esistance from a minority of the
convention, and the friends of protection acted wisely in accepting
what was offered with unanimity, rather than continue the struggle
for a stronger creed which would have been morally weakened by
party division. They saw also that the mere form of expression
was not important, so long as the convention was unanimous on what
theologians term the "substance of doctrine." It was noted that
the vast crowd which attended the convention cheered the tariff
resolution as lustily as that which opposed the spread of slavery
into free territory. From that hour the Republican party gravitated
steadily and rapidly into the position of avowed advocacy of the
doctrine of protection. The national ticket which they presented
was composed indeed of an original Whig protectionist and an original
Democratic free-trader; but the drift of events, as will be seen,
carried both alike into the new movement for a protective system.

A review of the tariff legislation in the period between the war
of 1812 and the political revolution of 1860 exhibits some sudden
and extraordinary changes on the part of prominent political leaders
in their relation to the question. The inconsistency involved is
however more apparent than real. Perhaps it would be correct to
say that the inconsistency was justifiable in the eyes of those
who found it necessary to be inconsistent. Mr. Webster was a
persistent advocate of free-trade so long as Massachusetts was a
commercial State. But when, by the operation of laws against the
enactment of which he had in vain protested, Massachusetts became
a manufacturing State, Mr. Webster naturally and inevitably became
a protectionist. Mr. Calhoun began as a protectionist when he
hoped for the diffusion and growth of manufactures throughout all
sections alike. He became a free-trader when he realized that the
destiny of the South was to be purely agricultural, devoted to
products whose market was not, in his judgment, to be enlarged by
the tariff, and whose production was enhanced in cost by its
operation. Colonel Benton's change was similar to Mr. Calhoun's,
though at a later period, and not so abrupt or so radical. Mr. Van
Buren's shifting of position was that of a man eagerly seeking the
current of popular opinion, and ready to go with the majority of
his party. Of all the great lights, but one burned steadily and
clearly. Mr. Clay was always a protectionist, and, unlike Mr.