Both posters show a hatred of alcohol and both artists are for prohibition. Source C shows the effects alcohol has on men on the wife and child, while source D solely shows the effects on children. Both artists are trying to show how prohibition will be a great help to everyone and how it will make peoples lives much better and that everyone will benefit from prohibition.
(C) Source E does support prohibition. It was written by John D.Rockefeller Jr who was a wealthy industrialist. However it was written 12 years after prohibition was first introduced in 1932. This means it was written with hindsight and shows the effects and consequences of prohibition. The writer states that ‘a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared and many of our best citizens have openly ignored prohibition’. This shows that many people were openly ignoring the law of prohibition and continued to drink alcohol. The fact that this was written in a letter shows that this was an opinion. The writer being a wealthy industrialist employed workers and did not want his workers to attend work being drunk or having hung over’s. This most likely the reason why he initially supported prohibition. However since this letter was written with hindsight the writer has seen the effects and consequences of prohibition this is why his overall end opinion has changed as he states ‘I have reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result’. His change in his opinion shows that he is being honest and not biased. He has realized that the law of prohibition would have never worked in an American society.
Source F also supports prohibition. It was written by John F. Kramer, the first prohibition commissioner. The commissioner is speaking in 1920 right at the start of when prohibition was first introduced. In 1920 the commissioner states that he will do his job properly, however this was said before the rise of the gangsters and he could have later been corrupted by bribery like many prohibition and police agents were from gangsters like Al Capone. As many prohibition agents were not paid well by the government many accepted the gangsters bribes as they were willing to pay a high price in return for the agents to ‘turn to a blind eye’.
However, not all prohibition agents were corrupted, some resisted and continued to enforce the law of prohibition. Therefore although John Kramer states that he will enforce the law ‘where it is not obeyed it will be enforced’, we do not know if he kept his word as said this at the beginning of the 1920s, when prohibition has just been introduced.
I think that it is fair to say that to some extent both sources are reliable but however it is clear that source E is more reliable than Source F as it had been written with hindsight when all the effects and consequences of prohibition had been seen.
All sources have some element of truth in them and they are all useful to a historian studying a particular period in time. But some sources are less reliable than others due to numerous factors, such as the time period they were written in and by whom they were written by.
(D) Source G and H are both statistics table about alcohol. During the 1920s, in the USA, the government in America ran information campaigns and prohibition agents were appointed to arrest anyone who broke the law of prohibition. However as the enforcement was underfinanced, there were not enough prohibition agents and millions of Americans ignored this and disobeyed the law. In the later 1920s there were more speakeasies then there were before prohibition had been introduced. Many gangsters imported alcohol from overseas and abroad. This led to massive corruption of law enforcers. This led to many breweries staying in business as the owners and gangster would just bribe the government officials in return for them to ‘urn to a blind eye’.
Source G is a statistics table of the activities of federal government agents enforcing prohibition. The table records the number of illegal stills seized and the gallons of spirits seized in the years 1921, 925 and 1929. The statistics given do not give the total proportion of illegal stills and gallons of spirits seized. This gives so idea of how many actually existed. However it can be seen that the overall numbers of illegal stills and gallons of spirits seized have gradually increased over the years. For example the number of illegal stills seized in 1921 was 9,746 which increased to 15,794 in 1929. Therefore Source G clearly shows that prohibition had failed. This is due to the fact that during the years 1921-29 the number of illegal stills and gallons of spirits seized had increased, this meant that more and more people were breaking the law and prohibition was not successful. However it is possible that percentage seized of both may have actually decreased.
Source H is another statistics table published by the city of Philadelphia police department, showing the number of arrests for drinking-related offences in the years 1920-25.
