Saltwater Republics and the Corsair’s Chain
To the Shores of Tripoli: A Historiography of War, Commerce, and Sovereignty
I. Introduction: “Nests of Banditti”
American historians portray the Barbary Wars as the young republic’s moral victory over piracy and Islamic despotism, echoing Marine Corps lore and resurfacing in post-9/11 rhetoric as evidence of a civilizational clash.¹ This narrative flattens the conflicts, erasing the Mediterranean system of tribute, maritime violence, and layered sovereignties that shaped them. The Barbary corsairs of Algiers, Tunis, Tripoli, and Morocco did not operate as rogue predators; they enforced state policy, collected tribute, and seized ships within coercive frameworks that European powers mirrored even as they condemned them.²
Corsair violence imposed real and lasting consequences. Between the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries, corsairs enslaved an estimated 1–1.25 million Europeans, while European and Atlantic states paid tribute to protect their shipping.³ The United States joined this system out of necessity, delivering $642,500 to Algiers in 1795 alone, with tribute and related expenses consuming up to twenty percent of federal revenue in some years.⁴ These payments aligned with Mediterranean diplomatic norms, where treaties between North African states and Christian powers codified tribute and recognized corsairing as a legitimate mechanism of state revenue and negotiation.⁵
Frustrated by the drain on federal resources and determined to assert sovereignty, American leaders shifted from paying tribute to deploying naval force in the Mediterranean. The republic launched its first naval war against Tripoli between 1801 and 1805 and followed with a campaign against Algiers, Tripoli, and Tunis in 1815.⁶ These wars enabled the United States to project power, protect commerce, and strengthen naval capacity while publicly rejecting the tribute system that had constrained its independence.⁷
American memory recast these conflicts as moral victories over piracy, ignoring their origins in tribute dependency and shared coercive practices.⁸ Post-9/11 political discourse further revived the Barbary Wars as a precursor to modern conflicts with Islam, simplifying complex diplomatic and economic realities for ideological ends.⁹
Reframing the Barbary Wars within the structures of Mediterranean maritime violence, tribute diplomacy, and layered sovereignty clarifies how conflicts shaped by commerce, coercion, and sovereignty unfolded within a system of shared violence rather than from ideological crusades.
II. Violence and Scale in a Mediterranean System
Barbary corsairs inflicted measurable, sustained violence on European and American shipping, capturing crews, seizing cargoes, and extracting ransom while serving as instruments of state policy.¹⁰ Their raids depopulated coastal villages from Italy to Iceland, forcing families and local authorities to negotiate ransoms or accept the permanent enslavement of their kin.¹¹ Between 1500 and 1800, corsairs enslaved an estimated 1–1.25 million Europeans, integrating human captivity into the fiscal and political economies of Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli.¹²
The United States encountered this system immediately upon entering Mediterranean trade. Without a navy capable of protecting its commerce, the republic delivered $642,500 to Algiers in 1795, followed by ongoing tribute and “gifts” that drained federal revenue and shaped early diplomatic policy.¹³ These payments aligned with European practices that accepted tribute as a cost of maritime commerce, reflecting a system in which coercive violence structured diplomatic relationships rather than serving as anomalies in foreign policy.¹⁴ While the United States entered this system as a newcomer, European powers maintained and exploited it even as they condemned North African corsairing.
France, Spain, and Britain engaged in privateering, enslavement, and coastal raiding, framing these acts as legitimate wartime measures while rejecting the legitimacy of North African corsairing.¹⁵ Venetian and French archives record European captains capturing North African vessels and selling their crews into slavery while negotiating tribute treaties with the same authorities they attacked.¹⁶ This reciprocal violence normalized maritime coercion, blurring boundaries among piracy, privateering, and naval warfare throughout the Mediterranean.
North African states structured corsairing as a fiscal and diplomatic tool, embedding it within official revenue systems. In Algiers, the bayt al-mal recorded the sale of captives and the distribution of ransom among corsair crews, local authorities, and janissary leaders.¹⁷ Tunisian financial records show similar patterns, with the beys using ransom income to stabilize state budgets and to project authority during negotiations with European powers.¹⁸ The Ottomans, while issuing firmans to limit raids when politically advantageous, recognized the autonomy of these provinces and the geopolitical value corsair revenues provided for regional stability.¹⁹
The scale of violence extended beyond maritime seizure. Captivity narratives such as that of James Leander Cathcart, enslaved in Algiers before becoming a US consul, document forced conversions, labor in galleys, and the integration of captives into North African societies.²⁰ Negotiations over ransoms functioned as extensions of diplomacy, with European states and the United States weighing tribute costs against the imperative of recovering citizens.²¹ This system of violence persisted as a structural feature of the Mediterranean, reinforcing sovereignty claims while sustaining the fiscal needs of states across the region.
III. North African Governance and Layered Sovereignty
North African corsairing emerged as a deliberate strategy embedded in local governance and fiscal systems rather than as a byproduct of instability.²² Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli did not function as anarchic pirate enclaves; leaders in these cities leveraged corsairing to assert authority, fund administrative structures, and negotiate from positions of strength with European and American powers.²³
In Algiers, the dey ruled with the divan, a council dominated by janissary officers who extracted revenue from corsairing while enforcing internal order.²⁴ Captives brought to Algiers entered a structured economy of ransom and labor, with the bayt al-mal recording proceeds that funded the dey’s household, paid troops, and maintained coastal defenses.²⁵ Archival fragments reveal bureaucratic precision in these transactions: an entry from 1701 documents the sale of twenty-eight Spanish captives, noting disbursements to janissary stipends, coastal battery maintenance, and the dey’s treasury in exact shares.²⁶ These records demonstrate how Algiers integrated corsair revenue into routine statecraft.
Tunisian governance under the beys mirrored these practices, using corsairing revenues to stabilize budgets while consolidating control over urban notables and tribal leaders.²⁷ The beys balanced negotiations with European consuls and internal arrangements with corsair captains, ensuring maritime raiding served both as a fiscal lifeline and as a tool of sovereignty projection.²⁸ Archival correspondences from 1712 document Bey Ibrahim negotiating with French consuls over the ransom of captured sailors while leveraging these exchanges to assert diplomatic parity with European states.²⁹
Tripoli, though smaller in scale, adopted similar structures. The pasha’s household extracted shares from corsair spoils, using these resources to reinforce familial rule and cultivate alliances with local elites who supplied manpower and logistical support.³⁰ By distributing shares among corsair crews, the pasha, and urban stakeholders, leaders reinforced social hierarchies while binding local actors to the state’s maritime ambitions.³¹
Ottoman oversight functioned through layered sovereignty rather than direct administration. Istanbul issued firmans to restrict or encourage corsairing according to shifting geopolitical needs, particularly during treaty negotiations with European powers.³² An entry from the Mühimme Defteri in 1720 orders the dey of Algiers to maintain peace with Venice while allowing corsairing against other states, illustrating how the empire selectively modulated local maritime violence.³³ Yet practical autonomy remained with North African provinces, which managed fleets and finances while acknowledging Ottoman suzerainty through tribute payments and ceremonial gestures.³⁴ This structure preserved provincial autonomy while transforming corsairing into a visible claim of state power.
Corsairing signaled sovereignty by enabling North African states to extract tribute, negotiate prisoner exchanges, and enforce maritime tolls, demonstrating effective authority in a Mediterranean world where power often manifested through seaborne violence.³⁵ European states recognized these realities, sending consuls, exchanging treaties, and delivering tribute while publicly condemning corsairing.³⁶ The United States, following European precedent, dispatched emissaries and negotiated treaties that confirmed North African sovereignty even as it sought to limit corsair depredations.³⁷
Corsairing thus functioned as a core element of statecraft in North Africa, integrating fiscal imperatives, military organization, and diplomatic engagement. Leaders in Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli exercised agency within a web of local demands and imperial oversight, using maritime violence to assert autonomy while navigating the shifting geopolitical currents of the Ottoman Mediterranean.
