100 years ago: U.S. general elections

1. At a Glance

• This is an archival dispatch from New York dated November 2, 1926, reprinted in The Hindu's "100 years ago" column. It covers the 1926 U.S. elections, held midway through the term of the Coolidge Administration [1].
• The article names three main issues: (i) whether the next Congress would be Republican or Democratic; (ii) whether Governor (Al) Smith would be re-elected in New York State; (iii) whether "dry" (pro-Prohibition) sentiment would reassert itself through referenda initiated by eight states [1].
• UPSC relevance: GS-I World History (the inter-war USA and the Prohibition era) and GS-II comparative constitutions: the U.S. separation of powers, mid-term elections and direct democracy (referendum) set against India's parliamentary model.

2. Why in the News

• The Hindu reprinted the item on page 13 of its Chennai print edition dated November 4, 2026, in its centenary archive column. No issue was dated November 4, 1926, so the text was taken from the issue dated November 3, 1926 [1].
• The reprint lines up with the 2026 U.S. mid-term election cycle, which repeats the 1926 question of whether Congress will be controlled by the party opposed to the sitting President. (Context only. The searches for this note returned no whitelisted source on the 2026 elections, so verify before use.)

3. Background & Evolution

• 1924: Governor Smith made a bid for the presidential nomination at the 1924 Democratic Convention [1].
• 1926 (Nov 2): Mid-term polls under President Coolidge (Republican). The Democrats needed only 9 more Senate seats and 36 more House seats to win control of Congress [1].
• 1926: Referenda in eight states tested public opinion on Prohibition ("dry" vs "wet") [1].
• 1928 (looking ahead): The 1926 result was expected to have "considerable bearing" on Smith's chances of the Democratic nomination in 1928 [1].
• General-knowledge context (not retrieved from a whitelisted source, so verify): Prohibition was imposed by the 18th Amendment (ratified 1919) and repealed by the 21st Amendment (1933). Smith won the 1928 Democratic nomination and lost to Herbert Hoover.

4. Core Static Facts

Item	Fact	Cite
Dateline	New York, November 2, 1926	[1]
Incumbent administration	Coolidge Administration	[1]
Democrats' Senate gap	9 seats	[1]
Democrats' House gap	36 seats	[1]
State-level contest flagged	Governor Smith seeking re-election in New York	[1]
Prohibition referenda	Initiated by eight states	[1]
Smith's earlier national bid	1924 Democratic Convention	[1]
Next nomination at stake	1928	[1]
Political trend noted	New York politicians eager to proclaim themselves "wet" (anti-Prohibition)	[1]
Reprint	The Hindu, Chennai, Nov 4, 2026, p. 13	[1]

Key terms:

• Dry: supports Prohibition (a legal ban on alcohol) [1].
• Wet: opposes Prohibition [1].
• Mid-term election: a congressional election held between presidential elections. The 1926 poll was framed as a contest to "snap their fingers at the Coolidge Administration" [1].
• Referendum: a direct popular vote on a policy question, here started at the state level [1].

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Historical

• The 1926 contest fell in the inter-war "Coolidge era". Prohibition was its most divisive domestic issue, as shown by referenda in eight states [1].
• Al Smith's career shows how a state governorship served as a launch pad for national office: his 1924 bid, his 1926 re-election contest and his 1928 prospects [1].

Legal / Constitutional (comparative)

• A U.S. President can face a Congress controlled by the opposing party after mid-terms. Here a 9-Senate-seat and 36-House-seat swing would have done it [1]. In India, the executive must keep the confidence of the Lok Sabha (Art. 75(3)), so a "divided government" of that kind cannot exist.
• State-initiated referenda are a form of direct democracy [1]. India's Constitution has no provision for a national referendum.

Social / Ethical

• The prohibition debate is a clash between moral regulation and personal liberty. The article's remark that New York politicians were eager to be seen as "wet" suggests urban electorates were turning against Prohibition [1].
• Indian parallel: Article 47 (a Directive Principle) asks the State to work towards prohibiting intoxicating drinks. State-level prohibition (e.g., Gujarat, Bihar) raises similar questions of enforcement and illicit liquor.

Governance / Federalism

• Prohibition was tested state by state through referenda [1]. This reflects U.S. federalism, in which states test public sentiment on national questions.
• Indian parallel: alcohol is a State List subject (Entry 8, List II, Seventh Schedule).

6. Recent Developments (last 12-18 months)

• Nov 4, 2026: The Hindu reprinted this 1926 dispatch in its archive column [1].
• No whitelisted source on 2026 U.S. politics could be retrieved for this note. Track the 2026 U.S. mid-term results (control of the House and Senate) in reputable sources before using them in answers.

