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

Great naval conflicts: From the Seven Years’ War to the Napoleonic Wars

Many pirate movies take place in this general time period, and so do many history movies

I grew up on pirate movies like “Treasure Island,” a classic story that takes place in the early eighteenth century. Most modern pirate movies seem to take place in this much-romanticized era of sailing ships and pirates. In this century, we have seen Disney’s fantasy-oriented “Pirates of the Caribbean,” which combines this eighteenth-century historical backdrop with elements of curses and magic. But there have also been more “serious” works of historical fiction, about the naval conflicts of the late eighteenth (and early nineteenth) centuries. For example, there has been the “Horatio Hornblower” franchise (with a TV series starring Ioan Gruffudd), and the Russell Crowe movie “Master and Commander.” (Pity that only one movie was made in that particular franchise, because it was a promising one.) These movies may have some fictional characters in them, along with references to real people like Lord Horatio Nelson. But they may still be “serious” historical movies anyway, in my opinion, since they dramatize the fighting at sea during the Napoleonic Wars.

The wars covered here were all part of a broader struggle between Britain and France

I’m much interested in the naval fighting of the Napoleonic Wars, in part because of the influence of these movies on me personally. But, today, I would like to look at naval fighting in the eighteenth century more generally. The Napoleonic Wars are traditionally dated to the early nineteenth century, and I promise the reader that I will also be giving some serious coverage of that conflict in this post. But, in order to understand the Napoleonic Wars themselves, one has to look at some prior conflicts in the eighteenth century. Most importantly, one has to look at the much broader struggle between Britain and France, and how they duked it out in one maritime conflict after another. Our story begins in 1754, with a frontier conflict in the distant European colonies of North America. Americans today remember it as the “French and Indian War,” but it would soon lead to the broader “Seven Years’ War,” and to many another great naval conflict for the Europeans.

The “French Revolutionary Wars”: A great European cataclysm

“Do you hear in the fields

The howling of those fearsome soldiers?

They are coming into your midst

To slit the throats of your sons and consorts.

To arms, citizens!

Form up your battalions!

Let’s march, let’s march!

May impure blood soak our fields’ furrows!”

– English translation of “La Marseillaise” (1792), originally written in French during the French Revolution – now used as the national anthem of France

The French Revolution sucked much of Europe into a decade of bitter warfare

In 1789, a French mob stormed the Bastille on the 14th of July. This is the most famous date of the French Revolution, with its anniversary today celebrated in France as “Bastille Day.” This is actually the national holiday of France today, much as “Independence Day” is the national holiday of the United States. But there’s more to the story than this domestic revolution, although that is a critically important part of it. The French Revolution also sucked much of Europe into a decade of bitter warfare. The later years of the French Revolution were thus set against the backdrop of warfare. That is, there was an overlap between the later “French Revolution” and the early “French Revolutionary Wars.” This post will cover the often-forgotten conflicts that were associated with the French Revolution. I have saved my coverage of the Napoleonic Wars for another post, even though these two topics are intimately connected. Thus, I will instead be focusing here on the “French Revolutionary Wars,” which lasted for ten years in all. In so many ways, they were a great European cataclysm.

Storming of the Bastille, 1789

In defense of the American Founding Fathers

“And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”

– The United States Declaration of Independence (July 4th, 1776)

In recent decades, our Founding Fathers have been the target of some bitter revisionist attacks. For example, many cannot forgive them for being slaveholders. Many cannot forgive them for infringing on Native American lands, or their “failure” to give women the right to vote – as though that would have been possible in the eighteenth century (which it clearly wasn’t). Racism, sexism, and any number of other modern charges are leveled at the Founding Fathers. In short, the Founding Fathers are judged by various modern standards – which is always a mistake. Things that today are an accomplished fact were, in their own time, completely unattainable. The pace of progress is usually slow, and some problems can only be fixed after several generations have passed. Thus, in the larger perspective of history, the progress in the Founding Fathers’ time was actually astonishingly fast, and more than anyone in that time would have dreamt possible. It is true that our Founding Fathers had some very real flaws, but the revisionist arguments about them seem to have even greater flaws. Few of those who make these arguments have ever studied the Founding Fathers’ actual ideas in any sort of depth. Thus, an examination of the Founding Fathers’ ideas would seem appropriate here, to show that their ideas have actually aged remarkably well. Their ideas can withstand the most vigorous scrutiny, and remain quite relevant … all these years later.

