Barbary and Quasi Wars? What do you think?

[Matt Collins]

Barbary and Quasi Wars? What do you think?


Has anyone here studied these two exercises in any detail?

[ChickenHawk]

It is my understanding that the Barbary Pirates were attacking US merchant ships so Jefferson sent the Marines to attack them after they informally declared war on the US. The interesting thing is that the was no formal declaration of war by congress. Congress was informed by Jefferson that he was taking the country to war and congress responded by voting to authorize it. Legally speaking I don't really see how there is a real difference between a declaration and an authorization.

If it happened the way I understand it I don't see how it would be any more or less legal than the war in Iraq.

[Matt Collins]

What about the Quasi Wars with France?

[cameronb]

In regards to the Barbary Pirates, who would we have declared war on? That may have been at least in part, the challenge of a formal congressional declaration of war.

Unless I'm mistaken, the local rulers in the Barbary states were at least nominally subject to the Ottoman Turks. It may have been perceived that a declaration of war would have unnecessarily drawn the Ottoman Turks into conflict when we only had a problem with the Barbary Pirates operating out of the ports of Tunis and Algiers (primarily).

The "Iraq War" is entirely different in two ways:
a) the Barbary Pirates were directly attacking our ships and enslaving Americans (when we finally attacked them, many Americans were being held as slaves in North Africa), whereas Iraq represented no direct, demonstrable threat to the United States.
b) Iraq was an internationally recognized, sovereign nation with a fully functioning government (albeit despotic), whereas at worst the Barbary Coast was the haven of roaming mauraders, and at best was a loose affiliation of local rulers, loosely subject to the Ottomans.

I could have some holes in my analysis, but this is how I understand the key differences.


-Cameron

[Tugboat1988]

I believe Cameronb is basically correct.

There is another difference in our experience with Iraq, and a similarity with our experience in Granada.

The difference with Iraq is this, we stayed, and we are still there.

The similarity with Granada is this -- our Marines went in to rescue our students and after we left.

And, another thing. We weren't enforcing UN mandates when we sent Marines into the Barbary Coast.

Tugboat

[ChickenHawk]

In regards to the Barbary Pirates, who would we have declared war on? That may have been at least in part, the challenge of a formal congressional declaration of war.

Unless I'm mistaken, the local rulers in the Barbary states were at least nominally subject to the Ottoman Turks. It may have been perceived that a declaration of war would have unnecessarily drawn the Ottoman Turks into conflict when we only had a problem with the Barbary Pirates operating out of the ports of Tunis and Algiers (primarily).

The "Iraq War" is entirely different in two ways:
a) the Barbary Pirates were directly attacking our ships and enslaving Americans (when we finally attacked them, many Americans were being held as slaves in North Africa), whereas Iraq represented no direct, demonstrable threat to the United States.
b) Iraq was an internationally recognized, sovereign nation with a fully functioning government (albeit despotic), whereas at worst the Barbary Coast was the haven of roaming mauraders, and at best was a loose affiliation of local rulers, loosely subject to the Ottomans.

I could have some holes in my analysis, but this is how I understand the key differences.


-Cameron

That is pretty much what I have got from reading about it. However many people claim that the Iraq war was "illegal". Nevermind the morality or the necessity I can't see how the Iraq was is illegal the the Barbary war isn't. I'm talking US law, constitutional law not international law. I don't give a rat's arse about international UN law. I assume most people who say the war was illegal are talking about US law anyway.

[ChickenHawk]

What about the Quasi Wars with France?

That was an undeclared war as well. I don't think that the courts have ever ruled that a war has to be declared. In fact I think that they have ruled that a war can't be challenged if Congress has not formally objected to it. The Constitution says that congress has the power to declare war. It doesn't say that congress must declare war if there is to be any military action. If the President goes to war and congress willingly funds it and authorizes it that seems to me to be tantamount to a declaration for all legal purposes.

Also, Congress has the power to end any war any time it wants to.

[Matt Collins]

I know I am just now getting back to this thread, but thanks for the info.

[Imperial]

That was an undeclared war as well. I don't think that the courts have ever ruled that a war has to be declared. In fact I think that they have ruled that a war can't be challenged if Congress has not formally objected to it. The Constitution says that congress has the power to declare war. It doesn't say that congress must declare war if there is to be any military action. If the President goes to war and congress willingly funds it and authorizes it that seems to me to be tantamount to a declaration for all legal purposes.

Also, Congress has the power to end any war any time it wants to.

Good point about the Quasi War. It is also a great example of a brave stand. This is the one I always make for even if the US is attacked, sometimes it is better to resist war. The Republic was too young to fight France, and would have been thrown into British arms as Alexander Hamilton sought(he was a huge proponent of war with France). The country was swept up into an anti-French frenzy by the anti-French and conservative(reactionary in this sense) Federalists. However, John Adams opposed this war, because he recognized the danger. He refused to ask Congress for a declaration of war.

We lost a substantial amount of ships(mostly private merchants), but no actual war ever broke out. I think it was more protection of American shippers and some aggression on both sides, but it was highly limited. The two countries only really fought in the West Indies along trade routes, and there were no huge naval battles. John Adams lost the claim to fame he could have had from war, but in my eyes he is the true patriot for heeding Washington's advice. Had we been thrown into war with France, the US would have been a shadow of Britain and too weak to oppose European meddling in its sovereign territory.

[heavenlyboy34]

Barbary and Quasi Wars? What do you think?


Has anyone here studied these two exercises in any detail?

The wars against the barbary pirates were legit because they were declared. (IMHO)

[tremendoustie]

It is my understanding that the Barbary Pirates were attacking US merchant ships so Jefferson sent the Marines to attack them after they informally declared war on the US. The interesting thing is that the was no formal declaration of war by congress. Congress was informed by Jefferson that he was taking the country to war and congress responded by voting to authorize it. Legally speaking I don't really see how there is a real difference between a declaration and an authorization.

If it happened the way I understand it I don't see how it would be any more or less legal than the war in Iraq.

BIG Difference. If congress only "authorizes" the president then they get to point fingers later, and usually don't do their due diligence in the first place to examine the exit strategy, etc -- because hey, they're not on the hook anyway right?

If congress declares war, that means it was their decision to go to war, and that makes them responsible.

[Kotin]

In regards to the Barbary Pirates, who would we have declared war on? That may have been at least in part, the challenge of a formal congressional declaration of war.

Unless I'm mistaken, the local rulers in the Barbary states were at least nominally subject to the Ottoman Turks. It may have been perceived that a declaration of war would have unnecessarily drawn the Ottoman Turks into conflict when we only had a problem with the Barbary Pirates operating out of the ports of Tunis and Algiers (primarily).

The "Iraq War" is entirely different in two ways:
a) the Barbary Pirates were directly attacking our ships and enslaving Americans (when we finally attacked them, many Americans were being held as slaves in North Africa), whereas Iraq represented no direct, demonstrable threat to the United States.
b) Iraq was an internationally recognized, sovereign nation with a fully functioning government (albeit despotic), whereas at worst the Barbary Coast was the haven of roaming mauraders, and at best was a loose affiliation of local rulers, loosely subject to the Ottomans.

I could have some holes in my analysis, but this is how I understand the key differences.


-Cameron

you are correct..

they were not a nation.. there were a nuisance..

to my knowledge, he issued Letters of Marque and Reprisal.. seems sufficient to me.