Synthesized answer
Based solely on the provided passages, upon receiving evidence about the "Alabama"'s true purpose, the British government had a duty to use "due diligence" to prevent the fitting out, arming, or equipping of the vessel within its jurisdiction, and to prevent its departure if it was intended for warlike use [4]. The law officers advised that if the particulars from the U.S. consul were correct, "the vessel ought to be detained" [2].
The potential long-term diplomatic and legal consequences of failing to act decisively are implied by the subsequent arbitration. The tribunal adopted the U.S. view that a neutral government must use "a diligence commensurate with the emergency or with the magnitude of the results of negligence" [3]. Because Great Britain failed to detain the "Alabama," the tribunal found her "legally responsible for all the depredations of the 'Alabama'" and awarded $15,500,000 in gold damages [3]. The passages do not explicitly detail other long-term consequences, such as diplomatic strain, beyond the arbitration process itself.
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…
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…
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…
rst agreed upon.” After some discussion the British commissioners consented that the three following rules should apply. A neutral government is bound—(1) to use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming or equipping within its jurisdiction of any vessel, which it has reasonable ground to believe is intended to cruise or to carry on war against a power with which it is at peace, and also to use like diligence to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of any vessel intended to cruise or carry on war as above, such vessel having been specially adapted, in whole or in part, within…
. 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
- The British government declared neutrality yet recognized the Confederates as belligerents. Explain the crucial difference between these two declarations from an international law perspective and articulate how recognizing belligerency, in this context, could complicate true neutrality.
- The "Alabama" was "obviously intended for a man-of-war" and built in a neutral British port. Trace the sequence of events regarding the vessel's construction and subsequent British legal advice, and explain what specific international legal obligations or ethical considerations might have been violated by its continued construction or delayed detention.
- The text emphasizes arbitration as a means of averting war. Given the events surrounding the "Alabama," how might the situation have escalated between the United States and Great Britain if arbitration had not ultimately been pursued, and what makes this case such a significant example of its value?
- How does the specific narrative of the "Alabama" vessel and the British response illuminate the broader complexities and tensions involved in maintaining neutrality and international law during a major global conflict like the American Civil War, as implied by the details of blockade-running and arms procurement?