The second source, source D is also for Prohibition. There are many clues to suggest this, here is the first one: The words around the poster that say; “Daddy’s in there….” and also “And our shoes and stockings and food are in the saloon too, and they’ll never come out.”. This is what the girl is saying to her little brother. The words are saying that their dad is in the saloon with all the money, which should be spent on their food, shoes and stockings is being used up to pay for alcohol. This is saying that alcohol is such a great evil because it is affecting the innocent children as well as the adult. It is also saying that alcohol turns men against their families. The second suggestion that the artist is for Prohibition is the clothes the children are dressed in. The children are dressed in dark, ripped clothes with worn out shoes on their feet. This is to show that the family has no money to spend on necessities like clothes, because the man has spent all their money on alcohol. Another clue is the expression on the children’s faces, especially the young boy. They both have sombre expressions, as if they weren’t loved or taken care of. The artist is suggesting that their father spends too much time and money in the saloon and not enough on his children. The finial clue in this poster is the darkness behind the shutters of the saloon. The artist has made this area very dark to make it look like hell, and give the impression that going into a saloon is wrong and should be banned. From these points you can clearly see that the artist of this poster believes that Prohibition should become law, because husbands and fathers are spending too much time and money in the saloons.
Question C
I believe that Source E is the more reliable out of Source E and F. There are many reasons why I believe this. The first reason is I know that some of the information is true in source E, because it is in many other sources that I have read, for example source E says; “Instead, drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of law breakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before.”. I know that these points raised in that quote are true because sources A and B both state them. This quote from source A is pointing out some of the problems that is pointed out in the quote from source E: “But whatever the cause of Prohibition, there can be little disagreement about its consequences. It created the greatest criminal boom in American history, and perhaps in all modern history.” And this quote from source B also points out the criminal boom, which is mentioned in source E; “By 1928 there were more than 30,000 ‘speakeasies’ in New York. Gangsters like Dutch Schulz and Al Capone had turned the avoidance of Prohibition into big, violent business.”. Also in sources G and H it also clearly shows that crime rose during Prohibition. In source F the content of the source is saying that the law will be obeyed everywhere, and if it isn’t it will be enforced. This is a quote from source F proving that it says that; “The law will be obeyed in cities, large and small, and in villages. Where it is not obeyed it will be enforced. The law says that liquor must not be manufactured. We shall see that it is not. Nor sold, nor given away.”. You can see that the content of this sources clearly contradict each other, so only one can be true. I believe that source E is true, because other sources support the content of this source.
Another reason why I believe that source E is more reliable than source F is because of the people who wrote them. Source E was written by a man called John D. Rockefeller, Jr who was a wealthy industrialist. In the source he says that he supported Prohibition and hoped that it would work, but reluctantly realizes that it wasn’t working. Therefore he has given both sides of the argument for and against Prohibition, and isn’t being bias. However John F. Kramer, who was the first Prohibition Commissioner, wrote Source F. This means that he would be bias about how the law worked. He would have like the law to been successful because it would make him sound good at his job, but I know that the law wasn’t very successful at all. The reason why the law wasn’t successful was because the gangsters were bribing the Prohibition officers. This is what source I is about, but they call it the national gesture.
Source E was written in 1932, which was just before Prohibition ended, so the would have had been able to see what had resulted from the law over a longer period of time than source F which was only written in 1920, which was right at the start of Prohibition. Therefore he wouldn’t have had much time to see how the law was affecting the day-to-day lives of normal people and wouldn’t have been able to tell that it was going to be an unspeakable failure.
The final reason why I think that source E is more reliable than source F is because of the type of source they are. They are both primary sources so that doesn’t make any difference in this question, but one is a private letter, and the other is a speech, which would have been presented to the public. I would say that the letter would be more reliable than the speech, because in a letter you can voice your private opinion and not worry about people judging you, or having to keep up an image. In a speech the Prohibition Commissioner would have had to seem confident that Prohibition was going to work, even if he didn’t think that it would.
