How Did the United States Defeat the Barbary Pirates?

Though a definite link has yet to be established (or publicized), it becomes more apparent with each passing day that the acts of terror on September 11 were undertaken by individuals belonging to or associated with the Al-Qaida organization. While the group has ties to the Taliban, the current ruling faction in Afghanistan, neither can really be considered a government, making war with either an unconventional one. Yet the United States is hardly unused to combating unconventional foes. While the Vietnam War and the "War on Drugs" may bear some parallels, perhaps the most germane historical example is the often forgotten war with the Barbary pirates in the early 19th century. This conflict, pitting the United States against a stateless enemy, was memorable for the use of careful diplomacy, coalitions, special military tactics, and, unfortunately, confused goals.

The pirates of North Africa, operating variously with or without the approval of the nominal rulers of Morocco, Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli, had long been a thorn in the side of the European powers. Even Britain, the rarely disputed ruler of the seas, paid tribute to these pirates. Due to Britain's payments, colonial American merchants were rarely accosted, but after the peace of 1783 ships flying the Stars and Stripes were seen as easy prey. Fortunately for our young, cash-strapped nation, unable either to pay tribute or protect shipping, Portugal declared war on Algiers in 1785, sending a fleet to patrol the Strait of Gibraltar and prevent the Corsairs from passing into the Atlantic. In 1793, the war ended and in the last three months of that year eleven American ships were seized. Unable to raise funds to pay the ransom for the crews, the American negotiator was compelled to borrow from a Jewish moneylender living in Algiers to pay the nearly million-dollar ransom.

During President Washington's administration, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson disagreed sharply over policy toward the Corsairs. Adams strongly favored paying off the pirates, arguing that a long and protracted war would financially ruin the young nation. Jefferson vehemently disagreed, appealing not only to an American sense of honor, but also to the notion that a single, decisive war might be more cost-effective than annual bribes for perpetuity. Not surprisingly, their subsequent administration policies reflected these beliefs. Adams was anxious to prevent conflict, and ensured payment of all demanded tribute. In addition, Adams even agreed to build and deliver two warships for the Algerian Corsairs. Since the Corsairs were considered more a force of nature than a foreign nation, the fact that this was contrary to the popular, "millions for defense, not one cent for tribute," attitude toward French demands for bribes, was rarely noted. Yet, frustrated during tribute negotiations with Tunis, negotiator William Eaton wrote home that, "there is but one language which can be held to these people, and this is terror."

In May of 1801, the Corsairs of Tripoli became restless and declared war on the United States, figuring they could increase their annual tribute. Their disorganized fleet passed into the Atlantic but was chased back by a recently dispatched American squadron. The Americans cruised the Mediterranean, evacuating American merchantmen and winning several engagements with the Corsairs. Later that year Sweden declared war on the Tripolitans and lent considerable support to the American blockade of Tripoli. The combined fleet of Swedish and American, and infrequently Danish, ships was unwilling to bombard the city until early 1802 when President Jefferson ordered that the war be pursued with greater vigor. Despite occasional bombardment, as the blockade continued, it became impossible for the large American ships to prevent some of the smaller, faster Corsair gunboats from slipping through. The Americans wanted to draw the pirates into a large decisive battle, but their attempts proved fruitless. When Sweden made peace that year, the blockade collapsed.

Following the abandonment of the blockade, a series of unfortunate incidents made the American position increasingly difficult. An American captain killed the personal secretary of the British governor of Malta in a duel, straining relations with that important source of respite and supply. In early 1803, an accidental explosion aboard an American ship killed nineteen men. In May of that year, a large squadron of American warships was assembled and proceeded to Tripoli to destroy the Corsairs' fleet entirely. Large guns protected the anchored fleet, but marines landed close to the walls of the city to set fire to many of the docked ships as they were pelted with stones from the town’s inhabitants. However, a heroic group of Tripolitans endured bombardment from the squadron and small-arms fire from the marines and extinguished the fires.

In October of that year, a large U.S. man-of-war, Philadelphia, gave chase to a Corsair ship trying to break the blockade, but was lured into an uncharted reef. The ship was paralyzed and overtaken and put into the service of the pirates. The following February, eight marines sailed a small merchant vessel alongside the anchored Philadelphia, killed twenty Corsairs, and destroyed the warship without any loss of life of their own side. Upon hearing of the attack Admiral Horatio Nelson called it, "the most bold and daring act of the age." Yet the blockade remained largely ineffective.

Early in 1804, the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies declared war on Tripoli, lending a number of small, maneuverable gunboats that were thought to be helpful in subduing the pirates. On August 3, the American-led force began an all-out attack, sailing into the harbor and bombarding the city at direct range. The Americans aboard the smaller gunboats decided to counter the pirates' standard technique and approached the enemy ships fast, boarding them and engaging in hand to hand combat. After destroying much of the town's fortifications, several gunboats, and a large mosque, the squadron withdrew.

