On the whole I think that both of the posters were for prohibition because they are both showing the bad affects on the families when the fathers drink, because they both show the negative effects on the families.
- I think that the most reliable source is source E, this is because source E is written in 1932 the year that prohibition was repealed. This makes it reliable because the writer, had the advantage of hindsight, having already seen prohibition in action for most of its years, and had seen it fail.
It is also reliable because a wealthy industrialist, who was for the idea of prohibition, when it was introduced, wrote it. Yet he still said that it had turned out to be a failure
I think that source F is unbelievable because it was spoken by an enforcer of prohibition. This means that he would obviously been biased towards prohibition because it was his job to make sure that the law actually worked.
Also, another reason for F to be unreliable is because, the source was spoken around the time that prohibition was introduced, this means that the speaker would not actually know what the outcome of prohibition would be, and he would want to be optimistic about it.
d) In both sources G and H it shows statistics on how effective prohibition was.
In source G the statistics are about how many illegal stills were seized and how many gallons of alcohol were seized.
In source H it shows how many people were found drunk, drunk and in disorderly conduct, and drunk drivers.
Source G shows how, in the years of Prohibition the amount of illegal stills seized rose from 9,746 to 15,794 and the number of gallons of spirits seized went from 414,000 to 11,860,000. This would indicate that the law enforcers are doing their job in enforcing prohibition, however it could also say that prohibition isn’t working because the amount of distilleries making alcohol must be increasing.
In source H 14,313 people had been caught drunk, in 1920, and in 1925, that figure had risen to 51,361. These figures could indicate that rather than the prohibition enforcers doing a good job, more people are being able to buy alcohol.
The number of people found drunk and disorderly conduct decreased over the years of prohibition from, in 1920, 6,097 people to 5,533, in 1925. This could be because drinking became much more of a social night out in saloons rather than a go buy something at the off license get drunk and break something.
The amount of drunk drivers caught increased, but this could have been more because the equipment, to tell if someone was drunk, improved. Also it could be to do with the fact that there were more cars being bought.
Overall, I think that the sources do not prove that prohibition was successful because though more illegal stills were seized there were so many more being built.
Also the sources are not from a completely reliable source, as enforcers of the law, who would want it to look as if it was successful, write them both.
e) In source I it shows a line of prohibition law enforcers with one hand behind there backs. This cartoon is titled ‘the national gesture,’ meaning that it is very well known all over. The gesture means, ‘if you give me what I want, then I will turn a blind eye on what you are doing.’
Source J is a policeman talking about his thoughts on prohibition, he was saying that the whole of the police force was caught up in prohibition. He said, ‘if you wanted to enforce the law, they’d put you at a post where there is nothing but weeds.’ This is saying that if police officers did their jobs, then their superiors would stick them somewhere there is no crime, because they have been bribed by the gangsters to let them get away with smuggling and selling alcohol. Source I backs this up by showing that the senior law enforcers, e.g. prohibition agents, were open to take bribes.
However, source I is not fully reliable because it is a cartoon, this means that it could have been used as an exaggeration. Also, we do no know who source I was produced by, so we don’t know whether they were supporters of prohibition or not.
In source J the police officer describes how he went to 12th street, a man ran up to him and passed him an envelope with 75$ in it.
Source I backs this idea up by its name, ‘ a national gesture,’ because it is known all over that the prohibition officers will take bribes, the gangsters just take it for granted that when a new officers comes, then if they pay them sufficiently then there will be no problems.
On the whole I do not think that source I does a good job at backing up source J because it is a cartoon and not necessarily true itself.
- Source A was published in 1973, this means that the writer had the advantage of hindsight when writing about prohibition. This means that the writer already knew that prohibition was going to fail. He says that there were many reason for prohibition being introduced, but most Americans would agree that it created the largest criminal boom in America, ever. I think that this is indicating that prohibition was bound to fail, because if it created that much criminal activity, then obviously not many people wanted to obey the law. Also, there would have been a lot of difficulty for prohibition agents to make sure that the law was enforced successfully, with so many gangsters.
