Shortly before the justices of the Supreme Court questioned lawyers in the Ten Commandments case, which may establish whether governmental public display establishes a religion and therefore undermines constitutional protections, I received a telephone call from my cousin Jerry. He wanted to know whether I had the text of the Treaty of Tripoli. I teach American history and might be expected to have such materials or knowledge of them. I did not. I could sing but not “place” the “Halls of Tripoli” in the Marine Hymn. First, I had to get the history straight.

In the early years of the United States, American commercial ships faced the dangers of pirates who operated under the protection of North African states. The new republic was in no position to protect its ships and was forced to accept the extortionate “protection” of such as the Pasha of Tripoli. The treaty turns out to have been signed in 1796.Then, I got a copy of the Treaty from the Internet. It was negotiated under President Washington by his close associate David Humphreys and contains detailed lists of the bribes paid to the protectors of those who preyed on American ships. The most striking article is Article 11:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Washington warned against entangling alliances in his Farewell Address. He believed his own faith to be his own concern. He promoted active religious freedom. And he thought the anti-establishment clause was there to protect religion from the kind of government sponsorship that seemed to the founders to have caused the devastating wars following the Reformation. This treaty affirms that the government of America had no particular religious character and was not moved in diplomacy by religious reasons.

The treaty may have legitimated the protection racket and promised to pay extortion. This reflects American domestic hence foreign weakness, but that did not block its confirmation. It did set up the context in which the subsequent administration of John Adams bellowed millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute. Meanwhile, the young republic readied itself to fight.

It is timely to remember what America was like when it was young in the really old world. Many of its choices resemble those facing the nations on our current democracy marketing list. This may help to understand the peoples with whom we share the world, their differences from us and even ours from them. The Treaty of Tripoli recalls a time when our own constitutional republic was new.

Meeting with President Bush, President Putin brought up our electoral college as a sign that we are not democratically simon-pure. Mr. Bush could have lectured him on the fact America is a republican federal nation whose principal values included democratic and individual liberties and whose design reflected checks and balances to restrain even the popular will.

Many of those very republican undemocratic features have served to advance democracy even when the democratic majority was reluctant. But read the treaty for yourself and remember that the immortal “shores of Tripoli” we sing about with pride commemorate the Marines breaking up an international anti-American extortion ring, without violating Article 11. But not for religious reasons. The majority of Americans and many of our shared traditions were, as they remain, Christian, and the country animated by many faiths, but their government is not.

Mr. Dawidoff is a professor of history at the Claremont Graduate University.