British History-Student: Observations & Assessments from Early Cultures to Today 9781614581383, 161458138X

Citation preview

An entire year of high school British history curriculum – in an easy to teach and comprehensive volume! A new series from respected educator Dr. James Stobaugh that takes you on a journey through history without the filters of revisionist or anti-Christian perspectives. This book is designed for a year’s worth of study; 34 powerful weeks of historical viewpoints. A summary sets the stage for learning so the student can enjoy a daily lesson with thought-provoking questions, and an exam that takes place every fifth day. With clear objectives and challenging assignments, students investigate ancient and modern source material, all provided. The following components are included to help develop a student’s understanding of British history trends, philosophies, and events:  Critical thinking questions based roughly on Bloom’s Taxonomy  Examinations of historical theories surrounding a period or topic  Clarified terms, concepts, and theories to be learned  History makers who clearly changed the course of history  Overviews and insights into world views. Examine the rise of the British Empire that influenced nearly every corner of the earth!

Historical content covered in this volume includes the following: Early England, Anglo-Saxon Invasions, the Norman Conquest, Elizabethan Age, the Early Stuarts, Whigs and Tories, the British Empire, the Age of Napoleon, the Industrial Revolution, Victorian Age, Modernism, Causes of World War I, Totalitarianism, World War II and the Cold War, and the End of an Empire.

Also available in this momentous series: American History and World History

RELIGION/Christian Education/Children & Youth HISTORY/Europe/Great Britain/General $24.99 U.S.

ISBN-13: 978-0-89051-646-1

EAN

British History student.indb 1

1/31/12 1:28 PM

First printing: March 2012 Copyright © 2012 by James P. Stobaugh. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations in articles and reviews. For information write: Master Books®, P.O. Box 726, Green Forest, AR 72638 Master Books® is a division of the New Leaf Publishing Group, Inc.

ISBN-13: 978-1-61458-138-3 Library of Congress Catalog Number: 2011945530 Cover design by Diana Bogardus. Interior design by Terry White. Unless otherwise noted, all images are from shutterstock.com, dreamstime.com, Library of Congress and Wikimedia Commons. All images used under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license (CC-BY-SA-3.0) are noted; license details available at creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/. Scripture quotations taken from The Holy Bible, New International Version®, Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.TM Used by permission of Zondervan, All rights reserved worldwide. Please consider requesting that a copy of this volume be purchased by your local library system. Printed in the United States of America Please visit our website for other great titles: www.masterbooks.net For information regarding author interviews, please contact the publicity department at (870) 438-5288

This book is dedicated to this new generation of young believers whose fervor and dedication to the purposes of the Lord shall yet bring a great revival. Stand tall, young people, and serve our Lord with alacrity and courage!

British History frontmatter.indd 2

1/31/12 4:07 PM

British History student.indb 3

1/31/12 1:28 PM

Using Your Student Textbook How this course has been developed: 1. Chapters: This course has 34 chapters (representing 34 weeks of study). 2. Lessons: Each chapter has five lessons each, taking approximately 20 to 30 minutes each. There will be a short reading followed by critical thinking questions. Some questions require a specific answer from the text, while others are more open-ended, leading the student to think “outside the box.” 3. Weekly exams: The final lesson of the week is the exam covering the week’s chapter. 4. Student responsibility: Responsibility to complete this course is on the student. Students are to complete the readings every day, handing their responses to a parent or teacher for evaluation. Independence is strongly encouraged in this course, which was designed for the student to practice independent learning. 5. Grading: Turn in your assignments daily or weekly to your parent/teacher.

Thoughout this book you will find the following components: 1. Narrative Background: background on the period. 2. Critical Thinking Questions: questions based roughly on Bloom’s Taxonomy. 3. Concepts/Generalizations: terms, concepts, and theories to be learned. 4. History Maker: a person(s) who clearly changed the course of history. 5. Historiographies or Historical Debate: an examination of historical theories surrounding a period or topic. 6. World View Formation: An overview of historical understandings of who God is. There is also a subsection where we examine important thinkers of the period/topic. 7. History & World View Overview: an overview of world views.

What the student will need each day: 1. Notepad: for writing assignments. 2. Pen/pencil: for the answers and essays.

About the Author James P. Stobaugh and his wife, Karen, have homeschooled their four children since 1985. They have a growing ministry, For Such a Time As This Ministries, committed to challenging this generation to change its world for Christ. Dr. Stobaugh is an ordained pastor, a certified secondary teacher, and an SAT coach. His academic credentials include: BA, cum laude Vanderbilt University; Teacher Certification, Peabody College for Teachers; MA, Rutgers University; MDiv, Princeton Theological Seminary; Merrill Fellow, Harvard University; DMin Gordon Conwell Seminary. Dr. Stobaugh has written articles for magazines: Leadership, Presbyterian Survey, Princeton Spire, Ministries Today, and Pulpit Digest. Dr. Stobaugh’s books include the SAT Preparation Course for the Christian Student, the ACT Preparation Course for the Christian Student, as well as American History, British History, and World History high school curriculum.

British History student.indb 4

1/31/12 1:28 PM

Contents Preface .................................................................................................................................................................................. 6 1. Early England: Part One.............................................................................................................................................. 9 2. Early England: Part Two............................................................................................................................................ 15 3. Anglo-Saxon Invasions.............................................................................................................................................. 23 4. The Norman Conquest.............................................................................................................................................. 31 5. Henry VIII and the English Reformation............................................................................................................... 39 6. Elizabethan Age: Part One........................................................................................................................................ 47 7. Elizabethan Age: Part Two........................................................................................................................................ 55 8. The Golden Age......................................................................................................................................................... 65 9. The Early Stuarts........................................................................................................................................................ 73 10. The English Civil War............................................................................................................................................... 83 11. The Commonwealth.................................................................................................................................................. 89 12. The Restoration.......................................................................................................................................................... 95 13. The Glorious Revolution......................................................................................................................................... 101 14. The Oranges, Stuarts, & Hanovers......................................................................................................................... 107 15. Whigs and Tories..................................................................................................................................................... 113 16. European Wars......................................................................................................................................................... 119 17. British Empire........................................................................................................................................................... 127 18. Response to the French Revolution....................................................................................................................... 135 19. Philosophers and World Views.............................................................................................................................. 143 20. The Age of Napoleon............................................................................................................................................... 151 21. The Industrial Revolution....................................................................................................................................... 161 22. 19th-Century England............................................................................................................................................ 169 23. Victorian Age............................................................................................................................................................ 175 24. Victorian Life ........................................................................................................................................................... 183 25. 19th-Century Wars.................................................................................................................................................. 189 26. British Colonialism in Africa................................................................................................................................. 195 27. The New Century..................................................................................................................................................... 201 28. Modernism............................................................................................................................................................... 207 29. Causes of World War I............................................................................................................................................. 215 30. World War I.............................................................................................................................................................. 225 31. World War I and Afterwards.................................................................................................................................. 233 32. Totalitarianism......................................................................................................................................................... 239 33. World War II and The Cold War........................................................................................................................... 247 34. The End of an Empire............................................................................................................................................. 253 Glossary ...................................................................................................................................................................... 261 Bibliography..................................................................................................................................................................... 265 Appendix One: English/British Monarchs................................................................................................................... 267 Appendix Two: Timeline................................................................................................................................................ 269

British History student.indb 5

1/31/12 1:28 PM

Preface In American Eudora Welty’s short story, “Worn Path,” the elderly and slightly senile grandmother protagonist, Phoenix, has come to the doctor to obtain medicine for her grandson. But, she cannot remember why she came! The nurse tries to tease out of Phoenix her reason for coming. “You mustn’t take up our time this way, Aunt Phoenix,” the nurse said. “Tell us quickly about your grandson, and get it over. He isn’t dead, is he?” At last there came a flicker and then a flame of comprehension across the old grandmother’s face, and she spoke. “My grandson. It was my memory had left me. There I sat and forgot why I made my long trip.” “Forgot?” The nurse frowned. “After you came so far?” History is the remembering, the consideration about why we have come so far. And there are two primary points of view about the way history is formed… and thus remembered. One says that history is nothing more than arbitrary events connected by happenstance. The opposite point of view, this author’s point of view, argues that there is a design, purpose, or pattern in history. As a matter of fact, history is nothing more or less than an unfolding of God’s plan for the world. The writing of history is the selection of information and the synthesis of this information into a narrative that will stand the critical eye of time. History, though, is never static. One never creates the definitive theory of a historical event. History invites each generation to reexamine its own story and to reinterpret past events in light of present circumstances. For instance, looking back I can remember an incident in my past that is interpreted quite differently from many different people. The participants would have one interpretation; the persons affected might have another. For the first eight years of my life I stood in front of an ancient oak tree in front of my family home on South Highway, McGehee, Arkansas, and caught a big yellow school bus to McGehee Elementary School. My buddies, Craig Towles and Pip Runyan, wickedly violated school bus riding etiquette and abandoned their boring bus stop two doors down and joined me so that we could surreptitiously deposit acorns, pretending to be “soldiers” in the middle of the road

to be squashed by speeding autos, otherwise known as German Panzer Tanks. The old oak tree liberally deposited brave acorn Wehrmacht African Korps recruits on the crab grass carpet that my grandmother had futilely tried to replace with St. Augustine grass. We made the most of the oak’s munificence. Squashed acorn armed forces made a wonderful chartreuse stain on the already steaming south highway concrete crown. This was innocent enough—no one would miss a few acorns from a stupid oak tree—but before long, you guessed it, we or more precisely Pip, who was always full of errant but terribly interesting pretend scenarios, suggested that we abandon the acorns and start throwing grenades; otherwise known as rocks at passing cars. Needless to say, we got into big trouble. Recently I had lunch with Craig and he and I concur, in a somewhat revisionist historical vein, that Pip is/was completely responsible for the rock throwing incident. We are content with our historical interpretation, but I wonder how Pip would feel about our interpretation? Likewise, French and the British historians may be sure they were completely justified in their harsh retribution at the ending of World War I with the Versailles Treaty. But ask a German historian and see what he or she says! While I know that my students can never be completely neutral about history, scholarly historical inquiry demands that they implement the following principles:

PREFACE

British History student.indb 6

1/31/12 1:28 PM

1. Historians must evaluate the veracity of sources. There must be a hierarchy of historical sources. Primary source material, for instance, usually is the best source of information. 2. Historians must be committed to telling both sides of the historical story. They may choose to lobby for one view over the other, but they must fairly examine all theories. 3. Historians must avoid stereotypes and archetypes. They must overcome personal prejudices and dispassionately view history in ruthlessly objective terms. 4. Historians must be committed to the truth no matter where their scholarship leads them. At times historians will discover unflattering information about their nation/state. 5. Finally, historians understand that real, abiding, and eternal history ultimately is made only by people who obey God at all costs. After everything is said and done, historians are only studying the past. They cannot really change the past. Theories about the past come and go, and change with each generation; however, the past is past. Historians will debate about history, but they can never alter it. Only God can change history, and God alone. When persons are reborn in Christ, their present, future, and, yes, even their past is changed. History is literarily rewritten. They are new creations. That bad choice, that sin, that catastrophe is placed under the blood of the Lamb, and everything starts fresh and new; a new history for new people. This happened in my own life. 150 years ago my greatgreat-great-grandfather, whose passion was to kill Yankees, was a slave owner in Eastern Tennessee. With that inheritance, like most white Southerners who grew up in the 1960s, I grew to mistrust African-Americans. Like so many people captured by their history and culture, present and future became my past. However, when I was a senior in high school, I was saved. Jesus Christ became my Lord and Savior. My attitudes changed. It took time, but prejudices disappeared. Ultimately, I married my New Jersey wife, Karen, and we adopted three African-American children— whose ancestors, by the way, may have been owned by my great-great-great-uncle!

existing for generations ended in my generation. The destructive historical cycle that was part of my history has ended. No one, nothing can do that but the Lord. History has been rewritten!

Three of my children are African-American. Imagine! Quite literally, my history was rewritten. It has been changed irrevocably by my decision to invite Jesus Christ to be Savior of my life. In a real sense, family prejudice and death

My prayer is that if you do not know this God who can change history—even your history—this history text might encourage you to invite Jesus Christ into your heart as Savior. PREFACE

British History student.indb 7

7

1/31/12 1:28 PM

Mysterious middle-age castle near Avalon (Glastonbury, UK).

PREFACE

British History student.indb 8

1/31/12 1:28 PM

Chapter 1 early england: part one

First Thoughts . . . Two thousand years ago Celt warriors visited Britain to obtain tin and copper. They liked the place, so they conquered it. A few hundred years later the Celts brought the technology of iron smelting to Britain and once again Britain was found to have plenty of iron ore. Iron revolutionized life as it made both stronger plows and better weapons. Celts were generally of darkish complexion with black straight hair. They were fierce warriors and fought with naked painted bodies. But the Celts were like other people groups who lived in family groups or larger family tribes in hilltop camps which they defended to their death.

Chapter Learning Objectives . . . In chapter 1, we will learn about the early Britons—Celts, Picts, and Angles. Next, we will learn that the Druids were both the spiritual and secular leaders of these people groups. Finally we will look closely at a Briton family, how it loved and lived. As a result of this chapter you should be able to: 1. Explain why the early Britons never developed writing. 2. Describe the different tribal groups that settled in Great Britain. 3. Evaluate the role that Druids assumed in ancient British society. 4.

Describe a typical Briton family.

5.

Discuss why Great Britain was conquered several times by different people groups and nations.

6.

Analyze why English religion emerged after technology in England.

British History student.indb 9

1/31/12 1:28 PM

lesson 1

the beginning

The first inhabitants came to Great Britain from the continental European mainland. Apparently there was a land bridge between northern Europe and central Great Britain. The term “Great Britain” (and the abbreviation ‘GB’) is really “the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,” although usage of “the UK” has increased more recently. Most of England, Scotland, and Wales are on the island of Great Britain, as are their respective capital cities: London, Edinburgh, and Cardiff. The ancient English were prehistoric—that is they did not write. None of the pre-Roman inhabitants of Britain have any known surviving written language, so ancient English history is known mainly through archaeological finds. These early English, collectively called the “Britons,” assimilated with other migrating people groups including the Celts, Picts, Angles, and Scots. There were, however, written records about Great Britain by foreign visitors. The first significant written document about England was by the Greek navigator Pytheas (above), who explored the coastal region of Britain around 325 B.C. Ancient Britons were involved in extensive trade and cultural links with the rest of Europe, especially in exporting tin, which was in abundant supply.

10

While tin and other natural resources were in abundance, technology was not. Ironically, the nation that started the industrial revolution was initially far behind its continental competitors. Located at the fringes of Europe, Britain received foreign technological and cultural achievements much later than mainland areas did during prehistory. The story of ancient Britain was one of successive waves of settlers from the continent, bringing with them new cultures and technologies. In fact, around 750 B.C. iron working techniques reached Britain from Southern Europe. Iron was stronger and more plentiful than bronze and transformed Briton weaponry. Iron working revolutionized many aspects of life, most importantly agriculture. Iron tipped plows could churn up land far more quickly and deeply than older wooden or bronze ones, and iron axes could clear forest land far more efficiently for agriculture. Successful, sedentary agriculture profoundly changed English life. Britons lived in organized tribal groups, ruled by a chieftain. As people became more numerous, wars broke out between opposing tribes.

Assignment Why did the early Britons never develop writing?

Early England part onE

British History student.indb 10

1/31/12 1:28 PM

lesson 2

picts, scots, britons, and angles By the time Christ was born, the Celts had already conquered the British Isles, as they had done most of Europe. It is at this point that our story begins. The Celts were initially from Northern Italy. They spread over most of coastline Europe, including parts of Russia. The cold Scottish coast had a particular allure. They farmed the rocky Scottish Highlands and regularly conquered indigenous Britons. They were a fierce, proud people and several Celtic groups exist even today in northern Scotland.

the Roman conquest of Britain until the 10th century, when they merged with the Gaels. They were fierce warriors and the Romans called them “Picti” (The Painted Ones) since most of the times they went into battle completely naked to show their tattooed bodies. The Picts were in fact Celts.

When people think of Celtic people they usually think of Druids. These priests or sorcerers ruled their society with an iron hand. The unifying bond between all the Celtic tribes was their common priesthood, the Druids. The ancient stone structures and stone circles, such as Stonehenge, have often been associated with the Druids. Scandalous tales of human sacrifice, presided over by a strange class of mystical priests, have been purported to be connected to the Druids. The truth is, however, Stonehenge was constructed long before the Druids appeared in Britain. The Druids preserved religion, history, laws, and science. They had authority over every chief, and since their office was ubiquitous, they settled disputes and stopped battles by compelling the rival parties to arbitration. They managed the higher legal system and the courts of appeal, and their colleges in Britain were famous throughout Europe. Up to twenty years of oral instruction was required of minstrels and bards before being admitted into the Druid order.

As with most peoples in the north of Europe in Late Antiquity, the ancient Englishmen (Scots, Picts, Angles, Britons, Celts) were farmers living in small communities. Cattle and horses were an obvious sign of wealth and prestige. Cereal crops included wheat, barley, oats and rye. Vegetables included kale, cabbage, onions and leeks, peas and beans, turnips and carrots. Plants such as wild garlic, nettles and watercress may have been gathered in the wild. The pastoral economy meant that hides and leather were readily available. Wool was the main source of clothing, although flax was also common. Fish, shellfish, seals and whales were harvested along coasts and in rivers. The prevalence of domesticated animals suggests that meat and milk products were a major part of the diet of ordinary people, while wealthier Britons would have eaten a more diverse diet rich in meat from hunting .

The Scots were Celtic settlers who moved into the western Highlands from Ireland in the fourth century. The Picts too were a confederation of Celtic tribes living in what was later to become eastern and northern Scotland from before

The Angles lived in Northumbria. The Angles invaded England and created their own kingdom, Anglia. They were tough and brave warriors The Angles expanded their possessions into southern England.

Assignment Describe the different tribal groups that settled in Great Britain.

Stonehenge

Early England part onE

British History student.indb 11

11

1/31/12 1:28 PM

lesson 3

drUids A druid was a member of the priestly class active in Gaul (Northern Germany), and in Celtic Britain. They were priest, judge, scholar, and teacher to their Briton communities. The core points of druidic religious beliefs included reincarnation and human sacrifice. Druids were highly educated for their culture. Yet, they wrote nothing. Some Druids spent 20 years memorizing oral traditions of druidic lore. The druid priesthood was open only to males. All instruction was communicated orally so there was no record of druid ritual or theology. Gruesome reports of druidic practices appear in Latin histories and poetry. At a bog in Lindow, Cheshire, England was discovered a body, designated the “Lindow Man”, which may have been the victim of a druidic ritual. Druids could punish members of Celtic society by a form of “excommunication,” preventing them from attending religious festivals. Druids, then, had both priestly and political roles and were instrumental in maintaining order. Druid religion included rituals performed at socalled druid temples, usually stone structures built into the side of a hill. Stonehenge may be an exception. Stonehenge is a place of pilgrimage for neo-druids, and for certain others following pagan or neopagan beliefs, but it was probably nothing more than a burial site. Scholars believe that Stonehenge once stood as a magnificent complete monument. This cannot be proven since half of the stones that should be present are missing, and many of the assumed stone sockets have never been found. One final personal message. If one asked this author, when I was an eight year old, what my favorite holiday was, he would have enthusiastically proclaimed: Halloween! Haunted houses, 12

costumes, candy—it all captured his imagination. But that was 1961 and this is today. Halloween clearly is not a Christian holiday. In fact it is anything but Christian. The origins and traditions of Halloween can be traced back thousands of years to the druids. The eve of October 31 marked the transition from summer into the darkness of winter. On this night, the spirits of the dead were purported to have been resurrected. Demons, fairies, and ghouls roamed about the town. They destroyed crops, killed cattle, soured milk, and generally made life miserable . . . unless an appropriate appeasement was offered. Namely, a human sacrifice. So, anticipating these goblins, druid towns annually, in October, chose young maidens and sacrificed them in honor of the pagan gods. This is not the same as having a Christmas tree, or believing in the Easter Bunny—Halloween is a celebration of death, destruction, and hell. Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. He is hope and mercy and love—not death, destruction, and murder. There are alternative celebrations you know. Some parents hold costume parties and have the kids dress as Bible heroes (no trick or treat though!). Other groups hold hayrides and harvest celebrations. Halloween is a time to rejoice in the fact that “the Son of God appeared that He might destroy the works of the devil (1 John 3:8)!” God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind (2 Timothy 1:7). You were formerly darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light . . . and do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them (Eph. 5:8,11).

Assignment A. What role did Druids assume in ancient British society? B. Why is Halloween a dangerous, anti-Christian holiday?

Early England part onE

British History student.indb 12

1/31/12 1:28 PM

lesson 4

ancient british life

Prehistoric Britons lived in sturdy wooden roundhouses. The main frame of the roundhouse was made of sturdy timbers interwoven with wood to make wattle walls. This was then insulated with clay, soil, straw and animal manure that would weatherproof the house. One can imagine life in the roundhouse was quite a “smelly” affair in the summer! The roof was constructed from large timbers and densely thatched. Depending on the climate, most domestic life would have occurred within the roundhouse. The main focus of the interior of the house was the central open-hearth fire. This open fireplace cooked food and provided warmth and light. The fire was maintained 24 hours a day. A bronze cauldron (large pot) was held up by a tripod and attached with an adjustable chain. The ordinary basic cooking pots would have been made by hand from the local clay and came in varying rounded shapes, occasionally with simple incised decoration. Bread would have been an important part of any meal, and was made from wheat and barley ground down into stone ground flour. No doubt Britons loved milk and other dairy products, but they seemed to dislike vegetables. Clearly, too, families enjoyed an occasional rabbit or deer.

Reconstruction of Iron Age crannog dwelling in Perthshire, Scotland.

Everything happened inside the one-room house. The interior of the house was an ideal place for the drying and preservation of food. Smoke and heat from the constant fire smoked meat. Life was not entirely work. Britons were already brewing beer and no doubt enjoyed a drought in front of the fire. Occasional round stones are found that doubled as game pieces and slingshot ammunition. Britons, even children, men and women, wore closefitting trousers, with a long tunic of either linen or wool, held at the waist with a belt. Over this would have been a cloak that was fastened at the shoulder with a brooch. The textiles were dyed bright colors and were woven with striped or checked patterns. These colors and patterns no doubt communicated clan ties. Both women and men grew their hair long, sometimes plaited, and the men sported either beards or moustaches, which they also grew long (British Museum).

Assignment Describe a typical Briton family. A recreation of a Celtic roundhouse, National History Museum of Wales, 2007. Early england part one

British History student.indb 13

13

1/31/12 1:28 PM

Roman fort, Gariannonium Burgh, Castle Norfolk Broads National Park, East Anglia, England.

14

Early england part one

British History student.indb 14

1/31/12 1:28 PM

Chapter 2 early england: part two First Thoughts . . . C. K. Chesterton once remarked, “The land on which we live once had the highly poetic privilege of being the end of the world. Its extremity was Ultima Thule, the other end of nowhere. When these islands, lost in a night of northern seas, were lit up at last by the long searchlights of Rome, it was felt that the remotest remnant of things had been touched; and more for pride than possession.” Britain was directly Roman for fully four hundred years; longer than she has been anything else. Being Roman did not mean being subject, in the sense that one savage tribe will enslave another. Both conquerors and conquered were heathen, and both had the institutions which seem to us to give an inhumanity to heathenism: the triumph, the slave-market, the lack of all the sensitive nationalism of modern history (Chesterton). But the Roman Empire did not destroy Great Britain; if anything, it created it. Britons were not originally proud of being Britons; but they were proud of being Romans. As Chesterton explained, “The Roman steel was at least as much a magnet as a sword. In truth it was rather a round mirror of steel, in which every people came to see itself.”

Chapter Learning Objectives . . . In chapter 2, we will examine the history of the Roman occupation of Great Britain, analyzing its genesis and long-term effect on English history. Next, we will examine the King Arthur myths: was there a historical figure named King Arthur? We will examine the purposes of Hadrian’s Wall built across Northern England. Finally, for this entire course we will examine the founding and growth of one city: London. In this phase, we will see the Romans build one of the most magnificent cities in Europe on the edge of their great empire. As a result of this chapter you should be able to: 1. Review the building of Hadrian’s Wall. 2. Analyze the King Arthur myths. 3. Discuss the founding of London. 4.

Evaluate the effect of Roman occupation of Great Britain.

British History student.indb 15

1/31/12 1:28 PM

LESSON 1

roman england

The Celts were firmly in place when the Romans came. No one was able to completely conquer the Celts, but the Romans tried. In 55 B.C., Julius Caesar, then general of the Roman armies in Gaul (Germany and part of France), invaded Britain. The Celts were aiding Roman enemies in Europe: the dangerous Gauls. Something had to be done. Caesar sought to gain prestige, new territory for Rome, and to remove an ally of Rome’s enemies. He soundly defeated the Celtic Bretons and established a firm Roman foothold in Great Britain. There was no such thing as a unified Great Britain, and there was no such thing as a unified Celtic army to meet the Roman advance. Each tribe fought its own battle against the formidable Roman legions. And generally it lost. Nonetheless, Julius Caesar left after two summers fighting, exacting a promise of tribute from the defeated tribes. It would be 100 years before Rome would try to extend its influence over other parts of Great Britain. In the meantime, the Roman Empire and Celtic England mutually benefitted from trading goods (especially iron ore and tin). Emperor Claudius the Stutterer (left) increased Roman control on Britain. Claudius, like his Roman predecessors, was unable to stop indigenous Britons from harassing his Roman legions and citizens. Finally, in 123, Emperor Hadrian built Hadrian’s Wall, stretching 73 miles across Northern England. This became the northern frontier.

Hadrian’s wall just east of Greenhead Lough, Northumberland, photographed by Bill Gats, 2005.

Only 40 years after the Roman invasion, the Roman army had overrun almost the whole of Britain. However, troubles elsewhere in the Empire soon led to troop withdrawals and, by about A.D. 105, the northern border of the Empire was set at Stanegate, the road running between the supply bases of Carlisle (Cumberland) and Corbridge (Northumberland). The Emperor Hadrian then visited Britain and decided to build an eighty Roman mile stone wall as a frontier to keep out the troublesome Picts. Work was begun in A.D. 122 and was probably completed by the end of the decade. Though the area was abandoned for a push north in the A.D. 140s, by A.D. 161, it was firmly established as the imperial border. Hadrian’s Wall stretched seventy-three miles across northern England. It consisted of a fifteen Roman foot high

Modern bronze statue of Julius Caesar, Rimini, Italy.

British History ch2.indd 16

1/31/12 4:08 PM

ancient building in the district along the wall and churches in the area even have inscriptions embedded in their walls. By the 5th century various tribes—especially the Angles and Saxons—raided and then settled in Great Britain. Indigenous Bretons and Celtic Bretons, one of whom was probably King Arthur, abandoned by the Romans, valiantly resisted invasion. But to no avail. In a few short decades, the Anglo-Saxons dominated Great Britain. King Alfred the Great (849, ruled 871-899) was a highly influential king of this era, helping to repel the Viking raids, creating laws to govern justly and inspiring both religious and scholarly pursuits.

Part of Hadrian’s Wall from Housesteads showing the Knag Burn Gateway in the valley, 2007.

stone wall behind a V-shaped ditch. Faced with carefully cut limestone and filled with rubble, it was planned to be ten Roman feet thick, though this was later reduced to six or eight feet in places. There was a large ditch with earthworks to the south, and the wall was punctuated by a series of twenty-four rectangle forts for large garrisons. Between these were built small blockhouses every mile to bivouac sixty-four men. Later Emperor Antonine tried to spread Roman influence as far north as what is now Glasgow, Scotland, with the Antonine Wall. The Antonine Wall spanned the narrowest portion of lowland Scotland, between the Firth of Forth and the Firth of Clyde. Unlike its more solid southern counterpart, Hadrian’s Wall, the Antonine Wall was built of dirt fronted by a ditch 12 feet deep. The wall was 10 feet high and 14 feet wide and dotted with 29 small military forts linked by a road. As a defensive barrier the Antonine Wall failed. In A.D. 181, fierce, vengeful Picts and Scots poured over the wall and pushed the Romans back to Hadrian’s Wall. The Romans finally gave up any hope of regaining the territory between the two walls in A.D. 196 and Hadrian’s Wall became the northern boundary of the Roman Empire

Assignment Imagine that you were a Roman soldier stationed at Hadrian’s Wall. What sort of concerns would you have?

Requiring a 10th of the entire Roman army to garrison Britain forced Roman leaders to reassess the value of ruling such a violent and ungrateful people as the Celtic Bretons were. In A.D. 410 Rome abandoned Britain. Roman influence remains today. Cities like London were founded; wonderful roads were built; Christianity came to Great Britain during Roman times. Hadrian’s Wall became a convenient stone quarry for generations for stone masons. Roman stonework can be detected in almost every King Alfred the Great statue at Winchester, England.

British History student.indb 17

1/31/12 1:28 PM

lesson 2

the legend of king arthUr No one knows for sure if there really was a King Arthur. Most historians, however, believe there really was a Briton King named Arthur, or a combination of Briton Kings whose exploits were summed up in the life of one man. Arthur was allegedly the son of King Pendragon, a Briton Welsh King during the Roman occupation. Legend states that the departing Roman army asked Arthur to protect Britons from the warring Anglo-Saxons pouring into England. Inevitably, like all national heroes (e.g., Roland, Siegfried, El Cid, George Washington) King Arthur became more of a myth than a historical man. In apocryphal stories Arthur manifests superhuman strength and abilities. In fact, legends suggest that Arthur is not dead but only sleeping in one of numerous caves waiting to return and lead his people (David Nash Ford, www.Britannicahistory.com). Serving with King Arthur were the Knights of the Round Table. The knights themselves were the heroes of many of the stories. The most important ones are Sir Bedivere, Sir Gawain, and Sir Kay. Later surpassed by Sir Lancelot. According to early legends, Excalibur was the name of the famous sword of King Arthur. According to this account, King Arthur obtains a sword called “Caliburn,” which was made on the Isle of Avalon. Later legends have the sword being returned to the Lady of the Lake on the mortal wounding of King Arthur at Camlann. It was not until Robert de Boron created the character Merlin (c1200)

British History student.indb 18

that the story of the young King Arthur drawing the sword Excalibur from a rock emerged. Arthur’s knights perennially embark on quests for the Holy Grail. The Holy Grail is the cup from which Christ drank at the Last Supper and which was used by Joseph of Arimathea to catch Christ’s blood as he died on the cross. English 19th century poet Alfred Lord Tennyson (left) had the greatest influence on the conception of the Holy Grail quest through his Idylls of the King (in Stobaugh, Analysis and his short poem Skills for Literary Analysis) “Sir Galahad.” How did Arthur die? In some accounts, King Arthur was taken to the Isle of Avalon to be healed, and what happened to him after reaching the island is a mystery. Some say he lies in a cave awaiting the day he is needed again by his country; others say King Arthur died at Avalon. Apart from the somewhat dubious claim by some Medieval monks to have found King Arthur’s grave, no real evidence has emerged for an Arthurian grave. In summary, King Arthur was probably a folk tale, based roughly on a historic, figure. He was portrayed as a ‘Protector of Britain’ who wanders across Britain with his band of chivalrous knights. Perhaps there was a great king who saved Briton from Saxon hands for a time. Perhaps not.

Assignment An epic hero is an important figure from a history or legend who illustrates traits, performs deeds, and exemplifies certain morals that are valued by the society from which the epic originates. Is King Arthur an epic hero? What does the King Arthur legend tell us about English Briton Society?

1/31/12 1:28 PM

LESSON 3

king arthUr The Death Of King Arthur, by Mary MacGregor: It was not to win renown that King Arthur had gone far across the sea, for he loved his own country so well, that to gain glory at home made him happiest of all. But a false knight with his followers was laying waste the country across the sea, and Arthur had gone to wage war against him. ‘And you, Sir Modred, will rule the country while I am gone,’ the King had said. And the knight smiled as he thought of the power that would be his. At first the people missed their great King Arthur, but as the months passed they began to forget him, and to talk only of Sir Modred and his ways. And he, that he might gain the people’s praise, made easier laws than ever Arthur had done, till by and by there were many in the country who wished that the King would never come back. When Modred knew what the people wished, he was glad, and he made up his mind to do a cruel deed. He would cause letters to be written from beyond the sea, and the letters would tell that the great King Arthur had been slain in battle. And when the letters came the people read, ‘King Arthur is dead,’ and they believed the news was true. And there were some who wept because the noble King was slain, but some had no time to weep. ‘We must find a new King,’ they said. And because his laws were easy, these chose Sir Modred to rule over them. The wicked knight was pleased that the people wished him to be their King. ‘They shall take me to Canterbury to crown me,’ he said proudly. And the nobles took him there, and amid shouts and rejoicings he was crowned. But it was not very long till other letters came from across the sea, saying that King Arthur had not been slain, and that he was coming back to rule over his own country once more.

Illustration from page 306 of The Boy’s King Arthur: the death of Arthur and Mordred - “Then the king ... ran towards Sir Mordred, crying, ‘Traitor, now is thy death day come.’” By Newell Convers Wyeth, 1922.

When Sir Modred heard that King Arthur was on his way home, he collected a great army and went to Dover to try to keep the King from landing. But no army would have been strong enough to keep Arthur and his knights away from the country they loved so well. They fought fiercely till they got on shore and scattered all Sir Modred’s men. Then the knight gathered together another army, and chose a new battle-field. But King Arthur fought so bravely that he and his men were again victorious, and Sir Modred fled to Canterbury. Many of the people began to forsake the false knight now, and saying that he was a traitor, they went back to King Arthur. But still Sir Modred wished to conquer the King. He would go through the counties of Kent and Surrey and raise a new army. Now King Arthur had dreamed that if he fought with Sir Modred again he would be slain. So when he heard that EARLY ENGLAND PART TWO

British History ch2.indd 19

19

2/14/12 3:03 PM

the knight had raised another army, he thought, ‘I will meet this traitor who has betrayed me. When he looks in my face, he will be ashamed and remember his vow of obedience.’ And he sent two bishops to Sir Modred. ‘Say to the knight that the King would speak with him alone,’ said Arthur. And the traitor thought, ‘The King wishes to give me gold or great power, if I send my army away without fighting.’ ‘I will meet King Arthur,’ he said to the bishops. But because he did not altogether trust the King he said he would take fourteen men with him to the meeting-place, ‘and the King must have fourteen men with him too,’ said Sir Modred. ‘And our armies shall keep watch when we meet, and if a sword is lifted it shall be the signal for battle.’ Then King Arthur arranged a feast for Sir Modred and his men. And as they feasted all went merrily till an adder glided out of a little bush and stung one of the knight’s men. And the pain was so great, that the man quickly drew his sword to kill the adder. And when the armies saw the sword flash in the light, they sprang to their feet and began to fight, ‘for this is the signal for battle,’ they thought. And when evening came there were many thousand slain and wounded, and Sir Modred was left alone. But

20

Arthur had still two knights with him, Sir Lucan and Sir Bedivere. When King Arthur saw that his army was lost and all his knights slain but two, he said, ‘Would to God I could find Sir Modred, who has caused all this trouble.’ ‘He is yonder,’ said Sir Lucan, ‘but remember your dream, and go not near him.’ ‘Whether I die or live,’ said the King, ‘he shall not escape.’ And seizing his spear he ran to Sir Modred, crying, ‘Now you shall die.’ And Arthur smote him under the shield, and the spear passed through his body, and he died. Then, wounded and exhausted, the King fainted, and his knights lifted him and took him to a little chapel not far from a lake. As the King lay there, he heard cries of fear and pain from the distant battle-field. ‘What causes these cries?’ Said the King wearily. And to soothe the sick King, Sir Lucan said he would go to see. And when he reached the battle-field, he saw in the moonlight that robbers were on the field stooping over the slain, and taking from them their rings and their gold. And those that were only wounded, the robbers slew, that they

EARLY EngLAnd pARt two

British History student.indb 20

1/31/12 1:28 PM

might take their jewels too. Sir Lucan hastened back, and told the King what he had seen. ‘We will carry you farther off, lest the robbers find us here,’ said the knights. And Sir Lucan lifted the King on one side and Sir Bedivere lifted him on the other. But Sir Lucan had been wounded in the battle, and as he lifted the King he fell back and died. Then Arthur and Sir Bedivere wept for the fallen knight. Now the King felt so ill that he thought he would not live much longer, and he turned to Sir Bedivere: ‘Take Excalibur, my good sword,’ he said, ‘and go with it to the lake, and throw it into its waters. Then come quickly and tell me what you see.’ Sir Bedivere took the sword and went down to the lake. But as he looked at the handle with its sparkling gems and the richness of the sword, he thought he could not throw it away. ‘I will hide it carefully here among the rushes,’ thought the knight. And when he had hidden it, he went slowly to the King and told him he had thrown the sword into the lake. ‘What did you see?’ Asked the King eagerly. ‘Nothing but the ripple of the waves as they broke on the beach,’ said Sir Bedivere. ‘You have not told me the truth,’ said the King. ‘If you love me, go again to the lake, and throw my sword into the water.’ Again the knight went to the water’s edge. He drew the sword from its hiding-place. He would do the King’s will, for he loved him. But again the beauty of the sword made him pause. ‘It is a noble sword; I will not throw it away,’ he murmured, as once more he hid it among the rushes. Then he went back more slowly, and told the King that he had done his will. ‘What did you see?’ Asked the King. ‘Nothing but the ripples of the waves as they broke on the beach,’ repeated the knight. ‘You have betrayed me twice,’ said the King sadly, ‘and yet you are a noble knight! Go again to the lake, and do not betray me for a rich sword.’ King Arthur,, photograph of sculpture by Peter Vischer at Art Institute of Chicago, c1900.

British History student.indb 21

Then for the third time Sir Bedivere went to the water’s edge, and drawing the sword from among the rushes, he flung it as far as he could into the lake. And as the knight watched, an arm and a hand appeared above the surface of the lake. He saw the hand seize the sword, and shaking it three times, disappear again under the water. Then Sir Bedivere went back quickly to the King, and told him what he had seen. ‘Carry me to the lake,’ entreated Arthur, ‘for I have been here too long.’ And the knight carried the King on his shoulders down to the water’s side. There they found a barge lying, and seated in it were three Queens, and each Queen wore a black hood. And when they saw King Arthur they wept. ‘Lay me in the barge,’ said the King. And when Sir Bedivere had laid him there, King Arthur rested his head on the lap of the fairest Queen. And they rowed from land. Sir Bedivere, left alone, watched the barge as it drifted out of sight, and then he went sorrowfully on his way, till he reached a hermitage. And he lived there as a hermit for the rest of his life. And the barge was rowed to a vale where the King was healed of his wound. And some say that now he is dead, but others say that King Arthur will come again, and clear the country of its foes.

Assignment Around the middle of the AD 500s, waves of invaders-—Jutes and Angles from what is now Denmark and Saxons from northern Germany—commonly known as Anglo-Saxons, invaded England. They settled on the eastern shore near London. They moved westward up the Thames River, looking for more land to cultivate, taking fertile river valleys and leaving hill country to the Celtic Britons. There were some victories against the dreaded Anglo-Saxons. One set of victories occurred through the leadership of Celtic Britain King Arthur. A British monk described Arthur as an emperor from a place called Camelot, and he would write of Arthur defeating the Irish and the Scots, conquering Norway and Denmark, marrying a noble woman named Guinevere and then conquering France. How true are these stories? EARLY EngLAnd pARt two

21

1/31/12 1:28 PM

lesson 4

an early roman city: london Though there were pre-Roman settlements throughout the vast area that we now call London, no city, much less a town, existed along the Thames River. London City was founded by the Romans about A.D. 43. Aulus Plautius, commander of the Roman Legions, built a bridge across the Thames and decided to build a city too. This first “London Bridge” was only yards from the modern London Bridge. The Roman bridge proved a convenient central point for the new network of roads. The Roman settlement on the north side of the bridge, called Londinium, quickly became important as a trading center for goods brought up the Thames River by boat and unloaded at wooden docks by the bridge. Just 18 years after the arrival of the Romans, Boudicca and her warriors leveled the city to the ground and killed thousands of the traders who had begun to settle there. The city was quickly rebuilt, and continued to grow over the next century, evidencing the increasing importance of trade in Britain. By A.D. 250, Londinium possessed the town hall in Europe, a governor’s palace, a temple, bathhouses, and a large fort for the city garrison. One of the best Roman remains in London is the 2nd century Temple of Mithras. About A.D. 200 a defensive wall was built around the city. For well over a 1,000 years the shape and size of London was defined by this Roman wall. The area within the wall is now “the City,” London’s famous financial district. Traces of the wall can still be seen in a few places in London. London continued its growth under the late Roman Empire, and at its peak the population probably numbered about 45,000. 22

Boudicca was queen of the Iceni people of Eastern England and led a rebellion against Roman forces. Boudicca was married to Prasutagus, ruler of the Iceni people of East Anglia (Southeast of present-day London). When the Romans conquered southern England in A.D. 43, they allowed Prasutagus to continue to rule. However, when Prasutagus died the Romans decided to rule the Iceni directly and confiscated the property of the leading tribesmen. They also humiliated Boudicca and hurt her daughters. This was a huge mistake. Boudicca led a rebellion. Boudicca’s warriors successfully defeated the Romans and destroyed the capital of Roman Britain, then at Colchester. They went on to destroy London and Verulamium (St. Albans). Thousands of Roman soldiers and citizens were killed. Finally, Boudicca was defeated by a Roman army. Many Britons were killed and Boudicca is thought to have poisoned herself to avoid capture.

Assignment Rome was faced with major problems both in governing its empire and maintaining peace and security within it. In order to achieve these aims, Rome relied heavily upon her cities. Cities were the primary level of the administrations of the empire. It was also the cultural center of the empire. Yet, in a country as rural as England, problems often arose. Speculate upon what some of these problems were and how Rome may have solved them.

Statue of Boudicca Queen of the Iceni in London.

EARLY EngLAnd pARt two

British History student.indb 22

1/31/12 1:28 PM

Chapter 3 anglo-saxon invasions

First Thoughts . . . In one generation the Anglo-Saxons were able to conquer and to colonize more of Great Britain than the Romans had been able to do in the preceding 500 years. The Romans extended their empire; the Anglo-Saxons built a nation. At the heart of the new Anglo-Saxon kingdom was the Church. The Church, in fact, was the only thing unifying most of the diverse Germanic tribes. The Vikings were a serious threat to Anglo-Saxon rule but, in truth, the Vikings made very little lasting impact on the British Isles. However, the next invasion, in 1066, was to change everything.

Chapter Learning Objectives . . . In chapter 3, we will look at Anglo-Saxon history in general, and then we will examine the history of its main city, London, in particular. Next, we will analyze the importance of the English Church on British society and finish, by reflecting on the Viking raids, which really was nothing more than a sidebar. As a result of this chapter you should be able to: 1. Give a brief overview of Anglo-Saxon history. 2. Evaluate the importance of the Church on Anglo-Saxon society. 3. Analyze the impact of the Viking raids on England. 4.

Discuss specifically how London emerged as a major city in this era.

5.

Evaluate the dangers of syncretism.

British History student.indb 23

1/31/12 1:28 PM

lesson 1

anglo-saxon invasions The Anglo-Saxons were invading Germanic tribes who dominated England from the early A.D. 500 to the Norman conquest of A.D. 1066. The Benedictine monk, Bede, in his Ecclesiastical History of the English People, identified them as the descendants of the Angles, Saxons, and the Jutes. Small in number, they were nonetheless able to conquer all of Britain in one generation. How? The Britons were disorganized and fighting among themselves. English waterways and Roman roads, ironically, encouraged AngloSaxon expansion from initial coastal settlements. Initially the Anglo-Saxons conquered territories that had been closely administrated by Rome, regions where traditions of political and military independence were at their weakest. Many of these former Roman centers, welcomed Germanic invaders, who, after all were more “Briton” than the Romans. Or so it seemed. At the same time, Britons had been devastated by the Black Plague that had killed almost a third of the population. Nonetheless, the Anglo-Saxon victory was not a quick, decisive victory over the native Britons, but a result of hundreds of years of settlement and growth, more settlement and growth, sometimes peaceful, sometimes not, replacement or assimilation of Briton towns. The native Britons were constantly warring among themselves too, which made the Anglo-Saxon invasion more effective. As historian Goldwin explained: “Another obvious attribute of an island is freedom from invasion. The success of the Saxon invaders may be ascribed to the absence of strong resistance. The policy of Roman conquest, by disarming the natives, had destroyed their military character. . . Anything like national unity, or power of co-operation against a foreign enemy, had at the same time been extirpated by a government which divided 24

Historiated initial ‘C’ containing a scene showing monks, disfigured by the plague, being blessed by a priest by James le Palmer, British Library, c1360 (PD-US).

that it might command. The Northman [Saxons] in his turn owed his success partly to the want of unity among the Saxon principalities, partly and principally to the command of the sea which the Saxon usually abandoned to him, and which enabled him to choose his own point of attack, and to baffle the movements of the defenders. When Alfred built a fleet, the case was changed.” The Anglo-Saxon invasions of England—and there were multiple invasions—were part of a larger European event. As the Roman Empire collapsed, the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes (the Jutes were first cousins to the Germanic Saxons) moved westward. First they were merely raiders; then colonists; finally conquerors. Their invasions were made more effective by the extensive Roman road system

ANGLO-SAXON INVASIONS

British History student.indb 24

1/31/12 1:28 PM

and English natural river system. In the end, they were able to conquer more of England than the Romans. They went farther north (into Scotland) and farther west (to Wales). In a few short decades, the Anglo-Saxons had conquered Great Britain in a more thorough way than the Romans ever could. Briton culture, politics, and religion was assimilated into the new Anglo-Saxon regime, or it was destroyed. King Alfred the Great (left, ruled 871–899) was the most famous AngloSaxon king. He defended Anglo-Saxon England from Viking raids, formulated a code of laws, and fostered a rebirth of religious and scholarly activity. Two very important events occurred in the next two centuries: the success of Christianity over all other religions and the political unification of England. In 596, Pope Gregory I sent a monk named Augustine to Kent, where pagan King Ethelbert had married Bertha, a Christian princess. Augustine witnessed to King Ethelbert. Soon after, Ethelbert was baptized and Augustine became the first archbishop of Canterbury. The southern kingdoms–called England–became Christian. In Northumbria (Northern England and Scotland) the Roman Christianity met Celtic Christianity, which had been brought from Ireland to Scotland by Columba. While Roman Christianity fitted itself into the mold of the municipal institutions of the empire, Celtic Christianity had grown out of the tribal system of the peoples who had embraced it. Although not heretical, the Celtic church differed from Rome in the way the monks cut their hair, in its

Pictish Stone at Aberlemno Church Yard. The stone is believed to commemorate the Battle of Nechtansmere, where the Picts destroyed the Northumbrian army. The figures to the right show Anglo-Saxon mounted warriors wearing Coppergate-style helmets and these are shown unambiguously fighting from the saddle. The only unmounted Anglo-Saxon warrior depicted is dead as indicated by the carrion bird near his head. Photo by Greenshed, 2007.

reckoning of the date of Easter, and, most important, in its organization, which emphasized the clans of Ireland rather than the highly centralized Roman Catholic Church. In summary, as we will see in the next chapter, the Anglo-Saxons conquered the Britons but the Church conquered the Anglo-Saxons. The Church strengthened Anglo-Saxon hegemony over the region. Furthermore, Anglo-Saxon rule was forced to consolidate further by Danish and Viking invasions. For the first time, one people ruled all of Great Britain. Even though Anglo-Saxon rule did not last long, the monarchy was in place, never to end except for a short time during the English Civil War.

Assignment A. The Anglo-Saxons were a relatively small group of invaders, yet, they were able to conquer England. How? B. What is the difference between Celtic Christianity and Roman Christianity? Pope Gregory I, by Francisco de Zurbarán, c1626.

British History student.indb 25

ANGLO-SAXON INVASIONS

25

1/31/12 1:28 PM

lesson 2

christianity in england Christianity came at the pagan Anglo-Saxons from two directions. The Celtic Church, pushed out from Wales, Cornwall, and particularly Ireland. The Roman Catholic Church approached from the south, beginning with the mission of St. Augustine to Anglo-Saxon Æthelbert, King of Kent, in 597. Æthelbert was chosen because he was married to Bertha, a Frankish Christian princess, whose support was essential. King Aethelbert, unsure of the intent of the Christian magicians, chose to greet them in the open air to ensure that they couldn’t cast a spell over him. Augustine’s original intent was to establish an archbishopric in London, but this ignored the political fact that London was in the realm of decidedly pagan religions, particularly Mithraism, so Canterbury, the capital of the Kentish Kingdom, became the seat of the pre-eminent archbishop in England. The Celtic church was empathic, fervent, monastic, and more spontaneous. Ultimately with a more disciplined structure, the Roman Church prevailed. The Church was the only national entity tying together the different Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. The early monasteries of Northumberland were vital centers of learning and the arts until they were destroyed by the Viking raids of the 9th century.

The earliest and most important writer of prose was the Venerable Bede, a contemporary of the author of Beowulf. Bede, Anglo-Saxon theologian and historian, is best known for his Ecclesiastical History of the English People, a source vital to the history of the conversion to Christianity of the Anglo-Saxon people. He also introduced to historical works the system of dating events from the birth of Christ and did careful work in historiography. Churches were almost the only forum for education. Under the auspices of Alfred the Great church schools were encouraged, and many Latin works were translated into English. The higher church officials also played important secular roles: advising the king, witnessing legal transactions, and administering landholdings of the Church, which could be exceedingly large. Most of the early work of spreading the Gospel was done from monasteries. The monks of the 7th and 8th centuries were not confined to a closed monastic community, but carried the responsibility of traveling, usually on foot, throughout the surrounding countryside to preach and convert in the villages. Most church buildings were built of stone, but this was not true of domestic buildings. Even in towns, very few buildings would have had even a stone foundation. Most dwellings were wooden, with low, thatched roofs, an open hearth in a floor of earth or gravel, and walls of planks or mud and sticks. (Britainexpress.com)

Assignment Why was the Anglo-Saxon church so important to the political Anglo-Saxon state?

Sculpture of King Æthelberht of Kent at Canterbury Cathedral in England.

British History student.indb 26

1/31/12 1:28 PM

lesson 3

anglo-saxon london When Anglo-Saxon settlers first moved into Britain in the 450s, they quickly began to divide Britain up into numerous petty kingdoms. Inevitably the invaders utilized Roman urban centers as their administrative, operational bases. Central among those cities was London. The area within the old Roman walls was left almost wholly deserted. Soon after the arrival of Christianity in the Saxon parts of Britain in 597, however, King Æthelbert built the first St. Paul’s Cathedral, supposedly replacing a pagan Saxon temple. But, while London was the political capital of England, Canterbury was the ecclesiological capital. Londoners were too ambivalent about their faith and, besides, London was too hard to defend. Therefore, the headquarters of the Church was established away from the political capital. This would presage a tension in English politics that would not resolve itself for centuries. By the 640s, a trading settlement was established west of the city walls. On the banks of the Thames, a vigorous international trade emerged. No longer was London merely a political capital, it was becoming the commercial center of the British Isles. Attacks from Viking Raiders started in earnest around Britain in the 830s and it wasn’t long before they moved on London. There were attacks in 842 and 851. Then in 865, the Viking army marched across Kent, raping and pillaging as it went. The Vikings spent the winter of 871-2 in London. By 878 though, King Alfred the Great drove the Vikings from London and from England. By 1013, the Vikings were besieging the English King in London again. The Viking ships had trouble rowing up the Thames, so the old London Bridge built several years previously was pulled down. Hence the old rhyme, “London Bridge is falling down.” The fall of the bridge was an ominous warning that the dreaded Vikings were returning. Ultimately the Vikings were driven out again. In 1042, King Edward the Confessor built the great Abbey at Westminster, along with the adjoining palace. Symbolically Edward was pulling the Church and the state

British History ch3.indd 27

Westminster Abbey by Canaletto, 1749 (PD-US).

together in Westminster Palace. Construction work was completed in 1066, only weeks before Edward was buried in its foundation. Edward had no clear heir, and his cousin, Duke William of Normandy, claimed that he had been promised the English throne, a position supposedly confirmed by the citizens of London. The Royal Council (Parliament), however, met in London and elected the dead King’s brother-in-law, Harold, as King. He was crowned in Westminster Abbey and William invaded England soon afterward. London sent a large force of men to the ensuing Battle of Hastings to fight for Harold, under Ansgar the Staller, the Royal Standard Bearer. They were not victorious (David Nash Ford).

Assignment A. Why did the Church choose to locate its headquarters in Canterbury instead of London? B. Why is King Alfred so important to English history? ANGLO-SAXON INVASIONs

27

1/31/12 4:09 PM

lesson 4

viking invasions of england

Norsemen, or Vikings, was a name given to Scandinavians of ancient and medieval times, especially the late eighth through mid-eleventh century. Vikings were feared raiders who plundered much of Europe. The Norsemen were also traders and colonists, and were the first Europeans to visit North America. Long before the Vikings came to North American, they raided the coasts of England, Ireland, and western Europe. In the late eighth century the population in Scandinavia had grown so much that the area’s resources could no longer support it. The Vikings looked to the West and to the South. They attacked unprotected cities and towns, taking what they could carry and destroying what was left. But the Vikings were not merely raiders. During the mid-ninth century, they conquered and colonized sections of England and northern Europe and established trade routes extending to the Byzantine Empire. In the mid-ninth century, Norsemen, predominantly Norwegians and Danes, began colonizing the Orkney and Hebrides Islands, the east coast of Ireland, and the west coast of Scotland and England. In 994 the Danes began a more extensive invasion of England. In 1016 Knut, the heir to the Danish throne, became king of England. By the middle of the eleventh century, Norse expansion had ended. Colonization in Greenland declined. The Irish expelled the Norsemen in 1014. In 1042 the Saxons regained the English throne and the remaining Norsemen/Vikings assimilated into Anglo-Saxon society. The formation of professional armies in Europe made raiding more dangerous and less profitable. The Viking Age had ended. 28

An illustration of Vikings leaving their ship: the representation of neither the vessel nor the details of personal dress (including horned helmets) is accurate, by John Clarke Ridpath, c1917 (PD-US)..

What sort of people were these Vikings? Viking society, for all its militaristic tendencies, was fairly democratic. The “Thing,” or legislative council, had legislative and judiciary powers. Every free man had a duty to attend the Thing’s common-meetings, except men who were unable to leave their farms unattended. Also, women could attend the Thing—a novelty among Western cultures. Among other items on their agendas, the Vikings elected their king at the Thing. These commonmeetings sometimes lasted for several days, making the Thing a lively cultural and economic bonanza.

ANGLO-SAXON INVASIONS

British History student.indb 28

1/31/12 1:29 PM

The Vikings had no written laws. However, a man referred to as a “law reader man” opened the Thing by reading the laws, which he had memorized. This was done to ensure that no one changed the laws. Every free man, including the king, had to respect the law. The Thing was a democratic oral constitution. Compared with the democracy of ancient Athens, which included only 10% of the inhabitants as citizens, the Viking system was more democratic. It included everybody as citizens, except slaves and criminals. Vikings were religious although the Vikings had no word for “religion”. They worshipped several gods and had a fairly strict moral code. The Viking moral code was not directly tied to having a belief in the gods. Social behavior was based on an unwritten code of ethics. Right and wrong, gender roles, ordinary daily life--in all these areas, the free man was evaluated by standards of honor. A man of honor was a principled man. He was hospitable and offered a helping hand to friends in need. The opposite of honor was disgrace, and because every man lived his life as a member of an extended family circle, he could easily bring disgrace to his entire family--including his forefathers. If he was disgraced, he could restore balance in his social system only by confronting the source of his fall from an honorable status. Thus, revenge was a serious, prevalent component of this social system which placed great importance on maintaining personal honor. Most Vikings were farmers who lived in hall-like houses in small countryside villages near fjords, or in valleys further inland. The Viking farm was most often placed on a

A reconstructed Viking Age long house. Photo by Malene Thyssen, 2002 (CC BY-SA 2.5).

well-defended hilltop with an excellent view of the surrounding area. The hall-like houses could be 10 to 100 feet (3 to 30 meters) long. The largest were sometimes up to 250 feet (83 meters) long. Often, the Viking house had only one room which could also be divided into living quarters for people and a stable for their animals. In Norway, the Viking houses often were built of wood. When they used stave-construction technology, the walls would consist of upright planks, timber, or staves standing side by side, with their ends sunk into the ground. However, in areas where little wood was available, they used stone, earth, and turf as buildings materials. Along the walls were fur-covered benches. Most people slept on the floor. A fireplace located in the middle of the room was the main source of light and heat. The smoke was vented through a hole in the roof. Vikings had oil pottery lamps fueled with wax or whale blubber (www.arild-hauge. com).

Assignment Why were the Vikings so successful in their initial subjugation of cultures in Northern Europe? They were marginally successful in England. Why did they ultimately fail to have a lasting cultural impact?

Vikings fighting (part of a festival), photo taken in Denmark by Tone, 2005 (CC BY-SA 3.0).

ANGLO-SAXON INVASIONS

British History student.indb 29

29

1/31/12 1:29 PM

The Viking Ship, Detroit Publishing Company, 1893.

30

ANGLO-SAXON INVASIONs

British History student.indb 30

1/31/12 1:29 PM

Chapter 4 the norman conqU est

First Thoughts . . . For seventy years three Norman kings controlled England. William the Conqueror, using his double position as conqueror and king, established a royal authority unknown in any other feudal country. William’s finance minister, William Rufus, laid the foundation of an organized system of finance. A later king, Henry I, found his absolute power only limited by the fact that there was no federal system to assert his prodigious ambitions. Henry I, therefore, built up his wonderful administrative system (called a civil service). There was no longer any check on royal authority. Henry II, and then his son, John, moved this process forward. This led ultimately to the Magna Carta, under King John, that transformed Western history.

Chapter Learning Objectives . . . In chapter 4, we will look at the Norman Conquest and its resulting feudalism. We will watch King John hesitate and then issue the Magna Carta. We will examine 1066 London and its emerging prosperity. Finally, we will examine several medieval philosophers and evaluate their impact on world history. As a result of this chapter you should be able to: 1. Determine how the Normans were able to conquer the Anglo-Saxons and to create a new society. 2. Evaluate how technology affected Medieval England. 3. Review what 1066 London was like. 4.

Analyze the world views that were warring for the souls of Englishmen in this era.

5.

State why the Magna Carta was necessary.

British History student.indb 31

1/31/12 1:29 PM

lesson 1

norman conqU est In 1066, William the Conqueror, with his Norman army (from Normandy, France) conquered England. He and his heirs provided England with stable leadership and its first “bureaucracy” which ran effectively the civil government for the first time. This brought more governmental control into every Englishman’s life. Also, Norman feudalism became the basis for redistributing the land among the conquerors, giving England a new social and political structure. William, the illegitimate son of the Duke of Normandy, received the Kingdom of Normandy (in France) upon his father’s death in 1035. In 1047, William reasserted himself in the eastern Norman regions and he spent the next several years consolidating his strength in France through marriage, diplomacy, and cruel intimidation. By 1066, Normandy was in a position of virtual independence from William’s feudal lord, Henry I of France and the disputed succession in England offered William an opportunity for invasion. Anglo-Saxon King Edward the Confessor attempted to gain Norman support while fighting with his father-in-law, Earl Godwin, by purportedly promising the throne to William in 1051. Before his death in 1066, however, Edward reconciled with Godwin, and the English people naturally were anxious to keep the monarchy in Anglo-Saxon hands.

Battle of Hastings by Philip James de Loutherbourg, this work of art has been engraved by W. Bromley and published in Bowyer’s edition of Hume’s History of England, 1804 (PD-US)..

When Edward died in 1066, his brother-in-law, Harold, assumed the throne. William was enraged and immediately prepared to invade, insisting that Harold had sworn allegiance to him in 1064. Prepared for battle in August 1066, storms throughout August and most of September prohibited him from crossing the English Channel. This turned out to be advantageous for William, however, as Harold awaited William’s pending arrival on England’s south shores, Harold Hardrada, the King of Norway, invaded England from the north. Harold’s forces marched north to defeat the Norway forces at Stamford Bridge on September 25, 1066. Harold was successful. Two days after the battle, William landed unopposed at Pevensey and spent the next two weeks pillaging the area and strengthening his position on the beachhead. The victorious Harold, in an attempt to solidify his kingship, took the fight south to William and the Normans on October 14, 1066 at Hastings.

Battle of Stamford Bridge by Ayushu (CC BY-SA 3.0), 2009.

32

After hours of holding their own against the Normans, the overwhelmed Anglo-Saxon forces finally surrendered

THE NORMAN CONQUEST

British History student.indb 32

1/31/12 1:29 PM

Battle Abbey at Battle near Hastings, Surrey, England is the burial place of King Harold, built at the battle field at the place were he fell, at the Battle of Hastings in 1066, built in the 11th century it is now an ancient ruin.

to the onslaught. Harold died fighting in the Hastings battle, removing any further organized Anglo-Saxon resistance to the Normans. (William the Conqueror was crowned William I on Christmas Day 1066.) The whole of England was conquered and united in 1072. William punished rebels by confiscating their lands and allocating them to the Normans. The Normans had an interesting mix of cultures. Historically, they were a combination of Viking settlers who had married into the local French cultures and as a result Norman society was a conglomerate of the two: French chivalry and Nordic warfare. Thus, the Normans, in England and in France, started feudalism. The Norman cavalry were also to form the basis for medieval knights and

“chivalry” stems from the Norman codes of conduct on the battlefield. The Normans brought in some wonderful examples of architecture and style. As they were devout Roman Catholics, the best examples of Norman style can be found in the churches and chapels that still exist in England.

Assignment What impact did the Norman Conquest have on English history?

The remains of the Norman castle at Hastings in East Sussex, England. The castle was built by William The Conqueror. THE NORMAN CONQUEST

British History student.indb 33

33

1/31/12 1:29 PM

lesson 2

the plantagenets The arrival and conquest of William and the Normans radically altered the course of English history. William instituted a brand of feudalism in England that strengthened the monarchy. Villages and manors were given a large degree of autonomy in local affairs. Although he began the invasion with papal support, William refused to let the church dictate policy within English and Norman borders. William died as he had lived: a warrior. The arrival and conquest of William and the Normans radically altered the course of English history. William instituted a brand of feudalism in England that strengthened the monarchy. Villages and manors were given a large degree of autonomy in local affairs. Although he began the invasion with papal support, William refused to let the church dictate policy within English and Norman borders. William died as he had lived: a warrior. The next noteworthy king was Henry Plantagenet, Henry II. Among other things, Henry II developed common law. No longer were the feudal lords and the churches in sole control of judicial matters. Now the state was in control of judicial matters. This naturally gave a central government and its monarch more control than ever. There was opposition from the church. Notably, Saint Thomas à Becket, opposed his king’s actions. Henry II had Becket assassinated in 1170. Henry II was a capable general as well as monarch. Henry’s domain included more than half of France, all of Ireland, and most of Scotland. Eventually the throne passed to Richard I, the Lionhearted, who ruled 34

THE NORMAN CONQUEST

British History student.indb 34

only briefly until he went to the Crusades. His younger brother, John, replaced him. John was a shrewd but cruel monarch, who won the scorn of English noblemen. The nobles forced John in 1215 to accept the Magna Carta, or Great Charter, by which he admitted his errors and promised to respect English law. The Magna Carta of 1215 required King John of England to proclaim certain liberties, and accept that his will was not arbitrary, for example by explicitly accepting that no freeman could be punished except through the law of the land, a right which is still in existence today. The Magna Carta influenced later constitutional documents, including the United States Constitution. When John died in 1216, King Henry III assumed the throne and confirmed the Magna Carta in 1225. The monarchy continued to affirm the Magna Carta throughout British history. In England certain fundamental rights limited government’s power. At this time no other nation could make that claim. England prospered in the 12th and 13th centuries. The population doubled from about 1.5 million to more than 3 million. Several kings later, Edward I assumed the British throne. Edward I created the Parliament, which was essentially the king’s enlarged advisory council with a new name. Later Parliament divided into two houses, Lords and Commons, and controlled fiscal matters. Edward conquered Wales and tried to conquer Scotland. Neither Edward or his son, Edward II, could conquer Scotland. In 1314, at the Sculpture of Henry II of England on Canterbury Cathedral in Canterbury, England. Photo by Saforrest (GFDL/CC-by-SA 3.0).

