Abraham Lincoln protectionist : Washington introduced the American system of protection to domestic labor and industry, and Lincoln aided in establishing and perfecting that system.

rtiss HF nil C85 ■m- □ eta -IT UC-NRLF II 11 ill 00 o^ en <3^ ^>^ Co o -6^ After Reading Hand to a Friend. DOCUMENT NO. 1 HE DEFENDER Devoted to the Protection of American Labor and Industries. PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN PROTECTIVE TARIFF LEAGUE No. 339 Ero&dway, New York >C. NO. 1 NEW YORK, AUayjSX^ 191^ 4 CENTS EACH ABRAHAM LINCOLN PROTECTIONIST ashington Introduced the American System of Protection to Domestic Labor and Industry, and Lincoln Aided in Establishing and Perfecting That System. AT THE REQUEST OF THE AMERICAN PROTECTIVE TARIFF LEAGUE HON. IGEORGE B. CURTISS, OF BINGHAMTON. N. Y., AUTHOR OF "THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONS"-ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT WORKS ON PROTECTION THAT HAS EVER BEEN WRITTEN— AND ALSO AN HONORARY MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN PROTECTIVE TARIFF LEAGUE, HAS PREPARED AN ARTICLE ENTITLED "ABRAHAM LINCOLN A PROTECTIONIST." THIS ARTICLE APPEARED IN SECTIONS FROM WEEK TO WEEK IN THE AMERICAN ECONOMIST. AND IS NOW PRINTED IN DOCUMENT FORM. MR. CURTISS HAS BESTOWED UPON THIS SUBJECT MUCH THOUGHT, MUCH CARE AND EX- [TENDED RESEARCH. THE VALUE OF HIS LABORS IN THIS CONNECTION CAN HARDLY BE OVERESTIMATED. Lbraham Liincoln One of the Great Pro- tectionists of the World. Lincoln's public career as a writer, )eaker and Chief Executive, places him the foreground of the great construc- ^e statesmen and Protectionists of the rorld. Washington introduced the sys- 1 of Protection, and Lincoln perfected Washington signed the first Protec- e Tariff law, and Lincoln signed the lighest Protective Tariff law ever >assed by Congress. The Protective pol- ^y introduced by Washington was sup- ported by Adams, Jefferson, Madison, [onroe, John Quincy Adams and Andrew rackson. It stood for forty-five years, mtil overthrown by the friends of slav- and the enemies of the Union, but fas restored and perfected by Lincoln md continued by Grant, Hayes, Harrison and McKinley, It was overthrown for three years by Cleveland, with great disaster to the country. It is now being assailed by Woodrow Wilson, but the spirit of Washington and Lincoln still lives and the end is not yet. Declarations of Abraham Lincoln. He Favored a "High Protective TariflE." "I am in favor of a National Bank; I am in favor of the internal improvement system and a high Protective Tariff. These are my sentiments and political principles." (From Abraham Lincoln's first political speech, 1832.) How He Would Restrict Foreign Trade. "If I be asked whether I would de- stroy all commerce I answer, certainly not; I would continue it where it is nec- essary and discontinue it where it is ivill550-i // not. An instance: I would continue^ ^' commerce so far as it is employed in bringing: us coffee, and I would discon- tinue it so far as it is employed in bring- ing- us cotton goods." (From "Frag- ments of Tariff Discussion." 1847.) The Abandonment of Protection Would Produce "Want and Ruin. "The abandonment of the Protective policy by the American Government must result in the increase of both use- less labor and idleness, and so, in pro- portion, must produce want and ruin among our people." (From "Pijag^ents • of Tariff Discussion." 1847.) '; •.,/ The Famous Gpigrc^n}. . ,* ••,•,••■ "Abraham Lincoln's firsf '♦spl5ec]/*i(>ri«' *; the Tariff question was short and to the point. He said that he did not pretend to be learned in political economy, but that he thought he knew enough to know that 'When an American paid twenty dollars for steel to an English manufacturer, America had the steel and England had the twenty dollars. But when he paid twenty dollars for steel to an American manufacturer, America had both the steel and the twenty dol- lars.' That was the sum and substance of the Tariff question as he viewed it." (Editorial in the Harvard Independent of Harvard, 111., of June 9, 1894, written by Otis S. Eastman.) Had Not Changed His Views in 1859. "I was an old Henry Clay Tariff Whig. In old times I made more speeches on that subject than any other. I have not since changed my views." (Letter from Abraham Lincoln to Dr. Edward Wal- lace, October 11, 1859.) He Stood for the Republican Platform of 1860. "In the Chicago platform there is a plank upon this subject which should be a general law to the incoming adminis- tration. We should do neither more nor less than we gave the people reason to believe we would when they gave us their votes." (Speech of Abraham Lin- coln, delivered at Pittsburg, Pa., Feb- ruary 16, 1861.) "That while providing revenue for the support of the general government by duties upon imports, sound policy re- quires such an adjustment of these im- posts as to encourage the development of the industrial interest of the whole country; and we commend that policy of national exchanges which secures to workingmen liberal wages, to agricul- ture remunerative prices, to mechanics and manufacturers adequate reward for their skill, labor and enterprise, and to the nation commercial prosperity and independence." (Chicago Platform, 1860, Section 12.) Introductory. The attitude of Abraham Lincoln on the Tariff question has been left in par- tial obscurity, while his opinions on every other great question upon which he expressed himself have, during the past twenty years, been given more prominence, and his life and character subjected to greater research and con- sideration than those of any other statesman of modern times. As the emancipator of an enslaved race, and the Chief Executive who saved the life of the American Republic, Abraham Lin- coln stands out as one of the great his- toric characters of the world. The ex- alted position which he attained as the emancipator of a race and savior of a Ce'ijrptry arrested the attention of the woVia* and turned historians and schol- ane <o 'a*, critical investigation of the c^ses^ of/his success and the sources of his power and influence. As the result of a most searching inquiry, he is ac- cepted today as America's greatest President; as one of the wisest and most profound statesmen of the world. Events have proven that he was sound on every great public question which he investi- gated and upon which he expressed opinions. Abraham Lincoln, during his whole public career, was a member of political parties which favored as one of their chief political doctrines the policy of "Protection to home industries." He joined the Whig party w^hen it was formed, and remained a staunch sup- porter of its principles until the North- ern wing of that party united with the Jackson or Free Soil Democrats and formed the Republican party in 1854. First Speech on the Tariff. An account of Lincoln's first political speech is given by W^illiam H. Herndon (who had been his law partner) in his "Life of Abraham Lincoln," published by D. Appleton & Co., pages 94 and 95. Late in the political campaign of 1832 Lincoln returned from the Black Hawk War, in which he had served as captain of a company, and announced himself as a candidate for the legislature. Mr. Herndon says: "His maiden effort on the stump was a speech on the occasion of a public sale at Pappsville, a village eleven miles west of Springfield. Lincoln said: "'Fellow Citizens: I presume you all know who I am. I am the humble Abra- ham Lincoln. I have been solicited by many friends to become a candidate for the legislature. My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman's dance. I am in favor of a National Bank; I am in favor of the internal improvement system and a high Protective Tariff. These are my sentiments and political principles. If elected I shall be thank- ful; if not it will be all the same.'" Lincoln was noted for saying a great deal in a very few words. This faculty, which he possessed in such a high de- gree, was never better employed than when in this first speech he said: "I am in favor of (1) a National Bank; (2) the internal improvement system, and (3) a hig-h Protective Tariff." These were the three great questions at that time in controversy between the people of the slave-holding and free States and around which centered the great debates in the halls of Congress. In a letter written to Dr. Wallace in 1859, he said: "I was an old Henry Clay Tariff Whig. In old times I made more speeches on that subject than any other. I have not since changed my views." TVhat Is a Higrh Protective Tariff? It is significant and shows his power of discrimination and the precision with which he spoke when he used the word "high" in defining the kind of a Tariff which he favored, for at this time the enemies of American industries were de- manding a low Tariff, or one imposed for "revenue only," while the friends of American industries favored rates of duties high enough to Protect our man- ufacturers, producers and laborers from the ruinous competition in our home market of the products of the poorly- paid labor of the Old World. To the importer any rate of duty which re- stricted the sale of foreign-made goods in th6 American market was too high. It was to him a high Tariff. This was equally true to the slaveholder and those who favored a Tariff for revenue only, or Free-Trade. The low Tariff advocates favored Free-Trade, or the unrestricted purchase of foreign-made goods, instead of pat- ronizing home industries. Lincoln was not only in favor of a "high" Tariff, but a high Protective Tariff; that is, a Tar- iff of duties high enough to secure to American manufacturers, producers, agriculturalists and laborers the entire home market, in order that our indus- tries might thrive, labor be fully em- ployed, the native resources and water powers be utilized, ard the independence and prosperity of the people be made secure. A Henry Clay Tariff WTiig. His statement in his letter to Dr. Wallace, in 1859, that he was "an old Henry Clay Tariff Whig" contains a vol- ume of meaning. It covers the whole ground, for Henry Clay was the great- est advocate of sound Protectionist doc- trines since Alexander Hamilton. He was the leader of that body of statesmen who gave effect to the great principles expounded by Hamilton in the high Pro- tective Tariff laws of 1824, 1828 and 1832. It was Henry Clay who in one of his great speeches gave to the Protective Tariff policy as advocated by Washing- ton, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jack- son, our first eight Presidents, the name "American System." So when Lincoln said he was "an old Henry Clay Tariff Whig" it meant that he favored that form of Protection taught by Hamilton, Matthew Carey, Henry Clay and the great expounders of sound Protection- ism. Henry Clay's Tariff Prittclples. The practical operation of the Protec- tive system as laid down by Hamilton and expounded and defended by Henry Clay in his great speeches, and what would result from it, were defined as follows: First. That Protection was necessary in order to establish a system of manu- facturing. Second. That by establishing a system of manufacturing, these results would follow: I. Diversification of industries. II. iDivision of labor. III. The producer and consumer would be brought together, saving to the con- sumer expense of transportation, com- mission, etc. IV. It would encourage home trade. V. It would build up a home market. VI. Encourage the immigration of skilled artisans, manufacturers and agri- culturists. VII. Invite the investment of foreign and domestic capital in the establish- ment of domestic industries. VIII. Give employment to labor at higher wages than are paid in the Old World. IX. Stimulate the inventive genius of the people. X. Stimulate the industry of the people. XI. Insure to industry the rewards of its labor. XII. It would develop the resources of the country. XIII. It would secure to the agricul- turist at home the most reliable and largest possible market for the greatest variety of the produce of the farm and garden. Third. That it shields the consumers of the country from foreign monopoly, and the competition between native and foreign manufacturers tends to reduce the price of commodities to the level of fair profits based on the cost of pro- duction, under conditions existing at home. Fourth. That it increases foreign trade by stimulating the production of a greater variety of domestic articles for -export, and so adds to the