In stark contrast, source C, written by fanatic Harney, was wholly on the side of violence and armed opposition in order to force Parliament to agree to Chartist demands. This source is from ‘The Northern Star’, which was a newspaper run by O’Connor, another extremist who shared Harney’s view. Whereas Lovett and Attwood represented the middle-class, Harney and O’Connor were against middle-class movement and believed that it was really the working class that were suffering. Source C shows that Harney thought of the government as, ‘Tyrants,’ here making an intemperate use of language, in order to stir up emotions. He uses definitive language in order to strengthen his declaration and proclaims that they ‘will’ waste the land instead of suffer, ‘our country a wilderness of destruction’, describing the totality of it all.
Harney believed that the only answer or course of action would be violence, ‘no argument like the sword and the musket is unanswerable,’ here totally rejecting any peaceful approach. All this language, shows Harney to be a demagogue and it may be that it was just empty rhetoric.
Thus Sources B and C completely disagree about how chartist aims should be met. One is a peaceful proposal whilst the other is a much more fierce and forceful approach. Source A however shows signs of both.
- Study sources B, C and F.
Use these sources, and your own knowledge to give reasons why the Chartists disagreed about the best way to achieve their aims.
The main reason Chartists disagreed about the course to take in order to succeed was due to the split in the movement between those who advocated peaceful methods, such as Lovett and Attwood and those who were prepared to use more violent methods, like Harney and O’Connor.
In order to understand the situation, one must know the differences between the leaders. Lovett and Attwood were from the South. They believed persuasion, argument and moral force would be the appropriate way of approaching Chartism. They considered political rights and action far more important than a violent forceful method. This could be due to a number of reasons.
The most important reason as to why they thought in this manner, is because they were middle-class citizens. They represented the middle-class, those who were craftsmen and skilled artisans, most of whom were educated and schooled. Lovett himself was a cabinet-maker and Attwood a banker. They aimed to put pressure on the government by massive but peaceful agitation, and the Charter itself was largely the work of Lovett.
The Birmingham Political Union had been founded to agitate for the 1832 Reform Act, and it was now revived under Attwood. Attwood believed that currency reform could benefit working men by remedying economic depression and in particular that devaluation of the currency to raise prices (inflation) would have a good effect. Although Attwood’s financial ideas were confused, the B.P.U. took an active part in Chartism. From this group came the idea of a national petition in support of the Charter.
These people weren’t in quite as desperate a situation as the ‘working class’, and were for political rights. Thus they wanted a much more cautious, rational approach.
Source B agrees with this peaceful reasoning, as it was written by Lovett himself. It shows us that the leaders disagreed on the issue of violence or non-violence. Lovett thinks that violence is ‘harmful and damages the movement’ and that if O’Connor was allowed to act on his preaching, then it would ‘lead to the destruction of Chartism.’
On the other hand, there was O’Connor and Harney. These two chartist leaders were based in the North, O’Connor in Leeds. Whereas Lovett represented middle-class artisans, they represented the proletariats, or the unskilled working class. Both were extreme, although Harney was more of a fanatic. He was often seen wearing a red cap and carrying a dagger like Marat, the extremist from the French Revolution.
O’Connor made use of his newspaper ‘The Northern Star’ to spread his Chartist views, which appealed not so much to the artisans as to the great mass of unskilled workers in the North. He expressed a much greater willingness than Lovett to use violent methods, for he believed that the threat of violence would force the government to give in to their demands.
O’Connor and Harney were really for food, water and basic necessities. They were fiery people who lived by their emotions.
Sources C and F agree with the view that violence was the way. Source C was written by Harney himself, thus it is very bias and that of his opinion. He uses the language of a demagogue, in order to whip up people’s emotions. He proclaims that the chartists will lay waste to the land unless demands are met, ‘wilderness of destruction.’ He thinks that the sword and musket are the only way they will achieve what they wish, ‘no argument like the sword and the musket is unanswerable.’
Although Source F seems to agree with the use of violent protest, there are signs that the author, (writing an autobiography), knew that a violent protest could be harmful and would be a serious thing indeed, ‘a serious thing for a Chartist to have a gun or pike.’ However the old chartist being described, bought a gun himself, ‘I agreed, and bought a gun’, thus it shows how people were putting Harney and O’Connor’s preaching into practise.
- Study sources E, G and H
How useful are these sources as evidence about why physical force Chartists were not successful?
