Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 December 2012
1 The “Glorious Revolution in America” has attracted many historians over the years. The best overviews are Dunn, Richard S., “The Glorious Revolution and America,” in The Origins of Empire: British Overseas Enterprise to the Close of the Seventeenth Century, vol. 1 of The Oxford History of the British Empire, ed. Canny, Nicholas (Oxford, 1998), 445–66Google Scholar; Webb, Stephen Saunders, Lord Churchill's Coup: The Anglo-American Empire and the Glorious Revolution Reconsidered (New York, 1995), 171–225Google Scholar; Johnson, Richard R., “The Revolution of 1688–89 in the American Colonies,” in The Anglo-Dutch Moment: Essays on the Glorious Revolution and Its World Impact, ed. Israel, Jonathan (Cambridge, 1991), 215–40Google Scholar; and Lovejoy, David S., The Glorious Revolution in America (New York, 1972)Google Scholar.
2 The most recent works on the beginnings of English imperialism have all placed it in the context of state building in the early eighteenth century; see esp. Armitage, David, The Ideological Origins of the British Empire (Cambridge, 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Colley, Linda, Britons: Forging the Nation, 1707–1837 (New Haven, CT, 1992), 101–45Google Scholar. For a sense of the nature of the earliest English “imperial” efforts, see Games, Alison, “Beyond the Atlantic: English Globetrotters and Transoceanic Connections,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., 63, no. 4 (October 2006): 675–92Google Scholar.
3 See esp. Greene, Jack P., Peripheries and Center: Constitutional Development in the Extended Polities of the British Empire and the United States, 1607–1788 (Athens, GA, 1986)Google Scholar. Attempts to explicitly compare the two revolutions include Lovejoy, David, “Two American Revolutions, 1689 and 1776,” in Three British Revolutions: 1641, 1688, 1776, ed. Pocock, J. G. A. (Princeton, NJ, 1980), 244–57Google Scholar; Lewis, Theodore B., “A Revolutionary Tradition, 1689–1774: ‘There was a Revolution here as well as in England,’” New England Quarterly 46, no. 3 (September 1973): 424–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
4 On New England, see Miller, Perry, The New England Mind: From Colony to Province (Cambridge, MA, 1953)Google Scholar; on New York, Murrin, John M., “English Rights as Ethnic Aggression: The English Conquest, the Charter of Liberties of 1683, and Leisler's Rebellion in New York,” in Authority and Resistance in Early New York, ed. Pencak, William and Wright, Conrad Edick (New York, 1988), 56–94Google Scholar; and on Maryland, Carr, Lois Green and Jordan, David W., Maryland's Revolution of Government, 1689–1692 (Ithaca, NY, 1974)Google Scholar.
5 The absolutist motives of the later Stuarts have inspired much debate, with some protesting that the kings had neither the ability nor the inclination to build an absolute state; see Miller, John, “The Potential for ‘Absolutism’ in Later Stuart England,” History 69 (1984): 187–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In recent years, however, most later Stuart scholars agree that Charles II and James II had some absolutist pretensions, even if circumstances were very different from those in France; see John Morrill, “The Sensible Revolution,” in Israel, Anglo-Dutch Moment, 76–81; Harris, Tim, Restoration: Charles II and His Kingdoms, 1660–1685 (London, 2005), 211–59Google Scholar, and Revolution: The Great Crisis of the British Monarchy, 1685–1720 (London, 2006), 182–236Google Scholar; Pincus, Steve, “The European Catholic Context of the Revolution of 1688–89: Gallicanism, Innocent XI, and Catholic Opposition,” in Shaping the Stuart World, 1603–1714: The Atlantic Connection, ed. Macinnes, Allan I. and Williamson, Arthur H. (Leiden, 2006), 93–98Google Scholar.
6 On the place of such radicals in England, see esp. Zook, Melinda S., Radical Whigs and Conspiratorial Politics in Late Stuart England (University Park, PA, 1999)Google Scholar; Greaves, Richard L., Secrets of the Kingdom: British Radicals from the Popish Plot to the Revolution of 1688–89 (Stanford, CA, 1992)Google Scholar.
8 Scholarship on the “Protestant International” has begun to paint a picture of this transnational confessional community; see Ward, W. R., The Protestant Evangelical Awakening (Cambridge, 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bosher, J. F., “Huguenot Merchants and the Protestant International in the Seventeenth Century,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., 52, no. 1 (January 1995): 77–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gwynn, Robin, “The Huguenots of Britain, the ‘Protestant International’ and the Defeat of Louis XIV,” in From Strangers to Citizens: The Integration of Immigrant Communities in Britain, Ireland, and Colonial America, 1550–1750, ed. Vigne, Randolph and Littleton, Charles (Brighton, 2001), 412–24Google Scholar; Peterson, Mark A., “The Selling of Joseph: Bostonians, Antislavery, and the Protestant International, 1689–1733,” Massachusetts Historical Review 4 (2002): 1–22Google Scholar.
10 The Declaration of the Gentlemen, Merchants, and Inhabitants of Boston, and the Country Adjacent, April 18, 1689 (Boston, 1689)Google Scholar, repr. in The Glorious Revolution in Massachusetts: Selected Documents, 1689–1692, ed. Moody, Robert Earle and Simmons, Richard Clive (Boston, 1988), 45Google Scholar.
11 The fullest account of the plot remains Kenyon, John, The Popish Plot (London, 1972)Google Scholar; but see also Scott, England's Troubles, 182–204; Harris, Restoration, 136–202. The crisis that followed the plot is covered in Knights, Mark, Politics and Opinion in Crisis, 1678–81 (Cambridge, 1994)Google Scholar.
12 Pincus, Steven C. A., “From Butterboxes to Wooden Shoes: The Shift in English Popular Sentiment from Anti-Dutch to Anti-French in the 1670s,” Historical Journal 38, no. 2 (June 1995): 333–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bosher, J. F., “The Franco-Catholic Danger, 1660–1715,” History 79, no. 255 (February 1994): 5–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a useful summary of Louis XIV's ambiguous political and religious beliefs, see Doyle, William, “Politics: Louis XIV,” in Old Regime France, 1648–1788, ed. Doyle, William (Oxford, 2001), 169–94Google Scholar.
13 Domestick Intelligence; Or, News both from City and Country, no. 8, 31 July 1679, no. 9, 5 August 1679.
14 Impartial Protestant Mercury, no. 43, 16–20 September 1681, no. 48, 4–7 October 1681.
15 Domestick Intelligence, no. 43, 2 December 1679.
16 Impartial Protestant Mercury, no. 34, 16–19 August 1681.
17 On the campaign against local authority in England, see Halliday, Paul D., Dismembering the Body Politic: Partisan Politics in England's Towns, 1650–1730 (Cambridge, 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Few scholars have made explicit connections between the English and French campaigns against local corporations, but contemporary political writers did; see, e.g., Popery and Tyranny: Or, the Present State of France, In relation to Its Government, Trade, Manners of the People, and Nature of the Countrey (London, 1679), 7Google Scholar. French absolutism depended more on local collaboration than its critics realized; see Beik, William, Absolutism and Society in Seventeenth-Century France: State Power and Provincial Aristocracy in Languedoc (Cambridge, 1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a useful summary of French colonial theory, see Havard, Gilles and Vidal, Cécile, Histoire de l’amérique française (Paris, 2006), 146–71Google Scholar.
18 Domestick Intelligence, no. 19, 9 September 1679.
19 Proposals regarding Leeward Islands, The National Archives (TNA): Public Record Office (PRO), CO 1/42/65; The past and present state of the Leeward Charibee Islands, 15 March 1678, TNA: PRO, CO 1/42/38. For background on Stapleton's rule, see Higham, C. S. S., The Development of the Leeward Islands under the Restoration, 1660–1688: A Study of the Foundations of the Old Colonial System (Cambridge, 1921), 99–121Google Scholar; Dunn, Richard S., Sugar and Slaves: The Rise of the Planter Class in the English West Indies, 1624–1713 (Chapel Hill, NC, 1972), 117–33Google Scholar.
