Transcriber’s Notes:
The original spelling, hyphenation, and punctuation have been retained,
with the exception of apparent typographical errors which have been
corrected.
Text in Italics is indicated between _underscores_.
Text in small capitals has been replaced by regular uppercase text.
AMERICAN BEER
Glimpses of Its History and Description of
Its Manufacture
NEW YORK:
UNITED STATES BREWERS’ ASSOCIATION
1909
PREFACE
This book is composed mainly of selected parts of two separate essays
written by the undersigned and published many years ago on two
different occasions and for two widely dissimilar purposes.
The reproduction of these sketches in the present form appears to be
warranted by a growing demand for information concerning the process
of brewing of which one of the two essays here referred to contains a
popular description, often quoted not only in magazines and newspapers,
but also in encyclopaedias. That booklet, copyrighted by Mr. George
Ehret, is now out of print; but with characteristic kindness Mr. Ehret
has authorized the United States Brewers’ Association to reprint
the whole or any part of it, as present needs may demand. We have,
accordingly, reproduced without abridgment everything relating to the
processes of brewing, malting, refrigeration, etc., and have only
changed or amplified the remainder of the text in such a manner as to
bring it up to date.
As to the historical part, the sketches herein contained are not
intended to go beyond the narrow limit indicated by the sub-title. They
afford only random glimpses of the history of American brewing, but
enough, probably, to create in the mind of the reader a desire to read
those other books published by the Association, in which the subject is
treated fully and comprehensively from various points of view.
G. THOMANN.
NEW YORK, NOVEMBER, 1909.
CHAPTER I.
NEW ENGLAND
The writer of an historical essay dealing with the origin of the art
of brewing, even in countries of comparatively recent civilization,
cannot escape the necessity of taking into account a certain element
of mythical obscurity, calculated to throw a legendary glamour around
and about the introduction of a beverage, the invention of which has
been ascribed by the popular imagination of ancient times to certain
benevolent gods, either male or female, according to the mythological
systems of the different countries.
Even the history of brewing in New England is not entirely free from
this legendary element, although there is, indeed, no dearth of
well-authenticated historical facts from the very moment when the new
communities emerged from the primitive conditions of the earliest
camp-life. There can be no doubt that on the soil of New England beer
was consumed by people of European origin long before the landing
of the Pilgrims. On their adventurous voyage of exploration, which
resulted in the discovery of Vineland, the Vikings, it may safely
be assumed, carried with them a supply of their favorite beverage;
and there is more than an ordinary degree of internal probability
in the assumption that Bartholomew Gosnold, who in 1602 landed at
the point which he named Cape Cod, brought with him from Falmouth an
ample supply of ale, which in those days was deemed an indispensable
commissary article of every ship destined for the New World. The fact
that Gosnold’s party—the first Englishmen who trod upon Massachusetts
soil—looked forward to a permanent settlement, lends additional force
to our view. It may also be safely assumed that malt liquor was brought
by all the exploring expeditions that touched the coast, or attempted
settlements thereon; and this certainly applies to the party of John
Smith, to whom we owe both the name and a printed description of New
England.
[Sidenote: THE MAYFLOWER’S ALE]
Concerning the Pilgrims of the “Mayflower,” history affords ample
evidence that they carried with them a supply of good old English
ale, the brewing of which they had continued in Holland, according
to their own method and formula. At this point, however, legendary
fiction appears to have invaded the sacred domain of Clio. It is
said that this supply of beer was exhausted somewhat earlier than
the organizers of the migration scheme had anticipated, and that,
therefore, a landing was effected at the rather uninviting spot since
then immortalized in song and story as Plymouth Rock. Whether conceived
in a facetious spirit, prompted by a knowledge of the Puritans’
well-known appreciation of liquid cheer, or based, as it is claimed,
upon the semi-historical authority of a private diary, the story is
characteristic enough in all its bearings to be true; and, if it were
so, what a splendid illustration it would be of the old axiom, that
in history very insignificant causes sometimes produce most marvelous
effects!
