How useful is Source A as evidence for studying the spread of prohibition in the United States?

Josh Evans (1935 words)

History coursework assignment: Prohibition

Question one:

How useful is Source A as evidence for studying the spread of prohibition in the United States?

This map of America gives a general overview of where alcohol was banned before midnight January 16th 1920. It has three different pieces of information that it displays; Territories in which the sale of alcohol was forbidden in 1845, States entirely dry by 1915 and States with local prohibition in 1845. But the fact that the map doesn’t show specific cities, towns or areas detracts from this last piece of information. As the map is in an American History atlas, its purpose is not specific to prohibition, which is why it has less specific information. This does mean it’s more reliable however, as it would not of been subject to government censorship and would have been carefully researched. Also, the map is not complete, it only shows the east coast of America; the west coast is incomplete missing a large proportion of the country, almost a third. Another problem with the map is it has no chronological information, e.g. the fact that Kansas was the first state to go dry, or any order in which the states made alcohol illegal. As this question is specific to the spread of prohibition, the lack of such information is quite important. On it’s own this source is not particularly useful. If this source were to be used in conjunction with a number of other related sources, including more detailed chronological information, this map would be a lot more beneficial

Question two:

Source D is a photograph from the 1920’s

Source E is a drawing from the 1960’s

Both Sources show the immediate aftermath of a raid on a speakeasy. Which is the more reliable source for investigating the nature of such a raid?

Source D, the photograph from the 1920’s is what a raid on a speakeasy is supposed to look like. It shows government agents and was taken at the time. It is however, most probably a piece of government propaganda. It would have been produced to show that the government was doing its job and to make people believe that prohibition was working. As it is simply a photograph it has no other information, such as how often this would happen, where this particular example is happening or even what the government agents were about to do with the alcohol. As after a while, raids like this would happen highly infrequently. Because it wouldn’t be unusual for the agents to be so corrupt they would take the confiscated items and sell them for their own benefit, sometimes even strait back to the gangsters or speakeasies.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Source E, the drawing from the 1960’s is also what a raid on a speakeasy is supposed to look like, but is an action shot, opposed to a staged shot in the previous source. This however, was done 40 years after the photograph, and although does not have the credit of having been taken at the time, would have been carefully researched for the school textbook it was produced for and cannot of been affected by government censorship at the time. The image is at least partially a collage of photographs, placed together then copied by pen. If u look at the “Key history for GCSE, Modern America” text book, on page 22 there is an image of a man with an axe and barrel, almost identical to the one in the far left of the source, right down to the hat and tie. Although these individual photos could also be staged and products of government propaganda campaigns, the ideas behind them are still correct so the proposed nature such a raid would still be there.

Both sources have their strengths and their weaknesses, and both could be used for investigating the proposed nature of speakeasy raids. The real nature of the average speakeasy raid however, would have been either a publicity stunt by the government or agents looking for an extra pay off. Source E is probably the stronger and more reliable source, although not taken at the time, it would have had a lot of time spent researching it, putting it together and shows what is supposed to happen in a speak easy raid. Source D is too staged to be particularly beneficial, but it does show what the government wants the public to think is happening, which could be of use when looking at the ideals of a raid of this nature.

Question Three:

“Prohibition failed to meet its aims”

Do you agree with this interpretation?

The aim of prohibition was to reduce the “evils of drink” through banning the sale of liquor. It was to do this by making three things illegal: the sale of liquor, the manufacture of liquor and the transportation liquor. This was called the eighteenth amendment. The Volstead Act backed this up, saying that “liquor” was any drink that contained 0.5 per cent alcohol or more.

Unfortunately, when the law was written, a loophole was left in it; it was still legal to drink liquor. This had to be left open for the times when alcohol was needed for medicinal purposes; it did however make it easier for gangsters and speakeasy owners to get around the law. Source B of the coursework shows that out of the 6902 cases involving breaking these drink laws, 6074 were dropped for “not enough evidence” and only 5 out of the 6902 were ever held trial. This was mainly due to the corruption that went right to the heart of the system. Sources D and E of the coursework assignment show images of a raid on a speakeasy. Although they show prohibition working, it says nothing about how frequently they would take place, and in reality, they took place very rarely. Also, it says nothing about what was about to happen afterwards (mainly source D), because often the agents would take the liquor for either their own recreation, or actually sell it back to the gangsters for their own benefit. Source E shows what the government wants the public to think is happening, but it isn’t even a real photo; this act of destroying the liquor would happen so infrequently, a real photograph was unavailable. The government’s attempt to reinforce the illegality of the sale of liquor was almost completely ineffective. Before the introduction of prohibition, in New York there were about 15 000 legal saloons, by 1932 there were about 32 000 speakeasies in the city. The gangsters owned most of these illegal bars, and as the gangsters were in such control of politics at the time through bribes, threats and general corruption the speakeasies were never under any real threat from the government.

