Who would you have supported in the American Revolutionary War?

Who would you have supported in the American Revolutionary War?

  • The US/Americans

  • Britain/the UK


Results are only viewable after voting.
Feb 2019
445
Serbia
#41
Weak?
L14 was run by Mazarin. L15 was run by his...wife?

Back to the American Revolution. John Jay expressed an opinion on which one was weak when he wrote the NY Constitution during the Revolutionary War, completed 1777. Jay wrote and the state ratified:
"... the bigotry and ambition of weak and wicked priests and princes have scourged mankind,"
Jay is a Hugenot. So, I take it the wicked priest is Mazarin and the weak prince is L14.
@Gvelion already said most of it. Louis XIV was ''run'' by Mazarin and his mother (He was under age, so the 2 served as a regency.) until 1651, Mazarin was chief minister until his death in 1661, after which Louis ruled by himself. Louis XIV was anything but weak, considering how much he solidified absolutism and how he made sure that he would be supreme. He was also ambitious and a glory-seeker, sometimes biting off more than he can chew. A weak man can't do this, and to call Louis weak in such a way is not right. I doubt Jay was talking about Louis when he wrote that.
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
3,790
Caribbean
#42
Louis XV was run by his mistress Marquise de Pompadour in 1740's and 1750's
Sorry, if I gave her a promotion.

Americans were also able to achieve their independence thanks to France. I would also recommend to read historical works of real scholars, really study historical periods, facts and not base your judgement solely on some ,, quotes ''.
I also like to read the accounts of people who were actually there without modern scholarly filters. The Founders, some much more Francophile than others, were grateful to the French , but a lot of them gave their thanks to Divine Providence for sending the French and some other things, as well.
 
Last edited:
Sep 2016
1,090
Georgia
#43
I also like to read the accounts of people who were actually there myself without the scholarly filters. The Founders, some more Francophile than others, were grateful to the French , but a lot of them gave their thanks to Divine Providence for sending the French and some other things, as well.
Usually accounts of contemporaries are naturally biased. You study ,, Source criticism'' and learn to analyze them as a student in University. However, If you are interested I would suggest to read memoirs of Saint-Simon on already old Louis and his court. There are also memoirs of young Louis XIV himself and of some other historical figures.

Not to mention, that ordinary person doesn't have an access to Archives. Which is another reason why you have to rely on scholars.
 
Likes: Tulius
Feb 2019
436
Pennsylvania, US
#44
What miserable things did he miss out on?
He was one of the men captured by Joseph Brant at Lochry's Defeat (sometimes called Lochry's Massacre). The Native Americans had a knack for taking targets with little to no losses to their own forces... it was quite incredible. This was one of those occasions. My relative was beside Archibald Lochry when he was tomahawked, he was held as a captive for a while, then sold to the British and imprisoned. He escaped the prison in Canada and walked all the way home to Pennsylvania, avoiding recapture. He was so altered by the experience that his family didn't recognize him (which is pretty bad).

It makes you wonder if he was just a young guy looking for adventure (and maybe got more than he asked for), or if he was really sold on the idea of fighting for independence... and if he's turning in his grave now that I voted for Britain. :think:
 
Likes: Futurist

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
3,790
Caribbean
#45
Usually accounts of contemporaries are naturally biased.
LOL.
Maybe that is the bias I want, and something else is the bias I don't want, because it is everywhere and self-unaware.

Not to mention, that ordinary person doesn't have an access to Archives. Which is another reason why you have to rely on scholars.
The volume of data cannot displace bias. Bias causes cherry picking, conscious and unconscious , and a range of conclusions that can be reached and others that cannot be reached.

I have been in several lifelong debates and marathon threads, including right here on this forum, where you can put documents in front of people that say "ABC." over and over and over, and you can't get them to admit it. Now, what do you think? Is the correlation between blind and being a "scholar" positive or negative? I think you can guess my answer.
 
Likes: Futurist
Sep 2016
1,090
Georgia
#46
LOL.
Maybe that is the bias I want, and something else is the bias I don't want, because it is everywhere and self-unaware.

The volume of data cannot displace bias. Bias causes cherry picking, conscious and unconscious , and a range of conclusions that can be reached and others that cannot be reached.

I have been in several lifelong debates and marathon threads, including right here on this forum, where you can put documents in front of people that say "ABC." over and over and over, and you can't get them to admit it. Now, what do you think? Is the correlation between blind and being a "scholar" positive or negative? I think you can guess my answer.
I don't care about your ,, lifelong debates '' with some other strangers. You didn't even know that Mazarin died in 1661. :lol:

There are works of Lynn, Lossky, Chandler, Falkner, Wolf, Sonnino, Bluche, Deshodt, John J. Hurt and etc. on period of Louis XIV. Some are very critical and some are more sympathetic. This is nothing new and a normal thing in historical studies. Contemporaries also often lack a good view on full picture.

Not to mention, that John Jay was actually born in 1745 ! Your method is clearly flawed, because you can't even get basic facts right.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2019
445
Serbia
#47
I also like to read the accounts of people who were actually there without modern scholarly filters. The Founders, some much more Francophile than others, were grateful to the French , but a lot of them gave their thanks to Divine Providence for sending the French and some other things, as well.
Sorry, but how were the founders ''there'' to witness the events? Jay was born in 1745 and wrote the document you refer to in 1777,his account is just as much ''eye-witness'' as is John Keegan's book on WWI, and even less so than many books on WWII. I use Keegan as an example, he was born in 1934 and wrote about both world wars, yet he is not an eye witness. Jay was born 3 decades after Louis died and wrote the document over 100 years after Louis began his personal rule and about 62 years after he died. You also say you ''take'' Jay as referring to Mazarin and Louis because he was a Huguenot, no offence but this isn't the strongest of evidence, did Jay ever say or write anything else to back up the idea that he is referring to Mazarin and Louis.
 
Likes: Gvelion

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
3,790
Caribbean
#48
It wasn't my ''take'' that Jay was referring to Mazarin and Little Louis

I got it from a book written by so-called "scholar," a chaired professor.
And his footnote is the journal of the Convention, probably keeps those in the scholar "archives."
LOL.
(Let me guess, you want his name, so you can tell me his not a real scholar or has the wrong bias because it varies from yours).


Why don't you illuminate us? What did John Jay it really meant? Who was he referring to?
 
Last edited:
Feb 2019
445
Serbia
#50
Are you actually asking me how George Washington was witness to the Battle of Trenton?
I am talking about Jay, how was he there to witness Mazarin's regency or Louis' character and call him weak as an eye witness? I thought the discussion was about Louis XIV and your interpretation of Jay's comment.

It wasn't my ''take'' that Jay was referring to Mazarin and Little Louis

And then:

Back to the American Revolution. John Jay expressed an opinion on which one was weak when he wrote the NY Constitution during the Revolutionary War, completed 1777. Jay wrote and the state ratified:
"... the bigotry and ambition of weak and wicked priests and princes have scourged mankind,"
Jay is a Hugenot. So, I take it the wicked priest is Mazarin and the weak prince is L14.
Emphasis mine. So, it wasn't your take... Was it the scholar you referred to (But didn't give the name of...) the one who made the claim? If so, quote the full passage so we may understand the context. If Jay was the one who made the claim, where did he explicitly say the priest is Mazarin and the prince is Louis?

Why don't you illuminate us? What did John Jay it really meant? Who was he referring to?
We are not making the claim, we don't need to ''enlighten'' anyone in this case. Maybe he was referring to the princes and priests in general? I don't know.
 
Likes: Gvelion