Buxton 1

America Goes Dry

Sarah Buxton
History 295-1HON-1 Food: A Global History
20 February, 2017
 Buxton 2

There were flappers. There was jazz music. There were movies. There was feminism.

The United States throughout the 1920s, or the “Roaring Twenties”, was unequivocally

characterized by the unique culture that arose. Many were welcoming to the new ideas and

actions that were introduced. But despite the glamour and the excitement of this time in

American history, a dark cloud still loomed over the culture: Prohibition. Not only did

Prohibition play a role in culture, it was instrumental in a plethora of other aspects of American

life, including religion, politics, and economics. After all, one would have to assume that the

complete and utter destruction of a booming industry would have to cause some sort of

disruption in the economy. And, since the economy drives much of America, it is safe to say that

Prohibition touched the lives of people who even wanted its implementation.

Known as a failed attempted of prohibiting the consumption of alcohol, American

Prohibition is often joked about and criticized for its lack of success. Over the years, there have

been an enormous amount of historians and public health officials researching the effectiveness

of American Prohibition in an attempt to answer the question of whether or not it was actually a

failure, or just an interesting social experiment. In his article appearing in the American Journal

of Public Health, Dr. Jack Blocker Jr. explained how American Prohibition should not

necessarily be viewed as an utter failure. He said, “Historians have shown that National

Prohibition was no fluke, but rather the fruit of a century-long series of temperance movements

springing from deep roots in the American reform tradition.”1 Those heavily involved in the

temperance movements were most concerned about banning alcohol, and by their standards,

prohibition was successful. However, Blocker also mentioned, “The conclusive proof of

1
Jack S. Blocker Jr. "Did Prohibition Really Work?." American Journal Of Public Health 96, no. 2 (February
2006): 233. MasterFILE Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed January 23, 2017).
 Buxton 3

Prohibition's failure is, of course, the fact that the Eighteenth Amendment became the only

constitutional amendment to be repealed.”2 It is impossible to dispute the fact that the repeal of

the Eighteenth Amendment was the ultimate result of Prohibition, lending to the supposed failure

of the effort. Blocker presented compelling arguments for both the success and catastrophe of

prohibition, and he is certainly not the only one to point out these ideas. In an effort to confirm

that American Prohibition was successful to a certain degree, it is imperative to consider its

historical, legislative, economic, and religious implications.

Prohibition before the 20s

When most people think of American prohibition, their mind normally goes straight to

the “Roaring Twenties.” However, that is not exactly when prohibition was first implemented in

the United States. Rather, prohibition was introduced as early as the 1700s in the colony of

Georgia. In her article entitled, "That Cursed Evil Rum": The Trustees' Prohibition Policy in

Colonial Georgia”, Julie Anne Sweet of Baylor University gave a detailed historical account of

the exact events which surrounded the earliest attempts of prohibition in the United States. Sweet

mentioned the first colonial administration was entitled, “The Trustees for Establishing the

Colony of Georgia in America”, or just “Trustees” for short.3 This administration was opposed to

the consumption of alcohol in their colony. Sweet mentions a few of the specific individuals who

served on this administration and their personal reasoning for being against the consumption of

alcohol in a colony to which they were affiliated. Once such individual was Stephen Hales.

Sweet said, “As both a physician and a minister, Hales was in a unique position to influence the

2
Ibid
3
Julie Anne Sweet. "That Cursed Evil Rum": The Trustees' Prohibition Policy in Colonial Georgia." Georgia
Historical Quarterly 94, no. 1 (Spring2010 2010): 129. Academic Search Elite, EBSCOhost (accessed January 23,
2017).
 Buxton 4

debate, and in 1734, he authored a pamphlet entitled ‘A Friendly Admonition to the Drinkers of

Brandy, and other Distilled Spirituous Liquors’ that offered various arguments against

overindulgence.”4 First and foremost, Hales discussed his concern for the health and well-being

of those living in the Georgia Colony: “He gave lengthy and detailed descriptions of the

detrimental physical effects that these beverages had upon the body, and explained that the

immediate pleasant sensation that occurred from imbibing these strong spirits became addicting

despite the negative results.”5 Not only was Hales concerned for the physical health of his

citizens, but, because of his experience as a minster, he was also interested in their spiritual

health, as, “he cited chapter and verse to prove how God frowned upon intoxication and

punished drunkards.”6

Shortly after this publication was released, a second Trustee became actively involved in

the Prohibition efforts. His name was James Oglethorpe. According to Sweet, Oglethorpe was

the only Trustee to actually visit the colony to see what was taking place in terms of alcohol

consumption.7 Upon his arrival, Oglethorpe observed the enormous amount of consumption and

wrote a letter to the Trustees about his suggestions. His letter arrived to the Trustees in early

