The Drift to War, 1642–43 (AQA A-Level History): Revision Notes
The Drift to War, 1642–43
How the military conflict began
In the summer of 1642, the parliamentarian lawyer Bulstrode Whitelocke reflected on the unexpected path to civil war. He observed that England had moved from paper debates—declarations, protests, petitions—to the raising of military forces without anyone intending or desiring such an outcome. This observation captures three defining characteristics of how the conflict developed: it was unintended, unwanted, and entered into with extreme reluctance.
Three Defining Characteristics of the Drift to War:
The transition from political crisis to military conflict was marked by three crucial features that distinguished this period:
- Unintended: Neither side planned or sought military confrontation as their initial goal
- Unwanted: Both King and Parliament preferred political resolution to armed conflict
- Reluctant: The slide into war occurred despite widespread resistance and hesitation
The transition from political crisis to military action occupied almost a full year between the King's departure from London in January 1642 and the start of effective military campaigns. The first major engagement, the Battle of Edgehill, did not occur until October 1642. Even then, efforts to secure neutrality treaties continued into December 1642, showing that the slide into war was neither sudden nor inevitable. Both sides appeared surprised by their own actions and uncertain how to proceed.
The first steps to war
The military measures taken during 1642 and early 1643 reveal the defensive psychology that dominated both sides. Rather than offensive deployments or strategic planning, the focus fell on acquiring weapons, securing fortifications, and controlling strongpoints. This pattern reflects the atmosphere of mutual fear and suspicion that characterised the period. Neither side trusted the other, and each interpreted defensive preparations as evidence of aggressive intent.
The Cycle of Fear and Mistrust:
A dangerous pattern emerged in early 1642 where each side's defensive preparations were interpreted by the other as evidence of aggressive intent. This created a self-reinforcing cycle:
- One side takes defensive measures out of fear
- The other side interprets these as preparation for attack
- They respond with their own defensive measures
- The first side sees this response as confirming their fears
This cycle of mistrust made peaceful resolution increasingly difficult as each precaution convinced the other side that military strategy was being planned.
Parliament's concerns intensified after the revelation of a second Army Plot in October 1641, following the outbreak of rebellion in Ireland. When the King appointed Colonel Thomas Lunsford to command the Tower of London, parliamentarians saw this as confirmation that Charles intended a military coup. The King's hurried departure from Whitehall came after London citizens armed themselves and closed the city gates. On both sides, thinking and action throughout the early months of 1642 centred on fear of attack and the need to take precautions.
Alongside physical preparations, both sides engaged in what contemporaries called a "propaganda war". This battle for public opinion aimed to increase support for each side while discrediting opponents. In April 1642, when Sir John Hotham forestalled the King's attempt to seize the port and arsenal of Hull, Charles declared him a traitor. Hotham responded by appealing to Parliament for support. The resulting exchange of accusations continued through May and June.
The Propaganda War:
The conflict over public opinion proved as important as military preparations. Both sides:
- Published declarations and pamphlets to justify their positions
- Attempted to win support from the broader population
- Accused their opponents of treachery and illegal actions
- Used print and public statements to shape political narratives
This "war of words" escalated tensions and made compromise more difficult, as each side became committed to the positions they had publicly defended.
In May, Henry Parker published his pamphlet Observations, which provided a theoretical justification for Parliament's right to preserve itself against royal authority. This effectively claimed that Parliament could legitimately take up arms against the King. Parliament followed this in June with the Nineteen Propositions, which offered terms for negotiation. These propositions included parliamentary control of the King's choice of advisers and of the militia, alongside reform of the Church with Parliament's advice. Because these demands gave Parliament such extensive powers, they functioned more as a declaration of Parliament's aims than as a serious negotiating position. The King stood little chance of accepting such terms.
The King's reply, drafted by Edward Hyde and Lucius Cary (Lord Falkland), provided a statement of his legal rights and offered a defence of mixed monarchy. It also served as a claim to uphold order, justice, and the rule of law. Like Parliament's propositions, the King's response prioritised making a public statement over genuine negotiation.
Timeline of events leading to war
The months from January 1642 to May 1643 saw a steady escalation of tensions and military preparations:
January 1642: Parliament reorganised the London Militia to defend both Parliament and the City after the King left London. Charles sent the Earl of Newcastle to secure Hull's port and arsenal, but the Mayor refused to accept an external governor. To avoid open confrontation, Charles accepted Parliament's choice of Sir John Hotham as Governor. The King also accepted the exclusion of bishops from the House of Lords.
February 1642: Henrietta Maria sailed for France to seek help and raise forces. Charles established his Court at York, physically separating himself from Parliament in London.
March 1642: Parliament issued a "Declaration of fears and jealousies" and assumed control of the Militia, overriding the King's traditional authority as commander-in-chief.
April 1642: The King attempted to seize control of Hull and declared Hotham a traitor for denying him entry. Hotham's appeal to Parliament sparked the propaganda war that continued throughout May.
May 1642: Henry Parker issued his Observations pamphlet, which justified Parliament's right to preserve itself against royal authority and effectively claimed a right to take arms against the King.
June 1642: Parliament issued the Nineteen Propositions as an attempt to negotiate a settlement. However, since these included parliamentary control of the militia, the right to approve the King's advisers, and Church reform with Parliament's advice, they amounted to a declaration of Parliament's aims rather than serious negotiation terms. The King's reply, drafted by Hyde and Falkland, was similarly a statement staking his claim to represent legal power and order. The King also issued Commissions of Array to all counties, ordering them to raise forces. Parliament responded by sending out Militia Commissioners. The King and the Earl of Lindsay attempted to seize Hull after a brief siege. Oliver Cromwell secured Cambridge Castle for Parliament.
July 1642: The navy declared for Parliament, giving Parliament control of the seas and England's coastal defences. Both King and Parliament appointed military commanders.
August 1642: On 22 August, the King raised his standard at Nottingham and called for volunteers, formally beginning the war. Some counties attempted to avoid the conflict: Staffordshire JPs declared their county a neutral zone, and gentry in Yorkshire agreed a treaty of neutrality.
September 1642: Parliament appointed Lord Fairfax as commander in the north. Initially he did not act, but under pressure from Parliament he began raising forces in Yorkshire.
October 1642: The Battle of Edgehill took place—the first major battle of the war. Neither side achieved a decisive victory.
November 1642: The King's march on London was halted by the London Trained Bands (militia) at Turnham Green. This demonstrated Parliament's ability to defend the capital and prevented an early royalist victory.
December 1642: County Associations began to be established to coordinate defence efforts across groups of counties. Cheshire JPs concluded a neutrality treaty at Bunbury, showing that attempts to avoid the war continued even after major fighting had begun.
January–May 1643: Failed peace negotiations at Oxford marked the beginning of a new, more committed phase of warfare.
The failure of neutrality
According to the historian Derek Hirst, the summer of 1642 witnessed desperate attempts across many parts of England to prevent military action. Communities sought to escape into neutralism, with Sir John Hotham's fear that the people might deliver their religion, lives, and liberties into the hands of their adversaries being widely shared. County after county saw gentlemen oppose both the militia ordinance and commissions of array. Towns like Leicester closed their gates, and zealots could be found everywhere, but neutralists struggled to build effective barriers against them.
Local Resistance to War:
The desire to avoid military conflict manifested in various ways across England:
- County gentlemen opposed both Parliament's militia ordinance and the King's commissions of array
- Towns closed their gates to military forces from both sides
- Communities negotiated neutrality pacts to keep the war out of their localities
- Local leaders attempted to maintain peace despite pressure from both King and Parliament
These efforts reveal how deeply unpopular the prospect of civil war was among local communities and provincial gentry.
The numerous neutrality pacts made by county communities reveal two underlying reasons for the desire to avoid conflict. First, many found the arguments of both sides persuasive in different respects, making a clear choice exceptionally difficult. Second, the months leading to military action had seen a growing and terrifying tendency for the propaganda war to encourage action from beyond the ruling elite.
