Talk:Active (ship)

Spent a couple of hours trying to disentangle the Active mess and failed completely. The 1808 reported case Ross v. The Ship Active must be considered a sound source of fact: it describes Active on Philadelphia-Canton-Philadelphia roundtrip from 1806 to 1808, master Morris, owners Davy. It was there described as an "old" vessel. It had taken on cargo at Canton in early 1806, another voyage. Might this be Active (1800)? "Old" in just 13 years? Could it be Active (1764)? Fits "old" better. Then there's the American Active, according to a 1793 reported case, being seized by the British privateer Weymouth. Another Active? I guess that's the vessel looking for slaves in Mauritius on 30 April 1794. Which Active was in Fiji, master Richardson, in 1811? And Samuel Marsden bought a brig Active in or before 1814, master Hansen, sailing it back and forth across the Tasman for at least five years. sirlanz 14:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sirlanz: Or none of the above. Active was a common name for vessels. The Philly-China-Philly Active was probably American and so not subject to the EIC monopoly. She would also not be any one of the Actives in the list. The Active that fell prey to Weymouth would be a different Active too. British privateers were rare in the Indian Ocean, so the Mauritius Active would be yet another Active. The Fiji Active might be American or she might be Australian. There is just no shortage of ships named Active. Acad Ronin (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)