Seventy-Five Years Ago: Details, Details, Details

Counting Down to April 7, the Anniversary of the Return of Legal Beer

Beer was on the way but now it was time to wrangle over the details. The United States Attorney General and the Treasury Department squabbled over the definition of "12:01 a.m."

That was the moment on April 7 when beer sales could begin. The Attorney General insisted that 12:01 meant 12:01, whether that was in New York or Los Angeles. Officials at the Treasury Department argued that beer ought to go on sale everywhere at 12:01 Eastern Time -- even though it would only be 9 p.m. on the west coast. (The Attorney General won that debate.)

The mayor of Milwaukee had declared that the city would celebrate the event with a half holiday on April 7. Church officials objected and asked the mayor to delay beer sales and the celebration until the following Monday -- the day after Easter. Apparently beer -- and the jobs it would bring -- would distract people from their religious obligations.

Many people objected to the newly allowed 3.2% alcohol content. Some said it was too high; others declared it too low. Nonsense, said Max Henius, head of the one of the nation's leading beer schools, the Wahl-Henius Institute of Brewing. "Beer of 3.2 percent is the perfect beer." It would "satisfy the popular demand for beer without . . . endangering temperance and sobriety."

"When people want beer," he added, "They want a refreshing drink, not a fiery drug."

Amen.

_________________________

Sources: articles in Milwaukee Sentinel, March 23, 1933 and New York Times, March 24, 1933.

Seventy-Five Years Ago: Roosevelt Signs the Beer Revenue Bill

Counting Down to April 7, the Anniversary of the Return of Legal Beer

March 22, 1933: Seventy-five years ago today, Franklin Roosevelt signed legislation designed to "provide revenue by the taxation of certain non-intoxicating liquor." The bill modified the old Volstead Act to define a "non-intoxicating" beverage as one that contained to 3.2 percent alcohol. (The old version of Volstead defined "non-intoxicating" as beverages of a half percent alcohol.)

In simple language, even though Prohibition remained in effect, Americans could now manufacture and sell fermented beverages of 3.2 percent alcohol content. After thirteen dry years, "real" beer would go on sale at 12:01 a.m. on April 7.

President Roosevelt and Congress expected the "revenue" bill to stimulate employment in brewing and related industries, and, more important, thanks to a tax levy of five dollars per barrel, funnel revenue into the federal treasury.

An impromptu celebration erupted in downtown Milwaukee, where traffic came to a halt and people danced in the streets. Thousands of people lined up at breweries in that city and in St. Louis and New York, hoping to get one of the jobs that were now available. A third of adults were out of work. Millions were homeless and hungry. But now, after a long winter and several years of despair, hope was on the way.

Seventy-Five Years Ago: The Beer Bill Heads to the White House

Counting Down to April 7, the Anniversary of the Return of Legal Beer

March 21, 1933:

On this day, the House of Representatives approved the final version of the beer bill.

Members of the House and Senate had hoped to get it on the president's desk that day, but a clerical snafu stalled the proceedings. The Speaker of the House signed his copy and asked a clerk to run it back over to the Senate. There, the vice-president would sign it in the presence of the assembled Senate.

One small problem: The clerk missed the v-p and the Senators by nine minutes; they'd already adjourned for the day.

Not to worry. Tomorrow was soon enough. One more day. One more signature.

Seventy-Five Years Ago: Beer = "Wholesome Food"

Counting Down to April 7, the Anniversary of the Return of Legal Beer

March 20, 1933:

The Senate spent much of the day debating its version of the beer bill, which called for legalizing beer with 4 percent alcohol content. The subcommittee that presented the bill had relied on advice from "doctors and scientists," who argued that "such high dilutions would not intoxicate." Indeed, it "would serve as a healthful stimulant and a wholesome food."

Better yet, said one Senator, it would bring "young people" back to beer and away from "dangerous, habit-forming hard liquor."

Liquor schmiquor, said Representative Thomas Cullen, author of the beer bill that originated in House. Just get on with it.

"I sincerely hope," he said,

that before another week goes by the beer bill will be finally passed by both houses of Congress" and on its way to the President. "I feel that this is the beginning of the end of an era of fanaticism, intolerance, and lawlessness in our country.

He didn't have to wait a week. By day's end the Senate had approved its version and sent it back to the House. Beer was just one signature away. ____________________________ Source: New York Times, March 20, 1933: "Cullen Predicts 300,000 Beer Jobs," p. 3 and "Text of the Report of the Committee Advocating 4 Per Cent Beer," p. 19.

Seventy-Five Years Ago: Economic Man, Meet Beer-Drinking Man

Counting Down to April 7, the Anniversary of the Return of Legal Beer

March 19, 1933:

The day fell on a Sunday that year, and newspapers filled their extra sections with speculations about the fate of the "beer bill" chugging through Congress.

Several days earlier, the House of Representatives had passed a version permitting the sale of 3.2% beer. Would the Senate go along? Would it demand a higher content? Lower? Would the "drys" get their way and stop any legislation?

Never mind the goofy illogic of the situation: A third of adults were out of work, and nearly as many were homeless. Where would people find the money to buy beer?

That question might "puzzle Adam Smith," observed one commentator. "But it will puzzle no one who remembers that beer-drinking man and economic man are not the same person."

And this "psychological moment" belonged to beer-drinking man. When beer "[made] its bow," then "happier . . . days" could not be far behind. ___________________________ Source: "New Flow of Beer Will Bring Social and Economic Changes," New York Times, March 19, 1933, p. 2XX.

History Repeating Itself?

So the 75th anniversary of the return of legal beer has been on my mind lately. (Obviously, given that I've actually gotten off my ass to blog about it....)

But of course that means that the Great Depression has also been on my mind. The beer bill signed by FDR in March 1933 was, after all, intended as an economic stimulus package: breweries would get back in business and hire more workers. The Treasury would tax beer at five dollars a barrel, and that money would help pay for other back-to-work projects.

But the beer bill was just one part of the plan to repair the economy. On March 12, 1933, for example, FDR asked all banks to close for a brief "holiday." The goal was to stop the panic and the "bank runs" while Congress and the Federal Reserve shored up the nation's money supply. (If you've seen the movie "It's A Wonderful Life," you know what a bank run is.)

Anyway -- seventy-five years later, here we are approaching panic mode, with the Fed stepping in with moves and money designed to stop the panic and prevent full-blown economic disaster.

Will we end up where Americans were seventy-five years ago? Unemployment rates of one-third. Millions of foreclosures and bankruptcies? Homeless people on the road or camped out under bridges? Back in 1933 and 1934, Congress created mechanisms to prevent a repeat of that disaster: federal home loan programs, the FDIC, Social Security (which originated as a way to keep paychecks flowing even when people couldn't work).

In theory, those programs, most of which still exist, were designed to protect the economy. Whether they will or not is a question no one can yet answer.

But we don't have one thing Americans had back then: leadership in the form of a strong, focused, inspiring president. In fact we've got a president who didn't know, until someone told him, that gasoline was inching toward four dollars a gallon. a president who thinks the war in Afghanistan is "romantic."

Right now, we all need to work together, avoid panic, and hang in there. But it's hard to do that when there's no one guiding the ship. So here we are all, seventy-five years after the worst economic depression in our history, once again afloat on a sea of uncertainty, fear, and near-panic. But there ain't no captain guiding this ship.

Hang on to your hats and your loved ones. This could get ugly.