License To Kill

Entering a tad bit late and after my little nickel worth of comments I will bow out.

Firearms like stated above where mainly for piracy to put down a mutiny or some other ship board emergency, there use on Titanic was some what different and to a certain extent ground breaking, after the 2nd World War freight ship masters usually kept themselves armed as do some passenger and frieght ship captains to this day, to include myself (My 357 long barrel is kept in the safe in my cabin, and on a recent trip my last, through the Carribean it was worn on my hip as we traveled through the high piracy areas).

To this day use of any kind of force on a passenger ship must be set forth in the company and master's standing orders and usually requires the permission from the master and only the master. Some exceptions are a bar brawl or situation which is rapidly excellerating out of control, in which the Master at Arms or senior officer on scene has the right to make the determination on the use of force. These situations are generally rare.

However with the recent out breaks of the Norwalk Virus on various cruise line's the use of force on at least two ships was granted by the Master to ensure that infected passengers remained in there cabin. This was to make sure the infection was contained and for the good and safety of the ship and it's passengers. These orders where highly questioned and complaints where sent to the company and the IMMU and since then new guidance has been given.

The use of force on a passenger ship for the most part is a mute point because it is rarely needed. In Captain's Smith situation he had not enough lifeboats and the need and obvious signs of the ship to be abandoned in a safe manner meant that in order to keep order some force was needed or may have been needed in his mind. His crew was out numbered so he armed his officers, it appears to have done the trick. Now under what authority or under what circumstances can an officer fire his weapon? My view and mine only is that Smith probably didn't issue any formal guidance but left it to his officers judgement, but it was generally understood that you use it only to defend yourself, to keep order and keep passengers away danger (i.e. lifeboats being lowered). Lightoller demanstrated how this could be done by showing his weapon and not fireing it. Lowe fired a gun (whether it was his personal weapon or the weapon given to him I don't know) with basically the same results.

Just some thoughts.
 
Hello, all.

Regarding Archie and his possible use of a gun, I don't think it's a given that he had one in his possession on this vacation trip. I also don't think that he was "deputized" by the captain or his officers in lowering lifeboats, organizing other passenger/volunteers or controlling panic. He most certainly would not have worn his uniform on the "Titanic" and probably did not even take it to Europe. He wore various versions of that famous uniform in his duties at the White House, official functions and in travelling with the President in an open car. He would have been in evening dress, just coming from the Widener's dinner and not having retired at the time of the collision, though he might have changed into warmer clothes when the worst was learned. So, he could not have been mistaken for one of the ship's officers.

Several accounts have Major Butt assisting with loading of the boats. Most suggest that he took no active role. Perhaps, the truth does lie somewhere in between. My opinion, thus far, is that in the brief time frame of less than three hours, the first portion of which most passengers spent in ignorance of what was about to happen, Archie quietly assessed the situation, realized the utter hopelessness of his surviving and spent the rest of his life in the distraction of a card game with some of his friends. Knowing him now a little more than I did a few months ago, I am even more of the opinion that he would have been prepared to help if he saw a need, but the relative calm and order that existed most of that night and the inappropriateness of his "taking charge" in any scene, with or without a revolver, in which he distinctly had no authority, to me, lies outside the realm of plausibility.


Best regards,
Doug
 
My opinion during reading the Inquries, is that there were a number of cases were an 'officer' was identified at a place, where one of the 'real' officers could not be. I suspect that anyone in a uniform (quartermasters, stewards, pursers?) could be identified so by a passenger who would not know better.

Archie? Possibly - depending on what he happened to wear that night.
 
quote:

So, he could not have been mistaken for one of the ship's officers.
Click to expand...
Cheers for that, Doug! Your answer is clear and addresses a lot of the points that have been raised elsewhere in arguments that Butt was a candidate for suicide - arguing against the possibility of a uniform and a gun in his possession on the voyage. Randy has already mentioned evidence against his supposed depression at the time of the voyage.

