- Joined
- Aug 25, 2012
Was not the battle between them on this day?
So my first question is why was the USS Monitor so named? Back then we did not have computer monitors so that is not it. TV stations having TV monitors had also not happened yet.
To monitor ca. 1860 was about observing, checking, or keeping records of something. So exactly what was the USS Monitor to monitor? I thought the new style ship was for fighting not for observing.
I'm going to take a wild guess (and it's only that). These ships were originally meant to guard (monitor) ports and had shallow draft for that purpose. They weren't meant to go to sea or engage in major Naval confrontations. That they did so was only happenstance.
It was named by John Ericsson as a "monitor" in the sense of an "admonisher" to foreign naval powers, particularly Great Britain.
Right you are, Mark!It was named by John Ericsson as a "monitor" in the sense of an "admonisher" to foreign naval powers, particularly Great Britain.
So my first question is why was the USS Monitor so named? Back then we did not have computer monitors so that is not it. TV stations having TV monitors had also not happened yet.
To monitor ca. 1860 was about observing, checking, or keeping records of something. So exactly what was the USS Monitor to monitor? I thought the new style ship was for fighting not for observing.
Ericsson was, of course, wrong. Warrior cost £377,000 and Defence £252,000, and their sister ships about the same - so an average cost of about £315,000, or $1,575,000 per unit (exchange rates at the time were £1=$5). He's overstated the cost of the British ships by a factor of two at least.To the Lords of the Admiralty the new craft will be a monitor, suggesting doubts as to the propriety of completing
those four steel-clad ships at three and a half millions apiece.