Pirates and Privateers
The History of Maritime
Piracy
Cindy Vallar, Editor
& Reviewer
P.O. Box 425,
Keller, TX 76244-0425
![Skull & crossbones divider](crossbones.gif) ![Skull & crossbones divider](crossbones.gif) ![Skull & crossbones divider](crossbones.gif) ![Skull & crossbones divider](crossbones.gif)
Blackbeard's
Pirates in Williamsburg
A True Account of the Trials, Pardons,
and Executions
of the Crew of the World's Most Famous Pirate
by Guest Columnist Robert
Jacob
![Colorized version
of 1736 etching in A General History of the Lives
and Adventures of the Most Famous Highwayman . . .
, artist unknown](blackbeardcolor2.jpg)
Charles Johnson’s 1724 Book
For 300 years, most historians and
authors of books on pirates have relied heavily on
one primary source, a book published in 1724 titled,
A General
History of the Pyrates from Their
first Rise and Settlement in the Island of
Providence, to the present Time. This book was
written by Captain Charles Johnson. They assumed
that since it was written in 1724, it must be
accurate and correct. But this is not the case.
Johnson, which was a pen name, was focused on
selling books, not telling the facts. Most of the
details described in Johnson’s work are highly
embellished or created by the author. These insights
place his book into the category of historical
fiction, especially when Johnson’s stories are
compared to known facts about Blackbeard.
In his 2004 publication, “Daniel Defoe, Nathaniel
Mist, and the General History of the Pyrates,” Arne
Bialuschewski, a professor at Trent University,
remarked that in
August
1724, only three months after the first edition
had appeared . . . a letter purportedly written
by a country correspondent . . . reported that
‘this shim-sham Story of Pyrates’ was
interpreted by one particular member of his club
as a mysterious political allegory rather than
contemporary history. (Bialuschewski, 35)
It took until the late
twentieth century for most historians to realize
this. As primary source documents became widely
available on the internet, historians began to
compare the verifiable facts against those in
Johnson’s book, and questioned its accuracy.
Professor Bialuschewski uncovered many fascinating
facts about this series of books as well as the
identity of the author, Charles
Johnson.
According to Bialuschewski, in 1932,
literary scholar John Robert Moore suggested that Daniel
Defoe might have been Charles Johnson, based
on a similarity in literary style. This concept
became widely circulated. Many recently republished
versions of this book identified Daniel Defoe as the
author and many modern libraries, including the
Library of Virginia and the State Library of North
Carolina, catalog this book under the author Daniel
Defoe.
After extensive research, Bialuschewski discovered
that the actual identity of Charles Johnson was
Nathaniel Mist, who began publishing a tabloid paper
titled The Weekly Journal; or, Saturday’s Post
on 15 December 1716. This was a politically oriented
publication that ran articles opposed to the Whig
party. Daniel Defoe was hired by Nathaniel Mist to
write for the paper. Beginning in December 1719,
fictional accounts of pirates began to regularly
appear in this publication. In 1724, Mist decided to
compile these stories into one book. The first
edition was registered with The
Stationer’s Company on 24 June 1724, for
Nathaniel Mist. The book title mentioned above is
the second edition, released in August 1724, just
three months after the first edition, and is the one
most widely circulated today.
Conclusive evidence suggests that the author of the
celebrated work was, in fact, Nathaniel Mist.
However, I shall continue to use his pen name,
Charles Johnson, throughout the rest of this paper.
Even though most of the details described in
Johnson’s work prove to be unfounded, some of them
are valid. This makes it maddening for researchers
who use Johnson’s book as a source. Which facts can
be relied upon and which facts should be completely
discounted? The solution is to cross-reference
everything with other primary sources.
Fortunately,
when it comes to Blackbeard, many primary sources
are available.1 These
include numerous letters mentioning Blackbeard
written by Virginia’s Lieutenant Governor, Alexander
Spotswood. They also include letters written
by Captain Ellis Brand, the Royal Navy officer and
area commander responsible for the operation against
Blackbeard, and Lieutenant
Robert Maynard, the officer who led the attack
on Blackbeard’s sloop. The
Boston News-Letter also provides a great
deal of information, although one must remember that
newspapers often make errors in writing their
stories. Logbooks from various naval vessels, as
well as the minutes from meetings of the Councils of
both Virginia and North Carolina, provide valuable
information in checking Johnson’s details. But the
most useful resources in getting to the truth are
several financial documents written by Anthony
Cracherode, the Treasury Solicitor for Great
Britain.
Throughout this paper, I shall discuss each of the
details surrounding the death, capture, and
imprisonment of Blackbeard’s crewmen, and primary
source documents. Before I begin with Blackbeard’s
crew, I must briefly dispel some of the most popular
stories about Blackbeard, as told by Johnson.
Blackbeard’s battle with HMS Scarborough
never happened. Johnson wrote:
A few Days
after, Teach fell in with the Scarborough Man
of War, of 30 Guns, who engaged him for some
Hours; but she finding the Pyrate well mann’d,
and having tried her strength, gave over the
Engagement . . . . (Johnson, 71)
Historians have examined
HMS Scarborough’s logbook and there is no
mention of such a battle. A look at the list of
ship’s stations published in the 16 to 23 December
1717 edition of The Boston News-Letter
reveals that HMS Scarborough was stationed
at Barbados, not Nevis as Johnson claims.
Blackbeard’s fourteen wives cannot be verified
either. Although this is among the most popular of
Johnson’s Blackbeard tales, there are no
contemporary records or even comments about any wife
except a casual comment made by Captain Brand who
wrote:
he
design’d to be an inhabitant & leave of his
Piraticall Life and the sword to put a life so
to his designs he marryed there. (Brand, 6
February)
The wounding of Israel
Hands is most likely another creation of
Johnson.
One Night
drinking in his Cabin with Hands, the
Pilot, and another Man; Black-beard
without any Provocation privately draws out a
small Pair of Pistols, and cocks them under the
Table, which being perceived by the Man, he
withdrew and went upon Deck, leaving Hands,
the Pilot, and the Captain together. When the
Pistols were ready, he blew out the Candle, and
crossing his Hands, discharged them at his
Company, Hands, the Master, was shot
thro’ the Knee and lam’d for life . . . .
(Johnson, 86)
There is no contemporary
account that corroborates this story. As will be
detailed later, Hands testified for the prosecution
in the March 1719 trial against four of Blackbeard’s
crew. In September of 1718, Blackbeard
allegedly assaulted a North Carolina resident named
William Bell, and the four pirates charged were
simply present. Hands was not present but testified
that he was informed of the incident when Blackbeard
and the others returned to Ocracoke.
Most of his testimony was directly against
Blackbeard. If this horrific wounding did indeed
occur, it seems unlikely that Hands would have
failed to mention anything about it in his testimony
against Blackbeard.
Johnson’s details of the battle at
Ocracoke are filled with many inaccuracies
when compared to the accounts of Lieutenant Robert
Maynard, the officer who led the naval force that
attacked Blackbeard, and Captain Ellis Brand, the
overall commander.
![Capture of
the Pirate, Blackbeard by Jean Leon Gerome
Ferris, 1920 (Source:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Capture-of-Blackbeard.jpg)](Capture-of-Blackbeard.jpg)
Capture of the Pirate,
Blackbeard by Jean Leon Gerome Ferris,
1920
(Source: Wikimedia
Commons)
Finally, Johnson’s version of a man whom many
believed to be Black
Caesar, who was posted below deck with a match
and orders to blow up the Adventure, is
embellished not only by Johnson but also by
subsequent historians. The origin of this account
comes from a letter from Spotswood to the
Commissioners for Trade and Plantations.
His orders
were to blow up his own vessell if he should
happen to be overcome, and a Negro was ready to
set fire to the Powder had he not been luckily
prevented by a Planter forced on board the night
before & who lay in the Hold of the sloop
during the actions of the Pyrats.
(Spotswood)
Johnson recounts this
incident as:
. . . for
before that Teach had little or no Hopes of
escaping, and therefore had posted a resolute
Fellow, a Negroe, whom he had bred up, with a
lighted Match, in the Powder-Room, with Commands
to blow up when he should give him Orders, which
was as soon as the Lieutenant and his Men could
have entered, that so he might have destroy’d
his Conquerors . . . . (Johnson, 85)
Johnson’s embellishment
is the comment that he was “a Negroe whom he had
bred up.” That comment seems to be a matter of
poetic license. Johnson doesn’t give any name for
this individual anywhere in the text, so just going
on Johnson’s book, the man with the match could have
been any of the surviving pirates.
The name of “Black Caesar” seems to be the invention
of other authors retelling Johnson’s account in the
twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Johnson never
wrote “Black Caesar” anywhere in his book. He did
correctly name one of the captive pirates as Caesar,
but the word “Black” was never associated with that
name. Other than mentioning that this unnamed
individual was “a Negroe,” Johnson did not specify
the race of any of Blackbeard’s pirates, nor did he
include any substantive information to indicate
which of Blackbeard’s crewmen were black. Modern
historians can accurately identify the race of these
pirates, at least the captured ones, by piecing
together clues found in letters written by both
Brand and Spotswood.
It seems logical that twentieth-century authors
searching to assign a name to the “Negro. . . ready
to set fire to the Powder,” mentioned by Spotswood
in his letter, chose the only name on Johnson’s list
that did not include a Christian name. Perhaps there
are others, but the earliest reference that I have
found that identifies this individual as Caesar is
Hugh F. Rankin’s The Pirates of Colonial North
Carolina published in 1960. The name Black
Caesar as the pirate with the match doesn’t appear
in print until 2006 in Angus Konstam’s Black
Beard.
As for Blackbeard’s crew held in Williamsburg,
Virginia, it is best to begin with the first of
Blackbeard’s pirates to be arrested, his former
quartermaster William
Howard.
William Howard
William Howard had been with Blackbeard since the
beginning. There were numerous references
identifying Howard as Blackbeard’s quartermaster
between 1716 and 1718, including one made by
Spotswood after his arrest. Howard was visiting
Kecoughtan (Hampton, Virginia), when Spotswood
ordered a justice of the peace to arrest him and
seize the £50 he was carrying, as well as his two
slaves. In a letter from 22 December 1718, Spotswood
described Howard as “insolent,” with “no lawful
business” and a “Vagrant seaman.”
. . .
Howard, Tach’s Quarter Master came into this
Colony with two Negros which he own’d to have
been Piratically taken, the one from a French
ship and the other from an English Brigantine[.]
I caused them to be seized [pursuant] to His
Majestys Instructions, upon which encouraged by
the countenance he found here, he commenced a
suit against the officers who made the seizure,
and his insolence became so intolerable without
applying himself to any lawful business that the
justice of the Peace where he resided thought
fitt to send him on board one of the Kings ships
as a Vagrant seaman. (Spotswood)
Howard was imprisoned on
board Captain Brand’s ship Pearl until 30
October 1718, and then transferred to the gaol in
Williamsburg. It wasn’t long before he was
joined by three other pirates, who were not members
of Blackbeard’s crew: Henry Man, William Stoke, and
Adult Van Pelt were arrested at Kecoughtan on 28
November 1718, and held on the Pearl until 19
December 1718, when they were brought to
Williamsburg.2
. . . that
the Sd. four pyrates were taken and
delivered to Justice by the said Capt.
Gordon . . . hath by his annexed Affidavit of
the 25th. of February last made Oath,
that Wm. Howard . . . was taken up at
Kiquotan in Virginia the 16th. of
Septer. 1718, and putt on board the Pearl Man of Warr, in which
Ship he remained a Prisoner untill the 30th.
of Oct. 1718, at which time he was sent up in
Irons to Williamsburgh to be tryed for Pyracy
and was accordingly convicted, and condemn’d to
be Hang’d, and that Henry Man, Wm.
Stoke & Adult Van Pelt. (the three other
pyrates named in the said Certificate) were
taken up near Kiquoatan aforesd. the
28th of Nov. 1718, and brot.
on Board his Maty’s Sd. Ship the
Pearl, as Pyrates, where they remained prisoners
until the 15th. Of Dec. following,
when they were Sent up to Williamsburgh in
Irons.
For
the Sd. Wm. Howard a common Sailor |
20"
|
0" |
0 |
For the Sd. Henry Man Ditto |
20" |
0" |
0 |
For the Sd. Wm. Stoke |
20" |
0" |
0 |
For the Sd. Adult Van Pelt |
20" |
0" |
0 |
|
80" |
0" |
0 |
Howard was charged on
five counts.4 His
trial was held in Williamsburg on 6 November 1718,
as mentioned in Spotswood’s letter dated 7 November
1718.
The
evidence given in yesterday upon the Tryall of
his Quarter Master William Howard, who now lyes
here under the Sentence of death, for being
clearly convicted of manifest Pyracys since the
fifth of January last, and even of one committed
but two days before their running aground at
Top-sail-Inlet at which time they Robbed an
English Brigantine comeing from Guinea and the
Negroes they took out of her are well known to
be in your Province (“Spotswood Letter”)
Vessels of the Engagement
There were two Royal Navy
ships stationed in Kecoughtan. The largest
ship was HMS Pearl,
a fifth-rate ship of forty guns under the command of
Captain George Gordon. The second ship was HMS Lyme,
a sixth-rate
ship of twenty guns under the command of
Captain Ellis Brand.
For the engagement against Blackbeard at Ocracoke,
Spotswood realized that these large ships would be
ineffective in the relatively shallow waters of
Pamlico Sound, so he purchased two sloops for the
operation and hired two pilots from North Carolina
to help with navigation. In a letter written on 22
December 1718, Spotswood wrote:
Having
gained sufficient Intelligence of the Strength
of Tache’s Crew, and sent for Pylots from
Carolina . . . It was found impracticable for
the Men of war to go into the shallow and
difficult Channells of that Country . . .
Accordingly I hyred two sloops and put Pilots on
board, and the Captains of his Majestys Ships
having put 55 Men on board under the command of
the first Lieutenant of the Pearle &
an officer from the Lyme . . . .
(Spotswood)
The names of those two sloops, Jane and Ranger,
can be found in the logbook of the Lyme:
. . .
saild the Ranger & Jane sloops
with 22 of our men & 32 of Pearle in quest
of ye Pirate Teech in N Caroline. (Lyme)
Lieutenant
Robert Maynard was on board Jane and
in command of the operation at Ocracoke. Midshipman
Hyde commanded the Ranger. On 17 December
1718, Maynard wrote a letter to his friend,
Lieutenant Symonds of HMS Phoenix,
in which he mentioned that his two sloops had “no
Guns, but only small Arms and Pistols.” Maynard also
mentioned that Blackbeard’s sloop “had on Board 21
Men, and nine Guns mounted.” (Cooke, 306)
The validity of Lieutenant Maynard’s letter has
fallen into question by some historians. The only
known source of the actual
letter comes from the 25 April 1719 edition of
The Weekly Journal, or Saturday’s Post, the
tabloid magazine published by Nathaniel Mist, also
known as Charles Johnson. In that magazine,
Maynard’s letter was supposedly reproduced exactly
as it originally appeared. However, because
Johnson’s A General History of the Pyrates
has been proven to have many inaccuracies,
exaggerations, and fictionalized accounts, Maynard’s
letter has been categorized as a possible invention
on the part of Mist. An article printed in the
Monday, 23 February to Monday, 2 March 1719 issue of
The Boston News-Letter sheds light on this
question. When comparing Maynard’s letter with the
article, it becomes clear that Maynard’s letter must
have been the newspaper’s primary source. All the
details align, such as the Adventure having
nine guns, and that Maynard shot away his fore
halyards and put him ashore. Even some of the
specific phrases, such as “dismal cuts,” are
identical.
These facts only appear in Maynard’s letter, not in
Brand’s report. Additionally, The Boston
News-Letter article even states that they
received this information in a letter from North
Carolina. This makes sense. Maynard’s letter was
sent to his friend Lieutenant Symonds, who was an
officer aboard HMS Phoenix stationed at
New York Harbor. Maynard’s letter was reprinted in
Arthur Cooke’s 1953 article, “British Newspaper
Accounts of Blackbeard’s Death,” published in The
Virginia Magazine of History and Biography.
Blackbeard’s sloop was named Adventure, as
identified in the records of the Williamsburg trial,
which was included in the Minutes of the North
Carolina Governor’s Council:
Hesikia
Hands late Master of the Sloop Adventure Commanded
by Edward Thache. (Minutes)
Summary of Vessels
Vessel
|
Commander
|
Location
|
HMS
Pearl
|
Captain
George Gordon
|
Kecoughtan
|
HMS
Lyme
|
Captain
Ellis Brand
|
Kecoughtan
|
Sloop
Jane
|
Lieutenant
Robert Maynard
|
Battle
at Ocracoke
|
Sloop
Ranger
|
Midshipman
Hyde
|
Battle at Ocracoke
|
Sloop
Adventure |
Blackbeard
|
Battle
at Ocracoke
|
Battle Statistics
Details of the battle are documented in two letters
and contradict the account in Charles Johnson’s A
General History of the Pyrates. The first
letter was the letter mentioned above, the one from
Lieutenant Maynard to Lieutenant Symonds. The other
letter was written by the area commander, Captain
Ellis Brand of Lyme to the Secretary of Admiralty
and dated 6 February 1719.
Maynard gives the number of men at the start of the
battle as:
Jane (Maynard’s
Sloop) – 32 men
Ranger (Hyde’s
Sloop) – 22 men
Adventure (Blackbeard’s
Sloop) – 21 men
Brand gives the number
of men at the start of the battle as:
Jane –
Lieutenant Maynard and 35 men
Ranger –
Midshipman and 25 men and pilot from North
Carolina
Adventure –
19 men, 13 white / 6 black
Maynard’s list of
casualties and prisoners:
Jane –
8 killed and 18 wounded
Ranger – Hyde
killed and 5 men wounded
Adventure –
12 killed, including Blackbeard
Pirates taken prisoner
at Ocracoke – 9, mostly black (all wounded)
In Maynard’s original
letter, he wrote “12 besides Blackbeard,” however,
these numbers do not add up. Most historians agree
that Maynard meant to say “12, including
Blackbeard.” According to Brand’s letter, he had
traveled to Bath, North Carolina on horseback while
Maynard and Hyde took the sloops to find Blackbeard.
While in Bath, he arrested six of Blackbeard’s
pirates who weren’t at Ocracoke. After the battle,
he sent word for the sloops to join him at Bath.
Brand’s list of casualties and prisoners were:
Jane –
9 died
Ranger –
Commander and Coxon killed, William Baker wounded
Total both Royal Navy
sloops – more than 20 wounded
Adventure –
10 white men killed
Pirates taken prisoner
at Ocracoke – 3 white and 6 black (all wounded)
Pirates taken prisoner
(by Brand) on shore at Bath – 6
List of Pirates
Maynard lists twelve killed while Brand lists ten.
It is possible that two of the pirates were
unidentified by name. Maynard included them in the
body count, but Brand omitted them. Both Maynard and
Brand list nine pirates captured after the battle.
However, they differ on the total pirates killed.
Johnson provided the following list of pirates
killed and captured on page 90 of A General
History of the Pyrates.
The
Names of the Pyrates killed in the Engagement
are as follow.
Edward Teach, Commander.
Philip Morton, Gunner.
Garrat Gibbens, Boatswain.
Owen Roberts, Carpenter.
Thomas Miller, Quarter-Master.
John Husk,
Joseph Curtice,
Joseph Brooks, (1)
Nath. Jackson.
All the
rest, except the two last, were wounded and
afterward hanged in Virginia.
John
Carnes, |
Joseph
Philips, |
Joseph
Brooks, (2) |
James
Robbins, |
James
Blake,
|
John
Martin, |
John
Gills, |
Edward
Salter, |
Thomas
Gates, |
Stephen
Daniel, |
James
White, |
Richard
Greensail. |
Richard
Stiles, |
Israel
Hands, pardoned. |
Caesar, |
Samuel
Odel, acquited. |
Other historians have
stated that Johnson got his information from a list
of captured and killed that was sent to the
Admiralty. I have not been able to find that list in
a primary source. There are two glaring errors in
Johnson’s “captured” list. The first of these errors
is that Johnson says they were all wounded. The ones
arrested in Bath would certainly not have been
wounded. Second, Johnson’s “captured” list contains
sixteen names. This contradicts Johnson’s text where
he writes that fifteen pirates were captured.
[T]he Lieutenant sailed back to
the Men of War in James River, in Virginia,
with Black-beard’s Head still hanging at
the Bolt-sprit End, and fiveteen Prisoners,
thirteen of whom were hanged. (Johnson, 86)
This fifteen-count total
appears to be correct and agrees with Lieutenant
Maynard’s report.
Once again, the Cracherode report gives us better
information. Notice that payment was made for the
pirates who were brought in alive, but no payment
was made for those who were dead, including
Blackbeard (apparently bringing his head in wasn’t
enough). In order to qualify for the payment, the
pirate must have been tried and convicted.
. . . in
respect of the 8 Pyrates taken in the said
Engagement with Thach on the 22th.
of Novm. 1718, and of
the other 5 pyrates taken on Shoar (which by the
annexed Affidavit of Tho: Tucker appear to have
been taken near Bath Towne in North Carolina,
after the said Engagement was over) . . .
|
£. |
S. |
d. |
Hezekiah Hands
Master (as appears by the
Sd Lieutent
Govern.'s Certificate) |
40. |
0. |
0. |
John Carnes |
20. |
0. |
0. |
Joseph Brookes
Jun |
20. |
0. |
0. |
James Blake |
20. |
0. |
0. |
John Giles |
20. |
0. |
0. |
Thomas Gates |
20. |
0. |
0. |
James White |
20. |
0. |
0. |
Richd. Stiles |
20. |
0. |
0. |
John Martyn |
20. |
0. |
0. |
Edwd.
Salter |
20. |
0. |
0. |
Steph: Daniel
|
20. |
0. |
0. |
Richd.
