Your comment has much heat, but little substance. Again, form over substance. A panel of five arbitrators acts as a court to hear evidence and render a judgment. In this instance the arbitrators acted as both judge and jury. But that is irrelevant to your continued disinformation about the illegality of UK's actions. As noted, the panel made the determination that the UK was culpable to the US for damages for its actions. That is really the end of the discussion, no matter how much you try to raise peripheral issues or cloud what the panel held. Since this discussion is going nowhere, I dont anticipate participating in the future, unless you want to engage in a meaningful way.It is also HISTORY.
BTW - I used 'legal' in the first case because it was NOT against the law. Why? Because there was no law or process governing 'neutrality' within Britain at the time. How else could Britain have made firearms and artillery for both sides? If the US wanted ships built here, it could have done so, but it was quite adept at building its own. THAT is what the Treaty of Washington sorted out - the RULES for 'neutrality' on an international basis.
Neutrality meant 'not directly fighting' in those long gone days - no government armies or navies fighting each other. That's all.
There was no 'court'. It was a joint High Commission to discuss reparations most of which were agreed within that high commission with the arbitration mainly being brought in for the San Juan demarcation and the amount of reparations to be paid. No judge. No jury. The arbitrators:
"...five arbitrators to be appointed in the following manner, that is to say: one shall be named by Her Britannic Majesty; one shall be named by the President of the United States; His Majesty the King of Italy shall be requested to name one; the President of the Swiss Confederation shall be requested to name one; and His Majesty the Emperor of Brazil shall be requested to name one."
What also came out of that treaty was:
RULES
A neutral Government is bound --
First. --To use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming or equipping, within its jurisdiction, of any vessel which it has reasonable ground to believe is intended to cruise or to carry on war against a Power with which it is at peace; and also to use like diligence to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of any vessel intended to cruise or carry on war as above, such vessel having been specially adapted, in whole or in part, within such jurisdiction, to warlike use.
Secondly. -- Not to permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its ports or waters as the base of naval operations against the other, or for the purpose of the renewal or augmentation of military supplies or arms, within such jurisdiction, to warlike use.
Thirdly. --To exercise due diligence in its own ports and waters, and, as to all persons within its jurisdiction, to prevent any violation of the foregoing obligations and duties.
And THAT became law - well after the fact.Treaty of Washington - Wikisource, the free online library
en.wikisource.org
-
Welcome to CivilWarTalk, a forum about the American Civil War! - Join today! It's fast, simple, and FREE!
Alabama Claims
- Thread starter Bonny Blue Flag
- Start date
Old Soldier
1st Lieutenant
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2022
- Location
- Yorkshire
That is the point I was making. At that time there was no guide to 'neutrality' - you just didn't fight for either side. That idea was settled long before the Industrial Age. When you consider that the North, Britain and western Europe were the big industrial producers of arms - and ships, where else would you go for arms? If Britain' actions were 'illegal' so were France, Austria and Belgium , all who sold arms to both sides.
From 1861, Britain remained neutral, but there was a national sympathy - or empathy, for the South and certainly a political aversion to the North who were still seen by some as a force that stabbed Britain in the back not once but twice during times of war against France. Here it is termed 'Parmerstonism' as Lord Parmerston, the PM at the time, was quite vocal about his dislike of the North.
The war also impacted the cotton industry in the North West - the area around Liverpool and Manchester. These were not corporations but groups of small companies each owning a small factory and relied on the import of cotton which was effectively stopped by the Blockade. The local communities relied on these firms for their livelihood and during the war, they suffered from the lack of work - and income - no unemployment benefit in those days - just charities. Southern cotton was considered the best and the lack of imports had an effect on sales too. France also suffered in a similar way. The main item to change public opinion was Lincoln's intent to introduce an Emancipation Proclamation
Back to Alabama. An extract:
". On 29 July 1862, a law officer's report he had commissioned advised him to detain Alabama, as its construction was a breach of Britain's neutrality. Palmerston ordered Alabama detained on 31 July, but it had already put to sea before the order reached Birkenhead."
Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston - Wikipedia
No further details yet but I read into this that someone had leaked the information. However, the ship was not armed, nor was it commanded or crewed by the CS.
Please bear in mind that I am still researching the effects of the Civil War in Britain - and trying to remain neutral. I see your point of view and I have now to set out any arguement with that in mind. I am not a lawyer.
