Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T17:16:16.225Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bureaucrats, Businessmen, and Foreign Trade: The Origins of the United States Chamber of Commerce*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2012

Richard Hume Werking
Richard Hume Werking
Affiliation:
Head, Reference Department, and, Assistant Professor of History, University of Mississippi
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Rapid changes in the relationship between business and government from 1890 onwards brought a growing desire for a better exchange of ideas and information and, particularly, for a national organization that would facilitate this exchange. While the United States Chamber of Commerce has been viewed almost universally as the outcome of efforts by businessmen, Professor Werking shows that it was a few government bureaucrats, notably in the relatively new and ambitious Department of Commerce and Labor, who, with the support of the Secretary and the White House, became the decisive factor in the birth of the Chamber in 1912.

Type
Research Article
Information
Business History Review , Volume 52 , Issue 3 , Autumn 1978 , pp. 321 - 341
Copyright
Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College 1978

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 Fainsod, Merle and Gordon, Lincoln, Government and the American Economy (New York, 1941), 107Google Scholar; Shannon, David, Between the Wars: America, 1919–1941 (Boston, 1965), 39–41Google Scholar; Chandler, Alfred D. Jr, Bruchey, Stuart, and Galambos, Louis, eds., The Changing Economic Order: Readings in American Business and Economic History (New York, 1968), 359.Google Scholar Joseph Brandes details the Commerce Department's foreign trade involvement in Herbert Hoover and Economic Diplomacy: Department of Commerce Policy, 1921–1928 (Pittsburgh, 1962). Two recent articles have discussed Hoover's activities in the domestic sphere. Metcalf, Evan B., “Secretary Hoover and the Emergence of Macroeconomic Management,” Business History Review, XLIX (Spring 1975), 60–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Hawley, Ellis W., “Herbert Hoover, the Commerce Secretariat, and the Vision of an ‘Associative State’,” Journal of American History, 61 (June 1974), 116–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Parrini, Carl P., Heir to Empire: United States Economic Diplomacy, 1916–1923 (Pittsburgh, 1969)Google Scholar; Kaufman, Burton I., “The Organizational Dimension of, United States Foreign Economic Policy, 1900–1920,” Business History Review, XLVI (Spring 1972), 17–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kaufman, , Efficiency and Expansion: Foreign Trade Organization in the Wilson Administration, 1913–1921 (Westport, Conn., 1974).Google Scholar

3 Wiebe, Robert H., Businessmen and Reform: A Study of the Progressive Movement (Cambridge, Mass., 1962), 220.Google Scholar The most complete published account of the Chamber's origins, and the standard one, has been in this book, pp. 33–40. Although I have profited from it, Wiebe's interpretation differs from mine in a number of respects, as the following clearly demonstrates. A much briefer account, which more closely approximates my own, is in Kaufman, “Organizational Dimension,” pp. 32–33.

4 To prevent any misunderstanding, I wish to make clear that this essay treats only one pattern of organizational development in the United States, albeit a most important one.

5 Werking, Richard Hume, “Selling the Foreign Service: Bureaucratic Rivalry and Foreign-Trade Promotion, 1903–1912,” Pacific Historical Review, 40 (May 1976), 185–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Werking, , The Master Architects: Building the United States Foreign Service, 1890–1913 (Lexington, Ky., 1977).Google Scholar

6 Kolko, Gabriel, The Triumph of Conservatism: A Reinterpretation of American History, 1900–1916 (Chicago, 1963)Google Scholar; Wiebe, Businessmen and Reform; Weinstein, James A., The Corporate Ideal in the Liberal State (Boston, 1968).Google Scholar Despite differences in ideological perspective, all these authors share a tendency to overlook the importance of government officials.

7 Graebner, William, Coal-Mining Safety in the Progressive Period: The Political Economy of Reform (Lexington, Ky., 1976), 165.Google Scholar Sociologists too have only recently begun to emphasize the importance of bureaucrats as actors instead of as background scenery, and also the impact of organizations upon their environments. Warwick, Donald P., A Theory of Public Bureaucracy: Politics, Personality, and Organization in the State Department (Cambridge, Mass., 1975)Google Scholar; review of same by Bougon, Michel, Administrative Science Quarterly, 22 (March, 1977), 170–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Perrow, Charles, Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay (Homewood, Ill., 1972), 199.Google Scholar

8 Kaufman, “Organizational Dimension,” 19. This article contains a good description of the contrast between the U.S. and the principal European countries.

9 Wiebe, Robert H., “The House of Morgan and the Executive, 1905–1913” American Historical Review, 65 (October 1959), 49–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar; George Perkins to Philander Knox, February 14, 1910, file 23549, records of the Department of State, Record Group 59, National Archives. It was also the larger firms that had their own sales forces overseas and hence were less dependent on government-supplied information about foreign market conditions. Werking, Master Architects, 32.

