An additional piece of evidence that supports the idea of neglect and poverty in Source D is the phrase at the bottom of the poster, which reads “And our shoes and stockings and food are in the saloon too, and they’ll never come out.” This appears to be the end of the heading. However the father hasn’t really got all these items in the saloon with him, it’s almost metaphorically speaking as he actually has the money that was supposed to be spent on all of these things and he is spending it on alcohol. This is extremely unfair to the children as they are being deprived of their needs because their father is an alcoholic and he is prioritising his drink over his children. This therefore directly links alcohol to poverty, which is similar to the situation in Source C where the man is wasting his entire weeks wages on alcohol where he could pay his house rent as the rest of his family rely on him. This is shown through the ‘Dispossess Notice’ that is lying on the floor at his home. From this we can assume that the family are probably going to lose their home because of the mans recklessness. Therefore the establishment of prohibition is good because it can prevent this situation from happening to other families. We can also assume that in Source D the children might be homeless as they are helplessly awaiting their father in the streets.
An additional piece of evidence suggesting that Source C is supporting prohibition is that at the bottom of the poster is a quote saying “a club member in good standing paying his dues.” This is almost sarcastic as it is suggesting that drinking alcohol is compulsory whereas we all know that you have a choice whether to drink it or not. There is also a phrase at the bottom of the poster that says “Slaves of the saloon” this suggests that the habit of drinking alcohol has turned into an addiction where drinkers are in a form where they cannot refuse alcohol.
In conclusion both Sources show the negative consequences caused by alcohol and the deprivation and desperation the distraught families are experiencing as they suffer from neglect due to their extreme poverty because of the money wasted on alcohol. Furthermore alcohol is being presented in such a harmful way therefore the ban of it will be better for everyone. Although Source D is almost emotionally blackmailing the audience as they have sympathy for the children both, Sources have the same basic principal supporting prohibition. All of these suggestions demonstrate the artist’s view that alcohol addiction is a great problem. Therefore both the artists were for prohibition as they clearly feel that drinking alcohol must come to an end.
Which of these two sources is the more reliable as evidence against Prohibition?
Source E is a letter by John D Rockerfeller Jr, a wealthy industrialist and it is written in 1932. Whereas Source F is a speech from John F Kramer, the First Prohibition Commissioner. His job was to enforce Prohibition and this speech was given on 1920.
After studying Source E I realised that Rockerfeller has written it in hindsight as he looks back at the previous years. This makes it more reliable as it is an account of his experiences of prohibition. Furthermore the fact that Rockerfeller is a wealthy industrialist means that his letter isn’t biased because he has no reason to lie adding to the Source reliability. Another reason supporting the reliability of this Source is that most rich people were for prohibition as was Rockerfeller when it was first introduced. This is shown through his quote “When Prohibition was introduced, I hoped that it would be widely supports by public opinion…” this clearly suggests that he was optimistic about prohibition and greatly supported it, as he wanted it to succeed. However this slowly changed as the years passed and he watched the consequences of the ban of alcohol “I have slowly and reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result.” This adds to the Sources reliability because from this we know that Rockerfeller considered both sides of the situation. This is because initially he supported prohibition and though it would do society well however he later unwillingly changed his opinion as he saw for himself the harm that the ban of alcohol was causing as it was failing. For those reasons Source E is reliable evidence against Prohibition as it is the opinion of some one who was originally for prohibition however was slowly convinced to be against Prohibition.
Before studying Source F I know that it will be unreliable. I know this because of its provenance. This is because it is a speech given from a Prohibition commissioner whose job is to enforce Prohibition. Therefore it must be biased because it was his job to make sure that Prohibition would succeed. This is proven in his speech where he speaks very highly of prohibition making positive remarks about its success “The law will be obeyed in cities, large and small, and in villages.” However these comments are unreliable, as he doesn’t know for sure that everyone will obey the new law, he can only assume that this is because the speech is given as the start of prohibition so he can only predict the future rather than give any assurance for it. This is supported through his quote “The law will be obeyed.” Therefore Source F is a very biased account making it very unreliable as evidence against prohibition because it was written before the result of Prohibition was known and because it was written by someone who must, in spite of what they think, speak in favour of Prohibition.
