Who would you have supported in the English Civil War?

[H. Ross Peron]

Not sure if this thread's been done before.

[S019]

The Parliament, but executing the King was very wrong, and I do not condone that part of their actions

[Kevinstat]

Probably the Parliamentarians in the First, ambivalent in the Second, and the Royalists (supporters of the eventual Charles II, although they lost that war and had to wait until after Cromwell's death for their dreams to be realized) in the Third.

[PSOL]

Parliamentarians throughout the three wars, and Charles II’s death was most likely justified given that as King it would severely blow and degrade the Royalist camp who viewed his rule as divine. I’d even still back the parliament with knowing about Cromwell’s rule, due to monarchy being such a terrible system.

[Lechasseur]

The Cavaliers

[1978 New Wave skinny trousers]

The Roundheads enthusiastically, with or without hindsight. Like the man or not, Cromwell's government did a lot of good in both the domestic and foreign spheres. The Commonwealth not only abolished the Lords and the state church, the latter action granting most Protestant Dissenters unparalleled religious freedom, but also readmitted the Jews to England and reasserted English power at sea and on land against the Dutch and Spaniards.

On whether Charles' execution was justified, I agree wholeheartedly with Theodore Roosevelt:

Justice was certainly done, and until the deathpenalty is abolished for all malefactors, we need waste scant sympathy on the man who so hated the upholders of freedom that his vengeance against Eliot could be satisfied only with Eliot's death; who so utterly lacked loyalty that he signed the death-warrant of Strafford when Strafford had merely done his bidding; who had made the blood of Englishmen flow like water, to establish his right to rule as he saw best over their lives and property; and who, with incurable duplicity, incurable double-dealing, had sought to turn the generosity of his victorious foes to their own hurt.

Any man who has ever had anything to do with the infliction of the death-penalty, or indeed with any form of punishment, knows that there are sentimental beings so constituted that their sympathies are always most keenly aroused on behalf of the offender who pays the penalty for a deed of peculiar atrocity. The explanation probably is that the more conspicuous the crime, the more their attention is arrested, and the more acute their manifestations of sympathy become. At the time when the great bulk even of civilized mankind believed in the right of a king, not merely to rule, but to oppress, the action of the Puritans struck horror throughout Europe. Even Republican Holland was stirred to condemnation, and as the King was the symbol of the State, and as custom dies hard, generations passed during which the great majority of good and loyal, but not particularly far-sighted or deep-thinking men, spoke with intense sympathy of Charles, and with the most sincere horror of the regicides, especially Cromwell. This feeling was most natural then. It may be admitted to be natural in certain Englishmen, even at the present day. But what shall we say of Americans who now take the same view, who erect stained-glass windows in a Philadelphia church to the memory of the "Royal Martyr", or in New York or Boston hold absurd festivals in his praise?

[Agonized-Statism]

I was sympathetic toward the Commonwealth when I was on the right, but with how it quickly became a hereditary presidential republic with restrictions on civil liberties and colonial ambitions (particularly regarding Ireland; Parliament intended to conquer them since the Irish Rebellion of 1641 before the threat of Royalist invasion was an excuse), they were no better than the Kingdom. I guess I'd try to find a Digger community.

[1978 New Wave skinny trousers]

I was sympathetic toward the Commonwealth when I was on the right, but with how it quickly became a hereditary presidential republic with restrictions on civil liberties and colonial ambitions (particularly regarding Ireland; Parliament intended to conquer them since the Irish Rebellion of 1641 before the threat of Royalist invasion was an excuse), they were no better than the Kingdom. I guess I'd try to find a Digger community.

Uh, they were actually a lot better than the Kingdom, but ok. Contrary to the misconception of Puritan England as "theocratic", religious freedom was far greater under the Commonwealth than under the monarchy, thanks to the disestablishment of the state church and Cromwell's personal belief in toleration. The Church of England, ruled by the King and his hand-picked bishops, was far closer to a theocracy; and unlike the Puritans they were committed to enforcing religious uniformity. Also, during the Commonwealth the House of Lords was abolished and the suffrage greatly expanded, so that the Parliament elected in 1654 was the most truly representative parliament Britain had ever had until the mid-19th century.