It is an historical fact that Robinson’s stout-hearted flock of
“Separatists,” while yet at their first place of refuge in Holland,
and considering, with all the seriousness of their character, the
advisability of migrating to the Western World, were long undecided
as to the course they should take; whether to accept the invitation
of the Dutch to settle in New Amsterdam, or to avail themselves of
the inducements held out by the Virginia Company, or finally, to
create an independent community in New England. Even after their
embarkation, it was not positively determined whether Virginia or New
England should be their destination. Now it may easily be conceived
that, in conjunction with the historically demonstrable causes of the
landing at Plymouth, the lack of beer helped to accelerate a final
resolution, and thus prevented a settlement in Virginia—a course which
might have turned the subsequent current of our national development
into a direction totally different from that which led us on to
political, moral and physical greatness. If we duly consider what all
historians are agreed upon, namely, that the people of that part of the
mother-country whence the New England colonists originally emigrated,
still represented, in a remarkable degree of purity, the old Teutonic
stock—German tinged with Northman’s blood—we may be all the more
inclined to accept this beer story seriously; at all events, we shall
understand perfectly what history tells us of the colonial brewer and
his place in the infant society.
[Sidenote: THE FIRST BREWERY]
The first authentic record of the existence of a public brewery dates
back to 1637, so far as Massachusetts Bay, and to 1638, so far as
Rhode Island is concerned; the former brewery was the result of the
personal enterprise of Captain Sedgwick, the latter a communal creation
of Roger Williams’ nascent colony, a combined brew-house and tavern,
placed under the supervision of Sergeant Baulston. These were not
the first brewers, however, for, some time before either of them was
mentioned, the licensed tavern-keepers had obtained permission to brew,
or rather, to speak more correctly, were _directed_ by the governing
authorities to brew beer, of which both the quality and the price
formed the subjects of early legislation and regulation. In addition
to these brewing tapsters, as we might style them, nearly every
well-to-do housewife brewed beer for her own household consumption.
While the domestic manufacture of distilled liquors, carried on in a
most primitive way, was not likely to be neglected by a people whose
drinking habits were quite as conspicuous as their piety, valor,
endurance, prowess and moral rectitude, the early local histories and
laws afford abundant proof that the best minds earnestly endeavored to
stem the growing predilection for ardent spirits by bestowing fostering
care upon brewing and malting.
The first regulative measure of this kind, the very one which unwisely
gave to the afore-mentioned Captain Sedgwick a monopoly of brewing
strong beer, was conceived in this spirit, and a subsequent law (1639)
restoring to all tavern-keepers the right to brew all kinds of malt
liquors, without any restraint whatever, at the same time restricting
the sale of ardent spirits to one person in each town, such persons
to be appointed upon the recommendation of their respective town
authorities, reveals in a palpable manner the objects of the lawmakers.
[Sidenote: SOME ILLUSTRIOUS BREWERS]
The social standing both of the public brewer and the brewing
tavern-keeper must have been a very exalted one; and for this assertion
there is a strong and direct evidence, not only in the fact that only
voters and church members, men distinguished by their godliness and
exemplary deportment, could obtain the right to brew and dispense beer,
but also in the still more significant provision of the earlier laws
making the licensed persons responsible for the moral conduct of their
guests and admonishing them to discountenance upon their premises any
practices “not to be tolerated by such as are bound by solemn covenant
to walk by the rule of God’s word.”
This established the character and standing of the business, which
in many instances derived additional lustre from the character and
standing of the men engaged in it, for it is an indisputable historical
fact that many brewers and taverners not only occupied prominent civil
and military positions, but became influential leaders, distinguished
alike by valor in the field and wisdom in council, and transmitting to
their off-springs (by heredity, perhaps, no less than by the formative
power of example) that spirit of patriotism which gave birth to our
Nation.
In the course of this narrative, this subject will again be adverted
to; but for the present, in order to put our readers in a receptive
mood, the mere mention of a few historical names will doubtless
suffice. Such names, for instance, as that of Samuel Adams, one of
the foremost of our Revolutionary forefathers, the son of a brewer
and himself a brewer, as proud of his calling as doubtless were the
Revolutionary generals Putnam, Weedon and Sumner, who also brewed and
sold beer. General Putnam distinguished himself alike by the ardor of
his patriotism and his undaunted courage and masterly generalship. In
addition to tilling his own lands, he carried on the two-fold business
of brewing and tapping until, obeying his country’s call for brave
hearts and stout hands, he joined the Revolutionary army, in which he
won great honor and lasting fame. After the war he returned to his old
home in Brooklyn, Connecticut, resuming his old business and retaining
control of it to the end of his days.
The average Vermonter of our times, who up to 1904 had lived under
a prohibitory law and become accustomed to look upon brewing and
tapping as callings to be shunned by decent people, may possibly find
it difficult to realize that the first Governor of the Green Mountain
Republic, Thomas Chittenden, the man who fills a larger place in
the history of Vermont, and who has done more for the independence
and civic welfare of his people than any other, was a brewing
tavern-keeper—a man whose unselfishness, patriotism, courage and wisdom
won for him unstinted praise at home and abroad.
A modern historian (Rowland A. Robinson in “American Commonwealths”),
with a keen perception of the fitness of things, concludes his work
with these words: “The history of Vermont is one that her people may
well be proud of. Such shall it continue to be, if her sons depart not
from the wise and fatherly counsel of her first Governor (Chittenden)
to be ‘a faithful, industrious and moral people,’ and in all their
appointments ‘to have regard to none but those who maintain a good
moral character, men of integrity and distinguished for wisdom and
abilities.’”
One cannot mention Chittenden without thinking of his friend, Captain
Stephen Fay, the landlord of the Catamount Tavern, who had five sons
in the Battle of Bennington, and left one of them dead upon the bloody
field. It was in the council chamber of this Catamount Tavern that the
leaders of the Green Mountain Boys, among them Ethan Allen, met after
the Battle of Lexington and determined to “unite with their countrymen”
against the common enemy.
Nearly every liberty-pole in revolutionary and prerevolutionary days
stood before a tavern, the headquarters of the Sons of Liberty; and
not infrequently the tavern-keeper was the leader of the band. In her
“Stage Coach and Tavern Days,” Miss Alice Morse Earle has a chapter on
the “Tavern in War,” which opens with this paragraph:
“The tavern has ever played an important part in social, political and
military life, has helped to make history. From the earliest days when
men gathered to talk over the terrors of Indian warfare; through the
renewal of these fears in the French and Indian Wars, before and after
the glories of Louisbourg and through all the anxious but steadfast
years preceding and during the Revolution, these gatherings were held
in taverns and ordinaries. What a scene took place in the Brookfield
tavern! The only ordinary, that of Goodman Ayers, was a garrison house
as well as a tavern and the sturdy landlord was commander of the train
band.”
Miss Earle cites many such examples and we might readily add a score
of illustrious names borne by tavern-keepers and brewing tapsters who
distinguished themselves in the Revolution and whose deeds form some of
the most brilliant chapters of our history.
If the British considered the taverns as the hot-beds of sedition, as
in fact they did, the Patriots with equal justice regarded them as
the nurseries of liberty; and it is not at all unlikely that in the
tavern of his father-in-law, where he so often made himself useful as
a tapster, Patrick Henry imbibed the ideas which culminated in his
soul-stirring utterance, “Give me liberty or give me death.”
Enough has been said, we trust, to prove the truth of the assertion
that throughout the Colonial period, and up to the time of the
adoption of the Constitution, the trade was practiced by the very best
people—men whose names adorn the pages of our history, and remind us
of the fact that this industry has at all times given to the cause of
freedom and popular rights some of the most eminent champions; such men
as James Artevelde, to whom Hewlett, in his “Heroes of Europe,” accords
a prominent place, or Santerre, whom Dumas regarded as “the gigantic
personification of the popular will,” a man who sacrificed all he
possessed in order to alleviate the sufferings of his people.[1]
[1] For the names of prominent brewers in New York, see Chap. II.
[Sidenote: SPIRIT OF EARLY LEGISLATION]
In all the laws and ordinances relating to brewing, erroneous economic
theories, fiscal considerations and a natural but often misguided
desire to foster home industries, seemed to be in continual conflict
with the avowed intention of encouraging the consumption of malt
liquors, not only for moral and hygienic reasons, but also because
the minds of the Puritans were imbued with the strong conviction that
beer was the salvation of the British nation; a sentiment to which in
the following century, the laurel-crowned poet, Warton, gave eloquent
poetic utterance in his “Ode to Oxford Ale.” This conviction arose
from an appreciation of the physical, moral and intellectual qualities
of a race addicted for many centuries to the use of beer, as compared
with the effects of spirits, just as in our own time the celebrated
Pasteur wrote a book designed to encourage brewing, because, as he
states in the preface, he attributed the superior physical qualities of
his country’s conquerors to the use of malt liquors.
Unfortunately, every effort to accomplish the purpose here referred
to, was frustrated by countervailing circumstances, resulting from
the imperfect state of the art and the lack of proper materials, or
by unwise measures, usually of a fiscal or protective character,
adopted by the authorities under pressure of monetary needs or false
theories. For instance, at one time the importation of malt was
forbidden, in order to stimulate domestic malting; yet, within a short
time thereafter, the malting of domestic wheat, rye and barley was
prohibited on account of the scarcity of these cereals. At another
time, a desire to encourage the exportation of wheat led to the
enactment of a law imposing upon brewers a fine of ten shillings for
every bushel of wheat used in brewing. Ordinances encouraging brewing
by exempting beer from taxation were counteracted in their contemplated
effects by regulations prescribing the quality and fixing the price
of malt liquors without regard to the increased cost of materials and
production. And in later periods the requirements of commercial barter
with the West Indies and the competition with other American colonies
for this trade, dictated measures protecting home distilleries in such
a manner and to such an extent that the drinking habits of the people
could not but be changed for the worse and brewing doomed to decay. The
lawmakers realized that there was great need of discouraging the use of
strong drinks among a people who while “fighting and praying,” consumed
immense quantities of “fiery Holland,” which, as Holmes puts it,
“All drank as t’were their mother’s milk and not a man afraid.”
But the condition of things militated against the realization of
their object, as we have shown, and thus within less than one hundred
and fifty years, with the growing demand for rum as a medium of
barter, brewing gradually declined, and inebriety continued to spread
throughout the colonies with such alarming rapidity that again—too
late, unfortunately—the lawmakers of the different colonies vied with
each other in strenuous but fruitless attempts to revive the industry.
These efforts were continued in the New England States and elsewhere
after the Revolution; and as an illustration of them may be quoted
the Massachusetts Act of 1789, “to encourage the manufacture and
consumption of strong beer,” totally exempting from all taxation the
entire real and personal property of brewers. As one of the reasons
for this measure, the act sets forth the fact, “that the wholesome
qualities of malt liquors greatly recommend them to general use, as
an important means of preserving the health of the citizens of this
commonwealth, and of preventing the pernicious effect of spirituous
liquors.”
That under more favorable circumstances the industry would doubtless
have progressed rapidly we may infer from the uncommon degree of
prosperity which both malting and brewing attained during the brief
intervals of the unhampered operations of fostering legislation. As
early as 1641, John Appleton, a representative to the General Court,
established a very fine malt-house, and engaged extensively in the
cultivation of hops. He and Samuel Livermore began very early to
experiment with maize as a substitute for wheat, oats or barley, and
Winthrop, the younger, of Connecticut, having devoted serious study to
this question, finally read a most interesting paper on the subject
before the Royal Society in London, presenting at the same time samples
of Indian corn beer of a very palatable nature and good quality. The
malt of New England soon acquired a wide-spread reputation for its
excellent quality, and relatively large quantities were exported to the
neighboring colonies, particularly to Pennsylvania. This historical
fact is of more than ordinary interest, for it shows that the use
of maize, a material which, in conjunction with malted barley, the
modern brewer uses for the improvement of the quality of his product,
is a thoroughly American practice, sanctioned by long experience, and
approved by the taste of the consumer. In a primitive way, however,
Indian corn was used for brewing very much earlier, if we may believe
Sir Richard Grenville, who, in his description of Virginia, relates
that he saw maize used in brewing by the English of that colony.
[Sidenote: EFFECTS OF FREE RUM]
Practically, brewing had ceased to exist as an industry before the
New England colonies had reached Statehood; it was revived for a
short space of time when Alexander Hamilton introduced his revenue
system, and many members of Congress, prompted by moral and hygienic
considerations, supported his efforts to encourage the manufacture.
The spirit of the times as to this question is clearly reflected in
the speeches of eminent statesmen and the writings of philosophers,
all of whom agreed, to quote the words of the “Digest of Manufactures”
and of Gallatin, that “the moralizing tendency and salubrious nature
of fermented liquors recommend them to serious consideration.” But
neither such sentiments nor the positive labors of Dr. Benjamin Rush,
who aimed at the popularization of beer through the total exclusion of
ardent spirits, could prevail against the firmly rooted predilection
for spirits, made universal by the general practice of rural distilling
in all grain-producing States as well as in those States in which the
trade with the West Indies made molasses a common article of barter.
In the entire country, excepting New York and Pennsylvania, the total
production of malt liquors in 1809-10 amounted to barely forty-five
thousand barrels, of which about twenty-three thousand barrels (31½
gallons) were brewed in Massachusetts, while New York and Pennsylvania
produced 139,000 barrels.
During the brief era of the first internal revenue system, with its
Whiskey Revolution and other open violations of the law, brewing did
indeed regain some of its lost ground, only to relapse again into its
former somnolent condition, however, as soon as the “free-whiskey”
policy was reintroduced.
When, four decades after Hamilton’s régime, the temperance movement
began to make itself felt in New England, the brewing industry, the
very agency which all our great statesmen had sought to employ against
the whiskey habit, had to atone for the sins of the rural distillers,
to whose unlimited operations is due all the misery and degradation
that lent a justifying aspect to the demands of the reformers. Under
prohibitory rule in Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and other
eastern States, the general use of ardent spirits, manufactured outside
of, but freely sold within the borders of these States, tended to
confirm the rum habit, and this was all the more inevitable, because
for reasons well known to every one familiar with the question, malt
liquors cannot be sold surreptitiously without great expense and
imminent risk of detection.
This explains why before the introduction of the internal revenue
system of 1861, which imparted a powerful impetus to brewing throughout
the country, the industry lagged behind in Massachusetts, Connecticut
and Rhode Island and was never able to gain a permanent foothold in
Maine.
In 1863 the total production of malt liquors in all the New England
States, excepting Massachusetts, amounted to 49,607 barrels, a little
more than double the quantity produced in 1809-10 in Massachusetts
alone. Of these 49,607 barrels Connecticut produced 13,055; Maine,
2,207; New Hampshire, 25,945; Rhode Island, 7,029 and Vermont 1,371
barrels. In the same year (1863) the total production of malt liquors
in Massachusetts amounted to 112,000 barrels.
[Sidenote: THE COUNTER REFORMATION]
At about this time a very strong current of public opinion, set in
motion by official reports as to the manifest healthfulness of malt
liquors as shown by sanitary inspections of the Union camps, began
to weaken the indiscriminate crusades of ultra-reformers against
all kinds of stimulants; and Massachusetts, then burdened by an
absurd prohibitory law, again, as so often before, took the lead in
this counter-reformation. Several years elapsed before the movement
culminated in the now celebrated report of the State Board of Health of
Massachusetts, in which Dr. Bowditch, under the title of “Intemperance
in the Light of Cosmic Laws,” summarized the experiences, convictions
and opinions of eminent scientists, philosophers, public officials
and philanthropists from all parts of the globe, and reached the
conclusion, based on this vast mass of testimony, that “light beer and
ale can be used even freely without any very apparent injury to the
individual or without causing intoxication, and that some writers even
think they do no harm, but real good, if used moderately.”
The direct result of this agitation and of a comprehensive legislative
inquiry into the different phases of this question, under Governor John
A. Andrews in 1867, was the repeal of prohibition in Massachusetts
in 1868. Connecticut, after essentially modifying the prohibitory
law, totally repealed it in 1867, substituting a license law. In New
Hampshire the manufacture and sale of beer, cider and native wine had
not been forbidden by the so-called Prohibition Act of 1855. Rhode
Island also repealed her prohibitory law in 1863. Vermont was the only
New England State, excepting Maine, of course, in which the Maine law
of 1852 remained then in force.
From the almost instantaneous effect of these measures, superadded
to the operation of the Federal tax-law, the brewing industry, and,
it is needless to say, the health and morality of the commonwealth,
derived inestimable advantages. Within three years, _i.e._, at the
end of the fiscal year 1866-67, the annual production of malt liquors
in the New England States had increased from 161,607 to 406,154
barrels. Massachusetts, unfortunately, re-enacted prohibition in 1869,
permitting, however, the manufacture of liquors for exportation. In
the following year this law was so amended as to permit the sale of
malt liquors; and in 1871 cities and towns were authorized to decide
annually by popular vote whether the sale of malt liquors should be
permitted. Repealed in 1873, this act and a number of others were
replaced by a license law, enacted in 1874 and supplemented in 1881 by
local option. Constant changes subsequently tended to deprive the trade
of stability and particularly of that complete security which lies at
the bottom of every industrial success.
Although a prohibitory amendment to the Constitution was defeated in
Massachusetts by a popular majority of forty-six thousand votes, in
1888, thus clearly demonstrating the will of the people, professional
reformers continued their unwise opposition not only in this direction
but also against any discrimination in favor of fermented drinks; and
as a result every year brought forth additional restraints designed
to harass a trade which Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison and many other
eminent Americans, including Dr. B. Rush, the real father of the
temperance movement, regarded as the most efficient temperance
agency—an opinion which the scientific inquiry conducted by Dr.
Bowditch proved to be almost universal. With slight differences as
to time and mode, the trade labored and still labors under similar
disadvantages in the other States. To this incessant legislative
intermeddling, which frequently produced the most incongruous
propositions copied from monarchical institutions or borrowed from
small and insignificant cities totally unlike the great metropolis of
New England in every respect, must be attributed the fact that these
States are not now in the front rank of the brewing centres of this
country. Even so, the progress of brewing there is not inconsiderable.
Without entering into wearisome statistical details it may be stated,
in a general way, that but for adverse legislation of the nature
here referred to—which, by the way, always tends to increase very
considerably the home-consumption and surreptitious sale of ardent
liquors—beer would in all probability be to-day the common drink of
the whole people, and drunkenness, very much diminished since the more
general use of beer, would be as rare to-day as it is in Bavaria.
If we compare the increase of production in the entire country with the
output of Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Rhode Island
during the decade ending in 1895—Maine and Vermont having dropped out
of the list of beer-producing States—we shall find in such comparison
ample reason for regretting that unwise legislation (which Dr. Bowditch
rightly regards as a fruitful source of intemperance) prevented popular
taste and inclination from making malt liquors what they are in many
German states noted for the sobriety of their people. That there is
a strong popular inclination to adopt the lighter beverages is very
evident from the development of brewing in spite of all impediments.
The following figures illustrate the growth of brewing and afford an
intimation of the progress that would have been attained in the absence
of adverse measures:
1885. 1895.
United States 19,216,630 barrels 33,469,661 barrels
Connecticut 128,226 “ 301,872 “
Massachusetts 878,779 “ 1,336,345 “
New Hampshire 322,055 “ 368,628 “
Rhode Island 54,363 “ 188,968 “
During the next twelve years (1896 to 1907) radical changes took place
in two of the New England States. New Hampshire and Vermont adopted
stringent license-systems coupled with local option; but this change
from prohibition to regulation does not appear to have redounded to
the benefit of brewing. Vermont is still without a brewery and the few
brewing establishments which have existed in New Hampshire, even under
the operation of the prohibitory law, retrograded steadily, in point of
annual production.
In both States, it seems, the rural population still adheres to
drinking habits fostered by and under the old régime, and the
population of the industrial centers, where as a rule beer finds its
most favorite markets in other States, is composed to a large extent of
French Canadians who are not commonly beer-drinkers.
In Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island, on the other hand, the
condition of things, considering the instability of holdings under the
fluctuations of the license votes in the first-named State, seems to be
somewhat encouraging.
During the period named, the production of beer in New Hampshire
decreased from 384,333 to 323,363 barrels. As to the New England group
as a whole, compared with the United States, the following figures
require no comment:
Production 1896 Production 1907
United States 35,826,098 barrels 58,546,111 barrels
New England States 2,719,083 “ 3,704,968 “