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

Prohibition. Sources A and B are from the same time period, the 1970s. This makes them secondary sources. The sources talk about Prohibition and the effects it had on the USA.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Sources A and B, How far do these accounts agree about Prohibition? Prohibition in the USA refers to the attempts to ban alcohol sale and consumption in the USA. The term often refers to the time period of 1920 to 1930. During this time alcohol sales, transport and manufacture was banned in the USA. However people would try all means necessary to get hold of alcohol. Sources A and B are from the same time period, the 1970's. This makes them secondary sources. The sources talk about Prohibition and the effects it had on the USA. Sources A and B agree and disagree with prohibition. The sources agree that prohibition brought with it ALOT of crime. Source A backs this up with the statement "It created the biggest criminal boom in American history". Source B backs this up with the statement "Gangsters like Dutch Schulz and Al Capone had turned the avoidance of alcohol into big violent businesses." The law however did try to prevent this from happening, but when the forces were corrupt; taking bribes from offenders, it was going to be impossible. Sources A and B also agree that it was after the war and grain had been used up a lot during the war and the manufacture of alcohol was using up a lot of grain when it should have been used on the food production. Source A backs this statement up by saying "the wartime concern for preserving grain", source B also backs the statement up by saying "Brought pressure to bear on the congress to ban the use of grain for either brewing or distilling". They also agree on the influence of the anti saloon league. The source may agree on many things but it also disagrees on other things such as the year in on which the amendment was passed for the prohibition law. Source A states "by 1917 twenty three states had already introduced the ban on alcohol" and source B states "In 1919 the amendment was passed and the manufacture, sale and transportation of liquor was banned.". ...read more.

Middle

He has also written it in the form of what he has seen. Source F is as biased as it can be as it was the commissioner's job to enforce prohibition. He has almost threatened the USA in his speech. Do sources G and H prove that prohibition was successful? Sources G and H show and prove that prohibition was successful and unsuccessful. Source G shows that the federal government agents were successful to a great extent in seizing thousands of stills and millions of gallons of spirits. In 1921 9,746 illegal stills were seized and by 1929 15,794 were seized. This shows that agents were doing their job. Also in 1921, 414,000 gallons of spirits were seized and by 1929, 11,860,0000 gallons were seized. Source H that drunk and disorderly conduct arrests were successful. The results show this, as there is decrease from 6,097 in 1921 to 5,522 in 1925 in Philadelphia. However as we have seen from previous sources, there are more unsuccessful consequences of prohibition than successful. Source G though successful in many ways, is also unsuccessful. The fact that the federal government are seizing more and more stills every 4 years and that gallons of spirits seized rised to a whopping 11,860,000 in 8 years shows people weren't obeying the prohibition law. I also know that one possible cause of the rise is that alcohol was being imported from Canada and Mexico. Prohibition commissioners could not sop this due to lack of commissioners and corruption. In source H for drink related offences it shows that the number of drunks went from 14,313 in 1920 to 51,361 in 1925. This proves that prohibition was not working and that it made people drink more and get drunk. As I mentioned earlier drunk and disorderly conduct did go down, however one reason for this could have been that people knew they would get arrested if seen drunk so they would often drink in a quiet hidden away area to cancel any risk of getting arrested. ...read more.

Conclusion

Source G shows alcohol seized from 1921 to 1929. There is a huge increase over that period of time. This suggests in the years to come that more and more alcohol will be seized every year. This meant prohibition was going to fail. Source H is a lot like source G in terms of figures, a there is a huge increase in total drunk related offences in Philadelphia. This is in one state and by 1925 there were a whopping 57,703 offences. There are many bigger states, which suggests there will be a huge amount of illegal alcohol in the USA. This agrees with the statement "was prohibitions failure inevitable. Sources I and J both show that police officers, agents and anyone with high authority took bribes. Source I show 7 government officials doing the backhand. They are willing to take a bribe. Source J was written by a policeman in the 1920's, during prohibition. He talks about how easy it was to get alcohol and how a bribe would be forced on you before you had even got into the town. This supports the title because it shows that the law could not be enforced if the law enforcers were breaking the law. Source C, D and F are the only sources that supported prohibition and prove that it was not bound to fail. Both sources C and D are posters that show that families go without food, clothes and shoes because the father spends all the money on alcohol. This proves the failure was not inevitable because it presents a strong reason why people should support prohibition. The first commissioner of prohibition wrote source F and he says, "The law will be obeyed in cities, large and small. Where it is not obeyed, it will be enforced." This shows that the law enforcers will work to make the law work. It is a strong reason to support prohibition. In conclusion to this, most of the sources support the fact the failure of prohibition was inevitable. Those sources present strong information on why prohibitions failure was inevitable. ...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. Why was prohibition introduced

    on the margin", this was a loan to buy stocks .The middle classes saw this as a "get rich quick" scheme and started buying up any stocks they could in the hope of making money. All sections of society enjoyed success and were not afraid to display their wealth.

  2. Prohibition Sources Coursework.

    Also the figures for the police seem to suggest that there was a dramatic increase in the number of people drinking between 1920 and 1923, but then between 1923 and 1925, the increase is a lot less significant. This could have been because all the people that had decided they

  1. The USA

    In 1929 only one million cars were sold, whereas four million cars were sold in 1929. This is because people had lost so much money in the Depression; so they now had less money to spend on goods. Therefore fewer goods were made and less factories and workers are needed, which meant unemployment had rose.

  2. Why did prohibition fail?

    I think that it was the lack of public support that was the origin of the failure of Prohibition, but a parallel reason to the lack of public support was the difficulty of enforcement.

  1. History - Prohibition

    Although in 1920, he says he will do his job properly, this was said before the rise of the gangsters and so he could have become corrupted by bribery as many commissioners and law enforcer were during the 1920s. We know that by the late 1920s, the bribery and terror tactics of gangsters had made the enforcement of Prohibition ineffective.

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

    Sources 1-7 overall, indicate very strong support for prohibition. Prohibition worked in some rural areas, in limited ways. Source J can support this point. The supporters of prohibition could point out that there were fewer deaths from alcoholism and few arrests for drunkenness, this point however can be contradicted by source B and D both which claim the opposite.

  1. Study sources A and B - How far do these sources agree about prohibition?

    The war caused a lot of Anti-German feeling in America. Source A says '...the wartime concerns for preserving grain for food, feelings against German-Americans who were important in brewing and distilling'. It also mentions the 'army', which is also tied into the idea of war.

  2. The USA: Was prohibition bound to fail?

    The evidence suggests that corrupted police officers, trying not to make any alcohol-related arrests, refrained from arresting drunken people and the books were later altered to seem more realistic and consistent. Even if this is not the case, the fact that Drunkenness was steadily increasing throughout the period (From 1920

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