Pirates get "bum rap" says UF "historian"

[MadMike]

So much for "scholarly merit"...

Did this clown bother to read "Captured by Pirates"?

Yours, Mike

Study: Pirates pursued democracy, helped American colonies survive

Filed under Research, Politics on Wednesday, June 28, 2006.

GAINESVILLE, Fla. — Blackbeard and Ben Franklin deserve equal billing for founding democracy in the United States and New World, a new University of Florida study finds.

Pirates practiced the same egalitarian principles as the Founding Fathers and displayed pioneering spirit in exploring new territory and meeting the native peoples, said Jason Acosta, who did the research for his thesis in history at the University of Florida.

“Hollywood really has given pirates a bum rap with its image of bloodthirsty, one-eyed, peg-legged men who bury treasure and force people to walk the plank,” he said. “We owe them a little more respect.”

Acosta, a descendant of a pirate who fought for the United States in the Battle of New Orleans, studied travel narratives, court hearings, sermons delivered at pirate hangings and firsthand accounts of passengers held captive by pirates. Comparing pirate charters with the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, he said he was amazed by the similarities.

Like the American revolutionaries, pirates developed three branches of government with checks and balances. The ship captain was elected, just as the U.S. president; the pirate assembly was comparable to Congress; and the quartermaster resembled a judge in settling shipmate disputes and preventing the captain from overstepping his authority, he said.

Colonists and pirates also were alike in emphasizing written laws, democratic representation and due process, Acosta said. All crew members were allowed to vote, ship charters had to be signed by every man on board, and anyone who lost an eye or a leg was compensated financially, he said.

These ideals grew out of both groups’ frustration at being mistreated by their leaders; the British forced the colonists to quarter troops and pay taxes, and captains on merchant ships beat their shipmen, starved them and paid less than promised, Acosta said.

“It’s no wonder that many sailors seized the opportunity to jump ship and search for a better way of life, namely piracy, which offered better food, shorter work shifts and the power of the crew in decision-making,” he said.

A golden age of pirating emerged in the 17th and 18th centuries as these Brethren of the Sea sailed the world’s waterways, plundering hundreds of millions of dollars worth of gold, silver and other merchandise, shaping the modern world in the process, Acosta said.

Pirates mapped new territory, expanded trade routes, discovered good ports and opened doors with the native peoples, Acosta said. “They really helped European nations explore the Americas before Europeans could afford to explore them on their own,” he said.

By selling stolen silks, satins, spices and other merchandise in ports and spending their booty in the colonies, pirates created an economic boom, helping struggling settlements and making Port Royale in Jamaica and Charleston, S.C., huge mercantile centers, Acosta said. “They didn’t bury their treasure, they spent it, helping colonies survive that couldn’t get the money and supplies they needed from Europe,” he said.

Without the infusion of money into the New World from piracy, it is possible that Britain and France may not have been able to catch up with Spain, Acosta said.

“Had it not been for pirates, Britain might have had trouble holding onto the American colonies,” he said. “Pirates decimated the Spanish so badly that Spain finally had to give up some of its American empire just to get pirating to stop.”

Native Americans and black slaves oppressed by the Spanish in the Caribbean gave pirates inside information on where to dock ships and find supplies, Acosta said. Slaves fleeing plantations were welcomed on pirate ships, where they shared an equal voice with white sailors, he said.

Acosta said he believes pirates would be given a place in the history books if they had been able to write their stories and leave diaries like the more literate American colonists.

A Gainesville middle school teacher, Acosta occasionally brings up pirates in his classroom, where he has a captive audience, thanks to the popularity of the movie “Pirates of the Caribbean,” which has a sequel opening July 7. “I had one group of students in my class who just went around the playground all the time saying, ‘Aaar, we’re the pirates,’” he said.

Richard Burg, an Arizona State University professor and expert on pirates, said Acosta is performing a great service by emphasizing pirates’ democratic and egalitarian ways. “The men who sailed under the skull and crossbones were ordinary folk, like America’s revolutionaries, standing firm against oppressive governments and economic systems,” he said. “Mr. Acosta is one of the few scholars who understand this.”

