"1655...rum was first issued to the [Navy] ranks"

This is the main discussion section. Grab yer cups! All hands on deck!
CSPHistorical
Greaser
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 4:26 pm
Contact:

"1655...rum was first issued to the [Navy] ranks"

Post by CSPHistorical »

In my research of historical rum in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, I've come across several books and sites online that say the English Navy first issued rum to sailors in the year 1655 when the English took Jamaica. Captain James Pack's "Nelson's Blood" and Wayne Curtis's "And a Bottle of Rum" are just two examples of publications that state this as a fact.
The problem is, I cannot find anyone who references any period source that state that this occurred. The more recent academic works related to rum and maritime history don't mention this fact. The biggest supporter of this fact appears to be the pusser's rum company.

I know that this forum has posted several things on pusser's rum, and I've even seen posts on here from someone who works at that company. While it's a long shot - has anyone here ever seen the period source, or reference to the period source regarding this fact of serving rum to English sailors in 1655?

At this point, I suspect that this fact came from someone making a conjecture about when the English Navy first served rum. If it was a conjecture, it was probably something along the lines of, "Jamaica is known for producing rum. The English Navy invaded and took Jamaica in 1655, therefore that's the first time the Navy issued rum." I also suspect that if it was a conjecture, that it got repeated so many times in other publications, through word of mouth, and online that most people began to accept it as a given fact without looking into where the fact originated from. There's a lot of suspicious and often outright incorrect history out in the world because of situations like this. For late seventeenth and early eighteenth century history, there's plenty of it.
User avatar
Capn Jimbo
Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
Contact:

Post by Capn Jimbo »

I suggest you read or re-read Ian Williams "Rum, a social and sociable history", Chapter 18 "Rum, Buggery and the Lash: The Navy and Rum". It is a given that the Brits did take Jamaica in 1655 - and one should note that the taking of any fortress, city or island was always concluded with the victor taking whatever treasure, food, and drink they found.

In the case of Jamaica, the taking of the rum stores would be automatic; further since Jamaican rum was always of much higher quality this would be quite a prize. The question is was this made immediately "official" at that moment. My guess: probably not, but of what matter.

The "law" as it were seemed to generally follow usage rather than establish it. Per Williams, quoting Samuel Pepys, then Sec'y of the Navy in 1688:

"Approval given to Mr. Waterhouse to supply King James' ships at Jamaica with Rumm instead of Brandy, he takeing care that the good or ill effects of this proof, with respect as well to the good husbandry thereof be carefully inquired into by you and reported to us within a year of two (or sooner if you find it necesssary for our further satisfaction in the same)."

The practice for many years was to travel with beer, wine and brandy, to be drunk in that order before each would go bad. These supplies were supplemented from the islands, whether peacefully or by force. One cannot doubt that any spirit - in this case the rum of the islands - was a common drink of the buccaneers, et al., well before 1655.

By that time rum and its value was well known. Jamaican rum was prized from the beginning. It was common BRN practice from 1590 or so to supplement their stores of rapidly souring beer with local acquisitions, eg wine in the Med, fortified wines in the Canaries and Azores, and Brandy as well in the islands. As soon as rum was made, you can be sure it was acquired.

One must surely accept that the Brits - haven "taken" Jamaica in 1655 - would undoubtedly taken great stores of what was the Carib's best rum, and no doubt found it superior, and more available than brandy. It is fair to assume that Pepy's recognized this irreversible reality and just made it "official".
CSPHistorical
Greaser
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 4:26 pm
Contact:

Post by CSPHistorical »

"I suggest you read or re-read Ian Williams "Rum, a social and sociable history", Chapter 18 "Rum, Buggery and the Lash: The Navy and Rum"."

I did, and it's the exact same situation. The claim is there, but no footnotes/endnotes that say where the PERIOD sources (primary sources) are to back up the claim.

"It is a given that the Brits did take Jamaica in 1655 - and one should note that the taking of any fortress, city or island was always concluded with the victor taking whatever treasure, food, and drink they found.

