Post by Moriko on Dec 22, 2006 1:07:23 GMT -5
Question 1: How do Haller, Hill, and Stone differ in their approach to the causes of the civil war?
Answer: William Haller basically saw the English revolution as a struggle for religious liberty that had broadened into a political topic. William Haller took on a strongly religious view of the causes of the revolution, and this is clearly evident in his Tracts on Liberty in the Puritan Revolution. He quotes: "Controversy in that great crisis revolved in ever widening circles about religious questions which came not to be solved, so much as dismissed, or, it would be better to say, transformed beyond recognition." People were beginning to lose faith in the Catholic Church, especially when new enlightened thinkers began questioning the church. The people's view of the church became even more bleak as the church would twist and morph there questions into ludicrous ideas. Controversy around the Church grew, and people began to get and take action. This can be related to the philosophy of John Locke, who said that if a person didn't like the government, it was their duty to rebel. The church owned large portions of the best land, and it had enormous power so it was in a sense governing the people! The church strongly opposed change, especially when it came from people questioning their motives. Here, Haller says: "To attempt to reform the English Church in the seventeenth century was to attempt the reorganization of society." Society was molded around the church, it was used to having a lot of power so radical change in the church would not be easy, especially since it had so much power. However as the revolution moves on, more and more people are beginning to doubt the church more, and the religious and supernatural laws that had embedded themselves in the individual began to become corrupt and obscure. Haller supports this statement by saying: "The religious doctrine of a supernatural law evoked the rational doctrine of natural law and natural rights which emerged as the modern doctrine of liberty. But the religious and theological terms and images in which that doctrine took form did much to obscure the sources from which it sprang." Tat sources happened to be the Church, and people were becoming more and more discontent wit it. Thus, the Puritan revolution was born. Instead of demanding religious liberties, people now began civil liberties. Why should they want religious liberties that came from such a such a corrupt and controversial religious body that was the church? You see that as the revolution moves on more, emphasis is shifted from the religious aspect to the political one. Haller quotes: "The beginnings of the war, so largely scriptural and theological to begin with, became increasingly rationalistic, naturalistic and secular." And this is where enlightenment ideas begin to take shape.
Christopher Hill saw the causes of the revolution in a more economical and social way. In his opinion, religious rhetoric cloaked economical impulses. Hill quotes: "Parliament beat the king because it could appeal to the enthusiastic support of the trading and industrial classes in town and countryside." This statement is very true. The Bourgeois were a growing wealthy middle class who were consistently gaining more and more power. He thought, as said before that religious rhetoric cloaked economic impulses. His negative criticism towards the religious view of war continues with him sating: "The orthodox attitude to the seventeenth century revolution is misleading because it does not try to penetrate below the surface." He says that the way to figure why all this fighting was occurring was to see what the people said why it was occurring In this he criticizes the religious view for being solely based on what people say and for not looking at the true core reasons of the war. He also seems to have a negative view on what the leaders of Parliament say caused the war, and although Hill agrees with what the Parliament leaders say the causes of the war were, ( Parliamentary armies were fighting for the liberty of the individual and his rights in law against a tyrannical government) he criticizes that fact because it fails to answer the basic questions, such as "Why was the King tyrannical" And "Why did the classes have to fight for their liberty?" Hill's view is purely economical, and it mostly involves the nobility In his The English Revolution, Hill quotes: The government represented the bankrupt land owning nobles, who were busy sucking the life blood from the whole people by methods of economical exploitation which we shall be considering later on." He is basically saying that the "whole people" or the true honest people were becoming increasingly angry at the nobility. The nobility exploited the money of the normal people and often brutalized the peasantry. The people did not think that this was fair and thus began to question the government. With the government not helping much, the people themselves had to take action, thus causing the Puritan Revolution. Also, Hill quotes: "The middle-class struggle to shake off the control of this group was not merely selfish; it fulfilled a progressive historical function . . . . It was necessary for the further development of capitalism that the choking parasitism should be ended by the smashing of the feudal state." Hill was completely right. The "choking parasitism" that he is referring to is the nobility. This parasite could only be ended by eliminating the last remnants of the feudal system in which the nobility exploited the common people. This, is what Hill says caused the revolution.
