The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

scaeagles · 10-25-2007, 06:54 PM

I agree, certainly, GC, ISM, and GD. I don't know why Huckabee would say that (I didn't hear it), GC. I agree ISM, about the death bed comment, it was just one I happened to grab of many from Hamilton.

The Treaty of Tripoli of 1797, however, is a different matter and context is everything.

As I understand it, Barbary priates had a tnedency to attack ships and enslave sailors from "Christian Nations". In this particular version of the treaty, it was deemed necessary to specifically include the wording to appease an Islamic nation.

However, after the treaty, there was no reduction in the activity of the piracy and enslavement, and Tripoli itself was demanding increased tribute from naval vessels. When this was refused by Jefferson (in 1801), Tripoli declared war on the US, and the US Navy set up a blockade of Tripoli. After Tripoli was taken by US Marines and some local rebels, the leaders there signed the new 1805 Treaty of Tripoli, which did not contain the wording. The weakened Tripoli no longer needed to be appeased.

So, yeah, the wording was in there, but it was there for a specific reason.

Sorry for the boring history.

10-25-2007, 06:54 PM	#11
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	I agree, certainly, GC, ISM, and GD. I don't know why Huckabee would say that (I didn't hear it), GC. I agree ISM, about the death bed comment, it was just one I happened to grab of many from Hamilton. The Treaty of Tripoli of 1797, however, is a different matter and context is everything. As I understand it, Barbary priates had a tnedency to attack ships and enslave sailors from "Christian Nations". In this particular version of the treaty, it was deemed necessary to specifically include the wording to appease an Islamic nation. However, after the treaty, there was no reduction in the activity of the piracy and enslavement, and Tripoli itself was demanding increased tribute from naval vessels. When this was refused by Jefferson (in 1801), Tripoli declared war on the US, and the US Navy set up a blockade of Tripoli. After Tripoli was taken by US Marines and some local rebels, the leaders there signed the new 1805 Treaty of Tripoli, which did not contain the wording. The weakened Tripoli no longer needed to be appeased. So, yeah, the wording was in there, but it was there for a specific reason. Sorry for the boring history.
	Submit to Quotes