1

The English Civil War in the American Colonies

By

Major Peter Cottrell, Gentleman Volunteer

late of the Royalist Army Staff of the Sealed Knot Society

In ‘The Cousins’ Wars’ Kevin Phillips pointed out that the English Civil

War was not a distant war in a foreign land but one that affected the ‘Old

Country’ which still had enormous emotional, family and economic ties for the

40,000 or so colonists living in English North America. Consequently, it was

almost inevitable that civil war would eventually find its way across the Atlantic

to the New World.1

Unsurprisingly, when war finally came to the colonies in 1644 it came

from the sea. The North American colonies were heavily dependent upon

maritime trade with England and as London was also the centre of the centre

of the trans-Atlantic tobacco and sugar trade Royalist planters in the

Caribbean, Virginia and Maryland had little alternative than to do business

with the Parliament.

Although Privateers claiming to support the King operated out of

Wexford and Waterford in Ireland as well as Dunkirk, it was not until the

Royalists took Bristol, Exeter and Dartmouth in 1643 that they had major

anchorages in mainland Britain from which to import arms, conduct trade and

launch maritime operations. Soon a Royalist navy began to emerge made up

of west-country merchantmen that were willing to take up arms for the king

1 Kevin Phillips, The Cousins’ Wars, (New York: Basic Books: New York 1997) pp. 7-8.

2

and within a few weeks Admiral Sir John Pennington was ‘…ready to go to

sea with eighteen tall stout ships.’ 2

Throughout 1643 the ‘Royal’ navy continued to grow and in December

the King instructed James Ley, 3rd Earl of Marlborough, to raise a squadron in

Dartmouth. Marlborough promptly set about recruiting local ships with the

promise of prize-money payouts within six months. 3 According to Governor

Winthrop of Massachusetts, most Dartmouth sailors were unenthusiastic

Royalists at best and their allegiance to the King was probably as much to do

with the possibility of turning a quick profit as anything else. 4

Consequently, his less enthusiastic captains deserted his fleet when

prize-money failed to materialize. In August 1644 the ‘Fellowship’ changed

sides after surrendering without a fight to a Parliamentarian warship under

Capt William Smith. 5 Parliamentarian Privateers Brown Bushell and George

Bowden both went over to the King whilst Capt Brooke of the ‘Providence’

was only narrowly prevented from doing so because his crew arrested him.6

All in all, it would seem that for many Privateers, it was the profit not the

ideology that mattered. Thus, changing sides when it suited made much of

their activity little more than piracy under a flag of convenience.

2 Bernard Kapp, Naval Operations, in The Civil Wars: A Military History of England Scotland and Ireland 1638-1660, John Kenyon and Jane Ohlmeyer eds (OUP: Oxford and New York, 1998) pp.165-166. 3 Bernard Kapp, Naval Operations, in The Civil Wars: A Military History of England Scotland and Ireland 1638-1660, John Kenyon and Jane Ohlmeyer eds (OUP: Oxford and New York, 1998) p166. 4 John Winthrop, Winthrop’s Journal: A History of New England 1630-1649, Vol II, (Charles Scribner & Son: New York, 1908) p.201. 5 Bernard Kapp, Naval Operations, in The Civil Wars: A Military History of England Scotland and Ireland 1638-1660, John Kenyon and Jane Ohlmeyer eds (OUP: Oxford and New York, 1998) p167. 6 Bernard Kapp, Naval Operations, in The Civil Wars: A Military History of England Scotland and Ireland 1638-1660, John Kenyon and Jane Ohlmeyer eds (OUP: Oxford and New York, 1998) p167.

3

In February 1644 Marlborough mustered his squadron for a foray into

the Atlantic to seize rebel shipping off the Azores and Canary Islands and

then sweep up the North American east coast collecting prizes. His intention

was to capture enough ships to both pay his captains and fit-out a fleet

capable of challenging Parliament’s control of the English Channel and thus

trade with the Continent. In the end his plans were cut short and at least one

captain, a known Parliamentarian sympathiser, took the opportunity to escape

and made his way to America where he fell foul of Parliamentarian Privateers

in Boston Harbor. 7

This incident, however, was not the first action between Royalist and

Parliamentarian ships to take place in American waters. That honour, if such

is the word, went to an engagement that took place at Blanck Point, where the

Warwick River runs into the James, within sight of Col Samuel Matthews’

Manor in Virginia on 10 April 1644 which was witnessed by a Dutch explorer

named David de Vries. De Vries was staying with Matthews and later wrote

an account of the incident although, rather annoyingly he failed to name any

of the ships involved even though he went on board all of them after the event

and spoke with their captains. 8

His account is quite detailed and describes the Royalist ship as a

‘…large fly-boat (fluyt)…mounting 12 guns.’ A fly-boat or fluyt was a type of

round-sterned sailing vessel specifically designed for trade rather than war

and de Vries description of it having 12 guns makes it likely that it was about

80 feet long three-masted square-rigger of around 200 tons with a crew of 7 Bernard Kapp, Naval Operations, in The Civil Wars: A Military History of England Scotland and Ireland 1638-1660, John Kenyon and Jane Ohlmeyer eds (OUP: Oxford and New York, 1998) p169. 8 Charles M Parr, The Voyages of David de Vries, Navigator and Adventurer (New York: Crowell, 1969) pp.252-253.

4

about 30 men. Although de Vries does not name the ship a Bristol

merchantman fitting this description called the ‘David’, under the command of

Capt John Edson, was known to be in the vicinity at this time and it is likely

that it was this ship that was attacked. 9

According to de Vries the two Parliamentarian ships were from London and

their captains’ saw the smaller Bristolman as an opportunity to boost their

profits. In ‘The Plundering Times’ Riordan says that London based tobacco

ships ranged between 50-450 tons with 180-240 tons being typical. Assuming

the Bristolman was around 200 tons then the larger Parliamentarian

Privateers would have been nearer the top end of the spectrum at around the

300-ton mark or possibly more which would also explain why they drew more

water than their prey. 10

Ever since the middle of the sixteenth century and England’s war with

Spain, English merchant ships tended to be more heavily armed than their

continental equivalents, making it easy for English merchant captains to slip

seamlessly from trade to privateering or even piracy. Again Riordan points

out that most English ships plying the Atlantic had one gun per 15-20 tons of

ship giving our Parliamentarian privateers between 20-15 guns and a crew of

around 40-50 crew each if one assume a crew ratio of 1 man per 5-8 tons of

ship. 11

Later the two Londoners told de Vries that they had been in the

Chesapeake for a couple of weeks searching for tobacco. They justified their

9 Deposit Book of Bristol , vol. 1 1644-1647, ed. HE Nott (Bristol Records Society) vol. VI, pp. 69-93. 10 Timothy B Riordan, The Plundering Time: Maryland and the English Civil War 1645-1646, (Maryland Historical Society: Baltimore, 2004) pp.91-92. 11 Timothy B Riordan, The Plundering Time: Maryland and the English Civil War 1645-1646, (Maryland Historical Society: Baltimore, 2004) pp.91-92.

5

attack by claiming that the Virginian planters’ Royalist sympathies meant that

they would not trade with the Londoners, which presented both captains with

the prospect of financial ruin if they returned empty handed. 12 This was, at

best a weak excuse as dependence on maritime trade had ensured that all of

the English colonies passed legislation authorising free trade with ships from

any port in England.

As the tide began to flow up-river on the morning of 10 April 1644 the

two Londoners were sailing up the James River when they sighted a

Bristolman, possibly the ‘David’ at anchor near Blanck Point trading with the

local planters. Without any warning they glided alongside their prey and

opened fire. Their shot tore down some of the Bristolman’s rigging killing a

Virginian planter and injuring several of her crew. 13

It is likely that they fired high in order to minimise any damage to their

intended prize and frighten their victim into surrender. What they did not

anticipate was that their prey would fight back and, in de Vries words, ‘…a

sharp engagement…’ ensued. The Royalist captain quickly cut his anchor

cable and used the in-coming tide manoeuvred his vessel into a creek that

was too shallow for his larger attackers to follow. Again, according to de Vries

the Parliamentarians got to within ‘…a couple of musket- shots, because their

ships drew too much water. They did what damage they could to each other

with cannon shot, and some people were killed. At evening they ceased

firing’. 14

12 Charles M Parr, The Voyages of David de Vries, Navigator and Adventurer (New York: Crowell, 1969) pp.252-253. 13 Charles M Parr, The Voyages of David de Vries, Navigator and Adventurer (New York: Crowell, 1969) pp.252-253. 14 Charles M Parr, The Voyages of David de Vries, Navigator and Adventurer (New York: Crowell, 1969) pp.252-253.

6

Riordan speculates that the Londoners could have opted to send their

boats up the creek but the threat of a swivel gun and further resistance held

them at bay. Despite the fact that Parliament had passed an Act on 1

December 1643 authorising the seizure of Royalist ships it is unlikely that the

Londoners actually had commissions to do so, otherwise de Vries would

probably have mentioned it and there would have been no need for them to

make excuses. They were after a cheap, profitable victory and instead got

their fingers well and truly burnt leaving them with little alternative than to sail

away empty handed before news of their attack spread. 15

Whilst clashes between Marylanders and Virginians in the 1630s had

been about local rivalries what made the ‘Battle of Blanck Point’ significant

was not that it was the first armed clash between Englishmen in America but

resulting from events in England rather than in the colonies. Unfortunately,

the significance was not lost on the local Powhatan Indians who witnessed

this clash between English ships. 16 Armed with the knowledge that across

the Atlantic the English were at war with themselves, Pocahontas’ uncle

sachem Opchanacanough launched a pre-emptive strike against the Virginia

colonists on 18 April 1644 killing between 300-400 settlers. 17

Governor Sir William Berkeley swiftly rallied his forces and appointed

Col William Claiborne, a veteran of the 1622 Indian War, and Lord Baltimore’s

nemesis on the Chesapeake, as his Captain General. The Virginians also

15 Timothy B Riordan, The Plundering Time: Maryland and the English Civil War 1645-1646, (Maryland Historical Society: Baltimore, 2004) pp.151-152. 16 Timothy B Riordan, The Plundering Time: Maryland and the English Civil War 1645-1646, (Maryland Historical Society: Baltimore, 2004) pp.151-152. 17 John Winthrop, Winthrop’s Journal: A History of New England 1630-1649, Vol II, (Charles Scribner & Son: New York, 1908) pp.167-168., Timothy B Riordan, The Plundering Time: Maryland and the English Civil War 1645-1646, (Maryland Historical Society: Baltimore, 2004) p.152. Riordan put s the number of settlers killed at 500.

7

established Fort Royal at Pamunkey, Fort James at Chickahominy Ridge and

Fort Henry at the Falls of the Appomattox whilst Claiborne led a strikeforce of

60 or so well equipped militiamen against the aging Opchanacanough’s ill-

equipped braves. 18 Parliament even voted to send arms to their countrymen

in the beleaguered colony, despite its Royalist sympathies. 19

Governor Winthrop’s journal tells us that a Virginia merchantman

arrived in Boston on 20 May 1644 confirming rumours that had filtered back to

Massachusetts about the latest massacres in the South. Only six years

before New Englanders had fought a bloody campaign against the Pequot

Indians in Connecticut and were still wary of attack from the Wampanoag,

Nipmuck, Narragansett, Mohegan and Pequot. Consequently, despite the

news that hundreds of Virginians were dead and claims that all the tribes

within 600 miles of Jamestown were in arms New England did nothing. 20

Fear of attack by either the Indians or Dutch to the south west in the

New Netherlands certainly helped Governor Winthrop draw Massachusetts,

Plymouth, New Haven and Connecticut together into a New England

Confederation on 19 May 1643 but the real target of the ‘…United Colonies of

New England…’ was Roger Williams’ fledgling colony at Narragansett Bay,

which later developed into Rhode Island. 21 Williams was banished from

Massachusetts in 1636 and his belief in religious toleration, a thing almost

18 Virginia: The New Dominion (New York: Doubleday & Co, 1971) p.45. 19 House of Commons Journal Vol III, 26 August 1644, pp.606-608. 20 John Winthrop, Winthrop’s Journal: A History of New England 1630-1649, Vol II, (Charles Scribner & Son: New York, 1908) p167. 21 Kevin Phillips, The Cousins’ Wars, (New York: Basic Books: New York 1997) p.57., John Winthrop, Winthrop’s Journal: A History of New England 1630-1649, Vol II, (Charles Scribner & Son: New York, 1908) pp.99-105.

8

unheard of in the seventeenth century, ensured that its neighbours viewed his

colony as ‘…the latrine of New England’. 22

Rhode Island soon became a sanctuary for those who fell foul of the

theocracies in the rest of New England, whose residents were dismayed when

Williams’ managed to persuade the Parliament to grant his colony a Charter in

1644. Both Massachusetts and Plymouth colonies had used their militia

against religious detractors in the past and it is probable that without

Parliament’s Charter, Williams would have faced invasion from his less

tolerant neighbours.

Meanwhile, as the Powhatan War dragged on the Virginia Assembly

imposed a levy of 6lbs of tobacco on its tax-payers and made arrangements

for ‘…the great and vast expense of the collony, in prosecuting the warr

against our common enemies the Indians.’ In the spring of 1645 Accomack

and Rappahannock Indians were recruited to act as scouts for the colony’s

forces and in March 1646 Capt Henry Fleet was paid 15,000lbs of tobacco to

finance operations along the Rappahannock River.

The tide of the war finally turned when in the autumn of 1644 Claiborne

overcame a numerically superior force of around 800 bow-armed warriors

capturing their chief. Berkeley had hoped to send Opchanacanough to

England as a Royal captive but his plan was frustrated when the sachem was

shot by one of his guards before he could be dispatched. With

Opchanacanough dead, Berkeley sent Capt Fleet to negotiate a ceasefire

with the new Powhatan Weroance, Nectowance, and a treaty was concluded

in 1646 bringing the war to an end.

22 Dairmaid MacCulloch, Reformation, Europe’s House Divided (London: Penguin Books, 2004) p.539.

9

Militarily defeated, Nectowance had little choice but to swear allegiance

to King Charles I. He agreed to keep his people north of the York River and

pay 20 beaver skins to Virginia every autumn in reparations. Although the

Powhatan attacks of 1644 resembled those of 1622, Virginia had moved on.

In 1644 the colonists were in a far better position to fight back and although

the defeat of the Powhatan in 1646 effectively ended the Indian threat the

colonists were still afraid of attack in the future. Ultimately, fear of Indian

attack would tie up most of the military resources of all of the English colonies

during the civil war and did much to limit what internecine violence there was.

Meanwhile, as war broke out in Virginia the ripples of the English Civil

War continued to be felt in elsewhere in North America. On 23 June 1644 a

London privateer by the name of Captain William Stagg seized a Royalist ship

in Boston Harbor. Stagg had taken part in the ‘Great Migration’ carrying

settlers from England to Massachusetts Bay in his ship, the ‘Elizabeth’ in April

1635 and was no stranger to Bostonians who had seen him come and go over

the last nine years. Stagg was commissioned by Earl of Warwick,

Parliament’s Lord High Admiral to capture any ship originating from Bristol,

Barnstable or Dartmouth, in other words from any Royalist port.

He made no mention of his commission whilst unloading his cargo of

Tenerife wine but cut short his business to intercept a Bristolman laden with

fish making for Bilbao. Stagg overhauled his quarry near Charlestown and

set his ship between it and the open sea. With his broadside to the

Bristolman he invited its captain onboard his own ship and demanded his

surrender. Brandishing his commission Stagg told him that ‘…if he would

yield, himself and all his should have what belonged to them and their wages

10

to that day, and turning up the half hour glass, set him in his own ship again,

requiring to have his answer by the time of half an hour.’

At 100 tons, the Bristolman probably had at most 5-6 guns and a crew

of around 15 men whilst Stagg’s had, by Winthrop’s account, 24 guns making

her nearer 350 tons with a crew of about 40-70 hands. Although Winthrop

tells us that two or three of the Bristol crew were willing to fight or even scuttle

the ship they knew that they were seriously out-classed making any fight

hopeless. Understandably, the captain surrendered quietly and all but three

of his crew were put ashore. 23

As Massachusetts was generally supportive of Parliament, Stagg must

have assumed that no one would take any exception to his actions. Whilst he

was in the act of seizing the ship a small crowd began to gather on Windmill

Hill, over-looking the bay and ‘…some who had an interest in the ship,

especially one Bristol merchant, (a bold malignant person,) began to gather a

company and raise a tumult.’ In other words there was a real danger that

disorder could break out ashore between supporters of the King and

Parliament over the seizure.

The Royalist agitators were quickly apprehended and brought the

before John Winthrop, who was then Deputy Governor, ‘…who committed the

merchant and some others who were strangers to a chamber in an ordinary,

with a guard upon them, and others who were town dwellers he committed to

prison, and sent the constable to require the people to depart to their houses.’

He also ‘…wrote to the captain (Stagg) to know by what authority he had done

23 John Winthrop, Winthrop’s Journal: A History of New England 1630-1649, Vol II, (Charles Scribner & Son: New York, 1908) pp.183-184.

11

it in our harbor, who forthwith repaired to him with his commission…’ to

explain his actions.

When Winthrop saw Stagg’s commission he ordered him to go to

Salem, which was both the religious and administrative centre of the colony at

that time. He also took sureties from the ‘…principal stirrers, to appear at the

meeting and keep the peace in the meantime.’ The church elders were

divided over the legitimacy of Stagg’s actions and some demanded that he

‘…be forced to restore the ship.’ In the end the meeting went in Stagg’s

favour, partially because ‘…the King of England was enraged against us, and

all that party, and all the popish states in Europe: and if we should now, by

opposing the parliament, cause them to forsake us, we could have no

protection or countenance from any, but should lie open as a prey to all

men.’24

Winthrop had good reason to fear that his colony was under threat from

within as well as without. On 29 May 1644 the colony had issued an order

that made it a capital offence for anyone ‘…whosoever should, by word,

writing, or action, endeavour to disturb the public peace, directly or indirectly,

by drawing a party under the pretense that he was for the King of England,

and such as joined with him against the Parliament, should be accounted an

offender of a high nature against the Commonwealth’. Consequently, it was

vital that prompt action was taken to contain any escalation of Stagg’s actions

into wider disorder.

Unsurprisingly, the Massachusetts authorities were alarmed in July

1644 to discover that Capt William Jenyson, an respected Puritan officer in

24 John Winthrop, Winthrop’s Journal: A History of New England 1630-1649, Vol II, (Charles Scribner & Son: New York, 1908) pp.183-187.

12

the Waterton militia had publicly stated that although the Parliament stood for

‘…the more godly and honest part of the kingdom…’ he disputed the

legitimacy of its rebellion and that if he were in England he would not take up

arms against the King. Jenyson was no ne’er-do-well on the edge of society

but a founder member of the Military Company of Massachusetts with access

to the strategically important Castle Island Fort guarding Boston Harbor. 25

If someone so embedded in Boston society was willing to voice such

opinions then there was a real danger that latent Royalist sympathies could

bubble to the surface and divide the colony. Worse still the mutual defence

provisions of the Confederation meant that the other colonies would become

involved if fighting broke out. The fact that Jenyson quickly retracted his

statement when hauled before the magistrates is a fair indication that he had

no intention of fermenting an insurrection and under cross-examination he

insisted that he would defend Massachusetts with his life if the King invaded.

In the end his inquisitors reluctantly agreed not to cashier him as his military

experience was still of use to the colony. 26

The problem of latent Royalist sympathies did not, however, go away

and their willingness to trade with ships from any English port meant that

Royalist and Parliamentarian sea captains rubbed shoulders in Boston Harbor

creating a potential flashpoint for violence. Predictably it was only a matter of

time before one or the other felt it was safe to chance his arm and carry out

an attack. In the end the catalyst for the next incident was the same

Dartmouth ship that had abandoned Marlborough’s fleet in February.

25 John Winthrop, Winthrop’s Journal: A History of New England 1630-1649, Vol II, (Charles Scribner & Son: New York, 1908) pp.178-179. 26 John Adair, Puritans: Religion and Politics in Seventeenth-century England and America,(London: Sutton Publishing, 1998) p.177.

13

After giving Marlborough the slip the ship’s captain had decided to

collect a cargo of salt in the Azores and then on to Virginia and Boston.

Being, at heart a Parliamentarian the captain felt that Boston would be a safe

place to trade before returning to England. Unfortunately for him his port of

origin marked him to the Boston authorities as a Royalist rather than one of

their own. Consequently several Boston merchants, who had recently lost a

ship worth £1,500 to Royalist privateers off Wales, petitioned the court to

impound the ship as compensation. 27

Thus, by the evening of 16 September 1644 the ship rode at anchor

under the guns of Castle Island Fort whilst lawyers ashore decided its fate.

The following day Capt John Bayley in the London ship ‘Gillyflower’ entered

the harbour after six-months of trading in Canadian waters. Bayley knew

nothing of the Dartmouth master’s sympathies and undoubtedly believed that

his ship was a legitimate target for anyone with a commission from

Parliament. He had no reason to suspect that the sympathetic Boston

authorities would intervene and probably believed that, like Stagg, he would

be allowed to keep his Royalist prize.

Thus, Bayley decided on a course of action that appears to have been

the preferred modus operandi of both privateers and pirates and attempted to

overawe his victim with a show of force, running out his guns and threatening

to engage. Of course he did not want to make a fight of it, as that would run

the risk of damaging not only his own ship but also his prize as well. What

Bayley did not appreciate was that his prey had left England as a warship not

a trader and that its captain and crew were willing to fight.

27 John Winthrop, Winthrop’s Journal: A History of New England 1630-1649, Vol II, (Charles Scribner & Son: New York, 1908) p.197.

14

Winthrop, who recorded the incident in his journal, does not say who

fired first but shots were exchanged forcing Bayley to break contact, probably

to re-think his tactics. The Dartmouth captain could have cut and run but

there was no guarantee that he would not be overhauled by the ‘Gillyflower’ in

open water, nor did he know whether any of the other Londoners would join

the fight so he took the only sensible course open to him. He appealed to

Winthrop for protection.

Winthrop was far from happy that yet another privateer was carrying

out an attack in the harbour, especially against a ship that was on the verge of

being impounded by Boston’s Court. Thus, he agreed to the captain’s request

on the condition that he put his crew ashore and also sent a message to

Bayley ordering him to desist. Faced with the prospect of being fired on from

the fort he had little choice but to acquiesce.

Because the action had, unsurprisingly, attracted the attention other

captains in the harbour, Winthrop warned them to stay away and an

emergency overnight court hearing decided to impound the ship as

compensation making it strictly off limits to any privateer in Boston Harbor. At

first light, however, another Londoner, Capt Matthew Richardson, ‘…fitted his

ship to take her…’ and set about where Bayley had let off.

When he heard of Richardson’s attack, Winthrop sent a party of

commissioners to physically take possession of the ship and dispatched an

officer to Richardson demanding that he come ashore. Richardson refused to

do so and instead he sent off a boarding party, probably in the belief that if he

had physical possession of the ship he would have valuable bargaining chip

with which to negotiate his way out of a desperate situation. This resulted in

15

the fort firing a warning shot across his bows that cut away ‘…rope in the

head of the (his) ship’.

Winthrop also sent forty militiamen to repel Richardson’s men. In the

confusion an unidentified ship, but probably yet another Londoner and

associate of Richardson’s, fired at the fort but the ill-aimed ball struck the

Dartmouth ship instead. Richardson realised that he was rapidly losing

control of the situation as the initiative passed to Winthrop. Thus, faced with

the prospect of being sunk by the fort’s guns he called for a ceasefire and

agreed to go ashore. 28

Once ashore Richardson desperately tried to talk his way out of the

mess and finally produced what he claimed was a commission from Warwick

to harry Royalist shipping. On close examination it was found that his

commission was ‘…not under the great seal, nor grounded upon any

ordinance of parliament, as Capt Stagg’s was…’ and thus did not give him

any power to act as he had done in Boston Harbor. Technically, Winthrop

could have had him tried and hanged for piracy if he so chose instead to fine

him a barrel of gunpowder for his crime.

Despite Parliamentarian sympathies the authorities in Massachusetts

realised that maritime trade was so important that they could not afford to

refuse to trade with English ships from Royalist ports but equally they could

not afford to allow rival captains to attack each other as and when they

pleased. Consequently, on 13 November 1644 the authorities effectively

declared Boston Harbor a neutral port and appointed Major Edward Gibbons

and Major Robert Sedgwick, the commander of the Middlesex County Militia

28 John Winthrop, Winthrop’s Journal: A History of New England 1630-1649, Vol II, (Charles Scribner & Son: New York, 1908) pp.196-201.

16

Regiment who later became a Major General in the New Model Army, ‘…to

keep the peace, and not permit any ships to fight in the harbor without licence

from authority.’

Massachusetts’ decision to clamp down on Privateering effectively

ended attacks in Boston Harbor, although its militia would be involved in

operations against the Dutch and French colonies. However, from 1645

onwards Maryland, and to a lesser extent Virginia, became the focus of

clashes between supporters of King and Parliament. Again the fighting from

1645-55 was not the first time that colonists fought each other but it was the

first time they had over events thousands of miles away in England rather

than local territorial disputes.

