Historical scholarship has long highlighted the extensive landscape interventions initiated by state agents, early capitalists and experts in the early modern period, and pointed to the fierce, often violent resistance they evoked from local and rural communities. Such an approach risks narrowly aligning expertise with intervention in the service of states or capitalist elites and positioning experts in direct opposition to people. This article uses the history of land reclamation in the seventeenth-century Dutch Republic, usually told as a harmonious success story of premodern human intervention in nature, to explore the nature and politics of expertise and environmental thought as different elites clashed. Focusing on the proposed but not executed drainage of the Haarlemmermeer, it demonstrates how experts came to act as agents of resistance who argued for conservation and caution rather than intervention, and shows we can use expert exchanges to gain better insight into the divisive nature of environmental thought in the early modern period.
{"title":"Failure to Drain: Expert Resistance and Environmental Thought in the Seventeenth-Century Dutch Republic","authors":"Anna-Luna Post","doi":"10.1093/pastj/gtae039","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pastj/gtae039","url":null,"abstract":"Historical scholarship has long highlighted the extensive landscape interventions initiated by state agents, early capitalists and experts in the early modern period, and pointed to the fierce, often violent resistance they evoked from local and rural communities. Such an approach risks narrowly aligning expertise with intervention in the service of states or capitalist elites and positioning experts in direct opposition to people. This article uses the history of land reclamation in the seventeenth-century Dutch Republic, usually told as a harmonious success story of premodern human intervention in nature, to explore the nature and politics of expertise and environmental thought as different elites clashed. Focusing on the proposed but not executed drainage of the Haarlemmermeer, it demonstrates how experts came to act as agents of resistance who argued for conservation and caution rather than intervention, and shows we can use expert exchanges to gain better insight into the divisive nature of environmental thought in the early modern period.","PeriodicalId":47870,"journal":{"name":"Past & Present","volume":"99 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142672905","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article focuses on the consequences of a single major international affair — the shipwreck of a French ship carrying 165 Muslim pilgrims along the southern shores of Sicily in 1716 — to address two pivotal issues in the reordering of eighteenth-century legal and political systems: the limits of domestic sovereignty in absolutist states and the status of non-Christian polities in the theory and practice of the law of nations. Both the time and place of this episode, which had a vast resonance at the time, have broad implications for how we write about the development of modern international law. While much of the debate on the maritime dimension of the eighteenth-century law of nations focuses on the Atlantic and the Indian Oceans, we spotlight the Mediterranean, where endemic corsairing activities coexisted with age-old diplomatic and day-to-day practices of accommodation and mutual recognition between Christian and Muslim polities. Here we draw attention to shipwrecks that occurred in foreign territorial waters and their heuristic potential for better understanding controversial issues of maritime law, such as the status of shorelines, neutrality and the law of the flag. Even after the Peace of Utrecht (1713–15), which is often regarded as a watershed moment in the history of international law, these rules were far from settled and shipwrecks continued to fuel legal and philosophical battles that extended well beyond the confines of the famous controversy between supporters of mare liberum and advocates of mare clausum. The close examination of the 1716 shipwreck leads us to challenge the land/sea divide as constructed by Carl Schmitt and demonstrate that territorial waters were objects of sovereign disputes in much the same way as land territories. We also show how the emerging Eurocentric discourse about the ‘barbarity’ of non-Christian peoples and nations coexisted with intellectual, economic and diplomatic forces interested in establishing formal agreements between Western European nations, the Ottoman Empire and its North African provinces.
{"title":"‘The Shipwreck of the Turks’: Sovereignty, Barbarism and Civilization in the Legal Order of the Eighteenth-Century Mediterranean","authors":"Guillaume Calafat, Francesca Trivellato","doi":"10.1093/pastj/gtae030","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pastj/gtae030","url":null,"abstract":"This article focuses on the consequences of a single major international affair — the shipwreck of a French ship carrying 165 Muslim pilgrims along the southern shores of Sicily in 1716 — to address two pivotal issues in the reordering of eighteenth-century legal and political systems: the limits of domestic sovereignty in absolutist states and the status of non-Christian polities in the theory and practice of the law of nations. Both the time and place of this episode, which had a vast resonance at the time, have broad implications for how we write about the development of modern international law. While much of the debate on the maritime dimension of the eighteenth-century law of nations focuses on the Atlantic and the Indian Oceans, we spotlight the Mediterranean, where endemic corsairing activities coexisted with age-old diplomatic and day-to-day practices of accommodation and mutual recognition between Christian and Muslim polities. Here we draw attention to shipwrecks that occurred in foreign territorial waters and their heuristic potential for better understanding controversial issues of maritime law, such as the status of shorelines, neutrality and the law of the flag. Even after the Peace of Utrecht (1713–15), which is often regarded as a watershed moment in the history of international law, these rules were far from settled and shipwrecks continued to fuel legal and philosophical battles that extended well beyond the confines of the famous controversy between supporters of mare liberum and advocates of mare clausum. The close examination of the 1716 shipwreck leads us to challenge the land/sea divide as constructed by Carl Schmitt and demonstrate that territorial waters were objects of sovereign disputes in much the same way as land territories. We also show how the emerging Eurocentric discourse about the ‘barbarity’ of non-Christian peoples and nations coexisted with intellectual, economic and diplomatic forces interested in establishing formal agreements between Western European nations, the Ottoman Empire and its North African provinces.","PeriodicalId":47870,"journal":{"name":"Past & Present","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142556194","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article analyzes the practices and politics of Caribbean prize courts at the turn of the nineteenth century, in order to better understand the dynamics of these peculiar legal institutions on the ground in one of the most volatile inter-imperial maritime spaces of the period. The focus is on the daily operation of the courts, the relationship between different regional courts (within and between empires), and, importantly, on their role within wider Caribbean networks. The article asks how knowledge about these courts was shared within the trans- imperial networks of the region. Court shopping was a common practice and claimants would often go out of their way to take captures or cases to specific courts, either within a single empire or even in a different imperial jurisdiction, but how did potential claimants come to be so familiar with the characteristics of individual administrations and magistrates? And how did they disseminate this information? The story of Caribbean prize courts is the story of order-making at different, sometimes clashing, levels. While the legal regime around prizes can be seen as an ordering mechanism for interactions between empires, the Caribbean saw its own order-building project driven less by decision-makers in faraway metropoles and more by individual actors within the region, equally likely to exploit, support, or circumvent the legal mechanisms set up by officials. These regional groups were especially likely to act against the prize regime when it posed a challenge to the sanctity of their private property, be it goods or enslaved.
{"title":"Prize court politics and regional ordering in the Caribbean","authors":"Jeppe Mulich","doi":"10.1093/pastj/gtae027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pastj/gtae027","url":null,"abstract":"This article analyzes the practices and politics of Caribbean prize courts at the turn of the nineteenth century, in order to better understand the dynamics of these peculiar legal institutions on the ground in one of the most volatile inter-imperial maritime spaces of the period. The focus is on the daily operation of the courts, the relationship between different regional courts (within and between empires), and, importantly, on their role within wider Caribbean networks. The article asks how knowledge about these courts was shared within the trans- imperial networks of the region. Court shopping was a common practice and claimants would often go out of their way to take captures or cases to specific courts, either within a single empire or even in a different imperial jurisdiction, but how did potential claimants come to be so familiar with the characteristics of individual administrations and magistrates? And how did they disseminate this information? The story of Caribbean prize courts is the story of order-making at different, sometimes clashing, levels. While the legal regime around prizes can be seen as an ordering mechanism for interactions between empires, the Caribbean saw its own order-building project driven less by decision-makers in faraway metropoles and more by individual actors within the region, equally likely to exploit, support, or circumvent the legal mechanisms set up by officials. These regional groups were especially likely to act against the prize regime when it posed a challenge to the sanctity of their private property, be it goods or enslaved.","PeriodicalId":47870,"journal":{"name":"Past & Present","volume":"195 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142556192","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
During the wars of the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries tens of thousands of English sailors had their wages deferred because the government could not come up with the cash to pay them. Instead, Navy sailors were discharged with undated government promissory notes, usually called ‘sailors’ tickets’, which they and their families sometimes had to wait months or years to have paid. This essay traces the way the Navy tried to institutionalize this system, and it also looks at competing ordering projects coming from within the London maritime community that sought to pressure the government to pay the tickets in a timely fashion, to manage overextended credit networks and — in the face of considerable Navy opposition — to make tickets more fungible so they could be used as collateral for debts. One feature of these conflicts was the rise of frauds on sailors’ pay tickets, and over time the Navy endorsed increasingly punitive methods to deal with the problem, most notably various kinds of institutional prosecution. The people indicted for ticket fraud, many of them at the Old Bailey, were predominantly women, and their ‘crimes’ were linked to more legitimate activities long associated with sailors’ female relatives. This essay argues that predatory borrowing by the State and the competing ordering projects to which it gave rise helped to configure as well as to distort social relations and economic opportunity both for women and men within the maritime community.
{"title":"Frauds on Navy Pay and the Men and Women of Maritime London, c.1620–1740","authors":"Margaret R Hunt","doi":"10.1093/pastj/gtae026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pastj/gtae026","url":null,"abstract":"During the wars of the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries tens of thousands of English sailors had their wages deferred because the government could not come up with the cash to pay them. Instead, Navy sailors were discharged with undated government promissory notes, usually called ‘sailors’ tickets’, which they and their families sometimes had to wait months or years to have paid. This essay traces the way the Navy tried to institutionalize this system, and it also looks at competing ordering projects coming from within the London maritime community that sought to pressure the government to pay the tickets in a timely fashion, to manage overextended credit networks and — in the face of considerable Navy opposition — to make tickets more fungible so they could be used as collateral for debts. One feature of these conflicts was the rise of frauds on sailors’ pay tickets, and over time the Navy endorsed increasingly punitive methods to deal with the problem, most notably various kinds of institutional prosecution. The people indicted for ticket fraud, many of them at the Old Bailey, were predominantly women, and their ‘crimes’ were linked to more legitimate activities long associated with sailors’ female relatives. This essay argues that predatory borrowing by the State and the competing ordering projects to which it gave rise helped to configure as well as to distort social relations and economic opportunity both for women and men within the maritime community.","PeriodicalId":47870,"journal":{"name":"Past & Present","volume":"126 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142556189","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Prize law was a legal regime that played a crucial role in maritime trade and warfare in the European imperial world before the twentieth century, governing both the capture and disposition of enemy property seized by belligerents at sea during wartime. Prize law outlined the rules by which captures were to take place and how captured property was to be handled, adjudicated, and (if “condemned” or deemed a valid capture), disposed of. All European maritime powers had prize regimes during the early modern era, which collectively adjudicated the fates of tens of thousands of vessels worth the equivalent of hundreds of millions of today’s dollars. This article examines the procedural law of prize in the long eighteenth century: the rules that governed how legal actors in the prize regime brought cases before tribunals and the tribunals’ rules for adjudicating them. It shows that the law of prize was an interpolity legal regime, generated within the ambiguous legal spaces that existed between the jurisdictional boundaries of individual states and empires. The article focuses on three important areas of procedural law for evidence of the interpolity character of the prize regime. It looks first at the distinctive role played by mariners in prize procedures. Captains of privateers and other capturing vessels functioned as quasi-officers of the court, responsible for assembling the documentary record that prize tribunals used to adjudicate captures and bringing the cases before the courts. Imperial prize regulations gave almost no guidance on the rules that they were to follow. The proper procedures were defined by mariners and merchants themselves, as unwritten rules articulated at sea. Second, we turn to how the prize tribunals managed language diversity and translation. I show that, a few exceptions aside, prize tribunals did not acknowledge linguistic difference among litigants. Instead, the tribunals relied on silent and often unacknowledged translation processes, which embedded in their proceedings a fiction that all of the actors before them communicated in a common language. Last, the article shows that prize tribunals applied foreign law in their proceedings, in ways that were not formally authorized by imperial law. By focusing on the neglected procedural law of prize, this article offers a different view of the prize regime than the one that has been painted by many studies of substantive law of prize in the long eighteenth century, in at least two ways. One is that studying the procedural law of prize casts into sharp relief the bottom-up character of prize law. Far from being dictated by sovereigns or from imperial centers, much about the prize regime was created informally by lower-level legal actors. Second, a focus on procedural law reveals important continuities in prize law across space and time. Substantive prize law during the period saw extensive debates about the nature of neutral rights, among other issues, with different empires
{"title":"An Interpolity Legal Regime in the eighteenth century: \u2028procedural law of prize","authors":"Nathan Perl-Rosenthal","doi":"10.1093/pastj/gtae025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pastj/gtae025","url":null,"abstract":"Prize law was a legal regime that played a crucial role in maritime trade and warfare in the European imperial world before the twentieth century, governing both the capture and disposition of enemy property seized by belligerents at sea during wartime. Prize law outlined the rules by which captures were to take place and how captured property was to be handled, adjudicated, and (if “condemned” or deemed a valid capture), disposed of. All European maritime powers had prize regimes during the early modern era, which collectively adjudicated the fates of tens of thousands of vessels worth the equivalent of hundreds of millions of today’s dollars. This article examines the procedural law of prize in the long eighteenth century: the rules that governed how legal actors in the prize regime brought cases before tribunals and the tribunals’ rules for adjudicating them. It shows that the law of prize was an interpolity legal regime, generated within the ambiguous legal spaces that existed between the jurisdictional boundaries of individual states and empires. The article focuses on three important areas of procedural law for evidence of the interpolity character of the prize regime. It looks first at the distinctive role played by mariners in prize procedures. Captains of privateers and other capturing vessels functioned as quasi-officers of the court, responsible for assembling the documentary record that prize tribunals used to adjudicate captures and bringing the cases before the courts. Imperial prize regulations gave almost no guidance on the rules that they were to follow. The proper procedures were defined by mariners and merchants themselves, as unwritten rules articulated at sea. Second, we turn to how the prize tribunals managed language diversity and translation. I show that, a few exceptions aside, prize tribunals did not acknowledge linguistic difference among litigants. Instead, the tribunals relied on silent and often unacknowledged translation processes, which embedded in their proceedings a fiction that all of the actors before them communicated in a common language. Last, the article shows that prize tribunals applied foreign law in their proceedings, in ways that were not formally authorized by imperial law. By focusing on the neglected procedural law of prize, this article offers a different view of the prize regime than the one that has been painted by many studies of substantive law of prize in the long eighteenth century, in at least two ways. One is that studying the procedural law of prize casts into sharp relief the bottom-up character of prize law. Far from being dictated by sovereigns or from imperial centers, much about the prize regime was created informally by lower-level legal actors. Second, a focus on procedural law reveals important continuities in prize law across space and time. Substantive prize law during the period saw extensive debates about the nature of neutral rights, among other issues, with different empires ","PeriodicalId":47870,"journal":{"name":"Past & Present","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142556188","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Between the second half of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century, the Indian Ocean became a theatre of the global war waged by European imperial states. This article compares how three colonial powers, in French, Danish, and British colonial territories, dealt with interconnected political threats, in a region where the limits of imperial sovereignty and jurisdictions were often blurred and frequently renegotiated. Rather than a formally sanctioned doctrine and legal category, deportation should be understood as a crude tool for solving a variety of problems. Although the forced removal of criminals, religious minorities or political opponents was not a new instrument to the late eighteenth century, it is often ignored that political deportation was also a widely used legal practice in the Indian Ocean during the ‘age of revolutions’. In this region, deportation was used by imperial centres to get rid of political enemies, but also by regional authorities, without referring to metropolitan orders. It was usually not a judicial punishment, but an administrative measure justified in the name of political necessity. This article focuses on three small colonial enclaves, French Reunion, Danish Tranquebar, and British Pondicherry, where a siege mentality and fear of political sedition were omnipresent in this period. Contemporaries believed, with some justifications, that a single conspiracy linked these three colonial theatres, involving the same set of protagonists, who redeployed their projects as they were removed from one place to the next. But in these three sites and societies, deportation raises different issues. Dumping radicals on a foreign shore might have been a short-term fix, but it rarely solved problems in the long term: deportees often returned after some time, which was a direct consequence of the colonial authorities’ reluctance to take irreparable decisions, and of the entanglement of empires and polities in the Indian Ocean.
