John Sherman

The real contest was, not between Lincoln and Douglas, or between Cox and me, but between Breckenridge and Lincoln, between free institutions and slave institutions, between union and disunion.

I then proceeded to define the difference between the only two parties with definite principles.

I said this was simply a lie, and that there were plenty of Douglas Democrats before me who knew it.

The conflict was now between freedom and slavery, an issue carefully avoided by the two great parties prior to the repeal of the Missouri Compromise.

The nomination of a candidate by a third party, ignoring the slavery question, did not change the issue.

Seward, Chase and Bates were laid aside, and Abraham Lincoln, one stronger than any of these, was unanimously nominated.

Thus, the Democratic party, which, in every stage of the slavery controversy, had taken sides with the south, was itself broken on the rock of slavery, and condemned to certain defeat.

The success of the Republicans in the House of Representatives, the violent scenes in the House, notably those between Potter, Pryor, Barksdale, and Lovejoy, were indications that the south was aggressive, and that the north would fight.

Every speaker should know the substance of what he intends to say, but ought to rely for his words upon the spirit and temper of the audience.

He was a frank man, openly avowing his opinions, but with respectful toleration of those of others.

He always fought his fights to a finish and never asked or gave quarter.

Let Congress place upon the statute book such a law, and the tariff question will cease to be the foot ball of partisan legislation.

Let us try the experiment of a tariff framed, not by a party upon a party platform, but by the selected representatives of the commercial, industrial, farming and laboring classes.

It would be better for Congress, the law-making power, after determining the amount to be raised, to sanction and adopt a careful tariff bill, framed by an impartial commission, large enough to represent all sections and parties, all…

As Members of Congress, divided by party lines and crude platforms, must in the main, care for and protect local interests, I do not believe any fair, impartial and business tariff can be framed by them.

Whenever the tendency of a monopoly is to prevent mutual competition, and to advance prices for any articles embraced in our tariff laws, the duty on the article should be at once reduced or repealed.

They should be denounced and punished by the laws of the United States whenever they affect any matter within the jurisdiction of the United States.

It is especially dangerous when it is promoted by rates of duty on imported goods higher than are necessary to cover the difference in the cost of labor here and abroad.

This power in the hands of a few is at this moment the disturbing element in many of our great industries.

Instead of small or moderate workshops, with a few hands, we now have great establishments with hundreds of employees, and all the capital of scores of stockholders under the control of a few men, and often of one man.

To effect this, corporations have been created in most of the states and granted such liberal corporate powers, without respect to the nature of the business to be conducted, and with terms and privileges so favorable, that private…

The labor of one class must not be sacrificed to secure higher protection for another class.

A denial of protection on coal, iron, wool and other so-called raw materials, will lead to the denial of protection to machinery, to textiles, to pottery and other industries.

The dogma of some manufacturers, that raw materials should be admitted free of duty, is far more dangerous to the protective policy than the opposition of free traders.

The real difficulty in our tariff laws is to avoid unequal and unjust discrimination in the objects of protection, made with a view to favor the productions of one state or section at the cost of another state or section.