BROOKLYN BRIDGE COLLISION

          ARM CUAUHTÉMOC (BE-01) is the Mexican Navy’s three-masted sail training ship.  She remembers the last Aztec emperor during the 1520-21 Spanish conquest and associated smallpox epidemic.  Launched in September 1982, she is one of four sisters, GLORIA of Colombia, GUAYAMAS of Ecuador, and SIMON BOLIVAR of Venezuela.  Throughout her 43-year career to date, CUAUHTÉMOC had completed 39 major cruises, sailing over 400,000 NM with three global circumnavigations.  Her 2025 cadet cruise departed her homeport of Acapulco on 6 April destined for Iceland by way of the Aberdeen, Scotland, tall ships parade.  May 12^th last year marked her port call at New York City.

          CUAUHTÉMOC’s career had not been without mishap.  In 2007 she collided with a suspension bridge on the exit from the harbor of Bilbao, Spain.  Her departure that day was timed to coincide with a slackening high tide that left enough water to avoid grounding yet allowed clearance of an intervening suspension bridge.  Her departure was a bit premature, and the top 12 inches of her mainmast snapped off when she failed to clear the bridge.  She was not damaged sufficiently to warrant interrupting her cruise.  Then ten years later on 11 June 2017, a Mexican cadet fell overboard off India and was never recovered.

          This day found CUAUHTÉMOC departing New York under the conn of a harbor pilot.  A total of 277 visitors, dignitaries, and crewmen were aboard.  Cadets manned the yardarms in the traditional departure display.  But only four minutes after casting off from Pier 17, at 0824, the tall ship experienced an engine casualty.  Caught in the swift East River current, her pilot had only 80-90 seconds to react.  A desperate call for a second tug was not answered in time, and CUAUHTÉMOC was swept under the Brooklyn Bridge.  The bridge’s 135-foot clearance was too low for the 159-foot mast.  All three topmasts snapped off, plunging some sailors to the deck below while others dangled in the air, clinging to wreckage.  Two cadets, America Yamilet Sanchez and Adal Jair Maldonado, died hours later; 19 others were injured, two requiring hospitalization.  Damage to the bridge was insignificant.

          US Senate Minority Leader at the time, Charles “Chuck” Schumer (D,NY), postulated that Federal cuts under the Trump administration’s short-lived Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), run by Elon Musk, had contributed to the accident.  However, the subsequent National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigation failed to validate that claim.

Watch for more “Today in Naval History”   23-25 MAY 26

CAPT James Bloom, Ret.

Brown, Ruth and Kyle Marian Viterbo.  “Mexican Tall Ship Strikes Brooklyn Bridge, Snapping Masts and Killing 2 Cre Members.”  AP News.  AT: https://apnews.com/article/brooklyn-bridge-collision-mexican -navy-ship-ca335dc85ebfbf981bc38516985461c8, retrieved 26 May 2025.

Ghildial, Pratikshe; Jeroslav Lukiv and Ruth Comerford.  “Two Dead as Mexican Navy Ship Crashes into Brooklyn Bridge.”  BBC News.  AT: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c991n8p4pdyo, retrieved 26 May 2025.

Guarjardo, Adi and Liz Rozner.  “NTSB Gives First Update on Brooklyn Bridge Ship Crash.”  CBS News.  AT: https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/brooklyn-bridge-mexican-ship-crash-investigation/, Retrieved 26 May 2025.

The Guardian.  “Mexican Navy Says Ship’s Pilot in Deadly Bridge Crash was from New York.”  The Guardian website.  AT: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/20/mexico-ship-brooklyn-bridge-new-york-crash, retrieved 26 May 2025.

The post Brooklyn Bridge Collision appeared first on Today in Naval History.