Furthermore, it makes zero sense to call yourself a Digger and not support the Parliamentarians, as the Diggers were the most extreme of Roundheads, far more radical even than the Cromwellians. Though there was plenty of infighting on the Parliamentary side between the radicals and moderates, it should be remembered that Thomas Rainsborough, the leader of the Levellers, was killed by Cavaliers and not by his fellow Puritans. On Ireland, of course Parliament wanted to retake control of the island, as it was in a state of rebellion at least as much against them as against the King. Finally, if you think the Diggers were any friendlier to the Irish than the more moderate Parliamentarians, you're sadly quite mistaken. Radicalism in politics and religion went hand in hand, so that the most committed of democrats were also the most fanatical of zealots. He's a few decades later, but John Ayloffe is a great example of this; a leader of the Green Ribbon Club (the successors of the Levellers), he was a radical republican as well as a virulently anti-Catholic, anti-Irish Francophobe. For the radicals of the 17th century (and of later centuries), the battle against popery and slavery, as they referred to it, was one and the same fight.

[Agonized-Statism]

Religious freedom was far greater under the Commonwealth than under the monarchy, thanks to the disestablishment of the state church and Cromwell's personal belief in toleration. The Church of England, ruled by the King and his hand-picked bishops, was far closer to a theocracy; and unlike the Puritans they were committed to enforcing religious uniformity. Also, during the Commonwealth the House of Lords was abolished and the suffrage greatly expanded, so that the Parliament elected in 1654 was the most truly representative parliament Britain had ever had until the mid-19th century.

All reasons that the Commonwealth appealed to me at a cursory glance, but you left out the autocracy of the Protectorate period (while there were theoretical limitations on Cromwell's power, in practice he was a monarch with an advisory council and a parliament) and the morality laws. The Council of State was dominated by the Army and the Barebone's Parliament was drawn mainly from the richest 5% of the population. It was a Bonapartist situation. Maybe the Commonwealth could have become something better than the Kingdom had it lasted, and you're right that some good ideas went into it, but it didn't. For all of its history, Cromwell had outsized influence. I don't consider that an improvement. That's just swapping out the old feudal elite for Cromwell and friends and slapping the republican label on it.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Fwiw Cromwell does strike me as genuinely troubled by the powers that he kept amassing, to the extent that he goes through cycles of discarding powers and trying to recall legislatures before his religious devotions bring him back in. If anything, he reminds me less of the cynical glory hound Napoleon and more a less blood-soaked Robespierre - and heck, Robespierre's philosophy and persona often strike me as a sort of secular Puritanism. I'll expand on this point if need be.

The downfall the Commonwealth came ultimately from the utter failure of the Rump Parliament to dissolve itself; if anything Cromwell literally was the only thing keeping the egos of the Rump and the Army destroying the entire project. Maybe if Lambert hadn't fallen out with Cromwell he could have kept it going, but that didn't happen and so you have the farce of Arthur Haselrig and his echo chamber.

[1978 New Wave skinny trousers]

Fwiw Cromwell does genuinely strike me as genuinely troubled by the powers that he kept amassing, to the extent that he goes through cycles of discarding powers and trying to recall legislatures before his religious devotions bring him back in. If anything, he reminds me less of the cynical glory hound Napoleon and more a less blood-soaked Robespierre - and heck, Robespierre's philosophy and persona often strike me as a sort of secular Puritanism. I'll expand on this point if need be.

