Frederick Douglass made
his feelings about alcohol quite clear. The noted abolitionist and one-time
Rochester resident said that Southern slave masters plied their slaves with
alcohol to control them and to keep them from escaping.
“In order to make a man
a slave, it is necessary to silence or drown his mind,” Douglass said in a March
1846 speech given in Paisley, Scotland.
Despite Douglass’s
sentiments, Three Heads Brewing plans to unveil a Freddy D lager sometime after
its new brewery and tasting room opens on Atlantic Avenue in Rochester’s
Neighborhood of the Arts in about a month.
A post announcing the
new lager on the company’s Facebook page features an image of Douglass under a red
banner, “Freddy D Lager.” Reactions in the comments range from excitement over
the new beer to disappointment in Three Heads’ use of the name despite Douglass’s
condemnation of spirits.
One writer suggests that
a nonalcoholic brew might be a better choice.
Dan Nothnagle,
president of Three Heads Brewing, says that the beer might give a boost to the Douglass
name and prompt discussion about this important man
and his work.
And no one knows how
Douglass would feel about alcohol if he were alive today, Nothnagle says.
“I think times have
changed a lot,” he says. “And whether slave masters used alcohol as a way to
calm people or to belittle slaves back then, I think society in general accepts
alcohol now.”
Fittingly, Nothnagle says, Freddy D will be made with Liberty hops.
Three Heads
has given some of its other beers names with local significance, too, including
the Cobbs Hill Black Lager.
Freddy D Lager will be
available at the brewery, Nothnagle says, and throughout Western New York in
bottles and on draft.
This article appears in May 25-31, 2016.
Frederick Douglass was against drinking alcohol. How disrespectful and ignorant it would be to take a 6-pack of Freddy D Lager to Highland Park and drink it under the statue of Frederick Douglass. Do we really want outsiders to view Rochestarians as so shallow as to celebrate a statue more than the principles of the man himself?
Really dissapointing. I love wine, beer, and all spirits, but the sheer ignorance of this boggles me. Why on earth would you use a social activist who believed that alcohol was used to hurt and silence slaves as an endorsement of alcohol. It completely mocks his work and his legacy. Dimishing his name to Freddy D, like he was some pop star. If your business thinks this is ok, than you need a better marketing department and a better conscious. What’s next, Susan B. Anthony lip gloss
I have three words for Three Heads Brewing; How dare you! Naming a lager after an American hero who was against alcohol for valid reasons is extremely disrespectful and offensive. I will try to get everyone I know to boycott your beer.
Thank you 3HB for investing your time and money to better the quality of life in Rochester.
And thank you for honoring one of Rochester’s most famous citizens
It is completely self-serving for 3hb and detrimental to the legacy of Frederick Douglass for his image to be on a beer bottle. Rather than be proponents of Rochester as 3HB claim, this is an embarrassment.
Yes, no one’s perfect…even Frederick Douglass. How dare I say that, right?! The man was a famed abolitionist/reformer/emancipator/orator/statesman. An early outspoken supporter of women’s rights! And he was absolutely against alcohol. I won’t hold that against him although, ultimately, he was wrong on Prohibition.
His dislike for alcohol was certainly steeped in the despicable practice of slave owners giving alcohol to slaves to placate and control them. But Douglass’ disdain for drink was rooted even deeper than Southern Slavery. Even after slavery was abolished in 1865, Douglass believed that drinking and other sins of the flesh shackled individuals of virtue, impaired their ability to “self-govern”, and become a true instrument of God’s word.
But by his later years, even the man who was a tireless proponent of self-government, was now advocating Prohibition. In 1885, Douglass wrote, “For a long time I refused to commit myself to the doctrine of absolute Prohibition of intoxicating drinks, because I thought it interfered with the personal liberty of the citizen. But the sober contemplation of the evils of intemperance not only upon the dram drinker, but upon his family, his friends, and upon society generally, has compelled me to go the whole length of Prohibition”.
Essentially, he was advocating for government control of individuals based on his own moral beliefs, which he himself acknowledged contradicted his earlier views.
