How did the English Civil War affect the American Colonies policy-wise?

How did the English Civil War affect the American Colonies policy-wise?

How did the English Civil War and the following reign of Oliver Cromwell affect policies towards and in the American Colonies? I don't see anything Wikipedia that covers this topic (I can only see mainly the militaristic aspects of it there).

I can't offer a good answer, so I'll offer a bad one. *

One of the impacts of the English Civil war was the creation of Whig philosophy - the notion that although England would remain a Monarchy, supreme power lay in the hands of Parliament. (Obvious oversimplification here; it might be more accurate to ascribe this to the Glorious Revolution, but to my mind the two are inseparable).

This notion gave rise to a couple of related notions. (In each of the points below I'm citing the influence of a broader principle on these two events; in no way to I mean to limit these conflicts to this period, but think that the Civil War and the American war for independence represent significant inflection points in the development of these notions.

  1. Taxes were the free gift of the English people (yes, I'm aware that this is an issue larger than the Civil War, but I think there is an inflection point here). This leads to the colonist's "No Taxation without Representation".

  2. Mistrust of a standing army, particularly one controlled by the crown. This has a significant impact on the retirement of military personnel and the quartering of those people in the colonies, which impacts the taxes paid.

  3. Supremacy of Parliament - more than any other conflict the American war for independence is about how Parliament controls colonies. The United Kingdom had colonies, but had no notion how to rule them. In general, landholding was related to representation, but there was no mechanism for the creation of new boroughs. Parliament was still inventing Parliamentary government, and now they had to change the (unwritten) constitution.

* In that I have no sources, just observations.

Impacts of English Civil War Essay

The American Revolution spans way back from the British colonization era. The first colony for the British was Newfoundland in 1497. Then a century later, it found its place in America. One of the major interests of the British to relocate to America (New England) was as a result of the ample space the continent provided for its population. This is so because the Rural England was said to be full by the 17 th century.

By 1604, an agreement had been signed between the two countries and in 1606 America was subdivided into two monopolies, that is, North and South Virginia. North Virginia was reserved for merchants and fishermen from Plymouth (South West England) whereas South Virginia was set aside for investors and immigrants from London.

However, the 17 th century turned out to be one of the most turbulent times for the British Empire which resulted to a civil war (British Civil War) between the Parliament and the King 1 . Though the war was as a result of political misunderstandings there were also religious strings that were attached to the war.

Respond to this Question

Us history

What was the main effect of the Civil War on the women's movement? A. The women's movement shifted their focus to helping widows of the Civil War. B. The movement was put on hold while women focused on anti-slavery reform and the


How did the French and Indian War contribute to new taxation policies in the American colonies? A. The French government imposed higher taxes on the American colonists in order to stockpile an artillery and defeat the British

Social Studies

Why did Dutch colonies in the Americas fail to attract as many settlers as English colonies did? A. Fewer people were dissatisfied with life in the Netherlands than in England. B. The economy of the Netherlands was much weaker

Social studies

Which of the following was a direct result of the English Civil War? A. the signing of the English Bill of Rights B. the overthrow of James II C. the execution of Charles I D. the signing of Magna Carta my answer is a

English 10

Which of the following is a possible setting for works of American literary realism? CHECK ALL THAT APPLY! *a. American West *b. Post-Civil War South c. New England d. Gold Coast I think there is one more that needs to be check,

Social Studies

in what way did the efforts of the Tuskegee Airmen contribute to the hopes for improved civil rights in the United States? A. The Tuskegee showed that integrated fighting units cold work well. B. The efforts of the African


Which conflict served as a testing ground for Nazi weapons during the 1930s? A) Chinese Civil War B) Spanish Civil War C) Irish (Easter) Uprising D) Second Sino-Japanese War A?

Social studies

1. why did Dutch colonies in the americas fail to attract as many settlers as English colonies did? a. fewer people were dissatisfied with the life in the Netherlands than in England*** b. the economy of Netherlands was much

Social Studies

Which of the following best describes how the Intolerable Acts affected the American colonies? A.) The acts caused the colonies to set up their own militia to serve in times of emergency. B.) The acts caused the colonies to call


How did the end of the French and Indian War lead to discontent among Britain’s 13 colonies? Britain forced colonists to settle the Northwest Territory to protect against American Indian attacks. The destructiveness of the war

Social studies

Why was the economy in the new England colonies different from the economy in the middle colonies A. The environment provided different resources for earning a living ** B. The settlers had different skills and work experience C.

Social studies

which of the following best describes how the intolerable acts affected the american colonies? A. The acts caused the colonies to set up their own militia to serve in times of emergency. B. The acts caused the colonies to call for

9. How did the English Civil War affect the colonies in America?

1. What were the major patterns of Native American life in North America before the Europeans arrived?

2. One of the most striking features of Indian societies at the time of the encounter with Europeans was their diversity. Support this statement with several examples.

3. What impelled European explorers to look west across the Atlantic?

4. Describe why the “discovery” of America was one of “the most important events recorded in the history of mankind,” according to Adam Smith.

5. What happened when the peoples of the Americas came into contact with Europeans?

6. Compare and contrast European values and ways of life with those of the Indians. Consider addressing religion, views about ownership of land, gender relations, and notions of freedom.

7. What were the chief features of the Spanish empire in America?

8. What were the chief features of the French and Dutch empires in North America?

9. Based on your answer to the previous two questions, compare the different economic and political systems of Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, and France in the age of expansion. Was one “better” than another? Explain.

10. Compare the political and economic motivations behind the French and Dutch empires with those of New Spain.

Qn1 . Before the Europeans arrived, the native population of North America consisted of numerous tribes with their own languages, religious beliefs, and economic and social structures. The Aztecs and Myians were the expection where they had centralized states.

Composed of diverse societies, hundreds of cultures and languages. Each had their own political system and religious beliefs. Their economic activities included hunting and agriculture. They lived peaceful with other tribes

People lived in towns and villages. Native Americans grew maize, squash and beans. Native Americans did not believe you could own anything. In North and South America it contained cities, roads, irrigation systems and extensive trade networks. There were many different groups of Native Americans and each group had their own religious beliefs and political system, even speaking hundreds of different languages.

Well established and built empires such as pyramids, Roads, Contained cities, Irrigation systems, Different languages and populations within different cities, art and music, religious practices , trade (poverty point), and political systems

Interest in conquest/exploration.Columbus wanted a new way to india/china

Never new he discovered a new land , renaissance sparked the interest in discovering the world.

Qn#4 The discovery of America is one of the most important events in the history of mankind. The discovery of America kick started an interaction between continents- the American continent and Europe. It also set afoot an exchange of commodities between the continents “Crops new to each hemisphere crossed the Atlantic” (1). This exchange brought about mixing of diverse cultural cuisines. Also ‘’the development of American colonies brought the era of splendor and glory” (2). The discovery of America brought hope for a better life and an end to poverty. The Europeans sought to solve the issues of religious liberty and equality through the discovery of America. These idealistic aspirations inspired the discovery of America. Some more examples are seen in the text, “They searched the New World for golden cities and fountains of eternal youth” (2). In spite of its misfortunes, the discovery of America has enough benefits to be one of the most important events in the history of mankind.

Qn#5most of the people died since the Europeans brought war, enslavement and diseases

Had different beliefs, conflicts started to arise. Europeans felt that Indians lacked genuine religion. Claimed the Indians did not “use” the land, which meant they had no claim to it. Viewed Indian men as weak and Indian women as mistreated. Trade and disease also played a huge role in shaping relations between the Europeans and Indians. (Columbian Exchange: exchange of ideas, diseases, and goods between the Americas and Europe).

Qn #6 The European thought that land can be sold and do some economic things, on the other hand, Indians thought that land can not be sold, everyone could use the land, but no one own it. For religion, European believed spiritual, but Indians believe in natural and supernatural. For gender relations, Europeans thought that Indian women are mistreated, because Indian women need to do housework and farming. They thought that Indian women did much more than European women. In European, women did not need to worry about money, they just care about housework and family. European thought that Indians are too free, because they did not had law and rule. So European and Indians had different meaning of freedom.

Version 2 Indian and European values and ways of life differed in religion, the idea of owning land, gender relations and notions of freedom. First, the religion, Europeans believed in Catholicism, but the Indians believed in spirits. They believed that there were spirits in animals, plants, trees, water, wind, etc. Therefore, Europeans wanted to change the Indians religion to Catholicism when they arrived to the New World. Second, Indians didn’t have the idea of owning land. They owned the right to use the land, but not the land itself. They used it for resources, farming and hunting, not for an economic commodity. However, Europeans believed that land was a commodity to buy and sell for economic purposes. Gender relations, Indian women took responsibility not only for household duties, but also farming work while Indian men went fishing and hunting which Europeans believed were activities of leisure. European women just took care of household work, while men would work and provide all of the income. Finally, The Europeans believed that Indians were savages and barbaric because they were “too free”. The Indians did not have a lot of rules and laws. The Europeans believed in personal independence but Indians were more generous and helped each other more.

Qn #7 The Spanish empire one of the most populous parts of the New World and the regions richest in the natural resources. Spanish America an urban civilization, an “empire of towns.” Encomienda system had a social hierarch: Spanish born, cueole class (Spanish blood but born in the Americas), Mestizos: mixed blood, slaves, and Indians. The Spanish were the first to include slavery in the Americas, needed labor intensive.

Qn #8 The French and Dutch empires were primarily commercial ventures that never attracted large numbers of colonists. Both were more dependent on Indians as trading patterns and military allies. The French and Dutch settlements allowed Native Americans greater freedom than the Eng

Qn #10: The aim of the Spanish empire was to convert the Natives into Christians/Catholics. Many Spanish believed that the Native Americans had large amounts of gold which they could get their hands on if the converted the Native Americans to Catholicism. The French also wanted to convert the Native Americans. The Jesuit Priests were the most peaceful and effective missionaries. The Dutch, on the other hand, were only interested in economic growth. They were not interested in developing relationships with the Native Americans at all.

1. What were the main contours of English colonization in the 17th century?

2. What obstacles did the English settlers in the Chesapeake overcome?

3. For English settlers, land was the basis of independence and liberty. Explain the reasoning behind that concept and how it differed from the Indians’ conception of land.

4. How did Virginia and Maryland develop in their early years?

5. What made the English settlement of New England distinctive?

6. Describe who chose to emigrate to North America from England in the 17th century and explain their reasons.

7. What were the main sources of discord in early New England?

8. In what ways did the economy, government, and household structure differ in New England and the Chesapeake colonies?

9. How did the English Civil War affect the colonies in America?

10. How did the tobacco economy draw the Chesapeake colonies into the greater Atlantic world?

Qn#1: Seventeenth-century North America was an unstable and dangerous environment. Diseases decimated Indian and settler populations alike. Colonies were racked by religious, political, and economic tensions and drawn into imperial wars and conflict with Indians. They remained dependent on the mother country for protection and economic assistance

Qn 1:ghtened European involvement in North America – entrepreneurs sought to make fortunes, religious minorities came to escape persecution, aristocrats hope to recreate feudalism… English Queen Elizabeth I turned English attention to North America : granted charters to Sir Humphrey Gilbert, who founded Newfoundland, and Sir Walter Raleigh, who founded Roanoke. Both ventures failed Justifications of English colonization: – to challenge Spanish empire (English especially against Spain’s Catholicism) – argued that they were freeing the Indians from Spanish rule, but they acted pretty much the same as Spanish did in colonies Motives for English colonization: – quest for glory and national power o argued that with colonization, even small country like England could eventually challenge big countries like Spain and France – America acted as refuge for England’s surplus population o Had too many people, and many landlords were practicing the enclosure movement, where they fenced in “commons,” which should have been open to all and uprooted many from their lands – America was place for opportunity where even criminals could get a second chance, and everyone had a shot at economic independence – **Main lure to colonies was the promise of independence that followed from owning land, and that the economic freedom could be passed down to their kids** qn 2. What obstacles did the English settlers in the Chesapeake overcome? It was expensive to pay for voyage to the Americas – indentured servants (but had high death rates among them because were treated exactly like slaves, except eventually were guaranteed to be freed if they didn’t die) English wanted land, not control of the native population – just wanted to displace them and settle on their land – although Indians did not actually claim their land, authorities purchased the land off Indians through forced treaties after Europeans defeated Indians in battle – to keep peace, some colonial governments tried to prevent the private seizure/purchase of Indian lands, or they declares certain lands off-limits to settlers o such rules rarely enforced though Transformation of Indian life after arrival of Europeans: – many Indians initially welcomed the Europeans, especially their goods they brought – growing connections with Europeans stimulated warfare among tribes – older skills deteriorated as the use of European products expanded and alcohol began increasingly common and disruptive o European metal goods changed Indian way of farming

Answer all of the Focus and Review Questions and put your answers in the "Comment" Section below. The best answers will be awarded! Good luck!

Chapter 2: Beginnings of English America (1607-1660)

  1. What were the main contours of English colonization in the 17th century? Reason - Nat. power and glory
  2. How did English settlers gain a foothold in the early Chesapeake colonies?
  3. How did Virginia and Maryland develop their early years?
  4. What made the English settlement of New England distinctive?
  5. What were the main sources of discord in early New England?
  6. How did the English civil War affect the colonies in AM?
  1. April 26, 1607 - three ships left Eng to est Jamestown (two weeks later). Was the capital of Virginia (names for Virgin Queen Elizabeth).
  1. Sponsored by Virginia Company. 104 ppl remained in Virginia when ships headed back to Eng
  2. Jamestown = first permanent English settlement
  3. Many conflicts when this was being established
  4. English North America (17th century) was a place to make fortunes, live in a religiously tolerant place, and create societies based on biblical teachings
  5. Wanted to reproduce the social structure that was in England (inequality)
  6. Ranged from slave, with no rights at all, to landowner, who enjoyed full range of rights

England and the New World

  1. Unifying the English Nation
  1. England (16th century) was a second rate power racked by internal disunity
  2. Elizabeth I = Queen who restored the Anglican ascendancy and executed over 100 Catholic priests
  1. Rather than seeking to absorb the Irish into English society, the English exclude the native population from a territory of settlement known as the Pale
  2. The Irish apparently confused liberty and license and refused to respect English authority, and also resisted conversion to Protestantism
  3. Protestant settlements in Ireland called plantations - “planted” from an alien population

England and North America

  1. Didn’t take interest in N-AM until Elizabeth I
  2. Granted charters to Sir Humphrey Gilbert and Sir Walter Raleigh
  1. To est colonies in N AM at the gov’s expense
  2. Both ventures failed (no support from crown)

Raleigh sent 100 colonists to set up a base at Roanoke Island.

  1. Reformation heightened Catholic Spain as Eng’s mortal enemy (wanted to liberate New World from tyranny of the pope
  2. Sir Walter Raleigh wrote that the “Indians were calling for England’s help, Liberia (Liberty)”
  1. National Power and Glory = big ones.
  2. Also, Eng left to middle of N AM b/c SP and FR had Canada and S-AM
  1. New World was a refuge for England’s surplus population, benefiting both the mother country AND the New World
  2. 𠇎nclosure” movement - thousands of persons were uprooted from the land
  3. At this time, half the population lived at or below the poverty line
  1. Thomas More published Utopia , a novel set on an imaginary island in the Western Hemisphere, where N-AM was a place of escape and refuge
  2. Promised settlers 200 acres of land if they immigrated to N-AM
  1. This gave settlers reason to go there (sense of independence)

The Coming of the English

  1. English Emigrants
  1. Disease and Indian tensions riddled the Eng colonies. Were dependent on mother country to provide
  2. Btwn 1607 and 1700, half a million ppl left England (180k in Ireland)
  3. It was a way for poor Englishmen and women to create a new life - not much risk, and they moved around Eng anyway, so why not?
  1. Settlers who could pay for their own passage arrived in AM as free persons
  2. 2/3 of them, however, had to become indentured servants - exchange 5-7 yrs of labor for passage to N-AM
  3. Similar to slaves, but they could look forward to their release
  1. Land ownership was the basis of liberty it gave most colonists the right to vote
  2. Land was valuable, but without labor, it had little value.
  1. Unlike SP, English didn’t call themselves 𠇌onquerers”
  2. They wanted land, not dominion over the existing population
  3. They didn’t want to intermingle with the Indians, just displace them
  4. 17th Century was marked by recurrent warfare btwn colonists and Indians. Gave the colonists a strong feeling of superiority over the Indians

