Merseyside and the American Civil War
Neil Holmes

Merseyside is an area over 3000 miles from Washington and yet its impact on the American Civil War was quite considerable. This article will attempt to show why this was the case and what that impact was.

Introduction

Geographically the area lies alongside the Mersey estuary in North West England. Although it now covers a much wider area, the two main areas involved in this article are the Wirral Peninsula and the city of Liverpool. The region has a long and important history dating back at least as far as the Romans who used the Wirral as part of their route into Ireland. The oldest surviving building in the area, a monastery in Birkenhead dates back the 12^th century and Liverpool was granted it’s charter by King John in 1207. Until the 18^th century though the region was sparsely populated and in the main rural, but things were due to change forever.

Bricks cemented with blood? – Liverpool Trade

The cause of this rise was simple - trade. Liverpool had constructed her fist purpose built dock using floodgates – the first time such gates were used to enclose a dock. This innovation, which was soon followed the world over gave the city a chance to compete against other ports. The upstart newcomer challenged and eventually usurped the long standing dominance of London and Bristol on the slave trade. By the end of the century Liverpool was clearing more than twice as many slave ships for sail as the other two combined.

Although Liverpool had become central to the slave trade it would be a mistake to say the slave trade was central to Liverpool’s success. At the height of Liverpool’s influence it’s estimated that no more than 10% of all outbound shipping was slave related. It’s also said that contrary to popular belief those involved in the trade did not make massive fortunes since on average profits were just 8%. This was fortunate for the city as public and government opinion was turning against the trade. In 1772 any slave landing in the UK became free and in 1807 after considerable opposition the abolition of the slave trade bill was finally passed. As would be expected many people in the city protested but unusually a number were vehemently in support of the bill.

However although the city no longer had direct links to slavery it still retained indirect ones. Liverpool always has been a crucial link in the cotton industry and the enormous majority of this cotton came from trade with the USA and by extension slave plantations in the south. Cotton trading helped pay for improved docks and warehouses, not to mention the Liverpool to Manchester railway. In the first half of the 19^th century this wealth and prosperity helped to turn Liverpool into the distribution port for Manchester, Yorkshire and the Midlands. 

A drunken American actor at the Theatre Royal in Liverpool once responded to heckling from the audience with ”I have not come here to be insulted by a set of wretches, every brick in whose infernal town is cemented with an African’s blood!”. He may have been exaggerating, but not by much.

Military matters on the Mersey

The rise of the port of Liverpool in importance by extension saw interest in the Peninsula just over the Estuary also increase. By the early 19^th century the area that would become Birkenhead was recognised as an excellent location for businesses as land was cheap and yet the area was less than a mile from the port of Liverpool The 1820s saw the arrival of a Scottish businessman, William Laird.. Originally a boiler manufacturer he and his son John turned their hand in 1828 to ship building. Laird and sons became famous in both America and Britain for their excellent designs winning many contracts.

The Laird family would have a massive impact on the peninsula prior to the 1860s funding many public buildings and the public park (the design of the park was later all but copied for Central Park in New York). Laird’s shipyards, combined with the construction of docks and railways into the area saw people flock to the Wirral with Birkenhead’s population rising from 110 at the start of the century to nearly 40,000 by the 1860s. By this time John Laird was mostly in control of the business with support from his younger brother Henry.

John Laird

Meanwhile Liverpool was not to be outdone in all this respect. In the city centre there stood the works of Fawcett Preston. Originally manufacturing kitchen utensils the works switched at the turn of the 19^th century to producing guns for Wellington’s army. By the 1860s they had diversified into engine production and would soon play their part in the coming war. Also in Liverpool were Jones Quiggin, WC Miller & Sons and WH Potter, all ship building companies of prominence.

These therefore were the central reasons why the region became so involved in the American Civil War. Her position dominating world cotton trade and as a major British port ensured she would feel the effects of any slackening in US trade. Her ties to slavery and Cotton gave the impression that she would be pro-south. Finally the prominence and fame of the shipbuilding and arms industries in the region would ensure they would stand an excellent chance of receiving contracts from either side. One way or another Liverpool could not escape her role in the coming conflict, so what was it?

Cannons and Spies – Early Merseyside involvement

The earliest example of involvement goes right back to the very start of the conflict between the states. Amongst the many cannon used by the Beauregard’s forces surrounding Fort Sumter was the first example of a rifled cannon to arrive in the US. Built in Liverpool at Fawcett Preston’s and designed by Captain T A Blakely, the rifled 12pndr had been a gift from Charles Prioleau to the state of South Carolina. Prioleau was an American born businessman who became a British subject as part of operating the Liverpool office of Fraser-Trenholm. This company later dedicated itself to running the blockade that would soon be enforced on the South. Whether or not Prioleau intended his donation to ever be used in such a manner it was certainly an indication of things to come. Many of the cannons that would be used in the war would be British made but few have the same such an interesting role..

Almost immediately after events at Fort Sumter Lincoln announced a blockade of Southern ports seeking to strangle the south’s economy and prevent military aid from reaching her. Realising that this would have potentially devastating results on the course of the war the Confederate government knew swift action was needed. The Confederacy itself had little expertise or ability to produce large numbers of either blockade runners or commerce raiders and therefore had to turn to outside support.. Although many agents were eventually dispatched to Europe one man was particularly prominent in this role, James Dunwoody Bulloch.

