Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-rvbq7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T10:13:13.097Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Invitation to Empire: Tariffs and American Economic Expansion in Canada

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2012

Stephen Scheinberg
Stephen Scheinberg
Affiliation:
Associate Professor of History, Sir George Williams University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The growth of the United States' economic influence in twentieth-century Canada was intimately related to the continuation of the “National Policy” of protectionist tariffs. Professor Scheinberg argues that Canadians initially welcomed America's consciously expansionist thrust, and that they eventually became entangled in the problems of seeking rapid economic growth along with economic independence from both the older imperialism of Great Britain and the newer variety represented by the United States.

Type
Research Article
Information
Business History Review , Volume 47 , Issue 2: Canada , Summer 1973 , pp. 218 - 238
Copyright
Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College 1973

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See, for example: Report of the Task Force on the Structure of Canadian Industry, Privy Council Office (Ottawa, 1968)Google Scholar; Gordon, Walter, A Choice for Canada (Toronto, 1966)Google Scholar; Levitt, Kari, Silent Surrender: The Multinational Corporation in Canada (Toronto, 1970)Google Scholar.

2 Wilkins, Mira, The Emergence of Multinational Enterprise: American Business Abroad from the Colonial Era to 1914 (Cambridge, Mass., 1970), 67Google Scholar. Her chapter on Canada is titled “The Spillover into Canada.”

3 Merchant, Livingston T., “Behind the Headlines in Canadian-U.S. Relations,” U.S. Department of State Bulletin, 38 (February 24, 1958), 297Google Scholar.

4 “The Canadian Troubles of U.S. Business,” Fortune, 56 (July, 1957), 139Google Scholar; Ball, George, “Interdependence — The Basis of U.S.-Canada Relations,” U.S. Department of State Bulletin, 50 (May 18, 1964), 770–74Google Scholar.

5 Aitken, Hugh G. J., American Capital and Canadian Resources (Cambridge, Mass., 1961), 14CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Winks, Robin W., ed., British Imperialism (New York, 1963), 6Google Scholar.

7 Van Alstyne, Richard, The Rising American Empire (Oxford, 1960), 55–60Google Scholar.

8 Warner, Donald F., The Idea of Continental Union (Lexington, 1960), 241Google Scholar.

9 Kilbourn, William, The Elements Combined: A History of the Steel Company of Canada (Toronto, 1960), 35Google Scholar.

10 Whelpley, J. D., “Our Relations With Canada,” World's Work, II (July, 1901), 942Google Scholar.

11 “The United States and Canada,” Current Literature, XXXIV (April, 1903), 386–87Google Scholar.

12 “Mr. Hill and Canadian Reciprocity,” Outlook, 84 (November 24, 1906), 687–88Google Scholar.

13 Whitney, Henry M., “Reciprocity With Canada,” Atlantic Monthly, 106 (October, 1910), 464Google Scholar; Montgomery, Robert H., “Our Industrial Invasion of Canada,” World's Work, V (January, 1903), 2978–98Google Scholar. Montgomery reported after a trip across Canada that “the industrial boundary of the United States runs in a waving line across the Continent well within Canadian territory.” The journals of the day abound with statements of commercial interest in Canada.

14 Smith, Goldwin, “Canada, England, and the States,” The Living Age, XXXV (April 27, 1907), 195–203Google Scholar.

15 Frederick Engels to F. A. Sorge, September 10, 1888, in Marx, Karl and Engels, Frederick, Letters to Americans (New York, 1953), 203–204Google Scholar.

16 Underhill, Frank H., The Image of Confederation (Toronto, 1964), 22Google Scholar.

17 Bliss, Michael, “Canadianizing American Business: the Roots of the Branch Plant,” in Lumsden, Ian, ed., Close to the 49th Parallel (Toronto, 1970), 32Google Scholar.

18 McCormick, Thomas, “Commentary on the Anti-Imperialists and Twentieth Century American Foreign Policy,” Studies on the Left, III (1962), 28–33Google Scholar, is the best synthesis of this debate.

