Synthesized answer
The British government faced legal and ethical dilemmas concerning the "Alabama" due to their declared neutrality and the specifics of the vessel's construction and intent. Upon receiving information from the U.S. consul on June 23, 1862, regarding the "Alabama's" character and near completion as a man-of-war, the British law officers advised that the vessel ought to be detained if the particulars were correct [1]. However, despite sworn evidence being laid before the commissioners of customs on July 21st and subsequently the law officers on July 23rd, who again advised detention, the customs officials declined to act [5].
The dilemma was compounded by a delay in returning the papers, possibly due to the illness of the queen's advocate, which meant instructions to seize the vessel were issued only on July 29th, after the ship had already sailed on July 28th [5]. The passages do not explicitly detail the specific legal and ethical reasoning behind the British government's decision-making process beyond the law officers' advice to detain and the customs commissioners' inaction. However, it is clear that while the law officers recognized grounds for detention, there were factors…
Synthesized from the book passages below. Chat with the book on Feynman for follow-up.
From the book
tes on the 13th of April 1861. On the 19th of April President Abraham Lincoln declared a blockade of the southern ports. On the 14th of May the British government issued a proclamation of neutrality, by which the Confederates were recognized as belligerents. This example was followed shortly afterwards by France and other nations. The blockade of the southern ports was not at first effective, and blockade-running soon became an active industry. The Confederates established agencies in England for the purchase of arms, which they despatched in ordinary merchant vessels to the Bahamas, whence…
rpool in two British ships. Captain Semmes there took command of her under a commission from the Confederate government. After a most destructive career she was sunk off Cherbourg by the “Kearsarge” on the 19th of June 1864. On these facts the United States government alleged against Great Britain two grievances, or sets of grievances. The first was the recognition of the Southern States as belligerents and a general manifestation of unfriendliness in other ways. The second was in respect of breaches of neutrality in allowing the “Alabama,” the “Florida” (originally the “Oreto”, the…
ontended that it must be a diligence commensurate with the emergency or with the magnitude of the results of negligence. The British government maintained that while the measure of care which a government is bound to use in such cases must be dependent more or less upon circumstances, it would be unreasonable to require that it should exceed that which the governments of civilized states were accustomed to employ in matters concerning their own security or that of their citizens. The tribunal adopted the view suggested by the United States. It found that Great Britain was legally responsible…
. With respect to the “Alabama” claims the British commissioners suggested that they should be submitted to arbitration. The American commissioners refused “unless the principles which should govern the arbitrators in the consideration of the facts could be first agreed upon.” After some discussion the British commissioners consented that the three following rules should apply.
was laid before the law officers, who advised that, if these particulars were correct, the vessel ought to be detained. On the 21st of July sworn evidence, which was supplemented on the 23rd of July, was obtained and laid before the commissioners of customs (who were the proper authorities to enforce the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act of 1819), but they declined to move. On the 23rd of July the same evidence was laid before the law officers, who advised that there was sufficient ground for detention. By some accident, which has never been satisfactorily explained, but was probably…
More questions about this book
- The text calls the "Alabama" Arbitration a "conspicuous example of the value of arbitration as a means of averting war." Explain, as if to someone unfamiliar with the concept, *how* the specific circumstances described in the text illustrate this value.
- What are the practical implications of a nation, like Britain, declaring neutrality while simultaneously recognizing a seceding group, like the Confederates, as "belligerents"? How might this stance contribute to, or complicate, international disputes like the "Alabama" Claims?
- How do the actions of the Confederates in purchasing arms in England, combined with the British government's initial handling of the "Alabama" situation, foreshadow the "pecuniary claims" that eventually led to this significant arbitration?
- The 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica labels the "Alabama" Arbitration a "conspicuous example of the value of arbitration as a means of averting war." From the perspective of 1911, what historical events or evolving international norms might have contributed to this particular emphasis, and how might that perspective differ from a contemporary analysis?