CHAPTER IX
Stretchingalong the southern shore of the Mediterranean some 1,800 miles, in the latitude, roughly speaking, of Cape Hatteras, are the regions known to our forefathers as Barbary. The westernmost was Morocco, then Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli. The last three were nominally appanages of the Turkish Empire. Anciently there had been along these shores a high civilization. Carthage (now Tunis) had disputed with Rome the empire of the Mediterranean; she failed through Rome’s final dominancy at sea, and her power was utterly wrecked, as was the city itself. Rome ruled and built thriving cities throughout the coastline mentioned, the remains of which now mark but dimly the footsteps of civilization and history.
With the rise of Mohammedanism, the Arab power swept westward over the entire region. The antagonism of religion brought a continuous warfare between the European and African shores which developed into a piracy whichlasted almost to our own days. A relic of the fear which Europe had for these bold corsairs, who captured vessels of all nations and carried crews and passengers into cruel slavery, is in the many towers of refuge still along the French and Italian rivieras, and the memory is yet in the Litany in the prayer-book of the Episcopal Church in England and America, where we pray for “all prisoners and captives.” Long after the writer entered our navy, the Saturday evening toast, after “Sweethearts and Wives,” was, “Here’s to the downfall of the barbarous Moor.” It was an echo of the epic period of the American navy. For we once did great things in Barbary, of which the average American to-day (and more’s the pity) is almost wholly ignorant. It is in its earlier phase a tale of national humiliation in which all Europe also had full share, but in which our navy had no part; its later phase in which the navy came into action is a very proud story.
The depredations of the Barbary powers were not confined to the Mediterranean, but extended into the North and Irish seas, many inhabitants being carried from these coasts into slavery. There were various efforts to punish these raiding powers in the seventeenth century by Dutch, French, and English, and as late as 1775 a greatexpedition was fitted out by Spain of nearly four hundred vessels, against Algiers, which, however, ended in disaster. This has special interest to us, as Joshua Barney, who was to act a conspicuous part in our naval annals, was impressed, with the Baltimore ship which he commanded, to assist in the transport of troops.
The Barbary vessels were in general large, narrow rowboats, carrying usually two masts, with the lateen sail of the Mediterranean for use in fair winds. The name “galley” was applied in Europe to the largest of such in ordinary use. There was, however, a much larger development in the galleasse, some few of which, used by the Neapolitans, carried 700 men, 300 of whom would be convicts at the oars. There was finally the galleon, the precursor of the frigate, which had masts and sails alone for propulsion. In the large galleys there might be as many as six men at an oar. It may be said that in general the development of the corsair ship followed slowly but fairly closely that of the ship of Europe, and in later years they had a number of the usual square-rigged vessels.[12]
The Christian slaves were employed not onlyin the galleys, but did all kinds of labor; the crew of our frigatePhiladelphia, which in 1803 grounded near Tripoli and thus was captured, was employed in building one of the defences against our own ships, which took the name of the American fort. In the main, however, the captivity was humane and not oppressive.
The claim of the Barbary powers was expressed in a statement of their envoy while in London in 1786, to our minister, John Adams: “That Turkey, Tripoli, Tunis, Algiers, and Morocco were the sovereigns of the Mediterranean; and that no nation could navigate that sea without a treaty of peace with them.”[13]Europe had practically accepted a situation of the most degrading kind; every nautical power paid tribute in money or presents and all had representatives among the Barbary slaves. Even as late as 1816, when the English finally acted, there were eighteen Englishmen among the slaves released by Lord Exmouth’s expedition.
But England’s attitude had not been one of honor. There was no time when she might not have ended the foul situation. Franklin could say in a letter on July 25, 1783, to our secretary of foreign affairs: “I think it not improbable thatthese rovers may be privately encouraged by the English to fall upon us and to prevent our interfering in the carrying trade; for I have in London heard it is a maxim among the merchants, that if there were no Algiers it would be worth England’s while to build one. I wonder, however, that the rest of Europe do not combine to destroy those nests and secure commerce from their future piracies.”[14]Three years later John Adams, our minister in London, was writing Secretary Jay (February 17, 1786): “There are not wanting persons in England who will find means to stimulate this African [the Tripolitan envoy] to stir up his countrymen against American vessels.”[15]British statesmanship, then as ever, was jealous of rival commerce on the seas. Lord Sheffield, in a pamphlet on American commerce, could say: “It will not be in the interest of any of the great maritime powers to protect [Americans] from the Barbary States. If they know their interests, they will not encourage the Americans to be carriers—that the Barbary States are advantageous to the maritime powers is obvious.”
It is odd that at this period two men whoselives were of a sort that one would have supposed they would have advised each directly otherwise, exchanged characters. Thus while Thomas Jefferson, our minister to France, advised in 1785 force as the best protection, John Adams in England, influenced perhaps by his surroundings, advised following the usual plan of paying an annual tribute. Jefferson later, most unhappily for his country, was violently antagonistic to the establishment of a navy. Adams was, and always had been, quite the reverse. But he now felt that the country was too poor and too embarrassed by debt to use force. He wrote John Jay, Foreign Secretary, December 15, 1784: “As long as France, England, Holland, the Emperor, etc., will submit to be tributaries to these robbers and even encourage them, to what purpose should we make war upon them? The resolution might be heroic but would not be wise ... we cannot hurt them in the smallest degree.... Unless it were possible, then, to persuade the great maritime powers of Europe to unite in the suppression of these piracies, it would be very imprudent for us to entertain any thoughts of contending with them.”[16]
The two ministers had an extended correspondence, and though Adams said: “I will go all lengths with you in promoting a navy, whether it be applied to the Algerines or not,” he still doubted the economy of dealing with Barbary by force. Jefferson’s tone was now, for him, strangely combative. He wrote, August 20, 1785: “The question is whether their peace or war will be cheapest? But it is a question which should be addressed to our honor as well as our avarice, nor does it respect us as to these pirates only, but as to the nations of Europe. If we wish our commerce to be free and uninsulted, we must let these nations see that we have an energy which at present they disbelieve. The low opinion they entertain of our powers cannot fail to involve us soon in a naval war.”
Jefferson’s views involved an association which would furnish one or more cruisers each to act against piracy in the Mediterranean. It included Portugal, Naples, the two Sicilies, Venice, Malta, Denmark, and Sweden, an extremely difficult combination; but he doubted the good faith of others. In a letter to Monroe, August 11, 1786, he says: “I think every power in Europe would soon fall into it except France, England, and perhaps Spain and Holland. Ofthese there is only England who would give any real aid to the Algerines....” He added: “Were the honor and advantage of establishing such a confederacy out of the question, yet the necessity that the United States should have some marine force, and the happiness of this, as the ostensible cause of beginning it, would decide on its propriety. It will be said there is no money in the treasury. There never will be money in the treasury till the confederacy shows its teeth.... Every rational citizen must wish to see an effective instrument of coercion and should fear to see it on any other element than the water. A naval force can never endanger our liberties nor occasion bloodshed; a land force would do both.”[17]
This was Jefferson at his best. It is extraordinary that when the time came to really assert ourselves against the seizure of our seamen and property by other powers than those of Barbary, he should have so completely failed. But in any case, at the time he was proposing his floating confederacy, our inchoate system of government of the period, which required each state to be solicited by Congress for funds, would no doubt, as Adams thought, have made it impossible toprovide the needed ships. Our vessels continued to be seized and their crews enslaved.
It would be unjust to the memory of John Adams, to whom the Continental navy chiefly owed its beginnings, and who was ever the vigorous supporter of the newer navy, not to record his life-long views as expressed to the House of Representatives in November, 1800: “I confidently believe that few persons can be found within the United States who do not admit that a navy, well-organized, must constitute the natural and efficient defence of this country against all foreign hostility.” To this he was consistent through the whole of his long life. In 1785 he was simply doubtful of the travesty of government which then existed and was to have two more years of its ineffective life.
In January, 1791, the United States, having now through its newly formed Constitution of 1787 crystallized into a real nationality, the Senate Committee on Mediterranean Trade agreed that our trade could “be protected but by a naval force, and that it will be proper to resort to the same as soon as the state of the public finances will admit.” But a year later the Senate was stating its “readiness to ratify treaties with Algiers providing for peace at a cost of fortythousand dollars at the outset and annual tribute of twenty-five thousand; and also for the ransom of the captives, then thirteen in number, for forty thousand.”
Fifty thousand dollars was appropriated to begin with, and Paul Jones was appointed consul at Algiers and as our envoy to make a peace. But Jones died at Paris, July 18, 1792. Thomas Barclay, our consul in Morocco, was appointed; he also died very shortly, and David Humphreys, our minister to Portugal, succeeded him. But the Dey of Algiers refused to receive him. The seizures continued, and in 1793 eleven vessels were captured and the crews enslaved. There were now in Algiers over a hundred American captives. The English consul, who of course was acting on orders from home, was blamed by Humphreys for the situation. Finally the House resolved on January 2, 1792, but only by a majority of two, that a naval force should be provided. A bill providing for six ships at a cost of $600,000 was finally passed with a proviso that if peace could be arranged with Algiers work on these should stop. There had been much opposition, many arguing “that we should follow the example of Europe by buying peace, or should hire a European navy to protect our trade; thata navy was a menace to liberty....” Madison opposed the bill, partly on the ground that a navy would lead to international complications, particularly with England, and this opinion was shared by others. The opposition was chiefly from the South, the New England members, who represented a constituency which was suffering from the depredations, naturally favored the action. The bill provided for four ships to carry forty-four guns and two to carry thirty-six each, with full complements, pay, and rations, and $688,888.82 was finally voted. The date of the approval of this bill, March 27, 1794, marks the establishment of the American navy. Joshua Humphreys of Philadelphia was the fortunate selection as naval architect. His view was that these ships should be the most powerful of their class afloat, and this was finally supported by General Knox, the Secretary of War, whose department was for some years to control the navy.
But notwithstanding this action, we continued the negotiation of a treaty with Algiers, Thomas Humphreys being authorized July 19, 1794, to spend $800,000 (the cost of two ships-of-the-line) to effect it. Washington was at this time President, and Jefferson Secretary of State. Thetreaty was concluded after much insulting conduct on the part of the Dey, on September 5, 1795, and only on the offer, as an additional present, of a 36-gun frigate. It was ratified by the Senate on March 6, 1796, and had “cost up to January, 1797, nearly a million dollars, including $525,000 for ransom of the captives, various presents, and miscellaneous expenses; this was exclusive of the annuity in naval stores valued at something over $21,000, according to the estimate, which afterward proved far too low.”[18]Truly weakness came high.
Notwithstanding the proviso of cessation of building in case a treaty should be made, Washington’s advice to continue the building of the ships was accepted by Congress, and in 1797 there were launched theUnited States, theConstitution, andConstellation, all to become famous in our country’s history. The last two are still afloat and their old age proudly cared for.
In his annual message of December, 1796, Washington urged a naval force as indispensable, saying: “To secure respect to a neutral flag requires a naval force, organized and ready to vindicate it from insult or aggression. This may even prevent the necessity of going to warby discouraging belligerent powers from committing such violations of the rights of the neutral party as may, first or last, leave no other option.”
The following, which illustrates the result of the meanness of spirit in Congress, is scarcely pleasant reading for an American to-day. Says the Portsmouth newspaper of January 20, 1798: “On Thursday morning, about sunrise, a gun was discharged from theCrescentfrigate as a signal for getting under way, and at 10A.M.she cleared the harbor with a fine leading breeze. Our best wishes follow Captain Newman, his officers and men. May they arrive in safety at the place of their destination and present to the Dey of Algiers one of the finest specimens of naval architecture which was ever borne upon Piscataqua’s waters.
“Blow all ye winds that fill the prosperous sail,And hush’d in peace be every adverse gale.
“Blow all ye winds that fill the prosperous sail,And hush’d in peace be every adverse gale.
“Blow all ye winds that fill the prosperous sail,
And hush’d in peace be every adverse gale.
“TheCrescentis a present from the United States to the Dey as a compensation for delay in not fulfilling our treaty stipulations in proper time[!]...
“TheCrescenthas many valuable presents on board for the Dey, and when she sailed was supposedto be worth at least three hundred thousand dollars. Twenty-six barrels of dollars constituted a part of her cargo. It is worthy of remark that the captain, chief of the officers, and many of the privates of theCrescentfrigate have been prisoners at Algiers.”[19]
There must be few Americans who do not blush for the want of public spirit which in this ship was so concretely exhibited.
A treaty had been concluded with Tripoli in November, 1796, at a cost of nearly fifty-six thousand dollars, and one arranged with Tunis in August, 1797, at an estimated expense of one hundred and seven thousand dollars, but these estimates were much increased by our yielding to later demands. This treaty, finally concluded March 26, 1797, was ratified by our Senate on January 10, 1800. Its conclusion was due largely to the efforts of William Eaton, who had been appointed consul to Tunis in July, 1797. He held true views of the situation. “TheUnited States set out wrongly and has proceeded so. Too many concessions have been made to Algiers. There is but one language which can be held to these people and this isterror.”
Eaton, born in Connecticut in 1764, was a Revolutionary soldier at sixteen, a graduate later of Dartmouth College, and in 1792 a captain in the army. He was a most interesting character whom it would have been well, on account of his bold and active spirit, to have put in entire control of our diplomatic affairs in Barbary. We shall hear of him later.