Reciprocity Treaty (1855-1866)
reciprocity treaty- free trade in natural products between US and Canada
– reciprocal fishing rights on east coast of NorthAmerica
– same nation status for boats on inland waterways
Tradition View: Reciprocity stimulated trade
W.AMackintosh thought reciprocity gave an extraordinary impulse to advancement
1. Canadian exports jumped 33% in 1855, imports jumped as well
2. ratio of BNAexports/GDP went from 3% to 7.5% between 1850-1860. Imports/GDP fell from 8.6
3. BNAexports doubled over the life of treaty, highest increase in grain and timber exports
4. BNAbenefited more thanAmericans, since reciprocity eliminated US tariffs that were higher than
1950s books: Southern Ontario(Masters) and Maritimes(Saunders) supported importance of Treaty
Officer and Smith's critique of the Reciprocity
They think we should analyze only trade in natural resources affected by Treaty.
1. divide trade data from reciprocity items and non-reciprocity items
2. measure absolute impact of treaty through movement of reciprocity itemsAND relative
movement compared with movement of non-reciprocity items.
Three differentiating periods:
1855: trade in reciprocity items more than doubled; trade in non-reciprocity items stagnated
1856-60: no distinction between reciprocity and non-reciprocity items in trade (same movements)
1861-1865: trade in natural products soared relative to trade in manufactured products due to: demand
and hyperinflation of prices in US during Civil War.
This means that Reciprocity could only have had effect in 1855.
Why did Reciprocity trade jump in 1855?
three explanations by officer and smith:
1. statistics may be misleading: systematic records not reliable at the time, so not sure if actual
increase in trade or improvement in records of trade; BNAexports and imports records don't reconcile
with US export and import records; not sure if actual jump in trade or report of previously smuggled
products now legalized.
2. Railway and Investment Boom of 1850s: 66 miles of railways in 1849 to 2000 miles in 1850s.
Foreign investment of 100$ M flowed to finance railways, this all caused exceptional demand for
imports and exports of natural products.
3. International Business cycle peaked in 1855: BNAand US railways connected forecasts of US
to Canada, this faster way was alsoALOT cheaper than canals, so lumber exports grew. But Lumber
started growing even before that, meaning that something other than reciprocity was cause of growth.
Wheat production increased 400% in 1840s despite repeal of British Corn Laws, Railways made transportation of wheat really cheap. 1855, US failed harvest, and Russian export stopped due to
Crimean War, leading to high demand for BNAwheat, this all was theACTUAL cause of grain export.
Did Reciprocity Benefit BNA?
BNAgrain export increase of 50% in 1855 is only evidence for effect of treaty. However, there was
also a 50% increase in grain imports into BNA. Officer and Smith said that Canada West farmers could
ship grain cheaper by railway to US, and then US new york west would export to Canada East. This is
just a redistribution of grain production, so the NET benefit was only saving transportation cost. Even
this is questionable since the redirection of trade deprived St.Lawrence canal of profit and led to its
Impact of Treaty on Infant Industries
Offier and Smith say: Reciprocity delayed diversification of economy; stimulated exports of raw
materials before they are transformed into manufactured products.
Evidence: increase of cheese factories from 12 to 323. Reciprocity encouraged farmers to export milk
rather than process them into cheese.
Key Point: differential application of tariffs can distort an economy.
If we only free trade in natural products, and have tariffs for manufactured goods, this causes tendency
for export of natural goods rather than manufactured goods to avoid taxes.
Produce wheat NOT flour, timber NOT lumber, pulpwood NOT paper, etc.
Thus, when US raised tariffs on manufactured goods and lowered tariffs on natural products, they
caused Canadians to become dependent on staple exports and inhibit canadian investments
US stopped treaty in 1866. They said:
Caylet-GaltAct (1858/59): protection on manufactured goods in Province of Canada
they said Cayley-GaltAct violated spirit of Treaty.
