A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents | Page 5

To hold in check the development of our
commercial marine, to prevent or retard the establishment and growth
of manufactures in the States, and so to secure the American market for
their shops and the carrying trade for their ships, was the policy of
European statesmen, and was pursued with the most selfish vigor.
Petitions poured in upon Congress urging the imposition of
discriminating duties that should encourage the production of needed
things at home. The patriotism of the people, which no longer found a
field of exercise in war, was energetically directed to the duty of
equipping the young Republic for the defense of its independence by
making its people self-dependent. Societies for the promotion of home
manufactures and for encouraging the use of domestics in the dress of
the people were organized in many of the States. The revival at the end
of the century of the same patriotic interest in the preservation and
development of domestic industries and the defense of our working
people against injurious foreign competition is an incident worthy of

attention. It is not a departure but a return that we have witnessed. The
protective policy had then its opponents. The argument was made, as
now, that its benefits inured to particular classes or sections.
If the question became in any sense or at any time sectional, it was only
because slavery existed in some of the States. But for this there was no
reason why the cotton-producing States should not have led or walked
abreast with the New England States in the production of cotton fabrics.
There was this reason only why the States that divide with
Pennsylvania the mineral treasures of the great southeastern and central
mountain ranges should have been so tardy in bringing to the smelting
furnace and to the mill the coal and iron from their near opposing
hillsides. Mill fires were lighted at the funeral pile of slavery. The
emancipation proclamation was heard in the depths of the earth as well
as in the sky; men were made free, and material things became our
better servants.
The sectional element has happily been eliminated from the tariff
discussion. We have no longer States that are necessarily only planting
States. None are excluded from achieving that diversification of
pursuits among the people which brings wealth and contentment. The
cotton plantation will not be less valuable when the product is spun in
the country town by operatives whose necessities call for diversified
crops and create a home demand for garden and agricultural products.
Every new mine, furnace, and factory is an extension of the productive
capacity of the State more real and valuable than added territory.
Shall the prejudices and paralysis of slavery continue to hang upon the
skirts of progress? How long will those who rejoice that slavery no
longer exists cherish or tolerate the incapacities it put upon their
communities? I look hopefully to the continuance of our protective
system and to the consequent development of manufacturing and
mining enterprises in the States hitherto wholly given to agriculture as
a potent influence in the perfect unification of our people. The men
who have invested their capital in these enterprises, the farmers who
have felt the benefit of their neighborhood, and the men who work in
shop or field will not fail to find and to defend a community of interest.
Is it not quite possible that the farmers and the promoters of the great
mining and manufacturing enterprises which have recently been
established in the South may yet find that the free ballot of the

workingman, without distinction of race, is needed for their defense as
well as for his own? I do not doubt that if those men in the South who
now accept the tariff views of Clay and the constitutional expositions
of Webster would courageously avow and defend their real convictions
they would not find it difficult, by friendly instruction and cooperation,
to make the black man their efficient and safe ally, not only in
establishing correct principles in our national administration, but in
preserving for their local communities the benefits of social order and
economical and honest government. At least until the good offices of
kindness and education have been fairly tried the contrary conclusion
can not be plausibly urged.
I have altogether rejected the suggestion of a special Executive policy
for any section of our country. It is the duty of the Executive to
administer and enforce in the methods and by the instrumentalities
pointed out and provided by the Constitution all the laws enacted by
Congress. These laws are general and their administration should be
uniform and equal. As a citizen may not elect what laws he will obey,
neither may the Executive elect which he will enforce. The duty to
obey and to execute