Ashley Blog #5: Photographs of Perpetrators

These two pictures, taken from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum website, depict Lithuanians actively participating in the implementation of the Holocaust. The top picture, submitted by the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research, shows a Lithuanian guard outside Ponary in 1941 and a group of Jews moments before their execution. In the space between the two trees, more Lithuanians are seen, armed and waiting to murder the circled Jews. This photograph shows the active involvement of the Lithuanians in all aspects of the Holocaust killings, including the round-up of victims and their guarding. The second picture, taken from Kovno in 1941 and donated by Ernst Klee, shows a group of Lithuanian volunteers rounding up the Jewish citizens of Kovno. They would later go on to launch a pogrom, targeting the Jews of the city. The picture shows the men as armed and uniformed, yet not in the usual strict formations typical of staged Nazi photographs. Instead, they almost appear to be milling about, showing the lack of structure and control in their actions. These men were not trained soldiers, and the bottom picture shows this.

The Coronation of George V - Militant as Joan of Arc

     This photograph shows WSPU member Marjorie Bryce as Joan of Arc. The significance of this photo relates back to the importance of the symbol of the WSPU. These women recognized the importance of the creating an image. For them the coronation of George V offered a fantastic opportunity to exhibit a strong image. The reason that the WSPU did not react militantly during this coronation came from an agreement made earlier for the WSPU to suspend militant activity during the coronation because of the upcoming vote on the Conciliation Bill. This bill had the opportunity to give some of the female population of Britain suffrage, so the various women's organizations all agree to suspend activity during the coronation as an act of good faith.

     This image of the WSPU alone would be quite strong, yet with the added connection to Joan of Arc made this image even greater. Joan of Arc historically has held a connection to a strong independent woman who stood up against many people, notably the English government. This image helped to give British women a connection to a strong woman. This helped the WSPU in creating a positive image for themselves, especially with the level of dislike the public harbored for the militant women. This rest in their activities sought to create a different understanding of the WSPU who at the time attempted to work with the government, this proved to be futile with the rise of the Manhood Suffrage Bill, which could be reformed to include women. Instead of using the Conciliation Bill, which would have offered women a better chance of receiving the vote!

The City Tavern

This is the City Tavern in Philadelphia. This tavern was at the center of the America Revolution because of its location. This tavern was located in Philadelphia, towards the center of the city. It was this tavern that people like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and Paul Revere frequented. Paul Revere came to this tavern, along with others, to discuss Philadelphia's options concerning the movements of he British Army. It was in this tavern that George Washington and other delegates stayed in during the First Continental Congress, as well as delegations after the new nation was formed. People came to this tavern to discuss political ideas while having a drink. The City Tavern was an influential building during, and after the American Revolution.

First Class Life Boats

     I chose this photograph of the Titanic during its voyage in order to begin a conversation about social class. If you look at the picture, which is of the top deck, you see people walking around and you see the lifeboats. What is significant about the lifeboats pictured is that they were located on the top deck which only first class people had access to. There were also lifeboats located in the second class area. My point in bringing this up is that on the night the Titanic sank, something as simple as the placement of the lifeboats on the ship affected who survived and who did not. The third class passengers were located further down into the ship and some survivors described getting to the top as a maize and only with trial and error could they find a passage to the top decks where the lifeboats were being loaded.
    The ship contained a strict social structure with each class having a specific identity and purpose for travel. Most first and second class passengers were on vacation whereas a lot of third class passengers were immigrating to the US and many of them did not speak English. One survivor, Lawrence Beesley, wrote in his book that it took a long time for people to realize they were in danger. After they realized the ship was sinking and no one was going to rescue them, there was a rush for the lifeboats. The crew members made sure that only first class people got on the first class lifeboats, and second class people got on the lifeboats designated for them. As the night progressed into the early hours of April 15, 1912 and people pushed the class limitations that were set up for them. This photograph illustrates the focus of my paper which is an examination of who survived the sinking of the Titanic and what factors were involved including social class, gender, ethnicity, and age.

Blackface poster, 1900.

The person in the picture is Billy V. Van, a performer from the early 1900's. He was a progressive Blackface performer in minstrel, vaudeville, burlesque, and stage performances. This poster was used to promote the Wm. H. West's Big Minstrel Jubilee in Alabama in 1900. The purpose of the poster was to promote the show to the public and other performers, and encourage others to attend.

