“Thomas Jefferson and the Tripoli Pirates” by Brian Kilmeade: A Review
After reading Fox & Friends host Brian Kilmeade and 24-book author Don Yaeger’s Thomas Jefferson and the Tripoli Pirates: The Forgotten War That Changed American History, I am invigorated to learn much, much more about the forgotten elements of my country’s early years, as well as the brave Americans who fought in defense of the country in its infancy. As Kilmeade touchingly writes in the author’s note:
“It is my observation that American history has been for the most part focused on the genius of our founding fathers and not enough on those who fought and died for their ideals. We have written [this book] for those men and women who have been forgotten by most, though they were saluted in their day.”
Their intent in writing this book is twofold. First, it serves to highlight the fact that, “[t]he challenges we face today are not so different from Jefferson’s, and we’ve much to learn from his boldness and from the courage of the Marines and sailors who died to protect their country.” To Kilmeade and Yaeger, the murky waters of foreign policy can be navigated more easily if we look back and analyze the lessons learned from America’s early historical events. Whether you disagree with that notion or find it logically sound, at the very least the bravery of the soldiers who participated in the Barbary Wars cannot be understated. Traveling across the Atlantic — a month’s long journey, and quite grueling depending on how benevolent Poseidon was feeling at the time — to defend America’s interests abroad gave the young American nation credibility from her European peers, and established the Marines as a necessary combat force for the U.S. military.
Second, Kilmeade and Yaeger seek to restore the memory of this story in the American consciousness: “I love this story and the brave men who secured our freedom. If this book does anything to restore them to America’s memory, it will have succeeded.” My understanding of early American history is that both the War for Independence and the Constitution’s ratification were nothing short of incredible miracles for the young American nation. However, my historical knowledge on pre-20th Century American history (as I was taught in high school) skips straight to the Louisiana Purchase and Marbury v. Madison, then to the War of 1812 (kind of, I remember we barely touched those years in the classroom), the Monroe Doctrine, then President Jackson, the Oregon Trail, the abolishment of the Bank, the Dred Scot decision, the California Gold Rush and the Mexican-American War, then the Civil War. I feel like my APUSH teacher did a really good job of educating us the history of the country we live in and I would consider myself to be an up-and-coming history buff. With that being said, it is easy to imagine the shock I had at myself for not knowing anything about the Barbary Wars, and the impact they had on the formation of early American foreign policy. Not only this but the incredible stories of daring heroism, bravery, and perseverance added to the disbelief that I had never heard of this early 19th Century conflict.
Kilmeade and Yaeger are very effective storytellers, and they begin this story with a short-but-attention-grabbing prologue; I was immediately captivated and found myself completing the book in two days. It is here that the reader is introduced to one of the most important characters in the story — Captain Richard O’Brien, captain of the trading ship, the Dauphin. The prologue also gives the reader a first glimpse into the desolate situation that faced American shipping 3,600 miles away on the Barbary Coast. The violent harassment and imprisonment of American merchants and sailors spanned from the late 1770’s until 1815, at the conclusion of the Barbary Wars. During that time, hundreds of sailors were imprisoned for years on end in reproachful conditions, little food, and given clothing ill-suited for the harsh climate. Kilmeade and Yaeger highlight the resiliency of some of these men by putting a spotlight on O’Brien’s captivity.
It was July 1785 when O’Brien and his crew were attacked and commandeered by Algerian pirates off the coast of Portugal, who then claimed the Dauphin and all of its goods in the name of their leader, the dey of Ottoman Algiers. Afterwards, O’Brien and his men were stripped of their clothes and shoes, and left to scorch unprotected in the Mediterranean sun for 12 days while the pirates sailed to Algiers with their Americana booty. Upon their arrival, the American captives were marched through the streets — with Algerian spectators jeering in humiliating celebration — and taken to their new quarters in a local slave pen. The dynamic trauma of the situation can be summed by looking at one of O’Brien’s diary entries:
“Picture to yourself your Brother Citizens or Unfortunate Countrymen in the Algerian State Prisons or Damned Castile, and starved 2/3rd’s and Naked… Once a Citizen of the United States of America, but at present the Most Miserable Slave in Algiers.”
While there, O’Brien and his men, along with many other American seamen, broke rocks from sunup to sundown, were given meager rations of stale bread and ground olives, and slept on stone floors exposed to the elements. Some would die of yellow fever, overwork, and exposure, but not O’Brien… unbeknownst to the young captain when he first arrived, O’Brien would be ten years a slave before his release was negotiated by the American government.
From there, the story launches into an intense and highly complicated political issue which spans three presidencies (four if you include the epilogue), but of course, as the title suggests, Kilmeade and Yaeger’s focus is on Jefferson’s handling of the conflict. Jefferson’s approach to solving the Barbary issue was a split from his predecessors’ strategies, who favored a less risky strategy of appeasement over direct confrontation. It was only under Jefferson’s leadership that America began to fight back against the Barbary states (i.e. Morocco, Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli which is modern-day Libya).
Kilmeade and Yaeger make a sympathetic effort to humanize Jefferson to the reader. Although Jefferson is considered one of the most brilliant men of his day, the game of international relations was one that he was still a novice at compared to his European peers, but it was one that his country needed him to learn and learn quickly. The passing of his wife and infant daughter took an immense toll on Jefferson’s spirits, and the book’s inclusion of their death helps the reader to empathize with his mindset in the years before and during his presidency. Coupled with the pressures of building up the economy and defense infrastructure of the fledgling nation, I found Jefferson’s internal strength in the face of daunting, large-scale challenges to be profound and deeply honorable. Regular Americans tend to place Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the Founding Fathers on a level of legendary Deities; Jefferson alone accomplished in one life what some could not accomplish in ten. I applaud Kilmeade and Yaeger’s ability to allow ordinary Americans who read this book to identify some of their own life struggles with Jefferson’s because, in my view, it makes for an all-the-more compelling, remarkable chapter in American history.
Jefferson is not the only exceptional character in this story, however, as the reader is introduced to a sizable number of individuals who played a part to achieve this victory for the U.S. Although the bulk of this book focuses on Jefferson’s role, the story would hardly be complete without the delving into the likes of other significant characters such as James Leander Cathcart, whose language skills and cultural knowledge acquired during the span of his 11 years in Tunisian captivity proved extremely valuable during his tenure as U.S. consul in the Barbary region. Or Lieutenant Stephen Decatur, whose leadership in the nighttime raid of the Philadelphia rallied American morale within the region and back at home. Or the audacious General William Eaton, who remarkably led a mixed small army of Marines and North Africans through 600+ miles of desert terrain from Alexandria to attack the coastal city of Derne. These are only the most highly notable Americans in this story, but rest assured there are many more that warrant the attention and respect from the reader.
Any critiques I have about this book are few in number and personally tailored to what I would rather like to see out a book of this kind. Some may disagree, while others may think I do not go far enough in my critique.
First, I would have loved for Kilmeade and Yaeger to include more background information on the individual leaders of each Barbary state. While the pair of authors did well to give a broad overview of the temperaments and rigor of the deys, I was left feeling as though I did not “know” them as well as the American characters. The Barbary states were semi-autonomous territories belonging to the expansive Ottoman Empire, so while each dey had his say over how he ran his territory, he did not have a choice in his owing tributes to the Ottoman Sultan in Turkey. European powers paid handsomely to each of the Barbary leaders for safe passage through the Mediterranean, a fee which the debt-ridden U.S. could not afford to pay, therefore making them fair game in the open sea. The pressures that each dey would have been under in order to pay up to the Sultan would have made for good historical reading; if I had been able to read some letters or actual conversations between the deys themselves or between the deys and the Sultan, then it would have made for much more insightful reading, as well as to know the thoughts and opinions that each Barbary leader held for Americans.
Second, I think Kilmeade and Yaeger should have lengthened the book to delve into the political complexities of the Barbary Wars, however I understand their intent in keeping a maximum length. This book serves as a fantastic and riveting, but yet, very brief introduction to the Barbary Wars’ for the uninformed reader; a scholarly reader would most likely find this book to be an oversimplification of a very complex international issue. For example, America fought alongside Sweden and the Kingdom of Sicily in the combat against the Barbary states, yet I cannot immediately recall from the book any mention of either of the latter two’s involvement.
Third, Kilmeade and Yaeger make an insinuation within the book — that Islam has always been at war with America — that I’m sure many scholars and even some ordinary readers would share doubts over. This third critique is related to the second but one I think warrants its own section because it is predicated upon the notion that it was the deys’ Islamic faith as being the sole reason for going to war with the United States in the first place. Furthermore, this insinuation contains within it its own suggestion — that today’s conflicts between the U.S. and the Middle East can be traced straight back to the aftermath of the Barbary confict. Do these insinuations have strong, factual foundations? Without directly seeing the sources that Kilmeade and Yaeger used, it is hard to make definite certain that these assertions are factually based. However, I think in the absence of factual information that simple logic can play a crucial role in determining the validity of such insinuations.
By looking at the list of sources at the end of the of the book the reader can clearly see that Kilmeade and Yaeger conducted a ton of research to write this book — the acknowledgements section alone is five pages long, and if my counting is correct they used forty source materials as well, from personal letters to scholarly books on the subject. However, all of the source materials are American-based. The note that Kilmeade and Yaeger write of their sources they used does not mention using any documents that originated from the Sultan, any of the deys, or rather anything that originated from the region. This argument is vaguely supported by using documents which record a conversation held between Jefferson, John Adams, and the Tripolitan envoy to Great Britain, but this is as far as Kilmeade and Yaeger go in offering any explanation towards the motives and justifications of the Barbary states for committing acts of violence against American vessels. This conversation, which the authors include towards the beginning of the book on page 14 is where this intimation can be found: “According to his holy book, the Qur’an, Abdrahaman explained, ‘all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, who it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave.’ Christian sailors were, plain and simple, fair game.” [Before continuing, I would like to point out that the early chapters of historical books, such as this one, are usually reserved to offer explanatory, background information for why the historical event at hand occurred in the first place] While attacking American ships without cause could be justified by their Islamic faith, this hardly explains their motivation to attack American ships in the first place — an incredibly important distinction to make; why risk men, time, and naval resources to provoke another country simply because your faith says you can?
However, Kilmeade and Yaeger contend that the events that unfold after this conversation originate from this “I can therefore I do” argument. As a libertarian Christian, I understand that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior, and therefore I have a place in Heaven waiting for me upon my death no matter how heinous a sin I committed in my lifetime. However, does that mean I go out and guiltlessly commit concerted acts of violence? No of course not… pragmatically-speaking, that would most assuredly land me in prison, taking me away from the limited years I have on Earth. From the point of view of those on the Barbary Coast, it would be much more sensible to loot American ships so as to appease the wrath of the Sultan, and not simply because Allah gave permission.
I went at great length to explain my third critique, but I think by Kilmeade and Yaeger deeming this conversation sufficient to explain the mindset of the Barbary states, they create an incomplete, one-sided story that is already a simplified version of the totality of the conflict, which is most certainly a disservice to readers who are just learning about this short period of American history. Extending from my first critique, I think if you are going to simplify a historical event so as to make for a more interesting read, then it would be to the benefit of yourself as an author and to readers everywhere to enlarge the generalities to include the other side’s mindset at the time.
Nonetheless, I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book and learning about a chapter of American history I knew next to nothing about. Kilmeade and Yaeger certainly achieve what they set out to do when they wrote this book, and that was to give memory to the men and women who risked their lives in defense of the country when it was just getting on its feet. I applaud their efforts to write an enticing and patriotic piece, however I do criticize them for their gross oversimplification of the Barbary leaders’ motivations and mindset. This easy-to-read book is not written for the history buff, but rather for the individual who would like to know more about early American history without crawling through the drudgery of pedagogical material. I would recommend this book to my friends, but adding with caution that they will not be given the full picture of the conflict by reading this book by itself (if that is what they are seeking). If the issues I presented in my critiques were resolved, then I would rate this book a 5/5. However, I take one-sidedness and questionable insinuations seriously when I am reading up on my history — I don’t like to be mislead — therefore I would rate this book a 3/5.