Donate to Brooks Historical

Saturday, April 11, 2026

Deposition: Another La Concorde Survives a Pirate Attack!

 Deposition: *La Concorde de Nantes* (100 tons)

September 1718:

The 1st

Appearing before the King's Lieutenant General:


(Source: Rapports des capitaines à l'Amirauté de Nantes, Les Archives départementales de Loire Atlantique, B4578, 80.)


Carte de la plaine de Léogane et de ses environs Isle de St. Domingue - btv1b530651435, 1750


There appeared Jay Joys, Master and Commander of the vessel named *La Concorde de Nantes*—of a burthen of one hundred tons or thereabouts, armed with 8 cannons, and manned by a crew of 31 men (himself included)—owned by Sieur de la Vincendiere the Younger, the outfitter of the said vessel. From this said Captain, having received his oath with uplifted hand to speak the truth, we heard the following declaration: that his said vessel, having been laden with lawful merchandise for a voyage to Saint-Domingue, and having duly obtained the necessary clearances for the said voyage, departed from the lower reaches of this river on the 26th of last January to undertake the said voyage; however, adverse weather obliged him to put in at Saint-Louis, where he remained for three days. Thereafter, having departed from the said place to continue his course and proceed to Léogâne—his intended destination—and while underway, he encountered a pirate vessel which attacked the deponent; [he further declared] that the *Saint-Esprit* of this river, commanded by Captain... Bernard—who declared that he fired five cannon shots to drive them off, a maneuver that met with a favorable outcome—finally arrived safely at Léogâne on the following May 23rd. There, he fully discharged the cargo of the said vessel and reloaded it for the return voyage—partly as freight and partly on account of the said shipowner—with a total of 583 barrels, 84 quarter-casks, and tierces of *saindoux* (lard); 21 barrels (both large and standard sizes), 3 quarter-casks, and tierces, and one *ancre* of indigo; and two barrels of candied lemons. Upon completion of this loading operation on the said vessel, he departed from the said place on the following July 9th, bound for Nantes—his port of destination—where he arrived safely and without incident on the 30th of last month, accompanied by his entire crew, with the exception of one Rhe doist de Elion, who deserted the day before his departure. He has submitted to us the documents regarding the indentured servants and the buccaneer guns, dated the 2nd of last June, attached to his letter of discharge, which he has retained. This constitutes his declaration; after it was read aloud to him, he swore that it is sincere, true, and accurate, and he has signed it.


J. Joys


Brochettiere

Deposition: Notice of 15 Pirate Vessels Roaming St. Domingue

 Deposition: *La Marie Aime* of Nantes, arriving from Saint-Domingue [150 tons]

Taken before us on June 3, 1718

(Source: Rapports des capitaines à l'Amirauté de Nantes, Les Archives départementales de Loire Atlantique, B4578, 63.)


By Mathew Carey (engravers/printers: Bellin, Jacques Nicolas, 1703-1772; Scott, Joseph T.; Varle, P.C.) - https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~640~50079:Carte-De-La-Partie-Francoise-De-St-?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No#, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3308882

There appeared before us Mr. Noel Francois, Master of the ship named *La Marie Aime* of Nantes, of a burthen of 150 tons or thereabouts, armed with 12 cannons and manned by a crew of 27 men (all included), fitted out by Mr. Alphonse Du Boeil—the shipowner—in whose employ the said Captain serves. Having taken the oath with uplifted hand, he promised to speak the truth; and what he had to tell and declare is as follows: that his said vessel, having been loaded with authorized merchandise for the voyage to Saint-Domingue, departed from the lower reaches of this river—being fully manned and having obtained all necessary clearances for such a voyage—on May 31, 1717. It arrived safely at Léogâne on the following July 3rd, at which place he completely discharged the cargo of his said ship. He then reloaded it for the return voyage—acting on behalf of his shipowner—with a cargo consisting of five hundred and ninety-eight casks of sugar, sixty-six casks of indigo, 336 dried hides (hair-on), and various other items such as old assay vessels and barrels of preserves. Upon the completion of this loading into his said ship, the deponent states that—a ministerial proclamation having been published regarding the lifting of the embargo—several buccaneers voluntarily came forward (though he does not know the exact number). These men declared that there were five pirate ships—ranging from 28 to 36 cannons—along with ten smaller vessels carrying 6 to 8 cannons, which were cruising in the area—specifically from La Havane to La Merveille—waiting there to intercept a Spanish fleet expected to depart from that port bound for Europe. This is all he had to state; he further declared that he departed from Léogâne on April 12th last to make his way to this port—his intended destination—and affirms that during his crossing, he neither saw nor encountered any pirates. And finally, [the deposition] is... Having fortunately arrived in Paimbœuf on the 2nd of the current month, he reported that Henry Popequey, a carpenter, died on July 31st, and Jean Pespellee, a native of Le Pouvtiguey Mare, died on September 6th, 1717; regarding these individuals, he is required to conduct an inventory and sale of their personal effects, which he undertakes to deposit immediately with the Registry, in accordance with the ordinance. He presented to us the verification regarding the four indentured servants and his six buccaneer muskets—said certificate being dated April 12th, 1718, signed by Château-Morant and Mishon—which he submitted under oath, together with his discharge papers that he has retained. This constitutes his declaration; upon having it read back to him, he swore that it is sincere and contains the truth, and thereupon signed it.

Noel Francois

Friday, April 10, 2026

Deposition: Olivier Levasseur in La Louise takes Le Grand Bretagne of Nantes

 Deposition: *Le Grand Bretagne de Nantes* [125 tons]

Of the said day, May 28, 1718

(Source: Rapports des capitaines à l'Amirauté de Nantes, Les Archives départementales de Loire Atlantique, B4578, 62)

Appeared Maurice Libaudiere, Master and Commander of the ship named *Le Grand Bretagne de Nantes*, of a burthen of 125 tons or thereabouts, armed with eight cannons and manned by a crew of 33 men, fitted out by Sieur Du Mottay, owner of the said ship. The said Captain, having taken the oath with uplifted hand, promised and swore to tell the truth, and did state and declare to us that his said vessel, having been loaded with lawful merchandise and being furnished with all the necessary clearances for the voyage to Saint-Domingue, departed from the lower reaches of this river on July 27, 1717—sailing with the morning tide—to undertake his said voyage. On the following September 1st, he encountered a pirate ship named *La Louise*—armed with 22 pieces of cannon and a crew of 200 men (Frenchmen)—at a location near the Tropic [of Cancer? Presumably north of the Leewards and East of the Bahamas], to the northeast. 



The said pirate fired two cannon shots at the deponent in order to force him to strike his colors and surrender, having first hoisted the black flag. The deponent returned fire with two cannon shots of his own; however, seeing the superior strength of the said pirate vessel, he was compelled to surrender. They plundered the greater part of his cargo—such as wines, brandy, linens, flour, and other merchandise—and likewise seized the greater part of his rigging and tackle, as is more fully substantiated by the official report drawn up at the Admiralty of Cap-Français, dated September 30, 1717, which he has presented and deposited here, signed by him in the margin, to be consulted should the need arise. Thereafter, he proceeded to the said Cap-Français with the remainder of his crew and merchandise, arriving on September 29th; at that location, he traded the remainder of his cargo and reloaded for the return voyage, partly as freight and partly on his own account. ...comprising, belonging to this bourgeois, a total of 520 casks—specifically 518 casks of raw sugar and two barrels of indigo. Of this quantity of sugar, 198 casks originate from the slave trade conducted by the ship *L'Emanuel Fortune*—referring, naturally, to its most recent voyage to the Guinea Coast. He declares that he was compelled to engage, at the aforementioned Cap, four sailors and one surgeon to replace an equal number of men whom the said pirates had forcibly seized and abducted from him—a fact detailed in the official report mentioned above. He further declares that the following men died at the Cap: Jacques Guerlared, a cabin boy from Paimbœuf, in October 1717; Louis Cernanal, a turner from Brest, in the same month; and Étienne Bonsergent, a sailor from St. Nicholas, in the same month. Regarding these men, he arranged for their burial and sold their personal effects—with the exception of one chest containing the deceased's natural heirs' clothing—upon his return to Paimbœuf. He notes that the ship's supply of buccaneer guns had been seized by the pirates, as attested by the certificate issued by Mr. Merchand, Keeper of the King's Magazine, dated March 22nd last. Following this, he departed from the said Cap on April 1st last to proceed to his intended destination; during this voyage, he endured severe weather, leading him to fear that his cargo may have sustained damage—for which reason he hereby formally lodges his protests and requests, as is customary. He arrived at Paimbœuf yesterday, where he remained to rest; this constitutes his declaration, which, having been read back to him, he swore to be true and accurate. In witness whereof, he has signed below.


