Year 1783. Modest ships of young USA start crossing the Atlantic Ocean, venturing into high seas.

On July 25, 1785, a Boston registered American ship, named MARIA and captained by Isaac Stevens was captured by the Ottoman naval patrol. Another US ship, DAUPHIN of Philadelphia soon followed the same fate.

When more captures followed, US Congress passed a bill on March 27, 1794 to allocate sufficient funds (700 000 gold pieces) at President's (G. Washington) disposal so that matching US ships could be built.

This was the beginning of the modern US Navy.

In October 5, 1795, USA sought an agreement with Ottoman Empire. According to a treaty that followed, USA paid 642 000 gold pieces for the freedom of American captives kept in Algiers and agreed to pay an annual fee of 12 000 gold pieces (216 000 $/year) for sailing rights in Ottoman controlled waters.

The treaty was written in Turkish only, and the Ottoman Sultan let it be signed by the Ottoman Regent in Algiers, against Washington's signature.

This - I think - is the only international treaty that USA ever signed in a foreign language and agreed to pay the other party.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1795t.htm

Greed was inspiration

Although the Barbary pirates were good at instilling terror, they were not waging a holy war against Americans. They were opportunists, historians say. They first declared war against us in 1785 — when Algeria seized two American vessels off Portugal, imprisoning 21 people — and goaded us into combat again in 1801 and 1815.

They considered themselves "privateers," authorized to confiscate ships and crews just as other feuding countries did. Their enemy? Any nation that hadn't negotiated peace treaties with their rulers in Tunis, Tripoli, Algiers and Morocco.

The banditry was rooted, however, in centuries of religious strife between Muslims and Christians. The pirates, nominally subject to the Ottoman sultan, were still battling the descendants of the Crusaders. In 1605, St. Vincent de Paul was among those kidnapped by the Barbary pirates and sold into slavery to Muslims.

One of the enduring lessons of the Barbary campaigns was to never give in to outlaws. In the late 1700s, America paid significant blackmail for peace — shelling out $990,000 to the Algerians alone at a time when national revenues totaled just $7 million.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Turkish_Navy#Famous_admirals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates

America did not pay for peace...What do you think American ships were doing around Africa coast?

Slave running?

Of course, I would assume that the B. Coast area was part of the US-British slave trade

The surcharge by Ottomans must have pushed slave prices up, dont you think so?

He never kept slaves after Islam...One slave he had previosly was freed...

He chose to remain a close companion to Muhammad, in his free life.

This is history....Do you want to forget history?

I would not mind that...

May be not, when it works against Turks...Is that what you mean?

True, the guy before Ataturk was your great friend.

He left Istanbul as a guest in a British naval ship, along with the rest of the fleeing Brits.

Alpha, I assure you that all the things you hate about Britain, past and present, are shared by me. I am the first to criticise my country.

However the smug, arrogant way that Turks feel about whiter-than-white Turkey and their distorted view of Turkish history makes me sometimes try to show you another side to your argument.

Silly me for trying It is impossible to discuss rational things with the brain-washed. It is like trying to talk with a terrorist.

The point is...it makes me sick to my stomach here, listening to irresponsible voices accusing Turks of relocating Armenians by about 300 kilometers - the idea being their removal from cross fire - even if the operation was not very succesful and some were hurt: While they should know that their grandfathers were decent slave merchants.

Shall we discuss now where slavery originated?

Origins in dark history is not important....Do you want to discuss who kept slaves until yesterday?

In addition, the middle east is unique in it's sexual slavery:-

"Female slaves were long traded to the Middle Eastern countries and kingdoms by Arab traders, and sold into sexual slavery to work as concubines or prostitutes. Typically, females were sold at a lower price than their male counterparts, with one exception being when (predominantly) Irish women captured in Viking raids were sold to the Middle East in the 800-1200 period."

We come to Turkish Class because we love Turkey. Then we find out how much you all hate evil westerners. Some argue back, others ignore it because they are in love and others get angry at us for daring to insult you back

Ahhhh its a wonderful place

You don't include yourself as the "get angry when other insult back" brigade then?

Why do you still come here Libra? I never see you post anything except complaints about me Perhaps I am your sole reason - how wonderful canim

Yes yet again, I am the one who is causing arguments

Sorry, please happily continue to talk about all the bad things that the west has done and all the good things Turkey has done. It is completely wrong to argue with you, however light heartedly. It upsets you so much

Oh... and post a few poems while you are at it.

Who do you change the topic to islam on your every post ? By generalizing the things, why do you use them for accusation against to Turks ? What is your purpose ? By calling your as western person ( also the rest is only the east as to you), do you think that you surpassed all of others in the world ? Do you think that you have a hammer to see the all of others as nails ? Or do you think all of others who have nails need to your hammer ?

We can make this world utterly peaceful by destroying it.

A laconism by ETKO

An Arab sheikh goes to the U.S. and meets with the President of the U.S. When the meeting is over, at the doorway of White House, sheikh asks to President about a subjet what he curious about:

- Mr. President, i like the tv series alot what entitled Star Trek. although there are too many people from every races but not Arabs. Why ?

President replies:

-Because this tv series tell about the future.

