It has been argued that Charles I was the main reason that war broke out. I will be investigating whether this is a far accusation by looking at the long-term and the short-term causes for the English Civil War and assessing how far Charles was really to blame. Firstly, it has been argued that Charles was to blame for the long-term reasons such as wanting to make changes to religion, the power of the king and money. For example, Charles was partly to blame for money because he was trying to buy off the Scottish with £850 a day (which he could not afford) as a result from trying to make the Scottish Puritans. They rebelled and tried to attack.
However, some people, such as Jefferson and small farmers opposed his ideas, because they believed in states' rights and a strict interpretation of the constitution, which led to the split of two different political parties. Before Hamilton's plan, America was having financial problems. There were war debts that were unpaid and individual states and even Congress issued worthless paper money. Hamilton created a plan that would first pay down the national debt and then assume the debt of the states. This was called the Assumption Plan.
He required that his subjects “loan him the equivalent of five subsidies” and although it was “opposed by significant numbers in the localities,” the taxation still occurred as the government had “employed all its powers to eliminate resistance”. Moreover, the Forced Loan only happened as a result of Charles dismissing the 1626 Parliament, forfeiting his opportunity of obtaining further grants for his wartime expenditure. Parliament had already been antagonised by Charles’ decision to dismiss them and now that Charles was forcing taxation on others in order to fund his wartime expenditure, due to disastrous foreign policy which Parliament largely disagreed with, it is clear that the Forced Loan had worsened relations greatly. In addition to this, the financing of foreign policy also affected the relationship between Crown and Parliament. As stated previously, the Forced Loan existed to fund England’s wars considering that Parliament was reluctant to grant Charles further subsidies.
For such an organisation to have made a generous offer to the King previously shows a dichotomy between conservatism and radicalism. Cromwell embodied this dichotomy, first favouring the retention of the monarchy under Prince Henry,[3] later rejecting the chance to wear the crown himself, feeling that God had condemned monarchy. This is important because it shows a significant proportion of those that supported parliament were not opposed to monarchy, but rather wished to secure the rights of parliament. As
If he really was a great lawyer does that not contradict the values of his faith? Surely his historical context placed a far greater emphasis on the adherence of religion than that of our society. And it would seem the author of Utopia is a far different man to the later religious controversialist. It seems there is a lack of consistency leading up to the ‘martyrdom’ of Thomas More, a man so successful yet at the same time a man of inner crisis and a life unfinished. There is certainly a large cloud of controversy surrounding much of More’s life, work and death and such is the subject of this essay.
Were The Motives Of The Crusaders Primarily Religious Or Economic? Some historians argue that the Crusades were a necessary response by Christendom to the oppression of pilgrims in Muslim-controlled Jerusalem. While some may say that this was the case, others claim that it was political imperialism masked by religious piety, or that it was a social release for a society that was becoming overburdened by landless nobles. Christians commonly try to defend the Crusades as political or at least as politics masked by religion, but in reality sincere religious devotion by the Christians played a primary role in motivating the Crusaders. Obviously, there would have been a variety of motives for each individual Crusader.
He introduced this tax to the whole country and misused it by not using it for ship money. So people had to pay money to Charles when they barley had money for themselves. This caused argument because people in parliament didn’t pay and the case was taken to court but Charles’s tax was ruled legal. The most obvious reason for the civil war is power. Divine right also comes in to power.
He believed he had the support of the English Parliament. Mark Kishlansky states that where previous requests for money and army were pressing, as in the 1620’s, the situation after the First Bishops War was one of “genuine emergency,” and parliament knew this. Parliament was arguing that an invasion of England was not as important as attacks on the freedom of its citizens (Kishlansky, 1997: 140). Kishlansky has highlighted how important the events of the First Bishops War was, Charles was backed into a corner by parliament due to the events in Scotland. David Smith says that it was clear that some members of both houses sympathised with the covenanters and wished to defeat the supply of money in order to encourage a resistance, (Smith, 1998: p111) highlighting that there was a
[3] When James called his first Parliament into session, he had nothing but good intensions. He wanted to address the grievances both religious and economically, that had been accumulating since Good Queen Bess’ reign. He firmly addressed the issue of religious reform, and clearly stated that he liked the Church of England as it was, had no love of the Pope, Puritans, and Novelists. [4] The other specific grievances addressed were purvayance (the right of the monarch to buy goods and services for his household and the army at fixed prices, usually below market value), monopolies (which allowed certain court favorites sole rights to produce or market goods and services) and wardships (a practice in which heirs of landed gentlemen, who had not yet met their majority, were placed under the protection of the crown and their lives, monies and property were under crown control). [5] It
The King, however, neglected to mention this to his Parliament who became understandably confused and wary due to the carelessness of James and his lack of communication. Discussion at the Parliament then moved to domestic grievances; most importantly the issue of monopolies, which were bitterly opposed by the vast majority of Parliamentarians. Here James and the Commons worked in unison, a rare event at this time. The revival of impeachment by Coke and Cranfield to remove Bacon, who was heavily involved with monopolies, was allowed by James as he was eager to maintain the positive relations he was enjoying with his Parliament. James and the Commons