the last days of black beard

[Dutchman]

foxe, info forwarded to kevin. no problems.

[Fox]

I recently received, by the kind courtesy and generosity of Dutchman, a signed copy of The Last Days of Black Beard the Pirate, which, given the amount of discussion the book has generated here, I thought I would offer a review/critique of.

I have a list of extremely minor quibbles and queries, small points which I think need either revision or a fuller explanation, but which don't really detract from the appeal of the book or the author's purpose, and which I will either save for future discussion or keep to myself. On the whole I found the book pleasant to read, well presented, well structured, and attractive to look at. Before tackling the meaty theories the book contains, I have one or two general issues.

This is not an academic history book. It doesn't claim to be, so that's not a problem, but I found the almost total lack of source references extremely frustrating, especially given the authors self-proclaimed objective of finally exposing the truth behind the many errors and inconsistencies of earlier biographies. How can the reader tell whether Duffus has done a better job than his predecessors when one cannot check the source material for oneself?

One of Duffus' biggest issues is the reliance previous authors have placed on Johnson's General History, but on at least three occasions information which originated in Johnson's book is presented as 'fact' by Duffus. Similarly, the author bemoans the way that folklore has ascribed spurious connections with Blackbeard to various sites across the United States, but uses unsubstantiated 'local legend' to support his own theories, using the argument that 'behind every legend lies a grain of truth'.

It is of course possible to distinguish between those 'local legends' which may have some basis in fact, and those which are the result of imaginative tourism officials and the like, but it is incumbent on the author then to explain why certain legends can be considered to possess that grain of truth while others cannot. Duffus does not always do this.

A particular and, in my view, serious problem is Duffus' use of his own imagination. Quite early in the book he describes the use of imagination by modern authors to fill-out historical accounts as misleading and irresponsible, yet does exactly that himself on occasions too numerous to count. A portion of the book is in bold italicised text, and represents the narrative, story-like, part - including large sections of dialogue and carefully painted scenes. That's fine, because the difference in text makes it very clear to the reader when we are entering the realms of Duffus' imagination rather than recorded history. I personally didn't get much from these parts of the book, but I imagine others will enjoy them. However, elsewhere in the 'factual' part of the book there are frequent references to things that the author has imbued with an educated imagination. True, they are often preceded by phrases like 'there can be no doubt that...', but it's not always clear, and it's not always the case that there can be no doubt.

Enough of my moaning. The author's stated purpose is to re-examine and to some extent re-write the history of the last days (in practice, last months) of Blackbeard's life, culminating with his bloody death. This he does, admirably, by presenting arguments which can be distilled into seven main theories central to his overall purpose. Naturally, these are to some extent inter-related, dealing as they do with the same set of subjects, but each can be independently assessed because they are only reliant on one another to a small degree, or not at all. In short, it does not follow that if the Duffus is right about A then he must also be right about B, nor that if he is wrong about C that he is necessarily wrong about any of the others. For that reason, I shall consider each of the seven theories in turn.

1. The story of Blackbeard as previously told contains many glaring inconsistencies, partly deriving from an over-use of Johnson's work

Bravo! Johnson's work, it must be said, is not necessarily always as unreliable as Duffus implies, but we only know that because research has been done using other, potentially more reliable, records, which can be compared to Johnson to see how accurate the latter's accounts are. In a general sense, some of Johnsons chapters are very good, some are very poor, and others are a mix of the two, depending on how many published sources or eye-witnesses Johnson was able to gather concerning a particular pirate crew. Documentary evidence relating to Blackbeard and his crew is sparse (compared to say, Roberts and co), so biographers in the past have, understandably, turned to Johnson to fill the gaps. Duffus argues very well that this is not always a safe approach, particularly in respect of Blackbeard

2. The Battle of Ocracoke Inlet did not take place in the way generally described by previous authors

Here, I must tip my hat to Duffus' meticulousness, as well as his intimate local knowledge. The case he presents in support of his own version of what happened that November day is very good indeed, and his examination of the geography of the immediate area in 1718 rather than the modern day, used in conjunction with non-Johnson sources which describe the battle, is refreshing. Duffus considers the reliability of each of his sources in the light of each salient point, concluding that different sources are more or less reliable in relation to different aspects of the battle. His account of the battle is succinct, and the accompanying maps make it easy to follow and understand.

If I have a criticism to make here it is a minor one. Duffus asserts that witness Humphrey Johnston would have been able to distinguish Blackbeard and Maynard at a distance in the pell-mell of the skirmish, Blackbeard by his height and beard, Maynard by his 'blue coat of a naval officer'. In fact, naval officers in 1718 had no uniform whatsoever, so while Blackbeard probably was easy to spot, the same may not be said of Maynard. This might seem a pointless objection, and mostly it is, but it does throw some doubt on the veracity of Johnston's account ascribed by Duffus. In practice I dont think Duffus use of Johnston's evidence is unwarranted, so the objection is a purely theoretical one.

3. The survivors of the battle were not tried in March 1719, but at an earlier date. Most of those convicted were pardoned, not hanged as history has hitherto suggested

To my knowledge there is no empirical evidence that the trial of all the survivors took place in March 1719, nor that all of the convicted were hanged. Duffus argues that since a man with the same name as one of the pirates was known to be in Carolina in January 1719, the trial of the white survivors must have taken place earlier than March. The presence in Carolina at a later date of other men who shared names with some survivors indicates that not all of them were executed. The strength of Duffus argument lies in the connection between the battle survivors and the Carolina residents, which I shall discuss more fully below.

The objection to Duffus' argument rests as much on logic as the argument itself. We know that the men mentioned by Duffus were definitely tried and convicted, because the Treasury agreed to pay the due rewards to Capt. Brand, Lt. Maynard, and co. The Treasury did not pay out rewards without good evidence that a trial and conviction had taken place. In the same Treasury document, for example, the reward claim for the capture of John Augurs crew in New Providence (coincidentally, made on behalf of Blackbeards old boss, Hornigold) was refused on the grounds that the Treasury did not have sufficient evidence of their conviction - despite the fact that we now know Augur and some of his men were not only convicted but also executed. Pirates pardoned under the Royal Proclamation, as Duffus suggests some of Blackbeard's men were, did not have to stand trial. The fact that Duffus' suspects did stand trial suggests that they were not pardoned by the terms of the Royal Proclamation. Since such pardons were only extended to those who voluntarily surrendered themselves, and Blackbeard's men are all described as having been 'taken', it seems further unlikely that they were lucky enough to receive the Kings mercy. If they had sought a special pardon from Spotswood, the latter would have had to have had his decision confirmed by the Secretary of State, which would have left a paper trail, and could not have occurred quickly enough for any of the pirates to have got back to Carolina by January.

For these reasons, which are no more watertight than Duffus' argument, I remain unconvinced. However, Duffus argument is so well presented that I'm definitely prepared to keep an open mind.

FWIW, Duffus expresses uncertainty as to whether Caesar was acquitted or pardoned. Whether he was pardoned or not is open to debate, but he definitely wasn't acquitted because his name was on the Treasury's list of convicted pirates.

4. Blackbeard was not the ferocious monster he is often portrayed as, but was insecure and ill for a large part of his career

I've agreed in part with this assessment for a long time, so don't take much convincing. I suspect that the image we have today is a combination of Blackbeard's own self-promotion and the embellishments added by the popular press of the day, including Johnson, which has been greatly expanded by subsequent writers, rather than an accurate portrayal of the man.

I'm not convinced by the argument that Blackbeard was critically sick for the last few months of his life, which is based on his forcible conscription of surgeons, his demands for a medicine chest at Charleston, and the claim that he was once too ill to lead an attack. The forcing of surgeons was extremely common, and pirates had to get their medical supplies from somewhere (especially such a large number of pirates as Blackbeard then had under his command), so in the absence of a passing merchantman carrying a supply of drugs and bandages, medical supplies actually seems like a good reason for the risky gambit at Charleston. This leaves us with the fact that he was once ill - not proof that he had a debilitating illness. All that said, it's by no means impossible.

5. Several of Blackbeard's crew were, in fact, residents of Bath County, N.C.

The cornerstone of this argument is the coincidence of two not-uncommon names found in both Blackbeard's crew and amongst the residents of Bath County, and the coincidence of a further six not-uncommon surnames. Alas, not one single shred of evidence connecting the two sets of people is presented.

The fact that there is a 75% correlation seems compelling, but Id like to know the rough population of Bath County at the time, and compare it with other communities of the same size to see whether such a correlation is exceptional statistically.

The argument is well made and well researched, but in the absence of any proof whatsoever can only be taken on faith (which Duffus is at pains to admit).

6. Blackbeard was none other than Edward Beard, son of Bath County resident James Beard

James Beard lived near some of the other characters in the story, was a sea-captain, had a son, and of course, was called 'Beard'. Tobias Knight was a neighbour of Beard's, and had dealings with Blackbeard the pirate. Again, not a single shred of actual evidence linking the unnamed son of James Beard with Blackbeard the pirate is presented.

For me, this was the least convincing part of Duffus new analysis. The fact that Susannah Beard (James' daughter) named her own son Edward is insignificant: it was a very common name, and there is absolutely no reason to suppose that she did so in honour of her brother. I see nothing in the documentary evidence of the relationship between Knight and the pirate that suggests more than the relationship between two men who are conducting underhand and illegal business together. Duffus' argument that 'Beard' adopted the alias 'Thatch' while sailing out of Philadelphia, inspired by a resident there called Thatcher, is entirely unconvincing.

Again, there is no empirical proof of Blackbeard's identity, but a lot more is required to make the Beard family anything like prime suspects.

7. Blackbeard was not born in Bristol, but in Scotland

Ive saved this 'til last, not because its the most significant part of the book, but because it happens to be something that I've done considerably more research on than Duffus.

The idea that Blackbeard was from Scotland rather than Bristol is used by Duffus to support his Beard family argument, as the Beard family emigrated from Scotland. It is based on the fact that Blackbeard named his flagship Queen Anne's Revenge, suggesting that he was a Jacobite supporter, which in turn suggests that he was most likely to have been Scottish. Duffus' principle objection to Bristol as Blackbeard's birthplace is that the original suggestion comes from Johnsons General History which, as we know, is of hit and miss reliability.

There are three pieces of contemporary evidence giving us clues as to Blackbeard's origins: Johnsons assertion that he was Bristol born; a newspaper article claiming he sailed as a mate out of Philadelphia; and another document suggesting that he had a brother in Jamaica. Note that these three things are not mutually exclusive, it is well within the bounds of possibility that a man could have been born in Bristol, sail sometimes out of Philadelphia, and have a brother in Jamaica. The only real objection (Duffus' Bath County theory aside) to Blackbeard having been born in Bristol or the surrounding area, therefore, is that its Johnson who tells us it was so.

Because of the nature of the General History, to understand the true significance of the things Johnson wrote it is important to consider not just what he wrote, but how he wrote it, and in this case there are two things which stand out as indicators of Johnsons veracity.

Firstly, Johnson, for all his faults, does seem to have made a genuine effort to tell his stories accurately, even if he did embellish them significantly with spurious dialogue and apocrypha. The point here is that Johnson did not always state a birthplace for his main subjects, ie, he was not guilty of habitually assigning birthplaces to pirates if he did not have some reason to believe it was so.

Secondly, as new information came to Johnson after the initial publication of his book, he was at pains in later editions to insert it, and to correct earlier mistakes when an error was brought to his attention. The first edition of the General History contained no reference to Blackbeard being born in Bristol, so we can surmise quite reasonably that Johnson made the point in the second and subsequent editions because he was informed so by somebody he considered to be a credible witness.

This, of course, does not prove that it was so. Johnsons 'credible witness' could have been in error. But it does show that it was not just Johnson's imagination that made Blackbeard a native of Bristol. We should therefore be cautious about dismissing Johnson's version out of hand, just because it's Johnson.

Duffus further claims that Bristol was unlikely because of the Jacobitism connection, as though there was no Jacobitism in Bristol. This as a grave error. The 1715 Jacobite rising in Scotland, although best remembered now, was at the time only supposed to be a diversion, to tie up Hanoverian troops in the North and prevent them being sent South against the main rebellion which was planned in the West Country (the area of England South and West of Bristol). Stores of arms were cached in Bristol and nearby Bath, and supporters were recruited, but the plot was betrayed at the last minute. Bristol and the surrounding area was a hotbed of Jacobitism in Blackbeard's day. It would be similarly simplistic to equate the Scots with Jacobites. In the 1715 rising a significant part of the Jacobite army were Englishmen, and a significant part of the Government army used to suppress them were Scotsmen. Jacobitism was rife in Scotland, but also in England and Wales. Howell Davis and Bart Roberts were both Welsh pirates and Jacobites, Edward England was probably a Scottish pirate and Jacobite, Sam Bellamy and Condent were both English pirates and Jacobites, and Stede Bonnet was a West Indian pirate and Jacobite. The assumption that because Blackbeard was a Jacobite he must therefore have been Scottish just doesnt bear scrutiny.

None of which proves that Blackbeard was from Bristol, but it answers Duffus assurances that he wasn't.

Duffus makes it plain in his book that his theories will require a leap of faith, and that he expects most historians not to be able to make that leap. I think he does himself a disservice. Elements of his work do indeed require a leap of faith, but other elements require only that the reader accepts that they may not have been told the whole truth before, and it would be a churlish historian indeed who refused to consider Duffus' version of the battle at Ocracoke in the light of his re-examination of the evidence, or give time to think about the possibility that the subsequent trial and executions did not occur in the way they have been portrayed.

That some of Blackbeards crew may have been residents of Bath County is also worth serious consideration, requiring perhaps a leap of faith, but perhaps a series of small steps of faith. The problem is that Duffus is guilty to some extent of what Furbank and Owens described as 'chain forging', that is, building a theory upon a theory upon a theory. If A=B, and B=C, then D might =E, in which case F=G and, ultimately G=A; but if it turns out that A does not equal B, then the whole thing comes tumbling down. The required leaps of faith in themselves might not be big ones, but theres a lot of them to make.

That Blackbeard the pirate was actually Edward Black Beard, son of James Beard, requires more, and larger, strides of faith, and is based to some extent on a series of erroneous premises. Anyone with an interest in Blackbeard should read this book, but not take all of it too seriously without a properly weighed up consideration of the actual evidence presented. However, any book which genuinely seeks to re-examine evidence, as Duffus has done in regard to the battle of Ocracoke, and question whether an oft-repeated story is really accurate, is a good thing. Perhaps others will be able to make the giant leaps of faith while I'm stood wondering whether to take a few small steps, but for now I'm going to believe that Blackbeard was really called Edward Thatch, and while I'm prepared to revise my opinion in the light of a reasonable alternative, I haven't seen it in this book.

