Chapter 3: , page 89 (4)

_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 24._

AKBAR (called The Great), Moghul Emperor or Padischah of India, A. D. 1556-1605.

AKHALZIKH, Siege and capture of (1828).

See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.

AKKAD. AKKADIANS.

See BABYLONIA, PRIMITIVE.

AKKARON.

See PHILISTINES.

AKROKERAUNIAN PROMONTORY.

See KORKYRA.

ALABAMA:
The Aboriginal Inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: APALACHES: MUSKHOGEE FAMILY;
CHEROKEES.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1539-1542.
Traversed by Hernando de Soto.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1629.
Embraced in the Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1663.
Embraced in the Carolina grant to Monk, Shaftesbury, and others.

See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.

{23}

ALABAMA: A. D. 1702-1711.
French occupation and first settlement.
The founding of Mobile.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1732.
Mostly embraced in the new province of Georgia.

See GEORGIA: A. D. 1732-1739.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1763.
Cession and delivery to Great Britain.
Partly embraced in West Florida.

See SEVEN YEARS' WAR;
and FLORIDA: A. D. 1763:
and NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1763.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1779-1781.
Reconquest of West Florida by the Spaniards.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1779-1781.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1783.
Mostly covered by the English cession to the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783 (SEPTEMBER).

ALABAMA: A. D. 1783-1787.
Partly in dispute with Spain.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1783-1787.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1798-1804.
All but the West Florida District embraced in Mississippi Territory.

See MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1798-1804.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1803.
Portion acquired by the Louisiana purchase.

See LOUISIANA: A.D. 1798-1803.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1813.
Possession of Mobile and West Florida taken from the Spaniards.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1810-1813.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1813-1814.
The Creek War.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL).

ALABAMA: A. D. 1817-1819.
Organized as a Territory.
Constituted a State, and admitted to the Union.

"By an act of Congress dated March 1, 1817, Mississippi
Territory was divided. Another act, bearing the date March 3,
thereafter, organized the western [? eastern] portion into a
Territory, to be known as Alabama, and with the boundaries as
they now exist. … By an act approved March 2, 1819, congress
authorized the inhabitants of the Territory of Alabama to form
a state constitution, 'and that said Territory, when formed
into a State, shall be admitted into the Union upon the same
footing as the original States.' … The joint resolution of
congress admitting Alabama into the Union was approved by
President Monroe, December 14, 1819."

_W. Brewer,
Alabama,
chapter 5._

ALABAMA: A. D. 1861 (January).
Secession from the Union.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).

ALABAMA: A. D. 1862.
General Mitchell's Expedition.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (APRIL-MAY: ALABAMA).

ALABAMA: A. D. 1864 (August).
The Battle of Mobile Bay.
Capture of Confederate forts and fleet.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864(AUGUST: ALABAMA).

ALABAMA: A. D. 1865 (March-April).
The Fall of Mobile.
Wilson's Raid.
End of the Rebellion.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL-MAY).

ALABAMA: A. D. 1865-1868.
Reconstruction.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY), to 1868-1870.

----------ALABAMA: End----------

ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1861-1862.
In their Origin.
The Earlier Confederate cruisers.
Precursors of the Alabama.

The commissioning of privateers, and of more officially
commanded cruisers, in the American civil war, by the
government of the Southern Confederacy, was begun early in the
progress of the movement of rebellion, pursuant to a
proclamation issued by Jefferson Davis on the 17th of April,
1861. "Before the close of July, 1861, more than 20 of those
depredators were afloat, and had captured millions of property
belonging to American citizens. The most formidable and
notorious of the sea-going ships of this character, were the
Nashville, Captain R. B. Pegram, a Virginian, who had
abandoned his flag, and the Sumter [a regularly commissioned
war vessel], Captain Raphael Semmes. The former was a
side-wheel steamer, carried a crew of eighty men, and was
armed with two long 12-pounder rifled cannon. Her career was
short, but quite successful. She was finally destroyed by the
Montauk, Captain Worden, in the Ogeechee River. The career of
the Sumter, which had been a New Orleans and Havana packet
steamer named Marquis de Habana, was also short, but much more
active and destructive. She had a crew of sixty-five men and
twenty-five marines, and was heavily armed. She ran the
blockade at the mouth of the Mississippi River on the 30th of
June, and was pursued some distance by the Brooklyn. She ran
among the West India islands and on the Spanish Main, and soon
made prizes of many vessels bearing the American flag. She was
everywhere received in British Colonial ports with great
favor, and was afforded every facility for her piratical
operations. She became the terror of the American merchant
service, and everywhere eluded National vessels of war sent
out in pursuit of her. At length she crossed the ocean, and at
the close of 1861 was compelled to seek shelter under British
guns at Gibraltar, where she was watched by the Tuscarora.
Early in the year 1862 she was sold, and thus ended her
piratical career. Encouraged by the practical friendship of
the British evinced for these corsairs, and the substantial
aid they were receiving from British subjects in various ways,
especially through blockade-runners, the conspirators
determined to procure from those friends some powerful
piratical craft, and made arrangements for the purchase and
construction of vessels for that purpose. Mr. Laird, a
ship-builder at Liverpool and member of the British
Parliament, was the largest contractor in the business, and,
in defiance of every obstacle, succeeded in getting pirate
ships to sea. The first of these ships that went to sea was
the Oreto, ostensibly built for a house in Palermo, Sicily.
Mr. Adams, the American minister in London, was so well
satisfied from information received that she was designed for
the Confederates, that he called the attention of the British
government to the matter so early as the 18th of February,
1862. But nothing effective was done, and she was completed
and allowed to depart from British waters. She went first to
Nassau, and on the 4th of September suddenly appeared off
Mobile harbor, flying the British flag and pennants. The
blockading squadron there was in charge of Commander George H.
Preble, who had been specially instructed not to give offense
to foreign nations while enforcing the blockade. He believed
the Oreto to be a British vessel, and while deliberating a few
minutes as to what he should do, she passed out of range of
his guns, and entered the harbor with a rich freight. For his
seeming remissness Commander Preble was summarily dismissed
from the service without a hearing—an act which subsequent
events seemed to show was cruel injustice. Late in December
the Oreto escaped from Mobile, fully armed for a piratical
cruise, under the command of John Newland Maffit. … The name
of the Oreto was changed to that of Florida."