20 Proposals regarding Leeward Islands, TNA: PRO, CO 1/42/65; Stapleton to the Lords of Trade and Plantations, 14 June 1678, TNA: PRO, CO 1/42/75; Stapleton to the Lords of Trade and Plantations, 29 June 1678, TNA: PRO, CO 1/42/98.
21 These plans are detailed in Richter, Daniel K., The Ordeal of the Longhouse: The Peoples of the Iroquois League in the Era of European Colonization (Chapel Hill, NC, 1992), 148–61Google Scholar; Jennings, Francis, The Ambiguous Iroquois Empire: The Covenant Chain Confederation of Indian Tribes with English Colonies (New York, 1984), 172–94Google Scholar.
22 Dongan's report on the state of the province, in Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New-York (NYCD), ed. O’Callaghan, Edmund B. and Fernow, Berthold (Albany, NY, 1853–87), 3:394–96Google Scholar; Petition of the Commissaries of Albany, 9 May 1687, NYCD, 3:418; Speech of Governor Dongan to Sachems, Iroquois, in The Dongan Papers, 1683–1688, ed. Christoph, Peter R. (Syracuse, NY, 1996), 202–3Google Scholar.
23 Denonville's remarks on Dongan's letter, 22 August 1687, NYCD, 3:471; Denonville to Seignelay, 8 June 1687, NYCD, 9:326. For the Huguenot identity of some of these newcomers, see “A Memorial on Salt Ponds,” Lambeth Palace Library, Fulham Papers, 6:175 (microfilm, Library of Congress).
24 Information furnished by Nanning Hartense and others, 7 October 1687, NYCD, 3:437; Dongan to Lord President, NYCD, 3:430; “Coxe's Account of the English in the Mississippi Valley in the Seventeenth Century,” in The First Explorations of the Trans-Allegheny Region by the Virginians, 1650–1674, ed. Alvord, Clarence Walworth and Bidgood, Lee (Cleveland, 1912), 237–38Google Scholar. Marion's distinctive first name, taken from the Old Testament, also suggests Protestant heritage.
25 Useful studies of the dominion include Barnes, Viola, The Dominion of New England: A Study in British Colonial Policy (New Haven, CT, 1923)Google Scholar; Breen, T. H., The Character of the Good Ruler: Puritan Political Thought in New England, 1630–1730 (New Haven, CT, 1970), 134–50Google Scholar; Johnson, Richard R., Adjustment to Empire: The New England Colonies, 1675–1715 (New Brunswick, NJ, 1981), 50–96Google Scholar. On Randolph, see Hall, Michael Garibaldi, Edward Randolph and the American Colonies, 1676–1703 (Chapel Hill, NC, 1960)Google Scholar.
26 The Present State of New England by R[ichard] D[aniel], 23 December 1695, Blathwayt Papers, vol. 6, folder 5, John D. Rockefeller Library, Colonial Williamsburg [CW]; Blathwayt to Randolph, 10 March 1688, in Edward Randolph: Including His Letters and Official Papers from the New England, Middle, and Southern Colonies in America, and the West Indies, 1676–1703 (Randolph Letters), ed. Toppan, Robert N. and Goodrick, Alfred T. S. (Boston, 1898–1909), 4:216Google Scholar. Needless to say, the English portrait of New France was much rosier than the reality; French colonial officials made very similar arguments to their own king that the English colonies were better supported.
27 Randolph to Sir Leoline Jenkins, 30 April 1681, in Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, America and West Indies, 1681–85, ed. Fortescue, J. W. (London, 1897), entry no. 91Google Scholar.
28 This is not to say that Tories did not care about religion or Whigs about commerce; they each combined religious and economic arguments in distinctive ways, though the links between these different kinds of arguments remain to be explored. For a discussion of Tory beliefs on political economy, see Steven C. A. Pincus, “Revolution in Political Economy and the Atlantic World” (paper presented at “Transformations: The Atlantic World in the Late Seventeenth Century,” Harvard University, 1 April 2006).
29 The uses of antipopery among these late seventeenth-century radicals resembled that of their forebears in early Stuart England, on whom see Lake, Peter, “Anti-Popery: The Structure of a Prejudice,” in Conflict in Early Stuart England: Studies in Religion and Politics, 1603–1642, ed. Cust, Richard and Hughes, Ann (London, 1989), 72–97Google Scholar.
