LookingGlass

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.

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.

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

http://www.islandfreepress.org/2008Archive...rTheirDead.html

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