Private Proprietary Pirates - Early Capitalism in America, 1700

A letter from Edward Randolph depicts the arrogance of aristocratic oligarchs known as the Lords Proprietors in England and the negligence they placed upon their private possessions in the American colonies, particularly Carolina, the Bahamas, and New Jersey. This was a prime example of the dangers of private control in the matters of government. Privatization at this level facilitated piracy in the Bahamas as well as multiple abuses across America. Indeed, it began the development of America by the Stuarts of England as a criminal domain, given as gifts to these aristocrats who were charged with the theft of all the possessions of Spain "beyond the lines of amity" or friendship! This attitude remained in America through the reign of the Stuart Dynasty - nearly the entire 17th century - until the ascendancy of the Whigs, or more liberal administrators of England took control after the "Glorious Revolution of 1688." Still, the damage was already done.

These pervasive criminal tendencies involved theft, slavery, murder, extortion, bribery, rampant smuggling so far from authorities, 3,000 miles away in England. It probably infested the nascent United States with the same ubiquitous criminal element and led to the Confederate States of America attempting to maintain this criminal West-Indian society, slavery, and all the abuses that accrued hereto during the Civil War (1861-1865). And, it likely led to many abuses we find in government today under the outlaw Trump Administration. We are indeed, as "Capt. Charles Johnson," the author of A General History of the Pyrates, called us in 1724, a "Commonwealth of Pyrates!"

This is just a small window into the behavior of the men that came to rape Spain's colonial lands - before the development of the "Flying Gang" of Benjamin Hornigold in the Bahamas almost two decades later. Edward Randolph tried to warn the Board of Trade of the dangers still infesting these waters because of these criminal creoles. Many of today's Americans are their descendants.

----------

March 25, 1700  New Providence [separated for readability]

Edward Randolph to the Council of Trade and Plantations. Begins as March 11.

I am, I thank God, in health but not recovered of the lameness I got in gaol at Bermuda. I landed [at New Providence] the 10th inst.[March 1700] and finding Mr. Read Elding (tho'illegally, yet) actually in the possession of the Government,

... the next day, after some debate [I] had with him [Elding], I administered to him the oath, though several objections were at that time made to the contrary, viz. that he assumed the Government by virtue of an illegal commission clandestinely obtained from [Nicholas] Webb, being also contrary to the Lords Proprietors' instructions which direct the method of appointing another Governor, in case of the death or departure of the present.

Besides, Webb went away on a suddaine to Philadelphia, not having first advised with the Council nor had the consent of any one of them about his appointing Elding his Deputy, which was not known to any of them till Webb was under sail, so that the Government is of right invested in Mr. Richard Peterson, a Lords' Deputy and the first in Council.

But they, finding the inhabitants divided and ready to cast off all Government, chose rather to sit still than hazard the peace of the country, and expect the Lords Proprietors' directions in that matter.

But the chief thing before I gave the oath that I scrupled at [had a problem with] was, that Elding, under pretence of a commission to him from Webb to apprehend pirates, etc., piratically seized a briganteen of Boston, John Edwards, Master.

Webb, Elding, and the others to whom he had given the like commissions, shared the money they found aboard.

Elding does not only brave it out [take advantage of?] upon the Commission Webb gave him to be Lieutenant Governor, but supports himself in the lawfulness of the other commission to take pirates, but sets a very high value upon his services by the accidental seizing Hind the pirate and afterwards executing six of his accomplices.

Hind and four of his men were surprised upon an island 10 or 12 leagues from hence by a Bermuda man [Bermuda vessel]: the three others were taken by chance and executed also, but one of the four, having nothing proved against him, [though he] was discharged and sent by Elding to cut logwood at Campeach, run away, and [Elding] believes his good services against Hind, etc., will expiate for his own piracy upon Edwards.

[Elding] a day or two ago caned Mr. Gower, a Lords' Deputy, most severely, and keeps him in prison, for questioning his power to appoint a Judge to try the pirates, a thing questioned by all the Lords' Deputys.

Their Lordships [Lords Proprietors] at home are very careless and ignorant of their own interest and of the good of the inhabitants. Though many complaints upon just grounds are made to them, praying for relief, yet they take no notice of it, nor of the most arbitrary government of Trott and Webb; neither of the late action done by Elding against Edwards, which they had notice of, but discourse him very indifferently upon that matter.

These inhabitants are daily more unsettled, and will give little credit to what their Lordships [Proprietors] say or promise them they will do for their encouragement, when at the same time they sell and dispose of their privileges for very inconsiderable sums, as Hog Island, lying to the north of Providence, which makes the harbour, 'tis, after several grants and confirmations thereof to the inhabitants, sold to [ex-Gov] Mr. Trott for 50l., to the utter ruin to the inhabitants of this town.

Hog Island in the Bahamas - just across Nassau Town Harbor from Nassau, New Providence Island

Their Lordships [Proprietors] have likewise granted away the royalty of the whale fishing and a great part of the Island of Abbico to one Dudgeon, late Secretary and Marshall of Bermuda a sort of stock jobber, for 30 years, as appears upon record here;

... neither do they regard into whose hands the Government of these Islands comes [lawlessness].

I am well informed that for more than seven years past seldom less than four known pirates have been [on] the Council.

I brought Commissions to persons upon the place to be Officers in the Court of Admiralty, but all of them, except Ellis Lightwood, the intended Judge, are either dead or removed.

I find him [Lightwood] an ill man, and was a busy promoter of oppression in Trott's and Webb's time, as appears by the records of the Courts in which he was Judge. Besides, he is the only security for Bridgeman [Henry Bridgham], alias Every's appearing here when demanded, in one bond of 1,000l., and also for 10 or 12 of his company in a like bond of 1,000l. for each of their appearance.

I have suspended the delivery of the Commission to him for that reason. 'Tis expected that orders will be directed to some persons here to put those bonds in suit, ('twill deter others); the securities have got a great deal of money.

I know no man so fit for that service as Mr. Thomas Walker;

... as to Mr. Warren, the Attorney General, he is security also for some of Every's men.

Packer, one of that gang [Henry Avery/Bridgham's], is married to Elding's sister now in town. His Majesty will have little justice done him by Elding and others of his party, who bear all the sway here.

Webb was directed and proved an apt scholar under Trott's discipline and advice: Elding writes after his [Webb's] copy and expects to be made the Governor, by which appears the deplorable and miserable conditions the poor inflicted inhabitants have lived in from the time of their resettlement, after they were drove off and destroyed in 1680 by the Spaniards, who watch an opportunity to do the like again.

The Lords Proprietors laid out money and sent over a few arms with some ammunition to the value of 3,600l. [it actually came to just over 800l., which was the presumed profit of the Bahamas] sterling towards the defence of the country. After all their charge their fort is not serviceable. Certainly the inhabitants will either desert the place or submit to any foreign Power that will protect them.

The interests and the affairs here between the Lords and the inhabitants are so different and distracted that it will require a long time to bring them to a right understanding. From the consideration whereof I humbly propose that His Majesty will please to require Read Elding to answer in England for his piracy against Edwards, and, further, that in the meantime till there be a complete settlement in this and all other the Proprieties, that His Majesty be pleased to direct his Commission to Thomas Walker, Esq., an ingenuous man, one of the Lords' Deputies, to be the President, and to Richard Peterson [father-in-law of Adm. Judge Edmond Porter of North Carolina], a Deputy, Isaac Rush, Richard Tollefero, Thomas Williams, Martin Cook, Samuel Frith, Perient Trott, Jeremiah Wells, and John Bethel, to be the Council and to take upon them the administration of the Government of these Islands, (being all of them settled inhabitants,) during His Majesty's pleasure.

Probably the Draft Commissioned below... in the Library of Congress maps

I have the promise of an exact draft of these Islands and of the fort and harbour of of this town, but being presently bound to Carolina in my return to Bermuda, I have recommended the care thereof to Mr. Walker, who will make it his business to see them exactly drawn and transmit them with a complete narrative thereof to your Lordships. Signed, Ed. Randolph, S.G. Endorsed., Recd. July 20, Read July 25, 1700. Holograph. 2½ pp. Enclosed,

    250. i. Abstract of above. 1¼ pp.
    250. ii. Copy of Read Elding's Commission from Gov. Webb to be Deputy Governor of New Providence, etc. April 13, 1699. Endorsed., Recd. July 20, 1700. 1 p.
    250. iii. Copy of a clause in the Lords Proprietors' Commission to their Governor about appointing Deputy Governors, Jan. 12, 1692. ½ p. Same endorsement.
    250. iv. Copy of Gov. Webb's Commission to Read Elding to take pirates, July 13, 1698. 1 p. Same endorsement.
    250. v. Copies of depositions by John Edwards, Master; Ebenezer Dennesse, Mate; and John Stiles, Boatswain; William Gray and John Ashcroft, Mariners, of the Bohemia Merchant, which was chased and piratically seized by Read Elding off Cape Florida, August 2, 1698; and of Daniel Kenney, of the Sweepstakes. 3 pp. Same endorsement.
    250. vi. Copy of letter from Lords Proprietors of the Bahama Islands to Gov. Webb and Council, May 27, 1699. 1¾ pp. Same endorsement.
    250. vii. Copy of an Order of the Grand Council, Nassau, July 8, 1690, making Hogg Island a free Common. On back, Copy of disallowance of the same by the Lords Proprietors. Sept. 21, 1699. Same endorsement. [Board of Trade. Proprieties, 5. Nos. 31, 31.i.–vii.; and (without enclosures), 26. pp. 248–256.]

-------------------------------------------------------------

Just published 2nd Electronic Edition of Quest for Blackbeard!

Some of the poorer sort went aboard pirate ships and sloops as crew, certainly, but they usually were not as well educated as those who navigated them. The tale of these early pirate leaders’ gentlemanly demeanor, formerly wealthy privateers, has been confined, narrowed, and almost eradicated by literary rhetoric. Worse still, modern historians attempt to explain them all as an early form of democratic society, confusing some of these gentlemen with the common people and further skewing their reality. The people we call “pirates” today most resemble those found in the Bahamas after 1715, driven out by 1718, scattered refugees of a barren island and rude maritime subsistence, but the real pirate leaders of the Golden Age were wealthy – the 97% were blamed for the crimes of the 3%! This injustice is where we must begin the true Quest for Blackbeard!

http://www.lulu.com/shop/baylus-c-brooks/quest-for-blackbeard-the-true-story-of-edward-thache-and-his-world/ebook/product-24414312.html
 

Author website:
baylusbrooks.com 

----------------------------------------------------------------

Only $0.99... so, please read. Understand the need for #Resistance

https://www.amazon.com/Golden-Republican-Political-History-America-ebook/dp/B082XJ3ZVZ/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=trump+commonwealth&qid=1579900044&s=digital-text&sr=1-4

True History of Our Pirate Nation or Why the GOP are such Assholes!

 This actually introduces the conclusion in my book Quest for Blackbeard: The The Story of Edward Thache and His World, but I believe it holds great relevance to our monstrous political problems today and the reasons why our conservatives are such gigantic assholes! So, I'm including it here - so anyone can read it.

True History of Our Pirate Nation!

When Bernard Cooke of Barbados had accused James Grazett of saying “God damn King George and all his family; He is a Dutch dog and son of a whore… Here is King James the third’s health, right and lawful heir to the Crown,” he employed a common Jacobite rhetorical device.[1] Logicians today call it “attacking the man,” or an ad hominem political attack. The United States’ system of checks and balances only works when both political parties negotiate in good faith. Otherwise, any hearings or discussions devolve into ad hominem political attacks, like Cooke's. 

King George’s claim to England’s throne is confusing unless you understand that the House of Nassau was an aristocratic dynasty associated with Nassau Castle, located in present-day Nassau, Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany – once a part of Prussia. Nassau, the primary town on New Providence Island of the Bahamas – the stronghold of the Flying Gang of Benjamin Hornigold’s pirates – was named in honor of William of Orange, a prince of Nassau. How did a Dutchman become a prince of a territory in Prussia? Well… William was a Dutchman (although married to Mary Stuart of fine Scottish stock), but also from the Ottonian branch of the Princes of Nassau who gave rise to the Princes of Orange and the monarchs of the Netherlands. The Principality of Orange actually originates from what is now France, but I’m sure you’re already completely confused as most everyone. Suffice it to say that this heritage goes back to the Holy Roman Empire until 1544 when the dynasties of Orange and Nassau aligned. William of Orange married Mary Stuart – but had no issue and therefore, the Principality of Orange fell into the hands of Frederic-Henry, Frederick I of Prussia, who ceded the principality — at least the lands, but not the formal title — to France in 1713. So, the title of a “Prince of Orange” no longer carried property – just a royal connection to the line of Frederick I.

