Archive for category History

Maritime Security: Pirate Attacks At Sea Getting Bigger And Bolder, Says IMB Report

Jul 14

Posted by Matt in History, Letter Of Marque, Maritime Security | No Comments

I have to say it. Today’s naval strategies to counter piracy is a failure. We also have the moral high ground in this fight, and yet the piracy industry flourishes. Amazing. It also points to the amazing power of a naturally occurring offense industry. Not one country has given these pirates Letters of Marque or licenses to do what they are doing, and it is an industry that has naturally evolved and expanded. Kind of like a naturally occurring virus, versus a lab manufactured virus.

To take that thought a step further, if a government wanted to manufacture an artificial offense industry, then they could probably learn a lot from this naturally occurring virus called modern piracy.  Of course you could also study the history of piracy and privateering, and find consensus from that.

Probably a good starting point would be to study Sir Henry Morgan, a very effective and intelligent privateer that did very well in the Spanish Main. Another privateer I liked was Christopher Newport, just because the guy was an amazing privateer that dominated in the Caribbean. He was also the go to guy for the Virginia Company of London, for transporting colonists to the Virgina Colonies in the new world. Christopher was a stud, and of course there are other famous privateers I am missing. The common theme here is that they were ‘authorized and given license’ to do what they did, and this public/private partnership was mutually beneficial.

Another point to bring up about these older privateers, is that these folks acted more like Marines, than seamen. That they boarded vessels, but they also conducted raids on land.  So the captains of vessels or PMC’s  had to be proficient in naval operations, and land warfare, to maintain their position of power.  Because on these boats, they were extremely democratic and followed codes/rules. If a captain sucked, no one would follow him and they would vote for someone else on the boat to lead them to the prize.  I would compare it to today’s modern fishermen in Alaska, and that if they are not able to find the crab, the crew goes home penniless and investors soon go shopping for another captain that ‘can’ find the crab. Everyone likes a winner in the world of offense industries. So privateer captains all had to know their stuff, if they wanted to keep their job. -Matt

Pirate attacks at sea getting bigger and bolder, says IMB report
Thursday, 14 July 2011
Pirate attacks on the world’s seas totalled 266 in the first six months of 2011, up from 196 incidents in the same period last year, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) International Maritime Bureau’s (IMB) Piracy Reporting Centre (PRC) revealed today.
More than 60% of the attacks were by Somali pirates, a majority of which were in the Arabian Sea area said the report, Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships. As of 30 June, Somali pirates were holding 20 vessels and 420 crew, and demanding ransoms of millions of dollars for their release.
“In the last six months, Somali pirates attacked more vessels than ever before and they’re taking higher risks,” said IMB Director Pottengal Mukundan. . “This June, for the first time, pirates fired on ships in rough seas in the Indian Ocean during the monsoon season. In the past, they would have stayed away in such difficult conditions. Masters should remain vigilant.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Letter Of Marque: Privateer Days…..A Canadian Holiday

Jul 4

Posted by Matt in Canada, History, Letter Of Marque | No Comments

What I wanted to do here is show a little history that folks in the US were probably not aware of. Especially during our celebration of Independence Day. In this town in Canada, they still celebrate the authorization (Letter of Marque) by the British to attack American privateers. To them, American privateers and the Continental Navy were the enemy and this was that town’s solution and savior. The Americans were also pirates in their eyes, and they felt totally justified to use their legalized privateers to attack and defend against such an enemy. (the Continental Navy could take prizes as well)

But it also indicates the effectiveness of privateering back then. This type of warfare did extreme damage on British related commerce, and to anyone that was an ally of the British, and privateering was a means of attacking the enemy’s pocketbook. It also had a great impact on the logistics of the British war machine. This artificially created offense industry, authorized via the Letter of Marque and Reprisal, is an industry that certainly left it’s ‘Marque’. lol

Cool stuff and check it out. -Matt

Tags: , , ,

History: Von Steuben’s Continentals

Jul 4

Posted by Matt in Film, History | No Comments

In honor of this year’s 4th of July or Independence Day, I wanted to point to a very significant part of that victory and history during the Revolutionary War. A document like the Declaration of Independence is nice and all, but it takes brute force and actually winning in order to make that Independence a reality. For that, I choose to celebrate the leaders and warriors, who got us to that point that made independence a reality.

I want to emphasize how important ‘organized violence’ was to the success of the Continental Army. Thanks to General Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben and his focus on organizing and training the Continental Army, we could field an army that could compete with the British on the field of battle. He was able to give Washington an effective and organized army to use.  Such an army gives leaders the kind of confidence they need to implement more effective strategies as well.

That we also used a Prussian officer/ mercenary that was contracted by the Continental Army to train and organize their ragtag military is significant as well. An equal comparison would be Sir John Hawkwood and his significance to the defense of the Venetians in 14th century Italy. Or how American Mickey Marcus helped to stand up the Israeli Defense Force in their early days.  Steuben had brought with him a method forged in the battles of Europe, and literally ‘wrote the book’ on war fighting for the Continental Army.

We also had a massive naval effort that included the Continental Navy and Privateers, all hammering away on British logistics. All of these public/private actions, along with a dedicated leadership, helped to bring about victory.