The numbers of drunk drivers in 1920 were 0 which increased to 820 in 1925 this shows a dramatic increase in drink-driving. The source also shows the total number of arrests for drinking-related offences in 1920 were 20,410 also dramatically increased to 57,703 in 1925. However there was a decrease in the number of drunk and disorderly conducts which actually decreased from 6,097 in 1920 to 5,522 in 1925 although it had actually increased from 6,097 to 8,076 in 1923 first. However this source has its limitations it only accounts for the number of drinking-related offences only in Philadelphia state rather than the whole of the USA. Also it only mentions arrests and not convictions. Some of these arrests could have been released and let go without convictions as some law enforcers could have been bribed. However source H only shows the arrests in the Philadelphian state it does how that the number of arrests for drink related offences had increased which shows that the law enforcers were doing their job correctly and arresting law breakers.
To a certain extent both sources prove that prohibition was not successful. An increase in the number of stills and gallons of liquor seized and the number of arrests made are all shown in sources G and H. But both are limited as source G does not show the total amount which could be a small percentage, and source H only shows information from the state of Philadelphia.
In conclusion, despite the limitations of both sources, they do generally prove that during the 1920s that prohibition was not successful. If prohibition was successful you would expect a decrease in all the figures in the table.
(E) Prohibition led to massive increases in crime organised by gangsters. Gangsters made millions of dollars by selling illegal alcohol. By the late 1920s the bribery and terror tactics used by gangsters had made the enforcement of prohibition ineffective.
Source is a cartoon showing various law enforcements such as a police officer, clerk, magistrate, politician and prohibition agents all lined up together with their right hand held open behind their backs. This cartoon is showing the people who were meant to enforce the law, were secretly willing to accept bribes from people and ‘turn to a blind eye’. This is meant to show the corruption of the law enforcers. The title of the cartoon ‘the national gesture’ shows that it was happening nationally all over the USA.
Source J is about a police officer talking about what happened in Chicago in the 1920s. He talks about corruption of law enforcers and bribery. He states that his senior officers were corrupted and involved in conspiracies, ‘I opened it and there was $75 in it’, ‘it was a conspiracy and my senior officers were involved in it’. Being a policeman he was reluctant to take the bribe and wanted to enforce the law of prohibition: ‘if u tried to enforce the law they’d put you in a post where there was nothing but weeds’- this is trying to say a job in back water. Also the police is talking about Chicago were many famous gangsters were known for their acts of violence people like Al Capone were very famous at the time. Capone used a mixture of violence and bribery tactics.
However source I only shows that the law enforcers were willing to be bribed and were corrupted. Source I does not mention or show anything about the saloons and how the gangsters managed to persuade the law enforcers into accepting their bribe. Source J explains how people managed law enforcers to accept their bribes ‘You couldn’t pay for anything. The bottle was there and you were supposed to drink it’.
It also explains how they made law enforcers accept bribes ‘He handed me an envelope, I took it and he was gone’. The money was there and the law enforcers were just meant to take it. It can therefore be said that law enforcers accepted bribes simply because they saw their work colleagues accepting it and some law enforcers couldn’t refuse as there was no one else to back them up.
To conclude source I does prove that the policeman in source J is telling the truth. Although source I doesn’t explain how gangsters managed to make law enforcers willing to accept their bribes it does reinforce the idea that the law enforcers were corrupt and that bribery was used to smuggle alcohol into the USA.
(F) I think that it is fair to say that the majority of the source’s view A to J is that the failure of prohibition was inevitable. Prohibition was introduced at a time where there was pressure not to drink, this is because there were groups like the Women’s Christian Temperance Union who had strong influence at the time, these groups saw the evils of alcohol. The success of these groups was evident as by 1917, twenty-three states had introduced a ban on alcohol. However putting a ban on alcohol in urban areas was a much harder task to accomplish. The supporters for prohibition tried to increase the pressure not to drink alcohol by making claims about the effects alcohol had, like the damage it did to family life. When the USA entered the First World War support for prohibition increased as a large amount of beer and wine was produced by German immigrants and drinking their products would seem unpatriotic. Due to the increased support of prohibition the failure of it did not seem inevitable. Sources A-D all support this view that the failure of prohibition did not seem initially inevitable.
