Hi Ken, this could be a very interesting piece of history, but you really need to do some poof reading and editing. 1: Is the man's name Leisler or Leister? Leister is a well known member of the British aristocracy and your post creates confusion as to the real culprit. 2: You introduce new names without explaining their position or part in the story Winthrop. Andros, Sam Adams, Ol Henry. I know, James Stuart (sometimes spelled Stewart) the VI of Scotland, became James I of England, on the death of Elizabeth I. He was followed by his son Charles !, who was beheaded by Cromwell after Cromwell became Dictator. There is also the involvement of Henry VIII who disowned the Catholic Church and set up his own religion (Anglican) so he could divorce those of his wives who did not present male heirs, instead of just beheading them because his nobility were getting angry about the beheadings.
Cromwell as you correctly state was a protestant follower of Calvin and Knox . If I were you I'd leave off all references to the kings of England and stick to the story of Leisler/Leister and the Americans - you can just refer to British Monarchy anonymously so you don't get into the weeds. Good luck, It is an interesting bit of history and I would like to understand more.
I believe his name is commonly spelled Leisler. Whether there is a connection to any connection to the Leister family you mention, spelling at the time, was not always consistent, and sometimes this applied to surnames as well. . However this episode occurs post restoration when the Stuart family returns to the crown. Charles II made an agreement to not interfere with the Anglican church, the British were quite tired of the puritanical tyranny of Cromwell, although there was no new direct conflict with the Calvinist per se in England, but not so in Scotland which created which was dominated by Calvinists. So even though the Stuarts were of Scottish descent, Charles II was busy attempting to mollify the Scottish. His brother, the second son of Charles I who was overthrown by Cromwell, and who would become James II because Charles had no acceptable heirs (his wife had no children, although he was purported to have as many as 15 illegitimate children.. James II was unavowedly Catholic and tried to reimpose Catholicism which upset both the Anglicans in England and the Calvinists in Scotland. I am using Calvinists in generic form as there were offshoots of Calvinism. the Puritans in New England, sometimes called Dutch Reformed and the Cromwellian extremists that had fought the civil war in England and had created the religious dictatorship for nearly 30 years., and the Presbyters in Scotland, but the differences were not theological but methodological.
The glorious revolution occurred because James Ii had no desire to die as his father had done and he willingly vacated the throne without bloodshed. That brought James's daughter to the throne but the ruler was her husband William who was the Dutch king. He gave his throne in the Netherlands to be the English monarch.
In the timeframe we are speaking of Charles II was the king, and since he had no heirs his brother was heir-apparent and it is this James that was given more or less dominion over the American colonies as Charles II was attempting to suppress a religious rebellion in Scotland and a new war with France.
Andros was the governor designate in New York a Catholic, and appointed by then Prince James in his attempt to reorganize all of the northern colonies into one large colony. Winthrop of course was a Massachusetts governor/merchant and Samuel Adams was thrown in only as a comparison to the later better known rebellion in the 1770's. Both leaders in Massachusetts objected to the increased taxation policies that began under parliamentary acts, but the common misunderstanding is that the increased attempts by England to make the colonies pay for their support actually began during the reign of Charles II. And once again. Leisler's revolt had its first stirrings in Massachusetts, and the "first shots" were fired there. But there was no call at that time and the southern colonies of Virginia and Maryland were not included in the one colony plan, or in the increased taxation efforts since their exports were actually still profitable to England. I am not at all sure why Pennsylvania was not part of the reorganization.. The Carolinas had such an insignificant population and had not yet established much of an economic base, and Georgia did not yet exist.
