The Chapel Hill weekly., 1958-10-23
Another Noble Experiment

prohibition controversy Mr.. Pickett was promi-
neni national figure d executive officer Of the
Methodist Beard Of Temperance and the
board 6 representative before committees Of Con-
gress and in It's contacts with members He
ediled all Of its publications until ms retirement
In 49,. He mas lertared widely and is the author
Of many books and articles.
lesteryear We were united nation.
The Negroes boasted, with good reason,
that they had made more progress in
less time than any other Delated racial
group in the world In the South nun
dreds Of millions of dollars had been
spent Oh Negro education. There was
close and sympathetic contact al the
leadership leve between Negroes and
white lnterracial violence was al the
vanishing point Those VINO were guilty
Of criminal aggression against the well
meaning Negro were from his own low
er class, not from the white groups
Fifty years Of intelligent, con true
tive work by men Of good viii ha- been
casually tossed out Of the wind0a by
one colossal bIunder. The damagt Is IN
calculabe appalling it will become
much greater unless checked now Fore
ing Negroes into white schools will not
gain acceptance it will further agra
vate the situation.
Integration will inevitably collapse
VIII some molety Of good viii be saved
from the wreckage?
Consider faation1. prohibition. The
parallel is by no means perfect but is
nevertheless enlightening. Prohibition
was better planned, better effected, bet
ter received. 1t registered al economic
and social success, according 10 the tes-
timony Of many hundreds Of business
men, social workers, educators, econo-
mists But, in the end, it was over
whelmed with complete political failure
In pre-prohibition planning. every
possible provision was made against
arousing sectional or group intransig
ence. An Indiana Judge (Artman) ruled
that the liquor traffic was "a legalized
OUTLAW" and a long line Of Supreme
Court decisions went almost as far.
But the dry strategists said "No; not
that way. Let the people act, and before
we go ahead at least two-thirds Of the
States should be dry by their own ac-
ton. Furthermore, let us wait until we
have two-thirds dry majority in Con
gress and we should await word that
every section Of the country is ready.
Lastly, prohibition must come by con-
stitutional amendment, not by statute"
The amendment was submitted by
2Sl 10 l2S in the House, 65 TO 20 in the
Senate. The Democratic vote in the
House was l44 TO Ga in favor; the
Republicans voted 1877 TO 62 Twenty
four State delegations in the House were
solidly in favor; IL other State delega-
tions had majority favorable. Only
four State delegations divided adverse
ly.
The amendment was ratified in l3
months; eventually 46 Of AZ States APP
proved IT.
In subsequent years, the drys won
elections with monotonous regularity.
In 1926, thirty-five Senate seats were
up. The drys won 20. In such States
as Ohio, Illinois, Massachusetts,, the wet
candidates fell like nine pins. After that
election, there were only five wet Gov
ernors left in the United States A pic
ture of political success if there ever
was one, emphasized by the election of
Hoover two years later
Yet just 80 months later, repeal
loomed as certainty. Why?
Many reasons, perhaps, but two
stand out. Many people felt that they
were being coerced in a matter
which should have been reserved to
their own decision. They would not be
placated; they defied the law, they co