Synthesized answer
The Confederate strategy of establishing "agencies in England for the purchase of arms" and utilizing "blockade-running" directly challenged President Lincoln's blockade by circumventing it. The passage states that the blockade was "not at first effective" and that "blockade-running soon became an active industry" [1]. Arms were purchased in England and sent to the Bahamas, from where they were transshipped to fast steamers destined for the Confederacy [1].
This strategy also complicated international relations by involving Great Britain. The Confederates established agencies in England to acquire these arms [1]. Furthermore, the construction of Confederate vessels like the "Alabama" on British territory and their subsequent sailing demonstrated a breach of neutrality, which led to grievances from the United States government against Great Britain [4]. The passage mentions that the United States government alleged that Great Britain allowed Confederate vessels to be "built and equipped on British territory" [4].
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…
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…
← Alabama 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica , Volume 1 "Alabama" Arbitration by Montague Hughes Crackanthorpe Alabama River → See also Alabama Claims on Wikipedia ; and our 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica disclaimer . 244259 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica , Volume 1 — "Alabama" Arbitration Montague Hughes Crackanthorpe “ALABAMA” ARBITRATION. —This is one of those arbitrations on pecuniary claims, made by one state, on behalf of its subjects, against another state, which are referred to in the article Arbitration, International . The case is important, both from a historical and a juridical point of…
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…
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…
More questions about this book
- The text states the "Alabama" Arbitration "affords a conspicuous example of the value of arbitration as a means of averting war." Explain, using only the details provided, how the specific actions and circumstances described in this excerpt support this claim.
- Given the British government's "proclamation of neutrality," how might a contemporary observer reconcile this declared stance with the building of the "Alabama," an obvious man-of-war, by a British firm for the Confederates? What ethical or legal dilemmas does this situation present for a neutral nation?
- Imagine you are Mr. C. F. Adams, the United States consul. What specific "particulars" and "sworn evidence" would be most crucial for you to present to the British law officers to compel them to detain the "Alabama," based on the limited information provided in the text?
- Although the excerpt focuses on the "Alabama" incident, it contextualizes the conflict with the "slavery question" and secession. How might these foundational issues have influenced the British government's initial proclamation of neutrality and its subsequent (or delayed) response to reports about the "Alabama's" construction?