In the bottom right hand corner there is a small area showing what looks like the man’s family while he is out at the saloon. The woman, possibly his wife, looks upset and despondent. There is no food on the table. There is also a young toddler sitting in his high chair apparently oblivious to what is going on. This small section showing the wife and child would help appeal to people’s sensitive and caring side. People want to help vulnerable people especially children. This aspect appeals to people’s love for children and their desire to protect them. It is clever how this poster combines both images, the family at home and the husband spending the money the family sorely needs.
Just above the picture of the family there is a caption. It says, “The saloon is well named “The Poor Mans Club”. It keeps its members and their families poor.” I think this caption, and the picture, are both intended to make sure that the person looking at the poster doesn’t forget that these men have families at home. In my opinion, this makes the poster a lot more influential. The mother is clearly in despair, at home with the child, while her husband is out enjoying himself on a regular basis.
The artist of the poster in source D is also clearly in favour of Prohibition. I know that the Anti–Saloon League, one of the biggest groups campaigning for the law banning alcohol, to be passed, published this poster. It depicts a young girl and boy standing outside a saloon. The poster is headed by a caption, which reads, “ Daddy’s in there----“ Then underneath the sentence is finished with, “And our shoes and stockings and food are in the saloon too, and they’ll never come out.” They do not mean this literally. The caption means that the money this family needs to buy clothes, shoes and food is being spent inside the saloon, so they will have to go without. When their father comes out, he will no longer have the money. Again this appeals to people’s caring and sensitive nature. Using children, especially neglected ones, to campaign for something that should benefit children, is an effective idea. People want to help children in whatever ways they can when it is necessary. The children shown on this poster clearly do need help. If the father continues to go to the saloon on a regular basis, he will undoubtedly become unhealthy and less likely to work, as he may be too drunk or hung over. If this happens, the family will still not have enough money. Then when he returns to work, he is likely to go to the saloon again and spend his wages and the cycle happens again. If it happens enough, the man could lose his job and then the family would be in real difficulty.
Both posters are used to show the bad effects alcohol can have on families and communities. The organisations that published these posters want people to see that alcohol can have terrible effects. They are propaganda but reliable and informative sources as they show the arguments that were put across to help ban alcohol.
c) Sources E and F are Primary sources. Source E is a section of a letter, written in 1932, by John D. Rockefeller, Jr. He was a wealthy industrialist. Source E is opinionated although what John D. Rockefeller is saying is most probably accurate. It is biased as it contains his opinions, ’I hoped that it would be widely supported by public opinion and the day would soon come when the evil effects of alcohol would be recognised.’ However the effects he explains that alcohol had are supported throughout many of the other sources and other information that I have acquired about Prohibition.
Source F is also a primary source. Source F was written by John F. Kramer, the first Prohibition Commissioner. This source was a quote from a speech he made in 1920, presumably just after the law banning alcohol was passed. His job was to enforce Prohibition, as we have already learnt from source B. The section quoted as source F, is John F. Kramer telling people that the law must be obeyed and, if it is not, it will be enforced. From previous sources, including sources A and B, we have learnt that this was not always the case. In fact in my opinion source B practically blames the Prohibition Commissioner for the failure of Prohibition. I think this source is quite reliable as it is an official event that is probably well documented. However, this source could be seen as propaganda and therefore biased as it has an intended purpose to make everyone aware of what the government thought. It was the message that the government wanted to be seen to be giving out, as many people supported prohibition and wanted the government to support it too. The Prohibition commissioner probably did believe in what he was saying but we are aware now, with the benefit of hindsight, that this was not the case. This source is reliable as this was John F. Kramer’s aim, however as historians who have studied Prohibition, we are aware that ultimately the cause failed. He also states that liquor must not be manufactured and that, as an enforcer of this law, Mr Kramer says that they shall ensure that it is not. Although we are aware that Prohibition failed and all his aims were not met, it does not make the source less reliable. This source does not tell us the effects Prohibition had on society, but informs us of the standing John F. Kramer took when Prohibition was first introduced. Therefore it is informative and reliable but in a different way.
Source E is, in my opinion, less reliable than source F. There will be no other documentation of this event, as it is just one man’s letter stating his opinion on the effects of Prohibition. However it is not there to persuade anyone, only to inform the recipient of the letter. Therefore from what I have learnt about Prohibition, his account is most probably true but some of his claims would be difficult to prove. For example he does not quote specific examples of “some of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition.” He also states that “respect for the law has greatly lessened” but he gives no concrete evidence of this. His account expresses his disappointment, as at first he supported the idea of Prohibition, but he then became disillusioned as, in his opinion, more people started to drink alcohol than ever before. John D. Rockefeller, Jr. is not trying to persuade anyone that what he is saying is true. It is just his disappointed opinion of how something to prevent evil subsequently turned evil.
