JOHN PAUL JONES (1747-1792)

A true American hero was this other colonist, the 'Father of the American Navy.' Born in Scotland, he settled in Virginia; he would become most famous for raiding the British coast in 1779, in command of a French force. Two British warships would become toast as a result, after he had just “begun to fight”!

However, one man’s hero is another’s villain, and the English regarded him as a stinkin' low-down pirate. Early biographer Benjamin Disraeli wrote that the nurses of Scotland hushed their crying charges by the whisper of his name. (In true Armenian fashion! “For too many years Armenian mothers had lulled their children to sleep with songs whose theme was Turkish fierceness and savagery.” Ohanus Appressian, “Men Are Like That”)

John Paul Jones: self-described "Citizen of the World"

John Paul had a reputation for being a ladies’ man, although not quite the picture of a hunk, described as “slight and wiry in body, about 5'5" tall with a sharp, wedge shaped nose.” He also had an explosive temper. A ship’s carpenter accused Jones of having him flogged mercilessly with the cat o nine tails, wounds that he would die of afterwards.

When Jones returned to Paris during peacetime, American Ambassador Thomas Jefferson recommended the seaman for service with Russia, and he was subsequently made Rear Admiral in the Russian Navy (in 1788) by the Empress Catherine II, a rank higher than he had received in the United States. Jefferson wrote:

You are, I dare say, pleased, as I am, with the promotion of our country-man, Paul Jones. He commanded the right wing, in the first engagement between the Russian and Turkish galleys; his absence from the second proves his superiority over the Captain Pacha, as he did not choose to bring his ships into the shoals in which the Pacha ventured, and lost those entrusted to him. I consider this officer as the principal hope of our future efforts on the ocean. You will have heard of the action between the Swedes and Russians, on the Baltic; as yet, we have only the Swedish version of it. I apprehend this war must catch from nation to nation, till it becomes general.

Why did he hook up with the Russians? A writer put it this way (http://www.electricscotland.com/history/other/johnpaul.htm):

Avast, mateys!

After what he had performed, it would have been strange if the chevalier Jones had not felt some reluctance to enter into the service of Russia, where every maxim by which he had been guided during his exertions for liberty behooved to be reversed, and where, instead of being directed by the united voice of an intelligent people, he must regulate his conduct by the single will of a despot. It is one of the greatest evils of despotism, that the despot, once established, has the means of corrupting and enslaving even the most generous minds. The chevalier Jones saw many reasons for declining to enter into the service of Catharine; but, flattered by her attention and kind offers, he thought he could not do less than to wait upon and thank her in person for her friendly intentions.

Robert Stack slobbers over a landlubber in the 1959 film

“Though it produced little that is worthy of the notice of the historian,” the above writer opines, Jones performed well, but was a victim of jealousy and backbiting (he was falsely accused of molesting a 10 year old daughter of a German immigrant, while living in St. Petersberg) and “disgusted with the sordid selfishness and the low sensuality that reigned in the court of Catherine,” he took his leave of Russia in 1789.

What kind of damage did he cause the Turks? Another site reports: “He served with distinction under Prince Potemkin against the Turks in the Black Sea campaign. At the Battle of Liman he reconnoitred the Turkish Fleet in a rowboat during the night; repulsed the Turkish attacks killing about 3000 Turks,destroying 15 vessels and taking over 1600 prisoners at a cost to his squadron of one frigate and 18 killed.”

If that’s true, it was quite a spectacular victory. A chronology of his Russian exploits may be found at http://www.history.navy.mil/bios/jones_jp_chron.htm

What could have possessed Jones to hire himself out as he did, to a nation he probably had little sympathy for? While the above accounts rationalize his decision as having been somewhat “seduced” by Catherine the Great (who later eulogized Jones only as a "wrongheaded fellow"), it seems to me naval battle was in his blood, and the call for action and “glory” proved irresistible to his fighting ways. Besides, the enemy were only Turks. He probably didn’t have any idea of the history of the region, and had no reason to feel allegiance to the alien Russians. Worse, since Jones was likely the type to be fired up by such talk as “Give me liberty or death” during the American revolution, it seems he completely sacrificed his freedom-loving principles by aligning himself with a people known for their brutality and enslavement over others, including even their own. Regardless, he must have had even less reason to feel sympathy for the vastly more alien, non-Christian Turks. He didn’t care who he was killing, which doesn’t say much about his character... since it can’t be said he was fighting for a cause. (An argument could be made that he was fighting against a cause; the cause of his own principles.) Whatever little he knew about the Turks, the only thing that was probably enough for him was that the less-than-human Turks deserved whatever they got.

The real way in which Americans have fought Turks has been through non-violent means; even in WWI the USA declined to declare war, mainly to protect missionary interests. It was through the efforts of missionaries then and the efforts of Armenians then and now (more Armenians reside in the United States than anywhere else, after Armenia) that Americans have demonstrated an intense hostility, thanks to their wholesale acceptance of Armenian propaganda. It is important to keep in mind there are times the pen can truly be mightier than the sword.

As far as literally violent means are concerned, Americans and Turks have more often fought on the same side, as in Korea. Here is what may be the first recorded instance of when the militaries of both countries cooperated with one another. ("Part I"; scroll below.)