LookingGlass

Farewell Twill. We will miss the Pub.

For the record, this statement is not entirely accurate, and it is combining information from two different letters written by Captain Ellis Brand: one composed on July 12, 1718, and the second composed on February 6, 1718/19. The intelligence Brand received regarding the wreck of the QAR at Topsail Inlet and the numbers of men who were subsequently divided into three groups did not come from an “informant” but from the vessel Globe of Maryland, which Brand’s ship Lyme was escorting off Cape Henry. In his July letter Brand did not write "that 90 had already left for points northward”—that figure of 90 men can only inferred by deduction. Brand did not write that his informant reported that Thatch "was talking about sticking around, boasting about marrying (in the future) in Bath.” To suggest this is absolute nonsense. I have a copy of the letter I photographed at Kew before me, so I can say this with authority. Brand wrote that 230 pirates “continue together given out they design for Currico and other of the islands. When they first came on the coast there [sic] numbers consisted of three hundred and twentie, whites and negroes.” Obviously, 320 minus the 230 who were reported by Brand to continue together leaves 90 men. As has already been indicated within this thread, Herriot testified that Thatch had departed with 100 men aboard the small Spanish sloop captured a number of weeks earlier off Havana. The difference between Brand’s intimation of 90 men based on his source from the ship Globe, and Herriot’s testimony of 100 men based on his being present when it happened, can be reconciled by the fact that both were likely estimates. Herriot’s “40 whites and 60 blacks” is more specific and was likely to have been more accurate. An interesting question remains—how many pirates from the Thatch/Bonnet consortium were left behind after Blackbeard’s sloop Adventure, and Bonnet’s Revenge departed Topsail Inlet? Three and a half months after the scuttling of the QAR, 36 suspected pirates, including Bonnet, David Herriot, and Ignatius Pell, were aboard the Revenge when it was attacked by Col. Rhett in the mouth of the Cape Fear River. Rowland Sharp and Robert Boyd, both of Bath, had been “forced" to join the crew after their canoe encountered Bonnet in the river shortly before the engagement—the two Bath men may, or may not, have been members of the 230 pirates left behind by Thatch and his hand-picked cohorts and slaves but two other convicted pirates on Bonnet’s crew were also from North Carolina. Consequently, somewhere between 184 and 196 former members of the 4-vessel flotilla were left behind to find their own transportation from Topsail Inlet (some men could have chosen to remain at what was soon to be known as Beaufort Town).

Your theory, "better than most," as you have presented in your article is this: The educated aristocrat Blackbeard, a wealthy capitalist, family man, former sugar plantation owner, and veteran Navy man from Jamaica, became too successful and popular in the colonies during his brief 23 months as a pirate and therefore embarrassed the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Earl of Berkeley (who was doubly embarrassed because the Thache family emigrated from his home county of Gloucestershire), who induced Virginia Lieutenant Governor Alexander Spotswood to commission a “hit” on the pirate at Ocracoke where he was “murdered” by members of His Majesty's Navy, and in a later conspiracy to cover-up this scandal the London Board of Trade coerced the Jacobite publisher Nathaniel Mist, aka Charles Johnson, into defaming the pirate’s character in his book A General History of the Pyrates. Is that about right?

I don't "assume" Blackbeard meant to wreck the QAR. This has already been addressed in this thread. "100% of the witness-accounts of the event" indicate that the scuttling of the ship was intentional. You have failed to explain how Herriot would have incriminated himself had he instead testified that the wreck had been an accident, and no counter-evidence is known to exist to contradict Herriot. As Fox wrote, yours is a false argument. Actually, it is just another theory. And, by the way, what has the archaeology shown that proves that the wreck was an accident? Because some of the guns were loaded is evidence that the wreck was an accident? Really? No, I believe the Thache deeds, wills, and their slaves provide proof that they owned slaves. I haven't intimated that in this discussion at all. Please don't attempt to deflect this discussion away from the topic of the evidence you have accumulated to support your theory that Edward Thache, Jr., of Jamaica was Blackbeard.

