Aa history Lovers 2009 moderators Nancy Olson and Glenn F. Chesnut page

Part 3 of 3: Milton A. Maxwell,

"The Washingtonian Movement"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A number of factors led some of the churches to close their doors to the

Washingtonians. Class snobbishness was one of these - a fact which

particularly

riled the lower class Washingtonians in those communities. Dacus (21) points

out

that the vanity of some of the ministers may have led them to disdain the

movement, since they were neither its originators nor its leaders. Dacus

certainly is right that many of the ministers of that day held narrow views

that

made them unsympathetic to Washingtonian principles. The most striking

example

of this is the argument of the Rev. Hiram Mattison, Minister of the

Methodist

Episcopal Church of Watertown, N.Y. as stated in a tract published in 1844:

FIRST - No Christian is at liberty to select or adopt any general system,

organization, agencies or means, for the moral reformation of mankind,

except

those prescribed and recognized by Jesus Christ. But,

SECONDLY - Christ has designated his Church as his chosen organization; his

Ministers as his chosen ambassadors or public teachers; and his Gospel as

the

system of truth and motives by which to reform mankind, Nor has he

prescribed

any other means. Therefore,

THIRDLY - All voluntary organizations and societies, for the suppression of

particular vices, and the promotion of particular virtues, being invented by

a

man without a divine model or command, and proceeding upon principles and

employing agencies, means and motives nor recognized in the Gospel, are

incompatible with the plan ordained of Heaven, and consequently superfluous,

inexpedient and dangerous (14).

Mr. Mattison's views, however, were not shared by many of the clergymen; nor

were the majority of the churches at odds with the Washingtonians. Almost

all

"General Conventions of the Protestant Churches endorsed and encouraged the

movement (14)."

The writer agrees with Eddy (14) that, except for the attitudes of a few

extremists, "Washingtonianism was not an irreligious movement." The reasons

for

its decline must lie elsewhere.

The lack of adequate organization is another frequently cited cause of the

decline of the movement. As Krout points out, there was no connection

between

the various groups that carried on the work. "Each group was allowed to

follow

its own course....As a result, systematic organization was impossible;

uniformity in methods was never attained; and chance largely determined the

formulation of principles (1)."

The lack of organization was first felt, however, with regard to the needs

of

the newly reformed men for more social and economic support. This need was

adequately met by the original Baltimore society. Certainly the Boston

society

was well organized to help the impoverished, to get them back on their feet,

and

to give them adequate social support, and this seems also to have been the

case

in Philadelphia and other places. But in some communities, notably in New

York

City, "It was felt that these men who had been so under the power of the

drinking habit needed more care and fraternal fellowship than could be given

by

so formal a society as the Washingtonians (10)." This led to the founding,

on a

plan similar to that of the Rechabites in Great Britain, of the "Order of

the

Sons of Temperance." Actually this order was founded by a group of

Washingtonians in New York City during the fall of 1842.

They had noticed that although the Washingtonian movement was making rapid

advance in new fields, there were already many falling away from the pledge,

and

they desired if possible, to hit upon some new plan of operations, some more

perfect organization, one that should shield the members from temptation,

and

more effectually elevate and guide them....(17).

It soon manifested an esprit du corps, which gathered into it a large

portion of

their reformed; inasmuch as, on paying a small weekly or quarterly due, they

were sure of a useful remittance in case of sickness [$4.00 a week] or death

[$30.00]. An impressive indication gave the order impressiveness,

brotherhood,

and attachment; and a regalia, a distinction from other temperance men. Soon

divisions and grand divisions were found springing up in every quarter. Old

temperance societies lost such of their members as were reformed men; and

where

there was a revival of temperance [where Washingtonianism took hold], young

reformed converts were allured hither, often in large proportions....(13).

The order of Sons of Temperance grew rapidly. By 1850 it had 35 Grand

Divisions,

5,563 Subordinate Divisions (local societies), and 232,233 members.

Eventually

it became international, with a peak membership of 700,000. A later scribe

of

the order said that it had been brought into existence "to preserve the

fruits

of the Washingtonian movement." But one of its functional results was the

displacement of the Washingtonian societies.

This displacement of loyalties and membership was furthered by other orders.

In

1845 the "Temple of Honor" was founded as a higher degree in the Order of

the

Sons of Temperance. Separating from its parent body in 1846, it soon spread

over

the United States and Canada, numbering "in its ranks thousands upon

thousands

of the best and most influential citizens...(8)." "The cadets of Temperance"

was

another order which sprang from the Sons of Temperance. Designed for youth,

it

also became independent. There was an order for children, the "Bands of

Hope."

In 1852 the largest fraternal temperance order of all, the "Independent

Order of

Good Templars," was founded, with a prominent Washingtonian, Nathaniel

Curtis,

as its first President. These orders, taking over most of the functions of

the

Washingtonian movement and incorporating much of the membership under

another

name, may be considered, from the sociological point of view, an

institutional

consolidation of Washingtonianism. But they also account, to a considerable

extent, for the disappearance of the Washingtonian societies.

The chief causes of the decline of the Washingtonian movement are to be

found,

however, in its relation to the general temperance movement. Its membership,

its

purposes, and its ideology were inextricably mixed with the membership,

purposes

and ideology of the temperance movement.

Even the Baltimore society did not confine its membership to the reclaimed

victims of alcoholism - nor did it lack an interest in the temperance

movement.

And, outside of Baltimore, these early "Washingtonian missionaries" were

invariably sponsored by temperance organizations. When the power of the

Washingtonian approach to reclaimed drunkards was demonstrated - and when it

was

shown that the reclaimed drunkards' experiences had the power to arouse

great

interest in the cause of total abstinence, the temperance leaders threw

themselves behind the movement. Here was the answer to their prayers -

something

that would revitalize the temperance movement.

The American Temperance Union and its executive secretary, John Marsh, in

introducing and promoting the Washingtonians, may indeed be given "much

credit

for the success of the Washingtonians (12)." But in the last analysis, Marsh

and

others looked upon Washingtonianism as a method, and Washingtonians as the

means, for "sparking" the temperance cause. That was their chief function.

And

it appears that this eventually became the chief interest of Washingtonian

leaders themselves. Hawkins kept up the original Washingtonian emphasis of

work

with alcoholics for a long time, but during the last dozen years of his life

(1846-58) most of his interest was centred in the larger temperance cause.

John

B. Gough made a similar shift in emphasis.

Accordingly, then, when public interest in the distinctive Washingtonian

technique of experience-relating began to wane, the interest of Marsh and

other

temperance leaders in Washingtonianism also declined. Lyman Beecher put it

bluntly: "...their thunder is worn out. The novelty of the commonplace

narrative

is used up, and we cannot raise an interest..."(13). Marsh himself, from the

perspective of later years, spoke of the Washingtonian period as a phase of

the

temperance movement, giving way to other methods.

Since Washingtonianism was identified with the relating of experiences by

reformed men, the displacement of this method was, to that extent, a

displacement of Washingtonianism itself.

Another fact which made temperance leaders lose interest in the

Washingtonian

movement was its identification with the "moral suasion" point of view.

The temperance movement, up to the emergence of Washingtonianism, was not

characterized by advocacy of legal action to attain its ends. Some of the

leaders, however, had begun to voice the desirability of such action; the

issue

was in the air. The success of the Washingtonian method of love and kindness

in

dealing with alcoholics convinced many Washingtonians and others that this

was

also the method to use with the makers and sellers of liquor. William K.

Mitchell, leader of the Baltimore group but also influential throughout the

country, was particularly insistent that Washingtonians ...should have

nothing

to say against the traffic or the men engaged in it. He would have no pledge

even, against engaging in the manufacture or traffic in liquors; nor did he

counsel reformed men to avoid liquor-sellers' society or places of business.

He

would even admit men to membership in his societies who were engaged in the

traffic (14).

Many of the Baltimore missionaries must have felt the same way and must have

advocated this idea wherever they went. Just as Washingtonian experience

"proved" the soundness of total abstinence, so Washingtonian experience

"proved"

the validity of moral suasion. It was as simple as that, in the minds of

many,

and was so expressed in a resolution presented at the Massachusetts State

Washingtonian Convention on May 26, 1842:

RESOLVED, That the unparalleled success of the Washingtonian movement in

reforming the drunkard, and inducing the retailer to cease his unholy

traffic,

affords conclusive evidence that moral suasion is the only true and proper

basis

of action in the temperance cause....(9).

Even at that date, Hawkins and a few others objected and had the resolution

modified on the grounds that moral suasion was an inadequate technique for

the

dealing with "unprincipled dealers," and that the aid of the law was

necessary.

Hawkins' view, however, was not shared by most Washingtonians. Marsh once

referred to Hawkins thus: "Though a Washingtonian, he was a strong

prohibitionist (13)." John B. Gough, because of his later advocacy of

prohibitory legislation, was accused of not being a Washingtonian.

When the general temperance sentiment began to favour legal action,

Washingtonian policy was dated and opposed. For a time, many temperance

leaders

hardly knew whether to regard the Washingtonians as friends or enemies.

Senator

Henry William Blair of New Hampshire, in 1888, referred back to this

emphasis of

the Washingtonians on moral suasion as "a trace of maudlin insanity," -

because

of which the temperance movement was left in a state worse than before, and

as a

consequence of which "we have ever since been combating the absurd theory,

which

is the favourite fortress of the liquor dealers, that evil is increased

because

it is prohibited by law (22)."

When the relating of experiences began to pall, and when moral suasion was

no

longer desired, there was nothing left to Washingtonia nism, ideologically,

except the reclaiming of drunkards. This, however, became an increasingly

secondary interest of those whose primary interest was the furtherance of

the

temperance cause - and, without the telling of experiences, without the work

of

alcoholics with alcoholics, and without certain other emotional by-products

of

Washingtonian groups and activities, this became an increasingly difficult

thing

to do. And, as fewer and fewer men were reclaimed, the last distinctive

feature

of the Washingtonian movement dropped out of sight.

A review of various accounts of the Washingtonian movement makes it clear

that

the movement turned into something which it did not start out to be - a

revival

phase of the organized temperance movement. There are frequent references to

the

movement as "a pledging revival," "a revival campaign," "a temperance

revival."

The net result was a tremendous strengthening of total abstinence sentiment

and

the actual enlistment of new millions in the temperance cause. But the

original

purpose of rehabilitating alcoholics was lost to sight. Nor would it be

proper

to blame the temperance movement for exploiting the Washingtonians. As E.M.

Jellinek5 has pointed out, the Washingtonian movement was not equipped with

an

ideology distinctive enough to prevent its dissolution.5 Personal

communication.

With this background, it becomes possible to make a comparison between the

Washingtonian movement and Alcoholics Anonymous.

COMPARISON WITH ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS

It is apparent that the Washingtonian societies, when they were most

effective

in the rehabilitation of alcoholics, had a great many similarities to

Alcoholics

Anonymous. These similarities might be listed as follows:

1. Alcoholics helping each other.

2. The needs and interests of alcoholics kept central, despite mixed

membership,

by predominance of numbers, control,or the enthusiasm of the movement.

3. Weekly meetings.

4. The sharing of experiences.

5. The fellowship of the group or its members constantly available.

6. A reliance upon the power of God.

7. Total abstinence from alcohol.

Most Washingtonian groups probably failed to meet this ideal program, or to

maintain it for long. Even in itemizing the ideal program, some of the

differences between the Washingtonian groups and Alcoholics Anonymous stand

out.

The admission of nonalcoholics as members and the incorporation of the

"temperance" purpose - the inducement of total abstinence in nonalcoholics -

are

the most striking differences. Furthermore, at their best, the Washingtonian

groups possessed no understanding of alcoholism other than the possibility

of

recovery through love and sympathy. Their approach to the problem of

alcoholism

and alcohol was moralistic rather than psychological or therapeutic. They

possessed no program for personality change. The group had no resource of

ideas

to help them rise above the ideational content locally possessed. Except for

their program of mutual aid they had no pattern of organization or activity

different from existing patterns. There was far too great a reliance upon

the

pledge, and not enough appreciation of other elements in their program. Work

with other alcoholics was not required, nor was the therapeutic value of

this

work explicitly recognized. There was no anonymity to keep the public from

becoming aware of broken pledges, or to keep individuals from exploiting the

movement for prestige and fame. Finally, there was not enough understanding

of

their own therapeutic program to formulate it and thus help the new groups

to

establish themselves on a sound and somewhat uniform basis.

The differences can be brought out more clearly by a more detailed,

comparative

analysis of the Alcoholics Anonymous program - its principles, practices and

content.

1. Exclusively alcoholic membership.- There are many therapeutic values in

the

cohesiveness and solidarity which a group with a common problem can achieve.

