Talk:Treaty of Tripoli

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] NPOV arguments

I have attempted to write that there is a dispute about the significance of Article 11 without going into each argument, mainly because MOST of the arguments offered (citing other treaties, gainsaying a previous opposing argument by parsing words, etc.) reduce the entire entry's value.

Please, let us note that there is a dispute between those who argue for the "Christian Nation" or the "Secular Nation" theories, describe the dispute briefly, but keep the POV arguments out of the entry itself, as it inevitably will degenerate into another edit war. --- Couillaud 15:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the use of the already-watered-down term "theory" being used to describe these positions. Neither position is really a theory, even in the sense of political science or sociology. It seems like these are more opinions than anything else. What's the consensus here? Mookabear (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Theories are mostly opinion on how to evaluate a set of facts. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The only reason that most people have any awareness that the Treaty of Tripoli even existed is because of the controversy over Article 11; and, yet, you (Couillaud) want to gut coverage of that controversy. I believe that is not appropriate. I prefer that the article present the facts as known, describe the controversy and let the reader conclude which is the most reasonable.
As for the meaning of the word, "theory," look it up in the dictionary. Pooua (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with your one point. I heard about the Treaty of Tripoli based on my experience with U.S. Military history and, like the one US government hired researcher (the one quoted by Yale), figured that none of it really mattered either way. I personally feel that the controversy only matters to radical websites of either side and only a few academic scholars, and that the actual Barbary conflict and Jefferson's breaking of the treaty is the most important aspects. Jefferson declared that the U.S. should defend its interests abroad using its military. That is an early enlargement of the power of the Executive Branch and that is most important to Constitutional scholars. As was demonstrated, the terms of the treaty were meaningless by the time it came to Congress and the President. It was the President's outright refusal to submit to the terms of a treaty signed by a previous President that is the real importance. I minimized both sides of the "controversy" in order to have it mentioned that the wording is an issue, but not enough to ignore the other 11 articles. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
My take on this is that the controversy over Article 11 is, in WP terms, "Notable". It is important to a lot of people (not to me, perhaps not to Constitutional scholars, but to a lot of people). I suggest:
  • The "Controversy" subsection should be retitled something like "Controversy regarding article 11" and, along with "Translation controversy" moved out of the "Signing and ratification" section and placed in a "Controversies" or "Controversies regarding the treaty" section. If that section later tends to overwhelm the rest of this article, it can be moved into a separate article and linked from this article via {{Main}}, {{Details}}, {{Further}}, etc.
  • The information about the date and circumstances of the breaking of the treaty should be included in this article -- in a new section. Incidentally, I see that First Barbary War#Declaration of war and naval blockade presents what looks like a different version of that than "... Jefferson's breaking of the treaty", etc. Whatever is presented here, the two articles should not {{contradict}} one another.
  • The "arguments in support of ..." and "Arguments against ..." bits should probably be removed from the "External Links" section. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Ottava Rima, I have read several accounts of the Barbary treaties, on the Web and in books, but I have never read anyone who claimed that Jefferson broke the treaty. Where do you get this bit of information? All the accounts that I have read, regardless of the claims about Article 11, when the account talks about the breaking of the Treaty, it is always due to the Pasha demanding an increased tribute, above and beyond what the Treaty originally stipulated; specifically, he demanded that he get (either as much or more, I've heard both ways) tribute money than the leaders in the other nations (Morocco or Algiers). In fact, here are a few articles on that bit of history: Heritage Foundation: Victory in Tripoli: Lessons for the War on Terrorism Daniel Pipes: Reader comment on article: In 1796, U.S. Vowed Friendliness With Islam. Jefferson's only legal daring in this business was to launch the U.S. Navy to war with Tripoli without even letting Congress know that he was doing so (much less waiting for Congress to declare war, as the Constitution dictated). Pooua (talk) 11:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Apparently, there are roughly 2 groups of people who study the Treaty of Tripoli on their own (as opposed to a school assignment): academic historians and idealogical historians. My research over the last several months leads me to believe that academic historians are trying to ignore the controversy regarding Article 11. They can do that in their ivory towers. But, when men like Stephen Jay Gould and Farrell Till and Steven Morris write ideological propaganda that is repeated endlessly on scores of websites, it is obvious that the academic historians are not in the majority in the study of this bit of history. How many of the other Barbary treaties have their own Wikipedia entry? I haven't looked but I am going to guess the answer is "not very many." So, it is a mistake, I believe, to treat Article 11 with the same coverage as all the other articles. Pooua (talk) 11:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
"Where do you get this bit of information?" From the Library of Congress. Jefferson refused to continue paying tribute, which lead to the Pasha declaring that the Treaty was no longer valid and captured American sailors. This was when Jefferson sent over ships. He provoked them into war. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] First Treaty?

Wasn't this the first treaty signed by the US with a foreign power?--iFaqeer 02:57, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

No, see List of United States treaties or [1]. older ≠ wiser 10:54, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
My bad. And it wasn't even the first of the treaties with the Barbary States, it seems. Hmm. There was something about that war that was the first something--first overseas war, maybe? Anyways.--iFaqeer 20:07, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah--it was the triggering event behind the creation of the United States Navy fleet! The navy used in the Revolutionary War consisted of sailors using ships commandeered for the purpose, but it was an ad hoc fleet that disbanded after the Revolution. The first true, dedicated U.S. Navy ship was commissioned partly to deal with the Barbary Pirates. The fighting the U.S. Marines saw in these conflicts is the inspiration for the lines in their anthem, "from the Halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli." Pooua (talk) 08:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Was the Treaty written by President George Washington?

Was the Treaty written by President George Washington?

No. Washington had nothing to do with the text of the Treaty itself. Washington did, however, send the man who was responsible for the text of various treaties (including the first treaty with Tripoli), Joel Barlow, who had been a chaplain in Washington's army during the Revolution. Washington retired from office about the time that the treaty of Tripoli was negotiated with the Tripolan court. The treaty actually arrived in North America after Washington had retired. Pooua (talk) 04:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bias regarding Article XI

I have been doing some research on article XI, due to the controversy surrounding it, and I find the current text in the Wikipedia article to be misleading. My information has been taken from the Avalon project (conducted at Yale), see http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796e.htm for the annotated 1930 translation and also Hunter Miller's Notes: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796n.htm#n3):

1) Hunter Miller's notes specify that Captain Richard O'Brien Negotiated the treaty, and brought it to Joel Barlow to have the English translation prepared and authorized. Joel Barlow does not appear to have much to do with the actual negotiation, nor the wording of the treaty since it had already been agreed upon in the Arabic prior to his translation and signature. Maybe this point is irrelevant to Article XI.

2) The treaty was originally drafted in Arabic. The annotated 1930 translation from the Avalon project notes the strange gibberish in Article XI, but in no way suggests that the original Arabic article was altered later on (as the Wikipedia commentary "presumes"). In fact, from what I can determine from the Avalon project (see the section on the Cathcart copy), the Cathcart copy of the treaty was made at the same time as the original treaty book, and Cathcart's copy apparently contains article XI just as the 1930 annotated translation found it. This suggests that the controversial article XI in the English copy was an invention by Joel Barlow, rather than a later alteration in the Arabic version. Hunter Miller apparently comes to a similar conclusion, when he says, "How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point"

3) Cathcart commissioned the Italian translation of the treaty, which also does not contain the Article XI as Barlow had it.

4) The recorded copy of the English treaty certified by Barlow is, however, the copy that Congress would have ratified. Therefore, it is likely that the Senate was aware of the verbiage in Article XI at the time the document was ratified.

(I have updated my point #4 to reflect the accurate facts as relayed by Hunter Miller, and to remove a fact that is already stated in the article. There was also some confusion about the certified copy vs. the original translation, which is in the treaty book)

I would (this is not original poster) like to point out that the article is biased because of this line "Note, however, that it does not say that the nation of the United States was not founded on the Christian religion." While the treaty reads "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."Vellocet Malchickawick 19:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I would comment regarding confusion rather than bias. The article quotes from Article XI:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; [...]

Then, having quoted those words, the article goes on to assert:

Note, however, that it does not say that the nation of the United States was not founded on the Christian religion

I guess the writer of this bit was trying to draw some sort of distinction here between the meanings of the words government and nation. I note, however, that the wikipedia Nation#Ambiguity in usage comments, in part:

In common usage, terms such as 'nations, country, land and state often appear as near-synonyms, i.e., for a territory under a single sovereign government, or the inhabitants of such a territory, or the government itself; in other words, a de jure or de facto state. In the English language, the terms do have precise meanings, but in daily speech and writing they are often used interchangeably, and are open to different interpretations.

Personally, I doubt the validity of conclusions drawn about the meaning of a writing based on inferences drawn from niggling points about what the writing does not say. -- Boracay Bill 23:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, states, nations, and countries can all be used synonymously, but not government. The word 'nastion' and the word 'government' are two very different things. The nation is the land as a whole, while the government is the force that trys to govern the nation. It cleraly say 'the government of the US', not the state of the US, or the nation of the US, or the country of the US. It is refering to the federal government.

(I find it kind of confusing that there's nothing to indicate when a new person is posting on a topic, so I'm clarifying now that I didn't write anything that came before these words.) What does it mean to "found a nation," if not to establish its government? You are saying that a "nation" is the land itself? So, then, that means that the "founding" of the nation would mean the actual creation of the land. Which, I suppose, would mean that that Christians do think that the nation was founded on Christian principles, since God would have been the one creating, or "founding" the land. But I really don't think this is what anyone means when they refer to a nation's founding. A nation is founded when its government is created. Prior to that, it isn't a nation. It's just a patch of land. If you really believe that nations and governments are discrete bodies, please show me one nation that is recognized as such but doesn't have a government.

Furthermore, "nation" is a metonym for "government" in much the same way that "White House" is a metonym for "The President of the United States of America." Technically, the White House is the wood and metal and stone that was put together in the shape of a building, while the President is the actual decision-making body. The house itself doesn't talk to reporters or veto bills, but there is never this kind of confusion about what is really meant when a newspaper headline says, "White House Calls for Ban on Stem Cell Research." No one is going to pick up a newspaper with that headline and think that the wooden house came to life and is releasing statements to the press.

So, the treaty doesn't say that the nation wasn't founded as a Christian nation. But it doesn't say that it was, either. I guess in this case, as in the question of evolution, Christianity is the default answer when a question can't be definitively answered with the existing facts. Alex K. Rich 17:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

A nation is the country as a whole, or the combined masses of people. It's kind of like how when the Bible talks about the church, it's not refering to the building itself, but rather the members that make up the congregation. The government is the system that is set up to govern over that group of people. Webster's defines a nation as 'A group of people organized under a government'. While they are closely related, they're not synonymous. Like your example of the President and the White House. They are related, but certainly aren't the same thing. Just look at the words of the Treaty. 'The government of the United States'. What is that? It's the Federal Government. Every nation has a government, but the nation isn't the government. [this (excellent!) comment was added on 18 December 2006 by 68.126.159.214]

I recognize that "nation" and "government" don't mean the same thing. I also recognize that the latter is often a metonym for the former. Let's just imagine, for the sake of argument, that the treaty did say, "As the Nation of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." What would that mean? How would the meaning be different from the actual wording? -- Alex K. Rich 05:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, if we wrote an article about everything that isn't written in the Treaty of Tripoli, we would have a very long article indeed. Yes, the treaty doesn't say that the nation of America was not founded as a Christian nation. It also doesn't say that America was not founded as a Jewish nation. It also doesn't say that pie is not delicious. Thus, ipso facto, I guess that means pie is delicious.

It may be that the treaty does not actually prove that the founders did not intend to found a Christian nation. That is the controversy. But just because it doesn't prove that America wasn't founded as a Christian nation doesn't mean that it does prove that America was founded as a Christian nation. It's just not the right piece of evidence for this case, maybe.

If I killed someone with a kitchen knife, and then you found a bloody knife in my apartment, that would seem to tie me to the crime. If you then found out that the blood was my own, and that it wasn't the murder weapon, that doesn't mean that I now did not kill that guy. I still killed him. And just because the piece of evidence that you thought proved my guilt actually doesn't, it doesn't mean that that piece of evidence now proves my innocence.

It may be that Article 11 is worthless as regards this "Christian Nation vs. Secular Nation" debate. But if it is, that doesn't mean that your side gets a point by default. -- Alex K. Rich 05:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but the problem is that people are putting in arguments such as, "Ah ha! Well, this clearly proves that America was never a Christian nation!" And that's not true. That's the whole reason I put in what opponents of it think. Perhaps I worded it poorly, because I don't want to sound like everything is factual when it's all my opinion of the document. But, I tried to change it so that it would be clear that that was from a prespective of someone who disagrees. That's why I put things like 'they think' and 'they contend'. As for putting in things that it doesn't say, well, I know that it can get redundant, but if someone put something in this article saying "Clearly this proves that pie is delicious", then the only way you could counter that would be to say, "No, there is no mention of pie." It's the same with Nation and Government. I know that they are very similar, but they're certainly not the same, which leads to the controversy. Also, the difference between the Framers puttin in "the nation wasn't based on..." instead of government would be tremendous. Government simply implies that the peolpe can worship Jesus freely, which most did, but if someone doesn't want to, then the Government can't force them. The nation, however, would be to argue that those seeking to help the betterment of the United States, such as the Framers, would have no intention of seeking help and guidance from God, and that they wouldn't care what he thought. That was not the case, becasue the Framers were all Christian men. [this comment was added on 19 December 2006 by 68.126.159.214]

Okay, but you didn't really answer my question. Explain to me the difference in meaning between the following two statements:

1) "The government of the United States was founded on capitalist principles."

2) "The nation of the United States was founded on capitalist principles."

I'm asking what these two statements mean in practical terms.