November 1733, and soon after, they passed an order "for prohibiting the drinking rum in

Georgia, & to stave all the rum brought thither."8

Sweet explained how the decree went through the procedures of becoming legislation,

following approval from the various committees. The final act explained the penalties for the

possession of alcohol: “Any liquor found within the colony would be immediately and publicly

4
Sweet, “That Cursed Evil Rum”.
5
Ibid
6
Ibid
7
Ibid
8
Ibid
 Buxton 5

destroyed.”9 But much like the events that would occur later in American history, this act was

not in place for very long.

Edward Behr said in his book entitled, Prohibition: Thirteen Years that Changed

America”, “Effective in 1735, it lasted eight years and was only rescinded in 1743 after reports

reached London that Georgian Farmers were abandoning their crops to concentrate on

moonshining, and that contraband liquor from South Carolina was entering Georgia on a huge

scale.”10 Possibly the largest contributing factor to the rescinding of the act was a lack of

enforcement, according to Behr. “This earliest Prohibition experiment revealed, in this Georgian

microcosm, almost all of Prohibition’s inherent failings: bootlegging and moonshining apart,

Georgian juries systematically refused to convict offenders, and some colonial enforcers of the

law took bribes to look the other way.”11 This refusal to convict offenders of the act was

manifested in a variety of ways. For example, Sweet explained the main controversy surrounding

the un-enforcement of the rules. She mentioned that in order to avoid an intense rebellion by

those whom produced and consumed alcohol, Oglethorpe agreed to allow the distribution of

more mild drinks such as beer. However, one vendor, Samuel Mercer, brought his concerns of

the lack of enforcement to the Trustees. He argued that even though he had a license to produce

and sell mild alcoholic drinks, such as beer, he had too much competition from the vendors who

were producing and selling illegal alcoholic beverages.12 This exception to the rule unfortunately

only added to the lack of enforcement to the rules, because it added an extra gray area of what

was acceptable and what was in violation of the order.

9
Sweet, “That Cursed Evil Rum”.
10
Edward Behr. Prohibition: Thirteen Years that Changed America. New York: Arcade Pub.,1996.
11
Ibid, 13
12
Sweet,
 Buxton 6

As these gray areas continued to present themselves, the officials designated to uphold

the law had no choice but to look the other way in most violations, and as Behr mentioned, even

took bribes to not report the abuse.13 This resulted in utter confusion for those both in the colony

and back in England. The Trustees unfortunately had no control over this law since they were so

far away and only sent one of them to oversee the proceedings. After many fights with those on

the enforcement side of the law, the Trustees ultimately revoked their decree and made it legal

once again for the colonists to consume alcohol.14 Although there are those who might say that

the Trustees were deserving of this failure, there are also those who would argue that the

Trustees were acting in the best interest of the citizens. Sweet said, “Although they failed to

curtail alcohol consumption and abuse, at least they tried to make a difference as all visionaries

do, and for those optimistic yet doomed efforts, they should be appreciated.”15 But this was

certainly not the last time these kinds of events would occur in the United States, because, as

Behr said, “Over a century and a half later, history would repeat itself on a much vaster scale.”16

A New Amendment

Early on in the eighteenth century, the consumption of alcohol became a widely debated

issue as the result of many religious and women’s rights movements. Therefore, various

individuals had a multitude of suggestions as to how to resolve this issue. While thoughts of

prohibition were being tossed around, there was an important political figure who held a

different opinion. According to Marty Gitlin’s book entitled, “The Prohibition Era”, “U.S.

