Absolutism In Cromwell

Absolutism and the age of reason

The film Cromwell presented a biased interpretation of its titled character. The film portrays Cromwell as a devout Puritan. Illustrated by a scene where Cromwell practiced iconoclasm in a church, he destroyed crosses and other religious ornaments. While this scene effectively demonstrated Cromwell’s religiosity, the film failed to foreshadow Cromwell’s religious extremism and horrendous treatment of Catholics during his reign as the Lord Protector. In Ireland, Cromwell allowed the slaughter of Catholics at Drogheda and Wexford. This religiously driven war crime damaged Anglo-Irish relations for centuries. His religious beliefs also led to a ban on religious celebrations like Christmas. These policies do not

reflect a religiously moderate ruler who was a victim of the Anglican Church’s intrusion into his own religion. The film chose to focus on one of the causes of the Civil War, King Charles I’s ill rule. Glossing over the religious divide between the Parliament and the Crown. King Charles I is portrayed as a tyrant who sought to rule through absolutism. The King violated the rights of his subjects by not calling Parliament for 12 years, taking control of Common Lands, and violating the Magna Carta. However, the film does not address Cromwell’s fear that the King was undermining the Protestant faith. Cromwell condemned the Anglican Church’s perversion of Protestantism as well as the French Catholic Queen’s influence on the Crown. Cromwell believed the King was a “subversive crypto-Catholic” and his faith and country were in jeopardy which was another catalyst to the Civil War that the film failed to illustrate.
The film fostered Cromwell’s image as a righteous republican that preached rule through the people’s will.

After the Civil War, the film showed the discontent among the commoners as the new parliament failed to represent their interests. But the film did not include the opinions of the masses following Cromwell’s ascension to Protector. Implying the end of civil unrest and the reforms enacted in Cromwell’s government. When in fact, Cromwell was not the champion of democratic rights, he once said to a purged Parliament, “Government, is for the people's good, not what pleases them”. Nor was he a staunched republican. When he was offered the Crown by Parliament in the film, Cromwell is seen to reject the proposal immediately. But in reality, Cromwell took three months to make his decision. The film exaggerates Cromwell’s response to show the audience how anti-monarchical he was. The rejection of the crown would insult his republican officers and perhaps limit his power as head of state. As the role of the crown was more defined than his future office of Lord Protector, thus political expedience possibly played a part in his rejection of kingship. The vagueness of the power of the Lord Protector strays away from the constitutionalism Cromwell stood for in the film, and shows Cromwell willing to sacrifice constitutional principles in order to rule effectively. The film also did not highlight the fact that Cromwell intended the Protectorate to be hereditary, and have his son

Richard rule following his death. Cromwell replaced a hereditary monarchy with a hereditary dictatorship.
At the end of the film, a narrator presented Cromwell as a successful politician that ended a decade of war. But the Civil War was a war between members of Parliament and the Crown, Cromwell failed to work with his Parliaments successfully. During the 1640s and 1650s, his Parliaments were handpicked to help enact “godly reforms”. Cromwell created a religious elite that Cromwell feared from Charles I and still could not achieve an effective working relationship with his Parliaments, purging one after the other. This instability was a cause for the end of the Commonwealth several months after Cromwell’s death.
It is difficult to assess the reality of Cromwell and his actions as not only are historic records full of errors and fabrication, the biases of individual historians play a part in the contemporary perspectives of historic figures. It is important for historians to gather evidence from all perspectives, they should find contradicting arguments and analyze the validly of all sides. This method ensures some level of objectivity, and more insightful analysis of the historian’s opinions. Since the historian must consider and rebuke opposing evidence and arguments to support their opinion. In conclusion, the film chose to focus on the glory of winning a Civil War against an oppressive regime, ignoring many nuances of the conflict and the decades of rule that encapsulated Cromwell’s character and motivations. It failed to present the ironies and hypocrisy of the Cromwellian Republic.
When Charles I of England sought to rule without consenting Parliament, and violated the rights of his subjects, it was already too late. The Magna Carta ingrained the power of parliament and idea of constitutionalism in English government. The country had been ruled by the Crown and Parliament and both were reluctant to give up power. This struggle culminated in the 1642 English Civil War that abolished the monarchy and left Parliamentarians to govern. The Civil War marked the end of absolutism in England. Future monarchs realized the need to work with Parliament rather than against it. The Glorious Revolution saw Parliament inviting William of Orange to take the throne on Parliament’s terms. This bloodless revolution once again saw the shift in power between the two institutions, in favour of parliament. Parliament passed laws such as the Bill of rights which removed the monarch’s power to suspend ministers, and the Act of Settlement which ensured the power of Common Law by limiting the king’s ability to dismiss judges. The evolution of the office of Prime minister also caused an irreversible shift in the balance of power away from the monarchy. Parliament continued to place restrictions on the English Crown, creating a constitutional monarchy and became the main ruling body of the country.
Absolutism flourished in France. Louis XIV used the divine right of kings to govern a centralized state concentrated around himself. He built the palace and system of Versailles. Where the nobility compensated their loss of feudal power by living in the King’s court. They fought for the King’s patronage and access to pensions in order to maintain their status and privileges. Once the aristocracy was dependent on the King, he would be able to rule without challenges from the nobility or a powerful parliament English monarchs had to contend with. French Kings controlled foreign and domestic policy, the economy, the military and the growing bureaucracy.
Spain developed an absolutist government built their colonies. It had a standing army, professional bureaucracy and a national system of taxation. But Spanish absolutism declined as the influx of gold and silver caused high inflation and the Spanish crown was in deep debt. Without the financial conditions to run an effective state, Spain declined and so did its absolutism.
The Netherlands was founded after the independence from an absolutist Spanish overlord. Thus they remained resistant to an absolutist government. Factors such as a large middle class and all seven provinces of the Dutch republic having their own sovereignty led to a more decentralized state focused on commerce and trade.
John Locke and Thomas Hobbes present opposing philosophies on human nature, the role of government and human rights.

Locke claims that people are reasonable and inherently good. He believes all people are born equal and are entitled to basic rights such as the right to life, liberty and property. He believed in the social contract theory, he stated that governments should protect individual rights and freedoms, but the people should change the government if it does not serve the people. He believed in religious toleration as well as limited government. On the other hand, Hobbes believed that people are born evil and must be controlled by an absolutist state. An absolutist state that offers protection for its citizens and prevents societal chaos. Hobbes also believed in the social contract theory, which states that the people should give up their freedom in order for the government to provide order and protection. However, Hobbes did not think the people had the right to revolt against the government. I identity with Locke’s philosophy the most. Growing up in a democracy, I believe the government should be representative of the people it governs. I think that humans are born with certain genetic and traits that define us, but we are all open to societal conditioning that mold us accordingly. I think a limited government with checks on its power is the safest, most stable form of government. I strongly disagree with Hobbes’ notion that the people are not entitled to revolt

against an abusive government. Are people supposed to live as cattle for the state? Is that all humanity can amount to? The thought disgusts me. However, I do recognize the need for stability and order in a population that an absolutist state can provide. But the same conditions can be achieved through a legitimate government elected by the people. I stand by John Locke’s philosophies, I was educated in it, I have seen its benefits in my environment and I know of the abuses that have been justified under Hobbes’ theories around the world and throughout history.