Revisiting three ballot referendums from a century ago in which commonwealth voters clashed over “Baby Volstead”
The pertinent prerequisite in play here is of course the Volstead Act, which passed at the federal level in 1919—about 108 years ago. Also known as the National Prohibition Act, the dreaded congressional measure enforced the 18th Amendment banning the production, sale, exporting, etc. of most alcoholic beverages. Generally speaking, the strong ones people wanted.
You know what came next from the movies. Namely, lots of bootlegging and savage drinking which fueled an outrageous underground economy. And until the 21st Amendment saved the day in 1933, prohibition remained the federal law. All while the states handled their own business, which depending on where you were in America, ranged from handing the keys to the mob, to dropping the literal hammer on bottles.
In Massachusetts, a lot of the battle was political. Or really, it was between state lawmakers on Beacon Hill, who according to NY Times coverage from back then drank less than the general population, and the people of the commonwealth, who drank booze by unfathomable bucketfuls. And they weren’t really breaking the law by simply consuming it, as long as they were making it at home, which they probably weren’t.
Responding to the Volstead Act, the Massachusetts legislature quickly passed a state enforcement act (the commonwealth’s own cute little “Baby Volstead”), only for voters to negate it at the ballot box in 1922, 428,000 to 324,000.
In 1924, the pols and mobs of helpful teetotallers played the system and the public prudently enough to swing the electorate toward prohibition. Despite cities like Boston and Worcester having thousands of speakeasies, a slim majority of voters passed a referendum that year which put Massachusetts back in step with Volstead. Technically, as a matter of law, at least.
The temperance issue remained a political football for the following decade, with the biggest win for the “wets” coming in 1930. The goal of the pro-alcohol side, per the Times, was to secure “a magnitude so imposing that it will contribute momentum to similar movements in other States clear across the country.”
You could argue that it did. Question 2, the Repeal of the Alcohol Prohibition Initiative, passed profoundly, 64 to 36%. Three years later, the feds followed. These days, you can legally enjoy a stiff drink at the 21st Amendment right across from the Massachusetts State House, or at any number of other establishments from Beacon Hill to the Berkshires. Let’s hope no one tries to change that.
There are notable differences between the plight of cannabis in Mass in the 21st century and that which the wets endured defending their right to buy and sell booze in the swing era. There are also similarities, like how voters in the Bay State ultimately reject prohibition. With that said, I’d be remiss to skip over the part where voters let their guard down roughly a hundred years ago, and went dry for one election only to then scramble to correct the mistake six years later.