Morril Act of 1861 US: tariffs on imports 24% to 30%
TariffActs of 1862 and 65: to 37% and 47%
These two was because US prices doubled during Civil War, so tariffs used to protect against cheap
Canadian Imports after 1865. Wheat Production in Lower and Upper Canada 1800-1850
wheat production in Lower Canada (Quebec) not enough to feed population between 1820-50, but
Upper Canada(Ontario) was, and even export some. Traditional Explanation was that francophone
culture hindered production:
Seigneurial land tenure Modern freehold tenure
Hierarchical strictures of Catholicism Individualistic ethos of Protestantism
Equal division of inheritance among children Oldest male son gets inheritance
Live life carefree industriousness
Large french families Small english families
(primitive agricultural techniques)
1763: Britain acquire New France after 7 years war
1774: establish Quebec Province (Quebec retained french institutions, seigneurial tenure + civil law)
1791: ConstitutionalAct- split old province of Quebec into Lower Canada (east Ottawa River) and
Upper Canada (west). This was used to establish freehold tenure in Upper Canada.
1837: Rebellion- conflicts between Upper and Lower over Land caused this
1841:Act of Union- due to near bankruptcy of Upper and the rebellion – united all into Province of
Canada, single colony with two parts, Canada East and West.
Wheat Production in Upper and Lower Canada
wheat => cash crop => high yield/acre => both parts of Canada, high value/weight, ease of storage
before railways, farmers had to be within 20 to 40 miles of water transportation for profitability.
Upper Canada population growth substantial after 1825, to on par with Lower. (see table page 4)
Lower Canada: 15 bushels of wheat (1793-11802)/farmer, Napoleanic wars and blockade in Britain
increase demand for Lower Canada wheat production.After passage of British Corn Laws (tariffs on
imported wheat) in 1815, market for LC wheat collapsed.Also lack of domestic market. Eventually
lower Canada became net importer of wheat (1815-50) since output was so low.
seigneurial system = system of land tenure => King of France nominally held all the land and granted
sizable pieces to Seigneurs/Lords on condition that they find settlers for the land. The seigneurs sub
granted land to “censitaires' usually as roture (long, narrow strips of a mile long) of 75 acres. Narrow
width parallel to the river.
Censitaires were responsible for various payments:
1. Cens – censitaire can't grant roture to anyone else except his own children without permission
of the seigneur (was a token of payment before 1800, 5% of total payments)
2. rent in kind or cash – kind = produce, and cash payment
3. compulsory labour – censitaire owed days of labour to work at seigneurial manor 4. banalite – specific payments for use of seigneurs facilities, such as oven or gristmill, or forest
5. lods/vents- tax =1/12 property of value of property on sale outside immediate succession
These five types of payments was a large part of censitaire's income, so people blamed the system for
the backwardness of LC agriculture. Seigneurial land was cheap, and only need 30-40 families to be
Paradoxical conclusion: semi-feudal seigneurial system was cheaper than freehold tenure.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Shape and Location of Rotures
Narrow and long => more farms touch water => Hard to transport within farm because long
easier to ship goods and narrowness caused convenience that
=>houses nearer to each other eliminated the need for villages and towns and
=>greater range of soil types thus eliminated markets
Partible Inheritance and Large Families
some authors blame Catholicism for large Quebec families.
Two contradictions to this though: 1. large families= typical of frontier society because the nation
encouraged population increase 2. France had lowest rate of population in Europe
partible inheritance => division of roture => farm land got smaller and smaller and eventually became
too small to support a family. This led to self-sufficient farming, rather than production for the market.
This led to shortage of land, and combination of large families. This hindered growth.
Agricultural Technique: Biennial Rotation
lack of crop rotation and fertilization in LC farms
extensive farming rather than intensive = moving on the new land after exhausting old land rather than
restoration of nutrients.
Biennial Rotation = division of arable land into two parts that were alternatively cultivated or
uncultivated. Land was left fallow for a year, and then recultivated year after that. This was different
from the renourishment and mature approach. Eventually depletion of nutrients in the soil, and resulted
in less harvest and unhealthy crops. Eventually moved to self sufficient farms and virgin lands.
Local demand for wheat after 1815, Wheat acreage quadrupled in the 1840s although prices were low
due to improvements in transportation and repeal of Corn Laws
After ConstitutionAct, tenure became freehold tenure land. So owner can freely sell land without
encumbrances. Land grants given to loyalists and their children and british soldiers. Clergy received
1/7 of the land, and 1/7 was retained as government Crown land.
Land grants increased land prices and impeded economic growth by fostering absentee owners and
This led to a lot of people selling rather than farming their land, so leave vacant since the land was
freely granted. Many people sat on the land for many years until a satisfactory price was offered. This
also caused scattered settlement, and delayed development of a local market.
Key Point: it was not the seigneurial relative to freehold system that caused degeneration of LC farms
because land was actually cheaper under seigneurial. Agricultural Technique: Biennial Rotation
same as LC.
Only difference = UC farmers ploughed land after harvest; LC ploughed land immediately b4 planting
this technique exhausted land within 15 to 20 years of initial settlement, but it was appropriate
1. crop rotation required cultivation of plants, thus farmers could sell stuff other than wheat to
2. farmers could only do commercial mixed farming (cash crops and animals) and was only in
Montreal or QC, they couldn't profitability maintain livestock except for own use, so not
enough manure to replenish soil
3. LC continuously competed with inexpensive farms in the west, so fertilization was too
expensive. Extensive farming on new lands kept low wheat prices, so no technological change
to induce intensive farming.
NO DIFFERENCE between UC and LC agriculture except timing of settlement.
Exhaustion of land -> subsistence agriculture (self serving)
this self serving happened in LC first.
Eventually, UC had milder climate and more fertile soil, so wheat yield was higher in UC.
LC government regulations supported free importation of UC rather than protect LC farmers.
Thus, ECONOMIC conditions, NOT culture, explained the relative backwardness of LC agriculture
from 1820 to 1850.
conclusions: optimal output and production is a function of resource costs.
There was lots of land but limited labour, capital, and markets => extensive farming instead of
Drove farmers to self serving farms until revolution in transportation (railway) opened up markets that
made commercial mixed farming feasible. The Economic Background of Confederation
Donald Creighton proposal: economic explanation of Confederation – purpose of C was the creation of
national market for BNAcolonies through construction of transportation system, including financing
debt from previous financial projects, and a commercial policy of free trade between provinces.
“extension of staple dream to a national market”
Canals: 1824 – 48
Empire of St.Lawrence: Montreal merchants dominance in staples movement from Great Lakes and
St.Lawrence to Europe.
But bottleneck in rapids near Kingston and Montreal, small boats unable to transport timber/wheat.
Erie Canal from Buffalo toAlbany (1826) bypassed rapids. This diverted traffic towards Hudson R and
NY instead of St.Lawrence route by cutting shipping costs.
I. first Canal Era: 1819-1843
1. Lachine Canal (1819-1821)
private canal to avoid Lachine rapid near Montreal, but government took over in 1821. provided
motive power for BNA's earliest factories
2. Welland Canal (1819-1829)
privately built with government assistance, to avoid Niagara falls; to compete with Erie Canal
by drawing traffic into Lake Ontario (this was financed by share purchase, serious burden on
colony finance by Province of Canada)
3. Rideau Canal (1826-1834)
First canal to bypass St.Lawrence rapids, only between kingston and Ottawa because fear of
american invasion war of 1812. Thus, never commercially profitable. Financed by british
4. Cornwall Canals (1824-1843)
Upper Canada borrowed funds from London market to finance this; near Canada bankruptcy
because not wide enough to accommodate enough traffic to repay debt.
The near bankruptcy of the colony of UC was ONE reason for union with LC confederation.Also fear
of governmental acquisition and operation of transportation facilities.
II. 2 Canal Era: 1843-1848
Act of Union 1841: UC and LC unite into Province of Canada (Canada West and East).
Larger colony had more borrowing power, to finance existing colonial debt from canals and future
15$M to build canals, finally large and efficient enough to be useful. But too late to realize the “Empire
of the St. Lawrence”
Ist. BNARailways (1849-1867)
1 ones: Baltimore and Ohio in 1830, but had 30 000 miles by 1860 in US. Canada only 66 miles. No
railway connecting Province of Canada to Maritime colonies because easier to have railway from
Montreal to Maine to have access toAtlantic ports.
-guaranteed interest of up to 6% on maximum 50% of bonded debt of railways >75 miles long in P of
C. This guarantee of ROI raised 100$M to stimulate railway construction.
1850-60: 2000 miles of railway built in Canada, this brought farmers closer to transportation, commercial outlet for crop.
Railways in financial trouble by late 1850s because:
1. built using British specifications unsuitable for Canadian terrain and climate.
2. Rise in interest in Britain after 1854 (Crimean War) deprived railways of british funds
3. MOST importantly, duplication of routes since each railway attempted to ship US goods
through BNAor ship BNAstaples to US/Europe. Thus, major railways tried to funnel US traffic
from West to Lake Ontario, Montreal for export, and minors linked Canadian forests with US
border. This fits the Staples theory. These railways competed with each other as well as Great
Lakes waterway system.
