Those receiving scoring votes (and extra points to your 3rd Quarter grade – I’ve also scores them all):
- #3 Keyes
- tie #6 Carroll and #23 Dugan
- #14 Boley
I have yet to receive comments from Kellogg and Strudwick
Please vote for your top FOUR and explain why you think them the better theses. Post your vote and reasoning in a comment.
- Parliament and the English inhabitants found fault with Charles’ counsel (sic.) religion, and illegal acts of imprisonment, but the policies of James I truly made war inevitable.
- The primary cause of the English Civil War was opposition to Charles’ assertion of royal power.
- Structural problems of the Three Kingdoms, Parliament’s increasingly bold assertion of the rights of lords and merchants, and Charles’ expensive military ventures all contributed to the English Civil War.
- The English Civil War was spurred on by religious tensions and economic difficulties.
- Charles’ use of the royal prerogative to tax and imprison alienated the Parliament and the people to the point of civil war.
- The Three Kingdom structure combined with inconsistent domestic policies of James I and Charles I and rapid departure from feudal society lead to irreconcilable social unrest and civil war.
- Charles’ use of Star Chamber, his taxation and limitation of merchants, and his enforcement of increasingly Catholic Anglican church threatened Parliament and infringed on civilian liberties.
- Charles’ inability to control Parliament, his failure to get needed funds for war, and the inherent conflict between royal prerogatives and common law pushed England into civil war.
- The English Civil War was brought about due to the unwillingness of Charles to put the good of the nation before the good of his family and friends.
- The English Civil War was caused by a Parliament that had grown accustomed to a measure of independence and wanted more control over the economy and military.
- Parliament attempted to assert greater control in running the country, while Charles was reluctant to give up his rights.
- James I’s lose grip on Parliament and Charles I’s tight rule and dissolution of Parliament, the structural issues, and poor decisions of Buckingham caused the English Civil War.
- James’ reign of relative religious toleration, of respect for Parliament, and of peace was followed by Charles’ which was the opposite on all those fronts. This dramatic shift in policy caused the Civil War.
- James I’s treatment of Parliament followed by Charles’ treatment, the proximity of Catholicism to the crown, and increased prerogative taxation caused the English Civil War.
- Tensions between the king and parliament over the right to make laws, and between the king and both the merchant and Puritan communities combined to cause the English Civil War.
- The English Civil War began over a general inability to define the English constitution clearly, and more specifically because of Charles’ inability to appoint competent and effective government officials, the increasing debt, forced loans, and quartering English soldiers.
- The English Civil War was caused by the king’s disregard for parliamentary rights and his assertion of royal authority over the legal rights of subjects.
- The British Civil Wars resulted from financial demands Charles made on his parliament, the suppression of dissent, and Charles’ reliance upon a select group of advisors.
- The cause of the British (sic.) can be traced to the freedoms Charles I took with religion, finance, and war, aggravated by the fact that he took advice from a select group of individuals while neglecting his Parliament and rebellions in Scotland and Ireland.
- The English Civil War was caused by Charles I’s conflict with the powerful Puritan gentry and merchants in the House of Commons.
- Charles’ attempt to wage war against Spain and France without sufficient support from Parliament forced the king to abuse emergency powers, turning much of England against him.
- The British Civil Wars were caused by the conflict between Charles I and parliamentarians and middling merchants who asserted their own rights in the face of the king’s feudal prerogative which Charles used to raise funds and establish royal absolutism.
- Charles I’s inability to reason with or consult his Parliament, his taxation policies and quartering acts (sic.), his enforcement of religious uniformity, and his disregard of basic legal rights forced a rebellion among his English subjects.
- The cause of the British Civil Wars was Charles I’s botched attempt to rule as an absolutist without Parliament and Parliament’s determination to stay relevant in English politics.
- The English Civil War was the result of a convoluted system of political, religious, and social hierarchies, set within an antiquated feudal system ill equipped to meet the economic realities of the 17th century.
European History 
This is a tough one; they are all so beautiful. If I had to choose I would say:
9. I liked this one because it seemed to say something that none of the other theses said. It was was simple and did a good job of viewing the causes of the English Civil War as a whole. I will admit, however, it did lack specificity.