In the case of Jamaica, the taking of the rum stores would be automatic; further since Jamaican rum was always of much higher quality this would be quite a prize. The question is was this made immediately "official" at that moment. My guess: probably not, but of what matter."

Yes, the English did take Jamaica in 1655. But that doesn't necessarily mean that this is the first time that the English Navy issued rum. The actual documentation on this is still lacking, and while it might have happened, I have yet to see anyone bring out the records that say they did or it was the first time. It's one thing to say "sailors in the English Navy MIGHT have had rum issued to them in 1655 at Jamaica" but another to say "It's the first time that the English Navy issued rum to its sailors in 1655." It's just conjecture until documents come up to verify it (which is what I'm asking for, if anyone ever saw someone actually footnote a source), and should be stated as thus rather than stated as a solid given fact.
Also, just because the Navy captured food, doesn't mean they immediately issued it out. When the Navy established more formal and printed regulations a few years later, they had policies about using up food they brought with them before starting to consume the newly captured stuff.

"One must surely accept that the Brits - haven "taken" Jamaica in 1655 - would undoubtedly taken great stores of what was the Carib's best rum, and no doubt found it superior, and more available than brandy."
It's an assumption though, and it keeps on getting stated as a given fact. From an academic standpoint, that's bad practice. It's better practice to be honest and state that the conclusion came from a conjecture, rather that state it as proven fact.

It is fair to assume that Pepy's recognized this irreversible reality and just made it "official"."

As for Pepys, his actions are probably the consequences of recommendations made by Sir John Narborough, part of the Navy Victualling board. He visited Barbados in November of 1687 and purchased 600 gallons of rum for his crew and wrote a recommendation to all the Navy that they start officially buying the stuff.

The bigger issue I have here is the can claim its the FIRST time the Navy issued rum to sailors in 1655. Besides the lack of documentation, what about Barbados? Someone would have to demonstrate that 1655 was also the first time an English Navy ship visited the Caribbean, which I doubt considering the other English Caribbean colonies that existed before 1655.
JaRiMi
Admiral
Posts: 313
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 11:14 am

Post by JaRiMi »

CSPHistorical wrote:
In the case of Jamaica, the taking of the rum stores would be automatic; further since Jamaican rum was always of much higher quality this would be quite a prize. The question is was this made immediately "official" at that moment. My guess: probably not, but of what matter."

Yes, the English did take Jamaica in 1655. But that doesn't necessarily mean that this is the first time that the English Navy issued rum.
Well, speaking of presumptions - which source says that "Jamaican rum was always much higher quality"? It wasn't made any different then as far as I know. So...equipment & methodology was the same (much of what we know as unique to JA rum developed much, much later), raw material was the same, people making it had same knowledge of distillation...why would it have been "always better", and what period sources state so?

Now - for the issue when "Navy" started giving rum to sailors, well...Even the British navy was less of a unified entity in those days that today. Various commanders etc did what they thought best. Ships and fleets often had no contact to other navy sources, or motherland for long periods of time. I suspect that the use of rum was common amongst ships mainly travelling in the Caribbean for example, and it took years - perhaps even as long as a decade or more - before any actual "decision" or documented such was made at any headquarters. And even then the spread of the word would have taken time as well, due to poor communications and British navy being scattered all over the seven seas, so to speak.
CSPHistorical
Greaser
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 4:26 pm
Contact:

Post by CSPHistorical »

"Well, speaking of presumptions - which source says that "Jamaican rum was always much higher quality"?" I was quoting Capn Jimbo on that one.

Anyway, the challenges posed by the greater issue of this whole "1655 - English Fleet issues rum to sailors for the first time because they captured it" has inspired me to do some more digging. One thing I found is that Jamaica under Spanish rule didn't produce sugarcane or rum. According to McCusker's significant study of rum in his text "Rum and the American Revolution," states that the Spanish production of sugar was near insignificant during the 1650-1775 period, mainly because of mass movement of Spanish colonial residents from the Spanish-held islands to the mainland after 1600, discouragements to Spanish sugar exports, and other reasons that resulted in "the growing of sugarcane and the manufacture of raw or refined sugar was not a concern of major importance in the Spanish-speaking areas of the New World before the last quarter of the eighteenth century." (page 91 of volume 1) With sugar production by the Spanish being so small, there was even less distillation of rum there. This would include Spanish-held Jamaica.

