History Prohibition

Authors Avatar

Question A

From studying source A and B your first impression of the texts is that the sources agrees with the initial idea of prohibition, by displaying information concerning the factors of alcohol being banned, such as at the beginning of source A “by 1917 twenty three states had already introduced a ban on alcohol.” From first reading the source you would immediately get the impression that if twenty three states had already banned alcohol there must be a plausible reason for there actions because that’s almost half of the American states who decided to put a ban on alcohol Some of the first states to become dry in the USA were the southern states. Most of them were actually dry by 1914.

Both sources lead to some of the reasons why twenty-three states could of even considered the banning of alcohol. Initially the banning of alcohol was given momentum in World War I as many young men were away fighting against Germany. Apart from the fact that alcohol was believed to make them ill, it was argued that soldiers were getting drunk and were not able to fire straight. Prohibition was therefore said to be patriotic and would help the war effort and defeat Germany. A German company called Pabst and Burch brewed a lot of the beer that was drunk in America. Much of the barley used in brewing could be used to produce rations for the allies so for these reasons drinking alcohol was said to be unpatriotic. The food and fuel control act banned the use of grain for brewing alcohol. Some people considered alcohol to lead to absenteeism and also reduced the production in factories. Industry therefore supported prohibition as they thought it would make them more money. Prohibition soon became a national political issue. People were encouraged to vote for “dry” candidates in elections by groups such as “The Anti-Saloon League” and “The Women’s Christian Temperance Union”. Politicians soon caught on that by supporting prohibition they gained votes and the National Prohibition Party was set up. For all these reasons Prohibition came about in 1919. It pleased some of the people highlighted above but it also angered many ordinary people who felt they were doing nothing wrong by having a drink.  

In the last paragraphs of sources A and B it goes on to say that prohibition “created the biggest criminal boom in American history” and explains that prohibition went against so many “customs, habits, and desires” and practically forced people to break the law. Crime figures rocketed. Previously law-abiding citizens became criminals for having an alcoholic drink, which many people continued to do. Therefore far from reducing the crime rate in the USA prohibition increased it.  Society changed dramatically in the USA in the 1920’s. Although drinking, selling and transporting alcohol was supposed to reduce crime, poverty, death rates, and improve the economy and the quality of life the “noble experiment” only caused to do the opposite, and theoretically did more harm then good.

 Speakeasies were introduced which were bars where people could drink alcohol. Patrons had to speak very quietly or ‘easy’ to get in so that they wouldn’t be arrested hence the name. These places prospered as drinking alcohol became more fashionable and by 1928 there were at least 30,000 in New York. Gangsters like Al Capone had turned the avoidance of prohibition into big violent business where criminals would profit from other people’s desires.

From studying sources A and B thoroughly you are given the impression that both sources initially support the idea of prohibition and state the facts concerning how it could have came about and how people supported it, and why there was so much bad feeling concerning the matter. But both sources go on to say how it created the biggest criminal boom in American history and encouraged gangsters to profit from the illegal side of selling and producing alcohol. I think both sources don’t necessarily agree or disagree on prohibition because they both state how it came about and how it failed they don’t give there own personal opinion on the matter there just stating the facts. You could argue that because both sources were written in the seventies, there might have been a different opinion on the matter then now. How they layout both sources could be argued as well, because they seem to leave how prohibition failed at the end of the sources and write at the beginning how it came about and why, if you but the failure at the beginning and put how it came about at the end, it would give a different opinion on the whole matter. But my personal feeling is that they both in contrast don’t agree and don’t disagree, yes they might have wrote more about how it came about and why, and they may have only wrote less on how it failure, but there is not any pro founding evidence to suggest that whether these two sources were for or against prohibition.

Question B

        I believe that both of the artists of the posters are for Prohibition. I have seen Source C before, and the caption said that it was produced by the Anti-Saloon League as part of an extensive leaflet campaign. There are many reasons why I believe that both the artists of sources C and D are for Prohibition, here are some of them:

        Source C is clearly for Prohibition because of these clues the artist has added into the poster. The first and most clear clue is the image of the man who is handing over a pouch of money. This pouch of money has the words “Weeks Wages” on it. This is signifying that the workman is handing over his entire week’s wages to buy himself a couple of drinks. Because this man is handing over his week’s wages for the sin of alcohol there is no money left for the rest of the family. The second clue that the artist supports Prohibition is within the circle at the bottom right corner of the poster. In the circle there is a picture of the wife and son at home, the wife is in dismay and the son is holding up his bowl and spoon asking for food. On the floor there is a piece of paper on the floor saying “Dispossess notice”, there is also some text that says; “The saloon is well named “The Poor Man’s Club” It keeps its members and their families always poor.”. The wife is in dismay because the husband has spent all the money they have on alcohol in the saloon, and she has just received the dispossess notice, which means they will be out on the street soon. This signifies that the influence of saloons plunges many families into poverty and out onto the street, this point is also intensified by the text in the circle, which is saying that the ‘club’ which is the saloon keeps its members poor because the members pay over their wages to the club and has none left to support the family. The young child holding up the bowl and spoon begging for food is making you feel that this man is evil because he is spending all the money and his young child is going to die. The poster uses a child, because a child is meant to be completely innocent, and it makes the posters much stronger. The title of the poster; ““The Poor Man’s Club.” The most expensive in the world to belong to” is making you intrigued to look at the rest of the poster. When you do look at the rest of the poster you realize that this is again emphasising the fact that belonging to the saloon or club as it is referred to, will plunge you into debt. The caption at the bottom; “Slaves of the Saloon” is saying that the man giving the bar tender is a slave who belongs to the saloon and is therefore controlled by it. Another suggestion that this artist supports Prohibition is the bar tender; whom I believe is the owner as well. The owner is dressed in expensive clothes and he is quite chubby. If a man was chubby it meant they could afford to eat well and was seen as a statement of wealth. The reason why the artist has made the owner rich is so that people know where there money goes and is therefore seen as evil and this is enhanced by the fact that he is rich and everyone despises rich people. I have seen the full version of this leaflet and there is text under the picture, which also tries to persuade the public to support Prohibition. The last clue that I can find is the men sitting around a table gambling in the background. At the time when this poster was produced, in 1910 gambling was seen as a dreadful evil, and the artist is associating alcohol with other evils.

Join now!

        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 ...

This is a preview of the whole essay