The Treaty of Tripoli

[DetlefK]

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

Negotiated during the term of President George Washington, ratified by Congress during the term of John Adams. And famous for a clause you don't normally see in diplomatic exchanges:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Case settled?

[DavidDvorkin]

1. That doesn't settle it for anti-separationists

They dismiss it as "simply politics". I've also seen the claim that, since it's just a treaty, it doesn't mean anything domestically -- even though the Constitution specifies that treaties become part of the basic law of the United States, along with the Constititution itself.

[laconicsax]

2. I've seen people argue those exact points in R/T

[DavidDvorkin]

3. That's depressing

but not surprising.

[dmallind]

4. And the revisionism goes deeper....

Lemme see if I remember them.

1)The Arabic copy doesn't have this phrase in it.
Answer: True. I am pretty sure it was the English copy that was unanimously ratified by the Senate though - they generally don't conduct business in Arabic.

2)A clerk not involved in or authorized to change the negotiations was an ideologue who inserted this in the English version
Answer: Speculation. If so I am sure he deserved to be fired, but his insertion was included, read out, ratified and signed without demur by a Congress and President including several founding fathers.

3) There is no need for this clause. It wasn't asked for by the Barbary Coast delegation.
Answer: Possibly true, but it's there anyway.

[onager]

7. I got another one!

4) We only signed the Treaty of Tripoli to free our hostages held by the pirates.

To which I might reply, cogently and academically, as a former Marine* to a hypothetical Xian patriot who used that one:

"Hey shit-for-brains! Since you're one of them flag-waving 'merican Xians, have you ever heard the motherfricking Marines' Hymn?

How does that one go again? 'From the Halls of Montezuma to...' What, exactly? Yes! The no-goddam 'shores of Tripoli!' Just like President Barack Obama, President Thomas Jefferson didn't negotiate with hostage-taking terrorists. He sent the U.S. Marines to Tripoli to kick their asses..."

In better language with more facts here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

*There are no "ex-Marines." Only former Marines and dead Marines.

Here's a very good, long and detailed history of the Treaty:

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Treaty_with_Tripoli_(1796)

(On edit, more fun trivia: to this very day, Marine commissioned officers carry the "Mameluke Sword." It's a copy of the sword surrendered to Marine Lieutenant Presley O'Bannon in Tripoli.)

[Rozlee]

5. It was read in the Chamber of the Senate and signed by all assembed.

But, it will always be a bone of contention anyway because nothing you say will change a closed mind.

[NeoGreen]

6. According to a wikipedia page I read...

... the text of the treaty was published in at least 2 major newspapers of the day.
(Philadelphia? New York?)

If I ever have the time, I would like to search for newspapers from that time to see if it is true, and to see if anyone wrote editorial comments before or after.