How and Why Are the Two Accounts of the Chartists Meeting so Different?

381 Words2 Pages
How and why are the two accounts of the Chartists meeting so different? The two accounts are completely different opinions. The first speech I am going to talk about is Feargus O'Connor. 1848 according to O'Connor was Petition delivered! O'Connor in his account is defending all the people who joined the Chartists. The first line of his speech says "We never meant to start a revolution! Thousands joined the Chartists because they were desperate". This suggests that O'Connor is justifying that the Chartists only joined because the food prices had risen steeply, so people did it out of desperation. In my opinion, I quite agree with him. He also states "People lost their jobs because factories were losing orders". This implies that people in 1848 couldn't even afford food with or without the food prices rising. Therefore, I wouldn't agree on that statement. Many people had signed the petition because they were fighting for their rights. If that was me, I would probably join the Chartists, since it would be my only hope. According to the Duke of Wellington, the revolution was unsuccessful. Wellington in his account is picking holes in the Chartists and over reacting about some of the riots. Moreover, he's being utterly unfair and biased towards the Chartists. In the introduction of Wellington's account it says "In 1848, the Chartists caused trouble again. They said it was because of unemployment and high food prices". This is a vastly unfair statement. It makes the Chartists look like scum, when they are only fighting for what they need urgently. Also he says in the middle of his account "They said their petition had over 5 million signatures but many were forgeries. They even forged the Queen's signature - and mine"! As in O'Connor's account it says "Wellington says that lots of the names were forgeries but that's unfair. Many people could not write so they
Open Document