Notre Dame de la Deliverance? Anyone know the Latest?

[jeff k]

Mariner... Do you think SSR lied to the Court about the English selling the Deliverance back to the French owners? I doubt that they lied, and believe that Doc's research was not complete. My money is on TR's version.

Doc... Maybe you should ask Patrick Lize if he has anything on the "Nuestra Senora de la Delabranza."

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[mariner]

Jeff,

I do not know if SSR actually lied about it, but they might have handled the truth carelessly. I personally doubt at this stage that they have evidence that the Deliverance was sold back to its original French owners. They certainly did not produce it as part of the court process, though they did say that certain documents in Canada showed this to be the case. I am intending to find out more about those documents, just out of interest, if TR does not volunteer the information as I suggested he might.

Why would they not have produced the documents, if they had them? It would have killed off the potential British claim. Besides, it seems so unlikely that Britain would have auctioned off a captured armed merchantman and let it go back to the French, with whom they were engaged in hostilities at the time.

I was taught by Jesuits for fifteen years, so developed a critical attitude when listening to people telling me their version of the truth. One Jesuit teaching is that it is not wrong to tell a lie to a person who does not have the right to the truth. Another is what they call "the principle of double effects." If an action produces both beneficial and adverse effects, it is OK to do it if the net effect is beneficial. This is sometimes misquoted as "the end justifies the means". Many people seem to follow these precepts.

I will be interested in Doc's answer to your question.

Mariner

 

[rgecy]

Jeff,
TR's research may be right on, I don't know! But I know there is a lot of conflicting accounts of what really happened and as for this actually being the Deliverance, it is highly, highly unlikely.

Here is some interesting reading for those who do not have access to the Admiralty filing. These are actual pages from the Admiralty and the 2003 Interem Salvage Report

Robert in SC

 

[mariner]

Robert,

Thanks for posting the note from SSR's First Interim Salvage report, which they submitted on 1/23/06, and Jim Goold's letter of 12/24/2002. I had been keen to show in my earlier note that SSR had identified the Deliverance, in the local press report, before Jim Goold intervened on behalf of Spain, and not as a reaction to Spain's intervention.

Mariner

 

[mariner]

A final comment from me on this subject (you will be glad to hear!)

At least SSR learned by their mistakes. In November 2004, SSR filed a second claim on a shipwreck, in an area about half a degree west of their earlier claim. They named only an "unidentified, wrecked and abandoned vessel", no details, no name, no co-defendants. They were given temporary substitute custody of the wreck, made the necessary announcements inviting claims against the wreck, and getting none, filed for, and were given, a default judgement giving them possession of this new (I assume) wreck.

Jeff would be proud of them.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all Forum Members. It has been a privilege to join in some of the discussions this year and to read with interest the many different threads and words of wisdom. A special best wishes and good luck to you, Peg Leg.

Mariner

 

[bobinsd]

Maybe it's the remaining forecastle of the Atocha? HA! Call Taffi!

 

[Starline2]

I was wondering if anyone has heard of anything new comeing from the SSR group and this wreck site? The last information that I have found only goes to 2005 and 2006. From what i can tell they still are not sure if the wreck is that of the Deliverance.

Thanks,
Matt

 

[Darren in NC]

SSR has moved on to other pursuits. They are no longer actively pursuing this wreck.