Historical Background to the

English Colonization of North America.

©2008, John H. Ratliff. All rights reserved.

England was a late-comer to North-American colonization, so to speak. By the

time that Jamestown was settled (1607), Spain had already colonized much of the western
hemisphere, an endeavor which, by the late 1500s, made Spain the world’s wealthiest
nation. In many ways, the English were driven to explore and colonize North America in
response to Spain’s tremendous success – a sixteenth-century arms race, of sorts.
But the English pattern of exploration and settlement differed greatly from those
of her European neighbors. Whereas Spain and Portugal undertook state-sponsored
colonization, England preferred to privatize her exploration process, granting charters and
letters of marquis to private individuals who established English colonies as money-
making enterprises. 1
England’s First Explorer of North-America.
King Henry VII rejected
Christopher Columbus’s 1492 proposal to
find a sea route to Asia, thereby handing
the newly-crowned Spanish monarchs,
Ferdinand and Isabella, a choice jewel for
their imperial crowns. After learning of
Columbus’s successful expedition to the
modern-day Caribbean, however, Henry
VII was eager to amend his mistake. 2 On
March 5, 1497, he hired Giovanni
Cabotto, an Italian explorer known to
history by his anglicized name, John
Cabot, to explore the eastern shores of
North America, as "The departure of John and Sebastian Cabot from Bristol on their first voyage of
discovery, 1497." Oil on canvas by Ernest Board, 1906. From J.R. Smallwood, ed.,
well as to search The Book of Newfoundland, Vol. I (St. John's, Newfoundland: Newfoundland Book
Publishers, 1937), 1.
for a water
passage to Asia. With five ships, Cabot set sail for North
America to “seek out, discover, and find, whatsoever isles,
countries, regions, or provinces of the heathen infidels,
whatsoever they be, and in what part of the world soever they be,
which before this time have been unknown to all Christians.”3
Cabot set sail in early May 1497, and returned to England by
August of that same year. For his troubles, Henry VII paid
Cabot £10. Despite this paltry financial reward, Cabot had
“King Henry VII,” by Unknown artist,
1505. The National Portrait Gallery,
discovered a place that he called “newe founde lande” (believed
London.
to be modern-day Newfoundland, a Canadian province),
1

becoming the first European to set foot on that part of the continent since the Vikings, and
Page

his claims there gave England the basis for her later territorial claims to the entire North
American continent. 4 Cabot made another voyage on behalf of the English Crown in
1498, during which Cabot is presumed to have met with misadventure, as he was never
seen alive again. 5
Internal divisions, political strife, and seemingly non-ending conflict with France
caused England to withdraw from the colonization race with Spain, however, for nearly a
century. During that time period, Spain became the unquestioned dominant power in the
western hemisphere, where they discovered massive silver and gold deposits.6
Additional Resources:

John L. Allen, “From Cabot to Cartier: The Early Exploration of Eastern North America, 1497 -1543,” Annals of the Association
of American Geographers, Vol. 82, No. 3, The Americas before and after 1492: Current Geographical Research
(September 1992): 500-521.

Motivations for English Colonization.

The motivations for the English colonization of North America defy a simple
explanation. Many factors lead to this movement, including: mercantilism (mûr'kən-tē-
lĭz'əm), religion, excess population, and political turmoil.

Mercantilism
In general, mercantilism is an economic system based upon the combination of
government and private efforts in order to foster economic development. The goal of this
system was to keep all portions of a nation’s trade – production, transportation, and retail
– within the jurisdiction of the mother country. Mercantilists
(advocates of mercantilism) believed that the world’s wealth was
finite, meaning that there was a definite amount of wealth in the
world and for one nation to become rich, another would necessarily
become poor. And since wealth in sixteenth and seventeenth-century
Gold Bullion Europe was determined by the size of one’s bullion reserves (gold and
silver, as well as other precious metals and gems), mercantilism held that for any nation
to become rich it must have a favorable “balance-of-trade” – i.e., more bullion flows into
2

the country than out of the country. 7 Moreover, to ensure a favorable balance-of-trade,
Page
European governments instituted protectionist economic policies (such as outlawing un-
favorable trade with other nations, requiring that all goods be transported aboard the
mother country’s ships, and mandating that those ships dock at the mother country’s ports
exclusively8) intended to ensure a favorable balance-of-trade.9
Mercantilism, therefore, made colonial ventures both profitable and patriotic.
Since colonies lacked industrial enterprises of their own (a limitation ensured by
discriminatory crown policies which either discouraged or outright forbade colonial
industrial pursuits), colonists afforded English merchants a ready and secure market for
their industrial goods. At the same time, colonies provided English industrialists with a
ready and secure source for raw materials.

