1933–mid-20th century
United States, especially Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Maryland
Helps explain bourbon’s later dominance without treating corn preference, Kentucky climate, or a single policy as a natural or sufficient cause.
Preserve the multicausal qualification. Firm-level trajectories, agricultural-support chronology, regional exceptions, and the relative weight of imports and consumer taste require narrower Claims.
Bourbon recovered more strongly than rye after Repeal because producers and regions rebuilt under unequal conditions.
What changed
Bourbon and rye did not enter the post-Repeal market with equal surviving firms, stocks, regional continuity, land, capital, production economics, agricultural support, or exposure to changing consumer tastes. Bourbon recovered more strongly while many historic rye producers and regions did not regain their earlier position.
Why it matters
The comparison makes bourbon’s dominance a historical outcome rather than an inevitable consequence of grain preference or geography.
Publication boundary
Do not assign the result to one cause. Preserve regional exceptions and distinguish the broad national pattern from specific company histories.