Feral Jundi

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

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

Filed under: History,Letter Of Marque,Quotes — Tags: , , , , , , — Matt @ 3:43 PM

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


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? (more…)

Thursday, April 7, 2011

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

Filed under: Bounties,History,Letter Of Marque — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 3:57 PM

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…)

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

Maritime Security: Asian Shipowner Forum– Use Armed Security, Go After Pirates On Land, Designate Pirates As Terrorists!

Filed under: Letter Of Marque,Maritime Security — Tags: , , , , , , , , — Matt @ 2:27 PM

Another association expressing their displeasure with the whole piracy thing…  What strikes me here is the language being used by this group, and other similar shipping groups. Everyone is frustrated and angry, and they want action.

Worse yet, with certain threats to oil stability and the change of leadership in countries located near key waterways, I predict even more problems for shipping.  Imagine Libya or Yemen completely collapsing, and turning the Gulf of Aden and neighboring water ways a free for all for pirates based in those countries?  And with the price of oil increasing, along with the demand increasing, any shipping companies tasked with transporting that black gold will really want that stuff to be protected.

Now this brings me to a thought that has crossed my mind several times.  The scope and scale of piracy is too large for governments alone to handle.  To me, the only way to really scale up the war against this problem, is to bring in private industry and open the flood gates. To license private industry to do what they have to do to protect these vessels or to go after these thugs and join in the fight. That would require a loosening on the nation-state’s grasp on the monopoly of the use of force, a nullification of treaties and agreements that prohibit such things as the Letter of Marque–yet still allows for the regulation and licensing of effective practices, and the political will to deal with such problems from a pragmatic point of view.

This is also a stark reminder that netwar is a reality, and it is kicking the ass of the slow and inefficient governments. Both John Arquilla and General McChrystal talked about restructuring the military (or parts) to be more responsive to these networks. That in order to defeat a network, you need a network–and a whole bunch of them.  I don’t see it happening with today’s slow and inefficient government sponsored militaries and navies. To me, the one group that can match the ‘decentralized and flexible network structures’ of these actors (pirates, terrorists, cartels), is an industry that profits from the destruction of these folks.

It would also be a self destroying industry, because once there is no more enemy, the industry dries up, and the few folks that continue on to be pirates or criminals, could then be destroyed by all the governments and their might. Hell, governments would use that very industry to destroy itself.  That is how early privateering was dealt with when it had these rogue elements, and that is how it would work today. But of course you see this in any industry.  A computer specialist decides to be an illegal hacker and steal money is one example. A soldier in a war, decides to go home and apply his skills to armored car robberies. A politician goes corrupt in order to make financial gains. There will always be that one percent of one percent of any profession that uses it’s skills and experience for criminal ventures–and that will never change.

But back to the concept. If copying networks like Al Qaeda/Cartels/Piracy (mimicry strategy) is appropriate and works, then private industry will quickly adapt that structure to it’s business model and use it to gain market share.  They will use that, or whatever netwar structure to defeat the enemy, and profit from the venture. They will not only go after the enemy, but compete against other companies and individuals who are doing the same thing–and that competition is what will fuel innovation. It works like that in every industry out there, and it will work violently well in this endeavor. Or at least in my humble opinion.

The ‘profit’ will include the destruction of a reviled enemy, the collection of a bounty, the seizure of an asset, or the collection of money for services rendered.  The more profit motive there is, the better, and it is a system that works. All government needs to do is maintain the machine through regulation and licensing. It worked with our usage of licensed privateers against the British during the Revolutionary War, it is working for the current Somali pirates who are raping the world with their piracy/business model, it worked for Claire Chennault and his Flying Tigers (who collected bounties for every enemy plane shot down), and the Cartel drug war business model works so well that it is defeating both the US and Mexican governments and making war against one another at the same time! Something to think about…. Or we can get continue to think that only governments can win wars and solve problems? –Matt

ASF airs outrage at rising attacks on ships
April 5, 2011
The Safe Navigation and Environment Committee (SNEC) of the Asian Shipowners’ Forum (ASF) has expressed outrage at the increasing number of attacks on their ships and the brutality shown by Somali pirates.
“The current situation, where a handful of pirates can hold the world’s economy hostage, is completely unacceptable as responsible owners and managers, we must take all necessary steps to ensure the safety and wellbeing of our seafarers,” said Mr. S. S. Teo, SNEC Chairman in a recent meeting of the Asian shipowners’ associations held in Singapore. (more…)

Letter Of Marque: Ben Franklin’s ‘Privateer’ Fleet

Filed under: Film,History,Letter Of Marque — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 11:01 AM

This is a great documentary. What I thought was interesting is that Ben Franklin used privateers as a way to get British prisoners, in order to do a prisoner exchange with Britain for American prisoners. But because he did not provide incentive for the privateers to keep prisoners and deliver them or hold them, that the privateers just let them go. So I put the blame on Ben for not posting a bounty for prisoners captured, or at least some payment system that would motivate his privateers to capture and hold these prisoners.

