This source has been extracted from the memoirs of a well- known suffragette, Emmeline Pankhurst . It covers the subject of militancy within the suffragette movement in the nineteenth century, by discussing the letter burning protests. This was a time in which women felt, was completely male dominated and therefore, they began to stand up for themselves. The main theme of this extract is a political stance, discussing the actions by these women, they felt they were forced to take because the government were not listening. From a young age Emmeline realized how clear it was that men considered themselves superior to women. She soon learned that the education of girls was deemed less important than those of boys and this angered her. At the age of fourteen she attended her first suffragette meeting and became ‘a conscious and confirmed suffragist’ .Her memoir is an account of the events up until 1914, around the outbreak of the First World War. It tells her story in her own words of a long, bitter struggle against a very male dominated political system. Emmeline wittingly and proudly gives us details of the actions taken against the postal service, stating ‘within a few days the newspapers rang with the story of the attack made on letter boxes in London, Liverpool, Birmingham, Bristol and half a dozen other cities’. Her Memoirs could help inspire already radicalized suffragettes who felt their support in the war effort deemed the government to rethink their stance on women’s rights. This was meant to be read by those sympathetic to the cause therefore Emmeline gives this information freely and precisely.
The key parts of this extract to look at, are the unwitting evidences Emmeline provides us in the acts of destruction they felt were needed to provoke the government and the people. The suffragette militancy began in 1905 and lasted up until 1914. It is important to differentiate between ‘a suffragette’ and ‘a suffragist’, as both wanted the same outcome but went about it in completely different ways. A suffragist believed in a nonviolent approach whereas the suffragette preferred the more ‘direct approach’. Emmeline and her daughters took a new direction in 1903 and formed the Womans Social and Political Union (W.S.P.U) where they demanded, not requested, the votes for women.
‘In deeds, not words.’ (Emmeline Pankhurst,1903) became their motto. By 1913 they had stepped up their campaign of terror and their acts of destruction across the country included the cutting/ bombing of telephone links, defacing art and attacking anywhere of social or economic importance. Jessie Stephen, organizer of the Domestic Workers Union, recounts her part in the acid attacks on Glasgow pillar boxes, ‘I was able to drop acid into the postal pillar boxes without being suspected because I walked down from where I was employed in my cap, muslin apron and black frock.’ This source includes evidence that Emmeline’s memoirs included acts to inspire and her reasoning for such actions. She also talks about the letter burning protest being a ‘deep sense of gravity’, they did not want to carry out acts of such magnitude but felt they had no choice. Emmeline also cleverly mentions a recent tragic event of that time, the sinking of the Titanic, this was an event still fresh in peoples’ minds, it would have provoked in some, views of sympathy and agreement that the loss of life was greater than the loss of valuables or objects. This comparison was made by Emmeline to their cause, that the crimes against women out way the loss of any letter- ‘and so to call attention to greater crimes against human beings, our letter burning continued’. (Emmeline Pankhurst, My own words.1914).
In conclusion, Emmeline’s recount does more than just give us her version of events, unwittingly she gives us an insight into the lives of these women. Those reading it may have varied views. To some at the time, it may have been compelling and inspiring but to those reading nowadays, some may find it drastic and a step too far. It also helps the historian raise questions about why they went to these lengths? I was not aware of the full extent of the destruction caused and had a simplistic view of the suffragettes before researching into them. Emmeline’s extract has opened a change in my cultural aspect and made me question why the events were left hidden? There could be a view of terrorism nowadays in some of the events carried out , an article in the Telegraph Newspaper, 10 February 2007, called ‘Suffragettes were like Al Qaeda’, discusses a paper produced by Dr Chris Bearman in which he states ‘ their actions were designed to terrorize the government , but they would not dare be seen to give in to violent tactics’. He also deems them as ‘carefully calculated, stage managed and cold-blooded crimes, their actions would now be seen as acts of terror’. I first, believed this to be a strong view to have, to compare the actions of women trying to better their lives, to those of someone intent on destroying the lives of others. But when listening to a pod cast from Fern Riddell, on similar discussions, she explains how these women were highly skilled and open about it. Fern sates that Emmeline’s daughter Christabel was quoted in 1913, to say ‘why should women not make use of the same weapons of men?’. In other words, if women can be seen to fight like men why can’t they be then equal to them?
This short extract limits us to understand Emmeline’s account, but if we look deeper it can help us question, motivation, political stance of the time and to look at the character of a person. You can feel the passion and dedication of the author to her cause. Was the violence morally justifiable? This depends on individual views, but it certainly does not detract from the bravery of the women who dedicated their lives to the fight for rights we have now.
2018-10-9-1539115810