#solemn league and covenant

[cromwellrex2]

Montrose Betrayed: ‘We require and authorise you therefore to proceed vigorously and effectively in your undertaking;’

Charles Throws in his Lot with the Covenanters

Charles II of England c1653. Source: Wikipedia

THE MARQUIS of Montrose, probably one of Charles I’s most steadfast supporters had, after his extraordinary campaigns in Scotland in 1644-45, fled to the continent following his ultimate defeat at Philiphaugh. There he toured the courts of Europe, feted as a defender of monarchy and the ultimate cavalier general. The execution of the King hit the fervently Royalist Montrose particularly hard and the Marquis, vowing hot vengeance on the Commonwealth who had carried out the vile deed, immediately offered his unconditional support to the new King Charles II at his court in Breda in the Dutch Republic. Charles accepted the offer and made Montrose Lieutenant-Governor of the Royalist forces in Scotland in February 1649.

There were of course no Royalist troops as such in Scotland, but the country remained contested. Hamilton’s Engagers had been ousted, but the Covenanter government that had resumed control under Archibald Campbell, Earl of Argyll, ultimately began to assume a similar stance towards the English Commonwealth and the new King, as had its predecessor. Despite the religious dispute that had led the Scots to take up arms against Charles I on at least three occasions, there was no support for republicanism in any part of Scotland. The Commonwealth, dominated as it was by the New Model Army, was viewed by the Covenanters as sectarian, radical and revolutionary and despite the wartime alliance with the English Parliament, as less trustworthy a partner than the new King. Therefore commissioners were duly despatched to Charles’ court in Breda to see if the young monarch could be persuaded, as had theoretically been his father, to adopt the Solemn League and Covenant across the Kingdoms in return for Scottish military help to overthrow the Rump Parliament.

As the Irish Rebellion began to falter, Charles did indeed begin to place more faith in a Scottish alliance as the means by which he could reclaim his father’s throne. Although this effectively meant leaving Ormrond to his own devices in Ireland, the spontaneous eruption of some small scale Royalist rebellions in the north of Scotland, quickly put down, made Charles realise he did not have to put all his eggs into one basket. Montrose was summoned and asked to gather a force of mercenaries to attack northern Scotland and seek to establish a Royalist presence there that could threaten Covenanter and Commonwealth alike.

In March 1650, Montrose landed in Orkney with a small force of 200 German and Danish mercenaries. He found a measure of Royalist support here but little in the way of meaningful military manpower or supplies. Montrose’s planned tactics were again to be the formation of a tough guerrilla force that could undermine Covenanter resolve and inspire a more general rallying to the Royalist cause. However, Montrose remained a figure of fear and hatred to Scottish Presbyterians due to the ferocity of his campaigning during the First Civil War and with negotiations with Charles proceeding, the Covenanters saw no reason to seek compromise with the cavalier Marquis. Unfortunately for Montrose, Charles would use his presence in Scotland as a bargaining chip in his negotiations with the commissioners and no more, and that that was the main value of the Marquis’ quixotic adventure to the King.

In the meantime the commissioners drove a hard bargain. Like the Engagers before them, they insisted that Charles sign the Solemn League and Covenant and in so doing, agree to the introduction of Presbyterianism throughout England. They also required Charles to renounce episcopacy, personally convert to Presbyterianism and ensure his children were raised in the Calvinist Protestant religion. Finally, the King should disavow the campaigns being fought in his name by the Irish Confederates and by Montrose’s small band of fighters in Scotland. Then and only then, would the Covenanter army be prepared to embark on a war to defeat Cromwell and the New Model Army, overthrow the Commonwealth and restore the monarchy in England. Charles hated these terms but he had to face reality: Cromwell had reduced the Irish Rebellion to no more than a series of sieges whereas Montrose’s campaign, although his forces had grown to over 1200 men, was never going to secure significant victory in Scotland. The Puritan Covenanters, anathema though they be to the Anglicanism of his father, offered the surest hope of military and political success in England. On 19th April, 1650, Charles signed the Treaty of Breda with the Scottish commissioners. From that moment, Montrose was on his own.

Whether he appreciated his isolation or not, Montrose continued to carry out his King’s wishes as he understood them. He landed his small force in the Highlands and raised the Royal standard. Montrose then traversed the Highlands trying once again to secure a rallying of clans to the Royal cause, but he was met in the main with indifference. The Marquis took his force further south, pausing near Carbisdale to await what he hoped would be reinforcements. However, a small Covenanter cavalry force, led by Colonel Archibald Strachan, a capable officer with experience of the Scottish civil conflict with the Engagers, attacked Montrose’s men. Although outnumbered, Strachan’s cavalry took Montrose’s inexperienced infantry force by surprise and routed them in a single charge. Montrose escaped from the battlefield and sought refuge with Neil MacLeod of Ardvreck, a former Royalist supporter who promptly handed him over to the Covenanters. Charles, on signing the Treaty of Breda, did send a letter to Montrose, instructing him to disarm, but it never reached him. Even if it had however, it was now too late.

Montrose was taken to Edinburgh in chains on 18th May and was put on trial the following day. The result was a foregone conclusion. Although Montrose defended himself by pleading loyalty to his rightful King, the vengeful Presbyterians were not interested and the Marquis accepted the inevitable sentence of death with a degree of equanimity. But it was an horrendous death: Montrose was hung, drawn and quartered, the fate of traitors and Papists, with his head displayed at Edinburgh and his limbs despatched to Stirling, Perth, Glasgow and Aberdeen, so all Scotland could see the fate of the man who had so infuriated and terrified his enemies. Montrose was an impetuous romantic, guilty of much brutality in the war he waged against the Covenanters in the 1640s, but his loyalty to his monarchs could not be doubted and he deserved better than to be deserted so casually by the King he had served so unstintingly. It was a poor end for the ultimate Cavalier.

As for Charles, his die was cast. In June he set sail for Scotland in fulfilment of his Faustian pact, and with this, his attempt to regain his father’s throne and therefore the commencement of a third civil war, were put in train.

[scotianostra]

On February 28th 1638, the Second Covenant was signed in Greyfriars Churchyard.

You will have seen many of my posts regarding battles that came after this date in what eventually led to "The Killing Times" in Battles between those loyal to King Charles II called Royalists and those who that believed in the Covenant, the Covenanters. The whole affair covers from about 1637 to 1688.

When Charles I took the throne of England and Scotland, one of the things he tried to do was make the Scottish kirk more like the English church. He instituted a new Book of Common Prayer without input from the National Assembly. This angered the Scots, and riots broke out against the imposition of what was seen as Charles's English-influenced changes.

You might have heard of Jenny Geddes, who is said to have been the one who started the riots with throwing a stool in St Giles on 23rd July 1637, as she hurled the stool she is reported to have yelled: "De'il gie you colic, the wame o' ye, fause thief; daur ye say Mass in my lug?" meaning "Devil cause you colic in your stomach, false thief: dare you say the Mass in my ear?"

Well all this led to this day in 1638 when a group of nobles met at Greyfriars Kirkyard in Edinburgh and signed an agreement that they called the National Covenant of Scotland. They affirmed their loyalty to the king, but asserted the legality of the kirk and its customs. It was essentially a statement of independence in religious matters and a protest against English influence in church matters.

The Covenant was circulated around the country and those who signed it were called Covenanters. The Covenanters called a National Assembly which gathered in November 1638. The National Assembly abolished the system of bishops imposed by James VI, rejected the Book of Common Prayer, and refused the rest of Charles I's plans for church reform. They also raised an army; which might seem odd considering they made clear their allegiance to the king.

The Covenaters army was under the leadership of Alexander Leslie. Charles promised to meet with the Covenanters if they disbanded their army. They did, but Charles did not keep his word. The Covenanters raised a new army led by James Graham, the Earl of Montrose, and marched into England. The king was forced to meet with them. This time, however, the Covenanters did not trust Charles, and they reached an agreement directly with Parliament, by which terms all of the National Assembly's terms were accepted.

Unfortunately, after these resounding successes, things went sour. The Covenanters quarrelled amongst themselves. some wanted to force the king to abdicate. Others were alarmed because people were being forced to sign the Covenant.

However, the power struggle in the Covenanters army was nothing compared to the struggle in English society; Parliament and King Charles were about to embark on a civil war, and both sides courted the Scots. The Scots saw their chance and demanded a Scottish-style church in England in exchange for their help. Parliament agreed with these terms, and signed the Solemn League and Covenant. The Covenanters army then joined the English Civil War on Parliament's side. The Scots played a leading role in the decisive Royalist victory at the Battle of Marston Moor.

However, though the Covenanters joined Parliament, their erstwhile leader, the Earl of Montrose, could not bring himself to turn against the king. He felt that the Covenanters had gone far beyond the terms of the original Covenant and he joined the Royalist side. With Charles's blessing he returned to Scotland to raise a Royalist army. This he did, drawing heavily on support from the Highland clans, and fighting a guerilla war with small, quick moving forces. His tactics proved a huge success and within a year he had taken almost all of Scotland for the king. He was on his way south to England when he met a Covenanters army under Leslie at Selkirk. The Covenanters won a massive victory, and Montrose was forced to flee.

Charles surrendered to a Covenanting army in England. The Scots were now unsuccessful on several fronts; Charles would not agree to sign the Solemn League and Covenant, and Parliament refused to pay the Scots expenses as promised. The Covenanters finally returned to Scotland, and gave Charles over to the English Parliament after they affirmed that no harm would come to the king. That promise, of course, was not kept, and Charles was eventually executed.

The Earl of Argyll took over control of Scotland. He declared war on England and proclaimed Charles II as king. Even with the support of a Scots army under Argyll, Charles did not trust the Scots. After all, he reasoned, they had handed over his father to Parliament. Charles did not trust the Earl of Montrose, nor did he feel he could sign the Solemn League and Covenant. The Earl of Montrose was betrayed by his enemies and executed in Edinburgh.

Charles II eventually agreed to sign the Covenant, though it seems only as a pretext so he could gain Scottish support in his bid to reclaim the English throne.

Now roles were reversed and the Covenanters in Scotland fought on behalf of a Stuart king. Oliver Cromwell led his Parliamentary army into Scotland and defeated Charles and Covenanters and Charles was forced to flee the country once again.

Finally, in 1660 Charles was restored to the English throne. Now he showed his true colours in regard to Scotland; he declared invalid all laws passed by the parliament since 1633. He replaced the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland with bishops on the English model, and they were placed under control of Parliament. Not unnaturally, Charles's measures were resented and caused more religious turmoil.

The ministers of the church either had to accept the terms or leave there Kirk's, most left rather than be forced out, this led to open air field "conventicles", The Royalists didn't take kindly to this and fines were dished out to those not attending the now near empty churches, the death penalty was imposed for preaching at these outdoor gatherings, torture was used on those captured to give the names of those organising the Coventicles. This went on until King James VII fled to France.

There are monuments scattered around Scotland to the martyrs who died during the killing time, most notably on the spot where many were executed on the Grassmarket in Edinburgh, The Wigtown Martyrs Monument at Stirling and Martyrs' Memorial, Barony North Church, Glasgow.

The pic shows The Signing of the National Covenant in Greyfriars Kirkyard, by the distinguished Scottish historical painter William Allan and a replica Covenanter flag in The National Museum of Scotland, which you can see in the painting.

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

The Westminster Confession of Faith’s Additional Documents, along with the subordinate documents like the Larger and Short Catechism, Solemn League and Covenant, Sum of Saving Knoweldge, etc.

The Westminster Standards

A list of the Members of the Westminster Assembly along with their writings: a bibliography of the Westminster Divines.

The Solemn League & Covenant

The Shorter Catechism

The Larger Catechism

Directory for Publick Worship

Directory for Private (Family) Worship

Form of Presbyterian Church Government

The Sum of Saving Knowledge

Warrants to Believe

Introduction to the Confession, by Thomas Manton

To the Christian Reader....

continue at Reformed.Org

[appalachianwarlock]

Term's Hillbilly and Redneck

The term "hillbilly" in the United States started early in the 18th century when British soldiers began using it when referring to Scots-Irish immigrants who lived in the frontier areas of the Ozarks and Appalachian Mountains. These Protestant Irish colonists brought their traditions with them when they immigrated. Many of their stories, songs, and ballads dealt with the history of their Ulster and Lowland Scot homelands, especially relating the tale of the Protestant King William III, Prince of Orange. Many of the settlers in the Appalachian mountains were of German origin and were named Wilhelm with the short form Willy, a common German name during that time. Those Wilhelms, who went by Bill or Billy, living in the Appalachian Mountains became known as hillbillies, that is Bills who lived in the hills. The term emerged as a derogatory nickname given by the coastal plain-dwelling Southerners to the hill-dwelling settlers of Eastern Tennessee, Western Virginia (including modern West Virginia), and Eastern Kentucky.

The term Appalachian Hillbillies arose in the years after The War Between the States, when the Appalachian region became increasingly bypassed by technological and social changes taking place in the rest of the country. Until The War Between the States, the Appalachians were not significantly different from other rural areas of the country, but after the war, as the frontier pushed further west, the Appalachian country retained its frontier character, and the people themselves came to be considered as backward, quick to violence, and to make their living from moonshine stills. Fueled by news stories of mountain feuds, such as that in the 1880s between the Hatfields and McCoys, the hillbilly stereotype developed in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.

The origins of the term "redneck" are Scottish and refer to supporters of the National Covenant and The Solemn League and Covenant, or Covenanters, largely Lowland Presbyterians, many of whom would flee Scotland for Ulster (Northern Ireland) during persecutions by the British Crown. The Covenanters of 1638 and 1641 signed the documents that stated that Scotland desired the Presbyterian form of church government and would not accept the Church of England as its official state church. Although the term "redneck" is characterized by farmers having a red neck caused by sunburn from hours working in the fields, many Covenanters signed in their own blood and wore red pieces of cloth around their necks as distinctive insignia. Since many Ulster-Scottish settlers in America (especially in the South) were Presbyterian, the term was applied to them, and then, later, their Southern descendants. One of the earliest examples of its use comes from 1830, when an author noted that red-neck was a name bestowed upon the Presbyterians.

The term Redneck refers to a stereotype of usually rural, Caucasian people of lower socio-economic status in the United States and Canada. Originally limited to the Appalachians, and later the South, the Ozarks, the Great Plains and the Rocky Mountains, this stereotype is now widespread throughout North America. Southern comedian Jeff Foxworthy defines "redneck" as "a glorious lack of sophistication" stating that we are all guilty of at one time or another. The common stereotype of a "redneck" is a group of people that are generally from The South, though can be found throughout the United States. They are considered uncivilized, uneducated, racist, enjoy outdoor sports such as hunting and fishing, and country music. They know how to work on a farm, can fix their own vehicles, and know how to make moonshine. They tend to live in the backwoods.

The terms "hillbilly/redneck" is often misunderstood by those north of the Mason-Dixon line. Many Yankees use these terms to refer to Southerners and treat them as if they were illiterate, uneducated, inbred, and backward compared to the rest of the United States. you know what you believe and you aren't afraid to say so, no matter who is listening; you respect your elders; or, you'd give your last dollar to a friend in need.

(Edited From Facebook)

[stairnaheireann]

#OTD in 1912 – Ulster Covenant | Edward Carson, leader of Ulster Unionists, stages signing by 500,000 Ulster Protestant Unionists of “Solemn League and Covenant” against Irish Home Rule.

The Ulster Covenant, was signed by just under half a million Irishmen and women, mainly from Ulster, on and before 28 September 1912, in protest against the Third Home Rule Bill introduced by the British Government in the same year. Sir Edward Carson was the first person to sign the Covenant at Belfast City Hall with a silver pen, followed by Lord Londonderry (the former viceroy of Ireland),…

[werewolfetone]

Woodes rogers attempts to beat the "about to pass a law restricting religious freedom, the Established Church bastard" allegations by creating a council with a representative of every major religious group on the island on it, only to run into difficulties when it turns out that he's not ready for the drama which ensues when he puts the preachers from 2 rival protestant sects even god doesn't know about in the same room together. meanwhile flint and silver discover yet another problem with the plan of recruiting pirates to fight against england when it turns out that the religion that flint eventually forced silver to confess he made up in the earlier episode is actually real and now the entire crew thinks flint lied to them again and is threatening to mutiny about it. teach tries to talk vane into signing a solemn league and covenant of some kind

It actually is so sad the religious politics of the era don’t come up as much as they ought in black sails. rip charles vane I know you would have loved calling flint and jack esoteric early 18thc sectarian slurs if the writers had let u

[versey21]

15th March

To Daffodils by Robert Herrick

Herrick was one of the “Cavalier Poets”, so called because of their support for King Charles I during the British Civil Wars of the seventeenth century. A romantic, whose verse often enjoined readers to live life for the moment (carpe diem), he wrote the poem below about the daffodil, celebrating its arrival but nonetheless mourning the fact this spring flower dies before the coming of summer, comparing its brief appearance to the shortness of human life.

Robert Herrick (1591-1674). Sources: Herrick’s Literary Review 1913/ Wikimedia/ Penny’s Poetry Pages wiki

To Daffodils

Fair daffodils we weep to see

You haste away so soon;

As yet the early-rising sun

Has not attain’d his noon.

Stay, stay,

Until the hasting day

Has run

But to the evensong;

And, having prayed together, we

Will go with you along.

We have short time to stay, as you,

We have as short a spring;

As quick a growth to meet decay

As you, or anything.

We die,

As your hours do, and dry

Away,

Like to the summer’s rain;

Or as the pearls of morning’s dew,

Ne’er to be found again.

A clergyman who refused to support the Presbyterian Solemn League and Covenant after Parliament’s victory in the civil war, Herrick was thrown out of his vicarage by the Puritan regime in 1647 and forced to live on the charity of friends in London. He was restored to his Anglican priest’s living in 1662 following the Restoration of the monarchy in 1660.

[bantarleton]

One day I won’t be able to walk 10 minutes from where I live to see the National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant + signatures, but while I can, I will, at least once a month. 

[homieswithhades]

who dafuk let this mf rule northern ireland for 19 entire years

[achillesuwu]

Well it does mean "male magician" but the etymology mean oaths breaker and deceiver

But more detail here :

warlock (n.)

Old English wærloga "traitor, liar, enemy, devil," from wær "faith, fidelity; a compact, agreement, covenant," from Proto-Germanic *wera- (source also of Old High German wara "truth," Old Norse varar "solemn promise, vow"), from PIE root *were-o- "true, trustworthy." Second element is an agent noun related to leogan "to lie" (see lie (v.1); and compare Old English wordloga "deceiver, liar").

Original primary sense seems to have been "oath-breaker;" given special application to the devil (c. 1000), but also used of giants and cannibals. Meaning "one in league with the devil" is recorded from c. 1300. Ending in -ck (1680s) and meaning "male equivalent of a witch" (1560s) are from Scottish. Related: Warlockery.

It's interesting that merlin is the only one who is called "Warlock" (breaker of oaths" or "deceiver")

[cromwellrex2]

The Engagement: ‘we have resolved to put the Kingdom presently in a posture of defence as it was in Anno 1643.’

The Road to Renewed War

Charles at the Phoenix Tower. Source: chestershoutwiki.com

CHARLES’ ESCAPE from Hampton Court was characteristically ill thought through and its motivations are not entirely clear. Word had certainly reached the King of the tenor of the Putney Debates and of the increasing republican sentiment abroad in the New Model Army, accompanied by frequent references to the Charles as the “man of blood” and calls for him to be put on trial for starting the civil war, even for his life. A desire to be away from the hothouse of London for reasons of self-preservation was likely a strong incentive to flee. Hampton Court had also become very claustrophobic and Charles was daily assailed by Ireton and Cromwell wishing him to reach a settlement and thwarting his attempts to deal openly with the Scots. On 11th November 1647, aided by two courtiers, Charles slipped out of Hampton and crossed the Thames south. Some of Charles’ followers urged him to head to Cornwall, where Royalist sympathies remained strong and the Channel ports were close for a possible flight to France; others suggested the King go to the Isle of Wight, whose Parliamentary Governor, Colonel Robert Hammond, had recently made anti-Leveller statements and might therefore be considered sympathetic to preserving the King. Charles ultimately decided on the latter course of action. The Isle of Wight was far enough removed from the capital to give him a measure of personal safety, but still within the Kingdom; Charles was nervous that if he fled to France he would be seen by his subjects as effectively renouncing his throne.

Hammond greeted the news that Charles wished to reside in Carisbrooke Castle with consternation, but felt he had little choice but to agree. Although a young man, the colonel had seen much war service and was astute enough to advise Fairfax immediately his unwelcome guest arrived. Charles was treated with due deference, but Hammond nonetheless placed a light guard on the King confirming his status as prisoner, albeit a well cared for one. In London, the mood was turning decidedly against the King. Charles’ obstinacy in refusing whatever settlement the Independents came up with, meant the House of Commons was increasingly of the view a settlement was impossible. Cromwell’s own attitude was hardening: he still believed a lasting settlement could only be achieved with the monarchy intact but he was no longer of the view that Charles I had to be that monarch. Parliament ignored a letter from Charles requesting a resumption of negotiations and instead passed the Four Bills - legislation that sought to impose a settlement on the King, comprising Parliamentary control of the militias for twenty years, the abolition of episcopy, payment of the Army and regular sessions of Parliament. The bills however required Royal Assent which Charles, on 28th December, contemptuously refused to give. This led directly to Parliament passing of a Vote of No Addresses on 3rd January 1648, which stated that there would be no more negotiation with Charles and that any attempt to do so would be viewed by the Commons as a treasonable act.

Charles was unlikely to have been pleased at this effective ending of talks with Parliament, but by this stage, helped by his new location at Carisbrooke, the King was making significant headway in reaching an agreement with the Scots. Finally realising that the English Parliament would never enact the Solemn League and Covenant, the Scots put forward a proposal to Charles termed “The Engagement”. Under these arrangements, Charles would agree to accept personally Presbyterianism for a period of three years; would work to achieve religious union between the two Kingdoms, in other words attempt to make Presbyterianism the official religion of both; and, crucially, to suppress all ‘sectarian’ beliefs now freely abroad in both Parliament and the English Army, which would include putting down the Independents. Compared to the humiliating requirements of the Four Bills, the Engagement was more than acceptable to Charles, particularly because the Scots committed to invade England and restore Charles to his throne by force in return. Charles agreed to these terms with Scottish commissioners who visited him at Carisbrooke in early January.

The deal however was not done. The commissioners had to gain the agreement of the Scottish Parliament and the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. Whatever their frustration with the English, plenty of Scots balked at the idea of resuming war in support of the King the Covenanters had been so instrumental in deposing, and others were deeply unhappy at the equivocation of the full introduction of Presbyterianism to both Kingdoms contained in the Engagement. James, third Marquis of Hamilton, remained hugely influential in the Scottish government and soon assumed leadership of the so-called ‘Engager’ faction when the contents of the proposals became public in February 1648. He was opposed by Archibald Campbell, Earl of Argyll, but Campbell did not have the aristocratic numbers in Parliament to prevent the Engagement being passed and a vote for an army of 30,000 to be raised to enter England to rescue the King from the control of the ‘sectarians’. The final breach with the Covenanters’ former Parliamentary English allies came on 20th April, when the Scottish Parliament issued a declaration to its English equivalent that demanded the immediate implementation of the Solemn League and Covenant; the restoration of the King to his throne to oversee this implementation, and the break up of the perfidious New Model Army. These demands were completely unacceptable to the English. The Scots therefore began mobilising for war.

However, the reason that the conflict that was about to break out is called the Second English Civil War rather than an Anglo-Scottish war, is because during 1647 and 1648, public opinion in England had been turning decisively against Parliament and the Army. Taxation, principally to maintain the Army in the field, was higher than during Charles’ Personal Rule; the behaviours of the Parliamentary government had become increasingly arbitrary and intolerant; there was much discontent about the role of the Army Council in the governance of the Kingdom, and many people felt the promised indemnity to the Parliamentary troops for wartime actions would create an alarming precedent for military atrocity in the event of further fighting. Many yearned for a return to the gentle Anglicanism of Elizabeth I and James I, without widespread episcopy and the Book of Common Prayer. The religious views of both Presbyterianism and the Independent and Puritan low church sects were viewed by much of the population as alien as Popery. An early warning of the insurrections to come occurred in late December 1647 when there was widespread rioting at the attempts of the Puritans to suppress the Christmas holidays on the grounds it was in reality a pagan festival. Discontent with the Parliamentary government was running high, and as former Royalist commanders began to join Hamilton and his army in Scotland, the stage was set for the return of civil war to England

[scotianostra]

9th May 1645 saw the Battle of Auldearn.

Since late 1642, England had been embroiled in a civil war between King Charles and Parliament. At this time Scotland was controlled by Covenanters but did not immediately join the war despite previous conflicts against the King. However in August 1643, after a sustained diplomatic mission the Solemn League and Covenant was signed between Scotland and the English Parliamentarians, Scotland would enter the war against King Charles I.

Scottish forces invaded England in January 1644 under the command of Alexander Leslie, Earl of Leven and played a key role at The Battle of Marston Moor, and then at Naseby, however back in Scotland Charles I had appointed James Graham, Marquis of Montrose as Captain General, who had earlier fought with Covenanters against the King during the Bishops War, he had opposed the subsequent power of the Presbyterian leadership under Archibald Campbell, Marquis of Argyll. Montrose effectively mobilised the Highland forces, many of whom were opposed to Campbell, and achieved a number of rapid successes.

His latest assault on Dundee however was not so successful, and so Montrose retreated northwards, closely pursued by a Covenanter detachment commanded by Sir John Hurry.

The Covenanters, reinforced by troops withdrawn from England because of the threat from Montrose, gathered at Inverness before marching overnight in an attempt to surprise Montrose Having joined forces with local militia loyal to the Covenanter cause, Hurry led an attack close to the village of Auldearn, early in the morning of the 9th May.

The intense fighting that followed continued for much of the day, with attack and counter attack until the Covenanter army finally broke and fled. Greatly outnumbered and against the odds, the Earl of Montrose had secured yet another victory

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

The Westminster Confession of Faith’s Additional Documents, along with the subordinate documents like the Larger and Short Catechism, Solemn League and Covenant, Sum of Saving Knoweldge…

[stairnaheireann]

#OTD in 1912 – Ulster Covenant | Edward Carson, leader of Ulster Unionists, stages signing by 500,000 Ulster Protestant Unionists of “Solemn League and Covenant” against Irish Home Rule.

#OTD in 1912 – Ulster Covenant | Edward Carson, leader of Ulster Unionists, stages signing by 500,000 Ulster Protestant Unionists of “Solemn League and Covenant” against Irish Home Rule.

The Ulster Covenant, was signed by just under half a million Irishmen and women, mainly from Ulster, on and before 28 September 1912, in protest against the Third Home Rule Bill introduced by the British Government in the same year. Sir Edward Carson was the first person to sign the Covenant at Belfast City Hall with a silver pen, followed by Lord Londonderry (the former viceroy of Ireland),…

[werewolfetone]

Should never have started reposting instagram reels we have got to go back 2 our roots. who up thinking about the solemn league and covenant

This blog needs to become 95% posting about obscure northern irish religious slap fights again so my posts stop blowing up and people starting unhinged arguments in the comments

[gravitascivics]

AN OVERALL AMERICAN CONSTRUCT, PART I

This writer, in his recently published book, introduces an instructional mode for the teaching of civics education.[1]  He calls that mode historical dialog-to-action (HD-to-A).  Simply described, it calls on students to discuss, argue, and debate (in ascending order) civic issues through analyses of their historical developments.  

The main rationale for such an approach is that through historical developmental stories, students can be appraise holistic accounts about how current challenges have come to be.  The essence of the challenges chosen is their endangerment in fulfilling federalist values, for example, the way the opioid crisis has endangered the equity of millions of Americans.  The aim is not to determine what should have happened, but to what should happen in the future in dealing with the identified challenges.

While that is the aim, a lot must be filled in to guide such an effort – both in terms of content and, to some degree, instructional methods.  This posting sets out to initiate addressing of the former – the content.  And in that, such an effort, to be logically in line with what this blog has argued, that overview of the nation’s history would ideally reinforce a federalist bias that this blog has claimed characterized much of that history.  

To restate that argument, the US, since its colonial past, held as a dominant view concerning government and politics, a federalist version of what those entities should be.  That dominance lasted till the years after World War II and then it was overcome by a shift to the natural rights view or construct.  

Both views are aspirational in nature and should not be considered descriptive of what was or is.  The version of federalism that earlier Americans held was what this writer calls parochial/traditional federalism and it called for the federation of mostly the European-based population of the American nation.

Given these claims, a look at the historical overview of the nation not only gives one stories of how this development took place but provides evidence as to the veracity of this overall claim regarding the role of federalism.  But before delving into these concerns, a few definitions are needed.  

By federalism this blog has not emphasized, nor totally ignored, the structural elements of that construct; that being of the two levels of governance, the central government and the state governments. Instead, this blog has been mostly concerned with what Daniel Elazar calls the processes of federalism.[2]

Those processes basically highlight the construct’s call for a citizenry to adopt a partnering mode of civic intercourse.  Or more in line with the term, federalism, citizens establish and maintain themselves as being federated with each other. The term federalism is derived from the Latin term foedus – meaning to be leagued through an agreement (a covenant) that, in turn, is held to be sacred.[3]  

A further distinction is between a covenant and a compact.  According to Donald Lutz, the former calls on God to witness such an agreement, the latter does not.[4]  The US Constitution is a compact.  The common citizen becomes aware of such an agreement when he/she considers the solemnity of the marriage vow.  Usually in a church, that agreement is a covenant; before a state official, it’s usually a compact.  Both are held equally scared.

This overview reappears in this blog from time to time.  The historical development stated above also reappears often.  But as this blog sets out to test its overall historical view, this context is judged essential in this initial posting.  And before moving on, one more repetitive note should be added.

By saying federalism served as the central view of governance and politics it is not to say all agreed with it or that other ideas, theories, models did not exist under its umbrella.  But, for this latter grouping, there should be a logical connection between what more specifically served to guide Americans, e.g., Puritanism, and what constitutes the more general tenets of federalism.  

And those tenets can be summarized by a few words: cooperation, collaboration, commonality, and community.  More granular terms are equality (a regulated equality), liberty (a federal liberty), and civic virtue (a common value held by the founding fathers[5] and a quality that introduces a moral aspect). This list can be expanded, but if one considers what the phrase “to be federated” means, the reader can think of his/her own terms to describe this view of citizenry.

So, given this, what overview serves to provide a substantive general look at what constitutes the nation’s history.  For that purpose, this blog relies on the overview authored by Allen C. Guelzo.[6]  In introducing his treatment, Guelzo poses the question:  do Americans have a collective mind?  And to address that question:  what is a national mind?  It is a shared view – a construct – that to some degree defines what a people see social reality to be.  And Americans seem to approach that question a bit reluctantly.

They are considered to be doers, not thinkers. Of course, such a dichotomy cannot be totally true.  A people do need to think, and they do need to do; so, the question is:  how far a people carry on their affairs favoring one or the other?  The eventual dominance of Pragmatism in the late 1800s seems to indicate a “doer” bias, but Pragmatism itself is a well thought out philosophical position.  But this is getting ahead of the story.

In the writings of Elazar, he tells of how the original settlers, those of Massachusetts Bay being prominent, brought with them this Puritanical, covenantal approach with them.  The Mayflower Compact (a covenant) initiated this approach. The signees of the document entered into a federalist arrangement.  

But to return to Guelzo’s account, he identifies this Puritanical influence as the starting point for how Americans began defining themselves.  The Puritanical strain shortly was mixed in with those influences emanating from the Enlightenment – and as it will be fully described at a later date, a Scottish Enlightenment.[7]  Guelzo uses the analogy of two cooks – each one of these two traditions – cooking up America’s intellectual history.

But was there another “cook”?  Guelzo points out that one of the aspects of the American experience discouraging an intellectual bent was the practical realities that Americans faced in settling a continent.  Typical days that these early generations faced were filled with how one was going to make it till sunset.  The bulk of the population had its days filled with a slew of practical hurdles the frontier provided.  

But this, in and of itself, according to this blogger, added to the need for a federated approach.  Alexi de Tocqueville describes the common experiences of Americans in the 1830s.[8]  The outstanding characteristics highlighted in that description were how intense were the levels of cooperation, collaboration, and community – these characteristics were not considered as so many duties, but necessary and even sources of entertainment.  And in this, one can see how Ralph Waldo Emerson was keen on pointing out Americans’ practical thinking.  

Even de Tocqueville expressed concern over Americans’ lack of philosophic concern.  He wrote, “Each therefore, withdraws into himself and claims to judge the world from there … [he, therefore has] the shallowest of ideas, and tend[s] to be tightly chained to the general will of the greatest number.”[9]

The plan for the next posting is to pick up on this overview.  To this point, one can readily see that what is described above does not contradict federalist thought among Americans but by reviewing these finer elements of the nation’s past, one can further describe federalist influences and explain why it held on so strongly until the late 1940s.

[1] Robert Gutierrez, Toward a Federated Nation: Implementing National Civics Standards (Tallahassee, FL:  Gravitas/Civics Books, 2020).  Available through Amazon.

[2] Daniel J. Elazar, Exploring Federalism (Tuscaloosa, AL:  The University of Alabama Press, 1987).

[3] Center for the Study of Federalism (n.d.), https://federalism.org/about/what-is-federalism/ .

[4] Donald Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism, (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1988).

[5] Thomas E. Ricks, First Principles:  What America’s Founders Learned from the Greeks and Romans and How That Shaped Our Country (New York, NY:  HarperCollins Publishers, 2020).  He analyzed George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison.

[6] Allen C. Guelzo, The American Mind, Part I, II, III – transcript books – (Chantilly, VA:  The Teaching Company/The Great Courses, 2005).

[7] Ricks, First Principles.

[8] Alexi de Tocqueville, “Political Structure of Democracy,” in Alexis de Tocqueville:  On Democracy, Revolution, and Society, ed. John Stone and Stephen Mennell (Chicago, IL:  Chicago University Press, 1980/1835).

[9] Guelzo, The American Mind, Part I , 11.