If I'm not mistaken, this ship's original rig accommodated three square sails each on the fore and mainmasts. (I'm not sure about her rig after the refit Publius mentioned.) From the bottom, they're called the course, the topsail, and the topgallant. Photos suggest that the courses were rarely, if ever, actually set. (They would have been enormous and cumbersome to handle.) Most pictures - photos and engravings alike - of the Alabama and the Kearsarge that I've encountered show them under topsails and topgallants. - and, of course, the various fore-and-aft sails.
Maritime vocabulary (at least in English) is a strange thing, full of traditions and anachronisms that, logically, don't make sense. The earliest square-rigged ships had one sail per mast. Then a second sail was added above the original one; calling that new sail a "topsail" made perfect sense. Then came a third sail, which, for some reason or other, was named the topgallant. Eventually (i.e., by the late nineteenth century) the typical sequence, from bottom to top, was course - lower topsail - upper topsail - lower topgallant - upper topgallant - royal. Some ships set sails above their royals; the terms for those little sails were, generally, skysail - moonraker - skyscraper. (I don't think I've ever seen a picture of a ship with three sails above the royals, but I've seen those terms in print.)
Revell's original version of the Alabama came with vac-formed sails, including the topsails and topgallants (no courses). A few months ago I took a look at the online instructions, courtesy of the Revell Germany website. (Can't do that any more; the kit apparently has been taken off the market.) The rigging diagrams, such as they were, showed the sails set as the original designers intended - i.e., secured to the topsail and topgallant yards. But in the photo of the finished model on the first page of the instruction book, somebody had mounted the square sails on the lower and topsail yards, leaving the topgallant yards bare. The thing looked utterly ridiculous.
Regarding block sizes (which Publius mentioned in another thread, but it seems appropriat to mention here) - a ship of that period would have a vast variety of blocks in its complement, ranging from enormous ones (bigger than a man's head) to tiny (smaller than a man's fist). The latter would be used for light lines that came under little or no strain, such as signal halyards. Bluejacket's smallest size is a nominal 3/32". I've never been able to figure out just how they make those measurements, but on 1/96 scale, 3/32" is the equivalent of 9". That's a good-sized block - probably about right for such lines as sheets, braces, and gun tackles. The next size up is 1/8" - the equivalent, of course, of 1' in 1/96 scale. A block that's a foot long is huge.