M. Libaudiener

Deposition: Bad Practice of English Trading in the French Isles

 Deposition: The *St. André de Nantes* (200 tons)

On the said day, March 10 [1718]

(source: Rapports des capitaines à l'Amirauté de Nantes, Les Archives départementales de Loire Atlantique, B4578, 53-54.

Appeared before us Douin Bellot, Master of a ship named the *St. André de Nantes*, of a burthen of 200 tons or thereabouts, belonging to Mr. De la Brouillere, armed with 4 cannons and manned by a crew of 31 men; having taken his oath, he promised and swore to speak the truth, and he stated and declared to us that the said vessel, having been loaded with lawful merchandise bound for the French Islands of the Americas and being duly furnished with the necessary clearances for such a voyage, departed from the lower reaches of this river on January 2nd. It arrived safely and soundly at Les Saintes and Guadeloupe, having anchored on March 17th; there, he discharged his outward cargo at Les Saintes and Guadeloupe itself. In that same place, he loaded his return cargo—partly on freight terms for the account of the owners of the said ship—consisting of four hundred and twenty-two barrels, forty-two quarter-casks, and two tierces of rice; one hundred and forty-seven barrels and nine quarter-casks of brown sugar; nineteen bales of cotton; thirteen barrels of preserves; one barrel of spoons; and 30 thousand-weight of ginger. Following the loading of this cargo, he departed from Guadeloupe on November 13th [heading north toward Thache, then en route to Martinque] to return to this river—the place of his original departure. During the crossing, he encountered much foul weather and several heavy seas, leading him to fear that his merchandise may have been damaged; he therefore enters this protestation regarding any consequent damages, noting that the vessel sustained no structural damage, save for the breaking of two of its spars aloft. Furthermore, he states that he was forced to put in at La Jana on January 27th last due to contrary winds, from which port he departed on the following February 1st, bound for this roadstead, where he arrived yesterday, with all members of his crew safe and sound, with the exception... ...of Guillaume Arnel de St. Nicholas, who died at sea on January 5, 1718. Furthermore, regarding the monies owed to him, Marc Marchand—a sailor—and Jean Le Bris, a resident of Cayenne, state and declare that they have seen and encountered an English captain named Dimbard, who had two vessels with him laden with merchandise and trading along the coast of the said island of Guadeloupe, and even further to the south, specifically in the quarters of Jacques and Longue-Durée. These activities cause considerable harm to French commerce, inasmuch as the inhabitants pay these traders in cash, whereas within the national trading system, they pay only what they choose to pay. They further declare having seen several other English vessels along the said coast, and even the captains of said vessels ashore, trading freely. Regarding pirates, they state that they know nothing other than what they have heard by hearsay—rumors [perhaps of Edward Thache's recent capture of la Concorde 28 Nov 1717?] unworthy of serious consideration. This is their declaration; having had it read back to them, they swore that it was written down and recorded as the absolute truth. They signed below and presented the discharge papers for the indentured servants and buccaneers mentioned therein, dated November 9, 1718, at the League of Du Saussois; they retained the original documents and submitted copies thereof.

D. Bellot   Deronseray

Thursday, April 09, 2026

Deposition: French Battle the Weather, Spanish, English, and Pirates!

 *La Fidélité de Nantes*, arriving from Léogâne — 150 tons

Dated the 13th of October

Appearing before the Gentlemen Lieutenant-General on Duty:

(source: Rapports des capitaines à l'Amirauté de Nantes, Les Archives départementales de Loire Atlantique, B4578, 10-12.

Appeared Mr. Louis Drouin, Master of the vessel named *La Fidélité de Nantes*, of one hundred and fifty tons or thereabouts; having administered the oath to him, he promised and swore to speak the truth. He stated and declared to us that the said vessel, having been laden with merchandise permitted by Mr. Montaudouin—a merchant of this city and charterer of the said ship—and being furnished with all the necessary papers for the voyage from Saint-Domingue to the French Islands of the Americas, the said Mr. Drouin declares that he departed from the lower reaches of this river on the 27th of December 1716 to undertake the said voyage. On the following 28th of January, the deponent sighted the island of Saint-Domingue at approximately 8 o'clock in the morning; and on the following day, the 29th, at 4 o'clock in the evening, he sighted the Île de la Tortue. At approximately 8 or 9 o'clock that evening—while abreast of the said island and two leagues offshore—he encountered, for a period of four hours, conditions indicating squalls and foul weather. Consequently, having ordered the sails to be reefed, the wind shifted suddenly to the northwest with great violence, accompanied by rain and thunder; he was therefore obliged to heave to. At approximately 1 o'clock [in the morning], the wind shifted to the north with equal fury; the winds subsequently veered around the entire compass and increased in intensity, and the sea became furious and terrifying. On the following day, the 30th, no land was in sight—due both to a very thick fog and to the foul weather that continued unabated. He had the misfortune to drift toward the island of Cuba due to the swiftness of the currents, which carried him westward; on the 31st—the mist having cleared around 8 o'clock in the morning—he sighted very low-lying land. Realizing he had drifted to leeward, he hauled his vessel closer to the wind in an attempt to work clear; however, having taken an altitude reading which placed him at 22 degrees North latitude, he concluded that he was within the Old Bahama Channel—the passage lying between Cuba and the shoals known as *Los Placeres*. This conclusion was reinforced by the fact that, after tacking for four or five hours, he observed by the bearings of the land that—far from making any headway—the currents were actually carrying him further to the west. This observation determined him to bear away and run directly through the said channel. On that same day, he sighted a ship astern of him—a vessel out of the Canaries bound for Havana—which confirmed to him that he was indeed within the said channel. Having kept company with the other vessel for a time, they parted ways on the morning of February 3rd, between 6 and 7 o'clock: he himself steered toward Matanzas, while the other vessel set a course to the west-northwest to coast along the shoreline there of Florida

...and, in order to navigate more easily during the evenings, [we sailed] in sight of the Martyrs [Reefs], intending to round them by passing to the north of the vessels [anchored there]; on the 4th of the said month—after having tacked several times to windward to gain ground—we stood inshore to round Florida, passing to the north of the shoals. Between 4 and 5 o'clock in the morning, we encountered the ship *La Sainte-Aimée* of Saint-Malo, commanded by Captain Poitevin; having spoken with him and set our course to the northeast-by-east, we sighted land again around 6 o'clock that evening, bearing North-Northeast at a distance of more than six leagues. As the winds had diminished considerably—making it difficult to hold our course close to the wind—the declarant's ship passed the Matanzas Inlet, situated just to the north of the aforementioned Martyrs.

At between eight and nine o'clock that evening—the winds having abated somewhat—they were driven westward onto a cay, where they ran aground in five feet of water, two leagues offshore from the coast of Florida. Thereupon, the deponent immediately launched his small boat to take soundings and determine whether the water was deep enough to allow the vessel to be refloated; meanwhile, the crew furled and secured the sails, and lowered the yards and topmasts.

However, the men who had boarded the said canoe—instead of executing the order given to them by the deponent—cowardly abandoned the said ship (which they had lost sight of, and to which they did not return until it was once again afloat). Upon their return, the deponent states that the Sieur des Martiers (Second Captain) and Joseph Bucoy (Pilot)—who had boarded the said canoe—were compelled by the crew of the said canoe (as well as by others who had boarded under cover of night and amidst the ensuing confusion—including François Sauveive, Baptiste Gaspard Bossemay, Joseph Ignard, and Thomas Renaut, sailors) to row toward the ship *Sainte-Anne*. This vessel, belonging to the deponent, was then situated only about half a league away; however, the said Sieur Portevin (Captain) was far from offering them asylum aboard his ship—instead branding them as cowards and deserters, and ordering that fire be opened upon them, thereby forcing them to retreat. Yet, instead of returning to the deponent's ship, they took refuge aboard an English boat they encountered. Meanwhile, the deponent ordered the longboat to be launched to compensate for the loss of the said canoe; however, it was discovered that the said longboat was taking on water through three seams on each side, which had not been properly caulked.