19 Neale, R. G., Great Britain and United States Expansion: 1898–1900 (East Lansing, Mich, 1966)Google Scholar.

20 Wilkins, Multinational Enterprise, 45–46. Marshall, Herbert, Southand, Frank A. Jr., Taylor, Kenneth W., Canadian-American Industry (New York, 1964), 12Google Scholar.

21 Plymouth Cordage Co. seems to have come to Welland, Ontario for locational advantages. Treasurer's Report, 1908, Box H–2, Plymouth Cordage Co. mss., Baker Library, Boston, Mass. He stated that the Welland Plant enables “us to put Twine into the consuming districts as a [sic] less cost than we can from our Plymouth plant.” Marshall, et al., Canadian-American Industry, 199–202.

22 An Act Respecting Patents of Invention, Statutes of Canada, 1872, 103–104.

23 Wilkins, Multinational Enterprise, 51. Testimony of Francis J. Arend, Hearings, Senate Committee on Finance. Sen. Doc. 834, Canadian Reciprocity, I, 16–29, 1911Google Scholar. Arend, the treasurer and general manager of the leading manufacturer of cream separators, declared that the patent had driven his De Laval Separator Co. to establish in Canada.

24 Porritt, Edward, The Revolt in Canada: Against the New Feudalism (London, 1911), 109–130Google Scholar. Charles M. Pepper, Report on Trade Conditions in Canada, House Doc. No. 408, 59th Cong., 1st Sess., January 22, 1906, p. 1829.

25 Canadian Annual Review, 1907, 47.

29 Parry, D. M., “Reciprocity and the Middle West,” Annals, 21 (May, 1907), 462–65Google Scholar.

27 Karl Marx, Free Trade: A Speech Delivered Before the Democratic Club, Brussels, January 9, 1848, translated by Florence Kelley Wischnewetzky with a preface by Frederick Engels (Boston, 1888), 10. Engels remarked that “protection ought to have done its task for America, and ought to be now becoming a nuisance.”

28 Quoted by Eugene Foss, NAM Proceedings 1905, 161.

29 Osborne, John Ball, “Expansion Through Reciprocity,” Atlantic Monthly, 88 (December, 1901), 731Google Scholar.

30 Quoted in ibid., 721–22.

31 Proceedings of the National Reciprocity Convention (Washington, D.C., November 19–20, 1901), 145–19Google Scholar.

32 “Work of the Reciprocity Convention,” The Chautauquan, XXXIV (January, 1902), 357–58Google Scholar.

33 Testimony of John Norris, President, American Newspaper Publishers Association, Canadian Reciprocity, 219–224. The publishers insisted that they were seeking no favors, “we are asking to have an open door.” Testimony of Don C. Seitz of the New York World in Hearings Before the Committee on Ways and Means, H. R., 61st Cong., 3rd. Sess., 1911, Reciprocity with Canada.

34 Ellis, L. Ethan, Reciprocity 1911 (New Haven, Conn., 1939), 192Google Scholar.

36 Radosh, Ronald, “American Manufacturers, Canadian Reciprocity and the Origins of the Branch Factory System,” CAAS Bulletin, III (Spring/Summer, 1967)Google Scholar.

36 Chicago Tribune, June 3, 1911, 1. Polling 10,000 newspapers in twenty-two states, they received 4,303 replies, of which 3,113 were definitely in favor.

37 William Howard Taft to Theodore Roosevelt, January 10, 1911, in Pringle, Henry F., The Life and Times of William Howard Taft, II (New York, 1939), 588Google Scholar.

38 Skelton, Oscar D., Life and Letters of Sir Wilfrid Laurier (New York, 1922), 379Google Scholar.

39 Canadian, A., “Why Canada Rejected Reciprocity,” Yale Review, I (January, 1921) 173–187Google Scholar; Sifton, Clifford, “Reciprocity,” Annals, 45 (June, 1913), 20–28Google Scholar. Sifton contended that “it was, and is, believed that reciprocity in natural products would lead to reciprocity in manufactures.”

40 “Reciprocity Defeated,” Independent, 71 (September 28, 1911), 709–711Google Scholar.

41 “‘Loyalists’ and American Trusts,” Toronto, The Globe, September 1, 1911, 6. The two Borden supporters were W. K. George of Standard Silver Co., one of the Toronto Eighteen, and W. K. McNaught of American Watch Co.

42 “Manufacturer is for Reciprocity,” Toronto, The Globe, August 14, 1911, 2; “Harvester Trust Plans to Grip Our Market,” Monetary Times, 46 (March 11, 1911), 1016Google Scholar; Canadian Annual Review, 1911, 114.

43 Cuff, Robert D., “The Toronto Eighteen and the Election of 1911,” Ontario History, LVII (December, 1965), 169–180Google Scholar; United States Tariff Commission, Reciprocity With Canada: A Study of the Arrangement of 1911 (Washington, 1920), 76Google Scholar.

44 “Americans Will Not Establish Branch Plants,” The Monetary Times, 46 (March 4, 1911), 918–19Google Scholar.

45 Canadian Municipal Journal, September 1, 1911, quoted in Canadian Annual Review, 1911, 257. On Borden see ibid., 175.

46 Innis, Harold, “Great Britain, The United States and Canada,” in Essays in Economic History (Toronto, 1956), 405Google Scholar.

47 Gray, James H., “The Conquest of Canada,” The Nation, 149 (August 5, 1959), 144–46Google Scholar.

48 On the CMA see Wickett, A. Morley, “Canada and the Preference,” Annals, 45 (January, 1913), 29–46Google Scholar. The original statement of the “fifth column thesis” may be Porritt, Edward, The Revolt in Canada Against the New Feudalism (London, 1911), 39Google Scholar. Vaughan, Walter, The Life and Work of Sir William Van Home (New York, 1920), 345Google Scholar.

49 W. L. Mackenzie King, Diary, August 4, 1914, quoted in Cuff, R. D. and Granatstein, J. L., “Canada and the Perils of Exemptionalism,” Queens Quarterly (Winter, 1972)Google Scholar.

50 Creighton, Donald, Dominion of the North (Toronto, 1962), 441Google Scholar. Vaupel, James W. and Curhan, Joan P., The Making of Multinational Enterprise: A Sourcebook of Tables Based on a Study of 187 Major U.S. Manufacturing Corporations (Boston, 1969), 10Google Scholar. Lewis, Cleona, America's Stake in International Investments (Washington, 1938), 351–375Google Scholar. Brown, F. H., Gibson, J. O., Plumptre, A. F. W., War Finance in Canada (Toronto, 1940)Google Scholar.

51 Canada: Economic Position and Plans for Development, (New York, 1919)Google Scholar.

52 Marcosson, Isaac F., “The Americans' Stake in Canada,” Saturday Evening Post, 200 (March 17, 1928), 14–15.Google ScholarNearing, Scott, “The Economic Conquest of Canada,” The Nation, 118 (April 16, 1924), 432–33Google Scholar.

53 Louis Alexandre Taschereau, “The Challenge of Canada's New Frontiers,” a speech delivered at the 21st Annual Convention of the Association of Life Insurance Presidents, December 8, 1927, pam., 7.

54 Fullerton, D. H. and Hampson, H. A., Canadian Secondary Manufacturing Industry, a study for the Royal Commission on Canada's Economic Prospects (Ottawa, 1957), 17–18Google Scholar. Marcosson, “Americans' Stake.”

56 Wilkins, Mira and Hill, Frank Ernest, American Business Abroad: Ford On Six Continents (Detroit, 1964), 131–32Google Scholar. Keenlyside, Hugh L. and Brown, Gerald S., Canada and the United States (New York, 1952), 282Google Scholar. Elliott, J. Courtland, “The Dilemma of Canadian Economic Nationalism,” The Annalist, 27 (April 30, 1926), 611–12Google Scholar.