Yeah, Theodore Roosevelt makes a similar point in his Cromwell biography:

Cromwell did not stand on the lofty plane of Washington; but, morally, he was infinitely and beyond all comparison above the class of utterly selfish and unscrupulous usurpers, of whom Napoleon is the greatest representative. At the close of the first Civil War there is no reason to suppose that he had any ambition inconsistent with the highest good of his country, or any thought of making himself paramount. To all outward seeming, his efforts were conscientiously directed to securing the fruits of the victory for liberty, while at the same time securing stability in the government. Unfortunately, in coming to an agreement among men, no moderation or wisdom on the part of any one man will suffice. Something of these qualities must be possessed by all parties to the agreement. The incurable treachery of King Charles rendered it hopeless to work with him; and the utter inability of Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, and indeed of all parties and all creeds to act on the live-and-let-live principle, rendered a really free government almost unworkable at the moment. How little Cromwell yet thought of striving for a kingly position is shown by his conduct in his social relations, notably by the marriages of his children, who at this time sought their mates in families of his own rank. The only one of these marriages with which we need concern ourselves is that of his daughter, Bridget, to Ireton, a good soldier and able politician, who was devoted to Cromwell, and was on very close and intimate terms with him.

[1978 New Wave skinny trousers]

Apologies for the excessive quoting, but Theodore Roosevelt just writes so well on what a tragedy the Restoration was:

The King and his followers then took revenge on the dead body of the man whose living eyes they had never dared to face. The bones of Cromwell, of his mother, and of Ireton, were disinterred and thrown into a lime-pit; and the head of the great Protector was placed on a pole over Westminster Hall, there to stand for twenty years.

The skull of the mighty crown-grasper, before whose untamable soul they had shuddered in terror, was now set on high as a target for the jeering mockery of all who sang the praises of the line of libertines and bigots to whom the English throne had been restored. For twenty-eight shameful years the Restoration lasted; years of misgovernment and persecution at home, of weakness abroad, of oppression of the weak, and obsequious servility to the strong; years when the Court of England-devoid of one spark of true greatness of any kind-was a scene of tawdry and obscene frivolity. Then, once again, the principles for which, in the last analysis, Cromwell and the Puritans stood, triumphed; the Dutch stadtholder came over the narrow seas to ascend the throne of England; and once more the current of her national life set toward political, intellectual, and religious liberty.

Also, another quote to build on CrabCake's point:

Oliver surely strove to live up to his lights as he saw them. He never acted in levity, or from mere motives of personal aggrandizement, and he saw, with sad, piercing eyes, the dangers that rolled around the path he had chosen. He acted as he did because he conscientiously felt that only thus could he meet the needs of the nation. He said to the second Protectorate Parliament: "I am a man standing in the place I am in; which place I undertook, not so much out of hope of doing any good, as out of a desire to prevent mischief and evil--which I did see was imminent on the nation (for we were running along into confusion and disorder, and would have necessarily run into blood)."

We are often told that the best of all possible governments would be a benevolent despotism. Oliver's failure is a sufficient commentary upon this dictum of the parlor doctrinaires. There never has been, and probably never will be, another despotism where the despot so sincerely strove to do, for a people capable of some measure of freedom, better than they themselves would have done with that freedom. The truth is, that a strong nation can only be saved by itself, and not by a strong man, though it can be greatly aided and guided by a strong man.

[Lincoln Republican]

I support the Parliamentarians/Roundheads

Down with any ruler who believes is in the divine right of kings

[Samof94]

Levellers existed as a third side.

[1978 New Wave skinny trousers]

Levellers existed as a third side.

They literally came out of the New Model Army.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Levellers existed as a third side.

This is not correct, they were a political faction in the New Model Army and a particularly hardline one at that. There was a third side, however, the so-called 'Clubmen': armed bands of vigilantes who sought to protect property from the depredations of the armies of both sides. They were particularly strong in the West Country.

[Samof94]

Levellers existed as a third side.

This is not correct, they were a political faction in the New Model Army and a particularly hardline one at that. There was a third side, however, the so-called 'Clubmen': armed bands of vigilantes who sought to protect property from the depredations of the armies of both sides. They were particularly strong in the West Country.

Even better. Could they be an option???

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The big issue with the Levellers is though they are right in retrospect, they were completely inflexible political idiots who quickly threw their briefly quite strong leverage away. (Rather fitting, given they arose in opposition to the biggest political idiot in British history)

[Cassius]

The Wrong but Wromantic Wroyalists.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The big issue with the Levellers is though they are right in retrospect, they were completely inflexible political idiots who quickly threw their briefly quite strong leverage away. (Rather fitting, given they arose in opposition to the biggest political idiot in British history)

Extremely British_Socialism.txt one must admit.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Even better. Could they be an option???

