Talk:Jean Lafitte

message: This article was modified by descendant of Jean Lafitte; if you contact him, send a mail to :
flibustier@euro.st
Thanks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.253.111.81 (talk) 12:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Descendant

message: I am a descendant of pirate Jean Lafitte.  My Dad once got a booklet of names of, I think, 2000 such people who each received an inheritance of about $0.50 from the oil wells in his estate in Louisiana.  Unfortunately, the booklet was lost or tossed many years ago.  I was told that most of his descendants were illegitimate, as he had a habit of bedding many women.  Some people might be proud to be a descendant of a pirate, but my Dad was not proud of him at all, and said "he was a bad man."  OK, so I don't have "proof".  I once held that booklet with the light blue cover in my hand, but it is gone.  There are many things in this world that are unprovable, but that does not mean they didn't happen. So, the best that we can do in these cases is to weigh the probabilities, depending on your willingness to give any credence to the reporting person(s), as we do in a court of law, or you can simply throw it all out, along with the history, and only keep what was written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorgfelt (talk • contribs) 13:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Supposed Descendant

message: I removed this passage:
:Circa 1970, Jean Lafitte's estate included land and at least one oil well, the proceeds of which were divided among his approximately 3000 heirs. These heirs included the descendants of many illegitimate children, whom he fathered by various women. (This information is provided by one of those descendants, whose father received 75 cents and a book naming those descendants.)
because it violates Wikipedia's policies on citation, verifiability, and maybe original research. It's an interseting addition to the article, and it may well be true, but we need a verifiable citation. Tom Harrison (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NOR

message: As editor for the past decade of the Louisiana Genealogical Register, I have received unsolicited articles at the rate of at least one per year, purporting to prove descent of a present-day author from Jean or Pierre Lafitte. Not one submission has included anything like reasonable documentation of source citations. All this sort of thing is a matter of family legend -- often with those supposed oil leases in mind. Having delved into the available records here in Louisiana myself, I have come to the conclusion that there are no provable modern-day descendants of the Lafitte brothers in existence. I would love to be proved wrong. But mere assertions are not proof. And until someone comes up with proof, I would strongly recommend that any such claims be excluded from this article. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supposed Descendants 

message: The Nola Mae Ross item is in fact an ad for a book for sale.
Contraband Days is a tourist festival, the site is not about Lafitte.
The Phantom FAQ was some kind of spam for a comic book.
The Biographical Encyclopedia of Texas, though legit, is so brief that, considering the many other much longer and more detailed sources available, probably doesn't make the cut.
The Pictorial History of Texas, though it has an engraving of Lafitte, is a very broad text, very little of which is about Lafitte.
The other items, I set in an approximate descending order of importance, with the longest items and those most centered on Lafitte himself toward the top (including a new item), and shorter items and those somewhat tangential toward the bottom. Bill 23:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: For whenever this article starts to be fleshed out with biographic details, I note that John Lloyd Stephens was somewhat interested in the figure of Lafitte, and recounts some folks' memories of him in Yucatan some 15 to 20 years earlier in "Incidents of Travel in Yucatan". -- Infrogmation 18:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Late life in Yucatan

message: The first sentence is not a sentence that I can recognize.  Subsequent sentences are not much better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.252.212.246 (talk) 13:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Biography

message: The picture currently displayed in the main entry claimed to be Jean Lafitte, is one that I have never seen before and cannot find anywhere else. It also does not match any physical descriptions of the man that I have read. Could someone please provide more explanation as to why this picture is being used and if it is indeed valid? The source material provided for it only links the picture to a website with absolutely no verification that this is a portrait of Jean Lafitte...save for the fact it is named Jean Lafitte. 72.203.150.54 22:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly image it needs better info-- supposed date of 1850, he would have either been quite a bit older than the fellow in the image if he indeed had not died earlier.  Do we even know the image linked is intended to depict the same person as this article is about? -- Infrogmation 20:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jean Lafitte's Portrait?

message: Almost all sources say France, though exact place, date, and parentage are unknown. Given that the Inquisition was in decline by the 1770s, I am removing several passages asserting a birthplace in Haiti or Jewish descent, because the diary theory is much better explained later in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.38.24.214  (talk • contribs)}.
While I understand there is no rock-hard evidence for the long-standing belief that Lafitte was a Sephardic Jew, it's a view held by so many that I think it should at least be mentioned in this article. Jane Peppler (talk) 10:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Birth

message: It is my understanding that the authenticity of the "Journal" is still the subject of debate. If there is no accademic consensus, Wikipedia should not take sides.  I therefore suggest we seperate material. A possible structure would have one section of biography based on confirmed sources, then a second section based on the "Journal" with the disputed nature noted. Possibly a third section as well relaying other unconfirmed but notable accounts.  Other thoughts? -- Infrogmation 18:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion for reworking article

message: I was rather surprised to find several paragraphs with "[Ed.]" & "[Vogel]" at the end. A bit of poking through the page history showed that an anon editor openly cut-&-pasted this material from "the web page of the Lafitte Society of Galveston Texas, http://www.thelaffitesociety.com/JLaffite12.html". Since the ownership & licensing of this text is not explained -- nor are the contradictions between this section & the rest of the article -- I have deleted it. We don't need copyright violations in Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 06:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text removed 

message: As someone else pointed out, the image looks a lot like Jacques Laffitte.  A quick google search turned up this image.  Any thoughts on the subject?  AlphaEta 01:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm removing the image of until someone can confirm that it does indeed represent Jean Lafitte.  I'm convinced that the website from which it was taken misidentifies the subject.  Every image on the site is depicted with the caption: "This steel engraving by [name] was around the year 1850." Depictions of Jean Lafitte can be found here and here.  Of course, these drawings were done by Edward Howard Suydam, who lived from 1885 - 1940, well after Lafitte had died.  Now compare those images with Jacques Lafitte here and here.  AlphaEta 15:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you; I raised a question about the image a while back above. I think you have identified who it really depicts. The E.H. Suydam image of Jean Lafitte with folded arms seems to be the most widely reproduced and is sometimes claimed to be contemporary, but IIRC orinated as a book illustration in the early 20th century. :Image:LafitteClaiborneJackson.jpg might be as close to a contemporary illustration of Lafitte as we have, and even that dates from some 20 years later as an illustration of a sensationalistic book, and from comparing the artist's depictions of Jackson and Claiborne with better known images of those men leaves much to be desired. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think we have the wrong image 

message: I realize there is some uncertainty, but the first line says 1854?, while the body seems pretty definite about 1826.  Uncertainty is one thing, but outright contradiction is another.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigmac31 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death year? 

message: There seems to be punctuation missing in this sentence:
When Laffite left Galveston Island in 1820 he made Jao de la Porta, a Jewish Texan merchant a full-time trader.
Does it need a comma after "merchant"? Absolutely.
--Skb8721 (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing comma?

message: As this entire article seems to be 99 percent taken from Ramsay's book (and only ONE other reference), I wonder what are Ramsay's references for the allegation of Lafitte's presence at the battle or him suggesting to Jackson to "extend the line"? If one happens to read THE HISTORICAL MEMOIR OF THE WAR IN WEST FLORIDA AND LOUISIANA IN 1814-15 by Arsene Lacarriere Latour (who actually WAS Jackson's chief engineer in building that line) Edited with an Introduction by Gene A. Smith, there is NO mention of Lafitte making any such suggestion let alone his presence on the battlefield. (See page 58.)
Regarding, "Jackson also singled out Jean and Pierre Lafitte for having "exhibited the same courage and fidelity", (see page 341 Latour) the actual dispatch by Jackson states, (after giving praise of the US Naval Officers and Sailors involved in the battle) "The brothers Lafitte have exhibited the same courage and fidelity; and the general promises that the government shall be duly apprized of their conduct." No other mention of Lafitte. Ninety3rd (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got a second book on Lafitte and am just about to start the chapter on the Battle of New Orleans.  I am curious as to what it will say and will gladly consult other scholarly references to see what they say about Lafitte's role.  It is not always wise to take an eyewitness account as "THE truth" because eyewitnesses often have their own agenda; I've learned that lesson many times in researching Battle of the Alamo.  Karanacs (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read most of what has been written on the Battle of New Orleans over the years from personal interest. William C. Davis, whose book is the best synthesis I've seen yet on the Lafittes, seems to have no difficulty accepting that the brothers took some part in the battle, and I'm inclined to accept his judgment in this. When you go to Chalmette and get the tour (which hasn't been done since before Katrina), the Park Service guide suggests that the old tradition -- that the Baratarians very competently manned a battery of field pieces -- has in its favor the fact that warfare at sea depends on skilled gunnery, and the Louisiana-based pirates of that period were certainly skilled at sea-fighting. (Later on, not so much -- different group of men.) --Michael K. Smith (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lafitte and Battle of New Orleans 

