What the record actually holds — the drawings, the shop testimony, the two years of work — has been replaced by a quotation nobody can find and by witnesses invented for a novel.
* * * * *
This is the next installment of Uncredited Women — a series about women whose work changed outcomes and whose names were written out of the credit. Margaret E. Knight did the work. Margaret E. Knight deserves the credit.
The Person
She was born in York, Maine, on 14 February 1838, and her father died while she was a child. The family went to New Hampshire and she went into a cotton mill at twelve, because her mother needed the wages.
The mills of that decade ran fast and unguarded. A steel-tipped shuttle could come off a loom at speed and cross a room. She watched a worker struck and she built a device to stop it happening again. She was twelve years old and she did not patent it. She did not know that she could.
In 1867 she moved to Springfield, Massachusetts, and took a job at the Columbia Paper Bag Company. The bags the company made were envelopes — narrow, weak, and unable to stand up on their own. A grocer filled one by holding it. Knight looked at that and saw a machine.
The Work
She began in February 1867 with a drawing. In March she made a model out of paper. Through the following year she worked the mechanism out on paper and in wood, and by July 1868 she was employing machinists to help her build the iron working model the Patent Office then required with an application.
It took until early 1870. Her application reached the Patent Office on 28 February. On 4 April she was told that claims in it were already patented by others. Several of them had been awarded on 1 June 1869 to a machinist named Charles F. Annan, who had filed on 3 April 1869, and whom Knight knew from the shop where her own model was being built.
On 7 April 1870 she asked the Patent Office to declare an interference.
Understand what that meant then. Until 2013 the United States awarded patents to the first person to invent, not the first to file, and when two claims collided the Office held an administrative trial to decide who had got there first. Evidence, witnesses, argument. She was thirty-two, she had no formal education past the age of twelve, and she elected to litigate.
What she put on the table was two and a half years of her own work, kept. The drawing from February 1867. Wooden parts cut for the early prototypes, still carrying her tool marks. Photographs of the patent model. And the bags themselves — flat-bottomed, made on the machine while she was still building it, the physical output of a mechanism that on Annan’s account did not yet exist.
Then the witnesses. The machinist Charles Abbott testified that when Knight’s machine reached him it already made bags; that the changes he made improved it without altering its fundamental principle; and that he made them under her direction.
Annan filed no testimony at all. His patent had been assigned to B. S. Binney, and it was Binney’s counsel who conducted the defense: that her early work was preliminary, that the machine was not perfected until after Annan’s date, that machinists had supplied what she could not, that she had chosen a shop already familiar with bag machinery in order to get what she had not worked out herself.
The Patent Office ruled for Knight on 25 June 1870. Binney’s side appealed on 20 July. The Board of Examiners-in-Chief affirmed on 3 September. They appealed again, and on 20 February 1871 the Acting Commissioner of Patents affirmed a third time, adjudging her the prior inventor.
Patent 116,842 issued to Margaret E. Knight on 11 July 1871.
The Erasure
Here is the concession, and it is the one the popular version cannot afford to make: the proceeding never found that Annan stole anything.
It found priority. It found that she invented it first and that he had produced no evidence he had. The record establishes that Annan and Binney had inspected her machine; the defense disputed what that access meant and when it happened; and the Commissioner made no finding of copying, fraud, or misappropriation, because that was not the question in front of him. “Patent thief” is our phrase. It is not the file’s.
The file is gendered all the same — just not where the story says. The Examiners-in-Chief, ruling in her favor, wrote that great allowances were to be made to inexperience in business, as well as to the embarrassments to which her sex subjected Miss Knight; that she was incapable of judging what degree of industry her work required, or how far she might insist upon its being attended to; and that neither could she enforce her claims with the persistence that one of the other sex might use. The Acting Commissioner, affirming, remarked on her success given her little practical acquaintance with machinery.
Read that again. It is not the villain talking. It is the tribunal that agreed with her, explaining her own delays back to her on the grounds of what she was.
And that is not the sentence anyone quotes.
The sentence everyone quotes is Annan’s, and it does not exist. In the retelling he defends himself by arguing that a woman could not possibly understand the mechanical complexities of the machine. No one who repeats it cites a page. It appears in inconsistent wordings, which is what happens to a paraphrase that hardens into a quotation, and the engineering historian Michael Abrams has called the whole framing a modern exaggeration of an argument Annan’s side never made.
That is one fabrication. There are others, and they compound.
The sixteen-day trial that supposedly opened before the Commissioner on 20 February 1871 did not happen; 20 February is the date of a written appellate decision on a record already closed. Queen Victoria did not decorate her with the Royal Legion of Honour, an order that is French, that Britain does not award, and that no contemporary source has been produced to support — though the City of Framingham’s own website was still telling residents so in the summer of 2026. She was not the first woman to receive an American patent; women had held them since at least 1809. She was not the first woman to win an interference; Rebecca Sherwood won one in 1864. She did not hold eighty-seven patents. She held roughly twenty-five in her lifetime; eighty-seven and eighty-nine were her own counts of inventions, reported by a journalist, and the two things were quietly merged.
And in a research guide published by a university library in December 2025, three of the witnesses listed as testifying for her — with quotations attributed to them — are characters invented for a young-adult novel in 2022.
The Consequence
The machine mattered, and it mattered less totally than the story claims. Flat-bottomed bags existed before her. What she built was a mechanism — a guide finger and a folding blade working on a paper tube — that could form the bottom and complete the bag by machine, and it was foundational to making the form manufacturable at scale. It was not the last word. Luther Crowell patented a different bag construction in 1872. Clarence Chandler made the machinery adjustable across sizes. Charles Stilwell’s later work produced the gusseted sack that opens with a snap on a checkout counter. A federal court in 1887 read her patent narrowly, as covering her particular combination and not every route to a satchel bottom. The bag in your kitchen descends from her and from them.
What she got for it is harder to say than anyone admits. Later accounts report $2,500, company stock, and royalties. The agreement has never been located. The figure of $25,000 appears variously as a total, a ceiling, and an estimate, which are three different propositions. The Eastern Paper Bag Company, which she is universally said to have founded in 1870, filed its Connecticut certificate in 1878; she assigned her 1879 improvement patent to it, and beyond that her stake is undocumented. She is said to have left an estate of about $300. No probate inventory has been produced for that either.
So the ledger will not close. She was paid something and it was probably not enough, and anyone who tells you the precise shape of the injustice is working from the same missing paperwork.
One thing did survive intact. In March 1912 the Boston Sunday Post photographed her at seventy-four, standing at work in her experimenting room. The photograph was lost for a century — the institutional position was that no likeness of her existed — and surfaced again only in 2021. Above her head, in the same ruled box, the paper had set the headline: First Woman Granted an American Patent Is Still at Work on Ingenious Inventions.
She had been told, she said, that the honor was arranged by her attorney. The claim was false in 1912. It has been false ever since. It was printed across the only picture of her we have.
The Meaning
I should tell you how I found the invented witnesses, because I did not find them. I nearly printed them.
They were on a university library page. I read the domain, saw an institution, and passed the names on as though they were record. It was another system that caught them, and when I went back to check I found that the guide itself credits the novelist — in plain sight, in an acknowledgment I had read as diligence. I was two turns from putting fiction into a piece about how fiction gets into the record. I do not think that makes me unusual. I think it makes me ordinary, which is the more alarming finding.
Because this is not a story about a woman who was forgotten. Margaret Knight was never forgotten. She is in the encyclopedias, in the Hall of Fame, in the Smithsonian, in the picture books, in the New York Times. Her name is fine.
What was taken is the thing she actually did. She did not win that case by making a speech. She won it because for two and a half years she kept her drawings, dated her work, saved the wooden parts, photographed the model, put the bags in a box, and could produce men who would swear the machine was hers before they touched it. That is a discipline, and it is rarer than genius, and it is the only reason we know her name at all.
It has been replaced by a courtroom scene with an invented line of dialogue. The retelling kept the woman and threw away her method — and having thrown it away, could not tell the difference between a deposition and a novel.
There is a way out and someone has already shown it. The Framingham History Center, asked about the old story that Knight’s portrait hung in the Patent Office, wrote to the Patent Office. There was no such portrait. They said so, in public, about their own local heroine. That is the whole of the remedy: check the thing, and when it is not there, say it is not there.
She proved her case with paper she had kept. The least we can do is keep ours.
Sources: The interference record is held by the National Archives at Kansas City — Record Group 241, Records of the Patent and Trademark Office; Patent Interference Case File No. 272 (NAID 563063) and Patent Case Files, 1836–1978 (NAID 302050). The Examiners-in-Chief passage is quoted from the file by NARA archivists in “Paper Bag Wars,” Newsletter of the National Archives at Kansas City, June 2021; note that the same article misstates the resulting patent number, which is 116,842 of 11 July 1871. A printed copy of the proceedings is catalogued as Maine History Documents 719, DigitalCommons@UMaine, and is not viewable online. The 1912 photograph and headline appeared in the Boston Sunday Post, 31 March 1912. On the technological sequence, see Luther Crowell’s 1872 patent and the subsequent Chandler and Stilwell machinery. Michael Abrams, writing for ASME, identified the familiar sexist-defense quotation as a modern exaggeration. Kara Swanson’s scholarship on Rebecca Sherwood’s 1864 interference defeats the “first woman” superlative. The Eastern Paper Bag Company’s 1878 certificate appears in the Connecticut register of joint-stock companies. The Framingham History Center’s inquiry to the Patent Office regarding the portrait legend is published on its own pages.
* * * * *
Next in this series: Alice Ball — the young chemist in Honolulu who produced the first effective treatment for leprosy.
* * * * *
Charles C. Jett is an author, civic educator, and Professional Certified Coach based in Chicago. A graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy (Class of 1964) and Harvard Business School, he served during the Cold War aboard the nuclear submarine USS Ray (SSN 653), where his tactical innovations helped inspire Tom Clancy’s Jack Ryan character. He is the author of six books, including Super Nuke!, hosts four podcasts, and writes across his Critical Skills Blog platform on history, leadership, and the health of the American republic. In his writing he employs AI tools in a limited, supporting role for research, occasional image creation, and editing, while the prose and judgment remain entirely his own. He and his wife, Dr. Nancy Church, live and co-host the Chicago Salons at Water Tower Residences.
Leave a Reply