Overall, as opposed to source A, source B agrees with the prohibition of alcohol. The source refers alcoholism as an “evil”. This is evidence that the writer is in favour of prohibition. It is strong in its argument as it uses facts rather than opinion: “In 1919 the amendment was passed…the manufacture, sale and transportation of liquor was banned…1500 prohibition officers were appointed”. However, the source can be criticised for being biased. It refers to the commissioners as great men who would save the American nation for the “evil” drink, but in reality most of the commissioners were bribed. In addition, the source was from a history book of America and was written in 1979 thus the writer knows the unsuccessfulness and consequences of the prohibition but still agrees with it. This reflects great support of the writer in agreement with the prohibition. The source refers to the people who disagree with the prohibition negatively as “gangsters” thus, again, shows further support for the ban. Even though in reality “gangsters” such as “Al Capone” and “Dutch Schulz” were serving the “public’s demand” and if there was no “demand” then they wouldn’t be successful in their crime.
In conclusion, both sources successfully talk about the prohibition of alcohol in America. However both have different attitudes and approaches towards the issue; source A disagrees and source B agrees with the prohibition.
(b)
Introduction
Sources C and D are posters from the Early 1900’s. They both exhibit significant messages regarding the prohibition of alcohol. This account will explore the posters attitudes whether they are for or against the ban.
Context and Provenance
Both sources portray similar negative attitudes and arguments in favour of the prohibition of alcohol. These posters were both published in the early 1900’s just before the prohibition of alcohol law came in place. At that time there were strong, focussed organisations and campaigns such as the WCTU (Woman’s Christian Temperance Union) and ASL (Anti-Saloon League) which supported the prohibition. They aimed to convince and win over the publics vote approving the alcohol ban. These sources could have been published in order to inform and spread to the public the negatives of alcoholism and thus to persuade them support the ban.
Content
Source C is a poster of a poor man spending his weekly wages on alcohol in a saloon with a rich man on the counter making lots of money on the poor mans habit. It also has an image of a sad women and a child. Source D is also a picture of a saloon from an outside view. It also has a picture of two children whose father is inside.
Inference
The artists of both posters have used images of children. The picture of a child in source C is on a table with the child’s mum upset. This might suggest that while the father is spending his wages on alcohol, his wife and child are hungry (on the kitchen table). There is also a paper on the floor – possibly a notice of eviction. This image reflects a bad outcome of alcohol consumption where the poor man chooses alcohol against the wellbeing of his family. Source D also uses images of children. The children being alone raise questions of where the mother may be thus projecting possible negative assumptions that the mother may have been abused or battered because of the children’s father’s habit of alcohol consumption. The pictures of sad, poorly dressed and unhealthy looking children are emotional tools to reflect the negative consequences of alcohol thus promoting the prohibition. The little boy looking into the saloon where his father is, may also suggest that he will follow his fathers footsteps and will also become an alcoholic unless the vicious circle of future alcoholic generations are stopped by the prohibition.
The man serving the poor man alcohol in source C looks big (well-fed), has diamond buttons and has cash in one hand. This suggests he is wealthy from selling alcohol. However, selling it to a poor man who ends up neglecting his family because of it portrays him of being greedy. In the background are men gambling. This adds to the negative image being presented. Although there is no such baddie in source D, the saloon and whoever runs it are prejudged as baddies anyway for keeping the father away from of the sad looking children outside. Again, such images in the picture present a negative depiction with the cause being alcohol.
Source C uses words and phrases such as ‘poor man’, ‘expensive’ and ‘slaves of the saloon’. This represents negative attitudes towards the ‘expensive’ addiction of alcohol for a ‘poor man’ who become ‘slaves of the saloon’. Source D also states that the children are deprived of necessities like ‘food’ and ‘shoes’ because of their father spending all his ‘weekly wages’ on alcohol to feed his addiction. Again, the root of the addiction is the bad habit of alcohol consumption which further justifies the goodness of the prohibition.
Conclusion
Overall, both posters represent negative consequences of alcohol consumption through images that emotionally gets to humane people in society. However, these images can be criticised for scapegoating alcoholics being neglectful and for being biased and one-sided in order to win over views supporting the prohibition of alcohol. Artists of both sources are successful in producing posters in favour for the prohibition of alcohol.
(C)
(d)
Source G shows us how many illegal stills and gallons on spirits were seized from 1921 to 1929. In 1921, only 414,000 gallons of spirits were seized but in 1929, 11,860,000 gallons were seized. This suggests that prohibition was successful because prohibition officers were doing their jobs. Although in contrast, more and more people were making alcohol illegally, this makes prohibition unsuccessful.
Source G also tells us that the number of illegal stills seized increased by over 5,000 in a period of eight years (from 1921 to 1929). This tells us that prohibition is popular as less alcohol is going to the people, but prohibition is unsuccessful as people (like the gangsters) are making it in large amounts.
