c) Source E is a letter which was written by John D Rockefeller, a wealthy industrialist. The letter was written in 1932, 12 years after prohibition had been introduced. In the letter it is made clear that prohibition was a failure. It states that prohibition caused a “vast army of lawbreakers” and “many of our citizens have openly ignored prohibition”. Source F however is speech that was made in the 1920’s by John F Kramer, the first prohibition commissioner. He clearly believes that prohibition will be followed and if not it there will be consequences. I believe that source E is much more reliable because it is someone’s personal opinion instead of someone who is in favour of prohibition and who will have to enforce it. If you would have been in the person who is enforcing prohibition of course you would have to say that it’s going to be a great success. If you were to say that it’s going to be a failure and there is no point of introducing prohibition although he may not like the law or he may no that it will fail. Overall source E is more reliable because it’s someone’s opinion. Source F is just someone trying to explain there point of view or even what the government wants to hear. Another factor is that source E was written 12 years later and by that time the effects of prohibition were clearly visible. Source F on the other hand is based on what will happen in the future.
d) Source G is from federal government statistics from the year 1921-1929. Source G clearly shows that in 1921 there were 9,746 illegal stilts seized and this shows that the actual number could be more because not everyone would have been caught. There was also 414,000 spirits seized. By 1929 there were 15,794 illegal stilts seized, and there were 11,860,000 gallons of spirits seized. This figure is not 100% accurate because of the reason discussed earlier. This is due to some gangsters such as Alphonse Capone they would bootleg alcohol and bribe police so they could bring in illegal alcohol into the country and sell it in speakeasies. Speakeasies were illegal saloons.
Source H is from the city of Philadelphia police department, and it shows that the number of arrests for drinking related offences between the years 1920 and 1935 it clearly shows that the statistics prove that there was more crime and illegal alcohol on the streets. These statistics could also be much higher this is because some of the police may have been corrupt and not everyone may have been caught. Another factor is that the statistics about the arrests were only from the state of Philadelphia, In conclusion from these two sources we can clearly see that prohibition was a failure.
e) In source I there are a bunch of important people such as prohibition agents, police officers and even politicians and they are all taking backhanders (bribes). They are all standing with their hands behind their backs. The message of the cartoonist is that all the important people who should have been enforcing the law of prohibition are taking bribes. Although the cartoon is quite biased because not everyone would accept bribes and be corrupt. Source J supports source I it explains how police would receive and accept bribes, he said that saloon keepers would welcome him and give him hospitality by offering free alcohol. He also explains that if he tried to enforce the law he would be sent to a patch in the middle of nowhere. However source I cannot be used as evidence as it is a cartoon.
f) In this essay I will be discussing the sources view on whether the failure of prohibition was inevitable. I will use many sources to come up with an overall decision, on whether prohibition was inevitable.
Source A supports that prohibition was a failure it clearly states that it created the biggest criminal boom in American history and it is even questionable if it created the biggest boom in modern history. No earlier law produced such widespread crime. This source does not state whether or not prohibition was inevitable, however it is worded and sounds like prohibition was uncontrollable and inevitable.
Source B also criticizes prohibition it shows that the first prohibition commissioner had 15,000 agents to help him but by 1928 there were over 30,000 speakeasies which clearly shows that prohibition was failing.
Source C and D are both sources which were created before prohibition was introduced, however both sources clearly criticize alcohol and believe that prohibition should be introduced. I know this because in both sources the men have young families who need urgent support from their fathers however the two cartoons show that the men are very irresponsible and waste money on alcohol instead of spending it on their families for food and clothe, etc.
Source E criticizes prohibition and clearly states that it was a failure. It states that it caused more organised crime and lawbreakers and many moral citizens ignored prohibition. I believe source E supports the fact that prohibition was inevitable, it shows how organised crime and bootleggers increased and it also shows how valued citizens ignore prohibition. However source F is in favour of prohibition and strongly supports it. It also goes on to add that there is no chance that it could fail and if people decide to drink they will be deeply punished however this obviously did not turn out to be true.
Source G also supports the view that prohibition was a failure and that it was inevitable. The source clearly shows after prohibition there were more stills and spirits seized. This shows and proves that prohibition was inevitable because as soon as the law was introduced more people were drinking which was against the law and they did not really care.
Source H also proves that prohibition was a great failure instead of less people getting drunk and being arrested for being drunk and committing crime, so this shows that the law was completely ignored and even the superiors were corrupt.
Source I also shows that prohibition was a failure, this is because many superior officers were corrupt and had taken bribes, this meant gangsters such as Al Capone, source J supports this it explains how the police were bribed and could not do anything about prohibition. Source J also supports that prohibition was inevitable as it shows a large group of police men, prohibition agents and politicians receiving bribes to allow prohibition to take place. Therefore this strongly supports the fact that prohibition was inevitable as the police officers and prohibition officers were being paid to keep a blind eye towards prohibition.
In conclusion some of the sources clearly show that prohibition was inevitable and others support that it was not inevitable. Source I clearly suggests that prohibition was inevitable because a lot of prohibition seniors who should be enforcing the law were taking backhanders. Although source B shows that the numbers of speakeasies were just outnumbering the amount of prohibition agents.