wealth, spendable income and purchasing power of the people that the importation of non-competing articles and luxuries will be greatly augmented. Fifth. That il tends to secure a favor- able balance of trade and prevents a drain of the precious metals. Sixth. That it makes the nation inde- pendent of other nations in time of war. Seventh. That it makes possible the accumulation of capital which is neces- sary to the establishment of sound banks, and the growth of agriculture, manufacturing-, mining, Kliipping-, means of transportation, and everything upon which the material well-being- of the people depends. W'liat Lincoln Meant. It is by becoming familiar with the foregoing- history and the principles of the Protective system that we are able to understand what Lincoln meant when he said, in 1832: "I am in favor of * * * a high Protective Tariff." And what he meant, in 1859, when he said: "I was an old Henry Clay Tariff Whig. I have not since changed my views." It was during the great debates on the Tariff question between 1819 and the close of the session of 1832 that Henry Clay distinguished himself above all other statesmen of that time as an advocate of Protection, It was Henry Clay that perfected and reduced to prac- tical form the principles of Protection •enunciated by Alexander Hamilton in his g-reat Tleport on Manufactures. It was flenry Clay who g-ave to Protection the name "American System," and who, in his great speech on March 30 and 31, 1824, said: "The best security against the demor- alizati «n of society is the constant and profitable employm^ent of its members. The greatest danger to public liberty is from idleness and vice." In the same speech he also said: "The greatest want of civilized society is a market for the exchange and sale of its surplus produce. This market may exist at home or abroad, but it must exist somewhere if society prospers. The home market is the first in order and paramount in importance. The object of the bill under consideration is to cre- ate this market and to lay the founda- tion of a genuine American policy," Henry Clay's Plan of Imposing; Duties. Prior to 1832 no distinction was made between non-competing commodities, luxuries and competing manufactures. All were subjected to the payment of im- port duties; some, distinctly for the pur- pose of raising revenue; others, both for revenue and Protection. In 1832 we had reached a point where the national debt was extinguished, and a large surplus of revenue was in the treasury. This condition made a revision of the Tariff necessary. It was at this time that the Tariff question for the first time in our history became a party question. It was at this time that the South declared in favor of Free-Trade. It was at this time that the slavery controversy plunged the country into sectional politics and en- dangered the life of the nation. The chief leaders of the Free-Trade party were George MacDuffle of South Carolina in the House, and Robert Y. Hayne, of the same State, in the Sen- ate; and of the Protectionist forces, John Quincy Adams in the House, and Henry Clay in the Senate. Henry Clay pre- sented a resolution setting forth the system of levying duties in accordance with the Protective system, which provid- ed that (1) non-competing commodities of foreign production, the like of which cannot be produced in the United States, such as tea, coffee, etc., should be admit- ted into the United States free of duty; (2) that certain articles of luxury, al- though produced abroad, such as dia- monds, fine jewelry, wines, liquors, should be subject to the payment of duties for revenue purposes; (3) that duties for the purpose of securing their production at home be imposed on all competing articles, or those articles the like of which might be produced in the United States. Under this system rev- enues were to be reduced by repealing the duties on non-competing articles. The system of Protection was to be pre- served in all its integrity. This plan was embodied in the Protective law of 1832. It met the violent opposition of the planters and importers. The former saw at once that it meant the continuation of a public policy which would make the free States prosperous, rich and power- ful, and the latter that the importation into the United States of competing manufactures would be diminished as domestic industries were established and extended, and in this respect that branch of foreign commerce would be injured and they would lose profits. The Free-Trade Plan of Imposing Duties. The Free-Trade plan of levying duties in the revision of the tariff was set forth in a counter-proposition presented by George MacDuffie, which provided for the levying of duties on substantially all articles, competing as well as non- competing, at a uniform rate of 12% per cent, ad valorem. The duties were intended to be so low that the manu- factures already established in the free States would be destroyed and the coun- try would enter upon a policy of free in- ternational trade, the idea being that our cotton, tobacco and all raw mate- rials would be sent to England, and as it was called, exchanged there for manu- factures; it being contended that the American people should be permitted to buy their manufactures where they could buy the cheapest, and it being conceded that wages were low in the Old "World, and that England had erected an enormous manufacturing system by in- dustrial organization, the use of ma- chinery and skilled artisans, and having the ships to transport them to market, could under Democratic revenue duties flood the American market with their wares, force into bankruptcy every in- dustry which had been established, and through the power of competition for- ever prevent the Establishment of a system of manufactures on American soil. Orlgrln and Meaning; of the Trord "Only.'* The South also took the position that Congress had no power under the Con- stitution to levy duties for the purpose of fostering- and encouraging the estab- lishment of our industries. The import- ing and shipping- interests of the North- ern States and many persons in other occupations composing the Northern wing of the Democratic party, while being in favor of Free-Trade, did not fully concur with the representatives of the planting States on the Constitu- tional question. This subject was brought before the Free-Trade conven- tion held in Philadelphia in 1831, which by resolution declared that "they admit the power of Congress to levy and col- lect such duties as they may deem nec- essary for the purpose of revenue, and within those limits to arrange those duties so as to 'incidentally and to that extent give Protection to the manufac- turers.' " This principle Judge Job Johnson, of South Carolina, representing the South- ern delegation, declared "was to give away the whole case, fatal to the cause of Free-Trade and fatal to the consti- tutional argument." The proposition that the Constitution would permit revenue duties which "in- cidentally" or, as an incident thereto, might afford a small degree of Protec- tion, was rejected by the new Demo- cratic party, and to express such dis- sent, the term "Tariff for revenue only" was adopted. Thus by the use of the word "only" every vestige of Protection was excluded. This was the origin of the expression "A Tariff for revenue only." DiflFerence Bet-ween Protective Duties and Duties for Revenue. Mr. Calhoun, in a speech before the Senate in 1842, gave a clear and definite interpretation of "a Tariff for revenue only" policy. He said: "No two things, Senator, are more different than the duties for revenue and Protection. They are as opposite as light and darkness. The one is friendly and the other hostile to the importation of the articles on which they may be im- posed. Revenue seeks not to exclude or diminish the amount imported. On the contrary, if it should be the result, it neither designed nor desired it. While it takes, it patronizes; and patronizes that it may take more. It is the reverse in every respect with Protection — it seeks, directly, exclusion or diminution. It is the desired result, and if it fails in it then it fails in its object." A Tariff for revenue only, then, seeks to accomplish two essential purposes: First, to raise revenue on duties from imports for the support of the Govern- ment; second, to fix the duties at such a low rate that Protection is made im- possible. The South was supported in its op- position to the Protective system by the importers of our great seaboard cities, many of whom were agents of foreign manufacturers, and all attempting to prevent the establishment of domestic manufactures in order that they might make profits by selling to the Amer- ican people foreign made goods. The shipping interests of New England and the East, although favored until about 1828 with Protection to their business, also opposed the building up of our na- tive industries upon the theory that by so much as our domestic raw mate- rials were produced, and manufactures were made in our domestic mills for the supply of our home market, the imports of similar commodities brought from abroad would be diminished and domes- tic materials would be worked up at home instead of being exported, and they would suffer a great loss in the ocean carrying trade. It was from the belief that as home trade in domestic commodities increased, foreign com- merce in competing articles would be diminished, that the importers and the ship owner cried out, "Protection in- jures our foreign commerce." Many per- sons engaged in trade, professions and occupations not directly affected by the Tariff were also led to believe that un- der a system of Free-Trade it would be to their advantage to buy manufactured articles made abroad, and the farmer of the non-manufacturing sections of the Western States was advised that he could save money by buying from the foreign manufacturers rather than from the American. So a formidable party In favor of Free-Trade, composed of the elements mentioned in the North, unit- ing with the slaveholding interests, was organized by the Democratic party which waged an incessant and aggres- sive political warfare against the estab- lishment and extension of American in- dustries. Nullification and Secession. South Carolina led the way in 1832 by passing an ordinance declaring null and void the Protective Tariff law of 1832, and threatened to secede from the Union in case President Jackson attempted to enforce the collection of duties at the port of Charleston. This was the first overt act threatening the life of the na- tion by the slaveholding interests. Be- fore General Jackson had entered upon the first year of his second term, as President, he was confronted with a most alarming condition of affairs. Civil war and the dissolution of the Union was threatened. The Tariff of 1832 was made the pretext for this threatened re- volt. The people of the free States were compelled to choose between two alter- natives, a coercion of the State of South Carolina by military force, or the aban- donment of the Protective system. The Compromise of 1833. So many congressmen throughout the North were in favor of yielding this point to the South, temporarily at least, that the Compromise act of 1833 was en- acted, under which the duties of the ex- isting- law were to be reduced, was passed, providing for a reduction of duties on a sliding scale; 10 per cent, of the excess of duties above 20 per cent, was to be taken off every two years, un- til finally in 1842 a system of uniform ad valorem duties of 20 per cent, was to be established. The rfew Democratic Party. The new Democratic party was organ- ized, and nominated Martin VanBuren for President, and presented its first declaration of party principles in reso- lutions adopted by its National Conven- tion in 1836. It declared that Congress had no power under the Constitution to grant a charter for a National Bank, to appropriate money for the improve- ment of highways and other public im- provements, or to impose duties on im- ports to foster and Protect home indus- tries. This was its business creed. It also favored the Protection and exten- sion of slavery, State sovereignty, and the right of secession. From this time until 1861 it controlled the United States Senate, and failed in the election of a President only twice, 1840 and 1848. To make the control of the slave States supreme over the party, it in 1836 adopt- ed the two-thirds rule in its Presidential nominations. Its party