The chances of Blackbeard being from Jamaica are certainly better than North Carolina? Since some readers here may not have been able to access my analysis of your article, I will repeat the following: The Cambridge-educated philosopher of history, C. Behan McCullagh, PhD., wrote in The Truth of History: “For a new historical interpretation to be acceptable, it must synthesize more facts about the subject than those which preceded it, make more facts about the subject intelligible, as well as be so supported by available evidence as to be rationally accepted as true. An interpretation is objectively good if it satisfies these conditions.” How well does your new theory of the notorious pirate’s origins, his Anglican, aristocratic upbringing, his wealthy, privileged life on Jamaica, his service in the Royal Navy, synthesize the large number of well-documented facts of Blackbeard’s last days in North Carolina? Why would your Jamaican Blackbeard, Edward Thache, Jr., whose family you purport to have owned a large sugar plantation with slaves (even though you have provided no evidence of this “plantation”), then go to great trouble to capture slaves east of the Windward Islands in November 1717 from the French slave ship Concorde? And then why, at great risk, and by avoiding numerous opportunities to safely surrender to various colonial governors—including South Carolina’s Governor Johnson—did Edward Thache, Jr., of Jamaica, deliver those slaves to diminutive Bath, North Carolina, which is quite a far distance from the sea requiring navigation around dangerous shoals and serpentine sand reefs. And why did your Jamaican Blackbeard take those slaves to what was then a colonial backwater community well-documented to be economically depressed and with residents possessing little or no hard currency to purchase those slaves, especially when the pirates passed up other ports where those slaves would have fetched much higher prices? Why did your Jamaican Blackbeard not deliver these slaves to his home port if the chances of his Jamaican connections "are certainly better than North Carolina?" How do you explain the absolute lack of coherence of your theory with the documented facts of the pirate Blackbeard’s travels and actions during his 2-year piratical career?

And what was the right time? 1706? From what I can tell, that is the only date where Edward Thache, Jr., appears in a document that Brooks has provided.

I would!

This friendly debate is by no means personal. My analysis of your article was intended to fairly evaluate the sources you used to justify your overall thesis and statements you have made such as, "“The only male old enough to have been this Elizabeth’s legitimate father was Edward Thache Jr., then serving aboard the HMS Windsor, and later known as ‘Blackbeard the Pirate.’” You have apparently benefited from my analysis—or review as you prefer—which pointed out the erroneous conclusion that Capt. Edward Vernon was Nathaniel Mist’s source for his reference to Blackbeard’s Jamaican origins, as well as the pitfalls of relying on Bialuschewski’s misleading and unsupported statements regarding Thatch joining Hornigold at Kingston in early 1716. Your acknowledgement of, and retraction of these points have been noted, so my effort has been worth it. Indeed, “the records show exactly what the records show," but the records fail to show that Edward Thache, Jr., of Jamaica, was the pirate Blackbeard. Neither do the records prove that Blackbeard was the son of Capt. James Beard, and I was quite forthright about that fact in my book, as I always am wherever I speak. In chapter nineteen, I wrote: "Despite all of the circumstantial evidence that has been collected, there is still no conclusive proof of Edward Beard’s existence.” While I freely admit that I cannot prove Blackbeard’s identity, I am confident in my argument that the pirate’s actions in 1718 infer a familiar and longstanding relationship with the town of Bath, NC: his strategy to wreck the Queen Anne’s Revenge in Beaufort Inlet and the disbandment of his company while retaining 40 trusted white cohorts and 60 slaves, and the delivery of those slaves to the hard-to-reach, economically-depressed, and labor-deficient Pamlico region, and his receipt of a Royal Pardon for which he and his fellow participants of the blockade of Charleston were ineligible. We each have our own theories as to Blackbeard’s origins, identity, and motivations. I doubt that either of us will ever be proven right or wrong with the available sources. This debate is about which of the two arguments provides the best explanation as to Blackbeard’s origins, identity, and motivations, even though neither one can be proven to be absolutely true and accurate. Your argument based on genealogical sources provides a thoroughly researched case as to why the family of Edward Thache of Jamaica is likely related to the Rev. Thomas Thache of Gloucestershire, but Blackbeard’s possible Jamaican origins provides no coherence with what we know about his last days in North Carolina, his delivery of slaves to Bath, or his relationships with Gov. Eden and Tobias Knight. I do wish you all the best, and I look forward to an ongoing discussion of the merits of our historical interpretations.

I do have more questions, thank you for asking. I am not confused nor unable to discuss genealogy; I was confused by your writing: In the preceding paragraph, you identify “Edward Jr.” as “Blackbeard’s father.” But in your article, and in the accompanying genealogical chart within the article (available here on Zazzle.com for those of you who would like to purchase a copy), you indicate that Blackbeard was “Edward Jr.,” and that his father was the son of Rev. Thomas Thache of Gloucester. I’m not confused by genealogy generally, but the genealogy you present I find to be confusing and inconsistent. If 1683 for Blackbeard’s birth date is a good guess, would 1690 be less of a good guess? Also, I could be wrong, but I doubt he was called Blackbeard when he was born. Where is the positive evidence that Leslie met the family on Jamaica? When did Leslie meet the family—was it before or after Blackbeard’s death? And, how was the family described in GHoP? Unfortunately, the link that you provided doesn’t show us the records that offer “nearly definitive proof” that Blackbeard was from this family or from Jamaica. You have stated as fact in your article that Edward Thache, Jr., aka Blackbeard, departed Kingston, Jamaica in 1716 with Benjamin Hornigold to salvage the Spanish wrecks. What evidence do you have to support this? Can you state where Jamaica’s Thache was between 1706 and 1716? If Blackbeard was a caring family man as you have described him, why do the records fail to document any visits he made to Jamaica during his two years as a pirate?

Colin Woodard wrote it and rather uncreatively pirated the title of my 2008 book, The Last Days of Blackbeard, for his article.

Welcome to the Piracy Pub Mr. Brooks You wrote: "This Thache family was somewhat substantial, as Charles Leslie regarded him in 1739 in A New and Exact Account of Jamaica.” The exact words of Charles Leslie were these: "At this time, the famous Edward Teach, commonly known by the Name of Blackbeard, infested the American Seas. He was one of a most bloody Disposition, and cruel to Brutality. His Name became a Terror, and some Governors being remiss in pursuing him, he almost put a stop to the Trade of several of the Northern Colonies. He was born in Jamaica, of very creditable Parents; his Mother is alive in Spanish-Town to this Day, and his Brother is at present Captain of the Train of Artillery. He was attacked by a Lieutenant of a Man of War, and was killed, after a very obstinate and bloody Fight. He took a Glass, and drank Damnation to them that gave or asked Quarter. His Head was carried to Virginia, and there fixed to a Pole.” Leslie wrote that Teach, or Blackbeard, was born in Jamaica. You write that Capt. Edward Thache of Spanish Town, Jamaica, whom you purport to be Blackbeard, was born in Gloucestershire, England. Which birthplace is correct, and why? And what source do you use to prove that Edward Thache of Spanish Town was a captain? Leslie [published in 1739] wrote that Teach’s mother was alive “to this day,” yet your research shows that Thache’s mother died in 1699. Which statement is correct? Leslie described Teach as "a man of a most bloody Disposition, and cruel to Brutality," yet you have written that he was a caring family man and “an upstanding community member.” Which description is more accurate? Why does Leslie’s account of Teach, or Blackbeard, nearly match the phrases used by Nathaniel Mist in General History of Pyrates? If Leslie knew the Jamaican Thache family so well, why did he spell Blackbeard’s surname as Teach? Can you argue persuasively that Leslie’s information about Teach was not derived from General History of Pyrates? You write: "The argument made by the actual records themselves is almost perfect that Blackbeard was from this family.” Please cite the record or source that proves "almost perfectly" that Blackbeard was from the Thache family of Jamaica? Not Leslie, I hope.

I inadvertently posted the wrong link. Here is the correct one: https://www.dropbox.com/s/hp0w3u98zkp9fme/Rush%20to%20Judgement--An%20Analysis%20of%20a%20New%20Interpretation%20of%20the%20Pirate%20Blackbeard%E2%80%99s%20Origins.pdf?dl=0

I have recently written an analysis of the peer-reviewed article published in The North Carolina Historical Review titled, “‘Born in Jamaica, of Very Creditable Parents’ or ‘A Bristol Man Born’? Excavating the Real Edward Thache, ‘Blackbeard the Pirate.’” Following its publication in The North Carolina Historical Review, the article was retitled, "Blackbeard Reconsidered: Mist's Piracy, Thache's Genealogy," and reprinted in a 46-page booklet by the Office of Historical Publications within the North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources. You can read my paper, "Rush to Judgement—An Analysis of a New Interpretation of the Pirate Blackbeard’s Origins," here: https://www.dropbox.com/home?preview=Rush+to+Judgement--An+Analysis+of+a+New+Interpretation+of+the+Pirate+Blackbeard’s+Origins.pdf Kevin P. Duffus author, The Last Days of Blackbeard the Pirate

I have studied many primary and secondary sources regarding Stede Bonnet during his weeks in the Cape Fear River and I have never seen a reference that mentions them waiting out storms. If the author quoted Pell using the phrase "hurricane season," that alone ought to cast doubt on the statement. "Hurricane," derived from the Taino "huracan"by the Spanish, was not part of the English vernacular that described tropical cyclones in 1718. Furthermore, if Bonnet had wanted to wait out the late-summer and fall storm season, there were many better places to be than the coast of either Carolinas. Actually, you are not entirely incorrect about South Carolina. In 1718, the border between the two colonies of Carolina was generally accepted to be the Cape Fear River. So, since Bonnet was anchored near the watering hole known today as Bonnet's Creek, he could have been considered to be in SC. The battle of the sandbars against Col. Rhett and his Charlestonians took place down river, probably not far from the shoal upon which a Bald Head Island ferry ran hard aground on last December. The ferry's name was "Adventure." http://www.wral.com/bald-head-ferry-runs-aground-passengers-hurt/13224387/ (As Mark Twain once said, "History doesn't repeat itself but it does rhyme"). North Carolina was at odds over its borders with South Carolina and Virginia for a long time. The border with South Carolina is still being adjusted. See New York Times: Untangling a Border Could Leave a Mess for Some. And this more recent story: http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=9423588

"I don't think history is truly their major concern." Indeed. Yet still, the miniseries is promoted (in Smithsonian Magazine and elsewhere) as being based on Woodard's 2007 non-fiction book, The Republic of Pirates. Is that because the name Blackbeard appears in the book?

Besides the fact that the title of the article, "The Last Days of Blackbeard," was not a particularly original idea, there are a few questionable statements. Woodard wrote: "Many intriguing questions remain unanswered—from the status of former slaves to the origins of principle figures like Blackbeard." There is absolutely no question that all 60 black men aboard the sloop Adventure were slaves—this can be proven through a number of deeds of Beaufort County, NC, and the Colonial Records of NC. On the other hand, there is no evidence that Black Beard built a home at Bath. Gov. Eden did not grant full salvage rights to the French ship a day after Black Beard made his midnight visit to Tobias Knight's house on Sep. 14—the Vice-Admiralty hearing took place at Bath on Sep. 24. Captain Ellis Brand did not lead a "contingent of armed men overland on horseback." A letter written by Captain George Gordon to the Lords of Admiralty on 14 Sep. 1721 stated that Brand "went by land a single gentleman, and a Servant to apprehend Thatch." When Maynard returned to Virginia, he took with him 15 suspected pirates (not 14), nine white and six black. Only five blacks were held for trial on Mar. 12, 1718/19 because by then, Caesar had been released. The forthcoming edition of my book reveals that Caesar returned to Bath, but also that he had been a slave residing at Bath since at least 1709. Respectfully, Kevin Duffus author of the 2008 book, The Last Days of Black Beard the Pirate Fourth edition to be released March 2014 are you releasing another edition since interest in Blackbeard will be increased again this winter of 2014-2015 because of NBC?). No, I'm releasing a 4th edition because of my new research into the status and fates of black men on Black Beard's crew, and the identity and origins of Caesar. Also, the new edition includes the latest information regarding the disposition of the mortal remains of the pirate-cooper Edward Salter, who finally received the dignified burial he so wanted and deserved when his remains were interred in Oct. 2012 at St. Thomas Church at Bath, NC, the church he helped to build before his death in 1734/35. I wouldn't say public interest in Blackbeard will necessarily be increased, but more likely confused and distorted. The NBC miniseries features a fictional Blackbeard, who according to the Crossbones website: In 1715, "the diabolical pirate Edward Teach, a.k.a. Blackbeard (John Malkovich), reigns over a rogue nation of thieves, outlaws and miscreant sailors." There is absolutely no evidence that Blackbeard, or Edward Thatch, or Teach, was a pirate in 1715. Contrary to the Smithsonian article, I've not found any primary source that identifies Thatch as a pirate prior to Matthew Musson's report to the British Board of Trade dated 5 July 1717. In fact, except for Benjamin Hornigold who was little more than a pirate in a canoe, I can't find any of the marquee names of Golden Age pirates in the official records prior to the Spanish Treasure Fleet disaster of late-July 1715.

Besides the fact that the title of the article, "The Last Days of Blackbeard," was not a particularly original idea, there are a few questionable statements. Woodard wrote: "Many intriguing questions remain unanswered—from the status of former slaves to the origins of principle figures like Blackbeard." There is absolutely no question that all 60 black men aboard the sloop Adventure were slaves—this can be proven through a number of deeds of Beaufort County, NC, and the Colonial Records of NC. On the other hand, there is no evidence that Black Beard built a home at Bath. Gov. Eden did not grant full salvage rights to the French ship a day after Black Beard made his midnight visit to Tobias Knight's house on Sep. 14—the Vice-Admiralty hearing took place at Bath on Sep. 24. Captain Ellis Brand did not lead a "contingent of armed men overland on horseback." A letter written by Captain George Gordon to the Lords of Admiralty on 14 Sep. 1721 stated that Brand "went by land a single gentleman, and a Servant to apprehend Thatch." When Maynard returned to Virginia, he took with him 15 suspected pirates (not 14), nine white and six black. Only five blacks were held for trial on Mar. 12, 1718/19 because by then, Caesar had been released. The forthcoming edition of my book reveals that Caesar returned to Bath, but also that he had been a slave residing at Bath since at least 1709. Respectfully, Kevin Duffus author of the 2008 book, The Last Days of Black Beard the Pirate Fourth edition to be released March 2014

Saturday, January 3, 1718/19 (although the true anniversary on our calendar would be Jan. 14 due to the 11 day shift of calendars in the mid-18th century), Lt. Robert Maynard returned to Virginia from North Carolina aboard Black Beard's sloop Adventure. Under the heading, “Remarkable Occurrences," in the ship's log of the HMS Pearl, Capt. George Gordon wrote the following: "Little wind & fair weather; This day the Sloop Adventure Edward Thach formerly Master (a Pyrat) anchor’d here from No. Carolina commanded by my first Lieut. Mr. Rob’t Maynard who had taken the aforesaid Sloop, & destroy’d the said Edward Thach & most of his men; he also brought Thach’s head, hanging under his bowsprit in order to present it to the Colony of Virginia; he saluted me with 9 guns, I returned the like number."

Don't have Lee's book with me at the moment to give you the page number but the following statement can be found in Lee's opening chapter titled, "Early Life of Blackbeard: “It is commonly believed, however, that at the time of his death Blackbeard was a man somewhere between thirty-five and forty years of age. This would place his birth at some time around the year 1680.” Then, when you go the endnote on p.176 this is what you'll find: “This is based upon pictures found in books published in England shortly after his death and deductions from general accounts of his activities.” One historian writing about pirates of North Carolina even described the woodcut as a "portrait." Amazingly, 20 pages after Lee claimed Blackbeard was born in 1680, on page 25 he confessed: “All the pictures of him were painted by artists who never saw him.” I've been unable to find any author prior to Lee to make a statement as to Blackbeard's age, including Johnson. Nevertheless, practically everyone since Lee has repeated his fallacious 1680 birthdate (excluding your truly). As for Lee throwing out historical context for Blackbeard's age, he didn't stop there.

I, too, have been unable to date the "smoking ears" Black Beard. It seems to have followed the James Basire "rastafarian" Black Beard woodcut of 1736 that is often wrongly attributed to its original printer, Thomas Nichols. Of course, the first image of Black Beard in GHP, described by some historian/authors as "a portrait, was sculpted by the Oxford surveyor, mapmaker, and bookbinder Benjamin Cole. Funny thing about the Cole woodcut--author Robert Lee admitted using it to guess Black Beard's age and birth year, 38-years-old and born about 1780, which has been accepted by more recent biographers and Wikipedia. Cole carved the image from a block of wood 6 years after Black Beard was killed, and 3,000 miles away. And even though it's fairly certain the "smoking ears" Black Beard was sculpted by an artist who never laid eyes on his subject, that image has influenced generations of impersonators and actors, including Robert Newton. No where in the sources does it say that Black Beard had bulging eyes.

I know of someone. But airfare to Ocracoke can be right pricy! Will work on it for you. What are you doing next Oct.?

While re-reading various published sources to see if other writers had noted David Herriot's deposition at the Charleston trial of Bonnet's crew regarding the slaves Black Beard took with him upon departing Beaufort Inlet following the scuttling of the Queen Anne's Revenge, I came across the following statement in Patrick Pringle's book "Jolly Roger," p. 199: "His men had been seen in Philadelphia, and in August 1718 the Governor of Pennsylvania issued a warrant for his arrest. He [black Beard] returned to Bath with a cargo including eighty or ninety slaves stolen from the French, which he sold openly. Then he went out again, ostensibly on a trading voyage to St. Thomas, and took two more French ships near Bermuda." While Pringle got the sequence of events out of order, he has been the only writer that I am aware of, prior to my published op/ed column in the Raleigh News & Observer in June 2011, to have stated that Black Beard sold slaves at Bath. Being myself a writer of non-academic books admittedly limited in end notes, I can't complain too much that Pringle doesn't tell us from where he got his information about the slaves. His number is 20 to 30 slaves too many compared to David Herriot's deposition (40 slaves) but it is close enough to believe that Pringle's source must have been reasonably valid and from a source other than Herriot. It is too bad we don't know where he got his information in 1953. I have previously postulated the idea that James Robins (listed in Johnson's GHoP as being a hanged member of BB's crew but who is not listed on the King's warrant and who appears in Bath after his hanging), and his partner in Bath County real estate, Stephen Elsey, were among the 15 or so pirates who arrived in Bath with Black Beard but left the crew. Robins and Elsey, identified as "mariners" in the Beaufort County deed book, purchased in September 1718, Gov. Eden's former 400 acre plantation for the price of 3 slaves named Barsue, Lawrence, and John. Now, after re-researching the deeds of Bath I have discovered that Elsey also purchased a 188 acre messuage tract near Bath on 15 July 1718 for "two male negro slaves called Pamptico and Pungo." (Pamptico and Pungo were the names of the two largest rivers in the area.) The date of Elsey's first purchase is roughly 2 to 3 weeks following Black Beard's arrival at Bath after wrecking the QAR. The transaction is also the first time that the mariner Elsey appears in the rather comprehensive deed book. Perhaps, most significantly, it is also the first transaction that documents the purchase of real estate in exchange for slaves appearing in the Bath/Beaufort County deed book since records began in 1696. Circumstantial, of course, but it is conspicuous that slaves are used for the purchase of real estate for the first time, 2 to 3 weeks after Black Beard's arrival with a cargo of 60 slaves, by two mariners, one of whom is listed by Johnson as being a hanged member of Black Beard's crew. This also leads me to suspect the obvious, that the division of slaves among the crew members must have followed similar percentages as other types of treasure. Captain Thatch had 4 slaves (Richard Stiles, Thomas Gates, James Blake and James White). Quartermaster William Howard is known to have had 2 slaves at Norfolk. For some reason, Robins and Elsey had, at least, 5 slaves.

Konstam's source is a secondary one, the Boston News-Letter, published the week of 27 Feb.-02 Mar. 1718/1719, based on the report of John Jackson and Humphrey Johnston who had sailed from NC to Rhode Island shortly after the engagement. The information contained within can be considered fairly reliable but is not consistent with Capt. Johnson's GHP version and popular historical accounts. The account states that all but two of Black Beard's men were killed which supports my theory that the 4 blacks aboard the Adventure (Blake, Gates, White & Stiles) were not considered free men as they survived and were carried to Virginia with the 2 whites for trial. Additionally, James Robbins, Samuel Odell and Caesar (a black slave) were non-combatants and not members of the crew but were also arrested and taken to Virginia. All were released—Robins and Odell probably by late-January 1718/1719 and Caesar after the trial of the black prisoners on March 12. A Caesar appears in the estate inventory of Tobias Knight a year later (valued at £60) and was probably one of two slaves Knight purchased from someone on the crew. RN Capt. Gordon's log reflects that two white pirates were taken from Williamsburg to HMS Pearl on 28 Jan. 1718/1719 to be executed at the mouth of the Hampton River—these would be the two men referenced in the BNL. Based on the foregoing, I would be inclined to believe the story about the Highlander & broad sword.

“I'd be curious to know if [the Yamasee War] has any further connection to the Golden Age.” In my estimation, the end of the War of the Spanish Succession, the dispersal of logwood cutters, and widespread unemployment of merchant sailors were simply social and economic conditions that made the GAoP possible. The wreck of the Spanish treasure fleet in July 1715 was the spark that ignited the explosive expansion of the GAoP. I could be wrong, but I’ve been unable to find any of the marquee names of pirate captains in the records--other than Hornigold--prior to the wrecks. Among the treasure seekers who rushed to Florida with the likes of Henry Jennings and Sam Bellamy and who subsequently became pirates, were a number of young men from the Carolinas. The Yamasee War in South Carolina, indeed, had an indirect but profound connection to the Golden Age (or “Great Age” as I prefer)—more of a connection than one might imagine. In fact, an argument could be made that the outbreak of Yamasee War on April 15, 1715, followed by the wreck of the Spanish treasure fleet a little more than three months later, were two events that both (inversely) sparked the Great Age of Piracy and launched a series of political machinations that initiated the beginning of the end of piracy of the time. At the center of my hypothesis are the political and business ambitions of the Moore family dynasty of the Carolinas and their desire to overthrow Proprietary rule in the two colonies. In 1701, Governor James Moore of the Carolinas, hired an indigent young man named Edward Moseley in Charleston to serve as a clerk and a librarian for the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. At that time, Moseley became acquainted with the governor’s two sons, Maurice, and his older brother James Moore II. In 1713, Col. James Moore II, with his younger brother at his side, became noted for leading the southern colony’s militia, bolstered by a force of friendly Indians, in the defeat of the Tuscarora in North Carolina. Two years later, after moving to the Albemarle region of North Carolina to reside near his boyhood friend and brother-in-law, Edward Moseley, Maurice Moore, now a Colonel, organized a small force of 50 volunteers and went to South Carolina to aid in the fight against disparate tribes collectively called the Yamasee. The Lords Proprietors’ inability (or unwillingness) to provide aid to the South Carolinians against the Yamasee infuriated Charlestonians and set in motion a revolt that ultimately led to the overthrow of the Proprietors and return of colony to royal authority in 1719. "Address of the Assembly of South Carolina to the King. Refer to previous Addresses (v. C.S.P. 1715), etc. Out of the extream grief we are under, to see our country still harassed and our fellow subjects daily killed and carried away by our savage Indian enemies, etc., we are obliged again to lay before your Royal Majesty, the state of this your afflicted Colony, etc. ... Notwithstanding all these our miseries, the Lords Proprietors, instead of using any endeavours for our relief and assistance, are pleased to term all our endeavours to procure your Majestie's Royal protection, the business of a faction and party; We most humbly assure your Majesty that it's so far from anything of that nature, that all the inhabitants of this Province in general, are not only convinc'd that no humane power, but that of your Majesty can protect them, but earnestly and fervently desire that this once flourishing Province may be added to those already under your happy protection." Among the most vociferous against Proprietary rule during the preceding years was Col. James Moore II, who had been removed from his position as commander-in-chief of the militia for his opposition. When South Carolina finally “threw off” the Proprietary government, James Moore II was made, albeit temporarily, governor for the King. Discontent with the Proprietary government was rife in North Carolina as well. In 1716, the Lords Proprietors informed the North Carolina Assembly that they would not accept paper bills of credit for the payment of land and taxes due to them as had been previously allowed for South Carolina. “All the purchase money now due for Lands shou’d be made in sterling money or at sixteen penny weight the Crown, or in the produce of the Country equivalent,” so ordered the Proprietors. According the the editor of North Carolina’s Colonial Records, “the Lords Proprietors, instead of extending a helping hand to save their property from destruction by the Indians, were avaricious enough to demand their rents in silver, a requirement that the people of the colony in the best of times were unable to meet.” (Worth noting: this occurred at the same time “English” sloops were converging on the Spanish wrecks--where better to accumulate hard currency than the beaches and shallows of central Florida?) The political party opposed to Proprietary rule in North Carolina was led by the Speaker of the Lower House of the Assembly, Edward Moseley (the elder James Moore’s former clerk). With a