John D. Rockefeller wrote source E at the start of the introduction of prohibition, at this point he was very much in favour of prohibition. He describes how he had changed his opinion due to increasing crime and drinking. He was originally for prohibition because he didn’t want his employs coming in ill after a night of heavy drinking.
Source F, which was written by John F Krane, was the first prohibition commission so he would have to be for prohibition due to his job. He says how he will be enforced everywhere.
I believe source E is more reliable as evidence because it says how even the most orthodox Drys changed their views about prohibition. Where on the other hand source F just shows one side of the story and is written by a government official so it will be biased towards prohibition.
Source G shows that the agents who were enforcing Prohibition from 1921 to 1929 had uncrossed the amount of skills and spirits they had seizing.
What this also shows is that they weren’t able to stop the production of alcohol because they were finding and seizing a lot more. So the question arises whether they were actual performing better or whether the production was getting so out of control they first couldn’t avoid finding lots of alcohol. This source was produced by the federal government so there is a chance that they may of edited the results to opera better than they really were.
The next source, source H, shows the number of arrests by the Philadelphia Police Department for various drinking related offences. It shows that they made many more arrests as the years of Prohibition went on. But like the previous source the same questions are brought up, are this arrests due to the agents working harder as is it that they weren’t able to stop people producing and drinking alcohol, that more and more people were drinking it.
The sources may seem to prove that prohibition was successful but with other factors reading to be included and questions not being answered. I believe these sources are there own can’t prove that prohibition was either success or a failure.
Source I is a cartoon of several people in high profile jobs within the American government and the police. They are standing with their hands behind them waiting for a backhanded or bribe. The title for this cartoon is “The National Gesture”, which implies that everyone was being bribed by gangsters or speakeasy owners.
Source J is written by a policeman writing about the amount of bribes that was going on in Chicago at this time. He says a saloon owner offered him free drinks as if there wasn’t any prohibition in affect. He also says “it was a conspiracy and my superior officers were involved in it.”
So this would seem to agree with the cartoon so with these two sources and other background information taken into account i believe source J is telling the truth.
Source A does indeed support the view that prohibition was inevitable. It states no earlier law had gone against the daily customs, habits and desires of so many Americans.” This quote does support the above to view. Its as if water was banned, it is a very important part of peoples everyday life, like alcohol was to the Americans, although on not such a big scale.
Source C and D both believe prohibition was going to be a success because it would improve family life. They thought when people realise how much money was saved from not drinking they wouldn’t drink again .
Source F stubbornly states that “where it is at obeyed it will be enforced.” Which draws me to the conclusion that he may have had doubts people obeying the law. But he insists that it will be obeyed.
Source G and H didn’t support or disagree with the view that prohibition was inevitable. Due to the feet that their tables can not have views or opines. Source I, which is a cartoon, has pictures of several people in authority gesturing a bribe or backhanded. So this would suggest that the artist believes that a large majority of the country were getting bribes so would support the above-mentioned view.
Source J is a diary sort of extract from a policeman. Taking about the sort of criminal goings on in Chicago and how people reacted. So i believe the policeman does indeed support the view that prohibitions failure was inevitable. Because there was so many people getting bribed and injured, in gang related incidents, that the government had to remove prohibition before there was to many incidents.
I believe the fowling sources A, B, E, I, J all support the vein that the failure of prohibition was inevitable. They all have strong arguments, but most of all is source A with the a quote which i believe sums up prohibition, “no earlier law ha gone against the daily customs, habits and desires of so many Americans.”