English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Supposedly he wrote this after he retired from the Presidency. I've seen it attributed to a letter he wrote to John Adams. Another attributed it to a letter Washington wrote to a French official. Any ideas on the original source?

2007-11-09 15:57:40 · 5 answers · asked by BanquoDangerfield 2 in Arts & Humanities History

5 answers

Yes, late 20th century Liberals.

2007-11-09 16:11:21 · answer #1 · answered by NAnZI pELOZI's Forced Social 7 · 1 3

It's from a treaty signed with the (Muslim) Barbary States of North Africa, in an effort to cut down on piracy.

It was actually negotiated and signed by John Adams, the second US President, in 1796, and ratified after being read aloud in the Senate.

Incidentally, the Marines went in there in 1815 to bloody the pirates' noses after they had repeatedly broken the treaty, attacking American shipping, no longer under the protection of the Royal Navy. That's where the reference to Tripoli in the Marine anthem comes from, 'From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli..."


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

2007-11-09 16:56:30 · answer #2 · answered by johnny_sunshine2 3 · 3 0

This treaty is a favorite of those eager to undermine ANY notion that the U.S. might in any respect be called a "Christian nation". But they seldom take a close look at the language, the circumstances, or what happened AFTER this treaty.

1) First, it was indeed included in a treaty with the Barbary Pirates, signed in 1797 during John Adams's Presidency, though he himself certainly did not personally negotiate it.

2) This is the first of THREE treaties made with the Barbary Muslim states, and the corresponding articles in the others OMIT this line! In fact, the parallel paragraph in the second one (from 1805, ratified 1806) has very few differences from this one, and this is one of them.

'Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796' -
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm#art11

'Treaty of Peace and Amity, Signed at Tripoli June 4, 1805' -
"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. . . "
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1805t.htm#art14

Treaty of Peace, Signed Algiers June 30 and July 3, 1815 -
"As the Government of the United States of America has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of any nation. .. "
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1815t.htm#art15

Note that LATER treaties between two parties SUPERCEDE earlier ones.

3) Note that the treaty refers specifically to the GOVERNMENT of the United States as not being founded on the Christian religion. It does NOT say "NATION". On examination, this may turn out to have the same sense, but that should not simply be assumed.

Many hold that there is a sense in which the nation has been "de facto" a "Christian NATION, and that its laws have been affected by Christian principles, but that the FORM of the government is "secular" NOT religious. (The 'secular government' means, in particular, that there is no official national "state church", nor a specific "religious test" required to vote or hold office.)

4) Note the specific historical CONTEXT of these documents, and consider WHY such an assurance was included.

These treaties were made with MUSLIM countries whose leaders believed that their GOVERNMENTS were to be founded explicitly on Islamic law, and believed (assumed) that things were precisely the same with nations peopled (at least mainly) by Christians (one might say "Christian nations") .

The specific articles in question seek to assure them that the government of the USA was not parallel to these Islamic governments, and especially, that the US was not antagonistic toward the Muslim faith, and had no desire whatsoever to impose on the Muslim powers anything that would contradict or undermine their religion.

Note again that only the line being discussed appears ONLY in the first one. The rest is repeated in the 1805 treaty, but not this line. Why?? Consider that in 1796 the US was operating from a position of WEAKNESS, whereas by 1805 they had the upper hand. In the former instance, it would be understandable that the treaty would use stronger language, bending over backwards to demonstrate they had nothing to fear from us.

Frankly, the abbreviated form in the LAST treaty may best capture the central point.

2007-11-10 10:12:34 · answer #3 · answered by bruhaha 7 · 0 1

I would tend to believe that this was a hoax. However I will also say that most of the founding fathers were Deists (believed that God created the world, then just sat back and watched the show).

Jefferson even edited his own version of the Bible where he took out all mention of miracles.

2007-11-09 17:54:46 · answer #4 · answered by nwyvre 3 · 2 2

This quote does not sound legit at all. The wording "is in no way based upon" doesn't seem to fit the pattern of late 18th century speech.

2007-11-09 16:20:03 · answer #5 · answered by Downriver Dave 5 · 0 3

fedest.com, questions and answers