Criticisms of Capt EJSmith

[Paul Rogers]

Parks,

Firstly, allow me to congratulate you on a terrific website. I've passed on the link to many friends, and I find it as fascinating now as I did when I first stumbled across it.

May I offer a defence for Maureen and Randy please? (Not that they need me to defend them, of course!

But I MIGHT get another recipe out of it...? Well, Mo?)

I think what we have here is a simple misunderstanding. I've never known Maureen to be deliberately condescending - and I'm sure she didn't mean her words to come over that way at all. She truly is a wonderful Lady; (and, Maureen, you can pay me later!)

The same surely applies to Randy's post. He's a good egg, who was merely leaping to the defence of a lady. Please don't take his words as a personal attack on either your experience or research, for I feel sure that they were not.

Regarding the Ismay/Smith argument, I think you're probably right when you said:

"I maintain that Smith and Ismay both understood the shipping industry, what it took to stay competitive, and worked towards the same goal. Smith didn't need Ismay telling him what to do; after all, it was his own record that Smith was trying to best."

One question though...do we know that Smith was trying to beat his earlier record with Olympic? I've never seen that documented. I'd always assumed that the desire to achieve a fast crossing was all Ismay's; especially as Smith was (at least considering) retiring soon after. What had Smith to gain? Or have I made an assumption about his imminent retirement based on popular myth? (It wouldn't be the first time!)

Regards,
Paul.

 

[Parks Stephenson]

I don't believe you will ever find it documented that Smith was trying to best Olympic's maiden voyage (westward) crossing time, especially in light of what happened to Titanic. But think of the business: Titanic was the second ship of the class...how do you keep the publicity ball rolling after Olympic's triumphant maiden voyage? Titanic offered only cosmetic improvements over her elder sister ship, so how best to inspire loyalty to the newer ship than to showcase her greater speed? Even though these ships made the bulk of their profits ferrying immigrants, the Line still wanted to build a loyal base of regulars, as every successful ship before her enjoyed. It wasn't what Smith had to gain by besting his previous crossing time, it's what Titanic had to gain. I would wager that had Gigantic entered civilian service, she too would have sought to best Titanic's maiden voyage crossing time.

So, it is not documented fact that Smith was seeking to best Olympic's maiden voyage (westward) crossing time. It is my assertion, based on my study of the industry of that time and a little common sense.

As far as Smith's retiring is concerned, that is not a given, either. It appears that he was making plans to retire after he returned Titanic to Soton, but there are also some indications that he was considering staying on to take out the last of the triplets, Gigantic.

Parks

 

[Maureen Zottoli]

Dear Sparks,

I do apologize whole heartedly to you if I came across to you in anyway that was hurtful to you.

If you read through many of my postings here, I am less than serious most times and although my first sentence was just a "light way" of approaching you, in re-reading it, I understand your hurt and pain by the words and I am sorry that I hurt you.

I do thank the folks like Randy and Paul who jumped to my aid and their assessment of me that I would never intentionally hurt anybody is true. And I should just post the stupid Cheesecake recipe it gets really tedious typing it ten thousand times,...but I can get another one ready for you Paul.

And Randy, you are just a sweetheart! Thank you for your kind words here.

Sparks, I think that Randy and I both have a lot of artsy qualities in our blood and I know that especially back then (1912), owners of places who wished to advertise tossed out really good work, and fired great artists just because they could and with little notice, because they were the ones with the purse strings.

There is no question in my mind that you are correct about the responsibility that a Captain feels for the souls on board. And my reference to J Edgar Hoover was applicable to the period, cause the agency he headed began in like 1910 I believe and a few years later he was the Director.

Assistant Directors of the agency, but even Presidents changed total direction out of fear of that man. Anyone or anything that got in the way of what the person thought that J Edgar wanted simply was fired, period. That can not happen today to a government employee. But it did then.
And probably did as late as the 70's when Hoover died.

I am not saying that Smith or Ismay are guilty of this behavior, but I believe that simply the awesomeness of having the owner aboard had an impact on the crew. Not that they stopped doing their jobs or were less efficient, but it made them more cautious of appearances and to make their captain and ship look good to the owner. But I personally feel that Ismay often second guessed or checkover Smith.

It appears in several instances that after Smith investiagtes something that Ismay seems to check it out during the initial portion of the impact with the iceberg and the first say 30 minutes after impact. To me as a parent, it seems like me asking my kids to do something and my mother in law coming up behind me and asking them what it is that I said for them to do. It steals away authority in a very sinister way that is very hard to detect.

But you know what, one time on this board I had the absolute loss of sense to question "some guy" here about a location and direction that he gave.

Several weeks later I saw a post and the man was a captain. It was Eric Wood. What a basket case I am at times.

Women's lib-person?, I am no Jane Fonda...I am Molly Brown's humor boxed into Jane Seymour's passion and I suffer most from a horrible disease called foot in mouth disease. I fthat what makes a good women's liberation movement person, then that is me.

I love your postings here and I would never intentionally hurt you, ever.

I will try very hard to be more sensitive about the stuff I write. I so not know you well enough to speak like that.

Like my joking with Michael Standart about his comments on the Brown book...I could never do that to some other people and wouldn;t but Michael understands my warped sense of humor.

If you enjoy Cheesecake I will send you email of the recipe...let me know.

Have a great day!
Maureen.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Sparks, you might want to take Mo up on that Cheesecake recipe offer. Unlike some of the offerings we saw in some chowlines, you won't need a gun to calm it down befor you eat it.

On a more serious note, Sparks makes a very good point on the business aspects of ther shipping industry and what they would do to entice passangers to book a cabin. Superlatives and little perquisites were the order of the day. Who wouldn't want to sail on the largest ship, or the fastest ship...or both? Barbershops wanted, we got 'em. How about a gymnasium, a squash court, a plunge bath? Shipping lines went to a great deal of trouble to make their ships look a little faster, a little larger (even if by trivial additions such as that rediculous figurehead on the Imperator) and a little bit more luxurious. (Maxtone-Graham's "The Only Way To Cross" does a nice job of explaining all of this.)

Smith understood this and it's a cinch Ismay did as well. They had to as their livelihoods dpended on it.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart

 

[Parks Stephenson]

Maureen,

Nuances and inflections make up a vital part of any personal conversation, but are unfortunately lacking in the virtual world. Without them, intent is perceived in various ways, many times depending on the reader's mood.

I was not in an expansive mood when I read your message. As a result, I took your words too literally and assumed the worst. Not knowing you personally, I could not be certain if you were a serious or playful person. My most grievous error was to respond before determining that. But, as luck would have it, you inadvertently hit upon one of my most sensitive spots, and I reacted out of emotion, rather than reason.

My response to you left a bad taste in my mouth from the moment I sent it. It certainly did not make me feel any better when the emotion and ego carried through subsequent volleys with others. I am relieved that we have the chance now to step back and reconsider the entire exchange.

No matter how much we study, each of us interprets Titanic's history through our experiences. Dave Brown and I were discussing this very same subject just last night, in reference to my experience with big ships and his experiences with people (the latter of which I could probably use more of). I see Captain Smith and his responsibilities in a certain light, which may or may not be true. You see him differently. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that...debate between two differing points of view often stimulates thought and encourages new perspectives. Unfortunately, pursuing a debate in a virtual forum is a touchy matter because of the difficulty in correctly interpreting the other's motives.

I say all this not to lecture, but to work my way up to the bottom line: I'm sorry. I misinterpreted your motives and reacted without giving you the benefit of the doubt. This forum does not need personal acrimony...it only detracts from the discussions that were meant to be held here. I believe you when you say you meant no harm, and given that, I hope you will be assured that I hold no ill will towards you.

However, I will say that tempting someone with cheesecake while the kids' Halloween candy is still within reach is downright evil.

