The continentalist movement in the politics of Canada and the United States, 1887--1894
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the late nineteenth century an improbable political movement emerged in favour of the economic or political union of Canada and the United States. Its chances of success were slim, given the devotion of most Canadians to the "British connection," the fact that most Americans knew little and cared less about Canada, and the unfriendly state of diplomatic relations between the two countries. The movement itself was hopelessly split, with most Canadian supporters hoping for economic union, and American supporters promoting the annexation of Canada to the United States. Yet, seemingly against all odds, this movement turned continentalism into a live issue in American and especially Canadian politics between 1887 and 1894. After its unofficial leaders---Erastus Wiman, Goidwin Smith, Edward Faner, Samuel Ritchie, and Wharton Barker---launched an ambitious promotional campaign for "commercial union" in 1887, the Liberal Party of Canada adopted "unrestricted reciprocity" and set up a confrontation with the protectionist "National Policy" of Sir John A. Macdonald and his Conservative government. In the election of 1891 Macdonald wrapped himself in the Union Jack and accused the Liberal Party of committing "veiled treason." This was enough to pull out a narrow electoral victory, and to tarnish the credibility of legitimate economic unionists. The continentalist movement lost its momentum; three years later it had passed quietly into obscurity. Historians have tended to regard this as an ephemeral episode in the histories of Canada and the United States, but the continentalist movement had an important influence on the politics of its times. Furthermore, those Canadians who supported economic union were not traitors, but advocates of a unique brand of nationalism---'confident continentalism'---which held that Canada could benefit from free trade with the United States and retain its economic and political independence. This was a prescient vision, one that has obvious relevance today, and these continentalists are certainly deserving of their first full-length scholarly investigation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".