Edited December 27, 2010 by Foxe

[Bos'n Cross]

Great review master foxe! I wouldnt expect any different...you have inspired me to give this a read. I own it, but hadn't yet gotten to reading it......

[Dutchman]

Thanks for the review foxe. I'm glad you enjoyed it.

just a comment on your following observation

"It is of course possible to distinguish between those 'local legends' which may have some basis in fact, and those which are the result of imaginative tourism officials..."

The local Blackbeard legend where most all of us in this area fall to is compliments of Colonial Willamsburg, that is "the" local colonial era resource, which has instilled their Blackbeard piratical view for at least three generations of locals and since its Williamsburg, it must be gospel, despite independent research. Apparently it costs too much to rewrite the brochures and museum plaques when errors are pointed out to them.(Non-piratical issues, sorry)

[Daniel]

Thanks for the review, Foxe! Very interesting.

I was wondering, what is the oldest known reference to Capt. Thatch/Teach as "Blackbeard?" I know Johnson calls him by that name, but he's just called "Thatch" in the trials of Stede Bonnet and his men. Did the name "Blackbeard" ever appear before The General History of the Pirates?

[LookingGlass]

"Did the name 'Blackbeard' ever appear before The General History of the Pirates?"

Yes, the name "Blackbeard" was featured in the letters of Gov. Robert Johnson of SC (Charleston, June 18, 1718), Capt. Ellis Brand (James River, VA, Feb. 6, 1718/19), and Capt. Gordon (London, Sep. 14, 1721).

I am writing a detailed response to Foxe's review which will post later this week.

Kevin Duffus

author, The Last Days of Black Beard the Pirate

[captscurvy_nc]

Kevin, as someone who has made a living portraying Blackbeard in Ocracoke and numerous festivals for 11 years I found your book to be entertaining an enlighting. Yes some of the statements made require a leap of faith as you stated but I truly enjoyed it. Don't know if I can rewrite my script after so many years of performing it but just wanted to let you know that I found your work very enjoyable.

[LookingGlass]

I wish to thank the much respected Ed Fox for the time he invested in reading my book and writing his thoughtful critique. I also very much appreciate what has become a rare opportunity to participate in an open, polite and honest discussion of the merits of my research and the relative truths of the history of Edward Thatch, aka Blackbeard. (I prefer “Black Beard” as the historian/Congressman Hugh Williamson wrote it in 1812, or even “Black-beard” as printed in the 2nd edition of Johnson’s GHP, but here I will yield to the preferred modern usage.)

There are some lesser issues warranting my attention which Fox has raised which I will address later, such as my “bemoaning” how folklore has claimed “spurious connections” to Blackbeard at various places up and down America’s eastern seaboard, while I, at the same time, accept the “grain of truth” of local, North Carolina legends. To conserve time--mine and yours--this topic and others I will discuss in a subsequent post.

I would like to limit this post to what I feel is the most consequential revelation in my book and the information which led me to an important contradiction of established history: the fate and identity of Blackbeard’s crew members who were arrested either at Ocracoke or Bath. If Fox didn’t find my arguments entirely convincing, then I must have been ineffectual in presenting them my book. Let’s see if I can do a better job of it here.

Fox: “To my knowledge there is no empirical evidence that the trial of all the survivors took place in March 1719, nor that all of the convicted were hanged.” True, there are no extant records of the trial(s) of Thatch’s crew. There are only references to the proceedings in the letters of Lt. Gov. Alexander Spotswood and the minutes of the Colonial Council of NC.

However, the absence of records did not stop previous authors (Lee, Konstam & Woodard) of writing emphatically that the trial of all of the crew occurred on 12 March 1718/19. This is despite the fact that Spotswood had already written to Lord Cartwright a month earlier (14 February 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.” Spotswood’s statement that a trial had already taken place (prior to 14 Feb.) can be inferred to be in reference to the Caucasian members of the crew because on the day prior to the March 12th trial Spotswood called a special meeting of his council to specifically address the status of the five African crew members (Stiles, Blake, White, Gates and Caesar), whether or not they should be treated as free men.

In the absence of empirical evidence, our knowledge of what transpired at the Virginia pirate trials has been at the mercy of Charles Johnson and his adherents. Johnson wrote that all of the surviving crew members with the exception of Samuel Odell (acquitted) and Israel Hands (pardoned) were hanged. This is what most everyone has accepted and believed for 286 years. This is the story, unfortunately, taught in many NC schools by hardworking, well-meaning teachers. But that doesn’t make the history correct.

