It has been much debated. Personally, I am not surprised the role of the suffragettes has been squashed by history. Who wants to give credit to uppity women or indeed uppity anyone. However, there are also the views as below:
I hope the more old-fashioned suffragists will stand by them. In my opinion, far from having injured the movement, [the Suffragettes] have done more during the last 12 months to bring it within the region of practical politics than we have been able to accomplish in the same number of years.
Mrs Millicent Fawcett, leader of the NUWSS, writing in 1906. (suffragist)
By what means, but screaming, knocking, and rioting, did men themselves ever gain what they were pleased to call their rights?
Daily Mirror, 24 October 1906
The Daily News said: ‘No class has ever got the vote except at the risk of something like revolution’.
While there are marked differences of opinion about the value of militancy to the movement, there is a fair measure of agreement that it was positively helpful in its early days. The militants kept the movement in the public eye and much of the credit must be given to them for Parliament dealing seriously with the question from 1910 onwards. After November 1911 the position is much more doubtful. Militancy was becoming more extreme and strong antagonism was being aroused. The public could hardly be expected to approve of arson. The policy [of law-breaking] was likely to be effective so long as it was looked upon as a political protest. If, however, militant activities were put down to hysteria and fanaticism, they largely defeated their own object and gave ammunition to those who contended that women were unfit to have the vote.
Viewing the militant movement from the second half of the twentieth century, it is difficult to argue that violence does not ‘pay off’. [The history of independence of the colonies, and Civil Rights campaigns in the USA shows that violence can succeed.] It may be that suffragette violence after 1912 fell between two stools, being inadequate to force the government but sufficiently destructive to antagonise public opinion. This writer [i.e. Constance Rover] is of the opinion that, as the events turned out, militant tactics helped the women's suffrage movement until 1912, but after that date were harmful. This does not mean that militancy was necessarily a foolish policy. With hindsight, one can conclude that militancy failed in the last two years before the war, but with the experience of rebellion we have had since, one cannot conclude that militant tactics are an unsuccessful means of obtaining an objective such as enfranchisement...
There remains the question whether the sacrifices made by so many of the suffragettes were worth while… It may be contended that it was necessary for women to show that they were prepared to suffer for their cause and that it did not matter if there were mistakes in tactics, so long as it was proved that they were willing to make sacrifices. It is difficult to form a judgement on this, but the sacrifices made in the last two years before the war seemed to have been unduly heavy.
In spite of their mistakes, the militants revitalised the women’s suffrage movement. Something more than the traditional constitutional methods was needed. Believing their cause to be just, it is no wonder that many supported Emily Wilding Davison’s motto: ‘Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God’.
Constance Rover: Women's Suffrage and Party Politics (1967