One of the brilliant things about the Mises Institute is it's extensive online library. Within recent months, I have used this library to study revisionist history on nearly every war ever fought by the US government. Also, I looked for any rebuttals to the arguments presented. (one star reviews for Thomas Dilorenzo's works are great places to start, although there are endless threads on the subjects respectively (Including long discussions about "Hitler, Chruchhill, and the Unnecessary War" elsewhere, equally engaging.
I have been able to see the two sides to every war except for the campaign against the Barbary Pirates. I googled any possible alternative views on the subject, and couldn't find any (Note: I did this for a long time, asking the users of Mises.org is a last resort) . Robert Higgs mentioned the Barbary campaign once, claiming it was waged in the interest of certain merchants up north. Whether this is true or not, it isn't a perfect rebuttal to the alleged necessity of the engagement.
If America were a "free society" at the time, would it have to have been constantly subject to the depredations of the State sponsored thugs? Was there more to be gained from paying them off than engaging them?
Is there ANY literature on the subject in the Mises Library?
The Barbary campaign was simply a way for the merchant class to get its defense costs subsidized by American tax payers. It was the beginning of the long tradition of the American military advancing the interests of American businesses around the world.
If America had been a free society, American vessels would have paid to fly the flag of a foreign power that either a.) had relations with the Barbary States or b.) would provide protection from them. In the 12th Century the English navy did exactly that. It paid Genoa to allow its ships to sail under the protection of Genoa's flag, the St George's Cross, which eventually became the flag of England as well.
In the absence of State subsidized navies, private merchant defense navies would be created which merchants would hire.
Peace
I have given this answer to my wife, but she claims that the merchants tried to raise money for a decade, and could not. They were also too poor to fund the navy themselves and could not obtain credit for doing that. As a result, when it became obvious that the country’s commerce was suffering, its protection was declared to be a public good, and the country was taxed to create a navy. I haven’t had a chance (most because of time constraints) to verify or debunk this. Do you have any information regarding the merchants’ attempts and supposed inability to create a private navy force?
I was about to say, what proof does one have that merchants can buy trade ships, but can't get an army ship? They might have ''claimed'' to be too poor so that the government takes care of it, when they could have paid for it themselves.
Our proof's would be located in the account books of those company's, which must not be the most accessible things in the world.
Well, presumably, a warship costs more than a trade ship. Plus you have to hire a crew. But, good point...
Update. More detailed history account from Wikipedia article:
After the Revolutionary War, a heavily indebted United States disbanded the Continental Navy and in August 1785, lacking funds for ship repairs, sold its last remaining warship, the Alliance.[7][8] Almost simultaneously, troubles began in theMediterranean when Algiers seized two American merchant ships and held their crews for ransom.[9][10] Minister to France Thomas Jefferson suggested an American naval force to protect American shipping in the Mediterranean but his recommendations were initially met with indifference, as were the recommendations of John Jay, who proposed building five 40-gun warships.[9][11] Shortly afterward, Portugal began blockading Algerian ships from entering the Atlantic Ocean, thus providing temporary protection for American merchant ships.[12][13] Piracy against American merchant shipping had not been a problem when under the protection of the British Empire prior to the Revolution, but after the Revolutionary War, the "Barbary States" of Algiers, Tripoli and Tunis felt they could harass American merchant ships without penalty.[14][15] Additionally, once the French Revolution started, Britain began interdicting American merchant ships suspected of trading with France and France began interdicting American merchant ships suspected of trading with Britain. Defenseless, the American government could do little to resist.[16][17] The formation of a naval force had been a topic of debate in the new America for years. Opponents argued that building a navy would only lead to calls for a navy department; and the staff to operate it. This would further lead to more appropriations of funds, and would eventually spiral out of control, giving birth to a "self-feeding entity". Those opposed to a navy felt that payment of tribute to the Barbary States and economic sanctions against Britain was a better alternative.[18][19] In 1793 Portugal reached a peace agreement with Algeria, ending its blockade of the Mediterranean thus allowing Algerian ships back into the Atlantic Ocean. By late in the year eleven American merchant ships had been captured.[12] This, combined with the actions of Britain, finally led President Washington to request Congress to authorize a navy.[20][21] On 2 January 1794, by a narrow margin of 46-44, the House of Representatives voted to authorize building a navy and formed a committee to determine the size, cost, and type of ships to be built. Secretary of War Henry Knox submitted proposals to the committee outlining design and cost of warships.[22][23] To appease the strong opposition to the upcoming Bill, the Federalist party inserted a clause into the Bill that would bring an abrupt halt to the construction of the ships should the United States reach a peace agreement with Algiers.[24][25] The Bill was presented to the House on 10 March and passed as the Naval Act of 1794 by a margin of 50-39, and without division in the Senate on the 19th.[24][25] President Washington signed the Act on 27 March and provided for acquisition of four ships to carry forty-four guns each, and two ships to carry thirty-six guns each — by purchase or otherwise.[26] It also provided pay and sustenance for naval officers and sailors and outlined how each ship should be manned in order to operate them. The Act appropriated $688,888.82 to finance the work.[27][28]
After the Revolutionary War, a heavily indebted United States disbanded the Continental Navy and in August 1785, lacking funds for ship repairs, sold its last remaining warship, the Alliance.[7][8] Almost simultaneously, troubles began in theMediterranean when Algiers seized two American merchant ships and held their crews for ransom.[9][10] Minister to France Thomas Jefferson suggested an American naval force to protect American shipping in the Mediterranean but his recommendations were initially met with indifference, as were the recommendations of John Jay, who proposed building five 40-gun warships.[9][11] Shortly afterward, Portugal began blockading Algerian ships from entering the Atlantic Ocean, thus providing temporary protection for American merchant ships.[12][13]
Piracy against American merchant shipping had not been a problem when under the protection of the British Empire prior to the Revolution, but after the Revolutionary War, the "Barbary States" of Algiers, Tripoli and Tunis felt they could harass American merchant ships without penalty.[14][15] Additionally, once the French Revolution started, Britain began interdicting American merchant ships suspected of trading with France and France began interdicting American merchant ships suspected of trading with Britain. Defenseless, the American government could do little to resist.[16][17]
The formation of a naval force had been a topic of debate in the new America for years. Opponents argued that building a navy would only lead to calls for a navy department; and the staff to operate it. This would further lead to more appropriations of funds, and would eventually spiral out of control, giving birth to a "self-feeding entity". Those opposed to a navy felt that payment of tribute to the Barbary States and economic sanctions against Britain was a better alternative.[18][19]
In 1793 Portugal reached a peace agreement with Algeria, ending its blockade of the Mediterranean thus allowing Algerian ships back into the Atlantic Ocean. By late in the year eleven American merchant ships had been captured.[12] This, combined with the actions of Britain, finally led President Washington to request Congress to authorize a navy.[20][21]
On 2 January 1794, by a narrow margin of 46-44, the House of Representatives voted to authorize building a navy and formed a committee to determine the size, cost, and type of ships to be built. Secretary of War Henry Knox submitted proposals to the committee outlining design and cost of warships.[22][23] To appease the strong opposition to the upcoming Bill, the Federalist party inserted a clause into the Bill that would bring an abrupt halt to the construction of the ships should the United States reach a peace agreement with Algiers.[24][25]
The Bill was presented to the House on 10 March and passed as the Naval Act of 1794 by a margin of 50-39, and without division in the Senate on the 19th.[24][25] President Washington signed the Act on 27 March and provided for acquisition of four ships to carry forty-four guns each, and two ships to carry thirty-six guns each — by purchase or otherwise.[26] It also provided pay and sustenance for naval officers and sailors and outlined how each ship should be manned in order to operate them. The Act appropriated $688,888.82 to finance the work.[27][28]
So, the same question: why weren’t private merchants able to raise the money themselves for hiring protection (or find other means for protection)? Why didn’t market provide the service of protecting the merchants for 9 years (from 1785, the year of the first attack, to 1794, when the Naval Act was passed), requiring the government to step in?
Actually, the book that my wife read on the subject was Michael Oren’s Power, Faith and Fantasy.
Reading on Wikipedia about the Barbary Wars:
The war stemmed from the Barbary pirates’ attacks upon American merchant shipping in an attempt to extort ransom for the lives of captured sailors, and ultimately tribute from the United States to avoid further attacks, much like their standard operating procedure with the various European states.[1] Before the Treaty of Paris, which granted America’s independence from Great Britain, American shipping was protected by France during the Revolutionary years under theTreaty of Alliance (1778–83). Although the treaty does not mention the Barbary States in name, it refers to common enemies between both the U.S. and France, which would include the Barbary States and pirates in general. As such, piracy against American shipping only began to occur after the end of the American Revolution, when the U.S. government lost its protection under the Treaty of Alliance.
This lapse of protection by a European power led to the first American merchant shipping seized after the Treaty of Paris. On October 11, 1784, Moroccan pirates seized the brigantine Betsey.[2] This first act of piracy against the U.S. ended in a positive light, as the Spanish government negotiated the freedom of the captured ship and crew; however, Spain offered advice to the United States over how to deal with the Barbary States. The advice was to offer tribute to prevent further attacks against merchant ships. The US Minister to France, Thomas Jefferson, decided to send envoys to Morocco and Algeria to try to purchase treaties and the freedoms of the captured sailors held by Algeria.[3] Morocco was the first Barbary Coast state to sign a treaty with the U.S. on June 23, 1786. This treaty formally ended all Moroccan piracy against American shipping interests. Specifically, Article 6 of the treaty states that if any captured Americans, be it done by Moroccans or by other Barbary Coast states dock at a Moroccan city, said Americans would be set free and be under the protection of the Moroccan state.[4] American diplomatic action with Algeria, the other major Barbary Coast state, was much less successful than with Morocco. Algeria began piracy against the U.S. on July 25, 1785 with the capture of the schooner Maria and the Dauphin a week later.[5] All four Barbary Coast states demanded a sum of $660,000 compared to the limited allocated budget of $40,000 given to the envoys to achieve peace.[6] Diplomatic talks to achieve a reasonable sum for tribute or for the ransom of the captured sailors struggled to reach any headway. The crews of the Maria and Dauphin remained in captivity for over a decade, and soon were joined by other ships captured by the Barbary States.[7] In 1795, Algeria came to an agreement with the U.S. that resulted in the release of 115 sailors they held, at the cost of over $1 million. This amount totaled about 1⁄6 of the entire U.S. budget,[8] and this amount was demanded as tribute by the Barbary States to prevent further piracy. The continuing demand for tribute ultimately led to the formation of the United States Department of the Navy, founded in 1798[9] in order to prevent further piracy attacks upon American shipping as well as to end the extremely large demand for tribute from the Barbary States.
