
When slaves and free men were shipwrecked together - I-M-S
http://www.economist.com/news/christmas-specials/21683979-what-happened-when-slaves-and-free-men-were-shipwrecked-together-lu00e8se
======
JoeAltmaier
Fascinating tale. But why no pictures at all? Just a drawing.

Here's google maps' view:

    
    
       https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ile+Tromelin/@-15.887665,54.518924,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m8!1e2!3m6!1s51527737!2e1!3e10!6s%2F%2Flh4.googleusercontent.com%2Fproxy%2FiMhyFUkn4LJgwo9p8DjAUZt0vlqw-WwVhSy_sTrUodfRWDx5vbsokN0DWBptPTKfGrd8C4cokaPA8UYgxRRoPlzLlFJcuQ%3Dw203-h134!7i1000!8i661!4m2!3m1!1s0x223214bebf13fbd7:0x7691448fcb61642d?hl=en

~~~
mmanfrin
Linked + google earthed and zoomed in:
[https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ile+Tromelin/@-15.8926233,...](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ile+Tromelin/@-15.8926233,54.5226545,1845m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x22326be19257779f:0xa87dedc462b1ef20)

~~~
scoot
Why does an island which is barely long enough to support a runway need a
runway?!

~~~
sandworm101
Because flying a three-man team to such an island is often much
cheaper/easier/safer/faster than boating them in. And when people are hurt,
getting them out by plane is the only life-sustaining option. Broken bones do
not do well in small boats. (See the OP for issues surrounding getting people
in and out of this place by boat.)

A more extreme example would be oil rigs (tiny island) that are serviced more
often by helicopters than boats.

------
pavel_lishin
> _One of [the women]—oddly, on an island with no men—held an eight-month-old
> baby boy._

What oddly? There were men on there just a year prior, in August of 1775:

> _Why had only seven castaways survived, when 14 had been spotted weeks
> before? It seems the newly marooned sailor had tried his luck as a latter-
> day Castellan. With the help of the now-natives, one assumes, he had
> salvaged whatever could still be used from L’Utile’s wreck and built his own
> Providence. Sails were improvised from birds’ feathers. Unlike Castellan,
> the unnamed sailor had taken some of the slaves: the last three men and
> three women. Also unlike his predecessor, he failed to reach Madagascar._

The article even speculates that the white sailor was the father.

I'm also not sure why it says "14 spotted weeks before" \- according to the
article, over a year had passed since the 14 were spotted.

~~~
schoen
I think the "oddly" was meant to be from the perspective of those who first
encountered the women, not from the perspective of the writer or the reader.
Maybe it would be clearer as "surprisingly" or "at first surprisingly".

------
lazyant
I find it incredible that they maintained a fire for 15 years, just from wood
from the shipwreck.

~~~
saalweachter
It is indeed incredible, given the tiny wood supply, but maintaining a fire
continually has historically been a very common practice. Simply put --
starting a fire is a pain. The easiest way to light your own fire was off your
neighbor's fire; the easiest way to light a fire when traveling was to
preserve a smoldering ember of your previous fire and carry it with you.

~~~
kbenson
Yes, but like the parent comment I would not expect a single ship's wood, of
which a portion was used to make a 33-foot raft and some must have been lost
to sea or be in unreachable locations to be sufficient to keep the fire going
for _15 years_. I suspect there were other sources, such as the shrubbery, or
dried seaweed, or something. That they would have any original wood left to
burn at that time to even make it look like they've been using it as a primary
source for 15 years seems amazing to me.

~~~
mixmax
It just so happens that over the last 2 winters I've been burning a scrapped
wooden boat in my fire stove so I know how much fire you get out of a boat.

The boat in question was a 15 meter long oak on oak boat. It lasted 2 winters
for 2 homes with a fire stove, and we didn't even burn it all.

There's an amazing amount of wood in a boat, particularly around the keel. The
framing, keel and other structural elements are made of really heavy timber.
On top of that good wooden boats are (were..) built of slowgrown oak that is
incredibly dense. One large piece would last for 6-8 hours in my stove and
give off a lot of heat.

It doesn't seem unlikely to me that a 25-30 meter boat would last for 15 years
if you the goal was primarily to keep the fire going, only getting it really
big/hot when needed.

~~~
rsync
"It just so happens that over the last 2 winters I've been burning a scrapped
wooden boat in my fire stove"

Well played, sir.

~~~
kbenson
Definitely (but not as well as this[1], which is pure gold). I left it open
that I could be wrong, and I'll graciously accept the word of someone with
real boat burning experience that my expectations are way off. ;)

1:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35079](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35079)

------
kstrauser
> It was Castellan who had made the decision to scupper L’Utile by cutting her
> rudder in the hope that more men might be saved.

Why would that improve their chances? That intuitively seems like a bad idea,
but the people who know what they're doing thought otherwise.