Source A is an extract taken from an American history book, published in 1973. It explains why prohibition was introduced and what the consequence was of having it enforced. It states that prohibition could have been introduced due to number of reasons such as the bad influence of the saloons, preserving grain for food, feelings against German-Americans and the influence of the ‘Anti-Saloon League’. It also states that the effect of having prohibition introduced was an increase in crime.
Source B is another extract taken from a book about American history, published in 1979. It supports source A about the effects and consequences of having prohibition introduced and discusses the work of the ‘Anti-Saloon League’ and how they managed to put pressure on congress into introducing prohibition. The source also mentions how the gangsters used this ban to smuggle in alcohol. But the source only talks the work of the ‘Anti-Saloon League’ and does not mention other possible reasons for the introduction of prohibition.
Source C and D are both posters which were published in 1910 and 1915. Both posters showing the bad effects alcohol has on family life. Source C shows a man spending all his money on alcohol while his wife and child are at home with no food. The caption above the wife and child reads ‘the saloon is well named the poor man’s club as it keeps its members and their family always poor’. It is sending the image that alcohol ruins family life and once a man starts drinking he can never stop as he is addicted to it.
Source D shows two young children waiting outside a bar for their father to come out of the bar. The children are shown as poor and wearing old ragged up clothes. The caption ‘Daddy’s in there’ is to show the innocence of the children and to gain sympathy for them and hatred for the dad who has abandoned his children and keeps drinking alcohol.
There were many early successes for prohibition such as alcohol consumption decreasing by about 30% and even more among the poor. Over 1500 law enforcers were recruited to enforce the law. Prohibition gained widespread approval all over the USA.
Source E is a letter written by a wealthy industrialist John D. Rockefeller in 1932. He states that when prohibition was first introduced he hoped it would be a success but that was not the case as more people were drinking now then before prohibition was introduced. He also states that it led to a massive increase in crime and that people were openly ignoring prohibition.
Source F is a speech in 1920 by John F. Kramer, the first prohibition commissioner. He states that prohibition is expected to be a success, but at the time he said this when the new law of prohibition had just been passed. Therefore he does not talk about the effects of having prohibition enforced; only what he expected would happen. The source also does not talk about the corruption of law enforcers as a result of bribery.
Source G shows statistics from 1921-29 about the number of illegal stills and gallons of spirits seized which both increase from 9,746 to 15,794 and 414,000 to 11,860,000. Source H is another statistics table from 1920-25 showing the number of arrests for drinking-related offences in the city of Philadelphia. The figures show the number of arrests with those who were: drunk, drunk and disorderly conduct, drunk drivers which have all have increased in the years 1920-25. However both sources are limited as source G does not show the total amount of gallons and stills seized. Source H is only statistics from Philadelphia and does not show the number of convictions as those arrested could have released without charge due to bribery.
Overall Prohibition proved too hard to enforce and its failure was largely inevitable. Prohibition started off with some success but in the long run the American people just did not want to obey this particular law. Prohibition led to massive increase in crime and as a result gangsters became rich. The gangsters were able to bribe law enforcers to ‘turn to a blind eye’. Although there were a few law enforcers who were not corrupt but there weren’t enough to enforce the law. Prohibition agents were not paid very well by the government this is why most of them were willing to accept bribes and be corrupted by gangsters. Source I supports this view and that even clerks, politicians and magistrates were willing to accept bribes and that it was happening nationally all over the USA (‘The National Gesture’). Source J is a ‘police man talking about Chicago in the 1920s’ it supports source I in showing that it was impossible to refuse a bribe.
All the sources show that although there was some initial support for prohibition, in the end because of the rise of the gangsters, the corruption of law enforcers and the open ignorance of the American people to ignore a law which they despised. Prohibitions failure was inevitable and in 1933 prohibition was rebelled and Americans were once again able to buy, sell, and transport intoxicating liquors openly in the USA.