Prove that pirates were decent people too!

[Fox]

Yes, I think on the whole pirates and smugglers should be handled differently. Piracy is the crime of robbery at sea, smuggling is the crime of illicit import. Blackbeard, Roberts and co, who sailed deep sea trade routes plundering from other ships were pirates. The Hawkhurst gang, the Hampshire Blacks, and people like Jack Rattenbury, who landed illegal or untaxed cargoes at night on deserted beaches were smugglers. Their crime, methods, materials, and nature were (are) entirely different. Occasionally, as chance arose, pirates might engage in a bit of smuggling on the side, or vice versa, but I can't think of any specific instances offhand. The chaps landing brandy and baccy on the Yorkshire coast were not pirates.

John Ward is an interesting example. An English seaman who knew Ward described him to the English ambassador in Venice: '[he] speaks little, and almost always swearing. Drunk from morning till night. Most prodigal and plucky. Sleeps a great deal... A fool and an idiot out of his trade.' Ottoman sailors refused to ship with Ward after he left his crew to die aboard a leaky ship. When news spread of what he had done he was 'nearly torn to pieces'. The Turks were not the only ones who hated Ward: the English pirate Captain John Kerson hated him enough to plot with the Royal Navy to assist in his capture.

I know of seven sets of articles from the GAoP: Roberts, Anstis, Phillips, Lowther, Low, Taylor, and Gow. I haven't actually managed to get hold of a copy of Taylor's yet, but the other six are so wildly different at times that it puts paid to any kind of uniform code of conduct, unwritten or not.

[Graydog]

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

Ye will answer to Captain Teague for that comment! Why I can hear the guitar string snap as I type this. Ye, will rue the day ye will and that be fer sure.

(I think this is a fun reference as it points to how pop culture has portrayed some pirates as decent fellows. It makes a wonderful and fun story line! Alas, I do not think that story line reflects the reality. If I was a passenger on a merchant man in 1715, I doubt if I would jump for joy if the ship next to us ran up the Jolly Roger.)

Edited July 1, 2009 by Graydog

[Raphael Misson]

It's sort of odd that we all want to dress and (allegedly) act like period criminals. From reading the General History and knowing bits and pieces about its history, I have the impression that it was a sensationalistic book that capitalized on the public fascination with skulduggery, death and rogue behaviors. This is human nature and we still see it in media today. Are the bad boy rappers heroes or villains? They sure get enough ink when they're carrying on. How about the errant sports stars? Misbehaving movie actors?

In a way, the General History sort of paints its subjects as colorful scoundrels. But when you stop and think about some of the things they did, these people's behaviors were really quite horrifying. Blackbeard shot one of his men just for the hell of it. L'Olonnais cut the heart out of a Spaniard and bit into it because he wouldn't tell him something. Low cut the lips off a Portuguese captain, broiled them, and forced the man to eat them because he wouldn't reveal the location of a bag of gold coins. In context, it sounds almost circus-like in a way. But think about those actions. Really think about what it would be like to witness them as a captive of these people and not know if you were next in line for the same treatment. Each one was done in the pursuit of either power or wealth.

Nor do I buy the "pirates as men resisting the yoke of oppression" line in toto. I think some of that comes from the story of Captain Misson. This story, wonderful though I find it, has all but proven to be fiction designed to excite people to support the political opinion underlying the story. During that time, political views were hotly debated in coffee houses around England. Read through some of the pamphlets printed at the time in England and you'll find evidence of this. Misson's appears to be a story the author stuck in the second volume of his popular book to make a political point along the coffee house debate line. Seen today, however, I believe it colors the whole book (especially when taken with other small elements in the other stories). Since we no longer have rafts of political pamphlets and coffee house debates to adjoin this story, we think it has something specifically to do with pirates. So it suggests that they had a primary philosophy other than pure greed. In fact, I sort of wonder how we would view pirates today if that story had never been published.

Edited July 2, 2009 by Raphael Misson

[daveypirate]

We have to remember Pirates lived in a brutal era when life was short and oppressive. Many would argue that the Navel commanders at the time were excessive with punishments and made a bad man worse. It was almost kill or be killed in piracy that caused men in an adverse situation to hold semi respect for one another. Blackbeard killing one of his men for fun was partly his sadistic nature and partly to instil fear in his other men.

Pirates only remained infamous because of their extreme nature and to remain at the top of the pecking order they needed to ensure that all the men directly under them feared enough not to try and oppose their will. Yet is their exploits that fascinate us!

[Raphael Misson]

Yes, Blackbeard's real goal was to remain in power, as I suggested. To "remind them who he was."

While life was not comfortable in the 17th, it wasn't really "brutal." A pirate actually chose a life more brutal and open to the vicissitudes of fate than most people of the time, but even that life was accompanied by long periods of frustration and boredom. Look at what happened to Kidd and his crew. In fact, the whole point of gaining a reputation as fierce and bloodythirsty was to cause merchants to strike without fighting. Pirates did not willingly engage the BRN warships - they avoided the BRN like the plague. There was no profit in fighting them and they were better manned, gunned and trained than the merchant ships. So why would they ever try for a BRN ship - even a 6th rate had over a hundred men and more than 20 cannon.

Speaking of which, I wonder how many pirates descended from the BRN and how many came from merchant vessels. For some reason, I have the impression that many of them were merchant sailors and not Royal Navy. Ed, have you seen anything on that?

Edited July 2, 2009 by Raphael Misson

[Graydog]

In a way, the General History sort of paints its subjects as colorful scoundrels.

General History has always reminded me of a Dime Novel. Its purpose was to entertain and it was not written to be historical documentation of events with the same to be said for accompanying woodcuts, but, that’s IMO.

I would postulate that the most successful pirates of the GAOP are lost to history. Why? Because they got in, made their money, and got out without anybody actually knowing who they were. Rumors of such folks abound even today in such places as Baltimore and Boston to name just two places.

[daveypirate]

It is often cited 'History is written by the winners' - Would you agree?

[Graydog]

It is often cited 'History is written by the winners' - Would you agree?

No, I do not think that is a universal truth the way it so often gets used.

Ask any modern Japanese about World War II and they will quickly explain to you about how they were victims, just like it says in their history books.

Ask anybody from a Mexican school system about the Mexican-American war and you'll get a far different discussion than in the US. Considering how Mexico lost the war it doesn't support history being written by the winners.

There is the weird phenomenom of Nazi Death Camp deniers and all their trumped up facts. They put out their own history books now.

The Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empier during WW I is well documented, but Turkish history says it didn't happen. Yet, Turkey (aka the Ottoman's) lost the war.

What is history? Newspaper clippings, first hand accounts, participants records, various media of the events, etc. Now, the further one goes back in time the fewer those items become. Sometimes when talking ancients the only data left is from the victor's side. But, the outcome of the ancient Greek Civil Wars is not comparable to data available for events within the lest few hundred years. This saying is one of the instances where a glimmer of truth turns into a blanket truth, which it simply is not. Yes, there are instances where I'd agree, but I don't support it as a general statement.

Edited July 2, 2009 by Graydog

[daveypirate]

Actually I agree with your analysis. It is such a misleading statement. I've read that "History is written by the winners" is a generalized adaptation of a quote that is only attributed to Napoleon: "History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."

[LookingGlass]

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

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

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

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

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

Kevin Duffus

author, The Last Days of Black Beard the Pirate

[Fox]

Pirates did not willingly engage the BRN warships - they avoided the BRN like the plague. There was no profit in fighting them and they were better manned, gunned and trained than the merchant ships. So why would they ever try for a BRN ship - even a 6th rate had over a hundred men and more than 20 cannon.

