Goodbye, Professor Ivey

Well, I would say goodbye, but what would be the point in that? I intend to continue with my blog for at least one or two more entries, and perhaps beyond that. Just because my class has come to an end does not mean that my blog entries will. I want to continue to work with the Livermore Heritage Guild on this project, and perhaps other projects, as well. But I will say goodbye to Professor Ivey. I would also like to thank her for this opportunity and the wonderful way that she structured her class. This blog has been far more interesting to me than reading out of some old textbook with some historian telling me what to think. I got the opportunity to be the historian and uncover a previously unexplored period in Concannon history. Oh, and I still intend to post the interview I had with Jim Concannon as soon as I get the paperwork signed.

Perhaps once I get this era covered, I will move on to another. Reading over the Concannon table book that Jim was nice enough to give me, I learned that the first female winemaker in California was hired in 1950 at the Concannon winery. Her name was Katherine Vajda. There is so much more explore in Concannon’s history. Or even in the history of Livermore during Prohibition. The era just has that certain pull that makes me say, “What on Earth were they thinking?” and “How did people truly feel about this and how can I make it come to life for others?” I hope that I have made this small piece of Concannon history come alive for all of my readers. Though, I am aware that there aren’t that many. I would really like to see this format of history project done by high schoolers. So many students hate history with a passion, and if I ever teach high school or middle school history, I would like to try this format with them in a test run. And if that works, then I can develop the program further.

As for what needs to be done within this very specific subject, I think that the most important thing that needs to be researched is how all of the wineries in Livermore did. Professor Ivey talks about looking at local history in the context of the bigger picture of what is going on in the country and statewide at the time. For this particular topic, I focused heavily on one vineyard, and I believe that looking at the entire industry of wine making in Livermore would be a worthwhile project.

Prohibition. My favorite era in American history. And yet, I had a shortage of information. Not necessarily because it wasn’t there, but because of time constraints and not knowing what to look for until I was at the end of my research. So much of my time was spent figuring out how to research this topic and look for keywords that weren’t necessarily in the index of the Livermore Herald at the Livermore Heritage Guild. This story is one of a family and community coming together and finding ways to get through the hardships, with a focus on the governmental side of things that impacted both family and community.

So, what should you walk away thinking about?
How did Prohibition affect the Livermore valley?
How would I feel if I was part of the Concannon family during Prohibition?
To what extent did Prohibition negatively affect the people of Livermore and the country. Wine was not the only industry that took a huge hit during Prohibition. Many people lost their jobs and their way of life, before the Great Depression began.
What impact did Prohibition have on the Great Depression?

Potential

So, this week’s assignment (and week is used very loosely, since this was supposed to be done a few weeks ago) is to come up with an idea for a fun, interactive exhibit for our topic. I find that my creativity likes to come and go. So with ample time for preparation, I am still unsatisfied with the ideas I have come up with for bringing Concannon during prohibition to life. So I thought I would focus on a bigger picture: Livermore during prohibition. Obviously, through my research I have learned about more than just Concannon winery, but I would still need to learn more about the rest of the town.

Set the scene: You knock on an old run down door and give the bodiless voice that greets you a password that you have received. After checking around to see if the cops are around, he opens the door, continually looking out for potential cops. Once inside you glance around, captivated by what you come to realize is the setting of a real life speakeasy right here in Livermore. Once you sit down, a young woman comes over to ask what you would like.

I would like to recreate a speakeasy in Livermore. Just when everyone starts to get comfortable, the cops come in and start uncapping all of the bottles of alcohol, just as I read about in an article from the Livermore Herald. The bartender/owner would come back and recap them or complain about how much it cost him to lose that much of his supply.

From the speakeasy, guests would receive a little background information about prohibition. I would include this afterward, so they can make their own inferences, and be caught as off guard as possible so that they can retain more of the experience.

Though alcohol is not necessarily a family friendly topic to everyone, it would be for educational purposes and would not include the making or tasting of any alcohol for anyone.

