The employment of privateers caused a “small war”, so I do not consider it fair to answer the issue of how it did not lead to a war between the nations, but at first glance it is easy to be astonished that it was not a full-scale war (Naden, 2007). In further consideration, it is very necessary to take into account the conditions of the time.
The environment for the war was far from ideal, “the United States credit crunch was in ruins, its war debts were unpaid, so it could not afford much” (Ripper, 2008).
The lack of money or backing from other countries, since the United States had recently tapped into the wells of other countries rather than replenish them after the American Revolution, which had ended only a year before, explains why there was no major war. Even if it was a little war, “America’s conflict with barbaric pirates was nevertheless significant”.
Thomas Jefferson identified the significance of the small war and what it had cost the nation.
“The nation had paid an amount roughly equivalent to one-fifth of its annual income to the Barbary pirates” (Naden, 2007). Not only did the war cause financial strain but also years of men’s lives or parts of their lives who were captured and held for ransom. With these sacrifices, you may ask why did the nation not go into full-on war if these privateers were draining America’s bank accounts and abduct the citizens?
Well many political leaders and people agreeing that “tributes were a cheaper price to pay for commerce than navies and war” (Ripper, 2008).
Both sides had valuable points given the circumstances that the one war had just ended and who wants to jump into another one, and then the other side that America was being stolen from and it would only persist if they weren’t shown any blowback. Personally, I would have sided with Jefferson on this one because one-fifth of its annual income is a huge number and would never be accepted today, not to mention what would stop them from asking for more if they just kept paying them.