|
To John Adams Paris, July 11, 1786
DEAR SIR, -- Our instructions relative to the Barbary states
having required us to proceed by way of negotiation to obtain their
peace, it became our duty to do this to the best of our power.
Whatever might be our private opinions, they were to be suppressed,
and the line marked out to us, was to be followed. It has been so
honestly, and zealously. It was therefore never material for us to
consult together on the best plan of conduct towards these states. I
acknolege I very early thought it would be best to effect a peace
thro' the medium of war. Tho' it is a question with which we have
nothing to do, yet as you propose some discussion of it I shall
trouble you with my reasons. Of the 4. positions laid down in your
letter of the 3d. instant, I agree to the three first, which are in
substance that the good offices of our friends cannot procure us a
peace without paying it's price, that they cannot materially lessen
that price, and that paying it, we can have the peace in spight of
the intrigues of our enemies. As to the 4th. that the longer the
negotiation is delayed the larger will be the demand, this will
depend on the intermediate captures: if they are many and rich the
price may be raised; if few and poor it will be lessened. However if
it is decided that we shall buy a peace, I know no reason for
delaying the operation, but should rather think it ought to be
hastened. But I should prefer the obtaining it by war. 1. Justice
is in favor of this opinion. 2. Honor favors it. 3. It will procure
us respect in Europe, and respect is a safe-guard to interest. 4. It
will arm the federal head with the safest of all the instruments of
coercion over their delinquent members and prevent them from using
what would be less safe. I think that so far you go with me. But in
the next steps we shall differ. 5. I think it least expensive. 6.
Equally effectual. I ask a fleet of 150. guns, the one half of which
shall be in constant cruise. This fleet built, manned and victualled
for 6. months will cost 450,000 pound sterling. It's annual expence
is 300 pound sterl. a gun, including every thing: this will be 45,000
pound sterl. a year. I take British experience for the basis of my
calculations, tho' we know, from our own experience, that we can do,
in this way, for pounds lawful, what costs them pounds sterling.
Were we to charge all this to the Algerine war it would amount to
little more than we must pay if we buy peace. But as it is proper
and necessary that we should establish a small marine force (even
were we to buy a peace from the Algerines,) and as that force laid up
in our dockyards would cost us half as much annually as if kept in
order for service, we have a right to say that only 22,500 pound
sterl. per ann. should be charged to the Algerine war. 6. It will
be as effectual. To all the mismanagements of Spain and Portugal
urged to shew that war against those people is ineffectual, I urge a
single fact to prove the contrary where there is any management.
About 40. year ago, the Algerines having broke their treaty with
France, this court sent Monsr. de Massac with one large and two small
frigates, he blockaded the harbour of Algiers three months, and they
subscribed to the terms he dictated. If it be admitted however that
war, on the fairest prospects, is still exposed to incertainties, I
weigh against this the greater incertainty of the duration of a peace
bought with money, from such a people, from a Dey 80. years old, and
by a nation who, on the hypothesis of buying peace, is to have no
power on the sea to enforce an observance of it.
So far I have gone on the supposition that the whole weight of
this war would rest on us. But
- Naples will join us. The character of their naval minister (Acton), his known sentiments with
respect to the peace Spain is officiously trying to make for them,
and his dispositions against the Algerines give the greatest reason
to believe it.
- Every principle of reason tells us Portugal will
join us. I state this as taking for granted, what all seem to
believe, that they will not be at peace with Algiers.
I suppose then that a Convention might be formed between Portugal, Naples and the
U.S. by which the burthen of the war might be quotaed on them
according to their respective wealth, and the term of it should be
when Algiers should subscribe to a peace with all three on equal
terms. This might be left open for other nations to accede to, and
many, if not most of the powers of Europe (except France, England,
Holland and Spain if her peace be made) would sooner or later enter
into the confederacy, for the sake of having their peace with the
Pyratical states guarantied by the whole. I suppose that in this
case our proportion of force would not be the half of what I first
calculated on.
These are the reasons which have influenced my judgment on this
question. I give them to you to shew you that I am imposed on by a
semblance of reason at least, and not with an expectation of their
changing your opinion. You have viewed the subject, I am sure in all
it's bearings. You have weighed both questions with all their
circumstances. You make the result different from what I do. The
same facts impress us differently. This is enough to make me suspect
an error in my process of reasoning tho' I am not able to detect it.
It is of no consequence; as I have nothing to say in the decision,
and am ready to proceed heartily on any other plan which may be
adopted, if my agency should be thought useful. With respect to the
dispositions of the states I am utterly uninformed. I cannot help
thinking however that on a view of all circumstances, they might be
united in either of the plans.
Having written this on the receipt of your letter, without
knowing of any opportunity of sending it, I know not when it will go:
I add nothing therefore on any other subject but assurances of the
sincere esteem and respect with which I am Dear Sir your friend and servant,
|