Bonny Blue Flag
1st Lieutenant
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2008
- Location
- Grand Prairie, Texas
The Alabama Claims
A proclamation of neutrality issued by England to the US and the Confederacy during the Civil War allowed for belligerent rights to both governments and forbidding armament of ships at English hands.
In 1871, the US government made a series of claims of direct and collateral damage against the government of England, for the covert assistance given to the Confederate cause in the form of construction of commerce raiders and cruisers built or equipped in British waters, for the Confederacy. The Alabama was the one ship that caused the US the most loss and damages. Hence, the name given to these claims.
The most serious charge leveled by the US was that the English allowed the Confederate cruisers "Alabama", "Shenandoah", and "Florida" to be armed in British ports. They did significant damage to the American merchant marine.
Though both Prime Minister Lord Palmerston and Foreign Secretary Lord John Russell were thought to favor the Confederacy slightly at the time of the Alabama's construction, this position was against (a portion of) British public opinion and many MPs campaigned against it.
The sympathy shown by many Englishmen towards the Confederacy, combined with the British government's lax enforcement of neutrality, created a serious rift between the US and England. But the English officials obeyed the secret wishes of their superiors and their own sympathies, not formal orders.
Accordingly, the English -built, -stored and -manned vessels soon scoured the seas, capturing and burning US merchantmen. English colonial ports, especially Nassau, were safe nests for them for any length of time, while Northern vessels at best were held sternly to the letter of the law. In some cases US ships were illegally imprisoned for many weeks in harbors that they had lawfully entered to refit.
Early attempts to resolve this dispute were unsuccessful. At one point, a claim was made by US Senator Charles Sumner stating that England was responsible for half of the cost of the war, and that the US would consider Canada as payment. This shocked the British and they soon realized that they had better come to some agreement soon.
The US and England agreed to submit all of their disputes, including boundery disputes, fishery issues and the question of claims to binding arbitration.
At last, by the Treaty of Washington, on May 8th, 1871, it was agreed that the "Alabama Claims" (of which included those for depredations of other vessels) should be referred to 5 arbitrators: one to be named by the US, one by England and one each by the King of Italy, the emperor of Brazil and the president of Switzerland. It defined for their guidance the duties of a neutral and the phrase, "Due Dilligence".
A commission was formed and met in Geneva on Dec. 15th, 1871 It named as chairman, Count Federico Sclopis, the Italian nominee. England sent Sir Alexander Cockburn; the US sent Charles Francis Adams; Brazil sent Baron d'Itajuba, the Brazilian minister to France; Switzerland sent ex-President Jacob Staempfli.
The least part of the loss claimed by the US was the direct capture of prizes. Manyfold greater were the indirect losses caused by the decline in trade from difficulty in securing freights, the great rise in marine insurance and greatest of all, the prolongation of the war and its increased cost while it lasted.
The decision was given on Sept. 14th, 1872. Indirect damages were unanimously barred out, on the grounds that they were too indefinite to estimate under international law; also doubtless for the reason that any nation would take its chance of going to war than pay such amounts.
England was held liable only for the Alabama (unanimous), Florida (4-1), Shenandoah in part (3-2) and the tenders of both the Alabama and Florida (unanimous). The total amount was affixed at a lump sum of $15,500,000, the US being left to settle with private claimants.
The total was significantly high for the direct losses and is shown by the fact that 8 years after the establishment of a US court for distributing it, it wan't until 1882 that claims for only 3/5 (of the award had been) allowed. On June 5th, 1882, a second court was established to deal with the remainder.
If the award failed to content the extremists in either side--
-the Americans (because they) were too sore from the war losses and bereavements and the feelings of English foul play, to give up contentedly all indirect damage;
-the English who had lost their investment of $1,100,000 of Confederate Bonds and who felt that laws were made to squeeze and stretch according to national sympathies and that every nation always did so without accountabiltity
--then it is the fact that such a dispute betweent the two foremost nations of the world being submitted to arbitration, advanced enormously the cause of peace in the world and made a general statement of national contests without war.
Sources:
-Alabama Claims / Wikipedia
-Treaties of Washington / Historycentral.com
-The Americana: a universal reference library
--BBF
A proclamation of neutrality issued by England to the US and the Confederacy during the Civil War allowed for belligerent rights to both governments and forbidding armament of ships at English hands.
In 1871, the US government made a series of claims of direct and collateral damage against the government of England, for the covert assistance given to the Confederate cause in the form of construction of commerce raiders and cruisers built or equipped in British waters, for the Confederacy. The Alabama was the one ship that caused the US the most loss and damages. Hence, the name given to these claims.
The most serious charge leveled by the US was that the English allowed the Confederate cruisers "Alabama", "Shenandoah", and "Florida" to be armed in British ports. They did significant damage to the American merchant marine.
Though both Prime Minister Lord Palmerston and Foreign Secretary Lord John Russell were thought to favor the Confederacy slightly at the time of the Alabama's construction, this position was against (a portion of) British public opinion and many MPs campaigned against it.
The sympathy shown by many Englishmen towards the Confederacy, combined with the British government's lax enforcement of neutrality, created a serious rift between the US and England. But the English officials obeyed the secret wishes of their superiors and their own sympathies, not formal orders.
Accordingly, the English -built, -stored and -manned vessels soon scoured the seas, capturing and burning US merchantmen. English colonial ports, especially Nassau, were safe nests for them for any length of time, while Northern vessels at best were held sternly to the letter of the law. In some cases US ships were illegally imprisoned for many weeks in harbors that they had lawfully entered to refit.
Early attempts to resolve this dispute were unsuccessful. At one point, a claim was made by US Senator Charles Sumner stating that England was responsible for half of the cost of the war, and that the US would consider Canada as payment. This shocked the British and they soon realized that they had better come to some agreement soon.
The US and England agreed to submit all of their disputes, including boundery disputes, fishery issues and the question of claims to binding arbitration.
At last, by the Treaty of Washington, on May 8th, 1871, it was agreed that the "Alabama Claims" (of which included those for depredations of other vessels) should be referred to 5 arbitrators: one to be named by the US, one by England and one each by the King of Italy, the emperor of Brazil and the president of Switzerland. It defined for their guidance the duties of a neutral and the phrase, "Due Dilligence".
A commission was formed and met in Geneva on Dec. 15th, 1871 It named as chairman, Count Federico Sclopis, the Italian nominee. England sent Sir Alexander Cockburn; the US sent Charles Francis Adams; Brazil sent Baron d'Itajuba, the Brazilian minister to France; Switzerland sent ex-President Jacob Staempfli.
The least part of the loss claimed by the US was the direct capture of prizes. Manyfold greater were the indirect losses caused by the decline in trade from difficulty in securing freights, the great rise in marine insurance and greatest of all, the prolongation of the war and its increased cost while it lasted.
The decision was given on Sept. 14th, 1872. Indirect damages were unanimously barred out, on the grounds that they were too indefinite to estimate under international law; also doubtless for the reason that any nation would take its chance of going to war than pay such amounts.
England was held liable only for the Alabama (unanimous), Florida (4-1), Shenandoah in part (3-2) and the tenders of both the Alabama and Florida (unanimous). The total amount was affixed at a lump sum of $15,500,000, the US being left to settle with private claimants.
The total was significantly high for the direct losses and is shown by the fact that 8 years after the establishment of a US court for distributing it, it wan't until 1882 that claims for only 3/5 (of the award had been) allowed. On June 5th, 1882, a second court was established to deal with the remainder.
If the award failed to content the extremists in either side--
-the Americans (because they) were too sore from the war losses and bereavements and the feelings of English foul play, to give up contentedly all indirect damage;
-the English who had lost their investment of $1,100,000 of Confederate Bonds and who felt that laws were made to squeeze and stretch according to national sympathies and that every nation always did so without accountabiltity
--then it is the fact that such a dispute betweent the two foremost nations of the world being submitted to arbitration, advanced enormously the cause of peace in the world and made a general statement of national contests without war.
Sources:
-Alabama Claims / Wikipedia
-Treaties of Washington / Historycentral.com
-The Americana: a universal reference library
--BBF
Bringing the