On 1 August 1714, George Louis, son of Sophia of the Palatinate in Heidelberg – herself, the daughter of Frederick V, Elector Palatine and Elizabeth Stuart of England, became King of Great Britain and Ireland and ruler of the Duchy and Electorate of Brunswick-Lüneburg (Hanover) in the Holy Roman Empire. George carried only a minor connection to the Stuart dynasty of England – as well as the Principality of Orange – and, so, was only seen as a “Dutch dog” and an illegitimate heir to the British Crown – especially by Jacobites, or supporters of James III’s claim to that Crown. Jacobite objection to the Hanoverian king owed much to isolationist political ideology – like today’s Republican Party in America. Okay, this is even more confusing and now, you need a mug of grog, right?

Anyhow, this device made political use of prejudice against foreigners: the non-British – particularly against the Protestant Dutch and their kin – Protestant Prussians or Germans. “Dutch dog” made light of George’s legal right to sit on the English throne – especially when he spoke no English, but only German! Cooke accused Grazett of being a traitor for elevating James III or the “Pretender” over King George I, the sitting monarch of the realm and the one that all loyal British citizens were supposed to support. Grazett accused Cooke’s wife of exactly the same thing – with almost exactly the same phrase.

British historian of the seventeenth to eighteenth centuries, Ragnhild Marie Hatton assured us that the problem with King George I was not so much his ignorance of English. It had little to do with his public shyness. It did not even center on his scandalous treatment of his wife, Sophia Dorothea. The German prince was simply a weak, pallid, and foreign Protestant replacement for the strength of a Stuart of Great Britain. As William Makepeace Thackery wrote:

His heart was in Hanover... He was more than fifty years of age when he came amongst us: we took him because we wanted him, because he served our turn; we laughed at his uncouth German ways, and sneered at him. He took our loyalty for what it was worth; laid hands on what money he could; kept us assuredly from Popery ... I, for one, would have been on his side in those days. Cynical and selfish, as he was, he was better than a king out of St. Germains [James, the Stuart Pretender] with the French king's orders in his pocket, and a swarm of Jesuits in his train.[2]

Thackery had presumed that George I was good for Britain, that despite his dullness, George was the Protestant puppet that Parliament needed in their liberal Whig transformation away from monarchial corruption – a corruption that still threatened to ruin the colonies in America. And, then there was the politico-religious threat of popery. For Thackery, being a German was far better than being Catholic! The accession of George I signaled the beginning of a new British Empire, even newer than it was upon the accession of a Dutchman in 1688. Not all of the empire, however, agreed with these Whig changes that had originally begun under King William, the Dutch king who married Mary Stuart in a compromise of sorts to usher in Parliament’s will over the sovereign.

During the majority of the seventeenth century, America developed its piratical character from the Stuarts. Although also anti-Catholic, the American soul had not changed in the same way as Britain’s. America was still Stuart, a distant imperial reminder of Charles I’s casting of Parliament aside – casting aside the will of the people, not unlike the current U. S. president’s casting aside of Congress’s oversight authority. Parliament executed that Stuart king and ruled without a monarch for eleven years. They finally restored Charles II – with conditions – but the aristocratic excess yet returned with him – as it has today with corporations – as he finished developing the American colonies. Great wealth and great violence inhabited – and still inhabits – the American side of the Atlantic – essentially there to steal Spanish treasure – so also developing great prejudice against foreigners. Americans, having later lost their human property in 1863, simply have never consented either to return pirated Spanish property to its rightful owners – nor will it allow darkened foreigners on its stolen soil - no! Can’t you read the sign – “Whites Only!”?

It required great men of power and endurance to command the “trade” in that part of the world – trade that must be taken – and not actually “traded” from their rivals. Significant cultural change had already taken place between the softening, liberalizing British and the brutal, aggressive American martial mind. Of the Spanish depredations of the “pyrate” Sir Walter Raleigh, Francis Osborne lamented in 1701 that “no Peace beyond the Line [in America] was a belief so Riveted in the Opinions of all, as he could not have been Indicted anew.”[3] Britain finally desired peace, but Americans, still much in tune with Raleigh, yet craved more bloody war, like their original Stuart patrons.

University of York historian J. A. Sharpe noticed an “upsurge in upper-class debauchery” during the Stuart reign of Charles II – and when Carolina was founded.[4] In his book Crime in Early Modern England 1550-1750, Sharpe said these debauchers, like Charles Sackville, the earl of Dorset, or John Wilmot, the earl of Rochester, “another courtier of vicious life,” largely passed freely and unpunished in England.[5] He also asserted about the gentleman class that “a number of types of behavior regarded as illegal by the authorities were thought of as legal, or at least justifiable on quasi-legal grounds.”[6] Court records, asserts Sharpe, reflect the consistent criminality of the lower orders – likely for reasons of sustenance – but completely ignore actions of the elite. These gentlemen were not the exceptions to the rule, but rather the rule itself in Stuart times. Their wealth and position gave them immunity from justice – they were “too big to jail.” It is reasonable to assume that when the invasion of the Spanish West Indies by the English occurred during this time, these freely-expressed negative characteristics came with these gentlemen – the violent notoriousness necessary to conquer Spain’s wealth in America. The result was an early America filled with an English criminal ruling element that showed little if any remorse for their criminal acts – a perfect pirate force to steal the wealth of the Spanish New World Empire. These attitudes spread not only to the West Indies, but also to mainland America with the establishment of Carolana with an “a” in 1629 under Charles I and Carolina with an “i” in 1663 under his son, Charles II - especially after the founding of Charles Town in 1671 by Barbadians – literally named for a Stuart monarch! Malcontents of all persuasians left England for a less-discriminating America, including ex-hero Parliamentarians with a certain fundamental ideological connection to the more northern colonies of New England. In America, they would be free to exercise the worship of their vengeful god and almost any crime with impunity!

From 1688-1689, at the accession of the Dutch Protestant reformer King William of Orange, Francis Nicholson was sent as lieutenant governor to the Dominion of New England. He quickly gained a reputation as a progressive and immediately alienated his less than enthusiastic conservative constituents in Stuart-favoring America. The Crown, though, appreciated his efforts at liberal reform, and upon his advisable departure from New England, he proceeded to Virginia to be its governor from 1690-1692. The British Crown was impressed and appointed him next to serve as Maryland’s governor from 1694-1698, and again as governor of Virginia from 1698-1705. Of his second term in this colony, biographer Natalie Zacek says that “Virginians recoiled at Nicholson's military gruffness and his uncouth public courtship of Lucy Burwell,” and his “attempts at reform threatened the power of such men as William Byrd I, so that several members of the governor's Council—including Nicholson's former ally, [James] Blair—convinced the Crown to remove him.”[7] Americans fought back! Neither progressives nor liberal reformers could grow amenable roots “beyond the lines of amity” in America – especially while at war, which, for America today, is just as frequent overseas – if not brutally consistant with hired mercenaries to do the dirty work and bring back the gold – or, in this case, oil. 

Once again, the Crown’s reform efforts in the colonies had been put aside for Queen Anne’s War, in which the future “Blackbeard,” or Jamaican gentleman Edward Thache participated. Nicholson returned to London and petitioned the new queen to make an expedition to take French territories in Canada. Nicholson captured the French Port Royal on October 2, 1710. This battle began the conquest of Acadia and permanent British control over Nova Scotia. In that effort, he combined forces with Sir Hovendon Walker, then commander of HMS Windsor – at one time, Thache’s ship – at the head of his fleet, perhaps with Thache aboard. Much of Walker’s fleet foundered on rocks near the mouth of the Saint Lawrence River. The expedition was cancelled, which greatly angered Nicholson, leading the land forces. He reportedly tore off his powdered wig and threw it to the ground when he heard the news. He spent some time afterward as Nova Scotia’s governor in Boston. There, he re-attempted his reform efforts, again, angering colonials, and removed these “notorious” American malcontents from office. Still, they all claimed him to be mad and had him declared incompetent. They regained their positions and cast Nicholson from New England. This was a common tactic used by colonial conservatives to maintain their power in America against the efforts of British Whig reformers.

Undeterred as a reformer, still the fervent wish of the growing Whig ministry under George I, Nicholson then found appointment as first royal governor of South Carolina during the more turbulent second phrase of the Golden Age of Piracy from 1721 to 1725. His instructions from the Crown cite the usual dealings with Indians, trade, and such, but a preamble to these instructions involved the legal issues surrounding piracy. His superiors realized that their initial efforts at reform could not be trusted purely in still-conservative colonial hands. Once the Crown gained control from the corruptly-Stuart Lords Proprietors, Carolina’s former private owners, they would still attempt to use this new Bahamian base in America to ensure reform – but, as all best laid plans….

Americans did not want reform and had proven quite obstinate and stubborn. They abused the procedures for piracy trials under the outline laid out by Sir Charles Hedges in the late seventeeth century. Edward Randolph’s assertion that pirates could not try pirates resoundingly rang true. The preamble called for no less than seven men, the governor or his representative being required as one. Also, the other six being “no person but Such as were known Merchantts, factors, or Planters or Such as Captains, Lieutenants or Warrant Officers in any of his said Late Majesties Ships of Warr or Captains, Masters, or Mates of some English shoar Should be Capable of being So Called and Sitting and Voting in the said Court.”[8] The word “English” is ambiguous here. It was not “British,” although the distinction is barely noticed today – at a time when these distinctions are nowhere near as important. Why write this detail or make this distinction? Americans had not been prone to put French or Spanish citizens on their admiralty courts – nationality was not the problem. Could it be that “English shoar” referred to the actual shores of England herself? It’s subtle, but, the Crown likely had not wanted natural-born Americans, as well as foreigners, judging pirate trials or administering justice to their own. Many English vessels visited the colonies on a regular basis. South Carolina records show a regular pattern of trans-Atlantic commerce from Bristol, Liverpool, London, as well as West Indian traffic. These “Captains, Masters, and Mates” of “English shoars” – not colonial or provincial – would be readily available to serve on such courts in America.

Nicholson’s superiors were quite serious – their subtly anti-pirate preamble went on for almost five full pages before Nicholson’s actual instructions began. They listed three anti-piracy acts: 11^th William III, 1^st George I (not only to prevent piracy, but specifically piracies on the king’s ships), 10^th Anne I (on building county jails), and 12^th William III (reiterating 13^th Charles II for support of the navy overseas). One might get the impression that the Crown did not trust those remote provincials in the American wilderness. They had good reason!

The instructions themselves contain the usual references, with specific exception. No. 56 was undoubtedly generated by the extreme difficulties with the Richard Tookerman-Henry Wills case of that same year in London Courts. This instruction read that “no persons for the future be Sent as Prisoners to this Kingdom from the said Province of South Carolina, without Sufficient Proof of their Crimes, and that proof transmitted along with the Said Prisoners.”[9] Capt. Edward Vernon probably nodded his approval for the Crown’s caution – still smarting financially from that affair. He paid £1,200 in fines from the resulting judgement of false arrest, a travesty of justice expertly manipulated by pirates Tookerman and Wills – similar to the consistent obstruction of Republican President Donald J. Trump and his Attorney General William Barr in refusing to free the wheels of justice in America’s Trump Era by holding out on the Mueller Report and angering Democrats across the nation and in Congress.

Instructions 67-70 may have been of strong interest to Edward Thache. They concerned “Merchants and Planters of the West Indies” in corresponding and trading with the French Islands in those parts. The 5^th and 6^th articles of their mutual 1686 treaty prohibited “to Trade and Fish in all Places possessed or which shall be possessed by the other in America.”[10] The Crown worried that intelligence would leak to their Catholic enemy by continuous contact with these English traders – indeed as privateers and pirates gained intelligence from them. While at the Virginia Capes with Benjamin Hornigold, pirate Edward Thache may have been quite pleased to learn from Capt. Pritchard about the future visit of a large, lightly-manned and gunned slave ship (La Concorde) near Martinique. Pritchard had come upon the pirates as he sailed northward from his home port of St. Lucia, in the French Windwards. Still, once Thache arrived there, and soon after taking La Concorde, Thache might also have been quite annoyed with such English merchants as Christopher Taylor trading to Bequia. Taylor was the only man in any record who claimed violence was done to him directly by Thache, although greed - the money – may also have influenced Thache to do so. Furthermore, Thache never hanged Taylor from the yardarm, as he threatened; so, it may yet have been a bluff. Still, Thache expressed a particular annoyance with the French, who consistently threatened his home of Jamaica and with whom he fought consistently in the former war. His actions after capturing his Queen Anne’s Revenge demonstrate a steady determination to hurt the French in the French Windward Islands and at Petit Goâve in French Hispaniola.

