Talk: Code of the Pirate Brethren

Slavery[]

Hello! I was reading the pages of Libertalia, King Samuel and the book he was in, and doesn't the Pirate Code ban slavery/the participation in the slave trade by pirates? Should that be reflected in this article? Ninclow (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, here's an excerpt from the book:

“King Samuel is a liar and a traitor!” snarled an African pirate with two gold teeth and a long scar along his well-muscled shoulder.

“King Samuel,” Jack muttered out of the corner of his mouth to Billy. “Remember that.” He turned back to the pirate who had spoken.

“A liar and a traitor, eh? Sounds horribly like...a pirate.” He widened his eyes thoughtfully.

“But this one doesn’t honor the Code!” The scarred pirate slammed his fist into the palm of his other hand. “He’s made underhanded deals with the Dutch and the Portuguese to let their slave ships through. He’s been selling people—prisoners he captures, warriors he defeats, even his own people! —as slaves. He calls himself a king...but the truth is, he is nothing but filth.” The man spat in the dirt.

Jack frowned. He himself had some fairly strong feelings about selling people—namely, that it was utterly wrong. Not to mention unworthy of a pirate.

As we can see, the first accusation against King Samuel is that he's "a liar and a traitor", and he "doesn’t honor the Code" because he made "deals with the Dutch and the Portuguese to let their slave ships through". Participating in the slave trade is the last accusation. Unfortunately, the accuser did not specify which part is against the Code. Also, in other materials we have several examples of pirates engaging in slave trade and/or capturing slaves, and no one saying anything about that practice being against the Code. As revealed in Jack Sparrow: The Age of Bronze, Tumen was kidnapped from his village by pirates and sold from one ship to another. In The Price of Freedom Christophe-Julien de Rapièr was perfectly willing to sell young Cutler Beckett on a slave market, and when he planned to sail for Africa he listed "black gold" (slaves) among the potential loot. We also have Tales of the Code: Wedlocked where Jack Sparrow himself sold Giselle and Scarlett to the Auctioneer, and the Auctioneer clearly treated the two wenches as a commodity to be sold, and even stated he could do so by the Code. So, it seems to me the Code is not strictly against slavery.--Uskok^{Viceroy of the Indies, Nemesis} 20:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

One of pages in the Pirata Codex shown in AWE (images here) also lists different sums in either pieces of eight or slaves as compensation for various disabling injuries, though "slaves" is crossed out and replaced with "indentured men". The evidence does seem to be in favor of the Code having nothing against humans being used as a commodity, even if whoever later amended it chose a "lighter" form of bondage than what was originally written down by Morgan & Bartholomew in that particular instance. -- flameandignite

^Parley? 21:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I would argue that a plain reading of the text indicates that all of the accusations denotes how King Samuel failed to honor the Code, otherwise, why would that point precede the accusations instead of being added as a separate condemnation that came in addition to them, if it was merely an attack of king Samuel's ethics in piracy?

In the case of Tumen, who might have been another victim of King Samuel for all we know, just like Gombo, I'd contend that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The fact that the pirates that kidnapped and sold Tumen, and Christophe-Julien de Rapièr's participation in the slave trade, isn't explicitly mentioned as violations of the Code, doesn't mean that they aren't. At least if we assume that the African pirate with two gold teeth were being truthful about king Samuel broke the Code by participating in the slave trade, they necessarily would have to be. This is particularly true when we take into account that Jack is the POV character of the conversations of both Tumen's backstory and Christophe's confession to trading in slaves, whose "people aren't cargo" mentality would be so much higher on the list of reasons for why he dislikes the prospect than "it is against the Code" that the latter won't even register in his knee-jerk reactions to them.

As for Tales of the Code: Wedlocked, I think you might inadvertently be conflating two similar, but different things.

The Auctioneer did clearly treat Giselle and Scarlett as as a commodity to be sold, but if you recall, the Acutioneer didn't say he was sold the wenches in accordance with the Code by Jack Sparrow, the word used was traded for them. And, as you may also recall, the moment the wenches said "we're not property" was the moment the surrounding pirates asked went "Are they for sale, or not?", and took to their weapons. So selling people as property, like slaves are in the conventional sense, seems to be against the Code, but if Jack received something in exchange for providing the Auctioneer with a pair of supposedly willing wenches to be auctioned off as wives as a type of reverse-dowry, (an amount of property or money brought by a husband to his wife on their marriage), it's not against the Code. This is also implied to be the case by the fact that the wenches thought they were rich when the bidding was over, and was outraged when the Auctioneer proclaimed to take 100% of the price paid for them. Suffice it to say jeering pirates bidding on two wenches to bicker amongst themselves of who makes for the more costly commodity and striking poses to seduce people to up the bid cuts a very different image to the idea of someone bidding on a literal slave auction, where it's well understood the slaves won't get any of the money that changes hands. Ninclow (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

