In the early 1900s, the prohibition movement used a modified Four Mile law to gradually ban the sale of alcohol in Tennessee. By 1907, alcohol in Tennessee was only available in underground bars. Political life in Tennessee has been characterized by a confrontation between the crumbling Bourbon Democrats and Prohibition Democrats. A notable figure of this time was Edward W. Carmack, member of the House of Representatives and senator from Tennessee in 1901-1907. While being a Bourbon Democrat, Carmack participated in the 1907 governor elections as a prohibitionist and eventually lost to Malcolm R. Patterson. Having returned to journalism, Carmack criticized Patterson and his supporters, one of whom killed Carmack in a duel.
In 1909, as a result of a prohibitionist public campaign, a statewide prohibition act was adopted. Thus, Patterson lost credibility, and Republican Ben Hooper, who promoted liquor laws, became the next governor. Despite this, cities such as Nashville and Memphis were opposed to prohibition measures – their mayors, Hilary Howse and Edward Crump, openly stood against Hooper. Howse and Crump patronized saloons and brothels and gained popularity among their townspeople for voicing their views against prohibition.
In 1913 and 1915, measures were taken to introduce stricter Prohibition. The new governor Thomas C. Rye adopted the “Ouster Law”, according to which officials could be removed from office in case of refusal to impose a dry law. Howse and Crump were fired – however, the latter remained in politics for many years. The next step towards tightening Prohibition was the adoption of new laws in 1917, followed by the closure of all saloons. Finally, with the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment in 1919, the Tennessee prohibitionists diminished in activity but did not disappear altogether. In general, Prohibition was initially unable to eliminate the production and use of alcohol in the state. Prohibition greatly influenced the structural integrity of the Democratic Party, gave way to new political figures, and allowed bootlegging, moonshining, and underground bars to develop.
It is hard to classify this debate in the ranks of the Democratic party as only morality-driven. It can be seen that some of the politicians who prepared the ground for the Prohibition originally were against it, as was Edward W. Cormack. In other words, supporting the prohibition on the federal level was a popular idea among many people, and it helped to score political points. The issue of the prohibition was so serious that it led to the split in the Democratic party. For the majority of Democrats, it was preferable to endorse a prohibition-supporting Republican candidate, rather than his opponent Malcolm Patterson who run for the third term as a governor from the Democratic party. Later, even Patterson changed his mind and started supporting the Prohibition movement and became a member of the Anti-Saloon League in 1913. This fact can be called as another proof that for the politician of those times the support of temperance was crucial.
The reasons why people supported the prohibition cannot be characterized as only morality-driven. The prohibition of alcohol can be justified not only from the moral point of view but also from the fact that it intended to create a safer community. The use of liquor can harm people and make them more aggressive, which results in the increase in the crime rate. The Anti-Saloon league fought against alcohol, drugs, and prostitution, which were concentrating in so-called «men’s districts». Ordinary women could not go to such places because it was dangerous for them. The spread of drugs like opium and cocaine led to the upsurge in violent crimes. It can be said, that the goals of temperance organizations were not only moral but practical because they aimed to help to increase the level of life and make streets safer.