Feral Jundi

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Books: Samuel Smedley, Connecticut Privateer, By Jackson Kuhl

Filed under: Books,History,Letter Of Marque — Tags: , , , , — Matt @ 12:15 PM

Thanks to Kyle over at the Feral Jundi Facebook Page for sending me this link. This interview brings up some very interesting aspects of privateering back then, and I was very interested in the offense industry elements.

In the interview below, the author really delves into the prize courts, the shares that crews and owners would get from prizes, and the competition between Connecticut, Continental Congress, and the other states and how that would impact privateers like Samuel Smedley.  Meaning all of these states and the Continental Congress were creating laws and regulations that would impact their specific offense industries in the war. That the group that offered the best business environment for privateers, would get the most and best privateers in the country. Pretty cool.

I have not read this book, but I did find a copy of it in Amazon and put it in the Jundi Gear store if anyone is interested. Check it out. –Matt

 

Samuel Smedley, Connecticut Privateer
By Jackson Kuhl
Book Description
Publication Date: June 7, 2011
From the shores of Long Island Sound to the high seas of the West Indies, against British warships and letters of marque, Samuel Smedley left a stream of smoke and blood as he took prisoners and prizes alike. At twenty-three years old, Smedley, a Fairfield, Connecticut native, enlisted as a lieutenant of marines on the Connecticut ship Defence during the American Revolution. Less than a year later he was her captain, scouring the seas for British prey. Author Jackson Kuhl delves into the life and times of this Patriot, sea captain and privateer.

 

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Letter Of Marque: The Original Understanding Of The Capture Clause, By Aaron Simowitz

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water. -the enumerated powers of Congress, Art. 1, Sec. 8, Para. 11 of the US Constitution.

This is cool. When discussing the Letter of Marque and Reprisal portion of the war clause, the capture clause is always forgotten. But for privateering, the capture clause was very important. It gave congress the right to establish the rules and laws for the capture of enemy vessels or prizes, and for the capture of combatants. That last part about the capturing of combatants is what has been falsely interpreted over the years and forgotten, and Mr. Simowitz has done a great job of disputing this false interpretation.

The reason why this is important to discuss is that like in the past, prisoners are very much a part of conflicts on land or water today, and if private industry is to be involved in such ventures, there must be rules and laws in place that dictate what is to be done with prisoners. Especially on water, just because armed guards on boats are big thing right now. The big one here is the legal capture, detention and treatment of prisoners, and of course, the costs of capture, detention and transport of prisoners. Private industry must be compensated and incentivized, or else taking prisoners will not be a priority. (hence why Congress dedicated funding for captures/bounties during wars like the one in 1812)

I have talked about offense industry in prior posts, and the key to this concept is to create a mechanism in which private industry profits from the destruction of the enemy. Well profiting from the ‘capture’ of enemies is included in that mechanism because the act takes combatants off the battlefield. You can see shades of that in today’s modern bailbondsmen industry as well.

And if there are specific rules and laws on how captures are to be done, then those captures could be recognized by a prize court or current court of law as legal. If a bounty or fees associated with the capture/detention is to be awarded, a court of law must be satisfied that it was legally conducted. As of right now, there are no laws or rules for private industry to use for the capture/detention of pirates. Yet states could easily provide such a thing via their right to grant a license or Letter of Marque to private industry.

Now lets discuss today’s modern piracy problem. We are well on our way to creating a vibrant ‘defense industry’; one in which there is no mechanism in place to reduce the numbers of pirates other than to kill them during times of self defense. This is an odd arrangement that we have, where we allow armed guards to take the life of a pirate during combat, but we do not give them the legal authority necessary to capture that pirate? Or what about the rules for when a pirate surrenders or we have wounded that pirate or destroyed their vessel during a battle, thus leaving them stranded in the ocean?

Sure, a company could contact a naval force nearby and give them a GPS coordinate of the position of that pirate vessel, but what about those companies who could care less about such things?  Or maybe those companies are getting strict guidelines that they are not to stop or deal with any kind of pirate detention. And for those companies that do bring pirates on board that surrendered or were stranded, then who will pay those companies for the effort? That is what boggles the mind right now, and there are no laws or rules for capture or detention. Oh but we can shoot at the pirates all day long…..

So this is what I am trying to do here. We need a serious discussion about the ‘rules concerning captures on land or water’, and how that could apply to private industry and their current task out there on the high seas.  The US Constitution is a great starting point for that discussion, as well as the history of privateers and the rules for capture they followed in the past. The War of 1812 is just one historical example, and our forefathers had a greater understanding and appreciation for the issue than our modern legal councils. And if you think about, our forefathers were more humane, just because they had a legal means of private industry removing combatants off the battlefield, other than just killing them.

Either way, check it out, pass it around, chew on it for a bit, and understand that we can learn a lot from the past about how to use private industry during times of war. –Matt

The Original Understandings of the Capture Clause
Aaron D. Simowitz
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
March 12, 2008
Abstract:
The Congress shall have power to . . . To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water. US Const Art I, § 8, cl 11.
Although the Capture Clause may seem obscure today, the power it embodies was crucially important to the early republic. General Washington declared, even during the Revolutionary War, that a centralized and standardized system for the handling of prizes was vital to the war effort. The first court established by the fledging federal government was the federal appellate court of prize. This court heard over a hundred and eighteen cases before it was dissolved by Article III of the Constitution.

The federal government, first under the Articles of Confederation and then under the Constitution, was responsible for prescribing the rules under which enemy ships and prisoners could be taken. The value of captured ships was the chief means by which the early navy and privateer system was financed. However, the early law of capture also concerned captured persons, who could sometimes be redeemed or ransomed for head money. Later scholars have correctly concluded the capture of property was more important to the Framers of the Constitution. However, they have also assumed that the Capture Clause did not cover people. This is not the case.

This paper will show that the received wisdom that the Capture Clause covers only property is based on a faulty and possibly disingenuous statement dating from 1833. This paper will also show that the received wisdom is inconsistent with the era’s admiralty law and with Congressional practice. The Framers made prescribing rules concerning captures on land and water an enumerated power of Congress. This power covered enemy persons as well as property.
Link to paper here.
—————————————————————-
Shortly before the War of 1812 broke out, Congress passed the latest version of “An Act Concerning Letters of Marque, Prizes, and Prize Goods.” Section seven of the Act, enacted pursuant to Congress quasi-war powers, provided, “[t]hat all prisoners found on board any captured vessel, or on board any recaptured vessel, shall be reported to the collector of the port in the United States in which they shall first arrive, and shall be delivered into the custody of the marshal of the district . . . who shall take charge of their safe keeping.”  Section nine of the same act provided a bounty of twenty dollars for each enemy killed in the event that the enemy vessel was destroyed. -2 Stat 759, 763 (June 26, 1812)

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby authorized to make such regulations and arrangements for the safe keeping, support and exchange of prisoners of war as he may deem expedient, until the same shall be otherwise provided for by law; and to carry this act into effect, one hundred thousand dollars be, and the same are hereby appropriated, to be paid out of any monies in the treasury not otherwise appropriated.”-An Act for the Safe Keeping and Accommodation of Prisoners of War, War of 1812

Monday, July 25, 2011

History: The Privateers Of The Texas Revolution

This is some cool history that yet again, you just don’t hear about. I had no idea about this history, and after reading about it, I tried to collect as much as I could that talked about this little known subject. Just to set this up, here is an excerpt from wikipedia about what led up to this revolution or war of independence between Texas settlers and Mexico:

The Texas Revolution or Texas War of Independence was a military conflict between Mexico and settlers in the Texas portion of the Mexican state Coahuila y Tejas. The war lasted from October 2, 1835 to April 21, 1836. However, a war at sea between Mexico and Texas would continue into the 1840s. Animosity between the Mexican government and the American settlers in Texas, as well as many Texas residents of Mexican ancestry, began with the Siete Leyes of 1835, when Mexican President and General Antonio López de Santa Anna abolished the federal Constitution of 1824 and proclaimed the more centralizing 1835 constitution in its place.
The new laws were unpopular throughout Mexico, leading to violence in several states. War began in Texas on October 2, 1835, with the Battle of Gonzales. Early Texian Army successes at La Bahia and San Antonio were soon met with crushing defeat at the same locations a few months later. The war ended at the Battle of San Jacinto where General Sam Houston led the Texian Army to victory over a portion of the Mexican Army under Santa Anna, who was captured shortly after the battle. The conclusion of the war resulted in the creation of the Republic of Texas in 1836.

So I guess the thing that I wanted talk about with this particular piece of history, is the fact that privateering was the first act of the provisional government of Texas. They did not have a navy, so privateers was a quick and easy want to fire up a navy and put some money into the treasury by means of a prize court.  Unfortunately at that time, Mexican commerce in the Gulf of Mexico was not that great, and thus a privateer industry or offense industry did not have the necessary elements to flourish.

It is also important to note that if Texas was not part of the US at the time, then this would be an example of another ‘country’ using the LoM.  I could be wrong there, but I just do not know how to legally classify Texas at that time period?  But either way, this is an example of a fledgling and resource strapped government, firing up the Letter of Marque as just one tool in their fight.

On a side note, the provisional government also handed out land to any soldiers who would fight for Texas Independence.  This is an interesting concept, and I wonder if Somalia could do something similar?  Hell, the TFG could fire up the LoM as well, and grant these licenses to foreign or local privateers to go after pirates on water and land.  Meaning, if a company could seize by force the wealth of the pirate investors or pirates themselves, then that company would split that prize with the TFG.  That puts money into the treasury of the TFG, it provides financial incentive to the privateer companies,  and it creates an offense industry that profits from piracy’s destruction. To really fire it up, they could offer pirates amnesty if they become privateers for the government. Call it the Woodes Rogers solution. lol.

Either way, check it out and let me know what you think.  I think that flag below would be a cool morale patch for today’s maritime security bunch too.  And I know that Texas is not ‘legally’ authorized to grant LoM’s at this present time, but imagine if they were? That they created an offense industry to deal with the asset rich cartels that operate along the borders? Now that would be something else. –Matt 

 

The flag that Texas Privateers were required to fly on their vessels.

Texas Privateers

(From the Texas State Library and Archives Commission)
Revolution broke out in earnest in Texas in October 1835 with the seizure of the Mexican cannon at Gonzales and the beginning of the Siege of Bexar. As these events unfolded, the Consultation, the first revolutionary assembly of Texas, came together in San Felipe on November 3, 1835. One of its first acts was to consider the protection of the Texas coast. It was impossible to create a Navy overnight, so the Texans adopted the time-honored practice of issuing letters of marque and reprisal to privateers. These privately owned war ships would protect the coast, harass Mexican shipping, and bring in prizes that could be auctioned off, with part of the proceeds going into the public treasury.
Texas issued a total of six letters of marque to privateers, including the San Felipe, the William Robbins, the Terrible, the Thomas Toby, the Flash, and the Ocean. Flying the “1824” Texas Revolutionary flag, these ships not only patrolled the Gulf, but also pursued Mexican shipping on the high seas. The Thomas Toby was the outstanding privateer of the group, capturing several Mexican vessels and bringing them back to be adjudicated and their contents sold. Overall, though, the privateering effort was disappointing for Texas. Mexican shipping was not considered rich trade, so relatively few privateers were willing to take the risk.

(more…)

Thursday, July 14, 2011

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

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.”

(more…)

Thursday, April 7, 2011

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

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.” ) (more…)

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress