It is clear to me that both source 9 and 10 suggest the fact that bribery and corruption was on a national scale. Prohibition had affected all categories of society from law-abiding citizens to the law-enforcing agents. Source 9 illustrates a group of well dressed men labelled with an important title such as ‘Politicians, Police-officers, Prohibition agents…’ In the caption besides the illustration it says that this is a cartoon representing the ‘National Gesture’. The National Gesture was literally bribery on a national scale, which is represented by each of the law-enforcing figures. They each have their hands beside them, which is also known as a backhander, or in other words accepting a bribe.
The thought of these law-abiding, law-enforcing figures to receive bribes makes you realise the extent to which prohibition has affected society. The period of prohibition was meant to usher in a golden era but instead the opposite took place and made American society corrupted. Source 10 reveals the extent which prohibition affected American society, which is also supported by source 9. The extract from source 10 states,’10 years ago a dishonest policeman man was a rarity…now the honest ones are pointed out as the rarities.’ This quote points out how badly American society is suffering that even law-enforcers are corrupted never mind the general public. The extract from source 10 also supports the view that there was corruption. The relationship between bootleggers and law-enforcement officers was almost friendly, although they did arrest the odd one or two, which were least willing to pay the bribes and made it seem to the public that they were doing their jobs. The reliability of the sources used is only still reliable to a certain degree as they are only ones view.
In my opinion I feel that I can only trust sources 11, 12, 13 to a certain extent. Al Capone was indeed a very popular figure, almost in a celebrity status. All three sources project Al Capone as admirable, noble and respectable. This was the image he was trying to create for himself and he had succeeded. Al Capone however was exceptionally rich, making him a very powerful and influential man who was controlling as well as collective. The image Al Capone created for himself made people see him in a different perspective. To the majority of people he wasn’t a criminal, he was almost a celebrity. Al Capone may have had the power, the wealth and influence of a celebrity but underneath this thin phoney exterior he was the gang war-lord of a mafia as you can see in source L, it was Al Capone who organised the St Valentines Day massacre.
Sources 11, 12, and 13 do not give a balanced view me, especially sources 12 and 13. Source 12 is an interview from Doc Cheatham a jazz musician from one of Al Capone’s clubs. An important point to make is that people who worked for Al Capone earned extremely high wages. Therefore, I strongly doubt that this highly paid jazz musician would say anything unfavourable of him. Also if you look at the time he was interviewed you can see that he was a very old man and people get older they tend to remember the good things that happened to them. Both sources 12 and 13 are biased as both of the people interview were people who worked for Al Capone or knew someone that did. S o their lives have been positively influenced by Al Capone, people as I have stated before tend to remember the better days. Moreover, all three sources indicate that there was no opposing view towards Al Capone which shows a lack of impartiality within the three sources. Within the sources 12 and 13 there are many gaps between the evidence they present and never really give a complete picture. The only view they give is a biased one as they only talk about how good Al Capone was and never actually state the fact that he was the lead gangster of a mafia which shows no opposing view. As the sources are from the same category of people, the popularity of gangsters like Al Capone in American society cannot be trusted even if I wanted to there is too much evidence pointing to the fact that he was master criminal within other sources such as source L.
From my point of view, I feel that the passing of the prohibition could’ve in fact worked. As you can see source F clearly portrays the strong-willed determination from John F. Kramer the first prohibition commissioner commenting on the work of the prohibition agents. If every other prohibition agent was as strong-willed as John F. Kramer the passing of the prohibition would’ve have most certainly have worked. However, most law-enforcing agents had given onto corruption and bribery, which can back up my point and can be supported by source 10. Regardless of what I’ve just said the reliability of source 10 is poor in my opinion because E. Mandeville is specifically talking about Detroit and Detroit only making the source unreliable.
In the 19th century, there was a very strong temperance movement in rural areas of America suggesting great support for prohibition. Members of the temperance movements agreed not to drink alcohol and also campaigned to others to give up alcohol. Most members of the temperance movement were devout Christians who saw what damage alcohol did to family life; they wanted to stop that damage. In the 19th century the two main movements were the Anti-Saloon League and the N.W.C.T.U. Sources 1-7 overall, indicate very strong support for prohibition.
Prohibition worked in some rural areas, in limited ways. Source J can support this point. The supporters of prohibition could point out that there were fewer deaths from alcoholism and few arrests for drunkenness, this point however can be contradicted by source B and D both which claim the opposite. Source B and D both are not that reliable, both sources contain information on two big cities. The number of related deaths due to alcohol maybe really high for these two cities but low elsewhere, making the sources only reliable to a certain extent. However, in cities it soon became clear that prohibition was not stopping Americans drinking.