On 14 February 1645 Capt Richard Ingle sailed into St Inigoe’s Creek,

south of Maryland’s capital St Mary’s City and attacked a Dutch ship called

the ‘Looking Glass’ sparking off a period remembered in Maryland history as

the ‘The Plundering Time’. Riordan’s excellent book ‘The Plundering Time:

Maryland and the English Civil War’ does an outstanding job of piecing

together the fragmented records of a chain of events that would only really be

resolved by a Commonwealth invasion of Virginia and a bloody encounter

known as the Battle of the Severn in 1655.

Ingle was no stranger to St Mary’s having traded with its planters since

at least 1639 and indeed could possibly have been the principle tobacco

carrier for the colony. He was firmly tied into the colony’s credit system and

even briefly owned land there. He was on good terms with several of the

colonies leading citizens including Capt Thomas Cornwallis who was not only

the chief military advisor to the Governor but a wealthy tobacco merchant and

17

Roman Catholic to boot. Even his crew had financial and family ties to

Maryland, all of which arguably facilitated his assault on the colony.

From its foundation Maryland had been resented by neighbouring

Virginia. The crux was that many Virginians considered Baltimore’s charter

illegal as it encompassed land that they believed belonged to their colony and

this led to armed clashes in 1635 and 1638. On top of that Baltimore’s

ambition to create a society where religion was a matter of private conscience

not only aroused the suspicions of Anglican Virginia and Puritan New England

in an age when religious tolerance was virtually unheard of and according to

Krugler the outbreak of the civil war threatened the King’s protection of

Baltimore and brought him face to face with Parliament’s anti-Catholic

legislation.

Although Baltimore was adamant that Maryland ‘…must be as neere as

may be in conformity with English law…’ and did nothing to promote

Catholicism over Anglicanism many of the colony’s Protestant majority

begrudged the prominent role played by Catholics in the government and

militia. Although only 10-25% of the colony was Catholic, Ingle later claimed

that most Marylanders were ‘…Papists and of the Popish and Romish

religion…’ in order to justify his attack and asserted that if he had not acted

the Protestants would have been disarmed and in all probability massacred.

Such a turn of events was, however, extremely unlikely as most

Marylanders were Protestants and Governor Leonard Calvert, the Catholic

brother of Lord Baltimore, even sent Cuthbert Fenwick to New England in

1643 to recruit Protestant settlers for the colony on the promise of ‘…free

liberty of religion…’ as well as land grants although very few took up the offer.

18

Considering New England was considered to be ‘…full of Puritan Calvinists,

the most bigoted of the sect…’ it is unlikely that Calvert would have offered

such an invitation if he were intent upon a Counter-Reformation in Maryland.29

On 20 November 1642 Ingle had been commissioned by Parliament to

attack Royalist shipping, however, he seems to have chosen not to act upon

it. His sympathies were well known in both Virginia and Maryland and the

‘…mad captain’s…’ fiery temper ensured that he fell foul of Royalist

authorities there long before his attack on the ‘Looking Glass’. On 22

February 1643 he got into an argument in Accomack with the commander of

Northampton County, Argall Yeardley and his brother Capt Francis Yeardley.

Insults about ‘…rundheads…’ and Royalist ‘…rattleheads…’ were

exchanged and Yeardley attempted to arrest Ingle in the King’s name but

Ingle refused to submit. Having bundled the Yeardley brothers off his ship,

Ingle hastily weighed anchor and sailed for Maryland. On 30 March, whilst at

anchor in the St Mary’s River he announced the ‘…King Charles was no

king…’ ironically still an offence in Parliamentarian London in 1643, and on 3

April at St Clement’s Island slandered Prince Rupert and whilst at Kent Island

even told the inhabitants that he was a Parliamentarian officer.

According to Riordan his ship, the ‘Reformation’, was somewhere

between 180-240 tons with 12 guns and a thirty man crew which made it, in

colonial terms, a very formidable force to be reckoned with and would go

some way towards explaining why the authorities in Maryland chose to ignore

Ingle’s anti-Royalist outbursts. The fact that Maryland had effectively been at

war with the Susquehannocks since 1641 also meant that the colony’s military

29 John Winthrop, Winthrop’s Journal: A History of New England 1630-1649, Vol II, (Charles Scribner & Son: New York, 1908) p.150. MORE DETAIL.

19

resources were already overstretched to the point that they probably lacked

the resources to deal with Ingle even if they had wanted to.

In an attempt to contain the threat Maryland built a fort on Palmer’s

Island at the mouth of the Susquehanna River that they rather optimistically

named Fort Conquest, which was manned by ten ‘…choice shot.’ In the

summer of 1643 Capt Cornwallis also led a raid of fifty men against the

Susquehannock’s main village on the Conestoga Creek. Outnumbered

roughly 5:1, Cornwallis lost four killed and abandoned two light guns as he

beat a hasty retreat to his pinnace, the ‘St Helen’ anchored two miles away in

the Susquehanna River. Deputy Governor Giles Brent also commissioned

James Neale to raise a company to patrol the Patuxent River and deter raids.

Despite the ongoing Susquehannock war Governor Calvert decided

that he needed to return to England, probably to consult with his brother Lord

Baltimore who was with the King’s army in the West Country. Leaving Brent,

the commander of Kent Island, in charge Calvert left sometime in the spring of

1643 and did not return until September 1644. Although Calvert had chosen

to ignore Ingle’s indiscretions in 1643 Brent had a vested interest in acting

against him when he returned in 1644.

When William Hardige went to Brent on 18 January 1644 and accused

Ingle of treason, Brent was only too willing to listen. In February 1643 Ingle

had sued Brent for 8,000lbs of tobacco and protested a bill of £16 drawn by

Brent’s sister Margaret on a London merchant. Although none of the charges

were new, Hardige’s allegations presented Brent with the opportunity to wipe

out his debts and possibly confiscate Ingle’s ship, which was worth around

£2,500.

20

Brent ran the risk of severing Maryland’s major trading link with

England and placing the colony firmly in the Royalist camp which could cause

problems in the future. However, in 1644 the civil war was far from decided

and before the disasters of Marston Moor and Naseby there was every

chance of a Royalist victory. That aside, Brent also had a reputation for

abusing his position to promote his own interests and it was probably that as

much as his Royalist sentiments that prompted him to act.

Having decided to act, Brent had to tread carefully if his plan was not to

fall foul of the heavily armed ‘Reformation’, which is why he did not confide in

St Mary’s Sherriff, Edward Packer, who was an associate of Ingle’s. The only

one of Ingle’s associates he confided in was Cornwallis, Maryland’s military

commander, who arguably went along with the arrest of his friend because he

believed that the charges would not stick.

Accompanied by a party of militiamen, Brent, Cornwallis and Hardige

found Ingle ashore at St Inigoe’s Point with his gunner, Richard Garrett and

the brother of his Mate, a colonist by the name of William Durford. They

surrendered without a fight and were turned over Packer, who was ordered

not to let them return to the ‘Reformation’. In the meantime John Hampton

with thirty Marylanders overpowered the four sailors left onboard. So far

Brent’s plan had worked like clockwork.

Unfortunately, few plans survive contact with the enemy and Brent’s

was no exception. He offered the Mate, John Durford double pay if he would

captain a prize crew and invited him to swear an oath to support the King and

take up arms against Parliament. Durford agreed to take the ‘Reformation’ to

21

Bristol but requested time to think about the oath. In hindsight it is obvious

that he was stalling for time.

Whilst Hampton and his men guarded the ‘Reformation’ Ingle was

brought before the Council to answer the charges. By all accounts the

session was stormy and events did not go Brent’s way. In the end the court

released Ingle into Cornwallis’ custody, who accompanied by Neale and

Packer took him back to his ship. In the circumstances no one should have

been surprised that once Ingle was aboard his men would try and retake the

ship.

Whilst most of Hampton’s men slept Durford, Thomas Greene,

Frederick Johnson and the rest of Ingle’s crew overpowered those on deck,

secured those below and locked Cornwallis, Neale and Packer in the Great

Cabin. After a brief, but bloody melee in which several Marylanders were

wounded, Ingle had his ship back. He put Hampton and his men ashore but

opted to keep his three more important hostages onboard. At a stroke,

Brent’s plan was in tatters.

The next day, 19 January 1644, the ‘Reformation’ remained anchored

at St Inigoe’s and Riordan suggests that the tense negotiations that followed

were an attempt to salvage what he could of his relations with Maryland. If

that was the case then they came to nothing and on 20 January he sailed for

Kent Island seizing several small boats and weapons en route whilst

threatening to ‘…beat down the dwelling houses of divers inhabitants…’

including Brent’s.

Even before Ingle left with his hostages Brent had replaced Packer and

appointed Robert Ellyson Sherriff in his place. He also rather unfairly charged

22

Cornwallis, Hampton, Packer and Neale with having helped Ingle escape.

Ingle skulked in Maryland waters for several weeks afterwards and court

records show that his hostages were released at some point in late January.

In court the case against Ingle collapsed when the principle prosecution

witness, Hardige was persuaded to go to Virginia and Brent failed to secure a

guilty verdict after three separate hearings.

By March 1644 an uneasy peace seems to have settled on the colony

and Cornwallis posted a bond of 4,000lbs of tobacco and 400lbs of shot as

security for Ingle’s good behaviour in return for a certificate, from Brent,

guaranteeing Ingle free trade in Maryland. The truth was that Ingle needed

Maryland and Maryland needed Ingle and so it would have been ruinous not

to come to some sort of rapprochement. Brent even granted him an island

near Kent Island and paid Ingle his debt.

By 16 March, however, Ingle had left Maryland without asking

permission or paying outstanding customs duties so Brent seized Ingle’s

Island and confiscated his estate, which was valued at 1,123lbs of tobacco. It

was also clear that both Brent and Lewgar blamed Cornwallis for Ingle’s

escape in January and fined him 1,000lbs of tobacco. On 18 March Lewgar

even indicted him for slandering the colony.

Cornwallis was already involved in a land dispute with Lord Baltimore

and became increasingly fed up with Brent and Lewgar. Consequently he

decided to go to England to seek redress in the courts. On 28 March he

sailed down the Chesapeake to Accomack to rendezvous where Ingle, who

was there boasting to any who would listen of his escape from Maryland.

23

Several days they sailed for London leaving Maryland bereft of the one man

who could have possibly averted the events that followed.

In 1644 London did not a welcome Catholics and Cornwallis faced the

prospect of having two-thirds of his good confiscated on arrival. When the

‘Reformation’ reached London in May his goods were impounded. It was only

after Ingle came to Cornwallis’ defence claiming that he was for Parliament

and had saved Ingle’s life that they were freed. Although Cornwallis trusted

Ingle with £200-250 worth of goods on his return trip to America it is difficult to

assess how close they actually were. Their friendship did not stop Ingle from

sacking Cornwallis’ estate in January 1645 nor indeed did it prevent

Cornwallis, a man with close family connections to King Charles’ court, from

ending up in the King’s army as a Major in Sir Thomas Hooper’s Dragoons.

On 2 July 1644 Calvert left Bristol on the ‘Trewlove’ with a commission

from the King empowering him to seize ‘…ships, cargoes and debts on land

or sea that belonged to residents of London or other ports in rebellion against

the crown’. The ‘Trewlove’ had been hired by Thomas Weston to get back to

Maryland after his own ship; a 25-ton barque called the ‘John of Maryland’

along with its cargo, was confiscated on 2 September 1643 in Padstow

harbour by Royalist officers. Despite being a Royalist himself the seizure of

his ship by Royalists clearly illustrated how abused such commissions were.

Lord Baltimore saw his brother’s commission as a godsend as it

appeared to be an easy solution to his financial problems. The commission

provided for a 50:50 split between Baltimore and the King, with any expenses

incurred being deducted from the King’s half. If one considers that a typical

tobacco ship was worth £2,000-2,500 and its cargo another £2,000-3,000 and

24

that 2/3 of the 1.5m pounds of American tobacco passed through London then

Baltimore stood to make up to £55,000.

Calvert was back in Maryland by 6 September and no doubt appraised

of events. He lost no time in publishing the new commissions he brought

confirming Lewgar as Secretary and giving direction to the Council. Although

after 363 years it is difficult to know exactly why Calvert removed Brent and

appointed the relatively unknown William Brainthwaite as his Deputy, it is

likely that his bungled handling of Ingle’s arrest featured highly.

Incongruously Baltimore neglected to provide his brother with a ship

and his commission was also for Virginia not Maryland. Although we will

probably never know for sure, the likelihood is that this oversight was a result

of Baltimore’s financial difficulties at the time. The limitation to Virginia could

also have been because it was by far the more important area for the tobacco

trade but it may well have been because some had great difficult

understanding exactly where Maryland was in the first place.