In conclusion, I believe that source F is more reliable as it is well documented and we can be sure it happened. However, source E is very informative as it gives us an insight as to how people, at the time, perceived the effects of prohibition. We must remember that this is just one man’s opinion and that in isolation, cannot be regarded as a reliable source.
d) I do not think that either source G or H prove that Prohibition was, or was not successful.
One reason why these sources cannot be taken seriously is that people on both sides of the law, the police, the agents enforcing prohibition and members of the public, were open to bribery and corruption. Source G shows an increase in illegal stills seized between 1921 and 1929 and the number of gallons of spirits seized between these dates. These statistics show the activities of the Federal Government Agents enforcing Prohibition. Between 1921 and 1929, the illegal stills seized gradually increased. This could either be due to the fact that the agents enforcing Prohibition were becoming more effective or that more people were breaking the law and consequently there were more criminals to catch. Of course, it could have been a combination of both. Source G also shows gallons of spirits seized. Between 1921 and 1925, there is a dramatic increase from 414,000 to 11,030,000 and then a smaller increase between 1925 and 1929. However this was only an increase of 830. Similarly, this could have been due to the fact that the Agents enforcing Prohibition were becoming better at their job, or there were more criminals for them to catch. However, in saying all this we do not even know whether these figures are correct. Many of the Agents enforcing Prohibition were open to bribes and therefore there could have been many more illegal stills and gallons of spirits seized. Subsequently they could have made up the results to make themselves seem successful.
Source G shows that either the Prohibition agents were becoming more effective. Gangsters were becoming less vigilant or thought that they could bribe their way out of any mess they got into, or more alcohol was being produced. Of course it could have been and probably was a mixture of these things.
Source H shows statistics published by the City of Philadelphia Police Department. They show the number of arrests for drinking related offences between 1920 and 1925. The number of people arrested for being drunk dramatically increases from just over 14,000 in 1920 to just over 45,000 in 1923. It then increases further between 1923 and 1925 to a figure of 51,361, an overall increase of over 37,000 in just 5 years. This could mean that a lot more people were consuming alcohol or that the Police were becoming more successful. However, unlike the Agents enforcing Prohibition, this was not a new job for the police and therefore it is unlikely that such a dramatic increase was due to them just doing a better job.
The second set of statistics relates to people arrested for drunk and disorderly conduct. These figures are less straightforward, and a little puzzling. Between 1920 and 1923 the figure for people arrested for acting drunk and disorderly increased from 6,097 in 1920 to 8,076 in 1923. However in 1925 the figure drops to just over five and a half thousand lower than in 1920. This is strange as all the other figures in both sources G and H, suggest an increase in the amount of alcohol being drunk, made and sold. The first increase between 1920 and 1923 follows the pattern, but the figure for 1925 does not. There could be a number of reasons why this statistic appears to be anomalous. The first could be that the police were becoming less interested in the smaller crimes, such as people being drunk and disorderly. At the time there were a lot of gangsters and crime rate rose dramatically with prohibition. It could have been that the police were concentrating their resources on the big criminals and they were less interested in catching the people who were just drinking the alcohol. 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 were going to drink and break the law were already doing it by 1923. There may not have been such a big increase as there could have been less people joining the people who were already drinking. One other reason is bribery. As historians we are aware that a lot of people took bribes such as the police and the agents enforcing Prohibition. By 1925 they may have realised that they could get away with it and were therefore taking bribes more often. These statistics do not prove that Prohibition was successful even if there is a decrease in 1925 of people being arrested for acting drunk and disorderly. These figures only show the arrests not the amount of people that were committing these crimes. Most of the time the police would accept a bribe and that would be enough to get the offender off the charge.
The third set of statistics show the amount of people arrested for drink driving. Again there is a massive increase between 1920 when not a single person was arrested for committing this offence in Philadelphia, to 645 people in 1923. The same reasons as above could explain this such as more people drinking or even better police work, which I do not think is likely as from studying Prohibition, it seems to me that the police were open to a lot of corruption. One other important reason this figure may have risen so dramatically is that more people were getting cars all the time. In 1920 not that many people had a car so it was not feasible for them to commit the offence. In 1925 the figure rose again but not by such a large margin. Between 1923 and 1925 it rose from 645 to 820.
The third and final column in source H is the figure reporting how many arrests were made for drink related offences. Again I do not think these figures prove that Prohibition was successful. If anything they suggest that it was unsuccessful. The increase in the number of arrests suggests that more people were drinking than before and surely this is a failure for Prohibition. The total arrests for 1920 are 20,410. The increase then between 1920 and 1923 is dramatic. The figure for 1923 is almost 54,000. This is a huge difference and in my opinion must be due to the fact that more people were drinking. However I think if the police had not been open to so much corruption the figures would have been dramatically higher. In 1925, 57,703 people were arrested for crimes involving drinking. Again this is still an increase from 1923 but not nearly as big an increase as that between 1920 and 1923.
From these to sources it seems to me that more people were drinking, making, buying and selling more alcohol than before so that suggests that Prohibition failed not that it was a success. However no concrete evidence can be taken from these sources, as so many people were open to corruption.
e) Source I does not really prove that the policeman in source J is telling the truth. However the cartoon supports what the policeman is saying, and supports his statements about the police taking bribes. Unfortunately we do not know if he is exaggerating, or where he got his facts. How can we be sure that his superior officers were involved with the bribing for example?
Source I is a cartoon from the time of Prohibition. The title of the cartoon is “The National Gesture”. It depicts a number of people with high standing and influence among communities taking bribes. Each man in the cartoon is holding out his hand behind his back as if to take the bribe. Each man is labelled there is a Magistrate, Clerk, Party official, Politician, Police officer and a Prohibition agent. Someone who strongly supported prohibition, but was annoyed at the corruption that was helping the law to fail, could have drawn this cartoon. Similarly someone who could see the amount of corruption that was happening and was therefore against prohibition as it was clearly failing could also have produced this cartoon. The artist probably wanted to show up these people who were supposed to be enforcing the law, and he must have wanted others to know exactly what was going on.
Source J is a policeman talking about Chicago in the 1920’s. He is explaining about the corruption that went on in the police force and how he was not allowed to enforce the law banning alcohol. He explains in this statement that if he tried to enforce the law he would be taken off his regular duties and made to work in a post where there was ‘nothing but weeds.’ The policeman talks about how he was always welcome in a saloon and given free drinks. He is obviously suspicious of his superior officers, as they will not let him enforce the law. In Chicago Al Capone ran the city and, it seems the police department. Finally the police officer goes on to explain about an involuntary bribe he once took, when a man just presented him with $75 in the street.
Although both sources J and I support one another’s claims there is no concrete evidence in either source. I do believe the policeman in source J is telling the truth from the facts I have learned about Al Capone and Chicago during Prohibition. I think in isolation this man’s statement is informative but cannot be read into too deeply. However the cartoon in source J does help back up what the policeman is saying as this is a second person that has witnessed corruption. The more sources there are saying similar things the more concrete the evidence is. Therefore although source I can in no way prove that the 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. Firstly there are secondary sources, from two history textbooks. A caption in a textbook cannot really voice an opinion unless it is a source. Both sources A and B are similar, as they both have to give accurate concrete facts on what Prohibition was all about. It is then the readers own choice to make up their mind about whether they thought the failure of prohibition was inevitable. However having said this the historians who wrote these text books already knew that prohibition failed almost from the start as they have the benefit of hindsight and therefore looking back they most probably adopt the view that it was inevitable, as crime rose especially violent crime, and there were not enough people enforcing the law.
In the text there are clues that could lead us to believe that the writer of these short captions adopted this view. Firstly both sources A and B describe how prohibition came about and its causes. Although both sources name some of the same causes that are not the same they do agree on the major ones. When it comes to the consequences there is little disagreement about the effects. Firstly source A reads, ‘It created the greatest criminal boom in American history’ because Americans felt it was going against their basic rights, and otherwise law abiding citizens felt justified in breaking this law. He writes, ‘No earlier law produced such wide spread crime. For no earlier law had gone against the daily customs, habits and desires of so many Americans.’ In saying this we are aware that the writer of this source most probably does support the view that the failure of prohibition was inevitable because it went against what so many people wanted.
I think the writer of source B also supports the view that the failure of Prohibition was inevitable. He mentions that 1500 prohibition agents were appointed but there were more that 30,000 speakeasies in New York alone. Therefore 1500 was nowhere near enough. In putting these two facts together, without actually saying so, I think the writer believes that the failure of prohibition was inevitable. The way he writes about this and the gangsters leads me to believe that because of all the things he is describing he never believed it could succeed after these events. He writes, ‘Gangsters like Dutch Schulz and Al Capone had turned the avoidance of Prohibition into big, violent business. “Prohibition is a business”, said Capone, “all I do is supply a public demand.” In writing this, the author is suggesting corruption and a lack of people ready to enforce the law. Therefore he probably also adopts the view that the failure of prohibition was inevitable. However it is less clear with the writer of source B than it is with source A, as in source B he could just be stating the facts. Having said all this it is much easier for the writers of these two sources to adopt this view as they have the benefit of hindsight and know all the facts about Prohibition.
