ADHS Archives

June 1995

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:
ANDERSEN THAYNE I <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Alcohol and Temperance History Group <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 22 Jun 1995 12:25:48 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (49 lines)
Your article about violence AGAINST prohibitionists was very interesting and
has set me back through my notes to see what supports your thesis and
might also help in discussing this subject.
 
In my book research ("Alaska Hooch"), the best support for your subject would
have been in a different chapter (Churches and Liquor) where I discuss
the murder of Charles Edwards in 1892.  Charles was a teacher [and a
quaker missionary] at a government school in Kake, Alaska when he was
murdered.  A full discussion of the event is recorded in Tomorrow Is
Growing Old: Stories of Quakers In Alaska by Arthur O. Roberts; The
Barkley Press, Newberg Oregon (1978) p.1-18.  This murder and the efforts
to bring murder sharges against the murderer resulted in other violence,
including a tarring and feathering at Douglas Island (across the channel
from Juneau.
 
You didn't discuss the economic aspects of violence against
prohibitionists.  It could be argued that the temperance workers, the
prohibitionists, and even the government officers who tried to keep the
white traders away from Indians, blacks and others perceived as
vulnerable to use alcohol excessively were taking away the economic
livelihood from free traders who were just trying to make a living.  Many
viewed government intervention into the lives of "citizens" as
intrinsically illegal, improper, unconstitutional and anti-American.
Certainly if one were to exercise one's freedom by inflicting violence
against those who would take away their personal liberty [to sell what
they wanted], it couldn't be wrong and probaly would never stand when
given the opportunity to be tried by other citizens who were also free.
It could be argued that the one perpetrating the violence was, in
reality, only defending his freedom. [Sounds like Oklahoma City]
 
When the British tried to control our access to tea (and whiskey) without
taxing it, it almost became our obligation to commit violence against
them for limiting our freedom without our consent.  Whiskey then became
the American way to protest in addition to kicking their butts out of
America.
 
 
            \\\//
            (0 0)
  +----oOO---(_)---OOo---------------+---------------------------+
  |   Thayne I. Andersen             |  Box 80384                |
  |   email: [log in to unmask] |  Fairbanks, Alaska  99708 |
  |   voice: 907.353.1371  work      +---------------------------+
  |   fax:   907.353.6574            |
  +----------------------------------+
           |__|__|
            || ||
           ooO Ooo

ATOM RSS1 RSS2