"Should that be reflected in this article?" Maybe, if it is relevant and properly sourced. But as pointed out, there are more than a few examples that suggest that pirates did (or did not) engage in slavery somehow, including what is said in the Pirate Code book. However, for the sake of argument, even if there is a subsection of the Code being broken, and even if it was broken by a Pirate Lord, lest we forget the immortal words of Hector Barbossa, "The Code is more what you'd call guidelines than actual rules." Just because the Code is the law and followed to the letter by most pirates doesn't mean that there aren't instances where pirates choose to break it, even if the breaker in question was a Pirate Lord. -- J Fan^{On Stranger Tides} 22:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Whether individual pirates regard the Code as "more guidelines than actual rules" or "the law and follow it to the letter", or to the extent individual pirates abide by it, is a bit beside the point, I think. The question isn't in what regard individual pirates holds the Code, but if the Code forbids slavery, and I feel I have done a fair job of canonically substantiating that it does. Even if the word-for-word rendering of the point made from Wedlocks is accurate, ("Trading for products fair and square means the seller can do as they like, including resell at profit"), if the outraged statement of "we are not property" coupled with "are they for sale or not?" and the drawn pistols are anything to go by, it would seem that if the product in question is say barrels of rum, gunpowder, food rations, etc., then that is the property of the buyer, but people aren't property, so treating them as a commodity to be sold for profit when they consent to it (prostitution, auctioning off willing wenches for wives, etc.), is traded "fair and square under the Code", and can do what they plese with it. But, selling people as property, aka slaves, is forbidden by the Code, because "people aren't cargo". Ninclow (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, some of these are moot. For instance, "We are not property" wasn't said by a pirate but a wench, who for all we know may not be as familiar with the Code. "Are they for sale or not?" may be a proper response from the buyer, or it might also suggest there are aspects of the Code that maybe not every pirate was aware of, such as "An act of war can only be declared by the Pirate King." But then again, it has been established that pirates at Shipwreck City are a silly bunch. And, as far as I know, "people aren't cargo" is more-so Jack's personal mantra that was said in regards of his time as an EITC employee rather than quoting the Pirate Code. At any rate, the original question was if information can be reflected in the article, which again, the answer is yes, if the information can be properly sourced. Unfortunately, the only definitive confirmation we have is the book (which we barely see one line of information, as previously shown via screencap) and whatever is revealed by any character, which even then, whether we're talking about an African pirate or the Auctioneer, is apparently contradicting the other somehow. -- J Fan^{On Stranger Tides} 03:51, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't follow you. How does the fact that the wench is the one who said "we are not property" rather than the pirate make it a moot point? Surely, the point isn't who said that the wenches weren't property, but that the statement was made in the first place? To the Auctioneer, I might add, who was then met with anger by the pirates who heard the statement, the question: "Are the wenches for sale, or not?!", and a bunch of loaded pistols? Or am I missing something?

Intuitively, I have two points of contention with your first argument.

The wenches knowing that the Code forbids slavery isn't a requirement for the Code to forbid slavery. All that's needed is for the pirates who hear "We aren't property!" to be aware of the fact, and react accordingly. Which they seem to do.

The question "Are they for sale, or not?" is a qualifier. The implication seems to be that for the wenches to be for sale, certain criteria has to met in order for the sale to be valid. And what other thing could these conditions possibly be with the information given other than "not if they're property"?

If the Code permitted slavery and the Auctioneer had, as he said, actually traded for them fair and square, there wouldn't be any question of whether they were for sale or not, because they obviously and necessarily would have been, whatever their own feelings on the matter happened to be. If the Code allowed slavery, the Auctioneer would have been well within his rights to do what he wanted with them, and suddenly it makes a whole lot less sense for that question to have been raised as a point of contention in the first place. But no - the issue of people being denied their right to the money or which they were "bought", again with the dowry analogy, and being treated as property was raised, people took to their weapons in vicious fury. That, and the Auctioneer used the term "trade", not "bought", which aren't always synonymous.

It would also be completely out of character for Jack Sparrow, who is so passionately and vehemently against slavery, to sell these two women as slaves. Given how the people who made Wedlocked and At World's End were the same people, and around the same time, there is little chance that this fact would have slipped under the radar and forgotten by the producers. Hence, it would seem that whether the wenches are for sale or not, and whether the Auctioneer is within his rights to sell them as commodities under the Code, rests entirely on the whether they are property or not. Did the wenches give their consent to be auctioned off as wives with the implicit hope of a better life, (implied by the auction itself, not by the wenches Jack tricked), or are they sold as property? Because if they are property, the sale's invalid it seems.

I would also disagree with you that it could suggest there are aspects of the Code that maybe not every pirate was aware of, such as "An act of war can only be declared by the Pirate King", if only because there hasn't been a Pirate King since the First Court, and we were on the Fourth Court at the time, so it makes sense for the rights and powers of the King to be an obscure topic. The rules for trading in goods, which is something pirates do on a regular basis, however? I'd argue not so much. And yes, while "people aren't cargo" is more of Jack's personal mantra that was said in regards of his time as an EITC employee rather than quoting the Pirate Code, that doesn't mean the Code doesn't say that people aren't cargo, simply that Jack has other reasons for saying that people aren't cargo than because some book in his father's study says so.