Do you think that the villages in Sicily were located on hilltops to protect from Barbary Pirate Invasions? My husband thinks probably so, because the Barbary Pirates raided close to villages all the time.

Some of you guys are so prejudiced, you get lost in labirents created for you.

Regarding the Ottoman-USA naval treaty of 1795, there seems to be a general agreement - in the group - that the US ships picked by the Ottomans were probably involved in the lucrative slave trade.

My question now is why did the Ottoman Navy bothered to patrol these remote sea routes used by USA-British slave carriers. Were the Ottomans after stealing the Africans already chained by others, or were they trying to stop this filthy trade?

Any educated guesses?

No no, I am joking of course. The Ottoman Navy (and indeed the whole empire) was a kind of peace keeping force. They were so pure and good and their only aim in life was to see justice, free the slaves, give riches to the poor, and make the world a lovely place.

I think their make shift compass was broken..that's my thought.

I know a pistol which named "Peacemaker" that made in wild wild west

... I already answered Alpha
Post 54

apparently whenever western is criticised in this site you say the same " oh you are western haters you never accept that ottoman did the same ..." you dont have to defend your countries.. yes nearly all europen countries and USA did slavery trade. why do you take it personal. why do you take it insulting to your country..yes most of eastern countries did the same..but it doesnt change the fact that USA took thousands of blacks from africa to america by ships.

i expected your objection what alpha said to be deeper than saying "mohammad did the same".

The pirates of Barbary coast, as western sources like to refer to them, did start our as pirates in Mediterrenean, only to stop the reign of the prevailing Christian pirates.

Likes of Barbarossa, Dragut etc...rose to be Chief Naval Officers of the Ottoman Sultan, and stopped pirating as there were no worthy opponents left.

In the peak of their power, they ruled lands bigger than Holland, Belgium, Italy and france put together,

They were all devout moslems. any one familiar with their upbringing can not imagine them separating from ways of Muhammad(sunnet)...when it comes to slavery.

Anyway, happy to leave you Turks to discuss this alone. It is much friendlier that way

I am spoiling your evening (again)

The Muslim Arab World also traded in slavery, especially with the Byzantine Empire. These consisted of Turkic and Circassian males from northern Black Sea regions who were enlisted into the army. This soldier class was named Mamelukes and were mainly responsible for the expulsion of the Crusaders from Palestine. Officially Islam dislikes the idea of slavery and had set rules for dealing with slaves, such as mandated liberation on conversion to Islam, an insistence that slaves be clothed and fed in the same manner as is their master, and that they not be forced into marriage, among other prohibitons. Slavery was abolished in Saudi Arabia in 1962, making it one of the last countries to ban this practice

When things get rough, the tough gets going ))))))))))))

By 1793, the loss of American ships to the Algerine pirates had grown at an alarming rate. The following year, President George Washington asked Congress to approve a bill authorizing the creation of a naval force to protect American merchant vessels from the North African pirates. Congress complied in March 1794 with An Act to Provide for a Naval Armament, which authorized the creation of a fleet of six ships. This act marked the beginning of the United States Navy. Interestingly, the act did not provide for a navy department, but rather placed the navy's ships under the direction of the secretary of war. Further, the act did not create a long-term standing navy. It merely authorized the creation of a navy for use against Algiers, and stated that should a peaceful resolution to the conflict develop, the building of the American ships would cease. Clearly, Congress was not yet convinced that a standing navy was essential to the peace and security of the new nation.

Make it 10 years in solitude. Hardly enough to bring you to your senses )))))))))))))))

Do you recall this treaty?
Turkey signed a "Treaty of Friendship and cooperation" with Nazi Germany in June 1941. Soon afterwards, it selectively mobilized young men of Greek, Armenian and Jewish descent between the ages of 25 and 40. These "conscripts", many of whom suffered a tragic death, were sent to forced labour camps in the depths of Turkey’s eastern provinces. The following year, 1942, Turkey imposed the Varlık Vergisi, a special tax, which ruined the Greek minority's economy

During World War II, Turkey remained neutral until February 1945. Officially, the tax was devised to fill the state treasury that would be needed if the Germans or Russians would invade the country. However, it is argued that another main reason was to nationalize the Turkish economy by reducing the minority populations' influence and control over the country's trade, finance and industries.

The tax was paid by all citizens of Turkey, but the country's non-Muslim inhabitants were generally imposed higher tariffs, often in an arbitrary and unrealistic way.

Around 2,000 people, who could not pay the enormous amount demanded for this sudden tax within the time-limit of 30 days, were arrested and sent to a forced labor camp in Aşkale near Bayburt in eastern Turkey.

What are you talking about etko? Your ideas about the ground only prove that you're a narrow minded nationalist.
You are being so ridiculous to "argue" that there's as little freedom of speech in the UK as there is in Turkey. It's just pathetic. Please stop making this ridiculous distinction between "criticize" and "insult". Especially that Turks get insulted by any sort of criticism! In normal countries people can insult whoever they want. It's only hate speech that's banned (which strangely enough doesn't apply to muslims in Europe).

I just wonder if someone would spit out your face by words , would you take this a critism or insult ? Or do you think the rain started to down on ?

Only weak ideas can't withstand criticism. Don't you know that? Some professionals call people who can't handle criticism "insecure". Look it up!

BTW, What Pamuk said is , "Turks murdered over 1 million Armenians and 40.000 Kurds. We have to accept that". Do you think , whole nation and State (of course) will accept that just because Pamuk said so ? He never told his sources, because he has no. Why any other famous Turk does not say this ? And why Pamuk said this while he was run for nobel ? Did't he know that before ? He was famous in the past too. Selfsekeer greedy flies always find a crap to perch.

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/firstamendment/advocates/advocates.htm

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/firstamendment/advocates/advocates.htm
all entries below are taken from dictionary.com

Main Entry: free speech
Function: noun
1 : speech that is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
2 : FREEDOM OF SPEECH


crit•i•cize ˈkrɪt əˌsaɪz - Show Spelled Pronunciation[krit-uh-sahyz] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -cized, -ciz•ing.
–verb (used with object)
1. to censure or find fault with.
2. to judge or discuss the merits and faults of: to criticize three novels in one review.
–verb (used without object)
3. to find fault; judge unfavorably or harshly.
4. to make judgments as to merits and faults.
Also, especially British, crit•i•cise.

________________________________________
[Origin: 1640–50; CRITIC + -IZE ]

in•sult v. ɪnˈsʌlt; n. ˈɪn sʌlt - Show Spelled Pronunciation[v. in-suhlt; n. in-suhlt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object)
1. to treat or speak to insolently or with contemptuous rudeness; affront.
2. to affect as an affront; offend or demean.
3. Archaic. to attack; assault.
–verb (used without object)
4. Archaic. to behave with insolent triumph; exult contemptuously (usually fol. by on, upon, or over).
–noun
5. an insolent or contemptuously rude action or remark; affront.
6. something having the effect of an affront: That book is an insult to one's intelligence.
7. Medicine/Medical.
a. an injury or trauma.
b. an agent that inflicts this.

8. Archaic. an attack or assault.
________________________________________
[Origin: 1560–70; < L insultāre to jump on, insult, equiv. to in- IN-2 + -sultāre, comb. form of saltāre to jump; see SALTANT ]

—Related forms
in•sult•a•ble, adjective
in•sult•er, noun

—Synonyms 1. offend, scorn, injure, abuse. 5. offense, outrage. INSULT, INDIGNITY, AFFRONT, SLIGHT imply an act that injures another's honor, self-respect, etc. INSULT implies such insolence of speech or manner as deeply humiliates or wounds one's feelings and arouses to anger. INDIGNITY is esp. used of inconsiderate, contemptuous treatment toward one entitled to respect. AFFRONT implies open disrespect or offense shown, as it were, to the face. SLIGHT may imply inadvertent indifference or disregard, which may also indicate ill-concealed contempt.
—Antonyms 1, 5. compliment.

bick•er1 ˈbɪk ər - Show Spelled Pronunciation[bik-er] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used without object)
1. to engage in petulant or peevish argument; wrangle: The two were always bickering.
2. to run rapidly; move quickly; rush; hurry: a stream bickering down the valley.
3. to flicker; glitter: The sun bickered through the trees.
–noun
4. an angry, petty dispute or quarrel; contention.
________________________________________
[Origin: 1250–1300; ME bikeren < ? ]

Ermmm thank you, I never knew there was such a thing as a dictionary.

Please note the the first amendment only applies to the US.

In other democratic countries there is no responsibility of the 'state' to decide on the control of Freedom of Speech, unlike the US.

In most countries it is considered a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

I think we would agree that we all have a duty to learn and, wherever possible, act on what we find out, where necessary.

On the subject of slavery, I am more interested in the present and the following link gives each and everyone of us (whatever our political, cultural or religious persuasion)an opportunity to make a difference. Some may have already acted.

http://www.stopthetraffik.org/chocolatecampaign/

So, it's possible we are all contributing to slavery, consciously or not. Well who ever reds this is now conscious of it.

Divine chocolate is widely available in the UK now but I don't know about elsewhere. Green and Blacks do one line of Fairtrade chocolate . . . it is the Maya Gold flavour. If you don't live where alternatives are available well, there's always chewing gum

Aenigma III,

If i could know how ridicilous opinions you have , i would spelled them all out. When you said that you defend all the WEST , so why France is beyond your scope ? Isn't it in the WEST ? Or you have different aim, by hiding behind this freedom of expession in Turkey ?

Here's what you typed :

In other democratic countries there is no responsibility of the 'state' to decide on the control of Freedom of Speech, unlike the US.

That's why i referred France. Or in Germany, talk about Jew Genocide, You would find yourself in jail. What is the power that put the people in jail on those countries ? it is STATE.

Finally, read below twice :

The European Convention on Human Rights

ARTICLE 10

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Relax Alameda....Believe me, they are no match for you.

We have a saying here in Turkey.

Herşeyi Kendine Yontmak.

you as a turkish learner, look up what it means for.

Almeda, I just read my post back and it reads as though I am referring to you in my criticism. I'm not, I just carried away on the soap box. I hope you realised my mistake.

Excuse me teaschip1.....if this is true kindly show your evidence. On another note, as you have noted, I always show my sources....much to your dismay so it seems. I have never instigated a personal attack. I only respond.....and not anywhere near to as many attacks on me as you and your friends have made.

As I don't want to dignify your post any further than this or get into personal attacks which are of no interest to the members here, this will be my only response. However, note I do see your silly attempts to discredit me.

Are you guys stll on this thread?

Join "Turks/Armenians and hidden archives" thread. I am getting sleepy here !

Where are our PKK sympathizers? The Armenians seem to be after the same land too. Is this land not also a part of Judaic Promised land ?

No kidding !

Bravery or terrorism?
And... following is the American version of the same story:

Terrorism In Early America

The U.S. Wages War Against The Barbary States
To End International Blackmail and Terrorism


By Thomas Jewett


The events of September 11, 2001 shocked the United States out of its complacency concerning its invulnerability. Even though the U.S. has the most powerful military machine on earth, it might be of little avail; it seems that a new type of war will be fought. A war that will need resolve, years of effort, and new tactics.
This is not the first conflict in which America has faced such deprivations against life and property. There was another time when it was determined that diplomacy would not only be futile, but humiliating and in the long run disastrous. A time when ransom or tribute would not buy peace. A time when war was considered more effective and honorable. And, a time when war would be fought, not with large concentrations of military might, but by small bands peopled with individuals of indomitable spirit.
Almost 180 years ago our infant country attacked Tripoli under circumstances that are eerily similar to contemporary times. That conflict, immortalized in the Marine Corps Hymn, "From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli" called the Tripolitan War or the Barbary Pirate War, came shortly after we gained our independence from England. The United States chose to fight the pirates of Barbary, rather than pay tribute, as did all the other nations who traded in the Mediterranean Sea. The decision was bold, but the eventual victory by the tiny United States Navy broke a pattern of international blackmail and terrorism dating back more than one hundred and fifty years.

The Barbary States was a collective name given to a string of North African seaports stretching from Tangiers to Tripoli. These ports were under the nominal control of the Ottoman Empire, but their real rulers were sea rovers or corsairs who sallied forth from the coast cities to plunder Mediterranean shipping and capture slaves for labor or ransom. Among the famous prisoners ransomed from the shackles of Barbary were St. Vincent de Paul, and Miguel de Cervantes, author of Don Quixote (Castor, 1971).
Common piracy by the Barbary States blossomed into a sophisticated racket in 1662, when England revived the ancient custom of paying tribute. The corsairs agreed to spare English ships for an annual bribe paid in gold, jewels, arms, and supplies. The custom spread to all countries trading in the Mediterranean.
England paid tribute for the vessels of her American colonies, and France guaranteed it for them during the War of Independence. The new United States awoke abruptly to an ugly responsibility of independence when in 1785 the Dey of Algiers seized an American ship and jailed its crew for nonpayment of tribute (Channing, 1968).
The Dey was in no hurry to wring tribute from this new source of revenue. The capture of American ships would be more profitable, and in view of the naval weakness of the United States, a rather safe venture. Eleven of the first unfortunate Americans to fall into his hands died before their country ransomed the rest ten years later.
To the sea hawks of Barbary, the American ships in the Mediterranean were "fat ducks" prime for the plucking. In this view, they were encouraged by England and France whose trade was being hurt by the upstart Yankees (Castor, 1971). Turkey, overlord of Barbary, was an ally of Britain. The North Africans depended on free trade with France for supplies. Hence the pirates were forbidden to attack British shipping and in plain self-interest could not raid the French. With targets so limited, the American "fat ducks" were a godsend. By 1794, the Dey of Algiers had plundered eleven American ships and held one hundred and nineteen of their survivors for ransom.
President George Washington tried to reach an agreement with the Barbary States but with little success. His agents, one of whom was John Paul Jones, had diplomatic doors slammed in their faces.
Washington's ambassadors in Europe worked to free Americans enslaved in Barbary dungeons, but John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson were ridiculed.
In 1785, the exasperated Jefferson suggested that war was the only solution. His mind was "absolutely suspended between indignation and impotence." Jefferson declared that tribute was "money thrown away" and that the most convincing argument that these outlaws would understand was gunpowder and shot. The future president proposed a multi-national effort between European powers and America that would in effect economically blockade North Africa and ultimately provide for a multi-national military force to combat pirate terrorism. The European powers chose to continue paying tribute to the Barbary States (Irwin, 197.
John Adams, the next President, went along with the Europeans and paid for peace in the Mediterranean. Congress, in 1795, authorized payment of tribute. Algiers was granted the equivalent of $642,500 in cash, munitions, and a 36-gun frigate, besides a yearly tribute of $21,600 worth of naval supplies. Ransom rates were officially set for those Americans already in Barbary prisons-$4,000 for each passenger, $1,400 for each cabin boy. Sunday after Sunday, a sad roll of names was read out in the churches of Salem, Newport, and Boston, listing the men in irons. Congress would only pay $200 for their freedom, the rest of the money had to be raised privately. Eventually, at long last, the American captives of the Dey of Algiers walked into the light, except for thirty-seven dead, whose ransoms had to be paid nevertheless (Malone, 1951).
Adam's acquiescence to Algiers prompted Tunis and Tripoli to demand and be promised their own blood money. Tripoli, especially, was piqued at the Dey of Algiers' good fortune.

