Pirate Democracy?

[Fox]

In the "Cry for help" thread Coastie wrote:

A little off topic here, but a question I had when reading this post. I've heard that many pirate articles had a way to 'vote out' a current captain for another. Is there any evidence of this ever happening? And, more to the point, was it a peaceful change of power onboard? I'd imagine that installing a new captain, even within the terms of the articles, would potentially be a very bloody event. A deposed captain might cause problems in the future, thus a quick death would be less hassle than dropping him off at the next port. Just a random inquiry.

And Gentleman of Fortune wrote:

I would like that explored further too...

Conventional wisdom says that pirate ships were the epitome of democracy... but I think that the reality may be different.

In Cpt J's work, we see that a lot of Captains and Ships that were ruled as Dictatorships. When prizes were added to the fleet, Blackbeard appointed the new captain, there was no election.

I am not saying that pirates never voted for there captain, I just don't think that was ALWAYS the case.

[Fox]

Your wish is my command GoF, but I thought a seperate thread was called for.

It's difficult to say that "many" articles state anything, since we only have five sets of articles in their full form. Three of those sets can be found in Johnson (Roberts' Lowther's, and Phillips'). There are also odd sets of articles which were issued to privateers who later turned pirate (like Kidd's and Tew's), but whether the articles remained in force once the crew had gone on the account is open to debate. Low's articles must be considered a little suspect since they were written from memory by John Kencate, Low's surgeon. However, they are very similar (almost identical) to the articles ascribed by Johnson to Lowther, Low's "mentor", so in fact they probably are fairly accurate.

I can't find my copy of Anstis' articles at present, but in the other four sets there is no mention at all of voting officers in and out. The closest any of them come is in Roberts' articles: "Every man shall have a vote in the affairs of the moment".

Off the top of my head, Vane and Martel were both voted out of their commands. If we believe Johnson then Bart Roberts and Walter Kennedy were both voted in, as was Rackham.

The trouble with trying to ascribe any characteristics to pirates in general is that even within the GAoP there were several different "schools" of piracy, and several different pirate "networks", each with different attitudes and approaches. For example:

- The early pirates who settled St. Mary's learned their trade in the waning years of Caribbean buccaneering.

- Many subsequent St. Mary's pirates were from the American privateer tradition.

- The "Flying Gang" and their descendants came largely from the Caribbean privateers out of work after the Treaty of Utrecht. These guys seem to have been the most democratic and FWIW, many of them appear to have been Jacobites. Once the original Flying Gang had been broken up by Woodes Rogers' arrival at Providence their traditions were carried on by subsequent commanders such as Roberts, Anstis, Taylor, and others.

- The last of the great pirate bands seems to have sprung from the union of Lowther and Low, neither of whom had been buccaneers or members of the Flying Gang. Their proteges included Spriggs and Harris.

- Finally there's the mass of pirates who existed independently of the main bands and each other: Gow, Quelch, Worley etc.

It is my belief that many of the democratic principles ascribed to pirates come from evidence relating to the Flying Gang and its descendants, so can not necessarily be ascribed to other pirates. We do certainly get odd glimpses of proto-democracy amongst other pirates, but here again I suspect that it represents simple expedient rather than true democracy. For example, if a pirate crew, who have no recourse to the usual appointed hierarchy by nature of their status beyond the law, lose their captain then the obvious thing for them to do would be to come to some agreement amongst themselves as to who should take over. Similarly, if a crew didn't agree to the captain's decision then he did not have any real authority to force them: he couldn't report them to their employers, he didn't have the authority of a proper appointment, and her certainly couldn't threaten them with charges of mutiny. Thus, his only option would be to go along with what the crew wanted or try to persuade them round to his point of view. So if a captain asked his crew which direction they wanted to sail in was that democracy or just common sense?

Another question which intrigues me is to what extent the pirates who adopted such apparently modern concepts as a workers' vote and compensation for the injured drew from their previous experiences in the merchant or Royal navies, and to what extent they invented the concepts themselves. For example, we are often told by books and websites that the buccaneers were the first people to compensate men wounded in battle, without reference to the fact that John Hawkins instituted the Chatham Chest for just that purpose a century earlier.

[Rumba Rue]

I've read similar things in numerous books, but I think in reality, this was not the case for every pirate ship. With pirates from other countries like the Dutch, French, and even Asian pirates, there really is no account of how actions were taken.

