the USA lost more than half of its merchant fleet tonnage during the Civil War. 110,000 tons were lost to CSA raiders and 800,000 tons were sold to foreign buyers, mostly English, because the owners no longer wanted to risk their loss. England then displaced the USA as the largest merchant carrier in the world, a position we didn't regain until German U-boats devastated Britain's merchant marine in WW1. I'd say that validates Ol' Choctaw's statement ("The CSA Destroyed the US merchant fleet. It never really recovered.").
I really don't like getting into extended historical discussions on this forum because there is a place for these - the Historical forum. Nonetheless, let me try to be clear:
*
USA lost more than half of its merchant fleet tonnage during the Civil War. 110,000 tons were lost to CSA raiders and 800,000 tons were sold to foreign buyers, mostly English Aha! A real figure or two. Still would need a bit of clarification, viz.:
> Define 'lost'. Are we to conclude that, in 1860, the US MM was about a little less than 2,000,000 tons? Seems to be the implication.
> I believe I speculated above that perhaps a good many vessels were reflagged. This seems to be the case. Is a reflagged vessel "destroyed"? Is it "lost"?
* My only objection, above, and here, is the construction of the assertions. Seems to me that out of probably near 2,000,000 tons, 110,000 were lost outright and almost half were reflagged. I'm sorry, but to say that the US MM was 'destroyed" and "never recovered' is inaccurate.
* If O'C (whose opinions I value, because for one thing, he knows a lot more about the game mechanics than I do), had stated, "The US MM was seriously hurt, chiefly through reflagging and some well-deserved success by Southern raiders; hurt so much that it didn't regain its pre-eminent position until [whenever]," - well, that's a fair statement.
* Why do I say this? Merely to point out that a sober historian avoids terms like 'destroyed' and 'never recovered'. To say, "The Byzantine empire suffered a series of disasters in 1204 and the years shortly thereafter, chiefly from the Western Crusaders, disasters from which the empire never recovered," is a fair and honest historical assessment, because the picture painted is true. To say, "Western civilization suffered a Dark Age of 1000 years after the fall of Rome in the fifth century," is honest (it's not an outright lie), but much too facile and to a large degree, unfair, because it glosses over too many important developments, one of which is the astounding 'fact' that music did not suffer a Dark Age and one can make a very plausible case that it flourished; another 'fact' (forgive the quotes, I'm being lazy) contravening the facile portrait is the development of Northern Europe, the invention of the stirrup and horse collar and the use of machines (particularly mills) by medieval people on a scale that the Romans never approached.
* One should tread lightly when tempted to make sweeping assertions about history - there's usually someone just waiting for you with three dozen dusty manuscripts he's just dying to use. Again, "The US MM suffered greatly and was relegated to trailing the UK in post-war blue water commerce" - I won't argue, seems to be the case. 'Destroyed' and 'never recovered' is what astonished me.
[color="#AFEEEE"]"Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!"[/color]
-Daniel Webster
[color="#FFA07A"]"C'mon, boys, we got the damn Yankees on the run!"[/color]
-General Joseph Wheeler, US Army, serving at Santiago in 1898
RULES
(A) When in doubt, agree with Ace.
(B) Pull my reins up sharply when needed, for I am a spirited thoroughbred and forget to turn at the post sometimes.
