I believe so. The Civil War was fought because men with money both in the government and not couldn't settle major issues and that lead to war. Those rich men didn't fight the war. They let middle-class and poor men who didn't really care about the issues at hand because they didn't affect them fight it.
Chat with our AI personalities
It could certainly look that way. In the North, a draftee could pay a substitute to join up in his place. This obviously favoured rich families. And the arrangement was often brokered by cynical profiteers who would send all kinds of physically or mentally unfit men into the army. Profiteers would also make a fortune supplying the armies with inferior weapons, equipment and horses. These profiteers were loathed and despised by both sides.
People in the South referred to the Civil War as "The rich mans' war and the poor mans' fight" because the North [the rich men] due to the industrial revolution had more money and you tactics and weapons one might use in a major war. While the South [the poor men] were still economically based through agriculture and did not have the extra money the North had because they stayed that way and did not industrialised the South had to use more common weapons and different tactics to match up with the weapons they had to use.
An act for "enrolling and calling out the National Forces"
After the war men returned home. As the man were gone however women took factory roles. This showed they could do a mans job ans a few years later were granted their civil rights.
No mans Land