Rheims' account mentioned the officer in question saluting, and it has been argued that this would indicate Butt, as officers in the merchant service didn't salute. However, both Wilde and Murdoch held commissions in the RNR, and so would have been comfortable with the practice in extraordinary circumstances (by way of example Lowe, another RNR man, is recorded on one occasion as giving a 'smart naval salute', although he was wearing his WSL uniform at the time). Butt strikes me as an example of how an argument about suicide can be framed around any individual if the data available is slim enough - and how more information, such as you've given, can debunk the slender and often conjectural arguments.​
 
So often is the case that with time, accounts become embellished or confused- as well as the all too frequent incidences of plain sensationalized reporting by unscrupulous reporters who want to "go one better" simply to sell papers. That Maj. Butt did own a weapon is documented, and in his own hand, when, in his published letters he mentions, reluctantly, that in his official capacity as aide to the president, he was now obliged to consider the possibility of perhaps having to defend the Chief Executive if the worst of possible scenarios were to occur. This was distasteful, but regarded as part of duty and responsibility. As a veritable master in matters of protocol, crowd behavior and control, in the most stressful and delicate of situations during his career, which involved the smooth and seamless conducting of 5,000 or more people in an evening- it is unthinkable to me that such a man would be reduced to reckless and irresponsible behavior on the boat deck. The point is well-made that at this time of night, after the pleasant events prior to the collision, the Major would certainly not be in his Washington D.C. official military aide uniform. Archie was certainly a man well known in all circles, to have been an individual with an unfailing sense of what was appropriate dress for any occasion. As his visit abroad was one of leisure, it would be highly improbable any sort of military regalia was packed at all. As most newspapers printed the readily available portraits of the major- it is easy to see why so many have a hard time separating the man from the uniform. And finally, thinking in the mindset and tastes of the time, the episodes of many that night I feel certain, were somewhat "augmented" and colorized as the general reading public craved that sort of reporting- as it does even today, although we have now become, thankfully, less naive about some of the patently sensational reporting. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, having become acquainted with the integrity and personality of the Major, it would be against his nature to override established authority in any situation. In the matter of a speculated "nervous breakdown"- although a considerable loss of weight was noted, and the difficult situation existed in matters of loyalty to the two presidents, physical exhaustion, and some family misfortunes, there is no evidence to support a suicidal state whatsoever, and much to support a prospective happy future upon his return.
 
Doug and Shelley:
I can't see him wearing his uniform on board the Titanic, either. But, didn't part of Archibald Butt's trip include a visit to the pope? I would think he might have his uniform along for that occassion.
Best Regards To You Both,
Mike

(Perhaps we should have an emergency meeting in Salado to discuss this further.)
 
Adopted into an Edwardian time-warp world as I was, and described - at 16! - as "an old-fashioned child", 'Major Archibald Butt' held high rank among my childhood heroes. Even today, from the vantage-point of my middle-years, I can still see him in uniform. It was quite 'correct' to appear at dinner in one's uniform. At a formal dinner, it would be 'expected'. At top-table, it would be remarked upon - and not only by the ladies! - if one did not 'show one's position'. Social protocol aboard ship differed from that in Mayfair or Manhattan only in the prominent inclusion of the Captain and his Officers; who - as everyone understood - would not otherwise 'place'. As to attire, all would be 'dressed to kill'. As for having 'a licence to kill'? In a certain sense every 'true gentleman' - though less fatally so than in his grandfather's day! - had that.
 
Point well-made Don! Yes, diplomats, government and high-ranking military surely did find more opportunities to be splendid in those days at formal functions. Being an old Captain's wife of many years' standing- my husband trots his mess-dress gold lace and "scrambled eggs" out only for military functions and dinners these days, and the correctness for times of appearing in military dress in non-military surroundings is outlined in that old favorite tome of Annapolis brides everywhere "Service Etiquette" . Mike, also I believe you are onto something in your thoughts on the Papal visit- sounds like an official sort of venue for displaying dress uniform to me. We know Archie did not "travel light"- maybe not outnumbering Mrs. Cardeza though in trunks and valises. Fashion and dining- what an irresistible combination- I will do some investigating and report in on this one! Should be plenty of 1912 military protocol books out on the subject.
 
Hello, all.