Also, consider the question of who founds a nation, and how we recognize the founding of a nation? I said before that a nation is not a nation until its government is formed. You seem to disagree, but you've yet to offer an alternative definition of a nation that withstands scrutiny.

For example, if the nation of Iraq invaded Iran, what is really occuring? Is the land attacking another land mass? Are all the people who make up the nation attacking? Anytime we talk of a nation's actions, or a nation's founding (as opposed to, say, a nation's character or its borders) we are actually talking about its government. You can argue a difference between the words until you're blue in the face, but that doesn't change the way they are used in common parlance.

Lastly, you made a telling comment at the end of your last entry that I think illustrates the real problem we're having in discussing this issue, and probably the real problem inherent in this whole debate. Bear with me on this.

MxPx isn't a Christian band. They are a band whose members are Christians. As drummer Yuri Ruley was once quoted as saying, "Since our first album, people tried to pigeonhole us as Christian rock. We're Christians. We play in a rock band. That's that." Yes, their first album was released by a Christian label, but their music isn't about Christ and doesn't contain obvious Christian themes the way that, say, Petra's does.

Similarly, the United States isn't necessarily a Christian nation simply because it was founded by Christians. Just as John F. Kennedy was able to make the distinction between being the Catholic candidate for president and being a candidate for president who happened to be Catholic, we ought to be able to make the distinction between founders of a Christian nation and Christian founders of a nation. --Alex K. Rich 05:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess that I am having a hard time clearly distinguishing my point. You made the point that 'If the nation of Iraq invaded the nation of Iran, then would it be the land masses attacking each other?' And, obviously, no. But, at the same time it doesn't mean that the governments are over there fighting. Unfortunately, I can't think of the names of those countries leaders off the top of my head, so I'll use the US as an example. The nation of the US is fighting in Iraq right now, but that doesn't mean that President Bush or any of the Congressmen are over there fighting. If a nation is at war, then it means that the people are the ones at war. Now, yes, the government is the one conducting it, but the people are the ones who actually fighting. It's Americans as a whole pulling together for a common goal, and being lead by the government. As for the Capitalism issue, I'll try to explain it to the best of my abilities, so bear with me. A government can control a nation's economy, but the government isn't the nation's economy. Yea, I know that's stupid, but think of it like this. A lot of people think that Communism is a form of government, but it's not. It's an economic system that, in places like the Soviet Union, was enforced by a Dictatorial type of government. Communism is often thought of as on overbearing force becasue it has often had to be enforced by strong dictatorships. They just appear together so often that people think that Communism is a form of Tyranny. It's like how people equate democracies with happiness because people living in democracies are often times happier than those of other systems. But, being in a democracy doesn't neccesarily guarentee happiness. Ultimately, I guess my point is that government can't be founded on capitalist ideas, it can only enforce those ideas. But the nation can be. People can collectively choose how they want to use their money; buy, sell, etc. And, yes, I do agree with you that when a nation is founded that typically it means a government was established. They generally go hand in hand, but there not the same. Kind of like the two sides on a coin, if you will. Finally, the Framers were all Christian men who sought to lead and govern the nation in a Christian way. That's what makes it founded as a Christian country. I hope my long ramblings made since. Also, I like how the 'opponents viewpoint' section looks right now. Nice job helping clean it up. [this comment was added on 20 December 2006 by 68.126.159.214]

Re: the capitalism thing: I agree completely. I wasn't actually trying to make a point about capitalism. Rather, I was just using it as an example of a statement made in the same form as my previous statement, but with the religious aspect removed so as to not cloud the issue. I think that a lot of people (myself included) have a lot of difficulty seeing the logic in an opposing argument when they are convinced of what they want the answer to be. To paraphrase Upton Sinclair, you can't make somebody understand something if their faith depends on their not understanding it. I'm not saying this applies to you, but that was why I posed my argument in that way, rather than continuing with the Christian principles argument.

That was also why I cited the examples of MxPx and JFK. I think this is the central idea behind the whole Church-State separation argument. Yes, the United States was founded by Christians. Yes, some of our laws and norms were based on Christian principles. That does not mean, however, that the United States is a Christian nation. The Establishment Clause is tricky, because it can't account for intention or thought. If the President makes a decision a certain way because of his faith in God, we can't exactly criticize him for not separating the governing part of his brain from the religious part of his brain. Those decisions should have to be supported by rational, secular reasoning, however, since our government is, onstensibly, secular. It is when the president makes decisions that are obviously contrary to the interests of the people, that are backed up only by religious dogma, that we begin to run into problems. Obviously, people are unlikely to make decisions that conflict with their own sense of morality, but...I can't figure out a way to finish this sentence without saying that religiosity leads to flimsy morals.

Look, there's no way to ever really agree on this. If people are honest about their faith, as President Bush seems to be, they won't be able to make rational moral decisions on issues like abortion, because faith erases all of the nuance from this complicated issue. If the dogma he believes in says, unequivocally, that abortion is wrong, then he would be a hypocrite if allowed unrestricted abortion, or any at all, really. He would either be lying about his religious convictions, or his humanist convictions. They are in absolute conflict on this, and many other issues. Clearly, his religious convictions are strong, and his commitment to God is greater than his commitment to people, and I guess that's admirable for someone in a position of power in a church, but it makes him the kind of person I do not want in charge of my country, or my body, or my life. So, getting back to what I was trying to say before, if a politician makes a positive moral decision, but does it for religious reasons (like, maybe, deciding to give aid to the poor), that's fine. It's only when poor decisions are rationalized with faith that problems arise. Because you can't argue with dogma. This is why Brights are generally less opposed to groups like Christians Against Poverty than groups like Alliance for Marriage.

Whew. I'm sorry I got so off-topic. I agree that the paragraph in question reads much better, and is much more accurate thanks to our collaboration. Thanks. That's what makes Wikipedia great. -- Alex K. Rich 17:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, the nation of the United States is several years older than the government of the United States. The nation of the United States was declared in 1776, but the government of the United States is the creation of the U.S. Constitution, which was not even written until 1787.

Yes, many people attempt to use Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli of 1789 as proof that the United States is not a Christian nation. I have several problems with that:

1) Such an interpretation is historically incorrect. Regardless of what any treaty declares, it cannot change historical facts.

2) I am of the opinion that ratification and signing of a treaty does not mean that each or any member of Congress or the president agrees with every statement of that treaty, so a statement volunteering an historical claim in a treaty is not necessarily the viewpoint of any person who signs the treaty.

3) National treaties are only valid as they are accurate translations of the original. Article 11 is not an accurate translation of the original, and so, is not valid. Did the Congress and President know that when they ratified and signed the Treaty? I don't know. It is possible they did. It is also possible they simply ignored it, because even if it were in the original Treaty, it is meaningless to the use of the Treaty. This ambiguity brings me to the 4th point...

4) Absolutely no comment whatsoever by anyone was made concerning Article 11 when the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 was ratified and signed. In the absence of any other, similar statements by the Founding Fathers, that makes Article 11 an extremely thin basis for making claims about the nature of the founding of the United States. Pooua (talk) 08:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Part about First War

most of the section on the first barbary war seems very irrelavant. what does the fact that the ship philadelphia have to do with the Treaties? Saganatsu 18:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unecessary paragraph

The paragraph removed was redundant in that it expressed what was already stated and silly in that it says that "the significance of the article which is often overlooked or ignored" when in fact it seems that the only significance of the treaty is this article and the fact that it was passed by congress! Furthermore, the statement about "secular government" is perhaps going too far: what does "secular" mean in this context, or government for that matter? Finally, I did not remove a earlier statement about treaties having the force of law because it's true. However, if the treaty was broken and the subsequent treaty did not have a article XI, this article no longer has any force of law (what could a treaty about nonexistant thing possible mean?), though the Constitution is especially hard to interpret on treaties. The statement here may imply that the article is still in effect. Srnec 04:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Necessary paragraph

"Secular" in the context of this discussion simply means "not based upon religion", which is exactly what Article 11 stated about our government. It is NOT going too far.

Its significance today involves the constant debate over whether or not the United States was founded as a "Christian Nation". As this document was promulgated and approved as the law of the U.S. only 25 years after its founding, and by a number of men who either served in the Revolution or signed the Declaration, Articles of Confederation, and/or Constituion, it represents one of the clearest and most definitive statements regarding the Founding Fathers' attitude about the releationship between Church and State.

The statement does not imply that Article 11 is still in effect, merely that it represents the most definitive statement from the "Founding Fathers" in their own time about an issue that is still being debated today.

Yes, the paragraph is a bit redundant, but it is there because of older POV arguments over what constitutes the "Founding Fathers", and whether or not the contention that Article 13 was not part of the "original" Arabic version is of any significance, and whether this was a one-time statement or whether it simply restates the original intent of the country's founders. These are similar to the arguments that arise when discussing Jefferson's "wall of separation", and whether or not he really meant it.

For clarity, I have changed the phrase "overlooked and ignored" to "misunderstood or downplayed" Couillaud 18:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine, but what does "misunderstood or downplayed" mean? Again, as far as I can tell its simply not hard to understand and this encyclopaedia certainly doesn't downplay it. Who misunderstands it? When has it been downplayed? When I first read it, it implied that there were many people out there disingenuously downplaying or ignoring this article because they believed America was founded as a Christian nation. However, downplaying its significance is not necessarily wrong: it may be insignificant. For the record, I don't think its either particularly significant or insignificant. It confirms what I always knew. Many, however, don't believe that the opinions of the Founding Father's control Constitutional interpretation in any way and therefore their beliefs on religion are insignificant, ergo Article XI as well. So is it not a little POV as is, suggesting that the article has significance which some don't believe it has? Secondly, "going too far" was a bad choice of words, it did not at all express what I wished to say. I think that "secular" can have different connotations and the context here does not make it clear that it simply means "nonreligious." "Secular government" especially could mean very different things to different people, as does "separation of church and state": a cardinal belief of both Baptists and secular humanists. Srnec 19:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Since I think we can all agree that the meaning and significance of Article 11 is highly controversial, it is a violation of NPOV principles to present only one side of the controvery. So I've rewritten that section by dividing it pro and con sections, and giving both sides of the argument as best I could. NCdave 23:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I do not fully agree that it is "highly controversial". Many who believe in the "Christian Nation" viewpoint of our history find both this treaty and Jefferson's "wall of separation" statement inconvenient evidence to the contrary, and spend a great deal of time creating arguments opposing them; just the fact that they disagree does not make any issue "highly controversial". Article 11 was a clear statement to a non-Christian nation that they were in no danger of any sort of "holy war" with the U.S., because our government was not based on the Christian religion.
I believe that it violates NPOV if there is a clearly biased POV being presented without any contrary evidence presented, but it does NOT give it a NPOV to make the claim that both POVs have exactly equal weight, which is what I think your changes were meant to do, though I believer they actually have possibly given greater weight to the opponents' viewpoint by softening one POV with phrases like "it is sometimes argued" and "also sometimes contend", while using more forceful descriptions in the opposite POV (I note that opponents of the viewpoint never "sometimes argue"), while also allowing an occasional irrelevant argument (no matter what an individual state allowed, the Federal government is the only one representing the United States) with as much importance as any other argument.
I agree that Article 11 was atypical of U.S. treaties, but then the issue of religion in a foreign treaty itself is atypical. It is a rare statement because it is a rare issue.
I'm sure the Flat Earth Society would like to alter a number of entries in Wiki, but the fact that their viewpoint is seriously underrepresented does not violate NPOV. The arguments against the secular interpretation of Article 11 have significance, but the arguments tend take tangential angles (arguing Federal issues from states' POV, arguing that the 1783 treaty carried more weight in the debate, arguing that a "Great Governor of the World" and "Creator" specifically refer to a Christian God) rather than arguing about the spcific language of the treaty itself. The argument that the statement was "window dressing" should have some citation and be more than just someone's opinion, as it could be argued with greater weight that the opening of the 1783 treaty with Britain was itself "window dressing".
I will not do so now, but I believe that the recent changes need to be reviewed and edited themselves, as being in violation of the NPOV principles themselves.Couillaud 06:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Couillaud, as I explain elsewhere, Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli does not tell us anything at all about the opinions of any of the members of Congress or any of the Presidents regarding the founding of the United States. That is because Article 11 is not a functional part of the original treaty. In the first place, it was not part of the original treaty at all, but, even if it were, the purpose of the treaty had nothing to do with Article 11. The Treaty of Tripoli was ratified and signed for reasons completely unrelated to Article 11. Indeed, from all we can see, Congress and the President simply ignored Article 11. Pooua (talk) 08:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What were the terms of the Treaty?

Nowhere in the article is this explicitly stated. "Peace Treaty" doesn't really tell us enough. This, plus a sentence or two on the historical signiifcane, should probably be in the intro. C.M.67.170.176.203 13:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

I have been putting up a few comments as to why the Treaty doesn't mean that we're not a Christian Nation, and yet they keep being changed because they are claimed to be pov. The problem is that this whole page is about trying to figure out whether it supports a Christian nation or not. If you are trying to interpret it, then that will invariably lead to pov. This article is filled with pov, from both sides of the argument. My statements are all under the category of why we don't believe the treaty discredits a Christian heritage, and they are the beliefs of those who believe the Treaty Of Tripoli doesn't disprove the Christianity of the founding fathers. [this unsigned comment was added 7 October 2006 by 68.125.172.252]

[edit] Church and state

I have added this article to the separation of church and state catagory, as it seems relevant. GutterMonkey 18:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Dispute

I added the NPOV template since there has been discussion here about it and the article hasn't moved any closer to being NPOV. In particular, what is the point of bringing in other treaties etc. other than to attempt to advocate for a specific point of view. 70.19.88.122 22:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self-contradiction

Many contend that Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli simply reinforces this idea of a non-biased government, and has no bearing on the debate over Church-State separation.

