Barbary Wars WIs

How would the outcome of US hist have been affected for the worse had the US Navy been badly beaten by the Barbary Pirates in the early 1800s ? Could such an event have conceivably occurred, despite the presence of outstanding officers and seamen such as Stephen Decatur, John Rogers and Reuben James ? Or alternatively, WI instead of disbanding the Continental Navy in 1784, Congress had decided to retain some maritime striking power in the form of a small naval presence ? How would American foreign policy issues have been affected had the US before 1798 some naval capability instead of none with which to take on the likes of the Barbary states ?
 
You can lose any war if you want to badly enough :)

Seriously, if the small US naval force had been hit harder just once, through mischance or tactical miscalculation, the war could have been lost in an afternoon. When a frigate represents a significant part of your force total you are very vulnerable to losses, and the Barbary pirates, while not exactly a world naval playerany longer, could have gotten lucky easily enough. They certainly had plenty of capable sailors. Say they catch the American squadron napping in a fogbank and boarders carry a frigate and two sloops?

My guess would be that the United States would grumble and feel pretty humiliated, but negotiate some settlement involving money payments. Then it's even money whether a new naval development results in a second attempt or Congress decides the whole power projection thing isn't worth the trouble. If the US wanted to, they could have turned out enough ships and crews to pound the Barbary pirates to a pulp, but would the money have been forthcoming?

If Congress had decided to maintain a Navy in the 1780s, it would very likely have followed the contemporary model of Britain and France. They might not have gone to the expense of ships of the line (or if they had, they might have opted for small 60-gunners), but sloops and regular 28 or 32-gun frigates like the Amazon or Alarm class are the likely candidates. That would mean a considerable investment in naval assets in existence by 1800. I don't think anyone would readily find the money to build 40+-gun heavy frigates on the Swedish or French model. That could mean trouble come the war of 1812.
 
From what I've read, I don't think the US would have been in the mood to just grumble and give up. The US population was seriously pissed at the pirates... there were a lot of lurid stories going around about how the US sailors were mistreated. One of the most outrageous stories concerned an American woman taken off a ship and sent to the Turkish sultan to be a harem girl (insults to women were really hated back then). Congress was often at odds with the public about the expense of building a navy, but in the end, they bowed to the public will and got it done. Interestingly, one warship in 1798 was built by public conscription... imagine anyone trying to do that today....
The US navy in the Med during the conflicts with the pirates never amounted to a lot of ships at any one time. If the pirates had pooled their resources, they might have gathered enough ships to take on the frigates and beat them... more sailors into slavery, etc. The mood in the US public likely would have gone ballistic. Congress would have been badgered to build another bigger navy and go back to teach the pirates a lesson.....
 
A sudden thought on the Barbary wars

The Barbary pirates were paid tribute by the European powers, since it would be expensive to whip them into line, and they could always be useful.
The Americans could have saved money by paying them, but didn't out of public outrage.
Looking back, it shows the American attitude even then--once you push an American too far, watch out.
Had this attitude sunk in to the Europeans--this impractical devotion to certain principles, this willingness to fight anyone in a good cause--then where would we be today?
At first, the only likely result would be for Europe to keep a bit of a better watch on the USA--but then we have the US fighting France at sea, then taking on the world's largest navy.
These incidents add to the impression that the USA is afraid of no one, and willing to fight for its principles.
Could this impression have truely sunk in in Europe, with effects on European policys, or were they so certain that the USA was irrelavent that nothing would be noted until American events once again intruded on Europe?
 
Not one Penny-NOT

AAMOF the US did pay them for years, It wasn't till they started raiseing the Tolls, that the US decided to do Something. :rolleyes:
 

Grey Wolf

Gone Fishin'
Donor
IIRC the USA got peed off when the Dey pushed his luck too far and used a US warship (named I think George Washington) to take tribute to Constantiniople. This was just too much a slap in the face for the Americans to take.

I also think the fact that the rest of Europe was both at war with itself and in France's case had to rely on massive loans from Algiers-based banks simply meant that the less involved USA had more freedom of action to push its agenda against Algiers.

You can see this in the post-1815 years when both Britain and Holland carried out a similar action to get Algiers to exempt their ships also. They were by that time free to do it, both militarily and politically

Of course the irony is that Algiers eventually fell to the French where the restored Bourbons did not want to repay the huge debts that the Bonaparte regime had wracked up.

Grey Wolf

NHBL said:
The Barbary pirates were paid tribute by the European powers, since it would be expensive to whip them into line, and they could always be useful.
The Americans could have saved money by paying them, but didn't out of public outrage.
Looking back, it shows the American attitude even then--once you push an American too far, watch out.
Had this attitude sunk in to the Europeans--this impractical devotion to certain principles, this willingness to fight anyone in a good cause--then where would we be today?
At first, the only likely result would be for Europe to keep a bit of a better watch on the USA--but then we have the US fighting France at sea, then taking on the world's largest navy.
These incidents add to the impression that the USA is afraid of no one, and willing to fight for its principles.
Could this impression have truely sunk in in Europe, with effects on European policys, or were they so certain that the USA was irrelavent that nothing would be noted until American events once again intruded on Europe?
 
Top