16. I thought this one was good because it had a broad argument- that England’s lack of a defined constitution caused the civil war- and specific examples that he or she could delve deeper into in the essay to follow.
19. This thesis was good, because though a bit confusingly worded, it seems to mention most of the important causes and could be extended into a well-organized essay.
22. This was a good one because it makes a “so what” statement- Charles was doing so-and-so- so what? So he was moving towards royal absolutism.
-Sammy R.
16. I choice this for being the only thesis to mention the lack of a defined English constitution, as well as listing many other factors with engaging language.
19. Very straight forward, well written, and concise thesis listing many of the major qualms leading to the civil war.
23. Again, just another solid thesis, listing many of the specific factors.
25. I chose this for mentioning the feudal economic system, which is obviously very important as parliament first came about as a way to raise money for the king.
-Danny
6 and 14. These theses identify the structural issues of Britain and the inconsistencies between James I and Charles I that led to social unrest and tension with Parliament, respectively, which I believe are significant factors in the cause of the English Civil War. These theses deal with causes that are not just restricted to the rule of Charles I.
15. This thesis clearly establishes legal, economic, and religious reasons for the war, perhaps the three most critical points of controversy leading up to the war.
7. This thesis discusses not just the debate of laws between Charles and Parliament but Charles’ infringement on civil liberties which many citizens believed they had a right to. These acts demonstrate Charles acting without the approval of Parliament, a major issue to many English citizens.
Top Four (In numerical order):
3: For its emphasis on the *structural* problems of the three crowns, and attributing the war to parliament as a conscious causer.
8: For its final clause “…conflicts between”. This makes the thesis broad enough to cover most of the sub-causes and specific enough to be defendable.
10: Again for identifying parliament as a cause, and for acknowledging that it was the change in policies between James and Charles. Also for its second sentence (not reproduced here) that gets into more detail about the specific issues.
23: Despite its very judgmental phrasing, this thesis gets to a lot of the specific policies that caused people to rebel.
My top four:
12 – Its first point, transition from the rule of James to that of Charles, is (to me) the a very important factor in the cause of the English civil war, which theses 14 and 3 do as well. Similarly, it highlights the important structural issue of the three crowns. Buckingham’s decisions, however, did not have a huge impact on the English civil war, and therefore, I have placed this at the bottom of my four theses. (Transition and Structure)
3 – Like others, this thesis amply mentions the structural issue. However, it is different because it frames parliament as attempting to grasp powers it hadn’t had before, unlike the others which tend to frame Charles as asserting monstrous, new rights. (Structure and Parliament)
7 – This thesis emphasizes the religious issue of catholicism in the Anglican church (Henrietta Maria). It also brought up Charles’ attempts to break the landed elite and enforce thorough using the star chamber, while also mentioning the importance of merchant interests. This thesis overlooks the importance of the change from James to Charles. (Catholicism, Star Chamber/Thorough, and Prerogatives)
14 – Similar to thesis 7, this thesis mentions catholic proximity to the crown, most likely in the form of Henrietta Maria. Also, like thesis 12, it places the change from James’ rule to Charles’ rule as the leading cause, which is supremely important in understanding the civil war. However, this thesis blames the King for asserting new prerogatives, which is contrary to what thesis 3 argued. (Prerogatives, Catholicism, and Transition)
3. This thesis is quite good because it touches upon all the major factors that contribute to starting the English Civil War. I think that the writer is spot on for the first two points that he/she makes. She/he identifies that it was parliament that was being aggressive and asserting new rights.
9. While this thesis might not be comprehensive, it identifies one immediate cause of English Civil War, the fact that Charles stubbornly refused to compromise with Parliament even when the consequences of not compromising were so high.
15. This thesis cites a conflict between the king and parliament as a reason for the start of the English Civil War. It also one of the few theses that cite both Puritan and merchant discontent with Charles.
22. Like 15, this thesis also cites the conflict between the king and parliament, but it talks about the royal prerogative and absolutism, which are two important ideas to consider when looking at why parliament specifically did not like Charles.
It is much too simplistic to argue that there was only one reason for the start of the English Civil War, and so I required that my four theses reference multiple causes for the war.
3. This thesis touches upon a change in the mindset of Parliament, a key idea in the time leading up to the war. The thesis also not only mentions the structural problems in England but also those problems in Scotland and Ireland, two states that declared war on England before the English Civil War began.