President Woodrow Wilson favored an educational program that taught children the dangers of

13
Behr, 13
14
Sweet
15
Ibid
16
Behr, 13.
 Buxton 7

drinking alcohol and encouraged adults to consume in moderation.”17 On the other hand, there

were those who had other political motivations to support the abolition of alcohol through the

Eighteenth Amendment. Women living during this time had added political motivation to get

involved in another constitutional amendment, because they were fighting for an amendment of

their own. Gitlin said, “Many of the same women who were working for a constitutional

amendment to give women the right to vote also strongly backed the abolition of alcohol.”18 As a

result, Gitlin argued that it was certainly not coincidental that the amendment prohibiting alcohol

(the eighteenth) and the amendment providing for women’s suffrage (the nineteenth) were

ratified a month apart. There are those who believe that Prohibition was an issue that sparked the

women’s rights movements and ultimately led to women’s suffrage. Behr touched on how the

“Women’s War against liquor was the first women’s mass movement in American history” and

that is led to “the modern world’s first large-scale, nonviolent protest movement.”19 Because of

these political pressures being put on the Senate due to the various movements sweeping the

nation, the United States government opted for a different solution.

Gitlin said, “In August 1917, the U.S. Senate voted by an overwhelming 65–20 count to

approve the Eighteenth Amendment, which banned alcohol in the United States.”20 The House

soon followed with their vote, making it possible for the Eighteenth Amendment to be added to

the Constitution, pending three-fourths of the states’ legislature approving the amendment within

seven years.21 After this process, the Eighteenth Amendment was officially attached to the

Constitution. It reads, “After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale,

17
Marty Gitlin. The Prohibition Era. Edina, MN: Abdo Publishing, 2011. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost
(accessed January 23, 2017).
18
Gitlin, 29.
19
Behr, 35.
20
Gitlin, 10.
21
Ibid, 10
 Buxton 8

or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation

thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage

purposes is hereby prohibited.”22

Some saw this as a broad definition of what “alcohol prohibition” referred to. Therefore,

a few years later, the Volstead Act was put in to place. This piece of legislation was designed to

bring clarity to the Eighteenth Amendment, in order to assist in its enforcement. In his article

entitled, “What are the Policy lessons of National Prohibition in the United States, 1920-1993?”

Wayne Hall described this more specific definition. He mentioned, “The Volstead Act of 1920

defined intoxicating beverages as those that contained more than 0.5% alcohol and therefore

forbade the sale of spirits, beer and wine.”23

Despite the efforts behind the Volstead Act and the passing of the Eighteenth

Amendment, blatant disobedience to the laws was prevalent. In Michael Lerner’s book entitled,

“Dry Manhattan: Prohibition in New York City”, there is a story told about the Mayor of Berlin

visiting New York City. Among the sights and sounds of visiting the exciting city of New York,

Mayor Gustav Boess inquired of New York Mayor James J. Walker when the prohibition law

would be going in to effect.24 Lerner said, “The problem with Boess’s question was that

Prohibition had been federal law for nearly a decade. The fact that this failed to register with the

city’s European visitor signaled how poorly Prohibition was faring.”25 New York City,

especially, was considered one of the hubs for illegal alcohol sales during the American

22
"The Constitution: Amendments 11-27." National Archives and Records Administration. Accessed February 08,
2017. https://www.archives.gov/foundingdocs/amendments-1127.
23
Wayne Hall, "What are the policy lessons of National Alcohol Prohibition in the United States, 1920–1933?."
Addiction 105, no. 7 (July 2010): 1164-1173. Academic Search Elite, EBSCOhost (accessed January 23, 2017).
24
Michael A. Lerner, Dry Manhattan: Prohibition in New York City. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007.
25
Ibid, 1.
 Buxton 9

Prohibition period. In fact, “In that city, there were 15,000 legal drinking establishments prior to

Prohibition but 32,000 illegal ones after the Eighteenth Amendment took effect.”26

In addition to the pressures from many Americans to do away with the Prohibition laws,

American politicians were certainly not blinded by the lack of enforcement and disobedience to

the laws. Therefore, due to political pressures, they were forced to consider repeal. When the

idea of repeal was first being brought up, the country was in the middle of an election between

the incumbent President Hoover and his opponent Franklin D. Roosevelt. Oddly enough,

Prohibition was hardly ever a topic of conversation throughout the debates for president, despite

its controversial implications on display to the country.27 However, this does not mean that

