Synthesized answer
The passages show that the British government’s proclamation of neutrality recognized the Confederates as belligerents [1], yet this stance was complicated by allowing Confederate arms purchases and shipbuilding in England. Specifically, the “Alabama” was built by Messrs. Laird at Birkenhead and was “obviously intended for a man-of-war” [1], and other vessels like the “Florida” and “Shenandoah” were also built and equipped on British territory [2]. This created a tension: neutrality was proclaimed, but material assistance was provided to one belligerent.
The inconsistency is further exposed by the subsequent arbitration rules. The British commissioners agreed that a neutral government is bound “to use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming or equipping within its jurisdiction of any vessel” intended for war against a power at peace [3]. This rule directly addresses the very actions Britain had permitted, implying that such allowance was a breach of neutrality. The United States government alleged “breaches of neutrality” in allowing these vessels to be built [2], and the arbitration was set up to settle these claims [2, 5].
Thus, the passages indicate that Britain’s…
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…
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…
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…
. 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
- How would you explain, in your own words, the fundamental conflict of international law or diplomatic principle that the "Alabama" Arbitration aimed to resolve, and why was its resolution considered crucial for averting war?
- Imagine you are a British legal official in 1862. What specific legal arguments or interpretations of international obligations would you have presented to the Commissioners of Customs to justify or compel the detention of the "Alabama," based on the evidence available at the time?
- The text highlights the "value of arbitration as a means of averting war." Given the events leading up to the "Alabama" Arbitration (e.g., the blockade-running, the construction of the ship), what could have been done differently *before* the arbitration to prevent the escalation of tensions, and what are the implications of these missed opportunities?
- The excerpt is presented under the title "A House Divided." While the main content describes the "Alabama" Arbitration, what conceptual connections or parallels, if any, can you draw between the political divisions and internal conflicts implied by "A House Divided" and the international diplomatic challenges presented by the "Alabama" incident?