ADHS Archives

December 2007

ADHS@LISTSERV.MIAMIOH.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
David Trippel <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Alcohol and Drugs History Society <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 3 Dec 2007 05:53:13 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (43 lines)
Through my understanding of the material, the primary reasons for the  
legal exclusion of minors did not include to stimulate policing (thus  
agreeing with Jim and Jon below), but did include giving teeth to  
civil damage suits, giving a basis for police to respond to  
complaints, and giving some satisfaction to the temperance crowd's  
legislative lobbying. The 'selling/serving to' exclusion is almost  
universally included in the same sentence with other exclusions such  
as known drunkards, indians, servants, slaves (before the Civil War),  
etc.

Dave

On Dec 3, 2007, at 12:28 PM, Jim Baumohl wrote:

> based on my reading of early san francisco newspapers and  
> california temperance periodicals, i agree wholeheartedly with  
> jon.  in fact, police disinterest in such things led to well-known  
> attempts by private vice societies to enforce selective  
> prohibitions on alcohol purchases and the violation of prescription  
> laws. anyway, jack london's recollection that his first taste for  
> beer came from the buckets he brought home for his parents rings  
> true for me.
>
> jim baumohl
>
> Jon Miller wrote:
>> My reading of nineteenth-century American literature and  
>> periodicals has taught me two things. If there was a law, it could  
>> be widely ignored. America was not much of a police state,  
>> especially before the Civil War, and the decision to serve minors  
>> or not serve minors would be something that the tavernkeeper would  
>> often make under no or some or great scrutiny from his immediate  
>> community (and constituency and/or customer base).
>> It also appears to me that children were often sent to fetch  
>> alcoholic drinks for their parents. A child who makes regular runs  
>> to a bar-room or pharmacy to purchase something for his parents  
>> would have no trouble purchasing the same for his own use. There's  
>> no doubt, for me, that some lazy parents would resist the  
>> enforcement of a minimum purchase age on this count alone: it  
>> would mean that they would have to go get their own buckets of  
>> beer or quarts of Lydia Pinkham.
>> Jon Miller

ATOM RSS1 RSS2