This week we wrapped up our look at the pivotal English Civil War, which ended with the execution of Charles I, and his son fleeing to France for safety (had he not made it, he would have been executed). How the English arrived here involved many different causes, along with a combination of explosive ideologies.

Among them:

• A reassertion of the divine right of kings from a ruler with very limited political acumen, combined with the rise of Puritanism, which interpreted 1 Samuel 8 very differently from centuries of previous Christians.
• Ships passing in the night between Parliament and King, where both sides were right in their own way, but about very different things so that the other side looked like an enemy.
• Both King and Parliament attempting to one-up the other in crucial areas of hot button cultural policy
• Both sides saw them themselves as defenders of the people and defenders of tradition, albeit in different ways. Charles was right that Puritans attempted to signficantly alter the country’s religious landscape, and alienated people by closing taverns, canceling Christmas, and forbidding sports on Sundays. Parliament was correct that Charles’ avoidance of Parliament, while technically legal, broke signficantly from the trends of monarchs over the past 100 years.
• An atmosphere where rumor and offhand comments had explosive power, and seemingly could not get corrected by “the facts.”

An example of this would be what happened to the Duke of Stratford. The Duke certainly supported the King, and served as Governor of Ireland. Parliament would not grant Charles the new taxes needed to raise an army and fight the Scots, who resisted Charles’ religious reforms. As Governor, he had an army that operated independantly of Parliament. He wrote a note to the king in which he pledged his support, and said that his troops were at Charles’ disposal to “deal with the enemies of your majesty,” should Charles request it. Of course, the “enemies” he referred to were the Scots. But many in Parliament got themselves to believe that by “enemies” he meant Parliament. Rumor swirled that the Duke would lead a Catholic-Irish army into London to reverse the Reformation, and many believed it.

They arrested the Duke for treason and put him on trial. They had no evidence–everything obviously pointed to the Duke’s innocence. When it became clear that he would be acquitted Parliament switched tactics and instead passed a bill of attainer, which essentially amounted to passing a law that stated that the Duke should be executed. The catch? Parliament needed the signature of the King to make the bill law. Charles refused his signature, but riots erupted thoughout London, with some of them threatening Charles’ family. The Duke wrote to Charles, and said that if he could continue his service to the crown through his death, he would do so. If his death could preserve CHarles’ throne and family, and establish peace, Charles should sign the bill.

Eventually Charles signed. He would regret this until the literal day of his death. He hoped at least that his death might help him and the country, but in fact everything backfired. Not only did an innocent man die, but people saw weakness in Charles and ramped up the rhetoric and the pressure against him. Tragically, the Duke’s death made civil war more, and not less, likely.

The war itself see-sawed back and forth, with Parliamentary forces usually more numerous or better led. Charles I had courage, and involved himself in some of the battles directly. But, just as he did politically, he either vacillated or lurched in key moments

For our final debate surrounding Charles I, I want the students to consider the role of law and process in politics. Both sides wanted a certain result from their policies and ideas, obviously. At times, Charles went to the limit of proper procedure and legality to achieve his ends. At a crucial moment, Charles crossed the line and attempted to arrest some members of Parliament while in session. The fact that this failed because said members had advance notice and fled made matters infinitely worse for Charles. But Parliament went much farther, executing Archbishop Laud and the Duke of Stratford.

Then after the war, Parliament took the ultimate step. Charles signed onto a peace treaty that dramatically limited his power, but the king secretly worked against the peace and tried to restart the war. When that failed, they put Charles on trial for treason.

Obviosuly, both sides thought they acted from the best intentions and the right principles:

• Parliament believed that they could no longer trust Charles, and so, he could no longer remain alive. For, as long he lived, Charles would try and reclaim the power he had lost and restart the war.
• Charles no doubt admitted that of course he had deceived Parliament about his intentions. But the Parliamentary army tried to alter the English constitution, and so were traitors. He acted rightly, then, in doing all he could to try and stop them.

I hope the students could see how both sides justified their actions.

The question of whether or not the king could be guilty of treason was an open one. Perhaps Parliament could put the king on trial for treason, as no one disputed their right to put the Duke of Stratford on trial. However, the Parliamentary army leadership came almost entirely from the House of Commons, with most in the House of Lords siding with the king. So, when the victors put Charles on trial they did so without the House of Lords, which would be akin to our Congress consisting only of the House of Representatives. It would not really be Congress, but just the House.

When brought to trial Charles rightly saw that the trial could not be truly legitimate because “Parliament” was not putting him on trial, only a portion of the Commons. Charles refused to enter a plea, and in this act, refused to recognize the legality of the process. When remonstrated by those in power with the quote, “Sir, you are before a court of law!” Charles famously responded, “I see I am before a power” [i.e., men with guns].

“Parliament” convicted Charles in abstentia, and sentenced him to death by beheading, which he suffered January 30 1648.

The House of Commons then assumed control of the country, but had a hard time holding a governing coalition together now that they had dispatched their common foe. In time this coalition collapsed, and Charles I son Charles II became king. But the pieces of the traditional English monarchy did not fit back exactly the same as before, and a precedent had been set, and the seed had been planted for a new vision of how government’s should function.

Many thanks,

Dave