Both artists in sources C and D were supporting prohibition. This is shown with the emotive pictures in source D with the image of the children being neglected by their alcoholic father and the image in source C where a man is handing over a whole weeks wages in exchange for a few drinks at the bar.
C Study sources E and F.
Which of these is more reliable as evidence about prohibition?
Sources E and F are pieces written by two different people about prohibition. Source E was written by a wealthy industrialist named John D. Rockfeller. Source F was written by John F Kramer, the first prohibition commissioner in 1920, it was his job to enforce prohibition. I think that source E gives more reliable evidence about prohibition. A wealthy industrialist wrote source E and a wealthy industrialist would not have played a strong part in prohibition. This is significant because source F was wrote by the first prohibition commissioner who had strong view about prohibition. This is not much use as evidence about prohibition because it is a biased view towards alcohol and prohibition and is only this particular person’s view. In source F Kramar uses very strong and domineering language such as “obeyed” and “where it is not obeyed it will be enforced.” He basically says that alcohol is evil and it will be stopped. Source E has a much more balanced view on prohibition than source F. Rockfeller talks about his views before prohibition and how it became impossible to enforce. Although Rockfeller also has a strong opinion he states a lot of useful factual information as well such as “drinking generally increased” and “the speakeasy replaced the saloon”. Rockfeller’s source also gives a lot more information because he had the benefit of hindsight. His letter was written in 1932, only a year before the end of prohibition whereas Kramer’s source was written at the start of prohibition and therefore he did not know it was going to fail and could only write about what he thought at the time. So I believe that source E is a much more reliable source of information about prohibition because it was written by an industrialist, who would have had a more neutral view of prohibition than Kramer who would have had a biased view when he wrote his account because he was the first prohibition commissioner. Source E also shows a lot more information as Rockfeller talks about what happened as well as what he wanted to happen. Rockfeller also had the benefit of hindsight and therefore I think he wrote a more accurate account of the events of that time.
D Study Sources G and H
Do these two sources prove that prohibition was successful?
I do not think that sources G and H can prove that prohibition was successful. Both sources G and H are charts showing statistics about how successful the police were in enforcing prohibition. Source G shows statistics on how many illegal stills were seized and how many gallons of spirits were seized from the year 1921 to 1929. At first it seems like the prohibition agents were successful in enforcing prohibition with the number of seized stills rising from 9,746 in 1921 to 15,794 in 1929, however this is not enough information because this could also mean a number of other things such as more stills were being made so more were bound to be found. We need to know how many stills there were all together to be able to tell if the prohibition agents were being successful or not. So source G does not really prove anything because it has two possible meanings and it does not comment on if poverty was reduced or how many gangsters were arrested either, two more things that prohibition was meant to do.
Source H is a chart of statistics published by the Philadelphia Police Department showing the number of arrests for drink related offences from 1920 to 1925. The number of arrested drunks rises dramatically over the years from 14,313 to 51,361 people; however, this again does not prove anything because it does not state how many drunks there were overall so it is possible that the only reason that the number of arrested drunks was rising was because there was more of them. The number of drunk drivers arrested also grows over the years, however the number of people arrested for drunk and disorderly conduct arrested falls. It is possible that this number falls because less people are drinking openly because of prohibition, the reason why there is more drunk drivers is probably because people are driving home rather than walking to avoid being spotted so easily.
So these sources are not as useful as they first may seem. They have strong limitations as they only show half the data required to judge the success of prohibition in most cases. The sources could be more useful in proving that prohibition was a success if more information was shown, for example the whole number of drunk drivers there were instead of just those who were arrested.
E Study Sources I and J
How far does source I prove that the policeman in source J is telling the truth?
Both sources J and I are about the corruption that prohibition caused among Americans throughout the 1920s and early 1930s. Source I is a cartoon from the time of prohibition. The title given to the cartoon is “The National Gesture”. The image is of seven people with different occupations, such as a prohibition agent, policeman and a clerk. Each person is standing with the same posture they are all facing forwards with their hands out behind them as if ready to take a bribe. It is significant that the people are all of different occupation because the source is implying that receiving and giving bribes has become a part of nearly every American’s life. The source is called “The National Gesture” because the source is saying that corruption is the way of the Americans and so their gesture is standing face forward with their hands behind their backs waiting to take bribes.
A policeman wrote source J, it is about Chicago, the centre of gangsters in America, in the 1920s. The source is solely about corruption and bribery. He talks about how even the police force is giving in to corruption, he says, “it was a conspiracy and my senior officers were involved in it.” He says that he could not enforce the law at all because corruption was to great and he would end up being punished for it. Policemen had to go along with the bribery and crime because otherwise they would be left alone in a lousy dead end job.