Greensail |
20. |
0. |
0. |
Cesar |
20. |
0. |
0. |
|
280. |
0. |
0. |
Which said
sume of 280£ I am most humbly of
Opinion ought to be divided between the Sd.Captains
Gordon, and Brand, and the Officers & other
persons concerned with them in the said
Engagement and Captures according to the
Proportions herein before Specifyed.
But as to the
said 2 Captains further Claime by Virtue of the
said Certificate of Rewards in respect of the
pyrates hereafter named Viz.
Edwd.
Thach Capt.
Philip Morton
Gunner
Garrot Gibbons
Boatswain
Owen Roberts
Carpenter
John Philips
Sailmaker
John Husk
Joseph Curtis
Joseph Brookes
Tho: Miller
&
Nath: Jackson
I am most humbly of
Opinion, that in regard all the said last named
persons appear by the said Certificate to have
been killed in the said Engagement, and not to
have been taken and convicted of Pyracy, no
Reward is due in Respect of them, or any of
them, by the words of his Majestys said
proclamation.5
(Cracherode, 139-140)
Here is a comparison of
the lists of those killed.
Johnson’s List |
Cracherode’s List |
Edward
Teach (Commander) |
Edwd.
Thach Capt. |
Philip
Morton (Gunner) |
Philip
Morton Gunner |
Garret
Gibbons (Boatswain) |
Garrot
Gibbons Boatswain |
Owen
Roberts (Carpenter) |
Owen
Roberts Carpenter |
Thomas
Miller (Quarter-Master) |
Tho:
Miller |
John
Husk |
John
Husk |
Joseph
Curtice |
Joseph
Curtice |
Joseph
Brooks (1) |
Joseph Brookes |
Nathaniel
Jackson |
Nath:
Jackson |
|
John
Philips Sailmaker |
|
|
Total: 9 |
Total: 10 |
Note that Joseph Phillips on Johnson’s “captured”
list appears on Cracherode’s “killed” list as John
Philips. Johnson obviously makes an error in placing
him on the “captured” list. Adding his name to the
“killed list” makes a total of ten killed and agrees
with Brand’s report. This is also in agreement with
Johnson’s own book where he says “fiveteen
Prisoners” just four pages earlier. The other
discrepancy is with his first name. So far, no
additional evidence has been found to tell us if his
name was Joseph or John.
Comparing the Cracherode report to Brand’s letter,
one immediately notices several inconsistencies.
Brand states that nine men were taken at Ocracoke
and six in Bath for a total of fifteen, while
Cracherode’s report mentions eight pirates captured
at Ocracoke and five captured at Bath, for a total
of thirteen. Captain Ellis Brand’s 6 February 1719
letter reads, “Pyrate had nineteen men, Thirteen
White and Six negroes, ten white men kill’d and the
rest of the Prisoners were all wounded . . . I took
six of them from the shoar.” (Brand, 6 February)
Cracherode’s Report on Petitions reads, “. .
. in respect of the Eight Pyrates taken in the said
Engagemt. with Thatch on the 22d. of Nove. 1718. And
of the five other pyrates taken on shoar.”
(Cracherode, 139)
Here is a comparison list, with Joseph Phillips on
the list of those killed.
Johnson’s List
|
Cracherode’s List |
John
Carnes |
John
Carnes |
Joseph
Brooks (2) |
Joseph
Brookes Jun |
James
Blake |
James
Blake |
John
Giles |
John
Giles |
Thomas
Gates |
Thomas
Gates |
James
White |
James
White |
Richard
Stiles |
Richd.
Stiles |
Caesar
|
Caesar
|
James
Robbins |
(Not
listed) |
John
Martin |
Jno
Martyn |
Edward
Salter
|
Edwd. Salter |
Stephen
Daniel |
Steph:
Daniel |
Richard
Greensail |
Richd.
Greensail |
Israel
Hands, pardoned |
Hezekiah
Hands, Master |
Samuel
Odell, acquitted |
(Not
listed) |
I shall address the difference in the numbers taken
at Bath later. I will first delve into the
discrepancy in the totals, fifteen versus thirteen.
The two names on Johnson’s original list that are
missing from Cracherode’s are Samuel Odell and James
Robbins.
Samuel Odell and James Robbins
The fact that Samuel Odell and James Robbins are
missing from Cracherode’s list can be explained
after considering two sources.
Spotswood’s letter to the Commissioners for Trade
and Plantations includes:
His orders
were to blow up his own vessell if he should
happen to be overcome, and a Negro was ready to
set fire to the Powder had he not been luckily
prevented by a Planter forced on board the night
before & who lay in the Hold of the sloop
during the actions of the Pyrats.
(Spotswood)
Charles Johnson recounts
this incident as:
. . . for
before that, Teach had little or no
Hopes of escaping, and therefore had posted a
resolute Fellow, a Negroe, whom he had bred up,
with a lighted Match, in the Powder-Room, with
Commands to blow up, when he should give him
Orders, which was as soon as the Lieutenant and
his Men could have entered, that so he might
have destroy’d his Conquerors: and when the
Negro found how it went with Black-beard,
he could hardly be perswaded from the rash
Action, by two Prisoners that were then in the
Hold of the Sloop. (Johnson, 85)
Spotswood mentions one
prisoner, a “Planter,” and Johnson mentions two
prisoners. These two could only have been Samuel
Odell and James Robbins.
Samuel Odell. There is no reference to
Samuel Odell in Spotswood’s letter or in
Cracherode’s report. The only source mentioning
Samuel Odell is Charles Johnson’s A General
History of the Pyrates when he wrote:
Samuel Odell,
was taken out of the trading Sloop, but the
Night before the Engagement. This poor Fellow
was a little unlucky at his first entering upon
his new Trade… (Johnson, 86)
Johnson most likely saw
an original report, since the names of the other
pirates listed were accurate. Therefore, Johnson was
probably correct when he said Samuel Odell was
“acquitted.” (This is one of the few facts that
Johnson got right!) If proven Odell wasn’t a pirate,
he would be released and would not appear on
Cracherode’s list.
Many modern authors recognize Samuel Odell as the
man who prevented the destruction of the Adventure,
but Johnson identified Odell as the master of a
trading sloop. Spotswood clearly described this man
as a “Planter.” If it wasn’t Odell, who was it? The
only other person not on Cracherode’s list was James
Robbins.
James Robbins. There is very strong evidence
that James Robbins was the “Planter” Spotswood
referred to in the letter. Allen Norris published a
book containing a transcript of all the land deeds
in Bath between 1696 and 1729. This book holds the
answers to several of Blackbeard’s crewmen.
A deed transcribed in Norris’s book named James
Robbins as the man who purchased lot #13 on 9
September 1718, from John Lillington, who had
purchased the property from Governor Charles Eden
just five months before. In late 1718, James Robbins
owned Eden’s 400-acre property, including Eden’s
large house.
The property next to Robbins’s land belonged to Tobias Knight, who
bought the property from Robert Daniel in 1716.
Knight was, of course, the Secretary General, Chief
Justice, and Customs Inspector of North Carolina. He
was also the author of the letter dated 17 November
1718, that was found by Maynard on board Adventure
after the battle at Ocracoke. This letter played
a vital role in the charges against Tobias Knight
for his involvement with Blackbeard and was
transcribed in the minutes of the governor’s
council, which met on 27 May 1719.
Blackbeard obviously had this letter in his
possession before 21 November 1718, as he was killed
on the morning of the 22nd and the letter was found
on his sloop. How did he get this letter in just
three days? The only answer was that James Robbins,
Tobias Knight’s neighbor, brought it to him.