Stone pointed the blame to the King as well as to the differences of the people. In Stone's The Past and the Present, Stone quotes: "The collapse was caused not only by the undeniable ineptitude of the King and his advisors, but also by certain specific historical trends." He is saying here that the King as well as his advisors are a core cause of the revolution. His inability at being a good leader did not go too well with the people. Stone also mentions how lawyers played a crucial part in the cause of the revolution. In his document Stone quotes: "As for lawyers, they had their own grievances against the crown and the prerogative courts, noticeably their hostility to the interference of the church courts in common law business. They also strongly resented the competition to the common law courts by the overlapping jurisdictions of the two regional prerogative courts." This dispute between the lawyers took on political overtones which also aided in the causes of the revolution. As you can see, these 3 authors all have three distinct views on how the war started, and you can clearly see that all these causes outlined by the authors definitely contributed their own part in starting the English civil war. Much more could be said but Mrs. Santarelli has many more papers to grade and she doesn't want to spend her Christmas reading my ridiculously long issues paper!
Question 2: How did Oliver Cromwell defend his actions? Do you find the defense convincing?
Answer: Oliver Cromwell was a strict Puritan, and he was hated by the people of England. In fact, he was hated so much that after his death, his corpse was hung, and then beheaded following the Glorious Revolution! Oliver Cromwell's chief achievement was being the victor of the English Civil war but even more importantly, he turned England into a common wealth. Cromwell defended his actions by basing his right to govern England on scripture and on God, which was very similar to the Divine Right theory. He allowed scripture to justify his rule mainly. In Oliver Cromwell's Letter to Colonel Hammond Cromwell uses the scripture verse: "God hath appointed authorities among the nations, to which active or passive obedience is to be yielded." The authority, or Cromwell, resided in England, therefore, obedience should go to him. Cromwell strongly felt that God had chosen him to lead England, and that every won war meant that God approved of what he did, and that every failed war meant that God wanted him to take a different plan of action. Cromwell supports this in his letter by saying: Authorities and powers are in the ordinance of God." Cromwell also believed that the monarchy before him was corrupt and he thought that it was his duty to rule for the sake of the people. When it came to Parliament, Cromwell had a strongly negative view on them which caused him to ultimately dismiss them. In Oliver Cromwell's Dismissal of the Rump Parliament, Oliver Cromwell reportedly said "This time I must do it; and suddenly standing up, made a speech, wherein he loaded the Parliament with the vilest reproaches, charging them not to have a heart to do anything for the public good, to have espoused the corrupt interests of Presbytery and the lawyers, who were the supporters of tyranny and oppression, and accusing them to perpetuate themselves to a position of power." In Cromwell's bold act of defiance, he was basically telling that Parliament was a corrupt, in efficient ruling body, and told them that they were power hungry and mean hearted people. You can tell why the people of England hated him so much, especially Parliament. Cromwell also implies Parliament's ineffectiveness in Clarendon's History of the Rebellion. Clarendon happens to be a person who refuses to pay a tax that was issued by Cromwell without the consent of Parliament. Upon hearing this, Cromwell backfires, saying that he Magna Carta should not control his actions, which he knew were for the safety of the Commonwealth." Cromwell implied that Parliament and the Magna Carta weren't anything to be taken seriously, and that they were completely useless. He also implied that the tax that he imposed did not have to be approved by Parliament, which offended it greatly. I find Cromwell's defense not convincing. Cromwell's scripture based defense would do very well to justify his rule in a deeply religious area. However, Cromwell got tangled up with the wrong people. Cromwell's strict Puritan beliefs caused him to shut down bars and theaters, the places where people got entertainment. This strict code did not go well at all with the people. Also, religion was beginning to lose it's grip so although Cromwell's scriptural based defense is strong, it simply failed.
Question 3: All the legislation signed by Charles before the outbreak of the war remained in affect after the restoration. How would this affect future relationships between King and Parliament?
Answer: Charles signed numerous documents before the English Civil war. The fact that they remained in effect after the war forever meant that for once, Parliament would have more power than the King, and the the King isn't always right. The people have a right to rebel when their king isn't doing a good. This was a philosophy of John Locke, and enlightenment thinker. King Charles I was actually executed. For once, the King wasn't this all powerful, God given monarch. Enlightenment thinking had shown to Europe that they have a right to liberty and that it is their duty to rebel if the government isn't doing an adequate job. Many of the documents signed by Charles gave Parliament more power while decreasing the power of the King. In The Rights of the House of Commons Parliament declares that the King can't make any religiously based laws without the consent of Parliament. This statement is strongly supported by a quote from Parliament, which said: "For matter of religion, it will appear by examination of truth and right that your majesty should be misinformed if any man should deliver that that the King of England have any absolute power in themselves either to alter religion." This was a powerful quote, because Parliament asserts that the King can't make any religious choices without Parliament, and they are limiting his power. In Parliament and Taxation Parliament complains about new taxes that were levied by the King. They even quote: "That all impositions set without the assent of Parliament may be quite abolished and taken away." Here you see that Parliament begins to show it's true power, and now you have a government where Parliament has more power than the monarch. In Commons Protestation, 1621 Parliament showed that any important topic was a fit subject of debate, and that rights and liberties of Parliament are ancient and true. The document quotes: That the liberties, franchises, privileges, and jurisdictions of Parliament are the ancient and undoubted birthright and inheritance of the subjects of England."This statement would prove important and it would also foreshadow that after the Civil War, Parliament would always have power and that the King and Parliament would always work together. The Petition of Right was another extremely important document and had started due to the ascension of King Charles I. Charles was a high Church Anglican, and he had married a papist wife, Henrietta Maria of France. Because of this, Parliament was very suspicious of Charles' religious policy and refused to grant him rights of taxation. Because of this, Charles' was forced to used forced loans which ironically make Parliament protest, and thus, the Petition of Right was issued. It addressed many of the issues that Parliament was having with the King and seeked to redress on the following points, such as forced loans, arbitrary arrest, imprisonment contrary to the Magna Carta, arbitrary interference with property rights, lack of enforcement of habeas corpus, forced billeting of troops, imposition of martial law, and the exemption of officials from due process.
Answer: William Haller basically saw the English revolution as a struggle for religious liberty that had broadened into a political topic. William Haller took on a strongly religious view of the causes of the revolution, and this is clearly evident in his Tracts on Liberty in the Puritan Revolution. He quotes: "Controversy in that great crisis revolved in ever widening circles about religious questions which came not to be solved, so much as dismissed, or, it would be better to say, transformed beyond recognition." People were beginning to lose faith in the Catholic Church, especially when new enlightened thinkers began questioning the church. The people's view of the church became even more bleak as the church would twist and morph there questions into ludicrous ideas. Controversy around the Church grew, and people began to get and take action. This can be related to the philosophy of John Locke, who said that if a person didn't like the government, it was their duty to rebel. The church owned large portions of the best land, and it had enormous power so it was in a sense governing the people! The church strongly opposed change, especially when it came from people questioning their motives. Here, Haller says: "To attempt to reform the English Church in the seventeenth century was to attempt the reorganization of society." Society was molded around the church, it was used to having a lot of power so radical change in the church would not be easy, especially since it had so much power. However as the revolution moves on, more and more people are beginning to doubt the church more, and the religious and supernatural laws that had embedded themselves in the individual began to become corrupt and obscure. Haller supports this statement by saying: "The religious doctrine of a supernatural law evoked the rational doctrine of natural law and natural rights which emerged as the modern doctrine of liberty. But the religious and theological terms and images in which that doctrine took form did much to obscure the sources from which it sprang." Tat sources happened to be the Church, and people were becoming more and more discontent wit it. Thus, the Puritan revolution was born. Instead of demanding religious liberties, people now began civil liberties. Why should they want religious liberties that came from such a such a corrupt and controversial religious body that was the church? You see that as the revolution moves on more, emphasis is shifted from the religious aspect to the political one. Haller quotes: "The beginnings of the war, so largely scriptural and theological to begin with, became increasingly rationalistic, naturalistic and secular." And this is where enlightenment ideas begin to take shape.
