, political essays, and pop-history texts of the penny press (now going for about $30 a pop), especially if they don’t even remotely describe his own parents, grandparents or great-grandparents (but Hollywood movies can take care of the question of what THEY were like). . . .

In the 19th century, through to the middle of the 20th, it was poetry, novels, and the pop-history books of that time, most used.

Paul Crowley| 10.13.09 @ 6:17PM

“The . . .Appalachians . . . the practice of distilling alcohol.” [By Christopher Orlet on 10.9.09 @ 6:08AM]

THE APPALACHIANS

Why always the HUGE jump from the so-called Whiskey rebellion at the end of the 18th century to the post-World War II Moonshine runners (the birth of NASCAR?).

What’s the post 1800 history of so-called moonshine in the American Midwest and the southeastern states?

What happened during the more than 150 years of history between these two events, especially this now overly-focused upon event dubbed the Whiskey rebellion?

How in the world was the American constitution ever amended so as to have a 13-year prohibition on the manufacture, transport, and sale of alcoholic beverages, if this is in the least descriptive of the population of a large region of this country? How was the 75 percent majority of American state governments and the two third majority of the American Congress even obtained, if Americans of the time were really such a hedonistic, disgusting, and infantile, people, as so many stereotypes now claim so many in our population to have been?

As to the Appalachian region, then were more distilled spirits manufactured in, and transported from the region to other parts of the U.S.A. during Prohibition, than from the British Dominion of Canada?

Was Kentucky supplying the Speak Easys of Milwaukee, Chicago and Detroit. Or was Ontario a greater source of supply?

What’s the post 1800 history of so-called moonshine in the American Midwest and the southeastern states?

URBANIZED HILLBILLY STEREOTYPE
This “Celt” rot sounds like more of the rubbish being used to form people into the new Scots-Irish synthesis, popularized here, beginning about 40 years ago. The urbanized hillbilly popularized by such as James Webb (whose began in about 1979).

Again, only a damn fool forms himself by heritage-based stereotypes being popularized, especially if they don’t even remotely describe his own parents, grandparents or great-grandparents. Especially when the were overwhelmingly clean, decent people, with no inclination, whatsoever, to be used as mindless canon fodder.

Paul Crowley| 10.13.09 @ 7:28PM

“Not all the bootlegging took place in the South and not all the ‘cookers’ were Irish immigrants, the Germans did their share.” [Michael L. Hauschild| 10.10.09 @ 9:34AM]

Since you refer to immigrants, and then speak about your relatives by way of example, then it sounds like you may be about a third-generation American (at least on this side of your family). I would know of no one who would refer to a great-uncle who was a native American as an immigrant.

The political essay begins with 1792.

At that time, the numbers of German and Irish in the Appalachian region would have been virtually nil.

The term “Bootlegging” would not apply. That’s principally a 20th century phenomenon.

The post-1969 glorified version tens to focus on the post-Prohibition and post-World War II period. An entirely different time and place from 1792. And, from most of the period 1792 through to the end of World War II.

In 1792, then the overwhelming majority of the population of the region would have been English. A small minority would have been Scottish (Scotch at the time).

There were still plenty of folks who were full or partial English descent as recently as 45 years ago.

Certainly men like Daniel Boone, Davy Crockett and Abraham Lincoln, were not Irish, “Celts,” or Germans. These are English-sounding names, because they are English names.

The English government didn’t start the really big forced migrations of Scots (Scotch at the time) to the western Hemisphere until after the Seven Years’ War, about 1761 onward. They darn sure weren’t shipping any large numbers of surplus Scotch peasants into the U.S.A., between 1776-83. The Crown Colonies of Nova Scotia, St. John’s Island (Prince Edward’s today), and Quebec, were a different matter. Some of those would have filtered south into the American Northwest Territory by 1792.

So, there would have been Scots in the region at the time, native Americans from the eastern states, and some from the Brit colonies (if one is so inclined as to include them among the mythical Celtic Race).

The Germans didn’t begin arriving in the U.S.A. in big numbers until after 1830 (principally the Protestant Germans; actually Prussians). They continued arriving in very large numbers through to about 1920. The big Catholic German migrations especially increased about 1870 onward. Plenty of them settled in the Midwest and upper Midwest, and across the west, and in every major city, but the Appalachian region wasn’t an especially dominant site of large German settlement.

The Irish, Catholic or Protestant, didn’t begin arriving in the U.S.A. in big numbers until 1847-50. Those continued through to about 1914.

By the 20th century, and especially after World War II, then one would find individuals of countless different races, and mixes of races, in any region of the country.

There’s still plenty of native Americans who are English-Americans, whole or mixed. For the most part, where the average folks are concerned, until the reform of the past 30 years, they were a clean, decent people too.

Most Americans, of whatever national origin, would have had more pride than to speak about any criminal activities engaged in by their forbears, as you do here, in such detail, of yours. I was reluctant even to mention my great-aunt brewing beer for family consumption. Either way, neither your examples, or my lesser one, are representative examples of the majority of Americans of the past. My great-aunt was distinctly an exception in the family back then.

