Was Prohibition bound to fail? - source related study.

GCSE History Coursework- Was Prohibition bound to fail?

Was Prohibition bound to fail?

(a) Study Sources A and B.

How far do these two accounts agree about Prohibition?

Sources A and B give both similar and different reasons when discussing why Prohibition was introduced as law in America in the 1920s. At first glance of both sources it appears they agree in more ways about the reasons for prohibition, than disagree.

To begin with, both agree completely that alcohol is a bad thing and therefore hold that as one reason for it’s banning. The suggestion that alcohol is negative is shown in Source A when ‘the bad influence of saloons’ is given as an explanation, and likewise in Source B when alcohol is described as ‘one of the greatest evils of all times’. Another example of the sources strong agreement regarding some of the reasons for prohibition is the need to preserve grain for food. Source A presents this when it puts forward the reason, ‘wartime concern for preserving grain for food’, and source B further agrees with this, ’pressure to bear on Congress to ban the use of grain for either distilling or brewing. Additionally, these two sources agree about prohibition in that they both suggest pro-prohibition unions, such as the Women’s Christian Temperance Union’ had an effect on the introduction of prohibition. This is stated in Source A, ‘the influence of the Anti-Saloon League’, as it is in Source B, ’Organisations such as the Women’s Christian Temperance Union had joined in a crusade against on of the great evils of the times-alcoholism and reinstated later on in the source, ‘In 1917 a nation-wide campaign, led by the Anti-Saloon League brought pressure to bear on Congress…’ Lastly, it can be argued that they both firmly agree once more in that they both suggest women were the main contributors to protesting against alcohol, and therefore for prohibition. Source A implies this, ’the influence of the Anti-Saloon League at a time when large numbers of men were absent in the armed forces, and Source B clearly suggests this in its mention of the ‘Women’s Christian Temperance Union’, obviously a female orientated union.’

Despite all the aforementioned examples of points in both sources where they both agree on the subject of prohibition, there are also points both sources, which resolutely do not agree with each other. The most obvious of these being that, despite both Source A and B agreeing that alcohol is a negative substance, Source B is far more dramatic in its wording. Source A describes saloons where alcohol was consumed as’ a bad influence’, however Source B is far stronger in its description of alcohol, ’one of the greatest evils of the times’ In this way, the two sources disagree about prohibition because Source B appears to be even more pro prohibition, due to its depiction of alcohol. Furthermore, Source A, after stating that ‘Historians disagree about what was mainly responsible for the introduction of Prohibition’, it continues to give a large number of varied reasons for the introduction of Prohibition, such as ‘wartime concern for preserving grain for food’, and ‘the bad influence of saloons’. Conversely, Source B focuses on the Anti Prohibition Unions, such as The Anti-Saloon League, when describing how and why Prohibition came about. Source A gives a large number of reasons whereas Source B focuses on one main reason. Continuing with this point, it is also clear that despite their previous agreements, both sources decide on two different reasons as the sole most important. Source A states that ‘moral fervour inspired the ‘War to Make the World Safe for Democracy’’, previously stating this as the most important reason for the launch of prohibition. In contrast, Source B implies that First World War Organisations such as The Women’s Christian temperance Union were the most important contributor factor to the sealing of prohibition as a state law.

In conclusion, Sources A and B agree only to an extent however it can be argued that they do not agree completely, as they do differ in certain ways. It is definite that these two sources support each other on certain reasons for the introduction of Prohibition, but not entirely, as they disagree on the most important reason for the establishment of Prohibition. They also they vary on how many different contributory factors they focus on.

