Synthesized answer
The "Alabama" Arbitration was a process to settle claims made by the United States against Great Britain. The United States alleged two main grievances: that Great Britain recognized the Southern States as having the right to be belligerents, and that Great Britain allowed Confederate vessels like the "Alabama" to be built and equipped on British territory, thus breaching neutrality [1].
The core issue was how to hold Great Britain responsible for the actions of these vessels. The United States argued for a diligence commensurate with the emergency, while Great Britain maintained that they should not be held to a standard exceeding what civilized states normally employed for their own security [4]. Eventually, a commission was appointed to reach a common understanding, and it was agreed that the "Alabama" claims would be submitted to arbitration [1, 2]. The tribunal ultimately found Great Britain legally responsible for the depredations of the "Alabama" and other vessels, awarding damages [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.
← 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…
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…
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…
More questions about this book
- The text states Britain issued a "proclamation of neutrality" while also detailing the construction of the "Alabama" in England. How do these two facts, when considered together, reveal complexities or contradictions inherent in maintaining international neutrality?
- The excerpt highlights the "value of arbitration as a means of averting war." Based on the sequence of events described, what specific actions or circumstances in the "Alabama" case demonstrate *how* arbitration served this purpose?
- Beyond the "Alabama" itself, what broader implications can be drawn from the Confederates' ability to establish "agencies in England for the purchase of arms" regarding the enforcement of international law and the responsibilities of neutral nations during conflict?
- How does this text illustrate the interplay between historical events (like the American Civil War) and the development of juridical principles (like international arbitration), using the "Alabama" Arbitration as a key example?