Pag

e1

Historical Background to the English Colonization of North America.

©2008, John H. Ratliff. All rights reserved.

England was a late-comer to North-American colonization, so to speak. By the

time that Jamestown was settled (1607), Spain had already colonized much of the western

hemisphere, an endeavor which, by the late 1500s, made Spain the world’s wealthiest

nation. In many ways, the English were driven to explore and colonize North America in

response to Spain’s tremendous success – a sixteenth-century arms race, of sorts.

But the English pattern of exploration and settlement differed greatly from those

of her European neighbors. Whereas Spain and Portugal undertook state-sponsored

colonization, England preferred to privatize her exploration process, granting charters and

letters of marquis to private individuals who established English colonies as money-

making enterprises.1

England’s First Explorer of North-America.

King Henry VII rejected

Christopher Columbus’s 1492 proposal to

find a sea route to Asia, thereby handing

the newly-crowned Spanish monarchs,

Ferdinand and Isabella, a choice jewel for

their imperial crowns. After learning of

Columbus’s successful expedition to the

modern-day Caribbean, however, Henry

VII was eager to amend his mistake.2 On

March 5, 1497, he hired Giovanni

Cabotto, an Italian explorer known to

history by his anglicized name, John

Cabot, to explore the eastern shores of

North America, as

well as to search

for a water

passage to Asia. With five ships, Cabot set sail for North

America to “seek out, discover, and find, whatsoever isles,

countries, regions, or provinces of the heathen infidels,

whatsoever they be, and in what part of the world soever they be,

which before this time have been unknown to all Christians.”3

Cabot set sail in early May 1497, and returned to England by

August of that same year. For his troubles, Henry VII paid

Cabot £10. Despite this paltry financial reward, Cabot had

discovered a place that he called “newe founde lande” (believed

to be modern-day Newfoundland, a Canadian province),

becoming the first European to set foot on that part of the continent since the Vikings, and

his claims there gave England the basis for her later territorial claims to the entire North

"The departure of John and Sebastian Cabot from Bristol on their first voyage of

discovery, 1497." Oil on canvas by Ernest Board, 1906. From J.R. Smallwood, ed., The Book of Newfoundland, Vol. I (St. John's, Newfoundland: Newfoundland Book

Publishers, 1937), 1.

“King Henry VII,” by Unknown artist,

1505. The National Portrait Gallery, London.

Pag

e2

American continent.4 Cabot made another voyage on behalf of the English Crown in

1498, during which Cabot is presumed to have met with misadventure, as he was never

seen alive again.5

Internal divisions, political strife, and seemingly non-ending conflict with France

caused England to withdraw from the colonization race with Spain, however, for nearly a

century. During that time period, Spain became the unquestioned dominant power in the

western hemisphere, where they discovered massive silver and gold deposits.6

Additional Resources:

John L. Allen, “From Cabot to Cartier: The Early Exploration of Eastern North America, 1497 -1543,” Annals of the Association

of American Geographers, Vol. 82, No. 3, The Americas before and after 1492: Current Geographical Research

(September 1992): 500-521.

Motivations for English Colonization.

The motivations for the English colonization of North America defy a simple

explanation. Many factors lead to this movement, including: mercantilism (mûr'kən-tē-

lĭz'əm), religion, excess population, and political turmoil.

Mercantilism

In general, mercantilism is an economic system based upon the combination of

government and private efforts in order to foster economic development. The goal of this

system was to keep all portions of a nation’s trade – production, transportation, and retail

– within the jurisdiction of the mother country. Mercantilists

(advocates of mercantilism) believed that the world’s wealth was

finite, meaning that there was a definite amount of wealth in the

world and for one nation to become rich, another would necessarily

become poor. And since wealth in sixteenth and seventeenth-century

Europe was determined by the size of one’s bullion reserves (gold and

silver, as well as other precious metals and gems), mercantilism held that for any nation

to become rich it must have a favorable “balance-of-trade” – i.e., more bullion flows into

the country than out of the country.7 Moreover, to ensure a favorable balance-of-trade,

Gold Bullion

Pag

e3

European governments instituted protectionist economic policies (such as outlawing un-

favorable trade with other nations, requiring that all goods be transported aboard the

mother country’s ships, and mandating that those ships dock at the mother country’s ports

exclusively8) intended to ensure a favorable balance-of-trade.

9

Mercantilism, therefore, made colonial ventures both profitable and patriotic.

Since colonies lacked industrial enterprises of their own (a limitation ensured by

discriminatory crown policies which either discouraged or outright forbade colonial

industrial pursuits), colonists afforded English merchants a ready and secure market for

their industrial goods. At the same time, colonies provided English industrialists with a

ready and secure source for raw materials.

Naturally, the entire Mercantilist system was

susceptible to deceit and cheating, otherwise known

as pirating, bootlegging, trading in contraband, or the

black market. When English subjects stepped outside

their own system, their actions created an unfavorable balance-of-trade and endangered the

nation’s prosperity, so mercantilists believed.

Though the English prosecuted all such infractions

initially, they soon realized that when that illicit

activity favored England – such as when Spanish,

Dutch, and French colonists purchased English goods

– a handsome profit could be made and the mother

countries’ riches increased.10

Religion

The religious upheavals associated with the rise of

Protestantism in Europe during the 1500s began in Germany with

Martin Luther, but Protestantism spread quickly throughout Europe.

In England, the Protestant Reformation was spurred not by doctrinal

disputes, but by Henry VIII’s need for a male heir. Henry VIII’s first

wife, Catherine of Aragon, was a Spaniard who, in twenty-two years

of marriage, had failed to produce a male

offspring and heir to the Tudor throne, though

she did give birth to Mary, an eventual queen. Henry VIII became

obsessed with procreating a male heir, and he blamed Catherine of

Aragon for his failings in this regard.11

At the same time, he began

a relationship with Anne Boleyn, Catherine’s “lady-in-waiting.”

Consequently, he petitioned Pope Clement VII for a divorce

(England was still Catholic and marriage was religious a ceremony,

not civil). But the Catholic Church was closely tied to Spain,

Catherine’s home country. Spain pressured the pope to deny the

divorce outright, but the pope, not eager to offend the English, delayed making any

decision in the matter, hoping to somehow divine a plan to that pleased both sides.12

A typical English brigantine of the early 18th-century.

(From the Maritime Museum, Greenwich.)

Catherine of Aragon.

(from: www.berkshirehistory.com/

bios/caragon.html)

Henry VIII .

(from: http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/

14200/14275/henry8_14275.htm)

Pag

e4

Henry tired of waiting on the pope, however. In 1533, Henry pushed the Act in

Restraint of Appeals through parliament. This act declared England an empire which

owed no allegiance to any foreign power, including the pope in Rome.13

Henry

immediately requested, and received, an annulment from the archbishop of Canterbury,

the highest religious official in England, and married Anne Boleyn soon thereafter, who

bore him another daughter, Elizabeth. In 1534, parliament passed the Act of Supremacy,

which proclaimed Henry VIII the “supreme head of the church of

England.”14

For all practical reasons, the Church of England was

little more than the Catholic Church with the king of England for

pope.

Henry VIII died in 1547, and was succeeded by his son,

Edward VI, a youthful monarch who was prone to sickness.

Militant Calvinists and other Protestants took advantage of

Edward’s weaknesses in order to spread their religious persuasions

throughout England, including allowing priests to marry. When

Edward died in 1553, he was succeeded by

his half-sister, Mary I, known as “Bloody

Mary.” Mary was a devout Catholic and she set about restoring

England to Catholicism by persecuting Protestants, executing

many of them. On one occasion, Mary charged a group of 300

Protestants with heresy and had them burned at the stake. Many

Calvinists fled England during Mary’s reign. Termed “Marian

exiles,” these refugees fled to Calvinist strongholds, such as

Geneva and Frankfort, where their devotion to Calvinism grew

stronger. In 1558, Elizabeth I succeeded Mary. Elizabeth

reinstated the Church of England, with Protestant doctrines and a

Catholic style of worship, a move which offended both Calvinists

and Catholics alike.15

One group of the Marian exiles (Puritans),

became obsessed with riding the Church of England of all vestiges

of Catholicism. The obsession and discontent eventually lead to

serious instabilities within England – a matter which will be

discussed later.

