DBQ #2 4-5 points
Example DBQ- Prohibition
The prohibition movement was one of the most courageous undertakings in our nation's history, noble in intentions, albeit corrupt in enactment. Less than one year after the passage of the 18th amendment, violent crime throughout the country skyrocketed. In banning alcohol we had provided criminals with well-paying steady jobs. This unprecedented decade of violence and alcoholism, not as an addiction to alcohol itself but rather the profit it began to signify, would go down in infamy as one of our nation’s biggest follies. The increase and development of crime throughout the ten-year mishap can be attributed to a significant lack of enforcement, alcohol’s persistence as social protocol, and the profitability of gangs.
Prohibition started out as a movement with notably high intentions. As demonstrated by Rev. Billy Sunday’s “Reign of tears” speech (Doc D) which expands upon the idea that a world without alcohol is a perfect world, and also an aptly named political cartoon demonstrating the various “Evils of Booze” (Doc B) which appears to blame alcohol for several issues. The movement set out to help purify the population that had been tainted by the “Devil’s drink”. However, it was immediately evident that the actual outcome would be something along more violent lines. The abrupt change in direction could have been prevented by an increase in officers able to enforce the new law. Numbering only 1,500 in 1920, the police force simply couldn’t keep up. As illustrated in a graph of arrests under the Volstead act (Doc C), too many bootleggers sprouting up too fast made for impossible odds. An excerpt from a quote from the New York Times demonstrates the ideology behind bootlegging, “…Crime is a business here.” (Doc E). Prohibition was too profitable for any unemployed individual to pass up, and expanded too fast for the government to know what hit them. The apparent outmatching of the police can easily be summarized by one event, the Valentine’s Day Massacre (1929), as written by the Chicago Tribune, “…The butchering of seven men by open daylight raises the question for Chicago: Is it helpless?” (Doc I). In the end, Chicago was as good as helpless. The police force became near useless. Money and booze went hand-in-hand, and organized crime swept the nation.
Alcohol had long been a socially acceptable way to blow off steam after work, or calm one’s nerves. So when the ban passed the people who felt as if they still needed this release, modern-day alcoholics, looked to other, more illegal means of getting their fix. Drinking remained a social practice despite its ban. And speakeasies, former bars which illegally alcohol, appeared over the country. The popularity of the newly illegal act was made apparent by Will Rogers when he said, “Prohibition is better than no alcohol at all.” (Doc A.) Which allows an inside look into the ideology of the era. People will drink regardless of its legality.
With alcohol acting as the new illegal goldmine, gang members gravitated to the profit almost instantly, growing with an unmatched ferocity as they did so. People who would otherwise be unemployed found steady pay in this field. When asked about why he got into bootlegging, one man, known only as Callano, said the following, “I wasn’t cut out to work steady. That was during Prohibition and all the boys was running booze. My brothers, the older ones, had a gang bootlegging… we made plenty dough.” (Doc J). The gangs had such a hold on cities and their inhabitants all over the country. There was a near unlimited stream of profit and so many were willing to run the risk in order to make money.
As prohibition came to an end, the nation’s apparent weariness can be expressed in a quote from Franklin Delano Roosevelt saying, “What America needs now is a drink.” (Doc K) The era had taken a physical toll on the country. We needed to move on. The increase in organized crime throughout the decades of the “Noble Experiment” can be attributed to a lack of enforcement, Alcohols persistence, and the profitability of gangs.
The prohibition movement was one of the most courageous undertakings in our nation's history, noble in intentions, albeit corrupt in enactment. Less than one year after the passage of the 18th amendment, violent crime throughout the country skyrocketed. In banning alcohol we had provided criminals with well-paying steady jobs. This unprecedented decade of violence and alcoholism, not as an addiction to alcohol itself but rather the profit it began to signify, would go down in infamy as one of our nation’s biggest follies. The increase and development of crime throughout the ten-year mishap can be attributed to a significant lack of enforcement, alcohol’s persistence as social protocol, and the profitability of gangs.
Prohibition started out as a movement with notably high intentions. As demonstrated by Rev. Billy Sunday’s “Reign of tears” speech (Doc D) which expands upon the idea that a world without alcohol is a perfect world, and also an aptly named political cartoon demonstrating the various “Evils of Booze” (Doc B) which appears to blame alcohol for several issues. The movement set out to help purify the population that had been tainted by the “Devil’s drink”. However, it was immediately evident that the actual outcome would be something along more violent lines. The abrupt change in direction could have been prevented by an increase in officers able to enforce the new law. Numbering only 1,500 in 1920, the police force simply couldn’t keep up. As illustrated in a graph of arrests under the Volstead act (Doc C), too many bootleggers sprouting up too fast made for impossible odds. An excerpt from a quote from the New York Times demonstrates the ideology behind bootlegging, “…Crime is a business here.” (Doc E). Prohibition was too profitable for any unemployed individual to pass up, and expanded too fast for the government to know what hit them. The apparent outmatching of the police can easily be summarized by one event, the Valentine’s Day Massacre (1929), as written by the Chicago Tribune, “…The butchering of seven men by open daylight raises the question for Chicago: Is it helpless?” (Doc I). In the end, Chicago was as good as helpless. The police force became near useless. Money and booze went hand-in-hand, and organized crime swept the nation.
Alcohol had long been a socially acceptable way to blow off steam after work, or calm one’s nerves. So when the ban passed the people who felt as if they still needed this release, modern-day alcoholics, looked to other, more illegal means of getting their fix. Drinking remained a social practice despite its ban. And speakeasies, former bars which illegally alcohol, appeared over the country. The popularity of the newly illegal act was made apparent by Will Rogers when he said, “Prohibition is better than no alcohol at all.” (Doc A.) Which allows an inside look into the ideology of the era. People will drink regardless of its legality.
With alcohol acting as the new illegal goldmine, gang members gravitated to the profit almost instantly, growing with an unmatched ferocity as they did so. People who would otherwise be unemployed found steady pay in this field. When asked about why he got into bootlegging, one man, known only as Callano, said the following, “I wasn’t cut out to work steady. That was during Prohibition and all the boys was running booze. My brothers, the older ones, had a gang bootlegging… we made plenty dough.” (Doc J). The gangs had such a hold on cities and their inhabitants all over the country. There was a near unlimited stream of profit and so many were willing to run the risk in order to make money.
As prohibition came to an end, the nation’s apparent weariness can be expressed in a quote from Franklin Delano Roosevelt saying, “What America needs now is a drink.” (Doc K) The era had taken a physical toll on the country. We needed to move on. The increase in organized crime throughout the decades of the “Noble Experiment” can be attributed to a lack of enforcement, Alcohols persistence, and the profitability of gangs.
Analysis
This essay would receive about a 5. Though it starts out strong, with a nicely flowing intro paragraph, it becomes immediately apparent that the author intends to remain at a comfortable distance from specificity and, at some points, the author trails off the topic of the paragraph. It is evident that he didn't plan his time well, focusing a lot of effort onto the first paragraphs then scrapping together the rest. The author makes good use of slightly more than half of the documents but, in most cases, fails to provide a higher caliber of evidence for their use and what outside information is used, is used in a manner not at the level of an 8 or 9. Overall, the author has a decent mastery of the topic, but didn't make proper use of documents, outside information, or time.