[sirhenrymorgan]

Outside of the over dramatization about the democratic aspects of ship life, I think he's pretty spot on. If it weren't for the constant harassment of Henry Morgan and his buccaneers, Spain would have probably still held onto much of what became British colonies, including Jamaica. He stretched Spains resources to the point where they also couldn't populate Florida as much as they wanted to.

As far as commerce, pirates did indeed help the colonies economically. Not only did they spend their wealth in the colonial cities, but they brought in much needed goods. Certainly, Port Royal benefitted greatly from the added commece and economic wealth. Prior to the earthquake, it's economic engine rivaled that of colonial Boston. It was due entirely to the buccaneer and pirate trade.

I don't think their attitude toward slavery was any different than others of the times. Some captured slaves did indeed join the crews, but others remained slaves and the trading of slaves in pirate strongholds (again, I know of Port Royal mostly) was brisk.

The greatest contributions, certainly in buccaneer times, was the disruption of trading by privateers acting on behalf of the English. Spain simply couldn't keep up economically or strategically, thanks in large part to this supplemental force of offensive forces.

So I think overall his basis of thought is pretty accurate, at least from the standpoint of buccaneers who served country as opposed to pirates who typically served their own interests. And, of course, the terms are used so interchangably it would be unfair to separate them in responding to this research.

Just my humble opinion... of course.

Sir Henry

[Coastie04]

I think there is some merit, but I also believe that the 'bum rap' that pirates have recieved is fully justified. In a few hundred years, someone might say the same thing about the terrorists of today.

Just think, all the jobs that were created by having to clean up Oklahoma City, Twin Towers, put extra security in airports, etc. Plus, the economic boom that goes along with a war against them. Sure, people are dying, but in the grand scheme of things it's only a few, and there are many more people dying on our highway system, from street gangs, etc. However, while they're over there, every bullet, every helmet, every pair of boots means money in merchant pockets. Plus, at least for a while, the terrorists actually united Americans, making the country stronger.

Back to the reality. Terrorists deserve and will always have a 'bum rap' because what they do is illegal, causes fear, and is directed toward us. Pirates were essentially the terrorists of their day. While one can find the good side to just about everything, the reality is that pirates were not the nice 'Captain Jack' style pirates. It was a hard life filled with murder, rape, torture, robbery, and doing just about anything in order to survive (from killing for food to blockading a port for medicine). Glorifying them to this level is bending to Hollywood stereotypes as much as slapping on the eyepatch, strapping on a wooden leg, and saying 'Arrrgh' all the time.

Coastie

[Capn_Enigma]

You are only a "terrorist" if you lose.

If you win, you get promoted to "patriot".

[sirhenrymorgan]

I think there is some merit, but I also believe that the 'bum rap' that pirates have recieved is fully justified. In a few hundred years, someone might say the same thing about the terrorists of today.

Back to the reality. Terrorists deserve and will always have a 'bum rap' because what they do is illegal, causes fear, and is directed toward us. Pirates were essentially the terrorists of their day. While one can find the good side to just about everything, the reality is that pirates were not the nice 'Captain Jack' style pirates. It was a hard life filled with murder, rape, torture, robbery, and doing just about anything in order to survive (from killing for food to blockading a port for medicine). Glorifying them to this level is bending to Hollywood stereotypes as much as slapping on the eyepatch, strapping on a wooden leg, and saying 'Arrrgh' all the time.

Coastie

Ah, but within the context of the times, pirates were hardly any more vicious than society at large. If you read about life in Europe at the time, the supposed horrendous deeds pirates were doing were being replicated all over. It was indeed a violent time, so I don't believe most pirates acted any differently than what society did at large. Certainly reading about London in the time of Morgan makes him seem pretty normal.

For instance, public dunking, hanging and torture was pretty much the norm then. So why would torture be so barbaric to pirates of the time. Have you ever read what was going on in the prisons then? The pirates would have been hard pressed to be worse. And the Spanairds set the standard for torture - they were extremely creative, particularly where it regarded the English.

And as Captain Enigma so well put, terrorist and patriot are hardly far apart. Our forefathers were terrorists in the eyes of the English while many pirates were seen as saviors to the colonists in terms of supply economic wealth and goods. It's all relative. But I don't think the labels take away from their influence on geography, politics, economics or maritime accomplishments.

