When Missouri achieved statehood in 1821, tens of thousands of immigrants rushed in looking for a better life. Many were escaping political, religious and economic oppression in Europe. Missouri's abundant and virtually untapped resources attracted large numbers of immigrants from Germany, France, Switzerland, Austria and eventually Italy. The rich soils, expansive waterway connections, timber and abundant game made Missouri a veritable Eden for the poor and the landless.
In 1824, Gottfried Duden, an optimistic traveler from Germany, arrived
on Missouri soil. He believed that many of Germany's woes resulted from overpopulation and poverty. Thinking emigration was the solution to these problems, Duden and his friend Louis Eversmann had set sail for America
to study the possibilities of German settlement in the United States.
Arriving in St. Louis, Duden and Eversmann found Nathan Boone, son of Daniel Boone and surveyor of government lands. Boone led them on a tour of the Missouri River valley. For almost three years he lived in a cabin near Lake Creek, recording the weather, growing conditions and daily doings on his farm. In 1829 Duden published his findings back in Germany and it soon became a best-seller. To struggling—even starving—Germans back home, these words offered an almost irresistible allure of freedom and plenty. Feeling the oppression back home, the promotional writings of many Germans, including Duden's glowing account, inspired thousands of Germans to emigrate to the "New Rhineland."
As German settlers pushed westward, many carried carefully-wrapped clippings from their old world vineyards. Many of the groups traveled down the Ohio River from Cincinnati, to the Mississippi and up to the mouth of the Missouri River at St. Louis, right in the footsteps of Gottfried Duden.
Moving to a new land caused a deep yearning to preserve their heritage. In 1836, the German Settlement Society was intent on establishing a new "Fatherland" in America. They selected some land on the south bank of the Missouri River, west of St. Louis, and founded Hermann. The original town was laid out with some plots originally sold as wine plots, beginning in the 1840s. Though their settlement met with many hardships and the soil on the hills nearby wasn't appropriate for many forms of agriculture, by 1846 they had produced their first wine from locally cultivated grapes. In 1848, the town's wineries produced 1,000 gallons. By 1855, 500 acres of vineyard were in production and wine was being shipped to St. Louis and beyond.
By 1870 Missouri led the nation in wine production and the North American Norton grape produced a wine made by a Missouri winery which won a gold medal in a Vienna competition in 1873. Five years later, another Missouri Norton Wine Gold in Paris. Norton wine was lauded not just for its taste but also for its presumed healthfulness as “the best medicinal wine in America.” Missouri wines won eight gold medals at world fairs between 1873 and 1904
By 1900, Stone Hill Winery, which the German immigrant Michael Poeschel began building in 1847, was the third largest winery in the world (second largest in the U.S.), producing more than a million gallons of wine a year.
Before 1920, there were wineries in 48 Missouri counties. Long before anyone had ever heard of Harry Truman, Independence MO was known for its wine production. In fact, Missouri's Wine region grew to include more than 100 wineries.
It all came to an abrupt halt in 1920 with the passing of the Volstead Act and the addition of the 18th amendment to the Constitution. Prohibition dealt a fatal blow to Missouri's wine industry. Many families lost their livelihood. The destruction of Stone Hill Winery completely ruined the local economy. A full decade before the stock market crash of 1929, Hermann was plunged into the Great Depression.
It is said that when the Government Agents, “Revenuers” came to Stone Hill and began pouring the wine out, it flowed through the streets from three in the afternoon until two in the morning in a river three inches deep down the street and into the Missouri River.
But they didn’t stop there. They destroyed all the equipment in such a way it could never be used again. In most cases the only wine making equipment that survived was that which was taken to local churches, because they were exempted from the act so they could make their sacramental wines. In fact, the only Missouri winery to survive this dry period was St. Stanislaus Novitiate, located in St. Louis, where the Jesuits continued to produce sacramental wine.
Following repeal of the act in 1934, Missouri's wine industry was nothing but a memory. High liquor taxes and license fees discouraged the industry's rebirth. People’s tasts had shifted as well to hard liquor as a result of the speakeasies, bathtub gin, gangsters, and moonshiners. A few dozen wineries did reopen, but much of Missouri remained legally dry, and a there was little demand for anything other than sweet, dessert-style wines.
Some Norton vines survived in Missouri in what has been described as the vineyard of a bootlegger. Prohibition’s destruction eradicated the Norton grape entirely from Virginia, its birthplace.