1/31/12 1:29 PM

Battle of Bannockburn, King Robert Bruce confirmed Scotland’s claim to independence. Later, Edward gained consensual right to rule Scotland but he never really conquered it. Next, Henry V won a brilliant victory at Agincourt, France, in 1415 and had his success confirmed in the Treaty of Troyes (1420). He married the daughter of the mad French king, Charles VI, and claimed control of both kingdoms (although Henry never controlled all of France). In 1422 both Henry and Charles VI died, bringing the ninemonth-old Henry VI to the throne of both countries. It was during this time that the French nationalist/religious mystic Joan of Arc was active. Ultimately, Henry VI was an awful, if not insane, king and he lost control of the government. England lost all their possessions in France and this set the stage for the Wars of the Roses (1455–1485). The wars were fought between the royal family, the Lancastrians, and the Yorkists, led by Richard, Duke of York, who had a valid claim to the throne and greater ability. The turning point in the wars came in 1460 when Richard was killed in battle, and his cause was taken up by his son, Edward. Assisted by Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, he defeated the Lancastrians in 1461, took Henry captive, and so overawed Parliament that it acclaimed him king as Edward IV. England, by the dawn of the 16th century, had a growing, vital presence in Western Europe.

Robin Hood is a legendary hero of this period. Allegedly, Robin Hood is an expert archer and good-hearted outlaw who lived in Sherwood Forest and robs from the rich and gives to the poor. He loved Maid Marian, led a band known as the Merry Men (which included Friar Tuck and the overweight Little John) and tormented his nemesis the evil Sheriff of Nottingham. Robin appeared in Sir Walter Scott’s Ivanhoe and many other books, stories and movies. Most Robin Hood stories are set in the era of A.D. 1100–1300 and in many he is a defender of King Richard the Lionhearted and enemy of the usurper, King John. Much like King Arthur, Robin is an apocryphal figure who may have been based on a real person or persons.

Assignment Edward I experienced significant military successes because he implemented the latest technological advances in military hardware–in particular he introduced the Welsh longbow into his army’s arsenal. This was a vastly superior implement of war and guaranteed him military success over all his enemies for a generation. Discuss how military advances have benefitted modern states. This question may require some research. Farewell performance by Robbin’ Hood and his merry men. The actors names are written on their clothes. By J. S. Pughe, J. Ottmann Lith. Co., Puck Bldg., 1905 December 20.

THE NORMAN CONQUEST

British History student.indb 35

35

1/31/12 1:29 PM

lesson 3

london: 1166–1550 After his victory at the Battle of Hastings (1066), William the Conqueror’s army devastated much of the country. Nonetheless, William strategically avoided London and waited for the city’s officials to recognize him as King. The Londoners quickly acquiesced and their swift action led the new monarch to grant their city the first formal charter of his reign. London, then, was the first British possession formally to recognize William as King. A grateful William pronounced, “William, King, greets William, Bishop, and Gosfregdh, Portreeve, and all the burgesses within London, French and English, friendly. And I give you to know that I will that ye be all those laws worthy that ye were in King Edward’s day. And I will that every child be his father’s heir after his father’s day, and I will not suffer that any man offer you any wrong. God help you.” This special status of London, which was answerable only to the King and enjoyed his full protection, was a strong influence in making it the outstanding commercial center. Its government was both secular, and ecclesiastical, under the bishop and governor. London experienced an unprecedented period of prosperity. The King built the Tower of London on the western edge of the city wall, not only to observe and intimidate the most important city in his new realm, but also to protect it. In summary, the charter and the new-found stability served to increase both trade and numbers as livelihoods became secure once more. This happy situation remained to the end of William’s reign.

36

His successor, William Rufus, showed less regard for the people of London. He is notable for his building works: the great hall at Westminster, reinforcement of the Tower of London and rebuilding the Thames bridge which had been seriously damaged by flooding. In 1087, the city was devastated by a great fire and St. Paul’s was burnt to the ground, though it was soon rebuilt (www.britannia.com).

Assignment Why did London experience unprecedented prosperity during the Norman reign? Panoramic view from the Tower of London. The White Tower is on the right and Wakefield Tower is on the left. In the background on the left can be seen the east side of Traitor’s Gate. By MatthiasKabel (CC BY-SA 3.0), 2010 (below). Close-up of the tower (above).

THE NORMAN CONQUEST

British History student.indb 36

1/31/12 1:29 PM

lesson 4

philosophers and world view Scholasticism (1100–1300)

Erasmus (1466–1536)

Scholasticism, with varying degrees of success, attempted to use natural human reason—in particular, the philosophy and science of Aristotle—to understand the metaphysical content of Christian revelation.

The Renaissance was a time of artistic awakening in the 16th century. Erasmus was part of the Northern European Renaissance. He led Europe, philosophically, from the Scholasticism of the Middle Ages to the Rationalism of the Renaissance. Europe was a willing traveler.

In the 11th century a revival of philosophical thought began as a result of a group of mostly Christian thinkers, notably Thomas Aquinas. Scholasticism attempted a dangerous task that many judged to be a failure based on this premise: Christianity can never be a philosophy before it is a religion. Nonetheless, as Aquinas argued, the fact that God’s knowledge is absolute does not mean that philosophical speculation, particularly Aristotelian speculation, is an automatic threat to Christian faith. Scholasticism, in summary, sought to bridge the gap between medieval piety and renaissance rationalism. The inherent tension is that Christianity, while entirely beneficial and true, is not necessarily logical. How does one logically explain how a perfect God could send His only begotten Son to die for a sinful people? Excerpts from Thomas Aquinas: Just as God is not an existent according to this existence, but rather the nature of entity is eminently in Him, and so He is not in all ways devoid of entity; so even He is not in all ways devoid of knowledge that He may not be known. But He is not known by the mode of other existing things, which can be comprehended by the created intellect. Although God stands more distantly from every intelligible thing, according to the propriety of nature than the intelligible from the sensible, nevertheless, the notion of knowablity is more befitting to God.

A priest, a scientist, a genius, Erasmus (left) made an indelible mark on his era. Perhaps the most enduring philosophical thought he advanced was his discussion about the self. Erasmus, for the first time, discussed things like happiness as being centered in the self or personhood of the man or woman. Happiness was based on some narcissist notions of self-love. While Erasmus did not create a system of psychology, he nonetheless started a discussion that would be revived in the works of Descartes and Freud. Excerpts from In Praise of Folly, by Erasmus: Lastly, what is that in the whole business of a man’s life he can do with any grace to himself or others —for it is not so much a thing of art, as the very life of every action, that it be done with a good mien —unless this my friend and companion, Self-love, be present with it? Nor does she without cause supply me the place of a sister, since her whole endeavors are to act my part everywhere. For what is more foolish than for a man to study nothing else than how to please himself? To make himself the object of his own admiration? And yet, what is there that is either delightful or taking, nay rather what not the contrary, that a man does against the hair? Take away this salt of life, and the orator may even sit still with his action, the musician with all his division will be able to please no man, the player THE NORMAN CONQUEST

British History student.indb 37

37

1/31/12 1:29 PM

be hissed off the stage, the poet and all his Muses ridiculous, the painter with his art contemptible, and the physician with all his slip-slops go a-begging. Lastly, you will be taken for an ugly fellow instead of youthful, and a beast instead of a wise man, a child instead of eloquent, and instead of a well-bred man, a clown. So necessary a thing it is that everyone flatter himself and commend himself to himself before he can be commended by others Lastly, since it is the chief point of happiness “that a man is willing to be what he is,” you have further abridged in this my Self-love, that no man is ashamed of his own face, no man of his own wit, no man of his own parentage, no man of his own house, no man of his manner of living, not any man of his own country; so that a Highlander has no desire to change with an Italian, a Thracian with an Athenian, not a Scythian for the Fortunate Islands. O the singular care of Nature, that in so great a variety of things has made all equal! Where she has been sometimes sparing of her gifts she has recompensed it with the mote of self-love; though here, I must confess, I speak foolishly, it being the greatest of all other her gifts: to say nothing that no great action was ever attempted without my motion, or art brought to perfection without my help.

Roger Bacon (1214–1294) Roger Bacon was a Franciscan monk who employed scientific experiments to uncover data to form natural laws. He was perceived as a great threat to the Medieval Roman Catholic Church that asked all theologians to refrain from scientific speculation. While I would have no problem with theologians who speculate on scientific matters, I would be greatly bothered by scientists who pontificate on theology without first submitting to the authority of Scripture. Bacon was very close to moving into this direction. The problem was Bacon was a better scientist than a theologian and he probably should have abandoned the latter and embraced more fervently the former. The following is a passage Bacon wrote: And God wishes all men to be saved and no man to perish, and His goodness is infinite; He always leaves some way possible for man through which he may be urged to seek his own salvation.... For this reason the goodness of God ordained that revelation would be given to the world that the human race might be saved.... And it is not surprising that 38

the wisdom of philosophy is of this kind since this wisdom is only a general revelation made to all mankind because all wisdom is from God.

Abelard (1079–1142) Truth to the French Benedictine monk Abelard was relative. One had to weigh all options before coming to a conclusion. Abelard held that something had to be understood before it could be believed, dividing faith and knowledge. Abelard presages Hegel and Hume. He resurrected the notion of the dialectic, so popular with Aristotle. For Abelard faith alone did not answer the question whether one should be a Christian or a Muslim. Faith was an inferior substance when compared to empiricism. Epistemology was the instrument he chose to explore the universe. Faith and other abstract, immeasurable phenomena were to be carried along as lucky charms but they obviously had no significant meaning. He claimed that doubting led to inquiry and inquiry led to wisdom, that by comparing arguments and choosing the best among the rival alternatives one could come to truth. Wisdom was not who one knew; it was based on what one knew. Thus, again, Abelard was deeply impacted by Aristotle. Abelard rejected Plato’s belief in abstractions. Abelard was interested in individual, measurable phenomena.

Assignment A. The Scholastics tried to argue from rationalism that God exists and that He is omnipotent. Why is this so difficult? B.  Erasmus suggested something that was innocuous enough: that people should primarily be concerned with their happiness. Why is this a dangerous notion? C. What does Bacon mean when he implies that scientific knowledge may lead to salvation, but the prerequisite for this revealed wisdom of science is Christian morality? Why is this a dangerous thought? D. Believing that contradictions were fundamental in the study of logic, to sharpen the minds of his students Abelard found contrary positions. For instance, Abelard challenged his students with this question, “Why does an omnipotent God allow bad things to happen to good people?” Answer Abelard’s question.

ANGLO-SAXON INVASIONs

British History student.indb 38

1/31/12 1:29 PM

Chapter 5 henry viii and the english reformation

First Thoughts . . . After the reign of the avaricious, duplicitous Henry Tudor VII, it was a welcome relief when the amiable, athletic Henry VIII succeeded him. He was a man who loved music, the military arts, and who was interested in building England’s navy. Considered by his contemporaries as a true renaissance prince, Henry VIII, however, was just as ruthless as his father, a man with a boundless ego who tolerated no opposing view. This colorful monarch, through the butcher Cromwell, totally transformed the English Church, and therefore the English world, for better or for worse.

Chapter Learning Objectives . . . In chapter 5, we will look at Henry VIII, arguably the most famous, and surely the most colorful, of British monarchs. We will examine his battle with the Roman Catholic Church and the subsequent creation of the new Church of England. Along the way we will examine Henry’s great building projects in London and finish by being inspired by one of Henry VIII’s casualties, Sir Thomas More. As a result of this chapter you should be able to: 1. Evaluate Henry VIII’s impact on history. 2. Discuss the English Reformation. 3. Analyze the decline of Church influence on English and American urban society. 4.

Explore and gauge the impact of Sir Thomas More on history.

5.

Evaluate the concept “separation of church and state.”

6.

Discuss the impact of the Protestant Reformation.

British History student.indb 39

1/31/12 1:29 PM

lesson 1

henry viii

The 15th century was a time of trouble and change. Population was stagnant. The economy was frail. England needed a strong king. Henry VII fit the bill! During his reign England gained in prosperity and prestige. At the same time, the British monarchy was subjected to some of the most immoral activity in world history. The very fact that Henry Tudor became King of England at all is something of a miracle. His claim to the English throne was tenuous at best. His father was unknown Edmund Tudor, a nobody of Welsh royal lineage, but that was not too important. What was important was his mother, Margaret Beaufort, a descendant of Edward III. This descent from King Edward was through his third son, John of Gaunt. John’s third wife, Katherine Swynford had borne him several children as his mistress before he married her. The children born before the marriage were later legitimized, but barred from the succession. Margaret Beaufort was descended from one of the children born before the marriage of John and Katherine. By 1485 the Wars of the Roses had been raging in England for many years between the Houses of Henry VIII’s suit of armour, c.1544, Italian made. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Photo by Matthew G. Bisanz (CC BY-SA 3.0).

40

Henry VIII of England by Hans Holbein the Younger, 1539.

York and Lancaster. The Lancastrian Henry later took for his bride Elizabeth of York, thereby uniting the houses. The real matter was decided on the battlefield, at the Battle of Bosworth Field. It was here that Henry and his forces met with Richard III and Henry won the crown. It was through the defeat of Richard and the “right of conquest” that Henry claimed the throne. It was solidified however, by his marriage to Elizabeth of York, the eldest child of the late King Edward IV. Henry VII had several problems. The main problem was restoring faith in the so-so monarchy. At the same time, he also had to deal with other claimants having a far

henry viii and the english reformation

British History student.indb 40

1/31/12 1:29 PM

stronger claim than his own. Henry was resourceful, though, if he was nothing else, and he left a considerable fortune to his son, Henry VIII. His son, Henry VIII, was stronger and even more colorful, showing such promise at first. Later, he was a notorious womanizer, pragmatic egotist, and overbearing tyrant. He was, as it were, the perfect gentleman and vagabond Renaissance man rolled into one. His supreme irritant was that he could not sire a male heir. Henry’s entire life and reign were marred by his desire for a male heir. Because he wanted to divorce his queen to find another mate who might bear him sons, this issue ultimately caused him to break with the Church. After openly opposing Luther and being declared a Defender of the Faith by one Pope, he took the English Church out of the Roman Catholic Church and formed his own church. His wife, Catherine, was unable to bear him a son. Violating church law, Henry VIII simply dissolved the Roman Catholic Church, divorced Catherine (above) and married Anne Boleyn. Ironically, then, the Reformation in England began, as it were, by default and over a love squabble.

Battle of Bosworth Field by Philipp Jakob Loutherbourg the Younger, painting: 1804, engraving: c1857 (PD-US). .

Anne Boleyn also disappointed Henry VIII by giving birth to a daughter, Elizabeth, and not to a son. Anne was soon beheaded. After Henry VIII died, nine-year-old King Edward VI became king. He made sure Protestantism would be the predominant religion of England. When he died, his sister Mary I, tried to restore the Roman Catholic Church. Mary married her cousin, Philip II of Spain. “Bloody Mary” burned hundreds of Protestants and when she died most of England wished her good riddance and welcomed young Elizabeth I, daughter of Anne Boleyn.

Assignment Why was Henry VIII such an important king?

Edward VI of England, artist unknown, c1546 (PD-US). Portrait of Anne Boleyn, artist unknown, c1533. National Portrait Gallery, London: (PD-US).

British History student.indb 41

1/31/12 1:29 PM

lesson 2

the english reformation At the heart of the English Reformation was the chicanery of Henry VIII. One wonders if the Church of England would have remained the Church of Rome if Henry VIII could have had a male heir earlier in his reign (he finally did have a son but it was much later in life). In retrospect, examining history from the post-Queen Elizabeth era, the notion that a woman was an unacceptable heir seems ludicrous. It was unthinkable, at the time, however, that a woman should rule England. But there was no other choice. As Henry had married his brother’s widow, Catherine, the solution seemed simple enough: he would have to get his marriage annulled and marry the young, attractive, willing and it was to be hoped, fertile Anne Boleyn. But the king had not reckoned on the opposition of Charles V, the most powerful monarch in Europe, the nephew of Catherine and, more importantly, the virtual keeper of the Pope. Henry was just as obstinate, and those who failed to support his efforts to have the marriage annulled were quickly to feel his wrath. Out of this maelstrom emerged the English Reformation (www.britannia.com). Cardinal Pole, son of the Countess of Salisbury led the opposition to the king; thus his family was chosen for elimination. Pole had earlier gone to Paris in 1529 to seek a favourable opinion of Henry’s claims in the matter of the divorce. He later sided with Charles V against the king, becoming elected cardinal for his loyal and courageous attack on the English monarch. To oppose the Church was dangerous business for even a king. The Church was powerful and rich, richer even than the king, and Henry VIII was careful and shrewd in his opposition. Thomas Wolsey joined the king’s council in 1509, the first year of Henry’s long reign. As the king enjoyed other pursuits, he left much of the administration in Wolsey’s able hands, appointing him Lord Chancellor in 1515. Even 42

Portrait of Thomas Cranmer by Gerlach Flicke, 1545 (PD-US).

Wolsey, with no lack of effort on his part, was unable to get papal approval for Henry VIII’s divorce. Wolsey, like so many others in the kingdom, was completely undone by his failure to get Henry his divorce from Catherine of Aragon. The Pope would not allow the marriage. He threatened to excommunicate Henry VIII. Ironically, though, earlier, Henry had been given the title “Defender of the Faith” by Pope Clement for his efforts to keep the forces of Protestantism at bay in England. Now Pope Clement and Henry VIII were mortal enemies. After Wolsey could not obtain the divorce, he became the scapegoat for Henry VIII’s wrath. Wolsey was neither a

henry viii and the english reformation

British History student.indb 42

1/31/12 1:29 PM

committed Roman Catholic nor was Henry VIII a pious dissenter. One was too weak to obtain his monarch’s wishes; and another was a cynical, self-centered scoundrel. There was no hero in this sordid story. Wolsey, the tertiary Roman Catholic leader in England, was summarily dismissed. Wolsey represented the declining influence of the Roman Catholic Church in politics. The growth of nation-states independent from Rome would be a recurring theme in European history. Henry obtained his divorce in spite of Wolsey, Pope Clement, and vitriolic Charles V. Along the way, Henry VIII destroyed the medieval English Roman Catholic Church. But he did much more than that. He initiated the English Reformation. The reader should take note: the English Protestant Reformation was precipitated by a rascally king with the basest motivations. Henry VIII was no Martin Luther. He had no theological reason to found the English Church. His motivations were selfish and rakish. This was not a good beginning for a new Church. In 1533, Henry married the pregnant Anne Boleyn and upon the death Wolsey, archbishop of Canterbury (which was the highest church position in England), Henry VIII appointed his lackey Thomas Cranmer to this post. This was the first time in history that a secular leader appointed a priest to such a high church office. The official break with Rome came in April 1533 with the passing of the Act of Restraint of Appeals that decreed “this realm of England is an empire.” One month later Archbishop Cranmer declared that the King’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon was null and void. Anne Boleyn was duly crowned queen, giving birth to Elizabeth three months later. The Pope duly excommunicated both Cranmer and Henry. The die was cast. After 1534, events moved even more rapidly. The Act of Supremacy of that year declared that the king was the Supreme Head of the Church of England and the Pope officially designated merely as the Bishop of Rome. This was remarkable in two ways. Never had a secular person been the leader of so august an ecclesiological body. And, secondly, in response, there was no Roman Catholic uprising in Britain. Ironically, audacious Henry VIII still considered himself an orthodox Catholic, retaining his title of “Defender of the Faith” and was publicly proud of such an appellation. And in truth, there was no break with Rome on matters of dogma. Henry VIII, and the new Church of England, embraced all of orthodox Roman Catholicism except papal authority.

Portrait of Thomas Cromwell, The Frick Collection, c1533 (PD-US).

Utltimately Thomas Cromwell, Henry VIII’s chief minister (a sort of prime minister) forced the issue and set up the Church of England with its own liturgy and confessions. Cromwell, then, was the real architect of the English Reformation. He carried forward his king’s wishes, as it were, without the king’s overt approval. Cromwell went farther. He reminded Henry VIII that in 1533, with the Act of Restraint, England was designated as an “empire.” This “empire” was not just a geo political entity; it was an empire of the soul and spirit. England was going to take another path than it had walked for a thousand years. It was to be its own sovereign and spiritual entity at last. Now a time of real purging occurred. In three short years Roman Catholic land holdings, including monasteries, were confiscated by the state. Everything Roman Catholic was denigrated. The English Reformation had begun.

Assignment An historian argued that, even by the end of the 16th Century, prolonged clerical efforts had succeeded in creating a Protestant nation, but not a nation of Protestants. What did he mean and do you agree?

henry viii and the english reformation

British History student.indb 43

43

1/31/12 1:29 PM

lesson 3

london

The first monarch of the Tudor dynasty had a great impact on London architecture in the form of ‘Henry VII’s Chapel,’ the addition he made to the eastern end of Westminster Abbey. Henry VII planned it as a shrine-chapel for the body of his half-uncle, the pious King Henry VI. But the Pope would not canonize him and the place became Henry VII’s own mausoleum. Henry VII was the last monarch to have a permanent residence within the city walls. He also rebuilt the Palace of Sheen, after it burned in 1498, and had it renamed as Richmond Palace. He died there in 1509. His son, Henry VIII was a great builder too and added many impressive buildings to the London skyline. At the start of Henry VIII’s reign, London was filled with splendid religious buildings, the treasures of previous centuries. During the Dissolution of the Monasteries, vast numbers of these were destroyed or adapted to secular use and the damage was still widely visible in Elizabeth I’s time. Post-Reformation English churches were mostly worship centers, not cathedrals. That would change.

Westminster Abbey by Robert Wisdom | Dreamstime.com, 2011

With the dissolution of the monastery system, London poverty levels grew. The monasteries had been the only barrier between poor English families and abject poverty. Many well-known public schools, founded through the generosity of city merchants, date from this time, including: Charterhouse, St. Paul’s, the City of London School, the Merchant Taylors’ and Mercers’ Schools. Though the Inns of Chancery were in decline, the Inns of Court continued their educational role in the city and their great halls are a magnificent survival from the Tudor age. At the end of Henry VIII’s reign, London was becoming 44

an international city. Explorers were returning with tales about aborigines and strange, exotic lands. Native Americans, African warriors, and Indian princess walked among Londoners. (Nash).

Assignment The weakened Church structure had an adverse effect on urban life. Its absence presaged further troubles in London. Church influence in many modern cities has declined in the last 50 years. Discuss how this has had an adverse effect on the city.

henry viii and the english reformation

British History student.indb 44

1/31/12 1:29 PM

lesson 4

history maker: sir thomas more Thomas More was born in London on February 7, 1478. More, a man of great promise, considered becoming a judge, like his father, but he decided to serve the Church. He determined to become a monk. The prayer, fasting, and penance habits stayed with him for the rest of his life. Eventually, More left the monastic order. More’s desire for monasticism was finally overcome by his sense of duty to serve his country in the field of politics. He entered Parliament in 1504, and married for the first time in 1504 or 1505. More became a close friend with the philosopher Erasmus during the latter’s first visit to England in 1499. It was the beginning of a lifelong friendship and correspondence. One of More’s first acts in Parliament had been to urge a decrease in a proposed tax increase to pay King Henry VII. In revenge, the King had imprisoned More’s father and not released him until a fine was paid and More himself had withdrawn from public life. After the death of the King in 1509, More became active once more. During the next decade, More attracted the attention of King Henry VIII. More was also instrumental in stopping a 1517 London riot against foreigners. More was knighted in 1521. In fact, by this time Henry VIII and More were good friends. More helped Henry VIII write his much lauded Defence of the Seven Sacraments, a repudiation of Luther. More was Henry VIII anti-Protestant voice. However, his good friend Henry VIII changed; More did not. He loved and respected his king but he loved the Roman Catholic Church more. He refused to attend the coronation of Anne Boleyn in June 1533. In April, 1534, More refused to swear to the Act of Succession and the Oath of Supremacy, and was committed to the Tower of London on April 17. More was found guilty of treason and was beheaded

Portrait of Thomas More by Hans Holbein the Younger, 1527.

alongside Bishop Fisher on July 6, 1535. More’s final words on the scaffold were: “The King’s good servant, but God’s First.”

Assignment More fervently opposed the separate of church and state. He strongly believed that the church was the conscience of the state. More, said, “I think that when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties, they lead their country by a short route to chaos.” Do you agree? Why or why not? henry viii and the english reformation

British History student.indb 45

45

1/31/12 1:29 PM

46

Interior in Westmister Abbey during reign of Henry VII. henry viii and theCreated english reformation by Pannemaker, Journal Universel, Paris, 1857.

British History student.indb 46

1/31/12 1:29 PM

Chapter 6 elizabethan age: part one

First Thoughts . . . After Henry VIII died, King Edward VI became king. He tried to make sure Protestantism would be the predominant religion of England. He named Lady Jane Grey as his successor. He did not trust his half sisters, Mary and Elizabeth, to maintain the English Reformation. However, poor Jane Grey only reigned for nine days. Edward’s oldest sister, Mary I, who indeed tried to restore the Roman Catholic Church, replaced her. Mary married her cousin, Philip II of Spain. “Bloody Mary” burned hundreds of Protestants and when she died most of England wished her good riddance and welcomed young Elizabeth I, daughter of Anne Boleyn. Elizabeth I ruled England during one of the most prosperous periods in English history. This is the time when America was settled and Shakespeare wrote most of his plays. This is also the time when England destroyed the Spanish Armada (1588). Elizabeth I had a sense of what people wanted and would allow, and she picked able and devoted ministers.

Chapter Learning Objectives . . . In chapter 6, we will look at the Elizabethan Age, its genesis and effect on history. We will study, in depth, the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1688. Next, we will study English participation in the Age of Discovery. Finally, we will visit again Tudor England and specifically visit the Globe Theatre. As a result of this chapter you should be able to: 1. Describe Elizabeth I’s reign. 2. Evaluate why the English defeated the Spanish Armada. 3. Analyze English participation in the Age of Discovery. 4. Describe life in Tudor London. 5. Discuss what it was like to attend a play in the Globe Theatre.

British History student.indb 47

1/31/12 1:29 PM

lesson 1

elizabethan age

The Elizabethan Age in some ways has no precedent. The reign of Queen Elizabeth I (1558-1603) saw England emerge as the leading naval and commercial power of the Western world. England consolidated its position with the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588, and Elizabeth firmly established the Church of England begun by her father, King Henry VIII. When Elizabeth assumed the throne the nation was ready to support her. The alternative was civil war—her father, Henry VIII, made everyone uneasy. His successors, Edward VI and Mary, brought great discord. Most Englishmen saw the disaster that would result if England divided again over religion. So, mostly, people decided not to be religious. In some ways, then, Queen Elizabeth ushered in one of the first “secular” regimes in world history. Elizabeth understood and fervently sought public support for her person and policies. She was a masterful campaigner and resourceful public relations expert. She embraced Parliament. “Though I be a woman I have as good a courage answerable to my place as ever my father had. I am your anointed Queen. I will never by violence be constrained to do anything. I thank God I am endowed with such qualities that if I were turned out of the realm in my petticoat, I were able to live in any place in Christendom . . . and though you have had, and may have many princes, more mighty and wise sitting in this state, yet you never had, or shall have, any that will be more careful and loving.” Elizabeth worked hard and surrounded herself with capable counselors, counselors who were honest advisors, not sycophants. Her wise rule brought England out of the Middle Ages to the modern era. Her explorers gave her the world. Sir Francis Drake circumnavigated the world and became the most celebrated English sea captain of his generation. Sir Humphrey Gilbert and Sir Walter Raleigh sent colonists westward in search of profit. European wars brought an influx of continental refugees into England, exposing the Englishman to new cultures. 48

Elizabeth I as a Princess by William Scrots, c1546 (PD-Art).

In trade, might, and art, England established an envious pre-eminence.

Assignment A. Queen Elizabeth I is considered one of the country’s most successful and popular monarchs. But what was Elizabeth really like? Was she wicked? Ambitious? Was her success due to her own skill—or was she a people pleaser? B. In 1558 John Knox wrote, “It is more than a monster in nature that a woman should reign and bear empire over man.” Are women fit to rule kingdoms?

elizabethan age: Part one

British History student.indb 48

1/31/12 1:29 PM

lesson 2

the spanish armada

King Philip II of Spain was the most powerful man in Europe in the latter half of the 16th century. His possessions in the New World brought him enormous wealth. England, by comparison, was a relatively small nation, and not a particularly powerful or wealthy one. But England was a feisty country, and, in Philip’s eyes, a Protestant one. That was the main reason Philip hated England. A second reason was that England had openly encouraged its privateers (state sanctioned pirates) to sink Spanish gold-laden ships. In his youth, for political reasons, Philip was promised in marriage to his fellow Catholic, Mary I (some called her Bloody Mary). He married her when she was older. He was not king of England, and never would be by marriage alone. Parliament was the final say in these matters. In fact, the only way the English Parliament would allow the marriage and Philip to be king was if Philip was expressly forbidden from ruling. It was a moot point. When Mary died in 1558 the Protestant Elizabeth came to the throne. Philip, in spite of being the grieving husband, was willing to do his duty and proposed marriage to Elizabeth. Sly Elizabeth had no intentions of marrying Philip but kept communication open with him. At the same time, Elizabeth surreptitiously continued to encourage English privateers like Drake to seize Spanish ships and goods in the Caribbean West Indies. They were good at it and were at the top of the ten Most Wanted list in Spain. In the 1560s Elizabeth also irritated Philip by supporting Protestants in the Netherlands in their revolt against Spanish occupation. Besides that, Philip believed that Elizabeth was illegitimate. Under Catholic law, Elizabeth’s father Henry VIII had no right to divorce his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, and then to marry Elizabeth’s mother, Anne Boleyn. Therefore Elizabeth was born out of wedlock, and thus had no right to

British History student.indb 49

the throne. Philip fervently wanted to correct this oversight. More importantly for the pious Roman Catholic Philip, it was his duty to lead Protestant England back to the Catholic faith—by force if necessary. He was the genuine article. He sincerely walked in his faith. In fact, before the Armada sailed, Philip obtained papal approval for his invasion, and a promise of money to be delivered after the Spanish had landed in England. He also got papal permission to name the next ruler of England. Philip planned to name his daughter Isabella as Queen of England. This would keep Europe in the family, so to speak. To say the least, Philip had no further designs on Elizabeth’s affections. He intended to execute her. Philip began preparing his invasion force as early as 1584. His first choice as commander was the Marquis of Santa Cruz, but when Santa Cruz died Philip ordered the Duke of Medina Sedonia to take command of the fleet. The Duke was an experienced warrior —on land. He had no naval background, and no interest in leading the Armada, as the invasion fleet came to be called. He begged to be dismissed, but Philip ignored the request. Philip II, King of Spain, artist unknown, c1580 (PD-US). elizabethan age: Part one

49

1/31/12 1:29 PM

Despite Spanish precautions, the English were well aware of secret Spanish preparations. In a bold move that was apparently against Elizabeth’s wishes, Sir Francis Drake sailed a small English fleet to Cadiz, where they surprised a large number of Spanish warships in the harbor. Drake burned and sank a number of ships and slipped away before the Spanish could rally. This gave the British new courage. By May of 1588, however, the Armada was finally ready to sail. The fleet numbered over 130 ships, making it by far the greatest naval fleet of its age. According to Spanish records, 30,493 soldiers sailed with the Armada. Many of the Spanish vessels were converted merchant ships, better suited to carrying cargo than engaging in warfare at sea. They were broad and heavy, and could not maneuver quickly under sail. No problem. The Spanish did not intend to engage the English in a sea battle. The ships of the Armada were primarily troop transporters. Their major task was simply to carry armed men to a designated landing point and unload them. There were warships, but they were huge, and bristling with guns. They would be fine when the Spanish needed to batter down shore installations. But they were of dubious value in sea battles. Navy tactics were evolving and the advantage in sea battles often belonged to the fastest and most maneuverable vessel. It was still common for ships to come alongside each other and allow fighting men to engage in hand to hand combat. Advances in artillery were only beginning to allow for more complex strategies and confrontations at sea. At this stage the English were far more adept at artillery and naval tactics than the Spanish, who were regarded as the best soldiers in Europe, but poor sailors. The Spanish planned for the main fleet to sail up the English Channel and rendezvous off Dover with the Duke of Parma, who headed the Spanish forces in the Netherlands. This in itself presented huge problems. Communications were slow, and the logistical problems of a rendezvous at sea were immense. The English were ready. A series of signal beacons atop hills along the English and Welsh coasts were manned. When the Spanish ships were at last sighted on July 19, 1588, the beacons were lit, speeding the news throughout the realm. The English ships slipped out of their Harbor at Plymouth and, under cover of darkness, managed to get behind the Spanish fleet. The Spanish sailed up the Channel in a crescent formation, with the troop transports in the Center. When the Spanish finally reached Calais, they were met by a collection of English vessels under the command of Howard. Each 50

Elizabeth I of England, the Armada Portrait, Woburn Abbey by George Gower, c1588.

fleet numbered about 60 warships, but the advantage of artillery and maneuverability was with the English. Under cover of darkness, the English set fireships adrift, using the tide to carry the blazing vessels into the massed Spanish fleet. Although the Spanish were prepared for this tactic and quickly slipped anchor, there were some losses and inevitable confusion. On Monday, July 29, the two fleets met in battle off Gravelines. The English emerged victorious, although the Spanish losses were not great; only three ships were reported sunk, one captured, and four more ran aground. Nevertheless, the Duke of Medina Sedonia determined that the Armada must return to Spain. The English blocked the Channel, so the only route open was north around the tip of Scotland, and down the coast of Ireland. It was then that the summer English weather took a hand in the proceedings. A succession of storms scattered the Spanish ships, resulting in heavy losses. By the time the tattered Armada regained Spain, it had lost half its ships and three-quarters of its men. In England the victory was greeted as a sign of divine approval for the Protestant cause. The storms that scattered the Armada were seen as intervention by God. Services of thanks were held throughout the country, and a commemorative medal struck, with the words, “God blew and they were scattered” inscribed on it (www.britainexpres.com).

Assignment Why was the Spanish Armada defeated?

elizabethan age: Part one

British History student.indb 50

1/31/12 1:29 PM

lesson 3

english age of exploration There have always been explorers. Explorers are people who travel to or investigate unknown places. Prehistoric men and women who ventured out across the continents were among the first explorers. Explorers who purposely visited and studied an unknown geographic area. The golden age of exploration began in the 15th century as sailors from Europe explored the world. They located routes across oceans and continents and defined the earth’s physical shape and size. The Age of Exploration grew out of largely economic impulses. For one thing, Marco Polo had introduced Europeans to exotic spices and teas from China and the East Indies. But Polo’s access was a land route access from Venice, Italy, to Peking, China. However, toward the end of the 14th century, the vast empire of Kublai Kahn was breaking up; thus, merchants could no longer be ensured of a safe conduct along the land routes. Second, the growing power of Islamic Turkey blocked European attempts at trade. Still, enormous profits could be made by traders who were able to bring even one caravan back from the Orient. At the same time, technological advances made exploration even more possible. For one thing the Portuguese developed a new type of ship called the Caravel. The caravel was a particularly sea worthy ship that was both fast and dependable. The discovery of the caravel would be similar to the transformation of air flight from a propeller driven craft to jet airplanes. At the same time, with the further improvement of the mariner’s compass, European traders were ready to leave the land behind and explore the unknown. In 1260, Marco Polo traveled east from Europe. In 1265, he arrived at Kaifeng, the capital of Kublai Khan’s (also known as the Great Khan) Mongol Empire. In 1269, he returned to Europe with a request from Khan for the Pope to send one hundred missionaries to the Mongol Empire, supposedly to help convert the Mongols to Christianity. The missionaries were not sent. But Marco Polo returned and set up a trade route to China!

The Vikings, Scandinavian explorers, were sailing to North America before Marco Polo was born. The Vikings were the first Europeans to cross the Atlantic Ocean. By A.D. 930, 10,000 Vikings settled in Iceland. Eric the Red sailed from Iceland in 982 and discovered and settled Greenland. In 1002, Eric’s son, Leif Ericson, discovered a new land that he called Vinland. Vinland would have included Newfoundland, Canada, to northern Maine, USA. Portugal led the European world in sea exploration during the 15th century. Portugal led exploration attempts for almost a century until the Dutch eventually seized trade routes from them. The Portuguese were able to discover a sea route around Africa to the lucrative Far East. The man chiefly responsible for Portugal’s age of exploration was Prince Henry. From 1419 until his death in 1460, Prince Henry sent expedition after expedition down the west coast of Africa. Twenty-seven years after Henry’s death Bartolomeu Dias rounded the Cape of Good Hope in 1487. Finally Vasco da Gama (1469–1524) continued sailing into unknown waters along the eastern coast of the African continent and he eventually located a route to India and the East Indies. The first sea routes—competing with the lands routes—was opened with the Far East. The most famous explorer was Christopher Columbus. Born in Genoa, Italy, in 145, young Columbus first went to sea at the age of fourteen. As a young man, he settled in Portugal and married a woman of noble background. After his wife’s death in 1485, Columbus and his young son, Diego moved to Spain. Like all learned men of his time, Columbus knew perfectly the world was round. The problem was his guess about the size of the world was inaccurate. He thought the world was much smaller than it actually was. Thus, his decision to sail west to reach the east really made a lot of sense. Ferdinand and Isabella brought Spain to the exploration table by financing Columbus’ journey west. By 1550 most Europeans thought that the New World was pretty useless, especially when compared to the East elizabethan age: Part one

British History student.indb 51

51

1/31/12 1:29 PM

Indies. Nonetheless, the Age of Discovery was well underway. What if a shorter sea route could still be found? Europeans were eager to try new and faster routes to the spice markets of the Indies. Spices were highly valued because they made the otherwise bland and spoiled food taste better. Spices such as pepper, cinnamon, nutmeg, ginger, or cloves were like treasures to Europeans. Investors could make a fortune with only one boat load of spices from India. The first accidental circumnavigation of the globe was led by Ferdinand Magellan. Like Columbus before him, Magellan believed he could get to the Spice Islands by sailing west. He knew now, though, that he would have to sail around or through the New World to do so. He thought it would take 6-8 months to circumnavigate the world. It took 3 years! Now, everyone knew: the world was much larger than anyone had thought. England entered the exploration game with John Cabot. Like Columbus and Magellan, Cabot thought there was a better route to the riches of the Orient by heading west instead of east. By this time, Cabot knew now that the world was much larger than supposed; however, what if there was a northwestern route? Magellan had not found a southern route, but there might be a route north of the New World. It was worth a try.

52

Henry VII of England thought so too. Henry VII was not generous in his contributions. Cabot was given one small ship less than 70 feet long called the Matthew and a crew of 18 men. The expedition set sail from Bristol, England, on May 2, 1497, and landed several weeks later in Newfoundland. Cabot was convinced he’d found an island off the coast of Asia and he named the island “new found land.” Of course it was not really “new found land.” The Vikings had “found” it 400 years earlier. The second circumnavigation of the globe was accomplished by the privateer Francis Drake. Even though France and England were not at war, Queen Elizabeth I was concerned about Spanish expansion in the New World. She sent Drake on a mission to explore the New World and to harass England’s rivals in Spanish-held territory. The whole thing was a great success. Drake plundered Spanish shipping in the Caribbean and in Central America and loaded his ship with treasure to take back to Queen Elizabeth. Drake later sailed around the world.

Assignment Why did the English enter the Age of Exploration relatively late, but, in the long run, explored and owned more land than any other European power? Sir Francis Drake knighted by Queen Elizabeth. Tavistock, Devon by Joseph Boehm, c1890 (CC0 1.0).

elizabethan age: Part one

British History student.indb 52

1/31/12 1:29 PM

lesson 4

elizabethan london

Elizabeth I’s accession to the throne eventually brought more relaxed times to the people of London (the Puritans called it “debauchery”). It was the apex of the English theater, and Londoners flocked to theaters. London was the entertainment capital of the city. It was the New York City of its age, and the Globe Theatre was the Radio City Music Hall and Yankee Stadium all tied up into one. At this time, London was the heart of England, reflecting all the vibrant qualities of the Elizabethan Age. This atmosphere made London a leading center of culture as well as commerce. Its dramatists and poets were among the leading literary artists of the day. In this heady environment, Shakespeare lived and wrote. Here were the Hope, the Swan, the Rose and the Globe: great theatres all. The latter two were the workplaces of William Shakespeare who spent most of his life in this area of London. After the attempted invasion of Britain by the Spanish Armada in 1588, when the loyal Londoners raised a large band of men to help defeat the invaders, England became more politically stable. There was a marked increase in prosperity and the population of London grew accordingly. The core of the city was built around the lands seized from the church and rich citizens moving out to the suburbs and country estates to the west of the city along the Thames where many of the old bishops’ palaces (taken by Henry VIII) were rebuilt for use by the nobility (David Nash Ford).

London in the 16th century underwent a transformation. Its population grew 400% during the 1500s, swelling to nearly 200,000 people in the city proper and outlying region by the time an immigrant from Stratford came to town. A rising merchant middle class carved out a productive livelihood, and the economy boomed. The first theater as we know it was called The Theatre, built in London in 1576, and the owner was James Burbage. James Burbage had obtained a 21-year lease with permission to build the first playhouse, aptly named ‘The Theatre’. Before this time plays were performed in the courtyard of inns or inn-yards. The most famous Elizabethan playhouse was the Globe Theatre (1599) built by the company in which Shakespeare had a stake— now often referred to as the Shakespearean Globe. Days out at the Globe Theatre would have been an exciting event. The grounds surrounding the Globe Theatre would have been full of people anxious to get the best location in the theatre (there were no seats, everyone stood). There would be vendors selling merchandise and souvenirs—no programs but yummy snacks like pickled pig’s feet and roasted chestnuts—creating a market day atmosphere. Non playgoers would flock to the Globe Theatre merely to go to the market stalls and find a few bargains. Statue of Shakespeare in Leicester Square, London.

British History student.indb 53

1/31/12 1:29 PM

The Globe would have particularly attracted young people and there were many complaints of apprentices avoiding work in order to go to the theatre. A trumpet was sounded to announce that the play was about to begin at the Globe Theatre in order for people to take their final places. Towering above the Globe was a small tower with a flag pole. Flags were used as a form of Elizabethan advertising! Flags were erected on the day of the performance which sometimes displayed a picture advertising the next play to be performed. Color coding was also used—a black flag meant a tragedy, white a comedy, and red a history. The enclosed but not completely covered Globe Theatre allowed stage productions to become quite sophisticated with the use of massive props such Romeo and Juliet by C. Birney, Detroit Publishing Co., c1882. as fully working cannons, although it would of course had to be left on stage for the entire performance of the play. Special effects at the “pit” of the Globe Theatre. The gentry would pay to sit in Globe were also a spectacular addition at the theater allow- the galleries, often using cushions for comfort! Rich nobles ing for smoke effects, the firing of a real canon, fireworks could watch the play from a chair set on the side of the Globe (for dramatic battle scenes) and spectacular “flying” en- stage itself. Theater performances were held in the aftertrances from the rigging in the “heavens.” The stage floor noon, because, of course, there was no artificial lighting. had trap-doors allowing for additional surprising incidents Men and women attended plays, but often the prosperous (as was witnessed in Romeo and Juliet). Music was another women would wear a mask to disguise their identity. The addition to the Globe productions. It was provided by gui- plays were extremely popular and attracted vast audiences to the Globe. The audiences only dropped during outbreaks of tarists and, if possible, a harpsichord. Actors worked hard. Actors, often young boys, played the bubonic plague, which was unfortunately an all too comfemale parts. In just two weeks Elizabethan theaters could mon occurrence during the Elizabethan Era. This happened often present “eleven performances of ten different plays”. in 1593, 1603, and 1608, when all theaters were closed due to The Shakespearean actors generally only got their lines as the bubonic plague (The Black Death). The Shakespearean the play was in progress. Parts were often allocated on the actors were therefore temporarily out of work and left day of the performance. Many times the actors didn’t even London to stay in other parts of England. William get their own lines. They did “cue acting,” which meant that Shakespeare no doubt used these periods of closure to write there was a person backstage who whispered the lines to the more plays and go home to Stratford. (www.william-shakeactor just before he was going to say them. This rapid turn- speare.info/william-shakespeare-globe-theatre.htm). over led to another technique called “cue scripting,” where each actor was given only his own lines. The complete scene of the play was not explained to the actors until it was actually being performed. This technique allowed for zero rehearsal time, thus enabling a fast turnover in terms of new productions at the Globe Theatre and a huge portfolio of different roles.

Assignment Pretend that you were a regular Globe Theatre patron. What was it like?

The Elizabethan general public (the commoners) referred to as “groundlings,” would pay 1 penny to stand in the 54

elizabethan age: Part one

British History student.indb 54

1/31/12 1:29 PM

Chapter 7 elizabethan age: part two

First Thoughts . . . The Elizabethan Period was called the English Renaissance. It was an age of advances in science and in the arts. The introduction of the printing press in particular advanced the arts and learning. Ironically, though, the increased knowledge about science, technology and astrology led to a renewed interest in the supernatural. This ultimately brought advances in religion, but also in fears about witchcraft.

Chapter Learning Objectives . . . In chapter 7, we will examine Elizabethan life and compare it to our own. Next, we will discuss Scottish history, and, along the way, give special attention to John Knox. Next, we will examine two warring world views and, finally, we will summarize how Parliament evolved into the democratic institution it became. As a result of this chapter you should be able to: 1. Contrast your life with the life of an Elizabethan. 2. Analyze Scottish history. 3. Discuss who John Knox was. 4. Examine how different world views warred for the hearts of Elizabethans. 5. Summarize how Parliament evolved into the democratic institution it became.

British History student.indb 55

1/31/12 1:29 PM

lesson 1

elizabethan life

Elizabethan society had entirely new social strata. Society formed along new lines in the Tudor years. The Elizabethan Age saw the rise of new wealth that fired overseas investments (e.g., Jamestown, VA). For the first time in English history, there was vast wealth available for investments. Thanks to talented entrepreneurs, there was a growing upper middle class that was not necessarily gentry (i.e., landed nobility), but had money to be almost anything else they wanted. Huge urban Tudor mansions were built in London and there was a decided shift of wealth from the sedate countryside to the bustling city. For instance, at the end of Elizabeth I’s reign, the East India Tea Company was formed—the first truly multinational company that had more assets than many small countries.

Tudor houses on cobbled street in Rye, England.

If feudal England was an age of community, Tudor England was one of individuality. Nobility and knights were still at the top of the social ladder, but the real growth in society was in the merchant and yeoman classes. Within the nobility there was a distinction between old landed families and new, merchant classes. These nouveau riche classes had amassed great wealth through commerce and trade and were beginning to enter old society. Most old noble families were Catholic, and most new wealthy families were Protestant. The upper classes were exempt from the new oaths of allegiance to the Church of England, and many Catholic families maintained private chaplains. It is easy to think of the nobility as the idle rich. They may have been rich (though not necessarily), but they had to maintain their vast estates and watch closely their investments. They had to entertain. Often. The most expensive guest of all was Queen Elizabeth and her household. Elizabeth was notorious for stopping in for a cup of tea and staying all night. Aside from the benefit of bringing her into closer contact with her subjects, she saved a great deal of money by visiting her nobles. Elizabeth saw very little of the wealth that was mentioned previously. London, though, and Elizabeth, had a 56

global demeanor about them. Suddenly Englishmen were drinking tea from India and smoking tobacco from Virginia. Elizabethans knew, for the first time, that they were on the global stage and they enjoyed the feeling. Most people think of Elizabethan Tudor houses as the primary form of housing. But in fact very few Englishmen could afford to live in a Tudor house. Tudor houses were generally timber-framed. Houses began to be built with many more windows. The houses were rarely landscaped— the shade of trees was generally viewed as unhealthy and only the richest British subject would spend time and resources on maintaining the outside of his house. Gardens, though, were important. They provided sustenance for the body and soul. Most rural Englishmen lived in thatch-roofed huts whose sides were filled with straw and mud. Most urban Englishmen lived in poorly constructed wooden apartments cheaply made from abundant New World timber.

elizabethan age: Part two

British History student.indb 56

1/31/12 1:30 PM

Both dwellings were heated by wood, and newly discovered coal, and were notorious fire hazards. Windows were covered with oil skins or wax paper. There were few chairs; stools or chests were used instead. Rushes, loose or plaited together to form a rug, were used on the floors. Few Elizabethans took baths and one can imagine how a family gathering might smell! Breakfast was simply a light snack, while the main meal of the day was dinner, which began at 11 o’clock and lasted for three hours. A smaller supper was usually at 6 o’clock. Food was cooked over open fires. Meat was cooked on a spit which was sometimes turned by a dog running on a circular treadmill attached to the spit end. Baking was done in iron boxes laid on the fire or in a brick oven set into the side of the fireplace. Practice with a long bow was still encouraged despite the advent of gunpowder and cannon. Accuracy was expected; a law of Henry VIII decreed that no one 24 years of age or older should shoot at a target less than 220 yards away. Early guns were incredibly slow and proved useless in wet weather. Longbows remained the primary long-range killing tool of the British army until it was replaced by the cannon (www.elizabethan.org). The life expectancy of Elizabethans was not good—by age 30 most women were dead and few men reached 40. Diseases were rampant. Most women died in childbirth— they could expect to be pregnant every year of their life from age 15 to 30 when most died. Men often married two or three times. Hugh Rhodes’s Book of Nurture (1577) provides lessons in the behavior expected from children and, presumably, from properly brought up adults. After all, “If a youth be void of virtue, in age he shall lack honour.” Here are a few of them: • Reverence thy father and mother as Nature requires. • If you have been out of their presence for a long while, ask their blessing.

Bread baked in a brick oven.

• At dinner, press not thyself too high; sit in the place appointed thee. • Sup not loud of thy pottage. • Dip not thy meat in the saltcellar, but take it with a knife. • Belch near no man’s face with a corrupt fumosity. • Eat small morsels of meat; eat softly, and drink mannerly. • Corrupt not thy lips with eating, as a pig doth. • Scratch not thy head with thy fingers, nor spit you over the table. • If your teeth be putrefied, it is not right to touch meat that others eat. • Wipe thy mouth when thou shalt drink ale or wine on thy napkin only, not on the tablecloth. • Blow not your nose in the napkin where ye wipe your hand. • Chew with your mouth closed

Assignment Contrast your life with the life of an Elizabethan.

• Stand not too fast in thy conceit. • Rise early in the morning to be holy, healthy, and wealthy. • Say your morning prayers. • In church, kneel, sit, or stand devoutly. Do not cast your eyes about or chatter with women, priests, or clerks. elizabethan age: Part two

British History student.indb 57

57

1/31/12 1:30 PM

lesson 2

scotland in the elizabethan age The story of Elizabethan Scotland begins fifty years earlier when Reformation fires blazed in Scotland. The independent Scottish Lowlands (south of Glasgow) was fertile ground for the spread of Protestantism. It was here where most of the wealth and power of Scotland was concentrated, where commerce thrived and where English influence was most felt. The notion of the priesthood of all believers was embraced with fervor. The young priest Knox came to Scotland in 1544. In addition to his Bible, Knox managed to carry a huge, two-handed sword—he was adept at wielding both. If Knox could not convert you he might kill you or both if you were a Catholic Englishman! In fact he was an able evangelist. Knox wanted a Protestant Scotland, but blocking him was fervent Catholic Mary, Queen of Scots, a pretender to the throne. Knox had nothing to do with women monarchs, much less women Catholic monarchs! Ironically, it was thus to an austere, John Knox conservative Protestant Scotland where even Christmas and Easter were no longer celebrated because they were “popish” observances, that Roman Catholic Mary returned as queen in August 1561. Mary was like oil in water. In 1565, Mary’s impulsiveness caused her to marry her younger cousin, Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley, who had practically nothing to commend him either as husband or king. Protestants were furious. When Darnley, immature and tactless, stabbed to death Mary’s Italian 58

elizabethan age: Part two

British History student.indb 58

secretary in a fit of teenage jealousy, the fires were lit for a cabal. In 1567, Darnley was murdered. This might be acceptable in Paris or Istanbul, but not in staid Edinburgh! A Protestant army was raised to force Mary to abdicate. And at age 24, after being led in humiliation through the streets of Edinburgh. She gave up her throne in favor of her baby boy, who was immediately crowned as James VI (who also ruled England as James I). Mary fled to England, seeking refuge with her cousin the pragmatist Queen Elizabeth and was promptly imprisoned. Mary should have gone to France, for her own claim to the English throne made her a potentially deadly rival to Elizabeth I. It was a fatal mistake. James, now king of Scotland, judiciously did not say anything to Elizabeth. Either he did not know that eventually Mary was to die, or he did not care because he predicted that he would be Elizabeth’s successor (since she had no heirs). But he did nothing. Nonetheless, it was plain to see that James VI was a competent monarch. The young James had received a sound education in England. With shrewdness and skill he matured as a monarch of Scotland and, if things worked out, he would be king of England. James had a forthright, winsome personality but was not above a little machination or two to advance his cause. Historians have struggled with James VI. Either he was a terribly competent or terribly cynical—or both—monarch. John Knox statue on the former John Knox Institute, Haddington. Photo by Kim Traynor (CC BY-SA 3.0).

1/31/12 1:30 PM

One thing is certain, James VI of Scotland dearly wanted to become king of England upon the death of his second cousin Elizabeth. In order to carry out his intentions, it was in his best interests to stay a Protestant and to remain on good terms with Elizabeth. To this end, James made a strong alliance with Elizabeth. This alliance was so strong, in fact, that when his mother, Mary, was executed by Elizabeth in 1587, after nineteen years of captivity, James only offered a weak protest. Likewise, in 1589, James married a Protestant princess, Ann of Denmark (above, PD-US). James clearly was no reactionary who wished to take England back to pre-Henry VIII days. The Scottish Presbyterians, James’ most important power base, looked at him with squinted eyes. These saints knew that James VI was no Calvinist. Though Protestant, James was no Presbyterian. He wished to restore the position of the bishops and to reduce Church interference in

matters of state. The Scottish Presbyterians liked that. At the same time, James was not comfortable with the concept of the Priesthood of all Believers. The Presbyterians did not like that. Meanwhile, James was quietly waiting in the wings, but he was no real threat to Queen Elizabeth I. The mighty queen was laid to rest in March 1603 with James of Scotland declared as rightful heir. James journeyed to London to claim what he had longed for all his life—the throne of England.

Assignment A. How did Protestant Scotland get connected to Catholic France? B. John Knox is an enigmatic figure. Do you object to your church leaders carrying weapons and killing the perceived enemies of Christ?

James I and His Royal Progeny by Willem van de Passe, 1814 (PD-US).

elizabethan age: Part two

British History student.indb 59

59

1/31/12 1:30 PM

lesson 3

philosophers and world view Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) Hobbes was one of the first modern Western thinkers to provide a secular justification for political power. Only Friedrich Nietzsche was more pessimistic and prophetic in his message. Hobbes accurately predicted the nihilism that would be so endemic to the modern era. Hobbes was one of the first modern philosophers to provide a secular justification for political power. The philosophy of Hobbes marked a departure in Western philosophy from the religious emphasis of scholasticism. Hobbes argued that people could either live under the violent, evil power of human nature or accept a state that has absolute power, in other words, a totalitarian state. There was no alternative. Excerpts from Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes: Nature, the art whereby God hath made and governs the world, is by the art, of man, as in many other things, so in this also imitated, that it can make an artificial animal. For seeing life is but a motion of limbs, the beginning whereof is in some principal part within; why may we not say, that all automata (engines that move themselves by springs and wheels as doth a watch) have an artificial life? For what is the heart but a spring and the nerves but so many strings and the joints but so many wheels, giving motion to the whole body, such as was intended by the artificer? Art goes yet further, imitating that rational and most excellent work of nature, man. For by art is created that great Leviathan called a Commonwealth or State, in Latin civitas, which is but an artificial man, though of greater stature and strength than the natural, for whose protection and defense it was intended; and in which the sovereignty is an artificial soul, as giving life and motion to the whole body; the magistrates and other officers of judicature and execution, artificial joints reward and punishment, 60

Thomas Hobbes by John Michael Wright, 17th century (PD-Art).

by which fastened to the seat of the sovereignty every joint and member is moved to perform his duty, are the nerves, that do the same in the body natural; the wealth and riches of all the particular members are the strength; salus populi, the peoples safety, its business; counselors, by whom all things needful for it to know are suggested unto it, are the memory; equity and laws, an artificial reason and will; concord, health; sedition, sickness; and civil war, death. Lastly, the pacts and covenants, by which the parts of this body politic were at first made, set together, and united, resemble that fiat, or the let us make man, pronounced by God in the creation.

elizabethan age: Part two

British History student.indb 60

1/31/12 1:30 PM

something? But I before denied that I possessed senses or a body; I hesitate, however, for what follows from that? Am I so dependent on the body and the senses that without these I cannot exist? But I had the persuasion that there was absolutely nothing in the world, that there was no sky and no earth, neither minds nor bodies; was I not, therefore, at the same time, persuaded that I did not exist? Far from it; I assuredly existed, since I was persuaded. But there is I know not what being, who is possessed at once of the highest power and the deepest cunning, who is constantly employing all his ingenuity in deceiving me. Doubtless, then, I exist, since I am deceived; and, let him deceive me as he may, he can never bring it about that I am nothing, so long as I shall be conscious that I am something. So that it must, in fine, be maintained, all things being maturely and carefully considered, that this proposition (pronunciatum ) I am, I exist, is necessarily true each time it is expressed by me, or conceived in my mind.

Assignment A. Why is Hobbes so popular among Marxist historians? Frontispiece of Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes, 1651 (PD-US).

Rene Descartes (1596-1650) After Descartes, mankind replaced God as the center of the universe in the midst of many. This was an ominous moment in Western culture. Descartes applied the rational inductive methods of mathematics to philosophy. Before his time, philosophy had been dominated by the method of comparing and contrasting the views of recognized authorities. Rejecting this method, Descartes held nothing true until it seemed true to him. This phrase summarized his views, “I think, therefore I am.” After Descartes, mankind replaced God as the center of the universe in the midst of many. This was an ominous moment in Western culture.

B. The Christian understanding of redemption is an event that occurs outside human experience. As Oswald Chambers explains, “The redemption of Christ is not an experience, it is the great act of God which He has performed through Christ.” Given this fact, why are the writings of Descartes so dangerous?

Passage from Meditation II, by Rene Descartes: But how do I know that there is not something different altogether from the objects I have now enumerated, of which it is impossible to entertain the slightest doubt? Is there not a God, or some being, by whatever name I may designate him, who causes these thoughts to arise in my mind? But why suppose such a being, for it may be I myself am capable of producing them? Am I, then, at least not

Portrait of René Descartes by Frans Hal, c1649 (PD-US). elizabethan age: Part two

British History student.indb 61

61

1/31/12 1:30 PM

lesson 4

the evolUtion of parliament Parliament, the legislative arm of Great Britain, developed naturally out of the daily political needs of the English king who had to deal with a participatory democracy. Nor did it develop continuously over time, but went through short periods of rapid growth. Parliament originated from two features of Anglo-Saxon government from the 8th to 11th centuries. These were the Witan and the Moot. The Witan was a meeting where the king convened a meeting of his leading advisors and nobles to discuss matters affecting the country. It existed only when the King chose and was made up of those individuals whom he particularly summoned.

The Witan’s main duty was to advise the king, but it made no laws that a king had to follow. However, AngloSaxon kings realized that they needed popular support, and so began the delicate balancing act between the king’s power and the power of those he governed. This is the essence of Parliamentarian rule. Also, under the Anglo-Saxons there had been regular meetings, or moots, for each county (or shire) where local issues were discussed. The local lords and bishops, and most importantly four representatives of each village, attended the “shire moot.” After the Norman Conquest, this meeting became known as the county court and it introduced the

The Houses of Parliament, seen across Westminster Bridge. Photo by Adrian Pingstone, 2005.

62

elizabethan age: Part two

British History student.indb 62

1/31/12 1:30 PM

idea of representative government at the local level. These two gatherings remained separate for many centuries, but eventually the noble councilors of the Great Council and the local spokesmen of the county court would combine to make a Parliament of two houses, the aristocratic Lords and the locally representative Commons. The first known official meeting of Parliament was in 1236. For the first few centuries of its existence Parliament was only an occasion and not an institution. During the 13th century the barons were frequently in revolt against the kings whom they thought were governing the realm badly, that is, against the barons’ own wishes. In 1215 King John was forced to agree to Magna Carta, the “great charter” of legal rights that insisted that he listen to and follow the advice of the barons. Then, at the meeting of Parliament at Oxford in 1258 the barons stated their dissatisfaction with Henry III. Henry III refused to agree to work with Henry VIII with Charles Quint (right) and Pope Leo X (center), c1520 (PD-US). Parliament. Parliament rebelled and won and made In only a few short years, Parliament—under the directhe king agree to let them meet three times a year. That did not last long. King Edward stopped working with Parliament tion and impetus of the king—made laws affecting all aspects of national life, especially in religious practice and except under his own terms. doctrine, which had previously been under the authority of Parliament developed in the 13th and 14th centuries the Church alone. With the ground-breaking statutes of the largely through the desire of Edward I and his successors to 1530s Parliament became omnicompetent, that is, no area wage war. This needed more money than they had from involved in the government of the realm was outside its their own wealth and they had to levy taxes with Parliament’s authority. assent to raise the funds. But each time the king requested Parliament still existed only by the monarch’s will, but assent to a tax from Parliament, it could ask a favor back again and often used the king’s desperation for money to get Henry VIII and his immediate successors knew that they could best affect their will through the assent of Parliament what it wanted. in statute. Increasingly, the Commons became the principal petitioners to the Upper House, submitting common petitions which addressed general problems which could be solved Assignment by the king through new laws, known as statutes. Then petitioners began to submit their grievances first to the Summarize how Parliament evolved into the democratic Commons and, based on these petitions, the Commons institution it became. wrote draft statutes, known as bills, to be presented to the Upper House. Henry VIII’s Reformation Parliament, which sat from 1529 to 1536, fundamentally changed the nature of Parliament and of English government. The king summoned it in order to settle what was called his “great matter,” his divorce from Catherine of Aragon, which the papacy in Rome was blocking. elizabethan age: Part two

British History student.indb 63

63

1/31/12 1:30 PM

The Houses of Parliament and Big Ben with London in the background.

64

elizabethan age: Part two

British History student.indb 64

1/31/12 1:30 PM

Chapter 8 the golden age

First Thoughts . . . There were four million people living in England in the late 16th century; most towns had less than ten streets and an average population of about 7,000 people. The year was a never-ending cycle of work. The typical farmer would spend the winter putting his tools in good working order. Preparation of his fields began as early in the spring as possible. Crops were planted in March and April, the same month as his lambs were born. The sheep were sheared in June, the hay harvested in July, the corn harvested in August, and the remaining months were spent storing up food for the winter. The harshness of Elizabethan life was somewhat mitigated by flourishing art and literature productions.

Chapter Learning Objectives . . . In chapter 8, we will look at Elizabethan social welfare policy. We will also observe how advances in science also increase persecution of aberrant Elizabethans, namely witches. We will examine the state of Elizabethan medicine and, finally, revisit the state of Elizabethan arts and literature. As a result of this chapter you should be able to: 1. Describe Elizabethan social welfare policy. 2. Explain why witches were feared and killed by Elizabethans. 3. Discuss the state of Elizabethan medicine. 4. Evaluate why the arts flourished during Elizabethan times.

