Synthesized answer
The "Alabama" Arbitration was successful in averting war by resolving pecuniary claims made by one state on behalf of its subjects against another [1]. Specifically, the United States government had alleged two sets of grievances against Great Britain: the recognition of the Southern States as belligerents and general unfriendliness, and breaches of neutrality by allowing Confederate vessels, including the "Alabama," to be built and equipped in British territory [3]. The arbitration, established through the Treaty of Washington, referred these "Alabama" claims to a tribunal of five arbitrators [4].
The passages do not specify what the consequences might have been if the "Alabama" Arbitration had failed. However, they do highlight its value as "a means of averting war" [1], suggesting that a failure to arbitrate these claims could have led to armed conflict between the United States and Great Britain. The arbitration ultimately led to a decision on the claims, preventing further escalation [5].
Synthesized from the book passages below. Chat with the book on Feynman for follow-up.
From the book
← 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…
. 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.
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…
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…
itrators that an extra-judicial declaration should be obtained from the arbitrators on the subject of the direct claims. On the 19th of June Count Sclopis intimated on behalf of all his colleagues that, without intending to express any opinion upon the interpretation of the treaty, they had arrived at the conclusion that “the indirect claims did not constitute upon the principles of international law applicable to such cases a good foundation for an award or computation of damages between nations.” In consequence of this intimation Mr Bancroft Davis informed the tribunal on the 25th of June…
More questions about this book
- If you had to explain the core conflict and significance of the "Alabama" Arbitration to a peer who knows nothing about 19th-century international law, what essential points would you include to make them understand *why* it was a problem and *how* it was addressed?
- 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?
- 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?