Talk:Privateer

message: I don't know enough about this to edit the article... but a privateer is also the name for a vessel owned by a privateer, I think.  fabiform | talk 16:19, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: While the U.S. Constitution does still authorise privateering, developments in international law have rendered this obsolete, and under international law a privateer would be a pirate now.  --Daniel C. Boyer 17:18, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Daniel, Since the USA does not abide by international law and is not Party to the Rome treaty makes International law development obsolete. US claims international Law against others when it suits it but has not essentially agreed to it. This should be clear whenever referring to it as a force of global governance.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.235.144.219 (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern usage

message: All I needed 2 know wuz what a privateer iz, so thank u! :) (happy face) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.206.136.85 (talk) 01:34, 4 November 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Happy face

message: Shouldn't the use of the word "privateer" referring to motorsports be in a separate article?  (e.g. "privateer (motorsports)") Rick 19:12, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Two topics on one page

message: Why is there such a big mention of American history here? American privateers were certainly not the biggest part of privateering, if you are to have that there should also be a big chunk on 16th century privateering and other times. --Josquius 20:01, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: American privateers were as much as (if not more) the United States Navy a factor in our winning Independence from Great Britian and then maintaining it during the War of 1812. Confederate Privateers (southern states) during the Civil War were a significant factor in the demise of the Unisted States merchant marine. Wfoj2 (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  American history? 

message: I dont belive that Edward Teach has ever been proven to have been a privateer. It has only been said that he may have been one before he became a famous pirate But most of his background is unknown even his true name. Edward Teach is just one of the names he used when he was on land.
I just think it's wrong to count him as a privateer when he never had a letter of marque as far as history tells and there is no record from his belived privateering past. One should seperate history from speculations. Especially with all the proposterous stories already circulating about famous pirates and privateers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.216.170.70 (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edward Teach 

message: Include "compare and contrast" to state terrorism/state sponsored terrorism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackiespeel (talk • contribs) 15:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This is the bare minimum. Current article has been so whitewashed that is of no help to a 21st century reader trying to understand what a "privateer" really is. England did not declare war with Spain during the period they were around, so they were closer to being terrorists then mercenaries. Jorge Cid 11:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: Prior to the development of international law among European nations,
:It is my understanding that privateering was specifically recognized as something states could do under international law.  Certainly privaterring continued for a long time, and international law is generally considered to have begun to develop in the 17th century. Or are we referring to "international law" in some odd, idiosyncratic way? john k 20:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  International law... 

message: There is already an excellent entry about Jean Lafitte, an American hero who helped Andrew Jackson repel the British at the Battle of New Orleans.  Suggest adding Lafitte to the list of notable Privateers with a link.
Also, it would be interesting to note that today the University of New Orleans uses the "Privateers" as its mascot (see it at ) and a costume mascot alligator dressed as a privateer is known as "Lafitte."  Just looked and there's also a graphic on the wiki page for UNO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.11.53.20 (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold and add the link yourself.  Also, please sign and date your contributions. --Davecampbell 22:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add Jean Lafitte 

message: This article lacks something very important which is how and when nations stopped recognising privateering as something legitimate.  I believe it was probably towards the end of the 19th century. GS3 11:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Treaty of Paris, 1856. if no-one adds a paragraph about this, perhaps i will attempt it. it's a worthwhile detail  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.104.202 (talk) 18:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  How did privateering become illegal? 

message: As I recollect, Britain and France agreed not to use privateers during the Crimean War, and an agreement was signed by various governments not long after which sought to end the practice. Other governments signed up with the passage of time.
Aodhdubh 22:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was the 1856 Declaration of Paris. It is, in fact, in the article! The Land (talk) 12:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked this up in a law library.  While it is true, most European nations outlawed privateering by treaty in the 19th Century-the US never did.  So in theory, though very unlikely in practice, the US Congress would still "grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal" under Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution (previous to the Constitution;s adoption individual states like Virginia and Maryland had granted them during the Revolution). Whether a Wikipedia article needs to get into this kind of detail I will leave for other wiser heads. ElijahBosley (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Banning

message: In this section, reference is made to Horatio Hornblower as the creation of author C.S. Forester. However, Hornblower was quite real, and his descendants still hold the title.68.90.232.9 (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is interesting; do you have any resources to cite regarding this?  If you can point to a government website that shows scans of a relevant Births or Deaths Registry, it may provoke quite an amendment to the article! Empath (talk) 12:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fiction

message: From the definition, a Corsair seems to be a specific (French) sort of privateer. The "other language" links are a bit confusing a the moment.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.34.42.205 (talk) 09:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with Corsair?

message: The article incorrectly mentions "HMS Hannah". This is an incorrect name as the Hannah was not a naval vessel and thus never "His Majesty's Ship". I have thus removed the HMS designation. Rif Winfield (talk) 10:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect designation of the ''Hannah''

message: A cite to Geoffrey Footner's book Tidewater Triumph (about the origins of the topsail schooner) should accompany the illustration of the topsail schooner  Pride of Baltimore.  I am considering creating a page for Revolutionary War privateer Jeremiah Yellott, mentioned in Footners book, and will link to this interesting and well written article when I can.  ElijahBosley (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations needed

message: I've been making some piecemeal adjustments but really, the subject of privateering is of considerable historical significance and requires more scope, substance and documenting citation than this.  Rather than do a lot of revision and expansion to this article which would be discourteous to its well intentioned author,  I will begin piecing together another more thorough page, perhaps under the heading American Privateers.FrederickFolger (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision needed 

message: Concur with the compare and contrast to terrorism.  Also recommend removing the statement "From a 21st century point of view, privateering was a form of state-sanctioned piracy, as opposed to just state-sanctioned mass murder."  The distinctions amoung privateering, piracy and terrorism (at least to be consistent with the Wikipedia articles on those topics) are ones of specificity. Additionally, the timbre of this statement drips of personal opinion.
Piracy is considered to be so heinous because it is an act of "hostis humani generis", an assault on all humankind.  Privateering differs from piracy and state-sponsored terrorism in that it is declared by a nation and specifically targeted against other nations within bounds.  If CountryX issued letters of marque and reprisal to privateers against commercial shipping of CountryY, commercial shippers of CountryZ would not expect to be detained by those privateers.  Nor would other members of CountryY not engaged in commercial shipping (providers of humanitarian aid, research vessels, etc.).  Also, although many nations currently have legal statements renouncing their use of privateering, in theory, those nations could not detain a privateer comissioned by a nation who has not (at least not on the authority of they themselves having renounced the act of privateering).
What distinguishes it from regular military action by a nation or the hiring or land-based mercenaries, is that the privateers are specifically authorized for immediate economic gain.  In general, members of militaries and mercenaries are contracted and appointed under terms independent of the specific missions they later undertake.
Anyone object to adding those distinctions and removing the equation of privateering to piracy? June1969 (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  :: From Wikipedia: "Those labeled "terrorists" by their opponents rarely identify themselves as such, and typically use other terms or terms specific to their situation, such as separatist, freedom fighter, liberator, revolutionary, vigilante, militant, paramilitary, guerrilla, rebel, patriot, or any similar-meaning word in other languages and cultures. Jihadi, mujaheddin, and fedayeen are similar Arabic words which have entered the English lexicon. It is common for both parties in a conflict to describe each other as terrorists."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorgecid (talk • contribs) 17:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinctions Amoung Privateering and Other Similar Actions 

message: Why are only the UK & US talked off here? Don't the actions of the Barbary pirates count as privateering when they fought the US twice in Barbary wars, or throughout their grinding raids on European coastlines?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.4.85 (talk) 01:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Non-sense...The US involvement (the Barbary Wars) started because the Barbary pirates demanded tribute from American merchant vessels in the Mediterranean Sea. /k8 19:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Anglo bias 

message: Hung?
No.
Hanged!
the terminology is Hanged.
Change it!
Thank you.
68.71.8.75 (talk) 07:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  William Kidd, for instance, began as a legitimate British privateer but was later hung for piracy. 

message: One aspect of this form of naval war still puzzles me though.
After WW1, the various naval powers, with vast resources at their potential disposal met at various conferences to discuss future naval construction.
The first line of the various agreements reads " Privateering is and remains abolished". So just what was it about privateering that made this the priority category of 20th century naval conference agreements? AT Kunene (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Privateering 

message: Recently, I have seen a number of uses of the term "American War of 1812".  This appears to be a term in American use only, rather than an internationally-accepted term.  I think we ought to stick to the generally-accepted "War of 1812".    Heavenlyblue (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not an American usage -- I'm not sure where it comes from, but your comment is spot on. I made the change. Not sure why you didn't -- Wikipedia is about bold corrections. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  War of 1812 

message: The reason it doesn't seem to happen anymore is it would be hard to compete with modern navies and their ships and technology, but do any government still issue letters of marque/privateering licenses?   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.107.168 (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Is it still allowed anywhere?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Privateer. 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://archive.is/20131205174316/http://www.adendi.com/archivo.asp?num=39187&year=1991&month=1&keyword= to http://www.adendi.com/archivo.asp?num=39187&year=1991&month=1&keyword=
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) 12:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Privateer. 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/20090109000731/http://orbat.com/site/history/historical/usa/usn1812.html to http://orbat.com/site/history/historical/usa/usn1812.html
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) 13:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: I updated/reorganised the introduction text to clarify some of the grammar, the difference between privateering and piracy, and that sovereigns or delegated authorities issued commissions. According to NAM Rodger's article (referenced here) there is a difference between "letters of marque" and commissions. Commissions are more generic so this is the term that should be used. I also took out the reference to mercenaries as I don't think it is relevant to the reader. CrushLily (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: I updated this section to emphasise that the commission is integral to differentiating a privateer from a pirate. I placed this in the context of the shift in piracy law away from treason to a crime against property that brought privateers more under the jurisdiction of their home sovereign/state. I also included a section on non-European forms of authorised sea-raiding as I believe it is important to emphasise this was a widespread and common practice among coastal people. I also reduced the reference to William Kidd as there is contention among historians on whether he was a pirate at all.  --CrushLily (talk) 07:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal framework section 

message: Reorganised the England/British section to be less reflective of all privateering and more directed to the nation's use of it. --CrushLily (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Shouldn't the historical fact of privateers operating out of Jersey be mentioned in this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 09:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Jersey privateers