_B. J. Lossing,
Field Book of the Civil War,
volume 2, chapter 21._

{24}

The fate of the Florida is related below—A. D. 1862-1865.

_R. Semmes,
Memoirs of Service Afloat,
chapters 9-26._

ALSO IN
_J. Davis,
Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government,
chapters 30-31 (volume 2)._

ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1862-1864.
The Alabama, her career and her fate.

"The Alabama [the second cruiser built in England for the
Confederates] … is thus described by Semmes, her commander:
'She was of about 900 tons burden, 230 feet in length, 32 feet
in breadth, 20 feet in depth, and drew, when provisioned and
coaled for cruise, 15 feet of water. She was
barkentine-rigged, with long lower masts, which enabled her to
carry large fore and aft sails, as jibs and try-sails. … Her
engine was of 300 horse-power, and she had attached an
apparatus for condensing from the vapor of sea-water all the
fresh water that her crew might require. … Her armament
consisted of eight guns.' … The Alabama was built and, from
the outset, was 'intended for a Confederate vessel of war.'
The contract for her construction was signed by Captain
Bullock on the one part and Messrs. Laird on the other.' …
On the 15th of May [1862] she was launched under the name of
the 290. Her officers were in England awaiting her completion,
and were paid their salaries 'monthly, about the first of the
month, at Fraser, Trenholm & Co.'s office in Liverpool.' The
purpose for which this vessel was being constructed was
notorious in Liverpool. Before she was launched she became an
object of suspicion with the Consul of the United States at
that port, and she was the subject of constant correspondence
on his part with his Government and with Mr. Adams. … Early
in the history of this cruiser the point was taken by the
British authorities—a point maintained throughout the
struggle—that they would originate nothing themselves for
the maintenance and performance of their international duties,
and that they would listen to no representations from the
officials of the United States which did not furnish technical
evidence for a criminal prosecution under the Foreign
Enlistment Act. … At last Mr. Dudley [the Consul of the
United States at Liverpool] succeeded in finding the desired
proof. On the 21st day of July, he laid it in the form of
affidavits before the Collector at Liverpool in compliance
with the intimations which Mr. Adams had received from Earl
Russell. These affidavits were on the same day transmitted by
the Collector to the Board of Customs at London, with a
request for instructions by telegraph, as the ship appeared to
be ready for sea and might leave any hour. … It … appears
that notwithstanding this official information from the
Collector, the papers were not considered by the law advisers
until the 28th, and that the case appeared to them to be so
clear that they gave their advice upon it that evening. Under
these circumstances, the delay of eight days after the 21st in
the order for the detention of the vessel was, in the opinion
of the United States, gross negligence on the part of Her
Majesty's Government. On the 29th the Secretary of the
Commission of the Customs received a telegram from Liverpool
saying that the vessel 290 came out of dock last night, and
left the port this morning.' … After leaving the dock she
proceeded slowly down the Mersey.' Both the Lairds were on
board, and also Bullock. … The 290 slowly steamed on to
Moelfra Bay, on the coast of Anglesey, where she remained 'all
that night, all the next day, and the next night.' No effort
was made to seize her. … When the Alabama left Moelfra Bay
her crew numbered about 90 men. She ran part way down the
Irish Channel, then round the north coast of Ireland, only
stopping near the Giant's Causeway. She then made for
Terceira, one of the Azores, which she reached on the 10th of
August. On 18th of August, while she was at Terceira, a sail
was observed making for the anchorage. It proved to be the
'Agrippina of London, Captain McQueen, having on board six
guns, with ammunition, coals, stores, &c., for the Alabama.'
Preparations were immediately made to transfer this important
cargo. On the afternoon of the 20th, while employed
discharging the bark, the screw-steamer Bahama, Captain
Tessier (the same that had taken the armament to the Florida,
whose insurgent ownership and character were well known in
Liverpool), arrived, 'having on board Commander Raphael Semmes
and officers of the Confederate States steamer Sumter.' There
were also taken from this steamer two 32-pounders and some
stores, which occupied all the remainder of that day and a
part of the next. The 22d and 23d of August were taken up in
transferring coal from the Agrippina to the Alabama. It was
not until Sunday (the 24th) that the insurgents' flag was
hoisted. Bullock and those who were not going in the 290 went
back to the Bahama, and the Alabama, now first known under
that name, went off with '26 officers and 85 men.'"

