Pirates get "bum rap" says UF "historian"

[sirhenrymorgan]

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.

I recommend you don't go to Jamaica and say these things. They would hang you for words like that, even today. He is still considered a hero of the people of the island, and isn't that what's really important.

I certainly don't need to read second and third hand accounts to know of Morgan's exploits. I've sat in the Jamaican archives, I've read through Mordyford's papers, I've talked with the historians in the country. So I'm pretty confident on my read of Morgan and his exploits there.

If you want to consider him a pirate, go ahead. But I don't know of any pirates in the true sense who were soldiers and landsmen. Sir Henry didn't like going to sea, didn't do well there and certainly had no love of it. Ships were like airplanes to him. It was a way to get from point A to point B.

And there's absolutely no record that he bought off anyone anywhere for his titles or positions. He was a brilliant military strategist and commanded more than 36 ships with 240 guns on them and 1830 troops. I can't imagine an ordinary pirate being able to command such a fleet... hhm.

And yes, history is full of revisionists and revisionism. Half they stuff I learned from so called history experts 20 years ago in school has been proven wrong today. Give me a break. History is full of revisionism. Back then Sir Francis Drake was portrayed as an explorer - the word privateer and pirate never entered the lexiconn in regard to him. Had I only known he was just a lowly pirate...

-- Sir Henry

[Capn_Enigma]

I recommend you don't go to Jamaica and say these things. They would hang you for words like that, even today. He is still considered a hero of the people of the island, and isn't that what's really important.

I have been to Jamaica, thank you, and I have said things like that and most people there agreed wholeheartedly. He is considered so great a "hero" by the good people of Jamaica that a guy called Bob Marley (perchance you heard of him?) has immortalized him in the song "You Can't Blame the Youth":

You teach the youth about Christopher Columbus

And you said he was a very great man

You teach the youth about Marco Polo

And you said he was a very great man

You teach the youth about the pirate Hawkins

And you said he was a very great man

You teach the youth about the pirate Morgan

And you said he was a very great man

So You can't blame the youth of today

You can't fool the youth

You can't blame the youth

You can't fool the youth

In Jamaica, the very name "Henry Morgan" is synonymous with scoundrel, crook and exploiter, especially with the patois- speaking population.

[sirhenrymorgan]

You crack me up!

Yeah, I've heard they didn't think too highly of him on the tourist side of the island. Far different in his old haunts.

By the way, Random House, Cordingly's publisher, says he's a revisionist, so that can't be all bad. He has some good stuff in his book, damned revisionist...

From the Random House site:

For this rousing, revisionist history, the former head of exhibitions at England's National Maritime Museum has combed original documents and records to produce a most authoritative and definitive account of piracy's "Golden Age." As he explodes many accepted myths (i.e. "walking the plank" is pure fiction), Cordingly replaces them with a truth that is more complex and often bloodier. 16 pp. of photos. Maps.

From the Hardcover edition

- Sir Henry

[Capn_Enigma]

I am glad that we seem to agree that Cordingly's work is "most authoritative and definitive".

And FYI: I have been to Jamaica not as a tourist, but as a sailor.

[John Maddox Roberts]

Personally, I think Morgan sacked Panama because he'd heard that there were weapons of mass destruction there. That yellowcake gunpowder couldn't be allowed in Spanish hands.

[Phillip Black]

Not to break the argument up, but whether Morgan was a pirate, Buccaneer, Bucaneer leader, privateer, or whatever, the fact remains that Morgan was not a representative of the vast majority of pirates, but rather an exception to the rule.

I believe the average lifespan of a pirate was 2 years? Is that correct? This means that people like Morgan were a rarity, in fact most of our named pirates were probably the exceptions to the rule of piracy.

I, like the "scholar," want to believe that pirates were revolutionaries in their own right, and perhaps on their ships they were, but they hardly had the means or will to cause a social and governmental change like the American revolutionaries did...There are intrinsic differences in pirates and revolutionaries, primarily that pirates committed criminal acts as a means of support, whereas revolutionaries committed "criminal acts" so that they could buy tea and grow tobacco without paying taxes to the king (simplified I know). The endgame for a pirate and a revolutionary was very different.

