 |
Web Hosting by Netfirms | Free Domain Names by Netfirms |
|
|
|
|
|
Reciprocity, 1846-1911: A Review
|
D.C. Masters’ article, Reciprocity
1846-1911, presents an adequate description on the effects of Reciprocity
on the evolution of
Each of these subsections present a simple overview of
the various areas of study on the subject.
Masters chose to do this in the consideration of his audience. Masters is writing to give the reader a
simple understanding of the topic and how it fits into the Canadian historical
context. Therefore, D.C. Masters does
not want to bog the reader down with too many details that would slow down the
flow of the article and, thus, lose the reader’s attention.
The first subsection of the article, ”Origins of the
Movement”[2], presents an overall explanation of why
the Reciprocity Agreement was required between the United States and
Canada. Masters argues on several points
in which he explains that Canada required the agreement due to economic reasons
as well as explaining who the main proponent was in the negotiation
process. The author claims that Canada
required the treaty on the basis of political reasons because the British had
repealed the Corn Laws. Masters then
goes onto explain that the Corn Laws meant that “Canadian breadstuffs had
previously enjoyed a preference in competition with those of foreign countries
entering the British market”[3]. Thus,
the author has fully defined what the Corn Laws are in order to avoid confusing
the reader with jargon. Also, if the
author was to loose the reader at this point, Master’s explanation that because
of the repealing of the Corn Laws, Canada turned to the United States in the
hopes “of securing free entry for their produce to the American Market”[4].
Masters then investigates the proponents of the reciprocity agreement by
noting that W.H. Merritt led a group that wanted reciprocity on the basis that
the agreement would both satisfy the Canadian farmers as well as the
possibility of increasing export trade through the St. Lawrence Seaway. However, Masters fails to mention the
existence of the Erie Canal, the equivalent American route of the St. Lawrence
Seaway. The Erie Canal travels, in
combination with other canals, from the Great Lakes to the port of New York
City. The Erie Canal, according to
Michael Piva, a leading Union Period Historian at the
University of Ottawa, provided a route that was far easier for merchants to
ship their products than compared to the St. Lawrence system. Piva reasons that
the higher number of ship and cargo losses associated with the unusual wind
conditions in the Bay of Fundy in comparison to a
similar trip via the Erie Canal was the main reason many Canadian merchants
chose to ship their products to Europe via the American route[5]. Therefore,
the threat of reciprocity and the ultimate drain of Canadian products from the
St. Lawrence area because of the easier conditions presented by the Erie Canal
should not be overlooked.
In Masters’ second section, titled “Negotiations at
Washington 1847-1854”, he explores the process of negotiations that the
British, acting on behalf of the Canadian colonies, and the American government
took in order to formulate an agreement.
Masters explains that the American delegates were split on the issue of
the reciprocity agreement. The author
explains that the delegates from the American south were reluctant to support
the Reciprocity Agreement on the basis that it was an economic treaty that
would ultimately “hasten the annexation of Canada and would thus increase the
free-state territory of the United States”.[6] This reasoning presents a valid
argument on why the American delegation was split on the issue.
Masters goes on further to explain why the two parties
took so long to come to an agreement.
The author notes that the British could not afford trouble in the
American colonies because of the fact the British required all their military
resources due to their involvement in the Crimean War. Also, Masters explains what helped to
re-ignite the negotiations by fully explaining the fishing dispute and pointing
out that the Americans wanted to solve the fishing dispute. Masters then
describes how the Americans successfully ensure the passage of the bill despite
ruminants of Southern opposition still in the air. Overall, the author should be commended for
fully describing to the reader, in understandable terms, the American and
British positions during the negotiation process.
Masters goes onto explain the terms of treaty. The author notes that the each side agreed
that the treaty would last at least ten years and “could then be terminated by
either party after twelve months’ notice”.[7] Masters
goes onto explain the terms of treaty in an easy to understand in an
article-by-article fashion. While
describing each article, Masters explains how each side came to a compromise. For example, in Articles I and II of the
treaty the British agreed that they would not be taking shellfish from American
coastal waters in order “to avoid opposition from Maryland”.[8] The author should be commended for simplifying a
complex treaty in order to convey the required information to the reader.
The author goes onto explain the operation of the
treaty and its effects on the British Colonies of North America as well as to
the United States. The author conveys
this information in two ways. The first
method is in chart form where the author displays trade between the colonies
and the United States for each year in the millions of dollars. The reader can thus draw from the chart that
the Reciprocity agreement allowed trade to increase overtime. The second method the author uses to convey
the operation of the treaty and its effects is to explain what types of
products where most often traded between the two states. The author notes, for example, that American
wheat crossed the Canadian border in southern Ontario coming from the western
American States. This wheat would then
arrive, via the Canadian railway system, in Buffalo where it would be exported
again. This was done, as the author
notes, for convenience of not having to go around the great lakes system via
rail. Thus the author has managed to
explain to the reader what and why products were crossing the border.
Masters next section is to present the problems with
the treaty. The author explains the
various problems that each government presented to the other when one side
changed their tariff protection on certain goods. Masters proves this when he explains that the
Canadian government changed the tolls on the Welland
Canal to be higher to ships going to American ports than to ships going through
the St. Lawrence Seaway System. However,
Masters again fails to explain the existence of the Erie Canal system that was
in competition against the St. Lawrence Seaway system. The author would have provided a more
understandable explanation in this section if he had made known to the reader
the existence of the Erie Canal and, thus, would have further strengthened the
reasoning behind why the American government was so worried about the Canadian
changes made to the Welland Canal tolls. Therefore, the author failed to strengthen
his argument by explaining to the reader the huge competition between the
American and Canadian canal systems in regards to how these affected trade.
Masters finally explains how the
Reciprocity Treaty was revived after the American Civil War. The author notes the reasons why several trips
to Washington by the Canadian delegation did not produce any results. The author explains that economic
depressions, the increased pace of industrialization in the United States, and
that an American economic report showed “that the treaty had not secured any
important Canadian market for American goods”.[9]
The author also points out the various attempts made by both the
American and the Canadian politicians in regards to commercial union and other
ideas on how to achieve a new reciprocity agreement. In the end, the author notes, that a new
reciprocity agreement could not be reached because each side couldn’t make
enough concessions. The author
successfully explains why each side in the strive for reciprocity demanded and
why the other refused to budge from a certain position. Therefore, the author explains to the reader
in believable terms the positions of each side and how these positions
ultimately lead to the failure of the renegotiation of new reciprocity
agreement after the American Civil War.
The author’s subsections allow the
reader to explore and understand the complexity of the reciprocity agreement in
easy to understand terms. This
understanding stems from the easy to understand language used by the author to
explain each subsection and the overall structure of the author’s argument
explaining how the agreement came to be, the operation of the agreement, and
how the agreement eventually ceased to exist.
Since the subsections are easy to understand in both language and
structure, the reader will come to understand how the treaty helped in the
evolution of the Canada from a colonial member to its own independent
dominion. Thus, Masters presents the
reader with a well explained comprehensive study of the Reciprocity
Agreement.
Masters, D.C. Reciprocity, 1846-1911. Ottawa: Canadian
Historical Association, 1983.
Piva, Michael. “The Canals and the
Railway.” University of Ottawa, Ottawa 13 February 2001.
[1] D.C. Masters. Reciprocity, 1846-1911. (Ottawa: Canadian
Historical Association, 1983): 3.
[3]Masters 3.
[5]Michael Piva.
“The Canals and the Railway.” University of Ottawa, Ottawa 13 February 2001.
[6]Masters 4.
[8]Ibid. 7.
[9]Masters 13.