The Transformation of Indian Life

  1. Most Indians welcomed the newcomers, or at least their goods
  2. European metal goods changed their farming, hunting, and cooking practices
  3. Both groups were better off b/c of their trading
  1. Everyone sought to reshape Indian society and culture, and they ultimately did, even though the Indians told them to do otherwise
  1. The Jamestown Colony
  1. Early history of Jamestown was not promising. John Smith described them as a “quarrelsome band of gentlemen and servants” who would rather starve than work. More interested in gold than farming
  2. Number of settlers dwindled to 65, they left for England, only to be caught by re-supply ships
  3. John Smith then started his rigorous military discipline “He that will not work, shall not eat”
  1. Virginia Company - soon realized that for the colony to survive, it would have to abandon the search for gold, grow it’s own food, and find a marketable commodity
  2. V-Co gave 50 acres to whoever could afford passage to the New World
  3. House of Burgesses - first elected assembly in colonial AM - not very democratic (only landowners could vote)
  1. Eng landing in Jamestown (many Indians nearby)
  2. V-Co treated Indians kindly and tried to convert Ind’s to Christianity. Depended on Indians for food
  3. Smith (leader) captured by Indians (Powhatan = leader), he was rescued by Pocahontas (married English Colonist John Rolfe after being Christianized)
  1. Once Eng made it clear that they wanted to expand rather than trade in New World, fights with the Indians emerged
  2. Unsuccessful uprising of 1622 shifted the balance of power in the colony. Indians uprose and defeated English, but not for long.
  1. Virginia grew tobacco, even though King James I considered it harmful and dangerous (mainly b/c it was a commodity)
  2. Many large landowners had huge profits and started the “get rich quick” idea. Elite were the ones with lots of land near the rivers
  3. Lots of tobacco growing means lots of workers (or slaves)
  1. Virginia lacked stable family life. Men outnumbered women 5:1
  2. English women had few rights, nothing compared to Spain though
  3. Most women came to new world as indentured servants, died early, etc..
  1. Established 1632 as a proprietary colony (a grant of land and governmental authority to a single individual)
  2. Cecilius Calvert - proprietor of the colony. He had absolute power. a recipe for disaster
  1. Calvert hoped that Maryland could be a Protestant and Catholic refuge (could live together in harmony). Life expectancy was very low in Maryland
  1. The Rise of Puritanism
  1. Puritans all agreed that the Church of England was too similar to Catholicism in their religious rituals and doctrines
  2. Congregationalists - Ppl that believed that only Independent local congregations should choose clergymen and determine modes of worship
  3. Puritans believed that leading a good life, and prospering economically were indications of God’s grace
  1. Wanted to purify the church from within, or just form their own indep churches
  2. Winthrop - aimed to create the 𠇌ity upon a hill”. also said that true freedom was “subjection to authority”
  1. First Puritans to immigrate to AM - Pilgrims. Sailed on the Mayflower (1620) w/ 150 settlers. Established Plymouth colony and set up Mayflower Compact
  2. Mayflower Compact - first frame of gov in US
  3. They arrived 6 weeks before winter and relied on Indians (Squanto) to help them survive
  1. Mass Bay Co - founded by London merchants for profit, five ships set sail
  2. Great Migration - flow of population (1/3 of English emigration in the 1630s)
  3. Reasons for coming to New England
  1. Escape religious persecution
  2. Anxiety about the future of England
  3. Economic Betterment
  4. Families started moving there now

B/c of sex ratio and healthier climate, population grew rapidly, doubling every twenty-seven years The Puritan Family

  1. Puritans insisted that the obedience of women, children, and servants to men’s will was the foundation of social stability
  2. Men were definitely leaders of households

Government and Society in Massachusetts

  1. John Winthrop was the leader who stressed community and settler friendship
  2. Gov of Mass reflected the Puritans&apos religious and social vision
  3. Mass Bay Co. shareholders went to Mass and chose leaders, taking a charter within them, and creating a government
  4. Principle of consent was very central to Puritanism - church members had to agree on everything
  5. Smaller and smaller %’s started to control the gov (over time)
  1. Social inequality = necessary (some poor, some rich), and considered an expression of God’s will
  2. Said that worshiping 𠇊ny god, but the lord god,” practicing witchcraft, or committing blasphemy = DEATH PENALTY
  1. Puritans exalted individual judgement. Abigail Gifford = pain in the butt-ox. Tolerance wasn’t popular among Puritans
  2. Roger Williams
  1. Insisted that Church and state be separated. He aimed to strengthen religion, not weaken it. He also supported Predestination. He was banished (1636)

Rhode Island and Connecticut

  1. Roger Williams established Rhode Island after receiving a charter from London
  2. Rhode Island had religious freedom, no established church, no religious qualifications for voting, and no requirements that citizens attend church
  3. Religious disagreements is Mass generated other colonies as well
  4. Thomas Hooker - Hartford. Basically, didn’t have to be church members to vote. Also New Haven. Both received royal charter that united as Connecticut

The Trials of Anne Hutchinson

  1. Described by John Winthrop as a “woman of a ready wit and bold spirit”
  2. She held meetings at her house about the church services.
  3. Said that salvation was God’s direct gift to the elect and could not be earned by good works - charged the Puritan leaders with sharing this philosophy
  4. Denounced her for Antinomianism (a term for putting one’s own judgement or faith above human law and the teachings of the church)
  1. Roger Williams criticized the king for granting land already belonging to someone else
  2. Indians represented savagery and temptation, though (to Puritans).
  3. Puritans claimed that they wanted to convert Indians, but just treated them as an obstacle for the first two decades
  1. Started when a fur trader was killed by Pequots - powerful tribe who controlled southern NE’s fur trade. B/c of this, soldiers surrounded their village and burned it, killing anyone who tried to escape.
  2. This opened up the Connecticut River valley. owned bra, come at me
  1. Leaders of New England colonies prided that religious reasons were the only reason. definitely economic too, though
  2. New Englanders turned to fishing and timber for exports. Economy centered on family farms producing food for their own use and a small marketable surplus.
  1. Per Capita in NE far lower than Chesapeake, but it was much more equally distributed
  2. Gradually received a growing role with trade within the BR Empire
  3. Eventually, the Puritan experiment would evolve into a merchant-dominated colonial government
  1. To be considered 𠇎lect”, you had to have an 𠇌onversion experience”.
  2. Half-Way Covenant = tried to address problem by allowing for the baptism and a “half-way” membership for grandchildren of those who emigrated during the Great Migration
  3. The commercialization of New England was as much a fulfillment of the Puritan mission in AM as a betrayal (b/c failed crops were considered a sign of disapproval from God - these warnings were called jeremiads)

