Use Wright and Pilkington for the bourbon-versus-rye structural comparison and Kosar for the post-Repeal capacity and changing-taste context.
After Repeal, bourbon recovered more strongly than rye because Kentucky producers were better positioned to rebuild at scale, while many historic rye producers had lost firms, stocks, and regional continuity; land, production economics, agricultural policy, imports, and changing tastes reinforced the unequal recovery.
Verified for the broad comparative conclusion. Firm-level trajectories, subsidy chronology, and regional exceptions require separate supporting claims.
The comparative direction is supported, but the relative weight of land, production efficiency, subsidies, imports, corporate continuity, and consumer preference remains interpretive. Do not present corn preference or any single policy as the sole explanation, and distinguish national patterns from particular Pennsylvania, Maryland, Kentucky, and Tennessee histories.
Two locator-verified specialist syntheses independently state that Repeal did not reset the industry and that bourbon and rye recovered under unequal structural conditions. The claim preserves multiple causes and avoids exact market-share or firm-count assertions.
Editorial use
Use to explain why Repeal did not restore the older regional balance between bourbon and rye.
Boundary
Present the outcome as structurally produced and multicausal. Do not reduce it to consumer preference for corn or one subsidy, and do not erase surviving rye production or regional exceptions.