Refuting Peter Leeson's Apology, or, Why it's not ok to praise pirates

In a recent NPR segment, Peter Leeson, author of "An-arrgh-chy: The Law and Economics of Pirate Organization," states that "we shouldn't let our condemnation of modern pirates spill over, unchecked, onto their more colorful, and socially contributory, early 18th-century forefathers." He goes on to detail how Caribbean pirates had written constitutions that "established democratic governance for their roguish commonwealths," provided a rudimentary social welfare system, and "embraced racial tolerance." Leeson concludes with a defense of contemporary pirate fetishization:

Modern pirates can't lay claim to helping pioneer liberty, democracy and equality. But early 18th-century pirates can. In this way, historical sea scoundrels contributed something to the world worth as much as, and possibly even more than, what they took out. So go ahead, say "arrgh!," "avast!" and "shiver me timbers" without guilt. It's OK to impersonate, and even praise, pirates.

Leeson's pirate apology is factually inaccurate, absurd, and troubling. Here's my rebuttal:

1. The evidence for Leeson's claims about piratical constitutional democracy is Daniel Defoe's A General History of the Pyrates. While it is true that Defoe describes a written constitution with many of the principles Leeson says, this was a constitution for one group of pirates (those under Captain Roberts), and most significantly, Defoe himself follows up his ennumeration of the articles with this statement that scarcely suggests liberal democratic governance:

These, we are assured, were some of Roberts's Articles, but as they had taken Care to throw over-board the Original they had sign'd and sworn to, there is a great deal of Room to suspect, the remainder contained something too horrid to be disclosed to any, except such as were willing to be Sharers in the Iniquity of them ... (233)

2. Leeson's hand-picking of evidence to suit his case continues unabated with his claim about racial equality. There are numerous accounts of pirates being involved with the slave trade which suggest that pirates pursued the policies they did solely out of economic motivations -- not out of an overriding concern for equality. In The African slave trade and its remedy (1840), Thomas Fowell Buxton describes the Fama de Cadiz, a pirate ship whose plunder consisted of "about 980 slaves" (pg. 130-131). Defoe himself writes that while Robert's pirates did not engage in the slave trade, this was only because they were not brave enough, not out of concerns for equality and justice:

From these casual Observations on the Country, the Towns, Coast, and Seas of Brasil, it would be an Omission to leave the Subject, without some Essay on an inter loping Slave Trade here, which none of our Countrymen are adventrous enough to pursue, though it very probably, under a prudent Manager, would be attended with Safety and very great Profit (218)

3. Leeson's narrative completely ignores the externalities of piratical democracy. Even if we grant that some pirates may have had limited forms of democratic governance, this did not make them the peaceful, freedom-loving bands of hooligans Leeson suggests. In Empire of the Blue Water, Stephen Talty desribes how Captain Henry Morgan had to emulate the savage cruelty of Francis L'Ollonais in order to command respect. The French pirates deserted Morgan for L'Ollonais after Morgan failed to torture four captives from Puerto del Principe (which would have allowed more time to raise their ransom). Talty writes:

Morgan's reputation, his future as the admiral of the Brethern, was at stake ... Morgan would say that the Gallic pirates 'wholly refused to join in an action so full of danger,' but danger was never the point; it was leadership. L'Ollonais represented the pirate code at its most extreme, but Morgan could not afford to ignore his methods. The privateers would sail with whoever found them the most gold, and L'Ollonais was a rising star who was making his boys rich. Morgan would have to meld his ideas with those of a ruthless killer if he were to avoid another embarrassment. (90-91)

Talty goes on to cite Alexander Exquemelin's description of L'Ollonais' cruelty (cutting out tongues, using torture racks) and concludes that "The picture that emerges from many accounts is of new recruits lured by tales of riches and freedom, slowly being molded by peer pressure and constant alcohol intake until they succumbed to what might be called the culture of piracy and grew as savage as their mentors" (95). The point here is even if pirate leaders were utterly enlightened and benovolent towards their own men,* that fact becomes stunningly irrelevant when we consider how they behaved towards non-pirates.

*And in "An-arrgh-chy," Leeson himself concedes that this was not the case: In this sense, pirates exercised greater cruelty in maintaining discipline among themselves than in their treatment of prisoners" (1075).

4. Leeson presents absolutely no evidence for a causal link between pirates' constitutional democracies and American constitutional democracy. In "An-arrgh-chy," Leeson takes great pains to prove that checks and balances on pirate ships predated "legitimate" forms of balanced government (1066-1067), but nothing in the article says that states consciously or unconsciously drew upon this legacy in writing their own constitution. Indeed, to suggest this is true is a preposterous case for Leeson to make, given the hatred with which early modern states viewed piracy. In particular, as the media has been fond of reporting over this week, one of the first (and formative) military actions of the newly-created United States of America was to wage war on the Barbary pirates.

5. To suggest that 18th century pirates were "harbingers of some of contemporary civilization's most cherished values, such as liberty, democracy and social safety" is untrue and absurd. It ignores historical accounts, assumes causal links, and ultimately condones illegal non-state violence. When he says that "historical sea scoundrels contributed something to the world worth as much as, and possibly even more than, what they took out," Leeson is saying that rape, murder, and robbery (all documented piratical acts) are acceptable if done under the auspices of a quasi-democratic leadership. The implications of Leeson's apology are immensely troubling, particularly to a nation that prides itself on the promotion of democratic values. It is, quite simply, not ok to praise pirates.