Describe the ways in which the methods of the Suffragists and Suffragettes were different.

Describe the ways in which the methods of the Suffragists

and Suffragettes were different

The Suffragists and Suffragettes were two female dominated groups, who were very alike in principle but used very different ways of persuasion. Both organisations were committed to achieving votes for women, they did not demand the vote for all women but wanted to be seen as equals in society to men. The Suffragists (NUWSS) were a peaceful, law-abiding group, however the Suffragettes (WSPU) used totally different forms of propaganda which were much more militant than the methods used by the Suffragists in order to gain more publicity and to be noticed more.

The Suffragist movement started in 1850 and after 1870 much larger groups came into existence and there were hundreds of these by the 1890’s. These groups were pulled together to form the National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies in 1897. Before this the groups were working separately but were drawn together to form a stronger, larger organisation under one leader, Millicent Fawcett. Millicent Fawcett made it clear that their campaign would be carried out “without violence, without killing people and blowing up buildings and doing the other silly things that men have done when they wanted the laws altered.”

However, in 1903 many women believed that after 50 years of peaceful protest they had achieved nothing, they believed that it was time for more direct, more militant action in order to give their campaign more strength and to have more chance in succeeding in their objectives. The woman leading this movement was Mrs Emmeline Pankhurst. This breakaway movement called themselves the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU), but were also known as the Suffragettes.

One difference between the Suffragists and the Suffragettes was that the Suffragists came first and were more respected and established in society. The Suffragist groups were accepted by society as a group of women who were respectable and were working for a cause, people didn’t agree with them but they did not try to arrest them or obstruct them from their protests. These women came mainly from the middle classes and kept with puritanical views on their dress and actions, they did not undertake any outrageous actions and relied on the power of words to get through to the general public. Suffragists used methods such as petitions, leaflets and public meetings to get their message across; they also went campaigning door to door to find more support for their cause. This meant they were not arrested but they were also not in the newspaper so much. The Suffragists main idea was to campaign within the law. This was done to show how rational these women were and that women deserved the vote. They wanted to let the government and public know that women were very respectable and could be entirely trusted with the vote. They intended their good behaviour to impress the government and that after a long, slow but steady struggle they would finally be able to get the vote they wanted. Millicent Fawcett was absolutely convinced that her objectives would be achieved one day, she saw the Suffragist campaign as a “glacier”, slow moving but unstoppable. She believed that they would win the right to vote by the weight of their argument and the weight of their support. They believed that their case was so strong that they didn’t want to damage it by using civil disobedience or violence.

This is a preview of the whole essay

In 1903 the WSPU was formed because some women became impatient towards the progress of the Suffragist movement. These women resorted to drastic public acts of violence to get the attention of the general public and reach their goal quicker. The fact that the Suffragettes were a breakaway movement from the NUWSS helps to explain why their methods were different. The Suffragettes believed that the Suffragist movement was too slow so they decided that their methods would have to be more drastic in order to get more publicity and to get their point across. The one crucial different between the Suffragists and Suffragettes was that the Suffragists supported non-violent means of protest whereas the Suffragettes willing to undertake violent and antisocial techniques. It is not certain whether or not suffragettes were a help to the suffrage movement; they got the issues into the paper but mainly had bad publicity. Suffragettes often opted for the more violent methods of protest such as arson, vandalism and verbal abuse. They were frequently seen sailing down the river Thames shouting abuse at Parliament; they were known to repeatedly chain themselves to public buildings. Suffragettes were famously blamed for the destruction of all the windows on Oxford Street.

The plans of the Suffragettes were very different to those of the Suffragists, as they would get publicity at any cost. They deliberately got arrested for crimes such as arson, window smashing and bombing. The Suffragettes made it clear that they would not stop the havoc they were causing unless their demands were met. They often went to prison rather than pay fines to accentuate the injustice of the system and when in prison they would go on hunger strikes meaning they had to be force fed causing more problems for government and prison wardens. After awhile the Government got used to this and issued the Cat and Mouse Act that said that if a woman went on hunger strike she was released after they had become incredibly weak. After a brief period of time in which they could recover they were arrested again for minor offences to start the whole cycle again. This Cat and Mouse Act showed how the Government saw these women as a nuisance to society.

What needs to be understood is the fact that the Suffragettes were not always as militant as people remember them but in fact their civil disobedience escalated throughout the early 1900’s as they realised that their early techniques were unsuccessful. They started off less militant as the Suffragettes were a breakaway movement from the Suffragists, they had previously been campaigning through non-violent protests so their early campaigns did not take a dissimilar form. However, when many reform bills were turned down for the women’s vote they began to become more militant. In March 1909 there was a Suffrage Bill giving votes to nearly all men and women, it wins a majority of 34 on the second reading but got no further, events like these infuriated both the Suffragettes and Suffragists, however the Suffragist response did not change whereas the Suffragettes became more militant. In 1911 the Government promised a Conciliation Bill, it won a majority of 167 in parliament and it seemed that success was just around the corner. Then the Prime Minister (Asquith) dropped the bill! The Suffragettes were furious and they were now considering more and more drastic actions such as setting fire to a cricket pitch in Middlesex and the grandstand at Hurst Park racecourse on 9th June 1913. The most notable of these events occurred at the 1913 derby where Emily Davison threw herself onto the racecourse in front of King George’s horse. She had sacrificed her life for the cause and this turned out to be very beneficial to the Suffragettes’ cause.

The type of leadership also played a part in why the two campaigns used different methods to get their point across. Millicent Fawcett was a respectable, well-educated woman so this meant that she could use the power of words to get her opinions across. She saw her role as a co-ordinator; she didn't consider herself to be in charge but to give the effort of the other Suffragists some guidance. She made it clear that the Suffragists used non-violent methods of persuasion to gain the same voting rights as men. Millicent Fawcett believed that you could not claim a democratic right (the vote) by the use of undemocratic methods (i.e. violence and vandalism).

The two campaigns and their leaders were so different that Millicent Fawcett actually turned down the offer to join forces with the Suffragettes. She knew that they would be much stronger as one force, however she did not wish her campaign to be associated with the civil disobedience of the Suffragette movement.

The Suffragettes were led in a very different manner, Emmeline Pankhurst and her daughters led the movement forcefully. They were said to have ruled like "dictators" not listening to others, and not thinking of the consequences of their actions, purely concentrating on their battle for suffrage. They were very committed to their cause and were prepared to be arrested to get their point noticed. They wanted women’s suffrage to become a serious issue and one that the Government could no longer ignore. They did not share the same view of Millicent Fawcett that violence hurt their cause but in fact they believed that it helped as it managed to generate more publicity.

Millicent Fawcett did not agree with the violent techniques used by the suffragettes, however, she did appreciate the fact that the Suffragettes did create a lot of publicity for the issue. She said in 1906 that the Suffragettes “have done more to advance the movement in twelve months than I and my followers have been able to do in the same number of years.”

The main difference between the Suffragists and the Suffragettes was the fact that the Suffragists used the weight of their argument and the weight of their support to try and achieve their aim, however, the Suffragettes used civil disobedience in order to get more publicity so that there point was noticed and so the government could not keep ignoring the issue of votes for women. The reason why the two campaigns were different was the fact that the Suffragettes were a breakaway movement from the Suffragists as they disagreed with the methods which they used so they decided to campaign in what they thought was the right way. Also the two organisations were run by two very different women. Millicent Fawcett, the leader of the Suffragists, was a respectable woman who did not believe in violence as she thought that it would ruin her campaign. Emmeline Pankhurst was very different, she believed in direct action so the Government could no longer ignore the case for women’s suffrage.

By David Alison