How far does the power of the state explain the decline of Chartism by 1850?

Question 1

“How far does the power of the state explain the decline of Chartism by 1850?” - line of argument

Answer 1

• government was very effective in dealing with chartists
• however, it is difficult to envisage that, even if the movement had stronger regional representation and a unified leadership, Parliament would have accepted the Charter

Question 2

“How far does the power of the state explain the decline of Chartism by 1850?” - paragraphs

Answer 2

• power of state caused failure of Chartism
• – effective organisation and resources and strength of government support
• weakness of the movement caused failure
• – lack of organisation / weak leadership
• – limits to support of the chartists

Question 3

“How far does the power of the state explain the decline of Chartism by 1850?” -
power of the state caused failure of Chartism
- organisation and resources
- strength of govt support

Answer 3

• organisation and resources employed by the state were a formidable obstacle –> Napier: restraint, railways, loyalty of the army //Judicious use of legal system: avoid martyrs, disrupt movement //Increasing use of police forces as the 1840s progressed: reassures country that state is in control and not reliant upon army
• • Westminster provided a united front against demands they were never going to agree to –> Evidence of united front – rejections of all three petitions with low turnouts //Governments felt strengthened having effectively detached middle class form working class: 1832 GRA meant m/c were now effectively part of the establishment which the Chartists had to fight // govt reforms undermined the rationale of Chartism itself that only a reformed parliament would pass laws sympathetic to w/c: indirect taxes on food reduced, repeal of Corn Laws, Mines Act etc

Question 4

“How far does the power of the state explain the decline of Chartism by 1850?” -
acc caused by weak leadership

Answer 4

lack of unity within Chartism itself undoubtedly made the task of suppressing this movement far easier for the state –> Leadership divisions between Lovett and O’Connor//Decision making ability of O’Connor: raising expectations with language but not always matched in specific incidents such as Sacred Month, Plug Riots and Kennington //Reliance upon petitions made them predictable and there was no real alternative offered that could have seen them succeed
- difficult to envisage Chartism exerting sustained political pressure upon both the Whig and Tory governments that would have seen further political reforms passed.

Question 5

“How far does the power of the state explain the decline of Chartism by 1850?” -
limits to the support of the chartist

Answer 5

• In contrast to the united political class at Westminster, support for Chartism itself among the working class was not so consistent. Despite being more organised than radicals of previous generations (NCA, Northern Star)–> Dependence upon economic conditions: for many the trade unions became a better option of improving their conditions; also number of artisans who provided much of the initial support for Chartism was in decline as industry became increasingly mechanised // Regional variations: Liverpool (ACLL), agricultural labourers, Wales (post Newport) // Failure to attract m/c support
• This widespread movement, irrespective of the millions signing petitions during times of distress, was always unlikely to overcome the united political front which existed at Westminster.