America: Prohibition Sources Question
Name: Sam Koprowski Candidate Number: 7393 School: George Ward Centre Number: 66633 America: Prohibition This poster, published in 1910 by the anti-saloon league, shows what the anti-saloon league has against the making, selling and consumption of alcohol. The most obvious argument is that men waste their money on alcohol in bars. This is put across clearly by the image of a man handing over a bag of money with ‘weeks wages’ written on it to the Bartender. The next point is the fact that the bartender is smiling with open hands, as he is perfectly happy to accept the man’s money. Another part of the poster that shows this factor is the title, “The Poor Man’s Club: the most expensive in the world to belong to”. This is all linked into the first section of writing; whish says that the alcohol trade is a slave trade and that ‘It is natural, of course, that the slaveholder should not care to liberate these slaves’. Another link to the man wasting money is the inset picture of a distraught wife, and a child holding an empty bowl. The caption in the inset is ‘the saloon is well named “the poor man’s club”, it keeps its members and their families always poor’. It is pointing out that married men are not just wasting their own money; it affects their families too. The poster says ‘a member of the club in good standing paying his dues’. This is referring to the man who is giving the bartender his money. This implies that the man does this regularly. This also links in with the distraught wife, as she would be upset because her husband would be home late and would be drunk. In source B we find that some of the campaigners against American saloons were the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, Protestants, the Anti – Saloon League, and the National Prohibition party who campaigned for the Presidential elections in 1892. Their reasons for supporting prohibition including beliefs that alcohol was ‘ungodly, evil, and wasteful’. Also, the fact that many Germans worked in the liquor industry at the time, alcohol was related to Germans, and as World War I had just ended there was an anti – German feeling in America. This was helpful to the anti – alcohol campaigns. This information is quite likely to be accurate, as impartial observers wrote it. However, they wrote it nearly 70 years later and this could possibly affect how accurate the statements were. Source C states that another reason for campaigning for prohibition was the low efficiency of workers who were addicted to alcohol. This was mainly supported by the more powerful businessmen and factory owners, who were concerned that their employees were not working as hard as they could. John D. Rockefeller put huge amounts of money towards the prohibition campaign - $350,000 before 1920 and $75,000 a year afterwards. This evidence does not contain personal opinions and seems factual, so it appears to be valid and accurate.Source E is a poster which shows Uncle Sam, who symbolises America, attempting to smash a huge pile of liquor bottles with a hammer. The look on his face shows that he is tiring, and he also appears to be worried. This is shown by the fact that the pile of bottles is huge, also by the fact that in the background of the picture is the Devil. He
is holding a large sack, which he is using to pour even more bottles onto the pile. This is a way of showing that despite America’s good intentions of prohibition, the task of trying to eliminate all of the alcohol problems is far too hard for the small force (represented by Uncle Sam) that had been given the job of eliminating the alcohol. The poster also shows that criminals (represented by Satan) were continuing to import and produce alcohol. This poster is a good way of showing the problems that America was having with prohibition, as it was simply too ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
is holding a large sack, which he is using to pour even more bottles onto the pile. This is a way of showing that despite America’s good intentions of prohibition, the task of trying to eliminate all of the alcohol problems is far too hard for the small force (represented by Uncle Sam) that had been given the job of eliminating the alcohol. The poster also shows that criminals (represented by Satan) were continuing to import and produce alcohol. This poster is a good way of showing the problems that America was having with prohibition, as it was simply too big a task to perform, and was not helped by criminals supplying even more alcohol. The fact that the poster was made in Germany in the 1920’s is also helpful, as it gives an “outside view” of what was happening in America, at the time that it was happening. However, the source could possibly have been slightly biased against America, due to feelings left over from World War 1. However, due to the fact that America was lending Germany money, it is more likely to give a view that is less biased against America. Source F is a statement about the prohibition agents that the government employed to help enforce prohibition. It says that in 1920 there were only 1,520 prohibition agents, who’s salaries were only around $1,200 to $2,000, and that by 1930 there were only 2,836 being paid around $2,300 to $2,800. This shows that there were not enough agents being employed, and that those who were, were underpaid. This is backed up by the statement that “Anyone who believed that men employed at 30 to 40 to 50 dollars a week would have the expert technical knowledge and the diligence to supervise prohibition or to resist corruption by men who’s pockets were bulging with money, would ready also to believe in Santa Claus, perpetual motion and pixies”. This all shows that the task that America was attempting to do was far too hard for the small force assigned to it, and that it was not being helped by the criminals. This source is backing up the views made by the German poster, and so they both support each other. Source G is a table showing the number of arrests for drinking offences in Philadelphia in 1920 – 1925. Upon looking at it, the first conclusion drawn is that after prohibition started, the problem got far worse. However, if the information is analysed properly, this is the expected result directly after prohibition has just been enforced, as the police forces would be arresting drunkards more than previously when prohibition wasn’t a law. However, the fact that the number of prosecutions failed to drop after 5 years suggests that prohibition has unsuccessfully been enforced. As the source is in table form, it is useful as the information would not be biased. But the information could be interpreted differently, causing confusion.Source D is an extract from the American Issues, an anti – alcohol paper, published on the 16th of January 1920. It describes how much better America is after prohibition, with “All liquor stains wiped from the stars and stripes”. It goes on to talk of how saloons and their evils have been crushed, and how family life will be better with no alcohol. It continues by saying how there will be less crime to prosecute, and an increase in respect for the law. This is a ambitious view, driven by the writers intentions of trying to convince others that America will be better with the new prohibition law, and is displaying predictions that stick directly to the writer’s intentions. However, as other sources say, despite the reasons behind prohibition the end result of it was far from this early prediction. The respect for the law barely changed, and were it did it was for the worse, with people who used to live normal lives suddenly becoming criminals, and others being drawn into alcoholism because the idea of doing something illegal attracted them. Crime went up with the rise of gangsters, who found great funding in the form of supplying alcohol, and places to drink it out of the police’s view. There were many reasons for this, some of which are supported by the evidence in Sources F and K. Source K is a statement from ‘Public Enemy Number 1’ Al Capone taken in 1930. He said, “I call myself a businessman. I make money by supplying a popular demand. If I break the law, my customers are as guilty as I am. You can’t cure thirst by law”. This shows that the main reason that prohibition failed was that there was not enough support by the public. Most of the support came from strict Christians who believed that alcohol was evil, and from the powerful businessmen who wanted their workers to be more efficient. When you take this into account, it is not surprising that there was not much support for prohibition, as the average American would probably look to alcohol as a way to relax or as a means of celebration, and so they would not have taken to the idea of alcohol being illegal. Many ordinary people would not have liked the idea of prohibition, but the key factor is that the people who were likely to support prohibition were also likely to be the people with more political power. This meant that the people who made the decision to enforce prohibition would have been likely to be biased in it’s favour, and this would explain why the prohibition laws were not supported by the majority of the general public. Capone’s statement also brings out another point: the fact that he, one of the most powerful gangsters around at that time, was willing to supply the public’s needs. With alcohol in such high demand, the profits became a very tempting attraction for organised criminals in America. And with the big criminals behind the alcohol trade, it became much easier for it to be produced in large quantities and be supplied in proper establishments, especially when gang leaders such as Capone had influence with the politicians. And due to the fact that they were large organisations they were able to bribe prohibition agents, and if they could not be bribed, then they used force. Source F agrees with this view, which states how few prohibition agents there were and how little they were paid. If they were being given $50 a week, then the gangsters could easily afford to pay the local prohibition agent $75 a week to ‘keep quiet’. This method of keeping the law at bay was very effective, but with those agents who were more dedicated, it was not hard to fend them off, as there were so few of them they could not patrol the whole city by themselves. All of this combined together to produce a situation that was very different than the anti – alcohol campaigners had thought it would be.Source I is an account of the times that Alec Wilder remembers. The account, valuable due to being from a person who was actually there at the time, was written in 1950, and this slightly devalues it. Despite this, the statement is still valuable because it is an eyewitness account. He says how he remembers the speakeasies being ‘romantic’, and that you felt like ‘you were a special person, you belonged to a special society’ when you went to one. This gives the impression that generally people looked on the speakeasies as a good thing. Next, we see Source J, which was written in 1932 by a U.S journalist. This gives it a high value as it was written closer to the time of prohibition, and it is also written by a person who would have known a lot on the subject, and so would be able to give much more of an accurate view. This is also backed up by his profession, which at that time would have been more to do with finding out the truth than in some modern papers. It describes how Al