There is conclusive evidence that James Robbins must
have been acquitted. He was not listed in the
Cracherode report, and therefore, was most likely
the man identified by Spotswood as the “Planter
forced on board the night before.” But most
importantly, there were several deeds recorded in
Bath naming James Robbins after 1718. He witnessed a
deed in 1721 and another deed showed that James
Robbins sold all 400 acres of his property to Robert
Campaine for £445 on 9 July 1724.
Specifying the Location of Capture and
Identifying their Race
Contemporary reports mention that the pirates were
captured in either Ocracoke
or Bath,
but they do not indicate the names of the pirates
taken at the specific locations, nor do they
identify the race of the individuals captured.
However, as described later in this paper, both are
important in helping to solve the mystery of
precisely what occurred in Williamsburg.
The discrepancy between the Brand letter and the
Cracherode report as to the number captured in Bath
can be easily explained by a simple error. Brand
lists six while Cracherode lists five. Brand
personally arrested those in Bath and should know
the count. As the total numbers all add up between
the two reports, it seems likely that an error
occurred, and that one of those taken in Bath was
accidentally added to the Ocracoke list by the time
Cracherode received it.
As for the discrepancy in the number of Africans
taken, Brand mentions six Negroes, while Spotswood
lists only five. Once again, I shall refer to
Captain Ellis Brand’s letter, “Account of taking
Blackbeard,” 6 February 1719, which reads:
The Pyrate
had nineteen men, Thirteen White and Six negroes
. . .
Spotswood’s address to
the Council of Colonial Virginia in March of 1719
reads:
The
Governor acquainted the Council, that five
Negroes of the crew of Edward Thack & taken
on board his Sloop remaine in Prison for Pyracy.
(Executive, 495-496)
This discrepancy can
easily be explained if one assumes that Brand simply
made a mistake in his identification of one of the
captives. Brand wasn’t at the battle of Ocracoke and
may not have ever seen any of those who were
captured there. Weeks after the battle, Maynard
sailed the sloop containing the captured pirates to
Bath, but they would have been imprisoned below
deck. In any event, as the total numbers of all the
pirates captured add up nicely, there isn’t anyone
missing.
The five pirates of African descent can easily be
identified. Four of their names appear in the
Minutes of the North Carolina Governor’s Council for
27 May 1719.
Evidences
called by the Names of James Blake, Richard
Stiles, James White, and Thomas Gates were
actually no other than foure Negroe Slaves.
I shall discuss the
reasons for their names being read into the minutes
in greater detail later in this paper.
As for the fifth pirate of African descent, his
identity can be ascertained by the process of
elimination. He is the man named Caesar, the only
man without a last name.
The following list specifies which captives were of
African descent and gives the most likely location
of their capture. According to author and researcher
Kevin
Duffus, author of The Last Days of Black
Beard the Pirate, the ones listed as taken in
Bath are based upon documented activity in that town
just prior to the battle.
Johnson's List
|
Cracherode's List
|
Capture at
Ocracoke
|
Captured at
Bath
|
John
Carnes
|
John
Carnes
|
X
|
|
Joseph
Brooks (2)
|
Joseph
Brooks, Junr
|
|
X
|
James
Blake
|
James
Blake (African)
|
X
|
|
John
Giles
|
John
Giles
|
|
X
|
Thomas
Gates
|
Thomas
Gates (African)
|
X
|
|
James
White
|
James
White (African)
|
X
|
|
Richard
Stiles
|
Richd.
Stiles (African)
|
X
|
|
Caesar
|
Caesar
(African)
|
X
|
|
John
Martin
|
John
Martyn
|
|
X
|
Edward
Salter
|
Edwd.
Salter
|
|
X
|
Stephen
Daniel
|
Steph:
Daniel
|
|
X
|
Richard
Greensail
|
Richd.
Greensail
|
X
|
|
Israel
Hands (Pardoned)
|
Hezekiah
Hands, Master
|
|
X
|
|
|
Total: 7
|
Total: 6
|
Taken at Ocracoke
Now we are down to fourteen of Blackbeard’s crew.
The thirteen listed in Cracherode’s report plus
William Howard. I will discuss those taken at
Ocracoke first.
Maynard returned to Kecoughtan on Saturday, 3
January 1719, aboard Blackbeard’s captured sloop
with his prisoners on board. The logbook of HMS Pearl
for that date reads:
This day
the Sloop Adventure Edward Thach formerly Master
(a Pyrat) anchor’d here from No.
Carolina comanded by my first Lieut.
Mr. Robt. Maynard who had
Taken the aforesaid Sloop, & destroy’d the
said Edward Thach & most of his men; he also
brought Thach’s head, hanging under his bowsprit
in order to present it to the Colony of
Virginia; he saluted me with 9 guns, I return’d
the like number . . . . (Duffus, 169)
Captain Gordon, Maynard’s
commanding officer and captain of the Pearl,
would have ordered all the prisoners to be
transferred to the ship and held for a short time
prior to being sent to Williamsburg, just as he had
done a few months earlier with William
Howard, Henry Mann, William Stoke, and Adult
Van Pelt.
Once in Williamsburg, there was an apparent issue
that Spotswood felt compelled to address in a letter
to his council.
The
Governor acquainted the Council, that he had
Delayed [five Negroes’] Tryal till the Severity
of the Winter Weather was over, that he might
have a full Council, in order that he might have
a more Solemn examination of the several piracys
of which these and the rest of that Crew have
been guilty . . . whither there be any thing in
the circumstances of these Negroes to exempt
them from under going the same tryall of other
Pirates. Whereupon the Council are of Opinion
that the said Negroes being taken on board a
Pirate Vessel, and by what yet appears, equally
concerned with the rest of the Crew in the same
Acts of Piracy, and ought to be tryed in the
same manner, and if any diversity appears in
their circumstances the same may be considered
on their Tryal. (Executive, 495-496)
Those “five Negroes” were
problematic from a legal standpoint. If they were
slaves, they wouldn’t be responsible for their
actions, as a slave had no choice when following
orders from their owners. Spotswood would have
spoken to Captain Gordon about his concerns and the
prisoners would have been separated from the others,
at least in terms of their treatment. The ones who
were peacefully taken in Bath might have been
treated differently, too. They weren’t directly
responsible for the deaths of any of Gordon’s men.
That left
two white men who were combatants and participated
in the action against Gordon’s men, Richard
Greensail and John Carnes. A logbook entry from HMS
Pearl dated 28 January 1719, might reveal
their fates. Captain Gordon wrote:
Yesterday
in the afternoon the longboat came…This morning
sent 2 condemned pyrats ashore to Hampton to be
executed, which about 1/2 past 11 was done
accordingly. (Duffus, 174)
There is no direct
evidence that the two pirates Gordon executed were
indeed Richard Greensail and John Carnes, but the
idea is most compelling. Captain Gordon had the
authority to convene an Admiralty court on board his
ship and to carry out the sentence. He would have
wanted to proceed as quickly as possible and not
wait for a court in Williamsburg that might turn
them free on a technicality. Additionally, Gordon
would have wanted his crew to see the execution of
those responsible for the killing of their mates.
The standard means of execution for pirates was
hanging.
Extension of the King’s Proclamation
On
21 December 1718, King George extended his
proclamation. The following is an excerpt of the
proclamation.
