Pirates and Privateers

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

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: 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 S^d. four pyrates were taken and delivered to Justice by the said Cap^t. Gordon . . . hath by his annexed Affidavit of the 25^th. of February last made Oath, that W^m. Howard . . . was taken up at Kiquotan in Virginia the 16^th. of Sept^er. 1718, and putt on board the Pearl Man of Warr, in which Ship he remained a Prisoner untill the 30^th. 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, W^m. Stoke & Adult Van Pelt. (the three other pyrates named in the said Certificate) were taken up near Kiquoatan afores^d. the 28^th of Nov. 1718, and bro^t. on Board his Maty’s S^d. Ship the Pearl, as Pyrates, where they remained prisoners until the 15^th. 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

³ (Cracherode, 140)

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)

Painting of a Bermuda sloop by Edward Orme
(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

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 22^th. of Nov^m. 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 S^d.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.

Edw^d. Thach Cap^t.
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 N^o. Carolina comanded by my first Lieu^t. M^r. Rob^t. 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.

Meet the Author

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.

Copyright ©2024 Robert Jacob

Home

Pirate Articles

Book Reviews

Pirate Links

Sea Yarns Galore

Thistles & Pirates