In 1965 Jim Held, a legitimate vintner obtained cuttings and started bringing the vine and Missouri winemaking back. Winemaking is on the rise in Missouri again, but the industry as a whole was probably set back one hundred years. One article at the time says that a billion dollars (1920 dollars, second only to US Steel) was lost in the US in an instant due to the complete and utter destruction of the Alcohol Industry and lest we forget that is not just breweries, distilleries and vineyards.
It is farms, labor, equipment manufacturers, bottlers, distributors (rail, sea, and highway), salesman, advertisers, retailers…everything: gone or greatly reduced.
But think about this, whether you like wine, or even don’t drink a drop of alcohol at all; this was a big big industry. This was people’s culture, it was their livelihoods and their life’s work. They came HERE from somewhere else to live their dreams. They built something from nothing. The came to the US to build something and to make their families’ lives better and believed in the promise this country held enough to risk their lives to come here. They were the leaders in their fields the champions of the industry. They did it here, it was in America. It was a legacy. If not for prohibition Missouri, and by extension US wine, could have eclipsed all French or Italian winemaking. We will never know.
How many of us would like to see our life’s work run through the streets and into the river and be gone; destroyed simply because of political pressure and authority?
We lost our history, people lost fortunes. And it wasn’t an outside force that did it. It was well meaning do-gooders who thought they could legislate morality. We did it to ourselves, and we used our own government against us.
Think of all the other things that the US was or is known for being truly exceptional at. Would you like to lose those simply due to government involvement?
The Automobile industry? Oh, wait….nevermind.
The Fast Food and Soft drink industry…under assault
Possibly the best example: The oil industry and our dependence on foreign oil.
The cost of gasoline in this country today is a direct result of us allowing political pressure to mandate economic and industrial reality based on a set of beliefs that are held by a certain set of people to the detriment of us all. It is because of climate change alarmists and what amounts to a Volstead Act on the Oil Industry in this country.
Government is only force, fire, and destruction; it cannot create one thing and it is a power that doesn’t care who it is directed at. It is simply a monster of destruction and chaos and you can never control it, and it would just as soon hurt one group as it would another.
Our only defense is in understanding what has been done with it in the past.
deleted4448310 77p · 732 weeks ago
You are correct. Government can only destroy. Walter E Williams explained recently how government subsidies and protections for the US sugar industry have driven industries overseas and contributed to an increase in diabetes due to the use of the cheaper high fructose corn syrup. http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams072110....
KOOK 91p · 732 weeks ago
teresamerica 68p · 732 weeks ago
Andrew33 103p · 732 weeks ago
NEck · 730 weeks ago
Andrew33 103p · 729 weeks ago
Andrew33 103p · 729 weeks ago
When you put it that way, taxpayers bought and paid for Missouri. Of course, even during the prohibition era, there was a fading notion that the government was actually there to represent the people. Progressives destroyed that in favor of an elite political class who have always known what's best for everyone just as they do now. Just ask them, and they will tell you. If you look at how federal programs like farm subsidies (that ban farmers from growing their own corn to feed their own livestock) have impacted states like Missouri, and my home state of Florida, the net result is a massive negative. Fortunately, thanks to Mr "no nation building" and Mr. "Change you can believe in" more and more Americans are waking up to this and are fed up with the "progressive" republican and Marxist democrat establishment in DC.
NEck · 729 weeks ago
Show me proof that private roads and a privatized Eire Canal would have cost the wineries less and I will believe you. Otherwise it means nothing.
Andrew33 103p · 729 weeks ago
Here locally, road work is being done at night time. You may or may not know this, but night time means overtime for both road workers (under contract) and the police officers that patrol the construction zones. Overtime means time and a half for pay.
Question: if a private company were calling shots instead of government, would they be undertaking massive road projects paying their employees overtime? Instead of overtime, more employees could be hired and jobs could get done faster.
This leads up to my point. Government charges the people (or borrows money) to do a job, getting paid first, then gets to do the job at it's leisure. Private businesses get paid a deposit to do the same job, then get most of their payment upon timely and proper completion of the job. This forces both innovation and motivation to complete a job on time and under budget. The fear of losing a lucrative contract like a major canal (Erie) prevents the cutting of corners that the federal government is so adept at.
You see, I used to have a government job. At the end of each fiscal year, I was handed a government credit card and was told to buy every possible tool imaginable that could be used in my department despite the fact we had more equipment than we knew what to do with!. The reason given: we had to spend everything in our budget or we stood the chance of losing money in the budget for next fiscal year. Of course, the systematic robbery of taxpayers doesn't matter either does it???
