The Chartist Movement existed from 1838 to 1850 with the motive to implement the people's charter, this called for six reforms to make the current aristocratic political system more democratic. The six points included suffrage for every man over 21, a secret ballot, no property qualification for becoming an MP, payment of MPs and annual parliaments. These were not implemented between 1838 and 1850 so automatically there is an argument to say Chartism was indeed a failure. To asses why it was a failure many historians, directly after Chartism ended, started to document a moral political movement tarnished by the actions of a leader that endorsed physical force. From this account, the question was not 'was Chartism a failure?' but 'why did it fail?' The source at the centre of these arguments was Robert George Gammage who lived in the times of Chartism, his interpretation has been criticized for being, "concentrated disproportionately upon rifts in organization and the angry and divisive battles between leading personalities" (Epstein and Thompson, 1982). When we try to answer the question " to what extent can chartist movement be considered a failure?" It becomes apparent that the sources have mixed ideas about what Chartism actually was. If we were to consult Gamage's works, we would get a picture of a divided but organized political strategy. However when using local biographies as a reference for Chartism, it does suggest that the divisions in the group were not just among the leaders, but depending on where you were in the country you would have a different experience of Chartism. So if we have many interpretations on what Chartism did, and what Chartism was, it is very difficult to say if it was a failure, and find its successes. What is not in contention, is the fact that there was a six point charter, and within this charter is the commitment to a political solution. The terms that were held within the charter were all conditions which would initiate a more democratic society. There is an argument to be made that the chartists were asking for too much, but those who believed in the Chartism saw the charter as a list of inalienable rights that were needed in order for politics to work in the interest of the proletariat. If we took Gammage's interpretations as fact then the perspective shifts from not questioning if chartism failed but why it failed. This interpretation influenced Whig, Partisan and Marxist historians who all consider Feargus O'connor the main reason why Chartism failed for one reason or another. Whig historians saw William lovett and the non violent moral force Chartists as an important step away from absolute rule, and that the enfranchisement of the working class would have come quicker if not for O'connors violent rhetoric. Lovett and O'connor both were part of the London Working Men's association until