Theodosia Burr Alston's Disappearance was Used in Anti-Privateer Propaganda

There are many stories about what may have happened to Theodosia Burr Alston after she boarded The Patriot on December 31, 1812. Most of those stories involve pirates: pirates forcing her to walk the plank, pirates turning her into their love slave, pirates slitting her throat because they are after her jewels. Every such story was used to hurt Theodosia's father Aaron Burr, both personally and politically,  and in the process to bolster the Neutrality Act under which he was persecuted for his expedition against Spanish held Mexico.

It is one of the practices of the political propagandist to recruit as victims of the policies they are against people near and dear to their political enemies. So it should come as no surprise that some of the people accused of killing Theodosia were not pirates at all, but rather law abiding privateers. One of these was Captain Jean DesFarges, who while working for Jean Laffite, was accused of piracy for taking as a prize a Spanish ship named the Filomena . This occurred about seven years after Theodosia's disappearance. The purpose of the prosecution and later hanging of DesFarges and his crew was to discredit Jean Laffite and his privateering establishment in Galveston. As part of the general smear campaign,  a baseless story was published to the effect that DesFarges had confessed to murdering Theodosia.

The following newspaper account, countering the "pirate" story, from The Famer's Repository, Charleston, W. Vrginia, August 30, 1820 was provided to me by Pam Keyes;

The New Orleans Advetiser of August 21 contradicts the story in the New York prints of June 1820, of certain pirates, executed at New Orleans, having confessed they composed part of the crew of the pilot boat Patriot who murdered Mrs. Alston. The Advertiser discredits the whole account: and upon the testimony of the Rev. Mr. Larned, who attended them in prison from the day of condemnation to the moment of their being swung from the gallows, "It did not appear that they had ever stained their hands with blood."

Nevertheless, the legend of Theodosia having been done away with by pirates lives on. And very few people understand that DesFarges and his crew were not pirates. Likewise, Jean Laffite is known as a pirate, and Aaron Burr, while acquitted of treason, is known as a traitor.  This is how political operatives kill two birds with one stone.

The Right to Resist Illegal Searches, Seizures and Arrests

Sometimes discretion is the better valor. Sometimes we cooperate with an authority figure or an armed robber or a bully in order to avoid the immediate bodily injury that would ensue if we didn't. That's a choice that every person has the right to make based on the circumstances, and it is not a good idea to judge other people on their failure to put up a fight when they had every right to. Not everybody is equally as brave. Not everybody is equally as good at martial arts. Not everybody can resist. And besides, it is wrong to blame the victim. But what about the other side of the coin? What if someone does stand up to the bully, the robber or the authority figure acting outside the law? Shouldn't we have that right? And shouldn't the law reviewing the case after the fact come down on the side of the resister using force to protect his or her constitutional rights? If we are not allowed to use force and arms to protect our rights, what good are they, anyway?

In the wake of the Sandra Bland incident, Lew Rockwell had the following "legal" advice to give:

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/07/steve-silverman/be-prepared-to-flex-your-rights/

The advice boils down to this: you should not consent to an illegal search, you should voice your lack of consent clearly, but you should also not resist the search. This is about the same as telling a rape victim that she should loudly proclaim her lack of consent while passively submitting to a rape.

One of the reasons this advice is given is in order to later help exclude evidence found during the search.

If police search your car and find illegal items despite your refusal, your lawyer can file a motion to suppress — or throw out — the evidence in court. If the judge agrees that the officer’s search violated the 4th Amendment’s probable cause requirements, she’ll grant the motion. Unless the prosecution has other evidence, your charges would be dismissed.

But what if your objection to the illegal search has nothing to do with any contraband in your possession or evidence of a crime? What if you really have nothing to hide, except that you want your right to be free from illegal searches and seizures upheld? What if you're shy, and you don't want other people to see your stuff? What if being searched makes you feel violated?

The rules set down in the constitution and in the bill of rights were not meant to be some kind of technicality to get criminals off the hook in a trial. They were not meant as a legal trick to nullify bad drug laws. They were supposed to help citizens feel secure in their persons and their property . They were meant to guarantee that Americans would not be bullied and harassed in their own homes or their own turf by their government, in the way that they had been before by the redcoats. That was the purpose. Unless these rights can be protected by force of arms, they don't really exist.

