Assault and Battery

During chapter 8 part 2, we are told offhand that "Cochrane’s ironclads and mortar ships opened yet another bombardment of Portland’s battered forts" (on August 20)

The image this conveys is of the forts stoutly resisting bombardment that has been going on since June (when the landing took place) without being sufficiently reduced to allow the British into the harbour itself.
In fact, this would be very difficult indeed.

A Shipfull Of Soldiers

Even now, not all of the problems with the landing at Portland have been examined. We will now look into another new one - the simple matter of ship count.

Quod Erat Defendendus

"That was what was to be defended".




If there is one part of Burnished Rows of Steel which is more blatant than any other, it is the total lack of British or Canadian preparations for war (particularly when contrasted with the way the Union spends several months making preparations, including some they would have to have started before the OTL climbdown).

Clear The Way

Of the many engagements in which US troops defeat British ones (spoiler: almost all of them) one deserves examination for what it tells us about TFSmith's idea of tactics - at least, tactics employed by the British - and of the relative quality of infantry.

A Bridge Too Few - bridges and river crossings

Startling as it may seem, TFSmith manages to take the relatively niche topic of crossing a river and foul it up in new and interesting ways.

The War in Canada East

Now we have extensively examined the campaigning in Canada East before. However, there are some interesting facts to bear in mind which effect even those considerations.

What I intend to look at here is the progress of the campaign from its opening at Rouse Point, up till the Battle of Berthierville in September, and all that happens in between.

Ahead By A Century

At numerous places in Burnished Rows of Steel the author displays a dizzying lack of understanding of the tactics or logistical constrains of 19th century warfare.

An excellent number of examples exist in the TL for how the author doesn't quite grasp how armies and battles were carried out. Most interestingly, the Battle of Berthierville, his supposed "realistic" example of what it would look like when a Union army confronted a British army in 1862.

Centreville Cannot Hold

In Chapter 7 Part 1 we come to the great dust up between the Army of the Potomac and the Army of Northern Virginia. Now one would expect an author who self-professes to know much about American history and military history could deliver an exciting battle with an interesting twist on historic events.

Sadly, in this case we can expect the exact opposite.

Delayed Reaction Time

As discussed before, the author has a weird way of telling time in this story. He consciously slows down one side despite any evidence to the contrary, but then slows down events in general as well. The main reason for this seems to be the somewhat inefficient means the author has chosen to try and convey the great events and scope of this story. That method is to tell each chapter as a single month in time, then immediately move on to the next month. Not a horrible way of doing things, but it creates genuinely weird situations where military operations begin exactly on the first of a month or end exactly at the end of one, something that doesn't really happen in real life.

This fact also prevents any real attempt at describing things in depth as the author seems loathe to play catch up unless taking time to detail events in the past he feels relevant, which are more usually distractions from actually describing plot related events.

We also see that the author delays certain events for narrative convenience.

For instance look at the Battle of Berthierville. Despite Montreal falling at the start of May, with British forces on the St. Lawrence and reinforcements arriving and Grant's army not moving overland until July, with the fall of Kingston the entire front remains static until the end of September. Similarly Lee's great offensive against Washington takes place exactly on October 1st, much like the American invasion of Canada takes place on May 1st, and the British landings in Maine take place on June 1st.

This is a very obvious, and somewhat annoying pattern. Other than many of these dates the author doesn't provide many other dates and so we never get a very tight idea of when things are happening in this story, and are more often than not left guessing or filling in blanks.

So if you ever find yourself scratching your head over when something is happening or why there is a delay, you can thank the author for picking a very confusing narrative style.

One Front, Two Front, Red Front, Blue Front

TFSmith is fond of stating, in both marginalia and timeline, that a two front war is bad news for the participants of such, and that the Trent war is a two-front war for one of the participants.

Unfortunately, and bizarrely, it is not the Union who suffer this penalty.

False by Northwest

TFSmith's representation of the campaign in the Pacific Northwest is perfectly in line with the rest of the timeline. He fabricates a Union victory, largely through disguising the truth where necessary and distorting it where possible. Fortunately, working through the timeline gives a true appreciation of the potential weakness of the Union position in the actual course of a Trent War.

That Dog Won't Barque

The Union Navy of the Civil War was unquestionably an impressive achievement, expanding from small to large and managing (after some initial teething problems) to establish a blockade across a large coastline.
However, TFSmith (as is customary) has to greatly exaggerate the real scale of the achievement, thus making it seem like building a large modern navy was quick, easy and inexpensive - and that the Union could quickly surpass the British.

Camping it up

When TFSmith describes the Army of New Brunswick, he notes that its brigadiers 'all had distinguished careers, connections with Horse Guards, the Palace, or both'. However, these men were not picked by the British government: they were picked by TFSmith. So did the British historically use similar criteria to TFSmith when it came to selecting officers for active service? Let's find out.

Great Scott!

Burnished Rows of Steel, Chapter 1 part iii (dated 27 December 1861):

“Thank you, Seward. You have done very well in trying times,” the president said. “Any word from our friends in Europe?”

“The last report I received is that Gen. Scott and Mr. Weed have been well-received in Paris; the general’s reminiscences about his service in Mexico have been very well received,” Seward responded, levelly. “They were to depart for Potsdam imminently; in addition, Brigadier General Harney has joined the delegation and was to leave for Petersburg the same day"

TFSmith, 7 August 2014:

that fact that Winfield Scott just "happens" to have been sent to Paris historically in the winter of 1861-62 is a little too convenient...

TFSmith,  21 June 2014:

I find the fact that no one less than Winfield Scott ended up in Paris in the winter of 1861-62 (along with Archbishop Hughes, McIlvain, etc.) particularly interesting - it may have simply been for his health, but given the general situation, somehow I doubt it...

TFSmith, 25 May 2014:

As far as France goes, Quebec is one of those issues that I find rarely gets covered in the "NIII would support the British in the event of an Anglo-American War" concept; perhaps, but the question is what would he ask for in return?

We know, obviously, it would be for a free hand in Mexico; one wonders what else might have been discussed in this period - the fact that Winfield Scott was (historically) in Paris in the winter of 1861-62 has always struck me as one of those coincidences that seems a little too helpful to have simply been coincidence.

TFSmith, 17 February 2014:

'Didn't know he was in Paris'
Yep - interesting, isn't it?

Officially, simply to join Mrs. Scott, who had been in Europe for several months because of her health.

The general embarked Nov. 9, with his daughter and son in law; same ship that Thurlow Weed (who was sent to serve as Lincoln's plenipotentiary in Europe)...they got to LeHavre in late November, and then set up shop in Paris, where the general consulted with Weed and John Bigelow, the US consul, and (among other things) sent a series of letters affirming Franco-American and Anglo-American friendship to various worthies and newspapers...

Entirely coincidental, I'm sure.

Makes one wonder what else was going on, doesn't it?

TFSmith, 16 February 2014:

interestingly enough, Paris was exactly where Scott was in the winter of 1861-62 (historically); makes one wonder what he had to say to "L'Impereur"...

I would never be so cynical as to suggest Lincoln et al suggested anything to the French, but the timing is really interesing, isn't it?

In Agent of Destiny, JSD Eisenhower mentions the general's work in smoothing over the (historical) Trent Affair, but he doesn't mention anything else Scott may have had to say in Paris that winter...

J.S.D Eisenhower, Agent of Destiny: The Life and Times of General Winfield Scott (1997), pp.401-2:

But Scott did not foresee that the issue would blow over. Fearing the British might close the sea lanes to American shipping, he sailed for home on the return voyage of the Arago, leaving Cornelia and her husband in Paris to be near Maria. The general arrived back in New York on December 26 1861, only about six weeks or so having departed... Soon after his return from Europe, he called on his friends in Washington to inquire discreetly whether his services might be needed there in any capacity. They were not. He therefore settled down in New York City.

At least some of TFSmith's misunderstanding seems to be based on his shoddy research. Scott did not send 'a series of letters': he signed a single letter at the instigation of the US consul in Paris, who drafted the letter for him, and who subsequently 'had the letter... immediately translated and copies despatched to the principal morning and evening papers in Paris, and copies in English to the London papers'. If Scott was sent to meet Napoleon, he had no opportunity to do so: Napoleon III was at the Chateau de Compiegne, 50 miles outside Paris, where he would remain for the duration of Scott's brief stay in France.

Yet TFSmith also flagrantly distorts events. He claims that Scott left on 9 November, the day after the Trent Affair: however, he must also know that Scott had arrived in New York to start planning the trip on 2 November. He must also know that Scott had left Paris when war threatened - indeed, that he was back in the US at the point TFSmith has him travelling to Potsdam - and that on his return he asked the government if there was any service he could render. Why would Scott do this if he had been given a mission in Europe by the Union government?

The simple answer is that there was no mission. Scott went to Paris to convalesce alongside his sick wife, was dragooned into an impromptu public relations scheme, and returned home when war threatened to break out. There was no Union master-plan, no devious contingency scheme worked out by Lincoln and Seward, no 4D chess involving Mexico. It is a figment of TFSmith's over-active imagination, fuelled by equal measures of bias and ignorance.

Imbalance of trade

TFSmith was kind enough to lay out his model for the economic balance of a Trent War.

Economic costs are huge to both sides, but the British, ultimately are losing $5 in sales to the US for every $3 in purchases from the US

This is particularly kind, because it enables us to show how fundamentally wrong his understanding is.

Mormon Wisdom

The Mormons (or the Church of the Latter Day Saints) appears in Burnished Rows of Steel, largely in minor roles. As is now ISO standard, TFSmith heavily tweaks things to make everything appear better for the Union.