Synthesized answer
The "Alabama" Arbitration arose from the American Civil War, where the Southern States seceded from the Union in 1861 [1]. The United States government had two main grievances against Great Britain: the recognition of the Southern States as belligerents and breaches of neutrality, specifically allowing Confederate vessels like the "Alabama" to be built and equipped on British territory [2]. These actions led to significant damage and losses for the United States [5].
The central conflict was the United States' claim that Great Britain had not maintained proper neutrality during the war, leading to the depredations of Confederate cruisers built and equipped in Britain [2, 4, 5]. Because diplomatic correspondence over several years did not resolve these issues, international arbitration was required as a means of averting war and settling the pecuniary claims made by one state on behalf of its subjects against another [1, 2]. The arbitration was ultimately held in Geneva [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…
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…
appointed by the three neutral powers were Count Sclopis (Italy), M. Staempfli (Switzerland), Baron d’Itajuba (Brazil). The first meeting of the tribunal took place on the 15th of December 1871 in the Hôtel de Ville, Geneva. As soon as the cases had been formally presented, the tribunal adjourned till the following June. There followed immediately a controversy which threatened the collapse of the arbitration. It was found that in the American case damages were claimed not only for the property destroyed by the Confederate cruisers, but in respect of certain other matters known as “indirect…
More questions about this book
- The British government declared neutrality but recognized the Confederates as belligerents. What is the subtle but significant difference between these two actions, and how might one argue this recognition complicated Britain's claim of neutrality in the context of the "Alabama"?
- How did the Confederacy's strategy of establishing agencies in England and using the Bahamas for transshipment directly challenge President Lincoln's blockade and international laws of neutrality, as implied by the construction of the "Alabama"?
- Considering the information provided about the "Alabama's" construction and the US consul's warnings, what were the immediate legal and diplomatic challenges faced by the British authorities in deciding whether to detain the vessel?
- The text states the "Alabama" Arbitration is a "conspicuous example of the value of arbitration as a means of averting war." Based on the details provided, what specific elements of this case illustrate *how* arbitration served this purpose, even amidst a highly charged international situation?