Gaop pirate nationalities.....

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Multicultural crews should also take in consideration when thinking the pirate clothing. Frenchmen could have small sashes (small) and dutch (dare I say) perhaps occasional pearl earring like we know some Ducth sailor useing in gaop. But still not anything that H. Pyle has made.... But most of the men were Britons so.... I am not defending typical pirate image as a accurate one....

Edited June 4, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Mission]

Realy interesting!

Quite multicultural it seems....

Funny, I was just thinking how homogeneously European it was. In those last two quotes there appears to be a decided bias towards the English as well.

The language question is sort of interesting. I theorize that people who successfully traveled the sea learned enough of the most common languages to get the basics across to each other. Nearly every sailor's account I have read contains foreign words (usually barbarously phonetically spelled, of course.) Plus they could always use gestures.

Although I also remember reading about some group of pirates forcing a captured Spaniard to speak to Spanish ship in a fleet so that the pirates could pretend to be Spanish and get in amongst them. But then the Spanish seemed to be the most insular group of sailors in the Caribbean.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

" homogeneously European " well Africans were not there but it is multicultural. What you think there need to be to be multicultural Chinese?

Edited June 4, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Mission]

There could have been Africans, middle easterners, American Indians, Indians, multiple varieties of Orientals, Russians, Spaniards, American Colonists (although they were basically transplanted Europeans as well), Maltese, Italians...

If you go look at the list sorted by nationalities that I keep mentioning, you'll notice a decided preponderance of UK Pirates (Scottish, English, Welsh and Irish) with the second and third largest follow up nationalities being French and German and the Nordic Countries running fourth. Yet all these people lived within fairly close proximity to one another and are encompassed by the continent of Europe - the second smallest continent in the world. Sure, they all have different cultures, but in many ways those cultures are more similar to than different from one other. Their languages are primarily Germanic- or Latin-based, their cultures developed in somewhat similar ways and at similar times, their monarchs intermarried and their religions were mostly Christian-based.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

There could have been Africans, middle easterners, American Indians, Indians, multiple varieties of Orientals, Russians, Spaniards, American Colonists (although they were basically transplanted Europeans as well), Maltese, Italians...

If you go look at the list sorted by nationalities that I keep mentioning, you'll notice a decided preponderance of UK Pirates (Scottish, English, Welsh and Irish) with the second and third largest follow up nationalities being French and German and the Nordic Countries running fourth. Yet all these people lived within fairly close proximity to one another and are encompassed by the continent of Europe - the second smallest continent in the world. Sure, they all have different cultures, but in many ways those cultures are more similar to than different from one other. Their languages are primarily Germanic- or Latin-based, their cultures developed in somewhat similar ways and at similar times, their monarchs intermarried and their religions were mostly Christian-based.

Quite right (Holland was btw a republic).

I dare to say that often English colonists were called Englishmen as well.

I dare to claim that Roberts had Creeks and perhaps even Maltese.

Russia was pretty isolated then, and Orientals well why there would be those.

There were some Spaniards but I have no records handy.

There were indians but not too many Africans were well represented in pirate crews

• Bellamy (1717) – more than 27 out of 180 men

• England (1718) – less than 50 out of 180 men

• Lowther (1724) – 9 out of 23 men

•Blackbeard (1717) – 60 out of 100; (1718) – 5 out 14

• La Bouche (1719) – 32 out of 64 men

These facts are from http://www.cindyvallar.com/blackpirates.html

There only some examples but some of them were saves of the pirates

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Speaking of Spanish this is from that same site which is quite reliable since it has many great sources

" In late September 1720, Captain Nicholas de Concepcion and 140 pirates (Spaniards “and others of diverse Nations”) cruised the waters of Virginia and the Chesapeake Bay aboard a well-armed Spanish brigantine from Saint Augustine. Their first capture was a Philadelphia sloop named Mary, commanded by Captain Jacobs. She carried a cargo of bread and flour. Concepcion decided she would make an excellent consort to the pirate brigantine. Captain Sipkin was master of the pirates’ second capture. A prize crew was put aboard and the ship set sail for Saint Augustine. The pirates seized a pink, bound to Virginia from Barbados, in the Chesapeake Bay on 23 September. Her captain was a man named Spicer. Once again Concepcion sent a prize crew aboard the pink to sail her to Florida. Sometime later, Concepcion and his men took a Liverpool merchantman named Planter that was eventually retaken. During a search of her papers, her rescuers discovered a forged letter of marque from the Governor of Saint Augustine. It was dated after the war between England and Spain ended. Attempts were made to capture the pirates, but they escaped."

