'Internal disunity was the main reason for the failure of Chartism.' To what extent do you agree with this statement?

‘Internal disunity was the main reason for the failure of Chartism.’

To what extent do you agree with this statement?

By the time the petition was rejected in 1848 it can be seen that Chartism had lost its importance amongst its former supporters and to the government and thus dying out as an important political campaign movement. A big question that has remained amongst historians is the cause of this downfall of a once hugely popular movement that ‘effectively raised fundamental constitutional questions in Parliament and rattled the bars of the establishment’ (H.Browne).

In this essay I shall discuss whether or not the internal disunity of the Chartists was the main reason for their failure or was it as a result of many other factors including the following; no general middles-class support for cross-class alliance, power of the state that enabled them to make mass arrests, exhaustion of constitutional means to reform, the strategy and tactics used by the chartists and the effective abandonment of the charter by the majority after 1848.

The chartist movement was one that had a tendency to break up due to arguments amongst the key leader figures in the organisation. Some believe that this internal disunity showed that the chartists were not politically nor intellectually mature enough to obtain and use the vote.

Throughout the Chartist campaign the leadership remained constant although not designated with Feargus O’Connor ‘steering the movement,’ he held the movement back from the use of ‘ulterior measures’ yet hinted towards physical force and then later withdraw calls for rebellions. It was such actions as these that led to divides in the chartist movement between ‘sensible’ chartists such as William Lovett and ‘wild men’ such as O’Connor it was these type divides in the leadership of Chartism that left the movement fragmented. The differences between these two very diverse characters led to leadership problems and divisions for the movement, this lack of clear leadership and tactics and methods it was this that many felt resulted in the chartist downfall.

Fallouts such as that seen between Bronterre O’Brien and O’Connor over the Land Plan which O’Brien strongly disagreed with led to a movement that was attempting to alter the current political system form within a organisation which it’s self was disunited over key policies.

When Vincent and Lowery set up the Chartist Teetotal Association they hoped that by getting the working classes to reject alcohol they would show they were fit enough to be enfranchised, this angered the NCA and O’Connor who were not in favour of these alternative bodies which in fact spilt parts of the Chartist movement and ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

The association also went against O’Connor strong belief that the vote is every man’s right and therefore it was wrong to have to qualify for it.

It is these types of divisions in the party that have resulted in the belief that the chartists failed because of these internal divisions which left a divided organisation quarrelling over issues such as which tactics are the correct ones to be using rather than concentrating on attempting to change the political system.

As well as internal disunity the Chartist had to overcome many other barriers before reaching their goals and these can equally be seen as the reasons for the failure of the chartists.

It is possible to see that the chartist campaign failed because unlike many seen previously it was a single-issue campaign that had not achieved the support of the newly enfranchised middle classes. Theses classes were uninterested in helping the chartists as what they were proposing would be political equality and thus they would lose the ground and the status they had gained from the 1832 reform act, in effect how could the chartist compete with a class ridden society of Victorian England.

The chartist would soon find without the help of the middles classes there was nothing realistically that the chartists could do to improve their positions. The support of the middles classes would have allowed the chartists a step into the door of the House of Commons that was still strongly dominated by the landed classes. With the help of the middle classes the chartists could have gained more attention from the government; as they would have been fearful of the results of the combinations of the working and middle classes and thus may have paid more attention to the ploys of the chartists.

The chartist received much opposition and hostility from those within the House of Commons and the Government, who were mainly the landed interest as they believed the Chartists to be a potential threat to public order and who should be ‘contained’ many had no intention of conceding in anyway to there demands or even accepting there was a case. This in it’s self can be seen as a reason why the chartist campaign failed, facing such opposition as they clearly did, with no way into the house of commons how were the chartist going to produce the changes they wished for. Nothing that the chartists were campaigning for was in the mood of the political times of those who had ‘stake in the country.’

It almost seems that it would be impossible for the Chartists to get the changes they wanted and reforms they believed were needed until England’s rulers had accepted the need for a more democratic government, as without the cross-class alliance and virtually no support in the Houses of Commons reform through pressure form the Chartists alone looked very unlikely to be beneficial.

The chartists faced strong opposition in their campaign from the state and this can be seen as a clear reason for the failure of Chartism. There had always been much suspicion between the working classes and the government, Peterloo remained in the minds of many working classes and the government were fearful of revolution and over reaction at Peterloo happening again.

The Chartists faced differing Governments that each took different approaches to the chartists some repressive and some less so but each as fearful as the rest. Lord John Russell had Henry Vincent arrested and banned drilling and permitting the arming of citizen defence forces in the run up to the July submission of the petition to parliament. Yet in 1848 Russell allowed a Chartist procession to bring the Petition to he House itself. It is these mixed reactions that caused such confusion to the chartist, they felt they were making progress then the government would change its mind and become repressive again. Until the Government had become certain on what hey wanted and what they were willing to give, the Chartist were going to have little success in their own campaign no matter how much campaigning and support they had.

Throughout the Chartist period the forces that were available to the state had been dramatically increased and improved. In 1839 there was no real local police force and the control of public order remained at last result to the army. The chartist were lucky as during this period the man in charge of the northern district was General Napier a man sympathetic to the Chartists and thus warned them against the use of force and curb the enthusiasm of the local JP’s. By 1848 many towns had their own local police force.

This increase in the power of the state through the army and police forces enabled mass arrests to be carried out much easier as a result of this the chartist had to be more aware of their own actions and what hey results could be. With such strong forces as the government, state and police force it seems very unlikely that the Chartists could have succeeded in their campaign having facing such obstacles.

As well as the power of the state against he chartists they also faced a judiciary system very much weighed against them; many of the judges were from upper middle-class backgrounds and had little understanding of sympathy towards to ploys of the working classes and chartists.

Many of the judges when sentencing the chartist would first give a political speech to them outlining the advantages of a social system such as that in Britain. The judges would then set bails that would cause many chartists to crumble.

The Chartist faced fierce opposition from the Judiciary, Parliament and a middle class that was firm their new position with such opposition it seems the failure of the chartists was inevitable.

The chartist believed strongly that improvements and reforms to working class life couldn’t come without the vote, so when changes occurred such as the Mines Act 1842, the abolition of the Poor Law Commission in 1847 and the ‘Ten Hour’ Act in 1847, it become clear that reform was possible without the vote, such reforms many believed came as result of agitation to make issues clear to the government.

In conclusion it should be said that to say ‘Internal disunity’ was the sole reason for the failure of the chartist is untrue, although the lack of clear leadership between differing types of chartist some believing in ‘moral force’ some in ‘physical force’ caused agreements and wasted internal disagreements these problems can’t be seen as the main causes to the failure.

The sheer power of the Government, Judiciary and army stood in the face of the Chartists and to overcome this and the attitudes of many at this time would have been an almighty task for any political organisation.

The chartist were a group that put pressure on the government and made many in the society open their eyes to some of the possible changes that should take place yet it seemed that until society and those within the political system felt change was needed little could be done, thus resulting in the abandonment by the majority of the charter after 1848.