“Taking into view the mutual interests which the United States and the foreign nations in amity with her have in a liberal commercial intercourse, and the extensive changes favorable thereto which have recently taken place; taking into view also the important advantages which may otherwise result from adapting the state of our commercial laws to the circumstances now existing,”-- Taking into view only these influences, Madison seemed to ignore the supposed chief motive of the embargo in stopping supplies for Canada, and to admit that embargo was an adjunct of Napoleon’s Continental system; but in truth Madison’s motives, both political and financial, were deeper and more decisive than any he alleged. His retreat was absolute. He recommended that Congress should throw open the ports, and should abandon all restriction on commerce beyond a guaranty of war duties for two years after peace as a measure of protection to American manufactures. The failure of the restrictive system was not disguised. The House received the Message with a mixed sense of relief and consternation, and referred it to Calhoun’s committee, which reported April 4 a bill for repealing the Embargo and Non-importation Acts, together with the reasons which led the committee to unite with the Executive in abandoning the restrictive system. Calhoun had always opposed the commercial policy of Jefferson and Madison. For him the sudden Executive change was a conspicuous triumph; but he showed remarkable caution in dealing with the House. Instead of attempting to coerce the majority, according to his habit, by the force of abstract principles, he adopted Madison’s reasoning and softened his own tone, seeming disposed to coax his Southern and Western friends from making a display of useless ill-temper. “Men cannot go straight forward,” he said, “but must regard the obstacles which impede their course. Inconsistency consists in a change of conduct when there is no change of circumstances which justify it.” The changes in the world’s circumstances required a return to free trade; but the manufactures would not be left unprotected,--on the contrary, “he hoped at all times and under every policy they would be protected with due care.”[469] As an example of political inconsistency, as Calhoun defined it, his pledge to protect American manufactures deserved to be remembered; but hardly had Calhoun’s words died on the echoes of the House when another distinguished statesman offered a prospective example even more striking of what Calhoun excused. Daniel Webster rose, and in the measured and sonorous tones which impressed above all the idea of steadfastness in character, he pronounced a funeral oration over the restrictive system:--