British History student.indb 65

1/31/12 1:30 PM

lesson 1

elizabethan social welfare When Elizabeth assumed the throne the English economy was in a shambles. Her extravagant father (Henry VIII) and spiteful cousin (Queen Mary) had exhausted the treasury. Also, the population had doubled between 1520 to 1600, from 2 to 4 million. Inflation was rampant. Demand had far outstripped supply. Life was hard in England. As rents and food prices rose in the countryside, and unemployment soared, many villagers were forced to leave their homes and come to the towns to look for work. However, they often could not find employment and ended up begging in the streets. One million (25%) of Elizabethan breadwinners were unemployed. A generous local monastery might have helped out, but Henry VIII had closed all the monasteries. In fact, Henry VIII’s dissolution of the monasteries resulted in thousands of ex-monks and nuns being added to the ranks of the unemployed. Queen Elizabeth expanded the civil service and appointed new judges. Tudor England saw a great increase in crime, as for many it was the only way they could survive. The most popular sentence for criminal offenses was death. Capital murder was punished by death; repeated petty theft was punished by death. Elizabethan courts were known for their harsh sentencing. Queen Elizabeth also established a social welfare system, of sorts. She used the local church parish, which, after all, was now under her direct authority through the archbishop. Parishes typically represented a village or county, depending upon population density. The local parish had a tertiary leader, a priest, who was under ecclesiological authority. Churches were allowed to levy taxes and Elizabeth would then force the church to provide social welfare services. It was an ingenious and successful way to implement social welfare to a needful population. The sole beneficiary of this largesse was the poor, an ever-increasing group. For the first time, Elizabeth quantified and named the poor. The poor were divided into three 66

The “Darnley Portrait” of Elizabeth I of England, artist unknown, c1575 (PD-US).

groups: the Helpless Poor, the Able Bodied Poor, and the Vagabonds. The Helpless Poor included the old, the sick, the disabled, and children. The elderly and the disabled received a sum of money and possibly some food each week. If they were unable to collect both, it would be delivered to their house. Elizabethan England had the first meals on wheels program! Children of the poor were given an apprenticeship

THE GOLDEN AGE

British History student.indb 66

1/31/12 1:30 PM

paid for by the parish. People who were thought to be “Helpless Poor” were not considered to be a burden as the government believed that it was not their fault that they were in their position. Some parishes gave these people a license to beg. The second group was called the Able Bodied Poor. These were people who could not work for some reason— outsourcing, a shift in the economy—but wanted to work. Each parish built a workhouse. The unemployed worked in this making cloth or anything that might benefit the parish. They would remain in the workhouse until they found a “normal” job. The third group, the more dangerous, were itinerant Vagabonds, who roamed the highways begging and stealing. This was the group targeted by the government. These were people who could work but preferred to beg or steal. This group worried the government as it was the one most likely to cause trouble. The government made begging illegal and anybody found begging was flogged until “his back was bloody.” During the reign of Edward VI, caught vagabonds would have their tongue branded and would be enslaved for two years. In summary, for the first time in history, in the 1590s the Elizabethan government finally realized the scale of the problem of poverty and the poor in England and issued wide-ranging Poor Laws aimed to solve the problem on a federal scale. It created the first positive liberal state. For the first time the poor, or at least some of them, were seen as victims and not criminals (www.tudorplace.com).

The Blind Girl by John Everett Millais. Such situations could have been considered “Helpless Poor.” 1856 (PD-Art).

A positive liberal state is a state that actively engages in caregiving to its citizens.

Assignment Compare the Elizabethan social welfare system to the present United States social welfare system. Which system is more effective?

Former workhouse at Nantwich, Cheshire, constructed in 1780 by Espresso Addict, 2006 (CC BY-SA 3.0).

THE GOLDEN AGE

British History student.indb 67

67

1/31/12 1:30 PM

lesson 2

sUperstition and witchcraft The reign of Elizabeth I marked an intellectual high point of the Renaissance. Ironically, it also marked an era of increased persecution of witches, a persecution supported by the Queen. This is in spite of the fact that Elizabeth’s mother Anne Boleyn was accused of being a witch. Witchcraft practiced during the reign of this queen is referred to as Elizabethan Witchcraft, ironically appearing to offer her the credit for its existence whereas in truth she was partly responsible for its near demise. The Elizabethan era saw a revival in terms of belief in the supernatural. Witchcraft had almost died out, or so most people thought, until its revival was caused by the most unlikely event: commissioning of Johannes Gutenberg’s printing press around 1456. Tons of books were printed—mostly Bibles or books containing religious themes. These themes reinforced belief in the supernatural and the authors were mostly Christian protagonists—proponents of the theory that witchcraft (and by definition witches) was evil and that they were consorts of the devil himself. Most of these so-called experts agreed that the British Isles were overrun by witches and that the scourge had to be dealt with without delay. This led to an increase in witch hunts and concomitantly to an increase in executions. The fact that the printing press also enabled the publishing of books on astrology, alchemy and magic, merely exacerbated an already burning issue. In 1562, Elizabeth I passed the Elizabethan Witchcraft Act “against Conjurations, Enchantments and Witchcrafts.” The Act was somewhat humane and offered punishment by hanging, not burning, and disallowed the torture of suspects (www.articlesbase.com).

68

Assignment On 26 July 1566, Joan Waterhouse, 18 years old, called the devil from out of her mother’s shoes, expecting a toad. Instead, a great dog came to her, demanding what she would like. She asked him to haunt Agnes Brown, 12, who hadn’t given her enough bread once. Agnes Brown said that a thing came to her like a black dog with a face like an ape, a short tail, a chain and a silver whistle around its neck and horns on its head. (From The Examination and Confession of Certaine Wytches at Chensford (Chelmsford), 1566). Joan was acquitted. Agnes Waterhouse of Hatfield Peverell, Essex, known as “Mother Waterhouse,” was accused of witchcraft in 1566, along with her daughter, Joan, and Elizabeth Francis. She was said to have bewitched one William Fynne, who had died on 1 November 1565. In a confession, she claimed she had been a witch for fifteen years and admitted to killing livestock, bewitching her husband, and trying to kill another man. She said she had tried to use Mrs. Francis’s familiar, the cat named Satan, to help her, but that Satan had turned himself into a toad. She denied she had ever succeeded in killing anyone by witchcraft, but she was found guilty of Fynne’s death at the Chelmsford assizes and hanged. Why was one woman acquitted and the other one hanged? Were there really witches? If so, were they punished appropriately?

THE GOLDEN AGE

British History student.indb 68

1/31/12 1:30 PM

lesson 3

medicine

Elizabethan medicine was amazingly amateurish, even when terrible illnesses such as the bubonic plague were killing nearly one-third of the population. Elizabethans knew nothing about germs and hygiene. The underlying cause of most diseases was the lack of sanitation, especially in large towns or cities such as London. There were open sewers in the streets. Rivers and streams, especially in cities, were polluted. The Thames River (which runs through London), for instance, was polluted by 1550. Ironically, urban centers were worse in 1550 than they were in 450 (when the Romans were in charge). The British did not learn a thing from time. The underlying problem was ignorance. Physicians had no idea what caused illnesses. Medicine had made virtually no progress in 2,000 years. The beliefs about the causes of illnesses were based on the teachings of Aristotle and Hippocrates. The physicians paid attention to a patient’s bodily fluid, called humors, which must be in balance for a patient to be healthy. Disease resulted when humors were out of balance. This explains why patients were bled. The bubonic plague was spread by fleas and transmitted normally by rodents. Physicians would clothe every part of their body—including their faces—to protect themselves from diseases. They did not know what caused the diseases but they intended to separate themselves from whatever caused it. Amulets of dried blood and ground-up toads were worn at the waists of the Elizabethan physicians. It was their custom to douse themselves with vinegar and chew angelica before approaching a victim. Actually it worked. For one thing, physicians stank and no one wanted to be around them—especially sick people. For another, the clothing did offer a shield from bacteria and viruses.

The Quack shows barber surgeons at work, by Franz Anton Maulbertsch, c1785 (PD-Art).

Physicians were not witch doctors. They went to college. But only the richest Elizabethan would hire a doctor. The usual fee would be a gold coin—well beyond the means of many Elizabethans. Most Elizabethans would hire a local “wise person” or purported witch (albeit a nice witch) to administer some sort of magic herbal potent. There are recorded cases of some of these interventions working! Elizabethan surgeons were usually bi-vocational. They cut bodies and hair (as a barber). The physician would bring a sick patient to the surgeon/barber, and, standing next to him, would guide the surgeon as he cut off this or that from the patient. The surgeon was more or less a technician and really had no idea why he performed a particular surgical technique. Some people did not use a wise woman or a physician. Like people today who linger around the Walmart Pharmacy, Elizabethans would go to a local drug store (more like a THE GOLDEN AGE

British History student.indb 69

69

1/31/12 1:30 PM

farmer’s market but full of herbs and spices) and obtain a home remedy. If a home remedy worked for so-and-so it probably would work for them. Elizabethans regularly selfmedicated themselves! Broken bones, wounds, abscesses and fractures were treated in unsanitary environments, making the condition even worse. Amputations were performed by surgeons— the stump was cauterized with pitch. Amputations were frequent. Open wounds were cauterized to stop the infection. The only cure for a toothache was having the tooth pulled —without anesthetics! Virtually no Elizabethan had any teeth left by age 30. Most ate soft diets or used wooden teeth. Poor living conditions and poor diet led to many illnesses suffered by both the wealthy and the poor. Anemia was common, as was rheumatism, arthritis, tuberculosis and dysentery (known as the flux). Child bearing and possible childbed fever was dangerous—many Elizabethan woman made arrangement for the care of their children in case they themselves died during childbirth. The white make-up applied by the Upper Class women was lead-based and therefore poisonous—Elizabethan women who applied this make-up were often ill and if it was used in sufficient quantities it would result in death (www.elizabethanera.org.uk/).

Elizabethan Ossary

Assignment Queen Elizabeth, at one time, tried to institute a sort of “national health program” by enabling her subjects to receive the medical care they needed. It never worked. Why is free national health coverage so hard to offer today?

70

THE GOLDEN AGE

British History student.indb 70

1/31/12 1:30 PM

lesson 4

literatUre and art All genres of culture flourished under Elizabeth I’s reign, largely due to the Queen’s love of the arts. During the age of Elizabeth, painting was dominated by portraiture, particularly in the form of miniatures, while elaborate textiles and embroidery prevailed in the decorative arts. Elizabethans loved to adorn their tombs with statues of angels and biblical characters. Statues were often made of silver, a highly durable and rust-resistant metal. Demand for domestic silver significantly increased during the mid-sixteenth century because of rapid growth in population and subsequent expansion of the middle and upper classes. Elizabethan architecture was not merely utilitarian. It expressed wealth and status. Symmetry, the style of the English Renaissance, was the architectural motif of choice. Houses were tall and some had towers. These houses were accented by elaborate gardens and stables. Literature flourished too. Influenced by Italian sonnets, English writers of the period introduced complicated poetic structures in both verse and prose. For the first time, playwrights and authors could make a living merely by writing plays and poems. The sonnets and plays of William Shakespeare became exceptionally popular in England and eventually across Europe. Poets such as

Prince Arthur and the Fairy Queen by Johann Heinrich Füssli, c1788.

Edmund Spenser and John Milton produced works that demonstrated an increased interest in understanding English literature. They embraced Christian motifs, such as the allegorical representation of the Tudor Dynasty in The Faerie Queen and the retelling of mankind’s fall from paradise in Paradise Lost. These long narrative poems were the rage. England loved to read these stories. They were full of action and violence. Sir Guyon, for instance, in The Fairie Queen, slew dragons with bloody flair. They were full of sensuality. Likewise, in The Fairie Queen, the noble knight Red Cross was sorely tempted by seductive Elizabethan young ladies. THE GOLDEN AGE

British History student.indb 71

71

1/31/12 1:30 PM

Many of these action stories were written in installments and Elizabethan readers waited with bated breath for each new book to be written. Finally, several different instruments became popular during the Elizabethan era, including the lute (a forerunner of the guitar or cello), viol (predecessor to the violin), spinet (a piano-like instrument), bagpipe, fife and cornet (a short trumpet). Perhaps no people loved their monarch and their arts as fervently and completely as the Elizabethans.

Assignment Why did the arts flourish in Elizabethan England? Minstel playing a lute at a Renaissance Faire.

The Burghley House in Lincolnshire, England is a great example of classical Elizabethan architecture.

72

THE GOLDEN AGE

British History student.indb 72

1/31/12 1:30 PM

Chapter 9 the early stUarts

First Thoughts . . . After Elizabeth died James VI of Scotland becomes King James I of England. The accession of James I, of King James Bible fame, the son of Elizabeth’s cousin, Mary, united the crowns of England and Scotland. It also began a century of domestic conflict. This domestic conflict was primarily caused by a growing group of pietistic people who sought to “purify” the Church of England. They were called “Puritans.” The Puritans grew increasingly dissatisfied with the Church of England, which they felt was Roman Catholic in English garb. The Gunpowder Plot, a Roman Catholic conspiracy to blow up Parliament in 1605, confirmed English fears of Papists. As a result, James I cracked the whip and removed all religious freedom. Between 1630-43 large numbers of people emigrated from England as Archbishop Laud tried to impose uniformity on the church. Up to 60,000 people left, one-third of them to the new American colonies.

Chapter Learning Objectives . . . In chapter 9, we will look at the age of the Stuarts. We will observe poor, inept King James flounder during his entire reign, and, then, at the end, oversee one of the most important historical events in history: the creation of the King James Bible. Finally we will look at Stuart London as it emerges as one of the premier cities in Europe. As a result of this chapter you should be able to: 1. Analyze the history of the Stuart Period. 2. Discuss the Gunpowder Plot. 3. Describe life in Stuart London. 4. Evaluate the impact of the King James Bible on history. 5. Speculate upon causes of religious intolerance.

British History ch9.indd 73

2/1/12 10:23 AM

lesson 1

the early stUarts Elizabeth’s long and fruitful reign finally came to an end. The Virgin Queen died in March 1603 with James of Scotland declared as rightful heir. James journeyed to London to claim what he had longed for all his life, the throne of England. Behind him were the recalcitrant Scottish Presbyterians and dangerous court intrigue. King James was an answer to prayer for many Britons who had dreamed of and sought a union of Scotland and England for decades. James indeed strongly desired a union of his two kingdoms and the new national flag, the Union Jack, bore the crosses of St. Andrew and St. George. But though the Parliaments of both nations passed an Act of Union in 1607, it was a hundred years before a treaty was signed. After the glorious successes enjoyed under Elizabeth, marred by the failure to bring Ireland into her fold, there were many in England who had no wish to merge their identity with what they considered to be yet another second-rate nation, let alone an ingrate nation like Scotland that had been allied with Spain and France for such long periods in its history. Moderate as James considered himself in matters of religion, he still hated the Puritans and was glad to see them go. The consequent flight of many so-called Pilgrims to the Netherlands, and in 1620 their voyage from there to the New World, along with many of their compatriots from England, led to the establishment of the New England colonies. At the same time, while Queen Elizabeth tolerated small Catholic chapels and home church gatherings, King James required 74

James I of England In the background is the Banqueting House, Whitehall, by Paul van Somer, c1620 (PD-Art).

all Englishmen to attend the one and only true Church, the Church of England. Both Puritans and Catholics saw this as intolerable and were grateful to leave the mother country behind. Strike one against King James. Strike two was the awful way he administrated Ireland. It is to James that one can attribute much of the troubles in Ireland that continue to

the early stUarts

British History student.indb 74

1/31/12 1:30 PM

German print showing historical figures, scenes and symbols relating to the Thirty Years’ War, c1610 (PD-US).

divide Catholics and Protestants, Nationalists and Loyalists. Anxious to expand Scotland’s influence overseas, as well as to try to establish some sense of order in a country not willing to join Wales and Scotland as part of the British nation, the king unwisely encouraged the plantation of Ulster, beginning in 1610. Thousands of Scottish settlers settled on lands that rightly belonged to the native Catholic population. Their influence gave Ulster that staunchly Presbyterian Orange character that so strongly resisted attempts at Irish reunification. James also encouraged Scottish emigration to Arcadia, one of the maritime provinces of Canada, part of which became Nova Scotia (New Scotland). In other words, thousands of the best Englishmen left England for good. It wasn’t only the matter of a religion, nor the vexing problem of what to do with Ireland with which James had to deal. It was during his reign that the House of Commons first began to question the rights of the monarchy on matters of privilege. James lost much kingly ground as he negotiated with Parliament. James wasn’t a great foreign policy expert either. He tried hard to keep the peace in Europe. His daughter Princess Elizabeth married Frederick the Elector Palatine of the Rhine. He also wished to marry his surviving son Charles, to the Spanish princess Donna Maria, but the German Catholic

League, supported by Spain, drove the Protestant Frederick out of his lands. To avoid war, Prince Charles visited Madrid to court the princess but was turned down. The Thirty Years’ War began with England’s disastrous attempt to recover German territory for Frederick and Elizabeth. The scholarly and intelligent James, the most learned of all who sat on the throne of England, so full of promise when he came to the throne, and so disappointed by so many failures at the end of his reign, died in 1625. The failures on the Continent, and in the struggle with Parliament continued in the reign of Charles l. The success of The King James Authorized Version, however, remained a magnificent legacy of the James l, the unfortunate monarch (Preston Williams).

Assignment In spite of his best efforts, why was the reign of King James basically ineffectual?

the early stUarts

British History ch9.indd 75

75

1/31/12 4:12 PM

lesson 2

the gUnpowder plot When James I became king there was significant religious discord. The country was highly polarized along religious lines. Radicals of both the Roman Catholic and Puritan camps had high hopes that the new king would champion their causes. Both sides were destined for disappointment; James embraced the more orthodox Church of England. During the journey south from Edinburgh, James was presented with the Millenary Petition, signed by a thousand clergymen. The Petition called for relaxation of Episcopal rules in favor of Puritan views. The king called the Hampton Court Conference to hear arguments on the points raised by the Petition. At Hampton Court the claims of the Nonconformists were rejected almost without exception. James agreed only to keep Roman Catholicism on the periphery of English society. However, not only were the rules governing church government left alone, new laws were passed which enforced those regulations even more strictly. Despite James’ rancor

toward the Puritans, Parliament itself was highly sympathetic to the Puritan cause. Nonetheless, if James would not allow Roman Catholicism formally to return to England (Catholic Churches were banned), James, whose late mother was a fervent Catholic, was disposed to be tolerant of the Catholic cause; certainly he favored an end to hostilities with Catholic Spain. Unfortunately for the Catholics, however, two unsuccessful Catholic plots caused James to banish all Catholic priests from the kingdom. Meanwhile, King James instituted a law that angered non-conformists (mostly Puritans) and Catholics alike. Things got worse. Everyone had to attend the Church of England on a regular basis or they would be fined. Finally, A group of Catholic extremists led by an English Roman Catholic gentleman named Sir Robert Catesby decided that the only hope for their cause lay in killing the king.

Eight of the thirteen conspirators, by Crispijn van de Passe, date unknown (PD-US).

76

THE GOLDEN AGE

British History student.indb 76

1/31/12 1:30 PM

The Execution of Guy Fawkes’ by Claes (Nicolaes) Jansz Visscher, 1916 (PD-US).

The Gunpowder Plot of 1605 was an attempt to kill James I, king of England, and Parliament. Catholic conspirators led by Catesby placed kegs of gunpowder in the cellars of the Parliament Buildings on the night of November 4, 1605. The conspirators included Catesby, Thomas Percy, Thomas Wintour, John Wright and Guy Fawkes. They planned to ignite the gunpowder when James, his eldest son, Prince Henry, and Queen Ann attended the opening of Parliament the following day. One of the conspirators, Guy Fawkes, was to stand by and ignite it at the right moment. At first the men hired lodgings near the Parliament buildings and attempted to tunnel into the cellars of Parliament. The tunnel scheme was quickly abandoned, however, either because of water from the Thames seeping into the tunnel, or because the going proved too difficult. Instead, Thomas Percy used his influence to gain access to cellars beneath Parliament, and into these cellars they secretly brought 36 barrels of gunpowder, which they carefully hid. This was certainly more than enough to kill everyone in the building! On October 26, 1605, the whole conspiracy began to unravel. A mysterious letter was sent to Lord Monteagle, a former Catholic supporter, warning him not to attend the opening of Parliament set for November 5. Monteagle, however, at once passed the letter on to Robert Cecil, the king’s chief secretary. The conspirators found out about the letter;

indeed they blamed one another for writing it. But still, they did not cancel their plans, convinced that the government knew nothing. On the night of November 4, Guy Fawkes was found in the cellar with the gunpowder. Fawkes was forced under torture to reveal the names of his fellow conspirators, all of whom were arrested. Robert Catesby, Percy, and Wright were killed while attempting to evade arrest, but on January 27, 1606, Fawkes and seven others were brought to trial. They were all executed. In the climate of fear and paranoia following the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot, Cecil and his supporters were able to pass restrictive anti-Catholic legislation. Also, fear of Catholic plots was a constant theme throughout the Stuart years. The Gunpowder Plot is remembered each year on Guy Fawkes Night, November 5, when human effigies called “guys” are joyfully burned on bonfires across England (www.britannia.com).

Assignment Assuming the Gunpowder Plot worked, would it really have made a difference?

the early stUarts

British History ch9.indd 77

77

1/31/12 4:12 PM

lesson 3

stUart london The big news in London during King James’ reign was clean water. Londoners were delighted at the completion in 1613 of the New River Head at Finsbury. This was a massive engineering project collecting clean water from 40 miles away and bringing it to large cisterns at Finsbury, a district of central London, before final delivery to the city in “pipes” made of hollowed elm trunks. In 1637 Charles I, in one of the few gestures of his life that may have swayed public opinion his way, opened the royal reserve of Hyde Park to the public. This was the first royal park to be made public. Finsbury forest and park were loved by Londoners for two centuries. If Charles was looking for support, he didn’t get it from Londoners. The City financed the Parliamentary war efforts in the English Civil War, and Charles was eventually beheaded outside Indigo Jones’ Banqueting House in Whitehall. The Protectorate and Commonwealth that followed Charles’ death saw a concerted effort by Puritan extremists to quench Londoner’s appetite for the bawdier aspects of life. Theater was banned, as was dancing and just about anything else enjoyable. Churches had their organs and choirs removed. Night life definitely had seen better days! But when the restoration of the Monarchy brought Charles II to the throne in 1660 the pendulum swung back the other way with a vengeance. Riotous entertainment was

once more in fashion. Theater was not only admissible, it even earned royal approval—Theatre Royal Drury Lane gained the royal warrant in 1665. The city entered a period of extensive building development, and new residential squares were laid out for the aristocracy to live in. St. James Square was the first of these, and the districts of St. James, Mayfair, and Marylebone became areas for the well-heeled to live. The Stuart period is sadly dominated by two disasters, the Great Plague and the Great Fire. In 1665 the plague broke out in the city, brought by ship from Holland. London had been no stranger to the plague since the Middle Ages, but this was something different—a strain so virulent that sufferers could catch it and die within hours. The city descended into a state of panic. Sufferers were locked in their houses, along with their families. It was thought that dogs and cats spread the disease, so the Lord Mayor ordered them all killed. Thus, with one stroke, the natural enemies of the rats who were the true carriers were decimated. Throughout the very long, dry summer of 1665 the plague raged in London. The court fled, most doctors and priests followed, and anyone with the means to leave, left quickly. Although the worst of the plague died by autumn, it was not until the next great calamity cleansed the filthy streets of London that the plague was truly over. Estimates

Visscher’s view of London by Claes Van Visscher, 1616 (PD-US).

78

THE GOLDEN AGE

British History student.indb 78

1/31/12 1:30 PM

Hyde Park corner, London, England, Moffett Studio, c1909 (PD-US).

of the death toll range from 70,000 to well over 100,000 lives. The second calamity was the Great Fire. On the night of September 2, 1666 a small fire, perhaps started by the carelessness of a maid, started in the shop of the king’s baker in Pudding Lane. Fanned by a strong wind, the fire soon became an inferno. For four days the fire raged through the close-packed streets of wooden houses until the wind died. The toll of the fire was immense. Although only eight lives were lost, fully four-fifths of the city was completely destroyed, including 13,000 buildings, 89 churches, 52 company halls, and old St. Paul’s Cathedral. Within days, Christopher Wren presented a plan for rebuilding the city with broad boulevards and open squares replacing narrow alleys. Wren’s plan, though, was simply too costly, and people being people, new buildings were built along the same street pattern as before. This was the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde London that evolved into the smoggy London of the 19th century. Wren was, however, given the task of rebuilding the churches, including St. Paul’s Cathedral. Most of the churches in London today are Wren’s work, and it is difficult to find churches that date to the period before the fire (verbatim from www.britainexpress).

Assignment Describe life in Stuart London. Model of the Old St. Paul’s Cathedral in the Museum of London. This model was made for the White City Exhibition in 1908 by J. B. Thorpe. Old-St-Paulmodel.jpg: Steven G. Johnson, derivative work: Bob Castle (talk), 2010 (CC BY-SA 3.0).

the early stUarts

British History student.indb 79

79

1/31/12 1:30 PM

lesson 4

the king james bible

out, according to James, “so that our said intended translation may have the help and furtherance of all our principal learned men within this our kingdom.” Fifteen general rules were followed by the translators:

As the reign of Elizabeth (1558-1603) was coming to a close, an act of Parliament called for a new version of the Bible: “An act for the reducing of diversities of bibles now extant in the English tongue to one settled vulgar translated from the original.” The Bishop’s Bible of 1568, although it may have eclipsed the Great Bible, was still rivalled by the Geneva Bible. Nothing ever became of this draft during the reign of Elizabeth, who died in 1603, and was succeeded by James I, as the throne passed from the Tudors to the Stuarts. One of the first things done by the new king was the calling of the Hampton Court Conference in January of 1604 “for the hearing, and for the determining, things pretended to be amiss in the church.” Here were assembled bishops, clergymen, and professors, along with four Puritan divines, to consider the complaints of the Puritans. Although Bible revision was not on the agenda, John Reynolds, “moved his Majesty, that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed in the reigns of Henry the eighth, and Edward the sixth, were corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the Original.” King James, who despised the Puritans, agreed. In July of 1604, James wrote to Bishop Bancroft that he had “appointed certain learned men, to the number of four and fifty, for the translating of the Bible.” These men were the best biblical scholars and linguists of their day. In the preface to their completed work it is further stated that “there were many chosen, that were greater in other men’s eyes than in their own, and that sought the truth rather than their own praise. Again, they came or were thought to come to the work, learned, not to learn.” Other men were sought 80

1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit. 2. The names of the Prophets, and the Holy Writers, with the other Names of the Text, to be retained, as nigh as may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly used. 3. The Old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz. the Word Church not to be translated Congregation &c. 4. When a Word hath divers Significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most of the Ancient Fathers, being agreeable to the Propriety of the Place, and the Analogy of the Faith. 5. The Division of the Chapters to be altered, either not at all, or as little as may be, if Necessity so require. 6. No Marginal Notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek Words, which cannot without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the Text. 7. Such Quotations of Places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit Reference of one Scripture to another. 8. Every particular Man of each Company, to take the same Chapter or Chapters, and having translated or amended them severally by himself, where he thinketh good, all to meet together, confer what they have done, and agree for their Parts what shall stand.

the early stUarts

British History student.indb 80

1/31/12 1:30 PM

9. As any one Company hath dispatched any one Book in this Manner they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judiciously, for His Majesty is very careful in this Point. 10. If any Company, upon the Review of the Book so sent, doubt or differ upon any Place, to send them Word thereof; note the Place, and withal send the Reasons, to which if they consent not, the Difference to be compounded at the general Meeting, which is to be of the chief Persons of each Company, at the end of the Work. 11. When any Place of special Obscurity is doubted of, Letters to be directed by Authority, to send to any Learned Man in the Land, for his Judgement of such a Place. 12. Letters to be sent from every Bishop to the rest of his Clergy, admonishing them of this Translation in hand; and to move and charge as many skilful in the Tongues; and having taken pains in that kind, to send his particular Observations to the Company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford. 13. The Directors in each Company, to be the Deans of Westminster, and Chester for that Place; and the King’s Professors in the Hebrew or Greek in either University. 14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops Bible: Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Coverdale’s, Whitchurch’s, Geneva. 15. Besides the said Directors before mentioned, three or four of the most Ancient and Grave Divines, in either of the Universities, not employed in Translating, to be assigned by the vice-Chancellor, upon Conference with the rest of the Heads, to be Overseers of the Translations as well Hebrew as Greek, for the better observation of the 4th Rule above specified. The completed work was issued in 1611, the complete title page reading: “THE HOLY BIBLE, Conteyning the Old Testament, and the New: Newly Translated out of the Original tongues: & with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties Special Commandment. Appointed to be read in Churches. Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. ANNO DOM. 1611.”

Frontispiece to the Bishops Bible showing Elizabeth I holding the orb and sceptre in a border of strap-work, with the figures of Faith and Charity, and the royal coat of arms by Franz Hogenberg. 1568 (PD-US).

The Authorized Version eclipsed all previous versions of the Bible and is still widely preferred by Protestants worldwide (A Brief History of English Bible Translations by Dr. Laurence M. Vance).

Assignment In light of the fact that there were many extant copies of the Bible already (e.g., Geneva Bible), why did King James I feel compelled to authorize another translation?

the early stUarts

British History student.indb 81

81

1/31/12 1:30 PM

The title page to the 1611 first edition of the Authorized Version Bible by Cornelius Boel shows the Apostles Peter and Paul seated centrally above the central text, which is flanked by Moses and Aaron. In the four corners sit Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, authors of the four gospels, with their symbolic animals. The rest of the Apostles (with Judas facing away) stand around Peter and Paul. Printed by the Church of England, 1611 (PD-US).

82

the early stUarts

British History student.indb 82

1/31/12 1:30 PM

Chapter 10 the english civil war

First Thoughts . . . After Elizabeth died James VI of Scotland becomes King James I of England. He was able to postpone Parliamentary reform for a decade or two, but he knew, all England knew, it was coming. Parliament, and its Puritan allies, demanded more control over the British government. The new king, Charles I, would have none of it. He unwisely claimed divine rights and dismissed Parliament’s insistence on its own independent rights. Ultimately Charles I was forced to sign the Petition of Right in 1628. The petition, like the Magna Carta, forced Charles I to admit limitations on his authority. Charles I, to say the least, was unhappy. So Charles attempted to rule without Parliament from 1629 to 1640. Parliament rebelled and the English Civil War began. The king with his supporters, the Cavaliers, fought the Puritan majority of Parliament, called Roundheads in the English Civil War, and the Cavaliers lost.

Chapter Learning Objectives . . . In chapter 10, we will look at the reign of Charles I. Next, we will determine who the Puritans were. We will discuss the causes and results of the English Civil War, and, along the way, assess the impact that Cromwell had on this conflict. As a result of this chapter you should be able to: 1. Analyze the reign of Charles I. 2. Evaluate the outcome of the English Civil War. 3. Determine who the Puritans really were and assess their legacy. 4. Look at the life of Oliver Cromwell and decide if he was a fervent Christian or a cynical pragmatist. 5. Discuss if the Civil War was a religious conflict, or a fight for freedom, or both.

British History student.indb 83

1/31/12 1:30 PM

lesson 1

charles i

Charles I (1625-49) continued his father’s acrimonious relationship with Parliament, squabbling over the right to levy taxes. Parliament responded with the Petition of Right in 1628. It was the most dramatic assertion of the traditional rights of the English people since the Magna Carta. Its basic premise was that no taxes of any kind could be allowed without the permission of

Parliament. Henceforth, Parliament controlled the purse strings. King Charles was furious! In 1629 he dissolved Parliament and ruled without it for eleven years. Without the aid of Parliament, King Charles I basically had removed his civil arm. At the same time, between 1630-43 sixty-thousand people emigrated from England as Charles I forced English subjects strictly to conform to Church of England practices. Next, in 1634 Charles attempted to levy heavy taxes. This raised tremendous animosity throughout the realm. And it did not work. Finally Charles, desperate for money, summoned the so-called Short Parliament in 1640. Parliament refused to vote more money until its grievances were answered, and the king dismissed it after only three weeks. Then a rebellion broke out in Scotland and Charles was forced to call a new Parliament, dubbed the Long Parliament, which officially sat until 1660, to raise money to quell the rebellion. The Stuart nemesis— nemesis—Scottish Presbyterians— caused King Charles to remain in a recalcitrant position that continued to drive a wedge between himself and Parliament. A devout Episcopalian, he distrusted the Presbyterians and greatly mistrusted democratic assemblies, religious or not. As one who ruled by Divine right, he believed he had the sacred duty to bring the Scottish Church in line with the Church of England. It was an obligation that eventually would cost him his life. The first blow against the Presbyterians was Revocation decreed in 1625, which The Act of Revocation, restored the lands and titles to the Church which had been distributed among the Scottish Statue of King Charles I of England, Trafalgar Square, Westminster.

84

THE ENGLISH CIVIL WAR

British History student.indb 84

1/31/12 1:30 PM

ter.

Detail of John Knox in Edinburgh at the Reformation Wall in Geneva. Photo by Histoire, 2007 (CC BY-SA 3.0).

nobles during the upheavals of the Reformation. Next, Charles I demanded that religious practices in Scotland conform to the English model. The land of violent, non-conformist, John Knox was not about to conform to Charles’ wishes.

the autumn of 1643; the Scottish army was to attack the forces of Charles in England. The supporters of King Charles I were called Cavaliers; the supporters of Parliament were called Roundheads. The English Civil War had begun (Peter N. Williams).

It was as if Charles were deliberately setting out to antagonize everyone north of the border. His elaborate coronation as King of Scotland at St. Giles’ Cathedral in Edinburgh in 1633 was sufficiently “high church” to smack of popery and drove moderate Scots into the radical Presbyterian camp.

Assignment

In November 1638, Charles met with the General Assembly in Glasgow. The Presbyterian divines called the Book of Common Prayer “heathenish, Popish, Jewish and Armenian.” Charles I thought they were joking but when he discovered they were dead serious, he departed and waged war against Scotland. The short war waged was inconclusive and Charles I agreed to let Parliament settle the issue. Parliament sided with the Presbyterian rebels. The Grand Remonstrance presented by Parliament contained a long list of political and religious grievances. Charles had the audacity to try to arrest five members of Parliament but his attempts to locate them failed. The Parliament was now in open rebellion. The British Parliament asked the Scottish Parliament to stand with them against the King.

A. This era has also been called the Puritan Revolution because the religious complexion of the king’s opponents was overwhelmingly Puritan, and because the defeat of the king was accompanied by the abolition of episcopacy. That argument, however, overemphasizes the religious element at the expense of the constitutional issues and the underlying social and economic factors. What were some of these? B. Most historians blame Charles I for the English Civil War. When Charles Stuart was a young child, it seemed unlikely that he would survive, let alone become ruler of England and Scotland. Once shy and retiring, an awkward stutterer, he grew in stature and confidence. By all accounts he was a sincere, friendly, yet shy man who was not motivated by base motives. Discuss the causes of the English Civil War from his perspective.

Because the Covenanters—which is what Presbyterians called themselves—wanted to establish churches in Ireland and England, as well as in Scotland, the offer from the English Parliament was too good to refuse. The agreement known as the Solemn League and Covenant, was signed in THE ENGLISH CIVIL WAR

British History student.indb 85

85

1/31/12 1:30 PM

lesson 2

the english civil war

The English Civil War at first was no more than a few tentative skirmishes, as if both sides were uneasy about fighting fellow Englishmen. Most hoped that English good nature and compromise would yet prevail. The War began in earnest, however, when men like Oliver Cromwell turned local actions into total war. The turning point of the war was probably the Battle of Marston Moor (1644). Charles’ troops under his nephew Prince Rupert were soundly beaten by Cromwell, giving Parliament control of the north of England. At the same time, the Parliamentarian agenda was mixed with a radical Protestant agenda that made many uncomfortable. In 1645 Archbishop Laud, the caustic leader of the Anglican Church, was executed, and in the same year the Battle of Naseby ended royalist hopes. Hostilities dragged on for another year, and the Battle of Stow-on-the-Wold (1646) was the last armed conflict of the war. This was the cue for King Charles to compromise in a “Magna Carta” type compromise. Charles would not compromise and refused every proposal made by Parliament and the army for reform. He preferred to try to play them against each other through intrigue. He started a rebellion in Scotland. Finally, Charles was tried for treason in 1649, before a Parliament whose authority he refused to acknowledge. He was executed outside Indigo Jones’ (above, PD-US) Banqueting Hall at Whitehall on January 30. Not everyone wanted to live in an England without a king. True, they wanted a stronger Parliament, but they were not comfortable in removing the King altogether. In December, 1648, after the initial defeat of the royalist armies, many moderate Parliamentarians wanted to make peace with King Charles. The more militant army leaders were adamantly opposed to any conciliation with the king. They 86

British Civil War re-enactment

formed the so-called Rump Parliament. The Rump duly voted in favor of the trial and eventual execution of the king. The English Civil War had ended.

Assignment A. Why did the Roundheads eventually win the English Civil War? B. In the final analysis, who was right—the Parliamentarians or the Loyalists? Which side would you join?

THE ENGLISH CIVIL WAR

British History student.indb 86

1/31/12 1:30 PM

lesson 3

pUritanism Puritans was the name given in the 16th century to the more extreme Protestants within the Church of England who thought the English Reformation had not gone far enough in reforming the doctrines and structure of the church; they wanted to purify their national church by eliminating every aspect of Catholic influence. In the 17th century many Puritans emigrated to the New World, where they sought to found a holy commonwealth in New England. Puritanism remained the dominant cultural force in that area into the 19th century. Associated exclusively with no single theology or definition of the church (although many were Calvinists), the English Puritans were known at first for their extremely critical attitude regarding the religious compromises made during the reign of Elizabeth I. They called these compromises “popery.” Many of them were graduates of Cambridge University, and they became Anglican priests to make changes in their local churches. They encouraged direct personal religious experience, sincere moral conduct, and simple worship services. Worship was the area in which Puritans tried to change things most; their efforts in that direction were sustained by intense theological convictions and definite expectations about how seriously Christianity should be taken as the focus of human existence. Puritans, in a pietistic way, called their adherents to sustain a vital, warm relationship with the sovereign God. After James I became king of England in 1603, Puritan leaders asked him to grant several reforms. At the Hampton Court Conference (1604), however, he rejected most of their proposals, which included abolition of bishops. Puritanism gained much popular support early in the 17th century. The government and the church hierarchy, however, especially under Archbishop William Laud, became increasingly repressive, causing many Puritans to emigrate. Those who remained formed a powerful element within the Parliamentarian party that defeated Charles I in the English Civil War. After the war the Puritans remained

Hampton Court Palace, London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, Greater London.

dominant in England until 1660, but they quarrelled among themselves. The restoration of the monarchy (1660) restored Anglicanism, and the Puritan clergy were expelled from the Church of England under the terms of the Act of Uniformity (1662). Early in the 17th century some Puritan groups separated from the Church of England. Among these were the Pilgrims, the Separatists, who in 1620 founded Plymouth Plantation. Ten years later, under the auspices of the Massachusetts Bay Company, the first major Puritan migration to New England took place (Henry Warner Bowden).

Assignment Historian Perry Miller argued that Puritanism was an intellectual/religious movement whose impact could not be understood without understanding Puritan theology and world view. Later historians criticized Miller for over-intellectualizing Puritanism. They argued that motivation is better connected to social and political forces. In other words, the Puritans were motivated by their social agendas, not by their faith. What do you think? THE ENGLISH CIVIL WAR

British History student.indb 87

87

1/31/12 1:30 PM

lesson 4

oliver cromwell

Cromwell was the younger son of a knight, which meant that he had very little property. Cromwell grew up in the growing, moneyed, middle class. For the early part of his adult life, Oliver lived on his meager inheritance from his father. Then, in 1630, the failure of his business caused him to move to become a yeoman farmer. In 1630 Cromwell suffered what we would today term a mental breakdown. At the same time he underwent a powerful religious conversion to the Puritan cause. Now he struggled with what call God would place on his life. In the meantime Cromwell was elected to Parliament. He was a better yeoman farmer than he was a parliamentarian. By 1640 Cromwell was one of the most vituperative critics of royal policies. When the Civil War started, Cromwell was named a captain and was quickly promoted to a general. He was a natural military leader. Cromwell led his cavalry in some of the most vital battles of the Civil War. His horsemen were responsible for major contributions to the victories at Marston Moor (1644) and Naseby (1645). Cromwell embraced his causes with vigor. He would not tolerate any compromise with the king. On the other hand, Cromwell rigorously opposed the religious intolerance of the Presbyterians. Soon, Cromwell was the undisputed leader of the Parliamentarians. When the Civil War ended he became a prime minister of sorts (called a Protectorate). 88

He was a ruthless leader and cruelly quelled rebellions in Scotland and Ireland. Ironically, though, the Parliamentarian Cromwell found it very difficult to work with Parliament. Cromwell dissolved Parliament and became a sort of dictator himself. Several efforts were made to have him named king, but this Cromwell resisted firmly. His rule was a time of rigid social and religious laws on radical Protestant lines. On September 3, 1658, Oliver Cromwell died and was buried at Westminster Abbey. After abortive attempts by his son, Richard Cromwell, to govern, Charles II was called back from exile to resume the monarchy. In 1661 Oliver Cromwell’s body was exhumed from its grave and hanged. Then his head was cut off and put on public display for nearly 20 years outside Westminster Hall (www. britannia.com).

Assignment Cromwell brought a king to the scaffold. He executed thousands of Irish and Scottish rebels, all in the name of God. His last prayer was, “Thou hast made me, though very unworthy, a mean instrument to do Thy people some good service. . . .” But, did Cromwell go too far? What happens when well-intentioned Christians, even with a pure heart, overcome violence with violence?

Statue of Oliver Cromwell in St. Ives, Cambridgeshire, c1900.

THE ENGLISH CIVIL WAR

British History student.indb 88

1/31/12 1:31 PM

Chapter 11 the commonwealth

First Thoughts . . . King Charles I is dead. A national sense of guilt pervaded the nation. The execution of the king aroused hostility throughout Europe. Regicide was considered the worst of all crimes, and nothing could persuade European powers that the execution of Charles I was the right thing. Open season was declared against English. The English people rallied behind their new leader, Oliver Cromwell. A republic or commonwealth under the leadership of the parliament was established. That did not last long. Very quickly Oliver Cromwell assumed the supreme power in the Commonwealth and was given the title Lord Protector. After Cromwell’s death in 1658, the Commonwealth quickly lost power, and the restoration of the monarchy followed in 1660.

Chapter Learning Objectives . . . In chapter 11, we will examine several theories about the English Civil War and form our own conclusion. Next, we will look at the Commonwealth and ask ourselves, “Why did such a noble experiment turn so sour?” At the same time, we will examine the early days of the British Empire. Finally, we will dissect the most successful British stock option company of all time: the East India Company. As a result of this chapter you should be able to: 1. Examine historical debate surrounding the English Civil War and form an opinion about what really happened. 2. Discuss why the Commonwealth abandoned its egalitarian agenda and become an autocracy. 3. Appraise why in the midst of significant domestic turmoil, the English government was still able to support overseas expansion and colonization. 4. Analyze why the East India Company was so successful. 5. Evaluate some of the paradoxes and dilemmas the early Reformers faced.

British History student.indb 89

1/31/12 1:31 PM

lesson 1

historical debate: english civil war In the 18th and 19th centuries historians saw the English Civil War in light of developing democratic movements (e.g., the American and French Revolutions). This was hard to do, however, since this little war did not really create a new nation, but a newer version of an old nation. Nonetheless, the English Civil War was understood as a very positive development in world history. The Civil War, with all its excesses, was still a step forward on the road to individual liberty/ freedom. The conflict was understood as a crucial increase of power for Parliament and therefore the people. Charles I was the reactionary conservative who wanted to conserve and protect the status quo. Puritans were progressives who only wanted what was best for the masses. The religious element was only incidentally important. The Puritans were God-fearing, freedom-loving pragmatists who reluctantly rebelled against recalcitrant royalty. Karl Marx, writing in 19th century, saw the conflict as a class struggle for economic (and thus social) dominance in which two classes would eventually emerge: capitalists and proletariat. Historian Max Weber (above, PD-US) saw a rise of Protestantism and the growth of capitalism. In other words, a rejection of the authoritarianism of the loyalists presaged the Industrial Revolution in England. Protestantism emphasized individual choice and decisions without restriction and this was good for business. This stimulated the grown of a merchant and commercial class. In other words, the Civil War was an impetus for the increase of the merchant class. In the early 20th century another historical interpretation of the Civil War was less flattering toward the Parliamentarians and Puritans. Outbreak of war was the culmination of a devious Puritan agenda of religious intolerance—to inculcate their religiosity into the entire nation. Poor Charles I was the victim of duplicity and fanaticism. By 1642 he was unable to cope with a mix of complex 90

English Civil War Soldier

problems: finance, religion, and politics in his multi-faceted kingdoms. War was unnecessary but logical given the times.

Assignment What caused the English Civil War?

THE CommonwEalTH

British History student.indb 90

1/31/12 1:31 PM

lesson 2

the commonwealth

The Commonwealth of England was a republic which ruled first England, and then Ireland and Scotland from 1649 to 1660. The Commonwealth was ruled by The Protectorate, Oliver Cromwell and, after his death, his son Richard, Lord Protector. Cromwell ruled with Parliament but as an equal member. There was, of course, no king. Ironically, in spite of all their egalitarian principles, most Parliamentarians were minor nobility and less than one-quarter of them supported Charles I’s execution. Things did not go well at first. The nation faced a severe economic depression and the risk of invasion from Scotland and Ireland. Cromwell’s leadership, however, took care of all these threats. He was a poor administrator, but an inspired military leader. Though the national church was retained, the 1559 Act of Uniformity was repealed in 1650. Many independent churches were therefore tolerated, although everyone still had to pay taxes to the established Church of England. Remember that the Church was providing social welfare help for the English poor, so these taxes were necessary. Parliament kept most common laws (i.e., laws designed to keep the peace), but passed many restrictive “moral” laws to regulate people’s behavior, such as closing down theaters and requiring strict observance of the Sabbath. Ultimately, though, the Parliament overstepped its bounds and Cromwell dismissed Parliament on April 20, 1653. Now Cromwell and the army ruled alone. In effect, Cromwell had more power than the most despotic king. However, to his credit, Cromwell was uncomfortable in his new role. Therefore, he informally ruled through a “nominated assembly” which he believed would be easy for the army to control.

Oliver Cromwell by Samuel Cooper, date unknown (PD-US).

Assignment Why did the Commonwealth abandon its egalitarian agenda and become an autocracy?

When Cromwell died, his son Richard was too inept to rule, so, ultimately, the English people reverted back to a monarchy. THE Commonwealth

British History student.indb 91

91

1/31/12 1:31 PM

lesson 3

the early british empire

As jaded as the English domestic scene was, the search for an empire was progressing nicely. In 1496 King Henry VII of England, following the successes of Portugal and Spain, commissioned John Cabot to lead a voyage to discover a route to Asia via the North Atlantic. Cabot sailed in 1497, and though he successfully made landfall on the coast of Newfoundland there was no attempt to found a colony. Cabot led another voyage to the Americas the following year but nothing was heard from his ships again. No further attempts to establish English colonies in the Americas were made until well into the reign of Elizabeth I, during the last decades of the 16th century. The lost colony of Roanoke discouraged no one and further attempts of colonization were not long in coming. In 1603, King James VI (above) of Scotland ascended to the English throne and in 1604 negotiated the Treaty of London, ending hostilities with Spain. Now at peace with its main rival, English attention shifted to expansion overseas again. The British Empire began to take shape during the early 17th century, with the English settlement of North America (e.g., Jamestown) and the smaller islands of the Caribbean, and the establishment of a private company, the English East India Company, to trade with Asia. The Caribbean initially provided England’s most important and lucrative colonies, but not before several attempts at colonization failed. An attempt to establish a colony in Guiana in 1604 lasted only two years, and failed in its main objective to find gold deposits. Colonies in St. Lucia (1605) and Grenada (1609) also rapidly folded, but settlements were successfully established in St. Kitts (1624), Barbados (1627) and Nevis (1628). The colonies soon adopted the system of sugar plantations successfully used 92

by the Portuguese in Brazil, which depended on slave labor, and—at first—Dutch ships, to sell the slaves and buy the sugar. To ensure that the increasingly healthy profits of this trade remained in English mercantilist hands, Parliament decreed in 1651 that only English ships would be able to ply their trade in English colonies. This led to hostilities with the United Dutch Provinces—a series of Anglo-Dutch Wars—which would eventually strengthen England’s position in the Americas at the expense of the Dutch. In 1655, England annexed the island of Jamaica from the Spanish, and in 1666 succeeded in colonizing the Bahamas. The Newfoundland Company was created in 1610 with the aim of creating a permanent settlement on Newfoundland, but it was largely unsuccessful. In 1620, Plymouth was founded as a haven for Puritan religious separatists, later known as the Pilgrims. Maryland was founded as a haven for Roman Catholics (1634), Rhode Island (1636) as a colony tolerant of all religions and Connecticut (1639) for Congregationalists. The Province of Carolina was founded in 1663. With the surrender of Fort Amsterdam in 1664, England gained control of the Dutch colony of New Netherland, renaming it New York. By the time of the Restoration (i.e., the restoration of the monarch) England was well on the way to being the premier world power. The sun still set on the British Empire, but it was growing larger! The marriage of royal incentives and private investments was a winning combination that bode well for the future of English expansion.

Assignment In the midst of significant domestic turmoil, the English government was still able to support overseas expansion and colonization. How?

THE CommonwEalTH

British History student.indb 92

1/31/12 1:31 PM

lesson 4

the east india company

The East India Company was an early English joint-stock company that was formed initially for pursuing trade with the East Indies (in Asia), but that ended up trading mainly with the Indian subcontinent and China. The oldest among several similarly formed European East India Companies, the Company was granted an English Royal Charter by Elizabeth I in 1600. The East India Company traded mainly in textiles, indigo dye, and tea. However, it also came to rule large sections of India, exercising military power and assuming administrative functions, to the exclusion, gradually, of its commercial pursuits. Initially, the Company struggled in the spice trade due to the competition from the already well-established Dutch. However, high profits prompted King James I to grant subsidiary licenses to other trading companies in England. But, in 1609, he renewed the charter given to the Company for an indefinite period, including a clause which specified that the charter would cease to be in force if the trade turned unprofitable for three consecutive years. East Indian English traders frequently fought with their Dutch and Portuguese counterparts in the Indian Ocean. The Company ultimately prevailed and had a monopoly on Indian tea imports for much of the 17th century. In 1634, the Mughal emperor extended his hospitality to the English traders to the region of Bengal (and in 1717 completely waived customs duties for the trade). In 1657, Oliver Cromwell renewed the charter of 1609, and brought about minor changes in the holding of the Company. The status of the Company was further enhanced by the restoration of monarchy in England.

Sir James Lancaster commanded the first East India Company voyage in 1601, artist unknown, 1596 (PD-US).

Assignment Why was the East India Company so successful?

The East India Company is a perfect example of how government and private enterprise worked together to create a prosperous business.

THE ENGLISH CIVIL WAR

British History student.indb 93

93

1/31/12 1:31 PM

Oliver Cromwell by Robert Walker, c1649 (PD-Art).

94

THE Commonwealth

British History student.indb 94

1/31/12 1:31 PM

Chapter 12 the restoration

First Thoughts . . . With the failure of the Commonwealth, England stage a sort of “restoration” of the monarch and invited the deceased and beheaded King Charles I’s son, Charles II, to reclaim the throne. And so he did. The Restoration was a decade of new things: from the founding of the royal society for investigating the sciences to the startling role of credit and risk; from the shocking licentiousness of the court to failed attempts at religious tolerance. Negotiating all these, Charles II, the quintessential Teflon sovereign, returning from France to the walls of Dover, took chances, and ignored all protocol to accomplish his goals. But he was no liberal, no enlightened dilletante. The theaters may have been restored, but the king himself was the supreme actor. Charles II was an ultra-conservative. He intended to take England back to his father’s reign, and way beyond. He was not a religious man, he did not want to restore Roman Catholicism, but he wanted the monarch to assume more authority than an Anglo-Saxon sovereign. But there was no turning back. Certainty had vanished. The divinity of kingship had ended with his father’s beheading. “Honor” was now a word tossed around in duels. “Providence” could no longer be trusted. As the country was rocked by plague, fire, and war, people searched for new ideas by which to live. And exactly ten years after he arrived, Charles would again stand on the shore at Dover, this time unsure what happened in Camelot.

Chapter Learning Objectives . . . In chapter 12, we will look at the controversial reign of Charles II. Next, we will look at his kingdom, especially the city of London. We will examine Irish history and how it was impacted by British politics. Finally, we will examine several aberrant world views and compare them to Scripture. As a result of this chapter you should be able to: 1. Appraise Charles II’s contribution to world history. 2. Analyze the effect of the Great Fire of London in 1666. 3. Explain why the English continued to dominate Irish politics until the 20th century. 4. Evaluate warring world views in the Restoration period.

British History student.indb 95

1/31/12 1:31 PM

lesson 1

the restoration

The Restoration of the monarchy began in 1660 when the English, Scottish and Irish monarchies were all restored under Charles II’s rule. The Protectorate, or Commonwealth, which had preceded the English Restoration might have continued if Oliver Cromwell’s son Richard, who had assumed leadership on his father’s death, had been a capable ruler. But he wasn’t. The leviathan that his father unleashed now turned and killed his son. After seven months the army removed him, and on May 6, 1659 it reinstalled a full (vs. Rump) Parliament. For a short season Parliament ruled England with no king. Finally, though, Parliament asked the son of Charles I, Charles II, to rule England. Charles II insisted that his reign began at the death of Charles I several years ago. He was crowned at Westminster Abbey on April 23, 1661. The Cavalier Parliament, or pro-royalist parliament, convened for the first time on May 8, 1661, and it would remain in power for over 17 years. Many royalist exiles returned and were rewarded. The Indemnity and Oblivion Act, which became law on August 29, 1660, pardoned all past treason against the crown, but specifically excluded those involved in the trial and execution of Charles I. In fact, 31 of the 59 commissioners who had signed the death warrant were living. They were all executed. Oliver Cromwell was posthumously convicted of high treason. Charles’s parliament enacted laws such as the Clarendon Code, designed to shore up the position of the re-established Church of England. The major foreign policy issue of Charles’s early reign was the Second Anglo-Dutch War. In 1670, Charles entered into the secret treaty of Dover, an alliance with his first cousin King Louis XIV of France. Louis agreed to aid Charles in the Third Anglo-Dutch War and Charles secretly promised to convert to Roman Catholicism. 96

The Dutch burning English ships during the Raid on the Medway in the Second Anglo-Dutch War by Jan van Leyden, c1667 (PD-US).

Charles attempted to introduce religious freedom for Catholics and Protestant dissenters with his 1672 Royal Declaration of Indulgence, but the English Parliament forced him to withdraw it. The crisis saw the birth of the pro-exclusion Whig and anti-exclusion Tory parties. The proexclusion Whigs tried to keep Roman Catholics out of all public offices. The antiexclusion Tories favored returning Roman Catholics to public office. Charles sided with the Tories. Charles dissolved the English Parliament in 1681, and ruled alone until his death on February 6, 1685. He converted to Roman Catholicism on his deathbed.

Assignment Most historians today see Charles II in a very unsympathetic light. They are convinced that Charles was a spoiled, self-centered, indulgent monarch who cared for no one but himself. In The Last Rally, 19th century historian Hilaire Belloc disagreed. Restored to the throne following the interlude of Cromwell’s Commonwealth, Charles II devoted his life as k ing of England to maintaining the integrity of the throne against all the forces arrayed against it. The story that Belloc brings to life is thus one of survival: the story of a ship of state brought “through peril and storm under a great captain.” Which interpretation is correct?

THE restoration

British History student.indb 96

1/31/12 1:31 PM

lesson 2

great fire of london

The Great Fire of London of September 1666 was one of the most devastating events in London’s history. It was the second tragedy to hit the city in one year. Just as the city was recovering from the Great Plague, the inhabitants had to flee the city once again—this time not to escape a hidden enemy but to escape a raging conflagration. The Great Fire of London, historians argue, left a far greater mark on the city when compared to the plague. The fire started in a baker’s shop owned by the king’s baker. His maid failed to put out the ovens at the end of the night. The heat ignited the baker’s wooden home. Once it started, the fire spread quickly. The city was basically made out of wood. Those who could get out of the city did so. Many gathered on nearby hills in Hampstead in North London. The heat created by the fire was so great that the lead roof on the old St. Paul’s Cathedral melted. Many saw the lead flowing down the streets. The Great Fire had burned down 84 churches and the

old St. Paul’s; however, it had also destroyed the filthy streets associated with the Great Plague. The Fleet, a “tributary” that flowed into the Thames, was nothing more than an open sewer carrying disease. The fire effectively boiled the Fleet and sterilized it. Slums were simply burned away. In this sense, the fire did London a favor. Samuel Pepys kept a diary of the event. For the September 2nd entry, he wrote: September 2nd: Jane (his maid) comes and tells us that she hears that above 300 houses have been burned down by the fire . . . poor people staying in their houses as long as till the very fire touched them, and then running into boats or clambering from one pair of stairs by the waterside, to another . . . I saw a fire as one entire arch of fire above a mile long: it made me weep to see it. The churches, houses are all on fire and flaming at once, and a horrid noise the flames made and the cracking of the houses (www.luminarium.org).

Assignment Why was the Great London Fire of 1666 a mixed blessing?

Old St. Paul’s Cathedral in ruins after the Great Fire of London (1666) by Thomas Wyck, c1673 (PD-US).

THE restoration

British History student.indb 97

97

1/31/12 1:31 PM

lesson 3

the history of ireland

Before the 13th century Ireland was only of tangental interest to England. However, in the early 13th century the English extended their control over all of Ireland except Western Ulster (Northern Ireland). The first Irish parliament was called in 1264 but it represented only the Irish ruling class, which was strongly pro-English. Henry VII (1485–1509) forced the Irish Parliament to meet only with the permission of the English king and could only pass laws previously approved by the king and his ministers. Henry VIII (1509–1547) continued his father’s policy but was more diplomatic—no doubt something that was difficult for Henry VIII. In 1536 the Irish Parliament agreed to make Henry head of the Irish Church (although the Protestant Reformation made little headway in Ireland and the country remained overwhelmingly Catholic). In 1541 the Irish Parliament agreed to recognize Henry VIII as king of Ireland. Henry’s son Edward VI (1547–1553) gave Irish land to his friends. Queen Mary continued these policies. Elizabeth accelerated the process and even sponsored punitive expeditions against Irish rebels. Finally, in 1593, rebellion broke out in Ulster (Northern Ireland). Hugh O’Neil, the Earl of Tyrone, joined the rebellion in 1595. At first the rebellion was successful. The rebels won a great victory at Yellow Ford in 1598. However O’Neil was severely defeated at the battle of Kinsale in 1601. The rebellion ended in 1603. After the rebellion O’Neil was, at first, treated leniently. He was allowed to return to his land. However after 1605, English attitudes hardened. In 1607 Hugh O’Neil and Rory O’Donnell, the Earl of Tyrconnell, fled to France with their supporters. This event became known as the flight of the Earls. James I aggressively encouraged Protestants to settle in Northern Ireland (Ulster). By the end of his reign, in fact, Ulster was a Protestant nation. 98

Charles II of England by Sir Peter Lely, c1675 (PD-Art).

Oliver Cromwell was determined to crush Irish resistance and impose Protestantism in all of Ireland. He also sought revenge for the massacres of 1641, when Catholics had murdered English Protestants in Ulster. When Cromwell captured Drogheda in 1649, the defenders were massacred. A similar massacre took place in Wexford. By 1651 all of Ireland was in English hands. In 1660 Charles II became king of England and Scotland. At first it looked as if he would undo the confiscation of Irish land; however, the king did nothing to ameliorate English and Irish relations.

Assignment Why did the English continue to dominate Irish politics until the 20th century?

THE restoration

British History student.indb 98

1/31/12 1:31 PM

lesson 4

philosophers and world view Benedictus de Spinoza (1632-1677)

human morality arose from self-interest. Also, he argued that there was a sort of “commonality” and “community” that arose among men as we all sought our selfish ends. The concept “selfish community” is an oxymoron. In brief, Spinoza sought to discuss theological issues with philosophical terminology. It failed. It may have worked for Plato, who had never known the Living God of the Old and New Testaments, but it would never work for Spinoza, who knew the God of the Bible. And it would not work for later philosophers (e.g., David Hume). Spinoza: The perfection of things is to be reckoned only from their own nature and power; things are not more or less perfect, according as they delight or offend human senses, or according as they are serviceable or repugnant to mankind.

John Locke (1632-1704)

Benedictus de Spinoza by Ernst Hader, 1884 (PD-US0).

Spinoza argued that human morality arose from self-interest. Spinoza, an intellectual child of the Enlightenment, attempted to develop an ethical system from the existential rationalism of Descartes. It will never happen! One does not pull a moral, ethical system from a rational hat. Spinoza, beginning with that thesis, went downhill. He argued that

Locke believed in reasoning and common sense, rather than in metaphysics. He regarded the mind of a person at birth as a tabula rasa—a blank slate upon which experience imprinted knowledge—and did not believe in the subjective. Locke believed in unalienable rights, rights that were given by God or another absolute power and were not given by government. If government did not give these rights, then it could not take them away. Inherent in Lockian thought was the notion that people were basically good. It followed, then, since people were basically good, the best government was government that governed the least. Excerpts from Some Thoughts Concerning Education, John Locke: If severity carried to the highest pitch does prevail, and works a cure upon the present unruly distemper, it often brings in the room of it a worse and more dangerous disease, by breaking the mind; and THE restoration

British History student.indb 99

99

1/31/12 1:31 PM

A Portrait of John Locke, lithograph by de Fonroug[...] after H. Garnier, date unknown (PD-US).

then, in the place of a disorderly young fellow, you have a low spirited moped creature, who, however with his unnatural sobriety he may please silly people, who commend tame inactive children, because they make no noise, nor give them any trouble; yet at last, will probably prove as uncomfortable a thing to his friends, as he will be all his life an useless thing to himself and others. Beating them, and all other sorts of slavish and corporal punishments, are not the discipline fit to be used in the education of those we would have wise, good, and ingenuous men; and therefore very rarely to be applied, and that only in great occasions, and cases of extremity. On the other side, to flatter children by rewards of things that are pleasant to them, is as carefully to be avoided. He that will give to his son apples or sugarplums, or what else of this kind he is most delighted with, to make him learn his book, does but authorize his love of pleasure, and cocker up that dangerous propensity, which he ought by all means to subdue and stifle in him. You can never hope to teach him to master it, whilst you compound for the check you gave his inclination in one place, by the satisfaction you propose to it in another. To make a good, a wise, and a virtuous man, ‘tis fit he 100

THE restoration

British History student.indb 100

should learn to cross his appetite, and deny his inclination to riches, finery, or pleasing his palate, whenever his reason advises the contrary, and his duty requires it. But when you draw him to do anything that is fit by the offer of money, or reward the pains of learning his book by the pleasure of a luscious morsel; when you promise him a lace-cravat or a fine new suit, upon performance of some of his little tasks; what do you by proposing these as rewards, but allow them to be the good things he should aim at, and thereby encourage his longing for ‘em, and accustom him to place his happiness in them? Thus people, to prevail with children to be industrious about their grammar, dancing, or some other such matter, of no great moment to the happiness or usefulness of their lives, by misapplied rewards and punishments, sacrifice their virtue, invert the order of their education, and teach them luxury, pride, or covetousness. For in this way, flattering those wrong inclinations which they should restrain and suppress, they lay the foundations of those future vices, which cannot be avoided but by curbing our desires and accustoming them early to submit to reason.

Assignment A. Christians can readily agree with Spinoza, and disagree with him, at the same time. How? B. On one level Christians agree with Locke (like Spinoza). On another level Christians have to reject Locke’s thoughts. Explain.

Samuel Pepys by John Hayls, 1666 (PD-Art).

1/31/12 1:31 PM

Chapter 13 the glorioU s revolU tion

First Thoughts . . . The Glorious Revolution was the 1688 overthrow of James II. It is sometimes called the Bloodless Revolution, although there was fighting and loss of life in Ireland and Scotland. Historians argue James’s overthrow was an important stage in the evolution of modern English parliamentary democracy; never again would the monarch pretend to hold absolute power and the Declaration of Rights became one of the most important documents in the political history of Britain. The deposition of the Roman Catholic James II ended any chance of Catholicism becoming re-established in England, and also led to limited toleration for nonconformist Protestants.

Chapter Learning Objectives . . . In chapter 13, we will look at the Glorious Revolution, which was bloodless unless you were Irish, Scottish, or Catholic. We will discuss the causes and outcomes of this revolution and compare and contrast the American Bill of Rights with the English Declaration of Rights. Next, we will discuss the role of 17th century English women. We will find that they had a vital, irreplaceable role in English society. Finally, we will be amazed at how important and vital one committed Christian can be on Western society. As a result of this chapter you should be able to: 1. Explain why the Glorious Revolution was bloodless. 2. Compare and contrast the American Bill of Rights with the English Declaration of Rights. 3. Analyze the role of women in 17th-century English society. 4. Evaluate different historical views of the Glorious Revolution. 5. Discuss the outcome of the Glorious Revolution.

British History student.indb 101

1/31/12 1:31 PM

lesson 1

the glorioUs revolUtion The story of the Glorious Revolution is the story of folly and inspiration. On December 11, 1688, James II, king of England, arose from his bed in Whitehall Palace. He dressed as a commoner and escaped from the palace through a secret passage. Attended by a handful of servants, the King boarded a rowboat on the Thames River. The Glorious Revolution had begun. The Glorious Revolution checked the power of the monarchy, paved the way for the rise of cabinet government and parliamentary democracy, and resulted in enactment of the English Bill of Rights-some of whose provisions later found their way into the American Bill of Rights. King James II, England’s last Roman Prince of Orange Landing at Torbay, engraving by William Miller after J M W Turner (Rawlinson 739), Catholic sovereign, lost his throne in published in The Art Journal 1852 (New Series Volume IV). George Virtue, London, 1852 (PD-US). December 1688, and the English crown was transferred to his own son-in-law and daughter respectively, William and Mary, Prince and away. Support for William grew all over the country, while Princess of Orange in the Netherlands, who on Feb. 13, 1689 support for James II evaporated. James escaped to France. began ruling England jointly as King William III and Queen William and Mary assumed the throne and the Glorious Revolution had ended almost before it began (Donald E. Mary II. Wilkes). The crowning blow was King James II’s only son. Since the baby was sure to be raised Catholic, the people of England now faced the grim prospect that James II’s unpopular and unlawful policies would survive him. One Stuart Roman Assignment Catholic was all that England would tolerate. Many historians argue that only in a constitutional monarMeanwhile, William, Prince of Orange, quietly waited chy could a bloodless, “glorious” revolution occur. Agree or with his bride, King James II’s daughter, Mary. With encour- disagree. agement from James II’s enemies, William was quietly planning to invade England. In fact, he had gathered a fleet of 50 warships. He brought his army to England. Once his army was safely on English soil, William began an unhurried march toward London, less than 200 miles 102

the glorioUs revolUtion

British History student.indb 102

1/31/12 1:31 PM

lesson 2

the declaration of rights: febrUary 13, 1689 The Declaration of Rights was a statement that parliament made William of Orange and his wife Mary accept before they were allowed to take the throne. It was later written into the English Bill of Rights and made part of the English Constitution. The main points in the Declaration of Rights: • Only Parliament may collect taxes • Laws are only made with Parliament’s approval • National defense must be approved by Parliament • People may petition to the government • Parliament may say what it wishes without being persecuted • Everyone may bear arms • Parliament cannot be dissolved without its own approval • The judicial system must have the following things:



•

Fast trial system





•

Trial by peers





•

Reasonable bail





•

Parliament is to be freely elected

Whereas the late King James II, by the assistance of diverse evil counsellors, judges, and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of the kingdom. Here are some of the rights: • By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws, and the execution of laws, without the consent of Parliament. • By committing and prosecuting divers worthy prelates for humbly petitioning to be excused concurring to the said assumed power. • By issuing and causing to be executed a commission under the Great Seal for erecting a court called the Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes.

• By levying money for and to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, for other time and in other manner than the same was granted by Parliament. • By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace without the consent of Parliament and quartering soldiers contrary to the law. • By causing several good subjects, being Protestants, to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to the law. • By violating the freedom of election by members to serve in Parliament. • By prosecutions in the Court of King’s Bench for matters and causes cognizable only in parliament; and by divers other arbitrary and illegal courses. And whereas of late years, partial, corrupt, and unqualified persons have been returned and served on juries in trials, and particularly diverse jurors in trials for high treason, which were not freeholders. • Excessive bail hath been required of persons committed in criminal cases, to elude the benefit of laws made for the liberty of the subjects. And excessive fines have been imposed; and illegal and cruel punishments inflicted. And several grants and promises made of fines and forfeitures, before any conviction or judgment against the persons, upon whom the same were to be levied. • That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament. • That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed; nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Assignment Compare and contrast the American Bill of Rights with the English Declaration of Rights. the glorioUs revolUtion

British History student.indb 103

103

1/31/12 1:31 PM

lesson 3

women dUring the glorioUs revolUtion In the 17th century the professions (teacher, lawyer, doctor) were closed to women. However some women had jobs. Some of them worked with cloth—spinning, dying, and mending. Women could be hired as domestic help. Also women were midwives. However, most women were housewives. They were vital elements of the home. They were the generalists—they did everything from childcare to doctoring to plowing. Seventeenth century farms were largely self-sufficient. Women made that possible. A housewife baked her family’s bread and brewed their beer. She was also responsible for curing bacon, and making pickles and jellies. The mom also made candles and soap, she spun wool and linen, she milked the cows, tended the family garden, cleaned the house and washed the family’s clothing—clothing she probably sewed herself! Nobody could afford a doctor, so the housewife had to treat her family’s illnesses. If she could not, they would go to a wise woman who had learned from experience about “doctoring.” In the 17th century women wore a garment called a shift. Over it they wore long dresses. The dress was in two parts—the bodice and the skirt. Sometimes women wore two skirts. The upper skirt was gathered up to reveal an underskirt. However women in the 17th century did not wear knickers. From the mid-17th century it was fashionable for women to wear black patches on their faces such as little stars or crescent moons (Tim Lambert). One of the most interesting aspects of the Glorious Revolution was that it allowed popular ideas and discontents of all groups, including women, to come to light, and better, to be published. Here is an example of one such petition:

104

the glorioUs revolUtion

British History student.indb 104

1/31/12 1:31 PM

Women’s Petition (1649): The Humble Petition of divers well-affected women of the Cities of London and Westminster, etc. Sheweth, that since we are assured of our creation in the image of God, and of an interest in Christ equal unto men, as also of a proportional share in the freedoms of this Commonwealth, we cannot but wonder and grieve that we should appear so despicable in your eyes, as to be thought unworthy to petition or represent our grievances to this honorable House. Have we not an equal interest with the men of this Nation, in those liberties and securities contained in the Petition of Right, and the other good laws of the land? Are any of our lives, limbs, liberties or goods to be taken from us more than from

men, but by due process of law and conviction of twelve sworn men of the neighborhood? And can you imagine us to be so sottish or stupid, as not to perceive, or not to be sensible when daily those strong defenses of our peace and welfare are broken down, and trod under foot by force and arbitrary power? Would you have us keep at home in our houses, when men of such faithfulness and integrity as the FOUR PRISONERS our friends in the Tower are fetched out of their beds, and forced from their houses by soldiers, to the affrighting and undoing of themselves, their wives, children and families? Are not our husbands, ourselves, our children and families by the same rule as liable to the like unjust cruelties as they? . . . Doth not the Petition of Right declare that no person ought to be judged by Law Martial (except in time of war) . . . ? And are we Christians and shall we sit still and keep at home, while such men as have borne continual testimony against the unjustice of all times, and unrighteousness of men, be picked out and delivered up to the slaughter . . . ? (From J. O’Faolain and L Martines, Not in God’s Image (New York: Harper and Row, 1973), pp. 266-267)

Assignment What concerns do these women have and what solutions are they suggesting?

the glorioUs revolUtion

British History student.indb 105

105

1/31/12 1:31 PM

lesson 4

historical debate

The following is a portion of a review of three books, each with a different view of the Glorious Revolution. The Last Revolution: 1688 and the Creation of the Modern World, by Patrick Dillon. Revolution: The Great Crisis of the British Monarchy, 16851720, by Tim Harris. The Glorious Revolution: 1688 - Britain’s Fight for Liberty, by Edward Vallance. It is informed by a discussion by Jeremy Black (www.socialaffairsunit.org): First, historian Patrick Dillon argues that the Glorious Revolution is merely part of a general, inexorable, move toward modernity. The Revolution would place England decisively on the path to freedom, toleration, parliamentary democracy and empire. This was the time of Isaac Newton’s scientific breakthroughs and John Locke’s philosophy. The 1690s would see free market ideas emerge, the first stock market boom and bust, the end of press censorship and the arrival of religious toleration. It was the emergence of the dynamic, constantly changing world we inhabit today. Thus to Dillon the Glorious Revolution was not so much a break from the old, as a continuation of the new. The reign of Charles II, and especially James II, were merely aberrations. The Glorious Revolution was not a revolution at all—it was merely the logical next step in British society toward modernity. Edward Vallance, in contrast, argues just the opposite. He argues that it was a violent break from the past. Far from being bloodless, it was very bloody—especially if one was a Scottish or Irish patriot. Or, it also made Catholics fair game for persecution. Vallance also accepts that there is much to support the view that 1688 represented a Dutch invasion and occupation, albeit with considerable 106

William III (1659-1702), Prince of Orange by Willem Wissing, c1680 (PD-Art).

support from a “fifth column”. Indeed William arrived with a substantial army and siege train and clearly expected a difficult campaign against James’s large army. He was not to know that James’s will would collapse. Thus, to Vallance, the Glorious Revolution was a sort of Norman Invasion, not a bloodless civil war. Tim Harris offers another fresh insight. He sees the 17th century Glorious Revolution as a triumph of the 18th century Whig (or common people) party over the Tory (or nobility) party. Harris argues that the problems and crises that afflicted the later Stuarts were bound up with the fact that the Stuarts tried to reassert Torism, something that could not be done.

Assignment Which argument do you find most persuasive? Why?

the glorioUs revolUtion

British History student.indb 106

1/31/12 1:31 PM

Chapter 14 the oranges, stUarts, and hanovers

First Thoughts . . . With the departure of James I, and the arrival of William and Mary, the English breathed a collective sigh of relief. The nation welcomed a few years of uneventful monarchs. Most Englishmen had had enough drama and pomp and circumstance to last a lifetime! Into this arena arrived the coy Queen Anne. During the reign of Queen Anne the monarchy evolved into a constitutional monarchy from a more absolute one. The nation itself also became more unified and grew to include a large overseas empire.

Chapter Learning Objectives . . . In chapter 14, we will look at the impact of William and Mary on world history, and reflect upon how this monarchy team came about without any bloodshed. Next, we will study Queen Anne, a very quiet, but effective monarch. After Queen Anne, King George I, the first Hanover king, whose love of his native Germany further transformed the monarchy, became king. Finally, we will examine the life of the kind, but forward-thinking Quaker William Penn. As a result of this chapter you should be able to: 1.

Understand the impact of William and Mary on world history.

2. Analyze the reign of Queen Anne. 3. Describe the impact that George I had on the constitutional monarchy. 4. Evaluate the impact that William Penn had on society.

British History student.indb 107

1/31/12 1:31 PM

lesson 1

the reign of william and mary No Englishman wanted poor William III to be king. They wanted the throne to be the sole possession of Mary, by lineage a Stuart, with William her husband, an Orange, serving as Prince Consort, but Mary refused. It is one of the great love stories of English history! Mary was willing to give up the throne to be with her beloved husband.

niece of Charles I, who had married into the German Protestant House of Hanover. Parliament had successfully forbid the accession of any more Catholic monarchs (www. britannia.com).

It was not always this way. William and Mary began their marriage under duress. She was twelve years younger than he and found him repulsive. Although terribly homesick while living in Holland, she eventually came to love both the man and his country. And William loved and respected Mary.

Assignment

Since no legitimate Protestant heir was in sight, and Parliament saw how ambivalence can lead to catastrophe, Parliament made the Protestant pair co-rulers. The two political parties, Whigs and Tories, divided fiscal policy, united in two goals: to control the King and Queen and to make sure that there would never be a Catholic monarchy. Parliament passed several important laws during the reign of William and Mary. The Mutiny Act required parliamentary approval of the armed forces on a yearly basis. The Bank of England was established to deal with financing government. The Settlement Act of 1701 forbad wars without Parliament’s consent. As a final act of supremacy, Parliament was granted the right to name the succession. The crown was to pass to the granddaughter of James I and 108

The reign of Mary II and William III marked the end of royal prerogative. Parliament, with the authority of the oligarchy, came into a position of prominence regarding the governing of England. One contemporary described Queen Mary, “She seems to be of a good nature, and that she takes nothing to heart; whilst the Prince her husband has a thoughtful countenance, is wonderfully serious and silent, and seems to treat all persons alike gravely, and to be very intent on affairs: Holland, Ireland, and France calling for his care.” In other words the best thing that can be said of William and Mary is that they did virtually nothing. Was that a good thing for England at the end of the 17th century?

William II, prince of Orange, and his wife Maria Stuart by Gerard van Honthorst, 1647 (PD-Art).

The Oranges, sTuarTs, & hanOvers

British History student.indb 108

1/31/12 1:31 PM

lesson 2

qUeen anne Anne Stuart, born in 1665, was the second daughter of James II and Anne Hyde. She played no part in her father’s reign, but sided with her sister and brother-in-law (Mary II and William III) during the Glorious Revolution. The untimely death of Mary, her sister, and then William III nullified, in effect, the Settlement Act of 1701, which had placed William and Mary on the throne. Since William and Mary had no heirs, Anne was proclaimed Queen. Queen Anne had a lacklustre reign but she was the last sovereign to veto an act of Parliament, as well as the final Stuart monarch. The most significant constitutional act in her reign was the Act of Union in 1707, which created Great Britain by finally fully uniting England and Scotland (Ireland joined the Union in 1801). Anne’s life dramatically changed when she married Prince George of Denmark. This was an arrangement Anne’s father negotiated in secret with sponsorship by King Louis XIV of France, who hoped for a Anglo-Danish alliance against William of Orange and the Dutch. No such alliance would ever materialize. The relationship Prince George had with Anne was a close one and she loved him deeply, however, their marriage was saddened by Anne’s twelve miscarriages and the fact that none of their other five children reached adulthood. The Settlement Act of 1701 had angered Scotland where the Stuart dynasty had originated. The Scots threatened to bring back James, Anne’s Roman Catholic half-brother and pretender to the throne, to rule. To head off a revolt and unite support for the crown, Anne pushed for the Act of Union which would unite England and Scotland. The Act of Union was finally accepted in 1707. For the first time the Churchill name appears in English history. Anne’s closest friend was Sarah Churchill, who exerted great influence over the Queen. Sarah’s husband

Queen Anne by John Closterman, c1702 (PD-Art).

was the Duke of Marlborough, who masterly led the English to several victories in the War of Spanish Succession. Anne and Sarah were virtually inseparable. The Churchills would remain a powerful voice in British history for the next 300 years.

Assignment Most historians presented Anne as weak, indecisive monarch. The historian Gregg sees Queen Anne as more important and attempts to give a balanced portrayal of her public and private life. Gregg believes that Queen Anne was a strong, careful and calculating monarch, was driven by ambition and resolve, and who asserted her authority without trampling on parliamentary authority. He also portrays Anne pursuing a course of political moderation. She is not someone dominated by changes in the strengths of different political parties. Rather, a monarch not controlled by either party who had ministers from both parties and changed them in order to pursue policies of which she approved. What do you think? The Oranges, sTuarTs, & hanOvers

British History student.indb 109

109

1/31/12 1:31 PM

lesson 3

george i

George I reluctantly was king of England. He never spoke English well and never stopped loving his beloved Hanover, where he much preferred to live. George, Elector of Hanover since 1698, ascended the throne upon the death of Queen Anne, under the terms of the 1701 Act of Settlement. Queen Anne had closer relatives but only George was a Protestant and therefore eligible to be king. The pale-diminutive 54-year-old man arrived in England in 1714, with a full retinue of German friends, advisors and servants. It was a strange royal court! Also he arrived with two mistresses and no wife—his wife Sophia had been imprisoned for adultery. The Tories, a political group that favored a strong monarchy, attempted to depose George and replace him with the so-called Old Pretender (Roman Catholic James the son of deposed King James II) in 1715. The rebellion was a dismal failure. The Old Pretender failed to arrive in Britain until it was over and French backing evaporated with the death of Louis XIV. After the rebellion, England settled into a much-needed time of peace, with internal politics and foreign affairs coming to the fore. George’s ignorance of the English language and customs made cabinet positions extremely important. George’s frequent absences required the creation of the post of Prime Minister, the King George I by Sir Godfrey Kneller, c1723 (PD-Art). majority leader in the House of Commons who acted in the king’s stead. The first was Robert Walpole. His success put him in the position of Assignment dominating British politics for the next 20 years, and the reliance on an executive cabinet marked an important step How did George I’s love for his homeland change English in the formation of a modern constitutional monarchy in history? England. 110

The Oranges, Stuarts, & Hanovers

British History student.indb 110

1/31/12 1:31 PM

lesson 4

william penn

William Penn (October 14, 1644 – July 30, 1718) was one of the most important men of the 17th century. He was an Englishman, a committed Christian believer, theologian, and founder and “absolute proprietor” of the province of the future Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. He was an early champion of democracy and religious freedom, notable for his good relations and successful treaties with the Lenape Indians. Under his direction, the city of Philadelphia was planned and developed. As one of the earlier supporters of colonial unification, Penn (right) wrote and urged for a union of all the English colonies in what was to become the United States of America. The democratic principles that he set forth in the Pennsylvania Frame of Government served as an inspiration for the United States Constitution. As a pacifist Quaker, Penn considered the problems of war and peace deeply, and included a plan for a United States of Europe. William Penn was an outspoken supporter of universal liberty. During the late seventeenth century, when Protestants persecuted Catholics, Catholics persecuted Protestants, and both persecuted Quakers and Jews, Penn established an American sanctuary that protected freedom of conscience. Almost everywhere else, colonists stole land from the Indians, but Penn traveled unarmed among the Indians and negotiated peaceful purchases. He insisted that women deserved equal rights with men. He gave Pennsylvania a written constitution that limited the power of government, provided a humane penal code, and guaranteed many fundamental liberties. This was without precedence and was very unusual in the 17th century world.

toleration, offered lavish praise. “William Penn might, with reason, boast of having brought down upon earth the Golden Age, which in all probability, never had any real existence but in his dominions.” But Penn was no friend of Voltaire. Voltaire was an atheist—Penn was a committed, born-again Christian. His heightened sense of social justice flowed out of Christian piety, not humanism. Penn was the only person who made major contributions to liberty in both the New World and the Old World. Before he conceived the idea of Pennsylvania, he became the leading defender of religious toleration in England. He was imprisoned six times for speaking out courageously. While in prison, he wrote one pamphlet after another, which gave Quakers a corpus of material to reference. He was fond of using the English courts to advance righteous causes—one of his cases helped secure the right to trial by jury. Penn used his diplomatic skills and family connections to save many Quakers from the gallows. (The above discussion is a paraphrase of an article by Jim Powell, “William Penn, America’s First Great Champion for Liberty and Peace”.)

Assignment Why was William Penn such an effective champion of liberty?

For the first time in modern history, a large society offered equal rights to people of different races and religions. Penn’s dramatic example caused quite a stir in Europe. The French philosopher Voltaire, a champion of religious The Oranges, sTuarTs, & hanOvers

British History student.indb 111

111

1/31/12 1:31 PM

The landing of William Penn by J.L.G. Ferris, c1928 (PD-US).

112

THE ORANGES, STUARTS, & HANOVERS

British History ch14.indd 112

2/14/12 3:08 PM

Chapter 15 whigs and tories

First Thoughts . . . It is hard for us to imagine, but England did not fully develop into a constitutional democracy until there were political parties, the Whigs and Tories. This will happen during the 18th century. The family of George I, II, and III, have been maligned by most historians. They included the last British monarch to have been born outside of Great Britain, but by the end of his long reign the House of Hanover was firmly established as the British ruling family, and altogether English. Meanwhile, the dangerous and more legitimate claims of the Royalist, Roman Catholic Stuarts had finally been laid to rest. In some ways the Hanover kings were the first genuinely to understand the concept of constitutional monarchy and allow their ministers to guide the nation. Finally, the Hanover kings, without a doubt, enabled England to become a mighty empire whose sunset, truly, finally, never set on its horizon. The robust energy of public debate generated by the Whigs & the Tories made this possible.

Chapter Learning Objectives . . . In chapter 15, we will examine the Whig and Tory parties and their impact on English history. We will also assess the impact of King George II and King George III on world history. We will discuss the impact their spouses, Caroline and Charlotte, had on their lives and reigns. Finally, we will revisit London during the Georgian Era. As a result of this chapter you should be able to: 1.

Examine the rise and impact of the two party systems on British political life.

2. Assess the impact of King George II on English history. 3. Evaluate the reign of King George III. 4. Discuss how George III’s struggle with sanity affected his reign, and English history. 5. Contrast Georgian London and Stuart England.

British History student.indb 113

1/31/12 1:31 PM

lesson 1

whigs and tories

The Whigs and Tories were the first political parties in world history. The Whigs historically wanted the Parliament, specifically the House of Commons, to be the strongest political entity. Whigs generally were anti-Catholic and anti-royalty. The other political group, the Court Party, were for the king and believed in Divine Rights. They were also in favor of the Church of England with all its ceremonies and episcopacy. The Whigs became the Liberal Party in the 19th century and the Tories became the Conservative Party. Both still exist today, although the Liberal Party is now called the Social Democratic Party.

rule and preferred a Hegelian, powerful tertiary monarchy. Tories felt that people were basically bad, and left to their own inventions, would soon bring destruction both on themselves and the nation.

Assignment Which political position do you find most appealing, Whig or Tory?

Tories rallied behind Queen Anne—the last of the Stuart monarchs. She was seen as the legitimate monarch and a figure all could rally behind. When Anne died, The Tories and the Whigs pulling for a crown. Print shows George, Prince of Wales, seated on a throne the party was so disorganized and lacking in the background waiting the results of a tug-of-war over the crown (and regency for the Prince) between the Tories represented by Edward Thurlow and William Pitt and the Whigs represented by focus that the Whigs took the lead in the Edmund Burke and Charles Fox. Published by J. Aitken, 1789 (PD-US). Hanoverian succession. George I became inextricably associated with the Whigs and was the first British monarchy to do so. The term Whig was initially a term of political abuse used by the Tories. It was meant to discredit those who held different beliefs to the Tories and roughly translated it meant “Scottish Presbyterian rebels.” First used in the reign of Charles II, by the time of the Exclusion Crisis (1679 to 1681) it had become an accepted political label. What were the ideological beliefs of the Whigs? They believed that the consent of the people was the source of political power and authority and that monarchs were in power only as a result of a contract with the community. If the community believed that the reigning monarch had failed them, they had the right to resist him/her. The Tories embraced a more conservative ideology that was suspicious of group 114

Whigs And Tories

British History student.indb 114

1/31/12 1:31 PM

lesson 2

george ii

George II was born November 10, 1683, the only son of George I and his unfaithful wife Sophia. His youth was spent in Germany, and he married Caroline, whom he deeply loved; she bore him three sons and five daughters, and actively participated in government affairs before she died in 1737. Like his father, George II was very much a German prince, but at the age of 30 when George II ascended the throne he was young enough to absorb the English culture that escaped his father. George II died of a stroke on October 25, 1760. Historians argue that King George II possessed three passions: the army, music and his wife. He was a courageous soldier and has the distinction of being the last British sovereign to command troops in the field. Caroline proved to be his greatest asset. She revived traditional court life, was fiercely intelligent and an ardent supporter of Robert Walpole. Walpole continued in the role of Prime Minister at Caroline’s bequest.

George II envisioned at the Battle of Dettingen in 1743 by John Wootton, c1743 (PD-US).

Walpole retired in 1742 and the Whig party was firmly in control, although legitimist Tories attempted one last rebellion in 1745 by again trying to restore a Stuart to the throne. Prince Charles Edward Stuart, or Bonnie Prince Charlie, landed in Scotland and marched as far south as Derby, causing yet another wave of anti-Catholicism to wash over England. The Scots retreated, and in 1746 were destroyed at Culloden Moor.

Assignment Many historians argue that Caroline was vital to George II’s reign. In fact, they argue, he could not have survived as a sovereign without her. Discuss how Caroline helped her husband become more effective.

Walpole managed to keep George out of continental conflicts for the first twelve years of the reign, but King George declared war on Spain in 1739, against Walpole’s wishes. The Spanish war extended into the 1740’s as a component of the War of Austrian Succession, in which England fought against French dominance in Europe.

Whigs And Tories

British History student.indb 115

115

1/31/12 1:31 PM

lesson 3

george iii

George III was born in 1738. He married Charlotte of Mecklinburg-Strelitz in 1761, to whom he was devoted. The couple had nine sons and six daughters. George was afflicted with a form of dementia which appeared around 1765. Several attacks strained his grip on reality and debilitated him in the last years of his reign. Personal rule was given to his son George, the Prince Regent, in 1811. Poor George III died blind, deaf and mad at Windsor Castle on January 29, 1820. George III (right, PD-Art) succeeded his grandfather, George II, in 1760 (Frederick, Prince of Wales, had died in 1751, having never ruled). George III was determined to regain some previous royal prerogatives that were lost to the Whigs. However, even when George III regained power, bouts with madness and the way he handled the American Revolution eroded his support. The Peace of Paris (1763) ended the Seven Years’ War with France and Great Britain emerged from the conflict as the world’s greatest colonial power. England thrived under peacetime conditions, but George’s commitment to taxing the American colonies to pay for military protection led to hostilities in 1775. The colonists proclaimed independence in 1776, but George obstinately continued the war until the final American victory at Yorktown in 1781. The Peace of Versailles, signed in 1783, ensured British acknowledgment of the United States of America. The defeat eroded George III’s sanity, plus a stronger Whig, William Pitt, became prime minister in 1783.

short-lived. A mere ten years later, England joined a continental alliance against French revolutionary forces under the leadership of Napoleon Bonaparte. A second Act of Union was passed in 1801, bringing Ireland under the umbrella of Great Britain until the Government of Ireland Act (1920) established the modern arrangement. Slave trade was abolished in 1807 (thanks to William Wilberforce), although slavery continued in British colonies until 1833. Population increases, improvements in agricultural and industrial methods and a revolution in transportation spurred British economic growth. Romanticism, one of the richest periods in English literature, emerged at this time. George’s madness ultimately left the fate of the crown on his eldest son George IV.

Assignment Rejecting high society in London and the lavish luxuries of court life, King George and his consort Queen Charlotte (1744-1818) preferred to live away from London in what Charlotte referred to as their “sweet retreat,” allowing them to focus on family and domestic life. This practice helped to revive the reputation and popularity of the monarchy and marked the beginning of the transition to the modern form of the British court. George was the punctual, abstemious, hard, working German. At the same time, George III was going mad. Pretend that you are a member of Parliament in 1800. George III is showing signs of dementia. At what point do you replace him? What dangers would you encounter if you replaced him too soon? Too late?

The peace following the French war settlement was 116

Whigs And Tories

British History student.indb 116

1/31/12 1:31 PM

lesson 4

georgian london

The Thames had always been the chief highway of English commerce and that only increased during the 18th century. London was the chief beneficiary. Yet, there were remarkably few bridges across the Thames. Until 1750, there was only the bridge between the City and Southwark. Then a bridge was built at Westminster. Nearly 20 years later a third bridge was opened at Blackfriars. Between 1760-1766 the last old Roman gates to the City and surrounding walls were demolished. By this time the City, under the Lord Mayor and his aldermen, was a small part of an ever-increasing area which formed the capital, with suburbs stretching in every direction as the country people moved to the outskirts of the city. London, in microcosm, reflected all the tensions that was part of Georgian (or Hanover) England. In 1780, following an act of parliament to improve the civil rights of Roman Catholics, the Gordon Riots wrought widespread damage on London.

The Gordon Riots by Charles Green, date unknown (PD-US).

Assignment Contrast Georgian London and Stuart England.

This was also a time of extravagant architecture. Among the most magnificent buildings was the Bank of England (www.britannia.com). A multi-segment panoramic image of the London skyline from the Bermondsey banks of the Thames by David Diliff, 2008 (CC-BY-SA 3.0).

Whigs And Tories

British History student.indb 117

117

1/31/12 1:31 PM

Bank of England, London, established in 1694, is an example of the extravagant Georgian-style architecture.

118

Whigs And Tories

British History ch15.indd 118

1/31/12 4:14 PM

Chapter 16 eU ropean wars

First Thoughts . . . By the beginning of the 18th century the major powers of Europe—primarily Spain, France, Habsburg Austria [the Holy Roman Empire], and England—had established a delicate balance of power. No one nation possessed sufficient strength to overwhelm an alliance of the others. Suddenly in 1700 that balance was upset by the ambition of King Louis XIV of France. Encouraged by Louis XIV, King Charles II of Spain, as he was dying without children, designated Louis’ grandson Duke Philip of Anjou as his heir and successor to the throne of Spain. Louis XIV’s vision was to bring about a union of France and Spain. This tension led to 70 years of war, 1690–1763.

Chapter Learning Objectives . . . In chapter 16, we will look at several European Wars and their North American component. We will analyze the causes and results of these wars. We will compare these wars to contemporary regional wars. Finally, we will evaluate the impact of these first “world wars” on European history. As a result of this chapter you should be able to: 1.

Describe the root causes of the 17th-century European wars.

2. Evaluate why the English win these wars. 3. Analyze why Native Americans mostly supported the French. 4. Compare 17th-century regional wars to 21st-century regional wars. 5. Analyze the limits, if any, on freedom of the press.

British History student.indb 119

1/31/12 1:31 PM

lesson 1

king william’s war In the wake of the Glorious Revolution, the fervent Catholic Louis XIV, the king of France, was not too pleased that proCatholic James II was replaced by two Protestants. Besides, he believed in the divine right to rule, like King James II, and didn’t want English notions of democracy to spread to other parts of Europe. As a result, war between the two nations followed. This war was reflected in America, as King William rejected an offer of colonial neutrality, and it is known as “King William’s War.” By 1690 the French had a firm foothold north of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Hostile Native Americans were armed by the French and in general the English felt threatened by the French. It did not help either, that the French were Roman Catholics, and while that might not be a major concern to nation-building today, then, it was a very important consideration. The English colonies were almost wholly Protestant except Maryland, and even in Maryland the Protestants were in a large majority. King James II himself had done a little proselytizing in the New World. He had urged his Catholic governor of New York to influence the Iroquois to admit Jesuit teachers among them, and to introduce the Catholic religion into the colony. The Exasperated English colonists were eager for the conflict, while the French Canadians were equally ready to grapple with them. King William’s War was very different in aim and meaning in the colonies from what it was beyond the Atlantic. In America it was the first of several fierce contests, covering 70 years. The war began by a series of Indian massacres instigated by Frontenac, the governor of Canada. The first of these was the destruction of Dover, New Hampshire, a town of 50 inhabitants. The town was burned to the ground, about half the people were massacred, and the remainder were carried away and sold into slavery. In the following month Pemaquid, Maine, met a similar fate. In February, 1690, a body of French 120

Portrait of King William III by Sir Godfrey Kneller, c1680 (PD-US).

and Indians sent by Frontenac, came to the town of Schenectady on the Mohawk River. More than 60 colonists were massacred. The British now responded. Sir William Phipps of Maine captured Port Royal, an important French outpost in Nova Scotia. He could not go further, though, and returned to Massachusetts. The war dragged on for several years longer, but it consisted only of bloody raids and frontier massacres. No major campaigns were launched. In 1697 a treaty of peace was signed at Ryswick, in the Netherlands. Acadia, New France, which had been prematurely incorporated with Massachusetts, was restored to France. But this treaty was only a truce. War would return again soon.

Assignment King William’s War was really two wars. Explain.

European Wars

British History student.indb 120

1/31/12 1:31 PM

lesson 2

war of the spanish sUccession The War of the Spanish Succession was fought among several European powers, principally the Holy Roman Empire, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Portugal, and against the kingdoms of France and Spain. The issue was a possible unification of the Kingdoms of Spain and France under one monarch. Such unification would have drastically changed the European balance of power. The war was fought mostly in Europe, but included Queen Anne’s War in North America, and it was marked by the military leadership of notable generals, including the Duke of Marlborough and Prince Eugene of Savoy. It resulted in the recognition of Philip of France as King of Spain while requiring him to renounce any claim to the French throne and to cede much of the Spanish Crown’s possessions to the Holy Roman Empire, the Dutch Republic, Savoy and Great Britain, partitioning the Spanish Empire in Europe. In 1700, Charles II, King of Spain, died without an heir, passing the throne to Philip, grandson of his half-sister and King Louis XIV of France. Philip therefore became Philip V of Spain and was also in the line of succession of the French throne. This was unacceptable to several European powers. The war began slowly as Leopold I, Holy Roman Emperor, fought to protect the Austrian Habsburg claim to the Spanish inheritance. As often happens, the war quickly escalated. Other Portrait of Louis XIV by Hyacinthe Rigaud, 1701 (PD-US). states joined the coalition opposing France and Spain. Spain was divided over the succession and fell into a Queen Anne’s War. Over the course of the fighting, some 400,000 people were killed. civil war. The war was fought not only in Europe but also the West Indies and colonial North and South America where the conflict became known to the English colonists as

The war was concluded by the treaties of Utrecht (1713) and Rastatt (1714—with Austria alone). As a result, Philip V remained King of Spain but was removed from the French European Wars

British History student.indb 121

121

1/31/12 1:31 PM

line of succession, averting a union of the two kingdoms. The Austrians gained most of the Spanish territories in Italy and the Netherlands. France’s hegemony over continental Europe was ended and the idea of a balance of power became a part of the international order. The American version of the War of Succession was Queen Anne’s War (1702–1713), as it was known in the English colonies. It was the second in a series of French and Indian Wars fought between France and England in North America for control of the continent. The conflict was part of the War of the Spanish Succession, which was primarily fought in Europe. In addition to the two main combatants, the war also involved numerous Native American tribes. The war was fought on three fronts. The English colonies of New England fought with French and Indian forces based in Acadia and Canada, whose capital, Quebec, was repeatedly targeted (without ever being successfully captured) by British expeditions. The southern war, while it did not result in notable territorial changes, had the effect of decimating the Native American population of Spanish Florida, including the areas that include present-day southern Georgia, and destroying Spain’s network of missions in the area. The war between New France and New England was dominated by French and Indian raids against targets in Massachusetts (including present-day Maine), and repeated English attacks that resulted in the taking of Acadia’s capital, Port Royal. In Newfoundland the war consisted of economic raids against the other side’s settlements.

John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough by John Closterman, date unknown (PD-Art).

The Treaty of Utrecht in 1713 resulted in the French cession of claims to the territories of Hudson Bay, Acadia, and Newfoundland to Britain, while retaining Cape Breton and other islands in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

Assignment A. The allied armies led by John Churchill, the 1st Duke of Marlborough met and defeated every general and every army that King Louis XIV of France could put against them. Born into a family impoverished by the English Civil War, Marlborough ironically learned his trade as a soldier in the French Army. Do wars make great generals or do great generals make great victories? B. As nation states consolidated their power in the early modern period, Europe witnessed tragic economic dislocations, oppression, and wars leading to waves of terrorism and revolution that mirror our contemporary world situation in striking ways. Compare unrest in the Middle East with Europe in the 18th Century.

Philip V of Spain and the Duke of Vendôme commanded the Franco-Spanish charge at the Battle of Villaviciosa by Jean Alaux, 1836 (PD-Art).

122

European Wars

British History student.indb 122

1/31/12 1:31 PM

lesson 3

war of the aUstrian sUccession The War of the Austrian Succession (1740–1748), also known as King George’s War in North America, involved nearly all the powers of Europe. The war began under the pretext that Maria Theresa of Austria was ineligible to succeed to the Habsburg thrones of her father, Charles VI. Austria was supported by Great Britain and the Dutch Republic, the traditional enemies of France. France and Prussia were allied with Bavaria. Prussia, ruled by Frederick, thought Maria Theresa would grant him her throne. She declared war on Prussia and invaded Silesia, precipitating the wars that would rage for a quarter of a century. The conflict did not finally end until the Treaty of Paris in 1764 confirmed Prussia’s ownership of Silesia. In 1742 the French threatened Flanders, a region dominated by Austria and the Dutch Republic. A Pragmatic Army named from Charles VI’s Sanctions assembled to counter the French invasion, with troops from Austria and various German states, including Hanover. George II, King of England and Elector of Hanover, resolved to send English troops to join the Pragmatic Allies. Ostensibly the army was to fight for Maria Theresa, but George’s concern was that the French intended to pass through the Low Countries and invade his beloved Hanover. The English force was dispatched to Flanders in mid1742 and remained there until the end of the war in 1748, fighting four battles. There was one major interlude from late 1745 to 1746, when Prince Charles, the Young Pretender, landed in Scotland and invaded England with a Highland army. This adventure, encouraged and resourced by France, brought the Hanoverian Crown to the brink of disaster and was retrieved only when the Flanders regiments returned to Britain and defeated the Highlanders at Culloden Moor. In 1742, England had not fought a European war since the time of the Duke of Marlborough. In the intervening 20

Empress Maria Theresa of Austria by Martin van Meytens, 1759 (PD-Art).

years of peace, the army had been neglected by governments reluctant to spend money on the armed services. In 1743 the Pragmatic Army marched South to the Frankfurt region of Germany. There it was joined by George II and the battle of Dettingen was fought against the French Army of the Duc de Noailles. The war ended with the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1748.

Assignment Why were European rulers willing to fight world wars to maintain the status quo?

European Wars

British History student.indb 123

123

1/31/12 1:31 PM

lesson 4

seven year’s war The Seven Years’ War was a major military conflict that lasted from 1756 until the conclusion of the treaties of Paris in 1763. It involved all of the major European powers of the period. In fact, in some ways, it was the “first world war” in all of history. It resulted in some 900,000 to 1,400,000 deaths and significant changes in the balance of power and territories of several of the participants. The war pitted Prussia and Great Britain and a coalition of smaller German states against an alliance consisting of Austria, France, Russia, Sweden, and Saxony. Fighting between Great Britain, France, and their respective allies in North America broke out in 1754, two years before the general conflict, as part of an imperial rivalry. The fighting in North America is a separate war, known in the United States as the French and Indian War. Professor Seymour I. Schwartz reminds us that the French and Indian War took more lives than the American Revolution. In fact, this war was the bloodiest 18th century war on North American soil. “It erased France’s political influence from the continent and established English dominance east of the Mississippi and in Canada. And it set the stage for the American Revolution and the establishment of the United States of America” (Schwartz, French and Indian War: The Imperial Struggle for North America, p. vii). The conflict between England and France in North America centered on the fur trade and control of inland waterways. When European people began settling on the coast of North America in the early 17th century, the French occupied the most convenient route to the interior—the St. Lawrence River. From their posts at Quebec and Montreal they rapidly moved up the St. Lawrence River to explore the continent and trade for furs with the Native peoples. But this movement westward was blocked by the pro-British Iroquois.

124

Storming of the breach by Prussian troops during the Battle of Leuthen, 1757 by Carl Röchling, date unknown (PD-US).

The Iroquois, perhaps the most politically powerful group of native people in the history of North America, had early confrontations with the French. Their hostility would last until the French had been driven from North America. To restore the balance of power in favor of their allies, the French began selling firearms and ammunition in limited amounts to the Huron and Algonquin. These weapons, as well as steel hatchets and knives, soon spread to other tribes, and the Dutch responded by providing guns to the Iroquois. Meanwhile, the Swedes along the Delaware River and the British in New England were arming other tribes. An arms race developed, in which tribes providing the most fur had a military advantage over those which did not. The initial confrontations during the 1630s took place in the eastern Great Lakes, mainly between the Iroquois and Huron (Wyandot), but as the trading tribes exhausted the beaver in their homelands, they began seizing hunting territory from others, and the Beaver Wars spread west (www.centuryinter.net/). The turn of the 18th century was marked by open colonial warfare between France and England. King William’s War (1689–1697) and Queen

EuropEan Wars

British History student.indb 124

1/31/12 1:31 PM

Pere Marquette and the Indians [at the Mississippi River] by Wilhelm Lamprecht ,1869 (PD-US).

Anne’s War (1702–1713) also involved the Iroquois and other Native American nations. France moved to consolidate her position on the Great Lakes. A post constructed at Detroit in 1701 blocked the British from the three northwestern lakes. In 1715 a new fort at Michilimackinac assured their influence in the north. Niagara and its portage was the linchpin, however. Control of it would assure the exclusion of the English from the Great Lakes and the safe movement of goods and furs to and from New France. By 1667 repeated attacks by French soldiers on their homeland had forced the Iroquois to make peace. Their agreement with the French was significant in that it also extended to French native allies and trading partners, including those in the Great Lakes. Meanwhile, through a treaty signed at a grand council at Sault Ste. Marie in 1671, the Great Lakes tribes consented to Simon Daumont’s formal annexation of the region for France. The French had annexed territory they had never seen, so there was immediate

interest in exploring it. Hearing of the “Great River” to the west, the Jesuit priest Jacques Marquette and fur trader, Louis Joliet, accompanied by five Miami guides and canoe paddlers, set off in 1673 from St. Ignace (Mackinac) to find it. They did, and established French hegemony from the Great Lakes to New Orleans. In 1749 France made claim to the Ohio Valley and in particular noticed that the confluence of three rivers at present-day Pittsburgh was a particularly valuable location. The French built a fort there and named it Fort Duquesne. There were two other minor wars before the decisive conflict opened in 1754. General Braddock led an army of British regulars and colonials irregulars (including George Washington) to attack Ft. Duquesne. They were annihilated. It took the English several years, but eventually they won this war. In 1758 British General Forbes captured Fort Duquesne and renamed it Fort Pitt. In 1759 General James European Wars

British History student.indb 125

125

1/31/12 1:31 PM

Death of General Wolfe by Benjamin West, 1770.

Wolfe took Quebec but he lost his own life. Finally, General William Johnson captured Montreal and New France fell. War in Europe began in 1756 with the French siege of British Minorca in the Mediterranean Sea, and Frederick the Great of Prussia’s invasion of Saxony on the continent, which also upset the firmly established Pragmatic Sanction put in place by Charles VI of Austria. Despite being the main theater of war, the European conflict resulted in a bloody stalemate, which did little to change the pre-war status quo, while its consequences in Asia and the Americas were wider ranging and longer lasting. Concessions made in the 1763 Treaty of Paris ended France’s position as a major colonial power in the Americas (where it lost all claim to land in North America east of the Mississippi River, along with what is now Canada, in addition to some West Indian islands). Prussia confirmed its position in the ranks of the great European powers, retaining the formerly Austrian province of Silesia. Great Britain strengthened its territories in India and North America, confirming its status as the dominant colonial power. 126

Because of its global nature, it has been described as the “first World War.”

Assignment Historian Robert Harris argued that the press, more than anything else, for the first time in history, caused the Seven Year’s War (French and Indian War). It inflamed the British public to come to arms against perceived enemies. America experienced a similar event at the end of the Vietnam War, when the press functioned in an opposite spirit, urging America to leave Vietnam. At what point does the press move beyond responsible, free license and into dangerous, irresponsible journalism? Should it be controlled?

European Wars

British History student.indb 126

1/31/12 1:31 PM

Chapter 17 british empire

First Thoughts . . . The British Empire was astounding, larger than any empire before or after. Perhaps the genius of the British Empire was that it was privately funded for the most part. Since its creation in 1600 by the royal charter granted by Queen Elizabeth I, the influence of The East India Company changed the world’s culture and its people. It created new communities, trading places, and cities. Singapore and Hong Kong were established by The Company and India was shaped and influenced by it. At one point The Company had the largest merchant navy in the world and conducted and controlled 50% of world trade (www.eastindiacompany.com). How did all this happen?

Chapter Learning Objectives . . . In chapter 17, we will look at the rise of the British Empire, 1600-1815. Next, we will evaluate mercantilism as a national policy. Then we will look more closely at the first multi-national company: the East India Company. Finally, we will evaluate why England lost its American colonies. As a result of this chapter you should be able to: 1. Analyze the rise of the British Empire. 2. Define mercantilism and discuss how it affected British empire building. 3. Discuss the creation of the East India Trading Company and compare it to a modern multinational company. 4. Evaluate the value of the British Empire to world history. 5. Explain why England lost its American colonies.

British History student.indb 127

1/31/12 1:32 PM

lesson 1

empire

At its peak, the British Empire was the largest empire that the world had ever known, much larger than the Roman Empire. The empire stretched all over the globe. Why were the British able to supplant the Portuguese, Dutch and Spanish Empires in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and effectively thwart French, Russian and German challenges over the nineteenth and early twentieth century? The British had “religious zeal” to spread their civilization. The Protestant aspect of Christianity was seen by many within the British Empire as part of the larger battle with the more “Catholic” nations of continental Europe. Ever since the Reformation, religion represented not merely a spiritual difference between the Catholic and Protestant churches but was part of a far larger cultural and political competition between deadly rivals. Religion gave an excuse for this commercial rivalry to turn into military and political competition. The English planted their Protestant faith on foreign soils with as much fervency as the French and Spanish planted the Roman Catholic flag on theirs. Indeed, the so-called Protestant ethic—that hard work assured God’s favor on an endeavor—assured British commercial success around the world. It was certainly helpful that the Protestant work ethic meant that Christian and commercial ideals could be reconciled fairly easily and in fact was thought to manifest itself in the improvement and development of British civilization in general. In pre-industrial Britain, the combination of these factors would lead to the creation of successful colonies in North America. The civilization aspiration unfortunately assumed that British civilization was innately superior to those it was conquering. Indeed, the very subjugation process confirmed the superiority of British civilization! It then assumed that the new rulers were obliged to improve the subjugated peoples that it had taken under its wing with large doses of Christianity and commerce. Of course, this appealed to the positive aspirations that many Imperialists held for the 128

future of a benign Empire. It offered a justification for Imperialism. However, it could also justify for treating the subject peoples as innately inferior (Stephen Luscombe). The growth of the British Empire was due in large part to the ongoing competition for resources and markets which existed over a period of centuries between England and her continental rivals, Spain, France, and Holland. During the reign of Elizabeth I, England set up trading companies in Turkey, Russia, and the East Indies, explored the coast of North America, and established colonies there. In the early seventeenth century those colonies were expanded and the systematic colonization of Ulster in Ireland got underway. The early British Empire was based on mercantilism. Under both the Stuarts and Cromwell, the mercantilist outlines of further colonization and empire-building became more and more apparent. Until the early nineteenth century, the primary purpose of Imperialist policies was to facilitate the acquisition of as much foreign territory as possible, both as a source of raw materials and in order to provide real or potential markets for British manufactures. Historian David Cody writes, “The mercantilists advocated in theory, and sought in practice, trade monopolies which would insure that Britain’s exports would exceed its imports. A profitable balance of trade, it was believed, would provide the wealth necessary to maintain and expand the empire. After ultimately successful wars with the Dutch, the French, and the Spanish in the seventeenth century, Britain managed to acquire most of the eastern coast of North America, the St. Lawrence basin in Canada, territories in the Carribean, stations in Africa for the acquisition of slaves, and important interests in India.” The loss in the late eighteenth century

british empire

British History student.indb 128

1/31/12 1:32 PM

A map of the world in 1886: areas under British control are highlighted dark by Walter Crane, 1886 (PD-US)..

of the American colonies was not offset by the discovery of Australia, which served, after 1788, as a refuge for criminals. However, the loss of America influenced acquisition of trading and strategic bases along the trade routes between India and the Far East. In 1773 the British government was obliged to take over for the financially troubled East India Company, which had been in India since 1600, and by the end of the century Britain’s control over India extended into neighboring Afghanistan and Burma. With the end, in 1815, of the Napoleonic Wars, the last of the great imperial wars which had dominated the eighteenth century, Britain found itself in an extraordinarily powerful position. The sun truly never set on the British Empire. (David Cody in www.victorianweb. org)

Assignment Why were the British able to supplant the Portuguese, Dutch and Spanish Empires in the 17th and 18th centuries and effectively thwart French, Russian and German challenges?

british empire

British History student.indb 129

129

1/31/12 1:32 PM

lesson 2

mercantilism

Mercantilism is an economic theory that argues that the prosperity of a nation is dependent upon its supply of capital, and that the global volume of international trade is “unchangeable.” Economic assets are best increased through a positive balance of trade with other nations (exports minus imports). Mercantilism and Chartered Monopoly Companies were successful British models employed to expand the Empire. The King or Queen would give permission, or a chartered monopoly, to explorers to claim lands on his behalf and then authorize certain companies to exploit the natural resources in that part of the world in return for a fixed income to the monarch. In many ways it was something for nothing for the ruler. These companies would buy the privilege to have a monopoly. For instance, the East India Trading Company had a monopoly on tea trade from India. Besides paying the monarchy a yearly retainer, the East India Company promised to keep prices reasonable. The Spanish and Portuguese used this first, and the French and Dutch followed suit. English monarchs resisted at first. Companies were often more interested in making a profit than in taking care of the people it ruled over. When rebellions or riots broke out, it was invariably the government who had to come to the rescue as the company’s resources would be quickly depleted by long, drawn out and expensive campaigns. The famous East India Company had to go cap in hand to the British Government to save it from bankruptcy but not before many individual investors and directors had made fortunes. They would sell their shares when it looked like

East India House in Leadenhall Street, London by Thomas Hosmer Shepherd, c1817 (PD-US).

trouble was looming—it was the small or institutional shareholders who invariably got caught out—or the British taxpayer! Sound familiar? Also, profit invited inhumane practices. Mercantilism built the slave trade. It was immensely profitable to everyone. Combined with the lucrative practice of mercantilism was the British penchant to embrace innovation and technology. British weaponry was very effective and its communication systems allowed it to govern its far-flung empire. Its combination of industrial might and maritime power meant that it had a peculiar advantage and one that would make empire building much easier (Stephen Luscombe).

Assignment Flag of the British East India Company, 1707–1801.

130

Why was English mercantilism so successful?

british empire

British History student.indb 130

1/31/12 1:32 PM

lesson 3

english rUle in india India and the Far East, but it was also responsible for the government of much of the vast Indian sub-continent. Both of these factors mean that the East India Company was crucial to the history of the tea trade. Suddenly the East India Company found itself transformed from an association of traders to rulers exercising political sovereignty over a largely unknown land and people. Less than ten years later, in 1765, the Company acquired the right to collect revenues on behalf of the Mughal Emperor, in Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa. The Company successfully weathered the various political storms going on in Britain in the 17th century. Oliver Cromwell provided the merchants with a new charter after Charles I was deposed and the Commonwealth established in 1649. Then when Charles II was restored to the throne in 1660, the Company ingratiated itself with him in order to protect its interests. In fact, Charles II actually extended its privileges to allow the Company to take military action to establish itself in places where it wished to trade.

Assignment Jahangir Preferring a Sufi sheikh to Kings by Mughal artist Bichitr, c1620 (PD-US).

The British presence in India dates back to the early part of the 17th century. Queen Elizabeth acceded to the demand of a large body of merchants that a royal charter be given to a new trading company, “The Governor and Company of Merchants of London, Trading into the East-Indies.” Between 1601–13, merchants of the East India Company took 12 voyages to India, and sought permission to trade with India. Mughal Emperor Jahangir agreed, after some hesitation. The East India Company was perhaps the most powerful commercial organization that the world has ever seen. In its heyday it not only had a monopoly on British trade with

In 1600, the East India Company was the forerunner of the modern multinational. Starting life as a trader in Asian spices, the Company ended its days running Britain’s Indian empire. In the process, it shocked its contemporaries with the scale of its violence, corruption and speculation. War, famine, stock-market fixing, they are all a part of the East India Company. The Company’s legacy provides compelling lessons on how to ensure the accountability of today’s global business. In light of the present problems with multinational corporations, what sort of safeguards should governments establish to control large multi-national corporations like the East India Company?

british empire

British History student.indb 131

131

1/31/12 1:32 PM

lesson 4

the american revolUtion The war that opened with the Battle of Lexington, on April 19, 1775, and closed with the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown on October 19, 1781, passed through two phases—the northern phase until 1778 and the southern phase until the end. Memorable aspects of the contest were the evacuation of Boston by the British, the defeat of American forces in New York and their retreat through New Jersey, the battle of Trenton, the seizure of Philadelphia by the British (September, 1777), the invasion of New York by Burgoyne and his collapse at Saratoga in October 1777. Along the way are memorable stories of the encampment of American forces at Valley Forge for the terrible winter of

132

1777-78 and the infamous betrayal by Benedict Arnold. In 1775, the 13 colonies—it would be inaccurate to call them a “nation”—were ill-prepared to wage war against the most powerful nation on the face of the earth. The American colonies had no army. The first military force consisted of colonial militia (untrained volunteers) headed by local leaders with virtually no military training and unaccustomed to taking orders from a commander. There was no central system of housing, paying, or feeding the troops, and supplies of gunpowder and clothing were inadequate. When a national army was formed, enlistments were short and often soldiers were mustered out about the time they were most

Surrender of Lord Cornwallis by John Trumbull, 1820 (PD-US). british empire

British History student.indb 132

1/31/12 1:32 PM

effective! The American Army—called the Continental Army—never contained more than one tenth of military age Americans. Even worse, states—particularly southern states—were full of Tories or Loyalists. Perhaps a third of Americans remained faithful to the king. As one historian stated, All in all, it was a stupendous task that faced the patriots. They had to improvise an army and a new government at the same time, to meet unusual situations arising daily, to find trusted leaders, and to get 13 proud states to work for the common cause. And all this had to be done with little preparation, at a time when the menace of defeat and reprisals for rebellion and treason cast dark shadows over the land.

Battle of Trenton by Hugh Charles McBarron, Jr., 1975 (PD-US).

On the other hand, the American colonies had substantial advantages. For one thing, they were defending their homeland; the British were enforcing their national will. The American nation was huge and a long way from England. Essentially, all America had to do was to hold out until Great Britain grew too tired to fight. For the British the theater of the war offered many problems. From first to last it extended from Massachusetts to Georgia, a distance of almost a thousand miles. It was nearly three thousand miles from the main base of supplies and, though the British navy kept the channel open, transports were constantly falling prey to daring privateers and fleet American war vessels. The sea, on the other hand, offered an easy means of transportation between points along the coast and gave ready access to the American centers of wealth and population. Of this the British made good use. Though early forced to give up Boston, they seized New York and kept it until the end of the war; they took Philadelphia and retained it until threatened by the approach of the French fleet; and they captured and held both Savannah and Charleston. Wars, however, are seldom won by the conquest of cities. America was a land of

rural farms and small towns–it was not dependent upon its urban centers (Beard). Finally, if disorganized, the Americans were natural soldiers and showed ingenuity and poise in the face of adversity. Given time, the Americans would win. General George Washington knew it. A mediocre general at best, George Washington managed to lose virtually every battle he fought, but he won the war! Washington knew that eventually the British would grow tired and abandon their efforts to subjugate the colonists. The British were, in fact, battered and worn down by a guerrilla war and outdone on two important occasions by superior forces—at Saratoga and Yorktown. Like America learned in Vietnam and Iraq, the British understood that an immense army, which could be raised only by a supreme effort, would be necessary to subdue the colonies and there was doubt anything would work. To the British, the American colonies just were not worth it. Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, Virginia, in 1781 and the military phase of the war was over.

Assignment Why did the American colonists win the American Revolution?

Statue of General George Washington on public display at the Boston Public Garden. british empire

British History student.indb 133

133

1/31/12 1:32 PM

Man in British military dress at Revolutionary War Re-Enactment in Camden, South Carolina.

134

british empire

British History student.indb 134

1/31/12 1:32 PM

Chapter 18 response to the french revolU tion First Thoughts . . . The French Revolution was a 1789 revolution which began the modern era. Nothing in world history has galvanized the British population more. On one hand, Europeans applauded the collapse of an obviously despotic regime. On the other hand, it inspired fear into European monarchs and aristocrats as well as conservative intellectuals like Edmund Burke.

Chapter Learning Objectives . . . Chapter 18 begins by looking at the French Revolution and then gauging its effect more specifically on the British nation. Next, we will evaluate its impact on British history. Along the way we will examine several primary sources and evaluate their veracity. Finally, we will examine Thomas Carlyle’s famous history of the French Revolution. As a result of this chapter you should be able to: 1. Discuss the British reaction to the French Revolution. 2. Discern the impact of the French Revolution on British journalism and social criticism. 3. Evaluate the impact of primary source material on the British population. 4. Analyze historian Thomas Carlyle’s views of the French Revolution.

British History student.indb 135

1/31/12 1:32 PM

lesson 1

response to the french revolUtion The French Revolution began in 1789 with the meeting of the States General in May. On July 14 of that same year, the Bastille was stormed: in October, Louis XVI and the Royal Family were removed from Versailles to Paris. The King attempted, unsuccessfully, to flee Paris for Varennes in June 1791. A Legislative Assembly sat from October 1791 until September 1792, when, in the face of the advance of the allied armies of Austria, Holland, Prussia, and Sardinia, it

was replaced by the National Convention, which proclaimed the Republic. The king was brought to trial in December of 1792, and executed on January 21, 1793. In January of 1793 the revolutionary government declared war on Britain, which would continue until 1815. The Reign of Terror, during which the ruling faction ruthlessly exterminated all potential enemies, of whatever sex, age, or condition, began in September of 1793 and lasted

The Storming of the Bastille by Jean-Pierre Houël, 1789 (PD-US).

136

response to the french revolution

British History student.indb 136

1/31/12 1:32 PM

The execution of Robespierre. Artist unknown, 1794 (PD-US).

until the fall of Robespierre on July 27, 1794: during the last six weeks of the Terror (the period known as the “Red Terror”) nearly fourteen hundred people were guillotined in Paris. These excesses eventually drove Napoleon Bonaparte to declare himself emperor. The French Revolution was not only a crucial event considered in the context of Western history, but it was also, perhaps the single most crucial influence on British intellectual, philosophical, and political life in the late 18th and early 19th century. In its early stages it was perceived as a triumph of the forces of reason over those of superstition and privilege, and as such it was welcomed by European radicals like philosopher William Godwin and poet William Blake. Likewise, German composer Ludwig Van Beethoven and English poet William Wordsworth embraced the heady idealism of the French Revolution. It appealed especially to romantics romantics, including Byron, Coleridge, Shelley, and Goethe. Romantics saw the French Revolution as a symbolic act that presaged the return of humanity to the state of perfection from which it had fallen. They lauded the Revolution’s emphasize on the common man and ordinary things. Many saw it, with its declared emphasis on

“Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity,” as being analogous to the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Of course, this all changed as it descended into the madness of the Reign of Terror. Many who had initially greeted it with enthusiasm—Wordsworth, Beethoven, and Coleridge, for example—grew cynical about the French Revolution and rejected it altogether. The English government, on the other hand, denounced the Revolution from its inception and did what it could to stop its spread. In America, the French Revolution was perceived as a continuation of the American Revolution. American authors Hawthorne, Emerson, Cooper, among others, embraced the basic tenants of the French Revolution and romanticism. They wrote literature that shared common romantic themes: common morality, individualism, intuitive perception. American romantics, called transcendentalists, especially James Fenimore Cooper, saw the natural world as a source of goodness and human society a source of corruption. The American Romantics rejected rationalism and traditional religions. They especially rejected Puritan Calvinism, which stated that the universe and all the events within it are subject to the power of God. As a moral philosophy, transcendentalism preferred subjective feelings over reason, individual expression over the constraints of law and tradition.

Assignment What aspects of the French Revolution appealed to Romantics?

Photograph of bust statue of Ludwig van Beethoven by Hugo Hagen, 1898. response to the french revolution

British History student.indb 137

137

1/31/12 1:32 PM

lesson 2

the revolUtionary controversy If Americans embraced the French Revolution, the English most assuredly did not. The Revolution Controversy, a British debate over the French Revolution, lasted from 1789 through 1795. A pamphlet war began in earnest after the publication of Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790), which supported the French aristocracy and condemned the excesses of the revolutionaries. Because he had supported the American colonists in their rebellion against England, his views upset the whole country. Many writers responded, defending the revolution in France, among them Thomas Paine, Mary Wollstonecraft and William Godwin. The themes articulated by those responding to Burke would become a central feature of the radical working-class movement in Britain in the nineteenth century. Most Englishmen, beneficiaries of a constitutional monarchy, celebrated the storming of the Bastille in 1789, believing that France’s monarchy should be curtailed by a more democratic form of government. However, by December 1795, after the Reign of Terror and war with France, there were few who still supported the French position. Burke criticized the view of many British thinkers and writers who compared the French Revolution to Britain’s own Glorious Revolution in 1688. Burke originally argued that the appropriate historical analogy was the English Civil War (1642–1651) in which Charles I had been executed in 1649. After the Reign of Terror, Burke, like most Englishmen, could not find any precedence in world history.

138

Mary Wollstonecraft by John Opie c1797 (PD-Art).

Liberals such as William Godwin, Thomas Paine, and Mary Wollstonecraft argued for republicanism. Thomas Paine responded by writing A Vindication of the Rights of Men that argued that popular political revolution is permissible when a government does not safeguard its people, their natural rights, and their national interests.

Assignment In what way was the Revolution Controversy what historian Alfred Cobban calls “perhaps the last real discussion of the fundamentals of politics” in Britain?

Statue of Edmund Burke in Washington DC. Photo by Matthew G, Bisanz, 2009 (CC BY-SA 3.0).

response to the french revolution

British History student.indb 138

1/31/12 1:32 PM

lesson 3

primary soUrces London Times, Monday, Sept. 10, 1792 France: The Goths and Vandals, when they levelled the gates of Rome, and triumphantly entered into the capitol, yet still retained those feelings which distinguished the mind of man from the ungovernable appetite of the brute creation. It is true, they commanded the Roman ladies to attend them with wine under the Plantain Trees, and insisted on the solders acting as slaves—but they neither violated the chastity of the one, nor deprived the others of life. Far otherwise has been the conduct of the French barbarians. They delight in that kind of murder, which is attended with cruelty, and rejoice in every occurrence which can debase and unsex the feelings of man. We have very good authority for the detail that follows. Many of the facts have been related to us by a gentleman who was an eye-witness to them, and left Paris on Tuesday—and other channels of information furnish us with the news of Paris up to last Thursday noon—These facts stand not in need of exaggeration. It is impossible to add to a cup of iniquity already filled to the brim. When Mr. Lindsay left Paris on Wednesday, the MASSACRE continued without abatement. The city had been a scene of bloodshed and violence without intermission since Sunday noon, and although it is difficult and indeed impossible to ascertain with any precision the number that had fallen victims to the fury of the mob during these three days, we believe the account will not be exaggerated when we state it at TWELVE THOUSAND PERSONS—(We state it as a fact, which we derive from the best information, that during the Massacre on the 2d instant, from SIX to EIGHT THOUSAND Persons perished). To those whose situations do not lead them to

enquiry, or who have not an opportunity to do so, this number will be considered as a gross exaggeration, and even an impossibility; but we are well warranted to believe the truth of this statement, after having been at very great pains to enquire into it. We rather think the calculation is under than over stated; and it will be more credible, when we assert on the authority of those whose business and duty it was to collect every information on the subject, that on the 19th of August last only, ELEVEN THOUSAND PERSONS were MASSACRED in Paris. Those who were not on the spot, can have no idea of the slaughter or the cruelties that happened on that memorable day; and Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday last were merely a revival of them, though somewhat in a different shape. On the 10th of August, thousands died in defending their lives—but in this last massacre, there was no resistance; the unhappy victims were butchered like sheep at a slaughter house. But if the mob were excited to arms on the first of these days on the supposition of treachery in the Court, they had no such pretext in this latter instance. There was no new circumstance to excite them to these excesses; they could spring only from a base, cruel and degenerate nature. When the mob went to the prison de la Force, where the Royal attendants were chiefly confined, the Princess DE LAMBALLE went down on her knees to implore a suspension of her fate for 24 hours. This was at first granted, until a second mob more ferocious than the first, forced her apartments, and decapitated her. The circumstances which attended her death were such as makes humanity shudder, and which decency forbids us to repeat . . . for two days her mangled body was dragged through the streets. Are these “the Rights of Man”? Is this the response to the french revolution

British History student.indb 139

139

1/31/12 1:32 PM

Execution of Louis XVI in the Place de la Révolution by Helman, Graveur, and Graveur, 1794 (PD-US).

LIBERTY of Human Nature? The most savage four footed tyrants that range the unexplored deserts of Africa, in point of tenderness, rise superior to these two legged Parisian animals.—Common Brutes do not prey upon each other. By an express which arrived yesterday morning from Messrs. Fector and Co. at Dover, we learn the following particulars of the King’s execution: Execution of Louis XVI. King of the French: At six o’clock on Monday morning, the King went to take a farewell of the Queen and Royal Family. After staying with them some time, and taking a very affectionate farewell of them, the KING descended from the tower of the Temple, and entered the Mayor’s carriage, with his confessor and two Members of the Municipality, and passed slowly along the Boulevards which led from the Temple to the place of execution. All women were prohibited from appearing in the streets, and all persons from being seen at their windows. A strong guard cleared the procession. The greatest tranquillity prevailed in every street through which the procession passed. About half past nine, the King arrived at the place of execution, which was in the Place de Louis XV, between the pedestal which formerly supported the statue of his grandfather, and the promenade of the Elysian Fields. LOUIS mounted the scaffold with composure, and that modest intrepidity peculiar to oppressed innocence, the trumpets sounding and drums beating during the whole time. He made a 140

sign of wishing to harangue the multitude, when the drums ceased, and Louis spoke these few words. “I die innocent; I pardon my enemies; I only sanctioned upon compulsion the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. . .” He was proceeding, but the beating of the drums drowned his voice. His executioners then laid hold of him, and an instant after, his head was separated from his body; this was about a quarter past ten o’clock. After the execution, the people threw their hats up in the air, and cried out Vive la Nation! Some of them endeavoured to seize the body, but it was removed by a strong guard to the Temple, and the lifeless remains of the King were exempted from those outrages which his Majesty had experienced during his life.

Assignment While the reader will no doubt sympathize with the point of view of these newspaper accounts, offer evidence that the newspaper accounts are prejudicial.

response to the french revolution

British History student.indb 140

1/31/12 1:32 PM

lesson 4

an early history

Thomas Carlyle The French Revolution: A History was written by the Scottish historian Thomas Carlyle. The three-volume work, first published in 1837) offered a definitive, in-depth view of the French Revolution from 1789 to the height of the Reign of Terror (1793-4) and culminates in 1795. It is still considered one of the best, if prejudicial, histories of the French Revolution. Carlyle started writing it in 1834. When he had completed the first volume of his work, Carlyle sent his only completed manuscript of the text to a friend, the philosopher John Stuart Mill, whose maid mistakenly destroyed it. Carlyle then rewrote the entire manuscript from memory, achieving what he described as a book that came “direct and flamingly from the heart.” The following is the historical account of the death of Robiespiere, French leader during the Reign of Terror whom himself was executed: A passage from The French Revolution, A History: All eyes are on Robespierre . . . where he, his jaw bound in dirty linen . . . The Gendarmes [soldiers] point their swords at him, to show the people which is he. A woman springs on the Tumbril [execution platform]; clutching the side of it with one hand, waving the other Sibyl-like; and exclaims: “The death of thee gladdens my very heart, m’enivre de joi”; Robespierre opened his eyes; “go down to Hell, with the curses of all wives and mothers!” —At the foot of the scaffold, they stretched him on the ground till his turn came. Lifted aloft, his eyes again opened; caught the bloody axe. Samson [a name for the guillotine] wrenched the coat off him; wrenched the dirty linen from his jaw: the jaw fell powerless, there burst from him a cry; —hideous to hear and see.

Thomas Carlyle by Eliott & Fry, c1860 (PD-US).

Assignment What are advantages, and disadvantages, of writing history the way that Carlyle wrote his personal history.

response to the french revolution

British History student.indb 141

141

1/31/12 1:32 PM

Louis XVI by Antoine-François Callet, 1788 (PD-US).

142

response to the french revolution

British History student.indb 142

1/31/12 1:32 PM

Chapter 19 philosophers and world views

First Thoughts . . . Though the French Revolution began with the noblest of intentions, it soon turned into a blood bath. We will examine the philosophical roots of this most important of political events in two centuries. As Edmund Burke explained, “But what is liberty without wisdom, and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint.”

Chapter Learning Objectives . . . In chapter 19, we will look at the world views of four seminal philosophers. We will understand that their philosophies either inflamed the French Revolution or sought to quench it. As a result of this chapter you should be able to: 1. Discuss William Godwin’s world views. 2. Evaluate Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s world views and connect them to the French Revolution. 3. Explain how Edmund Burke would define these terms: Parliament, government, compromise. 4. Summarize Thomas Paine’s arguments. 5. Compare the world views of Godwin, Rousseau, Burke, and Paine.

British History student.indb 143

1/31/12 1:32 PM

lesson 1

william godwin

For the first time in several hundred years, the 19th-century English philosopher William Godwin spoke seriously about a utopia. Most thinkers and writers had more or less given up pursuit of the whole ideal. Godwin’s utopia was a society run by human nature, not by government. This view was classic anarchism. Godwin wanted to create a society with no laws or government at all. His view was that if mankind was unshackled from these things—laws, government, et al.—it would be able to reach its full potential. Like the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Godwin was critical of the political tradition of Hobbes and Locke. Unlike Rousseau, though, Godwin wanted no government at all. Subjective goodness and reason must supersede law and government. Only the Absurdism of Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., in the 20th century would approximate the radical thought of someone like Godwin. A passage from Political Justice by William Godwin: The rights of man have, like many other political and moral questions, furnished a topic of eager and pertinacious dispute more by a confused and inaccurate statement of the subject of enquiry than by any considerable difficulty attached to the subject itself. The real or supposed rights of man are of two kinds, active and passive; the right in certain cases to do as we list; and the right we possess to the forbearance or assistance of other men. The first of these a just philosophy will probably induce us universally to explode. There is no sphere in which a human being can be supposed to act, where one mode of proceeding will not, in every given instance, be more reasonable than any other mode. That mode the being is bound by every principle of justice to pursue. Morality is nothing else but that system which teaches us to contribute, upon all occasions, to the extent our power, to the well-being and happiness 144

William Godwin by Henry William Pickersgill, c1875 (PD-Art).

of every intellectual and sensitive existence. But there is no action of our lives, which does not in some way affect that happiness. Our property, our time, and our faculties, may all of them be made to contribute to this end. The periods, which cannot be spent in the active production of happiness, may be spent in preparation. There is not one of our

philosophers and world views

British History student.indb 144

1/31/12 1:32 PM

avocations or amusements, that does not, by its effects, render us more or less fit to contribute our quota to the general utility. If then every one of our actions fall within the province of morals, it follows that we have no rights in relation to the selecting them. No one will maintain, that we have a right to trespass upon the dictates of morality. It has been observed by natural philosophers, that a single grain of land more or less in the structure of the earth would have produced an infinite variation in its history. If this be true in inanimate nature, it is much more so in morals. The encounter of two persons of opposite sexes, so as to lead to the relation of marriage, in many cases obviously depends upon the most trivial circumstances, anyone of which, being changed, the relation would not have taken place. Let the instance be the father and mother of Shakespeare. If they had not been connected, Shakespeare would never have been born. If any accident had happened to the wife during her pregnancy, if she had on any day set her foot half an inch too far, and fallen down a flight of stairs, if she had turned down one street instead of another, through which, it may be, some hideous object was passing, Shakespeare might never have come alive into the world. The determination of mind, in consequence of which the child contracts some of his earliest propensities, which call out his curiosity, industry and ambition, or on the other hand leave him unobservant, indolent and phlegmatic, is produced by circumstances so minute and subtle as in few instances to have been made the subject of history. The events which after wards produce his choice of a profession or pursuit, are not less precarious. Every one of these incidents, when it occurred, grew out of a series of incidents that had previously taken place. Everything is connected in the universe. If any man asserted that, if Alexander had not bathed in the river Cydnus, Shakespeare would never have written, it would be impossible to prove that his assertion was untrue. To the inference we are deducing from this statement of facts, it may be objected “that it is true that all events in the universe are connected, and that the most memorable revolutions may depend for their existence upon trivial causes; but it is impossible for us to discern the remote bearings and subtle influences of our own actions; and by what we cannot discern it can never be required of us to regulate our conduct.” This is no doubt true, but its force in the nature of an objection will be

taken away if we consider, first, that, though our ignorance will justify us in neglecting that which, had we been better informed, we should have seen to be most beneficial, it can scarcely be considered as conferring on us an absolute right to incur that neglect. Secondly, even under the limited powers of our discernment, it will seldom happen to a man eminently conscientious and benevolent, to see no appearance of superiority, near or remote, direct or indirect, in favour of one side of any alternative proposed to his choice, rather than the other. We are bound to regulate ourselves by the best judgement we can exert. Thirdly, if anything remain to the active rights of man after this deduction, and if he be at liberty to regulate his conduct in any instance, independently of the dictates of morality, it will be, first, an imperfect, not an absolute right, the offspring of ignorance and imbecility; and, secondly, it will relate only to such insignificant matters, if such there be, as, after the best exercise of human judgement, cannot be discerned to have the remotest relation to the happiness of mankind.

Assignment Why would a Calvinist have a great deal of trouble with Godwin? Discuss Godwin’s view of morality and why it is anti-Christian.

philosophers and world views

British History student.indb 145

145

1/31/12 1:32 PM

lesson 2

jean-jacqUes roUsseaU Rousseau (right, PD-US), for my money, was the Frederick Nietzsche of his day. Like Nietzsche, Rousseau wrote in a radical vein. He explored the darker side of the Age of Reason or Enlightenment (like Sartre, et al, did 200 years later). He was the first philosopher to do so without evoking Christian faith as a criticism. In that sense he was post-modern in his view. More than this impulse, however, was Rousseau’s strong Rom-anticism (advanced in later years by Emerson and Thoreau). “Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains,” was the way Rousseau’s most famous book, Social Contract began. People did not have freedom merely by giving into force or control, as Hobbes implied. Freedom came by reverting into what Rousseau called “a state of nature.” This state of nature would be mankind in nature before he embraced civil society. It would be safe to say that Jean-Jacques Rousseau was the opposite position to that taken by Edmund Burke. A passage from Social Contract: The passage from the state of nature to the civil state produces a very remarkable change in man, by substituting justice for instinct in his conduct, and giving his actions the morality they had formerly lacked. Then only, when the voice of duty takes the place of physical impulses and right of appetite, does man, who so far had considered only himself, find that he is forced to act on different principles, and to consult his reason before listening to his inclinations. Although, in this state, he deprives himself of some advantages which he got from nature, he gains in return others so great, his faculties are so stimulated and developed, his ideas so extended, his feelings so ennobled, and his whole soul so uplifted, that, did not the abuses of this new 146

condition often degrade him below that which he left, he would be bound to bless continually the happy moment which took him from it forever, and, instead of a stupid and unimaginative animal, made him an intelligent being and a man. Let us draw up the whole account in terms easily commensurable. What man loses by the social contract is his natural liberty and an unlimited right to everything he tries to get and succeeds in getting; what he gains is civil liberty and the proprietorship of all he possesses. If we are to avoid mistake in weighing one against the other, we must clearly distinguish natural liberty, which is bounded only by the strength of the individual, from civil liberty, which is limited by the general will; and possession, which is merely the effect of force or the right of the first occupier, from property, which can be founded only on a positive title. We might, over and above all this, add, to what man acquires in the civil state, moral liberty, which alone makes him truly master of himself; for the mere impulse of appetite is slavery, while obedience to a law which we prescribe to ourselves is liberty. But I have already said too much on this head, and the philosophical meaning of the word liberty does not now concern us. Statue of Rousseau on the Île Rousseau, Geneva.

philosophers and world views

British History student.indb 146

1/31/12 1:32 PM

The house where Jean-Jacques Rousseau lived with Mme. de Warens in 1735-6. Now a museum dedicated to Rousseau. Photo by Chris Bertram, 2007 (CC BY-SA 2.0).

Professor Martyn Oliver echoes the concerns of a generation of philosophical critics: Rousseau’s philosophy is filled with paradoxes, but any inconsistency or apparent contradiction is no oversight. Throughout his works Rousseau juggles concepts of ‘the particular’ and ‘the universal’. For Rousseau these paradoxes are necessary ingredients of modern thought and progress requires us to reconcile them. Critics have been keen to point out the dangers of this philosophy. In particular, commentators have noted the danger of arbitrary definitions of the general will, for instance those leaders who claim to express the general will and believe themselves justified in enforcing it with coercion. Nonetheless, the problem of reconciling liberty and equality continues to overwhelm political philosophy.

Assignment What contradiction is evident in Rousseau’s thought?

Portrait of Jean-Jacques Rousseau by Allan Ramsay, 1766 (PD-US). philosophers and world views

British History student.indb 147

147

1/31/12 1:32 PM

lesson 3

edmUnd bUrke It is ironic that many of us will find the writings of Edmund Burke (right, PD-Art) to be far more appealing than those of some of our early Founding Fathers; however, Burke was an Englishman intensely opposed to the American efforts at revolution. Burke criticized revolutions as too abstract and idealistic. He was a strong advocate of “real politics.” Burke argued that relations between people were purely artificial and political contracts were established on tradition (e.g., the Word of God) and custom, not on humanistic notions of human rights. “Government is not made in virtue of natural rights,” he was fond of saying, “which may exist in total independence of it; and exist in much greater clearness, and in a much greater degree of abstract perfection: but their abstract perfection is their practical defeat.” (Oliver, History of Philosophy, p. 98). Burke was far more comfortable with pragmatism than he was with idealism. Better to trust in British common law, for instance, than in the tyranny of man-made natural laws that invited the form of nihilism which infamously shadowed the later French Revolution. The following are several quotes from Burke: Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you 148

have chosen him, he is not a member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament. And further: Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion. (Speech to the Electors of Bristol, November 3, 1774.) The objects of society are of the greatest possible complexity (Reflections on the Revolution in France, 1790.) All government, indeed every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue, and every prudent act, is founded on compromise and barter we give and take; we remit some rights that we may enjoy others (Speech, Conciliation with America, 1775). The government is a juggling confederacy of a few to cheat the prince and enslave the people (A Vindication of Natural Society, 1756). It is one of the finest problems in legislation, What the state ought to take upon itself to direct and what it ought to leave, with as little interference as possible, to individual discretion (1795). Popular remedies must be quick and sharp, or they are very ineffectual (1774).

Assignment How would Burke define these terms: parliament, government, compromise?

philosophers and world views

British History student.indb 148

1/31/12 1:32 PM

lesson 4

thomas paine

It is remarkable that such a mediocre, morally reprehensible, and uneducated man like Thomas Paine could have such an impact on world history. He was a loser most of his life, but during the beginning stages of the American Revolution he profoundly affected the cause of liberty. Lockian to the core, Paine enthusiastically advanced the notion that mankind had certain natural rights that could not be abrogated by any civil authority. Son of a Quaker, Paine was intensely anti-slavery. Unfortunately, though, he did not accept his parent’s faith and was one of the earliest outspoken agnostics in an age when that was unheard of. Paine openly advocated revolution (as opposed to the arguments of Edmund Burke) as a necessary and desirable way to bring down unjust governments. “It is impossible that such governments as have hitherto existed in the world, could have commenced by any other means than a total violation of every principle sacred and moral.” The state is a necessary evil whose only function was to protect the rights of the individual. In summary, what strikes the reader immediately is the superficiality of Paine’s arguments. Nonetheless, it is difficult to find a more influential 18thcentury philosopher. The following is a discussion of the virtues of self-government from Paine’s most influential pamphlet Common Sense: Mankind being originally equals in the order of creation, the equality could only be destroyed by some subsequent circumstance; the distinctions of rich, and poor, may in a great measure be accounted for, and that without having recourse to the harsh, ill-sounding names of oppression and avarice. Oppression is often the consequence, but seldom or never the means of riches; and though avarice will preserve a man from being necessitously poor, it generally makes him too timorous to be wealthy. But there is another and greater distinction for which no truly natural or religious reason can be

Thomas Paine by Auguste Millière 1880 (PD-US).

assigned, and that is, the distinction of men into KINGS and SUBJECTS. Male and female are the distinctions of nature, good and bad the distinctions of heaven; but how a race of men came into the world so exalted above the rest, and distinguished like some new species, is worth enquiring into, and whether they are the means of happiness philosophers and world views

British History student.indb 149

149

1/31/12 1:32 PM

or of misery to mankind. (except in extraordinary cases, where the Almighty In the early ages of the world, interposed) was a kind of republic administered by according to the scripture chroa judge and the elders of the tribes. Kings they had nology, there were no kings; the none, and it was held sinful to acknowledge any consequences of which was being under that title but the Lords of Hosts. And there were no wars; it is the when a man seriously reflects on the idolatrous pride of kings which throw homage which is paid to the persons of Kings, he mankind into confusion. need not wonder, that the Almighty, ever jealous of Holland without a king his honor, should disapprove of a form of governhath enjoyed more peace ment which so impiously invades the prerogative of for this last century than heaven. any of the monarchial governments in Europe. Assignment Antiquity favors the same remark; for the quiet and rural A. Summarize Paine’s arguments. While Paine was not a lives of the first patriarchs hath a confessing Christian, he nonetheless evoked images happy something in them, which vanfrom the Scriptures. Why, and what are they? ishes away when we come to the history of Jewish royalty. B. Compare and contrast Paine and Burke. At what points Government by kings was first introduced into do they agree? Disagree? the world by the Heathens, from whom the children of Israel copied the custom. It was the most prosperous invention the Devil ever set on foot for the promotion of idolatry. The Heathens paid divine honors to their deceased kings, and the Christian world hath improved on the plan by doing the same to their living ones. How impious is the title of sacred majesty applied to a worm, who in the midst of his splendor is crumbling into dust. As the exalting one man so greatly above the rest cannot be justified on the equal rights of nature, so neither can it be defended on the authority of scripture; for the will of the Almighty, as declared by Gideon and the prophet Samuel, expressly disapproves of government by kings. All anti-monarchial parts of scripture have been very smoothly glossed over in monarchial governments, but they undoubtedly merit the attention of countries which have their governments yet to form. ‘Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s’ is the scriptural doctrine of courts, yet it is no support of monarchial government, for the Jews at that time were without a king, and in a state of vassalage to the Romans. Near three thousand years passed away from the Mosaic account of the creation, till the Jews under a national delusion requested a king. Till then their form of government In Fashion before Ease; —or,— A good Constitution Sacrificed for a Fantastick Form, James 150

philosophers and world views

British History student.indb 150

Gillray caricatured Paine tightening the corset of Britannia; protruding from his coat pocket is a measuring tape inscribed “Rights of Man” 1793, (PD-US).

1/31/12 1:32 PM

Chapter 20 the age of napoleon

First Thoughts . . . In 1789 the French Revolution exploded and drew the attention of all the nations of Europe. The ensuing violence and international involvement triggered more than two decades of nearly continuous warfare as various competing empires sought to win what became known as the Napoleonic War. So many related military campaigns were fought over such large areas by so many different armies that this was without a doubt one of the greatest wars, to date, fought anywhere in the world.

Chapter Learning Objectives . . . In chapter 20, we will look at the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte at the beginning of the French Revolution. We will watch him conquer and then lose an empire. Finally, we will look more closely at the English society that emerged at the end of this era. As a result of this chapter you should be able to: 1. Discuss Napoleon’s rise to power. 2. Analyze the Napoleonic Wars and Napoleon’s inevitable defeat. 3. Review the Battles of Trafalgar and Waterloo. 4. Evaluate an essay written by a contemporary of Napoleon.

British History student.indb 151

1/31/12 1:32 PM

lesson 1

the age of napoleon: part one The French Revolution lasted from 1789 to 1795. The Napoleonic Empire began In 1795. After six years of catastrophic chaos, a diminutive, but charismatic Napoleon Bonaparte, seized control of the government and its army. Napoleon had, at his disposal, the most virulent superpower army in the world. From 1791 to 1799, more than 1.5 million men were conscripted into the military. Under Napoleon Bonaparte, a further 2.5 million took up arms. Napoleon built the first citizen army. In 1804, the French had more than 350,000 soldiers, organized into corps that were independent armies of varying sizes. Each corps contained infantry, cavalry, artillery and engineers that could beat any force of equal size and was capable of fighting at least a delaying action against superior enemies. Napoleon encouraged individual initiative among his officer corps. Napoleon permitted individual corps commanders to strike any enemy within in a day’s march. This exponentially increased his offensive potential. This strategy also gave corps commanders confidence that support was no more than a day’s journey away. Not unimportantly, this strategy also lessened the strain a single army marching along a single route placed upon local food supplies. In effect, Napoleon doubled and tripled the fighting effectiveness of his forces. A Napoleon of “high finance” by Undo J. Keppler, J. Ottmann Lith. Co., Puck Bldg., 1904 March 9 (PD-US).

This was particularly important in invasions of Spain and Russia, where the land was poor and barely able to sustain the population, let alone huge armies. It also allowed for speed and flexibility of manuver. It encouraged initiative and assured that the French Army, later called the Grande Armee, would be the most potent offensive force in Europe for a generation. England and her allies were not impressed. The nations of Europe had already begun moving against revolutionary France before the execution of King Louis XVI. In August, 1792, a joint Prussian-Austrian army invaded Northeast France and slowly marched toward Paris. They were met at Valmy by a hybrid force of French regular army troops and revolutionary volunteers. The French won and thereby halted the allied forces. This was followed by victories in the Netherlands. In January 1793, the revolutionary government in Paris executed King Louis and Marie Antoinette. This act of regicide fundamentally changed the nature of the greater conflict by raising the stakes against the other monarchs of Europe. European monarchs most certainly did not wish for French Revolutionary zeal to spread to their kingdoms! Great Britain especially was transformed at a stroke from a concerned older brother into an implacable foe of the revolution and anyone associated with it. The German states and Austria joined England.

152

British History student.indb 152

1/31/12 1:32 PM

The Coronation of Napoleon by Jacques-Louis David, c1805 (PD-Art).

New allied armies attacked France and made gains on all fronts. They were only repulsed when a national Levée en masse gradually allowed the gutted French command corps to stabilize the situation. French domination, though, had only begun. Over the next two years the Austrians were driven from the Netherlands, and Northern Holland was annexed. By 1795, Prussia, Spain, Hanover and Saxony had all opted out of the coalition, leaving Britain and Austria to continue the fight against France’s revolutionary government alone. Napoleon Bonaparte seemed unstoppable.

Assignment A. Did Napoleon create his own era, or did the era create a Napoleon Bonaparte? B. Why was the concept of Levée en masse so revolutionary and important?

General Bonaparte surrounded by members of the Council of Five Hundred during the 18 Brumaire coup d’état by François Bouchot, 1840 (PD-Art). the age of napoleon

British History student.indb 153

153

1/31/12 1:32 PM

lesson 2

the age of napoleon: part two Austria alone was fighting Napoleon on the continent, and despite local gains she increasingly found herself faced by a new French army general of unusual ability. In Germany, their own youthful Archduke Charles continued to outmaneuver French generals Joubert and Moreau. But in Italy, 26-year-old Napoleon expelled the combined Austrian armies from Northern Italy in a lightning campaign. Within a year of hard fighting, the French Army of Italy decisively secured the entire Po River Valley. It then joined up with Joubert’s troops marching out of Southern Germany and advanced on Vienna, forcing the Austrians to sue for peace. With peace returning to Europe, Napoleon looked to Egypt. It was, without a doubt, a disastrous campaign. The French attempt to conquer Egypt on first view does not make sense. It was not even on continental Europe and offered very few material and no strategic advantages. Napoleon however, wished to weaken England by having her over-extend her small army and substantial but limited navy. Napoleon also wanted to stop England from colonizing India. At the same time, General Napoleon Bonaparte, who had just conquered Italy, had ambitions to conquer the land of Cleopatra and Mark Antony. Finally, an army unused was an army lost. As his armies in Italy were nearing the end of their successful struggles against Austria, he needed another campaign. After winning several land battles and attaining all his goals, Napoleon found himself stuck in the Sinai desert with a hungry army and few supplies. Meanwhile, the British had defeated his fleet off Alexandria, and Napoleon saw the handwriting on the wall. He went home. An unusual aspect of the Egyptian expedition was the discovery of the Rosetta Stone. Back in Europe, a joint Austrian-Russian army managed to win most of Northern Italy away from the French. By the end of 1799, 154

half of the earlier French territorial gains had been lost, although the Russian offensive ground to a halt soon after due to internal problems. France was in trouble again. Meanwhile, the Royal Navy maintained a tight commercial blockade of the continent. While Great Britain maintained every sort of pressure on France and any country who traded with her, France in turn planned an invasion of England. Numerous newly formed French army corps were stationed in an enormous series of training camps along the English Channel. The invasion plans were finally brought to a close, however, when Austria and Russia again declared war and invaded southern Germany. France did not want to fight a two-front war. In one of history’s most famous military maneuvers, Napoleon responded by surrounding the central Austrian army then occupying Bavaria. The Austrians were unable to prevent the French occupation of Vienna, and in December of 1805 the remaining Allied army lost the important Battle of Austerlitz to Napoleon, knocking Austria out of the war for several years. In the Atlantic, the French and Spanish Navies were caught by the British Fleet after their attempt to secure the English Channel for Napoleon. The resulting naval battle off Cape Trafalgar was one of the greatest in history for its time and resulted in the destruction of both the French and Spanish fleets, but at the cost of British Admiral Horatio Nelson’s life. Alarmed at the sudden ascendancy of France’s influence in Germany, Prussia yet again sided with Great Britain and declared war against France in 1806.

Assignment In almost every instance, Napoleon was greatly outnumbered by his allied opponents. In spite of this fact, why did Napoleon win so many battles? Statue of Napoleon in Paris. Photo by I, Parisette (CC BY-SA 3.0).

the age of napoleon

British History student.indb 154

1/31/12 1:32 PM

lesson 3

the age of napoleon: part three The 1807, Spain’s government had sunk to an abysmal state, deeply corrupt and under the questionable leadership of King Charles IV. With the Spanish king’s permission, a French army crossed Spain into Portugal, chasing off the Portuguese royal family and occupying Lisbon by December. In March, 1808, France conquered neighboring Spain. Within weeks a British army in Portugal defeated French forces. England, with its naval superiority, held France at bay in Spain. In Central Europe, the Austria had again decided the time was ripe to resume hostilities with France. The resulting 1809 campaign began with a surprise attack into Bavaria. Napoleon was able to counter the various Austrian incursions with a newly raised force of French recruits. By May the French had pushed all the way back into Vienna for the second time in five years. By 1812, Czar Alexander I of Russia was becoming weary of the punishing effects of the English blockade on his country’s economy. This blockade was imposed as a result of Russia’s participation in Napoleon’s “Continental System,” which itself had been created as a counter to Great Britain’s own economic blockade of France. Economically powerful Great Britain eventually prevailed, and when Russia was successfully pressured into withdrawing from the Continental System, France was again virtually in the same position as it had been during the Revolution. Napoleon considered invading England, but, given the predominance of the Royal Navy, this seemed impractical. So he turned east. The Russians, with their insolence toward his Continental System, convinced Napoleon it must be conquered, once and for all. Napoleon was just the man to do it, or so he thought. His Grande Armee had never been defeated and he welcomed this new challenge. The invasion of Russia was logistically the most sophisticated in history. The invasion officially began on June 24,

).

The Emperor Napoleon in his study at the Tuileries by Jacques-Louis David, 1812 (PD-Art).

1812. For Napoleon’s combined army of over 500,000 men the campaign got off to a poor start due to the massive loss of horses in the hot weather and the refusal of the Russians to give battle. The Russian army merely retreated into the vast Russian Steppe. Each movement east put Napoleon’s the age of napoleon

British History ch20.indd 155

155

1/31/12 4:16 PM

Battle of Waterloo 1815 by William Sadler, c1839 (PD-Art).

army farther from his supply bases. By the time the invading army fought its first major battle at Smolensk, it had shrunk by half due to death and desertion. When the Russians finally gave battle at Borodino in September, the French, including Napoleon himself, were no longer the idealistic battle-hungry men who had begun the year. It was strategically a stalemate. Now, the Russians evacuated Moscow, allowing it to fall into French hands. When the French actually entered the city, groups of Russians torched every building they could, ironically forcing French troops to fight to save the Russian city from its own men. Napoleon remained in Moscow in the belief that an armistice would soon be offered, but none was forthcoming, and after a month of waiting he realized that the situation had become serious. If he remained in Moscow for the winter, the political climate back in France could destabilize. If he withdrew, it would be seen as a defeat, which could result in the economic strangulation of France and the ultimate return of a monarchy. The only choice was to try to move closer to France without actually abandoning the campaign. This required that the army move as soon as possible back into East Prussia, where there were large, well stocked French depots to support his men through the winter.

By the Spring of 1815, Napoleon managed to escape and he raised another army. This time he attacked the Anglo-German armies then in Belgium and Holland under the command of General Wellington. The campaign climaxed at the Battle of Waterloo, during which the French Army virtually disintegrated. This victory was to be the last required of the allied coalition, and Napoleon was sent to his final exile on the South Atlantic Island of Saint Helena, where he died in 1821.

Assignment A.  After defeating the Russians decisively, why did Napoleon still lose the Russian campaign? B. Did Napoleon really have a chance to win at Waterloo?

The move west began on October 19, and went well at first. But the army marched back through the same country, already exhausted by foraging. Increasingly severe cold, disease, and avenging Cossacks turned half the main army into a mass of fugitives. Quite literary, the 500,000 Grand Armee ceased to be (James Burbeck). Now the tide of battle irretrievably turned against the French. The new allied coalition of Great Britain, Russia, Prussia, Spain, Portugal, Austria, and Sweden slowly advanced into France from every direction and despite continuing French resistance, Paris was surrendered on March 31, 1814. A few days later Napoleon surrendered unconditionally, and was exiled on the island of Elba. 156

Napoleon on his death bed by Horace Vernet, 1826.

the age of napoleon

British History ch20.indd 156

1/31/12 4:16 PM

lesson 4

the napoleon of the people The Napoleon Of The People, by Honore de Balzac: “Napoleon, you see, my friends, was born in Corsica, which is a French island warmed by the Italian sun; it is like a furnace there, everything is scorched up, and they keep on killing each other from father to son for generations all about nothing at all—’tis a notion they have. To begin at the beginning, there was something extraordinary about the thing from the first; it occurred to his mother, who was the handsomest woman of her time, and a shrewd soul, to dedicate him to God, so that he should escape all the dangers of infancy and of his after life; for she had dreamed that the world was on fire on the day he was born. It was a prophecy! So she asked God to protect him, on condition that Napoleon should re-establish His holy religion, which had been thrown to the ground just then. That was the agreement; we shall see what came of it... It is certain sure that only a man who had had imagination enough to make a mysterious compact would be capable of going further than anybody else, and of passing through volleys of grape-shot and showers of bullets which carried us off like flies, but which had a respect for his head. I myself had particular proof of that at Eylau. I see him yet; he climbs a hillock, takes his field-glass, looks along our lines, and says, “That is going on all right.” One of the deep fellows, with a bunch of feathers in his cap, used to plague him a good deal from all accounts, following him about everywhere, even when he was getting his meals. This fellow wants to do something clever, so as soon as the Emperor goes away he takes his place. Oh! Swept away in a moment! And this is the last of the bunch of feathers! You understand quite clearly that Napoleon had undertaken to keep his secret to himself. That is why those who accompanied him, and even his especial friends, used to drop like nuts: Duroc, Bessieres, Lannes—men as strong as bars of steel, which he cast into shape for his own ends. And here is a final proof that he was the child of God, created to be the soldier’s father; for no one ever saw him as a lieutenant or a captain. He is a commandant straight off! Ah! yes, indeed! He did

Napoleon Crossing the Alps by Jacques-Louis David, 1801 (PD-Art).

not look more than four-and-twenty, but he was an old general ever since the taking of Toulon, when he made a beginning by showing the rest that they knew nothing about handling cannon. Next thing he does, he tumbles upon us. A little slip of a general-in-chief of the army of Italy, which had neither bread nor ammunition nor shoes nor clothes— a wretched army as naked as a worm. “Friends,” he said, “here we all are together. Now, get it well into your pates that in a fortnight’s time from now you will be the victors, and dressed in new clothes; you shall all have greatcoats, strong gaiters, and famous pairs of shoes; but, my children, you will have to march on Milan to take them, where all these things are.” the age of napoleon

British History student.indb 157

157

1/31/12 1:32 PM

Bonaparte Before the Sphinx by Jean-Léon Gérôme, c1867 (PD-US).

So they marched. The French, crushed as flat as a pancake, held up their heads again. There were thirty thousand of us tatterdemalions against eighty thousand swaggerers of Germans—fine tall men and well equipped; I can see them yet. Then Napoleon, who was only Bonaparte in those days, breathed goodness knows what into us, and on we marched night and day. We rap their knuckles at Montenotte; we hurry on to thrash them at Rivoli, Lodi, Arcola, and Millesimo, and we never let them go. The army came to have a liking for winning battles. Then Napoleon hems them in on all sides, these German generals did not know where to hide themselves so as to have a little peace and comfort; he drubs them soundly, cribs ten thousand of their men at a time by surrounding them with fifteen hundred Frenchmen, whom he makes to spring up after his fashion, and at last he takes their cannon, victuals, money, ammunition, and everything they have that is worth taking; he pitches them into the water, beats them on the mountains, snaps at them in the air, gobbles them up on the earth, and thrashes them everywhere... While he was busy inland, where he meant to carry out some wonderful ideas of his, the English burn his fleet for him in Aboukir Bay, for they never could do enough to annoy us. But Napoleon, who was respected East and West, and called “My Son” by the Pope, and “My dear Father” by Mahomet’s cousin, makes up his mind to have his revenge on England, and to take India in exchange for his fleet. He set out to lead us into Asia, by way of the Red Sea, through 158

a country where there were palaces for halting-places, and nothing but gold and diamonds to pay the troops with, when the Mahdi comes to an understanding with the Plague, and sends it among us to make a break in our victories. Halt! Then every man files off to that parade from which no one comes back on his two feet. The dying soldier cannot take Acre, into which he forces an entrance three times with a warrior’s impetuous enthusiasm; the Plague was too strong for us; there was not even time to say “Your servant, sir!” to the Plague. Every man was down with it. Napoleon alone was as fresh as a rose; the whole army saw him drinking in the Plague without it doing him any harm whatever... He spoke to the whole army at Boulogne. “In France,” so he said, “every man is brave. So the civilian who does gloriously shall be the soldier’s sister, the soldier shall be his brother, and both shall stand together beneath the flag of honor.” By the time that the rest of us who were away down there in Egypt had come back again, everything was changed. We had seen him last as a general, and in no time we find that he is Emperor! And when this was settled (and it may safely be said that every one was satisfied) there was a holy ceremony such as was never seen under the canopy of heaven. Faith, France gave herself to him, like a handsome girl to a lancer, and the Pope and all his cardinals in robes of red and gold come across the Alps on purpose to anoint him before the army and the people, who clap their hands.

the age of napoleon

British History ch20.indd 158

1/31/12 4:17 PM

There is one thing that it would be very wrong to keep back from you. While he was in Egypt, in the desert not far away from Syria, the Red Man had appeared to him on the mountain of Moses, in order to say, “Everything is going on well.” Then again, on the eve of victory at Marengo, the Red Man springs to his feet in front of the Emperor for the second time, and says to him: “You shall see the world at your feet; you shall be Emperor of the French, King of Italy, master of Holland, ruler of Spain, Portugal, and the Illyrian Provinces, protector of Germany, saviour of Poland, first eagle of the Legion of Honor and all the rest of it.” That Red Man, look you, was a notion of his own, who ran on errands and carried messages, so many people say, between him and his star. I myself have never believed that; but the Red Man is, undoubtedly, a fact. Napoleon himself spoke of the Red Man who lived up in the roof of the Tuileries, and who used to come to him, he said, in moments of trouble and difficulty. So on the night after his coronation Napoleon saw him for the third time, and they talked over a lot of things together. . . . But there was the Emperor of Russia, a friend of our Emperor’s, who was put out because he had not married a Russian lady. So the Russian backs up our enemies the English; for there had always been something to prevent Napoleon from putting a spoke in their wheel. Clearly an end must be made of fowl of that feather. Napoleon is vexed, and he says to us: “Soldiers! You have been the masters of every capital in Europe, except Moscow, which is allied to England. So, in order to conquer London and India, which belongs to them in London, I find it absolutely necessary that we go to Moscow.” Thereupon the greatest army that ever wore gaiters, and left its footprints all over the globe, is brought together, and drawn up with such peculiar cleverness, that the Emperor passed a million men in review, all in a single day. “Hourra!” cry the Russians, and there is all Russia assembled, a lot of brutes of Cossacks, that you never can come up with! It was country against country, a general stramash; we had to look out for ourselves. “It was all Asia against Europe,” as the Red Man had said to Napoleon. “All right,” Napoleon had answered, “I shall be ready for them.” And there, in fact, were all the kings who came to lick Napoleon’s hand. Austria, Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony, Poland, and Italy, all speaking us fair and going along with us; it was a fine thing! The Eagles had never cooed before as they did on parade in those days, when they were reared above all

the flags of all the nations of Europe. The Poles could not contain their joy because the Emperor had a notion of setting up their kingdom again; and ever since Poland and France have always been like brothers. In short, the army shouts, “Russia shall be ours!” We cross the frontiers, all the lot of us. We march and better march, but never a Russian do we see. At last all our watch-dogs are encamped at Borodino. That was where I received the Cross, and there is no denying that it was a cursed battle. The Emperor was not easy in his mind; he had seen the Red Man, who said to him, “My child, you are going a little too fast for your feet; you will run short of men, and your friends will play you false.” Thereupon the Emperor proposes a treaty. But before he signs it, he says to us:

“Let us give these Russians a drubbing!”



“All right!” cried the army.



“Forward!” say the sergeants.

My clothes were all falling to pieces, my shoes were worn out with trapezing over those roads out there, which are not good going at all. But it is all one. “Since here is the last of the row,” said I to myself, “I mean to get all I can out of it.” We were posted before the great ravine; we had seats in the front row. The signal is given, and seven hundred guns begin a conversation fit to make the blood spirt from your ears. One should give the devil his due, and the Russians let themselves be cut in pieces just like Frenchmen; they did not give way, and we made no advance.

“Forward!” is the cry; “here is the Emperor!”

So it was. He rides past us at a gallop, and makes a sign to us that a great deal depends on our carrying the redoubt. He puts fresh heart into us; we rush forward, I am the first man to reach the gorge. Ah! mon Dieu! how they fell, colonels, lieutenants, and common soldiers, all alike! There were shoes to fit up those who had none, and epaulettes for the knowing fellows that knew how to write.... Victory is the cry all along the line! And, upon my word, there were twenty-five thousand Frenchmen lying on the field. No more, I assure you! Such a thing was never seen before, it was just like a field when the corn is cut, with a man lying there for every ear of corn. That sobered the rest of us. The Man comes, and we make a circle round about him, and he coaxes us round (for he could be very nice when he chose), and persuades us to dine with Duke Humphrey, when we were hungry as hunters. Then our consoler distributes the Crosses of the Legion of Honor himself, salutes the dead, and says to us, “On to Moscow!” the age of napoleon

British History student.indb 159

159

1/31/12 1:32 PM



“To Moscow, so be it,” says the army.

We take Moscow. What do the Russians do but set fire to their city! There was a blaze, two leagues of bonfire that burned for two days! The buildings fell about our ears like slates, and molten lead and iron came down in showers; it was really horrible; it was a light to see our sorrows by, I can tell you! The Emperor said, “There, that is enough of this sort of thing; all my men shall stay here.” There comes a final end to it at last. We are back in France; and in spite of the bitter weather, it did one’s heart good to breathe one’s native air again, it set up many a poor fellow; and as for me, it put new life into me, I can tell you. But it was a question all at once of defending France, our fair land of France. All Europe was up in arms against us; they took it in bad part that we had tried to keep the Russians in order by driving them back within their own borders, so that they should not gobble us up, for those Northern folk have a strong liking for eating up the men of the South, it is a habit they have; I have heard the same thing of them from several generals. So the Emperor finds his own father-in-law, his friends whom he had made crowned kings, and the rabble of princes to whom he had given back their thrones, were all against him. Even Frenchmen and allies in our own ranks turned against us, by orders from high quarters, as at Leipsic. Common soldiers would hardly be capable of such abominations; yet these princes, as they called themselves, broke their words three times a day! ...The Emperor’s closest friends among his generals forsake him at last and go over to the Bourbons, of whom no one had ever heard tell. Then he bids us farewell at Fontainebleau: “Soldiers!”... I can hear him yet, we were all crying just like children; the Eagles and the flags had been lowered as if for a funeral. Ah! and it was a funeral, I can tell you; it was the funeral of the Empire; those smart armies of his were nothing but skeletons now. So he stood there on the flight of steps before his chateau, and he said: “Children, we have been overcome by treachery, but we shall meet again up above in the country of the brave. Protect my child, I leave him in your care. Long live Napoleon II.!” He had thought of killing himself, so that no one should behold Napoleon after his defeat; like Jesus Christ before the Crucifixion, he thought himself forsaken by God and by his talisman, and so he took enough poison to kill a regiment, but it had no effect whatever upon him. Another marvel! he discovered that he was immortal; and feeling 160

sure of his case, and knowing that he would be Emperor for ever, he went to an island for a little while, so as to study the dispositions of those folk who did not fail to make blunder upon blunder. Whilst he was biding his time, the Chinese and the brutes out in Africa, the Moors and what-not, awkward customers all of them, were so convinced that he was something more than mortal, that they respected his flag, saying that God would be displeased if any one meddled with it. So he reigned over all the rest of the world, although the doors of his own France had been closed upon him. Then he goes on board the same nutshell of a skiff that he sailed in from Egypt, passes under the noses of the English vessels, and sets foot in France. France recognizes her Emperor, the cuckoo flits from steeple to steeple; France cries with one voice, “Long live the Emperor!” The enthusiasm for that Wonder of the Ages was thoroughly genuine in these parts. Dauphine behaved handsomely; and I was uncommonly pleased to learn that people here shed tears of joy on seeing his gray overcoat once more. The Red Man went over to the Bourbons like the low scoundrel he is. France is prostrate, the soldier counts for nothing, they rob him of his due, send him about his business, and fill his place with nobles who could not walk, they were so old, so that it made you sorry to see them. They seize Napoleon by treachery, the English shut him up on a desert island in the ocean, on a rock ten thousand feet above the rest of the world. That is the final end of it; there he has to stop till the Red Man gives him back his power again, for the happiness of France. A lot of them say that he is dead! Dead? Oh! yes, very likely. They do not know him, that is plain! They go on telling that fib to deceive the people, and to keep things quiet for their tumble-down government. Listen; this is the whole truth of the matter. His friends have left him alone in the desert to fulfill a prophecy that was made about him, for I forgot to tell you that his name Napoleon really means the Lion of the Desert. And that is gospel truth. You will hear plenty of other things said about the Emperor, but they are all monstrous nonsense. Because, look you, to no man of woman born would God have given the power to write his name in red, as he did, across the earth, where he will be remembered forever!... Long live “Napoleon, the father of the soldier, the father of the people!”

Assignment Why would de Balzac choose to tell his story from the perspective of an ex-soldier? Why is his audience also important?

the age of napoleon

British History student.indb 160

1/31/12 1:32 PM

Chapter 21 the indU strial revolU tion

First Thoughts . . . While the Napoleonic Wars were fought and won, British inventors quietly designed machines whose impact would dwarf any battle won or lost, any war won or lost. The industrialized textile making machines alone transformed British society. In 1760 the British imported 1,000 tons of cotton; in 1850 the number had risen to over 222,000 tons. Britain possessed an expanding population with a larger per capita income than that of any other European state. The population growth stemmed from a gradual decline in death rates and an increase in the birth rate. It provided more customers and workers. It also produced new social problems, as will become evident.

Chapter Learning Objectives . . . In chapter 21, we will look at industrialization, with all its opportunities and problems. In particular, we will examine the rise of English cities. Next, we will explore the life of a great 19th-century English reformer, William Wilberforce. Finally, we will visit 19th century London. As a result of this chapter you should be able to: 1. Describe the causes and results of the Industrial Revolution. 2. Analyze the growth of English cities. 3. Evaluate how William Wilberforce changed the course of history. 4. Communicate how London grew as a 19th-century cultural and commercial center in Western Europe.

British History student.indb 161

1/31/12 1:32 PM

lesson 1

the indUstrial revolUtion The Industrial Revolution was the widespread application of power-driven machinery to manufacturing. By the beginning of the 18th century all of Western Europe began to industrialize rapidly, but in England the process was most highly accelerated. It was indeed a revolution. The widespread availability of consumable goods at affordable prices transformed society. The concomitant labor and social problems also transformed the way men and women looked at work and at leisure. By this time England had burned up other available fuels in its fireplaces, but thankfully large deposits of Welsh coal were available for industrial fuel. Having won the Napoleonic Wars, returning soldiers provided an abundant labor supply to mine coal and iron, and to man the factories. At the same time, a vigorous merchant marine fleet transported the manufactured products to profitable markets. Profits generated by the manufactured products sold overseas provided much needed investment capital. The superb English military saved industrial development from being interrupted by invasion. British manufacturing was replicated by other European states—notably Germany—and soon all of Western Europe was industrialized. With the advent of electricity and cheap steel after 1850 industrialization accelerated. Until the middle of the 18th century most manufacturing was occurring in forges, homes, and small manufacturing centers. These were called cottage industries. By 1750, English manufacturing was moving inexorably to a factory setting. Early factories clustered around rivers. They relied on the water wheel to power machines. The steam engine changed manufacturing forever. In 1712, Thomas Newcomen built a simple steam engine that pumped water from coal mines. It was a single piston engine, so it was not very efficient. It burned vast amounts of fuel—wood or coal. Because of its inefficiency, nobody 162

Watt’s steam engine at the lobby of the Higher Technical School of Industrial Engineering of Madrid. Photo by Nicolás Pérez, date unknown (CC BY-SA 3.0).

could think of any use for it until James Watt added a separate cooling chamber to the machine in 1763. This cooling chamber condensed the steam so the cylinder itself didn’t have to be cooled. Patented in 1769, Watt’s steam engine had the efficiency to be applied to all kinds of industries. By 1800, Watt had sold 289 of these new engines; by the middle of the next century, the steam engine replaced water and the water wheel as the major source of power in Europe and America. In 1762 Matthew Boulton and James Watt built the first factory which employed more than 600 workers and installed a steam engine to supplement power from two large water wheels that ran a variety of machines. Bolton and Watt provided steam engines for other industries. Josiah Wedgewood (1730–1795), for instance, revolutionized the production and sale of pottery by use of the steam engine. Technology advances were the watchword of the age. One major technological innovation was the cotton gin. Cotton was a textile that was too expensive to produce, even

The Industrial Revolution

British History student.indb 162

1/31/12 1:32 PM

with slave labor. Cotton seeds were extricated at exorbitant per-hour costs. If production costs would be reduced, the demand would assure vast profits for its investors. Connecticut inventor Eli Whitney solved the problem with his cotton gin. The wool textile industry had some special challenges. It was extremely labor intensive. It took four spinners to keep up with one cotton loom, and ten persons to prepare yarn for one woolen weaver. Spinners were busy, but weavers often had to be idle for lack of yarn. Advances in machinery and manufacturing changed all that. The flyshuttle sped up the process of weaving cotton threads into cloth. Meanwhile, the spinning process was improved by James Hargreaves who created one of the major technological innovations of the Industrial Age: the spinning jenny. There was another major innovation in the textile industry. In 1784 a machine printed patterns on the surface of cloth. By 1812, the cost of making cotton yarn had dropped to one-tenth of its cost only 30 years before. Unfortunately manufacturers were reluctant to pass these savings along to workers and consumers. In fact, working conditions declined and by 1840 the labor cost of making the best woolen cloth had fallen by at least half because laborers were working longer hours on more days. The Industrial Revolution led to the growth of cities. Production shifted from its traditional locations in the home and the small workshop to factories. As a result, people moved in wholesale numbers from the countryside to small villages and larger cities. Urban problems resulted. For the first time since the time of Christ, more people lived in cities than lived in the countryside. These changes caused far-reaching social changes. The Industrial Revolution was the first step in modern economic growth and development. All this conspired to make Western Europe, and then America, the most powerful military presence in the world. Strong industrialization provided a prosperous, healthy middle class, that in turn assured that a nation would have numerous, hardy soldiers. Modern industry required abundant power to run its machinery. The 19th-century Industrial Revolution was powered by coal. As a rule of thumb, nations that had vast reserves of coal were the first to experience the Industrial Revolution. This included England, Germany, and the United States. An equally important development of fuel was the development of coke–a high carbon content version

James Watt by Carl Frederik von Breda, 1792 (PD-Art).

of coal that burned longer and hotter than coal. This had obvious advantages to factories. All these changes conspired to bring great increases in productivity. A single spinner or weaver, for example, could now turn out many times the volume of yarn or cloth that earlier workers had produced. Rising productivity was the central economic achievement that made the Industrial Revolution such a watershed in human history. It also had considerable impact upon the nature of work and therefore on life itself. It significantly changed the daily lives of ordinary people like nothing else before had done. Gone were the days that men and women sat around drinking tea and spinning piece work for resale at the local farmer’s market. Products were mass produced by impersonal workers and distributed in anonymous shops. The marketing agents did not know the manufacturers, and vice versa. It was a cold, impersonal business. In summary, the Industrial Revolution divided the production process into basic, individual tasks but these were normally done on site. Industrial workers had to go to a workplace warehouse—often a dreary, unsafe place. Each nameless worker would then perform one task, rather than

The Industrial Revolution

British History student.indb 163

163

1/31/12 1:33 PM

a single worker doing the entire job. Such division of labor certainly improved productivity, but most of the jobs were repetitive and boring. They could also be dangerous. Textile workers and coal miners developed respiratory infections that shortened their lives. Nonetheless, if a worker did not work then he was not paid. There was no Social Security or worker’s compensation insurance. Workers normally worked for 10–12 hours a day, six days a week, with no break or vacation. Industrialization was not all bad. Even unskilled workers could find some sort of employment. Food supplies increased and improved. Health care improved. Life expectancy, particularly for women, increased. Families could buy some luxuries—like packaged bread and manufactured clothes. Advances in manufacturing presaged changes in how business was structured and work was organized. Employers learned how to operate many different economic activities across broad geographic areas. A business might have a spinning mill in Liverpool, an important processing plant in Glasgow, and a retail outlet in Paris. Profit was everything. Each factory/store was run by a local manager whose overall direction was determined by a central office. This birthed the modern corporation. 164

In summary, beginning in England, the Industrial Revolution radically changed European life. Work, home life, leisure activity—all of these were transformed by the Industrial Revolution. One final point. Population growth was dramatic. The population of England and Germany doubled in about 70 years. In the United States the population doubled about every 35 years. The general population increase was aided by a greater supply of food made available by the Industrial Revolution, and by the growth of medical science and public health measures which decreased the death rate and added to the population base.

Assignment One historian observed, “The most far-reaching, influential transformation of human culture since the advent of agriculture eight or ten thousand years ago, was the Industrial Revolution of 19th century Europe. The consequences of this revolution would change irrevocably human labor, consumption, family structure, social structure, and even the very soul and thoughts of the individual.” What were some of these technological advances?

The Industrial Revolution

British History student.indb 164

1/31/12 1:33 PM

lesson 2

the rise of cities

Until the Industrial Revolution, most of the world’s population was rural. However, by the mid-19th century, half of England lived in cities, and by the end of the century, the same was true of other European countries. At the beginning of the 19th century there were only 24 cities in Europe with a population of 100,000, but by 1900 there were more than 150 cities of this size. What impact did this have on European society? First, industrialization called for the concentration of a work force near factories. The factories were often located where coal or some other essential material was available, as the Ruhr in Germany. Second, the necessity Fourteen year old spinner at a cotton mill. Photo by Lewis Wickes Hine, date unknown (PD-US). for marketing finished goods created great urban centers where there was access to rapid transporta- Industrial Revolution created a new working class. It was tion like waterways or railways. And third, political capitals from this new working class that revolutions occurred in such as London, Paris, Rome, and Berlin became banking, 1789, 1848, and 1917. commercial centers. Rapid growth of the cities was a mixed blessing. Company towns became long monotonous rows of company-built drab, minimal shelters. If the factory system brought increased employment and decent wages, when these disappeared in recessions, the opposite result was even more disastrous. Unemployed families often found themselves miles away from caring relatives and other support structures. Child labor was an especially onerous development. It was not unusual for boys and girls as young as 9 years old to work long hours in textile factories performing the most menial tasks at minimum compensation. Specialty jobs, too, like collecting horse dung, was usually performed by children younger than 14. There is one final problem that will emerge later. The

Assignment One historian argues, “The Industrial Revolution was more than technology—impressive as this technology was. What drove the Industrial Revolution were profound social changes, as Europe moved from a primarily agricultural and rural economy to a capitalist and urban economy, from a household, family-based economy to an industry-based economy. This required rethinking social obligations and the structure of the family; the abandonment of the family economy, for instance, was the most dramatic change to the structure of the family that Europe had ever undergone-and we’re still struggling with these changes.” Why did the abandonment of the family economy have such a radical impact on society? The Industrial Revolution

British History student.indb 165

165

1/31/12 1:33 PM

lesson 3

william wilberforce

William Wilberforce was one of the most influential politicians in British history. He dedicated his life to a righteous cause—the end of the slave trade. Wilberforce, a committed Christian believer, persevered “in a long obedience” and lived to see his world changed. In the late 1700s, when William Wilberforce was a teenager, English traders raided the African coast on the Gulf of Guinea and purchased between 35,000 and 50,000 Africans a year, shipped them across the Atlantic, and sold them to slave owners. It was a very profitable business that benefited many. In fact, no vocation was more profitable than slave trading. One shipload of slaves would make an investor a millionaire. Ship captains were so well paid that they only had to go on one voyage per year. Slave owners produced profitable crops like sugar cane and cotton with slave labor. Wilberforce knew this. He understood the obstacles he faced. But he also knew how horrible and inhumane the slave trade was. For weeks, months, sometimes as long as a year, slaves waited in prisons along Africa’s western coast. Out of the roughly 20 million who were taken from their homes and sold into slavery, half didn’t complete the journey to the African coast, most of those died along the way. And the worst was yet to come. The slaves then entered a special nightmare: the infamous Middle Passage. African slaves boarding a ship had no idea what lay ahead. As one slave wrote, “I looked round the ship too and saw a large furnace of copper boiling, and a multitude of black people of every description chained together, every one of their countenances expressing dejection and sorrow, I no longer doubted of my fate and quite overpowered with horror and anguish, I fell motionless on the deck and fainted. . . . I asked if we were not to be eaten by those white men with horrible looks, red faces and long hair?” 166

William Wilberforce by Sir George Hayter, date unknown (PD-Art).

The slaves were branded with hot irons and restrained with shackles. Their “living quarters” was often a deck within the ship that had less than five feet of headroom— and throughout a large portion of the deck, sleeping shelves cut this limited amount of headroom in half. Many slaves lay in their excrement and filth for six weeks—the length of the voyage. Slaves were so valuable, that even if one-half of them died, the voyage was still very profitable. No wonder Wilberforce committed himself to the noble task of ending slave trading. “So enormous, so dreadful, so irremediable did the [slave] trade’s wickedness appear that my own mind was completely made up for abolition. Let the

The IndusTrIal revoluTIon

British History student.indb 166

1/31/12 1:33 PM

consequences be what they would: I from this time determined that I would never rest until I had effected its abolition.” From the beginning, ending slave trading was a great struggle. Bills to end the slave trade were introduced by Wilberforce and defeated in 1791, 1792, 1793, 1797, 1798, 1799, 1804, and 1805. When it became clear that Wilberforce was not going to let the issue die, pro-slavery forces targeted him personally. He was ridiculed and physically threatened. He never gave up. All this in spite of the fact that poor health plagued him his entire life, sometimes keeping him bedridden for weeks, Wilberforce persevered. A bill abolishing slavery became law one month after his death.

Stowage of the British slave ship Brookes under the regulated slave trade act of 1788, Quadell (PD-US).

Assignment A. Wilberforce invested his life into a cause that never brought him approbation or riches. What cause can you join that is worth a lifetime of effort? B. Some pro-life proponents argue that abortion is such a heinous crime that the “means justify the end.” They openly harass pro-choice proponents and participants. They even commit unlawful acts. Other pro-life proponents are “gradualists” and seek to work through the courts, waiting for the day that legal entities will change laws and end abortion. Which position is most effective?

The IndusTrIal revoluTIon

British History student.indb 167

167

1/31/12 1:33 PM

lesson 4

19th-centUry london London became the commercial capital of England and all of Europe. The prosperity of the City of London led to a rapid increase in land prices. At the same time, the city’s population started to move to the suburbs. In turn, the suburbs regrouped along existing class structures. The Upper and Middle Classes moved to areas such as Hampstead and the West End, while the poorer classes congregated in the East End in overcrowded and sometimes squalid conditions. In short, 19th century London represented the best and the worst of the Industrial Revolution.

The construction of large-scale public railways, linking London to many of the major cities, transformed London’s social and business life. The underground subways followed. The growth of shipping and, in particular, the construction of the famous clipper ships that could swiftly cross the Atlantic in as little as two weeks enabled tea to be transported from China to the Thames in only a few weeks. The transport links were crucial in the extending of colonial domination and international trade. London truly became an international city.

Factories requiring large machinery, relocated outside the city. Other businesses, like banks, stayed downtown. At the same time there were 37 pubs on Fleet Street! London became a massive office with clerks and book keepers. Charles Dickens, whose Bob Cratchett stirred the national conscience, worked for a time as a parliamentary reporter, sharing the hardships of long hours and commuting suffered by clerical workers.

Industrial progress was sometimes double-edged. The invention of the modern toilet (or water closet) resulted in the piping of raw sewage into the Thames, which at the time was the source of London’s water supply. In 1833, 10,000 Londoners died in a cholera epidemic, which led to a law banning burials within the city limits. The great reformers of the 19th century were faced with unprecedented social problems thrown up by the changes which followed the Industrial Revolution.

Assignment The economist Adam Smith wrote his influential book The Wealth of Nations, which proposed that the only legitimate goal of national government and human activity is the steady increase in the overall wealth of the nation. Why was this a threat to the aristocracy and a boon for early business leaders?

The London of Charles Dickens by C. H. Graves, c1900 (PD-US).

168

The Industrial Revolution

British History ch21.indd 168

2/1/12 10:25 AM

Chapter 22

19th-centUry

england

First Thoughts . . . In the early 19th century Britain only a small minority of men (and no women) were allowed to vote. This was to change. Universal suffrage to men finally arrived. In 1872 the secret ballot was introduced. However in the 19th century at least 80 percent of the population was working class. Throughout the 19th century “service” was a major employer of women. In the 19th century, families were much larger than today. That was partly because infant mortality was high. People had many children and accepted that not all of them would survive. In a 19th-century family the father was the undisputed head of the family. His wife and children respected him and obeyed him. Until 1882, all a woman’s property, even the money she earned, belonged to her husband. Divorce was made legal in 1857, but it was very rare in the 19th century (www.localhistories.com).

Chapter Learning Objectives . . . In chapter 22, we will look at the reigns of King George IV and King William IV, both scoundrels. Next, we will examine, in some depth, the 19th century. Finally, we will evaluate the impact of the Irish Potato Famine on world history. As a result of this chapter you should be able to: 1. Summarize the reign of King George IV. 2. Summarize the reign of King William IV. 3. Analyze the politics and social life of 19th century England. 4. Evaluate the impact of the Irish Potato Famine on world history.

British History ch22.indd 169

1/31/12 4:28 PM

lesson 1

king george iv

George IV, eldest son of George III and Charlotte, was born August 12, 1762. He secretly married his first wife, the Catholic widow Maria Fitzherbert, in 1785 without his father’s permission. The marriage was declared illegal because George IV would have been ineligible to reign with a Catholic wife. In 1795, he married again, this time to his cousin Caroline of Brunswick, who bore him one daughter, Charlotte. He died on June 26, 1830. George IV was the opposite of his father: reticent in his infrequent political involvement and unfaithful to his wife. He did, however, have a great love of books. He had his father’s immense book collection donated as the foundation of the British Museum Library and his penchant for building projects was unappreciated by his subjects. His extravagances came at a time of social distress and general frugality following the Napoleonic Wars. George IV could not grasp the tremendous changes brought forth by the Industrial Revolution. George was an enigma: bright, witty and able on the one hand, indolent, spoiled, and lazy on the other. The Duke of Wellington described him as such: “He was the most extraordinary compound of talent, wit, buffoonery, obstinacy, and good feelings, in short, a medley of the most opposite qualities, with a great preponderance of good that I ever saw in any character in my life (www.britannia. com).”

George IV of the United Kingdom by Sir Thomas Lawrence, 1821 (PD-Art).

Assignment A. George IV was a very poor example of probity to his reign. Should he have been impeached? B. What happens when a leader acts in an immoral way? What happens to a nation whose leadership exhibits these bad choices?

170

19TH CENTURY ENGLAND

British History student.indb 170

1/31/12 1:33 PM

lesson 2

william iv

William IV, born August 21, 1765, was the third son of George III and Sophia. William also made some bad choices, but eventually married Adelaide (left, PD-Art) of Saxe-Coburg and Meinengein, who bore him two daughters (both of whom died in early childhood). William IV died of pneumonia on June 20, 1837, leaving no heirs. William succeeded his brother, George IV, and at first was welcomed with open arms by the British public, who had grown weary of the excesses of the fourth George. Little did they know! King William possessed an unassuming character, exemplary private life and disdain for pomp and ceremony. And he was chaste—but he was faithful to his mistress only with whom he had 10 illegitimate children! Parliamentary reform was the main theme of his reign. The Industrial Revolution, increases in population and migration from the country to the city left England with a ineffective system of representation. A reform bill passed in Parliament in 1832 because William threatened to create enough new peerages to insure passage of the bill. The Reform Act of 1832 extended the voting franchise to middle class land owners and became the basis for further acts which eventually enfranchised all adult subjects. Democratic and national revolutions were sweeping Europe. William was the only European monarch of the age to survive the advent of democracy.

King William IV by Sir Martin Archer Shee, c1800 from the book The National Portrait Gallery History of the Kings and Queens of England (PD-Art).

Assignment Why was King William IV able to survive a British democratic upheaval when so many of his European peers did not? 19TH CENTURY ENGLAND

British History student.indb 171

171

1/31/12 1:33 PM

lesson 3

19th

centUry english history During the 19th century Britain was transformed by the Industrial Revolution from a rural to an urban nation. In 1801, 20 percent of the population lived in towns. By 1851 the figure had risen to over 50 percent. By 1881 about twothirds of the population lived in towns. Likewise, most people were farmers in 1801. By the late 19th century the vast majority of English worked in factories. The early 19th century was an era of political and social unrest in Britain. In the early 19th century a group of Evangelical Christians called the Clapham Sect were active in politics. They campaigned for an end to slavery and cruel sports. They gained their name because so many of them lived in Clapham. Then on May 11, 1812 a man named John Bellingham shot Tory Prime Minister Spencer Perceval. He was the only British prime minister ever to be assassinated. Bellingham was a lone madman, but in 1820 there was a plot to kill the whole cabinet. It did not succeed. Meanwhile in 1811–1816 textile workers in the Midlands and the north of England broke machines, fearing they would cause unemployment. This sort of industrial espionage was punishable by death! In 1819 a crowd of about 60,000 people gathered at St. Peter’s Field in Manchester to hear a man named Henry Hunt. Eleven people were killed and hundreds were wounded. From 1828 to 1830 the Duke of Wellington (1769–1852) was prime minister. He introduced the Catholic Emancipation Act (1829). Since the Reformation Catholics had been unable to become MPs or to hold public office. The Act restored those rights to them. During the Napoleonic Wars (1799–1815) Britain could not import large amounts of grain from Europe. That all changed in 1815. British landowners feared that cheap foreign grain would be imported so they passed the Corn Laws. By the 1840s public opinion changed in favor of free 172

The Duke of Wellington by Francisco de Goya, c1812 (PD-Art).

trade. Most people believed that government should interfere in the economy as little as possible (following Adam Smith’s economics). By 1848 there were 5,000 miles of railways in Britain and the network continued to expand rapidly in the later 19th century. Railways provided a great boost to other industries such as iron. They also revolutionized transport. Journeys that would have taken days by stagecoach took hours by train.

19th centUry england

British History ch22.indd 172

1/31/12 4:29 PM

One unfortunate event occurred. The industrial revolution created an unprecedented demand for female and child labor. Children had always worked alongside their parents, but before the 19th century they usually worked part time. In the new textile factories women and children were often made to work 12 hours a day or more. In 1819 the government made it illegal for children under 9 to work in cotton mills. Children aged 9 to 13 were not allowed to work for more than 12 hours a day or a total

of more than 48 hours a week. Children aged 13 to 18 must not work for more than 69 hours a week. Furthermore, nobody under 18 was allowed to work at night. In 1844 another act banned women from working more than 12 hours a day (although it also reduced the minimum age for working in a mill to 8). Then in 1847 women and children were banned from working more than 10 hours a day in textile factories (Tim Lambert).

Assignment One contemporary describes 19th century mill girls: “In 1832, our town was little more than a factory village full of textile mills. The employee of choice was single women. Troops of girls came from different parts of New England, and from Canada, and men were employed to collect them at so much a head, and deliver them at the factories. Women were of different ages. Some were not over ten years old; a few were in middle life, but the majority were between the ages of sixteen and twenty-five. They were paid two dollars a week. The working hours of all the girls extended from five o’clock in the morning until seven in the evening. Those of the mill—girls who had homes generally worked from eight to ten months in the year; the rest of the time was spent with parents or friends. A few taught school during

the summer months. The most prevailing incentive to labor was to secure the means of education for some male member of the family. To make a gentleman of a brother or a son, to give him a college education, was the dominant thought in the minds of a great many of the better class of mill girls. I have known more than one to give every cent of her wages, month after month, to her brother, that he might get the education necessary to enter some profession. I have known a mother to work years in this way for her boy. I have known women to educate young men by their earnings, who were not sons or relatives. There are many men now living who were helped to an education by the wages of the early mill girls.” Do you think hiring mill girls was desirable or a necessary evil?

(Above and below) Print showing two views of freight trains of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway Company, with flatbed cars for hauling standard freight and cars with rails and cages for hauling livestock, drawn by steam locomotives between Liverpool and Manchester, England. By Carlsruhe bei J. Velten, c1813 (PD-US).

19th centUry england

British History student.indb 173

173

1/31/12 1:33 PM

lesson 4

the irish potato famine

It began with a blight of the potato crop that left Irish farmland covered with black rot. As harvests across Europe failed, the price of food soared. Subsistence-level Irish farmers found their food stores rotting in their cellars, the crops they relied on to pay the rent to their British and Protestant landlords destroyed. Peasants who ate the rotten produce sickened and entire villages were consumed with cholera and typhus. The dead were unburied or buried only in the clothes they wore when they died.

Assignment Do you think England did enough to help its Irish neighbor? What responsibilities does a nation have to help another nation? Why?

Landlords evicted hundreds of thousands of peasants and other landlords paid for their tenants to emigrate, sending hundreds of thousands of Irish to America and other English-speaking countries. Some ships reached port only after losing a third of their passengers to disease. Help came from other countries, especially England, but it was too late. The Irish Famine of 1846-50 shaped the histories of the United States and Britain as well.

Irish famine statues at a public street in Dublin.

The combined forces of famine, disease and emigration depopulated Ireland; Ireland’s population dropped from 8 million before the Famine to 5 million years after. If Irish nationalism was dormant for the first half of the 19th century, the Famine convinced Irish citizens and Irish-Americans of the urgent need for political change. The Famine also changed centuries-old agricultural practices, hastening the end of the division of family estates into tiny lots capable of sustaining life only with a potato crop (www.archive.org). 174

19TH CENTURY ENGLAND

British History student.indb 174

1/31/12 1:33 PM

Chapter 23 victorian age

First Thoughts . . . Charles Dickens writes in A Tale of Two Cities,, “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to heaven, we were all doing direct the other way—in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.” While Dickens is describing the French Revolution, he is also describing the Victorian Age. It was the best of times. Industry and commerce blossomed. It was the worst of times. The poor increased in number and despair. Victorian society brought great contrasts, but also great emphasis on public rectitude and moral propriety that may be gone forever.

Chapter Learning Objectives . . . In Chapter 23, we will look at Victorian England, beginning with Queen Victoria, the person, who reigned in England longer than any monarch. We will look closely at Emmeline Pankhurst, who championed women’s rights. Finally we will look at several world views that battled for the Judeo-Christian hearts of England with fervor and sagacity. As a result of this chapter you should be able to: 1. Describe the Victorian Age in great depth. 2. Analyze the emerging women’s rights movement and Emmeline Pankhurst’s part in it. 3. Discuss how Herbert Spencer’s philosophy dominated English social history. 4. Evaluate the impact of Max Weber on British history and if his theories were accurate.

British History student.indb 175

1/31/12 1:33 PM

lesson 1

the victorian age

Queen Victoria (1837-1901) was only 18 when she came to the throne. She was to live longer than any reigning British monarch at that time, and when the British Empire reached its zenith. Victoria gave her name to an era. During the Victorian Age, Great Britain knew unaccustomed stability. This era set the social theme for a generation of western Europeans and even North Americans. The Victorian Age was represented by theistic, Judeo-Christian ideals of devotion to family life, public and private responsibility, obedience to the law, and sensitivity to gender roles. Under Victoria, as if God was blessing her efforts, Britain became an immensely powerful nation. The Victorian Age assumed ubiquitous aspects that even affected architecture! A revolution, of sorts, occurred during Victoria’s reign. British citizens did not participate in anything like the 1848 European revolutions, but they participated in British political life in ways heretofore not seen. For instance, the Chartist Movement began in 1839 with demands for electoral reform and universal male suffrage. Heretofore no political cause had gained such support. It took 11 years to accomplish its purpose, but it succeeded in giving the right to vote to every Englishman. Overseas, England became involved in the Crimean War (1854), which checkmated Russia in its attempt to gain a warm water port. A few years later (1857) saw the Indian Mutiny. India had been administered by the East India Company with government cooperation. The Mutiny began when the army introduced new rifle cartridges that were rumored to have been greased with lard. Any local Hindu soldier who bit off the end of the cartridge to load it into his gun was therefore committing sacrilege. The army rebelled and massacred many British officers and civilians. Now, the British government took over the administration of India altogether. Victoria did not neglect domestic issues. Rejecting nascent Social Darwinism, Queen Victoria favored social 176

Queen Victoria by Bassano, 1882 (PD-US).

intervention for her subjects. The most popular and pressing movement for social reform concerned child labor. Children were an important industrial labor force because employers could pay them lower wages than their parents. Parliament first limited the hours children could work in textile factories in 1833. The law prevented children under nine years of age from working more than nine hours per day. Nine hours seems too long to us, but to British industry at this time this was a decrease of three or more hours/day.

victorian age

British History ch23.indd 176

1/31/12 4:30 PM

This social reform was partly due to popular novels written by the British novelist Charles Dickens. In 1868 trade unions were formed. At the beginning of the 20th century, representatives from unions and other labor organizations formed the Labour Party to promote the election pro-labor politicians sympathetic to labor issues. This was only the beginning. During the 20th century Labour emerged as one of the two major political parties in Britain. Two of the most important Prime Ministers in Queen Victoria’s reign were William Gladstone of the Liberal Party (pro-labor) and Benjamin Disraeli of the Conservative Party (pro-business). They were worthy and capable opponents for over 50 years. Rarely in the history of a democracy have two principled opponents been so diametrically opposed on so many vital issues. Gladstone came from a Liverpool middle-class merchant family and went to England’s most exclusive schools. He was a self-made man. Disraeli’s background was quite different. His father was a Jewish-Christian convert who baptized his children into the Church of England. Disraeli did not receive an elite education and supported himself through hard work. He briefly became prime minister in 1868 and again from 1874 to 1880. Although Disraeli supported some social reform, he identified the Conservatives with the monarchy, the church, and the strengthening of the British Empire. Social reform was secondary. Gladstone’s greatest efforts were devoted to solving the problem of Ireland, which by that point had become a thorn in the English side. The potato famine had devastated Ireland. Gladstone tried his best to support self-governing efforts in Ireland, but it wished to be completely independent from England. Gladstone knew that this was impossible; the British public would not hear of it. Besides, what was he to do with Protestant Ulster (Northern Ireland)? It enjoyed British rule and did not wish to be a part of Roman Catholic Ireland.

Assignment One historian wrote, “In the midst of this tumult, the Victorians were troubled by Time. On the one hand, there was not enough of it: the accelerated pace of change kept people too busy to assimilate the torrent of new ideas and technologies. In the 1880s the essayist F. R. Harrison contended that Victorians were experiencing ‘a life lived so full...that we have no time to reflect where we have been and whither we intend to go.’ On the other hand, there was too much time: well before Darwin, scientists were showing that vast eons of geological and cosmic development had preceded human history, itself suddenly lengthening due to such discoveries as the Neanderthal skeletons found in 1856.” Contrast this description of Victorian England with contemporary America.

Statue of William Ewart Gladstone, Albert Square, Manchester. Photo by Mike Peel (www.mikepeel.net ) 2009 (CC BY-SA 2.5).

Thanks to Victoria’s inspired rule and the help of men like Gladstone and Disraeli, at the end of the Victorian Age in the early 20th century, Great Britain was at the height of its power. victorian age

British History student.indb 177

177

1/31/12 1:33 PM

lesson 2

emmeline pankhUrst The idea that women should not vote seems absurd to modern readers, but to Victorian Britain it was equally absurd to think that they should. In fact, Victorian England did not let women vote at all. It was not until 1928 that British women were allowed to vote. Yet “the mother half of the human family,” in Emmeline Pankhurst’s phrase, was fully enfranchised in the year of the death of England’s most famous suffragette. Emmeline Pankhurst was born a Victorian Englishwoman, but she shook society into a new direction from which there could be no going back. The struggle to get votes for women, led by Mrs. Pankhurst and her daughter Cristobel at the head of the militant suffragists, convulsed Britain from 1905 to 1914 She was one of the first champions of non-violent disobedience, emulated by Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. Emmeline Pankhurst was born in Manchester in 1858. Her father was successful businessman with radical political beliefs. He took part in the campaigns against slavery and the Corn Laws. Pankhurst’s mother was a passionate feminist and started taking her daughter to women’s suffrage meetings in the early 1870s. She married Richard Pankhurst. He was also a strong advocate of women’s suffrage. They had four children. In 1895 Emmeline became a Poor Law Guardian. This involved regular visits to the local workhouse and she was deeply shocked by the misery and suffering of the inmates. She became particularly concerned about the way women were treated and it reinforced her belief that women’s suffrage was the only way these problems would be solved. Richard died of a perforated ulcer in 1898. Emmeline founded the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU). On October 13, 1905, Emmeline’s two daughters, Cristobel Pankhurst and Annie Kenney, attended a meeting in London to hear Sir Edward Grey, a minister in 178

Emmeline Pankhurst by Matzene, Chicago, c1913 (PD-US).

the British government. When the women refused to stop shouting, the police were called to evict them from the meeting. Pankhurst and Kenney refused to leave, and during the struggle a policeman claimed the two women kicked and spat at him. Pankhurst and Kenney were arrested and charged with assault. Cristobel Pankhurst and Annie Kenney were found guilty of assault and fined five shillings each. When the women refused to pay the fine they were sent to prison. The case shocked the nation. For the first time in Britain women had used violence in an attempt to win the vote. In 1907 Emmeline moved to London and joined her two daughters in the militant struggle for the vote. For the next seven years she was imprisoned repeatedly. Now in her fifties, Emmeline’s actions inspired many other women to

victorian age

British History student.indb 178

1/31/12 1:33 PM

follow her example of committing acts of civil disobedience. In one 18-month period, she endured ten hunger-strikes. Emmeline Pankhurst died in 1928, the year that British women were first allowed to vote (www.spartacus.schoolnet.com).

Corn Laws In force between 1689 and 1846, the Corn Laws were designed to protect English landholders by encouraging the export and limiting the import of corn when prices fell below a fixed point. They were eventually abolished in the face of militant agitation by the Anti-Corn-Law-League, formed in Manchester in 1839, which maintained that the laws, which amounted to a subsidy, increased industrial costs. In 1833 Earl Grey, the Prime Minister, set up a Poor Law Commission to examine the working of the Poor Law system in Britain. In their report published in 1834, the Commission made several recommendations to Parliament. As a result, the Poor Law Amendment Act was passed. The act stated that: A. no able-bodied person was to receive money or other help from the Poor Law authorities except in a workhouse B. conditions in workhouses were to be made very harsh to discourage people from wanting to receive help C. workhouses were to be built in every parish or, if parishes were too small, in unions of parishes; D. ratepayers in each parish or union had to elect a Board of Guardians to supervise the workhouse, to collect the Poor Rate and to send reports to the Central Poor Law Commission; E. the three man Central Poor Law Commission would be appointed by the government and would be responsible for supervising the Amendment Act throughout the country. Quote by Emmeline Pankhurst describing her visit to a Poor House: The leaders of the Liberal Party advised women to prove their fitness for the Parliamentary franchise by serving in municipal offices, especially the unsalaried offices. A large number of women had availed themselves of this advice, and were serving on Boards of Guardians, on school boards, and in

other capacities. My children now being old enough for me to leave them with competent nurses, I was free to join these ranks. A year after my return to Manchester in 1894 I became a candidate for the Board of Poor Law Guardians. I was elected, heading the poll by a very large majority. When I came into office I found that the law was being very harshly administered. The old board had been made up of the kind of men who are known as rate savers. They were guardians, not of the poor but of the rates… For instance, the inmates were being very poorly fed. I found the old folks in the workhouse sitting on backless forms, or benches. They had no privacy, no possessions, not even a locker. After I took office I gave the old people comfortable Windsor chairs to sit in, and in a number of ways we managed to make their existence more endurable. The first time I went into the place I was horrified to see little girls seven and eight years on their knees scrubbing the cold stones of the long corridors. These little girls were clad, summer and winter, in thin cotton frocks, low in the neck and short sleeved. At night they wore nothing at all, night dresses being considered too good for paupers. The fact that bronchitis was epidemic among them most of the time had not suggested to the guardians any change in the fashion of their clothes. I also found pregnant women in the workhouse, scrubbing floors, doing the hardest kind of work, almost until their babies came into the world. Many of them were unmarried women, very, very young, mere girls. These poor mothers were allowed to stay in the hospital after confinement for a short two weeks. Then they had to make a choice of staying in the workhouse and earning their living by scrubbing and other work, in which case they were separated from their babies. They could stay and be paupers, or they could leave—leave with a twoweek-old baby in their arms, without hope, without home, without money, without anywhere to go. What became of those girls, and what became of their hapless infants?

Assignment In pursuit of a just, righteous cause, when (if ever) is violent civil disobedience justified?

victorian age

British History student.indb 179

179

1/31/12 1:33 PM

lesson 3

philosophers and world views Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) Herbert Spencer took the Hegelian, naturalistic, evolutionary biological views of Charles Darwin and applied it to human society. This English sociologist, in other words, argued that in biological sciences and in the social sciences the fittest and the strongest survive. He argued that world societies were slowly evolving into their highest order. That evolution was manifested primarily from an inexorable movement from simple to complex. “The ultimate result of shielding man from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.” —Herbert Spencer Excerpt from First Principles, by Herbert Spencer: The general principle must lead us to anticipate that the diverse forms of religious belief which have existed and which still exist have all a basis in some ultimate fact. Judging by analogy the implication is, not that any one of them is altogether right, but that in each there is something right more or less disguised by other things wrong. It may be that the soul of truth contained in erroneous creeds is extremely unlike most, if not all, of its several embodiments; and indeed if, as we have good reason to assume, it is much more abstract than any of them, its unlikeness necessarily follows. But some essential verity must be looked for. To suppose that these multiform conceptions should be one and all absolutely groundless discredits too profoundly that average human intelligence from which all our individual intelligences are inherited .

180

Herbert Spencer. Photograher unknown, c1903 (PD-US).

Assignment Albert Einstein, when hearing that sociologists used his theory of physics in sociological theory was horrified. Spencer takes a biological theory (and a bad one at that) and applies it to the sociological realm. What are the dangers of doing that?

victorian age

British History student.indb 180

1/31/12 1:33 PM

lesson 4

philosophers and world views Max Weber (1864-1920) In his seminal work The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Weber argued that capitalism developed in the West because of the predominance of Protestantism. Protestantism dominated the governments and culture of Western Europe during the times in which modern culture developed. The notion that God was pleased with hard work and frugal living assured a healthy maturation of society in a time when dislocation and poverty could have short-circuited the development of modernity. Excerpt from The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, by Max Weber: The emancipation from economic traditionalism appears, no doubt, to be a factor which would greatly strengthen the tendency to doubt the sanctity of the religious tradition, as of all traditional authorities. But it is necessary to note, what has often been forgotten, that the Reformation meant not the elimination of the Church’s control over everyday life, but rather the substitution of a new form of control for the previous one. It meant the repudiation of a control which was very lax, at that time scarcely perceptible in practice, and hardly more than formal, in favour of a regulation of the whole of conduct which, penetrating to all departments of private and public life, was infinitely burdensome and earnestly enforced. The rule of the Catholic Church, “punishing the heretic, but indulgent to the sinner”, as it was in the past even more than today, is now tolerated by peoples of thoroughly modern economic character, and was borne by the richest and economically most advanced peoples on earth at about the turn of the fifteenth century. The rule of Calvinism, on the other hand, as it was enforced in the sixteenth century in Geneva and in Scotland, at the turn of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in large parts of

the Netherlands, in the seventeenth in New England, and for a time in England itself, would be for us the most absolutely unbearable form of ecclesiastical control of the individual which could possibly exist. That was exactly what large numbers of the old commercial aristocracy of those times, in Geneva as well as in Holland and England, felt about it. And what the reformers complained of in those areas of high economic development was not too much supervision of life on the part of the Church, but too little. Now how does it happen that at that time those countries which were most advanced economically, and within them the rising citizen middle classes, not only failed to resist this unexampled tyranny of Puritanism, but even developed heroism in its defence? For citizen classes as such have seldom before and never since displayed heroism. It was “the last of our heroisms”, as Carlyle, not without reason, has said.

Assignment Do you think that the Industrial Revolution started in England instead of France because England was a Protestant nation? Support your opinion with well-considered arguments.

victorian age

British History student.indb 181

181

1/31/12 1:33 PM

182

victorian age

British History student.indb 182

The Queen receiving the sacrament at her coronation by Charles Robert Leslie, c1897 (PD-US).

1/31/12 1:33 PM

Chapter 24 victorian life

First Thoughts . . . “Sweetness is to woman what sugar is to fruit. It is her first business to be happy—a sunbeam in the house, making others happy. True, she will often have ‘a tear in her eye’, but, like the bride of young Lochinvar, it must be accompanied with ‘a smile on her lips’” (Rev. E. J. Hardy, Manners Makyth Man,, 1887). This week we move beyond stereotypes and look more closely at Victorian life, both at the manner of living, and at the philosophers and philanthropists who made it so.

Chapter Learning Objectives . . . Chapter 24 will delve into Victorian life, specifically in the decline of religion. Next we will look at the primary reason this occurred: Darwinism. But we will be inspired by the life of William Booth, who was not only an anointed evangelist, but also a first-rate social worker. Finally we will honor the memory of Florence Nightingale who transformed the vocation of nursing and improved hospital sanitation that saved thousands of lives. As a result of this chapter you should be able to: 1. Describe the struggles that Victorian Christianity faced. 2. Evaluate the impact of Charles Darwin and his writings on world history. 3. Discuss how William Booth changed the course of history. 4. Analyze how Florence Nightingale improved hospital hygiene and nursing preparation for generations to come.

British History student.indb 183

1/31/12 1:33 PM

lesson 1

the decline of religion

In spite of Queen Victoria’s inspired moral leadership, the growing impotency of organized religion was an uncontested fact. Scientific discovery, especially evolution, had found explanations of the dynamics of the universe which significantly threatened the Church. Much of the controversy came from with the Church itself. For instance, Church of England Bishop Colenso published in 1862 The Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua Critically Examined. This book questioned ordination vows which required ministers to accept the Scripture literally. Comte’s philosophy of positivism, which asserted that mankind was progressing from a point when it would rely on science for understanding instead of “superstition,” was a growing influence in the Church of England. There was clearly a crisis brewing. Gerald Manley Hopkins, a Roman Catholic priest, addressed the problem directly. “It gather’s to greatness, like the ooze of oil/Crushed. Why do men now not wreck his rod? “Hopkins wrote several poems affirming the sovereignty of God. The evangelical wing of the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church fought for truth. The term “evangelical” came into general use in England at the time of the Methodist revival under Wesley and Whitefield, which had its roots in Calvinism and which, with its emphasis on emotion and mysticism in the spiritual realm, was itself in part a reaction against the “rational” Deism of the earlier 18th century. Early in the 19th century the terms “Evangelical” and “ Methodist” were used indiscriminately by opponents of the movement, who accused its adherents of fanaticism and Puritanical disapproval of social pleasures. The Evangelical branch of the Anglican Church coincided very nearly with the “Low Church” party. Evangelicals believed in a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and that the Bible is inerrant. Evangelicalism stressed the reality of the “inner life,” insisted on the total depravity of unredeemed humanity (a consequence of the Fall). They put particular emphasis on faith, denying that 184

Alfred William Garrett; William Alexander Comyn Macfarlane; Gerard Manley Hopkins, by Thomas C. Bayfield, date unknown (PD-US).

either good works or the sacraments (which they perceived as being merely symbolic) possessed any redemptive efficacy. Evangelicals, too, denied that ordination imparted any supernatural gifts, and upheld the sole authority of the Bible in matters of doctrine. Evangelical Christianity has special importance to Victorian literature because so many major figures began as evangelicals and retained many attitudes and ideas, including notions of biblical symbolism, even after they abandoned their childhood and young adult beliefs either for another form of Christianity or unbelief. Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Robert Browning, and Mary Evans (aka George Eliot) were among this group. By the end of the Victorian Age, without a doubt, the Church of England was in big trouble.

Assignment In spite of the fact that the Victorian Age was marked by probity and high moral standards, the Church declined in influence and popularity. Why?

victorian LIFE

British History student.indb 184

1/31/12 1:33 PM

lesson 2

charles darwin

Few Victorians are as famous as Charles Robert Darwin. Few have brought such havoc into the world view arena. Assuredly, though, this was not reticent Charles Darwin’s desire! Born into a wealthy family, Darwin grew up with typical gentry privileges. An unimpressive student, Darwin vacillated between the prospect of becoming a country physician, like his father, or a pastor. The advantage to becoming a country parson, as Darwin saw it, would be the freedom to pursue his growing interest in natural history—which is perhaps one reason the Church in Victorian England was in trouble—it attracted pastors who had interests in other disciplines more than pastoring. However, an unforeseen opportunity precluded Darwin’s plan of becoming a clergyman. After his student days in Edinburgh and Cambridge, Darwin’s connections in 1831 offered him the opportunity of travelling on a survey ship, H.M.S. Beagle, as the captain’s gentleman dining companion and as naturalist (a “naturalist” was a self-taught amateur scientist who was often a better writer than a scientist). The round-the-world journey lasted almost five years. Darwin spent most of these years investigating the geology and life of the lands he visited, especially South America, the Galapagos islands. Darwin was influenced by a scientist named Alexander von Humboldt and the geologist Charles Lyell. Lyell’s new book, Principles of Geology, was particularly interesting to Darwin. Lyell argued that the world had been shaped not by great catastrophes like floods but by slow, gradual processes. This prepared Darwin to argue an “old earth policy.” Darwin speculated on why it was that the species he found as fossils were often extinct in the same region today, but sometimes not. Why? He decided that “natural selection” had favoured certain superior “mutants” who had evolved from lower forms of species. He was not prepared to say human beings evolved from animals—although his later disciples were— but he did develop a theory of evolution.

Charles Darwin by Messrs, Maull, and Fox, c1854 (PD-US).

Many have argued that Darwin borrowed an idea of individual struggle from laissez-faire social theory and applied it to the natural world. Karl Marx was perhaps the first to observe that Darwin’s theories of individual struggle resembled contemporary British theories of political economy developed by the German philosopher Hegel. However, there is no evidence that Darwin did this.

victorian LIFE

British History student.indb 185

185

1/31/12 1:33 PM

In The Origin of Species Darwin first tried to convince his readers that organisms were not in fixed natural forms. The famous last paragraph to the Origin of Species gives an irreplaceable taste of Darwin’s vision: It is interesting to contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent upon each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from

the indirect and direct action of the conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Assignment Caricature of Charles Darwin from Vanity Fair magazine. Caption read “Natural Selection”. by James Joseph Jacques Tissot, Vanity Fair 30 September 1871 (PD-Art).

186

victorian LiFE

British History student.indb 186

Ironically, Victorian England, an intensely religious nation, was completely undermined by Darwinism. Evolutionary forces decreed that only the fittest should survive in capitalist competition as well as in nature. Applied to nations and races as well as individuals, this theory supported the apparent destiny of England to prosper and rule the world. In the long run, however, this viewpoint was disastrous to England. Explain.

Women’s dormitories, operated by the Salvation Army, located on the northwest corner of 8th & E Streets, NW in Washington, D.C. by Harris & Ewing, 1920 (PD-US).

1/31/12 1:33 PM

lesson 3

william booth

William Booth was born in England in 1829. At the age of 13 he was sent to work in a pawnbroker’s shop to help support his mother and sisters. He did not enjoy his job but it made him only too aware of the poverty in which people lived and how they suffered humiliation and degradation because of it. During his teenage years he became a born-again Christian and shared Christ with whoever would listen. Later he decided to become a Methodist pastor. After his marriage to Catherine Mumford in 1855 he spent several years as a Methodist minister, preaching and sharing God’s word to all. Yet he felt that God was calling him to help poor people. He left the Methodist Church to do street work in London. With his words and in his life example, Booth brought the good news of Jesus Christ and his love for all men. He formed a ministry called “The Christian Mission.” Slowly the mission began to grow but the work was hard and discouraging. He was taunted by detractors and physically accosted by some beggars. Outposts were eventually established and in time attracted converts, yet the results remained discouraging. There were at least 500 charitable and religious groups trying to help in London. It was not until 1878 when The Christian Mission changed its name to The Salvation Army that things began to happen. The impetus changed. The idea of an Army fighting sin was appealing to the Victorian, militaristic, disciplined society. Contributions increased. Converts increased. In fact, by the end of the 19th century, the Salvation Army was the primary social welfare agency to the entire city of London. In other words, no secular social welfare organization could hold a candle to the expertise and effectiveness of the Salvation Army. It was not merely a vital, effective evangelistic ministry, it was also the most effective social welfare organization in the 19th century. More poverty-stricken Londoners were helped by the Salvation Army than any other organization. By the time Booth died in 1912 the Salvation Army was at work in 58 countries (www.salvationarmy.org/).

William Booth by Falk, N.Y., c1907 (PD-US).

Assignment Reflect upon the life of Booth in the context of his social ministries. He was not only a solid, anointed evangelist; he was also the best social welfare agent in London. Discuss why this is a winsome combination.

victorian LIFE

British History student.indb 187

187

1/31/12 1:33 PM

lesson 4

florence nightingale

Florence Nightingale’s two greatest life achievements—pioneering of nursing and the reform of hospitals—were amazing considering that most Victorian women of her age group did not attend universities or pursue professional careers. It was her father, William Nightingale, who believed women, especially his children, should get an education. So Nightingale and her sister learned Italian, Latin, Greek, history, and mathematics. Nightingale’s hospital visits began in 1844 and continued for 11 years. She spent the winter and spring of 1849-50 in Egypt with family friends; on the journey from Paris she met two St. Vincent de Paul sisters who gave her introduction to their convent at Alexandria. Nightingale saw that the disciplined and well-organized sisters made better nurses than women in England In March 1854 the Crimean War broke out and Nightingale offered her services to the War Office on October 14th. Descriptions from Nightingale and her nurses give some idea of the horrible conditions: “There were no vessels for water or utensils of any kind; no soap, towels, or clothes, no hospital clothes; the men lying in their uniforms, stiff with gore and covered with filth to a degree and of a kind no one could write about; their persons covered with vermin . . . We have not seen a drop of milk, and the bread is extremely sour. The butter is most filthy; it is Irish butter in a state of decomposition; and the meat is more like moist leather than food. Potatoes we are waiting for, until they arrive from France . . . Because Nightingale stayed all night in the wards the wounded men called her “The Lady of the Lamp.” Early in 1855, because of the defects in the sanitation system, there was a great increase in the number of cases of cholera and of typhus fever among Nightingale’s patients. Seven of the army doctors and three of the nurses died. Frostbite and dysentery from exposure in the trenches before the siege of Sevastopol, Russia, in the Crimean War made the wards fuller than before. There were over 2,000 188

Florence Nightingale by Goodman, c1858 (PD-US).

sick and wounded in the hospital and in February 1855 the death rate rose to 42 percent. The War Office ordered the sanitary commissioners to carry out sanitary reforms immediately, after which the death rate declined rapidly until in June it had fallen to 2 percent. Nightingale herself fell ill from cholera and she nearly died. Later, Nightingale returned to England, but not before she had transformed hospital sanitation forever. She died in 1912.

Assignment Florence Nightingale could care less about women’s rights, but in some ways she did more to advance women’s rights than Emmeline Pankhurst. How could that be?

victorian LIFE

British History student.indb 188

1/31/12 1:33 PM

Chapter 25

19th centUry

wars

First Thoughts . . . During the Victorian Age, England emerged as the premier colonial power. But not without some problems. Mostly as a result of nation building, England fought a series of regional wars that changed the world forever. England emerged into the 20th century successful, but not unscathed.

Chapter Learning Objectives . . . In chapter 25, we will look at several 19th-century wars, the First Afghan War, the Crimean War, the Raj Wars, and the Second Afghan War. We will see that England won these wars, but had mixed success in its attempt to build new, English-friendly nations. We will see how England successfully checkmated their nemesis, the Russian Empire, in its attempt to expand its influence in the South Asia sphere. As a result of this chapter you should be able to: 1. Describe the causes and results of the First Afghan War and tell why British attempts at nation building fail. 2. Discuss the Crimean War, its causes and its results. 3. Analyze the Raj Wars. 4. Evaluate the effectiveness of the Second Afghan War.

British History ch25.indd 189

1/31/12 4:31 PM

lesson 1

the afghan wars

By 1830, the British controlled India. England was, however, concerned about the Russians, who wanted to do a little empire building themselves. In fact, they wanted to do this expansion south so that they might gain a southern port. South was Afghanistan. Clearly, Afghanistan was the key to checking Russian expansion. This was one interest that England had in controlling Afghanistan. Another was the opium trade, which, to Englishmen, was not only a mind altering drug but a medicine for all sorts of ailments. It was perfectly legal. William Wilberforce, for instance, was addicted to opium, without knowing it, because he used it for medicinal purpose. To protect its holdings in India, the British had allied themselves with an Afghan ruler, Dost Mohammed. Mohammed, though, was a sly ruler who also tried to ally himself with Russia. This was unacceptable to proud Britain. The British, already present in India, invaded Afghanistan with an army of 20,000 British and Indian troops in late 1838. After difficult travel through the mountain passes, the British reached Kabul in April 1839. They marched unopposed into the Afghan capital city. Dost Mohammed was toppled as the Afghan leader, and the British installed another, more friendly head of state. The original plan was to withdraw all the British troops but some British troops had to remain in Kabul. The Afghan population deeply resented the British troops. Tensions slowly escalated, and the British were unprepared in November 1841 when an insurrection broke out in Kabul. On January 6, 1842, the British began their withdrawal from Kabul. Leaving the city were 4,500 British troops and 12,000 civilians who had followed the British Army to Kabul. The plan was to march to Jalalabad, about 90 miles away. The retreat in the brutally cold weather took an immediate toll, and many died from exposure in the first days. And despite the treaty, the British column came under attack when it reached a mountain pass, the Khurd Kabul. The retreat became a massacre. More than 16,000 people 190

Dost Mahommed, King of Caubul, and his youngest son by James Rattray, 1848 (PD-US).

had set out on the retreat from Kabul, and in the end only one man, Dr. William Brydon, a British Army surgeon, had made it alive to Jalalabad. The loss of so many troops to mountain tribesmen was, of course, a bitter humiliation for the British. With Kabul lost, a campaign was mounted to evacuate the rest of the British troops from garrisons in Afghanistan, and the British then withdrew from the country entirely (History1800.about.com).

Assignment Like the Americans who invaded Iraq in the early 21st century, the 19th-century British found that using the military to do nation building was difficult if not impossible. What is nation building and why is it so hard to do?

19th centUry wars

British History student.indb 190

1/31/12 1:33 PM

lesson 2

the crimean war

The Crimean War, fought between the allied nations Britain and France against their enemy Russia, arose from muddled circumstances and did not make enormous changes in Europe. The Crimean War erupted over religion of populations in the Holy Land. But everyone knew it was a war to check Russian attempts to gain warm-water ports The French emperor Napoleon III, in the early 1850s, forced the Ottoman Turkish Empire to recognize France as a sovereign authority in the Holy Land. The Russian tsar objected. The Russians claimed to be the protector of religious freedom of Christians in Holy Land. Britain and France declared war against Russia on March 28, 1854.

British bombardment of the fortress Bomarsund (Aland Islands) during the Crimean War. Artist unknown, 1854 (PD-US).

In September 1854 the allies struck the Crimea, a peninsula in the present-day Ukraine. The Russians had a large naval base at Sevastopol, on the Black Sea, which was the ultimate target of the invasion force. The allied armies, with about 60,000 troops, encountered a Russian force at the River Alma and a battle ensued. The British and French routed the Russian army. The Russians regrouped at Sevastopol. The British and French began an artillery bombardment of Sevastopol. Nothing worked.

Sevastopol still in place. During the winter of 1854-55 the war became an ordeal of disease and malnutrition. Thousands of troops died of exposure and contagious illnesses spread through the camps. Four times as many troops died of illness than combat wounds.

The Russians attacked a weak position but they were repulsed heroically by Scottish Highlanders. As the Russians were fighting the Highlanders, another Russian unit began removing British guns from an abandoned position. British light cavalry were ordered to prevent that action, but orders got confused and the legendary “Charge of the Light Brigade” was launched against the wrong Russian position. The 650 men of the regiment raced into certain death, and at least 100 men were killed in the first minutes of the charge. The battle was inconclusive. As the winter weather approached and conditions deteriorated, the fighting came to a virtual halt with the siege of

The armies stayed in trenches throughout the spring of 1855, and assaults on Sevastopol were finally planned for June 1855. Attacks on fortresses protecting the city were launched and repulsed on June 15, 1855, thanks largely to incompetence by the British and French attackers. Another attack on Sevastopol was launched in September 1855, and the city finally fell to the British and French. At that point the Crimean War was essentially over, though some scattered fighting went on until February 1856. Peace was finally declared in late March 1856. The Crimean War did check the Russian expansionist tendencies. But Russia itself was not really defeated, as the Russian homeland was not attacked.

Assignment Why was the Crimean War fought? 19th centUry wars

British History student.indb 191

191

1/31/12 1:33 PM

lesson 3

the raj wars The British rule in India was called locally “The Raj,” which was derived from a Hindu term raja meaning “king.” Resentment toward the British had been building for some time, and new policies that allowed the British to annex some areas of India exacerbated tensions. By early 1857 things had reached a breaking point. The Indian Mutiny erupted in May 1857, when loyal Indian troops massacred all the British in Delhi. The British eventually ended the mutiny, resorting to draconian tactics. The large city of Delhi was left in ruins. The importance of India, and the affection the British crown felt for its colony, was emphasized in 1876 when Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli (above, PD-US) declared Queen Victoria to be “Empress of India.” British control of India would continue, mostly peacefully, throughout the remainder of the 19th century. It wasn’t until Lord Curzon became Viceroy in 1898, and instituted some very unpopular policies, that an Indian nationalist movement began to stir. The nationalist movement developed over decades, and, of course, India finally achieved its independence in 1947.

Assignment

The Governor-General of India George Curzon with his wife Mary Curzon on the elephant “Lakshman Prasad” in Delhi. Artist unknown. Bourne&Shepherd, 1902. (PD-US).

Discuss the Indian Mutiny of 1857. 192

19th centUry wars

British History student.indb 192

1/31/12 1:33 PM

lesson 4

the second afghan war For the same reason the First Anglo-Afghan War occurred the Second Anglo-Afghan War began. The competing empires of Britain and Russia were bound to clash in central Asia at some point, with Russia’s eventual goal being the invasion and seizure of Britain’s prize possession, India. British strategy was focused on keeping Russian influence out of Afghanistan, which could become Russia’s steppingstone to India. The British government decided to launch a war in late 1878. British troops from India invaded Afghanistan in late 1878, with a total of about 40,000 troops advancing in three separate columns. The British Army met resistance from Afghan tribesmen, but was able to control a large part of Afghanistan by the spring of 1879. With a military victory in hand, the British arranged for a treaty with the Afghan government. It seemed that Britain had accomplished its objectives. The Afghan leader agreed to accept a permanent British mission, which would essentially conduct Afghanistan’s foreign policy. Britain also agreed to defend Afghanistan against any foreign aggression, meaning any potential Russian invasion. Relations with the Afghans began to sour, and in September a rebellion against the British broke out in Kabul. Again, the British army in Kabul was slaughtered. A British column commanded by General Frederick Roberts, one of the most capable British officers of the period, marched on Kabul to take revenge. After fighting his way to the capital in October 1879, Roberts had a number of Afghans captured and hanged. There was allegedly a sort of reign of terror in Kabul as the British avenged the massacre. General Roberts appointed himself military governor of Afghanistan. With his force of approximately 6,500 men, he settled in for the winter. In early December 1879 Roberts and his men had to fight a substantial battle against attacking Afghans. The British moved out of the city of Kabul and took

Drummer James Roddick of the Gordon Highlanders defends a wounded officer during British attack at Gundi Mulla Sahibdad during the Battle of Kandahar by William Skeoch Cumming, 1894 (PD-US).

up a fortified position nearby. Roberts wanted to avoid a repeat of the disaster of the British retreat from Kabul in 1842, and remained in fortified positions. In the spring of 1880 a British column marched to Kabul and relieved General Roberts. But when news came that British troops at Kandahar were surrounded and facing grave danger, General Roberts embarked on what would become a legendary military feat. With 10,000 men, Roberts marched from Kabul to Kandahar, a distance of about 300 miles, in just 20 days. The British march was generally unopposed, but being able to move that many troops 15 miles a day in the brutal heat of Afghanistan’s summer was a remarkable example of discipline, organization, and leadership. When General Roberts reached Kandahar he linked up with the British garrison of the city, and the combined British forces inflicted a defeat on the Afghan forces. This marked the end of hostilities in the Second Anglo-Afghan War.

Assignment Wherever the British went, they established churches and Christian influence. Did this justify the occupation of Afghanistan? 19th centUry wars

British History student.indb 193

193

1/31/12 1:33 PM

Charge of the Light Cavalry Brigade, 25th Oct. 1854, under Major General the Earl of Cardigan, by William Simpson, 1855 (PD-US).

194

19th centUry wars

British History student.indb 194

1/31/12 1:33 PM

Chapter 26 british colonialism in africa First Thoughts . . . English empire building was not merely about gaining territory and increasing profits. Reginald Heber, Bishop of Calcutta 1823-26, penned the following hymn: From Greenland’s icy mountains, From India’s coral strand, Where Africa’s sunny fountains Roll down their golden sand, From many a palmy plain, They call us to deliver Their land from error’s chain Missionaries were completely able to carry the British flag and the Gospel into Africa. David Livingstone maintained that one of his primary aims was to stamp out the “trade of hell” or slave trade. Indeed, he maintained that the bedrock of British society was commerce and Christianity and that the two were inseparable.

Chapter Learning Objectives . . . In chapter 26, we will look at British colonial activity in Africa. We will examine the slave trade in West Africa. Next, we will be inspired by the evangelist David Livingston. Next we will examine the Zulu Wars in South Africa and General Gordon’s demise in the Sudan. As a result of this chapter you should be able to: 1. Evaluate British colonial and commercial efforts in West Africa. 2. Discuss the evangelism efforts of David Livingstone. 3. Analyze the Zulu Wars. 4. Describe the Sudanese Wars.

British History student.indb 195

1/31/12 1:33 PM

lesson 1

west africa

The Portuguese were the first Europeans in West Africa. After the Portuguese opened up the African coast to trade, in the 15th century, the other European nations of the Atlantic coast were soon sending their ships into the region. The first motive was piracy. As on the Spanish Main in America, ships returning to Europe laden with booty were attractive prey. The second lure was slave trading, which historically was immensely profitable, if also inhumane. Increasingly, British privateers plundered Portuguese vessels but to win a share in the rich trade which the Portuguese pioneered—in gold, ivory, gum and above all slaves. To do this England had to build their own fortified trading stations, or to seize such places already established by rivals. This England did.

Colonial troops, German Gov’t station, Ebolowa, Kamerun, W. Africa, Bain Collection, date unknown (PD-US).

The story of British involvement in West Africa, from the Senegal river down to the Cape of Good Hope, was initially one of small markets along the coast often changing hands among European nations. The only settlement of any real permanency, and the only one where the settlers penetrate any distance inland, was the Dutch colony at the Cape of Good Hope, which later became South Africa. Regrettably, the English transported twelve million slaves to the Americas. Nevertheless England was not interested in the interior of Africa. Colonial Africa, from the 1880s, depended more on commercial adventures (especially the diamond mines of South Africa) than any religious or political agenda. Inevitably, interior settlement followed great rivers whose destination was the Atlantic Ocean. The estuaries of the great rivers were the natural place for these European trading posts. Slaves, brought from the interior of the continent in canoes, would be transferred to ships on the coast for the Atlantic crossing.

regions of northwest Africa gradually become a particular sphere of interest of one nation or another. And by the 18th century the main rivals are France and Britain, the two greatest colonial powers of the time. The Senegal river becomes associated with the French, who build their first trading station on its estuary in 1638. Beyond this again, the Niger becomes of particular interest to the British. The slave trade ended in the middle of the 19th century, thanks to Wilberforce. British merchants found other income streams. Cotton, indigo, rubber, and other precious natural resources were abundantly available in interior Africa (www.historyworld.net).

Assignment What commercial interest did the British have in West Africa?

Fluid though the situation often is, various coastal 196

British Colonialism in africa

British History student.indb 196

1/31/12 1:33 PM

lesson 2

david livingston

David Livingston was born into a Christian Scottish family outside Glasgow and he made a commitment to Christ when he was young. He studied medicine and theology at the University of Glasgow. He tried to go to China as a missionary in 1838, but was unable to do so. Contact with Robert Moffat, pioneer missionary to Africa, prompted Livingstone to dedicate his life to African missions. On December 8, 1840, Livingstone sailed for Africa for the first time. He had a burden that all natives should have an opportunity to embrace Christianity, and he wanted to go where no missionary had gone. On his first mission trip he was almost eaten by a lion! It was not a propitious beginning. In 1844 he was married to Mary Moffat, oldest daughter of Robert and Mary Moffat. Sadly, Dr. Livingston’s work took him away from his beloved wife Mary and their five children too much. Livingstone was more convinced than ever of his mission to reach unsaved people groups in the interior of Africa and introduce them to Christianity, and, at the same time, freeing them from slavery. Normally slave traders were hesitant to buy converted African captives. They were harder to sell to American traders. In 1849 and 1851, he traveled across the Kalahari, on the second trip sighting the upper Zambezi River. In 1842, he began a four-year expedition to find a route from the upper Zambezi to the coast. This filled huge gaps in western knowledge of central and southern Africa. In 1855, Livingstone discovered a spectacular waterfall that he named ‘Victoria Falls’. He reached the mouth of the Zambezi on the Indian Ocean in May 1856, becoming the first European to cross the width of southern Africa. Returning to Britain, where he was now a national hero, Livingstone did many speaking tours and published his best selling Missionary Travels and Researches in South Africa (1857). In 1862, while Livingstone was in Africa, his wife died. He returned to Africa. This expedition lasted from 1866

David Livingstone by Frederick Havill, date unknown (PD-US).

until Livingstone’s death in 1873. After nothing was heard from him for many months, Henry Stanley, an explorer and journalist, set out to find Livingstone. This resulted in their meeting near Lake Tanganyika in October 1871 during which Stanley uttered the famous phrase: “Dr. Livingstone I presume?” With new supplies from Stanley, Livingstone continued his efforts to find the source of the Nile. He discovered it late in his life. His health had been poor for many years and he died on May 1, 1873. His body was taken back to England and buried in Westminster Abbey. His heart, it is purported, was buried in Africa.

Assignment A. Unfortunately, some of Livingstone’s children did not appreciate the fact that their father was away when their mother died. They accused him of choosing his calling over his wife. What do you think? B. Was David Livingston a Christian advancing the Gospel first and British civilization second, or was he a British citizen advancing British culture first and the Gospel second? British Colonialism in africa

British History student.indb 197

197

1/31/12 1:33 PM

lesson 3

-

anglo zUlU wars In December 1878, following the death of several British citizens at the hands of the Zulus, British authorities in South Africa issued an ultimatum to the Zulu king demanding that the perpetrators be turned over for trial. This request was refused and the British began preparations to invade Zululand. To counter this threat, the Zulu king mustered a massive army of 24,000 warriors. Armed with spears and antiquated muskets, the army was divided in two with one section sent to intercept the British on the coast and the other to defeat the center column. Moving slowly, the center army group made camp in the shadow of a rocky promontory, The British sent out patrols to locate the Zulus. The following day, a mounted force encountered a strong Zulu force. Fighting through the night, this group was not able to break off contact until early on the 22nd. Now the British commander resolved to move against the Zulus in force. At dawn, 2,500 men and four guns left to track down the Zulu army. Though badly outnumbered, he was confident that British firepower would adequately compensate for his lack of men. To guard the camp, 1,300 men stayed behind. The Zulus could not be found because they had slipped away and doubled back to attack the camp! At first the British were able to beat off the Zulu attack with disciplined rifle fire. Finally, though, the British forces were wiped out. The battle cost the British 858 killed as well as 471 of their African troops for a total of 1,329 dead. Casualties among the African forces tended to be lower as they filtered away from the battle during its early stages. Only 55 British soldiers managed to escape the battlefield. On the Zulu side, casualties were

British History student.indb 198

Battle of Isandlwana by Charles Edwin Fripp, 1885 (PD-US).

approximately 3,000 killed and 3,000 wounded. Eventually the British avenged their losses with the Zulus and won subsequent Zulu wars but British colonial ardor was irreparably damped (Kennedy Hickman, About.com Guide).

Assignment Why did British forces often lose individual battles but ultimately won colonial wars?

South African Zulu Dancer

1/31/12 1:33 PM

lesson 4

the mahdi and the british

In or shortly before 1881 an ascetic religious leader, Mohammed Ahmed, living with his disciples on an island in the White Nile, was inspired by the revelation that he was the long-awaited Mahdi. Publicly announcing his new role, he calls for the creation of a strict Islamic state. The immediate result is an order from British Khartoum for his arrest, followed by the escape to the mountains of the Mahdi and his followers. The fervor of the faithful, combined with the Mahdi’s own tactical skills, resulted during 1883 in a series of surprising victories for the Islamic forces. The British commander Charles George Gordon reaches Khartoum on February 18, 1884 and begins to organize an evacuation. Some 2000 people—mainly women, children and the sick—escaped by the time the Mahdi’s forces arrived, on March 13, to begin the siege of the city. Gordon has only a demoralized Egyptian garrison under his command, but he contrives to defy the Mahdi’s forces for a space of ten months. For nine of these months London had no news of what was happening, because the Sudanese cut the telegraph line to Cairo in mid-April. The Mahdi’s forces finally massacred Gordon and the starving troops and citizens. A small British army withdrew and the remaining Egyptian garrisons in the Sudan retreated. Radical Islamic forces were in control of the Sudan. But in the long run the Anglo-Egyptian alliance to the north (in Egypt) has an invincible military advantage. The death of Gordon was finally avenged in 1898 when Herbert Kitchener defeated the Sudanese Islamic forces with artillery and machine-gun fire. This victory restored British and Egyptian control in the Sudan (www.historyworld. net).

Death of General Gordon at Khartoum by Jean Leon Gerome Ferris, c1895 (PDUS).

Assignment Speculate (the reading does not offer an answer) upon why the British persevered in their domination of interior Africa that had marginal commercial interest?

In the Khalifa’s house. The caretaker; typical of Mahdi’s followers from the G. Eric and Edith Matson Photograph Collection, 1936 (PD-US). BRITISH COLONIALISM IN AFRICA

British History student.indb 199

199

1/31/12 1:33 PM

Stanley meets Livingstone from The Illustrated London news, v. 61, no. 1718 (1872 August 10, PD-US).

200

British Colonialism in africa

British History ch26.indd 200

1/31/12 4:55 PM

Chapter 27 the new centU ry

First Thoughts . . . For those born during the 20th century, the idea that an earlier Britain routinely fought wars of aggression might come as something as surprise. Both World Wars, Korea, the Falklands and even the first and second Gulf Wars were considered by some to be “just” wars, provoked by a third party’s aggression. The Boer War was different. It was an obvious empire-building war.

Chapter Learning Objectives . . . In chapter 27, we will meet some of the most fierce warriors in all of world history, a people who held the whole British Empire at bay: the Boers. Next, we will travel to another British Empire hotspot—China where the Boxer Rebellion quelled Christian missions for a generation. We will examine the reign of George V, who had a great impact on the new century. Finally, we will revisit London in the early 20th century. As a result of this chapter you should be able to: 1.

Evaluate the Boer War.

2. Describe the causes and results of the Boxer Rebellion. 3. Analyze the reign of King George V. 4.

Explore London during the early 20th century.

5.

Assess the impact of the British Empire on world history.

British History student.indb 201

1/31/12 1:34 PM

lesson 1

the boer wars

At the same time, the Boers had started to grow increasingly dissatisfied with British rule. The British proclamation of the equality of the races particularly angered them. Beginning in 1835, several groups of Boers moved into interior South Africa in search of greater independence. This was called “The Great Trek.” This initiated a war between the Boers and Zulu. The Zulus very nearly won—but ultimately the fierce Boers prevailed. Long-standing Boer resentment turned into real war and the first Anglo-Boer War, known to Afrikaners as the “War of Independence,” broke out in 1880. The conflict ended almost as soon as it began with a crushing Boer victory. The republic regained its independence as the Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek (“South African Republic”), or ZAR. Paul Kruger, one of the leaders of the uprising, became President of the ZAR in 1883. Meanwhile, the British, who viewed their defeat as a temporary setback, continued to assert British control over South Africa. The British wanted to create a commonwealth nation. They saw this as the best way to come to terms with the fact of a white Afrikaner majority, as well as to promote their larger strategic interests in the area. The Boers did not like this decision. In 1886 an Australian prospector discovered gold and South Africa suddenly became more valuable to Britain than ever. This caused another great migration of Europeans into South Africa. Now a new second Boer War began. President Kruger called for the withdrawal of British troops from the Paul Kruger by Leslie Ward. Published in Vanity Fair March 8, 1900 (PD-US).

202

Boer guerrillas during the Second Boer War, photographer and date unknown (PD-US).

ZAR’s borders. When the British refused, Kruger declared war. This Second Anglo-Boer War lasted longer than the first, and the British were prepared. By June 1900, Pretoria, the last of the major Boer towns, had surrendered. Yet resistance by Boer guerillas continued for two more years. By 1902, 26,000 Boers had died of disease and neglect in concentration camps. On May 31, 1902 a peace treaty was signed where the Boer acknowledged British sovereignty, while the British in turn committed themselves to reconstruction of the areas under their control.

Assignment Why were the Boers so hard to beat?

the new centUry

British History student.indb 202

1/31/12 1:34 PM

lesson 2

the boxer rebellion

Beginning in 1899, the Boxer Rebellion was an uprising in China against foreign influence. It very nearly succeeded in driving all westerners out of China. In the fighting, the Boxers killed thousands of Chinese Christians and attempted to storm the foreign embassies in Beijing. Following a 55-day siege, the embassies were relieved by a combined force of Japanese, American, and European troops. In the wake of the rebellion, several punitive expeditions were launched and the Chinese government was forced to sign the “Boxer Protocol” which called for the rebellion’s leaders to be executed and the payment of financial reparations to the injured nations. The Boxers, also known as the Righteous and Harmonious Society Movement, began in eastern China in March 1898. This was largely in response to the failure of the government’s modernization initiative. The first signs of unrest appeared in a village after a local court ruled in favor of giving a local pagan Chinese temple over to the Roman Catholic Church. Upset by the decision, the villagers, led by Boxer agitators, murdered Western missionaries and Chinese Christians whom they viewed as agents of foreign influence. In Beijing, the Imperial court was controlled by Boxer supporters. In June 1900, the Boxers, along with parts of the Imperial Army, began attacking foreign embassies in Beijing

Troops of the Eight Nations Alliance of 1900. Left to right: Britain, United States, Australia (colonial, operating under British authority), British India, Germany, France, Austria-Hungary, Italy, Japan. (Russians not shown). Photographer unknown, 1900 (PD-US).

and Tianjin. In Beijing, the embassies of Great Britain, the United States, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Russia, and Japan were all located in the Legation Quarter near the Forbidden City. Anticipating such a move, a mixed force of 435 marines from eight countries had been sent to reinforce the embassy guards. As the Boxers approached, the embassies were quickly linked into a fortified compound. Those embassies located outside of the compound were evacuated, with the staff taking refuge inside. On June 20, the compound was surrounded and attacks began. To deal with the Boxer threat, an alliance was formed between Austria-Hungary, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, Great Britain, and the United States. On June 10, an international force of 2,000 marines was dispatched to aid Beijing. They were forced to withdraw. Now a force of 54,000 allied soldiers defeated the Boxers and relieved the embassies in Beijing. During the fighting, 270 missionaries were killed, along with 18,722 Chinese Christians. The allied victory also led to further partitioning of China.

Assignment Family of the Lower Class “Chowing” in their Home, partially destroyed during Siege, Tientsin, China by Underwood & Underwood, c1902 (PD-US).

What were the roots of the Boxer Rebellion? the new centUry

British History ch27.indd 203

203

1/31/12 4:35 PM

lesson 3

george v

George V was born June 3, 1865, the second son of Edward VII and Alexandra. He reigned from 1910 to 1936. He married his beloved Mary who bore him four sons and one daughter. He died the year after his silver jubilee after a series of debilitating attacks of bronchitis, on January 20, 1936. George V was the second son of Edward VII and Queen Alexandra. It was George V who changed his family name from the German Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to that of the English Windsor. With his wife Mary, he did much to continue the popularity of the monarchy. They were helped enormously by the advent of the BBC (British Broadcasting Company) in 1922, which probably did more to perpetuate the national sense of common identity than any other factor. In 1934, emulating FDR’s fireside chats, George V began his broadcasts to Britain and the Empire. Radio, newspapers (and later television) all added to the prestige of the royal family when old traditions were falling daily. The First World War broke out in 1914, during which King George made several visits to the front; on one such visit, he was severely wounded. The worldwide Depression of 1929–1931 deeply affected England, prompting the King to persuade the heads of the three political parties to unite into a coalition government. By the end of World War I, George V was one of few royal families who retained his monarchy. The relationship between England and the rest of the Empire underwent several changes. An independent Irish Parliament gained home rule. Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa joined the British Commonwealth of Nations. India was accorded some degree of self-determination with the Government of India Act in 1935. The nature of the monarchy evolved through the influence of George. In contrast to his grandmother and father —Victoria’s ambition to exert political influence in the tradition of Elizabeth I and Edward VII’s aspirations to manipulate the destiny of nations—George’s royal perspective was considerably less ambitious. As one historian 204

George V in coronation robes by Samuel Luke Fildes, c1911 (PD-US).

explained, he was exactly like most of his subjects. He discovered a new job for modern kings and queens to do —democratic representation (www.britannia.com). The Commonwealth of Nations is an intergovernmental organization of 54 independent member states. The member states cooperate within a framework of common values and goals. These include the promotion of democracy, human rights, good governance, the rule of law, individual liberty, free trade, multilateralism and world peace.

Assignment What contributions did George V make to the British monarchy?

the new centUry

British History ch27.indd 204

1/31/12 4:35 PM

LESSON 4

london: early 20th centUry At the start of the new century, London was a larger, busier place than it had ever been before. As a vital center of trade and commerce, London had become very much the center of the world’s largest empire. Giant liners traversed the oceans in two weeks; electric lighting transforming London darkness; automobiles would kill more British civilians than any other natural cause. Many of the things destined to play a major part in20th-century life were here already. But at the same time for most people there was little difference between this London and the city of 50 years previously. Victoria was still on the throne; there was still awful poverty. London at the time was a curious mixture of extravagant and profound poverty. The music hall, with its sing-a-longs and earthy choruses, embodied early 20th-century England. They offered great sense of shared experience, the feeling that they had all been through the bad times. They offered the country metaphors to endure the heartache of war. At first, the music halls were responsible for recruiting a large number of the young men who were to sacrifice their lives on the battlefields of France and Belgium. It was only as the war dragged on and death came in wave after wave that Royal Albert Hall, London, at night.

the war songs of the music halls began to have a slightly reflective quality. While the singers had been exhorting their young men to go over and do their duty for England, now they were more likely to tell them to pack up your troubles in your old kit bag and smile, smile, smile. People only need to be told to smile, especially in such an insistent way, when there is precious little to smile about. With the dawn of individualism and nihilism, many music halls disappeared. The war was the first in which Londoners had to face directly the blows of the enemy. Early bombing raids were carried out by Zeppelins, but casualties were light. However, Londoners were outraged at this new aspect of war. But much worse was yet to come. Toward the end of the war London had to put up with more sustained and accurate bombing, and this was an early foretaste of what was to come in a couple of decades. Finally, the Underground was built and transformed London society. No longer did Londoners have to live downtown. A commute from the suburbs was quite possible.

Assignment The music hall was the most popular and defining institution of early 20th-century English history. It entertained the masses, it spoke soothing platitudes to the poor, and it showcased the fashions and traditions of Britain. What popular institution would today define our nation? Why? THE NEW CENTURY

British History ch27.indd 205

205

1/31/12 4:36 PM

RMS Lusitania coming into port by George Grantham Bain, c1907 (PD-US).

206

the new centUry

British History student.indb 206

1/31/12 1:34 PM

Chapter 28 modernism

First Thoughts . . . Ironically, the modernist portrayal of human nature takes place within the context of the city rather than in nature, where it had occurred during the entire 19th century—thanks to Wordsworth, Shelley, Blake, and others. At the beginning of the 19th century, the romantics had idealized nature as evidence of the transcendent existence of God; towards the end of the century, it became a symbol of chaotic, random existence. For the modernists, nature becomes irrelevant, for the city supersedes nature as the life force. This is not good news because in nihilistic modernism the city was a cemetery for lost souls (faculty.mdc.edu).

Chapter Learning Objectives . . . In Chapter 28, we will examine British social life, circa 1900. We will find that much progress was made, but with progress came doubt and modernism. We will examine the impact that modernism had on British society. In particular, we will examine the works of Friedrich Nietzsche. Finally, we will read a disturbing passage from British novelist Frankenstein where the protagonist, Victor Frankenstein, learns firsthand the dangers that one encounters when one plays a modernist “God playing” game. As a result of this chapter you should be able to: 1. Describe the inherent dangers of a social welfare state. 2. Define and discuss modernism. 3. Discuss modernism as it emerges in the early 20th century. 4. Evaluate the thoughts of Friedrich Nietzsche. 5. Analyze Mary Shelley’s Victor Frankenstein as an anti-modern hero.

British History student.indb 207

1/31/12 1:34 PM

lesson 1

historical debate

Life was hard for the working class at the beginning of the 20th century. In 1900 between 15 percent and 20 percent of the population were living below acceptable poverty levels. Remember, with no welfare system, with no government bail outs, “below poverty” really meant something. Worse between 8 percent and 10 percent of the population were living below subsistence level—what this meant was that thousands of English families were literarily malnourished. Sadly, the Victorian Age was a prosperous age—20 percent was a low figure when compared to other eras! In 1906, a Liberal government was elected and they introduced a number of reforms. “Liberal” in 1906 England meant “reform” or “big government.” From 1906 urban centers (e.g., Salvation Army) were allowed (but not provided funds) to offer free school meals to the poorest of the poor. Remember that 1906 England did not have a huge, intricate 21st-century-type civil government infrastructure that was able to provide care to the poor. It was all the government could do merely to regulate the care! In 1907, school medical inspections began with more success. Again, the best care, the most effective care, the most efficient care, came from the non-profit entities—including but not exclusively the Salvation Army. Labor conditions improved, too. In 1908 Parliament limited coal miner work days to 8 hours. By 1909 the Trade Boards Act set up trade boards who fixed minimum wages in certain very low paying trades (e.g., chimney sweepers). Also in 1909 an act set up a government unemployment agency to help the unemployed find work.

208

David Lloyd George, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Kingdom, Harris 7 Ewing, 1919 (PD-US).

In 1908, an Old Age Pensions Act gave small pensions to people over 70. The pensions were a token, but they set a precedent. From 1925 pensions were paid to men over 65 and women over 60. Widows were also given pensions. In 1911 the National Insurance Act was passed. All employers and employees made contributions to a fund. If a worker was ill he was entitled to free treatment by a doctor. If he could not work because of illness the worker was given a small amount of money to live on. However his family were not entitled to free medical treatment.

modernism

British History student.indb 208

1/31/12 1:34 PM

Salvation Army headquarters by Ben Shahn, 1938 (PD-US).

By 1912, most people had Saturday afternoon off work. However shop workers were usually forced to work all day Saturday. An act of 1912 compensated them by stating they must have half day off during the week. Meanwhile, in 1902 Prime Minister Balfour’s Education Act created state secondary education. In the early 20th century the upper class went to public schools. The middle class went to fee-paying grammar schools and the working class went to elementary schools. From 1907 grammar schools were given grants if they gave 25% of their places to poor pupils. Working class children could take an exam and if they passed could go to grammar school. However some children won a place but did not go because their parents could not afford to buy the school uniform and equipment. In 1909 the House of Lords rejected Prime Minister Lloyd George’s budget. In response, the Liberals passed the Parliament Act, which stated the House of Lords, could not interfere with financial bills. The Lords could no longer veto any bills but only delay them for two years. In 1949 that was reduced to one year.

people—grew in popularity. In the 20th century socialism became a powerful movement. Socialists believed the state should own industry and land. They also believed in economic equality. Wealth should be distributed to give everyone an equal share. However in the end socialism proved to be a failure. The redistribution of wealth never happened and in the late 20th century state owned industries were privatized. By the end of the 20th century England, more or less, abandoned socialism (www.historyguide.org).

Assignment England, at the beginning of the 20th century, made an honest effort to improve the lives of their citizens. However, ultimately, most of these efforts failed. Why? What are the inherent dangers of a social welfare state?

Socialism—a theory of government that posited that the state should be a ubiquitous presence in the life of its modernism

British History student.indb 209

209

1/31/12 1:34 PM

lesson 2

modernism

Arising out of the avant-garde mood of optimism in the early 1900s, modernism was a radical approach that yearned to rethink, to rewrite, to recreate the way modern civilization viewed culture, politics, and science. This new thinking engendered a sort of rebellion that merged in full force by the 1920s. There were certain assumptions that modernist England made: European culture was old-fashioned and dysfunctional. Society was bound by the facileness of a society that was too preoccupied with image and too recalcitrant to embrace needed change. This disillusionment with everything status quo European led modern thinkers, writers, and artist to access cultures heretofore ignored. The Puritans embraced neo-classicism. The romantics were nature lovers. The modernists examined and replicated the lifestyle of Amazon prehistoric culture. This of course was impossible and laughable. Modernist subjects included primitive people groups who looked like they had just descended the steps of Piccadilly Station. In short, the emerging culture would undermine tradition and authority in the hopes of transforming contemporary society. They would fail abysmally. They could not have their epistemological cake and eat their pneumatic icing in the same meal. It was like mixing oil and water. So, perhaps the best way to describe modernism is “nihilism.” Nihilism was the questioning of all religious and moral enculturation principles as the only means of obtaining social progress. Ironically, a sort of modernist religion replaced the old orthodox religion and no progress was made at all. Like poor Elmer Fudd and his futile quest to bag Bugs Bunny, there arrived a moment when Elmer exclaimed “West and wewaxation at wast!” But poor Elmer and the modernists had neither bagged their prey nor knew how to rest! There was no rest or relaxation at all. Nonetheless, the modernists repudiated the moral codes of the society in which they were living. In other words, the modernists ran from Victorian morality as quickly as they could! The reason that they did so was not necessarily because they did not believe in God, although 210

there was a great majority of them who were atheists, or that they experienced great doubt about the meaninglessness of life. Rather, their rejection of conventional morality was based on its perceived conformity, boring predictability, and its exertion of control over human feelings. In other words, they saw morality as a restrictive and limiting force over the human spirit. The modernists wanted to start again in the universe of ideas. There were some historical reasons for all this chaos. With so many scientific discoveries and technological innovations taking place, the world was changing so quickly that culture constantly reassessed its direction and substance. The modernists embraced and believed in science, as cold and sterile a life partner it may be. As a consequence of the new technological dynamics, the modernists felt a sense of constant anticipation and did not want to commit to any one system that would thereby harness creativity, ultimately restricting and annihilating it. And so, in the arts, for instance, at the beginning of the 20th-century, artists flirted with so many different styles: cubism, futurism, constructivism, dadaism, and surrealism. Pablo Picasso, for instance, went as far as experimenting with several of these styles, never wanting to feel too comfortable with any one style (faculty.mdc.edu/)

Clip from Le guitariste by Pablo Picasso, 1910 (PD-US).

Assignment What are the inherent dangers of a social welfare state?

modernism

British History student.indb 210

1/31/12 1:34 PM

lesson 3

world view and philosophers Friedrich Nietzsche Friedrich Nietzsche was the poster boy for the modernists. Born the son of a Lutheran pastor in Germany, Nietzsche likewise wished to be a pastor. He quickly abandoned his initial pursuit of theology in order to specialize in philosophy and literature. When ill health forced an early end to his teaching career, Nietzsche began to write philosophy. Nietzsche never recovered from a serious physical and mental collapse. Most of his works were published posthumously. Nietzsche sharply criticized the Greek tradition’s overemphasis on reason. This was right up the modernist alley! Reliance on abstract concepts in a quest for absolute truth, he supposed, is merely a symptom of the degenerate personalities of philosophers like Socrates. From this Nietzsche concluded that traditional philosophy and religion are both erroneous and harmful for human life; they enervate and degrade our native capacity for achievement (www.philosopherspages.com). Progress beyond the stultifying influence of philosophy, then, requires a thorough “revaluation of values.” Nietzsche bitterly decried the slave morality enforced by social sanctions and religious guilt. Only rare, superior individuals—the noble ones, or superman—can rise above all moral distinctions to achieve a heroic life of truly human worth. A passage from The Gay Science (1882) by Friedrich Nietsche: Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market-place, and cried incessantly: “I am looking for God! I am looking for God!” As many of those who did not believe in God were standing together there, he excited considerable laughter. Have you lost him, then? said one. Did he lose his way like a child? said another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a

Friedrich Nietsche by F. Hartmann, c1875 (PD-US).

voyage? or emigrated? Thus they shouted and laughed. The madman sprang into their midst and pierced them with his glances. “Where has God gone?” he cried. “I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time? modernism

British History student.indb 211

211

1/31/12 1:34 PM

Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell anything yet of God’s decomposition? Gods too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whosoever shall be born after us—for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto.” Here the madman fell silent and again regarded his listeners; and they too were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern to the ground, and it broke and went out. “I have come too early,” he said then; “my time has not come yet.

212

The tremendous event is still on its way, still travelling—it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time, the light of the stars requires time, deeds require time even after they are done, before they can be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than the distant stars—and yet they have done it themselves.” It has been further related that on that same day the madman entered divers churches and there sang a requiem. Led out and quietened, he is said to have retorted each time: “what are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchres of God?

Assignment To Nietzsche God is dead in the hearts of modern men— killed by rationalism and science. How should Christians reply to Nietzsche?

modernism

British History student.indb 212

1/31/12 1:34 PM

lesson 4

frankenstein

The following is a quote from a popular novel at the turn of the century, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. In this novel Mary Shelley creates a memorable character, Victor Frankenstein, who is “God playing” by creating “life.” However, the experience becomes a nightmare that destroys everything Dr. Frankenstein loves and holds dear. A passage from Frankinstein, by Mary Shelley: No one can conceive the variety of feelings which bore me onwards, like a hurricane, in the first enthusiasm of success. Life and death appeared to me ideal bounds, which I should first break through, and pour a torrent of light into our dark world. A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me. No father could claim the gratitude of his child so completely as I should deserve theirs. Pursuing these reflections, I thought that if I could bestow animation upon lifeless matter, I might in process of time (although I now found it impossible) renew life where death had apparently devoted the body to corruption. . . It was on a dreary night of November that I beheld the accomplishment of my toils. With an anxiety that almost amounted to agony, I collected the instruments of life around me, that I might infuse a spark of being into the lifeless thing that lay at my feet. It was already one in the morning; the rain pattered dismally against the panes, and my Anti-Irish propaganda from Punch magazine, published in May 1843 (PD-Art).

Mary Shelley by Richard Rothwell, c1840 (PD-Art).

candle was nearly burnt out, when, by the glimmer of the half-extinguished light, I saw the dull yellow eye of the creature open; it breathed hard, and a convulsive motion agitated its limbs. How can I describe my emotions at this catastrophe, or how delineate the wretch whom with such infinite pains and care I had endeavoured to form? His limbs were in proportion, and I had selected his features as beautiful. Beautiful! Great God! His yellow skin scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries beneath; his hair was of a lustrous black, and flowing; his teeth of a pearly whiteness; but these luxuriances only formed a modernism

British History student.indb 213

213

1/31/12 1:34 PM

I passed the night wretchedly. Sometimes my pulse beat so quickly and hardly that I felt the palpitation of every artery; at others, I nearly sank to the ground through languor and extreme weakness. Mingled with this horror, I felt the bitterness of disappointment; dreams that had been my food and pleasant rest for so long a space were now become a hell to me; and the change was so rapid, the overthrow so complete!

Assignment Shelley warns her readers of relying too much on science. The end result could very well be a “monster.” Likewise, many modernists, suspicious of tradition but excited about the advances in technology have a love/hate relationship with science. Why does modernism embrace and reject science, both at the same time?

Promotional photo of Boris Karloff from Universal Studios’ The Bride of Frankenstein as Frankenstein’s monster, 1931 (PD-Art).

more horrid contrast with his watery eyes, that seemed almost of the same colour as the dun-white sockets in which they were set, his shrivelled complexion and straight black lips. The different accidents of life are not so changeable as the feelings of human nature. I had worked hard for nearly two years, for the sole purpose of infusing life into an inanimate body. For this I had deprived myself of rest and health. I had desired it with an ardour that far exceeded moderation; but now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart. Unable to endure the aspect of the being I had created, I rushed out of the room and continued a long time traversing my bed-chamber, unable to compose my mind to sleep. . .Oh! No mortal could support the horror of that countenance. A mummy again endued with animation could not be so hideous as that wretch. I had gazed on him while unfinished; he was ugly then, but when those muscles and joints were rendered capable of motion, it became a thing such as even Dante could not have conceived. 214

St. Peter’s Church is a Church of England parish church in Bournemouth. Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, the creator of Frankenstein, is buried in the graveyard together with the heart of her husband, Percy Bysshe Shelley. Jim (JL2003) 2007 (CC BY 2.0).

modernism

British History student.indb 214

1/31/12 1:34 PM

Chapter 29 caU ses of world war i First Thoughts . . . Otto von Bismarck, the great Prussian-German chancellor of the 19th century, had done everything he could to avoid something like World War I by emphasizing a few general principles: (1) alliance with Austria, but no backing for Austria’s ambitions in the Balkans (which were, he said, not worth the bones of a single German soldier); (2) friendship with Russia, which he pursued with secret treaties; (3) aloofness from the competition for overseas empire, which he regarded as a distraction rather than an essential national interest; and (4) the “rule of three”–i.e., never become dependent on a single ally, always have more than one. But Bismarck’s successors had abandoned all of these principles, shifting from Realpolitik (the ruthless pursuit of a limited agenda) to Weltpolitik (the risky pursuit of an unlimited agenda of imperialist goals). For them imperialism had two functions: it would enable Germany to compete with other superpowers (Britain, and the burgeoning power of the United States and Russia), and it would cement the alliance at home between Prussian militarism and German heavy industry at the expense of democratic and socialist parties. This chapter is the story of how these alliances emerged and ultimately exploded in the face of every European.

Chapter Learning Objectives . . . In chapter 29, we will look at the causes of World War I. In particular we will look at tensions engendered by nationalism vs. despotism. Then we will look at alliances that were negotiated to bring peace but brought only mistrust and confusion. Next, we will look at a seminal speech by Englishman Sir Edward Grey, foreign secretary, warning about the German naval build up. We will end by examining the actual events that precipitated the conflagration called World War I. As a result of this chapter you should be able to: 1. Analyze the tensions emerging in the 19th-century kingdoms coping to survive in the 20th century. 2. Discuss the many alliances negotiated before World War I and how they contributed to the Great War. 3. Analyze Lord Grey’s Speech. 4. Discuss the precipitating incidents that brought about World War I. 5. Evaluate the causes of World War I and determine what was the main cause.

British History student.indb 215

1/31/12 1:34 PM

lesson 1

nationalism vs monarchy

Europe’s first great war of the twentieth century had roots in a network of national agendas that belonged to all of Europe, not merely England. That heritage was despotism. Kings ruled nations that sought to embrace nationalism. Nationalism naturally gravitated to democracy that contradicted despotism.. Thus, in Europe, by 1900, there were serious seeds of conflict that soon would erupt in the most catastrophic world war in history. Tsar Nicholas II of Russia had an empire that extended to Germany’s border and included Turks, Armenians, and other people groups. The Habsburg monarch, Franz Joseph I, ruled over an empire called Austria-Hungary that had included Italians, Germans, Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Slovenes, Croats, some Poles, Ukrainians and Serbs. And Turkey controlled an —which empire—the Ottoman Empire—which included Arabia, Palestine, what is now Israel, and North Africa. The problem was that these people groups were Pole, Slovaks, etc., first, and members of nations next. Allegiance to a “king” did not hold a candle to national, local allegiances. The regions yearned to be free and to live in their own locally governed nation. The biggest problem was Franz Joseph of Austro-Hungarian Empire. He and his empire were decadent and full of malcontents. His army was mediocre; his civil service ineffectual. Franz Joseph started ruling in 1848, before the American Civil War. He was not prepared for the technological advances of the 20th century. In fact, he was hardly ready for anything that was emerging after 1900. His problems were exascerbated by Serbian nationals 216

who wanted to break away from the wizened AustroHungarian Empire. Finally, Franz Joseph sent an army of 200,000 men into Bosnia. Franz Joseph had also stirred a hornet’s nest that would one day send out millions of hornets who would sting him to death.

Assignment Why was Franz Joseph one of the main, if not primary reason for World War I?

Franz Joseph Joseph, Harris & Ewing Collection, c1905 (PD-US).

caUses of world war i

British History student.indb 216

1/31/12 1:34 PM

lesson 2

alliances

1873: The Three Emperors League Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Russia agree to maintain a peaceful status quo in Europe. A deeper motive of Bismarck’s was to isolate France by preventing a Franco-Russian alliance. England tacitly agreed to this balance. This unstable agreement broke down in 1878 when Russia went to war against Turkey in the Balkans and attempted to rearrange territory there in her favor. When renewed in 1881 as a secret treaty it provided for the benevolent neutrality of the other two if one of them was at war, with the exception of a war with Turkey. This treaty, therefore, would require the neutrality of Germany and Austria if Russia found herself at war with England, or the neutrality of the others if Germany was at war with France. The agreement finally broke down in 1885 because of further trouble in the Balkans, this time stemming from differences between Austria and Russia over political matters in Bulgaria, and it was then allowed to lapse.

1879: The Dual Alliance This alliance joined together, for their common security, Germany and Austria-Hungary. Concluded after the disruption in Russo-German relations caused by the diplomatic setback suffered by Russia at the Congress of Berlin in 1878, this was Bismarck’s device to bind Austria to Germany in case either was attacked by Russia. It was a purely defensive treaty. It also committed each power to be benevolently neutral in case either was attacked by another power (i.e., France). If Russia joined with France in such an eventuality, however, both Austria and Germany would act together. The treaty was secret (though it soon became generally known and was revealed by Bismarck in 1888) and remained permanent via automatic renewal after 1902. The alliance is an example of Bismarck’s desire (for German security) to prevent any Russian threat to its Germanic neighbor. Austria and Russia, both vitally interested in the affairs of the Balkans, had incompatible goals—the one, Austria,

“DESTROY THIS MAD BRUTE - Enlist U.S. Army” is the caption of this World War I propaganda poster for enlistment in the U.S. Army. A dribbling, mustachioed ape wielding a club bearing the German word “kultur” and wearing a pickelhaube helmet with the word “militarism” is walking onto the shore of America while holding a woman in his grasp (possibly meant to depict Liberty). This is a U.S. version of an earlier British poster with the same image, c1917 (PD-US).

determined to support Turkey and absorb Serb territory; the other, Russia, to weaken Turkey and acquire a dominating influence in the Balkan region. The terms of the alliance were made public in 1888 when Austro-Russian tensions had again reached the danger point, thus putting Russia on caUses of world war i

British History student.indb 217

217

1/31/12 1:34 PM

notice that Germany would not stand idly by if Russia attacked Austria.

1882: The Triple Alliance This was really an extension of the 1879 Dual Alliance as Italy joined Germany and Austria-Hungary. By the terms of the treaty the latter powers (Germany and Austria) would aid Italy in case of an attack on her by France. In return, Germany would receive Italian aid in case she were attacked by France, while Austria obtained Italian neutrality in case of war against Austria by others (i.e., Russia). But if one of the three were attacked by two other powers (i.e., Russia and France combined), then all three would together make war. The treaty was renewable and, as usual, to be kept secret. Italy eventually opted out of the alliance upon the outbreak of war in 1914 on the grounds that Austria, by unilaterally acting against the Serbs, had violated the letter and spirit of the Triple Alliance.

1887: The Reinsurance Treaty This was Bismarck’s attempt to reconcile Russia with Germany after the breakdown of the Three Emperors League two years earlier. It also pointed up Bismarck’s dilemma of remaining on good terms both with Austria and Russia at the same time. By the terms of this secret treaty Germany and Russia each agreed to maintain benevolent neutrality in the event the other found itself at war with a third great power (i.e. Germany to remain neutral if Russia at war with Britain; Russia neutral if France attacked Germany). These terms did not apply, however, if Russia found herself at war with Austria or Germany was the aggressor in a war against France. This was yet another instance of Bismarck’s desire to preserve the peace of Europe since he had no intention of attacking France and now put Russia on notice that war by her against Austria would not prevent Germany from assisting her neighbor (This “notice” was to be affirmed one year later as described above see 1879). The Reinsurance Treaty was allowed to lapse by the German government after Bismarck’s fall from power in 1890. Otto von Bismarck on horseback by E. Bieber, date unknown (PD-US).

218

1892-4: The Franco-Russian Alliance For several years the policy of Russia had been tending in the direction of agreement with France, a trend encouraged by French military assistance and by major loans to Russia by French banks. After all, Russia had been diplomatically isolated since the lapse of the Reinsurance Treaty in 1890 while Britain was still considered a hostile power. Besides, the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy had been renewed. Negotiations between France and Russia were begun in 1892 and a military convention was soon concluded which finally received the tsar’s signature in 1894. The alliance was, of course, secret but it became generally known in the following year. The dangerous implications were that Europe was now divided into two groups of opposing states, with each armed camp motivated by fear and suspicion of the other—the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy versus the newly formed alliance of France and Russia. Under the terms of this alliance, Russia would come to the aid of France if she were attacked by Germany, or by Italy supported by Germany. Likewise, France would come to the aid of Russia if she were attacked by Germany, or by an Austria supported by Germany. In addition, mobilization by one or more members of the opposing Triple Alliance would entail immediate mobilization (i.e., readying the army for action) of both France and Russia “in such a manner as to oblige Germany to fight simultaneously in both east and west.” The alliance was to have the same duration as the Triple alliance.

1902:The Anglo-Japanese Alliance At this time, Britain was not on friendly terms with Russia, France or Germany. Indeed, she had growing apprehensions about an apparent increasing Russian influence in the Far East as well as about the very real French advances in West Africa and the developing naval strength of Germany. Moreover, Japan (already a developing imperial power in Asia since her defeat of China in 1895) had watched with anger the menace of Russian encroachments in northern China and her seizure of the warm water port of Port Arthur in 1887 which seemed directed against Japan’s influence in Korea. Thus both Japan and Britain found common interest in containing

caUses of world war i

British History student.indb 218

1/31/12 1:34 PM

Russia. This was a rather significant treaty, for it demonstrated in a sense Britain’s departure from her long-held policy of “splendid isolation” from international treaty entanglements. Under terms of the treaty, Japan’s dominant interest in Korea was recognized and Britain undertook to remain neutral if Japan found herself at war with Russia (as she was soon to be) and, additionally, would intervene on her behalf if a second power (i.e., France) were to come to Russia’s aid. The treaty was to run for five years and was renewable.

1904: The Entente Cordiale This was not a formal alliance exacting fixed obligations from each, but rather a “friendly Agreement” between two former enemies, England and France, to resolve their outstanding differences in Africa, North America (in Newfoundland) and Asia. The two main problems involved Egypt (Britain’s sphere of interest) and Morocco, which France was seeking to bring under her control. Under the Agreement, Britain was to have a free hand in Egypt without French interference while France received a similar assurance with regard to Morocco. There were attached secret articles that were not revealed until 1911 which implied that Morocco might be annexed by France (despite France’s protestations in 1904 that she had no desire to alter the political status of that country) subject to part of the country being reserved to Spain.

1907: The Anglo-Russian Agreement This drawing together of mutually suspicious England and Russia stemmed from a number of considerations—a change in the Russian foreign ministry in the direction of matching the Triple Alliance with a Triple Entente by including Britain on the side of France and Russia; the Russian desire to resolve outstanding differences with Britain over Afghanistan, Persia and Tibet; the British desire to allay her fears of Russian encroachments on her Indian frontier. This publicly declared Agreement liquidated the long-standing grievances existing between the two powers, but there was no accompanying military convention or promise of diplomatic support. Yet appearances served to lend support to the notion that the “ring” around Germany, whom they all feared, was now complete. Against the firmly established Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy (though that didn’t prove to be all that firm in 1914) there stood the equally firm Franco-Russian alliance, with Britain finally declaring her interest in standing with the latter powers against Germany. In the event, the socalled Triple Entente proved the more durable in view of

A cartoon apparently expressing a rather sour German point of view on the British-French “Entente Cordiale” of 1904—John Bull walks off with the trollop France (in her scandalously short tricolor skirt, whose red and blue colors are indicated by the conventions of heraldic “hatching”), while Germany pretends not to care., C. E. Jensen, 1906 (PD-US).

Italy’s defection from the Triple Alliance at the crucial hour in 1914 (www.thecorner.org/).

Assignment How did alliances contribute to the causes of World War I?

caUses of world war i

British History student.indb 219

219

1/31/12 1:34 PM

lesson 3

the arms race

Britain’s Policy as Outlined in the Speech in Parliament of the Foreign Secretary, March 29, 1909: As the end of the nineteenth century drew near, Germany was embarked on a new policy—a World Policy—of finding its ‘place in the sun’, as befitted a great, if relatively new, nation. Its expansionist program envisioned a large role in world affairs and, correspondingly, the possession of a large navy--a battle fleet--to sustain such a program. Inevitably, this potential rivalry with Britain’s overwhelming naval power, induced a certain apprehension in the latter, a country dependent on naval superiority for her very survival in a dangerous world. Such apprehension was well justified, as judged by the remarks of the prime mover of Germany’s naval program, Admiral Tirpitz (pictured here): “For Germany the most dangerous naval enemy at present is England. It is also the enemy against which we most urgently require a certain measure of naval force as a political power factor” (J. Steinberg, Yesterday’s Deterrent, p. 20) Thus was initiated the great Anglo-German naval rivalry of the years preceding the outbreak of World War I, expressed in Britain’s resolve not to be outmatched, but rather to stay ahead of Germany in building the new behemoths of the seas, the Dreadnoughts, despite the huge financial burden involved. The implications of this arms race are delineated by the British foreign secretary in the following speech in the House of Commons in defending the government on a vote of censure alleging the country’s naval unpreparedness. The motion was defeated: . . . the situation is grave. . . (and) is created by the German program [of building a battle fleet]. Whether the program is carried out quickly or slowly the fact of its existence makes a new 220

Edward Grey, 1st Viscount Grey of Fallodon by Sir James Guthrie, c1924 (PD-US).

situation. When that program is completed, Germany, a great country close to our own shore, will have a fleet of thirty-three Dreadnoughts [the latest, powerful battleship type]. . . . It is true that there is not one of them in commission yet; but it is equally true that the whole program . . when completed . . will be the most powerful fleet that the world has yet seen. That imposes upon us the necessity, of which we are now at the beginning— except so far as we have Dreadnoughts already—of rebuilding the whole of our fleet. That is what the situation is. What we do not know is the time in

caUses of world war i

British History student.indb 220

1/31/12 1:34 PM

which we shall have to do it.... The first thing we have to make sure of is our capacity to build. We have got to keep the situation in hand with regard to our capacity to build. If the situation is not in hand now we shall have to get it in hand, and as long as we are attending to that point of capacity to build I maintain that there is no loss of time in the action which the government are taking. What have we to do with regard to that? Take stock of the plant in the country; of the power which there is in this country to construct ships of this type in order that when we do give orders for ships they will be completed in the shortest possible time; and by that I mean not orders for one ship at a time but for a batch of ships.... As so much has been said in these debates about Germany and so much turns on German construction, I should like to review quite shortly our diplomatic relations with Germany pure and simple. We took things up when we came into office as we found them. The Algeciras conference [to resolve the confrontation between France and Germany over French influence in Morocco] was still in progress. . . During that time between us and Germany there was, owing to diplomatic engagements of which all the world knows, a period of diplomatic tension, but with the close of the conference, that came to an end, and diplomatic relations proceeded perfectly smoothly As far, therefore, as diplomatic relations with Germany are concerned, since the present government came into office there has been peaceful progression and improved relations between ourselves and Germany . . . And now as regards our future diplomatic relations with Germany, I see a wide space in which both of us may walk in peace and amity. Two things, in my opinion two extreme things, would produce conflict. One is an attempt by us to isolate Germany. No nation of her standing and her position would stand a policy of isolation assumed by neighboring powers. I should like to observe that in recent debates nothing has been more unfounded and nothing more malign in its influence than the statement that any difference of opinion that we have had with regard to the question of Austria has been due to the fact that Germany was Austria’s friend. On the contrary we have carefully avoided in all our relations anything which was likely to make difficulty or mischief, directly or indirectly, between these two powers. Another thing which would

certainly produce a conflict would be the isolation of England . . . attempted by any great continental power so as to dominate and dictate the policy of the continent. That always has been so in history. The same reasons which have caused it in history would cause it again. But between these two extremes of isolation and domination there is a wide space in which the two nations can walk together in a perfectly friendly way; . . . But now I pass to my second point, which is the relations between us with regard to naval expenditure. . . The German view of their program is that it is made for their own needs, and has no reference to ours, and that if we build fifty or a hundred Dreadnoughts they will not build more, but if we cease building altogether they will not build one less. We have no difficulty in hearing that view without reproach, and just as little difficulty in saying quite frankly that our own view of our naval needs is that our expenditure is, and must be, dependent upon the German, although the German is not dependent upon ours. It is essential to us that we should not fall into a position of inferiority; it is essential that we should keep a position of superiority as regards our navy. . . . But public opinion in Germany and in the world at large increasingly measures the probable relations of England and Germany by their respective naval expenditure. An increase of naval expenditure on both sides is undoubtedly viewed by public opinion with apprehension. On the other hand, a decrease of naval expenditure will immediately produce a feeling of increased security and peace. If I was asked to name the one thing that would mostly reassure the world—or reassure Europe—with regard to the prospects of peace, I think it would be that the naval expenditure in Germany would be diminished, and that ours was following suit and being diminished also. Let me follow this further. Is it possible, is there any conceivable method by which this might be brought about? Of course, various arrangements are conceivable. An agreement —a general agreement—to limit or reduce naval expenditure, a comparison of naval estimates year by year in advance, to see whether the modification of the one might not lead to the modification of the other; or even if those responsible, the two admiralties, might exchange information as to the figures of their naval expenditure and the progress of their caUses of world war i

British History ch29.indd 221

221

1/31/12 4:43 PM

building. All that is unprecedented, possibly, but so is the expenditure. . . . Remember, in Germany there is apprehension with regard to our intentions. I am constantly told . . . that one of the reasons why German public opinion is apprehensive is the fear that we may be preparing an attack upon them -- a most wild apprehension. But see how an increase of naval expenditure, how debates of this kind . . must foster these ideas in the mind of the public. . . . It is, in my opinion, no ground for complaint or reproach against the German government, that they do not enter into any arrangement [to limit naval buildup]. . . On what basis would any arrangement have to be proposed? Not the basis of equality. It would have to be the basis of a superiority of the British navy. No German, as far as I know, disputes that that is a natural point of view for us. But it is another thing to ask the German government to expose itself before its own public opinion to a charge of having cooperated to make the attainment of our views easier. That is the difficulty which it is only fair to state. As against that there is no comparison of the importance of the German navy to them, and the importance of our navy to us. Our navy to us is what their army is to them. To have a strong navy would increase their prestige, their diplomatic influence, their power of protecting their commerce; but as regards us—it is not a matter of life and death to them, as it is to us. . . our army is not maintained on a scale which, unaided, could do anything on German territory. But if the German navy were superior to ours, they maintaining the army which they do, for us it would not be a question of defeat. Our independence, our very existence would be at stake. . . for us the navy is what the army is to them . . . I will, in conclusion, submit to the House the general views on which I approach this great problem. There are those who like and those who dislike naval and military expenditure; there are those who like the martial spirit and those who dislike it. Well, sir, the martial spirit I should be the last to deny has its place, and its proper place, in the life of a nation. That the nation should take pride in its power to resist force by force is a natural and wholesome thing.... That I sympathize with entirely, but I would ask the people to consider to what consequences the growth of armaments has led? The great countries of Europe are raising enormous revenues, and something like half of them is being spent on naval 222

and military preparations ... on what is, after all, preparations to kill each other. Surely the extent to which this expenditure has grown really becomes a satire, and a reflection on civilization. Not in our generation, perhaps, but if it goes on at the rate at which it has recently increased, sooner or later, I believe, it will submerge that civilization . . . . . the whole of Europe is in the presence of a great danger. But, sir, no country alone can save that. If we alone, among the great powers, gave up the competition and sank into a position of inferiority, what good should we do? None whatever-- no good to ourselves, because we cannot realize great ideals of social reform at home when we are holding our existence at the mercy, at the caprice, if you like, of another nation. That is not feasible. If we fall into a position of inferiority, our self-respect is gone. . . . We should cease to count for anything among the nations of Europe, and we should be fortunate if our liberty was left, and we did not become the conscript appendage of some stronger power. That is a brutal way of stating the case, but it is the truth. It is disagreeable that it should be so, but in matters like this I know of no safe way except to look at what is disagreeable frankly in the face, and to state it, if necessary, in its crudest form....Deeply as I feel . . the great evil of increased naval and military expenditure not only here but in Europe, . . . we must be prepared to defend our national existence.

Assignment In naval matters, why doesn’t Grey want Germany to have parity with England?

caUses of world war i

British History student.indb 222

1/31/12 1:34 PM

lesson 4

the first shots

By 1900, the world was changing with increased speed and pronounced intensity that before then seemed to be fanciful. Space, time, and physical dimensions had been transformed in a way that a century before, literally, no one could have imagined. Telephone defied time and space to take the human voice instantly across time and space. Cities were lit by electricity all the time. Literally, there was less darkness by 1900 than any previous century. It did not take 80 days to travel around the world; 80 hours was a possibility. Indeed there were limitless possibilities–mankind could even travel under the ocean. People were moving from the farm to the city. Advances in medicine, surplus crops assured that there was a substantial population explosion. Suddenly, by 1914, countries had a surplus number of young men to throw into the war engine. The expansion of education, the expansion of entertainments, the emergence of the film industry, newsreels, all this brought to masses of people visions of worlds they had never thought was available. All this progress conspired to give people realistic reasons to hope that things would be better than they were today. It could also mean intense frustration for those poor people who did not participate in this progress. Inequality and injustice among classes had always existed. However, with the advent of a national media, people now knew about it. And this suddenly mattered a whole lot. People wanted more things and more control over their lives. The industrial revolution had increased productivity and made possible a flourishing military. Europe knew the industrial basis of military power. In order to provide for

the steel and the machinery necessary to stand up to the powers of the day, countries knew that they had to grow economically if they were to have military power. And the converse was also true. If they wished to have military power they need to build a strong, thriving industrial infrastructure. Nations—no matter how large—that did not have a strong industrial base lost wars. This was why Russia with its massive army and large land mass lost to lowly Japan in 1905. The same was true 30 years earlier when industrial Germany defeated agrarian France in the FrancoPrussian War of 1870. This was a fundamental anxiety that plagued all European nations and contributed in no small way to the War when it finally came less than two decades into the new century. As one historian explained, “The consequence of backwardness is military weakness and defeat, and this is one of the fundamental problems of Europe before the war. It looked as if the major economic power, Germany, did not have the equivalent political power on the European stage or the world stage, and there is no way to adjust that inequality. Britain had been the greatest economic power in the world, had the greatest navy in the world. It dominated the middle of the 19th century. By 1900, Germany was the greatest power on the continent and certainly rivaled Britain as an industrial power with every indication that it would overtake Britain as an industrial power. But, where comes the political equivalent of economic and industrial power? It may come within Europe. It may come within empires, but it had to come from somewhere. The instability of European life is that caUses of world war i

British History student.indb 223

223

1/31/12 1:34 PM

A British artillery battery emplaced on Mount Scopus in the Battle of Jerusalem. Photographer unknown, 1917 (PD-US).

Germany grew too rapidly for the political structures which were old, and nobody knew how to change them, short of war.” Once a nation felt it was threatened it had to move quickly to meet the challenge. In the European industrial states, the nation that mobilized first usually won the resulting war. Thus, small conflict could easily become big world wars.

That is exactly what happened in a backwater part of the Balkans In the summer of 1914, a Serbian nationalist—a citizen of the aging Austria-Hungarian Empire—assassinated the Archduke Francis Ferdinand, the heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary. Germany, perhaps foolishly, issued a blank check to Austria-Hungary and said it would support her no matter what. Russia, whose ally was Serbia, said the same thing. Then everyone rushed to declare war on each other so that they could mobilize first. Quickly a local, insignificant conflict became a world war. An ethnic civil war became a world war because of alliances and coalitions. The Allied Powers fought the Central Powers. The Allied Powers included the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, Serbia, Montenegro, and the Russia. The Central Powers consisted of Germany and Austria-Hungary. Japan joined the Allied Powers in 1914. The Ottoman Empire joined the Central Powers in 1914, as did Bulgaria in 1915. The same year, Italy entered the war on the Allied side. Although the United States initially remained neutral, it joined the Allies in 1917. The conflict eventually involved 32 countries, 28 of which supported the Allies.

Assignment

Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria by Carl Pietzner, 1919 (PD-US).

224

The last 20 years of the 19th-Century, 1880 to 1900, were characterized by an immense optimism. It was thought that public health, invention, the telegraph, the telephone, ultimately the wireless and the radio, were going to civilize human life in a way that it had never been civilized before. And, then, all of a sudden, what happens in World War I is horrible, nothing like what was expected. How might a Christian explain these contrasts?

caUses of world war i

British History student.indb 224

1/31/12 1:34 PM

Chapter 30 world war i

First Thoughts . . . World War I lasted from 1914 to 1918. It began as a local European conflict between AustroHungary and Serbia on July 28, 1914. But was transformed into a general European war by the declaration of war made by Germany against Russia, on August 1, 1914. These intermingled conflicts eventually became a global war involving 32 nations, 28 of which, known as the Allies and the Associated Powers, and including Great Britain, France, Russia, Italy and the United States, opposed the coalition known as the Central Powers, consisting of Germany, AustriaHungary, Turkey and Bulgaria.

Chapter Learning Objectives . . . In chapter 30, we will begin with an overview of World War I. Then we will examine one specific battle, the Battle of the Somme, which caused almost one-half million British casualties. Next, we will examine the air war and its strategic importance. Finally, we will examine the life of Winston Churchill, a great Englishman whom we shall meet again in subsequent chapters. As a result of this chapter you should be able to: 1. Discuss World War I. 2. Analyze the Battle of the Somme. 3.

Discuss the emerging air war.

4. Evaluate the impact of Winston Churchill on World War I.

British History student.indb 225

1/31/12 1:34 PM

lesson 1

world war i

A few years ago, while this author’s wife and her mother vigorously reconnoitred and then exploited local shopping opportunities in a Scottish Highland community, I walked around the same quaint village. In the center of this small community—no more than 1200 people—there was the obligatory war monument. We see the same sort of thing in America, so I was not at first particularly impressed. For instance, in my hometown there is a memorial to American war dead in the center of our town square. In fact, there is a list of American World War veterans on the wall at our local post office too. While waiting for stamps I read through the names almost every day. The ones who died have a small, impressive golden star next to their name. Only two names have stars. However, on the monument in the central square of this beautiful Scottish village there were 128 names. These were names of the dead, not the participants. A community that was then about 850 people had 128 dead casualties in World War I. The implication is that double those numbers were permanently maimed. Indeed, on one summer day in 1916, at the Somme, some towns lost its entire local soccer team and most of the volunteer fire company. Suppose there were about 425 men who lived in this community in 1914. In 1918 over 250 of them had been killed or wounded. It is difficult to imagine the impact that World War I had on this small, unpretentious Scottish community. It lost almost half its male population. As I traveled across Scotland this story was repeated time and time again. This carnage is unique to European communities; there is nothing to compare in American history.

226

world war i

British History ch30.indd 226

A small sea lion, representing Great Britain, with it’s fins pierced by a crescent, representing Turkey. Published in: Kriegszeit Künstlerflugblätter. Berlin : Verlag Paul Cassier, no. 34, 7 Apr. 1915. (PD-US).

Peasants in the re-taken Somme District work hard without horses or cattle. The Germans in retreat have taken all live stock, 1917 (PD-US).

For the last time, during World War I, the British army recruited its regiments by county and town, but the trend was exaggerated in the Kitchener armies recruited for World War I. The British army made a promise very early on, when they weren’t sure how many volunteers they were going to get, that if a volunteer joined up in a group, the group would be kept together. And, the phrase was: “Join up with your pals or your chums, your friends.” This certainly maintained morale and increased recruitment numbers. That is, it improved morale until they were all killed together on some nameless battlefield in France. Of the 65 million men who participated in the war, more than 10 million were killed and more than 20 million wounded. The term “World War I” did not come into general use until after World War II. Before that, the war was known as the “Great War.” World War I was the first total war. No war had been quite like it. All the participating countries mobilized all their resources to achieve victory on the battlefield. The home front, then, became as important as the battlefield. In fact, in some places in France, the home front was only a few miles behind the war front.

1/31/12 4:47 PM

Dardanelles Fleet. Photographer unknown, c1915 (PD-US).

While this new war was a world war in scope and sequence, in fact most of the fighting occurred along a front in Western Europe called the “Western Front.” On the Western Front, within 2 months after the War began (in August, 1914), there was a stalemate. Across intersecting trenches that ran north and south across France and Belgium, warring armies faced each other in open defense. At great cost in men and material, each side laid siege to the other’s system of trenches. After millions of men died to prove that these trenches were mostly impregnable, warring armies settled down to a sort of draconian war where the nation with the most survivors at the end of the carnage would win.

fighting on this front took place in northeastern France. Names like Ypres, Verdun, and Sommes were names that haunt western nations even today. Trenches ran from the North Sea to the border of Switzerland. Some of the trenches were miles apart; others were yards apart. On the Eastern Front, German and Austria-Hungarian armies faced the Russians. It was not long before the Central Powers had soundly defeated Russia and could concentrate totally on the western Allies.

It is the beyond the scope of this unit to give the reader all the details about the War, but I will sketch in broad outline the events as they unfolded in 1914-1918.

Since France, England, and Germany had colonial empires in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, conflicts occurred in these areas too. In Africa in particular England and Germany fought a long and arduous campaign that the British finally won. Likewise, in the Middle East, the British finally won the campaign in Syria and Iraq. All these conflicts, however, paled in the face of the War in Europe.

Most of the battles during World War I occurred on land. Besides one sea battle, the Battle of Jutland, and submarine warfare, there was not much of a sea war in World War I. Naval forces were used primarily to blockade hostile coasts. Airplanes, on the other hand, were used extensively in World War I. At first Germany had a two-front war: the Western Front and the Eastern Front. On the Western Front, German armies fought the British Expeditionary Force, France, Belgium, and the United States (in 1917). Most of the

While most of the most important action occurred in Europe, there were ancillary conflicts all over the world. For instance, the aborted Gallipoli Campaign in 1915 pitted the British and French against the Turks. The Turks won.

When the war finally came to an end on November 11, 1918, and the Central Powers were defeated, the political order and geographical map of Europe had been radically transformed. The Versailles Treaty, the treaty that ended the war, changed the future of the world. The German, AustriaHungarian, Russian, and Ottoman empires had collapsed and new countries (e.g., Poland) were created. World War I was also partially the cause of the Russian Revolution. The humiliating terms imposed by the Versailles Treaty on Germany became a rallying cry for the Nazis who rose to power in the 1920s and ultimately precipitated a Second World War.

Assignment The First World War changed the world, and was a moment of passage between the 19th century and 20th century, and encouraged the of rise modernity. Discuss how the War truly ended the Victorian Age and started Europe on the path to modernity. Turk battery, Gallipoli. Bains News Service, c1915 (PD-US). world war i

British History student.indb 227

227

1/31/12 1:34 PM

lesson 2

the battle of the somme

There were many World War I battles that tested Britain’s valor and resolve, but perhaps none was more trying than the Battle of the Somme. The Somme was the main Allied attack on the Western Front during 1916. 58,000 British troops, 20,000 of which were killed on the first day of the battle, July 1, 1916, remains a one-day record for British casualties. The attack was launched upon a 30 mile front, from north of the Somme river, and ran from July until November, at which point the allies stopped the campaign. The offensive was planned late in 1915 and was intended as a joint French-British attack. The French Commander in Chief, Joffre, conceived the idea as a battle of attrition, the aim being to drain the German forces of reserves, although territorial gain was a secondary aim. The British Commander in Chief, Sir Douglas Haig, agreed, although Haig would have preferred an offensive among the open ground of Flanders. Haig, who took up his appointment as Commander in Chief of the British Expeditionary Force (the British Army in World War I) on December 19, 1915, had been granted authorization by the British government to conduct a major offensive in 1916. Although in actuality British forces comprised by far the bulk of the offensive forces, Joffre and Haig originally intended for the attack to be a predominantly French offensive. However the German onslaught at Verdun at the start of 1916, where the German Army Chief of Staff, von Falkenhayn promised to “bleed France white,” resulted in the diversion of virtually all French manpower and efforts. Von Falkenhayn very nearly succeeded in his macabre task and French had precious few manpower resources available in 1916. The German Verdun offensive transformed the intent of the Somme attack; the French demanded that the planned date of the attack, August 1, 1916, be brought forward to July 1, the aim chiefly being to divert German resources from Verdun in the defense of the Somme. 228

British trench near the Albert–Bapaume road at Ovillers-la-Boisselle, during the Battle of the Somme by Lt. J. W. Brooke, 1916 (PD-US).

Haig took over responsibility from Joffre for the planning and execution of the attack. Haig’s meticulous preparations progressed slowly, much to Joffre’s irritation. Haig intended to fashion the attack using the ideas of both himself and General Rawlinson, whose Fourth Army was to spearhead the assault. The attack was preceded by an eight-day preliminary bombardment of the German lines, beginning on Saturday, June 24. The expectation was that the ferocity of the bombardment would entirely destroy all forward German defenses, enabling the attacking British troops to practically walk across No Man’s Land and take possession of the German front lines from the battered and dazed German troops. 1,500 British guns, together with a similar number of French guns, were employed in the bombardment. Following the artillery bombardment, it was determined that a creeping barrage would precede the advancing infantry to the German front line, and onwards to the second and third trench lines. The Royal Artillery had prepared

world war i

British History student.indb 228

1/31/12 1:34 PM

an underground network of telephone cables so as to enable forward observation officers to monitor and correct the barrage as the battle progressed. With the conclusion of the advance bombardment Rawlinson’s southern wing, at the center of the attack line, was instructed by Haig to consolidate after a limited advance. Rawlinson’s troops went into battle heavily-laden with supplies for that purpose. Meanwhile to the north the rest of Fourth Army, in addition to other British troops, attempted a complete breakthrough, with cavalry standing by to exploit fully the resultant gap in the German lines. Following the taking of the German lines, the plan was for the British to break through to Cambrai and Douai, thus breaking the German line in two. Twenty-seven divisions of men went into the attack—750,000 men —of which over 80 percent were comprised from the British Expeditionary Force (BEF). Ranged against them in the German trenches were 16 divisions of the German Second Army. The odds were apparently stacked heavily in the attacking force’s favor. However, the advance artillery bombardment failed to destroy either the German front line’s barbed wire or the heavily-built concrete bunkers the Germans had carefully and stoutly constructed. Much of the munitions used by the British proved to be duds—badly constructed and ineffective. Many charges did not go off; even today farmers of the Western Front unearth many tons of unexploded ‘iron harvest’ each year. During the bombardment the German troops sought effective shelter in such bunkers, emerging only with the ceasing of the British artillery bombardment, when the German machine guns were manned to horrible effect. The attack itself began at 7:30 on July 1 with the detonation of a series of 17 mines. The first, which was actually exploded ten minutes early, went off at 7:20.

Taking away the wounded in motor ambulance (Somme), c1916 (PD-US).

As a consequence of the lack of surprise generated by the advance bombardment, and the lack of success in cutting the German barbed wire and in damaging their underground bunkers, the BEF made strikingly little progress on July 1 or in the days and weeks that followed. The British troops were for the most part forced back into their trenches by the effectiveness of the German machine gun response. The Somme used tanks for the first time. While they had great shock value, their strategic value was limited. Despite the slow but progressive British advance, poor weather—snow—brought a halt to the Somme offensive on November 18. During the attack the British and French had gained about 12 miles of ground, the taking of which resulted in 420,000 estimated British casualties, including many of the volunteer “pal’s” battalions, plus a further 200,000 French casualties. German casualties were estimated at 500,000. (firstworldwar.com/battles/somme.htm).

Assignment Even after 20,000 men died in the first 24 hours of the Battle of the Somme, the British high command continued the battle for five months more. Why?

British Vickers machine gun crew wearing PH-type anti-gas helmets. Near Ovillers during the Battle of the Somme by Lt. J.W. Brooke, 1916 (PD-US).

world war i

British History student.indb 229

229

1/31/12 1:34 PM

lesson 3

the royal flying corps

The air force arm of the army (since there were no separate air force branches of the army until after World War II) gained great strategic importance in World War I. Hot-air balloons were widely used in World War I. Many were placed on the Western Front as observers. With the development of fighter planes, however, such a job was quite dangerous. Balloons, or Zeppelins, were used to conduct bombing runs. While Zeppelins were extremely vulnerable to ground fire, and terribly inaccurate, they could destroy strategic targets in seconds. The most famous image of the air war was the dogfight. The dogfight was an aerial battle between two or more planes. Originally fighters had the “lone wolf ” tactic; eventually they attacked in groups. The most famous fighter was Germany’s Manfred von Richthofen, the Red Baron, who shot down 80 aircraft. Great Britain founded the Royal Flying Corps (RFC) in May 1912. By the end of 1912 the RFC had one squadron of airships and three of aircraft. In July 1916 the RFC had a total strength of 27 squadrons (421 aircraft) and 14 balloons. The squadrons were organized into four brigades, each of which worked with one of the British armies. By December, 1918, the RAF had more than 22,000 aircraft and 291,000 personnel, making it the world’s largest air force.

230

A recruiting poster for the Royal Flying Corps, Employee of Petty and Sons, 1913 (PD-US).

Assignment The British were the most innovative belligerents of the War. They were the first to develop the airplane and the tank as serious tactical weapons. In your opinion, why were the British so innovative?

world war i

British History student.indb 230

1/31/12 1:34 PM

lesson 4

winston chUrchill operation against the Turks. He had encouraged the development of innovative weapons, such as the tank. But the failed Gallipoli campaign did great harm to Churchill’s reputation and career. Churchill rejoined the Army, and rose to the rank of colonel. In 1917 he was appointed Lloyd George’s minister of munitions, subsequently becoming the state secretary for war and air (1918–21), and colonial secretary (1921–22).

Assignment Assuming you were Winston Churchill’s “agent” or benefactor, from this brief biography, what vocation would you advise him to pursue?

Mrs. Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill. Photographer unknown, c1915 (PD-US).

Winston Churchill was the son of a famous politician Lord Randolph Churchill and his American wife, Jennie Jerome, and a direct descendant from the first Duke of Marlborough (1650–1722). Churchill was not a good student. He was at the bottom of his class in school. In 1898 Churchill fought in Sudan with Lord Kitchener. Churchill resigned his commission in 1899, and was assigned to cover the Boer War for the London Morning Post. His adventures, capture by the Boers, and a daring escape, made Churchill a celebrity and hero on his return to England in 1900. In 1908 he married Clementine Ogilvy Hozier, with whom he had one son and three daughters. The Churchills were a sustaining couple all their lives. After the outbreak of First World War he supported the Gallipoli Campaign, an

Winston Churchill addressing a joint session of the United States Congress, 1900 (PD-US). world war i

British History student.indb 231

231

1/31/12 1:34 PM

Shortly before the war, British General Horace Smith-Dorrien predicted a catastrophic war which should be avoided at almost any cost. Photographer and date unknown.

232

world war i

British History student.indb 232

1/31/12 1:34 PM

Chapter 31 world war i and afterwards First Thoughts . . . Winston Churchill, prime minister of England during World War II, describes World War I: All the horrors of all the ages were brought together, and not only armies but whole populations were thrust into the midst of them. The mighty educated States involved conceived—not without reasons—that their very existence was at stake. Neither peoples nor rulers drew the line at any deed which they thought could help them to win. Germany, having let Hell loose, kept well in the forefront of terror; but she was followed step by step by the desperate and ultimately avenging nations she had assailed. Every outrage against humanity or international law was repaid by reprisals—often of a greater scale and of longer duration. No truce or parley mitigated the strife of the armies. The wounded died between the lines; the dead mouldered into the soil. Merchant ships and neutral ships and hospital ships were sunk on the seas and all on board left to their fate, or killed as they swam. Every effort was made to starve whole nations into submission without regard to age or sex. Cities and monuments were smashed by artillery. Bombs from the air were cast down indiscriminately. Poison gas in many forms stifled or seared the soldiers. Liquid fire was projected upon their bodies. Men fell from the air in flames, or were smothered often slowly in the dark recesses of the sea. The fighting strength of armies was limited only by the manhood of their countries.

Chapter Learning Objectives . . . In chapter 31, we will look at the aftermath of World War I. In particular, we will examine the Versailles Treaty. Next, we will pause and listen to contemporary voices, whose cries of anguish reverberate across the century. Next, we will examine the great flu pandemic that killed more men than the War itself. Finally, we will revisit London at the beginning of the 20th century. As a result of this chapter you should be able to: 1. Evaluate the Treaty of Versailles. 2. Discuss contemporary voices of the war. 3. Analyze the impact of the influenza epidemic on world history. 4. Explore how London grew as a 20th century cultural and commercial center in Western Europe.

British History student.indb 233

1/31/12 1:34 PM

lesson 1

versailles treaty

The Treaty of Versailles was the peace settlement signed after World War I had ended. The treaty was signed at the vast Versailles Palace near Paris between Germany and the Allies. The three most important politicians there were David Lloyd George, Georges Clemenceau and Woodrow Wilson. Many wanted Germany severely punished. Others, like English Prime Minister Lloyd George, were privately more cautious. The allies, especially France, were in no mood to be charitable to Germany, in particular, whom they held responsible for the war and its consequences. David Lloyd George of Great Britain had two views on how Germany should be treated. The British public was after revenge and Lloyd George’s public image reflected this mood. However, after the war had finished, Lloyd George believed that the spread of communism posed a far greater threat to the world than a defeated Germany. Privately, he felt that Germany should be treated in such a way that left her as a barrier to resist the expected spread of communism. Lloyd George did not want Germany treated with lenience but he knew that Germany would be the only country in Central Europe that could stop the spread of communism if it burst over the frontiers of Russia. Germany had to be punished, but not to the extent that it left her destitute. However, it would have been political suicide to have gone public with these views. What were the terms of the treaty? First, territory was taken from Germany and her allies and given to the victors. Germany lost all her overseas colonies. Second, Germany’s army was reduced to 100,000 men and not allowed to build tanks. Germany could have no air force. Next, she was allowed only six capital naval ships and no aircraft carriers. 234

The Signing of Peace in the Hall of Mirrors, Versailles by William Orpen, 1919 (PD-US).

Huge reparations, or financial payments, were required of Germany. Germany must pay for the War. Finally, a League of Nations was set up to keep world peace. No one liked the Treaty of Versailles. The British public felt it was too soft. Germany thought it was too harsh. America rejected it altogether.

Assignment A. What was the outcome of the Versailles Treaty? B. Why did the Treaty of Versailles satisfy no one?

world war i and afterwards

British History student.indb 234

1/31/12 1:34 PM

lesson 2

contemporary voices

In Flanders Fields, Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, MD (left, 1872-1918) Canadian Army In Flanders Fields the poppies blow Between the crosses row on row, That mark our place; and in the sky The larks, still bravely singing, fly Scarce heard amid the guns below. We are the Dead. Short days ago We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, Loved and were loved, and now we lie In Flanders fields. Take up our quarrel with the foe: To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high. If ye break faith with us who die We shall not sleep, though poppies grow In Flanders fields. An Essay, The McCrae Museum of The Guelph Museum John McCrae’s “In Flanders Fields” remains to this day one of the most memorable war poems ever written. It is a lasting legacy of the terrible battle in the Ypres salient in the spring of 1915. As a surgeon attached to the 1st Field Artillery Brigade, Major McCrae, who had joined the McGill faculty in 1900 after graduating from the University of Toronto, had spent seventeen days treating injured men—Canadians, British, Indians, French, and Germans—in the Ypres salient. It had been an ordeal that he had hardly thought possible. McCrae later wrote of it: “I wish I could embody on paper some of the varied sensations of that seventeen days... Seventeen days of Hades! At the end of the first day if anyone had told us we had to spend seventeen days there, we would have folded our hands and said it could not have been done.”

One death particularly affected McCrae. A young friend and former student, Lieut. Alexis Helmer of Ottawa, had been killed by a shell burst on 2 May 1915. Lieutenant Helmer was buried later that day in the little cemetery outside McCrae’s dressing station, and McCrae had performed the funeral ceremony in the absence of the chaplain. The next day, sitting on the back of an ambulance parked near the dressing station beside the Canal de l’Yser, just a few hundred yards north of Ypres, McCrae composed a poem. In the nearby cemetery, McCrae could see the wild poppies that sprang up in the ditches in that part of Europe, and he spent twenty minutes of precious rest time scribbling fifteen lines of verse in a notebook. McCrae forgot about this poem. In fact, it was very nearly not published. Dissatisfied with it, McCrae tossed the poem away, but a fellow officer retrieved it and sent it to newspapers in England. The Spectator, in London, rejected it, but Punch published it on December 8, 1915. On January 28, 1918, while still commanding No. 3 Canadian General Hospital (McGill) at Boulogne, McCrae died of pneumonia with “extensive viral meningitis.” (From Arlington Cemetery Website, “Where Valor Sleeps”)

Assignment Verdun was one of the most horrendous battles of world history. Nothing is quite its equal (except the second day in the 1864 Battle of Spotsylvania Courthouse between the Confederacy and the Union). Millions–not thousands–of men died at Verdun. Why would two civilized nations fight such a battle? world war i and afterwards

British History student.indb 235

235

1/31/12 1:34 PM

lesson 3

the great flU pandemic By most estimates, the influenza pandemic of 1918–1919 killed more people than World War I. It killed between 20 and 40 million people. It has been cited as the most devastating epidemic in recorded world history. More people died of influenza in a single year than in four years of the Black Death bubonic plague from 1347 to 1351. The flu was most deadly for people ages 20 to 40. It infected 28% of all Americans. An estimated 675,000 Americans died of influenza during the pandemic, ten times as many as in the world war. Of the U.S. soldiers who died in Europe, half of them fell to the influenza virus and not to the enemy. The effect of the influenza epidemic was so severe that the aver- Demonstration at the Red Cross Emergency Ambulance Station in Washington, D.C., during the influenza age life span in the United States was pandemic of 1918. National Photo Company, 1918 (PD-US). depressed by 10 years. The influenza I had a little bird, virus had a profound virulence, with a mortality rate at 2.5 Its name was Enza. percent compared to the previous influenza epidemics, I opened the window, which were less than 0.1 percent The death rate for 15- to And in-flu-enza. 34-year-olds of influenza and pneumonia were 20 times —A childhood song higher in 1918 than in previous years. It was an airborne disease and many died within a few hours of being infected. Soldiers intermingled with other infected patients and spread the epidemic worldwide. Emergency hospitals were created to take in the patients from the United States and those arriving sick from overseas. The pandemic affected everyone. One-fifth of the world infected with the influenza, it was impossible to escape from the illness (www.stanford.edu).

236

Assignment How was the affect of the influenza epidemic exacerbated by World War I?

world war i and afterwards

British History ch31.indd 236

1/31/12 4:48 PM

lesson 4

post- war london At the end of World War I London was basically unscathed. A few German dirigibles had dropped random bombs to little effect. London had no Big Bertha dropping perjectiles into people’s living rooms. Yet on another level London was profoundly damaged. While its physical structures were basically intact, like so many English towns, its people were broken. Whole sections of the city’s young men had been sacificed on the Somme. The ones who were left were further decimated by the flu expidemic. London was full of sadness. Yet, it was a staid, proud English city. It was the victor, after all, and this no doubt brought business to the small shops along the Thames. In the next decade London was to know unprecedented prosperity. London, though, was quick to discard the vicissitudes of war for the hedonism of the 1920s. London was entering the 1920s with energy and hope.

Assignment Why did London recover so quickly after World War I?

Big Ben in London

world war i and afterwards

British History student.indb 237

237

1/31/12 1:34 PM

Piccadilly Circus, Shaftesbury Avenue, London. Photo by Chalmers Butterfield, c 1949 (CC BY 2.5).

238

world war i and afterwards

British History student.indb 238

1/31/12 1:35 PM

Chapter 32

totalitarianism

First Thoughts . . . Scholar Hannah Arendt writes, “Totalitarianism is never content to rule by external means, namely, through the state and a machinery of violence; thanks to its peculiar ideology and the role assigned to it in this apparatus of coercion, totalitarianism has discovered a means of dominating and terrorizing human beings from within.” A totalitarian government seeks to control all economic and political matters, but the attitudes, values, and beliefs of its population as well, erasing the distinction between state and society. The citizen’s duty to the state becomes the primary concern of the community, and the goal of the state is the replacement of the existing society with a utopian society.

Chapter Learning Objectives . . . In chapter 32, we will further examine World War I and its aftermath. Next, we will examine why totalitarian regimes emerged in Europe and the Far East. Finally, we will consider the Church’s response to totalitarianism. As a result of this chapter you should be able to: 1. Discuss what new problems emerged after World War I. 2. Examine why totalitarian regimes emerged after World War I. 3. Evaluate why a totalitarian government arose in Germany but not in England. 4. Analyze why Germany almost unanimously supported an obvious anti-Semite like Adolf Hitler. 5. Evaluate why the United States was such a serious threat to Japan. 6. Discuss how totalitarian regimes related to the Church.

British History student.indb 239

1/31/12 1:35 PM

lesson 1

england on the brink By the war’s end, four major imperial powers—the German, Russian, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires—had been militarily and politically defeated, with the last two ceasing to exist altogether. The revolutionized Soviet Union emerged from the Russian Empire, while the map of Central Europe was completely redrawn into numerous smaller states. The League of Nations was formed in the hope of preventing another such conflict. The European nationalism spawned by the war, the repercussions of Germany’s defeat, and of the Treaty of Versailles would eventually lead to the beginning of World War II in 1939. England had been the center of the great British Empire before World War I. The war marks the beginning of the decline of that empire in the face of rising nationalist demands for independence throughout the non-European world (Internet). England lost both its political and its economic hegemony. The cost of the war was so great that England consumed all of its credits and became heavily indebted to the United States. As a result of the war, the world’s financial center shifted from England to the United States, from London to New York. The demands by women for the right to vote could not be denied, especially in a nation like England where rights were so sacrosanct.

In France, the heavy losses in manpower at the front decimated an entire generation of Frenchmen and created a serious leadership vacuum. France also suffered untold property damage since most of the war on the Western Front was fought on French soil. Germany had entered World War I as the greatest power among the belligerents, with its people immensely proud of Germany’s achievements in the years since unification. Defeat in war was a profound shock, and coupled with economic privation and collapse, was disillusioning. Severe economic difficulties created by the war and the demand for reparations caused despair and hardship that ensured an uncertain future for the nation. In other words, the war accelerated the process of change driven by industrialization, and created circumstances in Germany, in the Balkans, and in Russia that people were not prepared for. As previously indicated, it also thrust the United States into a position of world leadership before the American people were ready to accept that responsibility. The problems, the instability, the uncertainties, and the economic collapse created by the war were far more difficult to deal with than any situation that had existed prior to the war. England’s infrastructure was sound. No cities were destroyed. But the casualties were atrocious and a strong peace movement emerged that had no intentions of supporting any future wars. The Empire was alive, but barely. There was evidence that it was on its last leg. It would take Japan to push it off the cliff 20 years later. In short, England was experience some unease that would not disappear until 30 years later.

Assignment What new problems emerged in England after World War I?

Caption: The Gap in the Bridge. Punch Magazine 10 December 1919 (PD-US).

240

totalitarianism

British History student.indb 240

1/31/12 1:35 PM

lesson 2

totalitarianism: italy Totalitarianism was a type of government in which all social, political, economic, intellectual, cultural, and spiritual activities were subordinated to the state. Totalitarianism was peculiar to the 20th century, during which dictators ruled totalitarian states. It was anathoma to English egalitarianism that was the very essence of democracy.

Ironically, totalitarian states were more prosperous during the Depression (1928–1940) than democratic states. The centrally controlled economy enabled the totalitarian dictatorship to exploit its population. During this era dictators kept their economies stimulated through preparation for war.

To England, it was not so much offensive as disorienting. The British pubic and politicians did not know what to make of it.

Totalitarianism first manifested its malfeasance in postWorld War I Italy, which suffered proportionately as much as any nation in Europe. As the government became increasingly unpopular, many Italians turned to support the Socialist Party and the Catholic Popular Party in the elections of 1919. Both advanced nationalistic policies. In Italy, as in many European countries, the Communist Party grew strong. In light of the revolutionary excesses in Russia, Communism terrorized Europe. Almost anything—including totalitarianism—was preferable to Communism. Benito Mussolini, an Italian national socialist, took advantage of this situation and grasped power, and by the mid-1920s he was firmly in power. Mussolini imposed a strict control of the political, economic and political social life of the Italian people. Under Mussolini’s dictatorial rule (1922–1943), Italians experienced a long period of stable government, but they were deprived of liberty. The Italian people overthrew Mussolini’s regime during World War II.

In the years immediately after the First World War, the “War to End All Wars,” a promising new era of democracy emerged. The despotic monarchies in Russia, Germany and Austria, were all overthrown and replaced by representative democracies or socialist states. Democracy seemed to have triumphed over autocracy. Yet within two decades, by 1928, some sort of dictatorship replaced most European countries. Russia was the worst. Italy was the first. And Germany had the most capable dictator. Similar dictatorships emerged in the Balkan countries. Only Britain and France remained democratic. What was the difference between a democratic state and totalitarian state? In democratic states, citizens enjoyed freedom of speech and freedom from arrest for political opinions. The government, in theory and in practice, provided for the security of its individual citizens. Russia (1917–1992), Italy (1922–1943), and Germany (1933–1945) were not concerned about the individual, but about the state. The state was ubiquitous. The basic concept of the totalitarian state was best expressed in Mussolini’s wellknown phrase “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” Even more malevolent was the secret-police apparatus that was part of every totalitarian state. It terrorized the population—criminal and innocent alike. It maintained the hegemony of the state by fear and terror. The totalitarian secret police used heinous torture, the concentration camp, private executions, and public humiliation to control the populace.

England had a love/hate relationship with Italian totalitarianism. On one hand it attracted British conservatives who saw in Italian authoritarianism a stable market for British goods. On the other hand, totalitarianism was an anthema to British notions of human rights. In the final analysis, England essentially decided to do nothing in the face of Italian facism.

Assignment Why were totalitarian regimes so popular after World War I?

totalitarianism

British History student.indb 241

241

1/31/12 1:35 PM

lesson 3

english views of hitler and stalin In spite of the fact that Germany had one of the best democracies in world history, the Weimar Republic, Germans enthusiastically embraced totalitarianism during the period between the two world wars. Both the fear of Communism and the hope of economic prosperity drove Germans into the Nazi Party. The Nazi Party was one of the many right-wing parties formed by the monarchist reactionaries who supported the kaiser’s rule and conversely hated the Weimar Republic. Many of these right-wing parties disappeared in the 1920s, but the Nazi Party was an exception. Under the brilliant leadership of Adolf Hitler, it grew as an important political party. It appealed to the unemployed masses and the nationalistic industrialists. Ironically, the leader of Nazi Germany was an Austrian. Adolf Hitler, born in 1899, was the son of an Austrian minor customs official. Hitler was an undistinguished boy. After unsuccessful attempts to become a student of art in the Vienna College of Fine Art, he failed in many jobs. During the First World War, Hitler served in the German army. He fought bravely and was awarded an Iron Cross for his bravery. He was wounded and while he was recovering in the hospital, he learned of Germany’s defeat. He believed that the defeat was due to betrayal by Jewish people. When he was discharged from the hospital, Hitler joined the National Socialist German Workingman’s Party 242

Overview of the mass roll call of SA, SS, and NSKK troops, Nuremberg. Photo by Charles Russell, 1935 (PD-US).

(abbreviated as Nazi). By his skill as an orator and organizer, Hitler became the Führer (leader) of the Nazi Party in 1921. The party adopted an emblem, a salute, and a greeting as its distinctives. It had a newspaper through which Hitler fiercely denounced the Treaty of Versailles and the Jews. He also organized the Stormtroopers (S.A. or the Brown Shirts) to disrupt the meetings of opposition parties. In November 1923, Hitler and his small party tried to overthrow the

totalitarianism

British History student.indb 242

1/31/12 1:35 PM

Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini in Munich, Germany. Photographer unknown, 1940 (PD-US).

government. He failed. In April 1924, Hitler was put on trial and was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. While in prison he wrote Mein Kampf. Hitler was an able leader. He was able to convince the Germans that he was a man of action and of ideals. Hitler promised everything to everybody. To the landowner and the industrialists, Hitler promised to stop Communism. To the middle classes, he promised to abolish the Treaty of Versailles and relieve them of the burden of reparations payment. To the army, he promised military victory. Hitler was also a gifted orator. His speeches, though they contained little truth, always made successful appeals to the masses. Moreover, the Nazi Party, with its huge parades, attracted the younger generation. Most Germans followed Hitler with religious fervor. By 1933, Hitler was firmly in control. During the second half of the 1920s, Joseph Stalin

gained absolute power in Russia by using police repression against opposition elements within the Communist Party. It was as if the Communist dreams of the Revolution were abandoned for the security of a police state. The first victims were Communist leaders Leon Trotsky, Grigorii Zinov’ev, and Lev Kamenev. Stalin had eliminated all potential opposition to his leadership by late 1934 and was the unchallenged leader of Russia. Nevertheless, for good measure, he proceeded to purge the party rank and file and to terrorize the entire country with widespread executions. During the ensuing Great Terror, which included the notorious show trials of Stalin’s former Bolshevik opponents in 1936–1938, reaching its peak in 1937 and 1938, millions of innocent Soviet citizens were sent off to labor camps or killed in prison. By the time the terror subsided in 1939, Stalin had managed to bring both the Communist Party and the public to a state of complete submission to his rule. Stalin ruled as absolute dictator of the Soviet Union totalitarianism

British History student.indb 243

243

1/31/12 1:35 PM

throughout World War II and until his death in March 1953. Stalin was one of the most evil persons in all of world history. Initially, England who historically loved a stable Europe, welcomed a Nazi Germany. The Weimar Republic was far too unstable. A stable Germany meant a stable Europe. A stable Europe was good for business. More importantly, a powerful Germany was a desirable buffer with Communist Russia. To the British, the Soviet communist threat was much greater than the German threat. In general though, concerning Germany, most English citizens simply could not believe that Adolf Hitler was as evil as he appeared. He was an anamoly. England tried to treat him like any reasonable European statesman. But Hitler was not a normal European statesmen. Even a cursory reading of Mein Kampf would evidence that fact, but, apparently England did not want to think about it. This was a time when the children, many of them orphans, were reaching adulthood. World War I was still a terrible memory and they certainly did not want to repeat the same mistakes as their fathers had made. Hitler, then, was tolerated, even admired, by many English.

Joseph Stalin, Secretary-general of the Communist Party of Soviet Russia. Photographer unknown, c1942 (PD-US).

Assignment Why did post-World War I England have such an ambivalent view of Hitler?