I think I see the problem. You have no idea what the Declaration of Neutrality issued by the UK in May, 1861, says. It does not address small arms, but specifically address the building and equipping of warships. Here is the applicable text:
"That if any person, within any part of the United Kingdom, or in any part of His Majesty's dominions beyond the seas, shall, without the leave and license of His Majesty for that purpose first had and obtained as aforesaid, equip, furnish, 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, with intent or in order that such ship or vessel shall be employed 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, as a transport or store ship, or with intent to cruise or commit hostilities 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; or shall, within the United Kingdom, or any of His Majesty's dominions, or in any settlement, colony, territory, island, or place belonging or subject to His Majesty, issue or deliver any commission for any ship or vessel, to the intent that such ship or vessel shall be employed as aforesaid, every such person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall upon conviction thereof, upon any information or indictment, be punished by fine and imprisonment, or either of them, at the discretion of the Court in which such offender shall be convicted; and every such ship or vessel, with the tackle, apparel, and furniture, together with all the materials, arms, ammunition, and stores which may belong to or be on board of any such ship or vessel, shall be forfeited; and it shall be lawful for any officer of His Majesty's Customs or Excise, or any officer of His Majesty's navy, who is by law empowered to make seizures, for any forfeiture incurred under any of the laws of Customs or Excise, or the laws of trade and navigation, to seize such ships and vessels aforesaid, and in such places and in such manner in which the officers of His Majesty's Customs or Excise and the officers of His Majesty's navy are empowered respectively to make seizures under the laws of Customs and Excise, or under the laws of trade and navigation; and that every ship and vessel, with the tackle, apparel, and furniture, together with all the materials, arms, ammunition and stores which may belong to or be on board of such ship or vessel, may be prosecuted and condemned in the like manner, and in such courts as ships or vessels may be prosecuted and condemned for any breach of the laws made for the protection of the revenues of Customs and Excise, or of the laws of trade and navigation.
And it is in and by the said act further enacted --
"That if any person in any part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or in any part of His Majesty's dominions beyond the seas, without leave and license of His Majesty for that purpose first had and obtained as aforesaid, shall, by adding to the number of the guns of such vessel, or by changing those on board for other guns, or by the addition of any equipment for war, increase or augment, or procure to be increased or augmented, or shall be knowingly concerned in increasing or augmenting the warlike force of any ship or vessel of war or cruiser, or other armed vessel, which at the time of her arrival in any part of the United Kingdom, or any of His Majesty's dominions, was a ship of war, cruiser, or armed vessel in the service of any foreign Prince, State, or Potentate, or of any person or persons exercising or assuming to exercise any powers of government in or over any colony, province, or part of any province or people belonging to the subjects of any such Prince, State, or Potentate, or to the inhabitants of any colony, province, or part of any province or country under the control of any person or persons so exercising or assuming to exercise the powers of Government, every such person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, upon being convicted thereof, upon any information or indictment, be punished by fine and imprisonment, or either of them, at the discretion of the Court before which such offender shall be convicted."
"Now, in order that none of our subjects may unwarily render themselves liable to the penalties imposed by the said statute, we do hereby strictly command, that no person or persons whatsoever do commit any act, matter or thing whatsoever, contrary to the provisions of the said statute, upon pain of the several penalties by the said statute imposed, and of our high displeasure."
It was the violation of this proclamation that gave rise to the Alabama claims. The arbitrators found that the UK had knowledge that this was happening (primarily because US agents told them it was happening), and the UK did not exercise due diligence to enforce its own laws.
RodentRevolution
Corporal
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2019
So you are essentially making the point that I believe Old Soldier is trying to make, that the Alabama claim was based on an interpretation of English Law*. Specifically An Act to Prevent the Enlisting or Engagement of His Majesty's Subjects to Serve in Foreign Service, and the Fitting out or Equipping, in his Majesty's Dominions, Vessels for Warlike Purposes Without His Majesty's Licence or Foreign Enlistment Act, 1819 for short. This was the statute upon which the Neutrality Proclamation was based. Thus the Alabama matter was entirely a matter of domestic law.
The issue was in enforcing those laws. The conclusion was that the British officials on the ground had erred in their interpretations of the Foreign Enlistment Act. These were acts of unintentional negligence not perfidy. For example the Oreto was intercepted and detained by a Royal Navy vessel at one point but released upon the orders of the Admiralty Court who concluded there was insufficient grounds for its seizure. It is worth noting that Commander Hinckley detained the suspect vessel not once but twice, the first time being instructed by the Governor of the Bahamas based upon the advice of the Attorney-General of the Colony that there was insufficient evidence to proceed as a civil matter. Thus being advised to take it as a prize and submit it to the Vice-Admiralty Court he duly did so. Again the conclusion was insufficient evidence but Admiral Milne despite the judge of the court's ruling commended Hinckley for his zeal in attempting to enforce the Neutrality Declaration.
Thus the ruling of the arbitrators was not that Britain acted with perfidious intent, rather than it failed to act with sufficient attention to its own laws and remedies. This was not a matter of some malign policy but rather errors of judgement by individual court officers, despite the very real efforts of enforcement by other branches of Her Majesty's Government (for example the Navy as seen above).
*English law (now more properly referred to as English and Welsh law) is one of two main systems by which British statute law is administered, the other being Scottish law, English law is a common law system broadly familiar to Americans while Scottish Law is civil law system broadly familiar to most European.
**the Oreto would become the Florida in Confederate service.
Last edited:
Look at my last paragraph above, where I specifically used the language of the arbitrators that the UK did not exercise due diligence to enforce it's own laws. I dont think we disagree. And I dont think I ever said it was perfidy on the part of the UK government. Only that the building and equipping was illegal, as determined by the arbitrators.
Old Soldier
1st Lieutenant
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2022
- Location
- Yorkshire
".. equip, furnish, fit out, or arm, ..." is repeated several times, but never the word 'build'. It seems this Act was created around CONVERTING a merchant ship into a privateer. No one seems to have thought that a 'raider' would be built from scratch.
James D. Bulloch, the CS agent states:
"The contract for the vessel afterwards called the Alabama was made in my own name as a private individual, and the negotiations were carried on between the members of the firm and myself."
So there was no official record that it was built for the CS. It appears that she was facetiously termed 'the Emperor of China's yacht' as well as '290' locally, probably to explain her design and construction and disguise her real destination. The construction workers would have some idea what they were building and would discuss the differences to their usual ships. She was launched on 15 May 1862, christened as SS Enrica. There was a party on board sailing up and down the river with buntings flying which was common for new ships - guests, wives and families were on board. At New Brighton a steam tug approached the vessel and the guests taken off, including Commander Bulloch.
The Union spy network in Liverpool had informed the US Consul, even giving a full detailed description of the interior, resulting in Washington pressing the British government to seize the ship. Washington sent over a USN ship to intercept Enrica if she left Liverpool. The Union clearly pointed out the ship was built for speed far in excess of a merchant ship - which did not convince some as fast merchant clippers operating the Liverpool-Australia run were already common. The British government was eventually convinced that the ship was a man-o-war and were ready to seize her as she was under trials in the river.
The SS Enrica was registered as a steam ship when she sailed from the Mersey, accompanied by the Liverpool tug Hercules which accompanied her on her departure from the Mersey on July 29th 1862, just in case she was in need of the steam tug and only left her when she was at anchor a mile off the bell buoy and 14 miles from Canning Dock, according to the skipper's affidavit dated August 1st 1862. He returned the next day with more seamen for the '290' and a number of articles for the ship. He found her moored in Moelfra Roads, Beaumaris Bay. She probably sailed the same day - the day before the decision to detain her, entering the Atlantic between Ireland and Scotland to avoid any USN ships sent to engage her. In any case, since she was British registered with a British crew and captain who worked for Cunard, if the US Navy had sunk or seized her, international repercussions may have resulted.
She was 'equipped, furnished, fitted out, and armed' in the Azores between 20th and 24th of August, 1862. She was commissioned in the Azores too and renamed CSS Alabama.
Read more: https://www.city-data.com/forum/history/2097812-liverpool-england-home-confederate-fleet.html
James D. Bulloch, the CS agent states:
"The contract for the vessel afterwards called the Alabama was made in my own name as a private individual, and the negotiations were carried on between the members of the firm and myself."
So there was no official record that it was built for the CS. It appears that she was facetiously termed 'the Emperor of China's yacht' as well as '290' locally, probably to explain her design and construction and disguise her real destination. The construction workers would have some idea what they were building and would discuss the differences to their usual ships. She was launched on 15 May 1862, christened as SS Enrica. There was a party on board sailing up and down the river with buntings flying which was common for new ships - guests, wives and families were on board. At New Brighton a steam tug approached the vessel and the guests taken off, including Commander Bulloch.
