Why did a civil war break out in England?
In the sixteenth century, commercial revolution and religious reformation transformed - and destabilized - Europe. Both had important political implications, but the nature and direction of political change were not clear. New political thought emerged in the struggle to make sense of this new era.
During the first half of the seventeenth century, political tensions grew in England. The ruling Stuart dynasty did not wish to be constrained in its ability to levy taxes and raise an army. Opponents of the monarch's assertion of greater power argued that English tradition gave a consultative body - the Parliament - an important role in these decisions.
Why did the reign of Charles I upset the political traditions of England?
Charles I (1625 - 1649)
Petition of Right, 1628
Religious Policies
How did Parliament respond to the political and religious policies of Charles I?
The Long Parliament
Why did a civil war break out?
The English Civil War, 1642 - 1649
The Cavaliers
The Roundheads
Oliver Cromwell
Thinking Anew about Sovereignty
In the shadow of the king's execution, Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) published a book called Leviathan, subtitled The Matter, Form and Power of a Commonwealth, Ecclesiastical and Civil. Hobbes developed political theories that supported absolute government but argued that sovereign authority was based on the consent of the people and not on divine providence or natural order. Like Machiavelli, Hobbes wrote that a ruler was entitled to take extreme measures in defense of his power and his state but that these measures should serve the goal of a flourishing society—orderly and rich in culture—not the king's own interests or personal wealth. While acknowledging that people had to surrender many freedoms to a powerful sovereign—or suffer the "nasty, brutish, and short" life that plagued people in a state of nature without government—Hobbes also insisted that the legitimacy of the sovereign came from the consent of the governed in doing so, preserving for the people certain inalienable rights.
Hobbes was among the first to present a "social contract" theory of legitimacy. Later writers, especially John Locke (1632-1704) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), would develop this idea in greater detail and draw some different conclusions, but the basic principles Hobbes suggested remained: in the state of nature (i.e., the time before society and government), people were perfectly free but also absolutely vulnerable. Everyone could do as they pleased, but—because of this—there was no security, no safety. The freedom of the state of nature was false; one was not even free to live in peace. In response, people could agree to give up some of their freedoms in exchange for security. Consider it this way: by giving up the right to take anything I want, I surrender some freedom. In ex-change, I gain security because others have also given up the right to take what-ever they want. We agree to live in a society with a social contract. We designate certain people to make rules—laws—by which everyone agrees to live and others to enforce those laws, but only so long as they preserve the public peace and protect the public interest. Together these people the government—preside over society in a way that benefits its members.
Hobbes's views troubled all sides in England's conflict and continued to vex future generations. On the one hand, he insisted that power to govern derived from the consent of the governed, angering those who argued that God, not the people, empower a ruler. On the other hand, he vested nearly limitless power in the state once it was formed, unsettling those wary of too powerful a sovereign. Nonetheless, his idea that a government's legitimacy comes from the people, and from its ability to protect the people's interests and well-being, ultimately emerged as the basis for many theories of the state in subsequent generations.
In the sixteenth century, commercial revolution and religious reformation transformed - and destabilized - Europe. Both had important political implications, but the nature and direction of political change were not clear. New political thought emerged in the struggle to make sense of this new era.
During the first half of the seventeenth century, political tensions grew in England. The ruling Stuart dynasty did not wish to be constrained in its ability to levy taxes and raise an army. Opponents of the monarch's assertion of greater power argued that English tradition gave a consultative body - the Parliament - an important role in these decisions.
Why did the reign of Charles I upset the political traditions of England?
Charles I (1625 - 1649)
- Like his father, Charles I was a firm believer in the divine right of kings.
- Charles also spend large amounts of money and was always in need of new sources of revenue.
- Charles opposed the Puritans and supported the Anglican Church hierarchy.
Petition of Right, 1628
- In return for grants of money, Charles I agreed to the Petition of Right.
- the Petition of Right contained two key provisions:
- No one should be compelled to pay any tax or loan "without common consent by act of Parliament."
