Pigford vs Glickman Timeline

The Pigford vs Glickman case was a lawsuit against the USDA because of their racial discrimination against African-American farmers. These allocations all started coming about from the period 1981 through 1996. During the Great Depression, there was a White dominance in the Democratic party in the south that overlooked the African-American farmers. By the year 1992, the number of black farmers had decreased by almost 98%. As early as 1981 allocations began to arise that the USDA was not fairly treating African-American farmers with the same respect that they did as other groups. These farmers were saying that they were being denied loans or that they were told that they would have to wait longer to receive the approval for the loans. Many of these farmers were facing foreclosure and financial ruin because of the USDA denying these loans. In 1994 the USDA commissioned a study on the treatment of minorities in the FSA or also known as the Farm Service Agency. The study specifically examined crop payments and disaster payment programs. From the years 1990 to 1995 it was shown through the research that the minorities had received much less help from the FSA. In 1996, the Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman ordered that government foreclosures be suspended so that the issue of discrimination could be investigated. During this time protests began to rise. They were protesting against the USDA. They were saying the USDA should have been there for them and their employees. They felt that the USDA was a "Crude Joke" because it had not helped them at all in any way shape or form. In 1997, the trial of Pigford vs. Glickman began and it was a lawsuit on the USDA for the withholding of loans to minority groups such as African-Americans. On April 14, 1999, the lawsuit was settled. This settlement now makes sure that the USDA has to meet certain guidelines when making loan decisions for these farmers.

Sources:

Cowan, Tadlock and Feder, Joey."The Pigford Cases: USDA Settlement of Discrimination Suits by Black Farmers. PDF" Congressional Research Service, 29 May 2013. https://nationalaglawcenter.org

Clemence and Laurence Housman found the Suffrage Atelier

"What a woman may be, and yet not have the vote". This banner was produced at the Suffrage Atelier in 1912. Wikimedia Commons.

Following the formation of the Artists' Suffrage League, founded by renowned stained glass artist, Mary Lowndes, in 1907, which produced illustrated banners, postcards, and pamphlets used to promote the campaign for women's enfranchisement in Britain and North America, Clemence and Laurence Housman established their own Suffrage Atelier in 1909. Its practices took place at  artists' homes, before the Housman siblings offered the site of their small home, Pembroke Cottage in Kensington, as its headquarters. Though the location of its headquarters would change three more times within its five operational years, the collective vision of the Atelier remained the same: it was to act as an arts and crafts society which worked towards the enfranchisement of women, with an additional effort to encourage artists to forward the women's movement by means of pictorial publications. (VADS, "The Women's Library: Suffrage Banners")

In contrast with its predecessor, the Artists' Suffrage League, the Housmans' Suffrage Atelier encouraged non-professional visual artists and enthusiasts to submit their work to the cause in addition to professional artists, and also offered a small percentage of the sold works' profits as compensation. The Atelier also contrasted with its associates, the Women's Freedom League (1907-61) and the Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU) (1903-17), stylistically, by means of the colours its members chose to use in the creation of its feminist propaganda. While the other organizations used white, green, and purple, which are commonly known as the defining colours of the suffrage movement, the Atelier used a broader range of hues, as depicted in one of its banners (at left), wherein blue, black, and gold are used. Clemence led the team, and also lent her talents as an embroiderer, illustrator, and wood engraver to the Atelier, often spending entire days sitting on a floor cushion, doing her needlework or engraving in order to benefit the cause. Laurence designed a number of the Atelier's banners.

As Clemence Housman was a respected member of the WSPU, much of the Atelier's work could be found for purchase within its store chains and also within the pages of its national newspaper. The Atelier held printmaking workshops and competitions in addition to the numerous exhibitions, political rallies and processions its members would regularly attend and circulate their artwork at, while also allowing for new and meaningful relationships to be forged between women as they worked collaboratively to aid a feminist cause which married the artistic with the political. The feminist nature of the workshop's artistic operations also subverted the common belief that embroidery and needlework reinforced women's domestic place within the home. The Suffrage Atelier ran from 1909-14. (Morton, "Changing Spaces: Art, Politics, and Identity in the Home Studios of the Suffrage Atelier")

WSPU Founded

On october 10th, 1903, the WSPU was founded by Emmeline Pankhurst. The foundation was a militant wing of the womens suffrage movement in Great Britain. The group garnerd a lot of distaste in the time period because of their extreme methods. They would often interupt political meetings, hold huge marches, chain themselves to railings outside of parliment, and battled with the police. Some of their more problematic behavoirs included pouring acid on mailboxes and defacing artwork in the national gallery. When arrested, the women would often hold hunger strikes to garner media attention for their cause. However, once world war 1 arrived, these women slowly faded out to get behind the war efforts, and eventually the group officially disbanded in 1917. In 1918, the British government granted suffrage to women over 30 because of their efforts during the war. 

