Talk:Quasi-War

Recent changes

None of the Sources provided back the suggested revised wording of "American victory" in the Infobox.

(1) Source One; Wikipedia guidelines preclude "Tactical victory", because it's so subjective - it is either "Victory" or "Inconclusive". Since the war was fought to prevent American merchant ship losses, focusing solely on ship to ship duels means using the wrong parameters.

(2) Source Two; The US Navy's Orientation Department (ie Welcome to your new career), commenting in 1977 on what amounts to its foundation story, is hardly a neutral source.

This (more recent) update from the USN states "American warships, by defeating their equals and capturing more than 80 French vessels, gave the world a convincing demonstration that the U.S. Navy was a professional fighting force". Nowhere does it claim an American victory https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/museums/nmusn/explore/photography/forgotten-wars-19th-century/quasi-war-france.html

(3) Source Three refers only to "American victories at sea" ie ship to ship duels, which are covered in the article. However, this source does not claims the war ended in an American victory.

Elsewhere on this TP, others have claimed a French victory, and I can produce several other sources that do the same - in fact, that was the original result before I edited it.

The war ended because Napoleon had bigger fish to fry in Louisiana (its covered in the article on the Convention, which I also edited), and Royal Navy convoying of US merchant ships. Even the official blurb for the USS Constitution museum, which provides a comprehensive summary of the war, does not claim the war ended in American military victory (it very carefully skirts around the whole question); https://ussconstitutionmuseum.org/major-events/the-quasi-war-with-france/#:~:text=The%20Quasi%2DWar%20officially%20ended,States'%20right%20to%20free%20trade.

I think it's misleading, because wars rarely end in a clear result, but I can live with "Indecisive" if it resolves this discussion. Robinvp11 (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, even though the US Navy defeated a large number of privateers, at the end of the day hundreds and hundreds of American merchant ships were captured throughout the course of the war. The vast majority of combat actions in the war were actually between American armed merchant vessels and French privateers and aside from a small handful of notable exceptions, the French won the overwhelming majority of those engagements. I think indecisive is the most accurate thing to put.XavierGreen (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Question on why isn't Spain listed as a Combatant/Belligerent in the Quasi War.

The USA fought both the Spanish Army at their fort and the French Navy during the Battle of Puerto Plata Harbor. Why don't we list then as a Combatant/Belligerent? Historyguy1138 (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Any objectors? And if so why? User:Skitash? Historyguy1138 (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, because Belligerent is a defined legal term (and it's not the same as Combatant), which (normally, but the US is fairly unique in rarely doing so) requires a formal declaration of war. One simple way to define this is to look at the treaty which ends the war - Spain is not included. Minor actions like this one were common between states, even when they were officially at peace.

Having written most of the article, I have not found any historian who argues Spain is a Belligerent, so you need to produce a Source that does so (NOT the same as producing Sources for the battle, which is not in question). Robinvp11 (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree--the basic reason is that the government in Madrid never considered itself in conflict with US; likewise Washington did not consider itself in conflict w Spain, regardless of one small action at one remote fort that the governments did not know about until it was over. Rjensen (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC).

I concede to your points. Rjensen Robinvp11 However I do think that we should add in the article itself that the USA attacked Spain at one point. If not in the info box then in the article itself. What do you think? Historyguy1138 (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Nobody in the government made a decision to attack Spain. Rjensen (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

And yet the United State military still attacked it. And I think that should be mentioned a bit more explicitly in the section on the Battle of Puerto Plata Harbor. Historyguy1138 (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

You can make that change in the body of the article if you think it needs that clarification. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I will do so later today. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Question though. Would you consider the British a Co-Belligerent in the Quasi war when the U.S. teamed up against them in the Invasion of Curaçao (1800)? Historyguy1138 (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

The US attack was an unauthorized decision made by the local commander and never part of US-Spain relations. It was a small scale incident without any impact on any relationship. Rjensen (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Not sure about that per se, but as I have spoken with Robinvp11 the point is mute at this point as I will only be saying that the U.S. attacked Spain as a brief note on the Battle of Puerto Plata Harbor later, but not in the info box and I will not label them as a belligerent. Historyguy1138 (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)