Synthesized answer
The core grievance of the United States against Great Britain leading to the "Alabama" Arbitration stemmed from breaches of neutrality [1]. Specifically, the United States alleged that Great Britain allowed Confederate vessels, such as the "Alabama," "Florida," and "Shenandoah," to be built and equipped on British territory [1]. This action was seen as a violation of neutrality by the United States [1].
The United States also held a grievance regarding Great Britain's recognition of the Southern States as belligerents and a general manifestation of unfriendliness [1]. Correspondence between the two governments ensued over several years, eventually leading to a commission appointed in February 1871 to address these issues [1]. The "Alabama" claims, in particular, were to be referred to a tribunal of arbitrators [3]. The tribunal ultimately adopted the view of the United States that Great Britain was legally responsible for the depredations of these vessels [4].
Synthesized from the book passages below. Chat with the book on Feynman for follow-up.
From the book
rpool in two British ships. Captain Semmes there took command of her under a commission from the Confederate government. After a most destructive career she was sunk off Cherbourg by the “Kearsarge” on the 19th of June 1864. On these facts the United States government alleged against Great Britain two grievances, or sets of grievances. The first was the recognition of the Southern States as belligerents and a general manifestation of unfriendliness in other ways. The second was in respect of breaches of neutrality in allowing the “Alabama,” the “Florida” (originally the “Oreto”, the…
. With respect to the “Alabama” claims the British commissioners suggested that they should be submitted to arbitration. The American commissioners refused “unless the principles which should govern the arbitrators in the consideration of the facts could be first agreed upon.” After some discussion the British commissioners consented that the three following rules should apply.
d waters, and as to all persons within its jurisdiction to prevent any violation of the foregoing obligation and duties. The arrangements made by the commission were embodied in the treaty of Washington, which was signed on the 8th of May 1871, and approved by the Senate on the 24th of May. Article 1, after expressing the regret felt by Her Majesty’s government for the escape, in whatever circumstances, of the “Alabama” and other vessels from British ports, and for the depredations committed by these vessels, provided that “the claims growing out of the acts of the said vessels, and…
ontended that it must be a diligence commensurate with the emergency or with the magnitude of the results of negligence. The British government maintained that while the measure of care which a government is bound to use in such cases must be dependent more or less upon circumstances, it would be unreasonable to require that it should exceed that which the governments of civilized states were accustomed to employ in matters concerning their own security or that of their citizens. The tribunal adopted the view suggested by the United States. It found that Great Britain was legally responsible…
← Alabama 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica , Volume 1 "Alabama" Arbitration by Montague Hughes Crackanthorpe Alabama River → See also Alabama Claims on Wikipedia ; and our 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica disclaimer . 244259 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica , Volume 1 — "Alabama" Arbitration Montague Hughes Crackanthorpe “ALABAMA” ARBITRATION. —This is one of those arbitrations on pecuniary claims, made by one state, on behalf of its subjects, against another state, which are referred to in the article Arbitration, International . The case is important, both from a historical and a juridical point of…
More questions about this book
- Explain how the British proclamation of neutrality, recognizing the Confederacy as belligerents, fundamentally altered the diplomatic and legal landscape for both the Union and the Confederacy, beyond merely acknowledging their conflict.
- The text suggests the "Alabama" Arbitration exemplifies arbitration's value in averting war. Propose a counter-narrative: what specific turning points or missed opportunities, based on the provided text, could have led to a military confrontation between Great Britain and the Union, and what does this reveal about the fragility of neutrality?
- From the perspective of a British shipbuilding firm like Messrs. Laird, what were the economic incentives and potential legal risks involved in constructing vessels like the "Alabama" for a belligerent entity, and how might these considerations have influenced their actions despite official government neutrality?
- Beyond the immediate facts, how did the "Alabama" incident challenge the prevailing understanding of international law regarding a neutral nation's responsibilities during another country's civil conflict, and what lasting impact might it have had on the concept of state sovereignty versus international obligation?