Which of these two sources is the more reliable as evidence about Prohibition?
The contents of Source E are supported by other sources making it reliable. An example of this is increased drinking “alcohol became more attractive”(Steven Waugh) and indeed there was an increase in criminal activity. Many people did openly ignore Prohibition. “ The law was ignored”. John D. Rockefellar wrote the letter, he was a wealthy industrialist. This source is a reliable one because it was a personal letter, which would contain his true thoughts, and he would have no reason to lie. It would also be reliable because it was written a few months before Prohibition was lifted. Source F says that Prohibition will be obeyed and if not “it would be enforced”. The law says its shouldn’t be manufactured, sold or given away. This source was a speech by John F. Kramer, the first Prohibition Commissioner, speaking in 1920. January 1920 was when Prohibition was first introduced and so the commissioner could not guarantee that the law would be obeyed. This source is unreliable because it was his job to enforce Prohibition and so was required to say that it would b enforced. The speech was in 1920, just as Prohibition had begun and so he would not have known the future and could only predict the outcome. This source is also prone to bias because as above he was required to say that it would be enforced.
This makes Source E the more reliable of the two because there is no evidence suggesting that he would lie but there is evidence that shows Kramer would have to say the things he said.
Do these two sources prove that Prohibition was successful?
Source G shows the charge in numbers in illegal stills seized and gallons of spirit seized between 1921,1925 and 1929.Overall there was an increase in stills seized and gallons of spirit seized between 1921 and 1929. This source shows the activities of Federal government agents enforcing Prohibition between 1921 and 1929. This source is unreliable because the figure could have been fixed. This could be for two reasons. The first being that the government was corrupt and the second being that they could bump up the numbers to get more credit for work that hasn’t been done.
Source H shows the number of drunk, drunk and disorderly conducts and drunk drivers between 1920,1923 and 1925.Overall there is a general increase in the number of people drunk and drunk drivers but there is a decrease of drunk and disorderly conduct acts. This source was published by the city of Philadelphia Police Department, showing the number of arrests for drink related offences, 1920-1925. This source could also be unreliable for the same reason that there are other sources that suggest that the police were corrupt and that the numbers could have also been fixed. Although both of these sources are unreliable there may be an element of truth in both sets of statistics but do not show that Prohibition was successful.
How far does Source I prove that the policeman in Source J is telling the truth?
Source I shows a clerk, a petty official (an official with no real power), a magistrate, a police officer and a Prohibition agent, all standing in line with a hand held out behind them. This is suggesting that they all take bribes.
Organised crime was the biggest effect of Prohibition. Many gangs used bribery to control government officials. The deal was that these officials would stay away from illegally run areas and turn a blind eye to the crimes. In return they would get money from the gangs. The name of the cartoon is ‘The National Gesture’ a gesture is a hand signal (which is the hand taking the bribe) and the national part suggests that the bribes spread deep into society and that it is nationally spread.
Source J was from a policeman in Chicago in the 1920s. He says that if an officer tried to enforce the law then “you were put in a post where there was nothing but weeds”. Suggesting that his superior officers were involved in the illegal activities. He then says that while he was walking down a road a man ran up to him gave him $75 bribe and then ran off.
Source I reinforces Source J in saying that many officials with power were corrupt and was indeed taking bribes from gangsters. These sources are reliable because other sources agree that officials were taking bribes “used bribery to control the mayor and the police” (Steven Waugh). Overall not enforcing the law of Prohibition led to more crime.
Do these sources support the view that the failure of Prohibition was inevitable?
Many of these sources support that Prohibition was bound to fail. The main reason Prohibition failed was because the public never would have accepted it. Source A supports this by saying, “For no earlier law had gone against the daily customs, habits and desires of so many Americans”. This means that Prohibition failed because it went against the public’s opinion. Public opinion is considered to be a very powerful weapon. Source A is fairly reliable because it is an extract from an American history book written in 1973. This also excludes it from any chance of bias for or against Prohibition. Another source that backs this idea is Source E; it says, “many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition”. This source strongly supports the idea of public opinion by saying that when a law was passed that went against public opinion, the public responded by disobeying the law openly. Source E is reliable because John D. Rockefellar Jr, a wealthy industrialist, wrote it. He would have no reason to lie about Prohibition because it was a personal letter. This reason also excludes it of being bias.
Another factor that effected Prohibition was that the extent of crime was uncontrollable. Source B supports this idea by saying “Gangsters like Dutch Schulz and Al Capone had turned the avoidance of Prohibition into a big, violent business”. Gangs used bribery to control officials. The gangsters would be free to operate their illegal businesses without the danger of police. Source B is a reliable source because it was written in a history book (1979) and is supported by other sources. Source I is one source that supports this idea. It shows officials taking bribes from gangsters. This reinforces the idea that gangsters used to bribe officials into staying out of their areas of illegal activity. Source I is fairly reliable because it was from a cartoon made in the time of Prohibition by could be bias against Prohibition because it only shows one side of the picture by only showing the officials taking bribes. Another source that shows that the crime caused by Prohibition was uncontrollable is Source H. This shows statistics showing the number of arrests for drinking-related offences between 1920-and 1925. There is a general increase in drinking-related offences. Source H is not reliable because the City of Philadelphia Police Department published the statistics. As proven above, law enforcement officials were prone to take bribes and so would be corrupt. Another reason for it being unreliable would be that the numbers could have been fixed to make the department look more successful. By being unreliable this source is also bias for Prohibition. The final source that supports the idea of corruption and bribery in the government is Source J, which is an extract of a policeman talking about Chicago in the 1920s. The source says, “It was a conspiracy and my superior officers were involved in it” This source supports the idea that officials were corrupt and that the criminal activity was not being stopped by the police. This source is reliable because other sources agree with it but could be bias in an attack on the police department. All of these sources show that the illegal activities caused by Prohibition became uncontrollable.
One more reason why Prohibition was bound to fail was that the government did not have enough resources to enforce the law. Source B says, “The first commissioner had no doubts that he would stamp out the evils of drink” but by 1928 “there were more than 30,000 speakeasies”. This shows that the government had failed to enforce Prohibition due to lack of Prohibition agents. Comparing sources G and H also supports this statement. Source G shows the number of stills seized between 1921 and 1929. This shows that there were roughly 3,000 stills seized but instead of this resulting in a decrease in drinking, Source H shows us that between those years there was a vast increase in drinking offences. Although neither Source G or H are fairly reliable
They are both likely to contain an element of the truth.
Although there are reasons to suggest that the failure of Prohibition was inevitable, there are also reasons that suggest otherwise. One such reason is that the police force was strong and able to deal with the problems caused by Prohibition. Source F says, “ The law will be obeyed in cities, large and small, and in villages” Source F was a speech by John F. Kramer, the first Prohibition Commissioner, speaking in 1920. This source is unreliable because it was his job to enforce Prohibition and so was required to say that it would b enforced. The speech was in 1920, just as Prohibition had begun and so he would not have known the future and could only predict the outcome. This source is also prone to bias because as above he was required to say that it would be enforced. Another source that supports the idea that the police were strong is Source G, which shows statistics of illegal stills seized and gallons of spirits seized. Overall there is a general increase in stills and gallons seized and so would suggest that the police were successful in enforcing Prohibition. This source is also unreliable because Federal government agents published it and so numbers could have been fixed. This source would also be biased because for the same reason that Prohibition agents published it.
Sources C and D neither support nor undermine the idea that the failure of Prohibition was inevitable. Both sources were published before Prohibition began. They are both propaganda posters against alcoholism. Although they were made before the period of Prohibition. They can give us a reason why Prohibitions chances were weak. The Anti-saloon League, which was a group of people against alcoholism, made both posters. Source B says “ In 1917 a nation-wide campaign, led by the Anti-saloon League, bought pressure to bear on Congress to ban the use of grain for distilling or brewing” This shows that the people had too much influence on law officials even before Prohibition.
I conclude that the failure of Prohibition was inevitable because the reasons given for this, such as public opinion would never accept it, the extent of criminal activity was uncontrollable, and that the government had too few resources to deal with the problems outweigh the reasons that disagree with the conclusion. Also the sources given in agreement of the conclusion were more reliable than the sources used that disagree with the conclusion.
Bibliography
Essential Modern History
Steven Waugh
Nelson thornes 2001
Modern World History
Kelly and Lacey
Heinamenn 1999