Bonnet and Teach

[Jib]

I am currently reading the Pirate's Pocket Book by Stuart Robertson which goes over the alliance between Blackbeard and Stede Bonnet. I have the story many time and in many books but this time it got me to thinking.... Why would Blackbeard show Bonnet any mercy at all? Here is a man who shot Hands, one of his own crew just to keep his people fearful and respectful. Why not just kill the man as oppose to keep him captive? And later return his ship... why bother?

I think there is more to the story between these two men.

[Dutchman]

Jib, thats an interesting point that has been brought up before and there really is no 100% clear answer. sort of like where was black beard born and what was his real name? I know that Kevin Duffus frequently haunts the pub and upon occasion will chime in on Black Beard issues. He is the author of "The Last Days of Black Beard the Pirate" and puts a completely different perspective on his history. I'll be seeing him this weekend and ask him to post a brief run down on his thoughts of it, which makes a heck of a lot more sense than a 300 year old book that raises more questions than it answers.

As best I can remember from Kevin, (i'm at work and it's been a while since I read it) the short of it is a relation of Beard lived next to or worked for him or a relation and it was a sympatheic gesture. Kevin lays out a pretty compelling argument for it, but then you have people who will argue against it basing their testimony on Johnsons book and nothing more. I would suggest looking at both possibilities with open eyes.

*edit*

the other possibility exists that they were ship mates together durring the wars, which could also tie him in with Sam Bellamy.

[Fox]

Just possibly... Teach was not so wantonly cruel as to needlessly kill people, even such oddballs as Bonnet. Bonnet, with his airs and graces and well-born background (and contacts) may have been useful - or potentially useful - to Teach for a number of reasons.

Not the least of which reasons was that he led a whole band of pirates to join Teach's command. How would they have reacted if Teach had just killed Bonnet. Bonnet was malleable as far as Teach was concerned. The presence of a compliant gentleman who could be dumped at any chosen point in the future but could be kept until he proved his worth was probably a very useful asset.

The other strikingly obvious reason for Teach not to have just killed Bonnet was that, idiot though he may have been, Bonnet was a pirate, and there is some evidence that Teach had some loyalty to brethren of that ilk - viz his attacks on New England shipping after the execution of some of Bellamy's men in Boston. Of course, his later behaviour may show that he didn't take that respect too far.

[LookingGlass]

Or, just possibly, Thatch (the most commonly spelled form of his name in the letters of Capt. Brand, Capt. Gordon and Lt. Maynard--never was it "Teach," although the two spellings may have been pronounced similarly) may have had other reasons to exhibit paternalistic tendencies toward Bonnet. An alternate hypothesis based on compelling evidence, albeit circumstantial, suggests that there had been a connection between Thatch's family and Stede Bonnet's uncle on Barbados, Thomas Bonnet, Jr., who died in 1678. Furthermore, there seems to be a high incidence of surnames of men on the King's warrant for pirates captured or killed with Thatch which appear in the early records of Barbados. Purely coincidence? Maybe, maybe not.

As for whether Thatch would have simply killed Bonnet rather than accommodate Bonnet's ineptitude and eccentricities, it would have been a rather uncharacteristic and risky method of dispatching him. There are examples of one pirate captain taking another's vessel and sending the weaker captain and his comrades skulking away in a small boat. Jennings treated Hornigold in just such a manner.

Kevin DuffusThe Last Days of Black Beard the Pirate

[captscurvy_nc]

All very good points and it is an intersting question. The one thing I have learned in my research and portrayll of Blackbeard for years is there was never any real rhyme or reason to alot of his actions other than to keep his crew guessing. In my opinion, Teach was a master of psychological warfare and his methods reflected this "madness" neccesary to be effective along those lines. As far as Bonnet goes, it may have been simply because Teach knew how innept he Stede was as a pirate and showed him mercy knowing he would be captured sooner than later and wanted to make sure Bonnet would not turn states evidence out of a sense of loyalty. Just a thought.

[Fox]

Or, just possibly, Thatch (the most commonly spelled form of his name in the letters of Capt. Brand, Capt. Gordon and Lt. Maynard--never was it "Teach," although the two spellings may have been pronounced similarly)

Never??

Edited August 25, 2010 by Foxe

[LookingGlass]

Are we playing a game of "gotcha?"

Yes, of course you are correct. I was in error to write "never." In his letter of June 18, 1718 to the Council for Trade and Plantations SC Gov. Robert Johnson refers to him as "Teach." So does Maynard in his letter to Lt. Symonds (although I've not looked at the original spelling from that source). However, the great majority of the times the name was spelled in the original documents of Capt. Brand, Capt. Gordon, Lt. Gov. Spotswood, the minutes of the Governor's Council in NC, the depositions of the Virginia trials forwarded to North Carolina, and in Col. Thomas Pollock's correspondence to Gov. Eden, the named was spelled alternatively as Thatch, Tach, Thach etc. Of course, many of these documents were likely dictated to a clerk. In fact, within one of Spotswood's letters the name was spelled four different ways, but not once as "Teach." Discussions I have had with well-respected linguists here in NC have supported my hypothesis that in 1718, the spellings of "Thatch" and "Teach" would have been pronounced somewhat similarly.

[captscurvy_nc]

Are we playing a game of "gotcha?"

Yes, of course you are correct. I was in error to write "never." In his letter of June 18, 1718 to the Council for Trade and Plantations SC Gov. Robert Johnson refers to him as "Teach." So does Maynard in his letter to Lt. Symonds (although I've not looked at the original spelling from that source). However, the great majority of the times the name was spelled in the original documents of Capt. Brand, Capt. Gordon, Lt. Gov. Spotswood, the minutes of the Governor's Council in NC, the depositions of the Virginia trials forwarded to North Carolina, and in Col. Thomas Pollock's correspondence to Gov. Eden, the named was spelled alternatively as Thatch, Tach, Thach etc. Of course, many of these documents were likely dictated to a clerk. In fact, within one of Spotswood's letters the name was spelled four different ways, but not once as "Teach." Discussions I have had with well-respected linguists here in NC have supported my hypothesis that in 1718, the spellings of "Thatch" and "Teach" would have been pronounced somewhat similarly.

I have also seen a document refering to springer's point in Ocracoke(which is now called Teach's hole) where it was spelled as Thatch but I don't remember the date on it.

[LookingGlass]

Captscurvy, you may be referring to Edward Moseley's 1733 map of NC, which has sailing instructions for entering Ocracoke Inlet and refers to "Thatch's Hole," the anchorage near the old watering place now known as Springer's Point.

[Fox]

Are we playing a game of "gotcha?"

Perhaps just a pre-season friendly

By coincidence I was just reading one of Brand's letters in which the name is spelled "Teach", and one of Vincent Pearse's in which it's spelled "Teech". Thatch may well be the more common spelling, but Teach was perfectly acceptable then to several of the people involved. Linguistically, "Tach", "Tache", and "Titch" should probably all be lumped into the same bracket as "Teach" as well, so never "Teach" is way off the mark. Oddly though, it seems to be one of those ridiculous arguments that never goes away.

[LookingGlass]

Oddly though, it seems to be one of those ridiculous arguments that never goes away.

Why is it a ridiculous argument? I believe that the question of the variations of the spelling and pronunciations of Teach/Thatch have been insufficiently explored by historians. Too much of the Blackbeard story, especially derived from Johnson and his faithful, has been unchallenged or accepted on face value.

[Fox]

Why is it a ridiculous argument?

Sorry, my apologies for not being clear. I meant the "he was never called Teach" argument is ridiculous - and you're certainly not the first person to make it. I've frequently heard in the past that "Only Johnson spells it Teach, all the other sources say Thatch". Whereas, in fact, there are several non-Johnson sources that say Teach - though of course I freely admit that Thatch references are more numerous.

I believe that the question of the variations of the spelling and pronunciations of Teach/Thatch have been insufficiently explored by historians.

Not explored much, certainly. Insufficiently? Since we're unlikely ever to have a definitive answer, one must wonder to what extent it really matters.

Too much of the Blackbeard story, especially derived from Johnson and his faithful, has been unchallenged or accepted on face value.

Ain't that the truth - and it pretty much goes for every other chapter in Johnson as well.

[captscurvy_nc]

Now wait a minute! Johnson's work is a completly historical and accura.....Wow, almost made it through that whole sentance without laughing....

[Fox]

Now wait a minute! Johnson's work is a completly historical and accura.....Wow, almost made it through that whole sentance without laughing....

There was a time (which hasn't wholly gone away) when Johnson was believed to be more or less totally accurate, now we seem to have reached the other end of the scale where it can't be believed at all. I think the truth lies somewhere in between, much of what he wrote is verifiably inaccurate, but an equal or greater amount is verifiably accurate. Then there's the grey area of stuff which isn't mentioned in any other source, which has to be a judgement call. The serious researcher should be inclined to disbelieve what isn't corroborated elsewhere - effectively making Johnson redundant as a source - but just because it can't be relied upon doesn't necessarily make it wrong. One of the fascinating things, IMHO, about Johnson is that in many cases he states a fact correctly which can't be corroborated from any other published material, suggesting that he was able to speak with eye-witnesses, almost certainly including several pirates themselves. One day it'll be a really interesting research project trying to identify them all...

[silas thatcher]

from the little bit that i've read, a book or two and afew articles, about blackbeard and bonnet, i come away with the impression that blackbeard was simply using bonnet and when he was done, simply discarded their "friendship" as if it were no use anymore...

he added to his flotilla, his army, and therefore, his success... maybe ditching bonnet was the first order of business when he started to "scale down" his operation...his ship and most of his crew came next leaving him and a few select men ALL of the treasure...

he used his men, ditched them and kept their share for himself, so why not use bonnet, his ship and his men the same way ??