The payment of blackmail did not end the indignities perpetrated by Barbary. An absurd episode in 1800 pointed up the futility of giving in to the pirates. When the frigate George Washington docked in Algiers with a consignment of tribute, the Dey, to impress his master, the Sultan of Turkey, shanghaied the American ship to run an errand for him. The captain of the luckless ship, William Bainbridge, was forced to haul down the American flag and to run up the Algerian colors. The George Washington was commandeered to take a shipment of treasure, livestock, and some lions to the Sultan in Istanbul (Irwin, 197.
Yusuf, the Pasha of Tripoli, seeing the weakness of the Americans, decided to increase demands on the United States. Among the trifles he ordered as part of the American tribute were several diamond-studded guns. On the occasion of the death of George Washington the Pasha informed President Adams that it was customary when a great man passed away from a tributary state to make a gift in his name to the crown of Tripoli. Yusuf estimated Washington to be worth about $10,000.
By the spring of 1801, Yusuf had heard nothing about his $10,000 and his impatience with America had grown to a fine rage. The Pasha summoned the American representative to his court, made him kiss his hand and decreed that, as a penalty, tribute would be raised to $225,000, plus $25,000 annually in goods of his choice. If refused, the alternative was war. To make his point, Yusuf had his soldiers chop down the flagpole in front of the American consulate, a significant gesture in a land of no tall trees-and one that meant war (Channing, 1968).
The reason for Yusuf's lack of tribute was that the United States had a new president — the former frustrated ambassador, Thomas Jefferson. Upon entering office, Jefferson had been appalled to discover that tribute and ransoms paid to Barbary had exceeded $2,000,000, or about one-fifth, of the entire annual income of the United States government.
Jefferson decided that a little "showing of the flage" in the Mediterranean was more appropriate than tribute. He ordered the frigates President, Essex, and Philadelphia and the sloop Enterprise to blockade Tripoli and convoy American shipping (Malone, 197. This squadron, under Commodore Richard Dale, had to patrol and control a coastline over 1,200 miles in distance, which resulted in a "most desultory blockade." The lone success of the force was the defeat of a larger Tripolitan ship by Enterprise. Since there had been no declaration of war by the United States, the Barbary cruiser could not be taken as a prize. However, the captain of the Enterprise did have all of the corsair's guns thrown overboard before allowing the ship to continue on its way, with sixty casualties to his none (Channing, 1968).
Yusuf was so furious at his captain's defeat at the hand of the American "fat ducks" that he had him bastinadoed (beaten on the soles of his feet) and paraded backward on a donkey, his neck festooned with sheep's entrails (Castor, 1971).
At this time, U.S. naval enlistments were for only one year, so in March 1802, Commodore Dale sailed home. Congress still refused to declare war against Tripoli, but did levy a light war tax and proclaimed "protection of commerce" by the navy.

Command of the American effort evolved in September 1803 to Captain Edward Preble, who immediately set about on the offensive. He scored a bloodless victory at Tangier by convincing the Sultan of Morocco that it would be to his benefit not to molest American shipping in the future. Preble accomplished this feat by sailing the Constitution into Tangier harbor, opening up the gun ports, running out the cannon, and pointing them at the Sultan's palace. The Sultan hastened to agree, and to seal the bargain, supplied the crew of the ship with provisions (Channing, 1968).
The glow of success was soon tarnished when news reached Preble of the capture of the frigate Philadelphia. The Philadelphia arrived on station in the Mediterranean ahead of the rest of the squadron. Its captain, William Bainbridge, unwisely set about trying to blockade Tripoli alone. On October 31, while pursuing a corsair under full sail, Philadelphia grounded on a sandbar about two miles offshore. Despite five hours of desperate work by her crew, she stuck fast. With her broadsides tilted at crazy angles, her firing was harmless to the pirates' small craft that quickly swarmed about her.
Bainbridge, after jettisoning his useless cannon, and thinking the ship's carpenter had scuttled the ship, surrendered to prevent a massacre. Three hundred and seven Americans were taken prisoner, put in chains, and forced to slave in the building of Tripoli's fortifications (Irwin, 197.
Preble's hands were tied. Any action by the Americans might result in the Pasha murdering Philadelphia's crewmen in reprisal. So, Preble first offered $50,000 and then $100,000 for their release, but was scornfully refused. Whereupon, Preble released his own seahawk, Stephen Decatur.

In December, young Lieutenant Decatur, captain of the Enterprise, had apprehended an enemy ketch, a four-gun vessel of shallow draft, which could be rowed. Decatur planned a raid to destroy the unlucky Philadelphia, whom the pirates had refloated and were rigging for action against the Americans. Decatur's plan called for the use of a native vessel, and the captured ketch filled the bill.
Decatur and his small crew disguised as North Africans sailed the Barbary ketch into Tripoli harbor on the night of February 15, 1804. The tiny craft bumped into the Philadelphia, and Decatur's boarding party flung grappling hooks to lash the rails together. Then yelling and screaming, they leaped onto the deck of the frigate. As a pirate reported later, the Americans "sent Decatur on a dark night, with a band of Christian dogs fierce and cruel as the tiger, who killed our brothers and burnt our ships before our eyes." Decatur's men wielded tomahawks and killed twenty pirates in as many minutes, chasing the rest over the side. Only one raider was wounded before the Philadelphia was set afire in four places. Then the Americans withdrew (Castor, 1971).
Decatur's luck held in the even more perilous escape from the harbor. The Pasha's artillery thundered wildly after the brazen Americans, but the little ketch, scarcely scratched, was rowed through the storm, to rejoin the American squadron (Castor, 1971).
When British Admiral Lord Nelson heard of the raid, he called it "the most bold and daring act of the age." Decatur, just twenty-five, won promotion to captain-then the highest rank in the navy-and remains the youngest man ever to be so honored (Bobby-Evans, 2001).
Decatur's act, no matter how bold and daring, did not alter radically the situation in the Mediterranean. Tripoli was defended by 25,000 soldiers and 115 cannon ashore, and 24 warships guarded the harbor. Against them Preble could pit only 1,060 men aboard seven ships, of which only the Constitution was heavy-gunned. Without troops to storm the port, all that Preble and his men could do was to disrupt the Pasha's economy by not allowing the pirates to practice their trade and to keep the pasha on the defensive (Channing, 1968).
On August 3, Preble's squadron sailed into Tripoli harbor to open bombardment of the city. The pirates were sheltered safe behind thick walled defenses, some of which had been constructed by Philadelphia's crew under the lash.
The bombardment caused little damage, but Preble was pleased by the behavior of his crews who had taken on the pirates at their own game. The corsairs were supposed to be invincible at hand-to-hand fighting, but never again would they attempt this, their favorite method of attacking and boarding on an American ship. The "fat ducks" had turned into fierce seahawks. American sailors led by men like Lieutenant John Trippe, outnumbered three to one, killed twenty-one of the pirates and captured fifteen in one engagement alone. Trippe himself took eleven wounds from a Turkish captain before ending the combat with a pike thrust. Three Tripolitan gunboats were captured, and one sunk (Castor, 1971).
Only one American was lost; Decatur's younger brother, James, had been treacherously murdered by the captain of a pirate ship after its surrender. Stephen Decatur avenged his brother by killing the murderer in a savage man-to-man encounter before witnesses (Castor, 1971).
Preble returned five times to harass and bombard Tripoli, but without troops to affect a landing, they were basically ineffectual. His tour of duty over, Preble returned home in modest triumph, to be commended by the President, to receive a gold medal from Congress, and to die of tuberculosis a year later. Pope Pius VII said that under Preble's orders Americans "had done more for the cause of Christianity than the most powerful nations of Christendom have done for ages" (Castor, 1971).
Preble's successor, Captain Samuel Barron, led the largest flotilla assembled under the American flag up to that time: six frigates, seven brigs, and ten gunboats. Barron had another weapon on his flagship, William Eaton, former Consul of Tunis (Irwin, 197.
Eaton knew that Tripoli could be taken if ground troops were committed or if the political climate of the city could be altered. Eaton planned to do both. His scheme called for fomenting rebellion to supplant Yusuf with his brother Hamet (Channing, 1968).
To achieve his design Eaton had at his disposal $20,000 in cash, the little brig Argus, and a cadre of nine men. One of the latter was a midshipmen-man by the name of Pascal Paoli Peck, and the other eight were United States Marines led by Lieutenant Presley O'Bannon. This handful of men would share in an incredible adventure little recalled today except in the Marine Corps Hymn (Pike, 2001).
Eaton and the puppet Hamet met at Alexandria, Egypt and agreed to attack Yusuf's port of Derna. In that city Hamet had some support. To avoid an exhausting 500-mile march Eaton wanted to transport the American force by sea, but Hamet insisted that his flighty followers might disappear if the Americans did not march with him.
By promising riches and plunder after victory, "General" Eaton, as Hamet dubbed him, recruited probably the strangest army to march under the stars and stripes. The men were mostly Arabs and Levantine brigands, with some Greeks and other European soldiers of fortune. There were about six hundred in all (Bobby-Evans, 2001).
The expedition would be supplied by sea, and the Argus would pace the marchers just offshore. The Argus' cannon would provide Eaton with minimal naval support, and her eight marines were added to the rabble army.
The motley force moved out of Alexandria on March 8, 1805, along a route now made famous during World War II. Two of Eaton's rest stops were at Tobruk and El Alamein. Eaton's army, like those of the future would suffer from the sandstorms of the khamsin wind, which brings darkness at midday (Castor, 1971).
On the march Eaton's Arab cavalry threatened to mutiny. Eaton outfaced the horde with a show of bayonets from his squad of eight marines. Eventually Eaton's $20,000 was drained, and at times, he had to borrow money from his marines and Greek mercenaries to keep the expedition going (Irwin, 197.
The Argus lost contact with the march about 90 miles from Derna, just as the land forces' food gave out. Some of the mercenaries vowed to quit, but Eaton coaxed them to eat a pack camel and wait a day or so. Fortunately the Argus reappeared on April 16, followed by the Hornet, with food and munitions. After a few days rest, Eaton resumed his advance, and arrived outside of Derna on April 25 (Irwin, 197.
To Eaton's demand for surrender, the captain of Derna's defenses replied, "My head or yours!" After two days of maneuvering, Eaton's lone cannon opened on Derna's stonewalls and houses. The noise was impressive, dust flew, and in their excitement the Greek artillerymen burst the cannon by firing it with the rammer still in the tube (Castor, 1971).
At four in the afternoon, Eaton ordered a frontal attack, and with his tiny force of eight marines and fifty Greeks charged the walls. The town was won but at a high cost of fourteen dead, two of them marines. Eaton took a musket ball through the wrist in the assault, which captured the first city in the Old World by Americans (Bobby-Evans, 2001).
The victors were besieged in Derna throughout the month of May, but Hamet's cavalry repulsed the attacks. Eaton begged Commodore Barron to proclaim Hamet the new ruler of Tripoli, and to reinforce his troops for the 700-mile march on the Pasha's capital. Barron refused both requests because Yusuf had reopened negotiations with the American consul for the release of the Philadelphia's crew (Bobby-Evans, 2001).
An agreement was reached. Eaton and Hamet fled from the shores of Tripoli with the marines and Christian mercenaries to escape certain death at the hands of their angry followers, for whom peace would end all prospects of loot. What the fearless Eaton might have accomplished with the one hundred or more marines who were idle aboard Barron's squadron is tantalizing to imagine (Bobby-Evans, 2001).
The negotiated treaty with Yusuf called for the release of all prisoners, an end to slave taking and ship seizure, and a final ransom of $60,000. Yusuf was more than eager to sign. American naval presence had destroyed his normal source of revenue, and he had been alarmed at the success of Eaton's ragtag army (Irwin, 197.
The Dey of Tunis, seeing what had happened to Tripoli, sent a blooded horse to Jefferson as a sign of peace and the end of tribute. Jefferson, a horseman, refused the gift. The Americans now thought that the Mediterranean was safe for United States' shipping, and brought Barron's squadron home (Castor, 1971).
However, in the fall of 1807, Algiers detained three vessels. Freedom was bought for the ships and crew for a mere $18,000 but it signaled the resumption of two bad habits, pirate terrorism and tribute. The renewal of these would last for many years and cause the American navy to once again sail against Barbary.
The war with England during 1812-14 pushed the Barbary pirates into the back of American concerns. In any event, retaliation against the corsairs would have been impossible, for after 1812 the American navy was swept from the seas by the British.
As soon as the American navy was no longer a threat, the Dey of Algiers announced a "policy to increase the number of my American slaves," whereupon he captured the brig Edwin and its crew in August 1812. This situation lasted until the end of the war with England (Irwin, 197.
On March 2, 1815, ten weeks after the end of the War of 1812, the United States formally declared hostilities against Algiers. Retribution, long delayed but richly deserved, was dispatched in the form of ten tall ships under the command of the scourge of Barbary, Stephen Decatur (Pike, 2001).
The punitive expedition arrived off Algiers in June. Decatur promptly shot up the flagship of the Dey's fleet, capturing it with 486 prisoners. He then sent an ultimatum to the Dey: Free every slave at once, pay an indemnity of $10,000 to the survivors of the brig Edwin, and cease all demands for tribute forever.
Numbed by Decatur's ferocity, the Dey whined that perhaps there had been a "misunderstanding" which he would like to correct with "the amiable James Madison, the Emperor of America" (Castor, 1971).
Tunis and Tripoli were next on Decatur's list. The Dey of Tunis groomed his beard with a diamond-encrusted comb and complained, "Why do they send wild young men to treat for peace with the old powers?" Still, he paid the Americans $46,000 to go away. In its turn, Tripoli felt Decatur's wrath, paying him a $25,000 indemnity and freeing its slaves (Castor, 1971).
The "old powers" never again molested any American ships. Decatur's swift and firm action impelled the other European powers to follow the American example. The degrading yoke of tribute and the raiding of the Barbary corsairs were over.
America's involvement in the Tripolitan War suppressed pirate terrorism in the Mediterranean only after resolute action. It also saw the development of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps with their proud traditions, and for the first time America made its presence known, not as a "fat duck" but as an eagle in the world of the old empires.

Bibliography
Bobby-Evans, Alistor. (2001). "The Tripolitan War 1801-1805".
http://africanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa092001a.htm.
Castor, Henry. (1971). The Tripolitan War 1801-1805. Franklin Watts, In. New York.
Channing, Edward. (1968). The Jeffersonian System 1801-1811. Cooper Square Publishers, Inc. New York.
Irwin, Ray W. (197. The Diplomatic Relations of the United States With the Barbary Powers 1776-1816. Russel & Russel. New York.
Malone, Dumas. (1951). Jefferson and the Rights of Man. Little, Brown and Company. Boston.
Malone, Dumas. (197. Jefferson the President First Term 1801-1805. Little, Brown and Company. Boston.
Pike, John. "Barbary Wars". http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/barbary.htm.

Original Source: Early America Review » Winter/Spring 2002

Teaschip,
I am not speaking for anyone. I was actually thinking of you when I pointed out the misquote/misunderstanding, so that more negative retorts might be avoided. Yes, the words you highlighted from Alameda’s post are different to the ones you “quote” in the body of your reply. Look carefully and you will see. And from the rest of what you say, it’s clear to anyone that you have misunderstood her sentence. You interpreted what she said as her admission that she makes attacks on you but not as many as you and your friends make on her when what she was saying was that she does not respond to every attack you make.