Capone ‘discovered that there was big money in the newly outlawed liquor business’. It then goes on to give details on how he began to build up control of alcohol in Chicago, and how at one point he had control of Cicero, even having his own ‘puppet’ mayor in position. This is a good account of what was happening, but unfortunately it does not give us much of a clue as to what people thought of Capone. However, one solid point that can be made from this source is the fact that Al Capone was able to take control of an entire suburb and so he must have had control over quite a lot of people, and this could imply that many people did not mind his activities. Source L is a picture of the cover of Time magazine from 1930, on which is a picture of Alphonse Capone. It is hard to understand how a well known gangster and criminal could get on the cover of a weekly magazine which was normally used for successful businessmen and politicians. However, we can see why this was done –Capone himself was a successful businessman who supplied the needs of the people. This is important in giving us an idea of the kind of public image that Al Capone had, in that he was a businessman, and even though he may have had men killed it was all in the course of running his business. Source N is a quote from President Roosevelt, who after repealing the prohibition law, stated “I think this would be a good time for a beer”. This is also useful, because the leader of the country was in full support of removing prohibition. It also shows us the kind of feeling that people would have when they could go for a drink without being arrested or shot in a raid. Overall, I would say that from the evidence provided in all of these sources that most people were not actually in support of prohibition, and that those who were did it rather reluctantly, probably for religious or business reasons. Most people did not think too badly of Al Capone, even if many did fear him, and looked at him more as a businessman than a criminal.Alphonse Capone was probably one of the most successful gangsters and businessmen of the prohibition time. Some viewed him as a criminal, who committed crimes for his own profits and would take out any opposition. Other people take a more forgiving view of him, seeing him as a normal businessman serving a public need, who was forced to become an outlaw, and who had to take precautions for his own safety, which sometimes resulted in the death of other criminals. His criminal side began with his appearance in Chicago, the biggest gangland in prohibition America. He arrived there in 1919 as part of the Colossimo gang, and managed the 4 Deuces club, which was a four floor gambling house, brothel and speakeasy. On May the 11th 1920, Jim Colossimo was murdered, with Al Capone being the prime suspect. Al Capone was said to have had hundreds of men murdered under his command of the gangs, and he maintained the city in a stranglehold during these times so that he could fill his pockets with the profits from his brothels, speakeasies, illegal stills, gambling halls, and the brutal rackets that took ‘protection money’ from businesses or workers who were seen to be doing well. He was able to hide all connections with these criminal activities, and therefore making himself incredibly difficult to convict. When he was finally brought in for evading taxes, he is quoted as saying “They finally got me for spitting on the sidewalk”. He had kept the city of Chicago under a reign of violence and corruption, and had reaped the profits from it and never paid for his real crimes. For these reasons, many people take the view of the authorities of the time in that he was in fact a dangerous, powerful thug, and justifiably Public Enemy Number 1. However he had successfully managed to run many different gambling halls, brothels, and speakeasies, which although illegal at the time were in undeniably high demand. After all, if the public did not like this, then they would not have had to actually go to these places, and nobody was forced to do so. The rackets may not have actually been directly run by Capone, and would have been a remainder of the previous methods of gaining a living for the gangs before the prohibition. As for the killings, many of them were not actually performed by Capone, and they were only killing other criminals, which could be said to have been doing the public a service. Also, it is on record that Capone paid the medical bills for a woman bystander who was injured during a gang battle. Another good deed that he did for the public was to set up many soup kitchens for the poor and homeless around Christmas time. He did many things in style, such as after one of the members of an opposing gang was murdered; he had thousands of dollars worth of flowers sent to his funeral. Many saw him simply as an aggressive, successful, and intelligent businessman who did what was necessary to ensure the security of himself and his businesses. I see him as more of a businessman than a murderer. He obviously did not intend any casualties or injuries on anyone other than those who offered direct opposition to him and posed a threat to either his businesses or his life. Most of his money was gained by supplying alcohol and venues at which to drink it, mainly in Chicago but also in the other states of America. He displayed an indifference to those who did not directly concern him, but he did also show kindness on occasions in the form of the soup kitchens and shelters, and when he paid the injured woman’s medical bills. I agree with both sides of the argument, that the title ‘Public Enemy No. 1’ was suited to him for his killings, but for his alcohol supplying business, I do not believe this was an appropriate title for him.