As one can see in this poster, the man is portrayed in his original look on the left, and in Blackface on the right. One the left, he is portrayed to look sophisticated and confident, with his hair sleeked back and dressed in formal attire, while his head is held high. On the right, the image is changed to a different portrayal. He looks disheveled, with his hair uncombed, and he clothing is designed to look as if he is poorer due to the lower style of collar, and the lack of decoration on his clothing, where the guy on the right has a slight hint of ruffle, meaning he is richer and can afford better material. He features are over exaggerated, and his expression is one of bewilderment, making him appear to be uneducated.

This is a typical representation of Blackface during the time, basing the Black image off the slaves that worked on the plantations, who were uneducated and did not have the opportunity to achieve wealth the way the White members of society would have. It is also a way that they made Black members seem to be of a lesser people, making them appear to be more uneducated or less sophisticated than some may have been, creating a general belief for the audience on the race as a whole.

Photo credit: http://library.artstor.org/library/iv2.html?parent=true#

Photo: Rukeyser - Bloody Sunday

Confrontation at Barrier 14

By: William Rukeyser

This is a colored photograph taken January 30th, 1972, a date otherwise known as Bloody Sunday. William L. Rukeyser was a American freelance photographer and reporter working for CBS News at the time Bloody Sunday occurred. In Northern Ireland to cover the civil rights movement taking place at this time, Rukeyser was one of the few media persons who could actually look onto the movement with relative objectivity. Being an American Jew led to opportunities for him to report and photograph the March that took place on Bloody Sunday without showing affiliation to one group or the other. He took many photographs of the actual shooting, some of which, like this one, are from behind British paratroop barriers. All of these photos have remained in his possession, excepting the brief periods they were used on American television stations. This photo offers a perspective on how the British troops regarded the Irish civilians, who seem to be throwing stones at the soldiers. His other photos, some of which are the deceased victims, portray a solemn scenario over what Bloody Sunday actually entailed: the death of innocent civilians. If you're interested in some of the more dramatic photos taken by him (all of which are in color), the direct link is http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/rukeyser/rukeyser-derry/.

Connecting primary to secondary

So this week I have been connecting primary sources to my secondary sources.
While reading over George Washington's travels throughout the new nation, I have noticed that he attended, and lodged, at many taverns. Most of the time he stayed at this taverns because of his travels, but other times he attending meetings and functions at these taverns. For example, the City Tavern in Philadelphia was a center location for activities before, during and after the Revolution. George Washington states, "Dine at a Club at the City Tavern." The term Club, here, means a group of certain that meet for a specified reason. These people would meet to discuss certain topics, more specifically the actions that Philadelphia (and the 'new nation') should take in response to the British government and it's invasion. Washington mentions staying at the City Tavern 10 more times throughout his diary. Robert Graham, in his article "Taverns in Colonial America" takes considerable notice of the City Tavern because of its centrality to the Revolution. Graham also notes its importance and states that many Founding Fathers walked through its doors (Graham, 322).
As I continued to read "Taverns in Colonial America," I noticed a pattern in my primary sources and secondary sources. In Samuel Cooper's diary, he also mentions the City Tavern, along with other taverns he frequented, with George Washington on some occasions.
After finishing Taverns and Drinking in Early America, I have also noticed a correlation between taverns, and meetings and the spread of news. Taverns and Drinking in Early America, by Salinger, argues that taverns were a place of culture, rather than just a bar. Although she did note the heavy amount of alcohol drank by the colonial citizens, she showed that these places were necessary for the progression of the town. This correlates with my primary sources, especially after the nation was founded. George Washington, along with many other founders, used taverns as a means to an end. They lodged at taverns while convening the Continental Congress, and other events. These taverns also provided space for meetings, which Salinger shows through her text.
Overall, this week has been about making connections between the sources I have.

Ashley Blog #4: Hilberg vs Goldhagen vs Witt: The Question of Motivation

I nearly forgot to make a blog post this week! Things are getting pretty hectic on my end. That being said, I’ve decided to focus this week’s blog post on the arguments I’m going to be evaluating in the Review next week. I’ve decided to examine two of the leading WW2 historians, a pair that not only fails to get along, but that also bring up a few interesting points about the motivations behind genocide. For those of you who have taken any Dr. Patton class, you’ll probably recognize Raul Hilberg and Daniel Goldhagen. The citations for the two books I’m examining and the analysis are below.

