The New Model Army and the Civil War
In the early years of the civil war, little difference existed between parliament and the king in respects of power and territorial advantage. It could be said that the war was being fought to a desultory standstill. From the commencement of the conflict, the primary objective of Parliament had been simply to avoid defeat by the king. As soon as the problems of the government had resorted to violence, the leaders of Parliament knew that they could not tolerate any less than complete victory over the royalist forces. This is symbolised by a quote from the Earl of Manchester, "we may beat the king ninety-nine times out of hundred, but if he beats us just once, then he is still the king". Parliament could not afford to lose. If the king was to gain the upper hand then parliamentary supporters knew that they would likely pay for their loyalty with their lives. The introduction of the New Model Army was designed to change this philosophy for the better. As a group of well-organised, highly trained soldiers, their purpose was no longer to avoid defeat, but to win the war -- as parliamentary leaders, most notably Cromwell, realised would be necessary if they were to succeed. This essay is aimed at examining just how important a factor the New Model Army was in deciding that the fate of the first civil war would reside with Parliament and not the king. There were indeed other reasons for this victory, some of which will be explained below, but it needs to be evaluated just how big an advantage the New Model Army was to Parliament, and whether parliamentary success was only made possible after its creation.
When the war first broke out Parliament had at its command the local militia, or...
... middle of paper ...
...n so be argued that Parliament's victory was not entirely due to their own doing, but also to the king's inability.
In conclusion, the New Model Army was extremely important in respects to the ultimate victory of Parliament. Of course there were other reasons for this eventuality, but the existence of the New Model Army is the strongest reason why Parliament won. They were to prove so powerful that Parliament would be unable to stop them in following years. Even though Parliament held London, the navy, and had countless other points to their advantage, it was the New Model Army which enabled them to follow it up with military strength. Before its creation Parliament's armies had proved weak and indecisive. It was the New Model Army which highlighted the difference between the king and Parliament. They provided the platform for the end of the first civil war.
One monarch who faced limited royal power due to his relationship with parliament was Henry IV. This uneasy relationship was mainly down to the fact that Henry was a usurper, and was exacerbated by his long periods of serious illness later in his reign. Parliament was thus able to exercise a large amount of control over royal power, which is evident in the Long Parliament of 1406, in which debates lasted from March until December. The length of these debates shows us that Henry IV’s unstable relationship had allowed parliament to severely limit his royal power, as he was unable to receive his requested taxation. A king with an amiable relationship with parliament, such as Henry V, and later Edward IV, would be much more secure in their power, as taxation was mostly granted, however their power was also supported more by other factors, such as popularity and finances. Like Henry IV, Henry VI also faced severely limited power due to his relationship with parliament.
Oliver Cromwell was a well known military dictator. He helped the Parliamentarians win the First Civil War and was named Lord Protector. He died in 1658 but many people still remember him as one of the best leaders in history although others believe he was a harsh tyrant and always wanted too much power for himself. Throughout the years, numerous historians have changed their views on whether he was a good leader or not. This work will look at three interpretations from different people on who Cromwell was and what he was like and compare them.
The Union Army was able to match the intensity of the Confederacy, with the similar practice of dedication until death and patriotism, but for different reasons. The Union soldiers’s lifestyles and families did not surround the war to the extent of the Confederates; yet, their heritage and prosperity relied heavily on it. Union soldiers had to save what their ancestors fought for, democracy. “Our (Union soldiers) Fathers made this country, we, their children are to save it” (McPherson, 29). These soldiers understood that a depleted group of countries rather than one unified one could not flourish; “it is essential that but one Government shall exercise authority from the Gulf of Mexico to Canada, and from the Atlantic to the Pacific” (Ledger, 1861).
Abolitionism was around before the 1830’s but, it became a more radical during this time. Before 1830, Benjamin Lundy ran a anti-slavery newspaper. In 1829, Lundy hired William Lloyd Garrison. Garrison went on to publish his own newspaper the Liberator.
Since the beginning of the Market Revolution, the institution of slavery became the leading factor that intensified the relations between the North and the South. Regarding the geographic differences between the North and South, the South was primarily agrarian and the North was mainly urban. Therefore, the North rapidly industrialized while the South remained relatively rural and cotton-slave based. As a result, the Market Revolution economically separated the North and the South and created a second party system. Thus, the issues of pro-slavery and anti-slavery arose between the Southern Democrats and Northern Republicans in the 1850s. The North desired to halt the expansion of slavery into western territories while the South strongly opposed. These two opposing parties led to radical abolitionism in the North, William Henry Seward and John Brown, and extreme secessionism in the South, James Henry Hammond, and South Carolina Ordinance of Secession. Due to their strict ideologies regarding slavery, both parties could not compromise on the issue of the expansion of slavery. Therefore, according to Americans in the years prior to the Civil War, conflict was inevitable.