Elizabeth’s actions had the combined effect of drawing the

ire of continental Catholics and, in the minds of Englishmen,

associating Protestantism with patriotism. In 1570, Pope Pius V

excommunicated Elizabeth. Spain, a nation which perceived itself

as the “defender of the Catholic faith,” pledged to return England to

Catholicism, sparking decades of conflict between the two nations.

And Catholic fanatics in England plotted to overthrow the Tudor Dynasty by any means

at their disposal, including terrorist acts.16

This pressure united English patriots with the

Church of England and imbibed them with the belief that Catholicism, especially Spanish

Catholicism, was evil. As a result, when English privateers, such as Sir Francis Drake,

attacked Spanish ships in American waters, they were hailed as heroes, not pirates.17

Spain’s King Philip I was determined to destroy Protestant England and, in 1588,

assembled a grand armada to invade England, and with the help of English Catholic

dissidents, return the isles to Catholicism. The armada formed off the coast of Lisbon,

"Bloody" Mary, I

(from: etc.usf.edu/clipart/200/

264/mary1_1.htm)

Elizabeth I.

http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/200/266/

elizabeth1_3.htm

Sir Francis Drake

Pag

e5

with hundreds of ships and thousands of Spanish

infantrymen. Philip’s flotilla was so large that

one observer called it an “invincible fleet.” That

moniker proved to be a misnomer, however, as

the smaller, faster English fleet defeated the

armada in the English Channel, then chased and

harassed its remnants north, toward Scotland.18

After Philip’s failed attempt to invade England,

Spain never again dominated the Atlantic Ocean.

The destruction of the Spanish armada

opened the Atlantic to English explorers, while

advocates of English colonization argued that England had a duty to colonize the

Americas and halt the spread of Catholicism.

Elizabeth I’s Speech to her troops as they prepared to resist the Spanish invasion:

“My loving people, we have been persuaded by

some, that are careful of our safety, to take heed how we commit ourselves to armed multitudes, for fear of treachery; but I assure you, I do not desire to live to distrust my faithful and loving people. Let tyrants fear; I have always so behaved myself that, under God, I have placed my chiefest strength and safeguard in the loyal

hearts and good will of my subjects. And therefore I am come amongst you at this time, not as for my recreation or sport, but being resolved, in the midst and heat of the battle, to live or die amongst you all; to lay down, for my God, and for my kingdom, and for my people, my honor and my blood, even the dust. I know I have but the body of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart of a king, and of a king of England, too; and think foul scorn

that Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realms: to which, rather than any dishonor should grow by me, I myself will take up arms; I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field. I know already, by your forwardness, that you have deserved rewards and crowns; and we do assure you, on the word of a prince, they shall be duly paid you. In the mean my

lieutenant general shall be in my stead, than whom never prince commanded a more noble and worthy subject; not doubting by your obedience to my general, by your concord in the camp, and by your valor in the field, we shall shortly have a famous victory over the enemies of my God, of my kingdom, and of my people.”

19

Elizabeth I of England - 1588

Excess Population

During the early 1500s, England passed Enclosure Laws, which made all land private land and forever ended the ability of commoners to grave their livestock on public lands, free of charge. Several factors prompted this movement, most notably the world-

Route of the Spanish Armada, 1588.

Pag

e6

wide increase in demand for wool. Fortunes could be made in the woolen trade and landowners who wanted to increase their own wealth sought to eliminate competition while increasing their own pasture land. Enclosure did increase wool production, but it also create a massive pool of landless men

who had once been able to support themselves by grazing sheep on public lands, but could no longer sustain themselves. Moreover, between 1530 and 1600, the population of England rose from three million to four million. Needless to say, England was facing major population pressures and colonies provided an effective “safety valve” for the population excesses.20 Click here to read more about the Enclosure Laws (this is required reading).

Background Details to Settlement and Eventual Conflict.

The English and the American colonists saw the world, and their place in the world, from

different (often opposite) perspectives. Much of the reason for that conflict stemmed from their historical experience. In large part, migration to the colonies was accelerated by the political disruptions within England. Moreover, the political arguments concerning the nature of government and its relationship to the people that were advanced to justify the American Revolution had their roots in the English Civil War.

Short Review of the English Political Turmoil of the 1640s:

Relations between English monarchs and their nobles had been contentious for several

years prior to the eighteenth century. In 1603, when Elizabeth I died without an heir, James IV, of Scotland (Stuart), became James I, of England (reigned 1603-25). James was a Divine Right Kings adherent, meaning he believed that God had chosen him to rule and that his decisions were equivalent to Holy writ. James’s views were not shared by a significant portion of his followers

and he saw colonization as a way to get rid of dissenters.21

James I’s son, Charles I (1625-42), became king

in 1625. He accelerated the process of moving dissenters to the colonies. But colonization did not remove all dissent and Charles I’s policies antagonized the already disgruntled nobility. First, he spent enormous sums of money on his court, incurring heavy debt. Second, his religious tastes were ornate and highly formalized and closely resembled Catholic ceremonies

and he attempted to de-Calvinize the Church of England, both of which angered Protestants.22 Third, his wife, Henrietta

Marie, was a French Catholic. When Charles married her, he promised the nobility that he would continue to discriminate against English Catholics who refused to attend Anglican services.

However, Charles secretly ignored that promise and allowed English Catholics to enjoy those privileges afforded Anglicans. Fourth, Charles I plunged England, unsuccessfully, into religious wars on the Continent. Those wars taxed the English treasury heavily, and Charles should have called a parliament to raise funds

Charles II, of England.

Henrietta Marie.

Pag

e7

for the war effort because, by law, parliament controlled the purse. But calling a parliament meant giving the opposition a platform from which to argue against the king and Charles was reluctant to provide them that opportunity. Instead, Charles raised funds by taxing exports and imports, and taking advantage of English Enclosure Laws, none of which increased his favor

among English merchants and landowners.23

In 1628, parliament forced the Petition of Right

upon Charles. The Petition of Right had three main points: no funds could be borrowed or raised without the explicit consent of parliament; no free person could be imprisoned without a reason; and troops could not be quartered in the homes of private citizens without permission. These three points would eventually become keystones to the concept of the “rights of Englishmen,” and a basis for justifying the American Revolution.24 When Charles attempted to force the high Anglican church service upon the Scots in 1637, Scotland erupted in unrest. To subdue the Scots, Charles was forced to call a parliament in April 1640. That parliament, however, refused to give Charles the funds he requested and, consequently, Charles dissolved it. Scotland remained in disarray, though, and the king was forced to call another parliament in November 1640. Ultimately, this parliament sat for thirteen years and became known as the “Long Parliament.” The Long Parliament placed significant restrictions on the king’s powers, including a declaration that parliament could not be dissolved

without its own consent and that no more than three years could elapse between parliaments, all

of which the king accepted.25

But when the Long Parliament turned to religious questions, matters soured, splitting the Long Parliament into factions. The Royalists, or “Cavaliers,” supported Charles and his policies. The Puritans, or “Roundheads,” opposed Charles and were further divided into two groups: Independents, who wanted to dissolved the Church of England altogether, and the Presbyterians,

who wanted to keep the Church of England, but reform it along the lines of the Scottish church.26 A sub-faction, called the “Levellers” also emerged. Levellers demanded an end to the privileges of nobility. Click here to read more about the Levellers (required).

By 1641, issues concerning politics and religious had become intertwined in English society. When the Irish rebelled that year, tensions between parliament and Charles I reached a fever pitch, especially concerning command of English armies. When parliament tried to restrict the king’s powers over the military, Charles entered the parliament floor and attempted to

arrest five members of the House of Lords, including John Pym, leader of the opposition. Pym escaped arrest and fled to London, where Puritans sheltered him. Charles demanded that the Puritans turn Pym over, but the Puritans refused. Fearing that Charles would use the military to enforce his decrees,

Parliament effectively removing him from command of the English army with the “Grand Remonstrance,” which denounced the evils of Charles’s kingship and forced him and his court to flee to London.27

Charles declared the Grand Remonstrance null and, in August 1642, called upon his loyal

subjects to rally to his side to destroy parliament – the English Civil War as afoot.28

The

following websites explain the English Civil War in greater detail and are to be read (they were assigned in a previous lesson).