Edited June 4, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Robert's crew from GHoP

I think that this does not include those 70 Africans that he had.

There is many Britons but few other as well

Mens Names Years of Age Habitations.

William Magnes 35 Minehead.

Richard Hardy 25 Wales.

David Sympson 36 North-Berwick.

Christopher Moody 28 (was he never even a captain?)

Thomas Sutton 23 Berwick.

Valentine Ashplant 32 Minories.

Peter de Vine 42 Stepney.

William Philips 29 Lower-Shadwell.

Philip Bill 27 St. Thomas's. (Danish colony)

William Main 28

William Mackintosh 21 Canterbury.

William Williams 40 nigh Plymouth.

Robert Haws 31 Yarmouth.

William Petty 30 Deptford.

John Jaynson 22 nigh Lancaster.

Marcus Johnson 21 Smyrna. (in Greece)

Robert Crow 44 Isle of Man.

Michael Maer 41 Ghent. (France)

Daniel Harding 26 Croomsbury in Somersetshire.

William Fernon 22 Somersetshire.

Jo. More 19 Meer in Wiltshire.

Abraham Harper 23 Bristol.

Jo. Parker 22 Winfred in Dorsetshire.

Jo. Philips 28 Alloway in Scotland.

James Clement 20 Jersey.

Peter Scvdamore 35 Bristol.

James Skyrm 44 Wales.

John Walden 24 Somersetshire.

Jo. Stephenson 40 Whitby.

Jo. Mansfield 30 Orkneys.

Israel Hynde 30 Bristol.

Peter Lesley 21 Aberdeen.

Charles Bunce 26 Excter

Robert Birtson 30 Other St. Maries Devonshire.

Richard Harris 45 Cornwall.

Joseph Nosuter 26 Sadbury in Devonshire.

William Williams 30 Speechless at Execution. ( hmm why?.. interesting...)

Agge Jacobson 30 Holland.

Benjamin Jefferys 21 Bristol.

Cuthbert Goss 21 Topsham.

John Jessup 20 Plymouth.

Edward Watts 22 Dunmore.

Thomas Giles 26 Mine-head.

William Wood 27 York.

Thomas Armstrong 34 London, executed on board the Weymouth.

Robert Johnson 32 at Whydah. (in Africa or?)

George Smith 25 Wales.

William Watts 23 Ireland.

James Philips 35 Antegoa.

John Coleman 24 Wales.

Robert Hays 20 Liverpool.

William Davis 23 Wales.

Edited June 4, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Fox]

Wow! So many posts to answer

There could have been Africans, middle easterners, American Indians, Indians, multiple varieties of Orientals, Russians, Spaniards, American Colonists (although they were basically transplanted Europeans as well), Maltese, Italians...

Bear in mind that many pirates simply described as "English" in the GAoP might easily have been American colonists, who were usually described as "English" at the time.

If you go look at the list sorted by nationalities that I keep mentioning, you'll notice a decided preponderance of UK Pirates (Scottish, English, Welsh and Irish) with the second and third largest follow up nationalities being French and German and the Nordic Countries running fourth.

That's a good example of one of the problems with the list, if I may say so. I haven't checked your footnotes, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but at the time we were compiling that list Marcus was writing his PhD thesis on Medieval German pirates, so I suspect a lot of those Germans came from him and have no bearing at all on the make-up of GAoP crews.

There were indians but not too many Africans were well represented in pirate crews

• Bellamy (1717) – more than 27 out of 180 men

• England (1718) – less than 50 out of 180 men

• Lowther (1724) – 9 out of 23 men

•Blackbeard (1717) – 60 out of 100; (1718) – 5 out 14

• La Bouche (1719) – 32 out of 64 men

Careful with those: England and la Bouche were know to have tried slave trading, and the black men on Blackbeard's ship were almost certainly slave as well.

I think that this does not include those 70 Africans that he had

No, that list only includes those executed, so it doesn't include the Africans, those killed in the battle with HMS Swallow, those acquitted, those sentenced to servitude, or those respited to the Marshalsea prison.

Christopher Moody 28 (was he never even a captain?)

No, despite the fact that many historians associate 'Captain Moody' with him, he was never a captain. The 'Captain Moody' mentioned in other documents was most likely either Samuel or William.

