Jacobite Politics

[Daniel]

This is an excellent roundup by Tartan Jack. The point about Jacobite leaders, including Scottish ones, projecting grand and unrealistic personal expectations onto the Stuart heirs is a good one I hadn't considered.

Remember, it wasn't but a hundred years since they were merged and Scotland effectively (and illegally, in the minds of Scottish Nationalists) ceased to be a separate kingdom and it's parliament closed until the 1990s. Independence wasn't some distant memory or some pipe-dream.

To emphasize the truth of this: the Acts of Union that dissolved the Scottish Parlliament and formally fused Scotland to England were 1707! So from the perspective of, say, one of the Scots in Stede Bonnet's crew in 1718, it was only 11 years ago.

Another thing that intensified Scottish bitterness against the "usurpers" was the Darien project, where Scotland had tried around 1700 to found a colony on the isthmus of Panama. The collapse of Darien and the death of most of the colonists ate up more than half of Scotland's capital and was large part of what had made the Act of Union necessary. The Scots blamed King William for Darien's failure, which wasn't fair; Darien was so horribly mismanaged from the start that no amount of royal support would have saved it. But William did order the other Caribbean colonies to withhold support from the Scottish colonists, and thus greatly magnified the suffering of the survivors. You can gauge the Scots' bitterness by an episode in Johnson where some English sailors were lynched by Scots for piracy, the crowd shouting, "Now we'll Darien 'em!"

If I were writing a novel with a Scottish character or constructing a Scottish persona, I would certainly include the Darien experience in it.

[Fox]

Another thing that intensified Scottish bitterness against the "usurpers" was the Darien project, where Scotland had tried around 1700 to found a colony on the isthmus of Panama. The collapse of Darien and the death of most of the colonists ate up more than half of Scotland's capital and was large part of what had made the Act of Union necessary. The Scots blamed King William for Darien's failure, which wasn't fair; Darien was so horribly mismanaged from the start that no amount of royal support would have saved it. But William did order the other Caribbean colonies to withhold support from the Scottish colonists, and thus greatly magnified the suffering of the survivors. You can gauge the Scots' bitterness by an episode in Johnson where some English sailors were lynched by Scots for piracy, the crowd shouting, "Now we'll Darien 'em!"

Ah, Thomas Green, now that's a tale that deserves a good book to be written about it.

[Liam McMac]

Good stuff guys.. good stuff. My persona is based in the 1740's so, alot of this would have taken place in the time of his father. I'm sure many of the scots involved in the 45 rebellion had not really experienced all of this first hand but had heard of the bitterness and heard the stories which possibly gave them the romanticized urge to fight that ultimately hopeless war. Maybe it was like a last charge to prove something to themselves. Who really knows eh?

Why in the world would Scots move to Panama?? Thats like Penguins living in the Mojave desert.

California is too much for my Irish blood... I wouldn't last one season in Panama

Edited March 26, 2010 by Liam McMac

[Daniel]

Why in the world would Scots move to Panama?? Thats like Penguins living in the Mojave desert.

The theory was that ships carrying exotic Eastern goods (Chinese teas and silks, spices from the Indies, that kind of stuff) would start docking in Panama instead of going around Capes Horn or Good Hope, and the Scots would carry them across the isthmus to ships waiting on the other side, with the Scottish investors growing immensely rich on tolls, warehouse fees, and things like that. The guy who came up with this brilliant idea, William Paterson, had never seen Panama and thought it had great farmland that would sustain the colonists until they became international shipping tycoons. He also figured that the Spanish (whose huge port city of Panama was right next door) wouldn't raise a ruckus about it. I kid you not.

This was all happening during the run-up to the War of the Spanish Succession, and King William was eagerly buttering up King Charles II of Spain in the desperate hope that the idiot would leave his throne to a Habsburg instead of to Louis XIV's grandson. Unlike Paterson, William knew perfectly well that a Scottish colony threatening the city of Panama would provoke the Spanish big-time, so it's not surprising that he refused to do anything whatsoever to help the Scots.

As for it being like penguins living in the Mojave Desert, that's about right, and the Scots' life expectancy was about as good as a Mojave penguin's. Horrible, horrible losses to every kind of tropical disease you can imagine, and the leaders had made virtually no provision for medical care. About three quarters of them died.

[Fox]

... The guy who came up with this brilliant idea, William Paterson, had never seen Panama and thought it had great farmland that would sustain the colonists until they became international shipping tycoons...