Contrary to Johnson’s GHP, Hugh Williamson wrote in his History of North Carolina published in 1812 that only four pirates were executed in Virginia. The same figure was used by Rev. Dr. Shirley Carter Hughson in his 1894 publication “The Carolina Pirates and Colonial Commerce 1670-1740.” Regrettably, neither Williamson nor Hughson shared with their readers the source for stating only four pirates were hanged. Obviously it didn’t come from Johnson’s GHP. Their source was likely the NC Colonial Records. In the testimony of Tobias Knight presented at a meeting of the NC Council on May 27, 1719, Knight confirms that four “Negro Slaves” from Blackbeard’s sloop had been condemned and executed in VA. (Note that four were executed--Stiles, Blake, White, and Gates--while five African “pirates” had been presented for trial on 12 March 1718/19. This would suggest to me that Caesar was pardoned.)

In 2003, Maryland genealogists Allen Norris, Jane Bailey and Bath’s John Oden discovered that at least three of the names of those “hanged” in Johnson’s GHP--John Martin, James Robbins and Edward Salter--later appeared in the deeds and other records of Bath County. There are also living descendants of the “hanged” Joseph Brooks, Jr., who claim their ancestor survived his execution. A slave named Caesar appears in the will of Tobias Knight in 1719. Also, the surnames of crew members Philips, Daniel, Miller, Curtice and Jackson match identifiable families of Bath County. Even boatswain Garrat Gibbons’ surname appears in a 1720 Bath County document in which Charleston merchant William Gibbon was involved in a Bath-based privateering enterprise. Additionally, we know that William Howard, former quartermaster of the Queen Anne’s Revenge and who later purchased the entire island of Ocracoke, was almost certainly the son of Bath County landowner Philip Howard and likely grandson of former indentured servant William Howard who arrived in the colonies in1663.

Another crew member who is believed to have survived his execution was the cooper Edward Salter, who over the succeeding 15 years became a prominent figure in NC’s General Assembly and one of the benefactors of the colony’s first church building. Unlike the others, however, Salter--who was forced aboard the Queen Anne’s Revenge from the sloop Margaret on Dec. 5, 1717 near Puerto Rico--does not seem to have had previous ties to the Bath area. (The subject of Salter including his remarkable rise post-piracy and “execution,” the disinterment of his skeletal remains by the State of NC in 1986 and his reinterment in Oct. 2010, has been presented elsewhere within Capt. Twill.)

Are not these curious coincidences worthy of more consideration and study?

The fate of the surviving members of Thatch’s crew is fundamentally one of the more important underpinnings to the newly emerging theory of Thatch’s identity and origins. Essentially, the premise is this: a significant percentage of Thatch’s men on the eve of the Battle of Ocracoke Inlet were sons of Bath County, NC, landowners whose names appear in the deed books in the years prior to, and, in some instances, following their deaths. This possibility is also supported by North Carolina Gov. Charles Eden’s legal advisor, Col. Thomas Pollock, who wrote that Virginia had no right to indict the pirates captured in NC because “the persons being inhabitants of this government ought to be tried here.” I find it difficult to accept that the pirates’ status as “inhabitants” of North Carolina could have been established in 1718 when they were in the colony for fewer than 80 days and whose residence during most of that time was the sloop Adventure.

The implications are important for two, heretofore unanswered questions: how could some of these men have survived their so-called hangings in Virginia; and why would Capt. Thatch have been surrounded by such a significant percentage of men relative to his final crew of 25+/- from the Pamlico River region of North Carolina?

Fox writes: “Alas, not one single shred of evidence connecting the two sets of people is presented.” That’s not entirely true. Although, I am not sure what sort of evidence, shred or otherwise, might be available to researchers to connect the two sets of people presented--a lost Bible, perhaps, inscribed as having been once owned by John Martin the pirate? These men and their families did not proudly tout their past connections to piracy, at least in writing which has survived the ages. However, there is the tiniest thread of evidence--folklore’s “grain of truth,” if you will--that suggests that Edward Salter, cooper, merchant, assemblyman, and patron of St. Thomas Church of Bath, was the same man as Edward Salter, cooper of the Queen Anne’s Revenge and convicted pirate purportedly hanged according to Johnson’s GHP. A history of Pitt County published in 1911, claimed that Edward Salter’s granddaughter, Susannah Salter White, who died in 1803, had a connection to Blackbeard and his pirates. Sometimes only the tiniest grain of truth is left to be found by the diligent historian, and weighed, against the enormity of established history. Sometimes, that’s all we get.

I’ve heard from skeptics before who have said that the repetition of names means nothing, that there could have been two unrelated sets of men of the same names serving on Blackbeard’s crew and also living in Bath at the same time. If true, that coincidence must have made for an interesting discussion in the parlors and tippling rooms of Bath in 1718! Five of the pirate names provide exact matches: John Martin, James Robbins, Edward Salter, Joseph Brooks, Jr. and William Howard. Seven of the pirate names either match prominent family surnames of Bath County or can be found in Beaufort County Deed Book One (Bath County ca. 1718): Philips, Daniel, Miller, Curtice, Jackson, Gibbons and Caesar. I am not a statistician but I would imagine that the odds are rather great against the probability of so many matches.

Fox writes: “I’d like to know the rough population of Bath County at the time, and compare it with other communities of the same size to see whether such a correlation is exceptional statistically.”

I have quickly but unsuccessfully tried to locate an accurate population figure for Bath County for 1718. According to historian Wingate Reed, the population of Beaufort County (formerly Bath County) in 1755 was 4,460. Another, admittedly, unscientific way to assess the statistical probabilities for the occurrences of certain names in the mid-Atlantic colonies is to search the quit rent rolls. For example, after painstakingly reviewing nearly 2,000 names listed on the quit rent rolls of Virginia counties for 1704-1705, I could find only ten instances when names matched the names of men associated with Thatch:

John Martin, Prince George Co.

John Philips, Surrey County

Thomas Miller, Norfolk County

Wm. Howard, York County

John Martin, New Kent County

John Martin, King and Queen County

Wm Howard, Glocester County Petso Parish

Joseph Brooks, Glocester County Kingston Parish

John Martin, Glocester County Kingston Parish

John Martin, Essex County

Foxe’s objection, based on logic as he says, to my assertion that a majority of Thatch’s crew were pardoned comes from the fact that the treasury paid to Capt. Gordon and Capt. Brand, and their men, a reward of £710 for those pirates killed at Ocracoke or convicted at Williamsburg (my source for this information came from PRO-T 52/32, “King’s warrant for payment of 710 British pounds to Captain George Gordon and others...” dated 19 Sep. 1722). Fox argues that pirates pardoned under the Royal Proclamation “did not have to stand trial,” and, “Since such pardons were only extended to those who voluntarily surrendered themselves, and Blackbeard's men are all described as having been 'taken', it seems further unlikely that they were lucky enough to receive the King’s mercy.”

However, the 9 suspected pirates who survived the Battle of Ocracoke and the 6 suspected pirates found ashore at Bath (some 40 miles away) were all arrested on or about Nov. 22, 1718. The proclamation which enacted the King’s extension of the pardon did not arrive in Virginia until one month later. Therefore, Blackbeard’s men had been ‘taken’ before the applicable document was in play.

Also, it’s impossible for us to know if Spotswood followed such rules as Fox suggests, that pardoned pirates did not have to stand trial. What if Spotswood had Thatch’s surviving crew tried before they were informed of the availability of the extension of the first pardon? As I proposed in my book, the “trial,” and the depositions taken from the accused pirates, could have merely been a way for Spotswood to extract incriminating evidence against North Carolina’s proprietary government, which Spotswood seemed keen to do.

We know that Spotswood received notice of the extension of the King’s pardon prior to 22 December 1718 based on the journal of Spotswood’s Council which met on the 11th of March 1718/19: “it is easie to be proved that the [proclamation] did not arrive till upwards of a Month after these pirates were taken...” This is the proclamation that saved William Howard’s life, arriving on the eve of his scheduled execution. In fact, because William Howard had been arrested, convicted, condemned to hang, yet was fortunate enough to be pardoned, this should be sufficient reason to nullify Fox’s statement: “Since such pardons were only extended to those who voluntarily surrendered themselves...” Howard did not voluntarily surrender himself.

As for the status and disposition of the other pirates jailed at Williamsburg, we have only fragments of information to guide us. In his letter to Sec. James Craggs dated 26 May 1719, Spotswood referred to pirates who had “either surrendered or been pardoned,” specifically mentioning that “14 or 15” had surrendered. He goes on to write that “of Seven that have rec’d their pardons, only one has paid the Attorney-Gen’l the common fee he receives for making out the like pardons.” Charles Johnson’s GHP lists 15 men who were brought to Williamsburg for trial, including Samuel Odell and James Robbins. The King’s Warrant lists 13 names of convicted pirates for whom the Treasury paid rewards, excluding the names Samuel Odell and James Robbins (who would seem to have successfully proved that they were not part of Blackbeard’s crew). My review of the logbooks of the HMS Lyme and HMS Pearl anchored in the James River revealed that on 28 January 1718/19 “2 condemned pyrats [were taken] ashore to Hampton to be executed, which about 1/2 past 11 was done accordingly.” Finally, we know from NC’s Colonial Records that 4 “Negro” pirates of Blackbeard’s crew were executed after 12 March 1718/19. The numbers add up, whether the evidence is circumstantial or not: 6 pirates executed, 7 pirates pardoned (including Caesar), 2 suspected pirates (Robbins and Odell) acquitted, equals 15 men who had been arrested and jailed at Williamsburg. All of which contradicts Johnson, Lee, Konstam, Woodard, et. al.

Why were 6 men hanged while 7 were pardoned? Again, there is no empirical evidence, only powers of our intuition and what ought to serve as the best explanation for a historical statement. My best explanation is that the 6 suspected pirates arrested at Bath had not participated in the Battle of Ocracoke and hence had not borne arms against the King’s men. The 7th to receive a pardon, Caesar, was probably determined to have been the property of Tobias Knight (his name was listed in Knight’s estate inventory 6 months later).

Why were any of these men eligible to receive the extension of the King’s pardon?

