The Plot to Kill FDR

May 16, 2010 Michael Streich

Whether Giuseppe Zangara acted alone or as part of a larger conspiracy is still a mystery. But on February 15, 1933, Zangara fired 5 shots at FDR in Miami.

Giuseppe Zangara entered the United States from Italy on September 2, 1923 and became a naturalized citizen several years later. Uneducated, Zangara was a brick-layer, managing to earn a better than average salary. In 1926, however, he was no longer receiving jobs. The 1929 Wall Street Crash further left him bitter. This “little man with a big boast” (Philadelphia Inquirer, March 18, 1933) decided to kill the President. Although Herbert Hoover was the target, Zangara saw an opportunity on February 15, 1933 while living in Miami. President-elect Franklin D. Roosevelt was scheduled to deliver a speech at Bayfront Park.

Zangara’s Assassination Attempt

Zangara arrived in Miami from Paterson, New Jersey weeks before FDR’s visit to the city. Intending to travel to Washington to shoot Hoover, Zangara elected to remain in Miami and kill Roosevelt instead. According to FBI memoranda, he bought a cheap 32 caliber pistol at a local pawn shop. (FBI memo to J. Edgar Hoover from Agent C. D. McKean) At Bayfront Park, Zangara unloaded all five shots, 25 feet from Roosevelt who was just completing his speech. Several in the audience were wounded but only Mayor Cermak of Chicago would eventually die.

Analysis of an Assassin

In a January 10, 1934 New York Times article, Dr. Adolph Meyer of Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland stated that Zangara had a “normal brain.” At his trial, Zangara was fully conscious of his actions and vocally defended them saying that he hated all kings and presidents. He had no remorse for the innocent by-standers that had been wounded, including Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak, on vacation in Miami, who would die days later from Zangara’s stray shot.

Courtroom testimony reprinted in the Miami Herald (February 21, 1933) however, disclose that Zangara was found to be a “social misfit” with a “psychopathic personality.” But the issue of an insanity defense was never raised. The 1964 Warren Commission Report on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy contained a chapter on “Presidential Protection.” Appendix 7 summarizes previous assassinations and assassination attempts. It states that Zangara had “a professed hatred of capitalists and Presidents.”

Was Zangara Part of a Larger Conspiracy?

FBI files indicate that within days of the attempted assassination, reports were received that Zangara was acting on the part of an Italian Anarchist group and may have had accomplices. This track, furthered by Italian authorities and even Fascist leader Benito Mussolini, (Philadelphia Record, March 18, 1933) would have helped the propaganda effect of European fascism over Communism. Although “leaked” by an Italian consular official the day after the Miami shooting (FBI files), the story was further enhanced by allegations that Zangara had participated in the Philadelphia house-bombing of a leader with the Sons of Italy. (Philadelphia Record)

Another theory tied Zangara to Chicago gangsters. This theory is mentioned in the Warren Report. The FBI investigated claims that a check had been found on Zangara, drawn on a defunct Chicago bank, and signed by a reputed mobster. Although the check was never found, and no other ties were established in the investigation, the theory is still brought up, particularly since Chicago Mayor Cermak was killed. Cermak was a reformist mayor and, allegedly, was the target of a “mob hit.”

Trial and Execution of Giuseppe Zangara

The initial trial of Zangara took place days after the assassination attempt. According to the Miami Herald, Mayor Cermak stated, “They certainly mete out justice pretty fast in this state” after hearing that the shooter was given an 80-year sentence. Cermak, however, died shortly thereafter from the gun shot and Zangara was sentenced to death. He was electrocuted on March 20, 1933. According to Florence King, Zangara’s death was “the swiftest legal execution in this century.” (Florida Department of Corrections “Time Line”)

Notes:

The FBI file on the Zangara attempt is archived by the University of Miami

© 2010 Michael Streich

 

Cuban Statehood Discussed by Congress in 1902 and 1903

Jun 3, 2010 Michael Streich

The Newlands Resolution invited Cuba to seek territorial status leading to statehood in an effort to further both political and economic unity.

Cuba came under American influence following the Spanish American War of 1898, a conflict designed to free the Cuban people from oppressive Spanish colonial rule. Part of the April 19, 1898 war resolution included the Teller Amendment, which acted as a formal disclaimer regarding U.S. goals. Congress stipulated that U.S. goals did not include the “…intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said island…” But in early 1902, Nevada Congressman Francis Newlands presented the House with a Joint Resolution “inviting” Cuba to become a U.S. territory and ultimately a state. Newlands revived the resolution in November 1903 while serving his first term in the Senate.

Commercial Reciprocity verses Political Union

Newlands was the author of an earlier resolution that resulted in the annexation of Hawaii. His notion to welcome a Cuban bid toward statehood was tied to linking commercial reciprocity with political union. In February 1902, Newlands stated that, “By coming into our political union Cuba will secure immediately the highest degree of freedom and with it a large market for her varied products.” (New York Times, February 2, 1902)

Elections in Cuba took place in December 1901 and once a new, independent government was in place early in 1902, American troops began to withdraw (May 20). At the same time, Congress was crafting a commercial reciprocity treaty giving Cuba distinct trade advantages with the United States. This new agreement was not completed, however, until 1903.

A Single Cuban State of Several Islands

The Newlands resolution envisioned a state comprised of Cuba as well as other islands that had relationships with the U.S. “When the time for statehood comes, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and other West Indies Islands in our possession can be incorporated into the Union as one state.” Puerto Rico, however, had a different relationship with the U.S., as it still does today.

Newlands scheme to create one state out of several islands was to avoid possible “over-representation” in the U.S. Senate. In his 1903 resolution (S.R. 15), Newlands states that the Cuban President and Vice-President would become “the governor and lieutenant-governor, respectively, of the State of Cuba…” (Clause Two) Newlands also addressed Cuban bonds that were about to be issued to pay for “its army during war with Spain.” According to the resolution, they would be reduced from 5 to 3 percent once statehood was achieved.

Opposition to the Newlands Resolution

Critics in the Senate were quick to note that the resolution violated the 1898 Teller Amendment. The New York Times (November 24, 1903) pointed out that even though the resolution was a “welcome” and not an indication of U.S. annexation, it was creating uneasiness in Cuba. Senator Henry Cabot Lodge commented that Puerto Rico already had a special relationship with the United States through the 1900 Foraker Act.

Senator Eugene Hale of Maine suggested that Newlands’ logic and arguments could apply as easily to Canada. Other objections included the appearance that the U.S. government was being driven by American corporations eager to exploit Cuban resources. Ultimately, the resolution was defeated although the commercial reciprocity treaty was enacted.

Statehood is Still Discussed

In 2007, Arturo C. Castro published Statehood for Cuba (BookSurge Publishing) which explores the Cuban Revolution that brought Fidel Castro to power as well as the idea of “Cuban Statehood.” Writing in Cuba News (July-August 2008), Castro stated that, “The door to statehood is with the Cubans who live in Cuba and the younger generation of Cuban-Americans.”

Writing in Time Magazine International (November 30, 1998), Christopher Ogden declared that any review of the U.S. “bankrupt” policy toward Cuba that began with the embargo under President Kennedy should include a blueprint for Cuban statehood. Although much of the piece is “tongue-on-cheek,” the notion of Cuban statehood would be bold and “creative,” according to Ogden.

The Likeliness of Future Cuban Statehood

One of the significant global features of the post-Cold War has been the reemergence of ethnic identities. Several plebiscites in Puerto Rico, the last in 1998, left the island’s status unchanged. The global trend continues to be that indigenous groups are seeking to break from larger nations in order to forge their own independent futures. Why should Cuba be any different?

Copyright Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.

 

Neo Conservatism Linked to Barry Goldwater in 1964

Jun 12, 2010 Michael Streich

Defeating moderate presidential hopefuls Nelson Rockefeller and William Scranton, Goldwater led the Republican conservative wing toward party nomination.

Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater announced his presidential bid in 1964 saying, “I will offer a choice, not an echo.” A Choice, Not an Echo became the title of Phyllis Schlafly’s 1964 book. Goldwater’s presidential campaign set him against the moderate Republicans of the Northeast, led by New York’s Nelson Rockefeller and Pennsylvania’s William Scranton. Defeating his rivals in the primaries, Goldwater arrived for the National Convention in San Francisco confident and determined. But many voters mistrusted Goldwater and viewed his most ardent supporters as, in the words of Vermont Senator George Aiken, “weird and vulgar.”