...restored to their proper state—though I was unable to heel the vessel over, as she was lodged against the rocks—which obliged the deponent to have her re-floated so she might be promptly recaulked. This, however, could not be accomplished until after a considerable delay, during which time the crew had diligently managed the ship, which remained aground on the said reef. Consequently, the deponent—together with his other officers—resolved to wait for daylight before attempting to move the entire vessel to deeper water. Throughout the night, he remained on watch—and ensured others did the same—guarding the said longboat while it lay alongside, with six armed musketeers posted on the gunwales and other crew members stationed at their posts, ready to fire, and the cannons loaded with grapeshot in readiness for a second boarding attempt. At the break of day, the deponent had André de Mesorit—the ship's Master—board the longboat to take soundings around the vessel. After doing so, the Master reported that, given the ship was resting on the highest point of the reef, it would be more expedient to carry the anchor forward than to carry it astern, as this would require dragging it over a shorter distance.

The said vessel, having on board various cables, was—after being violently swung around off Cap Bas—subjected to continuous heavy seas until noon; indeed, at 2:00 PM, the declarants—namely Lieutenant Dangoise and Master Dunesquil—found themselves in a critical situation. As the said vessel was in distress and offered no means of relief under the prevailing circumstances, they were compelled—in order to facilitate a more prompt resolution, both to clear the decks and to lighten the load—to jettison into the sea various goods and effects, of which mention is hereby made.

...as evidenced by the declaration made at Léogâne on March 4, 1717—signed by La Callière, Judge of the said locality—which the declarant has this day submitted and deposited in the Registry (and signed in the margin), and to which specific reference is hereby made; at which said place of Léogâne, the declarant discharged the merchandise remaining aboard his vessel—a port where he had arrived on March 3rd in order to effect repairs—and where he subsequently loaded and took on board, on account of the said ship: seven hundred and fifty-nine barrels, three pipes, two tierces, and three-quarters of a barrel of refined sugar; and eighty-five barrels, twenty-two tierces, three quarter-casks, three pipes, and two ankers of indigo. The said Declarant further states that he is currently the bearer of... ...one hogshead of sugar and four barrels of indigo, more or less. Furthermore, the declarant reports having brought back sundry pieces of cotton cloth and printed Indian fabrics from the vessel arriving from Guinea, to be placed in the bonded warehouse of the Farm [of Revenue] of this city and subsequently reshipped to Guinea. He states that he set sail from the Point of Léogâne on the 16th of last month to come to France, in company with Mr. Joseph de St. Malo—aboard a Bordeaux-registered ship armed for war against pirates—and three other merchant vessels (one from St. Malo, another from Libourne, and a small boat). The said declarant subsequently found himself alone, along with Mr. Duclos of St. Malo, having parted ways with the other vessels at the Isle of Tortuga. While off the coast, two vessels were sighted cruising along the southern shore with all sails set; the declarant, acting as captain, tacked about, only to find that the said vessels were bearing down very close upon him. This occurred around 2:00 p.m., and they continued to press sail and give chase until nightfall. To evade them, the declarant altered course during the night; upon closer inspection, he realized they consisted of a frigate mounting 20 to 22 guns—which hoisted the Spanish flag and fired a cannon shot at him—and a smaller vessel. It was judged by both the declarant and his officers that these were nothing other than pirates who had recently sailed from the Isle of Providence and, following a similar course, were heading to cruise off the coast of the Isle of Saint-Domingue. This conclusion was reached because the said captain and officers had been informed by two passengers aboard his ship—who had previously been on a St. Malo vessel captured by two pirate boats—that a large number of people had taken refuge on the Isle of Providence (totaling more than 4,000 men), and that various vessels had indeed sailed from there to go cruising off the coast... ...the so-called Isle of Saint-Domingue, which they reportedly threatened to set fire to—specifically all the ships anchored in the roadsteads of Léogâne and Petit-Goâve—declaring that any vessels they captured, regardless of size, would be burned, just as they had done to the aforementioned ship *Monsieur Louis*, commanded by Sieur de la Ville. ...upon which they had the *Craseylaiv* and the *Cadeizine* vessels moored at the high banks of Vitimery; subsequently, they held a council and deliberated as to whether they should put the crews to the sword or hang them—as they had done to several others in Nantes—and proceeded to do the same to the crew of the aforementioned vessels. Following this, they seized the said ships but returned the longboat and the skiff to the remaining crew members, providing them with very little food and water; these survivors subsequently arrived at Petit-Goâve. Furthermore, the said declarant states that Messrs. Duclos, Gallet, and Chateauvert—passengers on board his vessel who had previously been on the ship *Malousy*—told him during the voyage that they had spoken with a young Irishman who was among the pirates on the said ship; this Irishman revealed that the *Malousy* was the eighth vessel the said pirates had captured, and that the passengers and crew of the *Malousy* were fortunate to have been set free, as the pirates had thrown the crews of the two preceding vessels overboard. One of the survivors at Petit-Goâve was a man named Guilness—the sole survivor of his entire crew, the other five having been thrown into the sea—who testified that he had been held there against his will and treated most wretchedly by the said pirates. All these circumstances compelled the Superintendents, Governors, and other officials of the said Island of Saint-Domingue to require all ships present along the coast at that time to contribute—on a pro-rata basis according to their tonnage and cargo value—toward the outfitting of two vessels intended to pursue and drive off the said pirates. Consequently, a sum was levied and collected from the said declarant—by the order and authority of the said Governors and Intendant—in the form of a contribution which he was compelled to pay to the Receiver, as evidenced by the receipt dated the 15th of August last; this...

...which had to be jettisoned before reaching the said ship; and finally, the voyage continued in its entirety between 47 and 48 degrees North-Northeast. This caused such damage to the *Matt de Beaupré*—which is now unserviceable—that, having sustained several heavy seas that stove in her planking and damaged her deck, the captain fears the cargo may be damaged; he therefore makes the required protests in accordance with the Ordinance. He reports that the following men died on board: René Robior on March 13th; Julien Cherpy on the 30th; Julien Honrey on April 9th; Martin Fondie on the 11th; the said Jeriem Conce Vaba; François Stephans; Mare Aussy on the 23rd; François Vudieq on June 8th; Julien Gaillat on August 5th; Étienne Xirnaboi on September 7th; and François Etcoi, surgeon, on October 6th. He further reports that the following men deserted: Joseph Higuard, François Sauveur, and Jean Ernard (who remained on an English vessel following the loss of the ship's boat); Pierre Cartier and Charles Daniel (at Port-au-Paix); Baptiste Gaspart, Pierre Caisseau, Laurent Lorstee, and Thomas Le Page (at Léogâne); Louis Mesnard (at Grand-Goâve); and Philippe Quer (at Petit-Goâve). He presented to us the discharge papers for the enlisted soldiers and fusiliers of the Bonnecarmier company, dated August 16th and signed by Messrs. Muscani (Governor) and Mitton (Superintendent), and has resumed his leave. All of the foregoing he has retained and declared to be true. Done at Paimbœuf on the 11th of the current month; this is his declaration, which was read back to him, and he affirmed that it is truthful, signing it in the presence of the witnesses required by law, and attesting to the deaths that occurred on the said vessel; he further declared that he was unable to sign his name. ...[regarding] the said ship, [and] the considerable expenses he incurred on its behalf—for which he shall submit a memorandum to serve as is just and fitting—he has signed.


P. F. Fourqint    L. Drouin   Demnseray

Tuesday, April 07, 2026

The *St. Michel* of Nantes Plundered and Captured by Pirates

 The *St. Michel* of Nantes Plundered and Captured by Pirates:

(Rapports des capitaines à l'Amirauté de Nantes, B4578, p. 32-34, Archives départementales de Loire-Atlantique)

Dated this 3rd of January

Appeared Jean Dubois, Sieur du Toucheray, Captain of the *St. Michel*—a vessel of 150 tons, armed with twelve cannons and manned by a crew of 40 men—belonging to Mr. René Montaudouin, in whose service the said Captain is currently engaged. Having promised and sworn to tell the truth, he declared that his said ship, having been loaded with authorized merchandise and being fully equipped with all necessary clearances for the coast of Saint-Domingue, departed from the lower reaches of this river on the 18th of August last. He sighted the island of Madeira on the 3rd of September following. On the 26th of the said month, they encountered a ship from Bordeaux—Captain Darboy—which, like his own, was bound for Saint-Domingue; they sailed in company with this vessel until the following day, proceeding at a much faster pace than the other ship. On the 18th of October, around 8 o'clock in the morning, he sighted Cape Samaná on the coast of Saint-Domingue. At that very moment, he perceived a ship offshore that was tacking toward the land—and consequently, toward his own vessel. Expecting it to be a pirate ship, he waited for it and prepared for battle; however, upon hailing the vessel, he discovered that it was a ship from this very river—Captain Guilland—returning from Guinea, whence it had departed nearly five months earlier. Observing that this encounter was causing him a significant delay in his voyage, he parted company with the vessel toward evening, but not before offering it anything it might require, given its long transatlantic crossing. He continued his course the following day toward the Cape and the Môle. On the 20th of the said month, around 10 o'clock in the morning—while positioned five or six leagues to the north of La Grange—his lookout alerted him that two vessels were visible offshore, which... They gave chase to him, and shortly thereafter he recognized them as pirates; he therefore had his crew—and his passengers, who numbered twenty-eight—prepare to defend themselves, as it appeared evident that the two approaching vessels were pirate ships. When the said two boats came within cannon range—specifically, the one that appeared to be the larger of the two—it hoisted an English flag and fired a shot with live ammunition. This compelled the deponent to hoist his own French flag. Immediately, the said boat—and its companion pirate vessel—struck their English flags and each hoisted a black flag featuring a skull holding a dart in one hand and a hourglass in the other


The purported flag of Blackbeard, a variant of the "Old Roger design", consisting of a horned skeleton holding an hourglass and using a spear to pierce a bleeding heart, is typically attributed to the pirate Edward Thache, better known as Blackbeard. This pirate may be but likely not Blackbeard, however, as he was engaged elsewhere (though nearby) and the vessels vaguely match, except for the smaller pirate of 4 guns. If it is Blackbeard, then these French depositions alone verify the use of this flag for Edward Thache.
However, contrary to popular belief, there is no accurate description of any specific flag used by Blackbeard during his piracy beyond using "bloody flags" or black flags with "deaths heads". Records from as early as 1723 report a flag of the same or very similar design to have been used by pirates, but not by Blackbeard in particular. A pirate named "Nicholas [prob. Thomas Nichols]" who used a similar design was reported near Hispaniola at about the time the St. Michael was taken in consort with a smaller vessel. This may be them.

... furthermore, at the top of their mainmasts, they flew another flag of the same color depicting a man standing upon another figure, with a weapon piercing the latter's throat [previously unknown flag]. As the large pirate vessel continued to approach, it sent volley after volley—some seven or eight rounds—at him. Upon finding himself within effective range, the deponent attempted to fire two shots from the stern of his ship in order to swing his vessel around and present his broadside to the enemy; to this end, he began to trim his topgallant sails and haul up his mainsail. At this juncture, the majority of his passengers—led by a certain Sieur de l'Isle Ribauld—intervened, telling him that he must not engage in battle with such dangerous men. They argued that if the deponent were to fire even a single cannon shot, his entire crew would be massacred, whereas the pirates were likely interested only in plundering some provisions and other supplies of that nature. The said Sieur de l'Isle had already wagered five crowns—and offered further incentives—on the proposition that if half the crew were to side with the passengers, the deponent would be rendered incapable of offering any defense; consequently, they advised the deponent to strike his flag and allow the pirate captain to come aboard his vessel—which he did, some seven minutes later. ...one pirate, named Daniel Bertrand, a native of Maijorine. Subsequently, the said Lamotte came aboard the declarant's ship with ten to twelve Englishmen, who ordered him to proceed to the said pirate vessel; he did so and observed that it was an English ship of ten or twelve guns, with Lamotte and thirteen other crew members aboard. The second pirate vessel was armed with four cannons and a crew of thirty-five men; they dispatched forty men to the declarant's ship and removed an equal number—both sailors and passengers—transferring them to the said pirate vessel. The pirates had already learned that the declarant had encountered a slave ship at Samaná; consequently, they blockaded the passage for the remainder of that day and the two following days in order to intercept it. On the 22nd, they proceeded to anchor near La Grange, where they detained two English vessels engaged in trade along the coast of Saint-Domingue. On the morning of Saturday, the 23rd of the said month of October, they were preparing to put him ashore; however, at that very moment, the said pirates sighted two sails out at sea. Deciding to give chase, they hastily loaded several sailors and passengers into the declarant's ship's canoe, which they then towed behind them, accompanied by twelve of their own men. During the chase, the declarant observed that one of the pirate vessels engaged the two sails they had sighted; upon closing with them, the pirates fired two cannon shots, compelling the vessels to strike their colors—specifically, a ship from Bordeaux named *Le Saint-Jacques*, Captain Bergero.




Plan du Mouillage de la Grange au Nord de St Domingue. A. La Grange ; B. Islet a l'abri duquel on mouille, C. Mouillage ; D. Riviere de Mont-Christ qui vient de la Ville Espagnole de St Yago et traine de l'Or dans son Sable, 1700

 

Another vessel captured at this time by the same pirates:


La Gratieuse de Nantes captured and taken by pirates:

(Rapports des capitaines à l'Amirauté de Nantes, B4578, p. 35-37, Archives départementales de Loire-Atlantique)

Dated this 4th of January 1718

Appearing before Messrs. the Lieutenant General and Vergs??

Appeared Mr. François Le Barbier, formerly Captain of the vessel named *La Gracieuse de Nantes*, of a burthen of approximately 140 tons, armed with six cannons, and manned by 26 men and five indentured servants—the said vessel belonging to Mr. Robin the Younger and his associates—regarding which Le Barbier, having sworn an oath to tell the truth, did state and declare the following: that his said vessel, having been laden with authorized merchandise bound for Léogâne on the coast of Saint-Domingue, and being furnished with all the necessary papers and clearances for such a voyage, departed from the lower reaches of this river on the 23rd of last August to carry out his intended voyage to Léogâne and conduct his trade; that en route, at a latitude of 19 degrees 50 minutes North and 318 degrees Longitude, he encountered a ship from Bordeaux commanded by Mr. Dubois—whom the deponent left behind, being a faster sailer—and continued his course until Thursday, the 21st day of October, when, at approximately 4 o'clock in the afternoon, he sighted land... ...[he reached] Cape Samaná and subsequently followed the coastline until Saturday, the 23rd of the said month. At approximately 3:00 AM, having rounded the Cape and headed out to sea in a northeasterly direction—setting a course for the aforementioned Léogâne—he sighted two ships and five boats to leeward. He stated that, upon observing their maneuvers, it became apparent to him that they were all converging on his vessel and that they were, in fact, hostile ships. This prompted him to hold his wind in order to track them until approximately 9:00 PM, at which point two of the largest boats overtook him. They fired some five cannon shots at him—without inflicting any damage—and hailed him repeatedly, in both French and English, ordering him to strike his colors and launch his longboat to come aboard their vessel. He was compelled to comply, as he was in no position to offer resistance to the said pirates. He proceeded aboard the largest of the pirate boats, which was armed with twelve cannons and crewed by approximately 70 men—almost all of whom were English. The smaller boat was armed with four cannons and manned by a crew of 30 to 35 men. While the said deponent was aboard the large pirate boat, the captain asked him—speaking in French—how many cannons he carried, the size of his crew, the nature of his cargo, and his port of origin. To this, the deponent replied that his vessel was laden with hides from Taïfa and Brazilwood.

...[they] seized from the said vessel four hundred planks, small barrels of flour, and other goods of considerable value. The said pirates detained the deponent and his crew aboard their own ship—the pirate sloop that had succeeded in boarding and capturing the said vessel *La Gratieuse*. Aboard the said pirate ship, the deponent encountered Mr. Duboys, commander of the vessel *St. Michel* of Nantes (owned by Mr. Montaudouian), who told him that he had been captured by the said pirates on the 20th of the said month, and that the ship he now saw—the largest and most prominent of the group—was his own vessel. Also aboard the said pirate ship were Mr. Bergexon, commander of the *St. Jacques* of La Rochelle (fitted out in Bordeaux), and Mr. Boanardel, the ship's owner; they pointed out their vessel to him in the dim light, stating that they had been captured by the said pirates around eleven o'clock or noon on that same day. Furthermore, he encountered Captain Arceberg of La Rochelle, who told him that he, too, had been captured that same day aboard the vessel *Charles* of La Rochelle, which he commanded. He explained that their captured fleet consisted of two pirate vessels, Captain Arceberg's ship, two small English vessels captured prior to their own, and the three aforementioned ships—including the deponent's own vessel—a fact which, by daylight, the deponent confirmed to be true. Finally, the pirates took them all together to the island of Inagua—a deserted and uninhabited island—where they anchored on the night of Sunday into Monday, the 2?th of the said month, around two o'clock in the afternoon. There, the deponent did his utmost to negotiate the purchase of his own vessel, but the said pirates informed him that they would not return any of the ships, save for Captain Arceberg's vessel—and even that one, they added, they would have kept as well, had it not been so heavily laden.

...but [the pirates] sent them ashore to land the captured friends with whom they were charged; and around 2:00 p.m., the said pirates ordered them to board the said boat; and around 4:00 p.m., they were brought there—the said pirates having stripped them of all their clothes and belongings—having entirely retained the said three ships with their full cargoes of merchandise, both bulk goods and personal effects, and having also pillaged various goods from the said boat, *Le Chaillet*. The deponent further states that they forcibly detained several men from the crew—specifically a man named Jullien Rondiemeau of Nantes, a sloop master—despite the supplications and entreaties the poor unfortunates made to them to avoid remaining with them; [the pirates] merely stated that they were 4,500 strong, all of one accord. Having then set sail in the said boat *Le Chaillet*, they charted a course for the roadstead, where they anchored on October 30th to take on fresh water; from there, they set sail for Cap-Français to seek passage back to Europe. He further states that he learned from the captain of the said pirates that they had a correspondent [Jean Martel at Petit Goave?] on the coast of Saint-Domingue who supplied them with all their necessities, and that they lacked for nothing. Upon having this declaration read back to him, he swore that it was sincere and true, and requested that the present declaration be verified by the officers and witnesses present.

Le Barbier

Sunday, April 05, 2026

The South “Rises Again” in the Republican Party

 

The revocation of segregation of Plessy v. Fergusen in 1896 with Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 signaled an ominous threat to social conservatives that fated year. Even more ominous, Civil Rights and the Voting Rights Act ten years later gave African-Americans finally equal voting status as citizens in the United States. Democratic President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed this act while also telling his aides that they just lost the South for a generation – ostensibly to the Republicans. It lasted for far more than a generation! For the next half-century and more, Republicans legislated consistently against FDR’s New Deal and essentially acted toward stopping the changing demographics that threatened their majority. These angry Southern Democrats saw no choice but to predictably side with Republican President Richard Millhouse Nixon when he made history for his party in 1968 with the success of the “Southern Strategy.” The traditional Southerner and American racist had taken many hits on their old socially-conservative White Supremacy and developed a vicious hatred for the Democratic Party – now seen as the “Negro Party.” Some Southerners hoped to arrest “Negro Rule” development by forming the Dixiecrat Party, but it was short-lived and ineffective. They soon recognized that their brand of conservatism – ideologically in line with fascist oligarchs who tried to overthrow FDR in 1933 – could best survive within the Republican Party. Nixon made it happen – the old Confederacy, still angry and unyielding, found great power once again. Almost overnight, socially conservative Southern Democrats – some, members of the Ku Klux Klan – had switched to the GOP. This led to an ominous future: as more and more Republicans took on the old Southern policies of religiously-focused, anti-government “states’-rights.” The South truly “Rose Again” and joined with Republican fascists, once exposed by the Business Plot of 1933! It’s hard to ignore when twenty-eight of the fifty-three current Republican senators (2019) are from traditionally Southern states of the old Confederacy and all others but one are from western rural states – ideologically in lock-step with Southern conservatives.

Republicans slowly morphed into an even more criminal party than they were already! Richard Nixon’s impeachment in 1974 was for actual crimes committed – violations of the U.S. Constitution – firing of investigators and attempting to cover up a break-in of the Democratic National Committee offices in the Watergate Hotel! Nixon was the first to invite Southern White Supremacists into his Republican Party; and, he was the first Republican president ever brought up on criminal charges and tried for impeachment. Coincidence? Probably not. It should be remembered that Southern conservatives have never respected anything about United States’ federalism, democracy, or laws. They especially despised the U.S. Constitution which restricted their ancestors’ brutal taste for slave-driven capitalism. Arguably, these West-Indian descendants preferred only one constitution – the Confederate States Constitution with “God” used in place of “creator.” This conclusion is derived from complex political machinations since 1968 and can only be treated properly in a book or volumes of books. Furthermore, any of the plethora of books written about the highly criminal Trump Administration of today would surely suffice!

Crimes of the Republican Party did not stop with Nixon’s impeachment – they got worse. Under the conservative “unitary executive theory,” the office of president controlled increasingly more power until it reached near dictatorship! Vice President Dick Cheney’s Halliburton during the Iraq War made over $39.5 billion, reflecting actions of the earlier rampant capitalist abuses of oligarchs of whom Gen. Smedley Butler wrote in War is a Racket; this was the “military-industrial complex” later warned about by Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower – in a betrayal of his Republican Party’s policies, by the way. Later, in a serious conflict of interest, it was revealed that Halliburton “gave [Cheney] a $34 million signing bonus to become vice president of the United States."[1] The Bush Administration then was found to have faked evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) by Iraq’s leader, Saddam Hussein, to start a war with that country – again, making profit for Dick Cheney’s Halliburton and others. We nearly revisited this same “Wag the Dog” scenario with Iran when Donald J. Trump assassinated – without clear cause – their very important Major General Qasem Soleimani of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Dick Cheney was also instrumental in pushing forward the policy of a “unitary executive” or making the president a virtual dictator! Brutal Southern ex-slavers made an ideal companion for fascist oligarchs – profit flowed like Spanish doubloons into their coffers and overflowed into their overseas bank accounts! War is, indeed, a racket, Gen. Butler – when conducted by these racist megacorporate criminals and politicians – land pirates extraordinaire!

Most of us generally regard piracy in the past as an undesirable thing. Still, why do we place eighteenth-century piracy in a “Golden Age;” why do we covet a time of greed and excess? Why do we still allow Wall Street the legal latitude, corporate taxpayer subsidies, the ability to outsource jobs, and store massive profits in offshore accounts to avoid taxation – especially while other countries are jailing bankers and other capitalists for similar abuses across the world? Why don’t the people recognize this as corruption? It’s because we grew up in it – our very culture is criminal!

We are allowed to ignore our brutal piratical ancestry because, as one scholar put it, “Progressive Era reformers and twenty-first-century economists think about corruption in a way that is, in one critical dimension, 180 degrees removed from the concept  of  corruption  that  prevailed  until  the mid-nineteenth century.”[2] Still, venturing from the concept of venal (money focus or “treasure-seeking”) to systematic corruption (broader political focus), as economic historian John Joseph Wallis puts it, is when America gets to a point similar to that of eighteenth-century liberally-oppressive Stuart conservative status. In his view, “The survival of a systematically corrupt government depends on limiting access to markets and resources in order to create rents that bind the interests of the ruling coalition [or oligarchy] together.”[3] He explained:

 

In polities plagued with systematic corruption [like piratical hegemony], a group of politicians deliberately create rents by limiting entry into valuable economic activities, through grants of monopoly, restrictive corporate charters, tariffs, quotas, regulations, and the like. These rents bind the interests of the recipients to the politicians who create them. The purpose is to build a coalition that can dominate the government. Manipulating the economy for political ends is systematic corruption… In contrast, venal corruption [for example, manipulating Virginia’s politics for Alexander Spotswood’s own private interests against Blackbeard or Donald J. Trump’s extortion of Ukraine for his campaign needs] denotes the pursuit of private economic interests through the political process.[4]

 

The best example today of systemic v. venal corruption would be the piratical rise of the highly corrupt Republican Party (systemic) to extreme levels – that of the greedy, immoral, and dishonest Donald J. Trump (venal) and the use of his office to enrich himself and his sycophants. Trump exposed the criminality of the Republican Party simply because he turned corruption back into a personal (venal) political tool. Still, the systemic corruption of the modern Republican Party, taking Russian campaign money and from other dictatorial regimes, allowed for Trump’s own rise to “unitarian” power, threatening the “separation of powers” of the U.S. Constitution and our very Democracy itself!