I could be missing some nuance in your argument of course, but at the time of writing, I don't agree that there's a contradiction. If something is going over my head, please, don't let my verbosity stop you from sharing it. ^^' Ninclow (talk) 07:52, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

"I traded for them fair and square, meaning I can do as I like, including resell at profit. It says so right over here in the hallowed pirate Code!" The Code may not explicitly support slavery, but it doesn't condemn it either. That's all.--Black Caesar (talk) 08:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Not on the surface maybe, but even if we disregard the fact that the Auctioneer said that while trying to talk his way out of trouble with a bunch of pistols aimed at his face, how does that not bring us back to the fact that King Samuel was explicitly stated as having broken the Code for violating in the slave trade? Ninclow (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Here I would like to extend my apologies to Flameandignite, whose own ten cents I didn't notice until just now. To him I would ask: If slaves has been crossed out and replaced with "indentured men", which is different from owning a person as property for life, like what happened to Gentleman Jocard, doesn't that kind of prove my point? That by the early 1700s, outright slavery was forbidden by the Code through an amendment of the original text? Ninclow (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

First, Flameandignite is she/her, going by her userpage. And to begin with the more certain point, again, we don't really have definitive confirmation about what is in the Code book other than that one aforementioned screencap. And certainly Outside of that, there is the "he said/she said" regarding this subject. That said, going by what is in the film, trying to do very little-to-no personal speculation...

Bear in mind, there were two pirates who supported the "traded them fair and square" statement, the Auctioneer and Mungard, the latter being the self-appointed guardian of the Code.
As far as what does or doesn't make sense, regarding the reaction of pirates, let's keep in mind that the POTC universe is more nonsensical than sensible. Pirates may agree and continue their business without much fuss, or they will react in absurdity or "madness". There was madness during the Fourth Brethren Court (and presumably even the Third Court), tavern brawls here and there, surely madness can occur in a simple auction.
Jack Sparrow is "passionately and vehemently against slavery"...by the EITC or the British Empire. Slavery (or rather prostitution?) as we see between pirates and wenches are a different group entirely. Also, we are also talking about the same pirate who was willing to collect 99 souls to serve under Davy Jones' Flying Dutchman, i.e. slavery. Surely there would be a difference there, at least in Jack's point of view, in a case-by-case basis.
And again, we don't know if Giselle's "We aren't property" is a wench knowing pirates are breaking the Code or if she was simply stating what she believes is fact. Even then, there is a fundamental difference between situations of a woman telling a pirate they are working against the Code, as shown in the films. "You must be a pirate for the Pirate's Code to apply, and you're not." Elizabeth telling Barbossa that he is going against the Code, despite having done plenty of research on the subject. Scarlett and Giselle, while I have nothing to base their lack of knowledge on the subject, but they don't strike me as someone who knows as much (or even more) than Elizabeth did, at least what is based on the films. Whether or not the wenches knew more or less, I admit, is borderline speculation based on what little we know for sure.

The only other thing to say that may have gone over your head is that the details aren't exactly cut and dry. Even if we were to focus strictly on the movies, there have been exceptions to Point A) with Point B) that may or may not align. One may or may not agree as far as what a pirate may or may not be aware of. But the fact remains that there are instances of pirates not being aware of what is in the Code, regardless of if we're talking about the Pirate King or a simply auction dispute. More simply put, the Code is like the Bible, in that not everybody has read or know it by heart, and the Code is the law, and not everyone follows the law. This would certainly apply to King Samuel and other Code-breakers. -- J Fan^{On Stranger Tides} 14:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

1. Tumen being a victim of King Samuel is speculation at best.

2. The movies imply that Jack's dislike of slavery comes from his experiences with Beckett's involvement in the slave trade (the "People aren't cargo, mate" deleted scene) but the prequel books show it all started much earlier. As revealed in Jack Sparrow: Sins of the Father, when Jack was twelve, Captain Lucille Graven attempted to sell him into servitude, from which he was saved by Captain Teague. Again, no mention of Lucile suffering any consequences for her actions, or her actions being against the Code. Also, the ultimate goal of Jack's adventures in the Young Jack Sparrow prequel books was to stay free of pirates and everything that comes with them. In The Price of Freedom as a young pirate Jack only wanted to be rid of Teague, but helping Christophe-Julien de Rapièr regain his freedom from Teague led to Jack losing his own freedom when he was shanghaied aboard the La Vipère. In the film series, as a grown up pirate, Jack was obsessed with freedom, true, but that freedom was his own freedom, and he didn't care much about the freedom of others. In Dead Man's Chest when Will revealed Elizabeth was arrested Jack simply said "There comes a time when one must take responsibility for one's mistakes." In the same film, when Jones asks "Can you condemn an innocent man - a friend - to a lifetime of servitude in your name while you roam free?" Jack replies "Yep! I'm good with it." In At World's End Jack was perfectly willing to betray all the pirates to Beckett to save his own skin. Even after the sinking of the Flying Dutchman Jack still expected Beckett to honor their deal.

3. In Tales of the Code: Wedlocked the pirates at the auction got angry because of the possibility that Scarlett and Giselle weren't for sale, not because they were against slavery. I don't remember any pirate complaining when the Auctioneer put shackles on the wenches.