7. Prelims Hooks

• The 1926 U.S. elections took place during the Coolidge Administration [1].
• In 1926 the Democrats needed 9 Senate seats to gain control of the Senate [1].
• In 1926 the Democrats needed 36 House seats to gain control of the House of Representatives [1].
• Eight states held Prohibition-related referenda in 1926 [1].
• "Dry" meant pro-Prohibition and "wet" meant anti-Prohibition [1].
• Governor Al Smith of New York sought re-election in 1926 [1].
• Smith had sought the presidential nomination at the 1924 Democratic Convention [1].
• The 1926 result was seen as shaping Smith's chances for the 1928 Democratic nomination [1].
• The dispatch is datelined New York, November 2, 1926 [1].
• Indian link: Article 47 (DPSP) asks for prohibition of intoxicating drinks. Alcohol is a State List subject.
• Verify before use: Prohibition was brought in by the 18th Amendment and repealed by the 21st Amendment (1933).

8. Why the 'Wet' Mood of 1926 Was a Warning Sign for Prohibition

• The ban created a new kind of criminal
• Liquor did not disappear. It went underground. Bootlegging (illegally making, selling or moving liquor) became a big business [2].
• Al Capone's career is the best-known example of bootlegging run on a large scale [2].

• By the late 1920s, bootlegging was close to being controlled by a few gangs [2].

• The crime turned the ban's own supporters against it

• Prohibition was meant to make society more moral. Instead, people saw it producing more crime.
• Because of this, many who had backed the ban slowly lost faith in it [2].

• The New York politicians who rushed to call themselves 'wet' in 1926 were reading this change early [1].

• The government needed money, and liquor tax was money

• After the 1929 stock market crash, the federal government badly needed tax revenue. That need sped up the end of Prohibition [3].

• A moral law could not survive once it was costing the state money it could not do without.

• The crime gangs outlived the ban

• After repeal, the gang leaders moved into other illegal activities and became even more organised [4].

• Lesson: a badly enforced ban can create criminal networks that last longer than the law itself.

• How it ended

• In 1932 the Democratic Party promised repeal. After the Democrats won that year, repeal was achieved on December 5, 1933, when Utah became the 36th state to ratify it [2].
• Some states kept their own bans, but by 1966 every state had given them up [2].

9. What Al Smith's Defeat Shows About Religion and Region in Voting

• The article treats 1926 as a test run for 1928. The test result was misleading
• Smith did win the 1928 Democratic nomination. But he lost badly to Herbert Hoover: 87 electoral votes against Hoover's 444, and 40.8% of the popular vote against 58.2% [5].

• A win in his home state of New York did not show how the rest of the country would vote.

• Being 'wet' helped in the city and hurt in the countryside

• Smith was Catholic and openly anti-Prohibition. Both cost him support, especially in the South [5].
• His Catholic faith, his New York way of speaking and his links to Tammany Hall (New York's Democratic party machine) cost him a great deal of support among rural voters [5].

• The party picked Joseph T. Robinson, a senator from Arkansas, as his running mate partly to calm Southern voters [5].

• Smith was the first Roman Catholic to run for President [5]. His campaign showed how identity can decide an election as much as policy does.

• Do not blame identity alone (the other side of the story)
• Britannica's account of Hoover says the result mainly reflected how closely voters linked the Republican Party with the prosperity of the 1920s [6].

• A good answer gives both reasons: a booming economy favoured the ruling party, and Smith's religion and 'wet' stance hurt him in rural areas.

• Hoover avoided a clear position. He called Prohibition an 'experiment noble in motive', which was neither a defence of the ban nor a call to end it [5]. A candidate in a divided electorate gains by not picking a side on the most divisive issue.

10. What India's Dry States Pay That the U.S. Also Paid

• A ban wipes out a large source of state income
• After GST, a state's own excise duty is one of its largest sources of tax. This is because alcohol and petrol are kept outside GST (Goods and Services Tax) [7].

• Excise duty makes up about 12% of states' own tax revenue [7].

• Bihar shows the cost in numbers

• Bihar banned alcohol from April 1, 2016 [7].
• In 2015-16, excise gave Bihar 12.3% of its own tax revenue, about Rs 3,142 crore. In the following years this fell to almost zero [7].

• Gujarat collects close to zero excise for the same reason, and PRS links the lower revenue of both states to this [8].

• Other states thinking about bans face the same loss

• PRS warns that states considering prohibition may lose excise revenue [7].

• This is the same pressure that helped end U.S. Prohibition during the Depression [3]. A state short of money finds the ban harder to defend.

• The illegal market is the shared risk

• In the U.S., the ban moved liquor into the hands of gangs [2].
• When legal liquor stops, the demand does not stop with it. In India the danger is illicit liquor, and the note already flags it (Section 5).

11. The Case for Prohibition, and How Far It Holds

• The strongest argument for a ban
• Article 47 (a Directive Principle, a goal the Constitution sets for the State) asks the State to work towards prohibiting intoxicating drinks. The demand comes from the Constitution itself, not just from moral groups.

• Supporters say a state should not depend on income from a product that harms its own people.

• What is right about it

• Even the U.S. Prohibition was called 'noble in motive' by a President who did not defend it strongly [5].

• After 1933, some U.S. states chose to keep their own bans [2]. Communities that want a ban can choose one democratically. That is also how India's State List works: each state decides for itself.

• Where it breaks down

• A ban works only if it can be enforced. The U.S. could not stop bootlegging, and enforcement failed so badly that the ban's own supporters turned against it [2].
• The cost is real and can be measured. Bihar lost about Rs 3,142 crore a year in excise [7].

• Every U.S. state had given up its ban by 1966 [2]. That tells you how the experiment ended.

• A fair conclusion for an answer

• Article 47 sets a goal. It does not set a method.
• Cutting harmful drinking through regulation, health campaigns and de-addiction support can serve that goal without creating the illegal market a total ban creates.

12. Anchors for Answers

• Data: Bihar's excise was 12.3% of its own tax revenue (about Rs 3,142 crore) in 2015-16 and fell to nearly zero after the 2016 ban [7]
• Data: Hoover beat the 'wet' Al Smith by 444 to 87 electoral votes in 1928 [5]
• Report/Committee: PRS Legislative Research, State of State Finances (2022-23; October 2025): prohibition states collect near-zero excise [7][8]
• Law/Case: 18th Amendment (1919) imposed U.S. Prohibition. It was repealed on December 5, 1933 [2]. India: Article 47 (DPSP); Entry 8, List II
• Comparison: USA 1920–33: the national ban led to bootlegging and organised crime (Al Capone). The need for tax revenue during the Depression sped up repeal. Every state had dropped its own ban by 1966 [2][3]

13. Mains Relevance

• GS-I: World History, covering events from the 18th century onward, including the inter-war period and the social history of the USA.
• GS-II: Comparison of the Indian constitutional scheme with other countries; separation of powers; electoral systems.
• GS-IV: Moral legislation versus individual liberty (the ethics of prohibition).

Possible question stems:

1. Mid-term elections in a presidential system can produce a 'divided government'. Contrast this with the principle of collective responsibility in India's parliamentary system. (GS-II)
2. The American experiment with Prohibition offers lessons for State-level prohibition policies in India. Discuss with reference to Article 47. (GS-II/IV)
3. Should India adopt referendums as a tool of direct democracy? Examine with comparative examples. (GS-II)

14. Related Topics to Study Next

• U.S. constitutional structure (Congress, President, Senate): the basis for comparative GS-II questions.
• Article 47 and the prohibition debate in Indian states: the direct Indian counterpart to the "dry vs wet" question.
• Parliamentary vs presidential systems (Art. 74, 75): divided government versus confidence of the House.
• Direct democracy tools (referendum, initiative, recall): the 1926 state referenda are an example.
• The inter-war USA (the Roaring Twenties leading to the Great Depression of 1929): the world-history setting.
• Simultaneous elections / One Nation One Election: contrasts India's electoral cycles with fixed U.S. mid-terms.
• The Seventh Schedule (Entry 8, State List: intoxicating liquors): federal allocation of the subject.

15. NCERT Concepts to Revise

• Presidential system (Polity): The US system with a fixed-term president and separately elected Congress is what makes mid-term 'divided government' possible.
• Prohibition of intoxicating drinks (Polity): Article 47's call for prohibition is the Indian counterpart to the dry-versus-wet fight in the article.
• Referendum (Polity): Eight US states used referenda on Prohibition; India has no such provision for amendments.
• Collective responsibility (Polity): Contrasts with US divided government: India's ministers must keep the Lok Sabha's confidence or resign together.
• Parliamentary system (Polity): Helps compare India's executive answerable to the legislature with the US mid-term model.
• State List (Polity): Liquor is a State List subject, explaining why Indian states, not the Centre, enforce prohibition.

16. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• Mixing up "dry" and "wet": dry means for Prohibition; wet means against it [1].
• Calling 1926 a presidential election: it was a mid-term held under the sitting Coolidge Administration. The presidential contests were 1924 and 1928 [1].
• Misreading the numbers: 9 refers to Senate seats and 36 to House seats, and both are the additional seats the Democrats needed, not their totals [1].
• Getting the reprint date wrong: the column is dated Nov 4, 2026, but the source issue is Nov 3, 1926, because there was no Nov 4, 1926 issue [1].
• Assuming India's Constitution provides for referendums: it does not, unlike the U.S. state-level referenda [1].