James Bulloch

Bulloch had served in the US navy but as a native of Georgia resigned to serve the Confederacy on the outbreak of war. He was sent by the government as their agent to Britain and arrived in Liverpool in June 1861. Although he was technically a secret agent of a unrecognised government he was certainly not one for hiding his identity like a modern spy. Upon arrival he immediately began to liaise with Prioleau and others towards his principal goal. Bulloch was in Liverpool to purchase and/or build ships for the Confederate navy. Merseyside’s involvement in the conflict was about to go from interested observer to active supplier of arms.

Hear no laws, see no laws, enforce no laws – The legal issues

Before I continue with the story it is worth investigating at this point the various legal aspects of what Bulloch was attempting. The Confederacy was not a recognised government and Britain was neutral in the conflict. The Foreign Enlistment Act imposed penalties on companies building or equipping a ship destined to be used in acts of war with a country Britain was at peace with but did not make it illegal. The act concluded that there was no offence in doing so as the offence lay at the feet of those responsible for the acts, not those building the instrument used in them. The act was however very clear on the issue of British subjects serving foreign powers. A fine of £50 per person would be imposed on those who enlisted as a sailor, soldier or Marine contrary to the act’s provisions. The power was given to customs officials to detain any ship they suspected of this until the fine was paid.

Although the provisions of the act were not entirely clear on the subject it was clear that the British government could have either imposed the act strictly or altered it in order to prevent what the Confederates were certain to attempt. The fact that they failed to do so says volumes on their position during the war. The conservatives running Britain at the time were concerned at the rumblings of democracy in the country and knew the likely effect the blockade would have on trade. They were not likely therefore to be overly concerned if the Union government failed in its attempt to preserve the Union.

It was in this atmosphere that Bulloch conducted much of his early work in Britain. The government were content if he avoided breaking the enlistment act and with Bulloch denying all connections with the Confederacy the businessmen could pretend they knew nothing of the eventual destination of their sales. Bulloch would commission a ship, have it built essentially as a merchant ship and then commission another to carry potential crew and cannon. He would then arrange for both ships to sail for a predetermined meeting point where the first ship would be fitted out with the cannon and the crew would be signed on.

Ships for Dixie – Building the Confederate Navy

CSS Florida

Bulloch had no sooner arrived than begun his work. He first visited Miller’s shipyards were he purchased the Alexandra and had Miller begin work on the “Oreto” which would eventually find fame as the CSS Florida. Once again the name Fawcett – Preston was involved, on this occasion providing the Florida’s engines along with later many of its guns. The Alexandra was detained by customs authorities before she was finished but Oreto would escape such a fate.

By early 1862 things really began to heat up over the Oreto. The US consulate in Liverpoool, H Dudley was reporting every detail of the ship’s preparation to the American minister in London who complained bitterly to the government. Bulloch had concocted a story that the ship was destined for the Italian navy (something the Italian consulate swore they knew nothing about) and had the ship registered in Liverpool as being owned by a Liverpool merchant. The reaction of the British government was deafening in its silence and by March 1862 the ship had finished her trials.

On the 22^nd March 1862 she sailed with a local crew destined for Nassau where she met the Bahama. There she took on board new crew and arms and ammunition. During this refit much of her crew deserted, unwilling to sign on now they truly appreciated the intention of the ship. Investigations by the admiralty also recognised her true nature and legal proceedings were begun in an attempt to detain her. This failed but did succeed in forcing her to commission outside of British waters. On the 10^th August 1862 this was finished and the confederate flag was hoisted, the ship then adopting the name Florida.

Merseyside’s connection to this ship ends here. Florida would go on to a relatively successful career which ended in October 1864. Commander Collins in the USS Wachesett defied neutral waters to attack the ship whilst she was in harbour in Bahia, Brazil. With most of the crew ashore Collins was able to take the Florida in tow and return her to the US. The Brazilian government protested and Collins was court-martialled, however the decision was set aside by the Secretary of the Navy and Collins was lauded as a hero.  The Florida’s career ended when she collided with a US troopship although some doubt exists as to how much of an accident this was, after all she would likely have been returned to Brazil (and thereafter to the Confederacy) under any court agreement.

CSS Alabama

Bulloch visited the Lairds shipyards in Birkenhead in July 1862 and was clearly impressed with what he saw. Even though they were more famous for iron ships Bulloch commissioned the company to produce a wooden one. Bulloch appreciated that an iron ship would be much harder to maintain and repair than a wooden one given the intended role of the ship. On the 1^st April 1862 Bulloch and Lairds signed an agreement relating to the construction of yard number 290. This plain name betrays nothing of the ship’s true nature so perhaps you’ll know her better if I say she was to become the notorious raider CSS Alabama.

Dudley was once again not fooled by the deception Bulloch threw up about the vessel, even going so far as engaging the services of a private detective to follow Bulloch. Despite the loud and frequent complaints of Dudley and Adams work on 290 continued unchecked. By now virtually everyone on Merseyside had a very clear idea of her destination but in May 1862 the ship was launched, being christened Enrica. The efforts of Dudley could not be ignored though and within a month of the launch her first trials took place. Lairds and Bulloch were clearly concerned at the risk of the ship being detained if she remained in Merseyside any longer than was absolutely necessary.

This risk was not unfounded for Dudley had spent the time gathering statements from sources that included Confederate naval officers and a foreman at Lairds which confirmed the true nature of the vessel. Adams forwarded this information to Earl Russell who on June 25^th obligingly set in motion the creaking machinery of the British government to investigate the matter. It seems likely though that someone forewarned Bulloch as almost immediately the Enrica was made ready to sail. Just 4 days later and 3 earlier than expected she left harbour with a British captain – Butcher, and a mostly British crew.

Some indication of the involvement of the Laird brothers in this can be gained by the fact that they were present on board to help give the impression of a trial but left in the afternoon. Bulloch had been able to recruit the crew by hiring Butcher and his men to only sail her to a foreign port – in this case the Azores. It seems likely though that had she remained a few more days the British government would have been unable to avoid detaining her or risk an serious incident with the Union government. The Union government had no confusion about Enrica and she instructed the Tuscarora to intercept and eliminate her the moment the departure was discovered.

Despite these efforts Enrica reached the Azores on the 10^th August where she was joined by the Agrippina, the ship Bulloch had obtained to act as Alabama’s tender. In the Azores Enrica rapidly took on the armaments Agrippina had brought with her. Bulloch soon arrived in the area with Captain Raphael Semmes (Butcher’s replacement) and additional crew. Some of those who had sailed under Butcher also agreed to sign on for service in the Confederate navy. Quite probably many of these did so long before arriving in the Azores and even before leaving Merseyside, thus breaking the Foreign Enlistment act. Nevertheless on August 13^th the English ensign was taken down, the confederate flag was hoisted and the Enrica became the CSS Alabama.

Alabama’s long and eventful career has been chronicled in depth elsewhere but before she ended her career Merseyside would once again be involved. After she was sunk by the Kearsage off the coast of France it was a Liverpool owned, Lairds built ship – Deerhound that rescued Semmes and his Executive officer along 11 other officers and 29 men. To the amazement of those on Kearsage the Deerhound then proceeded to leave the area and deliver the Confederates to Southampton. This intervention by a Merseyside ship to save Semmes from captivity seems almost predictable really.

Georgiana

Although no record of this ship was kept by Lairds the Georgiana was certainly built there. Designed as a commerce raider that was even faster than Alabama she would have made a fine man of war. Unusually after leaving Liverpool in January 1863 it was decided that she would run the blockade into Charleston where she would be armed and fitted out. Unfortunately for her she never reached there as she was spotted by Federal cruisers and captain ran her aground near Long Island Beach. The Federal navy made several attempts to board her but were driven off. In the end she was destroyed by a stray shell from one of the confederate batteries brought up to drive off the Union forces. Unfortunately her early demise has meant that to my knowledge no photographs or drawings of her still exist.

The Laird Rams

Back in Birkenhead work had begun on two ironclad rams for the Confederacy, El Tousson and El Monassir (also known as Scorpion and Wyvern). Unlike the Alabama or Florida these were designed to break the blockade on southern ports by attacking the Union navy. By now though it was clear to all concerned that the British government could not ignore events any longer and another approach was needed. Bulloch promptly sold the ships to a firm of Paris merchants Bravary and Company, claiming to be acting on behalf of the Pasha of Egypt.

However as work neared completion Adams increased his pressure on the British government and on 11^th July 1863 sent a letter that concluded with him regarding the work in progress on the rams to be tantamount to participation in the war itself which if not prevented could endanger peace. Following statements made by Clarence Yonge, Alabama’s former paymaster and checks made on the validity of the Egyptian connection the British Government were forced to take action. On 27^th October 1863 both vessels were boarded and detained. Despite protests from Bravary the Admiralty purchased both vessels thus ending any chances of them ever being used for the Confederacy.

Along with these 5 warships nearly 30 blockade runners were built on Merseyside, many being operated by Fraser-Trenholm. At least two of these were owned by the Laird brothers themselves smaking it hard for them to claim ignorance of Bulloch’s intentions.  Although many yards would be responsible for producing ships for the Confederate cause it can be clearly seen that Merseyside was at the heart of such efforts. There are still however events that provide us with other links.

Johnny Reb or Billy Yank – Just who did Merseyside support anyway?

Pro-Union feeling

Blockade running and shipbuilding made many fortunes on Merseyside but at the same time others close by were suffering greatly. The severe drop in Cotton imports into the port had left many porters in the city and mill workers in Lancashire without work and destitute. By March 1862 soup kitchens were being used in Liverpool to stave off the crisis and the number of destitute in Blackburn was over 6000 higher than the same period in 1861 with worse yet to come. As the war continued and the cotton crisis deepened this forced the British government to take action. Much of this support came too little and too late with many workers and their families starving.

You could forgive such people for wanting the Civil War or at least the blockade to end as soon as possible even if that meant British intervention or a Confederate victory. To their lasting credit though most steadfastly refused to support the Confederacy throughout the war. This staunch support did not go unnoticed in the North where Lincoln dispatched a number of relief ships laden with flour and corn for them. In an ironic twist one of these, the Brilliant was sunk by the Alabama before she could reach Liverpool.

Some aid did reach the port though and on 9th February 1863 the George Griswald arrived at the port laden with flour, rice, corn, pork and other supplies. Thousands lined the banks of the Mersey to cheer her arrival. In response on 19^th February a mass meeting was held in St George’s Hall expressing support for Lincoln and the Union cause and distaste for the Southern cause. A central theme in this meeting and others was slavery with many likening the abolitionist cause to attempts to bring more democracy to Britain.

Pro Confederate Feeling

Never let it be said though that the general population on Merseyside were unequivocally pro-union. The city was involved in many different fund raising events for Southern prisoners of war. One of these, a bazaar was held in St George’s Hall, the same location as the pro-North meetings during the war. Men like James Spence were active in promoting the Southern cause in the city and country. Southern clubs were formed in many cities with the aim of changing the stance of the British government through agitation. Although they never really succeeded they did barrack various pro-North meetings during the war.

John Laird also enjoyed considerable support despite his involvement with the South. He stood for parliament in 1861 and received a little over 50% of the votes, some distance ahead of his closest rival. He also won elections in 1865, 1868 and 1874 despite his opponent’s attempts to use his involvement in the civil war against him. This support may be explained by the fact that although pro-Union sentiment was strong amongst the general population in Merseyside the enormous majority of them had no right to vote in these elections. Out of the 40,000 or so who lived in Birkenhead in the 1860s only 3,000 could exercise this right.

Lincoln’s Assassination

Rather surprisingly there is a connection between Liverpool and the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. One of the most popular Shakespearean actors of the early 19^th Century, Junius Brutus Booth appeared frequently at the Theatre Royal in the city centre. He later emigrated to the states and his son John was later to shoot Lincoln dead at Ford’s theatre. Interestingly enough Junius’ brother was the great great great grandfather of Cherie Booth who is of course the wife of Britain’s current Prime Minister.

Lincoln’s assassination brought much heartfelt grief from the population of Merseyside. More mass meetings were held with even pro-south men expressing indignation over the crime. Many Union supporters took this to be hypocrisy and criticised such men for attacking Lincoln as an “illiterate backwoodsman” when alive but then saying he was a fine man in death.

So really it’s not possible to say which side Merseyside supported. Certainly the merchants and shipbuilders backed the South but many amongst the general population were vehement supporters of the North. Perhaps men like Laird and Spence received more press but it is still good to know that

Post war connections

The end of the Civil War did not bring an end to Liverpool’s connections to it. Bulloch for example spent the remainder of his life in the city, unwilling to return to the States for fear of imprisonment. He died in 1901 and is buried in Toxteth Cemetery, not far from where many of the ships were built. His gravestone bears the inscription on one side “American by birth” and on the other “Englishman by choice”. To this day you can still see re-enactors commemorating his death every year. Also although Semmes returned to the Confederacy before the end of the war his sword remains in Birkenhead, currently as part of a Lairds exhibition in the Town Hall museum.

Liverpool also saw what could be argued to be the final surrender of the war. The Confederate raider Shenandoah had been in the Pacific in April 1865 and was unaware of events in North America until June when she captured newspapers that covered the surrender of Lee’s army and the capture of Richmond. On 2^nd August she received confirmation from a British ship that the confederacy had collapsed. Captain Waddell then disarmed the ship and chose to sail 17,000 miles back to Liverpool. The Shenandoah finally sailed up the Mersey with the Confederate flag flying on 5^th November 1865. The flag was lowered and Waddell surrendered the next day to the Mayor of Liverpool some 211 days after Appomattox.

One final connection remains to the war and that is the legal issues surrounding the Alabama and other raiders. Some 7 years after the war ended this was settled at the court of Arbitration in Geneva in favour of the United States which was awarded £3,299,166 in compensation. Interestingly Britain had since tightened up its laws and it was under these that the decision was made. Laird refused to admit he had done anything wrong legally, neatly avoiding the morality of the issue. He would remain unrepentant until his death on 29^th October 1874.

Conclusion

So as can be seen Merseyside played a significant role in the American Civil War and had sympathies for both the North and South. I myself have always been interested in the conflict and found it very interesting to research its connections to the area where I have lived in my entire life. Researching the subject further has brought a new insight into John Laird, a man who is almost a hero to the people of the Wirral given how much he did for Birkenhead. Reading about his work in the 1860s though gives a more balanced view of the man as someone who either supported the southern cause or simply put business before morality.

Sources

Hollet, David, The Alabama Affair

Jones, Ron, The American Connection

Brocklebank, Ralph, Birkenhead an Illustrated History

Merseyside Tourism Board, Liverpool Heritage Walk

http://www.redstarline.org.uk/civil_war_in_liverpool.html

http://www.csa-dixie.com/liverpool_dixie/index.htm

My Humble Offering (non titled)
Clint Wiggen

Remember, this little essay was compiled for a blind friend using books he cannot access in Braille or talking books, and only reflects my own "dis-belief" as to how many mistakes there are in the recognized books which are either ignored or accepted. Which he can read.  It is especially irksome concerning inventors and patents for some of my favorite things, and the only direction this one will go since "Historic Persons" is the area I am honored to moderate on this forum.  I don’t wish to seem a "revisionist" or anything, because this isn’t really "revisionism", it is attempting to correct mistakes which were made when the original and more reflective of reality data was at hand.  In some cases the mistakes were intentional, in some cases the mistakes were simple oversight and only reflected what was assumed to be "common knowledge".

My original question to he, was; "how many other facts are erroneously described and repeated so often throughout the world, that they become the "common knowledge"  (everybody knows that!) and the reality is lost?"  Many times this stuff is repeated so often it begins to appear to be the reality and is then vehemently defended by those who read or even hear it!  That said, here are two extremely minor examples (in the world history scheme of thing); First, the credit for invention of conventional Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) television as we know it before flat-screen and digital, and the invention of radio transmission, x-ray, and electric power as used in America (household). These have been a couple of my pet peeves for the last few decades when I first "discovered" information concerning Philo T. Farnsworth when I was stranded in my 18 wheeler in a snowstorm/blizzard in Rigby, Idaho (USA) and visited a museum devoted to him, and then by accident, later reading about Nikola Tesla. Now while I won’t claim to be "expert" in relation to either of these gentlemen, I still feel they are being slighted in the historical sense  So, in reverse order here were my own interpretations of the men and their inventions, as I recorded them to my buddy.  Please feel free to either take off or include my "disclaimer", which actually does cover "why" I didn’t originally write this thing as a "thesis" or anything.