Calvert also carried instructions for the Virginia House of Burgesses

requesting that they pass legislation to collect tobacco duties in Virginia rather

than pay them in England. This would potentially deprive Parliament of

significant income and give the King access to tobacco duties. Thus, Calvert

headed for Jamestown to be present at the next meeting of the House on 1

October. Unfortunately for Calvert the vehemently pro-Royalist Governor, Sir

William Berkeley was in England and although the Deputy Governor, Richard

Kemp was supportive he lacked influence over the House.

In Berkeley’s absence Baltimore’s old adversary Claiborne held sway

over the meeting and persuaded the burgesses not to act. They wrote to the

25

King expressing their loyalty but stated that they were unwilling to disrupt

trade with London because of their acute need for ammunition to fight the

Powhatan. In a gesture that Berkeley would never have sanctioned they even

wrote to Parliament to reassure London’s merchants. On 17 February 1645

the House even passed legislation declaring that ‘…there be free trade and

commerce allowed to all His Majesties subjects within the kingdom of

England’.

Thankfully, Calvert only needed the Governor’s acquiescence to act

upon his commission from the King, which Kemp happily gave. There is

some evidence that Calvert did try to seize Ingle’s debts in Virginia and that

he declared that ‘…if Ingle or any other Londoner should come here, he would

hang them’. Without a ship, however, his options were limited and the

scheme came to nothing. In fact his actions simply helped aggravate ‘…that

ungrateful villaine Richard Ingle…’ and firmly placed Maryland in the Royalist

camp with little profit to show for it.

Meanwhile, in response to the outbreak of the Powhatan War,

Parliament passed an Act on 26 August 1644 authorising the ‘Virginia

Merchant’, the ‘Globe’, the ‘Honour’, the ‘Ellen’, the ‘Mary’, the ‘Elizabeth’ and

Ingle’s ‘Reformation’ to transport ‘…Passengers, and their Cargazons of

Victual, Cloathing, Arms, Ammunition, and other Commodities, for the Supply,

Defence, and Relief of the Planters, Custom-free’. In addition he also

received a fresh commission and ‘Letters of Marque’ from Warwick just before

he left London in October 1644.

It is difficult to know what dealings Claiborne had with Ingle before the

winter of 1644 or indeed how closely they colluded in the events that followed,

26

however, circumstantial evidence suggests that they were allies. It is also

difficult to judge whether Claiborne, a member of the Royalist government of

Virginia, was a Parliamentarian at heart or simply an opportunist out for

revenge against Baltimore. By December 1644 Ingle even appears to have

settled his differences with the Yeardley brothers who, being both Claiborne

and Parliament men at heart, wasted no time relating Calvert’s activities. The

‘Reformation’s’ surgeon, Robert Rawlins even confirmed that Claiborne had

sent Ingle a copy of Calvert’s commission.

The mercurial Ingle was, no doubt, also displeased to learn that the

Dutch were exploiting the disruption of civil war to insinuate themselves into

the Virginia tobacco trade to the extent that by 1648 half the ships carrying

tobacco were Dutch. He was doubtless aware that a Dutch vessel, Capt

Hatrick Cocke’s ‘Looking Glass’, was interloping on what he considered to be

his ‘patch’ although one of its crew, Henry Stockton, later testified that the

‘Looking Glass’ was only there because no one was expecting Ingle to return

in 1645. Cocke’s ship had been in Kecoughton at the end of December and

after several errors by its Virginian pilot, John Rably, arrived in St Mary’s

sometime between 8 and 17 January 1645.

The ‘Looking Glass’ was registered in Rotterdam and with 12 guns was

of a comparable size to the ‘Reformation’; albeit with a much smaller crew.

Although a Dutchman, it was not lost on Ingle that almost half the crew were

English and that it had been leased by a Netherlands based English company

whose representative, Henry Brooks was onboard. In fact Ingle later tried and

claim that far from being neutral, the ‘Looking Glass’ was actively involved in

trading with the Royalists in England.

27

Despite the lack of concrete evidence, it appears that Claiborne and

Ingle decided upon a joint course of action against Maryland. Claiborne and

his cousin Richard Thompson would take two ships to Kent Island and raise

the inhabitants against Calvert whilst Ingle sailed to St Mary’s City to await

their arrival. The fact that Ingle told the Protestants of St Mary that he was

working in consort with two other ships helps support this supposition.

Claiborne’s attempt on Kent Island failed miserably. Towards the end

of December he landed with a force of ten or so musketeers and falsely

announced that he had a commission from the King and was soon joined by

seven or eight more men from Chicacoan, always good recruiting ground for

men willing to stir up trouble in Maryland. He summoned the island’s militia to

muster at Edward Commins’ house and planned to march on Fort Kent to take

it by ‘…force of armes’. Although Fort Kent belonged to Brent it had originally

belonged to Claiborne until Cornwallis expelled him in 1638.

Claiborne’s claim to be acting for the King indicates that the islanders

were Royalists, regardless of whether they were loyal to Baltimore or not and

although many were Claiborne men they were not willing to act on his

authority alone. When Brent heard that Claiborne was planning to march on

Fort Kent he fled to St Mary’s. Had he kept his nerve his flight would have

been unnecessary. At John Abbott’s house, about three miles from Commins’

Claiborne’s men began to hesitate and ‘…the greatest number of them

doubting the validity of his Authority…left him’ causing him to abandoned the

island.

News of Claiborne’s attack had filtered back to Calvert by 22

December and in response he planned to send eight men in a shallop under

28

the command of Sgt Mark Pheypo and John Genellas on a covert

reconnaissance to discover what was happening. They were ordered to avoid

all contact with ships along the Chesapeake and land four men on the west of

Kent Island, near Commins’ house, to capture a prisoner for interrogation.

As Brent was in St Mary’s by 23 December it is not clear whether this

expedition was ever dispatched. Although Brent clearly believed that his flight

was justified Calvert issued an arrest warrant on 25 January to re-instated

Sheriff Packer for Brent’s ‘…several crimes against the dignity and dominion

of Lord Baltimore’. The charges, however, were soon dropped as tempers

cooled and relations between the two men were restored. Claiborne’s failed

coup also resulted in both he and Thompson being declared enemies of

Maryland by Calvert, who also forbade anyone from travelling to or trading

with Kent Island without his permission.

By the time Ingle finally arrived at St Mary’s in mid January the

‘Looking Glass’ was half-way through its contracted three-and-a-half months

in America and had already done a brisk trade with most of Maryland’s

principle landowners. It was obvious that Ingle objected to competition and

after having only discharged half his cargo left for Virginia in a fit of pique.

Whilst in port Ingle, however, also secretly wrote to the leading Protestant

planters. It was in these letters that he claimed not to be working alone and

that he had a commission to ‘…root them (the Catholics) out like vermin’.

Alternatively, Ingle’s abrupt departure may have been because of

Claiborne’s failure and he realised that no reinforcements were on their way.

With no guarantee that the ‘Looking Glass’ would remain neutral or enough

men to take the town, the sensible course was to return to Chicacoan for

29

reinforcements. Regardless of cause either could easily explain his foul mood

and in reality it was probably a mixture of both that motivated him.

Whatever the cause, his departure left Calvert confused and

apprehensive. However, such was the colony’s dependence on Ingle that

Calvert even contemplated sending Fenwick to Virginia to bring him back and

give him a permit allowing him free-trade Maryland. In the end he did not

have to bother as Ingle was back in St Mary’s by 14 February 1645, only this

time he was confident that he had the support of the colony’s Protestants and

was prepared to fight.

At Chicacoan, Ingle lost no time in complaining loudly about Maryland

Papists and recruiting more men. Most appear to have been Maryland exiles

with ties to the Protestant population and included his former accuser

Hardige, his Mate’s brother - William Durford as well as Thomas and John

Sturman. John Sturman was openly Parliamentarian and had challenged

Calvert over his commission at a recent council meeting. Interestingly, most

of the dozen or so men who joined him had been with Claiborne at Kent

Island.

There is still some confusion over what happened when the

‘Reformation’ returned to St Mary’s. Later Ingle claimed that he attacked the

‘Looking Glass’ in self-defence whilst Cocke denied this allegation. Both

Calvert and Brent were certainly onboard the ‘Looking Glass’ when Ingle was

sighted and both his intentions and his commission were no longer secret.

Indeed, Calvert may well have asked Cocke to help him defend the colony but

the Dutchman had quite rightly insisted he was a neutral and would not take

30

sides. Apparently this angered Calvert who left the ship in a huff to raise men

to fight Ingle.

Of course, Riordan points out that the source of this information was a

Virginian called Robert Popley who happened to be trading onboard the

‘Looking Glass’ that morning. Popley also had ties to Claiborne that may

make him an unreliable source. Either way Cocke was aware that a fight was

possible and despite openly flying Dutch colours, cleared his decks for action,

just in case. As the ‘Reformation’ approached Cocke could see that it was

flying a white flag signalling its friendly intentions and stood his men down.

Little did he realise that it was a ruse de guerre.

Ingle hailed the ‘Looking Glass’ and demanded that Cocke strike his

colours and allow his ship to be boarded. According to Ingle the Dutchman

refused to comply whilst Cocke’s crew later testified that they were in the act

of lowering their colours when the ‘Reformation’ fired three warning shots.

Whatever actually happened Cocke struck his colours and boarded the

‘Reformation’ with his papers. After a cursory inspection Ingle tore some of

them up, perhaps in an attempt to claim that Cocke had visited Royalist ports

and destroyed the incriminating evidence, which would make his ship a

legitimate prize.

Ingle then informed Cocke that he was seizing his ship and claimed

Dutchman that he would release it after he had finished his business in St

Mary’s. With Cocke safely in custody Ingle sent his Boatswain, Thomas

Greene with a boarding party to secure the Dutch ship. It was whilst the

boarding party were rowing across that the ‘Reformation’ again fired on the

‘Looking Glass’ because one of the boarders, William Little, claimed it was

31

about to open fire. For a ship allegedly preparing to fight Greene met

surprisingly little resistance.

Despite Ingle’s claims, the haste with which Cocke’s crew surrendered

is a fair indication that after seeing Ingle’s white flag they had no intention of

making a fight of it. Greene was apparently stabbed in the hand whilst forcing

his way into the cuddy where he found Brooks with two loaded brass guns

who, outnumbered and with no personal stake in the feud chose to surrender.

Ingle must have been extremely satisfied that he had not only neutralised the

only significant threat to his ship in the harbour but that his men had also

found Brent hiding in its hold.

Ingle then turned his attention to the only legitimate target in the

harbour; the Royalist pinnace, ‘Trewlove’ anchored further up the creek. The

‘Trewlove’s’ captain witnessed the taking of the ‘Looking Glass’ and quite

understandably refused to let Ingle’s men onboard his ship, instead he

exploited its shallow draft and took it up a small creek, probably Weston’s

Branch (now Schoolhouse Branch) on the eastern side of St Inigoe’s Creek.

As extra insurance he also landed a gun to cover the approach. Later under

cover of darkness the ‘Trewlove’ slipped past the ‘Reformation’ to freedom.

The ‘Trewlove’ was, in the scheme of things, small beer. From the

start it was obvious that Ingle had not returned to St Mary’s for a bit of armed

robbery but to overthrow the Proprietorship. Although Ingle had brought

several leading Maryland Protestants with him and secretly prepared the

ground by writing to others he needed local support and within hours

Maryland’s Parliamentarians began to rally to him. It would be wrong to think

that they wanted to destroy Maryland; they simply wanted to remove

32

Baltimore’s Catholic government and replace it with one create one that was

loyal to Parliament.

Despite controlling two powerful ships Ingle needed a land base. He

quickly dismissed the small stockade overlooking the harbour known as St

Inigoe’s Fort and decided that the most suitable venue was his friend

Cornwallis’ fortified house at Cross Manor on the southern shore of the creek.

Cross House was a substantial brick and timber construction surrounded by a

wooden palisade and probably resembled the bawns built by Protestant

planters in Ireland. Ingle was no stranger to Cornwallis’ estate; indeed he

probably delivered its furniture, and was no doubt aware that it also contained

a small cache of muskets and three light cannon.

In Cornwallis’ absence Cross Manor, with its dozen or so servants was

presided over by his estate manager, Fenwick who lived there with his wife

and family. When he heard the commotion on the river he sent Andrew

Monroe, Thomas Harrison and Edward Matthews to move his employer’s

pinnace up river and out of Ingle’s reach. All three were quickly captured but

only Matthews refused to join the rebellion.

Although Calvert knew probably expected Ingle’s attack, he had no

idea what was going on during the confusion that followed the ‘Reformation’s’

arrival. It would appear that he did try to muster the St Mary’s Trained Band

and Ralph Bean later testified that Calvert had ordered him to take up arms.

Unfortunately for Calvert the loyalties of the militia were torn and Bean ended

up in arms for Parliament not the King. In fact, as the majority of the militia

were Protestants Ingle was able to draw on a larger pool of manpower than

the Governor.

33

It did not help that some militia officers were also willing to desert to

Ingle’s camp and one, Lt Thomas Baldridge became such an active rebel that

he was eventually forced to emigrate to Virginia after the rebellion collapsed.

In all Ingle managed to raise a force of about 30-40 men in the immediate

vicinity of St Mary’s City, which in colonial terms was a significant force. Even

so he still lacked sufficient manpower to directly confront Calvert and relied on

subterfuge to secure Cross Manor.

Ingle invited Fenwick onboard his ship and promised him that no harm

would come to the manor if he surrendered it. Fruitlessly Fenwick tried to

defuse the situation but eventually was prevailed upon to write a letter

instructing his wife to hand the house over to Ingle’s men. The next morning

John Durford led sixteen men to Cross Manor and after delivering the letter

summoned Mrs Fenwick to surrender in the name of ‘…King and Parliament’.

Unlike Baltimore’s sister at Wardour Castle or the Ladies of Basing or Lathom

House, Mrs Fenwick was not destined to become a Royalist heroine. Most of

the defenders had already ‘…fled to the Governor or were in Armes as

Associates to the said Ingle’ leaving her little alternative but to capitulate.

Whilst Ingle was persuading Fenwick to surrender the manor he also

sent out raiding parties to try and round up the leading Catholic-Royalists

Lewgar, Thomas Copley, Nicholas Causin and George Binks amongst others.

He intended to send these men back to England to prove that Maryland was

both Catholic and in open support of the King. As Calvert was named on the

King’s commission his capture would have made Ingle’s task simple but he

was already beyond his reach although his men surprised Lewgar in his bed

and took him prisoner.

34

Despite placing a garrison under the command of Thomas Sturman in

Cross Manor, Ingle’s men systematically looted it of everything including the

windows and doors. In fact they plundered the house three times taking over

£2,623 worth of goods. This act shattered Ingle’s friendship with Cornwallis

although it is difficult whether he intended to rob his friend or not. He also

ordered the house fired but changed his mind and settled for dismantling its

palisade.

The looting did not end with Cross Manor and over the next few

months Ingle’s men sought out goods and debts belonging to Calvert, Copley,

Fenwick and Lewgar and systematically plundered Catholic estates. Those

Protestants who refused to co-operate had their tobacco houses torched. The

Jesuits had fortified their manor at Portobacco and garrisoned it with their

servants. It would appear that the property was stormed and the head of

mission, Copley along with his four compatriots, Andrew White, Bernard

Hartwell, John Cooper and Roger Rigby were taken prisoner.

Ingle needed Copley and White as proof of Jesuit influence in the

colony but had no use for the others. Their fate remains a mystery, however,

one of his men, Henry Stockton later told an Admiralty Court that Ingle had

used Cornwallis’ pinnace ‘…to put them ashore upon some place or other

among the heathans and there to leave them’. If this is true Ingle knew that

they would not survive alone and unarmed amongst the ‘…salvages…’

making their disposal the only example of anyone being deliberately executed

by either side.

Whilst Maryland’s Parliamentarians were flocking to Ingle’s banner

Royalists were rallying to Calvert at Margaret Brent’s house in St Thomas’

35

Hundred. St Thomas’ Fort as the house became known, would hold out for

several months and became Calvert’s operating base against the rebels.

Lacking sufficient men to defeat Ingle, Calvert probably hoped that if he could

maintain a foothold in St Mary’s he could buy time to call for help from

Berkeley.

Having made Cross Manor indefensible Ingle fortified Nathaniel Pope’s

house at the northern end of St Mary’s City. Pope was a self-made man who

was without doubt the leading Protestant in Maryland. He profited from the

sack of Lewgar’s house and the fact that his house became the centre of

Parliamentarian operations is a fair indication of his importance to the

rebellion. In fact many Maryland loyalists held him personally responsible for

their financial losses.

Calvert had originally been built as a residence and meeting place for

the Maryland Assembly but had sold it to Pope in 1642. As it was by far the

most substantial building in St Mary’s it remained the site of local government

even after its sale and was later known as the Country’s House. When the

rebels ‘…assumed the Government…’ it continued to serve that function even

after Calvert re-occupied the colony.

Mr Pope’s Fort, as it was known, was excavated in the 1980s and has

provided the only American archaeology that can be positively dated to the

English Civil War. The Parliamentarians initially built a triangular earthwork

around the house, similar to a fort built in Northern Ireland near the River

Blackwater in 1601. Rounded bastions sat at each corner and the

archaeology shows that at least one saker and a demi-culverin were kept

36

there. Calvert had brought four of each type of gun with him when the colony

was founded and they were probably kept at Pope’s house.

Three sets of pikeman’s tassets were also found at the site. Discarding

tassets was a common and well-documented habit of English soldiers during

the period but their cost makes it unlikely that anyone would have thrown

them away if they were personal property. Calvert had, however, ordered

twenty sets of pikeman’s armour from Virginia in 1639 and as Pope’s house

was a substantial brick building it is likely that the colony used it as the

militia’s main armoury.

The fort was enlarged and the eastern bastion removed, however, the

south-western wall was not properly finished. As the rebellion was in full

swing when it was built this fact would seem to indicate that whoever was

directing its construction left before was finished leaving people with no real

understanding of fortifications to finish it off. As Ingle left Maryland some time

in April 1645 it would be fair to assume that either Ingle or one of his men

provided the requisite expertise.

The fact that Widow Blanche Oliver complained that she had livestock

stolen by the occupants of both forts indicated that there was a period when

both Royalists and Parliamentarians carried out raids to sustain themselves.

Thus, for several weeks, two armed camps existed in St Mary’s until the

Royalist stronghold was overrun. Archaeological evidence suggests Mr

Pope’s Fort did not function for long and as Calvert was in Virginia by August

his fort probably fell in June or July 1645.

Although there is no evidence of what actually happened to end

Royalist resistance in St Mary’s but the evidence of John Greenold and

37

Nicholas Gwyther, who were soldier in the St Thomas’ garrison suggests that

the end was violent. The fact that Calvert was not captured indicates that he

was either not present when St Thomas’ was stormed or that he managed to

escape. It is difficult to say whether his move to Virginia was the cause or the

result of the fort’s fall but his presence there at the beginning of August

indicates that Royalist resistance ended at some stage during June or July

1645.

By that time Ingle was back in England wrangling in an Admiralty court

for permission to keep his plunder. Although he now argued that Cornwallis

was a Papist and Royalist it was this court that had accepted Ingle’s defence

of Cornwallis in 1644. His volte face did him no favours and the court,

perhaps unsurprisingly, refused to grant him Cornwallis’ goods. To his

chagrin it also refused to accept his version of events altogether and returned

the ‘Looking Glass’ to its owners. Even the presence of the Jesuits, Copley

and White did little to convince the Admiralty Court that Ingle’s attack had

been a legitimate act of war. Ingle’s failure to capture Calvert and Brooks’

death in captivity further undermined his case.

Although he had failed to convince the Admiralty Court that his attack

had been a legitimate act of war, Ingle also carried a ‘…Petition of Diverse

Inhabitants of Maryland…’ to Parliament appealing against Baltimore’s

‘…tyranicall rule’. On 28 November 1645 the Committee of Lords and

Commons for Foreign Plantations sat to judge the case and found that

Baltimore ‘…hath wickedly broken the trust of the English Government’.

Initially Parliament ordered the committee to prepare an ordnance extending

protection to all whom ‘…act of shall act…’ in their name.

38

After the King’s defeat at Naseby on 14 June 1645 the Parliament gave

Charles’ supporters until 1 May 1646 to submit to its authority. Ever the

consummate survivor, the recusant and malignant Baltimore knew that his

future survival demanded that he reach a rapprochement with the new

regime. We have no idea when he actually submitted but he lost no time in

petitioning Parliament as well as the courts and his cause was undoubtedly

aided by the testimonies of men like Ralph Bean, the Mate of Ingle’s prize

crew who stated that the attack was unprovoked and unwarranted.

Baltimore’s legal battle lasted until 1657 but in the short term it ensured

that Ingle came away penniless and Parliament delayed granting the

Protestant rebels in Maryland the legitimacy they craved. Besides the legal

wrangling, Parliament was possibly more concerned about the Dutch colonies

that separated the English colonies. As Ingle’s coup had destabilised

Maryland and created an opportunity for Dutch exploitation it is possible that

some members of the government were reluctant to reward such rash

behaviour.

The consequences of failure were devastating for Ingle. The litigation

dragged on for years and his friendship with Cornwallis and his trading

connexions with the colonies were in tatters. Many colonists now viewed him

as little more than a pirate and he does not appear to have returned to

America after 1645. His attack on St Mary’s not only deprived of his main

source of income since 1632 but made him an embarrassment to the Navy.

The lack of any reference to Ingle and his ship after 1650 also seems to

indicate that they too had dispensed of his services. Cornwallis sued him for

39

£4,000 in damages and it is thought that he died in penurious circumstances

in London sometime in 1653 aged 44.

During the early 1640s the disputes between Calvert and the Assembly

bore striking parallels with those between Charles and his Parliament and

consequently Maryland’s rebels anticipated Parliamentarian support for their

assumption of government. The only member of the Council remaining in

Maryland was Sir Thomas Gerard so it must be assumed that some form of

junta under Pope and Sturman was created. An oath of allegiance to

Parliament was also imposed although John Thompson was the only Catholic

in the province to take it. Presumably most of the other Catholics were in

prison or in exile in Virginia.

Neighbouring Virginia had always provided a convenient bolt-hole for

Maryland’s political exiles and outlaws although until 1645 they had tended to

be Baltimore’s Protestant opponents rather than his supporters. When

Berkeley returned from England on 7 August he was more than willing to lend

what support he could to his fellow Royalist, Calvert and ensured that he

received a sympathetic hearing from Virginia’s Council on 9 August.

Berkeley sailed from Bristol in June and was probably aware of the

King’s defeat at Naseby. On 11 September Bristol fell and his own family’s

seat, Berkeley Castle, followed on 26 September when it surrendered to

Winthrop’s brother-in-law, Col Thomas Rainsborough and his regiment full of

New Englanders. With Charles’ fortunes in decline Berkeley made Virginia a

safe haven for his supporters and until the Restoration in 1660 thousands of

Royalist refugees, including George Washington’s great-grandfather Col John

40

Washington, to settle in Virginia in what has become known as the ‘Cavalier

Migration’.

Although Berkeley’s Council was sympathetic the colony was still

fighting the Powhatan War and thus unable, or unwilling, to raise a force to

invade Maryland so Calvert appears to have set up camp in the nearest

settlement to Maryland that was sympathetic to his cause, Kecoughton on the

York River instead. Although the Indian trading post of Chicacoan, to the

north, was closer to Maryland it was the haunt of Claiborne’s men and

Baltimore’s enemies rendering it unsuitable.

In March 1646 Capt Edward Hill led a Virginian delegation to St Mary’s

to request the return of several Virginians who had fled to Maryland without

permission. Presumably these men were Parliamentarian supporters, or even

Claiborne men who felt safer over the border. Hill, a Burgess for Charles City

County and onetime Speaker of the House must have made an impression in

St Mary’s as he returned in July 1646 as Governor of the colony.

His appointment as Governor is still controversial and shrouded in

mystery. He is not listed as one of the colonial Governors of Maryland yet the

Assembly voted him his arrears of pay after he was deposed. He claimed to

hold a commission from Calvert ‘…Given under my hand and seale this 30th

July 1646 in Virginia…’ yet he later admitted that it had been ‘…acted by

another person’. Thus between July and December 1646 the ‘Governor’ of

Maryland was a man claiming to be acting on the authority of both Baltimore

and Calvert.

Why exactly Maryland’s rebels would accept a Governor appointed by

Calvert when they had only just ousted him is hard to say. Indeed if the

41

commission was genuine then why did Calvert invade in December 1646 to

depose him? Hill even denounced Calvert’s invasion as an illegal abuse of

power as it was done without authority of Maryland’s Council. No doubt the

Council referred to was the Protestant junta and in 1647 Governor Thomas

Greene, not to be confused with Ingle’s Mate of the same name, wrote to Hill

telling him that he was wrong to assume that ‘…the counsell residing in the

Province had full power and authority to elect & chuse you, which is evident

they had not’.

