Posted on 08/04/2020 5:30:05 AM PDT by Kaslin
Students of American history will recall the colorful figure of Carrie Nation, who in her enthusiasm for the temperance movement, took to whacking up saloons with a hatchet. The six-foot-tall Nation would later go on to earn her a living from her notoriety by selling small axes as souvenirs.
Nation’s avid co-laborers in the temperance movement would later succeed in passing legislation prohibiting all alcohol consumption.
The broad sweep of what she and others saw as a deleterious influence on individual and national health and welfare accomplished little in the way of removing the scourge of alcoholism.
But the temperance movement did assist in accelerating the rise in criminal enterprises, fostering a general contempt for civil authorities and an undermining of civil authority, particularly in the big cities; which saw a tremendous explosion of criminal enterprises interested in supplying booze to the thirsty American public. Law enforcement was often diverted from pursuit of serious criminality and government corruption while officers’ energies were consumed by arrests of alcohol-consuming citizens and smashing barrels of beer.
But in addition to nearly decapitating law and order, Prohibition eliminated something enormously important to American democracy, as John Grinspan pointed out in his New York Times article, titled, “The Saloon, America’s Forgotten Democratic Institution.”
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Bkmk
Insightful post. Thank you.
Ten years ago I made an effort to find one, and I found one close by. When I went there it was closed because the barber had broken his arm. So I went to the next closest one and found out I had to wait 45 minutes to get a haircut. That's when I gave up on that.
Perhaps you should reassess who your friends and acquaintances are if they can’t grasp that some people just don’t drink.
I don’t either and have never been demonized or ridiculed for it. A simple no thanks is usually sufficient.
The vast majority of people I see "ridiculed" for not engaging in behaviors are those people who want to constantly moralize to others about said behavior as a method of boosting their (apparently lacking) self esteem. Vegans aren't generally despised because they don't eat animal products; they are despised because they are constantly telling others how they shouldn't eat animal products (if they want to be as good and moral as the vegan). You know the old joke, "How do you know if someone is a vegan, or into CrossFit? Just wait a second, they'll tell you!"
My guess would be that people who have problems with others commenting on their temperance aren't being criticized for not drinking. They are most likely being criticized for loudly and constantly moralizing about the drinking of those people around them. Did you see anyone criticizing temperance before our shrinking violet commented on this thread? No, he brought it up himself...
I don't drink either, nor have I ever felt demonized or ridiculed. Yes, I read the article. Pennsylvania's and New York's rules on food with booze are insane puritan meddling, done for the sole reason that the governors can.
A barber is the bartender, talks, gives advice, listens, laughs at your stupid jokes, shares (usually) similar political leanings and will pass the time away all day, and every one waiting is welcome to become part of the conversation.
How do you think America came to be ?
A bunch o' guys gathering around a pint or two talking their ASSES off.
The South always had its slavery. I suppose all Southerners were terrible people, because that was their reputation, right?
If you lived in an originally Puritan founded colony, they had their own courts, but they weren’t theocracies and clergy leadership weren’t allowed to hold political office.
From the Washington Post, which is not a lover of Christianity:
MYTH NO. 5
Puritans were relentless witch hunters.
Because of the infamous Salem witch trials, in which 20 people accused of witchcraft were executed, the New England Puritans are often framed as a wildly superstitious and persecutory people with a special hysteria for sniffing out witchcraft. “Witchcraft was portentous,” Stacy Schiff wrote in her recent book on the Salem trials, “a Puritan favorite.”
It’s true that the Puritans believed in witchcraft, as did every society in Europe at the time. But they were not hysterical about it, and the number of witchcraft cases that made it to court is vanishingly small. From the first witchcraft trial in New England in 1638 to the last in 1697, excluding Salem, 65 people were tried, out of a population of tens of thousands. More than half were acquitted. Only 16 were executed.
The Salem episode was the only time in Puritan New England’s history that an actual panic developed over witchcraft. That’s what makes Salem memorable: It was an anomaly.”
We’ve gone from Carrie Nation to Karen nation...
Agree.
There is always more to the story.
Yeah, I know.
I missed out on that. The guys at the company where I worked for 25 years used to gather after hours to bend elbows and bend ears. They all lived on the west side of town not far from work, while I lived on the east side of town because it was a better environment for raising children. After a ten hour day I had a 45 minute commute, so hanging around drinking with the guys was out of the question.
Great article about the devastating impact of the suppression of our social institutions. The result is the migration of all public interaction to the poisonous atmosphere of Internet. Of course, to prove the point, the thread here is primarily about alcohol and Puritans.
You all (and Chesterton, obviously) need a history lesson. The Puritans were not prohibitionists. Drinking in moderation was accepted, though not to the point of getting drunk. The self-righteous prohibitionists were the antithesis of Puritan values who valued liberty of conscience enough to risk death.
They have nothing to do with alcohol, except perhaps exemplifying the virtue of moderation.
The Witch Trials happened there and not in the other colonies. They may not technically have been theocracies but they sure as hell did not have freedom of speech or religion. They were in fact quite oppressive toward dissenters and were noted for being so. As I mentioned earlier, its why Rhode Island was founded. Yes the Southern Colonies had slavery. So did the Northern Colonies. The Northern colonies also had quite the burgeoning slave trade industry. The Puritans were also noted for being incredibly greedy. The joke in colonial times was that the Puritans spent every Sunday praying for their fellow man....and the other 6 days of the week preying on their fellow man.
The right is so weak, rule followers. Time for everyone to get back to work, open up ALL the restaurants that have been outlawed, open all beauty salons and gyms. Go for it America if you all do it, the left cant stop it.
I salute your personal temperance. It’s only a problem when someone says “no one should drink because of my personal convictions.”
That’s when temperance turns into religious legalism, which doesnt seem to be your case. I’ve not had a beer in about 100 days, my personal record for the past 25 years.
The notion that Puritans were teetotalers and prohibitionists is an urban legend. In fact, beer was a major component of their diet. The Puritans also drank rum imported from the Caribbean, wine made from fruits, and hard cider.
Bars were traditionally a place where men sat and talked to each other on the issues of the day, and thus are perceived as a special threat to the state.
_______________________________
IIRC, much of the plotting and planning of the 1st American Revolution took place in ale houses.
Likely some of the history the progs now want suppressed and no longer taught.
“The Witch Trials happened there and not in the other colonies.”
Again, you are wrong. Long before the issue in Salem, Connecticut had been killing witches.
From Time (not know to be pro-Christian):
https://time.com/4543405/connecticut-witch-trials/
And Virginia and other colonies had their witch trials:
https://colonialghosts.com/witches-in-virginia/
I don’t either and have never been demonized or ridiculed for it. A simple no thanks is usually sufficient.
____________________________________
Me, too and likewise.
I simply don’t tolerate alcohol well. A small glass of wine puts me to sleep and I dislike the taste of beer.
Interestingly, I was a heavy drinker when I was underage. I could put down Jack Daniels and coke all night and felt energized. I aged out of this and at 21, lost most of my tolerance for alcohol.
I will accept a small glass of whatever is being offered and rarely finish it. An exception is Prosecco. I can mange a full glass of that.
But I’ve never liked the taste or smell of beer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.