~~~
gvb
That sentence as written is nonsensical. I think they meant "scuttle"
(intentionally sink), not "scupper" (a hole in the side wall at deck level to
drain water off the deck).

The principle of scuttling the ship is to remove the buoyancy so that the ship
settles firmly on the bottom (which is shallow because it is grounded) and
does not get pounded to bits as the waves pick it up and slam it back down.
This helps keep the ship intact and allows the people more time to get off.

~~~
dx211
A contemporary account states "Il y a eu de si violents coups de talon que la
barre du gouvernail a fait sauter le tillac de sa chambre, malgré six barreaux
en plusieurs endroits, et qui fit déterminer Mr. de Castellan a L’aller couper
luy meme." which roughly translates to "There were such violent blows to the
rudder, the tiller burst through the deck of its room, despite six bars
holding it in place, and Mr. Castellan made the decision to cut it."

(From the document linked at the bottom of this page: [http://www.histoire-
genealogie.com/spip.php?article1533&lang...](http://www.histoire-
genealogie.com/spip.php?article1533&lang=fr))

~~~
gvb
That makes even more sense. The waves would be slamming the ship onto the
bottom which would be attempting to drive the rudder through the ship every
time. This would threaten to break the ship up very rapidly.

By cutting the rudder free, it would no longer be breaking the ship up, but it
would leave a major hole where the rudder post came in, resulting in scuttling
the ship.

~~~
dx211
I think the part about "scuppering" is just some nautical-sounding nonsense
that the author of the article threw in. If you read the account I linked to
above, it's saying they jettisoned the masts, then cut the rudder, then threw
the cannons overboard, but despite these the ship eventually broke apart. Like
you say, it sounds like they were trying to stabilize it to reduce the damage,
but my impression is they were trying to make it lighter and less top-heavy
rather than intentionally sink it.

~~~
Angostura
In British English if something is 'scuppered (often someone's chances) it is
destroyed or sunk. I assume the author was going for this verb usage.

------
partisan
This island provided the basics for life and yet could not sustain it. It's
sobering when we consider sending people to a planet that is entirely hostile
to our existence.

~~~
pavel_lishin
> _This island provided the basics for life and yet could not sustain it._

The very bare minimum of basics - hardly any water, and hardly any food. But
it did sustain over a dozen people for over a dozen years, with basically
scraps of the ship they came in!

------
adrianh
Here's a French documentary about the island, with plenty of video footage:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzKblzJBz6U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzKblzJBz6U)

------
maceo
This article is full of misnomers.

First of all, the "slaves" were actually kidnapped Africans. They had yet to
do a day of forced labor and had not yet undergone the years of conditioning
it took to turn a free man into a slave.

Second, the "free men" were actually slave traders. Yes, there was a ban on
slave trading at the time, but that didn't stop them.

If you're interested in learning about what happens when kidnapped Africans
and free men come into contact, study what happens when slave ships came into
contact with pirate ships. As a general rule, pirate ships were egalitarian,
as it helped preserve social harmony on the ship. And the composition of the
crew was usually multiracial. Over 60% of Blackbeard's crew was black.
Oftentimes, when the pirates took control of a slave ship, they would take the
goods they wanted, free and arm the kidnapped Africans, and let the ship go on
its way.

~~~
kbenson
Well, if you want to get into misnomers, calling all the "free men" slavers
may be going a bit far. The vessel was not nominally a slave ship, it was a
side business of the captain, and speculating on whether the other crew and/or
passengers that signed on to a ship sailing in seas where slave trading was
banned knew that slaves would later be brought on board at a separate port is
hard to do accurately without a lot more information.

~~~
senthil_rajasek
Ignorance is not a defense. Also, it would still be considered aiding and
abetting.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiding_and_abetting](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiding_and_abetting)

~~~
kbenson
Ignorance _is_ a defense against aiding and abetting. You can't abet something
if you don't know about it. You can unknowingly aid it, but any legal system
that prosecutes people for their role crimes they had _no_ knowledge of is not
a just system.

Some non-enslaved/kidnapped people of the ship may have had no knowledge of
the cargo, or if they did, may not yet have had an opportunity to notify
authorities at a port after learning. Calling them slave traders before
they've had an opportunity to show their side one way or another is no
different than calling the kidnapped people slaves before they've been
actually put into slavery.

To be clear, I believe most the people on the ship probably would not raise
any alarm over the situation, at least not enough to cause legal trouble, but
if you are going to be pedantic about terminology in this way, it only makes
sense to do the same in all cases brought forth, unless you are using
terminology to manipulate the perspective (this is not an accusation).

