Synthesized answer
The British government's proclamation of neutrality, which recognized the Confederates as "belligerents" on May 14, 1861, had practical implications that contributed to the "Alabama" incident [1]. This recognition allowed the Confederates to establish agencies in England for purchasing arms [1]. These arms were then dispatched to the Bahamas and transhipped into fast steamers built for the purpose [1].
This decision directly contributed to the circumstances leading to the "Alabama" incident because the vessel, originally known as "No. 290," was being built by Messrs. Laird at Birkenhead and was obviously intended for a man-of-war [1]. Despite concerns raised by the United States consul at Liverpool and advice from law officers that the vessel ought to be detained if the particulars were correct, the vessel sailed before it could be seized [1, 3]. Subsequently, the United States government alleged that Great Britain committed two grievances: the recognition of the Southern States as belligerents and breaches of neutrality in allowing Confederate vessels like the "Alabama" to be built and equipped on British territory [2].
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…
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…
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…
rst agreed upon.” After some discussion the British commissioners consented that the three following rules should apply. A neutral government is bound—(1) 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…
More questions about this book
- If you had to explain the core conflict and significance of the "Alabama" Arbitration to a peer who knows nothing about 19th-century international law, what essential points would you include to make them understand *why* it was a problem and *how* it was addressed?
- The text states the "Alabama" case is important "both from a historical and a juridical point of view." How do these two perspectives intertwine and influence each other in the context of the arbitration, and what specific details from the text illustrate this?
- The author highlights the value of arbitration "as a means of averting war." Based on the specific details provided, what potentially escalatory outcomes was the "Alabama" Arbitration successful in preventing, and what might have been the consequences if it had failed?
- Consider the actions of the Confederate agencies in England and the building of the "Alabama." From the perspective of international law, what responsibilities did Great Britain have as a neutral power to prevent such activities, and how did the events surrounding the "Alabama" challenge these responsibilities?