Stuart Tories, Jacobites, and many elite Americans of conservative persuasion saw King William’s progressive policies and those of his successors and their many reforming administrative “Dutch dogs” as weakness. War had been natural for them. One may hear that “Might made right; strength over weakness made a resilient nation – it commanded trade and ensured profit,” or “Only the truly strong could be truly free.” “Piracy had become so interwoven into the social infrastructure of the Atlantic colonies,” writes Douglas R. Burgess, “that it helped shape the policies of many colonial governments.”[11] Piracy had built America. It completed the task begun in 1588 at the defeat of the Spanish Armada. British piracy had taken by force the precious treasures of Spain’s overseas empire. Piracy provided “many goods and luxuries that colonists from Boston to Charleston later took for granted.”[12] The end of King William’s War initiated a political transformation. Differentiation from England had occurred for at least the past five generations, 3,000 miles away, “beyond the lines” of amity, with West Indians consistently beating everyone else, including their own. The strong and martial Stuart ideologues in America were winning. By far, they won the lion’s share of the gold, silver, sugar, indigo, rum, and molasses. Of course, they should keep it for themselves, not give it to the British who ignored their needs! “Illegal” trade of piracy had become the primary source for goods on the American market. Remember that “legal” and “illegal” are wholly ambiguous terms, just like “treason,” “sovereign,” “freedom,” or “pirate.”

Britain’s efforts at reform only strengthened a conservative America’s resolve. As in Somalia, piracy can be a desperate act of resistance to perceived change or injustice. So it was in early America. This extraordinarily Stuart conservative New World Empire was threatened by changing liberal ideals back home in Britain itself since the accession of King William in 1688 and, again, with the end of Stuart rule upon the death of Queen Anne in 1713. The accession of the “Dutch dog” George I was the last straw. Conservatives or Tories of the eighteenth century, either in England or America saw their world and their profit coming to an end when a German king took the throne of Britain. It did not really matter that he was Protestant and not Catholic, although much has been made about that distinction and the religious differences had played their part. The main points, however, had little relation to religion. They were financial, political, and, to an increasing extent, cultural – the new king was a threat to their Stuart policies in America. He was the most liberal monarch yet foisted upon them from 3,000 miles away, and even, not English, Scottish, Irish, or even Welsh! George I was an immigrant king in his own country.

Jacobites, followers of the Stuart line of James III, or the ousted “Pretender,”responded with an attack on England to restore his rightful place on the throne. Pirates of the Golden Age in the West Indies may have believed that their actions aided the same agenda. These conservatives lashed out at a purportedly unfair system that threatened their traditions. Still, they were not yet prepared to mount a revolution and probably would have backed down had it not been for the glittery treasure, a source of great profit, spilled on the Florida shores in July 1715. The timing created a perfect storm in America.

During the Golden Age of Piracy, Douglas Burgess asserts, “Loyalty (or at least deference) to the English flag, which had been a hallmark of the profession [piracy] since the sixteenth century, gradually succumbed to a quite different sentiment: ‘war against all the world.’”[13] This shift in basic intent denoted a change in far more than just politics: it was territorial, the final culmination of cultural differentiation between England and America – the bonds snapped. Burgess said that this shift caused some, like Marcus Rediker, to “posit a protodemocracy of pirates that stood apart from and in conflict with the Crown and its colonies.”[14] Burgess’ desire to explain piracy as a phenomenon separate from American politics, however, handicaps his interpretations. Americans all across the continent and in the West Indies enjoyed and benefitted from the same “pirate,” or one-sided autocracy. Rediker was correct except that his “conflict with the Crown and colonies” was really just a conflict of the colonies with the Crown. America tested its hegemony in the water. It revolted against England in the Golden Age and simply failed the first time around – the second, however, would succeed. The argument is inescapable – we diverged from Britain in that they moved away from piracy while we firmly embraced it and created our culture from it. The umbilical cord snapped. America ideologically separated from Britain and began to truly see itself as an independent “Pirate Nation.” No amount of redeemer or conservative rhetoric would change that.

---

[1] Redington, ed., Calendar of Treasury Papers: 1720-1728, 166-167.

[2] William M. Thackery, The Four Georges: Sketches of Manners, Morals, Court and Town Life (London: Smith, Elder, 1860), 52–53.

[3] Francis Osborne, The works of Francis Osborn, Esq; divine, moral, historical, political (London: printed for A. and J. Churchil, at the Black Swan in Pater-Noster-Row, 1701), 378.

[4] J. A. Sharpe, Crime in Early Modern England 1550-1750 (Essex: Longman Group Limited, 1984), 97.

[5]Ibid.

[6]Ibid., 12.

[7] Natalie Zacek, “Francis Nicholson (1655–1728),” Encyclopedia Virginia (Richmond: Virginia Foundation for the Humanities, 2016), http://www.encyclopedaniavirginia.org/ (accessed 30 Jul 2016).

[8] "South Carolina Probate Records, Bound Volumes, 1671-1977," images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1-19424-37315-19?cc=1919417 : 21 May 2014), Charleston > Miscellaneous record, 1696-1729 > image 128 of 301; citing Department of Archives and History, Columbia.

[9]Ibid., image 138 of 301.

[10]Ibid., image 139 of 301.

[11] Douglas R. Burgess, Jr., The Pirate’s Pact: The Secret Alliances Between History’s Most Notorious Buccaneers and Colonial America (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2009), 169.

[12]Ibid.

[13] Burgess, Politics of Piracy, 200.

[14]Ibid.

