A friend of mine on the excellent MARHST-L (Maritime History) list posted a series of informative items about privateering during the War of 1812. Since many of us descend from families who might have engaged in such activites, but don't generally know where to find Maritime records , I thought it might be helpful to share these posts with you. Frank has given his kind permission . The later posts mention both ship names and people names. Hope you recognize someone...or, just enjoy a well written historical tidbit.....malinda Frank Pierce Young wrote: > The statement prompting this discussion concerned the effect of American > privateers upon the outcome of the War of 1812, it being averred that their > oft-storied turning it in American favour was a "myth". > > But first, for the benefit of any MARHSTers or pass-along readers unfamiliar > with that term -- and some apparently have been -- privateers are NOT > pirates. (Anyone knowing the difference may delete all this.) Thus a short > explanation of terms. A privateer is a privately financed, owned, > outfitted, crewed, and operated armed vessel -- a private warship -- allowed > forth under government licence to attack the vessels of a declared national > enemy, for profit. Thus, unlike pirates, who are simply criminal, privateers > are quite legitimate. Also, their activity must cease with peace; anything > further indeed is piracy, and so recognised internationally. > > The profits, if any, derive not from sinking or other destruction, but from > capture of vessels and goods which may then be sold off. Customarily, all > concerned share in any monies. Likewise, all risks are entirely their own. > They were active out of most maritime nations at one time or other, and for > centuries. Typically, and certainly at the time of the War of 1812, > privateers were relatively small vessels vice many actual naval warships, and > compared to regular naval warships including any about their size, usually > relatively lightly armed -- but this was more than enough to overpower even > more lightly armed or unarmed merchantmen, which were their primary targets; > enemy warships as such were to be avoided. Known as Letters of Marque & > Reprisal, the right of the U.S. Congress to issue such private warship > licences is written into the U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, para. > 11) -- though subsequent mid-19th Century international treaty agreements > made that moot long ago. > > Privateers always aimed at enemy merchant trade, because that's where risk > was least and any profits would lie. In short, they were ad hoc quasi-naval > raiders; and their licensing government's benefit, aside from no risk but a > usual share in any proceeds, was that they tended to draw off enemy warships > needed to protect enemy merchantmen while simultaneously slowly reducing > available enemy trading vessels and supplies (and hence enemy strength) while > raising their costs of same, even as captures enriched their captors, thus > encouraging still more privateering. > > The question of just Who-Is-A-Legitimate-Privateer lies behind much of the > modern labelling confusion, as does the matter of who is doing the talking. > Back in the early 1200s, a cunning and conscienceless character known as > Eustace the Monk became a virtual Capo di Capi of mafia-like sea raiders > working the English Channel/Bay of Biscay areas -- taking, of course, > primarily English merchantmen as well as anything else that looked good. He > got away with this for a long while because he and his men resided, hid out, > and spent liberally in French coastal ports and paid off all the right > people, whose vessels he (again, of course) never bothered, all at a period > when warfare between England and some French ruler or another was an > intermittent risk of everyday life. In that sense, Eustace might be > considered a sort of medieval privateer; but King John of England saw his > direct and very nasty threat to English sea trade as just plain old piracy, > and en fin cornered and captured him. A large tapestry at Cambridge > University shows him having his head lopped off on the rail of his own > vessel. The famous (or notorious; again, according to who tells the stories) > Francis Drake, better known to his usual Spanish victims and their > impoverished backers as El Draque (the dragon; a cute bilingual pun nobody > laughed at), never had a truly formal "licence", but assuredly went about > raiding Spanish trade with full if backdoor approval of Good Queen Bess, to > the considerable enlargement of her Tudor treasury. Which is how come he got > a "Sir" before his name at a great ceremony, which infuriated the Spanish > ambassador. > > Privateering may be gone, but the net concept remains. The raiding of > merchant traffic has characteristically come to be perceived as the style of > a weaker maritime Power vice a much stronger one, and the anticipated effect > of successful continued merchant traffic raiding on Britain, which depended > almost totally upon it, lay directly behind the sly raiding efforts of > Imperial Germany in WWI (especially the famous SEEADLER, an armed sailing > barque skippered by the humorous Kapitan u. Graf Felix Von Luckner) -- and > especially the long-planned one of Nazi Germany in WWII, in arming and > sending out numerous disguised merchantmen as naval raiders worldwide to > attack Allied merchantmen. Some were quite successful indeed, especially > early on, in wreaking havoc, especially on British trade, and tying up > numerous RN warships in often goosechase hunting expeditions. > > Other MARHSTers will likely have far more detail to offer on the nature of > privateering. It and those involved in it, and how they came to do so and why > and with what, is a fascinating maritime topic of itself and as said involved > most maritime nations, especially Atlantic ones from the mid-1600s on. > > In my next posting I'll get into that business of American privateers in the > War of 1812, and what they wrought. > > FRANK PIERCE YOUNG > Annapolis, MD FPY1229@aol.com