Synthesized answer
The passages indicate that constructing vessels like the "Alabama" for a belligerent entity presented economic incentives, as blockade-running became an active industry and Confederate agencies were established in England for the purchase of arms [1]. Messrs. Laird were building the "Alabama," which was obviously intended for a man-of-war [1].
However, there were potential legal risks. The United States government alleged breaches of neutrality in allowing Confederate vessels to be built and equipped on British territory [2]. The "Alabama" was eventually built by Messrs. Laird at Birkenhead [1], and despite particulars being forwarded to Earl Russell regarding its character, which led to advice that the vessel ought to be detained if correct [1], it sailed before seizure [4]. Great Britain was later found legally responsible for the depredations of the "Alabama" [3]. Despite official government neutrality, the British government's actions were influenced by these considerations, leading to correspondence and eventually a commission to settle the questions at issue [2]. The passages do not explicitly detail the economic incentives beyond the context of blockade-running and the…
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…
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…
. 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.
More questions about this book
- Explain how the British proclamation of neutrality, recognizing the Confederacy as belligerents, fundamentally altered the diplomatic and legal landscape for both the Union and the Confederacy, beyond merely acknowledging their conflict.
- The text suggests the "Alabama" Arbitration exemplifies arbitration's value in averting war. Propose a counter-narrative: what specific turning points or missed opportunities, based on the provided text, could have led to a military confrontation between Great Britain and the Union, and what does this reveal about the fragility of neutrality?
- Beyond the immediate facts, how did the "Alabama" incident challenge the prevailing understanding of international law regarding a neutral nation's responsibilities during another country's civil conflict, and what lasting impact might it have had on the concept of state sovereignty versus international obligation?
- If you were to simplify the complex chain of events leading to the "Alabama" Arbitration for someone completely unfamiliar with the US Civil War and international law, how would you articulate the core grievance of the United States against Great Britain, using only the details provided in the excerpt?