[Mission]

When you think about it, it's really not surprising that Europe was the major contributor to the pirate makeup at that time. For several hundred years, England and her neighbors were the expansionists, traveling and exploring. Naturally the criminal element would be traveling and exploring with them.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

The thing about black pirates is a two edged sword often there were slaves of the pirates but there were also some of those Africans who were consired as crewmen with the others. But it seems that really often clack men were slaves or they were considered as lower people. like Foxe said before "Undoubtedly there were some free black pirates who were valued members of the company, bore arms, and shared in the plunder"

but like he said often pirates sold Africans as slaves and so on.

Edited June 4, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Tartan Jack]

Add to that the fact that those who were "crewmen" could also be, in a sense, loyal "slaves" to the captain or another officer, actual free men, freed by capability and likability by the crew, or flat out slaves w/ no right, and also that captured black pirates, slave or free, were often sold into slavery.

Edited June 4, 2012 by Tartan Jack

[Swashbuckler 1700]

I am not a racist. This is just historican thinking

Hogarth again shows us what was the usual status of African aboard ships. He is certainly a slave while he is dressed well (He looks like sailor and he has nice red tie.... wondering still tie colors) and he has also a turban thing... no wait that is a wig. He is captains personal servant.

Avery in period art is having a slave too

and this from buccaneer articles and it tells something about how slaves were treated

"Thus they order for the loss of a right arm six hundred pieces of eight, or six slaves ; for the loss of a left arm five hundred pieces of eight, or five slaves ; for a right leg five hundred pieces of eight, or five slaves ; for the left leg four hundred pieces of eight, or four slaves ; for an eye one hundred pieces of eight, or one slave ; for a finger of the hand the same reward as for the eye."

We can also count from that that a slave in late 1600s cost 100 Pesos.

[Tartan Jack]

Slavery, itself, is a VERY complex issue in this period, as it was through the 1860s 150 years later in the Americas. We tend to view it through a post-Reconstruction (the period following the American Civil War) lens as a rather "black and white" (if you excuse the pun) issue. At the time, there were many, many gray stances on it and a huge range of shades. It WAS legal and a vital economic reality- all over the home countries and the colonies and wasn't an "Africans are slaves" issues, as there were also actual slaves of "foreign"nationality to a country and also of indentured servants that were of a crazy length and "debt slaves" as well from within a nationality.

On this matter, we need to TRY and view it as someone from the early 1700s would, rather than as a late 20th/early 21st century person. On pirate ships, all types of slave-free relationships existed, but not all at the same time on the same ship/boat.

To keep in mind about myself-> I am against racism, period, and have helped "desegregate" several white, black, and asian groups, unintentionally, by my stance that ANY decision where race itself is the primary or a prime reason for said decision, it is racism- whether that racism is good or bad (which it CAN be either). I've also BEEN the "outside" race in a number of Asian, Latino, and African-American (and African too) situations- so, I know "how it feels" to be criticized and to hide under the seat of a van . . .

Now, race and culture aren't the same thing!

The goal SHOULD be to get where skin color is like the "fiery red head" and "dumb blonde" ideas. It is a joke, but anyone who takes it seriously is seen as an idiot by anyone else.

Yet, through my personal interests and circumstances, I've read and interviewed an inordinate amount on the issues of slavery and racism. So, I have more knowledge and "learnin'" on the matter than many who pontificate upon the matter.

[Tartan Jack]

Oh, I want to throw in another element:

Slavery as legal protection . . .

I know of particular instances where churches and individuals utilized the legal "slave" status to employ and protect others they valued, but were of a lower socio-economic class standing. In this case, the "slave" was treated as either a brother/sister or child (depending on specific situation). That is the foundation for the loyalty some "slaves" had for their masters that where beyond what makes sense to most today.

In the 1830s-1860s there were several churches in my area that "owned" a slave that was college and seminary educated and whose duties was as the full-time pastor of the "black" members of the community. The support of that position continued well after the American Civil War, sometimes decades later.

That situation may be helpful to explain some of the relationships in-period, as well, esp. those that don't seem to make sense from our modern perspective.

That was one of the most surprising situation I found . . .

Folks using the legal status as something else and "good" from a modern perspective! Slave-owners that were actually "anti-slavery" . . .

And have even read a court case in South Carolina from the 1854 where a slave owner was prosecuted for teaching his slaves and helping them establish businesses and communities. He was accused of "undermining" the institution and of being "anti-slavery," even though the accused owned hundreds of 'em. I wish I could remember the specifics, but that was over 15 years ago in a college archive.