Through a virtual tour of the only winery to stay open during Prohibition, Concannon, they could gain a feel for the hardships that people were going through, as well as what hardships they were going through. Prohibition was a tough time for Livermore, due to its history of vineyards. At an outdoor location, there would be a station that goes over the different things that can be done with grapes, and the options wineries had during the era of prohibition in order to stay open:
Church/alter wine
Illegally sold alcohol
Raisins
Table grapes
Livestock (Wente)
Selling land
Bankruptcy

A miniature (small enough to fit on a table) grape press could be brought in, and people could crank the press in order to show how grape juice and wine are made by these machines (generally in a much larger scale).

Vineyardists Begin to Make a Comeback

“California Vineyardists Want Product Included in Beer Measure on Liberal Basis.”

Despite a hard fight at Washington this week, California vineyard interests apparently met with little success in their efforts to have a satisfactory wine clause included in the Federal regulation permitting the sale of 3.05 per cent beer.

An amendment was added to the beer bill by the Senate, providing for 3.05 per cent wine and fruit juice but wine men state this is of no value to their industry owing to the low alcoholic content permitted.

Telegrams were sent [to] Senators Hiram Johnson and Wm. G. McAdoo protesting against the 3.05 wine and demanding legislation which would permit wine of 10 to 14 per cent. It has not yet been determined whether favorable action on this proposal can be expected.

-Livermore Herald, March 17 1933, page 2

By the early 1930s the Prohibition laws and restrictions started to become more lenient. The reason that Winemakers felt they could not work with the 3.05 percent alcoholic content is fairly easy to understand, at least for myself, since I have taken a wine making class. Pretty much any fruit can be made into an alcoholic beverage. The alcohol percentage depends on the sugar content in the fruit. When grapes ferment, which is basically rotting but slightly more complicated, the sugars turn into alcohol. Fruit has a high sugar content. Most table wines are between 14 and 16% alcohol nowadays. It was probably slightly lower in the early twentieth century. However, it still would have been too high to serve the 3.05% content law. And since fermentation is a natural process, it is much more work to get the alcohol out, and a longer process. I could be wrong, but I am willing to guess they did not de-alcoholize anything.

So, I spent a couple hours at the Livermore Heritage Guild again. I had every intention of going from here into local Democratic and Republican platforms in 1932 and 1933, but I was in a hurry for no reason and took my flash drive out of the computer without ejecting it first, so my articles got lost. I wanted to raise my hands to the heavens and shout, “WHY? WHY ME?” in a ragged voice, but I’m pretty sure that my roommates would not appreciate that, so I silently shouted in my own head with raised hands and bared teeth. I am sure everyone has experienced similar problems. And of course I am unable to go back again until next week. But hopefully next week I will be going in to the Chamber of Commerce to see what kind of records they have on file, and if any conversations were kept regarding prohibition.

As it turns out, I have been looking in all the wrong places for information. Well, not really the wrong places, but the wrong index names. I have been looking for anything under “Prohibition” that is titled, “Concannon,” and anything under the “Concannon” index that is titled, “Prohibition.” I wish that the indexes of the Livermore Herald had articles filed under “Democrat” and “Republican.” I checked, and sadly, it had neither. But the one file that I got that was not completely and entirely messed up was an article about plans to organize a local Women’s Democratic Club.

The organization of a Women’s Democratic Club deserves some background information. Historically, women were strong advocates for Prohibition. This was because many felt as though alcohol was ruining their husbands, children, and families. It made unsafe environments and husbands were known to spend much of the family income at the bar after work, rather than bringing it home to put toward the family. In the Prohibition era, the Republican party supported laws that limited or banned the use of alcohol. In 1932, Democrats ran on a platform that was against these laws, and wanted to repeal them. So, if you have not put the these pieces of information together already, I will do it for you: Women= for prohibition, Democrats= against prohibition. Women+Democrats= confusion… or the changing of minds of women, at least in the local area.

“Action to Legalize Wine Delayed”

No action to legalize wine having a greater alcoholic content than 3.2 per cent will be taken at the present session of Congress, following an 11-9 vote Monday by the House Ways and Means Committee postponing such action until the next regular session, or a special session if one be called.

The bill under consideration had been introduced by Representative Lea of Santa Rosa, and provided for the sale of naturally fermented wines. Some Eastern members of the committee maintained that it was so worded as to favor California wines.

