������Ƶ

Lager, Lymph, Germans and Templars in Manchester — Part 2 of 6

by Ray Berg and Alan Dyer

The Templars Arise

The opening of breweries, distilleries and saloons in Manchester led to the growth of both the “temperance” movement, which sought to educate the public and reduce alcoholic beverage usage and its subsequent abuses, and the “prohibition” movement, which sought the outright banning of alcohol as a beverage. When Barnabas Case opened his 1838 distillery, the temperance movement was already active in Manchester, and he received complaints about the distillery presence in the community. His response was “I am doing more for the cause of temperance than he who advocates total abstinence.  I sell the pure article; it will hurt no one.  Manufactured as it is on the banks of the pure water of the Raisin, it is as pure as the water you drink.  No one need fear being injured by it.” We will return to this argument of the “purity” of alcoholic drinks later.

There is little to be learned of the temperance movement in Manchester after 1838 until the founding of the Enterprise in October 1867.   In December of that year: “Rev. John Russell, Editor and Proprietor of the Peninsular Herald delivered a temperance lecture at Goodyear Hall.  He is an uncompromising radical on the temperance question, and is determined to fight the battle out on that line.” Three years later, on December 3, 1870, Russell offered Manchester temperance leaders a direct challenge: “On Saturday evening last Rev. John Russell G. W. C. of I. O. of G. T. [International Order of Good Templars] of this state, delivered a lecture at Goodyear Hall, on the subject above named, and at the close of his lecture proposed to organize a lodge of Good Templars at this place.  ������Ƶ thirty persons gave their names for membership, raised the money to procure their charter, were organized and named their order after our village.”

The early efforts of the IOGT in the name of temperance were both immediate and well timed. On April 6, 1871, the Order issued the following plea: “Our Manchester, What Can Be Done for Thee! We have ten places where intoxicating drinks are sold. A business of $25,000 per year.  Time spent in idleness and gaming $25,000 more.  Cost of Law Suits and Litigation, say $5,000.  Suffering of innocent women and children can’t be reckoned in dollars and sense [cents].  We have six churches, two organized political parties, and other organizations professing morality and temperance, and as good temperance law as can be framed.  Shall we become a sodom and gomarrah [sic] with this law and power in our hands? Let us call a general meeting of the corporation, and surrounding country, at Goodyear Hall, and resolve ourselves in a body and pass resolutions which shall be firmly framed, decided and earnest, right to the purpose, with all kindness, and carry them out to the letter.”

The above IOGT plea was printed at the same time that Manchester was in the process of compiling the Village first series of by-laws under the amended charter, and there is little doubt of its purpose or effectiveness.  The newly elected village officials reacted to this situation by passing By-Law No. 3 on June 8, 1871, entitled “Saloons and Gaming Houses”.  The regulations prohibited the “keep[ing] of a disorderly or ill governed house or brothel, or gaming house, or place of resort for persons of evil name or fame, or who shall permit reveling, rioting or disturbance.  Saloons and other purveyors of alcohol were barred from selling or giving away “spiritous or fermented liquors” to any “drunkard, minor, or apprentice.”  Sunday sales and sales after 10 p.m. were also forbidden.  Disorderly persons, including vagrants, the needy, and beggars, were subject to arrest.  Violators of these provisions were subject to fines ranging from $5 to $100 or imprisonment of up to three months in jail, depending on the offense.

While the intentions may have been good, little progress had been made by temperance adherents a year later.  On July 11, 1872, Mat Blosser commented on the efforts of the Templars and the People Temperance Society of Manchester, apparently a parallel activism group.  He claimed that except for two or three instances, the leading businessmen and professionals of the community ignored the Society for fear that the temperance movement would discourage the German population from trading in Manchester.  In fact, a church member claimed that if the saloons were closed in Manchester, he would sell his property before the town died and it became worthless.  Under these circumstances, the Village Council could not be counted upon to enforce the ordinances that they had recently passed.  Neither would many men who did not drink, but considered themselves temperance men, support the movement.  As a result, Manchester had become best known for the number of its saloons and their “fineness.”  The solution, according to the temperance adherents, was to close the saloons.  Once this happened, the “rummies” would move away and the void would be filled by “respectable citizens.”  This could not be accomplished, however, until the IOGT was able to conduct its meetings without the “quibbling” and “modifications” that limited its ability to arrive at a program of action.

Figure 3 – Manchester Saloons Were a Man World

Temperance meetings were frequent in Manchester during 1872, and emotions became heated. Ypsilanti was a center of temperance activism, and several speakers from there visited Manchester. It was reported March 21 that “…the Rev. G. P. Tindall of Ypsilanti introduced the old fashioned Washingtonian plan, and it has proved very successful in that city.  He inaugurated the same work here.  Seventy-eight took the pledge, and it is proposed to continue the meeting next week.” The Washingtonian Society set out to assist “drunkards” (the term “alcoholic” was not yet in use). By relying on each other, sharing their related experiences and seeking divine help, it was believed they could keep each other sober. Total abstinence was the Washingtonian goal and the impetus that led to the development of the Templars society.

Figure 4 is reprinted from a Good Templars handbook, with a “poison proportion guide”, one of several tools they published to educate readers on moderation of alcoholic drinks.

Figure 4 – Templars Manual – “Poison” Proportion Guide

Nativism

Another element in this struggle was “nativism”, a social practice which favored the interests of certain established inhabitants of an area over those of newcomers or immigrants, and which to some degree opposed further immigration. This was sometimes advocated through laws which sought to lower the political or legal status of specific ethnic or cultural groups who were perceived as hostile or alien to the “native” culture, and it was assumed that they could not, or would not, be assimilated. From approximately 1840-1880 in Manchester, nativism focused on its German immigrants and their separate social structure, their love of beer and perceived abuse of it, their German-language churches and schools, and their attachment to their native tongue.

Mat Blosser reported on August 28, 1873 that, in Manchester, “about 500 Germans met at Charlie Vogel last Sunday and had a friendly re-union”. Charles P. Vogel was a well-known farmer in Freedom Township who also operated a hotel and saloon on the south side of Bethel Church Road at Ernst Road, opposite Silver Lake. This seemingly neutral report by Blosser led to a letter to the editor from “Citizen” dated September 11, 1873, which in part read: “I noticed in your paper a short time ago, you spoke of ‘the friendly reunion of about 500 Germans at Charlie Vogel in Freedom, Sunday August 24th.’  I think that such a gathering, such a time, on such a day deserves more than the casual notice you gave it.  A procession headed by, or in company with a four-horse team loaded with SEVENTY-FIVE KEGS OF BEER, passing through a christian community the distance of 18 miles, with a band of music, and meeting many more coming even at a greater distance . . . to drink, sing and dance on the Sabbath day, needs a severe rebuke from every law abiding and order-loving citizen. Our Pilgrim fathers and the honored dead, have left us far in advance of any other nation in morals and christianity.  But these examples are not followed…It seems as though we were drifting backward to the customs of the old world, whereas, we should advance in moral principal and religious attainments.”

On September 25, 1873, “Americus”, in a rebuttal to “Citizen”, wrote:  “In your issue of the 11th inst., we read a communication from Citizen.  His article shows that he thought more of writing a newspaper squib than considering his subject.  He laments the desecration of the sabbath, and so do we, but does not consider the remedies for such desecration.  When we open our land to the surplus population of all nations and know at the same time that the customs of those coming to our shores are contrary to our laws, we are blame worthy.  Nothing is more difficult to perform than to change the customs of men.  Instead of being victorious we may be conquered by our foreign population in this respect.  As a matter of fact, it is just as impossible to prevent Germans from drinking beer on Sunday as to cause Americans to let coffee alone on the same day.  Beer Gardens are frequented by foreigners mostly and are European in their origin.  Would Citizen stop immigration?”

Citizen responded on October 9 claiming that Americus reply “no doubt is a heavy charge of Grape and Barley.  The kind of food to which he refers is that which produces redness of the eyes, and makes one nearsighted, it puts a man in a condition to make rail-fence, or occupy one corner of the roadside, or take lodgings in some shed.  In fact, when he has partaken of a bountiful repast he is perfectly content wherever he is whether in a parlor or a pig-sty, it makes no difference to him.  A less amount may fire his brain, rouse his animal passions, until he is capable of committing the fowlest [sic] of crimes.  Yet Americus think[s] this kind of food ‘better for man than tea’.  It may be that he likes it better—many others do.”

These postings notwithstanding, by 1873, Germans were in fact taking over many of Manchester businesses.  As older “English” owners sold or closed their establishments, the Wurster brothers, Mack and Schmid, William Kirchgessner, Conrad Lehn and other Germans quickly filled the void.  The same trend took place in the village government, and German nativism had largely faded away in Manchester by the 1890s.

Figure 5 – A 19th Century View of Anti-German Nativism

The Brewery Turnover

Christian Renz and Albert Eckerle took over the brewery in October 1873 and are not mentioned by their names through early 1876. Blosser refers favorably to the brewery on January 22, 1874: “The brewers say that if they can’t get ice from the river, they will manufacture some themselves.  They say they can make better ice than that taken from the river.  This shows good pluck, and when ability, enterprise and money are all combined, we see no chance for failure.” The ice-making plans did not work, as a year later: “The proprietors of the Southern Brewery have a large force of men and teams at work getting out ice and packing it in their huge buildings.  They expect to get out from 350 to 400 loads.” This is the first reference to the name “Southern Brewery”. Ice was a critical requirement for the lager processing, and, as we’ll see, removal of ice from the frozen river brought complaints from village ice-skaters.

However, things did not go well for Renz and Eckerle. In January 1876 the Southern Brewery was bought by A. C. Torrey for $3,000 under the mortgage provisions.  The following month he purchased the horses, wagons, and other brewery property at an auction held by Deputy Sheriff Case.  In May Torrey leased the Southern Brewery to Obadiah Priest for two years, and brewing commenced once again in Manchester.

In February 1877, Torrey was forced to sue Messrs. Kern & Eckerle for possession of the Southern Brewery.  It is not known how Kern became involved rather than Christian Renz. Torrey won the judgment, and on March 12, 1877 sold the brewery, minus various claims against the inventories, to Joseph Seckinger of Sylvan Township for $5,200. Seckinger moved to Manchester within a few days of the sale and took possession of the brewery. Blosser commented that he intended “to engage a practical brewer and try to do a paying business at the institution”, implying that brewing lager in Manchester profitably in the late 1870s was a problem. Torrey still held the mortgage, and it would continue to bedevil him.

Coming Next…

In Part 3, we will return to the themes of lager brewing, temperance, and lingering nativism. The Michigan Southern Brewery would experience a resurgence in the 1880s, but temperance and prohibition forces also increased in strength. Manchester would achieve a reputation as the place to get a good beer when others started going dry, and the downtown business merchants loved it.

by Fritz Swanson

Fritz Swanson has written for The Believer, the Christian Science Monitor, Print Magazine, McSweeney's, Esopus, LSA Magazine, and The Mid-American Review. He serves as a trustee on the Manchester District Library Board. He's the designer and publisher of ������Ƶ.