The BBC’s Civil War.

The History Guide Lectures on Early Modern European History: The English Civil War.

Royalist forces dominated the English Civil War until 1644, when Oliver Cromwell’s “New Model Army” routed the Royalists at Marston Moor. The next, the New Model Army defeated the Royalists twice more.

John Pym.

Oliver Cromwell.

Pag

e8

At the Battle of Naseby1 (June 14, 1645), the Royalist army was destroyed and its artillery and baggage trains, including King Charles’s private papers, captured by Parliamentarian forces. The discovery of Charles’s papers revealed that he had been in negotiation to bring Irish Catholics to England to help crush the Parliamentarians, a mishap which would come to haunt the Royalists.29

On March 21, 1646, at Stow-on-the-Wold, the last Royalist army in the field laid down its arms; two months later, King Charles I personally surrendered to the Scottish army. During the following year, the rest of the Royalist garrisons capitulated as well.30 Parliament attempted to make peace with Charles, and offered him a treaty, the Newcastle Propositions (read them), but Charles refused their offer. By April 1647, Oliver Cromwell’s New Model Army had custody of the king. But, rather than

negotiate with the Parliamentarian forces, Charles stonewalled their efforts to negotiate a peaceful settlement to England’s political chaos. In November 1647, Charles escaped his imprisonment and conspired with Scottish lords to resume the war, resulting in the Second Civil War (1647-8), which was terminated

swiftly by Cromwell’s New Model Army.31 Charles’s actions during the Second Civil War left him

without support, as even former Royalists considered him “bloodthirsty.” Parliament determined to end Charles’s I burdensome rule permanently. On January 1, 1649, Parliament created a “High Court of Justice” to try Charles as a “tyrant, traitor and murderer; and a public and implacable

enemy to the Commonwealth of England.”32

Act Erecting a High Court of Justice for the Trial of Charles I

(Passed the Commons, January 6, 1648/9.)

“WHEREAS it is notorious that Charles Stuart, the now King of England, not content with those many encroachments which his predecessors had made upon the people in their rights and freedoms, hath

had a wicked design totally to subvert the ancient and fundamental laws and liberties of this nation, and in

their place to introduce an arbitrary and tyrannical government, and that besides all other evil ways and

means to bring this design to pass, he hath prosecuted it with fire and sword, levied and maintained a civil

war in the land, against the Parliament and kingdom; whereby the country hath been miserably wasted, the

public treasure exhausted, trade decayed, thousands of people murdered, and infinite other mischiefs

committed; for all which high and treasonable offences the said Charles Stuart might long since justly have

been brought to exemplary and condign punishment; whereas also the Parliament, well hoping that the

restraint and imprisonment of his person, after it had pleased God to deliver him into their hands, would

have quieted the distempers of the kingdom, did forbear to proceed judicially against him, but found, by

sad experience, that such their remissness served only to encourage him and his accomplices in the

continuance of their evil practices, and in raising new commotions, rebellions and invasions: for prevention

therefore of the like or greater inconveniences, and to the end no Chief Officer or Magistrate whatsoever

may hereafter presume, traitorously and maliciously to imagine or contrive the enslaving or destroying of

the English nation, and to expect impunity for so doing; be it enacted and ordained by the Commons in

Parliament and it is hereby enacted and ordained by the authority thereof that Thomas, Lord Fairfax, Oliver

Cromwell, Henry Ireton [* * * 135 names in all], shall be and are hereby appointed and required to be Commissioners and judges for the hearing, trying and adjudging of the said Charles Stuart; and the said

Commissioners, or any twenty or more of them, shall be, and are hereby authorised and constituted an High

Court of Justice, to meet and sit at such convenient time and place as by the said Commissioners, or the

major part of twenty or more of them, under their hands and seals, shall be appointed and notified by public

proclamation in the Great Hall or Palace Yard of Westminster; and to adjourn from time to time, and from

place to place, as the said High Court, or the major part thereof meeting, shall hold fit; and to take order for

1 If you so choose, you may click on the links at the bottom of this webpage to follow the blow-by-blow

battles that ended the English Civil War.

