Piracy played a role, early in the “Second” Hundred Years’ War

“When I was a boy, there was but one permanent ambition among my comrades in our village [Hannibal, Missouri] on the west bank of the Mississippi River. That was, to be a steamboatman. We had transient ambitions of other sorts, but they were only transient. When a circus came and went, it left us all burning to become clowns … now and then we had a hope that if we lived and were good, God would permit us to be pirates.”

– Mark Twain, in “Life in the Mississippi” (1883), Chapter 4

Those pirate movies that you watched as a kid … probably took place during this period

In 2003, Disney released the first installment in their “Pirates of the Caribbean” film franchise. The film must have seemed a little risky, because there had not been a popular pirate movie for some years by that point. But, to everyone’s surprise, the film franchise did quite well at the box office, and in the later home movie sales as well. Other pirate movies (such as “Treasure Island”) have likewise captured the public imagination. As “Peter Pan” reminds us, pirates are a popular subject, especially with children. In “Life on the Mississippi,” Mark Twain once said that “we had a hope that if we lived and were good, God would permit us to be pirates” (as cited above). Obviously, the reality of piracy is a little less romantic, since pirates tended to be as violent and bloodthirsty as they’re usually portrayed to be. But, in some ways, the reality may be just as interesting as its depiction in these great movies. Today, I’d like to examine the role of piracy, during the aptly-named “Golden Age of Piracy.” This was the period when piracy became a significant factor in both the North Atlantic and the Indian Ocean. I should clarify that the term “Golden Age” is not meant to “approve” of the brazen theft that this piracy inherently involves. But, from the pirates’ point of view, it was indeed a “Golden Age,” where the world’s maritime trade was relatively vulnerable to their attacks. I will focus primarily on how it affected some of the major international wars of the period, particularly on the high seas. Indeed, it seems hard to discuss either the piracy or the wars in total isolation from each other. Specifically, I will start by talking about the three main Anglo-Dutch Wars, which were mostly at sea. Then I will focus on the naval parts of three other great European conflicts. These are (in order): the Nine Years’ War, the War of the Spanish Succession, and the War of the Austrian Succession. These three conflicts, along with four others that soon followed them, would eventually be grouped together into the broader term of “Second” Hundred Years’ War. Piracy and privateering played a major role, in the early parts of this much-larger conflict.

Spanish Men-of-War Engaging Barbary Corsairs, 1615

How Congress can give legal permission to be a “pirate” (er, “privateer”)

“[The Congress shall have the power] To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water ... ”

- Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 11 of the United States Constitution

First of all, what's the legal difference between “piracy” and “privateering”?

In prior times, it was common for governments to grant official permission to raid the shipping of their nations' enemies, and allow them to be “privateers” in their nation's service. Things that would otherwise be considered “piracy” would be considered legal in this time if they had the official “letters of marque and reprisal” to allow them to do it. Privateering under a “letter of marque and reprisal” was protected by law, while things that were considered “piracy” were illegal even then.

East Indiaman Kent battling Confiance, a privateer vessel commanded by French corsair Robert Surcouf in October 1800

“Letters of marque and reprisal” are just official permissions to engage in these actions

Why do I mention this? Because there's a part of the Constitution about granting “letters of marque and reprisal” to privateers – or rather, two parts about it – which might be worth going into here. I should first note that “letters of marque and reprisal” could sometimes be shortened to just “letters of marque.” In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton sometimes used the great Sir William Blackstone's “Commentaries on the Laws of England,” as a source for his arguments. (For the details of this, see this blog post about it.) I will thus try to use his same source, when I derive a good legal definition of “letters of marque and reprisal” for our purposes. In the “Commentaries,” Sir William Blackstone wrote that “the sufferer must first apply to the lord privy-seal, and he shall make out letters of request under the privy seal; and, if, after such request of satisfaction made, the party required do not within convenient time make due satisfaction or restitution to the party grieved, the lord chancellor shall make him out letters of marque under the great seal; and by virtue of these he may attack and seize the property of the aggressor nation, without hazard of being condemned as a robber or pirate.” (Source: Book 1, Chapter 7)

Sir William Blackstone