The actions of businessmen had an influence of the inevitability for the failure of prohibition during the twenties too. Previous to the prohibition amendment businessmen had tended to support the introduction of the law, in order to discipline and control their workers. It was that “the evil effects of alcohol would be recognized”, said John D. Rockefeller, a wealthy industrialist form source E. however as the 1920’s went on under this new law this was not the case, “instead drinking has generally increased” and many of the “best citizens” became “ lawbreakers”. Businessmen also started to realize how much of a tax burden was upon them and that the renewal of taxes on liquor would reduce it. For this reason many influential business men like J.D. Rockefeller turned against prohibition, but used “crime has increased to a level never seen before” as an excuse. Source E isn’t entirely reliable though, as this is only one businessman’s opinion and therefore not showing the full scale of thoughts from businessmen. However I do know that many businessmen didn’t support prohibition and as a result of their wealth and dominance over it, the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment (AAPA) was a very effective organisation.
Prohibition was always going to be a hard law to introduce and enforce as many ordinary people like drinking. It was a part of many people’s lives and so when the law was introduced allot of people did not take it seriously. As a result, these people became lawbreakers. In fact there was evidence to suggest that the amount of alcohol consumed during the prohibition decade actually increased. There was a fall in consumption in the first year but it soon picked up again, the Americans seemed to stick to the spirits as it was easily transported and lees expensive to make, it also had a higher concentration. They began to drink more potent drinks and so became more drunk by drinking less. It is estimated that in 1925 alone citizens consumed 1003 million gallons of spirits, malt liquor and wine. This self knowledge is further backed up by source G, “statistics showing the activities of Federal Government agents enforcing prohibition.” Here it shows that in 1925 over 11 million gallons of spirits were seized therefore there was a big demand for alcohol (spirits particularly) and I know from my own knowledge that only ever a very small percentage of smuggled alcohol was stopped- suggesting that there was mass amounts of alcohol consumed daily by regular people. However these statistics are not entirely reliable as they only show alcohol seized, not how much was consumed. It is almost probably published as government propaganda to show that they had everything under control, but in actual fact the situation was well out of their control. Source E also agrees that “a vast army of lawbreakers have appeared”, and then goes on further to say “respect for the law has been greatly lessened” emphasising on people’s unwillingness to except this new law. Although this does appear to be very true this evidence is not entirely reliable as Rockefeller was trying to justify his reasons for his change in opinion of prohibition. He also was based in a large city where drinking was more available and on a greater demand than rural parts of America.
A final determination for the inevitable failure of prohibition was that the law was going against the daily habits and customs of Americans. Due to a large scale flock of immigrants to America in the last 50 years, to many people like the Jews and the Negro population, drinking was not a sign of moral weakness but part of their culture and way of living. The influx of immigrants meant a growth in cities and in 1920 a census revealed that the USA was predominantly urban for the first time. This resulted in the tension between the rural and the urban states. The saloon was at it’s greatest in cities with support from the Catholics and immigrants meant it had a great influence even if widening the divided between catholic and protestant, immigrant and native and the urban and rural states. Source B supports this in the sense that drinking was taking place mainly in cities; “by 1928 there was more than 30,000 ‘speakeasies’ in New York”, the source also mentions that made illegal drinking possible simply “supply a public demand”. Source B however is not completely reliable as it is taken from a History book, therefore showing a more generalised view on prohibition.