Now remember that I am collating, consolidating and paraphrasing from any number of sources, such as; Tesla-Man out of Time by Margaret Cheney. Wizard-The Life and Times of Nikola Tesla by Marc Seifer. Prodigal Genius: The Life and Times of Nikola Tesla by John J. O’Neill (he knew Tesla personally). Inventions, Research and Writings of Nikola Tesla by T. Martin. And then from; Philo T. Farnsworth: The Father of Television by D. Godfrey, and finally The Boy Who Invented Television, by Paul Schatzkin as well as other linked "sites" which I originally found at: http://www.tvhistory.tv/1935-1941.htm I am only attempting to interest others in reading those books with this little "article" which I had put together for my blind buddy Mike (I’ve known him since 1966), and we were both amazed that I could write in MS-DOS text on my ‘puter, put it on a floppy as a TEXT FILE, mail it to him for free, and his computer could "read" it to him in that format. I hope I am not "plagiarizing" anything here by not remembering exactly where I read every line as I have long ago lost track of those books themselves. At any rate, here goes my little essay!

Despite the fact that almost every book in the world and even the Smithsonian in D.C. credits Guglielmo Marconi as the inventor of radio (as does the History Channel here in the USA), he did nothing but get his theft and his own plagiarism "financed" by his mother and others. The only thing Marconi did was reproduce a pre-existing and functioning apparatus the Serbian American (naturalized 1891) Nikola Tesla had already built, demonstrated, registered, and patented beforehand. Tesla's patent for the electronic wireless transmission of signals and data was originally filed on September 2, 1897 (# 613,809). The final, all encompassing patent was granted on March 20, 1900 (#649,621) and actually became Tesla's third radio related patent, since the first was granted in 1898 (# 613,809), the second in 1899 (# 645,576). While Marconi's own patent application was filed seven months later in America on November 10, 1900 but was summarily rejected as simply a duplicate of Tesla's existing work. (Seifer)  Marconi had copied Tesla, but with the help of "Mother Marconi’s" money (she of Seagram’s heritage), he managed to built an industry producing radio devices in Europe where they spent huge amounts of money to advertise and promote his supposed "invention". America’s own Smithsonian in D.C. has a full section devoted to this wealthy son of Seagram’s,  G. Marconi and lists him as the "father of radio" with no mention of the Serb/American, Nikola Tesla to whom he legally lost his right to be recognized as a pioneer and inventor of RADIO in the US Supreme Court in the forties! (Cheney)  Of course by then both men were dead, and Tesla had no heirs, so no big whoop, who cares, right?

Without doubt the inventor of wireless radio communication is Nikola Tesla, proven by the numerous American, international and official court decisions, and as many of the recognized scientists of his era have testified and professed. Even though a patent was granted to Marconi in Britain in 1896, this was a full year after Tesla had published his (wireless transmission/reception) findings in the journal "Electrical Experimenter" which specialized in electrical "marvels" of the time.  Guess who was a subscriber to said journal?  Not that Marconi couldn’t have invented it independently, just that Marconi’s original patents were dismissed as to much similar to Tesla’s.   While manipulating his own newly created "coils", Tesla himself had discovered that he could transmit and receive "wireless" radio signals when they were tuned to resonate at the same frequency. Tesla had found that when one of his coils was tuned to a particular frequency, it literally magnifies the incoming electrical energy through resonant action emitted by a similar coil. Tesla's wireless "radio" concept was first demonstrated at short range in St. Louis in 1893 (the same year his AC power lights up the Chicago Colombian Exposition) and a U.S. patent application for the electronic transmission of signals and data was filed on September 2, 1897 (# 613,809). This was the very process Marconi copied from the published article. By March 1895, Tesla had transmitted a signal 50+ miles from NYC to West Point, New York. Marconi's numerous revised patent applications over the next three years were repeatedly rejected because of the priority of Tesla’s work. The U.S. Patent Office finally made the following comments to Marconi in 1903:

None of "Marconi’s claims and patent applications are… patentable (sic) over Tesla patents,  #  645,576 and #  649,621."…  "The amendment to overcome said references as well as Marconi's pretended ignorance of the nature of a ‘Tesla oscillator’ being little short of absurd"... "the term "Tesla oscillator" has nearly become a household word on both continents [Europe and North America]"… by the time Marconi made his first attempts at US patents (T. Martin).  In spite of his failure to gain a US patent, he none the less went ahead with his construction work and by December 12, 1901 Marconi had transmitted and received signals across the Atlantic Ocean (using Tesla’s patented coils). Later that same month Tesla’s co-worker Otis Pond, an engineer working with Tesla said; "Looks as if Marconi got the jump on you." Tesla is reported to have replied; "Marconi is a good fellow. Let him continue. He knows he is using my patents." (O’Neill) But Tesla's confidence was shattered in 1904, when the U.S. Patent Office suddenly reversed all its previous decisions and gave Marconi a patent for the invention of radio (patent # 763,772), even though he was obviously using the existing "Tesla Oscillator" in his device. (Cheney)

The reasons for this have never been fully explained by either the patent office, nor any of the officials from the time period.  But one must consider that by then, Seagram’s, Thomas Edison and Andrew Carnegie had invested heavily in Marconi Radio (Europe) and Edison himself became a paid consulting engineer for Marconi (American) here in the States.  I wonder if that didn’t put some pressure on the people of the patent office itself, Carnegie and Seagram money coupled with Edison prestige and money. (