The quality of the film below is a little rough, but still is a great reminder of how significant General Steuben was to the war effort. Below I have posted a clip of the film, and here is an entry from wikipedia about Friederich Wilhelm von Steuben’s training program. Pretty cool. -Matt

Training program

Steuben’s training technique was to create a “model company”, a group of 120 chosen men who in turn successively trained other personnel at Regimental and Brigade levels. Steuben’s eccentric personality greatly enhanced his mystique. He trained the soldiers, who at this point were greatly lacking in proper clothing themselves, in full military dress uniform, swearing and yelling at them up and down in German and French. When that was no longer successful, he recruited Captain Benjamin Walker, his French-speaking aide, to curse at them for him in English. Steuben introduced a system of progressive training, beginning with the school of the soldier, with and without arms, and going through the school of the regiment. This corrected the previous policy of simply assigning personnel to regiments. Each company commander was made responsible for the training of new men, but actual instruction was done by selected sergeants, the best obtainable.

Another program developed by Steuben was camp sanitation. He established standards of sanitation and camp layouts that would still be standard a century and a half later. There had previously been no set arrangement of tents and huts. Men relieved themselves where they wished and when an animal died, it was stripped of its meat and the rest was left to rot where it lay. Steuben laid out a plan to have rows for command, officers and enlisted men. Kitchens and latrines were on opposite sides of the camp, with latrines on the downhill side. There was the familiar arrangement of company and regimental streets.

Perhaps Steuben’s biggest contribution to the American Revolution was training in the use of the bayonet. Since the Battle of Bunker Hill, Americans had been mainly dependent upon using their ammunition to win battles. Throughout the early course of the war, Americans used the bayonet mostly as a cooking skewer or tool rather than as a fighting instrument. Steuben’s introduction of effective bayonet charges became crucial. In the Battle of Stony Point, American soldiers attacked with unloaded muskets and won the battle solely on Steuben’s bayonet training.

The first results of Steuben’s training were in evidence at the Battle of Barren Hill, 20 May 1778 and then again at the Battle of Monmouth in June 1778. Steuben, by then serving in Washington’s Headquarters, was the first to determine the enemy was heading for Monmouth. Washington recommended appointment of Steuben as Inspector General on April 30; Congress approved it on May 5. During the winter of 1778-1779, Steuben prepared Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States, commonly known as the “Blue Book.” Its basis was the training plan he had devised at Valley Forge.

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

History: A Closer Look At The Life Of Sir John Hawkwood

Jun 28

Posted by Matt in History, Quotes | 1 Comment

“God take away your alms. For as you live by charity, so do I by war, and to me it is as genuine a vocation as yours.”
- Sir John Hawkwood,
upon being greeted by two friars with the words, “God give you peace.”

So with this post, I wanted to highlight a quote from The Prince below that is of significance. Machiavelli used John Hawkwood as an example of ‘one who did not conquer’ or desired to conquer Florence. To me, this pointed out a key element to Hawkwood’s success. That he identified a niche in the market of force back then that made his services and company stand out.

Hawkwood was an extremely successful captain back then, and his services were highly sought after. But what is most interesting to me is this guy was a foreigner in Italy at the time. And yet he was so successful and so respected that he had the name of Giovanni Acuto given to him, awarded land, made commander of forces, citizenship offered, a pension– and get this, he was buried with state honors in the Duomo! Not bad for a foreigner and the son of an Essex tanner?

His last days as a commander of forces in Florence, are what the people remembered, just because he was so crucial to the defense of that city against Milanese expansion. But the war that impressed me, that was supposedly one of the most famous wars of that time period, was the Battle of Castagnaro. Here is a snippet from wikipedia:

Battle of Castagnaro
The Battle of Castagnaro was fought on March 11, 1387 at Castagnaro (today’s Veneto, northern Italy) between Verona and Padua. It is one of the most famous battles of the Italian condottieri age.
The army of Verona was led by Giovanni Ordelaffi and Ostasio II da Polenta, while the victorious Paduans were commanded by John Hawkwood (Giovanni Acuto) and Francesco Novello da Carrara, the son of Francesco I, lord of Padua.
Castagnaro is hailed as Sir John Hawkwood’s greatest victory. Following a Fabian-like strategy, Hawkwood goaded the Veronese into attacking him on a field of his own choosing, by laying waste to the Veronese lands nearby.
Drawing his forces up on the far side of a canal, and anchoring his right flank on a patch of woods, Hawkwood waited until the Veronese had committed to attacking across a ford of fascines piled up in the canal. Once so occupied, Hawkwood sprang his trap.
Hawkwood had left a copy of his standard behind his forces, then had led his cavalry into the woods to his right. At a given signal – supposedly, a flaming arrow – the copy of his standard dropped, and Hawkwood’s cavalry burst from the woods on the Veronese left, with his real standard in front. At the point of impact, Hawkwood is said to have cast his commander’s baton into the Veronese ranks and ordered his men to retrieve it for him.
Per Trease, it is said that Hawkwoods battle cry that day was a grim play on the Paduan war-cry of Carro! – in Hawkwood’s rendition, it became Carne! (“Flesh!”).

It is also important to point out Hawkwood’s secrets to success.  He certainly was acute or a student of warfare, and he identified the niche he needed to not only be marketable, but dominate. He also had a sense of humor, as stated with that last sentence in the quote.  Here is another quote from wikipedia:

However part of the White Company’s reputation was built upon the fact that Sir John’s men were far less likely to desert dangerous situations than other mercenaries and Hawkwood soon grew much richer than many other condottiere.

This quote tells me a lot. It says that he focused on taking care of his people.  The only way you can keep guys from deserting like this, is that they must have trusted Hawkwood and that he paid well. He had the top company to work for back then, and when you have a good company, you gain loyalty and develop unit cohesion. Success breeds success, as they say. I would compare it to a company like Apple or Google, and how these companies attract the best of the best, and keep them around because they pay well and the leadership/culture is awesome. Not to mention that these folks also believe in the product or service being sold.