10 Until 1897, the office was called the “Bureau of Statistics;” from 1897 until 1903, the “Bureau of Foreign Commerce”; and after 1903, the “Bureau of Trade Relations.”

11 Werking, Master Architects, chapter 4; [Emory], “Our Foreign Trade,” Philadelphia Public Ledger, January 26, 1897, 13.

12 Who Was Who, I: 656; Kasson, , National Organization of the Interests of Commerce and Industry, for Cooperation with the Government (New York, 1901)Google Scholar; Gustav Schwab to Harry Garfield, January 9 and 18, 1901, Harry A. Garfield Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress (hereafter LC). Kasson had advocated such an organization for at least fifteen years; it was one of his favorite topics. See U.S. Senate, Reciprocity Convention with France, Document 225, 56th Cong., 1st sess. (March 16, 1900), 76–77; Younger, Edward, John A. Kasson: Politics and Diplomacy from Lincoln to McKinley (Iowa City, 1955), 365Google Scholar; Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York, Annual Report of the Corporation (November 1898), 65–69.

13 Werking, Master Architects, chapter 3; Hunt to Garfield, December 5, [1900], Garfield Papers.

14 Emory, , “The New Department of Commerce and Labor,” World's Work, 5 (April 1903), 3337Google Scholar; North to Cortelyou, May 7, 1903, George B. Cortelyou Papers, LC; National Board of Trade, Proceedings (January 1906), 252–255.Google Scholar Austin's final report about histour, dated October 10, 1905, is in file E1408, records of the Department of Commerce, Record Group 40, National Archives.

15 National Cyclopedia of American Biography, 40: 60–61; Straus, “The Reform of the Consular Service,” National Civil Service Reform League, Proceedings (December 1894), 100–101; minutes of meetings of the National Committee on Consular Reorganization, June 27 and November 28, 1903, and list of committee members in Theodore Burton to F. A. Scott, April 18, 1904, Garfield Papers.

16 Stone to Straus, April 19, 1907, and Straus to Stone, April 25, 1907, file 66151, RG 40. Burton Kaufman has emphasized the importance to Americans of Germany's trade promotion facilities. Efficiency and Expansion, especially chapter 2.

17 Donaldson to Straus, May 3, 1907, file 70328, RG 40.

18 Schwab to Harry Garfield, December 6 and 30, 1898, Garfield Papers; Schwab to Straus, May 16, 1907, and Straus to Schwab, May 31, 1907, file 66419, RG 40. Robert Wiebe has written that Schwab “induced” Straus to sponsor a national commercial organization. Although Schwab had considerable input as the scheme developed, the initial suggestion in 1907 for the national chamber traveled from Washington to New York, not the other way around, Wiebe, Businessmen and Reform, 34.

19 Schwab to Straus, June 1 and 22, 1907, Straus to Schwab, June 24, and Straus to Carson, June 24, 1907, file 66419, RG 40. Schwab had written Kasson a few weeks after the speech, congratulated him on his “very interesting and impressive address,” and asked for additional information. Schwab to Kasson, January 31, 1901, Letters Received by the Reciprocity Commissioner, RG 59.

20 Transcript of conference of bureau chiefs, September 19, 1907, file 68699, RG 40.

21 Straus to Schwab, May 31, 1907, and Schwab to Straus, September 25, 1907, file 66419, RG 40; Stone to Straus, April 19, 1907, file 66151, RG 40; Stone, N. I., Promotion of Foreign Commerce in Europe and the United States (Washington, 1907), 24Google Scholar (emphasis in the original).

22 Schwab to Straus, October 21, 1907, Stone to Straus, October 19, 1907, and Straus to Stone, October 28, 1907, file 66419, RG 40. The extensive correspondence between Straus and the business associations is in the same file.

23 National Council of Commerce, Proceedings of a Meeting of Delegates (Washington, 1908)Google Scholar; Straus, diary entries for December 5–6 and 29, 1907, Oscar Straus Papers, LC.

24 Wiebe, Businessmen and Reform, 34; National Civil Service Reform League, Proceedings (December 1901), 68–82.Google Scholar

25 Schwab to Straus, January 7, 1908, Straus Papers; Schwab to Root, May 27, 1908, file 13866/1, RG 59; Straus to Root, March 16, 1908, file 67006/1, RG 40; Schwab to Straus, September 16 and November 23, 1908, Godfrey L. Carden to Straus, November 14, 1908, and Straus to Carden, November 16, 1908, file 66419, RG 40; Straus, diary entry for February 21, 1908, Straus Papers.

