WI: 1911 trade reciprocity treaty between the U.S. and Canada is ratified?

cpip

The Lethargic Lett said:
The Canadian Navy probably would've been larger under Laurier than under Borden's slashing budget cuts IOTL, but not that much larger; he was still beholden to the anti-imperialist faction of Francophones and Quebec MPs in the Liberal Party. The Royal Navy suggested Canada build four or five light cruisers and six destroyers. Laurier probably would've been content to stop there, at least until the start of the First World War, when he would've had to invest in anti-submarine picket ships.
Click to expand...

That makes sense; the only question then would be if any of those ships would have been completed and commissioned by the outbreak of war.
 
The Lethargic Lett

The Lethargic Lett

cpip said:
That makes sense; the only question then would be if any of those ships would have been completed and commissioned by the outbreak of war.
Click to expand...
Construction began in 1910, and two British cruisers were purchased while the other three to four cruisers (and the six destroyers) were to be built in Canada. I don''t know enough about shipbuilding to comment if they would've been finished in time for the First World War.
 

cjc

cpip said:
The third only stopped because Wilson explicitly told some of his close allies in the House of Representatives to torpedo it, because he disliked the 6-year term. The Senate actually passed a resolution for the amendment. It's actually more likely than keeping the Yanks out of Europe (Wilson was originally anti-war, after all!). Clark opposed the Federal Reserve in the form it was enacted; there were several competing variants. There almost certainly would have been some kind of central bank enacted.

But by the same token of oddball proposals, how would Laurier staying in have affected the Canadian Navy? Obviously, Borden's Naval Aid bill wouldn't have gotten even less farther than it did OTL; would Laurier have managed to get any additional vessels by 1914?
Click to expand...
Well whith Clark as president we don't have mcadoo as he's of the federal reserve which means America is going to be hit whith a resestion almost as bad as the great depression do to Europe (especaly briton) sucking out most of the gold out of the American economy via the new york stock market which was only closed do to mcadoos intervention, which makes America less likely to go to war, not more, plus the idea of a central bank for the us was Heataly debated and Clark could very ezaly slip up and not have any central bank for the US.
 

cpip

cjc said:
Well whith Clark as president we don't have mcadoo as he's of the federal reserve which means America is going to be hit whith a resestion almost as bad as the great depression do to Europe (especaly briton) sucking out most of the gold out of the American economy via the new york stock market which was only closed do to mcadoos intervention, which makes America less likely to go to war, not more, plus the idea of a central bank for the us was Heataly debated and Clark could very ezaly slip up and not have any central bank for the US.
Click to expand...

Mostly I agree with your argument -- McAdoo was Secretary of the Treasury first and foremost, which is how he exercised his authority to shut the NYSE. It was a bold move at the time, and another man in that position may not have made that decision, or made it more slowly, and the economic damage to the United States would have been considerable. It could be argued, since it was primarily French and British extraction that led to the damage, that it might have made people more sympathetic to the Central Powers at that point, and possibly more willing to force the issues around British blockades rather than German submarines. On the other hand, reciprocity with Canada and the ability to sell to them sans tariff might have eased the burden!

Another difference between Clark and Wilson, also on the tariff question, was the coastwise trade tolls for the Panama Canal; the British especially hated the idea that American ships would be exempt from tolls through Panama, and Wilson was sympathetic. Clark was considerably less sympathetic, and enforcing the tolls was part of the Democratic platform in 1912.

There was great debate over the form of the banking reform, but almost everyone -- from Wall Street Republicans to Farm-Country Democrats -- felt that some kind of banking reform was necessary. I think SOME kind of banking reform would have occurred. Clark probably would've tacked farther to the agrarian-populist arguments of Bryan and Owen at the time, and they had favored a much more centralized bank than either the Aldrich plan or Wilson's compromise. Of course, a plan better liked by farmers might have encountered much stiffer resistance, and the whole thing might get delayed by the economic collapse and the war, so who knows what would've appeared had it all been postponed 'til the 1920s?
 
The Lethargic Lett

The Lethargic Lett

Here's a brainstorm of leaders for this TL. In this scenario, the Liberals win in 1913, but Laurier is mutinied by William S. Fielding, who forms a Unionist grand coalition with the Conservatives. Champ Clark is elected in 1912. The limited reforms to the banking system cause a recession brought on by the Entente in 1914. This, along with Clark's isolationist inclinations, keeps the United States neutral during the First World War, which goes on a few years longer and ends in an inconclusive ceasefire. The single six-year term is also implemented.

Canada
1896-1918: Wilfred Laurier - Liberal
Def. 1896: Charles Tupper - Conservative
Def. 1900: Charles Tupper - Conservative
Def. 1904: Robert Borden - Conservative
Def. 1908: Robert Borden - Conservative
Def. 1913: Robert Borden - Conservative

1918-1923: William S. Fielding - Liberal-Unionist/Government
Def. 1918: Henri Bourassa - National/Opposition

1923-1931: George Eulas Foster - Conservative
Def. 1923: Henri Bourassa - National, William Melville Martin - Liberal-Progressive, William S. Fielding - Liberal Unionist
Def. 1928: William Melville Martin - Liberal-Progressive, Henri Bourassa - National

1931-1933: Charles Cahan - Conservative

United States
1913-1917: Champ Clark - Democratic
VP: John Alden Dix - Democratic
Def. 1912: Theodore Roosevelt - Progressive, William Taft - Republican

1917-1923: Charles Hughes - Republican
VP: Charles Fairbanks - Republican (1917-1918), vacant (1918-1923)
Def. 1916: Champ Clark/John Alden Dix - Democratic

1923-1929: Hiram Johnson - Republican
VP: Frank Lowden - Republican
Def. 1922: Al Smith/Joseph Robinson - Democratic

1929-1935: James A. Reed - Democratic
VP: Franklin Roosevelt - Democratic
Def. 1928: William Borah/Huntley Spaulding - Republican
 

Wendell

cpip said:
The third only stopped because Wilson explicitly told some of his close allies in the House of Representatives to torpedo it, because he disliked the 6-year term. The Senate actually passed a resolution for the amendment. It's actually more likely than keeping the Yanks out of Europe (Wilson was originally anti-war, after all!). Clark opposed the Federal Reserve in the form it was enacted; there were several competing variants. There almost certainly would have been some kind of central bank enacted.
Click to expand...
It surprises me that the proposal was ever that popular, and, even so, three quarters of the states would need to sign off on it,
 

Dilvish

The Lethargic Lett said:
Construction began in 1910, and two British cruisers were purchased while the other three to four cruisers (and the six destroyers) were to be built in Canada. I don''t know enough about shipbuilding to comment if they would've been finished in time for the First World War.
Click to expand...

I assume the ships being built in Canada would take longer to build than in a British yard. The Canadians not having built cruisers before, and I think not destroyers either.

Would the Canadian cruisers be in addition to the cruisers that the RN built in the time period, or would the overall number of cruisers be the same?
 
The Lethargic Lett

The Lethargic Lett

Wendell said:
@The Lethargic Lett why would Clark serve just one term, and why would Hughes still be the 1916 GOP nominee in this timeline?
Click to expand...
Woodrow Wilson was barely re-elected even under good economic conditions. With a recession caused by a lack of a strong federal reserve, as discussed earlier, it would likely diminished the Democrat's already narrow margin in 1916, even if the Entente is given most of the blame. As for the Republicans, with the introduction of a six year term, there would have been even more pressure than IOTL to pick a compromise candidate like Hughes, rather than risk having ten years of Champ Clark as President. However, with Reciprocity passed, Clark could also feasibly win a six year term following his four year term by appealing to farmers in the Midwest. A Grandfather Clause was planned to be included in the six-year term amendment to allow past presidents to run (namely, Theodore Roosevelt and the incumbent Democrat, in this case Clark but IOTL Wilson).
 

SandroPertini98

The Lethargic Lett said:
Woodrow Wilson was barely re-elected even under good economic conditions. With a recession caused by a lack of a strong federal reserve, as discussed earlier, it would likely diminished the Democrat's already narrow margin in 1916, even if the Entente is given most of the blame. As for the Republicans, with the introduction of a six year term, there would have been even more pressure than IOTL to pick a compromise candidate like Hughes, rather than risk having ten years of Champ Clark as President. However, with Reciprocity passed, Clark could also feasibly win a six year term following his four year term by appealing to farmers in the Midwest. A Grandfather Clause was planned to be included in the six-year term amendment to allow past presidents to run (namely, Theodore Roosevelt and the incumbent Democrat, in this case Clark but IOTL Wilson).
Click to expand...

But they didn't plan to start with the new six-year term after 1920 (so giving Teddy and others former and sitting President a second chance)?
 

Wendell

The Lethargic Lett said:
Woodrow Wilson was barely re-elected even under good economic conditions. With a recession caused by a lack of a strong federal reserve, as discussed earlier, it would likely diminished the Democrat's already narrow margin in 1916, even if the Entente is given most of the blame. As for the Republicans, with the introduction of a six year term, there would have been even more pressure than IOTL to pick a compromise candidate like Hughes, rather than risk having ten years of Champ Clark as President. However, with Reciprocity passed, Clark could also feasibly win a six year term following his four year term by appealing to farmers in the Midwest. A Grandfather Clause was planned to be included in the six-year term amendment to allow past presidents to run (namely, Theodore Roosevelt and the incumbent Democrat, in this case Clark but IOTL Wilson).
Click to expand...
The Senate showing support for the idea is rather far from a six year presidential term being a done deal. As for a viable compromise GOP candidate with the world on fire, I'd suggest Leonard Wood.
 
The Lethargic Lett

The Lethargic Lett

Wendell said:
The Senate showing support for the idea is rather far from a six year presidential term being a done deal. As for a viable compromise GOP candidate with the world on fire, I'd suggest Leonard Wood.
Click to expand...
Leonard Wood's an interesting choice. With Wood an open advocate of 'preparedness' and Clark a proponent of neutrality, the war in Europe would be an even bigger campaign issue than IOTL.
 
The Lethargic Lett

The Lethargic Lett

Wendell said:
On the six-year term plan, what was the rule (if any) on the elevation of a vice president?
Click to expand...
If the president were to die in office, the vice president would succeed him. However, any vice president who was elevated to highest office was barred from running for election as president in their own right, regardless of how much time was left in their predecessor's term.

However, there was no rule saying a vice president couldn't run for the presidency afterward if their boss didn't die in office.
 

Wendell

The Lethargic Lett said:
If the president were to die in office, the vice president would succeed him. However, any vice president who was elevated to highest office was barred from running for election as president in their own right, regardless of how much time was left in their predecessor's term.

However, there was no rule saying a vice president couldn't run for the presidency afterward if their boss didn't die in office.
Click to expand...
That's going to have an interesting effect on the vice presidency if the amendment is ratified.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top