David L. Smith’s Oliver Cromwell: Politics and Religion in the English Revolution, 1640–1658

The Political Function of Smith’s Revisionism

David L. Smith’s Oliver Cromwell: Politics and Religion in the English Revolution is more than just neutral scholarship. It serves as an ideological intervention aimed at denying the revolutionary aspects of the English Revolution, distancing Cromwell from the class forces that elevated him, and disguising—through claims of “moderation” and “balance”—the Marxist interpretation that sees the seventeenth century as a crucial phase in the shift from feudalism to capitalism.

Smith “dismisses both Whig and Marxist historiography as outdated and no longer fashionable.”¹ This is a core element of Smith’s project, not a mere aside. Rejecting Marxism isn’t just an academic choice; it’s a fundamental prerequisite for the entire revisionist effort.

Smith aligns with the school influenced by John Morrill and Geoffrey Elton, whose shared aim since the 1970s has been to dismiss the English Revolution as a valid category of history. They consistently argue—repetitively—that there was no rising bourgeoisie, that class struggles did not drive the conflict, and that Cromwell was merely a confused provincial gentleman instead of a leader embodying a new social order. This approach does not reflect proper history; it amounts to restorationist apologetics.

The timing of this historiographical counter-revolution is deliberate. Revisionism functions as “the academic wing of the wider ideological offensive that occurred alongside the dissolution of the USSR.”² The goal is to undermine the very idea of revolution by portraying history as a sequence of misunderstandings among elites and denying the masses' ability to act as aware agents. Smith's book is a small but illustrative part of this ideological reaction.

The Erasure of Class Struggle

Smith’s approach is straightforward: reject the idea of class forces, reduce political conflict to matters of personal faith, and portray Cromwell as a tragic moralist rather than a revolutionary leader. He accomplishes this by sharply narrowing the evidence, favouring gentry manuscript collections—such as private letters, estate documents, and correspondence from the political elite—while dismissing the proliferation of printed pamphlets, sermons, and mass political debates as either insignificant or deceptive. This classic revisionist tactic effectively eliminates the people's role, making the revolution vanish along with them.

Christopher Hill’s achievement was the opposite. He showed that the mid-1600s marked a time when the “lower orders” became active political participants, censorship broke down, and new social forces undermined the ideological framework of feudalism. Hill “made the published sources his own,” which is why revisionists “have had to seek new material.”³

Smith’s unwillingness to participate in this widespread political culture isn't just cautious methodology; it’s a form of political evasion. Recognising the radical changes of the 1640s would mean confronting the class forces driving them.

 

 

Cromwell as Revolutionary Leader—Not Confused Country Gentleman

Smith’s Cromwell is portrayed as a man of conscience, caught between different loyalties, striving for godly reform while longing for constitutional stability. However, this depiction is not only inaccurate but also driven by ideological bias. Cromwell was the military and political leader of the revolutionary bourgeoisie, who repeatedly purged Parliament (such as Pride’s Purge, the dissolution of the Rump, and the expulsion of the Barebones Assembly), suppressed the Levellers when they threatened to extend the revolution beyond acceptable limits for property owners, and established a military dictatorship to secure the interests of his class.

Hill’s 'God’s Englishman' is an essential corrective. Cromwell was not reinstating an ancient system; he was dismantling feudal political structures. The execution of Charles I was not merely an accidental procedural event, as revisionists suggest, but a deliberate act of world-historical significance—an intentional overthrow of the old order by a class that had outgrown it. Smith’s failure to recognise this is not a simple oversight but the core purpose of his book.

IV. The Political Stakes: Why Revisionism Must Deny Revolution

“If the seventeenth century was not a revolution, then perhaps revolutions never really happen.”⁴ This is the political essence of revisionism. If the English Revolution was merely a tragic misunderstanding, then the French Revolution was a blood‑soaked aberration, the Russian Revolution a criminal conspiracy, and the very idea of revolutionary transformation a dangerous illusion.

Smith’s historiography is well-suited to an era where the ruling class aims to convince the working class that collective action is useless. The denial of the English Revolution fits into a wider ideological campaign: asserting that history is shaped by elites, that the masses are passive, and that capitalism is eternal. This explains why Smith must dismiss Marxist historiography as “unfashionable.” It’s not unfashionable because it’s incorrect; it’s unfashionable because it’s dangerous—because it exposes that capitalism arose through revolutionary violence and can be overthrown through revolutionary means.

V. Conclusion: Smith’s Book as an Ideological Artefact

Smith’s Oliver Cromwell is essentially a reactionary interpretation disguised as scholarship. It adds little to our understanding of the seventeenth century, merely rehashing the revisionist ideas that have dominated academia since the Thatcher-Reagan era: denying class struggle, revolution, the agency of the masses, and the Marxist tradition. In contrast, Hill’s Marxist historiography—and the broader tradition of historical materialism—remains essential. It fully explains why the English Revolution happened, which social forces influenced it, and why Cromwell made the choices he did.

Smith’s dismissal of Marxism comes at a price. It is not a sign of scholarly sophistication. It is a sign of political reaction.”⁵

Footnotes

1. “Smith dismisses both Whig and Marxist historiography as outdated and no longer fashionable.”
2. “This is not scholarship… It is a political project… that accompanied the dissolution of the USSR.”
3. “Hill made the published sources his own… Hill’s detractors have had to look for new material.”
4. “If the seventeenth century was not a revolution, then perhaps revolutions never really happen.”
5. “It is not a sign of scholarly sophistication. It is a sign of political reaction.”