Finally, I wanted to end this with the quote up top that also sheds some light into the mindset of Hawkwood. I do not classify this as an indication of Hawkwood’s religious beliefs or intentions, but more an indication as to his life’s focus. That he was a student of warfare, and a student of the market of force he worked in.  That he understood the Italian way of the condottiere, and mastered it.-Matt


Duomo Condottieri Oct03 D09History: A Closer Look At The Life Of Sir John Hawkwood

Sir John Hawkwood is on the right side.

The Prince
by Nicolo Machiavelli
CHAPTER XII
How Many Kinds Of Soldiery There Are, And Concerning Mercenaries
…And if the Venetians and Florentines formerly extended their dominions by these arms, and yet their captains did not make themselves princes, but have defended them, I reply that the Florentines in this case have been favoured by chance, for of the able captains, of whom they might have stood in fear, some have not conquered, some have been opposed, and others have turned their ambitions elsewhere. One who did not conquer was Giovanni Acuto, and since he did not conquer his fidelity cannot be proved; but every one will acknowledge that, had he conquered, the Florentines would have stood at his discretion.

—————————————————————-

The Condottiere

“A condottiere (plural condottieri) was the holder of a military condotta (plural condotte), or contract, for the raising and leadership of troops.  While condotte were being issued by Italian cities and states as early as the second half of the twelve hundreds as a means of recruiting a part of their armies, it was only in the later years of the thirteen hundreds that such contracts became the main method of raising armies in Italy.  The companies, often made up largely of foreigners (many of whom had been left “unemployed” by the temporary cessation of the Hundred Years War around the time of the Black Death in 1348), which dominated Italian warfare for much of the thirteen hundreds, were normally employed under contract, but they were surprisingly democratic in their organization, and the contracts with employing states were signed by representative groups of leaders.  By about 1370 individual military commanders had largely gained control of the companies and had become the sole contractors for their services.  From this moment onwards the vast majority of condottieri were Italians and they dominated the military scene in Italy throughout the fourteen hundreds.
The nuclei of the companies which condottieri contracted to provide were normally kept permanently in being and augmented for specific contracts and campaigns by recruitment of additional rank and file. The condottiere, therefore, was invariably a man of substance possessing estates and permanent income which enabled him to maintain his principal followers between contracts and recruit rapidly from amongst his own tenants and dependants. These socio-economic conditions were of more importance than military reputation in dictating the size of the contract which a condottiere could obtain, and hence his prestige and reputation. Many of the leading condottieri were either independent princes like the Gonzaga lords of Mantua or the Este lords of Ferrara, or were members of extensive landowning families like the Orsini or Dal Verme.
The main strength of the condottiere company lay in its ‘lances’, a term which describes not only the main weapon of heavily armed cavalrymen but also the group of attendants who supported them.  However, during the fourteen hundreds, condottieri began to take an increasing interest in infantry as an essential support to their cavalry, and a number of leading captains also possessed some artillery.  While it would be wrong to see a willingness to experiment and innovate as an outstanding characteristic of the condottieri, there were among them some major military personalities.  Men like Francesco Sforza, Bartolomeo Colleoni and Federico da Montefeltro had European reputations in the mid-fourteen hundreds, and in the Wars of Italy many of the most successful leaders of the French and Spanish armies in Italy were Italian condottieri.
Undoubtedly the contract system of service tended to breed a sort of military individualism which weakened the cohesion of a large army, but in fact by the fourteen hundreds the system did not mean that condottieri changed their employment with every contract.  The Italian states were among the first in Europe to develop permanent armies, and most Italian condottieri settled into a pattern of routine renewals of increasingly long-term contracts with one or other of the states.  There remained the exceptional figures whose reputations, and whose control of what amounted to large private armies, prompted political ambitions and made them targets of increasingly tempting offers from potential employers.  But at this level the condotta took on some of the characteristics of a diplomatic alliance, and a switch of allegiance has to be seen in terms of international politics rather than individual infidelity.  In formal terms the condotta system and the role of the condottiere as a leader of cavalry survived throughout the fifteen hundreds.  But the declining importance of cavalry in war and the growing political domination of France and Spain in Italy meant an end to their political role and a decline in social prestige.”
Source:  The Thames and Hudson Dictionary of the Italian Renaissance

Tags: , , ,

History: The Jessie Scouts–The Contractor/Military Covert Warriors Of The Civil War

Jun 23

Posted by Matt in History | No Comments

“The Jessie Scout was a Federal soldier, dressed and armed a la Rebel.  He was named after Mrs. Jessie Fremont, wife of the General of that name, who first suggested that mode of obtaining information.?“When a Rebel was captured, his furlough or pass was taken from him, and also his outer garments.  A soldier was then found, who resembled him in size, age, and general appearance.  The Rebel’s uniform, from hat to boots, was put upon this man, who assumed the name of the prisoner, and the Federal left the camp, a soldier of the Confederacy…. These Jessie Scouts generally preceded the advance of the army, and they frequently picked up a great many prisoners, without creating any alarm.  I made the acquaintance of many of them, and found them bold, dashing, reckless, good fellows.  I met Major Young, Sheridan’s chief of scouts, and found him eminently fitted for outpost duty and border warfare.”-John Opie, 1899

Every once in awhile, I will come across some history that I have to share. If you are a reader of the blog, you will know that I am particularly interested in history that involves contractors and their contribution to that particular war. During the Civil War, there were privateers and camp followers, but there was also a very unique type of contractor that was used for incredibly dangerous missions. These were the civilian scouts. Specifically, the Jesse Scouts are the group I would like to focus on.