(b) Study Sources C and D

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

Source C is a poster issued in 1910 by the Anti Saloon League. The overall message of the source is that alcohol is a bad thing, and therefore presents itself to be for prohibition. However within the source, there are many underlying messages, which contribute to the overall message. The title of the source, ‘the Poor man’s club’ suggests that drinking is a habit, which eventuates in the men who drink alcohol losing all their money. This message is supported by the inset, which shows a child (the child of the man drinking in the saloon) holding an empty bowl. It also shows his wife looking desperate and distressed, and there is also a dispossession of furniture notice on the floor. This suggests that the family have spent all their money on alcohol and consequently there is no money for food, furniture, etc. In addition, the source presents the message that alcohol makes a man irresponsible. This is shown by the man handing over his whole week’s wages to buy a drink for himself, when his family are shown in despair. This is clearly not the action of a responsible man. Furthermore the source also suggests that alcohol leads to other vices as well, illustrated by the men smoking and gambling in the background of the source.

Considering all these messages of Source C, it is clear that the source is pro prohibition and there is no doubt that it presents alcohol to be a thoroughly negative thing. Not only does the source itself illustrate the source’s overall pro Prohibition message, but also the source was published in 1910. This was before the law was introduced in 1917, and therefore there would have been much pro Prohibition propaganda to encourage people to pursue the argument that alcohol is negative. This can also be further explored when considering the author of the cartoon. I understand that the Anti-Saloon League produced this source a big organisation known for their pro Prohibition values and campaigning for the law to be introduced.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Source D is a poster issued in 1915 by the Anti-Saloon League. The message of the source is indirect but implies that alcohol and its habits are overall, a negative thing. The messages suggesting this, such as the leading to poverty and hunger as a result of alcohol are shown in the source by the two children waiting for their father to come out of the saloon, represented in scruffy clothing and looking poor. The quote of the source ‘Daddy’s in there and our shoes and stockings and clothes and food are in there too. And they’ll never come out’ implies indirectly that the family’s money for these necessities are in the saloon with their father and will never come out because it will be spent on alcohol. This complies with the pro Prohibition message the source is trying to portray.’ And they’ll never come out’ suggest the alcohol is an addiction and as in Source C, the source suggests that alcohol has made the father irresponsible as the children are missing the father and needing him, whilst he is drinking in the saloon. The source shows the children and father separate, which portrays the message that alcohol splits apart families. The overall message that alcohol is negative is also illustrated when the saloon is shown dark and gloomy behind the saloon doors, suggesting a dark, negative place.

In addition to all the aspects and messages of the source which allow me to arrive at the conclusion that this source is also pro Prohibition, I must also look at the publish date and author. It was produced in 1915, which is 5 years before the law was introduced, and therefore this would have been propaganda to exaggerate the pro Prohibition message. I know that the Anti-Saloon League also created it and is also typical of the Anti- Saloon League and they were known for their anti –alcohol message, so therefore this also proves my conclusion that source D is for prohibition.

After looking at and analysing both sources I can conclude that both portray the message that alcohol is negative and therefore are for prohibition.

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

Source E is from a letter written in 1932 by a wealthy industrialist. Source E explains that the author hoped Prohibition would be successful, but also recognises that it was eventually not successful,’ respect for the law has greatly lessened, and crime has increased to a level never seen before’. This source is both reliable in some ways and unreliable in others.

The author describes alcohol as a negative thing, hoping that the ‘evil effects of alcohol would be recognised’. Source E is an un-opinionated perspective as, despite the author stating that he hoped Prohibition would be successful, he later recognises that the scheme didn’t work. The author is objective about Prohibition, and in this way his letter can be considered reliable. As well as this, the author goes on to describe the negative consequences of Prohibition, ‘the speakeasy has replaced the saloon’ and ‘a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared’. I can consider this also to be reliable, my own knowledge supports this as I know about the rise in gangsters, and my own knowledge tells me that there were more speakeasies than there had been saloons in 1919. Furthermore, the source states that drinking generally increased and sources G and H support this statement, e.g. Source H shows the increase of intoxicated people was 37,048 from 1920 to 1925. Finally, when considering the reliability of Source E when giving evidence about Prohibition, the provenance of the source needs to be considered. The source was written in 1932, which was the time following prohibition which means the letter was written in hindsight and therefore with a good knowledge of the decade’s previous events. This adds to the reliability of the source. However, the fact that the author of the source was an Industrialist means that the first part of the source may be written from an opinionated perspective as my own knowledge tells me that Industrialists were against alcohol as they thought it hindered their workers and slowed their work rate.

