Sam McManus 11S
Was Prohibition bound To Fail?
(A) Sources A and B
From studying source A and B your first impression of the texts is that the sources agrees with the initial idea of prohibition, by displaying information concerning the factors of alcohol being banned, such as at the beginning of source A “by 1917 twenty three states had already introduced a ban on alcohol.” From first reading the source you would immediately get the impression that if twenty three states had already banned alcohol there must be a plausible reason for there actions because that’s almost half of the American states who decided to put a ban on alcohol Some of the first states to become dry in the USA were the southern states. Most of them were actually dry by 1914. These states were often very racist and banning alcohol was another form of them taking freedoms away from black people. They said, “…it was a way of keeping the Negro in his place.”
Both sources lead to some of the reasons why twenty-three states could of even considered the banning of alcohol. Initially the banning of alcohol was given momentum in World War I as many young men were away fighting against Germany. Apart from the fact that alcohol was believed to make them ill, it was argued that soldiers were getting drunk and were not able to fire straight. Prohibition was therefore said to be patriotic and would help the war effort and defeat Germany. A German company called Pabst and Burch brewed a lot of the beer that was drunk in America. Much of the barley used in brewing could be used to produce rations for the allies so for these reasons drinking alcohol was said to be unpatriotic. The food and fuel control act banned the use of grain for brewing alcohol. Some people considered alcohol to lead to absenteeism and also reduced the production in factories. Industry therefore supported prohibition as they thought it would make them more money. Prohibition soon became a national political issue. People were encouraged to vote for “dry” candidates in elections by groups such as- “The Anti-Saloon League”- and- “The Women’s Christian Temperance Union”. Politicians soon caught on that by supporting prohibition they gained votes and the National Prohibition Party was set up. For all these reasons Prohibition came about in 1919. It pleased some of the people highlighted above but it also angered many ordinary people who felt they were doing nothing wrong by having a drink.
In the last paragraphs of sources A and B it goes on to say that prohibition “created the biggest criminal boom in American history” and explains that prohibition went against so many “customs, habits, and desires” and practically forced people to break the law. Crime figures rocketed. Previously law-abiding citizens became criminals for having an alcoholic drink, which many people continued to do. Therefore far from reducing the crime rate in the USA prohibition increased it. Society changed dramatically in the USA in the 1920’s. Although drinking, selling and transporting alcohol was supposed to reduce crime, poverty, death rates, and improve the economy and the quality of life the “noble experiment” only caused to do the opposite, and theoretically did more harm then good.
Speakeasies were introduced which were bars where people could drink alcohol. Patrons had to speak very quietly or ‘easy’ to get in so that they wouldn’t be arrested hence the name. These places prospered as drinking alcohol became more fashionable and by 1928 there were at least 30,000 in New York. Gangsters like Al Capone had turned the avoidance of prohibition into big violent business where criminals would profit from other people’s desires.
From studying sources A and B thoroughly you are given the impression that both sources initially support the idea of prohibition and state the facts concerning how it could have came about and how people supported it, and why there was so much bad feeling concerning the matter. But both sources go on to say how it created the biggest criminal boom in American history and encouraged gangsters to profit from the illegal side of selling and producing alcohol. I think both sources don’t necessarily agree or disagree on prohibition because they both state how it came about and how it failed they don’t give there own personal opinion on the matter there just stating the facts. You could argue that because both sources were written in the seventies, there might have been a different opinion on the matter then now. How they layout both sources could be argued as well, because they seem to leave how prohibition failed at the end of the sources and write at the beginning how it came about and why, if you but the failure at the beginning and put how it came about at the end, it would give a different opinion on the whole matter. But my personal feeling is that they both in contrast don’t agree and don’t disagree, yes they might have wrote more about how it came about and why, and they may have only wrote less on how it failure, but there is not any pro founding evidence to suggest that whether these two sources were for or against prohibition.
(B) Sources C and D
In source C, at the top of the poster it says “The poor man’s club.” “The most expensive in the world to belong to.” This means that the saloon is shown as an expensive elite club where men spend all their weekly wages, just for alcohol. In the poster it shows lot’s of men in a saloon drinking and a man with a bag full of money just about to pay with a tag coming off it saying “weeks wage”, on the bottom of the poster it says “A club member in good standing” “Paying his dues” meaning that he is paying his fee for being a member at the club which he does every week once he’s got his weekly wages, the man is obviously handing over his weeks wage to the bar tender to buy some alcohol when he could be spending it on food for his family, and the bar tender stands with his arms out with a happy face willing to accept the money in exchange for the alcohol. This symbolises that the bar tender is shown as being just as bad as the man buying the alcohol.