4. Construction too excessive for size of market. US traffic not enough to sustain 4 railways +
canal. Canadian traffic was profitable, but not enough to sustain railways.
Bankruptcy of Railways
bankrupt by 1860s and were taken over by Grand Trunk railway. Railway debt was so heavy that it
became necessary for Confederation to finance the debt.
British Corn Laws, Timber Laws, and NavigationActs dominated BNAtrade policy.
British Corn Laws: tariff on wheat imports into Britain (less tariff for BNA, but still tariff)
Timber Law: imposed tariffs on timber products from colonies, they were reduced in 1840s.
NavigationActs: most beneficial to BNAcuz they limited transport of goods into or out of Britain to
The removal of Corn Laws and Timber Laws made BNAlook for other trade partners. 1850,
reciprocity of natural products amongst BNAcolonies themselves.
Cayley-Galt Tariff of 1858/59
-10% tariff on intermediate manufactured goods
-20% tariff on finished manufactured goods
-in order to raise revenue to defray railway debt, but really a protectionist motive since tariff increased
with the amount of manufacture.
-this caused US to abolish reciprocity
-generated 60% of P of C revenue 1866. (NOTE: importance of tariffs in providing government funds)
Economic argument: transportation finance and commercial policy = prime motives for Confederation.
Other motives: fear that US would take over Canada/Manifest Destiny, anger at Britain for supporting
South during Civil War.
this created national market in many ways:
1. intercolonial tariffs eliminated forALL goods
2. tariff on imports of manufactured good set at 15% forALL goods (to appease maritime appeal)
3. creation of a larger country with greater revenue powers allowed finance of
a) existing debt of 88.6$M
b) severe proposed transportation projects
1. build intercolonial railway from maritimes to montreal
2. deepening/widening canals
3. construction of railway to Pacific coast
4. established strong central government to implement transportation and commercial policy and
establish national market fromAtlantic to Pacific BNAAct (1867)
Confed united P of C, NB, NS. These became organized as provinces of Ont, QC, NB, and NS.
ThisACT portioned powers/jurisdictions in accordance with local or national function
Federal government could:
1. international trade + right to impose tariffs
2. interprovincial transport (build Pacific transcontinental)
3. Territorial Natural Resources (natural resources of territories not yet provinces)
4. Money and Banking
5. Residual Powers (all powers not otherwise specified) /this is contrasted to US constitution
BNAAct gave fed government right to impose tax (direct: income, sales, licenses, permits indirect:
tariffs). They also had to assume all colonial debt and federal government's construction of a national
Provincial governments could:
1. civil law + property
2. education 3. health 4. welfare 5. provincial transport 6. provincial natural resources
They could only direct taxation and revenues for natural resources.Also could subsidize from Fed
government if these revenues were insufficient to cover expenses.
BNAACT limited revenue powers of provinces for 2 reasons:
1. considered already enough for their inexpensive obligations
2. since direct taxes only, could easily prevent fiscal mismanagement by provincial governments
National Policy- land policy
National Policy: to settle BNAprairies through land, railway, and immigration policies
1. Lincoln's HomesteadAct (1862)
-encouraged settlement in US west, to encourage more free stats to outvote slavery states. (favoured
farmers to settle west, and immigration from europe; so canada was afraid some of them would go to
2. US transcontinental railways
this, and northern pacific railroad, both threatened canadian settlement in west
3. Manifest Destiny
4. Trade between B.C and Manitoba and US neighbours
1869: purchase of rupert's land
D of C bought the 1/20 of fertile land in Prairies from HBC, and because NorthWest Territories.
1870: Manitoba joined Canada
1871: BC joined Canada (vancouver island and BC merged and joined canada, cuz bankrupt lol)
1873: PEI joins Canada- since D of C assumed railway debts of PEI
1868-1876- construction of intercolonial railway
montreal to halifax, NOT profitable and drained fed revenue, and too high freight cost for Maritimes. Dominion Lands Policy
-give land to settlers to encourage settlement
-build transcontinental railway
Idea: by giving Northwest land to individuals and railways would free government from burden of
developing territory, and ppl would develop themselves. (
-they divided land into townships of 36 square miles (6x6). See chart page 6.
dominion land acts of 1872: individuals could acquired ownership of 160 acres by paying registration
fee of $10 and making stipulated improvements to the land within 3 years. (no homestead land within
20 miles of a railway).
Had a “preemptive clause” that gave settlers right to buy 160 acres of land adjoining heir homestead
land at an inexpensive price.
Effect of Homestead Policy
most argue it failed in attracting settlement
1. no significant settlement on homesteads before 1896
2. fluctuations in land sales and homestead grants were similar, so there is a cause other than price
of land. e.g.Agricultural technology, price of wheat, railway distribution.
3. Chester Martin says the preemptive clause was the only provision that stimulated settlement. It
allowed settlers to acquire 320 acres for commercial farming semi-arid prairies.
Railway Land Grants
wanted transcontinental to pass through 1000 miles of canadian shield. Had to be private funded since
government always failed. Neither conservatives nor liberals could get subsidies to attract private funds
Finally got subsidies for CPR.
25 million acres fit for settlement
subsidy of 25 million acres fit for settlement land, if CPR found any land not fit, had option to
exchange this earned land for equal amount of Dominion land elsewhere.
Monopoly (on all railways)
Freight rates could not be regulated until profits are 10% of initial capital expenditure
25$M in direct subsidy
Dominions Western Railway lines
CPR exempt from taxes on 1. sale of land for 20 yrs 2. import materials used in construction 3. railway
capital and property in perpetuity (later repealed)
CPR not allowed to take construction material from crown lands without payment
John Dales said subsidies not necessary because CPR averaged profit of 3% on capital, and paid back
35$M loan to government
Evidence that subsidies not enough:
1. government offered CPR even higher subsidies in 1870s without eliciting investors
2. CPR couldn't finance 164$M costs during construction even with subsidies. Private investors
were not willing to invest even with subsidies.
3. 3% return would not have induced private investment since opportunity cost was higher
4. excess subsidies not significant given amount of risk
Did CPR subsidies promote settlement?
Both Mackintosh and Innis said it DID by comparing pattern of settlement with railway track
distribution, and how CPR provided market for local goods. Contrary Evidence
1. settlement not significant until 1896: lag of 11 years after completion of CPR until settlement
homestead entries, so no.
2. CPR land sales DID NOT inhibit settlement: CPR supported Dominion LandsAct that allowed
homestead grants within railway belt; CPR sold land cheaply to stimulate settlement; homestead grants
vs. Land sales not significant in determining settlement since similar fluctuations.
3. CPR route hindered settlement: CPR took southern route, not northern one. Since settlement
was along northern route traditionally, this made settlement not attractive since railway so far.
4. Fit for Settlement Clause: a) CPR did not decide whether land was fit for settlement or not till
1908, so land was left limbo neither for sale nor available for homestead after rejection CPR. b) since
most land was NOT fit for settlement in Ontario or BC, CPR chose 91% of land grant in Prariries even
though only 46% of track passed these areas.
5. Monopoly Clause: CPR rates alot higher than US rates, so prairie farmers paid shit loads, not
good for commercial expansion. CPR colluded with other railways to set freights at maximum benefit.
Crow's Nest PassAggrement (1897): CPR charge maximum rate schedule in exchange for government
loan. (This encouraged settlement by assuring farmers of a set rate).
Vernon Fowke View
recent view that railway necessary, but not necessarily CPR railway. He says railway could have been
US one, since freight too high in canada and farmers pay too much. Fowke argued that another railway
could have encouraged earlier settlement since more profit potential for farmers. (This view only
maximized local benefit, but CPR had vision to secure strategic compared to US, so benefited entire
National Policy: Tariff and Manufacture
Manufacture (specifically Factories) before Confederation
before 1850, no factories in BNA, but expanded afterwards cuz of import substitution, 3 factors:
1. expansion of domestic market: large-scale production requires a market to absorb large output
2. increase in international prices that stimulated domestic production
3. technological change- stimulate domestic production since production costs falls.
nail factories in BNAdue to a) railway construction, which increased demand for nails b) cheap power
from Lachine canal c) rise in international price of nails.
