Synthesized answer
Based solely on the provided passages, the clearest opportunity for British authorities to intervene was on July 23, 1861, when the law officers advised that there was "sufficient ground for detention" of the "Alabama" [3]. However, due to an unexplained accident likely connected to the illness of the queen's advocate, the papers were not returned until July 29, by which time the vessel had already sailed on the evening of July 28 [3]. This delay, despite the vessel remaining off Anglesey for two days, represents the specific juncture where intervention was legally advised but not executed.
Had the British authorities acted on the July 23 advice and detained the vessel, the "Alabama" would not have been able to receive its armament in the Azores and commence its destructive career [3]. The potential consequence of such action, as established by the subsequent arbitration tribunal, was that Great Britain was found "legally responsible for all the depredations of the 'Alabama'" and was ordered to pay $15,500,000 in gold damages [4]. If the vessel had been detained, this liability and the associated damages would likely have been avoided.
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…
. 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
- Imagine you're explaining the "Alabama" Arbitration to a peer who knows nothing about it. How would you simplify the historical context and the central legal dispute, clarifying why it was a "conspicuous example of the value of arbitration"?
- The British government's proclamation of neutrality recognized the Confederates as "belligerents." How did this seemingly neutral act contribute to the international controversy surrounding the "Alabama," and what specific actions did it implicitly allow or disallow?
- What specific legal obligations or responsibilities of a neutral nation were allegedly violated by Britain in the "Alabama" case, and what evidence was presented by the United States to highlight this breach?
- Beyond the immediate resolution of pecuniary claims, what enduring principles or precedents for international law and the conduct of neutral nations do you think the "Alabama" Arbitration established?