If I read a thread where someone had misquoted/miinterpreted you I would have done the same.

Teaschip, I am not defending anyone. I said at the beginning of my previous post that I didn’t want to get involved in the argument you have with Alameda. I don’t know the history between the two of you , because as you say, I haven’t been a member for very long. I am not entering the argument about who attacks who , I was simply pointing out the misunderstanding about that particular sentence.

For some reason, some members of this site seem to think I have been a member before. I don’t know why this is, but people seem to be obsessed and I’ve had pm s about it. So . . . this is the story. I joined the site under the name Kimmie as this is my actual name . How naive can a person be . I received several unwanted pms from young Turks and in the end sought Admin’s advice and he advised me to request to be deleted and then register again. This is what I did. If anybody feels the need then they have my permission to ask Admin for a history of my membership. Why is there such a culture of mistrust amongst some people on this site. It's a Turkish Language Website, existing for the benefit of all who are interested in Turkey, it's people, it's culture and it's language.

I’m finished with this thread now teaschip. You can say whatever you like dear.

You mentioned dementia in one of your posts, I don't have a problem interpreting. But next time, I know who to ask. Bye the way, I really didn't need an explanation Kimmie as to your reincarnation, but thanks for sharing.

I went back and reread as your suggested and came up with the same conclusion..If she was stating she only responds, but doesn't attack as much as others that's what I have concluded. I still come up with the same meaning.

You mentioned before you didn't want to get involve, but you did. So, I can see how you and Alameda both interprete alike.

MICKEY MOUSE STORIES

The so called brave American sailors, in this Mickey Mouse story, were slave traders.

They clowned in every possible way to continue their trade, including bribery, blackmail and terrorism - not unlike their policies today - but somebody first made them pay, than stopped them altogether.

There were some brave and honorable Americans who helped the fight against slavery and slave trade, too.

Slavery and Abolition in the Ottoman Middle East

The author of this book acknowledges that a seemingly large part of the material presented in this study has appeared before now in several of his own publications, listed in the preface and in the bibliography. In fact, Ehud R. Toledano's earliest publication, The Ottoman Slave Trade and Its Suppression, carries almost the same title as the present volume. In one place he states: "These were either thoroughly revised, updated with few changes, or just reassessed in light of recent research. In some cases, sections were taken out of articles and woven into the narrative of other chapters" (xi). Referring to certain items in the text, the author adds in a footnote, "substantially revised versions of the last three items are woven into various parts of the present book" (136).

These and other such "confessions" should not detract from the ultimate value of putting together in one volume the end product of several years of research on a topic that still engages and fascinates the modern reader. At least one thing Toledano finally puts to rest, namely the romanticized concept of the Ottoman harem system, which he shows was chiefly the result of many a European traveler's fertile imagination!

In addition to military-administrative slavery, the author distinguishes other forms of slavery: the Kul/ Harem system, agricultural slaves, and domestic slavery. He accomplishes this in an introduction, five chapters, and a conclusion. Aside from passing references to earlier periods, the discussion is limited to the situation as it existed during the nineteenth century and its abolition before the First World War.

The introduction, "Ottoman Slavery and the Slave Trade," deals in general terms with slavery and challenges many of the standard writers on the subject (e.g., Inalcik, Pipes, Findley, Patterson, and Lewis) regarding the question of the servility of slaves. Several times the reader is asked to see "further below"--a rather disruptive request!

The first two chapters deal with Kul/ Harem slavery, which was by far the most important aspect of the Ottoman slave system. There are special sections on African eunuchs and slave dealers. Also included here is the firsthand report (in translation from the original Turkish text) of the story of a Circassian slave-girl that Toledano had published in a previous article.
Agricultural slavery is dealt with in the third chapter, where the story is told of large groups of Circassians, "ostensibly Muslim," who were thrown out of southern Russia and then showed up in Ottoman territory to become what the author refers to as "agricultural slaves" (84). A historical background section on Russian-Ottoman confrontation in the Caucasus region would have been welcome to help explain the exodus of Circassians from that region; an aspect of the problem is still with us, in the issue of Chechnya.

In Chapter four, the author reviews the reform policies of the Ottoman government (the so-called Tanzimat), and how these policies ultimately led to the abolition of the institution of slavery. Chapter five, which is perhaps the most useful chapter for the researcher on Ottoman and general Middle Eastern slavery, brings the reader up-to-date on recent publications on the subject. Rather immodestly, Toledano includes himself writing, "My own ventures into the suppression of the Ottoman slave trade ... have attempted to rescue the topic from the oblivion it does not merit" (138). The concluding section, "Ottoman Slavery in World Slavery" attempts to place the topic within a wider context, but Toledano gives up that exercise and quickly returns to make further comments on some of the points made earlier in the discussion.
The book would have benefited from a glossary of technical terms, especially those in Turkish and Arabic, for there are scores of such terms in italics throughout the book. The index is rather skimpy and needs to be more comprehensive.

By Ehud R. Toledano. (Seattle and London: University of Washington Press, 1998. Pp. xii, 185. $18.00.)


Toledano's book will become a standard work on the subject together with Leslie P. Peirce's The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire (1993). Both studies seem to be quite indispensable for a proper understanding of the subject.
Michel M. Mazzaoui University of Utah