Synthesized answer
Britain was potentially taking geopolitical and legal risks by not immediately acting on the US consul's letter regarding the "Alabama" because the vessel was obviously intended for a man-of-war and the law officers advised that, if the particulars were correct, the vessel ought to be detained [1]. This indicates that withholding action despite this legal advice could be seen as a breach of neutrality or a failure to uphold international law.
The passages do not explicitly detail the specific geopolitical or legal risks Britain was taking by not *immediately* acting on the US consul's initial letter. However, it is stated that the Confederates established agencies in England for purchasing arms, and the "Alabama" was being built by Messrs. Laird at Birkenhead, being nearly completed and obviously intended for a man-of-war [1]. The letter from the United States consul at Liverpool containing particulars about the vessel was forwarded to Earl Russell and laid before the law officers, who advised detention if the particulars were correct [1]. Despite this advice and later sworn evidence, the commissioners of customs declined to move, and the vessel eventually sailed before…
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…
nfriendly utterances of British politicians and the material assistance afforded to the Confederates by British traders. The inclusion of the indirect losses and the other matters just referred to caused great excitement in England. That they were within the treaty was disputed, and it was argued that, if they were, the treaty should be amended or denounced. In October 1872 Lord Granville notified to General Schenck, the United States minister, that the British government did not consider that the indirect losses were within the submission, and in April the British counter-case was filed…
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…
More questions about this book
- How would you explain, in simple terms, the specific actions and international circumstances that led to the vessel “Alabama” becoming a central point of contention between the United States and Great Britain?
- Analyze the significance of the British government's proclamation of neutrality in 1861. How did this proclamation, coupled with the ongoing construction of vessels like the “Alabama” in British shipyards, create a complex legal and diplomatic challenge for Britain?
- The text states the “Alabama” Arbitration "affords a conspicuous example of the value of arbitration as a means of averting war." If you had to teach someone the *process* by which this arbitration helped avert war, what specific elements of the dispute and the decision-making process would you emphasize to illustrate this value?
- Imagine you are advising the commissioners of customs in July 1862. Based on the details provided about the “Alabama” and the ongoing hostilities, what were the primary legal and diplomatic arguments *for* detaining the vessel, and what potential counterarguments or practical difficulties might have delayed their action?