Naturally, the entire Mercantilist system was

susceptible to deceit and cheating, otherwise known
as pirating, bootlegging, trading in contraband, or the
black market. When English subjects stepped outside
their own system, their actions created an
unfavorable balance-of-trade and endangered the
nation’s prosperity, so mercantilists believed.
Though the English prosecuted all such infractions
initially, they soon realized that when that illicit
activity favored England – such as when Spanish,
Dutch, and French colonists purchased English goods
– a handsome profit could be made and the mother
countries’ riches increased. 10
A typical English brigantine of the early 18th-century.
(From the Maritime Museum, Greenwich.)

Religion

The religious upheavals associated with the rise of

Protestantism in Europe during the 1500s began in Germany with
Martin Luther, but Protestantism spread quickly throughout Europe.
In England, the Protestant Reformation was spurred not by doctrinal
disputes, but by Henry VIII’s need for a male heir. Henry VIII’s first
wife, Catherine of Aragon, was a Spaniard who, in twenty-two years Catherine of Aragon.
(from: www.berkshirehistory.com/
of marriage, had failed to produce a male bios/caragon.html)

offspring and heir to the Tudor throne, though

she did give birth to Mary, an eventual queen. Henry VIII became
obsessed with procreating a male heir, and he blamed Catherine of
Aragon for his failings in this regard. 11 At the same time, he began
a relationship with Anne Boleyn, Catherine’s “lady-in-waiting.”
Consequently, he petitioned Pope Clement VII for a divorce
Henry VIII .
(England was still Catholic and marriage was religious a ceremony,
(from: http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/
14200/14275/henry8_14275.htm)
not civil). But the Catholic Church was closely tied to Spain,
Catherine’s home country. Spain pressured the pope to deny the
3

divorce outright, but the pope, not eager to offend the English, delayed making any
Page

decision in the matter, hoping to somehow divine a plan to that pleased both sides. 12
 Henry tired of waiting on the pope, however. In 1533, Henry pushed the Act in
Restraint of Appeals through parliament. This act declared England an empire which
owed no allegiance to any foreign power, including the pope in Rome. 13 Henry
immediately requested, and received, an annulment from the archbishop of Canterbury,
the highest religious official in England, and married Anne Boleyn soon thereafter, who
bore him another daughter, Elizabeth. In 1534, parliament passed the Act of Supremacy,
which proclaimed Henry VIII the “supreme head of the church of
England.” 14 For all practical reasons, the Church of England was
little more than the Catholic Church with the king of England for
pope.
Henry VIII died in 1547, and was succeeded by his son,
Edward VI, a youthful monarch who was prone to sickness.
Militant Calvinists and other Protestants took advantage of
Edward’s weaknesses in order to spread their religious persuasions
throughout England, including allowing priests to marry. When
"Bloody" Mary, I
(from: etc.usf.edu/clipart/200/
Edward died in 1553, he was succeeded by
264/mary1_1.htm) his half-sister, Mary I, known as “Bloody
Mary.” Mary was a devout Catholic and she set about restoring
England to Catholicism by persecuting Protestants, executing
many of them. On one occasion, Mary charged a group of 300
Protestants with heresy and had them burned at the stake. Many
Calvinists fled England during Mary’s reign. Termed “Marian
exiles,” these refugees fled to Calvinist strongholds, such as
Geneva and Frankfort, where their devotion to Calvinism grew
stronger. In 1558, Elizabeth I succeeded Mary. Elizabeth Elizabeth I.
http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/200/266/
reinstated the Church of England, with Protestant doctrines and a elizabeth1_3.htm

