Part 1 of 2

I am currently doing my dissertation on the archaeology of saloons and prohibition. I focus particularly on prohibition border-dynamics between the states of North Dakota and Minnesota and how migrant wheat workers subverted local power structures. My site is located between the cities of Fargo, ND and Moorhead, MN, which is separated physically by the Red River of the North which also serves as the political boundary between the two states. This is my first time making a post on this subreddit so I will try my best to keep my response succinct and cite my sources properly. I will list all of my sources at the end and refer to them in each paragraph.

First, to answer your question it is necessary to note that long before national prohibition began with the passing of the eighteenth amendment in 1919 (in-effect in ~1920), liquor prohibition was being experimented with throughout the US. For example, the state of Kansas was under prohibition law beginning in 1880, the state of North Dakota entered the Union as dry state in 1889 and states like Minnesota allowed individuals counties to settle the manner up until national prohibition (Engelhardt 2007208-209; Okrent 2010:128).

This 1910 prohibition map digitized by Cornell is useful for illustrating the complex ways that prohibition "cut up" states and counties throughout the United States (Source: https://digital.library.cornell.edu/catalog/ss:19343361). There is also a gif from Vox using the maps from the Atlas of the Historical Geography of the United States that illustrates state prohibition according to three categories: dry, wet, and local prohibition (Source: https://www.vox.com/2015/4/2/8333671/prohibition-gif-maps). The original source for these maps is available here on pages 378-381(https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000340001).

The instances of county-wide and state-wide prohibition have received little attention in comparison to national prohibition. One recent, (2016) and excellent book that discusses prohibition in a much more local context, is The Coming of Southern Prohibition: The Dispensary System and the Battle Over Liquor in South Carolina, 1907-1915 by Michael Lewis.

The reason I bring this up is because people were already dealing with liquor prohibition before national prohibition began. In other words, they were already figuring out how to subvert prohibition legislation and authorities. For example, in my own research I discovered a primary source from the former governor of Wisconsin, George Wilbur Peck who wrote about blind pigs (speakeasies) in North Dakota and Minnesota in 1908. When visiting Grand Forks, ND and East Grand Forks, MN, Peck observed that:

"There was a string of people going over to Minnesota, as dry as a bone, and another string going back to North Dakota, as wet as could be.” Later, Peck would go on to exclaim that “They [Dakotans] acted as though they wanted to get enough, so if the bridge should be washed away, they could stand it until a new bridge could be built, and I thought what a dry place Grand Forks would be if the bridge should be destroyed” (348- see full citation below).

This is just one example, but I believe it illustrates perfectly how easy it was to subvert prohibition legislation while simultaneously illustrating the problem of alcohol consumption- the dependency not on just liquor but in this case the bridge too. To add to this, after North Dakota entered the Union as a dry state in 1889 most of the saloons in Fargo, ND simply went across the Red River and set up shop in Moorhead, MN. Historic photographs and Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps from the time show that the saloons would quite literally be constructed as near to the bridge as possible. Here is a publicly available 1905-1915 photograph showing saloons on the Moorhead side- right next to the bridge! (Source: https://collection.mndigital.org/catalog/clc:43#/image/0)

Primary sources from the time indicate that these local examples were being used as reasons why prohibition would fail. See "Does Prohibition Prohibit" by J. M. Gilmore (1915) and "After National Prohibition: What?" by Whidden Graham (1917). Both authors frequently refer to "licensure states" and the ability of the "drunkard" to continue purchasing and consuming alcohol. It is important to note that if you read the eighteenth amendment, identical to most local prohibition ordinances, you will see that the legislation forbade the production, transport, and sale of intoxicating liquors but did not forbid alcohol consumption.

With that being said let’s return to the saloon. As you note in the title of your post, the saloon served as the "go-to option" for socializing, business meetings, and politics. This observation is true although there is some debate as to all the saloons functions. The saloon has been broadly categorized as the "Workingman's" or "Poor Man's Club" (Powers 1999, 1994; Kingsdale 1973). There are of course examples of saloons selling higher priced liquors such as one of the saloons in my research- The Midway- which supposedly had a punch bowl behind the bar with a $500 price tag (Engelhardt 2007:209). From a business point of view, it does not make sense to limit your products to only one demographic which is why many saloons had private rooms that were used to relax or conduct business (Noel 1986:23). In my own research, the Midway had several private rooms to "allow social classes to drink separately or engage in illicit activity behind closed doors" (Engelhardt 2007:210). In her book, Faces Along the Bar: Lore and Order in the Workingman's Saloon, 1870-1920, the historian Madelon Powers notes that there are two drinking cultures present in saloons: a "cocktail culture" of the upper and middle class- defined by wine and mixed drinks- and the "working class culture"- defined by beer and whiskey (1999:76, 86). There are also examples of ethnic saloons such as the African American owned Boston Saloon or the Irish owned Hibernia Brewery in Virginia City, Nevada (see Dixon 2005 for their stories).

I bring this up because it gives you an idea of how complicated the saloon was both in terms of who was drinking there and what they were drinking. However, as Powers (1999:70) notes, "the saloon was thoroughly entangled in the issues and events of the urban marketplace", meaning that the saloon harnessed elements of solidarity and belonging hence the use of clubbing with your friends/coworkers and the "ritual" significance of the treat- buying drinks for your friends and them reciprocating (Powers 93). The saloon was very much a social institution which is why it was so popular during the time. One of my favorite primary sources on saloons comes from a fellow named E.C. Moore, who wrote "The Social Value of the Saloon" in 1897. Moore examines the saloon in an almost anthropological way saying, "It was assumed in beginning the investigation that an institution which society has so generally created for itself must meet a definite social demand; and that the demand was not synonymous with a desire on the part of society to commit suicide by means of alcoholic poison was taken for granted" (3). Moore described the saloon as serving as a "higher social hope" for society and that it will "give place only to a better form of social functioning" (10, 12). This quote is significant in that it illustrates the saloons dominance over social needs and that it can only be replaced by better social functions. Another primary source worth reviewing comes from the journalist George Ade and his book The Old-Time Saloon originally published in 1931. In his book he wrote that the saloon was where the workingman "went to pay his dues" and found "lively intercourse with persons of his own social rating (100-101).