Also, he poorly vetted the privateers he gave commissions too. I mean Ben really stumbled through this first effort of privateering. Although I am glad that the practice was improved upon and later turned into a key element of the Revolutionary War. It was private industry that targeted the logistics and commerce of the British, and basically made the American venture for Britain very costly.  Sun Tzu would refer to this as attacking weakness with strength, and British commerce and logistics was ravaged by American privateers.

What is also interesting is that with this bad experience, Ben made the conclusion that he did not like using privateers. Personally, I just think he didn’t have a clue on how to use them. Because if you look at the history of privateer usage in the War of 1812, congress used a bounty system to secure prisoners that privateers would have captured–all so they could do a prisoner exchange. In other words, America created a better offense industry using better rules and incentive. –Matt

 

Monday, February 14, 2011

Legal News: Ted Reilly’s Swaziland Royal Warrant And Combating Poachers

Filed under: Africa,Legal News,Letter Of Marque,Swaziland — Tags: , , , , , , , — Matt @ 12:06 PM

     Rangers may search and arrest without a warrant; may use all reasonable force necessary to affect arrest; may bear arms and use them in life threatening circumstances; and in doing any of the above in the course of duty, rangers are not liable to prosecution;  (This became necessary when arrested poachers invariably and as a matter of course, brought their own fictitious charges of assault against arresting rangers, who were then prioritised and called to trial while poaching cases were relegated to the back of the queue).

     Game Rangers gazetted under the Game Act or appointed by Royal Warrant have powers Kingdom wide (such game rangers can only be gazetted by order of the Head of State through the King’s Office). -From the Game Act, Swaziland

     I was very intrigued with the concept of the Royal Warrant after watching this video about Ted Reilly and his war against poachers in Swaziland. He is certainly a warrior who has dedicated his life to protecting the wildlife of Swaziland, and after reading his history and the desperation of the situation in Swaziland, I was certainly impressed by his efforts.

    Recently I have also highlighted other anti poaching efforts in Africa, and specifically the Iraq war security contractor Damien Mander and his International Anti Poaching Association.  Both Ted’s effort in Swaziland, and Damien’s efforts in Zimbabwe and Africa highlight two examples of the kind of extreme efforts needed to combat this poaching scourge.  The kind of poaching driven by such market forces as Rhino horn being worth as much as cocaine.(almost $50,000 a kilo)

     It is also important to note that there has been an increase in poaching activity, and rangers in places like South Africa have been very busy arresting and killing poachers in the line of duty. But even with these efforts, the global recession and lack of jobs, along with the high value of poached animal horns and parts, the crimes are actually increasing. It reminds me of the piracy business model and how lucrative that is.  I am sure in the countries with weak laws on poaching or minimal resources, it is a free for all for poachers.

     So what is the answer? Well Swaziland is an interesting example of success when it comes to stopping poachers, and maybe there is something to be learned here? The Reilly family’s efforts and the tough actions against poachers blessed by the king in the form of a Royal Warrant are examples of some tough solutions.  If you read through the Game Act below, it gives an idea as to the kind of teeth that is involved with this Royal Warrant. Although I am sure any lawyer reading through the act would probably freak out on how much power has been granted to these rangers, and the possibilities of abuse of their powers.

    But on the other hand, the form of government in Swaziland is a monarchy and what the king wants, the king gets. lol If he wants his park rangers to drop the hammer on poachers, then so be it. It would be interesting to see what other countries have in the way of laws, as it pertains to the powers of individual rangers and officers, and see which country is most effective at stopping poaching? I would guess that the country with the strictest laws and most fearful anti poaching efforts are most successful at stopping it.

     Concepts like the Royal Warrant or the Letter of Marque and Reprisal might be out of style with today’s modern states, but I think there should be an effort to look at such things and reevaluate their utility. Piracy or poaching are also old criminal acts, and yet they are still around and making a strong comeback. Are modern states and their advanced rules of law keeping up? You be the judge. –Matt

‘King gave me powers to shoot to kill’

Reilly History

The Game Act

The Rhino War

Ted Reilly feeding his pet.

‘King gave me powers to shoot to kill’

Nov 29,2009

By MFANUKHONA NKAMBULE

MBABANE – Ted Machobane Reilly, the Big Game Parks proprietor, is displaying to the world a Royal Warrant purportedly signed by His Majesty the King, giving him powers to shoot to kill poachers.

Over 25 000 people have viewed Machobane’s video displayed on the youtube.com website.Big guns that could match the AK 47 were also displayed. Reilly said the Big Game Parks (BGP) had the ammunition to counter-attack armed poachers.

The nature conservationist says in the video that commentators and poachers were trying to make a case against him because everyone knew the consequences of poaching.He said security in the game reserves under his supervision was undoubtedly the best in Africa. He said the Game Act of 1991 was passed as a result of sharp increases in poaching, adding that the rhino was the main target for illegal game hunters.

He said they sold the rhino horn for USD 15 000 (about E105 000).Reilly showed the viewers poaching towers and narrated how rangers diffused or counterattacked shootings from the poachers.  (more…)

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress