• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

How far do these two accounts agree about Prohibition?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Prohibition How far do these two accounts agree about Prohibition? The two accounts agree that there are campaigns (mainly by women) to ban alcohol. Source A says "influence of the Anti-saloon league at a time when large numbers of men were absent in the armed forces". Source B says, " The Women's Christian Temperance Union had joined in a crusade against one of the great evils of the times-alcoholism". They also agree that there should be a ban on grains for alcoholic purposes. Source A says " the wartime concern for preserving grain for food" and source B says, "ban the use of grain for either distilling or brewing". They both agree that alcoholism was morally wrong. Source A says "the moral fervour inspired by the " War to make the world safe for democracy" and Source B says " a great evil of the time" (referring to alcoholism). The last thing they agree on is that it caused criminal activity. "It created the greatest criminal boom in American history, and perhaps in all modern history". Source B says, "By 1928 there were more than 30,000 speakeasies in New York". Although both sources agree with each other they also disagree in many ways. An example of this is that although both of them want a ban on grain use for alcoholic purposes; Source A wants grain to be used for food while Source B does not specify any ideas. ...read more.

Middle

How far does Source I prove that the policeman in Source J is telling the truth? Source I shows a clerk, a petty official (an official with no real power), a magistrate, a police officer and a Prohibition agent, all standing in line with a hand held out behind them. This is suggesting that they all take bribes. Organised crime was the biggest effect of Prohibition. Many gangs used bribery to control government officials. The deal was that these officials would stay away from illegally run areas and turn a blind eye to the crimes. In return they would get money from the gangs. The name of the cartoon is 'The National Gesture' a gesture is a hand signal (which is the hand taking the bribe) and the national part suggests that the bribes spread deep into society and that it is nationally spread. Source J was from a policeman in Chicago in the 1920s. He says that if an officer tried to enforce the law then "you were put in a post where there was nothing but weeds". Suggesting that his superior officers were involved in the illegal activities. He then says that while he was walking down a road a man ran up to him gave him $75 bribe and then ran off. Source I reinforces Source J in saying that many officials with power were corrupt and was indeed taking bribes from gangsters. ...read more.

Conclusion

Another source that supports the idea that the police were strong is Source G, which shows statistics of illegal stills seized and gallons of spirits seized. Overall there is a general increase in stills and gallons seized and so would suggest that the police were successful in enforcing Prohibition. This source is also unreliable because Federal government agents published it and so numbers could have been fixed. This source would also be biased because for the same reason that Prohibition agents published it. Sources C and D neither support nor undermine the idea that the failure of Prohibition was inevitable. Both sources were published before Prohibition began. They are both propaganda posters against alcoholism. Although they were made before the period of Prohibition. They can give us a reason why Prohibitions chances were weak. The Anti-saloon League, which was a group of people against alcoholism, made both posters. Source B says " In 1917 a nation-wide campaign, led by the Anti-saloon League, bought pressure to bear on Congress to ban the use of grain for distilling or brewing" This shows that the people had too much influence on law officials even before Prohibition. I conclude that the failure of Prohibition was inevitable because the reasons given for this, such as public opinion would never accept it, the extent of criminal activity was uncontrollable, and that the government had too few resources to deal with the problems outweigh the reasons that disagree with the conclusion. Also the sources given in agreement of the conclusion were more reliable than the sources used that disagree with the conclusion. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE USA 1919-1941 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE USA 1919-1941 essays

  1. To What extent was Prohibtion doomed to fail from its inception?

    From the very beginning the opinion over prohibition was split, this meant there would always be disagreements over the issue; even though it was implemented there were large numbers of people who did not agree with it. This was transferred into the behaviour seen in America during the 1920's.

  2. (Q1) Describe some of the key features of Americn society in the 1920's?

    An example of this rise is the radio company of America, in 1928, a share was worth $85 by September 1929, and a single share was worth $505. Within a few months, the share price in the radio company had increased by $420.

  1. History - Prohibition

    By 1929 he had destroyed the power of the other Chicago gangs, committing at least 3000 murders in the process. However, Source I only shows that the law enforcers where willing to be bribed and that they were corrupt. It does not talk about the saloons or how the gangsters persuaded those officials to accept the bribes they offered.

  2. Prohibition was a disaster waiting to happen How far do you agree? I ...

    All of these subjects of why prohibition was introducted was shown to be correct and the national mood shifted from once loving alcohol to banning it. Many votes were won in rural areas because politicians promised to back up prohibition, which helped those politicians to win the election.

  1. There are many contributing factors to why prohibition was introduced on 16 January 1920. ...

    of a fight from brewers and distillers, and the feelings of the nation. Now the people had got what they wanted, but how long will it last and how long will people be able to survive without alcohol. 2. How did Prohibition effect American Society?

  2. Prohibition was doomed a failure from the start - agree or disagree

    This was the image he was trying to create for himself and he had succeeded. Al Capone however was exceptionally rich, making him a very powerful and influential man who was controlling as well as collective. The image Al Capone created for himself made people see him in a different perspective.

  1. The USA: Was prohibition bound to fail?

    amount of Americans that were against prohibition - or possibly showing that the general opinion on alcohol had changed over time. Al Capone once said "all I do is supply a public demand" - Prohibition was bound to fail if it went against what the majority of Americans wanted.

  2. How far do these two accounts agree about prohibition?

    The first caption at the top of the cartoon says "the poor Men's Club, the most expensive in the world to belong to." It is named "The Poor Men's Club, the most" because the persons that drink in the saloon, (the members)

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work