The USA

Section 1

a. Explain the main features of the New Deal?

There were many features of the New Deal, but the most important feature was to create jobs and put the USA back to work. Roosevelt faced a banking crisis on the day he elected as President. To deal with it he immediately got the Emergency Banking Act passed, in order to stop the banks going bankrupt. It forced all banks to stay closed for four days. Banks which were entirely desperate on the finances were ordered to close immediately. The rest were promised that the government would support them, so the public could gain confidence in them again. He publicised this to the nations through his ‘fireside chats’ as he realised he could communicate with the others effectively through the radio. The ‘fireside chats’ kept the Americans in touch with what the government was doing, and it made the whole nations untied in facing its problems together. It worked, the banking system was saved from collapse and people took money back to the banks. Also Roosevelt wanted to bring the Wall Street Crash under control, as it had been the uncontrolled activities of dishonest financiers, who were willing to make any trick to make money out of the stock market. In 1934 he set up the Securities and Exchange Commission to control the activities of the Stock Market. Therefore the investors could have more confidence on not swindling out their money.

The Agriculture Adjustment Act was set up to help farmers, as agriculture was overproducing, which made the prices remained low, and it would be hard for the farmers to make a profit. The Adjustment Act gave the government power to destroy extra produce, and compensating them for the loss. Cotton farmers needed to plough their crop into the ground for the piglets that the government bought to slaughter. The Agricultural Adjustment Administration was established to put the act into process, and to reduce production by reaching agreement with farmers on sensible amounts to be produced in future. In this way prices could rise, and farming would recover.

The industry was helped.

Two important agencies were set up by the National Industrial Recovery Act. The Public Works Administration, it used skilled industrial workers, unemployed on large-scale building projects. And, right was given to workers to go on strict together for fair wages. This gave a massive improvement to trade unions; they could now organise in industries where they had been excluded before. The act created another agency called the National Recovery Administration too. It negotiated with industry to establish agreements on working conditions, employment evils like child labor, low pay and long hours. To put this in operation, each industry would need to agree an employment code with the government. And fair prices would be charged for goods, as the code would ensure workers wages and conditions. Permission for display the National Recovery Administration’s logo of a blue eagle was given to those employers that agreed a code. These firms were rewarded by the government to favor the employers when contracts were awarded. Roosevelt also helped the unemployed by setting up the Civilian Conservation Corps; it created jobs for unemployed young men in useful environment projects, such as fish farming, strengthening river banks, fighting forest fires. However the works the employed did were criticised as forced labour, as the pay rates were extremely low and it even had a uniform. Its members provided shelter for crops and helped to reduce soil erosion by planting approximately 200 million trees. After that the Federal Emergency Relief administration was set up to help the poor. It gave government funding to local government to provide emergency help for the poor. As in 1933 the USA’s trouble was so serious, people needed to be saved from starvation first.

To help the depressed areas, the Tennessee Valley authority was set up to renew the Tennessee Valley by constructing dams which would provide electricity and encourage industry to develop. Because the agriculture in the Tennessee Valley was seriously hit by floods, which also caused soil erosion. The available of electricity would definitely benefit people who lived there. Also the Tennessee River would become passable, and would bring trade to the area.

Home owners were helped by the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation. It was set up to prevent the home owners from losing their homes and not keep up their repayments, which caused by the Depression. If this did happen, it would be bad for the bank which would not recover its money and for the family to leave their home. The Home Owners’ Loan Corporation gave low interest home owner to cope with temporary unemployment. The Farm Credit Administration was also given similar help to farmers. The ‘ alphabet agencies’ was set up by the government to run the New Deal , as there were too many new government organizations set up to carry out the work of the New Deal such as AAA, FERA and TVA. The Beer Act of March 1933 was started, its purpose was to make legal against the sale and manufacture of beer and wines this process was finished and the prohibition was ended d when the 21st Amendment to the Constitution was approved at the end of 1933.

During 1935 The Supreme Court started to challenge the New Deal, and radical opponents were criticizing that Roosevelt did not take enough action to co-operate the poor. So Roosevelt introduced the Second New Deal, which focused more on improvements of welfare and labour right. It mainly introduced 3 new orgaisations. The works Progress Administration was introduced to find emergency short term job for unskilled workers, mostly in building projects. It managed to find work for around eight million people in its eight years of existence. Second one was the Social Security Act, which gave old age pensions, unemployment benefits, and financial support for the handicapped in order to set up a national insurance scheme in the USA. The third one was The Resettlement Administration in response to help poor farmers by giving them free equipment and settled some of the poorest on land again. Funding was held to give money to farmers for soil conservation scheme.

