In deciding, therefore, against awaiting the reduction of the forts by direct attack, and in favor of attempting the same result by striking at the interests they defended and the base on which they rested, Farragut was guided by a calculation of the comparative _material_ risks and advantages of the two courses, and not mainly by consideration of the moral effect produced upon the defenders by a successful stroke, as has been surmised by Lord Wolseley. This eminent English authority attributes the success of the expedition against New Orleans to three causes. "First, the inadequate previous preparation of the naval part of the New Orleans defenses; second, the want of harmonious working between the Confederate naval and military forces; and, lastly, Farragut's clear appreciation of the moral effect he would produce by forcing his way past the defenses of Fort Jackson and Fort St. Philip, and by his appearance before New Orleans. For, after all, the forts were never captured by actual attack.... This brilliant result is a striking instance of the due appreciation by a commander of the effect which daring achievements exert on men's minds, although, _as in this case_, those daring acts _do not actually, directly, or materially_ make certain the end or surrender they may have secured." And, again, in another place: "Admiral Farragut's success was mainly due to the moral effect produced by his gallant passage of the forts.... He never reduced the forts, and seems to have done them but little harm."[K] [Footnote K: Lord Wolseley in _North American Review_, vol. cxlix, pp. 32-34, 597. The italics are the author's.]