At a hearing before the committee last week Prohibition Director A.V. Dalrymple urged the legalization of wine.

--Livermore Herald, June 16 1933, page 5

So, as you can see from this article, there was an 11-9 vote. Congress was almost split down the middle about the repeal of Prohibition. The tide was changing. Though this action to legalize wine did not pass, it shows a step in the right direction. Shortly before either of these articles were printed, the March 3 1933 paper released an article announcing the feasibility of repealing prohibition, focusing on vineyardists in the Livermore Valley. H.W. Wrightson of the California Vineyardists’ Association was quoted, “Congress, by devious ways, is trying to modify the Volstead Act so as to make light wines legal under the Eighteenth Amendment. If they succeed it may give us partial relief, but the vineyard industry needs a larger measure of relief if beneficial effects are to be felt by all growers.”

I have always found the Prohibition era an interesting time. The idea of banning alcohol has always confused me. I just never understood it. But before I learned that Concannon stayed open during Prohibition, and was one of some ridiculously small number (something like 5) to actually stay open during that time, I had never really thought about the impact of Prohibition on specific industries. I mean, how short sighted was that? The 18th Amendment almost completely shut down an entire industry. My thoughts are, people should be able to drink if they wish to. Of course, if someone is an alcoholic they should seek help, but having a glass of wine with dinner should not be illegal. The right wine can really compliment a dish. Europe has such a wine culture. They drink wine all of the time, and most Europeans (in my experience, at least) can pair an excellent wine with the perfect dish. I have a friend from Sweden who is my go-to person when it comes to which wine to serve with what meal. Wine is used for religious purposes, to compliment the pallet, and even for cooking. Anyway, I just had to point that out, since that is what goes through my head every time I even think about this topic. That is probably what keeps me so enthralled.

So, on Monday I have a meeting with Jim Concannon, the grandson of the man who started the winery. I am hoping that he will allow me to videotape it so that I can have an oral history to give to the Livermore Heritage Guild, and also so that I can put it up here. Or at least pieces of it, depending on how long it is. Guess I had better figure out my questions. If you are reading this and have any questions you think I should ask him, please write them in the comments section.

Miscellaneous

Despite all of my interest in this research topic, and all of the work I have put into retrieving primary sources, I find myself stuck. Perhaps it is those lovely allergies that springtime brings on, or the warm spring sun that promises an excruciatingly hot summer that are distracting me. Whatever the reason, I start off this week’s first blog (which was supposed to be last week’s blog) not knowing where my blog will end up.

I spent a few hours on Friday acquiring newspaper articles from the Prohibition era in the Livermore Herald at the Livermore Heritage Guild. The old Carnegie Library building that houses the Guild still has the smell of old books, which is one of my favorite smells in the world. Unfortunately, my allergies didn’t get that particular memo, despite never having acted up while being there before.

The most entertaining part about looking at these old newspapers back in this period are the advertisements. One of the articles I posted in my previous blog had an advertisement showing voters how to mark their ballots if they are against the prohibition of alcohol. Part of what made this so funny was the finger pointing directly at an X on a ballot that had the proposition written out so much clearer than in today’s elections. In an article I found on Friday there was an advertisement for the Penny’s parade that was happening in the coming soon to raise the hopes of locals during the Great Depression. Newspapers show so many social differences between down and then. Today advertisements seem more attuned to physical perfection than happiness. I am not by any means saying that advertisements did not used to try to sell people things, but today’s advertisements seem like they are focused on making people feel ugly or unhappy in order to sell us a product. But that is kind of off topic, so back to my topic of Concannon during prohibition…

While some citizens were campaigning for prohibition of alcohol, Livermore winemakers were campaigning heavily against it. I cannot tell you how many articles I found about the campaigning to revoke the Prohibition law. In the May 9^th (and yes, I am posting on the anniversary of this date) 1924, an article titled Light Wine and Beer Meeting Saturday was printed. The meeting was hosted by the Anti-Prohibition Association, and our very own J.S. Concannon was chairman of the Livermore committee of arrangements. He later arranged for a public meeting of local vineyardists. The papers are littered with little articles such as these, talking about meetings of local vineyardists and all sorts of anti-prohibition gatherings that were attended and/or partially planned by Concannons. This shows that despite the Concannon winery being one of the few to stay in business, the family was interested in expanding business, and allowing their neighbors to begin again. While so many vineyards went out of business, the Concannon vineyard stayed afloat by selling sacramental wine to the Catholic church.