When looking at the two sources then Source I does support source J to a certain extent. The two sources are about how corruption became so widespread during the times of prohibition. Source J explains how gangsters are bribing high ranking officials this is supported by the politicians, prohibition officers and magistrates ready to take bribes in source I. Source I also proves the point that the gangsters are taking over Chicago, which is implied in source J. Source I proves this because it shows all the people ready to take bribes, therefore the gangsters are in complete control of these people. Source J explains how and why prohibition is failing, this is backed up by the image of the people that are meant to be enforcing prohibition ready to take bribes. However, source I does not prove every point made in source J. Source I shows a great variety of people ready to take bribes whereas source J mainly concentrates on the corruption within the police force. Overall though source I does prove much of what source J states.
F Study all the sources
Do these sources support the view that the failure of prohibition was inevitable?
In 1920 the Volstead Act introduced prohibition in America. It lasted until 1933, thirteen years in total. Throughout this time crime rose dramatically and so prohibition failed. All the sources either believe prohibition was bound to fail, believe it was going to work or are undecided.
Source A is an extract from an American history book, however, the writer cannot really comment on whether or not failure of prohibition was inevitable because it was written in 1973, over four decades after the period of prohibition ended, and therefore the writer had the benefit of hindsight and he would have known that it failed. The impression given from the source is that prohibition was going to fail anyway. The last two lines say: “No earlier law had produced such widespread crime. For no earlier law had gone against the daily customs, habits and desires of so many Americans.” This is implying that prohibition was not going to work because the Volstead Act had denied what most Americans wanted, and that this law had created the greatest crime boom in history because people wanted the alcohol and they could not have it without the illegal supplies.
Source B is similar to source A. It was also written as part of an American history book and was also written over four decades after prohibition in 1979, and therefore the writer also had the benefit of hindsight and he would have known that prohibition failed. It says how the first prohibition commissioner had strong confidence that prohibition would be enforced successfully, but then goes onto talk about how it was becoming obvious that prohibition was failing. It says: “By 1928 there were more than 30,000 ‘speakeasies’ in New York.” This shows how the prohibition agents were having great trouble in enforcing prohibition and how it was becoming almost impossible to get rid of alcohol. It also talks about how crime greatly increased, with gangsters such as Al Capone and Dutch Schulz turning alcohol into a big business. Al Capone said ‘All I do is supply a public demand’ which is exactly what he was doing and in doing so he was causing the failure of prohibition.
Source C, however, has a different opinion. It is a cartoon drawn in campaign to bring about prohibition. It is an image of a man handing over a whole weeks wages in exchange for alcohol, it then shows his family distraught and in despair because they have no money and are so poor. This is implying that drink is evil because it is causing a man to spend the family’s money on it and consequently making them go hungry. This source believes that prohibition will work because it is portraying alcohol is a great evil and therefore people should want to rid of it. Source D is also a cartoon, and has also been drawn to campaign for prohibition. It is an image of two lonely children standing outside a saloon with the caption “Daddy’s in There.” It is implying that, firstly the children are being neglected and secondly that the money needed to keep them is being spent on alcohol. This like source C is showing that alcohol is evil and that it should be banned. Therefore prohibition should work because if alcohol is evil then it should be wiped out.
Source E is a letter that was written by a wealthy industrialist in 1932. He supports prohibition in his letter, saying alcohol has evil effects and how he hoped that prohibition would be supported, but later on he begins to say how he has realised how prohibition can never work. His letter describes how the failure of prohibition was becoming more and more inevitable. He says things such as “the speakeasy has replaced the saloon” and “many of our best citizens have openly ignored prohibition.” This shows how he thinks that crime will bring prohibition down to failure.Source F is John F. Kramer the first prohibition commissioner speaking in 1920. This source is in direct contrast to source E. Kramer has a very strong, domineering attitude towards his job and has a strong feeling that prohibition will succeed with him enforcing it. He says things such as “The law will be obeyed in cities, large and small, and in villages. Where it is not obeyed it will be enforced.” Kramer is determined to make prohibition a success and he has great confidence in it.
Sources G and H are both statistical sources, which show information such as how much illegal alcohol was seized, and how many people were arrested for alcohol related offences. It is not possible to tell whether these sources think that prohibition will fail or succeed because the statistics do not give additional information that is needed. For example the number of gallons of spirits seized rises from 414,000 in 1921 to 11,860,000 in 1929, at first this seems like prohibition is being successful but it does not tell us how much alcohol is being produced in the first place but not being seized. So the figures given cannot be justified and therefore these sources are unsure whether prohibition will fail or succeed.
Sources I and J both give the same sort of message about prohibition. Source I is a cartoon that is implying that most of the people of America are corrupt. It shows seven people standing with their hands out ready to take bribes. A policeman wrote source J. He is talking about how he was bribed without even knowing about it straight away and how his senior officers were corrupt and willing to support gangsters in exchange for money. The message behind these sources is that prohibition is just fuelling a huge crime wave, which is not stopped at all because the police force is taking bribes and therefore prohibition is never going to work.
The majority of the sources believe that the failure of prohibition was inevitable. This is mainly because of the huge crime wave that the Volstead Act produced in 1920 and how most Americans wanted alcohol and prohibition had taken it away from them. Sources C and D believe that prohibition would work but these were published long before prohibition was introduced and therefore the cartoonist would have had no idea what was going to happen.