244

totalitarianism

British History ch32.indd 244

1/31/12 4:51 PM

S).

lesson 4

japan: a more serioUs threat England, initially, perceived Japan as a much more serious threat than Nazi Germany or Facist Italy. For one thing, Japanese ambitions in British colonies was obvious. Her pan-Asian views were very threatening to British imperialist aims. England allowed her colonies to practice self-government, but she had no intentions of withdrawing trading privileges. Japanese hegemony would end all that. Some cities, like Singapore and Hong Kong, had become first-class cities that rivaled European cities. These growing metropolitan areas were vital to British fiscal interests. Japan entered World War I in 1914, seizing the opportunity of Germany’s distraction with the European War and wanting to expand its sphere of influence in China. Japan declared war on Germany in August 23, 1914, and quickly occupied German-leased territories in China’s Shandong Province as well as the Marianas, Caroline, and Marshall Islands in the Pacific, which were part of German New Guinea. With its Western allies, notably England, heavily involved in the war in Europe, Japan sought to further consolidate its position in China by presenting the Twenty-One Demands to China in January 1915. Besides expanding its control over the German holdings, Manchuria, and Inner Mongolia, Japan also sought joint ownership of a major mining and metallurgical complex in central China; prohibitions on China’s ceding or leasing any coastal areas to a third power; and miscellaneous other political, economic, and military controls, which, if achieved, would have reduced China to a Japanese protectorate. In the face of slow negotiations with the Chinese government, widespread anti-Japanese sentiment in China, and international condemnation, Japan withdrew the final group of demands, and treaties were signed in May 1915. In 1919, Japan proposed a clause on racial equality to be included in the League of Nations covenant at the Paris Peace Conference. The clause was rejected by several Western countries and was not forwarded for larger

discussion at the full meeting of the conference. The rejection was an important factor in the coming years in turning Japan away from cooperation with West and toward nationalistic policies. The Anglo-Japanese Alliance was ended in 1923. After the outbreak of the Russian Revolution, the new Bolshevik government signed a separate peace treaty with Germany. After this the Russians fought against themselves in a multi-sided civil war. In July 1918, President Wilson asked the Japanese government to supply 7,000 troops as part of an international coalition of 25,000 troops planned to support the American Expeditionary Force in Siberia. Prime Minister Terauchi Masatake agreed to send 12,000 troops, but under the Japanese command rather than as part of an international coalition. The Japanese had several hidden motives for the venture, which included an intense hostility toward, and fear of, communism; a determination to recoup historic losses to Russia; and the desire to settle the “northern problem” in Japan’s security either through the creation of a buffer state or through outright territorial acquisition. As a result, Japan occupied all ports and major towns in Eastern Siberia. In June 1920, the United States and its allied coalition partners withdrew from Russia. However, the Japanese decided to stay, primarily due to fears of the spread of communism so close to Japan and Japanese-controlled Korea and Manchuria. The continued Japanese presence concerned the United States, which suspected that Japan had territorial designs on Siberia and the Russian Far East. Subjected to intense diplomatic pressure by the United States and Great Britain, and facing increasing domestic opposition due to the economic and human cost, the Japanese withdrew the their forces in October 1922. From September 1932, the Japanese were becoming more locked in to the course that would lead them into the Second World War. The state was being transformed to serve the army and the emperor. totalitarianism

British History student.indb 245

245

1/31/12 1:35 PM

The main goals of Japan’s expansionism were acquisition and protection of spheres of influence, maintenance of territorial integrity, acquisition of raw materials, and access to Asian markets. These ambitions came into conflict with Western agendas. In the 1920s and 1930s, Japan had to import raw materials such as iron, rubber, and oil to maintain strong economic growth. Most of these resources came from the United States. The Japanese felt that acquiring resource-rich territories would establish economic self-sufficiency and independence, and they also hoped to jump-start their nation’s economy in the midst of the depression. As a result, Japan set its sights on East Asia, specifically Manchuria with its many resources. Japan needed these resources to continue its economic development and maintain national integrity. Finally, during the 1930s, Japan launched a series of invasions of China and Russia (Manchuria). On September 27, 1940, Imperial Japan signed the Tripartite Pact with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Their objectives were to “establish and maintain a new order of things” in their respective world regions and spheres of influence, with Nazi Germany in Europe, Imperial Japan in

Asia, and Fascist Italy in North Africa. The signatories of this alliance become known as the Axis Powers. The pact also called for mutual protection—if any one of the member powers was attacked by a country not already at war, excluding the Soviet Union—and for technological and economic cooperation between the signatories (Internet). Japan now planned the fateful Pearl Harbor attack. While Japan never intended to invade the United States, they hoped to so damage the American navy that America would sue for peace and leave Japan to rule the Pacific Rim. England, deeply involved in a European war with Germany, that it was losing, was delighted to see Japan attack its ally. This drove American into war with Japan. Then, on December 8, England had even better news. Germany declared war on the United States. Now, without a doubt, England knew that it would win World War II.

Assignment Why was Japan such a serious threat to England?

U.S. Navy battleships at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 (l-r): USS West Virginia (BB-48) (sunk), USS Tennessee (BB-43) (damaged), and the USS Arizona (BB-39) (sunk), USN, 1941 (PD-US).

246

world war i and afterwards

British History student.indb 246

1/31/12 1:35 PM

Chapter 33

world war ii and the cold war First Thoughts . . . In the midst of imminent defeat, newly elected Prime Minister Winston Churchill addressed Parliament and eloquently expressed the English mindset in May, 1940, as it conducted its war with Germany: I say to the House as I said to ministers who have joined this government, I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many months of struggle and suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I say it is to wage war by land, sea, and air. War with all our might and with all the strength God has given us, and to wage war against a monstrous tyranny never surpassed in the dark and lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word. It is victory. Victory at all costs— Victory in spite of all terrors—Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival. Let that be realized. No survival for the British Empire, no survival for all that the British Empire has stood for, no survival for the urge, the impulse of the ages, that mankind shall move forward toward his goal. I take up my task in buoyancy and hope. I feel sure that our cause will not be suffered to fail among men. I feel entitled at this juncture, at this time, to claim the aid of all and to say, “Come then, let us go forward together with our united strength.

Chapter Learning Objectives . . . In chapter 33, we will look at the Great Slump, or the Great Depression, and its impact on England. Next, we will study the reign of Elizabeth II. We will analyze the British policy of appeasement and why it did not work. Finally, we will study World War II. As a result of this chapter you should be able to: 1. Analyze the cause and result of the Great Slump (or Depression) on England. 2. Evaluate the reign of Queen Elizabeth II. 3. Review the steps that led to appeasement and if such a policy worked. 4. Discuss World War II.

British History student.indb 247

1/31/12 1:35 PM

lesson 1

the great slUmp The Great Depression in the United Kingdom, also known as the Great Slump, was a period of national economic crisis. It was the largest and most profound economic depression of the 20th century for the United Kingdom. A major cause of the Great Depression was the debt that England had accumulated to pay for its involvement in World War I. However, Britain had largely avoided this trap by financing their war effort largely through sales of foreign assets but this hardly mitigated material costs to replace war losses. For instance, England lost 40 percent of its merchant fleet to the U-boat. The problem was that Britain has always been heavily dependent upon foreign exports to fund its industries. With the advent of the Great Depression, came significant decreases in overseas’ sales. This devastated British industry. Like most western democracies, England would not emerge from the Great Depression until the beginning of World War II. J.B. Priestley described the different “Englands” that he saw during his journey around England in 1933.

J.B. Priestley 1933 Diary, The Great Slump Southampton to Newcastle, Newcastle to Norwich: memories rose like milk coming to the boil. I had seen England. I had seen a lot of Englands. How many? At once, three disengaged themselves from the shifting mass. There was first, Old England, the country of the cathedrals and minsters and manor houses and inns, of parson and Squire; guide-book and quaint highways and byways England… Then, I decided, there is the nineteenth-century England, the industrial England of coal, iron, steel, cotton, wool, railways; of thousands of rows of little houses all alike, sham Gothic churches, square-faced chapels, Town Halls, Mechanics’ Institutes, mills, foundries, warehouses, refined watering-places, Pier Pavilions, Family and Commercial Hotels, Literary and Philosophical Societies, back-to-back houses, 248

Unemployed British citizens before trade union house, German Federal Archive, 1930 ( Bundesarchiv, Bild 102-10246 / Unknown / CC-BY-SA).

detached villas with monkey-trees, Grill Rooms, railway stations, slag-heaps and “tips,” dock roads, Refreshment Rooms, doss-houses, Unionist or Liberal Clubs, cindery waste ground, mill chimneys, slums, fried-fish shops, public-houses with red blinds, bethels in corrugated iron, good-class draper’s and confectioners’ shops, a cynically devastated countryside, sooty dismal little towns, and still sootier grim fortress-like cities. This England makes up the larger part of the Midlands and the North and exists everywhere; but it is not been added to and has no new life poured into it… The third England, I concluded, was the new post-war England, belonging far more to the age itself than to this particular island. America, I supposed, was its real birthplace. This is the England of arterial and by-pass roads, of filling stations and factories that look like exhibition buildings, of giant cinemas and dance-halls and cafes, bungalows with tiny garages, cocktail bars, Woolworths, motorcoaches, wireless, hiking, factory girls looking like actresses, greyhound racing and dirt tracks, swimming pools, and everything given away for cigarette coupons.

Assignment What three “Englands” does Priestly find in 1933?

world war ii & the cold war

British History student.indb 248

1/31/12 1:35 PM

lesson 2

qUeen elizabeth ii Elizabeth II, born April 21, 1926, is the eldest daughter of George VI and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. She married Philip Mountbatten, a distant cousin, in 1947; they have four children: Charles, Prince of Wales, Anne, Andrew and Edward. She has reigned since 1952. Tom Corby of The London Times describes Queen Elizabeth II in this way: Monarchies all but disappeared during the two World Wars: a scant ten monarchs remain today. Elizabeth has managed to maintain a division between her public and private life. She is the first monarch to send her children to boarding schools in order to remove them from the ever-probing media. She has a strong sense of duty and diligence and dispatches her queenly business with great candor, efficiency and dignity. Her knowledge of current situations and trends is uncannily up to date, often to the embarrassment of her Prime Ministers. Harold Wilson, upon his retirement, remarked, “I shall certainly advise my successor to do his homework before his audience.” Churchill, who had served four monarchs, was impressed and delighted by her knowledge and wit. She possesses a sense of humor rarely exhibited in public where a dignified presence is her goal. Elizabeth, like her father before her, raised the character of the monarchy through her actions. Unfortunately, the actions of her children have tarnished the royal name. The much publicized divorces of Charles from Diana and Andrew from Sarah Ferguson have been followed by further indiscretions by the princes, causing a heavilytaxed populace to rethink the necessity of a monarchy. Perhaps Elizabeth will not reign as long as Victoria, but her exceptionally long reign has provided a bright spot in the life of her country.

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, aged 81, of the United Kingdom. Photo taken during a visit in NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. Greenbelt, Maryland, USA. NASA/Bill Ingalls, 2007 (PD-NASA).

Assignment Compare these three monarchs: Henry VIII, Queen Elizabeth I, and Queen Elizabeth II.

world war ii & the cold war

British History student.indb 249

249

1/31/12 1:35 PM

lesson 3

appeasement

The 1938 Munich Conference, culmination of weeks of negotiation and an early version of “shuttle diplomacy” by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain (below, CC BY-SA 3.0), resulted in a policy of “appeasement.” Although Chamberlain would return to England, telling the people that he brought, “peace with honor . . . peace for our time,” Adolf Hitler soon broke the agreement in March 1939, taking all of Czechoslovakia and, in 1939, Hitler attacked Poland and precipitated World War II. The Sudetenland bordered Germany and Czechoslovakia and was home to 3.5 million Germans. Prior to World War I, these Germans, in part, had lived within the confines of Austria-Hungary. The allied leaders, following the end of the Great War, redrew the map of Europe, creating new countries like Czechoslovakia and resurrecting old countries like Poland that had been swallowed up by the pre-war European empires. The Sudetenland was part of Czechoslovakia. English Prime Minister Chamberlain, speaking for Britain and the French premier, Edouard Daladier, agreed to a separated Sudetenland, only to find days later that Hitler demanded that the region be ceded to Germany. Britain and France acquiesced. Hitler, breaking the Munich Pact, annexed all of the Czech state in March 1939. Britain and France, condemning the action, also gave strong assurances to Poland. Clearly, appeasement had been a failure. Winston Churchill was one of the few vocal critics of appeasement. “We have sustained a total and unmitigated defeat . . .” he declared in Parliament. “We are in the presence of a disaster of the first magnitude . . . The system of alliances . . . has been swept away.” Russia’s Josef Stalin also 250

took lessons from the appeasement policy. In August 1939, The Nazi-Soviet Pact set the stage for the invasion of Poland (german-history.suite101.com/). The following is a speech Chamberlain gave to the British people at the termination of the Munich Conference: We, the German Fuhrer and Chancellor, and the British Prime Minister, have had a further meeting today and are agreed in recognizing that the question of AngloGerman relations is of the first importance for our two countries and for Europe. We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again. We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference, and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe. My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honor. I believe it is “peace for our time.” Go home and get a nice quiet sleep.

Assignment In defense of poor Neville Chamberlain, what could he do? England was not ready to fight a war and his decision did give England two more years to prepare for war. Also, appeasement of sorts had worked well enough with Hitler in 1936 when he desisted from conquests after the Austrian Anschluss. What do you think?

world war ii & the cold war

British History student.indb 250

1/31/12 1:35 PM

lesson 4

world war ii

There are many excellent resources on the causes of World War II. One of the best is by historian Jen Rosenberg. Rosenberg discusses the beginning of World War II in Europe: Adolf Hitler wanted more land, especially in the east, to expand Germany according to the Nazi policy of lebensraum. Hitler used the harsh limitations that were set against Germany in the Versailles Treaty as a pretext for Germany’s right to acquire land where German-speaking people lived. Germany successfully used this reasoning to envelop two entire countries without starting a war. Why was Germany allowed to take over both Austria and Czechoslovakia without a fight? The simple reason is that Great Britain and France did not want to repeat the bloodshed of World War I. They believed, wrongly as it turned out, they could avoid another world war by appeasing Hitler with a few concessions (such as Austria and Czechoslovakia). Great Britain and France had not clearly understood that Hitler’s goal of land acquisition was much, much larger than any one country. After having gained both Austria and Czechoslovakia, Hitler was confident that he could again move east, this time acquiring Poland without having to fight Britain and France. (To eliminate the possibility of the Soviet Union fighting if Poland were attacked, Hitler made a pact with the Soviet Union—the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact. So that Germany did not officially seem the aggressor (which it was), Hitler needed an excuse for entering/attacking Poland. It was Heinrich Himmler who came up with the idea; thus the plan was code named Operation Himmler. On the night of August 31, 1939, Nazis took an unknown prisoner from one of their concentration camps, dressed him in a Polish uniform, took him

Injuries brought about during the bombing of London. US Government, WWI (PD-US).

to the town of Gleiwitz (on the border of Poland and Germany), and then shot him. The staged scene with the dead prisoner dressed in a Polish uniform was supposed to appear as a Polish attack against a German radio station. Hitler used the staged attack as the excuse to invade Poland. At 4:45 on the morning of September 1, 1939 (the morning following the staged attack), German troops entered Poland. The sudden, immense attack by the Germans was called a Blitzkrieg (“lightning war”). The German air attack hit so quickly that most of Poland’s air force was destroyed while still on the ground. To hinder Polish mobilization, the Germans bombed bridges and roads. Groups of marching soldiers were machine-gunned from the air. But the Germans did not just aim for soldiers, they also shot at civilians. Groups of fleeing civilians often found themselves under attack. The more confusion and chaos the Germans could create, the slower Poland could mobilize its forces. Using 62 divisions, six of which were armored and ten mechanized, the Germans invaded Poland world war ii & the cold war

British History student.indb 251

251

1/31/12 1:35 PM

by land. Poland was not defenseless, but they could not compete with Germany’s motorized army. With only 40 divisions, none of which were armored, and with nearly their entire air force demolished, the Poles were at a severe disadvantage - Polish cavalry were no match for German tanks. On September 1, the beginning of the German attack, Great Britain and France sent Hitler an ultimatum - withdraw German forces from Poland or Great Britain and France would go to war against Germany. On September 3, with Germany’s forces penetrating deeper into Poland, Great Britain and France both declared war on Germany. World War II had begun.

“massive destruction by fire.” The word Shoah, meaning widespread disaster, is the modern Hebrew equivalent. The Holocaust was the murder of approximately six million Jews by the Nazis and their collaborators. Between the German invasion of the Soviet Union in the summer of 1941 and the end of the war in Europe in May 1945, Nazi Germany and its accomplices strove to murder every Jew under their domination. They very nearly succeeded. Today there are virtually no Jewish people living in Poland; before World War II there were millions. Almost all the Jewish children of Europe died—four out of five (80 percent). The Jews were not the only victims, and other individuals and groups were persecuted and murdered during this period, but the Jews were the only group that the Nazis sought to destroy entirely (Yad Vashem & Wiesenthal center).

In March 1939, Britain announced that it would support Poland if Germany invaded it. Germany invaded anyway. On September 3, 1939, Britain declared war on Germany. This marks the beginning of World War II in Europe. In May 1940, Britain got a more aggressive wartime leader—Winston Churchill replaced Neville Chamberlain as Prime Minister. That same month, on May 26, 1940, in the face of a large-scale German offensive, British troops on the continent were forced into one of the largest evacuations in history—the evacuation of the British Expeditionary Force from Dunkirk on the Belgian coast. From July to October 1940, the English people suffered under the Battle of Britain: intense German bombing. The Luftwaffe was unable to crush British morale.

By the end of the Second World War, in 1945, the Nazi regime and its accomplices had physically annihilated about 11.5 million people: six million Jews, and 5.5 million nonJews undesirable ‘‘others’’—mentally ill, disabled, political opponents, homosexuals, Slavs, Gypsies, Jehovah Witnesses, and Pentecostals.

Assignment Would England have won World War II without American intervention?

In March 1941, the U.S. began giving direct support to the British in the form of arms and ammunition through the Lend-Lease Act. In December, after Normandy Invasion. Troops in an LCVP landing craft approaching “Omaha” Beach on “D-Day.” Photograph Pearl Harbor, America would become from the Army Signal Corps Collection in the U.S. National Archives. 1944, (PD-LAYOUT; PD-USGOV). directly involved in aiding the British in Europe. In January 1942, Roosevelt and Churchill agreed to establish a Combined Chief of Staff and to the make defeating Germany their first priority. After three more long years, the Allies did win the war in Europe. Germany surrendered unconditionally on May 7, 1945. Great Britain lost over 300,000 fighting men and over 60,000 civilians in World War II (www.worldwar2database.com). One final note: England and all of Europe were horrified by the Holocaust. The word “holocaust” literally means 252

world war ii & the cold war

British History student.indb 252

1/31/12 1:35 PM

Chapter 34

the end of an empire

First Thoughts . . . Like the battleship, empire was made obsolete by the Second World War. A creation of 19thcentury power politics, such empire depended on a set of cultural values in which paternalism was a pivotal concept. The relationship of colonial ruler to colonized people was frequently symbolized in the statuary found in colonial city squares: the figure representing Europe was a sturdy adult; the figure representing the local population was a dependent child. Those days are forever over for the English nation (Raymond Betts).

Chapter Learning Objectives . . . In chapter 34, we will look Great Britain after World War II. Next we will see the Cold War come and go. We will see the end of the great British Empire. Finally, we will examine British history after 1970. As a result of this chapter you should be able to: 1. Analyze British history after World War II. 2. Discuss the Cold War. 3. Evaluate the end of the British Empire. 4. Observe British history after 1970 and predict its future.

British History student.indb 253

1/31/12 1:35 PM

lesson 1

a new enemy

The convergence of Anglo-American and Soviet military forces on the Elbe River in defeated Germany in the spring of 1945 terminated the European phase of World War II. Amid the euphoria of the Grand Alliance’s victory over Nazism, three trends emerged that would radically transform Europe’s position in the world in subsequent years. The first of these trends was the division of the continent into two antagonistic political, socio-economic, and military blocs, each tied to the power that had liberated it from German occupation. The second was the beginning of the decline of the overseas colonial empires of the major European powers, notably those of Great Britain and France. Everything seemed to point to the relative decline of Europe as a force in the world, as the United States and the Soviet Union assumed the status of the world’s sole superpowers in a new bipolar international order.

a popular reference to the decaying Ottoman Empire before the Great War, called “the sick man of the world.” This was the movement launched by a small but energetic band of visionaries in favor of the economic and political unity of Europe.” The British were the first to assess correctly the Soviet threat to Europe. Lloyd George and then Winston Churchill both saw Stalin as a threat to national security. This concern caused England to join with America, and, ultimately to win the Cold War (John Darwin).

Assignment Why did the Soviets lose the Cold War to England and her allies?

As one historian explained, “The third trend was not nearly as visible as the first two at the end of the war. But it would gradually emerge as a potential antidote to the disease that had afflicted what one observer, applying to postwar Europe

Sir Winston Churchill by the United Nations Information Office, New York, 1942 (PD-US).

254

THE END OF AN EMPIRE

British History student.indb 254

1/31/12 1:35 PM

lesson 2

the cold war

The “hot” war ended in September, 1945, after the Americans dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima and a hydrogen bomb on Nagasaki but a “cold” war began soon after. The Yalta conference is often cited as the beginning of the Cold War. This meeting of the “Big Three” at the former palace of Czar Nicholas on the Crimean southern shore of the Black Sea took place February 4-11, 1945. Stalin’s army had reached the Oder River and was poised for the final attack on Berlin, but Stalin on February 3 had ordered his leading general, Zhukov, to pause while the conference was in session. His occupation of Poland was complete, and he possessed command of the largest army in Europe, 12 million soldiers in 300 divisions. Eisenhower’s 4 million men in 85 divisions were still west of the Rhine. Strategic bombing had devastated German cities, and the last untouched major city in Joseph Stalin, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Winston Churchill at the Yalta Conference, US Germany would be destroyed Feb. 13 when government photographer, 1943 (PD-US). Churchill sent his bombers over Dresden. Roosevelt appeared weak and tired in photos of the Yalta However, as Robert Dallek has pointed out in Franklin conference, and he would present his Yalta report to Congress Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy, FDR was hoping the on March 1 while sitting down. In two months, he would be future United Nations organization would be the place to dead of a massive cerebral hemorrhage. His physician, Dr. deal with Stalin, not at Yalta. He told Adolf Berle, “I didn’t Howard Bruenn, has written that although FDR suffered say the result was good. I said it was the best I could do.” from high blood pressure, there was no evidence that his Both Roosevelt and Churchill recognized the reality of Soviet health impaired his judgment at Yalta. Critics would accuse power in 1945 (qtd. verbatim http://americanhistory.com/). Roosevelt of a “sell-out” at Yalta, of giving away Eastern Europe to Stalin, of “secret deals” with a ruthless dictator. Bert Andrews in the New York Herald Examiner wrote about 4 secret deals: Russia’s demand for $20 billion in reparations from Germany, for Poland to the Curzon line, for 3 seats in the United Nations, for territory in the Far East including Outer Mongolia, South Sakhalin Island, the Kuriles. Stalin did not hold free elections in Eastern Europe and the American press turned increasingly hostile to Russia.

Assignment

What precipitated the Cold War between England and the Soviet Union?

the end of an empire

British History ch34.indd 255

255

1/31/12 4:52 PM

Atomic bombing of Nagasaki. The picture was taken from one of the B-29 Superfortresses used in the attack, 1945 (PD-US).

256

world war ii & the cold war

British History student.indb 256

1/31/12 1:35 PM

lesson 3

historical essay

A passage from The End of Empire by John Darwin: The collapse of British imperial power—all but complete by the mid-1960s—can be traced directly to the impact of World War II. The catastrophic British defeats in Europe and Asia between 1940 and 1942 destroyed its financial and economic independence, the real foundation of the imperial system. Britain had survived the war, but its wealth, prestige and authority had been severely reduced. It also erased the old balance of power on which British security—at home and abroad—had largely depended. Although Britain was one of the victorious allies, the defeat of Germany had been mainly the work of Soviet and American power, while that of Japan had been an almost entirely American triumph. Britain had survived and recovered the territory lost during the war. But its prestige and authority, not to mention its wealth, had been severely reduced. The British found themselves locked into an imperial endgame from which every exit was blocked except the trapdoor to oblivion. During World War Two, the British had mobilised India’s resources for their imperial war effort. They crushed the attempt of Mahatma Gandhi and the Indian National Congress to force them to ‘quit India’ in 1942. Britain hoped that a self-governing India would remain part of the imperial defence. Within months of the end of the war, it was glaringly obvious that Britain lacked the means to defeat a renewed mass campaign by the Congress. Its officials were exhausted and troops were lacking. But the British still hoped that a self-governing India would remain part of their system of “imperial defence.” For this reason, Britain was desperate

to keep India (and its army) united. These hopes came to nothing. By the time that the last viceroy, Lord Louis Mountbatten, arrived in India, Congress and its leader Jawaharlal Nehru had begun to accept that unless they agreed to partition, they risked a descent into chaos and communal war before power could be transferred from British into Indian hands. It was left to Mountbatten to stage a rapid handover to two successor governments (India and Pakistan) before the ink was dry on their postimperial frontiers. The huge sense of relief at a more or less dignified exit, and much platitudinous rhetoric, disguised the fact that the end of the Raj was a staggering blow for British world power. Britain had lost the colony that had provided much of its military muscle east of Suez, as well as paying “rent” for the “hire’ of much of Britain’s own army. The burden of the empire defense shifted back to a Britain that was both weaker and poorer than it had been before 1939. For these reasons, it may seem strange that the loss of India did not lead to a drastic reappraisal of Britain’s world interests and a “timely” decision to abandon its far-flung commitments from the Caribbean to Hong Kong. Britain was now overshadowed by the United States and Soviet Union, its domestic economy had been seriously weakened and the Labour government had embarked on a huge and expensive programme of social reform. British leaders had no doubt that Britain must uphold its status as the third great power. The British were also determined to exploit the tropical colonies more effectively due to the fact that their cocoa, rubber and tin could be sold for muchneeded dollars. Nor was it simply an economic imperative. Britain’s strategic defence against the the end of an empire

British History ch34.indd 257

257

1/31/12 4:53 PM

new Soviet threat required forward air bases from which to bomb Southern Russia—the industrial arsenal of the Soviet Union. That meant staying on in the Middle East even after the breakdown of British control in Palestine and its hasty evacuation in 1948. In Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and the Gulf, the British were determined to hang on to their treaties and bases, including the vast Suez canal zone. They wanted help from Australia and hoped for Indian support against Soviet influence in Asia. Across the whole spectrum of party opinion, British leaders had no doubt that Britain must uphold its status as the third great power, and that it could only do so by maintaining its empire and the Commonwealth link. Europe, by contrast, they saw as a zone of economic and political weakness. It was Britain’s overseas assets that would help to defend it. In the 1950s, British governments struggled to achieve this post-war imperial vision. They had already reinvented the Commonwealth in 1949 in order to let India remain a republic, overturning the old rule that the British monarch must be head of state in a Commonwealth country. They accepted the need to grant increasing self-government and then independence to some of their most valuable colonies—including Ghana and Malaya in 1957— on the understanding that they remained in Britain’s sphere of financial and strategic influence. By the end of the decade, things were not going well. Staying in the Middle East had led step-bystep to the confrontation with President Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt, and the disastrous decision to seek his overthrow by force in collusion with Israel. The 1956 Suez Crisis was a savage revelation of Britain’s financial and military weakness and destroyed much of what remained of Britain’s influence in the Middle East. In the colonial territories, more active interference in social and economic matters, with a view to speeding the pace of development, had aroused wide opposition and strengthened nationalist movements. It was becoming much harder for Britain to control the rate of political change, especially where the presence of settlers (as in Kenya and the Rhodesias) sharpened conflicts over land. Britain’s position as 258

the third great power and ‘deputy leader’ of the Western Alliance was threatened by the resurgence of France and West Germany, who jointly presided over the new European Economic Community (EEC). Britain’s claim on American support, the indispensable prop of imperial survival, could no longer be taken for granted. And Britain’s own economy, far from accelerating, was stuck in a rut.

Assignment Even though England won World War II, it lost almost all its empire. Why?

Brittania statue, Plymouth Hoe, Plymouth, United Kingdom, by Mageslayer99, 2008 (CC BY 3.0).

THE END OF AN EMPIRE

British History student.indb 258

1/31/12 1:35 PM

lesson 4

1970s to the present By 1973, Britain’s imperial age was over. But, as one historian explained, the ending of an empire is rarely a tidy affair. The Rhodesian rebellion was to last until the late 1970s, Britain fought a war to retain the Falkland Islands in 1982 and Hong Kong continued, with tacit Chinese agreement, as a British dependency until 1997.

A dust whom England bore, shaped, made aware, Gave, once, her flowers to love, her ways to roam, A body of England’s, breathing English air, Washed by the rivers, blest by suns of home.

Britain experienced a large inflow of migrants—a legacy of its imperial past. This immigrants have enriched English life as well as brought new problems. Some of the immigrants are Islamic terrorists who have tried more than once to kill other British citizens. The British at home had to come to terms with an unforeseen legacy of their imperial past—the large inflow of migrants, mostly from South Asia.

And think, this heart, all evil shed away, A pulse in the eternal mind, no less Gives somewhere back the thoughts by England given; Her sights and sounds; dreams happy as her day; And laughter, learnt of friends; and gentleness, In hearts at peace, under an English heaven. —1914 by Rupert Brooke

In the 21st century, old imperial links still survive, particularly those based on language and law, which may assume growing importance in a globalized world. Even the Commonwealth, bruised and battered in the 1960s and 1970s, has retained a surprising utility as a dense global network of informal connections, valued by its numerous small states. It is instructive, when I met my wife’s parents in the 1970s, perceiving that my father-in-law had a heavy Scottish accent, I observed, “Sir, I did not realize that you still have a British accent.” With some mendacity, my future father-in-law responded. “Son, I am not British, I am Scottish.” Perhaps the genius and strength of the British nation was its ability to call together a great people, from different lands, under one flag, under one monarch, to rule the world!

“The Soldier” If I should die, think only this of me: That there’s some corner of a foreign field That is for ever England. There shall be In that rich earth a richer dust concealed;

In Shakespeare’s Henry V, Henry urges his men into the attack at the Siege of Harfleur: Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more; Or close the wall up with our English dead! In peace there’s nothing so becomes a man As modest stillness and humility: But when the blast of war blows in our ears, Then imitate the action of the tiger; Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, Disguise fair nature with hard favoured rage; Then lend the eye a terrible aspect. On, on you noblest English! Whose blood is fet from fathers of war-proof; Fathers that, like so many Alexanders, Have in these parts from morn till even fought, And sheathed their swords for lack of argument. And you, good yeomen, Whose limbs were made in England, show us here the mettle of your pasture. I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips, Straining upon the start. The game’s afoot: Follow your spirit; and upon this charge Cry “God for Harry! England and Saint George. THE END OF AN EMPIRE

British History student.indb 259

259

1/31/12 1:35 PM

Assignment Predict the future of England in the following areas:

British Future

Foreign Policy: Will England ally herself with America? Europe? Both?

Domestic Policy: Will England remain a socialist nation?

Cultural Policy: Will England rediscover her JudeoChristian roots?

Victor V Bomber. Location unknown but most probably Farnborough, England by Adrian Pingstone, 1961 (PD-US).

260

the end of an empire

British History ch34.indd 260

1/31/12 4:54 PM

glossary

Act of Revocation – 1625 stated that church or royal property which had been allocated since 1540 was taken back by the crown. The Act of Union – This act formally created a united kingdom--Scotland and England. Æthelberht – Was King of Kent from about 580 or 590 until his death. He was the first English king to convert to Christianity. Alfred the Great – Was King of Wessex (Southwest England) from 871 to 899. Alfred is noted for his defense against the Vikings, becoming the only English king to be accorded the epithet “the Great.” Alfred was the first king of the West Saxons to style himself “King of the Anglo-Saxons.” Battle of Austerlitz – Napoleon’s greatest victory, effectively destroying a Russo-Austrian army. Battle of Borodino – The largest and bloodiest single-day action of the French invasion of Russia. Again, the Russians retreated, but it was a stalemate. Battle of Smolensk – The first battle of the French invasion of Russia took place on August 16-18, 1812, between 175,000 men of the Grande Armée under Napoleon Bonaparte and 130,000 Russians under Barclay de Tolly. The Russians retreated but the outcome of the battle was inconclusive. Battle of Trafalgar – The most significant naval battle of the Napoleonic Wars and a pivotal naval battle of the nineteenth century. A Royal Navy fleet of 27 ships of the line destroyed an allied French and Spanish fleet of 33 ships of the line west of Cape Trafalgar in southwest Spain. The French and Spanish lost 22 ships, while the British lost none. The British commander Admiral Lord Horatio Nelson died late in the battle.

Battle of Waterloo – Fought on Sunday June 18, 1815 near Waterloo in Belgium. Napoleon was defeated by combined armies of the Duke of Wellington and Prussian General Gebhard von Blücher. Book of Common Prayer – The common title of a number of prayer books of the Church of England. The first book, published in 1549 was a product of the English Reformation following the break with Roman Catholicism. Boudicca – Queen of the Iceni people of Eastern England and led a rebellion against Roman forces. Boulton, Matthew – An English manufacturer and business partner of Scottish engineer James Watt. In the final quarter of the 18th century hundreds of Boulton & Watt steam engines were installed in factories. Cabot, John – Giovanni Caboto known in England as John Cabot was an Italian navigator and explorer whose 1497 discovery of North America was the first European voyage to the continent since the Vikings. Caravel – A small, highly maneuverable sailing ship developed in the 15th century by the Portuguese to explore along the West African coast and into the Atlantic Ocean. They were able to go long distances at fast speeds. Charles V – Ruler of the Holy Roman Empire from 1519 and, as Charles I of Spain, of the huge Spanish realms from 1506 until his abdication in 1556. Chartist Movement – A popular political movement that supported universal male suffrage. Crimean War – A conflict fought between the Russian Empire and an alliance of the French, the British, and the Ottoman Turks to check Russian attempts to obtain a warm water port. GLOSSARY

British History student.indb 261

261

1/31/12 1:35 PM

Chivalry – The medieval institution of knighthood. It is usually associated with ideals of knightly virtues, honor and courtly love.

Gunpowder Plot – The Gunpowder Plot of 1605 was an attempt to kill James I, King of England, and Parliament by Roman Catholic conspirators.

Continental System – An attempt by Napoleon during the Napoleonic Wars to punish his primary enemy, England. It was a large-scale embargo against British goods, inaugurated in 1806. France and its allies refused to do business with England.

Indian Rebellion – Began as a mutiny of Indian militia of the British East India Company’s army on May 10, 1857.

Cottage industries – Created products and services at home. Each household had its own business. While products and services created by cottage industries were unique, they were also generally expensive.

Joint-Stock Company – A legal entity owned by stockholders, or people who invest in the company. Investor assumes the risks and reaps the profits. Khan, Kublai – The fifth Great Khan of the Mongol Empire from 1260 to 1294 and the founder of the Yuan Dynasty in China.

Despotism – An autocratic form of government where all power rested in one individual or group that allowed no other group to influence decision making.

League of Nations – An inter-governmental organization founded as a result of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919– 1920, and the precursor to the United Nations.

Drake, Sir Francis – An English privateer, navigator, a pirate, and politician of the Elizabethan era. He was second-in-command of the English fleet against the Spanish Armada in 1588.

Levée en masse – A requisition of all able-bodied men to defend the nation and had to be viewed in connection with the political events in revolutionary France, namely the new concept of the democratic citizen.

Egalitarian – To be egalitarian is to support democratic principles.

Magellan, Ferdinand – A Portuguese explorer who later obtained Spanish nationality in order to serve King Charles I of Spain in search of a westward route to China.

Feudalism – A political and military system between a feudal aristocracy (a lord), and his vassals. In its most classic sense, feudalism refers to the Medieval European political system composed of a set of reciprocal legal and military obligations among the warrior nobility, revolving around the three key concepts of lords, vassals, and fiefs. Gilbert, Sir Humphrey – An English adventurer, explorer, Member of Parliament, and soldier from Devon, who served the crown during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I of England. Glorious Revolution – Also called the Revolution of 1688, was the overthrow of King James II of England in 1688 by a union of Parliamentarians with an invading army led by William III of Orange-Nassau who, as a result, ascended the English throne as William III of England together with his wife Mary II of England. Grand Remonstrance – A long, wide-ranging document that listed all the grievances perpetrated by the King’s government in Church and State since the beginning of his reign. 262

Metaphysical – Metaphysics explains the fundamental nature of being and the world. To the Christian, the metaphysical, unseen world, is more important than the cognitive, rational world. Middle Passage – The Druids were an ancient Celtic order of priests, teachers, diviners, and magicians. The name itself is thought to relate to an oak tree. Northumbria or Northhumbria ­– A medieval kingdom of the Angles, in what is now North East England and southern Scotland, becoming subsequently an earldom in a united Anglo-Saxon Kingdom of England. The Millenary Petition – A mostly Scottish Presbyterian request to implement ecclesiological reforms that removed much of the episcopal government that existed in the Church of England. It also asked King James to repudiate the Roman Catholic Church.

GLOSSARY

British History student.indb 262

1/31/12 1:35 PM

Mughal Empire – An Indian-Islamic power that ruled a large portion of the Indian subcontinent which began in 1526, invaded and ruled most of South Asia by the late 17th and early 18th centuries by forming alliance with Indian Maharaja, and ended in the mid-19th century. Ottoman Empire – An Islamic empire ruled by Turkey. It extended from Turkey into Saudia Arabia and through Palestine to the edge of Egypt. Pepys, Samuel – Kept a ten-year diary that is a rich source of English history. Petition of Right – A major English constitutional document. The Petition is most notable for its confirmation of the principles that taxes can be levied only by Parliament, that martial law may not be imposed in time of peace, and that prisoners must be able to challenge the legitimacy of their detentions through the writ of habeas corpus. Polo, Marco – A 13th century Venetian merchant who opened up trade between Europe and China. Republic – A nation that is governed by democratically elected officials. No leader is chosen by social status or lineage. Revolution Controversy – A British debate over the French Revolution, lasting from 1789 through 1795. A pamphlet war began in earnest after the publication of Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790). Romanticism – An artistic, literary, and intellectual movement that revolted against aristocratic social and political norms of the Age of Enlightenment and the scientific rationalization of nature. Rosetta Stone – An Ancient Egyptian stone tablet with engraved text that provided the key to modern understanding of Egyptian hieroglyphs. Ruhr – Also, and more accurately, called Ruhr district or Ruhr region was an urban area in North Germany. In the 19th and 20th centuries it became the largest concentration of factories in Europe. Rump Parliament – The name of the English Parliament that condemned Charles I to death.

Scholasticism – Scholasticism was a method of learning taught by the academics of medieval universities 1100– 1500. Scholasticism tried to reconcile ancient classical philosophy with Christianity. The synthesis of Greek philosophy and medieval Christian doctrine is the heart of scholasticism. Thomas Aquinas was probably the most famous scholasticist. Scottish Presbyterians – Calvinists who vigorously opposed Episcopal (i.e., Church of England) church authority. Social Darwinism – A social theory that argued that only the strong should survive and therefore social welfare was unnecessary. States General – Or Estates-General was a legislative assembly of the different classes of French subjects. It had a separate assembly for each of the three estates, which were called and dismissed by the king. Thirty Years War – The Thirty Years War was one of the truly religious wars in world history. It was, in fact, a veiled attempt for James I to reclaim German land he felt was rightfully his through inheritance. Valmy – The Battle of Valmy was a draw, but strategically it ensured the survival of the French Revolution. As such, it was one of the most decisive battles in history, as well as one of the first times a mix of French veterans and citizen volunteers were able successfully to oppose the highly respected professional Prussian and Austrian armies. War of the Roses – A series of dynastic civil wars between supporters of the rival houses of Lancaster and York, for the throne of England. They are generally accepted to have been fought in several spasmodic episodes between 1455 and 1485 (although there was related fighting both before and after this period). The war ended with the victory of the Earl of Richmond, Henry Tudor, who founded the House of Tudor, which subsequently ruled England and Wales for 117 years. Wolsey, Thomas – An English statesman and a cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church. When Henry VIII became king of England in 1509, Wolsey became the controlling figure in virtually all matters of state and was extremely powerful within the Church.

GLOSSARY

British History student.indb 263

263

1/31/12 1:35 PM

Windsor Castle at sunset as viewed from the Long Walk in Windsor, England. Photo by David Iliff, 2006 (CC-BY-SA 3.0).

264

GLOSSARY

British History student.indb 264

1/31/12 1:35 PM

bibliography

Adair, John. Roundhead General: A Military Biography of Sir William Waller (London: Macdonald, 1969). Arnold, Janet. Queen Elizabeth’s Wardrobe Unlock’d (1988). Ashley, Maurice. Cromwell’s Generals (London: Jonathan Cape, 1954). Baker, Anthony. A Battlefield Atlas of the English Civil War (Shepperton: Ian Allen, 1986). Baker, Kenneth, ed. The Faber Book of English History in Verse (1988). Barnett, C. The Collapse of British Power (1986). Barratt, John. Cavaliers: the Royalist Army at War 1642-1646 (Stroud: Sutton Publishing, 2000). Barratt, John. Cromwell’s Wars at Sea (Barnsley: Pen and Sword, 2006). Barratt, John. Sieges of the English Civil Wars (Barnsley: Pen and Sword, 2009). Bindoff, S.T. The Pelican History of England- #5 Tudor England, 1950 (1962). Boothroyd, Benjamin. The History of the Ancient Borough of Pontefract, Pontefract 1807 (Google Books 2008, retrieved 12 February 2010). Buchanan, Patricia. Margaret Tudor Queen of Scots (1985). Buck, Stephanie. Hans Holbein (1999). Burne, Alfred H. and Young, Peter. The Great Civil War: A Military History of the First Civil War 1642-1646 (London 1958, Windrush Press 1998). Burton, P., Evans, M. Marix Westaway, M., Naseby June 1645 (Barnsley: Pen and Sword, 2002). Butler, Rex D., and Harsch, Lloyd A. The Rise of the General Baptists & the Particular Baptists (New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 2007). Cain, P. J. and Hopkins, A. G. British Imperialism, 1688–2000 (2003). Cairncross, A. The British Economy Since 1945 (1992). Cannon, John, ed. The Oxford Companion to British History (1997). Capp, Bernard. Cromwell’s Navy: The Fleet and the English Revolution 1648-1660 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989). Carey, John, ed. Eyewitness to History (1990). Chadwyck-Healey, C.E.H., ed. Bellum Civile: Hopton’s Narrative of His Campaign in the West, Somerset Record Society 1902 (Internet Archive 2009, retrieved 30 Jun. 2009). Champion, A. G. and Townsend, A. R. Contemporary Britain: A Geographical Perspective (1990). Chapman, Hester W. Lady Jane Grey (1962). Chrimes, S.B. Henry VII (1999). Clark, Sir George, ed. The Oxford History of England (2d ed., 16 vol., 1937–1991). Clarke, Sir William, and Woodhouse, A.S.P. Puritanism and Liberty, Being the Army Debates (1647-9) from the Clarke Manuscripts (Chicago 1951, retrieved 3 Oct. 2008).

Clowes, Sir William Laird. The Royal Navy: A History From the Earliest Times to the Present, Vol.ii (London 1898, Internet Archive 2007, retrieved 27 Feb. 2010). Corbett, Sir Julian Stafford. England in the Mediterranean: A Study of the Rise and Influence of British Power Within the Straits 16031713, Vol.i (London 1904, Internet Archive 2008, retrieved 9 Feb. 2010). Corbett, Sir Julian Stafford. Fighting Instructions 1530-1816, Naval Records Society 1905 (Project Gutenberg 2005, retrieved 7 Mar. 2010). Cox, C. B. and Dyson, A. E. ed. The Twentieth-Century Mind: History, Ideas and Literature in Britain (3 vol., 1972). Dace, Richard. Who lieth here?—Sir Marmaduke Rawdon (15821646) (Retrieved 1 Nov. 2010). Davies, Godfrey. The Restoration of Charles II 1658-1660 (San Marino: Huntington Library, 1955). Davies, N. The Isles: A History of Britain (3 vol., 2000–2003). De la Croix, Horst et al. Art Through the Ages (9th ed. 1991). Burton, Thomas. Diary of Thomas Burton 1653-59 (British History Online, retrieved 20 Aug. 2008). Dorney, John. First Day of the 1641 Rebellion (The Irish Story 2010, retrieved 27 Feb. 2011) Durston, Christopher. Cromwell’s Major-Generals: Godly Government During the English Revolution, (Manchester University Press, 2001). Edwards, Graham. The Last Days of Charles I (Stroud: Sutton Publishing, 1999). Emberton, Wilfrid. The English Civil War Day by Day (Stroud: Sutton Publishing,1995). Erickson, Carolly. Great Harry—The Extravagant Life of Henry VIII (1980). Erickson, Carolly. The First Elizabeth (1983). Evans, Martin Marix. Naseby 1645: The Triumph of the New Model Army (Oxford: Osprey, 2007). Fell, David. The Sieges of Bradford (Retrieved 24 Jun. 2005). Fellowes, George. The Fight at Willoughby Field, Transactions of the Thoroton Society 1913, Nottinghamshire History 2003 (Retrieved 12 February 2010). Firth, C.H. & Davies, G. The Regimental History of Cromwell’s Army (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1940, 2 volumes). Firth, C.H. Cromwell’s Army (London 1902, University Paperbacks 1962). Firth, C.H. The Last Years of the Protectorate (London: Longmans, 1909, 2 volumes). Fraser, Antonia. The (Six) Wives of Henry VIII (Illustrated ed. Annotated text, 1992). Fryde, E. B., ed. Handbook of British Chronology (3d ed. 1986, repr. 1996). G. R. Elton. Modern Historians on British History, 1485–1945: A Critical Bibliography, 1945–1969 (1971). bibliography

British History student.indb 265

265

1/31/12 1:35 PM

Gairdner, James. Henry the Seventh (1899). Gardiner, S.R. History of the Commonwealth and Protectorate (London 1903, Windrush Press, 1989, 4 volumes). Gardiner, S.R. The Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution 1625-60 (Oxford 1906, Liberty Library of Constitutional Classics, retrieved 6 Jan. 2005). Girouard, Mark. Historic Houses of Britain (1979). Graham, G. S. A Concise History of the British Empire (1971). Griffiths, Ralph A. and Roger S. Thomas. The Making of the Tudor Dynasty (1985). Guy, John. Tudor England (1988). Haigh, Christopher. Profiles in Power—Elizabeth I (1988). Harvey, Nancy Lenz. Elizabeth of York: The Mother of Henry VIII (1973). Harvey, P.D.A. Maps in Tudor England (1993). Hibbert, Christoper. Wonders of Man: The Tower of London (Newsweek Books, 1971). Hicks, Michael. Who’s Who in Late Medival England (1991). Ives, Eric. Anne Boleyn (1986). Johnston, R. J. and Doornkamp, J.C., ed. The Changing Geography of the United Kingdom (1982). Joshi, H. ed. The Changing Population of Britain (1989). Keir, D. The Constitutional History of Modern Britain since 1485 (9th ed. 1969). Kishlansky, M. A Monarchy Transformed: Britain 1603–1714 (1997). Lloyd, T. O. Empire to Welfare State: English History, 1906–1985 (1986). Mathias, P. The First Industrial Nation: An Economic History of Britain, 1700–1914 (1969). Mohan, J. ed. The Political Geography of Contemporary Britain (1989). Selkirk,A. The Riches of British Archaeology (1989). Thompson, F. M. L., ed. The Cambridge Social History of Britain, 1750–1950 (1990). Young, H. This Blessed Plot: Britain and Europe from Churchill to Blair (1999).

266

bibliography

British History student.indb 266

1/31/12 1:35 PM

appendix one: english / british monarchs English House of Wessex Egbert (802–839) Æthelwulf (839–856) Æthelbald (856–860) Æthelbert (860–865) Æthelred (865–871) Alfred, the Great (871–899) Edward, the Elder (899–924) Æthelstan (924–939) Edmund, Magnificent (939–946) Eadred (946–955) Eadwig (Edwy), All-Fair (955–959) Edgar, the Peaceable (959–975) Edward, the Martyr (975–978) Æthelred, the Unready (978–1013)

Plantagenet, Angevin Line Henry II (1154–1189) Henry the Young King (1170–1183) Richard I (1189–1199) John (1199–1216) Henry III (1216–1272) Edward I (1272–1307) Edward II (1307–1327) Edward III (1327–1377) Richard II (1377–1399)

Danish Line Svein, Forkbeard (1013–1014)

Plantagenet, Yorkist Line Edward IV (1461–1470, first reign)

House of Wessex, Restored (1st time) Æthelred, the Unready (1014–1016) Edmund, Ironside (1016)

House of Lancaster Henry VI (1470–1471, second reign)

Danish Line, Restored Canute, the Great (1016–1035) Harold, Harefoot (1035–1040) Hardicanute (1040–1042) House of Wessex, Restored (2nd time) Edward, the Confessor (1042–1066) Harold II (1066) Norman Line William I, the Conqueror (1066–1087) William II, Rufus (1087–1100) Henry I, Beauclerc (1100–1135) Stephen (1135–1154) Empress Matilda (1141)

House of Lancaster Henry IV (1399–1413) Henry V (1413–1422) Henry VI (1422–1461, first reign)

House of Stuart James I (1603–1625) Charles I (1625–1649) Commonwealth Oliver Cromwell (1653–1658) Richard Cromwell (1658–1659) House of Stuart, Restored Charles II (1660–1685) James II (1685–1688) Mary II (1689–1694) William III (1689–1702) Anne (1702–1707)

Plantagenet, Yorkist Line, Restored Edward IV (1471–1483, second reign) Edward V (1483) Richard III, Crookback (1483–1485) House of Tudor Henry VII (1485–1509) Henry VIII (1509–1547) Edward VI (1547–1553) Lady Jane Grey (1553) Mary I (1553–1558) Philip w/his wife Mary I (1554–1558) Elizabeth I (1558–1603)

appendix 1: british monarchs

British History student.indb 267

267

1/31/12 1:35 PM

British House of Hanover George I (1714–1727) George II (1727–1760) George III (1760–1820) George IV (1820–1830) William IV (1830–1837) Victoria (1837–1901)

House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Edward VII (1901–1910) House of Windsor George V (1910–1936) Edward VIII (1936, abdicated) George VI (1936–1952) Elizabeth II (1952–present)

St. Mawes Castle in England, one of Henry VIII’s device forts. Photo by Ulli1105, 2008 (CC BY 3.0).

268

appendix 1: british monarchs

British History student.indb 268

1/31/12 1:35 PM

appendix two: timeline A Timeline Anglo-Saxon Invasions • 55 B.C.: Julius Caesar’s first invasion of Britain

• 1535: Sir Thomas More is beheaded in Tower of London for failing to take the Oath of Supremacy

• A.D. 77: The Roman conquest of Britain is complete

• 1536: Anne Boleyn is beheaded; Henry VIII marries Jane Seymour; dissolution of monasteries

• 122: Construction of Hadrian’s Wall ordered along the northern frontier

• 1537: Jane Seymour dies after the birth of a son, the future Edward VI

• 167: At the request of King Lucius, the missionaries, Phagan and Deruvian, were said to have been sent by Pope Eleutherius to convert the Britons to Christianity

• 1540: Henry VIII marries Anne of Cleves. Henry divorces Anne of Cleves and marries Catherine Howard

• 420: Rome abandons England • 420: St. Patrick’s mission to Ireland • 465: King Arthur lived • 584: Foundation of the Anglo-Saxon Kingdom of Mercia in England • 597: Roman–not Celtic Christianity–comes to England • 731: Venerable Bede, British monk, completes his history of the Church in England • 886: Alfred captures London from the Danes • 899-924: Edward the Elder, King of Wessex • 1066: Norman conquest • 1486: Henry VII (Tudor) married Elizabeth of York, uniting houses of York and Lancaster • 1497: John Cabot discovers Newfoundland • 1502: Margaret, daughter of Henry VII, marries James IV of Scotland • 1509: Henry VIII, becomes king • 1517: The Protestant Reformation begins; Martin Luther nails his “95 Theses” against the Catholic practice of selling indulgences, on the church door at Wittenberg

• 1542: Catherine Howard is executed • 1543: Henry VIII marries Catherine Parr • 1547: Edward VI, King of England • 1553: On death of Edward VI, Lady Jane Grey proclaimed queen of England. Her reign lasts nine days; Mary I, daughter of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon, Queen of England (to 1558) • 1554: Execution of Lady Jane Grey • 1555: England returns to Roman Catholicism: Protestants are persecuted and about 300 are martyred • 1558: Elizabeth I, daughter of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, becomes Queen; Repeal of Catholic legislation in England

Some of the names were not mentioned in our discussion but are nonetheless important: • 1764: James Hargreaves invents the spinning jenny • 1769: James Watt invents the steam engine • 1785: Edmund Cartwright patents a power loom • 1793: Eli Whitney patents the cotton gin

• 1521: Henry VIII receives the title “Defender of the Faith” from Pope Leo X for his opposition to Luther

• 1807: Robert Fulton begins steamboat service on the Hudson River

• 1529: Henry VIII breaks with the Church of Rome

• 1830: George Stephenson begins rail service between Appendix 2: Timeline

British History student.indb 269

269

1/31/12 1:35 PM

Liverpool and London

• June 5 - German siege of Sevastopol begins

• 1840: Samuel Cunard begins transatlantic steamship service

• June 10 - Nazis annihilate Czech town of Lidice in retaliation for Heydrich’s assassination

• 1856: Henry Bessemer develops the Bessemer converter

• June 21 - German Afrika Korps recaptures Tobruk

• 1859: The first commercial oil well is drilled in Pennsylvania

• July 3 - Sevastopol falls to German Army

• 1866: The Siemens brothers develop the open hearth furnace

• July 9 - German Army begins push towards Stalingrad

• 1836: Samuel F. B. Morse invents the telegraph • 1866: Cyrus Field lays the first successful transatlantic cable • 1876: Alexander Graham Bell invents the telephone • 1879: Thomas Edison invents the light bulb

• July 5 - Nazi conquest of Crimea achieved • Aug. 7 - General Bernard Montgomery assumes command of British Eighth Army in North Africa • Sept. 13 - German attack on Stalingrad begins • Oct. 23-Nov. 3 - Afrika Korps decisively defeated by British at El Alamein

• 1892: Rudolf Diesel patents the diesel engine

• Nov. 8 - Allied invasion of North Africa begins in “Operation Torch”

• 1899: Guglielmo Marconi invents the wireless

• Nov. 11 - Axis forces occupy Vichy, France

• 1903: The Wright Brothers make the first successful airplane flight

• Nov. 19 - Soviet forces encircle German Sixth Army at Stalingrad

Important Dates and Events

• Dec. 31 - German and British ships engage in the Battle of the Barents Sea

1941

1943

• Dec. 7 - Japanese attack naval base at Pearl Harbor

• Jan. 2-3 - German Army retreats from Caucasus

• Dec. 8 - Roosevelt gives “Day of Infamy” speech; United States and Britain declare war on Japan

• Jan. 10 - Red Army begins siege of German-occupied Stalingrad

• Dec. 11 - Germany declares war on the United States

• Jan. 14-23 - Roosevelt and Churchill meet at Casablanca, issue unconditional surrender demand

• Dec. 16 - Rommel’s Afrika Korps forced to retreat in North Africa

• Jan. 23 - British forces take Tripoli

• Dec. 19 - Hitler assumes post of Commander in Chief of German Army

• Jan. 27 - U.S. Air Force opens daylight bombing campaign with attack on Wilhelmshaven, Germany

1942

• Feb. 2 - German Sixth Army at Stalingrad surrenders to the Russians; war in Europe reaches its turning point

• Jan. 1 - Mass gassing of Jews begins at Auschwitz and Allies forge Declaration of the United Nations

• Feb. 8 - Red Army takes Kursk

• Jan. 13 - German U-boats begin sinking ships off American coast in “Operation Drumbeat”

• Feb. 14-25 - Battle of Kasserine Pass fought in North Africa between German and U.S. forces

• Jan. 20 - Nazis coordinate “Final Solution” efforts at Wannsee Conference

• Feb. 16 - Red Army retakes Kharkov

• Jan. 21 - Rommel counter-attacks in North Africa

• Mar. 15 - German Army recaptures Kharkov

• May 8 - Germans launch summer offensive in the Crimea

• Mar. 16-20 - German submarines achieve their largest tonnage total of the war

• May 30 - Royal Air Force launches first 1,000-bomber raid on Cologne, Germany

• Apr. 19 - S.S. begins “liquidation” of the Warsaw ghetto

• June 4 - Japanese navy resoundingly defeated at Battle of Midway

• May 13 - Remaining Axis troops in North Africa

270

• Mar. 2 - Afrika Korps withdraws from Tunisia

• May 7 - Allies capture Tunisia

Appendix 2: Timeline

British History student.indb 270

1/31/12 1:35 PM

surrender to Allies • May 16-17 - RAF targets German industry in the Ruhr • May 22 - U-boat operations suspended in the North Atlantic due to steep losses • June 11 - Nazis order destruction of Polish ghettos • July 5 - Largest tank battle in history begins at Kursk • July 9-10 - Allied forces land at Sicily • July 22 - American forces take Palermo, Sicily • July 25-26 - Mussolini and the Fascists overthrown

• June 9 - Red Army advances into Finland • June 13 - Germans begin launching V-1 rockets against London • June 15 - American marines invade Saipan • June 19-20 - “Marianas Turkey Shoot” results in destruction of 200+ Japanese aircraft • June 22 - Red Army begins massive summer offensive • June 27 - American forces liberate Cherbourg • July 3 - Soviet forces recapture Minsk

• July 27-28 - Allied bombing raid creates firestorm in Hamburg, Germany

• July 9 - Allied troops liberate Caen

• Aug. 12-17 - Axis forces withdraw from Sicily

• July 20 - Hitler survives assassination attempt

• Aug. 17 - USAF suffers steep losses in bombing run on ball-bearing plants at Regensburg and Schweinfurt, Germany

• July 24 - Soviet forces liberate concentration camp at Majdanek

• Aug. 23 - Red Army retakes Karkhov • Sept. 8 - New Italian government announces Italy’s surrender

• July 18 - American troops liberate St Lô

• July 25-30 - Allied forces break out of Normandy encirclement in “Operation Cobra” • July 28 - Red Army recaptures Brest-Litovsk

• Sept. 9 - Allied forces land in Salerno and Taranto, Italy

• Aug. 1 - Polish Home Army begins revolt against Nazis in Warsaw

• Sept. 11 - German Army occupies Italy

• Aug. 15 - Allies invade Southern France

• Sept. 12 - Nazi commandos rescue Mussolini

• Aug. 19-20- Soviet forces invade Romania

• Sept. 23 - Fascist government re-established in Italy

• Aug. 23 - Romania capitulates to Soviets

• Oct. 1 - Allies take Naples

• Aug. 25 - Paris liberated

• Nov. 6 - Red Army recaptures Kiev

• Aug. 31 - Red Army takes Bucharest

• Nov. 28 - “Big Three” (Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill) meet at Tehran

• Sept. 3 - Brussels liberated

• Dec. 24-26 - Soviets begin large offensive in Ukraine

• Sept. 8 - Soviets and Finns sign peace treaty

1944

• Sept. 4 - Antwerp liberated

• Jan. 6 - Red Army advances into Poland

• Sept. 13 - American troops reach the Siegfried Line in western Germany

• Jan. 22 - Allied forces land at Anzio, Italy

• Sept. 26 - Red Army occupies Estonia

• Jan. 27 - Red Army breaks 900-day siege of Leningrad

• Dec. 3 - Civil war erupts in Greece; Japanese retreat in Burma

• Jan. 31 - American forces invade Kwajalein • Feb. 16 - German 14th Army counter-attacks at Anzio • Feb. 18-22 - American forces take Eniwetok • Apr. 8 - Red Army begins offensive in the Crimea • May 9 - Soviet troops recapture Sevastopol

• Dec. 15 - American forces invade Philippine island of Mindoro • Dec. 16 - German Army launches Battle of the Bulge offensive on the Western Front

• May 12 - German forces in the Crimea surrender

• Dec. 17 - Waffen SS executes 81 American prisoners of war in “Malmedy Massacre”

• June 5 - Allied forces enter Rome

1945

• June 6 - D-Day: invasion of Europe begins with Allied landings at Normandy

• Jan. 9 - American forces invade Philippine island of Luzon Appendix 2: Timeline

British History student.indb 271

271

1/31/12 1:35 PM

• Jan. 16 - Battle of the Bulge ends in German defeat

New Mexico; Potsdam Conference begins

• Jan. 17 - Red Army liberates Warsaw

• July 26 - Clement Attlee becomes British Prime Minister

• Jan. 19 - German lines on Eastern Front collapse; full retreat begins

• Aug. 6 - First atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima

• Jan. 20 - Hungary signs armistice with Allies

• Aug. 8 - Soviet Union declares war on Japan; Soviet forces invade Manchuria

• Jan. 26 - Soviets liberate Auschwitz

• Aug. 9 - Second atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki

• Jan. 27 - Red Army occupies Lithuania

• Aug. 14 - Unconditional surrender of Japanese forces

• Feb. 4-11 - Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin meet at Yalta Conference

• Aug. 15 - Victory over Japan (VJ) Day

• Feb. 13-14 - Allied incendiary raid creates firestorm in Dresden • Feb. 19 - American forces land on Iwo Jima • Mar. 7 - Allies capture Cologne, Ludendorff, Rail Bridge on Rhine River captured intact at Remagen • Mar. 9 - Tokyo firebombed • Mar. 16 - Japanese resistance on Iwo Jima ends

• Sept. 2 - Japanese delegation signs instrument of surrender aboard battleship Missouri in Tokyo Bay • Nov. 20 - Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal begins 1946 • Jan. 7 - United Nations meets for first time in London • Oct. 16 - Hermann Göring commits suicide; 11 other war criminals hanged

• Mar. 21 - Allies take Mandalay, Burma • Mar. 30 - Red Army liberates Danzig • Apr. 1 - American troops encircle German forces in the Ruhr • Apr. 12 - Franklin Delano Roosevelt dies of stroke; Harry Truman becomes president • Apr. 12 - Allies liberate Belsen and Buchenwald concentration camps • Apr. 16 - Red Army launches Berlin offensive; Allies take Nuremberg • Apr. 18 - German forces in the Ruhr capitulate • Apr. 28 - Mussolini hanged by Italian partisans; Venice falls to Allied forces • Apr. 29 - Dachau concentration camp liberated • Apr. 30 - Adolf Hitler and wife Eva Braun commit suicide in Chancellery bunker • May 2 - All German forces in Italy surrender • May 7 - Unconditional surrender of all German forces • May 8 - Victory in Europe (VE) Day • May 23 - SS Reichführer Heinrich Himmler commits suicide • June 5 - Allies divide Germany into occupation zones • June 26 - United Nations World Charter signed in San Francisco • July 16 - First U.S. atomic bomb tested at Los Alamos, 272

Appendix 2: Timeline

British History student.indb 272

1/31/12 1:35 PM

An entire year of high school British history curriculum – in an easy to teach and comprehensive volume! A new series from respected educator Dr. James Stobaugh that takes you on a journey through history without the filters of revisionist or anti-Christian perspectives. This book is designed for a year’s worth of study; 34 powerful weeks of historical viewpoints. A summary sets the stage for learning so the student can enjoy a daily lesson with thought-provoking questions, and an exam that takes place every fifth day. With clear objectives and challenging assignments, students investigate ancient and modern source material, all provided. The following components are included to help develop a student’s understanding of British history trends, philosophies, and events:  Critical thinking questions based roughly on Bloom’s Taxonomy  Examinations of historical theories surrounding a period or topic  Clarified terms, concepts, and theories to be learned  History makers who clearly changed the course of history  Overviews and insights into world views. Examine the rise of the British Empire that influenced nearly every corner of the earth!

Historical content covered in this volume includes the following: Early England, Anglo-Saxon Invasions, the Norman Conquest, Elizabethan Age, the Early Stuarts, Whigs and Tories, the British Empire, the Age of Napoleon, the Industrial Revolution, Victorian Age, Modernism, Causes of World War I, Totalitarianism, World War II and the Cold War, and the End of an Empire.

Also available in this momentous series: American History and World History

RELIGION/Christian Education/Children & Youth HISTORY/Europe/Great Britain/General $24.99 U.S.

ISBN-13: 978-0-89051-646-1

EAN