_The Case of the United States before the Tribunal of
Arbitration at Geneva (42d Congress, 2d Session,
Senate Ex. Doc., No. 31, pages 146-151)._

The Alabama "arrived at Porto Praya on the 19th August.
Shortly thereafter Capt. Raphael Semmes assumed command.
Hoisting the Confederate flag, she cruised and captured
several vessels in the vicinity of Flores. Cruising to the
westward, and making several captures, she approached within
200 miles of New York; thence going southward, arrived, on the
18th November, at Port Royal, Martinique. On the night of the
19th she escaped from the harbour and the Federal steamer San
Jacinto, and on the 20th November was at Blanquilla. On the
7th December she captured the steamer Ariel in the passage
between Cuba and St. Domingo. On January 11th, 1863, she sunk
the Federal gunboat Hatteras off Galveston, and on the 30th
arrived at Jamaica. Cruising to the eastward, and making many
captures, she arrived on the 10th April, at Fernando de
Noronha, 'and on the 11th May at Bahia, where, on the 13th,
she was joined by the Confederate steamer Georgia. Cruising
near the line, thence southward towards the Cape of Good Hope,
numerous captures were made. On the 29th July she anchored in
Saldanha Bay, South Africa, and near there on the 5th August,
was joined by the Confederate bark Tuscaloosa, Commander Low.
In September, 1863, she was at St. Simon's Bay, and in October
was in the Straits of Sunda, and up to January 20, 1864,
cruised in the Bay of Bengal and vicinity, visiting
Singapore, and making a number of very valuable captures,
including the Highlander, Sonora, etc.
{25}
From this point she cruised on her homeward track via Cape of
Good Hope, capturing the bark Tycoon and ship Rockingham, and
arrived at Cherbourg, France, in June, 1864, where she
repaired. A Federal steamer, the Kearsarge, was lying off the
harbour. Capt. Semmes might easily have evaded this enemy; the
business of his vessel was that of a privateer; and her value
to the Confederacy was out of all comparison with a single
vessel of the enemy. … But Capt. Semmes had been twitted
with the name of 'pirate;' and he was easily persuaded to
attempt an éclat for the Southern Confederacy by a naval fight
within sight of the French coast, which contest, it was
calculated, would prove the Alabama a legitimate war vessel,
and give such an exhibition of Confederate belligerency as
possibly to revive the question of 'recognition' in Paris and
London. These were the secret motives of the gratuitous fight
with which Capt. Semmes obliged the enemy off the port of
Cherbourg. The Alabama carried one 7-inch Blakely rifled gun,
one 8-inch smooth-bore pivot gun, and six 32-pounders,
smooth-bore, in broadside; the Kearsarge carried four
broadside 32-pounders, two 11-inch and one 28-pound rifle. The
two vessels were thus about equal in match and armament; and
their tonnage was about the same."

_E. A. Pollard,
The Lost Cause,
page 549._

Captain Winslow, commanding the United States Steamer
Kearsarge, in a report to the Secretary of the Navy written on
the afternoon of the day of his battle with the Alabama, June
19, 1864, said: "I have the honor to inform the department
that the day subsequent to the arrival of the Kearsarge off
this port, on the 24th [14th] instant, I received a note from
Captain Semmes, begging that the Kearsarge would not depart,
as he intended to fight her, and would delay her but a day or
two. According to this notice, the Alabama left the port of
Cherbourg this morning at about half past nine o'clock. At
twenty minutes past ten A. M., we discovered her steering
towards us. Fearing the question of jurisdiction might arise,
we steamed to sea until a distance of six or seven miles was
attained from the Cherbourg break-water, when we rounded to
and commenced steaming for the Alabama. As we approached her,
within about 1,200 yards, she opened fire, we receiving two or
three broadsides before a shot was returned. The action
continued, the respective steamers making a circle round and
round at a distance of about 900 yards from each other. At the
expiration of an hour the Alabama struck, going down in about
twenty minutes afterward, carrying many persons with her." In
a report two days later, Captain Winslow gave the following
particulars: "Toward the close of the action between the
Alabama and this vessel, all available sail was made on the
former for the purpose of again reaching Cherbourg. When the
object was apparent, the Kearsarge was steered across the bow
of the Alabama for a raking fire; but before reaching this
point the Alabama struck. Uncertain whether Captain Semmes was
not using some ruse, the Kearsarge was stopped. It was seen,
shortly afterward, that the Alabama was lowering her boats,
and an officer came alongside in one of them to say that they
had surrendered, and were fast sinking, and begging that boats
would be despatched immediately for saving life. The two boats
not disabled were at once lowered, and as it was apparent the
Alabama was settling, this officer was permitted to leave in
his boat to afford assistance. An English yacht, the
Deerhound, had approached near the Kearsarge at this time,
when I hailed and begged the commander to run down to the
Alabama, as she was fast sinking, and we had but two boats,
and assist in picking up the men. He answered affirmatively,
and steamed toward the Alabama, but the latter sank almost
immediately. The Deerhound, however, sent her boats and was
actively engaged, aided by several others which had come from
shore.' These boats were busy in bringing the wounded and
others to the Kearsarge; whom we were trying to make as
comfortable as possible, when it was reported to me that the
Deerhound was moving off. I could not believe that the
commander of that vessel could be guilty of so disgraceful an
act as taking our prisoners off, and therefore took no means
to prevent it, but continued to keep our boats at work
rescuing the men in the water. I am sorry to say that I was
mistaken. The Deerhound made off with Captain Semmes and
others, and also the very officer who had come on board to
surrender."—In a still later report Captain Winslow gave the
following facts: "The fire of the Alabama, although it is stated
she discharged 370 or more shell and shot, was not of serious
damage to the Kearsarge. Some 13 or 14 of these had taken
effect in and about the hull, and 16 or 17 about the masts and
rigging. The casualties were small, only three persons having
been wounded. … The fire of the Kearsarge, although only 173
projectiles had been discharged, according to the prisoners'
accounts, was terrific. One shot alone had killed and wounded
18 men, and disabled a gun. Another had entered the
coal-bunkers, exploding, and completely blocking up the engine
room; and Captain Semmes states that shot and shell had taken
effect in the sides of his vessel, tearing large holes by
explosion, and his men were everywhere knocked down."

_Rebellion Record,
volume 9, pages 221-225._

ALSO IN
_J. R. Soley,
The Blockade and the Cruisers (The Navy in the Civil War;
volume 1, chapter 7._

_J. R. Soley, J. McI. Kell and J. M. Browne,
The Confederate Cruisers (Battles and Leaders,
volume 3._

_R. Semmes,
Memoirs of Service Afloat,
chapters 29-55._

_J. D. Bullock,
Secret Service of the Confederate States in Europe,
volume 1, chapter 5._

ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1862-1865.
Other Confederate cruisers.