Note: Edited slightly for clarity and typos.

~~~
senthil_rajasek
Notice the "Also" in my original comment. It is meant to be read as 2 distinct
sentences.

I am not a lawyer but I do know that people are held responsible for the
personal belongings they carry, say on a plane. I know that I cannot carry a
prohibited item on a plane and claim that I didn't know how it got there.
Which is probably why they make you say that your bag was not touched by any
strangers before you board your flight.

The captain of a ship should be held responsible for the ship and it's cargo.

~~~
lotharbot
> _" I do know that people are held responsible for the personal belongings
> they carry"_

Actually there's strong legal precedent in the opposite direction. From page
14 of [0], _" a defendant cannot knowingly acquire or possess that which he or
she does not know exists"_. This sentiment is common in US law -- you can
claim to not know how something got into your possession, and if that claim is
reasonably credible, you'll typically be let off the hook.

[0]
[http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/Decisions/2012/May12/70opn12....](http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/Decisions/2012/May12/70opn12.pdf)

~~~
senthil_rajasek
>"a defendant cannot knowingly acquire or possess that which he or she does
not know exists"

I read the above line several times carefully.

Here is the meaning I made out of that sentence, one cannot claim that they
knew exactly how they got a certain object and then say at a later time that
they did not even know such an object exists.

This is a different scenario than accepting responsibility for your personal
belongings (say while flying) and then claiming that you don't know how it got
there.

In the former case there is evidence that you got that object.

To summarize, my understanding of in flight carry on rules are you are aware
of the things you are carrying and would be held responsible if you are later
caught with a prohibited item.

~~~
lotharbot
> _" one cannot claim that they knew exactly how they got a certain object and
> then say at a later time that they did not even know such an object exists"_

But it can happen in the opposite order. I recall at least one professional
athlete [0] getting caught with drugs in his bag at the airport, and having
the charges dismissed because (supposedly) his friend had used his bag and
left the drugs in it, without his knowledge. The claim "I didn't know that
existed" (ie, drugs _in the bag_ \-- knowing drugs exist in general is not the
same as knowing drugs exist within your bag) is compatible with the later
claim "given that it does exist, I'm certain as to where it came from"
(knowing someone else had used that bag during the prior week).

In the context of this thread, it's quite possible for (some of) the crew of a
ship to be in the dark as to what cargo might be onboard, and therefore to not
_knowingly_ possess contraband or be involved in slave trading. _" Ignorance
of the law is no defense; ignorance of crime is one."_ [1] As kbenson rightly
pointed out, it's not "aiding and abetting" if you don't know crime is
happening; it's only "aiding and abetting" if you're trying to help someone
commit a crime. As the link you yourself posted says, _" It is necessary to
show that the defendant has wilfully associated himself with the crime being
committed"_ \-- not merely that he helped someone who happened to have
committed a crime, but that he intentionally, knowingly, chose to participate
in crime.

[0]
[http://espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1906525](http://espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1906525)

[1] [http://www.nbcnews.com/id/40709114/ns/us_news-
weird_news/t/i...](http://www.nbcnews.com/id/40709114/ns/us_news-
weird_news/t/ignorance-law-no-defense-ignorance-crime-one/)

~~~
senthil_rajasek
Hmmm... I read the espn article and nowhere it says that the drug possession
charges were dismissed.

So my statement that passengers are held responsible for thier possessions in
their carry on still holds.

~~~
lotharbot
> _" nowhere it says that the drug possession charges were dismissed"_

Type "Carmelo Anthony drug charges dropped" into google [0].

Your statement is mostly correct, but the ways in which it's wrong are
significant and relevant for this thread. As kbenson and I have both pointed
out, ignorance _is_ a valid defense in US law, and was a valid defense in many
legal traditions of the past. You may have heard the phrase "harboring a
_known_ fugitive" \-- someone who provides shelter to someone they _know_ is
running from the law can be held culpable for aiding and abetting, while
someone who provides shelter to somebody who _happens to be_ running from the
law (unknown to them) is treated as a victim. The generalization holds -- a
person who _knowingly_ helps someone pull off a crime is culpable, while a
person who _happens to_ help someone but didn't know they were helping a
criminal is innocent.

Without more detail, we don't know how much of the crew of the ship in
question might fall into either category.

[0]
[http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/nuggets...](http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/nuggets/2004-11-17-anthony_x.htm)

------
CurtMonash
When I saw the headline (including the publication) I expected a reference to
The Admirable Crichton. But the story didn't really support that, and the tone
was too somber anyway.

------
amelius
Sounds like a good plot for a movie :)

