Dry Manhattan Summary
Dry Manhattan gives an overview of Prohibition’s rise and fall in New York, predominately in the City. The relationship of this reform to the broader spirit of the Progressive Generation can be argued in two ways. Resistance to prohibition can be considered progressive behavior or it was a signal that the progressive spirit had died. In making this decision it is important to recall what the Progressives goals were. They wanted to make sense of change in a way that best advanced American ideals and resulted in a powerful, modern nation. Progressives believed in the power of government to help achieve those goals and expertise to improve the quality of life and increase opportunities for all. In reviewing the the progressive elements listed
…show more content…
Believing in this Anderson relied on governmental action to help promote his crusade, “the Prohibition of alcohol and the elimination of the saloon would morally uplift the people of the United States, ultimately creating a healthier citizenry, safer cities and workplaces, and a more efficient society” (Lerner, 2). At first everything seemed to be moving in the right direction with the passage of the 18th Amendment, the government was taking a more active role in the personal realm of citizens lives, specifically in the areas of: Health & safety, Business growth and activity and Social programs. These aspects in which government were supposed to be helping soon began crumbling creating the opposite effect the supporters intended to establish. This caused business and politics to suffer. Many jobs were lost and businesses were forced to close; owners could no longer afford their rent and saloons. All across the city people were struggling with the thought of staying open (breaking the law) or altering/shutting down. Immigrants and Americans resisted in great numbers by distilling their own alcohol and frequenting speakeasies. Terms as "bootlegger" or "bath tub gin," became household words and illegal alcohol fostered graft, organized crime, and violence. Gangs of hoodlums became more powerful as they trafficked in alcohol. Even law enforcement became involved, bartenders claimed that agents had often been their best clients. Since many of them did not believe in the cause they were looking for personal gain and participated in the corruption by selling tips, taking bribes and leaking information. Leaders had concluded the experiment was a dismal failure, “State prohibition Director Frank L. Banks resigned his position in frustration, telling reporters that prohibition enforcement in New York was “a hopeless and thankless task”” (Lerner, 71). Progressives had thought they could
Believing in this Anderson relied on governmental action to help promote his crusade, “the Prohibition of alcohol and the elimination of the saloon would morally uplift the people of the United States, ultimately creating a healthier citizenry, safer cities and workplaces, and a more efficient society” (Lerner, 2). At first everything seemed to be moving in the right direction with the passage of the 18th Amendment, the government was taking a more active role in the personal realm of citizens lives, specifically in the areas of: Health & safety, Business growth and activity and Social programs. These aspects in which government were supposed to be helping soon began crumbling creating the opposite effect the supporters intended to establish. This caused business and politics to suffer. Many jobs were lost and businesses were forced to close; owners could no longer afford their rent and saloons. All across the city people were struggling with the thought of staying open (breaking the law) or altering/shutting down. Immigrants and Americans resisted in great numbers by distilling their own alcohol and frequenting speakeasies. Terms as "bootlegger" or "bath tub gin," became household words and illegal alcohol fostered graft, organized crime, and violence. Gangs of hoodlums became more powerful as they trafficked in alcohol. Even law enforcement became involved, bartenders claimed that agents had often been their best clients. Since many of them did not believe in the cause they were looking for personal gain and participated in the corruption by selling tips, taking bribes and leaking information. Leaders had concluded the experiment was a dismal failure, “State prohibition Director Frank L. Banks resigned his position in frustration, telling reporters that prohibition enforcement in New York was “a hopeless and thankless task”” (Lerner, 71). Progressives had thought they could