Chapter 6: Talkin’ About Treason
6.1: England at War
Some would argue that England had been hurdling towards war since the start of Charles Stuart’s reign. A stubborn believer in the absolute authority of the monarchy at the time when Parliamentary power was on the rise, Charles I found himself in a spat of political conflicts with Parliament. From 1629 to 1640, he attempted to rule entirely without Parliament. This era of Personal Rule was characterized by a constant struggle for funds and an increasingly furious merchant class.
When religious conflicts with Scotland escalated into outright war in 1640, Charles I was forced to call Parliament in an effort to fund the English military. Parliament pounced on this opportunity and introduced a slew of bills aimed at preventing Personal Rule from ever happening again.
As Parliament legislatively raged against the King, Charles I finally began building up his armies both to take on the Scottish rebels and to put down a new Catholic revolt in Ireland. As tensions grew between the Crown and Parliament, Parliamentarians began to eye these armies suspiciously, fearing they would be turned on Parliament. Some even suspected that Charles’s Ireland-bound army was actually intended to lead a Catholic takeover of England. In response, Parliamentarians raised militias and armies of their own, just in case. The King, in turn, saw these Parliamentarian armies as conspiracies to overthrow him.
Regardless of whether either side initially intended to overthrow the other, the distrust over mounting forces proved too much to maintain peace. Aiming to stop what he perceived as a coup plot, Charles I marched on Parliamentarian forces in Hull. When that failed to produce a decisive victory for either side, Charles I declared war on the so-called rebel forces in August of 1642.
Despite hopes for a quick, decisive battle, the English Civil War would stretch on for years without a clear victor. Though Charles I’s side arguably had more legitimacy, the Parliamentarians had the powerful backing of the London merchant class, who in turn held the support of the Royal Navy and thus controlled international trade [1].
6.2: Expanding the House of Burgesses
While things were spiraling out of control in England in the summer of 1642, Virginia would remain in ignorant bliss over this until the end of the year when news of the war finally crossed the Atlantic. In the meantime, the House of Burgesses faced its own conflict, albeit one that would feel quaint compared to the incoming news.
Richard Bennett, the leader of the small Puritan faction of the House [2], raised a furious objection at the start of the session when the body attempted to seat its new members. That year, the House was set to add five new members: a second [3] Burgess representing the St. Mary’s region, a second Burgess representing the plantations of the Upper Chesapeake, a second Burgess representing Kent, a first Burgess representing Skanderborg, and a first Burgess representing Carolina [4].
Everyone knew that Bennett’s objections were based on religion, and he did very little to hide that fact. Catholics dominated all the districts of the Marianus Shire, save for Kent, and the Kent Burgesses were known to sympathize with their Catholic neighbors [5]. If they added these new Burgesses, Catholics would hold six of the body’s 46 [6] seats and known sympathizers would push the so-called “Catholic Bloc” up to eight.
Bennett’s concerns fell largely on deaf ears. Outside of the Puritan faction, even those who steadfastly refused to soften on Catholics in the years since Leonard Calvert first arrived in the Colony, a sixth of the House hardly seemed worth destroying the body over. Speaker Thomas Stegg asked Bennett if he had any legal objections and, hearing none, quickly turned to the business of the House.
6.3: News Reaches Virginia
Governor Berkeley’s call for an emergency meeting of the General Assembly was met with confusion and annoyance when it was first issued in December of 1642. Berkeley had largely trusted the House of Burgesses to conduct its own business so far, so this sudden order, particularly without a stated reason, looked to some like an overreach. However, as Burgesses trickled into Jamestown from across the Colony, they started to hear rumors. Soon, the initial anger at Berkeley was gone, and was replaced with a jumpy tension. Something huge had just happened.
When Berkeley finally assembled both houses in the statehouse, he broke the news which was all but an open secret at that point: Parliament was at war with the King. He relayed all that he could about the situation, but everyone there had made the arduous journey across the Atlantic and knew just how out of date the information likely was.
“I have called you all here for an impossible, but undeniably necessary task – a task I neither can nor should perform on my own,” the Governor said. Indeed, the task of determining Virginia’s stance on a war it knew very little about was not only difficult, but incredibly risky. Even neutrality could be seen as an affront to the winning side. Berkeley’s exact motivation for including the General Assembly in this process was debated both by his contemporaries and future academics. Some saw the move as a gesture of goodwill to a tense Assembly, while others saw it as a purely self-motivated attempt to cover his ass if things went wrong [7].
Leonard Calvert, normally willing to assert himself into a discussion and stand up for his own interests, chose to stay silent at the start of the debate. “If my countrymen were willing to turn on their own King, then my safety was of no guarantee,” he would later write to a friend in England. “I would let the Protestants shape the battlefield first, so that I could be sure I was not placed at the center.”
6.4: Debate Begins
The common assumption was that the Virginian elite was predominantly loyalist, but the news out of Europe threw that assumption into question. Even during previous disagreements between Charles I and Parliament, supporting the King was synonymous with supporting the law and a pragmatic desire not to incite the wrathful might of the motherland. This war opened questions about who was legally and morally correct, not to mention which side was the pragmatic one to back.
The faction that overthrew Governor John Harvey seven years ago was now viewed as the biggest wildcard. Though ostensibly loyal to the Crown, their earlier revolt led the stauncher loyalists to fear they would rebel again and seek greater power. Speaker of the House Thomas Stegg, a participant in the anti-Harvey revolt, would be first to speak. Given how he had shut down Richard Bennett earlier that year, it was expected that he would tow a moderate, legalist line. Instead, he opened the debate with a bombshell.
“The King has denied Parliament its right to govern, brought war to England, and murdered his own countrymen without provocation. If we are an institution meant for the betterment of England, we should not accept the leadership of those who only seek to abase it [8].” Stegg’s opening line left the General Assembly in stunned silence.
That silence was soon followed by a deafening uproar. Some Burgesses cried out at the shocking boldness of the assertion. Fierce loyalists called for his head. A select few Burgesses, including Richard Bennett, whooped in support. As different Burgesses took note of others’ more extreme reactions, shouts were lobbed in all directions. It took many bangs of the gavel and a mighty bellow from Governor Berkeley to quiet the Assembly and prevent a brawl.
Burgess John Carter was next to speak. Having just acquired vast tracts of land along the Rappahannock River, Carter was seen as a rising star and economic heavyweight within the Colony, though he was still seen as a green newcomer by those who had been in the Assembly since the days of Harvey.
“I would sooner remove myself from this Assembly than lend even tacit endorsement to such treasonous ideas,” Carter said. “Yet, even putting aside the questions of loyalty and morality, I cannot see the sense in endorsing a rogue Parliament. How can we expect to thrive when we are willingly inviting chaos to our shores? [9]”
“And how will our livelihoods fare if we make ourselves enemies of the Royal Navy and the great merchant families of London?” asked William Claiborne. In contrast with the fiery passion of previous statements, Claiborne was subdued and clearly troubled [10].
“Not one of those angry families will matter if the King succeeds and executes them for treason,” said Burgess Thomas Harwood. Murmurs spread across the statehouse once he spoke. He was another ringleader in the conspiracy to remove Harvey and now the first to indicate that the faction was split on the issue of the war [11]. “So many of you treat treason so lightly, as if the King has no chance of prevailing.”
“I have no intention of flying a rebel flag on my ship,” said Burgess Walter Chiles [12]. “If you are a merchant in Rotterdam, or Boston, or the West Indies, would you give preference to an agent of the English Crown or the representative of some earl playing warlord?”
“You would have to be a fool to think Boston would accept a ship bearing the flag of that papist king,” said Richard Bennett.
“I am sure I can find a sane man among the zealots up there,” responded Chiles. The ensuing shouting match once again nearly turned into a fight before Berkeley could bring the chamber back to order.
Burgess Benjamin Harrison spoke next, using the break of the chaos as an excuse to shift the subject. “This war is beyond any of our experiences, and I do not appreciate how confidently some of you speak about its results. If we really do wish to preserve the health of the Colony, as our job should be, we ought to presume the worst and assume that we will never back the winning side [13].”
6.5: The Shape of the Battlefield
Rather than reveal any sort of consensus among the General Assembly, the ongoing debate demonstrated the diversity of opinions in the Colony. It quickly became clear that opinions did not fall within a simple Royalist/Parliamentarian binary, nor even a Royalist/Parliamentarian/Neutral trinary. Instead, opinions fell along a spectrum of beliefs.
Discussions raged for days, covering every topic from trade policy to morality and theology, to battle tactics, and far more. As the debate entered its second week, key players had a solid understanding of the range of beliefs present in the Assembly and their principal advocates. However, what no one could quite get a grasp on was the levels of support for each belief. Pro-neutrality burgesses likely made up the biggest faction, but the margins were close enough that firm Parliamentarians and Royalists each felt that they could tip the scales in their favors.
Spectrum of Beliefs in the 1642 General Assembly
| Position | Reasoning | Known Advocates |
| Most Loyal to King | Religion | Catholics |
| Highly Loyal to King | Moral belief in monarchy, personal loyalty to Charles I | William Berkeley, John Carter |
| Fairly Loyal to King | Fear of repercussions of treason | Thomas Harwood |
| Sides with King for Practicality | Value political/economic stability of monarchy | Walter Chiles, Benjamin Harrison |
| Neutral | War is too unpredicatble | William Claiborne, Plurality of Burgesses |
| Sides with Parliament for Practicality | Fears immediate economic fallout of siding with Charles I | Plurality of Anti-Harvey Faction |
| Fairly Loyal to Parliament | | |
| Highly Loyal to Parliament | Moral opposition to Charles I | Thomas Stegg |
| Most Loyal to Parliament | Religion | Puritans |
Once he had a firm understanding of the state of the debate, Leonard Calvert finally stepped in to speak. Knowing the Colony’s continued loyalty to Charles I was necessary for his political (and possibly physical) survival, he was determined to quash the upstart Parliamentarian faction. However, it took until the second week for him to settle on an argument that could sway the most neutral Protestants. Every member of the General Assembly was a rich man. And even those who seemed tempted by moral arguments clearly kept their personal fortunes on their minds.
“Are we forgetting what happened when the Virginia Company ran this colony?” Leonard asked. His remark earned a few surprised whispers, as this was the first time he’d injected himself into the debate in a major way. “The Company almost ran the Colony into the ground, despite the advice of those actually living here. It was the King who showed true concern for the wellbeing of this venture and the King who was willing to elevate William Capps to the governorship at our advice. The merchants of London would raze the Colony in an instant if we looked to be a bad investment. The King sees us as a matter of pride. Should we turn our backs on the King, there is no guarantee that Parliament will not abandon us and let our plantations turn to dust.”
“And why should we listen to you?” Calvert was surprised to hear Richard Bennett speak up. While he had his occasional outburst, Bennett, like Calvert, had largely stayed quiet and patient. “Everyone here knows you’re trying to save your skin here,” Bennett continued.
Bennett was at least partially right, but Calvert wasn’t going to let him have that. “Do you intend to refute my argument, Bennett, or are personal attacks all you have?”
Bennett continued unfazed. “Why should we be letting Catholics control this decision?”
“This again? This is a long-settled issue,” said Calvert.
“Is it?” asked Bennett. “The only reason you set foot in the New World is because of Charles Stuart. Some may argue that defying his order is treason, but in that case this whole damn debate is treason! Will you all at least indulge me for one moment?”
The reaction to Bennett’s statement was mixed, but more positive than Leonard Calvert would’ve liked. He motioned for his fellow Catholics to stay silent for the time being. Sure, whatever argument Bennett had was dangerous, but trying to stop him here would only prove his point that Leonard just wanted to protect himself.
“Much appreciated,” said Bennett. “Over the past week, it has become clear that the matter of if and how we react to this war is a question of guaranteeing what’s best for the Colony and our own livelihoods. Calvert and his Catholic ilk are not asking the same question. They are concerned with what is best for themselves, which may or may not be what is best for the Colony as a whole.
John Lewger, senior Burgess from St. Mary’s City [14], spoke up, ignoring Calvert’s directive. “I urge my colleagues to think, even for a moment, about the precedent you would create by following Mr. Bennett’s advice. How do we determine this so-called ‘Colony as a whole’ that he describes? He states that those with separate interests from the majority ought to be ignored. Well then, should Mr. Baugh of Henrico be excluded from matters of military because he has a greater interest in the defense of our western border than the rest of us? Should Secretary Claiborne be excluded from matters of trade and agriculture because Kent Island relies less on tobacco than those of you who live along the James River?”
Bennett attempted to retort, but Lewger cut him off. “I am sure you wish to argue that the circumstances surrounding myself and my fellow Catholics is different, but do you have an objective standard which future lawmakers and judges may use? Who is to say that another John Harvey could not come along and use your reasoning to declare that
he was the sole individual worthy of making decisions?”
“You’re talking about this like we’re passing some ordinary law,” said Bennett. “We are talking about civil war! This is uncharted territory and, God willing, territory we will never have to see again.”
“Is this really the last time we will face an event like this?” asked Walter Chiles. “If Parliament does succeed, can we trust a chaotic and untested government not to turn on itself within a generation?”
6.6: Virginia’s Stance
The debates continued on for another week and a half. Though many in the Assembly found Bennett’s arguments persuasive, Lewger successfully spooked them with the specter of another Harvey and the Catholics were allowed to participate in the vote in the name of rule of law.
Just as Lewger had hoped, one win for rule of law begot another. Ironically, despite the Parliamentarians in England asserting that the King had no respect for rule of law, Royalists in Virginia successfully framed support of the King as following the law. Following the law would, in turn, create a more stable political and economic society in the long run – or at least they hoped so.
Over the course of the final week of arguments, the Virginian Parliamentarians rapidly lost ground and the argument shifted to a debate over an explicitly Royalist standing or merely remaining neutral. Despite convincing arguments about the stability of the monarchy, the fact that the Parliamentarians could win the war cast a fog of uncertainty over the proceedings.
Before a final vote on the Colony’s stance, the pro-neutrality faction forced votes on a few measures that went in their favor. First, a resolution calling for freedom of opinion within the General Assembly. This was backed in full force by the pro-Parliamentarian faction who, as the tide of the debate shifted, feared being accused of treason. Berkeley also pushed hard for the resolution, fearing utter chaos if the pro-Parliamentary faction felt threatened. The resolution passed with broad support from all sides and ensured that no one would be prosecuted for what they had said over the past few weeks.
The second neutral guarantee was freedom of commerce. Regardless of who the Colony officially supported, merchants would be free to send their products to anyone in England, the colonies, or abroad. Many Royalists were enraged at the resolution, as it would significantly weaken any attempts to support the King, but they were ultimately outvoted by the significant portion of Burgesses concerned with their plantations first and foremost.
Third and finally, the Assembly voted on a resolution proclaiming that the Colony would not declare war on either side. Staunch Royalists were even more furious about this measure. What good would their support be if they sat on the sidelines? But uncertainty over the eventual winner of the Civil War proved frightening enough that the resolution passed by slim margins. Even if Virginia backed a side and got it wrong, they were in a better position to negotiate with the winner.
Lastly, Calvert and Lewger introduced resolutions in their respective chambers declaring Virginia’s support of King Charles I. The resolution easily passed the Council of State due to Governor Berkeley unsubtly showing his support for Charles throughout the proceedings. Stegg initially attempted to use his position as Speaker to delay or throw out the vote, but between pressure from the Governor and an uproar from much of the House, he ultimately let it come to a vote.
The vote was closer than anyone would have liked. 13 Burgesses outright voted against it and eight abstained from voting. However, with 25 votes in favor, the resolution passed [15]. Within days, news of Virginia’s support for King Charles I reached all corners of the Colony. Within weeks, the news reached Boston. Within months, the news reached England. No one was sure exactly how the rest of England and her colonies would react, but long before they would become a problem, Virginia would have to deal with backlash from within.
[1] This is almost exactly per OTL (albeit
grossly oversimplified). The main difference is that the anti-Catholic conspiracies about Charles I are a little more extreme and a little more influential.
[2] OTL Bennett was no longer a Burgess at this point. ITTL, greater fears over Catholic influence keep him in power.
[3] Since the Colony was underdeveloped/not dense, House districts were a lot looser than today, resulting in multiple members being elected from broad districts like ten in OTL’s 1642 session, whose districts are all listed simply as “James City.”
[4] Like OTL, the region to the south of Virginia’s original shires is named Carolina after Charles I.
[5] Like OTL’s Maryland, TTL’s Marianus Shire is still majority Protestant by a wide margin; however, the wealthy landowners (i.e. the ones who can vote) are predominantly Catholic, allowing them to easily secure those seats. Kent Island’s elite are Protestants, but the neighboring Catholics have helped the trading post thrive, so they favor protections for Catholics.
[6] That’s 38 seats from OTL; 3 seats added earlier ITTL for St. Mary’s, Upper Chesapeake, and Kent; and the 5 seats to be added in this session.
[7] IOTL Berkeley ultimately opted to unilaterally declare neutrality. However, with TTL’s Virginia being larger and more politically tense (both due to the Catholic population and Burgesses emboldened by the greater success at replacing John Harvey), Berkeley decides to bring the issue to the General Assembly in an attempt to frontload the chaos in the legislature, rather than let tensions build and boil over across the Colony. We’ll see if he’s successful.
[8] OTL’s Stegg also sided with the Parliamentarians, even going so far as to seize royalist ships in the colonies with his personal vessel. His arguments ITTL are a mixture of arguments used in OTL’s trial of Charles I and TTL’s removal of John Harvey.
[9] John Carter, the founder of the powerful Carter dynasty of Virginia planters, was a staunch royalist IOTL. He even got himself thrown in jail over his opposition to Richard Cromwell. His comments here reflect both his moral opposition to the Parliamentarians but also the cunning economic pragmatism his family displayed over the years.
[10] IOTL Claiborne was a major opponent of Berkeley and the royalists. He allied himself with Richard Bennett and Thomas Stegg (his long-time business partner in both timelines) and used his newfound power to fight the Catholics in Maryland. However, so much of this was motivated by his personal grievances over losing Kent Island to Maryland. ITTL, he not only kept Kent Island, but actively profits from the Catholic presence in northern Virginia, so he’s left as a confused and worried moderate torn between his old Parliamentarian allies and his new Catholic trading partners.
[11] Harvey himself declared Harwood as one of the ringleaders of the coup. Harwood would later go on to claim that anyone who doubted the succession of Charles II was guilty of treason.
[12] Later IOTL he lost his political positions for trading at Dutch ports in defiance of Parliament’s orders.
[13] This is Benjamin Harrison I, who is indeed related to those other important Harrisons from American history. He was in the House at this time IOTL, but his position on the English Civil War is unknown, so I let him contribute something more cautious and neutral to the discussion.
[14] IOTL he was the first lawyer in Maryland and served in the Maryland House of Burgesses. He was an Anglican minister who converted to Catholicism in 1635, making him a good fit for managing the tense Protestant-Catholic relations of both OTL’s Maryland and TTL’s Virginia.
[15] Virginia was already predominantly pro-royalist IOTL, but the Catholic population and more entrenched Berkeley of TTL push that support over the edge to become the Colony’s official position.
And there we go, the English Civil War is off to a tense start in the colonies! I can promise that the drama is far from at its peak. This chapter was a bit different format-wise, focusing more on dialogue and narrative to highlight the tension and perspectives among Virginia’s political elite. Hope you enjoyed it!