shows the little respect for the 'Volstead Act' people had. It does'nt specify a
date which could again suggest that it could of been taken yearlier. What's
intresting about both sources is that they both show an illegal activity
being done while a camera is taking a picture. Source D is showing the job
of a bar keeper in a illegal still; he is seen producing alcahol as he pours
alcahol into a test tube while a camera is taking a picture.
One could suggest that the men in both photographs may not be
normal people going to a still or speakeasy, but could be actors told to play
the role to make prohibition look bad. Only a small place was needed to set
up a still, looking at the clothes and wallpaper the man does'nt look too
rich and the alcahol hardware accesories is'nt too expensive, so it was
easily possible to obtain alcahol tools. Law enforcers faced impossible tasks
to stop those whole was breaking the act, as the number was gradually
rising very quickly.
What is similar between Source C and D is that no date is given.
The historians are presumed to believe it was taken in the prohibition era,
so this was makes the two photographs unreliable as they could have been
taken yearlier or the men may of been bribed. However, in any shape or
form it still showed the little respect many had for the laws.
On the other hand source B, which is a newspaper article taken in
1930 describes an attempt to round up stills used to make alcahol where
they find 130 gallons of alcahol on farm of Senator Sheppard who was the
man responsible of proposing prohibition in first place! This showed if the
man who introduced prohibition did'nt care, why should anyone else?
Newspapers were often involved in a political issues and offer a personal
point of view and this may be an anti-prohibition source where bribery
could be involved. Newspapers also try to exaggerate obviously to sell the
paper. One other reason why newspapers are unreliable is that it tends to
condense information and may then distort what actually happened. It also
may be factually inaccurate. However, it can be very detailed and informs
reader about common opinions and attitudes.
What the 3 sources have in common is that all offer a desperate
view of on-goings faced by law enforcers and agents, while prohibition was
around. Sources B, C and D all show the problems faced by law
enforcement agents because of the little care people had of the 'Volstead
Act'. As soon as Senanator Sheppared was found with alcahol in his farm
the prohibition law was blown way out of proportion. If anything
prohibition made matters worser as there was a sudden urge of secrecesy
when Prohibition was under way. Crime, moonshining and gambling
increased because of this. It was difficult to enforce prohibition because of
these circumstances.
3. The Prohibition movie 'Untouchables' is mainly based on a job of a
Prohibition agent who tries to make the Prohibition law work in Chicago,
but things don't go to plan; this is where bribery, violence and a hollywood
plot all gets mixed in a high budget 130 minute movie.
The movie is unrealiable because it is set in a modern era and that
may not reflect what was really going on at the time of Prohibition.
Moreover, it also puts the drinking of alcahol in a back sit to the gripping
movie plot. 'Untouchables' links in with the previous sources to explain the
trouble Prohibition enforcers had. A high point of the movie is how they get
Al Capone in the cast line played by one of hollywoods leading actors,
Robert DeNiro. Al Capone did exist at the time so it was wise by the
directors to add that extra twist. The all star movie line up does little to
help the film being dissapointing in term of the reliability of Prohibition.
The movie seems to exaggerate in most areas, especially when Sean
Connery who plays Malone gets continusly shot with a machine gun, but
still manages some how to find himself alive after 15 to 20 minutes. Its all
part of movie tension. The background music also plays a part with
dramatic tentative music when a character gets killed or when a family is
being introduced into the scene. Being a high budget movie, it is bound to
get Prohibition research from high class historians. They will normally hire
employees who would look in depth of a specific topic.
'Untouchables' focusses on the police corruption going on at the
time,
with many taking bribes because of the little money they got form working.
This was a big problem at the time because many officers were under
payed and with the likes of gangsters such as Al Capone lurking around
the streets it was almost impossible to refuse a bribe and if
bribery did'nt work, death threats did. The film was succesful in that it
shows all of this bribery and violence going on at the time.
Like all good movies it has the ultimate plot with bad guys versus
good guys, with the good guys as always coming out on top. This makes it
unreliable becuase it may not actually happened in normal life. The
ending plays on the opposite side of Prohibition as it has Kevin Costner
not caring any longer about Prohibition and going along with the story
line. The ending has Elliot Ness going away for a drink. The point that
historians can argue if they watched the film is that the film is'nt intended
to be made for Prohibition or historian purposes, but is made to entertain
people so the film company can make a profit. It is also romantically linked
with Elliot Ness and his wife. However, was Nesses family really like this?
This prooves that it is not targeting a documentary audience. It is made to
attract a vast audience.
'Untouchables' does however comply with lifestyle and costume
regulation as photos from the past may of come in handy.
4.Source F is a cartoon made during the time of Prohibition. The message
of the source refers to the bribery going on at the time. It shows several men
of authority in a line from the Prohibition agent to the police officer or the
politician to the average lawyer. It's intesting that it has the prohibition
agent on top of the picture as it wanted to show that even those who
enforced Prohibition were in the act of bribery. All the men have have one
big hand behind there back which basically is showing the 'National
Gesture' which at the time of Prohibition meant that top authorities with
high occupation levels were easily being bribed to not prosecute those who
broke the law. This was an important factor because if those who were
enforcing Prohibition did'nt stick to the law, who would? 'Untouchables'
clearly showed these problems, where as the likes of Elliot Ness was the
hero figure in the movie might not have been in this mode in real life as it
was very simple for gansters such as Al Capone to bribe a Prohibition
agent or police officer, like in the movie 'Untouchables'
Source F shows the problems America was having in trying to stop
those who were continiously going to illegal stills or speakeasies while they
were not being stopped. More so, polices or politicians could do little about
it as a little amount of cash given to them could go down as bribery. Many
turned a blind eye to the problems it created for America as a whole
because those who were suppourters of Prohibition(Dries) had little or no
chance of seeing the law enforced further so it was difficult for them to
come to terms that if they did request it to a police officer, their may be a
likely hood that the officer may of been bribed and without hesitation turn
down the request layed down to them. Bribery was one thing, but death
threats were also very common. 'Untouchables' shows this as Malone ends
up dying becuse of not accepting a bribe. The evidence from
'Untouchables' does suppourt the message of source F, which the so called
'National Gesture' plays a part as the time when Malone's freind who is a
police officer turns against him and starts to attack Malone because he
would'nt agree with him to arrest a man who is drinking alcahol. However,
there is one main aspect of the film which does not suppourt the message of
source F, which is Elliot Ness and the way in which he triumphed over the
bad guys and corrupt officials in his fight to enforce Prohibition. This is
one of the reasons why source F does'nt suppourt the view taking in the
movie becuase the movie is going along with its hollywood plot that the
bad guys must lose, however source F is going with the view that
prohibition was a disaster becuase if the Prohibition agent could do little
about the bribery, what was the point of tying to enforce it?
The contrast between the two titles 'Untouchables' and 'National
Gesture' is that 'untouchables' simply meant that there was no way that
noboddy could stop those who were breaking the law becuase of the
circumstances mentioned. Where as 'National Gesture' meant that was in
relavence to the bribery. Source F is a cartoon which in similar term to
source A applys to the fact that cartoons is very subjective and selective and
only gives a general impression so in reliability, it could be weak but what
it shows is the corruptionduring Prohibition. What the source does'nt notice
is that Elliot Ness and Malone did'nt take bribes and wanted Prohibition to
work showing that people were still behind it one hundred and ten percent
of the way. After watching the film 'Untouchables' it is prooven that many
people of authoritys during Prohibition were easily corrupt and so being
corrupt meant that they did'nt suppourt the 'Volstead Act'
Source E clearly suppourts the message of Source F despite the fact
that the latter goes one step further and explores other aspects of
Prohibition knowing that not everyone in authority was corrupt.
5. Source G at face value shows the number of arrests for drinking offences
in Philadelphia in a period of 5 years from 1920-1925. It contridicts the
other source by not being a pictorial source and being a statistical source
which sometimes can only relate to historains generalise or the stat may be
delibertately distorted by government to ruin the image of Prohibition.
However, it may provide a precise numerical information about society.
The arrests represent offences for driver's, alcaholics, disorderly
conduct and drunks. This suggests that the source is outlining the effect
Prohibition did for the American people and how it made matters worse
than it already was, as many found a way around the law. The total
number of arrests went up from 20,443 in 1920 to 58,517 in 1925, all
happening in one state of America, Philadelphia. The stats were composed
by the philadelphia police department, which could suggest that the stats
may of been forged or corrupted in many ways as the police's may of been
bribed by the gangsters such as Al Capone who wanted to justify that
Prohibition was a bad idea in the first place.
The increase in the rate of offences have been shown because the
whole point was to proove that Prohibition simply did'nt work. Moreover,
it was making matters much worse as the stats proove that the number of
offences rose high because Prohibition only encoraged more alcahol as
more people started to talk over it. Many may say that the drunk ones did'nt
relise how drunk they really were becasue 'Bootlegging' and 'Moonshine'
was was a illegal process which many barkeepers used as shear
desperation to make alcahol. They used strong liqueo and sometimes even
urine! This suggest that the smallest drinking of alcahol could make
anybody drunk leading to arrests. If there was a rise in the consuming of
alcahol it could affect drunken behaviour.
What the source does'nt suggest is the exact date as many people
may drink for special occasions in the yearly calander. Drivers who may of
been arrested due to alcahol related events may have a case in saying that
more people started driving cars on the road because of the mass
production of Henry Ford Cars in the early 20's, which meant an extra
chance of drunk driver's.
There was a steady increase in police officers which meant more
chances of finding a person who was alcaholic in the steets. Also
Prohibition was a factor in the back of their heads. The increase may also
be down to depression of unemploynment, as Source A prooves that poor
people would have more of a leverage to go to stills to look for an
alternative way of living life.
Source G doe'nt have enough proof that the stats is a real
intepretation of factual events, and even so police officers would look out
for alcaholics more because of the media attention Prohibition was getting.
The date does'nt goto the end of Prohibition which could suggest that their
might of been tamparing. Also later 130 gallons of illegal alcahol was
found on a farm belonging to Senator Sheppared in 1919, meaning it was
getting easier to purchase alcohol as gangsters controlled the flow of
alcahol at the time.
6. Both sources H and I tell us why Prohibition ended. Although neither is
more reliable than the other they both give the same message. Source H is
a speech from a lawyer in the 1920's. It is basically summing up what
Prohibition was like and how it affected American's. Source I on the other
hand is a newspaper. First of all by saying that a source is a newspaper
you woul'nt expect it to take sides, but source H is most likely to as it is said
by a lawyer. Neither source is more reliable than the other because source I
is a newspaper which seemingly be facually inaccurate, where as a lawyer
can never be judged on who he or she is.
We are told by sourcesto asume that Prohibition was a disaster and
only encoraged more people to drink illegally. Both sources tells us why
Prohibition only made matters worse. Source I compresses the fact that
'Prohibition taught America disrespect for the law. It taught many people
that the pursuit of crime created very profitable carears'. This contridicted
that no matter how hard people who opposed the so called 'demon drink'
treid, it was impossible to completely stop people from drinking it. Source H
is a quote taken from a lawyer which could affect many factors of the
source as lawyers tend to twist the truth no matter what the situatuion and
also many were underpayed, so it was very simple to bribe them. Lawyers
could make fortunes for sticking up for arrested.
Many prohibition agents had to tangle with prohibition agents who
wanted to continue brewing alcahol. Even the president served liqueor in
his the White House, which gave the sign to everybody that their was no
point in caring about the 'Volstead Act'. Speakeasies or stills similar to
one's in sources C and D show the little care by the end of 1920's and
beginning of early 30's.
Source I shows a newspaper article outlining the affect Prohibition
had on the American public. The large heading font reads 'Massacre 7 of
Moran Gang'. It shows the incident in chicago in 1929, where Al Capone
who 'took over' Chicago made at least $60 million a year out of
speakeasies. He said that 'Prohibition is a business'. He had a private
army of hoodlums who fought with rival gangs to defend their business. In
1929 the St Valantines Day Massacre occoured, when eight rivals were
gunned down, but it was only a part of a massive problem of escalating
violence. There were numerous cases of poisoning, blindness and death
caused by illegally made alcahol. This was where the whole country
thought about what had gone on while Prohibition began and decided it
was too much and wanted an end. What made it worse, was how
impossible it was to arrest or convict Al Capone or as he like to call himself
'Scarface'. He had enough money to bribe anyone from a Police Officer to
the President.
Another factor that it hard was the wall street crash which played
a part because it led the public to repeal Prohibition, which prooved that
Prohibition was'nt working. The opposition of prohibition became popular
and many came to conclusion that Prohibition was creating health
problems for public. Both sources I and H suggest to what was the moral
reaon why Prohibition wasn't working.
7. When Prohibition was introduced in 1919, the only reason to why it was
set up was to what the public thought and how it was affecting the social
and health life of many, but what it did was make matters worse in light of
mnay violent approaches by gangster. The film 'Untouchables' reaches out
to the public in view of bribery and gangsters, but sources such as I
describe the state of Prohibition by the view of actual people.
Referring to the statement that 'Prohibition was doomed from start', I
will probably have to agree to a certain extent, but the faluire was'nt
inevitable as there was optamism at the start to that all the problems in the
country would be solved. It was unfortuante that Prohibition was a disaster
for those who wanted a complete end to the 'Demon drink, which was
causing havoc to many families as source A suggests. One could only
question why prohibition was making matters worse. The sources which I
looked at show Prohibition was a difficult thing to enforce when so much
was running against it.
At the time in the late 20's depression was hitting hard, with a lot of
people being unemployed and suffering from poverty and those who were
under these problems used alcahol as a way to escape the problems they
were suffering. A lot of the edia thought that if the Wall Street Crash did'nt
occur, things may of been different and Prohibition might not of been
repealed.
Not forgetting that many people who lived outside USA emigrated
because of the feeling that America was a peaceful country and was known
as Land of Opportunities where rights and freedom was its main concerne.
To their suprise America did'nt turn out like this as alcahol was firmly
opposed in the countries where freedom of choice was on top of its list.
Almost all gangsters were rich and they could bribe anyone. Those
authorites which were underpayed had more of a reason to take the bribes.
Sources E,F AND I all show this as bribery was very managable for the
gangsters. The temptation was to hard to resist as many were suffering
financhally. Gangsters used blackmail and even violence if bribery did'nt
work. Moreover, the rivalry between polices and gangsters struck boiling
point. The film 'Untouchables' is a perfect example of the consequences
many police officer's had to face, as many were getting richer and could
afford splashing out on bribes. Source F which shows politicians,
Prohibition agents, Judges, police officers, cheifs and lawyers all in a line
putting one hand back to indicate the likeliness of bribery.
Those who argued and suppourted Prohibition became known as
'Dries', they claimed that 300 infants were smoothered in bed, by drunken
parents. At the time the first Worl War was taking palce and many claimed
that the Boishevisms thrived on drinks and they said that alcahol brought
profits to warmongering german brewers who like Russians were very keen
on alcahol.
Particually in the centre states such as 'Maine' Christians were very
well populated and saw alcahol as bad influence to children. THis was
enough to prohibit alcahol in 1919. However most states banned alcahol,
in urban staes such as Maryland they never introduced Prohibition. The
authorities quickly found that it was one thing passing a law, to prohibit it
was quite another to enforce upon. 'Moonshine' was frequent which was
another name for home-made alcohol or 'Bootlegging' which was alcohol
brought into country from abroad. As mentioned before, many went into
illegal bars called speakeasies, which appeared in every town and city.
Sources C and D outlines these problems.
It was difficult when many of the police who were supposed to be
helping enforce Prohibition were in fact against it. If they did arrest
someone for an offence, a bribe paid to the police was usually enough to
get the person off. The likes of Al Capone was profiting hugely from illegal
goods and was making $60 million a year out of speakeasies. It seemed to
the cities of Prohibition that all it achieved was to make America more
'Lawless', the police morecorrupt and to make the gangsters richer.
The orgainsations that suppourted Prohibition from the start were
the Anti-Saloon League and Women's Christian Temprence Union. Thosw
who opposed it were the bible belt and most families. Public opinion was
vital in the end because the government would make the decisions upon
that. It slowly drifted away from Prohibition. Many leaflets were published
to enhance the problems faced by Prohibition. The government had to
forsee all these problems in good effect, obviously they faced many
problems so it was crucial.
In conclusion, I believe that Prohibition wasn't doomed from start, it
was just the circumstances in which it was set up that caused the problems.
There were several countries that banned alcohol succesfully around the
world so it was'nt impossible. It was a lukless campaign that ran out of
steam in the end. There was noboddy to blame because it was a simple
mistake by governmnt to introduce it in first place.
