Independent specialist corroboration that repeal did not reset the industry and that bourbon's later dominance reflected inventory, competition, land, production efficiency, and agricultural policy—not corn preference alone.
The passage follows the authors' account of colonial rye regions and the westward movement of distillers, then explains why rye's pre-Prohibition predominance did not re-emerge after repeal.
Wright and Pilkington explain that Prohibition depleted American whiskey stocks; after repeal, imported mature spirits forced domestic producers to compete on price while rebuilding. Kentucky distillers had more land for larger facilities, bourbon was easier to produce, and corn subsidies arrived earlier than rye support, so bourbon recovered while many rye distilleries did not.
Printed p. 89 / PDF sheet 271
Chapter 7 — History
Verified against extracted text and rendered PDF sheet 271; the embedded page marker identifies printed p. 89.
Verified paraphrase from one canonical Source.
Evidence
Wright and Pilkington explain that Prohibition depleted domestic stocks. After repeal, imported mature spirits forced rebuilding producers to compete on price; Kentucky distillers had more land for larger facilities, bourbon was easier to produce, and corn support preceded comparable rye support. Bourbon recovered while many rye distilleries did not.
Location and context
Chapter 7, History; printed p. 89 / PDF sheet 271. The passage follows the colonial geography of rye and the westward movement of distillers, then explains why rye did not regain its earlier position.
Annotation
This independently strengthens the claim that repeal did not reset the American whiskey industry and that bourbon’s later dominance was structurally produced, not simply a natural preference for corn.