In my book, I presented a word-for-word comparison of the two pardons issued by the King in 1717 and 1718, the initial pardon and the extension. I contend that previous historians have failed to notice the critical distinction between the two proclamations. Unlike the first pardon, the second proclamation did not specify a deadline after which piracies would not be forgiven, but instead allowed forgiveness for all acts of piracy committed up to, and until, the pirate learned of the availability of the pardon, as long as the petitioner surrendered before the first of July 1719.

Pardon issued on 5 Sep. 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, to one of our Principal Secretaries of State in Great Britain or Ireland, or to any Governor or Deputy Governor of any of our Plantations beyond the Seas; every such Pyrate and Pyrates so surrendering him, or themselves, as aforesaid, 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].”

Pardon arriving at James River VA on or about 21 Dec. 1718:

“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 to One of Our Principal Secretaries of State in Great Britain or Ireland, or to any Governors or Deputy-Governors of any of Our Plantations or dominions beyond the Seas, every such Pirate and Pirates, so Surrendering him or themselves, as aforesaid, 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.”

More to come in a subsequent post.

Kevin Duffus

The Last Days of Black Beard the Pirate

Edited January 6, 2011 by LookingGlass

[Fox]

First of all, thankyou Kevin for taking my review in the spirit in which it was intended. You needn't thank me for taking the time to read your book: whether one subscribes to some, all, or none of the theories presented it is a very readable book.

If Fox didn’t find my arguments entirely convincing, then I must have been ineffectual in presenting them my book.

I think it's important here to distinguish between 'convincing' and 'believable'. I actually think you did a good job of presenting your case. As I said in my review, I think your argument contains enough good pointers, well presented, to make a good theory, and one which ought to be treated with an open mind.

Additionally, we know that William Howard, former quartermaster of the Queen Anne’s Revenge and who later purchased the entire island of Ocracoke, was almost certainly the son of Bath County landowner Philip Howard and likely grandson of former indentured servant William Howard who arrived in the colonies in1663.

How do we know that?

Are not these curious coincidences worthy of more consideration and study?

Absolutely they are!

I’ve heard from skeptics before who have said that the repetition of names means nothing, that there could have been two unrelated sets of men of the same names serving on Blackbeard’s crew and also living in Bath at the same time.

And you have to admit they're right: there could have been

This possibility is also supported by North Carolina Gov. Charles Eden’s legal advisor, Col. Thomas Pollock, who wrote that Virginia had no right to indict the pirates captured in NC because “the persons being inhabitants of this government ought to be tried here.” I find it difficult to accept that the pirates’ status as “inhabitants” of North Carolina could have been established in 1718 when they were in the colony for fewer than 80 days and whose residence during most of that time was the sloop Adventure.

Speaking neither as a supporter or skeptic of your theory, but purely as an historian, I felt when I was reading the book that you may be placing too much emphasis on this delightful clue. In historical records, people are often described as 'inhabitant' of somewhere they only stayed for a few days or weeks. It would be lovely to think that Pollock was implying the priates were settled, long-term residents of Bath County, but he could equally have been referring to the fact that they had received their pardons in the county, or simply that they were resident within the county at the time of their arrest. Any of those three explanations would be sufficient to explain Pollock's syntax.

I'm not a statistician either, but the figures you quote in your post are interesting. In the absence of figures for Bath County in 1718, let's make the possibly dangerous assumption that it was somewhere between 2,000 and 4,460 you quote for later in the century. An arbitrary assumption but, in the absence of more relaible figures, not an unreasonable one. If you were able to find a correlation of 10 names with the 2,000 names you checked from Virginia, and only 13 names within the similarly sized Bath County population, that suggests in fact that the correlation is not statistically surprising. FWIW, none of the names are particularly distinctive, and I can boast a correlation between four of the surnames and the surnames of my ex-girlfriends - which is a list of considerably less than 2,000 I can assure you!

Not an argument, but another possibility to consider for you regarding Caesar. Caesar, as a slave, may have been returned to slavery rather than executed, as black pirates from both Bellamy's (or am I thinking of Harris'? Too lazy to look it up) and Roberts' crew were after their trials. It may be that Knight took Caesar on as a slave after the trial. Alternatively, since Caesar was a common slave name, Knight's slave and Blackbeard's crewmate may have been different people, and somebody else bought the Caesar after his trial.

FWIW, I have no interest in supporting or overturning the theses of Lee, Konstam, or Woodard. Johnson on the other hand I am very interested in: my particular interest is not about proving Johnson right or wrong, but investigating which parts of his book are right or wrong, and more specifically, seeking out his probable sources of information. I've been working on this project on and off for several years, but I haven't really tackled the Blackbeard chapter yet, so any critique of Johnson's account is especially welcome to me.

[Dread Pyrate Greyhound]

I've read this book and I must say it is a very entertaining read. Mr Duffus makes quite a few valid points. And even if you don't agree with what he claims about blackbeard, the book and what he found out is still fascinating.

[Mission]

4. Blackbeard was not the ferocious monster he is often portrayed as, but was insecure and ill for a large part of his career

I've agreed in part with this assessment for a long time, so don't take much convincing. I suspect that the image we have today is a combination of Blackbeard's own self-promotion and the embellishments added by the popular press of the day, including Johnson, which has been greatly expanded by subsequent writers, rather than an accurate portrayal of the man.

I'm not convinced by the argument that Blackbeard was critically sick for the last few months of his life, which is based on his forcible conscription of surgeons, his demands for a medicine chest at Charleston, and the claim that he was once too ill to lead an attack. The forcing of surgeons was extremely common, and pirates had to get their medical supplies from somewhere (especially such a large number of pirates as Blackbeard then had under his command), so in the absence of a passing merchantman carrying a supply of drugs and bandages, medical supplies actually seems like a good reason for the risky gambit at Charleston. This leaves us with the fact that he was once ill - not proof that he had a debilitating illness. All that said, it's by no means impossible.

Ah, a most enjoyable critique by Foxe. I have a question about the above point, though. I've just been reading through one of the General History accounts and I didn't find anything about Blackbeard's "forcible conscription of surgeons." So where would that fact be found? I am reading (by a rather bizarre set of circumstances) a 1748 version of the book. Is it in another edition?

[Swashbuckler 1700]

4. Blackbeard was not the ferocious monster he is often portrayed as, but was insecure and ill for a large part of his career

I've agreed in part with this assessment for a long time, so don't take much convincing. I suspect that the image we have today is a combination of Blackbeard's own self-promotion and the embellishments added by the popular press of the day, including Johnson, which has been greatly expanded by subsequent writers, rather than an accurate portrayal of the man.

I'm not convinced by the argument that Blackbeard was critically sick for the last few months of his life, which is based on his forcible conscription of surgeons, his demands for a medicine chest at Charleston, and the claim that he was once too ill to lead an attack. The forcing of surgeons was extremely common, and pirates had to get their medical supplies from somewhere (especially such a large number of pirates as Blackbeard then had under his command), so in the absence of a passing merchantman carrying a supply of drugs and bandages, medical supplies actually seems like a good reason for the risky gambit at Charleston. This leaves us with the fact that he was once ill - not proof that he had a debilitating illness. All that said, it's by no means impossible.

Ah, a most enjoyable critique by Foxe. I have a question about the above point, though. I've just been reading through one of the General History accounts and I didn't find anything about Blackbeard's "forcible conscription of surgeons." So where would that fact be found? I am reading (by a rather bizarre set of circumstances) a 1748 version of the book. Is it in another edition?

I am not sure did i get what here is going but. It is likely that those surgeons or medicines were for Bb's crew and the crew had syphilis (from the Bahamas or who knows were ) but it is just a theory...

[Mission]

I have heard the point about syphilis before, but this doesn't answer my question about the surgeons. I was looking for the documents that prove that since the General History doesn't appear to give any such detail. Is it in the trial notes?

[Swashbuckler 1700]

I don't have heard anyting about Bb's surgeon...

BTW Did blackbeard reallythreatened to burn Boston to the ground if they would (authorities in Boston) hang Bellamy's men... Like this bage says http://archive.field...ydahsloss_2.asp

Edited March 5, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[LookingGlass]

I know of two sources for the statement that surgeons were forcibly retained aboard the French slaver formerly named La Concorde--one secondary source and one primary source.

The secondary source comes from "In Search of Blackbeard: Historical and Archeological Research at Shipwreck Site 003BUI," Richard Lawrence and Mark Wilde-Ramsing authors, published in Southeastern Geology February 2001: "The cabin boy and three of his fellow French crewmen voluntarily joined the pirates, and ten others were taken by force including a pilot, three surgeons, two carpenters, two sailors, and the cook."

The primary source comes from the signed deposition of La Concorde's former captain, Pierre Dossett, given upon his return to Nantes on 13 October 1718 after surrendering his ship to Edward Thatch in the Windward Islands. Dossett listed the fate of his crew members including those who died enroute. Dossett indicated that Jean Dubert d'Arzal, "chirurgien," returned to Nantes aboard an English vessel. The two "aides chirurgiens," Marc Bourgneuf and Nicholas Gautrain, remained with the newly named Queen Anne's Revenge. Therefore, based on the Dossett deposition, it would seem that only two surgeon's aides were conscripted by Thatch.

[Mission]

The primary source comes from the signed deposition of La Concorde's former captain, Pierre Dossett, given upon his return to Nantes on 13 October 1718 after surrendering his ship to Edward Thatch in the Windward Islands. Dossett listed the fate of his crew members including those who died enroute. Dossett indicated that Jean Dubert d'Arzal, "chirurgien," returned to Nantes aboard an English vessel. The two "aides chirurgiens," Marc Bourgneuf and Nicholas Gautrain, remained with the newly named Queen Anne's Revenge. Therefore, based on the Dossett deposition, it would seem that only two surgeon's aides were conscripted by Thatch.

Splendid! Thank you so much! I will have to try and see if I can dig up a copy of that.