Christopher Hill saw the causes of the revolution in a more economical and social way. In his opinion, religious rhetoric cloaked economical impulses. Hill quotes: "Parliament beat the king because it could appeal to the enthusiastic support of the trading and industrial classes in town and countryside." This statement is very true. The Bourgeois were a growing wealthy middle class who were consistently gaining more and more power. He thought, as said before that religious rhetoric cloaked economic impulses. His negative criticism towards the religious view of war continues with him sating: "The orthodox attitude to the seventeenth century revolution is misleading because it does not try to penetrate below the surface." He says that the way to figure why all this fighting was occurring was to see what the people said why it was occurring In this he criticizes the religious view for being solely based on what people say and for not looking at the true core reasons of the war. He also seems to have a negative view on what the leaders of Parliament say caused the war, and although Hill agrees with what the Parliament leaders say the causes of the war were, ( Parliamentary armies were fighting for the liberty of the individual and his rights in law against a tyrannical government) he criticizes that fact because it fails to answer the basic questions, such as "Why was the King tyrannical" And "Why did the classes have to fight for their liberty?" Hill's view is purely economical, and it mostly involves the nobility In his The English Revolution, Hill quotes: The government represented the bankrupt land owning nobles, who were busy sucking the life blood from the whole people by methods of economical exploitation which we shall be considering later on." He is basically saying that the "whole people" or the true honest people were becoming increasingly angry at the nobility. The nobility exploited the money of the normal people and often brutalized the peasantry. The people did not think that this was fair and thus began to question the government. With the government not helping much, the people themselves had to take action, thus causing the Puritan Revolution. Also, Hill quotes: "The middle-class struggle to shake off the control of this group was not merely selfish; it fulfilled a progressive historical function . . . . It was necessary for the further development of capitalism that the choking parasitism should be ended by the smashing of the feudal state." Hill was completely right. The "choking parasitism" that he is referring to is the nobility. This parasite could only be ended by eliminating the last remnants of the feudal system in which the nobility exploited the common people. This, is what Hill says caused the revolution.
Stone pointed the blame to the King as well as to the differences of the people. In Stone's The Past and the Present, Stone quotes: "The collapse was caused not only by the undeniable ineptitude of the King and his advisors, but also by certain specific historical trends." He is saying here that the King as well as his advisors are a core cause of the revolution. His inability at being a good leader did not go too well with the people. Stone also mentions how lawyers played a crucial part in the cause of the revolution. In his document Stone quotes: "As for lawyers, they had their own grievances against the crown and the prerogative courts, noticeably their hostility to the interference of the church courts in common law business. They also strongly resented the competition to the common law courts by the overlapping jurisdictions of the two regional prerogative courts." This dispute between the lawyers took on political overtones which also aided in the causes of the revolution. As you can see, these 3 authors all have three distinct views on how the war started, and you can clearly see that all these causes outlined by the authors definitely contributed their own part in starting the English civil war. Much more could be said but Mrs. Santarelli has many more papers to grade and she doesn't want to spend her Christmas reading my ridiculously long issues paper!
Question 2: How did Oliver Cromwell defend his actions? Do you find the defense convincing?
