Walking the Plank

[dasNdanger]

I KNOW - this topic has probably been discussed TO DEATH here, and elsewhere. But I have a question, and I can't remember if I've asked it here (I have on other sites), so here it goes...PLEASE do not thrown weevily biscuits at me if I'm repeating myself...like Dory in Finding Nemo, I can't remember what I said five minutes ago, let alone 5 months ago!

So, my question - could the term 'walking the plank' have actually been used in real life, and not just in fiction? I ask this based on the typical burial ceremony for a dead seaman - he was packaged up in his hammock with shot at his feet, and placed on a plank, which was then tilted upwards, allowing the body to then slip into the sea. He was thus sent to the grave via a plank. Taking that into consideration, if a man is then sent over the side ALIVE, he would, in effect, be 'walking' the plank normally used as a bier for a dead sailor. Not that he literally walked on a plank...but in a figurative sense he walked to his death instead of slipping off a plank as was the case of a man already dead.

Not sure if I've made any sense, and I realize that this is, again, speculation. But I do wonder if there is a real and logical basis for the use of the term. Just like to hear your thoughts on the matter...

das

[Fox]

Never come across the term prior to a couple of incidents in the 19th century which involved actual walking of a plank. Never come across any examples of someone alive being slid off a plank. Do you mean as a deliberate execution or by accident?

[dasNdanger]

Never come across the term prior to a couple of incidents in the 19th century which involved actual walking of a plank. Never come across any examples of someone alive being slid off a plank. Do you mean as a deliberate execution or by accident?

Okay - lemme think harder about what I meant...*thinks...steam puffs out of ears....*

If a literal plank was used to slide a dead man to his watery grave...then when a man was tossed/dropped/marched/thrown (in execution) into the water ALIVE (with or without a plank), could it have been said that he 'walked' the plank...meaning that he went to the depths alive - or 'walking' -in contrast to going there already dead, slipping off the plank bound tight in his hammock.

I'm making my head hurt here...so I hope you get me meaning....

And you're saying that there is documented accounts of men being made to walk the plank? I always thought there was no truth in those stories...please elaborate!

das

[Fox]

Right... I think I follow...

I don't think that people being tossed overboard was referred to as "walking the plank", a: because it's not a term which I've ever come across that early, and b: because although the plank was perhaps essential to a sea-funeral in a practical way I doubt it was that important in a symbolic way to get a metaphor named after it.

There are, to my knowledge, two genuine examples of people being made to walk the plank (Cordingly says one, but what does he know?), both well after the Golden Age.

The example cited by Cordingly is to be found in the Times of July 23 1829 and concerns the capture by pirates of the Vhan Fredericka, a Dutch 200 ton brig. The pirates compelled the crew to walk the plank with shot tied to their feet. One passenger saved himself by revealing where some gold was hidden, and was put ashore on Cuba.

The other example slightly pre-dates it, and was recorded in a deposition made in 1822:

Personally appeared before me, one of his Majesty's Justices of the Peace, Hugh Hamilton, mariner, who being duly sworn, maketh oath and saith, he sailed as mate on board the sloop BLESSING, William Smith, master, and had made three voyages from the port of Oracabessa, in this island [Jamaica], to St. Jago de Cuba; and that in the return of the

fourth voyage of the said sloop, about the beginning of the present month (but the deponent cannot name the day), were fallen in with by a long black schooner, with black mouldings (then), the name of EMANUEL marked on her stern, and commanded by a white man, with a mixed crew of colour and

countries, among whom were English or Americans; that after bringing the sloop to, the privateer or pirate's boat came alongside, and took out the captain and his son with all the crew, and carried them on board of the schooner, leaving the sloop in possession of his people; that he demanded of the captain his money or his life. The captain persisted that he had none, but proffered him the cargo, which consisted of one hundred barrels of flour, and 50 tierces of cornmeal (marked "S" within a diamond); that on the following day, not producing any money, a plank was run out in the starboard side of the schooner, upon which he made Captain Smith walk, and that as he approached to the end, they tilted the plank, when he dropped into the sea, and there, while in the effort of swimming, the Captain called for his

musket and fired at him therewith, when he sunk and was seen no more. The rest of the crew were ironed below, with the exception of his son, a boy of about fourteen years of age, who witnessed the fate of his father. While in the agony of tears and crying, the Captain took the butt-end of the musket and knocked the boy on the head, thereafter took him by the foot, and hove

him overboard; that on the day following this sad event, having previously taken out all the rigging, sails, &c., of the sloop, he set her on fire and burnt her; and on the same day gave the crew, consisting of three others, and he, this deponent (having stripped us of every article but what we had on our backs), the jolly-boat, with a bucket of water, and one biscuit each person, without a compass, which we asked for, but were refused by his saying" he would sooner give Hell ! - to be off, or he would sink them."

