In a Rede lecture, The Parallel Between the English Civil War and American Civil War, Firth said that the comparison between the English Civil War and America Civil War was very interesting (1910). Recently, I learnt the history of both civil wars and I am interested in this history. Thus, I will mainly compare the disputes that caused English Civil War and American Civil War as well as the implications behind these differences and similarities.
First of all, religion was a controversial issue both in the English Civil War and American Civil War. In England, the king’s religion and behavior were contrary to the mainstream. For instance, much of the regulation and ceremony in the king’s court was derived from Catholic models (Morrill, 2001). What’s more, Charles I assigned William Laud as the see of Canterbury in 1633 and asked him to enforce the Book of Common Prayer to Scotland. Actually, the Book of Common Prayer irritated the people of Scotland and William Laud’s cruel persecution to puritans raised dissatisfaction throughout the nation. Consequently, as Firth said, “the conflict concerning the religious question grew in importance and the freedom of conscience became by degrees the only solution of the problem.”
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
In America, the disputes within America were the different ideas about slavery (Wesley, 2019). In the North, most people considered the emancipation was essential so that new areas in America can be better constructed free of slavery. However, the South believed that owning slaves was natural because the Bible told them so. As a result, the different understanding of slavery’s place in American society became nonnegotiable and the war came (Miller, 2000).
The second dispute that caused the two civil wars was power. In England, as Ireton said, the dispute was whether the “supreme trust was in king or Parliament”. Morrill said that Charles I had very strong and arrogant views of his power and believed that he was chosen by God to develop and protect his country (2001). While on the other, the king’s behavior irritated the Parliament and pushed the Parliament to fight for the power. For example, Charles I refused to reach agreements with the English Parliament and from 1629 he suspended it sine die (Morrill, 2001). As a consequence, the power dispute between the king and the Parliament gradually became more serious.
In America, the dispute was who should have the power. The government or the individual states? In Firth’s Rede lecture, he gave an example to illustrate this issue. The delegate of the South, Calhoun, said that the sovereignty is in those several states instead of the so-called government. However, the doctrine of the North is that the power is owned by a government founded on the agreement of the people. Their speech clearly demonstrates the opposing position of the two sides on the issue of the power (1910).
Another significant dispute in both civil wars was money. In a BBC documentary, A History of British, Simon Schama pointed out that it was money that triggered the civil war’s countdown. In England, Charles I started wars with countries like Spain and France but lost many of them and needed to pay for the money. Unfortunately, the Parliament refused his requirement. As a result, the king determined to keep himself free of Parliament by using his power arbitrarily to raise money and his favored action was the coping stone on the civil war (Morrill, 2001).
In America, the North and the South had different economic systems at that time. The North mainly depended on industry whilst the South relied on planation. Miller suggested that the long practice of the slavery brought the South prosperity and the abolition made them afraid the collapse of the economy (2000). However, the North also worried that the slavery would do damage to their economic development.
The last difference was the division mode. In the English Civil War, the opposing sides were mainly divided by their ideology. For instance, the royalist supported Catholics while the other side preferred Puritanism. However, in American Civil War, the opposing parties were mainly divided geographically. Specifically, in the Rede lecture, Firth explained that “the line was drawn across the United States by the Missouri Compromise in 1820, in order to limit the northern extension of slavery—known as Mason and Dixon’s line” (1910).
The above are four differences concerning the disputes that caused the English Civil War and American Civil War. Besides, we can find resemblances beneath the differences.
First, according to Firth’s Rede lecture, the formal cause of the two civil wars was the question of sovereignty (1910). Specifically, in England, the question was, what share of sovereignty belonged to the king, and what to the Parliament? In America the question was, the sovereignty belonged to individual States or the Federal government?
Second, people in both wars showed their fear toward the future. In England, for instance, people afraid two things. One was that Charles I may raise higher taxes to pay for the war and his personal use. Another fear was the promotion of Catholics. After all, the king’s wife, Henriette Marie was a Catholic and it was said the king’s children were being secretly brought up as Roman Catholics. Likewise, in America, as Miller described, “to the southern mind, the North was perverting the Bible and God’s plan by its worship of money, its growing heterogeneity, and its prideful intrusions into other’s affairs' (2001). Moreover, the league of the South described Abraham Lincoln’s army as “heartless brigades of aggression and occupation” (Kaufman, 2009).
From the differences and similarities, we can also find the implications behind them. First is that money really matters. In both wars, money was a long-lasting issue throughout the process. Why money was that important? I think it may because everyone wants profits and no one wants to lose money. Let us imagine, if Charles I had always won wars and seldom lost and even brought money to England; and if the slavery could bring both the North and the South huge profits, would the two civil wars happen? That might be another question deserves our thinking.
The second implication is that the causes of a historical event are complicated. For example, there are many reasons that caused the English Civil War, including economy, culture, politics, ideology etc. Similarly, the disputes on commercial, religion, foreign policy, agrarian interests are involved in America (Miller, 2001). What’s more, the collapse of slavery was marked by great variation across time and space (Sternhel, 2019).
The above is a brief compare between the English Civil War and American Civil War. And I believe this comparison not only makes us critical but also instructs our future development.
Stuck on your essay?