In September 1930, the California Grape Control Board placed restrictions on the purchase of grapes. They purchased grapes to divert the grapes that were flooding the market due to excess. The Livermore Herald announced that the grape situation was improving. A large broker in Boston posted a bulletin, “We have continually advised you that we are satisfied that we would have a better grape market than was generally expected. What does that mean? Well, since the Great Depression was still in full swing and showed no sign of ending any time soon, I am a little suspicious of the motive behind the bulletin. This was, afterall, during Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s time in office, and he is notorious for trying to put a positive spin on everything. My hunch is that this could have been a part of the whole positive spin and an attempt to give hope to a group of people. It is sort of like how every time George W. Bush went down in the polls, the emphasis on “terror threats” increased. Except with FDR, a positive spin was put on things every now and then to boost hope, rather than Bush’s fear boosting effect.

For a detailed timeline of the Great Depression, I recommend visiting the following website: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/rails/timeline/index.html

"Villainy wears many masks, none of which are more dangerous than virtue."- Sleepy Hollow

While searching the Livermore Heritage Guild microfilm Livermore Herald database for useful information, I came across many useful articles due to their meticulously cataloged indexes. I figured these articles may give me a general sense of what was going on: outrage, support, or distaste for Prohibition. But when I began reading an article from page three of the Herald from October 16, 1920, I saw that there was also conflict going on within the various government agencies.

The article was titled, "Wine-making at Home is Now Permitted," with a subtitle stating, "Revenue Department Makes Ruling on Manufacture of 200 Gallons." Apparently, Justus Wardell, the head collector for the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) of the San Francisco district is not terribly fond of Prohibition. After interpreting "certain provisions" of the Prohibition Act he announced that it is legal to make up to 200 gallons of dry wine for family use without being taxed. The article expresses public sentiments by wondering whether or not this interpretation will be backed up by the prohibition enforcement agents, who may take a different view.

The government was putting forth conflicting statements. This shows that not only were there many people in positions of power not supporting the 18th amendment, but the government was not supporting its own laws. Below is the aforementioned article, following an excerpt. You will notice that below the article is an advertisement showing voters how to vote No on Prop 2, which was a Prohibition Enforcement Act.

"PROHIBITION ENFORCEMENT ACT. Submitted to electors by referendum. Defines intoxicating liquor as that containing over one-half per cent of alcohol; with certain exceptions relating to religious, medicinal and home use, prohibits the manufacture, possession, receiving, serving, gift and transportation thereof, and also the advertising and soliciting the sale thereof, for beverage purposes; declares nothing therein shall authorize anything prohibited by any Act of Congress, nor limit the power of any city or county to prohibit the manufacture and sale of such liquor; regulates the dealing in intoxicating liquor for non-beverage purposes; and describes penalties."

Just a month previously, on the front page of the September 4, 1920 Livermore Herald, it was announced that Justus S. Wardell was lawfully instituting policies taxing activities that were unlawful. The excerpt is below, followed by the actual article:

"'Declarations of Intention' to make wine at home will not be accepted this season by the Internal Revenue service, it was announced this week by Justus S. Wardell, Collector of Internal Revenue at San Francisco. It was unlawful [sic] last year, under wartime prohibition, to make wine at home, nevertheless the revenue service made up a form of declaration which was signed by 25,000 residents of Northern California and Nevada. Each paid $5 penalty.

But this year, according to Justus S. Wardell, Collector of Internal Revenue, the department is only concerned with tax-collecting on liquors, incomes, luxuries and the like, and is not interested in the enforcement of the prohibition law. If any liquor is made, at home or elsewhere, however, Wardell will see that the tax is paid on it."