And let us not forget Edison’s long standing battle with Tesla (a former employee) over his competing and eventually successful AC electrical power delivery system, would explain part of the problem if coupled with the powerful financial backing for Marconi from Seagram’s, Carnegie, and Edison. Even then "money talked"! Tesla was embroiled in other financial problems at the time, but when Marconi was awarded the Nobel Prize for his "wireless radio", Tesla was furious. That is why he sued the Marconi Company for patent infringement in 1915, but was by then was in no financial condition to litigate a case against an existing major corporation. Tesla had invested all the capital he had received from Westinghouse for his AC power patents in a giant electrical transmitting station in Wanderclyffe near New York City (yeah he also invented Westinghouse’s AC dynamos, polyphase transmission system, and brushless AC motors). This power transmission tower he was building was to be used for the wireless transmission of electrical energy for the "free" usage of all. (He was a bit of an altruist)  By 1935, 15 out of 16 Marconi Patent claims were invalidated by the U.S. Court of Patent Claims, and Tesla was acknowledged to have been prior inventor on these portions of Marconi's patents, and ordered to pay royalties. Marconi died two years later, and corporate appeals continued for ten years. The case was eventually decided by the US Supreme Court in 1944 (nine months after even Tesla's death) when it upheld Tesla's radio patents (#  613,809, # 645,576, and # 649,621), which invalidates and repudiates all of Marconi’s patents and ends all appeals. It mattered not, Marconi had passed on in 1937, and Tesla himself had died un-married, childless, and bankrupt on July 7th of ‘43.

I seriously wonder if any man has contributed so much to the modern world (and yet been so forgotten) as Nikola Tesla. Turn on the power in your house or a fluorescent light, manipulate your R/C "toy", listen to the radio, or even have an X-ray in an emergency room, don't think of Edison (because it is AC, not DC), Marconi, or Roentgen, but please try to remember Tesla. It was Nikola who pioneered and unselfishly shared his discoveries and inventions with the world, and it is also Nikola whom history has robbed of the acknowledgment for those achievements.

Consider this, a very young Tesla (broke, hungry, skinny [164 lbs], 6'4" genius), arriving from the Serbian area of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and walking into Edison's office in 1883 (‘84? I’ve seen both dates), completely terrified and in awe of the "Wizard of Menlo Park", with literally a dime in his pocket. He was meeting and interviewing for an employment position with his only "scientific hero". When Tesla handed Edison his sealed letter of recommendation from one of Edison Corporation’s (Europe) managers, it read only: "My Dear Edison; I know of two great men and you are one of them. The other is this young man!". Tesla proceeded to describe the engineering work he had done in Europe for Edison’s own company improving its efficiency, as well as his own concepts for an alternating current system (Tesla was already fluent in five languages by this time, not counting Latin). Edison knew little of, and cared less about the concept of alternating current since AC power seemed like competition for Edison’s own DC power (how right he was!). But there was something about Tesla and his youthful enthusiasm, so Edison hired him to make improvements in his own DC generation plants. Tesla later claimed that Edison had promised him $50,000 if he could succeed in producing an AC power system during that first interview, perhaps thinking it was an impossibility as he, the GREAT Edison, himself had tried and failed. The very idea of that much money certainly must have appealed to the impoverished immigrant as he had arrived in the US with less than ten cents in his pocket, so he worked on his concept on his own time whenever he wasn’t at the Edison plants.

Several months after Edison employed him, Tesla announced that his AC design and prototype equipment work was completed. When Tesla demonstrated it, and asked to be paid his $50,000 reward however, Edison scoffed and laughed at him. He explained that the offer of $50,000 had of course been made in jest. "When you become a full-fledged American you will appreciate an American joke," Edison said. Shocked, Tesla immediately resigned. (Boy, did Thomas Alva miss the boat here! He could have had Tesla’s AC system for a real pittance.) Tesla did have a sense of humor, just not where his inventions and research work were concerned. Word spread in the scientific community that a new "citizen" of unusual talent in the field of electricity was digging ditches to stay alive. So some investors approached Tesla and asked him to develop an improved method for arc lighting. Although this was not the electrical direction he had worked toward, the group was willing to finance the "Tesla Electric Light Company". So the proud new "owner" set to work and invented a unique arc lamp of beautiful design and efficiency. Unfortunately, all of the money earned went to the investors and all Tesla got out of the deal was a lab and a stack of worthless stock certificates.  But he had managed to get his AC power system patented, but couldn’t afford to develop it.  He later sold all his AC patents to George Westinghouse for a million dollars, but he graciously relieved Westinghouse from the "royalty" clause of the contract which provided for Tesla to be paid an amount for every "horsepower" developed and sold by Westinghouse in the AC system if it was produced.  This would have bankrupt Westinghouse of course, but Tesla was no business man.  He just tore up the contract and shook George Westinghouse’s hand.

Actually, Nikola Tesla also discovered and demonstrated "x-rays" a few years before Wilhelm Konrad Roentgen, he just didn’t name it or pursue the "lab trick", it was just something he did for the "fun of it". The first x-ray ever taken was a picture of the inner workings (springs, shutter, screws), of a camera that was being used to make a picture of Mark Twain in Tesla's lab in 1884. During early 1885, dozens of other "x-ray" photos were produced in Tesla's lab. A set of x-rays of Tesla's foot and Mark Twain's hand (dated 1884) still survive. Unfortunately, Tesla's lab burned down in mid ’95 during one of his experiments on liquefying gasses and only those three "x-rays" (the camera, Tesla’s foot, and Twain’s hand) survived as they were already in Twain’s possession as novelties. When Roentgen announced his own discovery on December 28th, 1895 (ten years later), Tesla immediately congratulated him by letter and sent him a copies of his own "x-rays" taken in ‘84 and early ’85! The reply Roentgen sent to Tesla thanking him for the congratulations, and asking how his (Tesla’s) "x-rays" were made still exists also. During his relationship with Twain is one of the areas where his "sense of humor" was demonstrated.

Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) had become a great admirer of Tesla, and often spent hours and hours in his NYC lab (on Houston Street) questioning the scientist, and following his work. Tesla was fascinated by harmonic "resonance" in all its forms, and had developed this sort of platform which a fellow could stand in, and a pneumatic oscillator would create this silent, low frequency, sympathetic vibration in male human’s body (it nauseated the few females who tested it for some reason), and relieve many aches and pains (sort of like an internal massage), and feel quite rejuvenated. But, he had found that more than five or six minutes of the "treatment" would cause a fellow’s bowels to vacate unstoppably and completely involuntarily. He had warned Twain about the side affects, but Twain had become so enthused about the device he stayed on the platform for longer and longer periods, until the gentleman "crapped his pants".

In 1902, Tesla also demonstrated a radio-controlled submarine to U.S. Navy officials. From the shore of a large pond, Tesla commanded the battery powered "automaton" (by wireless remote control radio) to advance, stop, turn left, right, submerge and surface. And since it was controlled by sharply tuned radio-frequencies, it was immune to jamming at the time. US Navy officials declared that they could think of no practical use for the device! Undaunted, Tesla refined medical diathermy, "cold light", and he even intercepted the first natural radio signals from space which he mistakenly interpreted as alien communications. At one point, he activated a tiny pneumatic oscillator connected to the structural steel girders of his own lab, and its (outside his lab) vibrations became so powerful it almost shook-down another building a block away, housing a police station. He had created a "man-made" earthquake, and was unable to shut it down quickly enough by "normal" means so he was forced to sever the air hose feeding his oscillator with an AXE! Also his "blade-less" turbine has never been developed fully (to my knowledge), but it was demonstrated to be beautifully efficient. All 111 of Tesla’s US patents can be checked out at: http://www.mall-usa.com/BPCS/tesla.html But, in reality he held over 700 patents worldwide.

Now when it comes to Farnsworth, things are not quite so confused.  Except for the fact that some people insist on granting Zworykin and Sarnoff (of RCA), and even the Scot, John L. Baird credit for TV of today.  A rather amusing (but sad) event took place concerning Philo T. Farnsworth when he appeared on "What’s My Line" the television show hosted by John Daley (I think this was the show).  He stumped the panel as to what he did (invented television), and received a carton of cigarettes (he was a non-smoker) and a cash prize.  When Farnsworth was interviewed later he said something like; "this is the first money I ever received for my invention which wasn’t wrapped up in red-tape."

The 1908 "concept" of images scanned, synchronized and displayed by electronic means belongs to a Scot, Archibald A. Campbell-Swinton. But, he never developed it into a functioning system beyond the theoretical paperwork, that was left to be eventually perfected by the American "farm boy" (without college education) Philo T. Farnsworth in 1927.  And he had never heard of Swinton until long after he had patented his design.  Before that date, television was the province of Newtonian electro-mechanical engineers who employed spinning disks and mirrors in their crude attempts to scan, transmit, and reassemble a moving image. The inventions of Baird (another Scot), and others are all similar in their reliance on the spiral-perforated, spinning disk invention of the German Paul Nipkow (patented 1884). These contraptions were engineering marvels in their own "Rube Goldberg" and interesting way, but they were not the sort of breakthrough that Farnsworth introduced, nor is anything left of their technology in the system of television that is in use around the world today. Vladimir Zworykin had also designed a camera that focused an image through a lens onto an array of photo-sensitive selenium cells coating the end of a tube, this truly was an improvement on the early work of Boris Rosing (Russia), with whom Zworykin had studied and worked. Rosing had designed a mechanical scanner coupled with CRT receiver, and Zworykin had perfected and attempted to patented it in 1923, but he was refused the patent.

However, rather than an electron beam created by spinning disks, Farnsworth's image dissector device used an "anode finger" or "image dissector", which was a pencil-sized tube with a small aperture at the top to scan the picture. Magnetic coils sprayed the electrons emitted from the electrical image left to right and line by line onto the aperture at extreme speed, where they became an electric current. Both Zworykin's and Philo's devices then transmitted the current to a cathode-ray tube, which recreated the image by scanning it back onto a fluorescent surface. But as early as April, 1930, Farnsworth was visited in his California lab by one Vladimir Zworykin, an engineer at Westinghouse who was even then enroute to RCA. Zworykin calls Farnsworth's camera tube "A beautiful instrument" and said before witnesses, "I wish that I had invented it."

David Sarnoff, then vice president of the powerful Radio Corporation of America, wishing to get a "leg up" in the new field of transmitted images, had hired Zworykin away from Westinghouse to ensure that RCA might control television technology. In 1933, Zworykin again visited Farnsworth, this time accompanied by Sarnoff, but the Mormon inventor's business manager scoffed at selling the company, and Farnsworth's services to RCA for a piddling $100,000. So Sarnoff haughtily downplayed the importance of Philo's innovations, saying, "There's nothing here we'll need." Consequently, a year later in 1934 RCA demonstrated its "iconoscope," a camera tube very similar to Farnsworth's "image dissector". It was so similar it was the basis of the patent suit which RCA eventually lost. RCA claimed it was based on a device Zworykin tried to patent in 1923, improving upon his mentor Boris Rosing’s (Russia) mechanical scanner with CRT receiver design. This even though the Zworykin system  had used Nipkow's old spinning disk design up until the time he visited Philo's lab!  At the 1939 New York World's Fair, Sarnoff announced the launch of commercial television although RCA's camera was weak, inadequate, and the corporation had lost its patent battles and didn't own a single TV patent at the time.

Later that same year, the company was compelled to pay patent royalties to Farnsworth Radio and Television since four years earlier, in February, 1935: U.S. Patent Office issues decision in Zworykin-v-Farnsworth Interference #64,027, awarding "priority of invention" of electronic television to Philo T. Farnsworth; the Farnsworth testimony includes Justin Tolman, who recalls after-school discussions with his young prodigy and produced a hand-drawn sketch of the Image Dissector. There are numerous variations of "where and when" young Philo thought of his "line by line" scanner.  Some say it was while he was mowing hay, some while he was plowing a field, and Farnsworth himself has used both analogies.  Suffice it to say it occurred to him while working on a farm as a "kid". The very year that the "electronic" style of televised images became available in the UK (1935), the "Baird" system was abandoned by both the BBC and Baird himself. He moved to the "electronic" (Farnsworth) style since it was demonstrably superior to the "mechanical" in every instance.

The Scot, John Baird, certainly deserves some credit of course for improving upon the concept patented in 1884 by Paul Nipkow, but Nipkow had only patented a primitive television device called the Elektrisches Teleskop. At the core of this apparatus was a disc punctured with a spiral pattern of 24 holes. As the disc spun, light reflected from a subject passed through the holes and stimulated a photo-sensitive selenium cell. The cell, in turn, produced an electric current which charged a light source in a receiver. In front of this receiver spun another disc, perfectly synchronized with the one in the transmitter. Light passing from the disc was viewed through an eye piece. The result was a flickering jerky reproduction of the "by wire" transmitted image. John Baird certainly improved it to merely tiny (the size of a business card), fuzzy and blurred. In the case of electronic television, at least give the credit to the right Scot! Archibald Campbell-Swinton.  Baird's first successful visual transmissions occurred in 1926, when he sent some vague semblance of the head of a dummy from one room to another by "wireless" signal (no human could sit still long enough for the image to be recognizable!). Some years later Baird convinced a reluctant BBC to permit him to use their channels in the evenings to broadcast blurry programs to a handful of receivers. By 1934, Baird had sold more than 20,000 "Televisor" receivers in kit-form all over Europe. Still, the BBC was disappointed in the quality of Baird's picture and was looking for something better.

In the mid-thirties, Baird's Televisor product and its future had fallen into the hands of a large British holding company called British Gaumont. Feeling that they had a considerable investment to protect, British Gaumont pushed Baird to abandon his mechanically scanned "Televisor" in favor of the new and emerging electronically scanned video. British Gaumont reasoned that if the BBC wanted to broadcast images electronically, then Baird should be the one to provide them with it, even if that meant taking a license with another inventor. As providence would have it, Baird's people had just learned of the young inventor in America (Farnsworth) who was desperate for money and offering just such a license, since he was contesting RCA and their patents in court, so Gaumont quickly dispatched a group of engineers to Philadelphia to see what Farnsworth had to offer. Philo Farnsworth and his business manager, "Skee" Turner received the news of a possible license from Baird with tremendous excitement, a license in England could be the prelude to a whole series of licenses all over Europe. On arrival in Philadelphia, the English engineers were instantly impressed with the clarity and size of image from Farnsworth's system, and at their invitation arrangements were made to take Farnsworth and his invention to England, where negotiations would be concluded.

Farnsworth and Turner must have been elated at this unexpected change of luck.  Finally it seemed there was hope for their own "electronic" television. So Philo T. Farnsworth carefully crated up his 1934 television "mobile unit" and sailed for Southampton in 1935. The Telefunken and Fernseh broadcasts of the ‘36 Berlin Olympics were done with both the RCA "Iconoscope" (Telefunken) and the Farnsworth (Fernseh) systems. The true origins of the "Iconoscope" are muddy at best, since some of its essential components can even be traced to the Hungarian inventor Kalman Tihanyi, and his similar tube, dubbed the "Emitron," which later emerged from the laboratories of EMI in Britain, and EMI was (ironically) an RCA cross-licensee, using Zworykin's "Iconoscope" design, the patent for which was later negated.  So, in reality even the first Olympic broadcast might possibly been done solely with "Farnsworth" systems no matter which "name" on the things.

Farnsworth’s 100+ patents concerning electronic television date from Oct. 1927 to April of 1963, and include Patent # 2,158,279 titled "Cathode Ray Tube;" but Farnsworth clearly did not invent the first cathode ray tube. However he certainly had to quite nearly re-invent it to get it to a form which was suited to television images (and in your monitor unless you are using a "flat screen"). No other practiced means of scanning and deflecting the electron beam, for producing an image in a cathode ray tube, predated Farnsworth either. He, and brother-in-law, Cliff Gardner, made countless improvements over the decades, which are duly registered with the U.S. Patent office. Improvements to the cathode ray tube or "CRT" continue today of course. And yet, in many textbooks the Sarnoff/Zworykin/RCA TV system still is credited as the "beginning" of Television.

If you can’t tell by now, I am a great fan of both the under recognized Serbian/American Nikola Tesla and the Idaho "farm boy", Philo Farnsworth!  Hope I didn’t bore you guys too much?

Happy Trails,
Clint.

R