I like to refer to them more as pseudo operators, as opposed to just spies.  These guys would purposely wear the uniform of the enemy as a means to operate behind enemy lines. Their missions varied from spying to conducting raids, and the risks associated with getting caught could result in torture and death. They were very much hated, and definitely earned their higher pay. They also provided crucial intelligence for the war, and they were pretty damned good at ‘capturing flags’. lol

Now what is interesting about the Jesse Scouts, or any of the other scouts/spies of either side, is the fact that these were blended work forces. Meaning they had enlisted scouts mixed with civilian scouts. I imagine the civilian scouts were used because they brought a special skill set to the table–like the ability to guide folks through enemy country, smuggle things, or whatever capability a force at that time might need.

I should also bring up how I stumbled upon the Jessie Scouts. During my research into the 8 civilian recipients of the Medal of Honor during the Civil War and Indian Wars, I had perked up when reading about a certain civilian scout named William Woodall. I was curious about the unit he served in as a ‘Chief Civilian Scout’. Here is the citation:

William H. Woodall
Rank and Organization: Civilian scout, U.S. Army, Major General Philip H. Sheridan’s Headquarters, during Civil War.
Place and Date: Virginia, Appomattox campaign, Sailors Creek, March 29 to April 9, 1865. Entered service at Winchester, Virginia. Birthdate: unknown.
Date Of Issue: 25 April 1865.
Place: Washington, D.C., 3 May 1865.
Note: Was Chief Civilian Scout for Major General Philip H. Sheridan’s Cavalry Corps, which consisted of VI and XIX Corps.
Citation:
Captured flag of Brigadier General Rufus Barringer’s headquarters brigade.
The following flag is listed as headquarter flag of General Rufus Barringer. After the promotion of James B.Gordon to Brigadier General, Barringer was put into command of the 1st NC Cavalry. When Gordon was killed, Barringer received his promotion to General and was now in charge of the North Carolina Brigade in the Cavalry Corps of the Army of Northern Virginia. So this is probably the last flag the 1st NC Cavalry followed into battle. At least US archives list this flag together with the regiment.
On morning of April, 6, 1865, a small party of federal soldiers, dressed as Confederates, captured General Barringer and his guard. Together with the General this flag was captured also.
Remarkable is that this flag, although used by cavalry, has with 47×47 inches the size of an Infantry Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia. The blue cross bars are 5inches wide, the white stripes are 0.5 inches. The flag has 13 white applied five pointed stars on both sides, at 3.25 – 3.5 inches in diameter. The white frame arround the flag has a width of 2 inches. The flag is made of so called Bunting, with only the white parts being cotton. The flag is now in the North Carolina Museum of History in Raleigh, NC.

After putting together the pieces, I was directed toward the unit he was in. Not only did he serve as a civilian scout in this famous unit, he was also called upon for a covert operation in Mexico in which he was killed. Here is the story I found while at David Phillip’s excellent website on the subject:

Why America took interest in what was happening in Mexico
Following Lee’s surrender at Appomattox, Grant knew that a large Confederate army remained in Texas. Of equal concern, a large European army composed of French, Austrian, and Belgian troops were fighting among side Imperial Mexican soldiers supporting Maximilian, an Austrian prince. Grant’s fear involved the creation of an allied army of former Confederates, Europeans, and Imperial Mexicans that would continue the Civil War out of Mexican territory. He quickly ordered Sheridan and a large number of veteran Union troops to move west.
While the records are vague and confusing, there are indications that two separate – and compartmented – programs were developed. The first was encouraged, if not ordered, by Grant that resulted in a former general, Lew Wallace, managing an essentially civilian-mercenary effort. The second program involved US Army officers and enlisted soldiers serving as advisors, trainers, and in some cases they may have participated in combat operations.
The Jessie Scouts involved arrived in the theater of operations in mid-1865 and their operations apparently concluded in early 1867 with Sergeant Jim White delivering a diplomatic note deep inside Mexico to Benito Juarez’s provisional government in an effort to prevent the execution of Maximilian.
Scout casualties were heavy. Available Union army records indicate that Lieutenant-Colonel Henry H. Young and four enlisted scouts were involved under Sheridan, but this was probably the advance party. Scout Arch Rowand’s letters from New Orleans indicated that several scouts requested discharges with their parent regiments, but available evidence exists to show that 12-15 enlisted scouts and Young entered Mexico by boat from New Orleans in late October 1866 and most were killed under relatively mysterious circumstances. Young was definitely a casualty and former Confederate, William H. Woodall, also a Medal of Honor recipient, was probably killed. The identities of the remaining scouts who lost their lives are unknown.
The scouts delivered intelligence to Sheridan’s headquarters that enabled him to understand what was occurring throughout northern Mexico. They also developed individual operations against Imperial Mexican commanders and may have recruited two former Confederate officers to kill the Mexican commander at Matamoras. Currently, it is difficult to assess overall the impact the scouts had in supporting Sheridan’s operations into Mexico as much of their reporting has not been discovered.

