Prohibition of various varieties

From a marijuana enthusiast advocating a boycott of Kellogg’s for not renewing Michael Phelps’s Endorsement deal, words found their way here:
 a quick Wikipedia search shows the founder of Kellogg’s – John Harvey Kellogg – was a total frickin’ weirdo who believe in putting children’s genitals in a cage to keep them from playing with themselves and also believed in yogurt enemas.

Might have mixed up the two Kelloggs, but their brothers — one invented Corn Flakes, the other founded the company that has/had its central product Corn Flakes.  The thing, though, is — I don’t know about the Yogurt Enema — I guess that’s best classified as a scientific experiment that reached a dead end, but I do believe that the antimasturbatory efforts wouldn’t make him a “weirdo”, but put him right in the center of the attempts to keep the nation Morally Clean.  The Weirdo would have been the man who did nothing to stop the child’s vice, or:

In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid [phenol] to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement.

Necessary means to stop any sense of pleasure.

The history of Kelloggs with regard to a form of Health-Concious Prohibitionism gets a bit off track, as when we enter the twentieth century, Kelloggs would start pumping to the youth of America cereals such as Sugar Flakes, Sugar Pops, Sugar Sugar, and from there.

The Kelloggs fit in the historical tradition carried out today by:

this a 2004 Campaign/Lecture flier from Prohibition Party candidate Gene Ambondson.  Unless you agree with the other side of the splinter dispute.  I don’t know… read the wikipedia focus, go to the discussion to see cries that this is “slander”, and decide for yourself.

One Response to “Prohibition of various varieties”

  1. Justin Says:

    In 2003, the Prohibition National Committee experienced a secession as small number of members seceded. They formally incorporated in the State of Colorado in September 2003 [2]. They called their new Party the “National Prohibition Party,” i.e., they added the word “National” to differentiate their new Party from the historic Party.

    This secession by some eight members occurred under Earl Dodge. This occurred after a number of complaints concerning his leadership, his financial relationships with the party and its foundations, his refusal to accept new members due to fear they would vote against him, allegations of inadequate accounting and even of thievery. These have been published on the website of the majority[2][3][4] and elsewhere[5] and not disputed on the Dodge faction’s website.

    Dodge had seen the handwriting on the wall, when he won at the 1999 convention by only one vote, 9-8. In 2002, nine members signed a petition to call a special meeting under the bylaws.

    Dodge saw that he no longer would have a majority vote. The precipitating factor in the secession was Dodge’s excluding the majority from the 2003 Convention. Instead of holding the Convention mandated by Party Bylaws, Dodge instead convened an invitation-only “convention” consisting of eight people including Dodge and two of his daughters. To exclude disfavored members of the majority, Dodge held the pertinent meetings in his living room in Lakewood, CO, on June 12-13 of 2003.[5][6][3][7]. Although there was no quorum as a majority of members were neither invited nor participated, this invitation-only meeting purported to be the “2003 convention” and purported to nominate Dodge for a sixth presidential candidacy. Dodge ordered the attendees to keep the low attendance secret. However, the majority soon learned of his action.

    Don Webb, a member of the National Committee from Alabama, charged that the convention was irregularly called, in violation of the National Committee by-laws, and lacked a quorum.[8] Other party members who had criticized Dodge’s leadership and had sponsored the presidential bid of Gary Van Horn in 1999[9] followed the Party Bylaws and convened the party convention due in 2003, at Fairfield Glade, TN. This was done pursuant to the party by-laws September 5-6 of 2003. Dodge and his secessionists chose not to attend.

    The convention as convened by the majority accepted new members, thus increased the size of the National Committee, elected Webb the national chairman. This convention of the historic Party, did not accept the new competing Dodge Party’s nomination of Dodge for President.[10] Dodge and his running mate Howard Lydick, having seceded with their some six supporters, did not accept the actions of the historic Party’s Fairfield Glade convention. They continued to campaign for President and Vice President. They concealed from the public their having established and incorporated a different Party, their “National Prohibition Party.” Instead, they filed their slate of Presidential Electors in Colorado still using, albeit without permission, the name of the historic Prohibition Party.[11]

    The historic Party decided in early February 2004 to run the national ticket of Gene C. Amondson for President and Leroy J. Pletten for Vice President. They filed as the Prohibition ticket in Louisiana (the first time the party had appeared on the ballot there since 1888). In Colorado, the Concerns of People Party allowed Amondson to run on its line against Dodge, which was considered at the time to be the “Prohibition Party primary” to settle the future of the party.[12]

    Although Amondson won the de facto primary of 2004 by a margin of 1,944 to 140, the secession was not ended. The historic Prohibition Party, pursuant to the Party Bylaws mandating a biennial meeting, held its mid-term party conference in Bedford, PA, on June 15-16 of 2005 and elected Gene Amondson the party chairman, replacing Webb. It then accepted the party affiliates in Florida, Indiana, and Pennsylvania, gaining ballot status in Florida for 2008.[13] It appears that the Dodge group, the new “National Prohibition Party,” did not hold a mid-term conference. They evidently use their own different Bylaws, not the historic Party Bylaws.

    In 2007, the two separate Parties held separate nominating conventions. The Dodge group again kept secret their low attendance, perhaps some three or so. The public was not invited.

    In contrast, the historic Party welcomed the public, and had over ten times the attendance.

    The trustee of the George Pennock Fund initiated legal proceedings to determine which of the two competing parties (the historic 1869 Party, or the new 2003 Party) was the legal recipient of funds left to the party in the 1920s and 1930’s. This litigation occurred when the new Dodge party that Dodge and his few supporters had established, sent letters to the trustee, alleging that the members of the historic Party had created a new and different Party! Dodge and his few supporters accused the historic Party of doing what they had in fact done, created a new Party.

    Due to the brazenness of that Dodge claim, the trustee sought Court involvement. Dodge and his fellow secessionists refused to retract their accusation. This threatened substantial legal costs.

    To avoid such substantial litigation costs due to the expense of defending against Dodge’s false accusation that the 2003 Party was the rightful claimant to funds from the 1920s – 1930’s (notwithstanding the written documentation alluding to the historic 1869 Party), the two separate Parties agreed to divide the money, with the historic Party getting slightly over 50%.

    The death of Dodge in November 2007 left the new Party without a presidential nominee. Some party leaders attempted to end the secession, but were rebuffed. Amondson continues to be the chairman of the historic Prohibition Party.[14]. In the spring of 2008, the new Party, Dodge’s small group — without a known meeting or vote and again excluding disfavored individuals — purported to have nominated Amondson for President, but they retained Lydick as their VP nominee.[15].


    And I disagree with you. A comment my father made in 2000 CANNOT reasonably be assumed to apply to content created in 2003, and I think it’s ludicrous for you to suggest otherwise. Meanwhile, I maintain that your stated opposition to all temperance organizations shows a conflict of interest on your part, though admittedly perhaps not as severe as mine. Frankly, I don’t operate on the assumption of your good faith. I see I’m not the only one who questions your good faith, as evidenced by this
    Caldodge (talk) 05:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

    This party still exists? I remember reading something about this in AP US, but uh… didn’t its purpose kinda die when prohibition ended? No one is going to read this page to get “up-to-date” info about a single issue party that most people haven’t heard of, so quit whining about who misquoted who’s daddy. Chill out, have a drink.

    ( (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC))

    Happy Repeal Day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

    The Party’s purpose didn’t die when Prohibition ended, since its purpose was to enact national Prohibition. But the members (and voters who remembered the era favorably) did die out. I believe TIME (not my late father) is “the architect of oblivion” for the party, and it will do no better in the post-Dodge era then it did during it. Caldodge (talk) 03:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

    I don’t know anything about this party, but obviously exclamation points aren’t are good sign. The section on the split isn’t NPOV, but I can’t verify the factual nature–Jeff (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

    The “split” section appears to have been written by someone from the other faction. It contains phrases which aren’t in any cited text, and which claim to know Dad’s state of mind (“saw the writing on the wall”). It’s interesting that the “split” section is much larger than the general history, and is obviously written completely from the other faction’s POV.

    My own opionion? The Party was a small pond, and some people wanted to be the big frogs in that pond. I attended party conventions from 1971 to 1991, and I witnessed attempts by others to take over the party for their benefit. The people who succeeded at this get their jollies by slandering Dad, and blaming him for the party’s decline.

    The only dog I have in this fight is Dad’s reputation, since I left the party in 1994 due to disagreements with the platform. I know from personal experience how dedicated Dad was to the party and the Prohibition cause (sacrificing his financial security to save the party in 1960, paying his own way to Philadelphia during the court battle over the Pennock trust fund). He believed wholeheartedly in the cause (unlike the other faction’s current leadership, who have weakened the party’s anti-alcohol position).

    Caldodge (talk) 12:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

    FWIW, I believe User:Smokedoctor is a pseudonym for Leroy Pletten, the Johnny-come-lately leader of the anti-Dodge faction. It seems probable to me that some of the other pseudonyms here are also his, not to mention the additions of David J Hanson, an anti-Prohibitionist who revels in anything which hurts the temperance cause. Kindly keep that in mind when judging the neutrality of the article.

    Caldodge (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Leave a Reply