Similarities and different in consequences:
Both sources are believe that Prohibition indisputably caused a great crime wave in America. Source B uses slightly more epidemiology (proving things on the basis of statistics), compared to source A, however both believe that this law ensured widespread crime. The method of conveyance was slightly different; however both agree on the consequences of prohibition; that it was a great failure.
To summarize, both agree quite a bit about the causes and consequences of prohibition; how Anti Saloon Leagues and the Eighteenth Amendment caused the one of the greatest crime waves America had ever seen.
2. Study sources C and D. Were the artists of these two posters for or against Prohibition? Explain your answer, referring to details in the two posters.
I feel that both of the Authors of both sources were in favour of Prohibition, fundamentally. A detailed analysis shall explain this viewpoint.
Source C
Source C is clearly for Prohibition. The artist chooses to show what heinous effects alcohol can have: it can be an addiction, and have a negative effect on one’s financial state and family life.
This is very easy to see from the poster:
Effect on financial state
At the top of the poster, there is a title: “The Poor Man’s Club” – The most expensive in the world to belong to. There is no sophistry here- it means, plain and simply, that alcohol robs the buyers of their money.
Furthermore, The man at the bar is handing over a money bag that says “week’s wages” – implying that he wastes most of his week’s wages on Alcohol. At the bottom of the source (the bottom left corner), there is a caption “A club Member in good standing “Paying his dues”. The author has chosen to show many things in the poster that shows that Alcohol will have an absolutely horrible effect on one’s financial state – it will take away a great amount of one’s wages.
Effect on family life
Towards the bottom right corner of the poster, the scene is changed and a woman and child are seen at a table – with no food. The woman is obviously the man’s [the man who is buying alcohol] wife, and the child is his child. The woman is crying – and says that ‘The saloon is well named – ‘The Poor Man’s club’ it keeps its members and their families always poor.”
One could argue that this enhances the idea that alcohol wastes exorbitant amounts of money – however I feel seeing a woman and child without their father and without food enhances the idea that alcohol will ruin family life, as well.
The idea that its an addiction.
There is a caption at the bottom of the poster saying ‘Slaves of the Saloon’. This implies that the men ‘have’ to go there, which I assume is trying to convey that alcohol is an addiction, and that they will perpetually return to the Saloon. Also the caption, in the bottom left corner of the poster “…paying his dues” implies that it is quite an addiction.
For all the above reasons, the author of the poster was obviously against alcoholism, and was probably trying to help get the 18th amendment passed. This is because the poster was published in 1910. Therefore the artist was FOR Prohibition.
Source D
This poster is quite similar in its principles – it was trying to show that Prohibition was good because it stamped out alcohol. It show that alcohol had a negative effect on both family life and one’s financial state. (more family life, however).
The effect on family life
There is a mother standing with her child outside the Saloon. They look quite frightened, which is one of the author’s first techniques to show that alcohol would have negative effects on family life (the scared child’s face would make the viewers of the poster feel some sympathy).
This idea that alcohol would turn men into a man that families were frightened of is furthermore enhanced by the caption and the top of the poster “Daddy’s in there—“ Referring to the Saloon as there also makes it seem very bad and harmful.
The effect on financial state
The only thing that the author includes to illustrate that alcohol would have a negative effect on the financial state is a quote at the bottom- which is obviously being said by the mother:
‘And our shoes and stockings and food are in the saloon too, and they’ll never come out.’
This quote is just trying to show that all the money that the father earns shall be splundered on alcohol, as opposed to buying necessities for the family such as shoes, stockings and food. This also enhances the idea that alcohol shall have a negative effect on family life.
To summarize, both the authors were FOR Prohibition. They both chose to show what heinous effects alcohol has; that it ruins family life and will rid a man of all his money. These ideas that the authors of the poster are trying to convey are quite strong, stressing that Prohibition was a good thing.
3. Study sources E and F. Which of these two sources is the more reliable as evidence about Prohibition? Explain your answer.
Firstly, I shall analyze both sources, with background knowledge, and thereafter compare them, to see which source is more reliable.
Source E.
Taking the provenance of this source into account, Source E was written in 1932, by a wealthy industrialist. This means that it could be quite reliable as evidence about Prohibition as it was written after 12 years of experience of Prohibition, by a man who originally was in favour of Prohibition.
“I hoped that it would widely supported by public opinion and thus the day would soon come when the evils of alcohol would be generally recognized”.
However, he then changed his opinion….. “I have slowly and reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result.”. This shows that John D. Rockerfeller, the author, must have been quite open minded, which increases the source’s reliability.
