Respond to the following sets of questions (each with a 8 sentence, minimum, answer) below:
-Who were the authors of these texts (make reasoned speculations)? What kind of people were they (status, identity, etc.)? When were these texts written? What kind of texts are they (e.g. diary? pamphlet? law code? secondary scholarly source?)? What are each of these texts “doing” (What are these texts describing? What are these texts arguing? Why would the author write these texts?)?
-What were the various divisions that wracked England (theological? political? etc.)? How do these authors (or the data) reveal these divisions? What were these divisions over? Why was division imagined to be so disastrous for England?
Each of these text represents a different type of source. However their authors each represent individuals who know what they were talking about. The first source Control of the Militia, appears to be a secondary scholarly source that includes various primary sources specifically letters. The text discusses the actions of parliament to order local militia’s for the country. This seems to be a widely controversial problem as various view points are discussed within the piece. The second text, The third party of Gangeraena was written by a Thomas Edwards who was a minister of the gospel. This piece appears to be a pamphlet discussing the crowns use of military men and “secretaries” to influence religious practices within the realm. The piece takes on a great distaste of these actions and uses various accounts to prove his point. The last piece, Graphs on the divisions in the House of Commons from 1603-1699, is a scatter plot of the times in which a 2/3 voice vote was not achieved throughout these aforementioned years. The author of the chart is unknown however it can be assumed that the data was attained through various records, most of which are probably primary sources. This scatterplot shows an increasing trend in the number of divisions that occurred between 1603 and 1699, more specifically between 1640 and 1670. This essentially means that the partisan politics of the time were intense and parliament was more equally divided on opinion making a 2/3 voice vote unattainable.
There were both political and theological divisions throughout England during this time. The first article discusses the political debate over the level of military involvement on the local level. One side believes that having local militia’s will benefit the country and provide a level os stability and safety for the common wealth. Where the other-side believes that this added involvement of the military on the local level i unjust and will just increase fear and panic nation wide. The second text discusses various theological divisions. One of which is the right for an individual to choose their religion and the way the practice. Additionally the piece discusses instances of how the military has begun to influence religion through the practicing of unsanctified baptisms. The author describes an instance where an officer of the crown is re-baptizing a women, but she is held down to long and later dies. The author goes on to discuss these very instances and the controversies for which they provide. Lastly, the graph provides future evidence of both the political and theological divisions through the compilation of data on the great disagreements of the house of commons. Individuals vote based on a number of different things, but two of the primary ones are that of personal beliefs i.e religion, and two that of partisan allegiance, i.e political. By displaying the number of times a stand up vote or a division was required within these years we can thus see how divided the nation truly was due to the inability of attaining a 2/3 voice vote. Overall each of these texts clearly outlines the division throughout England during the Stuart line reign.
The first text is from a secondary source most likely a historian of some sort about the conflict of who controls the militia parliament or the King. The first part of the document is about parliaments military ordinance of 1642 which put the control of England’s militia in the command of the House of Lords and House of Commons of parliament. The second part of the document is a letter from Thomas Knyvett to his wife describing his conflict between his loyalty to the King and Parliaments order for him to take command of his company of militia. The final part of the document describes the Commission of Array in Worcestershire of 1642 which was the King’s response to Parliament’s Military Ordinance. The second document was written by Thomas Edwards who was a minister of the Gospel. This document describes accounts of how military force was used to force people into certain Religious acts. An example of this is when he describes an instant where a group of soldiers prevented a child from getting baptized. The final document is a graph which shows the frequency of division in the House of Commons between 1603-1699. This graph helps to highlight how much division there was politically during this period of time in England. It shows the amount of times that a question was put forward on the floor and the question resulted in some division in the vote.
During this period in England there was a great amount of division among the leaders of England and even the common people. This builds on many of the divisions that were left behind from the Tudor reign and the Reformation. One of the biggest issues and division during this time period was the issue of who should control the military. Parliament believed that they should control the military while the King believed that he was divinely appointed to lead and should thus lead the military. The account from Thomas Knyvett gives insight to the division and conflict over this division as he writes his wife to tell her about his moral conflict over whether or not he should accept Parliaments appointment to lead a company of soldiers and his loyalty to the King. There also continued to be theological issues over what religion English people should be allowed to practice. The final document shows the extent of the division best of all the documents. The graph shows that during this time period there were countless moments of division within the leadership of England which proves the extent of the division over specific issues in the country. Division was thought to be do disastrous within England as times of division in England in the past had caused terrible and tough times for the people. Overall all these texts show the deep political, theological, and various issues within England during this time period.
The first document is titled Control of the Militia and is a collection of primary source documents. The first document within it is a decree from parliament attempting to assert its authority to muster up the militias throughout England and Wales in 1642. The second document within is a letter written by Thomas Kwynett in 1642 as well to his wife. The letter explains his dilemma as he is a moderate that assumed his formal position in charge of a militia and is stuck between the parliament trying to order him to bear arms and the royalist King supporters he are against the parliament having this power. The third document within it is a decree by King Charles I in 1642 as he attempted to attest the parliament decree by trying to resurrect the commission of array and assert his control over the militias. The second text is titled, The Third Party of Gangeraena and was written in 1646 by Thomas Edwards. It is a primary source written by Edwards who at the time was a minister of the gospel. It is a printed pamphlet from the time discussing the King’s use of militias and secretaries to assert control and influence the Church of England’s religious practices. Since the author is a minister of the church he is opposed to the King’s meddling in how the Church operates. The last document is a scatter plot graph of the instances where a decision could not be reached in parliament and a division occurred from 1603 to 1699. The document is titled Graph on divisions in the House of Commons, 1603-1699. This shows that as the century continued the division in parliament increased and it became harder and harder for parliament to reach a two-thirds vote.
They were many divisions over various causes during this century in England. In the political realm the royalists were competing with parliament for control over the militias and constantly vying for power. There was also divisions over theological matters. Since the addition of many new forms of Christianity this caused much division in the realm as well. There was division over how free a person should be to choose how they follow God and whether that should be controlled or not. The last document is a conglomeration of all the divisions of the century. It is good evidence to represent how divided England truly was in the seventeenth century. As the century continued on division became a much more common part of parliament. This new level of division in parliament became somewhat of the norm for the century.
Firstly, in the text “Control of the Militia” seemed to be a secondary source comprised of a mix of primary sources. All of these sources seem to focus on the idea of Parliamentary control of the actions of militias of subsequent provinces and counties. There are conflicting viewpoints present in this text however, with some saying how in order to maintain a strong empire, Parliament should be able to call upon any militia formed under its empire to fight in the name of England, whereas others believed local matters should take precedent and not be put aside at the request of parliament. The second source, The Third Part of Gangraena, is a primary source written by a clergyman named Thomas Edwards. This source has a more focused idea, with it mostly being directed at the crown and Parliaments use of the crowns militia in order to enforce the laws of the laws of the state concerning scripture. Edwards takes direct opposition to this trend, saying how the influence of scripture from a non clergy perspective can not be accepted. Finally, the third source is a scatter diagram, plotting the frequency to which parliament resolved a matter placed on Parliaments floor by year. While still a large range with significant amounts of outliers, there does seem to be a trend upwards in which how agreeable Parliament was over the course of the 17th Century.
As with any dominant society since the beginning of society, there will always be dispute on how they can both improve as a society and fix the problems at hand, and 17th Century England was no different. There were many disputes, but they were mainly theological and political, based around how protestant the Anglican Church should be, and whether or not a Monarchy was needed. These sources reveal the political tensions, with the people of England getting further and further fed up with the actions of the King, and Parliament agreeing at an increasingly higher rate, it is understandable why the English people would begin to no longer think they needed a monarch. However, this tension would lead to nothing but hurt, as no monarch would want to give up ultimate power, and no member of an evolved society would be content in living under the rule of a monarch. With this, the theological tensions were also revealed through these texts. While the Stuarts reigned, they were very conservative in their theological reforms, which angered all British who want to see the church reformed liberally. This also became disastrous for England, as eventually they Puritans settled elsewhere, and a couple hundred years later, England had lost a significant portion of its empire.
The first text is a declaration that parliament is now in control of appointing the heads of the militia. It is an ordinance written by members of parliament. The second part of the text is a letter from Thomas Knyvett to his wife, with Knyvett most likely being a mid-ranking military officer, as he was asked to command a group of men in the militia. The text was written in 1642 and is significant because it is the first ordinance passed by parliament to be considered lawful without royal approval. The second text was written by Thomas Edwards, a member of the clergy and a Puritan. It was written in 1646, at a time of division in England, when members of the clergy such as Edwards were concerned about divisions and differences within the church community. The book as a whole is a description of errors and issues within the church. The third text is a graph depicting the divisions in parliament over the course of the 17th century. There is a clear upward trend with division levels of around 10% in the 1610s to 60% or more by 1700.
Divisions in England included religious and political tensions. Parliament was divided over a number of issues, and also at odds with the King’s wishes. The first text shows this when describing a law parliament passed without approval by the king. The army is another faction in England, as they have weapons and the means to seize control, but the people are unsure who should rightfully lead the army. In addition, religious reform is dividing England, especially the Puritans. People debate how to receive God’s word, and how to govern the church. Some decide to leave and begin the Massachusetts Bay Colony. The division in England could be disastrous because it would weaken England, which would be especially bad in a time when other world powers are expanding their empires, and nearby Ireland is rebelling.
The first text, “Control of the Militia,” is about certain events that took place in 1642. The most prominent event that took place was parliament’s militia ordinance. This secondary source describes the ordinance as one that took away the royal power in choosing certain military leaders. The second text, “The Third Part of Gangraena,” was written by Thomas Edwards-Minister of the Gospel-in 1646, making it a primary source. Published in three parts, Gangraena condemns the excessive use of military activity by the crown to potentially influence religious practices of the English people. The third text is a graph titled, “Graph on divisions in the House of Commons”. It depicts the frequency of division that occurred in the House of Commons when a question was brought to the floor from 1603 to 1699. It can be inferred that this is not a primary source as it is a reflection of data over a significant time period.
In “Control of the Militia,” the author describes the dilemma that the parliament’s and royal’s power struggle has on a common person. Thomas Knyvett was appointed to take command of his militia again under parliament’s orders, but the crown tells him to do otherwise. This shows how the political struggle between the parliament and the royals affected the lives of the people living in England during this time. In “The Third Part of Gangraena,” differences in theological values are shown by Edwards’ distinct distaste for the crown’s actions. He states that the crown has “corrupted themselves,” and goes on to imply that they have corrupted the church by their actions as well. The “Graph on divisions in the House of Commons” shows that during certain time periods, political divisions were more frequent than others. It appears that in the early 1600’s, there was relatively less division than there was from 1640 and beyond.
“Control of the Militia” was written in 1642 by Parliament, and it is a militia ordinance. This document states that parliament in now directly in control of choosing the officers that will command the militia in England. Those officers will also receive their instructions directly from Parliament. The main jobs of these appointed generals and captains would be to put down and stop rebellions in England. Parliament is worried because of the Revolutions in Northern Ireland that similar rebellions will happen in England so they want to put the power in their own hands in order to be able to stop revolutions from happening. This is a large increase in power for Parliament, now instead of the king commanding the armies Parliament does. They can put people in charge that have similar agendas to their own ensuring that whatever they want to happen gets done. They also give their appointed commanders the ability to pick their own subordinates, which gives even them even more power as everyone single commanding officer will have the same agendas. Parliament now controls one of the most vital components of the state, which results in a huge shift in power away from the monarch and towards parliament.
The third part of “Gangraena” is the last of 3 segments of text published in 1646 by Thomas Edwards. Edwards was a Presbyterian preacher who was deeply influenced by John Calvin. These documents were meant to be seen by everyone as all three sections were published publicly and sold quite a few copies. “Gangraena” was a series of written heresies committed by various nobles and church officials that Edwards had supposedly been told about. This list included the idea of women preaching in the church, and ministers that apparently given the army permission to overthrow the king and parliament. It also talks on the baptism of babies, and army captains forcing priest to preach in certain ways that were not acceptable to the church. While these claims may have been true, Edwards tone comes off as very distressed and clumsy, with claims seemingly thrown all over the place and accusations made without evidence to back it up. The excerpt seems to be more of a list than anything, writing out one act of heresy after another, without a lot of hard facts behind it. Due to the tone and voice that the article was written in, the reader can tell that it was written to the general public in order to show the corruption and heretics within the church. As a Presbyterian Edwards would have wanted to get rid of the current church leaders and replace them with a multitude of church elders so it makes sense that he would write about crimes that the leaders of the church are committing in order to push people to act for change in church leadership.
The graph of “Annual Frequency of Divisions in the House of Commons” shows the amount of decisions in the House of Commons, between the years 1603- 1699, that went divided in result. As the date from the graph points out, the number of decisions that the house was divided on increased as the years went on. This could be for multiple reasons. Now parliament has more power than ever and influenced more aspects of life than previously so the difficulty of the decisions increased which lead to people having different opinions on subjects. Another could be the stacking of the house. As monarchs still tried to vie for power, they would put their representatives in the house and the people would have theirs and this would create a major increase in the amount of divided decisions the house made. Regardless of the reason, parliament was running into new problems because of the increase of their power which allowed them to make more decisions than ever, but because they were independent fully of the monarch now, they had full autonomy to make their own decisions which leads to an increase of diversity of ideas. Which in return lead to more division in the house.
The three articles I read for this blog post dealt with issues within England. The articles were: “Control of the Militia” by parliament in 1642, “the third part of Gangraena” by Thomas Edwards in 1646, and “Graphs on divisions in the house of commons” (1603-1699). The first article was written by Parliament to get control of all the militias in England and Wales in 1642. Most of this article consisted of primary sources written in this time period. This debate is between the Parliament and the King for who controls the Militias. After the decree of Parliament, The King comes out with his own decree against Parliament in 1642. The second article was written by Thomas Edwards and explains the crowns use of military to sway religious beliefs. For example, soldiers were preventing baptism. Edwards is against the use of military to sway beliefs because he is a minister. The third article is most likely composed by primary sources was made from the data between (1603-1699). The graph shows how Parliament was divided during this time. This is mostly shown in the time period between 1640-1670 when ⅔ majority was rarely achieved.
