Private Ships Of War And The American Maritime Tradition
BY Herschel Smith
6 years, 9 months ago
JMW:
Privately owned warships are so deeply at the heart of American maritime tradition that a reference to them is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. With their own contract crews who rushed to the fight for independence during the American Revolution and in defense of the nation during the War of 1812, the private warships successfully waged naval guerrilla warfare against the world’s most powerful fleet. Private warships also fought the Barbary pirates in the nation’s first foreign war.
The privateers of the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 were much different from the private military contractors (PMCs) and private security contractors of today. They operated as independent businesses, chartered by Congress and bonded to ensure observance of the law, but, unlike PMCs, they were free of the military chain of command. They served the national interest not as government contractors, but made their profits by attacking enemy shipping—especially commercial shipping, on which the enemy’s economy depended. Those on the receiving end viewed privateers as glorified pirates. But the U.S. government viewed them as legitimate weapons against the commercial engine that fueled the enemy’s armed forces. Several European powers also used privateers at sea.
By necessity, American naval warfare at the time was asymmetrical against the overwhelmingly superior Royal Navy. From the very beginning, the leaders of what would become the United States of America turned to the private sector to do cost-effectively and efficiently what the government could not do at all. Before independence, in April 1776, the Continental Congress voted to issue commissions for “private ships of war” to attack the British. Borrowing from established French and British practices, the Continental Congress authorized the issuance of “letters of marque and reprisal” for the owners and captains of private warships to attack enemy vessels. In one of the Founding Fathers’ earliest regulations of private business, the Continental Congress legislated how the private naval forces and their commanders and crew would conduct themselves, and required privateer owners to post bond to guarantee compliance.
The “letters of marque and reprisal” language appears in Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 11 of the Constitution.
I ran across this excellent analysis a few days ago and thought it would be good to remind my readers of the American tradition.
So the next time someone says to you, “You don’t really believe that the second amendment protects your right to own military hardware do you, that means you could own a tank?”
You can say to them, “Why yes, yes I do, and yes it does, in the best tradition of the American states and our founders. For the peace, good and dignity of the country and the welfare of its people.”
On March 20, 2018 at 9:30 am, ragman said:
Piracy is one of three crimes specifically mentioned in our Constitution, the other two being counterfeiting and treason. At the very minimum, we should be able to go to our LGS and purchase the select fire weapon of our choice. For no more than a semi auto costs now. Piracy still exists on the East Coast of Africa and the Somalis are the perpetrators. The same sub 70 IQ savages that our elites import to our country. Ropes and lampposts are way overdue.
On March 20, 2018 at 10:21 am, Gryphon said:
I’ve been using that “Letters of Marque” (and having to Explain what it Means) part of the Constitution on the anti- Second Amendment idiots for Years… It seems to Derail the argument of “Citizens Shouldn’t be Allowed to Own Military Weapons” quite well. And yeah, I know a Guy who has a Tank, with a Tax Stamp for the Gun, but you can’t get that Ammo Caliber any more…
On March 20, 2018 at 7:21 pm, jim said:
Wouldn’t mind owning and hiring crew for BB-62, Et Al.
On March 23, 2018 at 3:37 pm, Scott in Phx said:
Tanks and warships aren’t “arms” Herschel.
The Founders weren’t lazy or stupid when they wrote the 2A.
There may be a right to warships and tanks. You might look in the 9A or that fact that there is no power in the Constitution allowing the Congress to ban possession of them.
But you won’t find it in the 2A.
On March 23, 2018 at 10:25 pm, Herschel Smith said:
@Scott,
Not sure what you’re saying. I never said the founders were lazy or stupid in any way. I also never said that any such thing is discussed in detail in the 2A or anywhere else except where the article says they were.
This little post wasn’t a thesis, Scott. Take a chill brother.
The point of this was that if anyone believes that the founders were unaccustomed to the notion of private ownership of armaments or that they never intended for civilians to own such things, that belief is easily defeated by the historical context.
As for whether ships are armaments, I never said they were. But the cannon is.
On March 24, 2018 at 9:42 am, Scott said:
Sorry Herschel, after I posted that I realized that it sounded sharp but the point remains.
You cannot bear a cannon. They were not that lazy as to write an amendment that meant “to keep and bear arms” and “to keep and use cannon (or any other weapon)”. The word bear restricts the 2A to at least those weapons that one can carry.
Also, “arms” is not the same as armaments. It can mean armaments as in the “strategic arms limitation treaty” but there “strategic” modifies arms to mean something else – in this case strategic “weapons”.
That is “arms” and “strategic arms” are not the same thing.
All “arms” are weapons, but not all weapons are arms. Cannon are weapons or armaments but they are not “arms”. If they are then any weapon, including a warship is. You cannot slice and dice weapons to put into the 2A the ones that you want.
The Founders agonized over the words but they did not say “the right to every terrible implement of war (that is the birthright of an American)”.
The word “weapon” was definitely used in 1787 so the Founders could have easily written the 2A to cover all weapons but they didn’t.
You did say – “So the next time someone says to you, “You don’t really believe that the second amendment protects your right to own military hardware do you, that means you could own a tank?”
You can say to them, “Why yes, yes I do, and yes it does”
No, the 2A does not. That private citizens owned cannon or warships doesn’t mean the 2A covers that.
Maybe the 9th, maybe the mere fact that the Constitution gives the Congress no power to prevent it covers that, but not the 2A.
The mere fact that people did own cannon and did put them on warships (and act as legal pirates under the direction/permission of gov’t”) doesn’t inform us one whit as to what the 2A means.
One has to defer to what the Founders meant by “arms” and “bear”. That leaves out non-bearable weapons at a minimum.
I don’t like it when I see our enemies make the straw man argument that “oh, so you think you can have a tank” under the 2A.
I like it even less when I see people on my side make that claim.
On March 24, 2018 at 11:51 am, Herschel Smith said:
I think you’re dead wrong Scott. God gives me the right to own such things, the 2A protects me from FedGov interference from them.
I have the right to own a Browning .50 cal even though I can’t carry it on my person and it’s a crew served weapon.
So we can agree to disagree here, but I’ll keep making my point, over and over and over again.
On March 24, 2018 at 10:13 pm, Scott said:
“God gives me the right to own such things”
That may be and I’ve never argued against that point.
“the 2A protects me from FedGov interference from them.”
Your position makes a mockery of the English language and the intelligence of the Founders.
“I think you’re dead wrong Scott”
At least I constructed an argument to support my position.
I get your kind of argument from the anti’s that claim the militia clause of the 2A restricts the right to the National Guard.
On March 24, 2018 at 10:26 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Scott,
No, you don’t get anything like that kind of argument from antis. I still have the right to own a Browning M2 .50. The 2A doesn’t just protect things I can carry on my person.
Now, let it go sir. Agreeing to disagree isn’t the same thing as pressing the point until you feel like you win.
On March 26, 2018 at 6:48 pm, Poshboy said:
That limit for armament is already described in the Constitution.
The upper limit on the types of firearms needed for ownership is the one determined by Art. 1, Sec. 10, Clause 3: “No State shall…keep Troops or Ships of War in Time of Peace…without the Consent of the Legislature of the United States.”
Figure out the armament capabilities of today’s Ships of War and there you have it; Congress was given the power to only determine that definition, and everything below it is legal and required for national defense under the Constitution’s Militia clauses, which are more extensive than the Army or Navy clauses in our founding document.
That certainly includes the TOE for an infantry company and its support units, which are the equivalent of a militia company. The question before SCOTUS should be: does a new 155mm howitzer qualify, or why is a surplus ZSU-23 manufactured overseas and purchased by a private consortium not useful for local air defense?
Honesty, why are we giving a bunch of judges, all of whom have no background to determine military armaments in any fashion whatsoever, any say on this topic? This material question should be between Congress, the states, and whatever new federal department handling militia affairs (not DOD, for obvious reasons). If the Federal or state judicial systems interfere, simply arrest them on national security grounds and try them in a new Art. III court system set by Congress up to handle these unique disputes.
Now if only Congress would take responsibility for its duties under the Constitution’s Militia clauses, instead of neglecting them as they have done for the past 120 years.
That’s what we need to pound Congressional candidates on–will you support local defense units, and if not, will you step aside for an American who will?