The Union spy network in Liverpool had informed the US Consul, even giving a full detailed description of the interior, resulting in Washington pressing the British government to seize the ship. Washington sent over a USN ship to intercept Enrica if she left Liverpool. The Union clearly pointed out the ship was built for speed far in excess of a merchant ship - which did not convince some as fast merchant clippers operating the Liverpool-Australia run were already common. The British government was eventually convinced that the ship was a man-o-war and were ready to seize her as she was under trials in the river.
The SS Enrica was registered as a steam ship when she sailed from the Mersey, accompanied by the Liverpool tug Hercules which accompanied her on her departure from the Mersey on July 29th 1862, just in case she was in need of the steam tug and only left her when she was at anchor a mile off the bell buoy and 14 miles from Canning Dock, according to the skipper's affidavit dated August 1st 1862. He returned the next day with more seamen for the '290' and a number of articles for the ship. He found her moored in Moelfra Roads, Beaumaris Bay. She probably sailed the same day - the day before the decision to detain her, entering the Atlantic between Ireland and Scotland to avoid any USN ships sent to engage her. In any case, since she was British registered with a British crew and captain who worked for Cunard, if the US Navy had sunk or seized her, international repercussions may have resulted.
She was 'equipped, furnished, fitted out, and armed' in the Azores between 20th and 24th of August, 1862. She was commissioned in the Azores too and renamed CSS Alabama.
Read more: https://www.city-data.com/forum/history/2097812-liverpool-england-home-confederate-fleet.html
Last edited:
Are you not aware of the definition of the word "furnish"?
Definition of FURNISH
to provide with what is needed; especially : to equip with furniture; supply, give… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com
Old Soldier
1st Lieutenant
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2022
- Location
- Yorkshire
'furnish' does not necessarily mean 'build', especially when expressed in conjunction with the other words in that phrase.. In any case, the vessel was BRITISH and unarmed when it left our waters.
I guess you really dont know the meaning of the word "furnish". It means to make available. So if you build it to make it available, then guess what, its been furnished. And in any event, no one cares what your opinion of the issue is, the arbitrators have already determined the matter.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2017
Some in the US government wanted four billion dollars - the cost of the war. 15.5 million must have been a big disappointment.
USS ALASKA
Major
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2016
Southampton Solent University
PUNITIVE DAMAGES Great Britain and uncertain justice in the American Civil War
Simon Daniels
© Simon Daniels 2001; revised 2014
History is a funny sort of thing: full of names and events whose memories fade, and yet those names and events are hardly round the corner from us today. This instrument, signed by Queen Victoria on the 4th November 1871, appointed Lord Tenterden to act on the Crown's behalf in a claim brought by the United States, who were claiming incredible damages in compensation for Great Britain's support for the Confederacy, alleging that she had been in flagrant breach of her obligations of neutrality under international law. The arbitrators had the job to determine whether Britain broke the rules of international law. But the story is much more complex than that, for it inevitably raises an indictment that contains wider charges than mere breaches of the international laws of neutrality: That the people of Great Britain committed strong support for the people building the Confederate nation, for various reasons, not the least being profit, but also from a genuine affinity with the Southern cause, and they were damned if they were going to stay neutral. That the British Government was ensnared by conflict: underlying sympathy for the Southern cause got harnessed to the people's more active support, but this clashed with the demands of neutrality, and a dithering navigation through these dangerous waters damaged everybody in the end.
Because of copyright, please see above link.
Cheers,
USS ALASKA
PUNITIVE DAMAGES Great Britain and uncertain justice in the American Civil War
Simon Daniels
© Simon Daniels 2001; revised 2014
History is a funny sort of thing: full of names and events whose memories fade, and yet those names and events are hardly round the corner from us today. This instrument, signed by Queen Victoria on the 4th November 1871, appointed Lord Tenterden to act on the Crown's behalf in a claim brought by the United States, who were claiming incredible damages in compensation for Great Britain's support for the Confederacy, alleging that she had been in flagrant breach of her obligations of neutrality under international law. The arbitrators had the job to determine whether Britain broke the rules of international law. But the story is much more complex than that, for it inevitably raises an indictment that contains wider charges than mere breaches of the international laws of neutrality: That the people of Great Britain committed strong support for the people building the Confederate nation, for various reasons, not the least being profit, but also from a genuine affinity with the Southern cause, and they were damned if they were going to stay neutral. That the British Government was ensnared by conflict: underlying sympathy for the Southern cause got harnessed to the people's more active support, but this clashed with the demands of neutrality, and a dithering navigation through these dangerous waters damaged everybody in the end.
Because of copyright, please see above link.
Cheers,
USS ALASKA
Started reading it, then quickly realized that its a Lost Cause defense. For example:
"By 1860, the conditions in which slaves were kept, whether on plantations or in the cities, reflected their value and were often very much better than those in which 'free' men lived in the corrupt and merciless industrial towns of the North, where an immigrant worker was often housed in the most appalling conditions, often living close to starvation, and robbed of his wages by his employer, or his landlord, or no end of crooks who made their livelihoods from innocent immigrants from the moment they stepped ashore. In the South, with the vicissitudes of an agricultural economy, cotton and tobacco prices had ebbed and flowed, and the price of land would often plummet, when nobody could make a profit out of it, so slaves were a valuable commodity which held their value, as a result of which they were well cared for. In cities such as Richmond, they led lives a world away from the poverty-stricken workers in Northern cities: often fashionably dressed on Sundays, earning wages and living in a culture of Family with their white owners."
Almost makes one want to be a slave, right? No mention, apparently, of the wholesale rape of young slave women, however.
Also, about the effect of Lincoln's election in 1860:
"The Presidential elections of 1860 were fought by the Republican party, fundamentally Northern-based political party which nominated Abraham Lincoln on a platform that represented a threat to Southern interests, embodying a political and economic programme involving an upward revision of the tariff and the triumph of the Abolitionists, whose voice seemed to symbolise the threat that the South saw in Northern ambitions. Most of all, though, Lincoln's election embodied a strong, centralised government - in the North. No longer could Southerners hope that their affairs could be managed by their own local government; in other words, the fundamental protection of States Rights, enshrined in the American Constitution, would be swept away."
Interestingly, no mention of exactly how Lincoln would sweep away their Constitutional protections when the Supreme Court and Congress was still controlled by pro-Southern interests.
In short, its not a balanced presentation at all. From reading it, it appears to be some college kids paper that is going to school in the UK.
Forum Host- Joined
- Nov 27, 2018
- Location
- Chattanooga, Tennessee
I must say the author had a very southern approach to the books he studied and did an awful lot of 'monkey-talk', a term I mean as mimicry.
Lubliner.
RodentRevolution
Corporal
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2019
Worse he does not even address the question. The first part of the answer would have been to establish that there was an understood customary law of neutrality between nations at the time. Any serious study of the Alabama Claims would have noted they were made as a matter of UK law specifically the Foreign Enlistment Act 1819 which is mentioned some 8 times in the document without it seems being comprehended for what it was, which was domestic and not international law.
As others have mentioned there is definitely a weird Confederate bias, which detracts from the paper, which from the start is not very good, wherever it emerges.
Saphroneth
Colonel
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2017
In the event that there were to be an international law that bound nations not to fit out warships for a belligerent, then it would either have to be in place before 1855 or it would have to be a treaty negotiated between 1855 and the Civil War.
The reason why I specify that truism is that at least one warship (not a ship built to be converted to a warship, a full-on warship) was being built in the US for Russia during the Crimean War. In respect of US neutrality in that war, Pierce made the quite logical point that:
'the laws of the United States do not forbid their citizens to sell to either of the belligerent powers articles contraband of war or take munitions of war or soldiers on board their private ships for transportation; and although in so doing the individual citizen exposes his property or person to some of the hazards of war, his acts do not involve any breach of national neutrality nor of themselves implicate the Government.'
-Franklin Pierce, 1855.
Now, between 1855 and the Civil War there was an international agreement on maritime law negotiated. It didn't touch on the fitting out of warships, though it did clarify the legal status of privateers and of contraband and blockade; the US declined to sign on to the treaty.
During the Civil War, Britain did pass acts of neutrality which outlawed certain things, and which materially benefitted the Union because they meant that any warship being built in Britain for the Confederacy had to be done in secret. Had Britain not passed these laws then the Laird Rams etc. could have been built openly.