{"title":"The Return of the Repressed: Political Deportation in the \u2028Indian Ocean during the Age \u2028of Revolutions","authors":"Renaud Morieux","doi":"10.1093/pastj/gtae029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pastj/gtae029","url":null,"abstract":"Between the second half of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century, the Indian Ocean became a theatre of the global war waged by European imperial states. This article compares how three colonial powers, in French, Danish, and British colonial territories, dealt with interconnected political threats, in a region where the limits of imperial sovereignty and jurisdictions were often blurred and frequently renegotiated. Rather than a formally sanctioned doctrine and legal category, deportation should be understood as a crude tool for solving a variety of problems. Although the forced removal of criminals, religious minorities or political opponents was not a new instrument to the late eighteenth century, it is often ignored that political deportation was also a widely used legal practice in the Indian Ocean during the ‘age of revolutions’. In this region, deportation was used by imperial centres to get rid of political enemies, but also by regional authorities, without referring to metropolitan orders. It was usually not a judicial punishment, but an administrative measure justified in the name of political necessity. This article focuses on three small colonial enclaves, French Reunion, Danish Tranquebar, and British Pondicherry, where a siege mentality and fear of political sedition were omnipresent in this period. Contemporaries believed, with some justifications, that a single conspiracy linked these three colonial theatres, involving the same set of protagonists, who redeployed their projects as they were removed from one place to the next. But in these three sites and societies, deportation raises different issues. Dumping radicals on a foreign shore might have been a short-term fix, but it rarely solved problems in the long term: deportees often returned after some time, which was a direct consequence of the colonial authorities’ reluctance to take irreparable decisions, and of the entanglement of empires and polities in the Indian Ocean.","PeriodicalId":47870,"journal":{"name":"Past & Present","volume":"52 2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142556191","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This essay focuses on the long history of archipelagic formations in the Bay of Bengal as sites of legal experimentation. This history is often narrated beginning with convict transportation and the permanent occupation of the Andaman Islands as a British penal settlement in 1857 and the violent erasure of indigenous cultures that followed it. This essay focuses instead on the hundred years preceding it where the English East India Company experimented with abandoning jurisdiction over the lesser-known islands off the Bengal and Burma coasts and people who lived on them, despite being in the position of a territorial sovereign. These experimentations were recorded most eloquently in legal and administrative records about crime - which included, for example, how assault and “river dacoity” on the deltaic islands of the Sunderbans in lower Bengal were to be dealt with and how men convicted of murder on the islands off the Tenasserim coast in southern Burma were to be prosecuted. In each case, prompted by tensions between the Company and the British Crown, policing and prosecution were abandoned, but this escaped public attention as it took place on the empire’s maritime edges. Although jurisdictional claims were central to the expansionist aims of the British empire in the nineteenth century around the Indian Ocean, these instances offer an alternate account of sovereignty, one where assertions and abandonments were both critical to the making of empires.
{"title":"Adrift in the Andaman Sea: \u2028Law, Archipelagos and the Making of Maritime Sovereignty","authors":"Kalyani Ramnath","doi":"10.1093/pastj/gtae033","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pastj/gtae033","url":null,"abstract":"This essay focuses on the long history of archipelagic formations in the Bay of Bengal as sites of legal experimentation. This history is often narrated beginning with convict transportation and the permanent occupation of the Andaman Islands as a British penal settlement in 1857 and the violent erasure of indigenous cultures that followed it. This essay focuses instead on the hundred years preceding it where the English East India Company experimented with abandoning jurisdiction over the lesser-known islands off the Bengal and Burma coasts and people who lived on them, despite being in the position of a territorial sovereign. These experimentations were recorded most eloquently in legal and administrative records about crime - which included, for example, how assault and “river dacoity” on the deltaic islands of the Sunderbans in lower Bengal were to be dealt with and how men convicted of murder on the islands off the Tenasserim coast in southern Burma were to be prosecuted. In each case, prompted by tensions between the Company and the British Crown, policing and prosecution were abandoned, but this escaped public attention as it took place on the empire’s maritime edges. Although jurisdictional claims were central to the expansionist aims of the British empire in the nineteenth century around the Indian Ocean, these instances offer an alternate account of sovereignty, one where assertions and abandonments were both critical to the making of empires.","PeriodicalId":47870,"journal":{"name":"Past & Present","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142555890","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Every empire in the Americas developed a law of slavery that connected the forced transoceanic migration of enslaved people with land-based economic production and social life. Competing conceptions of jurisdiction over land and sea emerged from legal processes regarding slavery in the transition from colonial Portuguese rule to early independence in Brazil. Both the Portuguese monarch and post-independence Brazilian ministers sought to assert jurisdiction over residents inside the territory, including enslaved people. Their attempts to do so created social conflicts in which enslaved people put forth their own visions of jurisdiction and justice. Afro-Brazilian people developed a legal politics that drew upon diasporic maritime connections to overturn enslavement. The legal politics of cases regarding uprisings and contraband slave-trading animated concerns among judges and imperial administrators about effective legal order. A revolutionary movement in 1798 contested Portuguese colonial sovereignty with a vision of free-trade popular sovereignty. The monarch’s transfer from Portugal to Brazil in 1808 opened a small route for enslaved people to petition the crown for freedom based on innovative readings of free soil. A major case of capture in 1851 illuminated how the naval court judge adjudicated the case as the capture of an enemy. Captive African people testified in court to gain collective freedom in a liminal space. These claims to freedom raised important questions about legal equality and freedom from illegal trafficking for all people held in slavery in Brazil.
{"title":"Jurisdiction and Afro-Brazilian Legal Politics from Colonialism to Early Independence","authors":"Jake Subryan Richards","doi":"10.1093/pastj/gtae028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pastj/gtae028","url":null,"abstract":"Every empire in the Americas developed a law of slavery that connected the forced transoceanic migration of enslaved people with land-based economic production and social life. Competing conceptions of jurisdiction over land and sea emerged from legal processes regarding slavery in the transition from colonial Portuguese rule to early independence in Brazil. Both the Portuguese monarch and post-independence Brazilian ministers sought to assert jurisdiction over residents inside the territory, including enslaved people. Their attempts to do so created social conflicts in which enslaved people put forth their own visions of jurisdiction and justice. Afro-Brazilian people developed a legal politics that drew upon diasporic maritime connections to overturn enslavement. The legal politics of cases regarding uprisings and contraband slave-trading animated concerns among judges and imperial administrators about effective legal order. A revolutionary movement in 1798 contested Portuguese colonial sovereignty with a vision of free-trade popular sovereignty. The monarch’s transfer from Portugal to Brazil in 1808 opened a small route for enslaved people to petition the crown for freedom based on innovative readings of free soil. A major case of capture in 1851 illuminated how the naval court judge adjudicated the case as the capture of an enemy. Captive African people testified in court to gain collective freedom in a liminal space. These claims to freedom raised important questions about legal equality and freedom from illegal trafficking for all people held in slavery in Brazil.","PeriodicalId":47870,"journal":{"name":"Past & Present","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142556190","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article offers a new interpretation of mutiny, and of the ways in which this concept was defined and implemented in maritime law during the seventeenth century. It particularly focuses on British seafarers and the evidence surviving in the papers of the English High Court of Admiralty, placed in a comparative perspective with reference to other states’ legal provision. Scholars of maritime social history have been particularly preoccupied with the idea of mutiny but have rarely provided a precise decision of it, or explored its legal intricacies, while generally basing their ideas on the increasingly punitive regulations issued by state navies. Some have presented mutiny as an essentially responsive action by which mariners expressed grievances and appealed to shared ideas of patriarchal justice. Others have found in mutiny the stirrings of a distinctively maritime tradition of political radicalism which fermented throughout the early modern period and ultimately contributed to the age of revolutions in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Across this divide, most historians have concurred in presenting it as an extreme, and often violent, act of resistance to constituted authority. This article shifts our attention to the supposed origins of this authoritarian system in the seventeenth century and expands our analysis beyond the martial law of state navies, which applied only in a specific and limited number of ships. It begins by considering the fragmented nature of the multiple systems of national, municipal, military, and customary maritime laws which governed seafaring, arguing that even in naval law there was no consistent definition or prosecution of mutiny, and that the provisions of customary law (much more ubiquitous than naval law) were far less draconian than popular myth would suggest. The article then turns to the depositions of mariners presented in admiralty court cases to explore how seafarers themselves delivered narratives about their conduct at sea, countering accusations of mutiny levied by their employers. It is particularly important to take into account the legal purpose and context of these sources, which highlight disputes and divisions and where statements were strategically crafted – on both sides – to pursue certain objectives. Through this analysis of both legal codes and legal practice, this article demonstrates that authority and law at sea were not a simple matter of unconfined power meeting radical resistance, nor of acquiescence to established hierarchies. While conflict, mistreatment, and asymmetries of power were undoubtedly present in early modern seafaring, the evidence from the High Court of Admiralty shows that, even at sea, shipmasters’ and their crews’ actions were shaped by knowledge of maritime law. Moreover, seafarers and their employers (whether commercial or imperial) shared expectations about the limits of commanders’ power and about consensus and compromise aboard ship. Discuss
{"title":"Mutiny on Trial: Law and Order among Seventeenth-Century Seafarers","authors":"Richard J Blakemore","doi":"10.1093/pastj/gtae031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pastj/gtae031","url":null,"abstract":"This article offers a new interpretation of mutiny, and of the ways in which this concept was defined and implemented in maritime law during the seventeenth century. It particularly focuses on British seafarers and the evidence surviving in the papers of the English High Court of Admiralty, placed in a comparative perspective with reference to other states’ legal provision. Scholars of maritime social history have been particularly preoccupied with the idea of mutiny but have rarely provided a precise decision of it, or explored its legal intricacies, while generally basing their ideas on the increasingly punitive regulations issued by state navies. Some have presented mutiny as an essentially responsive action by which mariners expressed grievances and appealed to shared ideas of patriarchal justice. Others have found in mutiny the stirrings of a distinctively maritime tradition of political radicalism which fermented throughout the early modern period and ultimately contributed to the age of revolutions in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Across this divide, most historians have concurred in presenting it as an extreme, and often violent, act of resistance to constituted authority. This article shifts our attention to the supposed origins of this authoritarian system in the seventeenth century and expands our analysis beyond the martial law of state navies, which applied only in a specific and limited number of ships. It begins by considering the fragmented nature of the multiple systems of national, municipal, military, and customary maritime laws which governed seafaring, arguing that even in naval law there was no consistent definition or prosecution of mutiny, and that the provisions of customary law (much more ubiquitous than naval law) were far less draconian than popular myth would suggest. The article then turns to the depositions of mariners presented in admiralty court cases to explore how seafarers themselves delivered narratives about their conduct at sea, countering accusations of mutiny levied by their employers. It is particularly important to take into account the legal purpose and context of these sources, which highlight disputes and divisions and where statements were strategically crafted – on both sides – to pursue certain objectives. Through this analysis of both legal codes and legal practice, this article demonstrates that authority and law at sea were not a simple matter of unconfined power meeting radical resistance, nor of acquiescence to established hierarchies. While conflict, mistreatment, and asymmetries of power were undoubtedly present in early modern seafaring, the evidence from the High Court of Admiralty shows that, even at sea, shipmasters’ and their crews’ actions were shaped by knowledge of maritime law. Moreover, seafarers and their employers (whether commercial or imperial) shared expectations about the limits of commanders’ power and about consensus and compromise aboard ship. Discuss","PeriodicalId":47870,"journal":{"name":"Past & Present","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142556193","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Historians have paid more attention to the inner life of households than to their legal and political significance in early European overseas empires. This article analyses the legal role of households in the seventeenth century Caribbean, with an emphasis on Jamaica and Suriname. It argues that households were key to organising maritime violence and composing regional order. Imperial agents in the Caribbean—soldiers, sojourners, servants, and officials—drew selectively from European political and legal discourses about dominium to define households as essential to the constitution of colonial communities and governance. In imperial and colonial legal imagination, households were necessary for the constitution of political communities and their presence fortified arguments for interpolitical violence, especially maritime raiding. Affirming the rights of household heads to hold and command captives, imperial policies to foment household formation and regulate conflicts within households underpinned a regional regime of raiding, captive taking, and enslavement. The regional regime centred on legalities of violence. Demand for coerced labour in early plantation households fuelled a 
circum-Caribbean economy of captive taking and plunder, while settlers invoked the defence of households to authorise privateering and local warfare. As the primary legal framework for absorbing and commanding coerced labour, households became the object of inter-imperial competition and a vehicle for constructing enslavement as an institution. Contests over the rights of settlers to relocate to competing colonies at times pitted expansive understandings of the dominium of household heads—the exercise of private power over household subordinates—against the public authorities they nominally sustained. Such conflicts worked to reinforce the centrality of households to the expansion of plantation slavery. The politics of households made them an unstable underpinning for colonial governance and a site of resistance to the emerging plantocracy. Officials in Jamaica struggled to manage the volatile relation between raiding and planter household formation. In Suriname, Indigenous and African captives struggled to escape and subvert forms of slavery and coercion imposed under cover of household dominium. Examining the significance of households in colonial thought illuminates important and often overlooked continuities in the legal politics of nascent Caribbean colonies and the rise of a regional slave regime. Viewed from the colonial household, legal change across the Caribbean did not follow discrete stages of conquest, privateering, and plantation slavery. Instead, it evolved in relation to shifting accommodations between public and private claims to authority and legitimate violence. Authorising warfare and converting captives into property, households formed a legal fulcrum for balancing interdependent networks of raiding, slaving, and planting in emergent slave
{"title":"A Sea of Households: Ordering Violence and Mobility in the \u2028Inter-Imperial Caribbean","authors":"Lauren Benton, Timo McGregor","doi":"10.1093/pastj/gtae024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pastj/gtae024","url":null,"abstract":"Historians have paid more attention to the inner life of households than to their legal and political significance in early European overseas empires. This article analyses the legal role of households in the seventeenth century Caribbean, with an emphasis on Jamaica and Suriname. It argues that households were key to organising maritime violence and composing regional order. Imperial agents in the Caribbean—soldiers, sojourners, servants, and officials—drew selectively from European political and legal discourses about dominium to define households as essential to the constitution of colonial communities and governance. In imperial and colonial legal imagination, households were necessary for the constitution of political communities and their presence fortified arguments for interpolitical violence, especially maritime raiding. Affirming the rights of household heads to hold and command captives, imperial policies to foment household formation and regulate conflicts within households underpinned a regional regime of raiding, captive taking, and enslavement. The regional regime centred on legalities of violence. Demand for coerced labour in early plantation households fuelled a 
circum-Caribbean economy of captive taking and plunder, while settlers invoked the defence of households to authorise privateering and local warfare. As the primary legal framework for absorbing and commanding coerced labour, households became the object of inter-imperial competition and a vehicle for constructing enslavement as an institution. Contests over the rights of settlers to relocate to competing colonies at times pitted expansive understandings of the dominium of household heads—the exercise of private power over household subordinates—against the public authorities they nominally sustained. Such conflicts worked to reinforce the centrality of households to the expansion of plantation slavery. The politics of households made them an unstable underpinning for colonial governance and a site of resistance to the emerging plantocracy. Officials in Jamaica struggled to manage the volatile relation between raiding and planter household formation. In Suriname, Indigenous and African captives struggled to escape and subvert forms of slavery and coercion imposed under cover of household dominium. Examining the significance of households in colonial thought illuminates important and often overlooked continuities in the legal politics of nascent Caribbean colonies and the rise of a regional slave regime. Viewed from the colonial household, legal change across the Caribbean did not follow discrete stages of conquest, privateering, and plantation slavery. Instead, it evolved in relation to shifting accommodations between public and private claims to authority and legitimate violence. Authorising warfare and converting captives into property, households formed a legal fulcrum for balancing interdependent networks of raiding, slaving, and planting in emergent slave","PeriodicalId":47870,"journal":{"name":"Past & Present","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142556215","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：