Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Sherman Logan; Brass Lamp
Excellent and generally balanced, Sherman. Although I think you cut Charles I a little too much slack. He was also the guy who unleashed Archbishop Ladd to imprison, cut off the ears or even execute recalcitrant preachers of Puritanism.

The final straw which led to his execution was the discovery of a plot to bring in French armies and retake his throne by force even though Cromwell was initially quite willing to let him continue to reign as king with limited and defined powers.

BTW, Ladd's own experience with losing his office and his head via Bill of Attainder was one of the reasons we outlawed Bills of Attainder, so even the descendants of Cromwell had remorse over the way Ladd was taken down.

42 posted on 02/25/2013 2:50:10 PM PST by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]


To: Vigilanteman
His whole life Charley convinced himself that everything he did was Right, because it was his kingly Duty. He ruled by divine right, therefore by definition it was his Duty to Rule. His most loyal and competent servant, Tom Wentworth, was condemned to death by Act of Attainder. He had committed no crime, in the strict sense of the term, since he was doing the King's will and the King was above the law. But the Opposition knew that Tom had to go or he'd eventually kill them all. They played for keeps back then.

Turns out the King had to assent to Tom's execution. So Charley convinced himself it was his Duty to toss this utterly loyal servant under the bus to be beheaded. Despite his earlier solemn vow not to do so.

He later did the same with Laud, who pretty much deserved it on some scale, since he had been the primary proponent of forcing bishops on the Scots, which eventually precipitated the crash of the Stuart cart.

Charley was duplicitous, but he wasn't very good at it. He wanted to be honest and straightforward, but kept getting himself into positions where he believed he was justified to deceive those he dickered with. But he just didn't really fool anybody.

Machiavelli would have been disgusted by him. He was sort of the anti-Prince, a ruler who frittered away his authority by alienating his supporters instead of masterfully deceiving everybody till he could grab absolute power.

50 posted on 02/25/2013 5:52:14 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson