problem of the defence of Sweden.  Ericsson never forgot his native land, and gave to her political troubles and to the question of her defence against her more powerful neighbors much serious thought.  As a result of this study, he had produced as early as 1854 a design embodying all the essential features of the “Monitor,” and this design, shown by a model, was in that year sent to Napoleon III., who was then at war with Russia.  This was in the hope that he might in this way contribute to the overthrow of the latter, the hereditary enemy of his native land.

The design, however, was not adopted, and after it was returned was laid aside to collect the dust of his office, until the experiences of the Civil War brought it again to the light.  The plan in all its main features had therefore long been matured, and it only remained to proceed rapidly with the details and with the realization of the idea in the most suitable materials to be obtained.

The result of the battle between the “Monitor” and the “Merrimac” in Hampton Roads is a part of history.  The relentless devastation which the latter had begun on the old wooden ships of the American Navy at Hampton Roads was stayed, and the wild fears at the North concerning the destruction which she might cause to the shipping and to the seaboard cities was calmed.  The “Merrimac” met her master, and retired from the conflict crippled and shorn of power for further evil.  A short time later she sank beneath the waters of the Chesapeake, and is now remembered only as the antagonist of the “Monitor.”

If the result of this battle between the “Monitor” and the “Merrimac” marked a turning-point in the naval aspect of the Civil War, it wrought a no less marked change in the standing and fortunes of her designer.  Some of his engineering efforts had not met with the success for which he or his friends had hoped.  The engines of the air-ship, while a success as a piece of mechanism, were so enormous and heavy that she had to be considered as a commercial failure, and the venture was not repeated; the deplorable accident on the “Princeton” was by some held to be in part chargeable to Ericsson, though a later and full knowledge of the circumstances shows that such was in no wise the case.  Again, Ericsson, as an experimenter and pioneer, was by some considered as a dreamer, and before the “Monitor” was completed there was no lack of croakers who prophesied failure or who openly ridiculed the idea.  This condition was of course natural.  In many ways Ericsson was ahead of his age; and, again, it must not be supposed that he avoided mistakes or that all of his work fully realized the expectations which were based upon it.  Furthermore, Ericsson’s spirit was proud, and he was little disposed to accept criticism from those whom he felt to be unqualified to pass adequate judgment on his work, while he was especially impatient under the system by which government work was done.  He was therefore but little disposed