But

in the light of the Washingtonian experience, the greatest long-run value of

an

exclusively alcoholic membership is that it permits and reinforces exclusive

attention to the rehabilitation of alcoholics.

2. Singleness of purpose.- As stated in the masthead of an organizational

publication (23), Alcoholics Anonymous "is not allied with any sect,

denomination, politics, organization or institution; does not wish to engage

in

any controversy, neither endorses nor opposes any causes. Our primary

purpose is

to stay sober and help other alcoholics to achieve sobriety."

Nothing can divide groups more quickly - and certainly destroy the

therapeutic

atmosphere effectively - than religious and political controversy. Strong

efforts were made in the Washingtonian movement to minimize sectarian,

theological and political differences, but the movement did not avoid

attracting

to itself the hostile emotions generated by these conflicts. Even if it had

been

more successful in this regard, it was still caught in all the controversy

to

which the temperance cause had become liable. Not only that, but within the

temperance movement itself it eventually became stranded on the issue of

moral

suasion versus legal action.

In the light of this experience, the position of Alcoholics Anonymous stands

in

decided and hopeful contrast. In refusing to endorse or oppose causes, and

particularly the temperance cause, A.A. is avoiding the greatest handicap

which

the Washingtonian movement had. Some temperance leaders may deplore that

A.A.

does not give them support, but they have no grounds for complaining that

they

are being opposed or hampered by A.A.

The A.A. program also contains a happy formula for avoiding the religious or

theological controversies which could easily develop even within the groups

as

presently constituted. This is the use of the term "Power" (greater or

higher),

and particularly the phrase "as we understood Him," in referring to this

Power,

or God. The tolerance which this phrase has supported is an invaluable

asset.

A further value of this single-minded concentration on the rehabilitation of

alcoholics is made obvious by the Washingtonian experience. Whenever, and as

long as, the Washingtonians were working hard at the reclamation of

drunkards,

they had notable success and the movement thrived and grew. This would

support

the idea that active outreach to other alcoholics is a factor in therapeutic

success and, at the same time, a necessary condition for growth - and even

for

survival. Entirely aside from the matter of controversy, then, this

singleness

of A.A. purpose is a condition of continued therapeutic success and

survival.

3. An adequate, clear-cut program of recovery.- Another great asset of

Alcoholics Anonymous is the ideology which forms the content and context of

its

program of recovery, and which has received clear and attractive expression

in

the book Alcoholics Anonymous (24) and in other A.A. literature.This

ideology

incorporates the much sounder understanding of alcoholism which has been

developed in recent years. It is a pragmatic blend of that which scientific

research, dynamic psychology and mature religion have to offer; and through

the

literature of the movement, the members are kept sympathetically oriented to

the

developments in these fields.

Accordingly, instead of viewing alcoholism with a moralistic eye on alcohol

- as

an evil which ought to be abandoned - A.A. sees alcoholism as an illness,

symptomatic of a personality disorder. Its program is designed to get at the

basic problem, that is, to bring about a change in personality.

This program is simply and clearly stated in the Twelve Steps - augmented by

the

"24 hour program" of abstaining from alcohol, and the supporting slogans and

emphases such as "First things first," "Live and let live," "Easy does it,"

"Keep an open mind," honesty, humility, and so forth. Great stress is also

put

upon regular attendance at the group meetings, which are characterized by

the

informal exchange of experiences and ideas and by a genuinely satisfying

fellowship.

Compared to the Washingtonian brand, the A.A. sharing of experiences is

notably

enriched by the psychological insights which have been brought into the

group by

A.A. literature and outside speakers. A thorough analysis and catharsis is

specifically asked for in the Twelve Steps - as well as an improvement in

relations to other persons. Work with other alcoholics is required, and the

therapeutic value accruing to the sponsor of new members is distinctly

recognized. The spiritual part of the program is more clearly and

inclusively

defined, more soundly based, and more frankly made an indispensable

condition of

recovery.

It appears, furthermore, that the A.A. group activity is more satisfactory

to

the alcoholic than was the case in many Washingtonian societies. A.A.

members

seem to find all the satisfaction and values in their groups that the

founders

of the various orders thought were lacking in the Washingtonian groups.

A decided Washingtonian weakness was its general lack of follow-through. In

contrast, A.A. is particularly strong on this point, providing a potent

follow-through in a group setting where self-analysis and catharsis are

stimulated; where new attitudes toward alcohol, self and others are learned;