Boston, December 28Not a government officer in sight
American Naval Success
A letter has been received from capt. Seward, of the armed ship Camillus, of this port, belonging to Mr. Eben Parson, informing, that on his outward passage he was attacked by two French privateers, which, after an action he beat off -- and rescued from them a Portuguese vessel, which they had taken. His men stood to their guns with perfect resolution, and exercised them in the most active manner. This is another proof of the expediency of arming. Several benefits result from the issue of this engagement, which all honest Americans must exult in. A valuable ship, cargo, and a number of brave fellows are preserved to their country -- and piracy disappointed of its prey.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
"Another Proof of the Expediency of Arming"
The Louisville Gazette (Georgia), Feb. 5, 1799, pg. 4:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Thanks for the object lesson of the dangers of handing the states monopoly on armed force over to civilian ships which aren't under effective control of any government. It seems that one of two situations occurred.
One possibility is that French privateers, civilian vessels authorized to carry weapons and attack hostile shipping, misused that authority to turn pirate and attack an innocent, neutral ship. That's the kind of unacceptable risks which led to the abandonment of letters of marque.
Another possibility is that the US ship was engaged in smuggling and the French privateers acted correctly in attempting to stop it. However, the American ship used it's cannons to thwart justice and then turned pirate itself; stealing a lawful prize of war from the French.
First comment at the new blog! Huzzah!
So, yeah: My dissertation (Hail Mary) is about paramilitary violence in the early republic, and it will look at the ways that government officials winked at (or directly supported) settler violence. And the problem is exactly the "effective control" thing -- I think that, in my cases, government officials thought they were leveraging violence for their own purposes, renting armed power on the cheap. But it got away from them, over and over and over again, and came with human costs that are difficult to exaggerate.
Still, I think that a basic right to self-defense is a different matter, although that right can always be played to dangerous effects. A great essay in the Journal of the Early Republic a few years ago noted the number of newspaper stories that described settlers who were shot through the clothes without injury in "fights" with Indians who they killed.
Post a Comment