The recent discussion about the religiousness, or rather lack of religiousness, of America's Founding Fathers touches on a book I'm reading, Michael Oren's Power, Faith and Fantasy: America in the Middle East: 1776 to the Present.The first chapter recounts America's first foreign policy problem, that of piracy off the coast of North Africa. (The famous line "From the Shores of Tripoli" in the Marines' Hymn refers to the Battle of Derne, the first time a United States armed force fought on foreign soil.) In a tiny nutshell, the First Barbary War was immensely influential in creating the type of government we now have. At the time, the Constitution had yet to be written. Arguments raged between Anti-Federalists and Federalists about the level of power granted to a centralized government, including the creation of a standing navy, which the anti-federalists worried could be used against its own citizens. But a steady stream of kidnapped sailors and an increasingly crippled merchant economy helped sway opinion in the Federalists' direction. A national navy and a more centralized government was the result.
But more specifically, two things in particular struck me in Oren's chapter about the Barbary Wars. The first was the justification used by the Barbary pirates for their attacks on trading ships. John Adams, then America's minister to Great Britain, met with Dey Abd al-Rahman of Tripoli who told him:
"It was... written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged their [the Muslims'] authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise."
The second, more surprising discovery for me was article 11 in the Treaty of Tripoli, which halted the wars for a few years:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
I don't understand why this article isn't brought up every time a news network stages a boring debate about whether or not America's Founding Fathers intended the US to be "Christian Nation." The answer to the question was written out in direct, unambiguous language, and passed unanimously by Congress.
6 comments:
Immediately intrigued, I did a quick Google search. Under "Treaty of Tripoli" on wikipedia, they have a section devoted to article 11. Evidently (and I confirmed this from other sources) passage of the treaty was the third unanimous vote. Beyond that, the treaty was printed in three different papers and there seems to be no evidence of public disdain over article 11.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli#Article_11
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html
That is pretty unambiguous, indeed!
It is fascinating what can be learned from actual documents and not the generically filtered light news.
Perhaps the most interesting part of the Barbary wars is the little-known exploits of William Eaton, recounted in a book I bought for Sue but never read: "The Pirate Coast: Thomas Jefferson, the First Marines and the Secret Mission of 1805" by Richard Zacks.
Eaton comes close to almost single-handedly defeating the bashaw of Tripoli -- but is undercut by Jefferson, who ends up opting for diplomacy.
Eaton's plan, which involved a grand total of eight U.S. marines, was to invade Tripoli by land and install the bashaw's deposed brother, Hamet, on the throne. Eaton, by little more than the strength of his own personality, convinces the brother of this plan and they raise a ragtag force in Egypt of foreign mercenaries and as many Hamet supporters and Bedouins as money could buy. Prefiguring Lawrence of Arabia, they cross 500 miles of North African desert to reach their first objective, the regional capitol, Derne.
At Derne, although outnumbered 10 to 1, Eaton and his men soundly defeat the bashaw's forces and take the city. Nearby Tripoli looked ripe for the taking.
Unfortunately, while all this going on, Jefferson negotiates a treaty with the bashaw and halts Eaton in his tracks.
The book recounts one official report which commented that Eaton "appeared to be a man of lively imagination, rash, credulous." And, it added, "by no means possessed of sound judgement."
It's unfortunate that the character of U.S. seems to have embraced more Eaton and less article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli.
Someone needs to publicize article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli if, for no other reason, than to end those boring TV debates. First I thought of Hitchens, but that would not yield the necessary clout. Obama? no way; not even Clinton. The perfect person to stand up and quote article 11 would be former president G. W. Bush. He could reverse his dubious legacy with a grand gesture, end an erroneous interpretation of history, but, more importantly, instill some good sense back into political discussions.
Unfortunately, for the truly delusional, actual facts make little, if any, difference. Just because I wanted a little historical background, I googled the treaty and found a pile of websites arguing the the treaty proves nothing.
The arguments begin with the suggestion that Article 11 was never in the original treaty but was added by Joel Barlow, the Consul General at Algiers who did the translation, and they go on from there. Just taking one website -- Tekton Apologetics Ministries -- it ends its discussion of Article 11 by saying "Our conclusion: Article 11 is a skeptical dud that proves nothing about the founding principles of this nation and says nothing about to what extent Christian influence has shaped us or our government."
The Catholic Educational Resource Center also downplays the significance of the treaty language. Sigh.
The point I started to make in my last comment and then never did was that I don't think that publicizing the treaty -- even if Jesus Christ himself were to return and hold a press conference and explain the treaty language -- will change many minds.
Post a Comment