On June 10th, 1688, James Francis Edward Stuart was born to King James II and his Catholic wife, Mary of Modena. Before this day, the rule of the Catholic King James II had been seen as bothersome and offensive to the Protestant English elite, but it was thought to be a short-term issue, given that James’ only children were women raised Anglican and married to Protestants. After this day, the English looked to be at the beginning of a Catholic dynasty given a new son that seemed likely to be raised Catholic. This prospect was deeply frightening to the Anglican elite of England, and it was equally frightening to Protestant English colonists, some of whom had come to America for the explicit reason of seeking Protestant religious purity. Very quickly, numerous colonial administrations (packed with Catholics at this time) had full-blown rebellions on their hands. Yet, the end of the 17th century wasn’t the end of the British presence in what is now the United States. Rather, it wasn’t even that close. Why is this the case? Why was there such a long gap? Why was King James II unable to keep the peace, but generations of successors could? The first reason for King James’ failure and his successors’ success is the Catholicism that King James and his colonial administration adhered to. The second reason for King James’ failures is that he too ambitiously repressed the colonists’ wishes for self-governance. Instead of merely asserting his own superiority (which, to be clear, still would have been somewhat offensive given his Catholicism), he over-centralized power and removed colonists from any role in governing themselves. These two facets of King James II’s administration, Catholicism and total disenfranchisement, were uniquely troubling to colonists, leading to rebellion, and warned future monarchal administration against these practices, allowing the British’s American colonies to last another 80+ years.
The role of Catholicism in the late 17th century rebellions can be proven through the examination of two colonial examples: Massachusetts and Maryland. Massachusetts had been the center of religious division and so-called purity during much of the 17th century, but after the rebellions, Protestant unity against “papists” (Catholics) was the key to reconciliation. It is obvious from reading primary source documents how deeply annoyed the Massachusetts colonists were about being ruled by a Catholic king and an administration stacked with Catholic bureaucrats. In the Boston Declaration of Grievances, the Boston leaders write of the poor war strategy against the Indians:
“And tho’ ‘tis judged that our Indian Enemies are not above 100 in number, yet an Army of One thousand English hath been raised for the Conquering of them; which Army of our poor friends and Brethren now under Popish commanders (for in the army as well in the Council, Papists are in commission) has been under such a Conduct, that not one Indian hath been kill’d, but more English are supposed to have died through sickness and hardship, than we have Adversaries there alive…” (45).
The Boston leaders are ostensibly complaining about poor war governance, yet they cannot hide their contempt of the administration’s Catholicism. It is not as if Boston’s leaders only care about religion—clearly they are most concerned with poor leadership leading to the death of their peers. But clearly there is something especially bad about suffering due to poor Catholic governance, and the Boston leaders don’t shy away from saying this.
The fact that the Boston rebellion was largely about religion is also borne out by the charter re-issued by the government of William and Mary, the monarchs installed by the Glorious Revolution. In the charter is written a statement of religious tolerance, among Protestants: “there shall be a liberty of Conscience allowed in the Worshipp of God to all Christians (Except Papists)” (78). By adding this clause, William and Mary are trying to sow unity in Massachusetts, attempting to gesture in an era without religious division among Protestants, yet full of unifying animosity towards Catholics. Not only does this clause make their goals clear, but the fact that these goals worked (the actual American Revolution was four monarchs later) proves that they understood one of the things what made the Massachusetts rebels so upset—the Catholicism of their rulers.
Though all the rebellions cause disorder, the rebellion in Maryland was especially momentous: the government was overthrown, all Catholics in the government were removed, and the colony was made a royal province, to be governed directly by the Crown. In the instructions posed to the new royal governor Lionel Copley, William and Mary’s government is quite clear that they want an entirely Anglican colonial administration, asking “that [God] be devoutly and duly served within your Government, the Book of Common Prayer as it is now established Read each Sunday and holiday and the blessed Sacrament administered according to the Rites of the Church of England” (191). This was a massive change for Maryland, a colony that had been established explicitly as a safe haven for English Catholics. But this change was entirely necessary, for the only way to hold Maryland together would be to unify under Protestantism.
Religion was not the only grounds upon which the colonists felt entitled to revolt. They were also angry over their total disenfranchisement; all over America, legislative bodies were dissolved by King James II and Catholic bureaucracies were installed without any checks on their powers. It isn’t that after these rebellions, the legislative bodies had full control over their respective colonies—these colonies were still loyal to the king and wanted to be. The slogan “no taxation without representation” was used by American colonists in rebellion against the English in the 18th century, yet taxes like those imposed by the Navigation Acts were not new to the latter half of the 18th century. So, if the colonists were subordinate to the king and taxed without representation in both the 17th and the 18th century, what were their actual worries as far as authority, and how were they met? The answer is that the colonists did not seek to be fully in charge, but they did want legislative bodies with some power. When these were dissolved during King James II’s rule, it was one of the key reasons the colonists revolted.
This issue of King James II’s total dissolution of representative government may be best observed in the context of the colony of New York. In instructions written by King James II to Governor of New York Thomas Dongan, the extent of King James’ suppression of colonial power is unmistakably evident:
“whereas we wee have been presented with a Bill or Charter passed in the late Assembly of New York containing several Franchises, privileges, and Immunitys mentioned to be granted to the Inhabitants of our said province. You are to Declare Our Will and pleasure that the said Bill or Charter of Franchises bee forthwith repealed and disallowed, as the same is hereby Repealed, determined, and made void” (95).
King James is quite clear in his instructions that the Assembly of New York should have no role in governance. Firstly, James calls the Assembly “late” as if it is deceased, as its power to control any affairs is. Secondly, James makes no specification as to what about the law passed was actually offensive or illegal; James doesn’t care what the law says—it is passed by a colonial assembly and it is therefore null. Lastly, James’ use of the word “Declare” makes it obvious the Assembly has no say in the matter of whether the act will be repealed or not, and it is only up to him and his puppets.
The Assembly having been removed from power, the province of NY was soon incorporated into the Dominion of New England, as to be ruled mostly by Lieutenant Governor Francis Nicholson. One of the main concerns of the leaders of a revolt against Nicholson was this lack of influence in their own governance, the same kind of influence that was stripped from them under Gov. Dongan. They write, “our Lieutenant Governor Captain Nicholson, altho a pretended protestant, yet, contrary both to his promises and pretences, countenancing the Popish party, denying to exclude both Officers in the custom house and Souldiers in the fort” (110). The New York militia leaders justify their uprising by describing how they lack any power over their colonial administrators, neither on the battlefront nor in their custom houses. King James created a New York where he and his Catholic goons had 100% of the power; the colonists responded with rebellion
There were many causes to the late 17th century rebellions, from taxes to poor defense against the Indians, yet the British control over the colonies would last another 80 years. So to isolate the key reasons for colonial rebellion, we should look at the things that were special about King James II’s rule over his American colonies: his Catholicism, and his aversion to any even limited power vested in representative assemblies. Both of these things were heavily cited by the colonists in their reasons for rebellion, and both issues were resolved by the newly installed monarchs, William and Mary. In resolving these two offenses, William and Mary ushered in an era where they and future monarchs could be more ambitious in many pursuits, from war to the economy, knowing that they had reached some stability thanks to their Protestantism and acceptance of representative assembly.