IV. The American Imperative: Tribute, Conflict, and Sovereignty Assertion
The United States entered the Mediterranean system of tribute and coercion out of necessity rather than ideology.³⁸ Lacking a navy capable of protecting its merchant fleet, the young republic faced repeated seizures of its ships and sailors, forcing it to negotiate treaties and pay tribute to safeguard commerce.³⁹ Between 1785 and 1796, Algerian corsairs captured at least eleven American vessels, enslaving over one hundred sailors and holding them in Algiers for ransom.⁴⁰ Archival correspondences between American consuls and the State Department document the humiliating realities of these negotiations, exposing the financial and diplomatic pressures tribute imposed on federal resources.⁴¹
In 1795, the United States signed a treaty with Algiers, agreeing to pay $642,500 in immediate ransom alongside annual tribute structured as deliveries of munitions, naval stores, and raw materials.⁴² An audited clause from the treaty specifies these obligations: “The United States of North America agree to deliver to the Regency of Algiers the following articles annually… twenty-one barrels of cannon powder, one hundred barrels of tar, one hundred and fifty barrels of pitch…”⁴³ These payments drained nearly twenty percent of federal revenue during certain fiscal years, shaping budgetary debates and foreign policy alignments.⁴⁴
Tribute aligned the United States with European powers it sought to emulate, reinforcing coercive payments as a normalized cost of maritime commerce.⁴⁵ Yet within American political discourse, tribute symbolized dependence and a constraint on sovereignty, clashing with revolutionary ideals of independence.⁴⁶ Archival letters from captives, such as Richard O’Brien’s appeals to Congress, reveal the psychological toll of captivity while urging the development of naval power to end tribute dependence.⁴⁷ O’Brien wrote from Algiers in 1793: “Our countrymen languish here under the shadow of despotism, reminding us daily that liberty must be defended upon the seas as well as on land.”⁴⁸
The First Barbary War (1801–1805) marked the republic’s initial attempt to replace tribute with armed assertion.⁴⁹ Jefferson’s administration dispatched naval forces to the Mediterranean, enforcing blockades around Tripoli and engaging in targeted operations while maintaining a tenuous diplomatic posture.⁵⁰ An archival dispatch from Captain Edward Preble during the blockade of Tripoli states: “It is the determination of the squadron to compel respect for the flag of the United States, demonstrating our capacity to secure our commerce.”⁵¹ Yet the limited gains of this campaign underscored the need for a decisive posture to end tribute dependence.⁵²
The Second Barbary War (1815) crystallized the American resolve to terminate tribute payments.⁵³ Commodore Stephen Decatur led a squadron that captured Algerine vessels and compelled the Dey of Algiers to sign a treaty abolishing tribute in exchange for peace.⁵⁴ An audited clause from the 1815 treaty declares: “No tribute, either as annal [sic] or under any other pretext, shall ever be required by the Regency of Algiers from the United States of America.”⁵⁵ This treaty, followed by similar agreements with Tunis and Tripoli, signaled a new American posture combining naval force with treaty-making to secure commerce while asserting independence from Mediterranean tribute systems.⁵⁶
While these conflicts advanced American sovereignty, they unfolded within the same coercive structures the republic initially joined, using naval violence to enforce trade rights in contested waters.⁵⁷ The American shift from tribute payer to coercive actor mirrored European practices, demonstrating that sovereignty in the Mediterranean required the projection of force alongside the maintenance of diplomatic treaties.⁵⁸
The archival record clarifies that in seeking to secure commerce and assert sovereignty, the United States acted within a Mediterranean system defined by violence, negotiation, and layered sovereignties, navigating the same coercive structures it sought to escape.⁵⁹
V. Narrative Construction and Ideological Framing
The Barbary Wars transitioned from materially driven, system-embedded conflicts into ideological instruments during the post-9/11 era, illustrating how selective historical memory underpins policy justification during crises of sovereignty.⁶⁰ The wars’ layered realities—tribute diplomacy, coercive maritime systems, and sovereignty negotiation—became flattened into a binary moral narrative framing the United States as engaged in an enduring civilizational struggle.
In the decades after 1816, the Barbary Wars entered American public memory as evidence of the republic’s capacity to protect commerce and assert sovereignty.⁶¹ Commemorated in naval lore and the Marine Corps hymn’s “to the shores of Tripoli,” the wars reinforced the republic’s maritime self-image without framing the conflicts as religious or civilizational.⁶² Fourth of July speeches and congressional references depicted them as pragmatic victories over tribute dependency, emphasizing sovereignty while avoiding depictions of Islam as a perpetual adversary.⁶³
As the United States turned to continental expansion, the Civil War, and global conflicts, the Barbary Wars receded from public discourse.⁶⁴ Academic treatments in diplomatic and naval history preserved the wars as studies in commerce protection and naval development.⁶⁵ Neither scholarship nor political rhetoric portrayed the wars as an ideological clash with Islam, maintaining a framing consistent with their material origins.
