LookingGlass

it makes one appreciate being on the water at that time of year and makes you wonder why the crew was still here as opposed to wwarmer climates.

I'll tell you why they were still lingering at 35 North in late-November (early-December on modern calendar): they were awaiting the arrival of the King's extension to his act of mercy. Having it in hand would have made things much safer for them. But alas...

For only the 2nd time in 291 years, the historically significant "Battle of Ocracoke" and the death of the notorious pirate Blackbeard will be memorialized on Ocracoke Island at 2 p.m. on Sunday, November 22, 2009. The observance will be conducted on a soundside sandy beach adjacent to Ocracoke's Springer's Point, near the location of the 1718 engagement at Teaches Hole Channel. Pirate living-history reenactors, dressed in period attire replete with cutlasses, flintlock pistols and cannon, will assemble at the site for a 45-minute ceremony featuring an elegy, period music, a specially-composed pirate chanty, the floating of a wreath and military-like honors for the 23 pirates and King's sailors who were killed in the battle.

The annual event was created in 2008 by members of Blackbeard's Crew and by Kevin Duffus, a Raleigh, North Carolina, historian and author of the book, The Last Days of Black Beard the Pirate. Among the many new theories presented in his book, Duffus believes that the 23 bodies belonging to Blackbeard and the others killed at Ocracoke in 1718 were buried in a mass grave near where the 2009 memorial event will be held. The sponsors expect the ceremony to grow in popularity much like Ocracoke's British War Graves memorial which is held each year in May.

The public and media are welcome to observe the Blackbeard Pirate Memorial. A solemn one-mile procession to the event site will begin at 1:30 p.m. from the event's accommodations headquarters at Blackbeard's Lodge in Ocracoke village at 111 Back Rd. Those attending are encouraged to gather at 1 p.m. at Blackbeard's Lodge. Last minute information and contingency plans, if necessary, will be announced at that time. There is no public parking near the ceremony site but some limited shuttle service may be available. Non-pirates are encouraged to ride bicycles.

On November 22, 1718, two hired merchant sloops manned by 60 Royal Navy sailors from Virginia engaged the notorious pirate Edward Thatch, aka Blackbeard and his 20 shipmates near Ocracoke Inlet, North Carolina. Following a brief gun battle and hand-to-hand combat lasting fewer than six minutes, 12 pirates were killed including Blackbeard, and nine men were captured. Eleven of the King's men were killed. Two hundred ninety-one years later, pirates are returning to North Carolina to remember their fallen brethren.

In 2008, after completing years of research, Kevin Duffus published The Last Days of Black Beard the Pirate, a detailed examination of the famous seafaring rogue's final six months in North Carolina. The controversial book presents stunning contradictions to traditional historical accounts about Black Beard's (also known as Blackbeard) origins, his travels and motivations as a pirate, his death, and the identity and fate of his most trusted crew members.

Nor mine.

I apologize that we've gone off topic. But I must clarify this notion that Maynard's "twenty men were killed or wounded during boarding." Maynard's use of the term boarding in this instance seems to suggest he meant "come up alongside," which is what he was doing when the Adventure fired swivel guns and small arms loaded with swan shot, spick nails and pieces of old iron, killing 6 of his men and wounding 10. Maynard and his men on the Jane sloop did not set foot on deck of the Adventure until after Black Beard "enter'd" the Jane. Maynard may have tried to spin the story to make himself appear more heroic because in Capt. Gordon's letter of 14 Sep. 1721, which I have transcribed in London, Gordon clarified Maynard's claims writing, "there being no such thing given out there of his boarding Thatch sword in hand; as he is pleased to tell."

As far as the number of wounds being an indication of ferocity, they may have been counting blows as wounds. Survivor Samuel Odell, who was later acquitted, was said to have received 70 wounds.

It was a one sided affair in terms of who lived and who died. The point is that all of the pirates, including Black Beard, who boarded the sloop Jane from the Adventure were killed, while none of Maynard's men in the hand-to-hand phase of the engagement were killed. All of Maynard's losses were the result of the initial broadside from the Adventure, small arms, and one by friendly fire. You can argue that Maynard had superior numbers in the hand-to-hand engagement (initially only two), but it is my contention that the popular conception that Black Beard was a fearsome killer is far-fetched.

The purported shooting of Israel Hands in the knee by Black Beard is a legend that only appears in Johnson’s GHP, and not in any of the official records. Despite the countless times the story had been retold, historians and writers have failed to consider the plausibility of Johnson’s account. In his version, Johnson claims that Black Beard wounded Hands while the captain was “in one of his savage Humours.” According to Johnson, when Black Beard was asked why he had shot Israel Hands, he answered “by damning them, that if he did not now and then kill one of them, they would forget who he was.”

The story rings only partially true and probably originated from Hands himself. It seems unlikely that Black Beard made the statement about now and then killing one of his men. There is not a single documented instance of Black Beard personally killing anyone until he fought in self-defense against Lt. Maynard’s assault on November 22, 1718—and even then there is no certainty. I doubt that he would have remained a captain, or even a member of the Adventure’s company, if he started shooting his crew mates for fun, even if he was the notorious Black Beard. Johnson’s reason for Black Beard maiming Hands simply doesn’t make any sense.

Some of the details of the story may be true—there was probably drinking involved, a pair of pistols under a table, an extinguished candle. But maybe what happened was that Black Beard wanted only to frighten Israel Hands. He fired a pistol beneath the table loaded with only a gunpowder cartridge, and no shot. Otherwise, had Hands been shot in the knee with even just “bird shot” at point-blank range, he would not have been merely maimed—his leg most likely would have been severed from his body and he would have quickly bled to death, which records suggest did not happen.

The only logical reason I can accept for why Black Beard shot Israel Hands in the knee is because his sailing master must have been attempting to subvert his captain’s authority. It can be deduced that this event took place toward the end of October and after the big banyan on Ocracoke with Vane and his quartermaster, Calico Jack Rackham. Within less than a month after the incident between Black Beard and Hands, Rackham deposed Charles Vane off the coast of Hispaniola. Israel Hands was not so successful, at least not in the short term.

As for Black Beard’s fierceness or fighting ability, I offer two well-documented examples. On the night of Sep. 14, 1718, Black Beard (aka Thache) got into a tussle with a local planter in a periauger just before dawn. When the planter “laid hold of the said Thache and struggled with him” the pirate captain called for assistance from his four African oarsmen. Secondly, when Black Beard and nine of his crew boarded Lt. Maynard’s sloop at Ocracoke, a nearly equal number of the King’s men “kill’d every one of them that enter’d without the loss of one man on their side.” For all of their bluster and fearsome reputation, Black Beard and his men would seem to have been paper tigers.

Kevin Duffus

author, The Last Days of Black Beard the Pirate

No apology needed. HatchetMeg's rum cakes are indeed the best. I will do whatever I can to help her succeed, and the Luna project as well.

went well. the thieves market brought us some pennies, then there was a cut from the crew. I don't have an exact figure but its enough to pay for a case of screws and keep the architect goin a bit longer.

*edit, the membership drive did yield a few new folks and I was quite pleased to see some folks leaving out sunday and monday wearing seaport hats and shirts.

I've got some doubloons coming your way from the sale of my books, Dutch. Maybe enough for a second case of screws!

Shipmates,

At the risk of sounding like a scurvy promoter, if you haven't picked up a copy of Piracy: the Complete History by Angus Konstam, then you should. It does exactly what it says on the box - particualrly for the so-called "Golden Age".

_____________

I'd also like to wade into the debate about Kevin Duffus' new Blackbeard book. I take issue with one description of this as being "well researched".

Angus, I will gladly cross swords with you on your claim that my book was not "well researched," and that I have never "pored through the archives in London" as you have. 

For starters, let's deal with the issue of Capt. Brand's "invasion force." I remind you of what is written on page 242 of your book, Blackbeard—America's Most Notorious Pirate: "Captain Brand would command the main force of the expedition, which would march across country from the James River to Bath town on the Pamlico River... It would cross the boundary line between the two colonies... then head south through Plymouth to attack Bath town from the land. The captain's force consisted of around two hundred men, half sailors and the rest a company of Virginia militia." This, I suppose, is your version of a well-researched account. 

However, the records at the British Archives at Kew, which I have pored over diligently, simply don't support what you have written. On September 14, 1721, Capt. Gordon, Brand's counterpart on the HMS Pearl, wrote to the Lords of Admiralty that when Brand went into the colony of North Carolina, he “went by land a single gentleman, and a Servant, to apprehend Thatch with the assistance of the Gentlemen of that country who were weary of that rogue’s insolence.” I have found no evidence nor record that states that Brand lead a column of 200 men. Please point me to the source for your claim. Also, kindly show me a map or other document that reflects that Plymouth, NC, had been established by 1718. 

I don't fault you for believing Brand may have led an invasion force in greater numbers than just his Servant. Robert Lee wrote as much, as have others. One respected historian wrote that "Capt. Brand's forces hacked their way south through the trackless Dismal Swamp," even though there were as many as six well-established roads linking colonial NC and VA, including the Carolina Road leading from the wharf on the Nansemond River at present day Suffolk and which followed the route of today's White Marsh Rd. and Highway 32. Another author uncertain of the geography wrote that Brand and a small contingent of sailors set out from Hampton on horseback, which would have caused them to ride many miles northwestward in order to find a ferry to cross the James River. 

If you have indeed read my book, you would know that my research of the original letters at the archives proves that Maynard did not "time his arrival off Ocracoke just after dusk on Thursday, November 21," as you have written. While passing Roanoke Inlet early on the 20th, Maynard received intelligence from a passing sloop that the sloop Adventure had been aground in the Pamlico Sound. In his letter to the Admiralty of February 6, 1718/19, Capt. Brand wrote of Maynard: “they spoke with a vessel that acquainted them they had seen Thach’s sloop the Monday before on Brant Island Shoals a ground and a sloop with him helping him off.” After sailing directly there and searching the length of the shoals, Maynard and his two sloops sailed eastward to Ocracoke, arriving from the Pamlico Sound and dropped anchor in Ship Channel. Maynard did not anchor overnight outside the potentially deadly inlet of Ocracoke as so many have written, including Lee, Cordingly and yourself.

Incidentally, according to the logbooks of the Lyme and the Pearl, November 21, 1718 was a Friday, and the engagement at Ocracoke took place on Saturday morning.

You discredit my research abilities, so it is only fair for me to point out some issues I have with your research. On page 251 of your book, you write that "As the range closed to less than three hundred yards, Thomas Miller, the quartermaster, noticed that Blackbeard, who was at the helm of his sloop, was heading directly toward the landing beach of Ocracoke Island... According to Johnson, Miller tried to warn Blackbeard of the danger, but the pirate captain knocked him aside and sent him sprawling.” I searched every word written by Johnson but could not find this account. Lee however, retells the same story, but he correctly cites the source as Addison Whipple’s 1957 book, Pirates—Rascals of the Spanish Main, the only source for this event. Whipple’s book is primarily fiction and embellishments of Charles Johnson’s GHP, and the account of Blackbeard’s and Miller’s struggle over their heading came entirely from Whipple’s imagination. Additionally, in the King’s warrant for payments to Capt. Brand and Capt. Gordon for the destruction of Thatch’s crew, Miller was listed as a common sailor, not a quartermaster, and nowhere have I found any official statement that Miller held such a position.

There is much more that I would like to illuminate, such as our difference of opinion concerning the purported execution of Blackbeard’s crew members at Williamsburg. You state that their trial took place on March 12, as did Robert Lee. However, Alexander Spotswood wrote to Lord Cartwright on February 14, 1718/19 that “the prisoners have been brought hither and tryed, and it plainly appears that the ship they brought into Carolina was after the date of His Majesty’s pardon.” I indeed “pored” over the records at the British Archives and there is absolutely no credible report that all thirteen men were hanged. In fact, four of the names you list on page 271 of your book appear in the records of Bath for many years after their so-called “hanging,” not just on property deeds but as witnesses in depositions and estate matters. Furthermore, if you read the log of the HMS Pearl, two pirates were delivered by longboat from Williamsburg to the entrance of the Hampton River to be hanged on January 28, 1718/19, and later, four of the African crew members, who were tried separately on March 12, were delivered to Hampton. According to the official records, none of the pirates were executed at Williamsburg as you have so colorfully described. Again, the only extant source—albeit not a primary source—for the purported executions of 13 pirates is Charles Johnson’s GHP.

I relish an honest debate of the facts. I also appreciate the challenges of attempting to overturn established history, poorly founded or not. But I am also frustrated and disappointed by mean-spirited, dishonest and cowardly misrepresentations from people who should ideally be respectful fellow researchers. I am hardly daunted by these snipes and ambushes—it gives me added confidence that I am doing something right.

Respectfully,

Kevin Duffus

author, The Last Days of Black Beard the Pirate

p.s.: You begin your post with the words “At the risk of sounding like a scurvy promoter,” then take a shot at me for my “self-plugged” book. Curious.

The information about Edward Salter in Beaufort came from the Church of Latter Day Saints Genealogical Database. Presumably it came, as most of their information for this period does, from the relevant parish registers.

There's nothing at all to show that the Edward Salter recorded in 1715/16 was NOT the pirate as well, but so far as I can see nothing to show that he was. According to the CLDS there were at least 17 Edward Salters born in England alone at the right time to have been the pirate. Bashing Johnson for his lack of accuracy and sources is perfectly fair, but only if you can come up with something more reliable.

I can confirm with complete certainty that in regard to Edward Salter, Elizabeth Harvey and Edward Salter II, the CLDS is in error. The records of NC, including Edward Salter's will (the original I have seen and photographed), are quite clear. I don't know where the CLDS derived its information but it is incorrect. I wonder what other errors exist in the CLDS database which has mislead others on important historical matters.

Now, I fully expect someone to say that there were probably two sets of Edward Salters who married Elizabeth Harveys who had sons named Edward Salter II, just as I have had someone tell me that there two sets of James Robins, John Martins, Edward Salters and Joseph Brooks, Jrs. who appeared in Bath, NC, within months of each other before and after the execution of Blackbeard's crew.

I have to admit to being perplexed at the resistance that has been put forth, here and elsewhere, to considering, on the facts, what should be a significant discovery and revelation, i.e., the survival of pirates associated with Blackbeard previously believed to have been hanged. The accuracy of historical interpretation deserves better.

hey while you are here.. the deposition mentions wrecks....

"this dispondent farther says that they enquired of him where Captain Pinkethman was that he told them he heard he was at St. Thomas with a commission from the king to go on the wrecks."

what wrecks?

The "wrecks" would be the Spanish treasure fleet wrecked along the coast of Florida south of Cape Canaveral in July 1715. It was a popular place to go beachcombing for easy money. Still is, for some.

interesting. can you share the content of the lyme and pearl logs that pertain to the trials? then in all fairness I think we should post johnsons works and lets see how they compare.

getting back to salter though- from the bostock deposition. On Dec 5, Salter was taken onboard by Black Beard from "sloop Margaret of this island" (St. Christophers). . . . That they kept him on board about eight hours did not abuse him or any of his men. except the forcing of two of his men to stay with them whose names were Edward Salter a cooper formerly Sailed with capt George Moulton.....

So the Margaret is from St. Christopers and Salter previously sailed with Capt. Moulton. Is there any way to find out if Moulton was from the island as well. It seems to me a bit odd that Salter could be both in the islands on board another ship AND in Beaufort wooing and marrying and fathering.

I have been unable to find a Capt. Moulton, although I have proven the presence of Salters in Charleston and Barbados during the late-17th and early-18th centuries. I have found no documentary evidence of the presence of Edward Salter in NC prior to 1718.

well now i'm all bemuddled.

King's warrant for payment of rewards to Capt. Brand and Capt. Gordon and their crews for the arrest of the survivors of Blackbeard's crew include Edward Salter, common sailor. Other names on list of survivors include John Martin and Joseph Brooks, Jr., but not James Robins. James Robins, John Martin, Joseph Brooks, Jr., and cooper Edward Salter appear in the deeds of Bath Town for years after their purported hanging. There is no official record or extant primary source which conclusively states that James Robins, John Martin, Joseph Brooks, Jr., and cooper Edward Salter were hanged. Johnson's GHP is the only source. But what of the four pirates who had to wait till the spring of 1719 for trial due to impassable roads as is evident in the governors executive journals? This takes us up to eight of thirteen that did not dance the hempen jig as reported by Johnson.

Gov. Spotswood wrote to Lord Cartwright on Feb. 14, 1719, that the men captured when Blackbeard was killed had already been put on trial. Historians such as Robert Lee and his successors have confused everyone by writing that the trial did not occur until March 11. That trial was for the African crew members only--Stiles, Blake, White and Gates. At least one of the men listed by Johnson as having been executed (but who was not named on the King's warrant), James Robins, was already back in Bath before the end of January according to a deposition preserved in the Beaufort County deeds. According to my review of the logs of the Pearl and the Lyme at the British Archives, two condemned pirates were put to death at Hampton on Jan. 28. Four more pirates were transported by longboat from Williamsburg to Hampton in March. That makes 6 executed, 9 pardoned or acquitted. Of course, as you know from my book, I believe it is apparent that those who were executed were captured at Ocracoke and were not eligible for the extension to the King's pardon by virtue of having fired upon the King's sailors. Of course, established history (ie. Johnson) says that William Howard was pardoned upon the arrival of the Proclamation of the King in December but the remainder of Blackbeard's men except for Israel Hands were not. Previous explanations do not make sense.

But what evidence is there to connect the Edward Salter who lived in Beaufort in 1721 with the pirate, rather than say, the Edward Salter who was born in Beaufort, married Elizabeth Harvey there in 1715, and produced a son, also Edward, in November 1716?

I am not sure I understand your fairly authoritative statement regarding an Edward Salter born in Beaufort, marrying in 1715 and producing a son in 1716. What is the source of this information?

The colonial records of North Carolina and the deeds of Bath Town and Beaufort County (not to be confused with Beaufort Town in Carteret County) are absolutely clear--a cooper named Edward Salter purchased two half-acre lots in Bath in 1721, the first time the name Edward Salter appears in the colony other than as a member of the pirate crew arrested by Capt. Brand in Nov. 1718; the cooper named Edward Salter had a son (birthdate unknown) with his first wife (name unknown), but based on Salter's will of 1735, most likely Edward Salter II was born about 1722; the cooper Edward Salter married the widow of Col. Thomas Harvey in 1731, the union of which produced two daughters, Susannah and Hannah.

Is there written evidence that the cooper Edward Salter, who left in chains from Bath in December 1718 aboard Blackbeard's sloop Adventure commanded by Lt. Robert Maynard, is the same cooper Edward Salter who purchased two lots on King St. in 1721? No. Although nearly 200 years later in 1911, eastern NC legend attempted to associate Edward Salter's granddaughter Susanna Salter White with Blackbeard.

Is there documentary evidence or official records that the cooper and common sailor Edward Salter was executed in Williamsburg in 1719? No. The only reason why established history assumes Salter and 12 other pirates were executed is because of the list of names at the end of Johnson's chapter on Capt. Thatch/Teach, which also includes the names John Martin, James Robins, Joseph Brooks, Jr., who also appear in the deeds, depositions, wills and inventories of Beaufort County for many years after the "hangings."