Oliver Cromwell

Guarding Charles II.

Pag

e9

the charging of him, the said Charles Stuart, with the crimes and treasons above mentioned, and for

receiving his personal answer thereunto, and for examination of witnesses upon oath (which the Court hath

hereby authority to administer) or otherwise, and taking any other evidence concerning the same; and

thereupon, or in default of such answer, to proceed to final sentence according to justice and the merit of

the cause; and such final sentence to execute, or cause be to executed, speedily and impartially.

“And the said Court is hereby authorised and required to appoint and direct all such officers,

attendants and other circumstances as they, or the major part of them, shall in any sort judge necessary or

useful for the orderly and good managing of the premises. And Thomas, Lord Fairfax, the General, and all

officers and soldiers under his command, and all officers of justice, and other well-affected persons, are hereby authorised and required to be aiding and assisting unto the said Court in the due execution of the

trust hereby committed. Provided that this Act, and the authority hereby granted, do continue in force for

the space of one month from the date of the making hereof, and no longer.”33

The Execution of Charles I.

Read about the trial and execution of Charles I here (you must read this). Upon Charles’s execution, the Long

Parliament was dissolved and republic declared. Parliament adopted the Instrument of Government in 1635, and declared Oliver Cromwell “Lord Protector.” The “Protectorate,” however, proved to be as repressive as the monarchy under Charles I, and by 1660 the nobles invited Charles I’s son, Charles II, to resume the English throne. Under

Charles II, the English parliament rejected much of the liberalism of the Parliamentarian and Protectorate eras. The supported legislation that required all government officials, clergy, and schoolteachers to “recognize the supremacy of the king and to adhere to all the teachings of the Church of England.” Furthermore, they denied

Charles II.

Pag

e10

office to anyone who refused the Church’s sacraments.34

Charles II had no direct, legitimate male heirs, however, leaving his brother, James, heir to the English throne. James became James II, of England, in February 1685. He promoted a

policy of religious toleration, including the removal of prohibitions against Catholics holding office, and many Protestants saw James’s efforts as a back-door attempt to restore England to the

Catholic ranks. They were aware that after ensuring religious liberty, France’s Louis XIV had revoked his decree and outlaw Protestant worship. James’s opponents were convinced that a papist conspiracy was in the works and they made overtures to William, the Duke of Orange, the Dutch king who had married James’s oldest daughter,

Mary, inviting him to invade England and reign as her Protestant king.35

According to Edward Vallance, “the forces that the prince of Orange amassed for his invasion were vast, the flotilla consisting of 43 men-of-war, four light frigates and 10 fireships protecting over 400 flyboats capable of carrying 21,000 soldiers,” an invasion force “four

times the size of that launched by the Spanish in 1588.”36

William of

Orange’s invasion fleet landed on November 5, 1688, aided by a “Protestant Wind,” which sidelined James’s navy. Militant Protestants throughout England erupted in riots so inflammatory that James II was

persuaded to flee London for his personal safety. By December 23, James II had fled England. William and Mary were enthroned in 1689, completing

what is known as the “Glorious Revolution.”37

The

Glorious Revolution ensured that England would remain a Protestant nation, but as a result of the Revolution, Parliament also passed a “Bill of Rights” in 1689, which declared the rights of Englishmen, affirmed that Parliament was England’s supreme law-maker, and laid the basis for constitutional government

in England. Those colonists who migrated to the Americas after 1689, understood that Parliament was the supreme law-making body in the English Empire. Those who had migrated prior to 1689, were apt to perceive the king as the supreme law-making body in the English Empire.38 In terms of the Glorious Revolution’s

relationship to American history, the most significant result of the entire affair was John Locke’s justification of Parliament’s actions during the matter, the Second Treatise on Government. Locke believed in the equality of man and that all men had the right life, liberty, and property (Thomas Jefferson “borrowed” this phrase from Locke). Property, by

Locke’s logic, resulted from the combination of life, liberty, and labor, and that to protect property, and therefore liberty, societies drew up a “contract” between rulers and the ruled. In this view, government was/is a contract between Parliament, the Crown, and the people – only people who agreed to the contract could be bound by its provisions, including the king. According to Locke, individuals

James II.