Paul Crowley| 10.14.09 @ 8:42AM

“Alcohol was banned for a short time during the depression, yet consumption continued, so it was legalized again and taxed.” [Louis Jenkins| 10.9.09 @ 3:59PM]

Hi Louis:

The bottom line on federal Prohibition is that it lasted just over 14 years, 1919-33, and was enforced just over 13 years (1920-33).

The amendment to the constitution was passed during World War I, and was in place and enforced throughout all of the post-war boom period and into the first few years of the Great Depression.

Manufacturing, transport and sale of alcoholic beverages was made illegal.

Neither the possession nor the consumption of alcoholic beverages were illegal.

Obviously, such an emendment to the constitution, phrased in such a way, was bound to make for legal problems when enforcement was attempted, charges were made, and when cases came to court. It also had the bad effect of a low-key corruption of American ethics: Violation of the Spirit of the Law, if not the Letter of the Law, due to the phrasing.

Post-Federal-Prohibition prohibition laws, still common in some parts of the country, through to the end of the 1970s, and some into the 1980s, were all local laws (state, county and municipal). Where I was from, they primarily only prohibited the SALE of alcoholic beverages, not the manufacture, transport, possession, consumption or purchase, where legal.

Paul Crowley| 10.14.09 @ 9:33AM

"If the stills are illegal, how does Mr. Orlet know this was the last one? [Roy| 10.11.09 @ 3:13PM]

Very good Roy.

Orlet is just another cheap political hack. His political essay is useful to propagate some of the new cultural syntheses. One small 'bit' contributed to the "Vitriol and Instruction," a setup for the idiotic debates, such as Hamilton versus Jefferson (Hamilton has been romanticized by some elements for about the past 25 years), squabble about The Constitution, and the formation of a particular element of the new post-1969 White Race being formed.

The subheading about the federal government engaging in social engineering back to the beginnings of the country, on the webpage homepage, and such as his cheap swipe at George Washington, gives that away.

Most of this is libertarian movements talking points, and are right out of such as the Black Power Movement of 1967-74. The libertarian Neo-Confederates, and other such newly-formed, and still being formed "patriots," can shake hands, across the decades with the Huey Newton and the Black Panthers.

This is part of the real social engineering: Historical commentary that inspires contempt for all things American, and most especially for American principles, under pretense of the opposite. It's an anglicizing of Americans.

Paul Crowley| 10.14.09 @ 11:57AM

p.t.crowley@world.att.net

The original Celtic inhabitants of the Appalachians brought with them the practice of distilling alcohol.”[By Christopher Orlet on 10.9.09 @ 6:08AM]

To be clear. It was overwhelmingly English-Americans who originally brought distillation to the region.

Until about the last 30 years, English-Americans were still a large proportion of the populations.

Redneck is traditionally a Racial derogatory that refers to Englishmen or people of English descent.

It was English-Americans of the mountain southeast who were subject to the UNJUST mischaracterization (i.e. stereotype) as “Hillbillies” (the lazy, stupid, illegal moonshiners, barefoot, toothless, living dissolute lives of dissipation, prone to copulate with their sisters, marry their cousins, and inclinded to be draft dodgers).

Here in Texas, it included folks portions of East Texas and in the so-called hill country. Lyndon Baines Johnson is not an Irish name.

The name of the dissolute bootlegging cartoon character, always keeping an eye out for the ‘revenue man,’ was Snuffy SMITH (not Snuffy Lynch, or Snuffy Cunningham).

It was Seargent YORK who was popularized, post-WWI, as the rural hillbilly who decided to submit to the conscription that he originally opposed, and that was not popular in this region of Mind Your Own Business kind of people. Not cowards, or averse to fighting, but people who didn’t just fight for the sake of it, but who understood that what one fights for DOES matter. Which until only recently was a common principle held by the overwhelming majority of Americans.

The sterotype of the hillbilly was, and remains, wrong, and unjust. Americans in the mountainous region of the southeast were mostly clean, decent people.

English-Americans, in no way British (culturally speaking), were no exception.

The same goes for the Irish-Americans that are atempting to be reformed into so-called Scots-Irish Americans in the image and likeness of the UNJUST Hillbilly mischaracterization (i.e. stereotype). The suitable modification is removal of the element of the Draft Dodging Hillbilly from the caricture, replaced by a caricature on the theme of the “Fighting Irish.”

This is the worst kind of Biological Warfare against human beings. The manipulation of human beings, via the abuse of trust (i.e. Perfidy). “Survival of the Fittest” in the traditonal reality of what the term was: Conquest by clever weaklings.

www.us-bapeoutlet.com| 4.5.10 @ 10:46PM

www.us-bapeoutlet.com

kilop| 4.7.10 @ 9:49PM

thanks you very much for your information
Poptropica
Poptropica