Now, lets' add onto that period documents about the taking of Jamaica. Reports from the officers involved noted what they saw on the island and what they took. They don't mention taking rum at all or the presence of distilleries. They mention sugar and a few small plantations that produced sugarcane, but only a handful of sugar mills (they only found 7 of those on the island at the time). Sugar did not appear to be a significant product there in Jamaica at the time, being primarily for local use. For alcohol, they report finding Barley and were hoping to set up to make ale as soon as they could. They also mention the frequent arrival of victual ships to supply the troops and sailors. They mention trying to maintain their supply of brandy for the troops and sailors.

I am starting to suspect more and more that 1655 in Jamaica was not the first time the Navy received a ration of rum. Will let you all know if I find anything else.
Last edited by CSPHistorical on Mon Jun 20, 2016 5:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
JaRiMi
Admiral
Posts: 313
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 11:14 am

Post by JaRiMi »

CSPHistorical wrote: I am starting to suspect more and more that 1655 in Jamaica was not the first time the Navy received a ration of rum. Will let you all know if I find anything else.
Have you tried the navys own archives / historians in UK?
CSPHistorical
Greaser
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 4:26 pm
Contact:

Post by CSPHistorical »

Getting to the archives in the UK is a little bit hard for me. I live in American and don't have funding for ordering researchers to go look for me. But you would be amazed to see what documents have been transcribed from the period into publications for convenient reference to the public. Take this one for instance, which has several letters and reports of people involved with the Jamaica expedition in 1655:
https://archive.org/details/narrativeofgener00venarich
User avatar
Capn Jimbo
Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
Contact:

Post by Capn Jimbo »

Great stuff, very interesting. The taking of stores of all kinds was so common by all victors of all nmations, government, pirates and buccaneers, that only the failure to do might be worth of conjecture.
CSPHistorical
Greaser
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 4:26 pm
Contact:

Post by CSPHistorical »

Doing more research, I can now expand on my previous point about sugar and rum production in Jamaica.

As I expressed before, sugar production in Jamaica in 1655 was quite small, and rum production even less so (as period documentation suggests) under Spanish rule. It wasn't really an export-level production. Most of their sugar, and maybe the occasional rum made from it, appears to be just enough for local use if so desired.

I looked into the statistics for sugar and rum production in Jamaica, which we know from the Naval Office Shipping Lists as Clearing from Jamaica from 1671-1700. It is astounding to see how small the exports numbers were for rum from Jamaica. While Barbados exported 2.25 million liters of rum a year by 1700, Jamaica exported only averaged a little over 20,000 liters a year by 1700. For Jamaica, that's about 4,000 liters a year down from where they were around 1689-1691. In 1682-1683, Jamaica only averaged a little over 8,000 liters of exported rum a year. In the 1670s, the Naval Office recorded no rum exports at all. While Jamaica had established itself as a sugar producer by the 1670s (their exports grew significantly in the 1670s from averaging 809 metric tons of sugar exports a year from 1671-1675 and averaged 3,650 metric tons of sugar exports a year in 1678-1679), rum appeared to be in small enough production that it was a non-factor to Jamaica exports and relegated to mostly internal use by Jamaicans and some vessels wishing to fill up their alcohol supply for their crew before heading out to their next destination.

Considering the scale of sugar production in Jamaica over the seventeenth century, corresponding rum exports, and the situation Jamaica was in under Spanish rule in 1655, it appears that Jamaica at the time of the English invasion had little rum around and wouldn't have had enough on hand to present the English Navy a supply of it for the many men they had onboard. Add to that the documentation that talks about what the English did take not including any mention of rum. Reflecting on it now, I think the reason someone at some point proposed that Jamaica was the first place the English Navy received rum rations is that person made unwarranted assumptions about the production of rum in Jamaica and made a conjecture based on that incorrect assumption. It seems that person probably knew of Jamaica's reputation for producing rum in the eighteenth century to today and just assumed that it went back to the mid seventeenth century as well. With that assumption, they made the conjecture about it being available for the Navy to take in 1655. The person who thought this up likely didn't do terribly much research into the subject, but it eventually flowed down to someone published it without questioning it, and from there other people doing research saw that and used it in their work without asking about the "fact" and its validity. It just kept on getting passed on by person after person and publication after publication, until we get to now where quite a number of people assume it to be fact. Eventually, it made it to the people involved in the book and researchers attached to Pusser's rum it seems.