George Mason, one of our lesser-known Founding Fathers

Colonial Canada: From the Seven Years’ War to the War of 1812

“An Act for making more effectual Provision for the Government of the Province of Quebec in North America …”

– Long title of the “Quebec Act, 1774” (French: Acte de Québec de 1774), as passed by the British Parliament – remembered by the United States as one of the “Intolerable Acts”

How do Canadians remember the conflicts between the English, the French, and the Americans? As it turns out, the Canadians remember these conflicts somewhat differently than we do. They were a crucible for Canada, as they were for the United States – and its various colonial predecessors. Canada stayed a colony for a lot longer than we did, so there are at least three major conflicts during its colonial history. These conflicts are (in order) the Seven Years’ War, the American War of Independence, and the “War of 1812” (as it is usually called). Some of these conflicts are more often remembered in Canada than in the United States. One of these wars still creates controversy in Canada today, more than two centuries later. Thus, this might be a good time to talk about Colonial Canada, and how it was shaped by the trials of its early wars.

Engraving from the Battle of the Plains of Abraham – Quebec, 1759

The Continental Congresses: The backstory of the United States Congress

“An act for granting and applying certain stamp duties, and other duties, in the British colonies and plantations in America, towards further defraying the expenses of defending, protecting, and securing the same; and for amending such parts of the several acts of parliament relating to the trade and revenues of the said colonies and plantations, as direct the manner of determining and recovering the penalties and forfeitures therein mentioned.”

– Long title of the “Duties in American Colonies Act 1765” (better known as the “Stamp Act”), as passed by the Parliament of Great Britain

Albany Congress (1754) is formed in the year that the French and Indian War began

In 1754, a war broke out in British North America, a war that Americans know as the “French and Indian War.” This war would eventually lead to a worldwide conflict known as the “Seven Years’ War,” which would break out two years later in 1756. But something else happened in 1754 that might not have seemed particularly important at the time. A number of the British colonies in North America sent delegates to the “Albany Congress of 1754.” This is the first of several Congresses that would eventually lead to the creation of the United States Congress. The Albany Congress met for only one month. During this time, representatives met daily at the City Hall to discuss a number of important issues. Among these were better relations with the Native American tribes, and common defensive measures against the French threat from Canada – since the “French and Indian War” meant that British North America was now at war with both France and its overseas colonies in Canada.

The Albany Congress, 1754

Parliament passes the Stamp Act (1765), which leads to the Stamp Act Congress (1765)

The French and Indian War began in 1754, but the worldwide conflict known as the “Seven Years’ War” did not begin until 1756 (or so Americans remember it). When it began, the “French and Indian War” (as Americans call it) became the North American theater of this larger worldwide conflict. But when Britain and France later made peace with each other in 1763, both this larger conflict and its North American portion were over. Things might have seemed like they would remain peaceful. But in 1765, Britain passed the Stamp Act (cited earlier), which enacted taxes on stamps in North America. In the thirteen colonies, these stamps would be required for legal documents, playing cards, calendars, newspapers, and dice. The colonies were not happy about these taxes, since they were being passed by a Parliament in which the colonists were not represented. It is true that these taxes were not very large, but the actual amount of the tax was never the issue. The issue was whether the British Parliament had any right to tax the colonies to begin with, when the colonies were not represented in the body that was taxing them. I doubt that the British people of today would put up with being taxed by the United States Congress, since they have no representation in it. In a similar way, colonists were not about to put up with being taxed by Parliament, and thus organized the Stamp Act Congress in 1765.

1d Stamp Act of 1765 proof

A review of “Rebels & Redcoats: How Britain Lost America”

“... That the said colonies and plantations in America have been, are, and of right ought to be, subordinate unto, and dependent upon the imperial crown and parliament of Great Britain; and that the King's majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons of Great Britain, in parliament assembled, had, hath, and of right ought to have, full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America, subjects of the crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever … ”

– American Colonies Act 1766 (better known as the “Declaratory Act”), as passed by the Parliament of Great Britain

A British view of the American Revolution, which is somewhat different from our own ...

This documentary has much to admire, and much to disagree with. Its opening credits advertise it as “A British View,” and this title is certainly accurate. I picked it up hoping to hear the other side of this war, and I was not disappointed. However, it also has some weaknesses which I will note here. To be fair, it is actually fairly balanced regarding the military campaigns, but it is also somewhat less than balanced regarding some of the politics of this war. The British filmmaker Richard Holmes is a genuine military historian, and has a deep knowledge of military strategy and tactics. He has a gift for bringing the human drama of these campaigns to life. He has the ability to make you sympathize with both sides to some degree. But when it comes to the political issues of this war (and there are quite a few of them), he shows that he is not very well-versed in the politics of the Revolution. He compares people like Samuel Adams to Marx and Lenin, and it is clear that this comparison is meant to be unflattering (and not a comparison that is meant to be complimentary, as it might be if spoken by someone else).

How different was the Constitution from the “Articles of Confederation”?

“The Stile of this Confederacy shall be 'The United States of America'.”

– Article I of the “Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union”

First of all, what is a “Confederation”; and how does it differ from the “Confederacy”?

So what is a “confederation,” and how does it differ from the “Confederacy”? The website of Princeton University defines both “confederation” and “confederacy” as “a union of political organizations” (see entry on “confederation” and entry on “confederacy”). There are other definitions for each word, but this is the one that applies here. Another meaning of a “confederacy,” noted by their website, is that of “the southern states that seceded from the United States in 1861” (see entry on “confederacy”), which is defined as synonymous in this context with the “Confederate States of America.” It is important to understand this point: This is not the meaning that applies here. However, the similarity between these two words was not a coincidence, as the Confederates chose this name carefully. The southern states intended their “Confederacy” to be a union of independent nations with strong “states' rights,” as you may know. The Southern states rejected the idea of a “powerful federal government” with strong central control, and preferred that each state retain its “independence” and “sovereignty.” This may have contributed to their eventual downfall in the American Civil War, as the squabbling between the states proved to be catastrophic for them (but good for the country that they were trying to dissolve). The lack of centralized control was then believed to be a virtue, but it ultimately seems to have proved something of a weakness. The “Articles of Confederation” shared many of these same weaknesses, I am sad to say. It may have been more like the “United Nations” than the United States of America.

Interior of Independence Hall

The Declaration of Independence created thirteen “independent states” …

However, the Articles of Confederation actually started out: “The Stile of this Confederacy shall be 'The United States of America'.” (Source: Article I) The Articles of Confederation was not the first official document to use the phrase “United States of America,” because the operative paragraph of the Declaration of Independence had a sentence that began: “We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled … ” (Source: The Declaration of Independence, 1776) The idea that the thirteen states would be united together into a “confederacy” was an idea new to the Articles of Confederation in 1781, and was probably a step in the right direction. By contrast, the Declaration of Independence had said that “these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.” (Source: The Declaration of Independence, 1776) Unfortunately, each of the thirteen states still possessed most of these powers for themselves under the Articles of Confederation. But by saying that “The Stile of this Confederacy shall be 'The United States of America',” the Articles of Confederation was trying to unite the thirteen states together into a “perpetual Union” (in the words of the Preamble to the Articles).

John Trumbull's Declaration of Independence

A review of “The War That Made America”

"Since the English have in their power an officer and two cadets, and, in general all the prisoners whom they took when [they] assassinated Sieur de Jumonville they now promise to send them with an escort to Fort Duquesne, situated on Belle River, and to secure the safe performance of this treaty article, as was as of the treaty ... "

- English translation of the "Articles of Capitulation" after the Battle of Fort Necessity, Article 7 - the French text of which was mistakenly signed by George Washington (who did not speak French) on 3 July 1754, in the belief that the translation given to him had been accurate (which it probably wasn't)

This documentary is about the French and Indian War, not the American Revolutionary War ...

When most people hear the phrase "the war that made America," the event they would think of is the "American War of Independence." (Or as we call it in America, the "American Revolution," or the "American Revolutionary War.") Most people would be surprised to learn, then, that this is about the "French and Indian War" - or the "Seven Years' War," as it's known elsewhere (including in Canada). This war took place over a decade before the creation of the United States, and ended some years before the first shots of the Revolution were fired at Lexington and Concord. It's also important for the future history of Canada, because it turned Canada from a French colony into a British colony, and thus secured the dominance of English speakers in the region. The year 1759 is thus a controversial year in Canadian history, and it is resented bitterly by French Canadians - not to mention the First Nations Canadians. Nonetheless, it is American history that is the focus here, even if the documentary is narrated by the First Nations Canadian Graham Greene (which it is).

Battle of the Plains of Abraham - Quebec, 1759

The bitter strife of the Revolution actually had its roots in this war

At this time, the British Crown ruled the Eastern Seaboard of this continent, and its colonies were loyal outposts of the British Empire. These colonies all had their own militias that took part in this struggle, but they were not terribly impressive compared to the professional Redcoat soldiers, who arrived from Britain in considerable numbers after the war began. These Redcoat soldiers were the real backbone of the British presence there, and they had reason to view the colonial militias with some contempt. They were tactless enough to express this contempt more than once, and there were signs of friction between the two even during this period. The colonial governments resisted London's attempts to pay for the war by taxing the colonies, and they actually insisted on retaining local control over the colonial militias with regards to staffing and - even more importantly - military strategy. The bitter strife of the Revolution thus had its roots in this war; and the two groups' fighting alongside each other was a temporary situation that would not last.

The Albany Congress - New York, 1754 (one of the precursors to the later Continental Congresses)

A review of “Founding Brothers” (History Channel)

"[The Congress shall have the power] To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States ... "

- Constitution of the United States, Article 1, Section 8, Heading and Paragraph 17

What happened to the Founding Fathers after the Revolution was over?

Most people have some cursory knowledge of what happened during the American Revolution, and what the Founding Fathers did during this period. But what happened to them after the Revolution? What did the Founding Fathers do when the war was over, and the Constitution was ratified? These are the questions that a documentary by the History Channel attempts to address. They follow in the footsteps of a Pulitzer-Prize-winning book by Joseph Ellis - a book called "Founding Brothers," the same title as this History Channel program. The results of it are more surprising, more interesting, and more moving than what you 'd think possible.

What did the Founding Fathers disagree with one another about?

If you're interested in what happened to the Founding Fathers - in the issues they disagreed over, the quarrels between them, and their postwar accomplishments - then this is the best documentary to see. It covers the administrations of our first three presidents - George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson - and does not shy away from depicting Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison as well. These guys are much more interesting than the paintings we have of them, with the powdered wigs and the dated clothing. Moreover, the way that they handled the early days of the Republic set the precedents for all of the democratic dialogue that we've had since then. The government had been created, but it had not yet been given a trial run, and no one was quite sure how it would work in practice.

The Bill of Rights: historical context and strict construction

"The enumeration [or "listing"] in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

- Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution (ratified 1791), a sometimes-forgotten amendment in the Bill of Rights

It's the most familiar part of the Constitution - the one that the most people can quote. It's the most disputed part of the Constitution - the one whose meaning is most debated. And it's the most tangible part of the Constitution - the one that writes into stone the rights we use every day, and which is thus easiest to apply to everyday life.

The Constitutional Convention

The original Constitution didn't have a Bill of Rights

The portion is, of course, the Bill of Rights; but it was not a part of the original Constitution at all. The United States Bill of Rights was the first ten amendments to the Constitution. For those who don't know, an amendment is just another word for a change. The Constitution has been amended (or changed) 27 times since its adoption, and the first ten amendments written into it were the ones we today call our "Bill of Rights." They can today be seen in the context of the ratification debates, or the debates over whether or not to ratify the Constitution as the "supreme law of the land". The Constitution did not become law until it was approved by nine of the original thirteen states, and the states fiercely debated about whether or not we should have this Constitution.

The Founding Fathers and the History Channel

The History Channel has made a few documentaries about the lives of the Founding Fathers. There is one in particular that I would like to talk about here, which is their three-hour program simply entitled "Founding Fathers."