Talk:Quasi-War

message: The casualties in the infobox appear to be in direct contradiction with the casualty figures listed in the battle of the war. The infobox claims at least 82 American military personnel were killed with only 20+ French military personnel being killed, while in the articles to different engagements in the war, the total casualties add up to 27+ American military personnel killed, and at least 114 French military personnel being killed, possibly upwards of 276 military personnel being killed. As no sources were provided for the claims in the infobox, I will change them to reflect the information provided in the articles unless better sources can be found. History Man1812 (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualties

message: What are these US claims against France that were renounced? Surely, it was the other way around? To me, this war seems like an overall American victory. I don't see what France gained from fighting it at all.TrendBronco (talk) 00:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Claims against France 

message: I added Frederick Leiner's book Millions for Defense: The Subscription Warships of 1798 to the Further Reading list.  I just finished the book tonight, and I thought it covered this aspect of the Quasi War quite well, with a few minor exceptions. Bschulte 01:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added a Title to Further Reading 

message: I have changed the logistics outlay for the US Navy's ships involved to reflect a much more accurate representation.  Likewise, I added all names with their corresponding rating.  I intend to add much more in the near future to make this article much more in the way of substantive.  All information for this update was taken from Wikipedia as well as "The US Navy: An Illustrated History" by Nathan Miller.
Auror 02:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Remodel

message: any ideas where the number of US ships involved in this war (in the box) came from?  I have included every ship in :Category:Quasi-War American ships where the ship article said it was involved in the Quasi-War and there are a whole lot more than this box says.   Thanks Hmains 02:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ships involved in this war 

message: For those looking to add, there is some information in:
The River Plate Voyages, 1798-1800 from The American Historical Review, Vol. 23, No. 4. (Jul., 1918), pp. 816-826.
If you have JSTOR it is available there. Aboutmovies 22:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info Source 

message: The article does not lose a single word about the US's refusal of paying back war debts to France on the spurios [sic] grounds the contracts were done with monarchial France and so no duty existed to pay back to revolutionary France.
:You're applying modern standards to something that happened in 1798. It was common in those days for treaties to be drawn up by a monarch in his status as a person, rather than between nations as a whole. The agreements between the U.S. and France during the American Revolution were all between the Continental Congress and Louis XVI personally, NOT between the Congress and France. The position that our government took after the French Revolution was not spurious at all, and the same position was taken by most nations in the world. Very few countries even recognized the First French Republic as legitimate at all; the Bourbon pretender who became Louis XVIII was widely regarded internationally as the lawful sovereign of France in 1798. Modern treaties are drawn up between nations, but in that era, they weren't. The U.S. had agreements with Louis XVI, not with France. Jsc1973 (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: More importantly, the U.S. government was not a supporter of the Revolution or Napoleon, as the aggressive warlike designs of this period in French history didn't align with American ideals. 68.19.2.115 (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Information 

message: Does Great Britain count, since it operated as a de facto ally of America at this stage? Tourskin 00:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combatants 

message: The previous edit stated:
"The Quasi-War started on July 7, 1798, when Congress rescinded treaties with France. United States Naval squadrons then sought out and attacked the French privateers. Deeply infuriated with the U.S for their actions against France, the French Naval Commander Jean de Beaune counterattacked with the destruction of the USS Virginia. This ultimately led to a rise of national pride in the U.S as they sought to avenge those who had died in that battle. The U.S then retaliated with the killing of 25 French sailors aboard one of the French frigates that ran in between Quebec and the Country of France which led to the belief that it was the work of a Pirate Crew by the name of Genive."
In my modest but comprehensive library on the Quasi War, none make any mention of the above actions whatsoever.  There is no Jean de Beaune and I know there was no USS Virginia on the Navy rolls at that time.  It's clear that this was a case of clever vandalism that only someone intimately familiar with the conflict could have caught.  I've also cleared up the date bit, especially as the whole "this was the beginning of the Quasi War" stick is quite nebuluous considering it was a war never declared.  Any questions etc. drop me a note on my talk page.  Auror 01:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I admit I almost fell for it. Damn user. loser. Hah! A loser user on the loose. Tourskin 05:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Beginning of Hostilities etc. 

message: I have altered the result box from "End of French Revolutionary piracy" to "End of effective French revolutionary privateer attacks on American shipping". "Piracy" is both innacurate and inherently POV. As the rest of the article makes clear, the French ships were operating under letters of Marque from the French revolutionary government. While (as the article also makes clear, as does the linked article on Privateering) the line between Privateer and Pirate could and often was crossed, the two are not the same. A pirate was (and is) a criminal, a sea thief subject to capture and punishment, trial under criminal law (and at the time, capital punishment) by the ships and forces of any nation. Privateering was an internationally recognized form of warfare, privateers (as also noted) being subject to rules surrounding prisoners of war. To describe Privateering as piracy is anachronistic, and when applied to only 1 side in a conflict, POV.
12.215.65.5 17:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is indeed a much better way of phrasing it. Cheers. Djlayton4 | talk  |  contribs 19:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont disagree, but Citizen Genet arrived in America with loads of blank "letters of Marque", despite the fact that the US was not only not a combatant but had declared neutrality. It was, at the time, legal but was "polite" piracy and eventually became recognized as such. To declare privateering as legitimizing activities of one side of a conflict, without such balance, is also POV.--Reedmalloy (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite, the US issued letters of Marque to its own merchant ships, allowing them to take Armed french vessels as prizes. Privateering has a long and distinct history, and is very different from piracy in many respects. The US navy executed pirates, it treated privateers as prisoners of war. Many of the American ships captured by the French while carrying english goods, and therefore were ordinarally good captures under the laws of the time. Despite that, many American ships not normally considered to be good prizes were taken by the French as well, the problem with calling it piracy is that these French siezures had the sanction of the French government through several decrees it issued. It should also be noted that not only did French privateers sieze american merchentmen, but French national vessels of the French Navy captured American merchentmen as well. It might also be interesting to note that the French siezures didnt entirely stop until 1813, thirteen years after the war ended!XavierGreen (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Altered "Result" box

message: The 00:57, 30 April 2009 69.239.23.145 version of this article is translated into Chinese Wikipedia.--Wing (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation into Chinese Wikipedia 

message: I have never heard this title before, it currently is not the most cited title.  Quasi War is the most commonly cited title is literature to my knowlage.  Can you get multiple sources citing this?  I know the US government itself uses the term "Naval War with France".  Im am going to redirect the page to Quasi War until you can provide citations and sufficent evidence for the term Franco-American War being used in scholarly subjects.67.84.178.0 (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Franco-American War?

message: The article seems to gloss over Alexander Hamilton and the move toward a standing Army in the US, as well as the impact of the conflict on the development of US coastal fortificaitons. Shoreranger (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seems to fall a little short 

message: In the opening paragraph France is described as a critical ally of the USA during the war of independence. Does this mean ally of critical importance, or ally not afraid to criticise (akin to critical friend)? Perhaps better informed readers will know which is the correct meaning in context, but it struck me as potentially ambiguous.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.188.155.114 (talk) 09:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The former... AnonMoos (talk) 11:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Critical ally" 

message: I addded the name of the minister, and linked his article to this article. John5Russell3Finley (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Charles Cotesworth Pinckney

message: It lists lt. gen george washington as one of the key players in the quasi-war. However, washington was already dead by that time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.184.125 (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there was no formal declaration of war, the exact date of the begining of the conflict is a matter of debate. There were a number of engagements between French privateers and American merchant vessels in 1796-1797 and the Revenue Cutter service and customs bureau siezed and arrested various French commisioned privateers that were fitting out of American ports. With the threat of a real declared war looming, the army was enlarged and George Washington was reactivated as a Lietanant General in the army. He died in 1799 after the American government formally authorized the navy to begin hostilities against hostile french ships and the war was in its second year.XavierGreen (talk) 04:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: True. President Adams restored Washington's Army commission as part of an effort to demonstrate to the French Republic that we were willing to fight them if they didn't cease hostilities. Even if he never took the field again, Washington had a very high reputation around the world due to his leadership in the Revolution and as President. Washington was the ranking U.S. military officer during most of the Quasi-War, until his death in 1799. Jsc1973 (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  George Washington's involvement is in error. 

message: Should the infobox casulties include those mentioned in Action_of_1_January_1800? Iapetus (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Casualty figures for the French are generally not reported but easily number well over 500 with incidents i know of. Additionally American merchant marine casualties were much higher than us military casualties, the vast majority of combat incidents were actually between armed american merchant vessels and letters of marque against french privateers. These actions are extremely poorly recorded but from my research American battle deaths easily number in the hundreds (with the vast majority being merchant marines).XavierGreen (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox casulties 

message: It mentions a controversy, promptly ignores the nature of that controversy, and recounts the view of one historian to 'solve' that controversy. Highly dubious. 60.242.48.18 (talk) 08:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, one person's opinion hardly constitutes a debate. That section was previously removed on the grounds that the quoted historian is “controversial” (“known for ignoring or disregarding sources”) and restored without explanation. Benjamin M. A'Lee (talk) 11:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The last section, about modern significance, is one sided. 

message: In the second to last paragraph it mentions that this led to the "creation" of the United States Marine Corps. This is not true, the Marine Corps was born of an act of Congress in 1775. Now maybe the word should be re-invention of the Marine Corps but at least something more accurate.
Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.100.133.30 (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Background section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Quasi-War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100814013746/http://history.state.gov/milestones/1784-1800/XYZ to http://history.state.gov/milestones/1784-1800/XYZ
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: American naval losses may have been light, but the French had successfully seized many American merchant ships by the war's end in 1800—more than 2,000, according to one source. 
As the war was motivated by a bad debt, a notable addition to the article would be an estimate of the value flowing to the French regime from the sale of the captured vessels (less the cost of their vessels lost). Layzeeboi (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say it was very profitable, but as to a hard number i wouldnt be able to say. The French government lost only 3 government vessels to my knowledge during the war, by far the vast majority of its combatants were privateers, which were fitted out and paid for by private enterprises. French prize courts took a very lax view on what was considered a valid warprize, and thus the French colonies recieved a great influx of captured goods and revenue. American commerce was preyed upon by the French everywhere in the world, including heavily in the Mediterranian and the Atlantic coast of France where for almost the entire war there was no American naval presence. Thus the French government itself had little risk in its undeclared naval war. The US Government forbad its naval vessels from raiding French commerce, only armed french vessels  were eligable for capture (though the US Navy commanders took very liberal interpretations of what constituted an armed vessel). Likewise American letters of marque could only attack and sieze French privateers (which was an extremely rare occurance during the war). All the time that the French were carrying on war with the USA, they were also at war with Britain who dominated them on the seas, ravaged their commerce and made hash of the French Navy. As a result, there was very little that the French could loose by carrying on the war with America. The American rules of engagement also did not allow American military forces to engage the French on land. As a result, the colonies in French hands were virtually immune from American attack, though American forces did land forces and disrupt an invasion of Curacao as well as bombard pro-French forces who were besieged in the Haitan city of Jacamel (there were a couple other brief engagements between French forts and American vessels, but these were generally brief and as a result of French forts firing on American warships that got too close).XavierGreen (talk) 04:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The ship & cargo were sold. the captain, officers & sailors on the French warship that made the capture divided the money. zero to French government. Rjensen (talk) 04:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  Any of the above info could constitute a notable addition to the article, if you can identify sources. Layzeeboi (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Finding French maritime laws will be a challenge. For the US laws to 1868 see  and following pages Rjensen (talk) 08:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There are great first hand account descriptions of captures of American merchant vessels and the struggles their captains and owners had with French prize courts in Greg H. Williams's book "The French Assault on American Shipping, 1793 - 1813". Its complied largely from indemnity claim cases in US Federal courts after the French agreed to pay American vessel owners who had suffered losses rdue to the war. Given that most official American Naval records (ship's logs, action reports, ect) were destroyed when the British burned Washington in the war of 1812, perhaps the largest source of primary documents relating to the Quasi War are the court records of the indemnity cases.XavierGreen (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There were 300 ships seized by the French, not 2,000. This number is almost ridiculously implausible and if I look at the alleged source (Hickey, Donald R. (2008)), there is nothing said about it. But if I read through the source, I find the total size of the US merchant fleet estimated at 933 ships. So it's impossible that the French were able to sieze 2,000 ships. 2003:D1:6718:5B15:A83E:D9EF:F9F2:42E6 (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  How profitable was the war for the French? 

message: Move page to The Quasi-War, as its a specific name, not a general article on quasi-wars. -Inowen (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename 

message: The article should mention that France easily won the war. (86.131.7.72 (talk) 10:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  French victory 

message: Apokrif (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is "Arguing the 1793 execution of Louis XVI void existing agreements" a correct phrasing? 

message: Reference number 20 is to Palmer 1987. In the source list the only entry for Palmer is "Palmer, Samuel Putnam (1989). Stoddert's War: Naval Operations During the Quasi War with France, 1798-1801."
Is this source from 1987 or 1989?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.221.201 (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources, Palmer 

message: A reviewer of P Hill's book "napoleons troublesome Americans" said that the United States came close to war with France a second time, an issue beginning with Florida. I have been unable to find more information about this but it would might be appropriate for an "epilog" in this article.
(https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7486467-napoleon-s-troublesome-americans)
Can anyone give me a lead on those events which might have led to war a second time? Humphrey Tribble (talk) 05:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second quasi war 

message: (a) I rewrote this article several years ago, and it has been stable prior to this change being made without discussion; how is that edit warring on my behalf?  A lot of time, effort and angst would have been saved by asking this question upfront on the TP
(b) None of the (American) Sources provided can be used to support the "American victory" claim; in fact, they actually support the original wording in the Infobox, which is the war ended without a clear result.  
(1) Source One; Wikipedia guidelines on Conflict preclude any such thing as "tactical victory" (because it's so subjective). It is a simple choice between "Victory" (for one side) or "Indecisive", so adding a source claiming a "tactical victory" is irrelevant. 
Since it also totally ignores why the war was fought, ie to prevent American merchant ship losses, it's using the wrong parameters.   
(2) Source Two; The US Navy's Orientation Department (ie Welcome to your new career), commenting in 1977 on what amounts to its foundation story, is hardly a neutral source. 
This (more recent) update from the USN states "American warships, by defeating their equals and capturing more than 80 French vessels, gave the world a convincing demonstration that the U.S. Navy was a professional fighting force". Again, nowhere does it state the war ended in an American victory
 https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/museums/nmusn/explore/photography/forgotten-wars-19th-century/quasi-war-france.html
(3) Source Three; this refers to "American victories at sea" (ie ship to ship duels), which are covered in the article, and have never been disputed. Please show me where it claims the war itself ended in an American victory.
(d) Elsewhere on this TP, others have claimed a French victory, and I can produce several other sources that do the same - in fact, that was the original result before I edited it.  
(e) The war ended because Napoleon had bigger fish to fry in Louisiana (its covered in the article on the Convention, which I also edited), and Royal Navy convoying of US merchant ships. Even the official blurb for the USS Constitution museum, which provides a comprehensive summary of the war, does not claim the war ended in American military victory (it very carefully skirts around the whole question);  https://ussconstitutionmuseum.org/major-events/the-quasi-war-with-france/#:~:text=The%20Quasi%2DWar%20officially%20ended,States'%20right%20to%20free%20trade.  
I think its both wrong and misleading, because wars very rarely end as clear victories or defeats for one side, and so most are disputed in terms of results. I can live with "Indecisive". Robinvp11 (talk) 07:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes