Pirate Politics

I am in my hometown of Biloxi, Mississippi, preparing to speak several times tomorrow at the University of Mobile. While here, I just finished a fascinating new biography of the nineteenth century Gulf Coast's most famous pirates, Pierre and Jean Laffitte.

The book, The Pirates Lafitte by William C. Davis, traces the New Orleans rogues from the beginnings of their criminal trade through their alliance with General Jackson at the Battle of New Orleans and on through to the romantic infamy they shared years after their deaths.

Most interesting about the book is the author's description of the hierarchies of the pirate bands of the era. Writes Davis:

Most of the pirate communities of the world operated in some degree as egalitarian enterprises in which leaders ruled, to the degree they governed at all, by common consent rather than election, and only after they had demonstrated an ability to take command and direct for the mutual benefit.

I find it amusing that we live in a day when the term "pirate communities" can be used without irony. Nonetheless, one wonders how different these "egalitarian" pirate "communities" are from more respectable ventures, in which authority is, by definition, rejected and the common bond is individual self-interest apart from a common good.

Could it be that this kind of pirate politics is the order of the day, here and abroad? And, if so, could we be learning what pirates of old discovered: There's no honor among thieves?

Comments

[Joe Long]

"Cast in thy lot among us; let us all have one purse" (Proverbs 1:14) was ever, and remains, the operating principle of "pirate communities..." - a principle honored punctiliously on paper (pirate contracts were quite specific) although sometimes breaking down a bit when it's actually time to divide the plunder.

The Vikings had a parliamentary body (the "Thing") far in advance of the rest of northern Europe, too - piracy and democracy seem to go fairly well together.

[Tony Esolen]

Russell, I don't believe for one moment that pirate gangs were egalitarian. I smell some modern hogwash there. I mean, I'd like to associate degenerate democracy with piracy, but I think that's just not fair to the good old pirates. Gangs by their nature are hierarchical: so were the plundering gangs of the Germanic warriors, and so were the gangs of Icelanders following their leaders. So are the Crips and the Bloods. So are pirates. A boat fairly enforces hierarchy -- neither the English navy nor Bluebeard could stay afloat for more than a week without a severely enforced and clear chain of command and obedience.

[Joe Long]

Indeed, quoth Blackbeard: "I shoot one of the crew occasionally; otherwise they forget who I am". However, the "Brethren of the Coast" made much of their lifestyle of equality and liberty - it does not originate with modern revisionists; it's always been a part of pirate folklore and was certainly a part of the recruiting pitch...

...and I expect a Captain takes the wishes of the crew a bit more seriously, when they're all armed to the teeth. A ready weapon's as good as a franchise. I suppose you really wind up with a meritocracy of a sort - so long as you define "merit" as those qualities which distinguish - well, Blackbeard.

[Bill Gall]

From the Philokalia, Hesychius of Jerusalem's "Texts on Sobriety and Prayer:"
57. The mind is blinded by these three passions: love of money, vainglory, and love of pleasure.
58. Knowledge and faith, which are ours by nature, are blunted by none other than these three.
59. It is through these that wrath and anger, murders and the whole catalogue of passions are greatly strengthened among men.
As St. Paul writes, "The love of money is the root of all evil."
Could this be our (my) bond with the pirates?

[Daniel C.]

Some other "egalitarian" communities "in which leaders ruled, to the degree they governed at all, by common consent rather than election": Soviet Union under Stalin, China under Mao, Cuba under Castro, North Korea under Kim Jong Il (sp?) and, until recently, Iraq under Saddam Hussein. No one would actually elect these tyrants. Rather, by common consent that it is better to live on one's knees than die on one's feet, these evil men were allowed to "govern".

[Kevin Jones]

Hard to believe this hasn't been quoted yet:

"Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great brigands? For what are brigands themselves, but little kingdoms? The band itself is made up of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it is knit together by the pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed on. If, by the admittance of abandoned men, this evil increases to such a degree that it holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom, because the reality is now manifestly conferred on it, not by the removal of covetousness, but by the addition of impunity. Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, "What thou meanest by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, whilst thou who dost it with a great fleet art styled emperor."
-St. Augustine, City of God, IV.4

[Joe Long]

Or in a more populist form (maybe Gilbert and Sullivan read Augustine?):

"When I sally forth to seek my prey
I help myself in a royal way.
I sink a few more ships, it’s true,
Than a well-bred monarch ought to do;
But many a king on a first-class throne,
If he wants to call his crown his own,
Must manage somehow to get through
More dirty work than ever I do."

-The Pirate King, "Pirates of Penzance"