4. In the end, we have five examples of pirates being involved in slavery. Jack was almost sold in servitude by Captain Lucille Graven, Tumen was kidnapped by pirates and sold as a slave, Christophe-Julien de Rapièr wanted to sell Cutler Beckett on a slave market, King Samuel sold his prisoners as slaves, and Jack sold Scarlett and Giselle to the Auctioneer. Of those five examples, one was explicitly stated to be "by the Code". King Samuel's "Code breaking" could simply be interpreted as Samuel making deals with the Dutch and the Portuguese (the colonial powers) instead of staying loyal to the pirates of Libertalia/Madagascar. Even Jack found nothing wrong with Samuel being a liar and a traitor. Maybe the pirates of Libertalia even attacked Samuel's fortress, and once they suffered a defeat Samuel eneded up with prisoners that he didn't want, so he sold them into slavery. If that be the case, Samuel's involvement in the slave trade is the consequence of him breaking the Code, not the cause. Anyway, I think we can simply say the Code is neutral on the issue of slavery. The Code won't force a free person into slavery, but it also won't free someone who is already a slave.--Uskok^{Viceroy of the Indies, Nemesis} 20:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

J Fan:

That's embarrassing. I apologize for the misgendering Flameandignite, I didn't even make a conscious decision of what gender I thought the user might be, I was so lost in the message of my response that I didn't even notice that I even wrote "him" there.

"Bear in mind, there were two pirates who supported the "traded them fair and square" statement, the Auctioneer and Mungard, the latter being the self-appointed guardian of the Code."
1. My knee-jerk reaction to this was "The keyword here is 'self-appointed'", and "Was there?". We saw the Auctioneer claim, while he was at gunpoint, that he was acting in accordance with the Code, but we only got his word for that. Mungard did warn off the surrounding pirates from disrespecting the Code after that, but that doesn't mean the Auctioneer was right, it means that Mungard, being the stooge of Teague's that he is, had an invested interest in being seen as ensuring that people abided by the Code on his watch.
"As far as what does or doesn't make sense, regarding the reaction of pirates, let's keep in mind that the POTC universe is more nonsensical than sensible. Pirates may agree and continue their business without much fuss, or they will react in absurdity or "madness". There was madness during the Fourth Brethren Court (and presumably even the Third Court), tavern brawls here and there, surely madness can occur in a simple auction."
1. It could - and yet, drawing pistols on a man who is publicly accused of treating and/or selling two wenches as property doesn't seem like the same sort of obvious, deliberately comedic vibe found in the brawl during the Fourth Court. Particularly not when coupled with the sort of treatment the pirates in Libertalia thought Samuel was deserving of for selling people as property, which in said book was said to be against the Code by people who uttered the statement in a fit of righteous anger rather than: "Hold on, don't shoot me!". Again, if the wenches had shown obvious discomfort with being actioned off and tried to convince the Auctioneer not to action them off with a flirty (and most likely false) promise of a good time, the Auctioneer hesitated and seemed to consider it, then the question "are they for sale or not?" would make sense as a just a question, because then he'd leave the bidders with a sense of having been lead on for nothing and prompt that inquiry in particular. However, the question was prompted by the statement "We aren't property!" before the Auctioneer gave any sort of indication that the transaction was called off. If the Code did permit people to be sold as property, then there's no reason why that question would have been raised. "We are not property!" the wench would have cried. "Yes, you are," would the Auctioneer have said. "Now shush", and continued the transaction. But he didn't, he had to defend the transaction, and back-peddle, and appeal to a law book in front of him that nobody fact-checked him on.
"Jack Sparrow is "passionately and vehemently against slavery"...by the EITC or the British Empire. Slavery (or rather prostitution?) as we see between pirates and wenches are a different group entirely. Also, we are also talking about the same pirate who was willing to collect 99 souls to serve under Davy Jones' Flying Dutchman, i.e. slavery. Surely there would be a difference there, at least in Jack's point of view, in a case-by-case basis."
1. Well, that's not exactly the case. Not by my cognisance leastways. Tumen fled slavery from pirates, and Jack didn't exactly trip over himself to rebuke him from not obeying his masters on The Account or hand him back to them, not that I recall. I also agree that prostitution is different from slavery, which also aligns with my point from before. Prostitution as we see between pirates and wenches are consensual, making it different from slavery, where the transaction happens with the wench's own stamp of approval. And it seems the auction was generally assumed by the pirates to have been consensual as well; since they were bidding eagerly, the wenches enticed them to up their bids, and an issue with the transaction only arose when the Auctioneer was seen as selling them as property, which is the crux of my argument. As for the 99 souls to serve under Davy Jones' Flying Dutchman, while I will concede that this would be slavery, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that Jack was fearing for his life, and that he was actively trying to find Jones' heart at the time, meaning that if everything went well, he would have the power for force Jones to let said slaves go free again almost as soon as he sold them.
"And again, we don't know if Giselle's "We aren't property" is a wench knowing pirates are breaking the Code or if she was simply stating what she believes is fact. Even then, there is a fundamental difference between situations of a woman telling a pirate they are working against the Code, as shown in the films. "You must be a pirate for the Pirate's Code to apply, and you're not." Elizabeth telling Barbossa that he is going against the Code, despite having done plenty of research on the subject. Scarlett and Giselle, while I have nothing to base their lack of knowledge on the subject, but they don't strike me as someone who knows as much (or even more) than Elizabeth did, at least what is based on the films. Whether or not the wenches knew more or less, I admit, is borderline speculation based on what little we know for sure."
1. Reading my own post further up where I thought I addressed this already, I see where I fell short and will try to make the point again: Whether Giselle's "We aren't property" is a wench knowing pirates are breaking the Code, or if she was simply stating what she believes is fact, doesn't really matter. The reason for this is, I would argue, because Giselle don't have to know if the Auctioneer are breaking the Code for a pirate to break the Code. But if the Auctioneer is breaking the Code, we would expect to see a strong reaction of disapproval from the surrounding pirates, which indeed we do when they raise the issue of being treated/sold as property, at which point the legitimacy of the transaction is brought into question (if indirectly), and people take to arms. And yes, the Code only applies to pirates, but then the Auctioneer is a pirate, so if he violated the Code by selling the wenches as property, aka slaves, then the Code would apply to him. And did he violate the Code? Apparently so, as seen by the reactions of the surrounding pirates at the prospect of the wenches being sold as property/slaves, and we know canonically that King Samuel was criticized for failing to honor the Code by selling in slaves.

Uskok

1. "Tumen being a victim of King Samuel is speculation at best."
- I agree. Don't know why I brought that up as a possibility. That's my bad, so I concede that point.
Point 2.
- As mentioned further up, an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because there was no mention of Lucile suffering any consequences for her actions, or her actions being against the Code, doesn't mean that she didn't suffer any consequences, or that it wasn't against the Code. All it means is that Jack was more focused on the fact that Teague had rescued him than he was on what fate happened to Captain Lucille Graven after she tried to sell him into slavery when he thought back on what happened. As for the examples you gave, I have both counter-arguments and a defeater for all of them:

1. 1. As we see when they are on the island, Jack does some very quick thinking when Will first encounters him and tells him Elizabeth is facing the gallows, and arranges for Will to be locked up with his crew with the instruction to "save me"; knowing he would rouse and rally the crew to escape, and in turn help him escape. Now, I get how "There comes a time when one must take responsibility for one's mistakes" seems like Jack is indifferent, but if you watch it again, I believe you will find that Jack did it to reframe Will. Will was focusing on how angry he was at what was going on with Elizabeth, and the injustice thereof, so Jack said what he said to provoke Will into shifting his focus from Elizabeth herself, to the lengths to which he was willing to go to get the compass to save her instead. This made it easier for Jack persuading Will to help him in exchange for the compass than trying to talk him into infiltrating Jones' when he wasn't in the right mindset for the deal.
  2. Yes. That Jack can live with "condemning an innocent man - a friend - to a lifetime of servitude in his name while he roams free" is what he said, to Jones, but if you look at his actions, they involved using Will to steal the key to the Dead Man's chest. As mentioned above, he was already trying to get the heart, so worst case scenario, Jack could simply order Jones to free Will again as soon as he got the key. And as long as the other 99 souls were lacking and Will remained just a "proof of good faith" payment, he would not be bound to the Dutchman, so he was, in Jack's mind, a temporary prisoner at, not bound to or a slave to the Dutchman.
  3. You are forgetting Jack's goal. Jack's ultimate goal is to become captain of the Dutchman, to be free to sail the seas forever, so Jack will say whatever he needs to say to talk his way out of a tight spot so he can go back to pursuing said objective. That is, first and foremost, what we need to keep in mind while talking about World's End. Jack had never any intention of truly betraying the pirates; but Jack wanted to be escape Jones, Will wanted his father free, Elizabeth wanted Will back and his dad saved, Barbosa wanted to finish off the EITC once and for all, all of which could have been achieved by Jack becoming the captain of the Flying Dutchman and being "free to sail the seas forever". Consider - while Jack said he would "serve up the Pirate Lords, the nine pieces of eight, and the whole of the Brethren Court on a silver platter", he never actually lifts a finger to lead Beckett there. In fact, the last thing he does before escaping back to the Pearl is to sabotage HMS Endeavour so Beckett couldn't follow. Later, when Beckett finds Will's trail of floating bodies, he follows it under the assumption this is Jack leaving him a trail to follow, as per their deal, but it is also revealed in his conversation with one of his officers that he fully expects Jack to double-cross him. The officer asks if the trail is a trap, Beckett calls it - and by extension the whole deal he made with Jack that he thinks lead up to the trail - "a gambit of a skilled opponent". Jack meant to sail to Shipwreck Cove, persuade the pirates to fight, and take advantage of the chaos on the battlefield to find and stab the heart; which, if you think about it, would in some ways be more doable when Jones and Beckett are busy waging battle against everyone around them than by simply sneaking onboard the ship and run the risk of meeting a more relaxed, focused Jones in a more controlled setting. Then Jack catches Will in the middle of leaving the trail, reminds Will that his goal can be reached by helping Jack reach his goal, and gives Will the compass and pushes him overboard for Beckett to find. So - when Beckett fishes Will up off the water and keeps him alive because he still have a bargain with him that might benefit him, when Will then produces the compass, it is seemingly obvious that Jack and Will is working together to let Jack honor his deal with Beckett as well. But the deal was always a ruse: Jack wanted the battle between pirates and the EITC because he knew that the heart was onboard the Dutchman, which would fight as part of the armada, and sending Will to Beckett was just a convenient way for Jack to pretend he held up his part of the deal while saving him the trouble of tracking down the armada after the King was elected, and war declared.
  4. The defeater for him not caring about other people's freedom was him running away, but then checking his compass and going back to his friends to help them escape Kraken at the end of Dead Man's Chest.

Point 3.
- It is both, apparently. They got frustrated because of the possibility that Scarlett and Giselle weren't for sale, having gotten really into the auction, and they were got angry because the Code forbade selling people as property/into slavery, (ref. King Samuel). Because again, the Auctioneer had given no indication to suggest that the transaction was being called off, so unless there was something about the transaction that went against the Code such that the wenches couldn't be sold, why would the pirates think there was a possibility that that Scarlett and Giselle weren't for sale to be angry about in the first place? If the Auctioneer had traded for Scarlett and Giselle fair and square and had had the right to sell for profit, they could be as unhappy about it as they wished, but they would still be for sale. Unless, of course, the Auctioneer couldn't trade for them fair and square and sell them for profit as property, because the Code didn't allow for it. Without it, the pirates would be angry at nothing.
"4. In the end, we have five examples of pirates being involved in slavery. Jack was almost sold in servitude by Captain Lucille Graven, Tumen was kidnapped by pirates and sold as a slave, Christophe-Julien de Rapièr wanted to sell Cutler Beckett on a slave market, King Samuel sold his prisoners as slaves, and Jack sold Scarlett and Giselle to the Auctioneer. Of those five examples, one was explicitly stated to be "by the Code". King Samuel's "Code breaking" could simply be interpreted as Samuel making deals with the Dutch and the Portuguese (the colonial powers) instead of staying loyal to the pirates of Libertalia/Madagascar. Even Jack found nothing wrong with Samuel being a liar and a traitor. Maybe the pirates of Libertalia even attacked Samuel's fortress, and once they suffered a defeat samuel eneded up with prisoners that he didn't want, so he sold them into. If that be the case, Samuel's involvement in the slave trade is the consequence of him breaking the Code, not the cause. Anyway, I think we can simply say the Code is neutral on the issue of slavery. The Code won't force a free person into slavery, but it also won't free someone who is already a slave."
- It's not so much that Jack was "found nothing wrong with Samuel being a liar and a traitor", and more that he was just unsurprised by it. He certainly found something wrong with him selling people as slaves, as he helps a victim of his slave trade attack Samuel's fortress later in the same book. [
- I suppose you could interpret King Samuel's Code breaking as his deal-makings with Dutch and Portuguese colonial powers instead of staying loyal to the pirates of Libertalia/Madagascar, but that brings into question why its okay for not only other Pirate Lords, such as Ammand the Corsair and Eduardo Villanueva to be privateers, which is a deal made with the crown that said colonial powers answers to, but even Henry Morgan, who co-wrote the Code, was a Privateer. So if Samuel's Code breaking was his deal-makings with Dutch and Portuguese colonial powers, it necessarily follows that the point of contention where the Code is concerned lies not in that he made a deal with Dutch and Portuguese colonial powers, but the type of deal he Dutch and Portuguese colonial powers. Based on the quote from the book, it sounds more like the scarred pirate, in saying that King Samuel had been "selling people—prisoners he captures, warriors he defeats, even his own people! —as slaves", was saying that selling people as slaves was the Code breaking, and the fact that he did it any way in his dealings with Dutch and Portuguese colonial powers is what made it underhanded. Which makes sense, if selling prisoners one captures, warriors one defeats, and one's own people into slavery is against the Code. Ninclow (talk) 08:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

That is...quite a lot to decipher. At the end of the day, ~~stealing~~ borrowing a comment from a friend, which I guess is the case here...It is easy for us the viewers to say "character should've done x y z". While I think the script-writers should think things well through to make the film believable and somewhat logical, delving too deep into logical behavior can also prove to hinder storytelling. On a more personal note, it is better to not overthink it too much, especially when there is little actually connecting the dots, as every storyteller is telling a different story. And it greatly depends on the story told, as that we more-or-less agree on with Jack, between his actions with as a EITC merchant seaman and as a pirate, again, it works out based on a case-by-case basis. -- J Fan^{On Stranger Tides} 15:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I apologize - I hope I've not caused any undue frustration or headache, I do tend to get a bit carried away in discussions like this, and if I start to bother you guys, please let me know. I enjoy a good discussion, but not at the expense of my fellow interlocutors.

I do see what you're getting at, I think. I don't quite see how it applies to this situation? Could you perhaps explain it a little more closely? Because, at the risk of coming off as more obstinate and argumentative than I mean to be, I'd say that my arguments above isn't so much about "character should've done X, Y and Z", and more "this character said X, the implications of which are Y, given the contextual evidence found in source so and so, which is Z.". I do concede that the written works and movies are different stories told by different storytellers, so any discrepancies between them that the viewers can notice is because the various storytellers don't necessarily fact-check one anther or collaborate on their projects before releasing their contribution to the POTC universe. I grant that point.

However, isn't that just a bit... I don't know, too meta? Saying that we shouldn't overthink character motivations or decisions to allow for a healthy suspense of disbelief, and that there will be discrepancies between different stories told by different storytellers, is all well and good in a general discussion about POTC as a franchise. And in that type of discussion, I would agree with you 100%. But the articles are written from an in-universe perspective, are they not? And from an in-universe perspective, surely, it is either true that pirates selling people as slaves is against the Code, or it is not? And if it is true from an in-universe perspective, which I feel like I've done a fair job of establishing is supported by the source material, then shouldn't it be reflected in the article; in the interest of this article having as many true things (from an in-universe perspective) in it as possible? Ninclow (talk) 19:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

No apologies necessary, on all accounts, as it happens to us at one point or another. And discussions are fine, as that is partly the fun of the franchise. But in the matter of Wiki articles, as editors, we are in a position to try and detail everything relevant, and preferably what is definitively official. Unfortunately, there are cases where the details are not fully defined. Officially speaking, we can say that King Samuel was involved in slave trade, and we can say that at least one person (African scarred pirate) believes Samuel didn't honor the Code, etc. But to say that automatically means King Samuel broke the Code by engaging in slavery is speculation at best, due to not knowing since if the Code truly banned slavery even with "~~slaves~~ indentured men" in the aforementioned screencap, and there being examples (i.e. Auctioneer) where the Code was used to allow what one may consider "slave trade" through the wench auction. Or simply put, the exact details of the Code as a whole (especially about slavery) are not entirely set in stone. -- J Fan^{On Stranger Tides} 21:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Your claim that Lucille Graven was somehow punished by Teague awfully reminds me of your idea from a few years ago that the events of Treasure Island and Peter Pan happened in Pirates of the Caribbean. I've said it before, and I'll say it again - if it wasn't shown and/or mentioned in some POTC material, it didn't happen!

"If you do happen to get captured, just say Jack Sparrow sent you to settle his debt! Might save your life!" Jack knew the ship he was sending Will to board wasn't the Flying Dutchman. He knew he was sending Will into a trap. He knew there was a chance Will could get captured and/or killed, and he didn't give a damn.

"while Jack said he would "serve up the Pirate Lords, the nine pieces of eight, and the whole of the Brethren Court on a silver platter", he never actually lifts a finger to lead Beckett there." Um, did you miss the scene where Jack literally gives Will his compass and throws him overboard so he could lead Beckett to Shipwreck Cove?

According to the DMC novelization, Jack "looked down at his Compass and watched the needle swing to its mark—the Black Pearl and his crew." That's all. It doesn't explain his motivations for returning. Maybe he wanted to try to save the ship, maybe he returned just for the crew, maybe he wanted to save both... It's not precise, just like the King Samuel Code-breaking situation.

"the Code be the law as always. And woe to anyone who shows it any disrespect." If that doesn't make "traded for them fair and square" and "resell at profit" perfectly clear/allowed by the Code, I don't know what will.

Pirates attacking other pirates is against the Code. As long as Ammand and Villanueva didn't attack other pirates their privateering was allowed by the Code.--Uskok^{Viceroy of the Indies, Nemesis} 21:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

J. Fan:

I greatly appreciate your patience and understanding, and while I don't entirely agree with your conclusion, I have also exhausted my list of arguments for the motion "The Code bans slavery". If you don't find the support for it in the source material sufficiently conclusive, you don't agree. In which case, I concede the point. Thank you for your time. :-) Ninclow (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Uskok:

I didn't make a positive claim that Lucille Graven was punished by Teague, what I said was that it doesn't logically follow that she wasn't simply because we didn't hear about it, so while it is true that she wasn't stated to have been punished, it's still invalid as an argument for the Code allowing slavery, because we don't know that she wasn't, or that the act itself wasn't punishable. Especially in light of the fact that we do have a source that explicitly tells us that slavery is against the Code, and that Samuel would have been killed for engaging in it if he ever set foot in Libertalia.

The events of Treasure Island and Peter Pan did happen in the Pirates of the Caribbean universe. Or, perhaps I should say, a version of them happened in the Pirates of the Caribbean universe, that differed from the original source material. Because if Elliott and Rossio said that the intended backstory of "Captain Hawkins" was to explain the circumstances of the disappearance of Jim Hawkins' father in Robert Louis Stevenson's Treasure Island at sea and why he never returned to his home at the Admiral Benbow Inn, that is exactly who Captain Hawkins is. So in the not-fully-realized adaptation of Treasure Island within the POTC universe is that Jim's father is a sea captain who lives at an inn ran by his wife, and that he "disappeared at sea" before that version of the events of Treasure Island transpired. If A. C. Crispin confirmed that "James" is indeed Captain James Hook, the main antagonist from J.M. Barrie's Peter Pan, that means that's who "James" is; and that in the not-fully-realized version of that story that transpires in the POTC universe, James Hook escaped Neverland, as dictated by the fact that we know how Hook lost his hand and where his fear of children stem from. These are ultimately trivial discrepancies that pales in comparison to the fact that in the POTC universe's version of the myth of the Flying Dutchman, the ship was captained by Davy Jones to ferry those who died at sea to their final rest on the other side at the behest of Calypso, not by Willem van der Decken as punishment for cursing the God of Abraham.

