Talk:First Barbary War

message: Not sure why they are mentioned as belligerent and the text makes no mention of them. Morocco had a peace treaty and never waged war with the US. Sweden was not involved in this war. 82.41.110.187 (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Morocco and Sweden 

message: I was curious and wondered what involvement morocco had in the war. Because i hadn’t heard about Morocco having any sort of participation when learning about this topic. Does anyone know anything about Moroccan intervention in the war? S Molecular (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither had I. It was very strange to me to find Morocco in the infobox. 808 AD (talk) 08:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Morocco? 

message: for jeffersons quotes
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/first-annual-message 73.192.225.225 (talk) 09:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  better sources for quotes 

message: Examining the sources stating this is an American victory.
The fisrt source is a book by Joshua E. London, Victory in Tripoli . Despite it's title, on page 229, he calls the American victory "problematic" and states Tripolitania's long-term success. The book states the following:
Although the American "victory" proved problematic and the "peace" too political, the war ended rather well for the other participant. Pasha Yusuf Qaramanli was greatly pleased with the outcome of the war. Although it had proved costly in the short term, it was an unqualified Tripolitan success in the long term. 
America sought to break Yusuf, to chastise him, and even to overthrow him, yet they retreated at the first opportunity, delivering peace terms he was willing to accept. The United States sent several squadrons to the region to attack Tripoli, yet it was Yusuf who captured an American frigate-the single most valuable naval capture in the whole of Barbary history-and enslaved her entire crew without a single defensive shot being fired.
Despite years of blockade, his cruisers managed to routinely get his ships in and out of the harbor. When a peace treaty was finally negotiated, the United States paid Yusuf $60,000 for his troubles a small sum but rich with symbolism. Further, the new peace treaty made no reference to Algiers backing its fulfillment. Regionally, Yusuf Qaramanli became a symbol of Islamic fortitude. He proved that the regency of Tripoli was independent of the other Barbary powers, and he proved that Tripoli's pirate navy was a force to be reckoned with. In relative terms, Tripoli prospered. Yusuf Qaramanli continued to rule until 1834.
This sources is supported by another one, which also states Tripolitania's success. (next two pages)
The second source  is mostly based on the statement: Americans celebrated the treaty as a victory for free trade This is wrong, the American didn't hadvefree trade due to this treaty ,and their ships were still being attacked by Barbary states.
Quoting from a book Wilson, Gary E. American Prisoners in The Barbary Nations, 1784 - 1816  page 276
Although the war with Tripoli had ended, the United States continued to experience difficulty with the other Barbary nations. The pirates still harassed American merchantmen in the Mediterranean from 1805 through the War of 1812.
The US still paid tribute to the barbary states even after this war. Refer to the same book I sent from pages 290-96.
The Third source  doesn't mention anything regarding US victory but rather a peace treaty.
However the US didn't consider the treaty aavorable to them. Inf fact,they condemn it.
Quoting from Allen Johnson in his book Jefferson and His Colleagues; A Chronicle of the Virginia Dynasty  page 49-50
The treaty which Lear concluded on June 4, 1805, was an inglorious document. It purchased peace, it is true, and the release of some three hundred sad and woe-begone American sailors. But because the Pasha held three hundred prisoners and the United States only a paltry hundred, the Pasha was to receive sixty thousand dollars. Derne was to be evacuated, and no further aid was to be given to rebellious subjects. The United States was to endeavor to persuade Hamet to withdraw from the soil of Tripoli.
The Tripolitan War did not end in a blaze of glory for the United States. It had been waged in the spirit of "not a cent for tribute"; it was concluded with a thinly veiled payment for peace; and, worst of all, it did not prevent further trouble with the Barbary States.
Quoting United States Naval Medical Bulletin, Vol 17, page 267 
We find it difficult to believe that better terms might not have been obtained. How far the course of the negotiator was compelled by his instructions, we have no means of saying, but the treaty was approved and ratified. While many condemned it as unwise, all, however, rejoiced that it was the means of restoring so many brave men to their country. 
Quoting from a book Charles Stuart Kennedy, The American Consul.
The peace with Tripoli held, despite the unhappiness of Eaton and others in the United States over the money paid, the chance for further military glory lost.
If anything, the war result should be inconclusive, and I do have sources stating that.    عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This war was between the United States and Tripolitania. The objective of not having to pay tribute was achieved after their victory at the Battle of Derna. The relations between the US and the Barbary States that weren't involved in this war is obviously irrelevant. M.Bitton (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That objective of not paying tribute was not met until the Second Barbary War, besides the USA was forced to pay ransom for the captured Americans in exchange Humbler21 (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitely not a US victory.