Great post.<quoted text>Bet it had something in there about the ironclad ship battle between the Monitor and the Merrimac... as the revisionist Yankees have portrayed it in history.
The actual name of the Confederate ship was the C.S.S. Virginia. It is true that the C.S.S. Virginia was built on the salvaged hull of the North's Merrimac after it was scuttled as the Confederates took over Hampton Roads. However, it was drastically rebuilt and armored with iron low to the water line with angled sides. The rebuilt ship bore no resemblance to the original steam frigate.
The ironclad C.S.S. Virginia was extremely successful at damaging and sinking traditional Yankee sailing ships, as it could sail up broadsides to the enemy ship and fire away with canon. As the C.S.S. Virginia sat so low on the water line, the sailing ships could not effectively fire their volleys at the ironclad. Those canon balls that did hit the ship often hit the angled iron cladding and was repelled - sometimes directly back on the offending ship.
The C.S.S. Virginia and the North's U.S.S. Monitor - another ironclad with was also low to the waterline and had a flat deck and rotating turret - but neither ship could claim a definitive battle.
History's telling of the story as the Merrimac instead of the C.S.S. Virginia is considered by many an affront to actual history and a slap at the Confederacy.
I agree that the CSS Navy, including the story of the Virginia, is a great story - often unfairly told.
I am sure you are more familiar with this particular issue than I am- but you made me want to follow up on it.