- Study sources E and F. Which of these two sources is the more reliable as evidence about prohibition?
Source E, an extract of a letter written by John D. Rockefeller, appears to be very reliable. It says that “Drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon... and crime has increased to a level never seen before” – this is true as there were in fact more speakeasies in New York during prohibition than there were saloons before prohibition. There was also a great deal of crime going on during the period of prohibition. Rockefeller’s statement is also backed up by sources A and B, both of which state specifically that prohibition was ineffective at decreasing alcohol consumption, and that crime prospered during the prohibition era. In addition to this, the content of the source comes from a private letter – it is more likely to contain the truth than lies due to the fact that Rockefeller wasn’t addressing the public with the content of the source, nor would it have been likely that the public would have been able to see the content of the source, therefore Rockefeller had far less to gain from manipulating the truth to save face. As well as this, he admits that he has changed his opinion on prohibition; he says that he has “slowly and reluctantly come to believe” that prohibition will fail. As an industrialist, he had nothing to gain from disapproving of prohibition; banning alcohol should have aided his business due to increased effectiveness among his workforce. Finally, the letter was written in 1932 – a period in time when people would have had a fair amount of knowledge on the subject of prohibition. This source is very reliable.
Source F on the other hand, comes from the first Prohibition Commissioner for the United States of America, and appears to be particularly unreliable. It says that “The law will be obeyed... where it is not obeyed it will be enforced”, which is contrary to the great amount of evidence available that suggests that the prohibition laws were not obeyed, and were not enforced. This source also contradicts source B, which says that there were “more than 30,000 ‘speakeasies’ in New York” – as well as source E. Furthermore, as the prohibition commissioner, speaking publicly, it would have been foolish for him to have said that prohibition would fail, even if that was his belief. He was also speaking in 1920 – a point in time where there was a very small amount of evidence to show how successful the prohibition laws would be. Therefore, Source F is very unreliable about the effectiveness, reasons, and background on prohibition. Nevertheless, it is a fairly good source to suggest that prohibition officials believed that the law would be successful, and it shows that law enforcement agencies intended to enforce the law, even if they failed.
- Study sources G and H. Do these two sources prove that Prohibition was successful?
At first glance, source G appears to show that prohibition is in fact being effectively enforced; a large amount of illegal stills and spirits were seized from 1921 to 1929 – ranging from 9746 to 15794 per year over the period. However, the amount of alcohol seized continued to increase over 9 years. The fact that it hadn’t even stabilised, let alone begun to decrease, shows that the American public had no interest in obeying the law. The statistics show the activities of Federal Government agents, who were not based locally, therefore making this source relatively reliable (Local police forces could be bribed on a regular basis). This is also backed up by source I, although the local police forces tended to be under the control of the alcohol-running gangsters in this period, particularly in large cities, and therefore the authenticity of the source is questionable. The evidence suggests that FBI agents were relatively effective at shutting down segments of the alcohol industry, but due to limited numbers (1500 nationwide), and the corruption of the police force, were unable to keep alcohol-related crime under control.
Source H further proves that prohibition was unsuccessful. Source J shows that police departments in major cities were completely corrupted, and even an honest police officer wishing to enforce the law would be unable to do their job properly, as they would merely be moved to another post. The evidence suggests that corrupted police officers, trying not to make any alcohol-related arrests, refrained from arresting drunken people and the books were later altered to seem more realistic and consistent. Even if this is not the case, the fact that Drunkenness was steadily increasing throughout the period (From 1920 to 1925, numbers of drinking-related offences rose from 20410 to 57703) shows that the law was not effective.
- Study sources I and J. How far does source I prove that the policeman in source J is telling the truth?
The cartoon in source I shows a web of corruption, as people of power who should be taking part in the enforcement of the law are holding their hands out behind them, signifying “taking a back-hander” – a bribe. This suggests that there is honesty in source J, as the policeman whose words make up the contents of the source also describes “a conspiracy” and he says that “my superior officers were involved in it”.
The cartoon suggests that prohibition agents, police, politicians, magistrates, petty officials, and clerks are all in on the corruption. The policeman says that “if you tried to enforce the law they’d put you in a post where there was nothing but weeds” – also backing up the claim of the cartoon that the police force were in on it, and also suggesting magistrates and other positions in the law enforcement sector were also involved. “Big Bill” Thompson – the Mayor of Chicago - was also known to have taken bribes from alcohol-dealing gangsters. However, the FBI and prohibition agents were never based locally, and as a result a large proportion were unaffected by bribery chains – they even managed to arrest Al Capone on charges of tax evasion. This goes against the claim made in source I that prohibition agents were also corrupt.
Despite this, source J in itself is highly reliable – the policeman admits to being unable to do his job properly, an honesty that makes his statements uncommonly unbiased. Arguably the policeman could have exaggerated the amount of corruption going on to make himself appear less corrupted individually, but the fact that source I suggests such a widespread amount of corruption fills in many gaps in the trustworthiness of the policeman’s words – to a fair extent, source I proves that the policeman in source J is telling the truth.
- Study all the sources. Do these sources support the view that the failure of prohibition was inevitable?
The sources overall suggest that prohibition was a mistake, was conceived for the wrong reasons, and was not what the American public wanted. Some sources also give evidence that the main reasons for the downfall of the law were due to poor enforcement – the republican party were in power, who believed in a laissez-faire form of government - and additionally many sources suggest there was a widespread demand for an introduction of prohibition - Despite this, and for many reasons, the failure of prohibition was inevitable. The question can be broken down into two simpler ones; “Why did prohibition fail?” and “Could this cause or these causes have been avoided?” but in truth the reasons for the failure of prohibition amount up to such a great deal that there couldn’t possibly have been a chance of remedying the situation to the point at which the law would have been obeyed to a fair extent.
Source A states that “By 1917, twenty-three states had already introduced a ban on alcohol” – this suggests that even before the law was made national, many Americans wanted the introduction of prohibition. Despite this, a lot of these states were in the “bible belt” – a group of areas in the USA populated by a large amount of religious zealots, dotted with large numbers of small communities with strong fundamentalist religious traditions. In addition to this, source A claims that some of the reasons for the introduction of prohibition into these states included “the wartime concern for preserving grain” – a reason that would only last as long as the war went on; additionally “feelings against the German-Americans”, “a time when large numbers of men were absent in the armed forces” and finally “the moral fervour inspired by the war” - when the war ended, grain no longer needed to be preserved, German-Americans were confronted with far fewer prejudices, therefore decreasing the association of alcohol with “evil”, and American men of age to be in the armed services – men traditionally of the age to drink in saloons, returned, bringing with them their opinions on alcohol. Source A provides enough evidence to conclude that the American population no longer wanted prohibition at the end of the war, as the entire idea was thought up for reasons linked with the war. Prohibition was bound to fail if it was only conceived due to the war.
Source B says that in 1917 there was a “nation-wide campaign” in favour of prohibition – backing up the evidence given by source A that this is what a large amount of Americans wanted. If prohibition had such a large amount of support, then there is a possibility that prohibition could have succeeded if it was enforced correctly. However, source B also claims that “by 1928 there were more than 30,000 ‘speakeasies’ in New York” – proving unavoidably that there were also a large amount of Americans that were against prohibition – or possibly showing that the general opinion on alcohol had changed over time. Al Capone once said “all I do is supply a public demand” – Prohibition was bound to fail if it went against what the majority of Americans wanted.
Sources C and D – 2 very well known cartoons in favour of prohibition, inadvertently prove that prohibition could never work – both have the general message that men who go to saloons are willing to spend large amounts of money, indulge in “evil” and destroy their families in order to drink. Even the title of the cartoon in source C is called “slaves of the saloon”. If the number of Americans that are willing to go this far to have a drink is problematic enough to necessitate making an amendment to the constitution, then surely a similarly problematic number, if not a much greater number, would readily break the law in order to do the same. If the situations depicted in the cartoons were accurate, common, and realistic, and alcohol really was “corrupting” and “evil”, then arguably prohibition should have succeeded and would have with the right enforcement, but more reasonably, if alcohol was corrupting enough – to the extent shown in the cartoons, then prohibition was bound to fail because, unquestionably, everyone would become corrupted by a force so powerful, and if the cartoons were in fact inaccurate then the law would have been based on false pretences and therefore would rightfully have not been taken seriously.
Source E is an extremely reliable source, and in its contents it says that prohibition was not “widely supported by public opinion”, “drinking has generally increased”, “citizens have openly ignored prohibition” and finally “crime has increased to a level never seen before” – these all show that prohibition was clearly unsuccessful. Rockefeller states that “I hoped that [prohibition] would be widely supported...” – showing that industrialists believed the success of prohibition to be possible, and successful industrialists evidently had a clear view of the human mind. This evidence suggests vaguely that prohibition did indeed have a chance of success. Despite this, as he later goes on to describe the extent to which prohibition had failed, it is apparent that he believes the law was broken with the greatest of ease, suggesting that prohibition was doomed from the start – Prohibition was bound to fail if the law could lose such a vast amount of respect among citizens.
Source F doesn’t provide a great deal of evidence to suggest the possibility of prohibition succeeding. The prohibition Commissioner says that “The law... will be enforced” – the law was not enforced to a great degree, suggesting that the failure of prohibition was mainly due to failure to enforce the law on the part of police and prohibition agents. If this is the case, then prohibition would have been successful if backed up with a competent law force. On the other hand, the fact that a previously efficient police force, with backing from the new prohibition commission, was unable to enforce the new law is a testament to the fact that Americans were unwilling to obey this law. Additionally, the sheer fact that the government decided that a prohibition commission was necessary, before the law had even come into effect, shows that agents of the law knew beforehand that the law would be too difficult for the regular police to enforce; if such is the case then the failure of the law was surely inevitable.
Source G is very reliable and shows a steady increase in the amount of alcohol seized. Although some of this increase can be accounted for by the increase in experience, etc, among the agents, the amount is too much to deny the obvious escalation in illegal activity. Possibly, the fact that federal agents were unable to decrease the amount of alcohol over a period of 8 years can be credited to their small numbers, therefore proving that prohibition could have been successful if more money was funnelled into federal agencies, although due to the massive amounts of alcohol that were seized a more likely explanation would be that the agencies couldn’t be as efficient as possible due to the limited backing from local police forces; limitations created from bribery and extortion on the part of gangsters; gangsters who became so successful and operated to such a large extent on the strength of the fact that such a large proportion of the American public were willing to break the law; in truth all of the “explanations” for the failure of prohibition are connected to – and have their roots in – the fact that Americans were willing to break the law to drink, a fact that couldn’t have been changed by reasonable means. Although source H is inaccurate due to corruption among local police forces, it backs up the evidence in source G. The failure of prohibition was inevitable if there was no way to prevent the steady increase of lawbreaking.
Sources I and J both show clearly the extent of the corruption amongst those who should have been enforcing prohibition. Arguably, the corruption would have been avoidable if some changes were made to law enforcement. However, due to the widespread influence and large amounts of resources (in terms of both money and support) controlled by various organised crime groups across America, it would have been impossible to get rid of bribery completely, and small amounts of corruption, especially nearer the “top” of the “chain” of law enforcement offices, can escalate and spread into a web of corruption extremely easily. The failure of prohibition was inevitable if organised crime groups could so easily corrupt those who should have been enforcing it.
The failure of prohibition was inevitable. The majority of Americans had a certain level of structure and habit in their lives, and additionally a large proportion of Americans would drink alcohol as part of this structure. The gigantic change of prohibition couldn’t possibly fit into the lives of Americans who were used to slow, gradual, change, and who preferred simple lives. During the first world war, a large number of the alcohol-consuming population were away; grain needed to be preserved; German-Americans who were associated with alcohol production were seen as evil; the government encouraged a strong sense of morality in order to keep up support for the war; as soon as the war ended, alcohol-drinkers came back, and most of the reasons for prohibition became obsolete. Most Americans during this era wanted to drink; alcohol was known to be addictive and “corrupting”; the government knew that prohibition was not wanted, and the public knew, causing the law to lose respect; Gangsters like Al Capone were powerful and enterprising, there was no way that the law could be enforced. No law can succeed if the public are not prepared to obey it, and officials are not prepared to enforce it.