"A score of other Confederate cruisers roamed the seas, to
prey upon United States commerce, but none of them became
quite so famous as the Sumter and the Alabama. They included
the Shenandoah, which made 38 captures, the Florida, which
made 36, the Tallahassee, which made 27, the Tacony, which
made 15, and the Georgia, which made 10. The Florida was
captured in the harbor of Bahia, Brazil, in October, 1864, by
a United States man-of·war [the Wachusett: commander Collins],
in violation of the neutrality of the port. For this the
United States Government apologized to Brazil and ordered the
restoration of the Florida to the harbor where she was
captured. But in Hampton Roads she met with an accident and
sank. It was generally believed that the apparent accident was
contrived with the connivance, if not by direct order, of the
Government. Most of these cruisers were built in British
shipyards."

_R. Johnson,
Short History of the War of Secession,
chapter 24._

{26}

The last of the destroyers of American commerce, the
Shenandoah, was a British merchant ship—the Sea King—built
for the Bombay trade, but purchased by the Confederate agent,
Captain Bullock, armed with six guns, and commissioned
(October, 1865) under her new name. In June, 1865, the
Shenandoah, after a voyage to Australia, in the course of
which she destroyed a dozen merchant ships, made her
appearance in the Northern Sea, near Behring Strait, where she
fell in with the New Bedford whaling fleet. "In the course of
one week, from the 21st to the 28th, twenty-five whalers were
captured, of which four were ransomed, and the remaining 21
were burned. The loss on these 21 whalers was estimated at
upwards of $3,000,000, and considering that it occurred …
two months after the Confederacy had virtually passed out of
existence, it may be characterized as the most useless act of
hostility that occurred during the whole war." The captain of
the Shenandoah had news on the 23d of the fall of Richmond;
yet after that time he destroyed 15 vessels. On his way
southward he received information, August 2d, of the final
collapse of the Confederacy. He then sailed for Liverpool, and
surrendered his vessel to the British Government, which delivered
her to the United States.

_J. R. Soley,
The Confederate Cruisers
(Battles and Leaders, volume 4)._

ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1862-1869.
Definition of the indemnity claims of the United States
against Great Britain.
First stages of the Negotiation.
The rejected Johnson-Clarendon Treaty.

"A review of the history of the negotiations between the two
Governments prior to the correspondence between Sir Edward
Thornton and Mr. Fish, will show … what was intended by
these words, 'generically known as the Alabama Claims,' used
on each side in that correspondence. The correspondence
between the two Governments was opened by Mr. Adams on the
20th of November, 1862 (less than four months after the escape
of the Alabama), in a note to Earl Russell, written under
instructions from the Government of the United States. In this
note Mr. Adams submitted evidence of the acts of the Alabama,
and stated: 'I have the honor to inform Your Lordship of the
directions which I have received from my Government to solicit
redress for the national and private injuries thus sustained.'
… Lord Russell met this notice on the 19th of December,
1862, by a denial of any liability for any injuries growing
out of the acts of the Alabama. … As new losses from time to
time were suffered by individuals during the war, they were
brought to the notice of Her Majesty's Government, and were
lodged with the national and individual claims already
preferred; but argumentative discussion on the issues involved
was by common consent deferred. … The fact that the first
claim preferred grew out of the acts of the Alabama explains
how it was that all the claims growing out of the acts of all
the vessels came to be 'generically known as the Alabama
claims.' On the 7th of April, 1865, the war being virtually
over, Mr. Adams renewed the discussion. He transmitted to Earl
Russell an official report showing the number and tonnage of
American vessels transferred to the British flag during the
war. He said: 'The United States commerce is rapidly vanishing
from the face of the ocean, and that of Great Britain is
multiplying in nearly the same ratio.' 'This process is going
on by reason of the action of British subjects in cooperation
with emissaries of the insurgents, who have supplied from the
ports of Her Majesty's Kingdom all the materials, such as
vessels, armament, supplies, and men, indispensable to the
effective prosecution of this result on the ocean.' … He
stated that he 'was under the painful necessity of announcing
that his Government cannot avoid entailing upon the Government
of Great Britain the responsibility for this damage.' Lord
Russell … said in reply, 'I can never admit that the duties
of Great Britain toward the United States are to be measured
by the losses which the trade and commerce of the United
States have sustained. … Referring to the offer of
arbitration, made on the 26th day of October, 1863, Lord
Russell, in the same note, said: 'Her Majesty's Government
must decline either to make reparation and compensation for
the captures made by the Alabama, or to refer the question to
any foreign State.' This terminated the first stage of the
negotiations between the two Governments. … In the summer of
1866 a change of Ministry took place in England, and Lord
Stanley became Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the
place of Lord Clarendon. He took an early opportunity to give
an intimation in the House of Commons that, should the
rejected claims be revived, the new Cabinet was not prepared
to say what answer might be given them; in other words, that,
should an opportunity be offered, Lord Russell's refusal might
possibly be reconsidered. Mr. Seward met these overtures by
instructing Mr. Adams, on the 27th of August, 1866, 'to call
Lord Stanley's attention in a respectful but earnest manner,'
to 'a summary of claims of citizens of the United States, for
damages which were suffered by them during the period of the
civil war,' and to say that the Government of the United
States, while it thus insists upon these particular claims, is
neither desirous nor willing to assume an attitude unkind and
unconciliatory toward Great Britain. … Lord Stanley met this
overture by a communication to Sir Frederick Bruce, in which
he denied the liability of Great Britain, and assented to a
reference, 'provided that a fitting Arbitrator can be found,
and that an agreement can be come to as to the points to which
the arbitration shall apply.' … As the first result of these
negotiations, a convention known as the Stanley-Johnson
convention was signed at London on the 10th of November, 1868.
It proved to be unacceptable to the Government of the United
States. Negotiations were at once resumed, and resulted on the
14th of January, 1869, in the Treaty known as the
Johnson-Clarendon convention [having been negotiated by Mr.
Reverdy Johnson, who had succeeded Mr. Adams as United States
Minister to Great Britain]. This latter convention provided
for the organization of a mixed commission with jurisdiction
over 'all claims on the part of citizens of the United States
upon the Government of Her Britannic Majesty, including the
so-called Alabama claims, and all claims on the part of
subjects of Her Britannic Majesty upon the Government of the
United States which may have been presented to either
government for its interposition with the other since the 26th
July, 1853, and which yet remain unsettled.'" The
Johnson-Clarendon treaty, when submitted to the Senate, was
rejected by that body, in April, "because, although it made
provision for the part of the Alabama claims which consisted
of claims for individual losses, the provision for the more
extensive national losses was not satisfactory to the Senate."