Religion, Politics, and Freedom

  1. The Rights of Englishmen
  1. Traditional definition of “liberties” as a set of privileges confined to one or another social group still persisted, but alongside it had arisen the idea that certain “rights of Englishmen” applied to all within the kingdom
  1. Magna Carta (1215) - idea came from this
  1. Struggle for political supremacy btwn Parliament and monarchs culminated in the English Civil War of the 1640s.
  2. Started b/c of religious disputes about Catholic forms of worship
  3. House of Commons accused the kings of endangering liberty by imposing taxes w/out parliamentary consent, and leading the nation back towards Catholicism. Civil war broke out - Parliament won
  4. Oliver Cromwell - head of P army

England’s debate over freedom

  1. John Milton called for freedom of speech and of the press
  2. The Levellers proposed a written constitution (Agreement of the Ppl) which began by proclaiming 𠇊t how high a rate we value out just freedom”.
  3. Levellers failed, but Diggers went even further hoping to give freedom of land ownership
  4. These ideas of freedom were taken to America by English emigrants
  1. In Eng, All Englishmen were governed by a king, but “he rules over free men,” according to the law
  2. This idea of freedoms for all led to US ideas of getting free themselves

The Civil War and English America

  1. Most New Englanders sided w/ Parliament in Civil War of 1640s
  2. Meanwhile, Anne Hutchinson followers became Quakers (believed spirit of God dwelled within every individual
  3. Quakers were not treated well in Mass. Gave other countries idea of England as religiously non-tolerant
  1. Protestants and Catholics fought over the English Civil War, creating a lot of conflict within the colony (later called the “plundering time”
  2. Calvert, in an attempt to attract more settlers, adopted an Act Concerning Religion - institutionalized the principle of toleration that had prevailed from the colony’s beginning. All Christians were guaranteed the 𠇏ree exercise” of religion. This Law was a Milestone in the history of religious freedom in colonial AM
  1. Oliver Cromwell - Ruled England from 1649-1658 (died) - took an aggressive policy of colonial expansion. He banned Catholicism in Ireland, took over Jamaica from Spain
  2. Middle of the 17th century, there were several English colonies along the Atlantic Coach of North America. The seeds were planted for the development of plantation societies based on unfree labor
  3. Next century, would be a time of crisis and consolidation and the population expanded, social conflicts intensified, and Britain moved to exert greater control over its flourishing North american colonies
  1. John Winthrop - Speech to the Massachusetts General Court
  1. Defines two types of liberty
  1. Natural - common to man with beasts and other creatures
  2. Civil or Federal (also moral) - the proper end and object of authority, and cannot subsist w/out it. Only a liberty that is good, just, and honest. Maintained by subjection to authority

Henry Care - His Book “The Free-Born Subject’s Inheritance (1680)

  1. Argues how a �lanced” constitution was essential to preserving individual rights
  2. He says that their Const is the best in the world and that the King is only given so much power
  3. Argues that the law, in England, is both the measure and the bond of every subject’s duty and allegiance, with each man having born fundamental rights

What happened at the end of the English Civil War?

The English Civil War (1642&ndash1651) was a series of civil wars and political machinations between Parliamentarians ("Roundheads") and Royalists ("Cavaliers") principally over the manner of England's governance. The war ended with Parliamentarian victory at the Battle of Worcester on 3 September 1651.

Likewise, why did the royalists lose the English Civil War? It is partly due to the weak leadership of Charles and those in the Royalist army but at the same time the strength of Parliament and there leadership skills are the other side of it. Combined they played a big part in Charles downfall. Division within the Royalist ranks over the ultimate objectives of fighting.

Accordingly, who won the English Civil War and why?

Civil war, Charles' execution and England as a republic After Oliver Cromwell set up the New Model Army, Parliament won decisive victories at Marston Moor (1644) and Naseby (1645). Charles surrendered in 1646. He failed a second time to defeat Parliament during the the Second Civil War in 1648.

American History 1--HIST 2111 (OER): Chapter 3: British North America

Whether they came as servants, slaves, free farmers, religious refugees, or powerful planters, the men and women of the American colonies created new worlds. Native Americans saw fledgling settlements turned into unstoppable beachheads of vast new populations that increasingly monopolized resources and remade the land into something else entirely. Meanwhile, as colonial societies developed in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, fluid labor arrangements and racial categories solidified into the race-based, chattel slavery that increasingly defined the economy of the British Empire. The North American mainland originally occupied a small and marginal place in that broad empire, as even the output of its most prosperous colonies paled before the tremendous wealth of Caribbean sugar islands. And yet the colonial backwaters on the North American mainland, ignored by many imperial officials, were nevertheless deeply tied into these larger Atlantic networks. A new and increasingly complex Atlantic World connected the continents of Europe, Africa, and the Americas.

Events across the ocean continued to influence the lives of American colonists. Civil war, religious conflict, and nation building transformed seventeenth-century Britain and remade societies on both sides of the ocean. At the same time, colonial settlements grew and matured, developing into powerful societies capable of warring against Native Americans and subduing internal upheaval. Patterns and systems established during the colonial era would continue to shape American society for centuries. And none, perhaps, would be as brutal and destructive as the institution of slavery. Read the rest of Chapter 3.

How did the English Civil War affect the American Colonies policy-wise? - History

causes of the Civil War… I think Mary I’s actions against Protestants really sparked it. because as Coyle said “they were like ‘hey stop killing us'” And it went from a Catholic nation to Protestant under Henry VIII and then back to Catholic then to Protestant. It was like a light switch in England (on, off, on, off, on, off etc)
The Puritans worked through and with Parliament to kind of create a model like Calvin’s Geneva. They favored a more semiautonomous congregations with presbytieries in charge. And Elizabeth I worked with them instead of directly against them only agreeing to things that did not lessen her grip over the Church.