12. James I is at the forefront of this thesis’ argument. As we discussed in class, James I played an integral role in setting the nation on the path to civil war. His lax policies toward Parliament brought a newfound power to the House of Commons, and Charles really butted heads with Parliament when he assumed the crown. The thesis also mentions Buckingham, and attributes some of the fault for war to the members of Charles’ counsel.
14. Like 12, this thesis mentions James I and the transition between his relaxed attitude and Charles stringent one, which to me, is one of the most important causes for the war. This thesis is also one of the few to mention Catholicism’s place in the situation. Many members of Parliament resented his decision to marry Henrietta Maria, and some even felt he was a Catholic sympathizer.
23. Once again, the conflict between Charles and Parliament and the religious idea are mentioned. The thesis also alludes to issues of law, such as Charles’ illegal imprisonment of member of the House of Commons, which angered Commons and definitely attributed to the split between the two groups. The only problem with this thesis is that the words “English subjects” are too vague (I used a similar generic term in my thesis and Dr. Shurmer wasn’t too pleased with me…)
Beatrice Brooke
3. This thesis addresses many important causes of the English Civil War. Importantly, it addresses the change in mindset of the parliament as regards parliamentary rights in the enlightenment age; parliament’s increasing assertions of rights in opposition to royal authority were in many ways new and therefore “bold” and certainly led to the war. Furthermore it addresses structural problems of the three kingdoms and Charles’s military ventures.
6. This thesis also addresses the important structural problems of the three Kingdoms. Furthermore, it addresses the shift from the feudal society, an important factor in the dispute over royal prerogative and the challenges of modern warfare that contributed to the war. It also addresses the shift in policy from James I to Charles I which certainly contributed to the opposition to Charles’s assertion of royal authority.
14. This thesis also addresses the important change of policies between kings and the challenges to Charles’s assertion of royal prerogatives. I mostly chose this thesis as it addresses the problem of Catholicism and comments on the major role that religious tension and conflict played in the English Civil War.
23. This thesis importantly addresses the personality of Charles as a cause of the war. It also significantly touches on the importance of religion in the war. Though “basic” would need to be defined in terms of legal rights, this thesis addresses the importance of the opposition to the assertion of royal authority.
12 and 13. I believe these theses captures one of the most important issues: the transition between James’ and Charles’ reigns. The differences in their ruling styles and policies were too great for Parliament to absorb.
25. Many of the theses include the issue of Charles’ royal prerogatives and Parliament’s opposition to them, but this one seems to get at the source of that legal quandary: the feudal system of England.
3. Another important issue: the structural issues of the 3 kingdoms. Three parliaments and one king was never a good idea.
14. This thesis seems to encapsulate the most of the important issues: James vs. Charles, religion, and royal prerogatives. I believe it is the most complete.
Andrew Neal
Laud’s (and thus Charles’) imposition of Anglicanism on Scotland caused the Scots to rebel. Charles’ increased need for money due to the Scottish rebellion caused him to call Parliament. Parliament then asserted its power, which caused Charles to attempt to arrest five of Parliament’s leading members. The arrests failed, which caused Charles to flee and begin preparing for civil war.
The above causation chain shows that the imposition of Anglicanism on Scotland ultimately caused the British Civil War. (Unfortunately, I did not say that in my thesis). One could argue that had Scotland not rebelled, other tensions would have led to civil war–perhaps Parliament would have asserted its rights in the manner it did after Charles called it. However, before the Scottish rebellion Thorough was working, despite disagreement with it. To argue that the civil war would have happened without the Scottish rebellion would be contrafactual history, and thus invalid for our purposes. Thus, viewing that causation chain leading to the British Civil Wars shows that the imposition of Anglicanism was that primary cause.
Theses 3, 4, 13, and 18 most give the imposition of Anglicanism as a primary cause, so I think they’re the best.
Thesis 3: “Charles’ expensive military ventures” implicitly touches on the imposition of Anglicanism. Charles needed money to fight the Scots.
Thesis 4: “religious tensions and economic difficulties” again implicitly touch on the imposition of Anglicanism. Religious tensions caused rebellion in Scotland, which caused financial need for Charles.
Thesis 13: The thesis cites Charles’ lack of religious toleration, establishing the imposition of Anglicanism as a primary cause.
Thesis 18: The thesis refers to “financial demands” and “suppression of dissent.” Charles’ suppression of religious dissent ultimately caused the war.
3. I think this thesis works well because it provides three important causes to the English Civil War. Two long-term causes in Parliament’s increasing boldness and structural problems and an immediate cause in the failed expensive military adventures.
12. Similar to 3, this thesis references the King’s expensive and botched military endeavors, James’ lax attitude towards the Parliament that emboldened legislators like Eliot and Pym, and structural problems that indeed led to the English Civil War.
23. Granted there are some issues with the writing, but I liked the author’s mentioning of Charles’ personality, specifically his stubbornness with Parliament. The author also mentions specific domestic policies, such as quartering soldiers and taxing, that angered English merchants and lords.
22. This thesis gets at Parliament’s frustration with the king and brings up the important distinction between feudal and modern state government.
14 and 22: These theses both identify the specific causes of the rebellion, as well as the underlying conflicts leading up to the civil war. They were clear and generally well-written.
23: This thesis seems biased against Charles I, and I don’t agree that he “forced” a rebellion. However, it includes a more complete list of causes than many of the other theses and touches upon some new points, such as Charles’ personality.
7: This thesis clearly and concisely lists causes of the rebellion and their connection to the Englishmen who initially allied against Charles. To allow for a more comprehensive paper, the mention of the Star Chamber should be broadened into an argument about Charles using his power to subvert the English justice system.
First, any strong thesis must mention the fact that there are several important forces in play. Most key are the structural issues regarding Parliament and the King and the economic and religious concerns in the late sixteen-twenties and thirties. Also worth a mention are the complications of the Three Kingdoms rule and the social questions involving a burgeoning middle class and new strain of moneyed merchants.
Secondly, any thesis that places complete agency on Charles is probably out, because while Charles’ personality and ill-advised political decisions (Star-Chamber, religious imposition in Scotland, etc.) most certainly contributed to the conflict, it is too simple to ascribe the entirety of blame to the King.
Thirdly, I think any thesis that ascribes total causation to the transition from James to Charles is probably too narrow, as several of the conflicts that come to a boil during this period (the Three Kingdoms structure, political ambiguity between King and Parliament, and feudal economic system among them) had been stirring for several decades, if not longer.
Thesis 6: This thesis mentions the important structural issues surrounding Charles’ crown while also touching on the transition from James’ rule to that of his son. The inclusion of the line “rapid departure from feudal society” is strong, and so is the assertion that social unrest played a role in the conflict. However, I think “unrest” is too clunky a term, and the use of “irreconcilable” raises flags for me.
Thesis 15: This thesis immediately mentions what I believe to be the most important issues in play: namely, tensions between the role of the King and his Parliament. It also addresses social concerns (merchant) and religious conflict (Puritan). This argument, however, does not expressly mention the economic problems surrounding King and Parliament, which are crucial.
Thesis 22: This thesis is strong in mentioning both “conflict between Charles and parliamentarians” as well as the “feudal prerogative” of the King. The inclusion of “middling merchants” hints at the social issues of the seventeenth century, but there is no mention of religion. Also, the use of establishment of royal absolutism as a cause would be difficult to prove.
Thesis 25: This thesis’ greatest sin is its broadness, though that breadth of scope would allow it to encompass every tension and cause driving the war. The explicit mention of the “antiquated feudal system” being out of place in the seventeenth century is strong, and while this thesis lacks specificity it is benefitted by its coherent phrasing.
2: It’s short, but it pretty much covers the main point
22, 23, 25: All reference a divided governmental system in which nobody was sure of the rules, antiquated and vague as they were, and for which Charles’ own personality acted as the catalyst which brought everything to a head.
My top four:
3. Thesis 3 is good because it clearly outlines three exact reasons that caused the war and mentions the structural problem inherent with the three different Kingdoms. Furthermore, the thesis has 3 examples which clearly answer the question and can relatively easily be proven in the supporting paragraphs, thereby outlining the entire essay by itself.
14. Thesis 14 is good because it identifies the changes that occurred that led up to the civil war. A major question could be why the English Civil War happened when it did and not earlier, which the thesis addresses well.