So, we see the rise of Temperance as a movement the 1800s. For awhile, it did begin to instill some good works for a wet nation. The 1830’s saw some of the highest rates of alcoholism in our nation’s history. By the late 1800s, temperance had educated (and partially shamed) a public into consuming less. It helped give a voice to women suffragettes as temperance groups afforded them a voice in fighting what was becoming a societal plague. We saw the rise of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, which rose alongside Susan B. Anthony to demand the right of women to vote. The demise of the modern saloon ensued, the phenomenon of mass public drunkenness was curtailed, and more restaurants and traditional sit-down establishments attempted to curb overt consumption.
But Prohibition sought to place governmental controls on personal habits. Even Susan. B, Anthony, who herself disliked alcohol and was believer in temperament, disapproved of prohibition. According to Susan B. Anthony website, “She refused to support prohibition because she believed it detracted attention from the cause of woman suffrage.”
It did a lot more than that.
Once the 18th Amendment to the constitution enacted on January 19th, 1920, Prohibition was to cause a mass tide of corruption, abuse, prejudice, and strife. Proponents of Prohibition, emboldened by their successful efforts to ban US alcohol sales, shifted to focus their “purifying” efforts to going after those who wouldn’t abide. That meant Prohibitionists going after entire groups of people they “perceived” to be prone to criminality and, by association must be breaking laws. Pair this with the fact that many immigrants (as a well as many other citizens) saw these laws as specifically targeting customs and traditions which involved alcohol. The US would see a huge increase in the jailing of the poor, immigrants, and African-Americans, the penal system becoming overburdened (the Bureau of Prisons is expanded during this period), as well as, ironically, the rise of the KKK.
Restaurants failed because they could no longer serve alcohol. Organized crime rant rampant, looking to fuel the demand for now illegal alcohol. Police corruption escalated, deaths from illegal alcohol consumption surged, and serious crimes increased significantly. States lost tax revenues from alcohol sales, costing the nation $11 billion dollars, which meant additional cuts in state programs (and enter The Great Depression). Alcohol consumption in many areas actually increased during Prohibition and, in many ways, worsened. It attacked customs and traditions, and created greater separation among the classes.
When the 21st amendment repealed Prohibition on December 5th, 1955, it marked the end to one of the most egregious (in terms of government dominion over its citizens) and ill-conceived pieces of legislation ever enacted. As author Anthony Eslone wrote, “(The 18th) amendment inserted into the Constitution a law that neither protected fundamental rights nor adjusted the mechanics of governance…it took a juridical break from tradition to obliterate the customs, the lived traditions, of the American people and their forebears”.
The passage of the 21st Amendment almost immediately reversed many of the issues that plagued it from the start, and gave states the individual power to regulate alcohol sales. It normalized the consumption of alcohol, strengthened an economy that was desperately trying to pull itself out of the Depression, and undercut hostilities, corruption, and crime caused by Prohibition.
But how could Douglass, who died years before Prohibition became law, have known, right? True, but leading voices, such as fellow Rochestarian Anthony, warned about the dangers of Prohibition. Abraham Lincoln wrote in 1840, “Prohibition… goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man’s appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded.”
The Douglass statue is of a man, a great man. But a man, nonetheless, equally subject to the same measures of passion that lead him to disavow some of his own beliefs that also elevated him to becoming a towering American leader. Given the unforeseen, systemic societal misery that Prohibition created, I seem to think that Frederick Douglass would have had serious second thoughts on his stance on Prohibition…maybe not on temperance per se, but definitely the government’s role in regulating the vices and virtues of its citizens.
That a free people can self-govern, can self-regulate actions that don’t interfere with the basic human rights of other. We have the capacity, without want of excess or depravity, to enjoy a drink. To share in the camaraderie of others, whether it’s shared with friends, or maybe a drink with family at a restaurant, or a toast at a holiday. That doesn’t make us evil or impure.
