Alabama Claims

[JerryD]

He's quite correct.

Um, no he's not. This is his statement about the ships built for the CSA and used as raiders: "They were NOT built or bought as 'raiders'."

I'm quite aware of the lies made when the ships were built. But we all know the truth with hindsight that they were bought for use as raiders. Its kind of ridiculous to claim that since they were not equipped with guns from the shipyard, but were equipped later, that they were not bought to be raiders. Why else was the CSA buying them? The purpose of the purchase was to get raiders. So that is why they were bought. Giving credence to lies that we know were false does not make the lies true.

 

[Old Soldier]

Um, no he's not. He is his statement about the ships built for the CSA and used as raiders: "They were NOT built or bought as 'raiders'." "T

I'm quite aware of the lies made when the ships were built. But we all know the truth with hindsight that they were bought for use as raiders. Its kind of ridiculous to claim that since they were not equipped with guns from the shipyard, but were equipped later, that they were not bought to be raiders. Why else was the CSA buying them? The purpose of the purchase was to get raiders. So that is why they were bought. Giving credence to lies that we know were false does not make the lies true.

There was no ban on the sale of ships to either side - provided they were not armed as warships and not sold or made by the government. This was 'warships' as defined in 1819 - the year the Act was passed. There was no check on intent, in the same way as the rifles sold to both sides. (What DO you use rifles for?) The main provisor is that they were not provided by the British state or government works. How they were to be used once outside British waters was up to the owners. In fact, there were several merchant ships bought which, once outside British jurisdiction were equipped as raiders. BOTH sides could have done it. The USA had no need to. The ports used for arming and vitualling them were Spanish, Portuguese and French who had no agreement with the USA. The Treaty of Washington in 1871 cleared up the definition of neutrality once and for all by international arbitration. That international arbitration established a precedent, and the case aroused interest in codifying public international law.

BTW - The French also built ships for the Confederates - two ironclad rams and two sloops. After US political efforts, (I won't call them threats) Napoleon III demanded they be sold off. One of the rams was sold to Denmark and the rest to Prussia. The Danish ram, after confederate intervention, became CSS Stonewall being the only one delivered. It was equipped in Denmark, and sailed to Cuba in 1865, but arrived after the end of the war and was sold to the Spanish who handed it over to the USA. (In 1869 it was gifted to the new Meiji Emperor of Japan by the US Ambassodor and renamed the Kotetsu).

 

[JerryD]

There was no ban on the sale of ships to either side - provided they were not armed as warships and not sold or made by the government. This was 'warships' as defined in 1819 - the year the Act was passed. There was no check on intent, in the same way as the rifles sold to both sides. (What DO you use rifles for?) The main provisor is that they were not provided by the British state or government works. How they were to be used once outside British waters was up to the owners. In fact, there were several merchant ships bought which, once outside British jurisdiction were equipped as raiders. BOTH sides could have done it. The USA had no need to. The ports used for arming and vitualling them were Spanish, Portuguese and French who had no agreement with the USA. The Treaty of Washington in 1871 cleared up the definition of neutrality once and for all by international arbitration. That international arbitration established a precedent, and the case aroused interest in codifying public international law.

BTW - The French also built ships for the Confederates - two ironclad rams and two sloops. After US political efforts, (I won't call them threats) Napoleon III demanded they be sold off. One of the rams was sold to Denmark and the rest to Prussia. The Danish ram, after confederate intervention, became CSS Stonewall being the only one delivered. It was equipped in Denmark, and sailed to Cuba in 1865, but arrived after the end of the war and was sold to the Spanish who handed it over to the USA. (In 1869 it was gifted to the new Meiji Emperor of Japan by the US Ambassodor and renamed the Kotetsu).

The comment was that the intent was not buy raiders, which is ridiculous. Obviously the intent was to buy raiders, so the purchases were made through straw parties to try to "get away" with it.

And we went through this before on this very thread, so not sure why you are continuing to spread misinformation. See Britain's Neutrality Declaration which I quoted on post 23 of this thread, whereby it was prohibited to furnish any ship intended to be used by any belligerent in the war. Note it did not even need to be a warship. The declaration also prohibits furnishing transport or storage ships.

Go back and re-read the Declaration of Neutrality in post 23. Your info is just wrong and you should stop trying to mislead people. This is the very reason why the arbitrators ruled against Great Britain. They found that they did not use due diligence to enforce their own laws.

