Invention: The Master-key to Progress

by Bradley A. Fiske

The invention of the sewing-machine was one rich in influence on subsequent progress; and all the story connected with it is interesting in many ways. But the most wonderful fact connected with the invention is that it was not made before! Many inventions have not been made because the conditions at the time did not demand them, or make their successful utilization possible: and yet some inventions, like the Voltaic arc, were made despite the unfavorable conditions. But what conditions were unfavorable to the utilization of Howe's sewing-machine, even as far back in history as the days when the pyramids were built? The Howe sewing-machine was not so complicated an apparatus as the ballista, or the chariot, used by the Assyrians and the other nations in the "fertile crescent," that curved from Alexandria to Babylon; and it was much easier and cheaper to make. Its construction required immeasurably less scientific knowledge and carefulness than the printing press, the gun, the telescope and the microscope, and a score of appliances that had preceded it by several centuries. Why was the sewing-machine not invented before? Why, why? This question continually presents itself to the mind, when certain simple inventions appear, that (so far as we can see) could have been invented and ought to have been invented, long before.

In 1846, the printing-telegraph was invented by House. No such question as that just discussed is presented to our minds by this invention, because we realize that it could not have been invented before some means of generating continuous electric currents had been invented. The printing-telegraph was not an invention of the same order of influence as the sewing-machine; but it has assisted the work of the telegraph in supplying news, especially in reports of stock fluctuations.

In the same year, De Lesseps started his project of building the Suez Canal, and joining the Mediterranean to the Red Sea; so that ships could proceed to India from Europe by a direct route. Many centuries before, a canal had been cut and generally used that ran from the Nile River to the Red Sea. The canal that De Lesseps proposed was to be larger, and the engineering difficulties greater. The vast enterprise was finally carried out, at a cost of about $100,000,000. It seems to have passed through the three successive stages of conception, development and production. The idea of building a canal did not originate in 1846, or in the brain of De Lesseps; for the idea was very old, probably older than recorded history. But the only man who formed the mental picture in his mind and afterwards developed it into a concrete plan was De Lesseps. He did this; and his plan was so complete and coherent, and so evidently practical, that he finally succeeded in convincing engineers and capitalists of the fact, and forming a large company. The execution of the concrete plan was not begun until 1859, and it was De Lesseps who began it. Thus De Lesseps, though he did not conceive the basic idea, conceived and combined the various ideas necessary to embody the basic idea in a concrete plan, then constructed the concrete plan, and then produced the actual instrument.

This instrument (the canal) was a very useful instrument. An instrument, according to the Standard Dictionary, is "a means by which work is done." By means of the Suez Canal, the work of direct water transportation between the Far East and Europe was done; and it could not have been done, except by means of that instrument. It has been done by that instrument ever since, and at an increasing rate. The canal was completed in 1869, and widened and deepened in 1886. It has shortened the water distance between England and India by about 7600 miles, and has had a tremendous influence on history, especially on Great Britain's history. One of the largest stockholders is the British Government; three-fourths of the ships passing through it have been British; and though the whole world has benefited, the greatest single beneficiary has been Great Britain.

Yet De Lesseps was a Frenchman! This calls to our minds the fact that although some of the greatest names in History are French, yet the French nation, as a nation, has never shown the same concerted national purpose as the British. In this respect, the French seem to have borne somewhat the same relation to the British, as the Greeks did to the Romans: and yet the French are more nearly allied by blood and language to the Romans than are the British. The Greeks and the French aimed to make life pleasant, by the aid of the fine arts and a general utilization of all that is delightful; while the Romans and the British, early in their careers, conceived the idea of dominion, embodied the idea in a concrete plan, and proceeded to carry the plan into execution. The plan was continually accommodated to the changing conditions of the times, and the means of execution were continually accommodated also. The result has been that Greece and France never, as nations, acquired dominion even approximately; while Rome did completely, and Great Britain did, approximately.

The author does not wish to be understood as approving of the idea of acquiring dominion, or as failing to realize the sordidness of such an ambition, and the evil that men and nations have done, in order to achieve it. He begs leave to point out, however, that the Machine could not have been built, except under the stable conditions that large nations permit better than small nations do; and that it has been the endeavor to achieve dominion by aspiring tribes and nations, and the consequent endeavor to gain strength in order to prevent it, by other aspiring tribes and nations, which have caused the gradual building up of the great nations of today, with the comfort, security and culture that their existence permits.

In the same year, 1846, artificial limbs were invented, and so was the electric cautery. Neither of these inventions had a profound influence; but each was a new creation, and each formed a useful and distinct addition to the Machine. But another invention was made in 1846, that has had great influence.

This was the invention of gun-cotton, made by Schonbein in Germany by the action of nitric and sulphuric acids on cotton, or some other form of cellulose. It was the first practical explosive that depended for its usefulness on the decomposition of a chemical compound, and not on the combustion of a mechanical mixture, like gunpowder. The explosive power of gun-cotton was declared by the chemist Abel to be fifty times that of an equal weight of the gunpowder of that day; but this does not mean that it possessed fifty times the energy. The action of gun-cotton is very much more sudden than that of gunpowder; and for that reason, it exerts a much greater force for an instant, and has much greater efficacy for such purposes as breaking into structures, bursting shells, etc. On the other hand, the very fact that its energy is developed with such suddenness, causes its force to fall to zero very soon, and makes it useless for such purposes as gunpowder fulfils in firing projectiles from guns. In a gun, especially in a long gun, the endeavor is made to keep down the pressure of the gas and prolong its continuance; so that the projectile will receive a comparatively gentle but prolonged push, that will start it gradually from its seat, and will continue to push it, and therefore to increase its velocity, all the way to the muzzle.

Gun-cotton does not belong in the class with the typewriter and the telegraph, that merely assist men to transact business: gun-cotton transacts business "on its own account." Gun-cotton belongs in the class with the gun; and its main influence has been to increase the self-protectivity of the Machine. It has done this mainly by increasing the power of the submarine torpedo against the hulls of warships. It may be objected that both sides in a war between civilized nations would use torpedoes, that no persons except organizations controlled by civilized nations (such as those in warships) would use torpedoes, and that therefore, whatever effect the torpedo might have on the Machine is neutralized by the fact that two civilized bodies use it against each other. True; but the fact that the torpedo and the gun-cotton in it require a high degree of civilization in the people who use it, gives civilized people an immediate and tremendous advantage over uncivilized people; and furthermore, the fact that the torpedo and the gun-cotton in it depend for their ultimate effect not only on their being used, but on the degree of knowledge and skill with which they are used, gives an advantage to which every nation in any war is willing and able to utilize the most knowledge and exert the most skill. That is, the torpedo and the gun-cotton in it combine to give the advantage to the nations possessing the highest degree of civilization and willpower. They enable the Machine of the most highly civilized nation to protect itself if it will against the Machines of less highly civilized nations.

In the year following the invention of gun-cotton, came Sobrero's invention of nitro-glycerin, made by the action of nitric acid on glycerin (1847). The new explosive was more powerful than gun-cotton, but much more dangerous to handle. By reason of its extreme sensitiveness and the consequent danger of handling it, the use of pure nitro-glycerin has never been great.