I have overlooked something that I need to share on this uniform issue. Last year George Behe uncovered several unpublishedletters that Archie Butt wrote to a close friend while he was in Europe. I don't think George would mind if I were to share one specific item from those letters by confirming that Archie had at least one uniform with him in Europe, since he described wearing his "mounted uniform" at one particular social function. Though Archie's trip was primarily a personal vacation, he did make some embassy calls as a representative of the President and it would have been wholly appropriate to appear in uniform.

Though it remains my opinion at this point and might never be proven one way or the other, I still believe that Archie would have considered it in very bad taste to strut around the "Titanic" in his uniform. That crossing had nothing to do with his job, and the image of his playing cards, for example, in his official uniform is a cartoon.

Unless Archie decided to do a Guggenheim number and go down dramatically in his beloved uniform, a self-referencing act that I believe goes completely against the nature of this man, I hold to my position that he would have found it neither necessary nor appropriate to advertise his importance on the ship by wearing the uniform. And at the end, while it would be like him to help the evacuation in any way that he could, I still tend to think it is more realistic that he accepted his lot and died bravely and without fanfare.

"Bad temper I can stand, but not bad taste"
Archie Butt, February 15, 1909

Best regards,
Doug
 
>>but who would want to wear his uniform on a trip to New York?<<

Perhaps nobody...and perhaps somebody who was a legend in his own mind...though Major Butt hardly fell into the latter catagory. Nevertheless, any military officer would keep a set available if there was some sort of formal function which called for it. He might not like it (Ask any U.S. Navy Officer how much they like wearing the so-called "Choker Whites") but he would have it ready if needed.
 
To know a historical individual one must understand him within the context of his times, taking into account the customs (sartorial or otherwise) that would have been observed.

As Don points out, a high officer would surely wear his uniform to a gala occasion, whether or not it was strictly a state function. In France (and possibly England) in pre-WWI days, military dignitaries even wore their uniforms to garden parties and private "teas." It was just the "done" thing and added to the elegance.

Archie Butt was after all an Edwardian approximation of Gen. Colin Powell, though with a bit more flourish. It was just part of the pageantry of the day.

Moreover, however much a raconteur the Major was in his own right, his invitation to any number of parties would have owed entirely to his high government rank. Thus it would have been literally expected by his hosts that he appear in full regalia. A social animal like the Major would have recognized this and obliged. Modesty was not a strong suit with Edwardians. In fact, gentlemen then were as vain as women in their scrupulous attention to formalities and fashion.

If we have established that the Major wore his uniform to embassy gatherings while in Europe during his vacation (and likely wore it to greet the Pope, even it that conference was more personal than official), then we can safely assume he had the uniform with him on Titanic.

I would agree that it is not in keeping with decorum nor with what I am given to understand was Archie's natural good taste, that he would have sported his braids and buttons for an afternoon stroll about the promenade but the point should be made that for the Widener dinner party it is highly likely that he attended wearing his uniform.

The Widener party was probably the most elegant function to take place aboard Titanic and although it was an exclusive gathering, it was held publicly in the restaurant so really the whole dining atmosphere would have been celebratory. I'd imagine that news of the pending affair had spread among the passengers who would be dining there that evening, which I propose is the reason why the attire was so much more festive than would be normal for a Sunday evening (traditionally a "dress optional" or even "dress down" time).

I realize it can't be confirmed now, but if Archie Butt did indeed wear his uniform to the Widener gala supper on April 14, it is more than a possibility that he was still in his uniform when Titanic struck the iceberg. Debatably, he would not have changed clothes but merely added a topcoat when he went on deck. I am not trying to arrive at the romantic vision that this great man died in his uniform but the very real probability, given the special circumstance of the formal dinner that night, is that he may have.
 
I believe Randy should continue to value Edith Russell's 1953 account. Whether or not Edith knew that Butt still wore his uniform, I believe that - unlike Astor (dressed very warmly and in a suit of thick blue serge; a uniform material) - Butt may have been neither hatless nor coatless. He would have personified a 'military presence' simply from the fact that he had wisely put on a coat: a great-coat. With which - it would be consistent to add - he may well have worn something like a 'kopi'-style cap of matching colour.
 
Back
Top