How the Founding Fathers grappled with hostage ransom demands

The debate over the US government refusal to pay ransoms to kidnappers, including the captors of James Foley, has a long history. In the late 1700s, the US fought Barbary pirates who demanded ransoms and tributes.

MetroWest Daily News, Ken McGagh/AP
In this June 17, 2011 photo, journalist James Foley receives applause from students at the Christa McAuliffe Regional Charter Public School in Framingham, Mass.

The US debate over paying ransoms to kidnappers – revived by the murder of freelance journalist James Foley – isn't a new one. America's Founding Fathers were also preoccupied by the issue while confronting "unconventional foes" on the high seas. 

In the late 1700s, Barbary pirates in northern Africa were regularly capturing foreign ships and holding crews for ransom. In 1795, the US paid almost $1 million, a frigate, and related materials in return for the release of 115 American sailors who were being held by the ruler of Algiers, according to the Library of Congress. The US government also paid regular tributes so that its ships could enjoy safe passage. 

Thomas Jefferson strongly opposed paying tributes. After hearing of the seizure of an American ship in 1784, he said, “Our trade to Portugal, Spain, and the Mediterranean is annihilated unless we do something decisive. Tribute or war is the usual alternative of these pirates.”

A decade later, Congress agreed to fund the construction of a blue-water navy, starting with six frigates. This was the stirrings of US naval power projected internationally. 

When Mr. Jefferson became president in 1801 he refused to continue paying tributes, leading to the First Barbary War. In 1803, the US frigate Philadelphia was captured in Tripoli and its crew taken hostage. Jefferson, despite his opposition, authorized a ransom payment of $60,000. It wasn’t until the Second Barbary War in 1815 that the US stopped paying all tributes.

In recent decades, the US has continued to deal with kidnappings and large-scale hostage situations with varying degrees of success. Presidents have often attempted to rescue Americans held overseas, rather than cede to captors' demands. In the case of Mr. Foley, US troops staged an unsuccessful raid in Syria earlier this summer. 

The 444-day Iran hostage crisis in 1979, which involved 52 American diplomats and citizens, drew fierce debate. President Jimmy Carter restated American policy in his 1980 State of the Union address, “Our position is clear. The United States will not yield to blackmail.” After a failed American rescue operation, negotiations finally led to the hostages' release under President Reagan in January 1981. 

Ransoms and rebels

In contrast to the US policy, many European countries have paid large sums in recent years to free their citizens. The self-proclaimed militant group the Islamic State (IS) had demanded a ransom of 100 million euros ($132 million) for Mr. Foley. 

As the Monitor reported, US policy follows a much stricter line than Europe. “[T]he US will actually prosecute a private company or organization that pays a ransom for an employee on a charge of funding terrorism.”

When it comes to the kidnapping of private citizens, such as journalists, outcomes have varied dramatically. Some journalists, like David Rohde have managed to escape from captivity. Mr. Rohde was held for seven months after being kidnapped by the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2008. In the 1990s, he was also captured and held in Bosnia. 

Rohde wrote an opinion column for Reuters asking, “Did America’s policy on ransom contribute to James Foley’s killing?” He wrote, “It [Foley’s murder] is the clearest evidence yet of how vastly different responses to kidnappings by U.S. and European governments save European hostages but can doom the Americans.” 

As The New York Times reported, Foley’s execution-style murder is the second of a Western journalist at the hands of Islamic extremists since the 2002 killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in Pakistan.

While the US refuses to pay ransoms, it has, however, traded prisoners of war; in June, Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was released in exchange for five Taliban prisoners. This has raised further questions about when and how it is appropriate to engage in such exchanges. The Government Accountability Office said Thursday that the administration had broken the law by releasing the Taliban prisoners without notifying Congress 30 days in advance. 

Several other Americans are still being held by IS, including Steven Sotloff. The Times says at least three are in IS custody. So President Obama is again faced with a difficult choice, just as the Founding Fathers did over two centuries ago. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to How the Founding Fathers grappled with hostage ransom demands
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today