_The Argument of the United States delivered to the
Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva, June 15, 1872, Division
13, section 2._

{27}

ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1869-1871.
Renewed Negotiations.
Appointment and meeting of the Joint High Commission.

The action of the Senate in rejecting the Johnson-Clarendon
treaty was taken in April, 1869, a few weeks after President
Grant entered upon his office. At this time "the condition of
Europe was such as to induce the British Ministers to take
into consideration the foreign relations of Great Britain;
and, as Lord Granville, the British Minister of Foreign
Affairs, has himself stated in the House of Lords, they saw
cause to look with solicitude on the uneasy relations of the
British Government with the United States, and the
inconvenience thereof in case of possible complications in
Europe. Thus impelled, the Government dispatched to Washington
a gentleman who enjoyed the confidence of both Cabinets, Sir John
Rose, to ascertain whether overtures for reopening
negotiations would be received by the President in spirit and
terms acceptable to Great Britain. … Sir John Rose found the
United States disposed to meet with perfect correspondence of
good-will the advances of the British Government. Accordingly,
on the 26th of January, 1871, the British Government, through
Sir Edward Thornton, finally proposed to the American
Government the appointment of a joint High Commission to hold
its sessions at Washington, and there devise means to settle
the various pending questions between the two Governments
affecting the British possessions in North America. To this
overture Mr. Fish replied that the President would with
pleasure appoint, as invited, Commissioners on the part of the
United States, provided the deliberations of the Commissioners
should be extended to other differences,—that is to say, to
include the differences growing out of incidents of the late
Civil War. … The British Government promptly accepted this
proposal for enlarging the sphere of the negotiation." The
joint High Commission was speedily constituted, as proposed,
by appointment of the two governments, and the promptitude of
proceeding was such that the British commissioners landed at
New York in twenty-seven days after Sir Edward Thornton's
suggestion of January 26th was made. They sailed without
waiting for their commissions, which were forwarded to them by
special messenger. The High Commission was made up as follows:
"On the part of the United States were five persons,—Hamilton
Fish, Robert C. Schenck, Samuel Nelson, Ebenezer Rockwood
Hoar, and George H. Williams,—eminently fit representatives
of the diplomacy, the bench, the bar, and the legislature of
the United States: on the part of Great Britain, Earl De Grey
and Ripon, President of the Queen's Council; Sir Stafford
Northcote, Ex-Minister and actual Member of the House of
Commons; Sir Edward Thornton, the universally respected
British Minister at Washington; Sir John [A.] Macdonald, the
able and eloquent Premier of the Canadian Dominion; and, in
revival of the good old time, when learning was equal to any
other title of public honor, the Universities in the person of
Professor Montague Bernard. … In the face of many
difficulties, the Commissioners, on the 8th of May, 1871,
completed a treaty [known as the Treaty of Washington], which
received the prompt approval of their respective Governments."

_C. Cushing,
The Treaty of Washington,
pages 18-20, and 11-13._

ALSO IN
_A. Lang, Life, Letters, and Diaries of Sir Stafford
Northcote, First Earl of Iddesleigh,
chapter 12 (volume 2)._

_A. Badeau,
Grant in Peace,
chapter 25._

ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1871.
The Treaty of Washington.

The treaty signed at Washington on the 8th day of May, 1871,
and the ratifications of which were exchanged at London on the
17th day of the following June, set forth its principal
agreement in the first two articles as follows: "Whereas
differences have arisen between the Government of the United
States and the Government of Her Brittanic Majesty, and still
exist, growing out of the acts committed by the several
vessels which have given rise to the claims generically known
as the 'Alabama Claims;' and whereas Her Britannic Majesty has
authorized Her High Commissioners and Plenipotentiaries to
express in a friendly spirit, the regret felt by Her Majesty's
Government for the escape, under whatever circumstances, of
the Alabama and other vessels from British ports, and for the
depredations committed by those vessels: Now, in order to
remove and adjust all complaints and claims on the part of the
United States and to provide for the speedy settlement of such
claims which are not admitted by Her Britannic Majesty's
Government, the high contracting parties agree that all the
said claims, growing out of acts committed by the aforesaid
vessels, and generically known as the 'Alabama Claims,' shall
be referred to a tribunal of arbitration to be composed of
five Arbitrators, to be appointed in the following manner,
that is to say: One shall be named by the President of the
United States; one shall be named by Her Britannic Majesty;
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. … The Arbitrators shall meet at
Geneva, in Switzerland, at the earliest convenient day after
they shall have been named, and shall proceed impartially and
carefully to examine and decide all questions that shall be
laid before them on the part of the Governments of the United
States and Her Britannic Majesty respectively. All questions
considered by the tribunal, including the final award, shall
be decided by a majority of all the Arbitrators. Each of the
high contracting parties shall also name one person to attend
the tribunal as its Agent to represent it generally in all
matters connected with the arbitration." Articles 3, 4 and 5
of the treaty specify the mode in which each party shall
submit its case. Article 6 declares that, "In deciding the
matters submitted to the Arbitrators, they shall be governed
by the following three rules, which are agreed upon by the
high contracting parties as rules to be taken as applicable to
the case, and by such principles of international law not
inconsistent therewith as the Arbitrators shall determine to
have been applicable to the case:
{28}
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, or the recruitment of men. 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. Her Britannic Majesty
has commanded her High Commissioners and Plenipotentiaries to
declare that Her Majesty's Government cannot assent to the
foregoing rules as a statement of principles of international
law which were in force at the time when the claims mentioned
in Article 1 arose, but that Her Majesty's Government, in
order to evince its desire of strengthening the friendly
relations between the two countries and of making satisfactory
provision for the future, agrees that in deciding the
questions between the two countries arising out of those
claims, the Arbitrators should assume that Her Majesty's
Government had undertaken to act upon the principles set forth
in these rules. And the high contracting parties agree to
observe these rules as between themselves in future, and to
bring them to the knowledge of other maritime powers, and to
invite them to accede to them." Articles 7 to 17, inclusive,
relate to the procedure of the tribunal of arbitration, and
provide for the determination of claims, by assessors and
commissioners, in case the Arbitrators should find any
liability on the part of Great Britain and should not award a
sum in gross to be paid in settlement thereof. Articles 18 to
25 relate to the Fisheries. By Article 18 it is agreed that in
addition to the liberty secured to American fishermen by the
convention of 1818, "of taking, curing and drying fish on
certain coasts of the British North American colonies therein
defined, the inhabitants of the United States shall have, in
common with the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, the liberty
for [a period of ten years, and two years further after notice
given by either party of its wish to terminate the
arrangement] … to take fish of every kind, except shell
fish, on the sea-coasts and shores, and in the bays, harbours
and creeks, of the provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick, and the colony of Prince Edward's Island, and of
the several islands thereunto adjacent, without being
restricted to any distance from the shore, with permission to
land upon the said coasts and shores and islands, and also
upon the Magdalen Islands, for the purpose of drying their
nets and curing their fish; provided that, in so doing, they
do not interfere with the rights of private property, or with
British fishermen, in the peaceable use of any part of the
said coasts in their occupancy for the same purpose. It is
understood that the above-mentioned liberty applies solely to
the sea-fishery, and that the salmon and shad fisheries, and
all other fisheries in rivers and the mouths of rivers, are
hereby reserved exclusively for British fishermen." Article 19
secures to British subjects the corresponding rights of
fishing, &c., on the eastern sea-coasts and shores of the
United States north of the 39th parallel of north latitude.
Article 20 reserves from these stipulations the places that
were reserved from the common right of fishing under the first
article of the treaty of June 5, 1854. Article 21 provides for
the reciprocal admission of fish and fish oil into each
country from the other, free of duty (excepting fish of the
inland lakes and fish preserved in oil). Article 22 provides
that, "Inasmuch as it is asserted by the Government of Her
Britannic Majesty that the privileges accorded to the citizens
of the United States under Article XVIII of this treaty are of
greater value than those accorded by Articles XIX and XXI of
this treaty to the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, and this
assertion is not admitted by the Government of the United
States, it is further agreed that Commissioners shall be
appointed to determine … the amount of any compensation
which in their opinion, ought to be paid by the Government of
the United States to the Government of Her Britannic Majesty."
Article 23 provides for the appointment of such Commissioners,
one by the President of the United States, one by Her
Britannic Majesty, and the third by the President and Her
Majesty conjointly; or, failing of agreement within three
months, the third Commissioner to be named by the Austrian
Minister at London. The Commissioners to meet at Halifax, and
their procedure to be as prescribed and regulated by Articles
24 and 25. Articles 26 to 31 define certain reciprocal
privileges accorded by each government to the subjects of the
other, including the navigation of the St. Lawrence, Yukon,
Porcupine and Stikine Rivers, Lake Michigan, and the WeIland,
St. Lawrence and St. Clair Flats canals; and the
transportation of goods in bond through the territory of one
country into the other without payment of duties. Article 32
extends the provisions of Articles 18 to 25 of the treaty to
Newfoundland if all parties concerned enact the necessary
laws, but not otherwise. Article 33 limits the duration of
Articles 18 to 25 and Article 30, to ten years from the date
of their going into effect, and "further until the expiration
of two years after either of the two high contracting parties
shall have given notice to the other of its wish to terminate
the same." The remaining articles of the treaty provide for
submitting to the arbitration of the Emperor of Germany the
Northwestern water-boundary question (in the channel between
Vancouver's Island and the continent)—to complete the
settlement of Northwestern boundary disputes.

_Treaties and Conventions between the U. S. and other
Powers (edition of 1889),
pages 478-493._

ALSO IN
_C. Cushing,
The Treaty of Washington,
appendix._

{29}

ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1871-1872.
The Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva, and its Award.

"The appointment of Arbitrators took place in due course, and
with the ready good-will of the three neutral governments. The
United States appointed Mr. Charles Francis Adams; Great
Britain appointed Sir Alexander Cockburn; the King of Italy
named Count Frederic Sclopis; the President of the Swiss
Confederation, Mr. Jacob Stæmpfii; and the Emperor of Brazil,
the Baron d'Itajubá. Mr. J. C. Bancroft Davis was appointed
Agent of the United States, and Lord Tenterden of Great
Britain. The Tribunal was organized for the reception of the
case of each party, and held its first conference [at Geneva,
Switzerland] on the 15th of December, 1871," Count Sclopis
being chosen to preside. "The printed Case of the United
States, with accompanying documents, was filed by Mr. Bancroft
Davis, and the printed Case of Great Britain, with documents,
by Lord Tenterden. The Tribunal made regulation for the filing
of the respective Counter-Cases on or before the 15th day of
April next ensuing, as required by the Treaty; and for the
convening of a special meeting of the Tribunal, if occasion
should require; and then, at a second meeting, on the next
day, they adjourned until the 15th of June next ensuing,
subject to a prior call by the Secretary, if there should be
occasion." The sessions of the Tribunal were resumed on the
15th of June, 1872, according to the adjournment, and were
continued until the 14th of September following, when the
decision and award were announced, and were signed by all the
Arbitrators except the British representative, Sir Alexander
Cockburn, who dissented. It was found by the Tribunal that the
British Government had "failed to use due diligence in the
performance of its neutral obligations" with respect to the
cruisers Alabama and Florida, and the several tenders of those
vessels; and also with respect to the Shenandoah after her
departure from Melbourne, February 18, 1865, but not before that
date. With respect to the Georgia, the Sumter, the Nashville,
the Tallahassee and the Chickamauga, it was the finding of the
Tribunal that Great Britain had not failed to perform the
duties of a neutral power. So far as relates to the vessels
called the Sallie, the Jefferson Davis, the Music, the Boston,
and the V. H. Joy, it was the decision of the Tribunal that
they ought to be excluded from consideration for want of
evidence. "So far as relates to the particulars of the
indemnity claimed by the United States, the costs of pursuit
of Confederate cruisers" are declared to be "not, in the
judgment of the Tribunal, properly distinguishable from the
general expenses of the war carried on by the United States,"
and "there is no ground for awarding to the United States any
sum by way of indemnity under this head." A similar decision
put aside the whole consideration of claims for "prospective
earnings." Finally, the award was rendered in the following
language: "Whereas, in order to arrive at an equitable
compensation for the damages which have been sustained, it is
necessary to set aside all double claims for the same losses,
and all claims for 'gross freights' so far as they exceed 'net
freights;' and whereas it is just and reasonable to allow
interest at a reasonable rate; and whereas, in accordance with
the spirit and letter of the Treaty of Washington, it is
preferable to adopt the form of adjudication of a sum in
gross, rather than to refer the subject of compensation for
further discussion and deliberation to a Board of Assessors,
as provided by Article X of the said Treaty: The Tribunal,
making use of the authority conferred upon it by Article VII
of the said Treaty, by a majority of four voices to one,
awards to the United States the sum of fifteen millions five
hundred thousand Dollars in gold as the indemnity to be paid
by Great Britain to the United States for the satisfaction of
all the claims referred to the consideration of the Tribunal,
conformably to the provisions contained in Article VII of the
aforesaid Treaty." It should be stated that the so-called
"indirect claims" of the United States, for consequential
losses and damages, growing out of the encouragement of the
Southern Rebellion, the prolongation of the war, &c., were
dropped from consideration at the outset of the session of the
Tribunal, in June, the Arbitrators agreeing then in a
statement of opinion to the effect that "these claims do not
constitute, upon the principles of international law
applicable to such cases, good foundation for an award of
compensation or computation of damages between nations." This
declaration was accepted by the United States as decisive of
the question, and the hearing proceeded accordingly.

_C. Cushing,
The Treaty of Washington._

ALSO IN
_F. Wharton,
Digest of the International Law of the United States,
chapter 21 (volume 3)._

----------ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: End----------

ALACAB, OR TOLOSO, Battle of (1212).

See ALMOHADES, and SPAIN: A. D. 1146-1232.

ALADSHA, Battles of (1877).
See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.

ALAMANCE, Battle Of(1771).

See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1766-1771.

ALAMANNI.

See ALEMANNI.

ALAMO, The massacre of the (1836).

See TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836.

ALAMOOT, OR ALAMOUT, The castle of.

The stronghold of the "Old Man of the Mountain," or Sheikh of
the terrible order of the Assassins, in northern Persia. Its
name signifies "the Eagle's nest," or "the Vulture's nest."

See ASSASSINS.

ALANS, OR ALANI, The.

"The Alani are first mentioned by Dionysius the geographer (B.
C. 30-10) who joins them with the Daci and the Tauri, and
again places them between the latter and the Agathyrsi. A
similar position (in the south of Russia in Europe, the modern
Ukraine) is assigned to them by Pliny and Josephus. Seneca
places them further west upon the Ister. Ptolemy has two
bodies of Alani, one in the position above described, the
other in Scythia within the Imaus, north and partly east of
the Caspian. It must have been from these last, the
successors, and, according to some, the descendants of the
ancient Massagetæ, that the Alani came who attacked Pacorus
and Tiridates [in Media and Armenia, A. D. 75]. … The result
seems to have been that the invaders, after ravaging and
harrying Media and Armenia at their pleasure, carried off a
vast number of prisoners and an enormous booty into their own
country."

_G. Rawlinson,
Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 17._

_E. H. Bunbury,
History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 6, note H._

"The first of this [the Tartar] race known to the
Romans were the Alani. In the fourth century they pitched
their tents in the country between the Volga and the Tanais,
at an equal distance from the Black Sea and the Caspian."

_J. C. L. Sismondi,
Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 3._

{30}

ALANS: A. D. 376.
Conquest by the Huns.

See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 376.

ALANS: A. D. 406-409.
Final Invasion of Gaul.

See GAUL: A. D. 406-409.

ALANS: A. D. 409-414.
Settlement in Spain.

See SPAIN: A. D. 409-414.

ALANS: A. D. 429.
With the Vandals in Africa.