[Mission]

So, basically all that boils down to...

When you come down to it, history is necessarily messy when you're being fair about what really happened.

I should really make that my signature line.

[Daniel]

Slavery at sea is an interesting and confusing matter. Lord Mansfield ruled in Somersett's Case that England (as opposed to the English colonies) had no slavery, and that a slave's chains basically fell from his body the moment his feet touched English soil, and that he could not be returned to slavery even if he was captured and brought back onto a ship. But that was in 1772. Was slavery really unrecognized and unenforced in England during the GAoP, as Mansfield claimed it wasn't?

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Too bad that I don't have many of the books that I used in my school work (for slave trade) I would have nice stuff there...

[Daniel]

Here's a reference from Galvin's Patterns of Pillage, p. 205. "Mansfield's followers are said to have numbered six hundred men of several nationalities, speaking different languages, as among them, besides many English, there were Flemings, French, Genoese, Greeks, Levantines, Portuguese, Indians, and negroes."

[Swashbuckler 1700]

In what time that happened? In gaop?

[Daniel]

In the early 1660s. Mansfield was Henry Morgan's mentor.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Oh I know that man but with other writing style (I have read Mansvelt) then I know that man.

Edited June 7, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Tartan Jack]

This can't edit feature can be frustrating . . .

I forgot to mention the legal issue at the core of the 1850s trials mentioned on page 2. At the time, it was illegal in South Carolina to teach a slave to read and write above a rudimentary level (one reason being the fear of slave revolt on coastal plantations). There was a series of prosecutions in the Upstate and Catawba River Valley areas where people and institutions were giving high school and even college and seminary educations to slaves, which they legally "owned" . . . Is that pro, anti-slavery, or something else entirely?

The point of the posts was to highlight the "gray" areas around what was a legal institution of the GAoP that is seen as entirely evil and wrong today. Even then, when legal and common, there were many shades between "for" and "against." Now, THAT makes me very, very curious as to the place of the "Negro" and "African" folks on pirate ships. Where in this huge range were they? Did it vary widely? (I suspect it did)

If you are willing to answer on here, Foxe, what is said about slaves, slavery, and "Africans" (or the like) in relevant period wills and articles? I'm curious.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

In Port Royal inventories of stores slaves are there like any other stuff http://nautarch.tamu.edu/portroyal/archives/invent.htm

here is one list from it

4 Stone Juggs

1 Swinging Glass Crackt

2 Silver Tankards 2 Muggs 3 Silver Spoons 1 Silver Peper Box

a Snuff Box one Medall a little of Silver Chain at 79 Ounces

at 5/qt Ounce amounting to

A Negro Boy

A pair of Seales with 2 Weights

A Pocket Book with a Silver Pen

A Bedstead

A Silver Watch

[Daniel]

I forgot to mention the legal issue at the core of the 1850s trials mentioned on page 2. At the time, it was illegal in South Carolina to teach a slave to read and write above a rudimentary level (one reason being the fear of slave revolt on coastal plantations). There was a series of prosecutions in the Upstate and Catawba River Valley areas where people and institutions were giving high school and even college and seminary educations to slaves, which they legally "owned" . . . Is that pro, anti-slavery, or something else entirely?

I'm not certain about the facts of these specific cases. But recall that one of the chief excuses offered for slavery, both in GAoP and the time you refer to, was to educate and Christianize the slaves. The law forbidding the education of slaves shows that for the majority of the slaveholders who dominated the state legislatures, this was purest hypocrisy. But some slave owners, perhaps including the ones being prosecuted here, took their duty to educate the slaves seriously - so seriously that they were willing to risk legal punishment. Education and Christianization, of course, went hand in hand; a Christian (or at least a Protestant Christian) was supposed to read the Bible.

I agree that it is not obvious whether educating the slaves was pro-slavery, anti-slavery, or neither. One might educate a slave and still intend to keep him and his progeny enslaved, or one might intend to liberate them once they were deemed ready. And by the 1850s, liberation wasn't necessarily easy, as more and more Southern states outlawed the manumission of slaves as the Civil War approached.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

I know that some web info is not always the most reliable one but here is interesting man a " Irishman" with spanish crew. I mentioned the same man in other tread as well.

http://www.thepirateking.com/bios/johnson_henry.htm