WTF?! Isn't that what separation of church and state is? The issue has nothing to do with whether the United States is composed primarily of Christians. This sentence and the paragraph leading up to it make no logical sense to me. Even if they are supposed to convey some coherent thought they need to be rewritten to demonstrate what exactly that thought is. Ashibaka (tock) 01:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No, they're not the same. Seperation of Church and State is the idea that religion should have absolutely no dealing with government. A non-based government means that religion can influence government, but that government can't unfarily favor any particular religion. Their similar, but different. [this unsigned comment was added on 7 January 2007 by 68.126.159.214]

-- Seperation of Church and State is nothing more and nothing less than not having a Church or a religion as an institution of the State. There is nothing that prevents religion from influencing government however. Many states that have seperation also have religious political parties in power.Gerard von Hebel 19:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


In practice, there is no difference between: "Seperation of Church and State", "religion not having *official* influential over government (and vice verse), " and "government not favoring any particular religion". If the government officially weighs-in on the topic of supernatural claims (i.e. claims immune to scientific falsification) or allows a supernatural claim to influence its decision-making, then it is necessarily favoring one particular religion (supernatural belief system) over another . [this unsigned comment was added on 19 February 2007 by 24.183.49.107]

[edit] Article XI and the treaty of 1805

The article XI of the treaty of 1796 is actually, with some small changes, the article XIV of the treaty of 1805.[2] In this article, the context of the freedom of religion is more clear. It reciprocally allows the US consul in Tripoli and the (non-existent) Tripolitanian envoy in the US to "exercise his religion in his own house", with all slaves of the same religion being allowed to go to the consul's house at hours of prayer. Of course, although these forms are reciprocal for the forms sake, the benefiting party is the US, as there was no Tripolitanian diplomatic representation. I'll change the text to reflect this. --MPorciusCato 10:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting and informative point. Article XIV of the 1805 Treaty states:

As the Government of the United States of America, has in itself no character of enmity against the Laws, Religion or Tranquility of Musselmen, and as the said States never have entered into any voluntary war or act of hostility against any Mahometan Nation, except in the defence of their just rights to freely navigate the High Seas: It is declared by the contracting parties that no pretext arising from Religious Opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the Harmony existing between the two Nations; And the Consuls and Agents of both Nations respectively, shall have liberty to exercise his Religion in his own house; all slaves of the same Religion shall not be Impeded in going to said Consuls house at hours of Prayer. The Consuls shall have liberty and personal security given them to travel within the Territories of each other, both by land and sea, and shall not be prevented from going on board any Vessel that they may think proper to visit; they shall have likewise the liberty to appoint their own Drogoman and Brokers.

Notice that the newer treaty drops the wording about the U.S. government not being Christian, and simply states that the U.S. government is not hostile to Islam. It sounds like the people back home did not like the previous wording! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pooua (talk • contribs) 22:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You sent me to my dictionary! A Drogoman is "an interpreter (or guide) in countries where Arabic, Turkish, or Persian is spoken." NCdave (talk) 10:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Diplomatic Window Dressing - simply not equatable

Statements like: "In the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity..." and "Anno Domini" are traditional valedictions, commonly included in documents of the period and inconsequential to the content of the documents; this is why they are regarded as "diplomatic window dressing".

The statement: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;" is not. It is neither a traditional nor an expected formality, nor is it an inconsequential statement - just the opposite.

Yes, it's fair to speculate that there existed a strong motivation on the part of the early leaders of the U.S. government to lie about its non-christian status in order to make the treaty work, but that is simply another argument.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.183.49.107 (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Treaty of Tripoli

It seems as if the majority of the comments here are moot. How Article 11 got into the treaty is irrelevent to the point of whether the US is a Christian nation or not. The religious affiliations of any of the Founders is irrelevent also. The terms A.D., the Creator, Nature's God (Does God belong to Nature?) are irrelevent. The only relevent point is that the President of the US and the Congress signed and ratified the treaty. This makes crystal clear that the Founding Fathers intended to and believed that they did create a secular, not a Christian, government. Why else would they sign the Treaty? Would they lie to gain a diplomatic advantage? If they lied, how deep was any Christian beliefs they held? I won't argue that politicians today don't flaunt and flay their christianity for political gain. But I'm convinced that the most influential of our Founders were principled and honorable men, men who were deliberate in their intention to create a secular government. Their ratification of the Treaty of Tripoli, while significant, is only one indication of their intentions.

Hirocker 19:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Perhaps then it is time to completely overhaul that section of the article to eliminate some of the more specious and irrelevant arguments and statements.
  • It is indeed irrelevant as to how the article was inserted into the treaty, because the mere fact that it was there when read before and ratified by Congress is what is relevant, and that peripheral information should either be removed from the discussion, or placed in its own section.
  • The use of terms and phrases such as "Anno Domini", "The Creator", et al. in this or other documents is not germane to the discussion of the article's relevance, and should likewise be either removed or relegated to a separate section.
  • I realize that all the points I'm discussing here were made by those who oppose the interpretation of Article 11, but I also note that there were some arguments on the "pro" side that were removed wholesale from the article, leaving the "anti" side unchallenged. The points that were removed pointed to challenges to the relevance of those "anti" arguments, which is where we are again.
  • I have been reading some of the changes and reverts as well as comments, and I am disturbed by many who are arguing from the Christian standpoint that this cannot be true because it violates their world view. I have seen one comment claiming that this argument in some way "discredits our Christian heritage", which I do not believe. I believe that it says nothing of our heritage, other than the founders believed in protecting our freedom to worship as well as our freedom to disbelieve. Those who want to remove the discussion of its relevance to secular government keep arguing that they are asserting a NPOV, yet frequently use POV resources (like the Avalon Project) to buttress their points. There are many Christians out here who feel no discredit to our faith just because our government is secular rather than Christian.
  • I have no problem with the fact that my government is secular, because it assures me that the government shall not view my faith as inferior to another. This statement was made in 1796, only 20 years after Independence, and was a clear statement of our young nation's intent not to favor one nation over another. If there is an argument over what Article 11 said, it should be directed at the article's specific language, and not at other treaties or other laws. -- Couillaud 21:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
"How Article 11 got into the treaty is irrelevent to the point of whether the US is a Christian nation or not." -- Indeed, *whether* Article 11 is in the Treaty or not is irrelevant to the point of whether the US is a Christian nation or not. The historical facts exist independently of Article 11.
"The religious affiliations of any of the Founders is irrelevent also." -- The point that is relevant are the religious beliefs of the Founders.
"The terms A.D., the Creator, Nature's God (Does God belong to Nature?) are irrelevent." -- Not entirely. If the anti-religionists had their way, God would not be mentioned at all in this world. The Founders clearly did not go to that extreme.
"The only relevent point is that the President of the US and the Congress signed and ratified the treaty." -- That is certainly relevant to the Treaty, but it has no bearing whatsoever on the historical facts.
"This makes crystal clear that the Founding Fathers intended to and believed that they did create a secular, not a Christian, government." -- Actually, it says absolutely nothing at all about what the Founding Fathers thought about the Founding of the U.S. Let me spell it out for you: the ratification and signing of the Treaty do not imply an endorsement for Article 11, an article that had no bearing on the treaty (indeed, how could it, considering that it isn't even part of the Treaty?).
"Why else would they sign the Treaty?" -- Maybe because they wanted to ratify a peace treaty with the Barbary nations? Just a guess...
Perhaps you are too emotionally involved to have realized this, but, Article 11 is not the reason the U.S. sent an ambassador over to Tripoli. President Washington did not send Barlow over to the Barbary Pirates to tell them that we are not a Christian nation. He sent Barlow over there to negotiate a cessation of hostilities. That is the purpose of the Treaty, and that is what was ratified and signed. Article 11 is completely superfluous, irrelevant and invalid.Pooua (talk) 09:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
We all know that most treaties include language that is not crucial for the actual subject matter of the treaty. However, the international situation in 1796 was quite different than today. The Senate did not ratify dozens of treaties per year. Instead, it considered treaties much more carefully than today. I can't understand how you could say that treaties, "the supreme law of the land" are not actually endorsed by the US. --MPorciusCato (talk) 09:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
"The Senate did not ratify dozens of treaties per year. Instead, it considered treaties much more carefully than today." - You don't say why you think your statement is relevant, but, OK, so they considered this Treaty much more carefully than treaties generally are today. This then led them to say... what? To conclude... what? Nothing! Not one single word of comment about Article 11 at all from anyone! It was completely ignored.
"I can't understand how you could say that treaties, "the supreme law of the land" are not actually endorsed by the US." - I did not say that. I said that ratification and signing of treaties does not constitute an endorsement of each individual incidental statement. IOW, the ratification and signing of the Treaty of Tripoli does not constitute an endorsement of either Congress or the President for Article 11's passing comment that the U.S. government is not founded on the Christian religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pooua (talk • contribs) 09:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
An analogous situation are bills presented to the president prior to the line item veto. The president may not agree with every single item in the bill, but he still either signs or vetoes the entire bill. Pooua (talk) 09:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article 11

The official treaty was in Arabic text. Although Consul-General Barlow was not personally able to translate the Arabic into English, Tripolitan court officials provided him with an English translation.[1] The Treaty was ratified by the United States on June 10, 1797. Article 11 of the Treaty was said to have not been part of the original Arabic version of the treaty, and was from a letter from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli.[2]

Although Article 11 is included in the English language translation of the original treaty, the importance of its inclusion is often exaggerated. International law says that "National translations are valid only as they are good translations, however official they may be."[3] The fact that Article 11 is a spurious inclusion in the Treaty means that it would not be considered binding in a court of international law. Nor does the ratification and approval of the Treaty by President John Adams and Congress signify any more than a formality in acknowledging the Treaty, as the Treaty was little more than a receipt for an exchange of goods given in return for safe passage of U.S. ships.

Thus the proclamation was immediate with the ratification and did not await any such formality as notice to the Bey of Tripoli of the ratification of the treaty by the United States. The treaty, like the treaty with the Dey of Algiers of 1795 (Document 17), had been bought; and, as much of the purchase price had already been paid, any subsequent item of procedure was doubtless considered to be of comparatively little importance.[4]

Before anyone in the United States saw the Treaty, its required payments, in the form of goods and money, had already been made. The Treaty also had spent 7 months traveling from Tripoli to Algiers to Portugal and, finally, to the United States, and had been signed by officials at each stop along the way. Neither Congress nor President Adams would have been able to cancel the terms of the Treaty by the time they first saw it. Not surprisingly, there is no record of discussion or debate of the Treaty of Tripoli at the time that it was ratified, as that would have been pointless. Ratification of Article 11 of the The Treaty of Tripoli cannot be taken as Congressional assent of its statements.[5] Furthermore, the fact that most of the Founding Fathers, like most of the nation at the time, were religious men after the Christian tradition is a matter of documented history; no mere article in a treaty could change that historical fact. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