One of the advisors to the Darien Scheme, who was unable actually to go on the expedition due to undisclosed circumstances, was the buccaneer Lionel Wafer. He had been to Panama and most certainly knew what the land was like - he even wrote a book about it. What he told the Darien board that inspired them to go there I have no idea!

Unlike Paterson, William knew perfectly well that a Scottish colony threatening the city of Panama would provoke the Spanish big-time, so it's not surprising that he refused to do anything whatsoever to help the Scots.

One of the reasons William may have forbidden the colonies to give aid to the Darien settlers was that in their Royal charter they were expressly forbidden to settle any lands claimed or occupied by any other 'Christian Prince'. The location of the Darien colony was therefore in direct breach of their charter.

Incidentally, by the time instructions reached the English colonies about issuing a proclamation of non-assistance, the Darien colony had all but failed already through the tragic mismanagement of Paterson and others. News of the proclamations may have been the final straw for some of the settlers, but most were already ready to leave. Governor Beeston of Jamaica, in the same letter in which he acnkowledged the receipt of instructions lamented that he was not able to send ships to the colony to evacuate the settlers.

[Tartan Jack]

This is an excellent roundup by Tartan Jack. The point about Jacobite leaders, including Scottish ones, projecting grand and unrealistic personal expectations onto the Stuart heirs is a good one I hadn't considered.

Remember, it wasn't but a hundred years since they were merged and Scotland effectively (and illegally, in the minds of Scottish Nationalists) ceased to be a separate kingdom and it's parliament closed until the 1990s. Independence wasn't some distant memory or some pipe-dream.

To emphasize the truth of this: the Acts of Union that dissolved the Scottish Parlliament and formally fused Scotland to England were 1707! So from the perspective of, say, one of the Scots in Stede Bonnet's crew in 1718, it was only 11 years ago.

Another thing that intensified Scottish bitterness against the "usurpers" was the Darien project, where Scotland had tried around 1700 to found a colony on the isthmus of Panama. The collapse of Darien and the death of most of the colonists ate up more than half of Scotland's capital and was large part of what had made the Act of Union necessary. The Scots blamed King William for Darien's failure, which wasn't fair; Darien was so horribly mismanaged from the start that no amount of royal support would have saved it. But William did order the other Caribbean colonies to withhold support from the Scottish colonists, and thus greatly magnified the suffering of the survivors. You can gauge the Scots' bitterness by an episode in Johnson where some English sailors were lynched by Scots for piracy, the crowd shouting, "Now we'll Darien 'em!"

If I were writing a novel with a Scottish character or constructing a Scottish persona, I would certainly include the Darien experience in it.

I was thinking of the merging of the crowns under James. In my tiredness I forgot that the political merger wasn't until 1707. In between was a mess for Scotland . . .

Up until the early 1600s, Scotland was a completely separate entity from England. After 1707, they were officially merged completely into the United Kingdom, after about a hundred years of a weird hybrid existence.

Thanks for the correction!

[MadMike]

... just don't bring up anything regarding...

PAPISTS!

Yours, &c

Mike

[Tartan Jack]

Jacobite politics were a weird splattering of issues, including but also beyond religious. Of course, religion was a MAJOR element . . .

There were Catholics, Presbyterians, and various other Christian sects that split between the Jacobite/Hanoverian sides.

Also, there were personal ties and hatreds that played into sides oft even more than religion.

Just look at the example of Robert "Rob Roy" MacGregor . . .

He was known as a Jacobite before the '15.

There was an ongoing feud between Rob and Graham of Montrose, one of the primary Jacobite leaders.

Plus, Robert was tied by blood to the Campbells, his mother was part of the Campbells of Glenlyon. For most of his life, Rob Roy signed his own name as "Robert Campbell." At some point (the precise beginning of which is debated), Rob came under the care and protection of Campbell of Argyle, a duke one of the most powerful figures in Scotland. Argyle was a leader in the Hanoverian-Government army.

Religiously, Macgregor-Campbell was a Catholic, while Argyle was an outspoken Presbyterian- and from a line that were Covenanters too-> "hardline," Calvinistic Presbyterians. There is no doubt on those 2. I'm not sure of Montrose's personal convictions, as he was called a Presbyterian and a Papist at different times.

