More handpicked essays just for you.
Essays on the english civil war
Concluisions on charles the 1st and parliament
Relationship between charles and parliament
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
1. To what extent was Parliament to blame for the outbreak of the English Civil War in 1642? The eventual breakdown of severing relations between Charles I and Parliament gave way to a brutal and bloody English Civil War. However, the extent that Parliament was to blame for the collapse of cooperation between them and ultimately war, was arguably only to a moderate extent. This is because Parliament merely acted in defiance of King Charles I’s harsh personal rule, by implementing controlling legislation, attacking his ruthless advisors and encouraging public opinion against him. These actions however only proceeded Charles I’s personal abuse of his power, which first and foremost exacerbated public opinion against his rule. This was worsened …show more content…
During the rule of King Charles I, the Parliament had limited powers, and were not entitled to govern independently as a Parliament should. This is shown through King Charles’ power to veto their decisions, and his dissolving of the Parliament three times between 1625-1629. Consequently, the Parliament became frustrated with their minute role, and responded in attempt to control the King’s power, to maintain their control. This is clearly depicted in their refusal to grant tax raising and revenue for Charles’ increased expenditure, including the abolishment of the ‘ship tax’ which had been previously collected illegally. Following on from this was the enactment of legislation through the Petition of Right in 1928, after MP’s had been called back by Charles in his third parliament. The Petition of Right demanded that Charles could not imprison anyone without being found guilty in a court of law, that no tax could be implemented without Parliamentary consent, and soldiers could not be billeted against their will. Furthermore, the Parliament also abolished the Court of High Commission and the Star Chamber, disallowing for Charles to continue the arbitrary punishment of opposers to his reforms. The Parliament’s pressure on Charles through these reforms was largely driven by …show more content…
It can be shown through the analysis of his actions that his ruling was arbitrary and centred on his own needs in terms of religion and taxes, without concern for the people he was actually ruling. It however cannot be said that his ruling alone forced the outbreak of the civil war. Parliament ensured that their constant retaliation to Charles I’s ruling, and attempt to lower his power over them caused a split in public opinion, and eventually drew the final battle lines. The longer term causes of Charles’ Rule however set up this conflict to occur, and therefore Parliament was only to blame for a moderate extent of the outbreak of the civil war. Charles I’s desire to rule his kingdom by himself, while seeking an unattainable agenda only set him up for eventual failure, and is clearly more to blame for this
In conclusion, opposition to personal rule between 1629 and 1640 was very strong. Charles had criticism and opposition coming at him from all directions and angles. This therefore put him under serious pressure. The key are of opposition for Charles was ‘Thorough’. This was the key are of opposition because it applied to the whole country, and eventually Ireland. ‘Thorough’ made itself lots of enemies as it was so far spread. Most, if not all areas, disliked ‘Thorough’ due to the king and his minions Wentworth and Laud putting pressure on the local sheriffs to abide by the kings word more.
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 British rule that was established in the colonies was oppressive and unfair. The British rule was immoral because Parliament contained a totality of British politicians who only cared about Britain’s wants and needs. The Colonists, “wanted the right to vote about their own taxes, like the people living in Britain. But no colonists were permitted to serve in the British Parliament.” (Ember) This unfairness led to many unwanted laws such as the Intolerable Acts and the Stamp Act. These laws did not benefit the colonists in any way, but the acts significantly helped the British. Laws and acts were forced
During the Stuarts, the only people who had the liquid cash to pay for the needs of the modern government were primarily the middle-class and gentry, which were represented by the parliament. The “awkward, hand-to-mouth expedients” (38) of the Stuarts agitated by the differences in expectations of governance, brought them into conflict with their primary tax base. The impatience of the eventual rebels was exacerbated by their Stuart’s disregard for the traditional balance between the crown and the parliament, as they were Scottish royals who had only dealt with a very weak
The Union is to blame for the civil war, particularly the northern states because the federal union’s goal was to not promote conformity, but to permit diversity within the orderly confines of any socialized community (Niven 311). The union could easily be considered a haven for all types of people, not just slaves. From 1830 until 1860, relatively few immigrants settled in the South (Meyers). The Northern states had a different vision of what they wanted America to be and strongly opposed how the South ran things. The southern states thrived off slavery and is mainly how people made a living in that region. Slavery is the cornerstone of a social order that protected individual liberty and equality for the white population in the south (Niven 311). Meaning that the North had way more resources, workers, and support in comparison to the South, so slavery was a way for the Southern states to at least stay relevant in the United States of America. The North’s feelings about how slavery was tearing the country and the union apart was the spark for the Civil War.
