3 ms·

> Interestingly, Morocco was the first country to publicly recognize the United States as an official state with the ratification of the Moroccan-American Treat

by vacri 10y ago

> Interestingly, Morocco was the first country to publicly recognize the United States as an official state with the ratification of the Moroccan-American Treaty of Friendship in 1786. Signed by Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, it recognized Moroccan ports as open to U.S. ships and is the longest-standing unbroken treaty relationship in U.S. history. Within a decade of recognising the US, Morocco was pirating their ships again, and the US had to pay huge sums to the Barbary corsairs for safe passage - leading to the creation of the US Navy and the First and Second Barbary Wars in 1801 and 1815. Maybe the treaty was never torn up and discarded, but it was broken pretty quickly.

thaumasiotes 10y ago
The quote says the treaty recognizes Moroccan ports as open to US ships. Have Moroccan ports ever been closed to US ships? Piracy isn't the same issue. edits / further thoughts, having read the treaty ( http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1786t.asp http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1786t.asp ): It violates the treaty for any captured American ship, person, or property not to be restored to America upon docking in a Moroccan port, whether that ship was captured by Morocco or by a "Moor" (in the treaty, Moor seems to contrast with Christian) hailing from any other state. It specifically does not violate the treaty for the United States or Morocco to wage war against each other, though if one is at war with a third party, the other is prohibited from "accepting a commission" from that third party. It does violate the treaty for prisoners of war to be enslaved rather than ransomed. It's a little odd to refer to the treaty as having lasted for 220 years, since by its own article 25 it expired in 1836.
- vacri 10y ago
  > It specifically does not violate the treaty for the United States or Morocco to wage war against each other That's like saying "anyone is welcome in our nightclub (port), as long as they can get past the bouncers (pirates)". In any case, the treaty you link says that passengers and goods shall be released unmolested and allowed to pass on a vessel belonging to that party (article 3). Morocco taking a US prize runs directly counter to this. Thanks for finding the link, by the way. I forgot to look for the treaty itself.
  - thaumasiotes 10y ago
    > That's like saying "anyone is welcome in our nightclub (port), as long as they can get past the bouncers (pirates)". Well, I imagine in the event of war between the United States and Morocco it would be understood that merchants couldn't safely dock, despite the fact that the treaty doesn't specifically provide for that. There are notable advantages to having the treaty still in effect during war, though; article 16, as I mentioned before, protects Americans captured in war by Morocco from enslavement and in fact guarantees that they must be made available for ransom, and I'd be happy to have that protection (I'd be even happier if, as specified by the treaty, my ransom was limited to "one hundred Mexican dollars"). Plus, the existence of the treaty significantly simplifies the process of transitioning from war to peace, as you can just default back to the terms of the still-valid treaty. I agree that Morocco taking a US prize, or allowing another Barbary pirate to dock in Morocco with a US prize (without immediately confiscating it for return to the US), directly violates the treaty as long as Morocco is not at war with the US. Did that happen? The wikipedia articles were less than fully comprehensive. (Even assuming it did happen, there are certainly diplomatic benefits to glossing over it.)
rmason 10y ago
The Barbary wars were fought against pirates whose home ports were in Libya, Tunisia and Algeria. Morocco actually gave some protection to American ships. Far as I know Morocco has always been America's friend. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_Wars
- thaumasiotes 10y ago
  Wikipedia lists Morocco as a belligerent in the first Barbary War; as I point out in my sibling comment, for Morocco to war against the United States does not violate the treaty.
- vacri 10y ago
  You might want to read your own link.
mohamedattahri 10y ago
Point is, Morocco signed a treaty with an entity that it recognized as an independent state back when everyone else considered it as a British colony.

by vacri 10y ago

thaumasiotes 10y ago

The quote says the treaty recognizes Moroccan ports as open to US ships. Have Moroccan ports ever been closed to US ships? Piracy isn't the same issue. edits / further thoughts, having read the treaty ( http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1786t.asp http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1786t.asp ): It violates the treaty for any captured American ship, person, or property not to be restored to America upon docking in a Moroccan port, whether that ship was captured by Morocco or by a "Moor" (in the treaty, Moor seems to contrast with Christian) hailing from any other state. It specifically does not violate the treaty for the United States or Morocco to wage war against each other, though if one is at war with a third party, the other is prohibited from "accepting a commission" from that third party. It does violate the treaty for prisoners of war to be enslaved rather than ransomed. It's a little odd to refer to the treaty as having lasted for 220 years, since by its own article 25 it expired in 1836.

vacri 10y ago
> It specifically does not violate the treaty for the United States or Morocco to wage war against each other That's like saying "anyone is welcome in our nightclub (port), as long as they can get past the bouncers (pirates)". In any case, the treaty you link says that passengers and goods shall be released unmolested and allowed to pass on a vessel belonging to that party (article 3). Morocco taking a US prize runs directly counter to this. Thanks for finding the link, by the way. I forgot to look for the treaty itself.
- thaumasiotes 10y ago
  > That's like saying "anyone is welcome in our nightclub (port), as long as they can get past the bouncers (pirates)". Well, I imagine in the event of war between the United States and Morocco it would be understood that merchants couldn't safely dock, despite the fact that the treaty doesn't specifically provide for that. There are notable advantages to having the treaty still in effect during war, though; article 16, as I mentioned before, protects Americans captured in war by Morocco from enslavement and in fact guarantees that they must be made available for ransom, and I'd be happy to have that protection (I'd be even happier if, as specified by the treaty, my ransom was limited to "one hundred Mexican dollars"). Plus, the existence of the treaty significantly simplifies the process of transitioning from war to peace, as you can just default back to the terms of the still-valid treaty. I agree that Morocco taking a US prize, or allowing another Barbary pirate to dock in Morocco with a US prize (without immediately confiscating it for return to the US), directly violates the treaty as long as Morocco is not at war with the US. Did that happen? The wikipedia articles were less than fully comprehensive. (Even assuming it did happen, there are certainly diplomatic benefits to glossing over it.)

rmason 10y ago

The Barbary wars were fought against pirates whose home ports were in Libya, Tunisia and Algeria. Morocco actually gave some protection to American ships. Far as I know Morocco has always been America's friend. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_Wars

thaumasiotes 10y ago
Wikipedia lists Morocco as a belligerent in the first Barbary War; as I point out in my sibling comment, for Morocco to war against the United States does not violate the treaty.
vacri 10y ago
You might want to read your own link.

mohamedattahri 10y ago

Point is, Morocco signed a treaty with an entity that it recognized as an independent state back when everyone else considered it as a British colony.