-
Let's stay in touch! Sign up for our occasional (but interesting) newsletter.
Discover new research on all aspects of the sinking, interesting Titanic facts, and learn more about the Titanic's passengers and crew.
Samson in Titanic Triumph & Tragedy
- Thread starter Mark Chirnside
- Start date
Michael H. Standart
Member
Notice the qualifyer: "May be." and that's simply because nobody is perfect, and no work is ever entirely free of bias or mistakes no matter how hard the researcher tries to keep them out.
Yes, Lord's supporters have an agenda, but then so do his critics. The trick is to try and see past that and the usual round of mudslinging that comes with this dicey controversy. For that reason, might I suggest that if you want to form an educated opinion on this, befor you ever hit any books on the subject, go to the actual testimony of the principles involved on record in the inquiries.
You can do this by clicking on The Titanic Inquiry Project
After wading through all that, give all views a fair hearing, and then your own counsel keep on what you believe.
Yes, Lord's supporters have an agenda, but then so do his critics. The trick is to try and see past that and the usual round of mudslinging that comes with this dicey controversy. For that reason, might I suggest that if you want to form an educated opinion on this, befor you ever hit any books on the subject, go to the actual testimony of the principles involved on record in the inquiries.
You can do this by clicking on The Titanic Inquiry Project
After wading through all that, give all views a fair hearing, and then your own counsel keep on what you believe.
Dave Gittins
Member
To be specific, Reade does make a few factual errors but they are not important in his overall work. He is quite wrong about how the socket signals worked. These made a loud bang at deck level, not high in the air, as Reade has them. That's because they were in effect little mortars. When fired they sounded like a cannon. When they released the stars they only made a dull thud. Reade's comments on how far they could be heard are not valid.
Some things are a matter of judgement. In my opinion, Reade places too much value on several bits of evidence. I don't have much faith in evidence from Captain Gambell, which comes to us via the press. I'm not impressed by Rostron's supposed change of mind, which is also second hand. I believe Rostron got in right in 1912, when he said he didn't see Californian until she was quite close to his ship. Reade uses other evidence from Bissett and Crawford that I find untrustworthy.
Where it really matters, Reade got it right. He found the facts about company signals, which were a red herring, originally introduced by Lord. Any officer would have known that no company signal lasted more than 2 or 3 minutes. Reade chased up the silly Samson story thoroughly. This should now be a dead issue, but Lord's apologists still drag it out. Reade also found the Boston reports of Lord's evasions and fictions.
Reade isn't perfect but he mounts his case like the lawyer he was. Whether a jury would convict Lord is another thing. In 1912 legal opinion was divided. The circumstantial evidence against Lord is strong, but it's possible that he was guilty only of apathy and excessive faith in an incompetent subordinate, namely Herbert Stone, followed by an amateurish attempt to save his skin.
Some things are a matter of judgement. In my opinion, Reade places too much value on several bits of evidence. I don't have much faith in evidence from Captain Gambell, which comes to us via the press. I'm not impressed by Rostron's supposed change of mind, which is also second hand. I believe Rostron got in right in 1912, when he said he didn't see Californian until she was quite close to his ship. Reade uses other evidence from Bissett and Crawford that I find untrustworthy.
Where it really matters, Reade got it right. He found the facts about company signals, which were a red herring, originally introduced by Lord. Any officer would have known that no company signal lasted more than 2 or 3 minutes. Reade chased up the silly Samson story thoroughly. This should now be a dead issue, but Lord's apologists still drag it out. Reade also found the Boston reports of Lord's evasions and fictions.
Reade isn't perfect but he mounts his case like the lawyer he was. Whether a jury would convict Lord is another thing. In 1912 legal opinion was divided. The circumstantial evidence against Lord is strong, but it's possible that he was guilty only of apathy and excessive faith in an incompetent subordinate, namely Herbert Stone, followed by an amateurish attempt to save his skin.
George Behe
Member
Hi, Dave!
>The circumstantial evidence against Lord is
> strong, but it's possible that he was guilty >only of apathy and excessive faith in an >incompetent subordinate, namely Herbert Stone, >followed by an amateurish attempt to save his >skin.
Absolutely. I'd have a lot more sympathy for Lord if he had been honest enough to come clean in 1912 and simply admit that mistakes were made and that his ship was indeed close to the disaster site that night. As it is, though, his transparent attempts to falsely place the Californian far away from the disaster site cast the man in a very unsympathetic light (the efforts of revisionist historians notwithstanding.)
All my best,
George
>The circumstantial evidence against Lord is
> strong, but it's possible that he was guilty >only of apathy and excessive faith in an >incompetent subordinate, namely Herbert Stone, >followed by an amateurish attempt to save his >skin.
Absolutely. I'd have a lot more sympathy for Lord if he had been honest enough to come clean in 1912 and simply admit that mistakes were made and that his ship was indeed close to the disaster site that night. As it is, though, his transparent attempts to falsely place the Californian far away from the disaster site cast the man in a very unsympathetic light (the efforts of revisionist historians notwithstanding.)
All my best,
George
Dave Gittins
Member
George, as an practical seafarer, one thing that always strikes me as odd about Lord's story is his dogged insistence that his ship was stationary at 42° 05'N 50° 07'W all night. The one thing a ship won't do, in the absence of an anchor, is stay in the same place with the engine stopped. Wind and/or current will take her somewhere, be it ever so slowly. Lord admitted to a breeze blowing when he said "After we slowly blew around and showed him our red light." The icebergs were obviously being taken south by a current, yet his wonderful ship stayed in the same place. It's just one example of how amateurish his cover-up was. Of course, he couldn't very well do as you suggest and come clean, though he might have escaped with a suspension of his ticket. The more I've looked at the whole affair, the more I've come to see it as a series of very human fumbles rather than as some deep, dark plot. If you know the book Dilbert and the Way of the Weasel you'll get the idea. Lord was right in the Weasel Zone.
Randy Bryan Bigham
Member
I don't think Lord was evil or a weasel. I do think that, based on misplaced faith in incompetent officers, he made a bad judgement call, which may be rather an understatement.
It's unfortunate that Lord's pride was such that he was unable to face the music but I think we must, in the end, see him merely as a flawed man, not a monster nor even a coward. It comes down to simple human error, nothing sinister.
Of course, mistakes are seldom truly forgiven and certainly not forgotten. They stick with us. We either face them and move on or fold up under the strain. Smith was spared having to acknowledge his mistakes. Lord had the burden of living a very many years in the shadow of his. Both men paid adequately for their missteps.
It's unfortunate that Lord's pride was such that he was unable to face the music but I think we must, in the end, see him merely as a flawed man, not a monster nor even a coward. It comes down to simple human error, nothing sinister.
Of course, mistakes are seldom truly forgiven and certainly not forgotten. They stick with us. We either face them and move on or fold up under the strain. Smith was spared having to acknowledge his mistakes. Lord had the burden of living a very many years in the shadow of his. Both men paid adequately for their missteps.
Lee Gilliland
Member
One of the things that has always bothered mw about the way Lord is treated in much of the Titanic literature is he seems to be demon or angle - no in between. It's very reassuring to see a reasonable view of the man - and that is what he was, a man, in all his flawed glory - treated reasonably and humanely for a change.
Tracy Smith
Member
Thank you for your comments, Randy. I quite agree.
Lee, for a balanced look at the Californian controversy, check out Michael Davie's "Titanic: the Death and Life of a Legend".
Lee, for a balanced look at the Californian controversy, check out Michael Davie's "Titanic: the Death and Life of a Legend".