30 Randolph to Lord Treasurer, 23 August 1686, Randolph Letters, 4:113.
31 Diary of Francis Borland, Edinburgh University Library, 7–15 (microfilm, Massachusetts Historical Society [MHS], Boston).
34 Silverman, Kenneth, The Life and Times of Cotton Mather (New York, 1986), esp. 55–82Google Scholar; Miller, New England Mind, 149–90.
35 “Diary of Cotton Mather, 1681–1708,” MHS, Collections, ser. 7, vol. 7 (1911), 113.
36 On the Huguenot migration, see esp. Butler, Jon, The Huguenots in America: A Refugee People in New World Society (Cambridge, MA, 1983)Google Scholar; van Ruymbeke, Bertrand, From New Babylon to Eden: The Huguenots and Their Migration to Colonial South Carolina (Columbia, SC, 2006)Google Scholar. The arrival of the refugees in Boston comes from Richard Wharton to William Blathwayt, 14 October 1686, Blathwayt Papers, vol. 6, folder 4, CW. On Leisler, see Voorhees, David William, “‘Hearing … What Great Success the Dragonnades in France Had’: Jacob Leisler's Huguenot Connections,” de Halve Maen 67, no. 1 (January 1994): 15–20Google Scholar.
37 Cotton Mather, Notes of Sermons, 1686, Cotton Mather Papers, HM15212, Huntington Library, San Marino, CA.
39 Edmund Andros to William Blathwayt, 23 December 1686, Blathwayt Papers, vol. 3, folder 2, CW.
40 Dunton, Letters written from New-England, 137; [Increase Mather], A Brief Discourse Concerning the unlawfulness of the Common Prayer Worship (Cambridge, MA, 1686)Google Scholar.
41 Krugler, John D., English and Catholic: The Lords Baltimore in the Seventeenth Century (Baltimore, 2004), 176Google Scholar.
43 “Complaint from Heaven with a Huy and crye and a petition out of Virginia and Maryland, 1676,” in Archives of Maryland (Arch. Md.), ed. Browne, W. H., Hall, Clayton, and Steiner, Bernard (Baltimore and Annapolis, 1883–), 5:134–35Google Scholar.
44 Edward Randolph, “Present State of New England,” Randolph Letters, 2:243. Especially during the war's later stages, Massachusetts leaders feared that French agents were smuggling arms to Philip, but they also believed that Dutch merchants in Albany might be aiding the enemy; see Pulsipher, Jenny Hale, Subjects unto the Same King: Indians, English, and the Contest for Authority in Early New England (Philadelphia, 2005), 207–37Google Scholar.
45 James, Bartlett Burleigh and Jameson, J. Franklin, eds., Journal of Jasper Danckaerts, 1679–1680 (New York, 1913), 44, 65, 79, 137, 250, 268–70Google Scholar.
46 Examination of Magsigpen, NYCD, 3:562; Massachusetts Archives Collection (Mass. Arch.), Columbia Point, Boston, 30:310; Edward Randolph to Sir James Hayes, 6 January 1689, Randolph Letters, 6:284.
47 Randolph to Hayes, 6 January 1689, Randolph Letters, 6:284. Randolph also claimed that the Jesuits tricked Governor Dongan into prohibiting the Iroquois from attacking French forts.
48 On the raid, see Edward Randolph to Thomas Povey, 21 June 1688, Randolph Letters, 4:225; Rose logs, TNA: PRO, ADM 51/3955/152, fol. 120. On Saint-Castin more generally, see Stanwood, Owen, “Unlikely Imperialist: The Baron of Saint-Castin and the Transformation of the Northeastern Borderlands,” French Colonial History 5 (2004): 43–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
49 Randolph to the Lords of Trade, 8 October 1688, Randolph Letters, 4:240–43; Sir Edmund Andros's Report of his Administration, NYCD, 3:722. Andros's most recent biographer has praised the governor's approach to Indian relations; Lustig, Mary Lou, The Imperial Executive in America: Sir Edmund Andros, 1637–1714 (Madison, NJ, 2002)Google Scholar.