After seeing corruption firsthand, the insane debt run up by the government with nothing of value in return makes perfect sense and there is nobody who isn't harmed by the insane levels of spending and corruption in government. How many of those wineries can afford the $400,000 an employee in debt run up by the government? Of course, that huge debt doesn't matter either so don't complain when a million dollars buys you a ferrari...(with no fuel) or a peanut butter sandwich.
The burden of proof doesn't lie with me. Show me proof that government is operating at peak efficiency and I will believe you. Have you ever heard the saying: if it ain't broke don't fix it?
Guess what: the current way government is operating has made us all broke! So when exactly should we fix it???
Andrew33 103p · 729 weeks ago
NEck · 729 weeks ago
** You are talking about today. I am talking about pre-prohibition era wineries. **
""Here locally, road work is being done at night time. You may or may not know this, but night time means overtime for both road workers (under contract) and the police officers that patrol the construction zones. Overtime means time and a half for pay.
Question: if a private company were calling shots instead of government, would they be undertaking massive road projects paying their employees overtime? Instead of overtime, more employees could be hired and jobs could get done faster.""
** A lot of road work is done at night because more people use roads in the day. Would you rather your road be blocked off when you are trying to get work. Again, this is the wrong time period, and anecdotal. **
""This leads up to my point. Government charges the people (or borrows money) to do a job, getting paid first, then gets to do the job at it's leisure. Private businesses get paid a deposit to do the same job, then get most of their payment upon timely and proper completion of the job. This forces both innovation and motivation to complete a job on time and under budget. The fear of losing a lucrative contract like a major canal (Erie) prevents the cutting of corners that the federal government is so adept at.""
** I don't know why you think the government only pays people upfront. Show me proof. **
"You see, I used to have a government job. At the end of each fiscal year, I was handed a government credit card and was told to buy every possible tool imaginable that could be used in my department despite the fact we had more equipment than we knew what to do with!. The reason given: we had to spend everything in our budget or we stood the chance of losing money in the budget for next fiscal year. Of course, the systematic robbery of taxpayers doesn't matter either does it???""
** Anecdotal, wrong time period again. **
""After seeing corruption firsthand, the insane debt run up by the government with nothing of value in return makes perfect sense and there is nobody who isn't harmed by the insane levels of spending and corruption in government. How many of those wineries can afford the $400,000 an employee in debt run up by the government? Of course, that huge debt doesn't matter either so don't complain when a million dollars buys you a ferrari...(with no fuel) or a peanut butter sandwich.""
** This is a false comparison. For nations, some debt is good, too much debt is bad. However, this is completely different conversation. **
""The burden of proof doesn't lie with me. Show me proof that government is operating at peak efficiency and I will believe you. Have you ever heard the saying: if it ain't broke don't fix it?
Guess what: the current way government is operating has made us all broke! So when exactly should we fix it???""
** I did not claim that the government is operating at peak efficiency. I am arguing that the pre-prohibition wineries we greatly helped by government. The original post claimed that government is destructive, while ignoring how the wineries benefited from it. This is highly disingenuous. **
""Also, the taxes and (union) fees levied on businesses along with free trade bovine scatology have driven the businesses that made the Erie canal a viable necessity to either move their jobs overseas or shut down completely. If we don't plan on getting serious about bringing manufacturing back, what is the point of paying for Erie at all? Maybe we should give Erie to Canada. After all, they are socialist and are therefore mentally and morally superior, or so they say... ""
** Yes, the Eire Canal is pretty much useless now, but I am not talking about today. That is a separate discussion. Stay on topic please. **
Andrew33 103p · 729 weeks ago
You are trying to point out that a small group of Missouri farmers were helped out by one government program only to have their livelihoods destroyed by another a few years later. That is a net draw at best since the wine business in MO never recovered.
Government doesn't pay people upfront. Government proposes a plan, earmarks the money for the plan in a budget, (hence paying itself), then either pays it's own workers or contracts the plan out to a contractor of it's choosing. I know the bidding process well thank you. So government takes or borrows money for a project then completes it at it's leisure since nobody actually has to answer for said money.
In my area, roads are expanded. There is no traffic on the part of the road where a new lane is being added. Hence, work can proceed 24hrs a day. Once resurfacing jobs go past deadline and over budget, the work gets done 24hrs a day and very quickly.
The relevant time period is now, thank you and the government is systematically destroying this country. You have made no good argument debating that fact
NEck · 729 weeks ago
Not with me you can't. You want to debate civilly, we'll debate civilly. No special rules for you. If you choose to hide behind your authority, then you've already proved your argument weaker.
