Conclusion
In my opinion, I believe that the Temperance Movement became too extreme. As I do agree with some points from both sides of the argument, I would have sided with the people in opposition of the Temperance Movement, or those in favor of temperance of distilled spirits excluded beer and wine. Both sides provided strong points on their views. Although I do agree that abusing alcohol is dangerous and was the cause of many social problems in the 19th Century, I think that temperance advocates went about fixing the problems in the wrong way. I agree that moral suasion was not a stong enough force to keep alcohol consumption under control, but I think that the legislative action they took was too forceful. It is true that their actions would have prevented further social problems, but they also sparked unnecessary controversy. If the method of temperance was more relaxed, the controversy could have been avoided.
I am not totally for one side of the temperance movement, I am more in between. I also believe that those opposing temperance were unreasonable. Those opposing the movement thought that it was unconstitutional, and that the movement was unnecessary. I disagree because if no action was taken to fix and prevent the social issues caused by alcohol abuse, the situation could have gotten out of control. It would have been very difficult, if not impossible, to only restrict alcohol from those who abused it, which is what some people wanted.
The best resolution for the issue would have been a combination of the two sides. This view did exist during this time, but was not one of the most popular views. People on this side had the most reasonable solution. They knew that the total restriction of alcohol was unfair, because only some drinkers abused it. They also were aware that alcohol was the main cause of many social issues during that time. People on this side of the argument believed that only some alcohol should be restricted. They believed that only distilled spirits (40-50% alcohol content) should be restricted, and beer and wine could still be manufactured and sold. This side of the argument accounted for feelings of both for and against temperance, which is why it had the best position during this contoversy.
I am not totally for one side of the temperance movement, I am more in between. I also believe that those opposing temperance were unreasonable. Those opposing the movement thought that it was unconstitutional, and that the movement was unnecessary. I disagree because if no action was taken to fix and prevent the social issues caused by alcohol abuse, the situation could have gotten out of control. It would have been very difficult, if not impossible, to only restrict alcohol from those who abused it, which is what some people wanted.
The best resolution for the issue would have been a combination of the two sides. This view did exist during this time, but was not one of the most popular views. People on this side had the most reasonable solution. They knew that the total restriction of alcohol was unfair, because only some drinkers abused it. They also were aware that alcohol was the main cause of many social issues during that time. People on this side of the argument believed that only some alcohol should be restricted. They believed that only distilled spirits (40-50% alcohol content) should be restricted, and beer and wine could still be manufactured and sold. This side of the argument accounted for feelings of both for and against temperance, which is why it had the best position during this contoversy.