Marginalizing Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli

[Galvatron]

On another board I posted the usual bit about the ToT and Article 11, which was rapidly answered with the following.

There is speculation that article 11...was mere window dressing for the muslims. This belief has merit due to the fact that this article was removed from the 1805 re-negotiation after the muslims broke the treay in 1801.

Does this really have any bearing on the treaty's legal standing?

[Darth Wong]

On another board I posted the usual bit about the ToT and Article 11, which was rapidly answered with the following.

There is speculation that article 11...was mere window dressing for the muslims. This belief has merit due to the fact that this article was removed from the 1805 re-negotiation after the muslims broke the treay in 1801.

Does this really have any bearing on the treaty's legal standing?

Tell him to go sign a contract with a credit-card company and then tell them that he thinks certain portions of that signed contract are just "window dressing" so they don't count.

[Jalinth]

Galv

Is the poster saying the 1805 treaty replaced the 1796 treaty or was the 1805 a supplement to the 1796? My reading is that the two treaties are separate contracts. Nothing talks about the original one being void. An international law expert would need to address when has an older treaty been entirely surplanted by the newer in the legal sense rather than being two separate stand alone treaties.

As to why the comment was removed, calling it window dressing is sheer speculation. It could be that the Barbary states decided that the actions of the US weren't that of a church dominated state, so didn't bother to renew the issue. Could be that it was mere window dressing, or most likely that the negotiations were pressed for time and the issue wasn't as pertinent for the leadership as the 60,000 dollars the US paid for the captives.

[The Spartan]

If it was only window dressing to appease the Muslims, why can't it be found in their copy of the treaty? But does exist in the copy read to the US Senate?

Grains of Salt:

In 1930, there was contention that the existent original Arabic version of Article 11 was gibberish and that the original Article 11 was not an article at all, but a letter from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. This contention arises from the declaration within this article that the United States was never founded as a Christian nation. Nevertheless it is established that Joel Barlow's English translation of Article 11, as recorded in the certified copy of January 4, 1797, is contained in the version of the treaty that was approved by President John Adams and Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and ratified by the Senate.

There exists an additional certified copy of the original Arabic Treaty made by James Cathcart. This copy confirms that Article 11 was not a part of the Arabic original, but was for some reason revised in the English translation that was ultimately ratified.

[Drooling Iguana]

This seems to be basically the same as the whole "author's intent" fact-dodging in vs arguments.