nd that right direction, as well as vigor and weight,
is necessary to a blow that would tell; but experience had taught him
that the average man wants to be much too sure of success before
venturing to move, and hence the insistence upon that one among the
features of his military character which to the superficial observer has
gradually obscured all others. Vigor even to desperateness of action
both Nelson and Farragut on occasion showed--recklessness never. Neither
fought as one who beateth the air; and while for neither can be claimed
an entire exemption from mistakes, the great outlines of their action
can safely challenge hostile criticism.

While, however, both in their respective spheres illustrated the great
leading principles of war, the circumstances under which they were
called to practice them were too diverse to permit any close comparison,
or parallel, to be instituted between their actions. Nelson, for the
most part, shone upon the battle-field--by his tactical combinations, by
the rapidity and boldness with which he carried out plans previously
laid, or, on occasion, by the astonishing _coup d'oeil_ and daring
with which, in unforeseen crises, he snatched and secured escaping
victory. Farragut in actual battle showed that careful adaptation of
means to ends which has a just claim to be considered tactical science;
but his great merit was in the clearness with which he recognized the
decisive point of a campaign, or of a particular operation, and threw
upon it the force under his direction. Nelson acted chiefly against
ships, against forces of a type essentially the same as his own, and
accessible in all parts to his attack, because belonging to the same
element; he might therefore hope to overcome them by the superior
quality of his crews or by his better tactical dispositions. Farragut
contended with fortifications, whose military powers, offensive and
defensive, were essentially different from those of a fleet. Their
endurance so greatly exceeded that of his ships as to exclude any hope
of reducing them by direct attack; and their advantages of position,
deliberately chosen and difficult of approach, could not be outweighed
by any tactical arrangement open to him to adopt. He was therefore
compelled to seek their fall by indirect means, by turning and isolating
them, by acting against their communications--a conception not tactical,
but strategic.

It is not meant to imply that the military talents of