Question 3 - Study sources E and F. Which of these two sources is the more reliable as evidence about Prohibition?
Source E is a letter written in 1932 by a wealthy industrialist. It explains that the author prohibition would be successful, but also recognized that it was eventually not.
Source F is a quote from the first prohibitions commissioner, speaking at the start of prohibition in 1920. This source lacks facts but only gives us an opinion on the author’s hopes for prohibition.
There can be argument on the reliability of both sources, for example, source E can be viewed as a reliable source because of many reasons. Firstly, the person who wrote the source will have an effect on how reliable it is, in this case the person is for prohibition and is listing its failures, and therefore we can argue that the person is not motivated by anything. Also the source is written in the form of a letter, which only shows a personal reflection of prohibition, this further proves and emphasizes on the fact that the person is not trying to convince anyone but only stating his opinion.
However, we can argue that this source may have a few points which may prove it an unreliable source. For example, we can argue that the person who wrote the source, Rockefeller, was biased on his judgment, this point can be evidenced by the fact that he shows some exaggeration to the failure of prohibition, he also does not specify the problems that encountered and hampered the success of prohibition, he merely generalized them.
Even though source E may seem a more reliable source there are points that make source F even more reliable.
For example the time in which source F was written, in 1920, which means it was written just as the prohibition law has been passed. Therefore this shows that it is written in the time and the events were happening and it would show a more detailed and specific analysis about prohibition.
Source F discusses how prohibition will be enforced, therefore the timing of the source permits it to include information about the law of prohibition and how they will be enforced.
On the other hand this source also has many weak points that may prove its unreliability, one of these is the author of the source, John F Kramer, who was biased towards prohibition laws and the police enforcing it, which means that he will strive to end the law of prohibition and help to its early failure.
Also the kind of source it is, speaks for itself; the source was designed by John F Kramer to convince and persuade people of his opinion and to corrupt the morals of whoever listened to what he says.
After discussing the reliability of both sources, I can come to the conclusion that source E is the most reliable as evidence about prohibition. Both my own knowledge and other sources support this.
Source E is balanced and written from an un-opinionated perspective, the author recognizes the failure of prohibition despite the fact that he is for it, were is source F is not based on reality, only hope, and does not give a balanced argument but an opinionated perception.
Question 4 - Study Sources G and H. Do these two sources prove that Prohibition was successful?
Both of sources G and H were made after and during prohibition from 1920 to 1929. Also both sources were made by people opposing alcohol and therefore might not be completely reliable. The two sources were made to show different years even though source G has more information because of collecting information for a longer span of eight years and not only five years like source H. we can also point out the fact that the one with a less range of years has more detailed information the other source, with a longer span years, has a less detailed range.
Firstly and to some extent we can analyze that source G proves that prohibition in the USA was successful, as it confirms that a lot of alcohol was seized. In evidence of this the table shows that between 1921 and 1925, 9746 to 12023 illegal stills were stopped by the federal government agents, plus over 600,000 increases in spirits that has been seized. Therefore, this clearly shows that the amount of alcohol caught by the government is increasing which shows that more and more people stopped drinking.
Secondly we can also analyze that source H proves that prohibition was successful, this is because it shows that there is an increase number in the drunk and disorderly; to prove this the table shows the amount of arrests decreasing from 8077 in 1923 to 5522 in 1925. this clearly shows the effectiveness of the work of the Philadelphian police, because the fact that the number decreased shows that there are less drunk and disorderly conduct, however it may prove something else that the number decreased because of the lack of police force or more likely the corruption of the Philadelphian police, because the other numbers in the graph are rising while the number of the drunk and disorderly arrests rises then falls.
In conclusion both sources suggest that prohibition was successful, however they do not actually prove this to an extent. The sources show an increase in arrests and seizing, however the fact that they show an arrest in drunkenness and alcohol manufacturers, tells us that there are problems in the enforcements of prohibition and subsequently it was not successful. Additional source G and H do not show us the amount of alcohol produced or the amount of people drinking and therefore we cannot deduce whether prohibition was fully successful or not. The sources show agents were doing their job, but if prohibition was successful there would have been no increase in people drinking alcohol, being manufactured, as the Volsted act banned this.
Question 5 - Study Sources I and J. How far does Source I prove that the policeman in source J is telling the truth?
Source I is a cartoon image from the time of Prohibition. It is illustrating the artist’s opinion, which is that America was corrupt. The hand gestures are from dissimilar people including a clerk, a city official, a magistrate, a politician, a policeman, and a Prohibition agent are to show that many divergent levels of America's people were relying on gangster payrolls.
Source J quotes a policeman who is also talking about America's corruption, when he says that his "superior officers" were also, as well as himself, involved in the acceptance of bribes.
Source I proves that Source J is telling the truth in a number of ways.
We can tell they are being corrupt because they are doing the "National Gesture" which is also recognized as a backhander which is an informal term for a bribe. This agrees with the account in source J, "it was a conspiracy and all my superior officers were involved in it" this therefore complies fully with source I as it shows all the policeman’s officials standing in line.
Even though it may appear that since the two sources consent with each other they are dependable, there are numerous reasons why they may not be. For instance, source I is a drawing and drawings cannot be exclusively precise or truthful enough as the rationale of a drawing is to amuse and be comical, and to do this they repeatedly enclose an aspect of amplification. In addition, the drawing just portrays the artist's judgment, and has generalized immeasurably; the initiative that all officials were implicated in the dishonesty is impractical. We do know that there was a lot of corruption when we look at gangsters similar to Al Capone. Everyone was alert of his unlawful activities but it was not possible to condemn him since his control of the law enforcement.
On the other hand, a drawing is not sufficient substantiation of this - we need more sources to back up the view of the police officer in source J. For instance, source A tells of the "greatest criminal boom"; this would not have been achievable devoid of the dishonesty of law enforcement officials.
Conversely, source J is not very dependable because it is only one police officer, in one city with one opinion - and there could be many motives behind what he says. The source only mentions his own experiences and as a result that does not mean it happened to all police. Nevertheless, we do have a lot of proof that backs up his views completely, once more in orientation to Al Capone. He was a gangster in Chicago (the city the police officer is talking about) and he built up a great association of fraudulent officials - this was why his businesses were so successful. But it would be impracticable to think all officials were fraudulent because of one person's point of view (or referring back to source I; two people's points of view).
Despite this evidence to imply that Source I does in fact prove source J, there are also reasons against this argument, which suggest it does not prove the source at all. To begin with, the sources disagree because Source I shows all officers with their hands behind their back, which consequently suggests they are eager to receive a 'backhander', on the other hand Source J proposes that the officer tried to carry out his duties but was more or less forced into neglecting his job, 'if you tried to enforce the law they'd put you in a post where there was nothing but weeds'. Furthermore, the heading of Source I, 'The National Gesture' suggests that this dishonesty was happening right through the country, therefore this cannot prove Source J as it is merely referring to Chicago and not the entire country as in Source I.
In conclusion, both sources are open to discussion, owing to the verity that Source I is a drawing, and the creator and dates of the drawing are not provided thus we cannot gesture over the attribution of the source, and source J is verbal by a policeman, which possibly will denote his plan was not dependable, and the source is only referring to Chicago. It is as an effect of this, and the source’s disagreements as well as agreements, that Source I does not confirm that the policeman in Source J is telling the truth, but only supports it. The sources support each other in that they agree about assured aspects; yet they do not prove each other, as they are both dubious.
Question 6 - Do all the sources support the view that the failure of
Prohibition was inevitable?
In the year 1920, the effect of the ban of making, selling and transporting alcohol reached every corner of the USA. Thousands of unlawful stills and millions of gallons of wine and spirits were ruined. This new law was called Prohibition. Prohibition nevertheless, also led to huge increases in crime.
In 1933, prohibition was brought to an end on a national scale even though a small number of states still sustained their own ban on alcohol.
Nonetheless, was the collapse of prohibition law unavoidable? Or could it have succeeded? There are sources that suggest that Prohibition could have succeeded.
Many Americans thought that prohibition was a great idea, however these people were mostly woman whose husbands were addicted to alcohol, and therefore they were suffering from poverty. There were those who made a business from the law of prohibition, like Al Capone and many other Rumrunners and gangsters.
However there were also people who did not like the idea of prohibition, mostly men who were addicted to or made money out of alcohol business.
There were many factors to the failure of the Law of Prohibition, the most significant of these is the fact that it was a public demand and people wanted it, either legally or illegally. Also, and following the first point, because of the criminal boom that it created from gangsters who sold and made alcohol illegally.
All these arguments raise a debate to whether the failure of prohibition was inevitable or not, many of the sources seem to support this view, however some of them oppose this and believe the failure was a result of external factors that were not caused by prohibition. Therefore looking at all ten sources I can group the sources into two groups that I can come to a final conclusion with.
On one hand prohibition was supported by many Americans who believed that it was a step towards a better USA, this is because they relate the high poverty rate of the USA to the consumption of alcohol; believing that many workers spend all there money in bars and stills and not with their families.
So many Americans were For Prohibition because of all the propaganda about how evil and negative alcohol is, and how it is the reason that so many families are broken apart and why so many families are very poor. The law was passed to ensure that no more alcohol was produced or sold, and mainly, therefore decreasing the rate of poverty in the USA.
There are five sources which recognizably support the view that the collapse of this law was unavoidable, these are sources A, G, H, I and J. Source A shows its support to this principle as, regardless of the fact that it gives a large number of reasons for the beginning of Prohibition, it continues to affirm that 'no earlier law had gone against the daily
customs, habits and desires of many Americans', thus, circuitously deciding that it was bound to fail from the start. Sources G and H meet the terms of this resolution that Prohibition went against the favor of the grain of so many American's habits and wishes. Source G does this by giving statistics of the numbers of prohibited distilleries and gallons of spirits detained even after Prohibition was introduced; such is an increase of 6,048 illegal distilleries detained between the years of 1921 and 1929. This, as a result, suggests that if people were still manufacturing illegal alcohol, Prohibition was never going to succeed as this goes against the Volsted Act. Source G supports this perspective, showing an augment on the sum number of arrests for drinking-related offences, of 37,243 between the years of 1920 and 1925. Source G then, supports the view that the disappointment of Prohibition was unavoidable, as the populaces were abiding to drink alcohol, and we are not being told of the full number, but only of the full number arrested for this crime.
The final two sources, J and I provide an insight into the corruption of the law enforcement forces throughout the time of Prohibition. I discern this to be a main factor, together with the people's well-known habits and wishes to drink alcohol (which possibly will not be quashed), to the eventual failure of Prohibition. Looking at sources J and I, it is clear that they also agree with the common viewpoint of these five sources. Source I illustrates officials, e.g. Prohibition agents, receiving a 'backhander' in return for them neglecting their duties as enforcers of the Prohibition law. The source supports the perspective that the failure of Prohibition was unavoidable, if even the enforcers of
Prohibition were keen to be corrupted then what optimism did the system have of ensuing? Source I also supports source J that tells us of the bribery within the agents, 'it was a conspiracy and my superior officers were involved in it'. This supports Source I in the message that the failure of Prohibition was unavoidable, as not even the law enforcers were taking it seriously.
However, regardless of the fact that these five sources can be singled out, their reliability has to be taken into account since this may well effect how greatly they can be relied on to support the view that the failure of Prohibition was triumphant. Source A was taken from an American history book, and as a result can be relied on to provide an impartial overview, nevertheless we cannot assume who the author of the book was, and what his/her views on Prohibition are. In spite of this, the book was published in 1973, and thus is dependable enough as it is written in retrospection with a complete acquaintance of what happened. The fact that it was written long after means the history book will have been proficient enough to conclude whether the failure of Prohibition was unavoidable. Sources G and H were produced by the Federal Government agents enforcing prohibition, and the City of Philadelphia Police Department. This means the sources may have been altered, as police and Prohibition agents were often crooked, nonetheless they would have been altered to show the Police as more efficient than they really were and this would not have an effect on the reliability, as it does not dispute the fact that the populace were still consuming alcohol and that it was still being manufactured. Sources I and J are dependable as they both support each other and are supported by the other three sources. Neither of the sources gives us any cause to consider that they may be trying to present Prohibition as being more successful than it was. The only feature, which can be unclear, is the origin of Source J. A policeman spoke it; consequently he may have had an untrustworthy plan.
On the other hand it was inevitable that prohibition would fail because of many Americans who believed that it was a step in the wrong direction; this is because of many reasons. One was the increase of crime that it caused as the prohibition of alcohol created gangsters and Rumrunners who sold and made alcohol. Because of this and many other reasons the government reversed the law in 1933 to try and put a stop to these problems.
There are five sources, which recognizably do not support the view that the failure of Prohibition was unavoidable. I consider that sources B, C, D, E, and F support this analysis. The initial half of Source B, from a book about American History, describes the demonstration for Prohibition to be introduced, 'In 1917 a nation-wide campaign, led by the Anti- Saloon League brought pressure to bear on Congress', and continues to portray the prologue of the law 'In 1919 the amendment was passed and the manufacture, sale and transportation of liquor was banned'. This does not imply that the failure was unavoidable, 'The First Prohibition Commissioner had no doubts that he would stamp out the evils of drink' and as a result does not support this view. Sources C and D support each other in their meaning. They portray alcohol as a negative thing, and show all the harmful effects, such as Source C showing a man handing over a whole week's earnings to get a drink, and Source D showing unfortunate desperate children yearning for their father who is spending the family's money in the bar. The sources are trying to verify that alcohol is an especially depressing obsession, and as a result do not support the view that the failure of Prohibition is unavoidable as they are campaigning for it to be introduced. Source E describes the author’s optimism that Prohibition would be successful, 'I hoped that it would be widely supported by public opinion and the day would come when the evil effects of alcohol would be recognized' this proves that the source initially does not support the view, but only recognizes the consequences in retrospection. Source F decisively does not support the proposal that failure was unavoidable, 'the law will be obeyed in cities, large and small, and in villages', the author has elevated hopes for the future at the start of Prohibition, and gives no sign that he foresees it not ensuing.
Bearing in mind the reliability of the sources, we can argue that the reliability of sources C, D and F can be questioned. Sources C and D were both created by the Anti- Saloon League and hence are from a prejudiced point of view, as I know the Anti-Saloon League were pro-Prohibition and were notorious for their pro-Prohibition demonstration. So, they would not have given an evenhanded view of the future achievement of Prohibition, as they hoped it would be successful. Equally, Sources C and D were created prior to the Prohibition law, and therefore would have been propaganda to support the need for Prohibition to be introduced, disregarding whether it would be successful or not.
Finally, the primary Prohibition official wrote Source F, and for that reason, like Sources C and D, would have been written from a prejudiced point of view, and would have promoted the view that the achievement of Prohibition was unavoidable since it was so seriously required. Seeing that in the other two sources, it was created before Prohibition was introduced and therefore he would have needed to promote prohibition and the chance of its achievement, and not of its failure.
In conclusion, following the discussing of the five sources that support the view that the failure of Prohibition was unavoidable, the five sources that
do not support this view, and all the sources reliability, I oppose
with the proclamation that all sources are supportive. Sources A, G, H, J and I portray, and support each other in the message, that the failure was unavoidable. This is revealed through the oblique messages of J and I,
the written statistics of Sources G and H, and the written language of
Source A. Regardless of the fact that the reliability of the sources can be
called into question, the general messages of the sources are not
affected and this is how I can be in no doubt of my conclusion. Sources B, C, D, E and F do not support the view, as described prior,
nevertheless the reliability of sources C, D and F bestow me reason to
believe their views are prejudiced, for instance, Sources C and D
being created by the Anti Saloon League, well-known for their
pro-Prohibition morals. It is owing to this, that I can be surer of the
sources, which support the view that the failure of Prohibition was
unavoidable as they are the more reliable sources. This complies with
the genuine consequences (failure of Prohibition) and this is most
likely why these sources can be relied on supplementary, as they are a hint of what was to occur in the future. I consent with the view that the failure of Prohibition was unavoidable, and I enclose come to
this conclusion by analyzing Sources A, G, H, I and J and assessing
that they are more reliable.
Ahmed Gannat 11Y Mr. Riche Page