Also in the poster there’s a little circle showing the man’s house where his wife is looking like she’s crying on the table and the man’s son is looking into an empty pan this shows that his family is poor and hungry, while there husband/dad is out spending precious money on the evils of alcohol instead of spending it on food or on a future. In the circle there is little writing “The saloon is well named the “poor mans club” it keeps it’s members and there families always poor” meaning that the members at this club spend all there money on alcohol so there’s none left for the welfare of there families. In little writing below the poster it says “Slaves of the saloon” meaning that all these people in the saloon are locked in a never ending circle of working and spending all there money on the evils of alcohol, also the word “slaves” is meant by that the saloon is there master and they can never escape from it’s evil grip on the people and there families.
This is a preview of the whole essay
In source D it shows a little girl with her little brother standing out side of the saloon, with the little boy holding his sisters hand peeking in hoping to find his dad, but his sister knows that it’s know use as she tried when she was little to find her dad, but she knows from experience that he will just stay in there and spend all his money on drink rather than on them. At the top of the poster it says “Daddy’s in There”- meaning that the big sister is explaining to her little brother where his dad goes and spends all his time and money, the little boy is probably eager to see his dad because he probably hardly ever sees him, and that’s why he’s looking in to try and see a glimpse of him. At the bottom of the poster the writing carry’s on from the top “Daddy’s in There” – “And our shoes and stockings and food are in the saloon too, and they’ll never come out.” This means that obviously the dad goes in after work and spends all his money on alcohol rather then providing for his daughter and son, and the daughter is explaining to her brother that the reason why they don’t get new shoe’s and stockings or any food is that because there dad spends it instead on alcohol, and she’s explaining that they will never get any food or new stuff as long as there dad is in the saloon.
Both of the artists of the two posters are totally for prohibition as they both are using similar devices to convey and portray what really happens when the husband finishes work, they are showing that the man works to provide for his family but instead of spending there weekly wages on there family’s needs, they are spending it on alcohol. The saloons are shown as evil in both of the posters as they acquire wages from men that should be spending it on there family’s. There is a lot of emotion that is conveyed by the use of family’s, little kids being involved also shows there true innocence on the matter and that they can’t understand why there dad stay’s in a saloon all the time and they must feel that they have done something wrong. Basically the two posters show the true harsh reality of what the influence of alcohol can do to families.
(C) Sources E and F
Source E is a letter written in 1932 by John D. Rockefeller, Jr., who is a wealthy industrialist; it consists of him saying that when prohibition was introduced, he hoped that it would be widely supported by public opinion and that alcohol would be stamped out once and for all. But he slowly and reluctantly came to believe that this had not been the result, and he realised that actually drinking had become even more popular and the speakeasy had replaced the saloon and encouraged more people to break the law. Which made many people show no respect for the law as a whole and that crime had increased to a level never seen before. Probably the reason why John D. Rockefeller, Jr., supported prohibition was to make more money because in the industry they believed that alcohol lead to employees to be absenteeism meaning not going to work and so causing less production in factories, so many people high up in the industry believed that if alcohol was banned they would get more money because they would be producing more theoretically speaking, and in this source it says that John D. Rockefeller, JR., was already a wealthy industrialist so meaning he owned a lot of factories, and that he was probably greedy. So his account could be unrealisable because he could be disappointed and upset that he’s probably was losing more money and so could feel cheated.
Source F is written in 1920 by John F. Kramer, the first prohibition Commissioner, his job consisted of enforcing the prohibition law. When the law first comes into action he states that that law will be obeyed everywhere cities and villages. He also says where it is not obeyed it will be enforced and the he goes on to say that liquor must not be manufactured, nor sold, nor given away. These are tough words on prohibition by the first prohibition commissioner, in 1920 the law would have only just started and so many people wouldn’t break it so soon after it first being introduced, his words were seen as very definite but this to many criminals was seen as a challenge to cheat the system. Little did John F. Kramer know that criminals would overpower many authorities and have big influences on everyone and that it would introduce the biggest crime boom in American history so that the law would be abused and corrupt.
