Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Atheists & Agnostics

In reply to the discussion: The Treaty of Tripoli [View all]

dmallind

(10,437 posts)
4. And the revisionism goes deeper....
Mon Jan 9, 2012, 02:31 PM
Jan 2012

Lemme see if I remember them.

1)The Arabic copy doesn't have this phrase in it.
Answer: True. I am pretty sure it was the English copy that was unanimously ratified by the Senate though - they generally don't conduct business in Arabic.

2)A clerk not involved in or authorized to change the negotiations was an ideologue who inserted this in the English version
Answer: Speculation. If so I am sure he deserved to be fired, but his insertion was included, read out, ratified and signed without demur by a Congress and President including several founding fathers.

3) There is no need for this clause. It wasn't asked for by the Barbary Coast delegation.
Answer: Possibly true, but it's there anyway.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Alliance Forums»Atheists & Agnostics»The Treaty of Tripoli»Reply #4