7 The 100 Most Influential Inventors of All Time 7their mounting wealth apparently induced a sense of
guilt at denying the inventor any reward: in 1802 the state
of South Carolina agreed to pay $50,000, half the sum
asked by Miller & Whitney for the patent rights. The
action was followed by similar settlements with North
Carolina, Tennessee, and, finally and reluctantly, Georgia.
Miller & Whitney grossed about $90,000; the partners
netted practically nothing. When Congress refused to
renew the patent, which expired in 1807, Whitney con-
cluded that “an invention can be so valuable as to be
worthless to the inventor.” He never patented his later
inventions, one of which was a milling machine.
Whitney learned much from his experience. He knew
his own competence and integrity, which were acknowl-
edged and respected. He redirected his mechanical and
entrepreneurial talents to other projects in which his
system for manufacturing gins was applicable. In 1797 the
government, threatened by war with France, solicited
40,000 muskets from private contractors because the
two national armories had produced only 1,000 muskets
in three years. Twenty-six contractors bid for a total of
30,200. Like the government armories, they used the
conventional method whereby a skilled workman fash-
ioned a complete musket, forming and fitting each part.
Thus, each weapon was unique; if a part broke, its replace-
ment had to be especially made.
Whitney broke with this tradition with a plan to
supply 10,000 muskets in two years. He designed machine
tools by which an unskilled workman made only a par-
ticular part that conformed precisely, as precision was
then measured, to a model. The sum of such parts was a
musket. Any part would fit any musket of that design. He
had grasped the concept of interchangeable parts. “The
tools which I contemplate to make,” he explained, “are