What is later said in the source is also correct:
“Instead drinking has generally increased; the speak easy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has recruited and financed on a huge scale; man of our best citizens have openly ignored the Eighteenth Amendment; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before.”
We know all this is true. It is simple background knowledge that speakeasies as Prohibition came. The drinking of alcohol went ‘underground’, and ‘speakeasies’ were run by criminal operations. Furthermore, if one were to look at Source A again, it mentions that:
“It [Prohibition] created the greatest criminal boom in American history, and perhaps in all modern history. No earlier law produced such widespread crime”.
Prohibition brought crime – and such colossal amounts of it.
For the reasons above; that the provenance of the source is quite reliable, and that what is said is historically true – I believe that this source can be considered ‘reliable’.
Source F.
First of all, I shall start by analyzing its provenance. It was said by John F. Kramer, whose job was to enforce Prohibition, in 1920. This could mean that the source is quite unreliable as evidence of Prohibition. It was written in 1920, before America had any real experience of Prohibition. Furthermore, it was written by a man whose job it was to enforce Prohibition. This almost automatically means that it could be slightly biased.
What’s said in the source, furthermore, isn’t what actually happened. John F. Kramer mentions:
“The law will be obeyed in cities….The law says that liquor must not be manufactured. We shall see that it is not manufactured. Nor sold, nor given away.”
This didn’t happen at all. Speakeasies were introduced, a form of ‘underground’ Saloon. Therefore liquor was sold. And to sell the liquor, it has to be manufactured – therefore it was manufactured.
We also know that the law was not obeyed in cities. There were humungous amounts of corrupt police officers, and briberies. The law was not obeyed at all, and America had turned even more anarchistic than before the introduction of Prohibition.
Therefore, I consider this source very unreliable as evidence of Prohibition. It was said at a time when they had not experienced Prohibition’s effect, it was said by a man whose opinion would naturally be biased and the things he says did not actually happen. It is a very unreliable source as evidence of Prohibition.
Which is more reliable – Source E or F?
This is quite obvious – Source E. Its provenance is much more reliable – it was written by someone who was evidently ‘open-minded’, at a time when they had 12 years experience of Prohibition. Furthermore, what was said in the text actually happened (which we know is true through reference to other sources and background knowledge).
Source F, on the other hand, has a unreliable provenance and what was mentioned in it didn’t make sense. Therefore Source E is more reliable as evidence about Prohibition.
4. Study sources G and H. Do these two sources prove that Prohibition was successful? Explain your answer.
Source G and H are epidemiological evidence of Prohibition’s effectiveness. They show, through statistics, how Prohibition officers seized more and more spirits and drunk people.
Source G is statistics showing the activities of Federal government agents enforcing Prohibition, 1921 -1929. (It is figures for the whole country – seeing it is the Federal Government.
Source H is statistics published by the City of Philadelphia Police Department, showing the number of arrests for drinking-related offences, 1920-1925. (thereby the statistics for Philadelphia alone).
Source G.
Source G is as follows:
1921 1925 1929
Illegal stills seized: 9746 12023 15794
Gallons of spirit seized: 414 000 11 030 000 11 860 000
The statistics do show that Prohibition is working. If one were to look at the Gallons of spirit seized, one would see that there is a humungous difference between 1921 and 1925 (10,616,000), whereas a comparatively small difference between 1925 and 1929 (830 000). This means that Prohibition wasn’t quite working (as there were still approximately 12 000 000 Gallons of spirit in 1929, however it shows that Prohibition allowed these Gallons to be seized). There can be various interpretations of this data.
Yet it definitely shows that the officers were still able to stop those who were guilty of selling, transporting or manufacturing alcohol.
However, we know that this is impossible. The amount of corrupt officers and briberies made sure that not much alcohol was actually seized. Therefore one can consider the information not reliable.
What enhances this feeling of the source’s being unreliable, is that it was published by the Federal Government agents. It was their job to enforce Prohibition – so of course they’re going to manipulate statistics in their favour!
With all these factors, I believe that this source is definitely unreliable.
Source H.
Source H goes as follows:
1920 1923 1925
Drunk 14,313 45,226 51,361
Drunk and disorderly conduct 6097 8076 5522
Drunk Drivers 0 645 820
Total 20,410 53,947, 57,703
The evidence that is conveyed through the statistics in Source H is very similar to that in source G. It shows that Prohibition wasn’t quite working (as there were still quite a lot of drunks 5 years after the start of Prohibition – there were still at least 51 000 drunks ), yet it does show that Prohibition helped arrest all the drunks. There can be various interpretations of this data.
However, it does show that Police Officers in Philadelphia were doing their job. They were still able to arrest great numbers of drunks.
However, I feel that, like Source G, one can doubt the reliability of the statistics. These statistics were published by the Philadelphia Police, whose job it was to arrest drunken people, or people who were drunk and performing disorderly conduct. Therefore the statistics would be manipulated, to suit them.
Furthermore, this wouldn’t prove that Prohibition was successful – as it only represents figures for one state. Prohibition was national – not just for one state, therefore it cannot prove anything on Prohibition’s effectiveness as a whole.
Both Source G and H’s reliability can be doubted. They represent figures which I believe are impossible, and they come from biased authors. Therefore I consider both sources to be very unreliable.
5. Study Sources I and J Do these two sources provide useful evidence about the effectiveness of Prohibition? Explain your answer.
Source I is a little paragraph, written by a journalist in 1931. In this paragraph he mentions how Prohibition has filled the land with land and crime, and that it is an awful failure, and says [sarcastically] how ‘we’ like it. Source J is a slightly longer text, and is a policeman talking about Chicago and Prohibition in the 1920s.
Source I
Source I is exceedingly critical of Prohibition, and describes it as an “awful failure”, it says that it “can’t stop what it’s meant to stop”. Furthermore, “It’s left a trail of corruption and slime, It’s filled our land with vice and crime”.
These may be very critical, though they are true. If one were to return to Source E, they could find the statement
“…Instead, drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy ahs replaced the saloon…”. This statement supports the line in Source I which is “It can’t stop what it’s meant to stop.”
And if one were to return to Source A, they would see the statement:
“No earlier law produced such widespread crime.”. This supports the line in Source I “It’s left a trail of corruption and slime, It’s filled our land with vice and crime”.
As for its provenance, there is no reason to doubt its reliability. The journalist doesn’t appear to be biased, and has had 11 years experience of Prohibition (which I believe to be adequate).
For its reliable provenance, and the fact that it agrees with other sources, I believe Source I provides reliable evidence about Prohibition, to say the least. Yes, it does provide useful evidence about the effectiveness of Prohibition.
Source J is a policeman talking about when he went to a Polish neighbourhood, and about how Saloons would always welcome you; About how so many police officers were involved in briberies – and he mentions a little bit about his experience with bribery.
I do feel that this is useful evidence about the effectiveness of Prohibition, as I know that there were briberies ubiquitous, and that alcohol and ‘speakeasy Saloons’ continued to exist during Prohibition. What reports to be happening throughout Prohibition actually did happen.
Excerpt from the text about drinking continuing to exist: “The bottle was there and you were supposed to drink.
Excerpt from the text about so many officers being involved in Briberies: “It was a conspiracy and my superior officers were involved in it.”
Excerpt from the text about how he was bribed, and how it is such a common thing:
“A man dashed up to me and said ‘This is for you.’ He handed me an envelope, I took it and he was gone. I opened it up and there was $75 in it.
Bribery was such a common thing.”
I feel that both Source I and J provide useful evidence about Prohibition. This is because they both mention how there were corrupt officers, how Prohibition couldn’t stop the drinking and selling of alcohol and that it filled America with crime and violence. Those actually happened, therefore I consider Sources I and J historically correct and accurate. I also feel that there is no reason to doubt the reliability of the provenance of the sources. And ultimately, therefore, I feel sources I and J provide useful evidence about the [lack in] effectiveness of Prohibition.
6. Study Source K. Why was this poster published in 1933? Explain your answer.
Source K is a poster advertising for people to support the new President, Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Repeal of the 18th Amendment.
The question is, however, why in 1933? To answer this question, one must realise what America was like in 1933 – what the ambience was then.
In 1933 the idea of repealing the 18th Amendment; and stopping Prohibition was very popular with Americans. Many Americans had been drinking illegally, visiting speakeasies for 13 years – and would of course be joyous should they be allowed to drink freely. This is the obvious reason for the repeal. Why in 1933, however?
Franklin D. Roosevelt, the new president of America had realised that Prohibition was the root of criminals such as Schutz and Capone. Prohibition caused one of the greatest crime waves to America. It didn’t stop what it intended to stop. Therefore FDR realised that it had no true virtues; no true positive aspects.
On the 14th of February 1933 there was the ‘St. Valentine’s day massacre’, wherein Al Capone’s gang attacked a rival gang. This was seen as ‘the final straw’, and America were thereafter, as a whole, sick and tired of Prohibition. It caused crime wherein people died brutal deaths and stopped their drinking.
This poster was published in 1933, as America were fully sick and tired of Prohibition at this point; enhanced by the ‘St Valentines day massacre’. Roosevelt saw ending Prohibition as very advantageous. It would stop a lot of crime, and could help the economy. It would make him popular with the population- so he chose to repeal the 18th Amendment. The poster was a means of doing so – he wanted America’s help.
7. Study all the sources. Do these sources support the view that the failure of Prohibition was inevitable? Explain your answer.
Many people, as well as historians believe that the failure of Prohibition was inevitable. There is irrefutably a lot of evidence throughout the sources to back this belief or opinion up.
Evidence showing that Prohibition would inevitably fail.
The first evidence that shows that Prohibition was indeed an inevitable failure is that so many people enjoyed drinking alcohol, (and perhaps would be prepared to break the law to obtain alcohol); before the Eighteenth Amendment was passed. If one were to look at Source C, they would see the caption “Slaves of the Saloon”, at the bottom of the poster. This obviously means that such men liked alcohol to some extent, and implies therefore that they might be willing to break the law to acquire alcohol. Similarly, if one were to look at Source D, they would see the caption “and our shoes and stockings and food are in the saloon too, and they’ll never come out.” The part ‘and they’ll never come out’ implies that the fathers were that indulged in their alcohol, that almost nothing could stop them acquiring it. Sources C and D might have been published to stop Prohibition, yet have certain aspects to them which suggest that it’d fail inevitably.
The next piece of evidence that supports the opinion that Prohibition would inevitably fail, is the monumental rise in crime that came with Prohibition. Crime rose drastically with the introduction of Prohibition. This is blatantly true, and is supported by many of the Sources.
“It [Prohibition] created the greatest criminal boom in American history, and perhaps in all modern history” – From Source A.
“In great American cities, gangsters like Dutch Schultz and Al Capone had turned the avoidance of Prohibition into a big, violent business” – From Source B.
The last piece of evidence that supports the opinion that Prohibition’s fail was inevitable is linked to briberies. Prohibition went against so many desires of American citizens.
“..had gone against the daily, customs, habits and desires of so many Americans.” – from Source A.
Angering people would only lead to people not obeying the law, and therefore the law would fail. Criminal organisations would control alcohol to suit the public’s needs, and thereafter briberies were needed. If any police officer reported to his senior officers, or powerful Police force of serious law-breakers, those law-breakers were in trouble. To ‘silence’ these police officers, briberies were needed.
There is evidence that the level of crime and briberies increased drastically, as officers who would usually never break the law began to defy it.
“…it was a great conspiracy, and my senior officers were involved in it.” – Source J
However, there was quite a lot of evidence showing that Prohibition might be successful, shown in the Sources.
Evidence that Prohibition wouldn’t fail.
Firstly, Saloons were thought of as ‘creepy’ places, places where money was squandered, and they were nothing more than a dark ‘club’ for irresponsible fathers. This is shown in both Source C and D, where the Saloon seems to only have a negative effect on the father, or family life. (In source C money is being squandered; given to a man with a malevolent grin, and in source D the mother and child look wistfully to the Saloon where their father is.) Furthermore, in source A, it mentions that Saloons had a bad influence “Among possible explanations we must include the bad influence of Saloons…”
A different reason which suggests that Prohibition might have been successful is that in 1920, there was a general need to preserve grain for food. “…the wartime concern for preserving grain for food…” – From Source A. If this feeling had been kept up, Prohibition might not have failed.
Furthermore, there were quite a lot of members who supported the Anti Saloon League and the Women’s Christian Temperance Union. (At that time, around 1920, the Women’s Christian Temperance Union had approximately 350 000 members, which was and still is its all time highest. The Anti Saloon League consisted of fewer members, yet had a great number of supporters).
It therefore seemed unlikely that Prohibition would fail – with so many campaigns against alcoholism, how was it that such a great number of people disliked the law? Source B supports this viewpoint:
“In 1917 a nation-wide campaign, led by the Anti-Saloon League, brought pressure to bear on Congress to ban ….. That victory encouraged the supporters of the league to push for an amendment of the USA. In 1919 the amendment was passed.”
The overall opinion was, however, that Prohibition would fail. Yes, there were reasons to believe that Prohibition would work; as shown by aspects of Sources A, B, C and D. There were furthermore a lot of members involved in organizations against alcohol such as the Woman’s Christian temperance Union and The anti-Saloon league, as well as many Americans wanting to preserve grain for food, as opposed to using it as grain for brewery
However, I believe there was a greater chance that Prohibition would fail. This is supported by elements of Sources A, B, I, J, and ultimately K (though K was published at the end of Prohibition- so I felt no need to mention it in this answer). I feel that Prohibition couldn’t have worked; it caused briberies and crimes, however, and perhaps most of all: it went against a great percentage of the population’s wills and desires.
4,773 Words.
Information obtained from:
