Episode Player
From Temperance To The 18th Amendment And The Politics Behind It
Civics In A Year
Prohibition didn’t rise because America suddenly forgot how to party. It rose because a lot of powerful groups saw alcohol as the key that unlocked the problem they cared about most, and they were willing to align long enough to win.
We sit down with Dr. Sean Beieburg to trace the long runway from the 1850s temperance movement and state prohibition waves to the national shock of the 18th Amendment. Along the way, we map the coalition that made Prohibition feel inevitable at the time: women’s rights activists focused on domestic abuse and household finances, Progressive Era reformers convinced government could engineer social good, business leaders thinking about workplace safety and liability, “good government” crusaders targeting saloon-based machine politics, and World War I era nationalists pushing anti-German sentiment and wartime resource arguments. It’s a civics story about incentives, not just morals.
Then we get into the constitutional mechanics and the fine print that changed everything. We explain why federal prohibition is different from state bans, how the Anti-Saloon League operated as a ruthless single-issue interest group, and why critics like Elihu Root and Henry Cabot Lodge warned that nationalizing a morals issue would damage federalism and trigger backlash. We also break down the Volstead Act, the meaning of “intoxicating liquors,” and the political logic behind exemptions for sacramental wine and home cider. If you want a clear, historically grounded guide to Prohibition, the 18th Amendment, and the politics of enforcement, this conversation delivers.
Subscribe for more U.S. constitutional history, share this with a friend who thinks Prohibition was just a footnote, and leave a review if you want us to keep building these deep-dive civics episodes. What part of the Prohibition coalition surprised you most?
Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!
School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership
