Tripoli v. Paris: A Tale of Two Treaties
Recently “Dean” posted a comment on this blog claiming the United States is not a Christian nation, and citing as evidence an alleged clause from the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli stating that “…the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,– as it has in itself no character of enmity against the law, religion or tranquility of Musselmen.” I’ve seen the Treaty of Tripoli cited a lot recently in church-state discussions, so an explanation is appropriate.
As a preliminary, let us assume, just for the sake of argument, that the clause is a genuine article of the Treaty. If so, it says nothing beyond what is already stated in the First Amendment—that there is no official church or established religion at the federal level in the United States. It does not say the American government is divorced from God, that Biblical values are not the basis of American law, or that American Christians have no place in the public arena. The Treaty was ratified by the Senate unanimously and with no recorded debate because it says nothing with which any American Christian in 1796 would disagree or with which I would disagree today. Does anyone seriously believe I want Barack Obama to be head of the church?
James Patrick Holding correctly observes that the so-called Article 11 does not say America is in no sense founded on the Christian religion; it says the government of the United States of America is in no sense founded on the Christian religion. The nation is not the same as the government. The nation was founded with the Declaration of Independence in 1776; the government was founded with the Constitution in 1787-89. Saying the government is not founded on the Christian religion is much different from saying the nation’s social/political network was not founded with Christian principles in mind.
But having said that, let me add that it is very doubtful that this language was ever part of the original Treaty. I make the following observations:
1. The clause does not appear in the Arabic version of the Treaty; it was inserted into the English translation. Please note the following entry from Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America, 1776-1949, XI:1070:
“Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation with its famous phrase, ‘the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion,’ does not exist at all. There is no Article 11. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point.”
A likely explanation is that the Dey of Algiers wrote this note on the Treaty to mollify concerns of the Pasha of Tripoli about entering into a Treaty with an “infidel” (non-Islamic) nation like the United States. The translator assumed this was part of the Treaty and translated it along with the rest of the document. Very likely the clauses of the original document were not numbered, so the translator numbered this Clause 11 between Clauses 10 and 12.
2. Translations of Treaties and other documents can differ greatly. Consider Barlow’s translation of Article 12:
“In case of any dispute arising from a violation of any of the articles of this treaty no appeal shall be made to arms, nor shall war be declared on any pretext whatever. But if the Counsel residing at the place where the dispute shall happen shall not be able to settle the same, an amicable reference shall be made to the mutual friend of the parties, the Dey of Algiers, the parties hereby engaging to abide by his decision. And he by virtue of his signature to this treaty engages for himself and successors to declare the justice of the case according to the true interpretation of the treaty, and to use all the means in his power to enforce the observation of the same.”
However, in 1930 Dr. C. Snouck Hurgronje of Leiden prepared a more literal translation (http://avalon NULL.law NULL.yale NULL.edu/18th_century/bar1796e NULL.asp) of Article 12:
“Praise be to God [Allah]! Declaration of the twelfth article. If there arises a disturbance between us both sides, and it becomes a serious dispute, and the American Consul is not able to make clear (settle) his affair, and (then) the affair shall remain suspended between them both, between the Pasha of Tripoli, may God strengthen him, in the well-protected Algiers, has taken cognizance of the matter. We shall accept whatever decision he enjoins on us, and we shall agree with this condition and his seal (i.e., the decision sealed by him); may God make it all permanent love and a good conclusion between us in the beginning and the end, by His grace and favor, amen!”
The differences between the two translations are obvious.
3. Joel Barlow, an American diplomat, was a key figure in negotiating the Treaty, and some credit him with the translation. Barlow had been a chaplain under General Washington during the War for Independence, but many believe that after the War he left Christian orthodoxy and became either a deist or an atheist. Some have speculated that Barlow’s religious unorthodoxy may have influenced his translation of the Treaty. However, it is uncertain whether Barlow translated the Treaty; some claim he did not know Arabic.
4. Those who believe the Treaty of Tripoli establishes the secular character of America argue that it doesn’t matter what the Arabic version of the Treaty says; it was the English version (Barlow translation) that was read and approved by the Senate. I believe it does matter. A treaty is a contract between two (or more) nations, and essential feature of any contract is an agreement on terms, commonly called a “meeting of minds.” If A contracts to sell his house to B, and A’s version of the contract lists a selling price of $200,000 while B’s version lists the selling price as $100,000, there obviously is no meeting of minds and therefore there is no valid contract. If the difference is over an essential element, this lack of a meeting of minds results in the invalidation of the contract; if the difference is over a non-essential element, then maybe only that provision of the contract would be invalid. At the very least, there was no meeting of minds between the United States and Tripoli concerning the alleged Article 11; therefore, at the very least, that article is invalid.
5. Piracy continued despite the Treaty, resulting in war with Tripoli in 1801. The Jefferson Administration negotiated and adopted a new treaty with Tripoli on April 17, 1806. The 1806 treaty does not include the so-called Article 11 of the old Treaty or any language remotely similar thereto.
All things considered, it is very unlikely that the so-called Article 11 is genuine, and even if it is genuine, it is a very frail reed on which to base an argument that America was not founded on Christian principles.
Finally, those who use the Treaty of Tripoli to prove that America is not a Christian nation, usually ignore the Treaty of Paris of 1783 (http://www NULL.ourdocuments NULL.gov/doc NULL.php?flash=false&doc=6&page=transcript). The Treaty of Paris, negotiated by Ben Franklin and John Adams among others, is truly a foundational document for the United States, because by this Treaty England recognized American independence. And there is no question about the validity or the wording of the Treaty of Paris. It begins with the words: “In the Name of the most holy and undivided Trinity… .”
(http://www NULL.addtoany NULL.com/share_save)
1) The nation was formed by the Declaration of Independence, which was written by Thomas Jefferson, who then wrote “The Jefferson Bible” to remove god from the morality of jesus. That way christians couldnt pretend that morality has anything to do with god.
2) the arabic translation of the treaty makes america sound like an islamic state with the perpetual mentioning of Allah and that the contract is bent to the will of the Pasha of Tripoli. This is obviously not the case with the actual treaty. How about a new explanation: America and Tripoli think about language differently. To express the same sentiment in both countries would require individual and separate vernacular. Not to mention, try explaining to an islamic nation that the will of allah does not have hold of the land. So the separate translations are explain in that each author must use the language of their land to explain the sentiment of the treaty to the people of that land.
3) As far as using this clause to explain that the US is a secular nation, it is valid to say that the Barlow’s vernacular for the Treaty of Tripoli is what matters. It is what the US agreed to. In your lame example of bad contracts, that house would not be sold. It does not mean that the seller agrees to $100k for the house; they just wouldnt sell. Whether the treaty is valid or not because of the difference in translation is now an aside, the US Senate unanimously agreed that the United States is a secular nation by signing the treaty.
How many times in history has the senate changed the vernacular of a legal document because of word choice or implication; just about every time. So in the eyes of the Senate, the legal body of the US, we are a secular nation and to them, the Barlow Translation is law.
Now onto the Treaty of Paris 1783:
Trinity = America, France and England.
The treaty goes on to describe all three nations in exalted and almost spiritual regard. There are also three separate religions at play here: Church of England, Holy Roman Empire and the purposeful hodgepodge of religions in America; represented by none because America is not a nation built on religion like the other two.
A rethought:
Comparing the Treaty of Paris to the Treaty of Tipoli for verification of America’s religious influence is lame. The Treaty of Tripoli STATES “…the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…” while the Treaty of Paris 1783 only says “In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.” Nothing to do with America being built on anything.
Jonathan,
You nailed Mr.Eidsmoe.
More on the Tripoli treaty.
I found the explanation of Mr. Edismoe an interesting read but shallow in substance. His supporting logic does not hold water. Then, he sidesteps the issue in an attempt to gain credibility by diverting to comparison and linking to the Paris treaty.
I would like to add the following relevant excerpt to further support an excellent closure by Jonathon. This is courtesy of :
TheGreenPapers.com
WATCH OUT ON YOUR RIGHT!
Just where did people get this crazy idea
that the United States of America was
intended to be a “Christian Nation”?
Friday, February 9, 2007
by Richard E. Berg-Andersson
TheGreenPapers.com Staff
The article is copyrighted so I am providing the link to those you are keen to view the entire article : http://www.thegreenpapers.com/PCom/?20070209-0 (http://www NULL.thegreenpapers NULL.com/PCom/?20070209-0)
For your information …..
Article XI of this Treaty states as follows:
As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion; as it 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 war nor act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries
“By the time a copy of the Treaty arrived in Philadelphia, onboard ship of course, John Adams had already succeeded George Washington as President of the United States as of 4 March 1797. Thus it was President Adams- who had called the 5th Congress into Extra Session beginning on 15 May for other purposes- who formally sent the Treaty to the United States Senate on 26 May; the Senate ratified it- as required by the Constitution, with at least 2/3 of that body in favor- on 7 June and President Adams then officially proclaimed the Treaty in force on 10 June. As far as the Constitution and Laws of the United States are concerned, that ends this Treaty’s legislative history.
But not the constitutional position of the Treaty’s Article XI…
for clause 2 of Article VI of the United States Constitution itself reads as follows:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding”
“There are scholars who have found enough historical evidence to debate the issue of whether or not Article XI even appeared in that form in the original Arabic version of the 1796 Treaty left with the Bey of Tripoli himself ((the relevant Article is missing from the surviving copy of the Treaty in Arabic– although this, in reality, makes absolutely no difference to the discussion at hand herein: Article XI, as quoted at the head of this piece, appears in the English version and is included in the text of that Treaty as found in Volume 8 of the United States Statutes at Large [8 Stat. _], which includes all U.S. Treaties with Foreign Powers through 1845. The Statutes at Large are part of an ever-growing collection of so-called “Session Laws”- that is, a compilation of each law in chronological order of adoption- as opposed to “Codified Laws”, such as the United States Code- in which laws are grouped by subject matter arranged into Titles, Chapters and Sections for easier reference. American Courts- on both the State and Federal level- have consistently held that “Session Laws” are to be construed as the definitive text of any statute, executive order or treaty [since they are compiled more directly from the texts of the documents as they have been adopted; codified versions of these laws, on the other hand, are culled from all laws still in force at the time of the codification and mistakes in copying and transcribing are, thus, the more likely to occur]; thus, the collection of United States Statutes at Large would be more controlling than, say, the United States Code where there might prove to be a discrepancy when the two are compared. In addition, any Treaty is to be construed in terms of how the parties each have come to understand it and it would be the English text which would have been regarded as the controlling text insofar as the American understanding of the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli would be concerned [after all, the Senate of the 5th Congress ratified the English version, not the Arabic one!])
But all of this is, in the main, irrelevant to the fact that one must certainly take note of a statement which became the Supreme Law of the Land by virtue of Article VI, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution itself, one proclaiming that the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion and accepted by both the President of the United States and the United States Senate within a decade of the drafting of that very Constitution and a little more than half a decade after the Bill of Rights- containing the very language regarding Congress making no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof in its First Article of Amendment as ratified by the States then in the Union. If this is not the clearest of indications that the United States of America was not specifically and inherently intended to be a Christian Nation by its Founders, then I don’t know what would be!”
More comments by Wayne Aiken on the Tripoli treaty and the continuing discussion of the subject:
If they had thought the U.S. was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, there is no way they would have allowed such language in the treaty. Instead, the language never raised an eyebrow. This proves the secular basis of the Constitution.
The lack of a religious foundation for the Constitution was obvious at the time of its adoption and caused theocrats to revile the document. Church-state scholar Leo Pfeffer writes: “Omission of reference to God or Christ in the Constitution was bitterly criticized by some during the debates in the states during its ratification. Indeed, two Presbyterian church groups resolved not to vote at elections until the Constitution should be amended to acknowledge the sovereignty of God and Christ.”
Some theocrats, noting that many of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were sympathetic to deism, alleged that the godless document was the product of a deistic conspiracy.
Moreover, from the earliest days of the nation until well into the twentieth century, efforts were made to amend the Constitution to include a recognition of God and Christianity. The repeated failure of those attempts led to a new strategy in recent years. It includes rewriting history and claiming that God and Christianity have always been in the Constitution.
As Robert Boston relates in his book Why the Religious Right is Wrong About Separation of Church and State: “In the 19th century, fundamentalist clerics acknowledged the secular nature of the Constitution and called for amending it to include references to God or Christianity. Most Religious Right activists today have abandoned this strategy and in the face of all available evidence insist that the Constitution was somehow written to afford special protection to Christianity.”
It is imperative that the Founding Fathers’ precious gift of church-state separation be cherished and upheld. This principle has given Americans more religious freedom than is possessed by any other people. And it has enabled the U.S. to avoid the types of bloody religious conflicts that fill the pages of history and are still seen in many parts of the world”
I rest my case and in full support of Jonathan.
Now I’ve read through this article a few times and at first it made me think for a little, then something came into mind is the dates of the two treaties which is 1783 and 1805. The Treaty of Paris was written several years before the US Constitution was ever drafted and 6 years before it came into effect that defined the laws of the land for the United States. So how can this comparison be made as to the secular nature of the Constitution when it was written long before the Constitution?
Foster puts the religious preamble of the Treaty of Paris in historical context:
Excerpt from The Practice of Diplomacy as Illustrated in The Foreign Relations of the United States
By John Watson Foster (1906)
It was formerly the universal practice to introduce the preamble with a solemn religious asseveration or divine invocation. The United States in this, as we have seen in other diplomatic matters, in its earlier history accepted and followed the existing practice. In the treaty of peace with Great Britain of 1783, which secured our independence, the preamble opens with these words: “In the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity.” It illustrates the inaptness of the use of such an invocation when it is stated that of the three American negotiators of that treaty, Adams, Franklin, and Jay, the latter was the only one who accepted the dogma of the Trinity. The same words appear in the British treaty of 1822. The treaties with Russia of 1824 and 1832 use the same invocation, as also that with Portugal of 1840. The treaty of peace with Mexico of 1848 begins: “In the name of Almighty God;” and these words are repeated in the treaty of 1853. That with Costa Rica of 1851 has: “In the name of the Most Holy Trinity,” and similar language is employed in treaties with other Spanish-American countries. These relate to the compacts with Christian nations. The language of our conventions with some of the Mohammedan states is more expressive and extravagant. That with Tunis (1797) has the following preamble: “God is infinite. Under the auspices of the greatest, the most powerful of all the Princes of the Ottoman nation who reigns upon the earth, our most glorious and most august Emperor, who commands the two lands and the two seas, Selim Kan, the victorious son of the Sultan Mustafa, whose realm may God prosper until the end of ages, the support of kings, the Seal of Justice, the Emperor of Emperors.
“The Most Illustrious and Most Magnificent Prince, Hamouda Pacha Bey, who commands the Ogdiak of Tunis, the abode of happiness, . . .; and the Most Distinguished and Honored President of the Congress of the United States of America, the most distinguished among those who profess the religion of the Messiah, of whom may the end be happy.”
This language, however, appears tame beside that of some other similar Mohammedan documents. As an instance of these, I give extracts from the French capitulation of 1740, the provisions of which have been extended to the other Christian powers having relations with Turkey, and which has peculiar interest for the United States because it is still in force and appealed to by American ministers for the protection of their countrymen in Turkey. The preamble to this capitulation is quite lengthy, and I can only quote it in part, as follows: —
“The Emperor Sultan Mahmoud, son of the Sultan Moustapha, always victorious.
“This is what is ordered by this glorious and imperial sign, conqueror of the world, this noble and sublime mark, the efficacy of which proceeds from the divine assistance.
“I, who by the excellence of the infinite favors of the Most High, and by the eminence of the miracles filled with benediction of the chief of the prophets (to whom be the most ample salutations, as well as to his family and his companions), am the Sultan of the glorious Sultans; the Emperor of the powerful Emperors; the distributor of crowns to the Chosroes who are seated upon thrones; the shade of God upon earth . . . .
On balance, using the Treaty of Tripoli to defend the thesis that America is a secular nation is good, on-the-surface. However, when you put it under closer scrutiny, it falls apart. But, even if it does stand up as sound, the weight of the evidence from the words of the founders, statements in statutes and court cases dwarf Article 11 as nothing more than an outlier.
I have written an online article that addresses this issue.
http://hubpages.com/hub/Tempest-in-a-Treaty-Does-the-Treaty-of-Tripoli-Support-a-Secular-America (http://hubpages NULL.com/hub/Tempest-in-a-Treaty-Does-the-Treaty-of-Tripoli-Support-a-Secular-America)
[...] [...]
Readers might enjoy going to Google etc. and typing in “Separation of Raunch and State.” A great, thought-provoking read! Sarah
[...] administration. I respectfully direct the reader’s attention to my post on this topic, “Tripoli v. Paris: A Tale of Two Treaties,” or to “Appendix 1: Treaty of Tripoli” in Christianity and the Constitution. Quoting [...]