This resulted in rolling mills to produce plate iron
Cotton Cloth Production
4 factories built cuz cotton price doubled during Civil War (south had no slaves left for cotton fields
lol). However, costs tripled! So actually profits sucked lmao. So investment decreased in cotton.
boot and shoe production = canada's largest manufacturing industry prior Confed.
huge expansion cuz of increase in demand and rise in global prices (e.g. Built Montreal Cotton and
Hudson Cotton). Background to National Policy Tariff
general view: protective tariff economically inefficient cuz prices increase for consumers more than
they increase net revenues of firms. Producer surplus gain < consumer surplus loss. So protective tariff
hinders more than free international trade.
The Depression 1874-1879
in 1874, US prices finally able to compete with Canada again post civil war.
This fall in US prices led to lower protective tariff in Canada. Thus, this tariff bad, since its least
protective when protection is most needed, and most protective when not really needed.
Royal Commission on the Causes of Depression:
1. US and Britain had slaughter prices (prices even lower than domestic price) for Canada, so
2. Larger Us markets allowed E of Scale that allowed lower production cost/unit
3. Canadian manufacturers wanted reduction in US tariffs, not increase in Canadian ones.
All these 3 factors: decrease in US prices, depression, and high US tariffs, led to support of protective
tariff, Conservative Party government implemented it: aka national policy tariff
20-30% on most manufactured goods.
Idea: protection increased when prices fell and decreased when prices rose.
Cotton industry tripled, employed doubled in iron and shoe.
Critics: protective tariffs caused manufacturing distress late 1880s by allowing establishment of
inefficient firms, high prices, and surplus capacity. Tariff raised canadian prices relative to US prices.
Contrary Evidence: us and canadian price gap actually DECREASED in 1880s since new cotton
factories increased competition and drove prices downwards. THIS EVIDENCE MORE COMPEL
actual process: tariff simplifies monopoly formation by eliminating foreign competition first through
collusion, and then jack up prices by full amount of tariff. TWO criticism of NPT.
Vernon Fowke: Tariff Reduced Prairie Incomes
NPT reduced net worth of Prairie farmers:
1. farmers received no protection since they sold wheat at international prices, and thus tariff only
increased cost of farming materials/equipment
2. farmers paid higher freight rates to ship on CPR
3. decreased net income from Prairie farms reduced land value, while increased central canadian
land value by increasing no. Of factories/workers
Conclusion: NPT actually hindered Prairie settlement
John Dales: Tariff reduced real Canadian GDP
NPT increased real output and GDP by increasing investment in Canada, and increased inflow of
foreign capital and workers. However, real output/capital incomes decreased because a) increasing
prices through inefficient production b) limiting rise in wage through increased immigration
Evidence: compared US and Canada growth rates of GDP, and showed per capita income fell relative
during 1880-1955. Dales says its cause of the tariff.
2 flaws in this argument:
1. economies of scale can negate his argument, since increase in output can actually lower cost
and increase net income.
2. Why didnt reduced per capital incomes due to tariff cause an even lower per capita US
incomes? Causes of Prairie Settlement
Prairie Settlement virtually non-existent before 1900 (discussed in previous chapters)
Innis and Mackintosh attributed settlement of Prairies to NP. e.g. Macintosh showed settlement
occurred in vicinity of railway lines.
Lots of ppl demolished position that NP caused Prairie settlment
a) John Dales, claims settlement not significant till 1900 also Homestead policy and transcontinental
railway both already existed both 1883.
b) Chester Martin, claims homestead grants had no effect, and that some other factor attributed
c)Vernon Fowke said CPR and tariffs increased costs of farming, and discouraged settlement.
Conjunction of Forces
John Dales say settlement was response to conjunction of forces:
a) all prices, especially wheat, rose after 1896.
b) transport costs fell alot. (iron ships + steam locomotion cut ocean freights)
c) scarcity of land in US by late 1880s, US prairie settlement ceased, and stifled US competition
d) technological change reduced costs and shortened growing season for wheat
e) outflow of capital and labour from Europe after 1900.
All these, increases labour productivity and reduced production costs, increase net revenue of farmers
and encouraged settlement.
Introduction of Dry-Farming
Ken Norrie used regression analysis of net homestead entries, and pinpointed 1896 as significant
starting point. Conclusions:
a) wheat prices couldn't have affected settlement positively
b) ocean freight rates fell, but timing is off, so can't be it
c) no shortage of land in US, they had land left in N &S dakota, montana, idaho, etc.
d) significant technological changes occurred before acceleration in Prairie settlment, again timing
e) Emigration and capital exports from