The evidence I've found all suggests that 1655 wasn't the first time the English Navy issued rum to sailors, but I'm open to changing that conclusion if anyone ever presents period documents (not claims in a modern-day book with no reference to what period source they used to make their claim) demonstrating otherwise (it was the original point of posting here in the first place, making sure that I didn't miss someone having a reference to a period document that does).
User avatar
Capn Jimbo
Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
Contact:

Post by Capn Jimbo »

The "law" as it were seemed to generally follow usage rather than establish it. Per Williams, quoting Samuel Pepys, then Sec'y of the Navy in 1688:
"Approval given to Mr. Waterhouse to supply King James' ships at Jamaica with Rumm instead of Brandy, he takeing care that the good or ill effects of this proof, with respect as well to the good husbandry thereof be carefully inquired into by you and reported to us within a year of two (or sooner if you find it necesssary for our further satisfaction in the same)."
It is fair to assume that neither the request or it's approval by the Secy' of the BRN was not spontaneous but rather a codification of the established use and desirability of Jamaican rum by British ships and sailors. Is there a similar request and approval of Bajan rum? Guyanan? Trinidadian? If not, perhaps we should accept that this was the first codification.

Nonetheless, the dominance of Barbados and Jamaica and of their rum belongs in the eighteenth century. And it was in this century where rum became significant - it was the like the Saudi Oil of modern times, and the source of unbelievable wealth and power.

It was at this time that Jamaica dominated exports to Britain, and it happened quickly. Rum's growth was exponential in the 1700's (think Mount Gay established allegedly in 1703), and Jamaican rum was almost immediately the more desireable product.

By 1724 Jamaica was the leading import into England and Wales. By 1768 or so Jamaican rum represented about 81% of all British imports, while Barbados was a far distant 8 to 13%. Worse yet, while the Brits kept the preferred Jamaican rum, much of the Bajan rum was destined for re-export.

Personally I would not be so quick as to discount Jamaica, even in 1655. Keep in mind that any shipping figures from those time reflected the fact that the Spanish had forbidden the production of rum (which may account for the low figures). However, illicit distillation - as in all the Caribbean countries (think too of Scotland and Ireland) - was widespread.

I have NO doubt whatever that Jamaican influence was great enough, that when the Brits controlled both Barbados and Jamaica, the Jamaican product led in official and legal exports from the get go. I also have NO doubt that like all the pirates, buccaneers and sovereign flagged ships from various countries - all, all of them - absolutely searched out, found and conscripted all manner of valuables and especially any - any - prized spirits. Brandy, beer, rum? No matter. It was seized, always.

Now what I would find of interest is when the BRN established its first "official formula", and the protected government blending in Englands.
User avatar
Capn Jimbo
Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
Contact:

Post by Capn Jimbo »

Yes, yes, I know...


From Pusser's:
"For well over 300 years, Great Britain's Royal Navy issued a daily "tot" of Pusser's Rum to the crews of their ships - and always a double issue before battle and after victory! First introduced into the Navy in 1655 as a substitute for beer, by 1731, it was in general use. "
https://www.pussers.com/t-rum-history.aspx

And some more folklore:

https://www.pussers.com/t-folklore.aspx

Yes, yes, I know...


But from USN official sources:
"The following regulations governed the use of alcohol in the Navy from 1794 to 1935:

1794 On 27 March, the daily ration established by Congress for the Navy included "one half-pint of distilled spirits," "or in lieu thereof, one quart of beer."

1797 On 1 July, daily liquor ration set at "one half pint of distilled spirits."

1801 Daily liquor ration established on 3 March, remained at "one half pint of distilled spirits."
https://www.history.navy.mil/research/l ... -navy.html
CSPHistorical
Greaser
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 4:26 pm
Contact:

Post by CSPHistorical »

"Personally I would not be so quick as to discount Jamaica, even in 1655."

I would. As I mentioned before, what handful of sugarcane plantations there were on Spanish Jamaica in 1655 were small. There were even fewer mills. As Hans Sloane points out back then, Jamaica under Spanish rule was a tobacco-growing colony. If there were stills for making rum, they were extremely few and small, especially since rum production in the greater Caribbean at the time, while it was there, it was still underdeveloped. The stills were small and limited the scale of production possible during the seventeenth century according to what Frederick Smith (the "Caribbean Rum" book, though I find his original thesis that the book is based on to have more thorough information) discovered by looking through period sources. Any amount of rum produced would have been tiny, not in the kind of volume that would be enough to fulfill the rations of hundreds of sailors there at that time. Smith even points out that distilling and using molasses for making rum wasn't a solid practice until the later 17th century. Distilling just the sugar cane juice and making drinks from this juice by only fermenting it (with no distilling) were common practice up to the mid-point of the century in the Caribbean.

A complete lack of documentation of rum being issued to the sailors who went to Jamaica in 1655 (while they document taking all kinds of other stuff), plus a pitiful production of sugar and rum in Jamaica while under Spanish rule, and the state of rum production in the mid seventeenth century - take that all together and that should really place the idea that the Navy received a rum ration while at Jamaica into the category of didn't happened until documents can show otherwise. Assuming that it did happen without documentation is way too contradictory to the circumstances in Jamaica in 1655 as presented in the period accounts and poor practice for historical studies.
User avatar
Capn Jimbo
Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
Contact:

Post by Capn Jimbo »

Good stuff, thanks.

I've agreed from the beginning that the official Navy issue was surely later than 1655, based on Pepy's codification in 1688 (33 years later). However, it is clear first, that alcohol containing drink was indeed given as a daily ration for many years prior (even predating 1655); futher that rum was unofficially rationed to the sailors for decades prior to the official codification of it.

However, it is important I think to realize the fluidity of the Caribbean, with islands changing and rechanging hands, etc. I think that basing opinions so narrowly on exports may be an error. Especially before the 18th century, local and mostly illicit production and use FAR exceeded exports. Further, rum was a form of currency and flowed around the Caribbean in pathways that would better be described as a plateful of angel hair pasta marinara, lol. Last I would note that documentation is typically after the fact, hard to find, very limited and even then is not necessarily accurate. I believe we are better off looking at the macro picture - in detective-like - of those times to reach a fair conclusion.

From "A Short History of Slavery and Sugar in Jamaica":
"Spanish settlers arrived in 1510, raising cattle and pigs, and introducing two things that would profoundly shape the island’s future: sugar and slaves. By the end of the 16th century, the Arawak population had been entirely wiped out, suffering from hard labour, ill-treatment and European diseases to which they had no resistance. The Spanish were the first to import African slaves to work on tobacco and, later, sugar plantations. Unable to find gold and other precious metals on Jamaica, the Spanish saw little use for the island and hardly resisted the invasion of British soldiers in 1655."
Thus, sugarcane WAS likely grown in Jamaica by 1600. Another source states:
"In 1534 the Spanish moved the island’s capital south near the River Cobre to Saint Jago de la Vega. It was soon discovered that Jamaica held no gold and once they learned this, the Spanish took little interest in the island. They did however, plant tobacco, sugar cane and banana and raised cattle along with some hogs. In time, African slaves were brought over to replace the ill-fated Arawaks"
If accurate, both tobacco growing AND sugar plantations were well in operation before 1655, though not nearly to the extent as Barbados. The Spanish rather left the "Jamaicans" alone, having decided the island was not of financial interest to them. But this completely ignores (a) the fluidity of the region and (b) the enormous influence of the pirates and bucaneers who established a major presence in Port Royal. As mentioned it also ignores the illicit and domestic presence of sugar, and evidently too the means to distill alcohol.

It's not all about officially recorded exports. Most rum was not exported then.

Keep in mind Columbus discovered Jamaica (and was reported to introduce sugar cane in and extending from 1492. As we approach the mid 1600's in addition to whatever local sugar, distillation and spirits consumption was occuring, the amount of rum was greatly supplanted by pirates, buccaneers and smugglers. The local authorities turned a blind eye, as large quantities of rum were brought in, and then resold and resmuggled to North America. None of this activity would have appeared on any list of "official exports". You can be sure when the English captured the island in 1655, the rum flowed freely.

The posit that Jamaica was not a major rum player based on reported low "exports" alone ignores the macro. The question at hand is/was - regardless of source - was there rum in Jamaica around 1655? Answer: I think yes. Here's a description of what things were like in what became "Port Royal", circa 1655:
"As soon as the ship was tied up to the wharf, the King’s officials rushed aboard and took their ten percent of the booty (the Crown’s share in return for issuing letters of marque). Next the creditors who had financed many of the raids arrived, to make sure they were on hand as the booty was unloaded. The ship captains would ensure that the rum flowed freely, on one hand to celebrate the success of their raid, on the other to soften up the potential buyers. Presented to those gathered was the plunder – all manner of luxury items, silks, laces and brocades, jewelry, reliquaries and chalices from the Spanish churches and slaves captured on the raid – all sold to the highest bidder.
(Emphases added)

Rum then was strong and available, with "rum punch" as the preferred drink (to dilute the strength). The harbor could hold over 500 ships, and there were literally scads of rum serving taverns. Port Royal alone was a major customer of distilled rum. Indeed the term "Kill-Devil" is ascribed to the rivers of strong rum consumed there. The port did not suddenly develop after 1655, but was a major port of call and hideout for some years.
"A resident of Port Royal wrote to a friend in England in 1664: “rum punch is not improperly called Kill-Devil; for thousands lose their lives by its means."
The city was reportedly founded in 1518, and due to its amazing port waters (the best in the Caribbean), was increasing used by privateers, pirates and buccaneers from the 16th century on, and was in full swing by 1655. As far as sugar is concerned the Wiki reports:
"The Spanish first landed in Jamaica under the leadership of Christopher Columbus in 1494. Permanent settlement occurred when Juan de Esquevil brought a group of settlers in 1509. They came in search of gold and silver but found none. Instead they began what they saw as a viable alternative: enslaving Taino to farm the sugar cane that Esquevil had transported from England with him. "


And a word about daily "rations" of drink on these long voyages (far predating 1655):

"To compensate the sailors and help take their mind off their wretched existence, crews were given a daily allowance of beer or wine. In the 16th century, ships began making regular voyages to the Caribbean where the crew's wine turned to vinegar even faster than it did in more moderate latitudes, and beer often spoiled before the ship even reached her destination."

"England forbade her colonies to export cane spirits, and planters found themselves with more alcohol than they could sell in the local market. Too many rum barrels stored around a plantation were an open invitation for trouble from pirates and other scoundrels, so plantation managers were eager to sell their rum to Royal Navy pursers, a marriage made in heaven. The availability of Caribbean spirits meant that the sailor's lot in life was enhanced, and on the other side of the aisle, the increased presence of armed ships was a deterrent to pirates. A mutually beneficial dependence evolved between the two unlikely partners.."

"By 1650, a pint of rum had been unofficially adopted as part of the sailor's daily ration. Competition for rum sales and for the security that armed ships brought with them was fierce among the planters. Even the island governors supported selling rum to the navy, a move they hoped would help keep the pirates at bay. Then in 1687, to appease the governors and guarantee the supply of spirits for their sailors, the Royal Navy officially adopted a mixture of rum from the English Caribbean islands as part of the crew's daily allotment."




So let's review:


The posit is:

  • "A complete lack of documentation of rum being issued to the sailors who went to Jamaica in 1655 (while they document taking all kinds of other stuff), plus a pitiful production of sugar and rum in Jamaica while under Spanish rule, and the state of rum production in the mid seventeenth century - take that all together and that should really place the idea that the Navy received a rum ration while at Jamaica into the category of didn't happened until documents can show otherwise."


I can only agree with the conclusion ("did not receive a rum ration while at Jamaica") in part and only if you add the word "official" to the claim; even with that proviso, I wholly disagree with the rationale.

All sailors - pirates, buccaneers, privateers and state navies, all of them - were issued, in order: beer, wine and distilled spirits (brandy and then rum). This was done out of simple necessity, as water was or went bad. The increase in alcohol became necessary as the length of the voyages increased. Beer went "sour" quickily, ergo wine (lasted a bit longer) then strong spirits (brandy and rum).

Trust me. At this time all sailors were issued spirits as available and rum seemed to quite available in Jamaica and its huge port of call, Port Royal (where the BRN victualized).

The "pitiful production of rum" - based on limited records of documented "exports" ignores likely local distilling, local useage, illicit usage, and massive quantities of smuggled rum imports from other islands. The implication then that limited official exports meant that there was little or no rum in Jamaica is hard to accept. The Caribbean was an entirely fluid situation, with rum being made, delivered, redelivered by multiple means. The posit wants us to believe that there could not have been an issue if there was "pitiful" production/availability of rum in Jamaica in 1655.

I would counter this and stand on the notion that the English Secy of the Navy - Pepy's - official codification of the practice and use of rum by BRN sailors occurred in 1687, had simply recognized the unofficial ration that had been normal, customary and necessary for decades before that, as cited above. Not only do I strongly believe that the BRN sailors received unofficial but purchased rum rations in Jamaica in 1655, but that they'd been enjoying them even before that in Barbados (late 1640's), if not elsewhere. Keep in mind that fermented molasses drinks (a kind of beer) were produced in the Caribbean before 1600, and that the Dutch reportedly ntroduced distilling to the French and English around 1630. Indentured Scots and others brought knowledge of distilling to Barbados, and thence to Jamaica.

Ergo like good and respectful gentlemen everywhere we will agree to disagree, until of course proper documentation may be found or presented, lol...




*******
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_of_Jamaica
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Jamaica
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaica
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Royal
http://pirates.wikia.com/wiki/Port_Royal
http://www.piratesinfo.com/cpi_Piratica ... al_542.asp
http://www.pilotguides.com/articles/a-s ... n-jamaica/
http://ministryofrum.com/article_rum_and_the_sea.php
Last edited by Capn Jimbo on Fri Jul 01, 2016 10:46 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Capn Jimbo
Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
Contact:

Post by Capn Jimbo »

What a wonderful controversy!


Now these are the kind of dialogues I love - and which remind me of the rousing but respectful exchanges years ago with JaRiMi, for whom I developed great respect.

Frankly, the best we all have done here so far has illustrated the kind of detective work historians - and those who love history - must do. Some here are looking for the smoking gun - a document or paper that to them, establishes or disproves a belief. Others - and this includes me - believe that even though a document may exist, it does not follow that any particular writing is true.

Yet another controversy.

Still documentation is an important consideration and becomes part of the body of evidence. To me one has to examine all the pieces of knowledge we have and to then ask ourselves - with these data, is it reasonable to conclude that the English Navy took on rum in Jamaica for their sailor's rations, in 1655?

Mind you both our good man CSP and I both agree that the rum ration was not made "official" until later. Where we disagree is whether the English ship took on rum in Jamaica in 1655 for the food and drink rations of their crews? CSP said "no" on the basis that he believes Jamaica produced "pitifully little" rum, but mostly tobacco, based on some export reports he mentioned (but did not cite). His point seemed to be that if Jamaica was not really making rum, well, how could the English have taken it on there in 1655?

I disagreed on the bases that sugar cane was introduced to Jamaica in and around Columbus' time, that fermented molasses drink was common much earlier, that the Dutch introduced distillation to the English and French in the early 1600's, and also by Scottish and Irish distillers indentured in Barbados. By 1650 I argued, rum was indeed being made and consumed primarily for local consumption (not export). In any event, rum was very fluid in the sense that rum was made, transported, traded, smuggled, bought and sold constantly. Rum moved around the Caribbean like money moves through ATM machines everywhere. If rum was present in the Caribbean at that time you can be sure there was plenty of it in Port Royal, for the lack of god's sake, lol...