Yes, we still have issues in society with alcohol. Many believe that Douglass’ own struggle with alcohol and subsequent triumph over it was the precursor to organized alcohol addiction treatment. But there are also millions of citizens that make responsible decisions concerning alcohol as well. Douglass still might have remained abstinent, but I don’t believe he would have ever condoned what occurred during Prohibition, in the slightest.
Maybe he would be proud that we can share a drink with people of all colors,
genders, orientation, and beliefs because we were educated, informed, and free.
And he would change his mind, again.
Three Heads isn’t perfect. Neither was Douglass (although pretty close). Thank God we’re all human.
One more thing, in response to some comments…
I know the guys at Three Heads. I know that they love this town, not just because all three were born here, went to school here, and started families here. They love this town’s culture, people, history….even with its bumps and bruises (you think Douglass would appreciate the disparity in poverty in the Rochester city vs the suburbs? and the demographics that align with these poverty totals?). They invite other brewers to their festivals, help encourage local music and arts, and constantly mention and prop up Rochester in media. They built a brewery in Rochester, will be employing Rochester workers, and, perfect fit or not, proudly put the best things of Rochester on their labels. You think someone from another state, when they pick up a bottle of Three Heads, gives a hoot about Cobbs Hill, Country Sweet or if Frederick Douglass is on the label of their lager? No, but it’s pretty important to the guys at Three Heads. They are good, good people.
Three Heads has always always been (and will continue to be) proponents of Rochester. Everything they do is based on that commitment to a vision of elevating Rochester.
Having and sticking to a vision is good. You know, just like if I owned wine bar committed to “education, and exposure to wines from around the world”, I guess I wouldn’t think twice about not having a single local wine featured on the menu I post online.
You know, despite the fact that you live in Rochester, with over 100 wineries in our region alone, along with 300+ other wineries in New York State. And also seeing that New York is the 4th largest wine producing state…in a country that has the most wine drinkers in the World.
May you both continue to stay true to your vision!
21st was in 1935, not 1955. Sorry for the typo.
Blatchy:
I am very glad that the owners of 3Heads are proud Rochestarians and want to honor the city with naming beers after all things Rochester. I applaud that. I am also born and raised here and a proud Rochestarian. I am a beer drinker and also think Prohibition was wrong. But whether Frederick Douglas was rightly or wrongly against Prohibition I think is a moot point. He personally was a recovering alcoholic who opposed drinking alcohol for himself. And regardless of his possible views were he alive today regarding Prohibition, he didn’t drink. So to then “honor” that man by putting his name on a bottle of alcohol seems in bad taste to me.
And by the way, the wine bar you attacked in the last part of your comment does actually carry NYS State wines. They rotate their by the glass list every few weeks, so currently yes there is not one by the glass . But there have been in the past and I assume will be again in the future. They do actually have NYS State wines on their By the Bottle list We can all argue the points without getting into a “who is a better Rochestarian” competition.
@ Blatchy,
The Wine Bar you called out about NYS products if you look at the menu online has at least four offerings of NYS Wine and several NYS beers as well. But onto the actual issue at hand here. You said that maybe, “[Douglass] would change his mind, again.” about alcohol. I don’t think the man who was forced as a slave by his masters to the point of addiction would ever change his mind regarding alcohol. Though yes, you are right that he would be proud of the social progress we have made since his time. He would also be saddened by how much further we need to go.
And for the record, the “times have changed” argument about alcohol is backwards. The average American today only drinks 40% the amount of the average American in the 1800s. The insane consumption rates of the 1800s and early 1900s are why the -vocal minority-, the Prohibitionists, won temporarily.
Craft brewers love beer. That’s fine. Nothing wrong with that. However, some people, for various reasons, don’t drink.
I know that perceptions aren’t always the reality, but I get the feeling that Frederick Douglass is being mocked here. For the many people who can’t control their drinking, the most responsible thing to do is to completely end it. I know we’ll never be your customers, but people who don’t drink aren’t fools. Why do you want to disrespect the non-alcohol-drinking community by naming a beer after our hero?