Last year, the United States Congress voted to declare the year 2003 the “Year of the Blues.” This took place while unemployment benefits ran out, while the U. S. was snarling at Iraq, while most of the Congress was seeking re-election and while the economy was limping along. But in the end, as someone who grew up on the banks of the Mississippi where that kind of music was born, it is nice to see a year devoted to that distinctly American art form, The Blues.
The title of this essays comes from a song composed along with the lyrics, by William Christopher (W. C.) Handy, the premier song writer of The Blues. In this case, the song is about Beale Street in Memphis, Tennessee which was the main entertainment and music street in that whole town. If someone wanted to be entertained or wanted to hear the Blues, the only place to go was Beale Street. Similar streets and neighborhoods existed in other towns on the Mississippi such as New Orleans and St. Louis.
As Woodrow Wilson was about to complete his presidential term in 1921, red hot religious conservatives coming from the southern wing of the Democratic Party conspired to foist Prohibition on this country. It was supposed to uplift our conduct, bring us closer to God, make us better citizens and greatly improve our spiritual values. In short, Prohibition was a completely religious exercise.
When Prohibition became effective, all forms of alcoholic beverages allegedly disappeared. The term “allegedly” is used because every town and community had its speakeasies, bootleggers or its moonshiners. Those citizens who had the urge to drink – and the means to pay for it – usually did not die from dehydration. Booze could easily be provided for those willing to pay for it.
Prohibition was a sham of the first order and its first impact was on poor people, usually black, such as those who worked in and patronized establishments along Beale Street and similar streets in other towns, particularly on the Mississippi River. So W. C. Handy wrote his song which proclaims:

“I’m goin’ to the river, maybe by and by,
Yes, I’m goin’ to the river, maybe by and by,
Because the river’s wet, and Beale Street’s done gone dry!”

The criminal gangs who tried to control the flow of alcoholic beverages to large cities under Prohibition resulted in such gangs as the Purple Gang in Detroit or the Machine Gun Kelley gang in Chicago. They often carried sub-machine guns and they were not bashful about killing other people who got in their way. The Valentines Day Massacre in Chicago was one example of the work of a gang in the days of Prohibition. Cops and law enforcement authorities were compromised. When a speakeasy operated in New York or Chicago, on a busy downtown street, it had to have the endorsement of police and legal authorities. Some speakeasies actually advertised so finding them should have been easy for even an unlettered cop.
The active corrupt involvement of police and legal authorities is only half the problem. Prohibition came at enormous medical expense to drinkers who drank the concoctions of bootleggers and moon shiners. Such people operated in back alleys or in the rural hills with no attempt at sanitary provisions. If their moonshine caused people to have convulsions or go blind, there was no one to complain to when you drank during Prohibition. You took your chances, often with disastrous results.
Prohibition comes to mind because it was the first organized attempt in modern times by the Federal Government to sponsor a completely religious activity. As such it was the first time that the church-state boundary was breached in the 20th century. Prohibition was an absolute disaster. It compromised the government just as it turned cops and legal authorities into law breakers. It was a sham – nothing less. It yielded gang killings and deterioration of health in drinkers. It could also be observed that before Prohibition ended, the stock market collapsed in 1929, which led to the Great Depression which followed.
The irony is that in 2003, researchers agree that moderate drinking, such as a drink every night, is as important in preventing heart attacks as exercise. But in 1921, the people pushing Prohibition thought heart attacks were largely the work of divine providence or of Satan himself.
The lesson about Prohibition piercing the church-state boundary has not been learned by the current occupants of the White House. Their pursuit of religious endeavors to support their political agenda is astounding. There are some in the Administration who see no sign of the church-state division being breached again even though the Bush Administration is arm pit deep in religious activity. And I am here to tell you as a survivor of Prohibition, of the Great Depression and
World War II, the effort to breech the church-state wall will end in disaster just as disaster was visited upon my countrymen by Prohibition.
The rot caused by crossing the church-state line is not confined to the lonely cop on the beat. Far from it. Juries and prosecutors are involved as well as members of Congress. In the “Great Experiment” of the 1921-1933 period, the rot caused by Prohibition reached the White House. The United States President who presided over the start of Prohibition was Warren Gamaliel Harding, a man of absolutely no distinction. His administration was riddled by charges of corruption, much of which flowed from Prohibition. His administration was probably the most reviled in American history up to that point. Prohibition may not have been involved in Harding’s dalliances with Carrie Phillips and Nan Britton, but if he had confined himself solely to his mistresses, he may have avoided the opprobrium that he so richly deserved. Harding died in 1923 after only two years in office and Calvin Coolidge succeeded him. You may remember the colorless Coolidge as the man who coined the phrase, “The business of America is business.” Coolidge turned over the presidency to Herbert Hoover of Depression fame. Coolidge went back to obscurity in Vermont. He was unlamented by the American electorate.
The point here is simple and chilling. When the church-state line is crossed – particularly for religious reasons as was the case in Prohibition – nothing but disaster awaits. In the current Bush administration, religion abounds. Evangelical Christianity is the predominate creed. Bush has surrounded himself with religious zealots who claim there is no such division between church and state. In short, we would become Arab Kingdoms such as Saudi Arabia. The Attorney General Ashcroft is a leading proponent of this distorted view. But perhaps he did not have much convincing to do with Bush who, during a 1999 Republican primary debate, when asked to name his favorite POLITICAL philosopher said it was Christ.
What I am leading up to is that the Bush people ignore at their peril the disaster that was Prohibition. In their religious zealotry, they are doing it all over again with sexual mores. The New York Times had an editorial on January 12, 2003 entitled, “The War Against Women.” I hope you take the time to read the “War Against Women” editorial as well as the “Federal Funds to Build Churches” and “The Bully at the Table.” They are attached to this essay. Every American who supports the idea of separating the church from the state, as Thomas Jefferson did, must be appalled and disgusted by Bush’s insistence that this American government should be modeled after the Mideast Muslim dictatorships such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Sudan, where there is no barrier between church and state.
Consider these thoughts sponsored by the Bush administration.
1. It is intent upon eviscerating the right of a women to make her own child bearing decisions. Abortion would be outlawed by the roll back of Roe vs. Wade.
2. A major attempt has been made to deny contraceptive information to men and women. The right wing conservatives say contraceptive information is the work of the devil. Again, I ask you to read “The Bully at the Table.”
3. There is a major assault on sex education for young people. The administration is offering “abstinence only” as its policy for sex education. This is not a policy; it is a religious superstition.
4. Representative Christopher Smith of New Jersey is one who is leading an assault on condoms claiming that tiny pores in condom walls permit such things as the AIDS virus to pass through. Most scientists will tell you that condoms lead the way, if not the only way, in preventing transmissions of the AIDS virus. The pore theory is junk science and Smith knows it.
5. As Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union speech, it is his wish that all cloning be barred. I wonder how many Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s patients and those suffering from spinal cord injuries will join in that call?
6. Bush administration stalwarts want not only to stop abortion procedures, but they wish also to ban the use of the oral contraceptive, RU 486. Can thought police be far behind?
7. Bush’s first step when he assumed office was to stop any reference to abortion in family planning sponsored by the United States in foreign countries. I suppose family planning must be built around John Ashcroft’s abstinence only idea. Tell that to teenagers in Africa or in the United States.
8. Aside from the assault on women, Bush now plans to allow Federal housing money to be used to erect buildings in which religious services take place. This makes the assault on the church-state wall complete.
The foregoing is an impressive list. If it all comes to pass, we will be returned to colonial times and the Federal Government will become a theocracy on the order of Iran, Saudi Arabia, or the Sudan. Is that what we want?
In his recent State of the Union speech, Bush took notice for the first time of the AIDS epidemic sweeping Africa. I am struck by the thought that when he did send a representative to Africa in December, the aide, Robert Zoellich the Trade Representative, told his African audiences that he had come to talk about Trade, not about AIDS. There is absolutely no sincerity in the Bush proposal to do something about AIDS in Africa. There are no votes there.
Furthermore, the thought of the three boys in Newark who were starved, sexually abused and abandoned, will not leave my mind. And I hope you remember it also. One of the brothers died and his corpse was hidden for a substantial period of time.
The mother of the three boys was Melinda Williams. In all, she had five children. When Melinda left to serve a jail sentence, the boys were placed in the custody of a cousin, Sherry Murphy. Sherry abandoned the boys until they were accidentally found weeks later. Sherry also had five kids.
Now think about this. Today in 2003, 70% of all the birth records in Newark show that the father is unidentified. In short, he is not around and has abandoned the new mother. While you are thinking about the 70% figure, think also that between the two cousins Melinda and Sherry, ten kids were born.
Now I’d like for New Jersey Representative Christopher Smith to tell all of us how Bush’s war on abortion, contraception, condoms and sex education fit into this picture? There is no record that either of the two women ever underwent an abortion procedure, so they are on solid ecclesiastical ground with Chris Smith. And obviously, they used contraceptive measures sparingly, if at all. Perhaps if Attorney General Ashcroft were here in Newark to whisper total abstinence to these two hot blooded females, they would have joined him in church services instead of procreating with the various fathers of their children.
The point is obvious. For political reasons only, the Bush people are joining religious conservatives in a head-in-the-sand attitude. And in the bargain, they are obviously and clearly bringing the church in as a dominant partner to the Federal Government. I object. If there is a stronger way to register my opposition, I would like to find that way.
Bush’s attempt to breech the church-state barrier will result in another disaster as it was in the first case, Prohibition. Lives will be ruined. Back alley clinics will spring up to handle, or mangle, women’s pregnancies. And what ever happened to the dictum that knowledge is power. Not when it comes to sex education if Bush has his way.
I am always struck by the thought that the moving urgency behind the suppression of sex education and the outlawing of abortions and contraception, are Catholic ultra right wingers together with the most retrogressive members of Protestant Evangelical calling. For the Catholics, Archbishop Joseph Myers of the Newark Diocese says the faithful are doing God’s work in this endeavor. For the Protestants, the leading lights are Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Franklin Graham and TV Evangelist Joe Dobson.
Until recently it was my impression that these two groups of Catholics and Evangelical Protestants actively hated each other. The Catholics claim that their church is the only true church and all other Christian churches are imposters. The Protestants who draw their name from Martin Luther who protested against the Catholic Church, have derided Catholic thought and practices for all of my long life time. To see these two groups find common ground is an unparalleled exercise in regressive politics because politics is what this is all about.
The striking thing is that these two groups are seeking to use compulsion, not persuasion, in their endeavors. They wish for Congress and the President to outlaw abortions and contraception and sex education. And they believe the same Supreme Court which installed Bush in the presidency, will enforce the compulsion that they envision. If Suzy Smith, a non-believer, wants to have a pregnancy ended, what harm comes to the most ardent religionists? Those religionists, through compulsion, wish to order the lives for all the rest of us. I object.
These same two groups are also gung ho for Bush’s war on Iraq. Never mind the rationale; just go bomb ‘em. Reports in the news media clearly state today, February 2, 2003, that the military forces of the United States will unleash 3000 precision guided bombs on Iraq to “demoralize” its citizens and lead them to abandon the fight for their country. It is clear to me that these 3000 precision bombs only start at 500 pounds. Some weigh much more. When the bombs are dropped and Iraqi citizens are becoming “demoralized”, it may be that thousands will be killed. Men, women and children. Our bombs may be precision guided but they don’t know if they are killing a man or a mother or a school full of children. When did we develop this vicious hatred for the Iraqi people?
Now I ask you this question. Why is it legal and an occasion for Bush to put on his John Wayne act to wipe out thousands of Iraqi women and children, but a woman who is the victim of rape in this country cannot get an abortion? Where is the logic in that? I suppose it comes under the heading of why we must wipe out Iraq but North Korea, with its NUC-YU-LAR bombs are not a matter of crisis, according to Secretary of State Powell.
