Speaking for myself, I look at the causal factors that caused the ship to collide with the ice from the vantage point of a board of inquiry. In this, I draw upon my experience sitting on three maritime mishap boards -- twice on the evaluation end and once on the receiving end (which I survived, thank goodness).
I know from these mishap boards that a mariner will be held to account for the loss of life and/or property. The most experienced seaman ever to sail the bounding main had better show strict adherence to procedure AND prove that procedure to be sound in order to be fully exonerated by the Board. This is due, I am led to believe, to one characteristic of maritime mishap boards and enquiries that does not usually surface in civilian courts...the Master has ultimate authority of his ship, and with that he carries ultimate responsibility for what happens to her. Many people make the mistake that Ismay carried that same burden of responsibility, but in my view, he didn't. He was not the ultimate authority aboard Titanic, nor was he expected to be. He may have been the Line chairman (or president, or whatever), but in terms of a ship Master's authority, he might as well have been just another passenger.
In my view, the men who crewed Titanic were highly professional and competent. As they steamed toward the ice field, they took no unsafe risk as they, and their peers, saw it. However, there is no getting around the fact that these men made a series of seemingly-correct decisions that caused their ship to wreck and founder. Those most responsible were never called before a board to explain their actions. Just because a board (notice that I avoid using the term, "court") never really ruled on their decisions does not mean that these men were not responsible or that their actions/decisions should not be questioned.
Personally, I am not looking for guilt. I realise that Titanic's foundering was the result of many factors, not the miscalculation of one man or a few men. But I also cannot accept the notion that Smith and his officers were entirely blameless. Yes, they were good, but they were also wrong. In my view, one learns most by evaluating informed and well-intentioned decisions that led to disaster rather than assigning blame to more obvious lapses in judgment and/or competence. Yes, I hold Smith ultimately responsible for the disaster. That does not mean, though, that I think any less of his profesionalism, experience, or competence. Nor does that mean that I see Smith as an aberration in the context of the industry of his time. And I would be reluctant to accept any assertion that a mishap board or enquiry would have viewed Smith differently, had Smith lived to explain his decisions.
That's my view. It may differ from Mersey's view in 1912 and certainly differs from many in this forum today. In the end, each of our viewpoints are derived from our own experiences, and mine is no different in that regard.
Parks