Speaking of which, I wonder how many pirates descended from the BRN and how many came from merchant vessels. For some reason, I have the impression that many of them were merchant sailors and not Royal Navy. Ed, have you seen anything on that?

It's a question of recruitment really. One of the prime recruiting grounds for pirates was the merchantmen they captured, many of the crews of which either volunteered or forced into piracy. As you say, pirates rarely fought the Royal Navy, and even more rarely came off best. Many pirates also came from privateers, which under some circumstances would be classed as merchantmen. However, as I've often mentioned before, there was really no such thing as a merchant or naval seaman, they were just seamen. They might shift between the navy and merchant services every voyage, so it's quite probable that many of the 'merchant' seamen who turned pirate had some experience in the Royal Navy. Additionally we know of several rank and file pirates who had deserted from the RN, and at least two pirate captains (Henry Every and John Taylor) had been officers in the navy earlier in their careers.

But maybe what happened was that Black Beard wanted only to frighten Israel Hands. He fired a pistol beneath the table loaded with only a gunpowder cartridge, and no shot. Otherwise, had Hands been shot in the knee with even just “bird shot” at point-blank range, he would not have been merely maimed—his leg most likely would have been severed from his body and he would have quickly bled to death, which records suggest did not happen.

Equally plausible is that the gun was loaded but the shot only hit Hands' knee a glancing blow. Take into account too the extremely variable quality (and indeed quantity) of powder, and the possibility of a small-bore pistol, and it's quite possible that Hands was lamed but not killed. In fact, if, as you argue, Blackbeard was capable of loading a pistol especially to scare Hands then he was equally capable of loading a pistol merely to wound him.

On the whole though I agree with your assessment of the unreliability of Blackbeard's supposed sentiments.

Secondly, when Black Beard and nine of his crew boarded Lt. Maynard’s sloop at Ocracoke, a nearly equal number of the King’s men “kill’d every one of them that enter’d without the loss of one man on their side.”

That's a bit of very selective quotation! The rest of Maynard's report suggests that it wasn't quite such a one-sided affair. '...I boarded his sloop and had 20 men kill'd and wounded. Immediately thwereupon, he enter'd me with 10 men; but 12 stout men I left there fought like heroes, sword in hand, and they kill'd every one of them that enter'd without the loss of one man on their side, but they were miserably cut and mangled. In the whole, I had eight men kill'd, and 18 wounded. We kill'd 12, beside Blackbeard... I took nine prisoners, mostly negroes, all wounded.'

Final losses. Maynard's men: 8 dead, 18 wounded (26 total). Blackbeard's men: 13 killed, 9 wounded (21 total).

[LookingGlass]

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

Edited July 3, 2009 by LookingGlass

[Fox]

Whilst noting that this is going well off topic, and that I don't necessarily disagree with your comment about paper tigers, Maynard's report of the engagement suggests that twenty of his men were killed or wounded during boarding. Also, while none of Maynard's dozen were killed when Blackbeard boarded, they were 'miserably cut and mangled'. Furthermore, the extensive list of wounds Maynard credits Blackbeard with having received suggests that he very much went down fighting.

[LookingGlass]

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

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

[Raphael Misson]

Shall I split this errant discussion into another topic?

[Fox]

Not on my account.

[LookingGlass]

Nor mine.

[daveypirate]

Ok… back onto subject. We have thus so far almost agreed that Pirates are not your decent type of folk whilst engaging in the activity of Piracy. Yet it could be viewed that prior to assuming the role of piracy these pirates held a semi decent life. For instance take the life of Captain Bartholomew Roberts (Black Bart); some call the most successful pirate of all time. Black Bart did not intend to engage in piracy until his ship was attacked by Pirates who by force made him one of their own at the age of 37. Yet after successfully looting up to 400 hundred ships near the coasts of West Africa and America he quickly assumed the office of Captain and successfully secured a great value worth of Stolen Booty. What makes more of an impression was that he did not engage in piracy until much later in his life and yet achieved so much. Would you therefore agree his earlier life as a legitimate sailor allows him to be viewed as a favourable character of decency?

I believe that Black Bart was killed during a battle with the British Navy in 1721. Is this correct?

[Fox]

That depends on whether you think that seamen were 'decent' people. Many of Roberts' contemporaries thought otherwise, but it would be wrong to generalise. In Roberts' case, as in most cases, we can't say whether or not he was a decent person before turning pirate, because we just don't know what he was like. Being a legitimate seaman and being an arse aren't mutually exclusive.

I guess the problem with trying to prove that pirates were 'decent' people is that the very acts which defined someone as a pirate also precluded them from being 'decent'.

Edited July 3, 2009 by Foxe

[Tartan Jack]

And we are BACK to the argument . . .

"Define what is meant by 'decent people' in this discussion" . . .

[Graydog]

Actually, decent is in the title of the thread. The original posted wanted people to disprove the following 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

If we were to go by the title instead of proving/disproving the above quote. Yea, there would need to be a lot more context to what was meant by the word decent.

After all, isn't a fellow that is a fan of the opera, helps widows, defends his immediate family, is a vegatarian, doesn't smoke, is willing to negotiate with his worst enemy to save his beloved nephew, sends condolences to others to share the grief of their loss, and is kind to dogs a decent fellow? I don't know let's ask Adolf Hitler who I just described.

So, one could certainly have a wide range in labeling somebody decent, especially when they cherry pick what to present, like I just did. Which get's back to the point that if "decent" is to be the discussion, then please define what is meant by decent.

Edited July 3, 2009 by Graydog

[Joe Pyrat]

The problem with this thread as with many so called histories is that we are trying to apply the current definition of what a decent person is to a time where the definition was very different. To view history in this context is to fail to understand it. At the time these people were "legitimately" able to practice piracy under cover of a letter of marque, but when performed without the LoM they were considered criminals. The high point of the GoAP following the War of Spanish Succession saw many privateers who had operated as such under the Stuart monarchy for Queen Anne remained loyal to Stuarts when George was placed on the throne and supported James as the rightful King. Even Governor Hamilton of Jamacia was trying to build a Jacobite fleet to support the Stuarts. Depending on your loyalities you might easily see such men as patriots rather then villians.

One should also consider the English as far back as the reign of Elizabeth sanctioned piracy during times of peace clearly outside the accepted rules of the time but we look at peple like Drake and Morgan as heros and in fact they were knighted by the crown for their activities.

[Capt. Bo of the WTF co.]

Just got back from my sisters place in Chicago. We went to see the Whydah exhibit at the Field Museum, and spent the whole day there. Those Pyrates, at least, were decent enough to take a slaving ship out of service, and convert it to plundering. They also allowed crew to either join up, or to go about their way in the lesser ships/prizes after they had all thay wanted. Bellamy's floatilla at least, seem to have decent qualiteis about them. Better a Pyrate than a slaver eh? But as in all walks of life, you get the good, the bad, and the ugly, no matter what you are involved in.

Bo

[Fox]

Just got back from my sisters place in Chicago. We went to see the Whydah exhibit at the Field Museum, and spent the whole day there. Those Pyrates, at least, were decent enough to take a slaving ship out of service, and convert it to plundering. They also allowed crew to either join up, or to go about their way in the lesser ships/prizes after they had all thay wanted. Bellamy's floatilla at least, seem to have decent qualiteis about them. Better a Pyrate than a slaver eh? But as in all walks of life, you get the good, the bad, and the ugly, no matter what you are involved in.

Would they have freed the slaves if the Whydah had been a creaky old tub riddled with shipworm?

[Tartan Jack]

So . . .

By modern terms of "Decent," not.

By standards of seamen of the time:

- If on the receiving end of an attack, no. That is unless you WANTED to join them, then it was a godsend (if you survived to join).

- If in running into one other times, depends greatly upon who, when, and other circumstances.