Prohibition was not a component in the election. Gitlin mentioned how Hoover advocated for

each state making individual determinations to implement prohibition. Roosevelt, on the other

hand, was in favor of swift and full repeal.28 And as a result, “Most Americans believed Hoover

was not doing enough to relieve their economic suffering, and the result was a landslide victory

for Roosevelt.”29 In the wake of this election, Senator John J. Blaine proposed the Twenty-First

Amendment to the Constitution, which would repeal the Eighteenth Amendment. The

amendment passed February 20, 1933, 13 years after the Eighteenth was passed, despite the

protests by organizations such as the New York Women’s Christian Temperance Union.30

Beyond the small population of protesters, many Americans did not hesitate to celebrate this

momentous occasion, since, “On the first day of legal drinking since 1920, Americans drank an

26
Gitlin, 32.
27
Ibid, 82.
28
Ibid, 81.
29
Ibid
30
Ibid
 Buxton 10

estimated 1.5 million barrels of beer. There were shortages of beer the next day, as breweries just

starting up production could not keep up with demand.”31 Prohibition was officially over.

Ruining an Entire Industry

Among the movements that led to the ultimate acceptance of prohibition, there were

those who stood strongly against the law. These individuals included business owners and other

activists who had a close tie to the alcohol industry. This group of people was mainly concerned

over two main issues relating to prohibition: the economy and foreign relations. Of course, when

a popular substance is banned from the public, the makers of said substance would naturally be

upset over their industry being taken away. However, this was not necessarily the outcome with

American Prohibition. While the industry owners were not pleased with the new law, many of

them fell in to the business of illegally producing and distributing alcohol. In other words,

American Prohibition did not kill the alcohol industry; rather, it caused it to grow.

And the government did not seem troubled by this, according to the opinion of Fiorella

H. LaGuardia, a prominent New York City politician during this time, who stood strongly

against the idea of prohibition. During the Committee on the Judiciary Hearings of the U.S.

Senate in 1926, LaGuardia commented on how $286,950,000 more of $10,000 bills had been

issued in 1925 and that $25,000,000 more of $5,000 bills had been issued in 1920.32 LaGuardia

had harsh words to explain why so many of these large bills had been printed. He said, “The

Government even goes to the trouble to facilitate the financing end of the bootlegging industry…

Surely these bills were not used to pay the salaries of ministers. The bootlegging industry has

31
Ibid
32
Mitchell Shelton, The Harvey Goldberg Center for Excellence in Teaching. "Fiorella LaGuardia on Prohibition |
Temperance & Prohibition." Fiorella LaGuardia on Prohibition | Temperance & Prohibition. Accessed April 05,
2017. http://prohibition.osu.edu/american-prohibition-1920/fiorella-laguardia-prohibition.
 Buxton 11

created a demand for bills of large denominations, and the Treasury Department accommodates

them.”33 In an unfortunate turn of events for the prohibitionists, their efforts to create a law to

eliminate alcohol in the United States not only fueled the alcohol industry, but according to

LaGaurdia’s opinion, may have even been stimulated by certain parts of the government.

The lack of enforcement and the infamous high crime associated with prohibition added

to this conspiracy. Nonetheless, despite the rapid growth in alcohol sales after prohibition was

approved, those who produced the illegal alcohol were certainly not the large companies that had

once been the main alcohol manufacturers. Rather, up came the small, quiet bootleggers, who

were able to keep their activities covert. In addition to the bootleggers in the country, there were

also those who smuggled alcohol in to the United States. These individuals were referred to as

“rumrunners”, according to Gitlin.34 The rumrunners had the opportunity to make a large amount

of money, since the sale of alcohol was legal in many other countries.35 This contributed to the

high crime and blatant disobedience to the law.

Consequently, the alcohol industry morphed in to a nest of illegal activity, at least in the

eyes of the larger companies. Jack Blocker Jr., in his article entitled, “Did Prohibition Really

Work?” discussed this concept. He presented the dramatic change in the industry by

demonstrating how the 1,300 breweries in 1916 dwindled down to zero by 1926. Blocker pointed

out that some of these larger companies still engaged in alcohol sales, but in the form of “near

beer”: “Legal production of near beer used less than one tenth the amount of malt, one twelfth

the rice and hops, and one thirtieth the com used to make full-strength beer before National

33
Shelton
34
Gitlin, 36.
35
Ibid, 36.
 Buxton 12

Prohibition.”36 Therefore, despite the fact that most believe prohibition was focused on

completely irradiating all forms of alcohol, there still existed beverages with low alcohol content.

In addition to the increase of illegal alcohol sales as a result of American Prohibition,

there were those who stood against this law because they felt it would be detrimental to

America’s relations with other nations, in regards to trade. Jack Blocker Jr., in his article entitled,

“Did Prohibition Really Work?” discussed this concept. He mentioned how the mass bans on

alcohol sales from the United States largely impacted the distribution of alcohol throughout the

world, especially with Britain.37 The bans prevented ocean liners from carrying alcohol, “thus

contributing to the ongoing decline of the US merchant marine, and created an irritant in

diplomatic relations with Great Britain and Canada.''38 As stated previously, Prohibition had not

been a large deciding factor in the election of 1928, but this example of conflict in diplomatic

relations influenced the presidential campaign conversations to focus more on prohibition.

God and Alcohol

One of the strongest driving forces behind the adoption of the Eighteenth Amendment

included strong religious movements, or better known as the Temperance Movement. Those who

were against Prohibition may have had the same kinds of harsh words Garrett Peck had in his

book, The Prohibition Hangover: “Temperance was a social reform movement of the nineteenth

century, pushed by middle-class evangelical Protestants who meant to root our an apparent evil

from American society.”39 This was accomplished through the use of propaganda from various

36
Jack S. Blocker Jr. "Did Prohibition Really Work?." American Journal Of Public Health 96, no. 2 (February 2006):
233. MasterFILE Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed January 23, 2017).
37
Blocker
38
Ibid
39
Peck, Garrett. The Prohibition Hangover: Alcohol in America from Demon Rum to Cult Cabernet. New Brunswick,
NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2009, 198.
 Buxton 13

churches and preachers, which was often distributed as a way to influence those who did not see

the “evil” in alcohol. James Cannon Jr., a Methodist preacher, politician, and business man, was

one such minister who was heavily involved in the passing of prohibition through the temperance

movement in Virginia. James Cannon Jr.’s biography, “Prohibition and Politics: The Life of

Bishop James Cannon, Jr”, written by Robert Hohner, explains how Cannon was out of the

ordinary, as, “he dramatically broke the southern taboo against preachers in politics.”40 Not only

was Cannon concerned with being a minster, he took his allegiance to prohibition one step

further and was involved on the political level. Hohner described Cannon as, “Intense,

outspoken, and combative” and that he “engendered fierce loyalty and deep enmity.”41 Prior to

national prohibition, Cannon worked with the Virginia Legislature to limit the sale of alcohol in

specific cities. By 1909, Cannon, along with a temperance coalition, the “Anti-Saloon League”,

had successful brought prohibition to 86 of the 100 counties in Virginia. 42 But this was only the

beginning of Cannon’s involvement.

As he worked his way up the chain of leadership in the Anti-Saloon League, Reverend

Cannon slowly grew his reputation in the political world. He, along with the coalition, were

involved in the election for the Governor of Virginia. One candidate was in favor of expanding

prohibition in the state, the other candidate was in favor of decreasing prohibition efforts.

Naturally, the Anti-Saloon League worked tirelessly to elect William Hodges Mann.43 Once

Mann took office in 1910, prohibition became an even more emotional and controversial topic in

40
Robert A. Hohner, Prohibition and Politics: The Life of Bishop James Cannon, Jr. Columbia, S.C.: University of
South Carolina Press, 1999. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost (accessed February 7, 2017), 4.
41
Ibid, 4.
42
Ibid, 72.
43
Ibid, 74.
 Buxton 14

Virginia.44 Cannon went on to become a lobbyist for the Anti-Saloon League in Washington DC

and advocated for National Prohibition in his strong, persuasive manner.45

Many of the Temperance groups that Reverend Cannon was involved in, such as the

Anti-Saloon League were tied to the women’s movements. These groups often joined together in

order to influence politicians when it came to Prohibition. For example, Behr spoke about

Temperance movements leading up to American Prohibition, such as the practices of a preacher

named Dioclesian Lewis, who would walk in to saloons and begin praying for the souls of those

who were consuming alcohol.46 Behr mentioned how Lewis would often enter the drinking

establishments with his “head of followers” who were mostly women.47 Lewis’s practice was

heard by another strong supporter of Prohibition, Elizabeth Thompson, who began rallying

women to picket and pray outside of a local drug store in Hillsboro, Ohio, which ultimately led

to the owner pledging to stop selling alcohol.48 Soon after, Thompson rallied her “troops” again,

making the next target a saloon. Behr commented, “Though the wait was longer, and the praying

more intense, the saloon keeper gave in to the women, and pledged to close his establishment.”49

Although these examples took place in the late 1800s, these exact same practices were used by

women and others in the Temperance Movement to bring about Prohibition in the 1920s.

Success through Failure

In the months and years following the repeal of Prohibition, the skeptics and naysayers

soon dubbed it a complete and utter failure. Often times, this is how American Prohibition is

44
Ibid, 75.
45
Ibid, 90.
46
Behr, 36.
47
Ibid, 36.
48
Ibid, 36.
49
Ibid, 37.
 Buxton 15

portrayed in many history books. However, through a proper analysis of the information

provided on the preceding pages, one might have the evidence to challenge this commonly held

belief. The early colonial attempts of Prohibition demonstrated how difficult it would be for the

British government to control colonies from such a far distance. This would go on to be a huge

stumbling block for the British in the American Revolution.

Additionally, it is arguable that involvement of women in the temperance movement led

to their voice becoming recognized. When women discovered this voice in politics and social

issues, they realized how powerful they could be and began organizing their own Women’s

Rights Movement. As discussed before, it is certainly not a coincidence that the Eighteenth and

Nineteenth Amendments to the Constitution were added so closely together. Women saw how

effective they were becoming, and decided to advocate for their right to vote.

Of course, Prohibition had a multitude of clear failures during its tenure. As Blocker said,

“it is easy to say that the goal of total prohibition was impossible.”50 No matter how much effort

law enforcement could have dedicated to irradiating the alcohol industry, illegal activities would

have most likely continued to grow beyond the capabilities of law enforcement during that time.

Nonetheless, it is still plausible to entertain that, even though Prohibition as an idea failed, it still

produced positive results in society, such as the Women’s Movement, which are certainly still

felt today.

50
Blocker, 9.
 Buxton 16

Bibliography

1. Behr, Edward. Prohibition: Thirteen Years that Changed America. New York: Arcade Pub.,

1996.

2. Blocker Jr, Jack S. "Did Prohibition Really Work?." American Journal Of Public

Health 96, no. 2 (February 2006): 233. MasterFILE Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed

January 23, 2017).

3. Hall, Wayne. "What are the policy lessons of National Alcohol Prohibition in the United

States, 1920–1933?." Addiction 105, no. 7 (July 2010): 1164-1173. Academic Search

Elite, EBSCOhost (accessed January 23, 2017).

4. Gitlin, Marty. The Prohibition Era. Edina, MN: Abdo Publishing, 2011. eBook Collection

(EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost (accessed January 23, 2017).

5. Hohner, Robert A. 1999. Prohibition and Politics: The Life of Bishop James Cannon, Jr.

Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press, 1999. eBook Collection

(EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost (accessed February 7, 2017).

6. Lerner, Michael A. Dry Manhattan: Prohibition in New York City. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press, 2007.

7. Peck, Garrett. The Prohibition Hangover: Alcohol in America from Demon Rum to Cult

Cabernet. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2009.

8. Shelton, Mitchell. The Harvey Goldberg Center for Excellence in Teaching. "A Glimpse

Behind the Mask of Prohibition" | Temperance & Prohibition." Accessed February 08,

2017. http://prohibition.osu.edu/glimpse-behind-mask-prohibition
 Buxton 17

9. Sweet, Julie Anne. "That Cursed Evil Rum": The Trustees' Prohibition Policy in Colonial

Georgia." Georgia Historical Quarterly 94, no. 1 (Spring2010 2010): 129. Academic

Search Elite, EBSCOhost (accessed January 23, 2017).

10. "The Constitution: Amendments 11-27." National Archives and Records Administration.

Accessed February 08, 2017. https://www.archives.gov/foundingdocs/amendments-11

27.