Prove that pirates were decent people too!

[Niko]

I've been having a week long argument with this guy about pirates and instead of throwing around little bits of stuff I remember from things I've read in the past I'd figure I'd come and ask for some actual historical info that may help me disprove this statement:

pirate=honorless idiots who decided to say screw the government, soap, and rules, and let's go sail the seas robbing ships till we get hung

Anything you can give me would be great.

Stuff that pertains to the more "famous" pirates such as Edward Teach, Black Bart, Henry Every, Jack Rackham, Captain Kidd, ect. would best.

Edited June 12, 2009 by Niko

[Mission]

Uh...God be with you in your quest. (You could cite Captain Misson's story...if only it were true.) I'm sure there are isolated examples of decent behavior, but, in the main... You sort of need to find a Robin Hood type, I think. If you read the accounts we have, the behavior of several of the folks we regard as 'famous' pirates seemed to get worse and worse as time went on. Perhaps absolute power does corrupt absolutely...

Maybe someone else knows of an example, but what you're looking for sort of sounds like the cheesy 50s Hollywood idea about piracy.

[William Brand]

There are numerous examples of privateers working for various governments down through history. These men were little more than government backs pirates. Some were God-fearing men with varying degrees of morality, but I would recommend not arguing with this fellow. It can be too easily argued that one man's privateer is another man's pirate.

[Niko]

Uh...God be with you in your quest. (You could cite Captain Misson's story...if only it were true.) You sort of need to find a Robin Hood type, I think. If you read the accounts we have, the behavior of several of the folks we regard as 'famous' pirates seemed to get worse and worse as time went on. Perhaps absolute power does corrupt absolutely...

Maybe someone else knows of an example, but what you're looking for sort of sounds like the cheesy 50s Hollywood idea about piracy.

Well I'm not saying they need to to perfect here lol.

Like I've read that pirate ships worked like a democracy in most cases where every crew member had a say in the ships affairs and such.

I can't remember names but I'm pretty certain that one prominent pirate was originally a navigator or someone of intelligence who was pressed into service and later became a captain of a pirate ship.

Stuff like that.

[Bilgemunky]

Rather than go defensive, I'd try turning the tables a bit.

pirate=honorless idiots who decided to say screw the government, soap, and rules, and let's go sail the seas robbing ships till we get hung

I don't accept the premise, as this statement makes two false assumptions:

1. If Pirates=Bad, then Government=Good. Let's look at the governments of the day, shall we? Let's ask the Incas what they thought of the Spanish Government, or let's ask a homeless street urchin what they thought of the French goverment, or a pressed sailor with years of backwages and a starving family at home what he thought of the English government. For that matter, let's ask the Africans what they thought of European governments in general.

2. If Pirates=Bad, then Rules=Good. Similar to #1. These were days of female and minority oppression, of closed societies, of state and church sanctioned torture (and I'm talking "real" torture - not the kind you walk away from). These were times when it was ok for a ship's captain to beat a man nearly to death without benefit of a trial. These were times of witch trials in Salem, and all sorts of other rule-enforced pleasantries world-wide.

These are just the tip of the iceberg, but the point is that before making the case that pirates were bad because they defied the government and societies rules, your friend needs to demonstrate that these are effective standards for establishing what is good and honorable. My guess is he'll find it a much more difficult task than he'd expect.

As to soap, I'll concede.

[Mr.Tignor]

though mabey not the best pirate, Stede Bonnet was known to give a little something back to the ships he "plundered"....even if he wasnt doing it quite right , hes was still a pirate.... a gentleman pirate. As for them giving up on rules, oh quite the contrary. They created whole new rules(and im sure kept all those pertaining to saftey and vessel maintenance) the famous "pirate codes", in which some went so far as to outlaw gambling and having women aboard, and issued curfiews(whether it worked or not...well..), so they were far from lawless. And as for them being idots, ask your friend if he can succesfully block off a major port, evade capture as one of the most wanted men in the colonies, and then pull off the untimate underhanded betrail of your own crew, with no one being the wiser.......not idots. Give the lad a good book, or drag him to PiP..then hell know.....

[Fox]

Hmmm. Although it would be easily possible to find arguments that weaken your friend's case, it would be hard, even impossible perhaps, to argue down the basic gist of what he was saying.

At the most basic level piracy is the crime of robbery at sea. If you think you can argue that robbery for self-gain is ever justified then great, you might have an argument, but it's going to be hard to make a case that pirates were 'decent' people.

You might rewrite his statement to read: pirate=impoverished seamen who decided to say screw everybody and let's go sail the seas robbing ships till we get hung. Many pirates were not honourless, and few (perhaps) were idiots, but that doesn't make them 'decent people'.

The trouble with any evidence you can find to support your case is that most of it can probably be countered with other evidence. For example, Anstis' crew had a rule about not mistreating women prisoners, which makes them look rather honourable until you throw in the reports of them gang-raping a woman and then breaking her back. See what I mean?

Rediker should always be treated with a pinch of salt IMHO, but in this case your best bet is probably to begin with 'Villains of All Nations'.

[Mission]

Well I'm not saying they need to to perfect here lol.

Like I've read that pirate ships worked like a democracy in most cases where every crew member had a say in the ships affairs and such.

I can't remember names but I'm pretty certain that one prominent pirate was originally a navigator or someone of intelligence who was pressed into service and later became a captain of a pirate ship.

Stuff like that.

I come from the basic precept that nothing and no one is either totally good nor totally bad, so I am almost certain that even Blackbeard and Edward Low had their good points and charitable moments. Part of the problem you may have making your case is that most of our knowledge of the history of these famous GA pirates comes from the General History which tends to follow a pattern - Here's this fellow who was ok enough in his way and then he turned to piracy and did all sorts of horrible things which I will now detail in lurid tones. So if Teach gave a dozen daisies to some randomly chosen old women every day he was on shore, that's not likely to be recorded because it doesn't fit the sensational template.

Still, in the main, you're talking about thieves as Foxe said. There's a reason for the old saw...there's no honor among thieves. (Note that I do not count privateers as true pirates, but if you wanted to drag them in, you might have a better shot at making a case for yourself as William suggests.)

[oderlesseye]

Who was the Bible reading Captain whom held services each day yet engages in pyracy?

[LadyBarbossa]

Neither side was black or white, nor good or bad. After all, Blackbeard when he beseiged Charlestowne, SC... did he not gain medicines for his crew?

Despite their immoral things pirates did, there were other moral things they compensated for. So, Piracy is not an all black-shaded, bad, impure area to be involved in. It wasn't as black-shaded and impure as many governments then ... and even now.

Piracy is the result of what one is forced into doing after they haven't much of a choice at little else. It's the last hope when all hope was lost. And a rare opportunity for some. Despite the consequence.

Yes, they could kill everyone on board, rape the women, etc... but ..... I've yet to read everything about these being 100% evil encarnate.

~Lady B

[Fox]

The trouble with many of the apparently good things pirates did is that most of them were entirely self-serving. Using the example of Blackbeard and his medicines, if someone held up a pharmacy for medication today would that make them a good person?

You might find some genuinely altruistic good in pirates' treatment of captured masters. If the master turned out to be a good man who treated his crew well then he might expect reasonable treatment from many pirates, from not being killed or having his ship burned, to receiving some of the pirates' plunder as compensation (which he probably didn't benefit from much because of the legal ramifications). Of course, if he proved to be a bad or unpopular master he might be humiliated, tortured, and killed.

It would probably be unfair to say that all pirates were without decency, but if the object of the exercise is to 'prove that pirates were decent people'... hmm

[Tartan Jack]

Who was the Bible reading Captain whom held services each day yet engages in pyracy?

Black Bart Roberts, for one.

Who also hung people, burned ships, and did other things.

Also, we get into the question of period perspectives too.

What is "decent" today is not a match for "decent" in the 17-teens. Which standards are you using for "decent" in the discussion?

The term was broader then than now and "decent" people could do things we would consider awful today, esp. against national enemies.

Remember: SOME were people that would have been law abiding citizens in other settings, but they were "screwed" by life/society, so tey screwed it back. This kind of pirate held public fascination in the period itself and is partly what gave rise to the pop-image of pirate as "swashbuckling hero-rogue."

OTHERS would have been criminals wherever they were. Had they remained in the British Isles, they would have been thieves and highwaymen. All that changed was location and being shipboard. They were just nasty people.

Additionally, the people seen as pirate varied over the 1600s and 1700s. Some had pirates a tad more noble, while others were primary nasty, criminal element and pressed men (trying to escape the pirates). Some "pirates" never considered themselves pirates, rather as privateers and agents of the government-> doing what they thought the government SHOULD have been doing in times of quasi-peace-> example Henry Morgan, plus MAYBE Thomas Tew and Henry Avery.

