(a) Describe the tactics used by Alice Paul and the National Woman's Party from 1913 to 1920. [5] (b) Explain why Alice Paul's approach created divisions wi...

(a) Tactics used by Alice Paul and the National Woman's Party from 1913 to 1920

Alice Paul organized a large suffrage parade in Washington, D.C., on 3 March 1913, the day before President Wilson's inauguration, attracting approximately 5,000 marchers. The parade was disrupted by hostile crowds, and the failure of police to protect the marchers generated national sympathy for the cause. Paul formed the Congressional Union in 1913, which became the National Woman's Party (NWP) in 1916.

The NWP organized sustained pickets outside the White House beginning in January 1917, with women holding banners demanding the vote. When picketers were arrested and imprisoned, many went on hunger strikes and were subjected to brutal forced feeding at the Occoquan Workhouse. Paul also pursued a strategy of campaigning against Democratic candidates in suffrage states, aiming to punish the party in power for failing to pass a federal amendment.

(b) Why Alice Paul's approach created divisions within the suffrage movement

Paul's militant tactics alarmed the leadership of NAWSA under Carrie Chapman Catt, who preferred a moderate approach combining state-by-state campaigns with patient lobbying of Congress. NAWSA feared that aggressive protests would alienate sympathetic politicians and turn public opinion against the entire suffrage cause.

Paul's strategy of opposing all Democratic candidates, regardless of their personal position on suffrage, angered Democrats who actually supported women's voting rights, potentially losing valuable allies. The spectacle of women being arrested and force-fed outside the White House was seen by some suffragists as undignified and counterproductive. Paul's willingness to confront President Wilson directly contrasted sharply with NAWSA's cooperative approach of working with the administration from within.

The split between NAWSA and the NWP echoed the earlier division between AWSA and NWSA, once again dividing resources between competing strategies and creating the impression of a movement that could not agree on how to pursue its own goals. Some suffragists believed that Paul's tactics gave opponents ammunition to portray suffragists as radical, unreasonable, and unfit for political participation.

(c) 'Alice Paul was more important than Carrie Chapman Catt in winning the Nineteenth Amendment.' How far do you agree?

Evidence supporting the statement: Paul's dramatic protests attracted national media attention and kept suffrage in the headlines when the issue might otherwise have faded from public consciousness. The images of women being arrested and force-fed generated widespread public sympathy and embarrassed the Wilson administration. The NWP's confrontational approach created political pressure that complemented NAWSA's quieter lobbying. Paul's personal willingness to suffer for the cause inspired younger activists and demonstrated the depth of commitment to suffrage.

Evidence supporting Catt's importance: Catt's 'Winning Plan' of 1916 coordinated state campaigns with the push for a federal amendment, creating a systematic strategy that covered all political fronts simultaneously. NAWSA had far more members - approximately two million compared to the NWP's 50,000 - and its lobbying network reached every congressional district. Catt cultivated a productive relationship with President Wilson and helped persuade him to publicly support the amendment in January 1918. NAWSA's state-level victories built the political base necessary for ratification by three-quarters of the states.

Balanced conclusion: Both leaders were essential to the ultimate success of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920. Paul created urgency, public awareness, and political pressure through dramatic action, while Catt provided the organizational infrastructure, political strategy, and grassroots lobbying network. Neither alone could have achieved ratification. The question sets up a false choice between two complementary contributions.