Synthesized answer
The British authorities faced a legal challenge in deciding whether to detain the "Alabama" because their own law officers initially advised that, if the particulars from the US consul were correct, the vessel ought to be detained under the Foreign Enlistment Act of 1819 [1][5]. However, when sworn evidence was later laid before the commissioners of customs, they declined to move [5]. The same evidence was then presented to the law officers again on July 23, who advised there was sufficient ground for detention, but a delay—likely due to the severe illness of the queen’s advocate—meant the papers were not returned until July 29 [5].
Practically, this delay allowed the vessel to sail on the evening of July 28, before seizure instructions could be issued [5]. Although the "Alabama" remained off the coast of Anglesey for two days, there was no serious attempt at pursuit [5]. The British government’s declared neutrality complicated matters, as the Confederates were recognized as belligerents, and the vessel was built in a British shipyard [1]. The passages do not detail the US consul’s specific evidence beyond its mention, nor do they explain the customs commissioners’ reasoning for…
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…
. 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.
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…
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…
More questions about this book
- How did the British government's proclamation of neutrality, despite its stated intent, directly contribute to the "Alabama" Arbitration becoming a "conspicuous example of the value of arbitration as a means of averting war"?
- If you were explaining the "Alabama" Arbitration to someone unfamiliar with it, how would you simplify the connection between the Confederates' arms procurement strategy in England and the eventual international dispute?
- Beyond the immediate historical context, what fundamental principles of international law or state responsibility, illustrated by this case, are still relevant in today's global landscape, and why?
- Given that this text is from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, how might the historical context of its publication influence its interpretation or emphasis on the events of the "Alabama" Arbitration?