Overall the main feature of the New Deal was to create works for the unemployed and bring the American’s economy back by passing and setting laws and organisations.

b. Explain why Roosevelt introduced the New Deal?

In 1933 the New Deal was introduced by President Roosevelt in response to the Great Depression of the 1930s which started when the stock market crashed in 1929. The New Deal was intended to help people get back on their feet and make the economy again. He had also promised to the Americans a ‘New Deal’ too.

The Wall Street Stock market in New York crashed in October 1929. It disturbed the American economy seriously and it totally destroyed the confidence in American business. In the Great Depression thousands of people lost everything, and banks went bankrupt. Production fell, as more people had less to spend on goods, and it also meant that more unemployment. Unemployment rose rapidly, it reached up to 13 million in 1933 from 1.6 million in 1929.

On 24 October 1929 which was known as the ‘Black Thursday’ was the day that the shares and prices dropped sharply. Even prices were in free fall, the market was still surrounded by panic selling, however no one bought any. The biggest banks in the USA started to buy shares, in order to stop panic selling. Prices had recovered at the end of the day nevertheless that was not significant enough to save all people who had been ruined. Once more the prices fell rapidly, but the banks did not do anything to support the market. And Over 16 million shares were traded away. $10000 million were lost in a single day’s trading. By 1932 the average value of shares was only one-fifth of what they had been before in 1929. This made businesses hard to run, as they had no money to buy equipments, materials and pay wages. In 1929 only one million cars were sold, whereas four million cars were sold in 1929. This is because people had lost so much money in the Depression; so they now had less money to spend on goods. Therefore fewer goods were made and less factories and workers are needed, which meant unemployment had rose. And selling goods was one of the ways that businesses raise money from. Another way was by borrowing money, but borrowing money from the banks became very difficult, as the banks knew once they lend the money to the businesses, they would never able to pay it back. In any circumstances, it was usually the banks themselves that broke, eventually five thousands banks were closed in the three years, and industry shut down too. By 1932 a quarter of the working population was unemployed; further more the economy in 1933 was producing only 20 per cent of what it had been in 1929.

Although numerous of serious problems had been caused in the Depression, the previous President Hoover did not take any actions in dealing with the effects of the Crash. As he believed that the economy would soon cure by itself, like all republicans, he thought the government should not interfere the business matters. Shortly Hoover appealed to understand that the USA was facing a far more serious problem than what he thought. He asked the employers not to sack any workers or cut their pay. He set up the Reconstruction Finance Commission to give loans to businesses in trouble. It bought the extra crops in an attempt to hold the price up and it created jobs for the unemployed by encouraging the states to open public works programmes. However Hoover did not believe in them, and they were not significant enough to make any difference, even the ideas were good. In 1930 he made matters worse by agreeing with the Hawley Smooth tariff, which placed even higher taxes on imports. It led the other nationals to do the same, which made it extremely difficult for the USA to export its surplus production. This immediately pushed the rest of the world into depression too.

It was obvious the USA was not a good state when the first day that the Wall Street Stock market crashed, families lost their homes, or were split up when parents left to search for work and unemployed were relied on charity. Unemployed were queuing for handouts of food every single day. Destitute people were wandered around looking for food and work. The city of Philadelphia had cut relief funds to 50000 families, as money to help the poor were running out in 1932.

Roosevelt introduced the New Deal because of the huge numbers of unemployment and ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Roosevelt introduced the New Deal because of the huge numbers of unemployment and the banking crisis that the depression caused. He had learned from the previous President Hoover that doing nothing would not help America back to how it was in the old days. So the New Deal was necessary, if Roosevelt did not introduce the New Deal the numbers of unemployed would continue falling and life in America would be absolutely a disaster.

C ‘The New Deal was not a complete success.’ Explain how far you agree with this statement.

In some way the New Deal was a success, but in another way it was a failure. The reason was that when Roosevelt elected as a President he promised to the Americans that he would achieve full unemployment, get Americans back to work, protect their property and savings, provide relief for the sick, old and unemployed and get American industry and agriculture back on feet in peacetime. However he did not achieve all of these with the introduction of the New Deal. There were still 10 million Americans unemployed in 1938. The effort that the government was making was massive, but it was not enough. It was the World War Two that ended the full unemployment and Depression. At first it only reduced unemployment when Roosevelt sent help to Britain; unemployment was totally solved when America took part in the war, as it needed workers to make weapons for the America soldiers. However it did reduce the unemployment with the introduce of the New Deal,

In 1933 there were 15 million unemployed, by 1940 there were only 8 million unemployed, it reduced more than a half. Nevertheless no other government had been able to provide full employment in peace time. In fact Roosevelt was much better than Hoover, the previous President of America. From the collapse of Wall Street in October 1929 to the presidential election in November 1932, to many Americans it appeared as if Hoover, the Republican president, was either doing nothing or too little. That a president, Roosevelt, was actually doing something positive was a huge boost to the American public, they were not being left to fend for themselves. Some who had been badly affected by the Depression had labelled their cardboard box homes "Hoovervilles" in disgust of what Hoover was doing for them. The free food handouts they got were nick-named "Hoover Stew". Those at the bottom end of society had no faith in Hoover and the new president gave them exactly this faith and hope. He was a president actually doing something for them and communicate with them using what he called the ‘fireside chats’, so the Americans know what the government was doing. Lots of Acts and organisations were set up. On his first day he elected as President, he immediately undertook the banking crisis by having the Emergency Banking Act passed, as he knew one of the problems affecting America was it loss of confidence in the banks, no one would put any money in them. In other to control the activities of the Stock Market he also set up the Securities and Exchange Commission, this was an important step in rebuilding confidence in American business. The Agricultural Adjustment Administration was set up to put Act into operation, and try to reduce farm production in order to force the prices to increase. The unemployed were help by the Civilian Conservation Crops and The Federal Emergency Relief Administration, which created jobs for young men on environmental projects in national parks and gave money to the poor who were desperate. Approximately 2.5 millions young men were help by it. The National Industrial Recovery Act set up two significant organizations the Public Works Administration which were aimed to use unemployed skilled industrial worker to work on public building projects and the National Recovery Administration, which tried to improve working conditions in industry and outlawed child labour. The Home Owners’ loan Corporation gave loans to prevent them from losing their homes to the banks. Roosevelt also set up the Tennessee Valley Authority to renew the area by building dams to provide electricity, and to encourage industry to grow, which created thousands of jobs for the unemployed. In 1935 the Second New Deal was introduced, which were more focused on improvement of the welfare and labour rights. It set up three acts, the Social Security Act, which created a national insurance scheme, pensions was provided for the elderly, support for disabled people and unemployment benefit. The second act set up was the Wagner Act, which give rights to workers to join trade union and talk with employers for better working conditions and pay. The third act was the Work Progress Administration to bring together all of the organizations which aimed to create jobs for the unemployed.

The New Deal was not a complete success, not only because it did not totally get rid off unemployment, it also encountered opposition, which made the New Deal harder to deal with the problems that America had got. The most serious opponents of the New Deal were the judges of the Supreme Court, who decided whether the laws passed or not. In 1935 it forced the Agricultural Adjustment Administration and the National Industrial Recovery Act to close, as the Supreme Court reckoned that it was illegal. The court dismantling the whole New Deal appealled Roosevelt. To him, it seemed as of court was made to put legal quibbles before the wishes of the country. So Roosevelt threatened to increase the number of judges from nine to fifteen, after his re-election in 1936.He was came back with may support over the Republicans. However to do this, he had to wait for one of the judges to retire or die. And Roosevelt were now planned to appoint six judges at once. This was one of Roosevelt’s biggest mistakes, not many people supported him. This is because Americans believe that to protect their freedom is ensuring that politicians cannot disturb the judges’ work, it also caused an image as he wanted to become a dictator. Ultimately he realised that the Congress would never approve, so he decided to withdraw his plan. Although he had to back down his plan, but he made the judges realise that they could not impose their own political views on the country. The Supreme Court became more flexible after the plan of Roosevelt.

Other opponent that the New deal faced were the businessmen and rich, they were criticising Roosevelt was trying to steer the USA along the road to socialism. As they were not happy the fact that Roosevelt allowed the government interfered in the economy and making them pays higher taxes to fund employment, which they thought were a waste of time, it was nothing to do with the government and they were worried that the freedom of them to make money was being limited. In fact Roosevelt did a lot to help and cope with the problems that the country and poor faced. Conversely he did not consider anything about the rich, which was also a weakness of the New Deal.

Two of the founders of the Union Party Father Coughlin and Dr Francis Townsend, were criticising the New deal did not do enough to help the poor and disabled and it was not trying to change American society, but helping capitalism to survive. But they opposed Roosevelt in the 1936 election at first place anyway. At first Father Coughlin supported the New Deal; over a short period of time he changed his mind and formed the National Union for Social Justice, saying that the New Deal was not providing social justice. He saw the New Deal as the ‘Jew Deal’. Dr Francis Townsend campaigned for pension reform through his ‘Townsend Clubs’; it gave pressure to the government into passing the Social Security Act of 1935. Nevertheless they were not the most dangerous critic; it was Huey Long, the dictator in Louisiana, who used any trick, and some criminal ones to increase his personal power. He was a real threat for Roosevelt, with his ‘Shares Our Wealth’ scheme, he promised to take away the wealth of millionaires and to hand out the money for the benefit of the Americans. The purpose of doing this was to gain the America people support to stand against Roosevelt in the 1936 election, however he was killed in 1935, and Roosevelt was saved at the end.

The New Deal did provide jobs for millions of unemployed, but the critics implied they were not ‘real jobs; once the government took away the money, the jobs would disappear straight away and they thought the public building projects were just making work, it was not necessary. So unemployment was never going to be solved unless the jobs that had been provided would last forever. Also the New Deal offered a lot of help to the farmers, but problems like drought could not be solve. Nothing could be done in 1934 to 1935 when the soil in the prairie states was dustbowl, farmers who known as ‘Okies’ in these areas were forced to leave to look for work in California. Although the Wagner Act established worker’s right to join the unions and to bargain for their wages, many employers remained extremely harsh to workers’ rights, and even tried to beat up union activists and to sack workers who went on strikes. In 1937 ten steelworkers were shot dead by the police during a strike in Chicago No Deal laws were specifically tried to help black people, even though they were relayed on emergency relief for survival and the largest group in poverty. In 1937, Roosevelt decided to take cut back government spending, as it seemed the economy was getting better. Unfortunately the economy immediately went back into depression and unemployment rose again. Roosevelt increased spending again, as soon as he realised the mistake he made, however the unemployment in 1940 did not reduce to the level in 1937.

Overall the New Deal was a greater success than failure even though it did not solve all the problems the Americans faced. But with all the opponents they had got at the time, which actually made the New Deal even more difficult to deal with the problems that America was facing. America was at its economic peak then and after such an economic disaster as the Wall Street Crash, it would be impossible for Roosevelt to have got back to the 1928 figure, and they still managed to reduce the unemployment by having all the act and organisations passed.

Section 2

Study Sources A and B

How far do these two accounts agree about Prohibition?

In a way source A agrees with source B, but in another way source A does not agree with source B. This is because both sources are from an American history book, published in the 1970s which was after the Prohibition was introduced, source A is published in 1973 and source B is published in 1979. In sources A and B, they both stated the negative obsessions of alcohol. Source A illustrates that the pubs are ‘bad influences’ and source B describes the alcohols as an ‘evils of drinks’, even though they do not talk exactly the same thing, but they were both trying to say that it was right to introduce prohibition in the USA. Also they both mention that in 1917 the Anti- Saloon League of America was set up and was in favor of prohibition. Both two sources states alcohol had created ‘greatest criminal boom’ and ‘big, violent business’, indicates a rise in crime. However sources A and B claimed different things happened, In source B, it indicates a specify rise in crime, it tells us the number of ‘speakeasies’ by 1928, after prohibition had been introduced for seven years. In source A, it doesn’t say any statistics to prove its point. Source B says that in 1919 the law of prohibition was passes and the manufacture, sale and transportations of alcohol was banned for the whole of the USA, but in source A it says that in 1917 ‘ twenty three states had already introduced a ban on alcohol. It doesn’t say anything about t the law of prohibition being passed. The most different between sources A and B is in source A it says the most important of prohibition was the ‘moral fervour’, where in source B it says the most important was the Anti-Saloon League to ‘stamp out the evils of drinks.