Kevin Duffus

author, The Last Days of Black Beard the Pirate

One year ago, on Nov. 22, 2007, I stood at edge of Teaches Hole Channel alone on a calm, quiet morning. The horizon could hardly be discerned as the water and sky blended together in a silky haze of mauve. The words of the eloquent Civil War novelist Howard Bahr came to mind: "All that had happened was still there, just beyond the thin curtain of time." The sensation of being so close to the past was all at once alluring, powerful and odd, as if all you had to do was step through the canvas of Teaches Hole Channel and see the Battle of Ocracoke unfold. I wondered if it would be possible to share that experience with others. Hardly could I imagine that one year later I would be joined by at least 175 people, many of whom were complete strangers to me before the day began but who I now consider as kindred spirits and fellow travelers on our journey through time. This past weekend I was able to appreciate the common ties that bound pyrates and people of the sea together. We are all Brethren of the Coast. We did the right thing. We indeed made history together. We hope to do it again.

Kevin Duffus

"The Last Days of Black Beard the Pirate"

p.s.: Most everyone knows that on the modern Gregorian calendar the anniversary falls on Dec. 3

Regarding what Blackbeard once said:

Boston News-Letter 23 Feb.-2 Mar. 1718/19

“...and when they came in hearing of each other, Teach called to Lieutenant Maynard and told him he was for King George...”

Regarding the trial of the white pirates captured alive and taken to VA for trial:

The Official Letters of Alexander Spotswood, Volume I., Spotswood to Lord Cartwright, February ye 14th, 1718 [1719]

Refers to “one Capt. Thatch [variously spelled within the same letter as Thache and Tach], a Notorious Pyrate,” and how Spotswood’s “Sloops, fitted with Men and Officers from the King’s Ships, Came up with Tach at Oecceh [Ocracoke] inlett on ye 22nd Nov’r last, and after an obstinate Resistance, wherin Tach, w’th nine of his men, were killed, and nine more made prisoners, and took his Sloop, w’ch was mounted w’th 8 guns, and in all other respects fitted rather for piracy than Trade. The Prisoners have been brought hither and Tryed...”

There was a second trial for the African crew members captured alive on March 11, 1718/19. Historians have always assumed that this trial included the entire surviving crew members but I found primary source evidence that at least one of the men listed on Charles Johnson's list of those hanged was back in Bath before the end of January 1718/19. At least two others believed to have been hanged according to Johnson appear in the Bath records in the years to follow. The conclusion I reached was that all of the pirates captured in Bath and who were not part of the engagement at Ocracoke received the King's second offer of pardon. The six survivors of the engagement at Ocracoke were probably not eligible for the pardon on the basis that they had borne arms against the King's sailors. The logs of the HMS Pearl indicates that on Jan. 28, 1718/19 two condemned pirates had arrived from Williamsburg and taken to Hampton to be hanged, "which about 1/2 past 11 was done accordingly. The four Africans, Blake, Gates, White & Stiles were hanged after their Mar. 11 trial. Again, historians have always relied on Johnson for the facts on the fate of Black Beard's crew. Johnson did not have accurate information. Being tried and convicted doesn't automatically mean they were also executed.

Now, why were Black Beard's men captured at Bath eligible for the second pardon? Black Beard himself would have been pardoned had he not fired on Maynard's sloops first. Here is how the two pardons were worded.

First Pardon Issued in 1717

“...we do hereby promise, and declare, that in Case any of the said Pyrates, shall on, or before, the 5th of September, in the Year of our Lord 1718, surrender him or themselves... every such Pyrate and Pyrates so surrendering... shall have our gracious Pardon, of, and for such, his or their Pyracy, or Pyracies, by him or them committed, before the fifth of January next ensuing [January 1718].”

Second Pardon Issued in 1718 and which arrived in VA about 3 weeks after the engagement at Ocracoke:

“We do hereby Promise and Declare, That in case any the said Pirates shall, on or before the First Day of July, in the Year of Our Lord One thousand seven hundred and nineteen, Surrender him or themselves... every such Pirate and Pirates, so Surrendering... shall have Our Gracious Pardon of and for such his or their Piracy or Piracies, by him or them Committed before such time as they shall have received Notice of this Our Royal Proclamation.”

Thanks Capt. Bo. You get it! To elaborate further, here's a little sample of what I wrote in my book:

©2008 Looking Glass Productions, Inc.

"How do we seek history’s forgotten truths when records are silent or never existed, relics and artifacts have vanished, memory has eroded like so many ancient places that wash into the sea?

In the case of the true identity of Edward Thatch, alias Blackbeard, there is no cemetery to visit where we may press our ears to the portals of his tomb. Bronze bells, cannon or gold dust raised from the ocean’s floor are of little help. There is no extant family Bible which contains his carefully detailed family relations; there are no census records, birth certificates, pension records, nor DNA evidence. Is it possible for the man who terrified colonial America, and for a brief time became the obsession of the King’s Privy Council, the Lords of Trade and Plantations, Royal and proprietary governors and Royal Navy captains, to have vanished without a trace from the face of the earth?

In his wake, the pirate left behind an unaccountably enormous legend, which has been transformed into someone who would not have been recognized by his friends and contemporaries. Blackbeard casts a long shadow over the centuries, but despite the shadow’s shape we are still unable to peer through its blackness and see who he really was, or learn from where he came.

However, there may be a way.

Perhaps we can seek Edward Thatch’s true identity by not looking directly at him but instead, by analyzing the seemingly unimportant details of his life, parsing his words and the records of his story, piecing together fragments of information about his relationships, behaviors, choices, travels and actions which have been deemed by historians to be accurate. We can pursue the authentic Edward Thatch by examining the events of his time that may have had an influence on his life. We can also turn to the people who surrounded him, his shipmates, and those who occupied the same place and time in history but who appear to not have had a connection to the pirate. Somewhere, hidden among seemingly unrelated records we may find a clue, a connection, a faint thread of evidence that will lead us in the right direction so we may discover who Blackbeard really was.

Our detective work will require us to entertain inferences, suppositions, and circumstantial evidence—uncertain waters that tend to make some historians and scholars queasy. However, it is not as if conjecture has not been a constant presence within the reams of books and papers written about pirates, and Blackbeard in particular. Historians have been willing to accept the singular statements presented by the mysterious Capt. Charles Johnson, like Edward Thatch’s Bristol roots, without definitive sources and references. We know Johnson published numerous errors and missed some crucial facts such as Blackbeard’s grounding on Brant Island Shoals, or Lt. Maynard’s approach to Ocracoke from the west (and there will be many others we will reveal soon enough). So, why should we not employ powers of intuition and deduction, weigh circumstantial evidence, open our minds to the subtle whispers of the past?

We can start with something curious Blackbeard once said..."

I'm still hoping to find the time to satisfy Foxe's desire to see the circumstantial evidence linking Capt. James Beard to Black Beard. My reply will be forthcoming.

In the meantime, as for the squabbling between Spotswood and Eden--again, it's all outlined in my book. Neither governor left any written explanations so all we can do is read between the lines. Traditional historians don't like to do that so much, but I feel it's essential to advance our understanding of the story. So here goes.

Previous writers have stated that Spotswood had been alarmed by the large number of complaints coming from NC merchants of the abuses against them by the pirate Thatch and his accomplices. In reality, the records show there had been only one, Blackbeard's pre-dawn assault on Wm. Bell in the Pamlico River on Sep. 14, 1718. (BB, by the way, had been unable to subdue Bell on his own and had to call for the assistance of his 4 African oarsmen!) Weeks and months after Spotswood's incursion into NC it served the lieutenant governor's purposes to portray the crisis otherwise as he wrote of “the repeated Applications of Trading People of that Province." When I examined the politics and parsed their words closely, and considered their behavior after Brand and Maynard could only turn up one document linking the NC government with Black Beard, I came to the conclusion that the "Trading People" referred to in Spotswood's letters could only be the NC attorney, planter, merchant, former Speaker of the House and Surveyor General, Edward Moseley. Moseley was also the leader of the Popular Party and chief political rival of Gov. Eden and his Proprietors Party. Moseley's economic interests were directly threatened by the presence of pirates at Ocracoke Inlet. Moseley's landholdings and investments depended on his ability to safely ship his exports out of that inlet. As I wrote in my book, "the pirates had created a ‘nest’ of sorts, like wasps in a door jamb. They might not attack, but you could never be entirely certain."

I have suggested that there may have also been more to the relationship between Moseley and Spotswood than history has preserved. As described in The Last Days of Black Beard the Pirate: "Moseley lived in Chowan Precinct, which had a good road leading northward into Virginia’s Nansemond County and the ferries which crossed the James River to Williamsburg. No record confirms the event, but it makes sense that sometime after the adjudication of the French ship by the Vice-Admiralty Court and the robbery of William Bell in September, Moseley traveled to Williamsburg and discussed these scandalous events with Lt. Gov. Spotswood. The issue was not one that could be easily addressed within a letter. Historians have postulated that Spotswood was ever eager to extend his control and influence over his southern border, which he never considered to be far enough south. And in the early autumn of 1718, Edward Moseley and William Bell provided the Virginia chief executive with what appeared to be an open invitation."

Furthermore, it is not inconceivable that Moseley may have been favored with special privileges for the export of his tobacco through Virginia’s ports, which was normally prohibited by Spotswood’s policies, especially considering Moseley practically served to Spotswood Black Beard’s head on a platter.