Source G is not reliable as it was published by federal agents who worked for the government to find alcohol. But in the whole of America there were only 1,500 of them and they were low paid, so the information could have been forged to hide the bribery that was going on, in which case shows that prohibition was unsuccessful.
Similar to source G, source H shows us the number of drunken people, the drunk and disorderly conduct and drunk drivers in a period of five years (1920 to 1925). It shows us that in 1920, there were no drunk drivers while in 1925, there were 820 drunk drivers caught. This tells us that prohibition was unsuccessful because if prohibition was successful then the number of drunk drivers in 1920, would be more than in 1925.
According to source H, the total number of alcohol related incidents in 1920, was 20,410 and in 1925, it was 57,703. That is more than double. If prohibition was successful, the number of alcohol related incidents in 1920 would be much lower than in 1925.
Source H is not reliable as the statistics were calculated, only in the state of Philadelphia, and this could have been one of the states were there were more gangsters (like Chicago). Also Source H was produced by the Philadelphia police department and Source I and J talks about how most officers were bribed.
In my opinion, Source G and H show us that prohibition was unsuccessful, ineffective and people kept on drinking alcohol that they got illegally from the gangsters (like Al-Capone). If prohibition had been successful, the numbers of drunken related incidents and gallons of alcohol seized would decrease instead of increasing.
Prohibition of Alcohol in America – 1920
(e)
The cartoon (source I) shows a row of prohibition officers with their hand behind their backs ready to take a bribe. It shows different officers at different positions, for example, police officers, prohibition agents, politician etc… The cartoon is from the time of prohibition and it is called “the national gesture” this name suggests that officers were accepting bribes all across America (nationally) even the higher up officers. I know that most prohibition officers were underpaid and so they were the ones to accept the bribes first.
Source J tells us that “ordinary policemen…were supposed to drink” and if they “tried to enforce the law, they’d put you in a post where there was nothing but weeds” this suggests that prohibition officers could not enforce the law, even if they wanted to because people expected them to take bribed. The policeman in source J also says that “my superior officers were also involved in it” (in the bribes). This is as source I shows us all the different officers standing together waiting for a bribe, this point in source I suggests that the policeman in source J is telling the truth.
The policeman in source J was talking about Chicago, this is where the gangsters (Al Capone) had taken over and was very bad. Source I calls the cartoon “the national gesture” this suggests that it is happening all aver America (nationally) and the whole nation is involved in it. This tells us that the police man in Source J is telling the truth about the more bad states (Chicago) but not about the safer states like New York, Tennessee etc…
In my opinion, source I does prove that the policeman in source J is telling the truth, because the policeman tells us that he was bribed by “$75” and in source I, the main theme of the cartoon is that police officers of all levels were getting bribed and source J tells us that “my superior officers were involved in it” (in bribery).
Prohibition in America Question 6 (t)
Source A shows us that people didn’t want prohibition. This is because prohibition went “against the daily customs, habits and desires of so many Americans”. On the other hand, in 1917, 23 states had already banned alcohol. This tells us that that it was very popular.
Source B also tells us that some people hated prohibition while others wanted it. Like the WCTU (woman’s Christian temperance union) and the ASL (anti saloon league). This source also tells us that the gangsters took over alcohol. They supplied a “public demand”. This source is reliable as it is from a history book written after prohibition and shows both sides of the arguments.
Source C and D tells us that thousands of Americans were addicted to alcohol so prohibition will not work because those people need their alcohol. On the other hand they tell us that many people were supporting prohibition as they were putting up posters against alcohol and the effects of alcohol. This source is reliable but it is very biased towards prohibition.
Source E tells us that many rich people supported prohibition, People like “John D Rockefeller” supported prohibition and “hoped that it would work”. With wealthy businessmen like Rockefeller supporting prohibition it had a chance of working as they would not support a lost and doomed cause.
Source G and H show us that prohibition failed and that crime rates increased due to drinking alcohol that was supplied by the gangsters. The sources are not reliable as they are just facts that show information like “illegal stills seized” and “drunk drivers”. But it does not tell you about the illegal stills not seized and drunk drivers not caught. It is also from the police department in 1920 – 1925 so they may have made the numbers up to push prohibition harder. It is only one side of the story.
Source I shows us that prohibition officers were bribed left, right and centre. This means that prohibition will never work as no-one is enforcing it. But this source is not reliable as it is an opinion from a newspaper.
Source J tells us that all ranks of prohibition officers were bribed, mostly the underpaid ones. If this was happening the prohibition would be doomed. But this source is not reliable as it only talks about the worst of places (Chicago). This is ware the gangsters (Al-Capone) had taken over.
With my own knowledge I am able to conclude that prohibition was going to be a failure from the beginning, it was inevitable. Most of the sources can also show you this. I think this as Americans in the 1920’s wanted alcohol and they were prepared to do anything for it, including buying it more expensive from the gangsters.