Sources A and B only agree to an extent, even though they have some similarities , nevertheless source A does not really express it is for or against prohibition, whereas in sources B, it shows us it is strongly for prohibition.

b. Study Sources C and D

Were the artists of these two posters for or against Prohibition?

The artists of Sources C and D were both for prohibition. I know this because source C describes the saloon as ‘The poor man’s club’, suggesting that the saloon was making people who bought alcohols poor. The fat man on the right dressed in high quality cloths was the owner of the saloon; he had one of his hands on the cash machine and one sticking out to the man ready to take his money. It was saying that he was making a lot of profit out of the poor, he was prospered. The man on the left was wearing a lower quality of cloth compared to the owner was described as a slave of the saloon, because he was addicted to the alcohol, he had to drink it everyday, just like the slave they were forced to work, and had no choice. The other meanings of it were that the slave and the men both did not have a high wages. In source C the man was giving all his small weeks’ wages to the saloon’s owner to buy alcohol, whereas he was supposed to buy food back home for his wife and children. His wife and children were living in a very bad condition, sitting around the table, waiting for him to come back with food. However the man did not, because he spent all his time and money in the saloon drinking alcohol, and left his wife and children starved to death. Overall the message of the cartoon was alcohol is harmful, which only makes people to suffer. As people was spending all their money in alcohol, rather than spending on something that are much more important and necessary.

In source D, it showed that two children were dressing in poor quality cloths, looking miserably, staring and standing outside a saloon saying ‘Daddy’s in there’. Their father was spending all his money in the saloon drinking alcohol, while he should be spending this money on their children, providing clothes, shoes and foods for them. The children could not do anything; they were hopeless, just like alcohol would never be banned. All they could do was staring and standing outside the pub, hoping his dad would come out. Nevertheless they knew that his dad would never come out, and the foods, cloths and shoes that they should have would never be back from the saloon. This is because they knew that his dad would always spend his money on alcohol. The message of the cartoon was that people should spend their money on the something that were disparate and not alcohol. All alcohol did is making people suffered, nothing else.

Therefore the artists of sources C and D were for prohibition, they both had the same sort of message that alcohol was destructive. They believed that alcohol caused a variety of social problems, especially as poverty.

Study Sources E and F

Which of these sources is more reliable as evidence about Prohibition?

Source E is quite reliable, as it was written in 1932, when prohibition just ended, and source E was all written in a pass tense. This means that Rockefeller the person who wrote this had actually experienced what were lives like under the prohibition; he knew exactly what happened during prohibition. Also the information he wrote were right, that ‘drinking has generally increased’ after the introduction of prohibition and ‘crime has increased to a level never seen before’ basically prohibition was being ignored at the time. Other reason for it was that Rockefeller was a rich and wealthy industrialist; he had got enough money to get round prohibition if he wanted to, and so prohibition did not even affect him that much. There were not many points for him to critics the prohibition. However source E is clearly seemed to be biased, as it was a letter, which obviously had got his points of view in it. He started off the letter saying he hoped that the prohibition would be ‘widely supported by public opinion’ this suggests that he wanted alcohol to be banned to prove this point, he said the alcohols had many ‘evil effects’ to people.

Source F is only reliable to an extent, because it was a speech that John F Kramer the first prohibition commissioners said in 1920, when prohibition had only just started. The source is written in the future tense, so he did not know what is going to happen. Therefore source F would definitely be biased, as it was Kramer’s duty to promote and to see prohibition putting into co-operation. Also he only talked about what he is going to do, but it did not happen yet. At the time, he did not even know would he be certainly able to make it or not, and he could only see the points for prohibition. It was basically too early for him to say anything about prohibition, when he did not even sure about it.

It would be too simple to say that source E is more reliable than source F, so to judge which sources is more reliable, I need to refere them with another source, which shown.

The source above showed that the illegal distilleries seized, gallons of distilled spirits seized and number of arrests were all increasing after the introduction of prohibition, meaning people were making and buying even more alcohol after prohibition had been introduced. Prohibition did actually make alcohol became more attractive. Which proves that more points from source E were right, that the public did not support the prohibition and even being ignored it. On the other hand it did not really prove many points in source F, because in source F it mentioned that ‘where it is not obeyed it will be enforced.’ But this did not actually happen; alcohols were still producing illegal after the prohibition was introduced.

On the whole source E was more reliable than source F, as it truly stated what actually happened after the prohibition had been introduced. Whereas source F did not, it only stated that what might have happened after the prohibition had been introduced

Study sources G and H

Do these two sources prove that Prohibition was successful?

Sources G and H both seemed to suggest that prohibition were successful. In source G is stated that the illegal stills seized, and the gallons of spirits seized were increasing, showing the government looked like they were succeeding. Because people were aware of the prohibition, so rather than breaking the law, they were making and selling alcohol illegally. On the other hands this can also be meant more alcohol was being made and sold during 1921 and 1929, so more people were being caught. After prohibition had been introduced, this even made the matter worse. Therefore this does not really prove that they were actually succeeding, as the statistics that are given are very much likely to be biased. Source G is published by the Federal government agents and its aim was to enforce prohibition. In this case, the Federal government agents would probably only published something that was positive about the results of prohibition. Also it only showed statistics of the number of illegal stills seized number of gallons of spirits seized in 1921, 1925 and 1929. Prohibition did not even end in 1929; it ended in 1933, when Roosevelt repealed prohibition. It did not show continuous data; there were still a lot of figures missing. We do not know what happened in the years between, and it does not even show the number of alcohol being made. The results could well be trimmed.

Source H gives total different years and statistics on prohibition compare to source H. Source H gives statistics about number of arrests for drinking related offences. Whereas source G gives statistics about number of illegal alcohols seized. Therefore we can not really gather the information together to prove was prohibition successful or not. Source H is also only given 3 years of statistics and they are not continuous, we do not know the figures in the years between, they might make a massive difference on how we judge the prohibition was a success or not. Further more it was published by the City of Philadelphia Police Department, which means these were statistics for just one city, not the whole America, does not mean it would apply to the others. We could not decide whether prohibition was successful by using figures which only based on one city out of the whole America. More people were being arrested during 1920 to 1925 in a city the total numbers of people were arrested were increasing throughout these three years, it proves that the police department was succeeded, but it does not mean the prohibition was succeeded. This is because more people were arrested for being drunk, meaning that more people were drinking and buying alcohols. They did not do what the prohibition told them to do; it was completely ignored by the public.

Sources G and H were fundamentally too epigrammatic, more information are needed and the figures that they stated were rather suggesting the government or the police department were successful, more than suggesting that the prohibition was successful. Consequently sources G and H do not prove the prohibition was successful.

Study sources I and J

How far does source I prove that the policeman in source J is telling the truth?

Source I does seem to prove that the policeman in source J is telling the truth in a way, but in another way it does not prove this.

In source I, it is showing a group of prohibition commissioners, who were all responsible for the prohibition being put into operation. They were supposed to be honest and reliable. However the way source I presented does not demonstrate this view to people, as all the prohibition commissioners got their backs turned, and had their hands putting behind, ready to take any money from the alcohol producers and looking greedy. The reason that they had their backs turned and had their hands sticking out behind was they would take the alcohol producers’ money secretly, for allowing them to produce and sell alcohol illegally without any interfere from them. Each commissioner represents which departments in the government took part in the ‘National Gesture’. There were many departments that took part in this, but the most obvious ones were the prohibition agent, police office, politician, judge, party officinal and clack which were shown at the back of the each commissioner. The message of source I was the departments that were responsible for prohibition were unreliable, they were stealing their wages, because they were paying what they were not supposed to do, they did not do their jobs probably.

Source J was a speech talked by an ordinary policeman who was in Chicago was sent to a dead end area by his police superior because he tried to enforce prohibition in 1920s when prohibition had only just started. At the time any policemen no matter what level you were, were supposed to drink the alcohol provided by the saloon, because his police superior had taken money from the saloon, allowing them to make and sell alcohol. So the policeman had to drink the alcohol to show he was in the same company with his police superior and respect to his superior too Obviously he did not drink the alcohol that had been provided by the saloon, meaning he was enforcing the law. And he was sent to 12th Street, where he could not get any further in his career. While he was there, he had been given money for not to stop prohibition, at the end of the day, he did actually take the money, which was also a criminal; he was just doing what his superior did.

Overall Source I seems to prove that the policeman in source J is telling the truth in an way as they both suggest the failure of prohibition, anyone who tried to stop prohibition would not have a good future. Also all the politicians who were responsible for the prohibition, did not seem to be doing what they were supposed to be doing, even doing the opposite. On the other hands, it does not prove this, because we do not know much about source I, when and where it was from. It only tells us it was from the time of prohibition, it could be anytime in 1920 to 1933. Who was the artist of source I, therefore we do not know how biased the cartoon and how accurate it is too. It maybe presenting only one person’s opinion or wide spread opinion. Again we do not know the name of the policeman in source J, he could be lying. It only talked about Chicago; it does not mean it happened in other areas in America. So we do not know how biased source J is. What we know is that the policeman accepted the money he was given to stop enforce prohibition. To verify source I that prove the policeman is source J is telling the truth, more specific information are required

Study all the sources

Do theses sources support the view that the failure of Prohibition was inevitable?

Prohibition was introduced in 1919 to ban the manufacture, sale and transport of alcohol. This is because most people in the USA considered alcohol was harmful, and it caused social problems, liked poverty, crime, sexual promiscuity and violence. And in 1893 the Anti-Saloon League was found, an organisation led campaigns against alcohol. They started a successful propaganda campaign, and put pressure on politicians to support their cause. However prohibition did not seem to be operating, it even brought up the opposite effect. Alcohol became more popular, prohibition was completely ignored by the public.

Clearly sources E, H, I and J were definitely supported the view that the failure of Prohibition was inevitable, as they all mentioned the negative obsessions of prohibition; they did not mention even one positive obsession. Source E was publishes in 1931 after prohibition was introduced, and it is written by a wealthy industrialist John Rockefeller, which means source E is fairly reliable. This is because Rockefeller did actually been through the time of prohibition; he knew exactly what lives were like at the time and did prohibition did actually fail or not. Also he was a wealthy man, so he could have got over prohibition if he wanted to, so he did not have to critics it. In source E Rockefeller was saying many citizens have totally ignored prohibition and drinking has also increased generally or even being more attractive. This caused a lot of social problems, ‘crime has increased to a level never seen before.’ Rockefeller pointed out the factual negative facts out. Prohibition did work and has even made the matter worse; this suggests that the failure of Prohibition was inevitable, as no one would support prohibition, even he was for prohibition. Source H also suggests that prohibition was certainly going to fail, as the total of drunken people in a city of Philadelphia being arrested was increasing in 1920, 1923 and 1925. Meaning more people were drinking alcohol, when they were told not to drink and buy alcohols by prohibition. However source H is not very reliable, because it only states three years of statistics, we do not know the number of people being arrested between the years, it might not be increasing. These statistics are published by the City of Philadelphia Police Department, so sources H is much likely to be biased, as the police department would prove that they were doing well, the results might be trimmed too. These results only applied to one city out of the whole America, and this does not mean it would apply to other cities. On the whole source H is more trying to say the police department in Philadelphia was functioning, rather than the prohibition was succeeding. It even brought the contradictory effect. Source I also held this view too, it is from the time of Prohibition, however it is not very reliable, because it does not tell us the exact year the cartoon was drew. Also it does not tell us the artist of source I; therefore we could not know how biased it might be. Although source I is not very reliable, but it is still telling us prohibition was not functioning. This is because of all theses officers were not doing what they were supposed be doing, in fact they were doing the opposite, which made prohibition even harder to function. All these officers are representing all the departments in the government which were responsible for prohibition. They were stealing their wage, as they were paying for not doing their jobs. They were taking money from the saloons and alcohol producers for not to interfere them. They did not take any responsible of prohibition, but also committing a crime for allowing the saloons and alcohol producers making and selling alcohols. Because of all these officers, prohibition was always going to fail. Lastly source J also have the same message as source I, suggesting prohibition was never going to work. This is because of all the irresponsible officers working for the government; they were distracting prohibition, making it difficult to work. Just like the policeman’s superior, in the first place he was wrong for taking the saloons and alcohol producers’ money, secondly he was forcing anyone who was enforce prohibition agree with him using his power. Like the ordinary policeman in Chicago, he was sent to a dead end area where he could not go any further in his career. At the end of the day the ordinary policeman he agreed with his superior by taking the money he was given. Source J is not very reliable too, as it only tells us source I is from 1920s, it could be anytime. Again we do not know the name of the policeman, he could be lying, and he only talked about in Chicago, we cannot prove this also applied to other cities in America. In general even sources E, H, I and J are not extremely reliable, but they were still reliable in a way. And they all trying to prove and suggest the point that the failure of Prohibition was inevitable.

Source F is the only source that does not have the view that the failure of Prohibition was inevitable. It tells us no one would sell or given away alcohol under any circumstances, rather you agree or not, you just need to obey it, once prohibition is passed in a very definite and powerful tone. It is going to work.However the judgments on reliable of source F is remained. As source F is highly likely to be biased, for the reasons that are source F was a speech that was spoken in 1920, when it was right at the start of prohibition by John Kramer, who was the first Prohibition Commissioner. Obviously John Kramer would be very biased, as it was his job to see prohibition putting into co-operation, so he was trying to promote and gain supports from the public before prohibition was passed. Therefore prohibition would be easy going. As I already said, source c was a speech that was spoken in 1920, and it is all written in the future tense. Kramer did not know what would have happened to the sociality once prohibition was passed and would prohibition work as the same way he thought. Although source F is not reliable on prohibition, but it still has the view that the failure of Prohibition was not inevitable.

There is also only one source gives both opinions. Source G can be neither support the view that Prohibition was going to fail or not. This is because the illegal stills seized and gallons of spirits seized were increasing in 1921, 1925 and in 1929. This means that the people were aware of Prohibition; they were producing alcohols illegally, rather than breaking the law. On the other hands, it could also mean more alcohol was being made and sold during 1921 and 1929, so more people were being caught Prohibition was completely begin ignored. After prohibition had been introduced, this even made the matter worse. Therefore this does not really prove that they were actually succeeding, as the statistics that are given are very much likely to be biased and information was too little to support this view. It only shows the figures for three years, there are still lots of figures missing. Because there is no figures the number alcohol being bought, we could not prove source G it is support the view that the failure of Prohibition was inevitable. In fact it supports both of the views that the failure of Prohibition was not inevitable and was inevitable.

There are sources that do not give any opinion, whether they support the view that the failure of Prohibition was inevitable or not. Source C is saying that the man in the cartoon is spending all his small weekly wages to the saloon, drinking and buying alcohols. While he is supposed to give these money to his family, providing foods for them. As you can see from source C, his wife and child are sitting round the table, waiting for him to come back, and starved to death. The artist of source C was trying to tell people at the time, we should spend the money on more important matters, and not alcohol through the cartoon. Source D is telling us the same message as source C. But this time it has got two children dressed in very poor quality cloths standing outside the saloon, looking hopeless, waiting for their daddy to come out from the saloon to buy cloths and shoes for them. Their father was also spending all his time and money in the saloon, drinking alcohol. And not doing what he is supposed b doing, such as providing foods, clothes and shoes for his children. They are both only saying the negative obsessions alcohols not Prohibition; therefore they do not support the view that Prohibition was certainly going to fail. This is because sources C and D are both publishes in the 1910s, before the Prohibition has been introduced. The artists of sources C and D would not have know that much about Prohibition. Sources A and B do not show any opinion at all too. As they are from an American history book, publishes in 1973. Basically they are both stating facts on Prohibition, rather than holding a point of view. They both tell us that in 1917 the Anti-Saloon League was set up, and it was in favour of Prohibition. And Prohibition created the ‘greatest criminal boom’, and ‘big, violent businesses. The differences between sources A and B are that source A does not really express whether it was for Prohibition or not, whereas source B shows us very clearly that it was strongly support Prohibition. The most obvious difference is source A says the most important of Prohibition was the ‘moral fervour’ and source B says was ‘to stamp out the evils of drink’ Even though sources A and B are talking about Prohibition, but it does not give any view whether it is support the view that Prohibition was always going to fail or not.

On the whole there are sources that support the view that that the failure of Prohibition was inevitable, some do not support, some do not give any opinion and some support both of the views. Because the reliable of each source were only to an extent, we could not be certain whether they are supporting the view or not. Nevertheless from the limited amount of information that was given, I have come to a conclusion sources E,H,I and J support the view that the failure of Prohibition was inevitable. Source F does not have the view that whether the failure of Prohibition was inevitable or not. Source G support both of the view and finally sources A, B, C and D do not give any opinion whether they support the view that the failure of Prohibition was inevitable.

Bibliography

Revise Modern World History text book

Modern World History text book

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/mwh/usa/