REPUBLIQUE ALGERIENNE DEMOCRATIQUE ET POPULAIRE

MINISTERE DE L’ENSEIGNEMENT SUPERIEUR ET DE LA RECHERCHE SCIENTIFIQUE

UNIVERSITE MENTOURI, CONSTANTINE

_____________

Ottoman Algeria in Western Diplomatic History

with Particular Emphasis on Relations with the
United States of America, 1776-1816

By

Fatima Maameri

Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Letters and Languages

Department of Languages, University Mentouri, Constantine
in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
doctorat d’Etat

Board of Examiners:

Supervisor: Dr Brahim Harouni, University of Constantine

President: Pr Salah Filali, University of Constantine

Member: Pr Omar Assous, University of Guelma
Member: Dr Ladi Toulgui, University of Guelma

December 2008
 DEDICATION

To the Memory of my Parents

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor Dr Brahim Harouni for his insightful
and invaluable remarks as well as his patience which proved to be very decisive for
this work. Without his wise advice, unwavering support, and encouragement
throughout the two last decades of my research life this humble work would have
never been completed. However, this statement is not a way to elude responsibility for
the final product. I alone am responsible for any errors or shortcomings that the reader
may find.

Financial support made the completion of this project easier in many ways. I would
like to express my gratitude for Larbi Ben M’Hidi University, OEB with special
thanks for Pr Ahmed Bouras and Dr El-Eulmi Laraoui. Dr El-Mekki El-Eulmi proved
to be an encyclopedia that was worth referring to whenever others failed. Mr. Aakabi
Belkacem is laudable for his logistical help and kindness. My home Mentouri
University, Constantine deserves no less recognition and tribute.

I would like also to thank the Fondation des Sciences de l’Homme at Paris, France for
its accommodating and supportive environment. I am especially indebted to Pr
Maurice Aymard who provided administrative support and intellectual debate during
occasional research meetings over the past three years. Without that I would not have
been able to fully develop some of the most important points of this work. No words
can appropriately thank Mrs. Brigitte Dufeutrelle whose steady follow up throughout
the preparation of this work made its accomplishment possible. The succinct
criticisms and insights provided by Pr Pierre Melandri from the Fondation Nationale
des Sciences Politiques, Paris are greatly appreciated. Special thanks go to the staff of
the libraries FMSH, FNSP, and BULAC at Paris, France.

Initially, a Fulbright Program scholarship made the actual research work an

envisageable project. Acknowledgments are due to the officers of the National
Archives Record Administration at Washington, D. C. and College Park, Maryland
and to the officers of the Library of Congress in Washington, D. C., USA who
introduced me to the file systems of NARA and LOC and made historical research in
early Algerian-American relations an agreeable task for me. To my advisor diplomatic
historian Pr. Wayne S. Cole, Professor Emeritus at the University of Maryland at
College Park, MD I would like to express my gratitude and respect. He made the
study of diplomatic history an even more enjoyable matter and provided some of the
published material used in this work from his personal library. I am particularly
grateful to my former roommate Mrs. Pamela P. Rittenhaus who made the sight of the
flag of Rais Hamidou at the U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD possible for me.
Perhaps, was it the sight of that trophy flag which inspired the idea of this thesis?
iii
Among my colleagues, I would like to express my greatest consideration for Dr Samir
Laraba who accompanied my first steps of research at Paris and Dr Abdelhak
Nemouchi whose encouragements and high spirit were a relief at moments of gloom.
My colleague Mr. Nasr Eddine Megherbi accompanied my professional life but was
particularly instrumental about a year ago in relaunching this endeavor. I feel more
obliged to indicate my appreciation for Pr Zahri Harouni who with great welcomes
bore by many phone calls and Pr Lamine Kouloughli who unfailingly supported my
professional carrier and comforted my personal grieves. I am especially obliged to
Mrs. Houda Bahri and Mr. Abderahmane Dalichaouch who have been loyal friends
from the very beginning.

Last but definitely not least, my hearty gratitude and recognition go to my family who
for decades had to put up with my academic pursuits. Without the endless patience
with my moods and countless words of encouragement this year of my brothers and
sisters, brothers and sisters-in-law, nephews and nieces, this Dissertation would never
have seen daylight. My special love goes for cute Saddam El-Houcine Maameri who
could not understand my long absences. My family has always been the port of
departure and destination in my historical adventures and a safe place after the allure
of daring Algerian corsairs and perfidious Uncle Sam. Those are the most important
persons worth returning to.

November 2008

iv
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ASP/FA American State Papers, Class I: Foreign Relations, 1789-1828.

ASP/NA American State Paper, Class VI: Naval Affairs, 1794-1825.
CMPP A Compilation of Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897.
CPPJJ The Correspondence and Public Papers of First Chief-Justice of the
United States.
DCAR The Diplomatic Correspondence of the American Revolution
EN The Emerging Nation: A Documentary History of the Foreign Relations
of the United States, 1780-1789
LDC Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774-1789.
LWJM Letters and other Writings of James Madison.
NDBW Naval Documents Related to the United States Wars with the Barbary
Powers
PTJ The Papers of Thomas Jefferson.
SaL The Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America, 1789 to
1845.
SJ Secret Journals of the Acts and Proceedings of Congress
SPPD State Papers and Publick Documents of the United States
USDC The Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States of America, 1783-
1789
USRDC The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States.
WBF The Writings of Benjamin Franklin
WGW The Writings of George Washington.
WJA The Works of John Adams.
WJM The Writings of James Madison
WJMPPP The Writings of James Monroe, Including Public and Private Paper
WJQA The Writings of John Quincy Adams
WTJ1 The Writings of Thomas Jefferson
WTJ2 The Writings of Thomas Jefferson Containing his Autobiography

vi
 LIST OF TABLES

Tables Pages

Table 1: Spanish Expeditions against Algiers, 1505-1784 36

Table 2: Naval Force of Algiers, 1737-1827 55

Table 3: Activity of Algerian Corsairs during the 17th & 18th Centuries 84

Table 4: Treaties of Peace and Commerce between Algiers and Foreign 139
Countries, 1619-1830

Table 5: European Naval Expeditions against Algiers, 1501-1830 141

Table 6: American and Algerian Naval Forces Compared, 1776-1782 181

Table 7: Estimated Cost of the Algerian-American Treaty of 1795 332

Table 8: Estimated Cost of Annuities in Naval Stores (1795) 333

Table 9: Encounter at Cape de Gatta, June 17, 1815 365

Table 10: The United States and Ottoman Algeria: a Timeline, 384
1776-1816

vii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

Dedication ii
Acknowledgments iii
Abstract v
List of Abbreviations vi
List of Tables vii
Table of Contents viii

Introduction 1

Part One:
Algiers in European Diplomatic History:
Crusading vs. Corsairing Diplomacy

CHAPTER I
Foundations of Corsairing: A Religious and Historical Background 16

1. The Spanish Conquest of North Africa 18

1. 1. From Crusades to Reconquista 19
1. 2. From Reconquista to Conquest 22
1. 3. The Spaniards in North Africa 27
1. 3. 1. A Crusading Agenda 30
1. 3. 2. Crusades in North Africa 33
2. Algeria under Ottoman Rule, 1519-1830 38
2. 1. The Coming of the Turks 39
2. 2. Algiers: The Ottoman Regency 42
3. Growth of the Algerian Navy 46
3. 1. Command and the Crews 47
3. 2. Size of the Fleet 50
3. 3. The Fleet and Corsairing 56

viii
CHAPTER II
Corsairing between Distortions and Legitimacy 62

1. Distortions and Definitions 64

1. 1. Corsairing or Retaliatory Muslim Warfare 65
1. 2. Barbary: Misconceptions and Prejudices 70
1. 2. 1. Defining ‘Barbary’ 72
1. 2. 2. Ideological Interpretation 74
1. 3. Slavery and Captivity 77
1. 3. 1. Slavery in the Mediterranean Basin 79
1. 3. 2. Muslim and Christian Captives 80
2. The Legal Context of Corsairing 85
2. 1. Corsairing vs. Piracy 87
2. 2. Legal Definitions and Statutes 92
2. 3. Corsairing: An Act of War 94
3. Algiers: A Corsairing State 99
3. 1. A Question of Sovereignty 100
3. 2. Diplomatic Recognition and de facto Independence 102

CHAPTER III
Corsairing Diplomacy, 1619-1816 108

1. The Diplomatic Context of Corsairing 109

1. 1. The Background: Impact of European Peace on Algiers 109
1. 2. Foundations of Corsairing Diplomacy 113
2. The Lasting Principles of Corsairing Diplomacy 124
2. 1. Sovereignty 125
2. 2. Free Navigation and Passports 127
2. 3. Treaties and Tributes 128
2. 4. Slavery and Redemption 132
2. 5. Method of Negotiating Treaties 139
3. Decline of Corsairing Diplomacy 143
3. 1. Developments affecting Corsairing Diplomacy after 1791 144
3. 2. Technological Backwardness 150
3. 3. Economic Difficulties 152
ix
 Part Two
Algiers in early American Diplomatic History:
Corsairing vs. Gunboat Diplomacy

CHAPTER IV
From Colonies to States: America in the Mediterranean 157

1. The North American Colonies and the Mediterranean World 158

1. 1. Colonial Commerce 158
1. 2. The American Colonies in Algerian-British Diplomatic Relations 164
2. The Advent of Americans: Traders and Privateers 175
2. 1. American Mediterranean Trade 175
2. 2. American Privateers 178
2. 3. Algerian Corsairs and American Privateers Compared 183
2. 4. Anti-Algiers Attitudes in American Political Thought 188
3. American Post-independence Relations with Algiers 190
3. 1. The Framework of American Diplomacy 192
3. 2. Structural Difficulties impeding Algerian-American Relations 195

CHAPTER V
American Commercial Diplomacy, 1776-1783 204

1. America’s ‘New Diplomacy’ 206

1. 1. The Founding Principles of American Foreign Policy 208
1. 2. ‘Militia Diplomacy’ or Beginning of American Aggressive 212
Diplomacy
2. United States Search for European Protective Treaties 215
2. 1. Algiers in American-French Diplomacy 218
2. 2. Negotiating Algiers in Other Treaties 223
3. Algiers between Europeans and Americans 231
3. 1. A Chess Game Pawn 231
3. 2. Algiers in American Barbary Diplomacy 236

x
CHAPTER VI
Diplomacy of Aggression, 1784-1789 247

1. Maritime Tensions and Diplomatic Failures in early Algerian-American 249

Relations
1. 1. The Captives in early Algerian-American Diplomacy 249
1. 2. Aspects of Contempt and Duplicity in American Diplomacy 255
1. 3. The ‘Algerine Scare’ 260
2. Anti-Algerian Attitudes in early American Diplomacy 266
2. 1. An Aggressive Yankee in a Barbary Court 267
2. 2. A Predilection for Enmity 272
3. Aggression against Algiers: A Founding Pillar of ‘New Diplomacy’ 281
3. 1. Algerian Friendly Attitudes 282
3. 2. American Aggression Designs 285

CHAPTER VII
The Peace Treaty of 1795 and Aftermath 295

1. The Road to a Peace between Algiers and the United States 296
1. 1. Peace Negotiations Reconsidered 297
1. 2. The Algiers-Portugal Truce, 1793 302
1. 2. 1. Algiers Relations with Europe in 1793 304
1. 2. 2. Diplomatic Ramifications 306
2. A Peace Treaty at Last! 310
2. 1. An Extraordinary Envoy at Negotiations 311
2. 2. A Treaty of Peace and Amity, 1795 316
3. A Fragile Peace: the Treaty of 1795 at Stake 323
3. 1. Insatiable Greed 323
3. 2. Perfidious Americans 324

xi
CHAPTER VIII
The Advent of Gunboat Diplomacy, 1798-1816 335

1. American Divergent Views: ‘Money Bags’ Versus ‘Cannon Balls’ 337

1. 1. The Beginning of Tensions 337
1. 2. Further Friction: an ‘Algerine Flag’ atop an American Battleship 343
2. Algiers-United States Diplomatic Relations: From Crises to Gunboats 350
2. 1. The Crisis of 1807 351
2. 2. The Crisis of 1812 355
2. 3. American Gunboats in Action, 1815-1816 360
3. Algiers in American Gunboat Diplomacy 370
3. 1. Background and Definition of ‘Gunboat Diplomacy’ 370
3. 2. The Second ‘Barbary War’, 1815-1816: An early Case of Gunboat 373
Diplomacy in American Foreign Policy

Conclusions 387
Bibliography 406
Appendices
Glossary

xii
 INTRODUCTION

A. THESIS

This study examines the history of diplomatic relations of the Ottoman

regency of Algiers with the western powers from its foundation in 1519 to its

collapse some three hundred years later. Particular emphasis, however, is put

on relations between Algiers and the United States during the period 1776-

1816 to illustrate a continuity of the clash between Algiers’ corsairing

diplomacy, on one side, and what has traditionally been called ‘gunboat

diplomacy’, on the other. The study denotes also a shift of in the use of this

form of coercive diplomacy vis-à-vis Algiers, in particular, and naval patrolling

of the North African coast, in general, from the great European powers to the

United States which commenced an era of continuous U.S. Navy presence in

the region that has extended up to today. The argument of the thesis consists

basically of two elements: emphasis upon the traditional confrontation between

Islam and Christianity and persistence of stances against Algiers throughout the

whole period of its existence; and spreading out of western anti-Algiers

antagonism to the United States, albeit under the guise of national interest, until

the colonization of Algeria. This thesis, therefore, approaches Algerian

1
corsairing from within the context of traditional European policies that found

prolongation in foreign policy principles of America’s rising New Diplomacy.

The purpose is to reassess the ‘pirate state’ myth which the westerners created

and exploited towards the fulfillment of an ideology involving a complex set of

religious, economic, and political agendas.

B. IMPORTANCE

America was under attack: American citizens were innocent victims of

piracy and were held hostage for ransom abroad; the American government

blackmailed; its overseas businesses jeopardized, and even its flag insulted by

‘state-sponsored terrorists’ with ‘turbans around their heads’ who, in American

opinion, envied America’s freedom and extorted its money. Although familiar

as might seem, this hullabaloo took place not at the beginning of the 21st

century but at the end of the 18th century and refers to United States’ relations

with the Muslim states of North Africa—commonly referred to by westerners

as the ‘Barbary States’. In 18th century-terminology, this phraseology simply

meant that American ships were captured by Muslim corsairs and their crews

were taken prisoners of war and enslaved while waiting for ransom or

exchange; commerce in the Mediterranean was subjected to peace treaties

which strictly defined trading privileges and charges attached to them;

maritime circulation was regulated by passports; and consular presents were

required according to custom. Incidentally, the Americans know how to turn a

2
crisis, real or machinated, into an opportunity to advance political programs by

a few neat but dramatic twists of the historical truth.

Diplomatic relations of the United States with the ‘Barbary States’ in

general, and Algiers particularly, is a minor episode in early American history;

yet, numbers of American historians and so-called area specialists in Arab-

American relations have inflated it to greater proportions since the 9/11 events.

Today, there is a largely-established consensus in the United States that

attributes the shaping of American foreign policy, particularly the use of

military force abroad, to that early encounter with the so-called ‘pirates of the

Barbary Coast.’ This large consensus is established on interpretations that are

solely based on American archival material and are most often presented from

a contemporary American perspective; therefore, the final product sounds more

like an American unilateral truth, filled up with bias and mistakes, than a

balanced study of two different cultures and systems of government that

clashed in an utterly different international context at the end of the 18th and

beginning of the 19th centuries—and continue to clash today. In general, it may

be stated that studying early American history in the light of 21st century’s

views is apt to lead to perversions of historical truth.

But, by taking the same material and looking at it from a different angle,

one may probably come to a different conclusion about what the actual truth

was; and this is precisely the objective of this research work. The historical

observer, who is also the researcher here, instead of securitizing the history of

diplomatic relations between Algiers and western powers from locations

3
situated in the United States or Europe, chose to establish his post of

observation on the shores of Algiers and look at the opposite direction but

without allowing for analysis to deviate from objectivity or be cut from western

realities—the material serving for research being exclusively western in nature,

or almost.1 This is what one may call a trans-Mediterranean-Atlantic approach.

While doing so, the researcher hopes to approach the past from a different

angle and contribute a different perspective or as one American historian put it:

In the domain of history a shift in the angle of observation will often

bring into view new and important vistas and will create such new
impressions of old scenes as to alter our ideas of the whole landscape.2

To understand today’s uneasy, and often hostile, American attitudes

towards Muslims, one may need to go back to that early period to attempt to

bring to light the origins of anti-Muslim bias, animosity, and aggressiveness in

United States foreign policy. One may also find it interesting but also useful to

return to the past to understand how Americans use it today to explain, analyze,

and justify their present military interventions in the Muslim world. As the

international environment has changed since those remote days so have

approaches to and interpretations of the ‘Barbary’ episode in American history.

What used to be seen as piracy is presented today as terrorism and in both cases

policies were developed to deal with both perceptions as such.3

1
Except for a handful of secondary sources (probably less than 1% of the total material used here), the
rest of the material of research consists primarily of American state records and works undertaken by
westerners.
2
Charles M. Andrews, “Colonial Commerce,” The American Historical Review, 20: 1 (Oct., 1914), p.
43.
3
The debate linking current terrorism to Muslim ‘pirates’ of the 18th century seems to have been first
launched by the American military historian Glenn Voelz in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks but the
4
 Instead of mere threats that were met, and have to be met, with the

appropriate solution, which according to the American point of view resides in

the forceful use of military power, one may rather consider the confrontation

between the United States and Muslims—past and present—as part of a wider

clash between two differing civilizations: an oriental Muslim civilization and a

western Christian one. And until the Americans could bridge the gap between

the two by understanding and respect of the other’s religion, culture, and other

human dimensions, the clash would probably persist because it is fueled with

much prejudice, distortion, and ignorance. Much of the early clash with Algiers

precisely stemmed from American ignorance about Muslim culture and

traditions. More, American self-centeredness and aggressive inclinations seem

to have been at the origin of the clash. As the Americans forced the way to the

region armed with their own ideals and biased perceptions, bombastic

nationalism and arrogance, and insatiable interests and naval might they failed

to acknowledge its particularities and caused lasting damages.

C. METHODOLOGY AND SOURCES

This research work begins with a look into the religious and historical

background which then served as a crucible for the emergence of the practice

of corsairing as retaliatory warfare to counter Christian assaults against Algiers.

analogy was articulated earlier as may be seen in Richard Leiby, “Terrorists by another Name: The
Barbary Pirates,” Washington Post, 15 October 2001, p. C01 and Russell Kirk, “The New Barbary
Pirates,” Human Events, 27: 47 (Nov., 1967), p. 13 respectively. The analogy was taken to its
paroxysm in Joseph Wheelan, Jefferson’s War: America’s First War on Terror, 1801–1805 (New
York: Carroll & Graf, 2003) and Frederick Leiner, The End of Barbary Terror: America’s 1815 War
against the Pirates of North Africa (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006). Leiner went as far as
to consider corsairing as ‘state-sponsored terrorism.’
5
At a time the clash between Islam and Christianity reached a zenith, the

Christians sanctioned their corsairs as rightful warriors while they decried

Muslim corsairs as pirates. For this reason, the thesis sets out to demonstrate

that, by Europeans’ own legal and religious standards, Algiers can by no means

be considered as a pirate entity and that it was a corsairing state. Then it

proceeds to give an overview of diplomatic relations between Algiers and the

major European powers with the purpose of defining the foundations of

corsairing diplomacy along with the prevailing laws and usage of nations.

Those principles were fashioned over a period of almost two centuries by the

Mediterranean countries and other European powers and were still in usage

when the United States emerged as an independent country after 1776. An

examination of the period 1776-1816 provides the context surrounding early

contacts between Algiers and the United States and denotes a progressive move

among American policy-makers from sniveling and duplicity to trampling

centuries-long laws and customs of the Mediterranean region to finally plain

naval aggression against Algiers in the name of national interest but under the

guise of meliorism. A discussion of America’s New Diplomacy as a concept

provides a framework for a critical examination of the founding principles of

American foreign policy. It reveals features of jingoism, or belligerent

nationalism, that were exhibited through feelings of superiority and tendency

towards aggressiveness in foreign policy that became America’s guiding line in

matters relating to relations with militarily weaker countries.

6
 A detailed analysis of the three peak events which took place in 1786,

1795, and 1815 provides the concrete historical context in which American

economic and military overseas expansionism occurred. Based on the founding

principles of corsairing diplomacy, the analysis refutes arguments of any

Algerian attacks against the United States and proceeds to elaborate a ‘Dey-

pawn theory’ that attempts to look into a complex system of international

relations that was clocked in intrigues and secrecy as it was typical of ‘power

politics’ of that time. The aim is to explain the new role which the rival

colonial powers attributed to the obsolete Turkish rulers of Algiers at a time

Algiers had already lost the protective shield of its navy and corsairing was on

the decline. The thesis also reveals that the Christian-culture imbued

Americans had displayed aggressive attitudes and signs of contempt and

perfidy vis-à-vis Algiers long before any actual contact took place between the

two countries. Finally, this research concludes that the unfolding events of

1815 bear all the ingredients of gunboat Diplomacy and shows that American

inherent aggressiveness, deceitfulness, and greediness could not be better

displayed than at the mouth of the cannons of American naval officers.

Structurally, since much of the flavor and probative value of history may

be lost when one paraphrases first-hand accounts of historical actors, the thesis

makes deliberate and liberal quotations from the original sources. In addition, it

includes a number of tables that have been constructed from scratch either for

the purpose of illustration, expansion, or summarization of an ongoing

argument. Conscious that the inclusion of such tables in the body of the text
7
may interrupt the flow of reading, one may nevertheless think that, for practical

reasons, they should be ready at hand in case they were needed; otherwise, one

may easily skip them by turning to the next paragraph without having the

feeling that something might have been left out. In terms of sources, the thesis

intentionally and overwhelmingly, but somehow forcibly, uses American

primary sources to show that a second reading of the same documents from a

different perspective may likely lead to different conclusions. Finally, one may

not pretend to resurrect the past—after all, it is researched from a 21st century

distance. But for the sake of objectivity, one will try to interrogate the

documents through the lenses of the period under study while acknowledging

that subjective and personal factors, such as the cultural background, are part of

all research. No matter how much one might wish to control the research

process, the self intrudes and projects itself on the enterprise.

Existing literature relating to early Algerian-American relations

especially that published at the turn of this century considers that corsairing

operations of the Algerian fleet were piracy—worse, they are assimilated to

terrorism—therefore it gives legitimacy to America’s aggressive diplomacy

and particularly the gunboat show of 1815-16.4 No source critically examines

the operations of America’s ‘squadron of observation’ as an early example of

Gunboat Diplomacy. This is particularly true of what might be considered as

4
Samples include: Frank Lambert, The Barbary Wars: American Independence in the Atlantic World
(New York: Hill and Wang, 2005); Joshua E. London, Victory in Tripoli: How America’s War with the
Barbary Pirates Established the U.S. Navy and Built a Nation (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
2005); and Michael B. Oren, Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East: 1776 to the
Present (New York: W. W. Norton, 2007).
8
the two leading and most influential works that investigated American

diplomatic history with Algiers.5 Ray Irwin’s Diplomatic Relations of the

United States with the Barbary Powers is a classical history work that puts

forward the ‘heroic’ role the United States played in the suppression of a ‘nest

of pirates;’ this work was carried exclusively from the reading rooms of the

Library of Congress in Washington, D. C. Richard Parker’s Uncle Sam in

Barbary is a nuanced account and is the culmination work of a carrier diplomat

who is better knowledgeable about the Arab World and its culture. Although

Parker injects some fairness and unbiased analysis in his account, yet, he does

not deviate from the established consensus and approaches Algiers as a pirate

state.

These two works have much inspired a counter-argument that is

presented by this thesis because while re-reading the same American

government documents one had the preliminary impression that all has not

been said about early American diplomatic history. Therefore this thesis strove

to put forward documents that were either overlooked by American historians

or have not been published until recently.6 Partly for this reason, the researcher

opted for using exclusively American sources. The second reason motivating

this option is that research undertaken so far at the Bibliothèque Nationale

Algérienne at Algiers has revealed that no documents relating to Algiers’

5
Ray W. Irwin, The Diplomatic Relations of the United States with the Barbary Powers, 1776-1816
(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1931) and Richard B. Parker, Uncle Sam in Barbary:
A Diplomatic History (Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida, 2004).
6
Many of the key documents appeared for the first time in Mary A. Giunta, ed., The Emerging Nation:
A Documentary History of the Foreign Relations of the United States under the Articles of
Confederation, 1780-1789, 3 Vol. (Washington, D.C.: National Historical Publications and Records
Commission, 1996).
9
relations with the United States could be found and there is a wide inclination

among historians to believe that they are non-existent; and even if available,

they are inaccessible because of the language handicap of the researcher.7 In

general, the major difficulty the researchers encounter today is the absence of

archives on the Algerian side; but it seems that the Turkish rulers of Algiers

were not keen on developing or preserving archives as a contemporary of the

Deys observed.8 All that reached researchers today cover mainly the religious

and individual domains such as waqf, marriage, and inheritance.9 Therefore, the

primary sources of this work are entirely based on American archives. One

Turkish document, however, survived from that period and it has been adopted

here to serve the purpose of comparison.10

American government publications relating to foreign relations of the

United States which cover the investigated period, 1776-1816 are numerous;

the first series were published in 1819, the last in 2000. These series contain a

considerable number of documents pertaining to Algiers. Documents from the

Continental Congress and Confederation period, 1776-1789 appear in Secret

7
This research has revealed the existence of three documents only which appear in translated form: a
letter from Wakil Khardj Sidi Hassan, minister of the marine, to Congress (1787); later, as Dey, he sent
another one to George Washington (1795); and finally Dey Omar Agha sent another letter to James
Madison in 1815 which circulates today in American historical writings as an example of ‘diplomatic
curiosity.’
8
In 1792, James L. Cathcart, American captive and Christian secretary to the Dey recorded in his
captivity account that the archives amounted to almost null. James L. Cathcart, The Captives: Eleven
Years a Prisoner in Algiers, compiled by his Daughter, J. B. Newkirk (Laporte, Indiana: Herald, 1899),
p. 195.
9
Daniel Panzac, Les corsaires barbaresques: La fin d’une épopée, 1800-1820 (Paris: CNRS Editions,
1999).
10
The treaty of 1795 is the only document written originally in Turkish and translated to English which
survived from the period. Today it is kept in the files of the Department of State. For a description of
the document see Hunter Miller, ed., Treaties and other International Acts of the United States of
America, vol. 2: 1776-1818 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1931), (Accessed 8
March 2008), available at The Avalon Project at Yale Law School,
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary.htm#r
10
Journals of Congress (4 vol.), 1820-21; Journals of the Continental Congress

(25 vol.), 1904-37; and Letters of Delegates to Congress (26 vol.), 1976-

2000.11 Diplomatic correspondence for the same period is located in Jared

Sparks’ The Diplomatic Correspondence of the American Revolution (12 vol.),

1829-1830; Francis P. Blair’s The Diplomatic Correspondence of the United

States (7 vol.), 1833-37; Francis Wharton’s The Revolutionary Diplomatic

Correspondence of the United States (6 vol.), 1889; and Mary A. Giunta’s

recent publication The Emerging Nation (3 vol.), 1996.

The American State Papers series is a valuable source because it

includes all government documents covering the period 1789-1816, including

executive and legislative documents. The series is the forerunner of the Foreign

Relations of the United States (FRUS) series which did not start publication

until after 1861. It also includes congressional documents prior to 1817 date at

which The United States Congressional Serial Set which contains the House of

Representatives and Senate documents and reports started publication. The first

collection is State Papers and Publick Documents (12 vol.), 1819; this edition

is the earliest publication of the American government and was published by an

act of Congress voted in 1818. The second collection which includes American

State Papers, Class I: Foreign Relations, 1789-1828 (6 vol.) and American

State Papers, Class VI: Naval Affairs, 1794-1825 (2 vol.) was published

between 1832 and 1861.

11
Journals of the Continental Congress and Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774-1789 are available
at http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwdg.html
11
 Finally, other series cover miscellaneous fields: The Public Statutes at

Large 1789-1845 (8 vol.), 1845-1867 series includes all the enactments of

Congress; therefore all the treaties signed with Algiers are included in it and

they are three only. A Compilation of Messages of the Presidents (10 vol.),

1896-1899 includes all the messages of the presidents of the USA to Congress;

volumes 1 and 2 cover the researched period. Naval Documents Related to the

United States Wars with the Barbary Powers (6 vol.), 1939-44, published by

the Office of Naval Records, Department of the Navy, is a valuable collection

because it includes all the reports of the naval officers who came in contact

with Algiers between 1794 and 1816.

In addition to the above mentioned official collection, this work

investigates unofficially published collections. These include a variety of

material including the writings and memoirs of the American political actors as

well as various collections of treaties—American and European. Primary

sources also include autobiographies, memoirs, journals, and travel accounts

whose writers had been, in one way or another, in contact with Algiers at

different periods of its existence.

D. CHAPTER OUTLINE

Chapter I of the research work sets the religious and historical

framework in which the Ottoman province of Algiers was created. It argues

that the rise of Muslim corsairing was an immediate consequence of Spanish

Reconquista and conquest of the North African cities, itself a projection of the
12
crusades of the medieval ages. The farsighted Turkish founders of Algiers gave

it a highly structured navy that eventually became a match to European navies

and could repel attacks on the Algerian coast.

Chapter II examines the distorted images about Algerian corsairs which

westerners constructed over centuries of hostility towards Islam and

perpetuated into the 21st century. Then the chapter proceeds to question the

very nature of those images based on the laws of nations as elaborated by

western jurists and pioneers of international law and concludes that far from

being pirates the Algerian seamen were corsairs obeying strict rules of

corsairing then viewed as a legal act of war.

Chapter III accounts for the rise and decline of corsairing diplomacy. By

providing an analysis of the bilateral treaties signed throughout the 17th and

18th centuries, the chapter permits a definition of the four leading principles

which regulated diplomatic relations between Algiers and the leading Christian

powers and which include mainly passports, captives, and annual payments in

the form of naval materials. Those principles were still in vigor when the

United States entered the Mediterranean area as a commercial rival. The third

chapter also focuses on the method through which negotiations were carried

and considers it as a precursor of gunboat diplomacy.

Chapter IV emphasizes the continuity of those principles throughout

America’s colonial period whereby American shipping benefited from Great

Britain’s advantageous treaties with Algiers. It also demonstrates that after

independence the Americans attempted to defraud the Deys of Algiers, and by

13
the same way the Mediterranean system of trade, by making lucrative

businesses without having to conclude treaties and assume charges.

Chapter V discusses the founding principles of American foreign policy

and looks at Algiers through American lenses. In addition to a chaotic

diplomatic machinery and financial weaknesses of the Confederation Congress,

the chapter depicts the place Algiers occupied in European and American

foreign policy and comes out with the conclusion that it was no more than a

pawn which was moved on the chessboard of shrewd players.

Chapter VI moves to detail one of three major events in Algerian-

American relations: the crisis of 1786. It starts with an account of a routine act

of capture of two American ships and ends by an assessment of that first

official contact. It also provides an analysis of the prevailing conditions and

shows how Algiers was transformed to fodder in a huge federalist propaganda

machine. The American politics of fear which fabricated and inflated an

‘Algerine scare’ permitted the adoption of the Constitution of 1787.

Chapter VII centers on the treaty of 1795. It describes the general

circumstances which led to its conclusion and reveals persistence of the Dey-

pawn theory. Stress is put on the terms of the treaty which, although

overwhelmingly advantageous to the United States, were not respected in

matters of payments and prescribed delays and led to further complications in

relations between Algiers and the United States.

Finally, Chapter VIII covers the closing period 1798-1816 and provides

an analysis of the major events which culminated in the American show of

14
naval force of 1815. The thesis interprets it as an example of what has

traditionally been called gunboat diplomacy. It also suggests that American

aggressive overseas expansionism, far from being the product of the closing

years of the 19th century, is in fact deeply-rooted in the history of the United

States and first found expression in the ‘Barbary Wars’ of the opening years of

that same century.

The conclusions of this thesis may surprise traditionalists. Research has

revealed that Algiers was not a pirate state but that it was a corsairing state;

therefore the acts of the Muslim corsairs had legitimacy in as much the same

way as those of Christian privateers. Consequently, it argues that the piracy and

slavery arguments that were put forward by Europeans in general and

Americans particularly to justify naval attacks against Algiers were but a guise

which served to legitimate aggression in order to advance their diverse

economic interests and colonial designs.

15
 Part One

Algiers in European Diplomatic History:

Crusading vs. Corsairing Diplomacy

 CHAPTER I

Foundations of Corsairing:
A Religious and Historical Background

The soldiery abandoned themselves to all the brutal license and ferocity,
which seem to stain religious wars above every other… The sun, which
on the preceding morning had shed its rays on Oran, flourishing in all
the pride of commercial opulence, and teeming with a free and
industrious population, next rose on it a captive city, with its ferocious
conquerors stretched in slumber on the heaps of their slaughtered
victims.1

William H. Prescott (1856)

Introduction

Corsairing was the foremost element which shaped relations between

Ottoman Algeria and the United States of America. As such, it necessitates

consideration so that the different elements which served as a basis for those

relations may be determined. The aim here is not to account for the historical

development of corsairing but to set the general framework in which Algerian-

American relations were formulated starting from the emergence of the United

1
William H. Prescott, History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella, the Catholic, volume 3, 12th
edition (Philadelphia: David Mckay, Publisher, 1856), p. 278.
16
States in the 1770s down to the conquest of Algiers in 1830.2 Corsairing

emerged and developed in a complex historical and religious background and

left lasting imprints not only the history of Algeria but also on its diplomatic

relations with the western countries generally and the United States

particularly. Although Algerian-American relations did not take place until

corsairing was on the decline, yet they were profoundly affected by a deeply-

rooted corsairing diplomatic tradition that took form during the period of

Ottoman rule in Algeria. Therefore, it is essential to place corsairing within the

appropriate religious and historical context because it helps understand those

early short-lived relations.

Ever since the emergence of the Ottoman province of Algiers early in

the 16th century to its collapse some three hundred years, its history, and that of

the Mediterranean Basin in general, was a history of confrontation between two

religions: Islam and Christianity. The religious divide was so neatly set that one

may imagine the southern and eastern shores of the Mediterranean colored

green to denote their adherence to Islam while the “Northern and Western

shores should be, if not one color, bedecked with flags bearing a cross” to

denote their adherence to Christianity.3 To the religious strife, one may graft

the struggle for power, naval and commercial, that characterized the history of

the Mediterranean world. The frontiers between the two divides might have

2
The adjective ‘Algerian’ is used here to indicate someone or something pertaining to the regency of
Algiers, the political entity as existing between 1519 and 1830. In western writings, the terms ‘Barbary
Coast’ and ‘Barbaresques’ were generally used. By late 18th century, when the Americans entered in
contact with the region, they used the term ‘Algerine.’
3
Susan Rose, “Islam versus Christendom: The Naval Dimension, 1000-1600,” The Journal of Military
History, 63: 3 (Jul., 1999), p. 561.
17
occasionally shifted to either shore according to the strength of the

protagonists, but in general, the essence of the struggle had remained intact.

Some consideration of two of the major phases in Mediterranean history,

Crusades and Reconquista,4 helps us understand the general context in which

Ottoman Algeria was evolving when its navy first encountered American

traders in the Mediterranean during the last quarter of the 18th century.

1. The Spanish Conquest of North Africa

The Crusades had exercised a heavy influence on the political and naval

history of Ottoman Algeria as well as that of the rest of the Mediterranean

Basin countries, particularly Spain. At the turn of the 16th century, Catholic

Spain took over crusading leadership. Animated by a deep religious hatred for

Muslims, it submitted the North African coast to constant assaults. In 1492,

after taking control of Granada, the last Muslim kingdom in the Iberian

Peninsula, the Spaniards massacred thousands of Andalusians and pursued

those who escaped extermination to North Africa. Unable to handle the

growing danger, the inhabitants of the city of Algiers called for the help of two

Muslim corsairs, the Barbarossa, whose reputation as faith fighters against the

Christian crusaders had already preceded them. The Barbarossa came to the

rescue but quickly realized that the geo-political and religious stakes were

greater than they had thought. Subsequently, Khayreddin Barbarossa placed El-

Jaza’ir, the kingdom he founded with his brother Arruj, under the protection of

4
Non-English terms when used for the first time are indicated in italics; a short explanation of their
meaning is included in the glossary.
18
the Ottoman Empire. Then, he set out to expel the Spaniards from Algerian

territory and contain their incursions on its coastal cities. The task, however,

proved to be difficult.

1. 1. From Crusades to Reconquista

In fact, Algiers was not fighting against a single enemy but against

Christendom, an anti-Islam Christian entity which origins can be traced back to

the early clashes between Crescent and Cross.5 Since the early Medieval Ages,

a number of kingdoms from Central and Western Europe had joined in a Holy

Roman Empire which animosity towards Islam peaked during the Crusades.

Between 1095 when the First Crusade was launched, and 1291 when the

Crusaders were finally expelled from the Holy Lands, the chroniclers identified

eight different crusading expeditions.6 Those were organized with the aim of

taking possession of Jerusalem but were transformed into conquest expeditions

that sought control of the whole Middle East area. All, however, ended either

inconclusively or in failure.

The Crusaders unleashed their hatred on the whole region and

committed atrocities that, even today, remain connotative of crusading

barbarism and cruelty. Irrational as it might seem, the crusaders—in addition to

systematic destruction and pitiless massacres of Muslim populations—resorted

5
For Christians, ‘Christendom’ is concurrently a polity, religion, and ideal; in its wider sense, it is used
to describe the “part of the world which is inhabited by Christians.” Urquhart, Francis, “Christendom,”
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 3 (New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908). (Accessed 26 May
2008). http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03699b.htm
6
The Crusades are a succession of military expeditions launched by the Christian powers against the
Muslims in Palestine and the neighboring areas. For a full account based on Muslim sources, see Amin
Maalouf, Les Croisades vues par les Arabes (Paris: J. C. Lattès, 1983).
19
to fanatical cannibalism as shown in the events which followed the fall of the

city of Ma’arra, Syria. In 1098, the Franc Chronicler, Radulph of Caen,

reported horrific scenes of barbarism: “In Ma’arra our troops boiled pagan

adults alive in cooking-pots; they impaled children on spits and devoured them

grilled.”7 Another Franc, Albert of Aix, who took part at the battle for Ma’arra

wrote: “Not only did ours [troops] not shrink from eating killed Turks and

Saracens but they also ate dogs!”8 Such horrible acts, which could only be

explained by blind religious hatred, tarnished Muslims-Christians relations.

Centuries later, animosity persisted and the religious gap kept growing.

Indeed, the Crusades left an indelible heritage of hatred and savageness

towards Muslims. In the Muslim mind, whether Saracens9 or Turks who fell to

the teeth of the cannibals, the Crusaders could claim nothing of a ‘holy’

mission against ‘infidels’ except barbarism and cruelty; or as expressed by an

anonymous Muslim poet who survived Ma’arra: “I do not know whether it is a

grazing ground for ferocious beasts or it is my house, my native home!”10

Thus, Muslim’s “hatred for Christians is explained, and in part justified, by the

fanaticism and cruelty of the latter during the Crusades.”11 Ultimately, under

the strikes of the Muslims, particularly Sultan Salah Eddin (1137-1193) and the

7
Maalouf, Les Croisades, pp. 55-56; unknown, “The Cannibals of Ma’arra,” 2003. (Accessed 9 June
2008). http://utah.indymedia.org/news/2003/10/6476.php
8
Ibid., Translations are from the researcher unless otherwise indicated.
9
Throughout the Medieval Ages, the Crusaders used the term ‘Saracens’ to refer to Muslims of the
Orient—Arabs, Turks, or others who resisted them. In the following centuries, its use was extended to
denote Arab tribes in general. In the Byzantine Empire, this term referred to all subjects of the Muslim
caliphate. From Crusaders and Byzantines, the term spread into Western Europe where it has survived
into modern times. “Saracen,” Encyclopædia Britannica, from Encyclopædia Britannica 2006 Ultimate
Reference Suite DVD. (Accessed 26 May 2008).
10
Maalouf, Les Croisades, p. 53.
11
Ann Thomson, Barbary and Enlightenment: European Attitudes towards the Maghreb in the 18th
Century (Leiden/New York/KØbenhavn: E. J. Brill, 1987), p. 23.
20
Mamalik Sultans, the Crusaders were defeated. Retreating to Europe, they

swore vengeance and “perpetual crusade against the infidels” with the purpose

of eradication of Islam from all the lands where it has established its

supremacy.12

Prominent among the Crusaders were the military and religious orders

of the Knights Templar (1120-1312) and the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem

(1098).13 Formed in Jerusalem, the Knights of St. John were virulent crusaders

throughout the period of atrocities committed against Muslims. In 1291, after

the Muslims expelled the crusaders from their last stronghold Acre, Syria, the

Knights retreated to Cyprus and in 1310 they seized the island of Rhodes where

they settled for over two-hundred years. Once more, and because of their

continuing attacks on Muslims, the Ottoman Empire evicted them from Rhodes

in 1522. Subsequently, the Holy Roman Emperor and King of Spain Charles V

granted them the island of Malta in 1530 where they became known as the

‘Knights Hospitallers of Malta.’14 From there, they continued attacking

Muslims, particularly those inhabiting Algiers, until 1798 time at which

Napoleon Bonaparte took hold of Malta and expelled them from it.15

12
Hamilton E. Currey, Sea-Wolves of the Mediterranean: The Grand Period of the Moslem Corsairs
(London/New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1931), p. 282.
13
In 1998, at the occasion of the 900th anniversary of the foundation of the order, the government of
Malta granted them a 99-year lease on their original fort of St Angelo; for a history see Charles
Moeller, “Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem.” The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 7. (Accessed 9 June
2008). http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07477a.html
14
Victor M. Milanes, “Charles V’s Donation of Malta to the Order of St. John,” 2006. (Accessed 9
June 2008). http://www.orderofmalta.org/site/pdf/pub/Charlesv_donation.pdf
15
More about the Knight of St. John could be found in Paul Cassar, “Maltese Corsairs and the Order of
St. John of Jerusalem,” The Catholic Historical Review, 46: 2 (Jul., 1960), pp. 137-56; Sander Rang
and Ferdinand Denis, Fondation de la Régence d’Alger: Histoire des Barberousses, vol. 2 (Paris: J.
Angé, Éditeur, 1837), pp. 115-18.
21
 The traditional animosity the Crusaders vowed to Muslims reached a

zenith by the time the Knights settled in Malta. In early 16th century, the

crusaders rallied again under the ‘Alliance of the Christian Princes’ (1500) and

the Grand Master of the Knights was nominated Captain-General of the

Christian armies with the aim of conducting military expeditions against the

Muslims of North Africa.16 Shortly later, the crusaders joined under the banner

of the Holy Roman Empire which was headed by Spain and set out to take

revenge, but this time in North Africa. Needless to say that faced with such

religious hatred, the Muslims could but reciprocate. So, amidst Christian

hostility and crusaders’ attacks emerged the Ottoman regency of Algiers. For

the next three hundred years, Algiers was going to stand up to the all-mighty

Spain and other Christian powers which assaulted its coastal cities and ports.

Ultimately, it relatively succeeded in displacing the frontiers of the battle

between Islam and Christianity from its own coast to the high seas and even

sometimes to the very shores of Europe. That breakthrough had been possible

thanks to a combined strategy of naval warfare and corsairing, a practice

legitimated by both religion and existent law.

1. 2. From Reconquista to Conquest

The medieval crusades found a continuation in Spanish Reconquista of

the weakening Muslim kingdoms of Andalusia and conquest of not better

allotted kingdoms of North Africa. Prior to the advent of the Turks, the Central

16
Currey, Sea-Wolves, pp. 51-2.
22
Maghrib, corresponding to nowadays Algeria, was colored by a multitude of

inter-warring kingdoms that were falling apart. Internal conflicts and tribal

warfare which erupted earlier had weakened the political unity in the region

and the ruling dynasties, Hafsids in the east and Zayanids in the west, lost

control in their respective regions. They became easy preys to the Spaniards

who, animated by an aggressive, revengeful, and anti-Muslim crusading spirit

attacked them relentlessly.

In the west, the decaying kingdom of Tlemcen gave way to the Spanish

conquistadors who set a foothold in Mers-el-Kebir as early as 1505. In 1509,

they took control of Oran and reduced it to the position of a vassal state paying

tribute to Spain. In Ténès, a self-proclaimed monarch placed himself under the

protection of the Spaniards and recognized Spanish sovereignty.17 At the

center, the city-state of El-Jaza’ir was ruled by a weakening Andalusian

dynasty; here too, the Spaniards occupied and fortified the small offshore islet

of Beni-Mezr’anna and transformed it to a stronghold which they renamed ‘el

Peñon d’Argel’.18 By doing so, they asphyxiated the economic life of the city;

henceforth, the Penon acted as a permanent sword of Damocles over the heads

of the inhabitants of Algiers. In the east, Constantine was at the hands of a

Hafsid prince who no more recognized the sovereignty of the Hafsid dynasty in

Tunis and extended his influence to Annaba and Collo.19 Hence, faced with

17
Henri-D. de Grammont, Histoire d’Alger sous la domination Turque, 1515-1830 (Paris: Ernest
Leroux, 1887), p. 18.
18
F. Élie de la Primaudaie, “Le commerce et la navigation de l’Algérie,” Revue Algérienne et
Coloniale (Juin 1860), p. 189. The islet had an area of about 31 km² and was situated about 300 meters
off the shore of Algiers.
19
Primaudaie, “Commerce et navigation,” pp. 94-5.
23
such widespread strife the Spanish crusaders could but rejoice; subsequently,

Bejaia fell to the Spaniards in 1510 while Jijel was occupied by their allies the

Genoese in 1512. So, due to that general state of weakness and disunity, the

Central Maghrib could not resist swarms of crusaders that were unleashed on

its shores. One after the other, the major cities and ports fell to Spanish

conquest. In less than a decade, Spanish garrisons, called presidios, dotted the

Algerian coast from Oran to Jijel.20

The Spanish conquest of North African kingdoms did not differ much

from the reconquest of Muslim kingdoms in the Iberian Peninsula during

Reconquista —except for duration. Reconquista is often presented as a series of

military campaigns that officially began in 722 and ended in 1492. The

Christians rulers used the argument of ‘prior possession of the land’ to justify

attacks on Muslims kingdoms in Andalusia and claimed that they were fighting

to re-conquer Christian territory lost to Muslims after the conquest of Tariq Ibn

Ziad in 711 AD. This way, they gained support of the Papacy and galvanized

armies all over Christendom. By 1236, Cordoba, one of two remaining Muslim

kingdoms—besides Granada—fell to combined Christian attacks.

More than just military campaigns, the Reconquista also was a religious

and an ideological crusade. Originally, it took the form of mere attacks

undertaken by various Christian rulers for power and self-enrichment. Military

superiority ensured them victory but they lacked the demographic element

necessary for settlement of the conquered territories. Therefore, they attacked

20
For a general description of the different attacks and capitulation of local rulers see Grammont,
Histoire d’Alger, pp. 27-39.
24
with the aim of imposing vassalage on the defeated Muslims through the

payment of tribute—called parias. Later, the church legitimated those attacks

as a ‘holy religious war of independence.’ The Papacy encouraged warfare

against Muslim ‘infidels’ and even issued bulls offering heavenly pardon for

those who took part in it.21

Ultimately, once military ‘reconquest’ of ‘Christian lands’ was

completed, the Reconquista acquired an ideological dimension and became

synonymous of ‘providential destiny,’ or something equivalent to American

Manifest Destiny. Implicitly, with this interpretation, the Spaniards invested

themselves with a mystical divine Christianizing mission whereby they

bestowed on themselves the right to carry warfare beyond the Iberian Peninsula

into other non-Christian regions with the aim of transforming those regions into

a Catholic land regardless of the claim of ‘prior possession of the land.’22 The

Spaniards used this argument to legitimate subsequent conquest of the

Americas and North Africa and Christianization, or attempts at

Christianization, of the native populations. Applied to the New World, this

ideological argument gave them legitimacy as rationally they could not claim

‘prior possession of land.’ In the context of the North African conquest,

however, the Spanish conquistadors exploited both the religious and

ideological arguments of Reconquista.

21
Pope Urban II issued similar bulls for those who headed for Jerusalem in 1094. Bulls, in fact, were
initiated in Spain 30 years before the First Crusade. Adam Knobler, “Holy War, Empires, and the
Portability of the Past: The Modern Uses of Medieval Crusades,” Comparative Studies in History and
Society, 48: 2 (Apr., 2006), p. 307.
22
Ibid., pp. 301-2.
25
 According to the notion of ‘just war’ as used by Latin holy warriors,

three prerequisites are necessary for proclaiming such deeds as ‘holy war’:

The adversaries must be non-Christian; there must be proof of some

prior injury to the Christian faith, the Church, or its believers (such as
persecution or the destruction of a church); or, the war must be in the
name of re-conquering a lost part of the “Roman” patrimony.23

This makes the question of Spanish conquest of Muslim lands outside the

Iberian Peninsula even more complex and questionable. Put in the context of

Reconquista, the religious argument could not stand scrutiny because, in

geographical terms, North Africa is definitely not the Iberian Peninsula. In this

case, the ideological argument could be seen as a more plausible justification

but the Spaniards, already animated by a religious hatred and an avenging spirit

going back to the Crusades, were intent upon giving the conquest of North

Africa the character of a ‘holy war.’ Consequently, to make the religious

argument more acceptable, and therefore mobilize Christians from all over

Europe against the Muslim ‘infidels’ of North Africa—particularly those of

Algiers, the Spanish politicians, military strategists, ecclesiastics, and historians

dug beyond Reconquista into a far-away past. What they had looked for, they

found it in the military history of the Roman Empire. By reinterpretations of

the Roman conquest of North Africa, they developed an argument that

provided them with legitimacy. Because the Roman conquest preceded the

coming of Islam, North Africa, therefore, was seen as a lost part of the Roman

heritage that had to be re-conquered.

23
Knobler, “Holy War, Empires, and the Portability of the Past,” pp. 301-2.
26
1. 3. The Spaniards in North Africa

What the Spaniards had proclaimed as a holy war was in fact part of a

political agenda that was meticulously devised by the Christian kings of Spain

and executed by successive generations of politicians, strategists, and military

men with the support of the church. It was no more than the beginning of

overseas expansionism and imperialism that was disguised as holy war to give

it legitimacy.24 After eight centuries of a flourishing Muslim civilization at El-

Andalus, the kings of Castile and Aragon (Isabella and Ferdinand) united their

two thrones with the aim of putting an end to the last Muslim kingdom in the

Iberian Peninsula, Granada. Starting from 1407, the Castilian kings had already

launched many military campaigns against Granada but reconquest proved to

be difficult and drew out for almost a century. By late 15th century, Isabella and

Ferdinand relaunched a combined offensive; they did not wait long before they

could lay hand on the last jewel of Muslim civilization.25 Weakened by internal

rivalries and dubious alliances with the Christians, the Muslims ended up by

handing over Granada to the Christian besiegers in 1492.26 The fall of Granada

ended the so-called Reconquista and opened a new phase of Spanish conquest

and worldwide expansion.

24
Prescott, Ferdinand and Isabella, pp. 356-57.
25
Stanley Lane-Poole, The Moors in Spain, 8th edition (London: Fisher Unwin, 1888), p. VII-XII;
Salah Zaimeche, “Granada: The Last Refuge of Muslims in Spain,” Foundation for Science,
Technology and Civilization, Dec. 2004, pp. 1-20. (Accessed 27 May 2008).
http://www.islamawareness.net/Europe/Spain/granada.pdf
26
In fact, the line between Christians and Muslims was blurry: Christians fought amongst
themselves—as did Muslim. Christian rulers often leagued with Muslim rulers —and vice versa—
against rivals. In addition, ‘mercenaries’ regardless of religious appurtenance fought for whoever paid
them more. One of those was Rodrigo Díaz, later known as El Cid. Lane-Poole, The Moors, pp. 185-
214; also Stephen Clissold, “El Cid: Moslems and Christians in Medieval Spain,” History Today, 12:5
(May 1962), pp. 322-28.
27
 With the last Muslims expelled from Spain, converted to Christianity in

a wave of Inquisition terror, or virtually exterminated at the hands of

Reconquista troops,27 the Spanish rulers could now concentrate on overseas

expansion. The discoveries of Christopher Columbus brought them gold and

glory but also offered them an opportunity for spreading Christianity beyond

the Iberian Peninsula. Exulting under New World robbed treasures, Spain set

out on a policy of forcible Christianization and genocide against the natives of

the conquered empires.28 Simultaneously, it pushed colonial expansion to the

shores of North Africa and indulged in pillage and genocide as shown in the

barbarities committed against Muslim population following the fall of Algerian

ports and cities early in the 16th century. In method and policy the natives of the

American continent and Muslims of North Africa became the target of the

same conquest and extermination policies.29 In North Africa, however, the

outcome was disappointing for the Spaniards. Despite warfare systematic

destruction and massacres, raids and kidnappings, and numerous plagues, the

Algerian population “did not dwindle as did the Indian population in North

America that was subsequently transferred or destroyed.”30

In total disregard of the various motivations underlying the Spanish

conquest of the North African coast—religious, ideological, and political—

27
Lane-Poole, The Moors, pp. 169-71; Grammont, Histoire d’Alger, p. 2.
28
Ramsay Muir, The Expansion of Europe: The Culmination of Modern History, 2nd edition (London:
Constable and Company, 1917), pp. 17-20.
29
For comparison with English conquests see Leland Conley Barrows, “Turks, Moors, and Englishmen
in the Age of Discovery,” H-W-Civ, H-Net Reviews, October, 2000. (Accessed 19 May 2008).
http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=32574973114426
30
Nabil Matar, “Britain and Barbary, 1589–1689,” in Daniel J. Vitus, ed. Piracy, Slavery, and
Redemption: Barbary Captivity Narratives from Early Modern England (New York: Columbia
University Press, 2001), p. 9.
28
western writers emphatically invoke ‘Muslim piracy’ as the sole reason

justifying conquest. According to them Algiers had become a nest of Muslim

pirates that raided Spanish shores causing considerable damage; therefore,

Spain launched expeditions to end those piratical threats.31 This simplistic

view, however, is loaded with complex issues. The so-called pirates were no

more than the refugee Moors and Moriscos32 who escaped the carnage of

Reconquista, Inquisition, and forced Christianization which uprooted centuries-

old established Muslims from Andalusia and forced them to exile. In 1478, to

enforce political unity, the Spanish rulers expanded Inquisition to Muslims.

More, starting from 1492, they introduced policies furthering religious and

racial ‘purification.’ “Decrees implementing forced conversion or expulsion of

non-Christians appeared as formal policy designed to promote a Catholic,

Christian Spain.”33 What ensued was genocide and terror: countless numbers of

alleged ‘Moorish apostates’ were burnt at the stake,34 as the Catholics argued

cynically, ‘to avoid bloodshed.’ Inquisition was accompanied by a wave of

terror that caused hundreds of thousands more to flee Spain to North Africa for

31
Prescott, Ferdinand and Isabella, p. 272; Lane-Poole, Barbary Corsairs, p. 9-12; Muir, Expansion of
Europe, p. 81; Grammont, Histoire d’Alger, p. 5.
32
The term ‘Moors’ refers to Spain’s Muslims as opposed to ‘Moriscos’ who were forced into
Christianity. The term ‘Moor,’ from the Greek adjective maurus—meaning dark or black, was
originally used to indicate Blacks; later, it was applied to the inhabitants of North Africa of mixed Arab
and Berber races. In Andalusia, the name is given to Muslims of mixed Arab, Berber, and Spanish
blood. The Moors of Spain ultimately took refuge in North Africa between the 11th and 17th centuries
following serial losses of Muslim kingdoms in Spain. Generally, this term denotes ‘Muslim’ and
‘Black’ people in Renaissance Europe. For etymology see “Moor,” in The Concise English Dictionary,
p. 747.
33
Andrew C. Hess, “The Moriscos: An Ottoman Fifth Column in Sixteenth-Century Spain,” The
American Historical Review, 74: 1 (Oct., 1968), p. 3.
34
Zaimeche, “Granada,” pp. 14-6. Persecution of Muslims lasted until 1967 when, for the first time in
Spain’s history, freedom of religion was instituted.
29
their lives.35 After 1492, those who found refuge at Algiers either opted for

continuing war or engaged in rescue operations to extract other Moors in

distress from slaughters.36

1. 3. 1. A Crusading Agenda

The objectives of North African conquest, however, are numerous: more

than just the religious goal, they also included political, military, and strategic

elements which, put together, assured Spain a dominant position not only in

Europe and the Mediterranean Basin but also throughout the whole world.37

First, the Spanish monarchs aimed at the fulfillment of a crusading ideal, that

of the annihilation of Islam. Armed with the support of zealous conquistadors

and fanatical ecclesiastics such as Cardinal Ximenez de Cisneros, Isabella

expelled the Muslims and started organizing for the conquest of North Africa.38

Her death in 1504 only halted the preparations for the invasion but did not end

conquest policies. Through an ambitious policy of expansion, she succeeded in

maintaining a state of permanent war with Algiers, but also occupation of

Algerian lands, for centuries to come. In a codicil to her will, added only three

days before her death, she bequeathed to her subjects a heritage of a unique

kind: they “must not interrupt the conquest of Muslim North Africa nor cease

35
Hundreds also fled to the Spanish colonies in the Americas. There, they met the same treatment at
the hands of the Inquisition persecutors, i.e.: burning at the stake—along with Indians and Protestants.
Inquisition began functioning in the New World as early as 1515.
36
Khayreddin Barbarossa alone was responsible for the deliverance of 70,000 Moriscos whom “he
rescued, in a series of voyages, from servitude in Spain.” Lane-Poole, Barbary Corsairs, p. 60.
37
Muir, Expansion of Europe, pp. 7-8; Prescott, Ferdinand and Isabella, p. 271.
38
Emrah Safa Gurkan, “Ottoman Corsairs in the Western Mediterranean and their Place in the
Ottoman-Habsburg Rivalry, (1505-1535).” A Master’s Thesis, Department of History, Bilkent
University, Ankara, June 2006, pp. 36-40.
30
fighting for Christian faith against the infidels.”39 For many historians, her will

was “a precious legacy bequeathed to her people, to guide them when the light

of her personal example should be withdrawn for ever.”40

In fact, the two documents, will and codicil, were the embodiment of a

full political program for future generations to carry out. In it, she stressed the

need for unity among the kingdoms of the Iberian Peninsula and maintenance

of control over the Strait of Gibraltar.41 Furthermore, she outlined a policy of

expansion into North Africa for which she had already started preparing a plan

for invasion. To this political agenda, she insisted upon “the good work of

converting and civilizing the poor Indians.”42 Less than two decades later, the

brute conquistadors led by Hernando Cortez transformed this ‘civilizing

mission’ into a mission that brought to an end the flourishing civilization of the

Aztecs and exterminated the ‘poor Indians.’43 Beginning from 1505, other

conquistadors started occupation of important ports in Algeria, raided its

interior lands, and pillaged its wealth. For the next 300 years or so, Isabella’s

faithful and pious subjects were to abide by her legacy of religious hatred and

astute political design.

More than religious and political designs, the conquest of the Algerian

littoral was part of a larger strategy devised and executed by military leaders. In

general, the Spaniards considered that the expelled Moors, knowledgeable of

39
Grammont, Histoire d’Alger, p. 29.
40
Prescott, Ferdinand and Isabella, pp. 165-66.
41
Lerne L. Plunket, Isabel of Castile and the Making of the Spanish Nation, 1451-1504 (New
York/London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1915), pp. 383-84.
42
Prescott, Ferdinand and Isabella, pp. 165-66.
43
Stuart Matthews, “Cortés and Aztec Gold: Initial Conflict and Modern Political Ecology,” ICE Case
Studies, n° 174, March 2006. (Accessed 1 June 2008). http://www.american.edu/ted/ice/aztec.htm
31
the land and language, still constituted a serious threat to Spain. For them, the

fall of Granada did not rule out the possibility of another Muslim invasion of

the peninsula:

After all, rude warriors from Africa had twice stiffened the backbone of
Iberian Muslims before the completion of the reconquest; hence
proximity and tradition argued that another invasion from North Africa
might again roll back the Christian conquests.44

According to Gonzalvo de Cordova, general commander of the Spanish army,

the enemy had to be pursued and exterminated to the last one. Indeed, and

thanks to this strategy, he became the first European general to engage in

pursuit of a retreating enemy after victory with the aim of destroying it

completely.45 Pedro Navarro carried this strategy to its most horrible details as

shown in the carnage that followed the fall of Oran in 1509.46 “No mercy was

shown,” wrote the American historian William H. Prescott; “no respect for age

or sex; and the soldiery abandoned themselves to all the brutal license and

ferocity, which seem to stain religious wars above every other.”47 This method

of systematic destruction was reiterated in other cities that could not resist

Spanish assaults, particularly in Bejaia (1510) and Jijel (1512).

44
Hess, “The Moriscos,” pp. 1-2.
45
Thanks to this strategy of systematic destruction, Gonzalvo de Cordova (1453–1515) stands among
the first founders of modern warfare. As a field commander, he had no match in the modern era until
the rise of Napoleon some 300 years later. He gave Spain an empire and an army that dominated
battlefields in Europe and the New World during 16th and 17th centuries.
46
Mahfoud Kaddache, L’Algérie pendant la période Ottomane (Alger: Office des Publications
Universitaires, 1992), pp. 4-5; Grammont, Histoire d’Alger, pp. 30-5.
47
Prescott, Ferdinand and Isabella, p. 278.
32
 1. 3. 2. Crusades in North Africa

The plans of conquest Isabella elaborated were executed speedily. De

Cordova orchestrated a wave of conquest that swept the Algerian shore starting

from 1505 onwards. Cardinal Ximenez headed an expedition to Oran under the

banner of the Cross and the sword of Navarro, slaughtered and pillaged, and

returned with “a small train of camels, led by African slaves, and laden with

gold and silver plate from the Mosques of Oran, and a precious collection of

Arabian manuscripts, for the library of his infant university of Alcala [de

Henares].”48 The sole expedition against Oran resulted in 4000 dead and a

further 5000 taken to Spain as slaves with a booty totaling half a million ducats

(gold coins).49 The impact of the fall of Oran was such that a number of other

cities, including Dellys, Algiers, Cherchell, Ténès, and Mostaganem dispatched

peace delegations to Oran. To save their cities from destruction, the Muslim

rulers signed treaties in which they accepted sovereignty of the Spanish King

and paid him annual tributes. Once the coast had been occupied, the Spaniards

built military fortification, or presidios, from which they launched raids against

the nearby areas and interior lands. The primary responsibilities of those

bastions were to control the coastline, commerce, and kingdoms in the area.

The Presidios intervened in local politics by playing one tribe against another

but also ensured an interior slave trade, which supplied Mediterranean markets

with Algerian captives. Spanish barbarism was accompanied by looting; whole

48
Prescott, Ferdinand and Isabella, p. 282; Primaudaie, “Commerce et navigation,” pp. 249-54;
Grammont, Histoire d’Alger, p. 13.
49
Fisher, Barbary Legend, p. 34; Prescott, Ferdinand and Isabella, p. 278-79.
33
tribes were razed and the survivors, for the most part women and children,

were sold into slavery.50

On ascending the throne, Isabella’s grandson the Holy Roman

Emperor Charles V (r. 1519-1558) was the most powerful sovereign in

Christendom. He inherited or conquered lands that included the Spanish

kingdoms of Aragon and Castile, the Netherlands, the Habsburg lands, and the

Italian states of Naples, Sicily, and Sardinia—in addition to the American

colonies. With the wealth of this huge empire backing him, and in league with

the Papacy, he continued with Spain’s conquest policies and prepared to attack

Algiers as a first step towards the conquest of North Africa. The preparations

for his projected expedition were euphorically impregnated by a crusading

fervor. The Pope issued a bull not much different from those which incited

Christians in the Medieval Ages to seize Jerusalem and the Holy Lands from

the ‘infidels.’ He exhorted all Christians to join Charles V “promising

absolution from all sins and crown of martyrdom for all those who would die

fighting the infidels.”51 His crusading package also included “numerous

indulgences for the would-be wounded and those who would contribute person

or property to this enterprise proportionally with the services offered.”52 In

short, the Pope left nobody out provided that they joined to the invasion

expedition against Algiers.

50
Alessandra Stella, Histoires d’esclaves dans la Péninsule Ibérique (Paris: Édition de l’École des
Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, 2000), p. 68 ; Kaddache, L’Algérie Ottomane, p. 5; Gurkan,
“Ottoman Corsairs,” p. 36.
51
Tassy, Royaume d’Alger, p. 43.
52
Ibid.
34
 In 1541, Charles V headed an Armada of 516 galleys and galleots, the

largest armament ever amassed that far, which sailed hoisting the banner of a

crucified Christ. This armada was mounted with about 40,000 troops who

sailed seeking glory, martyrdom, absolution, and indulgence.53 Thousands

more were civilians who joined the chorus with the prospect of settlement after

Algiers would be conquered; they brought with them women and children,

furniture and meager belongings, along with a worldly misery and belief in a

providential destiny thinking that they would be the happy settlers of that new

land. The Armada, however, was met with a divine storm which smashed it to

pieces. Those who escaped the storm had to meet the wrath of the Muslim

population; very few survived. It is said that Algiers constituted an arsenal

from the booty of that expedition.54 Undeniably, Isabella’s political program

and crusading legacy proved to be efficient and long lasting. King Charles V,

Cardinal Ximenez, or bloodthirsty conquistadors like Navarro—to cite a few of

the most heinous crusaders—were but the precursors of centuries-long

crusading expeditions as summarized in Table 1 (Spanish Expeditions against

Algiers, 1505-1784). This left the inhabitants of Algiers but one alternative: to

fight for their lives and faith or they would be deemed for extermination in the

same way as was done with the native tribes in the New World.55

53
For detailed statistics, see Rang, Régence d’Alger, pp. 253-58.
54
For description of this crusade see Grammont, Histoire d’Alger, pp. 58-69; Rang, Régence d’Alger,
pp. 241-333; Tassy, Royaume d’Alger, pp. 42-8.
55
Cortez participated in the expedition of 1541 against Algiers with the hope of meeting the same
‘successes’ as in the New World. As the expedition ended in complete disaster, Cortez lost his
remaining fortune, a gold-filled galleot he had brought from Mexico. Grammont, Histoire d’Alger, pp.
62-3; Rang, Régence d’Alger, p. 258.
35
Table 1: Spanish Expeditions against Algiers, 1505-1784

Year & Seize of Command Outcome Consequences

Allies Expedition

1505 12,000 men Diego Occupy Mers-el-

landed at Fernandez Kebir
Mers-el-Kebir de Cordova

1508- 100 galleys Cardinal The Spaniards The Dey of Algiers

1509 and small Ximenez Occupy Oran, takes control Oran
ships & Pedro 4,000 killed, (1708)
11,000 troops Navarro 5,000 taken to
take Oran (military Spain as slaves;
commander) ½ million ducats
booty

1510 25 galleys & Pedro Occupy the Barbarossa conquers

5,000 troops Navarro Penon and Bejaia the Penon (1529);
Salah Rais expels the
Spaniards from Bejaia
(1554)

1512, Occupy Jijel The Barbarossa take

Genoa control of Jijel (1514)

1516 60 ships & Diego de Complete failure: Arroudj takes Algiers

8,000 soldiers Vera almost ½ half the and consolidates his
siege and land troops were killed kingdom; For
at Algiers or captured. Fleet Christians: lost
re-embark in opportunity to remove
total anarchy corsairs from Algiers

1519 80 ships & Hugo de 26 ships and Kheireddine

Sicily, & 10,000 Moncada 4,000 strengthens his
King of soldiers soldiers were lost position; pushes
Tlemcen cannonade in a storm, the conquest to
then land at rest killed or Constantine, Collo,
Algiers captured and Annaba

1531 A major sea Alvar A brief siege, This naval encounter

Genoa battle. Gomez Algiers falls for a ends Ottoman-
Christian and while Habsburg warfare in
Muslim the western
galleys Mediterranean
destroyed

36
Spanish Expeditions against Algiers, 1505-1784 (continued)

1541, Armada of King total disaster: Algiers invincible:

Holy 516 galleys, Charles V Armada For almost 200 years
Roman and about decimated by a afterwards, Spain
Empire, 40,000 troops storm, then would refrain from
Malta, & siege then pursued by attacking it
Papacy land at inhabitants
Algiers

1541-1732, long interlude;

coincides with the rise of the regency of Algiers to naval supremacy in the
Mediterranean
More powerful European countries would take over the crusade

1732 Landing at Reoccupation of 1790, Algiers sieges

Ain et-Turk Oran Oran and reoccupies
it in 1792
1775 An expedition Pedro total disaster:
of 18,000 men Castejon & Armada
and over 150 Alexander decimated by a
ships O’Reilly storm
blockaded
Algiers

1784 Algiers Angelo After 300 years of 1786, a 100 years

Cannonaded Barcelo crusading, will truce signed,
and faith of humiliating for Spain
Algiers remained
intact

Source: Data is collected from the different sources used in Chapter I

37
2. Algeria under Ottoman Rule, 1519-1830

The treaty the city of Algiers signed with Spain in 1510 was one

providing more for unconditional surrender than for a long-term peace. It

included a number of conditions that turned Algiers to a vassal state paying

tribute and serving the interests of the Spanish monarch.56 For the purpose,

Algiers had to evacuate its defensive forts, provide supplies for the presidios,

establish amicable relations with the allies of Spain, and close its ports to the

countries hostile to it.57 To crown this humiliating treaty, Spain occupied and

fortified the Islet of the Penon which gave it control of the entrance to the port

of Algiers. The Penon occupied a particularly strategic position; by controlling

it, the Spaniards could easily control all sea-related activities by simply

forbidding access to the port.58 Under such conditions, it became clear that the

economic life of Algiers depended solely on the good will of the Spanish

garrison there. The inhabitants of Algiers could hardly accept such a treaty.

More, they viewed badly submission and payment of tribute to a Christian

power.59 Upon the death of King Ferdinand II in 1516, they considered that the

treaty was no more bounding and sent a delegation to the Barbarossa seeking

their assistance to throw off the Spanish yoke.

56
Prescott, Ferdinand and Isabella, p. 283; Gurkan, “Ottoman Corsairs,” p. 39.
57
Kaddache, L’Algérie Ottomane, pp. 6-7; Grammont, Histoire d’Alger, pp. 36-37.
58
Tassy, Royaume d’Alger, p. 9.
59
Kaddache, L’Algérie Ottomane, p. 7.
38
2. 1. The Coming of the Turks

The foundation of Ottoman Algeria is closely linked to two Muslim

brothers, Arruj (1474-1518) and Khayreddin (1483-1546), better known as the

Barbarossa. The Barbarossa were daring corsairs who originated from

Mytilene, ex-Lebsos, a Greek island in the Aegean Sea where they had been

corsairing under the protection of an Ottoman prince. Arruj was an able corsair

who gained fame after he captured two papal galleys, an unprecedented act

which caused consternation among Christians.60 Khayreddin was much more

cultivated and sophisticated: a shrewd strategist, speaking six languages

fluently, he had unmatched statesmanship skills which he masterly used to steer

Algiers under the protection of the Ottoman Empire.61

Following internal strife in Turkey, the Barbarossa sought the protection

of Tunis; then, they expanded their activities to the cities of Jijel and Bejaia.

Starting from 1514, they led siege to Bejaia twice but failed to take it; however,

they succeeded in expulsing the Genoese, Spain’s allies, from Jijel and settled

there. Soon after, Arruj sent an emissary with presents to the Ottoman Sultan.

This was the first indication of contact between the two corsairs and

Constantinople. The Sultan welcomed the initiative as a sign of obedience and

reciprocated by sending them two war galleys.62 Ultimately, this early contact

was going to place Algiers in the sphere of influence of the Ottomans.

60
David Cordingly, ed., Pirates: Terror on the High Seas from the Caribbean to the South China Sea
(New York: Turner Publications Inc., 1996), p. 80.
61
Ibid.
62
Gurkan, “Ottoman Corsairs,” p. 48; Andrew C. Hess, The Forgotten Frontier: A History of the
Sixteenth Century Ibero-African Frontier (Chicago/London: Chicago University Press, 1978), p. 63.
39
 In Jijel and surrounding areas, Arruj and Khayreddin were perceived as

heroes of Islam and rapidly their reputation reached other cities that were

leaning under Spanish occupation. In 1516, they accepted a call for help

emanating from the city of Algiers. Given the dramatic events that ensued the

coming of the Turk corsairs to Algiers and its long-lasting consequences, the

event is a matter of historical debate. Some historians, particularly the British

diplomat and historian Sir Godfrey Fisher argued that Salim El-Tumi, the local

ruler, was loyal to the Spaniards so he could not have invited them.63 However,

Stanley Lane-Poole (1854-1931), the British orientalist and authority on the

matter, argued that the offer was made when the rulers of Algiers rejected the

treaty of 1510 that bound them to pay tribute to Spain; therefore they feared

Spaniards’ retaliation and sought the protection of the Turks.64 The most

plausible reason however is that, given Spanish occupation and inability of the

inhabitants of Algiers to dislodge them, the latter collectively pressed for

assistance from the Barbarossa because of their reputation as enemies of

Christians and their prior military success at Jijel. In all events, the Turks

originally came to Algiers as Muslim brethren saviors and not as conquerors.

At the head of a force of about 6,000 corsairs and 16 small galleys, or

galleots, the Barbarossa set out for Algiers and reached it without meeting

resistance.65 Once at Algiers, they launched an unsuccessful attack against the

63
His view is defended on the basis of a letter from Francisco de Vera, commander of the expedition of
1516 against Algiers, addressed to Salim El-Tumi which described him as honorable and loyal. Fisher,
Barbary Legend, p. 48.
64
Lane-Poole, Barbary Corsairs, pp. 45-6.
65
Cordingly, Pirates, pp. 45-6.
40
Penon. The failure of the cannonade caused more damage to relations between

the local inhabitants and the Turk corsairs than to the Spanish fortress. Dissent

among disgruntled Arabs was crashed; the Turks pillaged the city, executed its

notables, and terrorized its population. In the course of those dramatic events,

El-Tumi was assassinated and Arruj, with the support of the Turkish soldiery,

proclaimed himself king which led to the establishment of corsairs’ rule at

Algiers.66 On the lands he controlled Arruj founded a new kingdom: El-Jaza’ir.

From there, he pushed conquest to Ténès and Tlemcen and challenged the

Spanish occupants of the presidios. In 1518, in the battle for the control of

Tlemcen, he was killed but his kingdom survived under the leadership of his

brother Khayreddin.

The Barbarossa are considered the true founders of modern Algeria.67

Even though Arruj was killed not long after his arrival to Algiers, he had

achieved a lot against the Spaniards. His brother Khayreddin continued the

work of consolidation and gave Algiers lasting institutions. At the beginning,

Khayreddin faced serious problems. Squeezed between two kingdoms, the

Hafsid kingdom in the east and Zayanid in the west, the kingdom of El-Jaza’ir

was viewed unfavorably to the point that some of the rulers leagued against it

with Spain. More, his rule was hardly accepted by the local population;

tensions grew and the brutal conduct of the Turkish corsairs worsened

66
Generally, it is assumed that Arruj himself strangled El-Tumi. The foundation of the kingdom of El-
Jaza’ir is subject to diverse, sometimes controversial, accounts of romance, intrigues, treason,
assassinations, cowardice, and brutality of the Turk soldiery towards the local population. For a
detailed account, see Tassy, Royaume d’Alger, pp. 9-31.
67
Kaddache, L’Algérie Ottomane, p. 12.
41
relations.68 Finally, Spanish ongoing occupation of Algerian ports continued to

represent a serious threat to the nascent kingdom of El-Jaza’ir. “Gifted with

prudent and statesmanlike intelligence, which led him to greater enterprizes,”69

Khayreddin resisted both Spanish and local forces and even succeeded in

defeating a Spanish invading flotilla in 1519. Aware of the incessant Christian

assaults on El-Jaza’ir, he sought and speedily obtained protection from the

Ottoman Empire. In fetihname—letter announcing the conquest of a city—

Sultan Selim I (r. 1512-1520) declared El-Jaza’ir as one of his lands in 1519.70

In return, Khayreddin recognized the sovereignty of the Sultan and paid him

allegiance. That was, in fact, the beginning of Ottoman rule in Algeria.

2. 2. Algiers: The Ottoman Regency

For the farsighted political leader Khayreddin, alignment with the

Ottoman Sultan, the most powerful ruler in the Islamic world, would bring him

prestige and legitimacy. The Turk corsairs were mere soldiers of fortune whose

services were needed to overthrow the Spanish yoke but they had no political

legitimacy. They could conquer all the land but, for the local population, they

would remain usurpers of the throne especially after the brutal suppression of

the legitimate leaders. Equally important, was Khayreddin’s need for a strong

ally in his fight against assaulting Christian forces. He shared this second

motivation with the Ottomans: the Sultan was waging war in the eastern

68
Gurkan, “Ottoman Corsairs,” p. 49, 71.
69
Lane-Poole, Barbary Corsairs, pp. 53-4.
70
Gurkan, “Ottoman Corsairs,” pp. 69-70.
42
Mediterranean against the Habsburg Empire, which then fell to the Spanish

king Charles V, and Algiers could serve as an advanced strategic post from

which he could counter the Christian powers in the western Mediterranean.71

Consequently, Selim I named Khayreddin Beylerbey or province

governor of the newly-created Beylerbeylik of Algiers and bestowed on him the

title of Pasha.72 Algiers then became the capital and center of Ottoman

authority in the Maghrib from which a vast coastal region extending from

Tlemcen in the west to Derna on the boundary with Egypt in the east was won

for the Ottoman Empire.73 More, the Sultan provided him with arms,

ammunitions, and 2,000 soldiers recruited exclusively in Turkey—the

Janissaries; those were the nucleus of the Algerian army.74 That way Algiers

acquired a strong and efficient army, disciplined, and trained in the modern

forms of welfare.75 Added to the already available naval mastership of the free-

lance corsairs who had arrived earlier, Algiers constructed a fine military

power that permitted it to emerge as a promising modern state. That combined

force of janissaries and corsairs turned out to be the undisputable pillar of the

71
Tal Shuval, “The Ottoman Algerian Elite and its Ideology,” International Journal of Middle East
Studies, 32: 3 (Aug., 2000), p. 326; Hess, Forgotten Frontier, pp. 9-10.
72
For Turkish rulers of Algiers see Kaddache, L’Algérie Ottoman, pp. 58, 87, 100, 117.
73
During the 16th century, the political and geographical map of the Beylerbeylik of Algiers, or
‘Cezayir-i Garp’ as it was officially called, encompassed the costal areas of North Africa extending
from Tlemcen (in contemporary Algeria) to Derna (in contemporary Libya) with the city of Algiers as
administrative center. That area roughly corresponds with what the westerners call the Barbary Coast—
excluding Morocco which was an independent sultanate. Tripolitania and Tunis were established as
independent Turkish provinces in 1554 and 1574 respectively and Algiers remained in control of a
territory corresponding to the northern part of contemporary Algeria until 1830. Therefore, in the
context of this work, ‘Algiers’ refers to both the Turkish province and capital city of that province as
they existed between 1519 and 1830.
74
Shuval, “Ottoman Algerian Elite,’ p. 325.
75
Daniel Panzac, Les corsaires barbaresques: La fin d’une épopée, 1800-1820 (Paris: CNRS Editions,
1999), p. 12.
43
regency of Algiers. After early vicissitudes, Khayreddin set out to lay the

foundations of a state that were to last for the 300 years to come.

By 1525, Khayreddin reinforced his control over Algiers and converted

it into a powerful naval base; hence strengthening Ottoman presence in the

western Mediterranean in the way.76 He transformed this Ottoman province to a

busy construction yard. Along the coast, from Churchill to Tlemcen he built

new garrisons or reinforced existing ones. With the Arab tribes of the interior,

he concluded alliances while to the east he sent troops that conquered major

cities such as Constantine, Collo, and Annaba. In 1529, he decided to give

Algiers a free port, unhindered by the Spaniards. He besieged the Penon before

cannonading it “day and night for fifteen days” until reduced to mere rubble.77

Soon after, he ordered the construction of a mole large enough to harbor his

flotilla. For the next two years, the Christians who were made prisoners at the

fall of the Penon were employed in the work of demolishing the whole islet.78

The debris was used to build the breakwater that forms the inner harbor of

Algiers today.79 During the next three centuries, the port was aggrandized by

different Turkish rulers.

76
Tal Shuval, “Remettre l’Algérie à l’heure Ottomane : Questions d’historiographie,” Revue du Monde
Musulman et de la Méditerranée, 95-98 (2002), p. 426.
77
Lane-Poole, Barbary Corsairs, pp. 58-9.
78
To Christian’s dismay, to the loss of the fort to Algiers was added another one: a full convoy,
composed of 9 galleys, 27,000 men, and ammunitions destined for the fort which had just disappeared,
was captured by the Algerian corsairs. Ibid., pp. 60-1.
79
The structure of the port as conceived five centuries ago remains unchanged today. The
infrastructure—shelters for vessels and fortifications—had remained unaltered until after 1830; then,
they were degraded by the French. For a full description of the mole and its degradations see Tassy,
Royaume d’Alger, pp. 36-42 and Rang, Régence d’Alger, pp. 415-16, 368-70 respectively; also see
Kaddache, L’Algérie Ottomane, p. 12.
44
 Once in control of the land, Khayreddin improved his flotilla and sought

control of the seas. In 1529, he launched the construction of two galleys and

within a short time the inner harbor of Algiers was transformed to a

shipbuilding yard.80 That was the beginning of the Algerian navy. From a mere

6 galleots at the beginning, the fleet reached 36 vessels, for the most part

galleys, in the early 1530s. Consequently, Khayreddin could resume his

original activity: corsairing. In that, he relied on able corsairs like Salih Rais,

Dragut Rais (Turghud) or later El-Euldj Ali (Ochiali). Those Ri’yas were both

feared and respected by their Christian adversaries. Dragut, for example,

was the greatest of the leaders of the age—an expert in almost every
branch of the science of war, in command of a large body of the fiercest
fighters of the day, who ever feared the wrath of Dragut more than the
swords of the enemy.81

From then onwards, for the Christian enemies Algiers, those Algerian corsairs

became ‘the Scourge of Christendom’:

The Algerine galleots infested every part of the Western Mediterranean,

levied contributions of slaves and treasure upon the Balearic Isles and
the coasts of Spain, and even passed beyond the straits to waylay the
argosies which were returning to Cadiz laden with the gold and jewels
of the Indies. Nothing was safe from their attacks; not a vessel ran the
gauntlet of the Barbary coast in her passage from Spain to Italy without
many a heart quaking within her. The “Scourge of Christendom” had
begun, which was to keep all the nations of Europe in perpetual alarm
for three centuries. The Algerine Corsairs were masters of the sea, and
they made their mastery felt by all who dared to cross their path; and not
merchantmen only, but galleys-royal of his Catholic Majesty learnt to
dread the creak of the Turkish rowlock.82

80
Rang, Régence d’Alger, pp. 368-70.
81
Currey, Sea-Wolves, pp. 302-3.
82
Lane-Poole, Barbary Corsairs, p. 57. In 1529, the Algerian corsairs made a resounding prize while
on a Moors’ rescue mission: seven Spanish royal galleys, including the flagship, were captured—an
unprecedented feat in the whole history of the Mediterranean Basin.
45
 So successful was Khayreddin at Algiers that Sultan Suleyman I (r.

1520-1566), known as Suleyman the Magnificent, recalled him to

Constantinople in 1533 and promoted him to the supreme post of Kapudan

Pasha, or Grand Admiral of the whole Ottoman fleets (1534-1546). By 1538,

he was in command of over 150 galleys and galleots. By then, the Ottoman

Empire was in full control of the eastern Mediterranean and the field of

confrontations between Muslims and Christians was transferred to the western

Mediterranean. Consequently, the Algerian fleet, which became an integral part

of the Ottoman fleet, played a crucial role in the war for naval supremacy in the

Mediterranean Sea. The fleet was in fact the cornerstone that permitted Algiers

naval supremacy; it was also one two major elements, besides religion, that

shaped diplomatic relations between Algiers and the Christian powers.

Therefore, it is important to consider some aspects relating to the growth and

organization of the Algerian navy.

3. Growth of the Algerian Navy

Khayreddin Barbarossa is the true father of the Algerian Navy; the port

and first galleys he constructed were indeed the beginning of a policy which

was going to give Algiers a strong fleet. From the 1530’s onwards, the fleet

kept growing until it became a match for European fleets and then surpassed

them. In general, the naval history of Ottoman Algeria may be subdivided to

three major phases: the 16th century was the age of the great naval battles that

pitted the Algerian fleet against the Christian fleets whether separately or as
46
part of the Ottoman fleet. While the 17th century was the golden age of

corsairing the next one witnessed a period of decline of the fleet which ended

by the latter’s collapse in the 1820s.

3. 1. Command and the Crews

Supremacy of the fleet was ensured by its composition as well as by the

character of the men who put it afoot. The high command, admiral and sea

captains were chosen in a democratic way; they were chosen by the

Beylerbeylik/Deylik “subject to examination” by the Ta’ifa, or association of

the Ri’yas (sea captains).83 The Kaptan (admiral) was the supreme commander

of the navy; he was chosen among the eldest Ri’yas whose age would not

permit active service; he was a living encyclopedia of maritime experience and

feats. Another admiral, Rais el Bahr, commanding the fleet at active service,

was chosen among the most competent and daring Ri’yas regardless of his age.

The Rais, or captain of a ship, was chosen among the ablest and bravest sea

captains, usually having behind him glorious exploits. El-Euldj Ali is an

example: in 1570, he captured four Maltese galleys—including the flagship;84

in 1572, despite defeat at Lepanto, his talent and bravery brought him to the

supreme post of command of the Ottoman fleet—like Barbarossa before him.

Aboard ships, command fell to the Rais and Bach Rais (his second). The

captains were Turks or Christians who converted to Islam and joined the

83
Peter Earle, The Pirate Wars (London: Methuen & Co Ltd, 2004), p. 43.
84
The flagship is the command ship from which the admiral controls the operations of his fleet during
combat.
47
Algerian navy.85 The latter were underdogged by their former coreligionists

who dubbed them ‘renegades.’ They were despised for having ‘turned Turk’ or

‘taking the Turban’ because, according to their detractors, that “marks the

becoming-barbarian of Christians.”86 But at Algiers they were well-received

and many of them occupied the highest posts in the navy. In 1588, Fray Diego

de Haedo, Spanish Benedictine monk who lived in Algiers at the end of the 16th

century, noted that of the thirty-five galleys or galleots of Algiers eleven were

commanded by Turks while twenty-five were commanded by Christian

renegades.87 The renegades also occupied some of the highest posts of the state

at Algiers. At late 16th century, more than half of the twenty-three governors or

high officials (qaid) were also renegades.88 Many of them also reached the

ultimate position of Deyship. Although the Barbarossa originated from Greece,

they were Moslems by birth as was Dragut Rais; but many of their ablest

successors converted to Islam at a tender age: Hassan Pasha (Sardinian) held

Algiers against Charles V, El-Euldj Ali (Calabrian) was the Muslim hero of

Lepanto, Hadj Hassan Pasha (Mezzomorto the Venetian) stood steadfastly to

French attacks and repelled them, and Murad Rais (Albanese) was first to sail

into the Atlantic and reach the Canary Islands in 1585.89

85
For the role of converted Christians in the Algerian navy see Stephen Clissold, “Christian Renegades
and Barbary Corsairs,” History Today, 26: 8 (Aug., 1976), pp. 509-515.
86
David E. Johnson, “Of Pirates, Captives, Barbarians, and the Limits of Culture,” American Literary
History, 14: 2 (Summer 2002), pp. 366-67.
87
Haedo’s work Topografia e Historia General de Argel (topography and general history of Algiers)
which was published in 1606 is incontestably the earliest western source of information on Ottoman
Algeria.
88
Lane-Poole, Barbary Corsairs, p. 200; Clissold, “Christian Renegades,” p. 512.
89
Pierre Boyer, “Les renégats et la marine de la régence d’Alger,” Revue de l’Occident Musulman et
de la Méditerranée, 39: 1 (1985), pp. 94-95.
48
 In addition to Turks, the crews included Andalusians, natives, and

Christian renegades originating from different countries; by the 17th century,

the latter formed as high as two-thirds of the total number of the crews.90

Captured Christians with certain sea skills did not serve as oarsmen. Aboard

ships, they had freedom of movement but were “shackled when attack was

imminent.”91 Finally, the Galley slaves, called oarsmen were for the most part

Christian slaves captured during corsairing expeditions. They were the rowers

who propelled vessels with oars. All corsair vessels also embarked a

complement of janissaries. Usually 100-140 men on board of a large vessel, the

Janissaries did not mingle with seamen and took no part in rowing or sailing; at

boarding, they were in charge of musketry. An Agha, a superior officer from

the Odjac, the corps of Janissaries, commended this group. With the Rais, he

participated in making decisions, especially when boarding another vessel.

Because he was entirely independent from the Ta’ifa, he formed an efficient

check on the conduct of the Rais.92

Organization aboard vessels was meticulous which was a decisive factor

providing for the strength of the navy. The Rais Etterik, or prize captain, had

no task on the vessel. He was in charge of commandeering the prizes; another

officer was in charge of the heavy artillery. A khodja or secretary was assigned

to the Rais and served as his private secretary; he was also in charge of

90
Michel Fontenay, “La place de la course dans l’économie portuaire : l’exemple de Malte et des ports
barbaresques,” Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales, 43: 6 (1988), p. 1329; Albert Devoulx, “La
marine de la Régence d’Alger,” in Revue Africaine, 13: 77 (Sept., 1869), p. 387.
91
Cordingly, Pirates, p. 84.
92
Ibid.
49
maritime signals and generally was the only literate person on board. The

seamen were of two kinds, Bahri and Sotta affected to the front and rear of the

ship respectively. Service was done by quarters starting at midnight under the

command of the Bach Rais seconded by Rais el Assa.93

3. 2. Size of the Fleet

In the absence of naval records pertaining to the period, the size of the

fleet is marked out by major events. Accordingly, when Salih Pasha (1552-56)

destroyed the Portuguese flotilla anchored at Cadiz, Spain, in 1553 he was at

the command of 40 vessels of different sizes.94 Two year later, when he set out

to expel the Spaniards from Bejaia, he was commanding 30 mighty galleys.”95

In 1555, the fleet counted 32 galleys, which lets presume that naval

construction was done at a pace of two galleys per year. This is enormous

considering that the large fighting galleys were propelled by an average of 150

to over 250 oarsmen and could carry a crew of up to 500 men and over.96 The

Battle of Lepanto, 1571 is one of the largest naval battles in which Algiers

participated with 15 large galleys commanded by El-Euldj Ali. As observed by

a modern war strategist, the Algerian galleots “tended to be better armed and

larger than their Christian opposites.”97 The Algerian fleet also participated in

93
Devoulx, “Marine d’Alger,” 388-89.
94
Ibid. p. 389.
95
Primaudaie, “Commerce et navigation,” pp. 169-70; Hess, Forgotten Frontier, p. 11.
96
Walter Scheidel, “Galley Slaves,” in Paul Finkelman and Joseph Calder Miller, eds. Macmillan
Encyclopedia of World Slavery. Vol. 1 (New York, NY: Simon and Schuster Macmillan, 1998), p. 355.
97
John F. Guilmartin, Jr., “The Tactics of the Battle of Lepanto Clarified: The Impact of Social,
Economic, and Political Factors on Sixteenth Century Galley Warfare,” in Craig L. Symonds, New
Aspects of Naval History: Selected Papers Presented at the Fourth Naval History Symposium, United
50
the Battle of Djerba (1560), the siege of Malta (1565), that of Tunis (1574), the

war against Venice (1638), that against Greeks and Russians (1770-1820), and

the Greek war (1820-1827). The ultimate battle was at Navarino, Greece, in

1827.

Travel accounts and chronicles also give an idea about the fleet and

crews and impressions about them. According to those, the Algerian fleet was

much superior to that of Spain in terms of crews, speed, and handiness. When

corsairing, the Algerian corsairs mocked the Christian galleys knowing that

they could not chase them because the Algerian ships were light, therefore

speedy, contrary to those of the Christians that were heavy and messy.

According to Haedo:

Their galleots are so extremely light and nimble, and in such excellent
order, as they always are; whereas, on the contrary, the Christian galleys
are so heavy, so embarrassed, and in such bad order and confusion, that
it is utterly in vain to think of giving them chase, or of preventing them
from going and coming, and doing just as they their selves please. This
is the occasion that, when at any time the Christian galleys chase them,
their custom is, by way of game and sneer, to point to their fresh-
tallowed poops, as they glide along like fishes before them, all one as if
they showed them their backs to salute: and as in the cruising art, by
continual practise, they are so very expert, so daring, presumptuous, and
fortunate.98

About the corsairs, Haedo wrote:

While the Christians with their galleys are at repose, sounding their
trumpets in the harbours, and very much at their ease regaling
themselves, passing the day and night in banqueting, cards, and dice, the

States Naval Academy 25-26 October 1979 (Annapolis, MD: The U.S. Naval Institute, 1981), p. 48.
For the role of El-Euldj Ali, see pp. 52, 56-8; for the nomination of the latter as supreme admiral of the
Ottoman fleet (1571-1580) see Kaddache, L’Algérie Ottomane, pp. 34-5.
98
As translated by J. Morgan, A Complete History of Algiers to which is Prefixed, an Epitome of the
General History of Barbary, from the earliest Times (London: J. Bettenham, 1729), p. 619.
51
 Corsairs at pleasure are traversing the east and west seas, without the
least fear or apprehension, as free and absolute sovereigns thereof. Nay,
they roam them up and down no otherwise than do such as go in chase
of hares for their diversion. And all this they do without finding any who
offer in the least to oppose or contradict them.99

Pierre Dan, a French ecclesiastic who visited Algiers in 1634, recorded some of

the activities of the Algerian fleet. Despite his crusading ardor, as reflected in

the title of his account, he recorded one of the most splendid descriptions of the

corsairs going out on one of the usual corsairing expeditions:

At Algiers, there are 70 vessels of different sizes; some are armed with
25 guns, others with 35 and 40 guns… I saw the fleet leaving, the
vessels are the most beautiful and the best armed I have ever seen.100

Chevalier d’Arvieux, the envoy of the French King Louis XIV to Dey

Mehmed, resided at Algiers between 1674 and 1675. In his memoirs he left us

this description about the corsairs and the fleet:

It is surprising that people as brutal and barbarian as the Algerians have

this much order and justice; which we rarely find even among the most
perfect Christians. At Algiers, I admired their diligence at arming and
disarming vessels. … there are 3 row-galleys and about 30 vessels of
different sizes; the largest having 50 guns only, the smallest 10-12 guns.
Those constructed at Algiers are lighter and smoothly sailing; they are
good at chasing and taking prizes.101

99
Morgan, Complete History of Algiers, pp. 592-93.
100
Dan, Histoire de Barbarie et de ses corsaires, divisée en six livres où il est traité de leur
gouvernement, de leurs moeurs, de leur cruautés, de leurs brigandages, de leurs sortilèges, & de
plusieurs autres particularités remarquables: Ensemble des grandes misères et des cruels tourments
qu’endurent les chrétiens captifs parmi ces infidèles. (Paris: Pierre Rocolet, 1637), p. 317.
101
Jean-Batiste Labat, ed., Mémoires du chevalier d’Arvieux, envoyé extraordinaire du roy à la Porte,
consul d’Alep, d’Alger, de Tripoli, & autres échelles du Levant, Tome 5 (Paris: Chez Charles-Jean-
Baptiste, 1735), pp. 262-63. D’Arvieux was not only a brilliant diplomat but he was an accomplished
Orientalist. His memoirs, published 30 years after his death, are appreciated for their impartiality and
valuable information they contribute to the history of Algeria.
52
 One finds himself here far from the splendor and numbers given by Dan

just 30 years earlier. This implies that the fleet was in a state of decline by the

1670s. D’Arvieux also recorded that he warned the Algerian authorities that the

Algerian Corsairs sailed without passports; and that they risk capture because

France’s 30 cruising vessels may confuse them with the Tripolitan and Sallee

corsairs.102 This indicates that, at this period, the Algerian fleet was about the

same size as that of France but less armed. In 1676, the same observations

were made by the British Admiral John Narborough who was cruising near the

Algerian shores. This is also the period when the European powers were

engaged in huge naval building programs.103 The consequence was that, by the

end of the 17th century, Algiers had already lost naval supremacy.

When the famed Dr. Shaw, an English who traveled in the country

during the 1730s, published his travel account in 1737, the Algerian fleet had

already reached the bottom.104 According to him, “the naval force of the

Algerines hath been for some years in a declining condition.”105 He gave a

picture about both a declining fleet and competence of command and crews—

or at best an image of a less performing navy. In 1732, the navy had only half a

dozen sailing ships, from 36 to 50 Guns, and “at the same time had not half that

number of brave and experienced Captains.”106 Consequently, the lack of

102
Labat, Mémoires du chevalier d’Arvieux, p. 114.
103
Panzac, Corsaires barbaresques, pp. 19, 34.
104
Shaw’s account is the best known and most quoted work among Anglo-Saxon writers. Chapters IV
and V, however, are reproduction of Tassy’s work Histoire du royaume d’Alger which had been
published some ten years earlier along with significant parts of chapters VI, VII, and VIII.
105
Thomas Shaw, Travels, or Observations Relating to Several Parts of Barbary and the Levant
(Oxford, England: Step H. Niblett, 1737), p. 70.
106
Shaw, Travels, p. 70.
53
experience and competence of captains, due to few naval engagements, had

diminished the character and affected the reputation of the whole navy.

The size and armament of the fleet are better known for the period 1737-

1827 than for preceding ones because of the availability of yearly records as

summarized in Table 2 (Naval Force of Algiers, 1737-1827). The French

consulate at Algiers recorded the activities of the corsairs in registers that went

uninterrupted throughout that period. That was possible because the peace

treaties Algiers signed with the different European countries required it. For

identification questions, the ships from both countries were to carry passes, or

passports, so as to avoid harassment and capture. The passports also permitted

legalization of prizes. As far as the treaty with France is concerned, the

Algerian corsairs had to get two documents from the French Consulate before

going out cruising: a nationality certificate and a passport. Those served as

protection for the corsairs and their prizes against capture by the French fleet

but also allowed them to visit French ports (in cases of bad weather, wreckage,

or need for supplies).107 The registers in question, therefore, preserved all the

information relating to the fleet and corsairing.108 For matters of comparison,

one should keep in mind that at its zenith in 1625, the Algerian fleet counted a

hundred vessels of different sizes.109 During the 1630s, and according to Dan, it

107
E. Rouard de Card, Traités de la France Avec les pays de l’Afrique du Nord: Algérie, Tunisie,
Tripolitaine, Maroc (Paris: A. Pédone, Éditeur, 1906), pp. 52-60.
108
Albert Devoulx edited those records in 8 volumes entitled: Les archives du consulat-géneral de
France à Alger (1865).
109
Fontenay, “La course dans l’économie portuaire,” p. 1327.
54
counted 70 vessels. One hundred years later, and this is where the records start;

only 17 vessels totalizing 100 guns formed the fleet.

Table 2: Naval Force of Algiers, 1737-1827

Year Largest Total Total Pierriers Note

ships Vessels Guns

1737 1 18 guns 17 100 127

1740 1 16 guns 14 74 206
1750 1 58 guns 12 272 50
1760 2 44 guns 27 322 1763, 5 merchantmen
1770 1 42 guns 13 196
1780 4 18 guns 28 360 4
1790 1 26 guns 4 36 Almost non-existent
1800 2 36 guns 16 335 (1) named The American
1810 1 50 guns 11 269 A squadron (3 frigates & 1
brick commanded by Rais
Hamidou)
1816 1 50 guns 15 401 6 Prior to British-Dutch
expedition
1816 1 22 guns 2 40 After British-Dutch
expedition
1817 1 22 guns 7 120 (1) 14 guns (built at Leghorn,
Italy for Algiers)
1818 1 46 guns 11 252 (1) 46 guns (sent by the Sultan)
(1) 36 guns (sent by King of
Morocco)
(1) 32 guns (built at Algiers)
1820 1 46 guns 14 320 1821, a squadron (8 ships) sent
to Turkey to help in war against
Greek.
1825 1 12 guns 2 24 1926, a squadron (8 ships) sent
to Turkey to help in war against
Greek.
1827 1 50 guns 14 296 (1) 62 guns & (1) 40 guns,
(were at Alexandria, Egypt)

The last passport delivered by the French Consul to Algerian corsairs was dated
May 26, 1827.

Note: Pierriers are swivel guns used for throwing stones.

Source: Devoulx, “La marine de la régence d’Alger.”

55
3. 3. The Fleet and Corsairing

In the 16th century, the fleet was composed essentially from galleys and

galleots—those being smaller and lighter—propelled by oars and dependant

entirely on human power. The galleys dominated the naval history of Algiers

until they were superseded by a new type of vessels, the man-of-war or sailing

battleship. The galleys were heavily armed and were primarily used in

squadron warfare in which hundreds of such vessels and tens of thousands of

fighting men were generally involved.110 The galleots, however, had no fire

power—or almost—and were for the most adopted for a different kind of

warfare called corsairing or guerre de course, because they were “quicker,

handier, and more maneuverable than the galley.”111 Corsairing, consisted

mainly of chasing then boarding enemy merchant vessels, called also

merchantmen; what ensued was much like land fighting—body-to-body fights

whereby the strongest and bravest ended up by taking control of the enemy’s

ship and making it prize. Algiers rather excelled in that kind of fighting

especially after the retreat of the Ottoman fleet from the western Mediterranean

following the Battle of Lepanto in 1571. Algerian corsairing vessels were either

built in local shipyards or were captured merchantmen, which were armed and

converted for corsairing. Naval stores and ammunitions (including masts, sail-

cloth, ropes, cannons, powder, bullets, etc,) were bought either directly in the

110
At Lepanto (1571), the largest and last sea battle involving galleys, a total force of about 450 galleys
(Muslim and Christian) took part in fighting. More about armament, command, and tactics can be
found in Guilmartin, “Tactics of Lepanto,” p. 41-65.
111
Ibid., p. 45-47.
56
Netherlands or via Jew brokers at Leghorn and Tangiers.112 They were also

partly secured by treaties with the European countries, particularly the small

Nordic powers— the Netherlands and later Denmark and Sweden—under the

form of annual tributes.113

It should be noted here that export of naval material to the Ottoman

North African regencies in general was prohibited by catholic laws because it

was seen as enhancement of Muslim warfare against Christendom. In the

counter-Reformation countries, such as Spain, Austria, Hungary, parts of

Germany, Italian city-states, Malta, and the Papal state, export was prohibited

by Papal edicts and Inquisition was strict about it.114 In 1694, for example, the

Catholic Church excommunicated a Leghorn merchant because he exported

bales of plain paper to Tunis; the argument was that it could be used by the

Muslims for making cartridges.115 In protestant Europe, however, particularly

England and the Nordic states, such considerations were the least of their

preoccupations; rather it was a case for rejoice. Since Muslims warfare was

against the ‘papists,’ their worst enemies, the protestant states perceived it “as

one means of counter-balancing Spanish and Papal powers.”116 Furthermore,

export of such products favored their commercial expansion into

Mediterranean and North African markets. For those reasons, England and the

112
Fontenay, “La course dans l’économie portuaire,” p. 1329.
113
Devoulx, “Marine d’Alger,” pp. 386-87.
114
Kenneth Parker, “Reading ‘Barbary’ in Early Modern England, 1550–1685,” in Matthew
Birchwood and Matthew Dimmock, eds., Cultural Encounters between East and West: 1453–1699
(England: Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 2004), p. 90.
115
Fontenay, “La course dans l’économie portuaire,” p. 1333.
116
H. G. Barnby, The Prisoners of Algiers: An Account of the Forgotten American-Algerian War 1785-
1797 (London/New York: Oxford University Press, 1966), p. 68.
57
Netherlands were the largest providers of those strategic products for the

Algerian navy; Algiers was entirely dependent on this external market for

maintaining its fleet. Subsequently, and in a sense, the protestant countries

were paid off by a lucrative trade and advantageous treaties with Algiers.

Illustrative of this view is the remark Dey Hassan Pasha (r. 1791-1798) made to

the Americans who, dropping empty-handed on Algiers, sought to conclude a

treaty as advantageous as that of the Netherlands:

but what good did you ever do us to expect to obtain peace on the same
terms as Holland, who has been supplying us with stores for a century
when we were at war with Spain [?]117

By early 17th century, Algiers had become a dominant naval power in

the Mediterranean and the row-galleys were progressively abandoned as sail

and broadside technology was introduced.118 Henceforth, fighting vessels

carried batteries of guns and used sail for cruising instead of human power.

This process of renovation was accelerated after several hundred English,

Dutch, and other European former privateers joined the Algerian navy at the

end of a wave of wars that swept Europe.119 The renegades introduced new

knowledge like the broadside—called also the round ship—which was

introduced by the Dutch Simon Danser in 1606.120 Another Dutch renegade,

117
As cited in James L. Cathcart, The Captives: Eleven Years a Prisoner in Algiers, compiled by his
Daughter, J. B. Newkirk (Laporte, Indiana: Herald, 1899), p. 159.
118
Earle, Pirate Wars, pp. 40-1. A broadside is a battery of guns positioned on one side of a ship that
could fire simultaneously; thus disposing of a huge fire power capacity.
119
Power rivalries and dynastic warfare turned Europe, colonies, and seas into a battleground.
Privateering flourished as the European rulers encouraged privateers to attack and harass each others’
commercial shipping.
120
G. N. Clark, “The Barbary Corsairs in the Seventeenth Century,” Cambridge Historical Journal, 8:
1 (1944), p. 27.
58
Murad Rais, pushed corsairing out of the Mediterranean to new distances never

reached before. The navy also absorbed the expelled Moriscos who joined

massively after 1609. Their skill, entrepreneurial capacities, and grievances

against Spain made them a precious asset for the navy. 121

In the 16th century, most of the galleys were owned by the state and

functioned on a similar basis as the navies of other states. Nonetheless, there

existed a difference and it was of great significance: Algiers was at perpetual

war with Christendom therefore the fleet was constantly engaged in battles,

either squadron warfare or corsairing. In the 17th century, the state continued to

own most of the galleys but many of the sailing ships were privately owned;

but at the end of the 18th century, as the use of galleys declined, the Deylik

maintained ownership of the flagship only.122 Ships were acquired and fitted

out by private owners who sometimes were the Ry’as of those ships, but most

of the time corporations of shipowners, merchants, corsairs, and state officials

armed the ships and shared in corsairing profit.123 The liberalization of

ownership touched also ordinary people such as shopkeepers, artisans and even

women and prisoners.124 In general, anyone who had savings could invest in

121
For Moriscos’ relations with Algerian corsairs see Hess, “The Moriscos,” pp. 6-9.
122
State Papers and Publick Documents of the United States, From the Accession of George
Washington to the Presidency, Exhibiting a Complete View of our Foreign Relations since that Time,
edited by Thomas B. Wait, 3rd ed. (Boston, MA: T. B. Wait, 1817-1819), 10:42, Report of Secretary of
State Relative to Mediterranean Trade, Dec. 28, 1790). (Hereafter cited as SPPD).
123
Fontenay, “La course dans l’économie portuaire,” pp. 1338, 1340.
124
Women sold their jewelry and participated in the armament of corsairs in return for profits,
Grammont, Histoire d’Alger, p. 150; James L. Cathcart, an American prisoner, could make savings and
bought his own ship. Cathcart, The Captives, p. 157.
59
ownership of sailing vessels because it was a very attractive activity and “was

likely to satisfy a man’s desire for piety and profit at the very same time.”125

The 17th century was the golden age of corsairing; it was during this

period that the corsairs reached the highest point of their power in terms of

prizes and captives. It was also during this period that the corsairs’ cruisers

reached as far as Madeira, archipelago in the Atlantic Ocean (1617), Plymouth,

on the English Channel (1625), Reykjavik, Iceland (1627), and Baltimore,

Ireland (1631).126 Laugier de Tassy, a French diplomat who visited Algiers

between 1724 and 1725, even recorded that the corsairs had been as far as

Newfoundland, Canada.127 This pace of growth would be sustained until the

end of the century; by then, new political developments and naval technologies

were going to alter Algerian supremacy irreversibly.

Conclusion

A series of Spanish conquests of Algerian coastal cities, with which

violence and brutality were so intimately associated, led to the establishment of

Ottoman rule in North Africa. The city and regency of Algiers then emerged as

a strong Mediterranean power that played an important role in the struggle

which opposed Muslims to Christians, a struggle which origins go back to the

crusades of the medieval ages. During the three hundred years of its existence,

Algiers resisted continuous Christian attacks. Between 1505 and 1541, the

125
Earle, Pirate Wars, p. 43.
126
Lane-Poole, Barbary Corsairs, pp. 107-108.
127
Tassy, Royaume d’Alger, p. 266.
60
Spanish mobilized Christendom and launched a series of crusading expeditions

which caused Algiers to develop its navy and adopt corsairing as a means for

thwarting those aggressions. From then onwards, Algiers strengthened its fleet

and turned it into a formidable striking force that retaliated forcibly and

effectively against Christian assaults.

After the crashing defeat of its expedition of 1541, Spain shifted interest to the

New World and did not reappear in the Mediterranean until about two centuries later.

Although Spain ceased sending expeditions against Algiers, warfare continued

on the high seas; but in 1732 it renewed with conquest of Algerian cities and

re-took control of Oran. Meanwhile other European countries—powerful and

lesser powerful—joined into the chorus but to no avail. Algiers resoluteness to

stand up to Christian assaults won it the reputation of the ‘invincible city.’ At

the end, Algiers survived to three centuries of pressures, intimidations, blockades,

cannonading, and attempts of invasion and consolidated its position as a

Mediterranean power that inspired both fear and respect but also hatred. That hatred

found expression in a variety of distortions featuring Algerian corsairs as inveterate

pirates that had to be exterminated. By doing so, Christian countries legitimated their

aggressions against Algiers. Prevailing laws and practice, however, while outlawing

piracy, gave corsairing and corsairs legitimacy.

61
 CHAPTER II

Corsairing between Distortions and Legitimacy

The Barbary corsairs are the plague of nature, the pest of humankind,
the tyrants of common liberty, the executioners of universal innocence,
who incessantly harm by cruelties unknown to the rest of men and
which further surpasses that of tigers and lions born in their country.1

Pierre Dan (1637)

Introduction

Western writings have reduced the history of Algeria under Ottoman

rule to that of a barbarous state and a nest of pirates that lived parasitically on

plunder and from the sale and ransom of Christian captives. For westerners,

Europeans and Americans alike, Algiers was a source of troubles and a

nuisance for the civilized Christian world. This view was so fossilized that the

epithet ‘Scrounge of Christendom’ became indisputably the twin name for

Algiers. They portrayed the inhabitants of Algiers as savage sub-humans and

ferocious pirates who robbed, killed, captured, and enslaved countless numbers

of helpless white Christians. This, in fact, is part of many legends that were

developed by western writers and historians about the so called pirates of the

1
Dan, Histoire de Barbarie, p. 4.
62
Barbary Coast.2 Alleging piracy and slavery, the western countries mobilized

forces, naval as well as religious, and sent expedition after expedition to

‘punish’ what they termed ‘Barbary pirates’. These legends served as a

justification for continuing occupation of Algerian port-cities, a disguise for

crusading aggressions, and a means of pressure for obtaining greedy

commercial privileges and concessions. Later on, by the time Algiers lost naval

supremacy in the Mediterranean, these views served as a justification for

assaulting and ultimately colonizing Algeria.3

From a different angle, however, the history of Algeria presents itself

differently.4 It is the history of a people, diverse as it was, that fought to

counter European attacks and preserve its freedom and culture. Whether

descendents of Arab conquerors, converted native Berbers, Andalusian

refugees, or Turkish rulers, the inhabitants of Algiers were Muslims who

realized that their enemy was ‘one’ and it was ‘Christian.’ Weak and disunited

at the start, they stood up to thwart the threat of a new wave of crusades

regardless of their internal disputes and racial differences.

2
A myriad of works present this point of view. Two classical works are particularly influential: Robert
Lambert Playfair, The Scourge of Christendom: Annals of British Relations with Algiers Prior to the
French Conquest (London: Smith, Elder & Co, 1884) and Stanley Lane-Poole, The Barbary Corsairs
(New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1890).
3
J. E. Swain, “The Occupation of Algiers in 1830: A Study in Anglo-French Diplomacy,” Political
Science Quarterly, 48: 3 (1933), p. 360; Lotfi Ben Rejeb, “Barbary’s ‘Character’ in European Letters,
1514-1830: An Ideological Prelude to Colonization,” Dialectical Anthropology, 6 (1982), p. 345.
4
For one of the rare impartial and balanced scholarly works undertaken by Western writers see
Godfrey Fisher, Barbary Legend: War Trade and Piracy in North Africa, 1415-1830 (London: Oxford
University Press, 1957). Also, an unprejudiced travel account could be found in Laugier de Tassy,
Histoire du royaume d’Alger avec l’état présent de son gouvernement, de ses forces de terre et de mer
& de ses revenus, police, justice politique & commerce (Amsterdam: Chez Henri du Sauzet, 1725).
63
1. Distortions and Definitions

Corsairing was a maritime practice that flourished in the Mediterranean

Basin between the 13th and 19th centuries. Originally, it functioned as a form of

economic warfare whereby the belligerent European states issued commissions

to privately-owned ships permitting them to attack the commerce of the enemy.

Contrary to piracy, corsairing was a legal practice, well regulated and

meticulously organized. Those who engaged in corsairing detained

authorizations, called ‘letters of marque’ from the belligerent states that

allowed them to plunder enemy shipping. Since the crews were not paid, those

were allowed to make profits from the booty they could take, including ships,

cargoes, and captives.5 By the 16th century, corsairing reached the southern

shores of the Mediterranean and the Ottoman provinces of North Africa

became the center of Muslim corsairing.6 By then, it transmuted and took the

form of holy warfare against the infidels—be they Muslims or Christians.

Officially, the Declaration of Paris of 1856 put an end to that practice.7

Etymologically, ‘corsair,’ from which the verb ‘corsairing’ may be

extracted, is a term that derives from the Latin word cursarius (from currere,

meaning to chase or faire la course).8 In the Mediterranean Basin, the French

expression “guerre de course” is commonly used to describe the activity of

5
For the intricacies of prize laws see D. J. Llewelyn Davies, “The Development of Prize Law under Sir
Leoline Jenkins.” Transactions of the Grotius Society, Vol. 21, Problems of Peace and War, Papers
Read before the Society in the Year 1935 (1935), pp. 149-160.
6
Leos Muller, Consuls, Corsairs, and Commerce: The Swedish Consular Service and Long-Distance
Shipping, 1720-1815 (Stockholm: Uppsala University Press, 2004), p. 31.
7
Francis R. Stark, The Abolition of Privateering and the Declaration of Paris (New York: Columbia
University, 1897), pp. 139-52.
8
Arthur L. Hayward and John P. Sparkes, The Concise English Dictionary, 5th edition (London:
Cassell Ltd/Omega Books Limited, 1984), p. 253.
64
chasing vessels on the high sea; while the English term ‘privateering’ bears an

equal legal meaning.9 But the term ‘corsair’ has different linguistic and cultural

connotations: in Mediterranean languages, it means ‘privateer’ or private owner

of a vessel who legally engages in chasing enemy shipping. In English,

however, it is usually used as a synonym for ‘pirate.’10 From the beginning of

the 16th century to early 19th century, the term ‘corsair’ was particularly

attached to the Muslim seafarers who were active along the North African coast

in as much the same way as ‘buccaneer,’ for example, was used to describe

Caribbean Sea pirates.11

1. 1. Corsairing or Retaliatory Muslim Warfare

On the European shores of the Mediterranean, corsairing became an

economic asset; it made the wealth of such cities as Naples, Palermo, Leghorn,

(Italy), Valetta (Malta), Marseille (France), and many others. Those became

prosperous markets were prizes and slaves were sold.12 For Malta, particularly,

piracy had acquired such a magnitude that by the 15th century it was sanctioned

as corsairing. It played so an important role in the economy of the island that it

became its principle source of income. It was also a redoubtable weapon that

had been used against the Muslims ever since the expulsion of the Knights of

St. John from the Holy Lands and Rhodes by the Muslims. For those reasons,

9
“Privateering,” The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, 2001. (Accessed 26 May 2008).
10
“Pirate,” The Oxford Pocket Thesaurus of Current English, 2008. (Accessed 26 May 2008).
Synonyms of pirate include: buccaneer, rover, sea rover, sea robber, corsair, freebooter.
11
Frank R. Stockton. Buccaneers and Pirates of our Coasts (New York: Grosset & Dunlap, Publishers,
1898), p. 3; “Corsair,” Microsoft Encarta Premium Suite 2005. (Accessed 16 May 2008).
12
Jean-Louis Delmasso, “La peur des corsaires barbaresques en Mediterranean à l’époque moderne à
travers l’exemple de Nice et son arrière-pays,” Pays Vésubien, 2 (2001), p. 51.
65
Maltese piracy was not condemned; instead it “received the encouragement and

the patronage of the government of the day as it helped materially to keep the

Moslems at bay” and contributed, by means of goods captured from Muslims,

“to the victualling of the island, which had to rely on outside sources of food to

feed the inhabitants.13

Corsairing was not exclusively Maltese; corsairing against the Muslim

‘infidels’ was an international affair which gathered in “the name of Christ the

dregs of all Mediterranean ports.”14 Already, and since the 10th century,

Greeks, Sardinians, and Genoese had been by far the “worst members of the

fraternity of rovers.”15 Those did not limit their depredations to Christian

merchant shipping but they “ventured eastward to plunder Turkish ships and

possessions in the Levant.”16 By the 16th century, however, corsairing acquired

a religious dimension and Christian attacks against Muslims expanded to reach

the southern shores of the Mediterranean. Actually, Christian corsairing was a

continuation of the tradition of crusades.17 Generally, the Knights of Malta

were the most aggressive participants in that form of warring:

As the Order’s traditional enmity with the Moslem was at its height
when it settled in Malta, official sanction was readily given to Maltese
corsairing as such practice tallied admirably with the Order’s aggressive
policy toward the Moslems.18

13
Cassar, “Maltese Corsairs,” p. 138.
14
Fontenay, “La course dans l’économie portuaire,” p. 1326.
15
Lane-Poole, The Barbary Corsairs, p. 24.
16
Cassar, “Maltese Corsairs,” p. 137.
17
Xavier Labat Saint-Vincent, “La guerre de course et ses effets sur le commerce en méditerrané au
cours des guerres de cent ans et l’indépendance américaine,” in Michel Vergé-Franceschi and Antoine-
Marie Graziani, eds., La guerre de course en Méditerranée (1515-1830). (Paris: Presses de l’Université
Paris IV-Sorbonne, 2000), p. 160 ; Muller, Consuls, Corsairs, and Commerce, p. 54.
18
Cassar, “Maltese Corsairs,” p. 141.
66
 Faced with such aggressiveness, Algerian seamen adopted corsairing as

a retaliatory form of warfare against Christian enemies. Usually, corsairing

expeditions ended up by seizure of enemy ships and their cargoes, including

crews and passengers who were sold at the slave market of Algiers. To

traditional attacks on Christian seaborne trade, the circle of maritime warfare of

the Algerian corsairs involved also high seas battles in which squadrons of

galleys participated as well as surprise attacks on coastal European towns.

Ultimately, corsairing became a form of warfare through which Muslims and

Christians alike continued to wage holy wars.19

Although Mediterranean corsairing involved both Muslims and

Christians, western writings definitely attribute the role of the ‘bad guys’ to the

Algerian corsairs whom they describe as “the most dangerous pirates the world

has ever seen.”20 The most frequently used epithet that describes what is

commonly referred to as the ‘Barbary pirates’ is ‘scourge of Christendom.’

This term is derived from the title of one of the most influential late nineteenth-

century accounts about Algerian diplomatic relations with the Christian

countries, particularly those with Great Britain. In 1884, Robert L. Playfair,

British Consul-General at Algiers (1867-1897), brought out a work dubbing

them ‘Scourge of Christendom.’21 Over a century later, this term has become a

standardized synonym for the Algerian corsairs and the biased images and

prejudices attached to it have persisted unaltered up till today. Vilified and

19
Muller, Consuls, Corsairs, and Commerce, p. 31.
20
Thomas G. Frothingham, “The Armed Merchantman,” Current History, 7: 1: 3 (Dec., 1917), p. 465.
21
Robert L. Playfair, The Scourge of Christendom.
67
defamed, the Muslims corsairs are always referred to as the pirates from the

Barbary Coast who, for centuries, had ravaged shipping, enslaved Christians,

and ransomed European states.22

Yet, this damning view is loaded not only with mistakes and distortions

but it is also sheer crusading and anti-Algerian propaganda that later served as

an argument to embellish the conquest of Algeria. The American scholar

Andrew C. Hess observes with some impartiality that Playfair “describes the

corsairs in the manner of the mediaeval propagandists against Islam.”23

Likewise, the American historian Paul J. Zingg explains that the term ‘pirate’ is

“used freely and incorrectly by Western scholars” because what they call

‘Barbary pirates’ were privateers “commissioned by their respective

governments in time of war to contest the enemy and disrupt his commercial

shipping.” Unlike pirates, he argued, they were “the legitimate corsairs of an

acknowledged ruler” and “were subject to regulations affecting their targets,

cruising areas, and booty.”24 For French historian Fernand Braudel (1902-

1985), however, “western historians have encouraged [westerners] to see only

the pirates of Islam, in particular the Barbary corsairs” while Europe’s schemes

for the conquest of Algiers were happily forgotten.25 Spanish historian Josep

Fontana, however, is one of the rare western historians who, contrary to

22
In this matter, the sources abound; within this single sentence, for example, one may easily denote
the biased attribution of the term ‘pirate’ and ‘corsair’ to Muslims and Christians who were engaged in
the same activity: “concurrently with the ascendancy of Moslem pirates in the Middle Sea the Maltese
Islands became themselves the thorny nest of many a Maltese corsair who preyed on Turkish and
Moorish commerce.” Cassar, “Maltese Corsairs,” pp. 137-38.
23
Hess, The Forgotten Frontier, p. 89.
24
Paul J. Zingg, “One-Dimensional History: A Review of United States-North African Historiography
since Independence,” ASA Review of Books, vol. 1 (1975), p. 153.
25
Fernand Braudel, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II, vol. 2
(New York: Harper and Row, 1973), pp. 754-55,865-67; see also Fisher, Barbary Legend, pp. 1-5.
68
established perceptions, goes further and considers that European attacks

against Algiers were ‘piracy’:

Our history books say, for example, that France took over Algiers to
defend it against the piracy of petty Muslim kings. But they do not tell
us that these North African kingdoms were, in their turn, victims of
European piracy that prevented them from developing normal trade and
forced them into corsairing.26

The image of the ‘Algerian pirate’ is deeply ingrained in the western

mind. Most likely, the earliest work which painted such fallacious image was

that of Haedo. Haedo’s Topographie et histoire générale d’Alger, is invariably

cited as a ‘testimony’ and ‘trustworthy’ source of information in western

histories about Algeria.27 Re-reading Haedo, however, provides no more that a

view impregnated with a blind crusading hatred and aggressiveness against

Islam and Algiers that is straightforwardly expressed and which became a

classic for both modern and contemporary crusaders. The following extract,

although lengthy, is worth reproducing because it summarizes the western view

about Algerian corsairs:

They here snap up a ship laden with gold and silver from India, and
there another richly brought from Flanders; now they make prize of a
vessel from England, then of another from Portugal. … Insomuch that
before these Corsairs have been absent from their abodes much longer
than perhaps twenty or thirty days, they return home rich, with their
vessels crowded with captives, and ready to sink with wealth; in one
instant, and with scarce any trouble, reaping the fruits of all that the
avaricious Mexican and greedy Peruvian have been digging from the
bowels of the earth with such toil and sweat, and the merchant with such

26
As quoted in Paul A. Silverstein, “The New Barbarians: Piracy and Terrorism on the North African
Frontier,” The New Centennial Review, 5: 1 (Spring 2005), p. 185.
27
Haedo published his book Topografia e Historia General de Argel in 1606. The book was translated
by the French Dr. Monnereau and A. Berbrugger as “Topographie et histoire générale d’Alger,” 17
parts, Revue Africaine, xiv (1870), xv (1871), xxiv; (1880), xxv (1881).
69
 manifest perils has for so long been scraping together, and has been so
many thousand leagues to fetch away, either from the east or west, with
inexpressible danger and fatigue. Thus they have crammed most of the
houses, the magazines, and all the shops of this Den of Thieves with
gold, silver, pearls, amber, spices, drugs, silks, cloths, velvets, &c.,
whereby they have rendered this city the most opulent in the world:
insomuch that the Turks call it, not without reason, their India, their
Mexico, their Peru.28

Definitely, all this makes nonsense: when the European thief kills and

robs innocents in the Americas and India, Haedo moans his “manifest perils,

danger, and fatigue”; but when that same robber is legally robbed by the enemy

he had made, the latter is slandered and his homeland is transformed to a “Den

of Thieves”!

1. 2. Barbary: Misconceptions and Prejudices

Distortions exceed the nature of the practice of corsairing to the region

at large. It is customary in western writing to call ‘Barbary’ the costal region of

Northwest Africa that extends from the Atlantic shore to roughly the

boundaries of nowadays Egypt. Similarity, the Ottoman regencies of North

Africa (Algiers, Tunis, Tripoli) and the kingdom of Morocco are commonly

referred to as the “Barbary States” while the Muslim corsairs are called the

‘Barbary Pirates.’29 According to Westerners’ thought, ‘Barbary’ is indicative

of the “notoriety for greed and ferociousness” of the inhabitants of the area.30

What is common knowledge, however, is although a similarly sounding word

28
As translated by Morgan, Complete History of Algiers, p. 593-94.
29
For a general approach to misconceptions see Godfrey, Barbary Legend, pp. 1-13.
30
Michael B. Oren, Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East 1776 to the Present. New
York: W. W. Norton, 2007), p. 18.
70
(barba’rei or ‫ )بربري‬exists in Arabic, it refers to one of the ethnic groups living

in the region but not the geographic area or the culture of its people as it is

understood in the West. This ignorance has generated numerous legends and

distorted images about the region and its population: the land was seen “as not

only hostile but also as barbaric as the ‘wilds of Africa,’” and the inhabitants of

North Africa were so dehumanized that they “had become objects of

ethnographical curiosity, and even ‘savages’ needing to be civilized.”31

According to western misconceptions, ‘Barbary’ is the land where

barbarous, ruthless, pitiless, and animal-like sub-humans lived.32 More,

Westerners mistakenly believe that the inhabitants of Barbary are called

‘Berbers’ because they were wild barbarians, irreligious, and behave

instinctively like ferocious animals. Tassy had left us a resounding testimony:

Many people do not make the difference between the inhabitants of

Barbary and the savages and simply call them animals; they even think
that animals are more estimable than them. … The names Turk,
Muhammedian, Arab, and Moor are sufficient reasons to question these
people’s faith and even make Christians doubt whether they have any
notion of God at all. … Such preconceived ideas could be easily
reversed if they would make the effort of reading history and travel
accounts. They would be convinced that countless people in the world,
some even in Europe, are more ignorant and more savage; and their
customs are more ferocious and brutal than those of Barbary inhabitants
who are today more civilized and more sociable.33

This excerpt is interesting in the sense that it clearly underlines

preconceptions and prejudices of Westerners about North Africa, and Algiers

31
Thomson, Barbary and Enlightenment, p. 2.
32
For more of the kind see Ralph P. Locke, “Cutthroats and Casbah Dancers, Muezzins and Timeless
Sands: Musical Images of the Middle East,” 19th-Century Music, 22: 1 (Summer 1998), pp. 20-53.
33
Tassy, Royaume d’Alger, pp. 1-2.
71
particularly, by the very term they used to refer to the region. It is also

indicative of a few balanced and unbiased writings, which attempted to combat

prejudices and dissipate the connotations of barbarian and barbarism that are

attached to Barbary in the western mind. Some writers have indeed attempted

to demonstrate that the name “had nothing to do with the behavior and degree

of civilization of the inhabitants.”34 A Russian naval officer on visit to Algiers

between 1776 and 1777, for example, wrote:

The Romans called these people ‘Barbarian’ as they did with all those
they had conquered, and the Europeans have conserved the habit until
today, although these peoples do not at all deserve such a contemptuous
name. … The name of Barbarian only suits a ferocious, lawless and
cruel people, but the Barbaresques seem to me in general to have milder
and more welcoming to strangers than many Europeans.35

1. 2. 1. Defining ‘Barbary’

Attempting a definition of the term Barbary is an intricate task.

Historically, the term first came into use in Italy about the early 16th century

and lasted until the French Conquest in 1830. The different etymologies,

however, explain in part the linguistic and ideological complexity of the term

because the word ‘barbary’ cannot be simply explained by its origins or

history. Etymologically, the term is understood to have both Arabic as well as

Greco-Roman origins. Arabic origins include the words ‘Ber or ‫ ’بر‬meaning

un-inhabited because this part of North Africa was scarcely populated when the

Arabs first settled it in the 8th century AD; the second word is ‘barbara or ‫’بربر‬

34
Thomson, Barbary and Enlightenment, p. 14.
35
As cited in M. Canard, “Une description de la cote barbaresque au dix-huitième siècle par un officier
de la marine russe,” Revue Africaine, 95 (1951), pp. 147-48.
72
meaning a person speaking beneath his teeth, or a sort of muttering or babbling,

because the original inhabitants spoke a language that was un-understandable

to them; so they called the inhabitants ‫بربر‬, pl. ‫ برابرة‬or Berber and, in the long,

the land came to be known as ‘barbary.’ The second origin of the word is

attributed to the Greco-Romans. The Romans used to call non-Romanized

inhabitants at the periphery of the Roman Empire barbarus, meaning

‘barbarous,’ whatever the region they lived in. Those were foreign people who

were outsiders to the circle of Roman civilization. Their languages, manners,

and customs and traditions were different from that of the Romans. Therefore,

for the Romans, the Latin word barbarus meant the same thing as ‘outsider’ or

‘foreigner’.36 Laugier de Tassy however held a different view; according to

him, when the Roman armies of Julius Caesar and Augustus conquered this

vast part of North Africa, which used to be called Mauritania, they called it

‘barbary’ because the people who inhabited it opposed a fierce resistance to

Roman conquest never witnessed before.37

The Latin word barbarus in itself is derived from the Greek barbaros,

“probably a word imitative of un-intelligible speech,” which means “foreign in

speech, barbarian, hence harsh-sounding.”38 This word is close in meaning to

the Arab world Barbara, which led many to conclude that the Arabs

36
For the Different etymologies see E. Mercier, “Ethnographie de l’Afrique septentrionale : notes sur
l’origine du peuple berbère. Revue Africaine. 15: 85 (Jan., 1871), pp. 421-26; Jean Monlaü, Les états
barbaresques, (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1964), pp. 7-12, Thomson, Barbary and
Enlightenment, pp. 13-15.
37
Tassy, Royaume d’Alger, p. 3. This view is based on the narrative St. Augustine, a native of North
Africa, who used the term barbarus as a substitute for North African natives who resisted Roman rule
and Christianity.
38
“Barbarous,” The Concise English Dictionary, p. 87.
73
themselves borrowed the term berber, indicating the natives of North Africa,

from Greek and Latin.39 A second view, however, closely links the word

‘barbary’ to the Latin word barbaria (noun) meaning barbarian. Originally

meaning “one non-Greek or non-Roman,” by the 15th century, it came to mean

“a savage, a person belonging to some uncivilized race, one destitute of pity or

humanity;” 40 and when used as an adjective it means rude, uncivilized, savage,

cruel, and inhuman.

1. 2. 2. Ideological Interpretation

Whatever the origin of the term ‘barbary’ is, one is inclined to say that,

in content, it remains in essence ideological. Largely used at a time when

animosity between Islam and Christianity reached a zenith and when the

struggle for supremacy was raging between two antagonist supreme powers—

Ottoman and Habsburgs—the term ‘barbary’ undoubtedly reflected a whole

system of beliefs, values, and ideas that predominated at that time among

Europeans. The ‘Turk’, who was also Muslim, was responsible for the

crumbling of a Greco-Roman civilization twice millenary and was threatening

the very heart of Europe;41 therefore, he could not be perceived positively. That

same “Turk” was also present in North Africa: he stopped Christian designs of

conquest and defended Islam in the region. Further, the Turk corsair of Algiers

was a high seas fierce fighter who spread both fear and loathing among

39
Monlaü, Etats barbaresques, p. 8.
40
“Barbarian,” The Concise English Dictionary, p. 87.
41
At its height, Muslim power reached central Europe. In 1453, Constantinople, heir of the Greco-
Roman civilization and capital of the Byzantine Empire fell to the Ottomans; and in 1529, the Turkish
forces besieged Vienna, capital of the mighty Habsburg’s empire but failed to take it.
74
Christian corsairs. Hence, according to European views, the ‘Turk’ was savage,

ferocious, barbarous, cruel, inhuman, ignorant, fanatical, despotic, a menace for

civilization, a plague, and many more attributes of this kind.42 No words,

however, could convey the most hideous crusading image of the Muslim

corsair than those of Pierre Dan. Dan was a redemptionist who specialized in

the ransom and exchange of Christian captives in North Africa. To raise funds,

he toured Europe and “appealed to people’s sensibilities by promoting the

picture of a hellish Barbary.”43 According to him:

The Barbary corsairs are the plague of nature, the pest of the human
race, the tyrants of common liberty, the wholesale executioners of
universal innocence, who incessantly harm by cruelties unknown to the
rest of men and which further surpasses that of tigers and lions born in
their country.44

Even so, crusading writers, such as Dan, often tend to forget that the “Christian

corsairs displayed a ferocity unexcelled even by the fiercest Turks.”45

What matters here is the transportability of the image of ‘Turk’ to North

Africa which probably caused its coastal strip to be dubbed ‘Barbary Coast.’

Even though the Turkish element formed a small percentage of the whole

population of Algiers, the Europeans had no problem extending that image to

all the inhabitants of the region as long as they were subjects of the Ottoman

42
For a sample of these images see Thomson, Barbary and Enlightenment, pp. 16-21; also Elizabeth
M. Dillon, “Slaves in Algiers: Race, Republican Genealogies, and the Global Stage,” American
Literary History, 16: 3 (2004), pp. 413-22.
43
Ben Rejeb, “Barbary’s Character,” p. 347.
44
Dan, Histoire de Barbarie, p. 4.
45
Louis B. Wright and Julia H. Macleod, The First Americans in North Africa: William Eaton’s
Struggle for a Vigorous Policy against the Barbary Pirates, 1799-1805 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press, 1945), p. 6.
75
Empire.46 In fact, only leadership was Turkish but the majority of the

population was of Arab or Berber origins therefore such an image could not be

reasonably expanded to it. Some western writers had indeed depicted the

difference between rulers and ruled as indicated here:

In comparison with the Turks, the Arabs were a gentle people. Despite
persistent conflicts with Portugal and Spain, the Arabs had permitted
commerce with Europe and had shown a certain amount of toleration to
Christians dwelling in their midst. The coming of the Turks changed all
this. Turkish cruelty replaced Arab chivalry.47

Yet, the distorted image of the Turkish corsair was inaccurately applied to all

people regardless of their racial origin or occupation.

When looking into the subtleties of the region and the mistaken

generalizations and hostile attitudes of the Europeans that were ultimately

transferred to the Americans, one may deduce that with or without ‘Turks’,

‘barbary’ was the product of a whole western culture which did not accept the

‘otherness’ of the other. The ‘other’ existed only if he conformed to that

culture, which makes this view a bearer of the seeds of contradiction and

confrontation. This simply meant that western culture was intolerant of the

other, the one who was different—different by custom and tradition, different

by faith, different by institutions, and different by ethnic origin. That was in

short intolerance, racism, and denial of existence to the other. It was an

ideology based on a complex system of beliefs, which actually provided the

46
The Turks represented a small percentage of the total population (about 30,000 Turks of an estimated
population of about 120,000 in 1621 or about 25%). Even those originating from the Levant were not
all from Turkish origin. More, the feared corsairs were largely European Christians who converted to
Islam and opted for joining the Algerian navy. Statistics are from Henri-D. de Grammont, “Relations
entre la France & la Régence d’Alger au XVIIe siècle,” 12 parts, Revue Africaine, 23 (1879), p. 136.
47
Wright and Macleod, First Americans, p. 5.
76
basis for a variety of programs and shaped the policies of western rulers and

their governments.

1. 3. Slavery and Captivity

No other issue in Algerian-Christian relations has been submitted to

distortions, misrepresentations, and one-sided interpretations than the problem

of slavery. Although slavery was an endemic Mediterranean practice, western

historians conveniently reduced it to the Batistan and Bagno Belique.48

According to current western scholarly standards, slavery in the Mediterranean

was a deed committed solely by the Muslim corsairs who captured and

enslaved innocent Christians with the aim of making profit by selling or

ransoming them. Allegedly, the Algerian corsairs confined their Christian

captives in horrible conditions and submitted them to the most cruel and

perverse treatments and sufferings.49 This view is not new; it has already

started developing since the 16th century. Travelers, priest, chroniclers,

diplomats, captives, and all sorts of writers had produced quantities of accounts

describing pains and sufferings, real and imaginary, of Christian captives at

Algiers.50 Yet, despite the fact that Algiers lost tens of thousands of its

48
Those were respectively the slave market and slaves’ main residential area at Algiers.
49
As an example of this view see the following works: Stephen Clissold, “The Ransom Business:
Christian Slaves in North Africa,” History Today, 26: 12 (Dec., 1976), pp. 779-87; Ellen G. Friedman,
“Christian Captives at ‘Hard Labor’ in Algiers, 16th-18th Centuries,” The International Journal of
African Historical Studies, 13: 4 (1980), pp. 616-632; Gary E. Wilson, “American Hostages in Moslem
Nations, 1784-1796: The Public Response.” Journal of the Early Republic, 2: 2. (Summer 1982), pp.
123-141; Martha Elena Rojas, “‘Insults Unpunished’: Barbary Captives, American Slaves, and the
Negotiation of Liberty,” Early American Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 1: 2 (Fall, 2003), pp.
159-186. Robert C. Davis, Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the
Barbary Coast, and Italy, 1500-1800 (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), pp. 123-219.
50
Examples among many others include: Walter Croker, The Cruelties of the Algerine Pirates,
Shewing the Present Dreadful State of the English Slaves, and other Europeans, at Algiers and Tunis
77
inhabitants to European slavery, nothing, or almost, was said about their fate.51

Indeed, Algerian captives—contrary to Christian ones—were condemned to an

everlasting slavery and hard labor on Christian galleys without any prospect of

future liberty.52 This partly explains the absence of Muslim captivity accounts;

but despite this handicap, hundreds of archival documents, testimony,

correspondence of the Deys with the sovereigns of Europe, and bilateral

treaties mention the tragedies endured by Algerian captives in European

slavery.53

In fact, during the period (1519-1830) enslavement of captives was

widely practiced on both sides of the Mediterranean Basin. However, the most

striking feature about that practice is not its existence—indeed, slavery had

always existed—but it was its amplitude, sophistication of statutes,

conventions, and peace treaties regulating it, and the numerous wars it

generated. In the many conflicts that opposed Algiers to the European

countries, slavery came second only to religion; in the case of the United

States, it came second to American national interest and concerns about

(London: W. Hone, 1816); Royall Tyler, The Algerine Captive: Six Years a Prisoner among the
Algerines (Hartford, CT: Peter B. Gleason & Co, 1816); Sumner, Charles. White Slavery in the
Barbary States, 1853 (Boston: John P. Jewett & Company, 1853); Leon Godard, Corsaires, esclaves et
martyrs de Barbarie : Régnez, seigneur, au milieu de vos ennemis (Tours: A. Mame et Cie, 1857).
51
Since the 1960s, however, research about Mediterranean slavery has seen timid beginnings in the
direction of Algerian captives notably with the works of Salvatore Bono, Daniel Panzac, Michel
Fontenay, Bartolome and Lucile Bennassar, and the Algerian researcher Moulay Belhamissi who form
a small group reflecting a new revisionist tendency.
52
Moulay Belhamissi, Les captifs Algériens et l’Europe chrétienne (1518-1830) (Alger: Enterprise
Nationale du Livre, 1988), pp. 15-18.
53
Moulay Belhamissi, “Course et contre-course en Méditerranée ou comment les Algériens tombaient
en esclavage,” Cahiers de la Méditerranée, vol. 65, L’esclavage en Méditerranée à l’époque moderne,
2002, par. 6. (Accessed 22 March 2008). http://cdlm.revues.org/document36.html; Correspondance of
the Deys seeking liberation of Algerian captives is scattered in Eugène Plantet, ed., Correspondance
des deys d’Alger avec la cour de France, 1579-1833. Recueillie dans les dépôts d’archives des affaires
étrangères, de la marine, des colonies et de la chambre de commerce de Marseille, 2 vol. (Paris: 1889).
78
freedom of navigation. Slavery was an underlying source of all conflicts,

central in all diplomatic negotiations, and key to any appeasement between

belligerents. Matters relating to slaves were the concern of all, Muslims and

Christians alike; hence, its importance for this work.

1. 3. 1. Slavery in the Mediterranean Basin

Enslavement of captives and prisoners of war is an ancient custom of

war, probably as old as humanity itself. In the Muslim tradition, prisoners of

war were treated humanly and could be ransomed as early as the mid-seventh

century according to the precepts of Islam.54 In medieval Europe, the

vanquished, when not massacred, were enslaved by the victors and their

property was confiscated. By the 15th century, however, leading European

jurists defended the view that lives could be saved and enslaved prisoners could

be freed through the payment of a ransom.55 On the whole, in the

Mediterranean Basin enslavement of prisoners of war was common practice

accepted by all belligerents and slaves were viewed as a valuable source of

labor as were usually used for rowing on galleys. This explains the presence of

thousands of Christian slaves at Algiers as well as the presence of thousands of

Algerian slaves on the opposite flank of the Mediterranean on Christian

galleys. Under such circumstances, it was not rare that galley slaves and slave

masters ended up in a totally reversed social condition after a battle was won or

54
Belhamissi, Captifs Algériens, pp. 37-38.
55
William E. Hall, A Treatise on International Law, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1890), pp. 409-
410.
79
lost as testified by the vivid reply of Dragut Rais to La Valette, later grand

master of the Knights of Malta: “a change of luck!”56

Although slavery had existed since pre-historic times, the word slave,

from Latin sclavus meaning a Slav captive, did not come into common use in

Europe until the end of the first millennium, AD.57 By the 12th century, it

appeared for the first time in Venetian and Genoese documents.58 At that time,

the Italian city-states were trading in Slavs as well as in Arab, Turk, and Greek

slaves.59 By the 13th century, the word ‘turk’ was widely used in Marseille and

Leghorn as a synonym for ‘slave’ even though the slaves originated from

different localities.60 This substitution of terms was amply justified especially if

one knows that

most of the galley slaves used by European maritime powers … were

Muslims who were generally referred to as “Turks,” even though most
of them originated in North Africa. They were either purchased in
Mediterranean slave markets or captured at sea in operations against
Muslim states on the North African coast.61

1. 3. 2. Muslim and Christian Captives

In fact, captives from the shores of North Africa had dotted the slave

markets of southern Europe ever since Roman times. By the 15th century,
56
Lane-Poole, Barbary Corsairs, p. 127. After he was made prisoner in 1540, Dragut Rais was forced
to row in chains on the Maltese galleys. The Maltese knight Jean Parisot La Valette, by the past, was a
prisoner of Barbarossa and he also pulled the oar on Algerian galleys and knew Dragut well. One day,
he saw Dragut toiling: “Señor Dragut,” said he, “usanza de guerra!—’tis the custom of war!” And the
prisoner, remembering La Valette’s previous slave condition replied cheerfully, “Y mudanza de
fortuna—a change of luck!”
57
“Slave,” The Concise English Dictionary, p. 1075.
58
Stella, Histoires d’esclaves, p. 32.
59
Ibid.
60
Pierre Boyer, “La chiourme turque des galères de France de 1665 à 1687,” Revue de l’Occident
Musulman et de la Méditerranée, 6 (1969), p. 54. By the 16th century, the term ‘Turk’, or ‘turn Turk’
acquired a different meaning: it was used to refer to Christians who converted to Islam, also called
‘renegades.’
61
Scheidel, “Galley Slaves,” p. 355.
80
however, the pace of capture and enslavement accelerated and touched both

sides of the Mediterranean as a result of the growing confrontation between

Crescent and Cross. The 16th century was a period when large scale naval

battles raged between Muslims and Christians; it was also the period when

galley warfare reached a zenith. As galleys were propelled by oar, there was a

great need for rowers; those were obtained mainly from captives and prisoners

of war. On Mediterranean galleys, slaves were chained to the oars: Christian

galleys were propelled by Muslim slaves and Muslim galleys were rowed by

Christian slaves. In general, battles were fought with the purpose of supplying

navies with slaves. It is said that at Lepanto, the largest of those naval battles,

Christian spoils were in the first place human.62 In addition to the large naval

battles, European corsairs and slave traders submitted the coastal populations

of North Africa to constant raids.63 The purpose was to supply slave markets in

Cordoba, Seville, Marseille, Valletta, Leghorn, and many others with Muslim

captives.64 Malta particularly was an active “marauder in the waters of Islam”

with some 20-30 vessels mobilized for the capture of Muslims.65 Often the

slave trade was the paramount reason which motivated Christian raids on

Algerian coastal towns and captures of civilians. For this reason, the Muslim

coastal populations as well as corsairs dreaded capture and enslavement by

62
After the battle, 3651 Muslim prisoners of war were distributed among the Christians as follows: 558
for the Papacy, 1223 for Venice, and 1870 for the king of Spain. Maurice Aymard, “Chiourme et galère
dans la seconde moitié du XVIe siècle,” in Ernest Labrousse et al., eds. Mélanges en l’honneur de
Fernand Braudel. Vol 1: Histoire économique du monde méditerranéen, 1450-1650 (Paris : Privat éd.,
1973), p. 57.
63
Belhamissi, “Course et contre-course,” par. 17.
64
Stella, Histoires d’esclaves, p. 17, 26-27, 31.
65
Michel Fontenay, “Pour une géographie de l’esclavage méditerranéen aux temps modernes,” Cahiers
de la Méditerranée, vol. 65, L’esclavage en Méditerranée à l’époque moderne, 2002, par. 50.
(Accessed 22 March 2008). http://www.cdlm.revues.org/document42.html
81
Europeans corsairs and slave traders in the same way as their Christian

counterparts feared capture by Algerian corsairs.66 In 1695, for example, 24%

of the crews of the French fleet were captives and prisoners of war from the

Ottoman Empire—Algiers included,67 and in 1720, the Muslim slaves

originating from North Africa represented 74% of the rowing slaves on the

papal galleys.68

Capture and enslavement of Muslims led to a spiral of conflicts with the

European powers because the Algerian corsairs did likewise in order to be able

to exchange captives.69 Accordingly, they transformed naval operations from

merely defensive to offensive expeditions that encompassed the coastal

inhabitants of southern Europe as well as far away Iceland, the British Isles, the

North Sea shores, and the Canary Islands. Subsequently, the city of Algiers,

like most European cities, became an important slave market. Algiers had its

share of slaves too; slave numbers were set at a high of 25,000 (roughly 25% of

the total population) as recorded by Haedo in the late 16th century and Dan

about half a century later. This number was taken over and amplified many

times by travelers and European bureaucrats throughout the next century.70 In

1675, according to d’Arvieux, the number ranged between 6,000 and 12,000.

At the end of the 18th century, the number was believed to be as low as 500
66
Delmasso, “La peur des corsaires barbaresques,” p. 53.
67
Daniel Panzac, “La course barbaresque revisitée, XVIe-XIXe siecles,” in Michel Vergé-Franceschi
and Antoine-Marie Graziani, eds., La guerre de course en Méditerranée (1515-1830) (Paris: Presses de
l’Université Paris IV-Sorbonne, 2000), p. 31; Belhamissi, Captifs Algériens, pp. 37-38.
68
Bono Salvatore, “Achat d’esclaves Turcs pour les galères pontificales (XVI-XVIIIe siècles),” Revue
de l’Occident Musulman et de la Méditerranée, 39 (1985), p. 88, fn. 17.
69
Stella, Histoires d’esclaves, p. 36; Alain Blondy, “Le discours sur l’esclavage en Méditerranée: une
réalité occultée,” Cahiers de la Méditerranée, vol. 65, L’esclavage en Méditerranée à l’époque
moderne, 2002, par. 19. (Accessed 21 Mar. 2008). http://www.cdlm.revues.org/document37.html
70
Fontenay, “La course dans l’économie portuaire,” p. 1335.
82
slaves.71 However, in the absence of Muslim records pertaining to corsairing,

these estimates are at best unreliable. Table 3 (Activity of Algerian Corsairs)

attempts to summarize prizes and captives taken by Algerian corsairs during

the 17th and 18th centuries. The data included is exclusively derived from

western accounts as in general researchers point out that no prize or slave

registers survived from the Ottoman regencies of North Africa; probably none

had ever existed at all.72 The numbers mentioned are enormous and sometimes

contradictory; therefore, they have to be taken with caution.

The impact of the practice of enslavement of captives was devastating

on both sides of the Mediterranean. Tens of thousands of Muslims and

Christians were captured and forced on galleys and into slave markets thus

generating cheap labor and profits but also humanitarian tragedies, diplomatic

tensions, and continuing hostilities. Captives developed to be a thorny issue in

Muslim-Christian relations; for centuries, they were going to be a source of

diplomatic vicissitudes and incessant warfare. In Algerian-American relations,

the capture of two American ships by the Algerian corsairs and confinement of

their 21-men crews was much decried and that at a time the Americans

practiced slavery on a much larger scale; but that was one of another sort and

under other circumstances.

71
Friedman, “Christian Captives,” p. 617.
72
Taoufik Bachrouch, “Rachat et libération des esclaves chrétiens à Tunis au XVIIe siècle,” Revue
Tunisienne de Sciences Sociales, 11 (1975), p. 128; C. R. Pennell, “Who Needs Pirate Heroes?” The
Northern Mariner/Le Marin du Nord, 8: 2 (April 1998), p. 63.
83
Table 3: Activity of Algerian Corsairs during the 17th & 18th Centuries

Period Captured Ships Captives’ Source

Estimations

1605-1632 600 ships 4,800-7,200 Davis, 92

1609-16 466 English and 3,300-5,600 Davis, 92

Scottish ships
1613-21 936 ships and 1,720 Grammont, xxiii,
boats 138
1617, 1200 Dan, 314
Madeira
1622-1642 300 British ships 7,000 Earle, 41
(annual average,
350 captives)
1625, Plymouth 27 ships 200 Davis, 92
(Eng. Channel)

1627, Reykjavik 400 or 800 Dan, 315;

(Iceland) Lane-Pole, 233
1628-1634 80 French ships 1331 captives Dan, 322

1631, Baltimore 237 Dan, 315

(Ireland)
1672-82 353 English ships 2,800-4,200 Davis, 92

1674-1775 11 ships 400 Fontenay, 1346

(6 months) (based on d’Arvieux)
1677-1680 160 British ships 1,300-1,900 Morgan, v

1712-1720 74 ships 1,668 Davis, 93

1714-27 466 English ships 393 Davis, 93

1785-93 13 American ships 136 American State

Papers

Source: Data is collected from the different sources used in Chapter I.

Note: This table gives an idea about prizes and captives and is exclusively based on
western accounts. The numbers are enormous and sometimes contradictory; therefore,
they have to be taken with caution.

84
2. The Legal Context of Corsairing

Capture of individuals and property was indeed a true war of religion

between two hostile camps, Muslim and Christian, in which captives occupied

an important place. Furthermore, captures did not take place in a vacuum; they

occurred in a legal context called ‘corsairing’ or ‘privateering’ depending on

the terminology used by the different antagonists. The practice consisted of

attacking enemy shipping and making prize of goods and human beings and

then disposing of them as legal property. Assaulting enemies on the high seas

was so rigorously regulated by customs and laws of the different players that it

was accepted as legal practice. Yet, in western writings, what is commonly

accepted as lawful activity when it was undertaken by Christian corsairs and

privateers is tagged piracy when it was undertaken by Muslims corsairs.

Indeed, the edging between ‘corsairing’ and ‘piracy’ is so thin that

western writers have often used these two words interchangeably to suit their

views and interpretations. Yet, in international law, these terms definitely have

different meanings. While the first may be assimilated to an act of war

undertaken or authorized by a sovereign state against a lawful enemy, the

second remains by definition a “robbery or other violent action, for private

ends and without authorization by public authority, committed on the seas

outside the normal jurisdiction of any state.”73

Generally, as the line between corsairing and piracy is often hard to

draw, “any act of doubtful legality committed on the seas is apt to be

73
“Piracy,” Encyclopædia Britannica. (Accessed 17 May 2008).
85
characterized as piracy.”74 Some historians and jurists, for example, tend to

describe the sinking of merchant vessels by the Germans during the First World

War as piracy even though the act was done on the authority of a national

state.75 This example is worth noting because, in many ways, German sea

warfare has been compared to the 300 years long corsairing of the regency of

Algiers. Although both are tagged piracy, legally they are considered legitimate

acts of war. In 1918, the British jurist and scholar J. E. G. Montmorency wrote

pressing for classification of German submarine warfare as act of piracy. To

give weight to his argument, he likened it to Muslim corsairing because in the

western mind the latter was indisputably piracy:

During the age of Grotius the pirate states of the Mediterranean were at
the height of their power, and certainly the treaty with Algiers of 1646
which purported to secure freedom for English trade and exemption
from slavery for English subjects did little to save the world from the
evils of state-organized piracy. The group of piratical states had the
substantial support of the Ottoman Porte. The robber fleets of
Barbarossa II operating from Algiers dominated the Mediterranean and
terrorised Spain and Italy under the direct patronage of Solyman the
Magnificent. From that date until 1816 the Barbary States carried on,
with a thoroughness that Germany might envy, the highly organised
business of piracy. And no one hesitated to call it piracy. For centuries
Europe strove to grapple with the evil by perpetual warfare illuminated
by treaties of peace at which the pirates laughed.76

This long quote deserves consideration because it is typical of the

classical western thought that tends to put corsairing on the same footing as

piracy. It is also illustrative of the biased approach that a researcher usually

74
“Piracy,” The Columbia Encyclopedia. (Accessed 17 May 2008).
75
Frothingham, “The Armed Merchantman,” p. 470-471.
76
J. E. G. de Montmorency, “The Barbary States in International Law,” Transactions of the Grotius
Society, vol. 4 (1918), p. 87.
86
confronts when looking into diplomatic relations between Algiers and the

western countries in general. Moreover, it helps understand the legal and

diplomatic contexts in which Algiers was operating when the United States

first made its appearance as an independent state in the Mediterranean after

1783. Finally, it serves as a basis to determine, by the same standards of

western legal thought and statutes, whether the actions of the corsairs of

Algiers were acts of piracy therefore condemnable under exiting international

law, or whether they were acts of war therefore captures, enslavement, and

tribute were legal practice sanctioned by the same existing laws. To handle this

issue properly, one needs to fit it within its contemporary legal and diplomatic

contexts—the historical and religious contexts have already been dealt with.

2. 1. Corsairing vs. Piracy

Corsairing is a history-long maritime occupation very distinct from

piracy. Its origins can be traced back to periods pre-dating the naissance of the

Ottoman province of Algiers. As early as the 13th century, European statutes

and jurisprudence had developed legal definitions and case laws that

distinguished corsairs from pirates. Later, western specialized scholarship

expounded on existing legal tradition and maritime practice and gave way to a

new science relating to inter-state relations in which piracy and war occupied a

prominent position. By the time Algiers came to existence as a polity in early

16th century, corsairing had already been clearly defined and legalized by

existing European statutes and emerging international law and piracy was
87
outlawed. More, the Europeans gave it its name, theorized about it, and enacted

statutes regulating it. So, even by European standards, the corsairs of Algiers

were not operating in a legal international vacuum and certainly were not the

innovators of corsairing and even less its exclusive possessors.

Piracy, however, is much older; perhaps it is as old as humanity itself.

Christian Europeans practiced and excelled in it long before the Muslim Arabs

and Turks, or Saracens as the latter were commonly known in Europe, reached

the waters of the Mediterranean. Accustomed to the desert of the Arabian

Peninsula and steppes of Central Asia, Arabs and Turks roamed those vicinities

on the backs of sand-vessels and horses rather than aboard water vessels. Arabs

and Turks, in fact, did only learn from the Christian inhabitants of the shores of

the Mediterranean how to ride sea and plunder merchant shipping. With no

naval tradition, the Muslims realized how it was difficult for them to

counterbalance the power of Christian Europe. This same Europe made it

imperative for the Ottoman Empire and its North African provinces to develop

and maintain a navy.77 Khayreddin Barbarossa realized the vitality of the issue

and explained to Suleyman the Magnificent “that he who rules on the sea will

rule on the land also.”78 The Spanish Reconquista, however, involuntarily made

it possible: the expulsion of the Andalusians, skilled, entrepreneur but also

resentful and revengeful, contributed much to the growth of Algerian

77
For the strategic and religious dimension of Muslim and Christian naval power see Rose, “Islam
versus Christendom,” pp. 561-78.
78
Currey, Sea-Wolves, p. 28.
88
corsairing.79 Therefore, it is obvious that the Muslims merely learned from the

European pirate how to plunder according to his own rules and adapted

themselves to Mediterranean conditions and sea practices and certainly not the

opposite as it is ostentatiously asserted here:

It is to be noted, moreover, that where mountain or desert tribes or

steppe nomads make their way out to such coasts, they bring with them
the mind of robbers and only alter their raiding method. They adapt
themselves to the seaboard environment, blend with the local
inhabitants, from whom they learn the art of navigation, and pursue their
ancestral trade, exchanging the desert camel and steppe pony for the
swift-moving ship. The mental habit of the previous habitat harmonizes
with the economic conditions of the new one…. [This] was true of the
desert-bred Saracens wherever they touched the Mediterranean coasts,
though their inland settlements were models of careful tillage and
thriving industries.80

Piracy has existed ever since the dawn of history and references to it

could be dated back to about 3,000 B. C. In Ancient Greece, the epic poet

Homer mentioned it in both The Iliad and The Odyssey.81 Ever since Antiquity,

piracy has been “a recurrent phenomenon on many shores of the

Mediterranean;” it functioned as a “sinister form of maritime activity and

“constituted a lawless combination of naval aggression and maritime

commerce” among early Phoenicians, Greeks, Etruscans, and many other

peoples down to the 19th century.82 In 100 A.D., the Greek historian Plutarch

gave the earliest definition of ‘pirate’ which has generally been accepted since

79
Delmasso, “La peur des corsaires barbaresques,” p. 52.
80
Ellen Churchill Semple, “Pirate Coasts of the Mediterranean Sea,” Geographical Review, 2: 2 (Aug.,
1916), p. 138.
81
Homer’s Odyssey tells about Cretan pirates who plundered the Egyptian coast and Phoenicians who
kidnapped men and women to sell as slaves. Hubert Deschamps, Pirates et flibustiers (Paris: Presses
Universitaires de France, 1952), pp. 7-14.
82
Semple, “Pirate Coasts,” p. 134. For piracy in Antiquity see pp. 134-51.
89
that time: for him, a pirate is that who attacks shipping and coastal inhabitants

“from ships without legal authority.”83 The term pirate, however, dates from

140 B.C.; the Roman historian Polybius used the word peirato (from Latin,

pirata meaning to ‘attempt’ or ‘experience’, implicitly ‘attempt to find luck on

the sea’) to refer to such sea-raiders.84 In the 10th and 11th centuries, the

Scandinavian pirates were known as Vikings, “while in medieval England, the

word pirate was used to refer to just about any type of sea thief.”85 During the

17th century, the pirates operating in the West Indies/Caribbean Sea were called

buccaneers.86 The French called their pirates flibustiers (from the Dutch

vrijbuiter, meaning ‘freebooter’ or ‘plunderer’) and the Dutch called theirs

zeerovers (meaning ‘sea rovers’).87 While there is no single Arabic term for

“piracy,” there is a wide vocabulary relating to plunder ‘nahb’, either on land

or sea.88

A particular form of piracy, but this time legalized piracy, developed in

retaliation to rival powers in Medieval Europe. Between the 13th and 16th

centuries, a new type of pirates acting under the cover of legality emerged.89

Those were individuals who were granted letters of marque and reprisal

authorizing them to capture enemy merchant ships. By attacking commercial

83
Robert M. Jarvis, “Maritime Piracy in the Modern World,” Insights on Law & Society, 6: 3 (Spring
2006), p. 1.
84
Patricia Risso. “Cross-Cultural Perceptions of Piracy: Maritime Violence in the Western Indian
Ocean and Persian Gulf Region during a Long Eighteenth Century,” Journal of World History, 12: 2
(2001), 296-97; Deschamps, Pirates et flibustiers, p. 5.
85
Jarvis, “Maritime Piracy,” p. 1.
86
The term Buccaneer, French boucanier, is derived from ‘boucan’, an Indian word meaning a grid
used for smoking the viande boucanée, or dried meat, for use aboard ships at sea. Deschamps, Pirates
et flibustiers, pp. 39-40; Risso, “Cross-Cultural Perceptions of Piracy,” p. 298.
87
For different terms used for piracy see “Buccaneer,” Encyclopædia Britannica.
88
Risso, “Cross-Cultural Perceptions of Piracy,” pp. 300-1.
89
For a historiography of piracy and Privateering see Pennell, “Who Needs Pirate Heroes?” pp. 61-79.
90
shipping, they operated like pirates but they were legally authorized by a

sovereign—whether monarch, state, or polity. Those were called privateers or

corsairs. The Anglo-Saxons called them privateers but in the Mediterranean

Basin they were known as ‘corsairs:’ the Spaniards called them corsarios, the

Italians Corsaros and the French corsaires. The North Africans, including

Algerians, used a similarly sounding term ‫ قرصان‬to refer to their men of sea

and ‫ قرصنة‬referring to the occupation of corsairing. These two related terms

were “borrowed and transliterated” from the Italian corsaro. This borrowing

appears to have been operated by the Ottomans in the 15th century.90

To the already mentioned great corsairs of Algiers, famous corsairs

include the Genoese Andrea Doria who was a formidable match to Khayreddin.

The celebrated English Sir Francis Drake and John Hawkins, originally pirates,

had a long and profitable privateering career.91 United States’ War of

Independence famous hero Paul Jones was a notable Scottish pirate who

escaped death for piracy thanks to a letter of marque bestowed on him by the

American Congress.92 Later, the Americans transformed him to a national

hero.93

90
Risso, “Cross-Cultural Perceptions of Piracy,” p. 302.
91
Philip Gosse, The Pirates’ Who’s Who: Giving Particulars of the Lives & Deaths
of the Pirates & Buccaneers (New York: Burt Franklin, 1924), pp. 117-18, p. 157; also Stockton,
Buccaneers and Pirates, pp. 10-15.
92
Gosse, The Pirates’ Who’s Who, pp. 176-77; also Unknown, “The United States Creation Myth.”
(Accessed 12 April 2008). http://www.aloha.com/~craven/voliich2.html
93
For a biography of Paul Jones see Alexander Slidell Mackenzie, The Life of Paul Jones. 2 vol.
(Boston: Hilliard, Gray, and Company, 1841).
91
2. 2. Legal Definitions and Statutes

Because pirates commit their misdeeds on the high seas, i.e.: an area

over which no state has authority, they could not be punished by the laws of

any nation. To overcome jurisdiction problems, the Roman statesman and jurist

Cicero (106-43 B.C.) dubbed pirates ‘hostis humani generis,’ or ‘enemies of

humanity.’ In this way, the pirates could be “prosecuted wherever and

whenever they were found due to the concept of ‘universal jurisdiction.’”94

Used for the first time in late 13th century, the phrase ‘hostis humani generis’

gained wider notoriety through the writings of 16th century Italian jurist

Alberico Gentili.95 A mere echo of earlier “formulations of classical Roman

law,” the notion gained legal strength throughout the medieval ages and

became a leading principle of contemporary international law.96

The modern jurists upheld medieval concepts relating to piracy. In

general, they consider that when a high seas robbery is committed against an

enemy under a commission from a sovereign state or political entity it is not

piracy. Leoline Jenkins (1623-1685), an English lawyer and statesman who

served as judge at the British Admiralty Court, states that “a robbery, when it is

committed upon the sea, is what we call piracy” if carried without a lawful

94
Jarvis, “Maritime Piracy,” p. 4; Claire Jowitt, “Introduction: Pirates? The Politics of Plunder 1550-
1650,” in Claire Jowitt, ed. Pirates? The Politics of Plunder 1550-1650 (Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2006), p. 15.
95
Mikkel Thorup, “The Horror of the ‘Enemy of Humanity’ – on Pirates, Terrorists and States,” paper
presented at Fear, Horror & Terror, 1st Global Conference, Mansfield College, Oxford, September
10-12, 2007, pp. 5-6. (Accessed 25 May 2008).
http://www.wickedness.net/Fear/f1/thorup%20paper.pdf
96
Emily Sohmer Tai, “Marking Water: Piracy and Property in the Pre-Modern West,” paper presented
at Seascapes, Littoral Cultures, and Trans-Oceanic Exchanges, Library of Congress, Washington D.C.,
February 12-15, 2003. (Accessed May 4 2008).
http://www.historycooperative.org/proceedings/seascapes/tai.html
92
“commission of war from some foreign prince” and the robbed “be a lawful

enemy of that prince.”97 The Dutch jurist Cornelis Van Bynkershoek (1673-

1743) even widened the field of activity of a pirate. He defines Pirates as

“persons who depredated on sea or land without authority from a sovereign,”98

thus extending the principle of sovereignty from land to sea. Finally, William

Edward Hall (1835-1894), an English lawyer who contributed influential works

on international law, considers that “most acts which become piratical through

being done without due authority are acts of war when done under the authority

of a state.”99 So, according to these definitions, the blurry line between piracy

and corsairing becomes clearer. Two prerequisites, therefore, are needed to

cross the line from illegality to legality: the existence of a state or polity which

delivers a commission authorizing the pirate to prey on an enemy’s shipping

and the existence of a lawful enemy. When these two conditions are secured,

robbery on the high seas is no more considered as piracy but a lawful act of

war. The line, however, remains thin and is liable to be crossed easily

especially at times when transitions from peace to war were quite frequent.

More than just definitions, the medieval statutes further clarified the

distinction between pirates and corsairs. The Italian state-republics enacted

statutes that assigned capital punishment to “individuals who robbed

indiscriminately at sea,” i.e.: the pirates. This indiscriminate maritime robbery

as practiced by pirates, however, was different from “selective maritime theft,

97
As cited in Barry H. Dubner, The Law of International Sea Piracy (Brill Academic Publishers,
1980), p. 48.
98
Hall, International Law, p. 252.
99
Ibid., p. 254.
93
conducted at the behest of a sovereign polity against merchant shipping flying

the standard of that monarch or civic republic’s political and economic

rivals.”100 Therefore, medieval statutes used two expressions to differentiate

between the two practices of sea robbery: ‘indiscriminate theft’ and ‘selective

or targeted theft’. For the first, the term ‘ire ad pirraticam’ (to sail or go as a

pirate) is used; whereas for the second, the term ‘ire in cursum’ (going ‘in

cursum’) is used.101 From the latter expression may have been derived the verb

corsairing—used for the activity of legalized robbery on the high seas and the

noun corsair—used to refer to seafarers who practiced selective or targeted

maritime theft.

2. 3. Corsairing: An Act of War

The use of force on the high seas against economic and political rivals

when requested by a sovereign state or polity was legitimated by medieval

statutes and became the ‘prerogative’ of corsairs. Corsairs were often

nominated as sea admirals and were given letters of marque that conferred on

them the right to wage the ‘guerre de course,’ against rival powers.102 By

authorizing private naval offensives against enemies, the state palliates for

eventual naval weakness and reduces war operating costs; as such, corsairing

100
Tai, “Marking Water,” par. 5.
101
Hélène Ahrweiler, “Course et piraterie dans la Méditerranée orientale aux XIVeme-XVeme
siècles,” in Course et piraterie : Etudes présentées à la Commission Internationale d’Histoire
Maritime à l’occasion de son XVe Colloque International pendant le XIVe Congrès International des
Sciences Historiques (San Francisco, 1975), vol. 1 (Paris : CNRS, 1975), pp. 9-11.
102
Tai, “Marking Water,” par. 6.
94
may be seen as “a cost-efficient mode” of warfare.103 It may also be assimilated

to an act of war that consisted of “plundering the merchant cargo of rival

powers in raids not easily distinguished from actions of what might be termed

‘conventional’ wartime fleets.”104 The border between ‘indiscriminate sea

robbery’—act of the pirates and ‘selective maritime theft’—act of corsairs is

clearly set. In the first case, the pirate is punished whereas in the second, the

corsair is sanctioned because the pirate acts individually for personal profit

while the corsair is authorized by a sovereign to act against rivals to defend the

interests of the state; this very reason gives corsairing legitimacy.

As a result, defining the legal status of the commissioned pirates,

whether Mediterranean corsairs or Anglo-Saxon privateers, depends much on

distinctions one may make between legality and illegality. These distinctions

can be traced back to two pre-modern legal traditions. A first tradition can be

found in Three Books on the Law of War (1598), work of Gentili who is

considered today as the founder of the science of international law. Gentili

defines piracy as any seizure at sea not authorized by a sovereign; when so, it is

merely analogous to robbery on land. In this, he does not differ from his

predecessors’ definitions. But for him, more important than the simple

definition of piracy is the legality of seizure authorized by lawful sovereigns.105

Authorizing seizure by “merely declaring enemy states piratical would not

legally make them so. Consequently the Barbary states could not be defined as

103
Fontenay, “La course dans l’économie portuaire,” p. 1323-24.
104
Tai, “Marking Water,” par. 7.
105
Hall, International Law, pp. 64-74.
95
piratical, even if engaged in raiding” simply because the westerners have

declared them to be so.106 Therefore, this view legitimated the granting of

authorizations, i.e.: letters of marque, but conditioned these by the legality of

the authority (sovereign/polity) that granted them. A second tradition can be

traced back to On the Law of War and Peace, 1625, work of Hugo Grotius,

another jurist and pioneer in the science of international law.107 Grotius rejected

Gentili’s notion that such actions could not be declared as piratical simply by

recognizing such polities as having legitimate authority. For him, lawful

seizure could not exist outside the existence of a state of war.108

To sum up, and according to these different legal views, crossing the

line from piracy to corsairing, therefore from illegality to legality, necessitates

three prerequisites: an authorization or letter of marque granted by a sovereign,

legality of the authority (sovereign/polity) that granted them, and the existence

of a state of war. The implication of this legal thought relating to Algiers’

corsairing is that since “a state of war existed between European nations and

the Barbary states” therefore, the seizures operated at sea by the Algerian

corsairs were legal warfare.109

By the 16th century, time by which the clash between Islam and

Christianity intensified, corsairing acquired a religious legitimacy too. On both

106
Lauren Benton, “Legal Spaces of Empire: Piracy and the Origins of Ocean Regionalism,”
Comparative Study of Society and History, 47: 4 (Oct., 2005), 705.
107
Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), a Dutch jurist, is well known for his work On the Law of War and Peace
(1625) which provided the basis for modern international law. “Grotius, Hugo,” Encyclopædia
Britannica. (Accessed 17 May 2008).
108
Michael D. Ramsey, “Textualism and War Powers,” The University of Chicago Law Review, 96: 4
(Autumn, 2002), pp. 1570-78.
109
Benton, “Legal Spaces of Empire,” p. 705.
96
shores of the Mediterranean, the word ‘corsair’ became synonymous of one

who had been authorized by a state or a sovereign to pursue “a holy war against

the enemies of faith” on the high seas.110 Therefore, the corsair in general was a

holy warrior or faith fighter. As far as Algiers is concerned, and according to

the Muslim tradition of warfare, one may unequivocally state that the Algerian

corsair, far from being a pirate and inveterate sea-robber, was the “champion of

Islam and pride of Muslims.”111 He practiced el-harb fi el-bahr or war at sea as

a form of jihad against the enemies of Islam. Therefore, he was a mujahid112 or

ghazi113 “who carried warfare to the very homes of infidels.”114

The religious motivations were so closely associated with corsairing that

the meaning of the term Ghazi was grafted on all holy warriors of the

Mediterranean Basin. According to John F. Guilmartin, Jr., a member of the

United States Air Force, “the ghazi psychology and mode of operation at sea”

was “more Mediterranean than exclusively Muslim; the Knights of St. John of

Malta were essentially Christian ghazis [sic].”115 According to this logic, the

Muslim corsairs, just like all Christian corsairs, had acquired a legal status of

faith warriors whose rulers had officially permitted them to fight the enemies of

their religion, i.e.: the Christians. Therefore, and by the very legal standards of

Europeans, seizure of Christian commercial shipping by Algerian corsairs was

110
Earle, Pirate Wars, p. 39.
111
Panzac, “La course barbaresque revisitée,” p. 27.
112
Kaddache, L’Algérie Ottomane, p. 31.
113
Ghazi is a name given to those who dedicated themselves to war against the infidels on the frontiers
of Muslim lands. It was also used as a title of respect and had a more permanent connotation than the
Christian equivalent, ‘crusader.’ “Ghazi,” in Bernard Lewis, ed. The Encyclopedia of Islam, New
Edition, (London, 1960), p. 1043. 24. For the importance of El-Ghazawat in the rise of the Ottoman
Empire see Hess, “The Moriscos,” p. 8.
114
Panzac, Corsaires barbaresques, p. 21; Panzac, “La course barbaresque revisitée,” p. 30.
115
Guilmartin, “Tactics of Lepanto,” p. 60.
97
a legal act of war. In this context, the Algerian corsair who set out to target not

only economic rivals who sought to expand their trade supremacy at the

detriment of Algiers but also religion enemies and crusaders who were intent

upon eradicating his religion and threatened his very existence had acquired

legitimacy. As a matter of fact, this is an even more legitimate and stronger

motivation for corsairing than mere commercial supremacy.

As stated earlier, the dividing line between corsairing and piracy is thin.

When a state of war against a lawful enemy does not exist, corsairing simply

becomes piracy. As far as Christian corsairing is concerned, this distinction

was often blurred by a succession of European inter-state wars followed by

short-lived truces: at wartimes, the demand for privateers increased which

caused a boost in letters’ of marque issuance. At times of peace, however,

privateers were decommissioned thus losing the legitimacy conferred on them

by letters of marque. This situation created confusion in interpretations.

Confusion arose mainly because it was difficult to determine whether seizure

occurred while warfare was still going on, therefore it was a legitimate act of

corsairing, or whether it occurred after a truce was proclaimed, therefore it was

piracy:

Decommissioned, experienced sea raiders found themselves without

sponsors yet sometimes continued to engage in raiding, especially in
places where lucrative shipping was poorly protected. The legality of
their actions depended upon open and conflicting interpretations of
whether the timing, location, and targets of raids fell within the terms of
often dubious commissions. Not surprisingly, both captains and
common sailors cultivated a certain expertise in representing their
commissions as legitimate and the assets they seized as legal prizes.116
116
Benton, “Legal Spaces of Empire,” p. 706.
98
 This confusion in legal interpretations could not apply to Algiers

because technically and constitutionally Spain was at perpetual war with the

‘Muslim infidels,’ therefore, and by virtue of reciprocity, Algiers found itself in

a similar position of perpetual war to defend Islam and its own existence as a

polity.117 Furthermore, by legal implication of ‘holy warfare’ against

Christians, “the Deys considered themselves to be in a ‘permanent state of war’

with their Christian neighbors (and, in particular, post-reconquista Spain),

interrupted only by temporary treaties, or truce, with particular rulers.”118

Therefore, the Algerian corsairs could not theoretically fall in periods where

war between Islamdom and Christendom did not exist. Consequently, they

could never be pirates but corsairs legitimatized in their actions by religious

faith and the continued existence of a state of war with their Christian

enemies.119

3. Algiers: A Corsairing State

The men who laid the political and military foundations of Algiers were

convinced Muslims who, throughout their own experience, developed a deep

hatred for Christians.120 Therefore, they were intent upon repelling the threats

117
The Spanish monarchs were bound by the will of Isabella that legged them perpetual war against the
Muslims of North Africa. The Most Catholic King of Spain, on ascending the throne, had to swear a
coronation oath stating that he would not be at peace with the infidels. Barnby, Prisoners of Algiers, p.
38; Grammont, Histoire d’Alger, p. 5.
118
Silverstein, “The New Barbarians,” p. 186; Muller, Consuls, Corsairs, and Commerce, p. 54.
119
Idriss Jazairy, current Algerian Ambassador to the United States, refuted that the practice of
corsairing of the Barbary States was ‘piracy.’ He argued that “privateering was an internationally
accepted practice at the time” and Algiers “like Europe and North America, targeted the cargo ships of
countries with which it was at war.” Idriss Jazairy, “Barbary Privateers,” New York Times, 23 March
2003, p. 12.
120
Arroudj himself suffered at the hands of the Knights of Saint John when they were in control of
Rhodes. His captivity and enslavement served as an “excellent school” for him. Rang, Régence
99
of crusading Europe against Islam. For that, they adopted corsairing “as a

military form of war against the Christian states.”121 As such, corsairing

acquired a dimension that was both legitimate and religious.122 This form of

holy warfare functioned according to well-defined rules and ethics which

Algiers defended and brought Europe’s powers to recognize in a succession of

treaties. The Founding Corsairs institutionalized corsairing on a basis of faith

and law and gave it an international dimension; and this is exactly the opposite

of piracy which is, by nature, faithless and lawless.123

3. 1. A Question of Sovereignty

Taking into consideration the prerequisites of legitimate corsairing, one

may concede that the founders of the regency of Algiers were indeed free-lance

corsairs in their early maritime carrier. As they were preying on Christian

shipping without any state authorization, their activity may be seen as private

pirate enterprise.124 Nevertheless, taking into account the religious background

and persisting hostility of Christians towards Muslims, this may not be

considered as such because, even during their early life, they acted under the

aegis of a Turkish prince and illustrated themselves by fighting Christian

d’Alger, pp. 117-18; Iqbal F. Quadir, “When Barbarossa Brothers ruled the Mediterranean,” Defence
Journal, Feb. 2001. (Accessed June 4 2008). http:www.defencejournal.com/2001/feb/barbarossa.htm.
This also could be said about Dragut Rais who was enslaved by the Knights of Malta.
121
Panzac, Corsaires barbaresques, p. 11.
122
According to the founding principles of Algiers, this form of war was called ‘el-djihad fi el-bahr’
(or holy war at sea).
123
Saint-Vincent, “La guerre de course,” p. 159; Panzac, Corsaires barbaresques, p. 12.
124
Lane-Poole, Barbary Corsairs, pp. 34, 92.
100
fanatics who had already sworn enmity to Islam.125 The corsairs of the papal

state and those of the Order of the Knights of St. John were already aggressing

Muslims in the Eastern Mediterranean.126 Overall, the Christian Knights were

no less a scourge to Islamdom than would later be Algerian corsairs to

Christendom.127 More, starting from 1519, and according to established

European judicial standards, the founding corsairs may no longer be considered

as such. By integrating the Ottoman Empire, they conferred on themselves, and

on Algiers by the same way, a legitimate status: that of subjects of a legitimate

ruler, in this case, the Sublime Porte. When the Sultan provided Algiers with an

army of Janissaries, arms, and ammunitions, he was in fact authorizing them to

defend a land of Islam against Christian aggressions, and this is defensive

warfare not piracy.

Subsequent internal developments transformed Algiers from a mere

Ottoman dependency to a semi-independent state; but this does not imply loss

of legitimacy. In 1671, following failures of the Ottoman Empire to protect

Algiers against European attacks, particularly the English assaults of 1670-

1671, but also the Sultan’s tacit acceptance of European ‘punitive’ expeditions

against Algiers, the Janissaries and Ri’yas revolted. The revolt culminated in

the expulsion of the Beylerby, the Sultan’s appointed governor of Algiers, and

125
The capture of two Papal galleys in 1504 gave the Barbarossa their reputation of faith warriors. For
this feat see Lane-Poole, Barbary Corsairs, pp. 35-9.
126
Cassar, “The Maltese Corsairs,” pp. 137-38; Rang, Régence d’Alger, pp. 114-15.
127
For a comparison between Algerian corsairs and Knights of Malta see Marisa Huber, “Holy Wars
and Piratical Governments: Barbary Corsairs (With a Comparative Look at Maltese Corsairs), 2004.
(Accessed 18 May 2008). http://www.daviddfriedman.com Academic/Course_Pages/legal_systems
101
the establishment of an elective Deyship.128 According to that new form of

government, the head of the state, now called Dey, was no more sent by

Constantinople but was elected by the Odjac and Ta’ifa from the local ruling

Turks. Nominal recognition of the Sultan as spiritual leader, however, was not

altered. Eventually, Algiers maintained relations with Constantinople but at a

ceremonial level only. Traditionally, the Sultan sent every newly-elected Dey

at Algiers a caftan—a symbol of investiture.129 In return, the Dey sent him

annual tribute and military assistance (fleet) when needed. This is an indication

of a continuing allegiance to the Sultan and acknowledgment of the authority of

a central government at Constantinople. So, even though Algiers had become a

quasi-independent state, sovereignty of the Sublime Porte continued

unaffected.

3. 2. Diplomatic Recognition and de facto Independence

Moreover, by strengthening exiting institutions and introducing new

ones, Algiers forced respect on Europe and implicitly obtained diplomatic

recognition. Ultimately, the European powers dealt with Algiers as an

autonomous state even though technically it was still part of the Ottoman

Empire. By signing separate treaties with Algiers, the European countries were

in fact recognizing it as a legitimate—not pirate—state with which diplomatic

delegations, annual tributes and consular presents, enslaved prisoners of war,

and commercial exchanges were strictly defined and regulated by bilateral

128
Shuval, “Remettre l’Algérie à l’heure Ottomane,” pp. 435-36.
129
Grammont, Histoire d’Alger, pp. 194, 262, 283, 329, 356.
102
treaties.130 Not recognizing Algiers as a legitimate polity, i.e., maintaining that

Algiers was a pirate state, would have implied that the European states were

also ‘outlaw states’ because treaties are concluded between legal counterparts,

i. e.: between a state and another state—not between states and pirates who are

technically outlaws. In other words, according to Zingg, to describe Barbary

policy “exclusively in terms of piracy denies the execution of authority of the

Maghribi governments over their charges [and] strains the legitimacy of any

concluded treaties.”131

From the 1670s onwards, Algiers “became a de facto independent

polity” recognized by all—Ottomans and Europeans alike.132 Its fleet was

meticulously organized and regulated as well as the men who served on it.

Corsairing was a state-authorized maritime activity regulated by treaties with

the European powers; therefore, it could by no means be tagged ‘piracy’ unless

one denies Algiers its recognized status as a de facto independent state or least,

its legal status as a province of the Ottoman Empire. Yet, Christians’ hostility

towards Algiers went unabated undoubtedly because it resisted the most

powerful European countries and brought them to accept treaties according to

its own conditions—the least being the truce signed with Spain in 1786 after

almost three hundred years of fruitless aggressions, which Spaniards and other

130
For a counter-argument see Thorup, “The Horror of the ‘Enemy of Humanity,’” p. 10. Thorup
maintains that “Although we here see a recognition of the Barbaresque-states as sovereign their
practice is still considered illegitimate, being warfare without legitimate purpose, that is, just an excuse
for plunder.”
131
Zingg, “One-Dimensional History,” p. 153.
132
Oded Löwenhiem, Predators and Parasites: Persistent Agents of Transnational Harm and Great
Power Authority (Detroit, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2006), p. 81.
103
Europeans as well as Americans decried as humiliating.133 In fact, an American

bitter negotiator, who was no less than the bullish army adventurer and Consul

to the Barbary States William Eaton (1764-1811), noted that “it is hard to

negotiate where the terms are wholly ex parte. The Barbary courts are indulged

in the habits of dictating their own terms of negotiation.”134

The western countries could never swallow nor pardon to themselves the

fact that they have accepted dictated terms during negotiations, an attitude

which resulted in a long standing animosity towards Algiers. Anti-Algerian

stands persisted well into the twenty-first century through western writings,

which invariably treat Algiers, just to name a few terms, as a ‘pirate,’ ‘rogue,’

and ‘barbary’ state—the last term denoting both the geographical position and

‘barbarity’ of its inhabitants.”135 More, Algiers had even been regarded as not

“belonging to the family of nation.”136 Worse, its corsairs were compared to

ferocious animals “that every nation may lawfully conduct a war” against them

and that it does not make any difference that they have “receptacle and

mansion in Algiers,” because “beasts are not the less savage because they have

dens.”137 At best, Algiers was treated as a “persistent agent of transnational

133
The Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States of America, from the Signing of the Definitive
Treaty of Peace, 10th September, 1783, to the adoption of the Constitution, March 4, 1789, edited by
Francis Preston Blair (Washington, D.C.: Blair & Rives, 1833-37), 1:598, 775, Eighth Report of The
Commissioners to Congress, Addressed to John Jay, Secretary for Foreign Affairs, August 14, 1785.
(Hereafter cited as USDC).
134
As cited in Wright Wright and Macleod, First Americans, p. 36. For a portrait see John Hunter
Sedgwick, “William Eaton, a Sanguine Man,” The New England Quarterly, 1: 2 (Apr., 1928), pp. 107-
123.
135
Rojas, “Insults Unpunished,” p. 162.
136
Montmorency, “The Barbary States in International Law,” p. 88.
137
Thorup, “The Horror of the ‘Enemy of Humanity,’” p. 6.
104
harm” or nothing more than a “parasitic actor” in international relations.”138

This view was also held by the Mediterranean historian Michel Fontenay who,

belonging to the frail school of revisionists, stated that the role of Algiers in the

economy of the Mediterranean was no more than what he called ‘corsairing

parasitism.’ Nonetheless he argued that the parasite was a “symbiotic parasite

that was tolerated by the organism” because Algerian corsairing was accepted

and well integrated in the economic structures of Europe.139

At this point, one may but doubt the coherence of an approach that

considers the “Barbary pirates as the enemies of mankind [that] were destroyed

at sight whenever the opportunity offered during the three centuries of their

active work” and at the same time recognizes that “they were the agents of

well-organized states, states so thoroughly organized that the Great Powers of

Europe entered into many formal treaties with them.”140 If this may not be seen

as incoherence, then Algiers is not to be considered as a pirate state but as a

corsairing state which dealt as equal to equal with other ‘corsairing states,’ i.e.:

the “Great Powers of Europe,” which also practiced corsairing. Both

signatories concluded treaties recognizing for each other reciprocity in

treatment as far as sovereignty, commerce, prizes, prisoners, and ransoms were

concerned.

138
Löwenhiem, Predators and Parasites, p. 81.
139
Fontenay, “La course dans l’économie portuaire,” p. 1324.
140
Montmorency, “The Barbary States in International Law,” p. 87.
105
Conclusion

In the western world, the Muslim corsairs in general, and those of

Algiers particularly, were decried as the cruel scourge of Christendom. For

centuries, redemptionists, travelers, and all sorts of adventurers painted horrible

pictures about depredations of the ‘Barbary pirates’ who allegedly captured and

submitted their victims to the most barbaric treatments. Their terrifying tales

depicted den of thieves filled with gold, precious stones, and silks; all provided

from the loot of honest merchant ships or from the sale of helpless Christian

captives. This theme was taken up and amplified by their leadership who found

in it an opportunity to attain political and religious ends.

Indeed, the scenario was not totally fictional. Over the centuries

thousands of Europeans, and later few Americans, had been imprisoned and

enslaved at Algiers; however, many elements were missing from the picture.

The first element was that the ‘Barbary pirates’ were not pirates, who by

definition were stateless and faithless outlaws, but they were Muslim corsairs,

just like Christian corsairs and privateers, who defended the interests of their

sovereigns; and all that was sanctioned by the laws of nations. The second

missing element was that Algerian corsairing emerged in the first place as

retaliation to the Spanish Reconquista and conquest to defend home and faith

against crusading enemies. As so often in history, one set of ‘terrorizing’ acts

was a direct response to another which was actually much greater; corsairing

therefore was a retaliatory act of war. A third element which was often skipped

by westerners is that while living conditions of Christian captives at Algiers

106
were sometimes harsh—and in that they did not differ from the living

conditions of their masters—in general they were idyllic compared to those of

Muslims captured by Christians or even negro slaves in the United States for

example. Enslaved Christians at Algiers were actually prisoners of war who

were treated according to the laws and usage of nations. Treaties between

Algiers and the European countries precisely incorporated many of those laws

and regulated the maritime practice of corsairing, enslavement, and ransom or

exchange of captives and many more.

107
 CHAPTER III

Corsairing Diplomacy, 1619-1816

Some of our Subjects of late, at Argier [Algiers], were by the Inhabitants

of those Places evill intreated and grievously vexed, We doe friendly
and lovingly desire your Imperiall Majestie, that You will understand
their Causes by Our Ambassadour, and afterwards give Commandement
to the Lieutenants and Presidents of those Provinces, that our People
may henceforth freely, without any Violence or Injurie travell and doe
their Busines in those Places.1

Queen Elizabeth I (1584)

Introduction

More than just a form of warfare, corsairing was also a crucial element

that regulated relations between Algiers and the western countries. Algiers’

diplomatic relations with the major European powers, except Spain, go back to

the early 17th century. Launched on an already uneasy background of crusading

and corsairing, those relations were punctuated by misunderstanding,

suspicions, tensions, and many a time effective warfare. Relations reached the

brink of rupture but in general peace treaties outlived diplomatic turbulence,

wars and antagonisms, plots and rivalries, and slaves and ransoms. Some of

1
As reproduced in Morgan, Complete History of Algiers, p. 583. For the full letter see Appendix A1.
108
these treaties survived for more than two hundred years as was the case of

treaties with France, the Netherlands, and England.

The history of those relations is rather long and complex. The material

abounds and the diplomatic documents and treaties are scattered in diverse

records of the European states; only a targeted research can reveal them. Yet,

one may attempt to bring some light on the two centuries-long diplomatic

tradition of Algiers. This is essential to the understanding of later events that

affected its history in general and diplomatic relations particularly. By

considering the development of diplomatic relations between the Regency of

Algiers and few of the most important European states, one hopes to gather the

different ingredients that took shape throughout centuries of Muslim-Christian

interactions. By the time the United States entered the arena of international

relations, the foundations of international relations had already been laid down

and the different powers were acting according to a complex set of laws and

custom that was established hundreds of years earlier.

1. The Diplomatic Context of Corsairing

1. 1. The Background: Impact of European Peace on Algiers

At the beginning of the 17th century, warring Europe entered into peace

treaties that put an end to inter-European religious and dynastic wars but also

ceased hostilities with the Ottoman Empire. At the turn of the century, Spain

concluded peace with France (1598), England (1604), and the Netherlands

(1609); the Ottoman Empire achieved peace with Austria (1606) and the
109
Netherlands (1612). Previously, France and England concluded treaties, known

as capitulations, with the Ottoman Empire in 1536 and 1579 respectively.2 The

immediate impact of peace between those countries was the establishment of

diplomatic relations with Algiers. The war opposing Spain and its allies the

Italian states to the Ottoman Empire and Algiers, however, continued unabated

and even intensified. The great naval battles involving squadrons of galleys

disappeared after the Battle of Lepanto but gave way to more efficient

corsairing as sailing vessels were adopted by corsairs on both flanks of the

Mediterranean. Muslim and Christian corsairs continued to attack shipping of

each other and caused ravages among coastal inhabitants.

Those developments had an immediate consequence on relations with

Algiers: first, France, England, and the Netherlands could renew with trade in

the Orient and the Mediterranean but the ongoing war between Spain and its

allies on the one hand and the Ottoman Empire and its North African regencies

on the other jeopardized their merchant activities. Second, with peace

established in Europe, the north European privateers moved their activities to

the Mediterranean and offered their services to the enemies of Algiers. Many

also converted to Islam and joined the Algerian navy.3 The consequence of this

migration of privateers was an unprecedented escalation of international

corsairing in the area.

2
Panzac, Corsaires barbaresques, p. 24-25.
3
Estimations for the 1630s, put the number of renegades to 9,500 in Algiers (about 1/9 of the native
population). Robert C. Davis, “Counting European Slaves on the Barbary Coast,” Past and Present, no.
172 (Aug., 2001), p. 115.
110
 Other developments affected Algiers corsairing in many ways. Between

1609 and 1614, the number of corsairs from Andalusian origin rose

dramatically after some 300,000 Moriscos were forced to leave the Iberian

Peninsula.4 In a wave of terror, Spain moved to solve the ‘Moriscos problem’

by expulsion after failure of policies involving forced Christianization,

enslavement, or simply raids and genocide.5 Those who could reach the shores

of safety at Algiers took with them deep grievances and nostalgia for their

centuries-old homelands now lost to Christians; consequently, many of them

became active corsairs either to avenge themselves or to rescue other distressed

Moriscos.6 As they had already done during a similar campaign of terror

following Reconquista, the Algerian corsairs rescued their co-religionists at sea

but also on the Spanish coasts where they had been pursued and massacred in

thousands. Needless to say that in a climate where religious passions rose high

hostility between the two camps pitched and corsairing intensified.

Today, the expulsion of the Moriscos is “seen as a tragic tale of

mistaken assumptions and enmity on the Spanish side,”7 but at the time, it was

a crucial and lasting element that shaped Algerian perceptions of Christians in

general. Spain’s enmity towards Algiers had a tremendous impact on Algerian

diplomatic relations with other Christian countries. Distressed and resentful,

the Moriscos played an increasingly important role in Algerian naval warfare

4
Mar Jonsson, “The Expulsion of the Moriscos from Spain in 1609–1614: the Destruction of an
Islamic Periphery,” Journal of Global History, 2 (2007), p. 195.
5
Stella, Histoires d’esclaves, pp. 67-68; Lane-Poole, The Moors, pp. 272-73, 277.
6
For details see Stephen Clissold, “The Expulsion of the Moriscos, 1609–1614,” History Today 28: 12
(1978), pp. 817–24.
7
Jonsson, “Expulsion of the Moriscos,” p. 195.
111
against Spain which subsequently affected maritime trade of other Christian

powers and became a serious annoyance for them. More than that, the

Moriscos altered irreversibly the composition of Algerian corsairing crews,

which so far remained exclusively Turkish. Thousands European renegades

also joined the Algerian navy because it offered them better economic

opportunities but also because many vowed hatred for their native Europe.8

This new composition of the Algerian navy was going to add further elements

of resentment and “hatred that did not always distinguish between Protestant

and Catholic.”9 This amalgam was going to pit Algiers against other European

powers outside the allies of the Holy Roman Empire—like France, Britain, the

Nordic Countries, and later the United States—that traditionally were not its

enemies, hence the need to conclude peace treaties with them.

Finally, Moriscos and renegades brought unexpected economic

opportunities and new skills that turned the Algerian navy to a dreadful strike

force. While Moriscos brought their artisan and entrepreneurial commercial

skills, renegades revolutionized it. The Moriscos who settled at Algiers

flourished as a middle class standing behind the armament of ships and the

Nordic renegades introduced a different type of seafaring technology called the

broadsides.10 The large galleys, propelled by hundreds of oarsmen, gave way to

new sailing battleships: light, speedy, and propelled by sail, the broadsides

could cruise longer; therefore, they could reach distant places. Iceland and

8
Cordingly, Pirates, p. 88.
9
Nabil Matar, “English Accounts of Captivity in North Africa and the Middle East: 1577-1625,”
Renaissance Quarterly, 54: 2 (Summer 2001), p. 561.
10
Clissold, “Christian Renegades,” pp. 512-13.
112
Ireland, for example, became within sailing reach. The Algerian fleet could

then inflict serious blows to its Christian enemies wherever and whenever it

could meet them; hence the ‘terror’ of the Algerian corsair which gripped

Europe.11 These new developments interacted in such a way that no merchant

ships could anymore sail in the Mediterranean without protection against

corsairs’ attacks—Muslim and Christian alike. Only treaties of peace could

secure free maritime passage for all antagonists, be they Muslim or Christian.

1. 2. Foundations of Corsairing Diplomacy

As indicated earlier, the Sublime Porte concluded a number of treaties,

called also capitulations, with the European countries that granted them large

legal and trading privileges.12 By granting extraterritorial rights to foreigners

residing in the Ottoman Empire, the capitulations were originally meant to

encourage trade, but progressively the Europeans used them to infiltrate the

Ottoman Empire. Algiers disapproved of Constantinople’s foreign policy

which they considered had conceded too many privileges to foreigners. This

was the case of the capitulations of 1536 with France which granted trading

posts to France, particularly Bastion of France near Annaba.13 Ultimately, the

French used the Bastion as a spearhead for extending their influence in the
11
Again, this is one of those terror legends that can be found in Delmasso, “La peur des corsaires
barbaresques,” pp. 51-7.
12
In international law, capitulations—to be distinguished from the military term ‘capitulation,’
meaning surrender—were treaties under which foreigners residing in the Ottoman Empire, including its
provinces, were granted extraterritorial rights; i.e.: the European countries were permitted to exercise
jurisdiction over their own nationals within boundaries of the Ottoman Empire. P. H. Collin,
Dictionary of Government and Politics (Middlesex, GB: Peter Collin Publishing, Ltd, 1988), p. 34.
13
Jean Bérenger, “La politique française en méditerranée au XVIe siècle & l’alliance ottomane,” in
Michel Vergé-Franceschi and Antoine-Marie Graziani, eds., La guerre de course en Méditerranée
(1515-1830) (Paris: Presses de l’Université Paris IV-Sorbonne, 2000), pp. 12-13.
113
region.14 Furthermore, the Sublime Porte renewed the treaty in 1604 giving

even more privileges to France in total ignorance of Algerian interests. Clause

14 of the treaty, for example, authorized the French king to use force against

Algiers in case the treaty was not respected.15 This caused the Pasha of Algiers

to attack the Bastion, an act for which the Sultan ordered him hanged up.16

Despite the execution of the Pasha and a firman ordering restoration of

the Bastion and respect of the ‘rights’ of France, disagreement between

Algiers and Constantinople could not be settled down. France then decided to

negotiate directly with Algiers. Negotiations started in 1617 but they

stalemated very soon; part of the difficulty arose from disagreement over the

return of two Algerian cannons which the Dutch renegade Simon Danser

carried away when he deserted the Algerian navy in 1607 and offered to duke

de Guise, governor of Provence.17 Two years later, negotiations reached the

brink of rupture when the Algerian delegation was massacred in Marseille

allegedly because an Algerian Rais had captured a province ship.18 Hostility

mounted again; nevertheless, a treaty was concluded in 1619.19 It was the first

treaty Algiers signed with a foreign country. However, Algiers continued

rejecting the Franco-Ottoman capitulation of 1604 and the concessions which

were granted to France unwaveringly. France, keen on keeping its commercial

14
Grammont, Histoire d’Alger, p. 55.
15
Montmorency, “The Barbary States in International Law,” p. 89; also Card, Traités de la France, p.
4. For the terms of the treaty see Dan, Histoire de Barbarie, pp. 189-190.
16
Grammont, Histoire d’Alger, pp. 146-47.
17
The crisis ended only when the guns were returned in 1628. Card, Traités de la France, p. 16;
Grammont, “Les deux canons de Simon Dansa,” Revue Africaine, 23 (1879), p. 5-95; 96-133; Clissold,
Christian Renegades, p. 512.
18
Panzac, Corsaires barbaresques, p. 26.
19
Traité entre Monsieur de Guise, au nom de Louis XIII, roi de France, et les Députez du Bacha et
Milice d’Alger, 21 mars 1619 in Card, Traités de la France, pp. 11-15.
114
privileges, was going to recur to the use of naval leverage to force those

concessions on Algiers.20 For the next two hundred years, France multiplied the

use of naval power either for maintaining or obtaining new privileges or for the

purpose of consolidating power of the ruling monarchs.21 In all cases, Algiers

retaliated through corsairing against French shipping and commercial interests

in the area.

Similarly, early relations between Algiers and England were regulated

through peace and commerce treaties, particularly the capitulation of 1579,

between the Ottoman Empire and England. Throughout the reign of Queen

Elizabeth I (1558-1603), no major tensions were recorded. Sporadic problems

over captives and prizes were solved via diplomatic emissaries and peaceful

talks as shown in this letter of 1584 from the Queen to Sultan Murad III (1574–

1595):

some of our Subjects of late, at Argier [Algiers], were by the Inhabitants

of those Places (being perhaps ignorant of your Pleasure) evill intreated
and grievously vexed, We doe friendly and lovingly desire your
Imperiall Majestie, that You will understand their Causes by Our
Ambassadour, and afterwards give Commandement to the Lieutenants
and Presidents of those Provinces, that our People may henceforth
freely, without any Violence or Injurie travell and doe their Busines in
those Places. And We again, with all Endeavour, shall studie to
performe all those things that We shall in any wise understand to be
acceptable to your Imperial Majestie.22

20
Algiers ended by recognizing French privileges at bastion de France in 1628. Traité de Paix entre
ceux d’Alger et les Sujets du Roi pour le commerce, fait le 19 Septembre 1628. Ibid., 15-22;
Primaudaie, “Commerce et navigation,” pp. 22-57.
21
Gillian Weiss, “Imagining Europe through Barbary Captivity,” Taiwan Journal of East Asian
Studies, 4: 1 (Jun., 2007), p. 56; Fisher, Barbary Legend, p. 5.
22
As reproduced in Morgan, Complete History of Algiers, pp. 582-83. The full letter of the Queen and
instructions of Sultan Murad III to the rulers of Algiers is shown in Appendix 1A.
115
 The accession of James I (1603-1625) to the throne of England shifted

relations from peaceful diplomacy to naval assaults. As he “was antithetical to

Islam,” he damaged relations with Algiers by “issuing letters of marque to his

subjects that encouraged them to seize Muslim ships and passengers.”23

Despite the Order in Council of 1595 which recalled letters of marque because

the English privateers committed irregularities for which they were sued at

admiralty courts and punished, those continued to have “a freer hand in the

Mediterranean, where Turkish and Algerine ships were looked on as fair

game.”24 Such un-thoughtful stand, at a time he neglected England’s navy,

would cause the Algerian corsairs to retaliate forcefully: not only did they

attack merchant shipping in the Mediterranean but they extended corsairing to

England itself (Channel coast). After years of Privateering that was more

damaging to England than to Algiers,25 James I pressed for a treaty via the

Sublime Porte, which was negotiated directly at Constantinople in 1622 with

the Pasha of Algiers who happened to be on a visit there.26

The Dutch, however, innovated. Clause 12 of the Ottoman-Dutch treaty

of 1612 authorized them to negotiate directly with Algiers.27 In 1622, the Dutch

Consul held a tripartite meeting in Constantinople with the Grand Vizier and

the same visiting Pasha who concluded a treaty without referring to the Divan
23
Matar, “English Accounts of Captivity,” pp. 560-61; also Reginald G. Marsden, Documents Relating
to Law and Custom of the Sea. Vol. I: A.D. 1205-1648 (London: The Navy Records Society, 1915-
1916), pp. xxvi-xxvii.
24
Marsden, Law and Custom of Sea, pp. xxiii, 320.
25
Between 1609 and 1616, the Royal Navy admitted losing 466 English and Scottish ships to Algerian
corsairs. Davis, “Counting European Slaves,” p. 90.
26
Panzac, Corsaires barbaresques, p. 26.
27
Montmorency, “The Barbary States in International Law,” p. 90; Alexander H. de Groot, “Ottoman
North Africa and the Dutch Republic in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries,” Revue de
l’Occident Musulman et de la Méditerranée, 39: 1 (1985), p. 134.
116
at Algiers. Later, the government at Algiers rejected the treaty but The

Netherlands was well intent upon imposing it. Given the importance of Dutch

commerce in the Mediterranean, The Hague sent a squadron to Algiers in

1624.28 For the Dutch admiral, forcing the treaty on Algiers was as simple as

this: chase Algerian corsairs and seize them on the high seas then return and

hung them in front of the port of Algiers; the operation was repeated many

times.29 In 1626, Algiers ended up by renewing the treaty of 1622; it was

reaffirmed in 1662. From then onwards, the use of force either effectively or as

a ‘muscle show’ for the purpose of intimidation and threatening, became a

feature of diplomatic negotiations of western powers with Algiers.30

The renewed treaty of 1626 with the Dutch merits some consideration

because it served as a model for ultimate treaties between Algiers and the rest

of the European countries as well as with the United States. Particular

adaptations were introduced from time to time throughout the next two hundred

years but in essence the agreed on principles remained the same. Because of

their importance, two points pertaining to the treaty deserve some highlighting:

first, the method the Dutch used to obtain that treaty and second, its provisions.

a) The method: Algerian naval supremacy—real at the beginning but

shadowy by late 18th century—induced European countries to negotiate via

navy admirals and not ordinary diplomats. When a country desired to negotiate

28
In 1620, 1200 ships crossed the strait of Gibraltar of which 76 were captured by the Algerian
corsairs, Gérard Van Krieken, Corsaires et marchands: Relations entre Alger et les Pays-Bas: 1604-
1830 (Paris: Editions Bouchène, 2002), p. 10.
29
Panzac, Corsaires barbaresques, pp. 26-27.
30
The last show of force would be in 1815-1816 when an incessant ballet of British, Dutch, and
American squadrons forced Algiers to treaties to the convenience of those powers for the first time in
about 200 years of corsairing diplomacy.
117
or renegotiate a treaty of peace, it would send its squadron(s) to Algiers for the

purpose. By effective use of force or threat to use force, the navy admirals

generally obtained concessions from the rulers of Algiers and concluded

favorable treaties for their countries.

b) The provisions: the treaty stipulated the following: Algerian ships

were authorized to visit Dutch ports whereas Dutch ships were authorized to

trade at Algiers. The captives, Algerian and Dutch, were to be ransomed or

exchanged. Finally, the Algerian corsairs were authorized to control Dutch

ships and proceed to seize enemy freight aboard those ships on the condition

that they pay the transport fees for the seized cargo.31

At first sight, these basic elements of the treaty seem to be simple and

favorable to both signatories but in fact they are complex and thorny which

explains the difficulties, ambiguities, and even hostilities that arose ultimately:

First, the open or free ports clause profited more to Dutch commerce

than to the visits of Algerian corsairs. Algiers had no merchant navy and all its

imports and exports were carried in foreign bottoms and its foreign trade was at

the hands of foreign and Jew brokers who were more interested in exporting

valuable local production (wheat, barley, hides, wool, olive oil, wax, copper…)

than importing Dutch products.32 From The Netherlands, however, there was

little production that interested the Algerians—certainly not salted fish and

31
Groot, “Ottoman North Africa and the Dutch Republic,” pp. 135-36; Panzac, Corsaires
barbaresques, pp. 26-27.
32
Morton Rosenstock, “The House of Bakri and Busnach: A Chapter from Algeria’s Commercial
History,” Jewish Social Studies, 14 (1952), p. 345; Groot, “Ottoman North Africa and the Dutch
Republic,” pp. 138-39.
118
butter. For this reason, visits of Algerian ships to Dutch ports did not

materialize until 1773; by then corsairing was on the decline and Algerian

Muslim merchants took their businesses at hand. Even then, the only local

production that was worth importing were Delft panes that Algiers imported

between 1773 and 1803.33 Hence, this clause profited largely to the Dutch

merchants who made considerable profits from trade with Algiers. The Dutch

corsairs profited even more; they were well-received at Algiers where they

could sell their prizes and get provisions and shelter in case of problems.34

Therefore, to remedy to these inequalities in trade, Algiers asked for

compensations in the form of annual payments in naval materials, commonly

referred to as tribute, that were needed for the navy: cannons, powder, bullets,

sail-cloth, ropes, planks, and masts.35 Those indeed were strategic war

materials but the European countries, particularly the lesser powers like the

Scandinavian countries and later on the United States, accepted to provide them

according to specific clauses in the treaties. Originally, the clause on annuities

was introduced on a basis of “mere mercantile calculation.”36 Later, western

interpretations equated those payments in naval commodities with tribute

which in fact was a covert justification for overthrowing the principle of trade

reciprocity. By attaching tribute to notions of dignity and national sovereignty,

33
These famous panes could be seen today at Dar Mustapha Pasha, Algiers. Krieken, Corsaires et
marchands, pp. 120-21.
34
Ibid., p. 17; Groot, “Ottoman North Africa and the Dutch Republic,” p. 136.
35
Devoulx, “Marine d’Alger,” pp. 386-87.
36
William Shaler, Sketches of Algiers: Political, historical, and civil: containing an account of the
geography, population, government, revenues, commerce, agriculture, arts, civil institutions, tribes,
manners, languages, and recent political history of that country, (Boston: Cummings, Hiliard and
Company, 1826), pp. 111-12.
119
the westerners developed arguments which enabled them to evade payments so

that they could make huge profits at the detriment of Algiers. That condition

led to diplomatic tensions and deterioration in relations.

Subsequently, disrespecting earlier treaty commitments, the western

powers played for time and under different pretexts refused to deliver the

agreed on naval material. When pressed for respect of the treaties, they

complained and cheated: sometimes they were needed at home because of war

here and there; sometimes they pretended that they could not produce them in

sufficient quantities; and finally, as a last resort, they often delivered articles of

the worst quality and least quantity in total disregard of treaties. Add to this the

enormous delays in deliveries—sometimes it could take years before they were

delivered, all this crowned with complaints and disgust about the Deys’

impatience, avarice, insolence, and tyranny. Here indeed lay the difficulties and

complexities of relations between Algiers and the western countries throughout

the two centuries-period during which they maintained diplomatic relations.

Second, the principle of redemption or exchange of captives was rarely

respected by western countries. Corsairing in Algiers as in the Netherlands, and

the rest of the western world, was a meticulously organized enterprise.37

Corsairs/privateers were authorized to prey on enemy ships and captures,

including ships, freight, crews and passengers, when declared legal prizes by a

37
In England and the USA, corsairing is called privateering. A privateer used similar methods as a
pirate, but acted while in possession of a commission or Letter of Marque from his government or
monarch authorizing the capture of merchant ships belonging to an enemy nation. For further details
see Stark, Abolition of Privateering, pp. 49-78.
120
council of prizes, were sold by auction to the highest bidder.38 The enslaved

captives then, even at times of hostilities, could be either ransomed, i.e.: bought

back from the person who acquired them at auction (slave-master), or

exchanged against other enslaved compatriots. This was certainly a solution

which provided some hope for those who happened to fall into corsairs’ hands,

Muslim and Christian alike, to recover their liberty.

For different reasons, however, Christian slaves at Algiers could be

redeemed easier and more speedily than their Muslim counterparts in Europe

even though sometimes at exorbitant prices.39 For Muslim slaves in the

Christian Mediterranean countries, redemption was almost impossible—except

in very rare cases.40 Forced on Christian galleys as oarsmen, they were a

valuable source of labor which the European monarchs were reluctant to

relinquish.41 With the Netherlands where slavery did not exist, however, the

Algerian captives were sold in other Mediterranean Christian ports which made

exchange impossible. When not sold, they were simply, and cruelly, thrown

overboard by their Dutch captors.42 This inequality and cruelty in treatment

could not be admitted by Algiers and was a source of much tension which often

precipitated negotiations and peace treaties into deadlocks.43

38
At Algiers, the slavemarket was seen as having “the character of a stock exchange rather than a
cattlemarket.” Groot, “Ottoman North Africa and the Dutch Republic,” p. 135. Krieken, Corsaires et
marchands, pp. 15-7.
39
Daniel Panzac, “Les esclaves et leurs rançons chez les barbaresques (Fin XVIIIe - Début XIXe
Siècle),” Cahiers de la Méditerranée, vol. 65, L’esclavage en Méditerranée à l’époque moderne, 2002,
pars. 66-77. (Accessed 6 Mars 2008). http://cdlm.revues.org/document47.html
40
The average duration of captivity for a Muslim slave varied between 35-40 years. Belhamissi,
Captifs Algériens, pp. 43-4.
41
Clark, “Barbary Corsairs,” p. 22.
42
Krieken, Corsaires et marchands, p. 17.
43
Belhamissi, Captifs Algériens, pp. 68-71, 73-7.
121
 Third and last, passes and control of freight as stipulated by treaties

were another source of complications. In order to enforce the treaties, passes or

passports were carried aboard merchant ships as a safeguard against seizure but

also aboard corsairs to immunize them against pursuits of cruisers of other

countries.44 According to the American historian Peter Earle, those passes were

nearly always honored by the Algerian corsairs;45 but with Christian countries

they soon became problematical. The Dutch unscrupulously permitted other

states, enemies to Algiers, to use them which constituted violation of the

treaties and caused much trouble;46 and “almost every British consul in the

Mediterranean area supplemented his income by selling them to foreign

ships.”47 The history of Algerian diplomatic relations with European countries

is full of such abuses but in general, the system proved to be workable and

reasonably effective despite wholesale forgeries. The clause on ‘enemy

freight’ was not better allotted. The Dutch argued that the flag protects both the

ship and its freight (goods and passengers); but Algiers objected and

considered it illegal protection of enemies under the Dutch flag. That was

another source of problems.

Free ports and commerce complemented by tribute, ransom or exchange

of captives, and passes and freight control provided the basis for diplomatic
44
Such documents carried the name, provenance, and description of the ship so that it could establish
its identity when encountered by a corsair or cruiser. Groot, “Ottoman North Africa and the Dutch
Republic,” p. 137; Earle, Pirate Wars, p. 62-63.
45
Earle, Pirate Wars, p. 64.
46
Seemingly, an Algerian corsair complained about Dutch counterfeiting in an equivalent of these
words: “they certainly play foul tricks upon us, in selling their passes to other infidels: For ever since
we made peace with them, we rarely light on either Swede, Dane, Hamburgher, &c. All have Dutch
complexions; all Dutch passes; all call each other Hans, Hans, and all say Yaw, Yaw!”, Lane-Poole,
Barbary Corsairs, p. 271.
47
Barnby, Prisoners of Algiers, p. 279.
122
relations between Algiers and western countries. Overall, Algiers observed

strictly the terms of the concluded treaties, particularly those relating to

captives and passports.48 The signatory counterparts, however, had little

consideration for Algerian captives and even less for tribute. Most often they

only honored their commitments as long as Algiers had sufficient deterrence

power to insure the respect of treaties. Nonetheless, as soon as the balance of

power shifted, either as a result of political alliances, naval technological

advances, or merely peace between belligerent western countries, the western

powers hastened their squadrons to Algiers and imposed new treaties favorable

to themselves.49

Treaties between Algiers and the Christian powers were generally

concluded by navy admirals who negotiated while pointing the cannons of their

warships towards Algiers. Because negotiations were carried while

accompanied by a demonstration of naval might, that form of diplomatic

conduct was later tagged ‘gunboat diplomacy.’ During the 17th and 18th

centuries, this early form of negotiations had proved to be more or less

effective for the Europeans as long as they could obtain concessions from

Algiers and achieve favorable terms. By 1815-1816, however, it turned out to

be deadly effective as it reached a non-return point. After an American

squadron concluded a favorable treaty at gunpoint, a joint bombardment carried

48
An American envoy to Algiers reported in 1786 that “their [Algerine] treaties are sometimes broken,
but not often.” USDC, 3:87, From John Lamb to Thomas Jefferson, May 20, 1786; also, ibid., 6:29,
From John Temple to John Jay, June 7, 1786.
49
In 1815, for example, within one week after the signature of the treaty of Ghent which ended war
between the United States and Great Britain, the American Congress declared war on Algiers and sent
two squadrons to the Bay of Algiers.
123
out by British and Dutch cruisers reduced the port and naval forces of Algiers

to rubble.50 Consequently, the Algerian navy lost its deterrence power and

within a short period Algiers fell easy prey to European colonial designs.

2. The Lasting Principles of Corsairing Diplomacy

Among the lasting principles that regulated relations between Algiers

and the Christian countries and which crossed the hardships of time, warfare,

and diplomatic turbulences four stand out prominently: sovereignty, passports,

treaties and tributes, and enslaved captives. By late 18th century, they were

solidly established, therefore clearly identifiable, but they were by no means

unalterable. As always, they were at stake and only a balance of power between

Algiers and the European countries, either individually or collectively, could

guarantee their observance. The pattern practically worked like this: when

those ‘strange bedfellows,’ Muslims and Christians alike, considered that

treaties, agreements, or merely custom had either not been respected,

jeopardized, or they simply wanted to alter the balance of power, they recurred

to the use of the language they had always excelled at: military expeditions and

corsairing and counter-corsairing. The outcome was also almost always the

same: treaties were re-negotiated; sometimes they were modified but most of

the time they were just re-conducted on the basis of previously negotiated ones.

As of late 18th century, those major issues had long been settled and diplomatic

relations were maintained on a basis of strict respect of treaties and custom.

50
In 1816, in a seven-hour non-stop bombardment, a joint Anglo-Dutch expedition unleashed 400
cannons totalizing 47, 000 shots on the city of Algiers. Krieken, Corsaires et marchands, p. 129.
124
 2. 1. Sovereignty

The nature of the triangular diplomatic relationship between the

European states and the Sublime Porte, on the one hand, and between the latter

and the Regency of Algiers, on the other, and finally between Algiers and the

European states explains in part the evolution of Algiers from a mere

dependency of the Ottoman Empire to a sovereign political entity recognized

and accepted diplomatically by all sovereign states in the western world. The

capitulations between the Ottoman Empire and the different Christian countries

were diplomatic acts concluded between a state and another state and were

generally respected as such. Technically, Algiers was a dependency of the

Ottoman Empire, not a separate state, and legally it was administered as an

Ottoman province by a Pasha, or viceroy, who was the representative of the

Sultan and governed on his behalf. As a “vassal to the Sultan,” Algiers was

“theoretically bound by those capitulations in the same way as their

signatories”—the Ottoman Empire and the European states.51 However, and for

reasons discussed earlier, Algiers refused to abide by them and the Sublime

Porte failed to force Algiers to respect them. The foreign states, conscious

about those weaknesses in relations between Constantinople and its regency,

started signing separate treaties with Algiers early in the 16th century. That

implicitly meant recognition of Algiers as a sovereign state.

Furthermore, and paradoxical as it might seem, when the Sultan

authorized foreign powers to “chastise the Algerian pirates,” occupy their ports,

51
Blondy, “Discours sur l’esclavage,” par. 18.
125
and “deal with them”52 this means that implicitly he was recognizing that he

had no authority over his own subjects. Worse, this also implies that he was

conceding that he was unable to protect his subjects against foreign attacks.

Curiously, each time the Sublime Porte had made an agreement with any of the

European powers authorizing ‘punitive’ measures against Algiers, that power

approached Algiers with the purpose of concluding a separate peace treaty.

This happened in 1619 when Algiers had been maintaining pressure on the

Bastion of France and forced France to negotiate with it separately; it happened

again in 1622 when Algiers refused to recognize the capitulations of 1612

between the Ottoman Empire and The Netherlands and again in 1628 when a

another capitulation with France (1604) gave it larger concessions in Algerian

ports. The English, however, proceeded differently: after associating

Constantinople to the bilateral treaty signed with Algiers in 1622, England

acted unilaterally for a new one in 1662. A year later, they obtained a

declaration from the Sublime Porte which implicitly admitted that Algiers

could deal directly with the European powers. In all cases, this implies that

Algiers was in fact and deed a sovereign political entity recognized by all.

Yet, this did not prevent the Turkish ruling elite in Algiers from rushing

to the rescue of the Turks of the Orient, origin and religion oblige, each times

the Ottoman Empire had been threatened by those same Christian powers. The

last time this occurred was in 1827; the military operations caused full

52
Montmorency, “The Barbary States in International Law,” p. 89, 90; Panzac, Corsaires
barbaresques, p. 28; also see “The Commandement obtained of the Grand Signior, by her Majestics
Ambassadour, for the quiet passing of her Subjects to and from his Dominions, sent to the Viceroy of
Argier (1584)” in Appendix 1B.
126
destruction of the Algerian fleet which so far acted as the sole protector of

Algerian sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Ottomans, on the other hand,

failed to defend Algiers in 1830.53 In matters of foreign relations and defense,

and since the early 17th century, Algiers had acquired certain sovereignty and

stood alone to face a ‘concert’ of Europe which envied its naval supremacy in

the Mediterranean and leagued to destroy it.

2. 2. Free Navigation and Passports

The principle of free navigation and passes introduced earlier by the

capitulations and the Algerian-Dutch treaty of 1622 was re-integrated in a new

treaty with England, which after a long Civil War, renewed contacts with

Algiers at the end of the Commonwealth period. In 1682, a new treaty was

concluded; it introduced passes that were meant for identifying English ships

when controlled by Algerian corsairs and vice-versa. The form and contents of

the passes were determined by different treaties and delivered by admiralty

courts.54 The passes delivered by the English and Dutch admiralty courts, for

example, were cut irregularly to two halves: the first half was handed to the

captain of the ship while the second was sent to Algiers.55 This procedure may

be considered more as further security against forgeries and illegal protection

53
The last Turkish ruler of Algiers, Dey Hussein, surrendered after a short resistance against the French
who landed at Sidi-Fredj in 1832. After surrender, he sailed for Livorno (Leghorn), Italy carrying an
enormous personal fortune with him and died there in 1837—even though 50% of the original fortune
was retained by the French according to the surrender treaty. For the terms of surrender see Grammont,
Histoire d’Alger, pp. 406-7
54
For the Form of the Pass as provided by the treaty of 1682 see Lewis Hertslet, A Complete
Collection of the Treaties and Conventions, and Reciprocal Regulations, at Present Subsisting Between
Great Britain and Foreign Powers, vol. I (London: Henry Butter Worth, 1827), pp. 65-6; also
Appendix 2B. For later passports see Marsden, Law and Custom of the Sea, pp. 347-48.
55
Groot, “Ottoman North Africa and the Dutch Republic,” p. 148.
127
of enemy shipping than caused by the illiteracy of the Algerian corsairs as it is

generally assumed.56 Admitting that the corsairs were illiterate, and the quasi-

majority of them was illiterate, nonetheless passports were adequately handled:

Algiers had structured its navy in a strict respect of treaties by assigning a

khodja to the captain, so that exactly such documents could be read properly.

This principle was reiterated in a number of treaties and additional articles

signed between 1682 and 1816.57 Article IV of the treaty of 1682 clearly

referred to such reciprocal passes:

All merchants’ ships, or vessels, of His said Majesty’s subjects shall be

obliged to produce such a pass as aforesaid. And any of the ships of war,
or other vessels, of His said Majesty, meeting with any ships, or other
vessels, of Algiers, if the commander of any such Algier[s] ship, or
vessel, shall produce a pass firmed by the chief governors of Algiers,
and a certificate from the English Consul living there.58

2. 3. Treaties and Tributes

Incorporated first in the treaties of 1622 and 1626 with the

Netherlands to compensate loss of commerce, the principle of tribute paid in

the form of naval commodities was enlarged in subsequent treaties to maintain

a balance of power with the European countries. Progressively, however, it lost

its original meaning and became a source of tension between Algiers and the

western countries. In 1661, Algiers signed a treaty of commerce with France

that permitted the latter to reoccupy its trading posts on the Algerian eastern

coast in return for payment of tribute. In this case, tribute was understood as a

56
Devoulx, “La Marine d’Alger,” p. 385; for forgeries, see Lane-Poole, Barbary Corsairs, pp. 270-71.
57
Hertslet, Collection of Treaties and Conventions, p. 59; for all the treaties between Algiers and Great
Britain see pp. 58-88.
58
Ibid., p. 60. For substantial extracts from the treaty see Appendix 2A.
128
compensation for the occupation of the Bastion of France, a trading privilege;

in practice, it functioned like an annual rent.59 That ‘deal’ or practical

arrangement with France, which later developed to become custom, originally

implied a simplified meaning: an exchange of privilege for tribute.60 In 1729,

Sweden signed a similar treaty in which tribute “was a self-evident part of the

agreement.”61 Austria (1727), Denmark (1746), Hamburg (1751), Venice

(1764), the United States of America (1795), and Portugal (1810) signed

treaties on a similar basis.62 Overall, tribute was an integral part of all treaties

between Algiers and the Christian countries even though interpretations varied

on the opposite sides of the Mediterranean.

Tribute, or ‘Al-Jizya’ in Islamic legal tradition, is perceived differently

by Muslims and Christians hence its complications. By definition, tribute (from

Latin tributum meaning to give or to pay) has a two-fold meaning: in a first

meaning tribute refers to any sum of money or other valuable thing one party

gives to another in token of respect or, “of submission or allegiance.”63 In its

second meaning, tribute “incorporate[s] certain aspects of regulated trade in

goods and services between the parties under a contractual relationship formed

upon duress.”64 This double meaning is at the root of divergent interpretations

among Muslims and Christians in late 18th and early 19th centuries. While
59
The terms were renewed in the treaties of 1679, and 1684 (Article IX), Card, Traités de la France, p.
38 and 43 respectively.
60
Later, the Americans did not understand, or pretended not to understand, this principle. In short, they
wanted trading privileges without paying a counterpart for that.
61
Muller, Consuls, Corsairs, and Commerce, p. 59.
62
Belhamissi, Captifs Algériens, pp. 113-14 ; Shaler, Sketches of Algiers, pp. 35, 39; Panzac,
Corsaires barbaresques, pp. 279-81.
63
“Tribute,” Wikipedia Encyclopedia. (Accessed 1 April 2008).
http://dictionnaire.sensagent.com/tribute/en-en/#wikipedia
64
Ibid.
129
Algerian Muslim views tended to interpret it as a manifestation of “Christian

submission to the Muslim order,” which also corresponds with the first

meaning in the definition, the Christians rejected this view and rather saw it as

an exchange of gifts “between two equal partners” thus slightly skimming over

the second meaning.65 In consequence, this difference in approach was a source

of much disagreement between Algiers and the western countries throughout

the latter part of the period under study.

Furthermore, when tribute is put in different historical context, it means

different things at different periods of time. In Antiquity, the less powerful

Greek city-states paid a tribute to Athens implying submission to the power of

that great city. In the early Medieval Ages, the Anglo-Saxon King Ethelred II

paid a tribute, the Danegeld, to the invading Danes to escape total destruction

of his kingdom at the hands of the invading Vikings; here tribute is likened to

blackmail money. Throughout the medieval ages the peasants paid their lords a

tribute for protection against other belligerent lords; in this case it was a sort of

a defense fee. During early Islamic history, the Dhimmies (or Ahl Al-

Dhimmah) had to choose between conversion to Islam, payment of a tribute, or

fight by the sword. Those who preferred to keep their faith paid a tribute which

implied recognition of the supremacy of Islamic law and submission to its

government.66 Finally, the Spanish conquistadors imposed a parias on the

Muslims of Andalusia and North Africa when they were militarily strong but

65
Muller, Consuls, Corsairs, and Commerce, p. 59.
66
John L. Esposito, What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam (London/New York: Oxford
University Press, 2002), pp. 70-1; Joshua E. London, “Victory in Tripoli: Lessons for the War on
Terrorism,” Heritage Lectures, 940 (May, 2006), p. 6.
130
small in numbers to settle conquered areas. So, according to the historical

context in which it occurred, the meaning of tribute varied and so did

interpretations.

When put in the historical context of Algerian European relations, one

finds that tribute as instituted by early Algerian-Dutch treaties rather reflects

the second meaning of the definition, i.e.: ‘a form of regulated trade in goods

and services,” which can also be perceived in the Algerian-French treaties

about the Bastion of France. By the beginning of the 18th century, tribute also

became indicatory of Christian submission because a new form of practice was

attached to it: presentation of consular gifts as shown in the Swedish treaty.

Originally presented to the Dey and close members of his Turkish circle by

European consuls as a sign of respect, this form of consular practice was later

incorporated in treaties which specified amounts of consular gifts and

frequency of their presentation to the Dey. The latest treaties set value limits

for gifts and made them biennial.67 Originally consular gifts were presented by

the new consul when such change of consuls occurred either because of death,

replacement, or when the former consul was ordered to leave the country. The

Europeans attributed the last reason to the greediness of the Deys and

pretended that the Deys frequently expelled the consuls so that they could get

more gifts for themselves, their families, and their friends. The true reason,

however, resides in the non-respect of treaties by the Europeans; perhaps also it

67
Allegedly, this change occurred because the rulers of Algiers had become more demanding about the
value of gifts.
131
was due to the despotic character of the Deys who became less tolerant of the

lies and duplicity of the petty consuls and their countries.

By late 18th and early 19th centuries, however, tribute acquired another

meaning: it became synonymous of extortion or protection money.68 While the

Deys saw that it was the duty of consuls and their countries to present gifts, the

Europeans “stress[ed] that gifts were not regular tributes” therefore they were

“not expressive of European obedience.”69 Undoubtedly, this ambiguity about

the nature of tribute and consular practice attached to it resulted more from

difference in cultural background and legal traditions than from any particular

insatiability on the part of the Deys. It is also illustrative of the complexity of

diplomatic relations between Algiers and the European countries.

2. 4. Slavery and Redemption

By the end of the 18th century, the question of captives was already

settled even though irregularities persisted. The different treaties between

Algiers and the European countries incorporated the principle of ransom or

exchange of captives and the practice was largely accepted. A whole system of

government or private institutions, procedures, and regulations was developed

for the purpose. While el-fekkak or redeemer acted on the part of Algiers for
68
This view was expressed early in American history by Benjamin Franklin and echoed widely by
American writers who largely disprove of the practice. The Diplomatic Correspondence of the
American Revolution, being the Letters of Benjamin Franklin, Silas Deane, John Adams, John Jay, and
others, edited by Jared Sparks (Boston, MA: N. Hale and Gray & Bowen, 1829-1830), 4:184, Franklin
to the President of Congress, December 25, 1783. (Hereafter cited as DCAR); also see James A. Field,
Jr. “Trade, Skills, and Sympathy: The First Century and a Half of Commerce with the Near East,”
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 401, America and the Middle
East, (May, 1972), p. 2; Frothingham, “The Armed Merchantman,” p. 465; Oren, Power, Faith, and
Fantasy, p. 19-20.
69
Muller, Consuls, Corsairs, and Commerce, p. 59.
132
the return of Algerian captives enslaved in Christian countries;70 the religious

Order of the Most Holy Trinity for the Redemption of Captives, better known

as the Mathurins, gained prominence with activities related to redemption of

Christian captives at Algiers.71

Certain treaties with Algiers were advantageous to Christian captives;

they provided either for non-enslavement or for specific cases whereby escaped

slaves were not to be returned to their masters which permitted them recovery

of their freedom. Treaties between Algiers and England, for example, provided

for such cases. Clause XI of the Treaty of Peace and Commerce of 1682, which

remained effective until 1816, specified that Christian slaves, regardless of

their country of origin, who escaped to visiting English warships would be free;

but it also specified that prior notice had to be made about such visits (either by

the consul or commander of the warship) so that the owners of Christian slaves,

would make secure their slaves to prevent them from escaping on board

English warships. That clause stipulated:

That when any of His said Majesty’s ships of war shall appear before
Algiers, upon notice thereof given by the English Consul, or by the
commander of the said ships, to the chief governors of Algiers, public
proclamation shall be immediately made to secure the Christian
captives; and if, after that, any Christians whatsoever make their escape
on board any of the said ships of war, they shall not be required back
again.72

70
Procedures, negotiations, repatriation and many other aspects about Algerian captives may be found
in Belhamissi, Captifs Algériens, pp. 81-103; for the origins of el-fekkak see also Clissold, “Ransom
Business,” p. 780.
71
For the origins, role, and activities of the Mathurins see Erwan le Fur, “La Renaissance d’un
apostolat: l’Ordre de la Trinité et la Rédemption des Captifs dans les années 1630,” Cahiers de la
Méditerranée, vol. 66, L’autre et l’image de soi, 2003. (Accessed 20 June 2008).
http:www.cdlm.revues.org/document110.html
72
Hertslet, Collection of Treaties and Conventions, p. 61.
133
 Moreover, clause XI of the same treaty stipulated that “no subjects of

His said Majesty shall be bought or sold, or made slaves, in any part of the

Kingdom of Algiers, upon any pretence whatsoever.” This clause, in fact,

ended enslavement of English captives at Algiers—which was not the case for

Algerian captives in England. It also provided for redemption “of His subjects

now in slavery” on the condition that “as reasonable a price as may be” would

be agreed “with their patrons or masters, for their redemption, without obliging

the said patrons or masters, against their wills, to set any at liberty.” The treaty,

however, did not mention exchange even though “thousands of Muslims were

held prisoners or enslaved by … England, Ireland and Wales.”73 The chance of

exchanging Muslim captives in the British Isles seems to be null because they

were either sold as slaves in “ports stretching from Cadiz to Genoa,” or were

executed as pirates. Others simply disappeared when they “were hauled to

Portsmouth or Exeter or London as captives and slaves, to languish in jails, to

stand trial in southwestern courts, to beg for succor or to disappear into the

underworld of the growing metropolis.”74 Despite the tragic fate of the

Algerian captives, inequalities, and irregularities, not to say crimes, that were

often committed against them, the different bilateral treaties providing for

redemption resisted over time and functioned well. One may even be tempted

to qualify them as ‘one-way’ treaties, and indeed they were so, because they

profited more to Christian captives than to Muslim ones. Despite this privileged

treatment, the Christian powers were never satisfied and blamed Algiers for

73
Rojas, “Insults Unpunished,” p. 164.
74
Matar, “Britain and Barbary,” pp. 3-6, 9; Barrows, “Review.”
134
Christians’ enslavement at a time the Muslim slaves purely and simply

disappeared in Europe, perhaps without even a chance for life and less for

redemption and freedom.

In this context, one case is worth noting here to point out the

complexities of the issue of captives, in particular, and relations between

Algiers and the Christian powers, in general. In 1679, Seth Sothel, a British

subject, was captured by Algerian corsairs or “Pirates of Argier” as they were

called. King Charles II Privy Council ordered him to be “exchanged for one

Hadgamore late Commander of the Tiger of Argier or one Buffilo Ball” and

charged Admiral Narborough to carry out the exchange.75 The Admiral could

not carry out the task and certified before the Privy Council that he had left

“Hadg Omar and Buffilo Ball under the Charge of Vice-Admiral [Arthur]

Herbert in the Streights [Straits of Gibraltar].” The Privy Council issued a

second order for Herbert to exchange Sothel for either or both of those

prisoners or in case they had already been “disposed of”—meaning already

sold or died in captivity—he had to be exchanged “for the first Prisoner or

Prisoners of Note that shall be taken of the Algerines by any of his Majesty’s

Ships under his command.” In 1680, Sothel was still prisoner and the exchange

was not effected yet; he sued again and suggested that the “two Algerine

Captains might be sent to the English Agent at Leghorn, Thomas Deedham [a

slave-trader], to keep until the exchange could be effected.”

75
This anecdote, as well as quotes, are completely extracted from William R. Riddell, “Observations
on Slavery and Privateering,” The Journal of Negro History, 15: 3 (Jul., 1930), pp. 340-47. Riddell
used as a primary source legal documents from King’s Printer: Acts of the Privy Council (Colonial
Series), Vol. I and II (1613-1680).
135
 This is one of hundreds other similar stories that one can find scattered

over the 200 years of the history of diplomatic relations between Ottoman

Algeria and the Christians countries. It is an anecdote which tells about a

number of other related issues: first, it tells that Hadgamore was Hadj Omar,

and archives have preserved his name, but it does not tell who was Buffilo

Ball—certainly not Buffalo Bill! How many Algerian captives were lost to

Christians and history in this way, who were they? In what circumstances were

they captured? What sufferings did they endure? Almost certainly these

questions will remain unanswered.76 However, one may be tempted to ask one

more question and answer it: How many of the Muslim captives had been able

to return back home to tell stories about their captivity? To judge by the

number of captivity accounts of former Algerian captives in the Christian

countries which amounts to null, compared to hundreds—real and imaginary

on the Christian side—one may assume that very rare, indeed, were those who

could make their way back home to tell about the cruelty they suffered at the

hands of their Christian captors. Undoubtedly, the inability to answer these

questions today is frustrating especially at a time when western historians are

counting their captives of ‘the Barbary Coast’ and resurrecting them through a

heralded opera of Muslim cruelty and Christian sufferings in a contemporary

crusade against Islam.77 Second, it tells also that the captives in this anecdote

were lucky enough not to be cruelly hanged in front of the port of Algiers by

the English admiral who captured them as did his Christian predecessor in

76
Belhamissi, Captifs Algériens, pp. 9-10.
77
See for example Davis, “Counting European Slaves.”
136
1624.78 Third, it tells also that the Algerian corsairs retaliated by capturing

Christians (the case of Sothel) to be able to exchange them with Muslim

captives in Christian Europe (the case of Hadj Omar who was already a captive

of Narborough).79 Fourth, it tells also that the English merchants and agents at

Leghorn were as active as the ‘Algerine pirates’ at the port of Algiers selling,

buying, and exchanging slaves and sharing in the slave trade profits. Last, its

tells also that certain members of the titled nobility of England won their titles

thanks to piracy—Sir Francis Drake was a notable pirate—or thanks to their

inveterate anti-Muslim hatred and aggression. The above mentioned Vice-

admiral Arthur Herbert rose to the rank of admiral and obtained the title of Sir

thanks to the carrier he had made on the shores of Algiers.80 Between 1669 and

1683, he “served against the Algerine pirates;” during that period, two dates

were important: in 1678 he lost an eye while he was trying to capture an

Algerian corsair81 and in 1682 he returned to Algiers with a squadron that

enabled England to obtain a very favorable treaty.

By the mid-17th century, diplomatic reciprocity was finally established

and Algiers was dealing as equal to equal with the European powers. It

established diplomatic mission at Marseille and London and sent diplomatic

emissaries to Europe not only to solve problems relating to corsairing, captives,

78
In 1677, Narborough was at the Command of a Squadron that England sent to the shores of Algiers
with a mission to “destroy the pirates wherever he found them.” The Algerian prisoners were, no doubt,
part of “the fruits of the latter expedition.” Riddell, “Slavery and Privateering,” p. 343.
79
Stella, Histoires d’esclaves, p. 36; Blondy, “Discours sur l’esclavage,” par. 19.
80
G. E. Aylmer, “Slavery under Charles II: The Mediterranean and Tangier,” The English Historical
Review, 114: 456 (Apr., 1999), pp. 387-88.
81
Riddell, “Slavery and Privateering,” p. 342, fn, 4.
137
and commerce but also on official state visits.82 Corsairing entered a phase of

official diplomatic usage. Henceforth, the Algerian Ri’yas on corsairing

campaigns carried passports, just like their European counterparts, delivered by

the European diplomatic missions at Algiers which protected them against

privateers’ attacks as well as pursuits of foreign nations’ cruisers.83 The

passports also served as a basis for consuls’ intervention to arbitrate cases of

litigation over prizes.84

Overall, between 1619 and 1830, Algiers negotiated and concluded

more than sixty treaties of peace and commerce with most of the European

countries. Twelve of those treaties were signed for the first time, eleven were

renegotiated, and the rest were renewed treaties as shown in Table 4 (Treaties

of Peace and Commerce). Spain, however, remained an exception. In 1785,

after almost 300 years of warfare and enmity, Algiers and Spain moved to

make peace but Spain faced a constitutional obstacle: the monarch could not

conclude peace with the ‘infidels’ because of the prohibitive coronation clause

fashioned after the will of Isabella. The impediment could only be overcome by

concluding a ‘Truce to Last One Hundred Years’ because a truce implies a

limited cessation of hostilities, not peace. 85 It would be interesting to consider

each treaty separately; however, detailed study does not seem to add any more

arguments than those already stated as forming the ingredients of this long

diplomatic relationship between Algiers and the western countries.

82
Matar, “Britain and Barbary,” p. 33; Panzac, “La course barbaresque revisitée,” p. 33.
83
Panzac, Corsaires barbaresques, p. 35.
84
Devoulx, “Marine d’Alger,” pp. 394-96.
85
Cathcart, The Captives, p. 2; Barnby, Prisoners of Algiers, p. 38.
138
Table 4: Treaties of Peace and Commerce between Algiers and Foreign
Countries, 1619-1830

Polity First treaty Renewed or Modified Treaties

France 1619 1628, 1640, 1661, 1666, 1667, 1670, 1676, 1684,
1689, 1690, 1694, 1698, 1719, 1764, 1790, 1796,
1800, 1801, 1814, 1815, 1818

The 1622 1626,1662, 1679, 1703, 1712, 1726, 1731, 1757, 1760,
Netherlands 1768, 1794, 1816

England 1622 1660, 1662, 1668, 1673, 1682, 1686, 1700, 1703,
1716, 1729, 1751, 1762, 1765, 1800, 180, 1816, 1816,
1816, 1824

Austria 1727 1729

Sweden 1729 1792
Denmark 1746 1751, 1772
Tuscany 1749
Hamburg 1751
Venice 1764 1767, 1768
Spain 1786 1791
(truce)
Portugal 1793 1810, 1813
(truce)
USA 1795 1815, 1816

Source: Data is collected from the different sources used in Chapter III.

Note: Modified treaties are underlined.

2. 5. Method of Negotiating Treaties

As important as the four principles that regulated diplomatic relations

between Algiers and the western countries was the method adopted by

westerners for concluding treaties. Between 1619 and 1816, treaties serving

western interests were most often imposed ‘at the mouth of the cannon.’ Time

139
and again, westerners dispatched their negotiators to Algiers accompanied by

mighty squadrons. The purpose of that display of naval power was either to

impress, threaten, or effectively use gunfire to force new treaties on Algiers or

renegotiate old ones. As those expeditions were numerous and their

motivations, course, and outcome were complex, one may not be able to cover

them all in a reasonable length here. But with the aim of showing the extent of

western impetuosity and animosity towards Algiers, one may at least attempt to

draw up a summarizing table for the purpose (Table 5: European Naval

Expeditions against Algiers, 1501-1830). The task is difficult and may not

adequately fulfill targeted objectives but it is worth giving it a try.

Europe’s belligerence, greed, and denial of the right of existence to

others had reduced Algiers to a status of defense, defiance, and distrust vis-à-

vis the western powers. Consequently, by late 18th century, Algiers perceived

the presence of any other Christian entity in the Mediterranean as an imminent

danger. This partly explains why early Algerian-American relations where

characterized by reciprocal acrimony and uneasiness. Moreover, European

assaults are important to the understanding of later relations between Algiers

and the USA because they were the crucible in which corsairing diplomacy of

Ottoman Algeria was forged. They were also the model which inspired

America’s founding fathers and diplomats who, as soon as the United States

came out to existence, planned to use of force against Algiers

140
 Table 5: European Naval Expeditions against Algiers, 1501-1830

Expeditionary Year & Nature & Major Developments at Impact on Diplomatic

Country Ally aspects of Algiers Relations
Expedition

Portugal 1501 Attempts landing Inhabitants organized

forces at Oran and defeated invaders

The 1624 Captured Algerian Treaty signed (1626);

Netherlands corsairs were renewed precedent treaty
hanged in front of (1622)
the port of Algiers;
the deed was
repeated many times

1775-76 Squadron sent to Uneasiness, war Treaty signed (1794);

Gibraltar but fails to declared in 1793 renewed precedent treaty
capture Algerian (1768) + favorable terms
corsairs to Algiers (tribute and
consular gifts confirmed)
England 1620 Unsuccessful attack State visit of the First treaty between
against the city of Pasha of Algiers to Algiers and England
Algiers. Istanbul; English concluded in 1622
Consul seizes
opportunity and
negotiates a treaty
1670 1st phase: 1 large
galley destroyed
2nd phase: 4 large
ships (44-canons) +
3 smaller ones
destroyed + 2200
casualties among
them many Ri’yas

1671 7 large galleys Revolt at Algiers: end Treaty signed (1673);

anchored at the port of the rule of Pashas renewed precedent treaty
Bejaia were nominated by the (1668)
destroyed + Sultan and ascension
casualties to power of Deys
elected by local
janissaries and Ri’yas

1686 Squadron shows at Treaty signed (1686);

Algiers announcing renewed precedent treaty
the death of King (1682)
Charles II.

141
European Naval Expeditions against Algiers, 1501-1830 (continued)

1816, Anglo-Dutch Dey Omar Pasha New treaty (1816)

the expedition unleashes murded (r. 1815- ending Christian slavery
Dutch 400 cannons on 1817) at Algiers
Algiers and its port
in a 7-hours non-
stop bombardment
totalizing 47,000
shots. The port was
reduced to rubbles

France 1682 Incendiary galliots Declaration of war

launched on the city against France
of Algiers’s
fortifications and
port; important
damage

1683 Terrible Divan frees 500 Treaty signed (1684);

cannonading: Christian captives but renewed precedent treaty
hundreds of squadron remains in (1666)
mosques and houses the bay threatening;
destroyed but little Mezzomorto seizes
killed because power & retaliates
inhabitants left city forcibly: Christian
prior to attack captives were
executed from the
mouth of a cannon
1688 Algiers cannonaded Treaty renewed; +
again; but military equipment (4
interrupted: threat of cannons and 9000
revolution at home bullets) and expertise for
Algiers
1827 War declared on Coastal batteries fire
Algiers and port at French warships
blockaded

1830 Troops land at Sidi Turks defeated; Dey End of Ottoman Rule in
Fredj Hussein surrenders Algiers
unconditionally &
leaves for Naples
Denmark 1772 Unsuccessful Treaty signed (1772);
cannonading renewed precedent treaty
(1751); confirmed
consular gifts

Source: Data is collected from the different sources used in chapter III of this work.

142
3. Decline of Corsairing Diplomacy

As was previously shown, corsairing had originally been founded on a

religiously defensive basis. By late 18th century, however, it acquired an

increasingly important economic role. Religious safety and economic welfare

had become so closely interrelated that one may consider them as the two sides

of the same coin. After all, prizes and prisoners had always been an integral

part of wars, holy or not, throughout the history of humanity.86 In Islamic

tradition, however, the capture of prizes was submitted to strict rules and the

prisoners were treated humanely. This contrasts sharply with the Crusades of

the Medieval Ages, for example, when blind religious fanaticism caused

indescribable atrocities at Antioch (Ma’arra),87 or else the Inquisition and

Reconquista genocide against Muslims, or even the barbarous treatment

inflicted upon Algerian corsairs when they fell into European hands.88

Therefore, Muslim corsairing, when placed within proper historical and

religious contexts, was a legitimate defensive reaction against Christian

aggressions. Prizes and prisoners were no more than a logical outcome of an

ongoing warfare between two antagonist powers.

In the long run, however, the corsairing activities of Algiers were going

to acquire such an economic importance that, by late 18th century, the western

powers were going to built arguments presenting it as mere piracy. Those

arguments served as a disguise to legitimize combined military attacks against

86
Stark, Abolition of Privateering, pp. 13-9.
87
Maalouf, Les Croisades, p. 56-57.
88
Krieken, Corsaires et marchands, p. 17.
143
Algiers under the pretext of bringing piracy to an end. In that way, they

provided secular legitimacy for crusading intentions that persisted unaltered

over centuries. Military more powerful and ideologically and politically

increasingly inclined towards expansionism, the Christian powers considered

Algiers a ripe fruit for conquest.89 Corsairing and Christians prisoners,

therefore, served as an excuse for the conquest of Algiers. The political thought

and military actions of the Christian powers

to save slaves from North Africa would show even more clearly the
extent to which the idea of crusade carried within it the seed of
colonization, the degree to which liberation served as guise for
conquest.90

Therefore, although one may concede that even if corsairing had relatively lost

the religious fervor of the founding corsairs, it nonetheless continued to operate

as a defensive weapon against continuing aggressions of the western powers.

3. 1. Developments affecting Corsairing Diplomacy after 1791

The collapse of corsairing diplomacy may be imputed more to failures

on the part of Algiers to adapt to a rapidly changing secular world than to any

modifications in the legal status of corsairing. Diplomatically, militarily and

technologically, and economically speaking, Algiers continued to adhere to

values and practices that were three hundred years old while the western world

was advancing at an unprecedented pace in all domains. Indeed, corsairing as

understood in the Mediterranean Basin, and its Anglo-Saxon counterpart

89
Silverstein, “The New Barbarians,” pp. 189-92.
90
Weiss, “Imagining Europe through Barbary Captivity,” p. 56.
144
privateering, was not officially abolished until 1856; and even then, the United

States refused to adhere to the International Declaration of Paris on the

abolition of privateering.91 In fact, only interpretations changed as a result of a

shifting balance of power in favor of the western countries.

Legally, the already thin-line separating corsairing from piracy was

weakened by the very reason that legitimated the continuation of corsairing:

i.e., the existence of a state of war with an enemy. Algiers’ traditional enemies,

including Spain, Portugal, the Italian States, and Malta with whom Algiers did

not conclude early peace treaties, were progressively removed from the circle

of “enemy” either by Algiers itself or because of international changing

circumstances. With the eternal enemy Spain, Algiers concluded a one-hundred

years’ truce in 1786—in fact, a peace treaty but limited in duration. Even

though considered favorable to Algiers, as the price it fixed for tribute and

redemption of prisoners was often decried as excessive by the westerners, the

treaty did not put an end to Spanish occupation of Oran. Tensions persisted

until it was evacuated in 1792; that put an end to three centuries of reciprocal

hostilities and warfare. More, by late 18th century, Spain was already removed

to the rank of a second-rate world power and was no more encroaching on

Algerian sovereignty. The list of enemy countries was further reduced when

Algiers concluded a truce with Portugal in 1793; later it was followed by a

peace treaty signed in 1810 and renewed in 1813.

91
Stark, Abolition of Privateering, pp. 39-45; James Fairbanks Colby, “Privateering,” in John J. Lalor,
ed., The Cyclopaedia of Political Science, Political Economy, and the Political History of the United
States, vol. 3 (New York: Maynard, Merrill, and Co. 1899), p. 92.
145
 Moreover, this avalanche of treaties was perhaps not without devastating

consequences on the Algerian navy. With no need to arm vessels, as peace was

prevailing, the Algerian corsairs fell into idleness. Some studies indicate a

sharp decrease in revenues, which they impute to the decline of corsairing

during the years following peace treaties. After the peace treaty with Spain, for

example, revenues fell from 200,000 florins in 1785, to 140,000 florins in

1786, then to a lowest level of 77,000 florins in 1787.92 Lacking a training

battleground and incentives, the corsairs lost skill, performance, and

experience. Seacraft also declined and command suffered in the same way. The

decadence of the Algerian fleet may partly be imputed to those peace treaties

which Algiers signed with most European countries.

Diplomatically, Algiers failed to follow up with the pace of

international developments. The invasion of Malta and the Italian city-states by

the Napoleonic armies ended the political existence of those entities but Algiers

did not change attitudes towards them; which caused uneasiness in relations

with France. Napoleon considered this as defiance to his power and devised

plans for the invasion of Algiers. In fact, problems over Algerian corsairing

against Malta were just an excuse to justify the expansionist policies of

France.93 In 1807, Napoleon sent Vincent Boutin, an army engineering officer,

to survey the coast for a potential invasion of Algiers.94 Boutin identified

92
Krieken, Corsaires et marchands, p. 120.
93
Weiss, “Imagining Europe through Barbary Captivity,” p. 58.
94
Boutin made his report in 1808; it was entitled: “Reconnaissance générale des villes, forts et batteries
d’Alger, des environs, etc., faite en conséquence des ordres et instructions de Son Excellence
Monseigneur Decrès, Ministre de la Marine, en date de 1er et 2 mai pour servir au projet de descente et
d’établissement définitif dans ce pays.” Plantet, Correspondance des deys d’Alger, 1: LIV; M. Alfred
146
precisely the best landing place for troops which was no more than the bay of

Sidi Fredj where, some two decades later, France would land its troops in

force.95 More, in 1800, Malta changed hands to Great Britain with whom

Algiers was bound by a treaty of peace but the latter continued to consider

Malta as an enemy state. Continued attacks on Maltese shipping and

enslavement of prisoners caused further deterioration of Algiers’ relations with

Great Britain.96

Furthermore, more than just a defensive weapon against enemy

aggressions—as it was conceived by the founders of Algiers—corsairing had

become an economic necessity for their successors. A relatively important

source of revenue for Algiers,97 in addition to taxes imposed on the native

population, corsairing contributed to the wealth and power of the ruling

Turkish elite, particularly the Ri’yas.98 One of the two pillars of the Algerian

state, next to the Janissaries, the Ri’yas had always contested for power and

obtained it. Indeed, the founders of Algiers were issued from the class of

corsairs; even two of them, Khayreddin Barbarossa and El-Euldj Ali climbed

Nettement, Histoire de la conquête d’Alger, écrite sur des documents inédits et authentiques, new
edition (Paris: Jacques Lecoffre, 1867), p. 126.
95
Grammont, Histoire d’Alger, pp. 371-72; Panzac, Corsaires Barbaresques, p. 230.
96
Probably Algiers did not recognize British sovereignty over Malta because the latter continued to fly
a separate flag until 1814. Only then did the Congress of Vienna legalize Britain’s hold over it. D. K.
Fieldhouse, The Colonial Empires: A Comparative Study from the Eighteenth Century, 2nd edition
(London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1971), p. 287; also, Edgar Erskine Hume, “A Proposed Alliance
Between the Order of Malta and the United States, 1794: Suggestions Made to James Monroe as
American Minister in Paris,” William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine, 2nd Ser., 16:
2 (Apr., 1936), p. 230.
97
Western writers have always argued that corsairing was the sole source of revenue for Algiers.
Revisionist studies, however, have shown that prizes and ransom constituted less than 15% of revenues
and absorbed about the same percentage of the active population. For an example see Fontenay, “La
course dans l’économie portuaire, ” pp. 1327-42.
98
For aspects of ‘turkishness’ of the ruling elite of Algiers see Shuval, “The Ottoman Algerian Elite,’
pp. 323-44.
147
the steps of power to become supreme commanders of the whole Ottoman

fleet. El-Euldj Ali is considered by many to be the “the last of the great

corsairs.” The early great corsair leaders and strategists gave way to less

competent rulers who caused the degradation of the Algerian navy. Once

Algiers had lost its deterrent shield, the Deys who ruled after 1671 came to be

regarded as no more than robbers and petty pirates who lacked the guts of their

predecessors:

Deprived of the protection which the prestige of the Turks had afforded,
the Barbary Corsairs degenerated into petty pirates. They continued to
waylay Christian cargoes, to ravish Christian villages, and carry off
multitudes of captives; but their depredations were not on the same
grand scale, they robbed by stealth, and never invited a contest with
ships of war. If caught, they would fight; but their aim was plunder, and
they had no fancy for broken bones gained out of mere ambition of
conquest. 99

Starting from 1671 upwards to 1830, a new form of government that

may be called an ‘elective oligarchy’ was established whereby the Ta’ifa

monopolized political power; many Deys indeed were issued from that group.

Therefore, powerful corsairs, supported by the Ta’ifa, played a prominent role

in government and foreign policy decision-making. Consequently, relations

with the western countries were certainly affected by the background of the

ruling Dey. Naturally a former Rais would weight war and peace decisions

according to the economic interests of the group to which he belonged—called

Kapi or Beyt.100

99
Lane-Poole, Barbary Corsairs, p. 183.
100
For the relationship between Kapi and government, see Shuval, “Remettre l’Algérie à l’Heure
Ottomane,” pp. 427-35.
148
 The renegades largely contributed to the creation of that negative image

about Algerian corsairs and subsequently collapse of corsairing. Economic

opportunities provided by corsairing were such that idle European corsairs

joined the Algerian navy in search of fortune.101 Many of them were motivated

more by economic gain than by religious conviction.102 Steering their corsairs

to their original homelands, with which they were familiar, they ravaged shores

not known and never reached before by Turkish corsairs. Haedo wrote in the

1580s:

The generality of the Corsairs are no other than renegadoes, and all of
them exceedingly well acquainted with the coasts of Christendom, and
even within the land, they very deliberately, even at noon-day, or indeed
just when they please, leap ashore, and walk on without the least dread,
and advance into the country, ten, twelve, or fifteen leagues or more;
and the poor Christians, thinking themselves secure, are surprised
unawares.103

The raids on Madeira, the English Channel, Iceland, and Ireland

certainly can not be considered as part of the geo-political, strategic, and

religious concerns of the Muslim corsairs of Algiers.104 The renegades, even

though they contributed skills and technical knowledge to the Algerian navy, in

terms of reputation and ethics, they did more harm than good. In this case,

economic profit became an end in itself rather than a by-product of corsairing.

101
Ben Rejeb, “Barbary’s Character,” p. 346.
102
The Dutch corsair Jan Leendertsz, known as Suleyman Rais, converted to Islam and became one of
the Ri’yas of the Algerian fleet. At his time, 6 out of the 55 sea captains in the Algerian fleet were
Dutch. In 1655, after his corsair was captured by one of his former compatriots, he went back home
and re-converted to Christianity. Krieken, Corsaires et marchands, pp. 139-40.
103
As translated by Morgan, Complete History of Algiers, p. 593.
104
All these attacks were the work of the Dutch corsair Jan Janszoon van Haarlem (1570-1641), also
known as Murad Rais the Younger. For the raids see Clark, “Barbary Corsairs,” p. 23.
149
Therefore, when it was deviated from its original defensive, retaliatory, and

preemptive function, corsairing lost its early noble principles.

3. 2. Technological Backwardness

Militarily and technologically, and for different raisons, Algiers failed to

adapt to the mercantile spirit which became Europe’s driving force to wealth in

late medieval and early modern periods. When Europe came out from the

darkness of the Middle Ages, the Islamic world ironically entered in a period of

decline. Where Europeans drew immense knowledge from the Islamic

civilization, the Muslims failed to build on their own heritage. The astrolabe

profited more to Europe which set out to conquer the world’s markets and raw

materials than to its Muslim inventors. For the purpose, the Europeans

developed new navigation technologies and instruments, built and armed more

powerful fleets, and pushed conquest and trade not only to the New world but

also to the very shores of Algiers. By the mid-17th century, the Netherlands,

Great Britain, and France launched a race for armament which culminated in

the emergence of powerful fleets that surpassed that of Algiers.105 By the end

of the century, 80 to 100-guns sailing fleets were already in the making in

Europe at a time Algiers was still depending on old-type and less performing

sailing ships. By the beginning of the 18th century, the Algerian fleet was

largely lagging behind.

105
Panzac, Corsaires Barbaresques, p. 29.
150
 At about the same period, i.e.: beginning of shipbuilding in Europe but

high tide of corsairing, Algiers had an imposing fleet composed of 50-80 large

sailing vessels armed with 626 guns.106 According to the English admiral

Narborough, that force was equivalent to what could be found in European

fleets of the time.107 So far, the Algerian fleet had won most of the major sea

battles; it imposed respect of Algiers in Europe and preserved its existence. But

progressively, it started losing ground to more powerful European fleets so that

one hundred years later, the supremacy of the fleet was no more; worse, the

very vessels were on the verge of extinction. At the death of Muhammed Ben

Uthman, Algiers’ last long-ruling Dey (r. 1766-1791), corsairing had reached

its lowest level. Abandoned, the fleet counted 4 ships with a total of 36 guns,

the largest having 26 and those seemed to have “suffered more from rain and

sun at the home port than from the enemy,” as reported by the Dutch Consul

Pierre Fraissinet.108 At a time the United States had no navy, Algiers’s naval

power had already dwindled to the bottom. The peaceful evolution of

diplomatic relations with Europe but also an emerging commerce seem to

indicate that corsairing was deemed to disappearance. However, this condition

was to be unexpectedly reversed after 1810 and Algiers vigorously renewed

with corsairing but not for long.

106
Groot, “Ottoman North Africa and the Dutch Republic,” p. 131.
107
As reported in Panzac, Corsaires Barbaresques, p. 36.
108
As quoted in Krieken, Corsaires et marchands, p. 120; for detailed statistics see Devoulx, “Marine
d’Alger,” pp. 396-420.
151
3. 3. Economic Difficulties

One of the lesser known facets of Ottoman Algeria is its commercial

activity which culminated in the emergence of a small but enterprising

merchant fleet. For a long time, it had often been argued that Algiers was an

exclusively corsairing state; and corsairing has been the subject of all kinds

“fantasies that were conveyed through a caricatured vision based on the idea of

confrontation between the Cross and the Crescent.”109 During the last thirty

years or so, however, revisionist studies have unveiled the existence of a

genuine trading activity that started developing since the 1770s even though

timidly.110 That nascent activity probably explains in part the decline of the

corsairing fleet. Up till then, seaborne trade was exclusively controlled by

European and Jewish carriers and brokers.111 By 1806, Algerian Muslim traders

took their affairs at hand which put an end to foreign monopoly over Algerian

external commerce and maritime transportation.

Exploiting the chaos caused by the Napoleonic Wars in Europe which

generated desperate needs for Algerian grain to supply the starving populations

and armies on the battlefields, Algerian merchants showed a real capacity of

adaptation to the new international conditions. In the first decade of the 19th

century, they were controlling more than 50% of trade carrying between

109
Michel Tuchscherer, “Daniel Panzac,” Revue du Monde Musulman et de la Méditerranée, 95-96-97-
98 - Débats intellectuels au Moyen-Orient dans l’entre-deux-guerres, April 2002, pp. 486-88.
(Accessed 6 March 2008). http://remmm.revues.org/document2463.html
110
See for example, Mohammed Amine, “Commerce Extérieur et Commerçants d’Alger à la Fin de
l’Epoque Ottomane (1792-1830).” 2 vol. Thèse de Doctorat. Aix-en-Provence, 1991; Panzac,
Corsaires barbaresques, pp. 137-62 ; Krieken, Corsaires et marchands, pp. 190-91, 199.
111
Rosenstock, “Bakri and Busnach,” pp. 343-64.
152
Europe and Algiers.112 More, as neutral carriers, they even reversed the pre-war

tendencies when they became trusted carriers between the different European

ports. Hamdan Ben Uthman Khodja, a native of Algiers from Turkish origins,

is illustrative of that flourishing and wealthy new merchant class. Besides

carrying between Algiers and Europe, he even succeeded in establishing a

small caravan of ships that linked the different southern European ports from

Leghorn to Cadiz passing by Marseille.113

Unfortunately, such commercial activity was condemned to failure not

because of incompetence on the part of Algerian merchants but because, once

peace reestablished after the Napoleonic wars, the Europeans renewed their

centuries-old hostility towards Muslims. Quickly, Muslim merchants faced a

new kind of warfare: commercial warfare. Administrative troubles, abusive

taxes, sequestration of merchant ships, confiscation of freight, or simply

official denial of access to European ports of Muslim merchant ships acted as a

shield to prevent Muslim access to European markets.114 All were hostile

measures meant for discouraging Muslim commerce. Meanwhile, commerce of

other Ottoman but Christian regencies continued undisturbed. Greek maritime

trade, for example, which emerged at the same period as that of Algiers,
115
developed spectacularly because it was not submitted to similar troubles.

112
Tuchscherer, “Daniel Panzac,” p. 487.
113
He set up a ‘caravan of ships’ that was active along the southern coast of Europe from Leghorn to
Cadiz. Amine, “Commerce Extérieur et Commerçants d’Alger,” pp. 339-41.
114
Panzac, Corsaires barbaresques, pp. 217-20; Delmasso, “La peur des corsaires barbaresques,” p.
52.
115
Gelina Harlaftis and Sophia Laiou, “Ottoman state policy in Mediterranean Trade and Shipping,
1780-1820: The Rise of the Greek-Owned Ottoman Merchant Fleet,” in Mark Mazower, ed. Networks
of Power in Modern Greece (New York: Hurst, 2008), pp. 1-31.
153
Those commercial barriers were indeed but few of the new weapons used by

Christians against Muslims. The immediate consequence of Europe’s new

commercial weapon discouraged Muslim trade and once more Algiers armed

its vessels for corsairing. From such discriminatory policies and attitudes, one

may deduce that confrontation between the Cross and the Crescent was by no

way just caricatured or religious. It was real and persisting. More, it expanded

to include other aspects of life. It was a perpetual clash not just between two

antagonist religions but also between to different cultures and civilizations.

Conclusion

So many aggressions, so many bombings and blockades, and so many

treaties concluded, renewed, and re-renewed, but Algiers, as long as it could

stand up militarily, did not intend to give up to European pressure either in the

name of religion, commerce, or captives. Almost all European countries—

powerful and lesser powerful—concluded scores of treaties of peace and

commerce with Algiers, but they were never satisfied with them. When not

warring against each other in Europe or in their colonies, the European powers

filled up their years of peace by sending squadrons of war to Algiers under the

pretext that those treaties were either humiliating for themselves or not

respected by Algiers. After each campaign, relations were put back, once more,

to where they had belonged before the show-off so that by 1816, i.e.: almost

200 years after the first bilateral treaty was signed, Algiers and Europe were

still standing almost exactly where they had been standing in the 1620s! The
154
principles of free access to ports and commerce, high seas control of ships and

passports, tributes and consular presents, and redemption or exchange of

captives —except for slight modifications—remained unaltered. When the

USA emerged as an independent state and entered the Mediterranean as a

trading rival after 1783, those principles were still in usage and the signatories

were still abiding by them. Therefore, for a better understanding of early

relations between Algiers and the United States, one may need to keep in mind

the principles which regulated the diplomatic conduct of Algiers with the rest

of the Christian powers.

By means of corsairing Algiers also succeeded in maintaining a balance

of military power, even though fragile, in the Mediterranean in spite of

implacable hatred and alliances of the Christian powers against it. At times of

war, corsairing acted both as a defensive as well as a retaliatory force; at times

of peace, it acted as a deterrent force which discouraged even the most

aggressive and heinous enemies from attacking it. Nevertheless, after three

hundred years or so of incessant defensive warfare against Christendom, the

Algerian fleet, and for different reasons, lost supremacy and entered into a

phase of decay. The fleet’s deteriorating conditions brought to the shores

Algiers an emerging opportunistic antagonist: the United States of America. By

then, in addition to the traditional bombardment of Algerian cities, the western

powers recurred to the use of ‘gunboat diplomacy’ as a new form of coercion

against Algiers to advance their many interests and in that matter, the

Americans were not at least. Ever since the United States was a constellation of
155
British colonies, the North American colonials expanded their trade into the

Mediterranean area. Under British treaties with Algiers, they were secured

protection and privileges but when they declared independence from Britain,

the Americans had to face the realities of the Mediterranean world.

156
 Part Two

Algiers in early American Diplomatic History:

Corsairing vs. Gunboat Diplomacy

 CHAPTER IV

From Colonies to States:

America in the Mediterranean

War and peace, alliances and treaties, and commerce and navigation
were conducted and regulated without our advice or control. … While
we had liberty and justice, and in security enjoyed the fruits of our “vine
and fig-tree,” we were in general too content and too much occupied to
be at the trouble of investigating the various political combinations in
this department [foreign policy], or to examine and perceive how
exceedingly important they often were to the advancement and
protection of our prosperity.1

John Jay (1787)

Introduction

From the start one may ask this question: what brought American

vessels into the vicinity of the North African coast so that Algiers came to clash

with the United States over such issues as captured ships, enslaved prisoners,

passports, and tributes? As already discussed, part of the answer to this

question is deeply rooted in the history of the Regency of Algiers and its

diplomatic relations with the European powers; a long history that was shaped

1
John Jay, The Correspondence and Public Papers of First Chief-Justice of the United States, Member
and President of the Continental Congress, Minister to Spain, Member of Commission to Negotiate
Treaty of Independence, Envoy to Great Britain, etc, edited By Henry P. Johnston, 4 vol. (New
York/London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1890), 3:299, An Address to the People of the State of New York,
September 17, 1787. (Hereafter cited as CPPJJ).
157
by religious antagonism and struggle for control of the Mediterranean Basin.

The other part of the answer, however, is closely linked to the history of the

United States and its common colonial past with Great Britain. In fact, these

two countries shared a common history which ended up in total breach and

caused repercussions on relations with Mediterranean countries, including

Algiers. The answer can also be found in the shift in policies which

characterized relations between Great Britain and its North American colonies,

on the one hand, and the former and the United States after the latter declared

its independence, on the other. The year 1776 is the divide between different

views and interests that came into collision and culminated in separation of the

colonies from the mother country; hence further complications in

Mediterranean relations. Therefore, understanding some of the aspects which

characterized British-American relations, mainly economic and political

aspects, is of paramount importance to this work.

1. The North American Colonies and the Mediterranean World

1. 1. Colonial Commerce

Commerce was an important feature in American colonial life; it was as

important as self-government, elective institutions, or westward expansion.

Indeed, during most of the colonial period “commerce and the colonies were

correlative terms, unthinkable each without the other.”2 It was also the

cornerstone of colonial relations with England and other maritime powers.

2
Charles Andrews, “Colonial Commerce,” The American Historical Review, 20: 1 (Oct., 1914), p. 43.
158
Colonial commerce did not evolve in a vacuum; rather it was fashioned in the

background of contests for colonial supremacy between England and other

European powers and remained so until the end of the colonial era. When the

Americans declared their independence in 1776, commerce had acquired such

an importance in colonial economy that it was incorporated as one of the

fundamental objectives of the newly created country of the United States of

America (USA):

The Representatives of the United States of America … declare, That

these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and
Independent States; … and that as Free and Independent States, they
have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances,
establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which
Independent States may of right do.3

By 1783, the USA set out on its own to formulate new policies that would

permit it to take an independent stand in international relations.

Commerce of the British North American colonies was part of

England’s worldwide commercial activity. It was strongly fit within the

economic policy of England, which itself was shaped in the crucible of

European rivalry for territorial expansion and trade monopoly. Before anything

else, England’s interest in colonization of the New World was mostly

motivated by commercial interests.4 In 1606, James I, king of England,

chartered the Virginia Company, a trading company, with the aim of colonizing

lands in North America, like Spain and other major colonial powers, but he

3
A Compilation of Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897, edited by James D. Richardson,
10 Vol. (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1896-1899), 1:6, Declaration of
Independence. (Hereafter cited as CMPP).
4
Muir, Expansion of Europe, p. 34.
159
also did it with the view of making profit and acquiring wealth for England.

When the English stockholders of the company founded the colony of

Jamestown in 1607 they also did it with the hope of finding gold and making

profit.5 Subsequently, Great Britain developed economic policies that tightly

controlled its American colonies and placed them within the sphere of a

complex imperial system of commerce.6

In the 17th century, mercantilism was common economic practice among

European states. In accordance with mercantilist principles, Britain designed

policies essentially meant to generate wealth for the mother country; therefore,

it put its North American colonies to contribution towards the creation of a

favorable balance of trade, an essential ingredient in mercantilist theory. Like

most colonial powers, Britain “used monopolistic or protectionist regulations to

exclude rivals” from its colonies.7 For the purpose, it established a complex

system of imperial regulations known as the navigation system that sought

monopolization of commerce, markets, and raw materials.8 The navigation

laws which regulated the system restricted and encouraged colonial economy.

Where the products of the colonies were competitive with those of the mother

country, like the textiles industries, the British parliament introduced laws

curbing them; but where colonial economic activities were enhancing to those

of Britain, favorable laws were introduced to encourage them. This is

5
Richard Hofstadter, The United States: Conquering a Continent, 4th Edition (Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1976), p. 17-18.
6
Fieldhouse, Colonial Empires, p. 66-68.
7
Ibid., p. 25.
8
Hofstadter, Conquering a Continent, p. 31-34.
160
particularly true for overseas commerce, shipbuilding, and sea-related

industries.

English mercantilists also favored the exclusion of trade rivals,

particularly the Dutch, French, and Spaniards, from Britain’s North American

empire.9 Those mercantilist ingredients protected but also strengthened the

economy of the thirteen colonies. In the long run, however, mercantilist

policies proved to be beneficial to the colonies but disadvantageous to Britain.

On the one hand, they stimulated maritime activities and gave the New

England colonies a commercial fleet; but on the other, colonial commerce and

industries became so competitive with Britain that, by 1763, they became one

of the main underlying reasons which later led to the independence of the

colonies.10

Starting from the 1660s onwards, a series of navigations laws gave the

English settlers of the American colonies, particularly those who were engaged

in overseas commerce, the same rights and privileges that were given to the

English subjects at home.11 Even though the Navigation Act of 1661

exclusively restricted maritime carrying from and to the colonies to ships

owned and operated—at least ¾ of the crews—by the English, those

“requirements worked no hardships on the colonials because the term English

was understood to include them as subjects of the British Monarch.”12

9
Muir, Expansion of Europe, p. 38-41.
10
Curtis P. Nettels, “British Mercantilism and the Economic Development of the Thirteen Colonies,”
in Abraham S. Eisenstadt, ed., American History: Recent Interpretations, Book I: To 1877, 5th Edition
(New York, NY: Crowell Company, 1964), pp. 146-47.
11
Nettels, “Economic Development of the Thirteen Colonies,” p. 43.
12
Hofstadter, Conquering a Continent, p. 31.
161
Furthermore, the expulsion of trading rivals from the British Empire eliminated

competition and expanded colonial maritime routes to reach transatlantic

markets, European and Mediterranean, which had been unheard of so far.

Undoubtedly, such inclusion under the protective umbrella of the British

Empire against competition of rival trading powers gave the colonists

privileges that worked to their advantage. Furthermore, “after New England’s

shipping industry had become fully established,” thus jeopardizing mercantile

interests of the British merchants and shipbuilders at home, the British

government refused to “head the pleas of British ship-owners who wished to

subject it to crippling restraints.”13 So, even when competitively threatening for

British commercial activities and home industries, the colonials continued to

benefit from imperial protection.

Throughout the colonial period, English settlers of the Thirteen Colonies

used the navigation system to their own best advantages. The navigation acts

were stimulating and protective of colonial trade but in certain cases they were

restraining especially in matters of trade with rival powers; certain

‘enumerated’ goods also were prohibited either to import or export. When

submitted to such restrictive regulations, the colonials did not shy from

recurring to illegal trading activities for the sake of preserving lucrative

businesses.14 Customs’ laws were simply violated either by smuggling

prohibited commodities in and out of the colonies or by avoiding clearance at

English ports so as to evade paying duties imposed on such commodities in

13
Nettels, “Economic Development of the Thirteen Colonies,” p. 43.
14
Muir, Expansion of Europe, p. 18.
162
total disregard for the navigation laws.15 Many of those smuggled goods found

a market in European countries and “other Mediterranean ports.”16 So,

smuggling and illegal trading activities are deeply-rooted in the American

colonial tradition of commerce and, in a sense, they contributed to the

expansion of American overseas commerce—even though illicitly.

Starting from late 17th century, English shipping in the Mediterranean

was regulated by special passes or passports according to treaties in usage

between England and other foreign countries. At that time, war was raging

between the Muslim corsairs of the Ottoman North African regencies and the

combined forces of crusading Europe and attacks on each others’ shipping

were frequent. Only treaties of peace could suspend hostilities and guarantee

safe passage in the Mediterranean for ships of the signatory countries. For that

reason, England concluded a number of treaties either with the Ottoman

Empire or the North African regencies directly. Under such treaties, Britain’s

Admiralty Courts provided passports for English ships of which “great

numbers were used in America by American-built ships to guard against

capture by the Barbary cruisers.”17

Trade in the Mediterranean was one of the most lucrative outlets for

American products; and according to colonial views, it was exposed to the peril

of ‘pirates’ of whom “the most dangerous were the Algerine pirates.”18 Passes

became a matter of concern for them; hence, when they could not obtain them

15
Hofstadter, Conquering a Continent, p. 32.
16
For more about illicit trade and smuggling see Andrews, “Colonial Commerce,” pp. 61-2.
17
Ibid., p. 50.
18
Ibid.
163
legally, they did not hesitate to counterfeit such documents. This practice

spread widely after 1776 especially after the British government suspended

issuance of Mediterranean passports to the rebellious colonies.19

Right from the very beginning of colonization, Britain’s economic

policy favored colonial commerce. Mercantilist policies permitted colonial

shipping and overseas trade to operate under the same favorable regulatory

laws as those applied for the British subjects at home. When restricted, the

colonials merely bypassed existing laws and engaged in illegal trade. In

general, Britain’s economic policies as outlined above affected American

commerce positively, which led to the growth of shipping and other related

economic activities and consequently expanded colonial commerce to foreign

markets which were opened to British trade—including Mediterranean

markets.

1. 2. The American Colonies in Algerian-British Diplomatic Relations

The same mercantilist principles which regulated economic activities in

the New World were also operational in the Mediterranean Basin. The major

European powers expanded their commercial activity to the region and sought

to protect it not only against economic rivals but also against other regional

powers that were not necessarily motivated by mercantilist considerations. The

Regency of Algiers was one of those regional powers that were suspicious

about the presence of Christian vessels in the vicinity even though for other

19
Emile Dupuy, Américains & Barbaresques: 1776-1824 (Paris: R. Roger & F. Chernoviz, 1910), p. 6.
164
reasons. Corsairing and counter-corsairing, imbued with religious animosity

and Muslim-Christian struggle for control of the Mediterranean, was

particularly damaging to maritime trade. Mediterranean corsairs, Muslims and

Christians alike, attacked each others shipping and British merchantmen were

caught in the midst of hostilities.20

Up to late 16th century, England was a weak country torn from the inside

by numerous religious and political problems and threatened from the outside

by the might of Catholic Spain and a multitude of other dynastic and territorial

quarrels with France. Those problems kept the Tudor monarchs occupied at

home, a reason for which they did not seek military confrontation with the

Ottoman Empire. Other reasons also prevented England from meddling with

the might of the Ottomans: diplomatically, it could not logically coalesce with

its own enemy Catholic Spain against Muslims and militarily, it was so weak

that it could not challenge Ottoman supremacy in the Mediterranean. Those

conditions favored the conclusion of capitulations between England and the

Muslim states; the first of those was concluded as early as 1579 and it granted

enormous privileges to English merchants in the Orient and North Africa. To

encourage trade and avoid the burden of administering justice in legal matter

involving foreign merchants, the Sultan agreed to “withdraw British subjects

from Turkish jurisdiction for most civil and criminal purposes,”21 By doing so,

20
One should keep in mind that even though Britain did not take part in the resurging crusades of late
15th and 16th centuries against Algiers, it was one of the most formidable crusading countries during the
early Crusades. Richard I, King of England, was a prominent crusading leader; his deep hatred for
Islam and contests with Salah Eddin during the Third Crusade (1189–92) won him the sobriquet ‘Lion
heart.’
21
Hall, International Law, p. 252, fn. 1.
165
the Sublime Porte opened the gate wide for foreign infiltrations, diplomatic

intrigues, and claims for privileges in the Ottoman Empire. Algiers, abided by

this treaty reluctantly even though its corsairs, intentionally or mistakenly,

continued to harass English shipping in the Mediterranean sporadically.22

Very early in the history of the Regency of Algiers, the Sublime Porte

not only agreed to capitulations but also opened North African ports to English

traders and adventurers of all sorts. Subsequently, the latter benefited from “the

availability of large amounts of resources and the openness of the Muslim

markets” which permitted them to expand their trade in the region and

accumulate wealth. 23 So, long before the English “crossed the ocean to North

America to conquer and settle, they had sailed down to the northern coast of

the African Mediterranean to trade, pillage or simply ‘discover.’”24 In a sense,

according to scholar Nabil Matar, North Africa was the early crucible of British

imperialism which “played a role in delaying the westward colonial venture”

because “as long as there was profitable trade with the Barbary region, there

was no need to sail far and wide in dangerous search of colonial conquest and

settlement.”25

Emphasis on Mediterranean trade during the Elizabethan Age (1558-

1603) may have delayed the fulfillment of England’s colonial goals in the New

World but it did not bring them to a close. In perpetual search for power and

22
See letter of Queen Elizabeth to the Ottoman Sultan Murad III (1584), Morgan, Complete History of
Algiers, pp. 582-83; also Appendix 1A.
23
Matar, “Britain and Barbary,” p. 2.
24
Ibid.
25
Ibid.
166
markets, England set up the foundations for an American colonial empire early

in the 17th century. From the first colony of Virginia (1607) down to the last

one of Georgia (1732), Great Britain knitted an empire and integrated it in a

worldwide system of trade regulated by navigation acts and treaties with

foreign powers. On the settlers of the colonies it bestowed rights and privileges

enjoyed by the British at home—and even more. In addition to political

freedom, the American colonials pushed trade to the shores of North Africa as

British subjects and enjoyed protection and trading privileges under British

treaties which had already been secured previously. Accordingly, prior to the

American declaration of independence in 1776, relations between the North

American colonies and foreign countries—including Algiers—were regulated

by terms of treaties the English monarchs concluded with foreign rulers.

Consequently, the settlers prospered at the least effort or as John Jay, a leading

politician of the revolutionary era put it:

Prior to the revolution we had little occasion to inquire or know much

about national affairs, for although they existed and were managed, yet
they were managed for us and not by us. Intent on our domestic
concerns, our internal legislative business, our agriculture, and our
buying and selling, we were seldom anxious about what passed or was
doing in foreign courts… As we had nothing to do with the department
of policy, so the affairs of it were not detailed to us, and we took as little
pains to inform ourselves as others did to inform us of them.26

England extended privileges obtained under capitulations to its colonies.

That was the case of capitulations with the Ottoman Empire but also

subsequent treaties which were concluded separately with Algiers starting from

26
CPPJJ, 3:298, An Address to the People of the State of New York, September 17, 1787.
167
1622. England’s relations with Algiers were particularly advantageous and

indirectly rebounded on its colonies in North America. In 1682, Admiral

Arthur Herbert negotiated a Treaty of Peace and Commerce with Baba Hassan,

Dey of Algiers. The terms of the treaty, which were renewed in subsequent

treaties until 1816, provided protection for the vessels of the signatories but it

also explicitly included the American colonies, then reorganized as Dominions.

Article I of the treaty stipulated that

It is agreed and concluded, that from this day, and for ever forwards,
there be a true, firm and inviolable peace between the most Serene King
of Great Britain and the most illustrious Lords, the Bashaw, Dey, Aga,
and Governors of the City and Kingdom of Algiers and between all the
Dominions and subjects of either side, and that the ships or other
vessels, and the subjects and people of both sides, shall not henceforth
do to each other any harm, offence or injury, either in word or deed, but
shall treat one another with all possible respect and friendship.27

Indicative of the large privileges the English enjoyed at Algiers is the

leniency, not to say impunity, the treaty bestowed on English subjects in

matters of administration of justice. Like capitulations with the Ottoman

Empire, jurisdiction in civil and criminal cases among English subjects at

Algiers was exclusively reserved to the Consul: if “they [English subjects]

happen to be at difference between themselves, in which case they shall be

liable to no other determination but that of the Consul only.”28 In cases

involving nationals (Turks or Moors), however, they would be liable to the

Dey. Article XVI of the treaty permitted them, implicitly, to evade justice: “but

if he [the one who committed crime] escape [sic], neither the said English

27
Hertslet, Collection of Treaties and Conventions, p. 58.
28
Ibid. p. 62, Treaty between Great Britain and Algiers, signed at Algiers, April 10, 1682, Article XV.
168
Consul, nor any other of His said Majesty’s subjects, shall be in any sort

questioned and troubled therefore.”29 When such cases occurred, the criminal

usually escaped with impunity to the house of the Consul.

In 1703, that generous treaty was even broadened and extended to cover

exclusively all ships built or fitted out in Britain’s American colonies. The

particularity of this treaty, however, is the inequity in treatment it reserved to

Algerian corsairs and the easy-goingness it accorded to British and colonial

privateers who would make prizes of Algerian corsairs. When not in hold of an

official pass, a simple hand-written certificate by the captain of the British ship

would be sufficient enough for identification. This is to say that, when

captured, Algerian corsairs were not worth much diplomatic and administrative

burden! Article III of the treaty specified:

It is farther agreed and declared, that all prizes taken by any of Her
Majesty of Great Britain’s subjects, and all ships and vessels built and
fitted out in any of Her Majesty’s plantations in America that have not
been in England, shall not be molested in case of no Pass; but that a
certificate in writing under the hand of the commanding officers that
shall so take prizes, or Chief of any of Her Majesty’s plantations in
America, or where any ships shall be built or fitted, shall be a sufficient
pass to either of them.30

This is clear evidence that the relationship of British subjects, including

colonials, to Algiers was not simply that of enterprising traders and innocent

travelers who were captured and enslaved by cruel pirates as it is always

pretended in western writings. Those were also pirates, privateers, and

29
Hertslet, Collection of Treaties and Conventions, Treaty between Great Britain and Algiers, 1682,
Article XVI, p. 63. The treaty specified the crime as “strike, wound, or kill a Turk or a Moor.”
30
Ibid., p. 74-75.
169
adventurers who were roaming in the vicinity of the North African shores to

prey on inhabitants and shipping of Algiers; and all that was sanctioned by

treaties which granted them protection at the least cost. So, more than just

providing protection against Algerian corsairs for safe passage of Anglo-Saxon

shipping in the Mediterranean as always argued, the treaties are “intriguing

examples of inequality of treatment”31 and they offer a blatant diplomatic cover

for infiltration, a pre-stage for prospective colonization, wholesale enslavement

of peoples, and pillage of their national wealth.

Throughout the colonial period, American shipping in the

Mediterranean benefited from Great Britain’s treaties with Algiers and colonial

sailing-vessels carried passports delivered by British admiralty courts.32 Such

conditions were highly profitable to the colonials and generated prosperity in

the American colonies.33 After the colonies declared independence from Britain

in 1776, the latter issued new passports for its national ships,34 a move which

the French Consul in Morocco Louis Chénier interpreted as a measure “to

deprive the insurgents of freedom of navigation on the coasts of Europe and

expose them to the attacks of the Barbaresques.”35 But even that change did not

31
Kenneth Parker, “Reading ‘Barbary’,” p. 103.
32
For the Form of the Pass as provided by the treaty of 1682 see Hertslet, Collection of Treaties and
Conventions, pp. 65-66; for later passports see Marsden, Law and Custom of the Sea, pp. 347-348.
33
The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States, edited by Francis Wharton
(Washington, D. C.: Government printing Office, 1889), 6:763, Morris to Messrs. Willink & Co,
Office of Finance, February 12, 1784. (Hereafter cited as USRDC).
34
Benjamin Franklin, The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, with a Life and Introduction, edited by
Albert Henry Smyth, 10 Vol. (New York/London: Macmillan & Co., Ltd., 1906), 7:139, Claud Gillaud
to Benjamin Franklin, April 10, 1778. (Hereafter cited as WBF).
35
Priscilla H. Roberts and James N. Tull, “Moroccan Sultan Sidi Muhammad Ibn Abdallah’s
Diplomatic Initiatives toward the United States, 1777-1786,” Proceedings of the American
Philosophical Society, 143: 2 (Jun., 1999), p. 236.
170
prevent unscrupulous Americans from using forgeries during the whole

duration of the war of independence, i.e.: from 1776 to 1783.

Even after 1783, American ships “continued to fly British flags when

approached by the Algerians” and carried forged British passports from sheer

opportunism.36 Such counterfeiting could not pass unnoticed by the British

authorities. Sir John Temple, the British Consul General at the United States,

wrote John Jay, American Secretary for Foreign Affairs, informing him that

“British Mediterranean passes are, and have been counterfeited at Philadelphia,

and that many ships and vessels belonging to the American States, have already

sailed with such passes.”37 What is worthwhile noticing here is the approach

adopted by the British Consul and the American government alike. It was not

the illegality of the act in itself that was of much concern to Temple—probably

because the British were used to that and ended by closing their eyes—but the

argument he exhibited:

I lament the misery that such of your mariners will probably meet with,
should they, with such counterfeit passes, fall into the hands of the
Barbary corsairs, who have now become so nice and exact, with regard
to British Mediterranean passes of the last cut and form.38

Probably knowing that his lamentation would not be sufficient argument for

putting an end to American’s so deeply rooted fraud, Temple did not hesitate to

wave Christians’ eternal scapegoat: the cruel Muslim pirate, the hostis humani

generis: “I am really of opinion,” he added, if caught, the counterfeiters

36
Lawrence A. Peskin, “The Lessons of Independence: How the Algerian Crisis Shaped early
American Identity,” Diplomatic History, 28: 3 (Jun., 2004), p. 297, 309.
37
USDC, 6:29, From John Temple to John Jay, June 7, 1785.
38
Ibid.; also see his reply to Jay using the same argument in ibid., 6:32.
171
“would, it is more than probable, meet with severity in the extreme, sufficient

to make humane civilized people shudder at even the mentioning of it.”39

As probably expected, such an apologetic tone could but be scorned but

the dubious and arrogant Americans. The instinct and genius of the lawyer Jay

produced the following answer one month later, undoubtedly after having

carried an inquiry—if he did not already know, which is a weak probability:

I wish it [letter] had been accompanied with some evidence, if only such
a degree of it as might create strong probability, and afford ground for
just suspicion. Public and extraordinary measures for detecting and
punishing crimes always imply a presumption that they exist, and tend
to establish imputations which may prove unjust and injurious … mere
suspicion is very slender proof of guilt.40

Jay, nevertheless, “laid before Congress the letter” of Temple. If the American

government was really desirous about investigating the case, there was plenty

of ‘proofs,’ to incriminate the counterfeiters as indicated in the Temple’s

answer of the same date.41 But there is no evidence that Congress acted on it

either out of duplicity or simply because it did not consider the information

important enough to merit concern; and the matter of counterfeiting stopped

short at this point on the American side. Temple, however, informed that he

would “transmit to his Majesty’s Ministers, by the packet to sail on Friday, one

of those counterfeit passes, purchased by my desire at Philadelphia” as “proofs

of such an atrocious forgery of national documents.” For the rest, he estimated

39
USDC, 6:29, From John Temple to John Jay, June 7, 1785.
40
Ibid., 6:30, From John Jay to John Temple, July 5, 1785.
41
Ibid., 6:32, From John Temple to John Jay, July 5, 1785.
172
that “Algiers and other Barbary States” will “undoubtedly, consider themselves

as principally intended to be injured by such counterfeits.”42

The matter of the counterfeited passes could have stopped here had it

not been for a controversy which arose afterwards over the capture of

American vessels by Algerian corsairs. Was this information communicated to

the British Consul at Algiers Charles Logie? Did the latter inform the Dey

about it and instigated capture of American ships? Considering the formidable

hatred the American captives at Algiers vowed logie and later, formal

accusations of the American Ambassador to Spain against him,43 the Dey of

Algiers might have been informed by Logie personally but not necessarily on

instructions from the British government. If it was the case, then, it could have

prompted more vigilance on the side of the Algerian corsairs. The corsairs had

just started making the difference between Great Britain’s ships, with which

they had a treaty, and American ships, unknown to them until the arrival of

Logie as consul to Algiers in May 1785. They had also to struggle for

recognizing regular passports from forged ones at a time they were completely

illiterate—or almost. The task was certainly arduous.

History, however, tells about one of those ironies where Christian

mutual understanding remains beyond any suspicion. As long as the forged

passports secured lucrative trade for Americans, Congress passed inquiry to

oblivion; but “a small box of tea and a piece of silk for Lady Temple’s use”

42
USDC, 6:32, From John Temple to John Jay, July 5, 1785.
43
Rojas, “‘Insults Unpunished’,” pp. 184-86; Barnby, Prisoners of Algiers, p. 71; SPPD, 10:282, D.
Humphreys, Esq. to the Secretary of State, Oct. 7, 1793.
173
was taken by the utmost seriousness. After the forged passports’ letter, Temple

wrote Jay inquiring whether it was “right and proper” for him to pay the duties

on tea and silk sent as presents from Canton, China as he was required to do by

the State of New York.44 Reporting back to Temple, Jay communicated that

“Consuls are not, by the laws or usage of nations, considered or treated as

public Ministers,” and therefore “no consuls, of any nation, are entitled to such

exemptions in the United States.”45 In consequence, Temple had to pay for

duties but at least he got a three-page long comprehensive report based on a

lengthy debate in Congress.

It should be underlined here that the American approach to the laws of

nations was a two-tiered approach: international laws were respected only

when they could be interpreted in a sense favorable to American national

interest. In the case of Temple’s imported tea, additional revenues for Congress

were welcomed so Jay invoked the laws of nations to support his argument.

Interpretation, however, would be completely different when it would be

question of payment for treaties and tribute. In this case, paying would mean

deduction from revenues; therefore it was unfavorable to the USA. For this

reason, the self-interested Americans were ready neither to accept to pay for

treaties and tribute nor respect the laws of nations. Those were respected only

when they were suitable to them.

44
USDC, 6:33, From John Temple to John Jay, August 16, 1787.
45
Ibid., 6:32-35, From John Jay to John Temple, September 25, 1787. The italics are from the
researcher.
174
2. The Advent of Americans: Traders and Privateers

2. 1. American Mediterranean Trade

Stretching from the Strait of Gibraltar in the west to the shores of Asia

Minor in the east, the markets on both flanks of the Sea were particularly

profitable for European traders. They were even more lucrative for North

American merchants and shipowners who were shielded by the treaties of

England with the regional powers. By the second half of the 18th century, time

at which Great Britain closed its imperial markets to American trade, the

Muslim ports situated on the eastern and southern shores of the Mediterranean

represented few of the world’s free markets that remained open to American

merchants. Those ports had not yet fallen to the domination of any of the major

European colonial powers even though the latter had largely infiltrated the

region since the 16th and early 17th century. The various capitulations had

offered generous concessions and privileges to France, England, and The

Netherlands.46 They made trade even more advantageous for Europeans,

especially if we know that the maritime carriers and merchants were

exclusively Christians and that the local brokers were non-Muslims—

particularly Jews in the case of Algiers—because Muslim ships were forbidden

from flying their national flag in European ports.47

By the time of the Declaration of Independence, the Americans had

already developed a substantial trade in the Mediterranean, an area where they

46
Harlaftis, “Ottoman State, Finance and Maritime Trade,” p. 17.
47
Daniel Panzac, “International and Domestic Maritime Trade in the Ottoman Empire during the 18th
Century,” International Journal of Middle East Studies, 24: 2 (May, 1992), p. 193-94.
175
“could still seek their fortunes unchecked.”48 Although the trip in “unsanitary

vessels” was hardly pleasant, Americans did not refrain from steering their

merchantmen to the Muslim ports because “the profits often outweighed the

hardships.”49 According to a report of the Secretary of State made in 1790,

prior to independence, Mediterranean trade represented about one-fifth of the

colonial trade and involved a large variety of products. Chief among colonial

exports were dyes (especially indigo and cochineal), sugar, tobacco, and rice—

originating in the southern plantations, and dried fish, timber, and ‘Boston

Particular’ (rum) which originated in the New England colonies.50 For the sole

dyes, figures indicate an increase from 2.3 million livres tournois annually in
51
1750-54 to 3.5 million in 1786-89 despite what was much decried as

‘Barbary pirates’ depredations.

The total value of American commodities shipped to the Mediterranean

was officially evaluated at about £707,000 for the year 1770. By comparison,

the total value of foreign goods (mainly Spanish, French, and Dutch), exported

the same year from the West Indies to the same destination was estimated at

£6,287.52 This is clear indication of the heavy trade activities between the

American colonies and Mediterranean ports which could only be motivated by

lucrative gains and huge profits. More, exports were more than three times that

48
Oren, Power, Faith, and Fantasy, p. 18.
49
Ibid.
50
Panzac, “Trade in the Ottoman Empire,” p. 191; Oren, Power, Faith, and Fantasy, p. 18. Rum, called
also ‘Boston Particular’ because of its importance in the economy of colonial Boston, MA, is an
alcoholic beverage which was particularly used as an exchange commodity in the African slave trade,
known also as the ‘Triangular Trade.’
51
Panzac, “Trade in the Ottoman Empire,” p. 192.
52
Figures are from Ray W. Irwin, The Diplomatic Relations of the United States with the Barbary
Powers, 1776-1816 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1931), p. 18.
176
of imports which allowed for the colonies to constitute a favorable balance of

trade of their own. For the same period, imports were officially evaluated at

£228,682 (against £707,000 for exports);53 and they consisted largely of salt,

olive oil (destined for soap factories), wool (angora from goats or camels),

leather (Moroccan), dried fruits (raisins, figs) and “other Oriental delicacies.”54

Hundreds of ships and seamen were involved in the Mediterranean

business. According to Richard O’Brien, American prisoner at Algiers (1785-

1795) and later United States Consul General for the Barbary States,55 “before

the war the Americans used to employ 200 sail of merchantmen in the streights

trade, and used to reap great advantages by it.”56 No one is better placed than

Thomas Jefferson, the American Secretary of State (1789-1793), for making

estimations on colonial Mediterranean trade. Despite loss of information and

lack of accuracy, as Jefferson remarked, his 1790 report to Congress is

indicative of an active trade:

According to the best which may be obtained from other sources

meriting respect, it may be concluded that about one sixth of the wheat
and flour exported from the United States, and about one fourth in value
of their dried and pickled fish, and some rice, found their best markets in
the Mediterranean ports: that these articles constituted the principal part
of what we sent into that sea: that that commerce loaded outwards from
eighty to one hundred ships, annually, of twenty thousand tons
navigated by about twelve hundred seamen.57

53
Irwin, Diplomatic Relations, p. 18.
54
Panzac, “Trade in the Ottoman Empire,” p. 191; Oren, Power, Faith, and Fantasy, p. 18.
55
From now onwards, the term Barbary States—with capitalization—, unless otherwise indicated, is to
be understood as the collective name officially used by the American government for the four North
African polities including the three regencies of Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli in addition to the Kingdom
of Morocco; therefore there is no pejorative sense attached to it.
56
Thomas Jefferson, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, edited by Julian P. Boyd (Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1955), 11:322, From Richard O’Bryen, 28 April 1787. (Hereafter cited as
PTJ).
57
SPPD, 10:41-2, Report of Secretary of State Relative to Mediterranean Trade, 28 Dec. 1790.
177
But Owing to hostilities triggered by the War of Independence, 1776-1783,

American trade in the Mediterranean ceased entirely for the whole period—or

almost—as merchantmen were armed and converted to privateers with the aim

of attacking British shipping.58

2. 2. American Privateers

During the war, American privately-owned commercial vessels were

transformed to war vessels or privateers. Those were commissioned—or in

other words were granted letters of marque—by the Continental Congress, the

acting government of the newly-declared independent United States, to prey on

British shipping in the waters of the New World.59 Privateering in the home

waters proved to be more lucrative than trade and brought a level of prosperity

to several American seaports and huge revenues to the Continental Congress as

the latter fixed a 10% tax on prize money obtained from the sale of captured

ships and their cargoes.60 The importance of wartime profit thus obtained is

indicated by the fact that the value of prizes and cargoes taken by American

privateers during the War of Independence were three times that of the prizes

and cargoes taken by the Continental naval vessels ($18 million against $6

58
Frothingham, “The Armed Merchantman,” p. 466.
59
Secret Journals of the Acts and Proceedings of Congress, from the First Meeting thereof to the
Dissolution of the Confederation, by the Adoption of the Constitution of the United States, 1:297,
Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, July 12, 1776. (Hereafter cited as SJ).
60
This point is developed in James R. Holcomb, “Attitudes towards Privateering during the Era of the
early American Republic,” Research Follows Paper, Department of History, Texas A&M University,
Texas, USA, 2007, pp. 6-14.
178
million).61 Compared with the total value of trade in 1770, as indicated above,

this explains largely why American merchant ships disappeared from the

Mediterranean during the war.

During the war, the numbers of merchantmen armed by American rebels

as well as profits made outside trade were enormous. The Continental Congress

built, purchased, or hired 64 cruisers armed with a total of 1242 guns and

swivels; this government force captured 196 British vessels.62 Moreover, there

were 792 privateers armed with more than 13,000 guns and swivels that were

involved in campaigns against British shipping; those vessels captured or

destroyed about 600 British vessels.63 Motivation of privateers for participating

in hostilities was partly patriotic but it was also lucrative because they could

sell their prizes and make money for themselves.64 Those particular deeds of

privateers, which in essence and legal status did not differ from those of the

Algerian corsairs, were singled out by American politicians, thinkers,

historians, sociologists, and a host of other writers of the early Republic as

remarkable acts of courage, superiority, and heroism of the American

individual. By doing this, they aimed at promoting cohesion and

‘americanness’ among citizens of the United States.65 This ideology of the

formative years of the Republic contributed largely to the fashioning of a

61
Edgar Stanton Maclay, A History of American Privateers (New York: D. Appleton and Company,
1899), pp. IX-X.
62
Ibid., p. VIII.
63
Ibid.
64
In the war for independence, the entire naval forces of the United States, both Continental and
privateers, captured about 800 British vessels valued at $23.8 million and in the War of 1812, the
Americans captured 1,300 British prizes valued at $39,000,000—“enormous figures for those days.”
Maclay, American Privateers, p. IX; Frothingham, “The Armed Merchantman,” p. 466.
65
Dillon, “Slaves in Algiers,” 417.
179
“jingoistic and melioristic” American character which was imbued by national

pride, self-congratulation, and bombastic rhetoric.66 This may let one presage

that, after they acquired their independence, the Americans, blinded with pride,

egoism, and self-inflated patriotism, would not refrain from quarrelling in a

Jingo67 and Rambo-like manners68 for the advancement of their own interests

whenever an opportunity offered itself to them regardless of the laws and usage

of nations. More, to judge from the numbers of armed merchantmen and

cruisers operating in American waters during the revolution and the damage

they caused to British shipping, one may imagine the swarms of armed

merchantmen the Americans were going to throw into Mediterranean

businesses after independence. This naval force is also indicative of the extent

of post-independence American assaults, both economic and political, not only

on Mediterranean markets but also on the whole geo-political concerns of the

region.

As statistics are available on the Algerian side, one may attempt to make

a comparison between the two maritime forces, American and Algerian, for the

period 1776-1782. That was the period which immediately preceded the

66
John Engell, “Narrative Irony and National Character in Royall Tyler’s The Algerine Captive,”
Studies in American Fiction, 17: 1 (Spring 1989), p. 19; for American character see also, Matthew R.
Hale, “‘Many who Wandered in Darkness’: The Contest over American National Identity, 1795–1798,”
Early American Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 1: 1 (Spring 2003), pp. 127-175.
67
This term has its roots in British foreign policy of the late 1870s when Benjamin Disraeli, the Prime
Minister, orchestrated a gunboat show against Russia. A music-hall song (1878) coined the term ‘jingo’
for the occasion; the opponents of Disraeli’s gunboat policy used it to denounce ‘blind patriotism.’
From ‘jingo’ was extracted the term ‘Jingoism,’ which means belligerent nationalism or zealous
patriotism; jingoism expresses itself in the form of hostility towards other countries. “Jingoism,”
Microsoft Encarta Premium Suite 2005. (Accessed 12 Jul. 2008).
68
‘Rambo’ stands for one “who is extremely aggressive or readily resorts to violence, willingly
breaking rules, laws, or other generally accepted regulations to achieve what he or she believes to be
right;” this stand is named after John Rambo, the aggressive protagonist in the film First Blood (1982).
“Rambo,” Microsoft Encarta Premium Suite 2005. (Accessed 12 Jul. 2008).
180
encounter of the allegedly “frail and fledgling” nascent republic and the

“terrifying piratical state” that was ready to harm ‘innocent’ Americans.69 The

tables below show clearly that American naval forces were far superior to those

of Algiers. Ironically, that coincided with the time when American

commissioners sent to European courts were brandishing the menace of the

Algerian corsairs and sniveling about the frailty of their country and people to

obtain European ‘protection’ for the American flag in the Mediterranean.70

Tables 6: American & Algerian Naval Forces Compared, 1776-1782.

A: Comparative List of Armed Vessels (1776-1782).

1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782

American 167 107 136 187 241 458 330

Vessels
Algerian 19 15 18 19 28 16 23
Vessels

B: Comparative Number of Guns carried by the above Vessels.

1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782

American 1946 1142 1830 2967 3886 6899 5043

Vessels
Algerian 178 139 248 280 360 214 400
Vessels

Source: For American vessels see, Maclay, American Privateers, p. VIII; for Algerian
vessels see, Devoulx, “Marine d’Alger,” pp. 405-10.

69
Donald J. Puchala, “Of Pirates and Terrorists: What Experience and History Teach,” Contemporary
Security Policy, 26:1 (Apr., 2005), p. 16.
70
SJ, 2:10, Plan of a Treaty with France, Article VII, September 17, 1776.
181
Worst, at a time Algerian corsairs had dwindled to between 4 and 13 vessels

(totalizing 36 guns)—almost nothing,71 American politicians continued to

maintain the myth of an invincible navy certainly more by ignorance and

xenophobia than by accurate fact: “At present we are not in a condition to be at

War with any Nation, especially with one [Algiers] from whom we are to

expect nothing but hard knocks,” complained one on the congressional

delegates.72 Today, the so-called ‘specialists’ of American-Arab relations

continue nourishing the same ‘fantasy’—to say the least. Over than two

hundred years later, they persist in describing an “Algiers’ flotilla—nine large

battleships and fifty gunboats strong” that “vastly outgunned that of the United

States.”73

As wartime sources of voluptuous prizes tarnished, the merchant vessels

renewed with adventuring in the Mediterranean but that time with a long

experience of privateering behind them, an inflated nationalistic ego, and more

greed for larger profits as testified by this extract of American self-praise’:

Our sailors, in their struggle to maintain their commerce against pirates

and privateers, had become notably skillful in their dangerous
profession. American seamen, on their armed merchantmen, had fought
their predatory enemies in all parts of the world. Their ships were of the
best design and noted for their speed. This constant life of adventure had
developed resourcefulness in all circumstances of danger which had
equipped them for offense as well as defense.74

71
Figures for the years 1787 and 1790 are in Devoulx, “Marine d’Alger,” p. 410-11.
72
Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774-1789, edited by Paul H. Smith, 25 vol. (Washington, D.C.:
Library of Congress, 1976-2000), 22:686, Pierse Long to John Langdon, 14 Oct. 1785. (Hereafter cited
as LDC).
73
Oren, Power, Faith, and Fantasy, p. 20.
74
Frothingham, “The Armed Merchantman,” p. 466.
182
 Certainly, and according to revolutionary era historian Eugene Schuyler,

that show off could allegedly not “but be noticed by the Barbary rulers, who

saw a strange flag, hitherto unknown, and which certainly had paid no tribute

to them, coming gradually into the Mediterranean.”75 The country behind that

flag certainly also did not favor entering into contact with Algiers to inform

about its newly proclaimed existence and seek a regular diplomatic recognition

on the basis of existing laws and usage of nations. From sheer selfishness and

disregard of a centuries-old established diplomatic system, the United States

opted for hiding behind European treaties with Algiers so that it would not

have to abide by diplomatic usage, i.e.: payment for treaties and tribute. That

would permit it to sneak into the Mediterranean and continue to make huge

profits from trade without having to meet regional obligations or deal with

other than a “most christian king” as indicated by the founding document of

United States foreign policy.76

2. 3. Algerian Corsairs and American Privateers Compared

In 1783, Benjamin Franklin, America’s foremost diplomat in Europe,

expressed wishes not to see a “new Barbary rising in America and our long

extended coast occupied by piratical States.”77 Coming from the pen of an

75
Eugene Schuyler, American Diplomacy and the Furtherance of Commerce (New York: Charles
Scribner’ Sons, 1886), p. 196.
76
SJ, 2:6, 10, Plan of a Treaty with France, September 17, 1776. The American Plan of 1776 which
was set to serve as a model treaty for all negotiations was intended for a ‘most christian king;’ probably
its Americans drafters did not have the intention to deal with a ‘most Musulman king’!
77
Benjamin Franklin, Memoirs of Benjamin Franklin, His Social Epistolary Correspondence,
Philosophical, Political, and Moral Letters and Essays, Diplomatic Transactions as Agent at London
183
American commissioner who throughout the war of independence defended

inexorably piracies of his countrymen against European shipping, those wishes

may sound awkward.78 Yet, Franklin’s wishes as well as fears for the future of

“mankind” were genuine considering the large scale depredations committed

by American seamen against non-belligerent shipping. The latter’s actions were

not only contrary to the laws of nations, which the Americans trampled

anyway, but they were also contrary to the conditions of letters of marque

Congress granted them.79

Concerned as he was with the future well-being of his country, Franklin

was apprehensive about the havoc caused by American privateers. While still

negotiating the peace treaty with Great Britain, he proposed an abolition of

privateering for reasons he was best placed to know. To David Hartley, the

British negotiator, Franklin expressed concerns about American privateering

and argued that “if a stop is not now put to the practice, mankind may hereafter

be more plagued with American corsairs than they have been and are with the

Turkish.”80 He feared that the temptation might be too great as the practice

seemed to be especially profitable to the Americans because the “rich

and Minister Plenipotentiary at Versailles, 2 vol. (Philadelphia: M Carty & Davis, 1834), 1:528, To
David Hartley, May 8, 1783.
78
The following correspondence is just an example of many warnings of the French government to
American commissioners at Paris about piracies committed by American privateers against French
shipping—and this at a time France was their sole ally! As answer, the commissioners—including
Franklin—either apologized or asked for more privileges: USRDC, 1:227-30, Count de Vergennes to
the Commissioners, 16th July, 1777 and Commissioners to the Count de Vergennes, 16th July, 1777.
See also, ibid., 1:303-4, M. de Sartine to the Commissioners, 29th July, 1778; ibid., 1:302,
Commissioners to M. de Sartine, August 13th, 1778; ibid., 1:305-10, de Sartine to the Commissioners,
29th July, 1778; Commissioners to M. de Sartine, 10th September, 1778; ibid., 1:320-22, M. de Sartine
to the Commissioners, 16th September, 1778; Commissioners to M. de Sartine, 17th September, 1778.
79
Article 1 and 2 of the instructions authorized them to “attack, subdue and take” British vessels (with
certain exceptions in favor of immigrants), or vessels carrying contraband to the British only. For more
of those conditions see Stark, Abolition of Privateering, pp. 119-21.
80
Franklin, Memoirs, 1:529.
184
commerce of Europe with the West Indies is obliged to pass before our doors,

which enables us to make short and cheap cruises.”81

Franklin’s thought is certainly a relevant argument that unveils the

piratical nature of the so-called American privateers but by no means could his

analogy apply to the Turkish or Muslim corsairs. As discussed in chapter two,

the line between piracy and privateering/corsairing was thin; but international

law had clearly identified the three prerequisites for an act of robbery on the

high seas to pass from illegality to legality: sovereignty, authorization of a

sovereign, and more important the existence of a ‘lawful enemy’—in other

terms, the existence of a state of war.82 Those three conditions were plainly

fulfilled by Algiers. Corsairing, by nature, legal definition, and practice, was

carried by sovereigns against ‘lawful enemies,’ enemies against whom a legal

state of war existed; in the case of Spain, for example, it was a perpetual war.

That state of war existed because Christians declared Muslims as their enemies

and fought them for centuries. Hence, the Muslim-Christians treaties only

suspended hostilities for the duration specified by any treaty but as soon as it

expired, war was resumed; corsairing, therefore, was a legal act of war.