Answer: Oliver Cromwell was a strict Puritan, and he was hated by the people of England. In fact, he was hated so much that after his death, his corpse was hung, and then beheaded following the Glorious Revolution! Oliver Cromwell's chief achievement was being the victor of the English Civil war but even more importantly, he turned England into a common wealth. Cromwell defended his actions by basing his right to govern England on scripture and on God, which was very similar to the Divine Right theory. He allowed scripture to justify his rule mainly. In Oliver Cromwell's Letter to Colonel Hammond Cromwell uses the scripture verse: "God hath appointed authorities among the nations, to which active or passive obedience is to be yielded." The authority, or Cromwell, resided in England, therefore, obedience should go to him. Cromwell strongly felt that God had chosen him to lead England, and that every won war meant that God approved of what he did, and that every failed war meant that God wanted him to take a different plan of action. Cromwell supports this in his letter by saying: Authorities and powers are in the ordinance of God." Cromwell also believed that the monarchy before him was corrupt and he thought that it was his duty to rule for the sake of the people. When it came to Parliament, Cromwell had a strongly negative view on them which caused him to ultimately dismiss them. In Oliver Cromwell's Dismissal of the Rump Parliament, Oliver Cromwell reportedly said "This time I must do it; and suddenly standing up, made a speech, wherein he loaded the Parliament with the vilest reproaches, charging them not to have a heart to do anything for the public good, to have espoused the corrupt interests of Presbytery and the lawyers, who were the supporters of tyranny and oppression, and accusing them to perpetuate themselves to a position of power." In Cromwell's bold act of defiance, he was basically telling that Parliament was a corrupt, in efficient ruling body, and told them that they were power hungry and mean hearted people. You can tell why the people of England hated him so much, especially Parliament. Cromwell also implies Parliament's ineffectiveness in Clarendon's History of the Rebellion. Clarendon happens to be a person who refuses to pay a tax that was issued by Cromwell without the consent of Parliament. Upon hearing this, Cromwell backfires, saying that he Magna Carta should not control his actions, which he knew were for the safety of the Commonwealth." Cromwell implied that Parliament and the Magna Carta weren't anything to be taken seriously, and that they were completely useless. He also implied that the tax that he imposed did not have to be approved by Parliament, which offended it greatly. I find Cromwell's defense not convincing. Cromwell's scripture based defense would do very well to justify his rule in a deeply religious area. However, Cromwell got tangled up with the wrong people. Cromwell's strict Puritan beliefs caused him to shut down bars and theaters, the places where people got entertainment. This strict code did not go well at all with the people. Also, religion was beginning to lose it's grip so although Cromwell's scriptural based defense is strong, it simply failed.
Question 3: All the legislation signed by Charles before the outbreak of the war remained in affect after the restoration. How would this affect future relationships between King and Parliament?
Answer: Charles signed numerous documents before the English Civil war. The fact that they remained in effect after the war forever meant that for once, Parliament would have more power than the King, and the the King isn't always right. The people have a right to rebel when their king isn't doing a good. This was a philosophy of John Locke, and enlightenment thinker. King Charles I was actually executed. For once, the King wasn't this all powerful, God given monarch. Enlightenment thinking had shown to Europe that they have a right to liberty and that it is their duty to rebel if the government isn't doing an adequate job. Many of the documents signed by Charles gave Parliament more power while decreasing the power of the King. In The Rights of the House of Commons Parliament declares that the King can't make any religiously based laws without the consent of Parliament. This statement is strongly supported by a quote from Parliament, which said: "For matter of religion, it will appear by examination of truth and right that your majesty should be misinformed if any man should deliver that that the King of England have any absolute power in themselves either to alter religion." This was a powerful quote, because Parliament asserts that the King can't make any religious choices without Parliament, and they are limiting his power. In Parliament and Taxation Parliament complains about new taxes that were levied by the King. They even quote: "That all impositions set without the assent of Parliament may be quite abolished and taken away." Here you see that Parliament begins to show it's true power, and now you have a government where Parliament has more power than the monarch. In Commons Protestation, 1621 Parliament showed that any important topic was a fit subject of debate, and that rights and liberties of Parliament are ancient and true. The document quotes: That the liberties, franchises, privileges, and jurisdictions of Parliament are the ancient and undoubted birthright and inheritance of the subjects of England."This statement would prove important and it would also foreshadow that after the Civil War, Parliament would always have power and that the King and Parliament would always work together. The Petition of Right was another extremely important document and had started due to the ascension of King Charles I. Charles was a high Church Anglican, and he had married a papist wife, Henrietta Maria of France. Because of this, Parliament was very suspicious of Charles' religious policy and refused to grant him rights of taxation. Because of this, Charles' was forced to used forced loans which ironically make Parliament protest, and thus, the Petition of Right was issued. It addressed many of the issues that Parliament was having with the King and seeked to redress on the following points, such as forced loans, arbitrary arrest, imprisonment contrary to the Magna Carta, arbitrary interference with property rights, lack of enforcement of habeas corpus, forced billeting of troops, imposition of martial law, and the exemption of officials from due process.
