Synthesized answer
The provided passages do not directly address the British law officers' advice that the "Alabama" "ought to be detained" or explicitly detail unstated political or economic pressures that might have caused a delay in action. However, they do indicate a significant point of contention regarding "indirect losses" which were part of the arbitration. The British government notified the United States minister that they did not consider indirect losses to be within the scope of the arbitration [1]. This dispute led to a British counter-case being filed "without prejudice to this contention" [1].
This disagreement over indirect losses, and the subsequent private arrangement between arbitrators to obtain an "extra-judicial declaration" on direct claims, suggests that the arbitration process itself was subject to strategic maneuvering and prolonged discussions. The British government's desire for a supplemental convention and their agent's application for an eight-month adjournment illustrate the delay caused by these disagreements [1]. The fallout of this delay, as seen in the passages, was the eventual withdrawal of the indirect claims by the United States after the arbitrators…
Synthesized from the book passages below. Chat with the book on Feynman for follow-up.
From the book
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.
itrators that an extra-judicial declaration should be obtained from the arbitrators on the subject of the direct claims. On the 19th of June Count Sclopis intimated on behalf of all his colleagues that, without intending to express any opinion upon the interpretation of the treaty, they had arrived at the conclusion that “the indirect claims did not constitute upon the principles of international law applicable to such cases a good foundation for an award or computation of damages between nations.” In consequence of this intimation Mr Bancroft Davis informed the tribunal on the 25th of June…
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…
More questions about this book
- How did the British government's recognition of the Confederacy as belligerents, despite proclaiming neutrality, fundamentally complicate its relationship with the Union and set the stage for disputes like the "Alabama" arbitration?
- If you had to teach someone the concept of "neutrality" in international law based *solely* on the "Alabama" incident as described, what key principles and challenges would you highlight as most evident in this case?
- Imagine you're explaining the "Alabama" Arbitration to a peer who has no prior knowledge of the American Civil War or international law. How would you distill the core conflict and its ultimate significance into simple, interconnected ideas without jargon?
- The text highlights arbitration's value in averting war. How does the detailed sequence of events surrounding the "Alabama"—from its construction to the legal advice given—demonstrate the precise flashpoints where a failure of arbitration or timely intervention could have escalated the conflict?