The main reason the physical force Chartists weren’t successful was for the simple reason that the British Army at the time, under the command of Charles Napier had a far more extensive and deadly artillery than the working class chartists. They were a well-organised and efficient unit, whereas the Chartists were an array of shambles, poor working men dressed in makeshift armour.
Source E is not a very useful source as the evidence is very uncertain and contradictory. It is evidence given by a witness at the trial of John Frost in 1840, the leader of the Newport rising. Frost led an attack on the town to release a Chartist leader, Henry Vincent, from prison. Frost led a force consisting mainly of miners straight into a trap set by the authorities, who were expecting them. A small number of marksmen, hidden behind the shutters of a hotel, opened fire suddenly and effectively, dispersing the Chartists.
In this case, the reason the Chartists weren’t successful was because the group led by Frost was supposed to be joined by two other contingents before the attack. However there were problems of timing and of co-ordination between the groups, thus showing that the Chartists were badly organised and inefficient.
The witness in Source, contradicts himself throughout the trial. At first he says that he saw the Chartists with ‘guns, sticks etc, the stick had iron points’, but as the trial continues he states, ‘did not see many with guns’, and he goes even further to say, ‘cannot say if the mob had guns, pikes or clubs,’ having just admitted to seeing them with those weapons. The witness is giving conflicting evidence and it seems that he’s in a confused or scared state, as he doesn’t want to side with a particular party. The fact that his name is not mentioned supports the fact that this source is unreliable, even though it is primary.
Another contradiction the witness makes, is when he describes the place of firing. At first he explains that, ‘I could not say where the firing began’, but comes back later to say, ‘likely the firing began from the Westgate Hotel.’
This source is very unreliable and not very useful. It does suggest however that not all the physical force chartists were as motivated and determined as Harney and O’Connor but were scared of what might happen to them.
Source G is an autobiography by the General in command of the troops in the North, Charles Napier. The fact that this is his autobiography should indicate that the source may be bias, as he was a government official and working to keep Chartist movement under control, but reading this source and other sources, Charles Napier actually managed to establish friendly relations with the poor working class.
Charles Napier was not against the people, in fact he had sympathy for them for it upset him to see the poverty around him, ‘poor people.’ He calls the Chartists ‘fools!’ Although this may seem insulting, it indicates that they weren’t wicked or violent but stupid. Stupid for thinking they could put up a physical resistance against his army, ‘we have the physical force.’ This source indicates that the physical force chartists had very limited resources in terms of artillery and firepower and to try and attack would cause their deaths, ‘they will suffer.’ The British army at the time were also the most powerful in the world. They had ‘cavalry’ and explosive weapons, whilst the Chartists barely had guns.
This source is reliable, as it comes from a man who, although against physical force charts, sympathised with them and wasn’t bias, and it also shows us yet another reason why they were unsuccessful.
Source H is a Punch cartoon, done by people from the middle and upper classes. Punch was a cartoon which depicted what the middle to upper class though on a situation. This source is incredibly bias even though it is primary, and is insulting, showing the contempt with which the upper classes looked on the working class.
The cartoon shows a picture of a working class chartist, preparing to go and fight. The artist is obviously comparing the man to the famous Don Quixote, who was rather mad. As a helmet the chartist is wearing a coalscuttle, far too big and heavy for his head. We also see his wife tying a washing basket around his front, to act as a shield or body armour. It looks absolutely ridiculous. He’s also got a very long sword which is dangling from his knee and too big for him. This is obviously an exaggerated source, but it does show how poorly equipped the chartists were and that the middle-classes thought them to be fools.
This source is useful, although one must be wary of its obvious exaggeration.
- Study sources I and J.
Source I gives clear advice about how Chartists should behave at the demonstration of Kennington Common in April 1848. Does source J suggest that the Chartist followed this advice. Explain your answer by reference to both sources.
Source I is obviously a poster from the Lovett and Attwood camp. It immediately starts by mentioning the fact that ‘Peace and order is our motto’. Thus it indicates that the ‘DEMONSTRATION!!!’ won’t be one of violence and riot. The content of the poster is very persuasive in the sense of inspiring the working class to take part in the demonstration.
The poster states that the government press had blackened their name, disparaged them creating a picture of foolish fanatics, ‘vilified us’. It goes on to describe the conditions they put up with, and things seem to be really terrible, ‘pining in misery, want and starvation!’ The fact that it mentions ‘slaves of capital’, indicates that there’s a trace of communism in the system. There’s obviously a conflict going on between Capital and Labour. The people aren’t being paid enough or being treated fairly for the work they do.
