Synthesized answer
The "Alabama" Arbitration arose from grievances the United States government had against Great Britain concerning the American Civil War. The U.S. alleged that Great Britain recognized the Southern States as belligerents and, crucially, allowed Confederate vessels like the "Alabama," "Florida," and "Shenandoah" to be built and equipped on British territory, thereby breaching neutrality [1]. The core conflict was Great Britain's alleged failure to uphold its neutrality obligations in allowing these Confederate ships to be constructed and leave British ports, which then engaged in destructive careers against U.S. interests [1, 5].
The problem was addressed through arbitration after years of correspondence [1]. A commission was appointed in February 1871 to find a common understanding for settling the issues [1]. The British suggested submitting the "Alabama" claims to arbitration, which the Americans agreed to, provided that governing principles were first agreed upon [2]. Ultimately, the parties consented to three rules, and the "Alabama" claims, generically known as such, were referred to a tribunal of five arbitrators [2, 5]. The tribunal adopted the U.S. view that Great Britain…
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 the "Alabama" case is important "both from a historical and a juridical point of view." How do these two perspectives intertwine and influence each other in the context of the arbitration, and what specific details from the text illustrate this?
- Analyze the practical implications of the British government's proclamation of neutrality, particularly its recognition of the Confederates as "belligerents." How did this decision directly contribute to the circumstances that led to the "Alabama" incident?
- The author highlights the value of arbitration "as a means of averting war." Based on the specific details provided, what potentially escalatory outcomes was the "Alabama" Arbitration successful in preventing, and what might have been the consequences if it had failed?
- Consider the actions of the Confederate agencies in England and the building of the "Alabama." From the perspective of international law, what responsibilities did Great Britain have as a neutral power to prevent such activities, and how did the events surrounding the "Alabama" challenge these responsibilities?