An Old Man's War

TFSmith's use of Wolseley to pronounce many of his opinions of officers in both the British and American armies tends to make the man look a little bit biased.






On Union General Winfield Scott (born 1786)

“That they did, captain; but they also waited for us to come ashore – the Yankees, damn them, are unlikely to sit and wait for us,” Wolseley said evenly. “Scott is not a fool; they didn’t roll over Mexico in ’48 by being fools. I won’t be surprised if they make us all prisoners of war by February.”

On British General George Brown (born 1790)


“Brown? Sir George BROWN? Brown must 70 years old, if he’s a day – he was in the Peninsula with Wellington, for God’s sake,” Wolseley said, his Irish coming out strongly.


One could equally well reverse these descriptions, stressing Scott's age (75 at the time), service in the War of 1812 (contemporaneous with Brown serving with Wellington - Brown began at a younger age and got more experience, as it happens) and Brown's ability (a good war record, with administrative and field commands). If this had been done with some bright young American officer it would even make a nice bit of ironic comedy about the other side of  the hill.



It isn't.



As a bonus, the discerning reader may note that Scott's campaign against Mexico City began in March 1847 and concluded in November 1847, contra Wolseley's statement about "rolling over" Mexico in '48. It is up to said reader to decide which of these is the case:

• TFSmith's view of the quintessential example of late Victorian professionalism in the British Army is someone who can't remember what year Scott's campaign in Mexico took place, while his view of a not-particularly-noteworthy Union officer (who, incidentally, was born in 1784) is an offhand familiarity with obscure quotations buried in the memoirs of British foreign secretaries.
• TFSmith forgot to check which year Scott's campaign took place, possibly on the assumption that it decisively ended the war.