Parks

 

[Randy Bryan Bigham]

Parks,

I'm glad to see we're cutting out the tone of negativity. Nobody - least of all myself or Maureen - is against you or wants to question your intelligence. I can't speak for my friend Mo except to defend her intent which was, as you realize, just to share info. Beyond that, she can tell her own tale - and no doubt tell it well!!!

But I do know, in speaking for myself, that the point I was making was only that Captain Smith wouldn't likely have challenged Bruce Ismay on anything. That's not to say Smith did what Ismay wished. He had his own mind. He probably listened to Ismay's advice, then did it his own way. And this is only my take on it based on what is known culturally of that period in re: to class structure and hierarchy. There were renegades but Smith was a conformist; he couldn't have made it far being a confrontational smartalik.

As for what I said re: how ladies were treated in the Edwardian era - that was not meant as a lecture on etiquette but only a good-natured dig. But I did state fact; read anything on social history and you'll find lots of examples of deference to the "fair sex."

Enough gab from me. Let's get back on subject.

All my best,

Randy

 

[Maureen Zottoli]

Well, this form of the "Fair Sex" is not going to play fair at all Randy and post my cheesecake recipe under my Introduction after I finish here.

So Sparks, you can read my Intro AND get a recipe out of it. And there are absolutely NO calories in this cheesecake if eaten standing up. I think. But you can make it and then experiment with it to check that theory out!

Sparks, for those unfortunately here who have had to experience this side of me I am notorious for taking the silly road when talks of even salvage come up to discuss having bought 6 authentic Titanic Resin Deck Chairs with the KMart Blue Light Special tag still on it and pleading with folks to please tell me that they are no frauds but the real thing.

You are a great man and I respect you a lot! Thanks for the apology though I needed the klonk on the head to get to reality.

But also, I am not a person with a side here, I am a person with thoughts and I express them here, but at times I may read something that makes me think another way. I am like leaning on a wall that gives way due to no fixed position. Sorry about that, but I just try to keep an open mind about things.

Have a great day!
Maureen.

 

[Parks Stephenson]

Now that we have set aside the emotion, I will state that I am not in full agreement with what you said here. Of course Smith would never openly challenge Ismay, as some movies have depicted. Smith, though, had his own standing in the industry that Ismay had to respect. But I maintain that there was no reason for the two to collide, because both knew the industry and understood what it took to prosper. I'm also not comfortable with the description of Smith being a conformist...he was the senior Captain of the White Star Line primarily because of his reputation as a risk taker.

Also, concerning the ladies. I directed you to Stephen Biel's work, "Down With the Old Canoe," because he demonstrates that the facade of deference to the fair sex during the Edwardian period was belied by real oppression and contemptuousness. As long as a woman knew her place, she was treated with deference. Otherwise, real freedoms were not always accorded. Of course, this is a generalisation and will not apply in every case. After the disaster, the New York Herald stated: T)he feeling that the weak, whether they vote or not, should be those first protected is deeply implanted by nature. The suffragettes, by placing a plank in their platform abolishing the rule: 'Women and children first,' will probably make no headway so long as manhood shall endure." Aileen Kraditor stated the suffragist movement argued against the belief that the "welfare of the human race depended upon women's staying home, having children, and keeping out of politics." But, as you said, times were a'changing. Even though the St. Louis Post-Dispatch used the cry "Boats for Women!" to ridicule the cry "Votes for Women!," it was a woman's organisation that erected one of the most moving memorials to the tragedy. The suffragist movement was making headway against frenzied resistance throughout the Western world...women, as an aggregate, evidently were not content to be the restricted to the role of the "fair sex."

I have proof of the gains the movement made. Last night, I got into BIG trouble with my wife over the time I spent on the computer. I'm now being yelled at once again, so I must cut this short. Sometimes, I yearn for the old days...sigh.

Parks

 

[Maureen Zottoli]

You know what Parks, you are right on what you have said about Captain and Ismay, cause my Dad is about 77 years old and he would fight for what he believed on a matter but knew the industry he was in and would work at it from the other direction than the owner. Different ends, but same goal.

And regarding your suffrget at home, write down the cheesecake recipe under my Intro Thread, if you know how to cook, bake it and buy a single rose for her. Give her a big kiss and tell her that you only know of one other dessert better than this and raise your eyebrows three times and smile broadly.

Then just close your eyes and enjoy!

 

[Parks Stephenson]

Me? Cook? As Bugs Bunny would say, "She don't know me very well, do she?"

If I tried to cook, I would have to buy my wife a new house to replace the one I just burned down.

Parks

 

[Mac Smith]

I seem to remember seeing a documentary on the found wreckage of the Titanic, I do not remember which documentary, but they mentioned finding one of those instruments that the ship's personnel used to order full astern and such. Anyway, they found either the one on the bridge or the one from the engine room, and it was stuck on something (full astern, full ahead, I do not remember.) My question is, does anyone know what I am talking about and what position that thing was found in?

Mac Smith

 

[Randy Bryan Bigham]

Parks,

I'm no expert and don't plan to be one on the career of Capt. Smith. I have no doubt he was a risk-taker when at sea. The Titanic proves this. But I was meaning when face to face with his uppers, I believe he was a gentleman and so maintained his decorum and didn't speak out of turn or try to overstep himself. His attitude to Ismay seems one of those at arm's length kind of relationships many of us have with our bosses.

Re: the ladies. As a student of social history, being a writer and researcher in this field, I am well aware of the women's rights situation unfolding in those years. It's one of the most fascinating aspects of that time to me. I've read much on the suffragettes, particularly the Pankhursts. However, these ladies WERE ladies and were always regarded as such. They were upper-class, feminine, well-dressed, intelligent ladies who demanded their rights forcefully but never, even during some of their most daring escapades, lost their dignity. As an example, there's quite a famous news photo of Mrs. Emmeline Pankhurst being picked up by two policemen as she attempted to lead a raid on Buckingham Palace in 1914. She's completely erect, the two men on either side of her holding her up as they race for the paddy-wagon. Her hat is perfectly in place. She holds her handbag daintily. The only thing eschew is her skirt which is raised a bit higher than propriety would have dictated, showing off her silk-stockinged legs and high-heeled buckled shoes. Her expression is one of unflinching stalwart grace; there's not a trace of fear.

In looking at this picture one has no doubt of this woman's courage and yet her delicate appearance would have inspired the most hard-hearted anti-suffrage male to regard her with the utmost chivalry and deference - that is provided she was not currently leading a raid on the Queen!!! Still, the cops or "bobbies" seem to be trying to be so careful with her, almost as though they don't want to wrinkle her dress unduly!!! This is an ideal example (to me)of how a lady, even an aggressive women's rights crusader, was treated then.

Randy

 

[Mac Smith]

The communicator. I think that is what the instrument was.

 

[Parks Stephenson]

Randy,

Why then, were these well-heeled ladies making such a ruckus? Shouldn't they have been satisfied with the defence shown them by their male counterparts? And what of the women of the lower classes? How much deference was shown them?

Maybe this discussion should be moved to a new thread...we've strayed from the core subject.

Parks

 

[Randy Bryan Bigham]

Parks,

Yes, I believe we have strayed a bit. But quickly, let me say the ruckus was because they didn't have rights, Parks. They were not and surely should not have been satisfied with the subordinate role they were expected to play. Women in England could study law, for instance, but could not practice. Not to mention the voting controversy.

It was the 1st WW that proved that women deserved certain basic civil rights, particularly the vote, which was shortly thereafter granted to women in England and in America. Women had for the first time filled the positions of men called to the front and it liberated women's view of themselves and men's view of them.

Long skirts and corsets were shed during the war and so in clothing and in values society has really never been the same.

Men still treat women with more respect than we normally accord other men and these women can vote, serve in combat, do anything. So it was just the modern woman's emergence. Isn't it the Virginia Slims ad that used to say "You've come along way baby." They really have. And in such a short time.

Randy