Pretty interesting history, and William was a stud. Definitely check out the links below that I have provided, to include a PDF of William G. Beymer’s book about the Jessie Scouts called On Hazardous Service. My take away from all of this is that during that war, every resource and able bodied man and woman was essential to both sides. At the time, using private industry to help accomplish the mission was certainly a part of the strategy.  And recognizing men and women civilian contractors for their heroism was also something we did back then.

The Jessie Scouts were also the special forces of the Union.  You could easily compare them to MACV SOG who would drop special forces behind enemy lines during the Vietnam War, or to the Selous Scouts who would operate behind enemy lines in their war in Africa. The common tactic of all of these units was to blend into their environments by wearing the uniform of the enemy, and use every ounce of their wits and capabilities to survive and accomplish the mission. They also depended upon captured and turned enemy combatants to further give them an edge behind enemy lines. Anything it took to accomplish the mission, these forces did it.

The most profound point the reader can take away from this history is that contractors were used for ‘offensive operations’ in past US wars.  That they were right there with the military, doing the extremely dangerous work of war fighting. These contractors also paid a horrible price when they got caught by the enemy. The contractors back then were even used to protect Lincoln (Pinkertons), which also makes a pretty amazing statement as to the public/private relationship back then. Pretty cool history, and check it out. -Matt

origflgHistory: The Jessie Scouts The Contractor/Military Covert Warriors Of The Civil War

The flag William Woodall captured.

The pay of a civilian scout.
Shortly after the beginning of the Civil War, he became a civilian “Scout” for the Union Army. Civilian “Scouts” were very well paid, sometimes as much as $1-$3 per day or $30-$90 or more a month depending on the hazardous nature of their mission in enemy territory. (Note: The base pay of a private soldier in the Union Army was $13 a month).
Link to source here.
————————————————————–
Jessie Scouts – Special Operations Forces (SOF) of the American Civil War.
The Jessie Scouts, dressed in Gray, raised havoc behind Confederate lines.
The Jessie Scout did in the American Civil War what US Military Special Operations Forces do today
By David L. Phillips
————————————————————–
Jessie Scouts
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jessie Scouts were irregular soldiers during the American Civil War on the side of the Union who operated in territory of the Confederate States of America in the southern United States in insurgency missions. The unit was created by John C. Frémont and named in honour of his wife, rather than of a Colonel Jessie, who was himself a myth. The initial Jessie Scout unit was formed in St. Louis, Missouri early in the war as the plan to develop independent scouts was implemented. The first man to command the scouts was Charles C. Carpenter. The Jessie Scouts wore Confederate uniforms with a white handkerchief over their shoulders to signify their allegiance to friendly troops, and number around 58 for much of the war, commanded by Major Henry Young.
————————————————————-
From the book, On Hazardous Service
By William G. Beymer
Archibald Rowand Jr.
To Major H. H. Young, of my staff, chief of scouts, and the thirty or forty men of his command, who took their lives in their hands, cheerfully going wherever ordered, to obtain that great essential of success, information, I tender my gratitude. Ten of these men were lost.—From Gen. Philip H. Sheridan’s report of the expedition from Winchester to Petersburg, Virginia. February 27— March 28, 1865. Official Records, Vol. 46: I: 481. “THIRTY or forty men, of whom ten were lost.” It was not chance which worded that phrase. Sheridan has chosen his words well. Of the ten, no one of them died as do men in battles; two were found by their comrades hanging by their own halter-straps; several more died like trapped animals, fighting desperately, at bay. And the others—never returned. Until the Great Book opens it will never be known where, or how, they died; they never returned, that is all. Of the ten, not a man was wearing the uniform of the country for which he died.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Bounties: The Truth About Geronimo…And Usama Bin Laden, By Benjamin Runkle

May 8

Posted by Matt in Books, Bounties, History, Letter Of Marque | No Comments

The original Geronimo campaign and the hunt for bin Laden share plenty of similarities. On May 3, 1886, more than a century before a $25 million reward was offered for information on bin Laden’s whereabouts, and almost 125 years to the day before the al-Qaeda leader’s death, the U.S. House of Representatives introduced a joint resolution “Authorizing the President to offer a reward of twenty-five thousand dollars for the killing or capture of Geronimo.”

Excellent little article about the comparisons between these two manhunts. But what is really interesting to me is that back then the President was authorized by congress to issue a bounty for the killing or capturing of Geronimo.  So does that mean that a bounty was paid to the members of Lt. Charles Gatewood’s small five man party that sealed the deal on Geronimo?  Mind you that this party was composed of ‘two Apache scouts, an interpreter and a mule-packer’.  Not bad for such a small team, and it reminds me of the effectiveness of the small teams required for the capture of UBL.(on a side note here, no one has been awarded the millions in bounties that UBL had on his head)

Which brings me to my next point.  It is not the size of force or intelligence apparatus, but the quality and effectiveness of such a thing.  In both cases, it was not a large army that was able to find these guys and put them away.  It was small teams. And in both cases, these teams were tipped off to the location of their guy by a local or a detainee.  So what does that say?

Could this indicate that small companies or units are more capable of finding people, than large cumbersome armies? I think so.  I also think that bounties can work, if they actually support a vibrant ‘offense industry’.  The bounty for Bin Laden did not support the kill or capture by companies or individuals, and only depended upon an individual to come forward with a tip.  That’s if they would come forward.  If a company was tasked with finding and capturing/killing UBL or any of the other leaders, then they too could use a bounty system to get their information locally. Or use whatever means, based on the guidelines and laws of a issued license.