-------------------------------------------------------------

#Blackbeard - 300 years of Fake News - based upon Quest for Blackbeard - https://youtu.be/AnaYDaNoufE

All #pirate #history lovers:

https://www.facebook.com/bayluscbrooks/

https://www.facebook.com/HistorianBCBrooks

https://www.facebook.com/Q4BB1718/

https://www.facebook.com/sailingeast/

http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/bcbrooks

America has been called the "Commonwealth of Pirates" since 1724 for a reason!

Author Spotlight: http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/bcbrooks

#twitterstorians #pirates #Blackbeard

Who is Pirate Advocate Richard Fitzwilliam?

Dictionary of Virginia Biography (DVB) notes: 

Richard Fitzwilliam (d. by 19 April 1744), member of the Council, was probably the son of Thomas Fitzwilliam and Mary Luttrell Fitzwilliam of County Dublin, Ireland. Very little is known about his personal life, including the dates of his birth and death and whether he married or had children.

"Very little is known about his personal life"... sound familiar? Isn't this the exact same thing that people used to claim about Edward "Blackbeard" Thache? A genealogical-historical study proved the formerly "mysterious" pirate quite an average wealthy British-American gentleman with a large Jamaican family - even a daughter and also a conservative grandfather who studied the ministry at Oxford! - not such an unknown or "villainous" enigma.

Well, again, let's blow this "very little is known" thing apart, shall we?

The same source also noted that: "Vain, self-centered, stubborn, inflexible, and greedy, Fitzwilliam often found fault with others, and his combative willfulness annoyed numerous influential Virginians."

I certainly do not doubt that Richard Fitzwilliam was a controversial man, but many English gentlemen (the 1% in any century) who gave up everything that such privileged blowhards enjoyed about their ancient English (and Irish) civilization to make their lives and futures in the jungle wilderness of early America did often exhibit similar characteristics!

Also, when's the last time you considered living in the Amazon rain-forest... without internet or cellphones?

Still, many American historians have difficulty contemplating that a wealthy, privileged man like Richard Fitzwilliam - or Edward Thache, for that matter - would ever venture to this godforsaken and remote cesspool of European religious detritus, with wild unknown beasts and Jacobite rebel prisoners - a land which Native Americans liked, understood well, lived upon for thousands of years, and from which they simply wished Europeans would just bugger off!

Fitzwilliam Museum Interior

This bias often crept into their analyses. A similar bias infects our British cousins who tend to think that absolutely no British Fitzwilliam ever had anything to do with America! And... if you look at the interior of the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge, England, you could hardly believe that any British family who inspired such artistic grandeur could ever have lived in a remote provincial backwater like early 18th-century America!

Likewise, the American-focused DVB saw Richard Fitzwilliam as an "outsider," just another foreign Blackbeard-ish interloping enigma: "January 1715 Fitzwilliam received an appointment as comptroller of customs in Currituck, North Carolina. A year or two later he moved to Virginia to be collector of customs for the lower district of James River. On 13 August 1717 Fitzwilliam petitioned the governor and Council for a grant of land in Hampton and permission to erect a wharf there."

Lt. Gov. Alexander Spotswood (essentially another foreign interloper and relative of the king) regarded Fitzwilliam's customs accounts - and his favor of pirates (specifically, Edward Thache's quartermaster, but also a few others at New Providence Island) - as contrary to his service "to his Majesty" and on 18 August 1719 informed the commissioners of customs in London that he was "guilty of malfeasance." A Royal Navy ally of Spotswood, Capt. Ellis Brand of HMS Lyme, mentioned in a letter to the Admiralty of "One [Richard] Fitzwilliams a Costom house Officer in Virginia as being an Agent for the pyrats and in what Manner we ware perplext with law Suits...." For Brand and Spotswood, Virginia, much like North Carolina, was wholly filled with pirates and their supporters, for Brand also regarded the Virginian Judge of Vice-Admiralty, John Holloway, as if he were a corrupt Donald Trump appointee, bearing a huge conflict of interest, actually serving as a lawyer for pirate William Howard, Blackbeard's quartermaster! Holloway also had Capt. George Gordon of HMS Pearl arrested for false arrest of William Howard and fined ₤500!

Fitzwilliam eventually left the office of collector of customs on 17 November 1720, obviously (from a modern point-of-view) because of the "contrary and factious people" of Virginia, but he returned to that position on 1 April 1721.

Why were Virginians seen by Spotswood and modern Americans as "contrary and factious"? The subject of piracy in America involves a complicated political-historical and intentional misunderstanding, involving early media and both sides of the Atlantic, deftly hiding the early beginnings of our nation... you'll just have to read my book to fully understand what I mean.

It's not a stretch to say that the wealthy English-appointed govermor Spotswood had a particularly low opinion of the average Virginia "ignorant" citizen, as he styled them on 22 December 1718, when he explained to the Board of Trade why he illegally assassinated Edward Thache in North Carolina - not in his own colony (actually, a privately-owned one), by the way. The very English (and anti-American) Spotswood also called Fitzwilliam, who "undertook" the cause of pirates, and his ilk "knavish," causing the citizens to choose "such Representatives as are agreable to them."Clearly, Spotswood saw Americans as a low class sort.

The DVB then tells:

The conflicts with officials [actually local Burgesses] in Virginia did no injury to Fitzwilliam's career. By late in July 1725 he was appointed surveyor general of customs for the southern district of America, which included the mainland colonies from Pennsylvania southward and also the Bahamas and Jamaica.

Eventually, as the DVB also notes, Fitzwilliam left Virginia after even the House of Burgesses censured him, "relinquished his position as surveyor general of customs in September 1731 and by 3 January 1733 had received an appointment as governor of the Bahamas... Richard Fitzwilliam died four years later, probably in Dublin, and was buried there on, or shortly before, 19 April 1744 in the Parish of Donnybrook."

 Yes... he was appointed to yet another supposedly grandiose position - though the Bahamas were even more remote and lacking in resources than the mainland American wilderness!

Richard, 5th Viscount FitzWilliam of Merrion's will in England & Wales, Prerogative Court of Canterbury Wills, 1384-1858 - PROB 11; Piece: 732 - dated 20 April 1744

Imagine my surprise at finding Richard, 5th Viscount FitzWilliam of Merrion's will in England and Wales, Prerogative Court of Canterbury Wills, 1384-1858 - PROB 11; Piece: 732 - dated 8 January 1743, but probated in 20 April 1744! Remember the death date of 19 April 1744 given by the DVB? Burke's Peerage, as quoted on the Wikipedia page, imagines the 5th Viscount Fitzwilliam to be a totally different person (but, certainly not): "Richard FitzWilliam, 5th Viscount FitzWilliam PC [a member of the Privy Council of Ireland] (c. 1677 – 6 June 1743) was an Irish nobleman and politician. The will was written and dated several months before this latest date of death assessment, so it does not disqualify the comparison with the Virginian collector Fitzwilliam.

In reality, the family's history is well-preserved. From this genealogical perspective (with little, if any political bias), Richard was the only son of Thomas FitzWilliam, 4th Viscount FitzWilliam and his first wife Mary Stapleton, daughter of the English statesman Sir Philip Stapleton." Still, I think I know why 19 April 1744 was assumed by the DVB to be his date of death... I'll come back to this.

Thomas 4th Viscount and Mary Stapleton Fitzwilliam, parents of Richard 5th Viscount Fitzwilliam. Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, UK.

Moreover, Thomas and Mary "Luttrell" Fitzwilliam (as quoted by the DVB) versus Thomas and Mary "Stapleton" Fitzwilliam (quoted by Burkes)? Why the confusion? Well, the Luttrells were related, but not that way: Thomas Luttrell married Richard Fitzwilliam's aunt Mary, sister of Thomas 4th Viscount Fitzwilliam. Mary Stapleton (shown in the picture above) was clearly Richard's mother.

The first line of this will states "Richard Fitzwilliam Esquire late Governor of the Bahama Islands in America," and his wife is shown as "Right honourable Frances [Shelley] Lady Viscountess Fitzwilliam" so if there's any question about whether this is the same Richard Fitzwilliam who gave Spotswood multiple ulcers, let's just settle that question here and now! It's our guy!

Portrait of Richard (5th Viscount FitzWilliam of Merrion) & Frances Shelley FitzWilliam, b. circa 1677; 1685, d. 06 June 1743; aft 1762. Frances separated from her husband c.1730. She entered a convent abroad. The fact that she entered a convent indicates that she stayed Catholic, even as her children were bapt. Protestant. Source: Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, UK.

Again, the history given by Wikipedia (about the English statesman) for Richard, 5h Viscount Fitzwilliam states that he "became a member of the Irish Privy Council in 1715. He was elected Member of Parliament for Fowey in 1727, a seat he held until 1734."

It might surprise the reader that I have no dispute with these dates or the positions which he held.

According to the DVB, he received a commission in January 1715 as "surveyor of Elizabeth River" and "comproller of customs in Currituck, NC" but that he moved to America within the next two years and settled instead in Virginia. These positions he received as a result of patronage, or favor, and they carried a definite financial reward:

Richard FitzWilliams, Surveyor of Elizabeth River, Virginia; same time	₤22	10	0
Richard FitzWilliams, Comptroller at Currituck, North Carolina; 11 July 1715 to Midsummer 1716	₤47	17	6

Note that he simply collected the money - he never had to actually assume the responsibility. This is similar to the corruption that later sparked the American Revolution. For example, you may not realize that Alexander Spotswood was not actually the governor of Virginia in Blackbeard's time, but the "Lt. Gov." The actual governor at this time was George Hamilton, Lord Orkney, who had responsibilities to the Prince of Wales at the time and never left England for America! He still received the appointment as a political favor and still collected his ₤2000 salary, though! Spotswood's salary was only half of Orkney's despite the fact that he is the one who actually administered Virginia for the Crown!

Even the Treasury assumed that Lord Orkney would not actually assume the governorship of Virginia - perhaps they did not expect the refined aristocratic gentleman to travel to such a dangerous and remote wilderness - but they didn't mind paying him for it!:

    September 1711:

George, Earl of Orkney, Lieutenant and Governor General: by letters patent: with the salary of 2,000l. per an.
    Alexander Spotswood, Lieutenant Governor: by royal commission: with an allowance of half the Governor's salary in the latter's absence.

Later, Fitzwilliam became a collector for the lower district of James River - which brought him into direct contact with pirates not even a year later. "On 13 August 1717 Fitzwilliam petitioned the governor and Council for a grant of land in Hampton and permission to erect a wharf there." So, there's no evidence that he was in America much before this date.

Being elected a member of the Irish parliament for Fowey in 1727 appears to pose more difficulty - probably also due to a misunderstanding of how patronage worked. DVB states "On 14 December 1727 the governor and Council appointed him one of the commissioners to survey and settle the boundary between Virginia and North Carolina. He offered to sell the colony a tent for the expedition, suggesting that his interest was more mercenary than altruistic. Fitzwilliam's investment in an iron foundry the following year [1728] reflects a similar desire for personal profit without regard for improving Virginia's infrastructure.

No dispute that he was a corrupt rich guy! 

But, this appointment did not prevent him from assuming his position in Parliament. Again, such appointments were often political and not pragmatic positions. Indeed, The Excise Crisis: Society and Politics in the Age of Walpole, in its Appendix C shows "Richard Fitzwilliam, Viscount Fitzwilliam, Fowey" on a list of "Absent Members." He did not have to actually live and serve in Ireland in 1727! Still, the survey of the Virginia-North Carolina boundary did not actually begin until spring of 1728. He really could have been anywhere in 1727 - at least until he accompanied his fellow commissioners on the 1728 survey! Furthermore, another peerage account showed that he served on "his Majesty's Privy-Council" since September 1714, marrying Frances, only daughter of Sir John Shelley of Michalgrove in Sussex - another position for which he was no doubt absent. He apparently ignored a lot of his "official" responsibilities! I have to wonder if his wife accompanied him in America for any of these remote appointments - perhaps he ignored her, too! After all, she later left him for a convent and I did compare him to Donald Trump... lol.

Location of "Mount Fitzwilliam," still the official governor's residence in Nassau, New Providence, the Bahamas

Mount Merrion House (Dublin, Ireland) - The Fitzwilliams built Merrion Castle on lands which are today the property of the Sisters of Charity and St Mary's Home and School for the Blind. By 1710 Merrion Castle was in such a bad state of repair that Richard, the 5th Viscount Fitzwilliam, selected 100 acres (0.4 km²) on which he built Mount Merrion House, surrounding the house by an 8-foot-high (2.4 m) granite wall. The house was completed in 1711 and served as a new seat by the 5th Viscount Fitzwilliam on the hill at Mount Merrion. The Fitzwilliam family left for England (Dover Street in St. George, Hanover Square, Middlesex) around 1726. Although the family no longer lived in Mount Merrion House, they retained possession of it, and rented the house out. "Mount Merrion and Its History" by Francis Elrington Ball, in The Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, Fifth Series, Vol. 8, No. 4 (Dec. 31, 1898), pp. 329-344.