 

[JerryD]

This is straight from the Neutrality Declaration issued by Great Britain in 1861, and defines what is prohibited (annotations added to help reading comprehension, as the language is somewhat dense)

"equip, furnish (1) , fit out, or arm, or attempt or endeavor to equip, furnish, fit out, or arm, or procure to be equipped, furnished, fitted out, or armed, or shall knowingly aid, assist, or be concerned in the equipping, furnishing, fitting out, or arming of any ship or vessel(2) , with intent or in order that such ship or vessel shall be employed in the service of any(3) foreign prince, State or potentate, or of any foreign colony, province, or part of any province or people (4) , or of any person or persons exercising or assuming to exercise, any powers of government in or over any foreign State, colony, province, or part of any province or people(5), as a transport or store ship, or with intent to cruise or commit hostilities (6) against any prince, State or potentate, or against the subjects or citizens of any prince, State, or potentate, or against the persons exercising or assuming to exercise the powers of government in any colony, province, or part of any province or country, or against the inhabitants of any foreign colony province, or part of any province or country, with whom His Majesty shall not then be at war(7);

1. furnishing is all that is required. Note that arming is a separate action, but is not required to violate the Declaration. Merely furnishing a ship described below is a violation.
2. Any ship or vessel. This defines what would be "furnished". So it s furnishing any ship or vessel.
3. This is the intent section. So furnishing a ship or vessel with the intent that it would satisfy the following language is prohibited.
4. This section identifies countries that Great Britain recognizes, such as the USA.
5. This is the section that applies to the CSA, since Great Britain did not recognize it. It identifies persons or persons exercising or attempting to exercise powers of a government.
6. This section identifies what kind of ship. So it could be a transport ship, store ship, or a ship intended to cruise or commit hostilities. So note it did not have to be a raider or even armed!!! Transport ships are enough.
7. This refers back to sections 4 and 5, and is the substance of the Neutrality intent. You could not provide ships to any country or group of persons that Great Britain is not at war with, like the USA or the CSA.

 

[Old Soldier]

"....in the service of any foreign prince, State or potentate, or of any foreign colony, province, or part of any province or people, or of any person or persons exercising or assuming to exercise, any powers of government in or over any foreign State, colony, province, or part of any province or people ...."

All were ordered by either individuals as private citizens or using the cover of British firms, apparently and registered as such in Britain.

Whatever, the Treaty of Washington (1871) settled the arguement. END.

 

[JerryD]

"....in the service of any foreign prince, State or potentate, or of any foreign colony, province, or part of any province or people, or of any person or persons exercising or assuming to exercise, any powers of government in or over any foreign State, colony, province, or part of any province or people ...."

All were ordered by either individuals as private citizens or using the cover of British firms, apparently and registered as such in Britain.

Whatever, the Treaty of Washington (1871) settled the arguement. END.

Again, if you go back and read the language, you will see who ordered it is irrelevant. The operative language is the intent to use it against either a country or "persons" that Great Britain is not at war with. So who ordered it is not applicable. And again, why Great Britain was determined to be in the wrong and subject to damages.

To your point, using a straw purchaser would violate the above language to "procure to be equipped, furnished, fitted out, or armed, or shall knowingly aid, assist, or be concerned in the equipping, furnishing, fitting out, or arming of any ship or vessel...." To procure is to purchase, of course. So no, its irrelevant that straw purchasers were used.

 

[wausaubob]

I am not aware of any actions by the US during the American Civil War that resulted in the sinking or burning of British ships, nor the rapid rise in insurance rates for British merchant ships. However what might be described as British carelessness had exactly that effect on US shipping.
The $15M, (less compensation by the US for certain shipping rights on the outer banks) turned out to be a good investment by the British in improving relations with an emerging and then triumphant industrial power.

 

[wausaubob]

Its surprising the damage wasn't greater. Semmes and the Alabama were very successful at the outset of their raiding. But then he began to shift further south, away from the primary merchant route. I wonder if the desirable freight shifted to British and German ships, and whether few US sloops began to patrol the north Atlantic. If there were US warships in the merchant zone, and steam powered freighter could probably run for cover and get under the shelter of a warship before the Alabama caught up.

 

[RodentRevolution]

Its surprising the damage wasn't greater. Semmes and the Alabama were very successful at the outset of their raiding. But then he began to shift further south, away from the primary merchant route. I wonder if the desirable freight shifted to British and German ships, and whether few US sloops began to patrol the north Atlantic. If there were US warships in the merchant zone, and steam powered freighter could probably run for cover and get under the shelter of a warship before the Alabama caught up.

A lot of US ships reflagged. This would not have worked against blockade, which specifically empowers the blockading party to inspect neutral shipping but commerce raiders work under more restrictive rules. Hence they could stop a ship they suspect of flying a false flag but could not impede it thereafter if the registration was legal, regardless of cargo and crew.

 

[wausaubob]

A lot of US ships reflagged. This would not have worked against blockade, which specifically empowers the blockading party to inspect neutral shipping but commerce raiders work under more restrictive rules. Hence they could stop a ship they suspect of flying a false flag but could not impede it thereafter if the registration was legal, regardless of cargo and crew.

However, the raider is not empowered to decide whether the registration is legal. Without access to an admiralty court, the raider is powerless. And Semmes eventually crossed the line.