15. This thesis, number 15, does well to mention and focus on the tensions between the King and the other groups within England between whom the Civil War is eventually fought.
23. Thesis 23 is strong because it focuses on all of the aspects of Charles the first’s specifically which helped cause the Civil War. The thesis focuses well on one particular agent and delves into individual reasons that agent has been a part of to cause the Civil War.
Thesis 3: This thesis does a good job of recognizing that there were multiple causes of the war and places some blame on Parliament, something I think is both necessary and important.
Thesis 8: I liked how this thesis brought up the conflict between royal prerogatives and common law. I think the legal issues surrounding the war are important for figuring out why it started.
Thesis 16: I like how the thesis started broad and then narrowed into specific, provable assertions. I think it provides a real idea of the essay which would follow.
Thesis 25: I like the focus on the necessity of replacing feudal economics. This thesis does a superb job of highlighting the multiple causes of the war while at the same time making sure to mention the economic aspect.
Attempt to post No. 3…
The ideal thesis would mention three main circumstances that existed in Great Britain that led to the Civil War. First of all, there was the issue of Charles I being king of three different kingdoms each with their own political, social, and cultural distinctions. Second, there was the issue of funding a modern military and its expeditions abroad and at home. Charles would have liked to see Parliament and the growing urban merchant class responsible for funding the army and attempted to force the issue using his royal prerogatives; however, the Parliamentarians were quick to assert their legal rights, which resulted in a conflict between the King and his Parliament. Third and finally, there was the issue of religion. Puritans in England and Presbyterians in Scotland were made angry by the King’s attempts to create and impose a uniform Anglican church that shared many similarities with the Roman Catholic Church. These three circumstances aligned different factions (Parliamentarians, Merchants, Puritans) against the king, which eventually led to war.
The theses here that best capture the overall cause of the British Civil War are (in no particular order):
3.This thesis does a good job of explaining the structural problems present in the Three Kingdoms as well as the conflict between King and Parliament over the funding of expensive military expeditions.
22. This thesis does a good job of explaining the conflict between King, Parliament, and Urban Merchant Class. I also appreciate how it points out the larger struggle between absolutist and constitutional monarchy.
23. This thesis nicely lays out the issues existing in 17th Century England and the role that they play leading up to the war.
25. This thesis hints at the larger changes that are occurring in 17th Century Britain and how they come into conflict with the existing situation.
even though ‘Great Britain’ did not exist in the 17th century
3, 6. Each one gives 3 causes for the war in a clear manner and thus lays out the arguments that will come in the supporting paragraphs.
15. This thesis points to the conflicts between the king and various groups of subjects as the cause of the war, putting an emphasis on these conflicts that is not seen in the other theses.
25. The thesis emphasizes the structural issues within England, making it fairly original. Plus, I’m not completely sure how this person would go about supporting arguments about the “convoluted system of hierarchies” mentioned, so I would definitely be interested in reading this essay.
3. 3 does a nice job of combining long-term and immediate causes of war. Theses that focus excessively on the long-term causes argue that war was inevitable; theses that focus on the short-term causes argue that war was an unexpected product of freak events. 3 succeeds by combining these two viewpoints, in essence showing that war rumblings had existed for some time but needed immediate events to come to fruition.
19. Though 19’s use of indefinite nouns downgrades the argument a notch, the thesis also covers a lot of ground in a relatively concise sentence. Where 3 stands out because of concision, 19 stands out because of range of vision. An excellent writer using 3 as a thesis would likely not mention some factors, such as the suppression of legal rights. 19 covers everything.
6. Similar to 19, 6 covers a wide range of ideas but does not confuse the reader. In addition, 6 mentions an important factor–the change in policy between James and Charles–that 3 and 19 ignore.
13. 13 has a strange structure but ultimately states the key causes of the Civil War with impressive brevity. The combination of foreign policy and domestic policy in the thesis separates 13 from other lesser arguments. Lastly, 13 manages to mention the inconsistency between James and Charles in an offhanded way, which paves the way for a strong concluding paragraph.
3. This thesis covers both the political and economic factors that contributed to the start of the English Civil War. The only missing thing would be the mention of the religious conflict between the Puritan gentry and the Anglican royal hierarchy.