Death of Wilde

30 November 1900 was the day Oscar Wilde died (in the Latin Quarter, Paris). Image: Photograph of Oscar Wilde. This image is in the public domain in the United States because its copyright has expired.

Articles

Ellen Crowell, “Oscar Wilde’s Tomb: Silence and the Aesthetics of Queer Memorial”

Related Articles

Andrew Elfenbein, “On the Trials of Oscar Wilde: Myths and Realities”

Second Boer War

On 11 Oct 1899, war was declared between Britain and the Transvaal Republic and Orange Free State, two independent Boer nations in southern Africa. The Treaty of Vereeniging concluded the Second Boer War on 31 May 1902. The fighting had resulted in c. 45,000 British military casualties and around 40,000 combined military and civilian casualties among the Boers. Eight years later in 1910, the Union of South Africa made the region a dominion of the British Empire. Image: Walter Crane, “Stop the War,” page 297, The War Against War in South Africa, 23 February 1900, wood engraving, courtesy of Yale University.

Articles

Jo Briggs, “The Second Boer War, 1899-1902: Anti-Imperialism and European Visual Culture”

Birthright Citizenship

Wong Kim Ark was a person born in the United States and has lived in the United States for most of his life, however, he was denied of reentering into the United States after a visit to China in the year 1895. Despite this was not the first time he visited China, since he had one prior visit when his parents decided to go back to China, he was not allowed to re-enter into the United States because of the election of Democrat a President Grover Cleveland and the passing of the Geary Act earlier that year, which both resulted in stricter regulations of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. Wong Kim Ark's parents had left the United States because of stress from law and increasing racial hatred toward Chinese. Both of which were making the business of their store harder to sustain. After going back to China, the outlook for Wong Kim Ark's career was not good. Thus, he returned to the United States in search of a job that will support him. 

One reason the "UNITED STATES v. WONG KIM ARK" court case was conflictual was that Wong Kim Ark's parents at the time of Wong Kim Ark's birth achieved permanent residence and supporting business in the United States. Since they "are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China", it means that they were under the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" (UNITED STATES v. WONG KIM ARK, 1898). When writing the Fourteenth Amendment, the reason for writing and including the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was to exclude ambassadors, foreign soldiers, and Native Americans at the time who did not have to pay tax from becoming citizens of the United States(Thomas, 2010). What's more, the case of Wong Kim Ark also brings into the question of is citizenship a result of "jus soli (by soil) or jus sanguinis (by blood)", which is quite problematic for Americans at that time (Thomas, 2010). If there was admittance to jus soli, then there will be admittance to thousands of black people and denial to many children born outside of the United States. If there was admittance to jus sanguini, there will still be a great number of citizens of different races within a generation (Thomas, 2010). 

Work Cited

Citizenship [Video file]. Retrieved October 4, 2020, from Kanopy. https://purdue.kanopy.com/playlist/378649

Department of Justice. Immigration and Naturalization Service. San Francisco District Office. "An 1894 notarized statement by witnesses attesting to the identity of Wong Kim Ark. A photograph of Wong is affixed to the statement." Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia. United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Web. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark#/media/File:...

Thomas, Brook. "China Men, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, and the Question of Citizenship." American Quarterly 50.4 (1998): 689-717. Web. https://purdue-primo-prod.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/f/1c3q7im/T...

Thomas, Brook. "The Legal and Literary Complexities of U.S. Citizenship Around 1900." Law & Literature 22.2 (2010): 307-24. Web. https://purdue-primo-prod.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/f/1c3q7im/T...

UNITED STATES v. WONG KIM ARK. Supreme Court of United States. 169 U.S. 649 (1898). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3381955771263111765&hl=zh-C...

The last trial of Oscar Wilde

Oscar Wilde was subjected to a total of three trials from March till May of 1895. The first trial saw Wilde taking the Marquess of Queensberry. The second was twenty-five counts of gross indecencies and conspiracy to commit gross indecencies. The final trial was for gross indecency, and Wilde was arrested. The third trial was the nail in the coffin. Starting on May 20^th, 1895, Wilde was formally charged with seven counts of gross indecency (alos referred to as sodomy). In an effort to get a conviction, the prosecution presented only the strongest witnesses, and the trial was described as ‘gruesome’ and ‘horrifying’. Wilde was declared guilty on six counts, with the exception being Edward Shelley. He was sentenced to two years of hard labor (the maximum sentence) and served his time at Reading goal. The last two trials took place at the Central Criminal Court of England and Wales, also known as Old Bailey. 

Wilde’s trial and the aftermath form an interesting commentary on gender, class and sex. Some of the notable follow-ups are that Lord Douglas was never formally prosecuted and was protect by his father’s status, while Wilde was thrown to the dogs. Another was the speculation that the Liberal government was especially harsh on Wilde because the then Prime Minister Archibald Primrose, Earl of Rosebery was suspected of having an affair with yet another of Queensberry’s sons. It is also interesting to note that prior to these trials, the attitude towards homosexuals was almost pitiful, but after the trial they were viewed as predatory and dangerous. And finally, it is worth noting that despite all of this, lesbianism was not criminalized, and sexual acts between women were for all intents and purposes legal. It was formally added as a part of the Criminal Law Amendment Act in 1921, but was defeated in. the House of Lords. 

Trials of Oscar Wilde

The trials of Oscar Wilde, which occurred in April and May of 1895, have become legendary as a turning-point in the history of public awareness of homosexuality. By their close, Wilde had gone from being a triumphantly successful playwright to a ruined man, condemned to two years of hard labor for gross indecency. They garnered extensive coverage first in the London press and then in newspapers around the world; the story of the trials continues to be retold in ways that have persistent relevance for contemporary queer culture. Image: Photograph of Oscar Wilde, by Napoleon Sarony. This image is in the public domain in the United States because its copyright has expired.

Articles

Andrew Elfenbein, “On the Trials of Oscar Wilde: Myths and Realities”

Western Australian Constitution Act

On 25 July 1890, the British parliament passed the Western Australian Constitution Act, 1889 (52 Vict. No. 23), including Section 70 which attempted to protect and support the welfare of Aboriginal people. Image: Coat of Arms of Australia. This image is in the public domain in the United States as its copyright has expired.

Articles

Ann Curthoys, “Settler Self-Government versus Aboriginal Rights, 1883 – 2001: The Shocking History of Section 70 of the Western Australian Constitution”

Dissolution of the Samurai Class

In the years leading up to and following 1873, the government of Japan worked to gradually dissolve the Samurai class. The government at this point in Japan’s history was working to unite the upper and lower classes and create a system where all were equal, sentiments displayed in the Meiji Restoration’s Charter Oath, a sort of founding document for the new government. So, the government began to merge ex-Samurai into the rest of society. They did so at times with incentives, such as providing lots of opportunities for ex-Samurai to find employment in government projects like land reclamation and the railway industry. They also did so at times with mandates, such as abolishing their pension system, preventing them from carrying swords, discontinuing old styles of Samurai garb, and making rulings to end their once-held legal privileges. While many were able to adjust to their new way of life, many found their new lives a poor trade for what they once had. But hey, what could a group of highly trained, proud men who were suddenly stripped of their entire identity possibly do in retribution? Oh, wait . . .

Sources:

• “The Charter Oath (of the Meiji Restoration), 1868.” Columbia University Asia for Educators
• Harootunian, Harry. “The Progress of Japan and the Samurai Class, 1868-1882.” Pacific Historical Review 28, no. 3 (1959): 255-266. doi: 10.2307/3636470.

Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act

On 26 July 1869, the Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, received the royal assent. This act reinstated compounding, the collection of tenants’ poor rates along with their rent, a practice that had been eliminated by the passage of the Second Reform Act Image: The Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Articles

Janice Carlisle, "On the Second Reform Act, 1867"

Second Reform Act

On 15 August 1867, the Representation of the People Act, 1867 (also known as the Second Reform Act), received the royal assent. This act increased the electorate of England and Wales to approximately one man in three, theoretically including substantial numbers of working-class men. Image: The Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Articles

Janice Carlisle, "On the Second Reform Act, 1867"

Related Articles

Carolyn Vellenga Berman, “On the Reform Act of 1832″

Elaine Hadley, “On Opinion Politics and the Ballot Act of 1872″

Herbert F. Tucker, "On Event"

Sarah Winter, “On the Morant Bay Rebellion in Jamaica and the Governor Eyre-George William Gordon Controversy, 1865-70″

Edward John Eyre indictment hearing

The Jamaica Committee’s first attempted indictment, at Market Drayton in Shropshire, of Edward John Eyre, ex-Governor of Jamaica, for the murder of George William Gordon; hearing ends in Eyre’s discharge by the grand jury. Image: Photograph of Governor Edward John Eyre, circa 1870, by Henry Hering. The Caribbean Photo Archive. This image is in the public domain in the United States because its copyright has expired.

Articles

Sarah Winter, “On the Morant Bay Rebellion in Jamaica and the Governor Eyre-George William Gordon Controversy, 1865-70″

Hyde Park demonstration

Hyde Park Demonstration of the Major Reform League on 23 July 1866. After the British government banned a meeting organized to press for voting rights, 200,000 people entered the Park and clashed with police and soldiers.

Related Articles

Peter Melville Logan, “On Culture: Matthew Arnold’s Culture and Anarchy, 1869″

Sarah Winter, “On the Morant Bay Rebellion in Jamaica and the Governor Eyre-George William Gordon Controversy, 1865-70″

Morant Bay Rebellion

A rebellion by Black peasants against unjust treatment by Jamaican courts breaks out at Morant Bay, Jamaica on 11 October 1865. Image: Photograph of Governor Edward John Eyre, circa 1870, by Henry Hering. The Caribbean Photo Archive. This image is in the public domain in the United States because its copyright has expired.

Articles

Sarah Winter, “On the Morant Bay Rebellion in Jamaica and the Governor Eyre-George William Gordon Controversy, 1865-70″

Recruitment of Colored Troops in the American Civil War

At the beginning of the Civil War in 1861, black men were not recruited for the Union army. But two years later, the Emancipation Proclamation issued by President Abraham Lincoln allowed recruitment of African Americans to fight for the Union.

As an abolitionist, Massachusetts’ governor, John A. Andrew, pushed for funding and black men to join the war effort. Andrew had wanted a black regiment to fight for Massachusetts since the beginning of the war, but it wasn’t until the passing of the Emancipation Proclamation that he was able to begin recruitment for all-black regiments in Massachusetts. Andrew worked with abolitionists, both black and white, to encourage formation of an all-black regiment. Most black men were hesitant to join the United States Colored Troops (USCT), as word had gotten around that treatment of any black soldiers captured by the Confederates would be worse than treatment of a white Union prisoner. White Union officers who commanded these black soldiers would be executed if captured as well. Despite this, recruitment for a 54^th and 55^th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry, all-black regiments, began just a month after the Emancipation Proclamation was issued. Governor Andrew was able to enlist 1,000 men and raise money for the regiment he hoped would stand as an example for future colored regiments. Because of the worries of black men joining the Union to fight, recruitment had to be done outside of Massachusetts as well. But by May, the 54^th infantry was full.

The 54^th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry, led by Colonel Robert Gould Shaw, is best known for the Assault on Fort Wagner. Although the 54^th Massachusetts Infantry lost the battle, these soldiers showed that black men were capable of fighting for their freedom just as white men were. After their valiant efforts at the battle of Fort Wagner in July of 1863, black enlistments climbed to reach a new high. General Ulysses S. Grant wrote of the black soldiers in a letter to President Lincoln that arming Negroes was a big blow to the Confederates, saying that “these Negroes were the Union’s strong ally”.

Works Consulted:

Brown, Katie O’Halloran. “Letters of Black Soldiers from Ohio Who Served in the 54^th and 55^th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantries during the Civil War”. Ohio Valley History, vol. 16, no. 3, 2016, p. 72-79. Project MUSE. muse.jhu.edu/article/631460.

Robbins, Peggy. “The 54^th Massachusetts’ War within a War”. Military History, 2003, p. 62-70. ProQuest, https://search.proquest.com/docview/212668658?accountid=13360.