There were however many strong reasons why prohibition had failed to work. The banning of manufacturing, sale or transportation of alcohol overnight was inevitably a huge mistake; this point can be supported very strongly by source H. I cannot find anything on source H, which makes me doubt its reliability, so I personally think the reliability of source H is good as its portrayal of the prohibition is impartial. As source H confirms the banning of alcohol criminalised all of American society. Something as widespread as alcohol cannot be made illegal (which was never seen as a crime) overnight.
The general alcohol consumers thought if they broke the law on a large enough scale it would bring repeal, this action ignited a chain reaction which brought about thousands of speakeasies. This can also be verified by source H of which the reliability is good due to other similar accounts which all corroborate, clearly supporting my points. Some people set up their own stills to make moonshine alcohol. The number of deaths during the prohibition should’ve decreased but instead the opposite took place, this was mainly due to moonshine alcohol, this can be supported by source H as well as sources B and D. Source E clearly indicates that some people did set up their own stills and the fact that it was found so near to the Presidents White House shows the extent to which illegal stills were a problem. JFK’s family fortune rocketed during this period, leading people to think that his family wealth came from illegal trading in alcohol.
Another reason for the failure of the prohibition was that the authorities found that that they could not enforce the law effectively. Part of the problem was that the enforcement agency did not have enough staff, and the staff they managed to get was very poorly paid, which is clearly pointed out by source G. Source G in my assumption is good due to the fact that the information it provides is echoed throughout most sources leading me to rely on the source.
It was even more difficult when many of the police who were supposed to be helping enforce prohibition were in fact against it. It was actually quite well known that in many cities the police would be happy to direct someone to the nearest speakeasy. If they did arrest someone for an offence against prohibition, a bribe paid to the police officer was usually enough to get that person off as you’ll see in source 10 which is backed up by source 9. Both sources in fact are unreliable to a certain degree, firstly source 10 clearly states that it is only talking about Detroit and not as an overall majority of the population was into bribery. This is not true mainly because there were a huge number of supporters for the prohibition as supported by sources 1-7 and there were determined law enforcing agents like Izzy Einstein and Moe Smith.
Another factor which led to the failure of the prohibition was organised crime. The huge demand for alcohol opened up a brand new trade for American gangsters to control. Gangs in major cities fought to supply the speakeasies with bootleg alcohol usually smuggled in from Canada, or manufactured illegally in the USA. To these gangs, prohibition was a huge financial boost. The most infamous gangster during the prohibition was Al Capone, as you can see from source 11, was continually perceived by the public in almost a celebrity status. Al Capone was completely the opposite, he took over Chicago and made around $60-100 million a year from supplying speakeasies, source K which supports my points, is Al Capone attempting to justify his business in the 1920’s. He had a private army of hoodlums who fought of any rival gangs to defend their business.
The huge increase in violence finally came to a turning point and put America into a state of shock. It was the St Valentines Day massacre in 1929 when eight rival gang members were gunned down, this however was only a part of a massive problem of escalating violence. This is backed up by source L which clearly portrays the St Valentines massacre. The sources which include the St Valentines Day massacre are in my opinion not that reliable. I think the huge coverage by the media on these deaths was to get American society to realise exactly what alcohol is doing. This huge publicity stunt did shock America into realisation, and all this corruption and violence seemed to have derived from the prohibition.
Gangsters such as Al Capone became extremely powerful due to his immense wealth, and due to this immense wealth he had a very effective racketeering business which added to his huge wealth and power. Al Capone had bribed anyone who stood in his way including the Chicago Mayor, Bill Thompson. Al Capone used intimidation and wealth to get anything he wanted including control of some police officers due to bribery. He was eventually arrested due to tax evasion.
The fact that prohibition was passed during the roaring twenties seems to me the whole reason why prohibition failed. It was a great time; during the twenties entertainment blossomed, workers had more disposable income. A lot of this spare time and money was channelled into entertainment and then came the prohibition and took it all away. No wonder people continued to drink and visit speakeasies. In my opinion if the prohibition was passed at a different time, Prohibition would’ve most certainly had a greater chance of succeeded.
Geographical factors as to why the prohibition failed needs to be considered. The Prohibition Bureau initially employed 1500 agents to cover a staggering 24 square miles each. Bootleggers find it extremely easy to dodge agents covering such a large area. The huge lake between the USA and Canada meant that as soon as it froze over illegal alcohol could be easily transported due to famous bootleggers such as Bill McCoy where you get the phrase the real McCoy. Alcohol was easily redirected avoiding agents. Geographical factors nonetheless worked against the prohibition.
The judicianal system failed the prohibition in a number of ways. Many juries in the prohibition case were lenient because they were breaking the law themselves. One jury in San Francisco was found drinking the evidence. The judicianal system was however not entirely to blame, due to gangsters it was difficult to bring witnesses to trial, because they were usually murdered and the case would collapse.
In conclusion, the statement that the prohibition was doomed a failure from the start, is a statement I have to agree with. Mainly due to the fact that there was a lot more factors working against prohibition than for prohibition.