Bombardment of the town achieving little besides massive civilian casualties, a change in strategy was in order. A small force of marines was sent to Alexandria, Egypt, to locate the original hereditary ruler of Tripoli, with the intent of restoring him to the throne. Upon finding him, they raised a mercenary army of Arabs and Greeks and began a several hundred-mile march towards Tripoli from the land. After a difficult march across the Libyan Desert and a bloody victory in the outlying town of Derne, the marines were informed by messenger that the war was over. The treaty that was signed guaranteed the return of American prisoners but changed little. The difficulties with the Barbary States, including a series of confrontations with Algiers in 1814-17, would continue until France brought the era to an end by invading and colonizing most of North-West Africa. Notably, Algiers in 1954 proved to be the forerunner to the type of war being waged against the United States today.

Yes, my main complaint about this "war on terror" is that the feds are approaching the task just as they did the "war on poverty".

Self-help is out of the question. In fact, the feds want no citizen involvement whatsoever (other than to stay glued to the TV set and to "remain vigilant").

We are in need of safety, you see, and they have been placed on earth to "help" us.

No, the goal of their plan is not to end terrorism, just like the goal of the war on poverty was not to end poverty. It's simply another retirement plan for government bureaucrats; The single goal of all their efforts is to accrue all power unto themsleves.

It scares them to think that us mere citizens - if "allowed" - might be able to defend ourselves or capture terrorists on our own. Then they all might have to go out and find productive jobs.

Farmboy, check oout the History Channel's epic on The Battle for Tripoli. It ran tonight and will be re-shown. Seveal books on the subject are mentioned.

HOWEVER, BE ADVISED: BARF ALERT!!

In case you are not familiar with the storyline - a REAL American hero by the name of William Eaton travels to Egypt, with the approval of the Jefferson Administration.

His goal: to raise a force of mercenaries to unseat the ruler of Tripoli, one Yousouf Karamali who had dethroned his brother Hamid and seized the throne. He also had a handfull of U.S. Marines and some Christian European mercenaries with him.

Yusouf, like other Barbary rulers, made a living extorting protection money from Christian shipping in the Mediterranean. Like other Barbary States, he probably also augemented his illgotten gains by slave-raiding Christian countries in Southern and Western Europe, and petty acts of piracy.

The reason Eaton wanted to dethrone Yusouf, was to free several hundred American mariners who had been held for a very long time as prisoners in Tripoli where they were regularly beaten, abused, forced to work as slave labor, kept under inhuman conditions, and humiliated by the sons of Mohammed. Bargainning for their release by the Jefferson Administration had accomplished little.

After an epic journey with many personal hazards, Eaton was well on the road to accomplishing his goals.

But he was blind-sided by a viperous piece of offal named Tobias Lear, a creature of the State Department and a progenitor of many successors of a like mind. We can think of a current one immediately.

Lear had been manoevering behind the scenes all along to undermine Eaton, effectuate a ransome, and release the Americans that way.

After stunning victories, and just before Eaton and his group could make their move, Lear negotiatied a ransome of $60,000 for the release of the prisoners. Needed aid from the U.S. government never materialized and Commodore Baron, a man with a poor record as a commander, recalled Eaton and he and Hamid, a few of his followers and the remnant of the Americans were evacuated by ship.

Hamid was abandoned by the U.S. The balance of those who had supported him in Tripoli were left to the none too tender mercies of Yousuf. Eaton had the ground cut off around him and was totally embittered by the failure to support him, the abandonment of Hamid, and the use of money to buy back free Americans who should have been and most certainly WOULD have been freed by the sword.

Needless to say, Tripoli went onto commit new outrages, encouraged by Lear and Jefferson's cowardly behavior, and only another naval expedition to the area and committment of many more troops and ships under a more able commander than Baron was able to finally bring the Barbary Pirates to heal.

Parts of what I am telling you were omitted or glossed over in the History Channel acount.

But the REAL BARF alert involves two Professors of New England University and one Caucasian American profssor from where I can't recall. The two from the University of New England were one Dr. Ali Abdullatif Ahmid and one Dr. Anour Majid.

These pieces of human offal proceeded to present a politically correct account of things from the Barbery perspective. All three of them were critical of heroic Eaton as a "selfish adventurer", defended the actions of the Barbary States as necessary for their survival as a revenue source, defended them as legitimate nations, pointed out the Barbary Pirates were not "terrorists", criticized Eaton for raising an American Flag over a fort they seized, equated his efforts with "western colonization" and blamed this unfortunate incident as one cause for our "mistaken" concept of Islam.

Only one guy, a military man named Wheeler, seemed to actually speak out in support of Eaton.

I have read several of the books they mention in the presentation.

The Barbary States were predator sheikdoms who survived totally by slaving and raiding and extortion. Entire Christian villages from southern Italy to Ireland and England were totally wiped out by their slaving operations. They sent their corsairs out into the Atlantic and throughout the Mediterranean.

There was very little difference in their methods, given the times, between the lunatics threatening us now, and them.

I shudder to think of the impact these "professors" will have with their cultural equivalency concepts on the minds of young students at the University of New England.
I was in college during the Viet Nam era and I well know how vicious, biased, and unpatriotic leftist profesors can be.

I'm super steamed. I'm steamed at the History Channel, at the University of New England, and at these three pieces of human offal who are brainwashing American Students who will only hear one side of this story.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.