Much of Sean Wilentz\u2019s analyzation of New York in the 1830\u2019s and 40\u2019s concerns the Temperance movement; a movement that we see often repeated throughout the early history of the American Republic.\u00a0 The revitalization of the Temperance movement noted by Wilentz in the Washingtonian Temperance movement spurred thoughts of a group conversation in class early in the semester.\u00a0 Although I do not remember the specific source we were discussing, the topic concerned the idea of the outspoken minority.\u00a0 We noted that we often hear more about minority radical beliefs because a passionate populace usually brings them to fruition, even though they are a minority and find extreme difficulty for success.\u00a0 I feel that many times the Temperance Movement was such a cause; people became very passionate about it but ultimately failed to achieve their ultimate goals.\u00a0 This can be seen in the early entrepreneurs attempts at temperance in the 1830\u2019s, as they achieved difficulty with their opposition to unions.\u00a0 With the Washingtonian Temperance movement in the 1840\u2019s, however, I feel that enough of the population became involved in order to remove it from this outspoken minority category that we previously discussed.\u00a0 Wilentz notes \u201ctemperance reformers could claim with justice that theirs was now the largest popular movement in the city\u2019s history.\u201d (307).<\/p>\n
Such a large movement was bound to have a significant impact on society, however it was unfortunate that the Washingtonian\u2019s reason for their success caused opposition from the American Temperance Union.\u00a0 The Washingtonian\u2019s were able to achieve such a significant following by including people from all backgrounds, notably by accepting all forms of religion while denying any relation of their movement to religion.\u00a0 The American Temperance Union, however, was an evangelical organization that saw religious motives behind their temperance movement, denouncing the Washingtonian movement as a result.\u00a0 Although the American Temperance Union did not single handedly destroy the Washingtonians, they were a factor in the decline.<\/p>\n
Such organizational issues could also be seen in the eventual Women\u2019s Rights movement later in the 19th<\/sup> Century.\u00a0 Many of these women were also involved in the Temperance movement, and organization within the Temperance movement and other idealistic ventures caused the Women\u2019s Rights activists to avoid organization in attempt to avoid division.\u00a0 Organization was inevitable, however, and division occurred shortly after.<\/p>\n Interestingly, both the Temperance movement and Women\u2019s Rights movement saw success on a national scale at the beginning of the 20th<\/sup> Century, with Prohibition enacted in 1919 and women\u2019s suffrage enacted in 1920.\u00a0 This reflects the notion of the outspoken minority that we spoke of in class, as we also mentioned that this outspoken minority often spurs a movement that becomes popular, even if it takes some time.\u00a0 Both of these movements followed this pattern to achieve success, although prohibition was repealed in 1933.\u00a0 We can see, however, that it takes a minority movement to spur action on a greater scale.\u00a0 Success is difficult to come by for these activists, but the possibility of ultimate success if worth the efforts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Much of Sean Wilentz\u2019s analyzation of New York in the 1830\u2019s and 40\u2019s concerns the Temperance movement; a movement that we see often repeated throughout the early history of the American Republic.\u00a0 The revitalization of the Temperance movement noted by Wilentz in the Washingtonian Temperance movement spurred thoughts of a group conversation in class early … <\/p>\n