Source F is a quote from the first Prohibition Commissioner, speaking in 1920. The source lacks any facts but only gives an opinion on the author’s hopes for Prohibition. The author states that ‘the law will be obeyed in cities, large and small, and in villages’ This suggests the quote in not based on reality but is simply a hope for the future, and therefore cannot be considered reliable as it is not supported by any other means. Source F quotes, ’Where it is not obeyed it will be enforced’. My own knowledge suggests this to be incorrect, as I know many law enforcement officers were themselves involved with the liquor trade, and one in 12 Prohibition agents were dismissed for corruption. The source also quotes that ‘the law says that liquor must not be manufactured’. This is correct however my own knowledge tells me this did not eventuate as the case, and Source G, which shows a huge rise in the gallons of spirit seized between 1921 and 1929, supports this. This suggests alcohol was in fact being manufactured even after Prohibition was enforced. Lastly, the provenance of the source must be taken into account when deciding whether to comply with the content of the source that suggests it is unreliable. John F. Kramer, the first Prohibition Commissioner, spoke source F. -This immediately tells us that the source is more than likely to be an opinionated perspective. This is because John F.Kramer’s job was to enforce and promote prohibition. He therefore would have not given any possible failures or disadvantages of Prohibition, causing this source to be unbalanced. Finally, the source was spoken in 1920. This was the first year that Prohibition came into effect and therefore the author would have been speaking hopefully about Prohibition with the hope of promoting it, and certainly without hindsight of the forthcoming events.

After discussing the reliability of both sources, I can come to the conclusion that Source E is the most reliable as evidence about prohibition. Both my own knowledge, and other sources support this. Source E is a balanced and written from an un-opinionated perspective, the author recognises the failure of prohibition despite the fact that he is for it, whereas Source F is not based on reality, only hope, and does not give a balanced argument, but an opinionated perspective.

(d) Study Sources G and H

Do these two sources prove that Prohibition was successful?

Source G represents the activities of Federal government agents enforcing Prohibition. When first looking at source G, on the surface, it appears that Prohibition was successful. This is shown by the large increase in illegal stills seized between 1921 and 1929, and the even larger increase in the gallons of spirits seized between these years. The source suggests that the government agents are doing their job and the seizing illegal spirits and distilleries and therefore on the surface the source shows that Prohibition was successful, as the question asks. However, analysing the source further highlights otherwise. If the number of illegal distilleries seized has increased so much, as with the spirits, this means more alcohol was continuing to be produced. This fact indicates that Prohibition was not successful, as my own knowledge tells me that the Volstead Act banned the manufacture of alcohol. Subsequently, if alcohol was still being produced, then Prohibition was not successful. The source does not show how many distilleries there were in the first place, so we cannot prove that a large number in relation to the actual number existing, were seized, therefore we cannot gather how successful Prohibition actually was in preventing the manufacture and selling of alcohol. In addition to this, the source shows the activities of Federal Government agents enforcing Prohibition. My own knowledge tells me that Prohibition officers were very often corrupt by the criminals themselves, and therefore these statistics could be manipulated to present the agents as more effective at enforcing Prohibition than they actually are. In brief, on the surface, the source shows Prohibition was successful, however when we look further the source shows that drinking increased and therefore Prohibition was not successful, as it was not preventing people manufacturing alcohol.

Source H represents statistics showing the number of arrests for drinking-related offences. As in source G, when first looking at Source H there are many reasons, which would suggest that Prohibition was successful. The number of arrests for drunkenness and drunk drivers increased from 1921 to 1929, suggesting that Prohibition agents are successfully preventing people drinking alcohol, hence Prohibition is successful. However, as in the earlier source, once analysing Source H further it becomes clear that the number of drunken people and drunk drivers, and generally the number of drinking related offences has increased hugely. Drunk driving arrests having increased from 0 to 820. If people are being arrested for drinking related offences, this means people must be drinking in the first place, and therefore Prohibition-with the aim of banning the manufacture or consumption of alcohol is not successful. Additionally, the Source does not inform us on how many people were consuming alcohol, only how many were arrested for this, and as a result we cannot tell how successful the agents actually were, disenabling us from grasping how successful Prohibition was. Moreover, the statistics were published by the City of Philadelphia Police Department, which from my own knowledge, I can gather may mean they are manipulated. This is because I know many police officers and Prohibition were corrupt, and may have wanted to portray that Prohibition enforcement was more successful that it actually was.

In conclusion, both sources suggest that Prohibition was successful, however they do actually only prove this to an extent. The sources show an increase in arrests and seizing, however the fact that they show an increase in drunkenness and alcohol manufacture, tells us that there were problems with the enforcement of Prohibition and subsequently it was not. Additionally, Sources G or H does not show us the amount of alcohol produced or the amount of people drinking, and therefore we cannot deduce whether Prohibition was fully successful or not. The sources show agents were doing their job but if Prohibition were successful there would have been no increase in people drinking or alcohol being manufactured, as the Volstead Act banned this.

(e) Study Sources I and J

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

Source I is a cartoon titled ‘The National Gesture’. It shows a line of officials, with their hands behind their back, effectively receiving a ‘backhander’. The cartoon suggests that the officers are appearing to be enforcing Prohibition however are being offered bribes from criminals to stay quiet, and not carry out their job effectively, i.e. enforcing Prohibition and my own knowledge tells me this is how distilleries stayed open, and therefore the manufacture of alcohol was still being carried out. All levels of authority are involved, from Prohibition agent to magistrate, and the title, ‘The National Gesture’ suggests that these activities were occurring throughout America. My own knowledge supports this as in some cities in America police officers were quite prepared to even direct people to speakeasies and this willingness to disobey the law is shown in the source because the officials are willingly asking for a bribe without needing to be persuaded. The fact that my own knowledge supports this improves the reliability of the source and its message. The message of the source is that Prohibition was not successful, as officials are not carrying out their job, and the title is showing this is being done throughout the country.

Source J is a quote from a policeman talking about Chicago during the time of Prohibition. The source suggests that Prohibition was not successful, this is shown by the quote that superior officers were involved in corruption and were being bribed to ignore their duties, ’He handed me an envelope and I took it and he was gone. I opened it and there was $75 in it’. The source also gives the message that drinking was still going on during Prohibition and this shown by the quote, ‘The bottle was there and you were supposed to drink’. We must take into account the author of the source, who is a policeman. My own knowledge tells me that policeman were often corrupt and therefore the policeman’s words may not be reliable, completely bringing down the reliability of the whole source.

When discussing how far Source I proves that the policeman in Source J is telling the truth, there are reasons to suggest it does prove and reasons to suggest it doesn’t. Firstly, both sources agree that Prohibition was not successful, hence Source I supports Source J. Additionally, Source J says that ‘superior officers were involved it’ and therefore shows that if superior officers were involved in it, corruption was occurring at all levels of authority. This is supported by Source I, which shows officers from a Prohibition agent, to a magistrate, receiving a backhander. This therefore supports the message that corruption spanned all authority figures. Furthermore, Source I supports source J, in that Source I shows them all receiving a ‘backhander’ and Source J describes saloon keepers welcoming anyone. My own knowledge suggests that ‘backhanders’ was how distilleries stayed open and were not seized, and Source J proves that distilleries were still open as it describes saloon keepers; therefore they support each other in the message that distilleries were still running and therefore Prohibition was not successful.

