Hickenlooper

John Hickenlooper, erstwhile presidential candidate, is also a former craft brewer and former Governor of Colorado. He has an online only ad that highlights his career as a brewer. In 1988, he co-founded  Wynkoop Brewery.

The ad is full of brewing references; comparing the country’s polarization to debates in the brewing community over “hazy IPA and pastry stout.” You can read more about the ad here.

In 1988, Hickenlooper and three other men including brew-master Russell Schehrer started a brewpub with pool tables in Denver.  The brewery did produce beer for retail but stopped that in 2016.  Hickenlooper divested his holding when he ran for governor in 2010.

Wynkoop and Breckenridge Brewery merged in 2011,  forming Breckenridge-Wynkoop. The company sold Breckenridge Brewery to In Bev Anheuser-Busch in 2015. Colorado has over 400 breweries and is fourth in  in the country for number of breweries.

Although Hickenlooper has been successful  as a brewer, businessman and Governor, his presidential campaign has not gained much traction.  The New York  Times has an  article, “The Extraordinary Humbling of John Hickenlooper ,” which details his lackluster performance. I would be very surprised if he was on the debate stage in September.

As you may have noticed, I failed to post a blog last week. We had been traveling and my life has been really hectic; dealing with various personal issues. I am posting today because I will be out of town on Wednesday. I will also be unable to post the following two Wednesdays. I hope to and have every  expectation  of resuming my regularly scheduled postings on Aug. 21. Thanks for your patience and understanding.

Maine Beer

I recently read an article about Maine beer. The state is second, after Vermont, in the number of breweries per capita. Maine has over 80 breweries.[1]  Maine’s love of beer is a recent development. Here is an explanation from Brewing Battles.

“In Jacksonian America, the various states regulated the retail sale of alcohol, placing license fees on dealers as a minimal control on consumption. The growing temperance movement attacked the license system as inadequate and advocated new legislation. By 1850 reformers had moved from local control of liquor sales to statewide prohibition.[2] In every northern state except New Jersey and Pennsylvania legislators enacted or popular referenda passed “inclusive prohibitory or constitutional measures.”[3]

“In the 1850s, no state had the police capacity to enforce the provisions of this legislation, known as the Maine Law. As a result, advocates of the legislation created extra-legal groups, ostensibly to gather evidence and swear out complaints. Unfortunately, the “leagues” often overstepped these boundaries, generating violence. Both retailers and drinkers refused to accept the legitimacy of prohibition legislation. Liquor sellers organized to fight the Maine Law and the extra-legal enforcement “leagues,” and German and Irish immigrants opposed the law for cultural and economic reasons. The working class as a whole also resisted state intrusion into customary behavior.”[4]

Maine was the first state to pass such a law. Most states repealed the legislation by the 1860s. Maine repealed its law temporarily but reinstated it in 1857 and didn’t repeal it until 1934.[5]

Today, however, Maine is a poor state and beer is a source of reliable revenue. You can go on a Maine Beer trail and visit some of the over 80 breweries. We will be in Maine in August and I plan to visit at least of few of the breweries on the trail. I’ll let you know about the results.

 

[1] https://www.craftbrewingbusiness.com/news/infographic-what-states-have-the-most-breweries-per-resident/

[2] Tyrrell, Sobering Up, 226.

[3]; The Cyclopaedia of Temperance and Prohibition, (New York, 1891), 275–361.

[4] Tyrrell, Sobering Up, 290–307.

[5] William L. Downard, Dictionary of the History of the American Brewing and Distilling Industries (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1980), 17.

Stop The Bans

Yesterday I attended a  Stop the Bans rally in Northampton. Similar demonstrations  were held all over the country in response to the draconian anti-abortion laws that Alabama and other states have passed. It is very depressing to me that  reproductive rights are so threatened in 2019 when I can remember marching for the right to have an abortion in New York City in  the late 1960’s.  Abortion became legal in New York State in 1970.

