1c I believe source E is more reliable as evidence about the effects of Prohibition. It was written in 1932 therefore he could evaluate the previous 10 years. John D Rocefeller was a very famous and highly respected man. He explains that ‘crime has increased to a level never seen before’, and also he has ‘slowly and reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result’. This shows he was in favour of Prohibition and therefore admitting his sadness and failure as a result. From my own study, I know this happened. Cross referencing to source A, it tells us about violent crime, so therefore this agrees with Rockefeller. Source G and H show statistics and source J also agrees with Rockefeller that Prohibition failed. From my own knowledge I know that Prohibition failed because it lead to more crime. To me, this source is more reliable because source F was published in 1920 which from my own knowledge I know that this was the start of Prohibition, therefore, he would not of had time to see if it was successful. The writer was a ‘Prohibition Commissioner’ therefore his job was to ensure Prohibition worked. At this time there were strong claims that the law would work. I believe the source is not reliable as proof that Prohibition was successful, but I believe that it was reliable that at the start of it, the government thought it could work.
1d I believe that source H is more reliable as evidence about the success of Prohibition. Source G shows that illegal stills increased, but since they are illegal, nobody knows whether this is true because you can’t test it against the other sources. The amount of spirits seized went up. I believe this source was written to show activities of the FBI - but I don’t believe we can rely on them entirely because illegal activity cannot have reliable statistics. Despite Prohibition it appears that more spirits were made and I know from other sources that more saloons and speakeasies and alcohol consumption went up. The FBI was responsible for making sure people obeyed Prohibition and so when they published their reports, they would show these findings because they would want people to have confidence that they were doing a good job. From my own knowledge I know consumption of beverage alcohol increased dramatically under Prohibition. This could have been because as it was illegal, people did it for a thrill. Consumption grew in the last years of Prohibition as illegal supplies of liquor increased and as a new generation of Americans disregarded the law and rejected the attitude of self sacrifice that was part of the bedrock of the Prohibition movement. Source H was published from 1920-1925. This is the same time as the numbers of the cars on the road increased. From my own study I know this because the modern T Fords were introduced. This source only shows car crime and not other crimes associated with the illegal alcohol industry, therefore this cannot prove whether Prohibition was successful – but it can prove if it was successful in the city of Philadelphia. In summary, I believe we would need to see the statistics for all areas to prove whether Prohibition had failed or not. Nethertheless, I know from my own study that it was a complete failure.
1e Source I shows officials taking back handers or bribes. The cartoonist is trying to show how the officials were corrupt and that they were turning a blind eye to Prohibition. From my own knowledge I know this went on because police officers were bribed to keep quiet in return for money. Also Al Capone, the gangster had many officials in Chicago on his payroll. Source J on the other hand explains one policeman talking about his experience in Chicago. I know Chicago was one of the main gangster towns. Consequently, there probably was more corruption. The writer describes his involvement with bribery and corruption. This is an account from only one man. From my own study I know this is likely to have happened. I don’t know if I can entirely trust him also I don’t know who he was talking to. Source J states ‘ordinary policemen’. In source I it shows a policeman turning his back with his hand out. Then he says he ‘was sent to 12th street’ and he was handed and envelope. This shows corruption and the police man was getting a back hander. To conclude, Source I proves that Source J is telling the truth due to the biased images and writing.
1f. I believe all of these sources are mainly reliable, but some are very biased. Source A supports the view that Prohibition had varied support, but was a total failure mainly because it wasn’t what people wanted. Source B explains why Prohibition was passed and optimism that it would succeed again. This source supports the view that Prohibition failed because the public wanted alcohol which lead to increased crime. Moreover, source C was an Anti Saloon league poster published before Prohibition came in. It does not tell us that it failed because it was written in 1932 after Prohibition. It couldn’t because it is a poster hoping to persuade people not to drink. It doesn’t mention failure. The Anti Saloon League would hope that it might persuade some people to stop drinking. Source D is very similar to source C. Source E on the other hand shows the writer is against drinking and wanted Prohibition to work. However, he realises that it has failed. This is a reliable source because the writer had hoped it would work and he would have been upset to know it failed. It doesn’t say that it was inevitable, but it does say that is the result. In source F, the writers job was to enforce Prohibition, therefore in 1920 he was optimistic that it could work and firmly state that the full force of law would be used to enforce it. I believe this source expresses the view with confidence – it is bound to say this because it is in 1920 before Prohibition failed. It doesn’t give any indications about the possibility of failure. Source G shows statistics from the Federal governments. They could have more reliable records than others. Know body could have accurate figures about illegal stills or draining. It also shows a rise in drinking, from my own knowledge I know this would be true. It doesn’t say failure was ‘inevitable’ but it does imply it failed. Source H on the other hand only shows statistics from the city of Philadelphia. It also only shows statistics involving car crime and drinking, not general statistics on the failure of Prohibition. I know that more crime was likely to take place because the modern T fords were introduced at that time. So consequently there would be more cars on the roads. I believe it doesn’t say that Prohibition was a failure, but it does say more drunk related crime. I think this suggests Prohibition was a failure, after all, if there is more ‘drunken related crimes’ more people might have been drinking illegally? Moreover, in my opinion, it does support the view of sources A, B, E and G that crime increased during Prohibition. But it doesn’t actually say on its own that Prohibition was a failure.
In final conclusion, I believe all of these sources mainly support the view that Prohibition failed and there was a huge increase of crime. This view also supports my own knowledge. I feel the sources do not suggest that it Prohibition was inevitable, although sources A and B suggest that because the Americans were being denied something they wanted, it was bound to fail and therefore to a certain extent was inevitable. Sources A, B and E suggest that the crime level was so overwhelming that Prohibition could never succeed and therefore again could be described as inevitable.