I want you to understand that when you make a bold, sweeping statement like "government only destroys" I expect to see some proof. If you can't do that then you must conceded that this issue is more complicated. Government both helped and hindered the wineries, because government is just a tool. Used wrongly, government can take away your right to a drink. Used rightly, government can protect your right to fee speech, and assembly. Direct your anger at the men using government wrongly and focus on electing better ones. Would you blame the arsonist that burned your house down or the fire?
Andrew33 103p · 729 weeks ago
As for your fire analogy, of course I would blame the arsonist...however if the arsonist was on a terror watch list, out of jail on bail for arson and was pulled over an hour before burning my house down with a trunk full of loaded gas cans (not during hurricane preparations), I would certainly blame the government departments involved for failing to act while taking my tax money in the name of keeping our streets safe.
NEck · 729 weeks ago
Andrew33 103p · 729 weeks ago
There are circumstances that justify such actions. If you don't want to give your email address to blogger or intense debate, a simple email to me using the address at the email link would suffice. Contrary to previous comments, I have no desire to cut off debate. If there is no valid blog or email address attached to your avatar, please correct this error so that we can debate on a level playing field. Thank you
NEck · 729 weeks ago
Andrew33 103p · 729 weeks ago
Andrew33 103p · 729 weeks ago
Unfortunately, people in other countries are killing each other over an insane notion of "civil rights" while they don't even know what their rights are nor do they have strong voices in their society to set them on a course to decide what those rights are..
Our federal government was successful because it was set up to be a tool of last resort. However, over the last century, the far left and far right have used the federal government as a tool for societal engineering. The founders of our country understood that government inherently does more harm than good and set it up to be as non-intrusive as possible. Some say welfare and housing projects help people. Are those who live in "affordable" housing projects and receive welfare any better off than they were in 1960? Are we as a nation better off now that the agencies in charge of "affordable housing" ie fanny mae and freddie mac owning 50% of all the "residential" property in the USA? Government found a way to eliminate the wineries, farms, our manufacturing capability, etc. So much more damage must it do before it becomes a net negative??? There is a reason that the founders set up state governments to have more power than the federal government. That reason is accountability. Are any benefits those previously mentioned receive worth the collapse of our monitary system and destruction of the greatest nation in modern times because that is the price we will ultimately pay if we don't correct our situation immediately. You are right about the government being a tool, but it is only a tool for political elites to buy votes at the expense of our future. This is the same mistake that led a tolerant peaceful nation to resort to extremism genocide and war. See Weimar Republic.
We are on the same path as Weimar and Rome. Both had stable representative governments that fell victim to tyranny because of corruption and greed which gave way to extremism and war.
We have a choice, either walk the path of ruin following Europe like the stupid following the blind...or go back to what made this country great again. History says we will do the former, but the future is not set in stone.
The fact is our government is the worst there is, until you look at the rest of the world...so doesn't it seem wise to not copy the rest of the world?
NEck · 728 weeks ago
Yes the financial situation is bad, but I don't think it will cause a massive collapse. I think it will take the form of a slow, painful decade of no growth where China edges us out towards the end as the world's leading economic powerhouse. I don't have any evidence I could give you for this, they are just my thoughts. The real global players though, will be transnational corporations who have no allegiance to any particular nation or people, and as we have seen, they have the tendency to overextend implode taking the world with them.
Andrew33 103p · 728 weeks ago
Before Rome became an empire, it was a Republic. Roman citizens voted for members of their governing body known as the Senate. They also voted for the leaders of their military to one year terms to prevent one military leader from gaining too much power. Our system of a government with checks and balances was modeled after England's parliament and the Roman Republic's senatorial system hence we have the House of Representatives and the Senate. Both utilized a separate judicial system which became the model for our court system.
If you look at countries that had similar economic situations as ours, sudden drastic collapse has always been the result of debt exceeding GDP. In order for the croney corporations you mentioned to achieve real power, they must tear down the old systems of government, borders and money. Notice how Europe has congealed into a corporate conglomerate known as the EU which is getting rich while individual countries in the EU are going bankrupt. When they move to take power, it will not be slow and gradual anymore. They have been slowly and gradually milking us for the last century. Now they are so close to achieving their ends that they no longer see a need to move in the shadows.
Go back into the archives and look up my posts on Weimar and Rome which are far more detailed than a comment
Andrew33 103p · 728 weeks ago
The pink elephant in the room for China is they depend on us for 85% of their food. If we cut their food off, their government would fall inside a year. This should serve as a warning to you as to how fragile governments around the world are right now.