There were many theological and political divisions during this time period is England. The political division is mostly shows in the first article. This is shown when they are divided between who should run the militias. Political division is also shown in the third article when the graphs showed clear division. The many times where parliament was almost equally divided show the divisions. The theological divisions are mostly shown in the third article. The difference in the third article is the influencing of religion by the soldiers and the lack of religious choice. This is shown when soldiers prevented the baptism. The theological division was also shown in the third article because of the 50/50 no decisions.
The first excerpt, “Control of the Militia,” contains three different primary sources. The first is an ordinance of the Lords and Commons of the English Parliament passed in 1642 that places the authority to raise armies for the purpose of suppressing rebellions, insurrections and invasions in the hands of Parliament and not the King. More specifically, both houses of Parliament would appoint lieutenants who in turn would appoint their own officers to carry out the terms of their appointment. Parliament, not the King, would control this structure from the top down. The second primary source is a letter from nobleman Thomas Knyvett to his wife expressing his concern over the predicament he finds himself in. On the one hand, Parliament is granting him control over regional militias. On the other, a royal declaration condemns this appointment. As a political moderate, Knyvett finds himself forced to ally with one side in the conflict. The third primary source in the collection is a royal commission of array decreed by the king. It attempts to bypass Parliament by raising forces and instructing their movements all through the King’s authority. This commission was widely unpopular and failed in many of the counties in which it was introduced. The second excerpt is a primary source pamphlet written by English puritan clergyman Thomas Edwards in 1645. It describes the destabilizing threat of royal forces being used to force religious uniformity in England. As a clergyman, Edwards sides with the Church of England and presents the crown as a tyrannical powerhead that should be deposed. The third excerpt is taken from secondary scholarly research. It graphs the frequency of division in the House of Commons from 1603-1699, demonstrating the truly unprecedented nature of this time in English politics.
Each of these sources comments broadly on a division that was growing between Parliament and the throne. Interestingly, the organization of military forces is involved in the first two sources pointing to the violent potential wrapped up in the conflict. “Control of the Militia” demonstrates a clear divide between royalists and parliamentarians. Such a divide surely could result in a Civil War. It is shown through the perspective of Thomas Knyvett that no clear source of authority existed in England. A stalemate stood in its place that forced those unfortunate enough to become personally involved to pick a side. Parliament undermined the authority of the King in the matter of raising armies. Nonetheless, the King attempted to exercise his power in this matter through royal declarations and commissions. Only the clarity of disaster would settle this confrontation once and for all. Thomas Edward’s Gangraena reveals a division in theological life. He decries the use of royal forces to mold religious practices and implies that sects of protestants seek to break free from royal hegemony. The third document underscores all of this by providing clear evidence of division in England, this time in the House of Commons. Everywhere, gridlock seemed to impede progress, and, sooner or later, a release would be required.
The first text is, titled “Control of the Militia”. It is around this time that the Civil War in England, between Parliamentarians and Royal heads, was starting to kick off. The work addresses the fact that now, from March 5th 1642 a political piece that was passed by each of the Houses but had not gotten the approval of the royal was to be put into law regardless. This marks a shift in power from the lieutenants, which where appointed by the King to officials in Parliament which where appointed by the people. Later in this work, there is a letter between Thomas Knyvett to his wife, where he addresses how the struggle of power between who controls the militia with the new ordinance has personal affected him. Lastly, in this document there is mention of “commission of array in Worcestershire” which was when the King very unfavorably decided to raise forces in an ancient way known as “the commissions of array”. This was widely unpopular by the people and most regions failed to carry out the King’s orders. This goes back to the overarching theme of the time this time: strife between the King and the common people.
The next work is by Thomas Edwards, a minister, “The Third Part of Gangraena”, attempts to bring light towards the injustice within the government and religion. This book addressed and is to be read by the common people. This is because the King’s militias are asserting control within the realm of the Church of England, and Edward’s disagrees. Edward makes many promises to the reader in the beginning that “Sectaries themselves and others to be deceived with good words and faire speeches”. Meaning that these officials hide behind empty speeches that make them appear good to the public even if they are not, and bring their presence into places like the church where it is not welcomed. What it is evident is that the author was trying to expose these officials for the frauds that they are. He goes on to tell of their mistreatment of the common people, and how they asserted their control for evil as seen on page seventeen. Edward’s accounts on this page of a man being quartered and then child being taken away by the soldiers. What this emphasizes just like the last work is the struggle and disagreements between the common people and the militia. Someone reading the account of what happened to that man would likely be scared, but also every disgruntled with the militia’s treatment of commoners. The disagreements had even escalated to become violent as aforementioned by the man being quartered, and it seemed like the common people where easily overpowered by the militia.
The last work is a graphical representation of the “Annual Frequency of the House of Commons”. It can be seen that from the 1640s to 1670s there was a high proportion of divisions and this is shown in the graph because there are the most data points within that span. This makes sense from what was going on in England during this time, since England’s Civil War was from the 1640s to 1650s. The Civil War was in response to a conflict between Parliament and Charles I over the rebellions happening in Ireland. When Charles II came to power, a time known as the Restoration period, the disagreements only continued even though some thought this would mark the end of the fighting. There was seemingly still a struggle of power between Parliament and Charles I. The Civil War in England on paper officially stopped in 1661. However, disparities within the government would carry on for many years as the government tried to reestablish itself, which explains why there is a high proportion of divisions later on as well.
The first text describes the Militia Ordinance of 1642, passed by parliament, granting them control over the militia as opposed to the king. A letter from a man named Thomas Knyvett to his wife is also included in the document. The text describes the unprecedented nature of the Act (no act that was considered law had passed without the monarch’s approval), as well as the predicament the act put people like Knyvett in. The second text is an excerpt of “Gangraena,” a book published by clergyman Thomas Edwards in 1646. In it, he attempts to identify and illuminate the many mistakes and heretical practices of the Protestant church at the time. Edwards was a puritan himself, and accused the current stagnant church of resembling Roman Catholicism. The third source is a scatter plot that displays when division occurred on the floor of parliament throughout the 17th century and is a secondary scholarly source. The graph is displaying that leading up to the English Civil War, disagreements in the House of Commons were becoming more and more popular.
The division described in the first text is the division between the king and parliament, a political issue. Knyvett in particular reveals this division in his hesitancy to accept non-royal command in the militia. He feels his loyalty to the king is being alienated under new jurisdiction. These divisions are a result of parliament’s distrust of Charles, hence their reluctance in allowing him to maintain his power over the militia. These divisions paint a picture of great divide in England that reminds me of the strong confusion that many English people felt during the Elizabethean era in choosing between their queen and the pope. In this case, people are feeling confusion between their loyalties to the king parliament’s increasing power. The second document is a more theological debate, and reinforces the strong division between radical puritans and conservative Protestants. Edwards reveals these divisions in his naming of practices within the church that he believes are heretical. The scatter plot reveals the divisions by displaying the amount of division over political acts that occurred in the House of Commons. It shows a very tangible reason for the divisive split between the King and his parliament.
The first document, entitled “Control of the Militia,” is a collection of documents concerning an ordinance of Parliament. One of these documents was the actual militia ordinance made by Parliament on March 5, 1642; this was during the time of the Long Parliament. This ordinance is significant because, as described within the document, it was one of the first orders not recognized by the crown passed by Parliament which received “the force of law.” The purpose of this ordinance was to give Parliament, and thus take away from the crown, the power to name lord lieutenants. This would give Parliament more control over a potential resistance against an increasingly chaotic and unfavorable monarch in Charles I. The letter from Thomas Knyvett, described as a “political moderate,” to his wife written in 1642 displays the quandray between the people of England and the king that many found themselves in. The last source within the first document, “The commision of array in Worcestershire,” was a commision of the king made in 1642 to raise an army; however, the effectiveness of the commission shows the political divide within the country. The second document, written buy Puritan Thomas Edwards in 1646, is “The Third Part of Gangranea.” This document is a religious pamphlet that argues against Charles I’s government and its use of secretaries to interfere in religious policies by pushing the Anglican church on its subjects. The third document, “Graph on divisions in the House of Commons, 1603-1699”, displays the data on how much division their was in the house during the time span stated. Overall, it seems that as time went on, division rates seem to have risen.
The first document reveals a political division within England. Much like his father James I, Charles I believed that he was ordained by God to rule England and that any Parliaments would be unnecessary for his reign. After the brief instantiation of the Short Parliament, the English representatives were getting increasingly frustrated with Charles I’s absolutist rule. This “Militia ordinance,” passed within the more stubborn Long Parliament, represents the divide between England and the crown in how the King should rule the country. The failed attempt of the king to raise an army with his 1642 commission, as well as the uneasiness of moderates such as Knyvett, further show the growing political divide. While the people wanted a more equilateral approach, Charles I’s stubborn absolutists approach would ultimately lead to the English Civil War. “The Third Part of the Gangranea” displays a theological divide within England. With the efforts of Charles I and Laud to push Anglican values on their subjects, many such as the Puritan Edwards grew angry with the oppressing religious rule. The third document displays the overall rise in disagreements, both of the political and theological sort. As time increases on the x-axis, the division rates seem to rise on the y-axis. This reflects the growing sense of rebelliousness that Parliament and the people that it represents feel towards the repressive policies of Charles I.
The first text, “Control of the Militia” is a compilation of several primary sources letters and ordinances. The authors of the primary source texts were officials who were directly affected by the militia ordinance. All of the primary source documents are written at around the same time that the ordinance is being debated. The ordinance calls for the militia to be raised by parliament and not the king. Additionally, it advocates for militia leaders to be appointed by parliament and not the king. This issue is contentious for the English because it places the king’s authority directly against that of parliaments at a time when this issue was center stage. It also helps both factions determine who is obedient to their respective power. The letters themselves are written in a guarded tone and show how these laws make the writers unsure about what the future holds.
The next text, “The Third Part of Gangraena” is a primary source document written in 1646 by Thomas Edwards. Edwards was a minister at the time and objected to the way the king was using the militia to influence the church. Edward believed that the army should not be used in the church to influence religious rituals like Baptism. Edward also disapproves of several religious practices and makes it known in his text. It is understandable why he would disapprove of these practices as he is a Presbyterian whose baseline ideology doesn’t conform with many of the English church’s ideals. Edward’s writing reveals how there are wide divisions within government over how the church should function. If ministers openly write against the King’s orders, it clearly shows how deep those divisions are. These divisions will manifest themselves in the future and play a part in further isolating Charles from former allies.
The third document is a graph that depicts the divisions in parliament over time. When all points are taken into account, the divisions in parliament increase as the time increase. This shows that as people are becoming more used to having parliament control the laws instead of the king. In fact, there is a clear correlation between the dates of the English Civil War and the division within parliament. During the war, parliament experienced its largest increase in slope most likely due to division over how to win the war. The graph also shows that even after the civil war division increased most likely due to divisions becoming less of an outlier and more of a new normal.
The first text “Control of the Militia” has multiple authors. It starts with the legal code issued in 1642 by Parliament that ordered the organization of a militia that would be commanded by leaders assigned by Parliament. Secondly, there is a letter to his wife from a man named Thomas Kynvett who was assigned to be a part of said militia. However, Kynvett was hesitant to take action as he did not want to take action against the King. Kynvett describes to his wife that within a few hours of his commission to command a group of a militia he was faced with a decree against it from the King. Kynvett expressed his conflict in his further action as he did have some royalist sympathies and but felt as though it was his duty to command his militia. The second text comes from a book call “The Third Part of Gangraena” by Thomas Edwards. Edwards was an English puritan, who in 1646 wrote a detailed description of heresies. In this book Edwards condemns those who want to split with the Church of England, called ‘Sectaries,’ as heretics. He goes on to describe various times when the Sectaries committed acts of heresy. Finally, the third source, “Graph on divisions in the House of Commons, 1603-1699”, is a graph that shows “the proportion of instances where, when a matter was put to the question on the floor of the House, a division resulted.” As a graph this source has no author or date, but it shows data collected between 1600 and 1700. It should also be noted that the graph has a significant upward trend in terms of frequency of divisions in the late 1600s.
The divisions that wracked England were both theological and political. The theological division is seen in the first text, “Control of the Militia”, as Parliament was declaring that the counties of England must form a militia against the King and his “bloody council of papists.” Parliament chose to take the drastic step of ordering the formation of a militia without the Kings knowledge or orders because they feared papal influence on the King and his Catholic leanings. However, on the other hand, some English puritans such as Thomas Edwards sees those who want to split with the Church of England as heretics, furthering the division within the nation. Edwards claims that the Sectaries are for pope toleration as well as being for Catholic traditions such as hymn during mass. He also surmises that they will bring disaster to England as the Sectaries are not only “corrupting religion” but are against the magistrate and civil government and therefore will bring “an Anarchy to church and state.” Political division is also seen in the first text in Thomas Kynvett’s letter. Kynvett’s struggle to choose to follow the King or parliament shows the political division as Parliament attempted to usurp the King’s prior authority. These divisions could be seen as disastrous to England (depending on what side one is on) as it is an insurrection against the King’s power and therefore could lead to civil war between Parliament and the Royalists. Finally, the last source is a culmination of the division within England as “Graph on divisions in the House of Commons, 1603-1699” shows the increase in divisions therefore shows that the Parliament was getting less and less cohesive in their agreements. These disagreements were both political and theological and would lead to division not only within Parliament but eventually division from the King.
The first text, “Control of the Militia,” is a collection of multiple sources regarding the militia ordinance of 1642. The first part is the actual Parliamentary ordinance, stating that Parliament’s houses have the power to decide who leads their militias. The second part details the issues and dilemmas this ordinance caused because it was never allowed by the Crown. This is shown through Thomas Knyvett’s letters to his wife where he tells her of his contradictory orders from Parliament and the King. The final section of the document is the king’s attempt to get power back from Parliament, a power they gained through the militia ordinance. The second document, “The Third Part of Gangraena,” is a paper written by a Puritan clergyman named Thomas Edwards, in 1646. Edwards talks about the issue of the crown using its power to assert dominance over religious life. As a Puritan Edwards disagrees with this and hopes to sway the population with his writing. The third document is a graph of the frequency of divisions in the House of Commons and is a secondary source. The graph shows the increasing instability of the House of Commons in the 17th century.
The divisions that defined England’s political and theological landscape in the 17th century are shown in these three documents. “The Third Part of Gangraena” shows us the opinion of one side of the theological divide. The Puritans sided with the Church of England when the King attempted to use his power to influence the institution, while Conformists trusted the Crown. The political divisions also separated the Crown from an increasingly important institution, the Parliament. The 1600’s in England under the Stuarts was politically defined by the struggle between the houses of Parliament and the King. These political and theological divisions weakened the Crown by separating it from two of the most powerful institution of the time in England. These divisions were so disastrous because they created a country that had three separate ruling groups all vying for power and no strong united government.
The author of the first source was a historian who assembled various decrees and primary sources providing commentary on these particular items to further explain their meanings and relationships to the broader topic regarding the control of the militias within the civil war. The first part of this document was parliament’s militia ordinance from 1642 and was a legal document that was supported by parliament and not by the crown that essentially gave control for parliament to have authority over the militias in various counties of England. The second document was a letter from Thomas Knyevtt to his wife. Thomas, who was a former military commander was essentially torn between the militia ordinance and royal declaration and is writing to his wife to illustrate these concerns. The third document included by the historian is the commission of array in Worcestershire and is written ultimately by the crown. The purpose of this document was to give the crown the ability to muster up the available militia in a county for war at the discretion of the monarch. The author of the second text, a primary source, was a pamphlet written by Thomas Edwards who was a minister. The purpose of this document was to illustrate how the King ultimately used his power and authority to govern religion often done through the use of force through militias. The third text is a secondary source believed to come from an author at Yale illustrating the frequency of divisions within the house of commons illustrated by a chart. The purpose of this chart is to show the positive correlation that results from more divisions within the house of commons as time progresses.
Various divisions existed within England during this time period especialy in the form of theological and political debate. During the time in which these texts were published, we see very clearly within the first document that political conflict exists internally. The parliament militia ordinance was noted to have been the first time that a rule of law was formed without the consent from the royal crown. This is suggestive of serious political conflict between King Charles and parliament. To further illustrate this point King Charles is ultimately beheaded which I would say shows some fairly serious division amongst a nation’s leadership. Additionally, even in regards to political bodies within England that had the authority to rule by vote, we see within the chart provided that the frequency of division within the house of commons greatly increases over time. These divisions additionally stem from a theological perspective in the dispute between the age-old protestant vs catholic theology debate. For example, the first text shows that parliament issues a document directly stating “Whereas there hath been of late a most dangerous and desperate design upon the house of commons, which we have just cause to believe to be an effect of the bloody counsels of papists and other ill-affected persons, who have already raised a rebellion in the kingdom of Ireland”. To ultimately claim in a legal document a smear in relation to catholicism shows the cross-divisional conflict be politics and theology.
The first text is a collection of primary source documents collected by a historian. This person documents the conflict between the king and parliament. Initially, he discusses parliament’s military ordinance of 1642, which gave parliament military command of the English militia. The document then discusses a letter written by Thomas Knyvett discussing his personal dilemma in where his loyalty lies; the King or Parliament. This is especially interesting considering he was appointed by parliament to take over a regiment. Finally, the document discusses the Commission of Array in Worcestershire of 1642, King Charles I response to Parliament’s military actions. The second reading by Thomas Edwards, a minister of the gospel, describes how the military was used to force people into certain religions. For instance, he discuses a group of soldiers preventing a baptism. Finally, the last document is a graph showing the divisions in parliament during the 1600s. This shows the political divisions during the period.
There was extreme conflict amongst the English government during this time, from the leaders in government all the way down to the common people. The primary conflict was who was the authority that should control the military. On one hand, the King believed himself appointed by God to be the leader of the nation, while Parliament saw themselves as appointed by the people to be the leaders. The English people were conflicted as to who to support since both were the authorities at the time, as evidenced by the Knyvett letter. Parliament was also divided for most of the period as evidenced by the final document. There were also religious divisions at the time. These texts show various divides in England during the time which were very tough on the people.
The first document is an example of a law passed by Parliament. This law, passed in 1642, dealt with how military leaders of England were to be appointed. The significance of this law is that it was the first time that a law was passed without royal assent. The second document is a pamphlet written by Thomas Edwards, a minister of the church. Written in 1646, it says various ‘heresies’ and ‘blasphemies’ committed by church leadership. The final graph shows the divisions that occured in the House of Commons from the early to mid 1600s. The data was compiled by a historian recently. It shows that over time, there is an increasing amount of disagreement in the House of Commons.
These three documents reflect the various divisions that were occuring in all parts of English society. The law passed by Parliament shows the division between Parliament and the Monarchy. Creating a law with the approval of the King was unheard of before this time. It is a direct challenge to the authority of the King and reflects a division over how much power the King should have. The second document is a reflection of the divisions that occured in the religious world. There is conflict when a minister of the church is accusing others in the church of committing heresies. The final graph shows the divisions that were present within Parliament. They no longer act as a unified body that agrees on most things. Political dialogue and discourse are beginning to appear. The increasing division was feared in England. Many were in favor of some changes being considered, yet few were in favor of the continued division within the country.
Each of these documents are a conglomerate of primary and secondary sources. Within the first text, “Control of the Militia” is a secondary and primary source that discusses parliaments militia decree in 1642. In this decree, parliament is presenting their dominance by stating that they are now in full control of choosing military officers to lead the militia in England and Wales in 1642. In this text, parliament is presenting their dominance to the King; in the battle for the sole control of the militias. Then in the second part of this text, Thomas Knyvett is writing a letter (primary source) to his wife about his concerns about being a militia leader while their is a battle between the powers of parliament and monarchy. Parliament wants him to bear arms but the monarchy and the King are against parliament and do not believe they should have control, which puts him in a difficult predicament. In the second text, “The Third Part of Gangraena”, is a primary source written in 1646 by Thomas Edwards. Edwards is a clergyman, who expresses his concerns of the divisions that are taking place in England. He mainly discusses how he believes that the monarchy is using their position of power to take control of the militia just to oscillate the common people religious beliefs. Specifically, he discusses how the militia is using their position to influence baptism, which he believes is unjust. In the third text, “ Graph on divisions in the House of Commons, 1603-1699”; the text is a scatter plot representing the division that took place in Parliament during the 17th century.
These documents represent the various contributions that led to the various divisions that wracked England. There was a combination of both political and theological issues that led to England’s division. This is shown within the first document through the battle of power over the militia between Parliament and the monarchy. Both of these high powers want control over the militia and this is leading to a major divide within England. This begins to have an effect on their upper class clergymen and militia leaders. Kynvette discusses his concerns to his wife about how this division has an impact on his position as a leader. In the second document, Edwards discusses how this division is also contributing to a theological division within England. The militia is now trying inflict their ideals for religious affairs which is causing great harm to England and is unjust. Then within the last text, it is clear to see how these divisions led to a major division within Parliament and within England during the 17th century.
The first document Control of the Militia contains a collection of primary sources such as letters and an official decree from Parliament. The first section is an official statement written by members of Parliament establishing that the institution now has the power to appoint for leadership positions in the militia. This source also includes a letter written in by a man named Thomas Knyvett to his wife where it can be implied that he holds some sort of rank as a military officer as he was asked to command a group of men. The second text, The Third Part of Gangraena, is a primary source written by a man named Thomas Edwards who was a minister. In this text, Gangraena expresses his opposition with the immoderate utilization of militaristic power by the king as an attempt to possibly sway the religious beliefs of English subjects. The third source is Annual Frequency of Divisions in the House of Commons. This is a secondary source because it is a graph and portrays the divisions in the House of Commons throughout the years 1603-1699. According to the graph, the point where Parliament was most divided came around 1660 and the year where they were least divided was 1640.
As a result of conflicting political and religious beliefs in England, the English Parliament became divided over many many issues. This was mostly regarding what was best for the people and how to maintain harmony with them, while also adhering to the king’s wishes. Parliament began to gain more power throughout this time period in England such as expressed in the first source where the institution passed a law stating that they had the ability to appoint officers in the militia without the approval of the crown. The people of England were often confused about how the military should be run in a sense that whether the king should have the power or if that power should lie within the hands of Parliament. Also at this time, there began to be great religious divides in England, mostly regarding the Protestant Reformation. You had the conformists who were content with the current state of the Church of England. On the other hand, there were the Puritans who the conformists often saw as radical. The Puritans believed that the Anglican Church was not doing enough and sought to keep pushing reforms. This created a significant religious divide within England.
The first document is a secondary source, that features several primary sources throughout, centered around the conflict between the crown and Parliament for control of the militia. The source provides multiple viewpoints throughout, some think the militia must be under the control of Parliament while others differ and think they shouldn’t be called upon by a governing body, instead they should remain local. The second document, The Third Part of Gangraena, is a primary source written by Thomas Edwards. In this document Edwards is pointing out an error he sees in the way the militia being used by both the King and Parliament. Both bodies have been using the militia to enforce their laws, religious and secular. The third source, is a scatter plot showing data related to Parliament’s ability to resolve the issues it is presented with. The graph shows that as time passed Parliament became more disagreeable and finding majorities was more difficult. This division in parliament was only a sign of the instability to come.
These three documents while not directly related show the general trend in England, and any semi-democratic society. There will always be disagreement as to how society should be structured and law should be practiced. In the second document Edwards makes it clear that Puritans, like himself, are tired of the crown forcing Anglican ideals on them. While this dispute over religion in England is not new, Edwards believes now that rather than being oppressed by the Pope his religion is being oppressed by the King. In the third document it is clear that division is growing in England, as Parliament is having a much harder time agreeing on issues. Leading up to this time in England most disputes had been over theological differences, but these documents (the third especially) reveal a real political divide that was developing between the King and Parliament, and even within Parliament. It is clear that as Parliament was becoming more powerful, a general frustration with the crown was growing.