In our particular period (meaning 17-teens/twenties), many were non-criminal refugees left homeless and jobless after Queen Anne's War and the 1715 Jacobite Rebellion. They became pirate in desperation and left the trade as soon as other opportunity became possible. As the period progressed, the more "normal-man" pirates took pardons and became "respectable," the more criminal-type, like Low, increasingly took over the trade and did VERY cruel stuff.

[Joe Pyrat]

You might try reading The Republic of Pirates by Colin Woodard for a different perspective on pirates, specifically those operating between 1714 and 1730 which includes most of the well known pirates like Blackbeard, Vane, etc. There is some disagreement on Woodard's conclusions but the book appears very well researched.

Synopsis (Harcourt Trade Publishers)...

In the early eighteenth century a number of the great pirate captains, including Edward "Blackbeard" Teach and "Black Sam" Bellamy, joined forces. This infamous "Flying Gang" was more than simply a thieving band of brothers. Many of its members had come to piracy as a revolt against conditions in the merchant fleet and in the cities and plantations in the Old and New Worlds. Inspired by notions of self-government, they established a crude but distinctive form of democracy in the Bahamas, carving out their own zone of freedom in which indentured servants were released and leaders chosen or deposed by a vote. They were ultimately overcome by their archnemesis, Captain Woodes Rogers—a merchant fleet owner and former privateer—and the brief though glorious moment of the Republic of Pirates came to an end.

In this unique and fascinating book, Colin Woodard brings to life this virtually unexplored chapter in the Golden Age of Piracy.

[Fox]

I'll second a general recommendation of Woodard's Republic of Pirates. I certainly don't agree with all his conclusions, and there's a few instances of theory masquerading as fact, but it's better than most of the crap that's been turned out in recent years.

(And FWIW I don't think one could make a convincing case for Henry Every acting in what he perceived as the country's best interests )

[Tartan Jack]

I'll second a general recommendation of Woodard's Republic of Pirates. I certainly don't agree with all his conclusions, and there's a few instances of theory masquerading as fact, but it's better than most of the crap that's been turned out in recent years.

On Foxe's recommendation, I bought and read that book. His research impressed me, esp. as I had previously ignored that book as one of many junk-quality ones that came out around the PotC buzz. Many were too awful to waste time reading.

This one is well worth it, just keep in mind that it is a journalist writing it and not a historian. All in all, VERY good and useful.

(And FWIW I don't think one could make a convincing case for Henry Every acting in what he perceived as the country's best interests )

Hence the "MAYBE" . . . I've heard it argued, repeatedly that he was a privateer, but think he was more a lone-operator than anything else.

Sorry for dropping that one when typing in a rush. It was a poor choice to cite.

[daveypirate]

Just reading some of the comments in relation to proving the decency of Pirates. Pirates were self indulgent thrill seekers that lived by the culture and expectations of the day. We all like to accuse pirates of creating havoc on the waves by plundering and in some cases killing other sailors which were in residence in the unfortunate ships that passed by. Yes they may seem at odds with our expectations of decency yet they had to live in a brutish age. Some of these Pirates came from those sailors that were press ganged into joining the ships. You could also argue later piracy during the 17^th-18^th Century was greatly aided by communities disgruntled by heavy import taxes levied by the British government. They supplied the demand for cheap imports of tea, brandy etc that the communities required. They also made some places like Robin hoods Bay Nr Whitby very rich as a result. These communities which were aided by piracy would consider these pirates as Heroes whereas those riding officers that tried vainly to uphold the law were despised outcasts.

I personally believe pirate legacies outweigh those sailors who abided by the Law.

[Raphael Misson]

Yes, ok...but how does it prove that pirates were decent people? Just because certain locations benefited from the pirates' custom and activities doesn't mean that the pirates intended to benefit those locations. It actually says more about the places than the people who traded there.

That mafia enriched certain restaurants and social clubs and got them products at lower prices and shipping rates - but this says nothing about their being decent people. Heck, the Nazis brought fine art from all over the world to Germany - surely a great boon to the German people - but I doubt you'll find a lot of folks lauding them for their decency.

Edited July 1, 2009 by Raphael Misson

[daveypirate]

I can see your argument in relation to certain places benefitting more than the people who traded there. It was adverse taxes which allowed piracy to flourish further in places like Robin Hoods Bay. I am sure the Pirates benefited from the extra support gained by the community alongside their silence. However some would argue that fear could also play a part in the communities’ silence. I am sure the retribution inflicted by these pirates would be extreme if the community spoke out to the authorities about their clandestine activities. Yet despite all this I would still say some pirates may have helped the communities they smuggled to. The pirates would have tried to prevent at all costs the Riding Officer seizing the contraband from the community. They may have offered protection to the community they did business with.