                   SAMPSON-SCHLEY CONTROVERSY

The naval battle of Santiago on 3 July 1898 had been a pivotal victory in the Spanish-American war, despite some initial miscues.  The overall commander, Acting RADM William T. Sampson, had gone ashore hours before the battle to confer with Army commanders.  On-scene command fell to CAPT Winfield S. Schley in the cruiser BROOKLYN (ACR-3), who, when he observed the lead Spanish warship emerging from the harbor, ordered an inscrutable turn to port, away from the enemy cruiser.  BROOKLYN completed a 270^o loop to finally reach the proper heading, and in doing so crossed the path of the battleship TEXAS, who was forced to back all her engines.  Sampson heard the gunfire from ashore and returned in the cruiser NEW YORK (ACR-2) only to find he had missed most of the action.

Newspaper columns of the day sang the praises of CAPT Schley, to whom the lion’s share of the credit for the victory was given.  Out of respect for his commanding officer, Schley prepared a telegram laying credit for the victory at the feet of Sampson.  Sampson happily forwarded Schley’s telegram to SECNAV but appended it with a secret letter criticizing Schley’s dilatory conduct a month earlier in establishing the initial blockade of Santiago.  This secret letter came to light a few months later as Congress was considering the promotions of Schley, Sampson, and George Dewey to the permanent grade of RADM.  Schley was outraged, and his strong letter of protest sidelined plans to advance Sampson several slots above Schley on the seniority list.

The issue rested for two years until the respected historian Edgar Maclay published volume III of A History of the United States Navy, a text then in use at the Naval Academy.  In it, Maclay roundly criticized Schley’s actions before and during the battle, hinting even at Schley’s cowardice.  Again, Schley was outraged and requested a special Board of Inquiry into his conduct at the battle.  Secretary of the Navy John D. Long reluctantly convened the Board, which deliberated over 40 days.  Their majority opinion, released this day, sided with Sampson (though Board president RADM George Dewey authored the minority opinion supporting Schley).  This only incensed Schley the further, who appealed directly to President Theodore Roosevelt.

By now, the squabbling between otherwise respected naval officers had embarrassed the Navy substantially.  And after reviewing the entire case, Roosevelt approved the findings of the majority.  Schley continued his protestations until a frustrated Roosevelt arbitrarily declared the case closed.  The controversy split the senior Navy leadership between pro- and anti-Schley factions, a rift that remained until WWI intervened.

Watch for more “Today in Naval History”  20 DEC 22

CAPT James Bloom, Ret.

Beach, Edward L.  The United States Navy:  200 Years.  New York, NY: Henry Holt Co., 1986, pp. 362-65.

Langley, Harold D.  “Winfield S. Schley and Santiago:  A New Look at an Old Controversy.”  IN: James C. Bradford.  Crucible of Empire:  The Spanish American War & its Aftermath.  Annapolis, MD: USNI Press, 1993, pp. 69-98.

Maclay, Edgar Stanton.  A History of the United States Navy:  From 1775 to 1901, Vol III.  New York, NY: D. Appleton and Co., 1901, pp. 363-66.

Potter, E.B.  Sea Power: A Naval History, 2^nd ed.  Annapolis, MD: USNI Press, 1981, p. 185.

Sweetman, Jack.  American Naval History: An Illustrated Chronology of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps, 1775-Present, 2^nd ed.  Annapolis, MD: USNI Press, 1991, p. 116.

ADDITIONAL NOTES:  The Sampson-Schley controversy ranks with Tailhook as one of the greatest public image debacles in our Navy’s history.  The squabbling over an essentially vainglorious issue–who deserved credit for the one-sided victory at Santiago–tarnished the image of the Naval officer in favor of that of the Army officer.  The pro-Schley lobby was led by the respected George Dewey with the anti-Schley side voiced by War College pillars Alfred T. Mahan and Stephen B. Luce.  Ironically, Edward Beach points out that in truth, neither Sampson nor Schley had planned for the unexpected daylight breakout of the Spanish.  Neither was Schley “in command” of the fleet that morning.  The record shows he gave commands only to his flagship BROOKLYN.  In reality, every ship captain present had acted on his own in tackling the obvious situation that presented.

As a result of the controversy, Maclay’s test was withdrawn from the curriculum at the Naval Academy.  Few copies of volume III were printed and even fewer survive today.

The post Sampson-Schley Controversy appeared first on Today in Naval History.