In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
A perspective on our Founding Fathers
WoundedWolf
Member Posts: 1,658 ✭✭✭✭✭
A perspective on approaches to foreign military entaglements, the battle of tyranny abroad, and early conflicts with Islamic Terroism by our Founding Fathers
by WoundedWolf
There is no doubt in my mind that the Founding Fathers wanted to equip the American people with the ability to defend themselves from tyranny. Whether it be domestic tyranny or invaders from abroad, the Founding Fathers abhorred the idea of people suffering under a tyrant's boot.
As I examine our nation's history of war, the Revolution was the ideal struggle of free people overcoming tyranny, and thus forged our nation and many of the basic ideals held by our Founders. But if we look at the foreign entanglements that followed the Revolution, we find many of the same decisions were faced by the Founders that our politicians face today, and often they achieved a very similar outcome. We hold these men on a high pedestal, yet could it be that they would have failed to uphold their own lofty ideals when applied to the problems faced by succeeding generations of Americans? I think there are clues to the answer to that question in the ways that they directly handled similar issues in their own time. The following is my commentary on facts collected from various online sources. Perhaps it will provide some additional perspective on our current world situation and how we compare contemporary politicians with the Founding Fathers of or nation, which we revere so much...
Six years after our Revolution, the French (our allies at the time) followed a parallel path by removing themselves from the tyranny of their monarchy. While America officially remained neutral and provided no substantial military support to the French people, there was popular philosophical support for the French struggle. However, as that revoulution quickly devolved into mob rule and an orgy of killings and beheadings (sound familiar?), popular American support waned.
In 1793 the tyrannical new revolutionary French government beligerently prosecuted foreign war under the guise of exporting revolution (or perhaps democracy?) throughout Europe. But their true intention was to solidify popular support for the new government among the French people through militant nationalism. Facing a united front from the monarchies of Austria, Prussia, Britain, and Spain, the new French government called upon its military alliance with the fledgling United States (which was backed by the economic obligation of outstanding U.S. debt owed to France for support during the American Revolution).
The U.S. president at the time, George Washington, was faced with a quandry: either honor the military alliance with the new French government, thus drawing the U.S. into war with 4 major European powers, or ignore the alliance and abandon the sibling revolutionary government of France, with whom many U.S. citizens sympathized as a brother in the revolt against monarchal tyranny.
For the first time, our nation pondered these questions: What obligation does the United States have to support liberty abroad? What are the implications of accepting or denying foreign requests for assistance?
After consulting with both Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, Washington's approach was to politically recognize the legitimacy of the new French government by accepting their ambassador, but refuse to provide any material support to their war with the European monarchies, effectively maintaining military neutrality. Washington's Proclamation of Neutrality was issued without any congressional approval, although congress essentially endorsed the approach one year later by passing a neutrality act that forbid any of the European powers to use U.S. soil as a base of military operations, and it forbid any U.S. citizen from participating in the war.
These decisions by the U.S. government were seen by the new French government as de facto support for their European adversaries, which lead to a sporadic naval war between the U.S. and France lasting two years. The infant American navy was able to hold its own against the French privateers, which was an important boost for our fledgling nation as it showed that we could hold our own against overseas threats.
One such threat that had been building against the young United States, almost since the end of the Revolution, came from Islamic Terrorism (yes, even back in the late 1700's!). The Islamic states of North Africa's Barbary Coast (under the protection of the Ottoman Empire, but essentially independent), made a habit of supporting piracy and kidnapping for ransom of any nation's ships whose navy was unable to provide protection. This included the United States which was forced to pay out regular ransom for seized commercial vessels and crew. Eventually an annual tribute was demanded by these Islamic states as a bribe for the safe passage of American vessels. In 1800, the cost of bribes paid by the U.S. exceeded 20% of the U.S. federal revenue.
From Wikipedia:
In 1786 Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman or (Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). They asked him by what right he extorted money and took slaves. Jefferson reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:
"The ambassador answered us that (their right) was founded on the Laws of the Prophet (Mohammed), that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman (or Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven."
Jefferson, a long-time opponent of these bribe payments, became president in 1801. He refused payment of any further bribes which caused the Barbary states to declare war on the United States. Jefferson sent a group of frigates to the region without any congressional declaration of war, although congress did authorize the president to seize all vessels belonging to the state of Tripoli and perform any other acts that would otherwise be justified by a state of war.
The U.S. Navy initially found overwhelming success against the Barbary pirates. The U.S. commitment of troops and vessels was escalated in the region through 1802 and 1803. In 1803 a U.S. frigate was taken intact by Tripoli forces and by 1805 over 300 U.S. hostages had been captured by the Tripoli government, further bogging down the U.S. in this foreign conflict. While the U.S. Navy maintained a blockade of Tripoli harbor and continued sporadic raids and bombardments of the Tripoli fleet, in Spring of 1805 the United State Marines conducted a daring overland attack. This served to cut off the city-state and forced the ruler of Tripoli into peace negotiations.
The peace treaty was signed in June 1805 effectively ending the first Islamic confict involving the United States. As part of the treaty, the Jefferson government paid $60,000 in ransom for the 300 U.S. hostages held by Tripoli. This left a bad taste in the mouth of some Americans. Could it be that, nearly 200 years before Nixon, Jefferson was the first president to apply the philosophy of "peace with honor"? Could it be that this conflict laid the foundation for future U.S.-Islamic relations? Was the prosecution of this conflict out of line with the U.S. Constitution, even though it was coordinated by many of our nation's Founding Fathers?
I hope this provides some additional perspective on the issues faced by our current government, especially when comparing their actions to those of our Founding Fathers.
by WoundedWolf
There is no doubt in my mind that the Founding Fathers wanted to equip the American people with the ability to defend themselves from tyranny. Whether it be domestic tyranny or invaders from abroad, the Founding Fathers abhorred the idea of people suffering under a tyrant's boot.
As I examine our nation's history of war, the Revolution was the ideal struggle of free people overcoming tyranny, and thus forged our nation and many of the basic ideals held by our Founders. But if we look at the foreign entanglements that followed the Revolution, we find many of the same decisions were faced by the Founders that our politicians face today, and often they achieved a very similar outcome. We hold these men on a high pedestal, yet could it be that they would have failed to uphold their own lofty ideals when applied to the problems faced by succeeding generations of Americans? I think there are clues to the answer to that question in the ways that they directly handled similar issues in their own time. The following is my commentary on facts collected from various online sources. Perhaps it will provide some additional perspective on our current world situation and how we compare contemporary politicians with the Founding Fathers of or nation, which we revere so much...
Six years after our Revolution, the French (our allies at the time) followed a parallel path by removing themselves from the tyranny of their monarchy. While America officially remained neutral and provided no substantial military support to the French people, there was popular philosophical support for the French struggle. However, as that revoulution quickly devolved into mob rule and an orgy of killings and beheadings (sound familiar?), popular American support waned.
In 1793 the tyrannical new revolutionary French government beligerently prosecuted foreign war under the guise of exporting revolution (or perhaps democracy?) throughout Europe. But their true intention was to solidify popular support for the new government among the French people through militant nationalism. Facing a united front from the monarchies of Austria, Prussia, Britain, and Spain, the new French government called upon its military alliance with the fledgling United States (which was backed by the economic obligation of outstanding U.S. debt owed to France for support during the American Revolution).
The U.S. president at the time, George Washington, was faced with a quandry: either honor the military alliance with the new French government, thus drawing the U.S. into war with 4 major European powers, or ignore the alliance and abandon the sibling revolutionary government of France, with whom many U.S. citizens sympathized as a brother in the revolt against monarchal tyranny.
For the first time, our nation pondered these questions: What obligation does the United States have to support liberty abroad? What are the implications of accepting or denying foreign requests for assistance?
After consulting with both Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, Washington's approach was to politically recognize the legitimacy of the new French government by accepting their ambassador, but refuse to provide any material support to their war with the European monarchies, effectively maintaining military neutrality. Washington's Proclamation of Neutrality was issued without any congressional approval, although congress essentially endorsed the approach one year later by passing a neutrality act that forbid any of the European powers to use U.S. soil as a base of military operations, and it forbid any U.S. citizen from participating in the war.
These decisions by the U.S. government were seen by the new French government as de facto support for their European adversaries, which lead to a sporadic naval war between the U.S. and France lasting two years. The infant American navy was able to hold its own against the French privateers, which was an important boost for our fledgling nation as it showed that we could hold our own against overseas threats.
One such threat that had been building against the young United States, almost since the end of the Revolution, came from Islamic Terrorism (yes, even back in the late 1700's!). The Islamic states of North Africa's Barbary Coast (under the protection of the Ottoman Empire, but essentially independent), made a habit of supporting piracy and kidnapping for ransom of any nation's ships whose navy was unable to provide protection. This included the United States which was forced to pay out regular ransom for seized commercial vessels and crew. Eventually an annual tribute was demanded by these Islamic states as a bribe for the safe passage of American vessels. In 1800, the cost of bribes paid by the U.S. exceeded 20% of the U.S. federal revenue.
From Wikipedia:
In 1786 Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman or (Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). They asked him by what right he extorted money and took slaves. Jefferson reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:
"The ambassador answered us that (their right) was founded on the Laws of the Prophet (Mohammed), that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman (or Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven."
Jefferson, a long-time opponent of these bribe payments, became president in 1801. He refused payment of any further bribes which caused the Barbary states to declare war on the United States. Jefferson sent a group of frigates to the region without any congressional declaration of war, although congress did authorize the president to seize all vessels belonging to the state of Tripoli and perform any other acts that would otherwise be justified by a state of war.
The U.S. Navy initially found overwhelming success against the Barbary pirates. The U.S. commitment of troops and vessels was escalated in the region through 1802 and 1803. In 1803 a U.S. frigate was taken intact by Tripoli forces and by 1805 over 300 U.S. hostages had been captured by the Tripoli government, further bogging down the U.S. in this foreign conflict. While the U.S. Navy maintained a blockade of Tripoli harbor and continued sporadic raids and bombardments of the Tripoli fleet, in Spring of 1805 the United State Marines conducted a daring overland attack. This served to cut off the city-state and forced the ruler of Tripoli into peace negotiations.
The peace treaty was signed in June 1805 effectively ending the first Islamic confict involving the United States. As part of the treaty, the Jefferson government paid $60,000 in ransom for the 300 U.S. hostages held by Tripoli. This left a bad taste in the mouth of some Americans. Could it be that, nearly 200 years before Nixon, Jefferson was the first president to apply the philosophy of "peace with honor"? Could it be that this conflict laid the foundation for future U.S.-Islamic relations? Was the prosecution of this conflict out of line with the U.S. Constitution, even though it was coordinated by many of our nation's Founding Fathers?
I hope this provides some additional perspective on the issues faced by our current government, especially when comparing their actions to those of our Founding Fathers.
Comments
Edmund "Citizen" Genet, was sent as Minister to the U.S. and did not insist on our defending the West Indies, as per our treaties, but did insist on the opening of our ports for trade purposes. That action would have subjected us to the risk of blockade by England, clearly the most powerful navel power of the day, and such an event would have potentially been ruinous to our fledgling economy.
We declared a "Proclamation of Neutrality" in April of 1793, but we did agree to provide food to the starving French West Indies, thus freeing up French shipping from both the need and the danger of providing food to their colonies.
The British started seizing American ships and impressing sailors into service in the British Navy, but the best we could do was a boycott in response. John Jay was sent to negotiate a treaty with England in an effort to avoid war, but "Jay's Treaty" was a very poor treaty since he had no bargaining power to work with at the time.
Under terms of the treaty the British agreed to remove troops they still had remaining in forts on our Western frontier by 1796, but they kept the right of fur traders to operate in American territory. We also reopened all American ports to British shipping.
It was a lousy treaty, but it did avoid war with England at a time when we just could not have afforded to take the risk, and it did allow us to force a treaty with Spain since we were now free to concentrate on them and they were not the threat to us that the British posed.
In order to protect Florida and Louisiana from possible American incursion, Spain agreed in "Pinckney's Treaty" to settle the Georgia/Florida boundary dispute, stop provoking Indian attacks on Georgia, and open the Mississippi and New Orleans to the U. S. for shipping (Right of Deposit) without charge. We needed the ability to "transship" from flat bottomed river boats to deep draft ocean going ships if we were to export crops, lumber, and supplies. This latter was essential to the development of what is now the Midwest since products could be moved by the river system to the Gulf for shipping that could not be transported over the Appalachian Mountains in the days of horse drawn wagons and few roads.
At the time of the Revolution, the vast majority of Americans lived within fifty miles of the ocean for the simple reason that transportation limited their ability to carry on commerce, either buying or selling, for the simple reason that transportation was too expensive, time consuming, or impossible.
That treaty also eventually resulted in the creation of most of the main river ports and cities in the upper South and lower Midwest.
Power politics and decisions based on political expediency are nothing new. If you want to start to really get some insight, check out the "XYZ Affair" and the Election of 1796.
BTW, the "Quasi-War" with France didn't start until 1798, under the Adams administration, and we didn't do too much against them at all as they captured around possibly two thousand of our merchant ships (figures vary) and we took less than ninety of theirs.[:)]