Talk:Letter of marque

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BrennanJKlim.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Result of Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001

Although I could probably google it, anyone know whatever happened to Ron Paul's Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001? I think that is something that should be included here. 69.208.228.193 20:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

i tried googleing this and couldn't find it anywhere. plenty of press about it when it was introduced, but i can't find any follow up on it. i'd be interested to hear what the outcome was. Nostalgicmonkey (talk) 07:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:MilHist Assessment

A very nice start, and I especially like the picture. But for such a major element of the history of this period, I should think that a lot more could be said on the subject. Maybe some further examples of people who held letters of marque, more description as to how they differed between the nations, and some more about how one obtained Letters. LordAmeth 17:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

CSS Alabama

The CSS Alabama is properly described as a commerce raider. She was a regularly commissioned vessel and acting under the authority of the CS Navy, rather than a privately owned ship acting on a letter of marque. JE1977 23:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Since its been over 7 months and no one has argued against the point I will remove the CSS Alabama link. Twfowler 00:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Actual Meaning of Marque

According to dictionary.com, the meaning of marque in this context means "siezure by way of retaliation", not "border". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guerre (talk • contribs) 16:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Removal of well-sourced material

Given how difficult it is for Wikipedia to develop articles with well-sourced material, it is a bit astonishing to see the removal of well-sourced material from a wikipedia article without first reaching concensus among the articles' editors that doing so is appropriate. Could those who wish to make such removals kindly discuss them a bit first? (sdsds - talk) 04:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not clear if I'm following the edit stream, but I see your name both being surprised that people would edit out content and most recently editing out content without putting an entry on the Talk page about it, so I reverted that edit. In you edit comment you ask if people's names are really important when it comes to legislation in a Congress. The answer is, "of course". The history of the country is strongly about personalities and agendas, and knowing that the bill was introduced by Ron Paul adds quite a bit of information for the well-informed reader, no matter if they support or detest Ron Paul, his ideology is pretty well known. Do you know who wrote the Declaration of Independence? Who championed the New Deal? Who wrote the Sarbanes-Oxley or McCain-Feingold bills (OK, that was a gimme). The point is, who introduces a bill is very important to understanding quickly the philosophy behind a bill and the context in which it fits in the current government. That Ron Paul introduced this bill tells us that it's likely to be favored by strict constructionists and isn't likely to have a great deal of popular or political support. Those are very important to understand the position of this bill, why it was introduced, and why it wasn't passed. Leaving out such information leaves the reader without these tools and makes the article less informative. Wikipedia can't be in the position of assuming its readership to be dull and that all relevant information on a topic is to be provided by Wikipedia, and therefore holding back all bits of information that may require some knowledge on the reader's part. Besides, that's why hyperlinks are for. BillMcGonigle (talk) 02:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your comments on this! To be clear about my edits: I'm happy with the article mentioning Ron Paul by name, and I'm happy with the article omitting mention of Ron Paul by name. I'm not happy with the article ommitting mention of the legislation Ron Paul introduced. You are right of course the the "personalities and agendas" of individual legislators are really important aspects of any piece of legislation. As regards the "Letter of marque" article, though, the legislation itself is what is highly relevant to the topic. And for the article to meet the WP:NPOV standard we need to consider the view expressed by another editor that mention of presidential candidate Paul's name here is essentially "spam". I think the "right" solution would be to create a Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 article. There is no doubt that a link from that article to Ron Paul would be appropriate. Having that pair of hyperlinks is what hyperlinks are really for! (sdsds - talk) 04:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001

The article doesn't mention if this act was passed into law, defeated, or is still pending in the US Congress. --NEMT (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

