The Woman Who Spearheaded Prohibition's Repeal
Pauline Sabin was a freedom-loving heroine.

The person with the greatest claim to have ended Prohibition just might be Pauline Sabin. As we celebrate Repeal Day today, she deserves a toast.
As an upper-class divorcée who started a successful interior design business, Sabin was sure to be the subject of at least some controversy in early-20th-century America. But it was in politics that she really made her mark. Sabin believed women should be active within political parties and not confine themselves to causes viewed as exclusively the preserve of women. Thanks to her charm, her fundraising abilities, and her political skill, Sabin quickly became one of the most influential women in the GOP. With Henrietta Wells Livermore, she founded the Women's National Republican Club (WRNC), became its first president, and rose to be the first woman on the Republican National Committee (RNC).
Sabin opposed the first version of the Equal Rights Amendment, arguing that it had no clear definition of "equal rights" and that it threatened to eliminate protections for women in the workplace. But she fought for women to be represented equally in the upper echelons of politics.
Sabin initially supported Prohibition. But she tended to be skeptical about expanding federal power, and she often opposed paternalistic legislation. (In 1920, when the Lord's Day Alliance was opposing the playing of movies on Sundays and pushing for federal censorship, Sabin said: "I'm heartily opposed to any legislation that will deprive the public of a wholesome entertainment on Sunday.") As Prohibition failed to deliver on its promises, Sabin became increasingly disenchanted. She finally endorsed Repeal in a 1928 article titled "I Change My Mind on Prohibition."
While Sabin was not enthusiastic about the Republican presidential nominee that year, Herbert Hoover, she was encouraged by Hoover's promise to appoint a commission to study Prohibition. But after Hoover's inaugural address, in which he promised to enforce the law against alcohol, she decided she'd had enough and resigned from the RNC. She then met with 11 other women to lay the groundwork for founding the Women's Organization for National Prohibition Reform (WONPR).
Speaking at a luncheon in her honor a month after Hoover's inauguration, Sabin channeled the spirit of John Stuart Mill's On Liberty. "To tell citizens what they must or must not do in their strictly personal conduct as long as public safety is not affected is a function which government should not attempt," she said. "It is the age-old effort of the fanatic which has been behind every invasion of personal liberty in the past." Later that year, she told the National Civic Federation: "We have exchanged the government of the people for the government of and by the Methodist Board of Morals."
Sabin's challenge was making Repeal respectable. Other reform organizations were constantly under attack, as when prohibitionists denounced the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment as a cabal of wealthy businessmen who wanted to see the return of alcohol revenues. She especially wanted to counter the narrative that the Women's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) and the Anti-Saloon League (ASL) spoke for American womanhood. On February 12, 1930, she appeared before Congress "to refute the contention that is often made by dry organizations that all the women of America favor national prohibition." She spoke scathingly of politicians who were "notoriously wet in their personal conducts, but continue to vote under the whiplash of that political cabal called the Anti-Saloon League."
Sabin's rhetoric borrowed heavily from the prohibitionists, but with the script flipped. Repeal, not Prohibition, would safeguard the home from crime, drink, and lawlessness. The WONPR declined to base its central case for Repeal on the importance of individual freedom—the more libertarian approach favored by Louise Gross, leader of the Molly Pitcher Club. But this doesn't mean Sabin didn't share these ideas.
"Some of Sabin's views may have been closer to those of Louise Gross than was politically convenient for Sabin to admit," the historian Kenneth D. Rose wrote in his 1996 book American Women and the Repeal of Prohibition. "Both before she assumed her WONPR duties and after she completed them, Sabin revealed herself to be, if not a libertarian, at least a person with well-developed distrust of government intrusion that went beyond any concerns over child welfare."
Sabin took the fight for Repeal to the strongholds of Prohibition in the Midwest and the Deep South. Her social standing and political experience guaranteed her spots on the front pages, in the society pages, and in the newsreels. WONPR's size exploded. Sometimes referred to as "Sabines," its members lobbied lawmakers and made waves in the press. Critics accused the group of being a collection of wealthy socialites like Sabin, but in fact 37 percent of the Sabines were housewives, 19 percent were clerical workers, and 15 percent were industrial workers.
The WONPR demanded that political candidates state their views on Prohibition, telling its members to vote only for those supporting reform, regardless of party. Reporting on the WONPR's second convention in 1931, Sabin wrote that they would enlist "an army of women so great that its backing will give courage to the most weak-kneed and hypocritical Congressman to vote as he drinks." A key plank in the WONPR's platform was to reject any compromises that would still leave the issue in the hands of Congress, making it vulnerable to future political swings.
"When Mrs. Sabin formed her Women's Organization for National Prohibition Reform it gathered members so fast that within an incredibly short time it has more of them than all of the W.C.T.U.'s and other such dry organizations put together," the anti-Prohibition activist William H. Stayton told the journalist H.L. Mencken. "This alarmed the politicians and they began to jump. They saw that the women were actually more dangerous to them than the men."
Sabin's final abandonment of partisanship came with her endorsement of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932. "It has been said that the Democratic candidate is a very recent convert to the cause of Repeal because of political expediency," said Sabin. "It cannot be said up to this date, the Republican candidate is a convert to Repeal for any reason."
In October 1933, with victory in sight, Sabin suffered a devastating blow when her second husband, Charles H. Sabin, died at their Long Island estate. Before his death, Pauline promised Charles that she'd continue the fight for reform. When Repeal came, the WONPR helped ensure that there was no fudging on the issue and that the states, not the federal government, would regulate the sale of alcohol.
Recent years have seen some attempts to rehabilitate Prohibition and its supporters. When revising whether the drys have been unfairly caricatured and the wets overly lionized, contrast Wayne Wheeler, head of the ASL, with Sabin. Wheeler cheered the government's poisoning of the industrial alcohol supply, which was being used to make bootleg liquor. "The person who drinks this industrial alcohol is a deliberate suicide," Wheeler said. He added: "To root out a bad habit costs many lives and long years of effort." Thousands died thanks to government-contaminated alcohol.
Sabin didn't rest after her victory. Though she initially supported Roosevelt because of his stance on Prohibition, she soon turned her energies to fighting his New Deal policies by joining the American Liberty League.
She married again in 1936, and she served as the Red Cross's director of volunteer special services both before and during World War II. In her later years, Sabin advised on the interior decoration of President Harry Truman's White House and wrote letters to The Washington Post expressing concern over the national debt and warning against McCarthyism. She died on December 27, 1955. Anyone who values liberty both for themselves and for others raise a glass on Repeal Day to Pauline Sabin.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK. 🙂
HERE====)> http://WWW.WORKSFUL.COM
I’ve earned $17,910 this month by working online from home. I work only six hours a day despite being a full-time college student. Everyone is capable of carrying out this work from their homes and learning it in spare time on a continuous basis.
To learn more, see this article———>>> http://Www.Salaryapp1.com
I get paid over 190$ per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..
HERE====)> http://WWW.RICHSALARIES.COM
Fuck Joe Biden
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35000 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks ghf-86 online from $28000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.RichApp1.Com
Fuck all this spam.
Waiting for Hank's input on all this. 🙂
atta girl!
Wonder how the Democrats who bemoan SCOTUS putting abortion in the hands of the states feel about the 21st amendment.
one major difference.... back then "putting it in the hands of the states" was not followed by "so we can ban it there."
personally, i think the government should never ban what you do with your own body. those fighting against prohibition were trying to end a ban, not find a back door for one.
one major difference…. back then “putting it in the hands of the states” was not followed by “so we can ban it there.”
You mean other than the 28 dry states that had laws on the books since inception and/or prior to enforcement of The Volstead act, 17 of which haven’t formally repealed their bans on alcohol? Not to mention other states that, while technically not outright banning alcohol, strictly enforce state-control of possession and distribution?
the point is that those who wanted abortion to go to the sates wanted it because they wanted to impose greater prohibition on it, while doing so for alcohol was intended to reduce prohibition. one was done with the intention to reduce freedom and one was meant to increase it. that neither got 100% what it wanted is irrelevant. (but does bring us back to the idea of a "national person-hood law" that has since been floated... showing the insincerity of the "power of the sates" argument by one of those groups.)
You are assuming that there was unitary motivation among the people who wanted those things. In neither case was that true.
In the long run, abortion returning to the states increases freedom because it lets us undo a slew of horrible precedents about federal power and authority - precedents which are not limited to the sphere of reproductive rights.
Returning alcohol regulation to the states was also imperfect. Just look at the slew of articles here on Reason almost a century later bemoaning the stupid state regulations that persist. It's still less bad than federal regulation.
You are assuming that there was unitary motivation among the people who wanted those things. In neither case was that true.
Yeah, not even remotely. It's a willful misreading of facts and history. 'Edgy' federal law was more onerous than the majority of states have now. 9 states have enacted anything resembling "all or nearly all" abortion bans and, again, 28 states were "dry" before Volstead.
i will grant that federal overreach is a problem. it is however, more than a stretch to claim doing so for abortion in any way increased anyone's rights. roe was a ruling that limited the ways government could restrict a woman's rights, and there is no twisted logic where taking away that limit on government can be said to increase anyone's rights. (unless you consider using the government to force your morality on others a right)
also, the motivations are more uniform than you seem to want to believe. i am not aware of anyone who wanted to get rid of prohibition for the sake of states rights. reducing the prohibition of alcohol was the overall motivation, even if they did not have the same end point in mind.
similarly, i have never met anyone who wanted abortion returned to the states just because of states rights concerns. oh, some will try to deflect with that argument, but if you keep them talking for more than 30 seconds, reasons they think abortion should be banned start to crop up. more restrictions on abortion was the motivation for getting this pushed back to the states, because those who wanted less restrictions did not need anything turned back over to the states to do it. (because... again... roe was a ruling that inherently limited what the government could ban.... not what it must ban.)
Killing people is nobody's "right", Ghoul.
People know exactly what fucking does, you've already made a "choice" if you voluntarily spread your legs.
Huh. So support the Democrat then to get rid of a single prohibition, and succeed, but then oppose FDR for everything else, and fail. Seems similar to a situation we have now.
BOAF SIDEZ.
The Woman Who Spearheaded Prohibition's Repeal
Wasn't it early feminists who pushed for prohibition in the first place? Kind of weird to push a grrrl power take on its repeal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman%27s_Christian_Temperance_Union#Prohibition
Not only that, she was initially for it. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to recognize someone who was against it all along?
Most Prohibitionists were Progressives, and Progressives were fascists decades before Mussolini invented Fascism.
Yeah it`s Possible…Anybody can earn 800$+ daily… You can earn from16000$-32000$ a month or even more if you work as a full time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish…lli It’s a flexible job but a good eaning opportunity
This Website OPEN HERE…………..>>> onlinecareer1
I'll drink to that.
Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do…..
For more detail visit the given link……….>>> http://Www.Salaryapp1.com