Now I move on to an allied thought. When black people were subjected to the conditions of slavery, they were judged by Southerners to be inferior people. Some still think that. If you don’t believe that statement, look at the 1948 campaign of Strom Thurmond, the Presidential candidate of the Dixiecrat Party. And if you don’t want to see what Old Strom said about the inferiority of black people, you may refer to the recent leader of the Republican Party in the Senate, Trent Lott, who in December, 2002 embraced the whole agenda that Thurmond ran on.
But the supposed inferiority of blacks is only half the story. The drive led by right wing Catholics, such as Archbishop Myers, and ultra right wing Evangelical Protestants, seem to actively embrace the idea of the inferiority of women. They must be prevented by compulsion from having an abortion even in the case of rape or incest. And they should be barred from the use of RU-486 as well as sex education. I believe that this makes a pretty compelling case for the ultra right wingers led by George Bush to consider that women are an inferior brand of humanity. Women can’t make choices. It is done for them by a religious-political decision.
There is sort of a Trifecta here. First there is the suppression of women on the ground that they must be inferior to men. Secondly, the ultra right wingers want the U. S. to bomb Iraq back to the Stone Age. And thirdly, there is an unquestioning desire to invoke the death penalty on just about everyone arrested by a cop. The likes of Trent Lott, Jeff Sessions, the Republican Senator from Alabama, Strom Thurmond, and John Ashcroft are part and parcel of this Trifecta along with the fearless George Bush and Richard Cheney. When Bush claims that his administration will protect this country, I am forced to point out that when Vietnam occurred, Bush used his father’s political connections to flee to the Texas National Guard. Cheney sought and got five deferments so he never served anywhere. Some fearless leaders we have here leading us into battle.
This essay started with a thought or two about Prohibition. It seems to me that during Prohibition, Southern Christians drank hillbilly moonshine. They did not let Prohibition stop them. Now, if Roe vs. Wade is rolled back and abortion is outlawed, I suspect that Catholic girls as well as ultra right wing Protestants will seek out and find abortionists to perform their work, often in unsanitary conditions, regardless of what New Jersey Representative Chris Smith has to say. Sadly, many of them will not survive.
All of the effort to return the United States to colonial times as it relates to abortion and sexual education and mores, and the slaughter of women and children in Iraq is done while proclaiming the extraordinary love of Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace. Oh boy, let us pray.
Regrettably, we don’t have anyone now to write a song about “Beale Street Done Gone Dry” as it relates to the war on women, on Iraq and on compassion for men, innocent or not, convicted by judges and juries, often with no evidence or tainted evidence. I suspect that if W. C. Handy were alive today he would write a dirge aimed at George Bush. But Bush is completely ignorant of music, so the point would probably be lost on him. On the other hand, the black race has been humiliated beyond comprehension, yet they produced men and women like W. C. Handy, who found humor and hope in their moments of despair. There is no humor in what George Bush is offering the American public, especially women. Maybe there is some hope if we could find another W. C. Handy to tie it in a small ball such as he did with Prohibition in “Because the river’s wet – but Beale Street done gone dry.” Maybe when the Congress voted to make 2003 the “Year of the Blues,” they may have known something was coming along to warrant such a description.
E. E. CARR
January 29, 2003
~~~
“It’s a shame that meaningless acts about recognizing such-and-such week/month/year are some of the only things congress is consistently capable of passing” was my first thought when I started reading this essay, so I sought out to prove myself wrong. Even though I knew we have a house that is explicitly dedicated to thoughtless obstructionism, I still figured congress must be doing something useful. So I went and looked at all the legislation passed this season. Turns out we’ve only passed 244 bills into law since this session started in 2015. Looking through the first 100 of them, I count 32 — that is, a full third of their activity — bills were entirely focused on renaming one building or another.
For example, HR 5208 passed a few months ago: To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 3957 2nd Avenue in Laurel Hill, Florida, as the “Sergeant First Class William ‘Kelly’ Lacey Post Office”.
These types of laws are all well and good but for them to represent a full third of our congressional activity paints a pretty gloomy picture.
That said, I suppose that if the choice for how congress spends its time is “rename stuff” versus “build toward a Christian theocracy” then hey, might as well recognize William Lacey.