Leveller England

[Matthais Corvinus]

I am impressed by the work you've put into this. Sorry i can't offer more help, but something's bothering me.

This seems a bit too easy. I really doubt that the New Model Army would be just as strong as OTL. It just doesn't feel right. If the NMA isn't as strong, winning the 3rd Civil War should be much harder. Maybe they wouldn't be able to keep Scotland? Still, a fascinating TL. Bravo!

I actually rethought it and decided that a well-organized Leveller faction inside the officer corps that can maintain its organization until Charles I is executed would probably be able to gain control of the NMA.

Once Charles I is killed the Army Council has become regicides, and the potential for any compromise with the King is obviously over. Since the previous Army manifesto, the Heads of Proposal, rested on the King's continued part of government, the Agreement of the People is the alternative.

Henry Ireton, who was a Leveller opponent during the Putney Debates, used a lot of Leveller thought to justify the execution of the King. He was Cromwell's right hand man, and with Charles' death I think he would become a convert to the Leveller faction. With Ireton's influence, the Agreement of the People would probably be somewhat moderated and accepted by the Army Council.

 

[Jape]

Ah yet another thead aimed at that most hallowed of goals... an English Republic

I like it, and indeed I think the Third Civil War would be messier (possibly a free Scotland for now) but I can see the Levellers with the stick of the NMA and the carrot of social reform for the peasants and proto-middle classes holding onto power well into the late 17th century at least.

Also much as the gentry were willing to tolerate Cromwell, I think merchants and bankers would equally accept the Levellers at least enough not to rebel, after all this is hardly a 20th century democracy being implemented, they would probably gain greatly at the expense of the landed classes in their political influence. No rotten boroughs but acts such as treating, open votes etc. would ensure the merchantile class dominance, which is certainly a step in the right direction.

Internationally I think the Dutch Patriots at least would be envigourated.


If Levellers fall in anarchy and war, then it might have major reprecussions on the Enlightenment and Democracy, perhaps seeing popular rule a failure, radical thinking might move more to romanticism and enlightened despotism?

 

[Michael B]

This seems a bit too easy. I really doubt that the New Model Army would be just as strong as OTL. It just doesn't feel right. If the NMA isn't as strong, winning the 3rd Civil War should be much harder. Maybe they wouldn't be able to keep Scotland? Still, a fascinating TL. Bravo!

I doubt that it would be so easy either. One reason why the English mopped up Scotland so easily after Culloden was that the clan system in the Highlands was disintegrating and the lairds had less need for so many followers. On this TL, that has not happened yet. I would thus expect the English to conquer the Lowlands, Glasgow, Edinburgh and the northern coastal towns. The Highlands though would become bandit country (as was expected on OTL after Culloden) and a place where you don't wear a red coat.

 

[Matthais Corvinus]

Also much as the gentry were willing to tolerate Cromwell, I think merchants and bankers would equally accept the Levellers at least enough not to rebel, after all this is hardly a 20th century democracy being implemented, they would probably gain greatly at the expense of the landed classes in their political influence. No rotten boroughs but acts such as treating, open votes etc. would ensure the merchantile class dominance, which is certainly a step in the right direction.

So you think that this framework would have public acceptance, and possibly support? That is excellent to hear.

Internationally I think the Dutch Patriots at least would be envigourated.

The Dutch came almost to civil war before the Prince of Orange died and kicked the issue further down the road while the English were engaged in their own Civil War. With the example of English Commonwealth across the Channel OTL already playing some role in the Dutch decisions regarding their own dealings with a power-hungery executive, could the Agreement of the People perhaps be copied by the Dutch? What I'm thinking is the Dutch view the constitution that the English create as a excellent idea, in regards to the constitution's ability to perhaps prevent the Prince of Orange returning to power.

If Levellers fall in anarchy and war, then it might have major reprecussions on the Enlightenment and Democracy, perhaps seeing popular rule a failure, radical thinking might move more to romanticism and enlightened despotism?

It might have those effects.

Which would lead to this question- How was the English Commonwealth viewed OTL by the continental powers?

What would be the effects though of the English Republic with the Agreement of the People as the constitution on a Europe that has just finished the 30 Years' War? I think that something so radical would have an effect on Europe, even if it is not immediate and political, at least an immediate impact on continental intellectuals. The English had really crossed into unknown territory, with the Republic offering a vision of a nation ruled without a King, with the equality of all men, in matters both political and legal. This experiment is going to really mess with people's perception of the possible, especially it it survives the 17th century.

A century and a half after these events the French Revolution inspired other reformers across Europe, even before Republican French armies started marching.

 

[Jape]

Certainly Europeans probably wouldn't looked kindly on the Republic, although England wouldn't face the same immideate threats as France (depending on the navy, I know RN flourished under Cromwell but what effect the Levellers have I dunno.) but I can see France and Spain taking very dim views now that their old enemy has turned even more into a threat on their systems of government.

Beyond their basic beliefs and the Putney Debates, I have little knowledge of the Levellers. Although their democratic ideas were obviously radical, were they keen to spread the Revolution?

Also how about their effect on the American colonies? Although not very well established by the 1650s, would anti-Leveller sentiment be high? Or would the Puritans and Nonconformists embrace it?

What role would the NMA have in this new Republic? How much influence would they bring to bare? Will the term "Roast Beef Republic" come to stand for corrupt, unstable government?

 

[Michael B]

Certainly Europeans probably wouldn't looked kindly on the Republic, although England wouldn't face the same immideate threats as France (depending on the navy, I know RN flourished under Cromwell but what effect the Levellers have I dunno.) but I can see France and Spain taking very dim views now that their old enemy has turned even more into a threat on their systems of government.

Good news for the Stuarts as they will get plenty of backing for their attempts to retake their kingdom. Whether they would be successful is another matter.

 

[Matthais Corvinus]

Certainly Europeans probably wouldn't looked kindly on the Republic, although England wouldn't face the same immideate threats as France (depending on the navy, I know RN flourished under Cromwell but what effect the Levellers have I dunno.) but I can see France and Spain taking very dim views now that their old enemy has turned even more into a threat on their systems of government.

Beyond their basic beliefs and the Putney Debates, I have little knowledge of the Levellers. Although their democratic ideas were obviously radical, were they keen to spread the Revolution?[/quote]

My route for Leveller success to a POD where the pro-Leveller officers organize themselves better, radicalize the Heads of Proposal a bit, and thus accept the Agreement-Heads of compromise w/o attempting any mutinies. For my purposes have Charles I escape later would have these effects (though after doing some reading I'm beginning to think Cromwell let him escape in order to have an excuse to take out the Leveller leadership in the NMA).

Also how about their effect on the American colonies? Although not very well established by the 1650s, would anti-Leveller sentiment be high? Or would the Puritans and Nonconformists embrace it?

The Levellers were very pro-Independent, with the Agreement of the People having in it the right of congregations to choose their own minister. The Puritan preachers who were attached to the NMA's units were key in radicializing the regular troops to the point that they were willing to support the Agreement, so I think that the New England colonies (founded, settled, and ruled by Purtians) would accpet the Leveller government (you should see some Massachusetts Bay Colony learning-to-read kids books that explicitly reject the divine right of kings to rule, as in rule anything).

Virginia might be leary, but wouldn't really have a great deal of choice. Neither the Commonwealth or the New England colonies OTL seemed to have a problem with slavery, so I don't think that the tobacco farmers of Virginia will have any issues with the new government.

What role would the NMA have in this new Republic? How much influence would they bring to bare? Will the term "Roast Beef Republic" come to stand for corrupt, unstable government?

The Levellers appeared to want some level of demobilization, although that desire is going to be tempered by the need to fight off Charles II's invasion.

As its set in my head now, after the capture of Charles I the second time (when they executed him), General Henry Ireton decided that Charles I needed to be killed, and directed Pride's Purge. With the stronger Leveller presence in the NMA, the Parliament, instead of being purged by Pride ala OTL, is forced to enact the radicialized Heads of Proposal that was accepted ATL, and dissolve itself, with new elections to come.

The NMA "clarifys" the Parliment's approval of the radicialized Heads of Proposal and enfranchises soldiers. The Army Council also intervenes in deciding who can and cannot run for Parliament. Lilburne's Levellers are the best organized party in the country, and dominate London, which due to the redistricting now has significantly more seats. When elections come, Levellers come out as the strongest single party, and for some reason anyone with Royalist sympathies seems to have been unable to run (or doesn't win if they do).

The Lilburne Parliament (so-called because of the election of John Lilburne, the intellectual driver of the Leveller party) acts to get rid of the King, with Lilburne and his faction driving proceedings. The group of judges who decide to execute King Charles demonstrates the alliance that the NMA and civilian Leveller leadership have made, with John Lilburne and Henry Ireton both sitting in judgement of the King.

Once the King is executed, the NMA turns to reducing Ireland (an effort commanded by Henry Ireton) and then fighting the Scots (commanded by Cromwell) when they invite Charles II to lead them. In England, Lilburne rules through Parliament, pushing through key points of the Agreement of the People.

The fighting of the Third Phase of the English Civil War goes basically according to OTL. Charles II is killed in the final battle against the NMA, leaving the crown to his younger brother, the 18 year old (and staunch Catholic) James II (The First Pretender).

