A synopsis of the story as I’ve heard it: During the Civil War, a young J.P. Morgan obtained a set of rifles that had been rejected by the Union Army, and sold them back to the Army. He bought them for around $3 apiece, and marked them up to around $20. Union soldiers got their fingers blown off by these defective rifles. Morgan received no punishment, and had the chutzpah to SUCCESSFULLY sue for payment when the government balked. (Details may be off – I’m remembering this off the top of my head).
I have read this in various places over the years. Is it in dispute?
At first glance, it sounds incredible, and the sort of story that would be fabricated about someone like Morgan.
On the other hand, business ethics (and laws) were a LOT different then; there wasn’t a whole lot of government oversight.
The basics are probably not seriously disputed, though details, such as how much Morgan knew about the defects, may be. The story usually gets repeated when people want to make points about historical greed, scams and lack of ethics in American business, as in this laundry list from a Washington Post writer:
Ken Burns’ PBS documentary pointed out that fly-by-night manufacturers and wheeler-dealers selling the army shoddy goods was a chronic problem for the Union. The army had to ramp up and get equiptment FAST, and this is obviously going to draw quick-buck artists out of the woodwork. Morgan’s case was probably simply one of hundreds, and becomes notable only because J. Pierpont eventually became a household name.