When Maynard arrived in Bath from the engagement at Ocracoke with only the letter from Tobias Knight to Black Beard (addressed to "My ffriend"), which was written in such veiled language as to confuse writers and historians for centuries, Spotswood's men and allies--Brand, Maynard and Moseley--knew that they did not have enough to incriminate Eden. Even the presence of the casks of sugar in Eden's and Knight's storehouses was insufficient evidence without written proof. So, on the day after Christmas 1718, Moseley risked his career, reputation and honor by breaking into the house where the colony's official papers were kept and with 3 friends nailed the doors shut in order to search the repository for written proof that Eden had been in collusion with pirates. Twenty hours later, Moseley and his cohorts emerged empty handed. All of the documents that must have been generated during the many interactions between the NC and Black Beard's company--Vice-Admiralty proceedings for the sloop Adventure and the French sugar ship, affidavits from the pirate's surrender and pardons in July, receipts for the consignments of sugar--every single piece of paper proving the presence of the pirates in NC in 1718 had vanished. Even to this day, not a scrap of a record concerning the pirates can be found in the archives of NC. Moseley was arrested and charged with armed unlawful entry and sedition. It was a high stakes game, indeed.

What was the ultimate purpose underlying Spotswood's scheme? Admittedly, it is conjecture on my part but the only sensible explanation is that Moseley and his followers in NC, and Spotswood too, hoped to see the Lords Proprietors lose their charter and cause North Carolina to become a royal colony. Ten years later, it did just that.

Kevin Duffus

author, The Last Days of Black Beard the Pirate

This is in response to the posting, since amended, of David Moore's review of my book, The Last Days of Black Beard the Pirate: Within Every Legend Lies a Grain of Truth.

First, let me make it clear that I cannot prove that Captain James Beard’s son was Edward “Black” Beard. Neither can the state of North Carolina and its staff, including Mr. David Moore, prove that the shipwreck remains found near Beaufort Inlet are those of the Queen Anne’s Revenge. They can tell you that they have found an overwhelming number of artifacts that, considered as a body of evidence, supports their hypothesis (supposition, if you prefer) that the shipwreck is the QAR. They can also claim that they have found nothing that disproves their QAR hypothesis. I believe them.

Similarly, I have collected what I confidently feel is a preponderance of information and circumstantial evidence from primary sources, including letters, wills, deeds, depositions, that, considered as a body of research, supports the hypothesis that Black Beard was the son of Captain James Beard of Bath, Charleston and Barbados. I have yet to find anything in the archives that disproves the Edward “Black” Beard hypothesis. No Black Beard “expert” has done so either. When compared to Charles Johnson’s scant, seven unsupported words, which for 280 years have formed the basis of historian’s notions of the pirate’s heritage--“Edward Thatch was a Bristol man born”--the Beard surname hypothesis certainly deserves objective consideration and study, which it has not received from traditional scholars like Mr. Moore. Often, their dismissal of new interpretations is based on the scholarly historian’s conviction that if “we hadn’t known about it by now (Black Beard’s prior relationship to North Carolina, for example) then it must not be valid.” David Moore said as much in an interview about my research in the Raleigh News & Observer: "I find it extremely hard to believe if there was an association we wouldn't know it now."

Nevertheless, despite the fact that the Black Beard story has been churned countless times over the past three centuries, historians, scholars and Black Beard “experts” have failed to discover, or recognize, a number of important contradictions to the traditional history which I carefully outline in my book. One such historical fact which has eluded history concerns how Lt. Maynard approached Ocracoke Inlet on the eve of his battle with Black Beard from the west and Pamlico Sound, not from the east via the Atlantic Ocean. It made a tremendous difference as to how Black Beard perceived the King’s sailors’ identity and intentions and it cost him his life. Another new fact I found proves that contrary to the writing of Robert Lee, Angus Konstam and Colin Woodard, Capt. Brand did not enter North Carolina with a militia or mounted force of arms of any kind. Brand was described in a letter by Capt. Gordon as having entered NC as “a single gentleman in the company of his servant.” For some reason, Moore chose not to recognize the preceding new facts in my book. And if these documented facts have eluded Black Beard historians, what else may have slipped past them?

By utilizing phrases such as “mish-mash of limited historical facts,” “too outlandish to be taken seriously,” and “numerous mistakes of historical fact, far too many to discuss completely here,” Moore’s review could easily be construed as a mean-spirited personal attack, especially when some criticized references are unfairly presented out of context. For example, when Moore writes that “numerous mistakes may be attributable to sloppy scholarship and research” he uses as evidence how I wrote that Reverend John Urmstone “vanished” in 1721 after being convicted of public drunkenness. Urmstone did vanish. But Moore criticized my omission that Urmstone was “burned to death” in North Carolina in 1732, according to Society for the Propagation of the Gospel records. I wrote nothing of Urmstone’s return to NC or death because it had nothing to do with the story.

