Lieutenant Bligh escaped the fate of Admiral Byng !

Admiral John Byng’s Execution.

Voltaire quipped, “In this country (England) it is wise to kill an admiral from time to time so to encourage the others.”

Ever since 14 March 1757, the execution of Admiral Byng by a platoon of royal marines was etched firmly on the minds of commissioned officers. The execution took place on the quarterdeck of the Admiral’s former flagship, HMS Monarch. Regardless that Admiral Byng had a largely unblemished career he was shot for ‘failing to do his utmost’ in an encounter with the French. Thirty two years later Bligh failed to do his utmost to prevent Fletcher Christian from seizing HMAV Bounty. The truth is Bligh was guilty for yielding to cowardice and subverting his own command. No resolute commander of the times, other than a consummate coward, would ever have abandoned his ship without a ferocious fight, unless he had a fallback plan. Bligh did have such a plan, a most dishonorable plan.

Putting Hollywood stereotypes aside, when three men deserted the Bounty at Tahiti, Bligh displayed commendable leadership by tracking them right to their lair, and in the tense moment of arresting them he placed himself in physical danger. However when it came to the mutiny, it is highly suspicious that his command was uncharacteristically weak. It was weak because he calculated he could achieve his goals without putting himself at risk; he was too clever to put on an unnecessary show of bravery. The mystery of his timidity has not gone unnoticed and any claims that Bligh had no opportunity to engage his captors, simply does not stand up to scrutiny.

A QUESTION OF INTENT

Many writers have claimed that Bligh was the cause of the mutiny, yet none had suggested he might have intentionally caused it: his moral integrity was never questioned; at least not openly and publicly. There are differing possibilities on the question of intent: one is that Bligh had carelessly, indifferently, planted the seeds of discord that led Christian to mutiny, another that the mutiny was an outcome that Bligh considered and desired and he had intuitively encouraged its development; alternatively, it was a recognizable objective he consciously and earnestly pursued. The first is an unpremeditated measure, the second and third are premeditated courses of action. Either premeditated version was a heinous crime and had Bligh been found guilty of such involvement, he may well have dropped a white handkerchief as did Admiral Byng to signal his own execution.

But Bligh was too clever for that. He deceived us all. He even sought favors for the imposition the mutiny caused him, and he got them, in fact he was richly rewarded for the experience, which alone should arouse suspicions. Of all the Bounty’s men, Bligh suffered the least and profited the most. It is puzzling that the question of intent has never been focused upon. One reason for its omission would be the apparent lack of a strong enough motive; another for want of incriminatory evidence; yet another has been the conservative approach by writers. But as we shall see, Bligh did have a powerful motive and the evidence has always been out there.

**********