control then be- came a mere matter of political bargain and sale. Martin VanBuren's famous maxim, "Carry the South by going with the South, and the North by party ma- chinery," became the keynote of Democ- racy. When Cotton Was King. The most authoritative account of the causes which induced the people of the slave States to oppose the policy of Pro- tection" and favor the doctrine of Free- Trade is found in a work entitled "Cot- ton Is King" and "Pro-slavery Argu- ments," edited by E. N. Elliott, LL.D., President of the Planter's College of Mississippi, published in Atlanta, Ga., by Pritchard, Abbott & Loomis, in 1860. The part from which the following quota- tions are taken was written by David Christie, Esq., and published under the title of "Cotton Is King, or Slavery in the Light of Political Economy." From the following extracts we have the en- tire scheme unfolded: "The logical conclusion, from these different results, was that the less pro- visions and the more cotton grown by the planter, the greater would be his profits. This must be noted with special care. Markets for the surplus products of the farmer of the North were equally as important to him as the supply of provisions was to the planter. But the planter, to be eminently successful, must purchase his supplies at the lowest pos- sible prices; while the farmer, to secure his prosperity, must sell his products at the highest possible rates. Few, indeed, can be so ill-informed as not to know that these two topics for many years were involved in the "Free-Trade" and "Protective TarifC" doctrines, and af- forded the material of the political con- tests between the North and the South — between free labor and slave labor. A very brief notice of the history of that controversy will demonstrate the truth of this assertion. "A manufacturing population, with its mechanical coadjutors in the midst of the provision-growers, on a scale such as the Protective policy contemplated, it was conceived, would create a perma- nent market for their products, and en- hance the price; whereas, if this manu- facturing could be prevented, and a sys- tem of Free-Trade adopted, the South would constitute the principal provision market of the country, and the fertile lands of the North supply the cheap food demanded for its slaves For success in the foreign markets they relied, mainly, upon preparing them- selves to produce cotton at the reduced prices then prevailing in Europe. All agricultural products, except cotton, being excluded from foreign markets, the planters found themselves almost the sole exporters of the country; and it was to them a source of chagrin that the North did not, at once, co-operate with them in augmenting the commerce of the nation. "At this point in the history of the controversy politicians found it an easy matter to produce feeling of the deepest hostility between the opposing parties. The planters were led to believe that the millions of revenue collected off the goods imported was so much deducted from the value of the cotton that paid for them, either in the diminished price they received abroad, or in the increased price which they paid for the imported articles. To enhance the duties, for the Protection of our manufacturers, they were persuaded would be so much of an additional tax upon themselves, for the benefit of the North; and, besides, to give the manufacturer such a monopoly of the home market for his fabrics would enable him to charge purchasers an ex- cess over the true value of his stuffs, to the whole amount of the duty. By the Protective policy, the planters expected to have the cost of both provisions and clothing increased, and their ability to monopolize the foreign markets dimin- ished in a corresponding degree. If they could establish Free-Trade, it would in- sure the American market to foreign manufacturers; secure the foreign mar- kets for their leading staple; repress home manufactures; force a large num- ber of the Northern men into agricul- ture; multiply the growth and diminish the price of provisions; feed and clothe their slaves at lower rates; produce their cotton for a third or fourth of former prices; rival all other countries in its cultivation; monopolize the trade in the article throughout the whole of Europe, and build up a commerce and navy that would make us ruler of the seas. "Out of this conviction grew the war upon corporations; the hostility to the employment of foreign capital in devel- oping- the mineral, agricultural and manufacturing resources of the country; the efforts to destroy the banks and the credit system; the attempts to reduce the currency to gold and silver; the sys- tem of collecting the public revenues in ^ coin; the withdrawal of the public moneys from all the banks as a basis of paper circulation; and the sleepless vigilance of the South in resisting all systems of internal improvements by the general government. Its statesmen fore- saw that a paper currency would keep up the price of Northern products one or two hundred per cent, above the specie standard; that combinations of capital- ists, whether engaged in manufacturing- wool, cotton, or iron, would draw off labor from the cultivation of the soil, and cause large bodies of the producers to become consumers; and that roads and canals, connecting- the West with the East, were effectual means of bringing the agricultural and manufacturing- classes into closer proximity, to the seri- ous limitation of the foreign commerce of the country, the checking- of the growth of the navy, and the manifest in- jury of planters. Besides this, the abolition movement at that moment, 1832, had assumed its most threatening aspect, and was de- manding- the destruction of slavery or the dissolution of the Union. Here was a double motive operating to produce harmony in the ranks of Southern poli- ticians, and to awaken the fears of many. North and South, for the safety of the government. Here, also, was the origin of the determination, in the South," to ex- tend slavery by the annexation of terri- tory, so as to gain the political prepon- derance in the national councils, and to protect its interests against the inter- ference of the North." They Agreed as to Effects and Results. An analysis of the debates on the sub- ject shows that there was perfect agree- ment between the Protectionists of the North and the Free-Traders of the South on the question of the necessary influ- ence of the policy of Protection in building up the industries of the nation. It was conceded by the Free-Traders that through Protection manufactures would be established; skilled manufac- turers and artisans would come from the Old World and establish themselves in America; that immigration would bo stimulated to people the free States; that capital would flow in from abroad and new capital would be created at home; that villages, cities and great industrial centers would spring- up everywhere; that industries would follow the settlers into the new States; that the whole North would become a scene of thrift, industry and prosperity. The opposition to Protection by the planters was based on the belief that the free States under its influence would soon become so populous, so strong and powerful that they would outvote the slave States in the halls of Congress, and the political equilibrium between the two sections of the country would be destroyed. It was to prevent the hap- pening of such events that the planters attempted to keep the North poor and backward by preventing the establish- ment of a system of manufactures. So when we come to consider the objections which they interposed against the Amer- ican system, instead of finding- any rea- son for the support of Free-Trade or a low Tariff policy based on national wel- fare, the very reverse appears, and their contentions vindicate the wisdom and justice of the Protective system. Lincoln's Political Principles. Lincoln was opposed to each one of the Democratic doctrines. He favored a National Bank; the system of internal improvements; a Protective Tariff; thei sovereignty of the people under the per- petual union of the States, and the powers of Congress under the Constitu- tion as expounded by Daniel Webster. He could not favor a National Bank, nor the system of internal improvements, nor the non-extension and abolition of slav- ery, without being- a Protectionist. Failure of Free-Trade. The Panic 183T to 1842. The Compromise act was adopted when the industries of the North were in a flourishing- condition and the people were enjoying a high state of prosperity. A repetition of their experience under the low Tariff of 1816 came upon them as Protection g-radually disappeared under the sliding- scale of reductions. First, the country was visited with a severe financial panic, followed by a period of business and industrial depression, con- tinuin;?- from about 1838 to the restora- tion of Protection under the Tariff act of 1842. The four years between 1838 and 1842 were perhaps more disastrous than the four years immediately pre- ceding- the enactment of the act of 1824. The country was flooded with foreign made goods; factories were closed; many went into bankruptcy; labor w^as idle; no sale for commodities of any kind at remunerative prices; the balance of trade turned against us; revenues were insuffi- cient; the public treasury was bank- rupt and the credit of the nation ruined. These conditions brought about a re- volt against VanBuren's administration and the election of Harrison and Tyler in 1840. Harrison, a Northern man, standing for Whig- principles, died shortly after he was inaug-urated, and Tyler, a Virginian, believing- in the political doctrines of the slaveholders, became President, and after interposing his veto against several Tariff bills, he was finally compelled, on account of the state of the Treasury, to sign the highly Protective act of 1842. Protection Overthrown. The Act of 184G. Notwithstanding the fact that indus- tries revived and prosperity came back as by magic, the warfare against the Protective system was still continued by the (Democratic party. In 1843 they were struggling to repeal the act of 1842; in 184 4 Henry Clay was beaten on the Tariff issue, and James K. Polk, a Free-Trader, was elected President, and upon his in- auguration the Walker Tariff law of 1846, completely overthrowing the Pro- tective system, was enacted. At this time the South accomplished the annexa- tion of Texas; declared war on Mexico, and added the territories of California, New Mexico, and Arizona to our public domain. Growing out of the annexation of Texas and the acquisition of those new territories, the controversy over slavery was renewed, divided and dis- rupted old political parties and grew in intensity and violence until the secession of the Southern States in 1861, the South struggling to perpetuate and extend slavery in all of its territories, and those in favor of freedom struggling to pre- vent its further extension, and finally to bring about its total extinction. The Tariff an Issue from 1840 to 1846. Abraham Lincoln entered public life at a time when the Tariff question at- tracted perhaps more attention and was more widely and thoroughly discussed in Congress and out, than during any similar period of our history. The de- bates in Congress on the subject, from 1824 to 1832, were participated in by the greatest statesmen of the times, and dur- ing no period of our congressional his- tory is there to be found in its records debates on the subject conducted with greater talent, learning and ability than during these years. While there was a lull in the controversy following the Compromise act of 1833, the disastrous consequences which resulted from it re- vived a discussion of the question, and from 1838 to the enactment of the Walk- er Tariff act of 1846, it was discussed by the people in every neighborhood, com- munity, town, county and state of the Union. It was during this time and un- der these conditions that Abraham Lin- coln announced himself in favor of a high Protective Tariff, ancl said that he was a Henry Clay Tariff Whig, and made more speeches on the Tariff question than any other. Very little was written by Lincoln on the Tariff. Although he made many speeches on the subject, yet they do not appear to have been published. His first speech announcing his position, heretofore quoted, is given by his law partner, Mr, Herndon. His next published statement is found in a circular issued by a Committee of the Whig Party for the State of Illinois, dated March 4, 1843, addressed to the people of that 'State. It is signed by Abraham Lincoln, S. T. Logan and A, T. Bledsoe, and was writ- ten by Lincoln, published in "Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln," edited by John G. Nicolay and John Hay, (edition de Luxe), published by Francis D, Tandy Co., New York, Vol. 1, pages 243-247, as follows: Protective Circular "Written by Lincoln. "Circular from Whig Committee, March 4, 1843. Address to the People of Illinois. "Fellow-Citizens: By a resolution of a meeting of such of the Whigs of the State as are now at Springfield, we, the undersigned, were appointed to prepare an address to you. The performance of that task we now undertake. "Several resolutions were adopted by the meeting; and the chief object of thin address is to show briefly the reasons for their adoption. "The first of those resolutions declares a Tariff of duties upon foreign importa- tions, producing sufficient revenue for the support of the General Government, and so adjusted as to Protect American industry, to be indispensably necessary to the prosperity of the American peo- ple and the second declares direct taxa- tion for a national revenue to be im- proper. Those two resolutions are kin- dred in their nature, and therefore prop- er and convenient to be considered to- gether. The question of Protection is a subject entirely too broad to be crowded into a few pages only, together with sev- eral other subjects. Oh that point we therefore content ourselves with giving the following extracts from the writings of Mr; Jefferson, General Jackson, and the speech of Mr, Calhoun: " 'To be independent for the comforts of life, we must fabricate them our- selves. We must now place the manu- facturer by the side of the agricultur- alist. The grand inquiry now is. Shall we make our own comforts, or go with- out them at the will of a foreign nation^ He, therefore, who is now against do- mestic manufactures must be for reduc- ing us either to dependence on that for- eign nation, or to be clothed in skins and to live like wild beasts in dens and caverns. I am not one of those; experi- ence has taught me that manufactures are now as necessary to our independ- ence as to our comfort.' — Letter of Mr, Jefferson to Benjamin Austin. [1817], " 'I ask. What is the real situation of the agriculturalist? Where has the Amer- ican farmer a market for his surplus produce? Except for cotton, he has neither a foreign nor a home market. Does not this clearly prove, when there Is no market at home or abroad, that there [is] too much labor employed in agriculture? Common sense at once points out the remedy. Take from agri- culture six hundred thousand men, women, and children, and you will at once give a market for more breadstuffs than all Europe now furnishes. In short, we have been too long subject to the pol- icy of British merchants. It is time we should become a little more American- ized, and instead of feeding the paupers and laborers of England, feed our own; or else in a short time, by continuing our present policy, we shall all be rendered to paupers ourselves.' — General Jackson's Letter to Dr. Coleman. [1824]. " 'When our manufactures are grown to a certain perfection, as they soon will be, under the fostering care of govern- ment, the farmer will find a ready mar- ket for his surplus produce, and — what is of equal consequence — a certain and cheap supply of all he wants; his pros- perity will diffuse itself to every class of the community.' — Speech of Hon. J. C. Calhoun on the Tariff. [1816]. Revenue liost Through Free-Trade. "The question of revenue we will now briefly consider. For several years past the revenues of the government have been unequal to its expenditures, and consequently loan after loan, sometimes direct and sometimes indirect in form, has been resorted to. By this means a new national debt has been created, and is still growing on us with a rapidity fearful to contemplate — a rapidity only reasonably to be expected in time of war. This state of things has been produced by a prevailing unwillingness either to increase the Tariff or resort to direct taxation. But the one or the other must come. Coming expenditures must be met, and the present debt must be paid; and money cannot always be borrowed for these objects. The system of loans is but temporary in its nature, and must soon explode. It is a system not only ruinous while it lasts, but one that must soon fail and leave us destitute. As an individual who undertakes to live by borrowing soon finds his original means devoured by interest, and, next, no one left to borrow from, so must it be with a government. "We repeat, then, that a Tariff suffi- cient for revenue, or a direct tax, must soon be resorted to; and. Indeed, we be- lieve this alternative is now denied by no one. But which system shall be adopted? Some of our opponents, in the- ory, admit the propriety of a Tariff suf- ficient for a revenue; but even they will not in practice vote for such a Tariff; while others boldly advocate direct tax- ation. Inasmuch, therefore, as some of them boldly advocate direct taxation, and all the rest — or so nearly all as to make exceptions needlessi — refuse to adopt the Tariff, we think it is doing them no in- justice to class them all as advocates of direct taxation. Indeed, we believe they are only delaying an open avowal of the system till they can assure themselves that the people will tolerate it. "Let us, then, briefly compare the two systems. The Tariff is the cheaper system, because the duties, being col- lected in large parcels at a few commer- cial points, will require comparatively few officers in their collection; while by the direct-tax system the land must be literally covered with assessors and col- lectors, going forth like swarms of Egyp- tian locusts, devouring every blade of grass and other green thing. And, again, by the Tariff system the whole revenue is paid by the consumers of foreign goods, and those chiefly the luxuries, and not the necessaries, of life. " By this system the man who contents himself to live upon the products of his own country pays nothing at all. And surely that country is extensive enough, and its products abundant and varied enough, to answer all the real wants of its people. In short, by this system the burden of revenue falls almost entirely on the wealthy and luxurious few, while the substantial and laboring many who live at home, and upon home products, go entirely free. By the direct tax sys- tem none can escape. However, strictly the citizen may exclude from his prem- ises all foreign luxuries — fine cloths, fine silks, rich wines, golden chains, and dia- mond rings — still, for the possession of his house, his barn, and his homespun, he is to be perpetually haunted and har- assed by the tax-gatherer. With these views we leave it to be determined whether we or our opponents are the more truly democratic on the subject." Signed by A. Lincoln, S. T. Logan, A. T. Bledsoe. Dated March 4, 1843. ("Complete Works of Abraham Lin- coln," Vol. 1. Pages 243-247). Complete indorsement of Protection. In the introductory paragraph briefly stating the substance of the resolutions adopted by the committee, it is declared that Protective duties are "indispensably necessary to the prosperity of the Amer- ican people." A more complete endorse- ment of the Protective system could not be made. This is followed by the quota- tions from the utterances of three emi- nent Democrats, made before the Tariff question became a party issue, and be- fore the modern Democratic party es- poused the cause of slavery, John C. Cal- houn, who was a staunch Protectionist until 1828, when he changed his opinions in the interest of slaveholders; Thomas Jefferson, who as President signed the acts of Congress of March 27, 1804, March 3, 1807, and March 4, 1808, which in- creased duties and extended Protection to new industries. It was Jefferson who in his message to Congress in 1806 op- posed reducing the Tariff to get rid of a surplus revenue. He said: "Shall we sup- press the import and give that advan- tage to foreign over domestic Indus- tries?" Instead, however, of advising- a leduction of Protective duties, he rec- ommended the application of the surplus revenue to "public education, roads, riv- ers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper." Jefferson a Defender of Protection. During- the eight years that he was President, Jefferson was one of the staunch defenders of Protection. In 1809 he wrote to Thomas Leiper, of Philadelphia, as follows: "I have lately inculcated the encour- agement of manufactures to the extent of our own consumption, at least in all articles of which we raise the raw ma- terial. On this, the Federal papers and meetings have sounded the alarm of the Chinese policy, destruction of commerce, etc. • * * This absurd hue and cry has contributed much to federalize New England; their doctrine goes to the sac- rificing of agriculture and manufactures to commerce; to the calling all our people from the interior country to a seashore to turn merchants; and to convert this great agricultural country into a City of Amsterdam. But I trust the good sense of our country will see th^t its g^reatest prosperity depends on a due bal- ance between agriculture, manufactures and commerce." To Governor Jay, a little later, he wrote: "An equilibrium of agriculture, manu- factures and commerce is certainly be- coming essential to our independence." The third paragraph is from Andrew Jackson's famous letter to Dr. Coleman. TvFO Systems Contrasted. After distinctly approving the Protec- tive system as means of developing the resources and industries of the country and making- the people prosperous, the two Systems, as methods of providing revenue for the national treasury, are considered and contrasted. In the outset it is stated that the Tariff for revenue only, adopted in 1833 and practiced until 1842, had proven a complete failure. This was the first trial which had been made of the Free-Trade plan. Its first effect was to greatly stimulate imports, which suddenly increased from $108,000,000 in 1834 to $176,000,000 in 1836. Within four years our imports exceeded our exports by $99,000,000. The total balance of trade against us from 1834 to 1836 was $116,332,000. A financial panic came in 1837. During the year of 1839 the ad- verse balance of trade, including the ex- port of $8,776,000 of specie, was about $44,000,000, From 1839 to 1842 over $10,- 000,000 of specie was exported; a foreign debt for merchandise purchased of over $30,000,000 was created; the industries of the country were paralyzed, and a period of hard times set in which spread all over the country, and prosperity did not return until Protection was restored by the act of 1842. From 1838 to 1842 there was a deficiency in the Treasury of $22,- 590,000; from 1837 to 1841 the adminis- tration borrowed $30,000,000. The public treasury was without credit and bank- rupt. Unable to borrow money at home the Government sent Commissioners to Europe in 1840 with instructions to place a loan of $12,000,000. The effort failed. The government then advertised for a popular loan, and only $250,000 was of- fered by different parties at rates of in- terest ranging from 28 to 32 per cent, per annurn. In 1841 the Speaker of the House of Representatives borrowed on his personal credit $100,000 to loan to Congressmen in order that they might receive their salaries. Hence, the administration was pre- sented with the situation as stated by Mr. Lincoln: "We repeat, then, that a Tariff suffi- cient for revenue, or a direct tax, must soon be resorted to." Ijincoln's Arguments Confirmed by Sub- sequent Events. Mr. Lincoln then states that a resort to the system of direct taxation was then favored by the Democratic party and was inevitable if their Tariff system was restored. Rather than see the in- dustries of the free States revived by Protection, they would leave them to perish and levy direct taxes for the sup- port of the government. Mr. Lincoln had such a profound understanding, gained not only from the practical appli- cation of the Democratic plan between 1838 and 1842, but from the scientific principles upon which it is based, that he fully realized that it must fail when- ever tried. Subsequent events have jus- tified this contention. The Tariff for revenue only, known as the Walker Tariff, passed in 1846, and reductions made by the act of 1857