Any discrepancies between the English and Arabic language versions of the treaty might be mildly interesting as a matter of pure abstruse academic history (and if any controversy about the fulfillment of the terms of the treaty had arisen between the U.S. and Tripoli afterwards, then such discrepancies could have become a diplomatic issue).
However, such Arabic-English discrepancies are in fact almost completely irrelevant to the reasons why the treaty is the subject of popular interest today -- namely that the U.S. Congress voted in 1797 to approve the English-language version of the treaty that was before them. No matter what the discrepancies between the English and Arabic texts, the English text that was before the Senate included article 11, and that was what the Senate voted to approve. People today are actually a whole lot more interested in that fact than they are in whether Article 11 was binding on the United States as a matter of international law. AnonMoos (talk) 12:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
What did you expect Congress to do, assuming they did not agree with the wording of any part of the Treaty of Tripoli? If they could have somehow negated or tabled the Treaty, it would have had no more effect than the U.S. abandoning the payment already made to the Tripolitan court, because it is certain that the court--which sponsored the pirates that prompted the treaty in the first place--was not willingly going to give back anything they had in their possession. What would the U.S. have gained by them doing that? Nothing; so, why would Congress do that? You and your humanist friends want to pretend that by signing this Treaty, Congress was make a proclamation that the United States is not a Christian nation. But, in fact, the Treaty of Tripoli is not a proclamation of anything; it was a receipt for payment to the Tripolitan court to stop sending their pirates against our ships. The Treaty's wording had no more effect than informing Congress and the U.S. that the Tripolitan court had accepted payment and made an agreement to cease attacking U.S. merchant vessels. You are misrepresenting the Treaty of Tripoli by the current wording of the article. Pooua (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Neither Congress, nor the President, nor the American people, were the authors of the wording of the Treaty of Tripoli. That wording was the work of the Tripolitan court and Joseph Barlow. It is wrong, then, to present the Treaty of Tripoli as representative of the knowledge of the American people regarding the facts of their history. Pooua (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Even if we suppose that ratification were a statement by Congress and President Adams that the U.S. was not a Christian nation, the evidence of history would prove that such a statement was evidence of insanity on their parts. The claims the humanists make regarding Article 11 grossly contradict historical fact. Inasmuch as I don't believe that Congress and that President were all insane, I also don't believe they intended Article 11 to deny the adherence to Christianity by the majority of the American people, both those in and out of government. Pooua (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
First off, you don't know that I'm a "humanist" (and if you were to examine my editing history and Wikipedia user page, then you might have grounds for concluding the opposite). Second, none of your emotional verbiage has cast the slightest doubt on the central point of this article -- that the 11th article was in the English text of the Treaty of Tripoli as it was put before the senate in 1796, and was approved by a vote of the Senate in 1796, and that the 11th article is therefore an approved statement on the part of the President and the majority of the Senate as of 1796 (regardless of the possible technicalities of its status in international law). No, the Congress wasn't trying to "deny" the status of Christianity as the largest overall religious affiliation of the population of the United States in any way (an action which would have been prohibited by the First Amendment in any case) -- instead, they meant exactly what they said, i.e. that the government of the United States was not Christian in character (something which largely follows from the No-Religious-Test clause of the constitution and the No-Establishment clause of the first amendment). AnonMoos (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
My edits, which you removed in their entirety, did not dispute that Article 11 was in the English translation that was ratified by the U.S. Senate and signed by President Adams. The article leaves open for question how Article 11 ended up in the Treaty and how significant the Article was (indeed, how significant the entire Treaty was). It is misleading and subversive to state that Article 11 is an "approved statement." Making such a claim requires us to believe that every Congressman approves of all the statements of all the laws, treaties or bills that Congress passes, an obviously nonsensical position. Therefore, this article should not give that appearance regarding the Treaty of Tripoli. My edits did not make any statement about the religious nature of the government of the United States. You have not brought any complaints that are relevant to my edits. Pooua (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
At the very least, the Wikipedia article needs to make clear that Article 11 only speaks of the government of the United States, as opposed to the nation of the United States. It might be argued--loosely, I would imagine--that if one considers the government of the U.S. to be the U.S. Constitution, and there is no explicit reference to Christianity in the U.S. Constitution, that the government of the U.S. is not "based" on Christianity. But, the fact is that Western culture is based on the Judeo-Christian religion, and our law is derived from the legal ideas of the Judeo-Christian tradition. That is not to say that our laws today came from an explicit search of Scripture, but the idea that all men are equal before the law is directly from the Judeo-Christian belief that all men are equal before God. Christianity does not dictate a single form of expression, or exclude the character of the local people. And, as a matter of fact, the people most responsible for the "No-Establishment" clause of the First Amendment are the Baptists, who were arguing for the creation of an amendment from their religious perspective. Pooua (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
In fact, I see no discrepancy between the sentences: "The US was founded by Christians", and "The US was founded as a secular nation." Many of the colonies founding the US had an established religion, and not all of them had the same religion. On the other hand, religious persecution was not unknown in the colonies. The overall intellectual climate of the time favoured freedom of religion: Frederic the Great of Prussia, Catherine the Great of Russia, Maria Theresia of Austria and Gustaf III of Sweden, some of the most enlightened rulers of the time, were supporters of religious freedom, as were the most influential philosophers. The US founding fathers were deeply influenced by the continental philosophy of their time, and regardless of their personal faith, they may well have founded a secular federation. Particularly, this would have preserved the right of the several states to deliberate on the matters of faith, which might have generated severe controversy on the federal niveau. --MPorciusCato (talk) 12:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Not a secular federation, per se, but rather a federation in which the making of laws governing religious matters was left entirely to State and local governments. As justice Potter Stewart famously noted in 1963,
"As a matter of history, the First Amendment was adopted solely as a limitation upon the newly created National Government. The events leading to its adoption strongly suggest that the Establishment Clause was primarily an attempt to insure that Congress not only would be powerless to establish a national church, but would also be unable to interfere with existing state establishments."
Not everyone was happy with that. Madison also proposed another Amendment for the Bill of Rights, which would have constrained the States somewhat in religious matters, to protect individual rights of conscience (though it would not have gone so far as to forbid State establishments of religion). However that amendment didn't make it through Congress. The prevailing view was that protecting religious liberties from federal interference was a proper object of the national Constitution, and protecting religious liberties from State and local government was a matter for the State constitutions. NCdave (talk) 04:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quack

I found it interesting that anonymous editor 70.216.22.6 wrote that "one quack at a christian university does not re-write history (entry was biased)," but says nothing about the quack, Brooke Allen, and her atheist/humanist pals who keep lying about our Founding Fathers. The AC did not even bother to tell us which source he considered to be the "quack." Is the AC trying to smack down Jon Meacham, author of "American Gospel" and editor of "Newsweek"? Or, Michael Novak, author of several books on this topic and holds a Chair at the American Enterprise Institute? Could it be David Barton, author of "Original Intent"? Or, John Eidsmoe, who wrote, "Christianity and the Constitution" and is a constitutional attorney? And, what has Brooke Allen done, other than write books on her opinions? Pooua (talk) 08:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I doubt that the quack in question was Meacham, Novak, Barton, or Eidsmoe. I believe the quack he was referring to was probably John Jay, first Chief Justice of the SCOTUS, who wrote in Federalist No. 2, "With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence." NCdave (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fact or Opinion

For the last few days, the article page has been reverting back and forth, while the edit summary for the article contains a 1-line argument on either side. I believe that these differences should be worked out on the discussion page. I have reverted the page and left a note inviting the interested parties to join me on this discussion page.

The section in question is culled from edits I made a week ago. I own copies of the books I cited, so it is not a problem for me to quote from them (arthritis allowing). Also, several branches of my family have been on this continent for about 300 years. Some of them could even be considered among the Founding Fathers. So, I am not impressed by arguments claiming that the Founding Fathers were Deists, as if the national leadership of that era were not observant Christians. Pooua (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed fact that the Founding Fathers were, for the most part, Christian. It doesn't matter what is said, over 99% of them were Christians[citation needed] . This has even been established by US Law recently passed. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

How can you establish historical facts with a law? If a law is required, then there must be considerable doubt about this "fact", and the NPOV requires that all sides be presented. Adiatur et altera pars. --MPorciusCato (talk) 11:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Whether or not the material is cited is not the point -- the assertions being made are framed in such as way as to forward an argumentative position in violation of NPOV. older ≠ wiser 13:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The tone is completely inappropriate, and the section isn't even relevant. The relevant point has already been made: "According to author John Eidsmoe... the The Treaty of Tripoli cannot be taken as Congressional assent of its statements."
Saying 'but they were almost all Christians' as if it refutes the claim that they did not intend the USA to be a Christian nation is a straw man argument. If I, a person who enjoys cheese, start a club with five of my cheese-loving friends, does that mean that our club is necessarily intended for cheese-lovers and founded on our mutual fondness for dairy products? Do our personal preferences invalidate any later statements of support for the lactose intolerant? Their faith is not relevant. Their intent is. -- Vary | Talk 20:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed; there are many elements of modern life which we have no trouble separating from their religious roots. Bunnies and eggs had nothing to do with the Crucifixion, and Christmas just happens to coincide with the Romans' winter solstice festival, when the evidence suggests He was born in late autumn. Yoga has roots in the Hindu world; waffles are distant descendents of Communion wafers. Why, then, should we attach a poorly (if at all) proven religious context to the Founders' decisions? Even if we assumed for the moment that the Founders' faith was relevant, I think you'll find that their religious beliefs are too complex to be so easily pigeonholed. I'd agree that most of the Founders were raised Christian, but great thinkers often endure crises of faith, abandon the church for extended periods of time, or seek better perspective by exploring other religions. -- A. (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eidsmoe

Why is his a notable opinion? He is one constitutional lawyer out of many. Can we have a major review article that backs up his opinion please? Relata refero (talk) 12:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I had not heard of John Eidsmoe until he was mentioned here. I found one bio here and a longer one here. Neither is dated, and both say that he teaches Constitutional Law at the Thomas Goode Jones School of Law in Montgomery, Alabama. That is apparently a small law school at Faulkner University, which describes itself as "A Christian University" and does not currently list him as a member of the law school faculty. The bios I mentioned credit him with having written 12 books.
One of Eismoe's books is titled "Christianity and the Constitution", and this web page quotes “Appendix 1: Treaty of Tripoli”, Christianity and the Constitution: The Faith of the Founding Fathers (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987) pp. 413-15. That web page is possibly in copyvio, and would not be considered a reliable source. Still, accepting it for the moment as probably a faithful requote from Eismoe's book, the final bits of the material requoted there say:
“

[...]

3-Translation interpretation is possibly the source of confusion on Article 11. There is evidence that Article 11 was not actually part of the Treaty of Tripoli. Consider the following entry from Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America, 1776-1949:

Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation with its famous phrase, “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion,” does not exist at all. There is no Article 11. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant from the Dey of Algiers to the Pashna of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, ia a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatsoever on the point.” (emphasis added)

One explanation is that the Dey of Algiers wrote this note on the Treaty to mollify certain concerns of the Pashna of Tripoli about entering into a Treaty with an “infidel” (non-Islamic) nation. The Algerian court official translating the document translated everything on the page without regard to its nature or source. It is also possible that American foreign service officials, eager to conclude a treaty, allowed the Barbary officials to continue under that impression.

4-Piracy continued despite the Treaty; the United Stats went to war with Tripoli in 1801. A new treat with Tripoli, which does not contain the phrase in question, was accepted on April 17, 1806.7

While this information does not completely resolve the mystery of the Treaty of Tripoli, it certainly establishes that the Treaty cannot be used as evidence that Washington—or Adams, for that matter—did not believe this nation was founded on Christian principles.

 ”
The requoted passage which I have italicized above is attributed to Charles Irving Bevans (1968). Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America, 1776-1949. Dept. of State; for sale by the Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off.. ISBN 1575883716. 
Footnote 7 referred to above reads: "7 Leo Pfeiffer, Church, State and Freedom (Boston: Beacon Press, 1953), p. 211.", for which see here.
I am researching this online from Boracay island in the Philippines. Someone in the U.S. who has access to a library can no doubt do a better job. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately I've lost library access as well. If that is a faithful quote, however, I would imagine that we would find much better sources discussing the fact that this famous line does not in fact exist. Failing that, this cannot stand in the article under the line in our policies that says "extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources." Relata refero (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
It is not that the famous line doesn't exist -- it clearly does as recorded in the English translation as ratified by the U.S. Senate. However, what is also beyond doubt is that the original Arabic text of what is where Article 11 should be bears no resemblance to the purported English translation of that text. This is well-established and documented in many sources. The mystery is how that situation came to be. That Eidsmoe offers such flimsy speculation about how this might have come to be does little for his credibility as a scholar. There is a fairly thorough examination of the treaty at the The Avalon Project at the Yale Law School [3] -- there are a few links to specific pages there given in the External links section of the article. older ≠ wiser 22:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I understand now. Quite a puzzle. In any case, we certainly shouldn't dignify speculation of this sort by inclusion unless it is the dominant theory. Relata refero (talk) 06:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Please read your own link: "Thus the proclamation was immediate with the ratification and did not await any such formality as notice to the Bey of Tripoli of the ratification of the treaty by the United States. The treaty, like the treaty with the Dey of Algiers of 1795 (Document 17), had been bought; and, as much of the purchase price had already been paid, any subsequent item of procedure was doubtless considered to be of comparatively little importance." That suggests that the treaty was not created by the U.S. Government but paid for, which does not suggest that they willingly agreed to the wording, but were black mailed into it for protection from enemies abroad. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I see nothing in the link that states that. We can't act on the assumption that its true. In fact, when a treaty has been 'bought' it is entirely possible that the wording is more in the control of those who do the buying. Profitless speculation either way.Relata refero (talk) 06:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, if any of you were to read the The Avalon Project at the Yale Law School web pages, you would see that they quote the same material as Eidsmoe does. Also, I own a copy of Eidsmoe's book, "Christianity and the Constitution."
Common sense should tell you that probably no Congressman endorses every minute point in every bill he signs. The people who insist that Article 11 amounts to a sworn statement of historical fact must show more than a mere absence of comment on the Treaty, especially because the Treaty was paid for and signed by witnesses months before Congress ever saw it.
Your arguments against Eidsmoe are mere speculation on your parts. Let's see you come up with citations that dispute the specific chain of events that Eidsmoe gives. Pooua (talk) 10:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Well of course. They're both quoting the same source. All I mean is that the source is talking about an interesting mystery surrounding translation and paperwork. If the Congress did not ratify Article 11 as recorded, I we need several mainstream sources specifically saying that.
My argument against Eidsmoe is not speculation, unless his CV is speculation. He is merely not a good enough source for an extraordinary statement. Relata refero (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
He does have five graduate degrees, you know. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Irrelevant. That does not make him a reliable source, or a proven authority. Relata refero (talk) 09:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and what makes *your* sources so authoritative? Just because someone got published in "The Nation" doesn't mean they are not a crackpot! Eidsmoe is at least as good as anyone else cited in this article. Pooua (talk) 09:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
If he's the only source for this novel interpretation of a quaint historical mystery, he's not good enough. Find another. That's policy. Relata refero (talk) 11:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
What policy is that? Entire Wikipedia articles have only 1 if any sources! Eidsmoe is a published (not a self-published) author, from a legitimate publishing house; that is all the more that Wikipedia requires. Your opinion of him is nothing more than your opinion; it is not Wikipedia policy. Pooua (talk) 11:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:REDFLAG. One quote from a relatively unknown scholar at a minor confessional school in the South is not sufficient. Policy is framed to keep this kind of fringe nonsense out. Relata refero (talk) 12:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


What you forget is that Article 11 is only one part of a whole Treaty. Congress ratified the Treaty; Eidsmoe does not claim otherwise. What Eidsmoe points out--and this is simply historical fact--is that Congress and the President were at the end of a long chain of signatories, which only began after the U.S. paid the Muslims the ransom money that the Muslims demanded. The Muslims wrote the original Treaty, which is the reason it was in Arabic. They also translated the Treaty. The wording is all their wording. The U.S. only had the option of agreeing to their terms or not. By the time the Treaty reached the U.S., the Muslims already had possession of a large part of the ransom. All of this means that Article 11 cannot be taken as a sworn statement or a legal finding or any other certification of historical fact. It was just part of a Peace Treaty. That was its only job; to serve as a receipt for payment of a ransom to the Moslems. These are not extraordinary statements at all; you could reach the same conclusion by reading Hunter Miller's notes. What I see is that many people don't understand what they are reading; I believe a lot of confusion has been sown on this subject, and important parts of the historical record ignored (I have pointed out previously in these discussion notes a place where wording from The Avalon Project at the Yale Law School was obviously ignored). Pooua (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
IF you can reach the same conclusion, find several reliable sources stating as much. It should be easy. No further discussion is needed, surely? That the "Moslems" had set up the wording etc.? Find several unimpeachable sources and we can discuss it. Relata refero (talk) 09:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Yale Law School is sufficient. Pooua (talk) 09:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Yale soes nothing. You mean Hunter Miller. Who didn't say it. Find a source saying the US Congress did not see or draft the wording. Actually find more than one unimpeachable source, or that fringe theory is out on its ear. Relata refero (talk) 12:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


Relata refero, how can you say, "I see nothing in the link that states that"? Here, go to The Avalon Project at Yale Law School: The Barbary Treaties : Tripoli 1796: Hunter Miller's Notes: THE UNITED STATES RATIFICATION AND PROCLAMATION. Search for the phrase, "Thus the proclamation was immediate with the ratification"; it is right there, about 3/4 of the way down the page!
"Thus the proclamation was immediate with the ratification and did not await any such formality as notice to the Bey of Tripoli of the ratification of the treaty by the United States. The treaty, like the treaty with the Dey of Algiers of 1795 (Document 17), had been bought; and, as much of the purchase price had already been paid, any subsequent item of procedure was doubtless considered to be of comparatively little importance."
I make a big point of this because the people who claim some special significance in Article 11 don't give any sign of seeing that paragraph. Pooua (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
What exactly is your point? So what if the treaty was immediate with ratification? Does it mean that the Senate did not vote unanimously to ratify the English translation treaty? Does it mean that there was no recorded dissent whatsoever to the language of the treaty? Evidently not, from the documentary record. older ≠ wiser 03:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
It means that Congress did not have a choice but to ratify it. Dissent would have been meaningless and counter-productive.
I defy you to produce, cite or source the specific discussions made by Congress regarding any part of this Treaty of Tripoli. You can't do it, because they don't exist! Apart from some vague claims that there was a committee formed to discuss the Treaty as a whole, and the Treaty as a whole was read aloud to Congress, we know nothing of any talk for or against any talk in Congress regarding Article 11. Absolutely no one in Congress said they agreed with the wording of Article 11. No one specifically advocated the wording of Article 11. No one claimed that Article 11 even contained accurate statements. And yet you secular humanists try to make the whole of U.S. history pivot on that one phrase! Pooua (talk) 09:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. Regardless of the timing of the proclamation, it was ratified. That is what is relevant. Any further speculation on the motives of Congress should come from several reliable sources, not from you or a professor at a minor confessional school. Relata refero (talk) 09:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The Treaty of Tripoli was not a proclamation, despite how much as you wish it were! It was a peace treaty, a receipt for an extorted peace with pirates. Pooua (talk) 09:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
A peace treaty is not valid until its 'proclamation'. You yourself have quoted the word above, in the paragraph you accused the rest of the world of not seeing. Please at least do your reading if you wish to keep us listening to your fringe viewpoint. To repeat, Regardless of the timing of the proclamation, it was ratified. That is what is relevant. Any further speculation on the motives of Congress should come from several reliable sources, not from you or a professor at a minor confessional school. Relata refero (talk) 12:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I defy you to produce, cite or source the specific discussions made by Congress regarding any part of this Treaty of Tripoli. That would seem to be putting the burden of proof exactly backwards. In the contemporaneous records of congress, there are generally notes about discussions and debates and objections to even the most trivial details are often recorded. It is notable that the treaty went through the entire ratification process without any indication that any Senator had any concern whatsoever regarding the language of the treaty. That is about all that we can reliable state -- that the treaty was ratified unanimously by the Senate without any recorded discussion. Anything beyond that regarding the intent of the Congress is speculative. older ≠ wiser 13:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Relata refero, your statement that "A peace treaty is not valid until its 'proclamation'" is completely untrue. The proclamation of a peace treaty has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of the treaty. Where did you ever get such an idea? A peace treaty--like any other treaty--is valid when both parties sign it, and it can be invalidated at any time when either party breaks its agreements.
When Hunter Miller speaks about the proclamation of the Treaty of Tripoli, he is speaking of an action that is distinct from the Treaty itself. No treaty has to be proclaimed, but the Treaty of Tripoli was proclaimed, by publication in public newspapers. Hunter Miller is pointing out that Congress did not have to wait for notification to the Tripolatans that Congress had ratified the Treaty; it was understood that the Treaty was in force, as much as it ever would be, upon payment, which occurred before Congress ever saw the Treaty. The Treaty itself is not a proclamation, though that is how it is being treated by those who argue the significance of Congress ratifying the Treeaty.
Bkonrad, the burden of proof is on those who claim that Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli was intended by Congress as an historical statement of fact. The Treaty was written in Tripoli, in Arabic, by the Islamic court, which also furnished an English translation to the American ambassador (who did not know Arabic and could not translate the original). Just look at the dates that the document was signed; it starts in Tripoli on November 4, 1796, goes to Algiers on January 3, 1797 and was submitted to the Senate on Senate May 29, 1797. [4] Pooua (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Does the article make that claim (without attribution)? Have I made that claim? No, rather recent edits seem intent on turning the article into a platform whereby the views of those holding to the Christian Nation are presented as incontrovertible historical fact. But beyond that, some recent edits appear to draw inferences that the fact that the Congress passed the treaty unanimously without any recorded dissent actually means that they had no choice about the treaty and draw inferences about what the Congress really meant despite the lack of any direct evidence. That is why I said your demand to prove a negative was putting the burden of proof exactly backwards. older ≠ wiser 04:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Relato - "IF you can reach the same conclusion, find several reliable sources stating as much. It should be easy." If you look at the edits, there were four sources that were added, but some people decided that those, like Oxford University Press, were not legitimate enough, even though Wikipedia states otherwise. Here are the four books that directly verify Eidsmoe's claim:

  1. Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, & Religion. WallBuilders.
  2. Holmes, David. The Faiths of the Founding Fathers. Oxford University Press.
  3. Meacham, Jon. American Gospel. Random House.
  4. Novak, Michael. On Two Wings: Humble Faith and Common Sense at the American Founding. Encounter Books.

Number Two can be found here: [5] Number Three can be found here: [6]

Those two sources (two and three), are by highly respected authors in the field. I have had other admin state that they are legitimate and verifiable as sources, and that their publishers can be trusted. Their opinion on the matter deserves to be mentioned. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You are claiming that David Holmes, a professor of religion, Jon Meacham, a journalist, and Michael Novak, a Catholic philosopher-apologist without academic position are notable enough historians? Wow.
Well, not that this is a particularly useful bunch. Of these various possibilities, the only really relevant reference is David Holmes. Can you quote what he says about Article 11? Relata refero (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
(All I remember of the book is that Holmes wound up saying the Founders were all Deists/Unitarians at best, so I'm not sure what he said about Tripoli.) Relata refero (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
You must remember, this is for an opinion/controversy section over interpretation that, according to WP:NPOV must express both sides according to their verifiable sources, which there are at least two extremely verifiable sources on the matter. And yes, each bring up the issue of Article 11, since it is the classic "separation of church and state" argument. And Holmes does not claim they were all Deists and Unitarians, he only claimed that some of the ones deemed as atheists were that, and that others, like Washington, went to mass all the time, but hide his religion from public mention.
From pg 20 "Two of these Maryland Roman Catholic gentlemen planters - Charles Carroll... and Daniel Carroll - signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, respectively" From pg 31 ""None of the founding fathers was an evangelical, although Madison attended a moderately evangelical Episcopal church in the last years of his life" pg 101 On Monroe "He also served on the board of visitors of William and Mary, where Episcopal membership was almost a prerequisite for service. While president, he occupied the President's Pew in St. John's Episcopal Church opposite the White House" He also states that many belonged to Congregationalistic movements, which are church movements. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
What on earth does that have to do with the Treaty of Tripoli or the foundation of the Republic? Does Holmes address that matter? Relata refero (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't think you understand the topic of discussion. The page is dealing with controversy. The controversy is over the Founding Father's and their relationship to religion, and if this document has any impact on their personal beliefs or if it reflects what they believed. The book verifies the claim above that this one document does not reflect the Founding Father's religious belief, and that they signed it without any claim for it to reflect how they feel. Seeing as how the language was already put in place and the Treaty was already bought before they signed it, the language could not be changed. Thus, the argument that it wouldn't reflect them is verified by their own personal historical backgrounds that determine where their religious views are actually expressed and what they believed. You claimed that Holmes cited that the Founding Fathers were all deists. The few excerpts above prove that statement as incorrect, and prove to verify the original claim, as you can see below reposted by Bkonrad. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The controversy is about the establishment of the Republican and the separation of Church and State. The personal faiths of the founders are not relevant. The rest of what you say is irrelevant. "The book verifies the claim above this one document does not reflect the Founding Father's religious belief, and that they signed it without any claim for it to reflect how they feel." Where? I see nothing that indicates that the quotes invalidate anything that Article 11 says. I see nothing in the quotes about Article 11 or the founding of the government of the United States or the separation of Church and State. "Tthe argument that it wouldn't reflect them is verified by their own personal historical backgrounds that determine where their religious views are actually expressed and what they believed." That is known as original research, and is not permitted on Wikipedia. Relata refero (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
1. You are miscontruing "original research" since it is the authors cited making those claims that the religions of the individuals matter. 2. The quotes invalidate your claims about the source. 3. These books reinforce the premise of the primary books, which content that the founding father's faiths are necessary to understand why they would have signed a document like that. I think you don't understand WP:NPOV and that I recommend you read it. There are two contentions: one, that the founders claimed that there was a separation of Church and State, which is verified by this document, and the other being that the founders, as Christians, promoted a Christian nation and were forced into signing the document and did not intend it as verifying separation of Church and State. If you refuse to show this half of it, then you are violating NPOV. The cites verify and legitimize the opinion as being a popular opinion and meet all the requirements for stating that view according to Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
"The founders, as Christians, promoted a Christian nation and were forced into signing the document and did not intend it as verifying separation of Church and State." If that's the opinion you believe is a substantial enough minority viewpoint to be included, find a couple of citations that say that specifically. You have not done so. Repeated: you have not done so. The quotes you have provided are information about the public behaviour of historical figures. It does not imply anything about their private beliefs, which we do not know, but reliable sources can speculate about (and is irrelevant to this article) and it does not imply anything about their promotion of a Christian nation, about being forced, or about their intent. As such it does not back you up at all. Relata refero (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
If you would read, it has already been quoted and it is not a minority viewpoint. The statement was cited properly by Wikipedia standards and by Wikipedia verified sources. You seem unable to understand the argument, and I am done talking to you about it. Please, if you would read what has already been stated, all of your points, comments, and concerns, have already been addressed and the statements already fell under Wikipedia guidelines. It was only POV that ended up with declarations to remove it, even though several admin have stated that the sources did meet verifiability guidelines. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
No they have not. My points have not been answered, and I see several others have also raised this concern. If you have answered the specific points I have made above, please direct me to the specific diffs in which you have answered them, or repeat them now. Relata refero (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


Well see the problem is that the sources were being cited to support the statement Furthermore, the fact that most of the Founding Fathers, like most of the nation at the time, were religious men after the Christian tradition is a matter of documented history; no mere article in a treaty could change that historical fact. However a central theme of BOTH books is that the religious practices of the founding fathers is very difficult to know in detail, in that many of them went to great lengths to maintain a separation of their personal faiths from their service to the nation. older ≠ wiser 15:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Naturally that line can't stay in there, it doesn't have the slightest backing one way or the other. Relata refero (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, they claim that it wasn't a separation, but to hide their individual faiths in order to not incur disputes between various religious denominations. They do document that there were regular masses, Congress opened with prayers, etc. If that seems to be in doubt, just read this: [7] and each of those statements are backed up with government records stating as much. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Nevertheless, that line has no backing one way or another. "Religious men after the Christian tradition" has no backing, as the quotes indicate that they performed public acts of devotion, which is not the same thing; in addition, it is an irrelevant statement. "no mere article in a treaty could change that historical fact": OR. Also irrelevant. Relata refero (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you understand what OR means. That is the theory expressed in the book, not by any contributor here. Hence why it starts off with the person pushing the theory. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Whatever. Its irrelevant, and doesn't belong here. Relata refero (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
According to you, but only according to you. If the response to the separationists belongs, then the opposite response to the separationist responses. That is the definition of WP:NPOV. If you do not like that, I suggest you go to the Village Pump and start an argument against NPOV. Ottava Rima (talk)
Only if the "response to the separationists" is specifically discussed in a significant set of reliable sources. Find those sources, and we're done. To repeat: if some RSes make the same statement - the exact same logic, mind, not generalities about their Christian observance - you're making, then we have something to discuss. Otherwise, not. Relata refero (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Miller and "Buying"

"In fact, when a treaty has been 'bought' it is entirely possible that the wording is more in the control of those who do the buying. " Quoted from the above. In fact, those who did the buying were being subjected to pirate raids and attacks, and were paying for protection like a person would pay the mafia. It seems obvious that they did not control the wording, seeing as how Miller shows that the Muslims were the first signers, and that it was signed first in Africa and brought back to the United States to be looked over. There is even a mention at the end of his notes that the U.S. assumed that once they signed, the agreement was met, and the Muslims did not believe so until they received their payment. Hence why the treaty failed. That would only verify the rush to sign for protection suggested by Miller. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wallbuilders

I have deleted two links to wallbuilders. You should know that Wallbuilders, even among the right is considered an unreliable, POV-pushing resource. The owner of this publisher David Barton has been mentioned a few times in reliable sources as being unreliable. Wjhonson (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard anyone on the Right make that claim. I am somewhat familiar with David Barton and Wallbuilders. I have heard him deliver a presentation and I own a copy of one of his books, "Original Intent." Although many people on the Left complain about him, I have yet to see any substantial argument made that disputes his statements of facts. Pooua (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Will you accept Random House and Oxford World Publishing? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Pooua I linked you directly to his page. The comments against his veracity are right there in his article. I believe it even quotes him admitting that he made some quotes up. Wjhonson (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Ottava Rima, Random House and Oxford World Publishing are not "among the Right." I would also assume that they would claim the standard disclaimer, that is, "author's comments do not necessarily represent the position of this establishment." If all you have is someone denouncing Barton in print, don't waste my time; I've seen several people express their negative feelings about Barton, and there is not a well-known figure in any field or on any topic who doesn't have someone denounce him in print.
Wjhonson, I read the Wikipedia page that you linked. In the first place, you cannot use Wikipedia as a source for other Wikipedia articles; I would take that to mean that you cannot justify deleting a source on the basis of another Wikipedia article, either. But, the Wiki page you linked doesn't specify any instance in which Barton's claims are wrong. No, the Wiki page does not claim that Barton made up quotes. It says that Barton states that he has not located the primary sources of some of the quotes he includes, but that the quotes are all consistent with each other. If you cannot appreciate the huge difference between those two positions, then I really fear for the Wikipedia model. Pooua (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Wjhonson, as I read the David Barton article you wikilinked above and Barton's Unconfirmed Quotations article which it cites as a supporting source, Barton says that he relied on secondary sources (as does wikipedia) to establish verifiability of some quotes (I don't know whether or not Barton has cited the secondary sources he claims to have used). The WP article also points out that Barton has contradicted himself on at least one point. I don't see that it quotes him admitting that he made some quotes up. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barbary Raiders

[edit] Pirates or Privateers?

I am undecided on the best way to refer to the actions of the Barbary pirates. Most sources say they practiced piracy. However, piracy is non-government sanctioned robbery. The Barbary pirates were sanctioned by their government. The term usually used for that is privateering, but that might suggest that each pirate was specifically commissioned to conduct his raids, which I am not certain they all were (though, considering how difficult it would be to find safe harbor if they did not share the goods with the government, they probably were). OTOH, piracy is an easy idea to comprehend, and the raiders are commonly known as pirates. Pooua (talk) 07:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Historical context

I believe that to understand the motivations of the people involved in creating the Treaty of Tripoli (especially those of the Senate and President Adams), it is necessary to see what their world was like. The reader needs to understand what threat the Barbary pirates represented to the people who lived in the early United States, and maybe to glimpse into the thinking of the day. In order to do that, specific examples of the actions of Barbary pirates are needed. But, each time that I mention that women captives typically were made into concubines or wives in the harems, someone deletes my statement. The example I gave of the sack of the village of Baltimore was also deleted, with the request that the article limit itself only to U.S. involvement.

Ottava Rima, your edits are a bit sloppy. You deleted phrases but did not correct the resulting punctuation, and your edit of one sentence made it a run-on sentence missing a clause. But, you did succeed in deleting my reference to concubines. Pooua (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a Barbary Pirate page for a reason. Please keep information pertaining to that over there. If they need more background, they will go there. Seeing that there weren't women or villages of the US involved, background on such is not necessary and will actually mislead readers about the U.S. and its involvement. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to make this work. Pooua (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

Can we remove "Religious history of the United States" as a Category, because it is very misleading. Having "separation" as one should imply enough. This is a legal document that has no actual effect on the United States or United States policy outside of the Barbary Coast, after all. I think we need to add another US History Category though. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, if someone could find a government owned or uncopyrighted picture of the Arabic version of the Treaty, could you upload the picture? Ottava Rima (talk) 07:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scorn quotes, and the Article 11 POV mess

At one time this article had a pretty balanced and accurate treatment of article 11. Now it doesn't. In fact, it doesn't even accurately describe what the argument is over Article 11.

The view that Article 11 demonstrates that the United States was intended to be religiously neutral, or that the United States is not historically Christian, is inaccurately said by the current version of this article to be the view of "supporters of the separation of church and state." That formulation confuses an argument about history with advocacy for a current political posture, which are orthogonal matters.

The opposing view is likewise inaccurately described: as the "Christian Nation" view -- complete with scorn quotes, which are obviously inappropriate for a NPOV encyclopedia article. Perhaps even worse, this side of the argument has been stripped of nearly all the evidence supporting it. There is nothing left but a quote from a single historian, whose own Wikipedia article contains harsh criticism of him.

Now, what to do about these problems?

First, let's start with something we can all agree on: "scare quotes" or "scorn quotes" have no place here. Does anyone disagree?

Second, let's get the argument straight. For convenience, let's call the two views Left and Right:

  • The "Left" view is that Article 11 demonstrates that the United States was not intended or considered to be a Christian nation by the founders, with application to contemporary political issues like school prayer, and religious displays in town squares.
  • The "Right" view is simply that the "Left" view is wrong; i.e., that Article 11 does not demonstrate that.

Does anyone dispute that that is the real argument? (Google finds a thousand hits on that combination of phrases.)

But that is not at all how the current Wikipedia article presents the argument. The fact is that nobody claims that the government of the United States -- that is, the federal government -- was ever intended to be explicitly Christian. But to read this section of the current Wikipedia article, you would think that was precisely the view of the "Right" side of this dispute. The current Wikipedia article says that the "Left" side "contend[s] that [Article 11] is significant in that it confirms that the government of the United States was specifically intended to be religiously neutral." But that is not at all what the two sides argue about. So how did that strange formulation get into this article?

It appears that that formulation is in the article in an attempt to make the "Left" side of the argument appear to be the more reasonable view, just as the scorn quotes are obviously intended to cast doubt on the "Right" side of the argument.

In fact, the argument is over what Article 11 says of consequence about the American nation, not just one level of government. Yet really there should be no argument, because what the Barlow translation of article says is, "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." The government of the United States is the federal government, which nobody disputes was intended to be religiously neutral. So that phrase says nothing about the religious adherence of the American people, or the religious policies of State and local governments -- and hence nothing about issues like school prayer and religious displays in town squares.

That really should settle the argument. But since it probably won't, consider the mountain of corroborating evidence, which used to be in this Wikipedia article, but which someone has removed:

  • The same sentence which says '"...the United States of America is not... founded on the Christian religion..." also refers to the supposed "harmony existing between the two countries" -- when relations between the two countries were actually very far from harmonious. In other words, the sentence was written for the purpose of smoothing diplomatic relations, at the expense of accurate history. It is indisputable that the sentence is historically inaccurate.
  • Though Article 11 refers to the founding of the United States, it was written more than 20 years after that founding. Far more relevant to that founding was the 1783 treaty with Great Britain ending the Revolutionary War. That treaty begins, "In the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity..."
  • The 1781 Articles of Confederation includes the phrase, "Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World."
  • Declaration of Independence references the "Creator" and "Nature's God."
  • Many other documents, including both the United States Constitution and the Articles of Confederation are dated "in the year of our Lord" (i.e., from the birth of Christ).
  • Even more than two decades after the founding of the United States, when this treaty was negotiated, although the federal government of the United States was religiously neutral, many American States and towns still had official established churches, or else laws permitting only Christians to hold public office at the State and local levels.

All that being said, I would hasten to note that fact that the "Left" view of Article 11 is wrong does not support the view that the United States was (or should be) a Christian nation. It simply means that Article 11 does not speak to those issues. NCdave (talk) 10:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

One might add that of the 9 treaties concluded with the Barbary nations, only this one treaty includes a suggestion that the United States government is not founded on Christianity. So, we have a few treaties written prior to it, and several after it, and only this one has this phrase. One might be tempted to call it a spurious phrase, particularly considering that it never existed in the Arabic.
BTW, the fact that Article 11 never existed in the Arabic is another point of confusion amongst the Humanists; several of their websites (undoubtedly copying Stephen Jay Gould's article) ponder how the article was lost from "the only surviving Arabic copy." I hope the Wikipedia article is written clearly enough to show why Dr. Gould's statements were ill-founded. Pooua (talk) 10:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Nine! Interesting, I did not know that. But inasmuch as the phrase in question appears in a sentence that is indisputably untrue (since it absurdly referred to the "harmony existing between the two countries"), the trust given that sentence by Gould et al certainly seems misplaced. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. NCdave (talk) 10:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Find a couple of citations in reliable secondary sources to back up your discussion, and we can consider alternative formulations. Relata refero (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Relata, are you addressing me? If so, can you please be more specific about what you think needs more support? In the meantime, I've added a neutrality-disputed warning tag to this section. NCdave (talk) 07:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joel Barlow

Considering the importance of Joel Barlow to the first Treaty of Tripoli (1797), it is a wonder that he hasn't received his own section before now. But, my point in mentioning him now is only to say, I don't believe he translated the Arabic original into English, if only because I don't believe that he knew Arabic. I actually wrote to the Barlow genealogy website and asked them for help pinning down this question. Of course, I cannot use their reply to me in a Wikipedia article, but I can mention it here. The reply is, they don't know of any evidence that Joel Barlow knew Arabic, either. He knew French, Italian, Greek and Latin, besides his native English, but we don't know of any of his work in Arabic. Pooua (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Joel Barlow merits a separate section in this article -- perhaps a subsection under "translation controversies". Some of the details which you mentioned could probably usefully appear in the Joel Barlow article. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 13:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I did not mean to suggest making a Joel Barlow section in the article! I meant, it is a wonder that he hasn't had his own section here, on the discussion pages. Pooua (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Joel Barlow is central to the controversy regarding Article 11. All the paths of investigation regarding this mystery lead to him. When the Arabic was translated into English, the translation was written in Mr. Barlow's handwriting, despite the fact that we have no evidence that he knew Arabic (though he must have picked up a little bit in the time he lived in the area). Mr. Barlow was the one who certified the signatures on the treaty, and sent both the Arabic and the English back to the U.S. for ratification. The reason that Mr. Barlow was a diplomat was that his religious views from his college days were too liberal for him to be granted a job as a teacher in the college. It is my understanding that Mr. Barlow became increasingly Deistic, at least up to his work in the Barbary nations. He was, after all, the man who got Thomas Paine's, "The Age of Reason" published in 1794. The only place in any treaty, in English or Arabic or any other language with any other nation of that era, that the claim that the U.S. government is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion is the English translation that Barlow hand-wrote. All the evidence says to me that Joel Barlow stuck that phrase in the English translation as an expression of his own viewpoint, to get an endorsement of his Deistic beliefs. He knew that the Senate and President Adams were going to sign the treaty, regardless of its wording. I believe that no professional historian today wants to make that kind of statement, even if he believes it to be true. Pooua (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Pooua, I am impressed. Please add this information to the article (with appropriate citations, of course). It is obviously very important. NCdave (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I would love to add this info to the article. I wanted to do that a year or so ago (and I don't remember how long I've had the overall theory), but I have been looking for the appropriate citations to use for Wikipedia, or to disprove my theory. Of course, the part that is my theory is OR, maybe even POV, so not appropriate for the article. But, the individual points are citable. Glancing over what I wrote, I suppose I would need to track down at least 4 different sources (these are sources that I have seen). It would be a bit of work, and I suppose it would be controversial (why not? Everything else has been!). The complexity of wording this correctly and meshing it with the article with the appropriate cites has delayed me by a year so far in putting it in this article. But, I really do believe that we have Mr. Barlow's practical joke (or whatever his point was) to thank for this controversy. This may point out that even the Founders had different views about what the Founding meant. Pooua (talk) 02:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Religiously Neutral or Religiously Sterile?