More interesting to me would be the legal structure which surrounded someone detained under a letter of marque, since that could also provide a constitutional basis for the treatment of people detained under suspicion of terrorist activities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.132.93.62 (talk) 06:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ron Paul's Marque-related legislations apparently died in committee. The 2001 Act was referred to the House International Relations [1], while the 2007 Act went to the House Foreign Affairs[2]. Not sure if it's really worth mentioning that they both stalled out in committee. Haqui11a (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting from an antiquarian's perspective to see Ron Paul's effort to revive Letters of Marque, like one of those lovely reproduction tops'l schooners floated out of a Maine or Masachussetes wooden boatbuilder's shop--but for the failed legislation it seems to occupy too much space. Perhaps the problem will be solved with more detail added to the description of old fashioned Letters of Marque from the days of sail above.FrederickFolger (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

China

The section on China uses phrases such as "has been accused of," "is said to use," "Some military analysts see this as," etc, without quoting any sources. These allegations seem particularly heavy, implicating a major world power to be conducting an activity that has serious political and military implications. It seems something that serious would be worth some sort of citation of an outside source. I'm relatively new to Wiki editing, so I'm not sure the appropriate measures to take, (ie, how to add that "citation needed" superscript), but that should probably be addressed.

Haqui11a (talk) 17:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

format & substance suggestions

Format: Legalistic details in the lead should be in the body of the article under a heading like "Description of Letters of Marque." Substance: Its a rich topic that needs more info. For instance, in the American Revolution Letters of Marque issued by states like Maryland (before the federal Constitution) included a standard clause forbidding unnecessary atrocities, and requiring humane treatment of prisoners: a precursor of modern law-of-war provisions like the Geneva conventions. We need details on bringing a prize before an Admiralty court, and how the spoils were divided among vessel owners and crew. And the article needs links to notable privateers. I will try to put together some secondary sources for footnotes and get to work on revisions.FrederickFolger (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay-I went ahead and did a quick revision keeping as much of the previous text as I feasibly could. There are still flaws, especially the citations which though accurate need a lot of work on Wikiformat. Suggestions welcome-I posted this though imperfect to give others a chance to play with it- have to attend to other things today.FrederickFolger (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

definition of 'marque' and of 'reprisal'

Hi Redbush, thanks for your edit. I have been unable to find an authority telling me where "Marque" came from, but your etymology seems reasonable and is fine with me. A footnote would be helpful. For the sake of improved style and clarity, what would you think of moving the definition of the words marque and reprisal together into a a new section as follows?

Definition of "Marque" and of "Reprisal"

As used in this context, Marque is of likely German derivation meaning "border" and a letter of marque and reprisal would involve crossing over an international border to effect a reprisal (some action taken against an attack or injury) to offer authorization by the issuing jurisdiction to conduct reprisal operations outside it's borders. Originally the word reprisal referred to private retaliation for attacks on shipping. Until 1620, for example, to apply for a Letter of Marque in England a shipowner had to submit to the Admiralty Court an estimate of his actual losses.[footnote] Later the element of retaliation fell away, and a Letter of Marque and Reprisal became simply a general license to cruise in search of enemy vessels, which a country issued after hostilities—not necessarily formally declared warfare—had commenced against another nation.[footnote]

Definition of "Marque"

Thank you for your critique and I have been assembling some of the authoritative references I am using for the derivation of the term marque.

My biggest contribution intended here could be the use of letters of marque in colonial America - particularly in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and I have researched through the Virginia Historical Society certain documents which illustrate that the use of letters of marque of that era - and hence, as enumerated in the U.S. Constitutiion - is NOT necessarily for maritime situations ONLY. ( I haven't gotten to Maryland yet !) That is the misconception I wish to extract from a small- but meaningful - contribution to this wikipedia page. I recognize the fine research and work done here, and I recognize the need for the accurate emphasis on the maritime situations for the term. I'd just want to add in a little of the documentation that the seas and international waters aren't the only application intended for this term - historically, as well as potentially in any future modern era usage.

Regarding the 21st Century . . . this is some info and a place for interested parties to research further as well :

H.R.3076 Title: To authorize the President of the United States to issue letters of marque and reprisal with respect to certain acts of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001, and other similar acts of war planned for the future.

Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 10/10/2001)

Co-sponsors for H.R.3076 Rep Burton, Dan [IN-6] - 10/29/2001; Rep Rohrabacher, Dana [CA-45] - 10/29/2001; Rep Schaffer, Bob [CO-4] - 11/14/2001; Rep Wamp, Zach [TN-3] - 11/14/2001; Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] - 11/14/2001; Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. [VA-5] - 11/14/2001; Rep Tancredo, Thomas G. [CO-6] - 11/14/2001; Rep Kingston, Jack [GA-1] - 11/14/2001; Rep Rehberg, Dennis R. [MT] - 11/16/2001;

It never made it out of Committee . . . what a shame.

--Redblush (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes that IS a shame: I'd have painted up my kayak, armed my dog (who loves to go cruising with me), and sailed out in search of Al Q'aida. I do find this legislation intriguing and am grateful for your having brought it to my attention. Congressman Paul is an innovative thinker. I need to take a break after doing some extensive work on another page but will come back to this in a day or two. Thanks again for you contribution, and best wishes. FrederickFolger (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I just added in what I wanted to for the earliest "non-naval" use of the term . . . but when copying the format from another wikipedia page it boldfaced that Nomenclature history and moved the contents box - it seems ok (?). Your initial paragraph seems to work in well (or well enough ?) following that in chronological order. Any other contributions I'd be interested in adding would be in a section following the current # 5 - maybe titled colonial America something. You obviously could have plenty of material for before as well as during those times - and also any later, modern-era kayaking applications as well. Best regards. --Redblush (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, great addition Redblush. We might jiggle the lede format at some point but the etymology is striking and useful. I'll come back to style later, after I am through working on another page. As to colonial America, there's plenty of info, almost too much, as the Wiki policy is to try not to be America-centric but do a worldwide perspective. Right now I am working on how the American colonies treated privateering during the Revolution. There's a gigantic "who's in charge here?" problem. Several of the rebelling colonies (Md., Pa. Va., Mass.) authorized privateering against England in 1775--before the Dec. of Ind., before the Continental Congress had defined is own powers, and years before the Articles of Conf. created the first central government. Each state set up their own prize courts. That lead to the possibility of 13 different interpretions of prize law. So the Continental Congress decreed a central prize court of its own--without authority to do so. Then the Congress accepted appeals from state prize courts. Also without authority. In the resulting confusion the first prize case ended up getting litigated for nearly 30 years, until 1806. All fascinating, but original research so not Wiki-material. Probably I'll write another article for Sea History, then cite the article.FrederickFolger (talk) 13:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Balance of Power, James W Huston

I'm surprized this 1998 novel has not been mentioned as the entire plot revolves around Congresses attempt to use a Letter of Marque to go after terrorists...Graham1973 (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Blank media pirate tax == letter of marque

For the record, you may refer to this as a "Letter of Marque". Also, if you are pirating with the blessing of your Government (say, because you paid a tax to do so), you may officially refer to yourself as a "Privateer" (official pirate). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.187.173 (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Universal revilement

If Piracy was "universally reviled", who were the pirates? They would have to revile themselves. I'm not sure even Jack Sparrow stoops so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4B10:101B:80:84F4:61FF:FED4:4183 (talk) 08:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

History of Letter

The article overlooks Texan privateer Jean LaFitte. Tried in New Orleans for piracy, he was acquitted upon producing letters of marque against the Spanish fleet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.177.180 (talk) 13:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Letter of marque. 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/20070930113538/http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2001/tst091701.htm to http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2001/tst091701.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Confused timeline: Revolution, Constitution

"During the American War of Independence, first the state legislatures, then both the states and the Continental Congress, then, after ratification of the Constitution, Congress authorized and the President signed letters of marque."

This seems to state that the Constitution was ratified during the War of Independence, which of course is not the case.

Gambaguru (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

2022 proposed legislation?

This might be helpful to add. Details here. --Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 19:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Governor

Can a governor in the US issue letters of marque? 24.51.192.49 (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)