16. This thesis addresses the legal and economic problems of Charles’ reign, displaying the inevitability of conflict between the old, feudal style king and the English Parliament that wished to gain legitimacy.
23. This thesis includes the economic, religious, and legal problems in the English Kingdom. These problems represent the grievances that the English Parliament presents to Charles.
25. This thesis focuses on the central conflict between the antiquated fiscally feudal system and true economic reality of the mid-17th century. It shows the change from a medieval hierarchy to a modern state that underpins English society at the time.
3. This thesis covers the political and economic issues without placing the blame completely on Charles, while also mentioning the structural issues with the three kingdoms. It however fails to mention religion.
6. Like three, this thesis mentions the structural problems of the three kingdoms. It also mentions the policies of both James and Charles (not just Charles) and brings in the added aspect of a departure from feudal society. It again fails to explicitly mention religion however, and is less clear about economic factors.
14. Like 6 it mentions both James and Charles, while adding the interesting, more specific factors of looming catholicism and prerogative taxation. More could have been said about both economic factors and religion, but I like the tight focus.
23. While this thesis focuses quite a bit on Charles, It gets to many of the more important causes and is one of the few to include both broad and specific causes as well as political, economic, and religious reasons.
(Sorry I didn’t see this assignment until now. Better late than never…)
I have tried not to list multiple theses that effectively state the same things, instead looking for theses that point to a variety of causes in a concise manner. I feel a bit biased towards the people who mentioned the structural problems in Charles’s rule (since that was something that I personally did not think of.) Other major causes that seem most important to me include Charles’s financial, legal, and religious interests, and his dismissive attitude towards Parliament.
3. This sentence covers just about every point of interest (albeit without a mention of religion) in a concise statement. Here my bias to a citation of structure surfaces.
15 directly addresses the struggle between Charles and Parliament, and the references to merchants and Puritans shows at least some recognition of the financial and religious problems of his reign as well.
22 also talks about the rift between Charles and the Parliament+merchants, but goes further and asserts that Charles was attempting to establish a perfect rule. This thesis digs below the surface of the facts to point to the root of the problem with the king: royal absolutism.
13 brings another cause to the religious, legal, and political points that few theses mentioned: the radical shift from James I to Charles I.
(also better late than never)
My top 4
25. this one addresses the shortcomings of a feudal economy in an increasingly modern society, a point which not many theses address.
23. Perhaps the most specific, this thesis adresses most of the important issues and provides direction for the argument.
16. Though somewhat unclear and awkward, I like this thesis because it confronts the issue of an undefined English constitution. Many other theses left this signigicant cause out.
3. This one is concise, to the point, and spells out most of the significant causes of the war. Well structured and totally viable
Sorry for the late response.
3. This thesis provides three solid causes of the English Civil War. It provides the structural issues of the three kingdoms as the major problem, while also addressing Parliament and Charles’ involvement in provoking conflict.
16. This is the only thesis to specifically address the lack of a clear English constitution. England’s lack of a uniform constitution directly led to many of the causes that the other theses provide.
13. This is a strong thesis, because it explains the major shift in policy from James to Charles. Rather then saying that Charles caused the war, the writer exemplifies how the change in leadership, not only the leader led to the civil war.
25. While it doesn’t define the political, religious, and social issues, this thesis acknowledges the 17th century’s influence on England’s economic turmoil.
apologies for being late response
23.) I consider this to be a particularly strong thesis because it covers all the main catalysts of the civil war. Immediately after reading this thesis one has an understanding of the main points of conflict both politically and socially.
3.) Much like thesis 23 this thesis touches on all the major issues of the civil war. I especially like the point about the structural problems of the three kingdoms. This angle points out how the three kingdoms that Charles inherited were fundamentally flawed. Because, while much of the civil war can be blamed on Charles, one must also be aware of the fact that he controlled three unique groups of people, creating a volatile situation that was primed to rebel.
7.) In the time periods we have covered religion has proved to be the most common catalyst of war. This thesis does a good job of putting an emphasis on religion and the religious differences between Charles and the people he ruled.
14.) Thesis 14 and 12 both have the same central point: James’s loose grip on parliament allowed MP’s to begin to have their own voice. This voice allowed them to oppose some of the king’s ideas, which, in turn, created strife between parliament and the king. I chose Thesis 14, however, because I thought its follow up points were better.