The other point I wanted to make is how long and how costly this manhunt has been.  According to this author in the Atlantic, the total time for the hunt of UBL was 15 years at a cost of 3 trillion dollars. I cannot even imagine what 3 trillion dollars looks like, but I do know what cost effective is.  This hunt for UBL was not cost effective, and I definitely think that there is another way to go about this task. Not to mention the lives lost in this long war.

Finally, there is the question of violating a country’s sovereignty in order to go after an individual(s). We definitely crossed Pakistan’s border with military force, landed on their territory, killed UBL and several others, and took materials from this compound.  All of these acts were done without the permission of Pakistan, and I am sure it will have it’s repercussions.(logistics for Afghanistan come to mind) But my point is that the US authorized this act at the highest levels.  So the US has now set a precedence and has deemed this a necessary act for national security.  I agree and applaud the President for making this move, but the US must also consider that Al Qaeda is still operating and still out there.

It will take many raids, and many small teams to reach all of these groups and violate the sovereignty of many countries out there in order to accomplish what we just did in Pakistan.  If such acts are this important to the national security of the US, then I do not see how issuing Letters of Marque and Reprisal to private industry to help in this endeavor would be considered that much more of a stretch? Or we can continue to spend trillions of dollars on large scale military deployments in places like Iraq or Afghanistan, violate those country’s sovereignty with large scale occupation, all to find these people? Something to think about when talking about waging war efficiently and using the right tool/strategy for the job.

On a side note, Benjamin Runkle has put together an excellent blog to coincide with the topic of his book called Wanted Dead or Alive: Manhunts from Geronimo to bid Laden. I have put his blog in my RSS reader, and this is an area of study that everyone should take a look at if they are interested in the method behind ‘finding’ bad guys.-Matt

The truth about Geronimo .. and Osama bin Laden
By Benjamin Runkle
May 6, 2011
“Geronimo!” That was the call that went over the command net on May 1, indicating that Navy SEALs had found their man. And that code name for Osama bin Laden has angered some Native Americans, who have demanded a formal apology from the Obama administration.
Their complaints are understandable, but misguided. The code name doesn’t denigrate the Apache war captain, a hero to some students of Native American history, through comparison to the Saudi terrorist leader. The similarities are not in the men themselves but in the military campaigns that targeted them.
In May 1885, Geronimo led the breakout of 120 Chiricahua Apache from the San Carlos Reservation in what is now Arizona, creating mass hysteria in the American Southwest. The Chiricahua had legitimate grievances: Civilian “Indian agents” were corrupt and consistently cheated the Apache on their rations, while the land the tribe had been given was almost worthless for farming but still encroached upon by miners. Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Letter Of Marque: Rhode Island Governor Chafee Issues Ceremonial LoM To Privateer Re-enactors, Despite Article 1, Section 10 Of The US Constitution

Apr 24

Posted by Matt in History, Letter Of Marque, Rhode Island | No Comments

Mr. Dorman explained, “Historically this document would separate a legitimate privateer from an outright pirate.” Letters of Marque were issued frequently during colonial times and through the American Revolution as a way to help protect shipping and give naval support. The organization’s ceremonial commission is the first to be signed in Rhode Island since Governor William Jones issued letters of marque during the War of 1812.

Now this is cool. This historical re-enactor group is trying to draw attention to their state’s history with privateering, and they actually got the governor of the state to issue a ceremonial Letter of Marque (see below).

I guess you could also call this a ‘ceremonial violation’ of Article 1, Section 10 of the US Constitution? lol Hopefully no one has a fit about the whole thing… The best part though is the recognition of this concept and importance to US history, by a state’s governor! -Matt

lomLetter Of Marque: Rhode Island Governor Chafee Issues Ceremonial LoM To Privateer Re enactors, Despite Article 1, Section 10 Of The US Constitution
Ahoy! RI ‘pirates’ get governor’s commission
April 12, 2011
PROVIDENCE, R.I.—Shiver me timbers! A group of “pirates” has been granted a commission by the governor of Rhode Island.
The group of about 20 pirate re-enactors, called the Rhode Island Pirate Players, was granted a ceremonial so-called Letter of Marque (MARK’) by Chafee this week. The letter authorizes the group to “arm, furnish and equip themselves” to educate the public about the state’s pirate and privateer history. It also requests that captains who meet them at sea not give them any trouble.
The group’s founder and leader Casey C. Dorman says he asked Chafee’s office for the letter as a way to raise awareness. Rhode Island was once a haven for pirates, and Dorman says it’s one of the most interesting chapters in state history.
Story here.
—————————————————————-
The Rhode Island Pirate Players Receive Letter of Marque
PROVIDENCE , April 12 /–The Rhode Island Pirate Players today announced that they have received a Letter of Marque, also known as a Privateering Commission, from Governor Lincoln Chafee.
“We are very excited that Governor Chafee wants to help us in our mission to educate the public about the often overlooked history of pirate and privateer activity in the state,” Casey C. Dorman, Founder and CEO of the Rhode Island Pirate Players stated. The Rhode Island Pirate Players approached the governor in the hope that formal recognition would help bring awareness to their educational mission.
Mr. Dorman explained, “Historically this document would separate a legitimate privateer from an outright pirate.” Letters of Marque were issued frequently during colonial times and through the American Revolution as a way to help protect shipping and give naval support. The organization’s ceremonial commission is the first to be signed in Rhode Island since Governor William Jones issued letters of marque during the War of 1812.
About The Rhode Island Pirate Players
The Rhode Island Pirate Players are a living history organization dedicated to educating the public about Rhode Island ’s pirate and privateer history. They are available for educational presentations, living history events, as well as film and more. The RIPP also has a walking tour operating in Newport through the summer called Dead Men’s Tales. The Rhode Island Pirate Players are willing to travel, and have performed throughout New England, and as far south as the Carolinas .
Link to website here.
—————————————————————
Article 1 – The Legislative Branch

Section 10 – Powers Prohibited of States
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Letter Of Marque: Thomas Jefferson On Privateering, July 4, 1812

Apr 13

Posted by Matt in History, Letter Of Marque, Quotes | 1 Comment

Today is the birthday of Thomas Jefferson, and I thought it would be cool to post his original paper on the concept of privateering, and why it should be used during the War of 1812.  I plan to link to this page often in the future, when ever I talk about the history of the concept and how important it was to the US strategy back then.