Although there seems to be a strong argument that the failure of prohibition was inevitable, it is visible to see how people thought it would succeed, and there is much evidence to suggest its success too. The most influential source of suggested success came from the support and campaigning for prohibition before hand. There was a long history of support for prohibition; in1845 there was an increase in the number of states and local areas in the USA that had introduced a ban on alcohol. In 1896 the Anti-Saloon League was set up and so the demands for prohibition as a national policy increased. The Women’s Christian Temperance Union was another very powerful influential lobby group. The organisations believed that by banning alcohol across the country there would be an improvement on family life and a decrease in poverty, as they thought these were caused by the men of families drinking away their wages. Both groups unleashed powerful propaganda. Sources C and D are evidence of propaganda produced by the ASL aimed at wives and mothers in difficult situations to team with the support for prohibition. Source C claims that the saloon is the “Poor Man’s Club” and shows a man handing over a bag labelled “weeks wages” to the barman in a saloon. The poster is titled “the slaves of the saloon”. Source D, a poster showing a little girl and boy walking past a saloon and saying “Daddy’s in there” under the poster it then goes on to say “And so are our shoes and stockings and food are in the saloon too”, implying they suffer from poverty to support their father’s drinking habit. The two posters are very powerful, dramatizing emotions and confirming fears because it enables wives and mothers to relate to it. At the same time though this also makes the posters quite unreliable, support for prohibition did not just spring from propaganda like this, it also had quite allot to do with the war. Just before the introduction of the 18th amendment the USA had been involved with WW1 and so there was allot of anti- German feeling at this time. Opponents of alcohol argued it was unpatriotic to drink beer as it had originated from German brewers, they also argued that communist Russia thrived on drink. Source A agrees with “feelings against the German-Americans who were important in brewing” had an influence over support for prohibition. Although this source is quite unreliable as it is only an extract from a history book therefore it only has a greatly generalized view over prohibition.
In addition to the belief of prohibitions success or at least that it wasn’t inevitable to fail was that it continued to receive support throughout the twenties. Support particularly came from the rural areas of America, partly because the law was easier to enforce here and also many rural had already decided to go ‘dry’ before prohibition was introduced nationally. Source H strengthens this argument as it shows successful arrests for “Drunk” and “Drunk and disorderly conduct”. The arrests for drunk over 1920-1925 increased potentially portraying a success of the enforcement for prohibition, and the drunk and disorderly conduct arrests dropped after 1923 to 1925, suggesting a decrease in drinking and certainly over drinking. These statistics were published by “the city of Philadelphia Police Department”, this in itself can reveal an unreliability as it is only statistics from a city, and so only a narrow view. Many of the sources and images I have of prohibition are from cities like source H and therefore don’t hold reliable evidence from across the USA. Another unreliability of this source is that it only shows arrests and not charges consequently leaving this source invalid as evidence.
Finally, further evidence that prohibition’s failure was not inevitable was the original high hopes from the authorities. The support for prohibition became intense in the early years in America, before, during and after the WW1. Powerful propaganda was uncovered by groups like ASL and WCTU which pressurised the authorities into thinking that the de-legalisation of alcohol would reduce the amount of poverty in America. Authorities believed that prohibition would strengthen people’s morals and make them more reliable citizens. These high hopes were heightened and encouraged by support from important figures such as Nelson Rockerfeller, who believed that banning alcohol would make his workers more reliable. Evidence to side this consists of source B which states, “victory encouraged the supporters of the League to push for an amendment”, although it must be taken in to consideration that this source is also unreliable as evidence because it does not specify on prohibition at this time as it is a text from a history book and so more generalised. A more concrete example of high hope of the authorities is source F, a quote from the first prohibition commissioner, who very firmly said, “The law will be obeyed” showing great belief that people would actually live by the law and that it would “be enforced”. However source F is also slightly unreliable as this was only said at the beginning of prohibition and so would want to portray a confident attitude that the 18th amendment would work.
It would be hard to say whether prohibitions failure was inevitable as both arguments have their strengths. Prohibition looked promising prior to its introduction and certainly in the rural areas of America as over 50% of the states had gone ‘dry’ before anyway. However it was not taken into account of how the growing urban areas would take the new law. Social values were changing with the kick off of the roaring twenties as the liberation of women, new immigration and industrial urbanisation channelled Americans into the confidence of their newly found buoyancy. Perhaps prohibition would have succeeded if these traditional values had not been obscured, because all of the discussed issues are symptomatic of the fundamental cause being the change in Americans attitude and unwillingness to accept this law. However, because of this prohibitions failure only became obvious after the initial stage of prohibition, therefore not making it inevitable from the beginning. The 18th amendment did become inevitable to failure within the first few years of prohibition and certainly after 1925, as the law just was not being enforced and other crimes and an attitude of lawlessness has spun off it. Many US cities became more drunken, violent and corrupt than ever before, worsening the problems prohibition was supposed to solve. Prohibition may not have been inevitable to fail right from its launch, but after the first few years it was clear that it certainly would fail in the urbanised states of America.
