Comparing James II And Pincus

With the passing of Charles II, many people were undecided over James. James was a “controversial figure” (Pincus 92). Pincus elaborates, “After his reconciliation with the Roman Catholic Church…scrutiny. His well-known absolutist temperament frightened many” (Pincus 92). He adds that after a failed assassination attempt, in 1683, “no one could be certain how the English people would receive James II” (Pincus 92). With the news of Charles II’s death, “The tears that flowed…as tears of mourning” (Pincus 92).

However, “Nevertheless, the moment of anxiety proved fleeting…the accession of James II in February 1685” (Pincus 92). Pincus describes how “opposition to James was largely religious in nature” (Pincus 93). Pincus closely examines the early

Pincus further describes how, “The English people…anti-Catholic paranoia” (Pincus 94). Also how, “Reports from…Catholic king” (Pincus 95). Pincus mentions how England’s two universities, Oxford and Cambridge, “presented James II with splendid books of poetry predicting great achievements during his reign” (Pincus 95). Pincus mentions that, “While there can be…from the throne” (Pincus 96). However, “Those who were apprehensive were largely reassured by the king’s actions on taking the throne…he rushed from his dead brother’s side made it all the more poignant and powerful” (Pincus 96). His strong speeches made at Parliament led “English men and women…accession of James II” (Pincus 97). Pincus states, “Although James II’s Catholicism…him to rule” (Pincus 99). Pincus goes onto describe, “James II…England and Wales” (Pincus 99). Additionally, how “Before Charles II…from the throne” (Pincus 99). In the end, “the elections…new king” (Pincus 100). The election of 1685, convinced by contemporary opinion, “represented an overwhelming…and his government” (Pincus 101). Despite this, “While these returns…church and state” (Pincus

The first argument he makes is the traditional historians’ view that the Glorious Revolution was “bloodless, aristocratic, and consensual” (Pincus 475). Pincus argues that it was in fact, quite the opposite: “violent, popular, and divisive” (Pincus 475). Pincus argues that “By focusing so heavily on the immediate aftermath of James’s flight, scholars have overemphasized the extent of Tory political success…A narrow focus on the immediate aftermath of the events of 1688-89 has obscured the radical implications of the revolution” (Pincus 476). Next, Pincus next criticizes the way traditional assumptions of the traditional account of the revolution are misconceived. He then follows up by saying how his account differs from theirs, “First,…contestation” (Pincus 476-477). Pincus then makes another argument against traditional historians by saying that “The English Revolution of 1688-89 was the first modern revolution…This was not the conservative and restorative revolution described in the establishment Whig historiography” (Pincus 477). Finally, Pincus argues the study of religion factoring into understanding the Revolution of 1688-89. “The study of religion…Revolution of 1688-89” (Pincus