The War with the Barbary Pirates

This event has a Jefferson tint to it, but I'll let others write something before
I weigh in.

The rulers of Tripoli, Morocco, and Algiers had a long-standing tradition of piracy and kidnapping in the Mediterranean. They first started preying on US ships almost as soon as there was such a thing as a US ship. During the time of Washington and Adams we did little about the situation other than let the captives languish or pay tribute to the sultans. Jefferson was galled by the demand for tribute in return for safe trade and ordered the navy to blockade Tripoli. Hostilities continued for a couple of years until the Sultan agreed to drop his demand for 10 million in annual tribute. He returned the captives and refrained from attacking US ships in return for 60,000 in 'ransom'.

The seriously shortened version. Like tjadams above, I sense the coming on of a challenge to Thomas Jefferson's reputation. Probably in the form of whining that he should have gone into a large military build-up in 1801 instead of dismantling the fleet and army.

The Law of Unforseen Consequences meant that the ungrateful and uppity American colonials, having parted from the Mother Country, discovered that their merchant marine was no longer protected by Mummy's Navy. English ships had been fairly immune from attack by Barbary pirates operating out of Tunis, Algeria and Libya due to vigorous reprisals, clever treaties and the talent of turning the pirates against Britain's enemies France and Spain when convenient. During the US alliance with France (1778-1783) American ships were technically under the protection of the French Navy, but as soon as US independence was recognised American ships protected by no navy at all became soft targets and were siezed at will by the Corsairs and their crews enslaved. The US government had no response other than the paying of tribute and ransoming of sailors. This, their first foray into diplomacy with a non-European power seems singly inept as the Corsairs readily signed treaties and then immediately reneged on them. Also, by not paying their debts to the French and resuming relations with Britain, the Americans sparked the Quasi-War after 1789 and the fledgling navy could neither protect shipping from the French or the Corsairs. The US government shelled out some one million dollars per year until 1801 (in 1800 when the Corsairs demanded an increase to the tribute the bribes and protection money accounted for 20% of the US Governmet's revenue!)
With the Quasi war over and a reasonable navy in place, the newly elected Jefferson (who had been the original treaty/tribute negotiator) obtained Congressional approval to teach the Corsairs a lesson. By land and sea the US gave the Arabs a good pasting (the land attack against the Libyan city of Derna, famous again this year as one of Gaddaffi's last hold outs, is much lauded as the US Marines' first overseas action and the first place the US flag was raised on foreign soil; however, the force comprised only 8 US marines and 500 Greek and Arab mercenaries).
The First Barbary war resulted in the freeing of US prisoners and a temporary cession of ransom and tribute payments, but the Corsairs soon reverted to type and the US had to both continue to pay ransom and go to war again in 1815. However the Corsairs activities against Americans were not ended until an Anglo-Dutch force almost demolished Algiers in 1816 (recovering American gold by chance) and not really supressed until another British Fleet action in 1824.
There is a rather good book about Americans enslaved by the Arabs and the effect of the Barbary war on American politics called Captives and Countrymen (sorry, I can't remember the author).

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Jeffersons-War-CL-Joseph-Wheelan/dp/0786712325"]Amazon.com: Jeffersons War (CL) (9780786712328): Joseph Wheelan: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/519DXDJ333L.@@AMEPARAM@@519DXDJ333L[/ame]

Here's a very good, detailed book. It covers nicely the embarrassing fate of the
USS Philadelphia, burned by Lieutenant Decatur, Jr., in 1804 to keep it out of the hands
of the Pasha.

Ian Toll's Six Frigates also includes a very nice account of the Barbary War.

If your a US Marine, you know this war for sure it's in the song, from the halls of montezuma to the shores of tripoli. The Marine core proved why it was and still is the most effective amphibous based fighting force in the world for the first time in this war.

Trout Bum said:

If your a US Marine, you know this war for sure it's in the song, from the halls of montezuma to the shores of tripoli. The Marine core proved why it was and still is the most effective amphibous based fighting force in the world for the first time in this war.

Click to expand...

Please note my post above and the number of US Marines involved in the major action.

The number is irrelevant it is a pivotal action for the marines in their founding for one, the reason they use the mamaluke sword, also the fact that 8 marine's could lead 500 mercenaries to victory there is more impressive.

Well, a naval program is no small thing to establish. And the American navy that came out of the program was a small, but very good navy with technologically superior ships. But it was expensive. The first Sec Nav benjamin Stoddert, in the 1799 program, even devised a plan to build 12 ships of the line (74 gunners) and several more frigates, which would have been a very impressive start for the USN. No doubt that would have raised eyebrows in Whitehall.

But I do not honestly know if the fledgling USA could pay for that, or even upkeep them.

USS Constitution (44 gun frigate) cost about $302,000 to build if my facts are close to straight, and everyone understands that building cost is far from all there was to upkeep and maintenance of a warship.

But Jefferson seemed to be inclined towards gunboats, and so the naval program did suffer from that. Gunboats are cheaper, but usually mounted only one or two heavy guns, and would be no match for a regular warship.

But, money was a problem in those days. With a population of about 5.8 millions souls, and a revenue (in 1803) of about 11.4 million dollars and a public debt of around 80 millions, a large scale building program such as Stoddert had in mind was pretty much beyond the realm of possibility.

Government Revenue Details: Federal State Local for 1803 - Charts

By comparison, Im sure the UKs expenditure on the Royal Navy would have dwarfed our entire Federal budget in those years.

So, its not like Jefferson had unlimited funds to work with. So, we must consider these things when we examine Thomas Jefferson through the lens of history.

Baltis said:

Ian Toll's Six Frigates also includes a very nice account of the Barbary War.

Click to expand...

It does, yes. I have that book and it is a keeper.I especially enjoyed the
chapters dealing with the early formation of a naval force and the influence
of John Adams.

Also, as to money...one thing I didnt know was just how much we were spending on defence in those years. According to the US govt records, we spent a whopping 47% of our budget on defense in 1810, which was peacetime!

Government Spending in United States: Federal State Local for 1810 - Charts Tables History

And that is unsustainable by modern standards. And lets face it, the US military of 1810 wasnt hardly a power house military. But....

A lot of that was probably going towards building coastal fortifications. So, there was some room where Jefferson and the early Presidents could have perhaps built less forts and more ships? But then, we might have found ourselves facing the British without enough of either. Fort McHenry comes to mind here.

Richard Stanbery said:

Also, as to money...one thing I didnt know was just how much we were spending on defence in those years. According to the US govt records, we spent a whopping 47% of our budget on defense in 1810, which was peacetime!

Government Spending in United States: Federal State Local for 1810 - Charts Tables History

And that is unsustainable by modern standards. And lets face it, the US military of 1810 wasnt hardly a power house military. But....

A lot of that was probably going towards building coastal fortifications. So, there was some room where Jefferson and the early Presidents could have perhaps built less forts and more ships? But then, we might have found ourselves facing the British without enough of either. Fort McHenry comes to mind here.

Click to expand...

How would that rate in terms of percentage of GDP? Were the people overtaxed as compared to modern times?

Now you can see why President Jefferson was so adamant about not paying anymore.

Richard Stanbery said:

Also, as to money...one thing I didnt know was just how much we were spending on defence in those years. According to the US govt records, we spent a whopping 47% of our budget on defense in 1810, which was peacetime!

..............................

Click to expand...

You have to remember governments spent and did much less in the early 19th century, what else was there to spend government revenue on?

Kevinmeath said:

You have to remember governments spent and did much less in the early 19th century, what else was there to spend government revenue on?

Click to expand...

True.

And that was right in the middle of the Napoleonic Wars, essentially a global war that America was trying to stay out of at the time. It makes sense that they would have spent a massive amount of money on defense to enforce their neutrality during such a conflict.

Kevinmeath said:

You have to remember governments spent and did much less in the early 19th century, what else was there to spend government revenue on?

Click to expand...

More bridges and canals would have been nice.

Baltis said:

More bridges and canals would have been nice.

Click to expand...

True but wasn't that 'supposed' to be done by private enterprise/ whether it actaully was is a different matter.

But my point is unlike todays government who spend massively on welfare, education, law and order etc the American (or British for that matter) government at the time was much, much smaller and did a great deal less (for better or worse).

Major infrastructure projects have never been something private enterprise has been good at. The country really began to grow and boom when our leaders started to learn the economic lessons of Hamilton. Erie Canal and Railroads among other things. But, I suppose the Jeffersonian train of thought needed to run its course.

The debate already existed as to the infrastructure projects. I'm not sure that anyone had developed the idea for significant social programs.

Baltis said:

Erie Canal and Railroads among other things. But, I suppose the Jeffersonian train of thought needed to run its course.

Click to expand...

True. Jefferson liked the idea of canals, but he felt the Fed. Govt. did not need
to fund a local project. The Erie Canal owes a lot to DeWitt ........

"I rejoice sincerely in the progress of your canal, and envy your location in a state wise enough
to see that the common interest is individual interest, and rich enough to pursue it."
Jefferson to De Witt .......-19 March 1822