-- Sir Henry

[MadMike]

"Pirates were essentially the terrorists of their day. While one can find the good side to just about everything, the reality is that pirates were not the nice 'Captain Jack' style pirates. It was a hard life filled with murder, rape, torture, robbery, and doing just about anything in order to survive (from killing for food to blockading a port for medicine). Glorifying them to this level is bending to Hollywood stereotypes as much as slapping on the eyepatch, strapping on a wooden leg, and saying 'Arrrgh' all the time."

Well said, Coastie.

Too bad the "historian" Acosta couldn't be bothered to fully read Johnson's "Pyrates" when he was researching his thesis (the pic on the web showed him with a copy in the background).

Yours, Mike

[Billy Flynt]

"Treason doth not prosper"

of course if it did then none shall call it treason.

[Captain Jim]

"Treason doth not prosper" 

of course if it did then none shall call it treason.

If the Declaration of Independence wasn't treasonous I don't know what is.

And that seemed to prosper quite nicely, thank you.

The truth of the matter is that no pyrate was stereotypical, and neither were the ways each ship was run. There were in fact men who turned to pyracy in desperation as an escape from oppression and there were those who were the bloodthirsty louts whose lives were indeed filled with “murder, rape, torture, robbery, and doing just about anything in order to survive.” I notice that some pyrate articles were quite specific about what happened to anyone found guilty of rape (death) or stealing from each other (marooning or disfigurement.) They also specified compensation for injuries suffered in the service of the company. So were the pyrates that formed shipboard societies based on these rather strict articles lawless? No, no more that the founding fathers of this country, the big difference being that the pyrates formed their societies aboard ship instead of on land. We defended this shore and won. If not for that Washington would have been tried and beheaded for treason and perhaps our diction would be much better. Most pyrates eventually lost basically because they did not, after having acquired a ship, turn to legitimate business. Or perhaps there were mutinous crews that took possession of a ship and cargo and turned to business instead of plundering and are now lost to history simply because they blended in, became just another ship just like the colonies became just another country.

[Sir Eric]

CLICHE ALERT: "History is written by the winners."

Yes, there were pirates that helped defend New Orleans against the English (in fact, tipping the government off that there would be an attack) and were given great credit and amnesty from their crimes when the Brits were fought off. They were of great service to the nation, and it's a very interesting moment in pirate history. I can understand why one of their descendants might want to defend their "honor" in that regard.

But, most of them turned back to pirating soon afterwards, fled to the gulf around Texas, and wound up hung in the end. They may have had some sense of national patriotism, but then again most radicals do. That doesn't make them good people by any stretch of the imagination. Just because a criminal is patriotic doesn't mean he / she isn't still a criminal.

[Capn_Enigma]

Just because a criminal is patriotic doesn't mean he / she isn't still a criminal.

If that be the case, please allow me to ask a simple question.

Why is it that the 1$ bill in the United States is adorned with the image of a criminal?

[Captain Jim]

I’m havin’ a thought here. What if we divide the crimes into two broad categories: crimes against persons (rape, torture, murder) and crimes against country (raiding/disruption of shipping, forcing redeployment of naval forces, taking and holding land, other military actions that may result in personal gain.)

Now we have that criminal on the $1 bill, or maybe John Paul Jones. And then you have Henry Avery. Is there a difference?

And what about Henry Morgan? He was a pyrate/buccaneer, an outlaw to his own government until England went back to war with Spain. Then he was a hero, all a matter of good timing.

[Sir Eric]

Just because a criminal is patriotic doesn't mean he / she isn't still a criminal.

If that be the case, please allow me to ask a simple question.

Why is it that the 1$ bill in the United States is adorned with the image of a criminal?

Well, if Washingtons face was on British paper money, I'd say you have a point. He might have been considered a criminal by the crown. However, his portrait is on US money, where he is considered a hero.

See, as soon as we won our independance, the whole "treason" thing was moot. Only the loosers get tried for treason. Winners get to be President.

That's what I meant when I quoted the old cliche above. Simple concept.

[blackjohn]

Ok... I'll step waaaay out on a limb here, play the Devil's Advocate, and say... the Revolution was treason by a disenfranchised wealthy ruling class, and quite unlike the "treason" of the common seamen...

[Captain Jim]

I'll agree with that to a certain extent, only the fighting on the ground in the colonies wasn't done by the disenfranchised wealthy ruling class but by farmers, coopers, blacksmiths and shopkeepers: the common man. These folks had to have a reason for fighting. Were they fighting to overthrow a cruel and tyrannical regime or because they stood a better chance at becoming wealthy if they instituted self governance? That, of course, is a thread for a forum on Revolution-era politics and motivations.

I think of a ship at sea in the era of sail as a country of its own. Like kings, there were good and bad captains. The bad ones could look forward to ruling with an iron hand or dealing with mutiny. After the mutiny, the overthrow of a cruel and tyrannical captain, the sailors had only two real choices: disappear or turn pyrate. Mutiny was a hanging offence, and you were assumed guilty until you were almost invariably proven guilty, so one could not just carry on with life. One would have to create a new identity or never set foot in civilization again: I refer you to the mutiny on the Bounty as the quintessential (if OOP) example.

So in one instance the traitors took land and that land became their country and in the other they took a boat and that boat became their country.

Yes, yes, oversimplification, and some pirates were just thieves and cutthroats. But some were not. To brand all pyrates as the lowest form of parasitical vermin is as wrong as lauding them all as champions of truth, justice and the power of the individual over the oppression of the rich and tyrannical.

Now I have simply got to get a copy of this guy’s study.

[sirhenrymorgan]

And what about Henry Morgan? He was a pyrate/buccaneer, an outlaw to his own government until England went back to war with Spain. Then he was a hero, all a matter of good timing.

Revisionism has made Henry Morgan a pirate. He was a buccaneer and fought for England and its interests in the Caribbean. He never went out on account on his own or attacked English ships. In fact, Henry hung pirates after being made Acting Governor. He despised them in fact, believing them to be nothing more than common criminals.

He was never considered an outlaw to his government and whether he was ever a prisoner is a matter of conjecture. He was indeed called back to England but he was never imprisoned in the traditional manner as Modyford was. In fact, he was courted by high society during his time there and was considered a hero by the populace because he helped keep Jamaica free from the hands of the Spanish and French. One of his best friends while there was the Duke of Albermarle, General Monck's son and a second cousin of Lord Modyford.

England was at war with the Dutch at the time and only brought Henry back to appease Spain since they didn't need a second enemy. He was knighted and sent back to Jamaica in large part to protect the island from the Dutch and to keep Spain at bay in the Carribbean.

He returned to Jamaica in January 1675 having never been charged with any crime or ever brought to a hearing.

He never turned on his love for Jamaica or England itself.

-- Sir Henry

[Captain Jim]

So he returned to England for his health?

And while it is true that he never was technically a buccaneer, he lead them on their raids on land and sea so I suppose he could be called a buccaneer leader. And you can’t call him a pirate unless your definition of pirate includes: (n) pirate, Someone who robs at sea or plunders the land from the sea without having a commission from any sovereign nation (Princeton University web dictionary) which pretty much sums up his activities after Spain and England signed a very short-lived peace agreement. To England and Jamaica a war hero, to Spain and the Dutch, a pirate.

[sirhenrymorgan]

Morgan always had a commission, being Admiral of the Jamaican Fleet, particularly under Modyford and then Lynch. He was a buccaneer first and foremost, serving under Mansfield and took over for him in executing Modyford's grand plans for Jamaica. He was first and foremost a soldier on land. He wrecked three ships he commanded because he was not a sailor nor a man of the sea. In fact, on his trip back to England he became horribly seasick like and landsmen.

He returned to England because Lynch had to accept the request from the crown for his return. However, he was never charged, never imprisoned. He frequented the taverns and inns and the soirees of the royal and wealthy during this three years there. He never once was imprisoned as a criminal would be. Hardly. Even aboard ship, he had his own cabin and played cards with a fellow captain on the voyage over. His wife stayed in Jamaica, tending to his plantation and affairs. I hardly think Mary Elizabeth would have stayed there if there was any chance at all Henry would not be coming back. They had quite the relationship, you know.

He always carried a letter of marque though, even if the reasons it was issued by Lynch or Modyford were dubious. Hence, he was not a pirate in any sense of the term, but a privateer. Again, he thought pirates were lowlifes and hung them with zeal during his tenure as Lieutenant Governor and Acting Governor of Jamaica.

-- Sir Henry

[Sir Eric]

Of course Morgan wasn't tried by the English. At that point in history, folks who behaved like Morgan were too large an asset to the crown to be branded criminal. The crown wanted and needed people like Morgan out there, disrupting Spannish trade and creating in-roads for English settlement, just like they had sanctioned the same sort of behavior in the Mediteranian.

"Tsk tsk Henry, you've gotten the Spannish all upset. You know you shouldn't be attacking their ships and towns when we're at peace with them. Now... go be a good boy and never do it again *wink wink*"

Had Morgan been captured by the Spannish, one of two things most likely would have happend to him. He would have either been ransomed for a LOT of money or he would have been tried as a pirate and hung. I think we have to remember that the English perspective isn't the ONLY qualifier for who's a pirate and who isn't.

It may be a bit of a stretch, but a simular situation is impacting the world right now. Many people in Lebanon don't consider Hezbollah to be terrorists, including members of the Lebanese government, where Hezbollah is a recognized political party. Iran and Syria support and encourage Hezbollah because it helps them meet their ends. Yet, to those who are suffering because of their actions, they most certainly are terrorists and criminals. A Hezbollah in Syria is a hero to the cause, a Hezbollah in Israel is a war criminal. A Morgan in London is rewarded, a Morgan in Madrid is shackled and locked in a cell.

[Bartholomew Treate]

Very well said. I think it's always good to remove our own ethnocentrisms and see things from many sides, rather than what we were taught. I enjoyed reading your thoughts.

-- Bart

[Cire]

A Morgan in London is rewarded, a Morgan in Madrid is shackled and locked in a cell.

So if your name is Morgan, don't go to Spain on yer holidays.

[Capn_Enigma]

He returned to England because Lynch had to accept the request from the crown for his return. However, he was never charged, never imprisoned. He frequented the taverns and inns and the soirees of the royal and wealthy during this three years there. [..] [Morgan] had quite the relationship, you know.

And ecactly therein lies the "secret" of Morgan. He bought patrons in high places who protected him against the (entirely justified) charges. After all, he did attack Spanish possessions and committed atrocities in peacetime. His excuse "I had not heard that a state of peace existed betweeen Englad and Spain when I attacked Panama" is ridiculous at best.

If Morgan was so innocent, then why was Modyford, his accomplice in crime, arrested after having confessed to having received 1,000 pounds p.a. in pirate bribes (Moran being among them)? The answer is a simple one: Modyford was unable to bribe important persons, and, after all, somebody had to take the fall for the Panama raid.

The only reason Morgan is whitewashed even today, is that a

""hero" must not be a schemer, must not be brutal, cruel, boozy, crooked, dishonest, perjurious, disloyal, dishonorable, bootlicking and cowardly."

Wolfram zu Mondfeld, naval historian, on Henry Morgan

[Rabbitz]

As an "outsider" of sorts the analogy in a modern world I see is the "Pirate Crew" being now represented by "Crime Gangs" or "Colour Gangs". A group of people who believe they are disenfranchised, banding together to survive and ignoring the "laws of the land" or the "ideals of society".

Modern Sea going pirates are really still doing the same thing anyway....

Rabz

[sirhenrymorgan]

He returned to England because Lynch had to accept the request from the crown for his return. However, he was never charged, never imprisoned. He frequented the taverns and inns and the soirees of the royal and wealthy during this three years there. [..] [Morgan] had quite the relationship, you know.

And ecactly therein lies the "secret" of Morgan. He bought patrons in high places who protected him against the (entirely justified) charges. After all, he did attack Spanish possessions and committed atrocities in peacetime. His excuse "I had not heard that a state of peace existed betweeen Englad and Spain when I attacked Panama" is ridiculous at best.

If Morgan was so innocent, then why was Modyford, his accomplice in crime, arrested after having confessed to having received 1,000 pounds p.a. in pirate bribes (Moran being among them)? The answer is a simple one: Modyford was unable to bribe important persons, and, after all, somebody had to take the fall for the Panama raid.

The only reason Morgan is whitewashed even today, is that a

""hero" must not be a schemer, must not be brutal, cruel, boozy, crooked, dishonest, perjurious, disloyal, dishonorable, bootlicking and cowardly."

