After the Major General was hung, drawn and quartered my relatives didn't wait around to see what else Charles II would do.
Posted on 01/01/2010 2:50:48 PM PST by DTogo
Video at the link.
I think we have a similar problem now.
The hang up came because everyman had to read, mainly to make a few bucks but because they saw was was preached was not what was written.
The Bank of England did not extend its control to the American Colonies until Parliament passed the Currency Act of 1764. This caused a severe depression that did not end until descendants of the Cavaliers declared independence in 1776.
The Bank of England continued meddle in the affairs of American by instigating and financing wars on both sides of but did not establish firm control until implementing the IRS and Federal Reserve in 1914. Since then, America has been saddled with an ever-increasing, non-repayable dept with taxes collected to service the exorbitant interest. Are there no more Cavaliers left to fight this tyranny?
Who were these damned Cavaliers our problems were the Dutch, the Frogs, and the Injins..
The "Glorious Revolution" took place in 1688 and you have no clue, "Up, The Protestant Succession"
Washington, Jefferson, and Madison were descendants of the Virginia Cavaliers. William of Orange became ruler of Britain after the “Glorious Revolution” and established the Bank of England in 1694.
Would you seek wages in a fight to restore the Constitution and oust the corrupt Parliamentarians entrenched along the Potomac? I for one would not.
Mine had already established themselves in the Colonies.
Not quite sure why you seem to think an absolute "Lord Protector" is preferable to an absolute monarch (especially when the Lord Protector seems to overstepped bounds recognized by the most absolute of monarchs) . . .
The "corrupt Parliamentarians" -- however despicable many (not all) of them are -- at least are slowing down Obama. Would you prefer untrammeled rule by Obama and his czars?
No, the preference would be for representatives who legislate within the confines of the Constitution.
Cromwell didn’t specifically order this. He simply unleashed his men and told them to have at it and that there should be no quarter because they hadn’t surrendered. He was justified according to the laws of war at the time and his actions are being judged on the basis of 20th and 21st century morality.
Its also worth bearing in mind that reports of Cromwell’s atrocities would have been heavily exaggerated for political reasons, both contemporaneously and long after the event. Just as the atrocities committed by the Irish Confederates would have been.
They didn’t surrender, and the angry and terrified soldiers of the New Model Army took their revenge for being forced to assault the cities (although the tales of atrocities against Catholics no doubt influence their actions as well).
Cromwell’s actions were no more barbaric than those of any other 17th century commander, including those commanding the Irish Confederates, who committed atrocities which, if anything were far worse than what Cromwell did at Drogheda and Wexford, and were committed with the specific aim of wiping out the protestants...
Cavaliers representing freedom. That’s a laugh. Washington and others were descended from staunch supporters of a king who desired monarchical absolutism, but he himself supported liberty. He obviously didn’t take after his ancestors.
And without the Bank of England, it is highly doubtful the industrial revolution would have taken off as it did in Britain in the 18th Century without the financial system in place to fund progress and innovation.
Soon after the Bank was founded, Isaac Newton put Britain on the gold standard in 1717, providing a stable and honest currency, which the rest of the world eventually followed.
Of course, the financial pressures of WWI and dishonest, opportunistic politicians put paid to that, and we gradually came off the gold standard until we all came completely off it in 1971 and have suffered creeping hyperinflation, with the implicit theft of the purchasing power of money held by ordinary people ever since...
The LP was, of course, a monarch, which means rule by one person.
I didn't mean Cromwell's government, in its final LP form, a military dictatorship, was at all desirable. Although he tried numerous forms of government and went with military rule only after none of the others worked out. It certainly wasn't his first choice.
I was referring more to Cromwell's entire career, and to the Parliamentarian side in the war in general.
This was the only effective resistance in European history by traditional parliaments to expansion of kingly power. Other than the Poles, who managed to destroy their nation in the process.
The American system of (formerly) limited government authority is directly descended from the Parliamentary side in the civil war.
No Cromwell, quite probably Parliament would have lost the war, as their other commanders were a great deal less competent. With a triumphant king it is highly probable England would have continued to move in the direction of absolutism, as on the continent. The Englich colonies in America would have been founded without the organs of self-government which our Revolution was fought to defend.
Or he could have died in an “accident.”
Actually, the killing of the King was pretty minor in importance. Lots and lots of kings had been killed in England and Europe.
It was his trial that was critical, both at the time and historically. No King had ever before been placed on trial.
It established, in practice though not immediately in theory, that the King of England was not above the law. A very different concept from France, where not long after a King proclaimed, accurately, “I AM the State.”
The less than absolute power of the English king made it possible for new institutions to evolve gradually, rather than for pressures to build up and explode as they did in the French Revolution.
You and Kells are both correct on dates.
The Glorious Revolution took place in 1688. The ensuing war wasn’t over till the Battle of the Boyne in 1690.
AAMOF, you can make a case the war didn’t end till the Battle of Culloden in 1746.
After the Major General was hung, drawn and quartered my relatives didn't wait around to see what else Charles II would do.
An army marches on its stomach. You can't fight without bullets or tend the wounded without medical supplies. Uniforms, boots, blankets, tents, etc. wear out and require replacement. Most soldiers are not independently wealthy and require wages to feed their families. No war can take place without substantial financing and/or booty.
Since the advent of fire arms based warfare, the most essential person in any war is the banker, not the general. Bankers usually cooperate with each other to finance both sides of in a war. To get financing, each side must agree not only to pay his own debt, but also to guarantee payment of the losing side's the war debt. Bankers are lined up at the beginning to finance recruiting, training, provisioning, and war propaganda.
Again, the timeliness of "an American Cromwell" to our current situation with wannabe "royalty" and corrupted Pariamentarians in Washington.
Throw them out, by ballot or mallet!
Certainly the same advice Cornwallis received: why he’d eventually defeat those ill-equipped/financed Colonial rebels.
The ill-equipped troops of Valley Forge crossed the Delaware on Christmas Eve, 1776 in large part out of desperation to acquire booty from the well-provisioned Hessian mercenaries. After winning the Battle of Trenton, the Colonials were able to qualify for loans. Haym Salomon is one of the best known of General Washington’s financiers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.