Synthesized answer
The provided passages do not describe a scenario where the "Alabama" was not detained despite mounting evidence, nor do they outline the immediate diplomatic and military consequences that would have followed. The passages focus on the historical arbitration process that actually occurred, emphasizing that the "Alabama" was built in Britain, had a destructive career, and was sunk in 1864 [3]. The arbitration was a means of "averting war" [1], and the tribunal ultimately found Great Britain legally responsible for the "Alabama"'s depredations, awarding $15,500,000 in damages [5].
Because the question asks about a hypothetical situation where the vessel was not detained, the passages contain no information about what would have happened diplomatically or militarily. The text only records that the United States alleged breaches of neutrality by Britain in allowing the "Alabama" to be built and equipped [3], and that the dispute was resolved through arbitration rather than war [1]. Any speculation about escalation or consequences beyond these facts would be invention, as the passages do not address such a counterfactual.
Synthesized from the book passages below. Chat with the book on Feynman for follow-up.
From the book
← Alabama 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica , Volume 1 "Alabama" Arbitration by Montague Hughes Crackanthorpe Alabama River → See also Alabama Claims on Wikipedia ; and our 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica disclaimer . 244259 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica , Volume 1 — "Alabama" Arbitration Montague Hughes Crackanthorpe “ALABAMA” ARBITRATION. —This is one of those arbitrations on pecuniary claims, made by one state, on behalf of its subjects, against another state, which are referred to in the article Arbitration, International . The case is important, both from a historical and a juridical point of…
. 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.
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…
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…
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 Britain's declared neutrality, juxtaposed with the Confederacy's shipbuilding activities in British ports, create a complex legal and diplomatic dilemma that directly threatened the peace between the U.S. and Britain?
- If you were a U.S. diplomat in June 1862, how would you articulate the core argument for why the British government had a responsibility to detain the "Alabama," despite its initial proclamation of neutrality?
- Break down the Confederate strategy for acquiring arms, from establishing "agencies in England" to the construction of a vessel like the "Alabama." Explain the strategic purpose of this multi-step supply chain and why it presented such a significant challenge to both the Union blockade and international norms.
- Beyond the specific outcome, what fundamental principles of international law regarding neutrality, state responsibility, and the prevention of future conflicts do you think this case helped to clarify or establish for other nations?