To his credit, Moore successfully nitpicked my minor misstatements about the status of Isaac Freeman or the existence of Sebastian Inlet (used only as a geographic reference), and the ambiguously perceived dividing line between North and South Carolina. However, when citing my interpretation of the shooting of Israel Hands by Black Beard, Moore writes that I stated Hands was shot with “a mini ball at point-blank range,” but then Moore explains that the mini ball was “not developed until the 1840s.” If he read more carefully (or reviewed more honestly), he would have known that I expressly stated that Hands could only have been shot with a powder charge, otherwise Hands would have probably died of his wound. Had the shooting occurred, I imagine Hands’s contusion would have healed well enough for him to depart Virginia as an able seaman 4 months later. Moore also chose to ignore my qualifying sentence: “Some of the details of the story may be true.”

Other Moore misrepresentations concern my analysis of the relative strength of Black Beard’s force at its peak as being an equal to any of the King’s ships in the western Atlantic. I never suggested that Black Beard’s 4 ships and 70 guns could, at one time, take on all of the King’s vessels stationed in the colonies.

As for the identity of William Howard and his ownership of Ocracoke Island later in his life, Moore writes that “a genealogical study by a Howard family member concludes that their ancestor William’s age does not reliably correspond with that of the pirate quartermaster.” He might want to check with that Howard family member again. I found a reliable source (Hugh Williamson, A History of North Carolina, 1812), albeit a secondary one, reporting that William Howard died on Ocracoke in 1794 at the age of 108, making him about 32 years old in 1718, and, as a result, the Howard family of Ocracoke have since amended their family genealogies.

Moore takes issue with my opinion that Robert Lee’s writing was “irresponsible and does a disservice to future generations of readers,” as if I directed the comment to Lee’s entire book. More precisely, I was referring directly to Lee’s statement that, after arriving at Bath, Black Beard “converted the sloop Adventure into a yacht” and sailed the quiet inland waters and sometimes the ocean waters to break the tedium. Why would Moore not agree with that?

Strangely, Moore disregarded the likelihood that all of the pirates captured alive at Bath were most likely pardoned, after their trial and conviction. I explain why quite clearly in my book with a close examination of the wording of the King’s pardons. Would Moore care to venture a guess as to why Lt. Gov. Spotswood wrote on February 14, 1719, that the pirates had by then “been brought hither and tried,” nearly a month sooner than described in books by Lee, Konstam and Woodard, or that a number of the pirates’ names appeared in the Bath records as witnesses to legal transactions years after their “hangings?” Why did Gov. Eden’s legal advisor Thomas Pollock write that the pirates should not be taken to Virginia in the first place because “the persons being inhabitants of this government ought to be tried here?”

I assume that since Moore charitably stated that my errors of historical fact were “far too many to discuss completely,” that he chose the most significant ones to highlight in his review. It does not seem that his choices were particularly significant and not always valid. Moore mentions the “scarcity of source citations” which raises “questions about the accuracy and validity of the research and lessens the value of the book as a legitimate research tool.” The book is obviously and intentionally designed to not be a “scholarly” work. Enough of those have been published in recent years. Maybe Moore should take a close look at one of the other scholarly books and see how many errors he can find.

So, I suppose the unanswered question is, why does Mr. Moore feel it is necessary to discredit me, my book and body of research? Some readers of his review have found it to be “unfair and cruel,” “harsh,” and “angry.” Why does he not identify a single contribution I may have made to the understanding of Black Beard’s last days? By overlooking dozens of my logical interpretations and hypotheses of the Black Beard story, Moore’s review is plainly a blatant and sweeping effort to discredit me and my book. But why? Could it mean that his long-awaited book about Black Beard is on the horizon? Could the impending Dreamworks film production on Black Beard have a consultant role for the reviewer of the book which contradicts many of the traditional notions of Black Beard’s identity and origins and those of his surviving shipmates?

As for a fair and less angry review of The Last Days of Black Beard the Pirate, I offer you a sample of what the widely respected Christine Lampe had to say in the recent issue of No Quarter Given:

"With the sharp eye of a detective and analytical mind of a scientist, he uncovers many long forgotten details, and comes to some very interesting conclusions. He manages to take the puzzle pieces that legends and previous historians have placed into ill-fitting spots, and move them to new positions that seem to fit much better. Not only does he disprove many of the legends & stories, but he brings a lot of new information to light. Learn of the true fate of Blackbeard’s crew as revealed in the logbooks of the Lyme and the Pearl (they weren’t all hanged as previously thought). Find out where one of the crewmembers was buried. Learn why three more weeks would have made a huge difference in Blackbeard’s life. Did he have a sister named Susannah? What was his purpose in going on a secret trip to Philadelphia? Why should the archpyrate’s name be written as 'Black Beard?'

In his new book, Kevin Duffus has managed to take a lot of old puzzle pieces, and put them in their correct spots. He has also uncovered many new jigsaw pieces. Looking at the partially solved puzzle, it is a lot easier now to make out the image of Blackbeard. While I am not convinced about all of Kevin Duffus’ conclusions, I do highly recommend this book to everyone interested in the 'Devil of the Sea.'"

Kevin Duffus

Looking Glass Productions, Inc.

Raleigh, NC