A) Study sources A and B
How far do these accounts agree about Prohibition?
Both of these sources agree with one another in some sort. They both agree that prohibition had caused a massive criminal boom. They also agree that the anti-saloon league had an influence on getting the amendment pass to stop the manufacture, sale, and transportation of liquor.
Both of the accounts agree about prohibition but one is judgemental and biased and talks about on reason, while that other account is not biased and gives 5 points to prove its point. Source A is the one that is not biased. It agrees about prohibition but also disagrees. Source B on the other hand is biased and only gives one point to prove its point which is that alcohol is bad. But it is also not biased because it was the anti-saloon league that put the ideas in peoples head that “Grain needed to be preserved for food” or that “feeling against the Germans Americans who were important in the brewing and distilling”. The last quote if not true as the Americans were at war with the Germans and wound not have great feeling about them. Both sources are secondary sources. Source A talks about what thing made people want alcohol. It also talks about what happened due to prohibition. Source B talks about alcohol being “the great evil of the time” this proves that source B is with the idea of prohibition. Both of the sources agree that prohibition brought a massive criminal boom. They also agree that the saloons and the war time effort had a great impact on the amount people drink. Before prohibition drinking was a normal routine for men that worked, so when prohibition started it went against “the daily customs, habits, and desires of so many Americans” this meant that so many Americans did not get what they wanted. Both of the sources are from after prohibition this makes them more reliable.
In conclusion, both sources agree with one another why the amendment was sighed as the both agree that prohibition caused modern histories biggest criminal boom. They also agree that the anti-saloon league had a lot to do with getting the amendment singed.
B) Study sources C and D
Were the artists of these two posters for or against Prohibition?
Source C is a cartoon by the WCTU “the women’s Christians temperance union”. It shows a middle classed man handing over his weeks wages to a man who has his hair waxed and looks quite well off for some alcohol. Below is a bubble that shows a women and her children looking very depresses and unhappy. On the floor is a letter saying “evection due to unpaid rent” meaning that they have to leave to house as they do not have enough to pay the rent. This is trying to tell the men that they are wasting all of their hard earned money on something that they don’t need to. This is trying to make the men feel that because they are wasting all of their money on alcohol they are not being able to pay the bill and their families are suffering. Also this poster is trying to make the women scared that this is what they might turn out to be if their husbands keep on drinking. So if the women are scared they might do something about it.
Source D is also by the WCTU. You can see that there is a girl and a small child. They are standing outside a saloon. The title is “daddies in there”. And under the picture it says, “So are our shoes and cloths and stockings and food are in there too, and they’ll never come out”. This is saying that because the men are wasting all of their money on alcohol they won’t have any money left to buy their kids. This is also trying to make the men feel bad that because they are wasting their money and making their kids suffer. Behind the saloon doors it is dark and gives a sense of a scary dark place where once somebody goes they never return or return with nothing.
This is a preview of the whole essay
In conclusion, both of the artists are for prohibition and want men to stop drinking by emotionally blackmailing them. Also from the beginning of prohibition, the WCTU has been for prohibition.
C) Study sources E and F
Which of these sources is more reliable as evidence about Prohibition?
Reliable means which one somebody can trust. This could be a source or a person.
Source E is quite a reliable source. This is because it is from a letter. This means that the writer, John D. Rockefeller, Jr., was writing to someone so he had nothing to hide as it might have been a private letter so there was no need to lie about Prohibition. Also as he was a wealthy industrialist he had nothing to lose by admitting that he was wrong. Also he is calling himself naïve by saying that he is wrong. Nobody lies and wants to be called naïve so this suggests that he is not lying. Also John D. Rockefeller, Jr., wrote the letter after prohibition had ended. This means that what had to happen, happened and that he saw and felt the results of prohibition so he would have a better view of everything. Thus making what he says more reliable. However there is some doubt to whether this is completely reliable, as he is a wealthy industrialist and he raises concerns on the amount of drunks that go to works drunk and is concerned at the amount of production so therefore he may be biased.
