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

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

Extracts from this document...


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 ...read 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. ...read more.


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. ...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. American History Coursework

    the dams' construction, constantly destroyed valuable agricultural land - the likes of floods and droughts were prevented, and the excess water which previously had been so drastically damaging was after that, used to irrigate the land. The catered for one of the most basic, yet essential, human needs - sustenance.

  2. Does the evidence of source C support the evidence of sources A and B ...

    Although one person's trousers are small they are not ripped and ragged, but in source A the author claims that everyone wears ripped and ragged clothes.

  1. History - Prohibition

    This led to the construction industry flourishing. In the transport industry, there was also a large increase in the number of cars, trucks and airplanes being produced. The home life was becoming a lot simpler and easier with the introduction of a mail order catalogue, electricity and an increase in consumer goods.

  2. The United States 1919 - 1941, The Wall Street Crash

    They are using the situation against their opposition. Therefore, this source might be slightly prejudiced and unbalanced. Consequently, In conclusion, I believe that Source A is quite useful as evidence about the Great Depression as it shows opinions and views of the Democratic Party against President Hoover and also shows

  1. Prohibition in the United States - source related study.

    So some places may not have had prohibition while some did. It doesn't inform us of the extent of prohibition in each state. Because of all these points, when looking at Source A though we do acquire some information, we do not get the full, clear picture on the Spread of Prohibition through the United States from 1845 - 1933.

  2. Prohibition Sources Coursework.

    policeman in source J is telling the truth, it can help to make his source seem more reliable. f) There are many different types of sources to consider here. I think some do hold the view that the failure of Prohibition was inevitable whilst others do not.

  1. Which of these two sources is the more useful to a historian studying the ...

    This proved to be a significant mistake as the figures for the year after the spending cut jumped by 2.7 million up to 10.4 million people unemployed. Roosevelt realised that continued spending was necessary and supplied even more money than 1936 to help bring the figures back down.

  2. History Coursework: Assignment 1 - Prohibition

    Propaganda told people that for every man working to buy alcohol instead of food, it was one less chance of America winning the war. 2. How Did Prohibition change US society in the 1920s? The main impact of Prohibition on US society in the 1920s was that although prohibition was

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