The American Civil War was one of the deadliest wars in American history, resulting in 620,000 casualties of soldiers and undetermined number of civilian casualties. Southern slave states declared their withdrawal from United States and formed the Confederate States of America; also know as “The Confederacy.” Northern twenty states free of slavery and five slave states in north came to knows as the Union. Many strategy and tactics were used during the American Civil War. In order to understand the military strategy and tactics of Union and the Confederacy, one must understand the manpower each side had, previous war experience of the commanding officers on both side, and using rivers and railroad to their advantages.
The Civil war could very easily be known as one of the greatest tragedies in United States history. After the Civil War, the people of The United States had so much anger and hatred towards each other and the government that 11 Southern states seceded from the Nation and parted into two pieces. The Nation split into either the Northern abolitionist or the Southern planation farmers. The Reconstruction era was meant to be exactly how the name announces it to be. It was a time for the United States to fix the broken pieces the war had caused allowing the country to mend together and unite once again. The point of Reconstruction was to establish unity between the states and to also create and protect the civil rights of the former slaves. Although Reconstruction failed in many aspects such as the upraise in white supremacy and racism, the reconstruction era was a time the United States took a lead in the direction of race equality.
In England, the parliament because of this need, grew to have power over the king and cause great toleration of people's
The majority of speculations regarding the causes of the American Civil War are in some relation to slavery. While slavery was a factor in the disagreements that led to the Civil War, it was not the solitary or primary cause. There were three other, larger causes that contributed more directly to the beginning of the secession of the southern states and, eventually, the start of the war. Those three causes included economic and social divergence amongst the North and South, state versus national rights, and the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Dred Scott case. Each of these causes involved slavery in some way, but were not exclusively based upon slavery.
Following the American Civil War, the whole nation was forever changed and was the result of many good and bad things. Although it was a very costly war and was So, the Civil War did define us and made us the good and the bad things we are and led to an extremely significant change because slavery was abolished once and for all and African American rights followed many years later, the Federal Government imposed more power over the states, our country was divided for a while, and it left the nation in debt due to the fact that we fought each other.
The Civil War determined what kind of nation the United States would become. It determined whether it would be a nation with equal rights for everyone or the biggest country that still abused of slaves. The war started because of the brutal conditions slaves were living in. Many had no education what so ever and were treated worse than animals. Back then part of this country found this acceptable and demanded to keep their slaves while the others demanded freedom. Today there are many movies about the civil war. For example the movie Glory which was made in December 15, 1989 it was directed by Edward Zwick. The movie depicts the lives of African American soldiers who had to endure tougher training than the American man, and American officials who had to make these men into real action fighting soldiers. The defining characters in this movie were. Major Cabot Forbes who was very tender towards the African American soldiers and he even stood up for them. Private Trip gave up his freedom in order to fight is true fighter. Corporal Thomas Searles who struggled a lot in the training camp but in the end pulled through. Glory is mainly about men with struggles that have to overcome their torments in order to end the Civil War. It took time and strength but the colored regiment became just as good as any white one. Corporal Thomas Searles, Major Cabot Forbes, and Private Trip all fought for what they believed in even at the time of their last breathes something they would have never done at the beginning of the movie.
Oliver Cromwell was a prominent leader during the civil war. Cromwell played a leading role in capturing Charles I to trial and execution. During the civil war, Cromwell’s military abilities commit highly to the parliamentary victory which made him appointed as the new model army leader. Also, the parliaments determined that he would end the civil war as the powerful man in England. In the selection, Edmund Ludlow criticize about the new models of government. Cromwell dislikes the idea of new models of government because he feel the new models of government would destroy the power. Also, Ludlow criticizes about Cromwell’s power is being abused too much, so he feels that the nation should governed by its own. Cromwell’s responded that the government
Sears’ thesis is the Union could have won the war faster. McClellan was an incompetent commander and to take the initiative to attack an defeat the Confederate army. The Army of Northern Virginia, under...
In 1642, King Charles raised his royal standard in Nottingham, marking the beginning of the English Civil War. The next ten years saw the Cavaliers (supporters of the King) and the Roundheads (supporters of the parliament) engaged in a vicious battle for their respective leaders with the Roundheads ultimately victorious. This essay will attempt to explain why civil war broke out in England while summarizing the story behind the antagonism of the two parties.
The challenges to the power of the Monarch was by the reign of James I (1603-25) the monarch was faced with an increasing effective Parliament, culminating in the temporary abolition of the monarchy in (1625). Consequently, the monarchy’s powers were eroded by both revolution and by legal challenges, which included the case of Proclamations (1611) , the monarchy could not change the law by proclamation. The law of the land, which required that the law be made by Parliament, limited the prerogative. In the case of Prohibitions Del Roy (1607) the Monarch had no right to act as a judge, and in the case of the Ship Money Case (1637), although th...