I mentioned this article to my boyfriend, since I had to read over it about 5 times to make sure I understood exactly what it was saying. When I asked him to help me interpret it, he got it immediately and told me it was like the tax on cocaine stamps in one of the fifty states that he heard about on the radio a few years ago. So, I looked it up, and in Kansas the Department of Revenue has a policy of taxing illegal substances that requires drug dealers to purchase drug tax stamps. While the stamps do not make drug possession legal, it does mean that tax evasion can be added to charges against those caught for possession. If you would like to read further into the Drug Tax Stamp of Kansas, feel free to click on the blue link.

It is kind of ironic that the government tries to tax citizens for something illegal. Obviously if someone is using, selling, or in possession of an illegal substance, they are not going to want to be taxed for it, because it can be lead back to them. So if they get caught they get tax evasion added to their already substantial penalty.

What lead up to the Volstead Act?

Alright, so I am just going to state the obvious about what was going on at the time of prohibition. As previously stated, prohibition was preceded by the temperance movement. Women were gaining power in the political arena, and the 18^th amendment was passed just one year before women received the right to vote. I would like to take this time to clarify that while it was by Congress in 1919, the 18^th amendment did not take effect until 1920. There was a bit of confusion in some online sites that I was looking through for secondary sources.

Andrew Volstead, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, sponsored the Prohibition bill. Consequently, it is referred to as the Volstead Act. While this believed strongly in wonderful things such as anti-lynching and civil rights laws, he was not reelected after Prohibition passed.

In the early 1900s there were many immigrants entering from Eastern and Southern Europe. At the time, as with every group in American history, these immigrants were looked down upon. They were seen as lower class outsiders; not Americans. They were treated with far less respect than Western European immigrants were. According to the College of Humanities and The Ohio State University, “the leaders of the prohibition movement were alarmed at the drinking behavior of Americans, and they were concerned that there was a culture of drink among some sectors of the population that, with continuing immigration from Europe, was spreading.”As stated by Robert William Fogel, during the rise of the temperance and prohibition movements there was a “shift from emphasis on personal to social sin; rise in belief that poverty is not the personal failure, but a societal failure that can be addressed by the state….” There was a belief amongst many religious zealots that all of society’s shortcomings could be solved by a ban of alcohol. We see the idea of poverty being a societal failure with the implementation of New Deal programs such as welfare, social security, and various public work programs. Fogel also reveals that alcohol was successfully prohibited in 13 states by 1879.

I know I should not be having trouble finding information on what was going on during this time period, but I am. It isn’t so much a lack of information, though. Trust me, I am finding plenty. It is just that the process of sifting through the information, then analyzing what I have found that I am finding difficult. Yes, I know this is the kind of thing historians must do all of the time. But it makes it so much harder when the library books you need have been checked out. I have found far more local information in a couple days at the Livermore Heritage Guild than I have been able to find from weeks worth of researching (sadly, bookless) general Prohibition information. Though I cannot find information to support it yet, I strongly believe that Prohibition was either forced upon the masses, or people honestly did think it was a good idea then snapped their heads out of a cloud.

I will make no point in hiding that I believe alcohol prohibition is a ludicrous idea, and should never have taken place. Looking back in history, I find this particular era in history to be interesting simply due to my thought that this is something that never should have happened.Specifically, my thoughts are, “How on Earth could something like this have possibly passed? What were they thinking?” The more the government tries to control what people do, the less freedoms we have. Didn’t we just try to get out from under the thumb of a controlling monarch that we felt had no right to tax us without representation? As more things become illegal, it is easier to step outside of legal limits, creating more criminals. Organized crime really took off during Prohibition, supplying Americans with what they craved most: the alcohol they were not allowed to have. If Prohibition had never happened, would organized crime have taken off so well during the early 1900s?

"Such a movement seems at once naïve, intolerant, saintly, and silly"

After a search in the California State University, East Bay – Hayward Campus library for prohibition information, I wound up bookless. I believe this is because one of my fast-acting peers got the jump on the literature I thought would be helpful and necessary. So, I decided to listen to Professor Ivey after all, and see what I could find through the internet. Let’s face it: I am not the foremost authority on the prohibition era. I simply have an interest in it, because I find the idea behind it preposterous. Until I searched the internet, the only conclusion I had come to about the era, besides that it must have been unfortunate to come of age in, was that speakeasies were like mullets: business in the front, party in the back.