William III (Duke of Orange).

John Locke.

Pag

e11

expressed their contractual consent in two ways: expressly – when they voted and participated in

the political process; and tacitly – when they obeyed the laws and did not defy the government.39

In this social contract, the monarch functioned as a “neutral judge.” The neutral judge protected

the property rights and civil liberties of the people and, in exchange, the people surrendered a certain amount of their freedom, such submitting to adverse court decisions, paying portions of their income in taxes, and providing military service to the state, to the neutral judge. On the other hand, when the monarch violated his side of the contract, becoming a “partisan judge,” the contract was broken and the people had the right to overthrow the government and re-establish

the neutral judge.40

Settlers of the Colonies and Their Relationship to the Glorious Revolution:

A. Massachusetts – Massachusetts was settled by Puritans who were against Oliver Cromwell. The bulk of their population

immigrated between 1629 and 1642. Another wave of immigration came later, but these two waves of immigration were the all that came during the colonial period. As a result, the people of Massachusetts lived in a type of “dream world,” their minds and perceptions clouded by that time

period.

B. Virginia and Maryland – These colonies were settled by Cavaliers, people loyal to the

crown, especially Charles II. The only members of the English Peerage, those inline to be king, who migrated to the colonies were Lord Fairfax and Lord Culpepper, whose daughter married Lord

Fairfax’s son.2 Hence the place names “Fairfax, Virginia” and “Culpepper, Virginia.” These colonies were natural antagonists of Massachusetts. [Other sites concerning Lord Fairfax: (1), (2), (3), & (4).]

C. Pennsylvania and New York – Pennsylvania was given to William Penn by Charles II in

payment of debts. William Penn’s father, Admiral William Penn,

served in the Parliamentary navy during the English Civil War. But Admiral Penn became disgruntled with Cromwell and took part in the restoration of Charles II, efforts for which he was knighted by the king. It was this debt that Charles II intended to settle when he gave Admiral Penn, and consequently Penn’s son, Pennsylvania,

which means “Penn’s Woods.”41

[Pennsylvania’s Royal Charter.]

New York was given to Charles II’s brother, James, Duke of York, although the Dutch already had possession of the land. Read more here.

2 Charles II rode to his coronation on a Fairfax horse. Thomas Fairfax lived next door to Mount Vernon,

home of George Washington. George Washington’s eldest brother, Lawrence, married Lord Fairfax’s

daughter.

Mayflower in Plymouth Harbor

by William Halsall, 1882.

Thomas, Lord Fairfax.

William Penn.

Pag

e12

Both of these colonies matured after the Glorious Revolution and were predisposed to view the relationship with the Crown in terms of John Locke’s social contract and the concept of the neutral judge.

Pag

e13

1 George Brown Tindall and David Emory Shi, America: A Narrative History, Brief Fifth Edition (New

York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2000), 29.

2 Robert A. Divine, et al., America: Past & Present, Brief 7

th Edition (New York: Pearson Longman, 2007),

14-5.

3 Frederick Edwin Smith, The Story of Newfoundland (London: Horace Marshall & Son, 1920), 4; Michael

W. Mansfield (2007), “English Settlement of North America,” unpublished lecture notes in author’s

possession.

4 Smith, The Story of Newfoundland, 6; Tindall and Shi, America: A Narrative History, 18; Mansfield

(2007), “English Settlement of North America.” Columbus did not find the mainland until 1498.