Abortion was not legal in Massachusetts until Roe v. Wade in 1973. Massachusetts was also one of the last states to legalize birth control. However, last year, Gov. Baker, a Republican signed  the Nasty Women Act which repealed several old laws regarding abortion and birth control.  Nasty stands for Negating Archaic Statutes Targeting Young Women; legislators felt  the bill was necessary in the wake of Brett Kavanaugh ‘s appointment to the Supreme Court.

Several of the speakers at yesterday’s rally spoke about pending legislation in Massachusetts, the Roe Act.  This legislation would remove the requirement of parental consent for  an abortion for people under the age of 18.  The Roe Act also provides health care coverage for abortions for people who don’t have Mass Health.

Current Massachusetts law does not provide abortion coverage after 24 weeks. The Roe Act would extend that time period in cases of fatal fetal anomalies. Other provisions of the bill include ending the currently required 24-hour waiting period, and codifying the principles of reproductive freedom into state law. You can get more information about the Roe Act here.

William K. Coors

Last month, William K. Coors died at the age of 102.He was the grandson of Adolph Coors, founder of Coors Brewing. Here is the New York Times obituary.

In acknowledgement of his passing, I am posting an excerpt from Brewing Battles (2007)about Coors.

Until the late 1970s Coors was a regional brewer; the beer was available in sixteen Western states. The Coors family sought nation-wide distribution of their beer, but faced several problems. Their appeal and brand recognition flowed from the Rocky Mountain springs that supplied the water for the beer. Building another brewery somewhere else would negate those advertising claims. Coors planned to compete in both beer types and advertising. By 1979, the company had a light beer and hoped to produce a super premium beer in the near future.[1]

Coors’ plans to diversify its products reflected the changing nature of the beer market since Repeal. Nineteenth century brewers brewed fresh lager for patrons at saloons. A few brewers persisted in brewing English ale. Although the German brewers had argued for the uniqueness of their product when confronting federal taxes in the 1860s, for much of their pre-Prohibition history they presented and promoted beer as beer. Most brewers had only a few different products and they didn’t really advertise one over the other.

During Repeal, brewers returned to a world of consumer products and brands. Slowly they began to develop different beers. Modern Brewery Age was a leader in promoting product differentiation, advertising, and marketing campaigns around specific items. Of course the brewers pushed for great latitude in production definition when producing the industry’s NRA code. They continued to resist ingredient and alcoholic content labeling.

True product differentiation began in the 1960s with malt liquor; it accelerated after Miller and Phillip Morris introduced light beer in 1975. Other categories of beer included super premium, dry, reduced alcohol, non-alcoholic, and beer coolers.[2] Anheuser–Busch has over sixty beers including Michelob, its super premium entry which the company has produced since 1896, as well as O’Douls, a non-alcoholic beer, and Bud Light.[3] Most other breweries do not have that many products; craft brewers usually have a few different beers. Boston Beer, makers of Sam Adams, produces about twenty-five different products.[4]

Coors was obviously hoping to move onto the national level and begin producing a variety of beers. The company developed a plan to move into two or three new states a year. By 1986 people in forty-five different states could buy Coors beer. The company maintained its number five position in the industry through massive advertising expenditures. Coors spent more than $10 a barrel on advertising and its total marketing expenses were $165 million in 1985. The company’s net income was $53.4 million from sales of $1.28 billion.[5]

By 1986 the fourth generation of Coors family members was running the company. Jeff Coors stated that the brewing industry “was much more of a marketing game today.” Beyond problems of market expansion, throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the company faced a series of controversies. In 1977, Local 366 of the Colorado UBW began a strike against Coors. Coors, under the leadership of Bill Coors, consistently supported conservative causes; the company attempted to change the seniority system which would have resulted in a less powerful role for the local and its influence on discipline. Claiming union busting the local was on strike for two weeks when half of the workers returned to work. The company hired replacement workers for the remaining strikers. Coors wanted an open shop despite the fact that the brewery had had union representation for forty-two years. In 1978 employees decertified the union.

