Civil War Between the King and England Essay

The Civil War could easily be seen as the second American Revolution considering it brought about significant change in history in the political, social, and economic aspects. Prior to the civil war, there had been a policy of slavery in the South which was a main cause of the conflict between the Union and the Confederacy. In the post-war period, slavery had been abolished which brought about much change in not only the social but economic aspect as well. There are many points from which the Civil War can be seen as revolutionary. In the political view, the Republican Party had dominated the political system for a long period of time. Economically, both the North and South had suffered from the costs of the war but had also prospered in

In 1645 Oliver Cromwell and Sir Thomas Fair Fax, built the new model army, and in the same year parliament won the battle of Naseby, while the royalist’s armies were still indiscipline. The King had rich supporters, but they also ran out of money, when it came to the battle of Naseby, so the king’s soldiers were in a bad state compared to the parliament’s new model army. After this battle he could have had another chance, but because King Charles was short of money, and unable to build a new discipline army like the Parliament’s. King Charles suffered from his immature army. In many times soldiers forgot to change sashes they wore when fighting, so their new allies shot them.

Their superior position towards the king and his patronage created an opposition – “evil councillors”, whose aim was to remove the favourites. All the previous points together with the king’s failure to exterminate disorder, chaos, corruption and misgovernment in the country degraded the Crown’s reputation and showed Henry’s shortcomings resulting in the outbreak of the Civil War.

The name Civil War is misleading because the war was not a class struggle, but a sectional combat, having its roots in political, economic, social, and psychological elements. It has been characterized, in the words of William H. Seward, as the “irrepressible conflict.” In another judgment the Civil War was viewed as criminally stupid, an unnecessary bloodletting brought on by arrogant extremists and blundering politicians. Both views accept the fact that in 1861 there existed a situation that, rightly or wrongly, had come to be regarded as insoluble by peaceful means.

After Charles was executed several political problems arose because there was no direction of settlement due to the degree and nature of the reform. As a result of this, two sides formed, the army who were religious radicals and parliament, who were after a conservative settlement. The result of the

After this was when things started to get harder for Charles V. He was faced with Religious differences as a challenge to political authority. Charles V.

The English Civil War was a complicated, intellectual war between the two most powerful forces in England: Parliament and the King. Conflicts between the two powers began when King Charles I dissolved Parliament in 1625 because they would not give him the money he demanded to fund his war against Spain. Parliament, who was lead by John Pym, felt that the King was showing favouritism towards the Roman Catholics, especially since Charles had recently married the Roman Catholic French Princess. Although Charles recalled Parliament in 1626, he proceeded to dissolve the second Parliament mainly because it attempted to impeach him. John Pym, who had been prevented from being elected to the second Parliament, was

The antebellum era exposed the entirely different views and ways of life between the North and the South. These differences can be observed on the economic aspect. The North was industrialized enabling them to have functioning economy without the use of many labors; however, in the south, people relied on agriculture, and thus they needed a large number of slaved labors to help them work on the plantations. Such difference led to the main distinction which existed throughout the entire Civil War, the dependence on the slavery. These differences sparked conflict between the North and the South placing them in an indisputable position, eventually leading to the Civil War. The prosecution of the Civil War of North and South differed drastically. The North fought to preserve the Union which entailed abolishing slavery, enlisting the black in the army and also paying them proper wages, and the South fought to withdraw and preserve slavery and their agricultural lifestyle. These conflicting views did not disappear after the war. Although the North won the Civil War, they still wanted to unify the country, not only territorially, but also economically and politically by enforcing many new laws and amending the Constitution. And the South, even after the abolishment of slavery, people in the south remained hostile toward the freed people, saw themselves more superior than the freed people, and tried to resurrect the “Old South”.(192~198) To achieve the real union and realize the

Ques - During the 1760s and early 1770s, the English Parliament took a number of actions that angered the colonialists.

King Charles I’s reign was unsuccessful, because he was unprepared to take on Scotland, England, and Ireland, each with its own political and legal structures. He was under the influence of bishops, priests, and friends who pulled him different directions in regards to war, religion, and economy. King Charles I’s was foolish and failed to rule England with an absolute monarchy, because he formed poor relations with the Protestant majority of Parliament, he raised and created new taxes, and he lost support of Scottish nobility.

The authors Tindall and Shi express how the new king was to be quite a challenge for the people of england, "Charles I, who succeeded his father, James, in 1625, proved to be an even more stubborn defender of absolute royal power. Like the French and Spanish monarchs, King Charles I preferred a highly centralized kingdom specializing in oppression and hierarchy." (Page 34) Further on in the chapter King Charles disbands parliment and raises taxes for defense. "In 1642...a prolonged civil war erupted." (Page 34) With a militant ruler taking over after Charles, England was dealing with some heavy issues concerning their monarchy. After the madness, England was brought some peace "Under the Bill of Rights, drafted in 1689, William and

The King also disabled Parliament; the House of Common/House of Lords, leaving no room for Puritans to engage in politics. King Charles sent his Arch Bishop to arrest Puritans for practicing faith that opposed the beliefs of the Monarch. The Puritans were fed up and embarked on what was the biggest migration to the Colonies in the history of Colonial America. There the Puritans would have the freedom to

Charles made many mistakes during his reign, one of which was when the Scottish were rebelling against the king, Charles made a new tax to pay for the army and declared war on the Scots. This was an extremely foolish decision as he could have gone to parliament and asked for their help to deal with the Scots, so then the Scots were dealt with and Charles would have been re-united with parliament. Another bad decision that he made was in 1640 parliament offered him to re-join forces but instead he closed them down again.

After Charles the second died his brother, James the second gained the throne in 1685. His main objective was to re-establish the Roman Catholic religion in England. The people of England were mostly of a Protestant religion and they did not want to change their ways. Oddly enough

By trying to arrest the 5 MP’s in January 1642 in the House of Common with an army of 400 soldiers, the King rose suspicion that he was trying to dismiss the Parliament once again. As the Parliament feared that it will happen, they tried to limit the King’s power by taking the control over the royal army and by voting to throw the bishops out of the House of Lords. Some moderate MP’s were beginning to become worried about the fact and went to support Charles with the belief of possible chaos if they do not do this. The Parliament took over the army to fight against the Irish without consulting Charles as they feared he would turn against