5 Ibid.

6 Tindall and Shi, America, 18.

7 John H. Ratliff (2004), “Late 17

th Century Society and Colonial Expansion,” unpublished lecture notes in

author’s possession; Mansfield, (2007), “English Settlement of North America”; Jackson J. Spielvogel,

Western Civilization: Volume II, Since 1550, 4th

ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2000), 452-3. 8 A regulation which made trading with outsiders a criminal act. This will create unintended problems later

during the colonial period.

9 Spielvogel, Western Civilization, 452-3; NEED MORE GENERAL REFERENCES HERE.

10

Ibid. The most striking exception to the Mercantile system, however, was the case of the Netherlands.

Because Holland was too small for a mercantilist empire, the relied upon trade for their prosperity. Put

simply, in Holland, profit equaled patriotism and the government encouraged an early form of capitalism.

Consequently, the Dutch were the first European nation to demand freedom of the seas and open trade. In

the East-Asia trade, for example, the Dutch spent bullion for tea, coffee, and spices knowing that they could

recoup those expenditures by re-selling these commodities in Europe. (The English, by contrast, just got

the Chinese addicted to opium, then cheated them by trading shoddy trinkets for the coffee, tea, and spices.)

Consequently, the Dutch became masters of finance and came to dominate the world banking and insurance

industries. They also were the earliest European advocates for international peace, international law, and

free trade.

Ultimately, the English and French realized that Dutch business methods, supported by a

centralized political institution, and a powerful navy and army, could be extraordinarily profitable. After 1660, the English coordinated public and private enterprise along similar lines, e.g. the royal navy and the

British East India Company.

11

Divine, et al., America, 16. Whatever Henry’s assertions, the male contribution determines the sex of

human offspring. Click here for more information.

12

Ibid.

13

Michael Mendle (1999), “Reformation,” unpublished lecture notes in author’s possession.

14

Divine, et al., America, 16.

15

Ibid.; Mendle (1999), “Reformation.”

16

Divine, et al., America, 16.

Pag

e14

17

Ibid.

18

Ibid., 17.

19

The History Place: Great Speeches Collection [database online]. Available from:

http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/elizabeth.htm; INTERNET.

20

Mansfield, (2007), “English Settlement of North America.” 21

Forrest McDonald (1998), “Background to Settlement and Conflict,” unpublished lecture notes in

author’s possession.

22

Michael Mendle (1999), “Wars of Religion,” unpublished lecture notes in author’s possession.

23

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page76.asp; http://history.boisestate.edu/WESTCIV/english/05.shtml 24

http://history2.professorpage.info/PreEnlightenment_England.htm#charles

25

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page76.asp.

26

http://history.boisestate.edu/WESTCIV/english/05.shtml

27

http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/biog/pym.htm; http://www.historyguide.org/earlymod/lecture7c.html

28

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page76.asp; http://history.boisestate.edu/WESTCIV/english/06.shtml

29

http://www.historyguide.org/earlymod/lecture7c.html ; http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/military/1645-

leicester-naseby.htm

30

http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/military/1646-torrington-stow-wold.htm#stow

31

http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/biog/charles1.htm 32

http://www.historyguide.org/earlymod/lecture7c.html

33

http://home.freeuk.net/don-aitken/ast/c1b.html#210

34

Michael Les Benedict, The Blessing of Liberty: A Concise History of the Constitution of the United States

(Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Co., 1996), 9.

35

Ibid., 10-11; http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/civil_war_revolution/glorious_revolution_03.shtml

36

Ibid.

37

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/civil_war_revolution/glorious_revolution_04.shtml. See also,

Jackson J. Spielvogel, Western Civilization: Volume II, Since 1550, 4th

ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth,

2000), 449-52.

38

Ibid., 450; McDonald (1998), “Background to Settlement and Conflict.” 39

Benedict, The Blessing of Liberty, 19 – 20; Tony A. Freyer (1999), “Colonial Origins of the

Constitution,” unpublished lecture notes in the author’s possession; McDonald (1998), “Background to

Settlement and Conflict.”

40

Ibid.

Pag

e15

41

McDonald (1998), “Background to Settlement and Conflict”;

http://www.pennsburymanor.org/PennInPa.html; http://www.notablebiographies.com/Pe-Pu/Penn-

William.html; http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/topic/37.htm.