The union and other interested parties including Hispanics, homosexual rights activists, and feminists undertook a national boycott. Many groups believed Coors engaged in discriminatory labor practices. By initiating a boycott the UBW was returning to its nineteenth century roots. This boycott caused California sales to diminish by fifteen percent; California represented more than forty-five percent of Coors market. The boycott was a large impediment to the company’s attempts to produce beer and market beer for the national market.[6]

Ten years later, in 1987, the union and Coors came to an understanding. Coors agreed to non-interference with union organizing and to support a union contract for a proposed building project. In response the union ended the boycott. Coors changed its hiring practices and advertising focus. Coors had also completed an agreement with the Coalition of Hispanic Organizations in 1984. Jeff Coors was determined to avoid controversy.[7]

By 1991, all fifty states sold Coors beer, and the company had risen to the number three spot in the industry. It has the largest capacity brewery in the world at its headquarters in Golden, Colorado. That same year Anheuser–Busch’s market share was forty-four percent.[8]

 

[1] Jerry Knight, “Coors Plans Expansion,” Washington Post, 79.

[2] Beatrice Trum Hunter, “More Informative Beer Labels,” Consumer Research Magazine, October 1996, vol. 79, no. 10, 10-15.

[3] http://anheuser-busch.com/ (accessed April 2, 2007).

[4] http://samueladams.com/verification/ (accessed April2, 2007).

[5] Steven Greenhouse,” Coors Boys Stick to Business,” New York Times, November 30, 1986, 162. The family had suffered a tragedy in 1960 with the kidnapping and murder of Adolph Coors the third, eldest grandson of Adolph Coors, the company’s founder.

[6] Ibid; Amy Mittelman, “Labor in the U.S. Liquor Industry” in Blocker et al., Encyclopedia, 356-358.

[7] Ibid; Ruth Hamel and Tom Schreiner, “Coors Courts Hispanics,” American Demographic, November 1988, 54.

[8] William H. Mulligan, Jr. “Coors,” in Blocker, et. al., Encyclopedia, vol. 1, 174; Rick Desloge, “Anheuser-Busch on path to 50 percent share of market,” St. Louis Business Journal, February 11, 1991 1B.-2B.

©Amy Mittelman 2018.

Primary Day

As I have said before, I have been working hard on trying to turn the House Democratic. I work at the Take Back the House (TBTH) office in Northampton, 18 Center Street. We are focusing on two races, NY 19 and NH 2.

I also worked for Jo Comerford , for Senator under the General Court. The incumbent,  Stan Rosenberg, resigned after the deadline to get on the ballot had passed. Jo’s campaign was a write-in. Write-in campaigns are extremely difficult because you have to spend a lot of time educating voters on how to effectively write in someone.  You also have to motivate the voters to take the extra time a write-in requires. The district has twenty-four communities which makes this process daunting. The person on the ballot definitely has an advantage.

Jo did a tremendous job campaigning and building a grassroots movement. Her years as an organizer first for American Friends Service Committee and then Move-On really paid off.  Jo won 54% to 41% with a 3,3373 vote difference. I am proud I helped and excited that Jo Comerford will be my State Senator.

 

Second time around

Looking over my last few posts I thought I would revisit some of the topics. In Summer I outlined what I was doing during this season. The Take Back the House (TBTH) opening was a huge success. You can see a video about it here. I am still working there and I feel, now more than ever, it is critical to turn the house Democratic.

Skating Camp, which I talked about in Summer and Off to Camp, was terrific. There were only nine of us and the coaches and assistant coaches were so helpful and supportive. It really improved my skating, making me more adventuresome and less fearful. I plan to start some off ice work which should further strengthen my skating.