Pirates often shared their loot they seized from other ships they raided with their crew so this could be seen as decency and mutual respect. They needed one another to sustain their activities. Some would argue that pirates lived by an unwritten code of conduct however this is conjecture. I suppose you could argue they were decent to each other as long as they did what was asked at the time. They had to earn each others respect.

I suppose it depends on your interpretation of decency!

[Iron Hand]

Who was the Bible reading Captain whom held services each day yet engages in pyracy?

Bartholomew Roberts(Black Bart) One of the fiercest and most successful pirates of all

[Fox]

I am sure the retribution inflicted by these pirates would be extreme if the community spoke out to the authorities about their clandestine activities. Yet despite all this I would still say some pirates may have helped the communities they smuggled to. The pirates would have tried to prevent at all costs the Riding Officer seizing the contraband from the community.

Are we talking about pirates or smugglers here? They're not the same thing at all (although they are often lumped together). Some of the fundamental differences between smugglers and pirates are key to this debate. For example, the essentially local nature of most smuggling activity accounts for the smugglers' interest in the welfare of the community - it was their community, in which they lived, had relations, and worked when they weren't involved in smuggling. Pirates, by their diverse and often international nature, rarely had such considerations.

[daveypirate]

I was always under the impression that Pirates also engaged in the Smuggling rings. They often sold their goods stolen to these communities. So are you saying Foxe that we should separate the two into different categories?

So how would you separate Pirates from Smugglers? I was always under the impression that Smuggling was done by pirates separate to the community in which they did their dealings with.

[daveypirate]

A Smuggler's Song by Rudyard Kipling

If you wake at Midnight, and hear a horse's feet,

Don't go drawing back the blind, or looking in the street,

Them that asks no questions isn't told a lie.

Watch the wall, my darling, while the Gentlemen go by!

Five and twenty ponies

Trotting through the dark -

Brandy for the Parson.

'Baccy for the Clerk;

Laces for a lady, letters for a spy,

And watch the wall, my darling, while the Gentlemen go by!

Running round the woodlump, if you chance to find

Little barrels, roped and tarred, all full of brandy-wine,

Don't you shout to come and look, nor use 'em for your play.

Put the brushwood back again - and they'll be gone next day!

Five and twenty ponies …

If you see the stable door setting open wide;

If you see a tired horse lying down inside;

If your mother mends a coat cut about and tore;

If the lining's wet and warm - don't you ask no more!

Five and twenty ponies ...

If you meet King George's men, dressed in blue and red,

You be careful what you say, and mindful what is said.

If they call you "pretty maid", and chuck you 'neath the chin,

Don't you tell where no one is, nor yet where no one's been!

Five and twenty ponies ...

If you do as you've been told, 'likely there's a chance,

You'll be given a dainty doll, all the way from France,

With a cap of pretty lace, and a velvet hood -

A present from the Gentlemen, along o' being good!

Five and twenty ponies ...

Them that asks no questions isn't told a lie -

Watch the wall, my darling, while the Gentlemen go by!

[daveypirate]

Could you say that decency in piracy can be attained by state sanctioned piracy? For instance their was John Ward an Ordinary sailor for nearly fifty years suddenly in 1603 turns to piracy and leads many of the men in the navy of James I to defect. I believe he stole one of James I vessel and later came under the protection of the Ottoman Empire’s outpost located in Tunisia. I also believe he reached legendary status in Europe as most other pirates did. Yet you could argue he was semi decent to his men and they all benefited from the wealth he acquired at the expense of other nations. I am sure the Ottoman Empire also benefited through his loot. As they say ‘One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist’.

[Raphael Misson]

Some would argue that pirates lived by an unwritten code of conduct however this is conjecture.

Some pirates had articles, some didn't. They dealt with day-to-day issues and what went on shipboard. (You can see more about articles in this thread.)

However, there was no universal "pirates code" - that's fictional.

As I said above (in one of my other IDs), I have no doubt that pirates did decent things in their lives. People are people. We just don't seem to have much in the way of recorded instances.

[Raphael Misson]

Could you say that decency in piracy can be attained by state sanctioned piracy?

People who sailed with approval of the state against enemies of the state are considered privateers, not pirates. (A fine line, to be sure.) If you search this forum for "privateers" you'll find more info on that. However, your example sounds to me more like a sailor turned pirate who found a government willing to protect him - thus becoming a privateer. As you suggest, one man's privateer is another man's pirate. (The Spanish certainly thought thus...)