Sale of the final piece of Chartist property

June 1858 saw the sale of the final piece of Chartist property, definitively bringing to an end the efforts of the Chartist Cooperative Land Company. The Chartist Land Company was a large-scale, explicitly political version of freehold societies. Conceived by the Chartist leader Feargus O’Connor in 1842, the Company, like freehold societies, purchased large tracts of land through subscriptions and then sold smaller parcels to subscribers. It attempted to re-create village life by building cottages, hospitals, and schools, and setting aside one hundred acres for common use.

Articles

Ellen Rosenman, “On Enclosure Acts and the Commons”

Chris R. Vanden Bossche, “On Chartism”

Petition for Reform of Married Women’s Property Law

On 14 March 1856, presentation of the Petition for Reform of the Married Women’s Property Law, 1856. The petition began the joint effort by lawmakers and public women to grant married women control of their own wealth.

Articles

Jill Rappoport, “Wives and Sons: Coverture, Primogeniture, and Married Women’s Property”

Related Articles

Rachel Ablow, “‘One Flesh,’ One Person, and the 1870 Married Women’s Property Act”

Anne D. Wallace, “On the Deceased Wife’s Sister Controversy, 1835-1907″

Sojourner Truth Addresses the Women’s Rights Convention of 1851 at Akron, Ohio

The Women’s Rights Convention of 1851 at Akron, Ohio was one of the numerous events throughout 19^thcentury United States for the extended rights of women. Numerous advocates delivered speeches at this Convention however it is best known as the venue for a former slave Sojourner Truth’s address, later popularized as “Ain’t I a Woman.”

Born in 1757 as Isabella Baumfree as a slave in the Dutch-speaking Ulster County, New York, she was bought and sold into slavery four times and forced to marry a slave with whom she had five children. She was emancipated in 1827 and renamed herself Sojourner Truth in 1843 post which she became an itinerant speaker. She met abolitionists William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglas who encouraged her to give speeches about the evils of slavery. She also joined forces with Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthonyfor Women’s Suffrage Movement in the United States. Although she never learnt to read or write, she was a woman of uncommon courage. In her extemporaneous speech, she took a stance for the suffrage rights of women. She not only questioned the white man’s privilege and argued for women’s suffrage rights but also shed light on the additional challenges facing Black community especially Black women. Even though the Ohio Constitution of 1851 ultimately denied women the right to vote, several versions of Truth’s address which begin with the audience dissing her and concluded with a standing ovation from the same audience, definitely popularized as one of the greatest orators in the 19^th century for the rights of women.

Works Cited:

"A Nation Being Redefined, 1975-2000 / Equal Rights Amendment / Women's Rights Convention of 1851." American History. ABC-CLIO, 2013. Web. 29 May 2013.

 “Sojourner Truth.” Sojourner Truth - Ohio History Central,  ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Sojourner_Truth. 

 “Sojourner Truth.” National Parks Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, www.nps.gov/wori/learn/historyculture/sojourner-truth.htm.

Seneca Falls Convention

On July 19 and 20 of 1848, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, Mary M’Clintock, Martha Coffin Wright, and Jane Hunt came together to organize the Seneca Falls convention. This was the first woman's rights convention in the United States and launched the women’s suffrage movement. The convention was held in Seneca Falls New York at the Wesleyan Chapel. The idea for the convention was the result of Stanton and Mott meeting at an anti-slavery convention in London in 1840 where they were required to sit in a sectioned off area because they were women. Eight years later, the two of them reunited and, along with Wright, M’Clintock, and Hunt, organized and publicized the convention in just five days. Despite the short notice and the lack of solid publicity, over 300 people attended the convention. The first day of the convention was open only to women, but men joined in on the second day. Over these two days, the attendees discussed and ratified the Declaration of Sentiments, an assertion of women’s rights in the United States, and it was signed by around 100 of the attendees. This convention began the women's suffrage movement in the United States and many of the organizers dedicated their lives to gaining women the right to vote. 72 years later when women were finally granted the right to vote, only one woman who had signed the Declaration of Sentiments was alive.

Works Cited

History.com Editors. “Seneca Falls Convention.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 10 Nov. 2017, www.history.com/topics/womens-rights/seneca-falls-convention.

Rynder, Constance B. “Seneca Falls Convention.” HistoryNet, 1999, www.historynet.com/seneca-falls-convention.

The First Women's Convention

The first spark of the continuing movement of women's rights began early Wednesday morning on July 19th, 1848. In a small Methodist church located in Seneca Falls New York, the first ever women's convention was held. The convention was organized by a group of women known for their actions in political reform. The primary women included Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, and Susan B. Anthony. 

The first meeting of these women was held in one of their homes, where they discussed the utmost importance of a women's rights reform. They decided that a women's convention should be held in order to educate and spread the word of equal rights for both men and women. Cady Stanton and the other women then drafted what they titled: “The Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions”. This document was constructed by paraphrasing parts of the Original Declaration of Independence. The Document began by declaring that “all men and women are created equal”. It then proceeds into a list of subcategories staging different political injustices. Some of the Injustices included women being denied access to voting, access to higher education, and access to certain professions. Other injustices discussed women not receiving equal pay for equal work done by their male counterparts as well as women's lack of property rights without marriage. Overall the declaration consisted of over a thousand words and it concluded with the demand of these injustices being reformed. 

The convention lasted a total of two days and overall there were about 300 people in attendance. The first day of the convention was meant primarily for women attendance, but around 40 men showed up at Wesleyan Methodist Church. The organizers decided to let the men stay regardless of the fact that the convention was initially held specifically for women. From Wednesday morning till late Thursday evening, the group of people discussed the Declaration of Sentiments and as well as its' resolutions. They made changes to the document in areas they saw fit and then concluded the convention with a signing of the document. One hundred people signed the document and of those one hundred people 68 were women and 32 were men. 

The New York media coverage of the event was less than supportive. Many were upset at the suffrage idea and were less than afraid to speak their minds. Many major papers mocked the event and stated that the declaration and its ideas were downright amusing. The only paper that took the convention seriously and respected the reforms wanting to be made was the liberal New York Tribune. The New York Tribune may not have agreed with all of the events demands due to the idea that equal political rights were deemed improper. But they did bring light to the event in a manner that showed respect for the assertion of natural rights. But as word of the convention traveled locally it began to make its way beyond the state lines of New York. Soon the convention spread rather rapidly throughout the entire nation and quickly became known as the first spark of women's rights in the United States. 

Source:

Rynder, Constance. "'All men and women are created equal.' (1848 Women's Rights Convention)." American History, vol. 33, no. 3, Aug. 1998, p. 22+. Gale Academic OneFile, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A20927186/AONE?u=purdue_main&sid=AONE&xid.... Accessed 10 Oct. 2020.

Chartist Rally, Kennington

On 10 April 1848, Chartists rally on Kennington Common, south London. Image: Poster advertising the "Monster" Chartist Demonstration, held on 10 April 1848, proceeding to Kennington Common, Rodney Mace, British Trade Union Posters: An Illustrated History. This image is in the public domain in the United States because its copyright has expired.

Led by Feargus O’Connor, an estimated 25,000 Chartists meet on Kennington Common planning to march to Westminster to deliver a monster petition in favor of the six points of the People’s Charter. Police block bridges over the Thames containing the marchers south of the river, and the demonstration is broken up with some arrests and violence. However, the large scale revolt widely predicted and feared fails to materialize.

Articles

Jo Briggs, “1848 and 1851: A Reconsideration of the Historical Narrative”

Chris Vanden Bossche, "On Chartism"

Opening festival for O’Connorville

17 August 1846 saw the opening festival for O’Connorville, the first Chartist settlement. Image: Plaque commemorating Feargus O'Connor at Heronsgate, Hertfordshire. This image is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

Articles

Ellen Rosenman, “On Enclosure Acts and the Commons”

Chris R. Vanden Bossche, “On Chartism”

Manchester strike

Manchester strikes began on 8 August 1842. Following the rejection of the second petition, the Chartists sought to join forces with striking workers in the industrial region around Manchester, who were protesting a reduction in wages, but once again government forces moved quickly to suppress the ensuing riots. Image: Engraving depicting a Chartist riot from 1886 book True Stories of the Reign of Queen Victoria by Cornelius Brown. This image is in the public domain in the United States because its copyright has expired.

Articles

Chris R. Vanden Bossche, "On Chartism"

Related Articles

Jo Briggs, “1848 and 1851: A Reconsideration of the Historical Narrative”