Oliver Cromwell and the North American colonies

Factual Questions
1

Normally, I’m pretty good with Early American history, but one obscure decade or two escapes me.

The English Civil War of the 1640s ended with a victory for Oliver Cromwell and the Roundheads, King Charles I was beheaded, and England was for the first time in modern history a republic eventually headed by Cromwell as the Lord Protector. I know that the man sought reform; he sought to transform the Church of England into a truly Protestant church, but his zeal also prompted him to invade Ireland and murder many Catholics there. After his death, and the brief regime of his son, the Royalists returned to power and Charles II became king.

My question is what did Cromwell’s fellow Puritans think of him in the English colonies of North America? Did they need to be persuaded to recognize him as Lord Protector, and if so, how was this accomplished? When the Royalists came back to power, how did the English government maintain control of the colonies?

I know that Cromwell had at least a few supporters in North America (one of my ancestors had a shipping company in Boston that assisted Cromwell in his exploits); I just don’t know how many there were.

2

I dunno, but as a data point: the Catholic-run, religiously free colony of Maryland existed since 1632. They were bothered some. Most notably, a Puritan coup in 1689 (long after Cromwell’s death). That was more associated with the Glorious Revolution, I think. But during the Civil War, there were some hiccups. Then the Battle of the Severn. Also interesting because the Puritans won, but the losing general was a Puritan. The Calverts retook the colony in 1658.

3

I remember reading once that when the Parliament forces were winning the war, a delegation from Virginia told Charles I that he was strongly supported in Virginia and could rule from there.

Obviously, it was unlikely he would have taken them up on this offer (although the Portuguese court would relocate to Brazil in 1808 when Napoleon conquered Portugal) but it indicates there were Royalists in America.

4

From the Wikipedia article on Cromwell, discussing the Protectorate:

This paragraph does not bear citations, so take it for what it’s worth.

5

Athletes at the University of Virginia are still called The Cavaliers, which may reflect that pro-Stuart history in Virginia.

6

Norvaal,

I am a Ph.D. in colonial history (17th C Maryland, in particular), and to answer your question, is, at its most simple: “It depends on when and where you are.” The English empire up to the Civil Wars was at best an ad-hoc conglomeration of settlements that all owed various forms of allegiance to the king, depending on the Charter. Virginia was a royal colony: the king appointed the Governor and Council (a curious institution, they were simultaneously a court, the upper house of the legislature, and performed the executive functions of a cabinet). Maryland was a proprietary colony: Cecil, Lord Baltimore, named the Governor, the Council, most justices, sheriffs, could veto any and all laws, collected the taxes, rents on all property held in the province, waged war, negotiated peace, and was essentially a king in all but name, owing the King of England the annual payment of two Indian arrows, and agreed to not allow any laws that went against those of England. New England were corporate colonies, (vastly simplified). E.g., Massachusetts Bay’s original Charter gave them the right to self-select the Governor and Council, and they were quite independent from Day one. Barbados was like Virginia, a royal colony.

How each colony / region reacted to the events in England varied. Barbados and Virginia were usually associated with the Royalist forces “Cavaliers” and New England, being made of self-exiled Puritans “Roundheads” were for Parliament. But this ignores the fact that Puritans in Barbados and Virginia were vocal advocates of Parliament, and there were pro-king men in New England. Tiny little Maryland numbered about 400 people in 1645, and tried its darndest to just stay out of everyone’s notice… and failed miserably. in 1644 an overzealous Catholic arrested a Roundhead Puritan merchant from England by the name of Ingle for the crime of declaring that the King (Charles I) “was no King.” A councilor named Capt. James Neale arranged to have the man released immediately… ok, technically he broke him out of jail, but still… This did not work, Ingle returned and launched a massive, violent raid on Marylanders, seizing and destroying the Colony’s records, and driving about 3/4 of the population away. But, by 1648 Leonard Calvert (younger brother of Cecil) had returned to the colony, and restored Calvert rule. He was replaced by an Anglican named William Stone. We’ll have to come back to him…

New England enthusiastically supported the Roundhead cause (well, half of them, only half of NE population was Puritan) and thousands actually packed up and returned back to England. For the most part they were pro-Parliament and pro-protectorate, and Cromwell did not ahve to worry about them.

With the Regicide, however, the Empire had a real crisis. Technically the only link to England was through the king, who was now dead and the crown extinguished. NEw England never worried about this, and embraced the new order w/o too much complaint. Barbados and Virginia on the other hand… both benefited from the Civil Wars as the Dutch entered the market for sugar and tobacco, paying slightly higher prices, or charging lower freight (Dutch ships were more technologically advanced). Barbados actually more or less declared independence with the execution of Charles. Virginia’s (former Cavalier Officer) Governor, Sir William Berkeley promptly declared Charles II (in exile in France) as king- not technically independence, but as the child would not be able to do anything, and VA would not obey the Commonwealth… yeah, it was.

Cromwell did not take kindly to this- one he was at war with the Dutch (It doesn’t make sense, I know- just know that the Dutch and the English were economic rivals), two, sugar and tobacco duties were huge sources of government income, critical in times of war, and three, Barbados and VA were ENGLISH. So, he sent a fleet to Barbados, who promptly agreed they were too hasty, and recognized the Commonwealth and her laws. From there the fleet sailed into Virginia and deposed Berkeley, and put in place a pro-commonwealth government.

Now, back to Stone. For reasons which I won’t get into here, the Parliamentary Commissioners sent by Cromwell were authorized to exercise power in the Chesapeake, not just rebellious Virginia. But, Baltimore had recognized the Commonwealth, and his government was considered loyal. When Stone refused to issue writs in the name of Parliament instead of in the name of the Proprietor as the Charter (i.e., constitution) REQUIRED, the commissioners deposed him as a traitor. When letters from Cromwell arrived in Maryland addressed to Stone as Governor, Stone used this as confirmation of his right to power, collected a force of Calvert Loyalists and marched north to the Puritan settlement of Providence (today’s Annapolis) where the Parliamentary Commission had erected it’s government. The Puritans were supported by a heavily armed merchant ship, and Stone’s men were defeated. Lots of lobbying in England later, Cromwell recognized Calvert’s claim to MD, and gave it back (1658).

There are literally dozens of articles and books this is all culled from, but a good primer is Carla Gardenia Pestana’s The English Atlantic in an Age of Revolution, 1640-1661. She is one of the leading Ph.D.s in this field (and a very nice person, too!)

7

As to the Restoration… it went by without too much upheaval. VA, MD, Barbados, Jamaica and the New England Colonies all just went along (some with more enthusiasm then others, mind you). VA saw Berkeley restored by a grateful Charles II, the Calverts were recognized as the legitimate rulers of MD by Charles II (Cecil, Lord Baltimore was a VERY good lobbyist). New England was distressed, to say the least, by the collapse of the Puritan Experiment in England, but they were not intellectually prepared for full independence, not that there weren’t vocal advocates of it. Whether or not their economy was developed enough to sustain them w/o the mother country is not ultimately the question. Cromwell had built up a powerful, modern navy, and trade could be easily cut off, killing the New England economy if need came. The hated Spanish and French were also potential attackers, if no English Navy was there to protect them. It in the end was accepted as the will of God, and helped feed the idea of the “Declension” that New England’s Puritans were gradually losing their special relationship with God- why this was so, and how to fix it dominated New English thought up to the Revolution.

8

And a general BTW- I looked at the citations for Wikipedia’s information. Ridiculously out of date, Pestana’s book notwithstanding. I mean, like crazy out of date. 1890 is the publication date of one, 1929 of another. There are hundreds, thousands of pages of documents that have been found and cataloged since then. Major re-interpretations of events because of research in English records. Major studies and hundreds of peer-reviewed articles in the William and Mary Quarterly, the Maryland Historical Magazine, the Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, et al. An entire school of Chesapeake Studies that started in the 1970s by Lois Green Carr, Russell Menard, David Jordan, Lorena Walsh, James Horn. Nuances of the economy, society, religion, diplomacy, European influences, Indian wars, etc., that have profoundly altered the way we understand the world. And that’s just in the past 20 years.

It’s everything that’s wrong with using Wikipedia.

9

[Claps until hands fall off]

Bravo!

10

Yup, that was good stuff. Thanks, Jimbabweosu!

11

Then you should update it!!!

12

No, I shouldn’t.

One, I don’t have time (or the energy to correct all the nonsense and hopelessly out of date information.

Two, well done, professionally written, current encyclopedias already exist. Britannica is just one, and there are hosts of topic specific encyclopedias readily available at the library that go into such topics with even greater accuracy. I do not need to replicate them.

Good, accurate information is available to those who are willing to invest a little time to make sure they get it. And I do mean a LITTLE time. Wikipedia is a disaster if you are serious about doing real research, or want real information. I warn my students, if your research stops with Wikipedia, you don’t know anything about your topic. There are good sources. Find them.