Logo of LLMC Digital present on all screens.  Clicking here will always return to Homepage
A 501 (c)(3) nonprofit committed to ‘saving the law’
prd server 3Book Bag
Description and Holding Information
1872, US/UK Arb., Alabama Claims- US counter-argument, UK response (Fr.)
Plaidoyer ou résumé faisant ressortir les points, et rappelant les témoignages, sur lesquels se fonde le gouvernement de sa majesté britannique pour
répondre aus réclmations des Etats Unis; présenté au tribunal d’arbitrage, constitute en vertu de l’article du traité conclu à Washington, le 8 Mai,
1871, entre sa majesté britannique et le états unis de l’amérique: n.a., (2)+96p, n.p., n.d. (The UK response was formally presented to the tribunal on
27 June 1872. A TOC follows the title page. Lacks index. All in French. The “Alabama Claims” were maritime grievances of the United States against
Great Britain that accumulated during and after the American Civil War. The phrase became shorthand for many claims by the U.S. against the British
government for depredations against Union shipping worldwide by the Confederate Navy with British assistance. The flagship grievance was the consent by
the British Government to the release of the Alabama, a ship built in England, to the Confederate Navy. That one ship wreaked havoc on U.S commerce;
capturing, burning or sinking 68 U.S. merchant ships in 22 months. However, while the Alabama gave its name to the cause, other ships of British origin
were involved. For example, the CSS Shanandoah was built in Liverpool and transferred to the Confederacy in Madeira with the connivance of the Royal
Navy. It went on to circumnavigate the globe. On the way six Union merchantmen were burnt or sunk in the Indian Ocean. Later, over 20 ships of the
Union whaling fleet, based from the neutral Kingdom of Hawaii, were destroyed in the Bering Sea. The U.S. claimed direct and collateral damages for
these composite wrongs under a pioneering application of nascent international law. The country was angry and emotions were raw. Predictably Congress
fulminated at “perfidious Albion.” Senator Charles Sumner’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee called for an indemnity of $2 billion {ca. $32.3 billion in
today’s money} and/or the cession of all of Canada. On another front, in 1867 William Seward was negotiating the purchase of Alaska from Russia. The
Secretary of State clearly hoped that this would be followed by the annexation of British Columbia; thinking that the British Government might accede
to that action in exchange for the settlement of the “Alabama Claims.” The fervor against the British peaked in early 1870, with American
expansionists, British anti-imperialists, and Canadian separatists gleefully combining forces. However, enthusiasm soon drooped for several reasons. While
London shrewdly stalled, Congress became preoccupied with Reconstruction, and war-weary Americans lost interest in territorial expansion. Meanwhile, the
U.S. commercial sector lobbied for a quick cash settlement, and Canadian nationalists in British Columbia pushed for self-government within the
Empire.. By 1871, with calmer heads prevailing, President Grant's Secretary of State Hamilton Fish worked out a “grand bargain” with the British
representative Sir John Rose. This stunning achievement resolved, in one treaty, not only the Alabama claims, but also the refinancing of war debts, and the
settlement of all outstanding territorial disputes over Canada between Great Britain and the United States. The Treaty of Washington, signed on 8 March
1871, and ratified by the Senate on 24 May 1871, created an international arbitration tribunal, giving it the power to adjudicate the “Alabama
Claims.” The tribunal, which first met in Geneva for a short planning session on 15-16 Dec. 1871, had members from: Brazil, Marcos Antonio de Arújo; Great
Britain, Sir Alexander Cockburn; Italy, Federico Sclopis; Switzerland, Jakob Stäphfli; and, for the United States, Charles Francis Adams; the latter
having served as the American Minister to London during the war. The tribunal’s formal sessions took place between 15 June and 29 August, 1872, in a
reception room of the Town Hall in Geneva; thereafter named salle de l'Alabama. The final award to the U.S. on 14 Sept. 1872 of $15,500,000 in gold (ca.
$283.3-million in 2012 dollars) was paid out that same year; with Great Britain moreover expressing “regret” for the Alabama and Florida actions.
Besides resolving the “Alabama Claims,” the Treaty of Washington settled disputed Atlantic fisheries and the San Juan Boundary; i.e., the boundary line
for the Territory of Oregon, then including present-day Washington State, and therefore the modern northwest boundary between the U.S. and Canada.
With all major irritants between them thus amicably resolved, Britain, the U.S., and fledgling Canada from thence became permanent allies. The settlement
by arbitration of the “Alabama Claims” gave major validation to international arbitration as a substitute for war, and launched a movement to codify
public international law to foster peaceful solutions to inter-nation disputes. It thus served as a precursor to the Hague Conventions, the League of
Nations, and the Permanent Court of International Justice.)
Title:   Plaidoyer ou résumé faisant ressortir les points, et rappelant les témoignages, sur lesquels se fonde le gouvernement de Sa Majesté britannique pour répondre aux reclamations des Etats Unis : présenté au Tribunal d'arbritrage constitué en vertu de l'article 1er du traité conclu à Washington, le 8 mai, 1871, entre Sa Majesté britannique et les États Unis de l'Amérique.
OCLC Number:   880965506
Available Volumes
NameFiche CountOnlinePaper Backup
Tome 1YesNo