Source B is similar to source A, it also has the advantage of hindsight of prohibition because it was published in 1979. In this source it shows the confidence in a prohibition agent, who had no doubts he would stamp out the evil of drink. This would indicate that the source does to some extent believe in the success in prohibition. However, Source B does also talk about how many ‘speakeasies,’ illegal pub, were set up in New York by 1928, 30,000. This shows how many people were people were going against the law, and therefor how unlikely it was to succeed. I think because the source was written after prohibition had failed, it is difficult for it to show that prohibition could have been a success.
Source C was a poster published in 1910. As it was written before prohibition it doesn’t really show whether it thinks that prohibition will be a success or a failure. However, it does show that it would like prohibition to succeed, because it is showing all the bad effects of alcohol on fathers and their families. This is because when fathers go and drink in saloons, they spend all of their money and there is nothing left to spend on the rest of the family. The poster shows this by a picture a man, ‘paying his dues,’ then there is a picture of his wife and child sitting at a table. She is saying that the saloon is well named ‘the poor mans club’ because it keeps the men poor, and their families.
Source D is also a poster published in 1915, also just before the introduction of prohibition. This also doesn’t show whether or not it thinks that prohibition will be a success or failure, but it shows that it would like prohibition to succeed because, like source C, it shows negative effects of alcohol. It is a picture of a daughter and son standing out side a saloon, the daughter saying how her fathers in there and so is all of there money and food. This shows that alcohol causes the father to spend all the money that should go on the family, on alcohol.
Source E is a letter, written in 1932, just after the law was repealed. It is written by a wealthy industrialist, who clearly did not like alcohol, and hoped that prohibition would be a success. However, even he says, that shortly after the law was introduced, it was not going to be the case that prohibition would stamp out alcohol. This shows that Source E does agree that the statement that the failure of prohibition was inevitable, because though it is written by a supporter of prohibition, he even says that drinking actually increased when the law was introduced, and that it wasn’t going to work.
Source F was written the year that prohibition was introduced. The source is a speech by a prohibition agent, and is very for the success of prohibition. The agent believes that prohibition will be a success, and that where it is not obeyed, it will be enforced. This means that the source disagrees that prohibition was bound to fail, however, it was bound to be biased towards the success of prohibition as a prohibition commissioner wrote it.
Sources G and H both show police statistics on, in source G, stills that were seized and alcohol, in gallons, seized, over nine years of prohibition. In source G the figures increase, in both cases, I think that this would indicate prohibition is not working effectively, because if more illegal alcohol is being found, then more of it is being made. In source H the statistics are on the amount of people found drunk, and or in disorderly conduct, and drink driving. All of these figures increased over the years as well, accept drunk and in disorderly conduct, which increased and the decreased. I think that this shows a weakness in the law because it also means that more people are drinking. I think that the ‘drunk and in disorderly conduct’ decreased because drinking became more of a social activity, rather than just to get drunk.
Source I is a cartoon from the time of prohibition. I think that it shows that prohibition was going to fail because it has a picture of lots of prohibition agents lined up, facing one way with there hounds out behind there backs. I think that this shows that all the people who are supposed to be enforcing the law are willing to take bribes, and if they won’t enforce prohibition, then it won’t be a success.
I also think that Source J agrees that prohibition was bound to fail. It is written by a prohibition agent, who when tried to enforce the law was stopped by his officers, and sent to patrol somewhere where there was no crime. He said this was because his officers had all been bribed to let the gangsters get away with selling alcohol. This means that if the people who want to enforce the law can’t, then prohibition was not going to work.
Overall, I think that the majority of the sources do believe that prohibition had little chance of succeeding, because a lot of people did not like the law, because drinking was part of a daily habit. Also because agents were getting bribed more, to let them get away with breaking the law, than the agents were being paid. This is because the agents were poorly paid, and there were not enough of them to cover the area needed. The few sources that may have believed that prohibition was likely to be a success were not very reliable because they were written before prohibition took place, and by people who wanted prohibition to be a success.