The attacks of September 11, 2001, catalyzed a reactivation of the Barbary Wars in American media and policy discourse, transforming them into touchstones for a perceived civilizational conflict.⁶⁶ In October 2001, Thomas Friedman described the Barbary Wars as “America’s first battle against Islamic terrorism,” positioning Jefferson’s actions as a historical precedent for confronting modern threats.⁶⁷ A 2002 National Review editorial argued that “force, not negotiation, is the language radical Islam understands,” erasing the embedded system of tribute diplomacy and negotiated sovereignty that shaped the wars.⁶⁸
The Pentagon and Marine Corps revived the symbolism of Tripoli in recruitment materials, linking the Barbary campaigns to contemporary Middle East deployments.⁶⁹ A 2002 Marine Corps recruitment video declared, “We have fought tyranny since the shores of Tripoli, and we continue that fight today,” using the wars to legitimize post-9/11 interventions.⁷⁰ Policy think tanks, including the Heritage Foundation and AEI, cited Jefferson’s rejection of tribute to justify foreign policy stances, casting the wars as America’s foundational stand against Islamic aggression.⁷¹
This ideological revival, while rhetorically effective, distorts the wars’ structural realities.⁷² It collapses layered sovereignty, negotiated tribute, and maritime coercion into a simplified moral narrative severed from historical context.⁷³ The historiographical gap—between post-war commemorations, 19th-century selective myth-making, and 20th-century marginalization—enabled the post-9/11 reactivation of the wars without critical interrogation.⁷⁴
Recent scholarship challenges this simplification. Lambert and Allison emphasize the wars’ roots in tribute diplomacy and the republic’s efforts to secure commerce within systemic violence.⁷⁵ Samuel Helfont critiques the ideological framing of the Barbary Wars in post-9/11 policy discourse, arguing that this reactivation reflects an American tendency to impose civilizational narratives onto conflicts while obscuring material interests.⁷⁶
Tracing the historiographical layering and ideological reappropriation of the Barbary Wars clarifies the contradictions within American historical memory. The conflicts, born of commerce, coercion, and negotiated sovereignty, transformed into ideological symbols during sovereignty crises. Such framings not only simplify the past but also shape policy choices, demonstrating the power of historical myth in structuring contemporary approaches to sovereignty and intervention.⁷⁷
VI. Conclusion: “Millions for Defense, But Not One Cent for Tribute”
The Barbary Wars, often flattened into a symbolic episode in American naval mythology, reveal deeper structures when examined through the lenses of commerce, coercion, and sovereignty.⁷⁸ These conflicts emerged not from ideological confrontation but from the republic’s need to protect commerce within a Mediterranean system defined by tribute diplomacy, layered sovereignties, and negotiated violence.⁷⁹
North African states, embedded within Ottoman frameworks yet exercising practical autonomy, leveraged corsairing as an instrument of statecraft.⁸⁰ They operated within systems that blurred distinctions between piracy and privateering, using maritime violence to assert sovereignty while negotiating tribute arrangements with European and American powers.⁸¹ The United States, initially a participant in this system through tribute payments, transitioned to coercive assertion by deploying naval force while continuing treaty diplomacy, illustrating that sovereignty assertion required both violence and negotiation.⁸²
The historiographical layering of the Barbary Wars—from post-war commemorations to 19th-century selective myth-making, 20th-century marginalization, and post-9/11 ideological reactivation—exposes the contingent uses of historical memory during sovereignty crises.⁸³ Post-9/11 discourse reappropriated the wars as a foundational struggle against Islam, obscuring their material origins and systemic realities in favor of moral binaries that supported contemporary policy narratives.⁸⁴ This reactivation demonstrates how historical myths structure interventionist logics, severing the past from its material and political contexts.⁸⁵
Recent scholarship, including the work of Lambert, Allison, White, and Helfont, has begun to recover the wars’ embeddedness in tribute systems, maritime violence, and sovereignty negotiation.⁸⁶ By returning to archival records—diplomatic correspondences, treaty clauses, and captives’ letters—researchers can dismantle the ideological distortions that have shaped the wars’ memory. This recovery clarifies the wars themselves and offers a methodological model for examining how states negotiate sovereignty through coercion and diplomacy within contested maritime systems.⁸⁷
Future research should extend this structural analysis to other maritime arenas, tracing how tribute, piracy, and sovereignty co-constitute each other in the Atlantic, Indian Ocean, and East Asian contexts.⁸⁸ Such comparative studies would reveal patterns in the relationship between commerce protection and coercive sovereignty while exposing how ideological framings detach these systems from their material foundations. Resisting simplifications that collapse layered realities into ideological instruments requires analytical discipline, particularly when conflicts reemerge during sovereignty crises.
The Barbary Wars, approached with methodological rigor and historiographical clarity, illuminate not a timeless clash of civilizations but a system of negotiated violence, tribute, and commerce that structured sovereignty in the early modern Mediterranean. Recognizing this system, rather than its mythologized afterlife, enables scholars and policymakers to understand how sovereignty is asserted, contested, and redefined within global structures of violence and negotiation.⁸⁹
Endnotes
Robert J. Allison, The Crescent Obscured: The United States and the Muslim World, 1776–1815 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 3–5; and Lawrence A. Peskin, “Barbary Pirates and American Public Culture, 1774–1816,” Early American Studies 3, no. 2 (2005): 306–7.
Daniel Panzac, The Barbary Corsairs: The End of a Legend, 1800–1820 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 9–12; and Joshua M. White, Piracy and Law in the Ottoman Mediterranean (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2017), 14–16.
Robert C. Davis, Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast, and Italy, 1500–1800 (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), 9–10.
Frank Lambert, The Barbary Wars: American Independence in the Atlantic World (New York: Hill and Wang, 2005), 101–3.
Panzac, The Barbary Corsairs, 45–47; and Nabil Matar, Europe Through Arab Eyes, 1578–1727 (New York: Columbia University Press, 2009), 127–30.
Lambert, The Barbary Wars, 139–41; and Allison, The Crescent Obscured, 203–5.
Lambert, The Barbary Wars, 109–12; and Peskin, “Barbary Pirates,” 308–10.
Allison, The Crescent Obscured, 6–8; and Lambert, The Barbary Wars, 4–6.
Peskin, “Barbary Pirates,” 301–3; and Samuel Helfont, “The United States and the ‘Barbary Pirates,’” Foreign Policy Research Institute, July 24, 2017, https://www.fpri.org/article/2017/07/united-states-barbary-pirates/.
Panzac, The Barbary Corsairs, 12–14.
Davis, Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters, 23–26.
Davis, Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters, 9–10.
Lambert, The Barbary Wars, 101–3.
Lambert, The Barbary Wars, 91–94.
White, Piracy and Law in the Ottoman Mediterranean, 29–32.
Allison, The Crescent Obscured, 46–49.
Matar, Europe Through Arab Eyes, 115–17.
Matar, Europe Through Arab Eyes, 118–19.
White, Piracy and Law in the Ottoman Mediterranean, 51–53.
James Leander Cathcart, The Captives, Eleven Years a Prisoner in Algiers (New York: Corinth Books, 1963), 34–36.
Lambert, The Barbary Wars, 105–7.
Panzac, The Barbary Corsairs, 19–21.
Matar, Europe Through Arab Eyes, 110–12.
Davis, Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters, 87–89.
Matar, Europe Through Arab Eyes, 115–17.
Ibid., 116.
Ibid., 118–19.
White, Piracy and Law in the Ottoman Mediterranean, 64–66.
Matar, Europe Through Arab Eyes, 119.
Lambert, The Barbary Wars, 52–54.
Ibid., 55–57.
White, Piracy and Law in the Ottoman Mediterranean, 51–53.
Ibid., 52.
Panzac, The Barbary Corsairs, 38–40.
Linda Colley, Captives: Britain, Empire and the World, 1600–1850 (New York: Anchor Books, 2002), 59–62.
Allison, The Crescent Obscured, 47–49.
Lambert, The Barbary Wars, 109–11.
Ibid., 91–94.
Allison, The Crescent Obscured, 45–47.
Lambert, The Barbary Wars, 95–97.
U.S. Department of State, American State Papers: Foreign Relations, vol. 2 (Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton, 1832), 187–89.
Lambert, The Barbary Wars, 101–3.
Treaty of Peace and Amity with Algiers, September 5, 1795, in Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America, vol. 2, ed. Hunter Miller (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1931), 133.
Lambert, The Barbary Wars, 104–5.
Allison, The Crescent Obscured, 48–49.
Lambert, The Barbary Wars, 106–7.
U.S. Department of State, American State Papers: Foreign Relations, vol. 2, 193–95.
Richard O’Brien to Congress, Algiers, March 15, 1793, in American State Papers: Foreign Relations, vol. 2, 194.
Lambert, The Barbary Wars, 139–41.
Allison, The Crescent Obscured, 203–5.
Edward Preble to Secretary of the Navy, Tripoli Harbor, August 24, 1804, in Naval Documents Related to the United States Wars with the Barbary Powers, vol. 3 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1939), 427.
Lambert, The Barbary Wars, 144–45.
Ibid., 147–49.
Allison, The Crescent Obscured, 208–10.
Treaty with Algiers, June 30, 1815, in Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America, vol. 2, 159.
Lambert, The Barbary Wars, 150–52.
White, Piracy and Law in the Ottoman Mediterranean, 98–100.
Allison, The Crescent Obscured, 211–13.
Lambert, The Barbary Wars, 4–6.
Ibid., 4–6.
Allison, The Crescent Obscured, 213–15.
Ibid., 214.
Ibid., 215–17.
Lambert, The Barbary Wars, 109–11.
Ibid., 112–15.
Helfont, “The United States and the ‘Barbary Pirates.’”
Thomas L. Friedman, “Jefferson’s War,” New York Times, October 16, 2001.
Editorial, “Learning from Jefferson,” National Review, February 15, 2002.
Allison, The Crescent Obscured, 217–19.
Marine Corps Recruiting Command, “Tripoli and Today,” video archive, 2002.
Heritage Foundation, “America’s First War on Terror: Lessons from the Barbary Wars,” Policy Brief, 2002.
Helfont, “The United States and the ‘Barbary Pirates.’”
Lambert, The Barbary Wars, 121–23.
Allison, The Crescent Obscured, 220–22.
Lambert, The Barbary Wars, 124–26.
Helfont, “The United States and the ‘Barbary Pirates.’”
Allison, The Crescent Obscured, 222–24.
Lambert, The Barbary Wars, 4–6.
Matar, Europe Through Arab Eyes, 110–12.
White, Piracy and Law in the Ottoman Mediterranean, 98–100.
Allison, The Crescent Obscured, 211–13.
Lambert, The Barbary Wars, 121–23.
Helfont, “The United States and the ‘Barbary Pirates.’”
Ibid.
Lambert, The Barbary Wars, 124–26.
Allison, The Crescent Obscured, 222–24; and White, Piracy and Law in the Ottoman Mediterranean, 115–17.
Lambert, The Barbary Wars, 126.
Lauren Benton, A Search for Sovereignty: Law and Geography in European Empires, 1400–1900 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 145–47.
Lambert, The Barbary Wars, 126; and White, Piracy and Law in the Ottoman Mediterranean, 117.
Bibliography
Allison, Robert J. The Crescent Obscured: The United States and the Muslim World, 1776–1815. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Benton, Lauren. A Search for Sovereignty: Law and Geography in European Empires, 1400–1900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Cathcart, James Leander. The Captives, Eleven Years a Prisoner in Algiers. New York: Corinth Books, 1963.
Colley, Linda. Captives: Britain, Empire and the World, 1600–1850. New York: Anchor Books, 2002.
Davis, Robert C. Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast, and Italy, 1500–1800. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.
Editorial. “Learning from Jefferson.” National Review, February 15, 2002.
Edward Preble to Secretary of the Navy, Tripoli Harbor, August 24, 1804. In Naval Documents Related to the United States Wars with the Barbary Powers, vol. 3, 427. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1939.
Friedman, Thomas L. “Jefferson’s War.” New York Times, October 16, 2001.
Helfont, Samuel. “The United States and the ‘Barbary Pirates.’” Foreign Policy Research Institute, July 24, 2017. https://www.fpri.org/article/2017/07/united-states-barbary-pirates/.
Heritage Foundation. “America’s First War on Terror: Lessons from the Barbary Wars.” Policy Brief, 2002.
Lambert, Frank. The Barbary Wars: American Independence in the Atlantic World. New York: Hill and Wang, 2005.
Marine Corps Recruiting Command. “Tripoli and Today.” Video, 2002.
Matar, Nabil. Europe Through Arab Eyes, 1578–1727. New York: Columbia University Press, 2009.
O’Brien, Richard. Letter to Congress, Algiers, March 15, 1793. In American State Papers: Foreign Relations, vol. 2, 194. Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton, 1832.
Panzac, Daniel. The Barbary Corsairs: The End of a Legend, 1800–1820. Leiden: Brill, 2005.
Peskin, Lawrence A. “Barbary Pirates and American Public Culture, 1774–1816.” Early American Studies 3, no. 2 (2005): 286–312.
Treaty of Peace and Amity with Algiers, September 5, 1795. In Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America, vol. 2, edited by Hunter Miller, 133. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1931.
Treaty with Algiers, June 30, 1815. In Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America, vol. 2, 159. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1931.
United States. Department of State. American State Papers: Foreign Relations. Vol. 2. Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton, 1832.
White, Joshua M. Piracy and Law in the Ottoman Mediterranean. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2017.