Home Rule in Cape Girardeau, Missouri
My chosen article, entitled “Home Rule in Missouri” discusses the local prohibition laws that were allowed in Missouri and debates whether they were fair or not. This article is definitely against prohibition, but not for moral reasons. The author posits that if Missouri were to ban alcohol on the state level, the entire state would be dry, but if the state voted to remain “wet,” then not all of Missouri would remain so because counties would still be able to go dry. This author supports “home rule,” which would constitute any local legislation, as patriotic and democratic because it allows localities to govern themselves without the interference of the state or federal governments. They suggest that in order to uphold home rule, Missourians should vote against prohibition. If they were to pass prohibition on a statewide level, big cities would have to abide by what the small, agricultural towns want and go dry. However if the state remained wet, these counties would be able to ban alcohol as they see fit and not interfere with the big cites’ right to home rule.
This article was published in 1916, just before America joined WWI in 1917. By that time, 21 states had already instituted statewide alcohol bans–but Missouri was not one of them. In fact, Missourians voted against prohibition 3 separate times before the 18th Amendment was ratified and enforced it anyway. The alcohol industry was in fact a huge part of the Missouri economy as the second largest wine-producing state in the nation. The article directly after mine states that if prohibition were legalized, the state would lose over $7 million dollars in revenue that would have to be made up through tax increases. I found it very interesting to read these articles and find that the moral aspect of the temperance movement was fought in Missouri by using logical and political thinking.