We have
thought fit, by and with the Advice of Our
Privy-Council, to Issue this Our Royal
Proclamation; And We do hereby Promise and
Declare, That in case any the said Pirates
shall, on or before the First Day of July, in
the Year of Our Lord One thousand seven hundred
and nineteen, Surrender him or themselves to One
of Our Principal Secretaries of State in Great
Britain or Ireland, or to any Governor or
Deputy-Governor of any of Our Plantations or
Dominions beyond the Seas, every such Pirate and
Pirates, so Surrendering him or themselves, as
aforesaid, shall have Our Gracious Pardon of and
for such his or their Piracy or Piracies . . . .
(British, 179)
Of course, the entire proclamation is much longer,
but this passage is the important one. Unlike the
original proclamation, which had a cutoff date of 5
January 1718, after which any acts of piracy would
render the person ineligible, this new one didn’t
mention any such date. Everyone was eligible for the
pardon as long as they asked for it before 1 July
1719. Now, all of Blackbeard’s pirates held in
Williamsburg were eligible for a pardon.
William Howard’s Pardon
There is no question that William Howard was freed.
Captain Brand wrote that he
was found
guilty and received sentence of Death
Accordingly and his life is only owing to the
ships arrival that had his Majesties pardon on
board, the Night before he was to have been
executed. (Brand, 14 July)
And Spotswood wrote:
I received
some days ago the Honor of your Lordships of the
– of August and his Majestys Commission for
pardoning Pyrates which came very seasonably to
save Howard their Quartermaster then under
sentence of Death, but by his Majestys extending
his Mercy for all Piracys committed before the
18th of August, is now set at liberty.
. . . what I am
therefore in doubt of is, whether by the
remitting all forfeitures, His Majesty intends
only to restore the Pyrates to the Estates they
had before the committing their Pyracies, or to
grant them a Property also in the Effects which
they have Piratically taken. There is besides
the two Negro Boys about £50 in money and other
things taken from the aforementioned Howard,
& now in the hands of the Officer who seized
it on His Majestys behalf, of which an inventory
is lodged in the Secretarys office here. I
therefore pray your Lordships advice &
commands how these Effects are to be dispersed,
where the person for whose possession they were
found is pardoned. (Spotswood)
It is interesting to note
that Howard purchased Ocracoke Island in 1759 and
died there in 1794, at the age of 108.
At least two of the pirates taken in Kecoughtan were
also granted the king’s pardon. They were William
Stokes and Adult Van Pelt.
It is the
unanimous opinion of this Board that the said
Stokes and Van Pelt are fitt objects of his
Majesties mercy. (Executive, 497)
4 of the 5 “Negroes” Stand Trial
An incident occurred in Bath on 14 September 1718,
near Tobias Knight’s house. Late that night, William
Bell was traveling by periauger on the Pamlico River
when he was attacked by several men in another
periauger.6 The
next morning, Bell stated that he believed he was
attacked by
one Thomas
Unday and one Richard Snelling commonly called
Titery Dick to be two of them and the others to
be Negroes or white men disguised like
Negroes[.] (Minutes)
In North Carolina
politics, Edward
Mosley and Tobias Knight were bitter political
enemies. It went back to the Cary's
Rebellion when they were on opposite sides.
After Moseley heard about the Bell incident, he
devised a plan to link Blackbeard to Knight and thus
discredit Knight and possibly even Eden.
Moseley, or at least some of his agents, must have
traveled to Virginia to confer with Spotswood on the
issue of pirates in North Carolina and the inaction
on the part of Governor Eden. It is obvious that
Spotswood was in communication with Moseley because
when Captain Brand traveled to North Carolina in
November of 1718, he met Moseley in modern-day
Edenton and was then escorted to Bath by two of
Moseley’s associates. Brand wrote:
I reached
within 50 miles of Bath Town, on the 22nd. I got
my self and horses over the sound with the
assistance of Cols. Moseley and Capt. Moore two
Gent . . . I gott within three Mile of Town and
desired Capt. Moore to go in and Learn if Thach
was there, he soon return’d to let me know he
was not yet Come up but Expected Every minute. I
parted from Capt. Moors and went to the Governor
and applied my self to him and let him know I
was come in Quest of Thach. (Brand, 6
February)
At some point, Moseley
heard about the Bell incident. It might not have
meant anything to him at the time, but when news of
Blackbeard’s
death reached Moseley, he realized that it
could be turned to his advantage. He devised a
complicated scheme aimed at proving Knight’s
involvement with Blackbeard. The first part of this
scheme was to get Bell to change his story and to
name Blackbeard and four of his crew members as his
attackers. Apparently, Moseley was successful
because Bell testified against Blackbeard later at
the trial of the four crew members. This was the
most important aspect of Moseley’s plan. If
Blackbeard was the attacker, it would place
Blackbeard at the Knight house on the evening of 14
September. Moseley could then proclaim that
Blackbeard was there to make secret arrangements
with Knight for the disposal of the goods he had
recently taken from a French sugar merchant ship.
To be successful, Moseley’s entire scheme depended
upon getting corroborative testimony from some of
the members of Blackbeard’s crew. However, they were
all being held in Williamsburg. The only way for
Moseley to get that testimony was to get help from
Spotswood. Moseley’s agents worked closely with
Spotswood, providing the Virginia prosecutors with
the details of Bell’s assault and even some physical
evidence. Additionally, arrangements were made for
Bell to travel to Williamsburg and personally give
testimony. As a result, a trial of four of
Blackbeard’s pirates was scheduled in Williamsburg.
Proof of this first comes from the financial
arrangements that Spotswood made to have William
Bell travel to Williamsburg. Apparently, Bell lost
two horses along the way, which were eventually paid
for by the Virginia Council.
That your
Petitioner was at the charge of Supplying the
Government with Horses particularly for one Bell
and his Son Evidences against Blackbeards Crew
of Pirates taken in North Carolina Who were
tryed here by a Court of Admiralty, in Which
Service your Petitioner Lost two horses Which
cost him twenty pounds Currant Money and hath
received no Satisfaction for the Same[.] (Irwin)
The rest of the proof
comes from the transcript of the trial itself. Even
though the trial records were lost in Virginia,
Spotswood sent a transcript to the Governor of North
Carolina. The transcript launched a Council hearing.
Everything was carefully recorded and the original
still exists in the archives of North Carolina. Of
the five Africans captured, four of them stood trial
on 12 March 1719. Those four members of Blackbeard’s
crew were identified as the men who were allegedly
with him that night of the attack. They were James
Blake, Thomas Gates, James White, and Richard
Stiles.
The four accused all pled guilty and gave details
about the attack. William Bell also added his
testimony. In addition, Hesikia Hands (incorrectly
named Israel in Johnson’s book) testified as a
witness for the prosecution. Hands was at Ocracoke
when the alleged assault occurred; however, he
testified that Blackbeard and the other four all
went to Bath the night of the fourteenth and
returned with stolen goods taken from Bell.
The trial wasn’t only about Blackbeard; it involved
Knight to the greatest extent possible. The icing on
the cake was a personal letter from Knight to
Blackbeard that Maynard had found on Blackbeard’s
sloop Adventure shortly after the battle at
Ocracoke. The letter was dated 17 November, which
was just five days before Blackbeard’s death. This
letter was introduced during the trial as evidence
of Knight’s involvement with Blackbeard. Included in
the transcript of the trial was a recommendation for
Knight to be tried in North Carolina.
Whereas it
has appeared to this Court Mr. Tobias Knight
Secty of North Carolina hath given Just cause to
suspect his being privy to the piracys committed
by Edward Thache and his crew and hath received
and concealed the effects by them piraticaly
taken whereby he is become an accessary
Its therefore
the opinion of this court that a Copy of the
Evidences given to this Court so farr as they
relate to the said Tobias Knights Behaviour be
transmitted to the Governor of North Carolina to
the end he may cause the said Knight to be
apprehended and proceeded against pursuant to
the directions of the Act of Parliament for the
more Effectual Suppression of Piracy. (Minutes)
It is obvious that the
five pirates hoped to be released if they testified
against their dead captain and pled guilty to the
charges. It didn’t work for the four Africans. They
were hanged in Williamsburg. The document that
Spotswood sent to North Carolina stated that the
four pirates were “Condemned and since Executed.” (Minutes)
If the extension of the King’s Pardon was available,
why didn’t these four pirates qualify? I believe it
was because they were tried for assault and theft at
their trial, not piracy. It’s subtle but within the
legal parameters. It is ironic that if the four
pirates had refused to confess to the assault, they
probably would have qualified for the pardon and
been released.
Hands was, of course, released for testifying for
the prosecution and because of the extension of the
pardon. This is another instance that Charles
Johnson got right.
The other
Person that escaped the Gallows, was one Israel
Hands, Master of Black-beard’s Sloop,
and formerly Captain of the same . . . .
(Johnson, 86)
The Final Six
This leaves Caesar and five others, besides Hands,
who were arrested in Bath: John Giles, Joseph Brooks
Jr., John Martin, Stephen Daniel, and Edward Salter.
Each would have qualified for the extension of the
pardon. Apparently, upon accepting the pardon, the
pirate had to pay five shillings. Spotswood wrote a
letter to Secretary Craggs, dated 26 May 1719. In
it, Spotswood complains about some of the pirates
not paying their fee. The most intriguing aspect of
this letter is that it mentions seven pirates who
have received their pardons, but only one, a
“Condemned Negro,” has paid the fee.
. . .
having never received the value of one penny
from any of the Pyrates that have either
Surrendered, or been pardoned here; And tho’
there have been 14 or 15 who Surrendered, and
had Certificates under the Seal of the Colony,
for w’ch the Clerk was allowed to demand five
Shillings a piece, yet I am well assured that no
more than five paid any thing at all; And of
Seven that have rec’d their pardons, only one
has paid the Attorney-Gen’l the common fee he
receives for making out the like pardons even
for a Condemned Negro, and he, too, was a person
of a very notorious Character for his Piracys,
and had his Money restored to him after he had
been Condemned, because there was no proof of
its being piratically taken . . . . (Official,
317)
Although no names are
mentioned, it seems to fit Blackbeard’s pirates
perfectly. The last statement obviously refers to
William Howard, who had £50 seized upon his arrest.
The seven pirates mentioned in this letter must be
William Howard, John Giles, Joseph Brooks Jr., John
Martin, Stephen Daniel, Edward Salter, and Caesar,
the “Condemned Negro.” Hands was released for
testifying for the prosecution.
This is strong circumstantial evidence that Richard
Greensail and John Carnes were executed in Hampton
by Captain Gordon before word of the pardon reached
him. If they weren’t executed, they would have been
sent to Williamsburg along with the rest and would
have been released when word of the pardon reached
the court. Considering that there were only “Seven
that have rec’d their pardons,” it seems that
Richard Greensail and John Carnes never made it to
Williamsburg. (Official, 317)
Unfortunately, Caesar, John Giles, Joseph Brooks
Jr., and Stephen Daniel disappeared from the
historical record. But John Martin and Edward Salter
were quite active in Bath after 1719.
John Martin was the son of Joel Martin, who was
among the first residents of Bath arriving in 1706.
Joel died on 24 October 1715. In his will, his son
John inherited 220 acres from his father. John sold
the plantation north of Glebe Creek on 11 July 1720,
and James Robbins witnessed the deed. As you may
recall, Robbins was arrested at Ocracoke as a member
of Blackbeard’s crew.
Edward
Salter was the most prominent of the pirate
survivors. His name first appeared in Bath’s
historical records in 1721, when he purchased two
town lots from Henry Rowell. The deed was witnessed
once again by fellow pirate James Robbins. In 1723,
Salter bought 640 acres, and on 12 November 1726, he
bought Governor Eden’s 400 acres of property and his
mansion from Robert Campaine for £600. By 1727,
Salter was referred to as a “merchant and gentleman”
and owned the largest periauger with sails in the
county along with a brigantine named Happy Luke.
(Norris, 164-165) In 1728, Salter bought six deeds
for 3,371 acres on the south side of the Pamlico
River. He died in January 1734, and his periauger
and brigantine were both mentioned in his will.
With dozens of twentieth- and twenty-first-century
authors blindly following Johnson and writing that
thirteen pirates were hanged in Williamsburg, one
nineteenth-century author got it right. This author
was Shirley Hughson, who wrote Blackbeard &
the Carolina Pirates, which was published in
Hampton, Virginia in 1894. Hughson wrote:
In March
of the following year (1719) [Spotswood] made a
full report of the matter to the Council, which
endorsed his action and ordered the prisoners
tried for piracy. The Council was not
precipitate in its course, however. They
considered postponing action until every member
could be present, but it was thought that all
doubtful points could be just as well discussed
before the court, and the trials were ordered to
proceed immediately. They were held at
Williamsburg, and four of the accused were
condemned and afterwards hanged. (Hughson,
78)
The source Hughson cites
is most interesting. This is exactly how it reads.
An attempt
to secure some details of these trials from the
Virginia Admiralty Court Records proved
fruitless. The clerk writes: “The earlier
records of this Court are in such a condition
that I fear that I cannot give you the
information asked for. I cannot even tell
whether they go back as far as 1719; they are
piled up in heaps in an upper room of the custom
house building, and have been in that condition
ever since the war. At the evacuation of
Richmond in the Great Fire, a large quantity of
papers and records of the United States Courts,
as well as of the General Court of the State of
Virginia, were totally destroyed. (Hughson,
fn5, 78-79)
If all the records were
truly lost, how did Hughson arrive at the number of
four pirates hanged? Perhaps there were a few
scholars still alive who had seen the documents
before their destruction.
Summary
of those captured
William Howard
|
Accepted extension of pardon
|
John Carnes
|
Probably hanged in Hampton
|
Joseph Brooks (2)
|
Accepted extension of pardon
|
James Blake
|
Hanged in Williamsburg
|
John Giles
|
Accepted extension of pardon
|
Thomas Gates
|
Hanged in Williamsburg
|
James White
|
Hanged in Williamsburg
|
Richard Stiles
|
Hanged in Williamsburg
|
Caesar
|
Accepted extension of pardon
|
James Robbins
|
Acquitted
|
John Martin
|
Accepted extension of pardon
|
Edward Salter
|
Accepted extension of pardon
|
Stephen Daniel
|
Accepted extension of pardon
|
Richard Greensail
|
Probably hanged in Hampton
|
Hezekiah (Israel) Hands
|
Accepted extension of pardon
|
Samuel Odell
|
Acquitted
|
Conclusion
Of the fifteen pirates arrested in North Carolina
and taken to Virginia, four of them were hanged in
Williamsburg. Interestingly, they were executed for
the robbery of William Bell, not for piracy. These
men were James Blake, Thomas Gates, James White, and
Richard Stiles.
Two of the pirates who participated in the battle of
Ocracoke, John Carnes and Richard Greensail, never
made it to Williamsburg because they were executed
in Kecoughtan.
James Robbins and Samuel Odell were acquitted
without standing trial.
The remaining seven – Joseph Brooks, John Giles,
Caesar, John Martin, Edward Salter, Steven Daniel,
and Hezekiah (Israel) Hands – plus William Howard
(who had been arrested several months earlier and
was in the gaol), were found guilty. However, they
were released in accordance with the revised royal
proclamation.
At least two of these men, Salter and Martin,
returned to Bath, North Carolina, where their names
appeared in legal documents as landowners. Howard
eventually purchased the island of Ocracoke.
Blackbeard’s story is perhaps the most complicated
pirate tale ever told. There is nothing
straightforward about it. Political intrigue
abounds. Challenging relationships within his crew
and between him and his partners add to the
complexity. Taking all this into account, it is
easily understandable how so many historians have
missed or confused some of the facts when writing
about Blackbeard’s pirates in Williamsburg.
Notes:
1.
From P&P’s editor: Period documents often give
Blackbeard’s actual name as Edward Teach, Tach,
Thach, or Thatch, depending on the writer.
Spelling was not uniform in the eighteenth
century.
2. From P&P’s editor: Anne
Jacobs, the author’s editor and research
assistant, tells me that “Adult Van Pelt” appears
in several original period documents as this
person’s first and last names. Although I checked
several sources that pertain to eighteenth-century
given names, I found none that list “Adult.” It is
possible that rather than being the man’s actual
name,” he either refused to give his birth name or
the authorities chose to use “Adult” to
differentiate this man from another person,
possibly a minor.
One transcribed version of original Executive
Journals for the colony of Virginia
indicates that Van Pelt’s first name was Aure.
(see page 496) The author did not find this
spelling in any consulted resource.
3. From P&P’s editor: The
quotation marks after each “20” stand for pounds
(£) and after the “0”, for shillings. The third
column represents pence. The underscoring after
the fourth line has been inserted by P&P’s
editor and does not appear in the original
document. The numbers below the underscoring
represent the total tally of rewards paid.
4. The original charge sheet is
housed in the Library of Virginia.
5. From P&P’s editor: This
table has been adapted for ease of reading on the
website. With the exception of Hezakiah Hands, the
other men were denoted as “Common Sailors.” In the
second list of pirates for which no reward was
paid, Husk, Curtis, Brookes, Miller, and Jackson
were denoted as “Common Sailors.” Formatting
issues prevented the exact duplication of the
document. However, a copy of the original document
can be found here.
6. According to Merriam-Webster,
“periauger” is an archaic variant of “piragua,”
which can be either a dugout or a two-masted boat
with a flat bottom.
Resources:
Bialuschewski,
Arne. “Daniel Defoe, Nathaniel Mist, and the
General History of the Pyrates,” The Papers of
the Bibliographical Society of America 98:1
(March 2004), 21-38.
The Boston News-Letter, 16 December to 23
December 1717.
The Boston News-Letter, 23 February to 2
March 1719.
Brand, Ellis. Account of Taking Blackbeard.
State Archives of North Carolina. PRO-ADM
1/1472 [72.992.1-4]. 6 February 1719.
Brand, Ellis. To Lordships from HMS Lyme
in Galleons Reach. Library of Virginia. ADM
1/1472 [Reel 166 subsection 11]. 14 July 1719.
British
Royal Proclamations Relating to America
1603-1783 edited by Clarence S.
Brigham. Burt Franklin, 1911.
Cooke, Arthur. “British
Newspaper Accounts of Blackbeard’s Death,” The
Virginia Magazine of History and Biography
61:3 (1953-1955), 304-307.
Cracherode, Anthony. Report on Petitions for
Rewards for Capturing Pirates. Letters.
Library of Virginia. SR01227.1248 117.ff.134-141.
18 March 1720.
Duffus, Kevin P. The Last Days of Black Beard
the Pirate. Looking Glass Productions, 2008.
Executive
Journals of the Colonial Council of Virginia,
vol. 3, edited by Henry R. McIlwaine. The Virginia
State Library, 1928.
Hughson, Shirley Carter. Blackbeard & the
Carolina Pirates. Port Hampton Press, 2000.
Irwin, Henry. Petition
to Council for Two Horses. Library of
Virginia. Folder 30, Box 45, Id 36138, Colonial
Papers. 23 December 1720.
Johnson, Charles, Captain. A
General History of the Pyrates, second
edition. T. Warner, 1724.
Konstam, Angus. Black Beard: America’s Most
Notorious Pirate. John Wiley & Sons,
2006.
Lee, Robert E. Blackbeard the Pirate. John
F. Blair, 1974.
Lyme Log, Kiquotan Rd., Virginia. State
Archives of North Carolina. Pro-Adm. 51/4250
[72.2278.102]. 8-29 November 1718.
Memorial Volume of Virginia Historical
Portraiture, 1585-1830 edited by Alexander
Wilbourne Weddell. The William Byrd Press, 1930.
Minutes of the North Carolina Governor’s
Council. North Carolina State Archives, 27
May, 1719.
Norris, Allen Hart. Beaufort County, North
Carolina Deed Book I, 1696-1729: Records of Bath
County, North Carolina. The Beaufort County
Genealogical Society, 2003.
The
Official Letters of Alexander Spotswood,
Lieutenant-Governor of the Colony of Virginia,
1710-1722. The Virginia Historical
Society, 1882.
Order
to Charge William Howard. Colonial
Papers. Library of Virginia. 29 October 1719.
Page, Courtney. “Did You
Know Pirates Were Granted a Pardon?” Queen
Anne’s Revenge Project Blog (5 September
2017).
Rankin, Hugh. The Pirates of North Carolina.
Division of Archives and History, North Carolina
Department of Cultural Resources, 1960.
Spotswood, Alexander. Capt. Tach’s
Quartermaster Apprehension and Trial.
Library of Virginia. CO5/1318 [41.ff.291-298]. 22
December 1718. (online
version)
“Spotswood Letter to Eden.” Alexander
Spotswood: Biographical Sketch. Virginia
Museum of History & Culture. F222.V81 M68 W
41. [1930 p. 150–151]. 7 November 1718.
Watson, Alan D. Bath: The First Town in North
Carolina. North Carolina Office of Archives
& History, 2005.
Woodard, Colin. The Republic of Pirates.
Harper Collins, 2007.
![Robert Jacob
(Source: author)](RobertJacob.jpg)
|
Robert
Jacob is an award-winning author and
lecturer who has been heavily involved in
living history interpretation and reenacting
for over fifty years. While researching
pirates, Robert realized that much of the
historical record was contradictory and
incorrect. In 2018, after a ten-year quest
for accurate information on pirates, he
compiled his findings in his first book, A
Pirate’s Life in the Golden Age of Piracy.
Originally from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
Robert achieved the rank of Chief Warrant
Officer 5 in the U. S. Marine Corps before
retiring to Florida, where fans attending
book signings and festivals inspired him to
write his second book, Pirates of the
Florida Coast: Truths, Legends, and Myths.
His third book, Blackbeard: The Truth
Revealed, is being released in the
summer of 2024.
For more information on this and his other
books, please visit his
website.
|
![Cover Art: Blackbeard (Source: Author)](Blackbeard_Jacob_cover-art.jpg)
|
Copyright ©2024 Robert Jacob
![Gunner = Send Cindy a
message](cannoneer.jpg)
Click to contact me
Background image compliments
of Anke's Graphics |