50 Francis Nicholson to [Thomas Povey?], 31 August 1688, NYCD, 3:552; Francis Nicholson to [William Blathwayt], [October] 1688, Blathwayt Papers, vol. 15, folder 1, CW.
51 Abstract of a letter dated Boston New England, 20 August 1688, Plymouth Papers, 2:100, Frederick Lewis Gay Transcripts, MHS.
52 Isaac Miller's Testimony, 21 December 1689, in Baxter, James Phinney, ed., Documentary History of the State of Maine (DHSM; Portland, ME, 1869–1916), 5:22–23Google Scholar; Deposition of Edward Taylor, 27 January 1690, DHSM, 5:35.
53 Daniel Davison to Edmund Andros, April 1689, DHSM, 6:472.
54 John West to Fitz John Winthrop, 23 February 1689, Winthrop Family Papers, MHS.
55 Deposition of Caleb Moody, 9 January 1690, DHSM, 5:28–29; Deposition of Joseph Bayley, 9 January 1690, Mass. Arch., 35:166.
56 Testimonies of Joseph Graves, Mary Graves, and John Rutter, 3 January 1689, DHSM, 4:446–47; Depositions of Thomas Browne, John Grout, Sr., John Goodenow, Jonathan Stanhope, and John Parmenter, 22 March 1689, DHSM, 4:448–49; Deposition of William Bond, 23 January 1689, Mass. Arch., 35:179a.
57 Francis Nicholson to Fitz John Winthrop, 16 February 1690, Winthrop Family Papers, MHS; Affidavits of Greveraet and Brewerton, 13 December 1689, NYCD, 3:660; Deposition of John Winslow, Mass. Arch., 35:216; “A Vindication of New England (Prepared Chiefly by Increase Mather,) and Containing the Petition of the Episcopalians of Boston to the King,” in Whitmore, William H., ed., The Andros Tracts: Being a Collection of Pamphlets and Official Papers of the Andros Government and the Establishment of the Second Charter of Massachusetts (New York, 1868–74), 2:52Google Scholar. For analysis of how word of the revolution traveled to the colonies, see Steele, Ian K., “Communicating an English Revolution to the Colonies, 1688–89,” Journal of British Studies 24, no. 3 (July 1985): 333–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
58 Affidavits concerning the agreement of Andros with the Indians, NYCD, 3:659; TNA: PRO, CO 5/1081/41. New Yorkers had good reason to be afraid, as Louis XIV did propose an invasion of New York, after which all Protestants would be deported from the colony, and all French Protestants would be sent to prison in France; see Trudel, Marcel, “Au programme de la Nouvelle-France en 1689: Déporter la population du New-York,” in Mythes et réalités dans l’histoire du Québec (Montreal, 2001), 125–38Google Scholar.
59 Examination of Burr Harrison, Arch. Md., 8:77–78, 84–86; Nicholas Spencer, Richard Lee, and Isaac Allerton to William Joseph, 22 March 1689, Arch. Md., 8:82; Nicholas Spencer to William Blathwayt, 27 April 1689, Blathwayt Papers, vol. 16, folder 5, CW; McIlwaine, H. R., Executive Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia (Richmond, VA, 1925), 1:104–5Google Scholar.
60 Henry Jowles to William Digges, 24 March 1689, Arch. Md., 8:70–71; Jowles to William Joseph and Deputy Governors, 24 March 1689, Arch. Md., 8:72; William Digges to Hanslap et al., Arch. Md., 8:79–80; Proclamation against the plot, 27 March 1689, Arch. Md., 8:86; “The Randolph Manuscript: Memoranda from Virginia Records, 1688–90,” Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 20 (1912): 5Google Scholar; Spencer to Blathwayt, 10 June 1689, Blathwayt Papers, vol. 18, folder 3, CW.
61 Report of Mather, Samuel, in The Glorious Revolution in America: Documents on the Colonial Crisis of 1689, ed. Hall, Michael G., Lawrence H. Leder, and Michael G. Kammen (Chapel Hill, NC, 1964), 39–40Google Scholar; Information of the crew of the Rose Frigate, 29 April 1689, Mass. Arch., 107:4; Information of the Rose Frigott Company, 1 May 1689, Mass. Arch., 107:9–10. The fullest contemporary account is John Riggs, “A Narrative of the Proceedings at Boston in New England upon the Inhabts seizing the Governmt there,” TNA: PRO, CO 5/905/85–87.
62 Nicholson and Council to the Board of Trade, 15 May 1689, NYCD, 3:575; Affidavits against Nicholson, Francis, in The Documentary History of the State of New-York (DHNY), ed. O’Callaghan, Edmund B. (Albany, NY, 1849–51), 2:27Google Scholar; Depositions of Henrick Jacobse and Albert Bosch, 10 June 1689, DHNY, 2:12–13; Stephanus van Cortlandt to Andros, 9 July 1689, NYCD, 3:594; “Documents Relating to the Administration of Leisler,” Collections of the New-York Historical Society 1 (1868): 268, 288. On Leisler's background see Voorhees, David William, “The ‘fervent Zeale’ of Jacob Leisler,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., 51, no. 3 (July 1994): 447–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
63 Richard S. Dunn (“The Glorious Revolution and America,” 445, 457) identifies a fourth rebellion in the Leeward Islands, where Governor Nathaniel Johnson resigned under pressure in July 1689. Though there are interesting parallels with events on the mainland, I have omitted an in-depth analysis because the rebellion against Johnson did not have a significant popular component, and Johnson's enemies never defined themselves as partners in an international Protestant cause.
64 The Narrative of Barbarah wife of Richd Smith, 30 December 1689, Arch. Md., 8:153; Narrative of Henry Darnall, 31 December 1689, Arch. Md., 8:156; Articles of Surrender, Arch. Md., 8:107.
65 James Lloyd to Francis Brinley, 10 July 1689 (abstract), TNA: PRO, CO 5/855/29.
66 The phrase is from Speck, W. A., Reluctant Revolutionaries: Englishmen and the Revolution of 1688 (Oxford, 1988)Google Scholar.
67 See Brewer, John, The Sinews of Power: War, Money, and the British State, 1688–1783 (Cambridge, MA, 1988)Google Scholar.
69 Address of the Governor and Council to William and Mary, in Moody and Simmons, Glorious Revolution in Massachusetts, 78.
70 Breen (Character of the Good Ruler, 136–37) argued against Viola Barnes and earlier scholars that “by the time of the Glorious Revolution, property—more than godliness—served as the basis for political leadership and participation.” In a broader analysis, Jack Greene believes the revolution was a first step in the rise to power of colonial assemblies; see “The Glorious Revolution and the British Empire, 1688–1783,” in The Revolution of 1688–89: New Perspectives, ed. Schwoerer, Lois G. (Cambridge, 1992), 260–71Google Scholar; Yirush, Craig, “From the Perspective of Empire: The Common Law, Natural Rights, and the Formation of American Political Theory, 1688–1775” (PhD diss., Johns Hopkins University, 2004), 121–56Google Scholar.
71 Mather, Cotton, The Wonderful Works of God Commemorated (Boston, 1690)Google Scholar. In viewing William as a providential savior of Protestantism, Mather echoed the religious justifications of the revolution advanced by Gilbert Burnet and other English divines; see Claydon, Tony, William III and the Godly Revolution (Cambridge, 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
72 Mather, Wonderful Works of God, 38.
74 “A Conjecture concerning Gog and Magog,” in Mede, Joseph, The Key of the Revelation, Searched and demonstrated out of the Naturall and Proper Characters of the Visions (London, 1650)Google Scholar; for Mather's disputation, see Magnalia Christi Americana, 123; Haefeli, Evan and Stanwood, Owen, “Jesuits, Huguenots, and the Apocalypse: The Origins of America's First French Book,” Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society 116, pt. 1 (April 2006): 59–120Google Scholar.