revolutionary fervor decades ahead of his time, Moseley had long been a voice for the people. In 1715, his party openly defied the Proprietors’ governor in North Carolina, Charles Eden, with the passage of this bill: “Resolved, That the impressing of the inhabitants, or their property, under the pretence of its being for the public service, without authority from the Assembly, was unwarrantable, a great infringement of the liberty of the subject, and very much weakened the government by causing many to leave it.” By 1718, the division between the Proprietors’ governor in North Carolina, Charles Eden, and the peoples’ party leader, Edward Moseley, had reached its boiling point, and then, along comes Capt. Thatch, aka Black Beard with his treasure of African slaves. Moseley learns of Eden’s illegal pardon of Thatch, Bonnet and their respective companies, the illegal adjudication of the sloop Adventure, and the sale of more than 50 slaves to the plantation owners of Bath and the Pamlico. Moseley and Maurice Moore live just a two-day’s ride and ferry trip from Williamsburg and Lt. Gov. Spotswood. Emboldened by developments in South Carolina to depose the Lords Proprietor’s government spurred by the Yamasee War disaster, and seeing an opportunity to expose the Proprietors’ governor in North Carolina, Charles Eden, for colluding with and aiding and abetting pirates (a hanging offense), Moseley and Moore pay a visit to Spotswood, who likewise would be happy to see the King resume authority over the colony to the south and perhaps join it with Virginia. All they need is written evidence to prove that Eden had illegally supported the pirates. You know what happened next. In what is often hailed as the beginning of the end of the GAoP, Black Beard is killed (he would have been legally pardoned by George I had he not fired the first shot), and Lt. Maynard searches the Adventure to little avail--only Eden’s Council Secretary Tobias Knight’s letter to Black Beard is found among the pirate’s possessions which is insufficient to incriminate Eden. On his return to Virginia, Capt. Ellis Brand informs Moseley and Moore of the lack of evidence. Then, on the day after Christmas, the distinguished Moseley and Moore go for broke and forcibly occupy for 20 hours the house that contained the colony’s official records including, presumably, all the documents resulting from Eden’s official interactions with Thatch and his men: the government’s records of the pardons, the Vice-Admiralty proceedings awarding ownership of the Adventure and the French ship captured off Bermuda in August, as well as receipts for the casks of sugar delivered to the governor. Not a shred of paper could be found by Moseley and Moore, nor does one exist today, implicating Gov. Eden and proving his interaction with the pirates. Gov. Eden and his supporters clearly did their job well of removing and/or destroying the records. The day after Moseley-gate, Gov. Eden had Moseley and Moore arrested and charged with committing high crimes and misdemeanors. In the grips of a magistrate, Moseley shouted before a crowd of gawkers that the governor could “easily procure armed men to [arrest him] but could not raise them to destroy Thatch, [aka Black Beard the pirate]. Additional charges of sedition, slander and inciting discord were promptly added to Moseley’s bill of indictment. Moseley was subsequently convicted, fined and was barred from practicing law for three years. Moseley and Moore’s quest to overthrow the Proprietary government as was accomplished by Moore’s brother and others in South Carolina failed. The 19th century North Carolina historian Francis Hawks observed that, “Indeed it was alleged that [Moseley] was arranging with Col. Moore to have a new administration — perhaps with Moore for governor.” Referring to South Carolina’s overthrow of the Lords Proprietors, Hawks wrote: “This noiseless but most important change, which brought the southern portion of the province under the direct government of the crown, was to the thoughtful but a foreshadowing of what must, ere long, inevitably be the condition of the northern part also. But at present, the authorities of North Carolina were not ready to imitate the example of the south.” North Carolina became a Royal colony in 1729. Most modern historians have overlooked this key connection between Indian wars, Proprietary rule, Carolina politics and pirates. Kevin Duffus The Last Days of Black Beard the Pirate

"and it seemed to me that it helped weaken Charleston to the point where Blackbeard saw it as a good target, but I'd be curious to know if that war has any further connection to the Golden Age." Contrary to suggestions by Konstam, Woodard, Lee, et. al., Blackbeard was unlikely to have crossed the bar, entered the harbor and sacked the town. According to 19th century historian Edward McCrady, “it is altogether improbable that Thatch would have ventured his 40 guns against 100 which lined the fortifications of the town, and risked his vessels in the harbor where [the governor] would have had him under such disadvantage.”