In conclusion I think that Source E is more reliable than Source F as evidence against Prohibition because of the reasons mentioned before and mainly because Source F is biased therefore it only takes one point of view into consideration whereas Source E takes both into consideration. However I think that both Sources, regardless of which is more reliable, should be used carefully as they are both based on opinions. However the opinions within Source F are weaker then that of Source E as those in Source E can be supported by the result of Prohibition failing.
Do these two Sources prove that Prohibition was successful?
By looking at the statistics in Source G at face value prohibition appears to be succeeding. This is because the number of illegal stills and gallons of spirits seized appear to be increasing over the years. However when Source G is studied in depth a clear conclusion can be reached, which is if the numbers of illegal stills and gallons of spirits are being seized then the number of illegal stills and gallons of spirits being produced must also be increasing. Therefore Source G proves that prohibition was unsuccessful as some people were obviously ignoring the law, which banned alcohol. Source G might also be an unreliable Source; this is suggested because Federal Government has published it and they might have done so it in an attempt to fool the public that the ban of alcohol is being enforced successfully.
Similarly to Source G, Source H states something differently when studied in depth to what it states superficially. At face value Source H states that prohibition was failing because between the period of 1920-1925 the number of people being arrested for drinking offences had increased hence people were disregarding the law and continued to drink alcohol. However when Source H is studied in more depth the reason for the apparent increase in arrests could possibly be because in previous years the police didn’t go through much effort to arrest people for drinking offences and they only began making these arrests when prohibition was introduced. This would explain the increase in arrests and make it appear as though prohibition was being enforced successfully. Another similarity between the two sources is the idea that Source H is also unreliable. This is because it gives insufficient statistics on prohibition, as it doesn’t cover the entire period of prohibition, as does Source G. Another reason for the unreliability of Source H is that it only displays the statistics for one American state, ignoring the other 51 states, where the success of prohibition might have differed.
Therefore none of the Sources G or H proves that prohibition was successful, this could be because they both have restricted, insufficient evidence. These restrictions are because although both Sources cover longer periods of time they both only display three years of the statistics.
How far does Source I prove that the policemen in Source J are telling the truth?
Both Sources J and I are Primary Sources I know this because they were published during the time of Prohibition. Source I is a cartoon whereas Source J is a statement from a Policeman. A similarity between the Sources is the idea of corruption being displayed through them. Source I shows different people of different positions, who are supposed to be enforcing Prohibition, all accepting bribery from the position lower than them. This is portrayed as they are all holding their hand behind their back hence the acceptance of the bribe should be a secret. Source J supports this idea of corruption as the policeman sent into a polish neighbourhood says, “It was a conspiracy and my superior officers were involved in it.” Therefore both Sources are implying that people holding the position of an officer all the way to a position of a Prohibition agent are all part of a secret plan beneficial to themselves. So although they appear to be enforcing prohibition publicly, privately the are contributing to it’s failure. They would go about this secret plan by accepting bribes from “saloon keeper”, as stated in Source J, and this bribe would gradually be split and passed from one person to the person in the position above them. In return for this bribe the government would turn a blind eye and ignore the fact that saloons were breaking the law, allowing them to continue with their illegal businesses. Another faint corroboration between the Sources is the agreement about who was accepting the bribes. They both imply that it was the superior officers that would do so. This is suggested in Source J when the policeman states “We were just ordinary policemen and if you tried to enforce the law they’d put you in a post where there was nothing but weeds.” This suggests that because his superior officers were involved in the conspiracy an ordinary officer like himself holding quite a low position couldn’t do anything about the situation. Furthermore because he was a police officer the saloonkeepers would offer him alcohol openly not afraid of his reaction because they knew that people in higher positions were supporting them. This is shown in Source J when the officer states, “The bottle was there and you were supposed to drink.” It’s almost like the officer is being forced into turning a blind eye on these illegal actions because he knew that by speaking out and accusing important people of a higher status than his own he would be risking his job.
Regardless of all this evidence it cannot be said that Source I proves the policeman in Source J is telling the truth as such. Firstly this is because Source I is a cartoon and these were often published as a method of propaganda and this makes them unreliable because thee were often biased. However we are reluctant to whether Source I is propaganda which is why we can only say that it corroborates with what is being said in Source J. secondly a subtle difference between the two Sources which suggests that Source I doesn’t entirely support Source J is that Source I portrays everyone as being corrupt and involved in the conspiracy. Whereas Source J implies that some of the policemen in a lower status unwillingly ignored the situation, as they almost had no choice but to accept the corruption.