The government also had a very difficult time preventing the production of alcohol, and the agents that were trying to find the illegal stills, were probably corrupt in the first place; so it wasn’t hard for the gangsters to manufacture liquor. A reporter in the 1930’s says:

“The administrator had 178 agents to search among 1 278 431 homes… It was almost impossible to find the source of the liquor when they were hidden away in city homes or, in the case of the big producers, when it was hidden away in some hollow or wood.”

This article is illustrating the almost impossible task the few strait prohibition agents were trying to take on, there was no way they would be able to successfully lock down on liquor production. The halfhearted attempt the government resorted to was a real failing of prohibition. This meant it was easy for gangsters to make their fortunes, and increased the crime throughout America.

Another very difficult job the government faced was stopping the smuggling, or “bootlegging” of liquor around and in and out of the country. This was mainly done in a large scale, as it was much more cost effective to bring in large shipments at once, than to bring in small amounts. As a result of this, it was the gangsters that really profited, as they were capable of getting hold of trucks and lorries to transport the liquor. John Torrio, the leader of the Italian American Mafia in Chicago, brought in truckloads of Canadian liquor every night as did most gangster bosses or “liquor barons”. Even if the trucks were stopped, once again the corruption of almost the whole political system meant that with a relatively small sum, the trucks could freely pass on without much hassle.

In spite of all these facts pointing towards prohibition being a failure, figures from the Philadelphia police shows that after the introduction of prohibition the number of disorderly conductions does fall by nearly 500 by 1925, and the number of alcoholics does begin to fall after 1924. The government wrote these figures, so that does mean they could of been written to make it look as if they were doing their job correctly. In 1923, “Big Bill Thompson”, who was mayor of Chicago and had been bought over by John Torrio, a notorious Italian-American gangster at the time, was voted out of power and was replaced by a new, honest mayor, who planned to deal with the gangsters and bootlegging. Therefore freeing the city from such extreme corruption and gangsterism. The introduction of prohibition also satisfied the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, the Anti-Saloon League and such anti liquor organisations. Prohibition agents, were also very successful in certain examples: Izzy Einstein and Moe Smith were probably the most successful prohibition agents in history, whose partner ship resulted in the confiscation of 5 million bottles of alcohol. They would pose as normal people, go into the speak easy and arrest everyone inside. Benefits compiled by the chairman of the Central Baptist Social Action say that: Wife beating and lack of family support decreased 82% Assault was down 53.1% Disorderly conduct decreased 51.5% and there is also a number of other impressive statistics claiming prohibition to be a success. The government at the time however, may have censored the sources that these statistics have been compiled from, so may not be 100% reliable. The person who compiled them, also, may have tried to make it look more impressive than it really is, so it seems his organisation is not a failure.

In conclusion, I think that the central cause for the failures of prohibition is the corruption that existed. This corruption was mainly due to the fact that almost everyone could profit from the illegal sale of liquor, apart from the average person. This meant no one with the power to stop it was going to, and the people that would, weren’t capable of it. Source F of the coursework assignment shows a political cartoon showing a row of officials holding out their hand for payment behind their backs. I doubt this would have been done near the time, as government censorship wouldn’t of allowed it, but it shows how bribery went right to the top of the political system. The actual number of alcoholics, which could be seen as the real test to whether prohibition was successful, rose dramatically. Figures from the Philadelphia police department (source C) show that from 1920 to 1924, the number of alcoholics went from 33 to 874, that is an increase of over 26 times in just 4 years from when prohibition was introduced. The number of drunks also increased dramatically, going from 14 313 to 51 361 in just 5 years from when prohibition was introduced. So, in my belief, prohibition failed to meet it’s aims.