Furthermore, Blackbeard can hardly be considered a practitioner of revolutionary democratic concepts...he was an autocratic and tyrannical captain if ever there was one...

[sirhenrymorgan]

I am glad that we seem to agree that Cordingly's work is "most authoritative and definitive".

And FYI: I have been to Jamaica not as a tourist, but as a sailor.

I would hardly say definitive. It's a stout piece of work, but hardly the be all-do all.

As for Morgan, if we're talking facts, it was planter Thomas Lynch, who's investments were in the slave trade with Spanish America, who betrayed both Modyford and Morgan. He was in London during the Panamanian campaign and had wriggled his way into Charles' ear with a loan of 50,000 pounds. He was angry that his efforts to become a power on the island of Jamaica were circumvented by Modyford. They had come to blows by the end of 1664 when he was dismissed from the Council and removed as Chief Justice.

Even when Modyford had been shipped back Lynch still protected Morgan. In a letter to Lord Arlington, he wrote, "To speak the truth of him, he's an honest and brave fellow, and had both Sir Thomas Modyford and the Council's commissions and instructions, and they thought he had obeyed and followed them so well that they gam him public thanks, which was recorded in the Council books."

Since Lynch was the one who wanted the both of them removed so he could attain the power he wanted, it's funny that even in his own private letter he characterized his supposed enemy as an "honest and brave fellow."

Truth was, he was never after Morgan. He was after Modyford and Morgan was simply caught between them. That's the main reason why he was never tried, not because of some grand pay off while in England.

- H.M.

And an apology for the slight - most people go there as tourists and never step foot in Port Royal. My apologies - it must have been a grand adventure indeed - one of a lifetime to sail in pirate waters. I had the pleasure of doing so on a smaller scale aboard the Schooner Wolf two months ago. It was like stepping back 330 years.

[Capn_Enigma]

Since Lynch was the one who wanted the both of them removed so he could attain the power he wanted, it's funny that even in his own private letter he characterized his supposed enemy as an "honest and brave fellow."

Not really.

This is the age old stratagem of "divide et impera", divide and conquer. First break one enemy (preferably a weaker ally of your fiercest enemy), thereafter crush your main opponent when he is off- balance.

With Modyford already out of the way, Lynch finally made his move in 1683, simultaneously with the English edition of Exquemelin's "American Buccaneers", because he knew that the book would do harm to Morgan's reputation.

And he was right, Morgan was suspended (1683) from the Jamaican council. Morgan sank into a continuous drunken stupor until his death in 1688.

[Longarm]

Could the reason that Moragan won his libel suit be that he was a wealthy, newly knighted hero and Exquemelin was a poor nobody and an admited bucauaneer. The law being what it was in those days being rich had it's advantages. No doubt that there were exagerations to make for better reading and selling, that stuff goes on even today. But just because Morgan won doesn't really mean some of the stuff he is accused of didn't happen. Money, power and friends in high places can make alot of things disappear.

[Capn_Enigma]

A week ago I wrote the following on the libel suit:

Here are a few facts:

Exquemelin's "De Americaensche Zee- Rovers" was first published in Dutch in 1678 by Jan ten Hoorn, Amsterdam.

After being a huge success, various translations appeared in different languages, among them German ("Americanische Seeräuber") in 1679, Spanish ("Piratas De La America") in 1681, English (1684) and French (1686). Due to the book's controversial nature, depending on the reader's standpoint, the respective translators added or omitted passages with chauvinistic content.

The Spanish version in particular omitted entire paragraphs, wherein Exquemelin's original text poked fun at indecisive or otherwise incompetent Spanish officers or actions taken by them. The translator did add, however, fictional dastardly behavior alledgedly perpetrated by Morgan against Spaniards. After all, the Spaniards had a good many bones to pick with Morgan.

It was this version that Morgan sued for libel, as the first English editions were a translation of the Spanish translation, and not of the Dutch original.

As an aside, it is a well established fact that Morgan used priests, monks and nuns as human shield when he scaled the fortress of Santiago at Porto Bello. Pray thee, tell us your sources to back up your disputing this.

Please bear also in mind that the outcome of the libel case was a political decision rather than a judicial one.

Morgan had just "redeemed" himself from the (entirely justified) charges of piracy in peacetime by buying patrons in very high places who held a protective hand over him. Those people could certainly not afford a piratical Morgan becoming the centerpiece of a political scandal, dragging them eventually into it as well.

All these incidents, however, do not reduce the historical value of Exquemelin's first hand eyewitness account.

[Longarm]

Any idea what Morgan thought of the original text? And where can someone go to find an unedited translation these days.

[Capn_Enigma]

One can only speculate that Morgan was less than amused.

If you mean with "unedited" a literal English translation of the Dutch original, then you should look here.

I had a copy of this paperback edition re- bound in leather to look period.

[Capn_Enigma]

Here it is:

[Patrick Hand]

OK... this should maybe go into Pirate Pop instead of Capt. Twill....

But is'nt there also a story that the sack of Panama didn't turn out as well as expected, and that Morgan stole most of what they got....

Or is that just from Steinbeck's "Cup of Gold".....

Fun topic.... maybe a new thread just about Morgan would be interesting......

[Capn_Enigma]

That's right Patrick, the Panama raid yielded much less than what Morgan had hoped for. While 500 men had sacked Porto Bello and bagged 215,000 Pieces of Eight (=430 PoE for each man), the Panama raid saw about 1,200 men but netted only 200,000 Pieces of Eight (=160 PoE (!) ea).

According to Exquemelin, Morgan kept a major portion of the spoils for himself. He then took a French leave, which more likely than not was a wise move, as he was about to be lynched by his fellow buccaneers.

In all probability, Morgan had also Panama set ablaze, as the buccaneers felt all too well in the city and even intended to occupy and fortify it permanently as a base for Pacific operations.

Morgan was quite aware that by the raid alone he had called the wrath of Spain upon himself and in order to avoid a grave and continuing politcal crisis, he made Panama uninhabitable for the buccaneers.

[sirhenrymorgan]

According to Exquemelin, Morgan kept a major portion of the spoils for himself. He then took a French leave, which more likely than not was a wise move, as he was about to be lynched by his fellow buccaneers.

In all probability, Morgan had also Panama set ablaze, as the buccaneers felt all too well in the city and even intended to occupy and fortify it permanently as a base for Pacific operations.

Morgan was quite aware that by the raid alone he had called the wrath of Spain upon himself and in order to avoid a grave and continuing politcal crisis, he made Panama uninhabitable for the buccaneers.

Is this the only book you have on Morgan's exploits? This tale is apocryphal at best.

Most of the manuscripts I have on Morgan don't support this. The people of Panama had weeks to move the treasure out of the town and to ship it out aboard the vessels in port. Morgan's own probate and inventories don't exactly support an extravagant lifestyle that would be evident from that much money.

And his wife of 20 years upon his death certainly didn't live an extravagant life after his death. It's another buried treasure tale that doesn't hold water.

True, the buccaneers thought there would be more and blamed Henry for it, but his will, probate and inventory of his posessions doesn't bare out any fortune at all.

-- H. M.

[Capn_Enigma]

Is this the only book you have on Morgan's exploits?

No, it's the only book I have on anything.

What an exceptionally stupid thing to ask.

His wife did perhaps not lead an extravagant lifestyle, but while he was alive, Morgan himself did.

In short, in the best of buccaneer tradition, he squandered most of his money on alcohol, as he was a heavy drinker, gave some more away to bribe influential patrons during his stay in London and even bestowed some of the loot upon churches in Jamaica so that he would get a decent burial (a lot good it did him - in the great earthquake of 1692 the sea swallowed his grave and the adjacent church ).

This tale is apocryphal at best.

Says who?

"It must again be stressed that where Exquemelin's facts may be checked from State Papers or independent witnesses they tally, but for [..] minor lapses."

Jack Beeching

That settles Exquemelin's credibilty. I have yet to see your key witness. Will you ever present anyone? Start quoting eyewitnesses to back up your allegations. Without that, your apologetic pleadings are, excuse the candor, worth exactly nothing.

[sirhenrymorgan]

I'm so sorry that your views are so finite and not open to other's opinions or resources.

I hardly have the time to pour through 30+ books on Morgan as well as the various theses and other pieces I have to quote a small piece I recall from somewhere. It's not really in my interests to waste time so when there are so many other things to do in life and so little to do it.

Perhaps this is why so many here have a distaste for some of the historians here. They just can't pull their head out of one idea to look at anything else. They just quote the little they know over and over and over again. Pity, really.

I acquiesce to your version of history, oh might Mister Know it All. You obviously have a doctorate in the subject and I am just a lowly student of the man without all the myth.

My most humble apologies.

-- Sir M.

[Capn_Enigma]

No evidence, no nothing. Thought as much.

I rest my case.

[Captain Jim]

I hardly have the time to pour through 30+ books on Morgan as well as the various theses and other pieces I have to quote a small piece I recall from somewhere. It's not really in my interests to waste time...

Well I, for one, am sorry you don't have the time to waste on us. I was patiently waiting in the background for you to reveal to us the sources of your knowledge. I suppose I will have to wait for your book to come out so I can check your bibliography at that time.

[Hester]

So much for "scholarly merit"... 

Hi, Mike:

Well, the article you posted appears to be a journalist's report on Mr. Acosta's thesis, and journalists are notoriously inaccurate when describing academic research. [indeed, the article doesn't even indicate what level of thesis this is: PhD, Master's, Honours Undergrad?]

So, I think we'd need to read Acosta's actual thesis, rather than this second-hand source, to judge its true academic merit.

Cheers, Hester

[MadMike]

I sincerely doubt it's even worth reading, given the quotations and slant noted in the press.

However, this gem is worth noting-

"With the world atwitter over the latest pirate invasion, "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest," the question arises - how authentic is the dashing Capt. Jack Sparrow?

Says Acosta, "His dress is authentic - except for his eye makeup. That's about it."

Yours, Mike

Note- the source of the article is UF writer Cathy Keen and Mr. Acosta himself (University of Florida News website).

[Hester]

I sincerely doubt it's even worth reading, given the quotations and slant noted in the press.

...

Note- the source of the article is UF writer Cathy Keen and Mr. Acosta himself (University of Florida News website).

Hi, Mike:

Thanks for that clarification.

Ah, so this article was from the campus newspaper -- written by a student journalist (likely an undergrad, as grad students rarely have time to be involved with such extra-curricular activities), and based on her interview with Acosta.

Anyone who's ever been interviewed by a journalist (whether student or supposedly 'professional') will realize that the quotes used in such "news" stories rarely reflect the subject's full and accurate thoughts on the matter. [One of my research interests is the Robin Hood legend, and I'm consistently flabbergasted by how the popular press misrepresents and sensationalizes scholarly research in this field.]

And certainly, the rule in academic research is always to go back to the original source -- which in this case would be Acosta's thesis. You may disagree with his findings -- but you need to look at what he's actually written before criticizing his work as having no scholarly merit. Basing your assessment of his work on an interview article in a campus newspaper amounts to creating a "Straw Man" argument.

Cheers, Hester

[MadMike]

The UF article clearly lists the writer and Acosta as POC.

Yours, Mike

[Hester]

The UF article clearly lists the writer and Acosta as POC.

Yours, Mike

Hi, Mike:

POC? I'm not familiar with that abbreviation. What does it stand for?

Cheers, Hester