It would seem that the junta appointed Hill as Governor and claimed

that he had a commission from Calvert in order win over support from those

colonists who did not support the coup. After all Claiborne had used a

counterfeit commission when he landed on Kent Island so it would not have

been the first time such a ruse was used. Interestingly the Kent Islanders

never submitted to Hill’s authority, nor did he seek to impose it. Both Hill and

Claiborne were Virginian government officials so it is likely that Hill was

sympathetic to the latter’s claim over Kent Island and deliberately avoided

bringing it back under Maryland jurisdiction. Of course it could equally have

been because he was unable to.

Whatever the basis of Hill’s governorship by December 1646 Calvert

seemed confident that he could regain power. Not only did he raise a

company of 28 men at a personal cost of 45,600lbs of tobacco but he also

contacted Thomas Thornborough, a leading rebel and invited him to

Kecoughton to reconcile their differences. In front of his troops, Calvert

reassured Thornborough that if the colony submitted peacefully his men

42

would not pillage it. His aim was to restore lawful government to Maryland,

not despoil it.

This company was not, as some claim a band of Puritan mercenaries

supplied by Col Richard Bennett but a mixed bag of Maryland exiles and

Virginian Royalists with connexions to the colony. Of the officers Capt John

Price was a Maryland Catholic as were Lt William Lewis and Sgt Pheypo

whilst Lt William Evans was a Virginian Catholic. In fact Bennett’s contribution

was minimal and although he was reputedly ‘…one of the Chesapeake’s most

intense Puritan idealogues and Parliamentarian supporter…’ he had no

qualms about dealing with Calvert, Cornwallis or even Copley.

Few records survive of what happened when Calvert sailed for St

Mary’s in December. A letter from the Assembly to Baltimore later stated that

he ‘…surprised all those who had combined themselves against him and cast

them into prison’. As three of Calvert’s men vanish from the records almost

immediately it is possible that they were killed during the invasion, however, if

there was resistance it was ineffective and short-lived. Without the

‘Reformation’ in the harbour the rebels appeared to lack the will or ability to

make a fight of it and the fact that the remaining rebels held a meeting at St

Inigoe’s on 29 December indicates that the rest of St Mary’s was in Calvert’s

hands by that date.

Tense negotiations followed and faced with the imminent prospect of

defeat the rebels submitted. From the outset it was obvious that Calvert was

out to restore order not exact revenge and in a shrewd act of reconciliation

and diplomacy not only pardoned the rebels and accepted the elected

members of Hill’s assembly as members of his own whilst rejecting the

43

legitimacy of Hill’s governorship. Having reassured the Assembly that his

soldiers were serving for pay not plunder the newly pardoned rebels

adjourned on 2 January 1647 having proved willing to agree with anything

Calvert suggested.

Of course the presence of Calvert’s troops and the loss of rebel

leadership contributed greatly to the situation. The Sturman brothers, Francis

Gray, John Hampton, Robert Smith and Thomas Yewell had all fled to

Chicacoan on 13 January and Hill had joined them there by the 26th, when

Samuel Taylor witnessed a grant of power of attorney to John Hollis to settle

his affairs in Maryland. In addition, Claiborne and 20 men were back on Kent

Island fermenting trouble against Calvert. With so many enemies still at large,

the war was far from over.

Edward Thompson said that he had heard Taylor and Gray boast in

Chicacoan that they would ‘…goe over and would fire and burn and destroy

all that they can…’ in Maryland. In fact the threat from Chicacoan was what

prevented Calvert launching an attack on Kent Island until April. The rebels

continued to spread rumours of Parliamentarian reinforcements. A Capt

Wyatt was said to be at hand with a squadron of ships and troops from

London whilst others claimed that Claiborne and 50 men were on their way

from Kent Island to attack St Mary’s.

Meanwhile, Calvert consolidated his position and placed an embargo

on Kent Island and restricted the movements of colonists. In a stroke of luck

the Sturmans, Gray and Hampton were arrested on 17 January, probably

after a botched raid, and locked up. Calvert sent an ultimatum to the

remaining rebels in Chicacoan to submit by 4 February or face outlawry and

44

the confiscation of their property. Although no evidence survives to confirm

that they submitted the raids effectively ended after this date.

With the threat from Chicacoan neutralised, Calvert was able to turn his

attention towards Kent Island. Abandoned by Claiborne the rebel leader on

the island, Capt Peter Knight wrote to Calvert seeking to make peace and on

9 March Calvert sent the former rebel, Pope to Kent Island to negotiate.

Reports of his embassy are contradictory and ultimately he failed to persuade

the rebels to surrender.

Not all the islanders were behind Knight and three; Robert Vaughan,

Francis Brookes and Walter King were staunch supporters of Calvert’s party.

The rebels attacked Vaughan’s house shortly after Pope’s arrival and after

initially being repulsed stormed the house killing two servants and capturing

its owner who was held captive for three weeks by Thomas Bradnox. With

two loyalists still at large and support waning, Knight realised that he had little

hope of defending Kent Island if Calvert attacked and began to prepare to

abandon it.

When news reached Knight at the end of March that Calvert was on his

way he looted what was left of Brent’s house as well as stealing the ironwork

from the mill at Kent and loaded his spoils onto a ship and fled to Virginia.

When Calvert landed at the beginning of April the remaining rebels

surrendered without a shot and in line with his policy of reconciliation he

pardoned them. In 1642 there were 73 freemen on the island yet in 1647

Calvert issued pardons to 11. In all only 14 freemen, including the three

loyalists already mentioned swore an oath of allegiance to Baltimore giving

45

credence to the claim that Kent Island had been virtually abandoned as a

result of the Plundering Times.

Although rumours still circulated that Hill was planning to invade from

Chicacoan, Calvert had at last brought the colony fully under Proprietary

control. His triumph was, however, short lived and he died suddenly after a

short illness on 9 June 1647 that Riordan speculates was caused by a

snakebite. On his deathbed he appointed Council member Thomas Greene

as his successor.

Although Greene had been one of the original passengers on the

‘Dove’ and a long-established member of the colony’s Council, he was a

Catholic like Calvert and some of the Protestant colonists, like James

Johnson and Walter Broadhurst began threatening violence against his new

administration. Hill even wrote to Greene from Chicacoan telling him that his

appointment was illegal and that he was the rightful governor of Maryland and

claiming that ‘…others of humors different from mine, privately embrace a

parliamentary influence, which may prove fatal to the whole…’ made a thinly

veiled threat of renewed civil war.

As long as Price’s company remained in arms, however, Greene could

afford to ignore Hill’s threat and told him that he would only surrender his

office if ordered to do so by Baltimore himself. In a diplomatic offensive he

also wrote to Berkeley to secure support and did his best to ensure that Price,

now a member of the Council, and his men received their arrears of pay. In

the end Hill’s threats rang hollow and Greene remained in office until

Baltimore appointed a new Governor, Capt William Stone on 8 August 1648.

46

Stone was an unusual choice in several respects. Not only was he a

Virginian from Accomack but a Puritan with strong Parliamentarian

connexions. Stone had emigrated in the 1620s and become a wealthy and

well established member of Virginia’s political and mercantile elite although he

was not well known in Maryland. His uncle, Thomas Stone, was a leading

tobacco merchant in London and his family had close ties to the Independents

in New England. In short, by appointing Stone, Baltimore created an

administration in Maryland that was acceptable both to Parliament and the

Independent faction in the New Model Army.

Appointing Stone also carried a degree of risk as his previous dealings

with Maryland had been as a representative of both Pope and Ingle, men

closely associated with the rebellion. However, since 1642 Berkeley had

declared that the church in Virginia had ‘…to be careful that Almighty God is

served according to the form established Church of England’ and by 1648 he

was actively discriminating against dissenters which made moving to

Maryland, with its toleration of sectarian views, attractive.

In 1648 a new oath of allegiance was introduced ‘…for equal

administration of justice…’ and on 2 April 1649 the Assembly passed the ‘Act

Concerning Religion’ which guaranteed religious tolerance to anyone who

was loyal to the Proprietor. This Act placed Maryland on a similar footing to

Rhode Island and although such toleration was anathema to many

Independents and Anglicans it attracted large numbers of Virginian Puritans.

It is difficult to say whether Baltimore appointed Stone because he

wanted to attract Puritan settlers or that Stone’s appointment was part of a

deal to attracted them. A deliberate policy of recruiting dissenters is a realistic

47

proposition as Fenwick had been dispatched on just such a mission in 1643

and it is likely that Kent Island was not the only part of the colony to have

become depopulated. If Baltimore needed new colonists then Virginia’s

Independents were as good a source as any, especially as he now appeared

to be at peace with Parliament.

Thus, in December 1649 around 500 Virginians ‘…both of the

Congregated Church, and other well affected people in Virginia, being

debarred from free exercise of religion under the government of Sir William

Berkeley removed themselves, families and estates into the province of

Maryland…’ led by Edward Lloyd established the settlement of Providence,

now Annapolis, and a new county, Ann Arundel County, opposite Kent Island

at the head of the Chesapeake Bay. It would be wrong to think that these

people went to Maryland because they believed in religious toleration, they

went because of persecution in Virginia and in many ways their presence lit

the slow fuse that was to cause a second wave of internecine warfare in

Maryland.

The other catalyst for renewed war was the death of the King in

January 1649 and the creation of England’s only Republic, the

Commonwealth. The Regicide shook the very fabric of what could be termed

‘British’ society as Charles had been king of England, Ireland and Scotland

and many Parliamentarians, including the commander of the New Model

Army, Sir Thomas Fairfax, were shocked by it. Despite, or perhaps because

the Scottish Government had handed their King, a fellow Scot, over to the

English in 1648 they declared his son Charles Stuart, Prince of Wales, King

48

Charles II on 5 February 1649 and crowned King of Scots at Scone on 1

January 1651.

Much to the chagrin of the Commonwealth Virginia, Maryland, Jersey,

Barbados, Bermuda, The Isle of Man and Antigua all declared for Charles II in

1651 and refused to recognise the authority of Cromwell’s regime.

Predictably the New England colonies were firmly behind the Republic and

indeed many New Englanders, such as Hugh Peter, Edward Hopkins and

Edward Winslow were to exert a great degree of influence over the republic.

In fact New England remained a bastion of the ‘Good Old Cause’ long after

the Restoration and its influence could still be seen 115 years later during the

American Revolution.

By the end of 1651 the New Model Army and Commonwealth Navy

had reduced all of the Royalist territories to obedience except for Barbados,

Maryland and Virginia and with war looming with the Dutch it was essential

that these colonies were reclaimed. On 26 September 1651 the

‘Commonwealth Commission to Reduce Virginia’ appointed naval Capt

Robert Denis, Col Richard Bennett, Thomas Stagge, Edmund Carew and

Capt William Claiborne, who was now openly in support of Parliament,

commissioners ‘…for the reducing of Virginia, and the inhabitants thereof to

their due obedience to the commonwealth of England... And upon your arrival

at Virginia, you, or any two or more of you (whereof captain Robert Denis to

be one) shall use your best endeavours to reduce all the plantations within the

bay of Chesopiaik’.

Although both Bennett and Claiborne were Virginians it was Denis who

was placed in command of the expedition and given power ‘…to raise forces

49

within every of the plantations aforesaid, for the furtherance and good of the

service; and such persons as shall come unto you, and serve as soldiers, if

their masters shall stand in opposition to the present government of this

commonwealth’. In 1651 the issue of Baltimore’s Charter had not yet been

decided and although Maryland was not specifically mentioned in the

commission it was ambiguous enough to give Claiborne the legal authority he

craved to attack Maryland and settle old scores with Baltimore.

Denis’ expedition consisted of two ships, the ‘Guiney Frigate’ under his

command and the ‘John’ under Capt Edmond Curtis and a force of 500 men

drawn from the regiments of the New Model Army. In all probability they were

musketeers as pikes were of no use at sea and the cavalry threat in the

colonies minimal. Surviving records tell us that both vessels carried 32 guns,

which would place them in the 450-500 ton bracket making them a potent

threat to any shipping in America.

The expedition arrived off Virginia in March 1652 and demanded that

Berkeley surrender. Berkeley was at first openly defiant and called out the

militia, numbering some 7,000 men. For several days open warfare

threatened but it is difficult to know how reliable these troops were in the face

of an invasion led by Claiborne, a man who had been Captain-General in the

Powhatan War. Perhaps even Berkeley knew he could not rely on his men to

fight and, no doubt, through gritted teeth he submitted to Parliament on 12

March and Jamestown was occupied on 7 April. Berkeley was subsequently

stripped of his office and replaced by Bennett as Governor and Claiborne as

Secretary of State.