There was a particularly hilarious moment when they actually occupied a hillfort in Dorset, refused to leave and had to be violently dispersed by Cromwell.

[Blair]

This made me recall the wonderful Isaac Foot quote about judging a man based on where he wished his ancestors stood on Marston Moor.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Apologies for the excessive quoting, but Theodore Roosevelt just writes so well on what a tragedy the Restoration was:

The King and his followers then took revenge on the dead body of the man whose living eyes they had never dared to face. The bones of Cromwell, of his mother, and of Ireton, were disinterred and thrown into a lime-pit; and the head of the great Protector was placed on a pole over Westminster Hall, there to stand for twenty years.

The skull of the mighty crown-grasper, before whose untamable soul they had shuddered in terror, was now set on high as a target for the jeering mockery of all who sang the praises of the line of libertines and bigots to whom the English throne had been restored. For twenty-eight shameful years the Restoration lasted; years of misgovernment and persecution at home, of weakness abroad, of oppression of the weak, and obsequious servility to the strong; years when the Court of England-devoid of one spark of true greatness of any kind-was a scene of tawdry and obscene frivolity. Then, once again, the principles for which, in the last analysis, Cromwell and the Puritans stood, triumphed; the Dutch stadtholder came over the narrow seas to ascend the throne of England; and once more the current of her national life set toward political, intellectual, and religious liberty.

Also, another quote to build on CrabCake's point:

Oliver surely strove to live up to his lights as he saw them. He never acted in levity, or from mere motives of personal aggrandizement, and he saw, with sad, piercing eyes, the dangers that rolled around the path he had chosen. He acted as he did because he conscientiously felt that only thus could he meet the needs of the nation. He said to the second Protectorate Parliament: "I am a man standing in the place I am in; which place I undertook, not so much out of hope of doing any good, as out of a desire to prevent mischief and evil--which I did see was imminent on the nation (for we were running along into confusion and disorder, and would have necessarily run into blood)."

We are often told that the best of all possible governments would be a benevolent despotism. Oliver's failure is a sufficient commentary upon this dictum of the parlor doctrinaires. There never has been, and probably never will be, another despotism where the despot so sincerely strove to do, for a people capable of some measure of freedom, better than they themselves would have done with that freedom. The truth is, that a strong nation can only be saved by itself, and not by a strong man, though it can be greatly aided and guided by a strong man.

Slightly off topic here, but while I am partial to the consideration of William III as a reasonable revival of the Protectorate in some ways, it gets into some problematic territory. Especially when you consider the fact that William's mother was a daughter of Charles I and his wife was a granddaughter thereof as well and this is the origin of both of their claims to the throne. Furthermore, the dynamics of the Orangist faction in the Netherlands relative to their opponents makes any such allegories between William III and the Protectorate problematic as well, especially seeing as how the 1650s were bad times for both the Stuart and Orange families, as the "royalist" or "more royalist" faction in an "anti-Royalist" period in both countries. Lastly, it must be remembered that while William III did in fact sign off on Parliamentary authority to determine the King and the declaration of rights, these aren't necessarily reflections of his personal views. His priority and and interest was securing England as an ally against France and taking the English throne helped to ensure that, and the concessions made to achieve that were secondary concerns to him.

What I think the Glorious Revolution represents, was the confluence of events and interests aligning to allow for the successful melding of the two opposed political traditions of Monarchy and Liberty into a combination that would endure for centuries, albeit with the former being steadily eroded over time. There are some similarities with how the Orleanists tried to meld the French Monarchy with the Revolutionary traditions and had conditions been more favorable and the timing been better, it might have worked.

I do agree with Roosevelt about Cromwell being of higher character than Napoleon, at least in the time period referenced as such.

[AtorBoltox]

The Diggers

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

The Diggers

This is the right answer.