The other thing I wanted to point out is the article written in 1882 about the paper that Thomas Jefferson wrote, and the statistics the author presented. I have not seen these statistics before, and they are pretty interesting.  Of course the author of the article was certainly impressed with the concept of privateering and it’s effects on an enemy. The author made this point in the article, that really stuck out for me. That the British were certainly concerned about American privateers:

One at least of the London journals, the Statesman, foresaw the danger from privateers in 1812. When war was threatened, it said: “America cannot certainly pretend to wage a maritime war with us.  She has no navy to do it with.  But America has nearly a hundred thousand as good seamen as any in the world, all of whom would be actively employed against our trade on every part of the ocean, in their fast-sailing ships of war, many of which will be able to cope with our small cruisers; and they will be found to be sweeping the West India seas, and even carrying desolation into the chops of the Channel.”
All this, and more, the two hundred and fifty privateers accomplished.  They cruised in every sea, and wrought such havoc with British commerce as had never been known before.  Coggeshall’s history of the service enumerates about fifteen hundred prizes taken by them in the two and a half years of war, and these were not all of the captures by privateers alone; while the government war-vessels, in their cruises, added considerably to the number.  The fortunes of the privateers were of the most varied kind.  Some of them made long cruises without falling in with a single British merchantman of which they could make a prize.  Others took enough to enrich every man of the crew.

Very cool stuff and there is way more in this old, but extremely informative article. Check it out. -Matt

t jefferson2 iconLetter Of Marque: Thomas Jefferson On Privateering, July 4, 1812
Thomas Jefferson On Privateering
July 4, 1812
“What is war?  It is simply a contest between nations of trying which can do the other the most harm.  Who carries on the war?  Armies are formed and navies manned by individuals.  How is a battle gained?  By the death of individuals.  What produces peace?  The distress of individuals.  What difference to the sufferer is it that his property is taken by a national or private armed vessel?  Did our merchants, who have lost nine hundred and seventeen vessels by British captures, feel any gratification that the most of them were taken by his Majesty’s men-of-war?  Were the spoils less rigidly exacted by a seventy-four-gun ship than by a privateer of four guns?  And were not all equally condemned? Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , ,

History: The 8 Civilian Recipients Of the Medal Of Honor And The Purge Of 1917

Apr 11

Posted by Matt in Cool Stuff, History, Industry Talk | 3 Comments

In the past I have talked about William ‘Buffalo Bill’ Cody and his Medal of Honor. It is significant, because he was awarded this medal for heroism, as a civilian contractor.  What is not talked about though, are the other 7 civilians that were the recipients of this medal, to include the only female recipient Dr. Mary Walker.

Mary’s medal is the reason why Buffalo Bill and the other civilians were able to retain their Medal’s of Honor after the Purge of 1917.  This purge was an effort to thin out the ranks of the MoH and make it a purely military honor. It was also designed to take away medals from individuals that did not receive the medal for heroism. Basically, they wanted to make the medal more exclusive.

But what is interesting here is that all of these civilian medal recipients mentioned below were purged from the list back in 1917, not because of a lack of heroism, but because they were not military.  But then along came Mary….. As soon as it was determined that Mary and company could not wear the medal any more, of course that caused a backlash. Mary would purposely wear the medal out of defiance of the ruling, all the way up until her death.

What happened after her death is that her family fought for the medal to be restored, and for sixty years this battle continued. In 1977, these efforts caught the attention of President Carter and he restored her medal posthumously. It is that event that that led to the other 7 civilians having their MoH restored. So that is a big thanks to Dr. Walker and President Carter. Although I am sure he did not intend for his actions to legitimize the heroic acts of contractors during times of war, and I think he was thinking more in terms of women’s equality. lol

The other interesting part of this history are the civilians who were working for the navy that received the MoH. They were boat pilots it sounds like, and this was during the Civil War. They were not privateers, but they were still working as civilians and were awarded the medal for heroism. Although there is not much on this history, so I really cannot add much there.

Finally, the guys I really like on this list, were the scouts.  These folks were crucial to the Army mission during the years of brutal warfare in the wild west. There were other famous scouts from that time period like Frederick Russell Burnham, but it is these four scouts below that were recognized by the government for their heroism in battle.

I often wonder if congress would ever consider including civilians once again for the MoH?  In this current war, there are numerous acts of gallantry and sacrifice that were performed by contractors, and yet their act goes unnoticed? Contractor use in this war far surpasses the use of contractors in US history, with over 2500 plus killed and thousands wounded. Yet there has been very little recognition of the heroes in this group (250,000 plus contractors serve in the war zones). Of course there have been a handful of Defense of Freedom Medals given out, but that is it.

