Synthesized answer
Advocating for the United States based on these passages, the core of the argument regarding Britain's responsibility for the "Alabama" would focus on their breaches of neutrality. Specifically, this would include allowing Confederate vessels, such as the "Alabama," "Florida," and "Shenandoah," to be built and equipped on British territory [1]. The United States government alleged that Great Britain was responsible for these breaches of neutrality [1].
Further, the passages indicate that Great Britain's actions and inactions, particularly the allowing of the "Alabama" to be built and escape, led to its destructive career [1, 4]. The United States also contended that Britain's diligence should have been commensurate with the magnitude of potential negligent outcomes [2]. The eventual tribunal found Great Britain legally responsible for the depredations of the "Alabama" and "Florida" [2]. The passages also highlight a specific instance where a vessel, the "Alabama," was being built by Messrs. Laird at Birkenhead and was nearly completed and obviously intended for a man-of-war, yet the British government was alerted to these particulars by the U.S. consul at Liverpool [5]. The law…
Synthesized from the book passages below. Chat with the book on Feynman for follow-up.
From the book
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…
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.
d waters, and as to all persons within its jurisdiction to prevent any violation of the foregoing obligation and duties. The arrangements made by the commission were embodied in the treaty of Washington, which was signed on the 8th of May 1871, and approved by the Senate on the 24th of May. Article 1, after expressing the regret felt by Her Majesty’s government for the escape, in whatever circumstances, of the “Alabama” and other vessels from British ports, and for the depredations committed by these vessels, provided that “the claims growing out of the acts of the said vessels, and…
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…
More questions about this book
- How would you explain, in your own words, the precise connection between Britain's proclamation of neutrality and the subsequent "Alabama" incident, clarifying why neutrality itself became a point of contention?
- The text states the arbitration "affords a conspicuous example of the value of arbitration as a means of averting war." Unpack this statement: what specific elements of this case illustrate *how* arbitration averted war, rather than simply stating it did?
- Considering the historical context of the US Civil War and British industrial capabilities, how might the Confederates' strategy of building ships like the "Alabama" in England exploit the ambiguities or limitations of international law at the time?
- The text ends with the "law officers" receiving information about the "Alabama." If you were one of these officers, what specific, potentially conflicting, obligations and concerns would you weigh when formulating your advice, given the facts presented and the goal of maintaining true neutrality?