Chartism had succeeded

[Crimson King]

Didn't it also demand annual elections? Would there be constant complaints that the vote of only one year earlier was not being respected?

[yellowperil]

Eventually, one might argue that all 6 demands have been achieved bar the annual elections one. Maybe if these had been achieved sooner (and some took nearly a century to achieve) we might have moved sooner to the next set of demands, including female suffrage and the reduction of the voting age fom 21 to 18 and then 16.

[iang]

What they were demanding in context was revolutionary - and there was a significant division between peaceful ("moral force") Chartists and "Physical force" Chartism. What they were also objecting to was the way the 1832 Great Reform Act had largely excluded the working classes. 1832 sets Britain on a programme of incremental change ("Reforming to preserve and not to overthrow" as every one of my A level students going back years would be able to chant, as I made them say this whilst drinking cups of Earl Grey tea). The wisdom of hindsight suggests this was successful (the Whig interpretation of history, which would presumably please the author of this thread). Six demands were too many perhaps - the ACLL is successful with one (and more money, and better organisation, and a presence in parliament). Why is Chartism important? It does a great deal to enthuse and energise working class communities. There's also something of a debate about how many signatures there were and how genuine these were. Perhaps without Chartism, the five of the six demands would have taken longer to achieve. There's an alternative viewpoint that says that it makes it less likely that radical change will come. Interesting topic anyway - would recommend Malcolm Chase's book, and the short book by E Royle. Now back to marking Year 11...