Sources C and D most definitely do not express the view that the failure of prohibition was inevitable. These two sources were both produced before the Prohibition was introduced. They are pieces of propaganda to try and win support for Prohibition to be introduced. Therefore the people that produced these two sources must have been confident that prohibition would have a good effect on their nation and confident that it would succeed. If they had not been confident that it would succeed they would not have been campaigning for prohibition. Far from proving that the failure of prohibition was inevitable they make it seem like the best possible idea.
I do not think John D. Rockefeller, Jr (source E) supports the view that the failure of Prohibition was inevitable. From his letter it is apparent that at first he was a strong supporter of Prohibition. He mentions, ‘the evil effects of alcohol’. However as the letter goes on he explains how he had, ‘slowly and reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result.’ The support he had for Prohibition at the start leads us to believe that he did not think the failure of prohibition was inevitable as otherwise he would have been against it. By the end of the letter he has admitted that it was a failure but he did initially believe it to be a good idea.
Source F definitely did not believe the failure of prohibition was inevitable. Source F is an official statement from John F. Kraemer. It is possibly stating his aims on prohibition. It definitely doesn’t say that it will fail. I think that this source is a piece of propaganda, as it had an intended purpose to make the government look serious about prohibition and to make all Americans take it seriously as well. John F. Kramer definitely did not think that the failure of prohibition was inevitable as he was in charge of enforcing the ban on alcohol. If he had thought that prohibition would fail he would most certainly have not taken the job on. Therefore this source is against the idea that the failure of prohibition was inevitable.
Sources G and H could be used for either argument depending how you look at them. Although they are not very reliable, in the sense that they only show a very narrow perspective of prohibition, and that the people who produced the statistics were open to much corruption, I think that they can be used to show it’s failure was inevitable. The number of arrests involving the consumption of alcohol and amount of alcohol seized was rising each year. This is either telling us one of two things; the police and prohibition agents were finally winning their battle and were well on their way to abolishing illegal alcohol trade or, they were no closer to abolishing it as the trade was becoming bigger every year. In my opinion the second one is more likely and therefore there would be more people to arrest and more alcohol to seize. The figures in the table most probably should have been a lot higher had the officials not taken backhanded bribes. The business was becoming bigger and more people were becoming involved. Therefore there is no way that prohibition could have succeeded because more and more people were going against it rather than conforming to the law. Due to this many police officers and prohibition agents were becoming disillusioned and the law was not upheld. The only way it could have worked was for the illegal alcohol trade to be eradicated, this was not happening, as is proved in these statistics and other sources such as source E; ‘Instead drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon.’ In my opinion these statistics swing either way of whether the failure of prohibition was inevitable depending on your own interpretation.
Source I is a cartoon entitled, ‘The National Gesture.’ It highlights public opinion and is a drawing showing how even the people in authority had no respect for the law and were willing to totally ignore, it for the sake of a few dollars. This being the case prohibition had no chance of succeeding as for prohibition to work the law would have to be strictly enforced, this didn’t happen and prohibition failed. I believe the artist of source I thought that the failure of prohibition was inevitable, as a law cannot succeed if there is nobody willing to enforce it. I think this is the view that the cartoonist is trying to put across.
Source J is a policeman talking about Chicago in the 1920’s. He is explaining about the corruption that went on in the police force and how he was not allowed to enforce the law banning alcohol. He explains in this statement that if he tried to enforce the law he would be taken off his regular duties and made to work in a post where there was ‘nothing but weeds.’ Therefore he must have thought the failure of prohibition was inevitable as no one was enforcing the law. The corruption he is mentioning is not proved by source I however the cartoon supports it. If the policeman is telling the truth, and I do not see that he has any reason to lie, as he may be putting his job in jeopardy, he cannot possibly believe that prohibition would ever be successful due to the level of corruption that he has encountered. Consequently my conclusion is that this policeman must have agreed with the view that the failure of prohibition was inevitable.
In conclusion as there are such a variety of sources there is a wide variety of opinion. Therefore some of the sources support the view that the failure of prohibition was inevitable whilst others do not.
Ruth Fitzpatrick 11S