In conclusion I think that Source I supports Source J rather than proves that the truth is being told. I have reached this conclusion mainly because cartoons are usually unreliable because they are often biased, they also send out different meanings leaving different people with different interpretations, as there is no certain correct answer or meaning. Furthermore Source I and J can’t be used as sufficient evidence because Source J is an account from one policeman out of many. Therefore all the other policemen’s accounts might differ from his. Hence even though both Sources support each other in that they agree that this conspiracy aided the failure of Prohibition as most of the government were becoming corrupt and were not enforcing the law they still cannot be used as sufficient proof.
Do these Sources support the view that the failure of Prohibition was inevitable?
Prohibition did eventually repeal as it proved to be a failure as the 18th amendment failed. However historians still argue over the reasons for the failure and if the failure of prohibition was inevitable. This is displayed through these 10 sources. These sources have many similarities as well as differences between them. This is probably because they are different types of Sources i.e. primary or secondary and because they were published at varied times. The different dates of publication explain why some Sources can explain the reasons for prohibition failing and others can’t.
Sources A and B are examples suggesting that Prohibition was a failure as they both state that it resulted in the “greatest criminal boom in American history” and “by 1928 there were more than 30,000 ‘speakeasies’ in New York.” These imply that sources A and B suggest that the failure of Prohibition was inevitable. This is because even though both Sources have identified the causes for prohibition they have also identified its consequences. None of the consequences mentioned in either Source are actually positive ones. Both Sources state that the ban of alcohol would be almost impossible as Source A says, “No earlier law produced such widespread crime. For no earlier law had gone against the daily customs, habits and desires of so many Americans.” This implies that the American people would not give up something they had been doing for so long because they don’t think it is wrong which is why they wouldn’t obey the ban of alcohol as a result was the inevitable failure of Prohibition. Source B that states, “all I do is supply a public demand”, corroborates this. This quote was given by one of New York’s greatest gangsters. It supports the idea that prohibition was bound to fail. This is because he has used the establishment of Prohibition in his favour as he is willing to break the law, therefore by supplying “the public demand” he will be encouraging other to also break the law. A further point suggesting the inevitable failure of Prohibition is Source B stating “To help him, 1500 prohibition agents were appointed. By 1928 there were more than 30,000 “speakeasies” in New York” this implies that although there were many agents attempting to enforce Prohibition, the vast numbers of speakeasies greatly outnumbered them making it nearly impossible to enforce the new law, hence its bound failure. Therefore because there are people willing to flout the law then it will fail, this means that both Sources A and B support the view that the failure of Prohibition was inevitable.
Evidence of people willing to flout the law is shown in Source G and Source H. Source G quotes that in 1921,9746 illegal stills were seized and 414000 gallons of spirits were seized. Whereas in 1929 the number of illegal stills that were seized increased to 15794 and the number of gallons of spirits that were seized increased to 11860000 in 1929. These cover national and local crimes therefore they show the national willingness to ignore the law. Source H corroborates with the view that prohibition was a bound failure too and this is displayed through the statistics of Philadelphia, an example of an American state. The total number of arrests for alcohol offences in 1920 is 20410. However in 1925 the number of arrests increased to 57703. These two Sources both support the view that the failure prohibition was inevitable and the reason implied for this is that there were mass numbers of people who were willing to continue drinking regardless of the law therefore they ignore the enforcement of Prohibition. This is clearer to see in Source H where instead of the people obeying the law they appear to be entirely opposing it as the number of arrests for drinking offences appear to be increasing during the years of Prohibition. If people were obeying the law then these statistics should have decreased suggesting people obeying the law. Therefore both Sources do support the view that the failure of prohibition was inevitable because they both display the idea that the people were willing to and did infact flout the law by disregarding prohibition.
Sources J and I also support the view that the failure of prohibition was inevitable. Source J reports a police officer that accepted the bribes to avoid getting a ‘post where there is nothing but weeds’. Therefore out of fear he was almost forced to flout the law himself. This is supported by the wide scale corruption displayed in Source I……
…..Further more Sources C and D do not support the idea that prohibition was bound to fail. This is because they portray alcohol in bad way…encourage people against is..For prohibition