At the time it was meant to be a free England, but the working class found that not to be. ‘Political serfs’, shows that they are still being treated like slaves, at the bottom of the ladder.
Although the content seems to incite the people to taking action, there are many references that it is a ‘peaceful procession’, thus it won’t involve guns, weapons or physical force, but it is more to agitate the government into doing something about the poverty.
The demonstration is described as something of a stand against the forces of evil, ‘seek to remove the evils under which we groan,’ describing the way they are treated at the moment.
The demonstration has also been planned, showing signs of organisation and being well co-ordinated. There are designated areas for those wishing to join the demonstration to meet and all parties lead to ‘Kennington Common’. The dates are all set and times, ‘MONDAY NEXT, APRIL 10’, thus it seems like a well-planned and peaceful procession.
Source J is a photograph of the Chartist demonstration on Kennington Common, thus it is a primary source, and cannot possibly show anything but the what is actually happening, thus it is not bias. However, because it is just a photograph of a certain time, whether it is valuable or not is in question.
The photo does seem to suggest that everything is peaceful. There isn’t any sign of guns or cavalry around, which would have indicated the police being nearby. It all seems orderly and one can see many of the gentlemen wearing top hats and dressed in suits, which suggests the more violent physical force chartists aren’t attending. The people are also standing in mass ranks. The fact that the picture is clear and still, indicates that there’s hardly any movement and things are peaceful. This is due to the fact that at the time, cameras often took 30 seconds or more to actually take the picture, thus any movement would be seen as a blur by the camera.
However, the source isn’t very good, for it doesn’t tell you much, but going according to the evidence available Source J does suggest that the Chartist is going according to the advice given in source I.
- Study all the sources.
‘To many in the middle and upper classes, a Chartist rebellion was extremely likely’. Use these sources, and your own knowledge, to explain whether you agree with this view about the threat that Chartists presented.
I agree to an extent with the view that a Chartist rebellion was extremely likely to the middle and upper classes at the time. However, looking at the situation now, there seems to be enough evidence to show that any such rebellion would have been eliminated rather quickly by government forces.
I think one major factor at the time, that may have influenced the Chartists to a rebellion and caused fears for the government and upper classes was the fact that in 1789 and 1830 there were bloody revolutions in France, where many of the aristocrats were being murdered by the working class due to the severe poverty at the time. Thus, the threat of such a revolution occurring in England would indeed indicate a cause for concern.
This was especially true of 1848, where there were reports of revolutions not only in France but in other leading European countries. At the time Britain was suffering from a serious economic slump, which caused much poverty and distress, thus news of other revolutions influenced the Chartists to action.
Looking at the sources, there are mixed views as to whether a rebellion was likely or not. Source A, doesn’t seem to have a firm footing on either ground. Whilst showing signs of violent protest, ‘liberty is worth dying for’, the source also indicates there was peaceful resolution and action which wasn’t as turbulent, ‘no vote no muskets’. Thus as a piece of evidence in answering this question, it cannot be seen as very valuable, although it does express both views at the time.
Source B however, condemns the violent action provoked by O’Connor and Harney. The evidence, by chartist leader Lovett, shows a definite desire to approach Chartism with slow, cautious steps, to agitate the government and educate those who support Chartism in order to support a firm political resistance, not merely a mob of thugs. The content however, shows that Lovett finds O’Connor’s actions over-powering, and that his preaching has been put into action. Although firmly on the side of peaceful practise, Lovett does seem resigned to acknowledge that O’Connor has more influence. Thus, this source indicates that a Chartist rebellion would have been likely, even if not though to be successful.
Source C almost definitely reveals that a Chartist rebellion would have been likely. An article from O’Connor’s newspaper ‘The Northern Star’, written by other fiery leader Harney, leaves absolutely no doubt as to how he feels and what should happen. The language is that of a demagogue and Harney’s views are expressed as definite, ‘suffrage there will be’, ‘our tyrants will’, ‘we will have’, here the extensive and repetitive use of ‘will’ clearly showing how determined and passionate Harney feels about Chartism. This source leaves us in no doubt as to whether a Chartist rebellion would be likely.
Source D is not a very reliable source although with the evidence given it is rather valuable for this question. The evidence is primary and contemporary, for it is only written one year after the incident of the Newport Rising. The flaws however, are that it doesn’t give the names of where its from and who the artist is, thus we can’t tell whether its bias or not. However, from the actual picture, we can see that the working class are armed with guns and pikes and sticks and seem to be in control of the situation. The middle to upper classes are backed up against the wall. Thus, this evidence is very useful for it shows that a Chartist Rebellion would be extremely likely.
Moving onto source E, the evidence given at a trial. The evidence is primary, it is from a witness at an official trial. However, looking at the content the evidence is absolutely useless, it is uncertain and contradictory and the witness is obviously scared and confused. From the evidence he gives however, it seems that the Newport rising wasn’t an event showing signs of Chartist power, but government control. From my own knowledge, I know that it was a disaster, the Chartist leader Frost was caught and imprisoned, chartists were killed by government marksmen and the whole expedition was a total shambles. Thus, this source shows that a Chartist Rebellion would be highly unlikely.
Source F, an extract from the autobiography of an old Chartist, seems very useful, especially in relevance to the question. The evidence shows that many of the Chartists were armed with guns or other weapons, ‘great many people in these districts were arming themselves with guns or pikes.’ The description implies that there was a significant number of physical force chartists, armed. However, there is a sign that a few of the ordinary Chartists were afraid of possessing guns due to government punishment, which was either prison, death or transportation to Australia, ‘serious thing for a Chartist to have a gun or pike.’ The source does suggest that a Chartist rebellion would be likely.
Source G, an extract from the autobiography of General Charles Napier, is perhaps the most useful source in answering this question. It is not likely to be bias, as Napier was very sympathetic towards the ‘poor’ Chartists. He understood their pain and misery, yet knew them to be of no real threat, ‘We have the physical force, not they.’ Also, at the time, the British army was the most powerful in the world. Thus any opposition by men who are ill equipped against an army with devastating artillery including ‘cannon shot’, ‘grapeshot’ and other deadly weaponry can mean only the slaughter of those men. ‘Grapeshot’ was basically a canister, filled with Potassium Nitrate, Sulphur and Charcoal, and could kill instantly. Thus there is no doubt that this source condemns any possible rebellion being put up by the Chartists.
Source H also agrees that the physical resistance the Chartists could put up, was pathetic and useless. The punch cartoon of the poor chartist, preparing for a battle, wearing a coal scuttle as a helmet, a washing basket as a shield and a sword far too long for him clearly reveals that the Chartists didn’t really have the necessary arms and equipment to put up such a rebellion. This cartoon also represents what the middle to upper classes thought about the Chartists, thus there is no doubt that a Chartist rebellion wasn’t to be expected.
Source I, a poster from the Chartists themselves, announcing a ‘peaceful demonstration’, clearly shows that a violent confrontation was not in evidence. The constant repetition of ‘peaceful’, emphasises the fact that violence was not a part of the Chartist demonstration. Although the source’s content includes writing which could inspire Chartists onto more serious action, there is a definite message of peaceful protest. Thus, this source doesn’t suggest a Chartist rebellion.
Source J, a photograph of the demonstration described in Source I, agrees that it was a peaceful demonstration. There doesn’t seem to be any trouble or rash movements, thus it also suggests that a Chartist rebellion wouldn’t be possible. This source isn’t very reliable.
Source K is rather like Source A. The evidence indicates that O’Connor wants to approach the government on peaceful terms, ‘use moral force as long as possible’ and that he doesn’t want to fight until utterly necessary. However, if things aren’t as he wants them to be, he will resort to violence, ‘better to die free men than to live as slaves.’ There is sufficient evidence to say that although O’Connor wrote and talked about violence, he was not prepared to act violently, his speeches were empty rhetoric. So, Source K has a split decision. Whilst on one hand it disagrees about their being a Chartist rebellion, there is some evidence that such an event could occur.
Source L, a secondary source from a modern textbook, doesn’t really decipher as to whether there could have been a rebellion or not. The source does bring up interesting issues, to debate whether Chartism was real or not. The evidence says that there wasn’t any real fear to begin with, but it was the government that ‘vilified’ the chartists. It also brings out the fact that a lot of people thought there was a rebellion but it was really the authorities that encouraged such action. There was fear, just to carry out more operations and to hire more constables.
Thus the government fanned the flame, so that all the descent, educated people supported them against the working classes. Whether these assumptions are true or not, it seems that Chartism wasn’t as real a threat as often made out to be. Thus, source L remains in question.