The two posters try to influence people for prohibition. It is shown by the over exaggerated pictures and slogans and titles “The Poor Mans Club The most expensive in the in the world to belong to” and “Daddy’s in there”. The two sources are exaggerated by the fact it makes alcohol really bad and expensive. “A member in good standing paying his dues” It also shows that the man in Source C is handing away his well earned family weekly wages on alcohol.
C, Both Sources have reliable evidence and unreliable evidence about prohibition. Source E tells us that John D. Rockefeller was for prohibition but he saw the negatives for prohibition “respect for the law has greatly lessened: and crime has increased to a level never seen before” So this tells us he gave his honest opinion. Also this source is reliable because it was written at the end of prohibition so it gave Rockefeller an overall opinion of what happened because he lived through it and saw. “From a letter, written in 1932”. Rockefeller Jr was a wealthy industrialist. So he saw the affect of prohibition because the workers who worked for him in the factories were obviously being affected by alcohol.
But this source is unreliable also. The letter is a private correspondent “drinking has generally increased” and “many of our best citizens have openly ignored prohibition”. This is purely his opinion and can’t honestly be 100 % believable. There are no facts
Source F is reliable in ways too. As the source was spoken by the first Prohibition Commissioner he has an inside view on how they will deal with prohibition. “His job was to enforce prohibition”. Also he hasn’t contradicted any facts so he doesn’t tell us if this defiantly going to happen. He is saying that this is what they want to do “we shall see that it is not, nor sold, nor given away”. So this evidence is more reliable because he is a prohibition officer and is more likely to do his job and tell the truth of what is going to happen during prohibition. Also he spoke his out “speaking in 1920” but Rockefeller was just a letter “from a letter, written in 1932”.So we don’t know who it’s to and if it is a bunch of lies or private. The only point I could think of why this source could be unreliable is that as he’s a commissioner officer his hardly going 2 say his speech was a load of rubbish and not live by it.
But you couldn’t be sure if sources prohibition was successful because both sources only express opinions. So both of them aren’t totally reliable.
D, You couldn’t be sure if sources G and H prove prohibition was successful. It has reasons it does and reasons it doesn’t. they both have in Sources G and H its tables has increased learning on how to deal with the alcohol problem by the statistics getting higher in the Gallons of spirits seized, illegal stills seized and drunken drivers. So prohibition seems successful by those facts. It could be a reliable piece of evidence because the statistics were written down by “Federal government” and “Philadelphia Police Department” who were enforcers of prohibition. So you would like to think they are doing there job properly and recording the results accurately.
But you could say prohibition wasn’t successful because the figures in the tables could be misleading. You don’t actually know the percentage of stills gallons of spirits seized and the percentage of drunk drivers. Also we are not told if these figures were throughout the American nation especially in Source G or just in one city or State. Source tells us more but the statistics were published in the City of Philadelphia police department. They could be misleading because many police officers drank themselves and were bribed to let other people drink. So not everyone was counted. I know this from Source J. also in this source it doesn’t cover the whole of the prohibition period. “Number of arrests for drinking related offences 1920- 1925” so these figures could have dramatically gone down at the end of prohibition.
But really I think Sources G and H don’t prove prohibition was successful. It is more likely it doesn’t because you don’t know who the statistics cover and where they enforced them all over America or not.
E, Source I goes far in explaining that the policemen in Source J are telling the truth because they have similarities. It fully explains what is happening between the enforcers and everyday people.
In Source I it shows seven different people who were supposed to enforce prohibition looking suspicious and it says in Source J that “it was a conspiracy and my superior officers were involved in it”. So it tells us that the enforcers are disloyal to their work.
The hands behind there backs in Source I look sly. It looks like their hiding something or going to accept something which shouldn’t be known about. Source J tells us this by “he handed me an envelope. I took it and he was gone. I opened it and there was a $75 in it”. This indicating a bribe and it looks like in Source I they are doing it (corrupt enforcers)
You could say this is happening all over America because the title of Source I is “The National Gesture” so this corrupted enforcement is happening nationally.
F, Not all of these sources support the fact that the failure of prohibition was inevitable
Source A does because it created a criminal boom and widespread crime. It also went against the everyday habits of ordinary law abiding citizens “for no earlier law had gone against the daily customs, habits and desires of so many Americans”. Source B does also because Al Capone etc ignored prohibition. Also 30000 speakeasies were in New York. They say it was a business. “By 1928 there were more than 30000 speakeasies in New York. Gangsters like Dutch, Schulz and Al Capone turned avoidance of prohibition into a big violent business”. Source I does support it because of the cartoon title, the hand appearance and looks as though their hiding something “The National Gesture”. Source J also supports it because police officers were not doing their duties and accepting bribes from people to let them drink “It was a conspiracy and my superior officers were involved in it” and “he handed me an envelope. I took it and he was gone. I opened it and there was $75 in it”. So these sources say it was bound to fail because going against everyday habits, organized crime and corruption.
Sources G and H do support the failure of prohibition but it also doesn’t. Source G does because the figures in the chart get high after a number of years so more people were drinking. It doesn’t because they were seizing more stills and gallons of spirits so the enforcers were doing better at their jobs. Source H does also because there was a dramatic increase on drunk drivers and drunken people. But it doesn’t because the figures could be misleading because it could only be a small proportion of people in America getting drunk related. We don’t know if it’s nationwide or in a State or City.
Sources C, D, E and F don’t support the view that the failure of prohibition was inevitable. Source C doesn’t because the poster was purposed for prohibition trying to convince people not to drink when prohibition arrives (over the top points) i.e. Title and inscription at the bottom. “Daddy’s in There” and “And our shoes and stockings and food are in the saloon too, and they’ll never come out”. Source E doesn’t support that prohibition was inevitable because John D. Rockefeller Jr thought prohibition would work and he written his letter after prohibition “I hoped that it would be recognized” and “written in 1932”. Source F doesn’t also because John F. Kramer was a prohibition commissioner and was telling us that prohibition will be prevented “we shall see that it is not. Nor sold, nor given away”
