Synthesized answer
The British government was navigating its obligations under international neutrality law, having recognized the Confederacy as belligerents in May 1861 [1]. The law officers advised that if the particulars about the "Alabama" were correct, the vessel ought to be detained [1]. This placed Britain between the duty to prevent the fitting out of warships for a belligerent (as later codified in the "three rules" of due diligence [5]) and the risk of diplomatic conflict with the United States, which alleged breaches of neutrality [3].
The potential consequences of failing to act were severe. The United States later claimed that Britain was legally responsible for the "Alabama"'s depredations, and an arbitration tribunal ultimately awarded $15,500,000 in gold damages against Britain [2]. Had Britain detained the vessel, it might have avoided this liability, but the passages do not specify the diplomatic or economic consequences of acting on the advice. The tribunal found Britain liable for failing to use "due diligence" [2][5], implying that inaction led to significant financial and diplomatic costs.
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…
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…
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…
. 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.
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
- The text highlights the "Alabama" Arbitration as a key example of arbitration preventing war. How did the specific events surrounding the vessel's construction and subsequent claims illustrate this principle, and what deeper implications does this have for international relations?
- The British government's 1861 proclamation of neutrality recognized the Confederacy as belligerents. How might this seemingly neutral stance have been interpreted differently by the Union and the Confederacy, and what specific challenges did it create for Britain regarding the construction of vessels like the "Alabama"?
- Describe the "active industry" of blockade-running by the Confederates. What logistical and economic factors made England and the Bahamas crucial to this strategy, and how did this larger context directly contribute to the controversy surrounding the "Alabama"?
- Considering the detailed account of the "Alabama" incident, from its construction to the legal advice for its detention, what overarching principles about state neutrality, international obligations, and the role of arbitration emerge that remain relevant in contemporary international law and conflict resolution?