Did the combustion engine need subsidies?

A thought occurred to me during the constant discussion of energy in last night's debate, which prompted a tweet but is something I've continued to ponder: did the new industry forming around the internal combustion engine receive subsidies in the late 1800s-early 1900s?

Politicians want to throw so much money at growing "green" industries now to stop the evils of climate change but also to reduce our dependence on foreign energy (the Right's common argument) and to create thousands, nay, millions!, of "green jobs" (the Left's common argument). But couldn't compelling, and in some cases similar, arguments have been made one hundred years ago?

Versus walking, a car sure was tough to beat. Cover great distances in no time! And against horses? Horses are heavy polluters, dropping their business in the road or wherever they please. They smell and can be temperamental. Plus you have to feed them them corn and other important foodstuffs, and why would you want to put precious food in your mode of transport? (oh, wait, we don't care about that anymore? Well never mind.)

But the car! Great distances in no time flat, runs on abundant oil (more food for people!), and a car can probably hold more than one or two people. Plus the number of jobs that would be created by this growth industry is remarkable! Why wouldn't the government want to put its stamp on this wonderful new idea?

And yet, amazingly enough, my guess is the government restrained itself, and Henry Ford probably forgot to ask for free money. But I don't know that for certain, and I'd sure be interested to see. Does anyone have a spare intern they can put on finding this out?