However there is a reason for Source F being more reliable than Source E, and that is; the commissioner is in a position of authority, and therefore would be able to get more feedback on how the Prohibition law was working than the wealthy industrial, who was just like a member of the public and could only judge by what they can see happening and what they are being told by other people.
Question D
These two sources do not prove that Prohibition was successful, because of many reasons. The first reason is source G doesn’t say who published it and therefore could be bias, because the statistics could have been published in such a way to make the Federal government agents look like they had done better than they really had. The other source, source H was published by the City of Philadelphia Police Department and could be trying to make the police department look more efficient than it really is, it could also be commissioned to show that the Prohibition agents were closing down and seizing lots of illegal stills and spirits. You can never completely trust any statistics, because statistics can be made to show anything hence the famous quote “There’s lies, dammed lies and statistics”.
Some of the content of the sources seems to be odd, for example in source G the amount of gallons of spirits seized goes up by 10616000 gallons between 1921 and 1925, but between 1925 and 1929 the amount of gallons seized only went up by 830000 gallons. This could mean two things, one that the agents were doing an efficient job in closing down the illegal stills, so there is less spirits in circulation between 1925 and 1929. Or it could mean that the agent are not doing a very good job and are not seizing as much spirits as they should be. I believe that the latter is true. The reason why I believe this is the reason is because; the amount of illegal stills is still steadily going up, so you would expect they’re to be more spirits being produced, and these spirits are not being seized.
Another odd figure appears in source H. It is the total amount of drink-related offences, there is a big rise between 1920 and 1923 this rise is 33537 offences, but between 1923 and 1925 there is only an increase of 3756, which is fairly small compared with the first figure. I know that this is only over two years and the first figure is over three, but I don’t believe that the additional year would have produced a much higher difference. However I believe that these statistics are been displayed in such a way to make it look like Prohibition was working, if you look at the dates in source H you can see that it goes up by three years then by only two. I believe that these statistics have been displayed like this so that the amount of offences goes down between 1923 and 1925, therefore making it look like Prohibition was working.
If you look at the figures in source H, you see that the figure for drunken offences still goes up. If Prohibition had been working you would have expected the figures to decrease, but the increase. Therefore Prohibition wasn’t working. Also there has to be a lot of alcohol to make this amount of people drunk. On the drunk drivers category it starts off with none, and increases to 820. I don’t believe this entity because of the failure of Prohibition, but is because cars weren’t very widely owned in 1920 but in 1925 there were much more cars on the road, so there is always going it be more drunk drivers.
However if you look at the drunk and disorderly conduct in source H the figures go up in 1923 but then go down in 1925, I think this means that Prohibition was working. But it could also mean that less people had enough to drink to get drunk, or it could mean that the police just weren’t arresting them. I know from my background knowledge and sources I and J that police officers and Prohibition agents were being bribed not to arrest and close down stills.
Question E
In Source I it shows a line of people made up of: politicians, policemen, prohibition agents, party officials, a magistrate and a clerk, all with their hands behind there backs making a gesture for a bribe. It’s showing them like this to symbolise what really went on at the time of prohibition, because gangsters influenced many cities they also influenced people high up, like for example, commissioners, and politicians. They were influenced by bribes so that they wouldn’t report the gangsters to the authorities or get them arrested. This was very common and gangsters such as Al Capone basically ran the police and owned Chicago, the gangsters had enough money to bribe officials of the law because the prohibition business was becoming more and more popular and so the gangsters were practically running a massive business, supplying what’s on demand in this case alcohol. The title “The National Gesture” means that bribery was a national occurrence and happened everywhere, and the gesture of the hands out waiting for money was seen everywhere and was recognised for just that and by the line of people turning there backs away this symbolises that they are turning a blind eye on to the matter. Overall this source shows the true failure of prohibition not working and how it turns politicians and important people to look away from the true problem of prohibition with a little help of some money in hand.
Source J is a policeman’s own account of Chicago in the 1920’s, he says that he was sent to a polish neighbourhood and the salon keepers would always welcome him, and he wouldn’t have to pay for anything, he was just supposed to drink. He goes on to say that he was just a normal policeman and if you tried to enforce the law they’d put you in a post where there was nothing but weeds. He says it was a conspiracy and his superior officers were involved in it. He said he was sent to 12th street, and a man dashed up to him and gave him an envelope and he opened and their was $75 in it. This source shows a policeman’s point of view on the whole matter of prohibition and how officials get bribed, he explains how he just wants to do his job but he can’t because the whole of Chicago was corrupt and so were the police, so it made it impossible to do his job. He said how saloon keepers would always welcome police officers and would expect them to drink not enforce the law, and if you tried to enforce the law you would be stationed somewhere else where there is nothing, and that it was all a conspiracy and his superior officers were
involved in it, this was so because Gangsters would basically run the police forces and the city so they could say what they wanted to happen (in this case Al Capone in Chicago), and if any police tried to enforce the law they could move them somewhere else because they owned them and decided where they should go and what they should do. They ran the police by using bribes which was the case in his account as a man ran up to him who he had probably never seen before and was probably a gangster, handed him money, he accepted it and was expected to not be aware of the illegal goings on. This source in relation to I corresponds and backs up what was really happened to keep the police quiet, it’s supported by I because in I it shows a number of officials being bribed and in J he is explaining how easily it was to be bribed and that his superior officials were influenced by it too. A number of other independent sources I have looked at give me the same answers that gangsters would influence everyone by means of violence bribery and intimidation. Overall these two sources show the truth on the matter and show how easily it was to bribe officials and how easily it was to turn innocent people into criminals by accepting bribes, because basically every one was accepting the bribes and so therefore didn’t have much choice or say as there superior officers were doing the same, as the police and politicians were corrupt, with a few exceptions.
Question F
Having studying all the sources I believe all the source support the view that Prohibition was invertible to fail. In source A the content is about what were the foundations of Prohibition. In source A it gives the foundations of Prohibition as feelings against German-Americans who were important in the brewing and distilling, the wartime concern for preserving grain for food and also the influence of the Anti-Saloon League at a time when large numbers of men were at war. You can see that source A believes that these were the foundations of Prohibition form this quote; “Among possible explanations we must include the bad influence of saloons, the wartime concern for preserving grain for food, feelings against the German-Americans who were important in the brewing and distilling, and the influence of the Anti-saloon League at a time when large numbers of men were absent in the armed forces.”. The suggestions this source gives for foundations are very flimsily reasons to base a law on, therefore this law was bound to fail miserable. Source B also agrees with this point, but it only names the First World War as the foundation for Prohibition. Here is the quote that proves this fact: “Before the First World War organisations such as the Women’s Christian Temperance Union had joined in a crusade against one of the great evils of the times – alcoholism. In 1927 a nation-wide campaign, led by the Anti-Saloon League, brought pressure to bear on Congress to ban the use of grain for either distilling or brewing.”. .” Although this source doesn’t directly say that the war helped the Anti-Saloon League, it says that in 1917 the act was passed, this was when the people who would have opposed Prohibition were away at war.
Another reason from source A that makes me believe that Prohibition was invertible to fail was the fact that no other law had gone against the public’s desires. Drinking was an important social activity at the time, and to ban it was a stupid idea and would have never worked, because people would always revolt. In source A there is this quote that proves this point. “No earlier law produced such widespread crime. For no earlier law had gone against the daily customs, habits and desires of so many Americans.”. Another reason why Prohibition was bound to fail was because the pressure that led to the law, happened when hundreds of men were at war, and these men would probably have disagreed with the law, because they were most likely to drink. This point is reiterated in source B, in the quote from Al Capone. The quote clearly states that there is no shortage of demand for his illegal alcohol. Here is the quote; “Gangsters like Dutch Schulz and Al Capone had turned avoidance of Prohibition into big, violent business. ‘Prohibition is a business’, said Capone, ‘all I do is supply a public demand.’” What makes Prohibition a extremely bad law is the fact that alcohol was a custom and not many people will obey the law if it incontinences them too much, but perhaps the most important reason why Prohibition was bound to fail is the fact that alcohol is a type of drug and is addictive so it is almost impossible to give up just because of a law.