75 Sewall to John Wise, 12 April 1698, MHS, Collections, 6th ser., 1 (1886):197; Sewall to Nehemiah Walter, 4 December 1703, ibid., 287. On the upsurge in apocalyptic speculation and its relation to imperial politics, see Mark Peterson, “Boston Pays Tribute: Autonomy and Empire in the Atlantic World, 1630–1714,” in Macinnes and Williamson, Shaping the Stuart World, 331. Sewall published many of his apocalyptic theories as Phaenomena quaedam Apocalyptica Ad Aspectum Novi Orbis configurata (Boston, 1697)Google Scholar.
76 For the most passionately secular interpretation of the Glorious Revolution, see Pincus, Steve, “‘To Protect English Liberties’: The English Nationalist Revolution of 1688–89,” in Protestantism and National Identity: Britain and Ireland, c. 1650–c. 1850, ed. Claydon, Tony and McBride, Ian (Cambridge, 1998), 75–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar; but compare with Claydon, William III and the Godly Revolution, and Johnston, Warren, “Revelation and the Revolution of 1688–89,” Historical Journal 48, no. 2 (June 2005): 351–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
77 Mather, Wonderful Works of God, 32–33, 37–38. On William of Orange's promotion of himself as a Protestant hero in the years before the revolution, see Claydon, Tony, William III (London, 2002), 18–19Google Scholar.
78 “New England Vindicated From the Unjust Aspersions cast on the former Government there, by some late Considerations Pretending to Shew That the Charters in those Colonies were Taken from them on Account of their Destroying the Manufactures and Navigation of England,” Andros Tracts, 2:119–20; A Brief Relation of the State of New England, From the Beginning of that Plantation To this Present Year, 1689 (London, 1689)Google Scholar, Andros Tracts, 2:159; Hall, M. G., ed., “The Autobiography of Increase Mather,” Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society 71 (1962): 333Google Scholar.
79 Eliot to Baxter, 6 July 1663, in Calendar of the Correspondence of Richard Baxter, ed. Keeble, N. H. and Nuttall, Geoffrey F. (Oxford, 1991), 2:39–40Google Scholar. For an interesting analysis of the relationship between Reformed and Republican thought, see Winship, Michael P., “Godly Republicanism and the Origins of the Massachusetts Polity,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., 63, no. 3 (July 2006): 427–62Google Scholar. On Jefferson, see Onuf, Peter, Jefferson's Empire: The Language of American Nationhood (Charlottesville, VA, 2000)Google Scholar, though the idea of an “empire of liberty” based on commerce originated in the mid-1700s; Armitage, Ideological Origins, 195.
80 The best analysis of Leislerian political thought is Voorhees, David William, “‘The World Turned Upside Down’: The Foundations of Leislerian Political Thought,” in The Atlantic World in the Later Seventeenth Century: Essays on Jacob Leisler, Trade, and Networks, ed. Wellenreuther, Hermann (Göttingen, forthcoming)Google Scholar, which supplements and partially supplants Murrin, John M., “The Menacing Shadow of Louis XIV and the Rage of Jacob Leisler: The Constitutional Ordeal of Seventeenth-Century New York,” in New York and the Union: Contributions to the American Constitutional Experience, ed. Schechter, Stephen L. and Bernstein, Richard B. (Albany, 1990), 29–71Google Scholar. On the roots of Calvinist resistance theory, see Skinner, Quentin, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought (Cambridge, 1977), 2:239–348Google Scholar.
81 Albany Council Records, 9 November 1689, DHNY, 2:114.
83 The Declaration of the Reasons and Motives For the Present Appearance in Arms of Their Majesties Protestant Subjects In the Province of Maryland (St. Mary’s, 1689)Google Scholar, in Andrews, Narratives of the Insurrections, 305–14; Carr and Jordan, Maryland's Revolution of Government, 46–83.
84 On the association, see Burnet, Gilbert, History of My Own Time, pt. 1, The Reign of Charles the Second (Oxford, 1897), 2:264–65Google Scholar; The History of the Association, Containing all the Debates in the Last House of Commons At Westminster: Concerning an Association, for the Preservation of the King's Person, and the Security of the Protestant Religion (London, 1682)Google Scholar.
