| Summary |
The purpose of this thesis is to explore the legislative history of the Shipping Act of 1916 and to place that act in context with other maritime legislation. Business and political leaders in the United States had recognized for years that a foreign trade merchant fleet under the U.S. flag was crucial to the commercial and military vitality of the nation. Yet that fleet had decayed to the point of practical uselessness by 1914. The European war of 1914 created conditions that emphasized the inadequacy American maritime and commercialof the U.S. merchant fleet. leaders turned to the government for help in meeting the needs of the export trade of the United States. Decisive action by the administration of Woodrow Wilson met the banking and insurance needs of the commercial crisis and was applauded by the economic community. The administration's proposal of a government owned and operated foreign-trade merchant fleet, however, met with fierce resistance both from inside the government and from the maritime community. Resistance to the proposal of a government owned fleet was a function of abatement of the war induced economic pressure, the shipping industry's anti- regulation sentiment, and political partisanship. Support for the government proposal was built on the war induced trade crisis and the recognized opportunity to force the "Shipping Trust" into an efficient national service industry. Previous efforts to revive the merchant marine had called for investment of federal funds. Wilson and Secretary of the Treasury, William G. McAdoo held that if government money was to be invested, the government should have a voice in how it was used. The Shipping Act of 1916 was enacted through the pressure of economic need and the insistent leadership of Woodrow Wilson and William G. McAdoo. The idea of a government owned and operated foreign trade fleet was able to exist because of the preceding forty years of Progressive legislation and the feeble, unresponsive state of the American merchant marine dictated immediate remedy. The idea of government intervention on the public's behalf was a well established concept by 1914. Both Wilson and McAdoo were advocates of government action where private capital could not or would not act. McAdoo took the philosophy a step further by proposing direct government involvement to regulate an industry, instead of government involvement through legislative regulation alone. The Shipping Act of 1916 failed to achieve the long term goals of its inception but it succeeded in meeting the The act's significance,immediate logistic needs of the war. however, is that it overcame the historic inertia of The Shipping Act of 1916 provided a format thatinaction. has been used ever since in the quest to rebuild the merchant marine of the United States. |
| General note | Submitted to the faculty of the Department of History. |
| General note | Advisor: Henry C. Ferrell, Jr. |
| General note | Abstract title: The Shipping Act of 1916 : its historical and legislative context. |
| Dissertation note | M.A. East Carolina University 1992 |
| Bibliography note | Includes bibliographical references (leaves 166-171). |
| Genre/form | Academic theses. |
| Genre/form | Academic theses. |
| Genre/form | Thèses et écrits académiques. |