Thus we parted, and in the afternoon of the same day were picked up by the schooner MARY ANN, belonging to Black River, and were landed at Port Morant on the 18th of July, 1822.

(Signed) HUGH HAMILTON.

Taken and sworn before me, in the presence of George Mackay, Esq.,at Roselle Estate, in St. Thomas's in the East, this 29th day of July, 1822.

The deposition was later reprinted in full in the Kingston Chronicle.

[capnwilliam]

I get yer point! But I've heard of only minimal evidence that anyone was ever literally made to walk the plank, in the sense that we normally use the term, and no evidence at all that any live person was ever made to lie on a plank and than be tossed overboard.

Capt. William

[Sir Eric]

Argh! Foxe, there ya go again bashing Cordingly!!

K... my research is lost in a pile of crud... but I believe that Cordingly mentions that he knows of two instances, but only describes one of them (as you mentioned earlier)

Now watch me be wrong on that because I posted before checkin' me facts.

So then the question would follow... since there are no real known examples of men "walking the plank" in the GAoP, where does the term derive from? It couldn't possibly be as simple as "hey, let's stick a plank over the water and make him walk off it..." could it? Would it have something to do with the gang-plank?

[Coastie04]

The term originally derived from another common phrase that has a completely different meaning now. In the GAOP, the term used was being 'board to death', where the the victim was tied to a board/plank and balanced on the ship's rail while curses and insults were thrown at him before he was finally cast off into the sea. Sometimes, however, the pirates got too much amusement out of insults that it would be quite some time before the victim was finally thrown over, which is how being 'bored to death' was adapted to modern times. It is documented that more than once, a victim got so bored with the pirates that he shifted his weight enough to cast himself over the side.

The citation is from pp 103-105 of Not so Notorious Pirates of the Mongolian Main by Captain William Shakespear (no relation to the well known playwrite) published in 1685. I've got what I believe to be the only original copy remaining, don't have a scanner to share it with the world, and haven't yet finished coloring in the pictures or soaking all the pages in tea for effect. But one day, I shall rewrite...I mean make...history!!!

Sorry, I just couldn't resist that one. It's late and I've been into my Pyrat XO Reserve and I get underway tomorrow for yet another patrol.

Coastie

[greenighs]

[Fox]

Coastie, I believe Noodlewhacker also has a copy (though not the illustrated version I don't think), but you know what he's like about sharing his library. I'll see if I can get a look at it next time I'm in the Noodle-Cave.

Eric, my judgement on Cordingly comes from Under the Black Flag, where he says "...one example of walking the plank has come to light. ...It is possible that other examples of walking the plank may be found, but the fact remains..."

Quite possibly in later works he added in the second account (possibly after I posted it to the net about 3 years ago )

I maintain that UTBF is the best introduction to general pirate history there is - but it's shocking the number of errors, from the small and insignificant to the large and glaring, can be found in its pages.

On the question of the origin, I think that even if there were examples of it happening in the GAoP the question would still remain. It seems that for some unknown reason (beyond sadism) someone, at some time, said "hey! let's make 'em walk along a thin plank before they fall to the sharks". Evidence suggests that this was in the 19th century, but heaven knows why, though I imagine that if it's your kind of thing then watching someone with a blindfold on walk along a narrow plank, with no idea of where the end is, would be quite funny...

[Sir Eric]

Eric, my judgement on Cordingly comes from Under the Black Flag, where he says "...one example of walking the plank has come to light. ...It is possible that other examples of walking the plank may be found, but the fact remains..."

Quite possibly in later works he added in the second account (possibly after I posted it to the net about 3 years ago )

I maintain that UTBF is the best introduction to general pirate history there is - but it's shocking the number of errors, from the small and insignificant to the large and glaring, can be found in its pages

You do know I was just teasing about the "bashing," right Foxe? And you're right... after checking I noticed that is was upon the subject of burried treasure that Cordingly only comes up with two accounts.

I imagine that if it's your kind of thing then watching someone with a blindfold on walk along a narrow plank, with no idea of where the end is, would be quite funny...

Ever been hazed at a club initiation?

[Fox]

You do know I was just teasing about the "bashing," right Foxe? And you're right... after checking I noticed that is was upon the subject of burried treasure that Cordingly only comes up with two accounts.

Of course. While I'm bashing Cordingly, there are loads more accounts of buried treasure (ok, about half a dozen over a couple of centuries, but more than 2).

Ever been hazed at a club initiation?

How does one convey a Sideshow-Bob style shudder in net-speak?

[dasNdanger]

...I'll see if I can get a look at it next time I'm in the Noodle-Cave.

hey...that's what Mr. Das calls m-....uuuuuuh...nevermind....

Seems like I missed the party! LOL - too funny!

Okie dokie - in reading through the comments here, I started to think outside the box again...

First - I'm sure not every case of piracy was documented...in fact, I would suspect that most were not, or at least, if they were, most documents haven't survived. That means that just about anything could have happened during the GAoP and we'd never know about it.

Second - No TV and no radio means that word of mouth was the mode of communication back in the day...with a few newpapers, etc if people could even read them. Stories can be twisted - as evidenced by a certain movie pirate with a silly walk. Embellishing a story makes for a more entertaining (and memorable) story. Even in the quotes about the Bird Galley that I posted in the food thread there is a hint of possible embellishment. So - how men were tortured and sent to their deaths may have been exaggerated to increase the shock value of the tale.

Third - This reminds me of the earring discussion.

Fourth - I think it's safe to say that personal creativity came into play in regards to the punishments meted out by pirates. Without the aforementioned media (TV, etc), much of what an individual pirate or pirate crew did would have to come from their own imaginations, and not necessarily from 'copying' a craze, as it were. Sure, crews drifted back and forth, joining up and sharing their knowledge. But I think it's safe to say that nearly every possible horror that could be inflicted on another individual was probably tried, at least once, during that GAoP. The fact that things were not 'common place' doesn't mean it NEVER happened.

And that last thought sums up my personal feelings about the GAoP in general. Today, in this age of instant communication, we get a lot of copycat fads and practices. Take the 'strangling' or the 'huffing' crazes among many youths today - with one news report, or the click of a mouse, the entire world can know about it in a matter of minutes, even seconds.

But walking the plank during the GAoP? Well, if the crew was even sober enough to remember it, and if there were any survivors, perhaps the story would get back to others...eventually. BUT how do we know that the story wasn't embellished upon in the process? We don't - and that's where even 'eyewitness' accounts could be called into question.

So, I guess we will never know for sure either way. However, I LOVE hearing the stories - and would hope that, if anyone else stumbles upon an account of plank walking, they would share it here.

das

[Fox]

How rude you are!

Anyway, if you'll permit I'll take your points one by one.

Firstly, a hell of a lot more cases of piracy were documented than most people imagine, waaaay more. Infuriatingly, not so many as we'd like, and there are some very significant gaps (like the trial of Blackbeard's crew for example), but I'm not sure that I could agree that most acts of piracy were not recorded. Just about anything could have happened, but that doesn't mean it did. It is incumbent on us rational historical researchers to weigh up the chances of something unrecorded happening, taking into account other similar evidence, and a snippet of logic. In the case of walking the plank, yeah, it might have happened, once or twice (we CAN say for sure that it definitely wasn't the common thing that fiction makes it out to be), but on the other hand, why should it have?

Second, I think the role of newspapers is probably underestimated, during the GAoP there were literally hundreds of different papers and periodicals in print. Literacy too was MUCH higher than people generally assume. I agree wholeheartedly with your comments on the Chinese Whispers effects to story-telling in the era though.

Thirdly. Yes, it is similar to the earrings debate (I think debacle would be a better word). Neither can be shown to have any grain of truth in them for our period, both have reasonable contradictory evidence against them, neither will ever go away no matter how many times the theory is debunked. We could add several other similar examples.

Fourth. You're probably quite right.

It is however important not to get too carried away with the "just because we can't prove it happened doesn't men it never did" argument. That argument is ok in itself, but it can't be taken any further. For example, one of the most common earring things is people debating why pirates wore earrings, yet if we cannot say with any certainty that even one GAoP era pirate did then arguing about why is somewhat pointless. People still do it though. It's the same with this question. I can agree that it is not impossible (though I do not consider it very likely) that at some point during the GAoP someone was made to walk along a plank by pirates, but it's completely fruitless to try to get any more than that.

[dasNdanger]

How rude you are!

"PIRATE!"

Firstly, a hell of a lot more cases of piracy were documented than most people imagine, waaaay more. Infuriatingly, not so many as we'd like, and there are some very significant gaps (like the trial of Blackbeard's crew for example), but I'm not sure that I could agree that most acts of piracy were not recorded.

Well...I take responsibility here since I really don't like to read unless it's in textbook format. I like documents and charts and lists...stuff like that, and get rather bored when I try to read a 'story' based on those things...*looks at a still-unread copy of Under the Black Flag, and shrugs...*

And true - just about anything could have happened...but like you say, it doesn't mean that it did. This is where I have a problem with research, especially since the computer has taken over the world.

WHERE does one go for the truth? Sure, I could travel the world, visiting museums, paging through documents, interviewing historians. However, I really don't have the time, energy or finances for that, so I must rely on the research of authors, and ...*shudder* ...on what I can glean from the net. The latter scares the crap out of me because many people trust internet info too much, and history is being inaccurately re-written at a tremendous rate of speed. How can we distinguish fact from fiction - or from personal speculation? That's why I make it clear when I'm 'speculating' for the fun of it, and posting a documented 'fact'. However...those documented facts MAY have been altered to suit the opinions of the person who published or wrote the book from where I took the information.

You mentioned the inaccuracies on UTBF - yet how many people KNOW that there are inaccuarcies in that book? Do we look to The History of Pyrates...? But then again, did the author embellish anything there? And what of the newspapers - I would trust them the most, but again...stories may have been meddled with to sway public opinion.

I guess this is where I get frustrated - separating fact from fiction. Based on human nature (which really doesn't change ALL that much), I can sometimes see through embellishments. But sometimes I can't - and so I tend to read everything with inner skepticism, not trusting the things I'm being told. I guess - in a perfect world - I would love for someone to do what I cannot - the hands-on research, digging for the facts through original documents and not basing their information on recently published works.

And thanks, Foxe - for this exchange. It really helps to bounce ideas and opinions off of someone with deeper knowledge than I have regarding the period in question. As you can tell - I am a person who enjoys speculation - but that doesn't mean that I BELIEVE in my own speculation!! It's quite the opposite, I assure you...

das

[Fox]

I must rely on the research of authors, and ...*shudder* ...on what I can glean from the net.

We-ell. Any author who doesn't quote their sources can be thrown out straight away. Any author whose books include the words "the Secret history of..." or "the True history of..." can usually be thrown out, because the contents is usually neither secret not true. Any books with the words "...has uncovered startling new evidence..." on the back should be burned, because the chances are that the new stuff is neither startling nor evidence. Finally, any book with the words "David Hatcher Childress" on the cover just shouldn't be picked up at all.

A good author will always quote their sources, so even if you are unable to view those sources yourself you can assume that for the most part their evidence is based on historical fact rather than the speculation of others. Beware of trusting books which extensively use other secondary sources as evidence.

The internet is a fantastic resource if only it were properly used. The potential for sharing information is incredible (just look over 10 threads in Captain Twill and see how much you learn). The downside is that it is unregulated, anyone can post what they want, and people will believe it. The whole reason I wrote my Mythtory site was precisely as a foil for people who say "it must be true I read it on a website". Well, it ain't true, and if you only believe websites then visit this one...

You make a good point about even contemporary records not being 100% reliable. In some cases, depending on what you want to know, they often are. For example, if you want to know about food on board a privateer then the supply records for the Duke and Dutchess in 1708 will speak the truth. If you want to know about people's actions and motivations then you have to take into account the nature of the source as well as its content. HOWEVER, even sources which are not accurate as to the actual events do at least present us with an accurate view of someone's opinion - it may not be what actually happened, but it is what could have happened in a way that would be believable to people of the time. Johnson's General History is a good example of this - we know that some of his details about dates, names etc are way off the mark, but the wealth of background information is staggering, and even if we can't use it to say for certain that so and so did this at this particular time, we can infer that this might have been the kind of thing pirates did - if you see what I mean.