Now, during the rebellion itself, Robert managed to be off-the-field when Montrose faught. In the big Jacobite loss at Sheriffmuir (Argyle won, while Montrose and John Erskine of Mar lost), Robert was leading an excursion to Doune Castle. At the time, some leading Jacobites believed Rob to be working as an agent for Argyle (others disagreed).

After the war, Argyle and Rob Roy both claimed that Rob had been an spy on behalf of the Government, as their argument to get Rob a royal pardon.

Historians today continue the argument as to which side of the '15 MacGregor was actually on, despite fielding with the Jacobites.

Now, that was a bit of history from the pages of Scottish history, in period. But, it is relevant in reflecting in brief the complexities of the Jacobite issue and when it came time to act which side one would take.

I'd make my persona as one caught in the middle, kindred to both sides and neither.

Edited April 3, 2010 by Tartan Jack

[Fox]

Yar, the Rob Roy problem is a good illustration of one of the points raised on p.1 - what actually constitues a Jacobite. Taking arms in open rebellion did not necessarily constitute a Jacobite, but failure to take arms didn't mean that someone wasn't a 'real' Jacobite either. As Monod wrote: 'It need not be assumed that all Jacobites maintained an unflagging, lifelong devotion to the Stuart family, or that they all would have laid down their lives, their estates or their money for the cause'. (Monod, Jacobitism and the English People, p.4)

[Daniel]

About Sheriffmuir; it effectively ended the Fifteen rebellion, so in that sense it was indeed a big Jacobite loss. But I'd like to point out that from a tactical standpoint it was indecisive. Each side routed the other side's left wing, each side sustained comparable losses, and each army was well capable of continuing the contest on the next day. What really decided the battle was the Earl of Mar's decision to retreat the next day. Mar's clans had already lost confidence in him from all his dilly-dallying during the spring and summer, and when he slunk away without continuing the fight, they pretty well gave up on him and went back to their glens. And when James landed, he didn't inspire any more confidence than Mar did.

Some historian once said that Mar probably wouldn't have accomplished anything even if Argyll had never opposed him. I'm inclined to agree.

The heroine of my first novel, Maureen MacLinden, lost both her sons in the left wing of Mar's army on the banks of the Allan Water. She still wears a blue bonnet with a white cockade, but pretty well gave up on the Jacobites from that day.

[Tartan Jack]

I agree on Sheriffmuir. It was only a "win" by who was still around after inconclusive fighting.

Side note: the army set-up in the line was standard "British" tactics of the time. It works fine when facing an army that evenly spreads its forces. The idea is to "hold the line" on your left and to attack on the right.

But, when facing armies both use this tactic, both lefts get routed and the battle becomes a spiral. Victory or loss depends on if one side or the other has stronger reinforcements/back line or is one side retreats during the assault when the left fails. This is most clearly born out in the Battle of Camden (in South Carolina) from 1780. When the RedCoat right beat the weaker Patriot left, the Patriot commander fled the field w/ his command staff and rear troops. So, the RedCoat right came around and surrounded the Patriot right (which had been lead by DeKalb) in a total Patriot loss.

The same problem happened in the Jacobite Rebellions as happened in the American War/Revolution. Both sides were trained in British Military tactics, so when they faced each other they both used the same tactics and a similar flow of battle. The victory or loss depended on battlefield specific occurrences and sheer army strength. That changed in the latter part of the war, as the American "Patriots" started using "Indian" tactics (thinking of Morgan in particular) and a few smart commanders turned the standard tactics into manipulation of the battlefield (see Cowpens and Guilford Courthouse).

Now . . .

Back to 17-teens (and there abouts) discussions . . .

[Swashbuckler 1700]

I have not much to offer about this subject, but I saw that George Roberts' book was mentioned but not discussed in this context really much. While One of Lows officers indeed was clearly a Jacobite sympathizer it seems that the most of the gang weren't. Though it would be hardy surprising as Foxe noted in his study Low's gang had no clear signs of Jacobitism.

The man who almost killed Roberts, when Roberts said that George was the king of England, was John Russel. What is interesting though is that at least accordingly to Roberts the man was not English, Scottish or Irish at all

"...The Captain of the Scooner, whose Name was John Lopez, a Portuguese (as I was told afterwards; but then went by the Name of John Russel, pretending tho' falsely that he was born in the Northern Parts of England"

I wonder why he was pretending to be a Englishman. Anyway, perhaps his Jacobite talks about the pretender were just a part of is false identity.After all Northern England was a area where Jacobitism was widespread (right?) and it would be convincing that an outlaw from Northern England would be a Jacobite sympathizer. Also, as he probably was a catholic (being a Portuguese) Jacobite ideals fits with it too. but why he would pretend to be from England. Perhaps he wanted to play a genuine Englishman because English court could perhaps be more merciful to an Englishman than to a Portuguese. Perhaps he had some English blood in his family too...

Anyway what Roberts wrote after the incident with Russel (if indeed accurate) seems to fit better with the idea that pirates waged "war against the world". However, it is just one pirate gunner's opinion and perhaps Roberts made it up to make his book more interesting.

"Whether it was with the Fall, or his Finger on the Trigger, I cannot tell, but the Pistol went off without doing any Damage: At which the Master and all present, blamed Russel for being so rash and hasty and the Gunner said I was not to blame; for that I drank the Health as it was first propos'd and there being no Names mention'd and King George being possess'd of the Crown, and establish'd by Authority of Parliament, he did not see but Title was the best. But what have we to do, continued he, with the Rights of Kings or Princes, Our Business here, is to chuse a King for our Commonwealth; to make such Laws as we think most conducive to the Ends we design; and to keep ourselves from being overcome and subjected to the Penalty of those Laws which are made against us. He then intimated to Russel, That he must speak his Sentiments freely, and imputed his Quarrel with me, to his being hinder'd from breaking thro' their Articles: Urging, that he would appear no better than an Insringer of their Laws, if the Matter were narrowly look'd into: And it was impossible ever to have any Order or Rule..." observ'd, if their Statutes were once broken thro'.

Edited December 3, 2013 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Jib]

The book "The Republic of Pirates" does continue the concept that many pirates had strong Jacobite leanings. It's a wonderful read too!

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Yes, I will soon own the book you mentioned... The Jacobite issue was one reason why I ordered it

Anyway, I though my last post needed proper references So:

The book I referred and quoted was "The four years voyages of capt. George Roberts. Written by himself" printed in 1726 (can be found online on Google Books)

Quoted parts are in pages 29 and 73-74

Also, there is one more study about Jacobite pirates besides Foxe's article and Woodard's book:

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/histoire_sociale_social_history/v044/44.1.bialuschewski.html

What is interesting is that (while the whole text cannot be read we can see the summary) is that the author, Arne Bialuschewski, had slightly different results than Foxe

The dramatic upsurge of Anglo-American piracy in the Caribbean after 1715 coincided with a major Jacobite uprising in the British Isles. In the following years, pirates used Jacobite symbols and rhetoric as a sign of defiance of royal authority in the colonies and on the high seas. In 1719, several marauding gangs even cloaked their crimes as legitimate resistance to King George I and his regime. However, all references to the Jacobite cause were superficial and did not constitute active support for the cause of the exiled Stuarts.

[Fox]

Naturally I disagree with Bialuschewski's conclusions, and it is perhaps a little unfair of me to respond without you being able to read the whole article... but I'm going to anyway.

Bialuschewski argues persuasively that the primary motive for most pirates was greed, not politics. I completely agree with that assessment. Bialuschewski argues that because profit was more important to pirates than politics, their displays of political sympathy must therefore have been a sham, a facade. His case partly rests on the fact that at no point did pirates actually contribute any material aid to the Jacobite cause.

However, I would argue that greed and the pursuit of personal wealth in no way prohibit or restrict political activism. Just because a man is a bank robber, does that also mean he can't be an ardent Republican (or Conservative, or communist, or whatever)? No, it does not.

Other groups, whose Jacobitism has not been questioned, also failed to provide any material assistance to the Jacobite cause, so piratical Jacobitism can't be dismissed on that count. In fact, though, the New Providence pirates offered to raise a Jacobite squadron, and entered into detailed discussion with Jacobite admiral George Camocke, until the Jacobite court caused the plan to be dropped following the departure of Woodes Rogers to the Bahamas.

Can't remember if this has been linked here before, but those interested in my article on the subject can read it here: http://www.academia.edu/772352/Jacobitism_and_the_Golden_Age_of_Piracy_1715-1725

[GregF]

For what it's worth, as I note in my forthcoming book about Edward Low's pirate crew, some scholars of Daniel Defoe have suggested The Four Years Voyages of Capt. George Roberts was in fact written by Defoe (not a George Roberts, who may or may not have existed). Defoe seems to have obtained many of the details about Low's crew from contemporary newspaper accounts and from a journal kept by Philip Ashton, one of the captives aboard Low's ship. This suggests the conversations attributed to Low and others in The Four Years Voyages may be fictional.

