Your comment about being continuously narked reminded me how in early human history people relied on low-alcohol beer as a safe water supply. So back then it was a double-whammy.
As far as I understand, historically, alcoholic beverages were primarily invented and used as a water disinfectant. Rum was used in British navy to disinfect fresh water in barrels. Wine was used to dilute it in water till the 20th century. Fun fact, in ancient Greece people who drank pure wine (not diluting it in water) were considered alcoholics and could be publicly denounced. Beer was used as a typical beverage accompanying a meal in many populations (a sandwich with a beer was the closest analogy to the "fast food"). It appears that it is only recently that we have started to consume alcohol for pleasure.
I'm not sure I buy your claim that rum was ever used to 'disinfect' fresh water on British Navy ships. The 'grog' mix they used was not of sufficient ABV to disinfect the water, as it was handed out at a 4:1 ratio of water:rum. It was moreso about making the daily rum ration difficult to hoard, and much more efficient to transport than beer or wine.
Grog was at least 10% alcohol, plus lime juice. Navy rum was 65% or 130 proof. That's more than enough to inhibit most waterborne diseases such as cholera (inhibited in wine at 6.25% abv, though wine has tannins and phenols).
Yikes, I just checked, and Captain Morgan's is 35% Alcohol. I'm aware of Bacardi 151 (75.5% alcohol) which is like fire water to me. Can't imagine drinking something so concentrated regularly.
You can't judge from Bacardi. It's bottom-shelf, young, and pretty rough. I find it unpleasant to drink neat even at 80 proof. A high-quality, aged rum at 130 proof will be plenty fiery, but not as bad as Bacardi 151 diluted to 130 proof.
Of course, the sailors probably didn't drink anything terribly high-end.
I concur, I tried to acquire the taste for 151 in college and even after 4 years of earnest and consistent effort it did not get better. Similar experiments with Everclear and overproof grappa were also unsuccessful.
I would not recommend any of these if one is interested in a pleasant drinking experience.
Lately I've been finding Bourbon to be enjoyable. Woodford Reserve and Bulleit are well-priced and good introductions in my opinion.
In my high school days, we used it for Jell-O shots and drunk watermelons. Probably should have used vodka but ever clear was more bang/buck. I remember taking a shot of it once as a group “dare” type situation. It was as awful as you would guess
Good solvent for shellac as well, without the nasty smell and headache from denatured alcohol fumes. Costs more though, since it’s sold and taxed for consumption.
If I remember correctly, the lower ranking navy members weren't even allowed access to the strong stuff. Only the officers who had to dilute it before giving it to the others.
Rum was not generally used to disinfectant water on Royal Navy vessels. Typically the rum ration was only served with the midday meal. At other times the hands mostly drank plain water that had been stored in wooden barrels (and they complained about the taste).
And it wasn't always rum. If a vessel was on foreign service and rum was unavailable then the crew would be issued an equivalent amount of other booze.
The first comment is on point, pre-Prohibition the US was basically run on good old constitution juice. Turning excess grain into a storage-friendly form that also fetched a good price was a huge economic reality at all levels, from individual farmers to large land-owners. The side effect of that was that where people used to mostly drink cider and ale, applejack and the like, now it was cheaper and acceptable to just stay perpetually lit on whiskey.
While other comments have clearly shown that the alcohol in beer isn't strong enough to disinfect it, the way beer is made is that you first have to disinfect the water you're going to use (by boiling it) and then you store the beer in conditions that stop pathogens getting in. So for those reasons the beer would be safer than water, but you'd have just as much success just boiling some water and using it straight away. The other advantage of beer over water is that if it does get pathogens in it, then it is really obvious, and people know not to drink foul beer [citation needed].
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ol1h45/delet...
It puts forward that the purpose of small beer was mainly because water is boring to drink all the time.