57 Louis Domeratzky to Herbert Hoover, March 10, 1925, in Herbert Hoover Papers (West Branch, Iowa), Hoover 1–1/47. Cf. Brandes, Joseph, Herbert Hoover and Economic Diplomacy (Pittsburgh, 1962), 163–69Google Scholar. Brandes argues that Hoover and his aides discouraged direct investment. It is true that both Domeratzky and Julius Klein, the Director of the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, were concerned about the impact of the branch plants on the export market. For his part, Domeratzky resolved the issue in favor of the branch plant on two main grounds.

First, he found that the key branch plant industries had actually shown a significant rise in exports since the war. Second, he believed that branch plants created healthier economies abroad and thus better markets for the export trade. “Our foreign industrial expansion,” Domeratzky contended, “is an integral part of our economic development in the domestic field and is receiving its impetus primarily from our general industrial and financial progress.” Domeratzky, Louis, “American Industry Abroad,” Foreign Affairs VIII (July, 1930), 569–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

57 Bishop, Charles, “Canadian Elections and U.S. Business,” Forbes, XXVI (July 1, 1930), 44–45Google Scholar.

58 Research Committee of the League for Social Reconstruction, Social Planning for Canada (Toronto, 1935), 53–56Google Scholar.

59 William Phillips to Marvin H. Mclntyre, April 26, 1933 in F. D. Roosevelt mss. (Hyde Park, N.Y.) P.S.F. Canada, Box 2. Phillips to Roosevelt, January 9, 1934 in ibid. Phillips to Roosevelt, October 31, 1934 in ibid. Memorandum on Canada prepared in Western European Affairs Division, Department of State to Phillips, April 26, 1933 in ibid. W. D. Herridge to Secretary of State for External Affairs, December 4, 1933 in Bennett mss (PAC, Ottawa), Series F, vol. 276, p. 184633.

60 Massey, Vincent, What's Past is Prologue (London, 1963), 135Google Scholar. Hooker, Nancy H., ed.. The Moffat Papers (Cambridge, Mass., 1956)Google Scholar. Moffat referred to Skelton as “North American minded.”

61 Warren D. Robbins to F. D. Roosevelt, December 18, 1934, F.D.R. mss, P.S.F. Canada, Box 2.

62 Norman Armour to William Phillips, memorandum, October 25, 1935 in ibid. Moffat was highly favorable to King and characterized him as opposed to the Montreal and Orange Capitalists who relied on the British connection because a break would “speed the inevitable absorption of Canada by the United States.” He also saw John D. Rockefeller, Jr., King's good friend, as a strong influence for close ties between the two nations. Moffat Tapers, 341, 343.

63 Kottman, Richard V., Reciprocity and the North Atlantic Triangle, 1932–1938 (Ithaca, N.Y., 1968), 107Google Scholar. Phillips to Roosevelt, November 7, 1935, F.D.R. mss, P.S.F. Canada, Box 2.

64 Italics mine. Norman Armour to Phillips, October 22, 1935, in ibid.

65 Ibid.

66 Kottman, Reciprocity, 5.

67 Scott, Frank R., Canada and the United States (Boston, 1941), 70Google Scholar.

68 Eayrs, James, In Defense of Canada (Toronto, 1965), 20Google Scholar; James, R. Warren, Wartime Economic Co-operation (Toronto, 1949), 29Google Scholar, 37–38.

69 Moffat Papers, 355.

70 Stacey, C. P., Arms, Men and Governments: The War Policies of Canada 1939–1945 (Ottawa, 1970), 387Google Scholar.

71 Quotation from James, Wartime Co-operation, 3. The United States note, which Canada concurred in, was virtually the same as Article VII.

72 Quoted in Thornton, A. P., Doctrines of Imperialism (New York, 1965), 23nGoogle Scholar.