Greg

http://gregflemming.com

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Other groups, whose Jacobitism has not been questioned, also failed to provide any material assistance to the Jacobite cause, so piratical Jacobitism can't be dismissed on that count. In fact, though, the New Providence pirates offered to raise a Jacobite squadron, and entered into detailed discussion with Jacobite admiral George Camocke, until the Jacobite court caused the plan to be dropped following the departure of Woodes Rogers to the Bahamas.

I don't have enough expertise or any reason to argue.

However, one could say that there was "enemy's enemy is my friend" mentality in that case and that the pirates were desperate to have support after they lost their leaders (Jennings and Hornigold (btw I wonder if these two pirates had true Jacobite leanings as they surrendered and served George's regime in the end. Though hadn't Jennings business with governor Hamilton....?)). It could be said that it was a last resort to the pirates.

And well the proposition about capturing Bermuda to harass English shipping could be seen as pirates' selfish attempt to have a new base of operation after New Providence, but now with Jacobite support (from the admiral Camocke)

However, that might be futile. For what it is worth I think: There is no doubt that some if not many pirates like Vane had strong Jacobite leanings. But some pirates like Bart Roberts (whose ships' names were rather "softly" Jacobitical compared to Davis' or Cocklyn's ship's names) might have been more persons who used Jacobite symbols and rhetoric as a sign of defiance...

Who knows... But is there signs e.g of William Fly's Jacobitisms? That pirate, who was not actually part of the Flying Gang, declared, before his execution, that he thought that the main cause of piracy was the malignancy of ships' masters. Also, do we have any evidence of 1690s Red Sea Roundsmen having Jacobite leanings of any kind (it would be early but why not... eh?) The studies about the subject are all focused on The Flying Gang.

For what it's worth, as I note in my forthcoming book about Edward Low's pirate crew, some scholars of Daniel Defoe have suggested The Four Years Voyages of Capt. George Roberts was in fact written by Defoe (not a George Roberts, who may or may not have existed). Defoe seems to have obtained many of the details about Low's crew from contemporary newspaper accounts and from a journal kept by Philip Ashton, one of the captives aboard Low's ship. This suggests the conversations attributed to Low and others in The Four Years Voyages may be fictional.

Greg

http://gregflemming.com

Indeed

But it may also be largely factual like Foxe said here "You've probably figured out that there's a general fashion (or has been) for attributing to Defoe any early 18thC work of uncertain authorship. The number of works attributed to Defoe on shaky grounds (and in some cases, like Drury's Madagascar, proven beyond doubt not to have been Defoe's work) makes me take Defoe attributions with a grain of salt.

Roberts' account shows a number of parallels with other historical sources, suggesting that if it is a work of fiction it's a very well researched one. There is little evidence in support of the otherwise unknown Roberts being the author, but no less evidence than there is for Defoe."

Speaking about Defoe I just recently read some parts of a book (I really don't remember the name of it) that showed, with quantitative methods, that one other early 18th century book named The memoirs of an English officer is not probably written by Defoe while it has been thought. Just an example what has been thought about Defoe...

Edited December 5, 2013 by Swashbuckler 1700

[GregF]

You and Foxe are correct. Some scholars have spent their entire careers arguing about what Defoe did or did not write. I fully agree with Foxe that many of the events in Four Years Voyage are very well researched and, as I have noted in my book, "Whether or not Defoe wrote or contributed to Four Years Voyages, there is no question that Ashton’s Memorial was being read in London by 1726 and its impact was felt there, as well as in Boston. Whoever wrote Four Years Voyages almost certainly took new details about Low’s crew of pirates, revealed in Ashton’s Memorial, and incorporated them into the storyline of the new book."

My only point in the post above is that some of the dialogue attributed to Roberts or to Low or Russel might well be fictional.

http://gregflemming.com

[Fox]

There were certainly pirates who weren't Jacobites (Jennings possibly among them, his association with Hamilton notwithstanding), and there were surely some pirates whose Jacobitism was lukewarm. As I note in the article, Jacobitism was also the only real opposition discourse in the early 18th century, so yes, also an element of "my enemy's enemy" (which does not necessarily make the Jacobite sentiment any less forceful). Royal Rover might seem "softly" Jacobite now, but in 1720 it was unashamedly and unambiguously Jacobite.

