Prohibition history
Prohibition in South Dakota.
South Dakota went dry under its own law in 1917, 3 years ahead of the federal ban, and ratified the 18th Amendment with the rest of the country. Today we list 2 speakeasies and hidden bars in South Dakota.
Prohibition in South Dakota, in order
| 1917 | Statewide prohibition takes effect in South Dakota. |
|---|---|
| 1917–19 | Congress passes the 18th Amendment and sends it to the states. |
| 16 January 1919 | The amendment is ratified nationally. South Dakota ratified it. |
| 17 January 1920 | National Prohibition begins. |
| 7 April 1933 | The Cullen–Harrison Act legalises 3.2% beer. |
| 5 December 1933 | The 21st Amendment repeals Prohibition. |
What Prohibition looked like here
South Dakota went dry on its own account in 1917 and then voted for the national ban, which is the ordinary pattern: the 18th Amendment passed because most of the country had already decided the question. The practical effect of 1920 here was federal rather than legal — the same prohibition, now with agents, courts and padlock injunctions behind it.
What changed most was the supply. A dry state next to a wet one has a border problem. A dry country has a coastline, a Canadian frontier and an industrial-alcohol industry, and from 1920 those became the sources that mattered.
Dry from 1917
South Dakota adopted statewide prohibition in 1917 after a long campaign, and like its northern neighbour had an open Canadian supply line at the top of the country and a great deal of empty space in which to move liquor.
The trade was small-scale, agricultural and local, and the enforcement record reflects a state that had neither the money nor much of the appetite to pursue it hard.
What South Dakota’s own newspapers printed
The Library of Congress has digitised a large slice of the American press, and it is searchable. Between 1920 and 1933, papers published in South Dakota used the word “bootlegger” 382 times, “blind pig” 10 times, “speakeasy” 2 times. Every link below goes to the scanned page itself, free and in the public domain — you are reading the primary source, not our summary of it.
One caveat worth stating plainly: these counts measure what has been digitised as much as what happened. A state whose papers were scanned in bulk will out-score a state whose were not, and a low number here is evidence about an archive rather than about how dry anybody was.
| Date | Term | Newspaper |
|---|---|---|
| January 23, 1920 | “blind pig” | The Kadoka press and Kadoka reporter, Kadoka |
| March 6, 1920 | “bootlegger” | The Madison daily leader, Madison |
| March 23, 1920 | “bootlegger” | The Madison daily leader, Madison |
| April 29, 1920 | “bootlegger” | The Tabor independent, Tabor |
| May 27, 1920 | “bootlegger” | The Tabor independent, Tabor |
| June 23, 1920 | “blind pig” | The Madison daily leader, Madison |
| July 22, 1920 | “bootlegger” | The Miller press, Miller |
| April 22, 1921 | “bootlegger” | The Madison daily leader, Madison |
| January 6, 1922 | “blind pig” | The herald-advance, Milbank |
| January 11, 1923 | “bootlegger” | The Miller press, Miller |
Where to drink in South Dakota now
We currently list 2 speakeasies and hidden bars in South Dakota. The densest are Sioux Falls (1). Those are present-day licensed bars — nothing on this site is illegal, and a modern hidden bar is a design decision rather than a legal necessity.
A handful of rooms in most states genuinely date to the period and can show it. Far more claim to. Where a venue’s page makes a historical claim, we label it Documented, Reported, Legend or Venue marketing, and we do not promote marketing into history because it makes a better paragraph.
The documented buildings in South Dakota
1 of our South Dakota listings sit on property recorded on the National Register of Historic Places. That is a federal nomination document with a reference number, written by somebody who had to show their working — a very different kind of evidence from a bar saying its building has a past.
It does not make the bar historic. It makes the building documented, which is the most we can honestly claim and more than most directories claim at all.
| The Historic Vermillion Victorian | Huseboe, Andrew O., House, Sioux Falls · NRHP ref. 88000569 |
|---|
Where this state fits
We group South Dakota with the Great Plains for editorial purposes — regions tuned to drinking culture and Prohibition history rather than to Census divisions, because those are the lines that actually explain what happened. Its neighbours here: Kansas · Nebraska · Oklahoma · North Dakota.
The parts of the national story that bear most directly on South Dakota: What people actually drank · How raids worked.
How to read these pages
Each state chronology sets the local dates against the national ones, because Prohibition was never one story. Thirty-three states had already banned liquor before the federal government did; two refused to ratify the amendment at all; and repeal in 1933 handed the question straight back to the states, which is why American liquor law is still fifty systems rather than one.
The newspaper evidence is drawn from Chronicling America, the Library of Congress’s archive of digitised American newspapers. It is public domain, it is free, and we link to the scanned page rather than quoting it, so you can check us.