See VANDALS: A. D. 429-439.

ALANS: A. D. 451.
At the Battle of Chalons.

See HUNS: A. D. 451.

----------ALANS: End----------

ALARCOS, Battle of (A. D. 1195).

See ALMOHADES.

ALARIC'S RAVAGES IN GREECE AND CONQUEST OF ROME.

See GOTHS: A. D. 395; 400-403,
and ROME: A. D. 408-410.

ALARODIANS. IBERIANS. COLCHIANS.

"The Alarodians of Herodotus, joined with the Sapeires … are
almost certainly the inhabitants of Armenia, whose Semitic
name was Urarda, or Ararat. 'Alarud,' indeed, is a mere
variant form of 'Ararud,' the l and r being undistinguishable
in the old Persian, and 'Ararud' serves determinately to
connect the Ararat of Scripture with the Urarda, or Urartha of
the Inscriptions. … The name of Ararat is constantly used in
Scripture, but always to denote a country rather than a
particular mountain. … The connexion … of Urarda with the
Babylonian tribe of Akkad is proved by the application in the
inscriptions of the ethnic title of Burbur (?) to the Armenian
king … ; but there is nothing to prove whether the Burbur or
Akkad of Babylonia descended in a very remote age from the
mountains to colonize the plains, or whether the Urardians
were refugees of a later period driven northward by the
growing power of the Semites. The former supposition, however,
is most in conformity with Scripture, and incidentally with the
tenor of the inscriptions."

_H. C. Rawlinson,
History of Herodotus,
book 7, appendix 3._

"The broad and rich valley of the Kur, which corresponds
closely with the modern Russian province of Georgia, was
[anciently] in the possession of a people called by Herodotus
Saspeires or Sapeires, whom we may identify with the Iberians
of later writers. Adjoining upon them towards the south,
probably in the country about Erivan, and so in the
neighbourhood of Ararat, were the Alarodians, whose name must
be connected with that of the great mountain. On the other
side of the Sapeirian country, in the tracts now known as
Mingrelia and Imeritia, regions of a wonderful beauty and
fertility, were the Colchians,—dependents, but not exactly
subjects, of Persia."

_G. Rawlinson,
Five Great Monarchies: Persia,
chapter 1._

ALASKA: A. D. 1867.
Purchase by the United States.

As early as 1859 there were unofficial communications between
the Russian and American governments, on the subject of the
sale of Alaska by the former to the latter. Russia was more
than willing to part with a piece of territory which she found
difficulty in defending, in war; and the interests connected
with the fisheries and the fur-trade in the north-west were
disposed to promote the transfer. In March, 1867, definite
negotiations on the subject were opened by the Russian
minister at Washington, and on the 23d of that month he
received from Secretary Seward an offer, subject to the
President's approval, of $7,200,000, on condition that the
cession be "free and unencumbered by any reservations,
privileges, franchises, grants, or possessions by any
associated companies, whether corporate or incorporate,
Russian, or any other." "Two days later an answer was
returned, stating that the minister believed himself
authorized to accept these terms. On the 29th final
instructions were received by cable from St. Petersburg. On
the same day a note was addressed by the minister to the
secretary of state, informing him that the tsar consented to
the cession of Russian America for the stipulated sum of
$7,200,000 in gold. At four o'clock the next morning the
treaty was signed by the two parties without further phrase or
negotiation. In May the treaty was ratified, and on June 20,
1867, the usual proclamation was issued by the president of
the United States." On the 18th of October, 1867, the formal
transfer of the territory was made, at Sitka, General Rousseau
taking possession in the name of the Government of the United
States.

_H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 28, chapter 28._

ALSO IN
_W. H. Dall,
Alaska and its Resources,
part 2, chapter 2._

For some account of the aboriginal inhabitants,

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
ESKIMAUAN FAMILY and ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

ALATOONA, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
(SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: GEORGIA).

ALBA.
Alban Mount.

"Cantons … having their rendezvous in some stronghold, and
including a certain number of clanships, form the primitive
political unities with which Italian history begins. At what
period, and to what extent, such cantons were formed in
Latium, cannot be determined with precision; nor is it a
matter of special historical interest. The isolated Alban
range, that natural stronghold of Latium, which offered to
settlers the most wholesome air, the freshest springs, and the
most secure position, would doubtless be first occupied by the
new comers. Here accordingly, along the narrow plateau above
Palazzuola, between the Alban lake (Lago di Castello) and the
Alban mount (Monte Cavo) extended the town of Alba, which was
universally regarded as the primitive seat of the Latin stock,
and the mother-city of Rome, as well as of all the other Old
Latin communities. Here, too, on the slopes lay the very
ancient Latin canton-centres of Lanuvium, Aricia, and
Tusculum. … All these cantons were in primitive times
politically sovereign, and each of them was governed by its
prince with the co-operation of the council of elders and the
assembly of warriors. Nevertheless the feeling of fellowship
based on community of descent and of language not only
pervaded the whole of them, but manifested itself in an
important religious and political institution—the perpetual
league of the collective Latin cantons. The presidency
belonged originally, according to the universal Italian as
well as Hellenic usage, to that canton within whose bounds lay
the meeting-place of the league; in this case it was the canton
of Alba. … The communities entitled to participate in the
league were in the beginning thirty. … The rendezvous of
this union was, like the Pambœotia and the Panionia among the
similar confederacies of the Greeks, the 'Latin festival'
(feriæ Latinæ) at which, on the Mount of Alba, upon a day
annually appointed by the chief magistrate for the purpose, an
ox was offered in sacrifice by the assembled Latin stock to
the 'Latin god' (Jupiter Latiaris)."

_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 1, chapter 3._

ALSO IN
_Sir W. Gell,
Topography of Rome,
volume 1._

{31}