The poster campaigns by the Anti-saloon League especially portray a false view of people who drink. In sources C and D the view of people who drink was that they spend all their money, every week on themselves, on alcohol and forgot about their family needs. This is a false view of people who drink. I agree that a minuet about of people do what these sources suggests, but these people are just a tiny amount of people, and millions of people drink. As this law was introduced on an image of what men who drink do, and not what they really do. I believe that the view that Prohibition was bound to fail was true because of many reasons including this reason. However these posters go even further. Both posters use images of children in distress. This was almost guaranteed to get support, because people were extremely protective of their children during the war, because of the dangers that there were. If you tell people that alcohol will hurt or damage their children they will support you in banning alcohol. You can see again Prohibition was built on the amnesia of the war.
Source E gives us another clue that Prohibition was inevitable to fail. Source E suggests that the law was ridicules, because the public was never going to obey the law. This quote from the source shows that the law was never going to be obeyed, because it went against the customs of so many people, this quote proves that too many people were willing to break the law: “Instead, drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of law breakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before”. Not only was this law against the customs of so many people, but also before the amendment of Congress was made no one considered what affect it would have on normal people’s lives. If this consideration to this had been made I believe that the amendment would have never been created.
Source F, the statement from the first Prohibition Commissioner, John F. Kramer makes me believe that the failure of Prohibition was inevitable. From this small fragment of his speech I don’t believe that he was a very good, competent speaker, and wouldn’t fill the public with much hope that he would really stamp out crime and illegal drink. This fragment is very blunt, and makes you almost not take it seriously. I believe if you had had a good speaker people would have taken more notice and maybe it would have persuaded many people to not ignore the law and even help the Prohibition Agents.
In sources G and H it is clear that too many people were able and wanted to break the law. You can see by the figures in source G that many people had illegal stills, in 1929 there was at least 15,794 illegal stills, which means lots of people were willing to break the law. This figure is only the amount of stills seized and I know that many more people were producing alcohol. The reason why these people weren’t being arrested is that there wasn’t enough Prohibition Agents to shut them down, also many were bribed. Not only were the Prohibition Agents being bribed but the people at the top were being bribed as well. The proof for the point about not enough Prohibition Agents can be found in source B, where it says; “The first Prohibition Commissioner had no doubts that he would stamp out the evils of drink. To help him, 1500 Prohibition agents were appointed.”. It is obvious that only 1500 Prohibition agents wasn’t enough to enforce the law over the whole country, I wouldn’t think 1500 agents was enough to enforce the law in New York let alone the rest of the country.
Sources I and J highlights another reason why it was inevitable that Prohibition was going to fail. Sources I and J shows that the Prohibition agents, Police Officers, Politicians, Magistrates, Petty Officials and clerks were all bribed. This is probably just a few positions that were bribed. In the written source J the policeman clearly states that he and his superior officers were bribed. This is the quote that proves this point; “We were just ordinary policemen and if you tried to enforce the law they’d put you in a post where there was nothing but weeds. It was a conspiracy and my superior officers were involved in it. I was sent to 12th Street. A man dashed up to me and said, ‘This is for you’. He handed me and envelope, I took it and he was gone. I opened it and there was $ 75 in it.” This quote clearly states another problem with Prohibition, which is the gangsters could get enough money for selling the illegal alcohol to bribe massive amounts of people, so they don’t get shut down. I also know from my background knowledge that Prohibition agents weren’t pay much money at all so a bribe was an extremely attractive to them. If the American government had paid them a bigger wage, it would have been less attractive to take bribes, because it would jeopardise their job, which was a better source of income than bribes.
As you can see from these points that I have raised these sources do comprehensively support the view that the failure of Prohibition was inevitable.