"Prohibition Is Here to Stay": The Reverend Edward S. Shumaker and the Dry Crusade in America

4. Shumaker Victorious

71| 4 Shumaker Victorious The Hoosier dry crusade faltered in 1908, but in the decade that followed, Edward Shumaker revamped the Indiana Anti Saloon League and led it to unprecedented successes. By 1917, the forces of dry order were victorious in both Indiana and the nation. Yet, drys soon discovered that the kingdom of God had to be built in the face of persistent opposition; it did not emerge fully formed with the mere passing of legislation. The resulting struggle tested the veracity , scope, and depth of the cause as well as Shumaker’s abilities as a leader. Shumaker’s decision to remain in Indiana, rather than move to another state as other ASL leaders did, was key to the eventual dry victory there. Staying allowed him to consolidate and strengthen his power base and ensured that the IASL had both continuity in its leadership and an established relationship with the national office . He became “an exceptionally good organizer and a good politician ” during the years following the 1908 debacle, which earned him respect and allowed him to make the IASL into the premier dry organization in the state.1 Long-term victory meant abandoning county option, however. With the advent of the automobile, drys discovered the flaws in their 72 | “Prohibition Is Here to Stay” local option plan. Improved transportation made it possible for liquor dealers to locate on county lines as well as for brewers to sell alcohol by mail to wets residing in dry counties. Drys believed that in this increasingly mobile world, people needed to be sober. No one wanted “to ride a railroad train run by an engineer whose brain is beclouded with alcohol.” Even Henry Ford chimed in, saying, “I wouldn’t be interested in putting automobiles in the hands of a generation soggy with drink.” Horses could be trusted to find their way home with a drunkard in control. Cars could not. As county option fell out of favor, drys looked at the dispensary system, but direct state control of alcohol, in places such as South Carolina, only tied state revenues directly to alcohol sales. Nor did high license fees hold much attraction for drys since governments would not want to deny themselves the revenues from saloons. Drys also doubted if fees would ever be high enough to cover the societal costs associated with saloons. Thus, prohibition became the only viable option for the dry cause.2 Shumaker was now ready to embrace prohibition ideology. The change in message rekindled dry optimism in Indiana and helped “weld together the religious and moral forces of the state into one great fighting army.” With the cooperation of Indiana’s churches, Shumaker created a stronger grassroots organization, built upon temperance Sundays, county conventions, and “enthusiastic” local organizations that sought out potential political candidates and promoted local law enforcement. The local groups were intensely loyal to the League, and, when Shumaker called them into action, they responded. For example, in 1915 the WCTU and IASL urged drys to send petitions and come to Indianapolis to observe the House Committee on Public Morals debate statewide prohibition. Despite the hisses of wets, Shumaker made the case that with 70,000 petitions in hand from around the state, the House had a duty to pass the bill. Though the effort failed, it proved the mobilization capability of the dry cause.3 Nevertheless, the reinvigorated IASL still had to deal with the Proctor law, which, supporters claimed, generated tax revenues and regulated the liquor industry. There was some benefit in the law for the IASL, since it fostered resentment in drys that Shumaker could refocus toward the concept of statewide prohibition. Proctor elec- Shumaker Victorious | 73 tions also forced the League to work at the community level and connect with a new generation of voters via news coverage and public rallies.4 To take on the law, Shumaker skillfully blended old tactics with new ones. He attacked the Proctor law’s provisions as weak and unfulfilling , especially in regard to cutting the number of saloons. The League also kept pressure on local officials to enforce the law, by employing private detectives to gather information that could be made public. Drys printed the names of wets who signed petitions in support of Proctor elections and urged women to influence their husbands and sons to vote dry. Shumaker stressed the pain and suffering that drinking caused families, while arguing that personal...