message: This is one of the reasons that Wikipedia drives me crazy. The second sentence of this Wikipedia article on "Jean Lafitte" (sic) states very clearly, "He often spelled his name Jean Laffite" (with two "f"s). So the obvious question is, "Why is this Wikipedia article spelled differently than the way that Jean Laffite spelled his own name?" In point of fact, Laffite biographer William C. Davis, in his book "The Pirates Laffite" (spelled with two "f"s), states "All their lives, the half brothers signed their surname in an identical fashion, lifting the pen from the paper midway and leaving a barely perceptible space before finishing, to produce 'Laff ite'." The book even reproduces a couple of photographs showing examples of the signature with the familiar double "f". It appears that the answer is this:  Older biographers, operating out of a lack of information, mistakenly spelled the name "Lafitte" differently from the way the two brothers Laffite spelled their name. However, in recent years, as additional research has allowed more information to come to light, modern historians now spell the name to match the way the Laffite brothers spelled it. I would not necessarily expect the town of "Jean Lafitte" to change its name, but I would expect Wikipedia editors to follow the lead of modern research. PGNormand (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In an endnote to chapter four of his book, "The Pirates Laffite," William C. Davis points out that in many instances the only way to distinguish documents signed by the famous Laffite brothers, Jean and Pierre, from documents signed by others of similar name "is the unique double f, single t spelling used by the brothers."  The well-known author Winston Groom, in his 2006 book "Patriotic Fire," subtitled "Andrew Jackson and Jean Laffite at the Battle of New Orleans," uses the correct "double f" spelling used by Jean Laffite himself. The pre-eminent Jackson scholar, Robert V. Remini, in his 1999 book "The Battle of New Orleans," also uses the correct "double f" spelling of "Laffite." Lastly, the well-known Laffite biographer Mitchell V. Charnley, who wrote the 1934 biography "Jean Lafitte, Gentleman Smuggler," (using the "single f" misspelling of the name) was the later author of the Encyclopedia Britannica article on "Laffite, Jean," in which the correct spelling is now used. PGNormand (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Guys, you're giving way too much importance to this. Any experienced historian or genealogist will tell you that the spelling of surnames was very casual indeed before the 20th century, with its increased governmental record-keeping and its insistence, therefore, on a cononical spelling. I have ancestors who couldn't be bothered to spell their own surnames the same way twice in the same document, never mind what clerks, priests, and census enumerators might come up with. Also, the few existing records of the next couple of generations after the brothers (beyond which there's no reliable lineage) tended to settle on "Lafitte." Finally, there are a couple of quite separate Lafitte families here in south Louisiana -- no known connection to the brothers at all, though they like to claim so -- who use the "Lafitte" spelling. It's just not a big deal, historically speaking. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Does any document show Jean spelled his surname Lafitte? If not surely the next generations spelling their name Lafitte isn't justification for this article not using the spelling Laffite. Mcljlm (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Laffite vs. Lafitte

message: I have been finding in various reliable sources mention of Laffite's establishing bases of operation in different locations around Galveston Bay apart from Galveston (e.g. see  and ). But the sources only mention these in passing. I also find passing mention of former officers and members of his gang being involved in communities and business enterprises on the mainland after Laffite's departure. Point being that I get the impression that there was a lot more to Laffite's little empire than Galveston and that the effects of his presence did not completely end when he left. I wonder even if in fact some of the communities that are supposed to have been founded after that time were in fact outgrowths of communities his men had already established. But, again, the sources I have seen only mention these things in passing so I can't conclude a whole lot from what they say.
Does anybody have a good source that talks in more depth about Laffite's impact on the mainland, particularly any lasting impact (how many sites were there? how many people were stationed on the mainland? how many of those people remained after he left?)?
Thanks.
--Mcorazao (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll check my notes again, but I don't remember either biography of Laffite that I've read mentioning an impact on the mainland.  Karanacs (talk) 02:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Related question: Handbook of Texas mentions in passing that that Eagle Point (San Leon) was a trading center for slaves. I have read in other less reliable sites that the site for a time was a major center for the slave trade. But I have not been able to find other info. I know Lafitte was a slave trader but it is unclear whether the slave trading at Eagle Point was during Lafitte's time, afterward, or what. The HOT article mentions the slave trade right after mentioning Lafitte but does not clarify. Any info on that? Thanks. --Mcorazao (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Lafitte brothers were slave thieves and smugglers, not merely traders. They held their auctions of stolen slaves in secluded locations (like Bartataria). The market at Eagle Pass was a public, legal venue (active from the mid-1820s, if I recall correctly), so it's unlikely the Lafittes would have been able to operate there -- even if it were early enough. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Galveston Bay mainland 

message: In general, "in popular culture" sections are considered trivia.  Per WP:Trivia, Trivia sections should be avoided.  To understand Jean Lafitte, we don't need to know that he was a character in a video game, or fictionalized in these 10 books or those 20 movies.  There is already a Legacy section which mentions some of the ways in which he has been remembered and fictionalized (as analyzed by scholarly sources).  The section that was added recently was overly large, giving undue weight to information not directly about Lafitte.  It was also WP:OR - no sources were given, and there is no indication that scholarly sources have discussed any of this as a group; instead editors are using synthesis to put together the list.  Furthermore, the information was in list format (WP:Trivia also states Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information), and not encyclopedic prose.  If editors think there needs to be more coverage of some of the fictionalizations, then let's discuss on the talk page what information should be included, where it can be found in reliable sources, and how it should be presented. Karanacs (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In popular culture" 

message: I add this paragraph at the start of my original comment (see below) to acknowledge (and reveal) that this article is so internally inconsitent that it needs a rework re "privateer".  If the article would be weighed down by too much detail as to whether and when Lafitte or his men sailed on privateers, then I suggest that a separate heading be made to address the "privateer" matter and that all other references in the article to privateer, pirate, letter or marque, commission or whatever, be deleated. 
I am an attorney trained in, and for a time I practiced, admiralty law and international trade law.  I am also an amateur historian of naval warfare from 1793 - 1815. I have tried to determine from this article what the facts are and then to make legal-terminology clarifications.  However, the article is so unclear that I cannot, without separate research into all of Lafitte's life, clarify the article. First, it often conflates the concepts of smuggling and privateering, although they have nothing to do with each other as legal characterizations (which is what they are), other than that a privateer need not smuggle captured goods into the US; the letter of marque entitles the vessel to land captured cargo/vessels and to take an awqard under admiralty law. Second, the article first states (see below) that lafitte's operation of at least one schooner has no privateer "commission" and yet the article later states "New Orleans issued six of these letters [of marque], primarily to smugglers who worked with Lafitte at Barataria." Apart from the "which is it" question, in this respect the article incorrectly states that letters fo marque were issued "to smugglers"; that must be incorrect because letters of marque are issued to vessels only, not to captains or other persons.  I ask, when were these letters issued and to what ships? Is that another point of inconsistency? All I can tell at this point is that the article is not legally or factually rigorous in this respect.  I understand that Laffite and others often held letters of marque from different countries and would use whatever suited them against a particular vessel, and if that is the point of uncertainty, then that needs to be stated.
There is no such animal in admiralty or in international law as a "privateer" without letters of marque ("commission" is the British, not the American, law terminology). Yes, the British refer to Drake as a privateer but he was not; the Spanish were correcdt in that he was a pirate under law. Ships attacking commerce without governmental license are pirates under all applicable law, though I grant that the source of this "international law" was whatever was common practice (what international lawyers call "customary international law"). Wikipedia on "piracy" says: "Piracy is a war-like act committed by private parties (not affiliated with any government) that engage in acts of robbery and/or criminal violence at sea....  Piracy should be distinguished from privateering, which was authorized by their national authorities and therefore a legitimate form of war-like activity by non-state actors."  The US Constitution authorizes Congress to issue "letters of marque and reprisal", a letter of marque being needed under US law to create a privateer.  That pirates sailing out of Barataria were tolerated, or even welcome, by the merchants but that does not make them "privateers", which is legal characterization, not a social, business or "local hero" (a la the James Brothers or Pretty Boy Floyd, who might have been local heros but were nevertheless under law criminals).  
My point is simply that Wikipedia cannot misuse the term "privateer" even if some authors and locals do.  This is not just a matter of being ultra "correct"; the term has meaning in law and so is confusing when misused.Sorker (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lafitte as Pirate or Privateer? - article inconsistent and unclear 

message: Did he call his vessel the Republican (as is noted here) or the Républicain ?  Given that he was French-speaking, I would assume the latter. 98.209.116.7 (talk) 04:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ship name 

message: The first US law against importing slaves and the international slave trade was in 1808. The content of the article does not make clear how the 1818 law compared to that.Parkwells (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Law against slave imports

message: In the current article on Jean Lafitte, the date of the Act Prohibiting the Importation of Slaves is noted as April, 1818. However, on the Wikipedia page for the Act Prohibiting the Importation of Slaves, the date is noted as 1808 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_Prohibiting_Importation_of_Slaves). 
Since this date is deeply embedded within the narrative about Lafitte's life on this page, I cannot make the appropriate change.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.239.136 (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Act Prohibiting the Importation of Slaves 

message: There is a contradiction in the Later years section. the 5th Paragraph states. "...and given a new ship, a 40-ton schooner named "General Santander". The 7th paragraph states, "...on his 43-ton armed Colombian schooner named "General Santander". I don't have access to the source so would someone take a look and make the appropriate correction. Otr500 (talk) 02:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction needed. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jean Lafitte. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020602164142/http://crimelibrary.com/americana/lafitte/main.htm to http://www.crimelibrary.com/americana/lafitte/main.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: just because we use the incorrect spelling does not mean we should not correct it when we discover that it is wrong Matteow101 (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think we should correct his last name to laffite because that is how the brothers spelled it.