Catholic style of worship, a move which offended both Calvinists

and Catholics alike.15 One group of the Marian exiles (Puritans),
became obsessed with riding the Church of England of all vestiges
of Catholicism. The obsession and discontent eventually lead to
serious instabilities within England – a matter which will be
discussed later.
Elizabeth’s actions had the combined effect of drawing the
ire of continental Catholics and, in the minds of Englishmen,
associating Protestantism with patriotism. In 1570, Pope Pius V
excommunicated Elizabeth. Spain, a nation which perceived itself
Sir Francis Drake as the “defender of the Catholic faith,” pledged to return England to
Catholicism, sparking decades of conflict between the two nations.
And Catholic fanatics in England plotted to overthrow the Tudor Dynasty by any means
at their disposal, including terrorist acts.16 This pressure united English patriots with the
Church of England and imbibed them with the belief that Catholicism, especially Spanish
Catholicism, was evil. As a result, when English privateers, such as Sir Francis Drake,
attacked Spanish ships in American waters, they were hailed as heroes, not pirates. 17
Spain’s King Philip I was determined to destroy Protestant England and, in 1588,
assembled a grand armada to invade England, and with the help of English Catholic
4
Page

dissidents, return the isles to Catholicism. The armada formed off the coast of Lisbon,
with hundreds of ships and thousands of Spanish
infantrymen. Philip’s flotilla was so large that
one observer called it an “invincible fleet.” That
moniker proved to be a misnomer, however, as
the smaller, faster English fleet defeated the
armada in the English Channel, then chased and
harassed its remnants north, toward Scotland. 18
After Philip’s failed attempt to invade England,
Spain never again dominated the Atlantic Ocean.
The destruction of the Spanish armada Route of the Spanish Armada, 1588.

opened the Atlantic to English explorers, while

advocates of English colonization argued that England had a duty to colonize the
Americas and halt the spread of Catholicism.

Elizabeth I’s Speech to her troops as they prepared to resist the Spanish invasion:

“My loving people, we have been persuaded by

some, that are careful of our safety, to take heed how we
commit ourselves to armed multitudes, for fear of
treachery; but I assure you, I do not desire to live to
distrust my faithful and loving people. Let tyrants fear; I
have always so behaved myself that, under God, I have
placed my chiefest strength and safeguard in the loyal
hearts and good will of my subjects. And therefore I am
come amongst you at this time, not as for my recreation
or sport, but being resolved, in the midst and heat of the
battle, to live or die amongst you all; to lay down, for my
God, and for my kingdom, and for my people, my honor
and my blood, even the dust. I know I have but the body
of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart of a
king, and of a king of England, too; and think foul scorn
that Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should
dare to invade the borders of my realms: to which, rather
than any dishonor should grow by me, I myself will take
up arms; I myself will be your general, judge, and
rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field. I know
already, by your forwardness, that you have deserved
rewards and crowns; and we do assure you, on the word
of a prince, they shall be duly paid you. In the mean my
lieutenant general shall be in my stead, than whom never
prince commanded a more noble and worthy subject; not
doubting by your obedience to my general, by your
concord in the camp, and by your valor in the field, we
shall shortly have a famous victory over the enemies of
19
my God, of my kingdom, and of my people.”
Elizabeth I of England - 1588

Excess Population

During the early 1500s, England passed Enclosure Laws,

which made all land private land and forever ended the ability of
5

commoners to grave their livestock on public lands, free of charge.

Page

Several factors prompted this movement, most notably the world-

wide increase in demand for wool. Fortunes could be made in the woolen trade and landowners
who wanted to increase their own wealth sought to eliminate competition while increasing their
own pasture land.
Enclosure did increase wool production, but it also create a massive pool of landless men
who had once been able to support themselves by grazing sheep on public lands, but could no
longer sustain themselves. Moreover, between 1530 and 1600, the population of England rose
from three million to four million. Needless to say, England was facing major population
pressures and colonies provided an effective “safety valve” for the population excesses. 20

Click here to read more about the Enclosure Laws (this is required reading).

Background Details to Settlement and Eventual Conflict.