Wolfram zu Mondfeld, naval historian, on Henry Morgan

Henry Morgan was hardly well connected in England. His entire career had been spent in Jamaica. Hid deeds on behalf of the crown is what got him off - his being brought to England was simply to keep the Spanish at bay. There is no record of him buying anyone off there. Like other members of his rank, he was treated by society with appropriate honor and his fame preceded him.

The issue of the raid of Panama extends far beyond who was at peace and who was at war. Jamaica was a thorn in the side of Spain's desires for control all of the Caribbean. His raids on Spanish towns was designed to disrupt expansionism and instead require Spain to spend vast amounts of resources on fortifying towns and building armadas to protect them. It created economic chaos for Spain as shipments of riches from the new world dwindled just as they needed it most.

The raid on Panama was conducted with a Commission from the Governor and was legitimate.

Esquemeling's own publishers posted a famed retraction following Sir Henry's libel suit against him. The judgement found that Sir Henry was indeed libeled in several pages, including several key points:

"... the style of the Letter to the Spanish Admiral unto him is wrong: for he styled him Captain Morgan, Head of the English Fleet, and not Commander of the Pirates."

"The Expedition performed by Admiral Morgan against Panama was not undertaken without Commission from the Governor of Jamiaca, and it was upon account of new Acts of Hostility, and fresh Abuses that had been committed by the Spanairds upon the King of England's Subjects of Jamiaca, as by Council minute may sufficiently appear to any that desire full satisfaction herein; and also by the said Commission, which may see herein inserted."

This was followed by a copy of the commission as presented by Modyford to Morgan.

Were the charges of treason appropriate for our forefathers? Was it entirely justified? Of course. But the ends justified the means. And such was the case of Henry Morgan in his time.

Revisionist historians can say all they want but Henry's presence in Jamaica and his raids on the Spanish is what kept the Jamaican's from having to learn to like flan.

-- Sir Henry

[Coastie04]

It seems pretty clear to me on the issue of Morgan. He may have employed pirates, though while they served with him they acted under his authority and thus were not pirates. Morgan himself acted under the authority of England, and thus at worst could be labeled as a privateer instead of the Captain of the English Fleet. Think of it kind of like the Jamaica National Guard. Now, if he overstepped his bounds a bit with the Panama incident, fine. It was a matter of bad timing. He probably guessed that the peace with Spain was shakey, and considering how long it took correspondance to arrive from England, he decided to be proactive. He jumped the gun. Whatever Spain called him, it doesn't really matter. If he was captured by Spain and hanged as a pirate, it still wouldn't prove that he actually was. It's not uncommon for enemies to label each other with derogatory titles. Therefore, just taking the facts, Morgan attacked the Spanish, but held a piece of paper from England, a long established nation, saying that what he did was legal as far as England was concerned (no, I don't know what the actual wording was, but you get my point). Therefore, he was not a pirate, regardless of what the Spanish or Dutch or even the Japanese called him.

Coastie

[Capn_Enigma]

Therefore, just taking the facts, Morgan attacked the Spanish, but held a piece of paper from England, a long established nation, saying that what he did was legal as far as England was concerned.  Therefore, he was not a pirate, regardless of what the Spanish or Dutch or even the Japanese called him.

Very well, let's talk facts:

Modyford was not in the position to issue such a document to Morgan in the first place. Bribed and coerced by Morgan and incited by the prospect of a generous share in the spoils (Morgan always knew how to please those who were useful to him), Modyford granted Morgan the admiral title and the totally illegal documents that led to the Porto Bello and Panama raids, thereby exceeding his authority by far.

It is a historical irony, that in those documents, Modyford even suggested that Morgan stop torturing his victims.

Unfortunately for Modyford, his patron, to whom he also owed his governorship, George Monck, the Duke of Albemarle, had died in 1670, and, as somebody had to be blamed for the Panama raid, Modyford took the fall and was imprisoned in the Tower for two years.

Calling numerous historians (Cordingly among them) who differ from your view "revisionist" is a bit cheap, isn't it?

Concerning the libel suit, please read my post on this in a different thread.

After the whole thing had cooled off, Modyford was reinstated as chief justice of Jamaica, having never been tried.

Henry Morgan was certainly not what Drake had been: A gentlemanly "privateer of the crown". He was a buccaneer and a pirate. He is to be admired for his military expertise, cunning, leadership and success, but to depict him as a "noble hero" for England is just like pouring perfume over a pig.