How far do the sources show that militant tactics hindered rather than helped the cause of votes for women?

Siobhan Hughes

There is no doubt that the militant tactics used by the WSPU played a big part in the cause of votes for women, however whether it was a help rather than a hindrance is a topic of much debate

The sources show that militant tactics used by the suffragettes hindered rather than helped the cause of votes for women to quite a large extent. However, we can be critical of the sources as to whether they are reliable sources by looking at who they were written by and the time that they were written. We can also look at the way the source is written and how it could be interpreted in different ways.

Militant tactics hindered the cause of votes for women because some politicians believed that women should not be rewarded for such violence as it set a bad example. I think that even the suffragettes themselves believed that militant tactics were hindering the cause because, as shown in source A, Emmeline Pankhurst tries to justify her militant actions and denies that they hindered the cause. She describes how the militant tactics helped them gain publicity, but it was for all the wrong reasons. Also if she thought that she was doing the right thing by leading militant tactics then there would be no need for her to justify these actions. Millicent Fawcett is against the violent tactics, as shown in Source C, and she believes that it is hindering the cause,

‘I still feel disinclined to encourage one set of suffragists to denounce another set.’

She wants to continue campaigning for the vote for women but in a non- militant manner, but she thinks that by encouraging peaceful demonstrations she is also condoning militant tactics. This is a good piece of evidence because Millicent Fawcett is close to the campaign, and this source was written at the time of the events. It is also a personal letter so her true opinions would be expressed.

Source B, a totally contrasting source, written by a historian over 70 years after the event thinks ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

‘I still feel disinclined to encourage one set of suffragists to denounce another set.’

Source B, a totally contrasting source, written by a historian over 70 years after the event thinks that the militant tactics hindered the cause. We can rely on this source because he has access to a lot of different evidence and he backs up his points. He is also not emotionally involved to the issue and so he can look at both sides of the story.

Newspapers are very effective at expressing public opinion. As shown in sources D and E show that militant tactics hindered the cause. Source D shows how the WSPU are playing into the hands of the antis and the cartoon in source E displays a similar view. It shows how militant tactics are destroying the likelihood of women being given the vote by portraying votes for women as an owl and the militant tactics as the hammer that has killed the owl.

As we know, there were numerous groups of people opposed to the cause of votes for women. The National League for opposing Women’s Suffrage published posters in 1912, when opposition for votes for women was at its peak. One of the posters, shown in source F, illustrates that by giving women the vote would cause them to neglect their duties as women. The washing and cleaning would not be done and the house would be a mess. It also shows how the suffragettes’ militant tactics were playing into the hands of the antis.

By looking at the vote results, before and during the time where militant tactics were used. Source G shows these results. It shows that before militant tactics were used, there was more support for votes for women than there was during the militancy.

But does this show that support for the suffragettes had decreased because of the militancy?

This is another side of the argument that we need to be aware of. By looking at the way the Irish MP’s vote we can see that perhaps the Irish were not voting for whether they were in fact for or against votes for women but maybe they had another political strategy. So, we cannot rely indefinitely on this source to show that militant tactics hindered the cause of votes for women because of the knowledge that the Irish MP’s had alternative motives. We can also be critical of source B because it is clear that the writer of this source does not like the Pankhurst’s and so this could make him biased towards the argument.

‘The Pankhursts possessed a talent for self-publicity which they exercised for years after the campaign had ended.’

He saw the Pankhursts as attention seekers. This means that we cannot take everything in this source to be politically correct.

Clearly, militant tactics raised awareness; we can see this by looking at sources D, E and F. the issue is being discussed in the newspapers, which means that it is a major topic of discussion.

We can also, to an extent, be critical of source C because although someone in favour of votes for women wrote it, Millicent Fawcett was the leader of another (non-militant) organisation and so she would not be in favour of the militant tactics.

So, in conclusion, the sources show that militant tactics hindered the cause of votes for women at first glance, but by taking as closer look at the background of the sources and who they were written by, we can be critical of both the reliability of the sources and the different ways that they can be interpreted.