User talk:Langus-TxT

— billinghurst  sDrewth  07:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you! :) --Langus-TxT (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

How is your Portuguese?
Ainda mesmo que a Corveta Heroina fosse do Governo de Buenos-Ayres, ou de armador para isso authorisado, e que viesse fazer a guerra aos inimigos daquelle Governo, não deixaria por isso de ser hum Pirata, e não hum Corsario Legal, á vista dos factos provados no Precesso; porque todas e quaesquer prezas por ella feitas devião ser competentemente julgadas, antes do que não permitte o direito das gentes dispor de cousa alguma do navio aprezado, salvo o caso de extrema necessidade, circunstancia que nunca se deo nos navios que forão aprezados pela Heroina, principio este expressamente adoptado nas Instrucções do Governo de Buenos-Ayres impressas no anno de 1817, que diz o Commandante da Heroina se lhe mandárão observar, e contra as quaes elle obrou sempre, porque tomando o Maypu dispoz immediatemente delle, e da sua importante carga, sem dependencia de alguma outra formalidade mais que da sua vontade; tomou e roubou navios Portuguezes, quando confessa que o Governo do Reino-Unido de Portugal he considerado Amigo pelo de Buenos-Ayres, pretextando o facto da tomada do navio Viscondeça do Rio Seco com o fundamento de ir armado sem licença, e andar no negocio da Escravatura; bem como pretexta a sua venda, e a remessa da carga para Buenos-Ayres por causa da sua incapacidade de navegar; fundamentos estes evidentemente falsos, por que o navio Viscondeça do Rio Seco levava o Passaporte de folhas 11 dado na Corte do Rio de Janeiro para ir aos Portos da Costa de Africa Occidental, onde a Escravatura era permittida aos Subditos do Reino-Unido de Portugal, e quando foi tomado sahia para esta Commissão prompto e capaz; e tanto estava capaz de navigação que tomando-o a Heroina em 12 de Julho só o fez entrar na Ilha de S. Vicente em 31 de Agosto, como he expresso no Diario nautico da Heroina, no qual se dá como unica causa da tomada do Navio Viscondeça do Rio Seco o ser o Commandante da Heroina informado de que elle ia negociar na Escravatura; e se o navio Viscondeça do Rio Seco foi tomado legitimamente e não estava capaz de navegação para que fui necessario praticar o Commandante da Heroina o caviloso e sinistro contracto de folhas 7 do Appenso C ? Do mesmo Diario consta terem-se de preposito ommittido as occorrencias da Caça, e combate dado ao Bergantim Providencia, assim como se acha nelle papel branco para a Escripturação do dia immediato 9 de Agosto, o que prova manifestamente existerem naquella caça e combate circunstancias para as quaes se não achava authorisado o Commandante da Heroina.

Even though the Corvette Heroina was from the Government of Buenos-Ayres, or shipowner for that authorised, and come to make war on enemies of that Government, he would therefore be a Pirate, and not a Legal Corsair, in view of the facts proven in the Process; because everyone and whatever prizes made by her must be competently judged, rather than not allowing the right of people dispose of anything on the dear ship, except in the case of extreme necessity, circumstance that never happens on the ships that will be treasured by Heroina, this principle expressly adopted in the Instructions of the Government of Buenos-Ayres printed in the year 1817, which says the Commandant of Heroina will be ordered to observe, and against the which he always worked, because taking the Maypu it immediately has it, and its important cargo, without dependence on any other formality more than her will; took and stole ships Portuguese, when he confesses that the Government of United Kingdom of Portugal is considered a Friend by of Buenos-Ayres, on the pretext of taking the ship Viscondeça do Rio Seco on the basis of go armed without a license, and walk in the business of Slavery; as well as the pretext of selling it, and the shipping the cargo to Buenos-Ayres because of your inability to navigate; these fundamentals evidently false, because the ship Viscondeça do Rio Seco carried the Passport of 11 sheets given in the Court of Rio de Janeiro to go to Portos da Costa from West Africa, where slavery was allowed to Subdicts of the United Kingdom of Portugal, and when was taken sahia for this Commission prompt and capable; and so much was capable of sailing that taking it to Heroina on July 12th just did it to enter the island of S. Vicente on August 31, as it is expressed in the Diario nautico da Heroina, in which given as the sole cause of the taking of the Viscondeça ship from Rio Seco to be the Commander of the Heroina informed that he was going to trade in Slavery; and if the ship Viscondeça do Rio Seco was taken legitimately and was not able to browse to that it was necessary to practice the Commandant of the Heroine the sinister and sinister contract of leaves 7 of the Appended C ? The same Diary contains the purpose of omitted the occurrences of Hunting, and given combat to Bergantim Providencia, as it is in it white paper for immediate day scripting August 9th, which clearly proves to exist in those hunting and fighting circumstances for which if the Commandant of the Heroin.



My next project will be to trancribe the trial and conviction of Mason and Jewett for piracy and slavery. I trust you will do the right thing and self-revert. Wee Curry Monster (talk) 10:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Congratulations on the original research but no, I'm afraid that the right thing to do is to leave out of Wikisource highly dubious qualifications like the one you're trying to push on David Jewett since 6 years ago.


 * The trial you're translating was on Mason, not Jewett. The Viscondeça do Rio Seco and Providencia were captured my Mason, not Jewett. Jewett was put to trial in Buenos Aires regarding his captures and behavior before Mason took over the ship, and he was approved and praised by the jury. He went on to have a remarkable career at the Brazilian Navy where he received the Order of the Southern Cross. The only secondary sources that treat him as "a pirate" are a small amount of less academic, pro-British authors. Langus-TxT (talk) 03:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and the chance to do the right thing. The right thing is of course to describe Jewett accurately and neutrally as described by sources; its not the right thing to find excuses to ignore sources you don't like and to suppress facts.  It's an interesting historical document that documents the trial of the pirate ship Heroina, not just the Captains, Jewett was convicted in absentia of piracy.  He was also accused of piracy by the US and could never return home as a result.  In any case, your insistence a conviction is required is a false paradigm; Edward Teach was never convicted of piracy but no one would ever accuse me of POV editing for calling him a pirate except perhaps you.  The Portuguese trial is fairly scathing of the prize court in Buenos Aires, which was not a trial of Jewett as you imply and did not exonerate him.  His remarkable career with the Brazillian navy was mainly fighting Argentina, a nation that he had grown to despise in later life as he felt he was cheated.  Sources do generally describe him as a pirate, neutral sources, not as you claim "pro-British" authors, which is the moniker you apply to any source that isn't Argentine.  It is deeply sad that after editing for years you still don't get it, you're not editing to provide the Argentine POV as you see it, then engage a battle with British editors who provide the British POV, you edit for neutrality.  The really sad part is that you're so desperate to avoid the accurate description of Jewett as a pirate, as you perceive it damages Argentine claims, not because of any concern for this project or neutrality. It's so sad you have this urge to suppress the truth.  Wee Curry Monster (talk) 10:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

As is seems you have ignored my comment, I have restored the text. This time I have added 4 supporting cites, Two are Argentine, 1 is contemporary US and 1 is academic. I trust this will be sufficient to counter your suggestion this a "British POV". Further your suggestion that the capture of Rampart was approved, I draw your attention to Pena and Pena, who note that the furore created by the capture of the Rampart and the discord it caused with the US caused Rivadavia to revoke all Corsairs licenses against Spain. There is also an interesting discussion about the Corsair's licensing by BA being little more than a cover for piracy. No need to buy the book, the relevant sections are available free here. Wee Curry Monster (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * As suggested by admins, cool off and rise these questions on the Author's talk page before introducing changes you know are contentious. But again, this has already been discussed 6 years ago, by the same editors. I endorse the suggestion of letting it be. Langus-TxT (talk) 09:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)