I know that many Christians who quote articles such as "Our Godless Constitution" want to claim that Article XI of the Treaty of Tripoli and the seperation of church and state principle mean that the U.S. government is supposed to be religiously neutral, but don't endorse the idea that government should be completely free of religion or religious influence. But, the source articles these Christians are citing are written by atheists, to argue for a religious-free (as in, sterile) government. What part of "Godless" do these people not understand? The fact that so many Christians don't realize that is what they are fighting for shows how politically clueless mainstream (Leftist) Christianity is today. Pooua (talk) 23:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This talk page is here so that the article itself and changes which might improve the article can be discussed. Do you have a point to make in that context? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Inserting interpretive words such as "sterile" in the positions of others is blatantly contrary to NPOV. older ≠ wiser 01:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Boracay, Bkonrad cites an article that states "The Founding Fathers were not religious men" and calls that religious neutrality. It is not religious neutrality; it is misrepresentation of the Founding Fathers to justify religious sterility. The Treaty of Tripoli article misrepresents the controversy regarding Article XI by claiming that it is between those who want the government to be religiously neutral and those who don't. But, that is not the controversy; the controversy is between those who claim that the Founding Fathers had little or no use for God and those who claim the Founding Fathers generally *were* religious men, that they generally admired and respected Christianity and most certainly did not attempt to silence religious ideas and people from government. The main reason that most people today are even aware of the Treaty of Tripoli is that the secular Left is using it to arguing for the silencing of religious opinions in U.S. government, politics or society. If that were not the case, most of you would care very little about the article. I would not have Wikipedia used by the secular Left to further their goal of religious sterilization. The article must be changed to reflect the actual controversy. Pooua (talk) 02:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well hold on a second. First, the very notion of "religious sterility" is nothing more than rhetorical hyperbole (i.e., the soapbox). You obviously hold a very different opinion about the Founding Fathers than Allen (and some other significant scholarship as well). It is entirely contrary to NPOV to use loaded terms to characterize positions that you happen to disagree with. older ≠ wiser 03:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Brooke Allen never gives any argument in her cited article for religious neutrality. Every argument she makes is for the exclusion of Christianity from the U.S. government. Whether I agree that is the way the Founders were or not, the fact is, that is the way Brooke Allen is. That is the way the majority of the academics who cite the Treaty of Tripoli are. They are not arguing that government should be without opinion, or neutral; they are arguing that religion should not even be on government property. Brooke Allen specifically portrays the Founding Fathers as non-Christian and barely religious. If you don't want to use the term "religiously sterile," find something else that better expresses the idea, but the word "neutrality" does not. Pooua (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be the one who sees the article as a call to arms. I suggest that you avoid using loaded phrases like "religiously sterile" to characterize those whom you disagree with. older ≠ wiser 03:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I missed that specific connection between your remarks and the article's content. Your remarks looked like a rant to me, and that's how I took them. Sorry I didn't place them in the context where you intended them to be seen.
  • ---
Pooua - Thinking about it and re-reading the cited Brooke Allen article, I don't think I agree with you, but I don't think that the Brooke Allen article supports "religiously neutral" either. Brooke Allen seems to argue that the Founders (the ones she mentions, anyhow) intended the wall of separation to have bidirectional effect — that it was intended to keep Church out of State as well as keeping State out of Church (using "Church" here to mean "Religion", and not "Christian religion"). That may or may not be true, and I don't think that her arguments go very far in establishing that it is true, but this article is not the place to explore the details of that topic -- perhaps Separation of Church and State in the United States might be a more appropriate venue. As far as the article goes, (not just asking Pooua here, but suggesting that this might be an acceptable solution) how about replacing the phrase "government of the United States was specifically intended to be religiously neutral" with a phrase something like "the wall of separation between church and State was intended to have bidirectional effect — that it was intended to keep religion out of government as well as keeping government out of religion."?
The sometime tendency of some writers to equate religion with christianity also works into this, I think. I also think that this article is not a proper venue to go into the details, but I note that Allen says in her article that though some Founders were religious men, they were not christians — she uses Franklin as an example. The article paragraph following the one in dispute here speaks of a theory that the U.S. is a "Christian Nation". That is something often heard nowadays on U.S. TV — heard inside and outside of the U.S. — and it seems to be a strongly-held POV among some parts of the Christian community inside the U.S. -- even to the point of arguing that the Christian POV should be accommodated in the U.S. but competing POVs should not. For those interested in such things, there are arguments on several sides of the questions which could be described (in WP articles, they should be described and sources cited, but POV arguments should not be argued), but this article is not a proper venue for that. Perhaps Freedom of religion in the United States might be an appropriate venue.
Backing off from this particular concern(tree) far enough to see the context(forest) in which Article 11 and the treaty which contains it appear, I incline to believe that it was put in by Barlow to suggest to the Mulsim leader of the Barbary state of Tripoli and to Muslim leaders of other Barbary States that the U.S. was not inclined, as a government, to seek conflict with Muslim States — but I'm shooting from the hip there. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

-- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Boracay Bill, I believe that part of the problem is that the controversy is not entirely one way or another. As I mentioned, many Christians believe that Article XI is a declaration of religious neutrality in U.S. government, but some of those Christians dispute that the U.S. is a Christian nation, while others claim it is. Meanwhile, several secularists (Till, Morris, Gould and, I argue, Allen, among several others) claim that Article XI is a declaration of religious exclusion from U.S. government. When one of the secularists goes on television (for example, on the "Glen Beck" program on CNN a few months ago) and argues for the removal of "In God we trust" from our coins or "one nation under God" from the Pledge or the removal of the Ten Commandments from state government property, he often cites Article XI to support his argument that religion should not be in government in any way. The motivations of the Christians who argue against the "Christian nation" idea are numerous, manifesting themselves in ways that I often don't expect, but I have yet to see them advocate the extinction of Christianity from public life, as the secularists are prone to do. So, the controversy over the Treaty of Tripoli is more complex than simply one side arguing that the U.S. was meant to be religiously neutral, while the other side argues around it.

People like David Barton and John Eidsmoe are portrayed by the secularists as attempting to institute a theocracy; the "Christian nation" idea is supposedly an attempt to turn the U.S. into a theocracy, according to secularists. Brooke Allen is very much Left Wing, as she has publicly stated (it annoys her considerably that some people assume she is a Conservative). She has stated that she votes towards the Green Party end of the Democratic Party. She is a complex person (she does, after all, write for a Conservative magazine), but everything that I have seen her publish indicates antipathy against religion in general, and especially religion in government. She probably can't be ignored in this article (as her position is considered mainstream), but it certainly does not appear to be for religious neutrality. Pooua (talk) 05:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Create an article titled Article 11 controversy or somesuch, put a {{further}} link to that article in this one, and argue about it over there. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The Treaty of Tripoli is mostly significant today because of the religious controversy surrounding it. Certainly, no discussion of the Treaty would be complete without describing the controversy, which is the reason the article has a section on the controversy. Pooua (talk) 08:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this article has a section on the contrversy because previous inline mention of that tended to blow up into POV edit wars which disrupted the flow of the article prose. Removing that mention to a separate section isolated the inline prose from the POV edit-war disruptions. Further removing details about Article 11 contrversaries to a separate article might isolate this article a bit from these POV edit wars. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 09:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
What, exactly, is the problem with the phrase "religiously sterile?" I don't understand how it can be considered "loaded" or "POV." It is simply descriptive. "Sterile" is the opposite of "fertile," which means "bearing fruit." That seems to me to be the perfect terminology to characterize the argument over Article 11. The secular revisionists contend that Article 11 of this Treaty shows that the founding of the USA was not in any way fruit of the Christian religion. Their opponents in the debate echo the famous American revolutionary cry, "No king but King Jesus!"
To describe the U.S. Constitution as "godless" is not religiously neutral, it is explicitly anti-religious. Such a description does not contend religious neutrality, but religious sterility: the claim that the Constitution is not merely not about the topic of religion, but that it lacked religious roots.
Such a description is also obviously inaccurate because, like the original American constitution (the Articles of Confederation) the current United States Constitution is dated, not only in the Twelth year of the Independence of the United States of America, but also "in the Year of our Lord." "Our Lord" is a reference to Jesus Christ, and the word "our" is an explicit acknowledgement of His relationship to the people on whose behalf the constitutions were written: "We the People of the United States."
Every important founding document of the United States of America includes some such acknowledgement of Christ. Some are more prominant than others. The Constitution's reference to "our Lord" is less prominant than some of the others, but is in no way inconsistent with them. For instance, the 1783 treaty with Great Britain ending the American Revolutionary War begins, "In the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity."
The secular revisionists simply ignore such explicit acknowledgments of Christ as unimportant, because such references were customary and commonplace at the time. But if you think about that, it makes no sense. In fact, it is exactly backwards. Commonness does not equal insignificance. It was the overwhelming dominance of the Christian religion in those days which made such acknowledgements customary and commonplace, and thus it is the commonness of such references which proves the secularists wrong. NCdave (talk) 09:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
My problem is not with the term "sterile", my problem is with trolling or soap-boxing about Separation of Church and State in the United States in this article which should be about the Treaty of Tripoli (the 1796 treaty, and perhaps about the 1805 treaty as well). Yes, there is a controversy regarding SofCandS and article 11 of the 1796 treaty, and this article would not be complete without some description of that controversy. Soap-boxing on either side of the controversy quickly blows up into long discussions which are irrelevant to the topic of this article or, worse, into edit wars in the article itself. Please, take discussion about the degree of religiosity of the founders, the degree of religiosity in U.S. founding documents, the religious history of the U.S., SofCandS (either in general or specifically as it relates to U.S. — there are separate WP articles about each), and other such topics to the talk pages of articles more closely related to the topic at issue than is this article. If you think that the topic of the controversy surrounding article 11 of the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli deserves more than a passing mention, fork an article on that specific topic off from this article and take it up there. I think that discussions of whether or not U.S. Constitution is properly described as "godless", of whether or not it is religiously neutral, of whether or not it is explicitly anti-religious, etc. would be as much out of place over there as such a discussion is here, but the discussion would be taking place someplace other than here — which would be a good thing for this article. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Some editors (Bkonrad) have a problem with the word, "sterile," because they keep deleting it when I put it in the article, and they specifically complain that the term is "a very loaded term."

The only reason this article even exists--the only reason 99% of the population even pays any attention to this Treaty--is because of the controversy over Article XI. Just look at the Wikipedia entries for the other 8 treaties signed with Barbary nations; the last I checked, 7 of them did not even have an article (1 of them isn't even listed in Wikipedia), and the 1 other treaty that did have an article was just a stub. If this article is to be of any use to the average user, it needs to address the controversy over Article XI as best as possible.

I don't know how you could think that controversy over this Treaty would be more relevant somewhere else; this Treaty *is* the topic! Pooua (talk) 10:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the primary reason this treaty is in any way more notable than other similar treaties of the period is because of the controversy about Article 11. That has nothing whatsoever to do with whether "religiously sterile" is biased terminology (which it is, if you are at all honest about it). older ≠ wiser 18:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you, Bkonrad, question that many of the people who cite Article XI do so to argue that religion has no place in government? The same people who are trying to get the Ten Commandments removed from state courthouses, the same people who do not want any reference to God or religious practices on federal property, claim that Article XI gives them historic authority for their position. This is not neutrality; it is sterility. Pooua (talk) 01:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps from a certain POV that is so, but it not neutral (NPOV) by any stretch. No one from the secular side of the argument would describe themselves as religiously sterile (except perhaps in a humorous or mocking manner). It is about as neutral as describing the Christian Nation folks as Christofacists. Neither is acceptable. older ≠ wiser 02:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jefferson's Refusal to Pay

Relata refero asked for me to "please verify this theory with a quote from an RS on the talkpage." Perhaps the following would suffice?

"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, 1970).

"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, 1970)."

Archiving Early America: Terrorism In Early America: The U.S. Wages War Against The Barbary States To End International Blackmail and TerrorismPooua (talk) 11:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is another:

"Jefferson became President in early 1801, shortly after Yusuf Karamanli, the ruler of Tripoli, unwisely issued an ultimatum to the U.S.: If it did not pay him fresh tribute, he threatened, he would declare war on America. The new Commander in Chief coolly decided to let the ultimatum expire and take the declaration of war at face value. He summoned his new Cabinet, which approved the dispatch of a naval squadron and decided not to bother Congress--which was then in recess--with the information. He did not, in fact, tell the elected representatives of his plans until the fleet was on the high seas and too far away to be recalled."

"To The Shores Of Tripoli." Time.

BTW, the "Time" article was written by Christopher Hitchens.

And, here is another reference:

"The protection money demanded by the "nests of banditti" (as the Founding Fathers called them) continued to escalate. In 1801 the pasha of Tripoli declared war on the United States because we refused to pay him higher tribute than we paid the Dey of Algiers. While Congress was out of session, President Jefferson deployed gunboats to the Mediterranean, and a new phase of the Barbary wars was on."

"Terrorists by Another Name: The Barbary Pirates." "Washington Post." Pooua (talk) 12:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if I could edit the article without someone crudely deleting random stretches of my submissions and making harassing demands that anyone with a Google search could easily fulfill on his own. But, I suppose that is the price of editing a controversial article. Pooua (talk) 12:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we please find an extract from a historian's work, not from polemical articles? This is insufficient. Relata refero (talk) 08:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Relata refero, "Washington Post" and "Time" magazine are used all the time in Wikipedia articles. I really do not understand why you keep objecting to obvious and clear usages from established source material. One citation should have been sufficient, but I provided you with 3 independent citations from reputable sources. What more do you want? Pooua (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Because Christopher Hitchens writing a polemical article is not a reliable source on historical matters. Please find a historian. Relata refero (talk) 08:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Christoper Hitchens only wrote one of the articles that I cited, and his wasn't even the strongest of the three that I cited. My first and strongest source was Archiving Early America: Terrorism In Early America: The U.S. Wages War Against The Barbary States To End International Blackmail and Terrorism, written by Professor Thomas Jewett, Associate Professor at Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville, according to The Early America Review: ABOUT THIS EDITION.
Your work on this article has repeatedly made gross errors, such as simply deleting the middle of sentences without making any attempt to make the result grammatical; deleting reputable sources when you disagree with the quotes; challenging me to provide more and different sources than I provide, while you do nothing to substantiate your own claims. You want to claim that Jefferson broke the terms of the Treaty of Tripoli, but you have failed to provide any source to substantiate your statements. I am asking you to stop vandalizing this article. Pooua (talk) 09:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I haven't made any claims. I merely would like you to substantiate yours.
  • Early America is not a peer-reviewed source. It is little more than a blog-review. Thomas Jewett is not a historian, but in the Curriculum and Instruction Dept at SIUE.
  • I don't believe I have detracted from the overall poor grammar here.
  • And please read WP:SYNTH for information on why all "reputable sources" are not germane. Relata refero (talk) 09:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not require citations to be from peer-reviewed sources, and, as I said, I am using the same sources ("Time," "Washington Post" and others) that are usually used as sources on Wikipedia. Christopher Hitchens happens to be published in these, as well. You are making up rules that I have never seen applied to any Wikipedia article.

Also, you edited the URL that I just put in my last reply, breaking it. Why did you do that? Pooua (talk) 09:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I broke the link, it must have happened while I was copying it to the clipboard.
Please read WP:RS#Scholarship, and WP:REDFLAG. (In any case, opinion columns by polemicists are not generally used as sources for historical facts on Wikipedia. If they are, please remove them.) Relata refero (talk) 10:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS#Scholarship is not the minimum threshold of allowable source material; if it were, most Wikipedia articles could not be written. I don't recall seeing any peer-reviewed, scholarly vetted sources in the Treaty article, for example (although The American Journal of International Law that I cited and you once removed certainly should stand up to any scholarly board as authoritative). Instead, "Scholarship" shows what material is preferred over other material.

WP:REDFLAG does not even apply, as there is absolutely nothing exceptional about the statement that the Pasha of Tripoli increased his tribute demands above those of the original Treaty of Tripoli. Rather, it is your contention that Jefferson broke the signed treaty and so causing the Pasha to retaliate that is an exceptional claim. You have yet to substantiate that claim. Pooua (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • WP:RS#Scholarship is the level of acceptable material, especially in much-studied historical material.
  • I have not made any claims. I have merely asked you to substantiate yours. You will require better than a couple of non-trained polemicists writing in non-peer-reviewed sources. Relata refero (talk) 07:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

My claims are substantiated. Your edits of the article is vandalism and will be so reported. Pooua (talk) 08:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, this is a major war, its been much studied, and the only sources you can claim for the immediate cause of it are Christopher Hitchens and co.? Do you seriously think that asking for more information there is vandalism? Relata refero (talk) 08:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that your common practice of cutting out the middle of sentences that you don't like and then leaving the gutted remains in the article certainly is vandalism. You changed two sentences, which originally read, "When the Pasha of Tripoli increased his demands for tribute above those agreed upon in the recently signed treaty, Thomas Jefferson ignored the Pasha's demands. When the deadline set by the Pasha expired, he declared war against the United States on May 10, 1801.," to "The Pasha of Tripoli against the United States on May 10, 1801." What is more, you are damaging the article by removing cited historical material that is in full agreement with every source that comments on the events. You are trying to hide behind Wikipedia guidelines to justify gutting the historical statements in this page.

You may not like Christopher Hitchens, but you have no right to delete his material, especially when it is published by a respected source and is in full agreement with all other historical references. Mr. Hitchens is not my favorite person, either, but his article in this case is exactly on the spot, historically. You are being petty, trite and just plain obstructionist. Pooua (talk) 08:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

A minor error, I've fixed it.
I repeat, please find an reliable source that states this. If it is the truth, it should be very, very easy to find a genuine hostrian mentioning this in an academic work. Not a pop historian, not a polemicist, not on an online blog. I am truly sorry if I appear obstructionist to you, but believe me this is for the best in terms of the quality and believability of the article. Relata refero (talk) 08:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

"Time" magazine and "Washington Post" are firmly established in Wikipedia as reliable sources. You are being obstructionist. Pooua (talk) 08:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I must ask you to find genuine historical sources. If I were to add, for example, Hitchens to appropriate books of the Bible he has commented on, it would be inappropriate. Similarly so here. Relata refero (talk) 10:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HBO Miniseries on John Adams

I just found out, per a poster in the U.S. Post Office, that HBO will air a 7-part miniseries based on David McCullough's book, "John Adams," beginning Sunday, March 16, 2008 at 2000 (8 P.M.) HBO: John Adams I cited the book as one of my references in the Treaty of Tripoli article. Pooua (talk) 02:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nature of Treaties

Relata refero keeps deleting a statement by "The American Journal of International Law" on the subject of treaties, claiming that unless the Journal is discussing the Treaty of Tripoli specifically, it is WP:SYNTH to quote its statements about treaties in this article. I object that it is not synthesis to quote the Journal's statement about treaties in this article. I am not reaching a theory or conclusion that differs from the statement of the Journal in any way. The Journal's statement is about treaties, and how treaties are treated internationally. That includes the Treaty of Tripoli. Pooua (talk) 08:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you're very clearly violation WP:SYN. You're actually exercising one of the most trivial examples of it: John says X, Bob says X implies Y; therefore, John and Bob say Y. To give you the essence of WP:SYN, you are violating it whenever the sentences you have written support a conclusion that none of the cited sources do. In this case, you are using sources on treaties in general to conclude something about this specific treaty, while the source doesn't mention this specific treaty. From the standpoint of verification, we should never include content that the provided sources don't actually support, even if you think it's obvious. From the neutral point of view standpoint, if the connection between this general opinion on treaties and this specific treaty has not been explicitly published, then you have failed to show that it is sufficiently significant to be worth noting. If this doesn't seem right to you, I'd ask you whether we should include notable criticisms on muslims as a people in every single article on a muslim person. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Relata is correct. Whether a flawed/bogus translation invalidates a treaty is a general issue and off-topic here. Even quoting a source on that subject that mentioned this treaty specifically would be dubious. If, however, there were something like, say, a Senate bill moved to invalidate the treaty on those grounds, then sourcing that fact would be perfectly okay. In a nutshell, for a history article, just the facts, no theories -- unless the facts there are on actual controversies involving different theories, in which case the principals on both sides would have to be mentioned (and still, not just the theories in the abstract). rudra (talk) 02:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

On a few occassions this last week, someone named Blaine666 edited the Wikipedia article to state that the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 has become the supreme law of the land, per the U.S. Constitution. There are several reasons that his edits are wrong, one of them including the statement from the AJIL. This is a point lost on some people; the Treaty of Tripoli did not have the force of law to make the U.S. into a non-Christian nation. Pooua (talk) 03:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

And that's off-topic too. I note that the section "Article 11 controversy" cites no sources for the controversy. Who argued pro, who argued contra? is there a survey article? Right now, that there was ever a controversy at all looks like WP:OR. rudra (talk) 03:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There were sources in that section until today, when someone decided that Barton could not be used because "Barton isn't even a historian; including his views here is undue weight." I took out Brooke Allen because she is not a better source than Barton or Hitchens. Pooua (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, there's a distinction to be made here between controversy and polemics. Citing this treaty in a work with a different subject -- i.e. effectively an offhand comment or aside or at best a "data point" -- is not the material of a controversy. To establish a controversy, we would need sources that specifically discuss the implications of Article 11. X advanced the notion that Article 11 shows such-and-such. Y disagreed, saying whatever. Z surveyed the arguments wherever. And so on. We can now write, argument A was made by X et al, argument B by Y et al, and if we're lucky, quote Z for a summary sound-bite. rudra (talk) 03:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Polemics is the art of arguing controversy, so I doubt you can get too far from that when discussing a controversy.

Anyway, Barton, Eidsmoe and various others generally argue that the U.S. was a Christian nation at her founding. Gould, Allen and various others generally argue that the Founders were not Christians and the U.S. was always supposed to keep religion out of government. The subject touches on such contemporary issues as whether the Ten Commandments belong on government property, whether government materials should declare honor to God and whether religious beliefs should influence lawmaking. Pooua (talk) 04:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should have been clearer. The distinction is between scholarly controversy and polemics by tub-thumpers of various stripes. As far as I can tell, there is no scholarly controversy, because "how Christian is the US constitution?" is a profoundly uninteresting question except to those who have an axe to grind, and thus also to those who would rather that axe not be ground so loudly. In other words, it's all polemics, associated with fringe politics. rudra (talk) 04:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so, but, as has been pointed out several times, the only reason this article even exists, or the general public takes notice of this Treaty, is because of that "tub-thumping" controversy. The article cannot really ignore it. Pooua (talk) 04:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, article 11 is mentioned in Separation of church and state in the United States, where the ramifications are certainly more on-topic. All that's needed in this article, I think, is a NPOV statement of the basics: article 11 is a debating point in some disputes that are covered topically elsewhere. I gave it a go just now, but I still find the formulation somewhat turgid. rudra (talk) 05:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I notice that no one complained about WP:SYNTH when someone applied the Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution to the Treaty of Tripoli, never mind the fact that Article 6 only applies to treaties that are in force. Someone might point out also, in a different article, that Article 6 does not make any treaty superior to the Constitution or federal law. Pooua (talk) 06:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia will not be built in a day.:-) rudra (talk) 06:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More on Jefferson

And what's the argument against this? That the Library of Congress runs blogs? rudra (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

rudra, I don't see that your link has anything to do with the statement that treaties are only valid inasmuch as they are accurate translations of the original. Pooua (talk) 02:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I put this in the wrong section. Two up was probably the spot. rudra (talk) 02:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC) New section created to not derail the discussion. rudra (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you should have put this in the section that already exists, because, apparently, you want to discuss Jefferson's relationship with the Pasha of Tripoli. I'm not sure what you think the argument is, though. Your source notes that the Pasha made a demand for immediate payment of certain monies, which, if you check the terms of the Treaty of Tripoli, are in excess of the terms of the Treaty. Your source does not contradict my sources. Also, your link goes to material that is quoted verbatim in the Wikipedia article (though that isn't noted in the article). Pooua (talk) 02:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm still wondering what Relata's objection was. His edit seemed to suggest that he thinks Jefferson had refused to pay (the balance on) some already agreed amount, implying that the US had broken the treaty, not the Pasha. As far as I know, this is not borne out by the facts. rudra (talk) 02:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The facts were considerably more complex. The beginnings of a navy had already been made to counter France; the ransom/treaty payments were quite a drain on the exchequer; and Jefferson had stronger opinions on the subject of national honour and the like than Adams, not to mention personal experience of and distaste for the Barbary states. There's a general likelihood, thus, that when he came into office he was actually planning to cut off payments anyway, and had sent a few messages to the consuls in those states preparing the groundwork for that. (Gregory Fremont-Barnes talks about this briefly in an article.) So the point is that, as written, its both an oversimplification and a rather unusual claim, which is why I was pushing for better sourcing. Relata refero (talk) 08:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If it weren't for the fact that I could come up with many sources, all of them reporting the same essential facts, I might be impressed with your insistence. Maybe Jefferson never had any intention at all of paying so much as a penny to the Barbary nations, but that is only conjecture on your part, as we don't have any evidence for it, not even as WP:OR. The extremely well documented historical fact is that the Pasha of Tripoli did make new tribute demands, and Jefferson ignored the new demands. I haven't seen anything that says that Jefferson withheld the payments demanded in the Treaty of Tripoli. And, history is always a simplification. Pooua (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm afraid in this case its an oversimplification. If what I'm saying is OR, find a genuine historical authority to quote. All I ask. Relata refero (talk) 10:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope that Joshua E. London ("Victory in Tripoli") meets your approval. He is, after all, one of the references in the First Barbary War article. You probably won't like the lengthy quote that I took from his book (from Cathcart), but it establishes that the Pasha of Tripoli agreed that the U.S. had paid in full the terms of the Treaty of Tripoli, but now the Pasha wanted more. As I said before, this is the same thing that several sources (now 4 that I've cited in this article) all state, one way or another. Pooua (talk) 09:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Details Leading Up To Tribute

On 12 February, Relata refero removed a section that I would like to have in an article somewhere. Please consider the following paragraphs:

Adams arrived in London in July 1785, but he did not find an opportunity to contact any of the Barbary ministers until February 1786, when he made an impromptu visit to the new Tripolitan envoy, Abdrahaman (also known as Abdul Rahman Adja). The envoy informed Adams that a state of war existed between the U.S. and the Barbary nations. Adams asked how that could be, inasmuch as neither side had done anything to harm or provoke the other to war. Abdrahaman insisted that, nevertheless, war existed between them, as the Barbary nations were the sovereigns of the Mediterranean, and without a treaty of peace there could be no peace between Tripoli and America. Abdrahaman offered to arrange such a treaty, but warned that time was essential; war between Muslims and Christians would be horrific for the Christian captives.[11][12]

Pooua (talk) 04:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

John Adams quickly sent a message to Thomas Jefferson in Paris to join Adams in London so they could negotiate with the Tripolitan envoy. When Adams, Jefferson and Abdrahaman met in March 1786, the envoy demanded 30,000 guineas for "his employers" and another 3,000 pounds sterling as payment for his services, a total worth nearly $1 million. Jefferson asked what justification the envoy had for demanding such huge sums.

The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged 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.[13][14]

Ambassador Abdrahaman warned that settling peace with all the Barbary nations would be even more expensive. France paid $200,000 a year to Algiers alone; Britain paid even more, as much as $280,000 annually. Peace for the U.S. with all the Barbary nations could cost as much as 300,000 guineas.[15]

Pooua (talk) 04:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

One point that I would like to make clear is that the $80,000 that Congress budgeted as tribute to the Barbary nations was naively small. Adams noted that the amount was just a drop in a bucket compared to what the Tripolatin ambassador demanded in his first meeting. That was beside the point that neither Adams nor Jefferson actually had any money; Congress authorized paying $80,000, but had not given any of the money to anyone, including Adams and Jefferson. Pooua (talk) 04:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit needed?

In the quoted material which contains: "he hoped the United States would neglect him", should this possibly read "would not"? I haven't seen the supporting source so I'm not changing this, but it reads funny as is. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 10:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The quoted material is correct as it is. The Pasha was saying that he was hoping the U.S. would fail in its payments, so he could go to war with them. I checked the book, just to make certain, and I confirm that I copied the material correctly from the book. Pooua (talk) 10:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Although the material I quoted was copied accurately, I did not copy everything the book quoted. The full quote from the book (which itself is an excerpt) is:

The Pasha then commenced thus: "Counsul there is no Nation I wish more to be at Peace with than yours, but all Nations pay me & so must the Americans." I answered "we have already paid you all we owe you & are nothing in arrears." He answered that for the Peace we had paid him it was true, but to maintain the Peace we had given him nothing. I observed that the terms of our Treaty were to pay him the stipulated stores [and the] cash and in full of all demands forever.... The Pasha then observed that we had given a great deal to Algiers and Tunis.... Why do they [the U.S. government] neglect me in their donations, let them give me a stipulated sum annually, and I will be reasonable as to the amount.... He then [expressed]... that he hoped the United States would neglect him as six or eight vessels of the value of his would amount to a much larger sum than ever he expected to get from the United States for remaining at Peace.

Pooua (talk) 10:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)