A model US sailor period. Personal hero of mine.
John Paul Jones was a Scotsman, he only emigrated to North America when he was 28 years old.
Another famous Scottish mariner with an interesting history is Thomas Cochrane, he helped found some navies in South America when they were fighting against colonial rule.
Many of the Aubrey/Maturin novels are loosely based on the exploits of Lord Cochrane
Dude bought service from an underage prostitute in Russia. It was a scandal even then.
Wow - I had no idea he fought in the Russian Navy.
While waiting there in vain hope of another command, Jones was accused of rape by a 12-year-old girl. While Jones was almost certainly innocent of rape, he had been patronizing her services as a prostitute. In a letter, he insisted that he had not taken her virginity but that, in exchange for money, “she lent herself very amiably to do all that a man would want of her.” Instead, it seems that the girl had been bribed by a rival of Jones to say that she was raped in order to ruin the American’s Russian naval career. It worked. Jones soon left Russia under a cloud and never returned. He died in obscurity in Paris in 1792, never having another opportunity to command a fleet.
Not that it makes it right but I don’t think there was an actual age of consent in 18th century Russia. The US state of Georgia’s age of consent was 10 years old until 1918…
Chris Hansen enters the room
John Paul (Jones) never served a day in the US Navy.
No shit, people kept slaves back then. They sure knew it was morally bankrupt but did anyway.
Oh-oh. Don’t drag slavery into a discussion about John Paul Jones. He worked as a mate on several slave ships.
I think the best we can say about John Paul Jones is a quote often credited to Winston Churchill:
"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.”
John Paul Jones could be a villain, but he did rise to the occasion when the country needed him.
Dude saw an opportunity to escape legal troubles back home in Great Britain. Let’s not pretend he was American.
Putting aside other considerations…
Are you claiming he was not an American citizen? There were no U.S. citizens until 1776. He was a U.S. captain, and later a U.S. consul. I assume he was a U.S. citizen because he was on the American side during the revolution. In essence both he and George Washington, among many others, were British subjects, until they declared they weren’t–so much for paperwork back then.
You mean 1783, before that it was bunch of rebels.
Yes? He was a Scottish scoundrel.
Legal/technical question: Why do you claim 1783 rather than 1776? In 1776 certainly the British viewed Americans as rebels, but the Americans viewed themselves as Americans (well, not all of them, but most of them).
Because if you rebel, the peace (if you win) is when you can claim recognition.
So are citizens of Taiwan actually citizens of the People’s Republic of China, or are the citizens of the PRC actually citizens of Taiwan? Both look on the other side as rebels.
Limbo? If US did not back them up we will hear the squishing sound to Europe. Both claim to be the rightful rulers of China. One is de facto, other one is wishful thinking.
Recognition is a matter of other independent nations not self declared. They ‘considered‘ themselves assuming a separate and independent nation in 1776. They were ‘recognized’ by France first in 1778 just as Taiwan was in the forties by the Vatican.
So what? If GB had pulled all resources and just stomped out the rebellion who would have cared if a pre-revolutionary France recognized you? Only reason US is a nation is that it won the rebellion.
Question 1: ‘recognition’ was the word used. But since the topic is when was JPJ a citizen? Easy, 1776. He was now subject to the duties of citizen amongst his countrymen as long as he was in the jurisdiction. From an international perspective, this coincides with the date he was also ‘recognized’ as a rebel by GB and he lost that particular ‘recognition’ when we won and opened the door for universal acceptance due to lack of other claimants.
Question 2: (stopped reading after ‘If’ since it’s moot)
Question 3: well, you’re not wrong… by the same token, we remain a nation due to the lack of being invaded successfully.
Or a traitor, a Quisling, a Benedict Arnold, a cunt. As long as you can lose, you are still in a rebellion not a nation. USA was lucky the land was worth less than an island in the caribbean or you would have been fucked. Who want a bunch of rebels that don’t pay taxes?
Mhm, this was maybe over the line…