Barry Goldwater’s Conservatism

Unlike other Republicans willing to accept FDR’s New Deal, Goldwater wanted to dismantle it. He was fiercely anti-Union and stated, during the New Hampshire primary, that Social Security should not be mandatory. According to Goldwater, big government was creating a welfare state. During a campaign TV ad, he referred to this as the “cult of individual and government irresponsibility.”

Barry Goldwater rejected negotiating with the Soviet Union and believed that the United Nations was incompatible with American beliefs and the Constitution. He opposed federal funding for education and voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, calling it, “a threat to the very essence of our basic system.” The future conservative senator from North Carolina, Jesse Helms, stated that Goldwater was, “the last hope of the capitalistic, free enterprise system.”

Goldwater’s Attack on Communism

Barry Goldwater never criticized Senator Joseph McCarthy’s “witch hunts” of the early 1950s. He believed that every American child needed to be taught the evils of Communism. Ironically, the detonation of China’s first atomic bomb as well as the Kremlin’s removal of Russian leader Nikita Khrushchev in October, 1964 may have helped Johnson more than Goldwater. Goldwater was perceived by many voters as someone willing to launch a nuclear war.

The Lyndon Johnson campaign reinforced this view with the famous “Daisy” ad, featuring a young girl plucking a daisy as a nuclear bomb explodes in the background. As the commercial ends, Johnson tells the viewers, “These are the stakes.” Goldwater, however, told Americans that the country was, “not far from the kind of moral decay that has brought on the fall of other nations and people.” Writing about the 1964 election, Jon Margolis commented that Goldwater’s “real enemy was neither communism nor liberalism but the modern world.”

The Seeds of an Ultra-Conservative Republican Wing

Goldwater’s nomination was raucous and impolite. Goldwater’s faction controlled the convention’s Platform Committee and beat back any attempts by moderate Republicans to amend it. Moderate Republicans were shouted down. It helped Goldwater that the convention was in California where the party leadership had fallen to the ultra-conservatives who were led by former Senator William Knowland.

Moderates saw the rising conservative wing as upstart devotees of Ayn Rand and supporters of the John Birch Society. In his acceptance speech, Goldwater told the delegates that, “Our people have followed false prophets…” He spoke of freedom and how it applied to the conservative agenda and elaborated the failures of the Kennedy-Johnson years. He ended with the party’s new marching orders: “The Republican cause demands that we brand Communism as the principal disturber of peace in the world today…Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!”

The November Election

Goldwater’s stupendous defeat in November 1964 brought the moderate Republicans back into party control. Goldwater was, in the words of Walter Lippmann, “a radical reactionary who would…dismantle the modern state.” In 1968 Richard Nixon would be elected. Reelected in 1972, Nixon resigned the presidency in disgrace after being implicated in the Watergate scandal cover up. By 1980, however, Ronald Reagan was elected after the Republican Party embraced New Conservatism.

Traced back to the days of Barry Goldwater, Republican New Conservatism triumphed in 1994 when the party gained control of Congress after forty years of Democratic leadership. Today, in many ways, the emerging Tea Party Movement led by such conservatives as former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin owes much to the days of Barry Goldwater and the party’s attempt to silence the moderates.

References:

• Paul F. Boller, Jr., Presidential Campaigns From George Washington to George W. Bush (Oxford University Press, 2004)
• Jon Margolis, The Last Innocent Year: America in 1964 (William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1999)
• Gayle B. Montgomery and James W. Johnson, One Step From the White House: The Rise and Fall of Senator William F. Knowland (University of California Press, 1998)
• Theodore H. White, The Making of the President 1964 (NY: Atheneum Publishers, 1965)

© 2010 Michael Streich

 

Grenada Invasion of October 1983 under Ronald Reagan

Jul 24, 2010 Michael Streich

Reagan's reaction to growing Communist influences in Grenada in late 1983 resulted in a military invasion to protect American lives and restore democracy.

On the morning of Wednesday, October 26, 1983, Americans woke up to the breaking news that U.S. military forces had invaded the Caribbean island of Grenada. President Ronald Reagan addressed the nation on October 27, 1983, justifying the action. Many Americans approved, including Congressional Republicans and Democrats despite not having been consulted. There were, however, critics that labeled Reagan’s action as unilaterism with the purpose of establishing a “quasi-colony.”

Grenada Invasion Linked to Communist Goals

Grenada, once a British colonial possession, had gained independence. In 1979, however, a coup led by Maurice Bishop replaced the legitimately elected government. Although Bishop received support from Cuba and the Soviet Union, his agenda was not perceived as stringent enough. Bishop even traveled to Washington, D.C., encouraging hope in the Reagan administration for warmer relations.

Bishop was arrested and executed in October 1983 and replaced by Deputy Prime Minister Bernard Coard. The real power, however, was with General Hudson Austin. Six to eight hundred Cubans were in Grenada when Austin gained power as head of state. Over six hundred Americans were also on the island, many of them students at St. George’s University.

Another concern involved the Salines Airport which had a 10,000 foot runway. The international airport was built to spur tourism, according to Grenada government officials, but the Reagan administration feared that it could be used to launch Soviet military aircraft. This was the same fear Reagan expressed over a similar runway built by the Sandinistas in Nicaragua who were also supported by the Soviet Union.

Operation Urgent Fury

The military invasion of Grenada was planned quickly and without advising either the media or Congress. Although the War Powers Act, passed by Congress in 1973, required presidents to notify Congress of American troop deployments, Reagan ignored the proscription. Naval ships carrying marines to the Middle East were diverted to Grenada. The operation ended swiftly, leaving in place a new government led by Governor General Sir Paul Scoon until new elections could be held.

Criticism of Reagan’s Unilateralism in Grenada

The United Nations, Great Britain, and Canada condemned U.S. action in Grenada. Grenada was part of the British Commonwealth; British leaders believed they should have been consulted. The American media was also critical, primarily because no news agency had been briefed until after the events. Some observers suggested that this was a White House lesson taken from Vietnam where reporters had routinely filed stories highly critical of White House military policies and strategies.

Academics and the intelligentsia also faulted the Reagan administration. The American Journal of International Law in January 1984 commented that, “The Reagan administration has not established by means of clear and convincing evidence that there did in fact exist an immediate threat to the safety of U.S. citizens in Grenada.” Speaking on October 27, 1983, President Reagan told Americans that there was a fear those citizens could be used as hostages, and referred to the Iranian hostage crisis that plagued the Carter administration.

The Grenada Invasion Part of a Series of Foreign Adventures

Days before the Grenada crisis, over 200 U.S. marines were killed in Beirut, Lebanon when a suicide truck bomber destroyed a four-story building in which soldiers were sleeping. U.S. troops in Lebanon – numbering 1,600, were part of a multi-national force tasked with ending violence in that nation and stabilizing the region.

On September 1, 1983, Soviet military aircraft shot down the passenger liner Korean Air flight 007, killing 269 people including conservative Georgia Congressman Larry McDonald. The Reagan administration was forced to respond to a number of incidents that had links to the Soviet Union.

In Beirut, unrest was traced to both the Palestinians and to Syria, which was receiving substantial assistance from the Soviet Union. Thus, Reagan, in his October 27 address, concluded that, “The events in Lebanon and Grenada…are closely related.”

Impact of the Grenada Invasion

President Reagan demonstrated that the U.S. was willing to respond to any threats that might imperil American global interests. Grenada was also a message to the Soviet Union and to Cuba. American citizens were delighted that they had a Teddy Roosevelt-type of president, a decisive leader who would send the marines to protect American lives and property. Finally, Operation Urgent Fury enhanced U.S. prestige in the Caribbean, especial with the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States.

Sources:

• Stephen E. Ambrose and Douglas G. Brinkley, Rise to Globalism: American Foreign Policy Since 1938 (NY: Penguin Books, 1997)
• Francis A. Boyle and others, “International Lawlessness in Grenada,” The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 78, No. 1, January 1984
• Steven J. Ramold, “The Grenada Invasion,” The Eighties in America, Milton Berman, editor (Salem Press, 2008)
• Ronald Reagan, “Address to the Nation on Events in Lebanon and Grenada,” October 27, 1983

© 2010 Michael Streich

 

George Bush and the Iraq War in Early 2004

Jul 22, 2010 Michael Streich

The Iraq War was going badly in the spring of 2004, forcing the Bush administration to redraw plans designed to promote peace and a democratic government.

In late spring 2004 the Bush administration was trying to redefine U.S. policy in Iraq. 2004 was a presidential election year, insurgent attacks were increasing in Iraq, the American public had been shocked by vivid pictures of torture at the Abu Ghraib prison complex in Iraq, and a May 2004 CBS national poll showed that less than 50% of Americans surveyed approved of President Bush’s performance. The goal of bringing Democracy to the Middle East was in peril and the administration had to move swiftly to restore eroding support from the electorate.

Deteriorating Conditions in Iraq in Early 2004

A May 25, 2004 New York Times editorial addressed the, “nearly 14 months of policy failures, none of them acknowledged by the president…” Although President Bush, in a May 24, 2004 speech at the United States Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania outlined new steps designed to swiftly move Iraq toward the formation of a sovereign government, both Democrats in Congress and the media pointed to growing violence and American casualties in Iraq, long after the President declared “mission accomplished.”

Violence stemmed from an insurgency fighting clandestinely as well as suicide bombings. At the same time, disclosure of torture methods, which the President referred to as “abhorrent,” (The Economist, May 6, 2004), weakened U.S. credibility in Iraq and among other Muslim nations. In the U.S., Americans had spent March and April watching the 9/11 Commission, which produced its final report in July, 2004. The Department of Defense Detention Operations report, also known as the Taguba Report, was released in August, 2004.

American Support for the War in Iraq in 2004

Support for the war was waning in 2004. No weapons of mass destruction had been found and there was no plausible link between 9/11 and the regime of Saddam Hussein. President Bush was preparing the nation for further troop deployments to Iraq. In Congress, Democrats like Senator Joe Biden, currently the Vice President, stated, “I’m extremely disappointed…I don’t think he [Bush] leveled with the American people.” (Washington Post, May 25, 2004) Democrats hoped that the November election would become a referendum on the war.

Predicting the Future of Iraq in 2004 and the Realities of 2010

Writing in The New York Review of Books (May 13, 2004, Volume 51, Number 8), Peter Galbraith reminded readers that as of that date, more U.S. soldiers had been killed in Iraq than died during the actual war. $150 billion “had already been spent on Iraq…” Galbraith also suggested that, “The greatest danger comes from rogue states that acquire and disseminate nuclear weapons technology.” Galbraith further predicted that, “Civil war and the breakup of Iraq are more likely outcomes than a successful transition to a pluralistic Western-style democracy.”

Today, as U.S. combat troops prepare to depart Iraq by the summer of 2010, Iraq does not have a functional government and violence in the form of suicide bombs is again increasing. Galbraith’s “rogue” states have succeeded with nuclear technology: North Korea possesses such weapons and Iran is racing to produce them.

The Bush Plan of Democracy in Iraq

In their book Kingmakers: The Invention of the Modern Middle East (W.W. Norton & Company, 2008) Karl E. Meyer and Shareen Blair Brysac point out that, “The war’s architects had evidently conjured an unreal posthistorical vision of an Iraq gratefully embracing the triad deemed globally essential for national success: freedom, democracy, and free enterprise.” As visionary as the goal was, in the late spring of 2004 Iraq was a quagmire of chaos.

George Bush won reelection in November 2004 with 50.7% of the popular vote, defeating Senator John Kerry, a Vietnam veteran. Americans have never turned out a president seeking reelection during a war. Further, Bush’s changes in policies in May 2004 were viewed as a positive step toward ending the war and leaving Iraq with a stable and democratic government. That goal, however, has not yet been fully realized.

Copyright Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.

 The Other Ship: Carpathia Rescues Titanic Passengers

 Michael Streich June 3, 2011

 

Built in 1903 for the British Cunard line and used to service Mediterranean ports, the Carpathia was steaming to Trieste when her wireless operator Harold Cottam received an urgent distress call from the RMS Titanic at 12:35 AM on the morning of April 15, 1912. Carpathia’s captain Arthur H. Rostron immediately changed course to assist the stricken liner, arriving too late but rescuing over 700 survivors from lifeboats. In 1918, the famous rescue ship would herself be sunk off the Irish coast by German torpedoes as World War I was drawing to a close.

 

Titanic Strikes an Iceberg

 

Unlike the great British and German liners competing for the cross-Atlantic trade, the Carpathia was not built for speed and did not reflect the luxurious accommodations associated with the White Star Line. Her first class passengers were prominent members of American society, like Mr. and Mrs. Louis Mansfield Ogden, but attracted no aristocrats. The April 1912 voyage to Trieste would take fourteen days.

 

Although the CQD and SOS calls from Titanic came as a shock, Captain Rostron prepared his ship to take on potentially over 2,000 survivors. Titanic had struck an iceberg but it was inconceivable that she would founder: she was deemed “unsinkable.” Rostron poured on the speed, ordering that all hot water be turned off and redirected to steam. As his passengers slept, Carpathia was readied for a massive rescue operation.

 

Rostron arrived at the site approximately four hours later but Titanic had already sunk. Too few lifeboats signaled a death sentence for the many still aboard. Three quarters of her crew were lost. The White Star Line, part of a conglomerate owned by American financier J.P. Morgan, stopped paying the crew once the liner sunk. The company reversed itself once the surviving crew members returned to Southampton.

 

Rescue of Survivors On board the Carpathia

 

The Carpathia took 709 survivors on board. In her memoirs, surviving stewardess Violet Jessup recalls being served brandy to counteract the fierce cold the lifeboat occupants endured. Survivors were separated by class, although every effort was made to make all Titanic survivors comfortable. Carpathia’s passengers gave up their rooms and dug through belongings to share toiletries. Others provided clothing and make-shift blankets.

 

Titanic historian Daniel A. Butler comments that, “passengers and crew alike understood that they were suddenly part of an extraordinary event, which required extraordinary conduct.” This included Mrs. Ogden, a “great favorite in society,” according to an October 31, 1898 New York Times announcement. Serving hot coffee, Mrs. Ogden and her husband knew some of the surviving first class passengers. Mr. Ogden owned a family lumber business, was a graduate of the New York Columbia Law School, and a board member of the Cathedral Church of Saint John the Divine.

 

Class Distinctions on the Carpathia

 

Working closely with Carpathia’s passengers and crew in their efforts to relieve the suffering and trauma was Titanic survivor Mrs. J.J. Brown, known in history as the “unsinkable Molly Brown.” Margaret Brown, as she was known, formed a relief committee before Carpathia reached New York, determined to assist Titanic’s steerage passengers. She had befriended three Irish girls and became acutely concerned with their future. Steerage passengers had lost everything.

 

Would steerage passengers be forced to undergo rigid immigration policies associated with Ellis Island? Would they be returned to Europe for lack of funds? Did they have family support in New York? Such questions plagued Mrs. Brown and other concerned first class passengers. Once Carpathia docked in New York, however, regulations were relaxed.

 

Carpathia’s Arrival in New York Harbor

 

Captain Rostron refused to answer any wireless inquiries as his ship returned to New York, even from the USS Chester, an American naval vessel dispatched by President Taft. Marconi wireless messages tapped out the names of survivors, ignoring press questions. Once in New York, Rostron was the first important official to be questioned by the hastily convened Congressional sub-committee led by Michigan Junior Senator William Alden Smith. Smith wanted to determine how it was possible so many lives were lost, including powerful men like John Astor.

 

Rostron continued his voyage to Trieste after testifying. In later years, he commanded numerous Cunard ships including the Mauritania. Retiring with the rank of commodore, he died at the age of 71. The Carpathia continued her trans-Atlantic passages throughout World War I, chartered toward the end of the conflict by the U.S. government to transport troops.

 

The Final Voyage of the Carpathia

 

On a sunny July morning in 1918, just after breakfast off the west coast of Ireland, Carpathia received three torpedoes which sank her. There was no loss of life as “perfect discipline” enabled the 218 on board to survive. According to the New York Times (July 20, 1918), she went under at 11 AM and would be forever remembered as the Titanic rescue ship.

 

Sources:

 

Daniel Allen Butler, The Other Side Of The Night: The Carpathia, the Californian, and the Night the Titanic Was Lost (Casemate, 2009)

Daniel Allen Butler, “Unsinkable” The Full Story (Stackpole Books, 1998)

Kristen Iversen, Molly Brown: Unraveling the Myth (Johnson Books, 1999)

Violet Jessop, Titanic Survivor, John Maxtone-Graham, editor (Sheridan House, 1997)

New York Times, various articles from 1912.

Originally published in Suite101. Any republishing in any form including digital or print must have written permission from the author.