Synthesized answer
The "Alabama" Arbitration is presented as a significant example of arbitration's value in preventing war because it resolved a dispute between states through a formal, agreed-upon process rather than through armed conflict [1]. The core of the dispute involved pecuniary claims made by one state on behalf of its subjects against another [1]. Specifically, the United States government brought grievances against Great Britain concerning the recognition of the Southern States as belligerents and, more importantly, breaches of neutrality. These breaches involved Great Britain allowing Confederate vessels, including the "Alabama," to be built and equipped on British territory, which led to destructive careers for these ships [4].
Instead of resorting to war, the parties engaged in correspondence and eventually appointed a commission to find a common understanding for settling the issues [4]. The British commissioners proposed arbitration for the "Alabama" claims, which the American commissioners eventually accepted after agreeing on governing principles [2, 4]. The arrangements were formalized in the treaty of Washington, establishing a tribunal of arbitrators to decide on these…
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.
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…
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…
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
- Given the British government's "proclamation of neutrality," how might a contemporary observer reconcile this declared stance with the building of the "Alabama," an obvious man-of-war, by a British firm for the Confederates? What ethical or legal dilemmas does this situation present for a neutral nation?
- Imagine you are Mr. C. F. Adams, the United States consul. What specific "particulars" and "sworn evidence" would be most crucial for you to present to the British law officers to compel them to detain the "Alabama," based on the limited information provided in the text?
- How did the Confederate strategy of establishing "agencies in England for the purchase of arms" and utilizing "blockade-running," as described, directly challenge President Lincoln's blockade and potentially complicate international relations during the American Civil War?
- Although the excerpt focuses on the "Alabama" incident, it contextualizes the conflict with the "slavery question" and secession. How might these foundational issues have influenced the British government's initial proclamation of neutrality and its subsequent (or delayed) response to reports about the "Alabama's" construction?