Ben Halford 13X

To what extent do you agree with O’Connor that the “new move” was just a diversion?

During the late 1820's and early 1830's some chartist had resorted violent demonstrations to get their views and opinions across, this period of time was know as the first surge. However although some changes were granted with the 1832 Reform Bill many chartist were still discontent with the rights granted to them from parliament. When the First Petition was turned down it finally hit home to William Lovett that to win parliament over violence was not needed but their respect. Williams new plan was to try a change in stance by peaceful means, from the years 1839-1843 this period of time would come to be known as the "second surge" and the "new move."
By writing a book (A new organisation for the people) Lovett inspired many to his new cause and Chartism was implemented into a way of life for the working classes. People had started to join groups and the main three groups: The ‘Knowledge Chartists’, ‘Church Chartists’ and the ‘Teetotal Chartists' would become a part of everyday life for many. 
However this new move did come to some opposition, Fergus O’Connor believed that this was the wrong direction for Chartism and openly criticised Lovett's move on a number of occasions.
Ultimately Chartism would be split into 2 groups, firstly the Moral Chartists who wanted to gain government respect and secondly the Physical Chartists who wanted to use violent actions to force the government to give them what they wanted.

During the 1830's O’Connor had recognised the need for better organisation within the state via elected officials and a permanent central structure, yet O’Connor would also believe, that to give Chartism a more powerful influence, a mass democratic platform would also be needed.
The National Charter Association (also know as the NCA) would be the first group to use O’Connor’s ideas and based their association around them. By using a policy of "self help" O’Connor would come to strongly agree with the ideas of the NCA. However this changed after Lovett's book was published and "new movers" were born, setting out to renew the political aims of the London Man's Working Association.
Out of this Knowledge Chartism were created by "new movers" and they accepted that culture had to be embraced by society and turned into a way of life.
Their aim was to represent many within the working class and to create a government respected movement via the belief of "Self Help" thus creating a change in movement to the "moral force."
This Knowledge Chartism was ultimately a move by Lovett to educate the working classes via adult education, so that the Middle classes would accept Chartism and by doing so uniting the lower classes and providing a great influence within society on a whole. 
However this movement was strongly criticised O’Connor but in actual fact the term "Knowledge Chartism" was a sarcastic joke towards O’Connor by Lovett. 
O’Connor believed that by furthering the interests of the working classes by uniting with the middle class this would actually destroy the unity of the chartist movement as it was moving against the original aims of the LMWA.
Although Knowledge Chartism would provide a new stance in ways of approach by their policy of self help and the determination to gain the middle classes, O’Connor thought this was a step in the opposite direction because he believed it was destroying the unity of the movement.

Along with the arrival of "Knowledge Chartism" was "Church Chartism" (who were also "new movers") which also believed in Lovett's ideas and the ideals of "self help."
The Church Chartist used Religious Language to "Preach Chartism" and used many religious approaches, many of the leaders within Church Chartism belong to the church and therefore it was easy for them to gain the support of clergymen. At least 40 clergymen sympathised with the chartist movement and actually believed the new testament contained "elements of Chartism."
One of these Clergymen (Joseph Raynor Stephens) went even as far to claim that the second coming would be based on "unrighteous civilisations", many chartists believed this to be the punishment of those who opposed Chartism and went even as far as calling "unbelievers."
This movement was clearly an attack on the Anglican Church and didn't gain much prestige from that of the already established Tory-Anglican influence.
The problem being that Church Chartism had become to be seen as an alternative to regular church.
However in Scotland Church Chartism was already strongly related with the church where they would read Chartist Newsletters etc... during services.
Another reason Church Chartism wasn't strong in England was because of the fact it tended only to influence the south, this would change when O'Neil opened a church in Birmingham believing it was the only "true" church and that the others should no longer separate themselves from it.
Again the Lovett based Chartism was under attack by O’Connor, church Chartism barred Irish Catholics from its cause which upset O’Connor who was himself Irish.
He also argued that it diverted from the true meaning of Chartism as it was a political movement and shouldn't involve religion.
Church Chartism’s overall aim was to unify the church with Chartism to create an even stronger chartist influenced society, and although fear and criticism from O’Connor who called it a "diversion" from the political aims of Chartism the movement never really succeeded on a whole.

As well as both Church Chartism and Knowledge Chartism, another "new move" to emerge from the influences of Lovett was "Teetotal Chartism" or "Temperance Chartism."
"Teetotal Chartism" involved being sober to gain respect from the government as being drunk related people to being irresponsible, however alcohol had long played a large part in working class society and this seemed to be very "contradictory."
Despite this however "Teetotal Chartism" grew in population during the 1830’s and 1840’s.
Another group who supported "Teetotal Chartism" was the NCA however they never actually implemented sobriety into their aims.
Again many thought that teetotalism was very contradictory as it was public houses which were the first and many meeting places which had been used discuss Chartism and radical ideas.
The working class’s association with alcohol was seen to be connected with drunkenness and the evils of this lead to poverty within society, if they could rid themselves of this association with alcohol the chartist had aimed to prove themselves to the government as respected members of society.
As members grew "Teetotal Chartism" was becoming more and more regarded as a class of dignity, if they could retain this dignity it would be unfair for a Government to turn such a class down from the rights which they had come to deserve.
However the church were very keen on the idea as they had always been a keen supporter of sobriety, learning of this interest by the church Lovett sprang up lots of campaigns claiming teetotalism was the key to self-improvement. Campaigns were also set-up by Henry Vincent who had long been a supporter of sobriety and self improvement.
These positive factors collectively created a strong bond between the middle and working classes which was un-reachable by some other chartist groups.
Again though O’Connor who seemed to be fond of criticising anything Lovett influenced, claimed it to be "diluting" the real aims of the LMWA and strongly believed that "Teetotal Chartism" was breaking apart the union within Chartism as there were many who did not believe in abstinence. Despite this however being pro-temperance himself, he was even quoted to  have said "If I was monarch for twenty-four hours. I’d level  every gin palace with the dust" which shows his strong views supporting teetotalism.
On the whole these groups of people set out to improve their self and social status, in many respects this did work however it did cause divisions within the chartist movement and in affect "diluting" the aims and political ideologies to which Chartism was originally based.

One more but less major class however emerged from the "new move" and this was "Local Chartism." The idea was to unite a community and together spread the word of Chartism, this worked for some communities but not all.

On the whole O’Connor was very much against all the organisations which emerged with the "new move."
As stated above after each movement, he was against and criticised them because they were not completely going with the original aims of the chartist movement and he blamed Lovett for this as it was Lovett who had pretty much been started the "new move" and "second surge" via his book which influence many. O’Connor also believed these organisations to be very elitist, and therefore many divisions were formed which also quarrelled with one another about which was right etc... which weakened the original bond within Chartism. O’Connor thought if they were all united then they would stand a much better chance of defeating their enemy (the government).

From a final look I think its fair to say some aspects of the "new move" were a diversion like that of "church Chartism" as it was furthest away from the original political ideologies of the chartist movement, so in that respect I believe O’Connor to be right and also the fact it did cause "divisions" which did weaken Chartism. However I believe that the "new move" was ultimately a very good thing and not totally a diversion as the three main "new moves" had created a bond with the middle class which was essential but at the small cost of weakening the bond within Chartism.