From the early days of the Long Parliament, signs appeared of popular involvement in political action and a willingness among the ruling elite to exploit it. This pattern proved particularly evident in London, where mobs had played an active role in the death of Strafford and had been drawn into the struggle for power following the Irish rebellion. Across England, a small but influential minority of lower orders existed, especially among better-educated craftsmen and yeomanry, who held strong religious convictions and were easily roused by fear of Catholic influence. The oratory of preachers who supported Parliament from their pulpits reinforced these fears.
Following the King's departure from London and the open propaganda war that followed, popular awareness intensified and expanded beyond religious issues to include attacks on property and threats to the established social order. Assessing accurately how deeply the lower orders engaged with the conflict proves difficult, but the early years of war saw considerable numbers of volunteers fight for Parliament with both determination and increasing military skill.
The Threat of Social Disorder:
For many members of the provincial gentry, the obvious engagement of popular sentiment posed a serious threat to stability. They remained well aware that any breakdown of order arising from military conflict could prove disastrous.
The fear of social disorder added another crucial dimension to the reluctance to take sides:
- Popular involvement threatened the traditional social hierarchy
- Religious enthusiasm among the lower orders alarmed conservative gentry
- Political mobilisation beyond the elite created unpredictable dangers
- Military conflict might unleash forces that the gentry could not control
This fear of "the world turned upside down" made many gentry hesitant to commit to either side, even when they sympathised with one cause or the other.
The outbreak of war
Three main factors explain why war ultimately began. First, fear and mistrust existed on both sides, and military preparations of any kind intensified these emotions. Second, no mutually trusted arbiter existed who could stop the drift to conflict. While both sides adopted postures and propagated their own interpretations of the situation, they not only weakened prospects for serious negotiation but also set in motion a series of developments whose only logical conclusion was war.
Three Factors Explaining Why War Began:
Despite widespread reluctance and numerous attempts at neutrality, war became inevitable due to three interconnected factors:
-
Mutual Fear and Mistrust: Each side's defensive preparations intensified the other's fears, creating a self-reinforcing cycle of suspicion where defensive measures were interpreted as aggressive intent.
-
Absence of a Trusted Arbiter: No neutral authority existed with sufficient credibility to mediate between King and Parliament. Both sides had adopted such extreme public positions that compromise became impossible without appearing to betray their stated principles.
-
Fundamental Ideological Divisions: Great issues of religion, politics, and constitutional authority stood at stake. For determined minorities on both sides, these principles were worth fighting for, regardless of the personal cost or social disruption.
Despite efforts by Royalist moderates and a Parliamentarian "peace party" to renew negotiations into spring 1643, military actions and preparations continued and ultimately took over. Mutual mistrust meant that both sides sought to negotiate from a position of strength, and that strength depended on military success.
The reluctance and confusion with which war began should not obscure the third factor: great issues stood at stake. Derek Hirst described the failure of neutrality pacts as occurring at the hands of "zealots"—the determined minorities whose commitment to their cause overpowered their more hesitant neighbours. For some participants, the war arose from a clash of ideologies involving political and, especially, religious issues for which they were prepared to fight and die.
Interpretations: religious causes
Historical Interpretation: Lawrence Stone on Religious Divisions
Lawrence Stone, writing in The Causes of the English Revolution (1972), emphasised the religious dimension of allegiance through detailed analysis of Yorkshire gentry:
Statistical Evidence from Yorkshire:
- Over one-third of Royalist gentry were Catholics
- Over half of Parliamentarians were Puritans
- When examining those who took clear sides:
- 90% of all Catholics became Royalists
- 72% of Puritans became Parliamentarians
- All Parliamentary leaders in Yorkshire had previous records of strong Puritan sympathies
Stone's Key Argument:
Stone argued that the crucial dividing line was religious rather than political. Those who had opposed the crown on purely constitutional and political grounds during the 1620s and 1630s tended to return to support the King alongside Sir Edward Hyde in 1642. In contrast, those who had also opposed the crown on religious grounds proved far more likely to remain with John Pym and fight for the parliamentary cause.
Significance:
This pattern suggests that religious conviction, rather than political principle alone, determined which side individuals chose. Stone's interpretation challenges Whitelocke's claim that the war began accidentally. If religious divisions ran this deep and could predict allegiance this accurately, the conflict appears less accidental and more the product of fundamental ideological divisions within English society.
Interpretations: economic and social causes
Historical Interpretation: Economic and Social Factors
Historians influenced by Marxist arguments, such as Christopher Hill, saw economic rivalries rather than politics or religion as the major cause of the Civil War. They argued that changes in population and price inflation during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries created economic opportunities for the rising gentry. These gentry found the monarchy an obstacle to their political and economic development, and the war therefore represented a class struggle.
Reassessment and Complexity:
Recent research has shown that the situation proved more complex than this interpretation suggests. Little correlation existed between the economic fortunes of individual gentry families and their support for either King or Parliament. Nevertheless, some connections between economic and political changes can be identified.
The overall trend of economic development increased the number of gentry as a social group. The Reformation and dissolution of monasteries expanded the land market, allowing more landed estates to be purchased. These changes ended the clerical monopoly on education and reduced dependence on clerical administrators, increasing the role of nobility and gentry as an administrative class. The Protestant religion encouraged literacy, while the demands of administration and pursuit of office encouraged university and legal education. As a result, the gentry of the early seventeenth century were probably more numerous, articulate, and confident than ever before.
Consequences of Gentry Expansion:
The growth in the number and education of the gentry produced several important political consequences:
-
Increased Competition: Greater numbers of gentry meant more men competing for a fixed number of posts and offices in royal service, placing greater stress on patronage networks
-
Weakened Aristocracy: The traditional aristocratic link between Court and localities was weakened by inflation and fixed rents, making aristocrats less able to satisfy demand for positions
-
Leadership Crisis: Aristocrats struggled to provide effective leadership and management in Parliament and to act as a bridge between central government and the localities
-
Political Tensions: The gap between an expanding, educated gentry class and limited opportunities for advancement created frustration and political instability
Historical Interpretation: J. Goldstone's Analysis (1991)
J. Goldstone, writing in Revolution and Rebellion in the Early Modern World (1991), developed the economic analysis further with specific demographic and economic data:
Population and Economic Pressures (1600-1640):
- England's population grew by 25%
- London doubled in size
- Grain prices rose to double the level of the 1580s by the 1630s
- Charles I's real income rose by only 10% compared to Elizabeth's in the 1560s
- Yet he ruled over a nation whose:
- Population had risen by two-thirds
- Gentry had tripled in number
Goldstone's Three Key Factors:
-
Fiscal Distress: Shortage of money led the Crown into policies and projects that created opposition among those who had to fund or implement them
-
Elite Conflicts: Multiple conflicts developed within classes, generating fears for stability. The unity of the upper classes against the Crown rapidly dissolved with the outbreak of popular uprisings in London, Ireland, and elsewhere
-
Popular Disorders: Growth of popular disorders among the lower classes as the elite conflict developed presented an extraordinary dilemma to the elite: should authority be returned to the King to put down the disorders, or should Parliament itself take authority and attempt to benefit from popular opposition to the King?
Key Insight:
Goldstone argued that the causes of revolutions need not be sought solely among sudden events. Such events can be considered "triggers" or "releasers" of accumulated social forces, but they are not the fundamental causes. According to his analysis, the gentry found themselves caught between an authoritarian monarch and a restless nation, forcing them to choose between defending their rights and maintaining their desire for stability.
Key Points to Remember:
-
The drift to war was unintended, unwanted, and reluctant, taking almost a year from the King's departure from London to the first major battle at Edgehill in October 1642.
-
Both sides focused initially on defensive measures—acquiring arms, securing fortifications—rather than offensive strategy, showing that fear and mistrust drove military preparations.
-
Widespread attempts to maintain neutrality through county pacts ultimately failed because determined minorities ("zealots") on both sides, motivated by religious and political conviction, overpowered more hesitant neighbours.
-
Three factors explain why war began: mutual fear and mistrust intensified by military preparations, absence of a trusted arbiter to halt the escalation, and fundamental ideological divisions over religion and politics.
-
Historians offer competing explanations: Stone emphasises religious divisions as the primary cause, while Goldstone and Hill stress economic and social pressures, including population growth, inflation, and the rising gentry's competition for limited positions and influence.