Prove that pirates were decent people too!

[Raphael Misson]

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?

Not only that, but as Joe Pyrat noted, this is an example of "trying to apply the current definition of what a decent person is to a time where the definition was very different." The slave trade was legal at that time - to take a slave ship "out of service" was just to steal it from a legal business owner. I don't know about the Whydah's particular situation, but the results of a pirate taking a loaded slaver varied. Some pirates taught the slaves to be pirates, others treated them as slaves and still others just sold them to plantations.

You could argue that teaching slaves to be pirates was a good act. Although, thinking about it a bit, this could also be primarily self-serving. While a pirate, a slave was free - if he left the crew and was captured he was once again a slave. So one would think that slaves would make for extraordinarily loyal and dependable crewmen - unlike captured sailors. They were free, but they were actually enslaved by society to the pirates. In a way.

Edited July 7, 2009 by Raphael Misson

[Capt. Bo of the WTF co.]

Judging by the diversity of the crewe, a Mosquito Indian pilot, Hendrick Quintor, a black/Dutchman, and a nine year old who pleaded to go along, i would feel comfortable saying "yes", they would have released the slaves upoon capture. My opinion based on social structure, and the political history of the crewe (i.e. who they sailed with, and who they chose not to prior to the last raid before the wreck).

Bo

[Raphael Misson]

Judging by the diversity of the crewe, a Mosquito Indian pilot, Hendrick Quintor, a black/Dutchman, and a nine year old who pleaded to go along, i would feel comfortable saying "yes", they would have released the slaves upoon capture. My opinion based on social structure, and the political history of the crewe (i.e. who they sailed with, and who they chose not to prior to the last raid before the wreck).

Mosquito Indians were not slaves, they were guides that were sort of hired or shanghai'd to guide ships in unfamiliar waters. Several privateering accounts talk about using Mosquito Indians for such. (Although, based on what I read, they seem to have been treated as second-class citizens by the English sailors.)

As I said before, different ships treated slaves differently. It may also have been somewhat context-dependent. If there were a few slaves, they could probably be absorbed into the crew. If there was a shipload of them, there was the very real possibility of them overtaking the ship - pirate or no. Thus it may be in the pirates best interests to sell them. (I keep thinking of an account where the pirates burned the slave ship with the slaves still in it, but I can't remember where I saw that or if it was even period. Anyone know what I'm talking about?)

[Fox]

But we can probably agree that on the Whydah at least the pirates were able to suppress whatever inherent racism they may or may not have felt, when it was expedient for them to do so.

[Calico Jack]

Hmmm...

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 hanged

Well, in short, pirates = criminals willing to take the possessions of others by threat of force. One's opinion of the "decency" of such behaviour may vary, I suppose. Robbers at sea, yes, but robbers none-the-less. Some 'pressed to the service [like Philip Ashton] true, but still robbers.

That said, most groups of robbers rather than solitary robbers [including pirates] had rules. Some pirates actually cared what flag you sailed under [NOTE: not meaning Privateers here, that's a different kettle of fish, but some pirates hated some flags more than others]. Water not costing pirates more than most other sailors, bathing and shaving was likely done once a week as seemed the fashion in most navies and merchant marines of the time. As for getting hanged, the retirement plan sucked.

Did that help?

Edited July 10, 2009 by Calico Jack

[Graydog]

pirate=honorless idiots who decided to say screw the... soap

Pirates said screw the Soap? I have not found anything to suggest that pirates in the GAOP had more or less dislike of soap than anybody else during the time period. My suspicion is that pirates were filthy but, no filthier than any other early 1700’s sailor one would find.

[MadL]

What about the story that Sam Bellamy was after his fortune so as t' prove t' he's love's father that he was worthy of her...the story even says that he may have even steered int' the path of the storm that sunk him because he was changing course t' go see her, or that be what some stories say. It would seem t' me that a man who goes t' sea t' make a fortune for t' win a woman's heart and hand would be rather decent, in me own peeper's way o' things any how.

Or ye can toss this one at yer opponent:

“Pirates who were hired by many countries, especially in times of war, were businessmen and capitalists of every background searching for a profit in the Atlantic Ocean. Governments armed pirates' ships and directed the pirates to attack ships of other warring countries. America even hired its own pirates to disrupt British trade ships during the War of Independence.â€

~ Frank Lambert

[Fox]

What about the story that Sam Bellamy was after his fortune so as t' prove t' he's love's father that he was worthy of her...the story even says that he may have even steered int' the path of the storm that sunk him because he was changing course t' go see her, or that be what some stories say. It would seem t' me that a man who goes t' sea t' make a fortune for t' win a woman's heart and hand would be rather decent, in me own peeper's way o' things any how.

I wonder how the other 140 odd men aboard felt about it

More to the point perhaps, if a guy broke into your house, beat you into submission, threatened to rape your wife, drank all the beer out of the fridge, took whatever of your possessions he wanted, then set fire to the rest... how would you feel if he told you he did it to raise the cash for an engagement ring?

Or ye can toss this one at yer opponent:

“Pirates who were hired by many countries, especially in times of war, were businessmen and capitalists of every background searching for a profit in the Atlantic Ocean. Governments armed pirates' ships and directed the pirates to attack ships of other warring countries. America even hired its own pirates to disrupt British trade ships during the War of Independence.â€

~ Frank Lambert

They'd be privateers then - and there's nothing decent about disrupting British trade

Edited July 11, 2009 by Foxe

[Capt. Bo of the WTF co.]

Judging by the diversity of the crewe, a Mosquito Indian pilot, Hendrick Quintor, a black/Dutchman, and a nine year old who pleaded to go along, i would feel comfortable saying "yes", they would have released the slaves upoon capture. My opinion based on social structure, and the political history of the crewe (i.e. who they sailed with, and who they chose not to prior to the last raid before the wreck).

Mosquito Indians were not slaves, they were guides that were sort of hired or shanghai'd to guide ships in unfamiliar waters. Several privateering accounts talk about using Mosquito Indians for such. (Although, based on what I read, they seem to have been treated as second-class citizens by the English sailors.)

As I said before, different ships treated slaves differently. It may also have been somewhat context-dependent. If there were a few slaves, they could probably be absorbed into the crew. If there was a shipload of them, there was the very real possibility of them overtaking the ship - pirate or no. Thus it may be in the pirates best interests to sell them. (I keep thinking of an account where the pirates burned the slave ship with the slaves still in it, but I can't remember where I saw that or if it was even period. Anyone know what I'm talking about?)

Mission, John Julian, bellamy's pilot, was not hanged nor tried with the others, but sold into slavery. I think you may need to check into south american and carribean native slavery. Many natives from the gulf region were indeed slaves, including the Miskitoes. The first thing Columbus did was to capture slaves from the first natives he encountered. This practice was as well entrenched in the region as the african slave trade.

Bo

[CaptainSatan]

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

American school children are taught that the War Between The States was fought to free the slaves (lol).

.

Edited July 13, 2009 by CaptainSatan

[Calico Jack]

Pirates who were hired by many countries, especially in times of war, were businessmen and capitalists of every background searching for a profit in the Atlantic Ocean. Governments armed pirates' ships and directed the pirates to attack ships of other warring countries. America even hired its own pirates to disrupt British trade ships during the War of Independence

Except that Private Men of War [privateers] and Pirates were not the same thing. Sure, Johnson may try to baldly state that most pirates were privateers who turned to the "only career they knew" after the war was over, but that seem to be very much the exception rather than the rule. That's why "privateer gone bad" stories are so notable. It's the sort of thing the Admiralty Courts recorded, and there really were surprisingly few, even before and after the GAoP.

Privateersmen were contracted "merchant raiders," rather than pirates given some orders, with very rare exceptions. Morgan broke his Letter of Marque and turned pirate, and Easton was declared a pirate in 1603, but even the very famous Kidd it turns out held to the Letter, and never turned pirate at all [he was politically inconvenient, and somewhat incompetent, rather than a criminal, and was hanged for it].

Privateering is a different kettle of fish.

Privateering was legal, and considered an act of warfare. Piracy was illegal, and considered an act of theft. The decency of each will vary, for a given value of decency.

Edited July 14, 2009 by Calico Jack

[MadL]

Privateering was legal, and considered an act of warfare. Piracy was illegal, and considered an act of theft. The decency of each will vary, for a given value of decency.

Ah, but here be where ye enter very murky waters mate, ye speak as if everyone be on Yer side o' coin...

Depending upon where one stands a 'privateer' is every much a 'pirate' as the next and every much 'illegal' and will be shot and/or hung upon site.

Now of course if everyone was indeed on 'your' side and hailed from 'your' country then what ye say would hold water.

Example: what about those ships (can't think of a particular off hand but ye surly can from yer above statements) that went to war for the Queen of England, but upon their return found they were labeled a "pirate" for they did not get the word to stop fighting in time - 'Privateer' or 'Pirate'? (some even say 'hero' but none the less they were taken or shot upon as 'pirate')

And what about Blackbeard during the period that he left he's mates and took a bride (forgive me I do not run and look up all the location names, but I am sure ye know of what I speak - or can look it up yer self) - he made an accord with th' local governor that he would Only take foreign ship and legal salvage and would split the takings with the governor - would this not at that time make him a "privateer"? But of course as history tells the story he did not stick t' he's accord and indeed committed acts of 'piracy' behind th' governor's back; some say with full knowledge of the governor who chose t' stay ignorant as long as he was getting a share - so, during this period what Blackbeard a 'privateer' or 'pirate' or simply a common thief?

Or even more so t' stand on me comment lets take a clear cut example: Sir Henry Drake

He sailed with letter o' marque from th' Queen - 'privateer' (Private Men of War)? or 'pirate'?

How about ye go ask a Spaniard...

Aye, I do realize this be 'Captain Twill' and we stick t' "facts and only facts" here, and aye, I do realize that most members here be American with a few Englishmen toss'd in - But facts be facts; one man's privateer is in FACT another man's pirate and one man's pirate is in FACT another man's hero.

Being an American who's parents on either side hail from neither England, Britain, France, nor Spain, I tend t' look at things from all sides before casting judgment. But th' judgment I cast be that of mine and mine alone.

Further; having grown up in a town full of 'gangs' but having been 'anti-gang' all me life until one day a particular high school decided that me and my close friends (just good buds who hung out peacefully together and laughed as we watched th' Crypts, Bloods, Villa Street Boys, such walk by and mocked what kind of kids they must be t' join such folly) but the school had chosen that WE too where a "gang", the school even created a name for us, they called us "The Family" (???now where the 'ell did they get THAT??? - recall Charles Manson....?!? this was all set back in the mid-70s) - from that day fourth life had changed for we twelve high schoolers; gangs wanted t' challenge us, certain teachers had it in fer us...the story goes on, til finally we where all sent to separate schools "for the safety of others" the high school had told our parents (??!!?) - so, where we a 'gang' simply because the school said we where? or where we simply twelve high school kids (some of us even on the football team, and ALL with good grades!) or where we merely victims o' others perception and forced t' fight fer survival in a town gone unjust.

Sorry, but I find it hard t' cast judgment until I me own self has walked in th' other man's shoes, and often I wonder how much of the 'history book' had cast judgment the way my old high school had (of course not speaking of such as Blackbeard who was a self-proclaimed "pirate"...except for a short period)

So: 'Privateering' = legal but 'Pirate' = illegal

Sorry, I find both a blurred and, depending on which side ye stand, act of "Piracy"

They'd be privateers then - and there's nothing decent about disrupting British trade

Again, depends upon th' side o' th' pond ye stand upon...after all, this be "Captain Twill" as ye yer self once pointed out - History be History ;p

Edited August 3, 2009 by MadL

[Raphael Misson]

While it's true that one man's privateer is another man's pirate, you can't deny that privateers would have had a different perspective on their role and this would most likely have impacted any subsequent "decent" behavior. Pirates dispensed with the rules of society as almost any court account shows (pleading with people not to follow their unfortunate path and/or claiming kinship with the devil and so forth). Privateers had not dispensed with those rules.

Read some of the privateer accounts and compare them with what we have of the pirates. I recall a difference in attitude and behavior. (Of course, many pirate account are secondhand (Johnson) which probably colors the pirate narrative in those cases.) Still, I don't think that you can say that the behavior of a privateer would necessarily be the same as a pirate just because the Spaniards thought they were all pirates. One group has willingly forsaken their society and the other has not - which is germane to the original point of this post.

(Whether legitimate privateers are treated as pirates when they got back is irrelevant to their behavior as long as they believe they are privateers. Blackbeard was a rogue through and through as his ultimate behavior indicates, so his pretending to be a privateer can't carry much weight in the "pirates are the same as privateers" discussion. )

Edited August 3, 2009 by Raphael Misson

[Calico Jack]

But facts be facts; one man's privateer is in FACT another man's pirate and one man's pirate is in FACT another man's hero

In truth, I cannot say that I agree. Yes, I can list a number of folks who crossed the line. Easton, Teach, Morgan. Each one had at one point or other a license to act as a private man of war, a privateer, but each then chose to turn instead to piracy, abandoning any protection from that letter. They stopped being privateers, started being pirates, and lost the protection of their crown. There are a couple of similar cases amongst the French, and only one I can think of [whose name I cannot recall] amongst the Spaniards, none I am familiar with amongst the Dutch, none with the Mi'kmaq, and so on.

Anyhow, back to the topic at hand. Pirates are robbers. Are robbers decent? Are robbers honourless idiots? That will still depend upon who is being asked, and when.

[Fox]

I would dispute the assumption that "one man's privateer is another man's pirate".

The key here is having a valid commission. To take the example of Sir Francis Drake: He claimed, on his circumnavigation, to have a commission from the Queen, but nobody ever saw it, and since peace existed between England and Spain at the time such a commission would not have been valid in any case. Yes, the Spanish thought Drake was a pirate, and his own crew agreed with them. True, in this country we tend to get wrapped up in 'Drake the hero', but modern perception doesn't alter historical fact. If Drake had been captured (like John Oxenham) he would have been treated as a pirate by the Spanish, but even the Queen acknowledged the dubious nature of his successes and didn't knight him herself because she couldn't be seen to condone his actions.

By the unwritten international rules of war captured privateers were treated as prisoners of war - provided they were able to show they had a valid commission.

This led to some interesting complications. Two examples: during the English Civil War (1642-1660) the right to issue letters of marque rested in the hands of the Lord High Admiral, at the time the Earl of Warwick, who sided with Parliament. Charles I remained King, even in the eyes of his enemies, and commissions were granted in the name of the King, but he did not himself have the right to grant letters of marque. Thus, the privateers who sailed with (techincally invalid) commissions from Charles were deemed pirates by the Parliamentarians.

Similarly, when James II was ousted from the throne by William of Orange (1688) he lost the right, in English eyes, to grant letters of marque. However, since he still regarded himself as the rightful king and was acknowledged as such by the rulers of several other nations, he issued letters of marque to a number of his supporters (known as Jacobites). A lengthy legal debate ensued in the Admiralty Court about whether captured Jacobite privateers should be treated as prisoners of war or pirates, and resulted in the decision that since James' commissions were invalid they must be pirates.

However, in both cases, captured seamen were on the whole treated as prisoners of war regardless of the legal position, and very few were executed.

Frequently privateers of all nations overstepped the bounds of their commissions and degenerated into outright piracy. The Spanish guarda costas of the GAoP era were notorious for it and, when captured, were treated as pirates. However, the complaints sent by British to Spanish colonial authorities did not complain about the existence of the guarda costas, only the fact that they exceeded their commissions.

[Raphael Misson]

Well then there's no need to even be concerned with the behavioral analysis. The original point is moot.