Source F is not as reliable as Source E due to the fact that this is a speech and he is only talking about what the public want to hear. This means he is talking about all the positives and talking about how it will definitely be enforced by using strong phrases such as, “Where it is not obeyed it shall be enforced”. However the first prohibition commissioner actually did believe that he could stamp out alcohol from New York in a month. So this suggests that he was probably telling the truth. Also John F Kramer being the first prohibition commissioner means that he would want the thigh that he is controlling to work as people will remember him for it and either like him for the rest of his life or hate him
In conclusion, Source E is more reliable than Source F because it is a speech and the other is a private letter which does not need to be a lie. Furthermore Source F was written during prohibition and Source E was written after prohibition, therefore Source E is more reliable. However source F is from the guy that is enforcing prohibition so he would want to make a good impression. Also John F Kramer actually believed that he could do what he said he would do. This suggests that he was going to do all he could to do it.
D) Study sources G and H
Do these two sources prove that Prohibition was successful?
Source G shows all of the illegal stills ceased from 1921-1929 and the gallons of spirits seized. In 1921 the amount of illegal still seized was 9,746 and this might sound good and make it look like the federal government agents were doing a good job, but not necessarily. This is because there is no records that shows how many still there actually were. The amount that is stated could be nothing and a small amount compared to the amount of stills. In 1925, 2,023 still were seized but again it can be a small amount compared to how many exist within the area. The gallons of spirits were the same, however the amount seized was increasing but there was no record about how many gallons there actually were in the area. But the amount seized did increase dramatically. This Source does not prove that prohibition was successful because there is no mention of the exact amount that there actually was. Also in 1921 25% of total still stated were seized. In 1925 82% were and in 1929 88% were. This shows a gradual climb but it also shows that after 1925 that rate that still were being seized at slowed down. The difference between 1921 and 1925 was 57% but after 1925 it was only 6%. This suggests that at first prohibition worked well and that it looked like it was going to work but later people were getting better at hiding the alcohol. However it also suggests that police men and people that were meant to enforce prohibition became corrupt and turned a blind eye to the people doing the illegal work.
Source H shows all of the arrests for drunk-related incidents from 1920-1925. The amount of arrests for people being drunk increased. This might sound like Prohibition was being successful but it was not, as there are more arrests that must mean that more people were drinking and which means Prohibition was not successful. Also like in source G the rate increases rapidly and then eases off suggesting that people were getting good at hiding the alcohol or that police men and prohibition officers are turning a blind eye and becoming corrupt. The amount of drunk drivers is not of any use as cars had only come out and not many people had them so this statistic proves nothing. Altogether, the amount of arrests increases which means it was not successful due to the fact that there was more alcohol available. This source does not prove that Prohibition was a success because the numbers kept increasing which means the amount of alcohol increased so Prohibition did not work. It could be seen as success in that it is evidence that people were being prosecuted.
In conclusion, these sources prove that Prohibition was not a success because the amount of stills was too small as the amount of stills there actually was, increased. Also Source H shows that Prohibition was a failure because the number of arrests increases every year and which means that the amount of alcohol increased therefore alcohol was more accessible. But also that people were getting caught. The Prohibition agents produced this so it could be bias to make it sound that it was successful, and to make them look good.
E) Study sources I and J
How far does source I prove that the policeman in source J is telling the truth?
It is discernible that Source I proves that the policeman in Source J is telling the truth due to many reasons. Firstly, Source I depicts the corruption within the government. There are seven people standing in a row who are the most important people that are meant to be enforcing Prohibition. But, they all have hands behind their back which shows that they were corrupt and were bribed. If the most important people within the government that were trying to enforce Prohibition were corrupt, there was no chance of success. “A wall is only as strong as the men who guard it!” This is a saying that means that practices will only work if the people meant to make it work are obeying it themselves.
Source J, then corroborates the argument in Source I that the Prohibition officers were bribed. The policeman enters the saloon and there was a drink there. “The bottle was there and you were supposed to drink it.” The attitude of the saloon keeper is a representation of common attitude because he knew what to do with the policeman. The policemen were also corrupt because ‘if you tried to enforce the law they’d put you in the post…’ Policemen were therefore given lower and more remedial jobs. Furthermore, this demonstrates that senior police officers were involved in it’. This shows that the corruption was within the most important people, and represents a breach of trust as well as a clear distaste and not being in favour of Prohibition.