I am still having trouble sleeping. At least once a week I have a bout of insomnia. My latest thought is to try hypnosis to change my sleeping habits. If anybody has tried that, please me know.

It has been two weeks and I  have watched two  Youtube videos that were on Feedly. I am also reducing my watching of Reality TV since it feels very connected to the rise of Donald Trump, something I fervently wish had never happened. I do not want to be complicit with his fascism in any way,

Several of the posts reference how hard it has been to do weekly posts. That remains true. I put all of the potential changes to my website which I discussed in Half Year Update out of my mind but  it is probably time to start thinking about them again.

Finally in the last month my most viewed post was the one on Methylated Spirits which I wrote five years ago. It had 229 views in 30 days. I average about 20 reads a day. The day I post is not always the day with the most readership which is a bit of a puzzle to me. I am  still thinking about ways to increase readership. If you have any ideas, let me know.

If these more personal posts are not your taste, let me know that as well.

 

Roundup

These are some articles about liquor and the liquor industry that have come to my attention that may be of interest to my readers.

Five Things that No One Wants to Say About Italian Craft Beer by Evan Rail in VinePair. I didn’t even know there was craft beer in Italy.

Somerville Mayor Joseph Curtatone is boycotting Boston Beer, makers of Sam Adams because the founder, Jim Koch attended a dinner with President Trump  and praised Trump’s tax law which contained a big tax break for brewers. Of course, Trump is a teetotaler so, like everything else, he probably knows nothing about beer. I think I will probably stop drinking Sam Adams now. Let me know if you agree. You can read the article here.

Jim Koch and other craft brewers are happy about the new tax law but Anheuser Busch is in their rear mirror. The global company has bought 10 different craft breweries since 2011 and now is the country’s largest craft brewer. Most consumers of course don’t know that Goose Island and other crafts beers are actually owned by Anheuser-Busch.

I started wondering about  the wine industry in Massachusetts and discovered that there is a trade association, Massachusetts Farm Wineries and Growers Association which has over 20 wineries as members.  Organized in 2007, their biggest success has been the passage of legislation which allows the sale of wine at farmers markets.

 

White House Scandals

In honor of the scandal ridden Trump presidency, I am posting an excerpt from Brewing Battles which deals with a scandal during the Truman administration.

The United States government had essentially remained on a war footing since 1945, and the Korean War continued this approach. In the spring and summer of 1951, Congress considered legislation to finance rearmament. Military spending had more than tripled since 1950, and the armed forces had more than doubled in size. As part of the overall package, legislators planned to increase excise taxes on liquor, beer, wine, tobacco, automobiles, gasoline, and sporting goods. The House wrote legislation that included tax increases for both distilled spirits and beer which would help to generate $7.2 billion in revenue. The Senate held hearings on the legislation; various representatives of the different branches of the liquor industry appeared.[1]

Since 1940 the Alcohol Tax Unit of the B.I.R. had responsibility for regulation of the liquor industry. The larger bureau, which had existed since 1862, had not had any reorganization since 1917. Two wars and Prohibition had occurred as well as a dramatic increase in tax collections and employees. By the end of World War II, a person might wait twelve months or longer for a tax refund. In 1944 the federal government collected $42,125,986,550 in income taxes. This was an increase over 1943. Although income taxes played the largest role in the country’s tax situation, brewers and the liquor industry had also been significant contributors throughout the war.[2]

Staffing of the Bureau and its sixty-four collection districts had been done on a purely patronage basis with predictable results. An investigation of the agency in 1951 by Senator John James Williams, (R. DE) revealed that at least four different collectors in St. Louis, Boston, Brooklyn, and San Francisco had been engaged in fraud, embezzlement, bribery, and tax evasion. The most prominent member of the Administration to face corruption charges was Matthew J. Connelly, the President’s appointments’ secretary. Connelly received a two year sentence for tax evasion and influence peddling. He served six months in prison after the end of the Truman presidency: Truman eventually persuaded President Kennedy to pardon Connelly.[3]

Although not as large a scandal as the Whiskey Frauds of the late nineteenth century, President Truman did respond by reorganizing the Bureau, reducing the number of collection districts to twenty-five, and turning appointment power over to the Civil Service. John Wesley Snyder, a close friend of and powerful fundraiser for President Truman, was Secretary of the Treasury and was in charge of reforming the Bureau of Internal Revenue.[4]

The final legislation raised $5,691,000,000 in taxes and included a $9 a barrel beer excise tax.