With regards to the conversations in Roberts' book: it is possible that the book is a fiction written by Defoe or some other author, but there is also every possibility that the book really was a faithful account written by the otherwise unknown George Roberts. If the book is a fiction then obviously the conversations were imaginary, but if the book is really the work of a genuine Roberts then the conversations were probably paraphrased but essentially accurate in their sentiments. Frankly, nobody has really done enough research on George Roberts to confirm or dismiss him as the author, and there's no real evidence that somebody else wrote it. Until that research is done satisfactorily all we can do is speculate. For myself, I prefer to take the book at face-value while acknowledging the possibility that it's a fake, until such time as it can be proven or disproven. Others are free to adopt a different stance.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Well, "Royal Rover" is a Jacobite name but didn't Bart Roberts inherit the ship called "Royal Rover" from Davis, who had (or his crew had) clearly rather clear Jacobite leanings? "Ornomde" for example was clearly a Jacobite name... Perhaps "Saint James" was Jacobite name too (but as far as I know (which doesnst' mean much in this case) it could be just christian(.

Robert's later ships had more softly Jacobite suggestive names (the ships named "Royal fortune"). However, some of his ships e.g "Good Fortune" or "Ranger" doesn't sound very Jacobite to me (I , certainly, may have mistaken though). However, I am not saying that Bart Robert's had no Jacobite leanings, but it is possible that Davis and some of their crew were more Jacobite than Roberts himself (yes he used term "turnip man” of George, but it could be just defiance).

Anyway, My humble opinion is that Jacobitism was seen in pirate groups mainly just because it was popular among English people in general. Pirates as outlaws could show their Jacobitism more directly (as they had nothing to fear as they were criminals already). Instead of e.g subtle white white roses they named they ships after "The pretender" or Jacobite politicians .

Edited December 8, 2013 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Fox]

Anyway, My humble opinion is that Jacobitism was seen in pirate groups mainly just because it was popular among English people in general.

That is probably entirely true, and I make that point (in more detail) in the article. The fluctuations in the level of piratical Jacobitism are more or less concurrent with the fluctuations of popular Jacobitism amongst the English people in general.

What this fact means is far more important than the fact itself. It shows beyond reasonable doubt that pirates were very much in touch with popular politics - they had not turned their backs on society as many authors would have us believe, nor did they consider themselves state-less. They considered themselves a part of contemporary society.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Agreed.

But, there are signs of rather radical defiance too. I am not debating or I am but I am not disagreeing.

Earlier 1690s pirate named Dirk Shivers, who sailed with e.g Robert Culliford, has said to have threatened a governor in India (feel free to correct as this is info found on many pirate websites and thus secondary sources and might be inaccurate)

"We acknowledge no country, having sold our own, and as we are sure to be hanged if taken, we shall have no scruple in murdering and destroying if our demands are not granted in full"

Also, while this was written in General History of Pirates in his book Republic of Pirates Colin Woodard thinks it was originally written by Captain Beer, an eye witness, himself (certainly Woodard may be wrong...) Bellamy said to Captain Beer in this rather popularly cited speech:

"D—n my Bl—d, says he, I am sorry they won't let you have your Sloop again, for I scorn to do any one a Mischief, when it is not for my Advantage; damn the Sloop, we must sink her, and she might be of Use to you. Tho’, damn ye, you are a sneaking Puppy, and so are all those who will submit to be governed by Laws which rich Men have made for their own Security, for the cowardly Whelps have not the Courage otherwise to defend what they get by their Knavery; but damn ye altogether: Damn them for a Pack of crafty Rascals, and you, who serve them, for a Parcel of hen-hearted Numskuls. They villify us, the Scoundrels do, when there is only this Difference, they rob the Poor under the Cover of Law, forsooth, and we plunder the Rich under the Protection of our own Courage; had you not better make One of us, than sneak after the A—s of these Villains for Employment? Capt. Beer told him, that his Conscience would not allow him to break thro’ the Laws of God and Man. You are a devilish Conscience Rascal, d—n ye, replied Bellamy, I am a free Prince, and I have as much Authority to make War on the whole World, as he who has a hundred Sail of Ships at Sea, and an Army of 100,000 Men in the Field; and this my Conscience tells me; but there is no arguing with such sniveling Puppies, who allow Superiors to kick them about Deck at Pleasure; and pin their Faith upon a Pimp of a Parson; a Squab, who neither practices nor believes what he puts upon the chuckle-headed Fools he preaches to."

And Again there is this that George Roberts wrote. mentioned here earlier by me.... One pirate said that

"...Our Business here, is to chuse a King for our Commonwealth; to make such Laws as we think most conducive to the Ends we design; and to keep ourselves from being overcome and subjected to the Penalty of those Laws which are made against us."

It is also clear that in many cases the pirates' team spirit was great and and that they for the most part cared only for their own company. Blackbeard's revenge on Boston ships for Bellamy's hanged men was just a one case example of that.

Also it seems that pirates for the most part though practically. Stede Bonnet was Eager to get a privateer commission from the Danish of St. Thomas but it doesn't mean he was a Danish patriot.

Certainly pirates' Jacobite leanings were rather serious at least in some cases and more than just mere practicality or facade. However, didn't admiral Camocke write that they and pirates had a "common enemy" who was George... (that was what, I think, he wrote in his letters later (again quited in Woodard's book)

Certainly there is holes in e.g Rederiker's theories about Villains of all nations, but it is clear that there are some arguments to support such views.

Another thing. Arne Bialuschewski had though that General History of Pirates was written by Nathaniel Mist, who was a committed Jacobite. Bialuschewski has good arguments so it well may be true. If indeed so are there sings of hidden Jacobite messages in the book meaning propaganda?

Edited January 6, 2014 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Fox]

Some good points there (though most historians are agreed that the Beer speech is apocryphal). As with any general point it's usually possible to find a few exceptions.

Shivers wasn't English, so the discourse of Jacobitism wasn't really open to him, though there are other pirates from that period who expressed similar sentiments. Stede Bonnet names his ship after the pretender, and if we're going to accept the George Roberts' account is real then the best that can be said there is that one member of the company had anti-establishment views and one was a raving Jacobite. Hawkins' account of the same company suggests that they were on the whole pro-Hanoverian. Blackbeard's actions in no way show that he cared only for his own kind, and his keenness to acquire a pardon suggests that he wanted to regain legitimate society (which is also true of a very large number of other pirates).

And yes, there are some massive gaping holes in Rediker's theories.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Another note is that especially the later pirates of 1720s were partly left outside the society just because they were pirates. They couldn't visit any port or towns and their news about the surrounding world were limited to those news told by captured sailors. Also, there was rather pathetic pirate groups that spend even decades in Madagascar outside the western society. It is no wonder that a group of them was willing to return to England with Woodes Rogers in 1710s.

Also, while many governors and other officials had rather good intelligence of the pirates they considered pirates as pirates and not anything like Jacobite rebels (and they were more pirates than anything else that is clear). It seems that the officials considered pirates as Hostis humani generis. But these kind of ideas were mostly their anti-pirate propaganda. Or I am wrong?

Also notable is that pirate crews were multicultural (to some extent) and while the majority were Ango-Americans there must have been many non English who were sure that they would never see their home country again. They could have integrated to the English culture left outside.

I also edited my latest post quite late. I added a question about GHOP that I have been wondering.

I also wonder why some Bellamy's men called their forced man as "a Presbyterian dog…[who] should fight for King James.” Do they mean that he is a dog because he is a Presbyterian but not a Jacobite? At first I would get an impression that those pirates were Jacobites and they despised the man because he was a Presbyterian, but it would not make much sense. Weren't Presbyterians among the most common Jacobite supporters? So I think they despised him because he was a Presbyterian but not a Jacobite and thus a traitor. Though weren't Presbyterians hated among various groups of people anyway.

Also, how many pirates were actually Catholics? Certainly Catholics were more inclined to Jacobitism than Protestants (but indeed most Jacobite supporters were not Catholics and many Anglicans were Jacobites as well). For example Edward England who sailed Royal James was probably, despite his name, an Irishman.(He also showed sympathy toward Scottish Captain Macrae, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything).

Also, I think John Rackham was born in Cuba, but his parents were English. Perhaps his family members were English Catholics since it seems odd that there was an English family (perhaps even living) in Spanish owned island.This is though mere speculation. In any case most pirates were certainly Anglicans or other Protestants.

By the way, do have any records of pirates having Jacobite symbolism in pirate flags? I think there is none.

But: what if Bart Robert's habit to use old naval ensign rather than the post 1707 one was a Jacobite sentiment. Didn't many Jacobites, especially the Scottish ones, protested the 1707 Union between England and Scotland of 1707? Roberts was not Scottish but his crew had some...

It seems that Bart Roberts and his crew used this flag among his pirate colours

rather than the 1707 version

Edited January 6, 2014 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Fox]

Another note is that especially the later pirates of 1720s were partly left outside the society just because they were pirates. They couldn't visit any port or towns and their news about the surrounding world were limited to those news told by captured sailors. Also, there was rather pathetic pirate groups that spend even decades in Madagascar outside the western society. It is no wonder that a group of them was willing to return to England with Woodes Rogers in 1710s.

But a distinction needs to be drawn between being physically cut off from society and spiritually (for want of a better word) cut off from society. For example, Drake's men on his circumnavigation spent three years without visiting a friendly port, and probably had less contact with English seamen that even the later pirates of the 1720s, but nevertheless remained English. Certainly for the 1720s pirates their interaction with legitimate society was limited, but it doesn't necessarily follow that they didn't consider themselves members of that society as a result.

Also, while many governors and other officials had rather good intelligence of the pirates they considered pirates as pirates and not anything like Jacobite rebels (and they were more pirates than anything else that is clear). It seems that the officials considered pirates as Hostis humani generis. But these kind of ideas were mostly their anti-pirate propaganda. Or I am wrong?

No, you're not wrong at all. There was bound to be a difference between what the authorities thought about pirates and what the pirates thought about themselves. There are some records that talk of 'rebel pirates', but in general it was possibly not to the authorities' advantage to publicise too widely that some pirates were JAcobites, even if they knew it (which they may not have done). It is also a question of priorities, the fact that they were pirates was more important than the fact that they were Jacobites, especially in court where piracy was both easier to prove and carried a more severe sentence than Jacobite sympathies. Also, pirates were tried in Vice-Admiralty courts, who had no jurisdiction to try people for Jacobitism.

I also edited my latest post quite late. I added a question about GHOP that I have been wondering.

Sorry, I missed that. Yes, it is very probable that some of the things in the GHP (like Beer's speech, for example) were intended as anti-Whig rhetoric. This would certainly make sense if Mist was the author.

I also wonder why some Bellamy's men called their forced man as "a Presbyterian dog…[who] should fight for King James.” Do they mean that he is a dog because he is a Presbyterian but not a Jacobite? At first I would get an impression that those pirates were Jacobites and they despised the man because he was a Presbyterian, but it would not make much sense. Weren't Presbyterians among the most common Jacobite supporters? So I think they despised him because he was a Presbyterian but not a Jacobite and thus a traitor. Though weren't Presbyterians hated among various groups of people anyway.

We don't necessarily know that Davis was a Presbyterian, and the pirates' use of the term may simply have been intended as an insult. As you correctly observe, Presbyterians were not particularly popular with everyone.

Also, how many pirates were actually Catholics? Certainly Catholics were more inclined to Jacobitism than Protestants (but indeed most Jacobite supporters were not Catholics and many Anglicans were Jacobites as well). For example Edward England who sailed Royal James was probably, despite his name, an Irishman.(He also showed sympathy toward Scottish Captain Macrae, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything).

I'd have to dig out my sources, but somewhere Macrae mentions that he was at school with England, which would make England a Scotsman rather than Irish (the GHP notwithstanding). As a Scotsman, it's most unlikely that he was a Catholic. I can't think offhand of any Anglo-American pirates known to have been Catholics, but most French and Spanish pirates probably were.

By the way, do have any records of pirates having Jacobite symbolism in pirate flags? I think there is none.

But: what if Bart Robert's habit to use old naval ensign rather than the post 1707 one was a Jacobite sentiment. Didn't many Jacobites, especially the Scottish ones, protested the 1707 Union between England and Scotland of 1707? Roberts was not Scottish but his crew had some...

It seems that Bart Roberts and his crew used this flag among his pirate colours

I can't think of any Jacobite symbolism used on pirate flags, but to be honest I can't really think of any Jacobite icons being used on any flags anywhere, so that doesn't necessarily mean anything either way.

Neither am I aware particularly that Jacobites opposed or supported the Act of Union. The first flag you posted remained in use, especially by private ships, long after 1707. Again, I'd have to check on the exact date, but I believe the Union flag was still specifically reserved for naval vessels until fairly late.