Wolseley vs Fergusson

Chapter 3, part 1 features a British war council at which Wolseley reads part of a letter from the British Conservative MP Sir James Fergusson. Fergusson had been to America and seen both Union and Confederate armies, and on his return his observations were passed from Lord Derby to Lord Palmerston and, in this timeline, to Wolseley. Fergusson's observations, as read by Wolseley, make chilling reading:

"… with regard to the Northern army, there can be no doubt that for its size it is one of the best equipped which any nation has set on foot. Its transport is superb, its artillery numerous, well-appointed, and of the best description; and the physique of its men unsurpassed..." Wolseley stopped, letting it all sink in.

"And that, gentlemen, is the opinion of a member of parliament who is an avowed Southern sympathizer…" the colonel said 

 On the other hand, had Wolsely continued to read the letter he would have made his audience feel considerably better:

But which in their sanguine anticipations Americans forget, in England we must note that of the rank and file of the army the Chief Part is little more experienced than it was at the time of the Battle of Manassas — that its officers are taken from the same class & elected in the same manner as then, and that of all the causes to which the rout of Manassas has been attributed none is better proved than the general incapacity of the regimental officers—that of the general officer is a necessity...  A liberal bounty, eighteen pence a day and rations have filled the ranks so far. But as to the military character of the army my impressions and belief is that it lacks as greatly all the qualities of worth and strength which distinguishes the army that England sent to the Crimea as it is rich in those equipments in which that army was deficient.

It is evident too that it does not possess the confidence of its commanders. Each mile that the Confederates permit it to advance its outposts unopposed is carefully fortified & every road covered by field works of the strongest construction. Such is not the plan of a general at the lead of an "imposing" eager and patriotic army. 

But these must also be large deductions made from the members of which the Federal Army is popularly supposed to consist. The most recent detailed estimate of a N.Y. Paper not likely to understate such matters gives only 360,000 as the number of soldiers raised and in the ranks of the various loyal States. Another has lately stated 450,000 and called it 1/2 million—but it was evident that it included the "3 months men" enrolled but since disbanded. Recruiting in N.Y. & other Eastern States is said to have almost ceased. Many of the 360,000 are as yet undrilled—few more than of 3 months service and there is a considerable daily diminution by casualties.

When I was at St Louis about 20th Sept., the newspapers were decrying Gen. [John Charles] Fremont's inaction and his supineness in suffering Lexington (Missouri) to fall, but I found that many of his regiments were only then receiving their arms — which bye the bye were indifferent smooth-bore muskets—he was without any organized transport.  

The army of the Potomac in advance of and around Washington is said to consist of 200,000 men but when I was with Gen. Beauregard on 12th Oct. he received from a friend in Washington with access to the best official information an exact account of the arrival of troops from the date of the Battle of Manassas. Their numbers did not exceed 60,000 & it was stated that giving an ample allowance, the force of "the Potomac" did not exceed 140,000 & was probably much less. Hence if the Federal General has such a force, if he has actually 150 pieces of Artillery, a large force of cavalry (those I saw on the Northern side w[oul]d have been very bad yeomanry) any estimate of his power of attacking a wary & resolute enemy—holding a difficult country & that his own, w[oul]d lead to [a] grave mistake, if founded on an experience of European or any regular troops.

Can anybody defend the small section which TFSmith put in Wolsely's mouth as a fair representation of the whole? As a reader, do you enjoy being misled in this way about what people at the time said and thought?


For those who have now lost all trust in quotations, the full letter may be found in:
Michael F. Hughes, '"The Personal Observations of a Man of Intelligence": Sir James Fergusson's Visit to North America, 1861,' Civil War History, Volume 45, Number 3, September 1999, pp. 238-247
Elisabeth Joan Doyle, 'A Report On Civil War America: Sir James Fergusson's Five-Week Visit,' Civil War History, Volume 12, Number 4, December 1966, pp. 347-362