Alabama Claims

[USS ALASKA]

Marquette University
e-Publications@Marquette
Bachelors' Theses
Dissertations, Theses, and Professional Projects
1937

The Alabama Claims
Chester John Niebler

Surely was this the greatest triumph for peaceful settlement in a century that witnessed the wars of Napoleon, the farcical Congress of Vienna, the boondoggling Concert of Vienna, the Civil War, and the rise of Prussia and Italy over the twisted bodies and torn flesh of youths, the decline of Austria, and the bloody struggle over the dying man of Europe, the Ottoman Empire. Surely the Geneva Tribunal stands out alone as a permanent achievement in international relations. "So shines a good deed in this naughty world".

https://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1745&context=bachelor_essays

FIle too large to attach, please use above link

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[USS ALASKA]

From 'Spoons'...

The Treaty of Washington. An analysis of its provisions. Our losses, England's gains
Butler, Benjamin F.
Boston, W. F. Brown & Co., Printers,
1871

I have examined with some-diligence, and with an earnest desire to find reasons for assent to its several provisions, the treaty between Great Britain and the United States pending for ratification by the Senate, and will, with your leave, give such suggestions as have occurred to me as to its operation and the equities of the concessions and reparations therein each.to the other of the two governments.

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/public/gdc/00193009736/00193009736.pdf

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[USS ALASKA]

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/public/gdcmassbookdig/charlessumnertre01cham/charlessumnertre01cham.pdf

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[Old Soldier]

Anniversary Bump

14 Sept 1872

Britain paid US $15 million for damages during Civil War. The British government paid £3 million in damages to the United States in compensation for building the Confederate commerce-raider Alabama. The confederate navy's Alabama was built at the Birkenhead shipyards. Despite its official neutrality during the American Civil War, Britain allowed the warship to leave port, and it subsequently played havoc with Federal shipping. The U.S. claimed compensation, and a Court of Arbitration at Geneva agreed, setting the amount at £3 million.

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

It was launched, fitted out for sea and left British waters UNARMED and registered as a civilian cargo ship. It sneaked out of port and was armed and renamed in Portuguese waters - the Azores.
After international arbitration endorsed the American position in 1872, Britain settled the matter by paying the United States $15.5 million, ending the dispute and leading to a treaty that restored friendly relations between Britain and the United States.

 

[Saphroneth]

After international arbitration endorsed the American position in 1872, Britain settled the matter by paying the United States $15.5 million, ending the dispute and leading to a treaty that restored friendly relations between Britain and the United States.

And which, I will note, established a new principle by which such claims should be considered, a principle which effectively meant that the UK was closing off future warship construction by the US for anti-UK belligerents (a concern as recently as the Crimean War).

That, in effect, is what the British actually paid for.

 

[USS ALASKA]

Sirs, 0290 was built with strengthened decks and framing to hold heavy cannon and milspec powder and ammo holds. No pure merchant ship would have had those requirements. CSS Alabama WAS bought as a raider. She just wasn't delivered in FMC trim.

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[Saphroneth]

Sirs, 0290 was built with strengthened decks and framing to hold heavy cannon and milspec powder and ammo holds. No pure merchant ship would have had those requirements. CSS Alabama WAS bought as a raider. She just wasn't delivered in FMC trim.

And? The issue here is not whether she was built with the strengthening required for raiding service but whether the US was able to prove that she was a ship with "warlike stores" and "intended for a belligerent"; the British don't have to halt all ship construction on unfounded accusation by the US.

The extent of actual British fault here is that one specific man suffered a mental breakdown and failed to act on the orders to seize the ship once the US diplomat had actually provided sufficiently conclusive evidence for the British government to act; the government itself did indeed act promptly once proof was furnished.

 

[USS ALASKA]

Journal Article
The Alabama Claims Arbitration
Tom Bingham
The International and Comparative Law Quarterly
Vol. 54, No. 1 (Jan., 2005), pp. 1-25
Cambridge University Press

The Alabama Claims Arbitration on JSTOR

Tom Bingham, The Alabama Claims Arbitration, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 54, No. 1 (Jan., 2005), pp. 1-25

www.jstor.org

Full article at above link on JSTOR with Google sign-in (In the upper right-hand corner of the linked page, there is a 'Log in' button. If you have a Gmail account, you have a Google sign-in and this will allow for free reading of 100 articles a month).

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[Saphroneth]

One of the things I find sort of interesting when the magnitude of the Alabama Claims is brought up is how rarely the Halifax Fisheries Commission established by the same round of treaties is brought up - because that commission directed the US to pay $5.5 million to Britain in compensation for fisheries rights issues.

 

[Old Soldier]

Sirs, 0290 was built with strengthened decks and framing to hold heavy cannon and milspec powder and ammo holds. No pure merchant ship would have had those requirements. CSS Alabama WAS bought as a raider. She just wasn't delivered in FMC trim.

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

Agreed, but did the authorities have to check all plans of ships being built? Remember, these ships were not ordered by the Confederacy per se, they were ordered through British people and firms. The contract for SS Enrica (Alabama), was arranged through the Fraser Trenholm Company, a cotton broker in Liverpool with ties to the Confederacy. Sure, the confederacy paid for it via Commander James Bulloch, but that was hushed up big time.

Bear in mind that under the existing British neutrality laws of the time, passed in 1819, it was possible to build a ship designed as an armed vessel, for a warring power, provided that it was not actually armed until after it was in international waters. However, the Laird Rams were pushing those laws way beyond the limit as they could not be classed as merchant ships by any means and they were seized by the authorities. The laws were changed because of the Alabama Claims so the Foreign Enlistment Act was amended in 1870 to provide stronger legal authority to prevent belligerent warships from being built and equipped in neutral British ports. It also made it an offence for British nationals to act as mercenaries (incl. crewing) against a country the British were at peace with.

As it was, U.S. Navy Commander Tunis A. M. Craven, commander of USS Tuscarora, was in Southampton and was tasked with intercepting the Enrica, but was unsuccessful.

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

Anniversary Bump

14 Sept 1872

Britain paid US $15 million for damages during Civil War. The British government paid £3 million in damages to the United States in compensation for building the Confederate commerce-raider Alabama. The confederate navy's Alabama was built at the Birkenhead shipyards. Despite its official neutrality during the American Civil War, Britain allowed the warship to leave port, and it subsequently played havoc with Federal shipping. The U.S. claimed compensation, and a Court of Arbitration at Geneva agreed, setting the amount at £3 million.

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

I didn't know that. Britain should have been obstinate and should have refused to pay.

 

[wausaubob]

And which, I will note, established a new principle by which such claims should be considered, a principle which effectively meant that the UK was closing off future warship construction by the US for anti-UK belligerents (a concern as recently as the Crimean War).

That, in effect, is what the British actually paid for.

This is it. The US had the ability to build well powered ships that could be armed by the buyers at their ports, before the outbreak of war. Benjamin Isherwood had several fast steamships on the construction wharves during the Civil War. I doubt it was a secret. But by September 1863 Admiral Milne was calming the disputed waters, and eventually the matter was settled as noted above.
And Charles Sumner was playing to his anti-English immigrant community. There was talk of helping the Irish independence movement, but the US government never helped the Irish insurgents. There were non trivial reasons why President Grant disapproved of Senator Sumner.

 

[edgeworthy]

One of the things I find sort of interesting when the magnitude of the Alabama Claims is brought up is how rarely the Halifax Fisheries Commission established by the same round of treaties is brought up - because that commission directed the US to pay $5.5 million to Britain in compensation for fisheries rights issues.

Not to mention the $1.9 million in compensation the US paid, as part of the Alabama claims, to Britain for illegal blockade practices.

 

[Saphroneth]

Not to mention the $1.9 million in compensation the US paid, as part of the Alabama claims, to Britain for illegal blockade practices.

Given the occasional rather bombastic claims that the Alabama Claims could have resulted in the US annexation of BC, one wonders that it's never suggested that the countervailing claims could have led to, say, the British acquisition of Maine. Or Alaska.

 

[wausaubob]

Not to mention the $1.9 million in compensation the US paid, as part of the Alabama claims, to Britain for illegal blockade practices.

Your number seems correct. I think the British agreed that the Mainers could fish in what had become Canadian waters. There was some trading going on.
The US was still heavily in debt to British investors in 1871. There were many common interests in building up the US economy.

 

[wausaubob]

The 140,000 immigrants that had flowed through British North America and the US between 1865 and 1870 may have been a factor. Presumably many of them were Irish and not in sympathy with the English.

 

[USS ALASKA]

I didn't know that. Britain should have been obstinate and should have refused to pay.

Without both sides coming to agreement over all the issues in the Treaty of Washington, the Great Rapprochement and Special Relationship wouldn't have happened to the detriment of both. And the nation of Canada might be much different. Not that the USA would take Canadian territory but rather Canada might be 3 or more nations instead of one.

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[USS ALASKA]

The best time for the UK to acquire Alaska would have been during the Crimean War but after the defeat in the Siege of Petropavlovsk, and no robust base yet established at Esquimalt, there was no British controlled support base to be used in attacking Russian America. She might have made a move during the ACW but with the other issues in Poland, Italy, Mexico, Schleswig-Holstein, Morocco, and the beginnings of the Scramble for Africa, she had her hands full with more important affairs. The Royal Navy did not relocate the headquarters of its Pacific fleet from Valparaíso, Chile to Esquimalt Harbour until 1865.

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[rebelatsea]

Keep telling yourself that.

He's quite correct.

 

[rebelatsea]

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.

Treaty of Washington - Wikisource, the free online library

en.wikisource.org

And THAT became law - well after the fact.

The USA DID try to have a real warship constructed in Britain.

Name: "The Laird Rams"

The design of these ships two vessels originated in a proposal by Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Navy, Gustavus Fox to build two double-turreted ironclads in Britain with which the USN could attack Charleston. John T. Howard of New York approached Lairds to seek their estimates. Resembling a New York ferryboat in that they were to have a propeller and rudder at each end, they were intended to run into Charleston harbour unharmed by the defences.
Although Lairds drew up a contract which matched Fox's requirements, nothing came of the attempts to consummate it, so that when Bulloch approached them, they had a ready-made basis to develop into his requirements for the CSN, which they did via a proposed "tower ship" which morphed into the familiar two turret design.

The Fox –Howard Ironclad
Type; Sea going ironclad floating battery
Dimensions: 231ft OA x 48ft EXS x 14ft later reduced to 12ft D, 2,218 /1,901 tons ,10knots
205ft PP x 47ft B x 14DPH
Guns: 2 – 11" SB
Armour: 4.5" sides and turrets, backing if any not known