- No one should be imprisoned without due process of law.
- Charles would not call Parliament into session for the next 11 years.
Religious Policies
- Religion was the single most explosive issue in England.
- With Charles' encouragement, William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury, attempted to transform the Church of England into a Catholic church without a pope.
- In 1639, Laud foolishly attempted to impose the English Prayer Book on the Scottish Presbyterian Church.
- Determined to defend their religion, the Scots formed an army and occupied northern England.
How did Parliament respond to the political and religious policies of Charles I?
The Long Parliament
- Desperate for money to fight the Scots, Charles reluctantly recalled Parliament into session, thus precipitating a constitutional and religious crisis.
- Determined to undo what they saw as royal tyranny, the Long Parliament executed Laud and passed a number of laws limiting royal power.
- Triennial Act
Why did a civil war break out?
The English Civil War, 1642 - 1649
- Charles attempted to arrest Puritan members of Parliament that he felt were limiting his power.
- The breach of Parliament's sovereignty led to the outbreak of a civil war.
The Cavaliers
- The Cavaliers were aristocrats, nobles, and church officials who remained loyal to the king.
- Cavaliers favored a strong monarchy and an Anglican Church governed by bishops appointed by the crown.
The Roundheads
- The Roundheads included Puritans, townspeople, middle-class businessmen, and peole from Presbyterian-dominated London.
- Roundheads favored a Parliamentary monarchy and a Presbyterian church governed by elected "presbyters" or elders.
Oliver Cromwell
- Led by Oliver Cromwell, a previously unknown country gentleman, the Roundheads defeated the Cavaliers.
- Cromwell organized an army of zealous Protestants called the New Model Army.
- In January, 1649, Cromwell and his supporters executed King Charles I.
Thinking Anew about Sovereignty
In the shadow of the king's execution, Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) published a book called Leviathan, subtitled The Matter, Form and Power of a Commonwealth, Ecclesiastical and Civil. Hobbes developed political theories that supported absolute government but argued that sovereign authority was based on the consent of the people and not on divine providence or natural order. Like Machiavelli, Hobbes wrote that a ruler was entitled to take extreme measures in defense of his power and his state but that these measures should serve the goal of a flourishing society—orderly and rich in culture—not the king's own interests or personal wealth. While acknowledging that people had to surrender many freedoms to a powerful sovereign—or suffer the "nasty, brutish, and short" life that plagued people in a state of nature without government—Hobbes also insisted that the legitimacy of the sovereign came from the consent of the governed in doing so, preserving for the people certain inalienable rights.
Hobbes was among the first to present a "social contract" theory of legitimacy. Later writers, especially John Locke (1632-1704) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), would develop this idea in greater detail and draw some different conclusions, but the basic principles Hobbes suggested remained: in the state of nature (i.e., the time before society and government), people were perfectly free but also absolutely vulnerable. Everyone could do as they pleased, but—because of this—there was no security, no safety. The freedom of the state of nature was false; one was not even free to live in peace. In response, people could agree to give up some of their freedoms in exchange for security. Consider it this way: by giving up the right to take anything I want, I surrender some freedom. In ex-change, I gain security because others have also given up the right to take what-ever they want. We agree to live in a society with a social contract. We designate certain people to make rules—laws—by which everyone agrees to live and others to enforce those laws, but only so long as they preserve the public peace and protect the public interest. Together these people the government—preside over society in a way that benefits its members.
Hobbes's views troubled all sides in England's conflict and continued to vex future generations. On the one hand, he insisted that power to govern derived from the consent of the governed, angering those who argued that God, not the people, empower a ruler. On the other hand, he vested nearly limitless power in the state once it was formed, unsettling those wary of too powerful a sovereign. Nonetheless, his idea that a government's legitimacy comes from the people, and from its ability to protect the people's interests and well-being, ultimately emerged as the basis for many theories of the state in subsequent generations.