For the United States, however, the three conditions need some

clarification: first, until February 1778 the USA existed clandestinely as none

of the existing states recognized its independence, therefore it lacked

sovereignty. Second: letters of marque (authorization) were legally null and

81
Franklin, Memoirs, 1:529.
82
Hall, International Law, pp. 64-74; Benton, “Legal Spaces of Empire,” p. 705.

185
void because they emanated from a non-sovereign polity. Third, after February

1778—date at which the United States obtained the first diplomatic recognition

from France, letters of marque did not give their holders the right to seize

property of non-belligerents.83 Therefore, all acts committed before February

1778 by American seamen were acts of piracy; those committed after this date

against non-belligerents were also acts of piracy. To the question ‘who’s who?’

one may answer simply: during the two-sub-phases mentioned above, the

Americans were pirates; the Algerians were corsairs who carried legal acts of

war against their lawful Christian enemies.

A spirit of fairness here imposes further consideration of the third

prerequisite: the existence of a lawful enemy. In his pre-revolution writings

Franklin also wrote:

So far as the being of our present colonies in North America is

concerned, I think indeed with the remarker, that the French there are
not “an enemy to be apprehended;”—but the expression is too vague to
be applicable to the present, or indeed to any other case. Algiers, Tunis,
and Tripoli, unequal as they are to this nation in power and numbers of
people, are enemies to be still apprehended.84

Even though Franklin decided to consider Algiers and the other Muslim states

as “an enemy to be apprehended” without any apparent reason—except perhaps

to defend his Francophile inclinations, this does not make of the British

colonies of North America a lawful enemy of Algiers simply because Franklin

83
For sovereign authorization and Letter of Marque and Reprisal see Ramsey, “Textualism and War
Powers,” pp. 1615-16.
84
Franklin, Memoirs, 2:195, The Canada Pamphlet: The Interest of Great Britain considered, with
regard to her Colonies and the Acquisitions of Canada and Guadaloupe. This piece of writing is
undated by its classification indicates that it was written before 1776, see ibid., p. iii.
186
decided it zealously. The colonies were not an enemy for Algiers; they were

but one word in all the treaties concluded between Algiers and Great Britain.85

And even when “Her Majesty’s plantations in America” had been specifically

mentioned in the treaty of 1703, it was for giving them exclusive privileges like

the right to make prizes of the Algerian corsairs without even having to show a

passport; instead, a plain certificate in handwriting was sufficient.86

Undoubtedly, Algiers had no specific knowledge about those far-away colonies

as testified by Americans who came into contact with Algiers for long years:

“the Algerines … have very little Idea about America” and “do not expect to

derive any great advantage by being at war with the Americans, our country

being so far situated from them….”87 Probably also Algiers did not seek to

know about that as long as a treaty of peace existed with Great Britain and the

colonials flied the Union Jack. The British colonies were neither one of

Algiers’ immediate geopolitical concerns nor did Algiers have any colonial

ambitions; therefore, no attitude whatsoever, negative or positive, could

possibly have existed, let alone animosity. What is most evident, however, is

the animosity and prejudices the Americans nourished towards Algiers and the

Muslims in general long before they came to enter into contact with them as it

85
For all the treaties between Algiers and Great Britain see Hertslet, Collection of Treaties and
Conventions, pp. 58-88.
86
Hertslet, Collection of Treaties and Conventions, Treaty between Great Britain and Algiers, 1682,
Article XVI, p. 74-75.
87
The Emerging Nation: A Documentary History of the Foreign Relations of the United States under
the Articles of Confederation, 1780-1789, edited by Mary A. Giunta (Washington, D.C.: National
Historical Publications and Records Commission, 1996), 3:195, Richard O’Bryen, Zaccheus Coffin and
Isaac Stephens to Thomas Jefferson, June 8, 1786. (Hereafter cited as EN). This letter was not
published in American state papers series until 1996.
187
is shown here by Franklin’s gratuitous stance and confirmed by many United

States founding fathers.

2. 4. Anti-Algiers Attitudes in American Political Thought

Offspring of Old World religion and culture, the Americans were

already imbued with some knowledge about the history of relations between

Christian Europe and the Muslim countries and the crusades were no secret for

them. They certainly understood that those relations were in fact long contests

between Europeans on one side and Arabs, Turks, and North African Moors

and Moriscos on the other or simply between two religion enemies: Christians

and Muslims. Ultimately, they represented those contests as a struggle between

what they came to call ‘civilization’ and ‘barbarity.’ So, the Americans not

only “inherited this understanding of the Muslim world from the Europeans,

but chose to pursue this enemy even more relentlessly than the Europeans had

done.”88

Thomas Jefferson, the ‘sage of Monticello’ and one of America’s

foremost founding fathers, jubilated at news about a European scheme for

“driving the Turks” out of Greece: “I could wish them success, and to see

driven from that delightful country a set of barbarians, with whom an

opposition to all science is an article of religion,” he wrote in 1785.89 With a

zealous New World spirit, another founding father who was no more than John

88
Robert J. Allison, “The Jihad of America’s Founding Fathers,” Sept., 2001. (Accessed 14 June
2007). http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=2155
89
Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, Miscellanies, From the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, 4
vol. (Charlottesville, VA: F. Carr, and Co, 1829), 1:289, To John Page, August 20, 1785.
188
Adams went as far as to consider that “the policy of Christendom has made

cowards of all their sailors before the standard of Mahomet” and that it “would

be heroical and glorious” of America to suppress those barbarians.90

In American perceptions, therefore, the enemy was identified: he was a

pirate, he was Muslim, and he was weak. Here perhaps lay the roots of the

uneasy encounter of the United States with the Muslim countries: America had

already formulated a certain animosity towards the Muslims and by extension

towards Islam. The forthcoming direct contacts would merely crystallize those

early distorted perceptions of Islam and Muslims in the American mind.91 In

the ultimate conflict between Algiers and the United States, even if it was not

like the classical sort of conflict between Christianity and Islam, religion

nevertheless was an underlying issue. The two sides clashed, not over

theological differences, but rather as a result of the divergent views that were

generated by two different faiths.92

American perceptions of Algiers were formulated long before the two

countries entered into formal contact and they were indisputably biased and

distorted. George Washington, for example, called the North African states

“little piratical states;”93 Jefferson referred to them as “nests of banditti” and to

90
John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States with a Life of the
Author, Notes and Illustrations, edited by Charles Francis Adams, 10 vol. (Boston: Little, Brown, &
Company, 1865), 8:407, To T. Jefferson, 3 July, 1786. (Hereafter cited as WJA). Also Appendix 5A.
91
Melvin E. Lee, “The Fallacy of Grievance-based Terrorism,” Middle East Quarterly (Winter 2008),
p. 72.
92
Frank Lambert, The Barbary Wars: American Independence in the Atlantic World (New York: Hill
and Wang, 2005), pp. 112-14.
93
George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, edited by Worthington C. Ford, 14 vol.
(New York/London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1891-1892.), 11:59, To the Marquis De Lafayette, 15
August, 1786 (Hereafter cited as WGW)
189
Algiers particularly as a “pettifogging nest of robbers;”94 John Adams called

Muslim rulers “unfeeling tyrants;”95 and James Madison described them as

“petty tyrants” in his campaign literature and their system as “capricious

despotism.”96 For them, the ‘despotic’ Muslim became the antithesis of that

early American republican identity.97 For the Muslims rulers, however, what

the Americans regarded as piracy and despotism was no more than self-defense

generated by a long history of conflicts between Islam and Christianity,

conflicts which had roots in the Crusades, Reconquista, and expulsion of the

Moriscos.98 This view was also conveyed by James L. Cathcart, a many years

American captive at Algiers and later American consul for Tripoli, from a

discussion with Ibram Rais, an Algerian corsair who was cruelly treated while

he was in captivity in Malta where he remained prisoner for fourteen years:

but you are Christians and if you have not injured Mussulmen it was not
for the want of will, but for want of power, if you should chance to take
any of our Cruisers how would you treat our people?99

No forecast could be more accurate than that of Ibram Rais.

3. American Post-independence Relations with Algiers

After 1776, commerce continued to be the main motivation for

American much sought presence in the Mediterranean but the new condition of

94
USDC, 2:183, From Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, August 11, 1788; also PTJ, 7: 640, To James
Monroe, 6 Feb. 1785.
95
WJA, 8:218.
96
Lambert, Barbary Wars, pp. 110, 123 and WJM, 8:227, Fourth Annual Message, November 4, 1812
respectively.
97
Lee, “The Fallacy of Grievance-based Terrorism,” p. 73.
98
Rojas, “Insults Unpunished,” pp. 173-74.
99
Cathcart, The Captives, p. 49.
190
independence raised questions bout the future of trade in the Mediterranean in

general. The loss of British admiralty passes and privileges enjoyed previously

under the Algerian-British treaties, particularly, triggered fears among many

leading American politicians who predicted an uneasy, even perilous, situation

for American interests in the region. The Continental Congress, as early as

1776, expressed concerns about potential dangers coming from the side of

Algiers even though nothing could have indicated that whatsoever aggressive

intentions, and even less deeds, towards a country that had not existed yet

emanated from that far away and unknown country, meaning Algiers, that the

American were quick to condemn prematurely. This is clearly discernable in

the “plan of treaties to be proposed to foreign nations,” better known as the

Plan of 1776,100 which Congress devised as a model treaty for future American

treaties. Article VII of the plan stated:

The most christian king shall protect, defend and secure, as far as in his
power, the subjects, people and inhabitants of the said United States, and
every of them, and their vessels and effects of every kind, against all
attacks, assaults, violences, injuries, depredations or plunderings, by or
from the king or emperor of Morocco, or Fez, and the states of Algiers,
Tunis and Tripoli, and any of them, and every other prince, state and
power on the coast of Barbary in Africa.101

It is evident that this plan was not intended for Muslim kings with whom

probably Congress did not envisage to have diplomatic relations and peace

treaties but it was intended for a probable ‘christian king’ who would sanction

the terms stated by the Americans. Barely two months after declaring

100
Bemis, A Diplomatic History of the United States, 5th edition (New York/Chicago/San Francisco:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1965), p. 66.
101
SJ, 2:6, 10, Plan of a Treaty with France, September 17, 1776. See Appendix 3.
191
independence, the Continental Congress chose to ignore the Muslims. Worse, it

presented them as enemies against whom protection was needed from Christian

Europe. Far from going beyond moderate analysis, one is tempted to say that

the United States, right from the start, had chosen to evolve in a Christian orbit,

which is quite legitimate given the background and culture of the Americans.

But what is contrary to common sense and diplomatic tradition is to consider

the culturally different ‘other’ unduly as an enemy against whom one prepares

sinewy plans without even bothering to talk or negotiate with him. Such a stand

might certainly have been interpreted by the ‘other’ as a hostile attitude.

Therefore, one may deduce that some ‘implicit’ and ‘reciprocal’ hostility had

installed itself between Americans and Algerians long before they came into

contact with each other.102 It will not be before total failure to obtain

‘protection’ under European treaties that Congress decided finally to change

attitude and adhere to the custom of nations which favored initiating peaceful

diplomatic talks before accusing and condemning improperly.

3. 1. The Framework of American Diplomacy

To understand later-to-come correspondence relating to Algiers in

American state papers, one needs to have at least a succinct idea about the

mechanisms which conveyed early American diplomacy. After independence,

the task of insuring a durable and secure commerce in the Old World continued

to be a priority for the Americans and the task for its everlastingness fell to the

102
One may also argue for ‘reciprocity’ because at Algiers, too, Christians were perceived as enemies.
192
Continental Congress.103 The latter, acting as a de facto government,104

assumed the conduct of foreign relations of the United States from the date of

its first initiation in 1774 up to 1789, time at which a new system of

government was established under a new constitution.105 In 1776, Congress

worked simultaneously on three major issues: independence, confederation,

and foreign trade and treaties. That work was carried by three committees

(Committee on Independence, Committee on Confederation, and Committee on

Foreign Correspondence) which were charged with drafting the Declaration of

Independence, elaborating a plan for union of the future thirteen states, and

drafting a “model set of articles for treaties with foreign nations”

respectively.106 Preceding that three-fold activity, Congress had already

appointed a secret committee in 1775 “for the sole purpose of corresponding

with our friends in Great Britain, Ireland, and other parts of the world.”107

Known at first as the Committee of Correspondence, it soon changed name to

Committee of Secret Correspondence (CSC).108 That committee was in fact the

embryo of the currently omnipotent American Department of State; and its

creation preceded that of all other structures in the American government. The

original appointed members of the CSC included such figures as Benjamin

103
USRDC, 2:230, Committee of Secret Correspondence to Franklin, Dean, and A. Lee, Dec. 21, 1776.
104
Bemis, A Diplomatic History, p. 46, fn 1.
105
For developments in American foreign policy under the Continental Congress and federal system
see Barnes, William and John Heath Morgan. The Foreign Service of the United States: Origins,
Development, and Functions (Washington, D. C.: Historical Office, Bureau of Public Affairs,
Department of State, 1961), pp. 3-25.
106
Bemis, A Diplomatic History, p. 22.
107
SJ, 2:1, November 29, 1775.
108
Barnes, Foreign Service, p. 5.
193
Franklin, John Dickenson, Thomas Jefferson, and John Jay, all very influential

members of the Continental Congress but answerable to it.

Following the Declaration of Independence, and the appointment of a

Joint Commission to the Court of France (consisting of Franklin, Silas Dean—

who was later replaced by John Adams, and Arthur Lee), the CSC became the

official channel of communication between those diplomatic agents and the

Government (Congress). In 1777, the CSC was re-styled Committee for

Foreign Affairs (CFA);109 it was also subjected to the authority of Congress. In

general, since its creation, that committee proved to be inefficient and chaotic.

The collegiate management and administrative organization further weakened

it.110 In 1781, the new Confederation Congress, established under the terms of

the Articles of Confederation, created a Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA),

a permanent executive department rather than a committee of Congress “as a

remedy against the fluctuation, the delay and indecision to which the present

mode of managing our foreign affairs must be exposed.”111 A Secretary of

Foreign Affair was appointed at the head of that department and he was

charged with the following:

to keep and preserve all the books and papers belonging to the
department of foreign affairs : to receive and report the applications of
all foreigners : to correspond with the ministers of the United States at
foreign courts, and with the ministers of foreign powers and other
persons, for the purpose of obtaining the most extensive and useful
information relative to foreign affairs, to be laid before Congress when
required : also to transmit such communications as Congress shall

109
SJ, 2:279, April 17, 1777.
110
Barnes, Foreign Service, p. 6.
111
SJ, 2:581, January 10, 1781.
194
 direct, to the ministers of these United States and others at foreign
courts, and in foreign countries.112

The Department of Foreign Affairs, like its forerunner the CFA, was

submitted to the direct authority of Congress; it had to inform and report back

to Congress on all matters relating to foreign affairs. It functioned much like a

‘transit agency’ for official correspondence between Congress, on the one

hand, and ‘all foreigners,’ American ministers accredited at foreign courts, and

ministers of foreign powers, on the other. This explains in part the huge

diplomatic correspondence preserved in the files of the Continental Congress,

and which actually forms the official diplomatic documents of the USA for the

period 1776-1789. The DFA remained in place until it was superseded by the

present Department of State in 1790.113

3. 2. Structural Difficulties impeding Algerian-American Relations

In matters of organization and responsibilities, American foreign policy

was at the opposite end from its counterpart in Algiers. At Algiers, diplomatic

matters were the exclusive prerogative of the Deys and were limited to

audiences with foreign consuls and envoys; they usually ended in ‘verbal’

orders given by the Dey should he come to whatsoever decision. In April 1786,

for example, Dey Muhammed Pasha met with the American special envoy John

Lamb in no less than four lengthy meetings, but it seems that Cathcart wrote in

112
SJ, 2:581, January 10, 1781.
113
During this period, two secretaries conducted foreign affairs: Robert R. Livingstone (1781-1783)
and John Jay (1784-1790). Barnes, Foreign Service, p. 7-8.
195
his letter book more than did the Dey on the Deylik registers!114 Although

elected by the Odjac and assisted by a council (Divan), the Deys took decisions

independently, sometimes instantly, without even referring to the Divan or any

other official of the government.115 With the consuls of Christian countries, the

Deys generally behaved haughtily, sometimes with excesses of anger, a

conduct which was not always to the taste of those consuls.116 Obviously, such

two different ways of conducting diplomatic relations—the first chaotically

democratic, the second ostensibly personal—were at the origin of the tricky

beginnings of relations between Algiers and the United States.

Perhaps also that kind of ‘personal’ diplomacy partly explains the

absence of archives dating back to the Turkish rule of Algiers in Algeria or

elsewhere (France for example) relating to relations with the United States

during the period under study.117 Furthermore, the fact that Algiers acted

independently from Constantinople lets one suppose that no state records on

that side either could have existed. According to Cathcart, state records were of

a meager nature. In 1792, when he was appointed Christian secretary to Dey

Hassan Pasha, he made a description of El-Djenina, the Dey’s Palace, and

referred to the registers of the Deylik that were kept by Turkish Khodjas:

114
For an account of the audiences see Cathcart, The Captives, pp. 32-42.
115
For a view about the personality and character of the Deys see Richard B. Parker, Uncle Sam in
Barbary: A Diplomatic History (Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida, 2004), pp. 24-32.
116
For a succinct overview about the Deys’ conduct with foreign consuls see Charles Oscar Paullin,
Diplomatic Negotiations of American Naval Officers, 1778-1883 (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins
Press, 1912), pp. 45-46; also Irwin, Diplomatic Relations, p. 14.
117
Until 2006, Algeria did not even have a copy of the treaty of 1795. It was only during an official
visit to the USA, that the Department of State offered a copy of that treaty to Mohammed Bedjaoui,
Algerian Minister of Foreign Affairs. “Bedjaoui aux Etats-Unis d’Amérique: Une Visite très
Fructueuse,” EL-Moudjahid, 14 April 2006. (Accessed 5 March 2008).
http://www.elmoudjahid.com/stories.php?story=06/04/14/8098232
196
 On the Dey’s right hand is the large divan where the four Turkish
Hodges or Secretaries of State sit and where archives of the nation are
kept, which consists [sic] of a few large books and papers, the whole not
comprising as much paper as would be found in the office of a country
attorney.118

Furthermore, the very nature of the early American system of

government as established under the Continental and Confederation congresses

contributed to those early difficulties. The diplomatic papers of the

Confederation period attest of a total lack of a firm and coordinated decision-

making process—if not total failure: the Commissioners kept referring matters

to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, the Secretary to Congress, and

congressional delegates would not act without referring to their respective

states; and all that was carried out on a background of capricious transatlantic

communications, unsafe mail, and political and social uneasiness in the USA.

The accountability of ministers, agents, and a host of special envoys to

foreign countries to Congress generated a considerable amount of diplomatic

correspondence that either waited for instructions, approval, funding, or the

like from the central government, i.e.: Congress. But the latter, lost in an

irresponsible bureaucracy and administered by incompetent government

officials,119 was extremely handicapped by the Articles of Confederation. Each

state retained “its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power,

jurisdiction and right” which the states refused to concede to the union
118
Cathcart, The Captives, p. 195. It is to be noted that in addition to the Turkish secretaries (Khodjas),
the Deys also kept a Christian clerk at their service. Cathcart occupied that job from 1792 to 1796.
119
USRDC, 3:288, Lovell to A. Lee, Aug. 6, 1779. Lovell was a member of the CFA; he wrote: “But
there is really no Such Thing as a Committee of foreign affairs existing, no Secretary or Clerk, further
than I persevere to be one and the other. The Books & Papers of that extinguished Body lay yet on the
Table of Congress, or rather are locked up in the Secretary’s private Box.”
197
Congress (Art. 2). More, the delegates from states were annually appointed and

could be recalled or replaced at any time (Art. V); therefore they were not

steady and their vote was needed for making policy and taking decisions. More,

“All charges of war and all other expenses” were to be “defrayed out of a

common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several states” (Art. VIII);

yet, while prohibiting to Congress to levy taxes, the states refused to provide it

with the agreed on financial quotas. Finally, Congress obtained “the sole and

exclusive right” of making treaties and alliances (Art. VIX); but it was

subjected to the assent of nine out thirteen states at a time the quorum could

barely be reached.120 All those weaknesses were not of a nature to facilitate

negotiations or ransom American captives at Algiers at a time prices of treaties

and redemption of prisoners were fixed and regulated by treaties, conventions,

and custom.

What certainly added to the difficulties that surrounded early Algerian-

American relations were communications.121 In addition to the chaos and

inefficiency of Congress and whims and authoritative diplomatic style of the

Deys, relations were affected by the physical distance separating the two

countries, mode of transportation, and caprices of the sea. In an age of sailing

wooden ships, “even under the most favorable circumstances, the transit-time

for correspondence between Philadelphia and Paris averaged two months;”122

and that without counting the necessary time needed for relaying

120
SJ, 1:449-464, Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, March 1, 1781.
121
For problems of communications in general see Thomas A. Bailey, A Diplomatic History of the
American People, 10th ed. (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1980), pp. 28-29.
122
Barnes, Foreign Service, p. 9.
198
correspondence between the different ministers plenipotentiaries at European

courts, special envoys, diplomatic agents, and Algiers. That factor in itself

caused many delays and generated much distrust, frustration, and anger, both

among Algerian state officials as well as among American captives at Algiers.

As an indication: in May 1784, Congress decided finally to negotiate

with the North African states and set a commission for the purpose.123 Late in

1784, John Lamb, an American in the “Barbary trade” was proposed to be

special agent for Algiers but he was not commissioned until March 1785—

almost one year later;124 and it took him another year to reach Algiers.

Meanwhile, the Algerian corsairs captured the two first American ships in July

1785.125 When Lamb finally arrived at Algiers in March 1786, matters had

become more complicated than they had been two years earlier because the

Americans had also to negotiate for the redemption of captives.126 In October

1786, he was recalled back to the USA to report to Congress but he did not sail

back home until May 1787.127 Late of that same year, he had not reported to

Congress yet.128

Four full years had been spent in correspondence and Atlantic crossing

and re-crossing and Congress did not take a decision relating to negotiations

with Algiers. It was a lengthy but fruitless course of action which caused the

123
SJ, 3:489, May, 7, 1784.
124
USDC, 1:652, From Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, October 11, 1785; Commissions to Thomas
Barclay and John Lamb, p. 657.
125
Ibid., 1:655, From Richard O’Bryen to Thomas Jefferson, August 24, 1785.
126
Ibid., 1:739, From John Lamb to Thomas Jefferson, March 29, 1786. In all, two full years elapsed
between the time Congress resolved for negotiations and the time Lamb arrived at Algiers.
127
Ibid., 2:59, From John Lamb to Thomas Jefferson, May 20, 1787.
128
According to Parker, Lamb reported to Congress in April 1788; however, none of the American
state documents indicated that. Parker, Uncle Sam in Barbary, p. 54.
199
rulers of Algiers to doubt American seriousness about a peace treaty and gave

American captives false hopes. Cathcart penned clearly the consequences of

that ill-fated early contact:

by deceiving the Dey with unwarranted expectations he [Lamb]

committed the honor and dignity of his country and led the Dey and
Grandees to believe that the government of the United States was
trifling with them … a sacred adherence to, and compliance with, ought
forever to characterize the public operations of contracting powers,
especially those divided by so great a distance as the United States and
the Regency of Barbary.129

The impact of bad communications was undoubtedly damaging to early

diplomatic contacts between Algiers and the United States and revolting for the

first captured crews. Those remained in captivity until a treaty of peace was

finally concluded in September 1795 more than eleven years after Congress

first resolved to negotiate a treaty with Algiers!

During the War of Independence, and always because of the hazards of

ocean-crossing, including the possibility of capture by British cruisers,

Congress introduced some security measures such as cipher and the forwarding

of quadruple copies of every document.130 Yet, that was not sufficient and

delay of instructions from Congress to diplomatic representations continued to

be a serious handicap even after the cessation of hostilities. To palliate to that

handicap, Congress gave its diplomatic agents in Europe, particularly those

accredited to France (Franklin and Jefferson) and Great Britain (Adams), “full

powers and authority … to confer, treat, and negotiate” with foreign

129
Cathcart, The Captives, p. 31.
130
Barnes, Foreign Service, pp. 9-10.
200
countries.131 The latter, when they had commissioned Lamb to negotiate with

Algiers, instructed him “to use his own discretion” in carrying negotiations:

“Where alterations which, in your opinion, shall not be of great importance,

shall be urged by the other party, you are at liberty to agree to them.”132 That

was precisely what Lamb did. During the first Algerian-American negotiations

that took place in April 1786, an agreement was reached with the Dey for the

redemption of captives. Nevertheless, after the ministers had allowed Lamb

some latitude in negotiations, they rejected that agreement arguing that Lamb

had gone beyond his prerogatives. Worse, they did not even think it worth to

give the Dey official notification about it—after all it was them who initiated

negotiations. That switch in position turned out to be a thorny problem in future

Algerian-American relations. Hence, what originally had started as a measure

to overcome problems of communications was going to lead to lasting

misunderstandings between Algiers and the United States. As a consequence,

never again did the Deys trust American envoys; at best, they had always

remained suspicious about them.133

131
SJ, 3:536, March 11, 1785; USDC, 1:656, 659, From Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, October 11,
1785.
132
USDC, 1:658, From Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, Commissions to Thomas Barclay and John
Lamb, October 11, 1785.
133
Parker, Uncle Sam in Barbary, p. 57.
201
Conclusion

The Ocean fashioned the Thirteen Colonies in much the same way as

did the land; and the ‘frontier’ may be seen as both terrestrial and oceanic. It

was that dimension which shaped American expansionism first toward the

wilderness of the American West, then at a later stage, towards the trans-

oceanic Orient. While forcibly penetrating the West in the name of Manifest

Destiny, the Americans moved to force the door of Mediterranean trade open in

the name of free navigation and free markets. In both cases, ready-made

justifications were at hand: on the one hand, the native Americans were no

more than heathens and savages who did not deserve to enjoy the abundant

natural resources of the West and on the other, the ‘pirates’ of the ‘Barbary

Coast’ were a hindrance to America’s economic well-being. Therefore, for the

American bullish settlers and trans-Atlantic merchants alike, both had to

disappear so that room would be made for the white, civilized, and Christian

element and his growing insatiable interests.

From Franklin who declared enmity to Algiers while the United States

was still an embryo, passing by Adams who explicitly aggressed Islam and

Jefferson who started devising plans for attacking Algiers when the United

States was still in layers, to Stephen Decatur who midway, with the growth of

the first American tooth, bit Algiers, and ending by William Shaler who barely

as soon as the United States could stand on its feet recommended colonization,

Algiers definitely was going to have hard times with that new race of rising

jingos and Rambos. But before all that, the Americans had first to secure an
202
advantageous place in Mediterranean markets among European powers that

were as alert to their own economic interests as Americans were. But for the

Americans that was a child’s game. The American mind that devised long-

lasting ideals in the Declaration of Independence in July 1776 complemented

them with a politico-economic vision barely two month later. The document

that incorporated America’s nascent economic philosophy is simply called

‘plan of 1776’ and the means used for the attainment of American commercial

adjectives is simply referred to as ‘commercial diplomacy.’

203
 CHAPTER V

American Commercial Diplomacy,

1776-1783

Our diplomacy, in its aim and purposes, from the beginning was
commercial as distinguished from political, and this purpose, in its very
nature, gave to it the character of sincerity and straightforwardness…
our first concern was to negotiate treaties of amity and commerce.1

Oscar S. Straus (1911)

Introduction

The handicap of “an imperfect union and an impotent national

government,” did not halt American commercial expansionism.2 Right from the

beginning, the United States set out seeking a place among centuries-old

nations that were already evolving in a complex system of international

relations. As wicked and self-centered as children playing at the courts of the

great nations, its ‘militia diplomats’ were going to use all possible and

impossible means to place American commerce in an advantageous position on

international markets. From a position of duplicity, American envoys

1
Oscar S. Straus, “American Commercial Diplomacy,” The North American Review, 194: 2 (Aug.,
1911), p. 218.
2
Bemis, A Diplomatic History, p. 65.
204
relentlessly invoked financial and naval powerlessness in an attempt to sell a

picture of a ‘fledgling United States’ that was in desperate need for European

‘protection’ for American citizens and their property against “the piratical

states” which according to them exacted tribute and depredated on American

shipping.3 Straightforwardness, along with naïveté and pettiness, the American

agents exchanged it in their ‘secret’ and ‘ciphered’ correspondence but

hypocrisy and humility they exhibited at every European court. The aim was

boringly the same: single-way profit-making treaties; historians call this

approach in American foreign policy ‘Commercial Diplomacy.’4 More,

American envoys to Europe wanted others to assume charges that, by laws and

usage of nations, were attached to privileges and pay the bill for them while

they enjoy the ‘fruits of vine and fig-tree’ as in the old days.

The Europeans, as good accountants as America’s commercial agents as

well as well-trained in the art of diplomatic shrewdness—rather they invented

it—knew it all perfectly well and would not let them get peace or commercial

treaties, sometimes none of the last, except on the basis of reciprocity. All that

at a time Algiers was still clinging to principles that were three centuries-old,

lost the protective shield of its once powerful navy, and was ruled by a group of

aging and despotic Turks who kept from the founding principles of the

Regency but the shell while real power had long evaded them. In a world

where it lost the privileges of the British treaties, the United States was going

to face enormous difficulties chiefly with the European powers because, like

3
DCAR, 4:184, Franklin to the President of Congress, December 25, 1783.
4
Straus, “Commercial Diplomacy,” pp. 218-25.
205
the Americans, the Europeans were keen on their national interests and would

not allow competition, particularly commercial, from that surely enterprising

yet aggressive new nation. Astonishingly, the problems for the conclusion of

treaties of peace and commerce which confronted the United States starting

from 1776 did not emanate from the powers “on the coast of Barbary in Africa”

but originated in Europe which gave the Americans hard times before

conceding to sign treaties with them.

1. America’s ‘New Diplomacy’

Even though the term ‘New Diplomacy’ was used for the first time in

1793, the idea of a new form of diplomacy, different from ‘old policy’ or

‘power politics’ as exercised so far by the warring colonial powers, found

expression in the ‘model treaty’ that was introduced by the Americans in 1776

as a basis for negotiations with the European powers for diplomatic recognition

and commercial treaties. The ideas and arguments implied in this concept were

picked almost word for word from European eighteenth-century thinkers and

philosophers—just like the Declaration of Independence.5 Originally defending

an idea of national interest—particularly trading freely in Europe and its

colonial markets, the Americans argued that commerce without the hindrance

of privileges or monopolization of markets, in other terms open markets, would

favor world peace, or to use the expression of Benjamin Franklin the general

5
The theoretical roots of New Diplomacy are traced back to the physiocrats and philosophes of the
Enlightenment Age. For origins and evolution see Felix Gilbert, “The ‘New Diplomacy’ of the
Eighteenth Century,” World Politics, 4: 1 (Oct., 1951), p. 1-16.
206
good of mankind.6 Accordingly, by opening markets, which is the antithesis of

mercantilist thought and practice as discussed earlier, the colonial powers

would stop making wars and people would live in peace. By linking national

interest to the general good of mankind, the Americans argued, “foreign policy

would become more moral.”7

By the end of the 18th century, that idea evolved and came to mean that

the moral of the United States, because it was a republic, was superior to that

of the European states because they were monarchies; thus appeared the

“notion of ‘moral superiority’ of American foreign policy.”8 Consequently, the

Americans came to believe that, because of that moral superiority, their new

mission was to meliorate the world; hence the doctrine of ‘meliorism’ which

became a founding principle in American foreign.9 The French historian Jean-

Baptiste Duroselle (1917-1994) called that approach “unconscious

nationalism” which made the Americans “sincerely” believe that “what is good

for America is good for the world.”10 The concept of national interest mixed up

with the idea of meliorism, result of a nationalistically inflated ego, ended up in

jingoism, i.e.: belligerent nationalism. In matters of foreign policy, that unusual

blend was going to express itself for the first time during the so-called Barbary

Wars, 1801-1816 in the form of what is traditionally termed ‘gunboat

6
SJ, 2:335, October 17, 1780.
7
Jean-Batiste Duroselle, La France et les Etats-Unis: des origines à nos jours (Paris: Editions du
Seuil, 1976), p. 37.
8
Ibid., p. 37.
9
“Meliorism” is founded on the belief that human society has a natural tendency to improve and that
humans can consciously assist this process of its betterment. “Meliorism,” Microsoft Encarta Premium
Suite 2005. (Accessed 12 Nov. 2008).
10
Duroselle, La France et les Etats-Unis, p. 37.
207
diplomacy’. Barbary, then, became the first experimental field in which the

Americans exhibited arrogance and aggressiveness in foreign policy and put

their concept of ‘new diplomacy’ into practice. That stance was going to be

America’s guiding line for the next two hundred years or so.

1. 1. The Founding Principles of American Foreign Policy

The fundamental principles of American foreign policy as expressed by

the founders of the republic may be summarized in these words from John

Adams (1735-1826), influential American statesman from the early

revolutionary period and architect of the ‘model treaty’ or Plan of 1776.11

Reviewing the debates of the fall of 1776 on the “application to foreign

powers,” Adams wrote that he had laid it down as a first principle that:

we should calculate all our measures and foreign negotiations in such a

manner, as to avoid a too great dependence upon any power of
Europe—to avoid all obligations and temptations to take any part in
future European wars: that the business of America with Europe was
commerce, not politics or war.12

In other terms, at its very foundation, American foreign policy was in essence

and principle straightforwardly selfish and aggressive. The Americans wanted

to hit two birds with the same stone: obtain an alliance with the European

powers against Great Britain to achieve independence, on the one hand, and

force the door of international markets open for their trade, on the other,

11
First vice-president (1789-1797) and second president (1797-1801) and of the United States, John
Adams is one of the Founding Fathers. His leadership in the movement for independence won him the
title of ‘Atlas of Independence.’
12
WJA, 8:5, Letter to Secretary Livingston, Paris, 5 February 1783.
208
without providing a counterpart for that. Hence, selfishness and aggressiveness

are inherent characteristics of American foreign policy. For Adams and fellow

revolutionaries, the plan was intended to realize the ideas of an alliance that

“did not imply a political bond” but establish contacts with outside powers

“that should be limited to trade relations.”13 The American historian Samuel

Flagg Bemis (1891-1973), an authority on American diplomatic history, called

that “a very one-sided treaty” by means of which Congress expected Europe

“to recognize the independence of the United States and extend military aid and

protection, without any guaranties by the new republic.”14

The Plan of 1776 may be considered as the founding document of

American foreign policy. Initially, it was drawn up to serve as a model treaty

for negotiations with France but later it was extended to all European courts.15

A quick analysis of that document shows that American foreign policy was

founded on self-interested commerce. Of the thirty articles of the proposed

treaty, twenty were concerned with the general principles of commerce, rules

of trade and navigation, and miscellaneous issues relating to commerce; the

remaining ten articles (nos. 3-5, 7-9, and 11-14) related to different matters.16

Although of a political and military nature, the latter were all the same

introduced to enhance or secure already existing commercial interests as is the

case of Article VII particularly, which emphasized protection of American

13
Gilbert, “New Diplomacy,” p. 24.
14
Bemis, A Diplomatic History, p. 26.
15
The Plan, along with instructions to diplomatic agents, can be found in SJ, 2:6-27, 27-30, Plan of a
Treaty with France, Sept. 17, 1776.
16
For an in-depth analysis of the Plan of 1776 see Gilbert, “New Diplomacy,” pp. 18-32.
209
trade against the North African states. The very structure of the plan shows

how commerce was at the heart of American diplomatic endeavors.

The Plan of 1776 exercised a “profound influence” on the would-be

American diplomacy because “it crystallized the policy which the United States

has generally pursued throughout its history in regard to certain fundamental

concepts of maritime law and neutral rights.”17 The principles outlined in the

plan were to be incorporated in future treaties of amity and commerce with

foreign countries. In general, they duplicated existing maritime practice such as

‘free ships make free goods’ and freedom of neutrals to trade in non-

contraband goods (excluding naval stores and foodstuffs) with belligerents, a

principle which was defended by the small naval powers.18

A particularity of American principles as embodied in the Plan of 1776,

however, was the rejection of Congress to engage in binding politico-military

alliances.19 But the prevailing circumstances soon made the Americans deviate

from those early ideas and move to seek political and military alliances with

European countries not only against Great Britain but also against the North

African states. That American diplomatic offensive prompted the British to

change their policy towards the rebellious colonies and made concessions to

them. Lord North, Great Britain’s Prime Minister (1770-1782), moved to offer

peace on the basis of home rule within the empire.20 That possibility of peace

17
Bemis, A Diplomatic History, p. 25.
18
Ibid., p. 26; Gilbert, “New Diplomacy,” p. 26.
19
Pierre Melandri, La politique extérieure des Etats Unis de 1945 à nos jours (Paris: Presses
Universitaires de France, 1982), pp. 18-19
20
Ibid., p. 27; Bailey, A Diplomatic History, p. 35.
210
was not to the taste of its French colonial rival which had been engaged

actively in clandestine military support for the Americans, a support that made

the victory of George Washington, commander of the Continental Army (1775-

1783), at the Battle of Saratoga (1777) possible.21 From the beginning, and

even before the Declaration of Independence, France found in the growing

tensions between the colonies and their mother country an opportunity to take

revenge and regain its lost power in North America; power it had lost after the

humiliating treaty of 1763.22 That the Americans had realized very early in the

conflict and Congress instructed its agents at Paris to accept an alliance with

France and Spain, if those powers could be persuaded to make one.23

Weak as they supposedly were, the American Commissioners at Paris,

24
of whom Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) with his “air faussement naïve”

was the most prominent, shrewdly played off those European powers’ rivalries

to the most advantage of the USA. When offers of peace came from Great

Britain, they pressed France for a treaty of amity and commerce and an alliance

which they obtained finally in 1778.25 That alliance was the decisive factor in

the final military victories that led to the independence of the United States.

The principle that rejected binding alliances was discarded for more practical

and strategic considerations but the commercial principles—free maritime trade

21
Duroselle, La France et les Etats-Unis, pp. 25-30.
22
Ibid., p. 22.
23
DCAR, 1:416, From B. Franklin to Arthur Lee, March 21, 1777.
24
Duroselle, La France et les Etats-Unis, p. 23. Dean of the founding fathers and diplomats, Franklin
was a printer, editor, scientist, philanthropist, ‘philosopher,’ and above all a Free-Mason. He served as
a colonial agent in England (1760-75), then in Paris as a diplomatic agent for the USA (1776-1785).
Today he is considered as the ‘Father of the Foreign Service’ of the USA, Barnes, Foreign Service, p.
17.
25
Duroselle, La France et les Etats-Unis, p. 24. Congress ratified the treaties with France within an
expedite length of two days.
211
and neutrality of shipping—continued to prevail and became the guiding line of

early American diplomacy. By 1783, the American agents were assaulting

Europe in what they called ‘militia diplomacy’26 to obtain commercial treaties

but also military alliances but that time against Algiers particularly as will be

seen in chapter VI.

1. 2. ‘Militia Diplomacy’ or Beginning of American Aggressive Diplomacy

During the revolutionary period, two views of how to conduct foreign

policy were debated in Congress: the first view advocated aggressiveness in

international intercourse, the other, more cautious, proposed a moderate and

dignified conduct. Those opposing views were well expressed in Congress by

John Adams, for the former, and Benjamin Franklin for the latter, and were

followed by debates in Congress.27 The majority of the delegates believed that

the United States should launch a campaign with the European countries to

obtain diplomatic recognition and military assistance. Although the general

circumstances were not encouraging, the most aggressive among the delegates

defended it enthusiastically and proposed sending agents abroad that would

attempt to be received in European courts regardless of the prospects of

success.28 The delegates called that ‘militia diplomacy’;29 a new brand

diplomacy that carried within it the seeds of aggressiveness and audacity.

26
Barnes, Foreign Service, p. 17-8.
27
John W. Foster, A Century of American Diplomacy: Being a Brief Review of the Foreign Relations of
the United States, 1776-1876 (Boston/New York: Houghton, Mifflin And Company, 1900), p. 9.
28
Ibid.
29
USRDC, 1:523.
212
 Franklin, however, was of another view.30 For the attainment of

independence, he argued, Americans should seek good relations with the

nations unfriendly to England instead of pressing them for alliances.31

Franklin’s view failed while the former prevailed because it “harmonized with

the necessities of the situation.”32 The advocates of aggressive diplomacy had

their way in Congress and elected a number of agents to the courts of Europe.

Special agents, disguised as ‘commercial agents,’ were commissioned by

Congress and dispatched to Spain, Austria, Prussia, Russia, the Netherlands,

and the Duchy of Tuscany. France was singled out by a Joint Commission in

proportion with the expectations of Congress.33 That diplomatic offensive

proved to be fruitless as no European country intended to recognize or support

the rebellious colonies, let alone grant them commercial privileges. Except for

Franklin who was informally received in France,34 the rest of agents were

either arrested, rebuffed, humiliated, or simply ignored and scorned.35 But

Adams was optimistic: “wise men know that militia sometimes gain [sic]

victories over regular troops even by departing from the rules,” he wrote.36

With regard to the performance and the results the ‘militia diplomats’ were

obtaining, however, they were considered to be “as ineffective as the

blundering militiamen at home.”37

30
Barnes, Foreign Service, p. 17.
31
Foster, A Century of American Diplomacy, p. 9.
32
Ibid., p. 10.
33
Ibid., p. 9-11; Bailey, A Diplomatic History, p. 27-28.
34
Duroselle, La France et les Etats-Unis, p. 23.
35
USRDC, 5:196, John Adams to Livingston, February 21, 1782; Barnes, Foreign Service, p. 17-20.
36
USRDC, 5:196, John Adams to Livingston, February 21, 1782.
37
Bailey, A Diplomatic History, p. 28.
213
 Once on the field, Franklin wrote commenting:

Our business now is to carry our point. But I have never yet changed the
opinion I gave in Congress, that a state should not go abroad suitoring
for alliances; but wait with decent dignity for the application of others. I
was overruled—perhaps for the best.38

Years later, Adams returned on the question and wrote Franklin

explaining:

we have not meanly solicited for friendships anywhere. But to send

ministers to any great court in Europe, especially the maritime courts, to
propose an acknowledgment of the independence of America and
treaties of amity and commerce, is no more than becomes us, and in my
opinion is our duty to do. It is perfectly consistent with the genuine
system of American Policy, and a piece of respect due from new nations
to old ones.39

No one is better placed than Adams to describe the foundations he laid

for American foreign policy. True, aggressiveness is “perfectly consistent with

the genuine system of American Policy” but one may not say the same about

Adams’ “piece of respect due from new nations to old ones.” Adams respect

was limited to a ‘most christian king’ but did not extend to include Muslim

rulers and their countries which he considered protection against them was

desperately needed.40 For long years, that assaulting militia was going to beg

and snivel, ruse and plot, maneuver and plan, cheat and lie, deceive and fuss,

and league and counter-league just for this: not to spend ‘a cent’—as one of

American later maxims would say—on treaties with the North African states as

38
DCAR, 1:416, From B. Franklin to Arthur Lee, March 21, 1777.
39
Ibid., 5:361, John Adams to B. Franklin, October 14, 1780.
40
SJ, 2:6-27, Plan of a Treaty with France, Sept. 17, 1776, USRDC, 6:537, John Adams to Livingston,
July 12, 1783.
214
it was customary; a temporary stand that could be explained more by

greediness and deceitfulness than by principle and meliorism.41

2. United States Search for European Protective Treaties

United States’ self-interested search for a protective umbrella for its

commerce in the Mediterranean, and later relations with Algiers, could only be

understood when put in the proper commercial and diplomatic contexts of

American and European policies. Commercially, as previously discussed, the

Americans had already developed a large and profitable Mediterranean trade

and were intent upon keeping it. The Europeans too had even more important

commercial interests in the area but, unlike the Americans, they had also

obtained favorable trading concessions on Algerian soil, monopoly over

Algiers’s external trade, and different sorts of political and legal privileges they

secured for themselves by the means of scores of treaties often concluded by

‘visiting’, menacing, or cannon-balls spitting squadrons at the Bay of Algiers.

European rivalry for power and markets was at its height then, and logically it

would be unconceivable to think that the European powers, after centuries of

power-struggle with Algiers, were going to make room, or even accept

American commercial rivalry in the area.

Diplomatically, the Americans set out to find a ‘protector’ for their

shipping to replace Great Britain which had withdrawn its passes. As colonies,

Britain’s protective diplomatic shield and naval might had secured those

41
One may be tempted here to approach realpolitik in early American foreign policy but it may be
considered out of context.
215
markets and consequently economic prosperity; but since they had declared

their independence, and subsequently obtained it, they were in the position of

the rival that had to be checked. Now that the United States was claiming

markets for itself, and a part of the cake, it was unlikely that the Europeans

were going to lend it a helping hand or allow a treatment of favor for its

seaborne trade. Hence, when the first American envoys to the European courts

asked for security guarantees for American shipping in the Mediterranean to be

included in treaties of peace, the European countries, one after the other,

rejected the request because abiding by the American demand would have

meant that they were welcoming a trade rival, therefore contributing to their

own commercial decline. More, the American demand was badly perceived

because it seemed to Europeans “that the American government was trying to

maintain their [sic] merchants in a profitable area without paying for the

privilege.”42 Great Britain and France, for example, could not see why they

would continue to spend huge sums of money to maintain fleets—that from

time to time visited Algiers on menacing missions—if not for the privileges the

Americans wanted to get for free. The Netherlands and Sweden, particularly,

two lesser powers that were bound to Algiers with treaties that stipulated

payment of tribute and presentation of consular gifts, could certainly not either

understand why the Americans wanted to get privileges and not pay for the

attached charges, i.e.: tribute and consular presents.43

42
Barnby, Prisoners of Algiers, p. 71.
43
For more, see ibid.
216
 Throughout the period 1776-1783, and beyond, the Americans had

realized that power rivalry was a hindrance for them and that they had to move

boldly to secure their commercial interests. Insightful and astute politicians and

diplomats, like Franklin, Jefferson, or Adams, would not hesitate to strike at all

chords for attaining their objectives. Petty and friendly with the European

courts at first, they did not hesitate to shift attitude and policy when they could

not obtain what they wanted; disdainful and treacherous with Algiers at first,

they did not also hesitate to knock its door when they were let down by the

Europeans; arrogant and aggressive, they did not either hesitate to turn the

cannons of their infant navy, as soon as they could organize one, against their

former benefactor France (1794-1798), procreator Great Britain (1812-1814);

and of course Algiers, the despised ‘pirate state’ (1815).

In that context of European and American steadfast rivalry, Algiers had

been used not only as a scapegoat of Christendom but it was also played as a

pawn on the chessboard of the great powers. Regardless of its estimated might,

real perhaps during the second and first halves of the 16th and 17th centuries

respectively but certainly imaginary for the most part of its history, Algiers was

played off by the Christian powers for their own interests. It happened that

Algiers belonged to a different culture and a different faith; but that could other

than reinforce westerners’ determination for gaining more influence and profits

on Algerian soil. A succinct look into American alliances and treaties of peace

and commerce with European powers is of crucial importance to Algerian-

217
American diplomatic relations because it was in the crucible of European

diplomacy that those relations were given their early shape.

2. 1. Algiers in American-French Diplomacy

With regard to Algerian matters, the first step in American diplomatic

undertakings with France was opportunistic and selfish—to say the least.

Because peace treaties with Algiers particularly, and the North African states in

general, were reputed to be expensive, the Americans judged them to be

beyond their reach despite the enormous profits they were making from their

Mediterranean trade. So, Congress instructed its envoys to France to negotiate

a treaty that would include a protective clause for trade in the Mediterranean. In

that way, the Americans would continue to enjoy their lucrative trade without

having to negotiate with the North African states that after all share in the

Mediterranean and were even in control of its southern flank.

Initially in the model treaty of 1776, Congress sought no less than the

boundless task of protecting the people of the United States, “their vessels and

effects, against all such attacks, assaults, violences [sic], injuries, depredations

and plunderings [sic]” of the state of Algiers “in the same manner, and as

effectually and fully” as the King of Great Britain did “before the

commencement of the present war [of independence].”44 As France would not

agree to such unconditional and sweeping guarantees, Congress, instead of

jeopardizing the whole negotiations, instructed the Joint-Commission to “relax

44
SJ, 2:6, 10, Plan of a Treaty with France, September 17, 1776.
218
the demands” and “to enlarge their offers agreeably” so that “His most christian

majesty” would agree, nevertheless, “to use his interest and influence to

procure passes … for the vessels of the United States upon the

Mediterranean.”45 So, with a simple pen-stroke, the egotistical and greedy

Americans wanted to get Mediterranean passes for free and with the least effort

at a time those passes were regulated by intricate treaties and were causing

enormous problems both for Algerian corsairs as well as for European cruisers

and privateers.

Obviously, the French who were supportive of the Americans in matters

of credits and arms because it served them against their colonial rival Great

Britain, were absolutely not intent upon bringing American trade into the

Mediterranean. Furthermore, at that time the French were entertaining good

relations with the Dey of Algiers;46 and evidently they did not want to irritate

him lest they would jeopardize their interests at Bastion de France—as it was

customary when the Deys were displeased. Therefore, after a long and intricate

bargaining that lasted for almost two years, the Americans could obtain no

more than promises from “The most christian king” of France to “employ his

good offices and interposition” with the regency of Algiers in the final Treaty

of Amity and Commerce of 1778.47

Bullying escalated when Commissioners Franklin, Adams, and Lee

moved unscrupulously to interpret the treaty to their advantage. Pressuring for

45
SJ, 2:27-28, Instructions to _____, September 17, 1776.
46
Grammont, Histoire d’Alger, pp. 333-34.
47
SJ, 2:63, Treaty of Amity and Commerce, May 4, 1778.
219
further French intervention on their behalf, they wrote Charles Gravier Count

de Vergennes (1719-1787), the French Foreign Minister, an incomprehensible

letter in which they invoked Article VII of the above mentioned treaty and

referred to some American ships blocked in Italy because of supposed fears of

Algerian corsairs and invoking some Italian merchants who were “desirous of

entering into the American trade” but “apprehension of danger from the

corsairs of Barbary is a discouragement.”48

Unable to take a decision on such a strange request, Vergennes referred

the letter to Count de Sartine, Minister of the Marine who in turn could not

understand what the Commissioners were maneuvering at. According to de

Sartine, under the eighth article of the treaty, the King “promised to employ his

mediation” with Algiers and France would “comply with it, notwithstanding

any difficulties which seem to lie in the way.”49 But beyond that personal

engagement of the King, France would not go as far as to expose its “own

interests for those of the United States.”50 For de Sartine, the Commissioners

had to clarify what they wanted exactly: a treaty with Algiers or French

influence to force Algiers to acknowledge the American flag? If a treaty,

France would use the “good offices of the king” to mediate one even though

negotiations “will be long and arduous” and results “illusive”; if protection of

the flag, in other terms, the use of military force to convoy American shipping

in the Mediterranean, France would never succeed because “the Algerines, in

48
DCAR, 1:315, Commissioners to Count de Vergennes, August 28, 1778.
49
Ibid., 1:330-32, M. de Sartine to Count de Vergennes, September 21, 1778.
50
Ibid., 1:331.
220
particular, would never acknowledge the flag of the United States, unless it

were made for their interests to do so.”51

Well knowledgeable about the particularities of diplomatic relations

between Algiers and France, de Sartine, nevertheless, pointed out that “it would

probably be less difficult to induce them [Deys] to acknowledge the

independence of the United States, and to conclude treaties with this new

Power.”52 He clearly indicated to Vergennes that it was easier for the

Americans to conclude a treaty directly with Algiers than to seek a treacherous

deal with France against Algiers. What de Sartine did not say, however, was

that the treaties of France with Algiers did not guarantee other than the French

flag and Algiers was extremely demanding about the respect of those treaties.53

Many a time by the past hostilities broke between the two countries particularly

because France did not respect its treaties with Algiers.

By inclosing de Sartine’s clarifications in his answer to the

Commissioners, Vergennes was clearly signifying that France would not go

fighting in the Mediterranean for the American flag but offered mediation only

in case the Americans wanted to negotiate a treaty of peace.54 The

Commissioners, however, would not let go of—a trait of ignorant and ill-

mannered ‘militia diplomacy’—and insisted on “obtain[ing] passes for vessels

of the United States and their subjects” from Algiers.55 But conversely to their

51
DCAR, 1:331, de Sartine to Count de Vergennes, September 21, 1778.
52
Ibid.
53
See different treaties in Card, Traités de la France, pp. 3-99.
54
DCAR, 1:337, Count de Vergennes to Commissioners, September 27, 1778.
55
Ibid., 1:339-40, Commissioners to Count de Vergennes, October 1, 1778.
221
earlier sniveling fears and accusations of assaults, violence, and injuries against

Algiers, the Commissioners admitted that:

an acknowledgment of the independence of the United States, and a

treaty of commerce between them and us, would be beneficial to both,
and a negotiation to that end not unlikely to succeed, because there has
been heretofore some trade between them and us, in the course of which
our people and vessels were well received.56

And carrying on boldly with the offensive, they offered “either to commence a

negotiation for passes for American vessels immediately or to wait until we can

write to Congress, and obtain power to conclude treaties of commerce with

them [Barbary States],” because, as they explained, their powers do not “extend

to conclude treaties with the Barbary States.”57

The Commissioners’ alternative was certainly a relief for the assaulted

but shrewd Foreign Minister who disposed of them politely but not without

specifying that two prerequisites were necessary for making treaties: presents

and funds. This is an indication that France, mindful about treaties and customs

that regulate relations with Algiers, would engage in mediation only when

those two conditions were fulfilled:

I think it proper that you should be provided with full powers from
Congress, and that you should be not only authorized to propose the
presents which you may be expected to bestow, but also supplied with
the necessary funds to satisfy these expectations.58

Indeed, the Commissioners reported to Congress. While enclosing

correspondence with the French officials “on the subject of negotiation with the

56
DCAR, 1:339-40, Commissioners to Count de Vergennes, October 1, 1778.
57
Ibid.
58
Ibid., 1:353-54, Count de Vergennes to Commissioners, October 30, 1778.
222
Barbary States” in general, they observed briefly: “We do not find ourselves

authorized to treat with those Powers, as they are not in Europe, and, indeed,

we are not furnished with funds for making them presents.”59

In 1779, Congress “Ordered, That the papers relative to a negotiation

with the states of Barbary, be referred to a committee of three.”60 After that,

those early initiatives for launching negotiations stalemated and the Barbary

States passed into oblivion. For the next five years or so, Algiers disappeared

almost completely from American state papers; it reappeared from time to time

either furtively or under the general entry of ‘Barbary States’ as in 1782 when

Livingston, Secretary for Foreign Affairs, wrote Franklin asking him to procure

the United States “new connexions,” i.e.: new diplomatic recognitions from

other countries. On the occasion, Livingstone reminded him about a subject

that “seems to have been forgotten in the hurry of business,” adding: “I mean

that with the States of Barbary.”61

2. 2. Negotiating Algiers in Other Treaties

When the Netherlands found itself forced into a League of Armed

Neutrality62 (1780) to protect its own commerce against Great Britain, the

American Commissioners seized the opportunity and moved to seek on the

59
DCAR, 1:359, Commissioners to the President of Congress, November 7, 1778.
60
SJ, 2:520, Proceedings, February 24, 1779.
61
DCAR, 4:32, Robert R. Livingston to B. Franklin, November 9, 1782.
62
The League of Armed Neutrality was an alliance formed in 1780; it included the northern states of
Europe (Denmark, Prussia, and Sweden) in addition to Russia. It was formed with the purpose of
forcing Great Britain to respect their right as neutrals to trade in non-contraband goods (not involving
arms, naval stores, and foodstuffs) with France with which it was at war. For further details see Bemis,
A Diplomatic History, pp. 35-45.
223
Dutch side what had already been denied to them by France, i.e.: official Dutch

passports for American trade in the Mediterranean! It is true that throughout

their long diplomatic history with Algiers, the Dutch had been the suppliers of

forged passports per excellence,63 but to do it officially, that they did not

consent to. As one might expect, the Commissioners could obtain but the same

answer as with France. The American treaty of 1782 with the Netherlands

included an article that differed in the matter from article VII of the American-

French Treaty of Amity and Commerce (1778) only in wording. Article XXIII

specified:

If at any time the United States of America shall judge necessary to

commence negotiations with … Algiers, to obtain passports for the
security of their navigation in the Mediterranean sea, their high
mightinesses [the States General of the United Netherlands] promise,
that upon the requisition which the United States of America shall make
of it, they will second such negotiations in the most favourable manner
by means of their consul [residing at Algiers].64

In short, that meant that the Dutch accepted to act only as mediators if their

services were solicited. They agreed to have commercial cooperation with the

USA according to the principles of the League of Armed Neutrality but not to

deliver Mediterranean passports for American merchantmen.

With Sweden, a lesser power, the United States could only obtain a

Treaty of Amity and Commerce (1782) clearly denoting reciprocity as “having

for its basis the most perfect equality, and for its object the mutual advantage of

the parties.”65 Basically, the treaty provided for conveying each other’s ships

63
Krieken, Corsaires et marchands, p. 11.
64
SJ, 3:304-5, A Treaty of Amity and Commerce, January 23, 1783.
65
Ibid., 3:367, A Treaty of Amity and Commerce, July 29, 1783.
224
and that only at times of European hostilities. That stand also conformed to the

principles of the League of Armed Neutrality to which Sweden adhered. The

Swedish, keen as they were about neutrality that so far secured them enormous

freight profits, would certainly not venture to secure a place in Mediterranean

trade for a potential carrying rival. Moreover, their own position with the Dey

of Algiers was not that much consolidated: first, because they entered in

diplomatic relations with Algiers relatively late (1727); and second, being a

small power, they certainly could not exercise great leverage on the rulers of

Algiers. Nevertheless, that accomplishment let the Americans presage that they

“shall have, undoubtedly, a considerable commerce in the Mediterranean;” and

for that reason, they expressed thoughts as to the need to take early measures

“to cultivate the friendship of the States of Barbary.”66

The treaty of 1783 with Great Britain, and thanks to Americans’ betrayal

of their wartime allies, France and Spain, was to secure to the United States

immense land gains in North America;67 but it unequivocally excluded

American trade from British markets and rejected protection of Mediterranean

trade. After the provisional treaty of peace had been ratified by Congress, the

latter instructed its negotiator to include in the definitive treaty certain

commercial provisions of which one committing “His Britannic majesty” to

“employ his good offices and interposition with … Algiers, in order to provide

as fully and efficaciously as possible for the benefit, convenience, and safety”

of the United States “against all violence, insult, attacks, or depredations” on

66
DCAR, 9:166, Carmichael to Robert R. Livingston, March 13, 1783.
67
Duroselle, La France et les Etats-Unis, pp. 32-33.
225
the part of that state or its subjects.68 That attempt also ended in failure. Adams

reported to Congress that “We cannot as yet obtain from Mr. Hartley [British

negotiator], or his principals, an explicit consent to any one proposition

whatever.”69 Two days later, he was also writing: “The liberal sentiments in

England respecting trade are all lost for the present, and we can get no answer

to anything.”70 The Commissioners tried repeatedly to insert in the final treaty

a protective clause for their Mediterranean trade but Britain turned a deaf ear to

their demands. Adams reported again desperately one week later, but that time

enclosing a document that, once read, one understands why Britain refused to

conclude a commercial agreement with the United States:

I think it is evident that the coalition [government], do not intend to

make any agreement with us about trade, but to try experiments by their
proclamations. I think, too, that they mean to postpone the definitive
treaty as long as possible. We can get no answer, and I believe Mr.
Hartley gets no decisive answers to any thing. Enclosed, also, is a
pamphlet entitled “Observations on the American States,” said to have
been published by Lord Sheffield, and to have been composed by four
American renegadoes. The spirit of it needs no comments.71

Less than one month later, the Commissioners signed the provisional treaty

with Great Britain as a definitive one with no securities for commercial

cooperation or protective clause for Mediterranean trade attached to it.72

To judge by the mass of distressed correspondence between the

American negotiators in Europe and the Department of Foreign Affairs, the

68
USRDC, 6:471, Propositions made by the Commissioners to David Hartley for the Definitive Treaty,
June 1, 1783.
69
Ibid., 6:517, J. Adams to Livingston, July 7, 1783.
70
Ibid., 6:529, From the same to the same, July 9, 1783.
71
Ibid., 6:545, From the same to the same, July 15, 1783.
72
Ibid., 6:645, From the same to the same, August 13, 1783.
226
issue of commerce was of utmost importance. Yet, the British refused

categorically to open their markets for American goods and provide for the

commerce protection clause so dear for the Americans. The classical analysis

imputed that refusal to two major reasons, both closely linked to the prevailing

political conditions in the United States and Great Britain, as expressed by the

negotiators themselves:

Whether the British court meant to avoid a definitive treaty with us

through a vain hope, from the exaggerated accounts of divisions among
our people and want of authority in Congress, that some revolution
might soon happen in their favor, or whether their dilatory conduct was
caused by the strife of two opposite and nearly equal parties in the
cabinet, is hard to decide.73

The first reason may be found in the internal political strife in Great Britain

itself which was a serious handicap for negotiations. After years of hostilities in

the colonies which culminated in the prospective of loosing them, politicians,

commercial interests, and public opinion split over the question. The Whigs,

supported by public opinion, who were favorable to American independence

wrestled with the Tories and commercial interests who were opposed to it. The

coalition Government, headed by William Pitt, was strongly reflective of those

two antagonist positions and risked defeat at any time should it make too many

concessions to the Americans.74 A commercial agreement would have exposed

it to a loss of vote, therefore, ousting from government.75

73
USRDC, 6:688, Adams, Franklin, and Jay to the President of Congress, September 10, 1783.
74
During the single year of 1783, three different governments were formed of which a coalition
government (April 1783-December 1783) in which Tories and Whigs were extremely divided over the
question of commerce with the USA.
75
USRDC, 6:651, Adams to Gerry, August 15, 1783.
227
 If the British government suffered internal problems, the Confederation

was in no enviable condition either. The reluctance of the different states to

share in the financial burdens of Congress as well as give up some of their

sovereignty to the national government was a serious handicap too. Such

conditions gave an impression of total anarchy and made the British predict

that it would not be long before the rebellious Congress crumbled and a social

upheaval or “revolution might soon happen” and reverse the situation “in their

favor.”76 Looking back on the situation in 1783, the American historian Charles

Francis Adams, grandson of John Adams and editor of The Works of John

Adams (1865), wrote summarizing the approach of Lord Sheffield, a Tory

member of the British government and one of the most fervent opponents of a

commercial agreement:

Lord Sheffield gave expression to the remonstrance of the navigating

interest, the ruin and confusion in which the colonists were involved by
the state of anarchy consequent upon then independence. And then he
ventured to whisper the prediction that, out of this chaos, New England,
at least, would, in the end, solicit to come back as a repentant child to
the maternal embrace.77

Whatever the fragilities of both governments, one may find in Lord

Sheffield’s pamphlet Observations on the Commerce of the American States

(1783), which was originally published as an argument against a commercial

treaty, another plausible explanation for failure.78 In that widely circulated

76
DCAR, 6:688, Adams, Franklin, and Jay to the President of Congress, September 10, 1783.
77
WJA, 1:422.
78
John Baker Holroyd, Lord of Sheffield (1735-1821) was President of the Board of Agriculture, a
Lord of Trade and one of the Privy Council members. He was best known for his writings on political
economy. His work was published while negotiations between the United States and Great Britain were
going on. Extremely influential and very popular, his booklet went through 6 editions between 1783
and 1786. Schuyler, American Diplomacy, p. 227.
228
work, and for the first time, one reads that the Barbary States were perceived as

positive agents in international commercial relations, at least from a British

point of view, and that contrary to the views which present them today as

“agents of transnational harm.”79 According to Sheffield, the Barbary corsairs

were advantageous to English commerce because they prey on the shipping of

weaker nations:

That the Barbary States are advantageous to the maritime powers is

obvious. If they were suppressed, the little states of Italy, etc. would
have much more of the carrying trade. The French never showed
themselves worse politicians than in encouraging the late armed
neutrality. . . . The armed neutrality would be as hurtful to the great
maritime powers as the Barbary States are useful.80

The Barbary States’ value, therefore, laid in keeping down Americans’

commercial competition because the United States could protect its trade in the

Mediterranean contrary to Great Britain—and the other European powers—

which had a strong fleet and could use it against the corsairs:

It is not probable that the American States will have a very free trade in
the Mediterranean. It will not be for the interest of any of the great
maritime powers to protect them from the Barbary States. If they know
their own interests, they will not encourage the Americans to be carriers.
… The Americans cannot protect themselves from the latter; they cannot
pretend to a navy.81

That view which put forward the impotence of the United States was also

conveyed by the British Consul at Algiers Charles Logie to the Dey. According

to Cathcart, Logie ‘‘had represented us to be a set of beings without strength or

79
Oded Löwenhiem, Predators and Parasites: Persistent Agents of Transnational Harm and Great
Power Authority (Detroit, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2006), p. 80.
80
As cited in Irwin, Diplomatic Relations, pp. 24-25.
81
Ibid.
229
resources, and so contemptible, that his Master [King George III] did not think

us worth the trouble or expense of subduing.’’82 Sheffield’s argument gives a

clear answer about the reason which caused all European powers to reject the

request of the United States for a protective clause: it was not in their interest to

allow American trade in the Mediterranean, and since the Americans could not

protect themselves against the corsairs therefore it was unlikely that they would

trade in the region.

On their side, the Americans had always argued that Great Britain was

the only power sufficiently strong at sea to put an end to corsairing but it did

not do it because, according to them, it found it advantageous to its commerce

“to leave them [Barbary pirates] in existence and to pay a large annual tribute,

so that they might remain a scourge to the commerce of other powers.”83 They

even went to accuse it of “submit[ing] to be tributary to these robbers, and even

encourage[ing] them by paying a sum so great that other states might find it

difficult to make peace with them.”84 The ‘scourge of Christendom’ was in fact

no more than a scourge which the major European powers used against the

commerce of their co-religious Christian rivals. Muslim corsairing, other than

its original religious and defensive functions, was unscrupulously manipulated

by Christian powers towards their own advantage.

82
Cathcart, The Captives, p. 4.
83
Straus, “Commercial Diplomacy,” p. 221.
84
WJA, 8:217-19; also, Schuyler, American Diplomacy, p. 195.
230
3. Algiers between Europeans and Americans

3. 1. A Chess Game Pawn

Europe’s maritime powers had always shown duplicitous attitudes

towards Algiers. In public, they condemned the activities of Muslim corsairs

and demanded a concerted action to suppress them. Privately, however, they

conceded that the corsairs were acting to their commercial advantage by

harassing maritime interests of weaker powers.85 That duplicity could partly

explain why despite the decline of Algerian naval power, insatiable desire for

colonization of the European powers, and complaints about the so-called

Algerian pirates, despotism of the Deys, and enslavement of Christian captives

Algiers continued to exist as a polity.86 Perhaps there was some good sense in

Benjamin Franklin’s reflection when he wondered why “the rest of Europe do

[sic] not combine to destroy those nests, and secure commerce from their future

piracies.”87 Designs and recommendations for colonization indeed existed. As

discussed previously, the Spaniards attempted to do it but failed in their venture

and others like Napoleon who surveyed the Algerian coast secretly in 1808 or

else Shaler who recommended that Britain should occupy Algiers in 1826

prepared for it.88 But probably, at that point, none of the European countries

felt itself strong enough to claim single-handed occupation of Algiers because

85
James R. Sofka, “The Jeffersonian Idea of National Security: Commerce, the Atlantic Balance of
Power, and the Barbary War, 1786-1805.” Diplomatic History, 21: 4 (Fall, 1997), p. 531; Cordingly,
Pirates, p. 99.
86
Views about this question are numerous. One view imputes it to a reminiscence of the “really
formidable” power of Algiers of the 16th century; this caused European powers in the 18th century to
over-exaggerate Algiers’ fast-declining resources and courage. For more see Paullin, Diplomatic
Negotiations, pp. 46-7.
87
DCAR, 4:149, Franklin to Robert R. Livingston, July 22, 1783.
88
Shaler, Sketches of Algiers, p. 171.
231
of the existing ‘balance of power.’ The Europeans had rather opted for using

Algiers as a ‘pawn’ against the commercial interests of their rivals while

waiting for more appropriate conditions for colonization. Considering the

network of never-ending plots and intrigues the Christian consuls—along with

Jew bankers—knitted against each other and subtly communicated to the Deys

of Algiers, it was evident that, in one way or another, the latter were

manipulated for various ends.89

Moreover, by pointing out the probable hindrance of the Barbary States

for American commerce and their usefulness for Great Britain, Lord Sheffield

was in fact unveiling the true approach of Britain to Algiers: that of a weapon

that could be used efficiently against the rebellious Americans. For Britain,

more than just on the battlefield, the war against the United States was also

commercial. By refusing to agree to a commerce protection clause, the British

meant to asphyxiate American trade; an alternative which could perhaps

reverse the general situation in their favor.90 A close look at Great Britain’s

policies during the crucial year of 1783 shows that the British were reluctant to

recognize the independence of their American colonies. And since they could

not prevent it, then they could at least deny the Americans access to British

markets, and even hinder their attempts to reach non-British markets. As for the

first, they could do it of right by refusing to include commerce agreements in

89
The judge from the account of the French historian Henri de Grammont Histoire d’Alger (1886),
which according to the Algerian historian Lemnouar Merouche stands out today as an unequalled work
on Ottoman Algeria, El-Djenina was infected by consuls’ intrigues. British intrigues (pp. 331, 340,
345, 348, 397), French intrigues (pp. 118-19, 243, 297), and Jews’ intrigues (pp. 236, 341, 350, 363)
are few examples.
90
USRDC, 6:790, Laurens to Thomson, March 28, 1784.
232
the peace treaty; for the second, however, they had to device a strategy. For

Mediterranean markets and passports, which were assuredly the obsession of

Americans, the British had to have recourse to their influence in the region and

one may not wave away the possibility that Great Britain had already a plan

which it intended to execute with the indirect help of the Dey of Algiers.

Indeed as early as 1783, Franklin wrote Livingstone, the Secretary for

Foreign Affairs, pointing out at the possibility that Great Britain might be

plotting against American shipping. The letter was prompted by intelligence

brought to the knowledge of Franklin by one Salva, an agent to the Austrian

court,91 in which the latter warned against an “imminent danger to which the

vessels of your nation were exposed.”92 According to Salva, Algerian corsairs

attempted to capture two American vessels that were leaving the port of

Marseille and imputed it to

Some secret enemies, (whom I know) having giving [sic] information to

this regency of their departure, … the politics of certain European
powers do not restrain them from paying tribute to enjoy peace; they
make use of these human harpies as a terror to the belligerent nations,
whose commerce they chain to the car of Algerine piracy.93

Based on Salva’s allegation, Franklin thought it “not improbable, that those

rovers [Algerine] may be privately encouraged by the English to fall upon us,

and to prevent our interference in the carrying trade.”94 Similarly, Ralph Izard,

a delegate to Congress, wrote Jefferson that “it is said that Great Britain has
91
Austria, a small state, had been bound to Algiers by a treaty since 1727 according to which it paid
annual tribute to the Dey. Tribute seemed not to be appreciated by that Salva who was writing
clandestinely to Franklin since Austria had not yet recognized the USA.
92
DCAR, 4:95, M. Salva to B. Franklin, April 1, 1783.
93
Ibid., 4:96.
94
Ibid., 4:149, Franklin to Robert R. Livingston, July 22, 1783.
233
encouraged the piratical states to attack our vessels.”95 The assumption that

Britain was using the Algerian corsairs against the shipping of its rivals and

that it had just unleashed them on American commerce was so spread in

London maritime circles at that time, probably because there was some truth in

it, that a maxim soon found its way among merchants and sailors: “if there

were no Algiers, it would be worth England’s while to build one.”96 That belief

was so sustained that, two years later, Jefferson wrote a congressional delegate

that, despite treaties, Great Britain was still the enemy of the Americans.97

Even supposing that no official plan as to the use of Algerian corsairs

against American trade really exited, the British consul Logie was most likely

behind much of the trouble that affected Algerian-American relations starting

from the mid-1780s. O’Brien and Cathcart left accounts in which they charged

Logie personally with instigations that caused the Algerian corsairs to capture

American ships.98 O’Brien, for example, suspected that the apparent friendship

of Logie masked a duplicitous attempt to undermine American negotiations

which potentially would bring American ships into the Mediterranean thus

loosening British grip on American commerce.99 He even accused Logie of

spreading exaggerated reports of the dangers of ‘Algerine pirates’ to American

commerce so that the British insurance companies would benefit from it by

95
As cited in Peskin, “Lessons of Independence,” p. 309.
96
DCAR, 7:55, Adams to Robert R. Livingston, July 3, 1783; ibid., 4:149, Franklin to Robert R.
Livingston, July 22, 1783.
97
“Her hatred is deep rooted and cordial, and nothing is wanting with her but the power to wipe us and
the land we live on out of existence,” Jefferson wrote. Jefferson, Memoir, 1: 313, To John Langdon,
September 11, 1785.
98
Rojas, “Insults Unpunished,” pp. 185-86. John Foss, another captive, made the same accusation.
99
EN, 3:193, Richard O’Bryen, Zaccheus Coffin and Isaac Stephens to Thomas Jefferson, June 8,
1786.
234
increasing insurance rates on American ships to squeeze them out of the

Mediterranean trade,100 a view which was also shared by Jefferson. On his side,

Cathcart indicated that immediately after his arrival,101 Logie gave “the

Executive of Algiers” some information about the last war between the United

Sates and Great Britain and declared that:

the United States were no longer under the protection of his Master [the
King of Great Britain], and, that wherever the Cruisers of Algiers should
fall in with the vessels of the United States of America, they were good
prizes.102

He also accused Logie of wishing the Algerians “success in their

attempts to capture those who refused allegiance to his Master.” Nevertheless,

Cathcart imputed Logie’s maneuvers “more to individual inveteracy than

national animosity” thus discarding official involvement of the British

government.103 Richard B. Parker, former ambassador of the United States to

Algeria, 1974-1978, rejected that Logie’s intrigues were at the origin of

tensions between Algiers and the United States, at least those of the 1780s,104

on the ground that no official document confirming the captives’ accusations

could be found.105 Parkers’ view about the role of Logie, however, conforms to

his general approach to early Algerian-American relations; an approach which

tends to put most of the blame, if not all the blame, on Algiers first then on

100
EN, 3:194.
101
He arrived in May 1785. The first American ships were captured two months later.
102
Cathcart, The Captives, p. 4.
103
Ibid., p. 5.
104
Logie was also accused of more intrigues during the 1790’s particularly one that led to the capture
of more American ships.
105
Parker, Uncle Sam in Barbary, p. 43. Logie was also bleached in Barnby, Prisoners of Algiers, p.
71.
235
Britain and France and makes them responsible for the failure of negotiations

during the 1780s.

But when considering another allegation relating to events which

occurred a year later, one may conclude that either Cathcart had vowed enmity

to Logie—regardless of what happened actually, or Logie was not a stranger to

what he was accused of, or else the Dey was completely disconnected from the

outside world. To a proposal of a peace treaty with the United States, the Dey

allegedly answered the American negotiator: “Make peace with your father the

King of England and then come to me and I will make peace with you.”106

Strange as it may appear, this was recorded for the month of April 1786 i.e.:

almost three years after Great Britain and the USA concluded the treaty of

peace which ended hostilities between them!

3. 2. Algiers in American Barbary Diplomacy

Up to 1786, the American Congress dealt with Algiers as part of a whole

unit rather than a separate state. Accordingly, and for a whole decade, Algiers

was included under the denomination ‘Barbary States’ in American state

papers. So, in terms of approach and decisions making all that related to the

Barbary States was also true about Algiers. In general, the American approach

to North Africa at the age of corsairs was injurious, contemptuous, ignorant,

and self-interested. A quick look at two of the most prestigious and influential

writings on American diplomatic history gives us a middling picture about the

106
Cathcart, The Captives, p. 39.
236
general American approach to the region at the end of the 18th century. For

Bemis, “the Barbary States were the nest of professional corsairs” whose

“unblushing depredation” jeopardized American shipping in the

Mediterranean; the rulers were “obnoxious” and “rascally potentates” whose

“sinister profession of piracy set in unabashed to make sport of American

property and citizens;” American ships were “unprotected” and caused them to

fall “easy prey” to the “Algerine pirates” and shipping was “at the mercy of

those robbers,” and “American sailors were enslaved with impunity by those

“avaricious free-booters and slave-catchers.”107 The picture Thomas A. Bailey

(1902-1983), another authority on American diplomatic history, painted was no

better than the previous one.108 For him:

The petty North African states loosed upon the commerce of the
Mediterranean as raffiantly a lot of cutthroats as history can offer. They
not only enslaved their captives for ransom but collected huge sums of
protection money from those nations that could afford to make
payments. Piracy was a profitable national industry.109

In such a context loaded with disdain, ignorance, and outright prejudice and

infamy, the USA set out to make some “arrangements with them as may

prevent their committing any future depredations on the American vessels and

trade.”110 That American move, however, did not occur until after the European

states successively declined to make room for American shipping in the

Mediterranean.
107
Bemis, A Diplomatic History, p. 67-68.
108
Bailey’s textbook A Diplomatic History of the American People, first published in 1940, is widely-
used in American universities.
109
Ibid., p. 64.
110
USDC, 2:507, Report of John Jay on a Reference of his Report of 31st January Last, March 22,
1786.
237
 Then, it was only when the Americans realized that “there was to be no

inexpensive short cut to peace with North Africa”111 that Congress decided to

negotiate directly with the “Barbary Powers” for “treaties of amity, or of amity

and commerce.”112 The treaties were to be negotiated for a duration of ten years

“or for a term as much longer as can be procured.”113 The resolution adopted on

May 7, 1784 provided for the creation of a commission consisting of Franklin,

Adams, and Jefferson and operating from Paris and London with the purpose of

carrying negotiations, signing such treaties when concluded, and “transmitting

them to Congress for their final ratification.”114 To that Commission Congress

appointed David Humphreys, U. S. representative in Portugal, as secretary.115

That diffuse responsibility was one of the major problems which handicapped

negotiations with Algiers. When information and mutual consultations had to

transit through five capitals separated by two seas and one ocean in an age of

sail before any decision could be taken that must certainly account for one of

the reasons which led to the failure of negotiations with Algiers.

Besides that intricate and unreasonable diplomatic machinery, Congress

did not allot the funds necessary for the conclusion of peace treaties with the

North African states. For a number of years, however, the commissioners had

been spying in all courts of Europe about the amounts of money Barbary

treaties and tributes cost as well as about presents (what were they? How much

111
Barnby, Prisoners of Algiers, p. 71.
112
SJ, 3:489, May 7, 1784.
113
Ibid.
114
Ibid., Franklin left France in July 1785; consequently, the responsibility to negotiate the redemption
of prisoners and to conclude a treaty with Algiers fell largely to Adams and Jefferson.
115
Ibid., 3:499, May 12, 1784.
238
did they coast, from where were they bought etc ...). The Secret Journals’

correspondence is rich in the matter. For example, Adams wrote to the

Secretary for Foreign Affairs that the Netherlands, a smaller power which the

American ministers were projecting to imitate for payment, “paid annually to

the regency of Algiers a hundred thousand dollars” and added “I hope a less

sum would serve for us; but in the present state of our finances it would be

difficult to make payment.”116 The first report the three ministers made to

Congress indicated that expenses of treaties, presents and annual tribute are

necessary for negotiations and informed that they “cannot proceed at all till the

money necessary is actually ready at our command.”117

Even so, it was not until early 1785 that Congress authorized the

ministers to spent a sum “not exceeding eighty thousand dollars” on all treaties

with the Barbary States, including tributes and presents.118 That allotted sum

which, if not suggestive of the meanness of the American mind, is clearly

indicative of the avidity and cupidity of the American character.119 The

decision of Congress implies that the Americans wanted to conclude treaties

for a symbolic price in total disregard for the prevailing pricing. By way of

comparison, for Algiers alone at about the same time, the renewed treaty with

France (1788) cost $100,000 in annual tribute in addition to presents made

116
USRDC, 6:537, J. Adams to Livingston, July 12, 1783; also, USDC, 1:475, From John Adams to
John Jay, March 9, 1785.
117
USDC, 1:357, First Report of the Commissioners to Congress, November 11, 1784.
118
SJ, 3:528-29, February 14, 1785.
119
More than two hundred years later, American meanness has persisted and animosity has exceeded
tributes and presents to compliment and courtesy. Thus, commenting the respect Dey Muhammed
Pasha expressed for George Washington in 1786, one of the contemporary heinous crusaders writes:
“Instead, he [Lamb] received a list of additional ransom demands [emphasis added], which included a
portrait of General Washington, whom the dey [sic] professed to admire.” Oren, Power, Faith, and
Fantasy, p. 25.
239
every ten years according to custom, that with Spain (1786) was said to have

cost from three to five millions dollars, England was paying an annual tribute

of about $280,000, and the lesser powers were paying from $24,000 to $36,000

in annual tribute.120 In 1786, one year later, the funds were not only not made

available for negotiations but the commissioners also judged them to “be not

sufficient” which would augment “the difficulty of making peace,” as Adams

pointed out.121 More, an October 13, 1785 report from the Secretary for Foreign

Affairs entitled “A proposed peace with the Algerines & the Barbary States”

was referred to a Congressional committee consisting of six members on

March 29, 1786. The committee’s report stated that “the sum appropriated to

the purchasing peace with those States was insufficient [and] Contemptable

[sic].”122

On the eve of negotiation, and as funding was still lacking, Jefferson and

Adams wrote a joint letter to the new Secretary for Foreign Affairs John Jay

inquiring “if Congress should authorize us to go to the necessary expense.”123

Jay’s answer was unequivocally negative. As a justification he argued that

because of the “the reluctance of the States to pay taxes, or to comply with the

economical requisitions of Congress, or to give efficacy to their Federal

Government,” and because “the people or generality will never provide for the

120
American State Papers, Class I: Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the
United States: Foreign Relations, 1789-1828, edited by Lowrie and Clarke (Washington, D. C.: Gales
and Seaton, 1832-1861), 1:105, Report of Secretary of State Relative to Mediterranean Trade,
December 30, 1790. The cost of the treaty with France could not be known. (Hereafter cited as
ASP/FA). Available at http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwdg.html
121
USDC, 2:566, From John Adams to John Jay, February 16, 1786.
122
LDC, 23:256, Thomas Rodney’s Diary, May 2, 1786.
123
USDC, 2:566, From the Commissioners to John Jay, March 28, 1786.
240
public expenses unless when moved thereto by constitutional coercion, …

[which] is here out of the question;” 124 therefore, he concluded:

your Secretary is much inclined to think that a fair and accurate state of
the matter should be transmitted to the States, that they should be
informed that the sum of _______ will be necessary to purchase treaties
from the Barbary States, and that until such time as they furnish
Congress with their respective proportions of that sum, the depredations
of those barbarians will, in all probability, continue and increase.125

Jay’s answer, in fact, unveils one of those wicked stratagems of

American politicians: the use of Barbary corsairs as a scapegoat to attain

domestic political ends. Many politicians, particularly Jay, were indeed critical

of the Confederation and wished to see a more efficient system of government

established. For the purpose, they did not refrain from using the ‘scare of the

Barbary pirate’ to pressurize the different avaricious states to pay their

financial contribution to Congress.

In the midst of total dysfunctions and weaknesses of the Confederation,

the United States approached the Barbary States as a wholesale package and

not as separate political entities.126 Total ignorance of the particularities of each

state like its form of government, rulers, and institutions was a dominant

characteristic among American politicians. Their knowledge about the Barbary

States was limited to the word ‘piracy,’ undoubtedly because they excelled at it

and know all its attributes; they used it as a common identifier and criterion

124
USDC, 1:607, Report of John Jay on a Joint Letter from Messrs. Adams and Jefferson, May 29,
1786.
125
Ibid., 1:608, Report of John Jay on a Joint Letter from Mrs. Adams and Jefferson, May 29, 1786.
126
Up to mid-1786, the policy adopted towards the Barbary States related also to Algiers because until
then, the four states were dealt with as a unit without any distinctions.
241
according to which the draft treaties were molded. Up to 1785, confusion was

such that accreditation letters of the commissioned agents had to be corrected

to take into account the titles of the Barbary sovereigns.127 But despite that, and

contrary to the cunning European states, the United States attained peace

treaties with the easy-going Muslims states of North Africa relatively easily,

albeit later, but only after it gave those hard times. With Morocco, for example,

Congress chose to ignore, or at least not to answer correspondence of various

agents who were acting on behalf of its ruler. As early as 1778 the King was

“willing to sign a treaty of peace and commerce” and had literally to ‘invite’

them repeatedly for making peace before they conceded to start negotiations in

1786.128 Negotiations nonetheless were successful and Morocco became the

first non-European country to sign a treaty of commerce and amity with the

USA in 1787.

Of the four North African states, however, the road to a treaty with

Algiers was the longest and most intricate. The reasons were numerous: the

American ministers were already apprehensive about Algiers as they had

already reported it as being “the most formidable of the piratical states,”

therefore they anticipated that “the price of their peace” would be higher.129

Probably that stand explains why the Americans decided to put an abrupt end

to negotiations with Algiers shortly after they started. Negotiations also

127
USDC, 1:502; LDC, 22:243, Charles Thomson to John Jay, March 3, 1785.
128
USRDC, 4:170-71, From D’Audibert Caille to Jay, April 21, 1780; DCAR, 4:135-136, Giacomo F.
Crocco to B. Franklin, July 15, 1783.
129
Ibid., 1:576, Fifth Report of the Commissioners to Congress, Addressed to John Jay, Secretary For
Foreign Affairs, April 13, 1785.
242
dragged on for a long time before they were initiated partly because of the

problem of funding and partly because of delays in arrival of the negotiating

agent. Worst, to conduct that delicate mission Congress chose John Lamb, a

Connecticut mule trader with no diplomatic experience.130

Despite all, negotiations started in 1786. After an agreement over

prisoners and delays of execution was reached with the Dey, Lamb left Algiers

and soon after that he was recalled. Meanwhile at New York, the congressional

committee that was appointed to consider the proposal of peace with Algiers

was reporting; one of its members said that they “ought to send a Sufficient

Sum and a person of Talents & Integrity to Negociate a Treaty---; that Mr.

Lamb the person now there is not a Sober Man but of a Loose Caractor [sic]

unfit for that purpose,” and that he was “surprized Congress appointed Such a

person &c.”131 Too late! Lamb had already left Algiers and negotiations were

drawn. After that short contact the Americans disappeared for nine years

without any official notification before renewing contacts in the mid-1790s. So,

by opting for incompetence and contempt, they caused the treaty with Algiers

not to be concluded until 1795.

Finally, and contrary to Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli were seen as lesser

Barbary powers that were not even worth negotiating with; so, the United

States did not even bother entering into negotiations with them.132 The

130
Robert J. Allison, The Crescent Obscured: The United States and the Muslim World: 1776-1815
(London/New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), p. 7; Peskin, “Lessons of Independence,” p. 304.
131
LDC, 23:256, Thomas Rodney’s Diary, May 2, 1786.
132
After a meeting with the Tripolitan ambassador in London in 1786, Adams reported to Jay: “Feeling
his appearance here to be ominous like that of other irregular bodies, which, “from their horrid hair,
shake pestilence and war,” I thought at first to avoid him … It would scarcely be reconcileable [sic] to
243
American agents, however, without instructions of their government sought the

good offices of the amicable and friendly Dey Hassan Pasha who did the

preliminary job and secured them advantageous treaties. The Dey even went

further; he guaranteed the treaties with Tunis and Tripoli that were signed in

1796 and 1797 respectively but also advanced the money needed for those

treaties.133 But before all that was accomplished for the United States, Algiers

had to put up with all the drawbacks of an irresponsible Congress and

contemptuous and duplicitous amateurs in diplomacy.

Upon concluding those treaties, the United States moved further in its

penetration of the Mediterranean but that time it exported influence, not just

goods, into the Muslim world; or as the American historian Field and authority

on American relations with the Mediterranean world put it:

In the Mediterranean and Near East the export of American produce was
soon followed by an export of American skills and of American
missionary benevolence, commodities which over the long run would
prove of greater importance than the items on conventional bills of
lading.134

Finally, economic and missionary activities brought about a naval

presence which proved to be long-lasting. From its first sail in the

Mediterranean in 1801 and until 1816, America’s last show of muscles at the

port of Algiers, Jefferson’s “squadron of observation” had become involved in

the dignity of Congress to read a detail of the ceremonies which attended the conference: it would be
more proper to write them to harlequin, for the amusement of the gay at the New York theatre.” USDC,
4:489-90, From John Adams to John Jay, February 17, 1786.
133
Irwin, Diplomatic Relations, p. 76.
134
Field, James A., Jr. “Trade, Skills, and Sympathy: The First Century and a Half of Commerce with
the Near East,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 401, America
and the Middle East, (May, 1972), p. 2.
244
blockades, hostilities, intimidations, and terrorism. Tripoli was blockaded and

bombed by American cruisers during the so called First Barbary War, 1801-

1805, Tunisia was blockaded, and Algiers was intimidated and threatened.

Greek vessels were also taken prize by the “American Navy in its first

imperialistic attempts in the Mediterranean” simply because they were hosting

the Turkish flag.135

Conclusion

Set within a complex background of international relations, The United

States diplomatic approach to North Africa definitely evolved from an early

simplistic view to a more realistic one. Maneuvers for placing American

Mediterranean trade under the protective umbrella of the European powers

failed. From France to the Netherlands, the American commissioners could

obtain but promises of good office from their sovereigns at a time they were

seeking similarly favorable terms as those enjoyed under the British treaties

with Algiers. Britain, reluctant to let loose of its former colonies, would not

even go beyond recognizing their independence. More, mercantile interests

were strictly opposed to any extension of privileges or opening of imperial

markets to American trade. The interest of Britain resided in curtailing

competition from a raising rival; therefore, instead of providing the requested

protection against Barbary corsairs, it recurred cunningly to the use of the latter

as a weapon against American trade. By inciting corsairs’ attacks against

135
Harlaftis, “Ottoman State, Finance and Maritime Trade,” pp. 21-2.
245
American vessels, Britain hoped to achieve its own ends. Progressively, and

starting from late 1783, intrigues of European consuls and Jews against

American shipping became of feature of the political scenery at Algiers and the

Deys became mere pawns that were played when they were needed.

By 1784, when negotiations were closed and treaties with the European

states were signed, the Americans realized that the problem of navigation in the

Mediterranean remained still unsolved. In a more realistic but chaotic move,

the Congress decided finally to undertake direct negotiations with the Barbary

Powers. Toward that end, it appropriated a sum of money judged by all

contemporaries inadequate for concluding treaties. Anticipating difficulties and

high exigencies from Algiers, the Americans set out to negotiate with pre-set

ideas and fixed prejudices inspired to them by Europeans who already

perceived them as potential rivals in the Mediterranean. That bad start was

going to do little good for the subsequent negotiations with Algiers. Inherent

aggressiveness in American foreign policy further complicated matters. The

American ministers in Europe embarked on plans for attacking Algiers in

concert with Christian countries if possible, unilaterally had they had the

necessary funding, long before dispatching a peace negotiator to Algiers.

246
 CHAPTER VI

Diplomacy of Aggression, 1784-1789

America has never ceased to be an enigma to itself and to others,

incalculable because so untried, so little ballasted by tradition: compared
with any of the European countries a figure without a shadow, a young
giant, childlike, at once heroic and destructive, an innocently-trampling
Siegfried.1
Victor G. Kiernan (2005)

Introduction

From the long history of diplomatic relations between Algiers and

foreign states this work has already identified four major principles that were

still in force at the end of the 18th century. Those principles included:

recognition of the sovereignty of Algiers, maritime control which necessitated

the use of valid passports to identify friendly shipping, and redemption or

exchange of captives. Finally expenses for treaties, tribute, and consular

presents were negotiated, fixed, and incorporated into treaties. It is, therefore,

worth noting right at the beginning that the crisis of the 1780s in Algerian-

American relations related directly to those principles, or at least all excepting

sovereignty.

1
Victor Gordon Kiernan, America, the New Imperialism: From White Settlement to World Hegemony
(London/New York: Verso, 2005), pp. 3-4.
247
 Passports seemed not to bother the Americans as long as they could

devise a substitution for that: counterfeiting. Through misconduct the

Americans transgressed the principle of control of shipping with all impunity.

For the two last principles, the approach was simple: as expense was involved,

which was contrary to the principles of the greedy and avaricious American

mind, payment for treaties and tribute as a counterpart for privileges, therefore,

could not be conceived of. Even though sanctioned by the “laws or usage of

nations,” to quote the famous American lawyer and later-to-be first Chief-

Justice of the United States John Jay, the Americans cheating mind decided

otherwise. For the treaties, they opted first for evading them by attempting to

hide behind the flag of other nations, a ruse which did not work. The second

alternative consisted of getting those treaties at cheap, or indeed very cheap,

expenses which was also the case for redemption. As a treaty could not be

negotiated, regardless of the expenses so dear to the Americans, Algiers agreed

to redemption on the basis of a negotiated price with the special envoy in April

1786. The Americans, however, failed to follow suit and turned the back to

their captives and disappeared.

So, according to existing laws of nations and custom, none of the above

mentioned principles were respected by the Americans; instead, those resorted

to a two-tier maneuver. While crying their indignation, the Americans

proceeded to conspire with Christian states for a naval strike against Algiers at

the condition that that also would cost cheap. That line of conduct was going to

be America’s policy towards Algiers for the next three decades. In other terms,
248
while trampling international law and custom, the emerging Siegfried sought to

use force, as soon as it could get that, to reverse the existing system of

international relations.2 Accordingly, disdain, deceit, greed, selfishness and

aggressiveness were going to be the characteristics of America’s new

diplomacy towards Algiers.

1. Maritime Tensions and Diplomatic Failures in early Algerian-American

Relations

1. 1. The Captives in early Algerian-American Diplomacy

In general, American ships sailing in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean,

even though they lost legal bearing of British passports after 1776, carried on

their trading activities as they had always done without any major incident—

except for rumored news of capture or declaration of war on the United States

by Algiers.3 Those rumors were probably orchestrated by the major European

powers or their agents to scare the Americans out of Mediterranean trade. The

Americans on their side did not relinquish trade and for that they cheated.

Anticipating control at the sight of Algerian corsairs, they recurred to hosting

the British flag and producing forged British Mediterranean passports,4 a

deeply-rooted illegal activity which the Americans inherited from their colonial

past and amplified after independence.

2
Siegfried is a mythical figure who appears in Old Norse and German literature. He is presented as a
boy who grew up without parental care and stands for strength and courage. As to his end, it is not
clear whether he triumphed or was defeated. “Siegfried,” Encyclopædia Britannica. (Accessed 4
August 2008).
3
LDC, 22: 230, North Carolina Delegates to Alexander Martin, March 1, 1785; CPPJJ, 3:171, Jay to
the President of Congress, October 13, 1785.
4
Peskin, “Lessons of Independence,” p. 197-98.
249
 Algiers, and for other reasons, was unaware about the developments that

altered British-American relations until a new British consul, Charles Logie,

reached Algiers in May 1785.5 Whether incited by Logie or just routine control,

in all events two Americans ships, the first not having a passport at all and the

other carrying an old British pass were captured and declared legal prize in July

1785.6 The crews, according to custom, joined the other Christian captives at

Algiers to wait for the usual procedure: redemption or other options to regain

freedom.7 Soon afterwards, the captives informed Jefferson about their new

condition as slaves of the “Dey of Algiers, King of Cruelties” and invoked

“sufferings … beyond our expressing, or your conception” in the hope that

Congress “will take such measures as tend to our speedy redemption.”8 Capture

caused the distress of captives but for Jay it was a matter for rejoice; already

critical about the Confederation he considered that:

It does not strike me as a great evil. The more we are ill-treated abroad
the more we shall unite and consolidate at home. Besides, as it may
become a nursery for seamen, and lay the foundation for a respectable
navy, it may eventually prove more beneficial than otherwise.9

The capture of the two ships had the effect of speeding up diplomatic moves

but those would not materialize until almost one year later. Once negotiations

5
A Scot, Charles Logie was moved from Morocco to Algiers to occupy the post of Consul which
remained vacant since the death of the previous consul Benton in 1778. Logie served as British consul
at Algiers from 1785 to 1793. Barnby, Prisoners of Algiers, p. 34, 71; Parker, Uncle Sam in Barbary, p.
61. Cathcart wrote that it was “by no means incumbent on the Agents of France or Holland to give him
[the Dey] information either of those differences or the result of the war.” Cathcart, The Captives, p. 3.
6
Cathcart, The Captives, p. 5, 17; USDC, 1:655, From Richard O’Bryen to Thomas Jefferson, August
24, 1785.
7
John M. Bassett, The Principles of American Diplomacy, 2nd ed. (New York/London: Harper &
Brothers Publishers, 1918), p. 106.
8
USDC, 1:655, From Richard O’Bryen to Thomas Jefferson, August 24, 1785.
9
CPPJJ, 3:171, Jay to the President of Congress, 13th October, 1785.
250
started, they immediately collapsed due to the divergent views and realities that

prevailed at that time.

The context in which the first diplomatic contacts between Algiers and

the United States occurred was not of a nature to facilitate the progress of

negotiations. Algiers was evolving in a centuries-old Mediterranean system that

was shaped by constant warring between two utterly different cultures: Muslim

and Christian. The historical, religious, and geopolitical constraints were

formidable but relations with European countries were meticulously ballasted

by treaties and traditions so as to avoid excessive tensions and therefore

prevent wars. On its side, while an offspring of European culture, the United

States did not grasp the subtleties which so far maintained a precarious balance

of power between the two flanks of the Mediterranean. Add to that an

egotistical and aggressive new diplomacy, doubled with insurmountable

Confederation weaknesses which were certainly a handicap for the promotion

of good relations with Algiers. All those differing elements had already laid an

uneasy basis for whatsoever rapprochement between the two countries.

Even though Congress had resolved to negotiate a peace treaty with

Algiers as early as May 1784, the implementation of the decision dragged on

for a long time.10 By the time that diplomatic move was put afoot, the

prospective negotiations became even more complicated because, by then,

seizure of ships and enslavement of captives were involved. Half-way between

a cheap treaty and seizures for which Congress did not make provisions, Lamb

10
SJ, 3:489, May 7, 1784.
251
was instructed to redeem cheap on the conditions that the prisoners would

accept to pay back the money advanced by Congress.11 Then without

notification, Lamb dropped on a busy and aging Dey who could but allow him

landing and several audiences, Muslim tolerance and generosity obliging.12 As

the Dey was in the midst of negotiations with Count d’Expilly, the Spanish

envoy, he accorded Lamb audiences “to treat only for the redemption of his

countrymen in captivity” but “not speak of peace.”13 Primarily, the meetings

involved price-fixing for the captives and delays of execution. From the very

beginning, it appeared that the sum which Lamb was instructed to offer for the

release of captives “was ridiculous,”14 which gave the impression that the

Americans were trifling with the Dey. In short, against the sum of $100-200 for

each captive or “two hundred dollars apiece” as Jefferson put it15 ($4,200 at

most for all), the ransom settled at a sum of $59,496 according to the pricing of

the time (with a 10% remission offered by the Dey as a sign of good will).16

That first experience of ‘Uncle Sam in Barbary’ shocked the American

mind and still continues to shock today.17 It shocked not because Uncle Sam

found himself bargaining for the release of his enslaved citizens with the “King

11
“You will take from them [prisoners] their obligations … to indemnify the United States for the
moneys which shall be paid for their redemption, subsistence, transportation to their own country, and
other charges incurred.” USDC, 1:661, From Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, October 11, 1785,
Enclosure: Supplementary Instruction for Mr. Lamb; Jefferson, Memoir, 1:353-54, To Richard
O’Bryen, November 4, 1785.
12
According to American reports, he was more than 80 years old. See USDC, 1:745, From William
Carmichael to Messrs. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, Madrid, February 3, 1786.
13
Cathcart, The Captives, p. 37; USDC, 3:81, From John Lamb to Thomas Jefferson, May 20, 1786.
14
Parker, Uncle Sam in Barbary, p. 64.
15
USDC, 2:14, From Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, December 31, 1786.
16
The bargain is more sinuous than it is summarized here. American state papers and historians discuss
details to a point nearing obsession. For individuals’ pricing as set at the term of audiences see USDC,
3:81-85; Cathcart, The Captives, pp. 32-42.
17
This expression, originally part of a book title, is borrowed from Parker, Uncle Sam in Barbary.
252
of Cruelties” at a Barbary court but because the Americans considered the price

exorbitant. Indeed, fixing prices and bargaining for human beings was common

practice in the United States itself; the only difference is that it was practiced

on a much larger scale and involved human beings with other than the white

skin.18 Indeed, what was shocking for Americans was the “soaring avarice of

the Dey” and the “enormous ransom he demanded for twenty-one prisoners.”19

Condemnation reached a peak when to the total sum was added an 11% tax

“according to custom.”20

But according to Cathcart and the other captives, although Lamb

considered the price exorbitant he agreed to pay it but he also specified that “as

the United States were at a great distance, that he could not promise to return

with the cash in less than four months from his departure from Algiers.”21 To

confirm the agreement with the American envoy, the Dey summoned Lamb

before his departure and asked him whether he was “perfectly contented with

the agreement he had made.”22 Lamb answered that he would have been better

content had the terms been more favorable, but that he had “ratified the

agreement.”23 Lamb held a last meeting with Sidi Hassan, the Wakil Khardj or

18
At the first population census of the USA in 1790 the number of the slave population was 757,000
while at Algiers there were about 1,500 slaves from the different nations, in addition to 21 Americans,
as reported by Lamb in 1786 (the ratio is approximately 500 to 1). That number, however, kept
gradually decreasing. The last group comprising 500 Christian captives was forcibly released in 1816
after the bombardment of Algiers by the British. For the number of Christian captives at Algiers in
1786 see USDC, 3:88, From John Lamb to Thomas Jefferson, May 20, 1786.
19
Irwin, Diplomatic Relations, p. 38. Cathcart, however, estimated that that sum could have been easily
raised: “One cargo of tobacco sold in England, … would have paid our ransom.” Cathcart, The
Captives, p. 42.
20
Ibid.; USDC, 3:84, From John Lamb to Thomas Jefferson, May 20, 1786.
21
USDC, 2:749, From the American Captives to John Adams, February 13, 1787.
22
Cathcart, The Captives, pp. 38-9.
23
Ibid.
253
supreme admiral of the Algerian navy. The latter explained to him that the

circumstances were not appropriate for negotiating a peace treaty because the

Dey was engaged in negotiations with the Spanish envoy. He nevertheless

assured him that the price would be lowered after which Lamb left Algiers with

a commitment to return before long to complete the procedure of redemption.24

From Madrid, Lamb wrote a detailed report to the commissioners at

Paris and London but he omitted to mention the time pledge he made to the

Dey and which was news with all American prisoners.25 For the rest, the report

abounded with espionage data gathered on the spot as requested by Jefferson.26

On the basis of Lamb’s report, Jefferson wrote William Carmichael, the

American Minister to Spain, instructing him to inform Lamb that “the demands

of Algiers are so infinitely beyond our instructions, that we must refer the

matter back to Congress,” and, therefore, to pray him “to come on

immediately.” Jefferson decided to suspend negotiations till the commissioners

“receive further orders” from Congress;27 and Congress answered by an act

recalling Lamb and negotiations stalemated.28 The United States was then

transiting to a new system of government; as a result, the polemic over a new

constitution diverted attention from captives and negotiations but not

completely. Immediately, Algiers was transformed to fodder for a gigantic

propaganda machine.

24
Cathcart, The Captives, pp. 38-9.
25
Ibid.
26
USDC, 1:660, From Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, October 11, 1785, Enclosure: Heads of Inquiry;
also Appendix 4.
27
Ibid., 3:74, From Thomas Jefferson to William Carmichael, June 20, 1786.
28
Ibid., 3:113, From John Jay to Thomas Jefferson, October 12, 1786.
254
1. 2. Aspects of Contempt and Duplicity in American Diplomacy

A close look at the very particular circumstances which surrounded the

first American diplomatic mission to Algiers reveal a number of elements

which undoubtedly were the direct cause that brought about the failure of

negotiations but also were responsible for much of the distrust and suspicions

that ensued. First, the special envoy Lamb was chosen not because of his

competence but because of his acquaintances. He was poorly educated and

spoke only one language, English, which in itself was a serious handicap for an

envoy to a foreign country which official languages were Turkish and Arabic

and in which Italian and “Lingua Franca” were widely in use.29 According to

Jefferson, the only qualification retained for his appointment was that because

“he has followed for many years the Barbary trade, and seems intimately

acquainted with those States.”30 Lamb’s acquaintance, however, seemed to be

more with the mules of Barbary than with men who governed those states as

reflected in his muling “grasp of spelling and punctuation, even in an age when

there was little standardization in these matters.”31 The mule trade was then a

prosperous activity for Americans who exported them from Morocco to the

Americas.32 Very early, Jefferson thought Lamb’s “manners and appearance

not promising” but concluded to his possessing “some talents which may be

29
“Lingua Franca” is an informal jargon composed of a mixture of Turkish, Italian, and Spanish
languages. USDC, 3:88, From John Lamb to Thomas Jefferson, May 20, 1786. For further information
see Alan D. Corré, “A Glossary of Lingua Franca,” 5th edition, 2005. (Accessed 28 July 2008).
http://www.uwm.edu/~corre/franca/go.html
30
Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson: Being his Autobiography, Correspondence,
Reports, Messages, Addresses, and other Writings, edited by H. A. Washington, 9 vol. (New York: H.
W. Derby, 1861), 1:438, To John Adams, September 24, 1785. (Hereafter cited as WTJ1).
31
Peskin, “Lessons of Independence,” p. 305.
32
USDC, 2:703, From Thomas Barclay to Messrs. Adams and Jefferson, November 10, 1786.
255
proper in a matter of bargain.”33 However, as time passed and information

accumulated about his passing here and there borrowing money and leaving

unpaid bills behind him, the American ministers grew increasingly uneasy

about him.34 They sent reports to Congress notifying about delays in his arrival

and intentions of replacing him as negotiator, especially after the captures of

July 1785 when negotiations became more pressing. They even doubted his

competence and could not understand how Congress recommended him:

This gentleman’s motions are slow; what can have detained him so long
I know not; I can say nothing of his character or conduct. Mr. Jefferson
understood him to be recommended by Congress; and he was certainly
the bearer of their orders …. Since the appointment, I heard such
opinions and reports of him as have astonished me.35

His incompetence was revealed shortly afterwards when redemption of

American captives reached a deadlock. While O’Brien, a witness to that fiasco,

wished “never to see Captain Lamb in Barbary again except to buy horses and

mules,”36 Cathcart noted that he “was extremely illiterate and as vulgar as can

well be imagined, which did not create the most favourable opinion of the

government which he said had sent him.”37 The ministers acknowledged

Lamb’s incompetence and the debacle he was causing but they preferred to put

the blame on Algiers and take another course of action. Jefferson suggested

replacing him to “shut the mouths of those who might impute our failure at

33
Jefferson, Memoir, p. 350.
34
One’s experience has shown that throughout the three-year period during which Lamb was a point of
focus in this work, time was lost just for locating him as it was indeed the case for all those of his time.
At the end, it turned out that he made only one consistent report about Algiers before disappearing
again.
35
USDC, 2:566, From John Adams to John Jay, February 16, 1786.
36
As cited in Oren, Power, Faith, and Fantasy, p. 25.
37
Cathcart, The Captives, p. 41.
256
Algiers to an injudicious [appointment]” but Adams disagreed on the ground

that he “cannot see any advantage in it, but, on the contrary, several

disadvantages.”38 To Jay he justified his position on the ground that it “would

cost us three or four thousand pounds to send any one.”39 Ultimately, the

Americans decided to stop negotiations and Jefferson carried on with a plan he

started working on earlier for a joint Christian attack or blockade against

Algiers. On the other side of the Atlantic, however, the delegates to Congress

imputed failure to “the unsklfulness [sic] of the Negotiator, the poverty of the

United States, and the Very unfriendly opposition given by the British there”

than to any faulty conduct on the part of Algiers.40

The commissioners on their side, after they had authorized Lamb some

room for maneuver in negotiations, did not approve of the agreement he had

made at Algiers but they did not judge it important to inform the Dey. About

the Dey-Lamb agreement, or what Jefferson called “positive stipulation,” the

latter wrote in 1792 to John Paul Jones, a new commissioned envoy to Algiers:

“we disavow it totally, as far beyond his [Lamb’s] power,” but he added: “We

have never disavowed it formally, because it has never come to our knowledge

with any degree of certainty.41 A letter from the American captives written

early in 1787, however, clearly contradicts Jefferson’s assertion. Indeed, the

captives informed the ministers about the proceedings, price set for their

38
WJA, 8:413, T. Jefferson to John Adams, 27 August, 1786 and ibid, 8:415, To T. Jefferson, 11
September, 1786 respectively.
39
Ibid., 8:417, To Secretary Jay, 27 October, 1786.
40
LDC, 24:240, North Carolina Delegates to Richard Caswell, April 18, 1787.
41
SPPD, 10:262, Thomas Jefferson to Admiral John Paul Jones, 1 June 1792.
257
redemption, and promise of Lamb to “return in four months” with the

redemption money. More, they pointed it out clearly: “We hope Mr. Lamb has

not told us one story, and wrote the Ministers another; … he has

misrepresented his proceedings in Algiers to you.” 42 They even went beyond

that and expressed fears for the “good and honor” of the USA if the Americans

fail to respect their engagements:

Sir, we would not wish to be understood that we write so urgent on Mr.

Lamb’s contracts with the Dey to facilitate our redemption; but it is to
give you a true representation of Mr. Lamb’s proceedings, for the good
and honor of our country, as we are fearful that if another American
Ambassador came here it would be a very great detriment to his
proceedings, and should not be much surprised if the Dey told him that
he had made one bargain already with the Americans which they did not
keep or fulfill. 43

Actually, Jefferson knew about the details of the agreement but he opted for

ignoring the Dey by not disavowing that “positive stipulation” formally. Such a

disdainful and opportunistic conduct was dictated by sheer cupidity and

selfishness because he had already judged the price to be expensive long before

receiving Lamb’s report.44 As he was also busy preparing an alliance for

attacking Algiers, he certainly did not judge the Dey worth an answer.

Worse, Congress failed to follow up with the talks it had itself initiated

and also did not judge a letter dated February 25, 1787 from “Sidji Assan

Nickillange of the Marine of Algiers to Congress,” worth answering.45 The

42
USDC, 2:748-50, From the American Captives to John Adams: Extract from our Journals in Algiers,
February 13, 1787.
43
Ibid., 2:749.
44
WTJ1, 1:569, To John Adams, May 11, 1786.
45
EN, 3:435, Sidi Hassan to Congress, February 25, 1787. This letter was not published in American
state papers series until 1996.
258
latter informed Congress that “Lamb has been here at Algiers, and having

treated and spoken on certain points respecting peace and captives, went away

and has not returned.”46 That Algerian official was no more than Sidi Hassan,

the Wakil Khardj, or minister of the marine.47 In hierarchy, he was the second

important official in the state after the Dey. At the death of Dey Muhammed

Pasha in 1791, he was elected to succeed him to the Deyship. The

consequences of such a conduct emanating from the American government and

its leading diplomats abroad towards the rulers of Algiers were damaging to the

credibility of the USA and the consequences could not be better observed than

by the captives who were left at Algiers:

that he [Lamb] made the agreement and that the government of the
United States never ratified it, the consequences of which was no
confidence was placed in anything that was said in our behalf … are
facts as incontrovertible as they are lamentable.48

In general, such an inconsiderate behavior left a negative imprint on

Algerian perceptions of the United States; and all Americans at Algiers felt it.

For the prisoners it was “better to say no, than to make promises that he was

not empowered to do; not to deceive the Dey and dishonor his country.”49 In a

separate letter, O’Brien even warned: “in any future negotiations the Dey

would maintain that the Americans had made a bargain and not fulfilled it.”50

Needless to say that deceitfulness was not of the kind of conduct that could

46
EN, 3:435. For the full text of the letter see Appendix 7.
47
In American state papers series, no less than five different spellings are used for Wakil Khardj ( ‫وكيل‬
‫)خرج‬: Vikilharche, Mickelhadge, Micklassha, Vikilhadge, and Nickillange.
48
Cathcart, The Captives, pp. 40-1.
49
USDC, 2:750, From the American Captives to John Adams: Extract from our Journals in Algiers,
February 13, 1787.
50
PTJ, 11:322, From Richard O’Bryen, 28 April 1787.
259
leave favorable impressions at Algiers about the Americans. The Algerian

officials believed that the Americans lacked sincerity; therefore, they were not

trustworthy. That attitude was slightly perceptible in 1786 but nine years later it

was plainly expressed by the new Dey Hassan Pasha to the American envoys

who decided to reappear at Algiers. When an Algerian Muslim culture and

diplomacy that were sincere, straightforward, and respectful of its engagements

and traditions met with an American culture and diplomacy that were

opportunistic, dubious, adventurous, and denude from the least form of

diplomatic tradition—like the respect due to a head of a state—forcibly that

could but lead to tensions.

1. 3. The ‘Algerine Scare’

Although privateers—not to say pirates—and slaveholders per

excellence,51 the capture of the American ships hypocritically shocked the

American mind and caused an anti-Algerian campaign in the United States; the

rupture of negotiations worsened it. For the next four years, the United States

plunged into internal chaos: inefficacy of Government, bad credit, “a spirit of

licentiousness, a reluctance to taxes, an impatience of government, a rage for

property… together with a desire of equality in all things” among unsatisfied

Americans infected the country.52 “In short,” as Jay summarized it, the United

States was “in a very unpleasant situation. Changes are necessary”; and

51
For the paradox of continuing slavery at an age of revolutionary ideals see Gary B. Nash, The
Forgotten Fifth: African Americans in the Age of Revolution (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 2006).
52
USDC, 3:114, From John Jay Jo Thomas Jefferson, October 27, 1786.
260
according to him, only “the wisdom or passions of the people may produce

changes.”53 The aristocratic federalists opted for playing on the second

alternative—passions—to avert those who wanted “equality in all things.” For

the purpose, no better argument could be more forceful than the Algerine scare:

“the Algerines exclude us from the Mediterranean and adjacent countries; and

we are neither able to purchase nor to command the free use of those seas,”

bragged Jay.54 Likewise, Jefferson lamented: “Before the war, these States

depended on their whale oil and fish… now the Algerines exclude them from

bringing their fish into the Mediterranean.”55 Subsequently, unscrupulous

politicians and propagandists skillfully used the issue of captives and the so-

called Algerine piracy as an argument in the campaign for the ratification of a

new constitution. What American writers call the ‘Algerian crisis’ or

America’s most alarming foreign policy emergency56 was no more than the

victimization of Algiers as a result of embellished rumors and politician

machinations to attain political ends.

From 1785 to 1789, an ‘Algerine scare’ spread throughout the thirteen

states to reach the point of hysteria. During the summer of 1785, for example,

erroneous rumors spread throughout the country that Benjamin Franklin, on his

way back to the USA, was captured by Algerine pirates and that he bore his

“slavery to admiration.”57 That rumor produced a frenzied correspondence in

53
USDC, 3:115, From John Jay Jo Thomas Jefferson, October 27, 1786.
54
CPPJJ, 3:300, An Address to the People of the State of New York, 17 September 1787.
55
Jefferson, Memoir, 2:71, To Mr. Carmichael, December 26, 1786.
56
Peskin, “Lessons of Independence,” p. 298.
57
WTJ1, 1:449, To Dr. Franklin, October 5, 1785.
261
the states warning against travel to and from Europe. Even Jefferson got the

virus and wrote home insisting that his daughter must be sent to Europe in a

French or English vessel!58

Even more hysterical were the news that the Algerines were on their

way to invade the United States. The alarm was triggered by the visit of three

strangers, probably from North African origins, who landed at Norfolk,

Virginia in November 1785.59 Soon, they were jailed, interrogated, and then

deported on mere speculation from the Governor of Virginia, Patrick Henry,

that they were spies sent by the Dey of Algiers.60 James Madison (1751-1836),

prominent member of the Virginia legislature, was critical of the measures

adopted by the Governor against the strangers. Because they “have no apparent

object,” he wrote Jefferson, “they were suspected of an unfriendly one.”61

More, Governor Henry seized the occasion and passed legislation which

empowered him to “confine or send away suspicious aliens.”62 In Virginia, the

incident fortified Henry’s detractors and culminated in the passage of The

Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom (1786).63 That statute was originally

58
Peskin, “Lessons of Independence,” pp. 298-99.
59
Robert J. Allison, “The United States and the Specter of Islam,” Council on Middle East Studies, 3: 1
(2005), pp. 1-2; Allison, The Crescent Obscured, pp. 1-7, Peskin, “Lessons of Independence,” p. 300.
60
The three strangers (2 men and a woman) embarked from England. They spoke only French, carried
papers written in Hebrew (?) and were interrogated by one Dr Foushee who could only speak and read
English! So, historians are not even sure that papers were in Hebrew; but the assumption today is that
they were Moroccan Jews. For details see ibid.
61
James Madison, The Writings of James Madison Comprising his Public Papers and his Private
Correspondence, including Numerous Letters and Documents, edited by Gaillard Hunt, 9 vol. (New
York/London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1908), 2:217, To Thomas Jefferson, Jan. 22d, 1786. (Hereafter
cited as WJM).
62
Ibid.
63
The Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom is one of three achievements, in addition to the
Declaration of Independence and University of Virginia, Jefferson suggested inscribing on his
tombstone. Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson Containing his Autobiography, Notes
on Virginia, Parliamentary Manual, Official Papers, Messages and Addresses, and other Writings,
262
drafted in 1779 by Thomas Jefferson but since, it had been rejected by the

Virginia legislature on many occasions. But the irony of history had made it in

such a way that the ‘despicable’ and ‘tyrannical’ Dey of Algiers would

contribute, even though indirectly, to its adoption and subsequently, to the

establishment of religious freedom in the United States because that Virginia

statute was at the origin of the first article of the American constitution of

1787.

Elsewhere in the United States, the rumor spread and took wider

proportions. Newspapers depicted the three strangers as ‘advance scouts’ of a

dangerous enemy; subsequently, panic took hold of the whole country as they

were reported to have been spotted in different states and even aggressing

inhabitants.64 So deep was the concern that a Virginia member of the

Legislature wrote Jefferson: “the inhabitants of these states are greatly alarmed

at the hostility of the Algerines.”65 A Frenchman warned that even if the

Algerians would not threaten the American coast “some ill-designed Brittons,

Irish, Jersey, or Guernsey men, under the cloak of a Barbarian, with an

Algerine commission,” might do it.66 He even suggested that he be sent to

France to buy a frigate to defend Virginia from the imminent Algerian attack!

More, in 1786, newspapers reports spread sensational news about no less than

nine more captures of American ships which caused the French Chargé

Official and Private, edited by Andrew A. Lipscomb and others, 20 Vol. (Washington, D. C.: The
Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1894, 1903), 1:xii. (Hereafter cited as WTJ2).
64
At Charleston, SC, it was reported that one of the two men “draw a dirk” and attempted to stab a
Charlestonian who questioned him. For newspapers’ reports see Peskin, “Lessons of Independence,” p.
300.
65
PTJ, 9:75-6, From John Bannister, December 2, 1785.
66
As cited in Allison, The Crescent Obscured, p. 4.
263
d’Affaires Guillaume Otto to write to Jefferson saying: “the hostilities of the

Barbarian corsairs have made a great sensation in America.”67

That ‘algiersmania’ reached a climax at the height of the Constitutional

Convention in 1787 with the publication of an anonymously written book The

Algerine Spy in Pennsylvania, a work which forecasted the collapse of the USA

if the different states would not unite under the new constitution.68 The book

consists of a series of letters—24 letters—supposedly written by an Algerian

spy, ‘Mehemet,’ to his friend Solyman, an official of the Divan at Algiers.69 In

his letters, he allegedly proposed a plan for infiltrating the Shaysist rebels and

suggested proposing protection to Rhode Island against the other states by

sending an army of 100,000 janizaries.70 In that way, he argued, the latter

would be to Muslims what Malta was to Christians, i.e.: a Muslims’ spearhead

in Christian lands and source of constant next-door Muslim attacks against

Christian America. The book was highly influential and circulated mainly

among the delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Ultimately, it helped

lean the balance for those who were in favor of federalism.71 Although the style

and arguments used are typical of the literature of the federalists, contemporary

67
As quoted in Peskin, “Lessons of Independence,” p. 298.
68
Later, the book was attributed to American poet and playwright Peter Markoe (1752–1792); a new
edition was published recently (June 2008). The edition used for this work is that of 1787. Peter
Markoe, The Algerine Spy in Pennsylvania: or Letters Written by a Native of Algiers on the Affairs of
the United States of America, from the Close of the Year 1783 to the Meeting of the Convention, 3rd
edition (Philadelphia, PA: Prichard & Hall, 1787). For a literary analysis of the work see Lotfi Ben
Rejeb, “Observing the Birth of a Nation: The Oriental Spy/Observer Genre and Nation Making in Early
American Literature.” Council on Middle East Studies, 5: 9 (2007), pp. 256-273.
69
According to the publisher, the letters were originally written in Arabic, translated anonymously, and
deposited in a bundle at his doorstep. Markoe, The Algerine Spy, p. ix.
70
Markoe, The Algerine Spy, pp. 103-105. Shays Rebellion (1786-87), was a protest movement that
was principally directed against the aristocratic ruling class in Massachusetts; and Rhode Island refused
to send delegates to the Constitutional Convention, therefore both were seen as threats to the future
constitution.
71
The book went through three editions for the single year 1787.
264
studies attributed the Algerine Spy to the anti-federalists who supposedly “were

furious” at the federalists and “tried to counteract them by printing Federalist-

style propaganda so exaggerated as to be ludicrous.”72

Whoever was behind those politician manipulations, the result was

indisputably damaging to the image of Algiers—rulers and corsairs alike.

Starting from the mid-1780s, the image of Algiers among American public

opinion could not sink lower: it reached a mucky button. Threats of invasion,

cruelties of the Algerine pirates, and sufferings of innocent Americans enslaved

at Algiers all mingled with the drum rolls of astute manipulating politicians and

propagandists who systematically spread misleading and distorted information

about Algiers. That anti-Algiers campaign had the effect of uniting the

Americans to face a purported impending danger, fostered cohesion at home,

and offered the USA a new constitution73—as it would offer it a new navy

during the 1790s. Bailey could not ignore the impact of that anti-Algiers

propaganda on the adoption of the Constitution: “in an indirect sense,” he

wrote, “the brutal Dey of Algiers was a Founding Father of the Constitution.”74

The Algerine scapegoat functioned well and beyond all hopes; never again

would Algiers be seen differently.

72
Frederick W. Marks, “Foreign Affairs: A Winning Issue in the Campaign for Ratification of the
United States Constitution,” Political Science Quarterly, 86: 3 (Sep., 1971), pp. 458-59.
73
For the ‘algiersmania’ that swept the United States between 1785-1790 and its role in shaping early
American identity, see Peskin, “Lessons of Independence,” pp. 297-319; see also, Ben Rejeb,
“Observing the Birth of a Nation,” pp. 253-281.
74
Bailey, A Diplomatic History, p. 65.
265
2. Anti-Algerian Attitudes in early American Diplomacy

Early in the 19th century, the French political philosopher Alexis de

Tocqueville (1805-1859) examined the functioning of the administrative and

political institutions in the United States. When noting their influence on the

habits and manners of the American people, he criticized certain aspects of

American democracy:

All free nations are vainglorious, but national pride is not displayed by
all in the same manner. The Americans in their intercourse with
strangers appear impatient of the smallest censure and insatiable of
praise. The most slender eulogium is acceptable to them, the most
exalted seldom contents them; they unceasingly harass you to extort
praise, and if you resist their entreaties they fall to praising themselves.
It would seem as if, doubting their own merit, they wished to have it
constantly exhibited before their eyes. Their vanity is not only greedy,
but restless and jealous; it will grant nothing, while it demands
everything, but is ready to beg and to quarrel at the same time.75

No other words could paint so brilliantly the American concept of ‘new

diplomacy’ at practice. What Tocqueville observed in the early 1830s had

already been in the making during the last quarter of the 18th century. Within

less than a decade from the declaration of independence, the American early

sniveling and greedy diplomacy grew some teeth and turned quarrelsome

before cloaking itself in plain aggression. From Lamb’s petty huckstering at

Algiers to Adams and Jefferson’s aggressive stands, American diplomacy made

a giant jump from cunning begging to a shrewdly knitted plan for a naval attack

on Algiers.

75
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Translated by Henry Reeve, vol. 2, 4th ed. (New
York/Boston: C. C. Little & J. Brown, 1841), p. 238.
266
2. 1. An Aggressive Yankee in a Barbary Court

It is true the Turkish rulers of Algiers were haughty with foreign envoys,

cruel among themselves and with the non-Turkish native population

particularly but they were correct and courteous in their relations with the

Christian countries and their diplomatic agents. They were also as good and

thrifty accountants as the westerners themselves were, a fact which was often

misinterpreted as avariciousness by western writers, and in this particular

context the American ones.76 Dey Muhammed Pasha, for example, after twenty

years of rule had accumulated a long diplomatic experience and good relations

with Europe that towards the end of his life the Algerian navy was on the verge

of extinction because of idleness. His long peaceful rule culminated in the

conclusion of peace treaties with almost all Christian nations—except for

catholic Portugal, some of the Italian city States, and of course Malta, who

were the traditional enemies of Algiers.77 His diplomatic conduct was

indicative of an inclination towards the recognition and conclusion of a peace

treaty with the United States.78 But when an ill-mannered and aggressive

76
Richard Parker, in his portrait of Dey Muhammed Ben Uthman found no ‘vice’ to reproach to him
except his “too much economizing. He never lets any means of increasing the state treasury escape
him, and he can never decide, even in the most important occasions, to let out money he has put in.”
For the full portrait see Parker, Uncle Sam in Barbary, pp. 24-29.
77
Lamb wrote: “They are at war with all nations, except France, England, Denmark, Holland, Spain,
Sweden, Venice, and the Emperor of Germany.” Note that from all nations one must deduct the eastern
half of Europe because it was part of the Ottoman Empire. This leaves us with an insignificant number
of small polities as indicated above. For quote see Lamb’s report in, USDC, 3:88.
78
When informed about George Washington by the American emissaries, the Dey expressed
admiration for his exploits; but said as he “never expected to see him, he hoped that Congress would do
him the favor to send him a full-length portrait, that he might hang it up in his palace.” Schuyler,
American Diplomacy, p. 206; for nasty comments see on the Dey’s statement see Ralph W. Page,
Dramatic Moments in American Diplomacy (Garden City/New York: Doubleday, Page & Company,
1918), pp. 106-7 and Oren, Power, Faith, and Fantasy, p. 25.
267
American turned up at his court he could but appeal to his wisdom and

generosity as a Muslim but the statesman remained unshakeable.

With Lamb at the vicinity of the Dey, either the habit of the mule trader

took the upper hand over the diplomatic envoy or he considered that the Dey

and his Divan were not worth much respect. Completely lacking courtesy and

good manners, Lamb stepped at El-Djenina the way he probably did to mule

markets.79 His aggressive discussions were short of huckstering and were a

source of annoyance for the Dey who, according to Cathcart, “was displeased

with his supposing him to be capable of huckstering like a Jew.”80 Harassed,

the Dey explained clearly that he would not defraud the treasury of the state

“one dollar in my demand,” but on his personal expense he would remit 10 per

cent of the price asked for the redemption of captives. All the more he added:

“if you are not satisfied I desire you will not trouble me any more on the

subject. I told you already that we have plenty of bread and olives to give them

[the captives].”81

That Yankee’s boastful character exceeded the Dey to the Spanish

envoy Count d’Expilly and took the form of accusations and direct threats. The

Dey and d’Expilly were already engaged in difficult negotiations when Lamb

dropped in without prior notice.82 Although the Spanish envoy intervened in his

79
Lamb remained in the mule-trading business as late as 1795. Irwin, Diplomatic Relations, p. 83.
80
Cathcart, The Captives, p. 38.
81
Ibid.; also USDC, 5:248, From the American Captives to John Adams, February 13, 1787.
82
It should be noted here that after almost three centuries of constant warfare Algiers and Spain moved
finally to make peace. The one-year truce which was concluded in March 1785 had already expired and
both sides were working for its renewal before hostilities broke again. Unfortunately, Lamb’s mission
fell at that critical period and he was impatient. For Algerian-Spanish negotiations of 1785-1788 see
Grammont, Histoire d’Alger, pp. 333-37.
268
favor to permit him landing and audiences with the Dey, Lamb was not

satisfied. At a time the Dey reasonably conceded to allow talks over captives

only, Lamb accused d’Expilly of not cooperating and became entangled in a

dispute with him. As reported by Lamb, the Spanish envoy refused to help him

because he “cares very little about our peace in that quarter” and complained

that the Count did not comply with the instructions of his government and kept

him “in the dark as much as he could on all accounts.”83 One year later he kept

accusing him of baffling his efforts and for being “turned out of Algiers for the

most atrocious crimes.”84

Count d’Expilly, however, wrote the American minister at Madrid

assuring him that he had not trifled with Lamb and that he had simply

explained to him that his “unseasonable arrival” was to no avail because the

“Dey had some days before declared publicly that he would treat with no

power about peace that had not previously made it with the Sublime Porte.”85

The captives and historians, on their side, attribute to Lamb threats that if Spain

would not help him settle negotiations with Algiers satisfactorily, the United

States would seize Spanish territory in America.86 O’Brien wrote a long letter

on June 8, 1786 to Jefferson, which was also signed by other captives; the letter

was devastating for Lamb:87

83
USDC, 3:83, 86, From John Lamb to Thomas Jefferson, May 20, 1786.
84
Ibid., 3:258, From John Lamb to Thomas Jefferson, May 20, 1787.
85
Ibid., 6:306, From William Carmichael to Messrs. Adams and Jefferson, May 19, 1786, enclosure:
From Count d’Espilly to Mr. Carmichael.
86
EN, 3:197, Richard O’Bryen, Zaccheus Coffin and Isaac Stephens to Thomas Jefferson, June 8,
1786; also Irwin, Diplomatic Relations, p. 39; Parker, Uncle Sam in Barbary, pp. 49, 63-65.
87
EN, 3:192-7, Richard O’Bryen, Zaccheus Coffin and Isaac Stephens to Thomas Jefferson, June 8,
1786. Also this letter was not reproduced in American state papers series until 1996.
269
 His unguarded expressions, his hints, threats, etc. despising the French
and Spanish, signifying their defeat and in fact everything he could
possibly utter in the most vulgar language that it was with pain we see
him so unworthy of his commission and the cloth he wore.88

What was at stake then at Algiers was more than the Dey and his Divan

could have possibly imagined. Their position was obsolete and one-

dimensioned: militarily, they strove to maintain strong fortifications of the city

to avert attacks and pursued corsairing as a defensive measure; diplomatically,

they persevered in maintaining the same line of diplomatic conduct—based on

the above mentioned principles—at a time the world was rapidly changing

around them. But they did not realize that their defenses were weak and the

navy was vanishing compared to that of the western world.89 They were also

far from realizing that a player entered on the international stage with new

concepts and views totally different from their own.

For Europeans and Americans particularly, the situation was more

complex and completely different. During that short period of negotiations,

Algiers was transformed, on the one hand, to a cluster of intrigues knitted by

the major players particularly Great Britain, France, and Spain against the

United States—and against each others—in which the Dey was played as a

simple pawn; and on the other, to an espionage ground for the American envoy

who already had as instructions a certain number of intelligence questions to

answer. Those stressed matters relating to fortifications, arsenals, port defenses,

88
EN, 3:197.
89
For a broad view about Algiers’s military and naval capacities during the 1780s see SPPD, 10:46-47,
49-50, 52-53, Report of Secretary of State Relative to Mediterranean Trade, Dec. 28, 1790.
270
coastal forts, size of the navy and land forces, commerce, revenues, and

languages.90

Lamb failed as diplomatic negotiator but he proved to be a good spy. By

furnishing the American ministers with the requested information and

estimations for a strike force, he contributed valuable data to an on-going plan

which consisted of using force against Algiers.91 More, in terms of long-term

strategic counseling and management accounting, he proved to be more

farsighted accountant than Jefferson and Adams. Lamb came to the conclusion

that attacking Algiers would cost a lot more money than negotiating a peace

treaty, therefore he recommended making peace:

To fight these people, the first year will cost us more than half a million
pounds sterling. I have a perfect knowledge of the cost of armed vessels;
and at the distance we are from these people, and foreign ports to make
use of, it will be a heavy tax upon us, and without the least prospect of
gain… it is my opinion, that for a less sum we can make peace.92

But he also saw that, in the case the United States would decide to use force, a

coalition with the countries that were at war with Algiers was necessary to

reduce costs. The only problem with his last option, however, is that there were

not many countries that were at war with Algiers. Lamb advised the ministers:

My advice is, if we should arm against these people, to unite ourselves

with those nations that are not at peace with Algiers; and that will lessen
our expense much on the occasion.93

90
USDC, 1:660, From Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, October 11, 1785. For the full list of inquiries see
Appendix 4.
91
For intelligence data see USDC, 3:83, 86-88, From John Lamb to Thomas Jefferson, May 20, 1786.
For a strike force, he estimated that “five thirty-six gun frigates will be the least force and two large
tenders,” see USDC, 3:33, From John Lamb to Thomas Jefferson, March 29, 1786.
92
USDC, 3:85.
93
Ibid., 3:86.
271
Lamb’s first option was not heeled by Jefferson and Adams; as for the second,

the ministers held different views. By the end, when George Washington

leaned the balance for a peace treaty a decade after, the cost involved was

going to be much higher than the initial cost of 1786 which was then

considered as exorbitant; but reasonably Jefferson and Adams could not foresee

that. Nonetheless, either because of worries about Confederation finances or

because the Americans had other running plans, the process of that first

diplomatic contact was amateurish and the results were disappointing. Former

ambassador Parker considers that “the fatal flaw in the American approach at

this point was an unwillingness as well as an inability to pay what was

needed.”94 Washington himself, even though he had retired from public life to

Mount Vernon at the end of the war, could but see the mess of Confederation

diplomacy and foresee its outcome. While Lamb was still at Algiers, he wrote

Confederation delegate Henry Lee:

my opinion is, that there is more wickedness than ignorance in the

conduct of the States, or, in other words, in the conduct of those who
have too much influence in the government… I was more certain of the
aggregate of our [ills], than I am now of the remedy, which will be
applied. Without the latter, I do not see upon what ground your agent at
the court of Morocco, and the other at Algiers, are to treat, unless,
having to do with new hands, they mean to touch the old strings, and
make them dance awhile to the tune of promises.95

2. 2. A Predilection for Enmity

When the British historian H. G. Barnby writes that “the proverb says

that it takes two to make a quarrel, but history frequently makes nonsense of

94
Parker, Uncle Sam in Barbary, p. 64
95
WGW, 11:28, fn 2, Washington to Henry Lee, 5 April, 1786.
272
proverbs,” one may but agree with his writing.96 But when he goes on saying

that the seizure of the American ships was an “aggressive act against the

United States of America, yet that brand new nation had absolutely no hostile

thoughts or intentions against Algiers,”97 one is inclined to think that the order

of words, particularly the actors, may well be turned all the way around and

that for good reasons. Taking into consideration the sequence of a number of

elements, an undeniable fact emerges: the Americans had developed hostile

attitudes and planned hostile action against Algiers long before the latter even

became aware that such a people and a country existed.

a) Hostile attitudes: in American history, the writings of the ‘Founding

Fathers’ are sacred. When Benjamin Franklin in his pre-revolutionary historical

and political writings stated without cause that “Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli…

are enemies to be still apprehended,”98 he was in fact laying the foundations for

American animosity towards Algiers for generations to come. Time after that,

and as minister plenipotentiary to France, he officially moaned for protection

against the “Barbary pirates;” but to the American Secretary for Foreign

Affairs Livingstone he expressed thoughts of aggression when he wrote him in

1783 wondering why “Europe do [sic] not combine to destroy those nests [of

pirates].”99 Franklin’s wonder was superseded by Jeffersonian plans for

“cutting them [Barbary corsairs] to pieces by piecemeal” and the progressive

96
Barnby, Prisoners of Algiers, p. 11.
97
Ibid.
98
Franklin, Memoirs, 2:195, The Canada Pamphlet (1760).
99
DCAR, 4:149, Franklin to Robert R. Livingston, July 22, 1783.
273
extermination of that “race of seamen,”100 a method reminiscent of the one

adopted for the extermination of Native Americans:

The attempts heretofore made to suppress these powers have been to

exterminate them at one blow. They are too numerous and powerful by
land for that. A small effort, but long continued, seems to be the only
method. By suppressing their marine and trade totally and continuing
this till the present race of seamen should be pretty well out of the way,
these nests of banditti might be reformed.101

From his retirement Washington, however, could but implore providence for

wiping the corsairs from the face of earth simply because paying tribute was

not to his taste: “Would to Heaven we had a navy able to reform those enemies

to mankind, or crush them into non-existence.”102

b) Fallacious preempting: For centuries, the European countries had

paid the North African regencies tribute in the form of naval stores as a

counterbalance for commercial privileges according to bilateral treaties; and

since 1783, rumors had been spreading that the Algerian corsairs particularly

had seized or were about to seize American ships. Late in 1784, following one

of those rumors, Adams speculated that the naval material provided by tribute

was probably “employed in corsairs against American trade.” More, since such

alarms generally caused a raise in insurance rates, he thought that “the piratical

corsairs will go all over the ocean, and will even raise the insurance upon all

100
PTJ, 7:511-12, To James Monroe, 11 Nov., 1784.
101
PTJ, 7:639, To James Monroe, 6 Feb. 1785.
102
WGW, 11:59, To the Marquis de Lafayette, 15 August, 1786. R. T. Naylor considers that “it was
perhaps the first statement by a President of the “dead or alive” policy against Islamic Terrorists which
would figure so vividly after 9/11.” R. T. Naylor, “Ghosts of Terror Wars Past? Crime, Terror and
America’s First Clash with the Saracen Hordes,” Crime, Law & Social Change, 45:2 (Mar., 2006), p.
100.
274
our commerce.”103 Finally, and contrary to Franklin who believed that

American Mediterranean trade was not sufficiently important to be worth

purchasing by treaties and tributes,104 Adams argued that the Americans “have,

or shall have, a rich trade at sea exposed to their depredations.” So, according

to him, the situation “rendered it necessary that something should be soon

done” against “such enemies of the human race.”105

Based on the views which prevailed at that time among Americans,

Adams considered two options: an American unilateral action and a European

joint action. For the first option he contemplated the use of privateers to capture

Algerian mariners, which in itself was not out of context—after all it was an

age of privateering and corsairing.106 One should note, however, that at the time

when Adams was proposing capture, i.e.: December 1784, no American ships

were seized by the Algerian corsairs up to then. But because he believed that

the American race and its attributes were superior to those of ‘Barbary,’ he

quickly discarded it arguing that:

If we take a vessel of theirs, we get nothing but a bad vessel, fit only to
burn, and a few guns and a few barbarians, whom we may hang or
enslave if we will; and the unfeeling tyrants whose subjects they are will
think no more of it than if we had killed so many caterpillars upon an
apple tree.107

103
WJA, 8:217-19, From John Adams to John Jay, December 15, 1784. The Americans were
hypersensitive about insurance; since their vessels were insured by banking houses in London, they
kept accusing the British of spreading rumors about captures to raise insurance rates. See for example
PTJ, 8:559, 585-87; 9:615-622.
104
USRDC, 6:587, Franklin to the President of Congress, December 25th, 1783.
105
WJA, 8:217-19, From John Adams to John Jay, December 15, 1784.
106
This idea Adams shared with Jefferson but the latter was more virulent: he suggested ‘hijacking’
Ottoman vessels, ‘kidnapping’ Muslim passengers and crew, and selling the captives on the slave-
market of Christian Malta. Joseph Wheelan, Jefferson’s War: America’s First War on Terror, 1801–
1805 (New York: Carroll & Graf, 2003), pp. 59, 109; also ASP/FA, 1:101, Report of the Secretary of
State in relation to American prisoners at Algiers, December 30, 1790.
107
WJA, 8:218, From John Adams to John Jay, December 15, 1784.
275
But, he carried on, “when they take a vessel of ours, they not only get a rich

prize, but they enslave the men, and … demand most exorbitant ransoms for

them.” Accordingly he envisaged “send[ing] a force sufficient to burn a town,”

but he doubted its success on account of the long experience of Algiers with

such assaults on its coast and therefore their ineffectiveness. He, however,

considered that such an action would be reasonably feasible if the great

maritime powers of Europe could be persuaded “to unite in the suppression of

these piracies.” But, according to him, the second option was almost desperate

since those powers “submit to be tributary to these robbers, and even encourage

them;” so, it would be unwise to act unilaterally against them. Ultimately, he

recommended prudence arguing that “it would be very imprudent for us to

entertain any thoughts of contending with them.”108 Adams’ opinion is

illustrative of a wide political debate over the issue of ‘war vs. tribute’; an issue

that dominated American politics until 1815.

c) Accounting Management: War or Peace? Which would Cost

Less? Typical to American commercial diplomacy is the constable role

endorsed by its ministers plenipotentiaries, on top of that of commercial agents.

Adams and Jefferson were no exception; rather they were its initiators and

founding fathers. Up to 1789, the conduct of American relations with Algiers

fell entirely to them; they referred to Congress only in matters relating to

appropriations. Therefore, what they could have decided was of crucial

108
WJA, 8:218, From John Adams to John Jay, December 15, 1784.
276
importance to relations with Algiers up to that date. During that early period,

the two ministers debated two courses of action on the basis of cost.109 The

first view consisting of making peace was defended by Adams while the

second standing for war was defended by Jefferson.110 From the following

exchange of views, it comes out that both were more concerned about the

expenses involved rather than about establishing peaceful relations with

Algiers according to the laws and usage of nations.

Adams favored negotiating a peace treaty with Algiers, not because his

intentions were peaceful, but because he estimated that war would cost the

United States more than concluding a peace treaty including tributes and

consular presents.111 He was also convinced that paying tribute to Algiers “was

simply the price of doing business in the Mediterranean.”112 Calculating the

cost of war against the benefits from Mediterranean trade and the loss in

insurance, he argued:

To fight them at the expense of millions, and make peace, after all, by
giving more money and larger presents than would now procure
perpetual peace seems not to be economical.”113

109
A case study illustrating various cost concepts (incremental cost, opportunity cost, sunk cost, and
cost allocation) based on Adam’s and Jefferson’s exchange of views is discussed in Dennis Caplan,
“John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and the Barbary Pirates: An Illustration of Relevant Costs for
Decision-Making,” Issues in Accounting Education, 18: 3 (Aug. 2003), pp. 265-274. The Adam-
Jefferson exchange appears in Appendix D.
110
For an alternative discussion of both views see Sofka, “Jeffersonian Idea of National Security,” pp.
532-34.
111
WJA, 8:400-01, To Thomas Jefferson, 6 June, 1786; also WJA, 8:406-07, To Thomas Jefferson, 3
July, 1786. The Adams exchange of letters with Jefferson is reproduced in Appendix 5A and 5C.
112
Allison, “The Jihad of America’s Founding Fathers.”
113
WJA, 8:400, To Thomas Jefferson, 6 June, 1786; in the other letter he started: “At present we are
sacrificing a million annually, to save one gift of £200,000. This is not good economy.” Ibid., 8:407,
To Thomas Jefferson, 3 July, 1786.
277
Finally, comparing the total cost of a peace treaty with Algiers with what “Jews

and Judaizing Christians” would exact in duties on exports and imports and

interest rates should Mediterranean trade would be abandoned to European

carrying, he remarked that it would be “richer plunder than that of Algerines,”

therefore a peace with Algiers would be most efficient for the United States.114

Jefferson, however, held an unequivocated hawkish view. Discussing

Adams’ position, he acknowledged that he “very early thought it would be best

to effect a peace through the medium of war.”115 According to him, war would

procure them justice, honor, and respect in Europe. He also thought it least

expensive and equally effectual. More, he believed that a war would serve the

American system of government better as it would give the federal head

(president) “the safest of all instruments of coercion over its delinquent

members”—meaning the states which refuse to pay their financial

contributions to Congress. As to cost, he comforted Adams by assuring him

that America would not pay for that alone and proposed an armed confederacy

which he believed would be joined by Naples and Portugal, if not by other

powers.116 Therefore, making war was not a problem for him; the fundamental

issue of cost, however, remained unaltered: “the question is, whether their

peace or war will be cheapest? But it is a question which should be addressed

to our honor as well as our avarice,” as he stated at an earlier date.117 Similar

114
WJA, 8:401.
115
WTJ2, 5:364, To John Adams, July 11, 1786. See Appendix 5B.
116
Ibid., 5:364-68, To John Adams, July 11, 1786. Many historians consider that this letter is one of the
best Jefferson ever wrote. See WJA, 8:411, fn 1.
117
Jefferson, Memoir, 1:290, To John Page, August 20, 1785.
278
pro-war positions are scattered throughout his entire correspondence. That view

was also defended by Jay: “I should prefer war to tribute, and carry our

Mediterranean trade in vessels armed and manned at the public expense.”118

In his reply, Adams could but agree with Jefferson but only in the sense

that an alternative of war “would raise the spirits and courage of our

countrymen immediately” and they “might obtain the glory of finally breaking

up these nests of banditti;” but he held to the position of not engaging into

war.119 He estimated that Jefferson had undercalculated the cost, but most

important, that he had underestimated the force of Algiers. According to

Adams, Algiers had a formidable force and strong fortifications which would

render it “more difficult and dangerous to attempt a blockade.” Besides that, he

argued that because of expense, Congress would never consent to war, or at

least not before years to come. Therefore, he reasoned “we ought not to fight

them at all, unless we determine to fight them forever.”120 Adams did not reject

the use of force on “grounds of principle” but rather on the basis that the

United States was not yet in a position to meet the objectives it desired.121

d) Duplicity: The Americans had always accused the Europeans of

duplicity and for good reasons.122 Based on the promises of good offices of the

French King according to the treaty of 1778, the American commissioners had

approached the French government on many occasions soliciting help for the
118
CPPJJ, 3:223, Jay to Thomas Jefferson, 4 December, 1786.
119
WJA, 8:411, To T. Jefferson, 31 July, 1786.
120
Ibid.
121
Sofka, “Jeffersonian Idea of National Security,” p. 534.
122
For a summary diverse European perfidies relating to that period see Parker, Uncle Sam in Barbary,
pp. 58-63.
279
conclusion of a peace treaty with Algiers.123 On many occasions also, the

French government officials assured them of the support of France.124 Two

documents addressed to the French consul de Kercy at Algiers by the French

Minister of the Marine Marshall de Castries, however, unveil a bare double-

play. The first document in plain text dated October 23, 1785 was a

recommendation delivered for Lamb which instructed de Kercy to do all that he

could to help the Americans negotiate a treaty with Algiers. The second was a

cryptogram dated October 30, 1785 containing instructions to de Kercy; the

clear text reads:

You will easily sense that there is no advantage to us in procuring for

them a tranquil navigation in the Mediterranean. You will therefore limit
yourself to giving them satisfaction to the extent that you can serve them
to acquit yourself outwardly of the king’s promise, but you will go no
further, and above all you will avoid démarches and demands
effectively pronounced in a negotiation in the success of which we have
no real interest.125

That same perfidious de Castries wrote a letter to the French vice-consul at

New York on August 11, 1786 an extract of which was communicated to Jay.

In that letter, de Castries reiterated French good will deceitfully while imputing

the failure of the Lamb negotiations to Algiers and the Dey personally:

The United States must have seen our readiness to lend our good offices
to their agents sent to the Regencies of Barbary. But the present system
of Algiers, and the personal character of the Dey, give occasion to fear
that they have not the success that we have desired.126

123
See for example USDC, 1:569, The Commissioners to the Count de Vergennes, March 28, 1786.
124
USDC, 1:234-35, From Monsieur De La Foret to John Jay, _____ 23, 1786, Enclosure: Extract of a
Letter from Marshal de Castries to M. De la Foret, January 22, 1786.
125
For both letters (original, translation, cryptogram) see Parker, Uncle Sam in Barbary, Appendix 5,
pp. 215-17.
126
USDC, 1:234, Extract of a Letter from the Marshal de Castries, of the 11th August, 1786, to M. de la
Foret.
280
 It was clear that the Europeans did not welcome the Americans in the

Mediterranean; but the Americans themselves did not play a fair game with

Algiers. Whereas the Americans were outcrying European duplicity, in their

relations with Algiers they excelled in it. At all European courts they were

politely begging for letters of introduction to the Dey for their envoys but at the

same time, and under utmost secrecy, they were already debating about the

most cost-efficient way for striking Algiers. By doing that, America proved

that it had not only “recapitulated many forms of behaviour of the Old World,”

particularly unethical practice in conducting diplomatic relations, but it also

gave them a “stamp of its own” and even originated new ones.127 That “young

giant” had surprised and even surpassed its procreators in treachery.

3. Aggression against Algiers: A Founding Pillar of ‘New Diplomacy’

More than just hostile attitudes and deceitfulness in their relations with

Algiers, the Americans moved effectively to materialize the principles of New

Diplomacy. They elaborated different designs for attacking Algiers at a time

many elements indicated that the latter, and despite European intrigues and

American disdain, was much inclined to knit peaceful relations with the United

States. The Americans, however, disregarded all Algerian attempts for a

rapprochement and carried on with a stratagem of aggression. Stripped from

any diplomatic tradition or respect for existing laws and custom, America’s

127
Kiernan, New Imperialism, p. 3.
281
New Diplomacy, combining self-centeredness and nationalistic belligerence,

entered into its earliest phase of application.

3. 1. Algerian Attitudes

Researched material had shown that Algiers had absolutely no hostile

predispositions against the United States. According to the laws and usage of

nations which prevailed at that time, Algiers had committed no hostile acts

against the United States. A so-called Algerine hostility could only be found in

American interpretations and rumored or manipulated news. The following

elements are indicative of Algerian friendly attitudes:

a) Unawareness: Up to April 1786, it seems that Deys were ignorant

about the existence of a United States as attested by different western accounts

about Algiers during that early period. After seizure of the first American ship

in July 1785—that was the first Algerian-American contact—Cathcart noted:

On being boarded the Mahometans asked us for our flag and papers. Of
the first they had no knowledge and the papers they could not read and
Mediterranean pass we had none; consequently, they conceived us to be
a good prize.128

More, in his 12 April 1786 report to London, the British consul Logie reported

the Dey saying when he was announced the coming of an American:

What are they come to purchase a Peace? Tell them to carry their
money to the King of England, their King I have no War with His
Subjects, I have never heard of such a Nation as Americans.129
128
Cathcart, the Captives, pp. 5-6; he also reported the Rais who made the capture saying: “when you
make your peace with your father, the King of England, the Dey of Algiers will liberate you
immediately.
129
As quoted in Barnby, Prisoners of Algiers, p. 74.
282
 b) Cordiality and Peaceful Intentions: The Dey welcomed American

friendship and even was ready to conclude a peace treaty with the United

States; the only thing he needed was some time so that he could finish

negotiations with the Spanish emissary. Sidi Hassan was even more

predisposed for that peace. The previously mentioned letter of ‘Sidji Assan

Nickilange to Congress’ is a proof in itself that Algiers was inclined towards

peace with the United States. Both were even ready to face the wrath of Great

Britain for an amicable relationship with the United States. An incident that

took place after the departure of the American envoy and reported by both the

French Consul de Kercy and the Spanish envoy d’Expilly indicated that

tendency. In a letter to Carmichael, the latter recounted the following: Logie,

having learnt too late that the vessel on which Lamb sailed to Algiers was

American property—therefore technically it was subject to seizure—

communicated the information to the Dey alluding that the vessel could be

sized. The Dey who did not appreciate Logie’s conduct replied that

he had permitted the American officers to land; that they were gone
away, that the vessel was now under his protection; and concluded by
telling the Consul to mind his own business, and not intermeddle in
future with what did not concern him.130

Apparently Logie communicated the same information and insinuation to

Wakil Khardj too and had the right to the same answer as that given by the

130
USDC, 3:121, Extract of a letter from William Carmichael to Thomas Jefferson, July 15, 1786.
Note: Lamb bought the vessel from the money which was appropriated for the treaty and ransom of
captives; he left it at Algiers in the care of d’Expilly and returned to Spain.
283
Dey. That was noted by the American prisoners and reported by de Kercy in

his dispatch of 13 June, 1786.131

c) A Westerners’ Verdict: Algiers sincerely looked forward for peace

with the United States. Lamb, Carmichael, and O’Brien noted it in their

correspondence and Cathcart detailed it in his memoirs.132 Carmichael, for

example, and despise his blatant unfair play was conscious about the sincerity

of Algerian officials, particularly Sidi Hassan; but he abused it:

I think it necessary to induce the Algerines to believe that the United

States are more disposed to be at peace than at war with them. Their
Minister of Marine desires peace with us, and appears apprehensive of
seeing American cruisers in the Mediterranean. I have ways of
cultivating his friendly disposition, and exciting his apprehensions.133

Unfriendly and treacherous utterance indeed; nevertheless it shows clearly that

Algiers was sincerely inclined towards peace but the Americans were in fact

playing an outward game of peace while in reality they had warring intentions.

Even the mule trader had understood that a treaty of peace was possible with

Algiers: “I have good reason to think that peace may be made with these

people,” Lamb wrote before meeting the Dey.134 At the term of his mission he

reported that “their principal Minister [Sidi Hassan]” told him that it was his

“greatest desire that our peace might be made with their Regency,” and that “he

would use his utmost endeavors for the purpose.”135 The only ones who seem

131
EN, 3:198, Richard O’Bryen, Zaccheus Coffin and Isaac Stephens to Thomas Jefferson, June 8,
1786; Parker, Uncle Sam in Barbary, p. 59.
132
EN, 3:194, Richard O’Bryen to Thomas Jefferson, June 8, 1786; Cathcart, The Captives, 39-40.
133
USDC, 1:800, Extract of a Letter from William Carmichael to Thomas Jefferson, July 15, 1786.
134
USDC, 3:33, From John Lamb to Thomas Jefferson, March 29, 1786.
135
USDC, 3:82, From the same to the same, May 20, 1786; Lamb reiterated that view in another letter,
that of July 18, 1786, USDC, 3:125.
284
to have gone astray were Adams and Jefferson—probably because they were

much absorbed in trivial constable calculations or because they already had

something else underway. Perhaps also their lack of knowledge about Algiers,

which was to the image of the Dey’s unawareness about the United States, and

lack of experience with that totally different region was at the origin of the

collapse of that first contact.136

3. 2. American Aggression Designs

Contrary to Algiers’ friendly attitudes, three cases are plainly illustrative

of America’s ‘belligerent nationalism’: diplomatic intrigues, a plan for a

unilateral naval aggression, and a coalition with the lesser European powers to

attack Algiers.

a) An Aggressive Move Curbed: In March 1785, half-knowledgeable

about the peace treaties between Algiers and France, Adams visited Vergennes

and indiscreetly inquired whether the treaty of April 1684 had expired, or near

expiring, and whether it had been renewed.137 Vergennes turned him down and

required an official application to his ministry so that he would submit it to the

appropriate French ministry to obtain him an answer.”138 Soon afterwards, the

commissioners put their inquiry into writing and explained that:

136
The total ignorance of America’s leading diplomats about Algiers is illustrated by the intelligence
‘shopping list’ they loaded Lamb with. USDC, 1:660, From Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, October 11,
1785, Enclosure: Heads of Inquiry.
137
The treaty of 1684 was concluded for 100 years and it effectively expired; but another treaty of
peace concluded in September 1689, also for 100 years, was still in vigor. For the duration of both
treaties’ see Card, Traités de la France, pp. 45, 51-52.
138
WJA, 8: 229, To Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, 20 March, 1785.
285
 if there is a probability of a war, Congress would probably prefer joining
in the war, rather than to treat with nations who so barbarously and
inhumanly commence hostilities against others who have done them no
injury.139

Before long, the chilling answer of de Castries fell:

When our treaty with Algiers shall expire, we shall desire to renew it,
and even may flatter ourselves to be able to do it without any difficulty.
But should any occur that must be surmounted, the King is accustomed
to use no foreign interventions to establish or preserve the good
understanding which it suits him to maintain with the Barbary
Powers.140

De Castries answer which was intended for the American commissioners meant

in short: mind your business! It appears that the French government did not

receive well the proposal of the commissioners regarding a military adventure

against Algiers undoubtedly because France already considered Algiers an

exclusively French game preserve.

b) A Prospect for Blockading Algiers: Not content with that bold

belligerence, the Americans relaunched the offensive with the French

government about a year later but with Jefferson as assault leader. While

negotiations with Algiers were still in the making, Jefferson was already

nourishing a plan for attacking it. In May 1786, following one of those bullying

visits to Vergennes, he wanted to make sure that the English would not

“administ[er] aid to the Algerines,” a probability which Vergennes discarded

139
USDC, 1:569, The Commissioners to the Count de Vergennes, March 28, 1785.
140
Ibid., 1:572-74, Count de Vergennes to the Commissioners, April 28, 1785, Enclosure: Copy of the
Letter from M. Marshal de Castries to the Count de Vergennes, Translation, April 24, 1785. In USDC,
1: 572 the letter of Vergennes was mistakenly dated April 28, 1784.
286
“on account of the scandal it would bring on them.”141 Previously, Jefferson

had obtained a detailed account and opinion from Count d’Estaing, former

vice-admiral in the French navy who served unssuccessfully in the American

war of independence,142 about an incident that happened between Algiers and

France in 1741-42 and which led to a diplomatic crisis. Based on his contacts

with the two Frenchmen, and on his own thoughts, Jefferson reported to Jay on

May 23, 1786. In his report, he submitted a plan for bombarding or blockading

Algiers apparently inspired to him by an opinion made by one de Massiac, one

of those actors who were involved in the 1741-42 incident.

The plan was entirely based on a letter from d’Estaing which Jefferson

enclosed to support his argument.143 The idea of a blockade seemed to be

attractive to Jefferson because it did not involve much expense. As European

bombardments had not “produced the desired effect against the barbarians,” it

was argued that with “cross anchoring, and with a long range, that is to say,

with several cables spliced to each other, and with iron chains, one might, if

necessary, always remain there [perpetual blockade?].” It was also thought that

because “the Algerines have fitted out merchantmen with heavy cannon” that

rendered it “necessary to blockade the place with two ships of the line, so that

one of the two might remain moored near the bar, while the other might
141
USDC, 1:750-52, From Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, May 23, 1786.
142
Charles Hector Theodat (Count d’Estaing), 1729-1994, showed briefly in the 13 colonies as vice-
admiral of the French fleet in 1778. After too poor performances in the North and a heavy defeat in the
South in 1779, he returned to France and ended at the guillotine in 1794. His services to the Americans
were amply rewarded; in 1787, Jay recommended him to Congress for an honorific copper medal,
probably because of the plan he recommended for blockading Algiers. USDC, 3:232, Report of John
Jay to Congress, July 11, 1787.
143
USDC, 1:752-54, From Count d’Estaing to Thomas Jefferson, May 17, 1786. This letter appears in
WTJ1, 7:531 and SPPD, 10:54 under the date May 17, 1784, which is improbable since Jefferson did
not reach Paris until August 6, 1784. For date of arrival at Paris see Jefferson, Memoir, 1:49.
287
prepare to support such of the frigates as should give chase.”144 Regardless of

the military value of this stratagem, it nonetheless remains an exhibition of

American bare belligerence as well as prejudices towards Algiers. The least

that could be said is that it conveys a picture in which the population of Algiers

was equated to fierce animals that should remain caged behind heavy iron

chains! Worse, as late as 1792, Jefferson was still contemplating the blockade

of Algiers according to French naval ingenuity.145

More, what is striking in Jefferson’s aggressive conduct was his

extraordinary skills of distortion. Seemingly quite knowledgeable in military as

well as historical matters relating to Algiers, he wrote Adams shortly after that:

About forty years ago the Algerines having broken their treaty with
France, this Court sent Monsieur de Massiac with one large and two
small frigates. He blockaded the harbor of Algiers three months, and
they subscribed to the terms he proposed.146

As depicted from French sources, the events of 1741-42 were primarily

diplomatic and no naval hostilities between Algiers and France were noted.

Briefly, the problem developed as follows: two Algerian chebecks were

cruising near the coast of France when they were driven by a storm to Toulon.

There, they were retained for two weeks before they were allowed to leave.

The French cruiser which was escorting them (commanded by de Massiac)

allowed an ambushed Spanish squadron to seize one of them within 30 miles

distance from the French coast, a distance which was guaranteed reciprocal

144
USDC, 1:753.
145
WTJ2, 17:320, Considerations on the Subjects of Ransom, and Peace with the Algerines, April 1st,
1792.
146
Ibid., 5:366, To John Adams, July 11, 1786.
288
immunity by Algerian–French peace treaties. The other chebeck escaped to

Algiers and reported about the French treachery. Dey Ibrahim (r. 1732-45)

made France responsible for the seizure and claimed the restitution of the

cruiser and compensations.147 The claim was settled on May 18, 1742 when

Massiac himself brought back the captured chebeck to Algiers and paid

compensations for its seized freight; he was also accompanied by a new consul

who brought with him presents defying in value all that was presented to the

Dey so far!148 But Jefferson invented a fictitious blockade and imputed the

Algerian-French diplomatic broil to an infraction of the treaty by

‘Algerines.’149 Obviously, the two allegations were absolutely unfounded.

c) A failed Coalition: Repelled and outplayed by French professionals

in diplomatic shrewdness, the Americans moved next to consider a plan which

they had already been nurturing for a while. The plan consisted of forming a

league with the smaller European countries with the aim of constituting a naval

force to attack Algiers. Jefferson even went so far as to draft a proposal for an

American-European military alliance against Algiers and submitted it to

Congress. The idea emerged late in 1785 when Jefferson thought about a

147
For details see Grammont, Histoire d’Alger, pp. 297-300.
148
For the claim and payment of compensations see the different correspondence relating to the crisis
including letters: Ibrahim, Dey d’Alger à Louis XV, 31 mai 1742 and Ibrahim, Dey d’Alger au Comte
de Maurepas, Secrétaire d’Etat de la Marine, 31 mai 1742 in Eugène Plantet, ed., Correspondance des
deys d’Alger avec la cour de France, 1579-1833, recueillie dans les dépôts d’archives des affaires
étrangères, de la marine, des colonies et de la chambre de commerce de Marseille, vol. 2 (Paris: 1889),
pp. 193-95 and 195-94 respectively; also, Henri-D. de Grammont, Correspondance des consuls
d’Alger, 1690-1742 (Alger/Paris: Adolphe Jourdan, Ernest Leroux, 1890), pp. 222-24.
149
USDC, 1:751, From Jefferson to John Jay, May 23, 1786. Even Adams, 20 days after Jefferson
wrote him, doubted this version of the story: “I believe not, and fancy you will find that even Massac
[sic] himself made the presents.” For Adams reply see WJA, 8:410-12, To T. Jefferson, 31 July, 1786.
289
“union of force” open to European nations to keep a constant cruise against

“the depredations of the Algerines.”150 By July 1786, Jefferson had already

finalized his plan as “Proposals for concerted operation among the powers at

war with the piratical States of Barbary” and submitted it to Congress for

approval.151

In his autobiography, Jefferson returned back on that scheme, so dear to

him, and discussed the circumstances which brought it about.152 At Paris, he

related, his duties were confined to few things: “receipt of our whale-oils,

salted fish, and salted meats, were the principal commercial objects which

required attention.” So, while performing the role of a commercial agent,

Jefferson considered that American Mediterranean commerce was threatened

by the Muslim corsairs but saw that he was “very unwilling” to accept

Mediterranean policies and the practice or what he called “European

humiliation, of paying a tribute to those lawless pirates.” Consequently, he

engaged on a war footing by the preparation of “articles of a special

confederation” of eleven points comprising the following points:

• Concerted operations among the European powers against the piratical

States “beginning with the Algerines” to compel them “to perpetual
peace, without price;”

• The operations should consist of “constant cruizes on their coast, with a

naval force …[of] half a dozen frigates”; that force should be furnished
by the parties” according to predetermined quotas;

150
Jefferson, Memoir, 1:370, To John Adams, November 27, 1785.
151
The full text of the plan appears in Appendix 6.
152
Jefferson, Memoir, 1:52-5.
290
 • The operations should be directed against Algiers first. When it would
“be reduced to peace, the other piratical States … shall become the
objects of this convention. 153

Jefferson then, the salted fish and meat trader, turned suddenly hawkish

in the midst of his business and elaborated an ingenious aggression plan against

Algiers and the other Muslim states which he intended to carry out with the

help of the Christian countries. His second step consisted of submitting his

proposal to targeted ambassadors at Paris but the results were not encouraging:

Spain immediately declined because it had just concluded a peace treaty with

Algiers and existing laws and practice compelled its respect “until the other

party should fail in their observance of it” and other small powers were

apparently favorable to such a league but were apprehensive that France might

interfere against it, so they wanted guarantees from Vergennes.154

As already discussed, the commissioners had approached Vergennes

about a year before offering gracious services for joining the French in a

would-be war against Algiers but were rebuffed. Now Jefferson was cautious

about reviving the subject of collaboration with France because, according to

him, he “did not think it proper to insinuate any doubt of the fair conduct of his

government.”155 He therefore adopted a circuitous way to satisfy the exigencies

of his would-be petty allies and obtained an answer which he interpreted as an

assent of Vergennes. In that way, the novice American minister surpassed the

master of diplomacy in intrigue and treachery. Jefferson’s conduct, however,

153
Jefferson, Memoir, 1:53-4.
154
Ibid., 1:54. Those included Portugal, three of the Italian city-states, and Malta—all centuries-old
enemies of Algiers.
155
Ibid.
291
becomes even more amazing when in the same context and just few lines later

one reads his own self-celebrating assessment: “I had no indirect views,

practised no subtleties, meddled in no intrigues, pursued no concealed

object….”156

To wrap it up, such a plan could not materialize if it were not given

assent by Congress; Jefferson therefore referred it to Congress emphasizing a

favorable prospect for protecting American commerce in the Mediterranean by

“an exclusion of them [Barbary predators] from the sea.” Not only that; the

non-meddling and melioristic Jefferson took also on himself the burdensome

and meddling mission of civilizing the ‘Barbary barbarians’ and “chang[ing]

their habits and characters, from a predatory to an agricultural people.”157 All

that Jefferson needed for his grandiose plan was “a frigate, and its expenses.”

Debated in Congress in July 1787, that plan was “resolved in the

affirmative.”158 But because of inability to obtain the necessary funds from the

recalcitrant Confederation states, the proposal seemed to have passed quickly

into oblivion but not for long. As soon as the United States could have the

necessary means for executing its plan of aggression, the prospect of attacking

Algiers surfaced again. But that had to wait until the United States would grow

some teeth. For the time being, and after that show of aggression, Jefferson

resumed his commercial activities but that time he shifted to rice-sale.159

156
Jefferson, Memoir, 1:52.
157
Ibid., 1:54.
158
SJ, 4:372, July 27, 1787.
159
Jefferson, Memoir, 2:107, To John Jay, May 4, 1787.
292
Conclusion

A chaotic diplomacy, a mule trader, and an avaricious Confederation, all

blinded by selfishness, combined to deal with a centuries old corsairing

diplomacy that was respectful of the laws and usage of nations. Eventually, that

led to the failure of the first round of negotiations between Algiers and the

United States. For almost a decade, negotiations stalemated during which much

damage was done: the Americans literally shattered the image of Algiers and

used it to save their country from dislocation. At Algiers distrust of American

negotiators and doubt about the capability of the United States to respect its

own commitments dominated. Meanwhile, while engaged in peace

negotiations, the Americans did not hesitate to envisage using force against

Algiers either unilaterally or in concert with other European countries. In the

role of aggressive commercial agents, America’s leading politicians made all

possible and imaginable calculations about what would cost them less: peace or

war? As showed by the triangular correspondence between Adams, Jefferson

and Jay two different approaches as how to make American commerce

penetrate in the Mediterranean prevailed. The first one advocated negotiating

for a treaty peace in accordance with existing diplomatic usage—even if they

abhorred payment of tribute which they considered humiliating; the second

rather favored making war and for which different alternatives were devised.

Both approaches, however, shared an excessive concern about expenditure. By

the end it became evident to the Americans that both courses of action needed

funds; funds which Congress was either unable or unwilling to provide. But
293
given American predilection for aggression, and had the funds been available,

they would have taken the road to war unhesitantly. Despite positive

predispositions of Algiers towards a treaty of peace, the United States put an

abrupt end to negotiations and for the next ten years, a handful of American

prisoners were left to languish in bagnios at Algiers. America’s leading figures

considered ransom beyond financial reach, a blame they imputed to the Dey

but also to structural weaknesses of Confederation. Not before long, however,

the United States instituted a new system of government. Under the new

system, the Americans renewed contacts with Algiers and relaunched

negotiations.

294
 CHAPTER VII

The Peace Treaty of 1795 and Aftermath

Yes, you know how to gabber… Go and tell your Ambassador that I
accept his terms, more to pique the British who are your inveterate
enemies, and are on very bad terms with me, than in consideration of the
sum which I esteem no more than a pinch of snuff.1

Dey Hassan Pasha (1795)

Introduction

The year 1789 brought with it fundamental structural changes to the

United States; the Confederation passed away and a new system of government

was established under a new constitution. On April 30 of that year, George

Washington was sworn into the office of president of the USA, John Adams

became his Vice-President, and Thomas Jefferson was appointed Secretary of

State. Accordingly, all seems to indicate that the ‘old tunes’ relating to Algiers

were going to be played by the same old hands. Indeed, until 1795 and to some

extent there would be no major breakthrough in United States policy towards

Algiers. While Congress and the Presidency were establishing themselves, all

foreign matters, were kept at standstill.

1
Cathcart, The Captives, p. 184.
295
 Meanwhile at Algiers, Dey Muhammed Pasha died on 12 July 1791 and

Sidi Hassan ascended to the Deyship.2 In many a point, the death of the Dey

could have been perceived as a relief by the Americans as they kept referring to

the old age of the Dey and announcing his death since 1787.3 The American

representations in Europe seized the event promptly and recommended

negotiations because they thought the new Dey had “more favorable

dispositions” towards the United States.4

1. The Road to a Peace between Algiers and the United States

In 1790, a petition for the liberation of American captives at Algiers was

introduced in the House of Representatives; the matter was referred to the

Secretary of State for examination and report. Accordingly, Jefferson made two

reports to the President, one on ‘Prisoners at Algiers’ and the other on

‘Mediterranean Trade.’5 That way, Jefferson was finally provided with the

opportunity to put his 1780s schemes into execution. He proposed that it might

be “better to repress force by force” and that American captives could be

exchanged against corsairs if American raids were carried against Algerine

shipping.6 Alleging that Algiers had rarely accepted to exchange Moors for

white captives, he argued in favor of capturing Turks because they were a

2
James L. Cathcart, “The Diplomatic Journal and Letter Book of James Leander Cathcart, 1788-1796,”
American Antiquarian Society, Proceedings, n.s.: 64: 2 (1955), pp. 314-15.
3
At least three letters from Jefferson announced, doubted, or asked confirmation about the supposed
death of the Dey. For one see USDC, 2:59 From Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, June 21, 1787.
4
ASP/FA, 1:130, Letter from William Short, Chargé des Affaires of the United States at Paris, Aug. 24,
1791.
5
Ibid., 1:100-8, Message from the President of the United States to Congress, communicating a report
of the Secretary of State, in relation to American prisoners at Algiers, December 30, 1790.
6
Ibid., 1:101, Report of the Secretary of State in relation to American prisoners at Algiers, December
30, 1790.
296
“superior order of beings,” therefore the exchange might be feasible.7 Then

linking prisoners to expansion of American commerce in the Mediterranean, he

offered Congress two options: “war, or tribute and ransom.” If war, he argued,

the United States had to consider building a navy and co-operating with other

powers; if peace, it could purchase it as was the practice with the nations of

Europe.8 He was, however, confident as to the first option.

A Senate committee discussed those reports and agreed with Jefferson

that American trade in the Mediterranean “cannot be protected but by a naval

force” and that it should be provided “as soon as the state of the public finances

will admit.”9 Consequently, there was no immediate change in policy and the

new government pursued a conduct somewhat similar to that of the

Confederation. Except for an unsuccessful attempt initiated by Jefferson in July

1791 to secure Dutch cooperation for a “combined naval squadron” to wage

war against Algiers, Congress rather engaged in a debate for the creation of a

U. S. navy.10

1. 1. Peace Negotiations Reconsidered

In May 1792, the Senate answered in the affirmative three questions of

the President: whether it would approve the conclusion of a convention or a

treaty with the government of Algiers at an expense not exceeding $40,000,

7
ASP/FA, 1:101, American prisoners, December 30, 1790.
8
Ibid., 1:105, Mediterranean Trade, December 30, 1790.
9
Ibid., 1:108, Report of a Committee on the Trade of the Mediterranean, January 6, 1791.
10
Howard P. Nash, The Forgotten Wars: The Role of the U. S. Navy in the Quasi War with France and
the Barbary Wars 1798-1805 (South Brunswick, NJ/New York, A. S. Barnes/London : Thomas
Yoseloff, Ltd., 1968), pp. 32-33; Irwin, Diplomatic Relations, p. 44. John Paul Jones was charged with
the job but did not find any support from the Dutch.
297
redemption of the remaining captives for the same amount, and an annual

tribute not exceeding $25,000.11 The negotiations were assigned to Paul Jones,

and were considered so confidential and secret that all papers were made out in

Jefferson’s own handwriting.12 The commission, including a summary of

events that had occurred since 1785 as well as new instructions, is too long to

be detailed here but two points are worth mentioning: first, Jones was

instructed not to redeem prisoners before obtaining a peace treaty and was

authorized to spend a sum on the treaty less than that voted by Congress! One

of the instructions of the commission specified: “we should be pleased with

10,000 dollars, contented with 15,000, think 20,000 a very hard bargain, yet go

as far as 25,000, if it be impossible to get it for less; but not a copper further,

this being fixed by law as the utmost limit.”13 This is to say that Jefferson cared

more about expense than about his captured countrymen, an attitude for which

he was severely criticized and which he attempted to justify throughout the

commission to Jones.14 Second, for annual tribute Jones was instructed to not

agree to provide any maritime stores:

11
ASP/FA, 1:136, Message from the President of the United States, Relative to Prisoners at Algiers,
May 8, 1792.
12
SPPD, 10:261-69, To Admiral John Paul Jones, June 1, 1792.
13
At this point one may just note that Jefferson had never proved to be a good constable neither with
Algiers nor at his own estate Monticello. The proof is that at his death, his debts were so large that
almost all his slaves (230 minus 5) were sold at auction to satisfy his creditors. For more about
Jefferson and slavery see Nash, The Forgotten Fifth, pp. 106-117.
14
One may note here too that originally a section on slavery was intended to be included in this work
but research has proved it to be useless since slavery was not at issue in relations with Algiers.
Enslavement in itself was not the problem as were expenses. In their writings, the leading American
politicians used the terms ‘captives’ and ‘prisoners’ to refer to Americans held at Algiers but never
‘slaves’ probably because as they practiced it on a much larger scale they could not use it as an
argument. The term ‘hostage’ does not appear either. For an idea about their approach to slavery see
David Barton’s articles “The Founding Fathers and Slavery” and “George Washington, Thomas
Jefferson, & Slavery in Virginia” (2001) at http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=99
(Retrieved 6 March 2008).
298
 we will not furnish them naval stores, because we think it not right to
furnish them means which we know they will employ to do wrong, and
because there might be no economy in it, as to ourselves in the end, as it
would increase the expense of that coercion which we may in future be
obliged to practice towards them. The only question then is, what sum of
money will be agreed to pay them annually for peace?15

One may understand here that a peace treaty was seen as merely a transitory

phase before some naval action could be undertaken against Algiers. Jones who

was then at Paris claiming prize money dating back to the piracies he

committed during the war of independence, however, died before he could get

his commission.16 Barclay, who succeeded him, also died shortly after he was

commissioned and before he could set out for Algiers.

A Jefferson determined to finish with Algiers either by force or by a

negotiated treaty issued instructions to David Humphreys, U.S. minister to

Portugal, to take negotiations at hand. The instructions were essentially the

same as those forwarded previously. One change relative to the payments in

naval stores, however, was made. Humphreys was informed that if Algiers

declined to make a treaty on any other conditions than the delivery of such

material, he might agree to that and “reserve the right to make the subsequent

annual payments in money.”17 Humphreys reached Alicante, Spain on his way

to Algiers but he never reached it; late in 1793, he sent his letter of credence to

15
SPPD, 10:264. Providing Algiers with naval stores was assimilated to supplying Afghan mujahidin
with ground-to-air missiles. Parker, Uncle Sam in Barbary, p. 70.
16
For that chapter of Jones’ life and his desperate efforts to pass piracy for privateering with the French
government see Reginald de Koven, The Life and Letters of John Paul Jones, vol. 2 (London: T.
Werner Laurie, Ltd, 1913), pp. 242-69.
17
SPPD, 10:272, To Colonel David Humphreys, March 21, 1793.
299
the Swedish consul at Algiers and returned to Lisbon.18 By then, a new crisis

between Algiers and the United States started unfolding. Once again, the

Americans stopped a peace process they had initiated abruptly after it had been

brought informally to the knowledge of the Dey by the American prisoners,

particularly O’Brien who became a sort of a de facto consul and kept feeding

the American government with intelligence after 1786—mostly general

condition of the prisoners, armament and movement of corsairs, and political

advise and forecast. Meanwhile, on presentation of his letter of credence to the

Dey by the Swedes, the Dey probably angered by Americans’ irresponsible

attitudes declined to receive him.19 According to Per Erik Skjoldebrand, brother

of the Swedish consul, the Dey declared that “he would not make peace with

the Americans at any price whatever” and that “there had been a time when he

was well disposed to support the engagements at half price, made by his

predecessor.”20 The Dey explained that conditions were such that “his interest

does not permit him to accept your offers even were you to lavish millions

upon him.”21

It is also probable that Dey Hassan Pasha on his side, although angered

by the attitude of Americans, attempted to re-activate negotiations with the

United States. According to a report from Humphreys to the Secretary of State

18
The Swedish consul declined representing the Americans formally least he would be in trouble with
the Court of his country; but he referred the task to his brother Per Erik Skjoldebrand who was at
Algiers in no official capacity. ASP/FA, 1:414, The Swedish Consul to D. Humphreys, Esq. Nov. 13,
1793.
19
In two reports to the Secretary of State Humphreys interpreted it a categorical “refusal of the Dey to
grant a passport.” ASP/FA, 1:413, D. Humphreys, Esq. to the Secretary of State, November 19, 1793
and from the same to the same, November 23, 1793.
20
ASP/FA, 1:414, Brother of the Swedish Consul to D. Humphreys, Esq. Nov. 13, 1793.
21
Ibid.
300
a one Bassara contacted the American representation at Alicante and

introduced himself as sole accredited negotiator for the Dey of Algiers.

According to him, the Dey “did not believe the government of the United

States had ever appointed two commissioners to treat with him, who had died

after their appointment;” and therefore, he would not accept any another agent

except him.22 As no other source confirms or belies the information, one may

suppose that there might have been some truth in it because given the

untrustworthy conduct of the American government before and then, the Dey

ended by not believing the Americans. Therefore, he might have decided to

take negotiations single-handedly without waiting for American emissaries.

One may not discard the possibility that Bassara might have acted

without the knowledge of the Dey as a result of Jewry intrigues. Bassara (or

Bouchara) was a Jew broker whose financial house Bassara & Co had been

used by the American government for some time and he was at cutthroat

competition with the Bacris, the accredited brokers of the Deys of Algiers.23 As

P. E. Skjoldebrand explained, Bassara was also Sweden’s broker but the Bacris

“secretly indisposed” the Dey towards peace with the Swedes and caused much

trouble—going up to a declaration of war; and only until they were obliged to

deal with the Bacris could they restore good relations with Algiers. He

therefore recommended that the Americans should switch to the Bacris.24 An

22
ASP/FA, 1:327, Letter from D. Humphreys to the Secretary of State, December 25, 1793.
23
Schuyler, American Diplomacy, P. 213; Parker, Uncle Sam in Barbary, p. 82.
24
Ibid., 1:415, Brother of the Swedish Consul to D. Humphreys, Esq. Nov. 13, 1793. O’Brien was also
of the same view, ASP/FA, 1:419, Captain O’Brien to Colonel Humphreys, November 16, 1793. Note:
O’Bryen changed the spelling of his name to O’Brien.
301
O’Brien letter supported the Swedish view and reported also that the Dey had

declined to receive Humphreys after Bassara made an application for it.

According to O’Brien, the Dey answered him “very abruptly that he would not

make the peace with America” and that “when he wanted the Americans for

nearly two years to make the peace they would not give him an answer, which

was treating him and his people with indifference.”25 Therefore, one is inclined

to say that the Dey could not have charged Bassara with whatsoever after he

rejected his demand for receiving Humphreys.

It is not improbable that the Bacris were behind that unfriendly position

of the Dey and Bassara knew it; so he might have decided to short-circuit his

rivals by intervening directly with his clients the Americans, hence

Skjoldebrand’s above mentioned allegation. Considering how complications

smoothed suddenly two years later after the Swedes transferred American

business from Bassara to Bacri, one may deduce that the Dey’s refusal to

receive the American envoy—even if the latter had already changed his mind

about the visit and departed from Alicante—was but one of those countless

intrigues of the Jews. Dey Hassan Pasha had always been favorable to a peace

treaty with the United States and he had waited too long for that.26

1. 2. The Algiers-Portugal Truce, 1793

The Jews, however, were not the only plotters to battle for influence and

privileges at Algiers; the most notorious among them remained the British.

25
ASP/FA, 1:416, Captain O’Brien to D, Humphreys, Esq, November, 12, 1793.
26
Ibid., 1:418, Captain O’Brien to the President of United States, November 5, 1793.
302
Once more, they reactivated Logie who became involved in an

incomprehensible deal that encompassed four countries: Algiers, Great Britain,

Portugal, and the United States. While preparations for negotiations were in the

making, there intervened a strange episode which caused further complications

and antagonisms in Algerian-American relations. In September 1793, and

under the aegis of the Logie, a truce was concluded between Algiers and

Portugal apparently without official knowledge of Portugal.27 Subsequently,

Logie issued passports to the Algerian cruisers which permitted them to pass

the Strait of Gibraltar westward unhindered by the Portuguese fleet which was

stationed there.28 Humphreys, who was at the time at Gibraltar on his way to

Algiers, saw the Algerian cruisers passing by the Rock and reported to the

Secretary of State that the truce was effected by Logie and added: “but I am

very happy to add, there are strong circumstances to induce me to believe, it

was without the authority or even knowledge of his own court.”29 Within two

months from then, eleven more American ships, with 105 crewmen, were taken

prize by the Algerian corsairs and the number of American captives at Algiers

increased to become 115.30

27
As of this date, except for the United States and the Hanseatic towns, Algiers had entered into peace
treaties with all the countries, a peace process which was started by Dey Muhammed Pasha and was in
the process of finalization by Dey Hassan. Corsairing was declining and Algiers was muting to a
commercial economy, see Chapter III.3.
28
Parker, Uncle Sam in Barbary, p. 77.
29
ASP/FA, 1:297, D. Humphreys, Esq. to the Secretary of State, Oct. 7, 1793.
30
Ibid., 1:418, Captain O’Brien to the President of United States, November 5, 1793. As of this date,
only 10/21 of the captives of 1785 were still at Algiers; the others were either ransomed by the British
government (in fact 11/21 were British nationals serving on American ships) or by friends or they died
in plagues (3 of them).
303
 1. 2. 1. Algiers Relations with Europe in 1793

The circumstances of that new eruption in corsairing at a time it was on

the eve of extinction are a matter of controversy. Although interpretations of

what happened exactly diverge, the historical context, although complex,

remains the same. In 1793, France was at war with almost all the countries of

Europe and depended heavily on Algiers for wheat supplies to feed its starving

population of the Midi and invading armies in southern Europe. Britain,

leading a coalition of monarchies against the Directoire,31 attempted through its

consul Logie to persuade the Dey to suspend its wheat shipments to France but

in vain. About that circumstance, the French consul at Algiers J. A. Vallière

wrote his government: “with indignation I learned from the Dey that the

English had dared asking him to refuse us his help so that we would perish in

famine.”32 As the British consul insisted, the Dey declared steadfastly that he

would not abandon his old ally and, to the displeasure of Britain, he even

heeled another request of Vallière and concluded a peace treaty with Genoa,

the arch enemy of Algiers, to facilitate wheat deliveries.33 Meanwhile,

American exports benefited from Europe’s political and economic turmoil.

Enjoying the benefit of neutrality, the Americans expanded their share of trans-

Atlantic carrying trade and consequently re-export trade in the Mediterranean

also flourished.34 Across the Atlantic, American ships carried wheat to the

31
French revolutionary government set up after the fall of monarchy which from November 1795 to
November 1799.
32
As cited in Grammont, Histoire d’Alger, p. 348.
33
For the unrelenting British, French, and Jew machinations over the wheat issue see ibid., pp. 348-51.
34
Charles A. Keene, “American Shipping and Trade, 1798-1820: The Evidence from Leghorn.” The
Journal of Economic History, 38: 3 (Sep., 1978), pp. 681-82.
304
French northern ports of Bretagne where the demand for American grain was

as pressing as that for Algerian grain.35

So far, four major players have been identified but the picture would not

be complete should one exclude a fifth player: Portugal. In 1793, the almost

three hundred years-old war was still raging between Algiers and Portugal and

since 1786, date of the Spanish treaty with Algiers, Portugal had been

controlling the western outlet of the Gibraltar straits. In that way, Portugal

limited the access of the corsairs of Algiers to the Atlantic where its riches-

loaded vessels returning from Brazil were sailing. In the Atlantic too, American

ships were sailing in great numbers carrying wheat to France. On another scale,

the British had already failed in their attempts with the Dey to starve France but

very soon a Machiavellian plan was to see the light: they asked the Portuguese

to participate with their fleet in the war against France.36 For the Portuguese,

however, removing the fleet from the blockade meant that their ships returning

from Brazil would be exposed to corsairs’ attacks; so they accepted to join in

the war on the condition that Britain would help them negotiate a peace treaty

with Algiers.37 Logie, apparently on instructions from his government, engaged

in preliminary talks with the Dey that culminated in a one-year truce which

opened the Atlantic for Algerian cruisers. By concluding a truce on behalf of

35
Grammont, Histoire d’Alger, p. 351.
36
This allegation is based on a report from Sir Walpole, British ambassador in Lisbon, about a meeting
with Luis Pinto de Souza, Portuguese minister and secretary of state for foreign affairs (British
archives, FO 63/16). Parker, Uncle Sam in Barbary, p. 226.
37
According to the British, it was the court of Portugal which asked Britain “to procure a peace for
them with the Algerines.” SPPD, 10:305, Mr. Pinckney to the Secretary of State, November 25, 1793.
305
Portugal with Algiers, Britain might have hoped to see Algerian corsairs harass

American trade and therefore disrupt, possibly stop, wheat deliveries to France.

1. 2. 2. Diplomatic Ramifications

What were the true reasons which motivated such a diplomatic move on

the side of the British? Was it just a move to counter revolutionary France or

did the British design it as a two-fold weapon? Questions over free markets,

military posts, and boundaries had been pending since the 1783 treaty of peace

with the United States; furthermore, the Americans were providing its enemy

starving France with wheat. Did the British intend to hit two birds with the

same stone by using the Algerian corsairs? The following logic may seem to be

simple but one may not discard it: by the past, many elements indicated that

Logie had a hand in much of the troubles that happened in 1785 and 1786. In

1793, the Dey-pawn theory was always plausible. Starting from here the

sequence of events is logical: a truce with Portugal meant opening the gate of

the Atlantic for Algerian corsairs; the Atlantic is the maritime route American

ships used for selling their wheat in France; therefore unleashing Algerian

corsairs was meant for hurting American shipping and starving France at the

same time. And the trick functioned to perfection: within a month from the

signature of the truce by the Dey and delivery of passports by Logie, 10

American ships were harvested within a single cruise, the last one few days

later.

306
 At all events, American correspondence of the epoch, while infuriated

by news of capture, systematically accused the British, and particularly Logie,

for the disaster of captures; Portuguese officials were also suspected. The

American consul at Lisbon was first to pinpoint to the British:

The conduct of the British in this business leaves no room to doubt or

mistake their object, which was evidently aimed at us, and proves that
their envy, jealousy, and hatred will never be appeased, and that they
will leave nothing unattempted to effect our ruin.38

And O’Brien wrote President George Washington:

The British nation, the natural and inveterate enemies of the United
States, has brought about this truce, or half peace, for Portugal, in order
to alarm our commerce and prevent the United States from supplying
the French in their present glorious contest for liberty.39

The Portuguese government denied having any knowledge about Logie’s deal

and accepted an American request for conveying American ships.40 The escort,

however, was contrary to a provision in the truce which stipulated that Portugal

would not extent the benefits of passports to other nations not having a treaty

with Algiers and was a source of anger for the Dey who made the British

responsible for that. For the role of the British government in the truce, the

issue was more complex. Thomas Pinckney, American minister at London, had

a conversation with Lord Grenville, British Secretary of State for Foreign

38
ASP/FA, 1:296, Edward Church, Consul of the United States at Lisbon, to the Secretary of State, Oct.
12, 1793. In this letter, church also accused some Portuguese leading officials: “It is a matter of
certainty which I have received from undoubted authority, though contradicted by the minister Luis
Pinto, and at present a great secret, that one of the present Portuguese ministers is in this execrable
plot.”
39
Ibid., 1:418, O’Brien to President, November 5, 1793.
40
Ibid., 1:299, Translation of a Note from Luis Pinto de Sousa, Secretary of Foreign Affairs at Lisbon,
to Edward Church, Consul for the United States, October 22, 1793.
307
Affairs, with respect to the truce. The latter assured him that Britain “had not

the least intention or a thought of injuring” the United States and that “Mr.

Logie had been instructed to use his endeavours to effect this purpose.”

Grenville considered that the British “had done no more than their friendship

for a good ally required of them”; but he also added:

that the measure was also particularly advantageous to themselves, as

they wanted the cooperation of the Portuguese fleet to act against their
common enemy, which it was at liberty to do when no longer employed
in blocking up the Algerine fleet.41

For sure, Logie acted on instructions and knowledge of his government

but how far had he gone beyond those instructions is not clear. Humphreys

stated in the above mentioned report that Logie acted without knowledge of his

own court because “he has not received any direct official communications for

fourteen months past. This was owing to his having been recalled, and a

successor appointed for that residence.”42 This statement is literally true; Logie

was in fact recalled in 1792 but the instructions on which he was acting were

addressed to his successor Charles Mace who had been delayed by the plague

in Spain.43 Was he instructed also to issue passports? Undoubtedly, he was not

a stranger to that master strike. Philip Sloan, one of the American captives who

was at the service of the Dey, made the most damaging charge against Logie.

He claimed that he was present at some of the conversations about the truce

Logie had with the Dey and that he saw him “instructing the captains by charts

41
SPPD, 10:305, Mr. Pinckney to the Secretary of State, November 25, 1793.
42
ASP/FA, 1:297, D. Humphreys, Esq. to the Secretary of State, Oct. 7, 1793.
43
Parker, Uncle Sam in Barbary, p. 76. The American Captives informed about the arrival of Mace at
Algiers in December 1793. USDC, 10:336, December 29, 1793.
308
where they were to cruise for the American ships,” assuring them that they

would “catch a dozen of them in a month provided they would follow his

directions.”44

A correspondence from Dey Hassan Pasha to King George III dated

March 27, 1794 presented the events from an Algiers’ point of view.45 The

letter looks as if it were an ultimatum to Britain. According to the Dey, Algiers

accepted to make a truce with Portugal, on demand of the British, on the

condition that it would be followed by a peace treaty. But a Portuguese envoy

notified him that it was not accepted because it was made by the British “to

please themselves.” The Dey asserted the British did respect their engagement

and as reparation they had to open the port of Gibraltar for Algiers too or close

if for the Portuguese. The Dey also complained about some misdeeds of the

Portuguese and British cruisers that shot and damaged Algerian vessels “for

pleasure” as he reported them saying and added:

but if you say that as Christians you will Absolutely Protect them Your
Friendship becomes useless to us… and if we newly learn that the
Portuguese ships have entered Your Port We will break the Peace and
send away Your Consul.”46

As might be expected, Britain did not take the Dey’s ultimatum seriously.

Besides, the King did not reply to “several letters which Hassan Bashaw had

44
Extract from Joel Barlow’s letter of February 23, 1796 in James Monroe, The Writings of James
Monroe, Including a Collection of his Public and Private Papers and Correspondence, edited by
Stanislaus M. Hamilton, vol. 2 (New York/London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1899), p. 489.
45
The letter was reproduced for the first time in American writings in Parker’s Uncle Sam in Barbary;
Parker refers to the source of the letter as “PRO FO 95 1/3, items 192 and 193. Item 192 is a formal
Arabic document with the Dey’s Tughra, his official signature; 193 is the [English] translation.” For
the latter see Parker, Uncle Sam in Barbary, pp. 231-32; also reproduced in Appendix 8.
46
Parker, Uncle Sam in Barbary, p. 232.
309
personally written to him.”47 The British attitude played in favor of the United

States as the Dey would later tell Cathcart:

Go and tell your Ambassador that I accept his terms, more to pique the
British who are your inveterate enemies, and are on very bad terms with
me, than in consideration of the sum which I esteem no more than a
pinch of snuff.48

Joel Barlow, an American emissary who was sent later to Algiers, remarked

that there was some truth in the Dey’s declaration, because at Algiers it was

generally believed that the British opposed a peace treaty with the United

States.49 Barnby considered that to a great extent what the Dey said was

honest.50

2. A Peace Treaty at Last!

Despite that truce, capture of additional American ships, and failure of

attempts at negotiations, the prospect of a peace was not abandoned. Having all

done to sabotage the Algiers-Portugal truce, which at the end was not ratified

by Portugal, the American government once more prompted Humphreys to set

out for Algiers. To encourage him, the new Secretary of State Edmund

Randolph, who succeeded to Jefferson on his resignation in December 1793,

wrote him a letter the least that could be said about it is that it was obscure and

not correct—one may even say that it smelt intrigue; Randolph wrote:

47
Barnby, Prisoners of Algiers, p. 192.
48
Cathcart, the Captives, p. 184.
49
Frank E. Ross, “The Mission of Joseph Donaldson, Jr., to Algiers, 1795-1797,” The Journal of
Modern History, 7: 4 (Dec., 1935), p. 427.
50
Barnby, Prisoners of Algiers, p. 191.
310
 you will go over yourself [to Algiers]—the measure which
unquestionably will enable you to seize more certainly, than when at
distance, one of those moments of good humor and caprice which the
letters transmitted through you from Algiers designate as the lucky
seasons for impressing the Dey, and consider as having, unfortunately
for our country, escaped without being caught.51

Shortly after, Humphreys received instructions for negotiations from the

President. In October 1794, the Dey gave him permission to come to Algiers to

treat for peace on the same terms as those of the Dutch.52 Instead, with

complete disregard, Humphreys decided to return to the United States which he

reached late in December. In an undated letter to Humphreys which appears in

Cathcart’s Diplomatic Journal and Letter Book, the latter revealed the impact

of that decision on the Dey: “he concluded that the United States were trifling

with him as his predecessor had been trifled with in 1786 and by John Lamb

and others since.”53

2. 1. An Extraordinary Envoy at Negotiations

It was not until May 1795 that Humphreys returned to Europe with

further instructions and a commissioned agent, Joseph Donaldson, for helping

with negotiations.54 He also engaged the services of an American expatriate

and intellectual Jacobin, Joel Barlow, who would arrive at Algiers in March

51
ASP/FA, 1:528, Secretary of State to Colonel Humphreys on the Algerine Business, July 19, 1794.
52
Cathcart, “Diplomatic Journal and Letter Book,” p. 330.
53
Ibid. From the events he recounted, the letter was written after May 1796, time at which he departed
from Algiers with a letter from the Dey to President Washington.
54
ASP/FA, 1:529, Secretary of State to Colonel Humphreys.
311
1796.55 Meanwhile, Humphreys instructed Donaldson to proceed to Algiers but

this caricatured envoy preferred waiting at Alicante until the Dey sent him an

invitation “under the seal of the Regency” and Skjoldebrand paid for a vessel to

go to Alicante and bring him to Algiers. About the circumstance, Dey Hassan

Pasha said: “that is not customary, and has never been granted by this Regency

to the Ambassadors of any nation.”56 Definitely, the Dey had to deal with

capricious Americans whose conduct was unpredictable but that did not

weaken his efforts for making peace. Donaldson, nevertheless, ended by

reaching Algiers on September 3, 1795.57 Like Lamb, he was wholly

unqualified for the mission but one element played in his favor: he could rely

on Cathcart, O’Brien, and the Swedish consul.58 Those had already arranged

everything for him, including the provisions of the treaty itself; the only thing

he did was bargaining about the sum of money fixed for the treaty and value of

naval stores.59

Negotiations were short but tense; they were carried through Cathcart

who acted as a liaison between the Dey and Donaldson—the latter only met the

Dey briefly after his arrival for the presentation of his credentials and then

55
Privateer, poet, businessman, and diplomat, Barlow was perhaps the ablest of all Americans envoys
to Algiers. During the critical years of 1796 and 1797, one may credit him with saving the treaty even
though his deals were deceitful. For a portrait of Barlow see Elise Marienstras, “Joel Barlow, de
Redding (1754) a Zarnowiec (1812): rêves cosmopolitiques et cauchemars tyranniques d’un américain
de bonne volonté,” La Revue Française des Etudes Américaine, 92 :2 (2002), pp. 68-85.
56
As recorded in Cathcart, The Captives, p. 160.
57
For a full portrait of Donaldson, his mission, and evaluation see Ross, “The Mission of Joseph
Donaldson,” pp. 422-433.
58
For a summary about Cathcart’s views about American envoys to Algiers, particularly Donaldson,
see Rojas, Insults Unpunished, pp. 175-181.
59
Donaldson also enjoyed free accommodation in the newly-built house for the wife of the Dey,
including service, thus he reduced the much-feared expenses the American had dreaded since 1783; as
for food, it was supplied for free by Cathcart.
312
retired to the comfort of the house provided by the Dey.60 Donaldson was so

arrogant, avaricious, and nasty to his interlocutors (Dey, foreign diplomats, and

American captives) that at a moment negotiations reached the brink of rupture.

To his threat of departing from Algiers if the price would not be lowered to his

desire—that far, the Dey’s first proposal had already been cut to less than half--

the Dey who was exacerbated and exhausted, Cathcart recounted:

desired me to embark the Ambassador on board the vessel he came in

the next morning at daylight, and tell him to leave the Regency without
delay, as he would permit no person to remain here to trifle with him as
he had done.61

But at length an agreement was reached. To Cathcart, his long

experience and understanding of Algerian politics saved the day. The Dey,

however, was of a different opinion; he was conscious that the Americans were

deceitful or “know how to gabber” as he put it,62 but he reasoned to Cathcart

“should I now reject your terms and send your Ambassador away, your

enemies would rejoice and you would become the laughing stock of all the

Consuls and Franks in Algiers.”63 This attitude is clearly indicative of a keen

inclination of Algiers for a peace with the United States that’s why, the Dey

accepted to lower the global price for treaty and ransom from $2,247,000 to

$585,000. The agreement included too the payment of “annuity in stores” and
60
For the full account about negotiations see Cathcart, The Captives, pp. 157-95.
61
Cathcart, The Captives, p. 179. The Dey’s initial proposal amounted to $2,247,000; Donaldson
answered by the offer of $543,000 for peace and the ransom of captives. Allegedly, the reason which
incited the Dey to put the bar so high was that the Spanish consul had set him a Spanish newspaper that
calculated U.S. exports to be $28 million. For more se, Michael L. S. Kitzen, Tripoli and the United
States at War: A History of American Relations with the Barbary States, 1785-1805 (North Carolina/
London: McFarland & Company, Inc., 1993), p. 19.
62
Gabber, in Lingua Franca—that mixture of a number of Mediterranean languages—is a distortion of
the Italian word gabbare, meaning to cheat and deceive. Corré, “Glossary of Lingua Franca.”
63
Cathcart, The Captives, p. 184.
313
presents on the arrival of an Ambassador.” Consular and biennial presents were

to be paid on the same basis as Holland, Sweden, and Denmark.64 The list of

naval material was fixed and evaluated at $60,000 and consular and biennial

presents were evaluated at $17,000. The treaty was signed within the incredible

time of less than 48 hours of negotiations on September 5, 1795. Proud of

having served his country, Cathcart noted how his fellow citizen Donaldson

concluded a peace treaty with hollow words:

thus in about forty-two hours after the arrival of Mr. Donaldson, peace
was established between the Regency of Algiers and the United States
of America, to the astonishment of every person in Algiers, friends as
well as foes, by a lame old man who understood no language but his
own, without funds or credit and surrounded with enemies.65

On the spot, the treaty cost the state’s Khazna or treasury 21 guns’ salute

for the American flag and an “Algerine sabre, mounted with gold,” as gift from

the Dey to Humphreys.66 The Dey also sent a present to Donaldson which

Cathcart said it was “of no great value” but which proved to be “a fine Barbary

stallion” as a token of his friendship and esteem.67 On the long run, however,

this treaty was going to cost Algiers inestimable losses. But the most important

cost for Algiers were the years it passed struggling with the United States to

make it honor its treaty.

64
Cathcart, The Captives, p. 184-85.
65
Ibid., p. 188.
66
ASP/FA, 1:530, Mr. Skjoldebrand to Colonel Humphries, 10th September, 1795. The American
government reciprocated with, as wrote Parker, “two tea sets with golden spoons. One wonders what
the Dey would have done with a tea set.” Parker, Uncle Sam in Barbary, p. 253.
67
Parker, Uncle Sam in Barbary, p. 102. Later, Joel Barlow, another American emissary to Algiers was
given two of those fine horses, Milton Cantor, “A Connecticut Yankee in a Barbary Court: Joel
Barlow’s Algerian Letters to his Wife,” The William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd Series, 19: 1 (Jan., 1962),
letter to his wife, Dec. 30, 1796, p. 108.
314
 On the whole, even though the so much dreaded and sought treaty was

concluded, Donaldson made a poor impression on the Regency’s officials,

American captives, and foreign consuls alike. On the conclusion of the treaty,

the Dey offered Donaldson to release his countrymen from work at the Marine,

pending the arrival of the ransom money, on the condition that he had to

guarantee their conduct— drunkenness, insults, and violence against Turks.

Curious as it was, Donaldson declined taking responsibility for his countrymen

specifying that “he did not wish to take them from the Marine,” and added that

“he did not care if they all turned Moors.”68 The American captives were

infuriated by his conduct and besieged his residence, implored him to change

his mind; when he would not, they “cursed him for a hard-hearted, hickory-

faced old devil.”69 On a second occasion, they took possession of his residence

saying that it was public property and “that they had as much right to stay in it

as he had, and absolutely refused to go any more to work in the Marine.”70

Donaldson asked for the help of the Turks who succeeded in making the

maddened seamen go away.

A common explanation for Donaldson’s objection to release American

captives immediately was that he was reluctant to pay extra money for their

maintenance. So, like Jefferson, what counted more for him was expense. The

‘sufferings of enslaved captives’ were only destined for domestic consumption

68
Cathcart, The Captives, p. 187.
69
Barnby, Prisoners of Algiers, p. 189-190 based on the account of John Foss, one of the captives, A
Journal of the Captivity and Sufferings of John Foss several Years a Prisoner in Algiers, (1798);
Cathcart, The Captives, pp. 233, 241
70
Ibid.
315
but diplomatically they were considered as a financial burden on the state.71

Perhaps also Donaldson declined the offer of the Dey because he saw that his

countrymen behaved more as free men than as captives or slaves; in all cases,

they were not the kind of slaves he was accustomed to see in his own country.

A product of the ideology of his time, his attitude should not be considered as

shocking: when the Dey sent him John Foss and two other captives to serve as

his personal domestics he told them that he still considered them as slaves and

asked them to behave as such!72 Skjoldebrand after suffering his terrorization

and suspicions—he was accused of spying for the Dey—declared that

Donaldson was “wholly unqualified for the business he was sent on; that he

hardly thought such another original could be found in the United States.”73

2. 2. A Treaty of Peace and Amity, 1795

The treaty by itself is a subject matter for legal studies;74 nonetheless,

few remarks should be made here: first, Turkish was the first language of the

treaty but there exists an original English translation (in four original copies)

which Cathcart claimed he had made:

71
On the return of captives, Congress fathered the publication of the journal of John Foss which he
held at Algiers. In its second edition, Foss embellished the original narrative thus increasing the
original text from 80 pages to 190 pages. Daniel Williams, “White Slaves, African Masters:
An Anthology of American Barbary Captivity Narratives,” Early American Literature, 36: 2 (Mar.
2001), p. 317.
72
Barnby, Prisoners of Algiers, p. 190.
73
Naval Documents Related to the United States Wars with the Barbary Powers, edited by Dudley
Knox, vol. 1 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1939-44), 1:129, Barlow to Humphreys,
Apr. 3rd, 1796; also Ross, “The Mission of Joseph Donaldson,” p. 433. (Hereafter cited as NDBW).
74
For the full English version of the treaty see The Public Statutes at Large of the United States of
America, from the Organization of Government in 1789 to March 3, 1845, edited by Richard Peters,
vol. VIII (Boston, MA: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1867), pp. 133-137. (Hereafter cited as
SaL). It is mentioned on page 137 that the original treaty was in Arabic which is incorrect. See also
Appendix 9.
316
 I received the treaty in Turkish from the Secretary of State, and with the
translation in English which was made and written by me, and collated
with the original in twenty-three articles, and the four passports before
mentioned, I took to Mr. Donaldson.75

Second, an English translation of the Turkish text of the treaty was made in

1930 by the orientalist and Turkish scholars J. H. Kramers and Dr. C. Snouck

Hurgronje. The 1930 translation reveals a considerable difference from the

1795 English translation of the Turkish text.76 Third, there exists an account of

the negotiations, entitled “Narrative of the proceedings of Joseph Donaldson

Esqe” written by O’Brien in which he talked about himself more than about the

treaty.77 Donaldson also reported about negotiations but his report dated

September 7, 1795, “is somewhat confused and in certain respects obscure.”78

He mentioned that the text was in Turkish and Cathcart “returned to me with

Articles of a Treaty in Turkish & then Englished, which Proves to be that of the

Sweedes.”79 Of the three accounts so far mentioned, the most complete and

perhaps the most accurate is that of Cathcart because its traces negotiations

from an insider’s point of view. Fourth, there is a consensus among legal

historians, and historians in general, that the treaty was a copy of the Swedish

75
Cathcart, The Captives, p. 191. The full account of the negotiations can be found in pp. 158-95.
76
One may seek to compare the two translations: original (1795) and that of 1930; for the latter see
Hunter Miller, ed., Treaties and other International Acts of the United States of America, vol. 2: 1776-
1818 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1931), (Accessed 8 March 2008), available at
The Avalon Project at Yale Law School, http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary.htm#r
77
O’Brien met the Dey for the first time on September 11, 1795—over 10 years after his captivity—
about which Cathcart said it was his “political birthday”; therefore he could not have been better placed
than Cathcart for giving an account. For O’Brien’s meeting with the Dey see Allison, The Crescent
Obscured, p. 164.
78
Miller, ed., Treaties of the United States.
79
As quoted in ibid.
317
Treaty of Peace and Commerce with Algiers.80 The Swedish treaty in question

was that of 1792 which was a renewal, with additions, of the first treaty of

1729.81 Actually, “the substance of each of the respective twenty-two articles

of the Swedish and American treaties is in general similar” but not identical.82

Accordingly, the treaty was in conformity with the diplomatic practice so far

adopted by all European powers. Article XXII, however, contains a statement

which “was the only item that resulted from the negotiations.”83 That statement

deserves full citation because it was the pillar which supported Algerian-

American diplomatic relations from the signature of the treaty until 1812, time

at which the American consul Tobias Lear at Algiers was ordered to leave the

country:

Joseph Donaldson … agreed with Hassan Bashaw Dey of Algiers to

keep the Articles Contained in this Treaty Sacred and inviolable which
we the Dey & Divan Promise to Observe on Consideration of the United
States Paying annually the Value of twelve thousand Algerine Sequins
in Maritime Stores.84

Except for those annual payments in stores, which the Americans call

‘tribute’ in a pejorative sense, no other parts of the financial agreement were

written in the Treaty—including the ransom for the liberation of captives and

customary presents. That did not pass unnoticed for watchful Americans at

home. About the treaty, Madison wrote James Monroe, the American minister

at Paris, that it “is stamped with folly, and the most culpable Irregularities;”

80
Ross, “The Mission of Joseph Donaldson,” p. 427; Barnby, Prisoners of Algiers, p. 193.
81
For the treaty of 1729 with Sweden see Muller, Consuls, Corsairs, and Commerce, pp. 58-60, 144-
146.
82
Miller, ed., Treaties of the United States; Parker, Uncle Sam in Barbary, p. 105.
83
Ross, “The Mission of Joseph Donaldson,” p. 427.
84
SaL, 8:137.
318
and to Jefferson he wrote that it “has some curious features.”85 It is however

known from a letter of Randolph to Humphreys that President Washington

gave instructions for redeeming the captives at a “limit of three thousand

dollars per man”—we are here far away from Jefferson’s $100-200 apiece

offered in 1786—but this appears nowhere in the treaty.86 The customary

presents were not included either, they were counted as regalian rights, or

privileges attached to office, and were one of two points the Dey insisted on—

besides naval material. Those included a presents valued at $20,000 on the

sending of a new consul and biennial presents to officers of government

estimated at $17,000.87 For insignificant annuities in naval stores, presents on

arrival of a new ambassador, and biennial presents Algiers opened its markets

and guaranteed the interests of an American Mediterranean trade that,

according to O’Brien, was making profits of $1.5 million a year.88 Overall, the

document was most favorable for the United States; one may even affirm that it

was a one-sided treaty. Apart from the above mentioned payments that were

not even written in the treaty and which later became a matter of controversy

and cheating, Algiers had all to lose by the terms of treaty.

A quick look at the provisions of the treaty shows that nineteen out of

the twenty-two articles did not provide for reciprocity:89 except from articles 3,

4 and 19 which provided for immunity from capture on presentation of a

85
LWJM, 2:82, To James Monroe, Feby 26, 1796 and ibid, 2:85, To Thomas Jefferson, Feb. 29, 1796
respectively.
86
ASP/FA, 1:529, Secretary of State to Colonel Humphreys, August 25, 1794.
87
Bassett, Principles of American Diplomacy, p. 108; ASP/FA, 3:33.
88
As cited in Allison, The Crescent Obscured, p. 160.
89
These remarks are based on the original translation of 1795. Wherever flagrant disparities appear
between the original translation and that of 1830, parentheses are used for the purpose.
319
passport issued by the United States for both signatories, the remaining articles

secured free trade and navigation for American citizens only.90 Among them

many were restrictive for Algiers while advantageous for Americans: article 7

prohibited Algiers from giving or selling men-of-war to nations in war with the

United States (1830: to be equipped from countries at war with the ruler of

America); articles 8, 9, 10, and 12 permitted American citizens to sell their

prizes at Algiers even if they were not in possession of a passport without

paying duties and denied to other nations at war with the United States to sell

American captured ships at Algiers. More privileges were provided by article

11 including “presents of Provisions & Refreshments Gratis” were to be given

for visiting American warships (1830: no such provision were inscribed) and

reiterated in article 20 “the Dey will Send fresh Provisions on board as is

Customary, Gratis.”91

It remains to say that the treaty was more tolerant about slavery since

article 11 required that escaping slaves to visiting warships “shall be

immediately returned [and] no excuse shall be made.”92 Finally, one may

certainly remember Lady Temple’s “box of tea and a piece of silk” brought

90
As an example of disparities between the 1795 original translation and that of 1830 is this statement
in article 4: 1795, Algerine cruiser must have “passport and Certificate from the Consul of the United
States of North America resident in this Regency”; 1830, Algerian cruisers must be “in possession of a
passport delivered by the ruler of Algiers or the American Consul residing in Algiers.”
91
Article 20 provided also for a salute “with twenty one Guns” for American warships on anchorage at
Algiers. One may not understand why there was so much fuss about the naval stores since powder was
used for saluting the incessant ballet of their warships.
92
The irony of history had made it that at about the same time the treaty was debated in Congress for
appropriations and ratification and detailed in the newspapers where article 11 did not pass unnoticed,
Ona—one of the best nine slaves George Washington took with him to Philadelphia when he became
president—escaped from the executive mansion. Washington sent agents to seize and shackle her but
the task proved difficult without raising public indignation as she was in free territory (New
Hampshire). Nine months later, “another part of [his] human property declared his independence” and
outwitted all attempts to capture him; he was no more than his valuable cook Hercules. For both
anecdotes see Nash, The Forgotten Fifth, pp. 62-67.
320
from China for which Lord Temple received the correction of a lawyer; for the

American consuls at Algiers there would be no such concern because article 20

exempted them from paying duties: “the Consul… shall not be required to Pay

duty for any thing he brings from a foreign Country.” In sum, the treaty was a

disaster for Algiers.

By insisting on stores and money aspects, the Dey seemed not to give

importance to the provisions of the treaty; his khodjas wrote the treaty in

Turkish but Cathcart and Skjoldebrand adopted the Swedish treaty of 1729; the

disparities between the two translations of the treaty are enormous. Probably,

the Dey considered that as long as the Americans paid him respect (through

presents) and provided him with material for his corsairs, on which he could

rely, he had nothing to fear from them. And that was fatal strategy. Relying on

corsairs that could not even supply their captured vessels with ammunitions

and cordages was certainly a bad idea.93 And the Americans were conscious

about that.

A report communicated to the House of Representatives on January 20,

1794 clearly indicated the bad condition of the “naval force of the Algerines”

and expressed opinion that “six ships… will be sufficient to protect the

Commerce of the United States against the Algerine corsairs.”94 In March

1794, Congress had passed ‘An act to provide a naval armament,’ commonly

93
As indication of Algiers’ needs in naval material see Cathcart, “Diplomatic Journal and Letter
Book,” pp. 398-99; also Appendix 10B.
94
American State Papers, Class VI: Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the
United States: Naval Affairs. 1794-1825, edited by Lowrie and Clarke (Washington, D.C.: Gales and
Seaton, 1832-1861), 1:395, Naval Force against Algiers, Jan. 20, 1794. (Hereafter cited as ASP/NA).
Available at http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwdg.html
321
known as the Naval Act of 1794, which launched a large shipbuilding program

partly because of the captures of October-November 1793 and partly because

of French and British threats.95 The preamble to the act clearly stated that

Algerian actions, present and future, were the motivations for the building a

navy: “Whereas, the depredation committed by the Algerine corsairs on the

commerce of the United States, render it necessary that a naval force should be

provided for its protection….”96 Relations with Algiers then were so decisive

an issue in American foreign relations that section 9 provided for the

suspension of the Act upon successful negotiations of peace with Algiers: “that

if a peace shall take place between the United States and the Regency of

Algiers, that no further proceedings be had under this act.”97 The necessity for

that condition could be understood especially if one knows that over the

creation of a navy Congress split between two factions: navalists who favored

it and anti-navalists who opposed them and the warlike debate ended in section

9 as a compromise for the passage of the act. Consequently, merely less than

seven years after Algiers the scapegoat gave the United States its Constitution

in a climate of calculated psychoses, it was used again as a solid argument for

arming it with a navy at a time America’s real enemies were elsewhere and

certainly not a friendly and ignorant Dey who unconsciously opened the gates

for incalculable American privileges and subsequently gunboats.

95
For the circumstances and provisions of the Naval act, 1794, see Marshall Smelser, “The Passage of
the Naval Act of 1794,” Military Affairs, 22: 1 (Spring 1958), pp. 1-12.
96
Adam Seybert, Statistical Annals, 1789-1818 (Philadelphia: Thomas Dobson & Son, 1818), p. 635;
for the use of ‘Algerine piracy’ as argument for the creation of a navy see Smelser, “Passage of the
Naval Act,” pp. 8-12.
97
CMPP, 1:193, George Washington: Special Messages, March 15, 1796.
322
3. A Fragile Peace: the Treaty of 1795 at Stake

3. 1. Insatiable Greed

Diplomatic relations between Algiers and the United States during the

period 1795-1812 is a long saga of American promises, lies, cheating, and

duplicity about payment and delivery of stores. In the long run, as the

American did not respect the agreed-on terms, the Deys—five of them ruled

during that period—lost patience, warned, threatened, at times repudiated the

treaty then backed up, and even went as far as to declare war on the United

States but the Americans remained unmovable. Cash payments were delayed;

stores were not partly-provided until some three years later after the treaty was

signed; and quarrels over quality, quantity, and delays became recurrent

themes. Meanwhile, American Mediterranean trade was expanding and making

more profits; American consuls and envoys at Algiers leagued with Jews in a

policy of cheating on the Deys; they also leagued with other Americans

representatives at European courts in the business of exporting Algerian wheat

even before the ink of the treaty was dry.

Lust for Indian lands, lust for Barbary trade, lust for profits; truly,

American greed is difficult to satisfy. Nothing seemed to be capable of

stopping Americans, merchants and diplomats alike, from rushing to the

Barbary Coast on the first rumor that a peace was concluded with Algiers.

Many ships loaded with salted fish (cod) were waiting at Gibraltar and at least

one, the Elisa, entered the Mediterranean before peace was secured. Barlow

complained about American shippers who according to him “would sail into
323
the mouth of hell, if the Devil was to turn Catholic so as to make a good market

for codfish” as he wrote James Monroe on Aug 27, 1796.98 The diplomats were

not at rest of the “madness and sinful temerity” of American shippers.99 With

the first news of a treaty being concluded, the American consul at Alicante,

probably on instructions from Donaldson, freighted a ship and dispatched it to

Algiers in order to load it with wheat.100 Donaldson, who concluded a treaty

with hollow words, wanted to make solid profits immediately. At a time the

treaty was unsure, pending the arrival of payments, he asked the Dey for a

permit to load a cargo of wheat which of course was refused to him: “settle the

affairs of your nation first, and then it will be time enough to talk about

commercial affairs” the Dey told Cathcart and added for the intention of

Donaldson: “Tell him we have no wheat to spare, when we have any we will let
101
him have it.” Repelled by the Dey, the ship nonetheless sailed to Oran

where the American representatives “made a contract with the Bacries for a

cargo of grain.”102

3. 2. Perfidious Americans

Financing the treaty proved to be an even more complex and hardy task

than peace itself. A Message from the President of the United States to

Congress Relative to Algiers dated January 9, 1797 detailed the payment

98
Cantor, “A Connecticut Yankee in a Barbary Court,” p. 103.
99
Ibid., p. 102.
100
This activity was widely spread among consuls who also acted for their personal account as
merchants. Because of their meager revenues, they engage in export activities hence the importance of
obtaining the favor of the Deys through presents and intrigues.
101
Cathcart, The Captives, p. 224.
102
Ibid.; also see Cathcart to O’Brien, October 25, 1796 in Cathcart, “Diplomatic Journal and Letter
Book,” pp. 354-55.
324
agreement with Algiers.103 Initially, Donaldson “engaged to make the payments

agreed on in three or four months.”104 For the purpose, O’Brien was released,

given a passport, the yatagan and many letters for Humphreys, and a copy of

the treaty for ratification. He sailed from Algiers on September 12, 1795 for

Alicante. The search for money took him to Lisbon, London, Lisbon again,

Livorno, Lisbon again, Philadelphia, Lisbon again, and Tripoli before finally

returning to Algiers on October 1, 1796 with $200,000!105 Meanwhile, at the

term of four months, the Dey grew uneasy. He summoned Donaldson and

threatened to repudiate the treaty if payments were not made. Nonetheless he

granted another three months (up to April 8) for the USA to fulfill its

agreement.106 Another emissary, Sloan, was dispatched for Lisbon early in

January 1796 for the same purpose. After long vicissitudes, the latter returned

to Algiers after about three months empty-handed.107

Meanwhile, Barlow reached Algiers early in March 1796 with presents

which the Dey refused to accept on the basis that payments were not made yet

and therefore the treaty was unsure.108 He also rejected a demand for an

audience which was generally imputed to the commencement of Ramadan. On

103
ASP/FA, 1:553-58, Message from the President of the United States to Congress Relative to Algiers,
Jan. 9, 1797.
104
Ibid., 1:553, Report of the Secretary of State, Jan. 6, 1797.
105
The odyssey which surrounded the search of money for the treaty resulted from the general warfare
which set Europe afire following the French Revolution.
106
ASP/FA, 1:554, Report of the Secretary of State, Jan. 6, 1797.
107
Sloan to Cathcart, March 1, 1795 in Cathcart, “Diplomatic Journal and Letter Book,” p. 373.
108
Barlow held a hostile view towards Algiers and all that was connected to it—like all Americans
indeed—and more. Describing his voyage he wrote: “after we had been cast about [for three days from
heaven to hell, it drove us to a port which certainly belongs to neither, since they are not men who
inhabit it. This port is called Algiers… it is doubtless, in all respects, the most detestable place one can
imagine.” Cantor, “A Connecticut Yankee,” p. 95. For more of the sort see letters to his wife written
from Algiers, pp. 95-109. A full account about Barlow’s mission at Algiers can be found in Milton
Cantor, “Joel Barlow’s Mission to Algiers,” Historian, 25: 2 (1963), pp. 172-194.
325
April 3, the Dey announced that, as agreed on, after one week, the American

emissaries had to leave the country and within one month from then, if the

stipulated sums were not paid the treaty should be terminated.109 But after long

negotiations, via Bacri who was promised a commission of $18,000, a

compromise was reached: the USA was to provide Algiers with a 36 guns-

frigate as compensation for an extra three months’ delay.110 The day after the

frigate agreement was made Donaldson sailed to Livorno where after long and

complex financial deals with a branch of the Baring financial house of London

and the Jew financial houses, which were not without difficulties, he could

obtain the value of $100,000 in gold.111 Eventually, he could arrange for the

shipment of the bullions which reached Algiers in January 1797.112 That

permitted too the payment of the $20,000 which he borrowed from Bacri for

the presents he distributed at the signature of the treaty. Meanwhile at Algiers,

other developments occurred.

The agreement for the frigate was confirmed by the American president

and appropriations ($45,000) voted by the House of Representatives; yet, there

was much opposition to the agreement and reluctance to build the frigate that

Washington wrote the Secretary of War urging compliance:

109
ASP/FA, 1:554, Joel Barlow and Joseph Donaldson, Jun. to David Humphreys , Esq., American
Minister, Lisbon, April 5th, 1796.
110
ASP/FA, 1:554, Joel Barlow and Joseph Donaldson, Jun. to David Humphreys , Esq., American
Minister, Lisbon, April 5th, 1796. The emissaries estimated the frigate at 45,000 and explained also that
“this way a saving may be made of about 10,000 dollars.” But barely 9 months later, the Secretary of
State in his report put the price at $99,727 (more than the double).
111
His presence coincided with the invasion of Livorno by Napoleon and blockade of the city by the
British; so he could not get out the bullions easily. For a full report about financial transactions see
ASP/FA, 1:556-58, Statement of Messrs. Baring and Co., August 29, 1796.
112
For details about the Livorno transactions see Joshua E. London, Victory in Tripoli: How America’s
War with the Barbary Pirates Established the U.S. Navy and Built a Nation (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc., 2005), p. 44; Parker, Uncle Sam in Barbary, p. 117.
326
 That no step yet should have been taken to carry this measure into
vigorous execution, and that it should be asked, nearly six weeks after it
had been resolved to comply with the Dey’s request, and an actual
stipulation of our agent or agents there, by what department it is to be
carried into effect, is, on account of the delay which has been
occasioned, extremely unpleasant. 113

In January 1797 the Secretary of State informed Congress that “the frigate is

now building in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, and is expected to be finished in

the spring.”114 It was delivered as the Crescent in January 1798.115 About the

frigate’s later condition O’Brien wrote in March 1800 that it was decaying: “it

[dry rot] is visible to me but I am in the hopes that this year she will be taken

by the Portuguese, if so it will be rendering the United States a service and

saving much difficulties.”116 Needless to say that once more the Americans had

abused the Dey.

Furthermore, the liberation of the prisoners was obtained by a hideous

machination between Barlow and Bacri, a machination “worthy of the best

tradition of Yankee traders.”117 The operation consisted of paying the Dey with

his own money; it occurred in July 1786 after a new French consul was

dispatched by the Directoire to Algiers. Against a handful of presents, the latter

obtained a loan of $200,000 from the Regency’s treasury which he deposited in

the banking house of Bacri. Soon after, Barlow struck a deal with Bacri to use

113
WGW, 13:240-42, To James McHenry, Secretary of War, 13 July, 1796. More documents showing
the construction, armament, and delivery of the frigate can be found in Charles W. Upham, The Life of
Timothy Pickering, vol. 3 (Boston: Little, Brown, And Company, 1873), pp. 270-77.
114
ASP/FA, 1:554, Report of the Secretary of State, January 6, 1797.
115
For more about the frigate deal see Glenn Tucker, Dawn Like Thunder: The Barbary Wars and the
Birth of the U.S. Navy (Indianapolis/ New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1963), pp. 100-03;
Parker, Uncle Sam in Barbary, pp. 112, 256.
116
NDBW, 1:351, O’Brien to Secretary of State, March 17, 1800.
117
Cantor, “Barlow’s Mission,” p. 181.
327
that money for redeeming American prisoners against a commission of

$40,000.118 The redemption money was paid on July 11, 1796 and the prisoners

were released and sailed from Algiers the following day. At about the same

time the prisoners were leaving, Barlow wrote a long letter to Timothy

Pickering, the new Secretary of State, in which he described how he had

arranged the release despite the fact that his government had sent him no

funds.119 The Dey would learn about it soon after the prisoners sailed from

Algiers and obviously he was not happy.120 For President Washington, the

ratification of the treaty and “the actual liberation of all our citizens, who were

prisoners in Algiers, is itself an earnest of a satisfactory termination of the

whole negotiation”121 but that satisfaction could not be said to extend to

Algiers; its troubles with the United States had just started.

Early in May, Cathcart was given permission to leave for the United

States with a letter from the Dey to Washington. Briefly, the letter said that

eight months had elapsed since the treaty was signed without a single article of

the agreement had been complied with and that Cathcart was dispatched “with

a note of such articles as are required in this Regency.” The ‘note’ was in fact a

long list of naval materials which indicates how Algiers was dependent on

foreign supplies for the armament of its corsairs.122 Cathcart had written that

the initiative came from the Dey who told him that the reason for his decision

118
For a detailed description of the deal see ibid., pp. 180-82; Barnby, Prisoners of Algiers, pp. 283-85;
and Parker, Uncle Sam in Barbary, pp. 120-21, 255.
119
NDBW, 1:164-66, Barlow to Secretary of State, July 12, 1796.
120
Parker, Uncle Sam in Barbary, p. 121.
121
WGW, 13: 346-47, Speech to both Houses of Congress, December 7th, I796.
122
For the letter of the Dey and list of demands see Cathcart, “Diplomatic Journal and Letter Book,”
pp. 400 and 398-99 respectively. They are reproduced in Appendix 10.
328
to send him to the United States was that the Regency had so often been abused

by the agents of the United States that “he had no confidence in their promises”

and that “he did not believe that the United States would satisfy them [his

specifications of the frigate].”123 Today, it is well known from the above-

mentioned letter Barlow wrote to Pickering that Cathcart’s “departure was the

result of a Machiavellian plot by Barlow” who considered him as “an irritant in

the peace process,” a plot which he carried with the help of Bacri.124 The

departure of Cathcart was, once more, one of those many deceitful stratagems

Barlow used to cover up on the never-ending delays on the part of the United

States in honoring its financial pledges:

I thought it probable that if he [the Dey] could be engaged, as from his

own mere motion, to send this man [Cathcart] to America on the subject
of the peace presents and annual tribute it would give him a new turn to
his contemplations. He would be looking to America for answers and
arrivals, instead of counting the days in which he was looking for me for
money…125

As for the plot to send Cathcart away, he wrote:

The Jew [Bacri] hated Cathcart and wished him away. This was
sufficient for the Jew. And I engaged him to hint the matter to the Dey
in such a manner as that he should conceive the project to be his own. …
The plan was properly managed at that time, and Cathcart was sent …
without expense to the U.S.126

With Cathcart who so far acted as a fair broker between the Dey and the

American agents out of the frame, Barlow gave full liberty to what the Dey

123
Cathcart, The Captives, pp. 264-65.
124
Parker, Uncle Sam in Barbary, p. 114-15; Barnby, Prisoners of Algiers, pp. 276-79. About Barlow’s
deed, Parker commented: for “dispens[ing] with the services of the most knowledgeable American in
Algiers,” meaning Cathcart, a modern management expert might give Barlow a D, or may be an F.”
125
NDBW, 1:165, Barlow to Secretary of State, July 12, 1796.
126
Ibid.
329
called a ‘string of lies.’ Many Barlow letters reflect the Dey’s growing

suspicions and lack of confidence in American agents and government

especially if one knows that the three/four months pledge dragged on for over a

year without payments honoring the treaty being made. In a letter dated

October 18, 1796 he wrote to Pickering, Barlow described the ‘impatience’ of

the Dey who, according to him stated:

I would wait no longer. I have been amused all year by a string of lies. It
is possible that your money has been dancing all over Europe for a year
and has happened to alight at last at Leghorn just at the moment when
the English were to blockade that port? No—you either have no money
in Europe or you never intend to pay it.127

When Barlow pleaded for patience, the Dey allegedly answered:

I have more patience than God. I have resisted all your enemies who
have tried to overturn your peace. My heart has struggled against my
judgement. I wished to think you honest, but I begin to think you the
most faithless nation among all the infidels. ….128

The accounts are too long to detail here but, to make a long story short,

the Americans have since claimed that they had paid close to one million

dollars for the treaty (Tables 7 & 8). But by their own records, they only paid

half that sum to the Dey of which $200,000 were treacherously procured from

the Regency’s treasury.129 The same may also be said of the annual payments

(tribute) fixed by the treaty in the form of naval stores. When Barlow left

Algiers in July 1797, not the slightest material was delivered. Obviously, the

127
NDBW, 1:199, Barlow to Secretary of State, October 18, 1796.
128
Ibid.; also Cantor, “Barlow’s Mission,” p. 187; Barnby, Prisoners of Algiers, p. 293.
129
Recent research has revealed that consular correspondence does not mention “any of these amounts
paid, either in cash or in kind, nor is there any indication when and how the $200,000 was repaid to the
Bakris.” Parker, Uncle Sam in Barbary, p. 256.
330
Dey was irritated and grew impatient and menacing but Barlow knew it all:

there was not much the Dey could do. In the spring of 1797, Barlow went to

see the Dey. On the occasion, he drew up this portrait of the Dey:

He had been waiting with the impatience of a petulant child all winter;
and after the beginning of April it became impossible to speak to him
with safety on any subject. He had become so furious that I went to him
on 20 of May to try to soften him.… I told him that the vessel [he
pretended that a vessel was bound for Algiers with the stores] must
either be lost at sea or stopped by some of the belligerent powers. Says
he “You are a liar and your government is a liar.130

As the Dey reiterated his threat to repudiate the treaty, Barlow wrote: “it has

been too often repeated to excite alarm.”131 At the end, what comes out of this

chronology of financial aspects pertaining to the treaty is that the United States

respected neither the periods prescribed for payment nor the amounts due for

payment as fixed by the agreement of September 1795. Yet, the treaty has ever

since been decried as having cost a million dollars; not a single American

would deviate from the ‘one million’ argument.132 As one may probably notice

from the tables below, the cost also included the ransom of captives,

commissions to the Jew broker, presents, payments made to Humphreys and

O’Brien, freight, and a frigate and stores that were overestimated. Moreover,

the frigate was handed over with a delay of over a year. As for the stores, they

were always in arrears and the first shipment did not arrive until January 1798.

Finally, the agreed on payment of $585,000 was not fully honored, let alone the

$200,000 treacherously obtained from the treasury of the regency.

130
NDBW, 1:209, Barlow to U.S. Minister to Paris, Sept. 6, 1797. For more see Kitzen, Tripoli and the
United States, p. 22.
131
Ibid.
132
See as an example London, Victory in Tripoli, p. 43.
331
Table 7: Estimated Cost of the Treaty of 1795

According to the American Department of Treasury, as of Jan. 4, 1797, the

expenses of carrying the treaty into effect were estimated as follows:

Payments stipulated at the time of closing the treaty to the dey, $525,500
his officers, and the treasury, for the redemption of the captives

To which are to be added agreeably to Mr. Donaldson’s $27,000

calculation: For percentage on the captives

Peace presents, consular presents, $60,000

Commissions to the Jew broker, and presents to principals, &c. $30,000

Amount of money to be paid in Algiers $642,500

Payments made to col. Humphreys, £3,471

Payment to captain O’Brien. £31

Total in £ and $ £3,502 =

$l5,564 44

The naval stores stipulated by Mr. Donaldson were estimated at $124.413

$57,000, but which, agreeably to his enumeration of the articles,
will cost agreeably to the estimate of the purveyor (Table 8)

The freight of the said stores is computed at $50,000

The expense of the frigate lately promised, agreeably to the $99,727

estimate of the Secretary at War, will be

The whole expense of fulfilling the treaty, according to this $992,463 25

estimate, therefore is

Source: Adapted from SPPD, 10:454-55, Report of the President of the United States
to Congress Relative to Algiers, Jan. 9, 1797, Report of the Secretary of the
Treasury, January 4, 1797.

332
Table 8: Estimated Cost of the Annuities in Naval Stores

According to the American Department of Treasury, as of 29 December 1796,

the estimation of the probable cost of Articles for the Algiers’ treaty were:

500 barrels of powder, at 13 l. £7.500

60 tons of lead, at 40 l. 2,640
20,000 cannon ball, at 276 l. 2,760
5,000 double headed shot 690
200 pieces of canvas 1,100
2,000 gun barrels 2,000
50 masts, at 100 5,000
100 spars, at 40 l. 4,000
10 cables and cordage,45 tons, at 135 l. 10,575
3,000 pine and oak plank, 6 inches thick, 50 feet long 9,000
200 ps. scantlin 540
200 barrels tar 200
100 barrels pitch 150
10 cannon, &c. 500
Total in £ 46,655
Equal to (in $) 124,413

Source: Adapted from SPPD, 10:456, Report of the Secretary of the Treasury,
January 4, 1797.

Conclusion

Establishing diplomatic relations with the United States proved to be a

long and thorny issue. The difficulties arose from the United States which,

while transiting to a new system of government, had to make new adjustments

and from the European countries which were opposed to the conclusion of a

peace treaty and attempted to prevent it. Algiers’ corsairing diplomacy did not

facilitate it either. Despite a major crisis in 1793 that resulted from the capture

of more American ships, negotiations could be started and a peace treaty was
333
concluded rapidly. The treaty granted enormous privileges to the United States

in terms of navigation and markets but a number of financial elements that

were agreed on during negotiations, and which were of paramount importance

to Algiers, were not written in it. Although the American negotiators promised

payments in fixed limits of time, those were never respected, a fact which

caused uneasiness and distrust of Americans at Algiers.

On his side, the Dey knew that he was dealing with untrustworthy

partners but he had given his word and that was sacred. He was of the old

school which his ancestors the jihadist Turk corsairs had founded about three

hundred years before and which had not evolved since. Cathcart wrote proudly

about the accomplishments his compatriot made with hollow words but the

words of the Dey were as solid as bullion as Barnby wrote: “at this period in

Europe a bond or promise that was considered to be certain and reliable was

said to be as good as the word of a Turk.”133

Dey Hassan Pasha died in 1798 and four other Deys succeeded to him

and died without having the satisfaction of even sensing an honorable conduct

on the side of the United States. The latter had never respected its

engagements; consequently, it put Algiers in a position of repudiating the treaty

and expelling the American consul in 1812. The Americans decried Algiers’

move as aggression against the United States and sent their fleet threatening at

the very gates of Algiers: that was the beginning of American gunboat

diplomacy.

133
Barnby, Prisoners of Algiers, p. 193.
334
 CHAPTER VIII

The Advent of Gunboat Diplomacy,

1798-1816

This treaty, I flatter myself will be considered honorable to the United

States, particularly when we compare the small force employed on this
occasion with the formidable expeditions which have often, and without
success, been sent against Algiers. It has been dictated at the mouth of
the cannon; and I beg you leave to express to you my opinion, that the
presence of a respectable naval force in this sea will be the only certain
guarantee of its observance.1

Stephen Decatur (1815)

Introduction

Formally, differences between Algiers and the United States were

settled and relations were well defined by the treaty of 1795. Actually, as the

circumstances which immediately followed the signature of the treaty

demonstrated, they were far from being so. While the Americans were plainly

satisfied by the terms of the treaty, the Deys were to endure an almost two-

decade long period during which the United States consistently failed to abide

by the terms of the treaty. That line of conduct in American foreign policy was

1
ASP/NA, 1:396, Naval Operation against the Barbary Powers in 1815, Stephen Decatur to Secretary
of the Navy, July 5, 1815.
335
the source of much dissatisfaction at Algiers and resulted in a string of events

which eventually culminated in the naval encounter of June 1815 in which Rais

Hamidou, Admiral of the Algerian fleet and Algiers’ foremost corsair, was

killed. From then until December 1816, the United States, along with Great

Britain and the Netherlands, would take turns sending fleets to Algiers either in

a mere show of naval might for the sake of enhancing already-obtained

privileges at Algiers or imposing new treaties on the basis of more favorable

terms—as was the case of the USA—or else, alleging recommendations of the

Congress of Vienna, 1815, for pouring a torrent of cannon-balls and incendiary

boats on the city of Algiers in the name of slave trade.

For the United States, those events, known also as the Second Barbary

War, 1815-1816, were one of the turning-points in its foreign policy in

particular and its history in general. A look at American foreign policy in

connection with developments in relations with Algiers during the period 1798-

1816 would probably help understand how Algiers was manipulated, once

more, towards the fulfillment of well-defined objectives. If the crisis of 1785-

86 was used to give the United States a constitution and that of 1793 was

exploited to arm it with a navy, the diplomatic and naval tensions that

characterized relations at the opening decades of the 19th century served

primarily to cloak its overseas expansionism, namely economic expansionism

and naval presence in the Mediterranean Sea. That was the beginning of

‘gunboat diplomacy’, the forerunner of Rooseveltian ‘big stick diplomacy’,

which opened an era of American imperialism.

336
1. American Divergent Views: ‘Money Bags’ Versus ‘Cannon Balls’

Between 1798 and 1812, a number of serious situations developed

between Algiers and the United States most of them were related to the

delivery of naval materials stipulated by the treaty of 1795. While Algiers

contested delays in payments and sometimes showed dissatisfaction about the

quantity and quality of the delivered materials, the Americans rather

approached the subject differently. Pejoratively calling those annual payments

‘tribute’,2 the Americans were of two opinions: from 1795 to 1801, i.e.: during

the administrations of George Washington and John Adams, the Americans

favored compliance with the terms of the treaty of 1795 with Algiers although

many problems relating to payments arose then. But starting from 1801

upwards, i.e.: during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson and James

Madison, the Americans became dramatically critical about ‘tribute’ and

favored payments in ‘cannon balls’—meaning the use of force against Algiers

to stop payments. Those views led to increasing tensions with Algiers which

culminated in the naval show of 1815-1816.

1. 1. The Beginning of Tensions

The financial complications that arose from the 1795 treaty had already

rendered diplomatic relations tense. When John Adams became president in

1797, he sought to avoid further frictions or “occasions of discontent” with

Algiers which, according to him, might arise from “proceedings from the

2
For Americans, tribute was understood in the sense of Christians’ submission to the Muslim will.
337
regency, or from the misconduct of our commercial vessels navigating in the

Mediterranean sea.”3 Therefore, he recommended ‘compliance’ with the terms

of the treaty and sought to minimize future problems by having a permanent

consul at Algiers.4 Richard O’Brien was the first American Consul-General

appointed to the Barbary States; he also acted as consul to Algiers.

In fact, the uneasiness which characterized diplomatic relations between

Algiers and the United States started four months after the conclusion of the

treaty of 1795. As already seen, the problems over payments were a source of

many troubles for both Algiers and the United States. Soon, other problems

became a threat to peaceful relations between the two countries. When O’Brien

arrived at Algiers in January 1798, he found that the reputation of the United

States was very low. That situation resulted primarily from United States

failure to deliver the naval stores stipulated by the treaty of 1795.The conduct

of fraudulent trade in the Mediterranean by Americans shippers in which the

American envoys to Algiers Joseph Donaldson and Joel Barlow were involved

did not ease maters and caused much indignation at Algiers.5

O’Brien who was well-knowledgeable about Mediterranean realities—

he passed over 10-years prisoner at Algiers—recommended that the United

States honor its treaty.6 But at the United States, other concerns were at hand;

cabinet upheavals and move of the capital to Washington caused sufficient

3
ASP/FA, 2:65, Message to Senate and House of Representatives, June 23, 1797.
4
Ibid.
5
NDBW, 1:240, O’Brien to David Humphreys, March 1, 1798. The incidents involving the Eliza, an
American vessel which engaged in dishonest trade, and the Fortune, an Algerian vessel which carried
the freed prisoners to Marseille, were the source of many tensions. For details see Allison, The
Crescent Obscured, pp. 157-60.
6
NDBW, 1:243, O’Brien to David Humphreys, March 6, 1798.
338
neglect of North African affairs and excuses were ready at hand. One of the

excuses used to justify arrearages was that the Hero, a ship bound for Algiers

with masts and timber, was lost at sea because of bad weather.7 On another

occasion, the Americans pretended that dues were caused by “a pestilence

[yellow fever] raging in some of our cities, by causing the inhabitants to flee

into the country and suspending business, rendered delays unavoidable.”8

O’Brien, while acting as a commercial agent and waiting for the agreed on

stores, could tell the Dey—on information he received from the USA—that

stores did not arrive because of hard winters and yellow fever. But probably he

could not explain why bad weather and yellow fever did not prevent American

merchant ships from coming to the Mediterranean.9 Perhaps O’Brien realized

that intelligence services he rendered the United States while a prisoner won

him an appointment; nonetheless, he was probably convinced that after

appointment his government ignored him and by the same token ignored

relations with Algiers. Emphatically, he wrote Secretary of State Pickering

noting that the United States “should be more punctual” in payments of

annuities.10 In his letters, O’Brien outlined two alternatives: “if it [USA] chose

not to honor its treaty, its only choices were war or withdrawal from the

Mediterranean; and on another occasion he warned explicitly: “depend Sir, we

shall have war.”11 To Humphreys, U.S. minister to Portugal, O’Brien wrote

7
WJA, 8:652, fn 2, To T. Pickering, Secretary of State, 25 May, 1799.
8
NDBW, 1:351, Letter to Secretary of State, Mar. 17, 1800.
9
Allison, The Crescent Obscured, p. 160.
10
NDBW, 1:243, O’Brien to Secretary of State, March 6, 1798.
11
Ibid., 1:262, O’Brien to Secretary of State, October 14, 1798; also NDBW, 1:371, O’Brien to
Secretary of State Jan. 17, 1800.
339
specifying that the United States had to “act with punctuality or energie” to

secure the huge profits of American Mediterranean trade, avoiding “the Shoals

that is under the Lee of the good ship the CONGRESS.”12

O’Brien’s opinion was neither heeled by his government nor shared by

other consuls in the region, particularly William Eaton who was appointed

consul to Tunis. Eaton was a colonel in the U.S. Army who had neither

experience nor knowledge about the North African regencies but his ‘forceful

pacification’ of the “exceedingly troublesome” Creeks and Cherokees on the

frontiers of Georgia were considered by his government ample qualifications

for sending him to the ‘Coast of Barbary.’13 Before he sailed from America, a

government official told him that the Barbary consuls were a “set of d-d savage

agents—Indian agents—yes, a set of d-d Indian agents you Barbary consuls!”

Eaton acquiesced probably because that was the way he perceived himself.14

With that background, Eaton interpreted his mission to ‘Barbary’ as an

opportunity to “pave the way for a great expansion of American trade on the

coasts of Barbary”15 in much the same way as he contributed paving the way

for American westward expansionism on native Americans’ lands. As a matter

of fact, once on the ‘Coast of Barbary’, he interpreted his new role to

perfection: when an Algerian official, who was the consul of Algiers to Tunis,

12
NDBW, 1:288-9, O’Brien to David Humphreys, December 27-30, 1798. O’Brien specified that the
peace treaties with Algiers and the other regencies, Tunis and Tripoli, brought $1.5 million in annual
profits to American merchants.
13
Charles Prentiss, The Life of the Late Gen. William Eaton; Several Years an Officer in the United
States’ Army, Consul at the Regency of Tunis on the Coast of Barbary… Principally Collected from his
Correspondence and other Manuscripts (Brookfield, Mass: E. Merriam & Co., 1813), pp. 20-2; Wright
and Macleod, First Americans, pp. 17-8; also London, Victory in Tripoli, pp. 61-66.
14
As cited in Allison, The Crescent Obscured, p. 163.
15
Kitzen, Tripoli and the United States, p. 26.
340
expressed his friendship for Americans, Eaton sarcastically interjected that a

Cherokee chief would do the same “for a bottle of rum and a rifle.”16

When Eaton stopped-over at Algiers in February 1799, the new Dey

Mustafa Pasha (r. 1798-1805) had been ruling for nearly one year then and

American state papers do not even refer to him at that early period. Yet, Eaton,

armed with his frontier experience and prejudice, made “a very

uncomplimentary description” of the Dey that has since been repeated in all

American specialized writings.17 The description in fact was a stereotyped

approach to North African culture which inspired much of the policies that

were undertaken by the American government afterwards. In his report to the

Secretary of State, Eaton literally described El-Djenina, the Dey’s palace, as a

‘cave’ or ‘den’ of a ‘beast’ and portrayed the Dey as “a huge, shaggy beast,

sitting on his rump” who, at the sight of American consuls, “reached out his

fore paw as if to receive something to eat.” Eaton proceeded to say that after a

while, “the animal seemed … to be in a harmless mode; he grinned several

times, but made very little noise.” For Eaton, his meeting with the Dey was a

violation of “the second command of God” and an offence to “common

decency.”18

16
Sedgwick, “William Eaton, a Sanguine Man,” p. 109; Allison, The Crescent Obscured, p. 163.
17
Parker, Uncle Sam in Barbary, p. 126.
18
Eaton wrote describing his presentation to Dey Mustafa Pasha: “… we took off our shoes, and
entering the cave (for so it seemed), we were shown to a huge, shaggy beast, sitting on his rump upon a
low bench, covered with a cushion of embroidered velvet, with his hind legs gathered up like a tailor or
a bear. On our approach to him he reached out his fore paw as if to receive something to eat. Our guide
exclaimed, “Kiss the Dey’s hand!” The consul-general bowed very elegantly and kissed it, and we
followed his example in succession. The animal seemed at that moment to be in a harmless mode; he
grinned several times, but made very little noise. Having performed this ceremony, and standing a few
moments in silent agony, we had leave to take our shoes and other property, and leave the den, without
any other injury than the humility of being obliged, in this involuntary manner, to violate the second
341
 Eaton’s vehemence rose even more when he considered that “this

elevated brute has seven kings of Europe, two republics, and a continent

[meaning the United States] tributary to him, when his whole naval force is not

equal to two line-of-battle ships.”19 For him, that was inconceivable at a time

the United States had the capacity to pay tribute in the form of ‘cannon balls’

instead of ‘money bags’.20 After a reconnaissance tour during which he

contemptuously noted details of fortifications and soldiery at Algiers, he

reported to the Secretary of State advocating speedy military action against

Algiers and even detailed an offensive plan:

All the batteries of Algiers are in a ruined condition, garrisoned by

undisciplined, half starved Turks [who] could be forced on board our
vessels before the least succor could be given…. Yet to the shame of
humanity they dictate terms to powerful nations!!!21

To the new secretary of state John Marshall (1800-1801) he wrote again

protesting the payment of tribute to the ‘Barbary States’:

Genius of My Country! How art thou prostrate! Hast thou not yet one
son whose soul revolts, whose nerves convulse, blood vessels burst, and
heart indignant swells at thoughts of such debasement.22

Eaton’s indignation and distaste reflected the views of many of his

contemporaries regarding payment of tribute to Algiers.23 Considering that the

command of God and offend common decency.” NDBW, 1:301, Letter to the Secretary of State,
February 15, 1799.
19
NDBW, 1:301, Letter to the Secretary of State, February 15, 1799.
20
Michael Kitzen, “Money Bags or Cannon Balls: The Origins of the Tripolitan War, 1795-1801,”
Journal of the Early Republic, 16: 4 (Winter 1996), pp. 614, 620; Prentiss, Life of William Eaton, pp.
85, 106.
21
NDBW, 1:317, Letter to the Secretary of State, Mar. 30, 1799.
22
Ibid., I: 397-98, Eaton to Marshall, Nov. 11, 1800.
23
Cathcart and O’Brien expressed similar views in their letters and dispatches. Kitzen, “Money Bags or
Cannon Balls,” pp. 601, 620, fn 44.
342
United States could not pretend to financial problems—as was indeed the case

during the Confederation era, those views could possibly explain the delays in

delivery of stores to Algiers. A second possible explanation was advanced by

the American historian Glenn Tucker. According to Tucker, the United States

learned from other countries that it was better to be in arrears than deliver

stores to Algiers because the more the sum owed became bigger, the more the

Dey could not risk loosing it by seizing ships or declaring war.24 Probably also,

this could be re-read as an early form of realpolitics which the Americans

adopted in total disrespect of the terms of the 1795 treaty and agreements

concluded.

1. 2. Further Friction: an ‘Algerine Flag’ atop an American Battleship

More than just Americans’ indignation and prejudices which debased

Muslims to the rank of animals, tensions exceeded to interpretation of the

treaty of 1795. In 1800, and instead of a common merchantman as it was usual,

the United States decided to send the frigate George Washington, an old

privateer and “burthernsome vessel” that was armed for the emerging U.S.

navy, to bring the long overdue naval stores to the Dey.25 As the frigate was the

first American government’s naval vessel ever to enter the Mediterranean, one

may imagine that the purpose was probably to make an impression on the Dey.

24
Tucker, Dawn Like Thunder, p. 430.
25
NDBW, 1:355, Pickering to Humphreys, Jan., 17, 1800.
343
But the events that unfolded at its arrival at Algiers proved to be contrary to

American expectations.26

The Dey then was in need of a ship to carry the usual presents to the

Sultan at Constantinople and the American battleship happened to be there.27

So, he summoned O’Brien and informed him that “he would want this ship as a

favor from the United States” and explained that “other nations had rendered

Algiers the like favors.”28 O’Brien and William Bainbridge, captain of the ship,

objected to the Deys’ demand on the ground that they had no orders on the

subject, had no diplomatic relations with the Ottoman Empire, and that they

could not protect the cargo against Algiers’ enemies and French attacks—the

USA was at war with France. The Dey, in the presence of the British consul

John Falcon, made them understand that the practice was customary;29 that they

“had no alternative but to do him this favor” which the two Americans

interpreted as a “go per force.”30 A tedious argument followed about which

flag to be hoisted—American or Algerine? why? and where?—at the main

mast or at the fore?—which shows two utterly different approaches to the

significance of ‘flag’ in national cultures.31 Ultimately, the George Washington

26
Wright and Macleod, First Americans, p. 71.
27
For an idea about how Americans by a few twists to the historical truth turn a small incident into an
odyssey see Tucker, Dawn Like Thunder, pp. 11-41.
28
A detailed description about the proceedings appears in a long letter O’Brien wrote to William
Bainbridge, captain of the frigate. ASP/FA, 2:353-4, Copy of a letter from Mr. O’Brien to Captain
Bainbridge, October 9, 1800.
29
ASP/FA, 2:353-4, Copy of a letter from Mr. O’Brien to Captain Bainbridge, October 9, 1800. Indeed
the British consul suggested to the Dey to wait for the battleship of His Majesty which was on its way
to carry the Algerine ambassador with presents to Constantinople.
30
Ibid.
31
Ibid.
344
sailed under the flag of Algiers because, according to O’Brien and Bainbridge,

acting differently would have meant war.32

Obviously, Bainbridge was not happy with the new mission the Dey

‘forced’ on him and for good reasons. According to the ship’s log at departure

from Algiers on 9 October 1800, his cargo included: the Algerine ambassador

and his suite of 99, 100 black men; women and children; 4 horses, 150 sheep,

25 corned cattle, 4 lions, 4 tigers, 4 antelopes, 12 parrots, ostriches and many

other commodities in addition to $800,000 and jewelry.33 On the way, he had to

manage five times a-day prayers facing the east on a deck stuck with 131

American sailors and an ambassador’s officer stationed at the binnacle to watch

the compass during prayer-time;34 all that was blended with American sailors’

curiosity at first, then contempt and mockery which “threatened often to lead to

a bloody renewal of time-honored clashes between the Crescent and the

Cross.”35 Bainbridge’s report shocked. For American historians, Algiers had

“spat on the country’s honor and dignity.”36 For Bainbridge, more humiliating

could not exist, especially the moment when

The pendent of the United States was struck and the Algierine flag
hoisted at the main top gallant mast head. 7 guns were fired in
compliment. Some tears fell at this instance of national humility.37

32
ASP/FA, 2:353-4, Copy of a letter from Mr. O’Brien to Captain Bainbridge, October 9, 1800.
33
NDBW, 1:378, Letter to the Secretary of the Navy, Oct. 10, 1800. From a different cultural and
historical perspective, one may explain what has since been termed as ‘Bainbridge’s floating zoo’ as
custom and political necessity. Tribute was one of two bounds still linking Algiers to Constantinople—
in addition to contributions with the fleet when needed—and it had to be ostentatious! More by
concluding a peace treaty with France at a time Napoleon was occupying Egypt—one of the Sultan’s
satrapies—Algiers brought on itself the wrath of the Sultan and it had to apologize for that, hence that
impressive and fantastic cargo.
34
NDBW, 1:378, Letter to the Secretary of the Navy, Oct. 10, 1800.
35
Tucker, Dawn Like Thunder, p. 23.
36
Kitzen, Tripoli and the United States, p. 44.
37
NDBW, 1:378, Letter to the Secretary of the Navy, Oct. 10, 1800.
345
 As annual payments in naval materials which were badly viewed in the

United States, the sail of a battleship of the nascent U.S. navy under the flag of

the regency of Algiers was also inconceivable for Americans. The

consequences of that were waves of fulminations and indignation in the United

States which have since continued unabated in American writings.38 As a

matter of fact, the Americans did not only consider the hoisting of the

‘Algerine flag’ as a national humiliation but they also considered the salute of

“seven guns, as customary” given by the George Washington, as an expensive

compliment which cost the United States $40,000.39 Considering that the

Algerines did not only return the salute with ‘eight guns’ as customary but had

always saluted the American flag with twenty one guns every time American

men-of-war appeared at Algiers and provided them with “fresh Provisions on

board as is Customary, Gratis”—according to article 20 of the 1795 treaty, the

cost was probably far enormous for Algiers than the ‘seven guns’ in question.

In 1800, however, what was viewed as shocking and humiliating in the

United States was probably not considered as such in Algiers. The

circumstances, custom, and laws of nations were such that, until then, freight of

foreign ships—even men-of-war—by Algiers was common practice and it was

even written in the treaties of Algiers with the western powers including the

one with the United States. Article XIV of the treaty indeed stipulated:

38
See as examples Tucker, Dawn Like Thunder, pp. 23-5; Kitzen, Tripoli and the United States, pp. 40-
2; Wright and Macleod, First Americans, p. 71; London, Victory in Tripoli, pp. 84-90. Irwin qualified
the voyage as extraordinary; Parker, however, considered that the story was ‘long’ and ‘painful’ and
preferred to skip it.
39
ASP/FA, 2:353-4, Copy of a letter from Mr. O’Brien to Captain Bainbridge, October 9, 1800;
Schuyler, American Diplomacy, p. 221.
346
 Should the Dey want to freight any American Vessel that may be in the
Regency or Turkey said Vessel not being engaged, in consequence of
the friendship subsisting between the two Nations he expects to have the
preference given him on his paying the Same freight offered by any
other Nation.40

This article has since been subjected to all kinds of interpretations.

Samuel Flagg Bemis (1891-1973), who is no more than the father of American

diplomatic history, considered that the Dey acted principally “under a

gratuitous interpretation of the English translation of his treaty (of 1795)… and

forced Bainbridge to carry tribute to the Sultan of Turkey, shadowy sovereign

of the Barbary states.”41 Bemis probably wanted to suggest that the Dey based

his decision on the Turkish original copy of the treaty. But, as discussed earlier,

the Turkish original was not respected by Cathcart and the Swedish consul

Skjoldebrand. More, even the authentic Hunter Miller translation of the original

Turkish copy of the treaty made in 1930 did not reveal the existence of any

counterpart of Article XIV of the original English translation in it.42 Whatever

the allusion of Bemis, the Dey certainly did not refer to his copy of the treaty.

As O’Brien stated, the Dey asked for a favor on the basis of the custom of all

nations; and O’Brien confirmed that in the letter to Bainbridge. The latter, even

though he had another alternative, decided to hoist the Algerine flag:

40
SaL, 8:133-34, Treaty of Peace and Amity between the Dey and the United States of America (1795).
41
Samuel Flagg Bemis, A Diplomatic History of the United States, 5th edition (New York/Chicago/San
Francisco: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1965), p. 340. Emphasis is added by this researcher.
42
Hunter Miller, ed., Treaties and other International Acts of the United States of America, vol. 2:
1776-1818 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1931), (Accessed 8 March 2008),
available at The Avalon Project at Yale Law School,
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary.htm#r
347
 I explained to you, sir, that it was the custom, as I have seen and known
that the French and Spanish ships of war going on the like mission,
hoisted at Algiers and Constantinople the Algerine flag on the main; that
at sea he wore his pennant, and was more his own master. On this, you
observed, it being a forced business, that, if there was a right to
acquiesce to one point, there was no alternative but by the same rule
acquiesce to the other relative to the flag.43

What in fact O’Brien suggested to Bainbridge was to hoist the ‘Algerine

flag at departure from Algiers and arrival at Constantinople only as it was

customary; for the rest of the voyage, he might hoist the American flag; but

Bainbridge preferred to keep it all the way to Constantinople! In other terms,

after ‘much ado about nothing’, Bainbridge thought it safer for his ship to keep

the ‘Algerine flag’ for fear that he might meet other corsairs on the high seas,

particularly the French with whom the Americans were at war.44 Thus, what

seems to have been a less honorable historical truth was converted to heroism

and later served as excuse for attacking Algiers. In all cases, when Bainbridge

reported to the Secretary of the Navy, like Eaton before him, he recommended

war:

Did the United States know the easy access of this barbarous coast
called Barbary, the weakness of their garrisons, and the effeminacy of
their people, I am sure they would not be long tributary to so pitiful a
race of infidels.45

But despite fulminations from all quarters in the United States, it seems

that custom continued to prevail at Algiers. In 1809, when the new Dey sought

the use of an American vessel to send the Algerine ambassador to

43
ASP/FA, 2:353-4, Copy of a letter from Mr. O’Brien to Captain Bainbridge, October 9, 1800.
44
The Quasi-War between the United States and France lasted from 1798 to 1801.
45
NDBW, 1:378, Letter to the Secretary of the Navy, Oct. 10, 1800.
348
Constantinople, the new American consul and the captain of the ship in

question “immediately complied with the request.”46 But one man seemed not

to be ready to forget what he considered as national humiliation; he was James

Madison. Seven months later after the incident, and shortly after becoming

Secretary of State, Madison wrote O’Brien:

The sending to Constantinople the national ship of war, the George

Washington, by force, under the Algerine flag, and for such a purpose,
has deeply affected the sensibility, not only of the President, but of the
people of the United States. Whatever temporary effects it may have had
favorable to our interests, the indignity is of so serious a nature that it is
not impossible that it may be seemed necessary, on a fit occasion, to
revive the subject.47

More, Madison, on behalf of Jefferson, ordered O’Brien not to take any action

that might jeopardize future reprisal of the American government, which in fact

explains why the Americans acquiesced to the Dey’s demand on a similar

occasion in 1809. Madison had already settled to the idea of avenging

American national honor:

Viewing in this light, the President Wishes that nothing may be said or
done by you that unnecessarily preclude the competent authority from
Animadverting on that transaction in any way that a vindication of the
national honor may be thought to prescribe.

The Secretary of State, who later became the president of the United States,

would meet a ‘fit occasion’ for ‘punishing’ Algiers in what seemed to be a

‘forced’ departure of the American consul from Algiers in 1812. By then, he

would transform the already existing tensions to gunboat diplomacy.

46
Irwin, Diplomatic Relations, p. 171.
47
ASP/FA, 2:348, Secretary of State to O’Brien, May 20, 1801.
349
2. Algiers-United States Diplomatic Relations: From Crises to Gunboats

The George Washington episode may be considered as a minor incident

in relations between Algiers and the United States. Tribute, however, remained

the thorniest issue which complicated those relations and precipitated the two

countries into conflict. As of early 1801, the United States was indebted to

Algiers with two and a half years in arrearages.48 It was not until March 1802

that president Thomas Jefferson could communicate to Congress that the sums

owed to the “government of Algiers are now fully paid up”—or almost.49

O’Brien could write with relief to the American consul at Gibraltar: “we have

finally paid all our debt to the regency on the annuities. We are square for six

years, from the 5th September, 1795, to the 5th September, 1801.”50 So, it took

the United States that long time, despite requirements of the treaty of 1795, to

deliver stores. Then again, despite those same requirements which specified

payment of annual tribute in maritime stores, the United States opted for

different forms of payment. In 1799, for example, O’Brien not only converted

the value of the two frigates late Hassan Pasha had requested to tribute

payments but also inflated their value.51 Realizing that the new Dey Mustafa

and other Algerine officials were ignorant about the terms of the treaty, he

decided to ‘play on them’ or as he reported proudly to the Secretary of States:

48
ASP/FA, 2:354, Extract of a letter from Richard O’Brien to the Secretary of State, January 27, 1801.
49
Ibid., 2:381, From the President of the United States to Congress Relative to Transactions with the
Barbary Powers, March 1, 1802. The full accounts for the period 1795-1801 appear in ASP/FA, 2:368-
81, The Barbary States, February 16, 1802.
50
Ibid., 2:382, Captain O’Brian to Consul Gavino, at Gibraltar, November 28, 1801.
51
Parker, Uncle Sam in Barbary, p. 125. O’Brien put the price at $98,000 (the Dey and Cathcart
evaluated the two ships at $78,000). Cathcart, The Captives, p. 277.
350
“then I was determined to see how far I could work on him [Dey].”52 On its

side, the American government also decided to deliver a small ship (a

schooner) instead of stores.53 In 1805, Tobias Lear, United States new consul to

Algiers (1803-12) innovated; he decided to pay annuities with a cargo of

12,000 bushels of wheat purchased in Malta which permitted to settle

“accounts for one year at least” and make “great saving to the United States.”54

Definitely, all seems to indicate that the American government decided not to

honor its treaty. Needless to say that such conduct caused much annoyance at

Algiers.

2. 1. The Crisis of 1807

The first serious problem in relations between Algiers and the United

States came in 1807. In 1807, and as far as Algiers was concerned, the United

States was again behind its schedule of payments;55 the last dating back to

Lear’s wheat payments of July 1805. In Europe, Great Britain and France were

drifting towards war and Thomas Jefferson, then United States president since

1801, was expecting an American involvement into hostilities—as it had

indeed been the case since 1794. In consequence of that, he thought that

American dues to Algiers might complicate the task for him—perhaps feared

he British-instigated hostilities on the side of Algiers again? So he wrote

52
As cited in London, Victory in Tripoli, p. 60.
53
Upham, Timothy Pickering, pp. 270-72. The schooner Hamdullah was constructed for the purpose; it
cost $18,000.
54
SPPD, 5: 441, Tobias Lear to James Madison, July 5, 1805.
55
ASP/FA, 3:33, Circular From Tobias Lear to William Kirkpatrick, December I6, 1807.
351
Madison, his Secretary of State, agreeing to send some of the stores to Algiers:

“I think with you we had better send to Algiers some of the losing articles in

order to secure peace there while it is uncertain elsewhere” and explained that

since war with England was probable “everything leading to it with every other

nation should be avoided.”56 This piece of writing is indicative of a deliberate

policy of non-compliance with the treaty of 1795, which Algiers’ new Dey

Ahmad Khodja (1805-1808) had probably understood since long.

At Algiers, Dey Ahmad Khodja could no more stand American bad

faith.57 Angered at American government’s delays in sending maritime stores,

he resorted to a method that was generally used in corsairing diplomacy to

pressurize the United States for respect of the treaty.58 In October 1807, the

Dey requested from Lear delivery of the naval materials in compliance with the

treaty of 1795 which were then two years overdue.59 When Lear failed to act in

accordance with the Dey’s demand, the latter sent out corsairs which captured

two American merchantmen, with a third one escaping.60 In his circular to the

American consul at Malaga, Spain, Lear informed about the captures and

explained that they were operated “in consequence of the annuities for two

years past not having been paid from the United States in naval and military

56
WTJ1, 5:181, To the Secretary of State, September 1, 1807. Emphasis added by this researcher.
57
SPPD, 7:74, Colonel Lear to the Secretary of State, Mar. 28, 1808.
58
It should be specified here that in corsairing diplomacy, when the signatories estimated that the treaty
was not respected or they simply wanted to alter it, they recur to the use of the usual methods: gunboat
expeditions for the Christian countries and repudiation of the treaty in question and seizure of vessels
for Algiers. In this particular case, seizure was prompted by American non-respect of the treaty.
59
Parker, Uncle Sam in Barbary, p. 127; Irwin, Diplomatic Relations, p. 168.
60
ASP/FA, 3:32, Message from the President of the United States to Congress, Feb. 9, 1808, Enclosure
1, G. B. Ducoster, American Consul at Naples to Stephen Cathalan, American Consul at Marseilles,
November 9, 1807 and Enclosure: Stephen Cathalan to secretary of State, November 21, 1807.
352
stores, as stipulated by treaty.”61 Besides, the Dey was apparently dissatisfied

because the agreed on amount “has been repeatedly offered in cash instead of

naval stores.”62 The problem of captures, however, was short-lived.63 In the

same letter Lear explained that he had arranged for payments and that the

American prisoners were released after forty days and that they had been

treated “very well.”

In the United States, the House of Representatives set a committee to

examine papers “relative to the rupture and amicable settlement with the Dey

of Algiers” which the executive referred to it in February 1808. After

consideration, the committee asked the executive for further information about

the nature of payments to Algiers and causes of delays.64 A report from

Secretary of State Madison to that congressional committee admitted that

various causes had “occasionally delayed the payment of the annuity in naval

stores” and that some of those causes “readily suggest themselves to the

committee.”65 He explained that the loss on payments made in the form of

stores amounted from 50 to 100% because “the estimate of the stores is made

by officers of the Algerine government, without any reference to their cost.”66

Madison justified delays in delivery of naval stores on the ground of “the

precarious state of our foreign relations” in general and “a hope that Colonel

61
ASP/FA, 3:33, From Tobias Lear to William Kirkpatrick, Consul of the United States of America,
Malaga, December I6, 1807.
62
Ibid.
63
SPPD, 6:70, Message from the President of the United States to Congress, Feb. 5, 1808.
64
ASP/FA, 3:33, Report on the Message of the President of the United States Relative to the Rupture
and Amicable Settlement with the Dey of Algiers, April 25, 1808.
65
Ibid., Report of the Secretary of State, April 12, 1808.
66
Ibid.
353
Lear would be able to prevail on the Dey to receive money in lieu of naval

stores.”67 Madison’s justifications, particularly the loss on payments, sound not

to be convincing arguments for explaining dues.

Based on Madison’s argument, it appears that the United States had

already taken a move towards a revision of the treaty of 1795. Was it

necessary? One may concede that, after a decade or so since the treaty had

been concluded, prices had forcibly changed. But the treaty, anticipating that

possibility, included a clause which fixed the value of stores to twelve thousand

Algerine Sequins ($21,600) and stipulated that “Should the United States

forward a Larger Quantity [of maritime stores] the Over-Plus Shall be Paid for

in Money by the Dey & Regency.”68 As Madison’s report did not allude to any

Algerine violation of the treaty on this side, i.e.: non-payment for the surplus,

one may need go back to the circumstances which surrounded the signature of

the treaty, precisely the position of Jefferson on the question, to try to find an

explanation for United States ‘occasional’ failures to honor a treaty which it

had made according to its own terms—or rather copied on other treaties

without taking into consideration the original treaty written in Turkish.

In 1792, in his instructions to the commissioners Jefferson wrote: “we

will not furnish them naval stores, because we think it not right to furnish them

means which we know they will employ to do wrong.”69 Later, he anticipated

difficulties with Algiers and modified his instructions: “reserve the right to

67
ASP/FA, 3:33, Report of the Secretary of State, April 12, 1808.
68
SaL, 8:137, Treaty of Peace and Amity (1795).
69
SPPD, 10:264, To Admiral John Paul Jones, June 1, 1792.
354
make the subsequent annual payments in money.”70 The treaty, however, was

concluded while Jefferson was no more part of the administration of George

Washington. In 1807, once back to office, Jefferson still saw wrong in

delivering maritime stores to Algiers. He did only concede to send “some of the

losing articles” to Algiers when the situation became critical with Great

Britain.71 In fact, all the way from 1785 to 1807, Jefferson had been consistent

in his position about tribute; and assuredly he shared that consistency with

Madison (I think with you). Madison on his side did not only agree with

Jefferson but he also replaced him at the head of the American government in

1809. Hence, the American approach to tribute found continuation in the

forthcoming administration of Madison (1809-1817) during which another

crisis relating to naval materials developed.

2. 2. The Crisis of 1812

The crisis of 1807 was only averted by Lear’s agreement to pay for

arrears, but a second crisis occurring in 1812 led to a greater conflict. In 1812,

disagreement arose again over deliveries of naval materials.72 Previously, the

new Dey Hadj Ali Khodja (1809-1815) had expressed dissatisfaction about

stores not arriving on time as well as the quantities of delivered materials. Lear

had already communicated that complaint to the Secretary of State in a letter

70
SPPD, 10:272, To Colonel David Humphreys, March 21, 1793.
71
WTJ1, 5:181, To the Secretary of State, September 1, 1807. Emphasis added by this researcher.
72
Lear wrote to long letter to the Secretary of States in July 1812 in which he described the
circumstances preceding his departure from Algiers. Lear’s account is the only document the American
government presented as argument for declaring war on Algiers and also the only published document
available for researchers today. Therefore, this part of the thesis relies on it for all ‘facts’ relating to
that episode.
355
dated August 1810.73 Despite that, the United States did not send stores until

July 1812. When the Alleghany, the ship that carried stores, arrived at Algiers,

the Dey sent for the bill of the load which Lear provided but “without affixing

the prices.”74 Did he seek to conceal the exact amount of the cargo? Was he

obeying instructions from Washington? One should always keep in mind the

letter of Madison to O’Brien of 1801 which reserved the right for the United

States to retaliate in a ‘fit occasion.’ In all cases, the marine officials at Algiers,

while unloading, discovered that many stores from the order of 1810 were

missing.75 According to Lear, in 1810 the marine of Algiers commanded “five

hundred quintals of gunpowder, and twenty-seven large cables, besides a very

large quantity of cordage and other articles” of which “only fifty small barrels

of gunpowder and four cables” were delivered in 1812. Liar justified the

insufficiency in those articles saying: “we did not make enough for our own

use in the United States.”76 Matters could have stopped here had Lear did not

abuse the Dey again—like his predecessors.

The officials of the marine, to the disappointment of Lear, accidentally

came to know about the existence of other stores, including “gun barrels,”

which Lear said were meant for sale in Morocco and that at a time the

American consul was claiming that they were not making enough of them at

home. About that circumstance, Lear reported:

73
SPPD, 9:128, Extract of a Letter from Mr. Lear, Consul General at Algiers, to the Secretary of State,
July 29, 1812.
74
Ibid., 9:127.
75
Ibid., 9:126-27.
76
Ibid., 9:127.
356
 but whence he [Dey] could have got the information, I know not, for I
had never mentioned a syllable of it to any one in Algiers. I have since
learned that it was discovered by some means or other, when the planks
and spars were taken out of the vessel.77

Obviously, the Dey was more angered by Lear’s deception than by the missing

stores and considered it an insult on the part of the United States as Lear

himself reported. Lear alluded to “many other expressions of anger and disgust

of the dey”78 and added:

he [Dey] was more highly incensed at this, than on any other account;
saying that he considered it an insult offered, by having merchandise
embarked on board a vessel which was said to have been sent for the
sole purpose of bringing the annuity.79

According to Lear, the Dey refused to unload the ship and asked for

‘immediate’ payment for the losing stores—the USA was again two years

behind the schedule of delivery. From that point onwards, disagreements

between the Dey and Lear over a multitude of details heightened to the point of

diplomatic breach.80

The essence of the Alleghany episode is not in detail but is in principle.

These short samples from Lear’s report to the new Secretary of State James

Monroe (1811-1817) illustrate a consistency in American foreign policy

towards Algiers. Delivery of stores was badly viewed by Americans and all

excuses were good for not complying with the treaty. For Algiers, however, the

77
SPPD, 9:127, Lear to Secretary of State, July 29, 1812; also Shaler, Sketches of Algiers, pp. 120-121.
78
Ibid., 9:128.
79
Ibid., 9:131.
80
What neither the Dey nor Lear knew at that time was the declaration of war by the United States on
Britain. The war lasted from June 18, 1812 to Dec. 24, 1814. For the duration of the war, the Alleghany
incident did not evolve.
357
treaty was sacred and that was agreed on in 1795: “Joseph Donaldson on the

Part of the United States of North America agreed with Hassan Bashaw Dey of

Algiers to keep the Articles Contained in this Treaty Sacred and inviolable.”81

For Dey Hadj Ali Khodja, the United States violated the treaty; consequently

he sent for the copy of the treaty that was in the possession of Lear and asked

him to leave Algiers with all other Americans present there—he even

threatened to ‘put them in chains’ if the arrears were not paid for.82 For him,

the treaty was not respected; therefore, he resorted to the often used method in

corsairing diplomacy to force respect of treaties: seizure of vessels. Late in

August 1812, Algerian corsairs seized an American vessel and its crew was

imprisoned.83 When Madison addressed Congress on November 4, 1812,

relations with Algiers were a tiny point in his message. For Madison then it

was not clear whether the ‘forced’ departure of Lear was a declaration of war

on the United States by Algiers or not: “Whether this was the transitory effect

of capricious despotism, or the first act of predetermined hostility, is not

ascertained.”84

Shortly before the Alleghany incident, however, Lear had already

gathered enough intelligence susceptible to help his government declare war on

81
SaL, 8:137.
82
SPPD, 9:126-26, Lear, July 29, 1812. Lear reported that when he asked for his copy, the Dey said
“that when a consul was sent away, he [the Dey] should always keep his treaty, and that such had ever
been the custom at Algiers.” Today, this copy is always considered lost. Of the 4 originals in English,
only the copy now at the Department of State survived. Miller, Treaties of the United States, The
Avalon Project at Yale Law School.
83
SPPD, 9:435, Report of the Secretary of State Relative to the Barbary Powers, Feb. 20, 1815; ibid.,
9:437-8, Report Relative to Protection of American Commerce against Algerine Cruisers, March 3,
1815. The report provided ample information about the seizure of the Edwin, the ship in question.
84
Ibid., Message from the President of the United States to both Houses of Congress, Nov. 4, 1812;
WJM, 8:227, Fourth Annual Message, Nov. 4, 1812.
358
Algiers as it was implicitly understood from the Madison letter about the

George Washington. In the same report, Lear included a detailed analysis about

Algiers military weaknesses and the prospect of a swift American victory. He

considered the Alleghany event as “a happy and fortunate event for the United

States” and that “Should our differences with Great Britain be so

accommodated as to admit of sending a naval force into this sea, Algiers will be

humbled to the dust.”85 His description of the naval force of Algiers was an

inviting element for an American naval strike. According to him, the few

frigates were “very old ships, hardly seaworthy,” the gun boats used for the

defense of the bay were “either broken up or entirely unfit for service,” the

command—precisely Rais Hamidou, referred to as Rais Hammida—was “a

bold, active, enterprising commander, but entirely unacquainted with any

regular mode of fighting,” the sailors, “if such they may be called who go out

in their cruisers, know nothing of regular combat at sea.”86 For the rest, Lear

was sure “that our brave officers and seamen would rejoice to meet them with

only half their force.”87

Those military weaknesses were sufficient reasons for the United States

for undertaking a naval action against Algiers. Indeed many writers today

consider that the United States had attacked Algiers not because of its strength

which supposedly threatened American interests, as the American Consul-

General at Algiers William Shaler (1816-1828) pretended later, but because of

85
SPPD, 9:140, Lear to Secretary of State, July 29, 1812. Emphasis is in original text.
86
Ibid., 9:142-43.
87
Ibid., 9:143.
359
those very weaknesses.88 Consequently, not willing to keep a peace which they

had concluded according to their own terms and written in their own words, the

Americans decided to go on war with Algiers.

2. 3. American Gunboats in Action, 1815-1816

Of the many recurrent arguments that were frequently used by

westerners in general, and Americans particularly, to justify hostilities

committed against Algiers one is worth consideration here. Analyzing the

situation as it was in July 1812, Lear claimed that the Dey acted “without any

reasonable or justifiable causes” because Algiers was at peace with all nations

and the Dey “must make war upon some other nation, with or without a cause,

in order to employ his cruisers.”89 Strange as it may seem, Lear’s assertion was

in fact part of an 1801 well known letter from Madison, then Secretary of State,

to William Eaton, American consul at Tunis, asking him to trigger hostilities

with any of the ‘Barbary States.’90 Madison explained that the United States

was then at peace with all nations and keeping a naval force unemployed at

home would cost nearly the same expense as when “exhibiting [it] on the coast

of Barbary.” He explained that an exhibition of naval force would be more

advantageous to the U.S. navy. Madison went on recommending to Eaton, on

behalf of President Jefferson, “the utmost exertions of your prudence and

address, in giving the measure an impression most advantageous to the

88
Shaler, Sketches of Algiers, p. 119 and Naylor, “Ghosts of Terror Wars Past?” pp. 101-102
respectively.
89
SPPD, 9:132, Lear to Secretary of State, July 29, 1812.
90
ASP/FA, 2:347-48, Extract of a Letter from the Secretary of State to William Eaton, May 20, 1801.
360
character and interests of the United States.”91 Finally Madison provided the

cover up: “if the flag of the United States should he engaged in a war with

either of them [Barbary States], it will be a war of defence and necessity, not of

choice or provocation.”92 Hardly such disguised aggression could probably

have existed then!

Today it is well known that the United States provoked the war of 1801-

1805 against Tripoli—also called the First Barbary War—and that the

Jefferson-Madison policy, aided by Eaton’s machinations, were at the origin of

the war.93 The United States then had just ended the Quasi-War of 1798-1801

with France and the emerging U.S. navy and privateers had caused havoc

among French shipping which gave the Americans further confidence in their

navy.94 Jefferson then had the naval strength and political power that had

eluded him in the 1780s and he was determined to assert American commercial

interests in the Mediterranean.95 He was also determined to secure a naval

presence for the United States among the European naval powers in the area.96

So, he decided to dispatch a naval force, or what he called ‘a squadron of

observation’ to the Mediterranean. Circumstances could not serve him better:

91
This extract from the letter is worth quoting in full: “The policy of exhibiting a naval force on the
coast of Barbary, has long been urged by yourself and the other consuls. The present moment is
peculiarly favourable for the experiment, not only as it is a provision against an immediate danger, but
as we are now at peace and amity with all the rest of the world, and as the force employed would, if at
home, be at nearly the same expense, with less advantage to our mariners. The President has, therefore,
every reason to expect the utmost exertions of your prudence and address, in giving the measure an
impression most advantageous to the character and interests of the United States.
92
ASP/FA, 2:348, Extract of a Letter from the Secretary of State to William Eaton, May 20, 1801.
93
Sofka, “Jeffersonian Idea of National Security,” pp. 536-37.
94
Howard P. Nash, The Forgotten Wars: The Role of the U. S. Navy in the Quasi War with France and
the Barbary Wars 1798-1805 (New York/London: Thomas Yoseloff, Ltd., 1968), pp. 137-147.
95
James R. Sofka, “American Neutral Rights Reappraised: Identity or Interest in the Foreign Policy of
the early Republic?” Review of International Studies, 26: 4 (Oct. 2000), pp. 609-15.
96
Craig L. Symonds, “‘A Squadron of Observation’: Thomas Jefferson and America’s First War
against Terrorism,” White House Studies, 4: 2 (2004), pp. 132-35.
361
the war with France had just ended, the cost—as in the old days—for

maintaining an idle navy haunted him, and the “Barbary pyrates” were

“contemptibly weak.”97 So could he “begin [a navy] on a more honorable

occasion, or with a weaker foe?”98 All seemed to indicate that the moment was

favorable for “exhibiting a naval force on the coast of Barbary.”99

It is amply clear here that what the Dey was accused of in 1812 was

already a line of conduct in American foreign policy in 1801. Strange though,

the same circumstances presented themselves in 1815: the war with Britain had

just ended, the navy was idle, Algiers was weak, and above all Madison got the

‘fit occasion’ for ‘punishing’ Algiers and avenging the George Washington.

Barely six days after the Senate ratified the Treaty of Ghent in 1815100 did

Madison go to Congress claiming “hostile proceedings of the dey” against Lear

that were “followed by acts of more overt and direct warfare against our

citizens” who according to him were still detained in captivity and “treated

with the rigour usual on the coast of Barbary.”101 Madison recommended to

Congress a declaration of war against Algiers:

I recommend to Congress the expediency of an act declaring the

existence of a state of war between the United States and the dey of
Algiers; and of such provisions as may be requisite for a vigorous
prosecution of it to a successful issue.”102

97
PTJ, 7:639, To James Monroe, 6 Feb. 1785. As quoted in Kitzen, Tripoli and the United States, p.
11; Naylor, “Ghosts of Terror Wars Past?” p. 101.
98
As cited in Kitzen, Tripoli and the United States, p. 11; Naylor, “Ghosts of Terror Wars Past?” p.
101.
99
ASP/FA, 2:347, Extract of a Letter from the Secretary of State to William Eaton, May 20, 1801.
100
Tucker, Dawn Like Thunder, p. 452.
101
ASP/FA, 3:748, Message from the President of the United States to Congress, Feb. 23, 1815. See
also Appendix 12A.
102
ASP/FA, 3:748, Message from the President of the United States to Congress, Feb. 23, 1815.
362
 The recommendation of Madison was in fact a request for a formal

declaration of war by Congress on Algiers. He justified his request by the

termination of hostilities with Great Britain which opened the “prospect of an

active and valuable trade of their [sic] citizens within the range of the Algerine

cruisers.”103 Congress, however, did not declare war on Algiers. The report

entitled ‘Report relative to Protection of American Commerce against Algerine

Cruisers’ merely stated that, upon the evidence provided by the executive, it

considered “that the dey of Algiers considers his treaty with the United States

as at an end, and is waging war against them.”104 Legal arguments today are of

opinion that Madison carried an unjustified war against Algiers without

authorization from Congress, as it was the case in 1801 when Jefferson carried

an unjustified war and without authorization from Congress against Tripoli.105

In fact, the report of Congress recognized the existence of a state of war but did

not declare one.106

While the Dey acted legally in accordance with the laws and usage of

nations, Madison embarked on an illegal war even by the laws of the United

States. But the action of Madison was predictable. In essence, America’s New

Diplomacy was a combination of national interest and meliorism which was

103
[sic]: ‘their’ could refer to Americans, in this sense, the sentence is logical; if so, there is a print
error—it should be ‘our’—but this is improbable; or it could refer to ‘British’, if so, one may conclude
that Madison’ decision was more motivated by trade competition with Great Britain than the “hostiles
proceedings of the dey” against Lear.
104
SPPD, 9:438, Report Relative to Protection of American Commerce against Algerine Cruisers,
March 3, 1815. See also Appendix 12B.
105
In the Supreme Court of the United States. “Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Petitioner, v. Donald H.
Rumsfeld, et al., Respondents.” On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit. Brief of Lawrence M. Friedman, Jonathan Lurie, and Alfred P. Rubin, as
Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner [Barbary Wars Precedent], January 2006, n° 05-184, pp. 5-6.
106
Ibid., p. 5.
363
justified by a belief in the moral superiority of American foreign policy. When

these three elements are mixed together, they produce belligerent nationalism,

a type of aggression justified in the name of American national interest.

To make a long story short, Madison carried his war in two phases. The

first phase lasted from June 17 to July 4, 1815. During that phase, two

squadrons from the U.S. navy, commanded by Stephen Decatur and William

Bainbridge, were ordered to the Mediterranean.107 Decatur’s squadron sailed

first with William Shaler as new consul for Algiers. On June 17, the squadron

reached Cape de Gatta, Spain where it accidentally encountered, or to use

Decatur’s words ‘fell in with’, the frigate Mashouda (44 guns), flagship of

Admiral Rais Hamidou.108 A fight ensued. Despite inequality in arms,

Mashouda resisted for four hours; Rais Hamidou was killed in action.109 On

June 19, the squadron met with the Algerian brigantine Estedio (22 guns); a

sharp engagement followed and the brigantine was captured after it run into

shoal water.110 Both Algerian ships were conveyed to Carthagena, Spain as war

prizes. Those two encounters constitute what the Americans call the ‘Second

Barbary War.’

107
Decatur’s squadron consisted of 10 vessels: 3 frigates (44, 38, 36 guns), 2 sloops-of-war (18, 16
guns), 3 brigantines (14 guns each), and 2 schooners (12 guns each); the squadron had a combined fire
capacity of 178 guns. It sailed on May 20.
108
ASP/NA, 1:396, Naval Operation against the Barbary Powers in 1815, Stephen Decatur to Secretary
of the Navy, June 19, 1815.
109
A portrait of Rais Hamidou may be found in Albert Devoulx, Le Raïs Hamidou: Notice
biographique sur le plus célèbre corsaire Algérien du XIIIe siècle de l’hégire d’après des documents
authentiques et pour la plupart inédits (Alger: Typographie Adolphe Jourdan, 1859).
110
ASP/NA, 1:396, Stephen Decatur to Secretary of the Navy, June 20, 1815.
364
Table 9: Encounter at Cape de Gatta, June 17, 1815

Commanders

Rais Hamidou Stephen Decatur

Strength

1 Frigate 3 frigates (44, 38,

(44 guns) 36 guns)
2 sloops-of-war
(18, 16 guns)
3 brigantines (14
guns each)
2 schooners (12
guns each)

Combined fire
capacity: 178
guns

Casualties and losses

1 Frigate 4 KIA
captured 10 WIA
406 POW Rais Hamidou (1770-1815)
30 KIA The Americans could get his flag and exhibit
Many wounded it as a trophy but they could not get his body.
See Appendix 18.

Note: Since 1913, the flag of Rais Hamidou—along with that of the Estedio—
is exhibited among 172 other trophy flags at the ceiling of the auditorium of the
U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD. For more about the two Algerian trophy
flags see H. C. Washburn, Illustrated Case Inscriptions from the Official
Catalogue of the Trophy Flags of the United States Navy (Baltimore, MD: U.S.
Naval Academy, 1913), pp. 41, 45.

365
 On June 28, the squadron arrived at Algiers unhindered; the city was

defenseless as all Algerian corsairs were out at sea. At Algiers, the new Dey

Omar Agha had just ascended to Deyship after two of his predecessors were

murdered within the space of less than one month by revolted janissaries.111

Chaos was still reigning when the American force showed up at the Bay of

Algiers and Shaler and Decatur found no difficulty forcing a treaty on the Dey.

Negotiations started on June 29 and were carried aboard the American flagship

by the Algerian Minister of the Marine and the Swedish Consul. The Algerian

minister requested a truce to permit deliberation with the Dey but the

Americans rejected it. According to the report made to the Secretary of the

Navy, Decatur hastened for the signature of the treaty threatening: “not a

minute, if your squadron appears in sight before the treaty is actually signed by

the Dey, and the prisoners sent off, ours will capture it.”112 Within the span of

three hours, the Algerian minister and Swedish consul left and returned to the

flagship with the treaty signed; that was at about the same time an Algerian

corsair was returning to port.113 Dey Omar Agha signed the treaty to spare the

corsairs. A copy of the treaty was sent to the United States for ratification. The

vessel which carried it passed Gibraltar but never reached the United States.114

Another copy was not ratified until December 21, 1815; five days later the

treaty was proclaimed by the President.115

111
Grammont, Histoire d’Alger, pp. 373-75.
112
ASP/NA, 1:396, Stephen Decatur to Secretary of the Navy, June 20, 1815; Shaler, Sketches of
Algiers, pp. 274-75.
113
Ibid.
114
Irwin, Diplomatic Relations, p. 180. On board the vessel were also the 9 released prisoners.
115
SaL, 3:315.

366
 The terms of the treaty of 1815 provided for the abolition of tribute and

biennial presents (art. 1), release of the prisoners in the possession of the two

parties without payment of ransom (art. 2), and indemnifications for losses—of

the Edwin ((art. 3). The treaty also provided for passports but high seas control

was to be effected by two persons only ((art. 7). The treaty also specified that

in the event of future hostilities between the two countries, the captives were

not to be enslaved, but were to be treated as prisoners of war and had to be

exchanged within twelve months after their capture (art. 17). Furthermore, the

treaty contained a most-favored nation clause: during war between the United

States and another power, Algiers was to permit the United States to sell prize

vessels in its ports, but was to deny a similar privilege to the other power (art.

18). It also empowered American consuls to give assistance to citizens of the

United States charged with killing, wounding, or striking a subject of Algiers—

a recognition of the principle of extraterritoriality (art. 19). A sentence against

an American citizen was not to be greater than that against a Turk under the

same conditions (art. 20).116 As part of the agreement, the Americans promised

to return the Mashouda and Estedio. 117

The second phase started in March 1816 when another squadron brought

the ratified treaty to Algiers for exchange of ratification. The Dey declared it

void as the Americans did not respect the engagement of 1815 about returning

116
For the treaty of 1815 see SaL, 8:224-27, Treaty of Peace and Amity Concluded between the United
States of America and his Highness Omar Bashaw, Dey of Algiers; also Appendix 14. The treaty of
1815 was originally written in English and it is believed that the Dey did not have a Turkish translation.
In the Department of State archives there is no such translation. Miller, Treaties of the United States,
The Avalon Project at Yale Law School.
117
ASP/FA, 4:6, Stephen Decatur and William Shaler to James Monroe, July 4, 1815.
367
the Estedio.118 In early April 1816, Shaler left his residence at Algiers to the

flagship and preparations were made for attacking Algiers, then the project was

abandoned.119 On April 11, the Dey received the new commissioner Oliver H.

Perry and explained that the bad faith of the United States in failing to restore

the brig rendered his agreement with Decatur void.120 The Dey defended his

position on the basis of the treaty itself. Indeed, a clause in Article 16 stipulated

that in case the resident consul could not settle an arising dispute:

the Government of that country shall state their grievance in writing, and
transmit the same to the government of the other, and the period of three
months shall be allowed for answers to be returned, during which time
no act of hostility shall be permitted by either party.121

The Americans decided to cease hostilities pending an answer from the

American government. Meanwhile, Dey Omar wrote a letter to Madison

explaining why he considered the treaty of 1815 not binding for Algiers.122 The

answer of Madison refuted the argument of Dey Omar; Madison stated: “It is a

principle incorporated into the settled policy of America, that as peace is better

than war, war is better than tribute.”123 Madison’s letter was dated August,

1816 but a letter from him to Monroe dated June 25, 1816 shows that Madison

118
The Spanish delivered Mashouda but retained Estedio arguing that it was captured in Spanish
waters. The difference between Algiers and the United States on the one hand, and between the United
States and Spain on the other persisted until the Estedio was delivered late in 1816. See for example
Monroe’s report to Madison about negotiations with the Spanish, WJMPPP, 5:336-37, To the
President, June 7, 1816.
119
Shaler, Sketches of Algiers, p. 131; also Irwin, Diplomatic Relations, p. 183.
120
Ibid.
121
SaL, 8:226.
122
The letter of the Dey of Algiers the president of the United States appears in Shaler, Sketches of
Algiers, pp. 276-78. The letter was probably dated April 15, 1816 as the chronology of events shows.
Today, it is considered as a mere curiosity in diplomatic writings, see for example, Ralph W. Page,
Dramatic Moments in American Diplomacy (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, Page & Company,
1918p, pp. 96-104. See also Appendix 15.
123
LWJM, 3:15-17, To the Dey of Algiers, August, 1816. See Appendix 16.
368
had already decided to impose the treaty no matter the position of Algiers: “the

Dey must distinctly understand that we will make no change in the late treaty,

no concessions of any sort to avoid it.”124

In August 1816, a terrible bombardment of Algiers by the British and

Dutch warships which virtually annihilated the fleet of Algiers proved to be a

decisive Christian blow to the resistance of Algiers. It also proved to be

advantageous to the United States. In December 1816, the American squadron

returned with the answer of Madison but also an ultimatum to the Dey denying

him the right to reject the treaty of 1815.125 The Americans offered to modify

article 18 of the treaty which gave them advantage over the most favored

nations regarding the sale of war prizes at Algiers, a cause of the British

bombardment of Algiers in August 1816.126 Totally deprived of a navy, the

Dey could not avoid signing the treaty on December 23, 1816.

The treaty of 1816, however, was not ratified by Congress until

February 1822.127 As the treaty was not signed by the Dey until December

1816, by the time it reached the United States, a new administration was

installed—that of James Monroe (1817-1825). It seems that the Department of

State had ‘forgotten’ to transmit it to the Senate for ratification. In the

introductory message for ratification, which was indeed a justification for the

delay, Monroe simply specified that “it was not recollected.”128 Knowing that

124
As cited in Irwin, Diplomatic Relations, p. 184.
125
Shaler, Sketches of Algiers, pp. 297-300. See Appendix 17.
126
Ibid., p. 298. It does not seem that the Americans modified the article in question. See SaL, 8:246-
47.
127
SaL, 8:244.
128
CMPP, 2:679-80, Special Messages, December 30, 1821.
369
Monroe had played a prominent role in the events of 1815-1816 with Algiers, it

is not probable that he could not ‘recollect’ a treaty which took him two years

to achieve. Perhaps, peace treaties with Algiers had no more any importance as

long as the Americans could enforce them at the ‘mouth of cannons.’ Gunboat

diplomacy was by then an established feature of America foreign policy and

Algiers was but a piece in the American global puzzle of expansionism.

3. Algiers in American Gunboat Diplomacy

A dissection of American foreign policy at the turn of the 19th century in

relation with Algiers shows that the events of 1815-1816 had all the

characteristics of gunboat diplomacy and that American imperialism did not

wait for Theodore Roosevelt’s credo of the ‘big stick’ to assert itself. American

imperialism has its origins in the ‘Barbary Wars’ and the aggression against

Algiers offered the United States its first permanent naval presence in the

Mediterranean in 1815.

3. 1. Background and Definition of ‘Gunboat Diplomacy’

Historically, navies have played an important role in the history of

imperial powers. The powerful maritime nations used their fleets either as an

effective means of coercion against weaker nations to further their national

interests or to express explicit or implicit threats to resort to the use of force

should they not obtain satisfactory terms during negotiations. This second use

of maritime power had traditionally been termed ‘Gunboat Diplomacy.’

370
Gunboat Diplomacy, therefore, may be considered as a form of diplomacy

supported by a show of naval force and threat to use that force by one strong

country in order to impose its will on a weaker one.129

Although this form of diplomacy had existed since earlier times, the

term did not come into use until the mid-19th century.130 As it appears from the

diplomatic history of Algiers with the European powers, already discussed in

chapter three, treaties with Algiers were most often concluded by European

navy admirals during naval missions organized for the purpose. The Dutch, in

fact, were the initiators of this form of negotiations that were accompanied by

threats to use force as testified by admiral Lambert’s capture and hanging of

Algerian corsairs in 1624 as a leverage to obtain the liberation of Dutch

prisoners and a more favorable treaty.131 The English were not at rest; it was

during the Cromwellian and the Restoration periods that their gunboat

diplomacy found its way to Algiers.132 France engaged in the same policy

starting from the 1680s133 and even Denmark, a lesser power, tried it in the

1770s.134 Spain, after it disappeared from the shores of Algiers after 1541,

returned with force starting from 1730s. Although Spain was successful in

retaking Oran in 1732, the naval expedition of 1775 was a total disaster for its

129
“Gunboat diplomacy,” A Dictionary of World History, 2000. (Accessed 4 September 2008).
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O48-gunboatdiplomacy.html
130
The notable Don Pacifico incident gave the concept its name. In 1850, Lord Palmerston, Great
Britain’s foreign secretary, dispatched a squadron of gunboats to blockade Greece to obtain
compensation for a British subject whose house in Athens was looted and burned. Boyd, Newell D.,
“Lord Palmerston.” Microsoft Encarta 2009 Premium. (Accessed 4 September 2008).
131
Krieken, Corsaires et marchands, p. 11 ; Panzac, Corsaires barbaresques, p. 26.
132
Matar, “Britain and Barbary,” p. 9-10; Parker, “Reading Barbary,” p. 102-4; Tucker, Dawn Like
Thunder, pp. 55-6.
133
Panzac, Corsaires barbaresques, p. 27.
134
Muller, Consuls, Corsairs, and Commerce, p. 127.
371
armada and that of 1784 met the same fate.135 Steadfastness of Algiers then

permitted the conclusion of a 100 years truce which many observers at the time

considered humiliating for Spain.136 So, all through its long diplomatic history

with western countries, Algiers had been a theatre for ‘visits’ of threatening

squadrons. The United States, although a late comer, engaged in a policy of

gunboat diplomacy as soon as it could afford the means for that, i.e.: a navy.

By embarking on it, the United States in fact permitted the perpetuation of a

method of aggression against Algiers that was already characteristic of

European coercive diplomacy.

Gunboat Diplomacy has been successfully used by the great maritime

powers which, through conspicuous displays of their naval might, forced the

rulers of smaller or weaker countries into accepting terms favorable to

themselves. Most often, it served clear-cut foreign policy objectives that

consisted of obtaining advantageous commercial treaties, like markets and

trading posts, establishing military bases, or simply furthering an imperial

expansionism short of military conquest. During the 19th century, this form of

coercive action was left to the naval officers who carried their field operations

with great measures of latitude but always with the same objective: furthering

national interests be they strategic, political, or economic.

The use of naval power in the sense described above matches the

definition of ‘Gunboat Diplomacy’ as provided by the British diplomatist and

naval strategist James Cable (1920-2001). In a series of works published

135
Plantet, Correspondance des deys d’Alger, pp. LXVIII-IX.
136
USDC, 6:310, From William Carmichael to John Jay, July 15, 1786.
372
between 1971 and 2000, Cable identified the nature of gunboat diplomacy and

provided the following definition:

Gunboat Diplomacy is the use or threat of limited naval force, otherwise

than as an act of war, in order to secure advantage or to avert loss, either
in the furtherance of an international dispute or against foreign nationals
within the territory or the jurisdiction of their own state.137

For the purpose of analysis, Cable also subdivided Gunboat Diplomacy

into four distinct types: “definitive,” “purposeful,” “catalytic,” and

“expressive.” A close look at Cable’s typification indicates that American

foreign policy at the turn of the 19th century had all the characteristics of

gunboat diplomacy; therefore, one may say that American aggressiveness in

conducting foreign policy as expressed in early American political thought

found an early application in the Barbary Wars of that period.

3. 2. The Second ‘Barbary War’, 1815-1816: An early Case of Gunboat

Diplomacy in American Foreign Policy

By applying Cable’s classification to the American naval expeditions of

1815-1816 against Algiers one finds that American foreign policy towards

Algiers included all the ingredients of Gunboat Diplomacy. Although such

ingredients are scattered throughout all American documents relating to the

period, very few indeed suffice for this analysis, particularly the instructions of

James Monroe, the Secretary of State, to the ‘peace commissioners to Algiers’

137
James Cable, Gunboat Diplomacy: Political Applications of Limited Naval Forces, 1919–1991, 3rd
ed. (London: International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1994), p. 14.
373
dated April 10, 1815.138 The commissioners were William Shaler, a new consul

to Algiers, and William Bainbridge and Stephen Decatur, naval officers who

were commissioned to command the two squadrons of battleships which the

United States dispatched to Algiers. Right at the start, the very composition of

the actors is indicative of the nature of that mission.

United States foreign policy and naval actions against Algiers at the turn

of the 19th century fit perfectly within Cable’s four subdivisions of Gunboat

Diplomacy:

a) Definitive Force: according to Cable, “definitive force is the threat or

use of limited naval force to create or remove a fait accompli.”139 When the

American president James Madison recommended to Congress an act declaring

war against Algiers and “such provisions as may be requisite for a vigorous

prosecution of it to a successful issue,” he was in fact projecting to use force

towards ‘negotiating,’ or rather imposing, a new treaty that would put an end to

tribute.140 Monroe was more explicit in his instructions to the commissioners;

for him obtaining “an honorable and lasting peace is the great object of this

expedition” and that could not be effected “by other means than the dread or

success of our arms.”141 The conditions of peace, ultimate objective, as defined

by Monroe were: “No tribute will be paid; no biennial presents made; the

138
James Monroe, The Writings of James Monroe, Including a Collection of his Public and Private
Papers and Correspondence, edited by Stanislaus Murray Hamilton, 7 vol. (New York/London: G. P.
Putnam’s Sons, 1899), 5:377-80, To the Peace Commissioners to Algiers, April 10, 1815. (Hereafter
cited as WJMPPP). See also Appendix 13.
139
Cable, Gunboat Diplomacy, p. 22.
140
ASP/FA, 3:748, Message from the President of the United States to Congress, Feb. 23, 1815. The
message appears in Appendix 13A.
141
WJMPPP, 5:377.
374
United States must hold the high ground with that power which they ought to

hold.”142

Monroe’s stated objective denotes a shift in American approach to

tribute. By plainly indicating that the targeted objective was to terminate “those

odious practices” (tribute and presents) and that it was not “the mere question

of the sum demanded that prevents a provision for it in the Treaty but the

recognition of the principle,”143 the United States was in fact moving from the

realpolitics of the 1790s to a new approach based on principle.144 While the

first favored negotiation of a treaty based on tribute as a transitory phase

pending the building of a navy, the second considered tribute incompatible with

American ideals of freedom once that naval power was acquired; hence, the

move to alter the prevailing corsairing practices by threats to use naval power,

and if necessary, limited use of that power.

The American objective was clearly set and it was two-fold: first, the

objective aimed at removing an already existing condition which was the

conclusion of a new treaty not including tribute and biennial presents; in its

second part, it aimed at creating a new condition which consisted of

establishing supremacy of American interests at Algiers at the detriment of

other powerful countries already having treaties with Algiers. In that view,

Monroe instructed the commissioners to obtain favorable treaty terms so that

142
WJMPPP, 5:379.
143
Ibid.
144
The term ‘realpolitics’ has its origin in the German word realpolitik; it describes politics that are
based on “pragmatism or practicality rather than on ethical or theoretical considerations.”
“Realpolitik,” Microsoft Encarta Premium Suite 2005. (Accessed 15 Nov. 2008).
375
the United States “must hold the high ground with that power which they ought

to hold.”145 While the first element of the objective could be obtained easily,

Algiers being a weaker country, the second, however, proved to be difficult

because it affected the interests of a greater power, in this case Great Britain.

Great Britain precisely considered that the 18th article of the 1815 treaty

of the United States with Algiers relating to the sale of prizes in the port of

Algiers was incompatible with the 9th and 10th articles of the treaties of 1682

and 1686 of Britain with Algiers.146 That was sufficient reason for Britain to

send its gunboats to Algiers in 1816 not only as a reminder to the Dey but also

as a gunboat diplomacy signal intended for the United States.147 The United

States, well knowledgeable about the implications of that method, understood

the signal and backed up.148 This brings into discussion a second definition of

gunboat diplomacy. According to the American historian Kenneth J. Hagan,

gunboat diplomacy is “the finite application of force to effect discrete political

ends in distant places.”149 In fact, in addition to the declared objectives, the

Americans had a concealed objective: that of raising the United States to an

equal footing with the powerful nations as indicated here in a private letter of

Monroe:

145
WJMPPP, 5:379
146
John Quincy Adams, Writings of John Quincy Adams, edited by Worthington C. Ford, 7 vol. (New
York: The Macmillan Company, 1813-1917), 3: 356, (Hereafter cited as WJQA); Shaler, Sketches of
Algiers, p. 298. For articles of the British treaties see Hertslet, Collection of Treaties and Conventions,
pp. 60-1, 68-9; for article 18 of the American treaty see SaL, 8:226-27. See also Appendix 2A and
Appendix 14 respectively.
147
For a full account of the expeditions of 1816 see Roger Perkins and K. J. Douglas-Morris, Gunfire
in Barbary: Admiral Lord Exmouth’s Battle with the Corsairs of Algiers in 1816: The Story of the
Suppression of White Christian Slavery (Homewell, Great Britain: Kenneth Mason, 1982), pp. 107-33.
148
Shaler, Sketches of Algiers, p. 298; Schuyler, American Diplomacy, p. 225.
149
As cited in Mark A. Gunzinger, “Power Projection: Making the Tough Choices,” Paper, United
States Air Force, Alabama, (undated), p. 3.
376
 It is an object important, to see what effect the expedition against
Algiers will have on the powers of Europe, particularly England. I rather
think that the object is too inconsiderable compared with the
consequences for her [Great Britain] to attempt the seizure of our
squadron. If it makes a successful enterprise the measure will raise us in
the estimation of the powers of the Continent. It will also raise us in the
estimation of England.150

The commissioners faithfully fulfilled that objective and communicated to

Monroe: [T]his treaty appears to secure every interest within the contemplation

of the government, … it really places the United States on higher grounds than

any other nation.”151

b) Catalytic Force: Cable defines Catalytic force as a mechanism

designed to buy a breathing space or give policy-makers a range of options the

purpose of which is to realize advantages through the limited use of naval

forces.152 While the American objective was clearly defined, the method,

although implying the use of force, was not sufficiently outlined. In what ways

and to what extent that force should be used was left to the judgment of the

commanders of the squadrons:

Whether it will be better to proceed directly with the squadron in front

of the town, before an attempt is made to negotiate, or to remain at some
distance, your own judgments aided by the intelligence you may obtain
of the enemy’s force, the state of the city, and other circumstances will
be your best guides.153

150
WJMPPP, 5:331, To Alexander J. Dallas, May 28, 1815.
151
ASP/FA, 4:6, Stephen Decatur and William Shaler to James Monroe, July 4, 1815.
152
Cable, Gunboat Diplomacy, p. 46.
153
WJMPPP, 5:378, To the Peace Commissioners to Algiers, April 10, 1815.
377
For sure, there were a number of alternatives which provided politicians with

enough room to decide about the next move should a limited use of force fails

to attain the objectives in view. The Americans were confident as to the

“faithful execution of the treaty” and its future respect by Algiers because they

could “rely on the credit already acquired by [American] arms;”154 but should

they not meet the objective immediately, other alternatives were already

visible. According to Monroe, the United States was rapidly rising in

population and so was its importance as a commercial and maritime nation;

therefore, it will have “more power to inflict the punishment on them

[Algerines] which for the present may be spared.155 In like manner, Madison

suggested deployment of a force enough to protect Mediterranean commerce.

Should that not meet the desired objectives, squadrons would be reinforced:

It merits consideration whether the squadron might not proceed in such

force only as would overmatch that of Algiers and suffice for a
blockade; diminishing thus the stake exposed, without an entire
disappointment as to the original objects. The reinforcing squadron or
squadrons might follow as soon as better estimates of the prospect
should justify it.156

It was evident that the Americans projected a limited use of force and over a

short period of time only; the objective was the conclusion of a new treaty

according to terms they had fixed. Should that treaty could be obtained by a

mere show of force, like a blockade or show of the flag for example, further

undertakings would be unnecessary: “it is the duty of the government to

154
WJMPPP, 5:378, To the Peace Commissioners to Algiers, April 10, 1815.
155
Ibid.
156
LWJM 2:611, to Monroe, July 14, 1815.
378
terminate the war as soon as it may be done on just and honorable conditions,”

noted Monroe.157 And as the Americans were confident in the force of their

arms and their growing power, they believed that there would be ample room in

the future for “punishment” should Algiers not respect American terms.

c) Expressive Force: Expressive force implies the use of navies to send a

political message, provide support to unconvincing statements, or act as an

outlet for emotion.158 In this case, the use of limited force implied, in addition

to the political message intended for Algiers which was apparent, much

bombastic nationalism that was characteristic of the formative years of the

early Republic.159 After three wars, two of which were fought against greater

powers, the Americans gained more confidence in their system of government

and naval strength to the point that they judged an extensive use of force

against Algiers unnecessary and that a mere show of force was sufficient.160

Madison’s message to Congress at the termination of that show is an ample

example of the ‘expressive force’ component of gunboat diplomacy:

The high character of the American commander was brilliantly

sustained on the occasion which brought his own ship into close action
with that of his adversary, as was the accustomed gallantry of all the
officers and men actually engaged. Having prepared the way by this

157
WJMPPP, 5:378, To the Peace Commissioners to Algiers, April 10, 1815.
158
Cable, Gunboat Diplomacy, p. 62.
159
Stephen John Hartnett, and Jennifer Rose Mercieca, “‘Has Your Courage Rusted?: National
Security and the Contested Rhetorical Norms of Republicanism in Post-Revolutionary America, 1798–
1801,” Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 9: 1 (2006), pp. 79-112; Engell, “Narrative Irony and National
Character,” p. 19; see also an opinion from that period in Filipo Pananti, Narrative of a Residence in
Algiers; Comprising a Geographical and Historical Account of the Regency; Biographical Sketches of
the Dey and His Ministers; Anecdotes on the late War; Observations on the Relations of the Barbary
States with the Christian Powers; and the Necessity and Importance of their Complete Subjugation
(London: Henry Colburn, 1818), p. 400.
160
LWJM 2:611, to Monroe, July 14, 1815.
379
 demonstration of American skill and prowess, he hastened to the port of
Algiers, where peace was promptly yielded to his victorious force.161

d) Purposeful Force: According to Cable, purposeful force acts as a

catalyst to induce a government to “take a decision that would not otherwise

have been taken – to do something or to stop doing it, or to refrain from a

contemplated course of action.”162 This last component of gunboat diplomacy

makes use of limited naval force for the purpose of changing the policy or

character of a targeted government or group; in other terms, purposeful force is

used to coerce the victim government into altering its policy.163 Contrary to

‘definitive force,’ which defines clearly the objectives to be attained, the

purposeful employment of limited naval force aims to change a policy but its

success requires that the victim government would voluntary consent to change

its policy. In the case of Algiers, the goal of the United States was to put an end

to the practice of corsairing in general, or as the American minister to Great

Britain John Quincy Adams (1815-1817) put it “I hope they [commissioners]

have secured to our country the honor of breaking up the whole of that nest of

pirates on the shores of Africa,” but the success of that American objective

depended on the Dey’s voluntarily acquiescence to terminate the practice of

corsairing—with all ingredients attached to it.164 Force then served only to

signify to the Dey that the United States was in possession of a terrible force

161
CMPP, 1:563, Madison: Seventh Annul Message, December 5th, 1815. Monroe’s instructions are
loaded with such rhetoric.
162
Cable, Gunboat Diplomacy, pp. 33-5.
163
Stephen Andrew Kelley, “Better Lucky than Good: Operation Earnest Will as Gunboat Diplomacy,”
Master’s Thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, California, 2007, p. 48.
164
WJQA, 5:328, To Christopher Hughes, 18 July, 1815.
380
that was waiting to attack him should he did not comply. The message was also

penned in Monroe’s instructions:

The honorable termination of the war with England, with which the
Government of Algiers is doubtless well informed and the complete
liberation of our forces for this service, must satisfy the Dey that he has
much to dread from the continued hostility of the United States. From
the formidable force ready to assail him, he must anticipate the most
serious disasters, and when he recollects how rapidly we have grown to
the present height, a sure presage of the high destiny which awaits us, he
will find no cause to hope for any change in his favor.165

Accordingly, the achievement of this complex set of objectives which

implied strategic, political, economic, as well as nationalistic and jingoistic

ingredients required that the Americans embark on a policy of gunboat

diplomacy towards Algiers. The series of developments in relations between

Algiers and the United States that occurred between 1798 and 1812, did only

give the Americans, particularly the administration of James Madison (1809-

1817), the necessary arguments for sending squadrons to Algiers in 1815. But

the diplomacy of aggression was already a characteristic inherent in American

foreign policy.

165
WJMPPP, 5:379.
381
Conclusion

Although Algiers and the United States concluded a peace treaty in

1795, differences were not settled. Whereas Algiers considered that the United

States had to honor the treaty in matters of naval stores’ deliveries, the United

States was reluctant to do so. Part of the reason was that the Americans viewed

badly tribute and interpreted it as submission to the will of a Muslim power.

During the administrations of George Washington and John Adams, the

Americans more or less respected the treaty albeit with delays in delivery of

stores. However, starting from 1801, the advent of the administrations of

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, which were radically opposed to tribute,

complicated relations between Algiers and the United States. During the period

1800-1812, a number of event developed which heightened distrust of

Americans at Algiers and led to further problems. The George Washington

incident of 1800 was decried by Americans as national humiliation and

Madison reserved to the United States the right for ‘retaliation’ and

‘punishment’ of Algiers. The crisis of 1807 which culminated in the capture of

two American vessels was quickly contained; but the departure of Lear from

Algiers in 1812 on a background of tensions and the capture of another ship

shortly afterwards provided the Americans with the ideal opportunity for

asserting United States presence among the rank of the major maritime powers.

Meanwhile, the United States was working towards other objectives,

particularly assertion of American commercial and naval presence in the

Mediterranean. For that, the Americans engaged in wars not only with the
382
European powers but also with the ‘Coast of Barbary’ states. In 1801, Jefferson

initiated a policy which consisted of keeping the U.S. navy squadrons in

constant cruises near the cost of North Africa alleging protection of American

traders against pirates’ attacks. In fact, the Americans were intent upon

terminating tribute and acquiring the status of a major naval power on the same

basis as the great European powers. After two wars fought successfully against

France and Great Britain, the American devised plans for attacking Algiers.

The crisis which developed in 1812 over the delivery of stores was exploited

almost three years later and served as a justification for sending squadrons to

Algiers.

With American squadrons patrolling in the Mediterranean and

threatening Muslim states, the United States entered an era of gunboat

diplomacy. With Algiers, the Americans declared war in 1815 and forced two

treaties on the Dey of Algiers at the mouth of cannons thus shattering

supremacy of Algiers’ corsairing diplomacy. A dissection of the so-called

Second Barbary War, 1815-1816 shows in fact that American late 19th century

imperialism was given expression earlier in the exhibitions of naval force at the

shores of Algiers and repeated threats to use that force in case Algiers did not

abide by America’s terms. By the end, corsairing diplomacy crumbled; a fact

which gave way to American gunboat diplomacy and subsequently European

colonialism in the area.

383
Table 10: The United States and Algiers: a Timeline, 1776-1816

UNITED STATES ALGIERS/ MAJOR EVENTS

RULERS
The Department &
Executive Secretary

1774-1781 Committee of Secret Muhammed 1776:

Continental Correspondence Ben Uthman, Sept., Plan of treaty which seeks to obtain
Congress (1775-77) 1766-1791 ‘protection’ against Algiers under treaties with
Christian powers
Committee for 1778:
Foreign Affairs Feb., Treaty with France guarantees no more
(1777-80) than ‘good offices’ of the King

1781-1789 Department of 1785:

Confederation Foreign Affairs: May, British Consul Charles Logie arrives at
Congress Algiers
Robert Livingstone Jul.-Aug., Algerian corsairs captures two
(1781-83) American ships; 21 prisoners
John Jay (1784-90) 1786:
Mar., 25-Apr. 20, John Lamb at Algiers; he
negotiates for ransom of prisoners
1787:
The Algerine Spy in Pennsylvania was
published anonymously, later it was attributed
to the American playwright Peter Markoe
USA adopts a new constitution

1789-1797 Department of State: Hassan, 1792:

George 1791-1798 Mar., James L. Cathcart becomes Chief-
Washington Thomas Jefferson Christian Secretary for Dey Hassan Pasha
1790-93 1793:
Edmund Randolph Sep., truce between Algiers and Portugal
1794 Oct.-Nov., Algerian corsairs capture American
Timothy Pickering ships (11); 115 prisoners
1795-97 1795:
Sep., Joseph Donaldson, Jr. arrives at Algiers
and concludes a peace treaty with the Dey at a
record time of 42 hours
1796:
Mar., Joel Barlow arrives at Algiers
Apr., Donaldson leaves for Livorno to seek
funds
1796:
July, American prisoners released; reach
Philadelphia Feb. 1797
1796:
Nov., Americans negotiate peace treaty with
Tripoli under the auspices of the Dey who
advances money and guarantees the treaty

384
Timeline, 1776-1816 (continued)

1797-1801 Timothy Pickering, 1797:

John Adams 1797-1800 Jul., Barlow leaves Algiers
John Marshall, Aug. USA concludes a peace treaty with Tunis
1800-1801 with the help of the Dey who advances money
and guarantees the treaty
1798:
Jan., Richard O’Brien arrives at Algiers as
American Consul General;
Feb., In the United States, Congress fathers the
publication of the journal of John Foss, a
former American captive at Algiers, which
appeared under the title: A Journal of the
Captivity and Sufferings of John Foss
Mustafa Ben 1799:
Brahim, Feb., William Eaton arrives at Algiers and
1798-1805 meets Dey Mustafa
1800:
Oct., Dey ‘freights’ the George Washington to
take tribute to the Sultan in Constantinople;
Algerine flag hoisted on the main mast of the
American battleship; wide fulminations in the
United States considering it national
humiliation

1801-1809 James Madison, 1801:

Thomas 1801-1809 Soon after inauguration, Jefferson orders
Jefferson ‘squadron of observation’ into the
Mediterranean
1801-1805:
First Barbary War, effective naval warfare with
Tripoli and Muscle show at Tangier, Morocco
and Tunis
1803:
Nov., Tobias Lear succeeds to O’Brien as
Consul General at Algiers
Ahmed, 1807:
1805-1808 Oct., treaty repudiated; Algiers’ corsairs
capture 2 American vessel—the crews (9
Americans) were kept prisoners at Algiers for
40 days
Dec., Peace reestablished after Americans paid
for arrearages
1808:
Mar., New crisis developed but was contained
speedily
Ali Khodja,
1808-1809

385
Timeline, 1776-1816 (continued)

1809-1817 Robert Smith, Hadj Ali 1812:

James 1809-1811 Khodja, Jul., Disagreement about payments in stores;
Madison James Monroe, 1809-1815 Lear ordered to leave Algiers. He left with 16
1811-1817 others Americans who were present at Algiers
Aug., Seizure of an American vessel; 10
prisoners
1815-1816:
Second Barbary War; American squadrons
threaten Algiers
Apr. U. S. sends two squadrons to the
Mediterranean
Hadj Jun. 15, Decatur’s Squadron encounters
Muhammed, Meshuda, the flagship of the Algerian fleet;
1815 Rais Hamidou killed in a four-hour battle
Omar Agha, Jun. 28, Squadron appears at the bay of Algiers
1815-1817 and threatens to capture Algerian squadron,
then out at sea, if the treaty was not signed
Jun. 29, Dey signs treaty at the mouth of
canons; Algiers releases American captives and
renounces tribute payments and enslavement of
captives in the event of future hostilities;
squadron leaves July 8.
1816:
Mar.-Apr. Squadron anchored at Algiers
Aug., a joint British-Dutch bombardment
ravages the port and the city
Aug., American squadron returns to Algiers
Dec. 8, American squadron returns to Algiers;
second treaty signed; confirms precedent treaty
with slight modification altering Article 18.

1817-1825 John Quincy Adams 1822:

James 1817-1825 The Department of State ignored the treaty of
Monroe 1816 and it was not ratified until February
1822.

Source: Data is collected from the different sources used for part II of this work.

386
 CONCLUSIONS

In his renowned Pirates and Emperors (1986), the American left-wing

intellectual Noam Chomsky (1928- ), an internationally acclaimed linguist and

foremost critic of American imperialism, imported ancient piracy into the

twentieth century and used it as a basis for analyzing contemporary western

perversions of terrorism. In the preface to the first edition of his book,

Chomsky began the text with the anecdote of a pirate captured by Alexander

the Great as told by St. Augustine, the Algerian theologian of the 5th century, in

The City of God.1 When Alexander asked the pirate, “How dare you molest the

sea,” the pirate replied, “How dare you molest the whole world? Because I do it

with a little ship only, I am called a thief; you, doing it with a great navy, are

called an emperor.”2 Chomsky’s point of view is clear: in contemporary

western usage, ‘retail terrorism’ of individuals and groups serves as an

ideological cover for true terrorism, namely violence and wholesale terrorism

perpetrated by the mighty western states, particularly the United States, against

weaker countries.3

1
Silverstein, Paul A. “The New Barbarians,” p. 182.
2
Noam Chomsky, Pirates and Emperors, Old and New: International Terrorism in the Real World, 2nd
edition (Cambridge, MA: South End Press, 2002), p. vii.
3
Ibid.
387
 The conservative observers, however, exported terrorism to the

eighteenth century and interpreted United States first naval campaigns abroad

against the ‘Barbary States’ as a complete success against terrorism. In his

article “Terrorism in Early America,” Richard Jewett concluded that:

The United States chose to fight the pirates of Barbary, rather than pay
tribute, as did all the other nations who traded in the Mediterranean Sea.
The decision was bold, but the eventual victory by the tiny United States
Navy broke a pattern of international blackmail and terrorism dating
back more than one hundred and fifty years.4

The deployment of the analogy between piracy and terrorism led to two

different assessments. While the first analogy dated back to the bipolar world

of the Cold War and found wide echoes among the critics of American

imperialism, the second was prompted by the 9/11 events and found support

among the neoconservative intellectuals who preached a so-called ‘Bush

doctrine’ of unilateral intervention.5 When subjected to two alternate

interpretations, the analogy between piracy and terrorism led forcibly to

alternate conclusions.

Contrary to left-wing and neoconservative approaches, this research

work has extracted debate over ‘piracy’ from contemporary interpretations and

placed it in its true historical context. When the so-called ‘Barbary piracy’

scrutinized for the period 1519-1830, lifetime of the regency of Algiers, this

research identified two sorts of plunder on the high seas: lawful and unlawful
4
Thomas Jewett, “Terrorism in Early America: The U.S. Wages War against the Barbary States to End
International Blackmail and Terrorism.” Early America Review 4, no. 1, (Winter-Spring 2002), p. 1.
(Accessed 18 May 2007). http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2002_winter_spring/terrorism.htm
5
Paul Lyons, “George W. Bush’s City on a Hill,” The Journal of the Historical Society, 6:1 (March
2006), 119.

388
plunder. The first type, called corsairing or privateering, was legally recognized

by the prevailing laws of nations; the second, much older called piracy, was

condemned under the same laws and those who practiced it were declared

‘hostis humani generis,’ or ‘enemies of humanity,’ a legal argument permitting

execution of pirates. By analysis, this thesis came to the conclusion that

plunder as it was practiced by Algiers fell in the first category. In other terms,

unlike contemporary studies, this work has found that what has been

perpetuated as ‘Algerine piracy’ was in fact corsairing—the two practices

bearing two utterly different legal meanings—and concludes that tagging

Algiers as a ‘pirate state’ was sufficient argument for westerners to terminate

its existence as a polity.

Like contemporary studies, however, this work maintains that there is

indeed an analogy between the amalgam of piracy and terrorism, on the one

hand, and piracy and corsairing, on the other; but the argument of this research

work is contrary to what most westerners affirm. As contemporary western

analogies are meant to cover less idealistic goals, including maintaining global

hegemony, access to and control of critical resources such as oil, and

maximization of multinational corporations’ interests, the amalgam between

corsairing and piracy also served as a cover to legitimate western policies of

expansion be they religious, political, economic, or territorial which ultimately

led to the conquest of Algiers. Research has shown that it was precisely those

policies which gave birth to the myth of the ‘Algerine pirate’.

389
 Appraisal of the long history of Algiers has revealed that westerners

built numerous misrepresentations of the region and its population, fortified

them, and ended by exploiting their ingenious propaganda towards the

fulfillment of ideological purposes. In sum, according to western views, the

inhabitants of Algiers were barbarians, their homeland was a nest of thieves

and banditti, and their state was a piratical entity which lived parasitically on

plunder and ransom of Christian slaves. These images were perpetuated for

over three hundred years and many of them found a way into the twenty first

century. The terminology may have changed today but the essence and the

purpose remain the same. The Muslim, past and present, is regarded as

pirate/terrorist, slaveholder and despotic/undemocratic, and barbarian/

underdeveloped.

As a matter of fact, Algiers as it stood in the western mind was a

creation that was fabricated at a time when animosity between Islam and

Christianity reached a zenith. Out of enmity to Islam and ignorance about it,

Christian redemptionists spread the scare of the cruel ‘Barbary pirate’ and

multiplied one-sided travel accounts to discourage Christians from converting

to Islam—the loss in ‘renegades’ was considerable—and by the same way

increase their funding. The move was soon picked up by politicians who

encouraged captivity narratives. Dehumanized and debased to the rank of

animals, the Muslim populations were then considered ripe for colonization.

After investigation, this study has identified five major distortions to

historical truth and attempted to straighten them. The conclusions are as

390
follows: First, the Muslim who was portrayed in the image of a pirate was in

fact a corsair legitimated in his actions against his Christian enemies by the

very principles and statutes of westerners. Corsairing, as its Anglo-Saxon

equivalent privateering, was a Mediterranean practice which was accepted by

all belligerents as a form of warfare; its equivalent the French term guerre de

course denotes clearly its true meaning. The Algerian corsair fought to preserve

his religion, avert western conquest and infiltration attempts, and resist their

political influence and increasing bullying for commercial privileges. The

Algerian corsair did not steal from ‘honest’ Christian merchants but captured

property belonging to the enemy at times of war and his seizures, by the laws

of nations, were legal prize. He did not either make slaves of ‘innocent’

Christians but he imprisoned his Christian enemies and enslaved them

according to Mediterranean practice. So piracy was a myth which was nurtured

in the western mind and propaganda only.

Second, corsairing was not Algiers’ sole source of revenue as it has

always been pretended. Revisionist studies estimate that prizes and ransoms in

seventeenth century Algiers when corsairing was at its height, for example,

constituted between 10-15% of the revenues and absorbed about the same

percentage of the active population. When Algiers’s revenues providing from

corsairing are compared to those of Malta, also a corsairing state more or less

equal in strength to Algiers, they proved to be much inferior (against 25-30%

for Malta); but when compared to major powers’ proceeds from

corsairing/privateering, they proved to be insignificant. And then again

391
corsairing and its related activities concerned only a small portion of the

population of the regency of Algiers. That portion included Turks and

renegades mainly who actually derived revenue from corsairing whereas the

majority of the population (Arabs, Moors, and Berbers) derived revenues from

agricultural activities. So, Algiers did not live parasitically on booty and

looting.

Third, payments in naval stores and consular presents were not

blackmail or extortion money as westerners often argue; rather they were

charges attached to privileges that served to guarantee Algiers reciprocity in

profit-making. In matters of trade, the principle of reciprocity was rarely

incorporated in treaties; generally, treaties opened Algerian ports, markets, and

riches to western privateers and traders at a time Algiers had no merchant navy

and its external trade and finances were totally monopolized by Christian

merchants and Jew brokers. In the very rare cases when Algerian merchants

ventured in the export or carrying businesses, they encountered discriminatory

policies which ejected them from European markets. Reciprocity covered

cruisers and corsairs exclusively but then only on the high seas; very rare were

the ports which welcomed Algerian merchantmen—when they existed—and

corsairs were denied access to European ports—except in cases of distress. So,

to compensate the large privileges Christians obtained at Algiers, treaties

provided for annual payments usually in the form of naval materials—

pejoratively called ‘tribute’ in western writing—and biennial consular presents

which were considered as regalian rights. So long as Algiers could enforce its
392
treaties with the western powers, payments in naval stores preserved their

original meaning.

This research work has also detected a mutation in the meaning of

tribute and presents. By the end of the 18th century, time at which Algiers came

into contact with the Americans, westerners corrupted the original meaning of

tribute which then became synonymous of extortion or protection money.

Moreover, European consuls transformed consular presents into a form of

corruption to obtain more favors and privileges but also to exclude their

competitors. In the race for political influence and trading advantages at

Algiers, western consuls and all sorts of adventurers intrigued, corrupted, and

bribed state official. The more expensive were consular presents, the less the

weakest and lesser-moneyed countries could compete. Therefore, presents lost

their original meaning as symbols of office and were transformed into a

diplomatic arm by means of which European powers sought to exclude new

competitors—like the United States—from Mediterranean profits.

Fourth, contrary to western allegations, this work concludes that

captivity at Algiers was not slavery and that it was not an exclusive Algerian

deed. Christian captives were not slaves but enslaved prisoners of war, an

ancient tradition of war sanctioned by the law of nations and practiced on both

shores of the Mediterranean basin. As such, their enslavement was neither

perpetual nor hereditary nor sanctioned by theories of biological inferiority as

was the case in western societies. By their status of war prisoners, they could

be liberated upon payment of ransom or exchange, also defined by legal

393
statutes and treaties. In this capacity, they were also an economic asset; so

humane treatment was imperative if their captors wished to ransom or

exchange them one day. The much decried ‘cruelty of the Algerian pirate’ was

unfounded—at least as far as Christian captives were concerned.

Research has also revealed that Christian captives at Algiers, contrary to

Muslim captives at Christian hands, were better-treated. Whereas the first were

submitted to the hardships of labor and the most extreme body punishments,

the latter, while also enduring hard works, the most they could get as

punishment were bastinadoes. Moreover, shackling and whipping employed

routinely against slaves in Europe and the United States was rare and never

used against females; branding was unknown; and slavery was neither

perpetual nor hereditary. Christian captives at Algiers, could change status

simply by converting to Islam which thousands did as testified by the massive

presence of ‘renegades’ at leading positions of the Algerian state. About

captives, this work concludes that the much decried indignation and anti-

Algerian propaganda in Europe and the United States probably reflected more a

fear of losing skilled craftsmen and Christians to Islam than any real concern

about their living conditions at Algiers.

Finally, the fifth conclusion relating to the so-called ‘formidable’ naval

power of Algiers considers that far from being a real threat that jeopardized

western interests, Algiers was at best a nuisance. At the end of the 18th century,

corsairing was already on the decline and Algiers’ much inflated naval power

belonged to a bygone age. Its fleet was reduced to a handful of obsolete vessels
394
that were miserably armed, its commerce was at the hands of Jews and

Christians, and its littoral transformed to European concessions. Yet, European

powers continued to nourish the myth of an alarming naval power first to

justify repeated attacks against Algiers and second to scare their competitors,

American chiefly, out of Mediterranean trade. Paradoxically, the Americans

depicted irreversible weaknesses in Algiers’ fortifications and fleet, a reason

which caused them to attack it.

In fact, all these elements were ingredients of corsairing but the practice

in itself when put into its true historical, legal, and diplomatic contexts is more

complex and subject to alternate assessments and accordingly conclusions. This

research work has re-examined relations between Algiers and the western

countries from what one may perhaps call a trans-Mediterranean-Atlantic

approach and has come out with a number of conclusions which are presented

here in a chronological order. Initially, between Algiers and Christian countries

corsairing was adopted as a mode of warfare in a centuries-long Muslim-

Christian conflict which origins go back to the crusades of the medieval ages.

The conflict was revived at the completion of Spanish Reconquista in 1492 and

was brought to the shores of Algiers in the form of conquest starting from

1505. At that time, on both sides of the Mediterranean corsairing was perceived

as a holy war against infidel enemies and the prevailing conflict was

characterized by reciprocal animosity. Therefore, according to western legal

thought, a ‘lawful enemy’ and a ‘state of war’ existed between Algiers and the

Christian countries. This, in fact, is one of two conditions which permitted

395
distinction between corsairing and piracy in this work. Based on this argument,

this thesis concludes that Muslim corsairing, just like Christian corsairing, had

historical and religious legitimacy.

Algiers precisely used corsairing both as a defensive and retaliatory

weapon. Originally, Algerian corsairs fought against Spanish conquest but

starting from the early 17th century, they had to deal with repeated attacks from

other European countries. Excepting none, all major western powers, and lesser

powers, at one time or another during the three centuries-lifespan of Algiers

sent squadrons of battleships that poured wrath and devastation on Algerian

port-cities. Faced with such conditions, the Algerian corsairs adapted

themselves to the prevailing circumstances. Taking into consideration their

relatively weaker capacities—in comparison with a combined striking force of

Europeans—the corsairs adopted limited warfare tactics whereby they pursued

enemies’ merchantmen often as armed as themselves on the high seas.

Research has also shown that Spanish attacks had placed Algiers in a

position that made it suspicious of all Christian powers and for good reasons:

just the number of naval expeditions launched against Algiers gives an

indication about the extent of terror Christian powers had inflicted on the

Muslim population of Algiers. Such generalization of suspicion about

Christians on the part of Algiers did not take into consideration the difference

between Catholics and Protestants and caused extension of Algerian corsairing

to countries that traditionally were arch enemies of Spain, like Britain and the

Netherlands, a fact which increased the extent of hostilities. By the time the
396
United States entered into Mediterranean trade it was also perceived as a

Christian enemy and corsairing practices affected its merchant shipping even

though other factors were at play then.

Meanwhile, with the extension of Ottoman rule to Algiers in 1519, the

latter obtained military assistance which permitted it to set the foundations of a

navy. During the 16th century, Algiers gained experience and skill in the

crucible of squadron warfare and crusading attacks. Its budding navy gained in

strength and daring men with strong faith, discipline, and courage made it a

match for European fleets. Maritime supremacy permitted Algiers to contain

Christian attacks and regain control of ports previously lost to Spain. So long as

Algiers maintained maritime control over its shores, Christian attacks were

thwarted. After the resounding defeat of its armada in 1541, Spanish attacks

vanished and Algiers could enjoy the sobriquet of the ‘invincible city’ but not

for long. The battle of Lepanto (1571) and political upheavals at Algiers ended

Ottoman naval presence in the western Mediterranean and Algiers had to face

alone other rising maritime powers but that had to wait for a while.

Researched material has permitted this study to state with some certainty

that Algerian corsairing took its true meaning, that is to say chasing enemy

merchant vessels on the high seas, at the close of squadron warfare. From late

16th century up to the mid-17th century or so, Algiers was unbeatable in that

form of warfare. Not only did Algerian corsairs gain supremacy on the high

seas but the renegades who joined the Algerian fleet during that period, mainly

Dutch and English, took corsairing to their homelands and even further which
397
altered the geopolitical concerns of Algerian corsairing. It was precisely that

spectacular spread of corsairing practices that gave birth to the western myth of

the ‘terrible Barbary pirate’. Unable to beat corsairs on the high seas or not

having navies yet, other European counties, particularly the Netherlands, Great

Britain, and France sought a diplomatic solution. The shift to negotiated

understandings brought about what this research work calls ‘corsairing

diplomacy’.

While investigating early Algerian diplomatic contacts with European

countries, research has revealed that a sort of diplomacy involving corsairing

activities started to take shape. By tracking down diverse elements pertaining to

corsairing in the early treaties between Algiers and major European countries

and comparing them, it became evident to the researcher that those treaties had

a common trait which distinguished them from other treaties—like those

between European countries for example. One may state here that one of the

conclusions—perhaps the most important one—this research work has

achieved is the identification of a distinct type of diplomacy, termed here

‘corsairing diplomacy’ which gave Algerian corsairing legitimacy. Corsairing

diplomacy may be defined as a form of diplomatic intercourse between Algiers

and the Christian countries which regulated bilateral relations and corsairing

activities on the basis of three major principles which included: tributes to

compensate economic privilege, high seas control based on passports, and

ransom or exchange of enslaved captives. Those principles were in fact the

pillars of corsairing diplomacy which, in addition to western laws and

398
Mediterranean practice, served in this work as an argument to complement

legitimization of Algerian corsairing and refutation of western allegations of

piracy against Algiers.

Research has also revealed that Algerian corsairing diplomacy had

origins in the early Ottoman capitulations with the Europeans countries. Those

capitulations conceded European powers too many privileges, including the

establishment of trading posts and coral fisheries on Algiers’ littoral. Because

of that, Algiers challenged the authority of the Sultan and attacked those

concessions. Unable to force respect of capitulations on Algiers, the Sultan

authorized the Europeans to negotiate directly with Algiers. That move brought

about direct diplomatic contacts between Algiers and the European powers, a

fact which implied diplomatic recognition of Algiers. That way, Algiers

acquired political legitimacy as a de facto independent polity. Legally then,

Algiers fulfilled the second conditions permitting distinction between

corsairing and piracy which is sovereignty. This in itself is one on the

conclusions of this study.

Diplomatic recognition permitted Algiers to deal as equal to equal with

Christian powers which led to the conclusion of numerous bilateral treaties and

establishment of diplomatic missions in the major European capitals. With the

major powers, Algiers concluded its first peace treaties early in the 17th

century: France (1619), England (1622), and the Netherlands (1622); the lesser

powers followed suite during the 18th century. Undergoing constant ups and

downs, diplomatic relations were intensive, conflicting, but counterbalanced

399
and for over than two hundred years they remained more or less correct.

Repeatedly, treaties between Algiers and the Europeans countries were either

re-conducted or from time to time revised, which provided the basis for lasting

diplomatic principles. Those treaties regulated captures, enslaved prisoners, as

well as annual payments in naval stores and consular presents. Passports were

introduced and were guaranteed by treaties; their bearers, Muslims and

Christians alike, protected from attacks and seizures. Whenever those passports

were not produced or did not conform to provisions of treaties hostilities

ensued.

Based on that complex context in which relations between Algiers and

the European powers were set, this research work has come to the global

conclusion that Algerian corsairing definitely was not piracy; therefore Algiers

could not be tagged as a ‘pirate state.’ From this point onwards, research has

confirmed that the arguments of piracy and enslavement of Christian captives

served for westerners as an excuse for justifying aggression against Algiers.

Research also has revealed other elements which strengthened the argument of

this thesis which are mainly payments in the form of naval stores, consular

presents, enslavement of captives and ransom, and maritime control (in the

form of passports) which allowed seizure of ships and cargoes not having

passports. All these elements were incorporated in treaties between Algiers and

the European countries as shown above.

With clearly-set historical, legal, and diplomatic guiding lines in sight,

this research work proceeded to investigate the advent of the United States of
400
America into the Mediterranean and assessed its impact on corsairing

diplomacy. It analyzed the principles of American foreign policy, particularly

the founding principle of ‘new diplomacy’, and applied it to American relations

with Algiers during the period 1776-1816. While scrutinizing diplomatic

relations between Algiers and the United States, starting with the captures of

1785 to the gunboat show of 1815-16, this research work tried to understand

how a new-born diplomacy defended by a single country could challenge

corsairing diplomacy principles that were almost two-hundred years old and

which so far functioned rather properly and guaranteed peace for all

antagonists in the Mediterranean. By doing so, this work attained a number of

conclusions. Most prominent among them was the impact of aggressiveness as

a principle inherent in American New Diplomacy on corsairing diplomacy.

Merely forty years after the independence of the United States, American

aggressiveness found expression in gunboat diplomacy and led to the

termination of annual payments in naval stores—or tribute; it also ended

enslavement of American prisoners at Algiers.

Study of the evolution of the American approach to relations with

Algiers, and particularly to ‘tribute’ as understood by Americans, has shown

that there exists an evolution in aggressiveness, characteristic of American

foreign policy, proportional to the growth of American naval power. This

research has subdivided that evolution into three major phases: the first phase,

extending from 1783 to 1789, was characterized by an American inability, and

to some extent unwillingness, to conclude a treaty with Algiers on account of

401
the weak finances of the Confederation. It was also a phase which

corresponded with a total absence of a United States navy. Leading policy

makers like John Jay, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson were divided over

the prospect of having a peace treaty with Algiers based on corsairing

diplomacy principles; throughout that phase, debate centered round financial

aspects of the treaty rather than principle. What was in debate was not the

conclusion of a peace treaty based on the above mentioned principles as it was

customary at that time but the amount of expenses needed towards the

conclusion of that treaty.

This research work has also identified a second phase which started with

the establishment of the federal system of government in 1790 and extended up

to 1812. It was a transitory period during which a treaty of peace stipulating

annual payment of naval materials was concluded with Algiers in 1795.

Meanwhile, the United Stated started building a navy which grew stronger and

more experienced after three wars fought against France, Tripoli, and Great

Britain. By 1815, America’s naval might was established and American trade

encompassed large markets in the Mediterranean. Characteristic of that phase

were the repeated failures of the United States to honor its engagements under

the treaty of 1795 with Algiers. Due payments accumulated for years and naval

stores were rarely delivered at due time. Obviously the Deys, true to their

principles of corsairing diplomacy, resorted to the practice of repudiation of the

treaty and seizure of American ships to force compliance with the treaty. Two

incidents occurred in this sense. In 1807, two American vessels were seized
402
and relations could only be renewed after the American consul paid in cash for

arrearages. In 1812, following embroils over a shipment from which many of

the stipulated articles were missing, the Dey ordered the American Consul to

leave Algiers and followed it by capture of another ship. The American

interpreted that act as a declaration of war.

The third phase was short-lived but decisive; it reached a culmination

point in 1815-1816. Between 1812 and 1815, relations with Algiers were at a

standstill and the United States government gave priority to the war with Great

Britain. Victorious at the end of the war and commanding a strong navy, the

Americans developed a new approach to ‘tribute’ which evolved from

realpolitics to become a principle in American foreign policy. Towards its

attainment, the Americans embarked on a policy of gunboat diplomacy.

Gunboat diplomacy in itself was not something new in the history of Algiers; it

was even an ingredient of corsairing diplomacy. Treaties were often concluded

while squadrons were at the bay of Algiers exhibiting force. The Dutch

initiated gunboat diplomacy in 1624, the English fostered theirs during the

1650s, and France introduced its own in the 1680s; even Denmark, a lesser

power, was not at rest (1770s); let alone Spain which returned back to the

shores of Algiers threatening after it had disappeared for almost 200 years. By

sending their squadrons to Algiers, the Americans were but assuring continuity

for a centuries-old European practice of squadron naval attacks against Algiers.

Two conclusions that are closely interrelated have emerged from the

study of this third phase in Algiers-United States diplomatic relations: first, the
403
use of gunboat diplomacy resulted in the conclusion of a new treaty with the

Dey of Algiers in 1815. Dictated at the mouth of cannons, that treaty ended

payments in naval stores as well as enslavement of American prisoners; the two

were cornerstones in Algiers’ corsairing diplomacy. Consequently, corsairing

diplomacy lost its vigor and ultimately crumbled under the effects of gunboat

diplomacy. Second, by declaring war on Algiers in 1815, American foreign

policy objectives were two-fold: by defeating a small country, the United States

projected to secure for itself the most favorable place at Algiers. While the first

objective was reached easily, the second met partial failure as Great Britain

dispatched squadrons to Algiers to contest it. Nonetheless, the United States

could place its economic interests on an equal footing with those of the major

powers at Algiers. In the long run, however, the gunboats show of 1815-1816

and deployment of the U.S. navy in the area assured the United States

permanent naval presence in the Mediterranean.

That was an age of corsairing and gunboat diplomacies where the

collapse of the former gave momentum to the latter. Algiers found itself

squeezed between major maritime powers at a time naval supremacy, which

originally guaranteed and supported its corsairing diplomacy, had deserted

Algiers’ shores since long. With an obsolete fleet which still counted one row-

galley and six pierriers in 1815, it was obvious that Algiers could no more

defend itself against Christian attacks at a time new technologies assured naval

superiority for Europe and the United States. Moreover, Algiers’ handful

Turkish rulers clung to corsairing principles that were frozen in a remote past
404
and which did not evolve with the quickly changing ideas that were sweeping

the world around them. Needless to say that, by the end, corsairing diplomacy

crumbled under gunboat diplomacy, the latter opening the door wide for

European colonialism and subsequently American imperialism.

405
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. Primary Sources

1. Official Printed Collections

A Compilation of Messages and Papers of the Presidents. Edited by James D.

Richardson. 10 Vol. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1896-
1899. (Vol. I & 2 cover the researched period).

American State Papers, Class I: Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the

Congress of the United States: Foreign Relations, 1789-1828. Edited by Walter
Lowrie and Mathew C. Clarke. 6 Vol. Washington, D. C.: Gales and Seaton,
1832-1861. Available at http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwdg.html

American State Papers, Class VI: Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the
Congress of the United States: Naval Affairs. 1794-1825. Edited by Lowrie and
Clarke. 2 Vol. Washington, D.C.: Gales and Seaton, 1832-1861. Available at
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwdg.html

American State Papers, Containing Authentic Documents Relative the History,

Politicks, Statisticks, &C United States of America Communicated to Congress
By the President. Boston: Printed by Munroe, Francis, & Parker, 1808.

Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789. Edited by Worthington C.

Ford. 25 Vol. Washington, D.C., 1904-37. Available at
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwdg.html

Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774-1789. Edited by Paul H. Smith. 26 Vol.

Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 1976-2000. Available at
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwdg.html

Naval Documents Related to the United States Wars with the Barbary Powers.
Edited by Dudley Knox. 6 Vol. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing
Office, 1939-44.

406
Secret Journals of the Acts and Proceedings of Congress, from the First
Meeting thereof to the Dissolution of the Confederation, by the Adoption of the
Constitution of the United States. Edited by Thomas B. Wait. 4 Vol. Boston,
MA: Thomas B. Wait, 1820-21.

State Papers and Publick Documents of the United States, From the Accession
of George Washington to the Presidency, Exhibiting a Complete View of our
Foreign Relations since that Time. Edited by Thomas B. Wait. 3rd edition. 12
Vol. Boston, MA: T. B. Wait, 1819.

The Diplomatic Correspondence of the American Revolution, being the Letters

of Benjamin Franklin, Silas Deane, John Adams, John Jay, and others,
concerning the foreign relations of the United States during the whole
Revolution; together with the letters in reply from the Secret Committee of
Congress, and the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, also the entire Correspondence
of the French ministers, Gerard and Luzerne, with Congress. Edited by Jared
Sparks. 12 Vol. Boston, MA: N. Hale and Gray & Bowen, 1829-1830.

The Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States of America, from the

Signing of the Definitive Treaty of Peace, 10th September, 1783, to the adoption
of the Constitution, March 4, 1789. Being the Letters of the Presidents of
Congress, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs—American Ministers at Foreign
Courts, Foreign Ministers near Congress—Reports of Committees of
Congress, and Reports of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs on Various Letters
and Communications; together with Letters from Individuals on Public Affairs.
Edited by Francis Preston Blair. 7 Vol. Washington, D.C.: Blair & Rives, 1833-
37.

The Emerging Nation: A Documentary History of the Foreign Relations of the

United States under the Articles of Confederation, 1780-1789. Edited by Mary
A. Giunta. 3 Vol. Washington, D.C.: National Historical Publications and
Records Commission, 1996.

The Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America, from the
Organization of Government in 1789 to March 3, 1845. Edited by Richard
Peters. Boston, MA: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1845-1867.

The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States. Edited by

Francis Wharton. 6 Vol. Washington, D. C.: Government printing Office, 1889.

407
2. Unofficial Printed Collections

Adams, John Quincy. Writings of John Quincy Adams. Edited by Worthington

C. Ford. 7 Vol. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1813-1917.

Adams, John. The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States
with a Life of the Author, Notes and Illustrations. 10 Vol. Edited by Charles
Francis Adams. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company, 1851, 1865.

Card, E. Rouard de. Traités de la France avec les pays de l’Afrique du Nord:
Algérie, Tunisie, Tripolitaine, Maroc. Paris: A. Pédone, Éditeur, 1906.

Franklin, Benjamin. The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, with a Life and

Introduction. Edited by Albert Henry Smyth. 10 Vol. New York/London:
Macmillan & Co., Ltd., 1906.

Grammont, Henri-D. de. Correspondance des consuls d’Alger (1690-1742).

Alger/Paris: Adolphe Jourdan, Ernest Leroux, 1890.

Hertslet, Lewis. A Complete Collection of the Treaties and Conventions, and

Reciprocal Regulations, at Present Subsisting Between Great Britain and
Foreign Powers. 3 Vol. London: Henry Butter Worth, 1827.

Jay, John. The Correspondence and Public Papers of First Chief-Justice of the
United States, Member and President of the Continental Congress, Minister to
Spain, Member of Commission to Negotiate Treaty of Independence, Envoy to
Great Britain, etc. 4 Vol. Edited By Henry P. Johnston. New York/London: G.
P. Putnam’s Sons, 1890.

Jefferson, Thomas. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson. Edited by Julian P. Boyd.

24 Vol. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1955. (Volumes consulted,
7-11)

_____. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson Containing his Autobiography, Notes

on Virginia, Parliamentary Manual, Official Papers, Messages and Addresses,
and other Writings, Official and Private. 20 Vol. Edited by Andrew A.
Lipscomb and others. Washington, D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial
Association, 1903.

_____. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson: Being his Autobiography,

Correspondence, Reports, Messages, Addresses, and other Writings, Official
and Private. Edited by H. A. Washington. 9 Vol. New York: H. W. Derby,
1853, 1861.

Madison, James. Letters and other Writings of James Madison. 4 Vol.

Philadelphia, PA: J. B. Lippincott, 1865.
408
_____. The Writings of James Madison Comprising his Public Papers and his
Private Correspondence, including Numerous Letters and Documents now for
the First Time Printed. Edited by Gaillard Hunt. 9 Vol. New York/London: G.
P. Putnam’s Sons, 1890-1908.

Marsden, Reginald G. Documents Relating to Law and Custom of the Sea. 2

Vol. London: The Navy Records Society, 1915-1916.

Miller, Hunter, ed. Treaties and other International Acts of the United States of
America. Vol. 2: 1776-1818. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office,
1931. The Avalon Project at Yale Law School,
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/ diplomacy/barbary/barmenu.htm#r

Monroe, James. The Writings of James Monroe, Including a Collection of his

Public and Private Papers and Correspondence. Edited by Stanislaus Murray
Hamilton. 7 Vol. New York/London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1899.

Morrison, Stanley, ed. “A Collection of Piracy Laws of Various Countries.”

The American Journal of International Law, vol. 26, Part V: Supplement:
Research in International Law (1932), pp. 887-1013.

Plantet, Eugène, ed. Correspondance des deys d’Alger avec la cour de France,
1579-1833. Recueillie dans les dépôts d’archives des affaires étrangères, de la
marine, des colonies et de la chambre de commerce de Marseille. 2 Vol. Paris:
1889.

Revue Africaine, Documents inédits sur l’histoire de l’occupation espagnole en

Afrique, (1506-1574). Alger: A. Jourdan, 1875.

Seybert, Adam. Statistical Annals: Embracing Views of the Population,

Commerce, Navigation, Fisheries, Public Lands, Post-Office Establishment,
Revenues, Mint, Military and Naval Establishments, Expenditures, Public Debt
and Sinking Fund, of The United States of America, 1789-1818. Philadelphia:
Thomas Dobson & Son, 1818.

Washington, George. The Writings of George Washington. Edited by

Worthington C. Ford. 14 Vol. New York/London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1891-
1892.

409
3. Autobiographies, Memoirs, Journals, and Letters

“Shaler’s Sketches of Algiers.” North American Review, 12: 51 (April 1826), pp.
409-431.

“The Hull-Eaton Correspondence.” American Antiquarian Society,

Proceedings, n.s.: 21 (Apr./Oct., 1911), pp. 105-129.

Adams, Abigail. Letters of Mrs. Adams, the Wife of John Adams. With an
Introductory Memoir. Edited by Charles Francis Adams. 2nd edition. 2 Vol.
Boston, MA: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1840.

Adams, Charles Francis. “Correspondence of John Quincy Adams, 1811-

1814.” American Antiquarian Society, Proceedings, n.s.: 23 (1913), pp. 110-
169.

Bigelow, John., ed. Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. Edited from his

Manuscript, with Notes and an Introduction. Philadelphia, PA: J. B. Lippincott &
Co, 1868.

Cantor, Milton. “A Connecticut Yankee in a Barbary Court: Joel Barlow’s

Algerian Letters to his Wife.” The William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd Ser., 19: 1
(Jan., 1962), pp. 86-109.

Cathcart, James L. Tripoli, First War with the United States: Inner History
Letter Book. Compiled by his Daughter J. B. Cathcart Newkirk, D. A. R.
Laporte, Indiana: Herald Print, 1901.

_____. The Captives: Eleven Years a Prisoner in Algiers. Compiled by his

Daughter, J. B. Newkirk. Laporte, Indiana: Herald, 1899.

_____. “The Diplomatic Journal and Letter Book of James Leander Cathcart,
1788-1796.” American Antiquarian Society, Proceedings, n.s.: 64: 2 (1955), pp.
303-461.

Franklin, Benjamin. Memoirs of Benjamin Franklin. His Social Epistolary

Correspondence, Philosophical, Political, and Moral Letters and Essays,
Diplomatic Transactions as Agent at London and Minister Plenipotentiary at
Versailles. 2 Vol. Philadelphia: M Carty & Davis, 1834.

Hume, Edgar Erskine. “Letters Written during the War of 1812 by the British
Naval Commander in American Waters (Admiral Sir David Milne).” William
and Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine, 2nd Ser., 10: 4 (Oct., 1930),
pp. 279-301.

410
Jefferson, Thomas. Memoir, Correspondence, Miscellanies, From the Papers
of Thomas Jefferson. 4 Vol. Edited By Thomas Jefferson Randolph.
Charlottesville, VA: F. Carr, and Co, 1829.

Mitchell, Stewart, ed. “New Letters of Abigail Adams, 1789-1804 Part One.”
American Antiquarian Society, Proceedings, n.s.: 55: 1 (1947), pp. 95-232.

_____. “New Letters of Abigail Adams, 1789-1804 Part Two.” American

Antiquarian Society, Proceedings, n.s.: 55: 2 (1947), pp. 299-465.

Shaler, William. Sketches of Algiers: Political, Historical, and Civil:

Containing an Account of the Geography, Population, Government, Revenues,
Commerce, Agriculture, Arts, Civil Institutions, Tribes, Manners, Languages,
and Recent Political History of that Country. Boston: Cummings, Hiliard and
Company, 1826.

Tatum, Edward H. “Letters of William Henry Allen, 1800-1813, Part One,

1800-1806.” Huntington Library Quarterly, 1: 1/4 (1937/1938), pp. 101-132.

_____. “Letters of William Henry Allen, 1800-1813, Part Two, 1807-1813.”

Huntington Library Quarterly, 1: 1/4 (1937/1938), pp. 203-243.

4. Travel Accounts

Croker, Walter. The Cruelties of the Algerine Pirates, Shewing the Present
Dreadful State of the English Slaves, and other Europeans, at Algiers and
Tunis. London: W. Hone, 1816.

Dan, Pierre. Histoire de Barbarie et de ses corsaires, divisée en six livres où il

est traité de leur gouvernement, de leurs moeurs, de leur cruautés, de leurs
brigandages, de leurs sortilèges, & de plusieurs autres particularités
remarquables: Ensemble des grandes misères et des cruels tourments
qu’endurent les chrétiens captifs parmi ces infidèles. Paris: Pierre Rocolet,
1637.

Devereux, Roy. Aspects of Algeria: Historical - Political – Colonial. London:

J. M. Dent & Sons, Ltd, 1912.

Godard, Leon. Corsaires, esclaves et martyrs de Barbarie : Régnez, seigneur,

au milieu de vos ennemis. Tours: A. Mame et Cie, 1857.

Haedo, Fray Diego de. Topographie et histoire générale d’Alger. 17 parts.

Translated by Dr. Monnereau, A. Berbrugger, and Henry D. de Grammont.
Revue Africaine, 14 (1870), 15 (1871), 24 (1880), 25 (1881).
411
Holbrook, Samuel F. Threescore Years: An Autobiography, Containing
Incidents of Voyages and Travels, Including Six Years in a an-of-War, Details
of the War between the United States and the Algerine Government,
Bombardment of Algiers by Lord Exmouth, and its Subjugation by the French.
Boston: James French & Company, 1857.

Kimball, Horace. American Naval Battles: Being a Complete History of the

Battles Fought by the Navy of the United States from its Establishment in 1794
to the Present Time, including the Wars with France, and with Tripoli, the Late
War with Great Britain and with Algiers. Boston: J. J. Smith, Jr., 1831.

Labat, Jean-Batiste, ed., Mémoires du chevalier d’Arvieux, envoyé

extraordinaire du Roy a la Porte, consul d’Alep, d’Alger, de Tripoli, & autres
échelles du Levant. Tome 5. Paris: Chez Charles-Jean-Baptiste, 1735.

Pananti, Filipo. Narrative of a Residence in Algiers; Comprising a

Geographical and Historical Account of the Regency; Biographical Sketches of
the Dey and His Ministers; Anecdotes on the late War; Observations on the
Relations of the Barbary States with the Christian Powers; and the Necessity
and Importance of their Complete Subjugation. London: Henry Colburn, 1818.

Shaw, Thomas. Travels, or Observations Relating to Several Parts of Barbary

and the Levant. Oxford, England: Step H. Niblett, 1737.

Stevens, James Wilson. An Historical and Geographical Account of Algiers:

Comprehending a Novel and Interesting Detail of Events Relative to the
American Captives. Philadelphia: Hogan & M’Elroy, 1797.

Tassy, Laugier de. Histoire du royaume D’Alger avec l’état présent de son
gouvernement, de ses forces de terre et de mer & de ses revenus, police, justice
politique & commerce. Amsterdam : Chez Henri Du Sauzet, 1727.

412
II. Secondary Works

1. Books

Albrecht-Carrié, René. A Diplomatic History of Europe since the Congress of

Vienna. New York/London: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1958.

Allison, Robert J. The Crescent Obscured: The United States and the Muslim
World: 1776-1815. London/New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.

Bailey, Thomas A. A Diplomatic History of the American People. 10th edition.

Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1980.

Barnby, H. G. The Prisoners of Algiers: An Account of the Forgotten

American-Algerian War 1785-1797. London/New York: Oxford University
Press, 1966.

Barnes, William and John Heath Morgan. The Foreign Service of the United
States: Origins, Development, and Functions. Washington, D. C.: Historical
Office, Bureau of Public Affairs, Department of State, 1961.

Bassett, John Moore. The Principles of American Diplomacy. 2nd ed. New
York/London: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1918.

Belhamissi, Moulay, Les captifs Algériens et l’Europe chrétienne (1518-1830).

Alger: Enterprise Nationale du Livre, 1988.

Bemis, Samuel Flagg. A Diplomatic History of the United States. 5th edition.
New York/Chicago/San Francisco: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1965.

Braudel, Fernand. The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age
of Philip II. Vol. 2. Translated by Sian Reynolds. New York: Harper and Row,
1973.

Cable, James. Gunboat Diplomacy: Political Applications of Limited Naval

Forces, 1919 – 1991. 3rd edition. London: International Institute for Strategic
Studies, 1994.

Chomsky, Noam. Pirates and Emperors, Old and New: International

Terrorism in the Real World. 2nd edition. Cambridge, MA: South End Press,
2002.

Clarence-Smith, William Gervase. Islam and the Abolition of Slavery.

London/New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Clissold, Stephen. The Barbary Slaves. London: Elek Books LTD, 1977.
413
Cordingly, David ed. Pirates: Terror on the High Seas from the Caribbean to
the South China Sea. New York: Turner Publications Inc., 1996.

Currey, Hamilton E. Sea-Wolves of the Mediterranean: The Grand Period of

the Moslem Corsairs. London/New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1931.

Dallek, Robert. The American Style of Foreign Policy: Cultural Politics of

Foreign Policy. N.Y. & Scarborough, Ontario: New American Library, 1983.

Davis, Robert C. Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the

Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast, and Italy, 1500-1800. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2003.

Deschamps, Hubert. Pirates et flibustiers. Paris: Presses Universitaires de

France, 1952.

Devoulx, Albert. Le Raïs Hamidou: Notice biographique sur le plus célèbre

corsaire Algérien du XIIIe siècle de l’hégire d’après des documents
authentiques et pour la plupart inédits. Alger: Typographie Adolphe Jourdan,
1859.

Dubner, Barry Hart. The Law of International Sea Piracy. The Hague, The
Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1980.

Dupuy, Emile. Américains & barbaresques (1776-1824). Paris : R. Roger et F.

Chernoviz, 1910.

Duroselle, Jean-Baptiste. La France et les Etats-Unis: Des origines à nos jours.

Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1976.

Earle, Peter. The Pirate Wars. London: Methuen & Co Ltd, 2004.

Esposito, John L. What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam. London/New

York: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Fieldhouse, D. K. The Colonial Empires: A Comparative Study from the

Eighteenth Century. 2nd edition. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1971.

Finley, Moses I. Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology. London: Chatto and
Windus, 1980.

Fisher, Godfrey, Sir. Barbary Legend: War Trade and Piracy in North Africa,
1415-1830. London: Oxford University Press, 1957.

414
Foster, John W. A Century of American Diplomacy: Being a Brief Review of
the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1776-1876. Boston/New York:
Houghton, Mifflin And Company, 1900.

Gay, Sydney H. The Life of James Madison. Boston/New York: Houghton,

Mifflin and Company, 1898.

Gordon, Murray. L’esclavage dans le monde arabe, VIIe-XXe siècle. Paris:

Editions Robert Laffont, 1987.

Grammont, Henri-D. de. Histoire d’Alger sous la domination Turque, 1515-

1830. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1887.

Hall, William Edward. A Treatise on International Law. 3rd edition. Oxford:

Clarendon Press, 1890.

Hess, Andrew C. The Forgotten Frontier: A History of the Sixteenth Century

Ibero-African Frontier. Chicago/London: Chicago University Press, 1978.

Hofstadter, Richard and others. The United States. Part One: Conquering a
Continent. 4th Edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1976.

Hunt, Gilbert J. The Late War between the United States and Great Britain,
Containing also a Sketch of the Late Algerine War and the Treaty Concluded
with the Dey of Algiers. New York, NY: Published by G. T. Hunt, 1819.

Irwin, Ray W. The Diplomatic Relations of the United States with the Barbary
Powers, 1776-1816. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1931.

Kaddache, Mahfoud. L’Algérie pendant la période Ottomane. Alger: Office des

Publications Universitaires, 1992.

Kiernan, Victor Gordon. America, the New Imperialism: From White

Settlement to World Hegemony. London/New York: Verso, 2005.

Kitzen Michael L. S. Tripoli and the United States at War: A History of

American Relations with the Barbary States, 1785-1805. North
Carolina/London: McFarland & Company, Inc., 1993.

Koven, Reginald de. The Life and Letters of John Paul Jones. 2 Vol. London:
T. Werner Laurie, Ltd, 1913.

Krieken, Gérard Van. Corsaires et marchands: Relations entre Alger et les

Pays-Bas: 1604-1830. Paris: Editions Bouchène, 2002.

415
Lambert, Frank. The Barbary Wars: American Independence in the Atlantic
World. New York: Hill and Wang, 2005.

Lane-Poole, Stanley. The Moors in Spain. 8th edition. London: Fisher Unwin,
1888.

_____. The Story of the Barbary Corsairs. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons,
1890.

Leiner, Frederick. The End of Barbary Terror: America’s 1815 War against the
Pirates of North Africa. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.

London, Joshua E. Victory in Tripoli: How America’s War with the Barbary
Pirates Established the U.S. Navy and Built a Nation. Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2005.

Long, David E. Gold Braid and Foreign Relations: Activities of U. S. Naval

Officers, 1798-1883. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1988.

Löwenhiem, Oded. Predators and Parasites: Persistent Agents of

Transnational Harm and Great Power Authority. Detroit, MI: University of
Michigan Press, 2006.

Maalouf, Amin. Les Croisades vues par les Arabes. Paris: J. C. Lattès, 1983.

Mackenzie, Alexander Slidell. The Life of Paul Jones. Boston: Hilliard, Gray,
and Company, 1841.

Maclay, Edgar Stanton. A History of American Privateers. New York: D.

Appleton and Company, 1899.

Markoe, Peter. The Algerine Spy in Pennsylvania: or Letters Written by a

Native of Algiers on the Affairs of the United States of America, from the Close
of the Year 1783 to the Meeting of the Convention. 3rd edition. Philadelphia,
PA, 1787.

Melandri, Pierre. La politique extérieure des Etats Unis de 1945 à nos jours.
Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1982.

Mihalkanin, Edward S. American Statesmen: Secretaries of State from John

Jay to Colin Powell. Westport, CT/London: Greenwood Press, 2004.

Monlaü, Jean. Les états barbaresques. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France,

1964.

416
Morgan, Joseph A. Complete History of Algiers to which is Prefixed, an
Epitome of the General History of Barbary, from the earliest Times. Vol. 2.
London: J. Bettenham, 1729.

Morse, John T., Jr. Benjamin Franklin. Boston/New York: Houghton Mifflin
Company, 1917.

Muir, Ramsay. The Expansion of Europe: The Culmination of Modern History.

2nd edition. London: Constable and Company, 1917.

Muller, Leos. Consuls, Corsairs, and Commerce: The Swedish Consular

Service and Long-Distance Shipping, 1720-1815. Stockholm: Uppsala
University Press, 2004.

Nash, Gary B. The Forgotten Fifth: African Americans in the Age of

Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006.

Nash, Howard P. The Forgotten Wars: The Role of the U. S. Navy in the Quasi
War with France and the Barbary Wars 1798-1805. New York/London:
Thomas Yoseloff, Ltd., 1968.

Nettement, M. Alfred. Histoire de la conquête d’Alger, écrite sur des

documents inédits et authentiques. New edition. Paris: Jacques Lecoffre, 1867.

Oren, Michael B. Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East:
1776 to the Present. New York: W. W. Norton, 2007.

Page, Ralph W. Dramatic Moments in American Diplomacy. Garden City, New

York: Doubleday, Page & Company, 1918.

Panzac, Daniel. Les corsaires barbaresques: la fin d’une épopée, 1800-1820.

Paris: CNRS Editions, 1999.

Parker, Richard B. Uncle Sam in Barbary: A Diplomatic History. Gainesville,

FL: University Press of Florida, 2004.

Paterson, Thomas G., ed. Major Problems in American Foreign Policy:

Documents and Essays. Vol. I: To 1914. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath &
Company, 1978.

Paullin, Charles Oscar. Diplomatic Negotiations of American Naval Officers,

1778-1883. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1912.

Perkins, Roger and K. J. Douglas-Morris. Gunfire in Barbary: Admiral Lord

Exmouth’s Battle with the Corsairs of Algiers in 1816: The Story of the

417
Suppression of White Christian Slavery. Homewell, Great Britain: Kenneth
Mason, 1982.

Plischke, Elmer. U. S. Department of State: A Reference History. Westport,

CT: Greenwood Press, 1999.

Plunket, Lerne L. Isabel of Castile and the Making of the Spanish Nation,
1451-1504. New York/London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1915.

Polk, William R. The Arab World. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1986.

Prentiss, Charles. The Life of the Late Gen. William Eaton; Several Years an
Officer in the United States’ Army, Consul at the Regency of Tunis on the
Coast of Barbary, and Commander of the Christian and other Forces that
Marched from Egypt through the Desert of Barca, in 1805 ... Principally
Collected from his Correspondence and other Manuscripts. Brookfield, Mass:
E. Merriam & Co., 1813.

Prescott, William H. History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella, the

Catholic. 3 Vol. 12th edition. Philadelphia: David Mckay, Publisher, 1856.

Rang, Sander and Ferdinand Denis. Fondation de la Régence d’Alger: Histoire

des Barberousse. 2 Vol. Paris: J. Angé, Éditeur, 1837.

Schuyler, Eugene. American Diplomacy and the Furtherance of Commerce.

New York: Charles Scribner’ Sons, 1886.

Soames, Jane. The Coast of Barbary. London: Jonathan Cape, 1938.

Sparks, Jared, L. The Life of George Washington. New York: A. L. Burt

Company, Publishers, 1902.

Stark, Francis R. The Abolition of Privateering and the Declaration of Paris.

New York: Columbia University, 1897.

Stella, Alessandro. Histoires d’esclaves dans la Péninsule Ibérique. Paris:

Édition de l’École des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, 2000.

Stockton, Frank R. Buccaneers and Pirates of Our Coasts. New York: Grosset
& Dunlap, Publishers, 1898.

Sumner, Charles. White Slavery in the Barbary States, 1853. Boston: John P.
Jewett & Company, 1853.

418
Thomson, Ann. Barbary and enlightenment: European attitudes towards the
Maghreb in the 18th century. Leiden/New York/KØbenhavn: E. J. Brill, 1987.

Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America. Translated by Henry Reeve. 2

vol., 4th ed. New York/Boston: C. C. Little & J. Brown, 1838-1841.

Tucker, Glenn. Dawn Like Thunder: The Barbary Wars and the Birth of the
U.S. Navy. Indianapolis/New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1963

Tyler, Royall. The Algerine Captive: Six Years a Prisoner among the
Algerines. Hartford, CT: Peter B. Gleason & Co, 1816.

Upham, Charles W. The Life of Timothy Pickering. 4 Vol. Boston: Little,

Brown, And Company, 1873.

Wheelan, Joseph. Jefferson’s War: America’s First War on Terror, 1801–5.

New York: Carroll & Graf, 2003.

Wright, Louis B. and Julia H. Macleod. The First Americans in North Africa:
William Eaton’s Struggle for a Vigorous Policy against the Barbary Pirates,
1799-1805. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1945.

2. Contributions

Ahrweiler, Hélène. “Course et piraterie dans la méditerranée orientale aux

XIVeme-XVeme siècles,” in Course et Piraterie: Etudes Présentées a la
Commission Internationale d’Histoire Maritime a l’occasion de son XVe
Colloque International pendant le XIVe Congrès International des Sciences
Historiques (San Francisco, 1975), vol. 1. Paris: CNRS, 1975, pp. 1-21.

Aymard, Maurice. “Chiourme et galère dans la seconde moitié du XVIe

siècle,” in Ernest Labrousse et al., ed. Mélanges en l’honneur de Fernand
Braudel. Vol 1 : Histoire économique du monde méditerranéen, 1450-1650.
Paris : Privat éd., 1973, pp. 49-64.

Bérenger, Jean. “La politique française en méditerranée au XVIe siècle &

l’alliance ottomane,” in Michel Vergé-Franceschi and Antoine-Marie Graziani,
eds., La guerre de course en Méditerranée (1515-1830). Paris: Presses de
l’Université Paris IV-Sorbonne, 2000, pp. 9-26.

Gerald MacLean. “Of Pirates, Slaves and Diplomats: Anglo-American Writing

about the Maghrib in the Age of Empire,” in Claire Jowitt, ed., Pirates? The
Politics of Plunder 1550-1650. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006, pp.
169-185.
419
Guilmartin, John F. Jr., “The Tactics of the Battle of Lepanto Clarified: The
Impact of Social, Economic, and Political Factors on Sixteenth Century Galley
Warfare,” in Craig L. Symonds, New Aspects of Naval History: Selected
Papers Presented at the Fourth Naval History Symposium, United States Naval
Academy 25-26 October 1979. Annapolis, MD: The United States Naval
Institute, 1981, pp. 41-65

Haines, Gerald K. and J. Samuel Walker, eds. American Foreign Relations: A

Historiographical Review. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1981.

Harlaftis, Gelina and Sophia Laiou, “Ottoman state policy in Mediterranean

Trade and Shipping, c.1780-c.1820: The Rise of the Greek-Owned Ottoman
Merchant Fleet,” in Mark Mazower, ed. Networks of Power in Modern Greece.
New York: Hurst, 2008, pp. 1-31.

Hunt, Michael H. “Traditions of American Diplomacy: From Colony to Great

Power,” in Gordon Martel, ed. American Foreign Relations Reconsidered:
1890-1993. London/New York: Routledge, 1994, pp. 1-20.

Jowitt, Claire. “Introduction,” in Claire Jowitt, ed. Pirates? The Politics of

Plunder 1550-1650.” Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006, pp. 3-19.

Matar, Nabil. “Britain and Barbary, 1589–1689,” in Daniel J. Vitus, ed. Piracy,
Slavery, and Redemption: Barbary Captivity Narratives from Early Modern
England. New York: Columbia University Press, 2001, pp. 1-52.

_____. “Piracy and Captivity in the Early Modern Mediterranean: The

Perspective from Barbary,” in Claire Jowitt, ed. Pirates? The Politics of
Plunder 1550-1650.” Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006, pp. 56-73.

Miller, Aurie Hollingsworth. “One Man’s View: William Shaler and Algiers,”
in Alf A. Heggoy, ed., Through Foreign Eyes: Western Attitudes toward North
Africa. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, 1982, pp. 7-55.

Panzac, Daniel. “La course barbaresque revisitée, XVIe-XIXe siecles,” in

Michel Vergé-Franceschi and Antoine-Marie Graziani, eds., La guerre de
course en Méditerranée (1515-1830). Paris: Presses de l’Université Paris IV-
Sorbonne, 2000, pp. 27-38.

Parker, Kenneth “Reading ‘Barbary’ in Early Modern England, 1550–1685,” in

Matthew Birchwood and Matthew Dimmock, eds. Cultural Encounters
between East and West: 1453–1699. England: Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 2004, pp.
87–115.

Saint-Vincent, Xavier Labat. “La guerre de course et ses effets sur le commerce
en méditerrané au cours des guerres de cent ans et l’indépendance américaine,”
420
in Michel Vergé-Franceschi and Antoine-Marie Graziani, eds., La guerre de
course en Méditerranée (1515-1830). Paris: Presses de l’Université Paris IV-
Sorbonne, 2000, pp. 159-179.

Zingg, Paul J. “Sand, Camels, and the USA: American Perceptions of North
Africa,” in Alf A. Heggoy, ed., Through Foreign Eyes: Western Attitudes
toward North Africa. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, 1982,
pp. 7-55.

3. Articles

In the Supreme Court of the United States. “Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Petitioner,
v. Donald H. Rumsfeld, et al., Respondents.” On Writ of Certiorari to the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Brief of
Lawrence M. Friedman, Jonathan Lurie, and Alfred P. Rubin, as Amici Curiae
in Support of Petitioner [Barbary Wars Precedent], January 2006, n° 05-184,
pp. 1-17.

“Notes from the Barbary States.” Harper’s New Monthly Magazine, 5 (Jun-
Nov. 1852), pp. 451-463.

“Preamble to a Letter from the Dey of Algiers.” North American Review and
Miscellaneous Journal, 5 (1817), pp.187-188.

“Sparks’ American Biography: MacKenzie’s Life of Stephen Decatur.” North

American Review, 64: 1 (1847), pp. 217-237.

“The United States and the Barbary States.” Atlantic Monthly, 6: 38 (Dec.,
1860), pp. 641-657.

Adams, Charles Francis. “Wednesday, August 19, 1812, 6:30 P. M.: The Birth
of a World Power.” The American Historical Review, 18: 3. (Apr., 1913), pp.
513-521.

Albion, Robert G. “The First Days of the Navy Department.” Military Affairs,
12: 1 (Spring 1948), pp. 1-11.

Allen, Gardener W. “Naval Songs and Ballads.” American Antiquarian Society,

Proceedings, n.s.: 35 (1925), pp. 64-78.

Allison, Robert J. “First Encounters between the United States and the Muslim
World.” Journal of American Studies of Turkey, 9 (1999), pp. 61-70.

421
_____. “The United States and the Specter of Islam,” Council on Middle East
Studies, 3: 1 (2005), pp. 1-8.

Andrews, Charles M. “Colonial Commerce.” The American Historical Review,

20: 1 (Oct., 1914), pp. 43-63.

Aylmer, G. E. “Slavery under Charles II: The Mediterranean and Tangier.” The
English Historical Review, 114: 456 (Apr., 1999), pp. 378-388.

Bachrouch, Taoufik. “Rachat et libération des esclaves chrétiens à Tunis au

XVIIe siècle,” Revue Tunisienne de Sciences Sociales, 11 (1975), p. 128.

Baepler, Paul, ‘The Barbary Captivity Narrative in American Culture.’ Early

American Literature, 39: 2 (2004), pp. 217-246.

_____. “The Barbary Captivity Narrative in Early America.” Early American

Literature, 30: 2 (1995), pp. 95-120.

_____. “White Slaves, African Masters.” Annals of the American Academy of

Political and Social Science, vol. 588, Islam: Enduring Myths and Changing
Realities. (Jul., 2003), pp. 90-111.

Baker, Liva. “Cathcart’s Travels or a Dey in the Life of an American Sailor.”

American Heritage, 26: 4 (1975), pp. 52-60, 82-85.

Bankoff, Greg. “Regions of Risk: Western Discourses on Terrorism and the

Significance of Islam.” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 26 (2003), pp. 413–
428.

Bassett, John Moore. “Freedom of the Seas.” Harper’s Monthly Magazine,

Vol., CIX, n° DCL (Jul., 1904), pp. 165-175.

Bauer, K. Jack. “Naval Shipbuilding Programs 1794-1860.” Military Affairs,

29: 1 (Spring 1965), pp. 29-40.

Ben Rejeb, Lotfi. “Barbary’s ‘Character’ in European Letters, 1514-1830: An

Ideological Prelude to Colonization.” Dialectical Anthropology, 6 (1982), pp.
345-355.

_____. “Observing the Birth of a Nation: The Oriental Spy/Observer Genre and
Nation Making in Early American Literature.” Council on Middle East Studies,
5: 9, (2007), pp. 253-289.

Bennett, Norman Robert. “Christian and Negro Slavery in Eighteenth-Century

North Africa.” The Journal of African History, 1: 1 (1960), pp. 65-82.

422
Benton, Lauren. “Legal Spaces of Empire: Piracy and the Origins of Ocean
Regionalism.” Comparative Study of Society and History, 47: 4 (Oct., 2005),
700-724.

Blakesley, J. W., Rev. “Morocco and North Africa: A Sketch of their History.”
MacMillan’s Magazine, 1 (1859/1860), pp. 229-240.

Blum, Hester. “Pirated Tars, Piratical Texts: Barbary Captivity and American
Sea Narratives.” Early American Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 1: 2
(Fall, 2003), pp. 133-158.

Boyer, Pierre. “La chiourme Turque des galères de France de 1665 à 1687,”
Revue de l’Occident Musulman et de la Méditerranée, 6 (1969), p. 53-74.

_____. “Les renégats et la marine de la régence d’Alger.” Revue de l’Occident

Musulman et de la Méditerranée, 39: 1 (1985), pp. 93-106.

Canard, M. “Une description de la cote barbaresque au dix-huitième Siècle par

un officier de la marine Russe.” Revue Africaine, 95 (1951), pp. 120-180.

Cantor, Milton. “Joel Barlow: Lawyer and Legal Philosopher.” American

Quarterly, 10: 2, Part I (Summer 1958), pp. 165-174.

_____. “Joel Barlow’s Mission to Algiers.” Historian, 25: 2 (1963), pp. 172-
194.

Caplan, Dennis. “John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and the Barbary Pirates: An
Illustration of Relevant Costs for Decision-Making.” Issues in Accounting
Education, 18: 3 (Aug., 2003), pp. 265-274.

Casper, Gerhard. “Executive-Congressional Separation of Power during the

Presidency of Thomas Jefferson.” Stanford Law Review, 47: 3. (Feb., 1995),
pp. 473-497.

Cassar, Paul. “The Maltese Corsairs and the Order of St. John of Jerusalem.”
The Catholic Historical Review, 46: 2 (Jul., 1960), pp. 137-156.

Clark, G. N. “The Barbary Corsairs in the Seventeenth Century.” Cambridge

Historical Journal, 8: 1 (1944), pp. 22-35.

Clissold, Stephen, “The Ransom Business: Christian Slaves in North Africa.”

History Today, 26: 12 (Dec., 1976), pp. 779-87.

_____. “Christian Renegades and Barbary Corsairs.” History Today, 26: 8

(Aug., 1976), pp. 508-515.

423
_____. “El Cid: Moslems and Christians in Medieval Spain.” History Today,
12: 5 (May, 1962), pp. 321-28.

_____. “The Expulsion of the Moriscos, 1609–1614.” History Today, 28: 12

(1978), pp. 817–824.

Daget, Serge. “Traite des Noirs, Relations Internationales et Humanisme, 1815-

1850.” Relations Internationales, 60 (Winter 1989), pp. 413-427.

Davies, D. J. Llewelyn. “The Development of Prize Law under Sir Leoline

Jenkins.” Transactions of the Grotius Society, Vol. 21, Problems of Peace and
War, Papers Read before the Society in the Year 1935 (1935), pp. 149-160.

Davis, Robert C. “Counting European Slaves on the Barbary Coast.” Past and
Present, 172 (Aug., 2001), pp. 87-124.

Delmasso, Jean-Louis. “La peur des corsaires barbaresques en Méditerranée à

l’époque moderne à travers l’exemple de Nice et son arrière-pays.” Pays
Vésubien, 2-2001, pp. 51-57.

Devoulx, Albert. “La marine de la régence d’Alger.” Revue Africaine. 13: 77

(Sept., 1869), pp. 384-420.

Dillon, Dana. “Maritime Piracy: Defining the Problem.” SAIS Review, 15: 1
(Winter–Spring 2005), pp. 155-164.

Dillon, Elizabeth M. “Slaves in Algiers: Race, Republican Genealogies, and the

Global Stage.” American Literary History, 16: 3 (2004), pp. 407-436.

Dorfman, Joseph. “The Regal Republic of John Adams.” Political Science

Quarterly, 59: 2 (Jun., 1944), pp. 227-247.

Duyvesteyn, Isabelle. “How New is the New Terrorism?” Studies in Conflict &
Terrorism, 27 (2004), pp. 439–454.

Earle, Edward Mead. “American Interest in the Greek Cause, 1821-1827.” The
American Historical Review, 33: 1 (Oct., 1927), pp. 44-63.

El-Khawas, Mohamed A. “North Africa and the War on Terror.”

Mediterranean Quarterly, 14: 4 (Fall, 2003), pp. 176-191.

Engell, John, “Narrative Irony and National Character in Royall Tyler’s The
Algerine Captive.” Studies in American Fiction, 17: 1 (Spring 1989), pp. 19-32.

Field, James A., Jr. “Trade, Skills, and Sympathy: The First Century and a Half
of Commerce with the Near East.” Annals of the American Academy of
424
Political and Social Science, vol. 401, America and the Middle East. (May,
1972), pp. 1-14.

Fishbein, Rand H. “Echoes from the Barbary Coast: History of U.S. Military
Actions against Pirates,” The National Interest, 65-66: 66 (Winter 2001/2002),
pp. 47-51.

Folayan, Kola. “Tripoli and the War with the U.S.A., 1801-1805.” The Journal
of African History, 13: 2 (1972), pp. 261-270.

Fontenay, Michel. “La place de la course dans l’économie portuaire : l’exemple

de Malte et des ports barbaresques.” Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales, 43:
6 (1988), pp. 1321-1347.

Friedman, Ellen G. “Christian Captives at ‘Hard Labor’ in Algiers, 16th-18th

Centuries.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, 13: 4
(1980), pp. 616-632.

_____. “Trinitarian Hospitals in Algiers: An early Example of Health Care for

Prisoners of War.” Catholic Historical Review, 66: 4 (Oct., 1980), pp. 551-564.

Frothingham, Thomas G. “The Armed Merchantman.” Current History, 7: 1: 3

(Dec., 1917), pp. 464-471.

Furlong, Charles Wellington. “Tripoli in Barbary: Including an Insight into

North Africa and the Sahara and a Brief Comment on the French Scheme of
Empire in Africa.” Journal of Race Development, 2 (1911/1912), pp. 18-44.

Gilbert, Felix. “The ‘New Diplomacy’ of the Eighteenth Century.” World

Politics, 4: 1 (Oct., 1951), pp. 1-38.

Gorman, Jonathan. “The Commonplaces of ‘Revision’ and their Implications

for Historiographical Understanding.” History and Theory: Studies in the
Philosophy of History, Theme Issue 46 (December 2007), pp. 20-44.

Grammont, Henri-D. de. “Relations entre la France & la Régence d’Alger au

XVIIeme siècle,” 12 parts, Revue Africaine, 23 (1879), 28 (1884), 29 (1885).

Groot, Alexander H. de. “Ottoman North Africa and the Dutch Republic in the
Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries.” Revue de l’Occident Musulman et de
la Méditerranée, 39: 1 (1985), pp. 131-147.

Hale, Matthew R. “‘Many who Wandered in Darkness:’ The Contest over

American National Identity, 1795–1798.” Early American Studies: An
Interdisciplinary Journal, 1: 1 (Spring 2003), pp. 127-175.

425
Hale, William H. “‘General’” Eaton and his Improbable Legion.” American
Heritage, 11: 2 (Feb., 1960), pp. 26-33, 104-6.

Hamilton, C. I. “Navies and Foreign Policy.” The Historical Journal, 21: 4.

(Dec., 1978), pp. 973-980.

Hartnett, Stephen John and Jennifer Rose Mercieca. “‘Has Your Courage
Rusted?: National Security and the Contested Rhetorical Norms of
Republicanism in Post-Revolutionary America, 1798–1801.” Rhetoric &
Public Affairs, 9: 1 (2006), pp. 79-112.

Hay, William A. “Reading the Past into American Foreign Policy.” Orbis,
(Spring 2004), pp. 369-80.

Hayes, Kevin J. “How Thomas Jefferson Read the Qur’a¯ n.” Early American
Literature, 39: 2 (2004), pp. 247-261.

Hayman, John G. “Notions on National Characters in the Eighteenth Century.”

Huntington Library Quarterly, 35: 1 (Nov., 1971), pp. 1-17.

Headley, J. T. “Eaton’s Barbary Expedition.” Harper’s New Monthly

Magazine, vol. 21 (1860), pp. 496-511.

Hess, Andrew C. “The Moriscos: An Ottoman Fifth Column in Sixteenth-

Century Spain.” The American Historical Review, 74: 1 (Oct., 1968), pp. 1-25.

Hickey, Donald R. “Federalist Defence Policy in the Age of Jefferson, 1801-

1812.” Military Affairs, 45: 2 (Apr., 1981), pp. 63-70.

Honley, Steven Alan. “A Diplomatic ‘Renaissance Man’: Richard B. Parker.”

Foreign Service Journal, July-August, 2004, pp. 49-59.

Hume, Edgar Erskine. “A Proposed Alliance between the Order of Malta and
the United States, 1794: Suggestions made to James Monroe as American
Minister in Paris.” William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine,
2nd Ser., 16: 2 (Apr., 1936), pp. 222-233.

Jarvis, Robert M. “Maritime Piracy in the Modern World.” Insights on Law &
Society, 6: 3 (Spring 2006), pp. 1-4.

Johnson, David E. “Of Pirates, Captives, Barbarians, and the Limits of

Culture.” American Literary History, 14: 2 (Summer 2002), pp. 358-375.

Johnston, J. H. “The Mohammedan Slave Trade.” The Journal of Negro

History, 13: 4 (Oct., 1928), pp. 478-491.

426
Jonsson, Mar. “The Expulsion of the Moriscos from Spain in 1609–1614: the
Destruction of an Islamic periphery.” Journal of Global History, 2 (2007), pp.
195-212.

Keene, Charles A. “American Shipping and Trade, 1798-1820: The Evidence

from Leghorn.” The Journal of Economic History, 38: 3 (Sep., 1978), pp. 681-
700.

Kirk, Russell. “The New Barbary Pirates.” Human Events, 27: 47 (Nov., 1967),
p. 13.

Kitzen, Michael. “Money Bags or Cannon Balls: The Origins of the Tripolitan
War, 1795-1801.” Journal of the Early Republic, 16: 4 (Winter 1996), pp. 601-
624.

Knobler, Adam. “Holy War, Empires, and the Portability of the Past: The
Modern Uses of Medieval Crusades.” Comparative Studies in History and
Society, 48: 2 (Apr., 2006), pp. 293-352.

_____. “Pseudo-Conversions and Patchwork Pedigrees: The Christianization of

Muslim Princes and the Diplomacy of Holy War.” Journal of World History,
Vol. 7, No. 2 (1996), pp. 181-197.

Labib, Subhi. “The Era of Suleiman the Magnificent: Crisis of Orientation.”

International Journal of Middle East Studies, 10: 4 (Nov. 1979), pp. 435-451.

Lee, Melvin E. “The Fallacy of Grievance-based Terrorism.” Middle East

Quarterly
(Winter 2008), pp. 71-79.

Locke, Ralph P. “Cutthroats and Casbah Dancers, Muezzins and Timeless

Sands: Musical Images of the Middle East.” 19th-Century Music, 22: 1
(Summer 1998), pp. 20-53.

London, Joshua E. “Victory in Tripoli: Lessons for the War on Terrorism.”

Heritage Lectures, 940 (May, 2006), pp. 1-7.

Luft, Gal and Anne korin. “Terrorism Goes to Sea.” Foreign Affairs, 83: 6
(Nov./Dec. 2004), pp. 61-71.

Lydon, James G. “Thomas Jefferson and the Mathurins.” Catholic Historical

Review, 49: 2 (Jul., 1963), pp. 192-202.

Lyons, Paul. “George W. Bush’s City on a Hill.” The Journal of the Historical
Society, 6:1 (March 2006), 119-31.

427
MacLeod, Julia H. “Jefferson and the Navy: A Defense.” Huntington Library
Quarterly, 8: 1/4 (1944/1945), pp. 153-184.

Mandel, Robert. “The Effectiveness of Gunboat Diplomacy.” International

Studies Quarterly, 30: 1 (Mar., 1986), pp. 59-76.

Marienstras, Elise. “Joel Barlow, de Redding (1754) a Zarnowiec (1812): rêves

cosmopolitiques et cauchemars tyranniques d’un américain de bonne volonté.”
La Revue Française des Etudes Américaine, 92 :2 (2002), pp. 68-85.

Marks, Frederick W. “Foreign Affairs: A Winning Issue in the Campaign for

Ratification of the United States Constitution.” Political Science Quarterly, 86:
3 (Sep., 1971), pp. 444-469.

Matar, Nabil. “English Accounts of Captivity in North Africa and the Middle
East: 1577-1625.” Renaissance Quarterly, 54: 2 (Summer 2001), pp. 553-572.

McLachlan, K. S. “Tripoli and Tripolitania: Conflict and Cohesion during the

Period of the Barbary Corsairs (1551-1850).” Transactions of the Institute of
British Geographers, New Series, 3: 3, Settlement and Conflict in the
Mediterranean World (1978), pp. 285-294.

Mercier, E. “Ethnographie de L’Afrique septentrionale : notes sur l’origine du

peuple berbère.” Revue Africaine. 15: 85 (Jan., 1871), pp. 420-433.

Michael, John. “Beyond Us and Them: Identity and Terror from an Arab
American’s Perspective.” The South Atlantic Quarterly, 102: 4 (Fall, 2003), pp.
701-728.

Montes-Bradley, Saul, II and Larry Nathan Burns. “The Barbary Wars and the
Treaties with Tripoli.” Flintlock and Powderhorn, 24: 2 (Summer 2006), pp. 1-
4.

Montgomery, Benilde. “White Captives, African Slaves: A Drama of

Abolition.” Eighteenth-Century Studies, 27: 4, African-American Culture in the
Eighteenth-Century (Summer 1994), pp. 615-630.

Montmorency, J. E. G. “The Barbary States in International Law.”

Transactions of the Grotius Society, vol. 4 (1918), pp. 87-94.

Naylor, R. T. “Ghosts of Terror Wars Past? Crime, Terror and America’s First
Clash with the Saracen Hordes.” Crime, Law & Social Change, 45:2 (Mar.,
2006), pp. 93-109.

Nettels, Curtis P. “British Mercantilism and the Economic Development of the

Thirteen Colonies,” in Abraham S. Eisenstadt, ed. American History: Recent
428
Interpretations. Book I: To 1877. 5th Edition. (New York, NY: Crowell
Company, 1964), pp. 137-147.

Panzac, Daniel. “International and Domestic Maritime Trade in the Ottoman

Empire during the 18th Century.” International Journal of Middle East Studies,
24: 2 (May, 1992), pp. 189-206.

Parker, Richard B. “Kalorama.” Barlow of Barlow, Spring Issue, May 2002,

pp. 497-508.

_____. “Anti-American Attitudes in the Arab World.” The Annals, AAPSS, 497,
May 1988, pp. 46-57.

Pennell, C. R. “Who Needs Pirate Heroes?” The Northern Mariner/Le Marin

du Nord, 8: 2 (Apr., 1998), pp. 61-79.

Peskin, Lawrence A. “The Lessons of Independence: How the Algerian Crisis

shaped early American Identity.” Diplomatic History, 28: 3 (Jun., 2004), pp.
297-319.

Primaudaie, F. Élie de la. “Le commerce et la navigation de l’Algérie.” Revue

Algérienne et Coloniale (Juin 1860), pp.

Puchala, Donald J. “Of Pirates and Terrorists: What Experience and History
Teach.” Contemporary Security Policy, 26: 1 (Apr., 2005), pp. 1-24.

Ramsey, Michael D. “Textualism and War Powers.” The University of Chicago

Law Review, 96: 4 (Autumn, 2002), pp. 1543-1638.

Riddell, William Renwick. “Observations on Slavery and Privateering.” The

Journal of Negro History, 15: 3 (Jul., 1930), pp. 337-371.

Risso Patricia. “Cross-Cultural Perceptions of Piracy: Maritime Violence in the

Western Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf Region during a Long Eighteenth
Century.” Journal of World History, 12: 2 (2001), pp. 293-319.

Roberts, Priscilla H. and James N. Tull. “Moroccan Sultan Sidi Muhammad

Ibn Abdallah’s Diplomatic Initiatives toward the United States, 1777-1786.”
Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 143: 2 (Jun., 1999), pp.
233-265.

Rojas, Martha Elena. “‘Insults Unpunished’: Barbary Captives, American

Slaves, and the Negotiation of Liberty.” Early American Studies: An
Interdisciplinary Journal, 1: 2 (Fall, 2003), pp. 159-186.

429
Rose, Susan. “Islam versus Christendom: The Naval Dimension, 1000-1600.”
The Journal of Military History, 63: 3 (Jul., 1999), pp. 561-578.

Rosenstock, Morton. “The House of Bakri and Busnach: A Chapter from

Algeria’s Commercial History.” Jewish Social Studies, 14 (1952), pp. 343-364.

Ross, Frank E. “The Mission of Joseph Donaldson, Jr., to Algiers, 1795-1797.”

The Journal of Modern History, 7: 4 (Dec., 1935), pp. 422-433.

Ruddin, Lee P. “It’s not ‘Revolutionary,’ Stupid! Bush Foreign Policy (2001–
2004) and the International Security Corollary.” 49th Parallel, 17 (Spring
2006), pp. 1-31.

Salvatore, Bono. “Achat d’esclaves Turcs pour les galères pontificales (xvi-
xviiie siècles).” Revue de l’Occident Musulman et de la Méditerranée, 39: 1
(1985), pp. 79-92.

Samuel, Edwin. “Hi-jacking and the Barbary Pirates compared.” Contemporary

Review, 229: 1326 (Jul., 1976), pp. 28-31.

Satloff, Robert and John L. Esposito and Shibley Telhami. “Foreign Policy
Debate: Propaganda, the Satans, and other Misunderstandings.” SAIS Review,
vol. XXI, no. 2 (Summer-Fall, 2001), pp. 139-154.

Scudder, Harold H. “Cooper and the Barbary Coast.” PMLA, 62: 3. (Sep.,
1947), pp. 784-792.

Sedgwick, John Hunter. “William Eaton, a Sanguine Man.” The New England
Quarterly, 1: 2 (Apr., 1928), pp. 107-123.

Semple, Ellen Churchill. “Pirate Coasts of the Mediterranean Sea.”

Geographical Review, 2: 2 (Aug., 1916), pp. 134-151.

Shultz, Richard H. and Andreas Vogt. “It’s War! Fighting Post-11 September
Global Terrorism through a Doctrine of Preemption.” Terrorism and Political
Violence, 15: 1 (Spring 2003), pp.1–30.

Shuval, Tal. “The Ottoman Algerian Elite and its Ideology.” International
Journal of Middle East Studies, 32: 3 (Aug., 2000), pp. 323-344.

_____. “Remettre l’Algérie à l’heure Ottomane : Questions d’historiographie.”

Revue du Monde Musulman et de la Méditerranée, 95-98 (2002), pp. 423-448.

Silverstein, Paul A. “The New Barbarians: Piracy and Terrorism on the North
African Frontier.” The New Centennial Review, 5: 1 (Spring 2005), pp. 179-
212.
430
Smelser, Marshall. “The Federalist Period as an Age of Passion.” American
Quarterly, 10: 4 (Winter 1958), pp. 391-419.

_____. “The Passage of the Naval Act of 1794.” Military Affairs, 22: 1 (Spring
1958), pp. 1-12.

Smith, Albert C. “North African Historiography and the Westerner: The

Maghrib as Seen by David Gordon.” History in Africa, vol. 5. (1978), pp. 187-
200.

Smith, Gaddis. “The U.S. vs. International Terrorists.” American Heritage, 28:
5 (1977), pp. 36-43.

Smith, Gene Allen. “Fighting a War on Terror or, “Our Country, Right or
Wrong!” Reviews in American History, 35 (2007), pp. 358–365.

Sofka, James R. “The Jeffersonian Idea of National Security: Commerce, the

Atlantic Balance of Power, and the Barbary War, 1786-1805.” Diplomatic
History, 21: 4 (Fall, 1997), pp. 519-544.

_____. “American Neutral Rights Reappraised: Identity or Interest in the

Foreign Policy of the early Republic?” Review of International Studies, 26: 4
(Oct. 2000), pp. 599–622.

Spellberg, Denise A. “Could a Muslim be President? An Eighteenth-Century

Constitutional Debate.” Eighteenth-Century Studies, 39: 4 (2006) pp. 485–506.

Spiegel, Gabrielle M. “Revising the Past, Revising the Present.” History and
Theory: Studies in the Philosophy of History, Theme Issue 46 (December
2007), pp. 1-19.

Straus, Oscar S. “American Commercial Diplomacy.” The North American

Review, 194: 2 (Aug., 1911), pp. 218-225.

Swain, J. E. “The Occupation of Algiers in 1830: A Study in Anglo-French

Diplomacy.” Political Science Quarterly, 48: 3 (Sep., 1933), pp. 359-366.

Symonds, Craig L. “‘A Squadron of Observation’: Thomas Jefferson and

America’s First War against Terrorism.” White House Studies, 4: 2 (2004), pp.
125-136.

Takeyh, Ray. “Uncle Sam in the Arab Street: Mideast Democracy and
American Interests.” The National Interest, 75-76: 75 (Spring 2004), pp. 45-51.

Wansbrough, John. “The Decolonization of North African History.” The

Journal of African History, 9: 4 (1968), pp. 643-650.
431
Weiss, Gillian. “Imagining Europe through Barbary Captivity.” Taiwan
Journal of East Asian Studies, 4: 1 (Jun., 2007), pp. 49-67.

Wickham, John A. “September 11 and America’s War on Terrorism: A New

Manifest Destiny?” American Indian Quarterly, 26: 1. (Winter 2002), pp. 116-
144.

Williams, Daniel. “White Slaves, African Masters: An Anthology of American

Barbary Captivity Narratives.” Early American Literature, 36: 2 (Mar. 2001),
pp. 314-20.

Wilson, Gary E. “American Hostages in Moslem Nations, 1784-1796: The

Public Response.” Journal of the Early Republic, 2: 2. (Summer 1982), pp.
123-141.

Wright, Louis B. “The Founding Fathers and ‘Splendid Isolation.’” The

Huntington Library Quarterly, 6: 2. (Feb., 1943), pp. 173-196.

Wright, Louis B. and Julia H. MacLeod. “First American Campaign in North

Africa.” Huntington Library Quarterly, 7: 1/4 (1943/1944), pp. 281-305.

Zingg, Paul J. “One-Dimensional History: A Review of United States-North

African Historiography since Independence.” ASA Review of Books, vol. 1
(1975), pp. 147-156.

_____. “The United States and North Africa: A Historiographical Wasteland.”

African Studies Review, 16: 1 (Apr., 1973), pp. 107-117.

4. Theses and Papers

Amine, Mohammed. “Commerce extérieur et commerçants d’Alger à la fin de

l’époque Ottomane (1792-1830).” 2 vol. Dissertation. Aix-en-Provence, 1991.

Freewalt, Jason. “The Barbary Corsairs: Conquerors of United States

Commerce and the Articles of Confederation.” Seminar Paper. Indiana
Wesleyan University, Indiana, USA, 1998.

Gunzinger, Mark A. “Power Projection: Making the Tough Choices.” Paper.

United States Air Force, Alabama, (undated).

Gurkan, Emrah Safa. “Ottoman Corsairs in the Western Mediterranean and

their Place in the Ottoman-Habsburg Rivalry, (1505-1535).” Master’s Thesis.
Department of History, Bilkent University, Ankara, June 2006.

432
Holcomb, James R. “Attitudes towards Privateering during the Era of the early
American Republic.” Research Follows Paper. Department of History, Texas
A&M University, Texas, USA, 2007.

Kelley, Stephen Andrew. “Better Lucky than Good: Operation Earnest Will as
Gunboat Diplomacy.” Master’s Thesis. Naval Postgraduate School, California,
2007.

Tai, Emily Sohmer. “Marking Water: Piracy and Property in the Pre-Modern
West.” Paper presented at Seascapes, Littoral Cultures, and Trans-Oceanic
Exchanges, Library of Congress, Washington D.C., February 12-15, 2003.
(Accessed 4 May 2008).
http://www.historycooperative.org/proceedings/seascapes/tai.html

Thorup, Mikkel. “The Horror of the ‘Enemy of Humanity’ – on Pirates,

Terrorists and States.” Paper presented at Fear, Horror & Terror, 1st Global
Conference, Mansfield College, Oxford, September 10-12, 2007. (Accessed 25
May 2008). http://www.wickedness.net/Fear/f1/thorup%20paper.pdf -

Ziegler, Christopner T. “Jeffersonianism and 19th century American Maritime

Defence Policy.” Master’s Thesis. Department of History, East Tennessee State
University, Tennessee, USA, 2003.

5. Online Material

Al-Hibri, Azizah Y. “Knowledge of Islam in Early America.” Undated.

(Accessed 1 April May 2008).
http://www.islamamerica.org/articles.cfm/article_id/119/

Allison, Robert J. “The Jihad of America’s Founding Fathers.” Sept., 2001.

(Accessed 14 June 2007).
http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=2155

Barrows, Leland Conley. “Review of Nabil Matar, Turks, Moors, and

Englishmen in the Age of Discovery.” H-W-Civ, H-Net Reviews, October,
2000. (Accessed 17 May 2008).
http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=32574973114426

Barton, David. “An Historical Perspective on a Muslim Being Sworn into

Congress.” 2007. (Accessed 14 June, 2007).
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=151

433
_____. “George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, & Slavery in Virginia.” 2000.
(Accessed 6 March 2008).
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=99

_____. “The Founding Fathers and Slavery.” 2004. (Accessed 6 March 2008).
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=122
BBC Company. “Legends of Pirates and Piracy.” 2006. (Accessed 27 February
2008). http://www.bbc.co.uk

Beck, Sanderson. “Africa and Slavery 1500-1800.” published in the book:

Middle East & Africa to 1875, 2004. (Accessed 13 March 2008).
http://www.san.beck.org/1-13-Africa1500-1800.html

Belhamissi, Moulay. “Course et contre-course en méditerranée ou comment les

algériens tombaient en esclavage.” Cahiers de la Méditerranée, vol. 65,
L’esclavage en Méditerranée à l’époque moderne, 2002. (Accessed 22 March
2008). http://www.cdlm.revues.org/document36.html

Benesh, Peter. “The War on Terror isn’t the First: Young U.S. Faced Barbary
Pirates.” Issues & Insights, 2001. (Accessed 14 June 2007).
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/

Berg-Andersson, Richard E. “Watch out on Your Right!” 2007. (Accessed 26

January 2008). http://www.thegreenpapers.com/PCom/?20070209-0
Blondy, Alain. “Le discours sur l’esclavage en Méditerranée: Une réalité
occultée.” Cahiers de la Méditerranée, vol. 65, L’esclavage en Méditerranée à
l’époque moderne, 2002. (Accessed 21 March 2008).
http://www.cdlm.revues.org/document37.html

Bloom, Howard. “Islam’s War against the West: U. S. has Fought Islamic
Terrorism before – The Barbary Pirates.” 2004. (Accessed 5 June 2008).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1242756/posts

Bostom, Andrew G. “America’s First War on Terror.” 2006. (Accessed 4 May

2008). http://www.FrontPageMagazine.com

Boston, Robert. “Joel Barlow and the Treaty with Tripoli: A Tangled Tale of
Pirates, a Poet and the True Meaning of the First Amendment.” State and
Church Magazine, 1997. (Accessed 14 June 2007).
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/archive/boston_tripoli.html#see

Brown, John. “Our Indian Wars are Not Yet Over: Ten Ways to Interpret the
War on Terror as a Frontier Conflict.” American Diplomacy, 2005. (Accessed 6
March 2008).
http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2006/0103/ca_brow/indian.html
434
Constitutional Rights Foundation. “The United States and the Barbary Pirates.”
Fall, 2001 (18: 1). (Accessed 14 June 2007).
http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria18_1.htm#pirates

Corré, Alan D. “A Glossary of Lingua Franca,” 5th edition, 2005. (Accessed 28

July 2008). http://www.uwm.edu/~corre/franca/go.html

Davie, Rees. “British Slaves on the Barbary Coast.” 2003. (Accessed 26

January 2008).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/white_slaves

Deveau, Jean-Michel. “Avant-propos.” Cahiers de la Méditerranée, vol. 65,

L’esclavage en Méditerranée à l’époque moderne, 2002. (Accessed 22 March
2008). http://www.cdlm.revues.org/document25.html

_____. “Esclaves noirs en Méditerranée.” Cahiers de la Méditerranée, vol. 65,

L’esclavage en Méditerranée à l’époque moderne, 2002. (Accessed 22 March
2008). http:www.//cdlm.revues.org/document27.html

Dolan, Chris J. “The Bush Doctrine and US Interventionism.” 2004, American

Diplomacy. (Accessed 14 June 2007).
http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/archives_roll/dolan_bush.html

Drye, Willie. “Pirate Coast Campaign Was U.S.’s First War on Terror.”
National Geographic News, 2005. (Accessed 26 January 2008).

El Moudjahid. “Bedjaoui aux Etats-Unis d’Amérique: Une Visite très

Fructueuse.” 2006. (Accessed 27 February 2008).
http://www.elmoudjahid.com/stories.php?story=06/04/14/8098232

El Watan. “Les Traités de Paix et d’Amitié entre l’Etat d’Alger et les Etats-
Unis d’Amérique 1795, 1815 et 1816.” 2006. (Accessed 27 February 2008).
http://www.elwatan.com/spip.php?page=article&id_article=42568

El-Annabi. “Algérie: Traité d’Amitié Algérie – USA…Il a été Signé en...

1795!” 2006. (Accessed 27 February 2008).
http://actualite.el-annabi.com/article.php3?id_article=442

Faksh, Mahmud A. ‘U.S.-Arab Relations: from Admiration to Condemnation.”

2006. (Accessed 26 January 2008).
http://www.pressherald.mainetoday.com/insight/stories/060521arab.shtml#top

Fallon, Paul. “America’s First War on Terror.” 2002. (Accessed 14 June 2007).
http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/000374.html

435
Finnemore, John. Barbary Rovers, 1912. The Baldwin Project. (Accessed 9
June 2008). http://www.mainlesson.com/main/displayarticle.php?article

Fitzgerald, Hugh. “Jefferson, the Adamses, and Making Sense.” (Accessed 6

May) 2006. http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/011325.php

______. “Pirates Hooligans and Self-immolation.” 4 Nov. 2005. (Accessed 14

June 2007). http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/008994.php

Fontenay, Michel. “Pour une géographie de l’esclavage méditerranéen aux

temps modernes.” Cahiers de la Méditerranée, vol. 65, L’esclavage en
Méditerranée à l’époque moderne, 2002. (Accessed 22 March 2008).
http://www.cdlm.revues.org/document42.html

Fowler, William M., Jr. “The Navy’s Barbary War Crucible.” Navy History,
August, 2005. (Accessed 14 June 2007).
http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,NH_0705_Crucible-P1,00.html

Frangipane, Francis. “U.S. War against Terrorists Goes Back to Founding

Fathers.” June 12, 2004. (Accessed 27 January 2008).
http://www.etpv.org/2004/uswat.html

Fur, Erwan le. “La renaissance d’un apostolat: l’Ordre de la Trinité et la

Rédemption des Captifs dans les années 1630.” Cahiers de la Méditerranée,
vol. 66, L’autre et l’image de soi, 2003. (Accessed 20 June 2008).
http://www.cdlm.revues.org/document110.html

Gawalt, Gerard W. “America and the Barbary Pirates: An International Battle

against an Unconventional Foe.” Undated. (Accessed 26 January 2008).
http://memory.loc.gov/jefferson_papers/mtjprece.html

Grenier, Richard. “Barbary Pirates Still at it?” 2001. (Accessed 6 March 2008).
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?article_id=24625

Hitchens, Christopher. “Jefferson versus the Muslim Pirates.” 2007. City

Journal. (Accessed 27 January 2008).
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=jefferson_versus_t
he_muslim_pirates&ns=ChristopherHitchens&dt=04/26/2007&page=2

_____. “Jefferson’s Quran.” 2007. Washington Post. (Accessed 27 January

2008). http://www.slate.com/id/2157314/

_____. “To the Shores of Tripoli: Muslim Foes. Kidnappings. How the Barbary
Wars Foreshadowed Things to Come.” Time, 5 July 2004, pp. 56-61. (Accessed
21 January 2008).
436
Holmes, James. “Why doesn’t America have a Nelson? Does It Need One?”
Naval War College Review, Autumn, 2005. (Accessed 27 May 2007).
Huber, Marisa. “Holy Wars and Piratical Governments: Barbary Corsairs (With
a Comparative Look at Maltese Corsairs)”, 2004. (Accessed 18 May 2008).
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Course_Pages/legal_systems_
very_different_08/final_papers_06/barbary_corsairs.html

Idriss Jazairy, “Barbary Privateers.” New York Times, March 23, 2003, p. 12.

Jenkins, Philip. “Islam in America.” Foreign Policy Research Institute Watch

on the West, 4: 4 (2003). (Accessed 12 April 2008).
http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/p/jpj1/amislam.htm

Jewett, Thomas. “Terrorism in Early America: The U.S. Wages War against
the Barbary States to End International Blackmail and Terrorism.” Early
America Review 4, no. 1, (Winter-Spring 2002), pp. 1-8. (Accessed 18 May
2007). http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2002_winter_spring/terrorism.htm

Leiby, Richard. “Terrorists by another Name: The Barbary Pirates.”

Washington Post, 15 October 2001, p. C01. (Accessed 18 May 2007).

London, Joshua E. “America’s Earliest Terrorists: Lessons from America’s

first War against Islamic Terror.” 2005. (Accessed 18 May 2007).
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/london.asp

Matthews, Stuart. “Cortés and Aztec Gold: Initial Conflict and Modern
Political Ecology.” ICE Case Studies, Number 174, March 2006. (Accessed 1
June 2008). http://www.american.edu/ted/ice/aztec.htm

Myles, Anne G. “Slaves in Algiers, Captives in Iraq: The Strange Career of the
Barbary Captivity Narrative.” www.common-place.org, vol. 5 no. 1, October,
2004. (Accessed 18 April 2007).
http://www.common-place.org/vol-05/no-01/myles/index.shtml

Nied, André. “Y’a t’il une Pensée Navale Arabe?” 2005. (Accessed 22 March
2008). http://www.stratisc.org/pn5_niedpnarab.html#Note1

Oren, Michael B. “The Middle East and the Making of the United States, 1776
to 1815.” 2005. (Accessed 12 September 2008).
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/05/11/michaelOren.html

Panzac, Daniel. “Les esclaves et leurs rançons chez les barbaresques (fin
XVIIIe - début XIXe siècle).” Cahiers de la Méditerranée, vol. 65, l’esclavage
en Méditerranée à l’époque moderne, 2002. (Accessed 6 March 2008).
http://www.cdlm.revues.org/document47.html
437
Pipes, Daniel. “In 1796 US Vowed Friendliness with Islam.” New York Sun, 7
November 2006. http://www.danielpipes.org/article/4099

Quadir, Iqbal F. “When Barbarossa Brothers Ruled the Mediterranean.”

Defence Journal, Feb. 2001. (Accessed 4 June 2008).
http://www.defencejournal.com/2001/feb/barbarossa.htm

Saint-Vincent, Xavier Labat. “Achats et rachats d’esclaves musulmans par les

consuls de France en méditerranée au XVIIIe siècle.” Cahiers de la
Méditerranée, vol. 65, l’esclavage en Méditerranée à l’époque moderne, 2002.
(Accessed 22 mars 2008). http://www.cdlm.revues.org/document44.html

Sampley, Ted. “What Thomas Jefferson Learned from the Muslim Book of
Jihad,” 2007. U.S. Veteran Dispatch. (Accessed 12 April 2008).
http://www.usvetdsp.com/jan07/jeff_quran.htm

Smith, Bradley E. “America’s First Response to Terrorism: Barbary Pirates and

the Tripolitan War of 1801.” Military Review, Nov.-Dec., 2005, pp. 67-69.
(Accessed 14 June 2007). http://www.accessmylibrary.com/
Sommers, William. “Meet Joel Barlow in Poland.” American Diplomacy, 10
April 2007. (Accessed 12 January 2008).
http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/sommers_barlow.html

Thoma, Mark. “The 11th Article of the Treaty of Tripoli.” 18 Feb. 2006.
(Accessed 12 May 2008).
http://www.economistsview.typepad.com/view/2006/02/the_11th_articl.html

Tuchscherer, Michel. “Daniel Panzac.” Revue des mondes musulmans et de la

Méditerranée, 95-96-97-98 - Débats intellectuels au Moyen-Orient dans
l’entre-deux-guerres. (Accessed 6 March 2008).
http:www.remmm.revues.org/document2463.html

Tucker, Spencer C. “Barbary Wars.” Undated. (Accessed 6 March 2008).

http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/Ar-Bi/Barbary-Wars.html

Unknown, “The United States Creation Myth.” (Accessed 12 April 2008).

http://www.aloha.com/~craven/voliich2.html

Unknown, “Who Are We? The Cost of Historical Amnesia.” 2006. (Accessed
14 June 2007). http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1409

Unknown. “The United States at War with the Barbary States.” 2003.
(Accessed 14 June 2007). http://www.whisperinghope.net/usawwt_ba1.htm

438
Unruh, Bob. “Jefferson had Quran to Know his Enemies.” 2007. (Accessed 14
August 2008). World Net Daily.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?article_id=53692

Walden, Andrew. “The Colonial War against Islam.” 2007. Front Page
Magazine. (Accessed 12 April 2008).
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26295

Zaimeche, Salah. “Granada: The Last Refuge of Muslims in Spain.”

Foundation for Science, Technology and Civilization, 2004. (Accessed 27 May
2008). http://www.islamawareness.net/Europe/Spain/granada.pdf

6. Reference Works

Catholic Encyclopedia, The. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910 at

http://www.newadvent.org

Collin, P. H. Dictionary of Government and Politics. Middlesex, Great Britain:

Peter Collin Publishing, Ltd, 1988.

Encyclopædia Britannica, 2006 Ultimate Reference Suite DVD.

Finkelman, Paul and Joseph Calder Miller, eds. Macmillan Encyclopedia of

World Slavery. 2 Vol. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster Macmillan, 1998.

Gibaldi, Joseph and Walter S. Achtert. MLA Handbook for Writers of

Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations. New York: Modern Language
Association, 1980.

Gosse, Philip. The Pirates’ Who’s Who: Giving Particulars of the Lives &
Deaths of the Pirates & Buccaneers. New York: Burt Franklin 1924.

Hayward, Arthur L. and John P. Sparkes. The Concise English Dictionnary. 5th
edition. London: Cassell Ltd/Omega Books Limited, 1984.

Lalor, John J. ed. The Cyclopaedia of Political Science, Political Economy, and
the Political History of the United States. New York: Maynard, Merrill, and
Co. 1899.

Lawless, Richard. “Algeria: History.” The Middle East and North Africa.” 46th
edition. UK: Europa Publications Ltd, 2000.

439
Maynadies, Michel. Bibliographie Algérienne: Répertoire des sources
documentaires relatives à L’Algérie. Alger: Office des Publications
Universitaires, 1989.

Microsoft Encarta Premium Suite 2005.

Naylor, Philip C. and Alf A. Heggoy. Historical Dictionary of Algeria. 2nd

edition. Metuchen, N. J.: The Scarecrow Press, 1994.

Nelson, Harold D., ed. Algeria: A Country Study. 4th edition. Washington D.
C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1986.

Playfair, Robert Lambert, Sir. Bibliography of Algeria, from the Expedition of

Charles V. in 1541 to 1887. London: Clowes and Sons, Limited, (undated).

_____. Supplement to the Bibliography of Algeria from the earliest Times to

1895. London: John Murray, 1898.

Washburn, H. C. Illustrated Case Inscriptions from the Official Catalogue of

the Trophy Flags of the United States Navy. Baltimore, MD: U.S. Naval
Academy, 1913.

440
 APPENDICES

Appendix 1

A. Queen Elizabeth’s Letter to the Grand Signor (1584)

Elizabeth, by the Grace of the most high God, onely Maker of Heaven and
Earth, of England, France and Ireland Queene, and of the Christian Faith,
against all the Idolaters and false Professors of the Name of Christ dwelling
among the Christians, most invincible and puissant Defender; to the most
valiant and invincible Prince Sultan Murad Can, the most mightie Ruler of the
Kingdome of Musulman, and of the East Empire, the onely and highest
Monarch above all, Health and many happie and fortunate Yeeres, and great
Aboundance of the best Things.

Most noble and puissant Emperor: About two Yeeres now passed, We wrote
unto your Imperial Majestie, that our well-beloved Servant, William
Hareborne, a Man of great Reputation and Honour, might be received under
your high Authoritie, for Our Ambassadour in Constantinople, and other Places
under the Obedience of your Empire of Musulman: And also, that the
Englishmen, being Our Subjects, might exercise Entercourse and Merchandize
in all those Provinces, no less freely then the French, Polonium, Venetians,
Germanes, and other your Confederates, which travel through diverse of the
East Parts; endeavouring that, by mutual Traffike, the East may be joined and
knit to the West.

Which Priviledges, when as your most puissant Majestie, by your Letters and
under your Dispensation, most liberally and favourably granted to our Subjects
of England, we could no lesse doe, but in that respect give You as great
Thankes as our Heart could conceave; trusting that it will come to passe, that
this Order of Traffike, so well ordained, will bring with it selfe most great
Profits and Commodities to both Sides as well to the Parties subject to your
Empire, as to the Provinces of our Kingdome.

Which thing, that it may be done in plaine and effectuall manner, whereas
some of our Subjects of late, at Tripolis in Barbarie, and at Argier, were by the
Inhabitants of those Places (being perhaps ignorant of your Pleasure) evill

441
intreated and grievously vexed, We doe friendly and lovingly desire your
Imperiall Majestie, that You will understand their Causes by Our
Ambassadour, and afterwards give Commandement to the Lieutenants and
Presidents of those Provinces, that our People may henceforth freely, without
any Violence or Injurie travell and doe their Busines in those Places.

And We again, with all Endeavour, shall studie to performe all those things that
We (hall in any wise understand to be acceptable to your Imperial Majestie;
whom God, the onely Maker of the World, most best and most great, long
keepe in Health and Flourishing. Given in our Pallace at London, the fift Day
of the Moneth September; in the Yeere of Jesus Christ) our Saviour, 1584. And
of our Raigne the 26.

Source: Morgan, Complete History of Algiers, vol. 2, pp. 582-3.

442
Appendix 1

B. The Commandement obtained of the Grand Signior, by her Majestics

Ambassadour, for the quiet passing of her Subjects to and from his
Dominions, sent to the Viceroy of Argier (1584)

To our Beg-ler-Beg of Argier. We certifie thee, by this our Commandement,

that the Right Honourable William Hareborne, Ambassadour to the Queenes
Majestie of England, hath signified unto Us, that the Shippes of that Country, at
their comming and returning to and from our Empire, on the one Part of the
Seas have the Spaniards, Florentines, Sicilians and Malteses, on the other Part
our Countries committed to your Charge; which abovesayd Christians will not
suffer their Egresse and Regresse into and out of our Dominions, but doe take
and make the Men Captives, and forfeit the Ships and Goods, as the last Yeere
the Malteses did one, which they tooke at Gerbi and to that Ende, doe
continually lie in waight for them, to their Destruction; whereupon they are
constrained to (stand to their Defense, at any such Times as they might meate
with them. Wherefore considering by this Meanes they must (stand upon their
Gard, when they shall see any Galley a farre off, whereby if meeting with any
of your Gallies, and not knowing them, in their Defense they doe shoote at
them, and yet after, when they doe certainly knowe them, doe not shoote any
more, but require to passe peaceably on their Voyage, which you would denie,
saying, “The Peace is broken, for that you have shotte at us” and so doe make
Prise of them, contrarye to our Priviledges, and agaynst Reason: For the
preventing of which Inconvenience, the sayd Ambassador hath required this
our Commandement.

We therefore command thee, that upon Sight hereof, thou doe not permit any
such Matter, in no Sort whatsoever but suffer the said Englishmen to passe in
Peace, according to the Tenor of our Commandement given, without any
Disturbance, or Lett, by any Meanes, upon the Way, although that, meeting
with thy Gallies, and not knowing them a farre off, they, taking them for
Enemies, should shoote at them, yet shall you not suffer them to hurt them
therefore, but quietly to passe. Wherefore looke thou, that they may have Right,
according to our Priviledge given them; and finding any that absenteth
himselfe, and will not obey this our Commandement, presently certifie Us to
our Porch, that We may give Order for his Punishment: And with Reverence
give faithful Credite to this our Commandement, which having read, thou shalt
againe returne to them that present it. From our Pallace in Constantinople, the
Prime of June 1584.

Source: Morgan, Complete History of Algiers, vol. 2, pp. 584-5.

443
Appendix 2

A. Treaty between Great Britain and Algiers (1682)

Articles of Peace and Commerce between the Most Serene and Mighty Prince
Charles the Second, and the Most Illustrious Lords, the Bashaw, Dey, Aga, and
Governors of the famous City and Kingdom of Algiers, in Barbary

I. In the first place it is agreed and concluded, that from this day, and for
ever forwards, there be a true, firm and inviolable peace between the most
Serene King of Great Britain, France and Ireland, Defender of the Christian
Faith, &c. and the most illustrious Lords, the Bashaw, Dey, Aga, and
Governors of the City and Kingdom of Algiers and between all the Dominions
and subjects of either side, and that the ships or other vessels, and the subjects
and people of both sides, shall not henceforth do to each other any harm
offence or injury, either in word or deed, but shall treat orke another with all
possible respect and friendship.

II. That any of the ships, or other vessels, belonging to the said King of
Great Britain, or to any of His Majesty’s subjects, may safely come to the port
of Algiers, or to any other port or place of that kingdom, there freely to buy and
sell, paying the usual customs of ten per cent, as in the former times, for such
goods as they sell ; and the goods they sell not, they shall freely carry on board
without paying any duties for the same ; and that they shall freely depart from
thence whensoever they please, without any stop or hindrance whatsoever. As
to contraband merchandises, as powder, brimstone, iron, planks, and all sorts of
timber fit for building of ships, ropes, pitch, tar, fusils, and other habiliments of
war, His said Majesty’s subjects shall pay no duty for the same to those of
Algiers.

III. That all ships, and other vessels, as well those belonging to the said
King of Great Britain, or to any of His Majesty’s subjects, as those belonging
to the Kingdom or people of Algiers, shall freely pass the seas, and traffic
without any search, hindrance or molestation from each other ; and that all
persons or passengers, of what country soever, and all monies, goods,
merchandises and moveables, to whatsoever people or nation belonging, being
on board of any of the said ships or vessels, shall be wholly free, and shall not
be stopped, taken or plundered, nor receive any harm or damage whatsoever
from either party.

IV. That the Algier ships of war, or other vessels, meeting with any
merchants’ ships, or other vessels, of His said Majesty’s subjects, not being in
any of the seas appertaining to His Majesty’s dominions, may send on board
one single boat, with two sitters only, besides the ordinary crew of rowers, and
444
that no more shall enter any such merchant ship or vessel, without express
leave from the commander thereof, but the two sitters alone ; and that upon
producing a pass under the hand and seal of the Lord High Admiralty? England
and Ireland, or of the Lord High Admiral of Scotland, for the said kingdoms
respectively, or under the hands and seals of the commissioners for executing
the office of Lord High Admiral of any of the said kingdoms, that the said boat
shall presently depart, and the merchant ship or vessel shall proceed freely on
her voyage, and that although, for the space of fifteen months next ensuing
after the conclusion of this peace, the said commander of the merchant ship or
vessel produce no such pass, yet if the major part of the seamen of the said ship
or vessel be subjects of the said King of Great Britain, the said boat shall
immediately depart, and the said merchant ship, or vessel, shall freely proceed
on her voyage; but that after the said fifteen months, all merchants’ ships, or
vessels, of His said Majesty’s subjects shall be obliged to produce such a pass
as aforesaid. And any of the ships of war, or other vessels, of His said Majesty,
meeting with any ships, or other vessels, of Algiers, if the commander of any
such Algier ship, or vessel, shall produce a pass firmed by the chief governors
of Algiers, and a certificate from the English Consul living there, or if they
have no such pass, or certificate, yet if, for the space of fifteen months next
ensuing the conclusion of this peace, the major part of the ship’s company be
Turks, Moors, or slaves belonging to Algiers, then the said Algier ship, or
vessel, shall proceed freely; but that, after the said fifteen months, all Algiers
ships, or vessels, shall be obliged to produce such a pass and certificate as
aforesaid.

V. That no commander, or other person, of any ship, or vessel, of Algiers,

shall take out of any ship, or vessel, of His said Majesty’s subjects, any person
or persons whatsoever, to carry them any where to be examined, or upon any
other pretence; nor shall they use any torture, or violence, to any person of
what nation or quality soever, being on board any ship, or vessel of His
Majesty’s subjects, upon any pretence whatsoever.

VI. That no shipwreck belonging to the said King of Great Britain, or to any
of His Majesty’s subjects, upon any part of the coast belonging to Algiers, shall
be made or become prize, and that neither the goods thereof shall be seized, nor
the men made slaves; but that all the subjects of Algiers shall do their best
endeavours to save the said men and their goods.

VII. That no ship, nor any other vessel of Algiers, shall have permission to
be delivered up, or go to Sally, or any place in enmity with the said King of
Great Britain, to be made use of as corsairs, or sea-rovers, against His said
Majesty’s subjects.

VIII. That none of the ships, or other smaller vessels of Algiers, shall remain
cruising near or in sight of His Majesty’s city and garrison of Tangier, or of any

445
other of His Majesty’s roads, havens or ports, towns and places, nor any ways
disturb the peace and commerce of the same.

IX. That if any ship, or vessel, of Tunis, Tripoli, or Sally, or of any other
place, bring any ships, vessels, men or goods belonging- to any of His said
Majesty’s subjects, to Algiers, or to any port or place in that kingdom, the
governors there shall not permit them to be sold within the territories of
Algiers.

X. That if any of the ships of war of the said King of Great Britain do come
to Algiers, or to any other port or place of that kingdom, with any prize, they
may freely sell it, or otherwise dispose of it at their own pleasure, without
being molested by any: and that His Majesty’s said ships of war shall not be
obliged to pay customs in any sort; and that if they shall want provisions,
victuals, or any other things, they may freely buy them at the rates in the
market.

XI. That when any of His said Majesty’s ships of war shall appear before
Algiers, upon notice thereof given by the English Consul, or by the commander
of the said ships, to the chief governors of Algiers, public proclamation shall be
immediately made to secure the Christian captives ; and if, after that, any
Christians whatsoever make their escape on board any of the said ships of war,
they shall not be required back again, nor shall the said consul or commander,
or any other His Majesty’s subjects, be obliged to pay any thing for the said
Christians….

Source: Hertslet, Complete Collection of the Treaties and Conventions, 1:58-

65.

446
Appendix 2

B. Article Concerning Passes

Whereas on the 10th day of April, 1682, there was a Treaty of Peace concluded
between the Most Serene King of Great Britain, France and Ireland, Defender
of the Christian Faith, &c. and the Most Illustrious Lords the Bashaw, Dey,
Aga, and Governors of the City and Kingdom of Algiers, to which Treaty there
was annexed a form of Passes for the ships belonging to the subjects of the said
King of Great Britain; it is hereby agreed and expressly declared, that the said
form annexed to the said Treaty being no part thereof, the Lords High Admirals
or Commissioners of the Admiralty of His said Majesty’s Dominions, are at
full liberty, in giving the said Passes, to use the form of words hereunto
annexed, which shall be good and sufficient to all intents and purposes.

Confirmed and sealed, in the presence of Almighty God, the 5th day of March,
in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ, 1683, being in the year of the Hegira,
1094, and the 17th day of the Moon, Moolout.

Form of the Pass.

James the Second, by the Grace of God, King of England, Scotland, France,
and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c. To all persons whom these may
concern, greeting.

Suffer the Ship _______________________

to pass with her company, passengers, goods and merchandizes, without any
let, hindrance, seizure or molestation; the said ship appearing unto us by good
testimony to belong to our subjects, and to no foreigner. Given under our Sign
Manual, and the Seal of our Admiralty, at our Court at

this _______ day of ___________ in the year of our Lord

___________

By His Majesty’s command,

Signed ________

Source: Hertslet, Complete Collection of the Treaties and Conventions, 1:65-6.

447
Appendix 3

Plan of a Treaty with France, called also Plan of 1776 (1776)

There shall be a firm, inviolable, and universal peace, and a true and sincere
friendship, between the most serene and mighty prince, Lewis the sixteenth, the
most christian king, his heirs and successors, and the United States of America;
and the subjects of the most christian king, and of the said slates; and between
the countries, islands, cities and towns, situate under the jurisdiction of the
most christian king, and of the said United States, and the people and
inhabitants thereof of every degree; without exception of persons or places.
And the terms herein mentioned, shall be perpetual between the most christian
king, his heirs and successors, and the said United States.

ARTICLE I The subjects of the most christian king shall pay no other
duties or imposts, in the ports, havens, roads, countries, islands, cities or towns
of the said United States, or any of them, than the natives thereof, or any
commercial companies established by them, or any of them shall pay, but shall
enjoy all other the rights, liberties, privileges, immunities and exemptions in
trade, navigation, and commerce, in passing from one part thereof to another,
and in going to and from the same, from and to any part of the world, which the
said natives or companies enjoy.

ARTICLE II The subjects, people and inhabitants of the said United

Stales, and every of them, shall pay no other duties, or imposts, in the ports,
havens, roads, countries, islands, cities or towns of the most Christian king,
than the natives of such countries, islands, cities or towns of France, or any
commercial companies established by the most christian king, shall pay, but
shall enjoy all other the rights, liberties, privileges, immunities and exemptions
in trade, navigation and commerce, in passing from one port thereof to another,
and ingoing to and from the same, from and to any part of the world, which the
said natives or companies enjoy.

ARTICLE III His most christian majesty shall retain the same rights of
fishery on the banks of Newfoundland, and all other rights relating to any of
the said islands, which he is entitled to by virtue of the treaty of Paris.

ARTICLE IV The most christian king shall endeavour, by all the means
in his power, to protect and defend all vessels, and the effects belonging to the
subjects, people, or inhabitants of the said United States, or any of them, being
in his ports, havens, or roads, or on the seas near to his countries, lands, cities
or towns; and to recover and to restore to the right owners, their agents, or
attorneys, all such vessels and effects, which shall be taken within his

448
jurisdiction; and his ships of war, or any convoys sailing under his authority,
shall upon all occasions take under their protection all vessels belonging to the
subjects, people, or inhabitants of the said United States, or any of them, and
holding the same course or going the same way; and shall defend such vessels
as long as they hold the same course, or go the same way, against all attacks,
force, and violence, in the same manner as they ought to protect and defend
vessels belonging to the subjects of the most christian king.

ARTICLE V In like manner the said United States, and their ships of
war, and convoys sailing under their authority, shall protect and defend all
vessels and effects belonging to the subjects of the most christian king ; and
endeavour to recover and restore them, if taken within the jurisdiction of the
said United States, or any of them.

ARTICLE VI The most christian king and the said United States, shall
not receive nor suffer to be received, into any of their ports, havens, roads,
countries, islands, cities or towns, any pirates or sea robbers, or afford or suffer
any entertainment, assistance or provision to be afforded to them; but shall
endeavour by all means, that all pirates and sea robbers, and their partners,
sharers, and abettors, be found out, apprehended, and suffer condign
punishment ; and all the vessels and effects piratically taken, and brought into
the ports and havens of the most christian king, or the said United States, which
can be found, although they be sold, shall be restored, or satisfaction given
therefore; the right owners, their agents or attorneys demanding the same, and
making the right of property to appear by due proof.

ARTICLE VII The most christian king shall protect, defend and secure,
as far as in his power, the subjects, people and inhabitants of the said United
States, and every of them, and their vessels and effects of every kind, against
all attacks, assaults, violences, injuries, depredations or plunderings, by or from
the king or emperor of Morocco, or Fez, and the states of Algiers, Tunis and
Tripoli, and any of them, and every other prince, state and power on the coast
of Barbary in Africa, and the subjects of the said king, emperor, states and
powers, and of every of them, in the same manner, and as effectually and fully,
and as much to the benefit, advantage, ease and safety of the said United Slates,
and every of them, and of the subjects, people and inhabitants thereof, to all
intents and purposes, as the king and kingdom of Great Britain, before the
commencement of the present war, protected, defended and secured the people
and inhabitants of the said United States, then called British colonies in
America, their vessels and effects, against all such attacks, assaults, violences,
injuries, depredations and plunderings.

ARTICLE VIII If, in consequence of this treaty, the king of Great Britain
should declare war against the most christian king, the said United States shall

449
not assist Great Britain in such war, with men, money, ships, or any ofthe
articles in this treaty denominated contraband goods.

ARTICLE IX The most christian king shall never invade, nor, under any
pretence, attempt to possess himself of Labrador, New Britain, Nova Scotia,
Acadia, Canada, Florida, nor any of the countries, cities or towns on the
continent of North America, nor of the islands of Newfoundland, Cape Breton,
St. Johns, Anticosti, nor of any other island lying near to the said continent in
the seas, or in any gulph, bay or river ;it being the true intent and meaning of
this treaty, that the said United States-shall have the sole, exclusive, undivided
and perpetual possession of the countries, cities and towns on the said
continent, and of all islands near to it, which now are, or lately were under the
jurisdiction of or subject to the king or crown of Great Britain, whenever they
shall be united or confederated with the said United States.

ARTICLE X The subjects, inhabitants, merchants, commanders of

ships, masters and mariners, of the states, provinces and dominions of each
party, respectively, shall abstain and forbear to fish in all places, possessed, or
which shall be possessed by the other party. The most christian king’s subjects
shall not fish in the havens, bays, creeks, roads, coasts or places which the said
United States hold, or shall hereafter hold; and in like manner, the subjects,
people and inhabitants of the said United States shall not fish in the havens,
bays, creeks, roads, coasts or places which the most Christian king possesses,
or shall hereafter possess. And if any ship or vessel shall be found fishing,
contrary to the tenor of this treaty, the said ship or vessel, with its lading, proof
being made thereof, shall be confiscated.

ARTICLE XI If in any war the most christian king shall conquer, or get
possession of, the islands in the West Indies, now under the jurisdiction of the
king or crown of Great Britain, or any of them, or any dominions of the said
king or crown, in any other parts of the world, the subjects, people and
inhabitants of the said United States, and every of them, shall enjoy the same
rights, liberties, privileges, immunities and exemptions, in trade, commerce and
navigation, to and from the said islands and dominions, that are mentioned in
the second article of this treaty.

ARTICLE XII It is the true intent and meaning of this treaty, that no
higher or other duties shall be imposed on the exportation of any thing of the
growth, production or manufacture of the islands in the West Indies, now
belonging, or which may hereafter belong to the most christian king, to the said
United States, or any of them, than the lowest that are or shall be imposed on
the exportation thereof to France, or to any other part of the world….

Source: SJ, 2:7-30, Plan of a Treaty with France, 17 September 1776.

450
Appendix 4

Heads of Inquiry (1785)

Letter From Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, October 11, 1785.

1st, Commerce.—What are the articles of their export and import? What
articles of American produce might find a market in Morocco, Algiers, Tunis,
Tripoli, he, and at what prices? Whether rice, flour, tobacco, furs, ready-built
ships, fish, oil, tar, turpentine, ship timbers, &c, and whether any of these
articles would hereafter be acceptable as presents? What duties are levied by
them on exports and imports—do all nations pay the same, or what nations are
favored, and how far? Are they their own carriers, or who carries for them? Do
they trade themselves to other countries, or are they merely passive? What
manufactures or productions of these countries would be convenient in
America, and at what prices?

2d, Ports.—What are the principal ports? What depth of water into them? What
works of defence protect these ports?

3d, Naval Force.—How many armed vessels have they? Of what kind and
force? What is the constitution of their naval force? What resources for
increasing their navy? What number of seamen, their cruising grounds, and
season of cruising?

4th, Prisoners.—What is their condition and treatment? At what price are they
ordinarily redeemed, and how? Do they pay respect to the treaties they make?
Land Forces.—Their number, constitution, respectability, revenues—their
amount.

5th, Language.—What language is spoken, and what European language is

most understood?

6th, Government.—What is their connexion with the Ottoman Porte? Is there

any dependence or subordination to it acknowledged, and what degree of
power or influence has it?

7th, Religion.—By what principle of their religion is it that they consider all
Christian Powers as their enemies, until they become friends by treaties? 8th,
Captures.—What captures have they made of ships or citizens of the United
States, and any other nation? What nations are they now at war with?

Source: USDC, 1:660, From Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, October 11, 1785,
Enclosure: Heads of Inquiry.
451
Appendix 5

Adams-Jefferson Exchange (1786)

A. John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, London, 3 July, 1786.

Dear Sir, — Although the posts are important, the war with the Turks is more
so. I lay down a few simple propositions.

1. We may at this time have peace with them, in spite of all the intrigues of the
English or others to prevent it, for a sum of money.

2. We never shall have peace, though France, Spain, England, and Holland
should use all their influence in our favor, without a sum of money.

3. That neither the benevolence of France, or the malevolence of England, will

be ever able materially to diminish or increase the sum.

4. The longer the negotiation is delayed, the larger will be the demand. From
these premises, I conclude it to be wisest for us to negotiate and pay the
necessary sum without loss of time.

Now, I desire you, and our noble friend the Marquis [de la Fayette], to give me
your opinion of these four propositions. Which of them do you deny or doubt?
If you admit them all, do you admit the conclusion? Perhaps you will say, fight
them, though it should cost us a great sum to carry on the war, and although, at
the end of it, we should have more money to pay as presents. If this is your
sentiment, and you can persuade the southern States into it, I dare answer for it
that all from Pennsylvania, inclusively northward, would not object. It would
be a good occasion to begin a navy.

At present we are sacrificing a million annually, to save one gift of £200,000.

This is not good economy. We might, at this hour, have two hundred ships in
the Mediterranean, whose freights alone would be worth £200,000, besides the
influence upon the price of our produce. Our farmers and planters will find the
price of their articles sink very low indeed, if this peace is not made.

The policy of Christendom has made cowards of all their sailors before the
standard of Mahomet. It would be heroical and glorious in us to restore courage
to ours. I doubt not we could accomplish it; but the difficulty of bringing our
people to agree upon it, has ever discouraged me….

Source: WJA, 8:406-7, John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, London, 3 July,

1786.
452
Appendix 5

B. Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, Paris, July 11, 1786.

Dear Sir, Our instructions relative to the Barbary States having required us to
proceed byway of negotiation to obtain their peace, it became our duty to do
this to the best of our power. Whatever might be our private opinions, they
were to be suppressed, and the line, marked out to us, was to be followed. It has
been so, honestly and zealously. It was, therefore, never material for us to
consult together, on the best plan of conduct towards these States. I
acknowledge, I very early thought it would be best to effect a peace through the
medium of war. Though it is a question with which we have nothing to do, yet
as you propose some discussion of it, I shall trouble you with my reasons. Of
the four positions laid down in your letter of the 3d instant, I agree to the three
first, which are, in substance, that the good offices of our friends cannot
procure us a peace, without paying its price; that they cannot materially lessen
that price; and that paying it, we can have the peace in spite of the intrigues of
our enemies. As to the fourth, that the longer the negotiation is delayed the
larger will be the demand; this will depend on the intermediate captures: if they
are many and rich, the price may be raised; if few and poor, it will be lessened.
However, if it is decided that we shall buy a peace, I know no reason for
delaying the operation, but should rather think it ought to be hastened; but I
should prefer the obtaining it by war.

1. Justice is in favor of this opinion. 2. Honor favors it. 3. It will procure us

respect in Europe; and respect is a safeguard to interest. 4. It will arm the
federal head with the safest of all the instruments of coercion over its
delinquent members, and prevent it from using what would be less safe. I think
that so far, you go with me. But in the next steps, we shall differ. 5. I think it
least expensive. 6. Equally effectual.? I ask a fleet of one hundred and fifty
guns, the one-half of which shall be inconstant cruise. This fleet, built, manned
and victualled for six months will cost four hundred and fifty thousand pounds
sterling. Its annual expense will be three hundred pounds sterling a gun,
including everything; this will be forty-five thousand pounds sterling a year. I
take British experience for the basis for my calculation: though we know, from
our own experience, that we can do in this way, for pounds lawful, what costs
them pounds sterling. Were we to charge all this to the Algerine war, it would
amount to little more than we must pay, if we buy peace. But as it is proper and
necessary that we should establish a small marine force, (even were we to buy
a peace from the Algerines,) and as that force, laid up in our dock-yards, would
cost us half as much annually, as if kept in order for service, we have a right to
say that only twenty-two thousand and five hundred pounds sterling, per
annum, should be charged to the Algerine war. 6. It will be as effectual. To all
the mismanagements of Spain and Portugal, urged to show that war against
453
those people is ineffectual, I urge a single fact to prove the contrary, where
there is any management. About forty years ago, the Algerines having broke
their treaty with France, this court sent Monsieur de Massiac, with one large,
and two small frigates; he blockaded the harbor of Algiers three months, and
they subscribed to the terms he proposed. I fit be admitted, however, that war,
on the fairest prospects, is still exposed to uncertainties, I weigh against this,
the greater uncertainty of the duration of a peace bought with money, from
such a people, from a Dey eighty years old, and by a nation who, on the
hypothesis of buying peace, is to have no power on the sea, to enforce an
observance of it.

So far, I have gone on the supposition that the whole weight of this war would
rest on us. But, 1. Naples will join us. The character of their naval minister
(Acton), his known sentiments with respect to the peace Spain is officiously
trying to make for them, and his dispositions against the Algerines, give the
best grounds to believe it. 2. Every principle of reason assures us that Portugal
will join us. I state this as taking for granted, what all seem to believe, that they
will not be at peace with Algiers. I suppose, then, that a convention might be
formed between Portugal, Naples and the United States, by which the burthen
of the war might be quota-ed on them, according to their respective wealth; and
the term of it should be, when Algiers should subscribe to a peace with all
three, on equal terms. This might be left open for other nations to accede to,
and many, if not most of the powers of Europe, (except France, England,
Holland, and Spain, if her peace be made) would sooner or later enter into the
confederacy, for the sake of having their peace with the piratical States
guaranteed by the whole. I suppose, that, in this case, our proportion of force
would not be the half of what I first calculated on.

These are the reasons which have influenced my judgment on this question. I
give them to you, to show you that I am imposed on by a semblance of reason,
at least; and not with an expectation of their changing your opinion. You have
viewed the subject, I am sure, in all its bearings. You have weighed both
questions, with all their circumstances. You make the result different from
what I do. The same facts impress us differently. This is enough to make me
suspect an error in my process of reasoning, though I am not able to detect it. It
is of no consequence; as I have nothing to say in the decision, and am ready to
proceed heartily on any other plan which may be adopted, if my agency should
be thought useful. With respect to the dispositions of the State, I am utterly
uninformed. I cannot help thinking, however, that on a view of all the
circumstances, they might be united in either of the plans….

Source: Jefferson, Memoir, 2:36-38.

454
Appendix 5

C. John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, London, 31 July, 1786.

Dear Sir, —Your favor of the 11th instant I have received. There are great and
weighty considerations urged in it in favor of arming against the Algerines,
and, I confess, if our States could be brought to agree in the measure, I should
be very willing to resolve upon external war with vigor, and protect our trade
and people. The resolution to fight them would raise the spirits and courage of
our countrymen immediately, and we might obtain the glory of finally breaking
up these nests of banditti. But congress will never, or at least not for years, take
any such resolution, and in the mean time our trade and honor suffers beyond
calculation. We ought not to fight them at all, unless we determine to tight
them forever.

This thought, I fear, is too rugged for our people to bear. To tight them at the
expense of millions, and make peace, after all, by giving more money and
larger presents than would now procure perpetual peace, seems not to be
economical. Did Monsieur de Massac carry his point without making the
presents? Has not France made presents ever since? Did any nation ever make
peace with any one Barbary state without making the presents? Is there an
example of it? I believe not, and fancy you will find that even Massac himself
made the presents.

I agree in opinion of the wisdom and necessity of a navy for other uses, but am
apprehensive it will make bad worse with the Algerines. I will go all lengths
with you in promoting a navy, whether to be applied to the Algerines or not.
But I think, at the same time, we should treat. Your letter, however, has made
me easier upon this point. Nevertheless, to humble the Algerines, I think you
have undercalculated the force necessary. They have now fifty gun-boats,
which, being small objects against great ships, are very formidable. None of
these existed in the time of Monsieur Massac. The harbour of Algiers, too, is
fortified all round, which it was not in M. Massac’s time, which renders it more
difficult and dangerous to attempt a blockade. I know not what dependence is
to be put upon Portugal and Naples, in case of a war with the barbarians;
perhaps they might assist us in some degree. Blocking Algiers would not obtain
peace with Morocco; so that our commerce would still be exposed.

After all, though I am glad we have exchanged a letter on the subject, I

perceive that neither force nor money will be applied. Our States are so
backward, that they will do nothing for some years. If they get money enough
to discharge the demands upon them in Europe already incurred, I shall be
agreeably disappointed. A disposition seems rather to prevail among our
citizens to give up all ideas of navigation and naval power, and lay themselves
455
consequently at the mercy of foreigners, even for the prices of their produce. It
is their concern, and we must submit; for your plan of fighting will no more be
adopted, than mine of treating. This is more humiliating to me than giving the
presents would be…

Source: WJA, 8:410-12, John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, London, 31 July,

1786.

456
Appendix 6

Proposals for Concerted Operation among the Powers at War with the
Piratical States of Barbary (1786)

1. It is proposed, that the several powers at war with the piratical States of
Barbary, or any two or more of them who shall be willing, shall enter into a
convention to carry on their operations against those States, in concert,
beginning with the Algerines.

2. This convention shall remain open to any other power, who shall, at any
future time, wish to accede to it; the parties reserving the right to prescribe the
conditions of such accession, according to the circumstances existing at the
time it shall be proposed.

3. The object of the convention shall be, to compel the piratical States to
perpetual peace, without price, and to guaranty that peace to each other.

4. The operations for obtaining this peace, shall be constant cruizes on their
coast, with a naval force now to be agreed on. It is not proposed, that this force
shall be so considerable as to be in convenient to any party. It is believed that
half a dozen frigates, with as many Tenders or Xebecs, one half of which shall
be in cruize, while the other half is at rest, will suffice.

5. The force agreed to be necessary, shall be furnished by the parties, in certain

quotas, now to be fixed; it being expected, that each will be willing to
contribute, in such proportion as circumstances may render reasonable.

6. As miscarriages often proceed from the want of harmony among officers of

different nations, the parties shall now consider and decide, whether it will not
be better to contribute their quotas in money, to be employed in fitting out and
keeping on duty, a single fleet of the force agreed on.

7. The difficulties and delays, too, which will attend the management of these
operations, if conducted by the parties themselves separately, distant as their
courts may be from one another, and incapable of meeting in consultation,
suggest a question, whether it will not be better for them to give full powers,
for that purpose, to their Ambassadors, or other Ministers resident at some one
court of Europe, who shall form a Committee, or Council, for carrying this
convention into effect; wherein, the vote of each member shall be computed in
proportion to the quota of his sovereign, and the majority so computed, shall
prevail in all questions within the view of this convention. The court of
Versailles is proposed, on account of its neighborhood to the Mediterranean,

457
and because all those powers are represented there, who are likely to become
parties to this convention.

8. To save to that Council the embarrassment of personal solicitations for

office, and to assure the parties that their contributions will be applied solely to
the object for which they are destined, there shall be no establishment of
officers for the said Council, such as Commissioners, Secretaries, or any other
kind, with either salaries or perquisites, nor any other lucrative appointments
but such whose functions are to be exercised on board the said vessels.

9. Should war arise between any two of the parties to this convention, it shall
not extend to this enterprize, nor interrupt it; but as to this they shall be reputed
at peace.

10. When Algiers shall be reduced to peace, the other piratical States, if they
refuse to discontinue their piracies, shall become the objects of this convention,
either successively or together, as shall seem best.

11. Where this convention would interfere with treaties actually existing
between any of the parties and the said States of Barbary, the treaty shall
prevail, and such party shall be allowed to with draw from the operations
against that state.

Source: Jefferson, Memoir, 1:53-4.

458
Appendix 7

Sidi Hassan to Congress (1787)

I cannot omit writing to your Excellencies, to inform you the Mr. Lamb
has been here at Algiers, and having treated and spoken on certain points
respecting Peace and Captives, went away and has not returned; and to assure
you that he is a Gentleman of good Deportment, and I really like and esteem
him for his good qualities, as I have also written to Mr. Carmichael at Madrid;
and I shall be well content with the said Mr. Lamb in preference to any other
person, whenever it shall be proposed to treat on any point. And this I have the
Honor to communicate to your Excellencies for you information and
Satisfaction.

May god preserve your Excellencies many years.

Sidji Assan Nickilange

(Superintendent) of the Marine of Algiers

Source: EN, 3:435, Sidi Hassan to Congress, February 25, 1787.

459
Appendix 8

Hassan Dey of Algiers to George III (1794)

Your late Consul having announced to us that the Queen of Portugal had
interceded with Your Majesty to become a mediator in order to obtain a Peace
or a truce with us the Algerines and he the Consul was commanded by You to
notify us that it would give your Majesty pleasure if we consented to make a
Peace with the Portuguese or a Truce for one year, that during that time a Peace
might be Negotiated between us and them. To this we answered that to oblige
our good Friend the King of England we consented to make a peace upon those
terms, through the mediation of England. After we had agreed to this a
Portugese vessel arrives some days past from Portugal and notifies us that all
the articles agreed upon between us, and your consul, the Court of Portugal will
not accept of, as the English made them to please themselves, that they have no
idea of such proposals, are not contented with or will admit them. If your
consul had not announced to us, that You was mediator, and requested it of us
in Your Name, we never should have thought of give [sic] any answer
respecting a peace with Portugal.

The object that led us to resolve on this peace was to Revenge ourselves on
yours and our Enemies the Americans in the open seas by harassing and
destroying them in such a manner as to reduce them to the necessity of
submitting to be your subjects again. The utility of this was more for your
convenience than ours.

If Portugal according to the report of your Consul is not contented with and
will not accept a Peace, Henceforward according to ancient custom, we do not
permit the Portuguese ship to enter the Port of Gibraltar or block up the Strait.
But if you should say that the Portuguese are your Friend and that you will not
[sic] their entrance into Gibraltar and being supplied with the necessities they
want, are we not your Old Friend and have an equal right to impartiality, the
Friends ought not to wish for or promote injury to their Friends, those that do
so are not to be named Friends, as they act contrary to Friendship.

The Portuguese some Years past Burnt and Destroyed One of Our Cruisers, at
another time One of Your Cruisers fired Shott into one of Our Vessels and
damaged her, and not long ago One of Your Ships with English Colours having
fired Shott into one of Our Vessels, upon being asked why they did so,
answered for their pleasure.

All this we have suffered from Our friendship toward you being immutable.

460
Let us now leave what has passed. But [if] after the accept of the reasoning
before you, You are to receive in the Port of Gibraltar the Portuguese Ships of
war or supply them with the Necessaries if they come send them away. And if
they have any enmity with us they may follow us into the High Seas. But if you
say that as Christians you will Absolutely Protect them Your Friendship
becomes useless to us. And if after the arrival of the present [i.e., after receipt
of this letter] we newly learn that the Portuguese Ships have entered Your Port
We will break the Peace and send away Your Consul…

Source: Parker, Uncle Sam in Barbary, pp. 231-32.

461
Appendix 9

Treaty of Peace and Amity between the Dey and the United States of
America (1795)

ARTICLE 1 From the date of the Present Treaty there shall subsist a
firm and Sincere Peace and Amity between the President and Citizens of the
United States of North America and Hassan Bashaw Dey of Algiers his Divan
and Subjects the Vessels and Subjects of both Nations reciprocally treating
each other with Civility Honor and Respect

ARTICLE 2 All Vessels belonging to the Citizens of the United States

of North America Shall be permitted to enter the Different ports of the Regency
to trade with our Subjects or any other Persons residing within our Jurisdiction
on paying the usual duties at our Custom-House that is paid by all nations at
Peace with this Regency observing that all Goods disembarked and not Sold
here shall be permitted to be reimbarked without paying any duty whatever
either for disembarking or embarking all naval & Military Stores Such as Gun-
Powder Lead Iron Plank Sulphur Timber for building far pitch Rosin
Turpentine and any other Goods denominated Naval and Military Stores Shall
be permitted to be Sold in this Regency without paying any duties whatever at
the Custom House of this Regency.

ARTICLE 3 The Vessels of both Nations shall pass each other without
any impediment or Molestation and all Goods monies or Passengers of
whatsoever Nation that may be on board of the Vessels belonging to either
Party Shall be considered as inviolable and shall be allowed to pass
unmolested.

ARTICLE 4 All Ships of War belonging to this regency on meeting

with Merchant Vessels belonging to Citizens of the United States shall be
allowed to Visit them with two persons only beside the rowers these two only
permitted to go on board said vessel without obtaining express leave from the
commander of said Vessel who shall compare the Pass-port and immediately
permit said Vessel to proceed on her Voyage unmolested All Ships of War
belonging to the United States of North America on meeting with an Algerine
Cruiser and Shall have seen her pass port and Certificate from the Consul of the
United States of North America resident in this Regency shall be permitted to
proceed on her cruise unmolested no Pass-port to be Issued to any Ships but
such as are Absolutely the Property of Citizens of the United States and
Eighteen Months Shall be the term allowed for furnishing the Ships of the
United States with Pass-ports.

462
ARTICLE 5 No Commander of any Cruiser belonging to this Regency
shall be allowed to take any person of whatever Nation or denomination out of
any Vessel belonging to the United States of North America in order to
Examine them or under presence of making them confess any thing desired
neither shall they inflict any corporal punishment or any way else molest them.

ARTICLE 6 If any Vessel belonging to the United States of North

America shall be Stranded on the Coast of this Regency they shall receive
every possible Assistance from the Subjects of this Regency all goods saved
from the wreck shall be Permitted to be Reimbarked on board of any other
Vessel without Paying any Duties at the Custom House.

ARTICLE 7 The Algerines are not on any presence whatever to give or

Sell any Vessel of War to any Nation at War with the United States of North
America or any Vessel capable of cruising to the detriment of the Commerce of
the United States.

ARTICLE 8 Any Citizen of the United States of North America having

bought any Prize condemned by the Algerines shall not be again captured by
the Cruisers of the Regency then at Sea altho they have not a Pass-Port a
Certificate from the Consul resident being deemed Sufficient until such time
they can procure such Pass-Port.

ARTICLE 9 If any of the Barbary States at War with the United States
of North America shall capture any American Vessel & bring her into any of
the Ports of this Regency they shall not be Permitted to sell her but Shall depart
the Port on Procuring the Requisite Supplies of Provision.

ARTICLE 10 Any Vessel belonging to the United States of North

America, when at War with any other Nation shall be permitted to send their
Prizes into the Ports of the Regency have leave to Dispose of them with out
Paying any duties on Sale thereof All Vessels wanting Provisions or
refreshments Shall be permitted to buy them at Market Price.

ARTICLE 11 All Ships of War belonging to the United States of North

America on Anchoring in the Ports of ye Regency shall receive the Usual
presents of Provisions & Refreshments Gratis should any of the Slaves of this
Regency make their Escape on board said Vessels they shall be immediately
returned no excuse shall be made that they have hid themselves amongst the
People and cannot be found or any other Equivocation.

ARTICLE 12 No Citizen of ye United States of North America shall be

Obliged to Redeem any Slave against his Will even Should he be his Brother
neither shall the owner of A Slave be forced to Sell him against his Will but All
Such agreements must be made by Consent of Parties. Should Any American
Citizen be taken on board an Enemy-Ship by the Cruisers of this Regency
463
having a Regular pass-port Specifying they are Citizens of the United States
they shall be immediately Set at Liberty. On the Contrary they having no
Passport they and their Property shall be considered lawful Prize as this
Regency Know their friends by their Passports.

ARTICLE 13 Should any of the Citizens of the United States of North

America Die within the Limits of this Regency the Dey & his Subjects shall not
Interfere with the Property of the Deceased but it Shall be under the immediate
Direction of the Consul unless otherwise disposed of by will Should their be no
Consul, the Effects Shall be deposited in the hands of Some Person worthy of
trust until the Party Shall Appear who has a Right to demand them, when they
Shall Render an Account of the Property neither Shall the Dey or Divan Give
hindrance in the Execution of any Will that may Appear.

ARTICLE 14 No Citizen of the United States of North America Shall be

obliged to purchase any Goods against his will but on the contrary shall be
allowed to purchase whatever it Pleaseth him. The Consul of the United States
of North America or any other Citizen shall not be answerable for debts
contracted by any one of their own Nation unless previously they have Given a
written Obligation so to do. Should the Dey want to freight any American
Vessel that may be in the Regency or Turkey said Vessel not being engaged, in
consequence of the friendship subsisting between the two Nations he expects to
have the preference given him on his paying the Same freight offered by any
other Nation.

ARTICLE 15 Any disputes or Suits at Law that may take Place between
the Subjects of the Regency and the Citizens of the United States of North
America Shall be decided by the Dey in person and no other, any disputes that
may arise between the Citizens of the United States, Shall be decided by the
Consul as they are in Such Cases not Subject to the Laws of this Regency.

ARTICLE 16 Should any Citizen of the United States of North America

Kill, wound or Strike a Subject of this Regency he Shall be punished in the
Same manner as a Turk and not with more Severity should any Citizen of the
United States of North America in the above predicament escape Prison the
Consul Shall not become answerable for him.

ARTICLE 17 The Consul of the United States of North America Shall

have every personal Security given him and his houshold he Shall have Liberty
to Exercise his Religion in his own House all Slaves of the Same Religion shall
not be impeded in going to Said Consul’s House at hours of Prayer the Consul
shall have liberty & Personal Security given him to Travel where ever he
pleases within the Regency. He Shall have free licence to go on board any
Vessel Lying in our Roads when ever he Shall think fit. The Consul Shall have
leave to Appoint his own Drogaman & Broker.

464
ARTICLE 18 Should a War break out between the two Nations the
Consul of the United States of North America and all Citizens of Said States
Shall have leave to Embark themselves and property unmolested on board of
what Vessel or Vessels they Shall think Proper.

ARTICLE 19 Should the Cruisers of Algiers capture any Vessel having

Citizens of the United States of North America on board they having papers to
Prove they are Really so they and their property Shall be immediately
discharged and Should the Vessels of the United States capture any Vessels of
Nations at War with them having Subjects of this Regency on board they shall
be treated in like Manner.

ARTICLE 20 On a Vessel of War belonging to the United States of

North America Anchoring in our Ports the Consul is to inform the Dey of her
arrival and She shall be Saluted with twenty one Guns which she is to return in
the Same Quantity or Number and the Dey will Send fresh Provisions on board
as is Customary, Gratis.

ARTICLE 21 The Consul of ye United States of North America shall not

be required to Pay duty for any thing he brings from a foreign Country for the
Use of his House & family.

ARTICLE 22 Should any disturbance take place between the Citizens of

the United States & the Subjects of this Regency or break any Article of this
Treaty War shall not be Declared immediately but every thing shall be
Searched into regularly. The Party Injured shall be made Reparation.

On the 21st of ye Luna of Safer 1210 corresponding with the 5th September
1795 Joseph Donaldson Junr on the Part of the United States of North America
agreed with Hassan Bashaw Dey of Algiers to keep the Articles Contained in
this Treaty Sacred and inviolable which we the Dey & Divan Promise to
Observe on Consideration of the United States Paying annually the Value of
twelve thousand Algerine Sequins in Maritime Stores Should the United States
forward a Larger Quantity the Over-Plus Shall be Paid for in Money by the
Dey & Regency any Vessel that may be Captured from the Date of this Treaty
of Peace & Amity shall immediately be delivered up on her Arrival in Algiers.

Note: Signed at Algiers September 5, 1795 (21 Safar, A. H. 1210). Submitted

to the Senate February 15, 1796. Resolution of advice and consent March 2,
1796. Ratified by the United States March 7, 1796. Proclaimed March 7, 1796.

Source: SaL, 8:133-137.

465
Appendix 10

A. Dey Hassan to George Washington (1796)

Vizir Hassan Bashaw, Dey of the City and Regency of Algiers, to George
Washington, President of the United States of America.

Health Peace and Prosperity

Whereas, peace and harmony has been settled between our two nations through
the medium of two agents of the United States, Joseph Donaldson and Joel
Barlow, and as eight months have elapsed without one article of their
agreement being complied with, we have thought it expedient to dispatch
James Leander Cathcart, formerly our Christian secretary, with a note of such
articles as are required in this Regency, likewise with a form of a
Mediterranean passport, in order that you may furnish your Consul resident
here with such as fast as possible. For further intelligence I refer you to your
Consul resident here, and to the said James Leander Cathcart, and I pray you
whatever they may inform you of to forward our negotiation, may be fully
credited and that said Cathcart may be dispatched with such part of the articles
specified in our negotiation as are ready with all possible expedition, for which
purpose we have granted said Cathcart a Mediterranean passport commencing
the date thereof from the first of May, in the year of your Lord, one thousand
seven hundred and ninety-six.

Done in the Dey’s palace by our order and sealed with the great seal of this
Regency, the 26th of the Luna of Carib, in the year of the Hegira, 1210, which
corresponds with the 5th of May, 1796.

Source: Cathcart, “Diplomatic Journal and Letter Book,” p. 400.

466
B. Account of the Stores demanded by the Dey for our Annual presents,
Deys Pallace, May the 2nd 1796

Nails Inches Cables Inches

100 CWt of Nails in length 13 ½ 4 Cables of 18
100 CWt of Nails 12 6 Cables of 15
100 CWt of Nails 10 6 Cables of 14
100 CWt of Nails 9 6 Cables of 13
100 CWt of Nails 7½ 6 Cables of 12
100 CWt of Nails 6 6 Cables of 11
100 CWt of Nails 5
= 35 Tons of Nails = 34 Cables

Bombs Inches Diameter Calibre

500 Bomb Shells of 5 1/10 16
500 Bomb Shells of 5 8/10 24
500 Bomb Shells of 6½ 32
500 Bomb Shells of 6 9/10 42
= 2000 Bomb Shells

White Rope:
4 Coils of White rope of 10 Inches
4 Coils of White rope of 9 Inches
4 Coils of White rope of 8 Inches
= 12 Coils of White Rope

Oars:
1000 long Oars for Frigates and Xebeques
500 of a smaller sorte
= 1500 Oars

1000 CWt of Gunpowder

1000 Pine planks from 22 to 24 long and 6 inches thick
1000 Oak planks from 22 to 24 long and 6 inches thick
2000 Pipe Staves
1000 Bolts of Canvas
50 CWt of Lead in Sheets
100 Dozen of long tar brushes
100 CWt of White Rope yarns
3000 Pine Planks or Boards of 3 inches thick

Source: Cathcart, “Diplomatic Journal and Letter Book,” pp. 398-399.

467
Appendix 11

Mediterranean Passport (1807)

By The President of the United

States of America

SUFFER the ship Sarah of New

York Matthew Dunnett master or
commander of the burthen of
three hundred forty-six 74/146
tons or thereabouts with no guns,
navigated with thirteen men

TO PASS with her Company,

Passengers, Goods and
Merchandise without any
hindrance, seizure or
molestation: the said ship
appearing by good testimony to
belong to one or more of the
Citizens of the United States;
and to him or them only.

GIVEN under my Hand and the

Seal of the United States of
America, the 24th day of
September in the year of our
Lord one thousand eighteen
hundred and seven

/s/ Thomas Jefferson

Note: The document is a ‘Mediterranean passport’ as distinguished from a

‘letter of marque.’ This type of passport, written in English only and with an
engraving cut at the top so that it could be examined and compared with a
counterpart furnished to Algerine warships, resulted from a requirement in the
4th article of the treaty of 5 September 1795.

Source: Adapted from Department of the Navy, Naval Historical Center.

http://www.history.navy.mil/library/manuscript/jefferson1807.htm
468
Appendix 12

A. Message from Madison Recommending War with Algiers (1815)

Congress will have seen, by the communication from the consul general of the
United States at Algiers, laid before them on the 17th November, 1812, the
hostile proceedings of the dey against that functionary. These have been
followed by acts of more overt and direct warfare against the citizens of the
United States trading in the Mediterranean, some of whom are still detained in
captivity, notwithstanding the attempts which have been made to ransom them,
and are treated with the rigour usual on the coast of Barbary.

The considerations which rendered it unnecessary-and unimportant to

commence hostile operations on the part of the United States, being now
terminated by the peace with Great Britain, which opens the prospect of an
active and valuable trade of their citizens within the range of the Algerine
cruisers, I recommend to Congress the expediency of an act declaring the
existence of a state of war between the United States and the dey of Algiers;
and of such provisions as may be requisite for a vigorous prosecution of it to a
successful issue.

B. Report, Relative to Protection of American Commerce against Algerine

Cruisers (1815)

The committee to whom has been referred the bill “for the protection of the
commerce of the United States against the Algerine cruisers,” with instructions
to inquire and report in detail the facts upon which the measure contemplated
by the bill is predicated, report:

That in the month of July, 1812, the dey of Algiers, taking offence, or
pretending to take offence, at the quality and quantity of a shipment of military
stores made by the United States in pursuance of the stipulation in the treaty of
1795, and refusing to receive the stores, extorted from the American consul
general at Algiers, by threat of personal imprisonment, and of reducing to
slavery all Americans in his power, a sum of money claimed as the arrearages
of treaty stipulations, and denied by the United States to be due; and then
compelled the consul and all citizens of the United States at Algiers abruptly to
quit his dominions. It further appears to the committee, that on the 25th of
August following, the American brig Edwin, of Salem, owned by Nathaniel
469
Silsbee, of that place, while on a voyage from Malta to Gibraltar, was taken by
an Algerine corsair, and carried into Algiers as prize. The commander of the
brig, captain Geo. Campbell Smith, and the crew, ten in number, have ever
since been detained in captivity, with the exception of two of them, whose
release has been effected under circumstances not indicating any change of
hostile temper on the part of the dey. It also appears, that a vessel, sailing under
the Spanish flag, has been condemned in Algiers as laying a false claim to that
flag, and concealing her true American character. In this vessel was taken a Mr.
Pollard, who claims to be an American citizen, and is believed to be of
Norfolk, Virginia, and who as an American citizen is kept in captivity. The
government, justly solicitous to relieve these unfortunate captives, caused an
agent (whose connexion with the government was not disclosed) to be sent to
Algiers, with the means and with instructions to effect their ransom, if it could
be done at a price not exceeding three thousand dollars per man. The effort did
not succeed, because of the dey’s avowed policy to increase the number of his
American slaves, in order to be able to compel a renewal of his treaty with the
United States on terms suited to his rapacity. Captain Smith, Mr. Pollard, and
the master of the Edwin, are not confined, nor kept at hard labour; but the rest
of the captives are subjected to the well known horrours of Algerine slavery.
The committee have not been apprized of any other specifick outrages upon the
persons or property of American citizens besides those stated; and they
apprehend that the fewness of these is attributable to the want of opportunity
and not of inclination in the dey, to prey upon our commerce and to enslave our
citizens. The war with Britain has hitherto shut the Mediterranean against
American vessels, which it may be presumed will now shortly venture upon it.
The committee are all of opinion upon the evidence which has been laid before
them, that the dey of Algiers considers his treaty with the United States as at an
end, and is waging war against them. The evidence upon which this opinion is
founded, and from which are extracted the facts above slated, accompanies this
report, and with it is respectfully submitted.

Source: ASP/FA, 3: 436, Message from the President of the United States to
Congress, Feb. 23, 1815.

470
Appendix 13

Monroe to the Peace Commissioners to Algiers (1815)

Gentlemen,—The unprovoked war which the Dey and Regency of Algiers have
declared against the United States excited that degree of resentment in their
Government and People which it justly merited. Congress at their last session
manifested their sense of this Act, by declaring war against power, and
authorizing the equipment of such a force as would secure the desired effect.
The largest squadron that ever sailed from this country is now ordered against
Algiers under the command of officers of great experience and talents from
whose judgment and gallantry the happiest result is anticipated. For the conduct
of the war instructions will be given to the Commander of the Squadron by the
Secretary of the Navy. This letter will prescribe the conditions of peace which
you are authorized by the President to conclude, and for which you will receive
herewith a commission signed by him.

An honorable and lasting peace is the great object of this expedition. An early
one would be agreeable but none must be made unless it be honorable.
Whenever such a peace can be obtained you will conclude it. The spirit in
which this war has been declared by the government of Algiers, with its well-
known policy and character, forbid the hope of obtaining such a peace, by other
means than the dread or success of our arms. If a just punishment should be
inflicted on those people for the insult and injuries we have received from
them, the peace might be more durable than if it should be concluded at the
first approach of our squadron. Let not this however form any motive of your
conduct, especially in delaying the peace. It is the duty of the government to
terminate the war as soon as it may be done on just and honorable conditions.
We may, it is presumed, rely on the credit already acquired by our arms and the
known gallantry of our people, for the faithful execution of the treaty, and
future respect from that power. Should we however be disappointed in this
reasonable expectation, as the United States are rapidly increasing in their
population and rising in their importance as a commercial and maritime nation
they will, every year, have it more in their power to inflict the punishment on
them which for the present may be spared.

Without a strong force presented before the town of Algiers, or collected in the
Mediterranean at some advantageous point or station, prepared to act, it is
believed that such a treaty as the United States ought to accept cannot be
obtained. Whether it will be better to proceed directly with the squadron in
front of the town, before an attempt is made to negotiate, or to remain at some
distance, your own judgments aided by the intelligence you may obtain of the
enemy's force, the state of the city, and other circumstances will be your best
guides.
471
In coming before the town it is usual to hoist the flag of a neutral friendly
power to invite negotiation with a view to peace, before proceeding to
extremities. The Consul of that nation then comes on board in an Algerine boat
and he is made the organ of a message to the Dey, such as the power thus
circumstanced may think proper to send him. Should this be done, as the
Consul of Sweden, M. Nordeling, has been friendly to the United States, the
flag of Sweden is preferred. Supposing it possible that you may take this
course, the President has thought proper to address a letter to the Dey which is
enclosed to be used by you should you find it expedient so to do. This letter
will, of course, be delivered to a discreet and confidential messenger who will
be authorized and instructed to give such answers to the enquiries of the Dey
and to make such communications to him as you may deem most likely to
accomplish the objects in view.

At whatever time the negotiation is opened, whether it be before or after

proceeding to extremities, the conditions must be such as are honorable to the
United States. No tribute will be paid; no biennial presents made;—the United
States must hold the high ground with that power which they ought to hold.
They must stand on the footing of the powers of Europe who are most
respected there,—such as England, France and Russia. Complimentary
attentions and presents, when Consuls are presented, or at other times, such as
those powers make, the United States are willing to make ; but none other.
These must be voluntary, not compulsory or stipulated by Treaty. That point
being secured the United States will not fail to make such as may suit their rank
as a nation, having in view the good disposition manifested towards them by
the government of Algiers, on which they will depend.

The discharge of our citizens so unjustly captured will be a necessary

consequence of peace. The payment of any money for their liberation,
especially by way of ransom, would countenance the late unwarrantable
declaration of war by the Dey, and might invite another war with a view to a
like claim. It is the object of the United States to put an end to these odious
practices, as to themselves so far as circumstances will admit, and in which
they cannot fail to succeed if the undertaking is favored by the powers who are
supposed to have a common interest in it. Should this however appear to be a
formidable obstacle to a peace, which might otherwise be obtained on
honorable and satisfactory conditions, it is presumed that it may be removed by
an informal understanding that it is not the mere question of the sum
demanded, that prevents a provision for it in the Treaty, but the recognition of
the principle. In the way of a present, after the conclusion of the Treaty a
reasonable sum may be given to him gratuitously.

The honorable termination of the war with England, with which the
Government of Algiers is doubtless well informed and the complete liberation
of our forces for this service, must satisfy he Dey that he has much to dread
472
from the continued hostility of the United States. From the formidable force
ready to assail him, he must anticipate the most serious disasters, and when he
recollects how rapidly we have grown to the present height, a sure presage of
the high destiny which awaits us, he will find no cause to hope for any change
in his favor. Great confidence is therefore entertained that you will readily
succeed in accomplishing the important objects of the expedition. . . .

Source: WJMPPP, 5:377-80, To the Peace Commissioners to Algiers, April 10,

1815.

473
Appendix 14

Treaty of Peace and Amity Concluded between the United States of

America and his Highness Omar Bashaw, Dey of Algiers (1815)

ARTICLE 1 There shall be from the Conclusion of this treaty, a firm

inviolable and universal peace and friendship between the President and
Citizens of the United States of America on the one part, and the Dey and
Subjects of the Regency of Algiers in Barbary, on the other, made by the free
consent of both parties and upon the terms of the most favored nations; and if
either party shall hereafter grant to any other nation, any particular favor or
privilege in navigation or Commerce it shall immediately become common to
the other party, freely when freely it is granted to such other nation; but when
the grant is conditional, it shall be at the option of the contracting parties to
accept, alter, or reject such conditions, in such manner as shall be most
conducive to their respective interests.

ARTICLE 2 It is distinctly understood between the Contracting parties,

that no tribute either as biennial presents, or under any other form or name
whatever, shall ever be required by the Dey and Regency of Algiers from the
United States of America on any pretext whatever.

ARTICLE 3 The Dey of Algiers shall cause to be immediately

delivered up to the American Squadron now off Algiers all the American
Citizens now in his possession, amounting to ten more or less, and all the
Subjects of the Dey of Algiers now in the power of the United States
amounting to five hundred more or less, shall be delivered up to him, the
United States according to the usages of civilized nations requiring no ransom
for the excess of prisoners in their favor.

ARTICLE 4 A just and full compensation shall be made by the Dey of

Algiers to such citizens of the United States, as have been Captured, and
detained by Algerine Cruizers, or who have been forced to abandon their
property in Algiers in violation of the 22d article of the treaty of peace and
amity1 concluded between the United States and the Dey of Algiers on the 5
September 1795.

And it is agreed between the contracting parties, that in lieu of the above, the
Dey of Algiers shall cause, to be delivered forthwith into the hands of the
American Consul residing in Algiers the whole of a quantity of Bales of Cotton
left by the late Consul General of the United States in the public magazines in
Algiers; and that he shall pay into the hands of the said Consul the sum of ten
thousand Spanish dollars.
474
ARTICLE 5 If any goods belonging to any nation with which either of
the parties are at war should be loaded on board of vessels belonging to the
other party, they shall pass free and unmolested, and no attempt shall be made
to take or detain them.

ARTICLE 6 If any Citizens or subjects belonging to either party shall

be found on board a prize vessel taken from an Enemy by the other party, such
Citizens or subjects shall be liberated immediately, and in no case or on any
presence whatever shall any American Citizen be kept in Captivity or
Confinement, or the property of any American Citizen found on board of any
vessel belonging to any nation with which Algiers may be at War, be detained
from its lawful owners after the exhibition of sufficient proofs of American
Citizenship, and American property, by the Consul of the United States
residing at Algiers.

ARTICLE 7 Proper passports shall immediately be given to the vessels

of both the Contracting parties, on condition that the vessels of war belonging
to the Regency of Algiers on meeting with Merchant Vessels belonging to
Citizens of the United States of America, shall not be permitted to visit them
with more than two persons besides the rowers; these only shall be permitted to
go on board without first obtaining leave from the (commander of said vessel,
who shall compare the passports and immediately permit said vessel to proceed
on her voyage; and should any of the subjects of Algiers insult or molest the
Commander or any other person on board a vessel so visited, or plunder any of
the property contained in her, on complaint being made to the Consul of the
United States residing in Algiers, and on his producing sufficient proofs to
substantiate the fact, the Commander or Rais of said Algerine ship or vessel of
war, as well as the offenders shall be punished in the most exemplary manner.

All vessels of war belonging to the United States of America, on meeting with
a Cruizer belonging to the Regency of Algiers, on having seen her passports,
and Certificates from the Consul of the United States residing in Algiers shall
permit her to proceed on her Cruize unmolested, and without detention. No
passport shall be granted by either party to any vessels but such as are
absolutely the property of Citizens or subjects of the said contracting parties,
on any pretence whatever.

ARTICLE 8 A Citizen or subject of either of the contracting parties

having bought a prize Vessel condemned by the other party, or by any other
nation, the Certificates of Condemnation and bill of sale shall be a sufficient
passport for such vessel for six months, which, considering the distance
between the two countries is no more than a reasonable time for her to procure
passports.

ARTICLE 9 Vessels of either of the contracting parties putting into the

ports of the other and having need of provisions, or other supplies shall be
475
furnished at the market price, and if any such Vessel should so put in from a
disaster at sea and have occasion to repair, she shall be at liberty to land, and
re-embark her Cargo, without paying any customs, or duties whatever; but in
no case shall she be compelled to land her Cargo.

ARTICLE 10 Should a vessel of either of the contracting parties be cast

on shore within the Territories of the other all proper assistance shall be given
to her, and to her crew; no pillage shall be allowed. The property shall remain
at the disposal of the owners, and if reshipped on board of any vessel for
exportation, no customs or duties whatever shall be required to be paid thereon,
and the crew shall be protected and succoured until they can be sent to their
own Country.

ARTICLE 11 If a vessel of either of the contracting parties shall be

attacked by an ennemy within Cannon shot of the forts of the other, she shall be
protected as much as is possible. If she be in port she shall not be seized, or
attacked when it is in the power of the other party to protect her; and when she
proceeds to sea, no Ennemy shall be permitted to pursue her from the same port
within twenty four hours after her departure.

ARTICLE 12 The Commerce between the United States of America and

the Regency of Algiers, the protections to be given to Merchants, masters of
vessels, and seamen, the reciprocal right of establishing Consuls in each
country, the privileges, immunities and jurisdictions to be enjoyed by such
Consuls, are declared to be upon the same footing in every respect with the
most favored nations respectively.

ARTICLE 13 On a vessel or vessels of war belonging to the United

States of America anchoring before the City of Algiers, the Consul is to inform
the Dey of her arrival when she shall receive the Salutes, which are by treaty or
Custom given to the ships of war of the most favored nations on similar
occasions, and which shall be returned gun for gun: and if after such arrival so
announced, any Christians whatever, Captives in Algiers make their escape and
take refuge on board of the said ships of war, they shall not be required back
again, nor shall the Consul of the United States, or commander of the said Ship
be required to pay anything for the said Christians.

ARTICLE 14 The Consul of the United States of America shall not be

responsible for the debts Contracted by the Citizens of his own Country unless
he gives previously written obligations so to do.

ARTICLE 15 As the Government of the United States of America has in

itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of any
nation, and as the said States have never entered into any voluntary war, or act
of hostility, except in defence of their just rights on the high seas, it is declared
by the Contracting parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall
476
ever produce an interruption of Harmony between the two nations; and the
Consuls and agents of both nations, shall have liberty to Celebrate the rights of
their respective religions in their own houses.

The Consuls respectively shall have liberty and personal security given them to
travel within the territories of each other, both by land, and by sea, and shall
not be prevented from going on board of any vessel they may think proper to
visit; they shall likewise have the liberty of appointing their own Dragoman,
and Broker.

ARTICLE 16 In Case of any dispute arising from the violation of any of

the articles of this Treaty no appeal shall be made to arms, nor shall war be
declared, on any pretext whatever; but if the Consul residing at the place where
the dispute shall happen, shall not be able to settle the same, the Government of
that country shall state their grievance in writing, and transmit the same to the
government of the other, and the period of three months shall be allowed for
answers to be returned, during which time no act of hostility shall be permitted
by either party; and in case the grievances are not redressed, and war should be
the event, the Consuls, and Citizens, and subjects of both parties respectively
shall be permitted to embark with their families and effects unmolested, on
board of what vessel or vessels they shall think proper, reasonable time being
allowed for that purpose.

ARTICLE 17 If in the Course of events a war should break out between

the two nations, the prisoners Captured by either party shall not be made
slaves, they shall not be forced to hard labor, or other confinement than such as
may be necessary to secure their safe keeping, and they shall be exchanged
rank for rank; and it is agreed that prisoners shall be exchanged in twelve
months after their Capture, and the exchange may be effected by any private
individual, legally authorized by either of the parties.

ARTICLE 18 If any of the Barbary powers, or other states at war with

the United States shall Capture any American Vessel, and send her into any
port of the Regency of Algiers, they shall not be permitted to sell her, but shall
be forced to depart the port on procuring the requisite supplies of provisions;
but the vessels of war of the United States with any prizes they may capture
from their Enemies shall have liberty to frequent the ports of Algiers for
refreshment of any kinds, and to sell such prizes in the said ports, without
paying any other customs or duties than such as are customary on ordinary
Commercial importations.

ARTICLE 19 If any Citizens of the United States, or any persons under

their protection, shall have any disputes with each other, the Consul shall
decide between the parties, and whenever the Consul shall require any aid or
assistance from the Government of Algiers to enforce his decisions it shall be
immediately granted to him. And if any dispute shall arise between any citizens
477
of the United States, and the citizens or subjects of any other nation having a
Consul or agent in Algiers, such disputes shall be settled by the Consuls or
agents of the respective nations; and any dispute or suits at law that may take
place between any citizens of the United States, and the subjects of the
Regency of Algiers shall be decided by the Dey in person and no other.

ARTICLE 20 If a Citizen of the United States should kill wound or

strike a subject of Algiers, or on the Contrary, a subject of Algiers should kill
wound or strike a Citizen of the United States, the law of the country shall take
place, and equal justice shall be rendered, the consul assisting at the trial; but
the sentence of punishment against an American Citizen, shall not be greater or
more severe, than it would be against a Turk in the same predicament, and if
any delinquent should make his escape, the Consul shall not be responsible for
him in any manner whatever….

Note: Treaty of Peace, signed Algiers June 30 And July 3, 1815. Original in
English. Submitted to the Senate December 6, 1815. Resolution of advice and
consent December 21, 1815. Ratified by the United States December 26, 1815.

Source: SaL, 8:224-27.

478
Appendix 15

Letter from the Dey of Algiers [Umar Agha] to the President of the U. S.
(1816)

With the aid and assistance of Divinity, and in the reign of our Sovereign, the
Asylum of the world, powerful and great monarch, transactor of all good
actions, the best of men, the shadow of God, Director of the Good Order, king
of kings, supreme ruler of the world, emperor of the earth, emulator of
Alexander the Great, possessor of great forces, sovereign of the two worlds,
and of the seas, king of Arabia and Persia, emperor, son of an emperor, and
conqueror, Mahmoud Kan, (may God end his life with prosperity, and his reign
be everlasting and glorious,) his humble and obedient servant, actual sovereign,
governor, and chief of Algiers, submitted forever to the order of his imperial
Majesty’s noble throne, Omar Pasha (may his government be happy and
prosperous).

To his Majesty the emperor of America, its adjacent and dependent provinces
arid coasts, and wherever his government may extend, our noble friend, the
support of kings of the nations of Jesus, the pillar of all Christian sovereigns,
the most glorious amongst the princes, elected amongst many lords and nobles,
the happy, the great, the amiable James Madison, emperor of America, (may
his reign be happy and glorious, and his life long and prosperous,) wishing him
long possession of the seat of his blessed throne, and long life and health, amen
;—hoping that your health is in good state, I inform you that mine is excellent
(thanks to the Supreme Being,) constantly addressing my prayers to the
Almighty for your felicity.

After many years have elapsed, you have at last sent a squadron, commanded
by Admiral Decatur, your most humble servant, for the purpose of treating of
peace with us. I received the letter of which he was the bearer, and understood
its contents; the enmity which was between us having been extinguished, you
desired to make peace as France and England have done. Immediately after the
arrival of your squadron in our harbour, I sent my answer to your servant the
Admiral, through the medium of the Swedish Consul, whose proposals I was
disposed to agree to, on condition that our frigate and sloop of war, taken by
you, should be returned to us, and brought back to Algiers; on these conditions
we would sign peace according to your wishes and request. Our answer having
thus been explained to your servant the Admiral by the Swedish Consul, he
agreed to treat with us on the above mentioned conditions; but having
afterwards insisted upon the liberation of all American citizens, as well as upon
a certain sum of money, for several merchant vessels made prizes of by us, and
of other objects belonging to the Americans, we did not hesitate a moment to
comply with his wishes, and in consequence of which we have restored to the
479
said Admiral, your servant, all that he demanded from us. In the mean time, the
said Admiral having given his word to send back our two ships of war, and not
having performed his promise, he has thus violated the faithful articles of peace
which were signed between us, and by so doing a new treaty must be made.

I inform you, therefore, that a treaty of peace having been signed between
America and us, during the reign of Hasan Pashaw, twenty years past, I
propose to renew the said treaty on the same basis stipulated in it, and if you
agree to it, our friendship will be solid and lasting. I intended to be on higher
terms of amity with our friends the Americans than ever before, being the first
nation with whom I made peace; but as they have not been able to put into
execution our present treaty, it appears necessary for us to treat on the above
mentioned conditions. We hope that with the assistance of God you will answer
this our letter, immediately after you shall have a perfect knowledge of its
contents. If you agree, according to our request, to the conditions specified in
the said treaty, please to send us an early answer. if on the contrary, you are not
satisfied with my propositions, you will act against the sacred duty of man, and
against the laws of nations.

Requesting only that you will have the goodness to remove your Consul as
soon as possible, assuring you that it will be very agreeable to us, these are our
last words to you, and we pray God to keep you in his holy guard.

Source: Shaler, Sketches of Algiers, pp. 276-78.

480
Appendix 16

The President to the Dey of Algiers (1816)

I have received your letter, bearing date the twenty-fourth of April last. You
represent that the two vessels of war captured by the American squadron were
not restored, according to the promise of its Commodore, Decatur, and
inferring that his failure violated the treaty of peace, you propose as an
alternative, a renewal of the former treaty made many years ago, or a
withdrawal of our Consul from Algiers. The United States being desirous of
living in peace and amity with all nations, I regret, that an erroneous view of
what has passed, should have suggested the contents of your letter.

Your predecessor made war without cause on the United States, driving away
their Consul, and putting into slavery the captain and crew of one of their
vessels, sailing under the faith of an existing treaty. The moment we had
brought to an honourable conclusion our war with a nation the most powerful
in Europe on the sea, we detached a squadron from our naval force into the
Mediterranean, to take satisfaction for the wrongs which Algiers had done to
us. Our squadron met yours, defeated it, and made prize of your largest ship,
and of a small one. Our commander proceeded immediately to Algiers, offered
you peace, which you accepted, and thereby saved the rest of your ships, which
it was known had not returned into port, and would otherwise have fallen into
his hands. Our commander, generous as brave, although he would not make the
promise a part of the treaty, informed you that he would restore the two
captured ships to your officer.

They were accordingly so restored. The frigate, at an early day, arrived at

Algiers. But the Spanish government, alleging that the capture of the brig was
so near the Spanish shore as to be unlawful, detained it at Carthagena, after
your officer had received it into his possession. Notwithstanding this fulfilment
of all that could be required from the United States, no time was lost in urging
upon that government a release of the brig, to which Spain could have no right,
whether the capture were or were not agreeable to the law of nations. The
Spanish government promised that the brig should be given up, and although
the delay was greater than was expected, it appears that the brig, as well as the
frigate, has actually been placed in your possession.

It is not without great surprise, therefore, that we find you, under such
circumstances, magnifying an incident so little important as it affects the
interests of Algiers, and so blameless on the part of the United States, into an
occasion for the proposition and threat contained in your letter. I cannot but
persuade myself, that a reconsideration of the subject will restore you to the

481
amicable sentiments towards the United States which succeeded the war so
unjustly commenced by the Dey who reigned before you.

I hope the more that this may be the case, because the United States, whilst
they wish for war with no nation, will buy peace with none. It is a principle
incorporated into the settled policy of America, that as peace is better than war,
war is better than tribute.

Our Consul, and our naval Commander, Chauncey, are authorized to

communicate with you, for the purpose of terminating the subsisting
differences by a mutual recognition and execution of the treaty lately
concluded. And I pray God that he will inspire you with the same love of peace
and justice which we feel, and that he will take you into his holy keeping.

Source: LWJM, 3:15-17, To the Dey of Algiers, August, 1816.

482
Appendix 17

The American Commissioners to the Dey of Algiers (1816)

The undersigned have the honour to transmit herewith to his Highness the Dey
of Algiers, a letter addressed to him from the President of the United States,
and to inform him that they have been appointed by the President
Commissioners to treat of the renewal of the relations of peace and amity
between the United States and Algiers.

Pursuant to these instructions, they have lost no time in proceeding to this bay,
in the hope of adjusting the differences subsisting between the two countries by
a treaty of peace, subject to the ratification of the President, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate.

As the promise of Commodore Decatur, to restore the ships captured from the
Regency by the squadron under his command, previous to the negotiations for
peace in June, 1815, has been fulfilled by the delivery of the vessels in question
into the possession of officers of the Regency sent to Carthagena for that
purpose, and by the actual return of those vessels to Algiers, the undersigned
are instructed not to admit the unfounded claim, which has been brought
forward by the Regency of Algiers upon that question, to a discussion. But, in
order to demonstrate to his Highness that the American government has not
been remiss in effecting the fulfilment of that promise of their naval
commander in a manner the most scrupulously punctual, they herewith transmit
copies of a correspondence between the Secretary of State, and the Minister of
his Majesty the King of Spain, in America, upon that subject. This preliminary
being agreed to, they are instructed to propose to his Highness the renewal of
the relations of peace and amity between the two States, upon the following
conditions, viz.

1st. The renewal of the treaty of peace of June, 1815, in the exact form and
terms in which the same was concluded with the Regency by the Consul
General, and Commodore Decatur; but as a proof of the conciliatory policy of
the President, they are instructed to propose gratuitously to his Highness a
modification of the eighteenth article of that treaty by adding the following,
explanatory of it; viz. “The United States of America, in order to give the Dey
of Algiers a proof of their desire to maintain the relations of peace and amity
between the two powers, upon a footing the most liberal, and in order to
withdraw any obstacle which might embarrass him in his relations with other
States, agree to annul so much of the eighteenth article of the foregoing treaty,
as gives to the United States any advantage, in the ports of Algiers, over the
most favoured nations having treaties with the Regency.”

2d. The Regency of Algiers having misunderstood the liberal principles upon
which the treaty of June, 1815, was concluded, and, contrary to a distinct
483
understanding between them and the American Commissioners, having.
introduced into the translation of that treaty an obligation on the part of the
United States, to pay to the Regency a present on the presentation of their
Consuls, the same is formally denied; and the undersigned declare in the most
distinct and formal manner, that no obligation binding the United States to pay
any thing to the Regency or to its officers, on any occasion whatsoever, will be
agreed to.

The undersigned believe it to be their duty to assure his Highness that the
above conditions will not be departed from; thus leaving to the Regency of
Algiers the choice between peace and war. The United States, while anxious to
maintain the former, are prepared to meet the latter.

In order to facilitate to the government of Algiers the understanding of this

note, the undersigned here with transmit to his Highness an informal translation
of it into the Arabic language, and they expect that his Highness will cause a
reply to be made to this communication in writing, in either the English,
French, Spanish, or Italian language; or by a foreign Consul, authorized by him
to vouch for the same. And they avail themselves of this occasion to offer to his
Highness the homage of their high consideration and profound respect.

NOTE OF THE AMERICAN CONSUL GENERAL.

The undersigned, Consul General of the United States to the States of Barbary,
and their Commissioner to treat of the renewal of peace with Algiers, has the
honour to declare to his Highness the Dey, that in conference with him on the
nineteenth instant, the proposition of his Highness to delay the negotiation for
eight months and a day, was repeatedly rejected; the undersigned always
replying that he could not depart from the tenor of the note, which he had the
honour to address to his Highness, conjointly with his colleague, under date of
the ninth, current, and that if those propositions were rejected, he should
consider himself in duty bound to embark immediately, leaving the Regency of
Algiers in the predicament of declaring war.

The undersigned avails himself of this occasion to reiterate to his Highness the
Dey of Algiers, the assurance of his high consideration and profound respect.

Source: Shaler, Sketches of Algiers, pp. 297-300.

484
Appendix 18

A Portrait of Rais Hamidou (1859)

Il est assez d’usage, en biographie, de tracer un portrait quelconque du héros et

de parler longuement de son physique avant d’entreprendre le récit de ses
prouesses. Je regrette que les usages musulmans m’aient enlevé les moyens
d’employer le crayon au lieu de la plume: n’eût été plus court et plus
ressemblant. Tout ce que je puis dire de mon raïs, c’est qu’il était de taille
moyenne mais bien prise, et qu’il avait le teint blanc, les yeux bleus et le poil
blond. Conformément à la mode immémoriale des raïs, il se rasait toute la
barbe et ne gardait que les moustaches, auxquelles, par compensation, il
donnait toute liberté de croître. Pour moi, c’est bien ainsi que je me représente
invariablement un raïs : une figure rasée, des moustaches assez longues pour
pouvoir être nouées derrière la tête, plus une énorme pipe.

J’ajouterai que Hamidou n’était ni turc, ni coulougli il appartenait à cette classe

d’arabes fixés dans les villes depuis plus ou moins longtemps, que les
indigènes appellent citadins et nous maures. C’était, pour me servir de
l’expression pittoresque des Algériens, un enfant d’Alger. Voilà pour le
physique. Quant au moral, il est bien entendu que je n’ai recueilli que des
renseignements favorables. Hamidou était hardi, courageux, généreux, beau
parleur, élégant dans sa mise, et avenant avec tout le monde, les petits comme
les grands, ce qui le faisait généralement aimer. Prompt à la répartie, il était
légèrement hâbleur et fanfaron, mais n’en avait-il pas le droit, —puisque ses
actions ne démentaient jamais ses bravades.

Il résulte de nombreuses et pénibles recherches que j’ai effectuées dans des

milliers de documents, et dont la seule énumération ferait fuir tous les lecteurs,
que le père de Hamidou s’appelait Ali. Mais, me dira-t-on, que nous importe ce
détail, et pourquoi se donner tant de mal pour un résultat si insignifiant? Ayant
prévu la question, j’ai préparé la réponse….

Bientôt rais Hamidou allait trouver la mort sur cette mer qu’il parcourait depuis
si longtemps, mais cette mort fut glorieuse et digne d’un brave; il expira sur
son banc de commandement, calme et intrépide, sous le feu d’une division
américaine, qui l’avait surpris et enveloppé, et à laquelle il tenait
honorablement tête, malgré une disproportion de forces qui ne laissait aucun
espoir de salut….

La première fois que les raïs algériens aperçurent au bout de leurs lunettes
d’approche un pavillon à bandes rouges et blanches, au coin bleu parsemé
d’étoiles, ils furent certainement bien embarrassés de lui assigner une
nationalité. Mais ils n’étaient pas hommes à se préoccuper de si peu: pour eux
ce pavillon annonçait la présence de chrétiens, c’est-à-dire d’ennemis, car tout
chrétien est l’ennemi des musulmans; donc, le nouvel et mystérieux étendard
485
était d’aussi bonne prise que les autres, car tout mécréant est né dans le seul et
unique but de devenir la proie des croyants. Telles étaient la logique et la
politique de ces braves forbans. Et sans plus de cérémonies, ils traitèrent les
nouveaux venus à l’égal des autres chrétiens, leurs frères….

Les Algériens s’étaient laissés surprendre et l’arrivée inopinée d’une escadre

américaine, alors que tous leurs croiseurs étaient en course, compromettait
singulièrement leur marine. Dans la vie des peuples, comme dans celle des
individus, la chance joue un grand rôle, et les Américains, heureux joueurs
d’ordinaire, avaient encore la chance pour eux cette fois-là. Ils arrivaient dans
un moment propice; la marine algérienne, disséminée dans la Méditerranée, se
trouvait à leur merci. Prévenus de cette agression, et ils auraient certainement
été avertis par leurs espions si la décision eût été prise par une puissance
européenne, les Algériens l’auraient incontestablement accueillie d’une toute
autre manière. Leur marine se composait alors de plus de vingt gros navires
dont cinq frégates et plusieurs corvettes; réunie sous la protection de ses forts,
elle aurait pu braver les Américains. La division légère du commandant
Decatur n’aurait pu en effet réduire les fortifications d’Alger par une attaque de
vive force, car, pour obtenir ce résultat l’année suivante, lord Exmouth, qui
pourtant avait surpris une position favorable, n’a pas eu trop de cinq vaisseaux,
dont deux à trois ponts et trois de 80 canons, de six frégates de 44, de cinq
corvettes, de cinq bombardes et de six frégates ou corvettes hollandaises. Sans
chercher à amoindrir le mérite incontesté de la marine américaine, on est donc
fondé à supposer que, si les Algériens eussent eu vent de cette expédition, les
événements auraient pris une autre tournure….

Après quelques jours de navigation, les vigies signalèrent une escadre dans
l’Ouest, venant à contre-bord. Lorsque la distance fut un peu diminuée,
Hamidou annonça que la flotte en vue était espagnole et qu’il n’y avait rien à
craindre puisqu’on était en paix avec cette nation. Son second, croyant
reconnaître des navires américains, le pressait vainement de prendre chasse.
Bientôt, la flotte signalée se trouva dans les eaux de la frégate algérienne, et
quand il fut trop tard pour fuir, on reconnut le pavillon des États-Unis.

Il est bien entendu que cette relation est celle des Algériens. Je n’en connais
pas d’autre, et mieux vaut celle-là que rien.

— Eh bien, Seigneur, dit le second à Hamidou, j’avais raison! Ce sont des

Américains.

— Je le savais aussi bien que toi, répondit le raïs, mais je ne pouvais fuir
honteusement devant l’ennemi quand je suis sorti pour le braver.

Et, après avoir ordonné le branle-bas de combat, il dit en particulier à cet

officier:

486
— Quand je serai mort tu me feras jeter à la mer. Je ne veux pas que les
mécréants aient mon cadavre.

Lorsque les navires furent à petite portée de canon, une lutte des plus inégales
s’engagea; mais l’heure de Hamidou avait sonné, et la première bordée de
l’ennemi le renversa inanimé, à son poste de combat. Conformément à ses
instructions, son corps eut la mer pour tombeau.

Après la mort du commandant, le combat continua, mais la frégate algérienne,

démâtée, criblée de boulets, désemparée, ne fut bientôt plus qu’une ruine. Les
frégates américaines passaient successivement devant elle, et chacun d’elle lui
lâchait sa bordée. Enfin, au bout d’une heure, un boulet coupa la corne
d’artimon et le pavillon algérien tomba à la mer. Le feu cessa. Des
embarcations vinrent prendre possession du navire vaincu. En montant en bord,
le chef du détachement demanda le commandant. — Voici tout ce qu’il en
reste, dit le second, en montrant une mare sanglante : un peu de sang! Telle fut
la fin héroïque de Hamidou. Ce trépas glorieux lui épargna la douleur de rendre
aux mécréants cette frégate que jamais il ne voulut échanger contre l’une de
celles qu’il avait conquises.

Source : Devoulx, Le Raïs Hamidou, pp. 13-15, 113-125

487
 GLOSSARY

Agha Title given to high commanders in the janissaries’ corps;

equivalent to the rank of army general.

Al-Jizya Meaning ‘tribute.’

Armada Spanish fleet.

Beylerbey Turkish provincial administrator appointed by the Sultan;

highest administrative rank. In terms of office holding,
beylerbey is equivalent to the western term Governor-
general or viceroy; Beylerbeys were appointed for a three-
year term.

Beylerbeylik Administrative division or unit; Ottoman province

governed by a Beylerbey. The term was replaced by eyala
in 1609; pl. eyelet.

Caftan Long oriental gold-embroided dress sent by the Sultan as

symbol of investiture.

Conquistador(s) Soldiers, explorers, and adventurers who took part in the

conquest of the Americas from the 15th to the 19th
centuries; it means also soldiers of the Spanish army.

de facto Latin phrase meaning “in fact”: as a matter of fact, even

though the legal title may not be certain; de facto
recognition: recognition of a new government because it is
in power.

Dey Honorary title, meaning maternal uncle, conferred upon

able corsairs elected by their pairs as rulers of Algiers;
appeared for the first time in 1689. Between 1671 and
1830, 30 Deys ruled Algiers in succession.

Deylik Between 1671 and 1830, the Ottoman province of Algiers

became a Deylik as it was ruled by Deys who were no
more nominated by the Sultan but elected locally by the
Odjac and Ta’ifa.
488
Divan Turkish/Arabic term meaning high body of government;
used for the first time in English in 1586. At Algiers the
Divan was composed of some sixty Turkish notables who
served as members of the Dey’s government.

El-harb fi Warfare at sea.

el-bahr
ex parte Latin phrase meaning “from one side”: in the interest of
one side only. ex parte, adj.: one-sided.

Fetihname Letter announcing the conquest of a city.

Firman Sultanic decree.

Ghazi Muslim holy warrior who fights the infidels on the

frontiers of Muslim land; pl. ghuzat.

Grand Vizier Grand minister of the Sultan having great powers;

equivalent to the English term prime minister.

Guerre de Form of warfare which consisted of chasing and plundering

Course commercial vessels at the high sea. Terms with an
equivalent meaning include ‘privateering’ and ‘corsairing’.

Hostis humani Latin expression meaning ‘enemies of humanity’ or

generis ‘enemies of all mankind.’

Janissaries Elite corps of the army of the Ottoman Empire from the
late 14th to 1826; Turkish soldiery of Algiers.

Jihad Form of warfare against the enemies of Islam; the one who
adopts this form of fighting is a mujahid; pl. mujahidin

Kaptan Admiral or supreme commander of the Algerian fleet.

Kapudan Pasha Grand or Supreme Admiral of the whole Ottoman fleets.

Khodja Secretary.

Moriscos The Muslims of Spain who were forced into Christianity

by royal edict, church, and Inquisition courts. Outwardly
baptized, the Moriscos continued to practice Islam secretly.

Odjac A small but powerful minority or faction composed from

the janissaries.
489
Parias Meaning ‘tribute.’

Pasha Highest rank title granted to beylerbeys (provincial

governors), kaptans (admirals), and Aghas (army generals).
As honorary title, Pasha is roughly equivalent to ‘Lord’.

Peñón Rock. Originally, el Peñon d’Argel—literally ‘the rock of

Algiers’—was called Island of Beni-Mezr’anna.

Presidio Fortress built by the Spaniards in North Africa during the

16th century to protect their holdings and missions.

Qaid High official.

Rais Admiral at active service or sea captain, bach-Rais, his

second; pl. Ri’yas.

Rais el Bahr Admiral commanding of the fleet at active service.

Realpolitik German word literally meaning ‘real politics.’ The term

describes politics that are based on pragmatism or
practicality rather than on ethical or theoretical
considerations.

Reconquista Meaning ‘reconquest.’ It was a series of military

campaigns undertaken by Christian rulers against the
Muslim kingdoms of Andalusia that officially began in 722
and ended in 1492.

Sublime Porte In the context of western diplomacy, this term means the
Ottoman government headquartered at Constantinople,
Turkey.

Sultan Title of Muslim sovereigns, appeared for the first time in

the 11th century.

Ta’ifa A small but powerful minority or faction composed from

the commanding corsairs.

Tughra Seal or official signature of the Dey.

Wakil khardj Minister of the marine.

490
 ‫ﻣﻠﺨـــﺺ‬

‫ﰲ ﺃﻋﻘﺎﺏ ﺃﺣﺪﺍﺙ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺳﻊ ﻣﻦ ﺳﺒﺘﻤﱪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺗﺰﺍﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﺀ ﲡﺎﻩ ﺍﻹﺳﻼﻡ ‪ ،‬ﻇﻬﺮ ﺍﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡ ﺑﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺃﻭﻝ ﻣﻮﺍﺟﻬﺔ‬
‫ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ ﻭﻣﺴﻠﻤﻲ ﴰﺎﻝ ﺇﻓﺮﻳﻘﻴﺎ‪ .‬ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻐﺎﻟﺒﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺆﺭﺧﲔ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﲔ ﺗﻌﺘﱪ ﻓﺘﺮﺓ "ﺍﳊﺮﻭﺏ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱪﺑﺮﻳﺔ" ﺳﺎﺑﻘﺔ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺍﺟﻬﺔ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻣﻊ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺴﻤﻰ ﺑﺈﺭﻫﺎﺑﻴﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﻭ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﺏ ﺍﻹﺳﻼﻣﻲ ﻗﺪ ﻭﺟﺪ‬
‫ﻣﻨﺬ ﻧﺸﻮﺀ ﺍﻟﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺃﻥ "ﻗﻄﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺮ"‪ 1124‬ﺍﻟﱪﺍﺑﺮﺓ ﺍﻋﺘﺪﻭﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﺳﺘﻌﺒﺪﻭﺍ ﻣﺴﻴﺤﻴﲔ ﺃﺑﺮﻳﺎﺀ ﻭﺟﻌﻠﻮﻫﻢ ﻳﺪﻓﻌﻮﻥ ﺟﺰﻳﺔ ﻭﻓﺪﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﻭ ﻟﺪﻋﻢ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻭﻳﻼﺕ ﱂ ﻳﺘﺮﺩﺩﻭﺍ ﰲ ﻧﻘﻞ ﻓﺘﺮﺓ ‪‬ﺎﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻣﻦ ﻋﺸﺮ ﻭ ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺳﻊ ﻋﺸﺮ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺣﺪ ﻭ ﺍﻟﻌﺸﺮﻳﻦ‪ .‬ﻭ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﻣﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ ﻏﲑ ﺳﻠﻴﻤﺔ ﲝﻴﺚ‬
‫ﺃﺻﺒﺢ ﺇﺭﻫﺎﰊ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﻣﺴﺎﻭ ﻟﻘﺮﺻﺎﻥ ﺍﻷﻣﺲ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﺑﻘﻠﺐ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺻﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﺴﻠﻢ – ﻭ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻧﻌﺖ ﺁﻧﺬﺍﻙ ﺑﻘﺎﻃﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺮ – ﺇﱃ ﺇﺭﻫﺎﰊ‪ .‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺃﻧﻪ ﳝﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﻓﻘﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﺼﺎﱀ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺗﻀﺮﺭﺕ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺻﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺳﺎﺩﺕ ﺣﻮﺽ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺮ ﺍﻷﺑﻴﺾ ﺍﳌﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﺁﻧﺬﺍﻙ ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻻ ﳚﻌﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺮﺍﺻﻨﺔ ﺍﻷﻳﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺜﻤﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳉﺰﺍﺋﺮ‪ ،‬ﻻ‬
‫ﻗﻄﺎﻉ ﲝﺮ ﻭﻻ ﺇﺭﻫﺎﺑﻴﲔ‪ .‬ﺯﻳﺎﺩﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﳋﻠﻂ ﺑﲔ ﻓﻌﻠﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺻﻨﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ ﻭ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺐ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻭ‬
‫ﺇﺳﻨﺎﺩﻩ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﺴﻠﻤﲔ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺳﺎﺋﺮ ﺍﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﲔ ﻟﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺮ ﺍﳌﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﳚﻌﻞ ﺍﳌﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺗﻌﻘﻴﺪﺍ ﲝﻴﺚ ﳚﻌﻠﻪ ﻳﻨﻢ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﺻﻠﻴﺒﻴﺔ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻗﺪ ﺳﺎﺩﺕ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻄﻰ‪ .‬ﰲ ﻓﺘﺮﺓ ‪‬ﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻣﻦ ﻋﺸﺮ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺃﻋﻄﺖ ﺃﻣﺮﻳﻜﺎ ﺍﻧﻄﺒﺎﻋﺎ ﻭ‬
‫ﻛﺄ‪‬ﺎ ﺃﺟﱪﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﺴﻜﺮﻳﺔ ﺿﺪ ﻣﺴﻠﻤﲔ ﺃﺩﻋﺖ ﺃ‪‬ﻢ ﻣﺎﺭﺳﻮﺍ ﺇﺭﻫﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺮ ﲢﺖ ﻏﻄﺎﺀ ﺍﳉﻬﺎﺩ‪ .‬ﺭﻏﻢ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻣﻮﺭﺳﺖ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺁﻧﺬﺍﻙ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﺭﻧﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﺴﻴﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺋﺪ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ‬
‫ﺗﺸﺎ‪‬ﺎﺕ ﲪﻴﻤﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻻﺛﻨﲔ ﻏﲑ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﺧﲑﺓ ﻣﻌﺎﻛﺴﺔ ﲤﺎﻣﺎ ﳌﺎ ﺗﺆﻣﻦ ﺑﻪ ﻏﺎﻟﺒﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﲔ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ‪ .‬ﺇﺫ ﺃﺻﺒﺢ ﻭﺍﺿﺤﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻵﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻣﻌﻈﻢ ﺍﻟﺬﺭﺍﺋﻊ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﻠﺖ ﻟﺘﱪﻳﺮ "ﺍﳊﺮﺏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﺏ" ﻫﻲ ﻗﺼﺺ ﻣﻠﻔﻘﺔ ﻗﺼﺪ ‪‬ﺎ ﺗﻐﻄﻴﺔ ﺑﺮﺍﻣﺞ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‬
‫ﻓﺈﻥ ﺃﻭﻝ ﻣﻮﺍﺟﻬﺔ ﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﺎ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺻﻨﺔ ﺍﳉﺰﺍﺋﺮﻳﲔ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺃﺧﻀﻌﺖ ﻟﻠﺘﺪﻗﻴﻖ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﺬﺭﺍﺋﻊ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻗﺪ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﻠﺖ‬
‫ﻟﺘﻤﺮﻳﺮ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻷﻫﺪﺍﻑ‪ .‬ﻭ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﻮﻳﻒ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻲ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﺁﻧﺬﺍﻙ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ "ﺍﻟﺮﻋﺐ‬
‫ﺍﳉﺰﺍﺋﺮﻱ" ﻭ ﺩﻋﺎﻳﺔ ﻗﻄﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺮ ﻟﻘﻤﻊ ﺍﻻﻧﺸﻘﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﻭﺗﻌﺰﻳﺰ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺎﺳﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺧﻠﻲ ﻟﻠﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﻟﺘﻐﻄﻴﺔ ﻋﺪﻭﺍﻥ ﺍﻷﺳﻄﻮﻝ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳉﺰﺍﺋﺮ ﲢﺖ ﻗﻨﺎﻉ ﺩﻓﺎﻋﻲ ﻟﺘﻌﺰﻳﺰ ﺍﳌﺼﺎﱀ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺟﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻭ‬
‫ﻗﺪ ﻧﻔﺬﺕ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﱪﺍﻣﺞ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﰲ ﲡﺎﻫﻞ ﺗﺎﻡ ﻟﻠﻘﻮﺍﻧﲔ ﻭ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺛﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻭ ﻋﻘﻠﻨﺖ ﲢﺖ ﻏﻄﺎﺀ ﻣﻬﻤﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻴﲔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻀﲑﻳﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪1124‬ﺣﺴﺐ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺍﻹﳒﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻓﺮﻕ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺑﲔ ﻛﻠﻤﱵ ‪ pirate‬ﻭ‪ , corsair‬ﻭ ﻫﻮ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﻃﺮﻭﺣﺔ‪ .‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ‪ ،‬ﺭﻏﻢ ﺃﻥ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ‪ corsair‬ﺗﻘﺎﺑﻠﻬﺎ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﻗﺮﺻﺎﻥ – ﻭ ﻫﻲ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﻣﺸﺘﻘﺔ ﺃﺻﻼ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻹﻳﻄﺎﻟﻴﺔ – ﺇﻻ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ‪ pirate‬ﻻ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﳍﺎ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ‪ .‬ﺭﻏﻢ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻛﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﻋﺪﺓ ﺗﻮﺣﻲ ﺑﻨﻔﺲ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ‪‬ﺐ ﻭ ﺳﻠﺐ‪ .‬ﻭ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻓﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ "ﻗﻄﺎﻉ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺮ" ﺗﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﻫﻨﺎ ﻟﻠﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ‪ pirates‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺪﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ – ﺣﺴﺐ ﻋﻠﻤﻲ ﺍﳌﺘﻮﺍﺿﻊ– ﻻ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﺃﺻﻼ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫‪491‬‬
 RESUME

A la suite des événements du 11 septembre, et avec un antagonisme de plus en

plus montant à l’encontre de l’Islam, est apparue une reprise d’intérêt dans le
premier affront qu’eurent les Etats Unis avec les Musulmans de l’Afrique du
Nord. Pour la plupart des historiens Américains, l’épisode des ‘guerres de
barbarie’ est l’antécédent direct de la confrontation Américaine actuelle avec
les soi-disant terroristes d’El-Qaida. Selon eux, l’état actuel n’est pas nouveau;
le terrorisme a existé depuis la création des Etats Unis parce que les ‘pirates de
barbarie’ ont agressé le commerce Américain, réduit en esclavage d’innocents
Chrétiens, et ont exigé le payement de tributs et de rançons. Pour soutenir leurs
arguments, ils n’ont pas hésité à intervertir la fin du 18e et le début du 19e siècle
avec le 21e siècle. Le résultat est une équation peu solide dans laquelle le
‘terroriste’ d’aujourd’hui est comparé au ‘pirate’ d’hier, et par interversion, le
corsaire Musulman, déjà vu comme un pirate, est transformé en terroriste.
Même si l’on concède que les intérêts économiques d’un pays émergeant ont
été négativement affectés par la pratique de guerre de course dans le bassin
Méditerranéen, ceci ne fait pas des corsaires de la Provence Ottomane d’Alger
des pirates et encore moins des terroristes. En plus, l’amalgame entre guerre de
course et piraterie et son attribution exclusive aux Musulmans rend le problème
plus complexe et dénote même une reprise des croisades du moyen age. A la
fin du 18e siècle, l’Amérique avait aussi donné l’impression qu'elle était
obligée d’utiliser la force militaire contre des Musulmans qui ont prétendument
légitimé la terreur de la mer au nom du jihad. Quoi que le contexte de l’époque
ne soit en aucun cas comparable à celui des relations internationales
contemporaines, il y a, en effet, une analogie étroite entre le passé et le présent
mais elle est contraire à ce que la majorité des Américains croient être la vérité.
Si aujourd’hui, il est devenu clair que la plupart des arguments avancés pour
justifier la “guerre contre la terreur’ actuelle étaient des histoires fabriquées de
toute part, et qui visaient à camoufler d’autres programmes, quand l’affront de
l’Amérique avec les corsaires Algériens est soumis à un examen minutieux, il
apparaît que les mêmes forces étaient en action. Dans l’histoire Américaine
aussi, ‘la politique de la peur’ n’est pas nouvelle non plus. Au début de la
république, une ‘terreur de l’Algerine’ et une propagande anti-pirate étaient
soigneusement cultivées et ont servi à réprimer le dissentiment politique et à
rehausser la cohésion intérieure mais ont aussi servi à déguiser l’agression de la
flotte américaine contre Alger en une opération défensive pour promouvoir les
intérêts Américains outre-mer. Cet agenda politique a été orchestré avec une
indifférence totale à l’égard des lois et conventions des nations, le tout
rationalisé par un sens d’une mission civilisatrice Chrétienne.
492
 ABSTRACT

Recent western writings deploying analogies between ‘Barbary piracy’ and twenty-
first century ‘terrorism’ justify a reappraisal of diplomatic relations between the
Ottoman regency of Algiers and the United States during the period 1776-1816. Since
the 9/11 attacks, American historians have represented the ‘Barbary Wars’ as the
direct forerunner of current ‘Muslim terrorism’. For the purpose, they transposed late
18th and early 19th centuries events into the 21st century; the result is an unsound
equation in which the ‘terrorist’ of today is likened to the ‘pirate’ of yesterday and by
reversal transposition, the Muslim corsair, already seen as a pirate, has been
transformed into a terrorist. This study opted for rereading the same material on which
current interpretations are built and reveals that, in many cases, documents pertaining
to that period were either overlooked or were not published until recently, a fact
which made this reappraisal possible. By reassessing relations between Algiers and
the USA, this work replaces the issue of ‘piracy’ into its true historical context and
discusses two major elements: the traditional clash between Islam and Christianity
and persistence of enmity towards Algiers in American foreign policy although under
a different guise. The analysis shows that allegations of Algerian aggressions against
the USA were unfounded and elaborates a ‘Dey-pawn theory’ which shows how
‘power politics’ entangled Algiers in major powers rivalries and turned it into a
scapegoat for Christianity. The work also investigates the amalgam between
corsairing and piracy and considers that its attribution to Muslims solely denotes a
renewal of medieval crusading because when America embarked on a gunboat
diplomacy, it also contended that Muslim corsairing states legitimated maritime terror
in the name of jihad. The thesis reconsiders America’s bullying past and unveils less
idealistic agendas that were performed in total disregard of laws and usage of nations.
The thesis concludes that Algerian seamen were not pirates but they were corsairs
legitimated in their actions by the very western standards and that assertions about
‘Algerine piracy’ were fabrications that were meant for cloaking gunboat aggression
in defensive disguise to promote American interests abroad.
v