In 1918, Alcohol prohibition had officially become included into U.S. law. Yet, it was in December 1917, that the ‘dry advocates’, a name with which supporters of the prohibition were dubbed, succeeded, as their goal was passed by U.S Congress, to become the 18th amendment of the Nation’s constitution. ‘Dry advocates’, or more commonly known as supporters of the ‘temperance movement’, a movement nationally dating back to the 18th century, aimed to prohibit the consumption and distribution of alcoholic products with the expectation, that through “halting the ‘liquor traffic,’ many of society’s other ills would also be eliminated”. Thus supporters of the temperance movement had viewed their desire, as their moral obligation, and this is reiterated through prohibition propaganda, which relied heavily on religious language, insinuating that god, and thereby moral righteousness, was aligned with their cause.A group, famously linked with aiding the outcome of alcohol prohibition having been implemented into U.S. law, were the suffragettes: a movement of its own, which aimed to permit all U.S. women, the national right to vote. The seeming conflict between the suffragette movement and ‘wet advocates’, the latter being those desiring to maintain the consumption of alcohol as a national right, has become a staple of the nation’s past. Yet intriguingly, neither the suffragette movement nor alcohol distributors officially maintained a stance against the other; quoting Neil Bonner, President of the National Retail Liquor Dealers Association, in 1881, “The liquor men have taken no official action against suffrage”. Further bringing the supposed aid of the suffragette movement to that of the temperance movement into question, is the evidence that in 1914, women in California, a state in which women had the right to vote since 1911, had overwhelmingly rejected the implementation of alcohol prohibition, during one of the state’s public votes. Additionally, In San Francisco, 46,665 women were registered to vote, yet only 15,087 had voted in favor of local prohibition. Both of these votes had occurred less than half a decade prior to the implementation of alcohol prohibition into the U.S. Constitution. Yet, if the famous link between these movements has persisted to this day, then to what extent did the suffragette movement really impact the temperance movement in the 20th century, prior to the authorization of alcohol prohibition by U.S. Congress in 1917?L. Ames Brown attributes this information, of the Californian vote in 1914, to the state’s production of wine,having been the largest quantity in the nation; writing in1916, that “California women have permitted the moral side of the issues presented to be obscured by their material interest in the outcome”. He also wrote, that while officially neither group had taken an actual position against the other, they opposed one another in certain states or in even smaller political segments. This is proven through the great sums of money, that was spent by liquor lobbyist in order to “defeat suffrage bills and amendments”. A primary incentive behind the liquor distributors to attack women’s right to vote was that drinking of alcohol had been culturally viewed as a”masculine indulgence”, and this prejudice supposed, that women would vote in favor of prohibition if given the opportunity. Their actions then led to responses from suffragette members, such as a speech given in by a suffragette in Montclair, New Jersey, during one of the movement’s campaigns, in which the liquor lobbyists were publicly condemned for their supposed financing of the state oppositions to the suffragette movement.