Since Pride's Purge didn't happen, and instead new elections were called, which were dominated by the Leveller faction, once Charles II dies, Parliament is able to rule. Though operations continue in Ireland, the NMA begins to be demobilized, with troops being settled either on seized Royalist property in England and Scotland, or (much more) in new settlements in Ireland.

Cromwell, though he is uneasy about Lilburne's faction in Parliament, oversees the last operations in Ireland, before retiring from the Army. In 1654 he is elected to Parliament. In Parliament he leads a new faction of more conservative MPs, who end Lilburne's control of Parliament and attempt to create an executive authority. In '56 Henry Ireton introduces the "Council of State Act" which would create an executive body composed of MPs elected by the Parliament. The Council would be elected at the beginning of every new sitting of Parliament. Executive power would rest with the Council of State, and the Council of State would rule when Parliament did not sit. The leader of the Council was the "Lord President of the Council of State" (shortened to "Lord President"), a position that Oliver Cromwell was elected to in '56, re-elected to in '60, and which he died in ('61).

After the radical acts of Parliament from 1649-52, during the last stages of the English Civil War, the arrival to Parliament of many former NMA officers serves to counter-balance things. The same party names that had become familiar during the Civil War the "Grandees" and the "Agiatators" come back into use, to describe the factions led by Henry Ireton and John Lilburne.

With the Long Parliament's approval of the radicialized Heads of Proposal, the biennial elections of Parliament (with the exclusion of Royalists and their sympathizers) provided a more even keel for the Republic to operate from. The radical program passed by the Lilburne Parliament (49-52) actually got wide-spread support and participation, and granted greater legitimacy and popular support to Parliament and its acts.

Good news for the Stuarts as they will get plenty of backing for their attempts to retake their kingdom. Whether they would be successful is another matter.

I don't think James II, the Most Catholic Pretender, is going to be a big hit in England . . .

 

[alt_historian]

...

With the Long Parliament's approval of the radicialized Heads of Proposal, the biennial elections of Parliament (with the exclusion of Royalists and their sympathizers) provided a more even keel for the Republic to operate from. The radical program passed by the Lilburne Parliament (49-52) actually got wide-spread support and participation, and granted greater legitimacy and popular support to Parliament and its acts.

So is that biennial or triennial?

Overall, very interesting ideas there...

 

[Lord Douglas]

James II/VII didn't 'come out' as a Catholic until the 1670s and according to all accounts only coverted in the 1660s. With the PoD as it is James' advances towards Catholicism may be wiped out completely, but regardless it is unlikely he would admit himself as a Catholic in the 1650s.

It does seem too easy and I think the strength of Royalist feeling is underestimated, both in the country and to a certain extent the City of London (which after all was one of the motors for the Restoration OTL). Also, you won't get those such as Monck, Fairfax and so on who served Cromwell in spite of or after Charles' execution - they most definately would not serve in a Leveller-dominated Army. Those comparing this to the French and Russian Revolutions aren't quite hitting the spot. There was little real support for Nicholas II by February, and all the pillars of his regime had worn away. In France, much of the populace never really accepted the end of the monarchy and all that entailed - see the Vendee rebellions - and in any case even there there were very strong forces working against democratic and Jacobin forces, hence the Directory after Robespierre. Here you have a still fairly pro-monarchy, if not exactly Royalist, gentry, a City dubious of the Leveller regime, a peasantry which may not look kindly at the new government, no 'industrial proletariat' to facilitate the revolution and strong military forces opposed to the Levellers. I do not say that they cannot succeed for a while - but the chances of a long-lasting Leveller regime I would say are very slim.

 

[Alratan]

Whilst I agree that preventing an eventual Restoration would be very difficult, it may well be possible to see a way that if delayed long enough you might see much of the Agreement of the People retained.

 

[cow defender]

ok so even if in your opinion a leveller england could not survive long, what then would be its legacy in the years after

 

[Matthais Corvinus]

James II/VII didn't 'come out' as a Catholic until the 1670s and according to all accounts only coverted in the 1660s. With the PoD as it is James' advances towards Catholicism may be wiped out completely, but regardless it is unlikely he would admit himself as a Catholic in the 1650s.

I agree that James II/VII probably wouldn't openly convert to Catholicism. It would lose him support not just in England, but it would end any potential for Scottish support too. And with an English Commonwealth putting pro-Independent religious policy into law, Scottish support will probably be important for any future armed attempt at a crown.

It does seem too easy and I think the strength of Royalist feeling is underestimated, both in the country and to a certain extent the City of London (which after all was one of the motors for the Restoration OTL). Also, you won't get those such as Monck, Fairfax and so on who served Cromwell in spite of or after Charles' execution - they most definately would not serve in a Leveller-dominated Army.

Fairfax basically walked away from the NMA after Charles' execution. The other Grandees followed Cromwell through his conflicts with the King and Parliament, and his mounting authoritarianism. Lambert and Fleetwood tried to support the Commonwealth against Monck, though they failed.

If Cromwell accepts the Levellers, then I think the Grandees will follow suit.

Those comparing this to the French and Russian Revolutions aren't quite hitting the spot. There was little real support for Nicholas II by February, and all the pillars of his regime had worn away. In France, much of the populace never really accepted the end of the monarchy and all that entailed - see the Vendee rebellions - and in any case even there there were very strong forces working against democratic and Jacobin forces, hence the Directory after Robespierre. Here you have a still fairly pro-monarchy, if not exactly Royalist, gentry, a City dubious of the Leveller regime, a peasantry which may not look kindly at the new government, no 'industrial proletariat' to facilitate the revolution and strong military forces opposed to the Levellers. I do not say that they cannot succeed for a while - but the chances of a long-lasting Leveller regime I would say are very slim.

Parliament rose against Charles I; Cromwell was able to win 2 rounds of war against Charles I, oversee Pride's Purge, the execution of Charles I, beat Charles II in round 3 of the Civil war, the dissolution of the Rump Parliament and the imposition of the Lord Protectorate. So where does that mostly pro-Royalist country come into effect here?

The Restoration occured after over a decade of disorder, with the civil war and then Cromwell's one man rule. I think that if a constitutional framework based on legal eqaulity had been created at the beginning of the Republic, when Charles I's trail and execution demonstrated in the most extreme way legal equality, then a Parliamentry Republic could have succeeded.

 

[Lord Douglas]

Cromwell isn't going to accept the Levellers. He was one of their strongest opponents OTL - in fact (other than deposing the monarchy) he was pretty conservative. Why would he support them this time - a group of people who advanced extremely radical and almost unheard of notions for even him? At least executions of Kings hadn't been unheard of. As for pro-royalist, well, as you yourself have suggested the Civil War was won through military force, not the backing of the civility. The City of London throughout the period was pro-monarchy (not, note, pro-Royalist - there's a difference), the gentry was at least monarchist in sentiment. By viewing issues through the prism of military conquest one misses the point that most Englishmen (and Scots and Irish for that matter) were quite conservative regarding the monarchy - you only have to see the reaction of the Marquess of Argyll and his regime, which had been regarded as quite radical before Charles' execution, to the event.

The Levellers' influence was at its prime before the Second Civil War (which wasn't really a civil war but heigh-ho). After that, when the Army seized control, their voice waned and was stamped out. The Grandees were just as authoritarian as many Royalists - and the notions of people's democracy was just as alien to them. Simply put, I can't see those notions gaining any support amongst them, and I do very much doubt that the NMA will successfully rise against them. While there were Levellers' mutinies in the army, they weren't at all widespread, and the movement was largely an urban, civilian one.

Also - you say that the Restoration came in upon the basis of a wave of support due to disorder and anarchy. Is it not very likely that a Levellers' regime in fact creates even more disorder and anarchy, and thus a Restoration comes about sooner?

 

[Lord Douglas]

ok so even if in your opinion a leveller england could not survive long, what then would be its legacy in the years after

Violent reaction against anything with a hint of 'democracy' about it, much as Thande suggested earlier.

BTW Matthias - sorry if I seem unappreciative, I do think this is a novel idea and certainly one worth looking into, however (perhaps its just my monarchist bias talking) I don't believe that a Leveller England would survive for very long given the state of play, even in the radical 1650s.

 

[Matthais Corvinus]

Its alright, I'm having a hard time justifying some of the turns that this scenario needs to take in order to achieve a Leveller England. Really, its not a Leveller England that I'm after so much as a lasting English Republic. I think that Cromwell's eventual route of king-less monarchy was shown to be unsustainable in OTL, so I want to find an alternative. I think the alternative is some kind of constitutional order that the Grandees in the NMA could accept, and that would have enough popular support (and legitimacy) to no longer require the explicit threat of the Army's force to rule.

The problem is that the New Model Army wanted the Parliament to do what it wanted, without putting the political pieces in place to make that happen. The NMA never created a civilian powerbase or found a civilian ally that could serve to carry out the NMA's agenda in Parliament. My fascination with the Levellers is that I think they could be that civilian ally that would be able to provide some measure of popular support, and certainly shares the same goals on major parts of the NMA's agenda: the religious settlement the Grandees desired; the redistricting of Parliament; biennial elections; full payment of what was owed to the officers and troopers of the NMA.

And if the constitutional settlement is undoable (which I suspect it is) then changing the Protectorate into something a bit more sustainable will be my next project. I'll have a republican England make it to 1700 one way or the other.