On Jacobitism, Stuart Anti-Government Conservatism and MAGA Pirate America

 One wonders… why King James, Duke of Ormond and Windham as names for pirate vessels? Why toast the health of the “Pretender,” James III? James Butler, 2^nd duke of Ormond and Sir William Windham were both popular Jacobites of the day, adherents of James III, the “Pretender.” So does this have anything to do with the tendency of pirates to be politically conservative and anti-government? According to Snelgrave’s narrative of his capture, it did.

Snelgrave noted that all three of the pirate captains: Howell Davis in King James, Olivier LeVasseur, then taking command of Duke of Ormond, and Jeremiah Cocklyn, preparing to outfit Bird or Windham, were Jacobites. They supported the claim of the ousted Stuart dynasty over that of the foreign Hanoverian King George I. To be sure, so-called “anti-government” Jacobites were anti-government only because the current government was not Stuart! Most pirates never sought democracy. They were, however, concerned with making their government “great again” as one popular conservative trope goes.

Davis named his ship, King James, after the would-be King James III. They even claimed to be serving under his authority, supposedly possessing his personal commissions. Pirates regularly drank to the “Pretender’s health.” As Snelgrave noted, they were “doubly on the side of the gallows, both as traitors and pirates.” They even referred to King George as a “son of a whore” and a “cuckoldy dog.”[1]

LeVasseur was French; he was born in Calais, France. Catholicism defined his life and nation. It dominated his upbringing, as it had influenced the Stuarts of England, until the interruption of William of Orange, the Protestant Dutch king and husband of Mary Stuart, daughter of James II. Though Mary was a Stuart, she had been “reduced” in her family’s conservative beliefs by her marriage to William. Parliament in 1688 had used this marriage as a bandage for the perceived national wound they had caused by delegitimizing monarchial succession in England. The “Glorious Revolution” was bad for Stuarts, but the recent political insurrection surrounding the accession of the German George I was absolute liberal treason to Stuart conservatives and their allies! James Butler, 2^nd duke of Ormonde was one such conservative patriot – as viewed by Jacobites, followers of James III or the “Pretender.”[2]

Born the son of Thomas Butler, 6th Earl of Ossory and his wife Emilia, James Butler was grandson of James Butler, 1st duke of Ormonde. Raised in Ireland as a Whig, he yet schooled in France and afterwards at Christ Church, Oxford. He served with distinction in the military and attained political office. But, when Parliament attempted in January and February 1689 to declare that James II had abdicated his throne, thereby putting William of Orange and his Stuart wife Mary on the throne, he voted against both motions. Even though the conservatively-perceived horrid deed had been successful, he yet served William III with similar distinction. Butler appeared to be loyal to his nation, whatever its politics. Ormonde was appointed Commander-in-Chief of the Forces and colonel of the 1st Regiment of Foot Guards. In the Irish Parliament, Ormonde and the majority of peers supported the conservative or Tory (monarchial) interest. His position as Captain-General imbued him with great influence during the conservative crisis brought about by the death of Queen Anne in 1712. Shortly preceding her death, Ormonde began exhibiting definite Jacobite leanings. When the Jacobite Rebellion of 1715 (coincident with an uptick of British piracy in America) broke out, Ormonde was accused of supporting it. Rebels invoked his name with the cheer "High church and Ormonde." The rebellion resulted in Butler’s impeachment for high treason by Lord Stanhope on June 21, 1715. He then fled to France and joined the “Pretender,” or the would-be James III.[3]

Many wonder at Jacobite names of pirate ships: King James, Royal James, Windham (for Sir William Windham, a Jacobite whose arrest is attributed with causing the failure of the Jacobite Rebellion of 1715), and Queen Anne’s Revenge. All of them carry a stubborn Jacobite political message – similar to that of other conservative manifestos – for the early eighteenth century, that phrase might have been “Stuart rule will rise again!” Obviously, the insinuation is to illustrate the descent of conservative West Indian slaving descendants of Carolina from these same Jacobites. Many privateers and pirates in America and the West Indies, founded on Stuart traditions and Jacobite in ideology, harbored this same resentment of the new king, George I of Hanover, a foreign German Protestant who did not even speak English! This ideology translated directly to the Confederate States of America’s ailing mourners with the euphemism “The South Will Rise Again!” Jacobitism was clearly a matter of conservative political pride and America – or Johnson’s “Commonwealth of Pyrates” – still excells in such pride![4]

Illustrating this pride, wealthy South Carolina gentleman and pirate Richard Tookerman ordered his crew to fire a salute to James III (exiled in France with many of his supporters like Ormonde after 1715) on his, the “Pretender’s,” birthday. Tookerman was not afraid to dine with Jamaican elite in Port Royal, including the governor’s own son and local widow, Mrs. Pendergrass. After all, Tookerman lived in still conservative, Stuart-loving America, far from a “traitorous” foreign king! He signaled to his first mate to fire Adventure’s guns by waving a handkerchief from Mrs. Pendergrass’ window as they sat enjoying a meal at her dining table. He did this twice without hesitation and with direct instructions to the contrary from the Royal Navy in Kingston Harbour. Capt. Edward Vernon of HMS Mary learned of his misdeeds in South Carolina, Virginia, and the Leeward Islands. He arrested him and returned him to England, but Tookerman successfully sued Vernon for false arrest and won![5]

Not all Tories, conservatives, Catholics, or loyal Stuarts were prone to give up their lives and country for the cause. Historian E. T. Fox describes three levels of Jacobitism:

The first consisted of “hard-core, ideologically committed Jacobites… [who] brought up their children to follow the true [Stuart] path after them.” The second layer were those who were driven to Jacobitism by disillusionment with the Hanoverian regime and whose allegiance might therefore be temporary, while the third was comprised of “adventurers,” “desperate men” who turned to Jacobitism to repair their own misfortunes and who had “little or nothing to lose and everything to gain if the Jacobites won, which guaranteed their enthusiasm for the cause when it was in the ascendant.”[6]

Richard Tookerman’s story revealed one basic truth: radically conservative Jacobites had not lost every adherent to the cause after 1715, even in the courts of Great Britain. Author Colin Woodard even raised the possibility that pirate Charles Vane had negotiated directly with powerful Jacobite politicians and military officials – a possibility that also hinted at Vane’s higher political station. Still, pirates, especially more thoughtful gentlemanly types, were perhaps more capitalistic “adventurers” than ideologically roguish radicals. Though they certainly harbored conservative political resentments, profit stood as most important, more inticing to their finely-honed pecuniary greed, as it would for generations to come in America. This factor probably best tells the tale of pirates’ Jacobite tendencies – and, indeed, the later American rebellion for “freedom” from an arguably liberal British “tyranny.”[7]

As a Frenchman from “a bourgeous family [who] received an excellent education,” LeVasseur symbolically honored the sacrifices of James Butler, then in exile in France with his so-called “Pretender” king, James III.[8] Duke of Ormond was a name befitting this particular pirate as well as any other Jacobite name. It had special meaning to the French compatriot and brother of these conservative English rebels in the Americas.

---

[1] William Snelgrave, A New Account of Some Parts of Guinea and the Slave Trade (London, 1734), 193-288; Richard Sanders, If a Pirate I Must Be...: The True Story of Black Bart, King of the Caribbean Pirates (Skyhorse Publishing Inc., 2007), 31.

[2] A good explanation of the divisive politics reminiscent of the Trump administration in today’s America is found in Frank O’Gorman, The Long Eighteenth Century: British Political and Social History, 1688-1832 (London: Arnold, 1997), 43-51; Extreme conservatives or Tory Jacobites of 1715, at the time of the hurricane that set off massive piracy in America, were quite similar to the extreme “Neo-Confederate” Republicans of today’s America, with similar rebellious anti-government ideology. Racism, however, was the new element then and still highly significant today, owing to America’s unique economic reliance in the 17^th-19^th centuries upon chattel slavery. Still reeling from Parliament’s assertion of power over the monarchy in 1688, it was no coincidence that Jacobite conservatives again rebelled in 1715, as the Confederacy in America did in 1861 over slavery, or Trump voters did in 2016 essentially in reaction to an African-American president. Racism remains America’s most persistent illness.

[3]; "James Butler, 2nd Duke of Ormonde". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Retrieved 11 May 2012; The hurricane on 30 July 1715 spilled a tremendous amount of Spanish silver on the east coast of Florida and essentially started the uptick in piracy. Those mariners in America who felt betrayed by Whigs in Parliament, essentially favored conservative or Jacobite politics. They greedily opposed liberal reforms against piracy, seen as a valid path to riches in Stuart-founded America.

[4] Windham information from: Lloyd Charles Sanders, The Possibility of a Stewart Restoration on the Death of Anne: The Stanhope Prize Essay for 1880 (London: T. Shrimpton, 1880), 19.

[5] Baylus C. Brooks, Quest for Blackbeard: The True Story of Edward Thache and His World (Lake City, Florida: Baylus C. Brooks, 2016), 453-468.

 

[6] E.T. Fox, "Jacobitism and the 'Golden Age' of Piracy, 1715-1725," International Journal of Maritime History, XXII, No. 2 (December 2010), 278.

[7] Colin Woodard, The Republic of Pirates: Being the True and Surprising Story of the Caribbean Pirates and the Man Who Brought Them Down (Orlando, 2007), 102-103, 196 and 230-231.

[8] Laura Nelson, The Whydah Pirates Speak (Colorado: Laura Nelson, 2015), 50.

First Ever Biography of North Carolina's Edward Moseley

 

Defining North Carolina

A Political Sketch & Biography of Surveyor-General Edward Moseley

https://www.lulu.com/shop/baylus-brooks/defining-north-carolina/paperback/product-7kewv8m.html?q=Edward+Moseley&page=1&pageSize=4

Introducing the Genesis of the Confederacy and of today's Maga:

In 1724, Charles Johnson referred to America as "A Commonwealth of Pyrates." Even three centuries later, we still endeavor to live up to that reputation. Edward Moseley, born in the civilized world of seventeenth-century London, set the standard for America's criminal behavior - even as he literally defined the state of North Carolina. 

Edward Moseley - not the typical immigrant to America - fell into Carolina’s corrupt “Family” political syndicate, most of whom came from the island of Barbados - a “bedeviled” Caribbean sugar factory where the inhabitants practiced the most brutal slavery. His South Carolina in-laws had been forged in that devilish island “beyond the lines of amity” - very much the antithesis of the civilized Europe Moseley knew in London. In that ancient European city, as the orphaned son of a wealthy but defeated Tory family suffering from political defeat in the Glorious Revolution, he attended the coveted Royal Mathematical Academy. Moseley learned mathematics of such learned men as Sir Isaac Newton and the first Astronomer Royal John Flamsteed. 

England - as Barbados - unfortunately lacked in the greatly-coveted commodity of real estate - the key to freeholdship, public office, and power! America, presumed an untouched wilderness, by contrast, possessed boundless acres of land, spreading for thousands of miles in every cardinal direction. That treasure had only to be cleansed of heathen natives who knew nothing of the Anglican God or land ownership. Vast American estates offered privileged gentlemen and educated mathematicians like Moseley the chance for real power - a restoration of their Stuart Tory glory! America would then beckon to them - a glowing treasure that downtrodden English freeholders like Edward Moseley craved! Conservative outcasts like Moseley abused the people, land, and the law! Educated in the use of the sextant and astrolabe, they engaging in crude criminal methods found unacceptable at home in England. While initially, America existed merely as a “breadbasket” for the slaving Barbadians of his adopted Carolina Family, it offered Edward Moseley so much more – a chance to realize immense real wealth and to restore his politically conservative English family's empire! We remember Moseley for his maps, but that was not all that he did! Edward Moseley dreamed of making conservatives great again in America and no laws would stop him!

Introduction to Primary Sources and Their Use: Analysis of Depositions - John Vickers (bef. 28 May 1716)

Depositions are legal documents taken to investigate a legal matter. It's the same as an interrogation. That does not mean, however, each deposition and the person being deposed are trustworthy. Many criminals have lied to the police! There's no reason to suspect that any witness cannot be lying as well - maybe they want to keep their cousin out of jail! Depositions become matters of public record and will survive indefinitely. Lies can persevere as well as truth.

The task of the historian is to investigate the events mentioned in the deposition, who the deponent is, why are authorities engaged in this investigation, and what are the deponent's motivations for telling the authorities about the event. Yes, this is a lot of work. [Sarcasm alert:] That's why historians are paid the big bucks! 😂

Today, we take a look at the Deposition of John Vickers, enclosed in a letter to the Admiralty from Lt. Gov. Spotswood, dated 3 July 1716. 

Where was this deposition taken? York County, Virginia. The governor then was Lt. Gov. Alexander Spotswood (because the actual governor George Hamilton did not think coming to America was necessary for his paycheck!) and he had much angst for pirates at this time. Williamsburg, Virginia was the capital of the Virginia Colony from 1699 to 1780. Presumably, the deposition was taken there - no specifics were mentioned as to location. British magistrates were in the habit of visiting deposers at their place of residence (whether a rental or home). So, the assumption is that the same occurred in Virginia with Thomas Nelson, the presumed interviewer and magistrate in this case. Thomas Nelson signed as witness to Vicker's deposition and no one else was mentioned in a magisterial context. A postscript is attached, mentioning Barbados merchant Alexander Stockdale (b. circa 1656), was taken by pirates and was with Vickers in Providence, Bahamas at the time of these events. He confirmed the veracity of Vicker's testimony and Nelson also witnessed his statement. This is an important point - a second person validated the deposition at the time the deposition was taken and was involved in the events in the deposition. 

The date of 3 July 1716 is not the actual date of the deposition. It's the date of Spotswood's letter and he mentions in his letter that the enclosure is a duplicate from 28 May 1716. So, the actual deposition had to have occurred before that date. The events in the deposition span the period Nov 1715 - 22 Apr 1716, and accounting for the travel time from the Bahamas to Virginia, the deposition most likely occurred sometime in May 1716. Whether Vickers was present for all the events he testifies upon at Providence is not certain - only that he knew about them possibly from word of mouth from others, but it is reasonably certain that he was there for the conclusion of these events. 

Now, who is John Vickers? My book Dictionary of Pyrate Biography was written partly to provide historians biographical information on key players related to piracy simply to provide context for such investigations. Thus, an entry on John Vickers - an important witness to pirate history - was included:

Vickers, John - from Bermuda, grandson of original wealthy immigrant (1635) Severin Vickers, had once served on the council of St. Christopher’s Island [St. Kitts] in the 1680s. His uncle Richard, in 1677, replaced Simon Musgrave as Customs agent for Jamaica. Then, John Sr. was appointed to the General Assembly of the Leeward Islands, on October 1, 1683.  Perhaps it was his son who, a younger man in 1716, had been living on New Providence when the growing band of multinational rovers infested the island in the spring and summer of that year and caused him to leave for Virginia. 

The young merchant Vickers, barely twenty, gave his deposition before Thomas Nelson, originally of Penrith, Scotland, then a twelve-year resident of Yorktown, Virginia with a son on the way (Thomas, Jr., a future governor of Virginia). 

Vickers was a young man at the time he gave his testimony. Alexander Stockdale was 58 years old, yet Vickers was the one deposed. Spotswood's letter provides the context: Vickers was the man chosen by Spotswood to obtain this information. Did Spotswood think that a younger man might be more idealistic and less experienced in deception than an older man? Or, did Spotswood think that Vickers was impressionable and willing to curb his testimony to fit the desires of possibly pirate-hating Spotswood himself? 

Reading Spotswood's letter gives clues as to his possible state of mind. He mentioned the dangers of a "Nest of Pirates" and that they could possibly grow by the addition of "loose disorderly people" from the logwood cutters at the Bay of Campeche on the Spanish mainland. This might have been professional concern, but his history and the later murder of Blackbeard in another colony seem extreme and may also indicate more than a professional pecuniary interest in rooting out pirates. Spotswood had recently dealt with Forbes and three others, pirates who wrecked upon Cape Hatteras (in North Carolina, BTW.. same place he went after Blackbeard) and were brought back to Virginia. They had since escaped. By this time, Spotswood had determined that the Proprietary government of northern Carolina was not trustworthy and he took upon himself the charge of policing their waters - as we later see with the expedition against Blackbeard in the Pamlico region. In May 1715, he also sent Capt. Harry Beverly on an expedition to Florida in Spanish territory to investigate Providence, but Beverly was caught in the Hurricane of 30 July 1715 which wrecked eleven Spanish treasure ships on the coast of Florida. 

Spotswood perhaps showed a tendency toward obsession in these matters that did not directly pertain to the administration of his colony. Spotswood might have been aware of his precarious position and noted in his letter that his authority came through:

... having power by a Commission from His late Majesty King William under the Great Seal of Admiralty for the appointment of the Officers of the Admiralty in these Islands to make particular enquiry into the state thereof: and to that end have encouraged the Master of a Sloop bound from hence on a Trading Voyage to these parts [the Bahamas] to mann extraordinarily the Vessel under his Command, and endeavour to obtain the best account he can of the number Strength and design of those Pirates....

But, any colonial administrator could have claimed this authority. Beverly and Vickers were actually sent on a spy mission for Spotswood. Was Spotswood perhaps abusing his authority? One could argue that he was merely more attentive to his admiralty duty than most negligent colonial administrators. Still, Spotswood and Beverly repeatedly insisted that Spotswood had the authority. When you often officially voice your authority, there's at least a chance that you're not quite certain that you had authority! The old "where there's smoke" argument. 

I know this seems quite critical, but that's the point, isn't it? Not all questions are answerable, but we must at least consider all possibilities and investigate what we can. Always ask questions! Again, this requires meticulous research - much easier and faster now in the computer age! But, veracity of the deposition should be established as well as possible before it is used to argue a point. The reputation of the historian is on the line with every conclusion he/she makes!

Finally, as to the deposition itself, we start with a timeline of the events mentioned (which originally appear somewhat out of chronological order). Placed in chronological order:

 ~ July 1715, Daniel Stillwell of Jamaica moved to the island of Eleuthera and went in a small shallop with John Kemp, Matthew Low, two Dutchmen, and [Jonathan] Darvill to Cuba stole 11,050 pieces of eight from a Spanish launch and took it back to Eleuthera. 

Later, Capt. Thomas Walker of Providence heard about the theft from the governor of Jamaica and took Stillwell and his vessel into custody, but Benjamin Hornigold arrived at Providence and declared all pirates were under his protection. He then had Stillwell and his vessel released.

👉Nov 1715 - Benjamin Hornigold arrives at Providence with sloop "Mary of Jamaica, owner Augustine Golding," and another "Spanish sloop" to dispose of the goods. BCBNote: Vickers then said "but, the Spanish Sloop was taken from the said Hornigold by Captain Jennings of the Sloop Bathsheba of Jamaica." Afterward, Jennings supposedly stayed in the Bahamas until Mar 1716. There are errors in this part - possibly because Vickers may have been told about these events and may not have actually witnessed them. 

Jan 1716 - Hornigold leaves Providence in "said sloop Mary" and captures another Spanish sloop off Florida. Hornigold fits out the Spanish sloop and sent Golding's "Mary" back to him.

~1 Mar 1716 -  Capt. Fernandez of Jamaica in sloop Bennett took a Spanish sloop and robbed them of about "Three Millions of money" and split the shares at Providence, then went back to the north shore of Jamaica. 

Mar 1716 - Hornigold leaves Providence in his new Floridian prize - the captured Spanish sloop.  

👉Mar 1716 - Jennings departs Providence. 

👉22 Apr 1716 - Jennings arrives at Providence with a French sloop taken at Bahia Honda on Cuban Coast. Jennings takes this sloop to the wrecks off Florida to fish for treasure. 

Vickers then mentions there are about 50 men who deserted while fishing the wrecks and caused disorders at Providence. 

He tells of Thomas Barrow, formerly mate of a Jamaican Brigantine, who stole money and goods from a Spanish Marquis - now wants to go pirating. Barrow claims to be governor of Providence and says that 5-600 more Jamaicans will join them to make war on French & Spanish, but will leave English vessels alone. But, Barrow later took a New England Brigantine in Providence Harbor and a Bermuda sloop, beat and confined its master Butler, then discharged the sloop.

It's also common for the sailors there, says Vickers, to extort money from the inhabitants. Stockdale was extorted as well, but then Barrow and Peter Parr gave Stockdale a receipt for the money he paid them.

These events were jotted down from memory, somewhat out of order. Moreover, Hornigold may indeed have arrived in Nov 1715 with a sloop named Mary, but having a sloop "Mary" stolen from him by Jennings did not happen until April 1716. Vickers confused these two events - Jennings arriving on 22 Apr 1716 is probably correct and the date when Jennings took back the French sloop - not Spanish. That's why I've marked it in colored text. 

According to three other depositions about theft of two French sloops at Bahia Honda on the coast of Cuba, Jennings in Bathsheba and two other sloops had taken these ships in Apr 1716. They were Mary of Rochelle and Marianne. Hornigold and his men stole Mary of Rochelle from Jennings et al. Hornigold then took the ship back to Providence and Jennings followed him there. That could be the 22 Apt 1716 date given by Vickers - incidentally the month before he gave the deposition, so a recent event. The earlier date, however, of March 1716 for when Jennings left Providence may have been in error. These depositions can be found here, here, and here. 

Henry Jennings followed Hornigold back to Providence that April 1716 and then took Mary of Rochelle back from him, leaving him with Marianne. This Marianne is the same one taken from Hornigold by Samuel Bellamy when they later parted company with Hornigold. 

Yeah, my brain hurt when I researched this the first time. Persistence and thorough research was the key! Many researchers have confused these events and I believed they needed a thorough investigation to confirm them.

Vickers was a reasonably accurate reporter, but he had probably only heard some of Hornigold's deeds as hearsay in Providence bars (Nov 1715 data) and may have actually seen Jennings take Mary of Rochelle away from Hornigold in late April 1716 and assumed it was the same vessel Mary that belonged to Augustine Golding of Jamaica. An honest mistake, really....