UTBF - there are some bits that we know are wrong, where we have trustable, or multiple, historical records which show facts contrary to Cordingly. There are some bits which are probably wrong in all likelihood. And there are some bits where Cordingly not only contradicts the historical record, but also himself!

I must add though that the same is probably true of most books, and UTBF is better than most "popular" works of history.

[Rumba Rue]

Noodlewhacker? Now you know where I get my saying, "whip me with a wet noodle."

[dasNdanger]

Noodlewhacker?    Now you know where I get my saying, "whip me with a wet noodle." 

Ah...I see you ARE feeling better...or feeling...something.

Good to see you back in full swing, Rumba!! Now...WALK THE PLANK fer yer incorrigibility!! ARRRR!! *pokes Rumba in the bum wif da worm, nudging her down the plank...*

Now - what WERE we talking about...

das

[Longarm]

I have recently finished reading Peter Earle's " The Pirate Wars" in which he talks about at least two incidences of walking the plank tho not in the GAOP. (page 222) The first was on July 18,1882 and first printed in the Jamaica Royal Gazzette. The second no date given but a few years after the first. Both acts were commited by Cuban pirates who Earl theorizes gave us alot of how we view pirates today. Dark, swarthy and massively moustachiod men who tortured victims for fun.

If he is right these accounts of piracy in the late 1800's could very well have been the insperation of Pyle and his contemporaries in writing about the GOAP. It makes mores sense than believing that walking the plank came from pirates during Roman times. (even tho there are accounts of pirates offering to let their roman captives the oppertunity to walk ashore) Most people I talk to about pirates didn't know there were pirates back then, and still can't believe piracy is still going on today.

[Dutchman]

I found this passage in the following document;

http://www.asdk12.or...E%20PASSAGE.pdf

Dr. Claxton’s ship, the Young Hero, was one of those delayed for weeks before reaching the trade winds. “We were so streightened for provisions,” he testified, “that if we had been ten more days at sea, we must either have eaten the slaves that died, or have made the living slaves walk the plank,” a term, he explained, that was widely used by Guinea captains.

The condensed version: slaver in 1780's was becalmed and the captain/owner? Dr. Claxton makes reference to sending slaves to walk the plank. I've searched for the entire document of his journals (or maybe a court proceeding since "he testified") and they don't seem to be on line. has anyone ever run across the journal in its entirety? While it certainly does not prove that pirates made prisoners walk the plank, this would indicate it was, and had been, done for quite a while. I wonder if there is a description or explination of exactly what walking the plank entailed in the journal?

[Brit.Privateer]

I think that David Cordingly has found only one entry of a pirate making someone walk the plank, and that comes from the post Napoleonic era of piracy. It would be interesting to find out though if the use of the plank has it's origin in the late 18th century slave trade. There is a grain of truth to most myths, maybe this is it.

[Fox]

David Cordingly found a case in a newspaper from 1829, and there is another case mentioned in a Jamaican newspaper from 1822.

Francis Grose, in his Dictionary of Vulgar Tongue (1785), described walking the plank as "a mode of destroying devoted persons or officers in a mutiny on ship-board, by blindfolding them and obliging them to walk on a plank laid over the ship’s side; by this means, as the mutineers suppose, avoiding the penalty of murder".

In my notes I have a reference to this actually occurring during a mutiny of 1769, but I can't at present find details.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Myths almost always have at least small grain of truth and so does this have....I personally have never have big issue with walking the plank only thing that should be remenbered is that it was not typical punisment (not in gaop at least) and did not got it's fame untill 19th and 20th century related to pirates...

I think that slaver's sailors or captain had as demoniac mind as many pirates

Mutinous slaves have got cruel punisments (like here) so why not walking the pank like you proved...

Edited March 20, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Wikipedia has actually some really nice information about this http://en.wikipedia....lking_the_plank

Edited March 20, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Jib]

I seem to recall seeing a depiction of a group of slaves chained together and tethered to a heavy object forced over the side of a ship. The slaves were alive at the time. The reason behind this cruel event I do not remember.

[Fox]

Quite likely something as prosaic as there not being enough water or food for all of the slaves to last the voyage, so they got rid of the least valuable ones.