Fitzwilliam was removed from his "absent" responsibilities in Fowey in 1733, about the time he became governor of the Bahamas (replacing Woodes Rogers), where, despite making a lot of useful lime in his kilns and building his home on his newly purchased "Mount Fitzwilliam" estate (reflecting the name of his "Mount Merrion" estate in Dublin) in Nassau, was considered a controversial governor and later removed. As Michael Craton and Gail Saunders wrote in Islanders in the Stream: A History of the Bahamian People,

The records in general were in a deplorable state. “Tis impossible to get an exact Account of the Persons born, christen’d or buried yearly in this Government,” complained Fitzwilliam, “because no Register has hitherto been kept thereof, nor could the Inhabitants be prevailed upon to acquaint anybody appointed by the Governor [Rogers] when any such happened.”

Efforts to repair the records were made through the SPG-appointed Reverend William Smith, and Governor Fitzwilliam set about making a census with his customary mixture of force and tactlessness. The New Providence free coloreds were especially incensed by the governor and council’s decision to list them separately.

Note that Englishmen of this day were nowhere near as racist as Americans after the Civil War, so this bias against African-Bahamians happened to carry a strongly conservative tone in the 18th century. 

His eldest son, Richard succeeded him as Viscount upon his death on 20 June 1743, which is the date shown on the Wikipedia page. His will was not probated until 20 April 1744, but this is not at all uncommon at this time - Fitzwilliam had possessions in three countries, requiring administration with long letter response times. Thus, the DVB's date of death assumed as "19 April 1744." This demonstrates a modern, if inexperienced, historical presentism. Past historians, inexperienced in modern genealogical methods, obviously assumed that he died the day before, as is most common today. Better training in genealogical methods for historians could easily cure this.

Researched by Baylus C. Brooks - 2019

Henry Herbert, 10th Earl of Pembroke (died 1794), husband of Mary, daughter of Richard 5th Viscount Fiztwilliam. At the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, UK.

Obviously, the Virginian statesman and pirate favorite was the same man as the wealthy Irish member of the Privy Council and Parliament. Admittedly, Irish records were quite sparse for the early 18th century, but this Fitzwilliam was well known and recorded in England, as well - he actually died in his home on Dover Street in St. George Hanover Square in Middlesex, England - not in Dublin! So, we can now establish that he was born about 1677, died 20 June 1743 (the date given by Wikipedia and from English records), and had his will (written 8 January 1743 with codicil 12 January) probated 20 April 1744. His mother was Mary Stapleton Fitzwilliam... NOT Luttrell! That was simply an honest genealogical mistake! The confusion, I hope, is finally over! Now, somebody go and fix the DVB and Wikipedia pages!


-------------------------

admiralty, adventure, Africa, african, alternative facts, appalachee, arcadia, art glass, bahamas, bar harbor, Barbados, barham, baylus, baylus brooks, bbc, blackbeard, bonnet, book, boston, boston news-letter, bourbon, bristol, British, brooks, burgaw, burrington, buse, calusa, cape fear, capitalism, caribbean, carolana, carolina, castillo, charles johnson, church, cimaroon, cimarroon, clone, cnn, cocklyn, colchester, colonial, condent, confederacy, confederate, congdon, conservative, corruption, Davis, democrat, depression, document, dunn, dutch, east carolina, east indies, ecu, England, fake news, family, florida, french, gale, Gambia, genealogy, genetics, glass, grovesnor, hispaniola, historian, history, hornigold, howell davis, indians, iron gall, itchetucknee, jamaica, jersey, jesus knocking, jolly roger, kkk, la concorde, lawler, lawson, levasseur, liberal, lighthouse, lillington, lyme, lyndon, madagascar, maine, Manhattan, maritime, maroon, martel, maynard, McLaggin, mist, moore, mortar, moseley, mount desert, New York, newfoundland, newspaper, north carolina, original, painting, panama, paper, pearl, pender, pestle, phenney, philadelphia, phoenix, piracy, pirate, pirates, plantation, politics, privateer, profit, progressive, pyrate, QAR, racism, rebel, republican, rice, robert e. lee, rogers, romance, rothschild, Royal African, royal navy, Salem Towne, sawtelle, seager, seal cove, seminole, shark, Sierra Leone, slave, slavery, smithsonian, south, south carolina, southern, spanish, St. Augustine, st. helena, stained glass, staines, symonds, Taylor, teach, thache, thatch, theach, timberlake, time travel, timucua, traitor, treason, treasure, trump, victory, walker, west indies, windows, windsor, witchcraft, witches, woodard, worley, wrecking, write

BLACKBEARD: 300 YEARS OF FAKE NEWS.
from BBC Radio Bristol
300 years ago on Thursday - 22 November 1718 - Bristol born Edward Teach (aka Blackbeard, the most famous pirate in the history of the world), was killed in a violent battle off the coast of North America. And after 300 years we can finally separate the truth from the myth. You can hear the whole story this Thursday at 9am in a one off BBC Radio Bristol special: BLACKBEARD: 300 YEARS OF FAKE NEWS. With new research by Baylus C. Brooks, narrated by Bristol born Kevin McNally - Joshamee Gibbs in PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN, and produced by Tom Ryan and Sheila Hannon this is a very different Blackbeard from the one in the story books...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p06s6zfx

You can hear it at https://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/bbc_radio_bristol

Author Spotlight

#Blackbeard #pirate #twitterstorians


Also:

Three Centuries After His Beheading, a Kinder, Gentler Blackbeard Emerges - Smithsonian Online

By Andrew Lawler
smithsonian.com
November 13, 2018



Read about the final end of Edward Thache:
Murder at Ocracoke! Power and Profit in the Killing of Edward "Blackbeard" Thache



In commemoration of "Blackbeard 300 Tri-Centennial":

As always, drop by baylusbrooks.com and check out the primary source transcriptions