Research proved fruitful when I came across my first source, Symbolic Crusade: Status, Politics, and the American Temperance Movement. My favorite quote was, “legal measures taken to enforce abstinence display the reputed American faith in the power of Law to correct all evils… Such a movement seems at once naïve, intolerant, saintly, and silly.” Whether or not you agree with the use of alcohol, this statement rings true.

Before American women received their right to vote in 1920, their only means of control was influence. They could raise their children and turn the heads of their husbands, which some women were more than happy with. Others found this unfair and unlawful. The temperance movement began to sweep the young nation in the late 1800s, mainly taking hold with women. This small amount of power they could gain through the movement seemed wonderful to many women, especially women with husbands who came home long after dark, having spent all of their money at a bar. Even with the long temperance movement, prohibition of alcohol was not made legal until 1919 with the 18^th Amendment. There was immediate social backlash. Saloons were only allowed to serve non-alcoholic beverages, completely defeating their purpose. Wineries were allowed to continue, but only under certain circumstances, which led to most shutting down. Many citizens were fined and/or put in jail for “crimes” that were so recently considered legal. People were outraged that what they felt was their right, was being taken away by the federal government. Everett V. Abbott wrote in the February 1920 edition of the Columbia Law Review, “the men who voted for the prohibition amendment in our state and federal governments did not possess the authority which they arrogated to themselves. They were bound by limitations [which] deprive their act of any legislative or constitutional validity.” He considered drinking whatever he wished to drink to be an unalienable right. This thought links closely to the question of whether or not government should be able to ban drugs. Though I am getting slightly off topic, isn’t alcohol, in fact, a drug as well? If the government tries to take away what its citizens ingest, is that unconstitutional? And is it in fact an unalienable right? Or if a group of Americans decide that something is in the best interest of the population, should the entire population be held accountable for following a law? Just some food for thought, and come to your own conclusions as you read on.

The 18^th Amendment was passed just one year before the 19^th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote in all elections throughout the country. This may be the biggest reason Prohibition lasted as long as it did. Despite plenty of negative response, alcohol was not legal again until 1933 with the 21^st Amendment. According to Alan E. Wiseman and Jerry Ellig, research shows that, “contrary to the intentions of temperance advocates… the 18^th Amendment was not overwhelmingly successful at reducing general alcohol consumption, as indicators such as cirrhosis of the liver (Dills and Miron 2004; Miron and Zwievel 1991) and rates of drunkenness arrests (Dills, Jacobson, and Miron forthcoming) did not consistently decrease in the advent of prohibition.” Locally, vineyards were suffering. Only a handful of Californian wineries made it through the era.

The 18^th Amendment prohibited “intoxicating liquors,” with exceptions made for religious purposes. As I stated in a previous blog, this was how the Concannon Vineyard was able to stay open through the 1920s and beyond. In fact, making church wine was the initial reason behind the family winery.

Could Prohibition have had something to do with the onset of the Great Depression? I found an article while at the Livermore Heritage Guild looking over the microfilm of the Livermore Herald from 1914. Remember, this is before the 18^th Amendment, but during the temperance movement. The title of the article was, “The Question of State-Wide Prohibition: California Has More at Stake Than Any State in the Union.” It highlighted many interesting, thought-provoking numbers. The subtitles practically pop off the page, announcing their paragraphs. “15,000 People Employed,” “$85,000,000 Invested,” “42,000,000 Gallons of Wine,” “Injury Would Be Permanent,” and “Taxes Would Be Higher,” all jump at the reader to entice interest. This political article probably caught the interest of all who opened the paper that week. With so many jobs and investments tied to wine, it is no wonder I found so many articles in the Livermore Herald announcing local fines and arrests related to liquor. After some struggle, I have managed to upload a jpg file of this article, scanned in from microfilm, compliments of the Livermore Heritage Guild.

Stay tuned for more updates. If you would like to give feedback or you see something that you believe is a typo or just plain wrong, please feel free to tell me. I know there is always room for improvement. Or if you just have any questions, those are fine, too. Enjoy!