I know from my own knowledge that Mr Rockefeller’s letter tells us about the true effects prohibition had, but also he gave a number of examples which to him were proof prohibition had failed which can be backed up by other sources. One was that instead of people going to the saloons they simply went to illegal speakeasies. Source B supports this as it says ‘by 1923 there were more than 30,000 speakeasies in New York.’ Another reason given was that ‘a great army of lawbreakers has appeared’. Source A agrees with this statement as it says prohibition ‘created the greatest criminal boom’. Another reason Mr Rockefeller gave for his change of mind was that ‘respect for the law has been greatly lessened’ this too can be backed up, by source H which shows that between 1920 and 1925 there was a vast rise in the number of people arrested for being drunk from 14,313 to 51,361. With so many sources supporting the information within the letter it seems conclusive that its contents are most likely to be reliable. Due to the time the letter was written there is no reason shown that would prevent Mr Rockefeller from giving an honest and reliable account.
Source F however is written in 1920, when prohibition had only just been introduced. Also the writer of the source is first Prohibition Commissioner, who is therefore most likely to be bias, as it is his job to enforce prohibition. Also as he is making a speech he is likely to want to give a positive and enthusiastic account of how he hopes the prohibition laws will be obeyed rather than a reliable one. I know from my own knowledge that the commissioner’s speech is not true but also as no other sources back up what is said along with the high possibility of the writer being biased, the source seems very unreliable.
d)
In source G the figures show that prohibition was unsuccessful. It shows that there was a large rise in the number of illegal stills seized from 9,746 in 1921 to 15,794 in 1929. This shows that either officers were becoming better at their jobs or more likely that more American citizens were breaking the prohibition laws and making their own alcohol. The source also shows us that more gallons of spirits were seized by 1929 than in 1920 rising to 11,860,000gallons from an original 414,000. Again it is possible that the officers became better at their job but the increase is more likely to show that respect for the law simply declined and that people took less notice of the bans on making, selling and transporting alcohol.
Source H also shows that overall prohibition was not successful. The number of people arrested for being drunk rose dramatically between 1920 and 1925 from 14,313 to 51,361people. More people must therefore have been drinking alcohol in order for them to be able to be caught under the influence. Even if the police had become better at their job, it would not account for such a large increase. It also shows that in 1920 there were no arrests for drunken drivers. However in 1925 there were 820. One reason for this may be that by 1925 more people owned a car but also where as before people may have drunk in the privacy of there own homes, they now had to drive to the and from the illegal speakeasies, allowing for a higher risk factor of arrest.
The statistics published though, are from the Philadelphia Police Department and therefore not be very reliable. This is because as police officers it would have been there role to enforce the laws of prohibition and they would not have wanted to loose there jobs due to a decline in the number of arrests made.
However the figures for drunk and disorderly conduct do not follow the same pattern. In 1920 there were 6,097 arrests, 8,076 in 1923 but a drop in 1925 down to 5,522 arrests. This drop is unlikely to have been caused by there being less people being drunk and disorderly, as the other statistics do not support this. The abnormality is more likely to be due to police officers not making all of the arrests they should, due to their susceptibility to bribes, highlighting the corruption of those supposed to be enforcing prohibition.
e)
In source J the policeman states that ‘my superior officers were involved’. Source I supports this as the line of men shown is in ranking order and above the policeman is a figure which too has his hand outturned is drawn to represent a prohibition agent. This shows that they too were open to bribes backing source J. The Chicagoan policeman also talks about how he was once given an envelope containing $75 from a man on the street. Source I again supports the idea that law enforcers were open to corruption as all the figures are draw with out stretched hands to represent them openly receiving backhanders. The policeman describes all this as a ‘conspiracy’ as says that even if he tried to enforce the law he was unable to. The cartoon is titled ‘The National Gesture’ meaning that the corruption was everywhere and known about by all. This therefore supports source J as the man talks about two different areas where he has worked and in both of which he was subjected to bribes.
It must however be taken into account that that source I may be over exaggerated, in order to create humor. The idea that the cartoon is supposed to be humorous though also shows how well known the corruption of the police and other figures shown must have been. Overall source I does seem to prove that the policeman in source J is telling the truth.
f)
Source A is a secondary source, written in 1973 40 years after prohibition was abolished and is from an American history book. The source shows no sign of being unreliable as there is no reason for the source to be bias. In fact is seems quite reliable as it is able to give an account, with the knowledge of the affects prohibition did have. It does support the view that the failure of prohibition was inevitable as it talks about the circumstances under which the laws concerning it were made and mentions that at the time ‘large numbers of men were absent in the armed forces.’ This shows that a large part of the American population were therefore unable to have any influence on whether prohibition should be introduced or not. As it was this group of people who were most likely to drink alcohol, especially in public i.e. saloons, it is not surprising that without their support prohibition failed. The source also mentions a great rise in crime, which again supports the idea that prohibition was bound to fail as from the start it was having a bad affect on the behavior of so many Americans.
Source B also agrees that it was inevitable the prohibition would fail as it too talks about crime increasing with the presence of gangsters in all main towns and cities like Al Capone in Chicago. It also talks about how ‘pressure’ was brought on the congress to introduce prohibition and how supporters of the anti-Saloon league were encouraged to ‘push’ for prohibition. This information can be used to interpret that the prohibition laws were introduced simply to satisfy certain pressurising groups, showing that prohibition was not likely to work if it was made into a national law purely for this reason.
Source C was published before prohibition was introduced in 1910. It is highly biased against prohibition as it is from the Anti-Saloon league, which was fighting for the introduction of prohibition making the source unreliable. However even though the source highlights the bad affects alcohol can have it too can be used to show that the failure of prohibition was inevitable as the cartoon shows that drinking is just part of everyday life and that therefore a law is unlikely to any effect on changing this.
Source D is quite similar and again can be used to show that prohibition was bound to fail. It is again bias as it is published to promote prohibition. However it is obvious that the man is aware of his family going without due to his drinking and if this is not enough to motivate him to giving up alcohol, then it is unlikely that he will take any notice of a law prohibiting his actions.
Source E is a primary source, written by Mr. Rockefeller, a wealthy industrialist, in 1932. As the source was not writer to influence public opinion and can be backed by numerous sources it seems to be very reliable. The source shows that when prohibition was first introduced people were optimistic about whether or not it would be successful. The source does go on to say that in the end prohibition had a bad affect on America mainly due to the large rises in crime rates. This shows honesty again supporting that the source is reliable. The statement ‘I hoped it would be widely supported’ shows that the source clearly does not agree that prohibition was bound to fail from the start.
Source F also disagrees that prohibition was to be unsuccessful. The source however is very unreliable as it is from the first Prohibition Commissioner in a speech and it would therefore be within his interest to assure people that his policies would work as it is his job to enforce them. In his speech however he says ‘Where it is not obeyed it will be enforced.’ This shows that even he was expecting some amount of resistance to the laws.
Although source G’s figures could be used to show that government agents were simply getting better at their jobs, it is more likely that they show prohibition was not being obeyed as the rises are so great. The source therefore supports the view that the failure of prohibition was inevitable as even when the laws were fairly new there was already an increase in the amount of spirits seized showing that from an early stage there was defiance present against prohibition and that things are unlikely to improve.
Source H’s statistics are published by the City of Philadelphia Police Department in the 1920’s. They too can be used in support of the idea that prohibition was inevitably going to fail, because overall they show that crime rates rose due to it. The number of arrests made rose for all categories in the early 20’s again showing that even in the early years the prohibition laws were not being obeyed. The exception of this is for ‘drunk and disorderly conduct’, where the statistics do dot follow a regular pattern. This highlights the corruption of the police force and how they were open to bribes. It also questions the reliability of the source but figures may also be unreliable due to the fact that as it is their job to enforce prohibition and that it would therefore be within their interest to make sure that it looked like this was what was happening.
Source F supports the view that prohibitions failure was inevitable as the cartoon gives the message that all ranks were receiving backhanders, illustrated by the figures outstretched hands. Showing that they could not be trusted when it came to enforcing prohibition as they were open to bribes due to the low wages they were paid and the repercussions that enforcing the prohibition laws may have. The source is unreliable though as its purpose is to create humor and is therefore likely to be over exaggerated.
Source J also agrees that the failure of prohibition was inevitable as again it shows the corruption of law enforcers of all ranks meaning that any resistance which arose, against prohibition was not dealt with and so simply continued.
After studying all of the sources I have found that in general most sources do agree that prohibition was bound to fail. Both sets of statistics and all of the cartoons can be used to interpret this. The secondary sources, written after prohibition was abolished and all of its faults revealed also support the point of view that prohibitions failure was inevitable. The main reason behind why these sources felt prohibition would not work is that it lacked support and was not therefore a wholehearted decision from the people of America and also as it simply went against the ways of society. As the sources have demonstrated, the law was unsuccessful in dealing with the rise in crime that was produced as a result of prohibition being introduced. Had the consequences of introducing a law, so against the every day way of life for so many Americans, been considered more thoroughly then maybe it would never have been enforced nationally in the first place and much crime and disruption spared.