This lapse of protection by a European power led to the first American merchant shipping seized after the Treaty of Paris. On October 11, 1784, Moroccan pirates seized the brigantine Betsey.[2] This first act of piracy against the U.S. ended in a positive light, as the Spanish government negotiated the freedom of the captured ship and crew; however, Spain offered advice to the United States over how to deal with the Barbary States. The advice was to offer tribute to prevent further attacks against merchant ships. The US Minister to France, Thomas Jefferson, decided to send envoys to Morocco and Algeria to try to purchase treaties and the freedoms of the captured sailors held by Algeria.[3] Morocco was the first Barbary Coast state to sign a treaty with the U.S. on June 23, 1786. This treaty formally ended all Moroccan piracy against American shipping interests. Specifically, Article 6 of the treaty states that if any captured Americans, be it done by Moroccans or by other Barbary Coast states dock at a Moroccan city, said Americans would be set free and be under the protection of the Moroccan state.[4]
American diplomatic action with Algeria, the other major Barbary Coast state, was much less successful than with Morocco. Algeria began piracy against the U.S. on July 25, 1785 with the capture of the schooner Maria and the Dauphin a week later.[5] All four Barbary Coast states demanded a sum of $660,000 compared to the limited allocated budget of $40,000 given to the envoys to achieve peace.[6] Diplomatic talks to achieve a reasonable sum for tribute or for the ransom of the captured sailors struggled to reach any headway. The crews of the Maria and Dauphin remained in captivity for over a decade, and soon were joined by other ships captured by the Barbary States.[7] In 1795, Algeria came to an agreement with the U.S. that resulted in the release of 115 sailors they held, at the cost of over $1 million. This amount totaled about 1⁄6 of the entire U.S. budget,[8] and this amount was demanded as tribute by the Barbary States to prevent further piracy. The continuing demand for tribute ultimately led to the formation of the United States Department of the Navy, founded in 1798[9] in order to prevent further piracy attacks upon American shipping as well as to end the extremely large demand for tribute from the Barbary States.
So, it seems that, following the concept that the government does not need to provide a service if there is enough demand for it, and that the free market will provide it, American market had from 1785 until 1798 — thirteen years — to provide a solution for the defense of merchant ships. What is the reason it did not? Presumably it was not illegal to hire a private frigate for protection (or borrow money from a bank to build one, or to chip in together). Were the merchants waiting for thirteen years for the US government to create its own navy, even though they had a way to protect themselves? Why didn’t the merchants pay another country for protection, as was suggested they should have?
More detailed history account from Wikipedia article:
So, the same question: why weren’t private merchants able to raise the money themselves (or find other means for protection)? Why didn’t market provide the service of protecting the merchants, requiring the government to step in?
JonBostwick: If America had been a free society, American vessels would have paid to fly the flag of a foreign power that either a.) had relations with the Barbary States or b.) would provide protection from them. In the 12th Century the English navy did exactly that. It paid Genoa to allow its ships to sail under the protection of Genoa's flag, the St George's Cross, which eventually became the flag of England as well.
Finally I have my answer! Thank you!
Why pay for something yourself when you can get the government to pay for it instead?
Well, it took a long time and a loss of many ships before the government created a navy. Are you saying that all this time the merchants were not willing to pay for their own protection, because they were hoping that eventually the government would step in?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the early United States already spending a hefty chunk of its treasury bribing the pirates at the behest of the merchant class? I think it's also important to examine another winner in the eventual government call to arms: the merchants of death.
Were they? It's not clear that the money was ever paid. Do you have sources?
In 1795, Algeria came to an agreement with the U.S. that resulted in the release of 115 sailors they held, at the cost of over $1 million. This amount totaled about 1⁄6 of the entire U.S. budget, and this amount was demanded as tribute by the Barbary States to prevent further piracy.
More info here.
I read that; it wasn't clear to me whether the tribute was ever paid.
Anyway, so your argument is that because the merchants knew (or expected) that they could rely on the government to negotiate release of ships/prisoners, pay tributes and eventually build a navy, they found it more economical for them to wait for the government to do that (it took a whole decade for the tribute to be paid, and 13 years for the navy to be built), rather than build/hire private protection ships?