We basically only have the English version, which even that is suspect.

[Will Fiddle]

Golly, Foxe makes such complete responses that there is little left to do but light the pipe and nod sagely, saying "hear hear."

What was the purpose of making these articles known?

Undoubtedly, to provide the public with a view of the pirates as real men, not as the bogey's of the sea. A means to this end is to celebrate the democratic values embodied in these articles. They show that men are capable of self governance. Coupled with the mutinous beginnings of many pirate crews, this is a recipe for revolution, not the pretty 1688 bloodless kind, rather the French reign of terror kind.

As GoF has observed, such values were hardly universal, as is demonstrated by Blackbeard's conduct. But these values of Liberty, equality, and brotherhood, are important for establishing a new ethos. Some of the pirates were clearly taking early steps into the modern era, steps on a path that would eventually undermine the power of the aristocrats in Europe.

No, This is not to say that pirates changed the world. But they are clearly part of larger historical and cultural developments. And in a world in which ideals of reform seem to be the province of the intellectuals, they are proof that democratic values had appeal across class lines.

[Will Fiddle]

A little off topic here, but a question I had when reading this post. I've heard that many pirate articles had a way to 'vote out' a current captain for another. Is there any evidence of this ever happening? And, more to the point, was it a peaceful change of power onboard? I'd imagine that installing a new captain, even within the terms of the articles, would potentially be a very bloody event. A deposed captain might cause problems in the future, thus a quick death would be less hassle than dropping him off at the next port. Just a random inquiry.

Speaking to the specific problem of swapping leaders, I recollect something from Ringrose. Borrowing from my Diss in a sloppy fashion:

During the "Panama expedition of 1679, the buccaneers planned to make a raid on the city of Arica. Captain Swan had been removed from command because he was regarded as too timid. Captain Davis was selected because he promised to lead the company into battle and the riches that would come from it. In the course of preparing for the raid, the buccaneers had captured an old man from ashore. He warned them that the countryside had been alerted to their presence and that they would be met with strong, armed resistance. Certain that he was only trying to frighten them from their plans, the raiders tortured the old man to make him recant his claim. He did not change his story, and they tortured him to death. At this juncture, Captain Swan, who had opposed the Arica raid, pronounced sagely that “no good would come of this evil deed” (Ringrose 462). Despite this the raid was launched, but with disastrous results. Captain Davis was killed with many other men; the surgeons who had set up in a chapel were captured, and no treasure was had for all this trouble. Swan’s warning was prophetic, and the cruelty of the raiders had been met with a proper reward."

"This passage seems to be a compelling lesson on the actions of providence, except for the fact that a vital element of the passage is entirely fictional. To be sure, the raid on Arica was a disaster, and there may have been a poor man who was tortured to death, but it doesn’t seem that Captain Swan ever made his moralizing pronouncement. Though recorded in the printed version of Ringrose’s account, Swan’s warning was added to the manuscript from which the printer worked in a hand that seems to have been Swan’s own. The pronouncement does not appear in Ringrose’s journal of the expedition; indeed, that detail of the narrative does not even appear in the journal that Swan kept of the expedition. As Howse has speculated, Swan probably made the emendation to improve his own reputation, which had suffered by being voted from command, and probably hoped Ringrose would not correct the insertion until after he returned from a new expedition on which he had hurriedly embarked (30). As it happened, Ringrose was killed on the expedition and was never able to correct the printed version of his history of the buccaneers."

The point here being that Swan was very alive after being disposed, and even lived to have the last laugh as it were. Swan's concern seems to have been for his reputation, but not for his life.

[Coastie04]

Ahh, this is just the type of discussion I wanted. However, Foxe did pretty much hit the nail on the head. As far as Captain Swan being "displaced," how did he lose command? I'd assume that since he lived, it was bloodless. Otherwise, the rest of the crew would probably not have left him alive to tell his tale. However, did the former Captain Swan participate in the raid? Or, was he kicked off the boat in the next port? If anything, it seems like the alleged prophetic warning was Swan's attempt to regain his power.

This all seems to fall within Foxe's idea that the pirate crews were not real democracies, but rather a Captain's means of maintaining some control and authority. Also, it would be interesting to know if they had any rules set forth before deposing Captain Swan. Were they written down, verbal understandings, or a product of the moment? Was it an organized, formal vote amongst the crew to depose Swan, or was it an angry, discontent mob that gave him the ultimatum to either stand down or be thrown overboard?

As for Foxe's new question about the origin of worker's compensation, vote, etc., I wonder if the crews had personal experience with these ideas (and some may have), or if they had heard talk of them, or ideolized versions and incorporated them into their own set of rules. Much like if we were to form an organization today and have rules based off of pirate articles. We'd get a little from known pirate articles, some ideas that we like from false articeles, a bit from pop culture (i.e. "the pirate code", and a bit from modern culture and our ideas of "fairness".

Foxe, thank you for your reply and, as always, well researched answer. One more myth that I've hear a lot that I think falls nicely into this category. When signing pirate articles or other mutinous petitions (if they were in fact signed at all), did members sign in a circle to hide the leader or show that they all backed the document equally?

Coastie

[Fox]

Well, the concept of a round-robin certainly predates the GAoP by some decades, so it's entirely possible that articles were signed in this way, but since there are no surviving original copies, only copies of their text, it's impossible to say. Off the top of my head I don't recall any evidence that it was done, but I've recently got hold of a copy of the trial of Brigstock Weaver which goes into some detail over the signing of articles - I'll have a look through it later and see if it sheds any light.

The point of a round-robin was, as you say, to make it impossible to say who signed first, and thus impossible to pick out ringleaders. However, since a signature on the articles was enough to hang a man for piracy anyway I don't know how effective a round-robin would have been. Doesn't mean they didn't do it anyway of course.

And don't worry guys, I'm sure there are plenty of ascpects of pirate democracy left to discuss!

[Red Maria]

I think of the discussion that Howell Davis's crew had in how to 'compensate' William Snelgrave (in his pirate captivitiy account) for commandeering his ship and cargo after acessing he was an alright fellow. (so to speak). There was a round robin discussion to have Snelgrave join them with his own ship. This of course put Snelgrave in a panic refusing to join them.

This of course upset the pirates since they felt they had given him a right generous offer. Howell Davis difused the situation saying Snelgrave had a right to refuse saying (I don't have the Text in frint of me so this is a summing up) "each man goes to the devil as he wishes". Ed you may have the text handy so you can maybe able to verify.

So things were discussed by the crew of pirate ships. Whether or not articles were is a conjecture. Whatever the case it seems they followed what was set-up and signed to.

BTW Morgan's articles are, in of all places, Barcelona.

[Will Fiddle]

As I recollect, Captain Swan lost his command by losing a vote of confidence by the crew. Memory is fuzzy here, as my Ringrose was a library edition from the late 19th C in which R. was appended to Exquemelin. Swan stayed on the ship, presumably pissed off, and when the wounded came straggling back, I think he was put back in position--Davis being dead. The matter seems to have been amicable to a degree, real democracy in action. The prophetic warning doesn't seem to have come into being until all were safe in England. There is no record of it in any of the first person journals, and it only appears in the ManuScript in a hand that is not Ringrose's.

It should be highlighted that this raid was in 1679. At this time the buccaneers were still close to defacto militia groups asserting an English presence in the Western Hemisphere. The raids required the Spanish to maintain the expense of militia units everywhere, and this may have preserved Port Royal. As mercenary units enjoying a fair measure of legality, their command structure needed to maintain a semblance of legal order.

It is not clear if such a transition could take place in a GAoP crew in which there were no legal consequences to killing an unpopular captain if he were already a pirate. Certainly, I am unfamiliar with such a trasition later in the period.

[Fox]

Just checked the Brigstock Weaver trial and while there is an interesting description of signing articles there is no mention of the signatures being in a round robin.

Incidentally the document also mentions that Anstis was turned from his command and Captain Fenn put in his place.

[Will Fiddle]

One of the few things that can be said with certainty of the Golden Age is that very few things can be said with certainty.

Though we have some articles, it is clear that this is not a universal practise. But it is clear that every crew had to wrestle with the problems of self governance. What intrigues me is how these crews become autonomous experiments in political theory.

The best man rules, the best men rule, all men rule, the tyrant rules, pick your flavor, these are the same issues Aristotle plays with in his Ethics, if memory serves me true.