50

With Virginia secured the Commissioners now turned their attentions

towards Maryland and Claiborne sailed to St Mary’s where, backed by

Commonwealth troops, he forced Stone to renounce his allegiance to

Baltimore and removed him from office. Stone, however, was known to be a

Parliament man at heart and Claiborne had no reason to believe that he

would cause trouble. Thus, in June 1652 he was reinstated as Governor on

the condition that he acted under the direction of Parliament’s representatives,

Bennett and Claiborne, as the ‘…the keepers of the liberties of England’. 30

Despite Claiborne having no authority to revoke Baltimore’s Charter his

takeover of Maryland effectively did just that. Although he may have thought

his fight with the Calverts was over not everyone in the colony seems to have

accepted the changes and John Krugler suggests that from 1652-55 a low

level war raged between the government and the Independents of Ann

Arundel County. Unfortunately for Claiborne, Cromwell dismissed Parliament

in April 1653 and became Lord Protector of the Commonwealth on 16

December. When news reached Maryland in the spring of 1654 Stone

naturally concluded that Bennett and Claiborne’s commission was no longer

valid and repudiated his agreement with them.

On 2 March 1654 he decreed that although he was still loyal to the

Commonwealth all legislation in the colony should be in Baltimore’s name and

he insisted upon an oath of fidelity to the Proprietor and charged Bennett and

Claiborne with ‘…sedition and rebellion…’ on 4 July. This further aggravated

the residents of Ann Arundel County who flatly objected to the oath and

appealed to Bennett and Claiborne for help against Stone. Despite explicit

30 Archives of Maryland, vol.662, p.117.

51

orders from Cromwell forbidding Bennett, or his officers, from interfering in

Maryland the Commissioners once more placed their own interests before

duty and in July Bennett dispatched a force under Claiborne’s command to

oust Stone.

Faced with invasion from Virginia and attack from the north from

Providence it would appear that Stone was either unable to rally sufficient

support or lost his nerve and on 8 August Claiborne deposed him and

appointed Capt William Fuller, a Providence New Model Army veteran, as the

new Governor. With the Puritans in charge Maryland began to change.

Catholics were barred from public office, as were those who had borne arms

against Parliament or indeed anyone else they deemed to ‘…practice

licentiousness’. Fuller’s first Assembly, convened on 20 October 1654 at

Richard Preston’s house at Patuxent and passed over 44 pieces of legislation

including a repeal of the Act Concerning Religion and abolished the oath of

fidelity. He also moved the seat of government from St Mary’s to the Puritan

stronghold of Providence, where it would remain until March 1658.

Fuller was born in Deal in Kent, England, and sailed to New England

on the ‘Abigail’ in April 1635. Little is known about him between 1635 and

1652 when he first appears in Maryland’s records. He may have moved to

Virginia in the 1640s, however, he was an officer in the New Model Army and

fought at Dunbar on 3 September 1650 and was probably the Sgt Fuller listed

in Lt Gen Thomas Hammond’s Regiment of Foot in February 1645. Although

some accounts claim he arrived in Providence in 1651 it is possible that he

actually arrived in 1652 as part of Denis’ Commonwealth force. If so, that

52

would explain why both Bennett and Claiborne trusted him enough to appoint

him Governor.

By 1654 Fuller was an active member of the Assembly representing

Ann Arundel County. As a former professional soldier it is likely that he was

also the commander of the county’s militia or at least one of its key officers.

He seems to have played a similar rôle in Providence to that played in the

1630s by Cornwallis in St Mary’s and in July 1652 had negotiated a treaty with

the Susquehannock and in November was appointed by Stone to command

an expedition against the Nanticokes and Wicomicoes.

Claiborne also appointed a committee ‘…for the Conservation of the

peace and publick Administracon of Justice…’ consisting of Richard Preston,

William Durand, Edward Lloyd, Capt John Smith, Leonard Strong, John

Hatch, Richard Wells, Richard Ewen and a Mr Lawson to support Fuller’s

administration in the ‘…well Ordering directing and Governing the affaires of

Maryland under his highness the Lord Protector of England, Scotland, Ireland

and the Dominons thereof, and in his Name onely and no other and to

proceed therein as neare as may be to the Lawes of England’.

At the end of January 1655 two ships entered St Inigoe’s Creek, the

‘Golden Lyon’ commanded by Capt Roger Heamans and the ‘Golden Fortune’

commanded by Capt Samuel Tilghman. Although Stone had told Heamans

that he was no longer the governor Tilghman had with him a letter from the

Lord Protector addressed to ‘Governor Stone of Maryland’. William Eltonhead

and Capt Josias Fendall were also on board the ‘Golden Fortune’ with the

news that Baltimore’s Charter had not been revoked and with news that

53

Cromwell had also written to Bennett censuring him for over-stepping his

authority.

Encouraged by Eltonhead’s news and more than a little resentful of

Baltimore’s accusations of cowardice, Stone concluded that Fuller’s

appointment was illegal and that he was in a strong enough position to

challenge his authority. As Fuller was in Providence at the time Stone had

little difficulty in mustering his fellow loyalists and seizing the colony’s archives

held at Pope’s house. He then appointed Fendall and Eltonhead as militia

officers and called out the St Mary’s Trained Band.

Although no accurate records survive of this muster it would seem that

as Stone had between 150-200 men at the subsequent Battle of the Severn it

would seem that most of the male population of St Mary’s answered his call to

arms. Stone knew that he had to act quickly and decisively if he was to defeat

Fuller and deter intervention from Virginia. To that end he sent Fendell and

Eltonhead with 20 men to Patuxent to seize the arms and ammunition stored

there. En route they attacked the properties of known enemies and took

Preston and John Sutton prisoner, although Preston later escaped.

Meanwhile Heamans slipped out of St Inigoe’s and sailed north to

warn Fuller. Heamans told Fuller that he had only just escaped with his life as

Stone had plotted to seize his ship and put the crew to the sword and planned

to massacre the inhabitants of Providence. Although it was obvious that

Stone would attack Heamans’ claims were undoubtedly an exaggeration and

it would appear that rather than planning to attack Heamans, Stone wanted

his support and had already issued him with orders to that effect.

54

Instead Heamans pledged his support to Fuller who convened a

Council of War on 23 March and ordered that all the women and children of

the colony be placed onboard the ‘Golden Lyon’ for their own safety. The

next day he issued a warrant to Heamans warning him that he was ‘…not to

fail as you will answer to the contrary at your peril…’ and when Stone’s

squadron appeared later that evening Heamans opened fire killing a

militiaman and forcing them to seek shelter in Spa Creek, south of

Providence. Heamans then ordered a sloop carrying two guns, commanded

by New Englander Capt John Cutts, to block the mouth of the creek,

effectively bottling up Stone’s flotilla. As Stone’s boats were no match for the

‘Golden Lyon’ he disembarked his men on the eastern shore of Spa Creek to

camp for the night.

Stone is believed to have left St Mary’s on 20 March with a force of

some 150-200 men, one source claims the rather precise figure of 225 men

whilst Puritan sources claimed that he even had as many as 300 but this is

unlikely. According to Charles F Stein Jr in his ‘Origin and History of Howard

County Maryland’ Stone even had a group of German professional soldiers in

his force. If this is true they were probably refugees from the King’s defeated

army rather than mercenaries hired by Stone. Although Cornwallis does not

appear to have fought at the Severn he had returned to Maryland in 1652 and

had served in a Royalist Dragoon Regiment belonging to the German-Royalist

commander Prince Rupert of the Rhine. There were also several other

Royalist civil war veterans in Stone’s force and the Germans in question may

well have accompanied them into exile.

55

Stone’s plan was to march overland and use a small flotilla of 10-12

boats to aid his movement when the terrain became impassible. Tilghman, it

would seem did not use his ship to aid Stone and he may well have been in

Providence with Heamans for all we know. It is possible that he chose this

approach in order to rally support from outlying settlements and to give his

envoys, Col Henry Coursey and Dr Luke Barber, ontime physician to

Cromwell, time to deliver his ultimatum to Fuller. When they arrived in

Providence they demanded that Fuller and his people ‘…deliver themselves

up in a peaceful manner…’ but they refused saying ‘…they would rather die

like men than live like slaves’.

There is some dispute as to where the Battle of the Severn was

actually fought and its sight still remains to be positively identified. The site is

referred to as a place called Horn Point opposite modern Annapolis, however,

nowhere of that name seems to exist today. As Spa Creek is mentioned in

most accounts it is likely that Horn Point is Annapolis suburb of Eastport, on

the southern bank of Spar Creek. Eastport fits with most of the accounts of

the battle and would also have been a good location to land troops for an

attack on Providence itself. Unfortunately, Eastport is now an urban area and

it is unlikely that any archaeology from the battle will ever come to light unless

a major re-building programme takes place.

In the morning Stone began marshalling his men into some sort of

order with drums beating and with Lord Baltimore’s colours, charged with a

paly of six pieces, or and sable, a bend dexter counterchanged, being

flourished. Given the lack of a cavalry threat and the amphibious nature of

Stone’s expedition it is extremely unlikely that any of his men were armed with

56

pikes, making it an all-musketeer force. Because he had at least 10 officers

and infantry companies of the time usually contained 50 men it is likely that he

had three or four companies at his disposal.

By the 1650s experience musket blocks tended to form up in three

ranks, however, despite the presence of several veteran Royalist soldiers

Stone’s men were mostly inexperience militiamen and probably took up a

deeper formation or up to six ranks to fire by introduction, a slow and

measured method of giving fire. Fuller, on the other hand was a New Model

Army veteran, as were a number of his men which meant that the Providence

militiamen were more likely to be conversant with the latest military practices

than those from St Mary’s.

Anyone who has witnessed a modern ECW re-enactment would have

little difficulty picturing the scene in Stone’s camp or even 4 miles away where

Fuller was forming up his own forces. Again one account claims that Fuller

had around 120 men at his disposal although it is possible that he had more.

Despite claims by Michael Bellesiles in ‘Disarming Early American History’,

there is no evidence to support the theory that Fuller’s men were

Commonwealth Regulars. Instead many may well have been New Model

Army veterans like Fuller and some probably even wore their old redcoats

creating a greater degree of uniformity than amongst Stone’s men. Again, as

neither pikes nor cavalry are mentioned it would also be reasonable to

assume that Fuller’s force was also made up of musketeers only.

Thus, on the morning of Sunday 25 March 1655 two opposing armies

were forming up to fight what was to be the only formal set-piece battle of the

English Civil War in America. Although by British standards this was a small

57

skirmish it should be remembered that in colonial terms a fight involving

possibly as many as 400 men was a major engagement. Even during the

bloody and protracted King Philips War in the 1670s the much larger colony of

New England, with tens of thousands of inhabitants considered fielding forces

of around 1,000 men a major achievement.

The presence of Baltimore’s Colours left little doubt, in Puritan eyes,

that Stone’s force was a Papist-Royalist one. In order to emphasize his

Commonwealth credentials Fuller chose to march under Commonwealth

Colours, albeit without authority to do so. In fact his muster was somewhat

delayed whilst Heamans fetched just such a flag from his ship and Fuller gave

it to a fellow Virginian Puritan, William Ayers who appears to have served as

an officer in Cromwell’s Ironsides. Apparently there was some attempt to

negotiate a settlement and it may well have been at this point that Coursey

and Barber delivered their message rather than on the day before.

Having rejected Stone’s terms Fuller began his attack with drums

beating and colours flying. His advance to contact would have taken at least

an hour if not two across the broken scrub as he inevitably halted and re-

dressed his men within sound if not sight of the enemy. As Fuller’s men came

into extreme range, about 150 yards, a ragged volley rippled across Stone’s

line to little effect. The unfortunate Ayres fell mortally wounded, which

undoubtedly raised a cheer from the ‘Royalists’ but as the smoke cleared it

was apparent that someone else had taken up the fallen Colours and Fuller’s

men pressed on unfazed.

Although the Providence militia were probably outnumbered by that of

St Mary’s their superior discipline was borne out by what followed. It would

58

appear that they halted close to Stone’s troops, probably within 50 yards, and

fired into the enemy. Fuller had probably followed current New Model Army

practice and formed his men into three man deep musket blocks trained to fire

by ‘salvee’ or salvo as we would say today, meaning that all three ranks fired

at the same time with devastating effect.

Hearted by the sight of dozens of Stone’s men falling the

Commonwealthmen took up the cry of, ‘In the name of God, fall on, God is our

strength,’ and exploiting the shock of their volley charged. Although some of

Stone’s raw militiamen broke and ran whilst others threw down their arms,

others took up the rather unusual war cry of, ‘Hey, for St Mary’s and wives for

us all,’ and stood their ground. At least five made it to the Creek and

managed to swim to safety.