Pssst, red chapter 13. We did not study the English Civil War yet, but those are definitely not the causes of it. I am sorry, but i don’t think you are right.

pahaha, embarrassing. I know now Tim leave me alone. so this is the edit of my previous comment: Parliament division was the cause. Especially when Parliament was asked to raise funds for an army to suppress the rebellion in Scotland, because than the whole matter exploded. Opponents of him believed Charles could not be trusted and that Parliament should be commander in chief.

So like the “civil war” was these extremists going at it and politics involved. Elizabeth was a politique but not a very true loyal politic. She did try for a middle ground but she also did persecute some Catholics and did not tolerate a lot of extremists. (including Puritans)

My Bad, my bad, I was on the wrong chapter, completely utterly wrong… Puritans were rough. It was supposed to be a Puritan Republic yet Cromwell pretty much dictated it all as “Lord Protector” . He conquered Scotland and Ireland and persecuted Catholics. People hated his harshess and military dominance and his rules against drinking, theater and dancing.

I agree Tori, Cromwell was pretty harsh. If I were the Scots and Irish I would have acted out, too.

I agree as well. Living under the rule of Cromwell would have been terrible. I understand religious persecution happens in many countries but I, as an American, would find it completely intolerable to live in a place with such persecution.

First of all, Puritans had little impact on the English politics. Puritans had a good voice as far as complaining, but besides that they had very little power. Elizabeth I simply gave them the freedom to worship, but never truly allowed Puritanism to spread. They were radicals that were not that many in numbers and that later simply left England. As far as causes of the English Civil War, the primary reasons were highly political. Different political Parliaments fought over the control of the government. Actually, why are we talking about the English Civil War? Its Chapter 13 material that we have yet to study.

I agree with you that the Puritans had little impact on the English politics. This was because, as you said, Elizabeth I didn’t let the religion spread as much as other religions had. They were allowed to worship but never became anything major. They eventually left England because of this as you said. And the English Civil War was a struggle between different groups trying to gain control of the government. Different groups wanted to gain more power in England. Also, I think this is the topic because we have the Chapter 12 test Wednesday, and we’ll be moving into Chapter 13.

I agree with both of you about the little impact Puritans had on European politics. Elizabeth I gave them something, but it wasn’t enough for them to grow and become strong. Of course as you both said we’ll cover this more when we move on to chapter 13. But it is true that the English Civil War was caused basically by different political groups attempting to gain control of the government.

I also agree that the Puritans didn’t have much impact on Euro politics. I don’t think this was a religion based war as much as it was politically. Gaining control of the government was more important than religion. It’s going to be interesting to really look into it in Chap. 13, but as of now, i strongly agree.

I agree with you in that the reasons are primarily political. I also agree that puritans had almost no voice in government, meaning they had almost no power, because Elizabeth 1 gave the puritans the freedom to worship, but that’s all she did, she didn’t help the puritans get a voice in government, or anything else.

agreed with people above because i need a coment. the puritans had very little effect and seem ed to be more like complainers, sort of like the curent 99% protesters, except focused on religion. split govermts were the main cause. this is pretty much true for a lot of history’s civil wars.the split goverments can be blamed upon king james (the on e after elizabeth) because he was a weak leader and tended to completly destroy his predesscors good policies.

So basically you all agree undisputed with Tim that the Puritans were simply a bunch of hippy protesters and had no effect on government of England at that time?

Yes, Brendan. Thats about the gist of it. The Puritans really didn’t have an impact on the English Civil War in the least. It was a political movement, not a religious one.

The English Civil War was started because there were different political groups, or parliaments, that were fighting over the control of the government. The Puritans were a group who tried to gain power in England. They had little success and had virtually no power in my opinion. They were allowed to worship, but the religion was never allowed to spread like Lutheranism or Calvinism. This was because Elizabeth I did not let this happen. The Puritans had tried to gain as much political power as they could, but didn’t achieve this goal.

It seems as though the main starting point of the English Civil War was when Charles I dismissed Parliament. He later recalled Parliament, but it was the dismissal that marked the beginning. Soon after, Parliament became divided. But Puritan rule had very little effect on English politics. Even though Elizabeth I gave them the freedom to worship, she did not grant enough of it for Puritans ideas to spread easily or rapidly.

I agree with you that the main starting point if the English Civil War was the dismission of Parliament by Charles I. Division is what causes wars, and the division of Parliament after its dismissal opened the gate for a new conflict. Because of this split, Puritans were small and had very little power. Their right to worship was given, but it was a right that did not get them anywhere else. Therefore, the main starting point of the English Civil War was the dismission of Parliament, but Elizabeth I also played a large role.

I agree with you, the Puritans had very little impact on the English Civil War. For the most part, everyone was focused on the larger task at hand – King Charles vs. Parliament. That clash, it seems to me, had the greater affect on more people than what Puritan rule created.

i think a reason for the king rejecting parliment was due to power issues.if a king didn’t have to share power with anyone then his polices would be unhindered. this was pretty much the norm for plolitics at this time, in the age of absoultism. however, many people dont like this type of politics so the use the civil disapproval to bring their own ideas up and create multiple goverments. this led to multiple parliment whichliterally divided the population, and thus civil war.

Adding to what Sarah said, I don’t think that the Puritans would have had much of an impact anyway even if there weren’t other conflicts occurring. Yes, it definitely played a role, but there was little force behind them in the first place. Later on, the rise of the Jansenists under the support of Louis XIV renewed Catholic influence in France. This somewhat minimal act still had greater importance than the Puritans.

I agree completely with what you’re saying. The Civil War was one of politics, not of religion. Religion may have played a small part (Civil wars break out for a multitude of reasons, and you can never really pin down exactly what it was), but it was SMALL. As in miniscule.

The English Civil War was caused mainly by the power struggle between King Charles I and Parliament. King Charles was not a very popular guy, while he maintained conservative views, many people were aiming for a more modernized constitution – this view was headed by Parliament. Religion also played a key role in the English Civil War. More and more people wanted greater freedom of worship and were increasingly annoyed by the idea of following a state-organised religion. Catholics were becoming increasingly unpopular, and although King Charles himself was a Protestant, his wife was a French Catholic making him suspicious among his own people – especially because France along with Spain were both traditional enemies of England.

I agree to everything you stated, also as the French and English “whittled away” at the oversees Spanish Empire I believe tensions became evident among nobles, King Charles, and Parliament as to whom receives the land and or profit.

I agree Sarah, people were getting frustrated by not having the freedom to worship freely however they wanted. Also, England had been going all over the place in regards to religion by rulers deciding they want a new religion.

The English civil war had many causes, most of which were political. Parliament played a large role in starting the English civil war. Between parliament arguing with rulers and parliament making unpopular changes (laws). Puritans did not impact on English politics and society. Puritans were allowed to worship but they really didn’t have a voice in the government yet. Socially they had a bigger impact because, like I said earlier, they were allowed to worship and this caused social changes to hit England.

The English Civil War has many causes but the personality of Charles I must be counted as one of the major reasons. Few people could have predicted that the civil war, that started in 1642, would have ended with the public execution of Charles. Although, i do believe he brought it upon himself by dismissing parliament in the first place and then changing his mind. In addition, his most famous opponent in this war was Oliver Cromwell one of the men who signed the death warrant of Charles.

Yes! I definitely agree with you that one of the more major causes of the Englsih Civil War was the personality of Charles I. Without the funds needed to support the war with Spain, Charles I resorted to many extreme measures: new tariffs and duties, the attempt to collect discontinued taxes, subjecting English property owners to a forced loan.All these unessecary charges led to political unrest and a dislike for the King. Aso the fact that he was so hot and cold to whether he wanted Parlimentto be in session or not. After experiencing such an organized and ineffective leader, the people were unhappy and wanted somene new to lead them. Thier contempt for Charles I was shown when in 1649 he was executed.

I agree with you completely about Charles I’s personality causing major conflicts. During the Thiry Years’ War, he failed to help Protestant forces and marries a Catholic princess which made most of his subjects mistrust his judgement. His later attempts to force reforms in Scotland’s religion led to a whole different war. The English Civil War was partly cause because Parliament challenged kings from overruling Parliament authority.

Charlies was most certainly a leading cause, but more then just having it as him versus Parliament, it was also an entire conflict of the role of King versus Parliament, seeing as the two positions had been at least subtly competing for the past few decades.

Charles I was a representative of the issues in English government, as Mark said. His problems/possible insanity showed the problems which would inevitability lead to a problematic civil war.

Wars have both long term and short term reasons. One long term cause was the decline of the monarchy under James I. He was known as “wisest fool in Christendom”. He expected the parliament to do what he told them to do and it didn’t. He caused the monarchy to begin to have fractures leading up to the civil war.

You just hit on one of the most common reasons for conflict in the Earth’s history. This reason is foolish and power-hungry leaders. The monarchy’s disintegration was caused by James I, who wanted everyone to listen to him because he wanted to be in charge. In a way, he was like Hitler. Wasn’t he a foolish and power-hungry leader? Hitler led millions to their deaths and James began a conflict that would lead up to a Civil War. Although the outcomes were not the same, these men began conflicts over their thirst for power and leadership.

I couldn’t agree more with Maggie. I like how you relate James I to Hitler because it seems completely true with the resemblence between the two leaders. We see many important history figures like you said “foolish and power-hungry.” Everything they do gets blurred with their want of power and money and just leads to more conflict than neccessary.

Totally agree. The reason is basically because people get blinded by their own quest to make themselves the best, and just get so greedy with their rule and their abilities. The English Civil war was nothing more then a culmination of years of animosity between the King and Parliament, and it’s unfortunate it had to explode out in the way it did, especially because Cromwell wasn’t really much better…

Why is it then whenever stupid people have power it never works out well?

From Matthew Hopkins to Salem: How the English Civil War Conjured Forth the Witch

Witch hunting was old by the time Great Britain erupted into the Civil Wars of 1639-1651, but this existential clash between royalists and parliamentarians amid a swirling miasma of sectarianism and suspicion, resulted in a fresh flowering of superstitious barbarity. Behind the frontlines of the conflict in the puritan stronghold of East Anglia, Matthew Hopkins, the self-proclaimed Witchfinder General, and his colleague John Stearne dispatched an estimated 300 people to the gallows between 1644 and 1647 for their alleged covenant with the devil.

It was the largest outbreak of witch hunting in English history, a unique product of fear, war, and the breakdown of civil society. With his new book Embracing the Darkness: A Cultural History of Witchcraft tracing the rise and the evolution of witch, we spoke to Dr John Callow to get a sense of the context behind Matthew Hopkins’ bloody trail of terror, and its long legacy that stretched from Salem to Wicca to 20th century gothic horror.

Is there a direct correlation between the depiction of Royalists as demonic or licentious (such as Rupert of the Rhine), and the fear of witches that exploded in East Anglia?

This is certainly what historians now think, largely as the result of ground-breaking work by Professor Mark Stoyle. The Civil War militarised and brutalised English society to an unprecedented extent and, at the outbreak of the war, Prince Rupert seemed to embody all that was to be most feared: the ethos of the ruthless, swaggering, foreign professional soldier, hardened to looting and the massacres of the Thirty Years’ War. As a consequences, the stories that gathered around Rupert from 1642-44, concerning his employment of familiar spirits – namely his great white dog ‘Boy’ – witchcraft and shape-shifting were easily projected onto village women, once the prince’s military reputation was shattered at Marston Moor.

Dr John Callow is the author of Embracing the Darkness. A Cultural History of Witchcraft, King in Exile. James II: Warrior, King & Saint, 1689-1701, The Making of King James II. The Formative Years of a Fallen King, 1633-85, and, with Dr. G.S. Scarre, Witchcraft & Magic in Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Europe

What role did the fear/suspicion of Catholicism play in the shaping of this image?