[1] “Tax Bill 7.1 Billion; No Rise on TV Sets,” New York Times, May 26, 1951, 8; “Bootlegging Seen in Liquor Tax Rise,” New York Times, July 31, 1951, 15; Lawrence S. Wittner, Cold War America: From Hiroshima to Watergate (New York: Praeger, 1974) 79.

[2] Andrew J. Dunar, The Truman Scandals and the Politics of Morality (Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press, 1984), 96; William Pemberton, Bureaucratic Politics: Executive Reorganization during the Truman Administration (Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press., 1979), 162, “Federal Tax Yield $42,125,986,550 in 1944,” New York Times, February 13, 1945, 36.

[3] Dunar, The Truman Scandals, 98-99, 150-155; All had received appointments as collectors during the tenure of either Robert E. Hannegan or Joseph Nunan as Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Hannegan had been instrumental in helping Harry Truman win re-election to the Senate in 1940 and later served as chair of the Democratic National Committee when Truman received the vice-presidential nomination at the 1944 convention. See “Truman is Seventh Elevated By Death,” New York Times, April 13, 1945, 3.

[4] Dennis Merrill, ed., Documentary History of the Truman Presidency, University Publishers of America, 2000, vol. 28, xxxix, 271 -272; Rick D. Medlin, “Snyder, John Wesley,” American National Biography Online www.anb.org/articles, (accessed on January 9, 2003).

Brewing Battles: A History of American Beer, © 2008 by Algora Publishing, p. 143-145.

Summer

As I have said before, this year it has been difficult for me to find time to blog once a week. Because I don’t have a lot of time. finding topics is harder. Unless I am writing a more personal post like this one, I do have to spend some time  researching and preparing the topic.

Already this summer I have been to New York a couple of times for Yankee games, stayed over for a few days once, gone to a  Jewish retreat and next weekend I am going to an adult skating camp. I also work one day a week at the Take Back the House office in Northampton where I am the office manager. Besides all this, there have been social engagements, regularly scheduled meetings as well as a demonstration against Trump’s immigration policies. I have been making slow but steady progress on my book which is good. In other words I have been living my life rather fulsomely.

Aleph sponsored the Kallah which I went to last weekend. Aleph is one of the branches of Judaism in the United States. It is Jewish Renewal which is a mixture of Kabbalistic or mystical and Hasidic traditions with music and dancing thrown in. The Kallah was a week-long but I only went for Friday afternoon through Sunday morning. Spending Shabbat at Kallah was really a unique and very lively experience.

The Take Back the House office is a coordinated campaign which a coalition of groups is sponsoring. The groups include Swing Left and Indivisible. We are focusing on two races in nearby states: NH2 where there is a Democratic incumbent, Annie Kuster and we are trying to help her hold her seat.

The other race is NY19 where there is a Republican incumbent, John Faso who it would be great to defeat. His opponent is Anthony Delgado. The TBTH office is having its grand opening, July 19 from 5-6:30. It is at 18 Center Street, Northampton. It would be great if any of my local readers  showed up.

The Adult Skating Camp will also be a rather intense experience since I will be doing hours of both on and off ice work. I’ll write more about it after I get back.

 

Frederick Lauer

On June 8, Reading, Pennsylvania held a celebration in honor of the renovation of a statue of Frederick Lauer, a founder and prominent member of the United States Brewers Association.  The statue was the first one ever erected in Reading. To help fund the project, the Berks Brewers Guild created a Lauer’s Fellowship ale. Sale of this beer raised over $5,000.  This article provides further details about the event.