I dealt with this issue in the wake of the Le Brave case in Theodosia and the Pirates: The War Against Spain. 

The result of many an encounter between government forces and ordinary citizens is that the moment the government decides to violate rights, any resistance is deemed a cause for arrest and prosecution. In this way, even if there were no original reasons for arrest, justification can always be trumped up.

The same sort of reasoning was used in the Burr case, when even though Burr and his men never levied war on the United States, and never intended so to do, resisting arrest was seen as levying war against the government. Justice Marshall did not ever rule on this aspect of the case, because he merely found that since Burr was not there when his men were resisting arrest, he was not responsible for their actions. This left the way open for every atrocity since which was based on resistance to tyranny as an act of war against the state.

When the ATF agents climbed in through the window at Mt. Carmel, they had a sealed warrant that they did not bother to share with the Branch Davidians. The Davidians had every right to fire at strangers breaking into their home. But they were deemed to be in the wrong, because you are not allowed to resist the government, even if you don't know it's the government.

That is what is wrong with our constitutional rights at the moment -- that they exist only on paper and not in reality. With mottos like those of Lew Rockwell -- anti-state, anti-war, pro-market -- we can never win our rights back, Passive capitulation is not the answer.

The Honorable Way Out

There are many things in our culture that are disturbing to me, but the one that has been bothering me the most lately has been the disparagement of the concept of personal honor. At a time when men fought hand to hand for the defense of their country and their tribe and their family, there were killings for honor, and there was suicide for the sake of honor, and most people understood that just because a man had killed himself, this did not necessarily mean that he was mentally ill.  It also most certainly did not mean that he was a coward.

A certain celebrity recently took his own life. Many people are grieving. Some are angry. Some have called him a coward, and others excused his action as stemming from clinical depression. He didn't kill himself, they say. The depression did.

How many of these people realize how culturally constructed their view of suicide is? How many have contemplated the examples of suicide throughout the ages, and the many honorable men and women who took their own lives?

King Saul needed help to fall on his sword.  Hannibal took poison at the age of 65 when he saw that they were coming for him. Petronius slit his wrists and died luxuriating in the bathtub. The people of Masada committed mass suicide rather than surrender.Were these examples from history cowardly? Nobody thought so at the time. Did they involve mental illness? I don't think so.  Was it sad? Yes. But it was also honorable. What happened to the concept of honor? When did we lose it?

In 1929, when businessmen were casting themselves off rooftops, was there a massive case of clinical depression? Or were these men taking the honorable way out because they could not pay their just debts?

The idea of taking one's own life is scary, and most of us are incapable of it. To call someone a coward because he is able to do so seems to subvert the concept of bravery and cowardice. It is double think. It is cultural conditioning. It is based on the idea that our lives are not our own to dispose of as we wish. It suggests that no matter what happens, we have to submit. But ultimately the one way to avoid slavery after all other options are foreclosed has got to be to end it all. Why are the authorities so afraid of this that they have actually made laws against suicide?

While I realize that those who say it was depression that killed the celebrity are doing so in his own defense, I have to question that as well. What would be wrong with simply saying it was his right? That he didn't owe us anything? That it's none of our business why?

If you were facing an impossible situation, wouldn't you want a way out? Wouldn't you want to be part of a culture that respected your right to own your life? A culture that allowed you to decide when enough is enough?

When they were taking Captain DesFarges out to hang from the Revenue Service Cutter, because they had found him guilty of piracy, he asked for a gun so he could shoot himself and avoid a hanging. When that was denied him, he tried to drown himself in the river. They fished him out alive and hanged him. Do you think the Federal government was trying to save him from falling victim to a mental illness, or were they just insisting on killing him themselves in a much less dignified manner?

Death with dignity is a topic that Theodosia is obsessed with toward the end of The War Against Spain. She is so afraid of having Jean hanged after his capture, that she would rather hire a sharpshooter to have him shot, instead. Hanging was considered a dishonorable death. But some men do not find hanging to be such a very horrible end, and some even choose it as their way out.

The War Against Spain

Rather than judging others for the method they choose, would it not be better to make sure that they are honored for their courage, rather than condemned for their choice? Someday, each of us may be faced with a similar choice. We none of us know what we may do on that day.