Of course some would say that contractors get their reward in the from of monetary payment. But so does the US military, and so does all of it’s partners. What I am talking about are recognizing an individual’s sacrifice and efforts during times of war, despite if they are military or civilian. I celebrate our military heroes, and I would like to celebrate our civilian heroes as well. But no one knows about those civilian heroes, because they have not been recognized for their efforts.-Matt

220px Mary Edwards WalkerHistory: The 8 Civilian Recipients Of the Medal Of Honor And The Purge Of 1917

Restoration of 6 Awards Previously Purged From TheRoll Of Honor
From Home of Heroes website.
There was no intent on the part of the 5 retired generals that reviewed all prior awards of the Medal of Honor, to single out any individual or group of individuals from whom to revoke our Nation’s highest award.  Certainly the case of the 27th Maine precipitated the review, and as a former commander of the Medal of Honor Legion, General Miles presumably agreed with the Legion’s opposition to the inappropriate awards to that unit.  Even so, however, the five generals approached their daunting task with reverence for the award as well as a sensibility to those who had already received the award. Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Bounties: The US Congress Paid $100 Per British Prisoner Captured During War Of 1812

Apr 7

Posted by Matt in Bounties, History, Letter Of Marque | No Comments

1814, March 19. The $25 for each prisoner captured by private armed vessels of the United States to be $100 hereafter. $200,000 appropriated.
(What cost $100 in 1814 would cost $1025.20 in 2010.)

Now this is interesting, and I found this nugget of information in the Spirit of 76, Volume 6 edition. Did you know that the US Congress authorized a bounty system for British Prisoners during the War of 1812?  Apparently back then, the British had captured a ton of American prisoners during that war. The reason for that was because there were hundreds of American privateers involved in the war that went after the enemy, and many of these privateers were captured during operations.  These privateers were not as experienced and as professionalized as the Royal Navy back then, and suffered the consequence of being ill prepared.

Another problem that popped up in the war was that many of these American privateers had no use for prisoners and often let them go.  So in 1814, that is when Congress decided to appropriate money for bounties for privateers to hang on to prisoners and turn them in to US detention. My guess is that Congress wanted to do prisoner exchanges to get all of these Americans freed from British prisons. So naturally, Congress created an industry out of capturing prisoners to solve the problem. That is on top of the prize capture system implemented by Congress, which was an industry created to destroy enemy logistics and infuse money into the US Treasury.

With that said, privateers did some damage during that war and were a very important part of the overall strategy.  Despite the risks and poor conditions, many guys were driven to join the privateer schooners in the hopes of capturing a prize (or enemy vessel).  I compare it to today’s crab fishermen in Alaska, and a good visual representation of that ‘risk versus reward’ mindset is to watch a show like the ‘Deadliest Catch‘. It is the allure of the hunt and of striking it rich, that drove these men to do what they did back then.  Plus it was the patriotic thing to do at the time, and privateering was very popular.

Another little nugget I found out recently, was the concept of Prize Tickets.  What these were, were contracts between the sailors and the privateer company in which that sailor would get his share of the prize, after all the proceedings of the prize court and after everyone was paid.  The interesting thing here is that guys didn’t know how much they would get for their efforts, and it required patience to wait for the final outcome. What happened with many privateers is that instead of waiting, they would instead sell their prize tickets to brokers who would pay a small fee.  These brokers would stand to make a killing, just because they were rich enough and patient enough to wait for the final outcome of the prize.

The other thing that I thought was interesting is that privateer and letter of marque were two types of vessels/enterprises during that war. Not only was a Letter of Marque a commission/license issued to privateers, but the name Letter of Marque was given to a certain type of enterprise/vessel in this war. A Letter of Marque was a cargo vessel whom was issued a LoM for the possible chance that they might come across an enemy vessel and make a capture. But their primary task was shipping their cargo.  A privateer was a vessel that was primarily a fighting vessel, and prize captures/commerce raiding was is it’s purpose.

For more information on the War of 1812, I highly suggest a new book that came out called the Perilous Fight: America’s Intrepid War With Great Britain On the High Sea’s 1812-1815, By Stephen Budiansky. And I really liked this quote from the product description of this book: “Never again would the great powers challenge the young republic’s sovereignty in the aftermath of the stunning performance of America’s navy and privateersmen in sea battles that ranged across half the globe. Their brilliant hit-and-run tactics against a far mightier foe would pioneer concepts of “asymmetric warfare” that would characterize the insurgency warfare of later centuries.” Pretty cool. -Matt

ACTION FOR THE BENEFIT OF REVOLUTIONARY SOLDIERS.
COMPILED FROM THE MINUTES OF CONGRESS
The Spirit of ’76, Volume 6
1812, Jan. 18. Act declaring war with Great Britain.
1812, June 26. Act concerning letters of marque, prizes and and prize goods. The 17th section says: “That two percentum on the net amount (after deducting all charges and expenditures) of the prize money arising from capture of vessels and cargoes, recaptured by the private armed vessels of the United States, shall be secured and paid over to the collector or other chief officer of the customs at the port or place in the United States at which such captured or recaptured vessels may arrive; or consul or other public agent of the United States residing at the port or place not within the United States, at which such captured or recaptured vessels may arrive. And the moneys arising therefrom shall be held, and is hereby pledged by the government of the United States as a fund for the support and maintenance of the widows and children of such persons as may be slain; and for the support and maintenance of such persons as may be wounded and disabled, on board of thte private armed vessels of the United States, in any engagement with the enemy, to be assigned and distributed in such manner as shall hereafter by law be provided.” ) Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , ,