Almost right, but it was a competitor’s gun that failed, not Ericsson’s. The competitor was more politically savvy, however, and managed to smear Ericsson’s reputation anyway.
From Wikipedia:
[brackets mine, for clarity]
Your own cite does not quite support you. He and Stockton were cooperating on the same project - not directly competing. Granted, I didn’t include the details of the incident, but I pointed out the important part that Ericsson was not actually at fault and the other party was.
The CSS Virginia (Merrimac) was an unwieldy beast, at best. I believe that it had a draft of something like 30 feet-which made grounding a big possibility. It could only maneuver Hampton Roads at high tide. The Monitor was also unseaworthy-it sank in a gale because water leaked in from the deck openings. The 1936 film made about the engagement suggests that an attempt was made to board the Monitor-was this true?
PoTAYto, poTAHto. Stockton started out in a business venture with Ericsson, but by the time the gun exploded, had made his own (defective) copy of Ericsson’s engineering and was actively trying to steer credit (and ultimately, money) away from Ericsson. That’s pretty competitive behavior, whether or not formally declared.
But my use of the word “competitor” was incidental to the reason I posted – it was NOT Ericsson’s gun that failed. Your statement was ambiguous at best:
I did not mean to come across as nitpicky, I just think it was a historical injustice that Ericsson’s…uh…partner/rival/whatever got so many people to believe it was Ericsson’s gun that blew up, and I was trying to be explicit that it wasn’t.
Is there anyone you dislike as much as Southerners, Doc? Lawyers, used car salesmen, perhaps?
:dubious:
Telemarketers.
But not Southerners- Southern* Apologists* or Neo-Confederates. If you call the War Between the States the “War of Northern Aggression”, if you say most slaves were better off being slaves and were happy, if you say Slavery wasnt the primary cause of the war, if you use the term “Lost Cause” un-ironically, if you proudly fly a Confederate flag- I have some possible issues. Basically if you glorify Slavery and the CSA- I have issues.
There’s a Matlock TV series joke in here somewhere.
That may have been used up till 1920, but it is a joke now, as I have heard it.
Interesting choice of terminology considering the subject matter. In my (admittedly, somewhat limited) experience, most of the people who use the term “War Between the States” are the Southern apologist types. But maybe that’s just confirmation bias.
But getting back to the OP, it always surprised me how the battle ended up basically being a draw. Just looking at the two ships, the Monitor looked like a state of the art fighting machine, while the Virginia looked a floating log cabin. Monitor should have cleaned their clocks.
The CSA held the opinion that Virginia won because she briefly broke the Union blockade. The USA held that Monitor won because Virginia withdrew for engine repairs.
Did Virginia indeed use Merimack’s engine? The Confederate Navy often had engine trouble, I thought it was due to using engines that were not made to close tolerance in a factory.
Or, given that their guns were unable to harm each other, Virginia should have shoved Monitor a few times, causing her to tip up enough to take on water. Monitor was horribly unseaworthy, as her subsequent destruction clearly showed.
CSA Arkansas was a ram, the method of attack used by the Greeks and Persians. 
So, you’ve never been in a “cooperative” venture with an underhanded and destructive rival? One that will attempt to torpedo your involvement and poison your successes, figuring half a loaf mostly his is better than a whole loaf justly shared between partners?
Count yourself lucky. It happens. A lot, when forced together by the vicissitudes of contracting with the government.
Virginia used Merrimack’s engines, but being burnt and sunk hadn’t done them any particular favors.
Ah.
No boarding attempts were made during the famous battle itself. However, for some time afterward, fhe two ships engaged in long-range standoffs. The Monitor stayed blocking the Roads, under strict orders not to risk a fight, carefully staying in shallower areas where the Virginia could not venture (because of her deep draft). The Virginia would parade around trying to lure the Monitor in close where she could ram or board. Her crew (by then) were equipped with wedges to try and jam the famous turret. This desperate ploy would have been more desperate than the Confederates expected, as Monitor’s turret crew carried grenades to repel exactly this sort of attack.
Eventually, the Union capture of Norfolk (personally directed by Lincoln himself!) deprived Virginia of a base of operations, and she was burned to prevent capture.
Disregarding your incorrect statements about the nomenclature concerning the Late Unpleasantness, I think that most people would agree that even a pirate has the right to name a ship of which one has possession. CSS Virginia it is!
Jesus Christ, “Brother against brother”. 
No, I wouldn’t. If North Korea decided to rename the USS Pueblo the *Glorious People’s Funtastical No Dong! *and take it on a river propaganda cruise, being that it was never struck from the US Navy register the US and its allies would not be obliged to call it that. Until the South won and was recognized as an independent nation by the North and treaties for division of property were agreed upon & signed the so-called CSS Virginia was (and still is) rightfully called the USS Merrimack.
So ships captured by the USA in the revolutionary war and renamed had invalid names until the revolution was won?