America's First War

[Moonglow]

I’m sure the history of Barbary War isn’t discussed by anyone else. Actually it’s the first war between united state and African Muslims. Americans called them Berber Muslims. This war is known as Barbary War, Tripolitan War or as Barbary Coast War. In this war American lost millions of naval and hundreds of ships. I’m going to Washington dc through get bus tours just to write down a feature on this topic.

Welcome to the board. I look forward toward said feature.


If your tour takes you through Annapolis, you might see the Tripoli monument....


Tripoli Monument at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland by Giovanni C Micali

where they display the millions and hundreds of naval vessels lost in that tragic war, why it was also about the same time that Britsih ships would board US vessels and take away seamen to press into service on English ships, and a few years later French ships under Napoleon harassed American shipping...we also had a few problems with the Spanish....But


they're not Muslims.....

 

[natstew]

Lest we forget the United States Marine Corps was established in 1775 before the US Navy ships were commissioned. The line "the shores of Tripoli" in the Marine Corps Hymn refers to the gallantry of Marine Lt. Presley O'Bannon at the battle of Derne in 1805.

Lt. Presley O'Bannon set the standard for all Marine Officers to follow.

It's also where the other Marine slogan comes from, the bastardization of "Semper Fidelis".
Said mostly by Marines who are left in desperate situations and told to make do with what you have. "Simply Forget Us".

And let's not forget how Presley O'bannon was betrayed by politicians. The purpose of his mission was to free the hostages and put an end to the Barbary Pirates without paying them a ransom. The U.S. State Department folded, payed a ransom, and let the native army O'Bannon had raised be slaughtered by the Despot in Tripoli. Kinda like the U.S. did to the Hmong Tribesmen in Vietnam. I know a Marine Col. who was there with the CIA.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Are the Muslims on the NW African coast governed by the same type of Muslims as when the war took place??

We are talking about PC here

A Muslim is a Muslim is a Muslim

and they are all Evil

I'm glad to know there was a point to the thread.

It was designed for folks capable of learning.

Sorry I wasn't able to alter it to include you.

 

[natstew]

William Eaton was the organier and leader of the mission. The Marines were faithful to the end, that's where the "Semper Fidelis" comes from, 'Always Faithful"
It's ironic that the U.S. caved and payed the ransom when victory was theirs for the taking, like we did in Vietnam after Tet of 1968, and Obama has done in Iraq and is doing in Afghanistan.


Email this page to friends

SHOCK & AWE :: MULTIMEDIA CENTER

Video: Coming Home

A salute to our troops. This is a music video montage of images from Iraq and troops coming home. Enter S&A!
We Need Submissions! Click Here!

Related Links

Military History Center

Tripolitan War


By Barr Seitz

Two hundred years ago, seven U.S. Marines at the head of a ragtag army of European and Arab mercenaries set out on an extraordinary mission to free 300 U.S. hostages and end America's first foreign war.

To do that, they first had to march almost 600 miles across the Barbary deserts of North Africa to what is the eastern part of modern-day Libya.

Those were long odds for an untested Christian-Muslim army whose soldiers were as likely to kill each other as the enemy.

Tripolitan War

The desert expedition was a quixotic chapter in what was arguably America's first war on international terrorism. The Tripolitan War, 1801-1805, was a result of President Jefferson's determination to end the centuries-old practice of piracy in the Mediterranean Sea.

The Barbary states of Tunis, Morocco, Algeria, and Tripoli built economies around confiscating foreign ships and either ransoming the crew or selling them into slavery. These nations evolved this form of extortion into a simple protection racket. In return for annual tribute from a country, they would not attack that nation's shipping.

Stranding and capture of USS Philadelphia. Sketch by William Bainbridge Hoff
Stranding and capture of USS Philadelphia.
Sketch by William Bainbridge Hoff
The war with Tripoli, which had picked a fight when Washington missed a series of payoffs, went badly for the Americans at first. In 1804, the U.S. Navy suffered a major setback when the USS Philadelphia ran aground stranding 300 men who were captured and held hostage.

For a while, it seemed like the young American republic might actually lose its first war.

A Maverick at the Helm

Into the breach stepped William Eaton. A maverick army captain from the Indian Wars of the 1790s, Eaton was better known for getting into trouble with his superiors than for staging daring raids. A student of Greek and Latin, he picked up Arabic and dressed in turban and robes when he served as the American consul in Tunis. Part Lawrence of Arabia, part Teddy Roosevelt, and part George Patton, he was as colorful a character as can be found in early American history.

Jefferson, eager for a way out of the Barbary quagmire, approved Eaton's plan to ally himself with Hamet Qaramanli, the deposed brother of Tripoli's Pasha, and lead an army against the Pasha's forces. In return for his help, Hamet would regain his throne.

Anointing himself general, Eaton raised an army of Arabs, Egyptians, Tripolitans, and mercenaries from a half dozen European countries. At the core of this motley crew was Lieutenant Presley O'Bannon and his U.S. Marines, the newest branch of the military with as yet no tradition of victory or bravery.



Miracle in the Desert

Without any maps, Eaton's army marched through the desert on foot and camel, covering the same territory that German and British armies would later crisscross during the North African campaigns of World War II.

The story of Eaton's 50-day trek is an exhausting catalogue of narrow escapes and daily frustrations. A massacre almost erupted at the beginning of the march; a nighttime flash flood forced the army to move its camp or risk being swept into the sea; raiders and thieves stole horses, food, and ammunition almost daily; Arab sheikhs periodically threatened to withdraw from the mission; and a near mutiny was miraculously averted when General Eaton faced down a phalanx of charging Arab cavalry.

The expedition hit its nadir when the men reached a rendez-vous point near the town of Derna in eastern Libya to find no sign of their supply ship. The Arabs thought they'd been duped and threatened to attack their erstwhile allies. But luck was on Eaton's side -- at least for the moment -- and the next day, the ship hove into view, breathing life into Eaton's army.

Battle of Derna

Derna was supposed to be a quick stop on the way to Eaton's final destination in Tripoli, but he found it heavily fortified. Hoping to avoid a pitched battle with his untested men, he sent a note demanding the town's surrender. The governor declined with what must rank as one of the pithiest responses to an ultimatum in military history: "My head or yours."

To say the eight-hour battle for the town unfolded in three neat phases is to miss the chaos of war. In the early morning of April 27, three U.S. Navy frigates pounded Derna's heavy guns in the harbor fort and soon succeeded in silencing them. But the second phase, after some initial successes, broke down quickly.

Hamet's flanking cavalry assault stalled when he became mired in a bloody fight against a determined outpost. At the same time, O'Bannon, at the head of his Marines and a mixed Christian-Muslim force, met murderous musket fire that stopped his men cold during his attack on the town's eastern defenses.

First Lieutenant O'Bannon
First Lieutenant O'Bannon

Eaton rushed in his reinforcements to stiffen O'Bannon's men but was unable to break the stalemate. Facing a desperate situation and seeing his dreams of military glory fade, Eaton ordered a charge that he personally led. The gamble paid off. Outnumbered 10 to 1, Eaton and his men sent the defenders flying.

After bitter street fighting, the Marines secured the fort. Lt. O'Bannon raised the American flag to the cheers of the sailors aboard the U.S. ships, witnesses to the first time the Stars and Stripes was ever raised in victory on foreign soil.

Two Marines, John Whitten and Edward Steward, died for the honor and were buried in Derna.

Betrayal in Barbary

Eaton's victory celebration was short-lived. The pasha's reinforcements arrived the day after the battle and surrounded the town. For a month, Eaton held out against a force more than three times the size of his own. Constant skirmishes and raids kept his troops on edge. A plot to poison him was foiled only when a local Muslim mullah revealed the plan.

On June 11, the Pasha's forces launched a last furious attack. Hamet's cavalry bore the brunt during a confusing, four-hour slugfest of charge and counter-charge from which Hamet eventually emerged victorious. The road to Tripoli was open.

But the Marines never made it to the now-famous "shores of Tripoli." The next day, the USS Constellation arrived with news that the United States had signed a peace treaty with the Pasha in Tripoli. Eaton was ordered to evacuate with his Christian forces, Hamet, and a handful of the former pasha's retainers. The rest of Eaton's army was to be abandoned.

The news was a crippling blow to Hamet, whose long-held mistrust of American intentions was confirmed. Eaton protested that his orders went against his sense of "duty or decency." But in the end, Eaton obeyed his superiors. In a secret midnight maneuver, he pulled out of Derna. The story goes that when the townspeople awoke to find the Americans gone, their wails carried to the Constellation, where Eaton heard them in silent agony.

Most of those who remained in Derna either fled or were later massacred by a vengeful Pasha.

An Ignoble End

Eaton's adventure is, at its heart, a story of missed opportunities -- for Eaton to fulfill his military destiny, for Hamet to reclaim his throne, and for U.S.-Arab relations to find some common ground. While no one would claim that a successful end to Eaton's mission would have led to friendly relations with the Muslim world, it is hard to look at the midnight retreat from Derna and not see in it the kernels of a profound Arab-American mistrust that echoes through to this day.

America greeted Eaton as a hero, his daring victory credited with freeing the hostages and ending the war. But he returned an embittered man, his rants against the administration soon driving away even his closest supporters.

General William Eaton spent the rest of his days a lonely drunk in the taverns of Boston. He died in 1811 at the age of 47, and was buried somewhere in Massachusetts in an unmarked grave.

Barr Seitz is writing a book about Eaton's march and the Battle of Derna, titled "The Sword and the Scimitar."
E-mail: [email protected]

Email this page to friends

Betrayal has become a tradition of American politics. Truman/Eisenhower did it in Korea, Kennedy did it in the Cuban Bay Of Pigs, and Obama is continuing the tradition.

 

[Disir]

I'm a little confused with number 5.
The Banu Bakr became allied with the Quraysh. The Banu Bakr attacked Banu Khuzai who happened to be allies with Muhammad. The Quraysh were given 3 options:

Dissolve their alliance with the Banu Bakr
Compensate by paying money
Dissolve the treaty
Treaty of Hudaybiyyah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Quraysh chose the third and dissolved the treaty.

Now, this doesn't mean that lotto "legendary" stuff hasn't been built up around this Muhammad. But, those are the facts and has nothing to do with our Treaty.

The significance of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah is that Muhammad felt no obligation to honor the treaty, and, therefore, such Muslim tradition is part of part of the any such obligation to this day.

Again, the Quraysh chose to dissolve the treaty. Fact.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm a little confused with number 5.
The Banu Bakr became allied with the Quraysh. The Banu Bakr attacked Banu Khuzai who happened to be allies with Muhammad. The Quraysh were given 3 options:

Dissolve their alliance with the Banu Bakr
Compensate by paying money
Dissolve the treaty
Treaty of Hudaybiyyah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Quraysh chose the third and dissolved the treaty.

Now, this doesn't mean that lotto "legendary" stuff hasn't been built up around this Muhammad. But, those are the facts and has nothing to do with our Treaty.

The significance of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah is that Muhammad felt no obligation to honor the treaty, and, therefore, such Muslim tradition is part of part of the any such obligation to this day.

Again, the Quraysh chose to dissolve the treaty. Fact.

Certainly.

The decided it was time to be destroyed.

Dope.



"On the surface then, it would appear that the Meccans were the first to violate the treaty. Even though most Muslims admit that the Meccans did not want a war, they still insist that Muhammad was justified in taking Mecca because of the treaty violation.

But, in fact, Muhammad was the first to violate the Treaty of Hudaibiya. Even the Qur’an acknowledges this, which means any knowledgeable Muslim must as well."
Myth: The Treaty of Hudaibiya

 

[Sunni Man]

"On the surface then, it would appear that the Meccans were the first to violate the treaty. Even though most Muslims admit that the Meccans did not want a war, they still insist that Muhammad was justified in taking Mecca because of the treaty violation.

But, in fact, Muhammad was the first to violate the Treaty of Hudaibiya. Even the Qur’an acknowledges this, which means any knowledgeable Muslim must as well."
Myth: The Treaty of Hudaibiya

PC....using a rabid anti-muslim/Islamic site to back up your claim is beneath you.


Muhammad knew the Quraysh would eventually break the treaty.......it was just a matter of time.

When they did, he was totally in the right to raise an army and advance towards Mecca.

The take over of the city was almost bloodless. (only about a dozen people were killed)

And the Meccan citizens were allowed to keep both their homes and personal property. ...

 

[bodecea]

Are the Muslims on the NW African coast governed by the same type of Muslims as when the war took place??

Have you heard of the Holy Q'ran?


Do you know how the Q'ran relates to the beliefs of all Muslims, all the time?


You might want to look into that.

Just like the bible relates to the beliefs of all christians, all the time?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"On the surface then, it would appear that the Meccans were the first to violate the treaty. Even though most Muslims admit that the Meccans did not want a war, they still insist that Muhammad was justified in taking Mecca because of the treaty violation.

But, in fact, Muhammad was the first to violate the Treaty of Hudaibiya. Even the Qur’an acknowledges this, which means any knowledgeable Muslim must as well."
Myth: The Treaty of Hudaibiya

PC....using a rabid anti-muslim/Islamic site to back up your claim is beneath you.


Muhammad knew the Quraysh would eventually break the treaty.......it was just a matter of time.

When they did, he was totally in the right to raise an army and advance towards Mecca.

The take over of the city was almost bloodless. (only about a dozen people were killed)

And the Meccan citizens were allowed to keep both their homes and personal property. ...

Nope.....I can beat you on this one.


Put your rep back so I can rep you for being back.

Then we'll fight.

 

[Sunni Man]

Put your rep back so I can rep you for being back.

Then we'll fight.

Can't get my rep back cause Mods took it away.......and it's permanent.

I negged someone twice within 48hrs which is a rule violation.

Silly rule.........

 

[syrenn]

Put your rep back so I can rep you for being back.

Then we'll fight.

Can't get my rep back cause Mods took it away.......and it's permanent.

I negged someone twice within 48hrs which is a rule violation.

Silly rule.........

Amazing how some rules they follow and others they turn a blind eye.... like multiple socking.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Put your rep back so I can rep you for being back.

Then we'll fight.

Can't get my rep back cause Mods took it away.......and it's permanent.

I negged someone twice within 48hrs which is a rule violation.

Silly rule.........

Well...start over.

I'll be the first.

 

[Disir]

The significance of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah is that Muhammad felt no obligation to honor the treaty, and, therefore, such Muslim tradition is part of part of the any such obligation to this day.

Again, the Quraysh chose to dissolve the treaty. Fact.

Certainly.

The decided it was time to be destroyed.

Dope.



"On the surface then, it would appear that the Meccans were the first to violate the treaty. Even though most Muslims admit that the Meccans did not want a war, they still insist that Muhammad was justified in taking Mecca because of the treaty violation.

But, in fact, Muhammad was the first to violate the Treaty of Hudaibiya. Even the Qur’an acknowledges this, which means any knowledgeable Muslim must as well."
Myth: The Treaty of Hudaibiya

What you are attempting to do is search for some authenticity to justify hatred.
It makes zero sense. Unless you are are using it as a propaganda tool to spread fear and hatred over all and take the lazy way out of assessing the interpretations that have been used to do the exact same thing that this amounts to. Nothings cooler then trying to foment enough hate to justify bombing millions of people to acquire resources. If someone calls you on it then you can make some outlandish comparison between Islam and Christianity. We call that jihad envy.

Just say upfront that you don't like them, don't trust them and have no problem killing everyone that lives in the Middle East and be done with the shit and if you can nail some of them in the US..........well, why the hell not?


If you ever want to discuss history then I'll be around. But, this...........naw......I'm out.

 

[Sunni Man]

Well...start over.

I'll be the first.

Can't.......my ability to rep has been locked by the Mods.

Ironically, the guy I double negged doesn't post here any more.

Go figure........

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well...start over.

I'll be the first.

Can't.......my ability to rep has been locked by the Mods.

Ironically, the guy I double negged doesn't post here any more.

Go figure........

How about a new account?

How about you get folks to recommend a different but related avi?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Again, the Quraysh chose to dissolve the treaty. Fact.

Certainly.

The decided it was time to be destroyed.

Dope.



"On the surface then, it would appear that the Meccans were the first to violate the treaty. Even though most Muslims admit that the Meccans did not want a war, they still insist that Muhammad was justified in taking Mecca because of the treaty violation.

But, in fact, Muhammad was the first to violate the Treaty of Hudaibiya. Even the Qur’an acknowledges this, which means any knowledgeable Muslim must as well."
Myth: The Treaty of Hudaibiya

What you are attempting to do is search for some authenticity to justify hatred.
It makes zero sense. Unless you are are using it as a propaganda tool to spread fear and hatred over all and take the lazy way out of assessing the interpretations that have been used to do the exact same thing that this amounts to. Nothings cooler then trying to foment enough hate to justify bombing millions of people to acquire resources. If someone calls you on it then you can make some outlandish comparison between Islam and Christianity. We call that jihad envy.

Just say upfront that you don't like them, don't trust them and have no problem killing everyone that lives in the Middle East and be done with the shit and if you can nail some of them in the US..........well, why the hell not?


If you ever want to discuss history then I'll be around. But, this...........naw......I'm out.

"Just say upfront that you don't like them, don't trust them and have no problem killing everyone that lives in the Middle East and be done with the shit and if you can nail some of them in the US..........well, why the hell not?"


Hey....I already identified you as a dope.....

....It wasn't necessary for you to provide additional proof.

 

[ogibillm]

pc, how many treaties has this nation and it's forerunners broken with the native american? if it is your position that because one treaty may have been broken at one point in a people's history and that that in turn makes them untrustworthy and prone to deception cannot that same untrustworthiness and deception be called a cornerstone of our national character?

 

[PoliticalChic]

pc, how many treaties has this nation and it's forerunners broken with the native american? if it is your position that because one treaty may have been broken at one point in a people's history and that that in turn makes them untrustworthy and prone to deception cannot that same untrustworthiness and deception be called a cornerstone of our national character?

No.


But, you may be interested in this, which does identify 'national character:'


1. In 1982, Ronald Reagan asked his arms control advisory committee to conduct a review of Soviet compliance in the 25 years of arms control treaties. It was the first such concerted review ever. The answer to the question of Soviet arms controls compliance was that there was none.
West, "American Betrayal," p. 198.

You might recall, the great man, understanding this about the Soviet 'national character,' famously said: "Trust- but verify."


2. "The Soviet Union repeatedly violates treaties, and the rest of the world turns their heads and proceeds to enter into still more treaties, which the Soviets violate with impunity."
Joseph D. Douglass, Jr., "Why the Soviets Violate Arms Control Treaties," vii, 83.



3. Suggests a question about the naïveté. of Franklin Roosevelt:

Shortly after Roosevelt's first election, he met with Stalin's emissary, to sign a formal agreement with the Soviets.

Roosevelt signed the recognition agreement, and Litvinov "returned to the Soviet embassy.....all smiles....and said 'Well, it's all in the bag; we have it.'"
On September 23, 1939, as Dr. D. H. Dombrowsky testified before the Dies committee. The Winona Republican-Herald ? 20 October 1947 ? Page 12 - Newspapers.com
quoting Litvinov's chortling:

" "Well, it's all in the bag. They wanted us to recognize the debts we owed them
and I promised we were going to negotiate. But they did not
know we were going to negotiate until doomsday. The next one
was a corker; they wanted us to promise freedom of religion
in the Soviet Union, and I promised that, too. I was very much
prompted to offer that I would personally collect all the Bibles
and ship them over."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.33.




If there is any other area in which you require instruction, please don't hesitate to ask.

 

[ogibillm]

pc, how many treaties has this nation and it's forerunners broken with the native american? if it is your position that because one treaty may have been broken at one point in a people's history and that that in turn makes them untrustworthy and prone to deception cannot that same untrustworthiness and deception be called a cornerstone of our national character?

No.


But, you may be interested in this, which does identify 'national character:'


1. In 1982, Ronald Reagan asked his arms control advisory committee to conduct a review of Soviet compliance in the 25 years of arms control treaties. It was the first such concerted review ever. The answer to the question of Soviet arms controls compliance was that there was none.
West, "American Betrayal," p. 198.

You might recall, the great man, understanding this about the Soviet 'national character,' famously said: "Trust- but verify."


2. "The Soviet Union repeatedly violates treaties, and the rest of the world turns their heads and proceeds to enter into still more treaties, which the Soviets violate with impunity."
Joseph D. Douglass, Jr., "Why the Soviets Violate Arms Control Treaties," vii, 83.



3. Suggests a question about the naïveté. of Franklin Roosevelt:

Shortly after Roosevelt's first election, he met with Stalin's emissary, to sign a formal agreement with the Soviets.

Roosevelt signed the recognition agreement, and Litvinov "returned to the Soviet embassy.....all smiles....and said 'Well, it's all in the bag; we have it.'"
On September 23, 1939, as Dr. D. H. Dombrowsky testified before the Dies committee. The Winona Republican-Herald ? 20 October 1947 ? Page 12 - Newspapers.com
quoting Litvinov's chortling:

" "Well, it's all in the bag. They wanted us to recognize the debts we owed them
and I promised we were going to negotiate. But they did not
know we were going to negotiate until doomsday. The next one
was a corker; they wanted us to promise freedom of religion
in the Soviet Union, and I promised that, too. I was very much
prompted to offer that I would personally collect all the Bibles
and ship them over."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.33.




If there is any other area in which you require instruction, please don't hesitate to ask.

why do you believe that one potentially broken treaty more than a millennium ago is more relevant to a people's character than a multitude of broken treaties in relatively recent times?

genesis 34

 

[PoliticalChic]

pc, how many treaties has this nation and it's forerunners broken with the native american? if it is your position that because one treaty may have been broken at one point in a people's history and that that in turn makes them untrustworthy and prone to deception cannot that same untrustworthiness and deception be called a cornerstone of our national character?

No.


But, you may be interested in this, which does identify 'national character:'


1. In 1982, Ronald Reagan asked his arms control advisory committee to conduct a review of Soviet compliance in the 25 years of arms control treaties. It was the first such concerted review ever. The answer to the question of Soviet arms controls compliance was that there was none.
West, "American Betrayal," p. 198.

You might recall, the great man, understanding this about the Soviet 'national character,' famously said: "Trust- but verify."


2. "The Soviet Union repeatedly violates treaties, and the rest of the world turns their heads and proceeds to enter into still more treaties, which the Soviets violate with impunity."
Joseph D. Douglass, Jr., "Why the Soviets Violate Arms Control Treaties," vii, 83.



3. Suggests a question about the naïveté. of Franklin Roosevelt:

Shortly after Roosevelt's first election, he met with Stalin's emissary, to sign a formal agreement with the Soviets.

Roosevelt signed the recognition agreement, and Litvinov "returned to the Soviet embassy.....all smiles....and said 'Well, it's all in the bag; we have it.'"
On September 23, 1939, as Dr. D. H. Dombrowsky testified before the Dies committee. The Winona Republican-Herald ? 20 October 1947 ? Page 12 - Newspapers.com
quoting Litvinov's chortling:

" "Well, it's all in the bag. They wanted us to recognize the debts we owed them
and I promised we were going to negotiate. But they did not
know we were going to negotiate until doomsday. The next one
was a corker; they wanted us to promise freedom of religion
in the Soviet Union, and I promised that, too. I was very much
prompted to offer that I would personally collect all the Bibles
and ship them over."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.33.




If there is any other area in which you require instruction, please don't hesitate to ask.

why do you believe that one potentially broken treaty more than a millennium ago is more relevant to a people's character than a multitude of broken treaties in relatively recent times?

genesis 34

If we were to put a lens in each of your ears we'd have a telescope.



Then, you'd have some utility.