I think Source E is more reliable as evidence of prohibition because it shows and states the reality of what the law could have done and what really did happed and it gives a clear and vivid insight onto the matter regardless of whether John D. Rockefeller Jr was feeling cheated or upset he still states the truth of prohibition.
(D) Sources G and H
Source G shows a table of statistics showing the activities of Federal government agents enforcing prohibition between 1921-29 showing a number of figures of illegal stills seized and gallons of spirits seized. Illegal stills seized seems to rise from 1921 to 1925 by 2277 and from 1925 to 1929 by 3771 add both together and you get an initial rise by 6048 from the period of 1921 to 1929 for illegal stills seized, overall from 1921 to 1929 the amount of illegal stills which was seized was 37563. The number of gallons of spirits seized from 1921 to 1925 rises by 106,16000 and from 1925 to 1929 rises another further 1186 0000, if you add both figures together you get a rise of 2247,6000 from 1921 to 1929. Overall from 1921to 1929 the overall amount of gallons of spirits seized was 2330,4000. If you look at all the figures in the table you see that from each time period the amount of anything seized has always an increase. This could be from a number of reasons, these being that just when the law came in to action many people would be very careful not to get court, but of course people are going to get court because every society has it’s crooks and you will always get a few minority of them that will go against laws in this case the prohibition law. As the time goes on people aren’t to fussed about getting caught and take more and more risks to get a drink, so that’s why there is a massive increase of alcohol being seized because many people are illegally producing it, for public demand.
The federal government agents who’s job it is to enforce the prohibition law could have made up results to please there bosses as many of there agents could have been bribed or threatened by gangsters so might not report the illegal going’s on of alcohol being made, and so therefore that’s why there might be a steady increase of alcohol being seized. Also as more and more people were taking more risks, the need for more alcohol was greater so therefore more gangsters and people would be producing more alcohol for public demand, so meaning that because more gangsters were producing alcohol there was a greater chance of them being caught.
In source H it shows a table of results published by the city of Philadelphia police department showing the number of arrests for drunken related offences between 1920-25. In the table it shows the number of people charged for being drunk, from 1920 to 1923 there is an increase of 30,913 more people being charged for being drunk, to 1923 to 1925 there is an increase of 6135. For Drunk and disorderly conduct from 1920 to 1923 there is an increase of 1979, from 1923 to 1925 there is a decrease of 2554. For drunk drivers from 1920 there was 0 people called up for this offence to 1923 there was 645, and to 1925 where there’s a difference of 175 more people. The total number of charges in 1920 is 20,410, the total number of charges in 1923 is 53,947, which is a difference of 33,537 from 1920, and the total number of charges in 1925 is 57,703, which is a difference of 3756 from 1923 to 1925. Overall the difference between the numbers of charges in 1920 to 1925 is 37,293. The reason why there is not as much people being charged for drinking related offences at the beginning of 1920 is because the prohibition law is fairly new and not many people would want to abuse the law so early on as it was hyped up so much from the day it initiated itself into everyday society and also from the tough words of John F. Kramer the first prohibition commissioner which would have made people think twice about taking a drink. As it gets to 1923 more people are desperate for a drink so are forced to break the law by going to may speakeasies so therefore more people will be drunk, and the same follows for people being drunk in 1925. For the drunk and disorderly conduct, the number starts off low at 6,097 then rises to 8,076 and then plummet’s lower then it started at 5,522. This could be the case for a number of reasons, these being that it rose because more and more people discovered speakeasies and so therefore you would get a minority of people that get drunk and disorderly. And it plummeted maybe people realising not to get caught, which is very unlikely from the evidence provided, but the most plausible reason is that the police were bribed in some sort of way, which was common back then, most probably from a gangster. There was 0 drunk drivers in 1920 but in 1923 there were 645 and 1925 there was 820, this backs up my point that when the prohibition law was initiated many people didn’t know what to expect if you broke the law, and so were most probably very careful not to be in a situation where they could be charged. As the years went on many people needed a drink and so went to desperate lengths to get one and so therefore didn’t care about the law. Also the reason why maybe not many people were charged for drunk driving is that there wasn’t many cars back then not until the economic boom where mass production came in and cars became more common.
Often Gangsters would influence whole cities via organised crime such as prohibition, if you take Chicago into account Al Capon gained control of organised crime in Chicago and made between $60 million and $100 million a year from smuggling alcohol at the height of his success. It wasn’t likely that he would be brought to justice as he influenced the police meaning that he basically controlled them through bribes etc. This might be the case in Philadelphia and the police might have been totally influenced by gangsters so you cannot rely on this evidence as it may have been made up to suit the prohibition commissioners rather then based upon the truth.
If you compare sources G and H thoroughly you see that both of the sources don’t prove that prohibition was successful as source G just shows results of alcohol being seized, and if you compare the amount of it seized to the amount that was being made you would see that that amount seized didn’t even come close to the vast amount of alcohol being produced. Also the table of results might have been made falsely just to satisfy the prohibition commissioner and the federal government, to reinsure themselves that the laws good and there doing a good job. In source H it just shows the charges of drink related crimes between 1920-1925, but you have to remember that it was initially low in 1920 because many people didn’t have that much money to spend on alcohol but when the economic boom came about many people had lot’s of cash to spend in the speakeasies on alcohol. But you can’t be sure that this table of results is true, it could have been made up to satisfy prohibition commissioners etc, because the table suggests that the police are doing a good job much like the table in source G, but you have to take bribery into account because both these sources could be corrupt most likely they are. Apparently a lot of the police in Philadelphia took bribes from gangsters to take a blind eye at the organised crime they were doing. So overall both of these two sources don’t prove a thing, it may look like that the police and federal government agents are cracking down and preventing alcohol sale but really there is a massive underground business of alcohol, and all the police are doing is be influenced and turning a blind eye on the matter.
(E) Sources J and I
In Source I it shows a line of people made up of: politicians, policemen, prohibition agents, party officials, a magistrate and a clerk, all with their hands behind there backs making a gesture for a bribe. It’s showing them like this to symbolise what really went on at the time of prohibition, because gangsters influenced many cities they also influenced people high up, like for example, commissioners, and politicians. They were influenced by bribes so that they wouldn’t report the gangsters to the authorities or get them arrested. This was very common and gangsters such as Al Capone basically ran the police and owned Chicago, the gangsters had enough money to bribe officials of the law because the prohibition business was becoming more and more popular and so the gangsters were practically running a massive business, supplying what’s on demand in this case alcohol. The title “The National Gesture” means that bribery was a national occurrence and happened everywhere, and the gesture of the hands out waiting for money was seen everywhere and was recognised for just that and by the line of people turning there backs away this symbolises that they are turning a blind eye on to the matter. Overall this source shows the true failure of prohibition not working and how it turns politicians and important people to look away from the true problem of prohibition with a little help of some money in hand.
Source J is a policeman’s own account of Chicago in the 1920’s, he says that he was sent to a polish neighbourhood and the salon keepers would always welcome him, and he wouldn’t have to pay for anything, he was just supposed to drink. He goes on to say that he was just a normal policeman and if you tried to enforce the law they’d put you in a post where there was nothing but weeds. He says it was a conspiracy and his superior officers were involved in it. He said he was sent to 12th street, and a man dashed up to him and gave him an envelope and he opened and their was $75 in it. This source shows a policeman’s point of view on the whole matter of prohibition and how officials get bribed, he explains how he just wants to do his job but he can’t because the whole of Chicago was corrupt and so were the police, so it made it impossible to do his job. He said how saloon keepers would always welcome police officers and would expect them to drink not enforce the law, and if you tried to enforce the law you would be stationed somewhere else where there is nothing, and that it was all a conspiracy and his superior officers were involved in it, this was so because Gangsters would basically run the police forces and the city so they could say what they wanted to happen (in this case Al Capone in Chicago), and if any police tried to enforce the law they could move them somewhere else because they owned them and decided where they should go and what they should do. They ran the police by using bribes which was the case in his account as a man ran up to him who he had probably never seen before and was probably a gangster, handed him money, he accepted it and was expected to not be aware of the illegal goings on. This source in relation to I corresponds and backs up what was really happened to keep the police quiet, it’s supported by I because in I it shows a number of officials being bribed and in J he is explaining how easily it was to be bribed and that his superior officials were influenced by it too. A number of other independent sources I have looked at give me the same answers that gangsters would influence everyone by means of violence bribery and intimidation. Overall these two sources show the truth on the matter and show how easily it was to bribe officials and how easily it was to turn innocent people into criminals by accepting bribes, because basically every one was accepting the bribes and so therefore didn’t have much choice or say as there superior officers were doing the same, as the police and politicians were corrupt, with a few exceptions.
(F) Sources all of them
Source A does support the extensive theory that the failure of prohibition was inevitable, the source states “But whatever the causes of prohibition, there can be little disagreement about its consequences.” Meaning that never all less the causes of how the law came into action, it failed tremendously, without any real good coming out of it. Source A also highlights the problems prohibition feared from the outset, that it created “the greatest criminal boom in American history” and that it forced people to practically break the law because it went “against the daily customs, habits and desires of so many Americans.” You could argue that the banning of alcohol and the failure of prohibition can be justified by the initial idea that it meant well and tried to do good by stating that is was banned for a number of reasons like “ the wartime concern for preserving grain for food.” Overall from reading source A, you come to the conclusion that prohibition led to, too many problems and that it did more harm then good and that the law was always bound to fail, which it did tremendously.
From Source B you get the impression that the failure of prohibition was not inevitable, because the source doesn’t suggest that it was bound to fail like source A it’s almost suggesting that it didn’t fail by it not using the words “fail” once and when the source talks about Gangsters it just says about how they were being difficult, and using the law to make a profit from speakeasies to supply public demand. You could argue that this source is theoretically stating both sides by showing how the law came about and how Gangsters profited from it, which they did. This point is backed up by a quote from the source, “Gangsters like Dutch Schulz and Al Capone had turned the avoidance of Prohibition into a big, violent business.” Overall from reading Source B, you come to the conclusion that this source doesn’t suggest that the failure of prohibition was inevitable it almost argues the opposite that it supports prohibition by stating “One of the great evils of the times – alcoholism.” This gives the impression that the source agrees with the initially idea of alcohol being band.
From studying sources C and D there is no initial evidence to suggest that the failure of prohibition was inevitable or not inevitable, because these two sources are propaganda posters to determine the general publics views in this case on the evils of alcohol, and are only meant to prove a point and make people think on the matter. These sources could have been inevitable towards the failure of prohibition if they were against the prohibition on alcohol and published posters, which would show that prohibition would be a total failure. Much similar to this poster:
Source E doesn’t show that the failure of prohibition was inevitable because the source is a letter and it shows how this man had hoped that prohibition “would be widely supported by public opinion and the day would soon come when the evil effects of alcohol would be recognised.” But the truth was that “a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared” and “crime has increased to a level never seen before.” You could argue that because he talks how it failed miserably that that alone could resume to be thought of that prohibition was inevitable. But overall this source doesn’t show that the failure of prohibition was inevitable because this source right from the start shows how this man had hoped that prohibition would come to good and instead it came to be a costly mistake, but if this source was to be inevitable for the failure of prohibition why would this letter say right from the start that he hoped for a stable no alcoholic society and then go on to say that it failed. The truth is that the letter never say’s prohibition was bound to fail, so therefore this source shows that prohibition was not inevitable.
Source F shows both sides to whether the failure of prohibition was inevitable or not by this account of John F. Kramer (the first prohibition commissioner) showing that this man was ready and serious by saying such things as: “The law will be obeyed in cities, large and small, and in Villages.” “Where it is not obeyed it will be enforced.” You could argue that this source says nothing about how the failure of prohibition was inevitable, but then you could argue again that because this commissioner is using strong words that the law will be successful he is immediately inviting people to try and break it, and you could say that the failure of prohibition was inevitable from this. Overall my opinion on this source is that it is neither inevitable nor not inevitable on the failure of prohibition because of their being two sides to the matter and therefore showing that neither side is correct or incorrect.
Source G is a table of content of figures on the amount of illegal alcohol the federal government agents have seized. This source can be seen in two ways, the first way is that the federal government agents are doing a good job because there is an increase of 2247,6000 gallons of spirits seized between 1921 to 1929; this could suggest that the prohibition law is becoming successful. But if you look at it differently you could see those figures as being pathetic if you were to match it up to the amount of illegal alcohol being produced to the amount seized. Also you could argue that the statistics could have been made up to suit officials into believing the law is successful and to make them feel there doing a good job. Overall there are two sides to whether or not this source is showing that prohibition was inevitably going to fail or not, there is no one sided answer to assume that it’s one or the other.
