In conclusion, I think that before prohibition was introduced, the
artists would have thought of it as a good thing. But during the
thirteen crime-filled years of prohibition, I feel they would have
changed their minds!
Which of these two sources is the more reliable as evidence about
prohibition?
Both sources are reliable for different reasons. I think that source E is more reliable than
source F, because source E was actually written by John D. Rockfellar (a
wealthy industrialist.) He had been through twelve years of prohibition
because the letter was written in 1932. Source F was written right at the start of
the prohibition era by John F. Kramer (a prohibition commissioner)
before he had any real experience of prohibition "speaking in 1920".
I also feel that source E is more reliable because it was written by
someone who has been through prohibition. He then changed his opinion after witnessing the bad affects of prohibition. He thought prohibition would be widely supported
by public opinions. He slowly came to realise that this
has not been the result." This shows that he is open-minded and
trustworthy. Source E gives a lot of information on the
status of prohibition such as drink has generally increased. Another thing that shows drinking have increase is the figures shown in source G showing gallons of spirits seized as it went up
from 414, 000 in 1921 to 11, 860, 000 in 1929.
In conclusion, it seems that source E is the most reliable in relation
to the happenings during prohibition as it gives a lot of information
which proves to be correct when comparing it to the information in
other sources. However, source F is also somewhat reliable because it
gives facts that aren't clouded by opinions.
Do these two sources prove that prohibition was successful?
Source G looks like prohibition
was successful because the increase in still and spirits seized can
show the prohibition agents as getting better at their jobs. Also, it
can give the feeling that the more alcohol seized, the less alcohol
available for the public. This is because the amount of
stills seized increased from 9, 746 in 1921 to 15, 794 in 1929, and
the gallons of spirits seized increased from 414, 000 in 1921 to 11,
860, 000 in 1929.
Source H shows a
general increase in the amount of arrests for drinking-related
offences. In particular the amount of drunk increased from 14, 313 in
1920 to 51, 361 just five years later. This can give the impression
that prohibition was unsuccessful because once again it could show
that prohibition officers are getting better at their jobs. However, this is unlikely.
It would be more reasonable to assume that the increase shows a
obvious disrespect for the prohibition law. It also shows that during
prohibition - more people are drinking more than they were before.
This is another reason prohibition was unsuccessful - the majority of
the alcohol consumed by Americans was “Moonshine”(homemade Alcohol)which lead to Alcohol poisoning and therefore resulted in many health problems or even death.
In conclusion, I feel it is most likely that the two sources prove
prohibition was unsuccessful. The evidence points more towards to the
fact that there is a lot more alcohol than ever. I know this is true
because other sources back this up. It also has to be taken into
account the fact that many officials were corrupt and so the
information in the sources only applies to the lesser amount who were
uncorrupted.
How far does source I prove that the policeman in source J is telling
the truth?
Source I proves that Source J is telling the truth in only a few ways.
Source I is a cartoon which shows a clerk, a petty official, a
magistrate, a politician, a police officer and a prohibition agent
being corrupt. You can tell they are being corrupt because they are
doing the "National Gesture”. This agrees with the statement in source
J "it was a conspiracy and all my superior officers were involved in
it".
Source J is not very reliable because it is
only one police officer, in one city. The source only mentions his own experiences and therefore it does not mean it happened with other police officers. There isn’t enough evidence to backs up his
views, once again in reference to Al Capone. He was a
gangster in Chicago (the city the police officer is talking about) and
he built up a large group of corrupt officials - this was the reason
his businesses were so successful. But it would be unrealistic to
think all officials were corrupt because of one person's point of view.
Do these sources support the view that the failure of prohibition was
inevitable?
It was clear from the day the law was passed that many American citizens
were against the Volstead act and this is obvious because of the
amount of Americans who enjoyed alcohol prior to the act, and were
willing to break the law during the act to acquire it. Other evidence
includes the rise of gangsters and organised crime. A the consumption
of alcohol was still taking place; it needed to be in hiding from
places like Anti-saloon league and therefore all over America
crime showed the biggest increase in American history.
On the other hand, there was a lot of evidence to show prohibition
could have been a success. The vast amount of supporters of the
anti-saloon league gave the impression that prohibition would succeed. Also, the decrease in cases
of liver disease (caused by excessive drinking) implies that despite many violations of alcohol prohibition, overall drinking
did decline. Unfortunately, this decline shown at the
beginning of prohibition and then increased as prohibition
continued. The government lost a huge source of tax income -
and if the government loses money, it is likely that the source of
money loss is going to be terminated.
Prohibition had a chance of success for several reasons. Saloons were referred to people as rundown, dark, gloomy hangouts for absent fathers and husbands. This is proved
in source A where saloons were a "bad influence" and also in the
cartoon in source D where a mother and a child look at the saloon
where their absent father is. Another reason it may have succeeded was
the "war time concern for preserving grain for good"; if all Americans
had felt this was important then maybe prohibition would have lasted
longer. Source C also gives the impression that prohibition would succeed as saloons
are too expensive for most to keep going to "the poor man’s club - the
most expensive in the world to belong to."
In conclusion, I feel that although it was more likely that
prohibition would fail; there was always a chance of success. The
widespread support in the early 1920's proved successful until the
even more widespread crime took over and supplied alcohol to America.
I feel the inevitability of failure compared with success is 4-1; 80%
chance of failure. This is because the laws will never work
without the support of the majority of the people affected by them.