Both artists are saying that Prohibition was good. The message is that the families of the men who were addicted to the saloon were the ones who suffered.
- Both Source E and Source F are talking about Prohibition. However, both sources are saying very different things about prohibition. Both sources are for prohibition, however are written at completely different times. Source E is written when prohibition has finished and is reflecting back on what prohibition actually achieved. Source F, however is written at the start of prohibition, in 1920, looking forward at what he wanted it to achieve. On this evidence alone Source E can be considered more reliable as the author had experienced prohibition and could honestly say what it achieved, which in his eyes was nothing positive. Although written by someone who was for prohibition, his job, however allowed him to be honest and not biased. However, Source F was written by John F. Kramer, who was the first commissioner of prohibition, he, therefore had no choice but to promote prohibition. Had he rubbished it, he would immediately loose his job and could face criminal action. I would guess that, Mr Rockefeller, author of Source E would not have voiced his disgust a year earlier when prohibition was being enforced, as he could of found himself in trouble. Source F was more of a plan on how Prohibition should work. Not how it actually worked, as we know it was a disaster.
Overall, I consider it impossible for Source F to be at all reliable as it was written before prohibition started and was written by someone who had to be biased towards prohibition. Source E is more reliable.
- Source G and H certainly do not prove that prohibition was successful. I will first look at Source G. The amount of illegal stills and illegal alcohol was supposed to have decreased as the years went on and by 1929, was meant to have almost completely disappeared. However, according to Source G, the complete opposite has happened. In 1921, 9,746 illegal stills were seized and 414,000 gallons of spirits were seized. By 1929 the number of illegal stills seized had raised to 15, 794 and the gallons of spirits seized had risen to 11,860,000. This proves that, although the authorities had probably got tougher, the amount of alcohol had risen dramatically. Therefore Source G certainly says that prohibition had failed.
Source H also shows negative results for prohibition. The idea of prohibition was to wipe out all alcohol related crimes. One of the main reasons that prohibition was introduced was because alcohol was causing too many arrests. Far from lower alcohol related offences, prohibition appears to have caused an increase in these crimes. In 1920 there were absolutely no drunk drivers. By 1923 there were 645 drunk drivers and by 1925 that figure had risen to 820. In 1925 there were 37,048 more, people arrested for being drunk, than in 1920. The only figure that has dropped was people arrested for drunk and disorderly conduct, which, however did rise between 1920 and 1923, but dropped by a couple of thousand in 1925.
Overall, both Source G and Source H show the complete failure of prohibition. The authorities may have become more strict, however all the figures were supposed to fall, they have, however, on the whole, all risen.
- Source I goes along way to proving that Source J is telling the truth. Both Sources have the same messages. The whole system of Prohibition was corrupt.
Source I is a picture of the leading authorities in Prohibition. It sums up how corrupt the whole system was. The people who were supposed to be insuring that the law was kept were actually making money out of it. Rather than arrest those who were breaking the law, they were taking bribes from them not to arrest them. This backs up what is said in Source J, by a policeman who is given money when he fails to enforce Prohibition. The main thing that I notice from this picture (Source I) is that the conspiracy was well away from the public eye. That is why the hands reach out behind their backs. There is also, the conspiracy theory, which is talked about in Source J. The law enforcement authorities failing to enforce prohibition, actually encouraging it.
The policeman in Source J may be telling the truth. He is saying that there was a massive conspiracy and that his senior officers were involved. If he had done his job and shut down the saloon, then he would have been sent to a post, which had no work at all. This sort of thing was not common and it sums up what a massive conspiracy the whole law was. However, some might argue that he was not being absolutely honest. He said that pretty much everybody was taking bribes not to make arrests, but that is not true as there were a large number of arrests made, see Source G and H. The policeman had broken law and was not about to openly say that he was in a minority.
To conclude, Source I proves that Source J is telling the truth. Source I is very much the picture of what the policeman in Source J is saying. It is showing what a complete waste of time and money the whole action was.
- Almost every Source seems to agree that Prohibition was a failure. Also just about every Source also raises at least one point, which would lead to the failure of Prohibition.
In Source A, there is a message that Prohibition went against people’s every day lives. This is raising the question; how was a law going to be successful if it went against most people’s normal customs? If a law is going to be successful, then the majority of the people affected by it should be for the law. A law is never going to work if almost all the people affected by it, strongly desire to break it. The impression I get from Source A was that many people did actually agree with the law. The Source makes it quite clear why the law should have been imposed and then briefly outlines the consequences.
Somebody who was very pro-Prohibition wrote Source B. The author said that Prohibition was one pf the greatest evils of our time. However, mainly comments on the complete failure of Prohibition. It says that approximately 30,000 speakeasies were set up, in New York alone, during Prohibition. This led to a criminal surge and led to an illegal trade of alcohol which meant American gangsters, such as Al Capone, used violence to make money out of the law.
Sources C and D are pictures illustrating the evil which was alcohol. It shows men, family men giving their wages away while their families sat at home almost penniless. It has the message that Saloons and alcohol is highly addictive. Source D is particularly powerful. It shows two children, one older than the other looking helplessly into a bar. The message to accompany this is ‘Daddy’s in there--- And our shoes and our stockings and our food are in the saloon too, and they’ll never come out.’ This is saying that saloons are so addictive that it is very unlikely that people are going to stop drinking, just because the law says so. It was a way of life.
Someone who was very pleased to see the arrival of Prohibition writes source E. However, Mr D Rockefeller, Jr. was writing about what a failure Prohibition was. He said that some of America’s ‘best citizens’ openly broke the law. This was written just before prohibition was stopped and I think he summed up what everyone who was for Prohibition thought about the scandal.
Source F seems to be the only Source that does not think that prohibition will fail. However, it was written before Prohibition started, 1920 and was written by Mr. John F Kramer, the first Prohibition commissioner. His job was to enforce prohibition. He had little choice but to promote what a success it would be and that coupled with the fact that it was written before Prohibition started it could be considered unreliable.
Source G and H; also say what a failure Prohibition was. It basically says in numbers what Source J said. The sources say that, far from helping reduce and stop the sale of illegal alcohol it actually made the problem worse. For example, Source G says that in 1921, 9,746 illegal stills were seized and by 1929, over 15,000 were seized. In Source H, it is said that, in 1920, there were no drunk drivers, however by 1925 there were 820. This shows what a failure Prohibition was. Drinking alcohol was not illegal, but it was to sell it. It is obvious that alcohol was being sold as people were arrested for being drunk. This was probably due to the large numbers of speakeasies, mentioned earlier.
Sources I and J both say that Prohibition was a conspiracy. It was used for some of the country’s authorities to make money. They were offered and took money not to arrest people for selling alcohol. Source I shows authorities, such as magistrates, politicians and prohibition officers with their hands held out behind their backs. I read this to be that they are holding out their hands for money, bribes. Source J is an account from a Chicago police officer, in 1920, who said that his senior officers were engaged in the massive conspiracy. When he raided a saloon, he said that if he had shut it down, then he would have been transferred to an area where there was little or no work. He also talks of how he was given $75, as a reward. This was said in 1920, which is right at the beginning of Prohibition. If this is happening at the start then how is going to be by the end?
Overall, I feel that the Sources all contain some reasons why Prohibition was bound to fail. I feel that the main reason it was not going to work, was that the authorities were more interested in making money and accepting bribes rather than do their job.