Republicans today behave as if they’re pirating our national ship to later cut us loose in a torn and crippled vessel! Then again, they see little choice, for the changing demographics are forcing the dominant white male from politics! As a result, they completely ignore any semblance of patriotic duty or traditional mores – even siding with and taking money from America’s greatest enemy of the Cold War – Russia! White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, by way of an openly venal example, promoted radical and draconian immigration policies on the Southern border. With seeming little concern for consequence, he later leaves his public office and joins the board of a corporation that benefits from that same policy![5] It appears that Republican government is now so openly diseased that politicians simply grab what spoils they can before America finally succumbs to the contagion or Russian control.

In 2015, former Democratic President Jimmy Carter reflected upon the rising systemic corruption of the GOP (although he tactfully did not point fingers) and that America had become an “oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery.”[6] He made reference to the results of white-supremacist conservative resurgence following the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As far as today’s racist GOP sees it, a nation that allowed “Negro Rule” – as with Barack Obama from 2009-2016 – deserves to die anyway. Southern-infected Republican politicians are giving up on their nation because of the ancient diseases of racism and greed – and, if you remember the founding Routledges of South Carolina, Southerners have never been that committed to it from the start!

Since Civil Rights, America had been dominated by racially-tinged Republican anti-liberal policy. Their customary adherence to Constitutionality only when it suited their politically corrupt agenda is clearly telling. The usual oath of office means little when securing corrupt control over the federal government. Essentially, the era of FDR’s New Deal that followed the Great Depression of 1929 was a short progressive blip on America’s overwhelmingly conservative and greedy political radar – the results of being founded originally as a “Commonwealth of Pyrates!” Even FDR’s solitary progressive itinerary was nearly arrested by a fascist attempt of corporate leaders to overthrow democracy in 1933 in the “Business Plot” – yes, by the ancestors of President Carter’s reputed modern corporate oligarchs![1] America’s wealthy have never truly respected the all-encompassing and immigrant-welcoming notion of our original “E Pluribus Unum” or “from the many, one” – essentially, a perfect definition of democracy. “Negro Rule” again reared its ugly head in 1898, again in 1964, and again in 2016. America quickly returned to its formerly oligarchic conservative – but, also white-supremacist – control. The final leg of that racist trend, President Barack Obama’s terms from 2009-2016 initiated yet another wholly corrupt Republican coup over “E Pluribus Unum.” Perhaps some reflection may be warranted upon the 1950s replacement of “In God We Trust” over the more democratic original motto. Thanks to Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, Civil Rights of 1964, and their “Southern Strategy” of 1968, Republicans have fully embraced the “god of the slavemaster” and gave up completely on the secular “E Pluribus Unum,” as endowed by their ethereal “Creator.”

Do American elections – when trusted – still provide a choice between “lesser of two evils” or is this merely the impression politically provided by Republican anti-liberal – especially in the Trump Era: anti-socialist – rhetoric? Quite ironically, it almost always seems that liberals are rhetoricized as “radicals,” “socialists” (here conservatives actually imply “communists”), or the enemies of the American people even though FDR gave us the most popular social program ever and saved America from the ravages of the conservatives who actually started the problem by crashing the economy! This is essentially the same fascist method employed in Adolf Hitler’s propaganda in 1930s Germany, or Donald Trump’s usual rhetoric in hour-long diatribes before the cameras, or that of the Family’s Samuel A’Court Ashe against Blackbeard or pirates in general – to accuse your enemies of exactly that which you yourself are guilty! Google “Joseph Goebbels.”  

“We the People” do not resist merely to allow control by another wealthy or corporate “Great Man” (most certainly white male) like those of old historical and traditional narrative. Like Edward Moseley or Maurice Moore, they achieved their greatness and immense wealth by any method necessary, no matter how corrupt – even if they must murder a business associate like Edward Thache. Compare this with almost any of Donald Trump’s policies – directly with the assassination of Iran’s Soleimani. More especially contrast this with Trump’s taking of children from their mothers and put in cages, only to be sold and farmed out to rich slave owners. Compare this to allowing an American journalist to be killed and chopped up by Saudi Arabians, Trump’s favoritism of Russian president Vladimir Putin, his betrayal of Kurd allies in Syria, or encouraging his followers to seek and destroy the whistleblowers exposing these crimes! This is the epitome of fascism and corruption!

Still, these criminals impress our conservatives – perhaps like Al Capone, Vlad the Impaler, or Genghis Khan. We grew up hearing of past Republicans’ great exploits and endeavors since the Civil War, their trials and tribulations, their successes and their many bankruptcies – destroying our economy with their greed, inevitably resulting in yet another frequent economic recession. They spew rhetoric from two sides of their mouths, Janus-faced - they are our “Heroick and Active Spirits,” our worshiped champions of industry – these oligarchs – these pirates – they are our modern Drakes! Some of us still dream of being like them one day. We have been weaned on capitalistic dreams of fishing treasure from the water, taking it away from other entrepreneurs, and picking them clean to leave them destitute and in fear of their lives in the gutters. “Nothing personal – it’s just business!”

Again, this is unnatural. It is not human nature. It is merely criminal and it must stop!

Today, progressives fight against great odds – against such piratical forces of corporate oligarchy and privatization who would continue to pick us clean – without “trickling-down” of riches to the people. You may have heard that pirates tend not to share. They prey upon not only other merchants and those of darker skin: ex-slaves, and Native Americans, but against everyone – the poor or lower-middle class mainstream – the 97% or so of citizens who only recently received the franchise without having to purchase property for the right to vote. They resent that all of the 97% now have the vote. Remember Jamaicans in the early eighteenth century who ousted their governor – the “landed” gentlemen who once preyed upon the “landless,” unpropertied, or poor common people?

In this corporate-dominated corrupt environment, justice – even democracy itself – become merely commodities to be traded or sold at market – like slaves – in exchange for more dominance and political control. Money can buy almost anything and corporate capitalists prefer systemically-corrupt oligarchy – a government truly of their own – not to live under constraint of democratic rules and regulations. They prefer to call the shots alone – like Donald Trump’s making unilateral dictatorial decisions without consult – without the consent of the people. But, then, Republicans wished to lord over the people as in Carnegie’s seemingly beneficent and parental Gospel of Wealth or “Trickle-down” ideology, as if they might better care for the people than their own democratically-elected government! Edward Thache, however, was a different man from these Republicans of today. He most certainly would not have made the same decisions as Donald Trump. He would not have assassinated anyone or bribed someone for political advantage. He would not have withdrawn troops formerly aiding American-allied Kurdish rebels; a monstrous decision that led to Turkish and Russian forces driving them to their slaughter and taking their land. Even Blackbeard would have seen this as simply another betrayal. The man Republicans favor most was Stede Bonnet – the man Edward “Blackbeard” Thache rejected!

The wealthy have always misunderstood human nature – because they behaved so not like humans. Carnegie’s Gospel of Wealth abused the people personally by wrongly accusing them of being completely self-interested – innately selfish – a “pirate” from birth. Capitalists wrongly assure the people that in order to keep everyone from being abused by their neighbors that we should all be as greedy and selfish as them; but, this is not a scientific fact – rather a capitalist myth – humans are not inherently greedy. As the lords of wealth prophesize, money provides and it can taketh away! Our American lords assure us that they need fewer rules or regulations in order to grab the wealth. But, deregulation engenders systemic corruption, abuse, inequality, and trade monopolies. De-regulation – when government is seen as the “problem” rather than the solution – when individual self-interest is elevated above the good of society as a whole – when political favors are exchanged for money and power – when “absolute freedom” of that ruling class becomes the freedom of absolute rulers and dictators, like Saddam Hussein, Moamar Gaddafi, and now, Donald Trump – selfishly maximizing profit and profit alone without care for the people.

America’s first president, George Washington believed that party politics or divisions might serve immediate ends, but they inevitably lead to corruption. He could easily envision systemic corruption or oligarchy that plagues America today because of British monarchial corruption of his day – he saw it personally. Abuse leads to more abuse. Unchecked venal builds to systemic corruption. Piracy leads to crony capitalism. The past progresses to the present and the present can degrade back into the past – history can indeed repeat itself, echo, burp – whatever you’d like to call it. Despite our narrative of progress, the excessive greed of today’s politics, systemic corruption in government, is certainly much worse than the venal – or the simple stealing of resources for your own or for your associates’ use – like piracy of the Golden Age. The actions of anti-immigrant Donald J. Trump today reflect the actions of wealthy gentleman pirate and Barbadian sugar plantation owner, Major Stede Bonnet – not so much Royal Navy veteran Edward Thache of St. Jago de la Vega, Jamaica. Still, Thache generally left enough food and water for his victims to return home – even the hated Catholics of France and Spain – Qasam Soleimani wasn’t so lucky!

The Republican Party of today that clearly supports President Trump’s corruption without hesitation – and Trump has given them significant reason to hesitate – is best understood as a body engaged in a broader, systemic corruption to pirate American government. Fox News as the state media mouthpiece for Trump’s MAGA or “Make America Great Again” rhetoric is the same as the Raleigh News and Observer newspaper serving as the mouthpiece for the racist conservative retrenchment in North Carolina of 1898. Fox News merely needed the “Fairness Doctrine” eliminated to begin the temporal regression backwards. MAGA with its dependence on “alternate facts” and rejection of the so-called “fake news” mainstream media is so little different than “Capt. Charles Johnson” or Nathaniel Mist’s counterfactual literary invention in A General History of 1724! They both rely on lies and misdirection portrayed as reality. Thache may even have liked Trump – for a short while – but he would have soon taught the pedantic Trump a lesson in manners! After all, Thache had done the same to the privileged and pedantic Stede Bonnet!

The lessons we have learned from history are enormously valuable – if we pay attention to them. These lessons of the past, from the Lords Proprietors of Carolina, are meaningful today; they show us that the old Stuart ways are way overdue for cancellation – there is little social unity without democratic government. It is meaningless to even propose a “union” without unity. Channeling George Washington, Thomas Jefferson also warned us of the greediness that threatened our nascent union – largely unrealized today. Jefferson wrote in 1825 to William Branch Giles of a "vast accession of strength from their younger recruits, who having nothing in them of the feelings or principles of ’76 now look to a single and splendid government of an Aristocracy, founded on banking institutions and monied in corporations under the guise and cloak of their favored branches of manufactures commerce and navigation, riding and ruling over the plundered ploughman and beggared yeomanry."[2] Our democracy was shanghaied by these monied corporations nearly from the start. And, they’re still attempting to hold control over the nation!

The only difference between a rebellion and a revolution is who wins in the end. “History is written by the winners.” And yet another comparison may be that the difference between a privateer and a pirate is who profits from the theft and how. In America, “beyond the line,” profit transcended national loyalty, making capitalism into an issue of personal freedom – at most, the piracies of Edward Thache and even Donald J. Trump were the “venal” lesser of the systemic corruption of the Republican Party since 1964. At least Edward Thache expressed some loyalty to his “country” of Jamaica – similar to Jefferson’s love of his country – Virginia!



[1] Jules Archer, The Plot to Seize the White House (New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 1973).

[2] Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, December 26, 1825.


[1][1] Louis Jacobson, “Chris Matthews says Cheney got $34 million payday from Halliburton” (May 24, 2010), Politifact.

[2] John Joseph Wallis, “The Concept of Systematic Corruption in American History,” Corruption and Reform: Lessons from America's

Economic History (University of Chicago Press, 2006), 24.

[3]Ibid.

[4]Ibid., 25.

[5] "John Kelly Cashes in on Child Separation Policy He Pushed," Crew (9 May 2019).

[6] Jon Schwarz, “Jimmy Carter: The U.S. Is an “Oligarchy With Unlimited Political Bribery,”The Intercept, 30 Jul 2015, https://theintercept.com/2015/07/30/jimmy-carter-u-s-oligarchy-unlimited-political-bribery/ (accessed 28 Feb 2017).

“Piracy” of the Industrial Age

 

While the South licked her wounds, the North engaged in a similar endeavor. The first drilling for “rockoil” by Edwin L. Drake on 28 August 1859 in Pennsylvania ushered in the American Industrial Age. During the Civil War in 1863, John D. Rockefeller entered the oil business and soon monopolized control of all oil refineries in Cleveland. In 1870, he began Standard Oil Company. Rockefeller introduced kerosene and gasoline to a country that no longer needed candles to read or horses to pull their carriages. This was a revolution and oil made Rockefeller the wealthiest American of all time and the richest person in modern history – virtually a “god of profit” anointed with the almighty dollar. That’s how Americans saw Robber Barons as they first appeared after the war to possess society. A war-torn nation welcomed their ingenuity and wealth. Like the older discovery of the profit potential of sugar production, the world changed with the discovery of oil. Oil magnates now had more power than any god imaginable and these gods of industry sat upon a “black gold” throne glistening with their new lucrative treasure!

Robber Barons of the following so-called Gilded Age lorded over an era of rapid economic growth, especially in the North and West. It perhaps reflected the old days of piracy in terms of political corruption and corporate financial misdealings, creating many wealthy industrialists who lived extravagant lives. In this time, corporations became the most common form of business and unions began to fight abuse of labor by those corporations. This essentially created the economic stratification we experience today – with a short hiccup brought by FDR’s New Deal in the 1930s and 40s. Although not directly related to the South’s recent abuse of human slave labor, the Gilded Age created an equally abusive period of labor exploitation from a new breed of conservatives – essentially, slavery had been reborn, taking advantage of whites as well as blacks. At least, the new white “slaves” could take comfort in the fact that they would never be viewed as lowly as black slaves in the South! Democratic President Lyndon Baines Johnson later commented upon this notion when he signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964.

Southern conservatives lost the Civil War, but they did “rise again” and their economic ideals and fear of suppression by Northern government found a new home in the next ironically-named “Progressive Era” (1890-1920s), targeting regulation of huge monopolies and corporations – the spawn of those hated Yankees. Some Progressive Era conservative Southern Democrats like William Jennings Bryan and Woodrow Wilson re-awoke racial social conservatism and attempted to maintain segregation, established in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 – and white supremacist domination over their former slaves and their children. As previously mentioned, during this Progressive Era, occurred the 1898 Wilmington Race Riot – killing as many as 500 African-Americans out of fear of a culturally-hated “Negro Rule.” Newspapers such as the Raleigh News and Observer (think: Fox News) wielded enormous political power over American thought – political piracy in the printed word comparable to another “counterfactual” as written by Johnson-Mist in 1724. They spread this fear of “Negro Rule” as shown in figure 2.

 


Figure 2: A cartoon from an issue of the Raleigh News & Observer, Raleigh, North Carolina from 1898. It shows the political issue that North Carolinians most feared during the special election that year – “Negro Rule” or African-American Rule – an election during which the sitting relatively-liberal governor, Lindsey Russell nearly avoided assassination on a train home to Wilmington to cast his vote! This cartoon depicts an African-American as a bat reaching to grab at fleeing white women. This copy has been annotated with the source and enhanced the caption for easier viewing. For more detail, see LeRae Umfleet, A Day of Blood: the 1898 Wilmington Race Riot (Raleigh: North Carolina Office of Archives and History, 2009).

 

Oddly, they were joined in fighting government corruption by Republicans such as “trustbuster” Theodore Roosevelt. Progressive Era Republicans had forgotten the “Party of Lincoln” sobriquet, but still did not wholly share their Southern counterparts’ racial prejudice at this time. Most Republicans had re-invented themselves from abolitionists (1854-1877) after Reconstruction to follow the new treasure, capitalizing on mostly oil profits and war materiel – though some were still after South American sugar profits. They fought in Progressive politics against not just government “corruption,” as it were, but government control over their business practices – essentially, corporate rights – particularly over the gold standard which they greatly relied upon to turn profits in the “Roaring Twenties.” These Republicans and their wealthy oligarch corporate lords would abuse the markets so much that they actually caused the Great Depression of 1929.

It was the time of “Great Man” redeemer “histories” written by former Confederate soldiers like Attorney-General George Davis, Samuel A’Court Ashe, and William L. Saunders. Redeemers elevated former slavers to “great man” status once again – “Redeemers” or redemption of those who suffered their costly “Lost Cause” a half-century before. “Pirates” retook their status and their history. Again, politically useful “counterfactual” narratives – like those of Johnson-Mist in A General History – returned!

Southern conservative resurgence of this time skewered Edward “Blackbeard” Thache’s reputation the most. The British maintained control over their biased Golden Age narrative from the early eighteenth century, but Americans turned it around and wholly adopted it as their own in “Redeemer” histories. This involved the subtle political manipulation of historical truth as in the “counterfactual” described by Dr. Manushag Powell. Much like Nathaniel Mist writing as “Capt. Charles Johnson” with A General History of the Pyrates, we turned our own historical narrative around 180 degrees for entertainment, but also to demonstrate our new-found technological progress and hide from our violent past. Because of this turn of weaponized history, though, America was robbed of even further social progress! Personally, I suspect that this is when we also stopped enjoying or even learning our history – again, another characteristic that we do not share with our British cousins. We had to suspect that even our basic history was replete with lies and half-truths.

After separation, our own capitalists controlled that narrative for their own purposes from the turn of the nineteenth century. This helped them deflect their corrupt behaviors and to contrast the angelic and racist “Columbia,” who they claimed saved us from these “notorious villains,” into a new era of worthy “American Progress,” our divinely-assured Manifest Destiny! Actually, it still resembled the Carolinian Domitus cultoribus orbis, “to dominate and conquer the world,” as Barbadians anointed for themselves in their Carolina Seal of 1663. Little had changed in the American profiteer mindset. Ask any Native, Central, or South American if you’re so inclined to learn the truth!

Demonizing the old Golden Age “common enemies of all mankind” became a way of demonstrating technological and social advancement brought by the new “champions of industry.” Conquering the pirates of old opened the way for the worship of great feats of capitalism. Again, shiny treasure drew the eye while suppressing the mind. But, it was nevertheless entertaining!

Aiding the efforts of our capitalists in this new anti-historical approach were anti-historical pirate tales of fiction. Robert Louis Stevenson is best known for his classic Treasure Island, an icon of pirate literature that stirred a renewed interest in pirate history – or maritime ahistory – in the late nineteenth century. A look at Stevenson’s changing politics is quite revealing for this period. In 1877, Stevenson was only twenty-six years of age. Before writing his major fictional works, Stevenson at that time reflected on his transformation from a “Socialist” into a quintessential American, as he saw it:

 

For my part, I look back to the time when I was a Socialist with something like regret. I have convinced myself (for the moment) that we had better leave these great changes to what we call great blind forces: their blindness being so much more perspicacious than the little, peering, partial eyesight of men… Now I know that in thus turning Conservative with years, I am going through the normal cycle of change and travelling in the common orbit of men's opinions. I submit to this, as I would submit to gout or gray hair, as a concomitant of growing age or else of failing animal heat; but I do not acknowledge that it is necessarily a change for the better—I dare say it is deplorably for the worse.[1]

 

 


Figure 3: American Progress "Spirit of the Frontier" was painted in 1872 by John Gast (1842-1893) - This representation of Manifest Destiny illustrates the divinely-inspired angelic Columbia. This angelic spirit represents the United States and the expansion out West - as unclothed and "primitive" Native Americans, flee from her. She holds telegraph wire and there is a train in the background symbolizing the industrialization of the West. “Manifest Destiny” was based on the belief of cultural and racial superiority over other peoples - the obligation to bring God, civilization, and enlightenment to other races. The phrase "Manifest Destiny" was coined by the journalist John O'Sullivan in 1845. This imperial notion is most frequently associated with the massive territorial expansion of the United States over just fifty years from 1803 to 1853 and its westward expansion to the Pacific Ocean.

 

The Scottish Stevenson, in 1877, was – like many – excited by “Columbia” and dreams of greatness. He made an effort to become an American and attempted to emulate American upper-class society at the time – i.e., he sought the “American Dream” of capital wealth “beyond the lines of amity” – as did many seventeenth and eighteenth-century Englishman before him in the West Indies. His later novel, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde may have reflected upon his moral struggles at the time. Capitalism won out it appears, much to his own chagrin. Six years later, he penned Treasure Island, originally a tale for boys, but one that invigorated in Americans a broader renewed interest in all things pirate. Treasure Island also made Long John Silver, a nasty pirate of questionable morality and greed, a household figure for the rest of our history. It seems that the inner pirate won the fight within Stevenson’s soul and molded the perfect “pirate” character for Disney’s future film, Blackbeard the Pirate in 1952. This film had done far more damage to Edward Thache’s reputation than even “Capt. Charles Johnson” had ever dreamed!

Johnson-Mist’s “villainous Blackbeard” character arose like a phoenix – or like the South – to new life! Moreover, Confederate redeemers like Samuel A. Ashe found a template on which to damn Edward Thache and other pirates, while also redeeming their Family’s actions in that notorious affair – and establish themselves as truly “great men” of the honorable state of North Carolina! Amateur writers like John Watson of Pennsylvania, ex-Confederate soldier Thomas Upshur of Virginia, and Ellen Winslow of Perquimons County, North Carolina began to speculate on Edward Thache’s origins and intricately weaved him into their local histories. Then, trained historians, like Dr. Hugh Rankin, felt empowered enough by Blackbeard’s alleged evil to officially “trash” the Royal Navy veteran and businessman. Of course, Rankin did not trash Edward Thache for his crude early capitalism, but for the “wicked,” “traitorous,” demonic,” and “notorious” methods and his violation of womanly virtue as A General History’s demonic character Blackbeard. Armed with a century old tradition of the new anti-pirate redeemer “counterfactual,” it became easy for even professional historians like Dr. Rankin to accept that Capt. Charles Johnson’s A General History of 1724 must have been absolutely true! Any mind abused by redeemer rhetoric could easily pick up a copy of Treasure Island and read how all pirates must have truly behaved! This finished any remnants of Thache’s good reputation while, at the same time, it hid American capitalism’s true origins in crude West Indian methods.

The longer these merchant-pirates plundered in America, the greater the returns became; the longer they ignored humanity for the sake of profit, the more unique they became. Over the next few decades, Robber Barons like Rockefeller, Morgan, and Carnegie nearly destroyed our economics with the Great Depression as surely as they destroyed Native American populations for railroad profits. Some of us persevered. Still, we barely survived these piratical corporate forces; but, oddly, we never tried them for their crimes because we couldn’t wholly separate their criminal mindset from the histories we were taught in school! Robber Baron oligarchs were always “too big to fail” or too well accepted as necessary – too much of heroes to America. After all, we were like them – maybe would be them one day – maybe catch some of that “American Dream” profit as it trickled down upon us from the sugar, silver, gold, and “black gold” shiny treasures!

Democracy was hopelessly lost in this treasure-filled maelstrom of greed. Thousands of Native Americans – not to ignore the millions who previously died of disease – died for the “Dream,” the profit – money. As the territory and “outsiders” (ironically, the native population) to conquer faded, so did the focus: our capitalist mercenaries searched inward for new prey. They had the entire Western Hemisphere to capitalize upon, as dictated in the Monrone Doctrine. Remaining focused on treasure, they found ready adherents to the capitalist cause among their own kin. And, the great fortunes that they had been able to amass for themselves accrued with every expedition west and south – sending their agents to steal land, kill Indians, lay rail, and pray to their vengeful god to survive the next Indian uprising in their remote frontier outposts. They merely hoped God’s vengeance would be turned upon their adversaries!



[1] Robert Louis Stevenson, Crabbed Age and Youth and Other Essays (Portland: Thomas B. Mosher, 1907), 11–12.