However the revolt actually occurred in New York, and primarily from coastal New Yorkans and those in New Jersey. New York, however being one colony, was originally founded by the Dutch. and then sold or traded it to the English. But upstate New York , even until the mid 19th century were never in political consort with the New Yorkans of the port city and frankly were nearly as alien to each other as a Virginian would have been to someone from Massachusetts at that time. The New York state government spent nearly a century as dysfunctional as our modern congress. That is why they pulled their delegation from the convention (Hamilton signed the constitution not as a representative of New York) and why they couldn't choose any electors to vote in the first presidential election. It, of course, is not comparable to the modern dysfunction in Congress in kind, but in what frequently happened, and because there had been several violent clashes in its pre-state history. They were simply like alien communities to each other. So while upstate New Yorkans were no more fond of the moves of James at reorganization, there intra-state rivalry allowed James' allies in colonial New York to flee to Albany until reinforcements could be sent from England. By this time Charles was near his end and James reign was brief and when William took over he abandoned the reorganization plan and affirmed through parliament the original charters.
All of that might present even more questions, but your criticism is well taken. I was trying to primarily focus on the conflict in New York, and threw in a lot of names and didn't attempt to explain the entire history. I think the whole war is fascinating and should require a full book on such a little known episode in American history, but I am unaware of any such tombs and the best I can do at this point is try to peace together he said-she said (really all he-saids) old reports that are primarily archived into the dustbins of unobserved reporting. But I hope this explains some of your queries without making it even more confusing.
Fine, then be consistent and spell it Leisler throughout your post. I agree this is an interesting an little known piece of history of Colonial America, and would be worthy of a book. James II spent the balance4 of his life in France making unsuccessful attempts to restore "papistsry" to England. But I don't see the connection of that to your story, which has more to do with unfair taxation without representation. From my own reading,. I understand this was a sore point with the Colonial Americans. The succession of "Governors" imposed on the Colonies, were all Monarchist favorites of the Crown, who came to America to suppress the 'barbarian' Colonists and enrich themselves during their tenure.
's reign he gave control of the american colonies To his brother, who was heir apparent. As Prince he was the one who implemented the reorganization plan and sent Catholic governors to enforce the reorganization. I didn't tell the story too well obviously.
Thanks Ken, did you also change the spelling of Leister in all mentions, it is very confusing to the reader to see the same person (I presume) spelled Leisler and Leister.
Hi Ken, this could be a very interesting piece of history, but you really need to do some poof reading and editing. 1: Is the man's name Leisler or Leister? Leister is a well known member of the British aristocracy and your post creates confusion as to the real culprit. 2: You introduce new names without explaining their position or part in the story Winthrop. Andros, Sam Adams, Ol Henry. I know, James Stuart (sometimes spelled Stewart) the VI of Scotland, became James I of England, on the death of Elizabeth I. He was followed by his son Charles !, who was beheaded by Cromwell after Cromwell became Dictator. There is also the involvement of Henry VIII who disowned the Catholic Church and set up his own religion (Anglican) so he could divorce those of his wives who did not present male heirs, instead of just beheading them because his nobility were getting angry about the beheadings.
Cromwell as you correctly state was a protestant follower of Calvin and Knox . If I were you I'd leave off all references to the kings of England and stick to the story of Leisler/Leister and the Americans - you can just refer to British Monarchy anonymously so you don't get into the weeds. Good luck, It is an interesting bit of history and I would like to understand more.
I believe his name is commonly spelled Leisler. Whether there is a connection to any connection to the Leister family you mention, spelling at the time, was not always consistent, and sometimes this applied to surnames as well. . However this episode occurs post restoration when the Stuart family returns to the crown. Charles II made an agreement to not interfere with the Anglican church, the British were quite tired of the puritanical tyranny of Cromwell, although there was no new direct conflict with the Calvinist per se in England, but not so in Scotland which created which was dominated by Calvinists. So even though the Stuarts were of Scottish descent, Charles II was busy attempting to mollify the Scottish. His brother, the second son of Charles I who was overthrown by Cromwell, and who would become James II because Charles had no acceptable heirs (his wife had no children, although he was purported to have as many as 15 illegitimate children.. James II was unavowedly Catholic and tried to reimpose Catholicism which upset both the Anglicans in England and the Calvinists in Scotland. I am using Calvinists in generic form as there were offshoots of Calvinism. the Puritans in New England, sometimes called Dutch Reformed and the Cromwellian extremists that had fought the civil war in England and had created the religious dictatorship for nearly 30 years., and the Presbyters in Scotland, but the differences were not theological but methodological.
The glorious revolution occurred because James Ii had no desire to die as his father had done and he willingly vacated the throne without bloodshed. That brought James's daughter to the throne but the ruler was her husband William who was the Dutch king. He gave his throne in the Netherlands to be the English monarch.
In the timeframe we are speaking of Charles II was the king, and since he had no heirs his brother was heir-apparent and it is this James that was given more or less dominion over the American colonies as Charles II was attempting to suppress a religious rebellion in Scotland and a new war with France.
Andros was the governor designate in New York a Catholic, and appointed by then Prince James in his attempt to reorganize all of the northern colonies into one large colony. Winthrop of course was a Massachusetts governor/merchant and Samuel Adams was thrown in only as a comparison to the later better known rebellion in the 1770's. Both leaders in Massachusetts objected to the increased taxation policies that began under parliamentary acts, but the common misunderstanding is that the increased attempts by England to make the colonies pay for their support actually began during the reign of Charles II. And once again. Leisler's revolt had its first stirrings in Massachusetts, and the "first shots" were fired there. But there was no call at that time and the southern colonies of Virginia and Maryland were not included in the one colony plan, or in the increased taxation efforts since their exports were actually still profitable to England. I am not at all sure why Pennsylvania was not part of the reorganization.. The Carolinas had such an insignificant population and had not yet established much of an economic base, and Georgia did not yet exist.
However the revolt actually occurred in New York, and primarily from coastal New Yorkans and those in New Jersey. New York, however being one colony, was originally founded by the Dutch. and then sold or traded it to the English. But upstate New York , even until the mid 19th century were never in political consort with the New Yorkans of the port city and frankly were nearly as alien to each other as a Virginian would have been to someone from Massachusetts at that time. The New York state government spent nearly a century as dysfunctional as our modern congress. That is why they pulled their delegation from the convention (Hamilton signed the constitution not as a representative of New York) and why they couldn't choose any electors to vote in the first presidential election. It, of course, is not comparable to the modern dysfunction in Congress in kind, but in what frequently happened, and because there had been several violent clashes in its pre-state history. They were simply like alien communities to each other. So while upstate New Yorkans were no more fond of the moves of James at reorganization, there intra-state rivalry allowed James' allies in colonial New York to flee to Albany until reinforcements could be sent from England. By this time Charles was near his end and James reign was brief and when William took over he abandoned the reorganization plan and affirmed through parliament the original charters.
All of that might present even more questions, but your criticism is well taken. I was trying to primarily focus on the conflict in New York, and threw in a lot of names and didn't attempt to explain the entire history. I think the whole war is fascinating and should require a full book on such a little known episode in American history, but I am unaware of any such tombs and the best I can do at this point is try to peace together he said-she said (really all he-saids) old reports that are primarily archived into the dustbins of unobserved reporting. But I hope this explains some of your queries without making it even more confusing.
Fine, then be consistent and spell it Leisler throughout your post. I agree this is an interesting an little known piece of history of Colonial America, and would be worthy of a book. James II spent the balance4 of his life in France making unsuccessful attempts to restore "papistsry" to England. But I don't see the connection of that to your story, which has more to do with unfair taxation without representation. From my own reading,. I understand this was a sore point with the Colonial Americans. The succession of "Governors" imposed on the Colonies, were all Monarchist favorites of the Crown, who came to America to suppress the 'barbarian' Colonists and enrich themselves during their tenure.
the conection was that during charles ii
's reign he gave control of the american colonies To his brother, who was heir apparent. As Prince he was the one who implemented the reorganization plan and sent Catholic governors to enforce the reorganization. I didn't tell the story too well obviously.
Thanks Ken, did you also change the spelling of Leister in all mentions, it is very confusing to the reader to see the same person (I presume) spelled Leisler and Leister.