85 Coode to Leisler, 26 November 1689, DHNY, 2:42.
86 Leisler et al. to Major Wildman, Postmaster General, 20 October 1690, Blathwayt Papers, vol. 8, folder 1, CW.
87 Leisler to Edwin Stede, 23 November 1689, DHNY, 2:40–41.
88 Instructions for the Agents of the Colonie of the Massachusetts Bay in New England, 24 January 1690, Andros Tracts, 3:59.
89 Memorial of the Agents from Albany to the Government of Massachusetts, 20 March 1690, NYCD, 3:697–98. For background on Livingston, see Leder, Lawrence H., Robert Livingston, 1654–1728, and the Politics of Colonial New York (Chapel Hill, NC, 1961)Google Scholar.
90 Meeting of the Commissioners at New York, 1 May 1689, DHSM, 5:94; Instructions to William Stoughton and Samuel Sewall, 17 April 1690, Mass. Arch., 36:8–9. Sewall left only a passing reference to the meeting in his diary, 1:257.
91 The assault has not received much attention from recent historians, but see Baker, Emerson W. and Reid, John G., The New England Knight: Sir William Phips, 1651–1695 (Toronto, 1998), 86–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dunn, Richard S., Puritans and Yankees: The Winthrop Dynasty of New England, 1630–1717 (Princeton, NJ., 1962), 290–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
92 “Further Quaeries upon the Present State of the New-English Affairs,” Andros Tracts, 1:200–201.
93 For a nearly complete collection of French and English accounts of the expedition, see Myrand, Ernest, ed., Sir William Phips devant Québec: Histoire d’un siège (Quebec, 1893)Google Scholar.
94 Johnson, Adjustment to Empire, 183–241.
95 Voorhees, David William, “‘In behalf of the true Protestants religion’: The Glorious Revolution in New York,” (PhD diss., New York University, 1988), 338–83Google Scholar; Ritchie, Robert C., The Duke's Province: A Study of New York Politics and Society, 1664–1691 (Chapel Hill, NC, 1977), 227–31Google Scholar.
96 Leisler to Robert Treat, 1 January 1691, DHNY, 2:317–19.
97 Dying speeches of Leisler and Milborne, 16 May 1691, DHNY, 2:378.
99 Bellomont's Speech to the Massachusetts General Court, 2 June 1699, Mass. Arch., Court Records, 7:6.
100 Wadsworth, Benjamin, King William Lamented in America; Or, A Sermon occasion’d by the very Sorrowful tidings, of the Death of William III (Boston, 1702)Google Scholar. The argument here parallels one that Tony Claydon has made for England, claiming that William was able to build a centralized state where his Stuart predecessors failed because he used antipopery to foster national allegiance; Claydon, William III, 136–38.
101 McConville, Brendan, The King's Three Faces: The Rise and Fall of Royal America, 1688–1776 (Chapel Hill, NC, 2006)Google Scholar; Kidd, Thomas, The Protestant Interest: New England after Puritanism (New Haven, CT, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a similar analysis that places British politics in European context, see Thompson, Andrew, Britain, Hanover, and the Protestant Interest, 1688–1756 (Woodbridge, 2006)Google Scholar.
102 Greene, Jack P., “Negotiated Authorities: The Problem of Governance in the Extended Polities of the Early Modern Atlantic World,” in his Negotiated Authorities: Essays in Colonial Political and Constitutional History (Charlottesville, VA, 1994), 1–24Google Scholar; Hinderaker, Eric, Elusive Empires: Constructing Colonialism in the Ohio Valley, 1673–1800 (Cambridge, 1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Daniels, Christine and Kennedy, Michael V., eds., Negotiated Empires: Centers and Peripheries in the Americas, 1500–1820 (New York, 2002)Google Scholar.
103 In many ways this article heeds the call in Canny, Nicholas (“Writing Early Modern History: Ireland, Britain, and the Wider World,” Historical Journal 46, no. 3 [September 2003]: 746–47)Google Scholar to examine early modern history in its broadest possible context.
104 Morrill, “Sensible Revolution,” calling on Trevelyan, G. M., The English Revolution (Oxford, 1938)Google Scholar. This Atlantic perspective on the Revolution tends to reinforce the conclusions of Tim Harris and Tony Claydon, who have emphasized popular and religious explanations.
Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.