Victory of Women's Suffrage: Examining the Myths and Contributions of the WSPU - Essay Sample

Introduction

The victory of the Women’s Suffrage movement in Britain was marked by two laws passed by the British Parliament: The Representation of the People Act, passed in 1918; and The Equal Franchise Act, passed in 1928. Since then, myths have accumulated around the contributions of violence carried out by the Women’s Social Political Union (WSPU). A group founded by Emmeline Pankhurst in 1903, the WSPU sought votes for women along with the more conservative National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies (NUWSS). Because it was the WSPU that often hit the headlines, many people attribute the success of the campaign to the WSPU’s use of violence. However, evidence like Andrew Rosen’s analysis shows that WSPU significantly failed to create a national crisis which might have prompted the government to bow down to pressure. Brian Harrison's examination of opposition women depicted them as being delighted at a campaign that did nothing more than to change the public opinion and the question of suffrage beyond parliamentary consideration. Thus, promoting the core question of this investigation: Did the violence of the British suffragettes' help or hinder their cause?

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

After 20 years of conservative rule, Asquith’s Liberal Party finally came to power in 1906. The hopes of the WSPU were raised because they believed that the Liberal Party by the very nature of liberalism would pioneer women’s political rights in Britain. They had the objective to pledged the new government to make women's suffrage a part of the official program. With high hopes that political reforms would be carried out, they were frustrated to find that this was not the case. When these expectations were met with Asquith’s refusal to grant facilities for a women’s suffrage measure, early forms of militancy were extended to more disruptive methods (Pugh 17). There was an increase in violent acts performed by the group from the year 1913. There were a series of violent happenings such as arson and bombings. The WSPU also vandalized railway lines suburbian Britain and burn buildings in a wave of the event every month from the year 1913-1914. The incidents always happened sporadically with the group claiming every violent conflict (Pankhurst 220).

The chief limiting factor in the effectiveness of the campaign was the choice of targets—those with least resistance—for example, houses, haystacks, and farm buildings. The only generalization that could be attempted is that most goals were easily flammable, accessible, and not well defended, rather than most economically essential or most likely to cause public disruption (Trippings 119). Of the 31 rail-related attacks, twenty-three were against railways stations. But all of these were in-country or suburban areas. The suffragettes never tried to attack any significant rail junctions, where a station could have been paralyzed a large part of the rail network. By attacking targets that were not economically important, the violence they carried out were not significant enough to disturb people. The attacks perpetrated by the group failed to make any considerable impact on the opinions of people. They did not elicit any reaction as people continued with their normal activities even in the wake of bombings and arson. It was partly because the attacks were majorly on buildings with little economic impact (Marlow 115). The railway lines that were destroyed by the woman were in the rural areas where traffic was minimal; hence the effect on the people in the city was minimal. The WSPU did not claim the disruptions created where there was a loss of life because their philosophy was respect for life. It somewhat rendered them toothless as many incidents occurred and where the group took credit, there were questions as to why they chose that specific incident. Many cities also saw minimal events or close to none at all.

Militancy visibly lacked mass support, even within the WSPU, the public continued their daily activities in disregard of the violence in the streets (Atkinson 99). Even within the WPSU, militancy was hated, and despite the many sporadic attacks, they failed to bring any significant economic damage to warrant the government to listen to their grievances.… The liberal government hated militancy, and it created an impossible situation for the government in which it would be forced to grant women the vote’ and ‘to punish anyone who disagreed with their times or failed to support them’. (Bearman, 375) began to form behind the violent acts of the WSPU. The WSPU's attacks most noticeably reflect this rationale on royal and political visits, in which attacks targeted both the visitors and the communities that welcomed them.)

At the time, most of the editors of popular magazines were men who had no support for the women’s movements but did not elicit reactions that showed concern or the severity. The general public was not fearful of the women's actions because as the campaign was in motion, most people went about their business without care. At the time, postcard publishers were always insulting the women by publishing images of women carrying bombs with large ears (Holton 64). In most of the publishing houses, males were in large numbers, and most of them were not in support of the women's movements and therefore failed to publicize or give the campaign the much-needed relief. It lessened the impact of their reach to all the people in Britain. At some point, the violent incidents perpetrated by WSPU members were not published by the press, and at some point, the news agencies would question their claims on specific arson incidents.

The Suffragettes first maintained a policy of not harming people, burning buildings that had no occupancy and where the people offered little or no resistance. Where there was a death, the WPSU did not claim responsibility for the event. The destruction did not cause significant turmoil or evident economic loss that warranted to be heard by the authorities (Norquay 165). The government continued to negligent to their plea, and hence they had to change tactics to be heard and respected. The WPSU turned to harassment of politicians, and at some point, they even tried to storm the parliament buildings. They became violent to the people who were not supporting their movement using a wide range of methods, including intimidation.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is essential to note that by the summer of 1914, militancy had placed the course of the movement outside their main agenda and was far from coursing the government to listen to their needs (Fawcett 25). The government, the press and the general public should have taken note of all the happens. Still, public opinion and perception remained unchanged as business as usual without disruptions even when violent incidents were happening. From the viewpoints of George Lloyd, seconded by people such as Philip Snowden, the violence turned an excellent course to a hostile rendezvous. The historians might be right about the essentiality of militancy in gaining the vote but not sure the force contributed to the success of their mission.

Works Cited

Atkinson, Diane. RISE UP WOMEN! the remarkable lives of the suffragettes. [Place of publication not identified], BLOOMSBURY Publishing, 2019.

Fawcett, Millicent. Women's suffrage, 1912 : a short history of a great movement. London : {British Library Photographic Services}, 1987.

Holton, Sandra. Feminism and democracy : women's suffrage and reform politics in Britain, 1900-1918. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Makovi, Kinga, Ryan Hagen, and Peter Bearman. "The course of law: State intervention in southern lynch mob violence 1882–1930." Sociological Science 3 (2016): 860-888.

Marlow, Joyce. Suffragettes : the fight for votes for women. London : Virago, [2015.

Norquay, Glenda. Voices and votes : a literary anthology of the w omen's suffrage campaign. Manchester : Manchester University, 1995.

Pankhurst, Sylvia. The suffragette : the history of the women's militant suffrage movement. Mineola, New York : Dover Publications, Inc.

Pugh, Martin. “The March of the Women - Paperback - Martin Pugh - Oxford ...” The March of the Women, OXFORD ACADEMIC, 14 Feb. 2002, global.oup.com/academic/product/the-march-of-the-women-9780199250226.

Pugh, Martin. The Pankhursts: The History of One Radical Family. London: Vintage Digital, 2013.

Tippings, Lisa. Women's suffrage in Wales. Barnsley, South Yorkshire, England; Havertown, PA, USA: Pen & Sword History, 2019.