Look, I get where you are coming from. Strictly speaking, from a wiki perspective, it makes perfect sense to want to stick only to what's explicitly shown or referenced in the Pirates of the Caribbean movies, books, games, or official tie-ins so as to avoid fans speculating too much, because otherwise, the canon would get very messy, very fast. But, that is also a very rigid stance that kind of misses a fundamental truth about expansive, fictional universes like Pirates of the Caribbean: Namely that worldbuilding isn't just a ledger of "what was said/shown on the screen/page". It's about implied connections, subtext, and the feeling of a living, breathing world that extends beyond the protagonist's immediate story, and the fact that Pirates of the Caribbean includes allusions to characters like James Hook and Captain Hawkins invites the fans to glimpse into the broader continuity and history of the POTC universe, and that's actually just a hallmark of good storytelling. Just because the protagonists aren't around to experience the adventures of Treasure Island or Peter Pan, doesn't mean that they aren't happening; and dismissing these connections completely overlooks the richness they add to the narrative tapestry. That's not me forcing canon that isn't there — I'm simply honoring the creative spirit of the world and trying to treat it like the expansive, interconnected fictional universe that it is, instead of a tiny diorama only populated when the camera is rolling. It's what makes a fictional world feel alive rather than like a stage set only propped up for the protagonists. The real trick is to strike a balance between pragmatic wiki editing and doing full justice to the POTC as a fictional universe. I see it like this:

- In rich storytelling, implication is canon until something directly contradicts it.
- "Worldbuilding" assumes events, people, and histories exist beyond the narrative lens of the current protagonists.
- "Presence" doesn't always mean "main plot involvement" — side characters, background events, historical references — all contribute to a universe’s depth.

And did it save Will's life to say that? Did Jack correctly predict that trying to weasel his way out of their deal by sending someone in his stead wouldn't fly with Jones, and used the incoming confrontation of said fact by Jones to set the stage for a negotiation to buy himself the time he needed to track down the chest, while Will secured the key with which to unlock it, yes or no?

No. But I think, perhaps, you missed the bit where that this only happened after Jack discovered was already leaving Beckett a trail to follow anyway, and that in giving Will the compass, he was effectively creating the illusion that he and Will was working together to uphold Jack's end of the deal to lead Beckett to the Shipwreck Cove, and trying to lull Beckett into a false sense of security to disguise the fact the whole battle was one big setup to get to the heart of Davy Jones, hence why Beckett incorrectly labelled Jack the "grand architect" of the perceived "betrayal"?

Actually, it does explain his motivations, as it's a textbook example of "show, don't tell". It explains that Jack, in a moment's fear tried to abandon his allies, and that upon exploring his feelings, he ultimately found that he couldn't. The fact that you don't think Jack's motivations are adequately explained by the direction of the needle of a compass that points to what he wants most, suggests, with all due respect, that you might want to reevaluate the cut and dry way of interpreting fiction you got going on there.

Setting aside the fact that I've conceded the argument just a moment to address your objection here; you seem to be missing the point. The question isn't if the wenches was "traded for fair and square under the Code", because we're told that they were. The question is if the wenches can be "(re)sold for profit" under the Code afterwards if it entails selling them as property/into slavery. And that's an important distinction, because it means that the Auctioneer did trade for them fair and square under the Code, but that by denying them their share of the profit and (re)selling them without their consent, the terms of the auction was changed mid-transaction, whereupon every word to come out of his mouth was true, but he was still in the wrong. Let us say that is true that "trading for products fair and square means the seller can do as they like, including resell at profit": That can still be true as a general rule when the product is material goods and supplies, otherwise known as cargo. But, because "people aren't cargo", selling people as property/into slavery is an exception to the rule, and goes against the Code, so the seller can't do as they like and can't resell them for profit, and suddenly, when the nuance is taken into account, Wedlocked and Price of Freedom is reconciled, and Jack isn't acting out of character, since he didn't sell the wenches as slaves to the Auctioneer. So - if the Auctioneer struck a bargain with Jack Sparrow where he traded him something of value in exchange for a pair of (supposedly) willing wenches looking to be married that he could auction off as wives to the highest bidder, he would indeed have "traded for them fair and square". And if, during the auction, he only resold them as commodities, as in a prize for the highest bidder with right to a fair share of the profit they were being resold for, (if not most of the profit, as a reverse-dowry, as implied by the "we're rich!" line), they would have been "resold for profit" under the Code. But, once he denied them their share in the profit and made it clear they weren't being resold as merely commodities/a prize for the highest bidder, but as their property, then suddenly the auction began to run afoul of the Code, even if it hadn't initially done so. Because suddenly he was selling them into slavery, and that's not permitted, meaning the pirate asking "Are they for sale or not?" and drawing their weapons was the correct response for pirates to make.

Villanueva attacked Chevalle, who wasn't a Privateer or serving France, so I think it's more accurate to say pirates, whether they are sanctioned or lawless, aren't allowed to target and sink each other with the cold-blooded intent to kill, like the rouge pirates did, but that rival pirates one-upping each other by pillaging and plundering each other, like Armand, Villanueva and Chevalle all did, was, as long as they kept it clean and abided by the rules of engagement. (Don't keep fighting after one side surrenders, respect the right to parley, etc.). Ninclow (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)