The idea of the ‘other’ – the fearful, corrosive outsider – is a common theme in most witch persecutions. Minorities are always at risk. In Counter Reformation Germany, the Protestant was often identified as the would-be witch in the Spain of the Inquisition, it was the Jew in 15th century France it was Joan of Arc as the liberated woman who adopted man’s clothing. In the same way, deadly folktales about Cardinal Wolsey – once a local boy made good, turned after his fall from power into a ‘witch master’ – began to transfer themselves onto Prince Rupert. The irony, here, is that Rupert was a dedicated Calvinist a temperate drinker and very far from being a rake. It was his uncanny good fortune in battle – just like Wolsey’s sudden rise to power – that appeared suspect and unnatural. It was this that equated both the Catholic Cardinal and the Protestant Prince, in the eyes of their detractors, with the devil.

Were there similar outpourings of Satanic panic during the Civil War, or is the trail of destruction left by Matthew Hopkins an anomaly?

After a period of marked decline from the 1620s, the Civil War re-ignited an interest in witches and a burgeoning, popular literature about their fearful magic. After the deadly hatred surrounding the last of the Lancashire witch trials had died down, the figure of the witch had often been viewed by dramatists as a comic, or pitiable one. The trouble was that these jokes and the sometimes entirely fictionalised accounts of their careers could – and often were – taken in deadly seriousness at times of crisis and societal breakdown. The hurried reprinting of earlier witchcraft tracts and trial accounts during the 1640s-50s created conditions in which persecution could flourish.

Beyond any doubt, the East Anglian outbreak of 1645-47 was the most dramatic and deadly cycle of witch-hunting ever undertaken in England. But Hopkins and his companion, John Stearne, were the symptoms of this canker rather than the cause. The collapse of traditional authority, a vacuum at the heart of the legal system, and an upsurge in popular fears about the efficacy of witchcraft created the climate in which Hopkins and Stearne might flourish. Certainly they were not the only witch-hunters operating during the period. The trials did not stop with Hopkins’ death in 1647 but radiated out to Kent in the 1650s. As late as the 1680s, the services of witchfinders were being sought and contracted by concerned citizens in the Devon boom-town of Bideford when accusations of witchcraft, once again, surfaced. It was not until the 18th century, with the acceptance of Cartesianism, a transcendent notion of God, and the rise of the philosophes that the devil was pushed to the margins and the witch was consigned to the pages of the story book.

Embracing the Darkness: A Cultural History of Witchcraft is available now

How did the East Anglia witch trials inform future witch panics, such as Salem?

Despite a gap of almost half a century, Puritanism, a society under considerable stress and a desire for religious conformity, provided common links between the largest witch-hunt in English history (in East Anglia in 1645-7) and in North America (at Salem in 1692). Furthermore, Massachusetts had been a magnet for settlers from the same Eastern counties in England that had been at the centre of the earlier trials. Ideas as well as commerce flowed freely, and surprisingly, freely between old and New England and figures, like John Hathorne (1641-1717) who presided over the Salem trials, spanned both lands and were rooted in a sense of an imminent, judgmental God and a prescient, corporeal evil that continually sought to undermine His world and work, through the devil and witches.

How much of the contemporary pop culture imagery of the witch can be traced back to this period?

There is no doubt that the modern image of the witch – crooked, old and poor, complete with a pointed hat, broom and black cat – stems from the mid-17th century. You only have to look at the title page of Hopkins’ ‘Discovery of Witches’ to see the stereotype, seated around the hearth and surrounded by her quarrelsome familiar spirits. The Classical witch who – like Circe – was often young, beautiful and adept at love magic – had been progressively debased and – quite literally – demonised by a succession of artists over the course of the 16th century. Thus, by the 1640s, a fresh pamphlet literature abounded with images that transposed the witch from a mythic past into the reality of the present. The witch could, now, live next door sour the milk, sicken the livestock and kill the babe in the cradle. That is what made her so dangerous, fearsome and compelling.

Did Matthew Hopkins have a role in the the popular imagination before Tigon’s 1968 film ‘Witchfinder General’ or does that deserve credit for raising his pop-culture profile (for lack of a better word)?

There’s no doubt that Vincent Price’s portrayal of Hopkins – as sneering, subtle and insidious – defined the image of the witchfinder for a whole generation. When the BBC came to make its own drama about the English Civil War, ‘By the Sword Divided’ in 1985, it’s version of the itinerant fanatic was virtually identical. In a similar fashion, the sheer theatricality of Price and the edginess of Michael Reeves’ script lent itself, perfectly, to heavy rock and metal in the 1970s-80s, with bands like Cathedral and Saxon referencing the movie, and another group taking not only its inspiration – but also its name – directly, from ‘Witchfinder General’. Their first single ‘Burning a Sinner’ demonstrates the pervasiveness of the myth – contrary to all the historical evidence in England – that witches Walways burn, rather than hang.

This said, Hopkins has a counter-cultural appeal that predates the film. Gerald Gardner – the father of modern witchcraft – first approached Margaret Murray and the Folk-Lore Society with a cabinet of curiosities that claimed to contain Hopkins’ staff and a witch’s ‘Moon Dial’. Within this context, it’s ironic that Gardner – who did more than anyone else to remove the sulphur of Satanism from witchcraft – began his magical career with a recourse to the career of the greatest demoniser of witches that England had ever seen.

Embracing the Darkness: A Cultural History of Witchcraft by John Callow is available now. For more gruesome curios from history, subscribe to All About History for as little as £26.

All About History is part of Future plc, an international media group and leading digital publisher. Visit our corporate site.

© Future Publishing Limited Quay House, The Ambury , Bath BA1 1UA . All rights reserved. England and Wales company registration number 2008885.

Watch the video: 2η Ενότητα, Αμερικανική Επανάσταση