According to Thomas R Calloway a body of St Mary’s militia, probably

under the direction of Stone, took up a position behind a large fallen tree and

held up Fuller’s advance. It was at his point that Fuller seems to have worked

a ‘Forlorn Hope’ of musketeers around their flank making their position

untenable and eventually Stone asked for a Parley which effectively ended

the fight. In roughly an hour-and-a-half of combat he had been shot through

the shoulder, his Secretary of State Thomas Hatton along with at least 17 or

even as many as 40 of his men were dead whilst another 30-40 were

wounded.

Stone had surrendered on the condition that his men would be spared,

however, it would appear that several of his men were shot out of hand,

including several Germans serving in is ranks. All of his boats, arms and

Colours were taken along with virtually all his surviving officers – Eltonhead,

59

Fendall, Col John Price, Capt Gerard, Col Henry Coursey, Maj Thomas

Truman, Capt William Lewis, Capt Kendall, Capt Nicholas Gwyther and Maj

Job Chandler were also taken prisoner and if Cornwallis was present he must

have managed to escape unscathed. On Fuller’s side only four, Ayers,

Francis Beasley, Thomas Marsh and John Underhill appear to have died and

an unknown number wounded.

Tactically the Severn was a crushing defeat for Baltimore’s supporters,

the Puritans even began calling the field ‘Papist Pound’, but it was also a

massive strategic defeat. Almost every member of Baltimore’s Council, from

Governor Stone to Chandler his Agent and Receiver General were prisoners

as were Price, Lewis, Williams and Gwyther who were veterans of the fighting

in 1645-6. With so many enemies in their power, Fuller and his Council

imposed an oath of silence on their prisoners so they could not tell Baltimore

of their defeat.

More shockingly, in a flagrant breach of the surrender terms Fuller

convened a Court Martial on 27 March that sentenced Stone, Fendall,

Eltonhead, Price, Lewis, Gerard, Kendall, Gwyther, Chandler, John Legatt,

John Pedro and the Hon Robert Clarke to death. Whilst Eltonhead, Lewis,

Legatt and Pedro were shot immediately the other were reprieved after a

group of Puritan ladies who were friends of Stone’s wife, Verlinda, interceded.

Over 200 Providence residents, including many who had fought in the battle,

believed that as they had simply obeyed Baltimore’s orders they did not

deserve to die.

Instead the prisoners were handed over to Capt John Northwood, High

Sheriff of Anne Arundel County until they were eventually released. Fuller

60

ordered the seizure of his enemies’ estates and dispatched a force to plunder

St Mary’s as punishment for supporting the Proprietor. In addition legislation

was also passed to further restrict religious toleration and deprive the

Catholics of what rights they had. By 1656 many on both sides of the Atlantic

felt that Maryland’s Puritans had ‘…brought to desolation one of the happiest

plantations that ever Englishmen set foot in’.

Anxious to justify his actions Fuller sent a dispatch to Bennett, in

Virginia giving an extremely biased account of the campaign. Bennett

promptly left for England to explain the events in Maryland before any other

version of events could reach Cromwell. Unfortunately for Bennett, Cromwell

was favourably disposed towards Baltimore’s cause and when Mrs Stone and

his friend Dr Barber, who had been at the Severn, wrote with their accounts

the Lord Protector was sympathetic.

Events now followed a similar course to those that followed Ingle’s

rebellion with Baltimore’s friends and enemies engaging in a propaganda

campaign of pamphlets and litigation. As the Commonwealth had not stripped

him of his Charter, Baltimore argued that been ‘…interrupted in his rights…’

by Bennett and his coterie. Although Fuller was firmly in control of Maryland,

Baltimore issued a commission to Fendall on 10 July 1656 making him

Governor. Before he was able to rally support he was arrested on 15 August

and imprisoned as ‘...dangerous to the public peace…’ and finally released on

24 September.

With both the Commission for Trade in England and Cromwell

sympathetic, Baltimore sent his youngest brother, Philip as Principal

Secretary of the Province to Maryland in November 1656 in order to pave the

61

way for a return to Proprietary rule. In 1657 Fendall went to England leaving

Dr Barber ‘in charge’ and returned on 28 February 1658 with a commission

from Baltimore making him Governor, with Cornwallis as his Deputy, and

instructions from Cromwell ordering Fuller to surrender the colony. As a

result of the Articles of Agreement brought by Fendall, Fuller surrendered on

23 March 1658. The civil war in Maryland was finally over.

Although New England’s governors had managed to avert civil war in

their colonies their citizens did not escape involvement all together and when

war broke out with the Dutch Cromwell sent Bostonian Robert Sedgwick,

commander of the Middlesex Militia Regiment, a Major General’s commission

on 26 May 1652 with orders to assemble a force for an attack on their on their

colonies of New Netherlands and New Amsterdam (New York).

Although these colonies were established in 1624 their populations

were small compared to those of their English neighbours. Involvement in a

protracted war between 1641-45 that cost around 1,000 lives further added to

the New Netherland’s problems. In 1647 Peter Stuyvesant replaced Governor

Kieft as head of the colony. Although it was hoped that he would do a better

job than Kieft he was later forced to cede Long Island to the English in 1650.

In 1654 Stuyvesant decided to attack the Swedish colony along the

Delaware called New Sweden when the Swedish Governor, Johan Rising,

attempted to evict Dutch settlers from the colony by seizing Fort Casimir (New

Castle, Delaware) and renaming it Fort Christina. In the summer of 1655

Stuyvesant struck back and sailed up the Delaware with seven ships and 317

soldiers. Outnumbered, the Swedes surrendered Fort Trinity and Fort

Christina 14 days later.

62

By the time Sedgwick was in a position to attack the Dutch, however,

the Anglo-Dutch War was over and one with France had begun so he decided

to attack the French colony of Arcadia (New Brunswick, Canada) instead.

New England had first been drawn into Arcadian affairs in July 1643 when

Boston sent four armed vessels and some men to support the Huguenot

settlers against Arcadia’s Catholic government. The Bostonians ‘…wounded

several men, killed three others and took one captive. They killed a quantity

of livestock and took a ship loaded with furs, powder and food…’ and ‘…the

Puritans returned home, having ... compromised their colony’. 31

Sedgwick seized the Arcadian settlement of Port-Royal and chased the

French authorities out. The Governor, Charles La Tour managed to escape to

England and with the help of John Kirke even succeeded in convincing

Cromwell to give him back part of his colony at Cap de Sable. After a swift

victory Sedgwick was needed elsewhere so Sir Thomas Temple was

appointed Governor. He remained unchallenged until Alexandre Le Borgne

de Bélisle ‘…at the head of a force of fifty men, took possession of the fort at

La Heve…’ in May 1658 but Temple successfully counter-attacked and sent

Bélisle to London as a prisoner of war.

On 25 December 1654 a force of 3,000 soldiers drafted from regiments

of the New Model Army under the joint command of General-at-Sea William

Penn, whose son later founded Pennsylvania, and General Robert Venables

arrived in Barbados where a further 6,000 volunteers were recruited and

although they now had 18 warships, 20 transports and 9,000 soldiers, many

of their men were poorly trained and ill-disciplined. Both were veteran officers

31 John Winthrop, Winthrop’s Journal: A History of New England 1630-1649, Vol II, (Charles Scribner & Son: New York, 1908) pp.130-138. MORE DETAIL

63

but neither had been given overall command, which along with the poor

quality of their troops was to cause problems in the future. .

After Arcadia, Sedgwick was ordered south to join this expedition. He

was not the only New Englander and Edward Winslow, effectively

Massachusetts’ ambassador to London was also with the expedition a

Commissioner. Winslow was to be responsible for establishing an English

administration in Hispaniola (Haiti and the Dominican Republic) whilst

Sedgwick was to be Governor of Jamaica.

Penn and Venebles reservations about the quality of their troops were

vindicated when they failed to take San Domingo, the main port on

Hispaniola, in April 1655. Suffering from heat exhaustion and opening fire at

fireflies at night in the belief that they were the matches of Spanish

musketeers; Venebles men were repeatedly ambushed and mauled by the

Spanish garrison. Their plans were further damaged when Winslow died at

sea on 8 May 1655. Deflated by this set back to Cromwell’s ‘Western Design’

they decided to attack the less important Spanish colony of Jamaica, next

door.

They arrived of Jamaica on 11 May 1655 and occupied Santiago de la

Vega (Spanish Town) on the 12th. The Spanish garrison on Jamaica was

much weaker than that of Hispaniola and surrendered on 17 May 1655.

Before surrendering the Spanish not only released their cattle but freed their

slaves as well in the hope that they would wage a guerrilla war against the

English until they could re-take the Island. Known as ‘Maroons’ these ex-

slaves soon began raiding and were to remain a threat to English plantations

well into the eighteenth century.

64

Penn and Venebles promptly left for England leaving Sedgwick in

charge as Governor but unfortunately he died of disease on 24 May and was

replaced by his deputy Col Edward Doyley who built Fort Cromwell to guard

the harbour. In 1657 the Spanish Governor Don Cristobel de Ysassi launched

two unsuccessful attempts to re-take Jamaica but by 1660 they had

abandoned all hope of its recapture and formally ceded it to England in 1670.

English colonisation of Jamaica was not rapid and the island became a

notorious centre for piracy against the Spanish. The Jamaica campaign

signalled the end of English military activity in the Americas until after the

Restoration of 1660.

Predictably, the last aftershock of the civil war was in Maryland, which

remained unsettled after 15 years of upheaval. On 2 June 1659 Deputy

Governor Cornwallis broke the colonies’ last governmental ties with the

original settlement of 1634 and left never to return. In fact the next time a

member of his family would set foot in the Chesapeake would be as the

commander of the British army that surrendered at Yorktown in 1781.

Ironically the great grandfather of the man who took the surrender, Col John

Washington was a resident of St Mary’s at the time and worked closely with

Cornwallis in the Maryland courts and Assembly.

Governor Fendall felt increasingly isolated after Cornwallis’ emigration

and felt that criticisms levelled at him by Baltimore were unwarranted. Not

only had he ventured his life in Baltimore’s cause in 1655 but as Governor he

had reformed the militia but improved government as well. Whether he feared

for his position or genuinely shifted his loyalties is hard to gauge but the

attempted coup he led in March 1660 should probably be seen in the same

65

context as attempts by Gen John Lambert and others to prevent the

Restoration of Charles II.

In the climate of political uncertainty prevalent in the declining years of

the Commonwealth internal divisions within the Army led to a split between

the Republicans and those who sought a rapprochement with the King. It is

possible that the Republicans in England secretly encouraged Fendall to oust

the Proprietary government and create a Commonwealth in Maryland. This

supposition is possibly borne out by the fact that his main ally in his bid for

power was none other than Fuller, the man who had sentenced him to death

in 1655.

In March 1660 Fendall and his confederates used a meeting of the

Maryland Assembly to declare the colony a Commonwealth governed by a

House of Burgesses, in may ways similar to the Parliamentarian government

set up after the Regicide of 1649. Secretary Philip Calvert naturally objected

to the usurpation of his brothers’ rights and walked out of the meeting.

Fendall’s bloodless rebellion was overtaken by events in England when the

Republic collapsed on 24 June 1660 and Charles II restored to the throne and

Berkeley to the Virginia governorship.

Charles II promptly reinstated Baltimore’s Charter and commanded that

the colonists give ‘…obedience to him’. Philip Calvert was appointed

Governor and Baltimore demanded that ‘…that perfidious and perjured fellow,

Fendall…’ be arrested and executed. Whilst Fendall was in gaol Lt George

Godfrey, an officer in the Charles County militia cavalry planned a rescue

mission but was arrested and initially sentenced to ‘…be hanged by the neck

until he be dead’. Instead the sentence was commuted and both Fendall and

66

Godfrey had their estates confiscated and were exiled for life. The civil war,

on both sides of the Atlantic was finally over.

With the monarchy restored in England and the Regicides being

hunted down and punished by the new regime New England became the last

bastion of Commonwealth ideas and ‘The Cause’. Not only did it provide a

refuge for three of the signatories of Charles I’s death warrant but 18 years of

disruption in England had given the colony its first real taste of autonomous

government. It is perhaps unsurprising that it would be in Boston, at the heart

of the last English Republican enclave that the American Revolution would

begin in 1775, picking up the baton that their English cousins had dropped

115 years before.

References:

Michael Bellesiles, Arming America: The origins of a national Gun Culture (New York: Kopf, 2000)

Herbert Osgood, The American Colonies in the seventeenth century (New York: Colombia University Press, 1904)

Kevin Phillips, The Cousins’ Wars, (New York: Basic Books: New York 1997)

Dr Timothy Riordan, The Plundering Time: Maryland and the English Civil War, 1645-46 (Maryland Historical Society, 2004)