United States remains actively involved in North Africa after the Barbary Wars

[Strategos' Risk]

The Barbary Wars have always been fascinating to me, it's just extremely ironic that the young United States' first big foreign conflict after independence was against Muslims. (It also had a bunch of domestic conflicts against tax revolters, which also sounds very appropriate both in terms of the modern political situation, and the fact that the U.S. was founded by tax protesters to begin with.) I understand the U.S. was dragged into the region alongside the closer European nations, but it's really remarkable how the early U.S. was able to project power all the way to the old world. That and John Paul Jones' raid on Whitehaven are both really interesting imo.

Interestingly, the First Barbary War had the U.S. almost involved in regime change in the Arab world:

Yusuf Karamanli - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

His brother, Hamet Karamanli, was deposed in 1793 by Ottoman Empire officer Ali Benghul; Benghul proceeded to restore Ottoman rule over Tripoli. In 1795 Yusuf returned to Tripoli, and with the aid of Hammuda Pacha (ruler) of neighboring Barbary state of Tunis, seized the throne, exiling Hamet to Alexandria, Egypt and restoring Karamanli rule.

After some initial military successes, most notably the capture of the grounded American frigate USS Philadelphia in October 1803, the pasha soon found himself threatened after the daring raid led by Lt. Stephen Decatur, USN, (1779-1820), to burn and scuttle the Philadelphia in Tripoli harbor, the following February 1804, then with facing invasion by American Marines and mercenary ground forces following the Battle of Derna in April 1805 to the east and the reinstatement of his deposed brother, Hamet Karamanli, recruited by the American army officer and diplomatic consul William Eaton (1764-1811).

William Eaton (soldier) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It sounds like Consul General to Tunis, William Eaton, was interested in regime change even before the First Barbary War:

Tunis was the closest neighbor to Tripoli and the deposed pasha of Tripoli, Hamet Caramelli, was exiled there. He was, in fact, the elder brother of the reigning pasha, Yusuf Caramelli. William Eaton devised a plan in which the United States would support the restoration of Hamet Caramelli as pasha thereby creating fear of the U.S. within the rest of the Muslim world.[3] He borrowed $22,000 to support the plan, but at this point did not receive the backing of the U.S. government. While the demands for tribute from the bey of Tunis continued, Eaton refused to convey the demands to the United States. He requested that he be recalled, as he felt he could no longer negotiate with the bey.

Start of the First Barbary War:

In May 1804, Eaton was given the commission of a navy lieutenant and sent back to the Barbary regencies, under the supervision of Commodore James Barron, to find Hamet Caramelli and enlist his cooperation in the war.[14] Eaton found Caramelli in Alexandria and signed an agreement with him,[16] although it is unclear if he had the authority to do so.[14] This contract, which was forwarded to Secretary of State Madison, specified that the United States would provide cash, ammunition and provisions for Hamet Caramelli's re-installation as pasha.[18] It also designated William Eaton as "General and Commander in Chief" of the land forces that were to be used to carry out the operation.[18] The agreement defined the relationship between Caramelli and Eaton as well as their mission, but was never ratified by the United States Senate.

Their mission is a near-success:

The Americans included eight marines and two navy midshipmen. It was with that force that Eaton and Caramelli made the 600 mile trek from Alexandria to Derne, a coastal city within the realm of Tripoli. By the time the band had reached the Gulf of Bomba, they had eaten their last rations and the Arab factions were on the verge of mutiny. Eaton had written to Captain Isaac Hull of the USS Argus requesting that the ship meet them there with supplies, but when they arrived on April 15, there was no ship to be seen. The next day, however, the Argus appeared as Hull had seen the smoke from their fires. After resupplying, they continued their journey, and on April 27, 1805, Eaton's forces attacked and took control of Derne.[11][15] "Captain Presley O'Bannon of the U.S. Marine Corps raised the American flag for the first time over a conquered foreign city."[16] At the Battle of Derne, one marine was killed and two were wounded. Eaton was wounded in the left wrist.[18]

Twice Yusef Caramelli's forces tried and failed to take back the city. With the bey of Derne on the run and Hamet Caramelli reestablished in Derne, Eaton thought to march toward Tripoli. He requested reinforcements from Barron but instead received word that US Consul-General Tobias Lear was negotiating peace with Yusef Caramelli. Then he received word from Lear himself that he was to surrender Derne as peace had been reached on June 4.[18] The terms of the treaty required the US to pay $60,000 for the release of the crew of the Philadelphia. Hamet Caramelli and his entourage of about 30 were allowed to leave, but his wife and family were held captive until 1807, as provided in the treaty.[15]

Aftermath

Although Eaton returned to the United States to a hero's welcome, he was disappointed and embittered by the treaty and outraged that ransom had to be paid for the freeing of the hostages. He had been denied victory in Tripoli and his agreement with Hamet Caramelli was left unkept. Furthermore, the government owed him money that he had fronted for the expedition. He complained loudly that the government was guilty of duplicity in regard to Hamet Caramelli. His complaints drew the attention of Jefferson's enemies in the Federalist party.[18]

In January 1806, Congress was presented with a petition from Hamet Caramelli for money and the release of his family from his brother's custody. The issue became partisan with the Federalists supporting Caramelli's and Eaton's claims that the government had rescinded its agreement to re-establish Caramelli as Tripolitan pasha. Jefferson, and his supporters, on the other hand, denied that administration ever intended the arrangement, contending that Eaton had lacked the authority to broker the deal.[18] Nevertheless, despite the Federalist opposition, the treaty with Tripoli was ratified by the Senate in April 1806, and the United States entered into an agreement with a Barbary state that, for the first time, did not include the payment of tribute.[18]

Initially, Eaton's victory in Derne was viewed by both parties as the motivating factor for Tripoli in the settlement of the war. However, his willingness to become involved in the partisan bickering cost Eaton official recognition for his accomplishment. It had been proposed that Congress present Eaton with a sword, but Federalists argued that he be given a gold medal. The debate was never resolved thus he did not receive "a sword, a medal, a tract of public land or simply a resolution of thanks".[18] He did however, receive 10,000 acres (40 km2) from Massachusetts in present-day Maine.[2]

First Barbary War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In agreeing to pay a ransom of $60,000 for the American prisoners, the Jefferson administration drew a distinction between paying tribute and paying ransom. At the time, some argued that buying sailors out of slavery was a fair exchange to end the war. William Eaton, however, remained bitter for the rest of his life about the treaty, feeling that his efforts had been squandered by the American emissary from the U.S. Department of State, diplomat Tobias Lear. Eaton and others felt that the capture of Derna should have been used as a bargaining chip to obtain the release of all American prisoners without having to pay ransom. Furthermore, Eaton believed the honor of the United States had been compromised when it abandoned Hamet Karamanli after promising to restore him as leader of Tripoli. Eaton's complaints generally went unheard, especially as attention turned to the strained international relations which would ultimately lead to the withdrawal of the U.S. Navy from the area in 1807 and to the War of 1812.

Wearied of the blockade and raids, and now under threat of a continued advance on Tripoli proper and a scheme to restore his deposed older brother Hamet Karamanli as ruler, Yusuf Karamanli signed a treaty ending hostilities on 10 June 1805.

So basically, what if Eaton had his way and the U.S. installed Hamet as ruler, leading to continued U.S. involvement in North Africa? Maybe the U.S. doesn't get embroiled in European affairs and the War of 1812 is delayed, freeing up the U.S. to remain invested in Barbary States affairs? (There's even a scenario where Eaton gets his wish before the First Barbary War to overthrow Yusuf in favor of Hamet, but I like going with an alternate end to the First Barbary War because it preserves the "shores of Tripoli" bit.)

With a friendly state in the region (let's assume for now that Hamet doesn't just opportunistically start attacking U.S./European ships shortly after consolidating his rule), this could at least affect the Second Barbary War, which did have some involvement from Tripoli. Perhaps with Hamet as Bey, the U.S. could have had basing rights in the region and maintained a flotilla that could have butterflied away the Second Barbary War from the onset.

A continued U.S. interest in the region could perhaps affect the Ottoman Empire, the U.S. slave trade (what if they started buying non-Christian slaves from the Tripoli corsairs?), relations with France/Spain, and maybe by the time the Scramble for Africa heats up the U.S. is more interested in the continent. Liberia in the Maghreb? Maybe that's too far-fetched. Not to mention maybe a deeper understanding of Islam, which I've brought up elsewhere.

Also, what if this butterflies away the death of William Eaton? Does Eaton play a greater role in the early U.S.'s military and political affairs? Can he become a leading Federalist politician?

I haven't even mentioned the traditionally (and inexplicably) warm Moroccan-American relationship. And U.S. interest in Tippu Sultan of Mysore.

I should note that the U.S. picking and choosing local leaders probably isn't that remarkable, I bet colonists were doing that to local Native American tribes since even before there was a U.S. But it's just really interesting that this is happening all the way in North Africa.

 

[Gary Oswald]

It's certainly an interesting point in American History but I feel like you skip a bit from Point 1: the USA installs a friendly Bey and Point 2: the USA remain in the region.

You have to remember that like killing one Bey and putting another in charge had been standard practice for European countries for literal centuries by this point. The Europeans turn up with gun ships, a scapegoat is found and killed, another takes over, the Europeans then sail off and then the story repeats.

I don't really buy that the Americans are going to stick around in that case.

 

[Charles EP M.]

What if there's a regime change, America leaves thinking they've done their part, the Barbary pirates start up again during the War of 1812 as per OTL, and that causes America to decide they need to stick around indefinitely since just sending a gunboat & replacing the leader didn't work?

 

[Strategos' Risk]

What if there's a regime change, America leaves thinking they've done their part, the Barbary pirates start up again during the War of 1812 as per OTL, and that causes America to decide they need to stick around indefinitely since just sending a gunboat & replacing the leader didn't work?

Given that the Second Barbary War was centered around Algiers/Algeria, they seem destined to be a menace to U.S. and European shipping. Even if that war is butterflied with the presence of Hamet Karamanli as a U.S. ally, it would still take U.S. military advisors and/or a token U.S. naval presence to back the Tripolitanians (and any others) to bring Algiers to heel.

And at that point with Hamet as a precedent, makes me wonder if the U.S. will adopt its policy of regime change against Muslim nations two centuries early. Maybe they'd find a similar figure to back in Algiers or any of the other Barbary States.

You have to remember that like killing one Bey and putting another in charge had been standard practice for European countries for literal centuries by this point. The Europeans turn up with gun ships, a scapegoat is found and killed, another takes over, the Europeans then sail off and then the story repeats.

I don't really buy that the Americans are going to stick around in that case.

I'm certainly not envisioning anything grand or large-scale like colonization. But continued U.S. presence could simply be strong diplomatic relations (similar to what they historically have had with Morocco), and a long-term anti-pirate flotilla that's based out of Tripoli, for like a decade at most. And afterwards, just continued acknowledgment of the existence of North Africa, which might lead to trade or other relations.

Though- what do the Barbary States have to offer? Beyond slaves, most of whom the U.S. would be unlikely to buy because they're Christian Europeans.

Maybe in the long-term it makes the U.S. more interested in getting access to Egypt and the Suez Canal, if there ends up being an Ismail Pasha type khedive who takes power there and breaks away from the Ottomans.

You have to remember that like killing one Bey and putting another in charge had been standard practice for European countries for literal centuries by this point. The Europeans turn up with gun ships, a scapegoat is found and killed, another takes over, the Europeans then sail off and then the story repeats.

It is, but there's just such novelty and retroactive irony in the U.S. almost doing regime change against Muslims all the way across the Atlantic in the very first war it wages after independence.

It makes me wonder if having the region on its proverbial radar would lead to continued U.S. interest in the area. But quite possibly all it achieves is a replay of the aforementioned inexplicable warm Moroccan-American relationship, which existed on diplomatic paper but didn't really lead to anything substantiative or of strategic importance.

I may simply be projecting postwar U.S. international behaviors (regime change, permanent military basing, trade pacts) to a different world.

 

[Redolegna]

What if there's a regime change, America leaves thinking they've done their part, the Barbary pirates start up again during the War of 1812 as per OTL, and that causes America to decide they need to stick around indefinitely since just sending a gunboat & replacing the leader didn't work?

They don't have the money for it, them trying to raise it would cause ructions domestically and good luck trying to have a Monroe doctrine if the Europeans start coughing and making gestures about what is happening in the Mediterranean which has traditionally not been an American sphere of influence.

 

[Nofix]

Liberia in the Maghreb?

That's something I was interested while scanning through this thread. The anti-slavery and anti-slave impetuous still exists in the US. Maybe some politician or rich businessman offers some royal in charge a lot of money to set aside some of their land for free blacks so the US didn't have to worry about them? Not necessarily an independent country like Liberia was, but a little autonomous zone for them to be in.

 

[Gary Oswald]

That's something I was interested while scanning through this thread. The anti-slavery and anti-slave impetuous still exists in the US. Maybe some politician or rich businessman offers some royal in charge a lot of money to set aside some of their land for free blacks so the US didn't have to worry about them? Not necessarily an independent country like Liberia was, but a little autonomous zone for them to be in.

North Africa seems a weird choice for that, being ran by you know arabs heavily involved in a black slave trade. Like it's far more empty than Liberia, so more chance of becoming a majority, but like Liberia was picked precisely because it was a land for blacks, the early pioneers of the back to africa movement were rejecting the idea of just moving to another black minority country like canada or central america and moving to a black majority area instead, Haiti, Nigeria, Sierra Leone etc.

I don't think there'd be the take up that there was for OTL Liberia.