The NUWSS was led by Millicent Fawcett, a firm believer in rational and peaceful methods. The NUWSS were extremely good at bringing the women’s suffrage cause into the public eye. They used tactics such as petitions and friendly demonstrations to gain support and respect to illustrate the seriousness and dedication to the women’s suffrage cause. They even met MP’s and argued their case but this was to little success. The problem was that no political party was prepared to put the women’s suffrage cause as one of their policies. The issue was raised fifteen times in parliament but faces strong opposition. This opposition included Queen Victoria who thought that women who wanted the vote were ‘the most hateful, heartless and disgusting of human beings.’ Even a prominent woman such as Florence Nightingale believed that there were more important issues to argue. Although their slow but sure approach seemed unsuccessful it would eventually have achieved the right for women to vote. However some of the middle-class ladies in the NUWSS became frustrated with the idea of a diplomatic and slow approach. As a result in 1903 a more active group called the Suffragettes was formed, its leaders being Emmeline Pankhurst and her daughters.
The Suffragettes' extremist tactics of arson, chaining themselves to buildings, slashing paintings and window smashing was self-defeating as they lost sympathy and support for the suffrage cause. They also provided the government with an excuse not to enfranchise them and were treated as lunatics, not political prisoners when they were jailed. Some women were force fed as they refused to eat. The Suffragettes tactics did not impress the Liberals, and consequently, they lost sympathetic MPs in the House of Lords. The unwomanly actions like heckling and pestering politicians, hurling missiles at the police and rowdy demonstrations outside halls from which they were banned, had alienated the more cautious sympathisers. Furthermore the two groups, the suffragists and the suffragettes were both working towards the same goal but had very different tactics. The NUWSS grew increasingly ashamed of the Suffragettes who gave women who campaigned for the vote a very bad reputation. Therefore the two groups were not united. This meant that the campaign could have appeared as disorganised and preventing women getting the vote as a result of this.
Another reason women failed to gain the vote between 1900 and 1914 was the attitude of male politicians. In general women were considered the weaker sex who were incapable of voting as they were too emotional and politics was considered not to be a ‘woman’s thing.’ Most politicians certainly did not want women to get the vote as they felt the favour certain parties such as the Conservatives because many of their policies such as housing which were relevant to women. In 1906 the Liberal party was victorious in the general election and Henry Campbell- Bannerman, the Prime Minister agreed to see a group of respectable middle-class women campaigning for the vote. He later stated that he personally was in favour of the vote however his cabinet was not, this resulting a great disappointment to the Suffrage cause. On October 1906 the NUWSS announced that they would put up their own independent male candidates to run against the Liberal opponents and subsequently in 1907 the Suffragettes began strongly opposing to all Liberal MP’s at by-elections. Henry Campbell- Bannerman, the Prime Minister died in 1908 and was replaced by Herbert Asquith, a strong opponent of women suffrage. However at a later stage the Liberal government introduced a bill to give women the vote but as the WSPU increased its campaign of violence some MP’s changed their minds and on 28th of March 1912 the bill was defeated. I believe this was one of the major set backs that prevented women achieving the right to vote. After being so patient, women could have finally achieved the vote if it wasn’t for the violent tactics of the suffragettes. Although the Labour party then grew supportive of the women suffrage campaign women had missed one of the greatest chances they had as to getting the vote.
In conclusion I think that it was a combination of factors that prevented women from getting the vote between 1900 and 1914, including the attitudes of politicians and men towards women getting the vote, the inferior role of women in society, the violent tactics of the suffragettes and the prospect of the looming war with Germany. However I think the most important of these reasons which prevented women achieving the vote between 1900 and 1914 was the violent tactics of the suffragettes in campaigning for the vote. This is evident when the the bill was defeated in 1912 by the Liberal party. Without the suffragettes I think that the slow but sure approach of the suffragettes would have eventually helped women to gain the vote. However although it may be one of the most important reasons as to women did not the vote before 1914 it was not the only reason. Even so the suffragettes did help to achieve other good things for women such as fairer divorce laws.
2. "Without the First World War British women would not have gained the right to vote in 1918". Do g you agree or disagree with this interpretation?
To a certain extent I do agree with this interpretation. However I disagree that the First World War was the sole reason for women gaining the vote in 1918. This is because I think other factors such as the women’s suffrage campaign also contributed to receiving the vote. The campaign for women’s suffrage had been running long before the First World War, when it was first established in 1897 by a group called the National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies (NUWSS). The NUWSS consisted of mainly middle-class women, with the leader being Millicent Fawcett. Millicent Fawcett was a firm believer in both rational and peaceful methods which justified the Suffragist’s tactics of friendly demonstrations and petitions to gain support and respect of their dedication to the suffrage cause. They even met MP’s and argued their case but this was to little success. In addition the fact no political party was prepared to put the women’s suffrage cause as one of their policies proved problematic. However the issue was discussed fifteen times parliament, but this too was unsuccessful. As Source C shows a typical political argument against votes for women, however this source is somewhat biased as it only lists the disadvantages of votes for women. Despite this, it could also prove useful as it gives us a good idea a politician’s view of the matter and from my own knowledge I know that was the common view of many politicians at the time. Nevertheless the foundation for change had been laid and the suffragists’ non-violent, legal tactics publicised women’s suffrage without alienating the public and angering the government. However some of the middle-class ladies in the NUWSS became frustrated with the idea of a diplomatic and slow approach, subsequently in 1903 a more active group called the Suffragettes was formed, its leaders: Emmeline Pankhurst and her daughters. The Suffragettes' extremist tactics of arson, chaining themselves to buildings, slashing paintings and window smashing was self-defeating as they lost sympathy and support for the suffrage cause, perhaps even to the point of creating an opposite effect of losing any progress towards the vote. Therefore if the NUWSS did not split in 1903 and the movement remained united in terms of non-violent tactics, women may have earned the right to vote well before the First World War. However Source A, a speech made by Emmeline Pankhurst shows that the suffragettes were committed to the suffrage cause. Although only one suffragette view is given so we are not sure of the group as a whole. From my own knowledge I know that many were in favour of the vote and the matter of women achieving the vote was widely discussed in general and in newspapers.
Another factor which could have earned women the vote, if it was different was the social and political context that surrounded them. Traditionally, women were seen as inferior and emotionally weak compared to men in addition to a low place in society. This also reflected their legal rights which were also very limited. For example when a woman married, any land that she owned land would go directly to her husband. Furthermore if a woman then had children she no legal rights over them and if the couple then got divorced she lost all her possessions as well as the children. In general by the end of the nineteenth century women had gain better education rights and fairer divorce law but they were still classed as both emotionally weak and inferior to men. Therefore if women were not seen as the weaker sex in society and accepted as a man’s equal, their contribution to political issues would have considered important, resulting in an automatic right to the vote. However Source B, an argument in favour of votes for women is somewhat biased as it only shows the bad things a man can be and still have the vote and the good occupations a woman can have but still not vote. This source can prove to be useful as it show what types of propaganda were used at the time to argue in favour of the vote.
The First World War was one of the main factors that allowed women to gain the vote as the war effort was taken very seriously by women who helped in numerous tasks such as encouraging men to join the army, becoming office clerks and doing munition work in factories. This was important as it made both the government and men in general realise how committed women were to help their country and so should deserve the right to vote. Without the war it could have taken many more years to achieve this goal. Source D shows that women were seen as important in their contribution to the war effort. However the source is only from one magazine and therefore only one view. Despite this, it is a primary source and therefore perhaps more reliable. From my own knowledge I know that this was not the only view concerning the women’s war effort as Source E displays. Many men felt bitter towards women as they felt their jobs had been taken.
In conclusion I think the war just helped to speed up women’s achievement of the vote in 1918. Yes, it was a key factor to women achieving the vote but without the long suffrage campaign which laid the foundation for long term change, I feel that women would not have received the vote. The First World War can be compared to a catalyst which allowed women to justify their need and struggle for the vote through their war effort. We know that it was not the War alone that secured women the vote, as the French women had participated just as much in the war effort in France but were not given the vote afterwards because there had been no suffrage movement and therefore no pressure on the government for change. Therefore the women suffrage movement in Britain before the war is likely to have made a difference. Had there been no was the emancipation of women would inevitably have come through the slow but steady, peaceful tactics of the suffragettes, only much later.