The specifics of the Alabama case revolve around whether Britain made a good-faith effort to stop the Alabama, and whether she was a ship that was in breach of the Neutrality Acts. Care was certainly taken to ensure that the hull 290 was being built in secret, being well aware of both the Neutrality Acts and the 1819 Foreign Enlistment Act; despite that, the course of events show that she was nearly caught anyway:
1) The customs commissioners (who inspected Hull 290 a week after Adam's initial request) do not find something that can be described as "warlike stores".
2) The Queen's Advocate, Sir John Dorney Harding, suffers a nervous breakdown and can't respond to Adams' second, more conclusive letter. As things stand, Russel only sees it on the evening of the 28th July.
3) Bulloch's spy network informs him on the 26th July that the ship is about to be seized. Consequently she slips out of port on the 29th July.
The CSS Alexandra, meanwhile, was seized by the government, but released by the courts in June 1863 because there wasn't sufficient evidence that it was destined for the Confederacy. It's a legal matter and the evidence provided was insufficient.
Honestly the basis for the legal claims is pretty weak, and it's probably an article of the Treaty of Washington that leads to the case being substantive. It was agreed on by the parties to the treaty, in the 1870s, that these rules were applicable to the Alabama claims tribunal:
RULES A neutral Government is bound --
First. --To use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming or equipping, within its jurisdiction, of any vessel which it has reasonable ground to believe is intended to cruise or to carry on war against a Power with which it is at peace; and also to use like diligence to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of any vessel intended to cruise or carry on war as above, such vessel having been specially adapted, in whole or in part, within such jurisdiction, to warlike use.
Secondly. -- Not to permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its ports or waters as the base of naval operations against the other, or for the purpose of the renewal or augmentation of military supplies or arms, within such jurisdiction, to warlike use.
Thirdly. --To exercise due diligence in its own ports and waters, and, as to all persons within its jurisdiction, to prevent any violation of the foregoing obligations and duties.
What this basically means is that the Treaty of Washington adopted rules that made "the fitting out... of any vessel which it has reasonable ground to believe is intended to cruise or to carry on war against a power with which it is at peace" a violation of those rules, and this factored into the decision of the tribunal.
The thing that's interesting about this is that it basically means that, for about 15 million dollars in total claims settlement, Britain got agreement from the US about what neutrality meant in a naval context - and in the event of a future war between Britain (with bases literally spanning the planet) and the US (which struggled to coal its own cruisers) the agreed-upon definition of neutrality would put severe restrictions on US cruising and on US procurement of ships from overseas during the war.
This basically amounts to agreeing to liability in retun for a favourable legal judgement!
The reason why I specify that truism is that at least one warship (not a ship built to be converted to a warship, a full-on warship) was being built in the US for Russia during the Crimean War. In respect of US neutrality in that war, Pierce made the quite logical point that:
'the laws of the United States do not forbid their citizens to sell to either of the belligerent powers articles contraband of war or take munitions of war or soldiers on board their private ships for transportation; and although in so doing the individual citizen exposes his property or person to some of the hazards of war, his acts do not involve any breach of national neutrality nor of themselves implicate the Government.'
-Franklin Pierce, 1855.
Now, between 1855 and the Civil War there was an international agreement on maritime law negotiated. It didn't touch on the fitting out of warships, though it did clarify the legal status of privateers and of contraband and blockade; the US declined to sign on to the treaty.
During the Civil War, Britain did pass acts of neutrality which outlawed certain things, and which materially benefitted the Union because they meant that any warship being built in Britain for the Confederacy had to be done in secret. Had Britain not passed these laws then the Laird Rams etc. could have been built openly.
The specifics of the Alabama case revolve around whether Britain made a good-faith effort to stop the Alabama, and whether she was a ship that was in breach of the Neutrality Acts. Care was certainly taken to ensure that the hull 290 was being built in secret, being well aware of both the Neutrality Acts and the 1819 Foreign Enlistment Act; despite that, the course of events show that she was nearly caught anyway:
1) The customs commissioners (who inspected Hull 290 a week after Adam's initial request) do not find something that can be described as "warlike stores".
2) The Queen's Advocate, Sir John Dorney Harding, suffers a nervous breakdown and can't respond to Adams' second, more conclusive letter. As things stand, Russel only sees it on the evening of the 28th July.
3) Bulloch's spy network informs him on the 26th July that the ship is about to be seized. Consequently she slips out of port on the 29th July.
