Alcohol was banned by the 18th Amendment and repealed by the 21st, showing how public opinion can shape the law

A quick blast from history: how one amendment disappears and another brings it back

If you’ve ever talked through a tricky U.S. history question with your LMHS NJROTC teammates, you know the moment when the pieces suddenly click. The kind of moment where you realize the past isn’t a dusty ledger of names and dates, but a lively story about people, choices, and consequences. Here’s one of those puzzles that fits right into that mindset—a question that looks simple on the surface but hides a bigger pattern about the law, public opinion, and real-world impact.

What comes and goes in the same breath?

The question’s answer is A: Consumption of alcoholic beverages. The clue sits right there in the way the question is framed: one amendment bans something, and then another later repeals that ban. It’s a tidy example of how laws can shift with the times, the economy, and how people actually live their daily lives.

Let me explain the arc in plain terms, because this is one of those stories that helps you see how to think through similar questions in the future.

The Prohibition era: what was banned, and why

In 1919, the 18th Amendment took the stage with a bold promise: no alcohol in the United States. That meant it was illegal to manufacture, sell, or transport alcoholic beverages. It wasn’t just a law written in the margins of a textbook—it became a social experiment with real consequences. People found loopholes; bootleggers and speakeasies kept the party going in many places, often with a wink and a nod from the underground economy. Law enforcement strained under new pressures, and the country confronted a host of moral, economic, and practical questions about regulating private behavior through policy.

The why behind it matters more than it sounds. Prohibition came out of a long-smoldering belief that alcohol was a societal ill—one that supposedly pushed aside productivity, crime, and family well-being. The problem is, legal bans don’t always translate into quiet compliance, especially when economic and social structures push back. So what happens when a policy isn’t delivering the outcomes lawmakers hoped for? You get a lot of debate, a lot of contested headlines, and eventually a real reevaluation of the approach.

The Great Depression changes the climate—and the law

By the early 1930s, the United States was staring straight at the Great Depression. Jobs were scarce; families were struggling; governments were running out of tools that could offer quick relief. In that moment, the economic argument against Prohibition gained weight. People figured that legalizing alcohol could create jobs, generate tax revenue, and fund public programs that were badly needed. It wasn’t just about raising funds; it was about restoring a sense of normalcy and control in a country that felt out of hand financially.

Enter the 21st Amendment, ratified in 1933, which repealed the 18th Amendment. Repeal didn’t erase the moral questions that had sparked Prohibition in the first place, but it did acknowledge a reality: governance has to adapt to the lived experience of citizens. It also underscored a basic principle in constitutional history—that amendments aren’t set in stone forever; they can be amended again as circumstances shift and public sentiment moves in another direction.

What about the other options?

• Levying of a personal income tax (B). The 16th Amendment, ratified in 1913, gave Congress the power to tax income without apportioning it among the states. That one didn’t vanish; it’s with us as a core fiscal tool. So it’s not a “ban then back again” pattern.

• Establishment of slavery (C). The 13th Amendment abolished slavery in 1865, and there hasn’t been a repealing move to restore it. This is more a terminal abolition in history than a reversible policy experiment.

• Limitation of the presidential term of office (D). The 22nd Amendment sets term limits for the president; it’s not been repealed, and the idea of rolling back term limits would require another serious amendment with a different political consensus—rare and historically unlikely to map onto a simple “ban and return” story.

So the key vibe here isn’t just about memorizing a fact; it’s about understanding how and why laws can swing back when the social weather changes.

Let’s connect the dots for a younger audience—why this matters beyond a single quiz

For students in a history-leaning team at LMHS, this is a perfect microcosm of what makes historical thinking so powerful. It’s not enough to know that Prohibition happened; you want to grasp the texture of the era—how people lived, what the economy needed, and what policymakers hoped to achieve. When you see a question like this, you’re practicing a few essential moves:

• Read the timeline with a critical eye. The 18th Amendment (1919) sets a legal ban. The 21st Amendment (1933) sets the repeal. The gap between those dates is full of context—World War I’s aftermath, the social experiments of temperance, the drought, the stock market crash, and the Great Depression. Those dates aren’t random; they map to real pressures and choices.

• Connect cause and effect. Prohibition didn’t just vanish because people decided it should. It dissolved under the weight of economic strain, organized crime, and shifting public opinion. The repeal wasn’t a moral retreat; it was a policy adjustment aimed at practical relief and revenue generation.

• Use the wrong options as a sanity check. When a multiple-choice item includes options that touch on real historical facts, you can often kill the obviously incorrect ones quickly by testing whether the scenario fits the pattern (ban then repeal). It’s a neat way to sharpen your reasoning without grinding through every single fact.

• Celebrate the nuance. History isn’t just about black-and-white outcomes; it’s about how mixed motives, tradeoffs, and imperfect solutions shape outcomes. Prohibition attempted a social fix with a legal tool, and the result taught a country something lasting about governance and human behavior.

A few quick takeaways you can carry into any history moment

• Build a simple mental timeline: reform era → prohibition → repeal. Spaces between big events often reveal the real pressures that push change.

• Remember the economy isn’t a side show; it’s a central player. When money and jobs are tight, policies that touch everyday life get re-examined quickly.

• Look for the “why” behind the “what.” A law’s text tells you what happened, but the surrounding conversation—the debates, the social movements, the political climate—tells you why it happened.

• Don’t get tripped up by the wording. If a question sounds like it’s asking for a yes-or-no about a policy, scan for the historical pattern: a ban, then a repeal, then a new balance. The rhythm itself is a clue.

A little detour that still lands back on the main point

Prohibition left a few cultural fingerprints that Americans still notice today—speakeasies as a symbol of defiance, the rise of slang and jazz culture, and a reminder that laws never operate in a vacuum. You can see the same pattern in other areas of history: reforms followed by unintended consequences, then recalibrations that aim to make the system feel more workable. It’s kind of a human story—trying to solve problems with the tools we have, learning from the fallout, and adjusting as we go.

How to talk about this in a team setting

If you’re swapping ideas with teammates, you’ll find that a short, conversational approach helps everyone get on the same page quickly:

• Start with the core fact: “The 18th Amendment banned alcohol; the 21st repealed it.”

• Add the “why”: “Economic hardship and rising crime made the repeal seem necessary.”

• Then connect to the larger theme: “This shows how legal changes reflect both public sentiment and practical needs.”

• Finish with a call to reflect: “What other historical policies faced the same push-pull dynamic, and how did people argue for or against them?”

A closing thought that sticks

Laws are mirrors in a way. They reflect what a society believes, what it fears, and what it hopes to achieve. The Prohibition story is a clear example: a bold idea about behavior, a tough test of enforcement, and a strategic pivot when the results proved disappointing. For members of the LMHS NJROTC Academic Team, that narrative isn’t just history trivia. It’s a lens for understanding human decision-making, the value of evidence, and the importance of adapting to new realities.

If you’re curious about this topic, there are solid sources to explore—encyclopedias, the National Archives, and reputable history sites that lay out the timeline, the social climate of the 1920s and 1930s, and the political tides that led to repeal. Don’t just memorize the dates; absorb the pattern. The more you see these arcs—the rise, the struggle, the eventual adjustment—the sharper your sense for how to approach similar questions in the future.

So next time a question asks you to trace a ban and a repeal, lean into the story behind the letters on the page. The numbers tell part of the tale, but the real lesson is in the people, the circumstances, and the balancing act between idealism and practicality. That’s the kind of thinking that makes a team stand out, not just on a test, but in any discussion about history, civics, or public policy. And that, in turn, is exactly what a thoughtful, curious LMHS NJROTC squad should aim for.