Hilberg, Raul. Perpetrators, Victims, Bystanders: The Jewish Catastrophe 1933-1945. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993.

Goldhagen, Daniel. Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1996.

When looking at any act of war, the question of motive is always the forefront on any reader’s mind. However, this question is also highly nuanced and complicated. There are many shades of grey. This is particularly true when examining the reasons that a person or group targets another, as in the case of genocide. For historians of the Holocaust, the question of motive is one that may never be fully answered. However, leading historiography on the topic has nevertheless attempted to wade through this debate. While a full, complete answer may be out of our grasp, these historians have nevertheless put for theories to support some motives as playing a larger role than others.  It is this debate which is taken up by Daniel Goldhagen in his book Hitler’s Willing Executioners, and by Raul Hilberg in his book Perpetrators, Victims, Bystanders: The Jewish Catastrophe 1933-1945. Their findings, however, do not coincide.

Goldhagen’s book, which sparked considerable controversy with its findings, seeks to understand “the actions and mind-set of the tens of thousands of ordinary Germans who… became genocidal killers” (Goldhagen 4). He focuses his book around three primary subjects: the perpetrators, anti-Semitism in Germany, and German society’s role in the Holocaust. By combining these three subjects together, Goldhagen states that he seeks to facilitate “radical revision of what has until now been written” (Goldhagen 9). His findings, however, are incendiary; rather than suggesting the perpetrators of the Holocaust were driven by the conventional motives – coercion, obedience, situational pressure, self-interest, or bureaucratic myopia – Goldhagen instead writes that the perpetrators were driven by “ideas about Jews that were pervasive in Germany, and had been for decades” (Goldhagen 9). These ideas, he states, created a new breed of bloodthirsty anti-Semites that, “having consulted their own convictions and morality and having judged the mass annihilation of Jews to be right, did not want to say ‘no’” (Goldhagen 14).

This was understandably met with disbelief from the academic community. To suggest that all those involved in the killings of Jews, from clerks signing papers to soldiers at the killing pits, were driven by an innate cruelty completely overlooks any other reasons that may have been behind the genocide. Hilberg’s book, though more of a compliation of information than an argumentative essay, nevertheless states that the non-German volunteers “varied in their motivations. Some of these men wanted to avoid hard physical labor; others wanted privileges or prestige; still others were inspired by conviction” (Hilberg 87). He further suggests that individual motives may have been stronger for different ethnic groups. While Goldhagen states that Lithuanians and other Baltics “came from cultures that were profoundly anti-Semitic” and “were animated by vehement hatred of the Jews,” Hilberg suggests otherwise (Goldhagen 409). He states that the Lithuanian pogroms were “instigated by the newly arrived German Security Police,” and that the volunteers were merely “a second tool in the hands of the German occupation authorities in the east” (Hilberg 91-92). He argues in favor of anti-Soviet leanings as the driving motivation for Lithuanians, rather than extreme anti-Semitism.

These questions of motivation are tricky to juggle. In my paper, I will be taking a middle ground between both of these scholars, suggesting that, while Hilberg is correct in placing importance on the role of anti-Soviet propaganda, he is incorrect in his overemphasis on the role of the German soldiers in instigating Lithuanian uprisings. From my evaluation of the primary sources, I believe that it is this anti-Soviet atmosphere, coupled with the idea of Jewish Bolshevism, which drove so many Lithuanians to commit genocide. This is not to say that I agree with Goldhagen; Lithuanians as a whole are not radical murderers. However, there is something uniquely fascinating about the eagerness of the Lithuanians to participate in the Holocaust, and it is this eagerness that my paper will address. 

Origins/ portrayals of Blackface and its use in politics

The article I have been focusing on this week is titled "'Jim Crow", "Zip Coon": The Northern Origins of Negro Minstrelsy". This article begins by looking at the first noted use of Blackface, which is believed to be in Ancient Greece.  It takes this into perceptive, and looks at the origins of the Blackface seen in the period from 1860-1920, where most of the imitation of Blacks were based off the viewpoint of the performer copying what he believed he was seeing from the slaves, taking their lives and either making them seem negative  or positive depending on the interpretation the actor was wanting to show.

The "stage Negroes" as they were called, were the White men who were dressed in Blackface, and this article exams the fact that with the people on stage representing Blacks, the way the Whites interacted with the stage Blacks on and off the show portrayed the "attitudes toward "real" Negroes"Often, these performers were always portrayed as very patriotic, with a satirical side, and used to express opposition  for eqlual rights for the Blacks. The article uses the example of performers imitating a drill for military, but doing it poorly and slowly, as if they were supposed to have a hard time understanding the concept. The common reaction was simple, and is stated in the article as "This emphasis upon incompetent martial exercises reveals that a Negro in military service continued to seem incongruous and amusing to White Americans"

However, the article is also quick to point out that any African who actually was on the stage, and there were a few, were suppressed and left mostly to comedy. Africans who participated in tragedies were considered to be "not full-blooded Negroes", and that the only portrayal of Blacks that was considered acceptable was "the combination of blackness, rags, grotesqueness, song, dance and dialect".

"These devils are not fit to live on God's earth": War Crimes and the Committee on the Conduct of the War, 1864-1865

The beginning of this article is focused on the reaction of the North shortly after the Massacre at Fort Pillow. The author states that many citizens of the Union called for a gruesome fate should Rebel forces try to surrender during the war. For instance, the article quotes a story from the Indianapolis Daily Journal advocated for the slaughter of Rebel soldiers and stated "and their blood be upon the heads of the Fort Pillow Butchers."Fort Pillow even drew attention from Abraham Lincoln, who spoke of retaliation against the South for Fort Pillow if the allegations made were proved to be true.

This is when the article gets into the Congressional investigation. The investigation was called for by a senator from Michigan who was concerned about the treatment of black soldiers. The legislature was not unanimous in their decision to pursue the investigation however, it took some debate and the resolution calling for the investigation was passed with an amendment. The congressional committee which was already heavily antislavery, chose two members to serve as a sub-committee to investigate the Battle at Fort Pillow. The two men chosen were an outspoken antislavery Republican Senator from Ohio and a moderate former lawyer who was a Republican House-member from Massachusetts. What complicated and possibly fueled an even more exaggerated report from Congress was that the Committee as a whole visited a Naval Hospital shortly after a shipment of P.O.Ws from the Confederacy arrived in terrible condition before publishing the report on Fort Pillow. Upon this visit, the Committee decided to publish both reports together rather than separately.

Due to the two reports being published together, it was determined that the Rebel forces were engaging in the policy of brutal murder and starvation. However, the reports should have been published separately. After all, one of the findings to describe the massacre was that the Rebel force murdered the soldiers at Fort Pillow in a bloodlust until the Commander Forrest order them to stop. Fort Pillow was not part of a policy of murder or starvation, but the product of a racist reaction to black soldiers. However, due to the motives of those in the Congressional Committee that heavily favored antislavery sentiment and the restructuring of Southern society, the reports were combined to show a lack of civilization within the Rebels.

Tapp, Bruce. "'These devils are not fit to live on God's earth': War Crimes and the Committee on the Conduct of War, 1864-1865" Civil War History 42, no. 6. (June 1996) 116-132.

The Gold Standard of Titanic History

     The focus of this blog will be to analyze another secondary source titled A Night To Remember by Walter Lord. I came across this book after seeing its title several times in my other secondary source books and journal articles. All of my other secondary sources have come from the 1990's and 2000's, so I decided on a hunch I should see what earlier historians have written and why this book in particular has been quoted by recent scholars. A Night To Remember, published in 1955, is important because it seems to be the gold standard or at least one of the first  historical books published about the Titanic after it sank. Although Lord did not include footnotes or a bibliography, the book was intriguing and I didn't want to put it down after I started reading it.

    Because he did not include footnotes or anything that current historians would use to measure the validity of a historically accurate book, I decided to do a little research about Walter Lord and I found that he has satisfactory credentials. The website for the Titanic Historical Society has a thorough biography of Mr. Lord. According to the Society, Lord was American and he lived from 1917 to 2002. He got a bachelors degree in history from Princeton in 1939. He worked as an intelligence analyst in London and as a code clerk in Washington D.C. during World War II. After the war ended, Lord returned to school and earned a law degree from Yale. Shortly after that he became a copywriter in New York and began to publish books about history. A Night To Remember was extremely successful and according to the article, Lord interviewed around sixty survivors while conducting research for his book. In 1956 there was a television series based on the book, and two years later it was made into a film. Lord went on to publish many more historically based books into the 1980's.

      Part of Walter Lord's charm was that he included second to second details starting with the moment a lookout spotted an iceberg in the Titanic's path and ending with the experiences of the survivors that were rescued by the Carpathia's crew. It is easy to imagine every scene that Lord described and he eloquently moved back and forth between passengers belonging to different classes as well as the various members of the crew. Because he used so many quotes from survivors, the book reads almost like a primary source. Lord did not give much of his own analysis, he was purely interested in the facts surrounding the sinking of the ship as well as the experience of those aboard the Titanic. In his book he also included a full list of the names of Titanic passengers split into the different classes in addition to a section about pure facts including maps and lists of exactly who survived based on gender, class, and crew (which is useful to my research topic). What I liked best about this book is the passion Walter Lord wrote with while he told the history of the Titanic.

     My only negative critique of Lord is that it was often hard to tell who was talking and how he knew what that person said. Because he does not list sources and does not use footnotes, it is unclear where he got his information.  The Titanic Historical Society source stated that he did conduct interviews which is great that he was able to get first hand accounts. He would use quotes from people on the ship, but he would not say who had told him that information. Also I sometimes wondered if he had assumed certain things or embellished upon facts to sensationalize the story. Overall I did enjoy reading the book, and it is always important to know what the gold standard is on your topic especially for the Titanic because there has been a lot published about it, much of which is more popular culture and not scholarly.


Krebs, Albin and Richard Pyle. "A Tribute to Walter Lord." Titanic Historical Society. Accessed September 24, 2013. www.titanichistoricalsociety.org.


Lord, Walter. A Night To Remember. New York: Bantam Books, 1955.

Bloody Sunday: The Soldiers

There are countless testimonies from the witnesses of Bloody Sunday. Testimonies about the March itself, testimonies of the shooting, and testimonies of the after-effects. These testimonies have come from active participants of the civil rights march and also from innocent bystanders. What we do not hear much of, though, are the comments from the soldiers themselves, the shooters of Bloody Sunday. It was truly only during the Saville Inquiry that their side of the story was heard. And unfortunately, many of their stories provided no more evidence 35 years later, than they did when the first report was made.

Why were so many of the soldiers untruthful? Other witnesses who listened to the soldiers' replies to the Inquiry also asked that question. Mara Young, a relative of one of the victims from Bloody Sunday, stated "I was expecting some of them, especially the shooters, after 35 years, to tell the truth," which evidently they did not (McMann 85). Michael McKinney also felt the same: "Soldiers were given immunity from the prosecution to come in and tell the truth and they came in and lied their heads off" (McMann 85). Young and McKinney were not the only witnesses who felt outraged at the untruthfulness that seemed to be coming from the soldiers, who were even referred to as A, B, etc. to retain their anonymity. Johnny Campbell, the son from one of the deceased victims of Bloody Sunday recalled that "The deeper they went into their evidence, the bigger the hole they were digging. They had their stories all mixed up, and their stories were stupid...In a way, the lies were worse than the actual shooting. Without the lies I might have forgiven them the shooting...They had all that time to say it and they didn't" (McMann 92).

While we will never know for sure why exactly the soldiers lied twice about what really happened on Bloody Sunday, assumptions for their responses can be made. Absolution from punishment is not everything, even with the assurance of anonymity with the testimonies. Peer pressure from within the groups could have swayed the soldiers responses. Their claims of "I can't remember" may have been legitimate, especially considering that the Saville Inquiry took place over three decades since the event occurred. And maybe moral consciousness was not enough to sway the soldiers' decisions on what to say during the Inquiry. After all, it had been over 30 years. Why bring up the past? Why bring up memories that for some, are best forgotten? To be sure, truthful responses while maybe relieving their consciences, would also have probably disrupted their lives in the future.

An important note that I find worth mentioning, however, is that while the responses from the soldiers may have been slightly untruthful, so too could have been the witnesses testimonies. Biases from this event are rampant everywhere. As you have probably noticed from the quotes earlier, most of them were from relatives or friends of the deceased. Therefore, their recollections of whomever was involved in the march, while possibly very truthful, also have the chance of showing a skewed perception. Perceptions of the witnesses could include a nationalist viewpoint or a unionist outlook.None of them are going to be completely objective; it's simply impossible.Thus, just like with the soldiers' testimonies, I also have to make sure to intake the civilian responses with a grain of salt.

McCann, Eamonn. "Soldiers." In The Bloody Sunday Inquiry. London: Pluto Press, 2006. 

Narrowing Down

So far this week, I have been frantically searching for a visual image to illustrate something that has to do with the Spartacus War. I have found many of Kirk Douglas and the newer actor that played the role of Spartacus, but I get the feeling that isn’t going to cut it for this assignment. Now I am looking into trying to find a piece that may be a bit simpler that I can elaborate on. Not necessarily a painting, as most would be after date anyway, but perhaps a wall-cut or examples of the shackles that slaves would have worn. I am not entirely sure what I am going to use yet, but I will definitely have something nailed down by class on Thursday.

                In other news, I am now trying to decide exactly what direction that I am going to be going in this paper. As my style of writing is more biographical than argumentative, locking down a specific argument is proving to be slightly more difficult. I think I have landed on doing a semi-comparison with the first Sicilian Slave War and discuss the intentions of each. I would then look at the movements of Spartacus, and the separations and opinions within his army, and explain how the task for Spartacus was much different and the goal was much less clear. For this I have a source by Barry Baldwin which talks in a lot of detail about possible intentions, but also has a lot of points that could be argued.

                In conclusion, now that I have become closer to finishing up choosing a thesis I am able to begin to narrow some of the primary sources that I have been sifting through. Between all of the different collections that I have bought or ordered I have hundreds of smaller primary sources that I can choose from. Thankfully, many of them have to do specifically with the topic that I have chosen. I also, rather luckily seeing as it is a new idea, have many that also discuss the first Sicilian Slave War. As I’m supposed to be narrowing, I am also still ordering and trying to find new sources that could help the process along. I just recently ordered a volume set that was written by Appian that I found a lot of my secondary sources referenced in their writings. At this point, as our guest speakers recommended, I am still researching and seeing where it takes me. Thankfully I have a topic that I enjoy, and just enough time to do some final tweaking.   

Blog Post #4 - Another Secondary Source - WFL

     This week for my blog post, I analyzed another secondary source. The book The Women’s Suffrage Movement in Britain, 1866-1928 by Sophia A. van Wingerden gives a full explanation of the women’s movement in Britain, specifically dividing it into sections chronologically. Most of the beginning of the book is devoted to things before what my topic discusses so I will not analyze those. Instead, I focused on the later parts of the book beginning with Wingerden’s chapter on the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU). This source is helpful due to its nature of being a more well-rounded compilation of women’s suffrage in Britain. Instead of being centered on the WSPU, this source offers details of the many women’s organizations in Britain. Wingerden also includes the interactions between these organizations in her analysis. With this, a better understanding of the public is achieved. Before the WSPU, none of the organizations had acted in a militaristic way. Therefore, the shock and disgust for these women who decided to stand up makes sense, even if now it seems drastic.

     Specifically Wingerden refers to the first act of militancy within the suffrage movement. This happened in October 1905. Two WSPU members, the passionate Christabel Pankhurst and the working class heroine Annie Kenney asked a question in a Liberal meeting; following this, the men erupted in anger, with the police arresting both young women. Annie Kenney remembered the incident saying, “The old life had gone, a new life had come,” (Wingerden 72). This began the very common theme of women, especially WSPU members being arrested regularly and frequently on repeated occasions. Yet for the militant movement the violence happened in a gradual escalation. In the first few years of usage, it did not include the window-smashing, painting slashing, or hunger strikes. Instead, these women used an anti-government policy, disrupting meetings, and sending groups of women to see the prime minister. These early tactics proved also to be ineffective, which led to the escalation of outward violence.

     The other major point this source gave me centers on the Women’s Freedom League. Up until this point, I thought that the Women’s Freedom League developed independently from any of the other women’s organizations. Reading Wingerden’s work instead tells a different story. The Women’s Freedom League came from the WSPU. The roughly 75 members who broke away wanted a different organization that held a more democratic leadership than the WSPU. Within the WSPU, the leadership centered on the Pankhursts and their close friends the Pethick-Lawrences, although specifically the leaders for all intents and purposes were Emmeline and Christabel. This internal fracturing shows that not all the women could accept Emmeline’s and Christabel’s leadership. Instead the women’s suffrage movement had yet another organization add its voice to the fray, hoping to be heard above the rest. Yet the one organization and voice that continued to stand out among all the others can only be the one which  used something different, something more aggressive, those things could be found in only one organization, the WSPU.

Wingerden, Sophia A. The Women’s Suffrage Movement in Britain, 1866 – 1928. London: MacMillian Press LTD, 1999.