The CSS Alexandra, meanwhile, was seized by the government, but released by the courts in June 1863 because there wasn't sufficient evidence that it was destined for the Confederacy. It's a legal matter and the evidence provided was insufficient.
Honestly the basis for the legal claims is pretty weak, and it's probably an article of the Treaty of Washington that leads to the case being substantive. It was agreed on by the parties to the treaty, in the 1870s, that these rules were applicable to the Alabama claims tribunal:
RULES A neutral Government is bound --
First. --To use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming or equipping, within its jurisdiction, of any vessel which it has reasonable ground to believe is intended to cruise or to carry on war against a Power with which it is at peace; and also to use like diligence to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of any vessel intended to cruise or carry on war as above, such vessel having been specially adapted, in whole or in part, within such jurisdiction, to warlike use.
Secondly. -- Not to permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its ports or waters as the base of naval operations against the other, or for the purpose of the renewal or augmentation of military supplies or arms, within such jurisdiction, to warlike use.
Thirdly. --To exercise due diligence in its own ports and waters, and, as to all persons within its jurisdiction, to prevent any violation of the foregoing obligations and duties.
What this basically means is that the Treaty of Washington adopted rules that made "the fitting out... of any vessel which it has reasonable ground to believe is intended to cruise or to carry on war against a power with which it is at peace" a violation of those rules, and this factored into the decision of the tribunal.
The thing that's interesting about this is that it basically means that, for about 15 million dollars in total claims settlement, Britain got agreement from the US about what neutrality meant in a naval context - and in the event of a future war between Britain (with bases literally spanning the planet) and the US (which struggled to coal its own cruisers) the agreed-upon definition of neutrality would put severe restrictions on US cruising and on US procurement of ships from overseas during the war.
This basically amounts to agreeing to liability in retun for a favourable legal judgement!
Interesting perspective. So its not that the construction of the ships for the CSA was illegal, its just they had to be built in secret. Its kind of like saying nothing is illegal, as long as you dont get caught.
Saphroneth
Colonel
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2017
The construction of the ships was legally dubious (they were fitted for weapons, but not with them) and if sufficient evidence was presented that these were intended to be warships then the British government would prevent them from sailing (note the focus on "warlike stores"); if after a seizure the evidence did not hold up under a fuller examination then there was no case and the ship would be released. Based on this I would assume the government position was "we'll stop it if it's a warship, but you have to actually prove it".
The key point here is really that intent is what matters - and is what needs to be proven. It's easy to prove the ship is meant as a warship if it's got cannon installed, but that's why the Laird Rams had a fake buyer.
RodentRevolution
Corporal
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2019
As Saphroneth points out above building warships for the Confederacy was very much illegal but rule of law cuts both ways. In order to legally seize the ships the British government had to be able to prove they were illegal. This was an issue in other instances of neutrality breaches such as with the Oreto case I outlined above.
Old Soldier
1st Lieutenant
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2022
- Location
- Yorkshire
Most of the raiders and the blockade-busters were built or bought as merchant ship, all except the Alababma. This was built with iron reinforcement to deck level, usually done to warships to provide support for a rotary mounting for a big gun, but this was not apparent without looking at the plans or observing the building of the ship. Under British neutrality law, it was possible to build a ship designed as an armed vessel*, provided that it was not actually armed or provisioned until after it was in international waters. It was not particularly well-enforced at this time - or suspected.
Like all of these vessels, it was not built or bought for the CSA, but under the name of one their British agents and it was launched as a merchant ship - SS Enrica. It appears to have anchored offshore as soon as it was fitted ready for sea. Rumour has it that the British government had got wind of it so it 'vanished' - just in case. It had just enough coal to take it to the Azores (Spanish territory) and sailed under British merchant navy colors with a British crew. Here it was it was crewed by CSA volunteers, armed, ammunitioned and coaled. Only then was it commissioned as CSS Alabama. Another, the Alexandra was seized in 1863, before completion and commissioning.
The political unrest caused by the Alabama ensured the tightning of control over ship production. Two masted-turret ships - the Laird Rams - were ordered in a similar fashion in 1862, but they were so obviously warships and the to-and-fro-ing between French and Egyptian contracts aroused suspicion. They were seized and the CSA never got them. They were eventually purchased for the Royal Navy named HMSs Scorpion and Wivern and served as harbor guardships until 1903 and 1922 respectively.
*Note that an 'armed vessel' was NOT classed as a 'warship' per se, as some merchant ships were still lightly armed for defence against pirates at this time, but a turret ship certainly was.
Like all of these vessels, it was not built or bought for the CSA, but under the name of one their British agents and it was launched as a merchant ship - SS Enrica. It appears to have anchored offshore as soon as it was fitted ready for sea. Rumour has it that the British government had got wind of it so it 'vanished' - just in case. It had just enough coal to take it to the Azores (Spanish territory) and sailed under British merchant navy colors with a British crew. Here it was it was crewed by CSA volunteers, armed, ammunitioned and coaled. Only then was it commissioned as CSS Alabama. Another, the Alexandra was seized in 1863, before completion and commissioning.
The political unrest caused by the Alabama ensured the tightning of control over ship production. Two masted-turret ships - the Laird Rams - were ordered in a similar fashion in 1862, but they were so obviously warships and the to-and-fro-ing between French and Egyptian contracts aroused suspicion. They were seized and the CSA never got them. They were eventually purchased for the Royal Navy named HMSs Scorpion and Wivern and served as harbor guardships until 1903 and 1922 respectively.
*Note that an 'armed vessel' was NOT classed as a 'warship' per se, as some merchant ships were still lightly armed for defence against pirates at this time, but a turret ship certainly was.
USS ALASKA
Major
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2016
University of North Dakota
UND Scholarly Commons
Theses, Dissertations, and Senior Projects
1-1-1936
Some Political and Diplomatic Aspects of the Treaty of Washington
Raymond Joseph Gewerth
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, and Senior Projects at UND Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of UND Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected].
In May 1673 after the tribunal had made the award, the treaty came up for discussion during a debate on the supply report. Betinck criticized the government violently. He said that the government had followed an unconstitutional course by not submitting the treaty to Parliament for ratification after it had been accepted by the cabinet. Gregory, who had been a partisan of the South during the Civil War, said the House of Commons should enter a protest against the principles on which the treaty was based. All the previous arguments were advanced, but no new or significant point was raised. Clearly it was a move against the ministry since the payment of the award on the part of Great Britain was a foregone conclusion. Gladstone defended his government and the treaty. He said that the three rules were already a part of international law at the time the claims arose, and maintained that the municipal law covered the same points. He declared that those rules had played no part in the decision of the tribunal. Of the treaty in general he had this to say:
"Any amount of disappointment we may feel at the result is but a considerable deduction for the satisfaction attendant upon such an arrangement which removes such causes of difference between two great countries like England and America, and does so much....for mankind at large by the example it sets for a peaceful settlement of disputes as a substitute for the bloody arbitrament of war.
File too large to post, please use above link
Cheers,
USS ALASKA
UND Scholarly Commons
Theses, Dissertations, and Senior Projects
1-1-1936
Some Political and Diplomatic Aspects of the Treaty of Washington
Raymond Joseph Gewerth
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, and Senior Projects at UND Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of UND Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected].
In May 1673 after the tribunal had made the award, the treaty came up for discussion during a debate on the supply report. Betinck criticized the government violently. He said that the government had followed an unconstitutional course by not submitting the treaty to Parliament for ratification after it had been accepted by the cabinet. Gregory, who had been a partisan of the South during the Civil War, said the House of Commons should enter a protest against the principles on which the treaty was based. All the previous arguments were advanced, but no new or significant point was raised. Clearly it was a move against the ministry since the payment of the award on the part of Great Britain was a foregone conclusion. Gladstone defended his government and the treaty. He said that the three rules were already a part of international law at the time the claims arose, and maintained that the municipal law covered the same points. He declared that those rules had played no part in the decision of the tribunal. Of the treaty in general he had this to say:
"Any amount of disappointment we may feel at the result is but a considerable deduction for the satisfaction attendant upon such an arrangement which removes such causes of difference between two great countries like England and America, and does so much....for mankind at large by the example it sets for a peaceful settlement of disputes as a substitute for the bloody arbitrament of war.
File too large to post, please use above link
Cheers,
USS ALASKA
Similar threads
- Learn About Us
- ►About CivilWarTalk
- ►Contact the Webmaster
- ►Meet the Staff
- ►Link to CivilWarTalk
- Join Our Community
- ►Register
- ►Browse Forums
- ►View Today's Discussions
- ►Search the Forum
- Get Help
- ►FAQ
- ►Student Guide
- ►Forum Rules & Etiquette
- ►Copyright / DMCA
Bringing the