26 On this point see Harry Garfield to A. A. Burnham, November 9, 1901, letterbook, and Schwab to Garfield, October 24, 1901, Garfield Papers.

27 U.S., House of Representatives, Hearings on the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Appropriations Bill for 1910, December 3, 1908, 152–153.

28 Wiebe, Businessmen and Reform, 34–35; Tompkins, memorandum of March 21, 1912, Daniel A. Tompkins Papers, LC; “Memorandum by Mr. Walcott,” June 12, 1908, file 321–18, Boston Chamber of Commerce records, Baker Library, Harvard Business School (hereafter BCC records).

29 Wiebe, Businessmen and Reform, 33–36; Josiah Marvel to Elihu Root, November 17, 1906, Elihu Root Papers, LC; Garfield to Schwab, January 15, 1901, letterbook, Garfield Papers; Cleveland Chamber of Commerce, Reports and Proceedings (April 1902), 84Google Scholar, (April 1903), 93–94, (April 1904), 76–77, (April 1905), 73, (April 1906), 119; Bernard Rothwell to Homer A. Stilwell, April 14, 1910, and Frank D. LaLanne to “The Commercial Organizations of the United States,” March 18, 1910, file 321–18, BCC records; National Board of Trade, Proceedings (January 1911), 21Google Scholar; National Board of Trade, executive council minutes, December 10, 1891, January 24, 1892, January 26, 1894, in Philadelphia Board of Trade records, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Writing to Harry Garfield shortly after Kasson's 1901 speech, Gustav Schwab had been farsighted indeed: “The formation ot a central organization … would appear to be a very difficult matter, as any new organization of that character would naturally assume an attitude of opposition to the National Board of Trade.” January 9, 1901, Garfield Papers.

30 Printed circular enclosed in LaLanne to “Commercial Organizations of the United States,” March 18, 1910, file 321–18, BCC records; National Council of Commerce, Proceedings of a Meeting of Delegates, 25–26; Straus to Schwab, May 18 and November 23, 1908, file 66419, RG 40; Straus, diary entry for February 12, 1908, Straus Papers.

31 Minneapolis Journal, July 27, 1909; Nagel, speech to Kansas City Commercial Club, November 18, 1910, copy in Charles Nagel Papers, Yale University Library; address by Nagel to the Boston Chamber of Commerce, February 2, 1912, file 104–1, BCC records; Nagel to William Howard Taft, October 31, 1911, Taft Papers, LC; U.S., House of Representatives, Hearings on the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Appropriations Bill for 1912, December 2, 1910, 231.

32 Chamber of Commerce of, the State of New York, Annual Report of the Corporation (November 1909), 100–101.

33 Convine to Nagel, March 25, 1909, file 66419, RG 40; National Council of Commerce, Proceedings of the Quarterly Meeting of the Executive Committee (April 1909); Childs, Harwood L., Labor and Capital in National Politics (Columbus, 1930), 10.Google Scholar

34 Convine to Munson Havens, August 18, 1909, file 321–18, BCC records.

35 Edward R. Wood to Nagel, May 31, 1909, file 68348, RG 40; Boston Chamber of Commerce, Directors' records, December 31, 1907, BCC records; James McKibben to Nagel, July 8 and September 19, 1909, file 321–17, BCC records; “Memorandum for Mr. Filene by Mr. Thompson,” July 6, 1909, and Edward Filene to Bernard Rothwell, March 24, 1910, file 321–18, BCC records.

36 Nagel to McKibben, July 12, 1909, letterbook, Nagel Papers; “Memo, for the Executive Committee by Mr. Walsh,” October 1, 1909, file 321–17, BCC records.

37 Edward M. Skinner to McKibben, September 23, 1909, and to James J. Storrow, October 27 and December 15, 1909, Walter Moody to Storrow, October 30, 1909, all in file 321–18, BCC records.

38 Rothwell to Nagel, December 24, 1910, file 66419, RG 40; National Association of Manufacturers, Proceedings (May 1911), 77.Google Scholar

39 LaLanne to “Commercial Organizations of the United States,” March 18, 1910, file 321–18, BCC records; National Board of Trade, executive council minutes, December 10, 1891, January 24, 1892, January 26, 1894, Philadelphia Board of Trade records; National Board of Trade, Proceedings (January 1911), 26–27Google Scholar; Boston Chamber of Commerce, Report for 1910 (Boston, 1911), 58.Google Scholar

40 Nagel to Elias Michael, October 28, 1911, and to Lucius E. Wilson, October 28, 1911, file 70503, RG 40; Heller, Otto, ed., Speeches and Writings of Charles Nagel, 1900–1928 (New York, 1931), I, 251–259Google Scholar; American Industries, 11 (March 1911), 13, and (May 1911), 236; American Manufacturers Export Association, Proceedings (September 1911) 7–11.Google Scholar

41 Pringle, Henry, The Life and Times of William Howard Taft (New York, 1939), II, 762.Google Scholar

42 Nagel to Knox, August 22, 1911, file 70503, RG 40.

43 In 1911 the Supreme Court handed down decisions ordering the dissolution of the Standard Oil and American Tobacco Companies. Although the Roosevelt administration had initiated the cases, Taft's Justice Department followed with suits against other giants in the export trade: U.S. Steel and International Harvester. Pringle, Taft, II, 659–675.

44 Nagel to Taft, October 31, 1911, Nagel Papers.

45 Ibid.; Richardson, James D., A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents (New York, 1917), 17: 8055.Google Scholar

46 Baldwin to “Gentlemen,” November 29, 1911, in papers accompanying H. R. 18327, file 62A–D9, House of Representatives records, Record Group 233, National Archives; Washington Post, January 18, 1912; clipping from Washington Star, March 5, 1912, file 70503, RG 40.

47 Wiebe, Businessmen and Reform, 36: Childs, Labor and Capital, 11; Nagel to “Gentlemen,” March 2, 1912, file 70503, RG 40.

48 Werking, “Selling the Foreign Service,” 200–201; Baldwin to Nagel, June 22, 1911. Wilson to Nagel, March 20, 1912, and Nagel to Wilson, March 26, 1912, all in file 69253/57, RG 40; Huntington Wilson, F. M., Memoirs of an Ex-Diplomat (Boston, 1945), 200–201.Google Scholar

49 Nagel to Charles D. Hilles, April 3, 1912, and to Taft, April 5 and 18, 1912; Hilles to Senator Charles Curtis, March 12, 1912; Taft to Nagel, March 29, 1912 — all in Taft Papers.

50 The National Commercial Conference (Washington, 1912), pamphlet in Taft Papers; Washington Post, April 22 and 23, 1912. The Post reported the more conservative figures of 650 delegates representing 250 organizations.

51 Wiebe, Businessmen and Reform, 37; Childs, Labor and Capital, 12; National Commercial Conference, Taft Papers.

52 Chamber of Commerce of the United States, Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America (n.p., 1912), pamphlet enclosed in Nagel to Taft, July 18, 1912, Taft Papers; U. S. Chamber of Commerce, minutes for April 23, 1912, included in Minutes for Board of Directors' Meetings, and minutes for April 24, 1912, included in Minutes for Executive Committee Meetings, both in U.S. Chamber of Commerce records, Office of the General Counsel, Chamber of Commerce of the United States, Washington; Baldwin to delegates, April 29, 1912. Taft Papers: Bureau of Manufactures, monthly reports for April and May, 1912, files 70301/9 and 70301/10, RG 40.

53 Boston Chamber of Commerce, Report for 1910 (Boston, 1911), 58Google Scholar; “A National Chamber of Commerce,” World's Work, 27 (April, 1914), 670–671Google Scholar; U.S. Chamber of Commerce, minutes for May 8, 1912, included in Minutes for Executive Committee Meetings, U.S. Chamber of Commerce records; Nagel to Taft, July 18, 1912, Taft Papers. By early 1914, the number of member organizations had grown to 506, including the American chambers of commerce in Paris and Constantinople. “A National Chamber of Commerce,” 670–671.

54 Nagel to Taft, July 25, 1912, Nagel Papers; Wiebe, Businessmen and Reform, 37–38.

55 Elliot H. Goodwin to Richard H. Dana, September 25, 1919, in Ellery C. Stowell Papers, LC. The Department of Commerce and Labor was divided in 1913 when Labor received separate cabinet status.

56 Pendleton Herring, E., Group Representation before Congress (Baltimore, 1929), 81–82Google Scholar; Wiebe, Businessmen and Reform, 40.

57 Nagel to Elihu Root, March 3, 1913, letterbook, Nagel Papers.

58 Henry Cabot Lodge to W. D. Howells, January 21, 1909, Henry Cabot Lodge Papers, Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston. Here too I disagree with Wiebe, who claims that “Wheeler and his associates stood by as the Democrats defeated the bill.” Businessmen and Reform, 40.

59 Copy of incorporation charter, December 3, 1915, U.S. Chamber of Commerce records.

60 For a description of the referendum system, see Fahey, John H., “The National Chamber, Democracy of Business,” The Nation's Business, 4 (February 1916), 14–15.Google Scholar