For:
Dr. Joseph Walwik
INS 5326 - U.S./Maghreb Relations

Since the time of the Crusades there has always been some form of renegade force
patrolling the Mediterranean. In the eleventh century this was characterized by Christian ships
enslaving Muslims, however, as the Ottoman Empire expanded through mercenaries such as
Khizr-ed Din the tables were turned. As Islamic corsairing began to take hold particularly in the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, European merchants were subjected to a perceivably foreign
Islamic maritime law. While many countries avoided armed conflict through annual payments,
countries such as Britain and France were able to avoid direct naval engagements despite their
comparatively robust naval forces, that is until 1816. The argued reason for this is that because of
their extensive history in the region there was a level of mutual understanding and respect held
between Europe and the Ottoman Empire that allowed for diplomacy instead of conflict, despite
that Europeans commonly considered themselves as superior.

With the United States\u2019 independence in 1776, a unique situation was created as the new nation could not afford to pay tribute or to build a military. The country as a whole was forced to become a nation that could contend for power at a global level. In an effort to secure commerce in the Mediterranean from corsairs, Congress approved the commissioning of a navy that would serve with the intent of being a \u201cfleet of observation.\u201d1 However, this fleet would quickly launch the United States into the first of two Barbary Wars. At the same time, corsairs in Islamic North Africa were operating freely under the pretenses of religion and economic gain from seizing not only merchant vessels and their goods, but also their crew to be ransomed or sold into slavery.

The nature of this conflict was subsequently characterized by two opposing mind sets. On
one side, the corsairs made heavy use of religious fervor and advocated that it was a Muslim\u2019s
duty to capture and fight the non-believers, and on the other side, there was an attitude of
European Enlightenment and the belief in ethnic superiority. With the United States coming into
being during such contrasting belief systems, several questions emerge. For instance, did the
United States adopt European Enlightenment into its foreign policy or did it diverge from Europe
in its attitudes? To answer this question a more fundamental question must be raised, and that is
whether the conflict between the United States and the Ottoman regencies was because of
prejudices as a result of preconceptions or because of differences in foreign policies? Thus, this
paper aims to answer this question and presents the events of the time in a chronological order.
First, will be an introduction of the environment of piracy in the Mediterranean and the concepts
of Islamic maritime law that held true throughout the United States\u2019 engagement with Barbary.
The second part will introduce the newly independent United States\u2019 approach towards dealing
with the corsairs. The third section argues that the United States\u2019 foreign policy can be seen in
comparing the naval expeditions of Dale and Preble not only to each other but also to the British
Bombardment of Algiers. Lastly, the paper concludes with the argument that while corsairs had
operated in a standardized manor it was the United States\u2019 that escalated conflict as a result of
preconceptions.

Prior to the eighteenth century the Ottoman Empire was under immense pressure
internally and externally by the growing European economy. The empire that had once shown
itself to be a Islamic dynasty capable of competing with European expansion was now entering a