Wow! Steinitz did meet Morphy. Interesting read:
Morphy didn't like Steinitz's gambit he said it was no good.
Here - http://www.edochess.ca/batgirl/Zukertort_Morphy.html - You can read that Zukertort claimed to have met with Morphy. Of course he didn't.
I disagree with Bird because of Steinitz chess was modernize, if you look at the later games of Morphy, he still was stick in the dazzling combinative and attacking era, not like Steinitz who through his concept of positional play advance chess to higher level.
"Paul Morphy would have gone through that tournament like a meteor. He was head and shoulders above every player taking part in it." He further remarked: "Probably, with the exception of Steinitz, Blackburne is the finest living player. Steinitz is a slow player and is always pretty well crowded for time, and I doubt if he could have made as good a showing against Zukertort had the latter been less confident and arranged the match at a time limit of twenty moves to the hour instead of fifteen. I trotted Steinitz the closest heat he ever contested. He beat me 8 to 7, with 6 draws. This was in '67. In '58 Morphy beat me 10 to 1, with 1 draw. Steinitz claims that he is a better player than ever Morphy was, but I think my record with each is a fair test of the strength of the two. Steinitz claims that when I played with Morphy I was out of practice, but I cannot explain away my crushing defeat by that great player in any such way. I never played better chess in my life than when he beat me. Morphy had more science than Steinitz - more imagination. His career was very short, though very brilliant, and, whether or not he could have held first honors as long as Steinitz, is a matter of some doubt; but Morphy never met his match. He was never compelled to play his best game. His resources were never fully tested.