Talk:First Barbary War

How is this described as a US victory?

I understand that the war ends with the capture of Derna by mercenaries employed by the US. But surely the US failed to achieve their war objectives - to end tribute payments? As far as I understood, the US continued to pay tribute, lost the Philadelphia, and had to pay for the release of their (more numerous) captives.

If you go to war and fail to achieve any of your war objectives, and have to pay compensation, isn't that usually called defeat? sakkout (talk) 07:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you 102.164.99.11 (talk) 01:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

In the context of this time period, a random payment means a one tine payment to release prisoners, while a tribute payment means to continuously pay money in order to gain safe passage and not be attacked.  The US achieved its war aim of ending tribute payments and defeated the enemy militarily on the battlefield.  The attached article from the US State Department lists this war as an American victory, saying;

“In 1801, the Pasha of Tripoli, Yusuf Qaramanli, citing late payments of tribute, demanded additional tribute and declared war on the United States. The United States successfully defeated Qaramanli’s forces with a combined naval and land assault by the United States Marine Corps. The U.S. treaty with Tripoli concluded in 1805 included a ransom for American prisoners in Tripoli, but no provisions for tribute.”

Additionally the attached encyclopedia Britannica article notes the treaty was “favorable” for the United States

The attached University of Michigan Article also draws a distinction between tribute and random payments and notes that the war was celebrated in the US as a victory

Additionally an article from the heritage foundation already listed as a source for this page refers to the war as an American victory

Finally, the wikipedia page “Lists of wars involving the US” has long cited this conflict as being an American victory

For these reasons, I’m changing the result to show an American victory

https://clements.umich.edu/exhibit/barbary-wars/first-barbary-war/#:~:text=The%20agreement%20stipulated%20that%20after,to%20offer%20tributes%20to%20Tripoli.

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1801-1829/barbary-wars

https://www.britannica.com/event/First-Barbary-War

https://archive.org/details/victoryintripoli00lond Jab1998 (talk) 23:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The war didn't prevent Barbary attacks on American ships in the following years, and they still paid tribute. They also failed in their objective to depose Yusuf Karamanli and restore Hamet after failed attempts at blockade and stalemate. عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

After the 1st Barbary war, the US no longer payed tribute and attacked on US ships ceased. Attacks eventually resumed many years later. The reason for the resumption being the US had not been paying tribute since the end of the 1st war and the Barbary states wanted the money. This resumption of attacks led to the second Barbary war in 1815 Jab1998 (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Additionally the goal was not to dispose of Karamani but rather to end the attacks on Us ships and end the need for tribute payments. The article I cited for the State Department states that this goal was achieved and while karamani was not removed from power, his forces we defeated in the war which led him to seek peace and agree to a settlement which was favorable to the US Jab1998 (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

They did pay tribute to the North African states after this war, and I do have sources stating this. Also, the corsairs kept attacking American ships even a few years after the first war, so the Americans didn't really prevent them until 1815.

Actually, they wanted to depose Yusuf. All their blockades and sieges ended in failure. So they changed plans by restoring Hamet on the throne, but before that happened, a peace treaty was signed.

Quoting from Allen Johnson in his book Jefferson and His Colleagues; A Chronicle of the Virginia Dynasty

[1] page 49-50

The Tripolitan War did not end in a blaze of glory for the United States. It had been waged in the spirit of "not a cent for tribute"; it was concluded with a thinly veiled payment for peace; and, worst of all, it did not prevent further trouble with the Barbary States.

Quoting from a book Wilson, Gary E. American Prisoners in The Barbary Nations, 1784 - 1816 [2] page 276

Although the war with Tripoli had ended, the United States continued to experience difficulty with the other Barbary nations. The pirates still harassed American merchantmen in the Mediterranean from 1805 through the War of 1812.

The US still paid tribute to the barbary states even after this war. Refer to the later book I sent from pages 290-96.

The war was supposed to put an end to the barbary attacks, which didn't happen; therefore, the US failed in its objectives. It's better to keep the result as peace treaty. عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah it shouldn't be called a victory. I mean we didn't even hold Derna for that long, I think about 3 days before the Marines and the mercenaries got ordered out. The whole reason we were there was because we wanted to install an American friendly leader in the form of the Pasha's brother, who was previously ousted from power by his brother, the current(at the time) Pasha in 1795, in Tripoli. However, as said before, we got pushed out because the Pasha found out and sent his army to prevent that happening.The Captain General (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

In the context of this time period, a random payment means a one tine payment to release prisoners, while a tribute payment means to continuously pay money in order to gain safe passage and not be attacked.  The US achieved its war aim of ending tribute payments and defeated the enemy militarily on the battlefield.  The attached article from the US State Department lists this war as an American victory, saying;

“In 1801, the Pasha of Tripoli, Yusuf Qaramanli, citing late payments of tribute, demanded additional tribute and declared war on the United States. The United States successfully defeated Qaramanli’s forces with a combined naval and land assault by the United States Marine Corps. The U.S. treaty with Tripoli concluded in 1805 included a ransom for American prisoners in Tripoli, but no provisions for tribute.”

Additionally the attached encyclopedia Britannica article notes the treaty was “favorable” for the United States

The attached University of Michigan Article also draws a distinction between tribute and random payments and notes that the war was celebrated in the US as a victory

Additionally an article from the heritage foundation already listed as a source for this page refers to the war as an American victory

Finally, the wikipedia page “Lists of wars involving the US” has long cited this conflict as being an American victory

For these reasons, I’m changing the result to show an American victory

https://clements.umich.edu/exhibit/barbary-wars/first-barbary-war/#:~:text=The%20agreement%20stipulated%20that%20after,to%20offer%20tributes%20to%20Tripoli.

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1801-1829/barbary-wars

https://www.britannica.com/event/First-Barbary-War

https://archive.org/details/victoryintripoli00lond Jab1998 (talk) 23:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely not. These sources confirm it was a peace treaty. Come to a consensus on the talk page before you change the entire result next time Baqiyah (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The article from the State Dept. clearly says the war was an American victory. This is a quote from the State Department article:

“In 1801, the Pasha of Tripoli, Yusuf Qaramanli, citing late payments of tribute, demanded additional tribute and declared war on the United States. The United States successfully defeated Qaramanli’s forces with a combined naval and land assault by the United States Marine Corps. The U.S. treaty with Tripoli concluded in 1805 included a ransom for American prisoners in Tripoli, but no provisions for tribute.”

The article from the University of Michigan also notes how the war was celebrated in the United States as a victory.

The archive.org link is to a book titled "Victory in Tripoli", also clearly claiming this war to be an American victory

The enclylopedia Britannica article also notes the Treaty was "favorable" to the United States

Finally, the goal of the war was to end America's obligation to make tribute payments and this was achieved

How is this not a victory? There are four sources here showing the US won. Can you provide sources to the contrary? You say "absolutely not" and that these sources show the war as ended by a "peace treaty." Nearly all wars are ended by peace treaties and in those treaties one party ends up winning the war by having the treaty favor their position. That is the case here, and that's what these sources show, with three of them outright stating the US won the war. Jab1998 (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I've restored the stable version of the infobox prior to February 1 ([3]), so that editors can discuss and come to a consensus on the best way forward. (I have no opinion on this myself, I'm just looking at the article's edit history.) I'm also noting here the recommended guidelines for the infobox at Template:Infobox military conflict:

Result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

This means that there are a few alternatives if editors cannot agree on what the "result" should be. R Prazeres (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

It doesn’t seem the others in here are backing their argument with sources and it also seems that they aren’t even educated on the topic. I cited four reputable sources stating this to be an American victory. For this reason, I’ll be editing it back to show an American victory Jab1998 (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

You're not editing anything without consensus. M.Bitton (talk) 03:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Morocco and Sweden

Not sure why they are mentioned as belligerent and the text makes no mention of them. Morocco had a peace treaty and never waged war with the US. Sweden was not involved in this war. 82.41.110.187 (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Morocco?

I was curious and wondered what involvement morocco had in the war. Because i hadn’t heard about Morocco having any sort of participation when learning about this topic. Does anyone know anything about Moroccan intervention in the war? S Molecular (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Neither had I. It was very strange to me to find Morocco in the infobox. 808 AD (talk) 08:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

better sources for quotes

for jeffersons quotes https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/first-annual-message 73.192.225.225 (talk) 09:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Definitely not a US victory.

Examining the sources stating this is an American victory.

The fisrt source is a book by Joshua E. London, Victory in Tripoli [4]. Despite it's title, on page 229, he calls the American victory "problematic" and states Tripolitania's long-term success. The book states the following:

Although the American "victory" proved problematic and the "peace" too political, the war ended rather well for the other participant. Pasha Yusuf Qaramanli was greatly pleased with the outcome of the war. Although it had proved costly in the short term, it was an unqualified Tripolitan success in the long term.

America sought to break Yusuf, to chastise him, and even to overthrow him, yet they retreated at the first opportunity, delivering peace terms he was willing to accept. The United States sent several squadrons to the region to attack Tripoli, yet it was Yusuf who captured an American frigate-the single most valuable naval capture in the whole of Barbary history-and enslaved her entire crew without a single defensive shot being fired.

Despite years of blockade, his cruisers managed to routinely get his ships in and out of the harbor. When a peace treaty was finally negotiated, the United States paid Yusuf $60,000 for his troubles a small sum but rich with symbolism. Further, the new peace treaty made no reference to Algiers backing its fulfillment. Regionally, Yusuf Qaramanli became a symbol of Islamic fortitude. He proved that the regency of Tripoli was independent of the other Barbary powers, and he proved that Tripoli's pirate navy was a force to be reckoned with. In relative terms, Tripoli prospered. Yusuf Qaramanli continued to rule until 1834.

This sources is supported by another one, which also states Tripolitania's success.[5] (next two pages)

The second source [6] is mostly based on the statement: Americans celebrated the treaty as a victory for free trade This is wrong, the American didn't hadvefree trade due to this treaty ,and their ships were still being attacked by Barbary states.

Quoting from a book Wilson, Gary E. American Prisoners in The Barbary Nations, 1784 - 1816 [7] page 276

Although the war with Tripoli had ended, the United States continued to experience difficulty with the other Barbary nations. The pirates still harassed American merchantmen in the Mediterranean from 1805 through the War of 1812.

The US still paid tribute to the barbary states even after this war. Refer to the same book I sent from pages 290-96.

The Third source [8] doesn't mention anything regarding US victory but rather a peace treaty.

However the US didn't consider the treaty aavorable to them. Inf fact,they condemn it.

Quoting from Allen Johnson in his book Jefferson and His Colleagues; A Chronicle of the Virginia Dynasty [9] page 49-50

The treaty which Lear concluded on June 4, 1805, was an inglorious document. It purchased peace, it is true, and the release of some three hundred sad and woe-begone American sailors. But because the Pasha held three hundred prisoners and the United States only a paltry hundred, the Pasha was to receive sixty thousand dollars. Derne was to be evacuated, and no further aid was to be given to rebellious subjects. The United States was to endeavor to persuade Hamet to withdraw from the soil of Tripoli.

The Tripolitan War did not end in a blaze of glory for the United States. It had been waged in the spirit of "not a cent for tribute"; it was concluded with a thinly veiled payment for peace; and, worst of all, it did not prevent further trouble with the Barbary States.

Quoting United States Naval Medical Bulletin, Vol 17, page 267 [10]

We find it difficult to believe that better terms might not have been obtained. How far the course of the negotiator was compelled by his instructions, we have no means of saying, but the treaty was approved and ratified. While many condemned it as unwise, all, however, rejoiced that it was the means of restoring so many brave men to their country.

Quoting from a book Charles Stuart Kennedy, The American Consul.[11]

The peace with Tripoli held, despite the unhappiness of Eaton and others in the United States over the money paid, the chance for further military glory lost.

If anything, the war result should be inconclusive, and I do have sources stating that.[12] [13] [14] [15] عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

This war was between the United States and Tripolitania. The objective of not having to pay tribute was achieved after their victory at the Battle of Derna. The relations between the US and the Barbary States that weren't involved in this war is obviously irrelevant. M.Bitton (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

That objective of not paying tribute was not met until the Second Barbary War, besides the USA was forced to pay ransom for the captured Americans in exchange Humbler21 (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Sweden as a belligerent

The article's source for Swedish participation (See here) does nowhere mention Sweden. Hence, for now, i removed Sweden from the lead section and added a CN to it's mention in the main section and infobox.

Additionally, i did minor research, and it seems that there were collaboration between Sweden and America involving the blockade of Tripoli, however i have yet to find a source stating Sweden was a belligerent in the Barbary War. Rather to me, they seem to be co-beligerents during the aforementioned blockade.

Af you have a source about the claimed Swedish participation in this war, please write and quote it below.

- Tinkaer1991 (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)