William Thomas Sampson

William Thomas Sampson 1840-1902, American naval officer, b. Palmyra, N.Y. After serving with Union naval forces in the Civil War, he saw varied naval service and was (1886-90) superintendent of the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis. As chief of the bureau of ordnance (1893-97), he made important changes in naval gunnery. Sampson was president of the board of inquiry on the destruction of the Maine in Havana harbor. With the outbreak of the Spanish-American War (1898), he was made commander of the N Atlantic squadron. He commanded the blockade of Cuba and the attack on San Juan. Although he was not present for most of the battle of Santiago de Cuba, where the Spanish fleet was destroyed, he claimed credit for the victory, since he had laid down the general instructions for the attack; his claim was contested by Winfield Scott Schley , who actually commanded in the engagement. Public opinion favored Schley, and Sampson never received due recognition for his part in the victory. In 1899 he attained the rank of rear admiral and from then until his death commanded the Boston navy yard.

Sampson, William Thomas (1840–1902) Union naval officer, born in New York. Sampson taught at the U.S. Naval Academy after graduation and then, during the Civil War, joined the South Atlantic Blockading Squadron, off South Carolina, as executive officer of a monitor. After the war, he alternated between time at sea and time teaching physics and chemistry at the Academy, and from 1886 to 1890 he was superintendent of the Academy. From 1893 to 1897 he headed the Navy Bureau of Ordnance, in which position he consistently fought for high-quality materials. In 1898 he chaired the commission that investigated the sinking of the Maine and soon after received command of the North Atlantic Squadron, the navy's most prestigious command. His orders were to blockade Cuba and prevent a Spanish fleet from reaching port. The Spanish eluded Sampson's blockade, docking at Santiago, but were destroyed in battle by Sampson's fleet, although some observers claimed that the victory was more the result of actions by his senior officer, Winfield Scott Schley, than Sampson's. A 1901 court of inquiry generally upheld Sampson's view of events.