Source H shows a table of figures of drink related offences between “1920 to 1925,” published by the city of Philadelphia Police department. In this table it shows a number of arrests suggesting that the Philadelphia Police department are doing a good job in enforcing the prohibition law by an increase of 6135 arrests between “1923 to 1925”. But once gain this source has two sides to the matter, as you can’t take these figures as a definite assumption that prohibition was a success, on the contrary as we find out prohibition failed but whether or not this source is suggesting that the failure of prohibition was inevitable or not is a different matter. In fact overall this source does in ways show that prohibition was inevitable to fail and in other ways shows it’s not, so once gain there are two sides to the answer.
Source I is a cartoon from the time of prohibition and it shows a number of important officials such as judges and prohibition agents in a line with there hands behind there backs suggesting that they want a bribe. This source shows many sides to it but the main important aspects of it shows that prohibition was inevitably going to fail by important officials which are involved in running the law being bribed to turn there backs on the harsh matter of the underground alcoholic business. You could also argue a different side to the matter; you could say that this cartoon doesn’t suggest that prohibition was bound to fail because it’s just and artist’s impression on what he/she thinks goes on around many cities. Overall my opinion on this source is that it suggests that bribery is common and that it shows corruption and that prohibition was inevitably going to fail. But also this source shows that it might be just one person’s impression on the matter and might not be true, so there are no right or wrong ways or assumptions in this source.
In source J it shows a policeman talking about Chicago in the 1920’s, he goes on to say that “saloon keepers would always welcome you” and “The bottle was there and you were supposed to drink.” Also he goes on to say “If you tried to enforce the law they’d put you in a post where there was nothing but weeds,” and that “it was a conspiracy and my superior officers were involved in it.” In this policeman’s account it shows him talking about what his job would consist of and that he would be bribed for turning a blind eye on matters which he should deal with, such as prohibition. This source can be seen differently, you could say that this source could be unreliable because it’s just one policeman’s view on his job and that it may not be true. In some aspects of this source it shows that prohibition was inevitably bound to fail but if you looked at it differently you could say that it’s not suggesting at all that the failure of prohibition was inevitable. Overall this source shows that it could be both inevitable and not inevitable towards the failure of prohibition.
From all these sources shown it show’s different views, assumptions and theory’s. The view that the failure of prohibition was inevitable is backed up by sources: A, F, G, H, I, J among these sources there are two sides to the matter and it often shows many different hidden point’s that show the true reality of prohibition. The sources which suggest that the failure of prohibition was not inevitable are: B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J some of these sources once again have two sides to the matter, but a number of them don’t at all in my opinion suggest that prohibition was bound to fail. I think the main things that caused prohibition to fail was, the carelessness of officials in thinking that it would be just like any other law and that everyone would follow it with a few exceptions to criminals, but in fact that because so many people were accustomed to a drink lot’s of people found it hard to justify to this new law, and so therefore it caused many good honest people to break the sacrificial law and have a drink. Of course when an illegal substance is in public demand some one has to supply and that’s what happened with alcohol, many gangsters saw the prohibition law as a business and produced gallons and gallons of illegal alcohol for speakeasies to supply to the public. As years went on gangsters became more and more richer from more and more people wanting a drink so therefore gangsters had more money to spend so they would often bribe the police and officials, this led to a never ending circle of more alcohol being produced, more money being made, more police being bribed and in some cases like in Chicago gangsters would run the police force. This showed the desperate state of the crime in America, and what it had come to.
Things might have been different if they didn’t initiated the law so suddenly, if they gradually took away people’s drinking liberties they might have got use to the idea rather then it being dropped on them so suddenly like a bomb shell and maybe the law might have worked a bit better, also maybe if they employed more prohibition agents to stamp out drinking and kept a closer eye on them so they couldn’t be bribed in any way and same for the police who were bribed the most. But the simplest answer is that things might have been different and better if they didn’t initiate a prohibition law on alcohol in the USA as it may have seemed like a good idea at the time but far more harm then good came out of it and “it created the biggest criminal boom ever”. This is what happens when you deny something from a society that is so use to having something around for centuries past, they go to desperate lengths to get what they want and don’t care if they break the law in the doing.
- The USA 1919 – 1941 – Nigel Kelly
- The USA 1917 -1949 – Ian Lampbell