The English and the American colonists saw the world, and their place in the world, from
different (often opposite) perspectives. Much of the reason for that conflict stemmed from their
historical experience.
In large part, migration to the colonies was accelerated by the political disruptions within
England. Moreover, the political arguments concerning the nature of government and its
relationship to the people that were advanced to justify the American Revolution had their roots
in the English Civil War.

Short Review of the English Political Turmoil of the 1640s:

Relations between English monarchs and their nobles had been contentious for several
years prior to the eighteenth century. In 1603, when Elizabeth I died without an heir, James IV, of
Scotland (Stuart), became James I, of England (reigned 1603-25). James was a Divine Right
Kings adherent, meaning he believed that God had chosen him to rule and that his decisions were
equivalent to Holy writ. James’s views were not shared by a significant portion of his followers
and he saw colonization as a way to get rid of dissenters. 21
James I’s son, Charles I (1625-42), became king
in 1625. He accelerated the process of moving
dissenters to the colonies. But colonization did not
remove all dissent and Charles I’s policies antagonized
the already disgruntled nobility. First, he spent
enormous sums of money on his court, incurring heavy
debt. Second, his religious tastes were ornate and highly
formalized and closely resembled Catholic ceremonies
and he attempted to de-
Calvinize the Church of
England, both of which
angered Protestants.22
Charles II, of England. Third, his wife, Henrietta
Marie, was a French Catholic. When Charles married her, he
promised the nobility that he would continue to discriminate
against English Catholics who refused to attend Anglican services.
However, Charles secretly ignored that promise and allowed
English Catholics to enjoy those privileges afforded Anglicans.
Fourth, Charles I plunged England, unsuccessfully, into religious
6

wars on the Continent. Those wars taxed the English treasury

Page

Henrietta Marie.
heavily, and Charles should have called a parliament to raise funds
for the war effort because, by law, parliament controlled the purse. But calling a parliament
meant giving the opposition a platform from which to argue against the king and Charles was
reluctant to provide them that opportunity. Instead, Charles raised funds by taxing exports and
imports, and taking advantage of English Enclosure Laws, none of which increased his favor
among English merchants and landowners. 23 In 1628, parliament forced the Petition of Right
upon Charles. The Petition of Right had three main points: no funds could be borrowed or raised
without the explicit consent of parliament; no free person could be imprisoned without a reason;
and troops could not be quartered in the homes of private citizens without permission. These
three points would eventually become keystones to the concept of the “rights of Englishmen,”
and a basis for justifying the American Revolution.24
When Charles attempted to force the high Anglican church service upon the Scots in
1637, Scotland erupted in unrest. To subdue the Scots, Charles was forced to call a parliament in
April 1640. That parliament, however, refused to give Charles the funds he requested and,
consequently, Charles dissolved it. Scotland remained in disarray, though, and the king was
forced to call another parliament in November 1640. Ultimately, this parliament sat for thirteen
years and became known as the “Long Parliament.” The Long Parliament placed significant
restrictions on the king’s powers, including a declaration that parliament could not be dissolved
without its own consent and that no more than three years could elapse between parliaments, all
of which the king accepted.25
But when the Long Parliament turned to religious questions, matters soured, splitting the
Long Parliament into factions. The Royalists, or “Cavaliers,” supported Charles and his policies.
The Puritans, or “Roundheads,” opposed Charles and were further divided into two groups:
Independents, who wanted to dissolved the Church of England altogether, and the Presbyterians,
who wanted to keep the Church of England, but reform it along the lines of the Scottish church. 26
A sub-faction, called the “Levellers” also emerged. Levellers demanded an end to the privileges
of nobility. Click here to read more about the Levellers (required).
By 1641, issues concerning politics and religious had become
intertwined in English society. When the Irish rebelled that year, tensions
between parliament and Charles I reached a fever pitch, especially concerning
command of English armies. When parliament tried to restrict the king’s
powers over the military, Charles entered the parliament floor and attempted to
arrest five members of the House of Lords, including John Pym, leader of the
opposition. Pym escaped arrest and fled to London, where Puritans sheltered
John Pym. him. Charles demanded that the Puritans turn Pym over, but the Puritans
refused. Fearing that Charles would use the military to enforce his decrees,
Parliament effectively removing him from command of the English army with the “Grand
Remonstrance,” which denounced the evils of Charles’s kingship and forced him and his court to
flee to London.27
Charles declared the Grand Remonstrance null and, in August 1642, called upon his loyal
subjects to rally to his side to destroy parliament – the English Civil War as afoot.28 The
following websites explain the English Civil War in greater detail and are to be read (they were
assigned in a previous lesson).

The BBC’s Civil War.

The History Guide Lectures on Early Modern European History:
The English Civil War.

Royalist forces dominated the English Civil War until 1644, when
7

Oliver Cromwell’s “New Model Army” routed the Royalists at Marston

Page

Moor. The next, the New Model Army defeated the Royalists twice more. Oliver Cromwell.
At the Battle of Naseby1 (June 14, 1645), the Royalist army was destroyed and its artillery and
baggage trains, including King Charles’s private papers, captured by Parliamentarian forces. The
discovery of Charles’s papers revealed that he had been in negotiation to bring Irish Catholics to
England to help crush the Parliamentarians, a mishap which would come to haunt the Royalists. 29
On March 21, 1646, at Stow-on-the-Wold, the last Royalist army
in the field laid down its arms; two months later, King Charles I
personally surrendered to the Scottish army. During the following
year, the rest of the Royalist garrisons capitulated as well.30
Parliament attempted to make peace with Charles, and
offered him a treaty, the Newcastle Propositions (read them), but
Charles refused their offer. By April 1647, Oliver Cromwell’s
New Model Army had custody of the king. But, rather than
negotiate with the Parliamentarian forces, Charles stonewalled
their efforts to negotiate a peaceful settlement to England’s
political chaos. In November 1647, Charles escaped his
imprisonment and conspired with Scottish lords to resume the war,
resulting in the Second Civil War (1647-8), which was terminated
Oliver Cromwell swiftly by Cromwell’s New Model Army. 31
Guarding Charles II.
Charles’s actions during the Second Civil War left him
without support, as even former Royalists considered him “bloodthirsty.” Parliament determined
to end Charles’s I burdensome rule permanently. On January 1, 1649, Parliament created a “High
Court of Justice” to try Charles as a “tyrant, traitor and murderer; and a public and implacable
enemy to the Commonwealth of England.”32

Act Erecting a High Court of Justice for the Trial of Charles I

(Passed the Commons, January 6, 1648/9.)
“WHEREAS it is notorious that Charles Stuart, the now King of England, not content with those
many encroachments which his predecessors had made upon the people in their rights and freedoms, hath
had a wicked design totally to subvert the ancient and fundamental laws and liberties of this nation, and in
their place to introduce an arbitrary and tyrannical government, and that besides all other evil ways and
means to bring this design to pass, he hath prosecuted it with fire and sword, levied and maintained a civil
war in the land, against the Parliament and kingdom; whereby the country hath been miserably wasted, the
public treasure exhausted, trade decayed, thousands of people murdered, and infinite other mischiefs
committed; for all which high and treasonable offences the said Charles Stuart might long since justly have
been brought to exemplary and condign punishment; whereas also the Parliament, well hoping that the
restraint and imprisonment of his person, after it had pleased God to deliver him into their hands, would
have quieted the distempers of the kingdom, did forbear to proceed judicially against him, but found, by
sad experience, that such their remissness served only to encourage him and his accomplices in the
continuance of their evil practices, and in raising new commotions, rebellions and invasions: for prevention
therefore of the like or greater inconveniences, and to the end no Chief Officer or Magistrate whatsoever
may hereafter presume, traitorously and maliciously to imagine or contrive the enslaving or destroying of
the English nation, and to expect impunity for so doing; be it enacted and ordained by the Commons in
Parliament and it is hereby enacted and ordained by the authority thereof that Thomas, Lord Fairfax, Oliver
Cromwell, Henry Ireton [* * * 135 names in all], shall be and are hereby appointed and required to be
Commissioners and judges for the hearing, trying and adjudging of the said Charles Stuart; and the said
Commissioners, or any twenty or more of them, shall be, and are hereby authorised and constituted an High
Court of Justice, to meet and sit at such convenient time and place as by the said Commissioners, or the
major part of twenty or more of them, under their hands and seals, shall be appointed and notified by public
proclamation in the Great Hall or Palace Yard of Westminster; and to adjourn from time to time, and from
place to place, as the said High Court, or the major part thereof meeting, shall hold fit; and to take order for
8
Page

1
If you so choose, you may click on the links at the bottom of this webpage to follow the blow-by-blow
battles that ended the English Civil War.
 the charging of him, the said Charles Stuart, with the crimes and treasons above mentioned, and for
receiving his personal answer thereunto, and for examination of witnesses upon oath (which the Court hath
hereby authority to administer) or otherwise, and taking any other evidence concerning the same; and
thereupon, or in default of such answer, to proceed to final sentence according to justice and the merit of
the cause; and such final sentence to execute, or cause be to executed, speedily and impartially.
“And the said Court is hereby authorised and required to appoint and direct all such officers,
attendants and other circumstances as they, or the major part of them, shall in any sort judge necessary or
useful for the orderly and good managing of the premises. And Thomas, Lord Fairfax, the General, and all
officers and soldiers under his command, and all officers of justice, and other well-affected persons, are
hereby authorised and required to be aiding and assisting unto the said Court in the due execution of the
trust hereby committed. Provided that this Act, and the authority hereby granted, do continue in force for
the space of one month from the date of the making hereof, and no longer.”33

The Execution of Charles I.

Read about the trial and execution of Charles I here (you must read this).

Upon Charles’s execution, the Long

Parliament was dissolved and republic declared.
Parliament adopted the Instrument of Government
in 1635, and declared Oliver Cromwell “Lord
Protector.” The “Protectorate,” however, proved to
be as repressive as the monarchy under Charles I,
and by 1660 the nobles invited Charles I’s son,
Charles II, to resume the English throne. Under
Charles II, the English parliament rejected much of
the liberalism of the Parliamentarian and
Protectorate eras. The supported legislation that
required all government officials, clergy, and
schoolteachers to “recognize the supremacy of the
9

king and to adhere to all the teachings of the

Page

Church of England.” Furthermore, they denied

Charles II.
office to anyone who refused the Church’s sacraments.34
Charles II had no direct, legitimate male heirs, however, leaving his brother, James, heir
to the English throne. James became James II, of England, in February 1685. He promoted a
policy of religious toleration, including the removal of prohibitions against Catholics holding
office, and many Protestants saw James’s efforts as a back-door attempt to restore England to the
Catholic ranks. They were aware that after ensuring religious liberty,
France’s Louis XIV had revoked his decree and outlaw Protestant
worship. James’s opponents were convinced that a papist conspiracy
was in the works and they made overtures to William, the Duke of
Orange, the Dutch king who had married James’s oldest daughter,
Mary, inviting him to invade England and reign as her Protestant king.35
According to Edward Vallance, “the forces that the prince of
Orange amassed for his invasion were vast, the flotilla consisting of 43
men-of-war, four light frigates and 10 fireships protecting over 400
flyboats capable of carrying 21,000 soldiers,” an invasion force “four
times the size of that launched by the Spanish in 1588.”36 William of
Orange’s invasion fleet landed on November 5, 1688, aided by a
James II.
“Protestant Wind,” which sidelined James’s navy. Militant Protestants
throughout England erupted in riots so inflammatory that James II was
persuaded to flee London for his personal safety. By December 23, James II had fled England.
William and Mary were enthroned in 1689, completing
what is known as the “Glorious Revolution.”37 The
Glorious Revolution ensured that England would
remain a Protestant nation, but as a result of the
Revolution, Parliament also passed a “Bill of Rights” in
1689, which declared the rights of Englishmen,
affirmed that Parliament was England’s supreme law-
maker, and laid the basis for constitutional government
in England. Those colonists who migrated to the
Americas after 1689, understood that Parliament was
the supreme law-making body in the English Empire.
Those who had migrated prior to 1689, were apt to
perceive the king as the supreme law-making body in
the English Empire.38
In terms of the Glorious Revolution’s
relationship to American history, the most significant
result of the entire
affair was John William III (Duke of Orange).
Locke’s justification
of Parliament’s actions during the matter, the Second Treatise
on Government. Locke believed in the equality of man and
that all men had the right life, liberty, and property (Thomas
Jefferson “borrowed” this phrase from Locke). Property, by
Locke’s logic, resulted from the combination of life, liberty,
and labor, and that to protect property, and therefore liberty,
societies drew up a “contract” between rulers and the ruled.
In this view, government was/is a contract between
10

Parliament, the Crown, and the people – only people who

agreed to the contract could be bound by its provisions,
Page

including the king. According to Locke, individuals

John Locke.
expressed their contractual consent in two ways: expressly – when they voted and participated in
the political process; and tacitly – when they obeyed the laws and did not defy the government. 39
In this social contract, the monarch functioned as a “neutral judge.” The neutral judge protected
the property rights and civil liberties of the people and, in exchange, the people surrendered a
certain amount of their freedom, such submitting to adverse court decisions, paying portions of
their income in taxes, and providing military service to the state, to the neutral judge. On the
other hand, when the monarch violated his side of the contract, becoming a “partisan judge,” the
contract was broken and the people had the right to overthrow the government and re-establish
the neutral judge.40

Settlers of the Colonies and Their Relationship to the Glorious Revolution:

A. Massachusetts – Massachusetts was settled

by Puritans who were against Oliver
Cromwell. The bulk of their population
immigrated between 1629 and 1642.
Another wave of immigration came later,
but these two waves of immigration were
the all that came during the colonial period.
As a result, the people of Massachusetts
lived in a type of “dream world,” their
minds and perceptions clouded by that time
Mayflower in Plymouth Harbor
period. by William Halsall, 1882.

B. Virginia and Maryland – These colonies were settled by Cavaliers, people loyal to the
crown, especially Charles II. The only members of the English
Peerage, those inline to be king, who migrated to the colonies were
Lord Fairfax and Lord Culpepper, whose daughter married Lord
Fairfax’s son.2 Hence the place names “Fairfax, Virginia” and
“Culpepper, Virginia.” These colonies were natural antagonists of
Massachusetts. [Other sites concerning Lord Fairfax: (1), (2), (3), &
(4).]

Thomas, Lord Fairfax.

C. Pennsylvania and New York –

Pennsylvania was given to William Penn by Charles II in
payment of debts. William Penn’s father, Admiral William Penn,
served in the Parliamentary navy during the English Civil War. But
Admiral Penn became disgruntled with Cromwell and took part in
the restoration of Charles II, efforts for which he was knighted by
the king. It was this debt that Charles II intended to settle when he
gave Admiral Penn, and consequently Penn’s son, Pennsylvania,
which means “Penn’s Woods.”41 [Pennsylvania’s Royal Charter.] William Penn.
New York was given to Charles II’s brother, James, Duke of
York, although the Dutch already had possession of the land. Read more here.
11

2
Charles II rode to his coronation on a Fairfax horse. Thomas Fairfax lived next door to Mount Vernon,
Page

home of George Washington. George Washington’s eldest brother, Lawrence, married Lord Fairfax’s
daughter.
Both of these colonies matured after the Glorious Revolution and were predisposed to view the
relationship with the Crown in terms of John Locke’s social contract and the concept of the
neutral judge.

12
Page
1
George Brown Tindall and David Emory Shi, America: A Narrative History, Brief Fifth Edition (New
York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2000), 29.
2
Robert A. Divine, et al., America: Past & Present, Brief 7th Edition (New York: Pearson Longman, 2007),
14-5.
3
Frederick Edwin Smith, The Story of Newfoundland (London: Horace Marshall & Son, 1920), 4; Michael
W. Mansfield (2007), “English Settlement of North America,” unpublished lecture notes in author’s
possession.
4
Smith, The Story of Newfoundland, 6; Tindall and Shi, America: A Narrative History, 18; Mansfield
(2007), “English Settlement of North America.” Columbus did not find the mainland until 1498.
5
Ibid.
6
Tindall and Shi, America, 18.
7
John H. Ratliff (2004), “Late 17th Century Society and Colonial Expansion,” unpublished lecture notes in
author’s possession; Mansfield, (2007), “English Settlement of North America”; Jackson J. Spielvogel,
Western Civilization: Volume II, Since 1550, 4th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2000), 452-3.
8
A regulation which made trading with outsiders a criminal act. This will create unintended problems later
during the colonial period.
9
Spielvogel, Western Civilization, 452-3; NEED MORE GENERAL REFERENCES HERE.
10
Ibid. The most striking exception to the Mercantile system, however, was the case of the Netherlands.
Because Holland was too small for a mercantilist empire, the relied upon trade for their prosperity. Put
simply, in Holland, profit equaled patriotism and the government encouraged an early form of capitalism.
Consequently, the Dutch were the first European nation to demand freedom of the seas and open trade. In
the East-Asia trade, for example, the Dutch spent bullion for tea, coffee, and spices knowing that they could
recoup those expenditures by re-selling these commodities in Europe. (The English, by contrast, just got
the Chinese addicted to opium, then cheated them by trading shoddy trinkets for the coffee, tea, and spices.)
Consequently, the Dutch became masters of finance and came to dominate the world banking and insurance
industries. They also were the earliest European advocates for international peace, international law, and
free trade.
Ultimately, the English and French realized that Dutch business methods, supported by a
centralized political institution, and a powerful navy and army, could be extraordinarily profitable. After
1660, the English coordinated public and private enterprise along similar lines, e.g. the royal navy and the
British East India Company.
11
Divine, et al., America, 16. Whatever Henry’s assertions, the male contribution determines the sex of
human offspring. Click here for more information.
12
Ibid.
13
Michael Mendle (1999), “Reformation,” unpublished lecture notes in author’s possession.
14
Divine, et al., America, 16.
13

15
Ibid.; Mendle (1999), “Reformation.”
Page

16
Divine, et al., America, 16.
17
Ibid.
18
Ibid., 17.
19
The History Place: Great Speeches Collection [database online]. Available from:
http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/elizabeth.htm; INTERNET.
20
Mansfield, (2007), “English Settlement of North America.”
21
Forrest McDonald (1998), “Background to Settlement and Conflict,” unpublished lecture notes in
author’s possession.
22
Michael Mendle (1999), “Wars of Religion,” unpublished lecture notes in author’s possession.
23
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page76.asp; http://history.boisestate.edu/WESTCIV/english/05.shtml
24
http://history2.professorpage.info/PreEnlightenment_England.htm#charles
25
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page76.asp.
26
http://history.boisestate.edu/WESTCIV/english/05.shtml
27
http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/biog/pym.htm; http://www.historyguide.org/earlymod/lecture7c.html
28
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page76.asp; http://history.boisestate.edu/WESTCIV/english/06.shtml
29
http://www.historyguide.org/earlymod/lecture7c.html ; http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/military/1645-
leicester-naseby.htm
30
http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/military/1646-torrington-stow-wold.htm#stow
31
http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/biog/charles1.htm
32
http://www.historyguide.org/earlymod/lecture7c.html
33
http://home.freeuk.net/don-aitken/ast/c1b.html#210
34
Michael Les Benedict, The Blessing of Liberty: A Concise History of the Constitution of the United States
(Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Co., 1996), 9.
35
Ibid., 10-11; http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/civil_war_revolution/glorious_revolution_03.shtml
36
Ibid.
37
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/civil_war_revolution/glorious_revolution_04.shtml. See also,
Jackson J. Spielvogel, Western Civilization: Volume II, Since 1550, 4th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth,
2000), 449-52.
38
Ibid., 450; McDonald (1998), “Background to Settlement and Conflict.”
39
Benedict, The Blessing of Liberty, 19 – 20; Tony A. Freyer (1999), “Colonial Origins of the
14

Constitution,” unpublished lecture notes in the author’s possession; McDonald (1998), “Background to
Settlement and Conflict.”
Page

40
Ibid.
41
McDonald (1998), “Background to Settlement and Conflict”;
http://www.pennsburymanor.org/PennInPa.html; http://www.notablebiographies.com/Pe-Pu/Penn-
William.html; http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/topic/37.htm.

15
Page