"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!

From Humble Beginnings

The Concannon Vineyard of Livermore, California took off in 1883 when Irish immigrant, James Concannon moved his family to a 47 acre parcel of land with the intention of making wine for the Catholic Church. Concannon was born in 1847, and came to America through New York just after the end of the Civil War in June of 1865 at the age of eighteen. He moved around the East Coast for almost ten years before settling down with a young Irish woman named Ellen Rowe in 1874. They decided shortly thereafter that they would move to the West Coast, which had the appeal of sprawling land and substantial opportunity, ending up in San Francisco. Ellen longed for the fresh air and healthy countryside that the city could not offer, and at the suggestion of family friend Archbishop Alemany, purchased a sizable chunk of land.

James Concannon was a prosperous man because he loved a challenge, and even while on the East Coast and in San Francisco, managed to pursue and succeed in his interests, such as a stamp company. These interests made profits for him and created savings for his family. Savings that they turned around and put back into their family business. They bought ten acres here and there, adding to the mass of land their vineyard sat upon. When the first real winery facility was built in 1895, it was producing around 100,000 gallons of wine. At the time most of the wine was going to use in the church and in San Francisco to be bottled by bigger companies.

Unfortunately, around 1893 Phylloxera disturbed the Concannon vineyard, as it was destroying the vineyards in Europe, starting with France. Phylloxera is a tiny insect, related to the flea, that attacks the roots of grape vines. Vine roots native to North America are immune to this pest, but European roots are not. The Concannons had brought in mostly French vines at this point, since the grapes that were native to America were not considered to have very good flavor, and since their crop was not immune, they had to spend years and years replanting their acres of land. Multiple trips by boat, all the way around the tip of Cape Horn, were made in order to attain further knowledge and specimen from Europe. Eventually it was discovered that by grafting European vines onto American roots, European grapes could become immune to the Phylloxera. The replanting was not completed until just months before James’s death in 1911 at the age of 64.

Between 1889 and 1904 James shipped grapevines to Mexico in an attempt to bring in revenue for the family winery, and to expand and broaden the wine industry in Mexico. He used his connections he had strengthened with the Mexican President, Porfirio Diaz, through his stamp business in the 1870s to pursue this adventure. However, once the Mexican Revolution came about, that particular business venture was shut down, and the vines most likely went to waste, rotting despite Concannon’s hard work.

In the 1990s James Concannon was inducted into the Order of Winegeese by the Chevalier of the Order. It's membership is reserved for Irish wine makers, many of whom attained their goals outside of the homeland. James is also recognized by many as the first successful Irish Vintner in America.

My next blog(s) will include a background of the temperance movement, Prohibition, and the effect on the Concannon vineyard.

Bibliography

Special thanks to the Livermore Heritage Guild, particularly President Jeff Kaskey for all of his help, and the Concannon Estate Manager, Jim Ryan.

Concannon Vineyards website

Concannon, Jim and Patterson, Tim, Concannon: The First One Hundred and Twenty-Five years (Healdsburg, CA: Andy Katz Photography, 2006).

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=IGlBeGp3sR0C&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=Prohibition+AND+temperance+movement&ots=urTmu4EY1O&sig=M-i-IQ_3KSOpjHs49Jp3gCazJ8A#v=onepage&q=Prohibition%20AND%20temperance%20movement&f=false

page 1

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/nineteentham.htm

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1112061?seq=3

pg 185

http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:Lyen6MQUuyUJ:scholar.google.com/+economic+consequences+of+the+18th+amendment+for+wineries&hl=en&as_sdt=2000

page 3

The Livermore Herald

Introductory Post

Well, I figure I should give some sort of introduction before I start blogging for the class. Last quarter I took Wine Making for Chemistry credit. Yes, you can do that at our school. We went on a field trip to Concannon Vineyard toward the end of the quarter. While Jim Ryan, the estate manager, was giving us a tour and telling us a brief history of the vineyard and the winery. He stated that during Prohibition, Concannon was one of the few vineyards to stay open. The reason they were able to stay open was because they "produced church wines." This along with my interest in the women's temperance movement of the late 1800s and early 1900s lead me to want to research the vineyard further. In addition to having wonderful wines, which I would suggest to anyone, this estate vineyard has a rich history, and is one of California's oldest wineries/vineyards.

So at this point I am just waiting to hear back from Jim Ryan to see who can assist me by participating in interviews and giving me a general background so I have some sort of jumping ground for this class. I will include, somewhere along the way, a short background on the temperance movement and Prohibition, as well as various little pieces of necessary information for those of you who aren't necessarily history buffs, which should help to ease you into an understanding of the eras this vineyard has lived through. If anyone wants to check out the Concannon website, you must be 21 years old, but the website is linked below.

http://www.concannonvineyard.com/