The primary issues that fueled the Civil War in 1642-1649, the Commonwealth in 1649-1660, the Stuart Restoration 1660-1688 ...
Through the analysis of the document, ‘King Charls His Speech’, a number of questions and answers result. However, the question of why was Charles I executed is only briefly answered by Charles I’s speech itself, when Charles I states, ‘for all the world knows that I never did begin a War with the two Houses of Parliament.’ Despite this question only being briefly answered by King Charles himself, through his speech immediately before his death, a number of historians have given detailed reasons as to why Charles I was executed.
Religious and territorial conflicts between states led to almost continuous warfare. So it is no surprise that Charles I’s troubles began early in his reign in 1625 when he declared war on Spain. To raise funds for his army and support the war, Charles asked Parliament for money. However, since he answered only to God he felt he was under no obligation to share with Parliament what he hoped to achieve or the expected costs of the war. As a result, Parliament denied the King the ability to increase taxes. To get around this the King dissolved Parliament and unilaterally imposed measures to raise money for his army. “Two of the measures that were extremely unpopular were the forced loan and ship money”( Grv, Jonathan Dewald). Throughout his reign Charles continued to engage in war which required additional funds that Parliament refused to grant him. Between 1625 and 1629 Charles summoned and dismissed Parliament three times. In every case, Charles failed to achieve what he needed from Parliament so finally in 1639 Charles indefinitely suspended Parliament and no Parliament was active for the next eleven
particularly the Stamp Act. When the Stamp Act was repealed, King George flew into a rage.
King Charles I left us with some of the most intriguing questions of his period. In January 1649 Charles I was put on trial and found guilty of being a tyrant, a traitor, a murderer and a public enemy of England. He was sentenced to death and was executed on the 9th of February 1649. It has subsequently been debated whether or not this harsh sentence was justifiable. This sentence was most likely an unfair decision as there was no rule that could be found in all of English history that dealt with the trial of a monarch. Only those loyal to Olivier Cromwell (The leader opposing Charles I) were allowed to participate in the trial of the king, and even then only 26 of the 46 men voted in favour of the execution. Charles was schooled from birth, in divine right of kings, believing he was chosen by God to be king, and handing power to the parliament would be betraying God. Debatably the most unjust part of his trial was the fact that he was never found guilty of any particular crimes, instead he was found guilty of the damage cause by the two civil wars.
To begin with, there was a great loss of human lives. Beginning in 1643 England, the closest absolute king Charles I attempted to storm and arrest parliament. His actions resulted in a civil war between those who supported the monarchy, Royalists, and those who supported the parliament, Roundheads, which did not end until 1649. Estimates for this war put the number of casualties at 200,000 for England and Wales while Ireland lost approximate...
There are various explanations as to who and what really caused the Civil War. It is even fair to say that sometimes morals stand in the way when deciding who really started the war. Therefore, the facts must be analyzed clearly and in depth. It is true that the north played a major role in the Civil War, however, the south would not release their strict traditional beliefs of slavery. As time progressed, slavery debates pressured the South more and more to stand by their strict beliefs. Fugitive acts, Uncle Tom’s Cabin and Secession all showed how the south used brutal methods to preserve slavery. Therefore, since the popular sovereignty doctrine, the pro-slavery souths’ strict use of slavery and decisions to secede from the nation, angered the north, leading to a civil war.
Throughout Charles I’s Personal Rule, otherwise known as the ‘Eleven Year Tyranny’, he suffered many problems which all contributed to the failure of his Personal Rule. There are different approaches about the failure of Personal Rule and when it actually ended, especially because by April 1640 Short Parliament was in session. However, because it only lasted 3 weeks, historians tend to use November 1640 as the correct end of the Personal Rule when Long Parliament was called. There was much debate about whether the Personal Rule could have continued as it was, instead people generally believed that it would crumble when the King lost his supporters.
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.
After our study of many accounts of the English Civil War and Charles I’s trial and execution, it is clear that discovering historical truth and writing a satisfying history are two very separate, difficult tasks, and that finding among many accounts a single “best” story is complex, if not impossible. In order to compare the job each historian did in explaining what’s important about this conflict, the following criteria can be helpful for identifying a satisfying history.