Two different conclusions and a difference among gentleman of leisure

But still a great subject! Ergo - and in my usual fashion - I am determined to gather more and better data, so I contacted two very serious naval historians and authors who I hope will offer a more definitive answer or further opinions more qualified than ours.

1. James Pack, "Nelson's Blood, the Story of Naval Rum", published by the Naval Institute Press. A reliable book from an equally reliable publisher. (Note: reread CSP's posts, and I may have wasted my money on this one; still, I love historical accounts).

2. Professor Andrew Lambert, whose Curriculum Vitae is a book in itself. He is professor of Naval History at King's College in London, and has published scores of books about the history of the English and British navy in almost every regard.

Together, I believe these are excellent sources. I've ordered Pack's book and have sent Lambert a private email. If necessary, I will call him. I would also like to thank and congratulate CSP for introducing and discussing this extremely interesting subject.


And the beating goes on....
User avatar
Capn Jimbo
Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
Posts: 3550
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
Contact:

Post by Capn Jimbo »

Update:


The following is in little dispute:
  • 1. Sugar was introduced at the time of Columbus (after 1492 of course),
    2. The Spanish introduced sugar into Jamaica in the early 1500's, and used the Taino Indians for labor; later buying and using African slaves.
    3. Knowledge of distillation preceeds the Caribbean by hundreds of years, and was well known in England, Scotland, Ireland, et al.
    4. Multiple sources speak of the Dutch - one of the national competitors in the Carib - as introducing distillation to both the English and French, although it is clear that the identured Scots, etc., likely already had this knowledge.
    5. Fermented (not distilled) molasses was present in the 1500's. Some might consider that even these feremented and alcohol containing drinks made from sugar and/or molasses are a form of "rum" (although even "rum" was not called that until much later.
    6. True distillation of what was later called "Kill-Devil", and much later, "rum", no doubt began around 1600, and was not at all uncommon in the early 1600's. Dutch and other privateers, pirates and the like became active in this time.

    The pirates and privateers were known for laying waste to villages, and for seizing everything they could of value. Stores of beer, wine and local spirits (rum) were highly valued and seized for both consumption and for sale.

    7. What became "Port Royal" was established decades before 1655, and became a port of piracy and depravity well before the English takeover in 1655. There was huge trade in gold, silver, and all manner of commodities that had been captured, recaptured, smuggled, sold and resold. If there was any port where Caribbean rum was present, it would have been Port Royal.
    8. Even before the English takeover, the English navy already had frequented this amazing port - the best in the Caribbean - and had their own stores of victuals storage, for distribution as rations of food and drink for the English sailors. The ship's pursers were known as ready customers for whatever rum was available. In Port Royal - even before 1655 - that would not have been a problem.
    9. Although "1655" seems the common date quoted, this is surely based on the fact that this was the year of the final English takeover of Jamaica. However, the English presence was already well established there, as well as not a few English or Scots who had left Barbados (or other ships).

So there you have it:


Sugar was present throughout the Caribbean. Fermented molasses had been around for over a hundred years. The knowledge and use of distillation was fairly common no doubt prior to 1600, and surely in the early 1600's, and producing Caribbean rum for local consumption. Rum was highly valued, seized, smuggled and transported to the very active hub of Port Royal, well before 1655. The English navy was also present in the Carib, and in Port Royal prior, and that rum and other supplies were commonly purchased by their pursers and by the sailors themselves.

On this evidence, it's my strong opinion that the unofficial rationing of English navy ships was occuring BEFORE 1655, not after. CSP and I will disagree about this as noted earlier. However, I now also believe that Secy of the English Navy Pepys codification of the official directive to purchase and to evaluate rum as a ration was NOT the beginning of the official daily BRN ration of which we all are so fond.

If there is a question well worth exploring, it would be when the evaluation of Pepys in 1687 was replaced by an official ration of known formula, likely decades later.
Post Reply