Despite this evidence to suggest that Source I does in fact prove source J, there are also reasons against this argument, which suggest it does not prove the source but supports it. Firstly, the sources disagree because Source I shows every officer with their hands behind their back, and therefore suggests they are willing to take a ‘backhander’, however Source J suggest the officer tried to carry out his duties but was more or less forced into neglecting his job, ‘if you tried to enforce the law they’d put you in a post where there was nothing but weeds’. Furthermore, the title of Source I, ‘The National Gesture’ suggests that this corruption was occurring throughout the country, however this cannot prove Source J as it is only referring to Chicago and not the whole country as in Source I.

In conclusion, both sources are questionable, due to the fact that Source I is a cartoon, and the author and dates of the cartoon are not provided therefore we cannot gesticulate over the provenance of the source, and source J is spoken by a policeman, which may mean his agenda was not reliable, and the source is only referring to Chicago. It is as a result of this, and the sources disagreements as well as agreements, that Source I does not prove that the policeman in Source J is telling the truth, but only supports it. The sources support each other in that they agree about certain aspects, however they do not prove each other, as they are both questionable.

(f) Do all the sources support the view that the failure of Prohibition was inevitable?

Looking at all ten sources separately, it is impossible to say that all sources support the view that failure of Prohibition was inevitable as some do not support this view. I will firstly discuss the sources, which do support this viewpoint, and consequently their reliability, and then will continue to discuss the sources, which do not support this view, and their reliability. It is only after grouping the sources into two groups that I can come to a final conclusion.

There are five sources which I understand to support the view that failure was inevitable, sources A, G, H, I and J. Source A shows itself to support this viewpoint as despite the fact that it gives a large number if reasons for the introduction of Prohibition, it continues to state that ‘no earlier law had gone against the daily customs, habits and desires of many Americans’. Hence, indirectly deciding that it was bound to failure from the start. Sources G and H comply with this decision that Prohibition went against the grain of so many American’s habits and desires. Source G does this by giving statistics of the numbers illegal distilleries and gallons of spirits seized even after Prohibition was introduced, such as a rise of 6,048 illegal distilleries seized between the years of 1921 and 1929. This therefore suggests that if people were still manufacturing illegal alcohol, Prohibition was never going to succeed as this goes against the Volstead Act. Source G supports this viewpoint, showing an increase on the total number of arrests for drinking-related offences, of 37,243 between the years of 1920 and 1925. Source G then also supports the view that failure of Prohibition was inevitable, as people were continuing to consume alcohol and we are not even being informed of the total number, only of the total number arrested for this crime. The final two sources, J and I give an insight into the corruption of police forces during the time of Prohibition. I know this was a main factor, alongside the people’s established habits and desires to consume alcohol, which could not be quashed, into the eventual failure of Prohibition. Looking at sources J and I, who I earlier concluded did support each other in their message, it is clear that they also agree with the common viewpoint of these five sources. Source I shows officials, e.g. Prohibition agents, receiving a ‘backhander’ in return for them neglecting their duties as enforcers of the Prohibition law. The source supports the viewpoint that the failure of Prohibition was inevitable, if even the enforcers of Prohibition were willing to be corrupted then what hope did the scheme have of succeeding? Source I also supports source J that tells us of the corruption within the agents, ’it was a conspiracy and my superior officers were involved in it’. This supports Source I in the message that the failure of Prohibition was inevitable as not even the law enforcers were taking it seriously.

Despite the fact that these five sources can be singled out, their reliability must be taken into account because this could effect how much they can be relied on to support the view that the failure of Prohibition was successful. Source A was taken from an American history book, and therefore can be relied on to give a balanced overview, however we cannot deduce who the author of the book was, and what his/her views on Prohibition. Despite this, the book was published in 1973, and therefore is reliable because it is written in hindsight with a full knowledge of what happened. The fact that it was written long after means the history book will have been able to conclude whether the failure of Prohibition was inevitable. Sources G and H were produced by the Federal Government agents enforcing prohibition, and the City of Philadelphia Police Department. This means the sources may have been manipulated, as I know police and Prohibition agents were often corrupt, however they would have been manipulated to show the Police as more effective than they actually were and this would not affect the reliability as a sign regarding whether the failure of Prohibition was inevitable as it does not dispute the fact that people were still consuming alcohol and that it was still being manufactured. Sources I and J are reliable in that they both support each other, and are also supported by the previous three sources, and neither of the sources give us any reason to believe they may be trying to present Prohibition as being more successful than it was. The only aspect, which can be disputed, is the provenance of Source J. A policeman spoke it; therefore he may have had an unreliable agenda.

