As promised earlier I took the time to order James Pack's wonderful period book which focused on the British Royal Navy and rum from 1655. It is truly a wonderful resource. "Nelson's Blood, The Story of Naval Rum" is probably the most accurate source I believe is currently and easily available."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."
It is published by the Naval Institute Press of Annapolis, Maryland. The book is a quasi-official work by a trusted resource, Captain James Pack, OBE RN. It was published by Bluejacket Books who provides "paperback editions of exceptional works on naval and military subjects. The paperback is extremely well made, heavy, full of color etching and reproductions of hard to find lithographs, old photos and the like.
This is unlike any of the commercial books like those by Dave Broom, Ian William and others. It's focus on naval rum makes it special and worthy. Having received it, I'm a bit surprised that our CSP so handily rejected it, apparently for what he believes is an absence of reference sources from the period.
Is this true, and if so, does it matter?
To the first, I say no. While this impressive book does not make citations within the text, when I took the time to check I found that Captain Pack clearly did an exceptionally thorough job, with a cited bibliography of 28 books and/or sets of books, plus consulted about 18 more competent special resources and publications including Admiralty Circulars, Records of Court Martials, Military and Naval records, the Naval Records Society et al. Unless CSP has viewed all of these, I would say that he is not in the best position to state there were no period sources.
This is - by far - the most complete, on point set of references I have seen for any book on this specific subject. Pack was an active member of the BRN throughout his life. He helped develop the Royal Navy Museum and was highly respected as an intelligent and thorough navy historian. His book was honored by the Admiral of the Fleet in the preface. The book is closely identified with the aforementioned Royal Navy Museum.
To the second, does it matter, I found the book to contain immense detail, obviously gathered from copious resources, from which Pack obviously made his notes and then published his findings. While it lacks individual and specific citations in the text, it is clear that he consulted all possible resources that addressed the facts and subjected covered.
Pack is the sort of writer who seems to differentiate what he has learned and trusts from what he doesn't know. He clearly spent many hours researching all possible resources, and then brought them together in a reliable history.
Regarding 1655, he seems quite clear:
Ergo CSP may or may not be quite right insofar as the lack of sources from the period - but - this does not mean Pack's work should be rejected out of hand. It means that we must rely on this writer as resource that is (a) trusted and respected, (b) has/had the largest and broadest access to the most possible legitimate resources and (c) spent a lifetime dedicated to the Navy."...it was at Jamaica in 1655 that rum was first issued on the ships of the Royal Navy, and as it happened quite unofficially. Details of rum issues in 1655 are obscure and remained so until well into the eighteenth century. This is not really surprising for before 1731 there were no standard regulations or codes of instructions for the Royal Navy."
When queried, CSP admitted he simply couldn't afford or didn't have such access. Pack did. Therefore and with all due respect we must choose where to put our trust. even absent such period sources. I believe that would best be Captain Pack for the time being.
What I don't like is a rejection on the basis of assumed lack of records, plus a vague reliance on obscure rum export records as somehow proving there was no rum to be provisioned by the Navy. When it was pointed out that most rum was not exported, but likely imported or smuggled in, there was no counter. OTOH Pack does not say details were "absent" (as CSP claims), but rather that they were simply "obscure".
We should remember that Pack's book of 190 pages of fine print is solely focused on the great history and tradition of Naval rum. Pack lived and died a patriot and scholar and I for one trust that he would be the last person to misrepresent, misreport or guess at a subject so near and dear to him. The amount of detail in this book is simply staggering with all manner of reports on victualing, use, tradition, methods and more.
This book is simply amazing and I urge all of you to find one (mine was about $8 delivered). In sum I believe Pack has made as good as case as humanly possible, and that if CSP wishes to reject his work, it might rather be CSP who is properly obligated to find the period resources adequate to do so.
I have honestly done my best to create a dialogue, and to raise issues based on all the evidence and information we have. With that in mind, while CSP has cited what he believes were "puny" exports of rum, he has not proven that there wasn't plenty of domestic rum or rums imported or smuggled into especially Port Royal (the Navy port) from Barbados or other rum producing islands.
It is my contention that rum appeared in the early 1600's (if not earlier) and surely by 1630 and further, if there was any signficant rum anywhere in the Carib (and there was), plenty of it was smuggled into Jamaica, and available for any ship victualizing there.
CSP, the floor is yours...