Since it dovetails so well with my own current research, I have an interest in keeping this string alive. I just wanted to offer a few alternate responses to Richard Hamm's question as to why there was only one Carrie Nation, i.e., so little evidence of "righteous violence" in the prohibition movement. My own research bears out his observation that most of the violence was initiated by drys. While I find quite persuasive the argument that Nation saw violence as a last resort after other means had failed to sustain a lagging movment, I want to lay out a few (rather obvious) reasons why the wets were more prone to violence than the drys. I that that to do so will point to parallels with the abolitionist movement. First, let me second Andersen Thayne's observation that the material interest of the wets might be a factor in explaining the greater incidence of anti-prohibition violence. Even if only a small portion of the population was directly involved in the production and distribution of liquor in an immediate sense, there were others (farmers, shippers, grocers, druggists) whose livlihood depended in part on the liquor trade, and many western and southern boosters who feared the economically depressing effects of prohibition. If the material interest category is expanded to include those who valued alcohol as a commodity, then the list grows considerably longer. I would not assert too strongly the parallel with antebellum slavery, but certainly the degree to which all white southerners had an economic stake in slavery has been a contested issue. There are two other characteristics of prohibitionists that more closely parallel the abolitionists. First, it was primarily an evangelical protestant movement. Certainly, nonviolence has not always been the first principle of evangelical reformers, but it has often surfaced, particularly in the face of frontier or southern violence. In the southern context in particular, while I disagree to some extent with scholars who suggest an opposition of traditional southern and evangelical values (e.g., Rhys Isaac, Bertram Wyatt-Brown, Ted Ownby), it is certainly fair to say that evangelicals were conflicted about the predominance of violence in their culture, and the degree to which their personal sense of worth would allow them to participate in violent acts. Second, as in the case of abolitionism, the object of the prohibitionists criticism was portrayed as inherently violent. We are all familiar with the stock characters of temperance literature and the (literally) senseless brutality of its drunkards. As opponents of a violent institution, prohibitionists would resort to righteous violence only in extreme situations. Sorry to go on so, but as Leo Marx once told me, you only know what you know after you've written it down. Come to think of it, he also reminded me that you don't necessarily have to make other people read it. James