In contrast, there are five sources, which do not support the view that the failure of Prohibition was inevitable. I believe that sources B, C, D, E, and F support this view. The first half of Source B, from a book about American History, describes the campaigning for Prohibition to be introduced, ‘In 1917 a nation-wide campaign, led by the Anti- Saloon League brought pressure to bear on Congress’, and continues to describe the introduction of the law ’In 1919 the amendment was passed and the manufacture, sale and transportation of liquor was banned’. It does not suggest that the failure was inevitable, ’The First Prohibition Commissioner had no doubts that he would stamp out the evils of drink’ and therefore does not support this view. Sources C and D support each other in their message. They present alcohol as a negative thing, and show all the negative effects, such as Source C showing a man handing over a whole week’s wages to buy a drink, and Source D showing poor desperate children yearning for their father who is spending the family’s money in the saloon. The sources are trying to prove that alcohol is a very negative thing, and therefore do not support the view that the failure if Prohibition is inevitable as they are campaigning for it to be introduced. Source E describes the author hope that Prohibition would be successful, ‘I hoped that it would be widely supported by public opinion and the day would come when the evil effects of alcohol would be recognised’ This proves that the source originally does not support the view, but only recognises the consequences in hindsight. Source F resolutely does not support the idea that failure was inevitable, ‘the law will be obeyed in cities, large and small, and in villages’ The author has high hopes for the future at the start of Prohibition, and gives no indication that he foresees it not succeeding.

Considering the reliability of the sources, the reliability of sources C, D and F can be questioned. Sources C and D were both created by the Anti- Saloon League and therefore are from an opinionated perspective, as I know the Anti-Saloon League were pro-Prohibition and were known for their pro-Prohibition campaigning. Therefore they would not have given a balanced view of the future success of Prohibition, as they hoped it would succeed. Both Sources C and D were created before Prohibition was introduced, and therefore would have been Propaganda to promote the need for Prohibition to be introduced, disregarding whether it would be successful or not. Finally, the first Prohibition Commissioner wrote Source F, and therefore like Sources C and D, would have been written from an opinionated perspective and would have promoted the view that the success of Prohibition was inevitable because it was so greatly needed. As in the other two sources, it was created before Prohibition was introduced and therefore he would have needed to promote prohibition and the chance of it’s success, and not failure.

In conclusion, after discussing the five sources that support the view that the failure of Prohibition was inevitable, the five sources that do not support this view, and all the sources reliability, I disagree with the statement that all sources are supportive. Sources A, G, H, J and I portray, and support each other in the message, that the failure was inevitable. This is shown through the implied messages of J and I, the written statistics of Sources G and H, and the written words of Source A. Despite the fact that the reliability of the sources can be called into question, the overall messages of the sources are not affected and this is how I can be confident of my conclusion. Sources B, C, D, E and F do not support the view, as described earlier, however the reliability of sources C, D and F give me reason to be believe their views are opinionated, for example, Sources C and D being created by the Anti Saloon League, famous for their pro-Prohibition values. It is due to this, that I can be surer of the sources, which support the view that the failure of Prohibition was inevitable as they are the more reliable sources. This complies with the actual consequences (failure of Prohibition) and this is most likely why these sources can be relied on further, as they are an indication of what was to happen in the future. I agree with the view that the failure of Prohibition was inevitable, and I have come to this conclusion by looking at Sources A, G, H, I and J and assessing that they are more reliable.

GCSE Modern World History-Ben Walsh

GCSE Modern World History- Ben Walsh