That should have been the end of it, but
Parliament then tried to disband its army
without pay, leading to a split among the
victors. Cromwell, several members of
Parliament, and most of the army rebelled. A
long period of confusion, including a second
civil war, ended with the New Model Army
dominant. Military leaders quickly consolidated
power, purging Parliament of all but those
supporting the army. They beheaded Charles I.
1
95
1794
With real power residing in Cromwell and his
army, but with a residue the "Rump"
of Parliament theoretically having legislative
authority, a republic was established. Called
the Commonwealth, the new government operated
under a council of state, the title and office
of king having been abolished. The House of
Lords had also been disestablished. Many
Catholics remained in revolt, especially in
Ireland and Scotland. Cromwell personally led an
invading army across the sea to Ireland, where
he brutally suppressed the rebellion, leaving a
legacy of hatred enduring to this day. When
Charles II landed in Scotland, raising a force
of Royalist supporters, Cromwell rapidly
attacked them, destroying the Scottish army and
chasing Charles back to France. War broke out
with the Dutch, but at home Cromwell was secure.
His New Model Army, about seventy thousand
strong, was by any measure a standing army.
Composed of loyal veterans, it was disciplined
and trained and well paid. One of the ways
Cromwell found sufficient money to meet his
military payroll was to sell Royalist estates.
Inevitably, his high-handed methods led to
friction with the Rump Parliament. Cromwell
turned it out in April 1653 and set up a new
one. In December of that year, Cromwellian
supporters in Parliament resigned, transferring
their powers to the general. Four days later,
Cromwell established the Protectorate, giving
himself the title, "Lord Protector of the
Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland."
Having been ruler in all but name, he finally
had corrected that omission. He would later
reject a suggestion that he assume the title of
king "Lord Protector" entailed power
enough. At least, it entailed enough for so long
as he controlled the army. The written
constitution setting up the Protectorate
mandated a standing army of thirty thousand
soldiers. Cromwell had come to power on the
shoulders of a professional force; he had
consolidated that power with a large and
reliable body of regulars; he then perpetuated
his power with a constitutionally established
standing army. Actually, the issue of a large
standing army in peacetime was moot, for England
remained almost constantly at war during
Cromwell’s decade
96
THE GHOST OF CROMWELL
of dictatorship. Repeated cycles of conflict
with the Dutch, the Spanish, and the French
filled the years. Nevertheless, the English
people got a thorough taste of government by a
man on horseback. And they did not like it.
The depth of that dislike surfaced immediately
after Cromwell’s death in 1658. His son, Richard
Cromwell, succeeded him as lord protector, but
soon became embroiled in an argument between the
army and Parliament. An almost comic-opera
scenario ensued. In April 1659, Richard
dissolved Parliament. A rump session then
convinced him to resign as lord protector. Next,
the army threw out the Rump Parliament and
installed a military committee to govern.
Visceral resistance to that military coup
returned Parliament to office. Finally, the
commander in chief in Scotland, Gen. George
Monk, marched his troops to London, where he
took charge. Monk convened a new Parliament,
which opened negotiations with Charles II, still
in exile. Tired of experiments with other forms
of government, the English were ready to return
to monarchy. If it was an evil, it was at least
one they understood. Charles and Parliament
reached agreement quickly. Proclaimed king in
May 1660, he returned to London that same month,
a little over eleven years after the execution
of his father, and just twenty months after
Oliver Cromwell’s death. Royalists dug up Oliver
Cromwell’s body, ripped it asunder, and
scattered the pieces across the English
countryside.
The Restoration did not mean the end of strife.
Charles II, hardly a beloved favorite, had been
by no means a universal choice. Old animosities
and arguments lurked just beneath the surface,
stilled for the moment only by a general relief
over the end of dictatorship. Both sides reached
immediate agreement to disband the New Model
Army. A wiser Parliament this time found money
to provide separation pay for the soldiers.
Charles gained authority to retain about five
thousand men under arms. Commanded by the
trusted General Monk, they were ostensibly for
the king’s personal protection and to garrison
various fortresses. The unrelenting contest
between Parliament and Crown for control of the
army was only at the halfway point.
England soon found itself at war once again with
Holland and France, even as violent uprisings
rocked the kingdom. The king just could not
leave well enough alone. Whether at war or in
peace, Charles’s constant stirring of religious
unrest at home kept his subjects in turmoil.
97
1794
Nor did his Byzantine dealings with foreign
courts diminish Parliament’s growing level of
suspicion. Especially galling was the king’s
warm relationship with Louis XIV, who
surreptitiously gave Charles fiscal support to
help pay his army, thereby providing him a
measure of independence from Parliament.
Domestic backing dwindled steadily in the face
of the evident and increasing ties to France,
England’s ancient enemy of choice. Political
parties began coalescing, with the labels "Whig"
and "Tory" appearing, initially as terms of
disapproval. Tories generally came to be those
who supported the Crown, whereas Whigs were
those usually behind Parliament. Political
disarray, domestic violence, religious
intolerance, yet another war with Holland
all this and more continually heightened
tensions between Charles II and his subjects,
with issues concerning the military
establishment often being at the center of
controversy. The reign of Charles II, though a
quarter of a century long, was a turbulent one.
When James II succeeded his brother in 1685, he
found his throne to be resting on a keg filled
with a highly volatile mixture, a black powder
made up of religious bigotry, court intrigue,
and factions at war’s edge with one another. He
was not astute enough to avoid lighting the
fuse. Within months, a pretender to the Crown
launched a military campaign to unseat the new
king. Loyal regiments quickly disposed of that
threat and others, defeating rebel forces in the
field and executing their leaders. Pressing his
advantage, James attempted to punish some of the
sources of rebellion and to change many of the
existing rules regarding the expression of
religious beliefs. Both Whigs and Tories united
against him, for reasons founded in religious
prejudice, but also claiming that he was
illegally retaining under arms those regiments
raised to combat the earlier effort to depose
him. In June 1687, several prominent Englishmen
wrote to William of Orange, the Dutch grandson
of Charles I, asking him to come to England to
save the country. William, who was married to
Mary his cousin and also a grandchild of
Charles I was interested. He saw it as a
way to strengthen his hand against Louis XIV of
France. Accepting the invitation, William landed
with an invasion force in November. Several key
leaders promptly joined him, leaving James no
reasonable chance to resist successfully. He
escaped to France. William entered London in
nearbloodless triumph in December. Leaders of
the successful overthrow
98
THE GHOST OF CROMWELL
set up a provisional government not
overlooking to pay off the remnants of James’s
army before it was disbanded.
The "Glorious Revolution," made possible by a
foreigner at the head of an invading army, had
finally put Parliament in control. England would
need a new king, monarchy still being the
preferred form of government, and an army,
because war with France was all but inevitable.
Louis XIV was sure to try to put James back in
power. Nevertheless, after their recent bitter
experiences with the last two kings, the members
were absolutely set on making sure that the army
could never again be used to coerce Parliament.
With that imperative in mind, they opened
negotiations with William and Mary, dual
descendants in the royal line. The resulting
contract, put on parchment, gave the Crown
jointly to the two of them, while establishing
written rules regarding armed forces that reach
even to this day into most English-speaking
countries.
In return for the throne, William and Mary had
to agree to the Declaration of Rights. That
document and other laws passed at about the same
time formalized the raising and maintaining of
military units. To begin with, "the raising or
keeping of a standing army within the kingdom in
time of peace, unless it be with the consent of
Parliament, is against the law." The right of
citizens to bear arms was assured. Soldiers were
banned from polling places and from the House of
Commons. Any army raised would automatically be
disbanded unless Parliament renewed its
authorization annually. Money to support the
army would be Parliament’s responsibility. In
such provisions was the answer to Parliament’s
long-standing dilemma how to raise an army
necessary for security without at the same time
creating a threat to security.
2
The concepts embedded in those measures also
provided precedent for men sitting in
Philadelphia a century later. Fear of a standing
army. . . no similar concern over a navy. . .
funding centered in the legislative body . . .
command of forces entrusted to the executive
• . . prohibitions against military
involvement in internal affairs.. . shortterm
authorizations for the use of force. It was not
by coincidence that
99
1794
the emerging Constitution would reflect many of
the concepts developed at such terrible cost in
the mother country, for that cost had not been
paid only there. English colonies along the
Atlantic seaboard had shared in the trauma of
the era. Indeed, to a significant degree, they
had been shaped by it.
Between the coronation of Charles I in 1625 and
the advent of William and Mary sixty-five years
later, English lodgments in the New World had
gone from a few wilderness settlements
struggling for survival to an unbroken stretch
of thirteen thriving colonies. While many
adventurers and not a few criminals were among
the earlier arrivals, the major impetus
prompting settlers to risk the hazardous ocean
crossing was escape from the societal chaos so
prevalent in Europe. Endemic warfare, religious
persecution, incessant internal crises
these helped mightily to people colonial
America. However, the wrenching experience of
quitting familiar homes and lands for a new
beginning on a new continent would leave
colonists unalterably biased against the causes
of the intolerable conditions in their former
lives. Probably more often than not, the most
prominent symbol of that upheaval was the
sword soldiers enforcing unpopular decrees,
suppressing religious freedom, marauding in the
countryside, impressing young men for one war or
another. Unhappily, refugees from repression
found that flight to America was not far enough;
the wars of Europe spilled over into the
colonies, obviously influencing their security
needs, but also changing their very composition.
Conflict with Holland eventually converted Dutch
settlements along the Hudson River into the
colony of New York, but lands to the north along
the St. Lawrence River evolved into an
ever-menacing threat from the French, while
Spanish bases in Florida and along the Gulf
Coast added a potentially vulnerable flank to
the south. Moreover, soldiers were occasionally
used against the colonists themselves for
instance, in stamping out Bacon’s Rebellion in
Virginia and suppressing Leisler’s Uprising in
New York, both after the death of Cromwell. Many
colonial governors were former army officers who
ruled, it was noted, with a hand resting heavily
on the hilt of a saber. All told, Americans of
the late seventeenth century understood fully
the philosophy behind the Declaration of Rights
imposed upon William and Mary. Indeed, they
probably approved of provisions limiting royal
military power even more overwhelmingly than did
their countrymen in England.
100
THE GHOST OF CROMWELL
Another century of experience served only to
solidify in American minds an enduring distrust
of regular forces. For many in the thirteen
colonies, it became an unyielding article of
faith that a standing army was entirely
incompatible with republican principles.
Pamphleteers in England hammered Ofl the theme,
providing a theoretical underpinning for their
receptive cousins in the colonies. Actual
encounters with regulars and a nearly continuous
state of warfare added reality to theory. France
and Great Britain
3
fought a series of wars beginning after the
"Glorious Revolution" of 1688 and lasting more
than a century. Until the Treaty of Paris
recognized the independence of the United States
in 1783, an objective of all those conflicts was
to gain dominance in North America. Evidence of
how the colonists viewed those Old World
dynastic struggles is seen in the names they
gave them. They retitled the War of the League
of Augsburg "King William’s War." Mary escaped
being linked to the fighting, but not because of
her gender, foi the War of the Spanish
Succession became "Queen Anne’s War." Colonists
used "King George’s War" as the label for the
War of the Austrian Succession. The pattern
broke with the Seven Years’ War, which on this
side of the Atlantic was known as the French and
Indian War. Fittingly enough, for that one began
in America, having been started on the western
frontier by a brash young Virginian named George
Washington. Patriots called the final conflict
of the series the Revolutionary War or the War
of Independence, whereas Englishmen referred to
it as the War for America. The first four of
those conflicts brought large numbers of
redcoats to North America, generally elevating
the disdain colonists held for them, and at the
same time increasing the chances for friction
between civilians and soldiers. The fifth and
final clash, of course, brought more regulars
than all the others combined and as
enemies, not friends.
Troubles between British regulars and American
citizens began right after the French and Indian
War ended in 1763. Great Britain, having ejected
France from Canada and Spain from Florida, was
finally triumphant in virtually all of North
America east of the Mississippi River. London
decided to station some of its army in America
to keep the
101
1794
peace on its new frontiers. Colonists raised the
point that the king had not seen fit to do so
when French troops had been there to pose a real
threat, and they questioned the need now. They
also suspiciously thought the number of redcoats
excessive for the task. The soldiers quickly
proved their worth, however, in suppressing a
bloody Indian uprising known as Pontiac’s War.
They remained. To avoid another flare-up,
English officials drew a boundary along the
Appalachians beyond which white settlers could
not go. That arrangement infuriated both
settlers and land speculators. They refused to
comply with the new arrangements, forcing the
army to remove squatters and burn their farms.
Whatever residual goodwill may have lingered for
the king’s soldiers dissipated at that point.
The British treasury had been emptied by the
expenses of the Seven Years’ War. Ministers,
searching for every possible way to raise
revenue, thought it only equitable for the
colonies to help pay the costs of maintaining an
active force in America to defend them.
Colonists thought otherwise. They had not wanted
the army in the first place, and they
emphatically did not want to be taxed to support
it. "Taxation without representation," they
cried, and resisted all efforts to levy taxes.
Civil unrest followed. London responded by
reinforcing its fleet and army in America. In
1768, believing that colonists had become more
of a danger to peace than Indians, king and
cabinet evacuated posts in the interior and
consolidated regiments along the Atlantic
seaboard. With the arrival of troops came the
Mutiny Act a law requiring civilians to
quarter soldiers and to provide certain support
for them. Tensions grew. Resistance led to
rioting, which led inexorably to bloodshed.
Hotheads like Samuel Adams in Massachusetts and
Patrick Henry in Virginia fanned emotions into
flame. Episodes of violence increased across the
land. On 5 March 1770, a taunting mob confronted
and cornered a squad of British soldiers in
Boston. The soldiers, a part of the garrison of
four regiments sent to the city to enforce
taxation attempts, became frightened. They fired
into the jeering crowd, killing five men
making them martyrs. Elbridge Gerry and leaders
of his passionate persuasion commemorated the
so-called Boston Massacre on its anniversary
every year thereafter to remind the public of
the threat to freedom entailed in a regular
force. A standing army, they preached, was a
standing invitation for a man on horseback to
overthrow the constituted government.
102
THE GHOST OF CROMWELL
Things did not get any better in Boston. After
that port’s infamous "tea party" in December
1773, London placed the recalcitrant colonials
under martial law and appointed Gen. Thomas
Gage, the commander of all British units in
America, to serve also as governor of
Massachusetts. That was galling to the pride of
the people of Massachusetts and an unendurable
affront to the concept of civilian supremacy.
Gage shifted his headquarters from New York City
to Boston in May 1774. The Revolutionary War
exploded less than a year later.
There can be no doubt that bitter experiences in
the dozen years before the outbreak of the War
of Independence elevated in American hearts the
already high level of fear and loathing for a
standing army in peacetime. Events of those
years placed an indelible exclamation mark to
existing antimilitary sentiments. The very words
of the Declaration of Independence trumpet the
depth of that feeling. About a third of the
document is devoted to a denunciation of the
militarism of George Ill. The Declaration fairly
shouts out that the monarch "has kept among us,
in times of peace, Standing Armies, without the
consent of our legislatures. He has affected to
render the Military independent of and superior
to the Civil Power."
It is all but sure that the citizens of the
United States, as they headed into the final
quarter of the eighteenth century, had come to
dread a standing army every bit as fervently as
did their British brethren. Probably more so. To
men sitting in the Constitutional Convention,
the ghost of Oliver Cromwell brought long
shivers and an abiding determination never
to permit its reincarnation.
103
1. Killing the king was a chilling and
unforgettable event. Englishmen would forever
afterwards remember that the army had done it.
While there would be a Royal Navy once more, and
one day a Royal Air Force, there would never
again be a Royal Army. An English army, or a
British army, but not a royal one.
text@note1
2. Time would prove the acts effective
not until twentieth century air attacks by
Germans would the English homeland know battle
again.
text@note2
3. The kingdoms of England and Scotland were
officially combined in 1707 under the name Great
Britain.
text@note3
[BoardRoom], interactive posting
[TOP]
[HOMEPAGE].
[US v. Emerson PAGE]
[NRA v. Reno (July, 2000)]
[Printz and Mack PAGE]
[US v. Lopez PAGE]
[ARCHIVE]. Potowmack
Institute Files
[RESOURCES].
Newspaper, magazine, journal articles, books, links
© Potowmack Institute