Source I proves that the policeman in Source J is telling the truth due to many reasons. The seven men in Source I are the most important people and they have their hands behind their backs which shows the corruption and also they were bribed by the gangsters. This relates to Source J as the policeman says that, ‘It was a conspiracy and my superior officers were involved in it.’ This proves that the officers were bribed. Furthermore, the title of the source is ‘National Gesture’ which suggests that there were mistakes as far as Prohibition enforcement was concerned. It furthermore reflects the widespread corruption and Source I may also connote a sense of turning their backs to the problem. The liability of the problem and extends tot most important people and even the clerks were involved. However source I does not prove that the police men in source J is telling the truth as source I is only a cartoon and is a opinion of the artist and is not based on true and hard evidence so it can not be used to prove anything.
In conclusion, Source I does not prove that the policeman in Source J was telling the truth because even though they both state that the government was corrupt source I is only a source and only reflects the artist’s opinion and is not based on facts.
F) Study all the sources.
Do these sources support the view that the failure of prohibition was inevitable?
There are many sources that agree with the statement. Source A is for the failure of Prohibition. This is due to the fact in Source A there is a sentence which says, ‘For no earlier law had gone against the daily customs, habits and desires of so many Americans.’ This sentence means that it was going to fail. This is because it was part of everyday life for the Americans and if it was to be taken out it would be hard to cope without it and people would find a way to get what they want. Source B is also for the failure. This is because it says that ‘1500 Prohibition Agents were appointed.’ This shows that there was a lack of officers to appoint the law so it would not work properly. Also it shows that more and more people did not care because, ‘By 1928 there were more than 30,000 speakeasies…’ This shows that nobody cared and the officers were not doing their jobs. Source C suggests that prohibition was not going to fail because it shows a middle class man buying alcohol which was banned even though he has to give his weeks wages for it. This suggests that people were going to do what ever they wanted to get what ever they wanted. Source E is also for the failure but the person that wrote it was for Prohibition. He eventually came to know that it was going to fail, ‘I have slowly and reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result.’ This shows that even though he was for Prohibition, he knew it was going to fail. Also there is no need for him to lie because it is a private letter so it is a reliable source and non-biased and he has nothing to lose. Source G is for the failure because it shows that the number of stills increased which means that more stills are being produced so it shows that Prohibition is not working. Prohibition was going to fail because people were making their own alcohol. Source H shows the number of people arrested for drinking-related incidents. Every year it increases which means that the Prohibition officers were not doing their jobs and were corrupt as the rate at which the still were being slowed down. Source I and J are both for the failure because it shows that the policemen were bribed and that the corruption went all the way up to the Prohibition agent. ‘I opened it and there was $75 in it.’ This shows that nearly everyone was bribed. Also the corruption went so high up in the ranks that all the Prohibition agents were involved. ‘It was a conspiracy and my superior officers were involved in it’. This corroborates the fact that the corruption was within the higher ranks and if the government was bribed therefore how was it going to work?
However, there other sources are against the view that Prohibition was going to fail. Source B illustrates that there were some groups that were for Prohibition like he ‘Anti-Saloon League’ and ‘Women’s Christian Temperance’. There were many groups and many people wanted it so it shows that it might have had a chance to succeed. Source C and D are against the fact that Prohibition was going to fail due to many reasons. They both explain to the public why Prohibition should be in place. They both also show the things that could happen to the family due to the fact that the men would waste all their money in alcohol. Source F is also against it due to many reasons. Some of the Prohibition officers did not give up which motivated some of the people. The writer also says that ‘where it is not obeyed it will be enforced.’ This shows signs of positive things in Prohibition. This source could also be biased because it is speech to the public and he does not want to say that it will not work.
In conclusion, I believe that even with the support of some campaigning groups it was bound to fail because it went against peoples daily things and were not willing to change that. Prohibition did not only affect drinkers but it brought violence in America that it had never been seen before, through gangsters. It bought gangsters such Al Capone and Dutch Schulz this shows that the corruption did not allow Prohibition to work properly therefore it was bound to fail. Also without the right amount of officers it was going to fail. So therefore, the failure of Prohibition was inevitable.
Gautambir Singh Soin