I wrote about Lauer in both my dissertation and Brewing Battles.  In 2003 I wrote several entries about beer, brewing,  taxes, and cirrhosis for Alcohol and Temperance in Modern History, a two volume reference work edited by Jack S. Blocker, jr., David M. Fahey, and Ian R. Tyrell.

Here is the entry:

Frederick Lauer, one of  the nineteenth century’s most prominent brewers, was born in Germany in 1810. His family, wealthy Bavarian landowners, left for political reasons and immigrated to Reading, Pennsylvania in 1822.  In 1826, George Lauer, Frederick’s father built a brewery on the site of an Indian cabin in Reading.  Frederick eventually became the owner of this brewery, one of Reading’s prominent citizens, and a well-known lobbyist for the United States Brewers Association in Washington. Lauer actively participated in the USBA from the first national convention in 1862 until his death in 1883.

German-American brewers founded the USBA in response to the initiation of federal taxes on alcohol to help finance the Civil War.  The first national meeting was in New York on 12 November 1862 where Frederick Lauer was elected President of the new organization.  In 1863 the USBA appointed Lauer chair of a committee charged with overseeing the industry’s Washington affairs.

The most pressing concern of the brewers was a refund of taxes paid on beer brewed before the tax law had become effective. Lauer, along with other brewers, paid taxes on his stock on hand on 1 September 1862. The brewers’ argument for a refund was based on the specific fermentation and storage involved in producing lager beer.

Lauer worked diligently pursuing this matter with Congress but ultimately the brewers won the issue by suing and winning in the Court of Claims. Lauer achieved both a personal and industry victory.

In 1865 Secretary of the Treasury Hugh McCulloch established a commission to study the United States revenue system.  The USBA and the Association of Ale, and Porter and Lager Beer Brewers, a sister organization of ale-brewers,successfully  requested that a panel  be authorized to investigate the excise laws of Europe as they pertained to malt beverages.  Frederick Collins of New York and Mathew Read of Philadelphia were both ale brewers and they visited Great Britain for two weeks.  Frederick Lauer joined them in visiting Belgium, France, the German States and Switzerland.

David Wells, the chair of the Revenue Commission used the brewers’ report, published under the auspices of the USBA, verbatim. Lauer and the USBA were very successful in establishing an amicable, working relationship with government officials. The work they did with David Wells and the Revenue Commission in establishing the method of tax collection for beer was long-lasting.  The stamp attached to the spigot of every barrel removed from a brewery remained the way the federal government collected the excise until Prohibition.

Building on their success with refunds and collection the USBA established an Agitation Committee, which Frederick Lauer chaired.  This committee met regularly with officials and legislators, particularly when legislation was pending which was relevant to the industry.  Their greatest result came from holding the line on tax increases for 34 years. During the same time period, 1864 to 1898, taxes on distilled spirits increased three times.

Frederick Lauer was more prominent for his work as a brewing advocate than as a brewer. The Lauer brewery was never a national leader although it was the third largest in Pennsylvania at one time. Lauer turned over the running of the brewery to his sons, Frank and George in 1882. Lauer died on 12 September 1883.   In 1885 the USBA erected a statue in Frederick Lauer’s honor in City Park, Reading, Pennsylvania.  The statute still exists and is maintained by the Historical Society of Berks County Pennsylvania.

Reference

Downward, William L. Dictionary of the History of the American Brewing and Distilling Industry, Connecticut, Greenwood Press, 1980.

Mittelman, Amy H. “The Politics of Alcohol Production: The Liquor Industry and the Federal Government, 1862-1900”, Ph.D. dissertation. Columbia University, 1986.

Smith, Gregg. “The Fredrick Lauer Story”. The Real Beer Page