"The movement fell apart from within" - Is that an adequate explanation for the decline of Chartism?

Résumé du document

Chartism was the most important popular mass movement of the 19th century and aimed at ending working-class misery by gaining political rights. These political aims were specified in the 1838 People's Charter from which the movement takes its name. Three petitions were brought to the Parliament in 1838, 1842 and 1848 but failed. In fact, if the petition of 1842 managed to get 3,3 million signatures, according to John Carlton, "by the end of 1848, Chartism as a mass movement capable of mobilizing tens of thousands people was dead" and the organisation of Chartism faded out in the 1850s. The fact that the contemporary historian Gammade wrote the history of Chartism in 1854 shows that at this time, Chartism was almost already a thing of the past. Thus, it is legitimate to wonder what has led to this sudden decline.

To explain it, early historiography focused especially on the division within the movement, and historians like Gammage emphasized a lot the rivalries between the leading personalities . Moreover, many historians have left aside for long the issue of the late Chartism and the reasons of the decline . This is partly linked t a problem of chronology: for some historians like Stedman Jones, the cut-off point was 1842 (in spite of the revival of 1848) while for other it is the failure of 1848 or the divisions of the 1850s.

Extraits

[...] Chartism fell apart but did it fail? Chartism did not manage to achieve the 6 points of its programme and manhood suffrage was reached only in 1918, but we can also argue, as Dorothy Thompson, that Chartism has achieved a lot in the sphere of independent working class organization[34]. BIBLIOGRAPHY BROWN Richard, Chartism Cambridge, perspective in history CARLTON John, The Chartists: the first national worker's movement, Pluto Press DINWIDDY J.R., Chartism, Historical Association Chapter: The problem of decline EVANS Eric, The forging of the modern state, Pearson Education Chapter 29 (The politics of pressure: Chartism) JONES David, The Chartism and the Chartists, Allen Lane Chapter: The struggle for survival and Epilogue JONES Stedman, Rethinking Chartism, Languages of class, Cambridge University Press pp. [...]

[...] Thus, it is legitimate to wonder what has led to this sudden decline. To explain it, early historiography focused especially on the division within the movement, and historians like Gammage emphasized a lot the rivalries between the leading personalities[2]. Moreover, many historians have left aside for long the issue of the late Chartism and the reasons of the decline[3]. This is partly linked t a problem of chronology: for some historians like Stedman Jones, the cut-off point was 1842 (in spite of the revival of 1848) while for other it is the failure of 1848 or the divisions of the 1850s. [...]

[...] To my mind, the main element of the decline of Chartism is that it relied on the argument that social and economic changes could only be achieved by gaining political rights, and when these improvements were implemented in the 1840s and 1850s by the State's legislation, Chartism had no more “raison d'être”. Moreover, the liberalization of the State was combined with repression, which weakened Chartism; as a result I would argue that the State's double role was the main factor of Chartism decline, and that in such a political context, the decline of Chartism's audience was unavoidable. But I am also convinced that some other factors, even minor, came to reinforce the decline of Chartism, such as the evolution of class-consciousness and the conjectural economic boom. [...]

[...] So even if most historians agree that considering the Chartist decline only in term of changes in the class consciousness if a simplistic view, it is still important to pay attention to the role class, because even if Chartism is not a class consciousness movement of “hunger protest” and is more political, it is clear that those who were excluded from the franchise were the working class and as a result the Chartism claims concerned the working class. So studying class evolution in the decline of Chartism seems relevant, even if it remains a minor factor in comparison to the other factors explained above. To finish, economic arguments can be combined to sociological ones to explain the decline of Chartism. [...]

[...] In London some unrests continued but very few men were involved because they feared repression. In 1848, after the repeated failures and the imprisonment of many leaders, the Chartists and O'Connor himself felt that the working class could not realistically achieve their enfranchisement without the help of other groups, and lost their self- confidence. Moreover, when the authorities forbade O'Connor to organize a procession, O'Connor complied, fearful of bloodshed and asked to disperse peacefully. It was a real humiliation for Chartism, which was no more a mass threat. [...]