
"How privateering worked in the American Revolution" Topic
11 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please be courteous toward your fellow TMP members.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the American Revolution Message Board Back to the Age of Sail Message Board
Areas of InterestRenaissance 18th Century Napoleonic 19th Century
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Showcase Article The Acolyte Vampires return - based, now, and ready for the game table.
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Tango01  | 29 Dec 2024 4:01 p.m. PST |
"In the war for American independence, an oft-forgotten force strangled British commerce, raided supply and seized ships for American use. While usually forgotten by history, privateersmen were the largest naval muscle of the Continental government. So much so that Massachusetts, Gen. George Washington, and the Continental Congress all authorized them. So how did a privateersman or a ship owner enter the trade? And how did privateering work?…" Main page
link
Armand |
Bunkermeister  | 29 Dec 2024 7:26 p.m. PST |
Perhaps Ukraine could privateer Russian dark fleet tankers? Bunkermeister |
rmaker | 30 Dec 2024 9:53 a.m. PST |
International law outlawed privateering late in the 19th Century. |
138SquadronRAF | 30 Dec 2024 10:24 a.m. PST |
Marker International Law, technically the Declaration of Paris (1856), did outlaw Privateering. The United State (suprise!) didn't agree to the terms and set that they would continue to employ Privateers – that's why we get the Confederacy issuing Letters of Marque in the Civil War. Naturally, the Union, refused to recognise these letters (surprise) and tried several crews for piracy. |
Dn Jackson  | 30 Dec 2024 2:37 p.m. PST |
Unless Ukraine was a signatory to the treaty outlawing privateering, they're not bound by it. |
Tango01  | 30 Dec 2024 2:39 p.m. PST |
Thanks. Happy new year my dear cousin… Armand |
Bill N | 01 Jan 2025 8:28 a.m. PST |
that's why we get the Confederacy issuing Letters of Marque in the Civil War I thought most of the commerce raiding ended up being done by commissioned ships of the Confederate navy. |
138SquadronRAF | 02 Jan 2025 9:34 a.m. PST |
There were a number of privateers that operated out of southern ports, most notably Charleston. Three ships were particularly Sevannah, Jeffereson Davis, and Petral. All three were sailing vessels, had short careers. The crew of the Sevannah were put on trail for piracy after capture and condemned to be hanged. The response of the Confederate government was threaten to execute a similar number of senior Union officers. Eventually the crew of the Sevannah were treated as prisoners of war. The Conderacy seems to have abandoned privateers because the shipowners who had vessels didn't consider it profitable. If you want a source, I would recommend: Robinson, William Morrison, Jr. The Confederate privateers. Yale University, 1928. Reprint, Univ. of South Carolina, 1990. |
John the OFM  | 03 Jan 2025 6:53 a.m. PST |
Regarding Ukraine and privateering. IF Ukraine is considered a "successor state" to the Russian Empire, perhaps it can be considered a signatory. BUT, isn't that part of Vlad the Impaler's justification? Said privateers, if "legal", would then need an acceptable port to transport their prizes to. But, what the heck. Let's have private licensed mercenary privateer fleets going after the "illegal" Russian ghost fleet of tankers. 🤷 |
John the OFM  | 03 Jan 2025 6:56 a.m. PST |
By the way, the United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to issue letters of Marque. Was that ever transferred to the Navy Department? |
79thPA  | 21 Jan 2025 10:14 a.m. PST |
No, it is still in the hands of Congress. |
|